Is Medium Format Worth it?

With the recent release of the Fujifilm GFX 100RF, there has certainly been a lot of talk about whether a medium-format camera is for you. While medium format does offer superior image quality, it comes with quite a few caveats. As a medium format user for the last 10 years or so, depending on the project, I felt it was finally time to discuss whether or not medium format cameras are for you and some things you may come across as you transition to medium format photography. To discuss some of the often neglected understandings of medium format, I’m going to talk about these caveats into the four Cs – Cost, Computing, Constraint, and Clunk – but before we get to the struggles of medium format, let’s look quickly at what makes medium format so dang great.

What is Medium Format Exactly?

Medium format photography uses a camera with a larger scale sensor or film beyond the 35mm standard. Historically defined by roll film formats like 120 and 220 (yielding negatives sized from 6×4.5cm up to 6×9 cm), the core principle remains the same in the digital age: a larger sensor or film negative captures vastly more information. While this leaves a lot up to interpretation (people often call Fujifilm’s standard 100MP sensor a “Crop Medium Format Sensor”), we’ve grown accustomed to calling any sensor beyond 35mm a medium format sensor, with 43.8 x 32.9mm being the most common size. This larger surface area translates directly into tangible benefits: greater detail resolution, smoother tonal gradations, richer color depth, and, often, a wider dynamic range. This fundamental advantage in data capture gives medium format images their characteristic depth and clarity but will frequently come with a cost, so let’s dive into that first.

Cost

The first concern when moving to a medium format is the cost associated with it. Not only are the cameras generally quite a bit more expensive, though a far cry from where they were a decade ago, but all of the lenses and other gear associated with them are also typically a bit more expensive. For example, if you were to move into the Fujifilm GFX series of cameras, their cheapest Fujifilm GF lens is the Fujifilm GF 50mm f/3.5 at $999. Conversely, if you were to go into the Canon RF series, their cheapest lens, the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, is $199, and they have another dozen or so lenses priced under $1000.

Computing

The pricing increase doesn’t just affect the price of gear but also the tools needed to edit these photos properly. The most common medium-format sensor available is the 100mp Sony-developed sensor in most of the Fujifilm GFX series of cameras—which is particularly taxing on your computer needs. On average, every 100 photos taken with my Fuji GFX 100s takes up 11-14GB of hard drive space, which means you’ll only be able to get about 8,000 images on a TB of hard drive space – and that’s not even taking into account a suitable 3-2-1 backup protocol. Additionally, when editing full-resolution images in Photoshop, the file size on my TIFFs is often over 2GB in size, which also has heavy effects on the CPU, GPU, and RAM. Unless you’re working with a top-tier computer with plenty of hard drive space, you’re going to be slowed down considerably when shooting with a full-resolution medium-format camera.

Constraint

The next C on the list is the constraint of medium format – particularly when it comes to third-party developers. Fujifilm has done an excellent job fleshing out its lens lineup for its GFX platform, but do you know how many third-party developers have helped ease the burden? Aside from Venus Optics, only a couple of obscure brands – and none of them are a particularly established brand. There are no Sigma GF lenses, no Tamron GF lenses, and no current plan to develop any. This restriction can be significant if you’re looking to save costs or for a tool that might be a bit more obscure.

Clunk

Finally, the last C is for clunk, which is solely for how medium format cameras function when compared to 35mm mirrorless platforms. I’ll pretense this topic by explaining that I’ve had extensive experience with medium format cameras – particularly digital medium format. I started on the Hasselblad H4D-50C and then moved on to several different Phase One platforms before Fujifilm entered into the medium format world. All of those had a single focus point and would shoot about one frame a second in ideal conditions. By comparison, the Fujifilm GFX platforms are considerably better and faster but still do not compete with the latest from Canon, Sony, or Nikon. Medium format is just a bit slower, a bit heavier, a bit bigger, and a bit clunkier. I wouldn’t take my GFX platform to a race track to photograph cars flying by or take it to a football stadium to catch the lightning-fast plays, but in the studio, or anything that allows a more methodical way of shooting, medium format shines.

So is Medium Format Worth it?

So, after talking about all the struggles with medium format, I suppose it’s time to ask if it’s worth it. Yes, of course, it is, but it entirely depends on your photography. Since I’m primarily a studio photographer, the medium format fits my needs and benefits my work considerably. That said, I still have my old full frame kit and will often use it when I need the added speed of shooting or have no real benefit to the resolution I’m shooting. As a huge medium format shooter, I’m still not sure systems like the GFX 100RF appeal to me – but I’m excited to give it a rental to find out.

If you’d like a more technical look into medium format and if it’s right for you, be sure to check out Jim Kasson’s article on this blog.

Author: Zach Sutton

I’m Zach and I’m the editor and a frequent writer here at Lensrentals.com. I’m also a commercial beauty photographer in Los Angeles, CA, and offer educational workshops on photography and lighting all over North America.

Twitter Facebook