Full-frame VS Medium Format Cameras

Medium Format cameras have come of age. They’ve come down in price and weight, and also feature all the things we love about the new full-frame mirrorless cameras – such as pinpoint AI autofocus, EVF preview and next generation lenses. 

Years ago, there was a distinct physical camera size difference between full-frame (FF) and medium format (MF), with the payout being obviously better image quality. MF were large and clunky, weighed 3-4kg with a lens, were shot on 120 film that only allowed 10-16 exposures, and came in a range of sizes from 645 (or 6X4.5cm negative) up to 6x9 (or 6cmX9cm negative).

With the recent release of the Fujifilm GFX100SII, that size and weight difference is now less pronounced (easily under 2kg with lens) though you still have access to that incredible MF image quality which is pretty much double the resolution of many of the best full-frame cameras.

But wait! These days cameras such as the Sony A1, Canon R5 and Nikon Z8, the visual on-screen, real-world differences between the 45-60MP full-frame cameras and the 102MP medium format also seem less pronounced!

This article is for anyone who is stuck on the fence, and are umming and arghing between buying either format, or for those full-frame aficionados who might finally be contemplating investing in a medium format system, such as one of the workhorses of the commercial photography industry – the Fujifilm GFX series.

Bigger is better – or is it how you use it?

The obvious difference between FF and MF is sensor size. 102MP, or 102 million pixels – is a lot of pixels. And with more pixels comes more power, or at least, more details if combined with a quality lens. Shooting urban landscapes with people or crowd-scapes on MF for the first time turns into a Where’s Wally situation where you will find yourself zooming in to see the extreme detail, or making photos within photos of other things you couldn’t even see with the human eye at the time of taking.

You can crop the crap out of an image and you can see this featured in the images on these pages. For portraits, this 4:3 MF ratio is more square than the 3:2 ratio on FF, so it means you can just shoot horizontally and crop to vertical if need. Also, this is good if you are working with an art director who wants options for different crops for web such as horizontal or vertical banners.

And when it comes to noise, as you are not blowing up an image as much, the noise is less noticeable – and that’s even before you add noise reduction in post (which can soften the texture of the image to a degree).

Crop factor & depth of field

As most photographers know, a 50mm on FF is basically the same 1:1 scale as the human eye. On MF, it is approximately 63mm, with Fujifilm creating the FUJINON GF63mmF2.8 R WR lens to fit that category. The other thing is that, like how APS-C sensors have comparatively more depth of field compared to FF using the same lens, MF has LESS depth of field, meaning that for example a f/2.8 on MF is similar to f/2.0 on a FF.

Bokeh & 3D Magic

Yes, yes bokeh is a very argued issue with all the ‘pixel-peepers’ out there, but there is something about medium format with it’s creamy, dreamy, delicious bokeh that seems a bit more uniform with the current lens line up. It comes down to that relationship between the lens and the sensor working in harmony.

In a comparison test on a professional portrait shoot, where I contested a Canon R5 with the revered RF50mm f/1.2 and the Fujifilm GFX100II with the GF55mm F1.7 R WR lens, I found that even though the RF50mm was undoubtedly great, the MF looked unbelievable at 200% on a large monitor with more 'wow' factor.

If you read other reviews about MF, you’ll often find mention of a ‘3D-ness’ about images. And I think it is true, and it’s not just my eyes. I did a ‘blind-taste test’ with the portrait session images and people thought that the MF was the superior image.

Overall lens line-up and cost

Depending on which brand of FF you buy, there would be around a whopping 30-50 (or more) 'native branded' lenses available in three distinct price tiers. El cheapo $300-$550; Mid- priced $550-$1,500; and professional level $1,500-$5,000. And on top of that, you can get third party lenses. And of course, there are many more 'legacy' lenses you can use with adapters.

With MF Fujifilm, the lens line-up is definitely smaller with approximately 18 from Fujifilm and another 13 from third party companies. Only three Fujifilm lenses are f/2.0 and under, though remember that there are a few that are f/2.8 which translates to a depth of field around f/2.0

Pricewise, the cost is similar to Nikon, Canon and Sony top tiered lenses – so anywhere between $1,500 to $4,000 and up.

What do you mean by 16-Bit?

Apart from the MF sensor being 70% larger than FF, there are some distinct advantages again with MF over FF here – well at least at this point in history. One thing – any web image, or basically any normal image we share or even send to print is usually an 8-Bit JPG, which translates to (256 red values X 256 blue values X 256 green values) 16.7 million colours. The aforementioned FF Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras all have the ability to shoot 14-Bit RAW images which means 4 trillion colours. But the Fujifilm X100SII and X100II both shoot 16-Bit RAW (65,535 for each RGB colour value) which translates to an unfathomable 281 trillion colours.

But who cares if you are only seeing things on the web right – and why don’t we just use 8-Bit? Well, the lower the bit count, the more chance you will see colour banding across images that have a gentle transitions or gradients between colours, such as the yellow to blue dusk sky, or water reflections and skin tones. You may not notice on a phone screen, but on a 1.8 meter print, those ugly aberrations may be present and be hard to fix. Also, on numerous tests it can be seen that having 'more colour' i.e. more bits available in the shadows translates to the ability to fix, or render better shadow details. With 16-Bit, you know you have the best possible image quality you are going to find on the market.

Did you say you are an artist? And you want to blow up your images to 1.8 meter long prints?

It’s not just about cropping. Back in the days of film, there were very obvious advantages to shooting on medium format. It was simple maths. To ‘blow up’ a FF 35mm negative to an 8X10 inch sheet of photo paper in an enlarger, you had to blow it up approximately 10.5 times. To blow up a MF 645 negative, it was only 5.6 times. And to go a bit further, an 8”X10” large format negative only needed to be blown up once. So not having to blow the image up so large meant smaller grain, nicer gradations between shades and (usually) sharper images.

So the same logic still applies today – you don't have to blow up your images as much, so landscapes, portraits, art photography, or anything you want to blow up to ginormous size holds together very well. And this is all without even discussing interpolation.

Medium Format is heavy and expensive – now my back and wallet hurts!

The weight issue is almost a moot point now. A Canon R5 (738g) and RF50mm f/1.2 (950g) weighs 1.68kg, while a Fujifilm X100SII (883g) with GF55mm f/1.7 lens (780g) weighs virtually the same at 1.66kg. But we have to say on average, the MF lenses are chunkier due to the lens mount diameter. For example, the Fujifilm G-Mount has a mount diameter of 65mm, Canon RF is 54mm, Sony E-Mount is 46.1 while Nikon Z-Mount is 55mm.

Price-wise, FF top-of-the-line camera bodies prices are almost in the same price bracket as Fujifilm GFX100SII (we’ll discuss other MF brands later). For example, the Fujifilm GFX100SII is $7,999 while the Canon R5mkII is $6,499, the Sony Alpha 1 is $7,899 and the Nikon Z9 is $8,399.

Lens wise, FF are cheaper on average because of there being so many lower tiered lenses, though many of the pro-level lenses are similarly priced.

Which genre do you shoot?

Even though Fujifilm has made large gains in regards to autofocus and FPS (7-8 FPS), it’s unlikely most sports or event photographers are going to rush out and buy MF. Again, it comes down to physics. FF’s smaller lenses have less mass to move, the mechanical shutter is smaller with less distance to move, or even with electronic shutter – less pixels to read than the 102MP of MF.

Also, with MF, each image or file you take is HUGE – with an average uncompressed RAW coming in at 228MB (or 114 in Compressed RAW / 61MB JPG). And who has the storage or computing power to go through 3,000 images from a sporting event?

But when it comes to ‘static photography’ – portraiture, landscape, architectural, art or commercial photography – generally MF wins.

How to show off to clients and charge more – show up with a big expensive camera

In a world where you want to differentiate yourself from the phone toting pack, showing up with a medium format kit has a lot of wow factor. When a client knows that you are shooting on a camera that has currently the best image on the market, it is another reason to use you and they get to witness exceptional image quality.

VS Hasselblad & Phase One

The Fujifilm X100SII ($7,999 street price) isn’t the only kid on the block. Hasselblad from Sweden have also been creating brilliant MF cameras for film since 1948 and their latest 907X Body and CFV 100C digital back ($12,859) are also state of the art. In fact, their cameras even share the same sensor (from Sony), though both brands have their own processors and colour science. You’ll also find that Hasselblad are more expensive than Fujifilm and you pay a ‘luxury-brand tax’ for the label.

As for Phase One from Denmark, they make exceptionally high quality cameras and their XF IQ4 150MP camera has the largest pixel count, the largest sensor (53.4 x 40mm) and the highest price to match ($105,990 with a lens). Phase One also has one of the most bizarre cameras currently on the market, one that would only be realistically available for billionaires – the Phase One XC which costs $93,000 with a FIXED 23mm f/5.6 LENS (15mm in FF). Interestingly, the 1.8kg camera is touted as ‘compact’.

The roundup

There is something special about MF – something some people say is a romanticisation. Maybe that it’s when you use it, you know that it’s probably the best quality image you can possibly take. And it’s not always about being able to shoot a gazillion frames per second – we can leave that to a recently announced camera called the SCARF that can shoot a ridiculous 156.3 trillion FPS.

So like an old slow clunky film camera (which they aren’t anymore), MF makes you consider your shot just that little bit more, and although I only had a limited time loan of these two latest GFX cameras, it strangely felt like I was rediscovering photography again. Investing in a whole new camera system can be a daunting idea, but perhaps I'll find a way to justify the purchase somehow...