Sick of 24x36?

Well since I don't have $40k for a medium format back, I'll stick with my puny 24x36 sensor.

Wow, so much righteous indignation and defensiveness. Of course there just as many self defenders on the P&S forums slagging off the "DSLR snobs". Simple fact of life, folks, size matters. When your girlfriend told you otherwise she was trying to be kind. MF will always be better than 135. No matter how much the technology improves, the gap will always be the same.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …t_the_small_det​ails.shtml

mcluckie wrote in post #13970427
He sent me this email and this link:

http://zackarias.com …t-phase-one-iq140-review/

There also is this link"

CLICK

David Hobby has made the move to med format.

It depends on what you photograph. Med format gear is pretty expensive.

There is also this link

CLICK

Were the author preferred the Canon 1DS over the Medium format.

The reason so many are happy with the DSLR format is because it is an UPGRADE for them over the P&S they started with. And if you never print over 8x10" (if some people even print at all), this format is just fine.

But for you, the DSLR format is a downgrade compared to what you are used to. So no wonder you are not satisfied. I keep looking at some of the mirrorless systems and wonder if I could be happy there. But even the newly announced OM-D EM-5 by Olympus probably still has shortcomings that I'd be unhappy with.

Also keep in mind that $10,000 can buy several pieces in a DSLR system, whereas if you want a digital medium format system that barely gets you a body. That's more than most enthusiasts pocketbooks will allow.

I'm not gonna lie, I have wet dreams about a phase IQ 180, but beyond it being out of my budget, I don't think I could justify it even if it was as a) this is only a hobby, and b) my skill level is far from adequate to warrant that kind of gear:o, even if 90% of my shooting could be handled by it.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #13971166
I'm not gonna lie, I have wet dreams about a phase IQ 180, but beyond it being out of my budget, I don't think I could justify it even if it was as a) this is only a hobby, and b) my skill level is far from adequate to warrant that kind of gear:o, even if 90% of my shooting could be handled by it.

Yep, all that. Plus it would provide my wife a defense of justifiable homicide.

I am in the early process of scanning some of my LF images. There is NOTHING in the DSLR range, that can match the IQ, of LF. If LF IQ is what you are used to, then anything else will be a let down. 99% of the crap we shoot today is autoeverything, destined for the web and maybe an 11x14. Even my clients who loved the 4x5 image size have resigned themselves to digital. I sold all my LF gear before the market dropped out, still have a smattering of MF gear, but not enough to do anything critical. I deeply regret selling my horseman LF kit. But the folks at ad agencies today would not no what to do with a trans image anyway.. sigh.

I don't give a rats ass what DSLR you use woul will never match an 8x camera for level of detail.

Pentax 645D? Cheapest digital way to MF. Looks like a pretty decent camera to me.

tempest68 wrote in post #13971156
The reason so many are happy with the DSLR format is because it is an UPGRADE for them over the P&S they started with. And if you never print over 8x10" (if some people even print at all), this format is just fine.

But for you, the DSLR format is a downgrade compared to what you are used to. So no wonder you are not satisfied. I keep looking at some of the mirrorless systems and wonder if I could be happy there. But even the newly announced OM-D EM-5 by Olympus probably still has shortcomings that I'd be unhappy with.

Also keep in mind that $10,000 can buy several pieces in a DSLR system, whereas if you want a digital medium format system that barely gets you a body. That's more than most enthusiasts pocketbooks will allow.

I'm happy with my APS-C 60D because it's a huge improvement over my 35mm film SLR. I was never naive enough to believe that any of my 3 P&S cameras were anything but snapshot recorders. The APS-C sensor records so much more detail than my 35mm Minolta with Rokkor-X lenses that it's just sick. And I've never even considered going full frame digital - just too much money. As far as medium format or larger, that's as much out of my reach as it was 40 years ago, digital or film doesn't matter.

But then I'm a hobbyist. I don't have clients requiring 4 foot enlargements, nor will I ever............... thankfully.

I see so much snobbery in photography it is untrue. I read about those who reminess over the good days of film like it is some badge of honour. Same with medium format. To the op if you don't like the 35 mm format then go get a medium format camera and use film or a digital back. I don't want film, I have no use for it. Film is an old fashioned thing and within 5 years i suspect it will be really totally dead. I like being able to photoshop my stuff. I get great clear image quality from all my large prints.

When you die and if anyone looks at your pictures they will not be saying oh look a med format image made a a medium format camera. No one cares about the equipment except other photographers.

I used to shoot 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, it was adequate for what I was doing. Liked the size much better than 35mm. Haven't looked in anything larger than 35mm in many years.

Who cares?

MGiddings Photography wrote in post #13972037
I see so much snobbery in photography it is untrue. I read about those who reminess over the good days of film like it is some badge of honour. Same with medium format. To the op if you don't like the 35 mm format then go get a medium format camera and use film or a digital back. I don't want film, I have no use for it. Film is an old fashioned thing and within 5 years i suspect it will be really totally dead. I like being able to photoshop my stuff. I get great clear image quality from all my large prints.

When you die and if anyone looks at your pictures they will not be saying oh look a med format image made a a medium format camera. No one cares about the equipment except other photographers.

Not true. You cannot do with a disposable film camera what you can do with say, a 5Dmkii. Image quality gets more subtle as you climb the equipment ladder, but that doesn't render it meaningless.

If you are a professional photographer, it's your JOB to care about the quality of the images you make. People may not say, "Oh, a medium format picture!" But they may say, "Wow, that's a really detailed, beautiful picture!" and your job would be well done.

Difference is a substantial amount of money. Medium format = $10,000+++ for basic setups. Detail and quality comes with that.

Basic Package

For $10,000 a photographer can get a 5d2, a handful of L series primes, or zooms.

Yes, the IQ is astounding, and medium format is AMAZING, but c'mon now. I know I have high hopes, and if I could have a medium format camera for the studio, I'd have a woody all day long, but until then, the DSLR sensors are good contenders for the comparison in sensor sizes.