PopPhoto.com -- The online home of American Photo and Popular Photography & Imaging magazine

Free Newsletter: Camera reviews,
lens tests, photo news and more!


Popular Photography American Photo

My Photo

November 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29

« Who won the war on paper? | Main | Nikon Confusion over Dots vs. Pixels »



It would seem that the MF's larger sensors and 16bit vs 14bit systems might still produce better images for certain types of photography that thrive on greater tonal information.

The Supreme Dalek

Presumably some of the Mk III's technological advancements also will make their way into a new generation of medium-format digital backs... and when that happens, the MF shooter will just need to buy (or lease) a new back, not a whole new camera.

Also, while Canon's T/S lenses provide the movement range needed for a lot of commercial photography, some types need more than that. That's why I still run a Fuji GX680 with a digital back, as well as a Canon with a T/S lens.

Not that I'm advocating one position over the other. It's great to have a choice (albeit an expensive choice) of which type of camera best fits your high-pixel-count photo needs.


Technical specs are certainly a consideration, but there is another. As long as jobs go to who looks the most professional, the choice will always favour an MF camera over a 35mm-type SLR. It's kind of a silly criterion to judge a camera by, yet is one that seems to keep several high-end professionals employed. So at some level I suppose, it pays off.

But it's an issue that I'm happy to spend the rest of my life staying out of: 10.2MP is more than sufficient for everything I've needed so far...

The comments to this entry are closed.