Medium format cameras promise superior image quality over full frame, but the real question isn't whether they're better. It's when you can actually see that difference with your own eyes.
Coming to you from Manny Ortiz, this revealing video tackles the medium format versus full frame debate with actual side-by-side comparisons that show exactly when medium format cameras like the Hasselblad X2D shine. Ortiz spent two years shooting with medium format systems and discovered something surprising about when the advantage becomes visible. The biggest difference isn't what most people expect it to be. It's not the 100-megapixel resolution or the extra dynamic range that makes medium format special. The magic happens in the colors and tonal transitions, particularly when you're working with contrasty lighting situations where harsh light sources create dramatic shadows and highlights.
Ortiz demonstrates this phenomenon with studio portraits shot under slit lighting, comparing the Hasselblad X2D against full frame cameras. The medium format files show dramatically smoother highlight rolloff and richer skin tones that look almost three-dimensional on screen. When he zooms into the skin details, the difference becomes jaw-dropping. The Hasselblad renders micro-contrast and color transitions that make the subject appear more lifelike and dimensional. But here's the catch that might surprise you and could save you thousands of dollars. Sometimes you simply can't see any meaningful difference between the two formats, even when pixel-peeping on a high-resolution monitor. Ortiz shows several examples where full frame holds its own completely, particularly in evenly lit scenarios like outdoor portraits under large scrims.
This inconsistency reveals the true nature of medium format's advantages and limitations. The video shows specific lighting conditions where medium format truly excels, but also exposes the practical drawbacks that might make you reconsider your upgrade path. Autofocus performance lags significantly behind full frame systems, and the camera shoots only three frames per second and lacks continuous autofocus, which Ortiz admits slows down his shooting and causes him to miss shots. File sizes exceed 200 megabytes each, creating storage and workflow challenges. Lens selection remains limited compared to the vast full frame ecosystem, though Ortiz notes they deliver exceptional optical quality with both clinical sharpness and pleasing character. The 4:3 aspect ratio provides more room for portraits, however.
Ortiz addresses the elephant in the room about whether clients will actually notice these differences in final deliverables. He admits that Instagram compression and typical viewing conditions eliminate most of the medium format advantages, making the upgrade primarily about personal satisfaction rather than client perception. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Ortiz.
With film, I learned that the size of the negative (I shot, developed and printed from color as well as black and white negative and positive films from 35mm, (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 120mm or 220mm rolls), and 4x5in really mattered when making 16x20 inch prints.
Medium format digital is still a bit pricey for my current photo endeavors. However, I still shoot black and white, refrigerate it and when there is enough to be worth mixing chemicals to avoid waste due to oxidation, develop it and make prints about once a year.
In film the difference between medium format and 35mm were huge and incontrovertible. The downsides of mf were easily worth the costs and inconveniences when you compared a 10x12 inch print.
With modern digital cameras its not worthwhile going to so called 'medium format" except in very specific circumstances.
Sensor is maybe 30% larger than ff. And the downsides are myriad.
Super restricted choice of lenses.
Size. Weight. Speed. COST.
Er...And no image quality differences.
How many photographers these days have an assistant to lug the massive gear bags around?
Oh But the Hasselbod looks cool and impressive!
Cost yes, but my Hassy bag isn't any bigger or heavier than my Canon bag. I'm shooting the CFV & 100C.
As Manny shows in the video, there are absolutely scenarios where the medium format produces significantly better image quality. You should watch it! There are also times when MF totally missed focus and produced worse image quality.
And for outdoor portraits with strobes, the Hassy leaf shutter is VERY helpful for creative control.
Point being, it's not black-and-white. I still grab FF gear anytime a shoot is more dynamic, like someone might be walking.
hi, i can see that the colours and detail in the medium format images are better but i understand that the 100 or 102 megapixel X2D and GFX100 sensors are stitched sensors equivalent to that used in the 60 megapixel Sony a7iv and a7v with identical microsite sizes
in that sense, why would the medium format images be better than what can be achieved by sensors that are designed by the same manufacturer, but perhaps with different dyes in the Beyer arrays and perhaps different processing of the data and different file formats?
is this an issue of bit depth of the output or the dyes used in the arrays or the colour space of the cameras or somehow some custom fine tuning of the sensors
Bit depth, lower base ISO & bigger sensor (thus lower noise), dynamic range, color science.
I downloaded the pictures from the Studio comparison, it is not an Apples to Apples comparison
Manny gave Hasselblad a few advantages
1. Hasselblad Fix lens 55m vs Sony Zoom 24-70 vs Nikon cheap 28-70 ZOOM vs Cheap CANON 50 1.8 STM Fix Lens
2. F2.5 on Hasselblad and on F2.8 Sony / Nikon (should have been 3.5 for X2d)
3. You gave the Hasselblad more light 1/125 vs 1/160 on Sony and Nikon and 1/200 on Canon.
To have a equal playing filed we need to take in consideration the bigger sensor=more Light from Medium Format (Better High Iso performance)
The difference in Size leads to a crop factor from 0,79 in relation to FF.
When we try to apply the crop factor to all settings the right settings would be for example:
Settings Hasselblad 45mm F3.5 at F3.5 Shutterspeed 1/125 Auto ISO give for example ISO 320
Settings Sony A7RV 35mm 1.4 GM at F2.8 Shutterspeed 1/125 Auto ISO with the same light result will be ISO 200
And important same White Balance on all
In such a scenario it would be very interesting to compare the pictures and see what 16bit and 100M Pixel brings to table
The X2D is notoriously bad for AF. You shouldn't brand all MF as bad, just the X2D despite it's firmware upgrade. The GFX 100 II is better in all sorts of ways than the X2D barring perhaps the menu system. The GFX lens range is much larger as well.
I have the wherewithal to easily afford an X2D and several lenses but due to its limitations I own a GFX and a bag full of lenses instead. If the next X2D turns out to be good I'll buy it. But please, if you are reviewing Hasselblad then use the appropriate titles/names and not "medium format" as if all the cameras are the same.