Not a photographer, but I would like to ask. What are your thoughts

>is it worth the price

No, they're that expensive because the people/companies who use them don't care about the price, they're just want raw performance
Companies will charge outlandish prices for that group because it's such a small lucrative market as well.

It's like the high end server processor market

>>3113187
I don't really get the point, especially for the price. If you really want MF, shoot 120 film and get a body for 1% of the price of digital.

>>3113205
Pretty much this. Except if you are a very serious professional which belongs in a small niche then there is no reason to buy a digital MF camera. Just snag a cheap MF film camera (there's a pretty sizable selection), stock up on film, learn to dev it yourself and have fun.

test

File: 1488536247803.jpg (29KB, 412x430px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 412x430px

>>3113685

Mass production leads to cheaper pricing.
Full Frame is the largest size that has that mass production.

Anything higher is exponentially more costly, due to low volume manufacturing.

Can someone explain to me like I'm retarded, what is a medium format and why use it?

>>3113696
With analog cameras it just means larger film negatives. Regular 35mm negatives are 24x36mm in size whilst MF negatives are 6x6cm; this translates into more detailed photos and a different aspect ratio. In the case of digital it's just larger sensors, which is obviously really fucking expensive.

>>3113696
Medium format is a larger format. In film, a bigger negative is produced, and in digital, a larger sensor is used.

In both cases, more light as able to be captured, and that translates to significantly greater detail, shallower depth, micro-contrast, etc... And it's used because it looks killer in the hands of someone competent.

Any wedding photographer worth his salt in the day used a medium format film camera.

But it's a bit of a niche thing as you need to be able to gain access to a real lab to get your stuff developed, but after a while you can truly create amazing stuff.

>>3113696
medium format is/was the way to get images with the maximum amount of detail in studios/fine art for further manipulation later
It's not the only way now that a7rii and 5dsr exist with comparable megapixel counts but the reason you would shoot with a phase one back versus one of those boils down to
>vogue paid you
>resolution
>you have more money than brains

since you're asking this questiion you don't need one if you're trying to save up the cash to purchase a system, just get an aps-c or m4/3 and spend the rest on travel

I don't want one, I just use my Nikon d750

>>3113707
>>3113709
Let's not forget the other main advantage of MF, which isn't the format itself but the fact that most pro MF systems use leaf shutters, which allow much higher sync speeds with studio lights than normal focal plane shutters do. (Particularly in the film days, when 35mm cameras had sync speeds in the 1/60th range.) That advantage is the main reason MF digital is still used for pro fashion etc.

There's also the less tangible advantage of appearance. I've seen some pretty high-end photogs say outright that they use MF for the sole reason of impressing clients and justifying their rates.

>>3113187
I love how so many people are shitting on the price of mf, but you can into a 645z for about the same price as the Canikon flagship bodies.

>>3113776
Well, shit, I haven't looked at prices in forever. You can get into a 645z for about the same as the 5D/D8xx series. Fuck me the 1DX III and D4s are spendy.

>>3113728
I got to say I forgot about the high speed sync, I just know leaf is so quiet compared to flippy flappy mirrors