>>3663346>With cameras such as the GFX 50R bringing medium format within the price point of full frame, why do people who consider themselves serious photographers still use the latter?Troll thread, but here's a serious answer:
The Fuji and Pentax medium format bodies that are within spitting distance of full frame price points aren't quite there yet.
1. They don't really give noticeably better image quality than full frame at around the same resolution. Even zoomed in to 100%, the difference is very subtle with a high-megapixel full frame body, and the difference is basically nil at normal resolutions. You can get better quality than full frame with something like the GFX100, but that's back up to five-digit price territory.
2. While the camera bodies are within spitting distance of each other price wise, lens prices for medium format are still significantly higher. E.g., the Fuji GF 64mm f/2.8 is $1079. Contrast with a nifty fifty for under $200 in any full frame system. The GF 110mm f/2 is $2800; a Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 is $1600.
3. And the above is if there even is a medium format lens vaguely equivalent to the full frame lens. Fuji has about ten lenses total in its GF lineup. Nikon and Canon have more than I'm willing to put in the effort to count, even in their current lineups, not even considering the back catalog of discontinued used lenses that you can get going back to last century.
4. Slow contrast-detect autofocus is a dealbreaker for a lot of types of photography.
5. Given the slow maximum apertures of medium format lenses (and roughly equal noise at a given ISO vs full frame), they're worse in low light than full frame right now.
So for MOST types of photography, full frame cameras are still BETTER, even disregarding the price advantage. Eventually, that might change, but that's the situation right now.
