First for those who don't know what a DSLR is. It is a digital single lens reflex camera. This a camera that you can change lenses on and it has a mirror that when you push the button to take a picture it flips up so light can hit the sensor and the camera can make the picture.

Now the question I have is about a certain type of DSLR. This would be the mid format camera. Mid format when it came to film meant that you had a bigger roll of film like I think it was 110 mm film to take bigger pictures. My question though is it really needed to have a so call mid format digital camera when you can use software to enlarge your pictures and even keep them clear and crisp looking?

It just seems to me that a person who buys a mid format is pissing away money on a larger camera then they really need with the things you can do with technology today. Anyone know if I am correct in thinking this or is there still a home for the mid format digital camera?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Medium-Format-Cameras/ci/16734/N/4259332394

If any of you still don't know what I am talking about. Then go to that site. The cheapest mid format digital was around 10 grand from what I saw. While the MP is really high at 40 and 50 MP. The MP doesn't matter unless you have a good processor behind it and a good lens in front of it. Mess up one and you can still turn out really terrible looking pictures.

LOL I love these questions... No you do not need a mid format digital and NO ONE needs a 50MP camera at all. Not even people who make billboards.

I don't understand why you are asking questions to people you feel you need to educate on the topic. Why not ask pros or go to photography forums?

Oh ... 16+ years of photography plus 10+ years of printing experience if you want to know how I came to my conclusions.

That's kind of what I figured. Just seems odd that they make a camera like that still. Wondered if there was something about them that made it so they were still relevant. Know what I mean?

as to why I explained the things I did. I kind of wanted to weed out the idiots who would probably start arguing thinking I know nothing when I actually do know a fair amount. But I haven't had any experience with a mid format digital. So I figured I would put the question out there and see what I got back.

Thanks for answering.

Number of mega pixels is important but so is sensor size.
If you have a large number of mega pixels and a small sensor you're kind of wasting your money.
I gotta think large format digitals have better lenses hence the cost.

Back in the earlier days of digital cameras I think it was Nikon took a picture from like a 3 or 5 MP camera and blew it up to fit on the side of a warehouse. So no the number of MP isn't that important. I can see your argument for the sensor size being relevant to the number of MP it produces.

I doubt it's the lenses either. Ziess makes lenses for 35 mm digital cameras and they are pretty expensive with high quality glass. But you could put on of them on a digital that has a crap processor and still get terrible pictures.

Ziess makes lenses for a lot of things. But as with all things you get what you pay for. Not all Ziess lenses are of the same quality.

Nikon may have blown up a 2 meg photo to the size of a warehouse but I'm thinking it was all that sharp of a picture up close.

Think of taking a picture with a high grain film like tri X compared to a lower grain film like pan x. Both will produce sharp pics just that one will be that much sharper. Also compare a blow up done with a four x five camera to one done with a 35mm using the same film.
big difference.

That is what made the mid format film camera needed. The film grain that is. With the way that enlarging a picture works with digital media it's easier to do it without making it look like crap. Like with all things I'm sure it depends on the quality of the software you are using.

With digital cameras you need more than just a good or great lens and a sensor that produces lots of mega pixels. Unless you don't care about how noisy your pictures are. Such as with a Lumix camera I had. Took pretty decent pictures at 100 ISM. But set it to 1600 and you can't make out anything. At least I couldn't when I tried that setting. That is because of a trashy processor.

If you watch the video for when Canon released the 5D Mark III and the 1D X. They released the 1D X with an 18 MP sensor because the pros using their camera said the MP was enough. Just work on producing cleaner pictures. So that's what they did. With fractile programs they can blow up the pictures to the size and quality they need without any problems. Even with the 5D Mark III they only went up one MP because they were told the pros didn't care about it. The MP war is something that appeals more to the consumers who think that high MP count makes for a better picture.

Without the right set of lens, processor and sensor you will produce crappy looking pictures with lots of noise.

That's where you need to ask yourself what you will be using the images for? Even a billboard sized image doesn't need to be 50MP because the larger a picture is the further back you will have to stand to view it properly. It would be absolutely pointless to have an image that size with details that sharp.

Do you think they will ever come out with a camera with something like a trillion pixies Or would that be overkill? lol

LOL no I do not think they ever will. Another thing about images that large is having enough hard drive space to store them all.

So maybe you 'll need one hard drive for each picture you take. Maybe it would be worth it so you could take a picture of a mole on a celebrities butt and make it look the size of an elephant. lol

I would never say megapixels wouldn't matter. Blowing up a photo and digitally enhancing it are two different things. I am sure most professional photographers want their pictures to be pure and the more pixels you have the more enlargement you have without loss of resolution on a pure non enhanced picture. In fact some people dont even use digital. They prefer to develop their own film in dark rooms.

I know there are the die hard film users. There's nothing wrong with it with either. But sometimes stubbornness can be a problem. In one class I took in college for web development the person in charge of IT for the school talked to the class and she talked about this one teacher who refused to upgrade his computer to anything newer I think than Win 95. Because of that they had to keep old code on the side so he could keep using it. But eventually it just wasn't worth doing that. So they got rid of the old code and when that guy started to complain. they told him he needed to either quite or get a newer computer. I think he was so stubborn that he quite instead.

It's kind of like this attitude this one guy I know talked about. "I'll show you, I'll eat poison."

I also know there are advantages to both film and digital photography. I took a black and white photo class and it was fun. I enjoyed developing the film and then the pictures. I liked learning who to do sepia tones from black and whites and understood instantly how dangerous it could be when I heard the word cyanide.

But all the same I like seeing the instant picture I get from the digital camera too. Editing the pictures can also be lots of fun. Making it sepia or gray scale just to see how it looks can be surprising.

It all boils down to personal preference.

Last thing I will say at this time is I was surprised to read on one site I think it was how a guy took a picture from his iPhone, and 8 MP picture, and used it on a billboard and it looked great. I'm currently using a Canon 60D and I'm sure if s company liked one of my pictures and wanted to use it. they could certainly do so without any problems if a picture from an 8 MP iPhone can be used.

Although digital cameras have come very close to film they are still not quite there when it comes to sharpness.
And there's a reason pros chose large format high megapixel cameras.

Because they are compensating for something else? lol

Because their livelihood depends on sharp well defined photos.

Medium format allows for better low light exposures, control of depth of field and higher detail, which if you need can be beneficial. They are favored by fashion and landscape photographers mostly who want higher detail and less noise than a 35mm or aps-c SLR will allow.

That is a much better argument then the previous replies. Or at the least more detailed on the subject instead of harping on the number of MP.