Some people don't like hearing this, but your point about the size of the 33x44 miniMF format is correct, though. I don't think everyone realizes how small the miniMF format is by comparison to old-school film medium format, nor how small the increment is between 24x36 FF and 33x44 miniMF. The size of miniMF lies about midway between FF (35mm film format) and the smallest traditional film medium format, 645. The difference between FF and miniMF is much smaller, for example, than the difference between APS-C and FF.
There's no question that the miniMF format offers some advantages for certain kinds of photography and certain photographers, but...
To put simply to other photogs I point out that MF digital sensors are 4x APS-C. Makes me wish that Canon came out with that system I'd be buyer #1. Something similar to a 2023 Fuji GFX100 II with CFe B card slot or even a 2025 Fuji GFX100RF with UHS-II V90 card slot.
I can easily adapt EF lenses longer than 70mm without any vignetting or darkening of corners. Anything wider and the image circle isn't big enough.
EB-1 wrote:I bought the GSW690III in 1992 and an M7 and M7 II 1999-2001. Eventually I had all 6 of the M7 lenses including the "mountain" uncoupled 210mm which required me to fabricate a circular focusing scale and use a laser rangefinder to get accurate focus. I tried the Pentax, like a massive brick with a hugely mirror and super-slow shutter. The grip did not really help anything. It was just not practical for outdoors hiking around.
All of that MF gear was the most massive PITA to use, carry film, process, and scan. Some weird neuralgia or artistic purpose must compel people to want to photograph like that.
EBH
Would've been so awesome to have a 1992 GW690 III the month of release and use it until 2009 when I replace it with a 2008 GF670. Using a roll of film weekly to get >7,000 images of family, friends and event import to us.
Feb 05, 2026 at 09:13 AM
Previous versions of dolina's message #16980968 « The DSLR is Dead! Long Live the DSLR! »
