Why 100MP+ Medium Format

Then you introduce the possible influence of different sensor tech and a different lens (unless you use the same lens). Couldn't the same kind of comparison be performed with fewer variables by using just one camera and lens, and adjusting the shooting position so that one image fills the frame with the chosen 'reference' subject and the other image fills only a smaller central part of the frame with it?

Do you have a link to where Abbott expresses that opinion? I watched most of the A7IV review paying particular attention to the "Sensor Performance" and "Dynamic Range" sections. Abbott makes no comparison of the A7IV's dynamic range with any medium format body. I then watched Abbott's Fujifilm GFX 100II review and, in the dynamic range section which is at the beginning of the section labeled, "Conclusion and Pricing," Abbott demonstrates how the medium format camera is able to recover detail from shadows five stops underexposed. The A7IV was not able to do that.

are you serious, he states at 5 stops on the a7iv its the best he has seen and very impressive.😉
also the a7iv can recover 3 stops over exposure against the MF 2 stops 😁 he even takes the a7iv to 4 stops that he states he never tries on any other camera.

Dustin Abbott has the most unbiased professional reviews of any site on the net. which arnt biased towards sales. the fact remains the a74 should..... because its pixels are larger.

It is funny that you would say that the A74 has 3 stops of headroom for it to recover 3 stops overexposure when this expert tell us that it meters for raw with 100% accuracy and has no headroom.

dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram/3530/post/40459/

"You and no body has yet proven that the histogram accuracy is not spot on . i dont care what they are measured off just that they align up from
my a6300 and a74 using faststone, ACR, photoshop and Fast raw viewer, which btw has been a great way of confirming how accurate my tests have been."

Bill Claff seems to have a little different view:
www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%20100S,Phase%20One%20IQ4%20150MP,Sony%20ILCE-7M4

7M4 is surprising good in his chart and Phase One on it's own level.

ive sent bill test images before and picked up faults. i trust real images not test images taken of a computer screen. and Dustin abbott test shots are not
noise related but colour information recovered, big difference imop.

it all depends how you set up the camera and exposure correction bias set up. but has little to do with the dustin abbot test shots.

Do you mind to post the link?

a link to what ?

Anyone who's interested can watch the videos and see for themselves. In the A7II video - produced 2 years ago - Abbott doesn't make any comparison of that camera with any medium format camera.

In the GFX 100II video - produced 4 months ago - its photo is obviously cleaner in the shadows than the A7IV photo when both are exposed 5-stops under base and lightened in post.

Bear in mind, the lighting in Abbott's test scene isn't the same in the two videos. That or the baseline exposure isn't the same. Compare the highlights on metal surfaces on the old film camera bodies in the scene. The highlights in the base exposure in the MF video are much brighter.

Pixel size doesn't determine light-gathering, noise, or dynamic range. Sensor surface area does.

Here's a link to a DP Review studio comparison scene featuring the Nikon D850 and D500, and the Sony A7RIV and A6600: www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=nikon_d500&attr13_2=sony_a7riv&attr13_3=sony_a6600&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_2=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.8823642609258117&y=-0.17770292737497148

Each pair is built around sensors having similar pixel density and pixel size. Yet, the full-frame cameras display obviously less noise than their APS-C counterparts. This is due to the larger surface area of the full-frame sensors capturing more total light at the same exposure.

I love this quote from the gfx 100. "electronic trickery" who really knows what camera companies do. but the fact remains MF is no better for tonal grads or DR. resolution ,sure

"If you want more latitude in the highlights you can either underexpose a bit (shadows are easy to recover), or you can utilize Fuji’s DR200 and DR400 modes. If you shoot at a slightly higher ISO value (200), you can choose the DR200 mode, or at ISO 400 you can choose the DR400 mode. In DR200, camera will use electronic trickery to sample the shadow and midtone data from the current ISO setting (200) while using the base ISO’s highlights, giving you an additional stop of DR. In DR400 the process is further exaggerated as the camera can then sample the highlights from two stops down, giving you two additional stops of DR.

Are we ignoring equivalence in this discussion?

www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/index.html

www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html

Seems like we must be - which makes statements made so far about noise and dynamic range less credible, sorry to say.

So, to compare MF to m4/3 IQ is a crop factor of about 4. Ergo, you should compare a MF 50 mm f/2.8 lens with a 12.5 mm f/0.7 lens for m4/3; both are equivalent.

Good luck finding the latter m4/3 lens ... LOL

shoot video and tell me the a7s2 isnt the king of low light video. and you do know the a7s3 is a 48 meg sensor 🤐 and dxo mark tests show the 12 meg large pixels blow the 12meg binned away.

Here's a link to a DPR test scene comparison of the first gen Fuji GFX 100 with the Sony A7IV that clearly shows the medium format camera has better dynamic range at base ISO: www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=fujifilm_gfx100&attr144_1=fujifilm_gfx100&attr144_2=sony_a7iv&attr144_3=sony_a7iv&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_5&attr146_2=100_0&attr146_3=100_5&attr178_0=2&attr178_1=1&attr178_2=2&attr178_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=587&x=0.18635354933829643&y=0.5017597853197943

This is as expected due to the larger sensor's greater surface area.

You can thank Sony's internal noise reduction applied to the compressed video format recorded in the A7SII for its great low-light performance.