In the first part of this article series on scanning with a digital medium format camera, we looked at why you would want to use one. If you have not yet read it, you might want to go have a look at it here. In this part, we will focus on choosing a medium format camera, some of the criteria and an overview of the available systems
Choosing a camera
There are currently a limited number of modern medium format cameras on the market, but even the ones on the market can be confusing.
We will ignore the older models as they offer no real advantage over modern full-frame cameras and are the same cost or higher cost. However, do know that even old cameras like the Hasselblad H3D can create excellent scans, if you own one. We would not recommend you go out and buy one now, only for the purpose of scanning.
The manufacturers who produce medium format cameras are:
Fujifilm, with their GFX system (sometimes called G system)
Hasselblad, with their X system (including the CFV and V-compatible digital backs)
Phase One, with their IQ digital backs (used in systems like XF and XT)
Leica, with their S-system (not to be confused with SL) - the last one released in 2020, the S3
While all these manufacturers make capable cameras, the only mass-market brand is Fujifilm. This is also reflected in the discussion below. Leica and Hasselblad both have a reputation for being premium brands and don’t focus on the technical functionality to cost aspect ratio. Phase One is also different, in that they produce extremely few cameras, much fewer than Hasselblad and Leica, and always focus on the very very highest end. The prices for their new equipment is therefore sometimes 10 times higher than similar equipment from Fujifilm - even second-hand equipment from Phase One that is no longer cutting edge is extremely expensive, probably partly because of the clout it has and partly because of the build quality.
Choosing between 50 and 100MP
As mentioned, we will discuss relatively modern alternatives for something you would buy right now and optimising it for scanning purposes - many cameras with about 50MP resolution were made in the past, but we will only consider the alternatives truly attractive for modern scanning use. If you already have one of these older bodies, they are probably going to give you excellent results anyway.
So, one question we always get it “Do you need this higher resolution or is this lower resolution needed?” While it is a fair question, it depends vastly on your use case. For social media, you need maximum 10MP to make a great scan. Personally, I like to think about my scanning as being good enough for the largest normal print I would make, which is 20x24” (50x60cm). While I have printed larger than that, I don’t find it necessary to have all my files in that resolution - it’s a bit like owning a lorry (truck) for your daily commute just because you might want to move house one day.
That said, here are some best-practice resolutions for different formats, assuming you want to extract most of the information on the film but won’t obsess over the tiniest differences. These are not scientific measurements and meant as a rule of thumb within reasonable bounds for home users:
35mm full frame: 24MP
35mm panoramic: 50MP
6x4.5 medium format: 30MP
6x9 medium format: 50MP
4x5 (9x12) large format: 100MP
8x10 large format: 100MP sensor, but stitch in two shots to get 150-200MP
While the above numbers are made up by us, based on our experience, there are also industry standards for this. However, we would keep in mind that these are not intended for home users, but for institutional archives. The professional archiving industry often uses the FADGI standard (Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative), which sets out a number of best-practice for digitising and is generally used in the heritage reproduction industry. In this standard, they set out a number of FADGI stars, and the resolution requirement for the highest star (4 stars) are as following:
35mm film: 4000DPI = 21MP
Medium format film: 4000 DPI = 90MP fo 6x6, 130MP for 6x9
Large format 4x5: 2000 DPI = 83MP
Large format 8x10: 2000 DPI = 331MP
Perhaps a more reasonable rating, is a 3-star FADGI resolution rating, which is still considered very good:
35mm film: 2940DPI = 12MP
Medium format film: 2940DPI = 43MP for 6x6, 68MP for 6x9
Large format 4x5: 1500DPI = 46MP
Largeformat 8x10: 1500DPI = 186MP
Note that these are final resolutions, not sensor resolution.
It should be noted, that achieving a 4-star FADGI rating is not necessarily desirable for consumers or even most professionals. The standard was developed with the idea that the material is irreplaceable and potentially of huge cultural importance (think moon landing). We have put them here as useful guidelines, but don’t be discouraged if you can’t reach them.
That said, if you find yourself wanting to scan large format film, then a 100MP sensor will be justifiable. If not, and you just scan 6x7 film and smaller, a 50MP sensor will likely serve you as well. Of course, this is completely subjective, and, for example, if your regularly make very large prints or run a service that provides files for large prints, a 100MP scan of medium format sensor could be right for you.
Which camera should I get?
In the medium format world, there are very few alternatives. Essentially, there are two current realistic alternatives: Hasselblad X and Fujifilm GFX. In terms of pure scanning performance for the cost, the GFX system comes out on-top in every instance. If you want to buy a camera for just scanning, our recommended scanning cameras are:
50MP: Fujifilm GFX 50S II - about 2300€
100MP: Fujifilm GFX 100S - about 3000€
While all the other models are also great scanning cameras, these are the best combination of modern ergonomics for a good price with the right resolution. Here are our comments on the other options:
Fujifilm GFX 50S I: This camera is very old at this point. It does not have a fast connection to the computer making tethering annoying. It is also bulky and has a worse screen, while not being much cheaper than the version 2 on the second-hand market.
Fujifilm GFX 50R: This camera is very similar to the GFX 50S II, other than the lack of pixel shift and stabilisation. Arguably, pixel shift is not necessary, and neither is stabilisation. If you find that this camera is cheaper than the 50S II, it can be a great alternative option providing the same image quality.
Fujifilm GFX 100S II: The camera does not improve on the previous model in the scanning realm.
Fujifilm GFX 100 version 1: This camera is extremely bulky and you would need a very solid copy stand to mount it. It is a bit cheaper than the GFX 100S, but you will spend that on a new copy stand. If you have a very solid stand already, then this can be a good alternative to the GFX 100S.
Fujifilm GFX 100 version 2: This camera is great for scanning, but it offers no improvements over the GFX 100S, in terms of scanning. Therefore, the jump in price is not justifiable.
Hasselblad X2D: This is a great alternative to the GFX 100S, but at twice the price. Also be aware that the Hasselblad X series cameras don’t have focal plane shutters, meaning if you mount a third-party lens (we will get back to that), you cannot use flash since you would rely on electronic shutter. Using flash as a light source for scanning is a popular alternative for some users, so this should be taken into consideration.
Hasselblad X1D version 1 and 2: The same applies here - the GFX series offers more functionality for less cost. The sensors are essentially the same as the GFX 50S.
Leica S3: This is also a reasonable alternative for scanning, but at a very high price point, it offers nothing additional to the above mentioned cameras. The ergonomics of using it as a scanning camera are also cumbersome.
We hope this article has helped you choose which camera to get, and understand why you are choosing that model. All other medium format cameras can produce great scans, but the above are our recommendations for finding a new one.
This series of articles are geared towards those trying to optimise their scanning process and output, but you do by no means need this equipment for great scanning. Most of the other content on our website is geared towards optimising reasonable output for low cost.
