Who move from digital to medium format?

I have been saving up and would love to jump into a Mamiya or even a Hasselblad.  I have my old D300, so will need to buy all new gear.  I'm not a pro, so this jump will be for a healthy hobbyist addition satisfaction. 

I would like to hear from those that have shot with medium format.  Was it worth it? 

You have a spare $15,000 for a hobby?  Sweet.

In another thread someone pointed out that the 36MP in a D810 was an unforgiving mistress. A medium format will be even more demanding.

That said, I'd love to have a medium format camera I hope someday to get there.

I have saved up for over 3 years for this camera.  Spare nothing!  Now that I'm getting closer, I'm just checking around to see what others thought.   

Thomas S wrote: I have saved up for over 3 years for this camera.  Spare nothing!  Now that I'm getting closer, I'm just checking around to see what others thought.   

I've edited blad photos a lot. 

Unless you plan on dropping around 40-50k for an iq280 or a higher end blad, it's not worth it.  You most likely won't see a different unless you're using it high end commercial work, really high end landscape or fashion magazines. 

Most people that shoot with these cameras rent the camera for the shoot as they're too pricey for you get.

I'd say it's not worth it.  One of my buddies has an i280 currently and I don't think he's using it as much as he hoped he would.

Editing the files does take a lot of work, especially in sharpening and micro-contrast.

Would love to one day, but as Scotty brought up, you can spend upwards of $40 to $50k quick on a set up like this.  I would look at buying used so you can stretch those dollars.  www.keh.com

I guess I didn't understand the question. I though the op was talking about digital to med format, ie film. I still have several med format film cameras, just don't use them a lot for several reasons number one being cost! Digital DSLR's are so good and high in resolution I don't think digital med format really has a place. How good can a photo really need to be? How big a print is ever really needed? If you can't get a goof enough photo sticking eight or ten shots from a DSLR together from a camera with 20 pic's, your not gonna get it with anything. People talk about the digital med formats like they are the end all to photography,I don't think so anymore. Film? yea, med format is a lot better than 35mm. digital? i don't think so. Just to much that some people can do putting files together and enhancing them in pp.

Well I cannot really agree with you on that one Don. I have always found MF film to be superior for printing because of its size. Now granted it still has its limitations as does the 35mm due to the films grain. But you can only blowup 35mm so much before its image degrades on paper. I shot mostly 35 because of the convenience of size. Face it dragging around you 645, or Speed is not the easiest.
Now as far as digital I would like the newer Pentax 645SX if I had that much pocket change sitting around. It is really more versatile from what I have been reading. It is more like a really large Dslr much as the 645 was the same for film. Still not your typical walk around camera though. While I would like to have one, I personally cannot justify it, even if I had the cash. I am kind of weird in that way, in that I have to really have a good reason to have something to buy it.

Phase One under my Christmas tree this year wouldn't be too bad

Don Fischer wrote: I guess I didn't understand the question. I though the op was talking about digital to med format, ie film. I still have several med format film cameras, just don't use them a lot for several reasons number one being cost! Digital DSLR's are so good and high in resolution I don't think digital med format really has a place. How good can a photo really need to be? How big a print is ever really needed? If you can't get a goof enough photo sticking eight or ten shots from a DSLR together from a camera with 20 pic's, your not gonna get it with anything. People talk about the digital med formats like they are the end all to photography,I don't think so anymore. Film? yea, med format is a lot better than 35mm. digital? i don't think so. Just to much that some people can do putting files together and enhancing them in pp.

It is a lot better on digital with med format.  It's just are you going to utilize the strengths of it.  Most will not.

Scotty wrote:

Don Fischer wrote: I guess I didn't understand the question. I though the op was talking about digital to med format, ie film. I still have several med format film cameras, just don't use them a lot for several reasons number one being cost! Digital DSLR's are so good and high in resolution I don't think digital med format really has a place. How good can a photo really need to be? How big a print is ever really needed? If you can't get a goof enough photo sticking eight or ten shots from a DSLR together from a camera with 20 pic's, your not gonna get it with anything. People talk about the digital med formats like they are the end all to photography,I don't think so anymore. Film? yea, med format is a lot better than 35mm. digital? i don't think so. Just to much that some people can do putting files together and enhancing them in pp.

It is a lot better on digital with med format.  It's just are you going to utilize the strengths of it.  Most will not.

I have a friend who shoots high fashion with medium format, he says the same thing all the time

These cameras are worth more than my car!