Having never owned an analog camera, I cannot really compare. My only advice would be to contact your local vendor to see if you can try before you buy. High-end stuff doesnāt come cheap.
My answer hasnāt changed since @okieman asked last February: Does new-camera tech 'rival' old-camera tech?
2 Likes
Stitching multiple images together would work too, at least for static scenes.
Donāt think there is a true medium format yet. There are digital backs though. All definitely outside of my budget! 
Fuji has four medium format digital bodies on the market.
1 Like
Could have bigger sensors. Getting there I guess.
Not clear what you mean, but theyāre literally already on the market: Fujifilm Medium Format Film & Digital Cameras - Buy at Adorama
2 Likes
I told myself I had mapped out a new question. But perhaps the two are mostly the same?
From what little I have stumbled across, this has been done with a slightly longer lens such as 90mm? And somewhere there is a specialized tripod that facilitates the multiple exposures?
Yes, I would call the Hasselblad H6D-100C and Phase One industrial cameras medium format. Some would coin them as āfull frame mediumā format. I left them out because they arenāt something that people would buy. Fuji and Pentax are much more reasonably priced, though their price tags arenāt easy either. 
In recent memory, I Googled Hasselblad prices. I saw a medium-format body for $40,000. These are fine cameras, but I have some skepticism about the price. In the 1980s, I saw Hasselblad marketing material that bragged about camera parts being polished in a machine using organic rice, or some such silliness. However, the market has tolerated this.
Marketing toward the 1% is inscrutable, but hey, organic rice is better than any cafeteria food I know! 
1 Like
Yea, Iāve taken pictures taken on equipment polished with that crappy GMOād rice, and they just donāt taste the sameā¦ 
At least for me the most noticeable difference is the look of the images due to the larger image surface, and the Fuji āmedium formatā sensors donāt even get close to a 6x6 medium format negativeā¦
The main point is to get the imagefield of a shorter lense eg. 50mm fullframe equivalent while having the compression dynamics of an 80mm lense. Replicating this with a smaller sensor is possible but really cumbersome, e.g. you need to take a series of detail shots and stitch it afterwards.
Of course this is even more difficult when comparing to large formatā¦
What he means is that those are āpseudo-medium-formatā cameras with a sensor somewhat larger than FF, but not anywhere close to traditional MF.
Nearly all MF film cameras use 120 format film, meaning roughly 60mm for at least one image dimension.
Fujiās sensor is 43.8mm in its largest dimension. So pseudo-MF and significantly smaller than even 645.
There are also Mamiya medium format cameras. They were always attractive to me (as in, interested in their capabilities), but other than that, I donāt know much about them. They are from a Japanese company that has been in camera equipment since 1940.
I think the PhaseOne cameras almost reach the 645 size with 53.4 mm in the longest dimension. But of course you can buy a house for the price of that cameraā¦
Yup. Phase One is very close to true MF (the 60mm was nominal, in many cases actual usable image area was around 54-55mm, so P1 is pretty much right there), but as you point out, $$$$$$$.
Similarly the Pentax 645D wasnāt really 645 - it was heavily cropped. Fuji and Pentax MF digital is to MF film what APS-C is to full frame film.
1 Like
Not wishing to fan any flames here, but I think it largely depends on the print size you are working towards. Iāve been shooting for well over 50 years on film gear ranging from 35mm to 8x10, and now shoot m4/3. I have many prints in my house ranging in size up to 24x24". The m4/3 pretty much hold itās own, dependent on the light levels when shot. I just replaced a 24"sq print from a Rollie 2002 6x6, Zeiss glass shot on a tripod with a cable release and printed with a $60K durst enlarger, with a 24"sq cropped handheld m/43 image. The m4/3 was printed at a commercial lab on Lamda gear, and it looked sharper and clearer then the optical print from the 90ās.
I think that too much attention is paid by photographers to the (theoretical) performance of their gear, and not enough to the aesthetics and content of their images. Just the rantings of an old manā¦
Iād also say that unless you shoot at least 200 images a week, and edit and process the best of them, youāre missing the opportunity to improve the most important equipment you own, which is your brain. Practice is very important.
I do have to add that Iāve been reprocessing and reprinting images in darktable that had originally been done in PS/LR, and the software has made a a big improvement in the final results.
Happy shooting!
6 Likes
A M4/3 is already fancier than my camera. Such a camera is much more versatile than the digital medium format camera, one that you wouldnāt need to bubble wrap and place in a safe. 
The bigger question to the title Rivalling large format? is, How so?
The tools and software donāt make a photographer but a quality photographer would definitely be able to do more with quality gear.