In article , RichA wrote:

Sandman:
Well, there was a stream of MF shooters that flocked
around the Nikon D800 when it was announced. But since then a
lot of MF cameras have worked their way towards the strengths
of the D800, like ISO.

Medium Format isn't about megapixels, at least not only. It's
about dynamic range and skin tones. And there's still a way
to go for full format cameras until they match that.

Plus, MF has so much superior glass available to them as well.
While Nikon has a lot of really nice glass, it's not
comparable to top of the line lenses from Hasselblad and the
likes.

Gary Eickmeier:
It seems to me that the main advantage of the medium format of
physical size of imager is in the area of low light photography
- but curiously studio photogs don't need that!

Sandman:
And, as I said, digital medium format cameras are notoriously bad
in low light.

Only grossly expensive ones like Hasselblad and Phase. Check out
the new Pentax.

Yes, like I *also* said, newer MF cameras have far better ISO performance. This
is still the exception, mainly because most MF cameras are still CCD.

There is (at least) one Hasselblad with a CMOS sensor as well, but I know when it
was released a lot of bladers frowned at it. CCD is a bit of a holy grail for MF
shooters.

--
Sandman