Medium format explodes the cost and again, the lenses I want aren't even available.
So you go for what you can get, given the marketplace and also given the lens system you have bought into.
I doubt anyone is going wildlife shooting with a large format camera, for example.
Not with true large format, but with the new Fuji medium format cameras it's starting to become reasonably possible to do faster work like wildlife at larger format sizes. The main issue remains, which is sensor readout speed, but the technology has gotten so much better that you can get results with things like birds-in-flight that are comparable to a FF DSLR camera from 10 years ago, with MF now, as far as speed, but at 3x-5x the effective resolution.
Cost is still prohibitive though, I recently upgraded and really considered the new Fuji 100MP MF line, but ended up with a Nikon Z8 in the end for wildlife. On my next iteration, I'll probably bite the bullet and go MF. If I could double the resolution and get similar speed, it'd be worth it, IMO. Especially at the sizes I typically print
If Sony would make a MF body, I’d be all in.
As far as I'm concerned, the primes aren't particularly larger or heavier for MF than they are for FF, it's more that the higher resolution and larger sensor size creates physical limits that makes everything slower on MF. No 20fps burst shots in RAW at full resolution with a Fuji GFX100 II, it's only 5fps. That lack of speed is reflected everywhere, because it's doing it on a sensor that's twice the size and twice the resolution, but otherwise it seemed like a pretty amazing camera to me. Speed for me is important though, so I stuck with a Nikon Z8.
It sounds like an MF setup with say a 28mm and a 100mm equivalent lens would require more work but possible (though maybe not enjoyable) to casually carry around.
When shooting raw stills I don’t particularly care about speed. I do enjoy shooting raw CinemaDNG video, there are reasonably priced FF bodies that support it, but if I get a camera for high-quality stills FPS wouldn’t really be a deal-breaker for my uses (I guess it might for bird watching or for sports).
Really? I used a nice longer (maybe 80mm equivalent) lens on an APS-C system a while ago, and it gave very shallow DoF while being much lighter and more practical (cheaper, etc.) compared to what I can find for a full frame. Not going to look up the physics but I was under the impression that shallow DoF is easier on smaller sensors (I don’t mean phone small, just crop small).
> I was under the impression that shallow DoF is easier on smaller sensors (I don’t mean phone small, just crop small).
It's the reverse. These things are continuous. There's no reason for it to be easier one way, then all of a sudden stop and become increasingly difficult. Otherwise, there would be no need for shenanigans with "portrait mode".
My iPhone 14 pro's main camera is an equivalent 24 mm f/1.78. It has way much more in focus than my m4/3 12/2 (also a 24 mm equivalent).
I did not see it becoming shallower after moving to FF, but then I was using different lenses on FF (cheaper older manuals). That probably sums up what I mean.
Sure, when you account for crop and adjust for the same framing then DoF will in fact be deeper on the crop practically. However, even more practically, there are small and affordable f1> lenses made for crops, whereas the brightest 100mm I used on FF is f2.8 or so because going lower they are really big and/or really expensive. So, for equivalent cost/size/weight, you may have easier time getting shallow DoF on a crop if you buy lenses specifically for crops (which admittedly limits your choice of glass).
Most people enjoy chasing measurable specs and don't stop to understand what they're actually doing. So they'll go compare a 4/3 sensor's output at iso x to a full frame sensor at the same iso. They won't stop to think about what they're trying to achieve. If they want the same depth of field, they won't be able to use the same aperture. So, out in the field, something has to give. Either lengthen the exposure or raise the ISO. If we're talking high ISOs, you probably can't shoot much slower, so higher ISO it is. Differences are then much less shocking.
The other extreme is people chasing paper-thin focus, which, I guess, isn't as easy to obtain on smaller sensors. Yet, for some reason, they won't go to a larger format, either...