[ekianjo]

The real medium format is based on actual standard film size. 120 and 220. They are clearly defines and medium format starts from 6x6 as a square shape, and then goes beyond. Its clearly not just "bigger than 35mm", while its what Fuji wants you to believe.

as i mentioned there is a clear market for actual digital medium format using digital backs you can plug on old hasselblad or equivalent twin lenses models. So this is not fiction or something. And sensor size is not about pixels, you get a very different depth of field with medium and large format. thats is why we still use them.

[sho]

That's not how depth of field works. DoF, simplistically, is governed by the usable angle of light at the back of the lens - the more obtuse, the more "DoF". Larger sensors (like your 6x7) might be useful if there are limits in sensor resolution, necessitating the sensor being placed further back so the light can shine over a larger area. But if the sensor is higher resolution (as I said the 645z is 50MP) then it can be closer and capture the same DoF. If technology improves enough then we might be able to deliver your "medium format" DoF with a 10mm*10mm sensor placed right up close to the lens. You would not be able to tell the difference.

The 645z and x1d are delivering the medium format DoF right now. Things can be improved upon, sure, but insisting on a certain sensor size is misguided. That size was necessary simply because of the limitations of film chemistry. Remove this limitation and the sensor size becomes less relevant.

[ekianjo]

No. DoF is also a factor of sensor size/film surface area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Relationship_of...

http://www.uscoles.com/depthoffield.html