Hi,
Just a few comments:
1) Using strobe at high speeds is an advantage if there is a a lot of ambient light you want to get rid of. Many folks shoot mostly in ambient light. Yes, leaf shutters have advantages.
2) Great respect for Schneider (who now left the MFD business), although they still work with Phase One on lens design. But, almost any decent lens resolves to well above 100 lp/mm at least in the sweet spot. Erwin Puts measured something like six older 50 mm lenses from Canon, Nikon, Leica and Contax and all resolved above 200 lp/mm albeit with low contrast. To make use of those 100 lp/mm you need a 0.005 micron sensor, the 60 MP sensors resolve 83 lp/mm while the IQ-180/280/380 resolves 97 lp/mm (that is pretty close to 100 lp/mm). Sony A7rII resolves 110 lp/mm and Canon 5DsR resolves 121 lp/mm
3,4,5,6) An MF DSLR will not give you tilt and swings. Arca and Cambo seem to make decent business selling optical bench cameras with full movements utilising the A7xx sensors. T&S adapters from Mirex, HCam and Kipon give a decent amount of shift and tilt and they are pocket size.
7) A7rII has fully electronic shutter, totally vibration free at any shutter speeds. It has also an electronic first shutter curtain that essentially eliminates vibration s at long shutter speeds as the shutter opens electronically. The shutter closes mechanically but does it in less than 1/300s. Vibrations are an issue on the original A7r. I am pretty sure both Canon and Nikon have electronic first shutter curtain on their latest cameras.
8) I tend to agree that the 4:3 has an advantage to 3:2 in many cases but in many other cases 3:2 has advantages, in real world both formats need to be cropped.
9) Built in lens profiles in C1 is no advantage for Pentax 645, Leica S or Hassy users, but C1 has lens profiles for many other lenses including Canon.
10) The capture profiles built in C1 are also there for Canon, Nikon and others, the ones intended for team phase one backs are probably better than others. You can use C1 with 24x35 mm cameras but not with non Team Phase One cameras.
As a side note, Hasselblad offers T&S using the HTS adapter. The HTS records shifts and tilts in the raw file and Phocus applies corrections automatically. I have noticed that IQ3-100MP raw files seem to have fields for tilt and shift, so a similar technique may come to Phase One.
So, as you see, many of those compelling points are not valid for MFD in general, just for an MFD used on a technical camera, and nothing precludes using a mirrorless 24x36 mm system with a technical camera. Capture One does not support non Team Phase One cameras/backs but supports most leading 24x36 mm and smaller format cameras. MFD is more than just the Team Phase One echo system. Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica are other major players.
Now, I am perfectly sure that MFD systems are great stuff. I have an older MF system and I enjoy shooting with it, but it doesn't really have a T&S capability that I would call usable in the field (I have a Hasselblad Flexbody and a P45+). T&S was actually the major reason I bought the A7rII. For the cost of an IQ-150 back alone I can buy an A7rII, both Canon T&S wides (24 and 17 mm) and all three Otus lenses. A couple hundred $ more also gives me a TS-adapter.
Best regards
Erik
In my general experience, photographers select MFD for 5 reasons based on primary need 1) Resolution from larger meg backs for either reproduction/documentation, large printing, diverse cropping ability (frequent in commercial repurposing of images); 2) T/S work using a fully articulated studio camera with a hi res back; 3) High speed sync strobe use with any meg back (which is more prevalent than most here may think); 4) Some specialty applications like Multi-shot, and aerial or industrial cameras 5) subjective preference for the look and feel of MFD "system" output (complete image chain).
Your remarks above are pretty comprehensive and presumably speaks to your specific needs. Like with any argument, it is skewed by damning with faint praise, while omitting the deficiencies of the favored opinion. Again, you seem to be comparing experiences with the latest 35mm tech to your older MFD tech.
A few responses:
1) Top sync speed with full strobe output on my Leica S is 1/1000 with no vignetting. It was 1/800th with my previous Hasselblad H. The Sony A7R-II is only 1/180 and the A7R-II doesn't even have a PC sync port to hard wire anything to it when shooting with a speed-light for fill.
While higher sync has a clear advantage in controlling ambient, it isn't just
"... in a lot of ambient" ... it is
ANY ambient. I've used it to kill distracting backgrounds indoors for example, including indoor locations infected by ambient I have no control over other than higher sync speed... or to lessen mixed lighting effects in areas where the subject/background metering is in no-man's-land.
The unmentioned additional high sync advantages are: ability to control unwanted motion in brighter backgrounds not effected by the subject lighting flash duration. 1/1000 shutter beats 1/180 all day long. I can also shoot @ 1/1000 with a wider open aperture with flash without blowing out a brighter background.
3,4,5,6) A MF DSLR doesn't need to provide T/S ... the removable backs from Phase, Leaf, Sinar and Hasselblad do. Allowing you the choice of a wide variety of technical cameras ... I used a Rollie Xact-II for full front back movements in studio with a fixed back and a M/S back, could remove it and put it on a mobile ALPA type camera if I wanted, then back to SLR use.
BTW, I also used Hasselblad's HT/S on my Leica S camera to excellent effect. The S electronically allows full function use of HC & HCD lenses and Contax 645 lenses including Contax's excellent T/S bellows unit. The disadvantage is the HT/S is the 1.5X magnification factor making the widest FOV 36mm (28mm in 35mm terms).
All that said, were I in need of T/S today (I'm not) ... I'd go exactly the same route you did (or rent what I needed) because for me the call for it isn't that demanding anymore, and not worth the expense of owning a hi res MFD T/S solution or a 35mm one for that matter. BTW, Otis lenses would not be part of my mix since they are manual and negate the A7R-II advantage of advanced AF ... and are as big as many MFD lenses on a tiny body.
7) Yes, the A7R-II virtually fixed the shutter slap issues of the A7R (or I would never have bought my A7R-II). How is the A7R-II a
fully electronic shutter while also having an "electronic first shutter?" Also, isn't there some limitation attached to EFS?
8) What
many other cases does 3:2 have an advantage over 4:3? Certainly available print paper sizes aren't one of them especially consumer selected sizes, neither are most publication or commercial printing formats. While one may have to crop either format, 4:3 requires far less in most applications ... effectively trashing more resolution from the 3:2 verses the 4:3. This was very apparent to me when I switched from Hasselblad H to the Leica S which is 3:2.
9, 10) Specific C1 comments may well be valid, however, Hasselblad has excellent lens profiles in their software Phocus, and provided them to Adobe for use with PS/LR ... including profiles for older Zeiss lenses. Leica chose Adobe LR as their DNG software, and those profiles are very good. Same for capture profiles.
IMO, other contemporary MFD advantages (as well as Nikon & Canon) include mature and consistant systems components when compared to the Sony A7R-II. I'm sure they will get there.
In the final analysis I use my Leica S because of the high sync speed advantages, and I like the look of my S files from the S image chain better than anything I can get from my Sony A7R-II with any lens mounted to it. Not that they are bad in any way, just I prefer the S files every time. I've shot some stuff with the Sony only to wish I had shot it with the Leica. What can I say ... that's all folks!
- Marc