After reading a lot more from various other forums, reviews and postings, I keep coming back to what Marc posted as the opening topic.....the MF is anything but settled or easy to figure out what to get and what works for most. There is a lot of really interesting gear out there....superb optics, interesting approaches, systems, etc. As always, the glass is a big part of the story, but so are the imagers now.
Just about the time I started to get comfortable thinking about one approach, such as the Hasselblad H3 system, the thoughts of not having access to other backs, or other glass started to rear its ugly head. Same thing holds for the Leaf/Sinar/Rollei Hy6 route, and the Phase/Mamiya path. Still looks like there is no way to get the best of all worlds worked out, unless one drops back to discontinued models (H2), or will sacrifice some useful modern additions (AF, metering, etc.), that were less prevalent on older systems. Not saying this as a bash, but more as a lament to trying to wend my way through things. All have great things going for them. I love the size and most of the promise of the Hy6 platform, but getting solid, accurate information on availability, prices, compatibility, and future deliveries has been difficult. The Hasselblad path is not quite as bad, but there is concern over what may change next there and whether one could get stuck with things that are no longer supported and not compatible with others. The Phase/Mamiya path is not that different. To my thinking, it offers up some reasonable options, as well as some forward plans that are a bit more detailed.
I understand the various states of evolution of the MF market and the players, but have to say, none of them are making it very easy for folks to jump into the fray. In one ideal scenario, I would opt for a Rollei Hy6 body, some Schneider lenses plus others, and maybe put on a Phase One back. No can do....yet there are rumors. In another scenario, a Mamiya AFDII with a Phase One back (supposedly the promise), and the ability to use some interesting new lenses, like the Hasselblad HCD 28/4. Again....no can do.
While at first this does not seem all that different than the DSLR world now, because the MF market is smaller, has much higher associated costs for gear, has quite demanding (in the good way) users that are picky about optics and options and use, things also seem so much less clear, less clearly communicated, less predictable than makes sense to me. None of these folks make their own sensors. Only Dalsa and Kodak are supplying to everybody. So I can understand each coming out with their own interpretation of a digital back, but why not have greater interchangeability with other parts, like making any back fit any body? I could see having a Phase back for somethings, and possibly a Sinar back for others, but that now requires one to have too completely different systems, and any one system is hard enough to keep up with.
Maybe I am totally missing something in all of this, but it does keep me, and others from jumping into a market that we could use and that could use us also for sales and development. I am not expecting everything to work with everything else, but it would seem so much more reasonable (not saying "practical") if there was a bit more cross utility of all of this great and rather expensive gear. Would I like the HCD 28/4 on a Sinar or Mamiya body? You betcha. Or how about the Scheider Super-Angulon 40/3.5 on the H3DII 39? Yeah, that could be nice too. Just not going to happen as things stand now. Not saying that there are not good choices in each line/system, but folks would love to mix and match things a bit more, just like putting Zeiss or Contax glass on a 5D and getting those benefits.
Sorry if this got off the more existential thread, and we can go back to that, but some of that artistic/gear/business balance is getting forestalled for me and probably others, because the MF scene is so cloistered and confusing at times. I have a pretty good idea what I could get and do and expect if I spend $30K in the Canon or Nikon line, but I am not getting that same feeling about any of the MF paths right now. What am I missing?
LJ
Just about the time I started to get comfortable thinking about one approach, such as the Hasselblad H3 system, the thoughts of not having access to other backs, or other glass started to rear its ugly head. Same thing holds for the Leaf/Sinar/Rollei Hy6 route, and the Phase/Mamiya path. Still looks like there is no way to get the best of all worlds worked out, unless one drops back to discontinued models (H2), or will sacrifice some useful modern additions (AF, metering, etc.), that were less prevalent on older systems. Not saying this as a bash, but more as a lament to trying to wend my way through things. All have great things going for them. I love the size and most of the promise of the Hy6 platform, but getting solid, accurate information on availability, prices, compatibility, and future deliveries has been difficult. The Hasselblad path is not quite as bad, but there is concern over what may change next there and whether one could get stuck with things that are no longer supported and not compatible with others. The Phase/Mamiya path is not that different. To my thinking, it offers up some reasonable options, as well as some forward plans that are a bit more detailed.
I understand the various states of evolution of the MF market and the players, but have to say, none of them are making it very easy for folks to jump into the fray. In one ideal scenario, I would opt for a Rollei Hy6 body, some Schneider lenses plus others, and maybe put on a Phase One back. No can do....yet there are rumors. In another scenario, a Mamiya AFDII with a Phase One back (supposedly the promise), and the ability to use some interesting new lenses, like the Hasselblad HCD 28/4. Again....no can do.
While at first this does not seem all that different than the DSLR world now, because the MF market is smaller, has much higher associated costs for gear, has quite demanding (in the good way) users that are picky about optics and options and use, things also seem so much less clear, less clearly communicated, less predictable than makes sense to me. None of these folks make their own sensors. Only Dalsa and Kodak are supplying to everybody. So I can understand each coming out with their own interpretation of a digital back, but why not have greater interchangeability with other parts, like making any back fit any body? I could see having a Phase back for somethings, and possibly a Sinar back for others, but that now requires one to have too completely different systems, and any one system is hard enough to keep up with.
Maybe I am totally missing something in all of this, but it does keep me, and others from jumping into a market that we could use and that could use us also for sales and development. I am not expecting everything to work with everything else, but it would seem so much more reasonable (not saying "practical") if there was a bit more cross utility of all of this great and rather expensive gear. Would I like the HCD 28/4 on a Sinar or Mamiya body? You betcha. Or how about the Scheider Super-Angulon 40/3.5 on the H3DII 39? Yeah, that could be nice too. Just not going to happen as things stand now. Not saying that there are not good choices in each line/system, but folks would love to mix and match things a bit more, just like putting Zeiss or Contax glass on a 5D and getting those benefits.
Sorry if this got off the more existential thread, and we can go back to that, but some of that artistic/gear/business balance is getting forestalled for me and probably others, because the MF scene is so cloistered and confusing at times. I have a pretty good idea what I could get and do and expect if I spend $30K in the Canon or Nikon line, but I am not getting that same feeling about any of the MF paths right now. What am I missing?
LJ