For some reason I've missed this one and a bunch of others:
I dare to say that the client that count pixels is a minority, but I'm sure they exist and obviously you meet them, so you probably need MFD then and the clients can surely pay for that cost.
However for most it's about general printing needs, and those printing needs have not changed much since the best MF were at 22 megapixels not many years ago.
Pixel peeping client is for sure not the majority, but for instance dealing with products for large companies, they don't want to see non MF quality, especially if they paid premium.
Commercial today is not so much about printing, as it is about providing a file that the client feels can give him the maximum usefulness. That is why some of those clients pixel peep - to make sure they can crop and enlarge in the future even if they don't know exactly to what end right now.
What you've suggested about using low grade glass and then Photoshop to pop the image, is IMO a big mistake. If I'm committed to actually the best quality I can provide my clients (only technical here), and my competitor is cutting corners and trying to get to a similar result at lower costs, there will be enough clients who will be able to tell the difference. This is something I can speak of from experience.
As an example I know of a very successful Swedish architectural photographer that has MFD tech cam (Sinar Artec), but it sits on a shelf as the D800 with tilt-shift lenses reached the quality level needed for his professional work and he found the workflow to be more convenient, and his artistic work is mostly made on large format film rather than digital.
That just means that guy bought the wrong camera, that didn't meet his needs.
If the MFD stays on the shelf, it means you've made a mistake and of course you should sell it.
I was referring to those who use it and it's right for them.
Many instead use MFD from personal reasons, they appreciate the quality themselves, but actually don't
need it for satisfying their customers. And then there are different personalities, some want the best because they just like to use the best, and some don't want to spend more money on (any type of) gear than needed and instead get more profit. The same can be seen when it comes to picking a car for professional tasks, some pick the most cost effective alternative that does the job, others pick something extra because they know they will be driving it and like to have something extra. I would not call the more economical person the less professional one... some are just more gear junkies than others
I don't disagree, and I never said every pro needs to use MFD.
What I meant to say is that if you are using the system professionally and it's suitable for your needs, then it doesn't make sense for you to sell it for something lesser just for the money difference.
"If when you're in financial trouble you sell your MFD, I think it means you're not a pro."
This may be a bit harsh. In this dog-eat-dog financial environment the photography landscape has changed considerably for any number of hard working pros … and it is littered with the bleached bones of those who didn't adapt.
I have a close friend who's studio had 9 MFD stations working 24/7 on a large food account. He did it for years and dedicated a great deal of resources to that end. Recently at the corporate level they decided to pull it in-house, and gave him a week's notice. He'll likely replace part of that, and was smart enough to financially prepare for that eventuallity … but it will take time. Meanwhile, he has a crushing over-head to maintain. Reduction of that overhead is clearly the professional thing to do.
My original hell-raising remark was in retrospect excessive and not comprehensively accurate.
Your friend with the 9*24*7 stations is a very unusual case.
His past is the abnormality - it doesn't make economic sense for a commercial company to pay so much. If they really do it all the time, any calculation will show tremendous savings by bringing it in house.
If no has noticed, advertising has seriously shifted to web based presentations … how much resolution do you need for a sub-one meg., sRGB image? Count those pixels.
A lot of the current work is for web, for sure.
But 80mp isn't the only advantage of MFD.
There is diffraction which is critical for products, and the glass for P1 is just miles better than Canon - in the normal to short tele range. It can be very apparent in web applications.
I sold all my Hasselbald gear (H4D/40 and H4D/60) and used the money to treat myself to a Lexus for my S2 to ride in:ROTFL:
Exactly! You sold the hardware which was not working - that makes sense.
You don't sell the one that's working and earning.