Understood.I'm sort of aware of the unique look of MF SLR lenses, seems to be in the mid-range DOFs where a more subtle 3D-look can be achieved. Have not seen any good side-by-side demonstrations of it though, that would be nice. 35mm digital style is more of either all sharp or extremely short DOF with just an undefined blur in the background, don't know if that is because it have to be that way or because most people just use those apertures.
Overall I think it is much about the lenses and should be about the lenses, but the huge cost of digital backs and their relative lack of flexibility is an obstacle. When the price gap is just too large and the difference too small then suddenly "good enough" is just that.
However, that is the POV that accepts it. There are other perspectives.
IMO, to narrow the application of an expensive digital back by relegating it to tech camera use doesn't make any sense. If anything, they should be made more diverse in use. This is how I feel about my S2 ... by allowing fully integrated use of all my Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses with sync speeds to 1/800 and up to 1/4000 with a flip of a switch ... OR, the Leica S lenses with their unmatched look and feel ... I've had less and less use for any 35mm DSLR.
So, "lack of MFD flexibility" is a relative term, and depends heavily on application. The 35mm DSLRs are still as far away from specific MFD applications as they always were ... 36 meg didn't change that. On the other hand, MFD has made the need for 35mm DSLRs less critical for some applications then in past ... and I personally think the MFD makers should be applauded for that. :thumbs:
In the end it is the look and feel, and as you say it may well be the lenses ... except for a few shots made with some adapted manual focus Leica R lenses, I've seen absolutely nothing from the D800, regardless of which Nikon lens, that even remotely approaches some of the beautiful images posted in the MFD and S2 image threads on Get Dpi, let alone other sites. It's like night and day, yet the comparison chatter drones on and on. In fact, I've yet to see any D800 image that can aesthetically equal my A900 and AF Zeiss glass. That a photographer can make a bigger print of a look and feel they don't like at all, doesn't change anything. Big ugly, is still ugly to some eyes. Which is why, even thought I could easily afford it, I'll keep trundling along with the Sonys until something changes my mind
Let's cut to the chase, it is about money. Period.
If I didn't have the money, I might be LOVING the D800 option and justifying it by discounting MFD as not worth it. But I DO have the money, and I DO see a substantial difference and think it is worth it ... I'd seriously hate having to step back after working my way up to the look and feel that finally pleased me.
Like I said, not everyone is convinced ... besides, I hate Kool-Aid :ROTFL:
-Marc