Hello all,
Great thread, and just wanted to add another perspective. Guy wrote:
If I had my way it would be M8 and MF only like Jack is able to do. I just can't but I need to get my stuff down to minimum somehow to get to MF in my process.
This is what I have found too, and why I got into the Nikon D3/D300 system end last year. I am a writer and workshop presenter, here and overseas, as some may know. But I have been a commercial photographer too, since the late 70s. I have some big clients (John Deere) and many smaller ones who are prepared to wait to fit their work around my schedule.
The Nikon D3 plus the three new zooms, the 24/2.5 TS, and the Zeiss lenses, do everything that these clients need. Even the big enlargements required for booths and trade shows can be done on this format. And even though MF has become more 'handleable', the idea of taking one of those systems into the forest, balancing on slippery just-barked logs four feet or so from the ground amid logging debris, in the dark so you can see the machines operating at night and make a dawn shot (a recent shoot), fill me with horror. This may just be me.
On another shoot I needed to carry all the gear I needed, for three days, again in the forests (fire restrictions made vehicle access a no-no), with a return to the hotel at night. I know size and weight of MF has come down, but on this shoot I was on the long end of the 70-200 VR plus the 1,4 extender... I don't think that would have been possible with any MF system I know.
Anyhow, the point is that the old 'horses for courses' argument holds. I believe that if you are a commercial shooter these days, depending on your market, you will need two systems. Mine is lower end: I make do with the D3/D300 kit as mentioned above, and am waiting for the 410 + pancake and the DP-1, to see what mini-system will become my 'shoot for pleasure' tool.
Now a comment on MF in general, in the digital age. One of my personal dilemmas, and one that I have wrestled with for years, and which I have shared with some of you on Fred's site in the DMR Bible days, is the search for IQ. The reason I sold all my gear at one point (Woody will remember this) stemmed from my on-going work with a Zen monk: he asked me, "how much quality is enough"? For me personally, I realised that this search was part of the ego's search for perfection—an abstract never able to be realised—and not really related to what my customers needed, or even wanted. The reality for me is that my work is destined for brochures to sell products, images to illustrate concepts in books, the web, DVD covers, and the like. No fine art there, even though I view part of myself as a mix of artisan and technologist.
Once I let go of that search, to the extent of selling all my gear, I was able to re-approach the question. Fortunately for me, the D3 and the 14–24/2.8's MTF charts were announced/published at that same time. Now, 10,000 commercial images later, for the first time I am actually *satisfied* with the gear I am using: it is just a tool to get a certain result. I honestly feel a deep gratitude to Nikon for making this system. For me personally, it really is that good.
One further digression: 'street shooting'. This can be done with a Hasselblad, I guess, but a DP-1 or something small makes better sense to me. And if we look at the kind of images that are being made and shown on the small sensor thread, it seems to me that an aesthetic is already emerging, where the limitations of the sensor become part of the look. Some great work here.
So, conclusions? For me personally, I have decided that I don't need MF, and I am committed instead to getting the most out of the Nikon D3 system. For fun, I will use whichever of the small sensor cameras I like the most. On a job interstate last week (Pilates studio, controlled environment, strobe and natural light mix), I found myself wishing for the DOF of an MF system, as it happened. On looking at the ~1,000 images this week, all shot wide open at ƒ2.8 on the 24–70, they are completely acceptable, and with lovely soft backgrounds. They would have looked better had they been shot on MF, but they are lovely just as they are.
But...
I am just going to re-quote Jack's points, because I think they are spot on for anyone wanting to step up, but without killing the bank balance:
1) The ZD back on a Mamiya AFD with the stock 80mm lens produces WAY better files than the 1Ds mkIII with ANY lens on it.
2) The AFD/ZD with 80 weighs about the same as the 1DsIII with a 50/1.4.
3) You can mount up just about any older MF Mamiya 645 lens and use it in stop down mode with AF confirmation (these are bargain cheap to acquire, see KEH). You can mount up Hassy F, FE or CF lenses via a Hassy to Mamiya lens adapter and use per above and these are stellar (albeit more expensive) optics...
I wonder if Jack could start a thread on just this system, including images of it?
Please don't flame me folks; I posted these ideas just to give us all something else to think about! Cheers to all, kl