Marc,
Your last couple of posts get me back to some thinking that I have been wondering about. Let's go with the idea that the Kodak and Dalsa sensors have not yet been fully exploited, and that all of the MF backs may have capabilities that will continue to be realized with improving software. That IS a bit different than the present 35mm DSLR world to some degree, though folks will argue that the software created by the camera manufacturer outperforms other RAW conversions, since there is access to some "secret sauce" information in the RAW file. Not really wanting to debate that part, but one can see great conversions with Canon's DPP that does not quite come out with some other conversions, unless one creates custom camera profiles and tweaks the heck out of things. Same can be said for Nikon. Only issue really becomes that the OEM software generally sucks with respect to workflow and processing performance. Big downside when shooting a lot and having to do all that processing. That is why other conversions have become successful to some degree....ACR comes with PS, and creates workflow opportunities that others generally do not (Aperture and Lightroom excepted). Problem is that ACR, though good, still kinds sucks with some files and conversions. So that takes some of us back to alternative workflows and processing options, in order to get better RAW conversion.
Holding that thread a minute, and shifting back to the MF world, it seems like there is a similar struggle brewing around backs and software, but here it may make a lot more difference. (The DAC stuff for the Hasselblad HCD lenses comes to mind.) So, though MF backs may all be about the same in what they capture, and some may be more adaptable to more body platforms, one should be considering how the RAW files are able to be converted. This gets to your question to David about what happens with the generation of DNG files (maybe more universal format for conversion) from Sinar, and what data is contained and usable. (You may recall that this was a huge discussion when Adobe created DNG, and the OEMs keep fighting it by limiting or handicapping how data gets written to or accessed in files, Nikon in particular, but all raised questions.)
This is getting back to some of my original questions/requests about creating some "dream kits" for folks to consider. I expressly wanted to keep the software discussion to the side, but that may not be so possible, given some of the recent advances in gear and how software is being used to better exploit those. After reading a lot of stuff, and especially the further discussions here, I started to think in my own mind that a Sinar back might be a preferred choice, as it seems to allow the greatest flexibility to connect to lots of other bodies/systems through adapters (expensive adapters, but it beats the dedicated design, unless one only has a single body). My thoughts there were that something like the Hy6 body would offer good options, and if needed, an H3D body could be brought into play and still use that Sinar back, but have access to the HC lenses, like the HCD 28/4 (just an example here.....not married to the concept). That is sounding like it might work, BUT (and this is the question to ponder) will that combo be able to really exploit the lenses with the back, IF there is so much riding on the software part?
We were getting wound up a bit about the image look from the Phase v Sinar backs, and Thierry kept us on track with Sinar's philosophy of delivering a perfectly (as best as possible) neutral file that allows greatest utility. My question now shifts to whether that file will best exploit the other parts of things? If I placed a Sinar back on an H3D body with that HCD 28/4 lens, would I get or be able to use the same kinds of corrections and exploitation as if I used a Hasselblad back instead?
Is this the new direction that we will have to start thinking about, rather than JUST the labyrinth of which lenses/bodies/backs/adapters/cables work together and under what conditions?
LJ
P.S. Really not trying to overanalyze this, but since all of the gear has some hefty price tags associated with it, one's choices may need more careful consideration, unless there is a closet full of older gear and folks are just trying to rearrange things for use. Even for folks like me that will be shopping new and used, trying to figure out a workable set of things is looking a bit more complicated, based upon what I would want to be shooting. This does get back to my original thoughts about the Target Use, what gear and why. The assumption that all things are about the same with respect to backs and bodies and lenses may need some further thought if software and its ability to exploit the gear plays a bigger role. Make sense?
