Good advice for the most part. Experiences differ ... that is one thing that is for sure. So, perspectives will also differ.
Personally, given MFD tools with similar specifications, I've still yet to see any significant differences in the end product regarding image quality as applied by photographers with different and distinct styles. What product they chose seems to deliver the goods as determined by them.
This different perspective is not gleaned from selling MFD products (which is obviously a valid perspective), but from buying a LOT of photography as an advertising Art Director/Creative Director ... and literally supervising thousands of real world shoots with a lot at stake every single time. In that capacity, I've seen the same photographer use any number of MFD products and yet produce the same distinct style or feel to their work. That has much more to do with other elements of their photographic talents and abilities then it does which specific MFD tool they may have used. Of that I am VERY sure.
Frankly, as a buyer of photography, I didn't care what they used to get there, just as long as they got there. With few exceptions they all did ... using all sorts of different MFD products.
So, I'd take some issue with downplaying the ability of experienced shooters and/or their tech assistants to evaluate their needs, and determine what tool may be best to achieve that based on input from other users and the various knowledgable suppliers of MFD solutions ... which is what makes this forum, and others dedicated to specific products, invaluable. In fact, my advice is don't listen to the photographer, listen to their tech assistant ... :ROTFL:
User advocates of the various MFD solutions will naturally tout their choices ... but over the years, I've come to cast a wary eye on these enthusiastic pronouncements, and try to separate their purchase justifications, or specific feature benefits that don't align with my needs ... and study what they are actually producing. Endless talk is one thing, seeing the work is a whole different perspective.
If there are user surprises in work-flow or some other characteristic after the fact, then something wasn't clearly communicated .... or the user was lazy in his/her investigations.
I also do not understand how one would determine the "future" of a product ... the future of MFD has brought many folks many surprises that no one predicted. I suppose one could study the history as an indication, but I find most history is revisionist, or leaves out certain parts ... so, in reality, this is a difficult task at best, and of limited value for those in need to produce photographs now. If any given MFD product was the end all, there would be no need for upgrade paths and R&D would come to a halt. As we have all seen in the past, the best solution for your needs isn't always the one that thrives and survives in the marketplace.
I still hold that the camera systems themselves offer the most clear choices, or differences. As I've stated in past, my basic choice was based on wanting/needing higher flash sync for ALL my focal lengths. I use from 28mm to 510mm with strobes ... 11 focal length choices + a 1.7 X extender, and a HT/S adapter, as opposed to 3 leaf shutter focal lengths (which to be clear, are only recent additions). I also require a waist level finder. So, starting from scratch today, I'd still make the same choice. Not everyone's needs to be sure, but most certainly my specific needs. Others may need longer exposures, or prefer focal plane type gear to meet their requirements.
-Marc
This is a great place for knowledge - from end users as well as manufacturers and dealers.
To pare down my point a bit more specifically, yes, for the most part a similar image can be arrived at from all the mfdb products. But the path to that final image can be quite different. For the recipient of the image, no it doesn't particularly matter how the photographer got there. But for the photographer, it can matter a great deal. That speaks to the essence of the user experience. I am not minimizing the abilities or talents of the photographer in any way. In fact these talents are the key in producing the final image (and sometimes overcoming the limitations or deficiencies that a product presents).
An important differentiator between our perspective and the perspective of an end user is that we have hands-on experience with the lineage of mfdb's. This means we are thoroughly familiar with a product's historic strengths and weaknesses over time and across models and generations. This is relevant to how the product performs today and the pace of development that the company provides historically gives an insight into the future of that company and of that product. Many other factors play into the perception of the future. And perhaps "future" is too strong a word. But sometimes you're betting on horses, whether it's a company or a product. The more informed, the better. Knowing the legacy of a product and it's development and performance is an asset to making a choice with an eye on future potential or direction. So, no, the future can't be predicted and history is strewn with wrong guesses. But knowing where products/companies have been and where they are as we do, is a benefit. Do we have access to proprietary information? Sometimes we do, yes.
Critically, we also understand how these competitive products compare relative to each other currently (and historically). Yes, all of these products -
generally - can get you to a similar end result (though not necessarily), but the process of getting there can be very different, better, easier, more effective,...or not. If you're going to spend $15,000 - $45,000 or more on a camera system, our perspective is that you should understand in detail how your choices and their capabilities and deficiencies compare.
We try and make these products do bad things and then we try and fix them. We take many, many processes and we break them down and we compare them. For some, not being able to batch rename in the raw conversion program, while not a deal breaker, could be a thorny itch that you have to scratch again and again and again, much to your exasperation each time. Having to move your mouse to zoom into an image without a shortcut could produce a similar emotion.
How noise and color and tone and exposure are handled - how effectively, how productively, are all different with these products. Is any one issue a deal breaker? For many, no, for some yes. You want to know if you are that one.
So, our key benefit, and one that is typically out of reach for an end user, is our daily experience with these competitive products that goes back years. It is a perspective that generally is not nearly as available coming from an end user. An end user may try out some competitive products and compare them at a given time, typically when they're in the market to purchase. But that is usually one of the few moments in time they will spend any significant amount of time comparing products. By contrast we spend every day with these competitive products and we have the experience of thousands of end users who rely on us for supporting technical issues and providing development input to engineers and product managers. And thousands of photographers using these products in different ways, with different techniques and processes and different needs as a result. We come into contact with many more photographers who use mfdb's than any end user.
Not taking anything away from end user feedback and information - I feel that is just one more really important element to the evaluation equation. But I don't know that our perspective is clearly understood in terms of the benefits.
Steve Hendrix
