Well the one thing I am learning with MFD, is one can go broke...LOL! A slippery slope it most definitely is! Although I had dabbled with MFD for a brief time when the H2D was first released (having shot with the Pentax 67 for years). I've recently been working with a Pentax 645D camera/lenses to see what it's capable of vis-a-vis, its strengths and weaknesses for a variety of applications.
Graham wrote--->>> "I completely agree. I'm sure part of that is due the fact that the M9 essentially has a MF sensor in it too. I find it a perfect complement to medium format, and based on the number of M9 shooters at the last GetDPI workshop I noted that ~50% choose the Leica and the remainder chose the Panasonic m4/3rds systems for their secondary camera choice. I'm sure that this is no accident!
The exquisite look of the files is intoxicating though, especially in print."<<<
Agree to both these points. The M9 seems to be a perfect complement to MFD, occasionally as a travel companion to the MFD system, but more often as a alternative when the M9 is a more appropriate camera to work with under certain shooting situations. The quality of the files is sufficiently high enough that the regret of not having the MFD on hand is often molified. Prints from both are extremely satisfying and that is ultimately the goal for my particular shoots. Whther the MFD/rangefinder combo can completely suplant the DSLR...thats been a difficult question for me to personally answer at this point...but it doesn't seem to be the case.
GASC Wrote--->>>"There is a thread on the Luminous Landscape that's worth to mention, in the very line of the DxOers. It's called 645D vs D3x (you knew there was a versus didn't you). This never ending topic full of graphics, "proofs" of all kind has reached so far 150 replies from members and the incredible number of 7153 views at the time I write this...and it keeps going.
If you have the time to read it"<<<
I recently read that entire thread. No doubt there is some ligitimacy in some of whats posted. For myself personally (and I'm sure for some others), the quility of output to large format prints is the taletale differences that I look for when shooting different systems. As good as the D3x camera is, I personally have found the the Penatx 645D can most definitely surpass it in a good number of ways when the print size itself is sufficiently large. This of course were comparisons made with some of Nikon's and Pentax's finest lenses. I believe it was Graham who suggested in one of the postings on that LL thread, that it might be interesting to compare a Max Max converted D3x with lenses such as Nikon's 24 T/S and others. I agree, it would make things very interesting.
One aspect that I find is acutely evident, is selection of good performing lenses seems on the whole more of a crap shoot when it comes to comparing the Pentax 645D MFD system to say the rangefinder or even the DSLR. This may be more of a consequence of the offerings of Pentax legacy AF 645 lenses on the 645D, which were all (except for one) designed in the film era. Performance varies tremendously for most, even among samples of the same lens. This same sort of situation evolved when Pentax released it's very first DSLR (which was at a time that put it years behind the curve). They had some incredibly expensive "high end" performing pro SLR lenses that when interfaced with Pentax's DSLR's (for the 1st few generations), performed poorly in a great many situations and were reduced in performance to being no better than low end consumer lenses. In some respects, although not all, there is sort of a repeat of history...having a good body ready without the testing and support of some basic but important lenses in the most often used focal lengths. Pentax is well aware of the situation, but the solution requires major $$ investment fro them.
Each system (MFD, rangefinder, DSLR, 4/3ths etc.) will always have its strengths, whether strictly for file size/quality, shallow depth of field, stealth/portability, or for applications (sports, wildlife) where particular attributes make it a natural for tackling the job. As is often said, picking the right tool for the job is what's important.
Dave (D&A)