I'll get back to that point, since two users here (not you) accused me of talking about things I have no idea about.
Now who is taking things personally?
I've never had my hands on a Leica S, but I've used several other 44x33 MFDs, and also 48x36, 56x36 and 53x40, so I do have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I am not relying on "on-line jogs" (Geoff), mainly because I no idea what those are.
"On line jogs" is spell check's auto correction for jpgs … it is a typo that anyone could figure out.
If I needed a camera to handhold and auto focus, then there is a very good chance I would be using a Leica right now. As my needs include tethering, close up, post processing - Leica is not something I bothered to check.
FYI,
The Leica S can be used tethered, I do it all the time. Leica choose to use DNG RAW and Lightroom. If you do not like LR, then that is understandable as a personal preference, but it CAN be used tethered and it works very well.
1:1 close-up photography with full data bus communications is possible with the HC120/4-II, or greater with use of the HC extension tube set and the HC100/2.2, or the Contax 120/4, or the Contax bellows … or any legacy Mamiya, Hasselblad V, Pentax Macro lens in mechanical stop down mode.
The price of the Leica system may start only in $20k, but every lens is $5k-$8k, and you would need 3-4 lenses for a pro practice, which makes it much pricier than Mamiya for instance, since Mamiya offers many choices, not all of then sky high expensive.
Leica lenses are expensive. Nothing new there, every one knows that. The S system is a "from the ground up" design, so no less expensive legacy lenses exist. If one wants to use less expensive legacy lenses on the S camera, any Hassey H or Contax lens can be used including AF and auto aperture. The newer digital designed optics from other manufactures are also not exactly inexpensive.
To say that 1Dx is a camera for "hosing off shots" only, is a very narrow minded look at it. 1Dx is Canon's top of the line camera. It is intended for high end use, for all applications. It is used by professional photographers for those applications, and they are extremely satisfied with it.
A disingenuous, out-of-context comment … I said: "Horses for courses. A camera like the 1DX is great for hosing off shots, tracking moving targets, and other specific stuff that a MFD isn't made for."
Most professional photographers will not or can not spend $40K on a system. That does not mean that a $10,000 system is some sort of semi-pro system. That is a ridiculous statement. Canon and Nikon are much more important in the pro field than MFD.
No one on this thread said that a Canon 1DX was a semi-pro camera. Only you said that here. I do agree that the Pro level Canon and Nikons are more important to some professional photographers than MFD ever will be. Horses for courses.
I like MFD and it does offer advantages to my very specific applications. Mostly I use it because I like it and I don't want to get bored. From a business standpoint, If I kept on using 1D*, my expenses over the past 5 years would be almost zero, and my revenues would be about the same if not higher. At these prices it is very hard to justify MFD as a business decision. And IMO, most MFD users are those that can afford it and like it - some pros, but mostly well off amateurs.
"Specific applications" is the key word here. More importantly, personal preferences are paramount because photography is still a subjective creative endeavor. The OP expressed his personal preference for the look and feel of MFD, but is at a loss to technically explain why. My advice was simple … "trust your eyes" and go with what you feel delivers the look and feel you like. Doesn't matter how subjective, it is what he likes. I do the same thing. I do NOT like Canon's files or their best lenses. Even though I've used them to get work done, they never lit my fire, so why should I continue on with them?
Personally, it is VERY important that I am satisfied and like my work first before all else. It is why I do this. If others like it afterwards, then that is great. But it HAS to fulfill my vision and desire for a look and feel as part of my personal quest to express myself with photography. How I do that is my personal creative responsibility, no one else's.
Most importantly, image quality is not by any means a scalar number.
You can not compare two cameras like that:
IQ (camera-1) < IQ (camera-2)
Image quality can be broken down to many different aspects, to count very few for example:
IQ(x).resolution
IQ(x).detail
IQ(x).sharpness
IQ(x).colors
IQ(x).optical-diffraction
IQ(x).fall-off
IQ(x).fringing
IQ(x).distortion
IQ(x).bokeh
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.luminosity-noise
Even when you are comparing IQ aspects you can glean from two files, you must do it considering other crucial variables: how the pictures are displayed in real application (almost all commercial images are displayed in their final application either on screen or on no more than A4 print), and the circumstances of how the picture was taken - high or low light, hand or tripod, moving or stationary subjects etc. Commercial and industrial photographers hand off their digital files to the clients and don't need to print them. Comparing two pictures of a human from 2m distance will give certain results, and if you're shooting a 3mm dental implant at close up, the comparison will be totally different. In certain application and certain condition camera1 may produce nicer results than camera2, and then in totally other applications and conditions, the results may very well be totally different. That is all that I was trying to say, apparently I was not using enough words and some people were able to misinterpret my words completely.
To say one camera's IQ is better than another one's, is a meaningless statement. The user needs to define for himself what are his actual needs (maybe some of those needs is that he likes certain things even though he doesn't need them), and also what are the implications for him to spend all that money.
Personally, I'm not misinterpreting your words … I take them at face value and don't agree with everything you say. It's this disagreement, and that of others, that you can't seem to accept.
For example, "Needs and wants" in photography are different propositions altogether. The OP already defined that he WANTS MFD. Why others insist on using "NEED" as the counter argument to something a photographer WANTS in their work often baffles me. Fortunately, personal creative judgement, and what one sees in certain results, hasn't succumbed to the pure logic of need … the eye still rules, and not everyone sees the same thing in the same way … despite relentless efforts to quantify and qualify like we were all part of the Borg Collective :ROTFL: