Kurt as you know I have been avoiding this issue for too long and the bottom line is bigger is better. MF has and always will be better overall in images. WE certainly can get close, Nice files from Nikon , Leica an the others have certainly tried and we have pushed hard to get there but MF digital just freaking rocks. Once you try these you start banging your head with what the hell have we been thinking . But nothing wrong with that, certainly the DMR and M8 images have done a awesome job for us and now we see the Nikon D3 starting to do the same. But reality is time to grow up also, as Pro's you just have to deliver the best you can with what you have. These backs are just the ticket even though it is expensive and a tougher road to work in. The results are what count. As much as i have loved the M8 and it's light weight and size plus the wonderful images from it nothing will beat a MF file. The thing that eluded me is I thought bigger files meant big weight and bulk , sure there bigger but honestly my Mamiya is no bigger than your D3 and actually lighter, we have 2 D3's here plus a D300 . I still use the same bags so really not the biggest issue. The big concern is feeding it light. Seriously it is a 2 stop loss in DOF compared to FF and you need to make that up somewhere. Reason i said i need a great ISO 400 for the times you need to squeeze the envelope. The Phase backs actually all three of them will give you a nice ISO 400 file and some better than that but your best option is using C1 to do it also. These backs are fine tuned to to C1 better than any program I have seen between camera and company software. This is a real marriage , stuff that looked a little off in LR was perfect in C1 and i will explain that later but when looking at these Mf systems look for a damn system that is tight between camera , back and software. I cannot stress this enough , seriously after one minute of setup I am shooting with no issues and it just works and this is not a knock on anyone but Phase has this stuff down really well. Look for a system that has the three parts as tight as you can get otherwise it is something not sure i want to deal with.
Guy,
Not sure I would agree that you have been totally "avoiding" the issue of MF for that long, but more that you were too caught up in trying to extract the most from the M8.
Something you comment on here, the "marriage" of camera and software, is exactly the wondering that I brought up about the MF world in some other threads, and interestingly, am seeing more of that now with the 35mm DSLR folks. (Canon introduced lens correction tools into DPP, Nikon using more "tuned" things in Capture, NX, etc.)
The concern is having too many different tools needed to deliver what you need and want. Yeah, I did say "too many"
What does seem very important is to find things that deliver what you want for how you use your gear. Personally, I think MF is able to deliver some really outstanding images that are for big use, holding details that we just cannot quite get with the smaller sensor cameras, regardless of how good they may be. If the M8 had its present capabilities, but with a file that could be enlarged a whole lot, I am not sure MF would be as tempting for many. Unfortunately, it does not, and frankly, cannot get there. That sensor size does matter.
Glad that you are enjoying the new stuff so much, as well as having "settled" into something that you think will do what you need.....for now
LJ