future of MF digital

[Ed Gerson]

Megapixels are not an issue anymore to me, but in the case of camera design you're still looking through a soda straw with any APS/full 35mm format in my opinion. That to me is an issue. Pick up a Pentax 645 or Mamiya 6 and look through the finder, good grief man, who invented such a large clear view? MF digital backs are extremely expensive and, like everything else, you need a back up if you're a pro. And with MF the depth of focus is so controllable out of the box. - Ed

[Warren Roos]

I sold my 22MP system (Phase) over two years ago after testing it against the 1Ds MarkIII. The 22MP phase files were better in terms of absolute resolving power but not that much better for me given how I typically shoot. But as it been sated ad-nauseam it’s about other choices rather than Mega Pixels and resolving power. The price of two or three backs in either system plays a huge factor to me. Also high working ISO’s in MF is still not a reality and MF is for tripods. Is too!

These are workflow and comfort things and not “intangibles.” RIO must be factored in. Are your billings healthy enough to pay for the MF back and or system in eighteen to twenty four months? (This is my rule of thumb.) The value of both systems in two or three years should also be factored in. Scanning backs still are the gold standard and the muti-poppers get you more to. But but but do you need more than (original files) 16 or 21 or 25MP of clear clean sharp files at 12 to 16 bits?

MF's future may not be robust but has a definite place based on needs. For certain types of studio endeavours MF is the only way to go. People make the images and not equipment. Henri Cartier-Bresson got it done with far less than we have today.

It's all one glorious swirl.