The funny part to me is that even respected photographers are looking for evidence that a toycam could be as good as a MFDB. It's like as if Sony has found the Holy Grail. I don't think so and they will never do that.
I find most of these conversations amusing. So many great photographs shot for decades by amazing photographers have been shot with every kind of format imaginable, from polaroid, to holgas, 8x10 Sinars to old wobbly deardorfs, nikon FM's and leicaflex's.
In fact I think people here would be quite surprised at the number of photographer's whose work they cherish are shooting with film and rzs, blads, rollei's, some are still working in large formats.
and though film does have a specific look, it's still got huge clumps of "noise" and is not the easiest workflow in the world, especially when you put it into the digital domain.
I also know that none of these photographers would waste ten minutes discussing the merits of pixel pitch, file size, dr, software, or workflows.
can you imagine avedon, guy Bourdin, helmet newton sitting around a computer talking about which camera was better, the nikon or the hasselblad, the sony or the canon, or which software was better c-1 or lightroom.
in fact if those photographers started their careers today I doubt seriously if the sony or the hasselblad would make that much difference in their final look.
I've just finished a 7 week project, carrying canons, nikons, phase and leicas and used them all for different reasons. none were bad, it's just some were better in certain situations than others.
most of the project was shot with canons because they are kind of the intermediate step between the high iso Nikons and the high pixel count phase, but none are perfect and given my wishes, the perfect camera for me would be the 31mpx detail of the phase, the file look of a leaf in photoshop, the iso of the Nikons and the skin tones of the Canons all in the size of a leica m8.
even if that camera existed today for $45, I am sure this forum would light up with brand loyalists claiming it isn't as good as the new whatever or could never be printed larger than 4" across because it didn't have enough megpixels, dynamic range or bit depth.
in fact the camera i used the most was the camera that gave the best look in the computer or on the camera lcd as the first and only thing I want a client to say is wow.
honestly, the first thing I want to say is wow, the second is the client's reaction.
personally I hope Sony becomes another big player and pushes everyone to make better cameras. we have nothing to lose from this.
I'm beyond brand loyalty in the digital world. I really don't think it's possible to say you are only going to shoot with one camera or only going to work with one raw processor. that would be like shooting with only one film or lens. some people can do it, but in the paying world few can.
our industry is changing, some of it for the better as we get to see the image immediately, some worse as we lose some spontaneity shooting for committees huddled around computers, but the only thing that is important in photography is the photograph.
we've become such a brand conscience society that I wonder why it is so important that anyone know what camera you use in the first place. maybe I'm missing something but the camera companies I have dealt with are not tossing out big bucks or even giving complete creative freedom unless it exactly fits thier brand, so in my mind all of these associations may be a good way to raise your google rating, but doesn't mean much to the people that hire you. the camera companies push their brands and if using your name helps them your in the headline, if it doesn't then your in 10pt body copy.
do you really think a client knows the difference between a phase, sinar, or leaf digital back. in fact the client that requests you use a specific back is probably the client you don't want to know, because next they are going to start cropping heads off of full length images and that doesn't do much for your career.
the only camera announcement I've seen in 15 years that sounds really breakthrough is the red. why so many people on this forum are against the concept is beyond me. everyone keeps asking modular, upgradable systems that shoot faster and are equal in versatility to the dslrs and it seems red understands that. whether it works or not in my view red should be praised for being brave enough to break the mold.http://www.mergegroup.com/related-stuff/20...blown-away.html
actually all of america should be jumping up and down with joy over the red, because last time I read the business section of the NYT it didn't seem like anything is made in the u.s. anymore.
I don't think for a moment that the world is going to change the moment the new red cameras appear. still photography has to be shot like stills, motion like motion, but if the red allows the ability to use one system for both, then I might be able to carry one system rather than 2 or 3 or 4. then again maybe the visual world will change because there are some very brilliant and talented people with open minds that can see how mixing motion with amazingly detailed stills can captivate.
maybe none of this will come to pass and we'll all keep shooting our legacy film cameras stuck with digital sensors in them, waiting for the next incremental upgrade. I do know that I'm not sitting here waiting for my leather NASCAR jacket with 12 camera logos on them and fully expect the moment I put down the cash for the red or any new camera I'll pay retail.