Nice to have you back at the forum! Regarding your writing I guess that it is absolutely true that I client would not at all be interested in the DxO-rating of the camera you use. On the other hand I'm pretty sure you are choosing the adequate camera for the job. As far as I understand you are using different tools for different jobs and you also test and evaluate each piece of new equipment you have. So the client doesn't need to know, because the photographer already made the necessary choices.
I also got the impression that you feel that the new very high res MFDBs have a bad return on investment, so you don't jump on that train right now.
It is my understanding that you were never overly impressed by the Canon 1DsII but you find the 1DsIII to be a much better camera. My guess is that it is not the extra 5 MPixels that do it but something else.
I think maybe I didn't communicate exactly as I meant. There is nothing "wrong" with a 50 to 60 mpx back if that is what you need or what works for you. For me, it's not what I need in medium format or any format for that matter. I can run the list of what I need, but honestly we've all written it 1,000 times before and I guess medium format is just what it is and what it always will be, so making wish lists is probably a waste of time.
I just find all of this interesting and in a real world sense some of the information I see just doesn't jive. Clients production people may talk file size, (actually few, if any do) but once the project is going that's all forgotten. It is about getting that image they find compelling or on message, has the right expression, etc. etc. etc.
It doesn't mean that if it just so happens that it can be done with a 60mpx back then I'm sure they are fine with that, but even with a 12 mpx nikon nobody says, whoa what is that? It's all about getting the shot.
Yes I use a lot of cameras and probably will continue to. Some get more use than others but if you look at the first dozen images on my website (and I'm not asking anyone to do that), but they run in today's order of Leica, 1ds2, 1ds3, leica, p31+, film, 1ds3, aptus 22, p31+, aptus 22, 1ds3, 1ds3.
This proves nothing, other than I own and used those cameras, got paid, the images were run, life goes on.
There is some post here that says "trust your eyes" and I'm good on that. In fact this weekend I processed and purposed images from the p31+, the Nikon D700 and the Canon 1ds3.
At 200 iso the p31 + is great as long as everything is in focus, up to 400 iso the 1ds is also great (as long as it's in focus) up to 640 to 800 iso the d700 looks more detailed than those other cameras at 640 or 800 iso and since it hits focus better than both the canon and contax, it looks a lot more detailed . . . but that's just trusting my eyes.
Now in regards as to how anyone sells themself, that's their business and if a camera or a file size helps then great, but I've found it takes a lot to secure a decent gig and it's more than cameras, art, production values, costs, reputation or friendship. It's usualy a mixture of all of those things and in my experience if you sell yourself because of a piece of equipment, then you run the risk of becoming a ccommodity and commodities usually work there way down to the lowest costs possible.
But cameras, dxo, pixel pepping is really not that important. What is important is if you use what you believe to be best for your own personal work.