Quite why this is now in danger of turning into a 'one format compared to another thread' is beyond me.
If I understand the OP correctly he is saying he feels he has more in common with the folk that post here rather than on the small format threads. This forum has always attracted those who earn their crust in the industry regardless of the size of the sensor they use. The problem is this is the 'Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography Forum' and therein lays disharmony, and if I understand the position of the OP, the reason for this thread.
Agreed.
This section of the forum tends to be format myopic, as if a few millimeters here or there will have any effect or whether a photographer is considered good, or professional decided by what type of camera they own.
This section of the forum also tends to be schizophrenic.
One on hand it endeavors to reach the more advanced amateur or professional photographer, but still clings to a heading that is format restrictive, allowing certain people to adopt the role of moderator police desperately trying to hold to a certain standard that is virtually irrelevant and doesn't exist in the professional world.
Worse it draws the brand and format brigade to argue like a moth to a flame. Every time I see one of these format, brand war threads, it reminds me of those guys that sit in sports bars, have crocked arguing why the Red Sox suck and the Yankees are divine. (or vice versa). It's conversation that goes nowhere.
I understand the camera reps and dealers pushing a brand or format, especially since the margins are higher on the more expensive cameras, but every time I hear a photographer scream they would only shoot with one format, I think, wow, how limiting.
When I see a photograph posted on the "show your image section" (or whatever it's called, I think of all the thousands of really outstanding photographs shot with everything from 35mm to Point and Shoots that would be excluded (once again by the self appointment format police), if you could ever get those photographers to post and share here anyway.
In a way I think that is a shame because this could be a great place for real discussion on what it takes to produce, style, shoot and deliver an exceptional photograph without some kind of outdated format requirement. All because of a few millimeters in frame size means something to someone that still clings to their 7 year old 22mpx camera back.
Now in all honesty, I shoot the camera(s) I am comfortable with. I love and use my contax (plural), but am not silly enough to think that it works for all, or sometimes most circumstances. I actually would buy into the Hasselblad system today (and still might) just because I would like a little higher sync speed for some images, but I don't know that I want to drop even $20,000 in today's world for another system. I can think of a lot better places to put my money that will move my career forward.
I hate to say it, but in today's digital photography world, the camera format or brand has less to do with the photograph than probably anytime in history.
In the days of film, few buyers of photography asked or cared about the format, even though there was usually a different look or style associated with format. There's exception to every rule, because there was also specific functions you could only do with a large format film cameras, though today many of these functions are now done in software, blending of images and retouching/post production.
In fact in the film days, 90% of the reasons we used any of the larger formats was it made it easier for clients to edit, without having to bend over and look at a thousand slides through a loupe, or retouch directly on a large format transparency or print.
But even then most camera and format choices were the decision and domain of the photographer.
With digital capture, the light box is now a computer screen, the format's so detailed and large that all of them cover much more than the 2000 pixel wide canvas every client uses to preview and edit.
In digital two available formats, 645 (or almost 645) and 35mm are very close together. So close that printing for your portfolio, a short run book, or web display shows little difference. I have portfolios of all sizes up to 13x19 pages and nobody that looks ever comments about any part of the technical requirements.
The questions I do get revolve around budget, crew size, how I handle post production, work with the subject, create or add to the creative brief, deliver a project (the list goes on) but it is a given that most creative buyers of content know that a good photographer will use what's appropriate and they also know that 99.999% of all professional digital cameras will fit almost any need.
What I do know is years ago medium format camera/back makers shot themselves in the foot or better put blew their legs off by not keeping up with moveable iso and a decent lcd preview. If anything kills the buzz of a shoot, it's having to always be tethered to view and display an image that looks close to what the intended version will be. Some of this would be passable if the medium format makers cameras weren't priced at double the smaller formats and usually required double the workflow and time in workflow matters.
Last night I flew in and got to the studio at 11:15. I had a weeks shoot that had to be processed for web galleries, edited and displayed by the deadline of this morning and working straight through we finished at 6:45 am. Now had I shot a camera that really had the ability to embed a look into the file, produce an in camera jpeg large enough for web display without processing, I could have cut my time down to 1/2 of that (at most).
So IMO it's not the size of the frame, it's the usability of the camera from start to finish. Actually it's just about the photograph, nothing more.
Maybe I'm stubborn enough to use the cameras I want to use (which does include medium format), but sometimes I even shake my head and wonder why I bother. Especially at 6:45 am.
BC
