am i really the only one who is slightly turned off by the color of the MF samples compared to the canon? the sky? the trees! even worse in the crops....
i am with cooter, canon skintones make clients happy....
have been tempted by the d3x as well because of the DR, but then i come across one of my DMF or leica M shoots and remember spotting and dirt and that is that.....
the new phase 180 is the first back in a long time that actually interests me....8x10 quality for fun and clean and fast (enough) 20mpix at high iso sounds right...but i have a feeling the next canon will take care of that urge....and it really has been nice to not have any gear envy AND not spend silly money for 3? years now (since the 5dii came out....)
Yes the look of a file is a personal opinion. Always has been, film or digital, motion or still.
Regardless, I've set up multiple tech stations half a dozen times. One running my Contax and Phase backs the second station the 1ds3. (Actually now the third station the RED).
Same light, same subject, best settings through the dedicated software, EOS utility for Canon, C-1 V3, V5, V6 for the P21+ and _30+.
Each time the client commented they liked the look of the Canon files.
Now I've never had a client demand I shoot any still camera and they all defer to my judgement, but regardless that's the response that has covered editorial, lifestyle advertising, fashion, beauty and retail from 6 different art directors of all age ranges and experience.
I usually just go with the camera or back I feel is best and I'll admit I have an affection for the Contax, my current backs to me are kind of like a slow film that will look better later, or in other words we're going to do a lot of work in post.
The Canons I just see as an acceptable tool, but a very easy tool to use. I can't really fall in love with the Canons like I do the Contax, but for a lot of work the Canon is just an easy fit, especially with today's schedule and using continuous lighting.
Now, I'll admit I don't have a clue what anyone means when they say "ultimate Image Quality". I've probably read that phrase on this forum 1,000 times and from a professional standpoint don't get it.
If I need more dynamic range, that's my job to add fill light, or craft the scene. If I need more resolution than 22 mpx, I guess I'll need to find new clients because nobody's asking. If I need pleasing color I think that is very subject, scene, light depended, though the Canon out of the camera seems the closest.
But to be clear I don't see any professional digital camera as a certain format. 645 is a larger frame than 35mm but really not like the film days of 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10. No, not anymore and I don't think clients do either. They see the 27" monitor as the format, because that's what their looking at.
My 5d's I use for B camera video, though did shoot one editorial job with them as stills. I do believe they produce a sharper file than the 1ds3. Actually for the costs they're pretty amazing.
Now I recently saw some very nice raw files from a hd4 40 mpx hasselblad and it got me interested in the look especially the skin tones. It is a camera I'll try soon, when our schedule permits.