1) What did I buy?
Leaf Credo 40, Mamiya 645 DF+, Schneider 80mm LS lens, Mamiya 35mm, 150mm and 210mm FP lenses.
2) Why did I buy?
Because 35mm cameras do not render color in a satisfactory way for me. It took too much work for me to get skintones to look the way I wanted them to look; even then not completely perfect.
Also, I am not a fan of 3:2 for portraits and I wanted high speed flash sync for on location work.
3) Do I like the stuff?
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Better than the D800 for color rendition (Portraiture). I also like the tactile feel of my MF gear (Film and digital) better than 35mm cameras.
5) Is it better than my Sony Alpha equipment (Alpha 900, 77, and 99, and half a dozen lenses)?
I do not own any Sony gear, but the skintones from A99 files generally look better than Canon and Nikon.
6) Is DR better?
Maybe. I never shoot test charts and in real life, when using strobes, any camera made today has enough DR. The Credo does have smoother transitions between tones though.
7) Is colour rendition better?
For what I shoot, yes. 35mm files require a lot more work and localized edits to deliver somewhat satisfactory results.
8 ) Is aliasing an issue?
Does it exist? Yes.
Does it matter to me? No, not really. If it becomes that bothersome, I find the moire tool in C1P quite effective.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes! Real life shooting all the way. I don't do test shooting beyond the bare minimum.
10) If I do something important, will I use the Credo or resort to DSLR?
Everything I shoot is important to me. The Credo is my primary kit and the D800 the backup.
The D800 rarely comes out of the bag these days; unless I want a super wide perspective (with the 16-35) which is rather infrequent for portraiture.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Color rendition, tonality, sharpness, overall "Fullness" of the image. Also, a very important and underrated factor: The actual user experience while shooting. The DSLRs feel like clackety toys to me now. The MF gear feels like a real camera. YMMV.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
- Cost. I wouldn't mind if the LS lenses were 20-30% cheaper.
- AF performance - Adequate for my style, but could of course be better.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
I got my MF gear when I was fairly confident that my skills have evolved to a point where I can justify it. In general, I have been shooting higher quality work since I moved to MF.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Every shot gets processed, but the MFG images provide a better starting point. Of course, an understanding of Lighting and Composition s fundamental; no matter what one is shooting with.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes. 3:2 can jump off a cliff and never be seen again, for all I care.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes. More LS lenses when I have saved up enough.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
I don't "Invest" in camera gear. I buy them to use them and enjoy the experience and of course, create art with it.
If I wanted to invest, I'd give my banker a call.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes! Every second that I work with it.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
When I travel, I take either my Bronica ETRSi or my Nikon V1 with me.
It's a welcome change from the usual work I do.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I don't go for workshops as I hardly find them worth my time. I prefer to experiment and learn.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
For my use, I see differences at 12"x15".
22) Is MFD fun to use?
I wouldn't have gone down that road if it wasn't fun.
Enough talk. Here's an image: