Having shot some published editorial fashion, I have not seen anything from Synn which an average Canon cannot do, or rather which Synn and an average Canon could not do. In fact the artist who adoped the name Cooter seems to be doing *very* well in fashion with micro 4/3, and he seems to be burning rubber like a Daytona driver.
I *have* seen some difficult and beautiful interior and architecture work here, and landscape, and I respect those guys for their creative and technical abilities, but I don't intend to do that type of image. Although I admit that another forum member and I did a test in Paris with Nikon, Phase, 4x5 and the Phase backs made mincemeat out of the D3x/24mm shift.
Also, MF prices have gone crazy. 10x Dslr prices need justification. A Hasselblad or Rollei film system showed its value at the first image. I remember when i got my Hassy, the first transparency was gorgeous.
Edmund
From film to digital, equipment size and cost really isn't that much different if you factor in all the costs.
8x10 always cost more than 4x5 and on down the line to 35mm, in lenses, bodies, tripods, filters and obviously film cost and processing.
But the only thing that has changed with digital is there is no more larger than medium format "film". I guess it's like a compression of equipment. medium format digital covers what 8x10 and medium format film covered, 35mm digital covers what medium format and 35mm film did all the way down to micro 4/3 that covers what 35mm film did.
The only reason to use micro 4/3 is the ability to cross purpose over to video with cameras like the Gh3 and soon the gh4, but other than that it's kind of the same.
Yes I think $35,000 for the phase cmos back is expensive, but right now phase is the only maker shipping so that may change as time goes on.
The upside with Phase is they usually make solid software and equipment, the downside is they don't move that much on prices, but compared to film it would take two to three camera formats to do what the phase cmos camera does, so it's kind of a wash.
Photography has always been very personal. I've known great photographers that do the strangest things and have used the strangest combination of equipment that works for them.
The only rule of professional photography is if it's pretty, hopefully somewhat unique and the client pays.
It's been a long time since I've had a client demand a certain format or pixel count. We carry a lot of stuff, so either way that's not an issue, but nobody has complained, other than me about what equipment I do or don't use, other than me. Hopefully they trust that we'll do what works.
My micro 43 kit use to fit in a messenger bag, now barely fits in a think tank bag I use to use for medium format.
I guess my point is there is no one camera does everything system. 35mm DSLR's get close, but in my view aren't exceptional in either stills and motion, obviously better at stills, lacking in motion.
Same with lenses, tripods, sound, etc. Professional work usually requires professional equipment, more today than ever.
We hear about instigram, tumbler all of these sites where everyone is a photographer with a mobile phone or a 5d3 and some of the imagery is great, but most of it is just great because they happened to be there.
Those sites don't really apply to me because most of the people on those sites, regardless of talent aren't making a living out of posting and giving their work away for free.
Any client, regardless of what they tell you that cruises instigram looking for a photographer, may tell you they're looking for a "real" or "different" style, but honestly what they're usually looking for is inexpensive work,.
The difference of what you see on those sites, vs working for commerce is being able to produce the same look on demand.
If a client needs great motion imagery with clean sound, or beautiful stills that reproduce, that's always difficult and even if the camera is small, everything around it isn't.
Now I would like to see more innovation, a one camera fits all world, but I haven't found it yet.
IMO
BC
P.S. but to answer the op's post of can I see the difference in formats? Only if I shoot it.
