In film days MF was delivering more to his user than just higher resolution and better quality, it was always considered as the path to real photography due to its flexibility, choice of film for the task at any time and compatibility with LF/view camera movements (nearly all LF users had at least one MF back). There were some MF cameras that where not offering interchangeable backs (Pentax, Exakta, etc), but this was only a small minority, the main demand from the users was because of the above mentioned "MF values". In these days however and while DSLR quality improves all the time and will continue to do so, there seems to be a tendency from manufacturers to only preserve the "improved quality" part of these MF values, which do improve quality indeed, but don't improve photography. Even the shallower DOF of MF is now easy to overcome by the faster DSLR lenses. I wonder if the path that some manufacturers follow, like Pentax or Leica, that can only benefit IQ, is of any point for the future or if the consumers will prefer to access the extra quality with DSLR advancement. I also wonder if these makers can be compared with the "interchangeable back" makers (p1/leaf, hass, sinar) or if they should be considered as Canon/Nikon/Sony competitors. I also wonder if the choice of the interchangeable back manufactures to design their bodies with LCDs and complex menus along with useless functions for the advanced photographer is the right choice. Especially for Hasselblad H though, I wonder if their choice to stop the production of the CF series of backs is to their benefit. Any other thoughts? Regards, Theodoros.
I see it like this:
One of the flexibility factors of the past were film magazines. We dont need this any more, we have a display so we dont need to shoot polaroids first, we can change ISO, and we can convert color to S/W images. So nearly every digital camera has this flöexibilitx today.
The second flexibility factor I see are viewfinders. The camera being most flexible here is the Hy6, its the only actual camera IMO which offers a nice WLF, or a good45 degree finder. I dont see this flexibility in Phase and only for some part in the H-system (the H-WLF is ugly IMO).
I think interchangable finder is a nice to have but makes-on the other side-the camera bigger and makes it less resistant to dirt and humidity.
The main (and maybe only) flexibility factor of a seperation of back and body I see is the ability to use the digital back on a tech camera. This can be a big argument to have movements.
IMO it doesnt make sense to put cameras in categories, you have to figur out what YOU need and want and then find your solution.
For example in my case a weatherproof camera, which is good for handholding, which has fast lenses being good wide open, and a reliable accurate AF means more flexibility than an interchangable viewfinder. For someone else a WLF might be a preference and therefore a must.
If we talk about the S2 IQ is an important factor for me, but there are other things why I prefer it over my Nikon as long as I dont have to shoot in dim light or fast action. One important is the size of the viewfinder, another important the quality of the lenses (I dont know a 50mm FOV AF-lens for which shows the same bokeh and quality like the 70mm S lens), the user interface.
What do I miss most? to be able to use a tech-camera here and then or in other words-a good T/S lens.
By the way I think my "dream" would have been a 35mm-sized Leica S camera which accepts Leica-R lenses but also some new Leica-AF lenses.
All this with the user interface of the S2 and with a sensor of the same character (CCD, non AA), maybe with same pixel density like the S2.