"Always leave your ego at the door" and "Always know who you are talking to."
I'd suggest that you may want to reconsider your comments
That's good advice to live by, but hey, we're just talking here. Nothing serious. Everyone here has a right to their own opinion. I try to always put a disclaimer on my notes that says, "Hey this is just my opinion. It might not apply to your style of work". I think everybody ought to do that, especially when they make blanket statements like "this camera is the best" or "this technique is the best".
I also think, in this particular thread, that we might be talking about two or three different things:
* Resolution, between MF and 35.
* Spacialocity, (which is my word by the way), about the optical spacialocityness between MF and 35.
* Mojo-ness, which is closely related to Spacialocity.
It's important that it stay clear what we're talking about.
My garage tests, regarding RESOLUTION, showed that the 1ds2 and the 5D, with proper SmartSharpening or USM, could clearly hold their own with the Phase backs. (The only one that they can't run with is the P45, which is just a monster of tight resolution and detail).
But then again, the P45 is somewhat limited to what you can do with it, due to slow recycle, especially when shooting tethered. I found it very frustrating to shoot PEOPLE with; it simply couldn't keep up, due to the amount of data transmitted. (I shoot People, so every comment I make is related to shooting People).
I also find the whole B.S. Factor, (my word too), of MF compared to 35, to be much larger. More gear, more heavy, not as elegant a design, multiple battery chargers, etc. The Canon is just EASY. I told a friend the other day: I could buy the 1ds3, the 50 1.2, the 85 1.2, and the 35 1.4, and just be DONE with it. Two bodies, three lenses, throw them in a bag, walk on the plane -- super light, super easy. That is very tempting.
If Canon truly does make the viewfinder larger, this time around, and the LCD is as nice as its reported to be, and they calmed down the AA Filter on it, and the USB cord doesn't fall out of the side of the body when you tether with it, then Canon 1ds3 is certainly going to make a potential MF customer think twice. I've long felt -- Hasselblad doesn't need to be afraid of Phase or Sinar; they need to be afraid of CANON. Canon is the one that'll take them all down, even with that funky 24x36 shape. It's just THAT easy to work with, and the files are THAT good.
Again, related to Spacialocity, yeah, you might get a little more mojo with 645 over 35, but still, it's not going to get that Magical Feeling until you get to 4x5, and there are no digital options for that, (for shooting people). So, if that's the case, 35 and MF, they're both the same -- just take your pick. No difference.
To get a taste of space, check out Richard Renaldi or Alec Soth, both shooting 8x10. If you want some Liquid Love, just shoot a few sheets of that. Sweet, like no other.
http://www.renaldi.com/http://www.alecsoth.com/or Nicholas Nixon, or Sally Mann.
8x10 is what separates the men from the boys. (But again, we're talking about Personal Work, here, not Commercial Money Tethering). It's important here too, to make that distinction.
Just one opinion. Anyone might not agree, (and that's just fine). The important thing is TEST FOR YOURSELF, so you know inside your own gut.
