Ray, really, what is in this for me? I'm starting to feel sorry for you, you've never even shot a digital back. I have shot both on a regular basis, I work for and have worked for most of the major magazines between New York and London, I'm represented by a major Chelsea gallery. I keep myself anonymous because a google search on my name would otherwise come up with every technical problem I've ever had, not exactly what you want a client to see.
Really, it takes a good eye to tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference then I have to question how good of an eye you have. If you see the difference and decide that you prefer a DSLR for whatever reason that may be then that is fine, I totally understand. But to not see the difference is quite telling. (Unfortunately the difference is more a question of tonality and feel rather than a simple pixel peeping phenomenon so you do need a good eye to see it).
I'm done trying to educate you from a position of experience, maybe trying to was foolish of me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Woof75
I have never owned nor even tried an MF back and at my stage of the game it is very unlikely that I ever will. Like Ray, retirement is a way of life - not necessarily a particularly welcome one, but that´s how photography goes; when you´re hot you´re hot and when you´re not you´re not. There is not a lot in photography to encourage one to work at lower levels than one has experienced in the past, so a fond farewell is often the best way of getting out with some dignity...
But the point is this: when I was working my ass off I did change from Hasselblad to Bronica 67 and that was a disaster induced by stock considerations. Having ditched that Bronica nightmare I went back to a totally Nikon armoury for a few years and then made the error of allowing myself to think 67 again to the extent that I bought into Pentax 67. You guessed: another mistake. In effect, none of those 67 systems was as convenient as was the 66 nor were the results better.
And that´s one big point that Ray was making: whether you throw away film acreage or dump pixels, the result is the same in that your original starting point has been savaged and the assumptions based on original size become flawed.
But, if you work with either 35mm film or, for that matter, 35mm-based digital slr cameras, you do develop a style very much based on using the full frame, in which case, using the full small format does equate with cropping a larger sensor, as you will have to do, to suit most page shapes.
Now, you say you have worked with a great number of publications between NY and London - (the Atlantis Sunday Times, perhaps - just a joke, no offence), and you will probably admit from that experience that few publications run square pics very often, so the oblong comes into its own. You also say you have gallery representation. Fine, but from what I have personally seen, that is no guarantee of photographic ability, usually it turns out to be something very different that gets photographers onto gallery walls, but we need not get into that pile of manure right now. But, if we must talk gallery, then the square Hasselblad does have its place if only for the cute little V-cuts on the left-hand margin of the printed rebate which seem to be part of the magic potion that opens doors.
However, isn´t it frustrating that on an A3+ it´s the 35mm slr type of camera that can produce the bigger untrimmed image!
So where do I stand on all of this? On the side of free choice: use whatever turns you on but please, don´t let any one of us take it personally enough to get pissed of with fellow scribblers; we are mostly here to share bits of knowledge, experience and even perhaps just to fill in otherwise empty time. Got to say, when I was working, finding time for VAT returns, income tax returns or even sending out invoices was pushing things hard; chat-shows like this one would never have stood a chance!
So stand back, take a deep breath and leave it to the doggies to worry the ends of the same bone!
Ciao - Rob C