Ray, beside the sickness of this discussion and also leaving beside the fact that all this conversation is pointless and pathetic I'll try to help you out.
Sorry, image looks oversharpened. look at white lines around teeth, then hair. Film would be smoother.
Anyway, all you who feel a dead horse is being beaten here: just don't read anymore, thats pretty simple isn't it??? And let others interested and who may have something positive or informative to say post away (and keep the smarmy comments for other deserving folks like your assistants or whomever is "lesser than thou"). There have been some valuable comments in the thread which wouldn't have occurred if you had your way. So, chill, don't read the thread.
Is there a problem with that scenario? Good.
There are many folks who have a hard time putting their hands on a $35,000 dollar rig for a sustained period of time who, at least initially, benefit from as much varied input as possible. Perhaps they are even younger and less well heeled. Who knows. Tolerance is a virtue, especially when you don't have to read or post in a thread. Getting the point???
Good. Now, as someone who has taught digital photography at university, shot 8x10" down through virtually every format, shot professionally for years from editorial to advertising, owns drum scanner and prints to more than 6 feet, owns a $15K digital rig, and for those arteests out there has a MFA in Photo, regularly exhibits work and could give a fcsk about boring commercial work, I humbly cede the stage to any person still interested in discussing the topic at hand.
P.S. if you are on the fence now, I would recommend waiting until the Photokina in the Fall where, who knows, some improvements in the MFDB might be announced. There is a real quandary for those who desire "large format" or medium format quality yet don't have a years salary to blow on the hardware. I agree with others that the way you work with the camera and the types of images it is suited for is more important than how sharp it renders eyelashes. I have shown 1dsmk2 images at 4 x 5 feet and they held up well (though they were not detail oriented images). For work reproduced in most magazines etc. the Canons have more that enough resolution - but there are aesthetic, technical and personal reasons why they might be ill equipped for certain work. I await a mature MFD system (probably the HY6) that I can purchase that I can swap the back onto my Alpa SWA when needed. But until then, I will continue to gather the obscure info that only those who are already long term shooters of medium format can provide.
Viva the stupid thread
