I think there are indeed alot of people selling their MF systems and with good reason.
Maybe it's the economics, maybe it's the work they do.
To be honest if I would only shoot high school seniors, weddings and the occasional portrait I would probarbly never upgraded to MF.
However especially in my free work I love to work on the edge, really push the pixels in photoshop sometimes and as mentioned before by others the files are just WAY more robust.
frank,
will all regards, somewhere you keep missing the point that the world's most famous living photographer is shooting with a Canon dslr and I don't think anyone would put AL in the league of high school senior photography. few event photoraphers can afford a 4 story building in manhattan.
in regards to "free" work, how does that equate to affording a meduim format system, in fact how does "free" equate to affording any camera.
why are working photographers selling their medium format systems, it's simple, they are limited to low iso and/or slower or more controlled subjects and advertising, including high end advertising and in today's knee jerk advertising economy clients requires faster production and to some extent more lifestyle oriented imagery.
this catagory is best served with a camera that reacts faster and NO it's not spray and pray, it's just a spontaneous look that requires higher iso, usually continuous or mixed light and a very fast reactive camera that will allow a photographer to produce the type of project that are coming through on all creative briefs I've seen in the last 18 months.
I will keep my two medium format backs because they are paid for and they will be used, but in the last 12 to 18 months they are used less and less and I feel will even be more marginalized in the next year.
understand I don't think any professional photographer that shoots for editorial and commerce wants to see any camera company or format go away, but medium format really needs higher iso and better lcds (and probably more useful autofocus) if they are going to continue to grow in the professional market. the limits on low iso is probably the most limiting factor, the next is costs.
also keep in mind that regardless of the printing process or size, though expert post production and retouching nobody can tell the difference in the end product and I promise you even the medium format makers can be fooled. does the box, the digital lab or a dozen other high end retouchers prefer a medium format file. maybe, but once they're done nobody knows the difference and you can be sure that when it comes to working on the edge, Pascal Dangin who owns the box is on the real edge and they really don't care what format you deliver to them.
then again it looks like the bar is going to be raised again by the dslrs as this is from the canon rumors page on the next 1d (not ds) but 1d Mark IV. true or not, it is very interesting and might give us some idea where Canon will go on the next 1ds series.
From canonrumorsdotcom
1dMarkIV
MP: 21.1 FF
ISO: 100-12800 (L:50 - H: 51,200)
Proc: Dual DIGIC IV
LCD: 3.5″ VGA LCD (Not sure about this)
FPS: 10fps
AF: 45 Point AF
AF: Face Detection
Feature: Various Crop Modes
Feature: LiveView with new AF
Feature: Movie Mode
Feature: Ergonomic Updates
Feature: GPS
Feature: Wifi
Feature: Dual CF & SD (4 total slots)
Announcement: Fall 2009