Yes, low light is a money saver but at the expense of image quality at the moment. As far as the nuke vs AE comparison, AE also supports EXR and a lot of the stuff AE does, but just like cheaper SLR's the implementation of those features is half assed or slow which makes their use in production (i work in commercials/film vfx) dangerous. Yes come of the consumer grade cameras have a lot of gadgets that do make life easier but many pro's rather have equipment that does less, is a lot more reliable and is focused on a few key functions that work flawlessly. As cool and inexpensive SLR video and low light photography at high ISO is, no serious post production can be done on it if quality is paramount. Perhaps 80% of the market is willing to go for good enough and does not want to spend 500% more money for a 20% improvement, but there are still people out there that turn the extra 20 percent high end gear gives into a final product that looks vastly better when compared to the rest.
Larkis,
I agree that the differences between AE and Nuke reside for the most part in the speed and implementation rather than in the real capabilities. A nodal based software anyway appears to me the grail when it comes to have an overview, specially on complex projects, but yes, in absolute AE would do the job in 95% it just would do it the painfull way.
About the MF look and image quality, I don't think anybody would complain about having the maximum possible IQ and larger possible files.
But honestly, it's been years and years now since photographers, MF users, are desperatly asking for serious improvements in usability and costs and if huge steps have been done in the sensors resolution, less moire etc...the story starts to feel like a remake of the same saga and a part from more MP and more consistant files (wich is nice), very little has been done in the other parts. Of course the vendors won't agree with that and could probably display a long list of those miracle improvements.
The thing is that all that turns arround the back, point! and even there we still have to tether. But talking about pro stuff, the bodies are, sorry for this expression, real toys than a serious thing, and it's been like that for ages, and it seems sadly that it will be like that tomorrow.
Talking about prices, even the big boys I know here, with a top carreer and reputation are looking at numbers since the crisis and the echo I have is that the MF brands are becoming more and more a problem than a solution in commercial (I insist in commercial) and people are very aware that the big brands are pushing technology so fast, so good and so close to the needs that the magic IQ at the expense of other parameters becomes very relative. Not everyone is in that case, no, but the tendency is there, no doubt. It's been ages now since I haven't touched a MF camera in a shooting session with a pro (and would like to).
Think that now, most professional have to think also about motion equipment. You just check the price of a 5k Epic, check the price of the latest MF back... and a quick calculation is rapidly done. We are not in 2007 anymore. The game has completly changed, there are new players, very good players, and the technology of the smaller sensors goes faster than ever.
So, if talking about passion, about craft...yes, I follow you and MF is great for that. But we should not ignore that today any commercial pro would make beneficial much more with a 1000 euros Panasonic, actually I've read some of the best
Red One pros in France are amazed by this Panasonic they qualified the best bang-for-the-buck, some of those guys are photographers.
IMO, the problem of this segment of the industry is that it is now too conservative, practising an orthodoxy in a world that is changing at the speed of light.
