Hi Eddie/forum.
Your experience sounds similar to mine. Coming from Hasselblad film days, moving into Dslr. Then missing MF. Followed by some tossing and turning about whether to bite the bullet and get back into it.
For a commercial/advertising type photographer, there is no question that MF is the way to go. However, being portrait photographers, as we both are, the reasonings are more esoteric.
The reasoning involving whether the company would have profits sufficient to sustain ongoing R&D is important but... R & D of what: cheaper manufacturing methods? More attractive consumer gimmickry?
R&D with companies is to improve one thing. The bottom line. And quite justifiably so. So when considering that question, I went more for the company's track record.
As far as I know, I am the only portrait photographer in my city using medium format, so if you go by the quantity of people crowding the nicanon stands as compared tho the Hasselblad one, then I am the foolish one.
Then again, my professional satisfaction comes from the craft itself, not the number of customers I get through the door. I am certainly not saying that this is the case with you Eddie as you appear to be a long time pro, and I am not saying that, trying to be elitist. I just don't like having a crazy studio with lots of staff dealing with lots of people causing lots of problems. I prefer slower and better.
From purely a portrait viewpoint, Practically speaking, what did I miss about shooting with the Medium Format (originally film)?
1/ Not being able to see subtle expression changes through the viewfinder. Nowadays, this is directly responsible for me getting the shot in 3 on the Blad as opposed to 10 on a dslr.
I discounted the new Blad H5D50-CMOS because of it's smaller sensor/viewfinder image size. The CCD version of the 50 being bigger and more viewable. Dslr is such a disappointment compared to the Blad when looking through the viewfinder.
2/ The overall 'real' detail that inherently comes from capturing more information.
I want to be able to look into someone's eyes in a portrait print and see real imagery, not software pixel filling.
3/ Of course, the lovely Bokeh has to be experienced, as you have yourself and that most of us love.
My choice to switch back to MF from dslr has probably made zero difference to my bottom line. The purchase of a H5D 50 and lenses will keep me having to work longer to pay for it, as well. So has the sacrifice been worth it?
Improvements for me, over DSLR.
I now get almost all my critically focused, wide aperture shots in focus. True focus helps with super critical ones.
I can crop and not look like a crop as much.
Huge amounts of 16 bit chunks of data to hold all the tones I want, even under heavy manipulation. Typically 270mb 16 bit tiffs. Yummy.
Yes, and it is nice for customers questioning me on the camera, and not saying that they have the next model after mine. I even ham it up by saying, 'There's six of 'em on the moon and one in orbit'.
But, the decision that I had made the 'right' decision for me was confirmed when I had a shoot yesterday. I realised that over the last several shoots that whenever I had the luxury of a bit more time and wanted to come up with the best image, with the side benefit of also giving me the most personal satisfaction, which camera do I reach for.... That turned out to be 90% of my shoots! including web corporate headshots.
One unexpected side benefit has been, my sex life has improved. My wife finds me more 'hunky' from my improved shoulder and bicep tone...from lifting extra kilos of camera every which way, every day.
I'm sure you will turn out great imagery no matter what, so good luck to you Eddie.