Shouldn't this have been posted two weeks ago on the 1st April?
There is a much easier and cheaper way. Shoot transparency film with a 5"x4" bellows camera. Scan that single shot at 4,000 ppi and it will give you a 320 MP image. Your shutter speed of 1/125th sec with studio flash means that your model can have expression rather than having to hold a death like pose for half an hour. Also if you look closely at the samples in the review above you can see stitching errors which are unacceptable for professional work. If 320 MP doesn't impress you, then get hold of a 10"x8" film camera. That will give you 1,280 MP images. In other words a 300 dpi print would be 11ft high. I've just checked on ebay and you can pick up all the camera kit you need for under £1,000.
This bag is aimed at professional photographers, however it only has space for one camera body. Myself and all the pro photographers I know always carry a second body as backup whenever we are on an assignment.Also, you often need to be carrying a pair of flashguns for the same reason.Hence, the fundamental problem with this revolver system is that it is an inefficient use of space, which is made worse by the lack of movable compartment spacers.My Lowepro backpack (Flipside 400AW), can fit 2 bodies, 3 lenses, 2 speedlites, accessories, tripod, 1 ltr water and a cheese sandwich.
"..... is a must-have if you plan on taking serious pictures", this is misleading advice. The change this product makes is from awful to mediocre.
Rachotilko: I would like to ask the informed ones here (people with actual experience with different sensor formats):
Herr Schulz talks about different image characteristics of the bigger formats compared to the 35mm FF. I take his claim seriously - at least because there are some supporting comments in this discussion.
My question is: what is the primary cause of the difference in image characteristics ? Herr Schulz used an analogy: S is better than FF the same way as FF is better than small sensor compact. Which I think is completelly wrong: excessive noise of compacts is sufficiently demonstrable in common print sizes. But D800E is capable of taking high ISO shots without noticeable drop in IQ.
The only part that can bring about advantage in terms of IQ to "above FF" (such as S or MF) systems is *optics*. There simply are limits on what FF lens can do (in terms sharpness, distortions, CA, diffraction), that can be overcome only by means of the format enlargement.
Is this assertion right ?
There is a less dramatic quality difference in format sizes with digital than there is with film. However there are still some basic principles which apply. If an image is to be reproduced at a given size, then the fewer times that the image format has to be magnified to reach that given size, then flaws will be less obvious. If for example you wish to make an A2 print from a Full Frame sensor then you are magnifying the image by 17.5 times. That really shows up all those lens issues of chromatic aberrations, edge sharpness, wide aperture failings, etc. Also consider that Leica and Hassleblad lenses are made to higher specifications.I haven't checked the sensor specifications, but usually medium format digital cameras work at a higher colour bit rate, which makes for better accuracy.Lastly, many top end agencies and clients specify medium format as part of the selection process, so as to quickly narrow down to the top commercial photographers.