I think there is a convergence of markets. As DSLR reaches higher it
has certainly closed the gap between MF. Keep in mind a double in MP
only yields a 25% gain in resolution and in many cases this
resolution is redundant for many reproduction needs. Now the
argument that lenses are more expensive is not entirely true. In
order to take advantage of D3X high MP count you need the best lenses
Nikon can offer these typically cost in the range of $1400 and up.
Now if Nikon redesigns some of its primes and sells them reasonably I
for one would be very pleased. Current crop of primes I have do not
compare to Nikon's newest lenses.
$1400 is pretty cheap compared to over $3,000 per lens for the premium quality MF glass, especially glass that syncs fast with strobes. Nikon is a business, and the reason why we haven't seen new primes pop up in the past is because there isn't a big market for them compared to those wanting quality zooms (which arguably, today, are (practically speaking) optically on par with the primes and offer more versatility to most photographers, the prime of course offering a wider aperture.
I too wish Nikon would produce a 50 and 85mm f/1.2 that was really sharp by f/2. I am however cognizant that the mass of photographers don't need such, and Nikon as a business does better producing what is needed/wanted the most.
Here's the deal. A photographer will realistically spend less than $2,000 per
premium lens (prime or zoom) under 200mm with Nikon or Canon. With a MF system, a photographer can realistically plan on spending over $3,000 per top of the line glass and find it grossly expensive on the wide and telephoto lenses.
Where MF beats Nikon and Canon IMHO is long term investment. I am
unsure how much more pixels they can pack into the format of 35mm.
However MF can continue to up the MP for sometime. Now do I really
need all that information. So if I were to make the investment in MF
now and spend the additional $6000 or so I could spread that out over
a longer period of time then I could with a D3X perhaps.
I'm not so sure I agree here, the MF body that you invest in today, is (like dslr) old news a year and a half from now, as better comes to market. Digital photography is still changing too rapidly to consider a dslr or digital back, an 'investment'.
To me the camera/lens is just a tool until I truly need something better, or until the work of others in the same category that I'm competing, is of a much better quality by virtue of their camera and glass alone. That is a real world signal that it's time to upgrade, not because x-amount of new cameras have come to market at any given time.
My current buying cycle for DSLR is about 18 months not very long for an
equipment investment of several thousand dollars or $8000 for the
D3X. That is why I choose not to buy the D3X it is just to much
money for something that will last less then two years.
This is where you have me really confused and curious. Why would you be purchasing (other than for tax and accounting purposes) a new body every 18 months. To me that just doesn't make sense. Let's pretend that you had purchased a Canon 1ds3 18 months ago, would you find the camera out-of-date today? What would be the benefit in your photography to switch to another dslr? Practically and in all likelihood, absolutely no benefit exists (I can understand a tax/accounting/depreciation aspect of doing business but that's another ball of wax all together.)
Those who were shooting portraits, or still life, with a D2x or 5D back in 2005 (over three years ago when those cameras came out) just now, within the last 60 days, have a dslr alternative. The only alternative available prior to the new high res camera bodies from Nikon & Canon, was the 21mp 1ds3.
MF is great, but if you purchased a MF back several years ago, it doesn't measure up to the IQ nor resolution that is available today.
- My point is, it doesn't make sense to upgrade, unless you need it to remain competitive in your respective market, or it provides you with a significant increase in productivity, ease-of-use, etc.
The burning question in my mind, is exactly what cameras have you been upgrading from every 1.5 years ?????? .. and what do you shoot? Other than taking advantage of the new FF bodies such as the 1ds3, why were you switching? What was the advantage gained each time you 'upgraded'?
Think of it this way.. A girl at college needs a computer only to type her english assignments on. She doesn't surf the web, download music, etc.. She just needs a computer to take to the library, type her paper as she looks through various books while researching her topic, and later to organize and print out the final paper.
Now, her uncle gives her a 4-year-old notebook computer with 512meg of ram, running at 2ghz is far adequate for what she needs the computer for. There is no reason for her to 'upgrade' if all she's doing is running Microsoft Office 2002, and Windows XP Pro.
... now when she gets to grad school and is required to do loads of research online, surf the web with 5 windows open at a time, while at the same time running an interactive anatomy/physiology program with heavy graphics, and all the while has music playing in the background from her iTunes collection.... then it's time for a serious upgrade
If you've been shooting with a 21mp Canon dslr, even today, there is little (if any) reason to purchase the newer dslrs that have come to market- doesn't make business sense (aside from tax/accounting write off). Generally speaking, the most sensible upgrade path would be to a 31mp or higher MF back.
Just my humble logic
You've me curious about your frequency in upgrading
--
Enjoy the Day
Paul Guba New Jersey Photographer
http://www.gubavision.com
You and your family have a very happy holiday!!
--
Teila K. Day
