Remember, the following is from a person up to his eyeballs in top end MF digital equipment ... including a Leaf Aptus 75, Hasselblad H3D/39 & H2D/CFH-22, and a Hasselblad CFV.
Not only do I have it, but I've been using MF digital backs for many years now and do know how to get the most from them.
The digital backs are fantastic, I have to have them to survive in the commercial world of photography. And admittedly they are fun to use personally if you are an "immediate need" sort of person. However, were it not for that commercial need, I may have only secured the CFV ... if that.
The reason is that film is equally fantastic, even if you bring it into the digital domain after processing the film, and never go into the darkroom.
So with a fraction of the investment a digital back represents, you can equal (or IMHO, even exceed) MF digital imagery. Now I know there are lot of pretty accomplished folks that would beg to differ with me. But in discussions with them I've felt many didn't like the dicipline of film in the first place, and tend to prefer the flawlessly smooth regimentation of pixels over the randomness of grain ... which IMO adds that quality of being more lifelike and provides more of a sense of visual depth.
I was struck by this as I began using the new Epson 3800 to make larger prints than I've done in the past. Mind you, I've made four prints so far, three of which were shot on film and scanned on my old Minolta Multi-Scan Pro ... NOT the Imacon 949. I'll be printing some of those 949 scans next.
So, IMO, for a comparative pittance, one can stand toe-to-toe with the best digital backs out there ... you just won't be fullfilling that "immediate need" gap if you have one : -)
Shoot film and enjoy. Digital backs will always be there if you want one.
Not only do I have it, but I've been using MF digital backs for many years now and do know how to get the most from them.
The digital backs are fantastic, I have to have them to survive in the commercial world of photography. And admittedly they are fun to use personally if you are an "immediate need" sort of person. However, were it not for that commercial need, I may have only secured the CFV ... if that.
The reason is that film is equally fantastic, even if you bring it into the digital domain after processing the film, and never go into the darkroom.
So with a fraction of the investment a digital back represents, you can equal (or IMHO, even exceed) MF digital imagery. Now I know there are lot of pretty accomplished folks that would beg to differ with me. But in discussions with them I've felt many didn't like the dicipline of film in the first place, and tend to prefer the flawlessly smooth regimentation of pixels over the randomness of grain ... which IMO adds that quality of being more lifelike and provides more of a sense of visual depth.
I was struck by this as I began using the new Epson 3800 to make larger prints than I've done in the past. Mind you, I've made four prints so far, three of which were shot on film and scanned on my old Minolta Multi-Scan Pro ... NOT the Imacon 949. I'll be printing some of those 949 scans next.
So, IMO, for a comparative pittance, one can stand toe-to-toe with the best digital backs out there ... you just won't be fullfilling that "immediate need" gap if you have one : -)
Shoot film and enjoy. Digital backs will always be there if you want one.