My way of looking at this subject can be contentious🙄:
The digital camera price premium—a subject of much debate—is really just pre-paying for the recurring film/processing costs up front. If you take pictures—rather than just talking about taking pictures—you must face it, sooner or later.
Whether a SLR or RF depends on what you intend to do, or must do. We all know RF cannot support long lenses—so tout wide-angles? We all know SLR shutters are louder, so some celebrate the soft Leica “clop”? The truth is, if you were a sports photographer, you use a Nikon or Canon, or you are not getting much pay. You wouldn’t care about the shutter noise either😀.
Some like to think RF users are the poets of photographers. I agree the muse or spontaneity of a poet can be spoiled by camera bulk and weight. If I had a “camera bearer”, I wouldn’t care either…let the poetry flow.
Film v. digital is another subject of much debate. Just remember, film had a couple centuries of development, digital only a decade. However, we do have a choice…going all the way back to char coals, cave man style.
Digital requires computer/software for further artful processing, instead of a dark room. So, how many have dark rooms? A computer is household appliance these days, and costs far less…and needing only desk space. Learning to use a computer is not more difficult than learning darkroom operations and techniques…at least you can see what you are doing🙂, in real-time.
Better yet, bracket (no film/processing costs, remember?) or re-learn how to do a straight shot…thus a straight print, with no need for further processing. Keep the best and delete the rest, RAW, JPEG or whatever had no real meaning anymore.
A new medium begets new display technology. I have recently downloaded a couple D3 samples and examined it carefully on my 22” 1,680 x 1,050 LCD screen. The image quality is impressive…far better than lousy prints I mostly see. And, who has made a 24” x 36” print lately?
[And one day soon, you will have large 1,080p (1,920 x 1,080) screens at home. Imagine a revolving gallery of your prized pictures while you are not watching HDTV.]
What do you care if the chip size is DX or FX? Who says the 24 x 36mm format had to be the standard forever? It was a make-do compromise of surplus movie stock to begin with, remember?
I believe the Nikon FX/EXSPEED image quality had brought the subject to a head. If a DSLR has been achieved, why not a DRF? We all know…deep down…the M8 was a disappointment fringing on insult. If that was all Solms can do then someone should kick its ass, it’s about time. By Photokina ‘08, history might just repeat itself.
Kodak had a painful transition from film to digital while many others simply waiting to die. Kodak’s new slogan should well be:
“You push the button…we [and others] have already done the rest.”
Take pictures.
