Dont let the doom mongers put you off. I know quite a few wedding photogs that use Lecia RFs for weddings, both film and digital. Film is not a detriment to getting work, - all you need is a strong portfolio and good images. Its all about the images at the end of the day. The format is irrelevant as its all convertible. You can scan film if need be for digital delivery, and a lot of digital images now apply film-look filters in PS.
Focus on the images and you will be fine.
I don't believe there is any "doom monger-y" going on here. Confusion in the rush to make our points perhaps.
I think there needs to be some clarification as people are coming from all across the spectrum with their opinions and tales of 'knowing of many pros using certain set-ups.'
If we're relating our comments back to the OP (who bless him, didn't even ask for any advice...he just wanted to have a wee moan) then we should look at what he says "I'm an aspiring Pro photographer" and "I'm aspiring to work in journalism."
So, we need to understand which section of photo related journalism, don't we? If he means working for local, regional or national press then surely we can all agree that while he
could buy a film or digital M he would be extremely hard pressed to get his images picked up on a regular basis ( the basic reasons for this a) digital is what most newspapers and agencies are set up for now b) he has a far greater range of versatility available to him with a DSLR set-up (think super wides, long zoom telephotos, flash guns and power packs etc and c) even if he managed to get some good shots the simple fact is he's up against a very crowded market and that market tends to have ALL the gear to get the images from the location to the Press Desk within half an hour...perhaps not all but a good selection for immediate use on websites and the next print run.
If the area of journalism he wishes to get into is documentary or more "in-depth" photo-journalism then I'd suggest his options open up considerably more - though will still be based on so many more factors than simply what he enjoys using, moreso on what he will be able to use under his working environment. Maybe re-read Turtles comments a few pages back - he works in that area and so I'd personally listen to his experiences and expertise just as I would a Wedding Pro if the OP had suggested that was what he wanted to do.
Professional photography is a vast and sprawling arena with many and varied needs - the suggestions that seem to hint that you can use anything and get equally good results are misleading to someone starting out. The gear you use will depend on what you do, how you do it and whether it is viable to do it in that manner, what your client wants...and maybe when they want it. So some can and will use RF cameras, some will use camera phones others still LF and probably the majority DSLR's.
I mention all of the above in relation to everyday working Pro's rather than the Lee Friedlanders and others who have carved out a (worldwide) reputation over the decades and many outlets/clients will bend over backwards for in terms of timescales and medium etc.
So Ansel, I don't really mean to pick on you (though I have no doubt you can defend both yourself and your viewpoint) but your post highlighted to me that establishing what kind of work we're discussing does have an impact on what you use and when. Your point about it being all about the images is also half right, in terms of talking professionally, its all about the images
and the invoices🙂
