Canon 1DX or Phase One?

Sw1tchFX · Feb 16, 2012

I know there's at least one person on here who has preordered a D4..

Considering that the D3x is about $8000, the 1DX $6500, and the D4 $6000, if your main schtick is shooting portraits, was there any consideration in switching to medium format digital? Used systems, like Mamiya 645AFD's and DM22's can be had for $5000-$6000 with lens.

If I was going to spend that much money on a 35mm type SLR, to shoot pictures of mostly stagnant subjects, i'd at least consider Medium format.

What's your take? For $6000 would you rather have a D4 body, or an older Medium format digital system?

gsgary · Feb 16, 2012

MF, i'm really getting into MF film the look is so much better than digital

tirediron · Feb 16, 2012

My next major purchase is going to be a Phase One back for my 645AFD. The bigger the negative/sensor, the better! :thumbup:

rexbobcat · Feb 16, 2012

1DX for me.

I don't do much studio stuff, so I don't really need a "dedicated" studio camera. Heh.

djacobox372 · Feb 16, 2012

You left out the d800 which is 36mp for just $3k

Medium format cameras are typically slow to focus and slow to shoot compared to their small format counterparts.

Derrel · Feb 17, 2012

I would enjoy the versatility, fast handling, compact size, light weight, and affordability of the new D800, for $3,000. The low-end medium format backs are not really "medium format" in the sense of 120 square or 6x7 or 6x9...the sensors are actually smaller than any of those. I would not spend 4-5-6k on "old tech"...I'd look for something much,much lower-cost in a used MF back.

What is going to be the IMAGE SIZE out of a low-end MF back when cropped to a tall??? Will it be as tall as a D800 frame, at over 7,000 pixels tall? WOndering also about the video capabilities of a d-slr versus a $5-$6,000, used, "old-tech" MF back...

usayit · Feb 17, 2012

I personally would enjoy the medium format digital BUT they don't handle as well nor as versatile as the Canon 1DX. There's also a factor about cost of additional lenses which I have not looked into.

IMO, the cheapest (and modern) way to get into medium format digital is the Pentax 645D. $10000 for the BRAND NEW is very close to the Canon's $8000 USD mark.

Markw · Feb 17, 2012

As much of a fan of Nikon as I am, if I were strictly studio, or strictly landscape, I would go with the MF digital. But, if that's not absolutely, 100% exclusively what I'm doing, which it's not, I would go with one of the other three models. If I really wanted to get as close to MF resolution, I'd go with the D800 (which I did).

Mark

gsgary · Feb 17, 2012

djacobox372 said:
You left out the d800 which is 36mp for just $3k

Medium format cameras are typically slow to focus and slow to shoot compared to their small format counterparts.

Thats the whole point you end up putting more into the shot

gsgary · Feb 17, 2012

How about this setup

o hey tyler · Feb 17, 2012

Why not the 1Dx and the PhaseOne?

What are you, part of the 99% or something?

jake337 · Feb 17, 2012

o hey tyler said:
Why not the 1Dx and the PhaseOne?

What are you, part of the 99% or something?

The 99% go for one of the ferrari hasselblads....

http://stupiddope.com/wp-content/up...D-Ferrari-Limited-Edition-Camera-1024x748.jpg

jake337 · Feb 17, 2012

gsgary said:
How about this setup

May I ask how much went into this setup?

Nikon_Josh · Feb 17, 2012

I used to write film off as too inconvenient!

Since joining this forum and actually doing some research, I am becoming curious about the power of film. I find the dynamic range of digital cameras a bit trashy to say the least, the look of film has this organic feel that digital doesn't seem to replicate very well. I may begin to try it very soon! The problem is though, the more you hear about film becoming obsolete the more expensive and difficult it will become to get your images processed.