I moved this to the 'shop talk' section and out of the 'gallery' section.
Tough question, you really need to consider things like budget.
If money were no issue, I would probably like to shoot with high end DSLR but might even shoot with MF digital cameras. The cost of digital MF is astronomical, not to mention that the files and processing power/time required to work with them would be an issue...but if you don't handle that yourself directly, who cares

.
Pro DSLR bodies are probably the most advanced tools, so they might be a better option, even over MF (film or digital). Super fast AF, multi-zoom matrix metering...all that good stuff. Not to mention that they can up be around 20 MP now...so you have huge digital files if you need them.
But then the question is....is that overkill? With some skill and talent, can't you make up for those features using a pro-sumer camera? Heck, the latest pro-sumer bodies are a lot better than the pro digital bodies they had 5 years ago.
So what's the main difference between the pro bodies and the pro-sumers? Build quality and robustness is one. It's nice to have a tool that is darn near indestructible, but it that worth the extra size, weight and cost?
Full frame vs crop sensor size is an issue here as well. Personally, I think that there are pros and cons to each. I know a very good wedding shooter who carries 1.6 crop, 1.3 crop and full frame (Canon) bodies to each wedding. He even has a full frame Nikon, just for kicks.
Some would assume that just using the full frame pro body all the time, would be the best option. But he doesn't hesitate to use a 40D in many situations, and actually prefers it for some.
What was the question again :scratch:
