Digital back + dedicated architectural camera outfits are indeed expensive, certainly so in a context where DSLR output is regarded as acceptable, but to put things into perspective: 22 meg backs are currently cheaper (both refurbished and new) than a Canon 1DSIII body, and second hand MF lenses are not necessarily much more expensive than top DSLR glass. I paid a total of $20,000 for my back + body + 3 lenses outfit.I shoot exposure brackets on almost every set-up and very often 3 shot stitches for coverage. My jobs end up being as much post production time in PS as time on location. I could cut that by at least half if I had a set of lenses that covered. At $40,000 it means all the money would go to the camera makers. Not spending it means I do more work. Which I guess is how the world is set up - I do more work, I get more money. If anyone here can figure out a way around that please tell me.
MF also offers advantages that are worth considering: with MF lenses barrel distorsions are a non-issue and post processing in general is less time consuming given the combination of superior image quality + in camera corrections, and the image quality alone of a MF back opens up opportunities for other projects for which a DSLR would be inadequate (assuming, obviously, that you choose not to work with film).
Anecdotically, in some cases MF can work faster than a DSLR: recently I was hired to photograph the reforms undertaken in a local hotel; the images were to be used in the hotel website and I thought I'd do the job with my DSLR. Soon I discovered I could take certain shots with my digital back that provided me, once cropped, with two or three -occasionally even four- images that were good enough for the use intended.
I'm sorry, I digress.
Essentially, DSLRs can do the work, and they are cheaper, but MF outfits are not necessarily in a different galaxy pricewise and they offer better image quality for less postprocessing work.
Bookmarks