wockawocka said:
The only reason the Full Frame vs Crop sensor debate isn't a Medium Format vs Full Frame is because of accessibility.
If Canon were to release a Medium Format solution, complete with new lenses many would drop full frame like a stone. As someone who shoots a H4D50 I can tell you there's no comparison between the two.
It's not even about MP for me either, 18mp is fine. Just massive pixels, large sensor please.
I disagree with your first two sentences. Firstly the choice between MF and FF isn't just about accessibility. The larger sensor and equipment create their own restrictions on the photographer, something where the size of the 35mm has proved itself to be highly versatile, and MF, even in the castrated guise of 645 and most digital sizes have never been able to match.
Digital has given a massive IQ boost to this highly versatile 35mm size, and the IQ/Versatility/Ease of use/Costings mean that there are now a lot less people who would be prepared drop FF and jump on MF, because there is not the
need as there once was.
There are enough people out there to purchase really expensive kit for the sake of it being 'unique'. I'm amazed at how many S2 units Leica sells: having stated earlier that Sony needs MF expenditure like a hole in the head, I suppose I can see the route of losing a load of taxable profit in MF development in the aim of giving the rest of their imaging products more credibility - a little like the F1 in car manufacturers case, because although Moodies gave Sony's stock junk status they still have a load of cash floating about. There are enough well heeled amateurs to buy a few units.
Regarding night and day of the H4 to FF it depends on application IMO. Yes the larger sensor is better, but so much of it depends upon the final print size, and the demand for the size and dpi, intended viewing distance etc is limited.