Are you happy with the 5D III Specs?

[callaesthetics]

I am not satisfied with the 5D Mark III, mainly because low iso banding should truely not be an issue in this day and age.

Im pretty sure real world use would even see the banding some people are claiming. The supposed banding that was discover took extreme extraction and manipulation, things we would never resort to even when trying to recover shadow details.

 

[MazV-L]

5Diii will suit me! I class myself as an enthusiast but I'll be stepping up from a 5D classic so will be looking forward to better low-light performance, less noise'll be nice especially for light painting- light trail photography that I like to do. better PP crops, and better AF, which means my portraits won't be such a hit and miss as it is at the moment with my 85L 1.2ii, at f1.2! I can stop using the centre spot AF and focus/recompose wow!
Not to mention the multi-exposure feature will lend itself to alot of creativity!

 

[Radiating]

I am not satisfied with the 5D Mark III, mainly because low iso banding should truely not be an issue in this day and age.

Im pretty sure real world use would even see the banding some people are claiming. The supposed banding that was discover took extreme extraction and manipulation, things we would never resort to even when trying to recover shadow details.

The banding starts to show up at 4 stops which makes the files unusable for any high contrast sceenes.

 

[slippyphoto]

Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon.
1. What type shooting do you do?
2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?

I've been waiting for a good forum post like this one to justify a first response! I could not agree more, and i think i speak for the large majority of photographers in my field.

1. I shoot commercial fashion (editorial, catalogue, advertising)
2. I am a Professional, and have been freelance for 5 years.
3. I am throughly disappointed in the Mk3

4. The biggest question. In my time shooting (and assisting before this), i have used many camera systems, owning a lot of them too. 3 yrs ago, i bought a 5d2, and sold it soon after to upgrade to a Phase One P30 back, a year later buying a 1D4 for speed, and a year after that, coming full circle and selling it all to buy back another 5D2 - the source of all this swapping and changing wasn't indecisiveness, but just using the best tool for the job at that particular time. The 5D2 has by far and away been the best up until now. As we all know, it has its flaws...

Lets just for a mont take aside MP's; iso's; fps; and auto-focus. There are some very simple basic updates that were badly needed on this body. I am predominantly a studio photographer but also shoot heavily on location. I mainly shoot tethered using Capture One, so that my AD's can see and we're all happy we have the shot. The digi op's can do their thing and we can make dam sure we have something that resembles the final product pretty quickly wherever we may be.

One of the biggest downfalls from the Mk2 was the connectivity of USB2. When shooting fast (4fps) and filling the 13 frame buffer repeatedly - by lunch time i have major problems, restarting, rebooting blah blah, and the rest. This using an iMac with 16gb RAM and 64bit software. The problem? USB2. Why oh why could Canon not have adopted an Ethernet port as in the 1Dx, or even an upgrade to USB3, which can be adapted via many 3rd party adapters to use Thunderbolt on Mac, or Firewire. BIG design flaw number-1, and BIG tick Nikon - they listened.

Lets go back to the main sources of argument - MP's. I HATE hearing "well you never need more than 22million" YES YOU DO!!! The benefit of having more MP's in a 35mm body have been grossly underestimated by Canon. It is small, light with great lenses that can handle the res... 30mil would have been perfect. Then one body could have served all purposes - whether shooting large scale windows, or on location of just for an A4 mag - High resolution images are extremely important to many many of my professional peers indeed.

Personally for me, ISO upgrades and Auto-focus are moot. I never go above 400ISO even on location. I'm sure they'll be appreciated by many - but what a poor major upgrade for the rest of us.

Video upgrades are a joke - the Nikon D800 wipes the floor clean (on paper) with its continuos Autofocus, and uncompressed HDMI output. Both worth their weight in gold. Video is fast becoming normal for my commercial clients. Catalogue clients especially are asking for this now in conjunction to stills. They would laugh you out of business if you suggested hiring focus-pullers or an entire crew to shoot footage, they (and we) want it shot alongside the stills, quickly, efficiently and cheaply... All the 5D3 has is 7D capabilities. Whoopie-do.

This might sound like a personal rant - IT IS - but i believe front talking to my fellow colleagues that it is their personal rant too. The 5D2, has been an industry standard for my peers as much as it has been for other fields. When Canon claims to have spoken to other photographers about upgrades needed on the 5D2, its blindingly obvious that studio and commercial photographers were overlooked or worse unrecognised. Wedding and event photographers have their prayers answered, but this is a very disappointing product for a large section of the photo community. One that has invested heavily in Canon, historically using its amazing developments in technology to full creative advantage. Because we believed them at the forefront of digital capture. I'm afraid the baton might be passed on now...

 

[Orion]

Maybe this system isn't for you, due to those things that you mentioned, but it is for the rest of us . . . what I mean to say is that Canon will possibly come out with a high MP camera with HDMI out and video focussing etc etc etc. . . and call it a 5DX (CINE???), and keep this mkIII as an upgrade to mkII.

IF NOT, then taking note of the legendary status of the 5DmkII, I would be astounded to know tat the D800 suddenly bests the 5DmkII/III as the new video "champ," and Canon let this happen because they did not add uncompressed HDMI (v. timecode upgrades, etc) out and continuous autofocuss fixes (v. you contolling the focus manually with any good rig). . . . . with that said, we are left to wait and see the final raw output of the D800 against the mkIII, and if the mkIII has way better detail and ISO in video etc, then we can question if the D800 is better, or not. . . .

edit:

with the image quality and ISO performance of the 5DmkIII and other improvements over 5DmkII, it is unfair to put all your eggs in one basket and get upset over it not having 30MP+. . .

We DID see a EOS "C" Cine camera too! It's not over yet. . . .

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Quite frankly I personally am NOT happy with the 5DIII release. I strongly feel Canon has shot themselve in the foot. I have done a comparison with the Nikon D800 and well, I may be switching to Nikon.
1. What type shooting do you do?
2. Are you a Professional...(Make the major portion of your income with your camera)?
3. How do you feel about the 5D III ?
4. What do you feel should have been included but wasn't?

Yes, I'm very pleased.

1. Weddings, Beauty, Landscape
2. No. About 1/3rd of my income comes from photography
3. It's a very significant upgrade. I'm glad they kept the MP at a reasonable level. The new focus system is incredible! It's £500 too expensive though.
4. Hmm.. I would have loved a bit more RAW performance in high ISO and (if the rumours are right) more DR, but I think they've got the high ISO to the level of competing with Nikon and DR... well so be it. We'll see when the reviews come out.

 

[traveller]

Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.

The 5D MkIII is a great camera for what it does (but needs to shed a few hundred pounds/dollars/euros). If you want a 1D X, but can't afford/justify the cost of one, the 5D MkIII is a godsend (and lets not forget that pros too are on tight budgets in the current economic climate). If you want a 1D X in a more compact body, then the 5D MkIII fits the bill perfectly. If you want to print big and dream of owning a Phase One or a Hassleblad, then the 5D MkIII is a disappointing upgrade from the MkII and also in comparison to the D800.

With the 1D X replacing both the 1D MkIV and 1Ds MkIII and the 5D MkIII staying in the same resolution ballpark, Canon have left themselves without a cutting edge high-megapixel body. The Sony 36MP sensor is a game changer for 35mm users who value resolution; for all that the 1D X and 5D MkIII are great cameras, at the moment Canon have nothing to match it. This is the first time that Canon have put their users in this position and there are lots of photographers who don't like it (many of whom switched to Canon for this reason in the past).

Canon need a high resolution camera that can complement the current offerings. Deep down, I think that we all know this and so does Canon (which is why they put out their "we can make it if there is demand for it" statement). There have been many rumours of a 39MP sensor prototype; I think that Canon will have seen the reaction to the D800 and will now be looking at bringing it to market. Quite what camera it will be in is anyone's guess.

I know there are arguments about diffraction, motion blur, camera shake and lens quality; I think that there are a lot of Nikon shooters that are going to have a shock at how much more care it will take to make the most of the D800's 36MP. Despite all of this, technique can be honed, lenses can be developed and bought, but not if your chosen brand does not build the camera that can make use of this.

 

[awinphoto]

Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.

The 5D MkIII is a great camera for what it does (but needs to shed a few hundred pounds/dollars/euros). If you want a 1D X, but can't afford/justify the cost of one, the 5D MkIII is a godsend (and lets not forget that pros too are on tight budgets in the current economic climate). If you want a 1D X in a more compact body, then the 5D MkIII fits the bill perfectly. If you want to print big and dream of owning a Phase One or a Hassleblad, then the 5D MkIII is a disappointing upgrade from the MkII and also in comparison to the D800.

With the 1D X replacing both the 1D MkIV and 1Ds MkIII and the 5D MkIII staying in the same resolution ballpark, Canon have left themselves without a cutting edge high-megapixel body. The Sony 36MP sensor is a game changer for 35mm users who value resolution; for all that the 1D X and 5D MkIII are great cameras, at the moment Canon have nothing to match it. This is the first time that Canon have put their users in this position and there are lots of photographers who don't like it (many of whom switched to Canon for this reason in the past).

Canon need a high resolution camera that can complement the current offerings. Deep down, I think that we all know this and so does Canon (which is why they put out their "we can make it if there is demand for it" statement). There have been many rumours of a 39MP sensor prototype; I think that Canon will have seen the reaction to the D800 and will now be looking at bringing it to market. Quite what camera it will be in is anyone's guess.

I know there are arguments about diffraction, motion blur, camera shake and lens quality; I think that there are a lot of Nikon shooters that are going to have a shock at how much more care it will take to make the most of the D800's 36MP. Despite all of this, technique can be honed, lenses can be developed and bought, but not if your chosen brand does not build the camera that can make use of this.

Well said

 

[pdirestajr]

I have a feeling if Canon announced a 5D that was a 36 giga pixel monster that had a slower fps, we'd hear people complaining that the pixel race is unnecessary and ISO number is the new frontier, and they'd wish it shot 12fps....

Isn't 22 million pixels a lot?

Perhaps Canon actually did some R&D and this was the happy medium for pixels/ speed/ image quality/ price?

Since I have enjoyed my Canon products for the last 20 years, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually know what they are doing.

I also like to stay a generation behind the technology, so I'm super siked to buy a new 5D II some day soon! That camera is pretty sexy.

 

[Orion]

The 5DmkIII is not supposed to be a medium format upgrade . . . . the medium formats can't compete with these new dslrs on ISO, and I venture to say that putting 2 images from either camera side by side, it will be hard to say which one is which (5DmkIII v. Medium format) . . unless you pair 2 low light images, in which case you can tell it's from dslr. There is a certain tade-off when introducing such hiugh MP to a dslr where the lenses cannot resolve such . . . and if a pro craves high MP for studio or landscape, they can expect to have lower iso performance, and lens anomalies introduced as a trade-off. Wherever you look online the first thing that is mentioned IS ISO performance, NOT MP. Landscape and Adverts may require, in certain cases a high MP depending on the resolution needed (print), but the case for that is not as great since mostly serious pros with thier foot in the door get such assignments and THEY own/rent/lease a medium format body for such work. We can;t have all our eggs in one basket as far as specs go on these cameras, becasue there are not only priorities such as ISO, but also the question of if you actually need 36MPs. Yes, I know the "why not?" reply, but then the sensor comes into question, and pixel pitch, etc and the ISO performance suffers. . . . since this is not supposed to be a medium format MP camera, let's finally decide on whether or not the 22-24 MP is a sweet spot as far as our concerns/uses go. . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[dbduchene]

I have a feeling if Canon announced a 5D that was a 36 giga pixel monster that had a slower fps, we'd hear people complaining that the pixel race is unnecessary and ISO number is the new frontier, and they'd wish it shot 12fps....

Isn't 22 million pixels a lot?

Perhaps Canon actually did some R&D and this was the happy medium for pixels/ speed/ image quality/ price?

Since I have enjoyed my Canon products for the last 20 years, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually know what they are doing.

I also like to stay a generation behind the technology, so I'm super siked to buy a new 5D II some day soon! That camera is pretty sexy.

You are missing the point. For many 22 is good. BUT there are others that it is not what we want and what some of us need. This camera is trying to please EVERYONE with one camera and that just cannot be done. If you look I have 3 bodies and there is a reason for that. If I am shooting wildlife or sports and several others I get out my 7D. I do not do weddings anymore but if I did I would get out my 5D For Shoots like Fossil Rim Wildlife reserve I double strap 7D with 100-400 and the 5D MkII with the 28-300L gives me 28 to 640 effect. My full frame though is my landscape and studio camera and for that I do not care how fast it is. I would like a little better auto focus and as with every camera I would like it with better Dynamic Range.

What Canon has decided at least for now is that there are so many of us with 10,000 and more in their lenses that for now they can ignore us and we will be stuck with it. Right now if you are entering the field and are looking for Agency, Architecture, Landscape, high end Portrait then we feel abandoned buy Canon and was was stated a few post above both Nikon and Sony have cameras that are addressing that. Canon has made a calculated bet that they can ignore these needs and not get hurt in market share. As have been said by many they are banking on most of us having so much in there glass that we cannot jump and they will wait and address us some where down the road.

For me I would gladly pay 4k and maybe a little more for a 2 frame a sec 40 MP camera with true one stop ISO and DR improvement over the MK II BUT 16 Bit color. And yes USB 3 and ethernet would be a MUST. Traveller brought some very good and very well thought out and stated points that are valid. Right now there is a segment in the industry that Canon is not providing for as well and there competition is. For those of us that have been shooting Canon for a lot of years it (36 for me) does not feel good to be abandoned.

It has been brought up by many that they could bring out a 3D or 6D or what ever they want to call it high MP to address this and that would be fine with me but of that is the direction that they are taking they would be wise IMHO to do so sooner instead of latter. I along with several others that I know are telling the people that we know are entering to wait till the camera are out and then take a very hard look at the Nikon right now as it is a lot more bang for the buck.

 

[unfocused]

Awin, you had me with this statement:

Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.

But, then you lost me with this:

Canon need a high resolution camera that can complement the current offerings.

I just don't think any of us knows enough about Canon's market research, financial projections, etc. to know what they need to produce. We might perceive that there is a market for a high resolution camera. Nikon obviously believes there is. But we don't have access to either company's research or financials, so just as it's not fair to presume to know other people's requirements from a camera, it's also not fair to presume to know any manufacturer's business plan.

It's possible that Canon will eventually produce a high megapixel camera, but it is also possible that they have determined the return on investment is too low to produce such a camera. One thing we enthusiasts tend to ignore is that every opportunity has costs and those in business have to weigh the cost against the benefit.

No wedding photographer can afford to bid on every wedding. No portrait studio can afford to try to get the business of every high school senior. Successful businesses not only know when to go after a client, they know when to leave an opportunity on the table as well.

I'm simply suggesting that while Canon could offer a high megapixel camera, people need to accept the possibility that they have decided to cede that portion of the market to others because the cost of going after it is more than the potential gain.

 

[pdirestajr]

Less than 10 years ago the 1Ds was launched as the top of the line pro camera @ 11mp. The 1D was 4mp in 2001. I'm sure people have been producing professional results over the last decade with those wimpy cameras.

Why do people keep saying Canon NEEDS a high mp camera? the 5d III IS a HIGH MEGA PIXEL CAMERA.

Isn't there a saturation point on those tiny "full-frame" sensors? At the end of the day, 35mm was made as a small, portable, fast camera. Not a studio/ landscape monster.

Medium format and large format exists for that.

Cameras are tools, and each tool has it's limitations. Perhaps we are seeing the limits in some areas?

 

[samthefish]

I'm happy with the specs but can't afford one anytime soon. I'm an advanced but not professional photographer, shoot mainly action photography / sporting events and sometimes portraits / small weddings. Last night I was shooting a string concert with my 7D / 70-200L 2.8 is II. Flash was not allowed in the venue so nearly all shots were around 1/60 f 2.8 ISO 800. I would have loved to have the ability to shoot at f 8 /6400 for increased DOF in some shots but of course on the 7D would be too grainy. I would also love to have the extra stops clean ISO in basketball or late afternoon lacrosse games. I don't print anything over 13x19.


SamTheFish

 

[awinphoto]

Awin, you had me with this statement:

Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.

But, then you lost me with this:

Canon need a high resolution camera that can complement the current offerings.

I just don't think any of us knows enough about Canon's market research, financial projections, etc. to know what they need to produce. We might perceive that there is a market for a high resolution camera. Nikon obviously believes there is. But we don't have access to either company's research or financials, so just as it's not fair to presume to know other people's requirements from a camera, it's also not fair to presume to know any manufacturer's business plan.

It's possible that Canon will eventually produce a high megapixel camera, but it is also possible that they have determined the return on investment is too low to produce such a camera. One thing we enthusiasts tend to ignore is that every opportunity has costs and those in business have to weigh the cost against the benefit.

No wedding photographer can afford to bid on every wedding. No portrait studio can afford to try to get the business of every high school senior. Successful businesses not only know when to go after a client, they know when to leave an opportunity on the table as well.

I'm simply suggesting that while Canon could offer a high megapixel camera, people need to accept the possibility that they have decided to cede that portion of the market to others because the cost of going after it is more than the potential gain.

I didn't originally post these quotes, i believe that was traveller.. Anywho I think there is a market, obviously, by all the griping and grumbing we have seen about the lack of MP... BUT, like you, we dont know Canon's market research and I believe Canon, when deciding on the 5d3, picked the right compromise in features and specs that would satisfy 90-95% of most it's target audience. I believe if canon see's a ripple in people not upgrading or people unsatisfied, it could force their hand in producing a large MP camera, whether it be the 5dx, 3d, whatever you want to call it, and I also believe such a camera would raise the bar, price wise, which falls into the realm of beware what you wish for.

I've heard pro's say that they charge thousands of dollars per day per shoot because that's their basic cost of doing business and that "lower priced" shoots aren't their customers, aren't their competition, and they dont worry about those photographers undercutting them because of that. Likewise, with cameras, not everyone probably could afford the 5d3, and probably even fewer of those who could, could afford the high MP... it's just a different camera for a different type of photographer with different needs and wants. Do i think canon nailed what I would like in a perfect camera? Sure... i think they addressed 98% of all my needs/wants as a professional photographer... but do i think there's room for another camera geared for another type of photographer? Sure... I'd be ignorant not to.

 

[CarpetFeet]

I am absolutely delighted with the specs and have just pre-ordered mine. But then I'm a mere enthusiast with a 20D that has been looking to go FF for some time.

I would have taken the plunge on a 5Dii last summer if I hadn't picked up on this site and all the rumours of a pending replacement. I have seen the stunning IQ from the 5Dii and I'm sure I would have been very happy with that too (most of my photography being landscapes and candids). But I'm probably only going to be spending this kind of money once every 6 years or so and as I do shoot the occasional sports and wildlife event, I'm delighted that the 5diii appears to have addressed the limitations of the 5dii that would have made it less successful at shooting those events.

Yes the price is more than I was hoping and has caused me not to buy the kit lens (I'll be making do with my 17-40 and 70-200 for a while) but for a body that I expect to meet all my needs for a good few years it's something I am prepared to stretch to.

As somebody that doesn't produce many large prints and is keen not to have to upgrade his PC any time soon, I'm also delighted that Canon has not gone for many more megapixels in the 5Diii. As long as the IQ lives up to its predecessor (and I see no reason why it shouldn't) I'll be extremely happy.

 

[traveller]

Awin, you had me with this statement:

Let's cut to the chase, no one here is wrong in their joy or disappointment, they are only wrong when they presume to know other people's requirements from a camera. No one can tell another photographer how many megapixels they need or what their high-ISO needs are.

But, then you lost me with this:

Canon need a high resolution camera that can complement the current offerings.

I just don't think any of us knows enough about Canon's market research, financial projections, etc. to know what they need to produce. We might perceive that there is a market for a high resolution camera. Nikon obviously believes there is. But we don't have access to either company's research or financials, so just as it's not fair to presume to know other people's requirements from a camera, it's also not fair to presume to know any manufacturer's business plan.

It's possible that Canon will eventually produce a high megapixel camera, but it is also possible that they have determined the return on investment is too low to produce such a camera. One thing we enthusiasts tend to ignore is that every opportunity has costs and those in business have to weigh the cost against the benefit.

No wedding photographer can afford to bid on every wedding. No portrait studio can afford to try to get the business of every high school senior. Successful businesses not only know when to go after a client, they know when to leave an opportunity on the table as well.

I'm simply suggesting that while Canon could offer a high megapixel camera, people need to accept the possibility that they have decided to cede that portion of the market to others because the cost of going after it is more than the potential gain.

Awin's right, they were my statements.

I concede your point that I don't have access to their market research or business plans and therefore I could be accused of hypocrisy for presuming to know Canon's requirements. However, I would like to make the argument that for a technology driven company it is dangerous for them to base their product development solely upon what users think that they want. To bring up that much overused Henry Ford quote (that can't actually be attributed to him!) "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse".

Did Canon's decision to include video on the 5D MkII come from their extensive market research that there was a huge latent demand for a cheap large sensor video camera from the indie movie makers? No, Canon freely admit that they didn't realise the game changing implications of the technology, because they probably wouldn't have asked the right people when they were doing their market research and even if they had, the movie makers themselves would have been skeptical because it was such a leftfield technology in the cinema world. My point is that you cannot entirely predict where your market for new technology is going to come from, so whilst carrying out market research for a new product is important, it is not the be all and end all. [I could quote the old "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", but that is probably apocryphal as well]

I understand that there are serious volume versus development cost calculations to get right, but I think that it would be a mistake for Canon to cede this part of the market to others, that's a mistake that Nikon made for a number of years up to 2007 and it cost them a lot of their user base.

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm much more concerned with pattern noise and canon fixing that issue, than the difference between 22MP and 36MP the difference represents only about 20% increase in vertical an horizontal aspects and as MP increase the law of diminishing returns will become more and more apparent especially since there are trade off associated with those higher MP

 

[nightbreath]

Having a 36 MP sensor gives ~28% increase in resulting image size (vertical and horizontal, comparing to 5D Mark III), diffraction limited aperture of f/9.2 and all the complexities smaller pixel pitch apply. From one side you get less than 1/3 improvement in image size, from the other – drawbacks of the bigger pixels number.

I would definitely consider 5D Mark III as it is now + a borrowed medium format camera for the job rather than a compromise camera that was going to suit everyone.

 

[traveller]

Having a 36 MP sensor gives ~28% increase in resulting image size (vertical and horizontal, comparing to 5D Mark III), diffraction limited aperture of f/9.2 and all the complexities smaller pixel pitch apply. From one side you get less than 1/3 improvement in image size, from the other – drawbacks of the bigger pixels number.

I would definitely consider 5D Mark III as it is now + a borrowed medium format camera for the job rather than a compromise camera that was going to suit everyone.

Sure, if that's what you'd rather have then Canon have made the perfect camera for you (and for a lot of other photographers too, I might add). However I believe that there are also enough people that are prepared to accept the increased complexity of a high megapixel camera with a smaller pixel pitch. Sure, your diffraction limited aperture will increase (i.e. f/number reduce), which could be a problem in certain shooting situations. Your choice in these cases would be to stop down and accept loss of resolution from diffraction, or use a perspective control (tilt-shift) lens to control the plane of focus. This is a problem that large format (and now increasingly medium format) users have experienced for years. I'm sure that there is a 'sweet spot' after which it is not worth increasing resolution because the diffraction limited aperture becomes unworkably large, but I don't think that this is 22MP. As for the drawbacks of smaller pixels at higher ISOs, this is pretty irrelevant for landscape and studio work, in fact it might be nice to have a sensor optimised for low ISOs that is native ISO25 (a la Dalsa MF backs).

You also mention borrowing (or hiring) a medium format camera, which is great if you only need it occasionally. If it is the mainstay of your business or hobby, then you'd need to buy one; UK medium format prices range from £10,000 - £35,000, which is not really in the same league as a D800.