Medium format film cameras are considerably larger and more expensive than 35mm, also the film and processing must be much more expensive for medium format than for 35mm. They are the reasons that medium format film is very much a professional only format. Those factors don't really come in to consideration when comparing 35mm (full frame) digital and APS-C digital. FF cameras are only marginally larger than eqivalent APS-C (subframe) cameras and the price of full frame digital is coming down. Also most of the good lenses are full frame lenses.
I can't completely agree. The editorial photographer argues pretty well that shooting film is cheaper:
http://www.editorialphoto.com/outreachep/digital_manifesto.asp If you've reading elsewhere here, you might know that I've now fallen back to my film camera as the Alpha Sweet virtually died on the weekend; it's now only useful as a light meter for my film camera. My Seagull cost me about AUD$250, 16 years ago. A new top level camera, say the D7D, A700, A900 would have cost quite a lot if you had bought each generation. If I get a Second hand Alpha 7 (aka Dynax 7), it will cost me about 19,000 yen, and it's full frame, but I'll still be dependent on whatever film scanning technology there is. I saw a 5mp film scanner yesterday (plenty for basic web use) for 14,000 yen. Then consider the frequency of digital slr generations and compare that to the quantity of film that might equal and basic developing (no prints or scans). So one roll of film is Y400 + basic developing Y700 = Y1,100; Sony A900 = Y300,000, so that equals about 272 rolls of film with basic (professional) developing, which is 9,792 frames. So, if you plan to shoot more than say 10,000 shots per digital generation, then I'd argue that going digital is better, otherwise film is still quite competitive. But in terms of my experience, digital may fail, and you're left with your 16 year old camera again.
In terms of what most folks here do, then going digital is perhaps financially better, but... cost of storage, photoshop or lightroom (I still used lightroom with film for presentation here) complicates the benefits more.
Considering this, I'd argue that digital cameras still need to be a lot cheaper or a wider gap between generations, so we can fully get financial benefit from each generation that we buy into. That would mean that the longer the camera lasts the more value you get, so that explains my frustration at the death of my KM Alpha Sweet, and ... I'd better stop there.
Anyway, rounding back to the topic of medium format, I don't know exactly for sure, but if I were professional, it'd be only now that I'd be considering the next generation of digital backs for my Hasselblad or Mamiya, otherwise I'd still be on film, and be processing it myself.
Out of interest, how many people shoot more than 10,000 shots a year? And, how many shots did you take before upgrading to the next digital slr? And, how many years between upgrades?
(depending on responses, this maybe split from the A850 thread)
