Should I join the TRUE Medium Format Masterrace? (Hasselblad

I think you should just kill yourself instead.

>>3138995
>But am not quite sure if its worth it
I know this is a troll thread, but in the interests of potentially saving the financial life of an utter moron on the other side of the world, it is definitely not worth it.

No potential client that you would ever have access to would even be aware of the existence of MF digital, let alone require it.
>let alone be able to tell the fucking difference from files alone; that is literally never happening in 2017
You get MF digital when you are literally being flown around the planet on the regular to shoot fortune 500 corpo shit, or for vogue (not vogue pakistan, either).

Anything you want to do with that camera, you should be able to do comfortably with a 5d2 and 85/1.8.

Of course they don't know the existence of MF but the look is there.
There is a different rendering with that huge sensor size.
SO clients will only think "of those are so pretty" thats all I need.

>>3138995
>i need moar gear to take better pictures

you should watch this OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GflhBUSpdQ

>>3138995
CCDs are meh outside of studio work.
I wouldn't dare dwell in digital MF territory without a CMOS sensor.

>>3139066
which means $35k for a up to date non-cropped mf cmos sensor

>>3139008
>gear isn't important to take great pictures, yet I'm surrounded by top-of-the-line gear just because I don't need them

>>3139068
>645Z

>>3139071
>43,8 x 32,8 mm

>>3139008
This post is one of the diamond islands in the sea of shit that is the internet. Cheeish it.

>>3139069
he tells you exactly why he has top-tier camera on the table. he pre-empts your whining and bitching about "b-b-but you have high-end gear!!!" in the video itself

>>3139008
Why does he have so much gear if you don't need it?

>>3139084
>gives example of picture he took 25 years ago
>camera was a high-end Canon F1

He might be right about gear not being essential, but he still sounds like a hypocrite.

>>3139104
25 years ago, the subjects in his pictures behave exactly the same as they do today. landscapes weren't "easier" in any way than they are today. whether F1 was high-end back then is irrelevant.

>>3138995
>-Iso only to 800, so basically only a studio cam or good weather cam
or just use portable lights
>-Super heavy, so no events possible with that thing
Really? A Linhof Technika is heavy and still managable hand held, man up
>-Super expensive
If you can charge enough to justify it then no, I get a job that requires me to rent one about once a year, fuck I wish it was all the time.
>-Old CCD sensor technology
better colour, true blacks, better anti moiré
>-Shitty focusing
don't shoot sports with it
>-Expensive lenses
sure, charge more
>-Will be memed down the road to buy one of their 40000 Euro Systems one day.
sure, charge more
>-no one gives a shit about 16bit colors, since even the biggest clients display their images on shitty 5inch screens in highly compressed jpgs.
high end fashion companies who don't want their little black dresses to look like little purple dresses do