Next time I'm in Malaysia I'm going to see what I can pick up the Fuji model for. No way am I going to pay extra just because is says blad. I have a 500c/m and love it. It's earned it's stripes and is almost worth the money they ask for. It amazes me that people would spend almost the same amount of money on a 35mm camera as a blad. I suppose it depends on your shooting needs. When I use to do newspaper work my Nikon F's were indispensible. But for the average amateur shooter I would think the extra time it takes (and not much extra time really) a MF demands would improve their photography.

I agree though, make it a 6x6 and there will be a stampede.

I have heard many people who have been lured into the digital world complain that their photos just plain suck because they don't take the time to set it up properly. They have gone for the shotgun approach. On the flip side I have a couple of friends who use their digitals as "polaroids" for their MF and LF pics and has such improved their output.

I have a buddy that I go out with on photo safaris and in the time it takes me to do 1 or 2 pictures he has taken about 100 digital ones. All bracketed etc. He might get 1 or 2 good pics out of a day. But then again that's about the same number I would get. So who is a better craftsman if all that is evaluated is the final print? People don't know what you went thru to get there and except for fellow photographers really don't care.

I'm struggling with this. What is your opinion?