Let's get one thing out of the way. A 1Ds produces better prints than a Hassy+film (except, perhaps, if you are exclusively after square prints...). I also suspect that a Hassy+film produces better large prints than a 10D.
"Affordable" digital backs for a Hassy are 4000*4000 pixels (yes, with a crop factor). If you are going after rectangular prints you are unlikely to gain much from the Hassy, since you have 4000 pixel widths available from both the 1Ds and the Hassy digital back. But you do have a bit more cropping flexibility from the square digital back. Michael R figured that was worth 30% extra for him. Cost? $12000 gets you a very decent, pro, general purpose 1Ds kit, lenses included. That hardly covers the 16 megapixel back for a Hassy! Assuming you get the Hassy 501 for free, did you check recent prices for Hassy lenses? If you can afford the 1Ds then it really is a no-brainer for somebody going pro. If not, then IMHO it's a tough call between a 10D outfit and a Hassy film outfit. Depends on the market you are aiming for I suppose.

Really ? Good Lord, it prints too does it ?

Seriously though, this digital stuff is getting way out of hand. All of a sudden a Hasselblad 500 is second-rate ?

Mike, after graduation what type of photography to you plan (hope) to do?  Not all cameras are equally suitable to the task.

what i have and what i'll need are two very different things, unfortunately.  my f80 with a normal and 105 lens just won't cut it in the professional field.  i'm comfortable using everything from a k1000 to a 4x5 with an h10 back on it (thank you, sheridan's equipment budget).  i *hope* to be doing a lot of portrait/editorial work, but i'll be doing pretty much anything that pays for the next 5 years (at least).

here's a side note: currently (and that's the key point, not 2 years ago), are there any major quality differences between cmos and ccd sensors?  that's one thing that i really don't have a whole lot of information on.

thanks for the feedback, everyone.  i appreciate it.

mike

Mike, I think Sergio is right; the most important question is not what gear but what pictures you’re going to sell. And that requires a few customers. Your equipment has to earn its keep. Different types of photography will have different revenue ratios for equipment. There is also the computer, printer and other equipment which will also have an earning ratio. Then you’ll need to have maintenance contracts because the client is not going to be tolerant of your technical problems. It will all need to be upgraded in 2 or 3 years.

There are several routes to take to be a pro; apprentice – yes leaving collage is just the beginning of your education, equipment is optional. Join a co-op or partnership, maybe an option. Go it alone, if you do, don’t do your own printing, find a good printer. I have yet to meet a photographer that can print color as well as a professional printer, and only a few that can print mono as well (I’ve met a lot of photographers). You get another advantage, the less time you spend printing the more time you spend behind the camera, you earn more as a photographer. And you need to earn 4 or 5 times what you think is a good paycheck, so to take home $100,000 you will need revenues of $500,000. The extra covers sales and marketing 15-20%, equipment maybe 30-40% and the rest is split between materials, T&E, admin and your pay at maybe 20%!

Where was the equipment to begin with? Buy a camera that will last you 10 years, simple light that you can put great lenses on. Take it with you on every assignment, use it too so it becomes part of you it will save your life several times over. What should it be? The best kit for your type of photography you can buy and only use half your equipment budget. Used gear is fine, take a trusted friend and research the market before you buy. For the clients work hire the kit you need and charge it in the expenses – I do all the time.

Your business will need to create customers of your photography, your equipment needs will be driven by the customers. Unless you want to be a webmaster that also takes the occasional photograph!

Finally write a business plan, and work to it. All you asked was what camera to buy!

Keeping your capital investment low is especially important now, as the digital world is evolving. Before digital, you could count on using equipment for years, if not decades, and the prices were pretty stable.  At this point, top end digital is still very expensive, way beyond what you should spend starting out, but it is also clear that things are going to get a lot cheaper over the next 4 years.  

One big issue for you is whether you need MF at all - it is hard for me to imagine much work a beginning photographer is going to get that cannot be done with a 1ds, or even 10D.  If you do get a job that really requires more than that, it is the time to rent - you just include the rental in the bid.

Perhaps some others will comment on this, I just shoot for fun at this point and do not know about the market anymore.

i'm a sheridan college photography student who will be graduating in the spring.  i plan on shooting digital when i enter the field, but trying to figure out what equipment to use is giving me a migrane.

i'm currently debating between a DSLR like the eos-1ds and a MF system (hass 501cm/mam 67proII).

with the dslr the lenses would be much cheaper and faster, with a digital back i'd be working with 14/16bit colour as opposed to 12bit.  with the DSLR i'd be shooting digital right away, whereas with the MF/digital back combo, i'd be shooting film until i could afford the payments on a back.  the images on a DSLR would be self contained, but on the other setup i'd be tethered to a computer.  at a 4x5 crop, the digital back would give me a better resolution than the DSLR.  less noise in a capture back chip ... offers the highest available resolutions, etc. etc. etc. on and on it goes.

i am running around in circles here, people.  if you've got any advice, i'd love to hear it.  i want to be working with digital as quickly as possible.  a colour managed workflow is a beautiful thing, and i'll never be able to turn back from the control i have with a digital darkroom.  anyway, that's about it.

help.

mike

ps.  i hate the crop factor of small sensors.  that's why i picked the eos-1ds (along with the rez).  hopefully, by the time i could afford a digital back there'd be one available that would free me from that garbage.  i'm not going to use a system that will require me to by "special" digital-only lenses.

Crop factor alone more or less answers your question, unless you can afford one of the new 20MP plus sensors in almost 645 format, at well over $20,000. For that huge extra cost, you could afford to buy every existing smaller format digital lens from Nikon, Olympus, Sigma and Canon combined and have about $10,000 left over.
  On the other hand, with any of the less expensive MF backs, the image after cropping to typical rectangular shapes is only slightly larger than with 35mm format, so Hasselblad lenses give about the same field of view as the same focal lenghs in 35mm format. So you are looking at over $6000 for a slightly wide angle 30mm lens, and nothing wider available.
  In business terms, several years of interest and depreciation on the vastly more expensive options for getting any wide angle coverage in MF would easily outweigh the cost of writing-off a few special smaller image circle "digital" lenses in a few years' time, if and when you upgrade to a camera with larger sensor. The 1Ds, (or a Nikon DSLR with a few DX lenses but mostly 35mm format lenses, or the Olympus E system) all seem vastly more reasonable for starting out if you care about wide angle.

You can get a 1Ds complete system (body, lenses, tripod, flashes, printer, etc.) for less than $15K. If you go the MF route,  you can spend spend that much on just the back, and not get much more resolution than the 1Ds. If you want something that will outclass the 1Ds enough to be worthwhile, (like a 22MP back) you are going to spend a LOT of money. The 1Ds has a great price/performance ratio; I would start with that and get the 22MP MF setup if/when your photography income could pay for it. A 16MP MF setup increases your image size about 30%, but costs about 200% of a 1Ds setup. For me, the extra cost isn't worth it, especially considering the portability and convenience of shooting with a DSLR vs the extra weight and slower shooting speed of the MF back. YMMV.

If a client needs greater image quality than a 1Ds can deliver, they probably aren't going to hire a newbie for the job anyway. There are a lot of pros out there making a living with 4-6MP DSLRs, the 1Ds is more than adequate for most "real world" pro work.

Get started with whatever you have and as your needs and experience grow, so should your gear. Its the way you photograph that makes the money, not the cameras you use.

What I mean is that you don't need expensive gear to start your business. You can always rent the expensive lens or LF outfit. Its better to invest your efforts in acquiring new clients, in promoting yourself, in making a great portfolio, in building a reputation.Once jobs start coming in, invest some of your income in buying new tools. I started out with a Nikkormat + couple of lenses, a small darkroom and nothing else. I started shooting model portfolios, and slowly started building a good rep and the jobs I got afterwards payed for all the stuff I have. Now I have a succesful business and depend entirely on photography to make a living. I can afford expensive tools now because I can make them pay for themselves in very reasonable periods of time. Being a good photographer is not enough to make a succesful career out of it. A good business attitude and practice is a must.

Sergio

Good point Sergio. Lots of folks I know who plan to start businesses often forget to do the math upfront before spending any money. They costs of buying vs renting are all out there -- be sure to figure out how much you can invest now, vs over time, and don't go over budget buying your initial hardware. Get the minimum you can in the beginning. Better to start slow (with less services) that bite off more than you can chew.

After shooting for a couple years with a 1D I recently had the pleasure of using a Hassy and Phaseone H20. The difference was much more than just resolution - in particular dynamic range was noticibly greater with the H20, and noise was noticibly less (I don't have a 1Ds for comparision). H25 is coming in this week so I'll get a chance to experience the resolution also.

That said, if I were starting out now I'd go for a 1D or 1Ds unless I were specializing in VERY LARGE prints. The reason is simply that these DSLRs are more than adequate for most purposes and MF backs are bound to decline in price over the next several years. Plus for me the tether requirement is a show stopper as I'm mostly an outdoor shooter. This leaves the Kodak proback as the only reasonable choice. In any case, even if one had a MF/back I'd think a DSLR would be essential equipment unless you're very specialized. And don't forget that processing and proofs will cost you roughly $1 per click for 2-1/4 film. This could hamper your learning curve and creativity.

- DL