Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on December 05, 2010, 10:01:10 am
-
By calling the 645D an "amateur" camera, Pentax allows box-pushers to sell it, and tells us we can employ standard computer costing. So 10K retail works out to around 7.5K dealer, and we get 5 K in gross margins with a camera whose assembly is factory costed at 2-2.5K, with even 3K possible. My impression is that the 645D is costed as a very good body, or one whose price can sink very substantially once the production has got going and profits can be made on lenses.
Taking the "Value Added Dealer" out of the equation certainly has its advantages in getting product out to the masses; being Pentax and being able to source decent screens for your back LCD may even make a difference for our readership here. Last, not least, writing straight to DNG moves software support costs out of house, while providing end-users with an interface they already know.
If Pentax use the factored-in margins to pay Fuji to make them a Cmos chip that can do Liveview, they may put the Phase, Leaf and Hassy "dealers" out of business. And probably only one of these European companies will survive - I bet on Hassy because they too will get access to any chip made by Fuji.
Oh, and why should Fuji be interested? Because they own the "marriage photography" market in Japan, with an emphasis on full-service to printing, and the time for film in this market is running out. Their customers want a "high status" camera with high DR which can image both the bride's white dress and the groom's black Tux.
Edmund
-
Edmund
Very interesting and perceptive point of view and I certainly would not discount the scenario you describe coming true but (there always is one isn't there?) I think that you might be assuming that most Leaf/Phase/Hassy cameras are bought by hard headed pros who know the value of a buck/pound/euro. Both of those assumptions are untrue to a degree. Many (maybe most) high systems are not bought by pros but by high end amateurs who can afford to buy what they perceive is the best and/or most desirable. What else can explain the sales of Leica M9's, S2's, Hasselblad H4D-60's, Alpa/P65's etc etc. some of which are on long or very long lead times.
What will dictate whether these companies can survive is not what Pentax is doing in the "middle" market but how well each of these businesses are managed. As you know the only things that matter, if a business is to survive, are its profits and cash flow.
If I was a betting man I would say Leica should survive simply on the cache of its brand and its products. I wouldn't discount one or other of Hasselblad or Phase One/Leaf either going out of business or being taken over by the other. A Hasselblad H4 with a Phase One P65+ back fully integrated with one battery and a choice of Schneider and Hasselblad lenses. Now you are talking!
-
I don't care about Leica in the above scenario, and actually I am discounting Hassy and Phase sales initially; the focus here is Pentax:
1. Pentax sells via channel, makes headway and profit competing with H4D/31 and also selling to amateurs, with lower dealer margin and more dealers.
2. Pentax upgrades product to $10K competing with $20K Phase/Hassy high end; reviews start saying "Pentax much better sensor".
3. Pros and more amateurs move over to Pentax, and they make more headway/profit.
4. One of Hassy or Phase is now outclassed, lacks development funds, goes the way of the dodo, the Contaflex and the Contarex.
This scenario is familiar to any observer of the Japan/Germany camera wars in the late 60's early 70's. The German camera makers got demolished.
Edmund
Edmund
Very interesting and perceptive point of view and I certainly would not discount the scenario you describe coming true but (there always is one isn't there?) I think that you might be assuming that most Leaf/Phase/Hassy cameras are bought by hard headed pros who know the value of a buck/pound/euro. Both of those assumptions are untrue to a degree. Many (maybe most) high systems are not bought by pros but by high end amateurs who can afford to buy what they perceive is the best and/or most desirable. What else can explain the sales of Leica M9's, S2's, Hasselblad H4D-60's, Alpa/P65's etc etc. some of which are on long or very long lead times.
What will dictate whether these companies can survive is not what Pentax is doing in the "middle" market but how well each of these businesses are managed. As you know the only things that matter, if a business is to survive, are its profits and cash flow.
If I was a betting man I would say Leica should survive simply on the cache of its brand and its products. I wouldn't discount one or other of Hasselblad or Phase One/Leaf either going out of business or being taken over by the other. A Hasselblad H4 with a Phase One P65+ back fully integrated with one battery and a choice of Schneider and Hasselblad lenses. Now you are talking!
-
:)
Edmund I do not think that we are really disagreeing about this but Pentax will never be a Leica or a Prada or a Ferrari or a Hasselbald come to that. What I did say is that whether one or both (Hasselblad & Phase One) survive will entirely depend on the quality of their management decisions given the actual and potential threats from Pentax's new 645 and other potential competitors.
In fact if Hasselblad's owners lose patience with the management in the face of this competition and their own blunders they may well go the way of Rollei (aka Dodo) or if Phase One's marketing skills wilt in the face of arguably an already better camera and potentially better sensor both may go which would be a shame - wouldn't it?
So you see I am fundamentally in agreement with your proposition but simply pointing out that the existing MF suppliers do have an opportunity to defend themselves if they are clever enough and if the threat comes to pass.
Interesting thread.
-
Oh, and why should Fuji be interested? Because they own the "marriage photography" market in Japan, with an emphasis on full-service to printing
Edmund
Fuji sells frames as well. Full service, indeed!
Kumar
-
What has to be factored in is the peculiar photographic culture of Pentax.
Both the Pentax 645 film camera and the Pentax 6x7 scared hell out of every medium format slr company out there until it became clear they
would not offer them with Polaroid backs. Despite the clamoring from working pros, they steadfastly refused.
The Polaroid back of digital is shooting tethered, less true with live view. If photographers can get it to shoot tethered with non-Pentax software,
which I'm sure they can, the point is somewhat moot.
The other issues are leaf-shutter lenses in focal lengths useful to people who use flash-fill outdoors and persuading Schneider--or Hartblei--to make
their 120 TS Makro in the Pentax mount. Their other TS lenses are offered for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, so why not Phase One and Pentax?
If they do this, they're highly competitive on many different levels, wedding/portrait, still-life studio, nature. My gut feel is that Pentax may not do
those things, and the photographer is forced to hope they offer leaf-shutter lenses and TS lenses sometime soon.
My experience is: if they don't offer them NOW, don't assume they will in time to do you any good.
-
David,
We seem to agree about that the odds are that one of either Phase or Hassy may get to be Borg, but at least one will be Assimilated :)
Edmund
:)
Edmund I do not think that we are really disagreeing about this but Pentax will never be a Leica or a Prada or a Ferrari or a Hasselbald come to that. What I did say is that whether one or both (Hasselblad & Phase One) survive will entirely depend on the quality of their management decisions given the actual and potential threats from Pentax's new 645 and other potential competitors.
In fact if Hasselblad's owners lose patience with the management in the face of this competition and their own blunders they may well go the way of Rollei (aka Dodo) or if Phase One's marketing skills wilt in the face of arguably an already better camera and potentially better sensor both may go which would be a shame - wouldn't it?
So you see I am fundamentally in agreement with your proposition but simply pointing out that the existing MF suppliers do have an opportunity to defend themselves if they are clever enough and if the threat comes to pass.
Interesting thread.
-
Hi,
Phase can do good business selling to retired businessmen working with both MF SLRs and large format stuff. A digital back gives a tremendous flexibility. The Pentax seems to offer a lot for the price. I'd say it's competitive with the Nikon D3X in price but has twice the pixels. Of course, we need to see the price for the whole kit.
I don't know if there is room for two MF makers. The Hasselblad is well established as an MF system and the Phase One backs seem also be well established and Phase is building a system.
Best regards
Erik
I don't care about Leica in the above scenario, and actually I am discounting Hassy and Phase sales initially; the focus here is Pentax:
1. Pentax sells via channel, makes headway and profit competing with H4D/31 and also selling to amateurs, with lower dealer margin and more dealers.
2. Pentax upgrades product to $10K competing with $20K Phase/Hassy high end; reviews start saying "Pentax much better sensor".
3. Pros and more amateurs move over to Pentax, and they make more headway/profit.
4. One of Hassy or Phase is now outclassed, lacks development funds, goes the way of the dodo, the Contaflex and the Contarex.
This scenario is familiar to any observer of the Japan/Germany camera wars in the late 60's early 70's. The German camera makers got demolished.
Edmund
-
We all got a little less margin on our business, lately.
We should not worry too much on some people business that were on borrowed time and had a reason to exist simply because the products they have been selling were: not working as advertised and should have been considered prototypes until last year.
Some of those products if they were in the car business (pardon the analogy, but considering the price...), could not have passed a road test.
-
In a way, amateur and box shifter products are always better, because low-margin high-volume retailers cannot tolerate high defect rates in a product. More than a couple of percent and the product won't get sold through that channel.
Edmund
Some of those products if they were in the car business (pardon the analogy, but considering the price...), could not have passed a road test.
-
Call me crazy here (I am a hassy owner after all)
But i don't see how you guys can discount Hassy or Phase so easily. They are both developing new competitive products at a 'decent' rate and they are surely going to react to this introduction to the market. In fact, i believe the H4D31 was a direct result of the Pentax being introduced.
Someone asked about the perceived 'threat' in the Hassy forums and here is what i said:
1. Hasselblad has some of the best lenses in the business. And a full line of modern lenses...
2. Phocus extends the system and is made to take advantage of the hardware.
3. Faster sync speed in most lenses
4. A full USA support network.
5. True Focus - Reliable vs. outer focus points on pentax which are questionable by forum reports.
6. Upgrade paths and programs.
7. Rental Network.
8. HTS
I'm sure there are other things i'm missing...
The H4D31 is currently priced at $13k with 80 2.8 lens. The Pentax is rumored to be at $10k with no lenses. As anyone who owns a hassy knows, their lenses sell at about 50% of retail on most models in the used market.
So i ask you, knowing of Hassy's full system, why would anyone go to Pentax? Weather sealing? Maybe, if it's that important to you. Why else? True Focus is proven and it works and works quite well. And their lenses are cheap on the used market.
.02
-
Call me crazy here (I am a hassy owner after all)
But i don't see how you guys can discount Hassy or Phase so easily. They are both developing new competitive products at a 'decent' rate and they are surely going to react to this introduction to the market. In fact, i believe the H4D31 was a direct result of the Pentax being introduced.
Someone asked about the perceived 'threat' in the Hassy forums and here is what i said:
1. Hasselblad has some of the best lenses in the business. And a full line of modern lenses...
2. Phocus extends the system and is made to take advantage of the hardware.
3. Faster sync speed in most lenses
4. A full USA support network.
5. True Focus - Reliable vs. outer focus points on pentax which are questionable by forum reports.
6. Upgrade paths and programs.
7. Rental Network.
8. HTS
I'm sure there are other things i'm missing...
The H4D31 is currently priced at $13k with 80 2.8 lens. The Pentax is rumored to be at $10k with no lenses. As anyone who owns a hassy knows, their lenses sell at about 50% of retail on most models in the used market.
So i ask you, knowing of Hassy's full system, why would anyone go to Pentax? Weather sealing? Maybe, if it's that important to you. Why else? True Focus is proven and it works and works quite well. And their lenses are cheap on the used market.
.02
As a Phase owner i have to agree as well, neither one is sucking wind right now.Backlogs to get the HD-60 and P65+ and with Leaf coming out with a 80 mpx you know Phase is right behind them with announcements on maybe several back configs. with that sensor. Seriously and yes i am crazy if anything the Pentax will bring more 35mm shooters into the MF fold and they will eventually upgrade into the Hassy and Phase gear. This speculation is just as good as anything else, I own and teach workshops and folks are loaded for bear. So for OEM's falling to there knee caps which I believe will never happen is not realistic. What may happen if anything is just less dealers but the companies i don't see them falling apart they survived this long which says only one thing they have a load of money backing them up. Perception is one thing maybe coming from us Pro's as business has dwindled but this does NOT effect the hobbyist at all. Photography is a really cheap hobby compared to boats , racing vehicles and things of this nature which costs run into the hundred thousands.
Okay I'm a optimist so sue me. LOL
I should add here if the hobbyists are keeping this alive than more power to them. It just brings new technology going forward for us Pros to utilize. After 35 years since I have been doing this and going through many economic downturns it has survived and flourished.
-
I should add here if the hobbyists are keeping this alive than more power to them. It just brings new technology going forward for us Pros to utilize. After 35 years since I have been doing this and going through many economic downturns it has survived and flourished.
I think Guy is right. After all, back in the days of the 500 and 200 Hasselblads, it was usually reckoned that the company was kept afloat by dentists and lawyers.
John
-
I think Guy is right. After all, back in the days of the 500 and 200 Hasselblads, it was usually reckoned that the company was kept afloat by dentists and lawyers.
John
Well that's a new one on me, John. I never saw another 'blad with anybody other than a pro photographer; it might well be how the 500 and 200 series are seen today, but not the view I knew about them during my tenure.
Rob C
-
Let me put my cat amongst the pigeons.
1.The margins on the Pentax are no better than on the other systems. Indeed, there is much more 'fat' in the price on Phase and Hassy, I suspect.
2. The 645D was brought to market on a 'let's hope we at least break even' basis to generate sales to make Pentax look more attractive to potential buyers as Hoya continues to try to sell it.
3. Hassy is fine because they have such a strong hold on the pro market. For people who need what they offer, they are a compelling solution. That said, I can't imagine ever using their gear in its present form because (i) the camera's still a POS; (ii) the lenses are insanely large and heavy; and (iii) Phocus is a Phucking nightmare to me. (Their lenses are no better or worse than any others in the MF market - just much bigger).
4. The USA and EU have very little to do with whether MF makers survive. It's all about the BRIC. Especially the "C" part of that. Brand perceptions will have a lot to do with that.
5. Rich people, of dubious and variable photographic ability, already are what sustain the digital MF market, and will remain so.
6. No one really knows whether today's 16 year-old ipod/ipad/ieverything kid will have the slightest interest in MF digital cameras. More likely he will look at them as being in the same realm as VHS players.
As the old curse goes, may you live in niteresting times....
- N.
-
What has to be factored in is the peculiar photographic culture of Pentax.
Both the Pentax 645 film camera and the Pentax 6x7 scared hell out of every medium format slr company out there until it became clear they would not offer them with Polaroid backs. ... The Polaroid back of digital is shooting tethered, less true with live view.
The 645D had HDMI output "for high-resolution image data output", to quote the Pentax press release. Can this provide an image on a remote screen that substitutes adequately for the "polaroid preview" aspect of MF back tethering?
-
3. Hassy is fine because they have such a strong hold on the pro market. For people who need what they offer, they are a compelling solution. That said, I can't imagine ever using their gear in its present form because (i) the camera's still a POS; (ii) the lenses are insanely large and heavy; and (iii) Phocus is a Phucking nightmare to me. (Their lenses are no better or worse than any others in the MF market - just much bigger).
5. Rich people, of dubious and variable photographic ability, already are what sustain the digital MF market, and will remain so.
At the risk of saying something that might be construed as offensive the Hasselblad H camera is not in your words a POS!!! I don't know where you are coming from but in the context of its MF competition it stands head and shoulders above anything else currently available including the Pentax and the Mamiya/Phase One.
Okay let me be possibly offensive again. Being a Pro does not necessarily make you a good photographer and being rich enough to own a Hasselblad as an amateur does not necessarily imply that you have dubious photographic ability.
Let's just say that there are many fine photographers who just happen not to need to earn a living from their photography and that there are many professional photographers who would earn a darn sight more money if they were better photographers.
Nuff said I think.
-
So i ask you, knowing of Hassy's full system, why would anyone go to Pentax? Weather sealing? Maybe, if it's that important to you. Why else? True Focus is proven and it works and works quite well. And their lenses are cheap on the used market.
The issue here is the targeted application. Pentax is clearly targeting landscapers with the 645D, and the question there is more "why would anyone go with the Hassy" since it offers a lot less for a lot more money.
One example, if you shoot in really cold weather there is even no question, the Pentax is so superior in terms of battery life that it is not even close.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
since it offers a lot less for a lot more money.
Qualify this statement please. The H4D31 is 13k with lens. The Pentax is slated to be around 10k. with no lens.
One example, if you shoot in really cold weather there is even no question, the Pentax is so superior in terms of battery life that it is not even close.
Batteries are cheap.
-
Qualify this statement please. The H4D31 is 13k with lens. The Pentax is slated to be around 10k. with no lens.
Batteries are cheap.
Well, I would say that you answer might or might not be applicable depending on your applications.
- How much is a H4D battery again?
- How many images does it hold at -15C? As a reference point my former Mamiya ZD did max 10 (yes ten) images per fresh warm battery charge below -10C,
- Have you ever managed a 3 days camping trip in cold weather away from any power source?
- Have you ever slept with batteries stored in your sleeping bag/the pockets of your fleece/jacket?
- Have you ever shot pano with DoF stacking requiring 30 to 100 shots per final image in cold conditions?
- How do you manage the logistics and weight of having to carry potentially tens of batteries in these conditions?
- Are you certain when you purchase a camera that you will never want to do these things?
Thks. Considering that about 5 of my 10 best images of 2009/2010 were shot in such conditions, I know my answers to these questions and I believe that the 645D is a much better option. For landscape work away from the road accross seasons, I see zero rational reasons to consider the Hassy 40MP. You could argue that the 60MP backs are superior... but how good is a great sensor without battery? :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, I would say that you answer might or might not be applicable depending on your applications.
- How much is a H4D battery again?
- How many images does it hold at -15C? As a reference point my former Mamiya ZD did max 10 (yes ten) images per fresh warm battery charge below -10C,
- Have you ever managed a 3 days camping trip in cold weather away from any power source?
- Have you ever slept with batteries stored in your sleeping bag/the pockets of your fleece/jacket?
- Have you ever shot pano with DoF stacking requiring 30 to 100 shots per final image in cold conditions?
- How do you manage the logistics and weight of having to carry potentially tens of batteries in these conditions?
- Are you certain when you purchase a camera that you will never want to do these things?
Thks. Considering that about 5 of my 10 best images of 2009/2010 were shot in such conditions, I know my answers to these questions and I believe that the 645D is a much better option. For landscape work away from the road accross seasons, I see zero rational reasons to consider the Hassy 40MP. You could argue that the 60MP backs are superior... but how good is a great sensor without battery? :)
It has been said before, but your requirements are not representative of the average landscape shooters' needs - while requirements for sub-zero temps are not unique, there are orders of magnitude more shooters who won't be shooting in such extreme conditions even in their worst nightmares.
I've never done such shooting, and I'm from Finland. Winters are for editing ;D
-
Don't want to get into all the branches of this discussion, but do we know for a fact that non-pros buy "most" or "over half" of the medium format solutions offered by Hasselblad/ Phase one? We may never know the truth there.
What the Pentax may do (as mentioned) is bring in some DSLR folks into medium format. So far, sounds like the Pentax does not measure up to either established MF digital system. 14 bits just for starters. As far as the thread thesis that this is a higher volume sales product... you would have to say yes. Won't kill the top two.
Just my two cents...
-
So far, sounds like the Pentax does not measure up to either established MF digital system. 14 bits just for starters.
The 16-bit MFDB claim has been repeatedly been debunked as marketing spin - rather than two extra bits holding usable data - here by technically inclined people who seem to know what they're talking about.
-
It has been said before, but your requirements are not representative of the average landscape shooters' needs - while requirements for sub-zero temps are not unique, there are orders of magnitude more shooters who won't be shooting in such extreme conditions even in their worst nightmares.
I've never done such shooting, and I'm from Finland. Winters are for editing ;D
Fine, I have never claimed that my needs were universal or even representative. :) I have just outlined a few reasons why the Pentax has some unique values for people who need to shoot in the cold, values that are not well matched by the proposal to compensate for the shortcomings of the Hassy by "buying more batteries".
Regardless, I have a hard time finding any reason why a landscape shooter starting from scratch today would select a Hassy instead of a 645D, except perhaps the tilt/shift adapter but it seems hard to use for backpackers (are these also a minority :)). By the way, I owned a H1 for a few years, I am reasonably familiar with the H system and its lenses although I am aware it has of course evolved since then.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 16-bit MFDB claim has been repeatedly been debunked as marketing spin - rather than two extra bits holding usable data - here by technically inclined people who seem to know what they're talking about.
Perhaps LL needs a FAQ? :)
Having spoken with Pentax about this, I know that they decision to stick to 14bits was motivated by the fact that 16 bits was measured to offer zero value compared to 14 bits. Their decision was the right one from an engineering and pricing standpoint, but it was IMHO wrong from a marketing standpoint.
Indeed, it seems obvious that many people still buy based on specs as opposed to buying based on measured performance.
Similar things happen in high end audio. More than a few audiophiles will just never truly believe that a 7 kg Devialet or Nuforce P18 amp can outperform significantly an 80kg monster costing 10 times more (the design being mostly made heavy to justify the cost). They know that heavier amps are better amps and whatever you tell them will never truly change their mind.
Pentax should have used a useless 16 bits A\D converter for those guys.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tell me more about how oversold/ hyped the HB and Phase One systems are....
Pentax has come in after all the hard work has been done and "claimed" the lower 1/6 of the market.
And what were we supposed to be shooting with for the past X number of years?
Ground breaking.
-
Tell me more about how oversold/ hyped the HB and Phase One systems are....
Pentax has come in after all the hard work has been done and "claimed" the lower 1/6 of the market.
And what were we supposed to be shooting with for the past X number of years?
Ground breaking.
You are right. By the same token I only buy Philips/Sony CD players, Ford cars and will never board a Boeing since the French invented flying. :)
Oops, speaking about boarding, it seems that the A380 is about to get going.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you Bernard.
One thing we can certainly agree on is that heavy audio amps are not better... just heavier. Loved that analogy.
Gyrodec forever!
Now I have taken this way OT. Apologies.
-
The 645D had HDMI output "for high-resolution image data output", to quote the Pentax press release. Can this provide an image on a remote screen that substitutes adequately for the "polaroid preview" aspect of MF back tethering?
The Pentax Japan site has a cryptic message about an upgrade "to control the computer from your camera". I'd say we'll see Pentax tethering before mid-2011
-
Well that's a new one on me, John. I never saw another 'blad with anybody other than a pro photographer; it might well be how the 500 and 200 series are seen today, but not the view I knew about them during my tenure.
Rob C
I always had one with an 80mm somewhere at the bottom of my backpack, half of it was paid for as a trade in from the Leica I had as a student :)
Edmund
-
And I'm sure that there are secret conversations between manufacturers to define more or less where and when to maintain a sort of stable panorama and keep jobs.
UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 4/1
Zeiss are releasing a new Contax body subcontracted by Pentax. This will be an open system, however Nikon will be supplying a first back with a 30 MP big sensor based on the Nikon D3s for high ISO and Liveview. The body also has an autofocus system sourced from Nikon. Lenses will of course be sourced from Zeiss, with a newly designed shift/leaf shutter 25 mm wide available upon launch. Free tethering software from Phase One includes a new "auto-makeup" feature for portrait, and a "dehair" plugin specially developed for japanese glamor. For the first PROFESSIONAL 500 buyers, the camera kit includes a prefilled made-in-Colombia powder case disguised as a lens cap, to assist in model sessions.
Edmund
-
Also under embargo until 4/1
I can now advise that Hasselblad will be announcing a new cooperative venture with Sony and Garmin. Utilising the latest version of Sony's domestic robot programmed with an advanced version of Garmin's GPS software and Phocus 4.1 it will no longer be necessary for photographers to attend photoshoots in person. Simply programme in the coordinates of the shoot, number of photographs required, photographic content (portrait/wedding/architecture/glamour etc) and the credit card number of the client and press go. The robot will arrive at the location precisely on time, listen carefully to any instructions (contradictory or otherwise) of the Creative Director, make everyone a cup of coffee and get on with the shoot. Small jpegs will be sent to the photographers iPhone (on the beach or where-ever) to enable fine detail and creative input to be made if necessary and check the focus on the eyes.
This new product is called the Hasselbot and is available from your local Hasselblad dealer once they have completed deliveries of the H4D/60, series 2 lenses, and had a long holiday.
:)
-
Also under embargo until 4/1
I can now advise that Hasselblad will be announcing a new cooperative venture with Sony and Garmin. Utilising the latest version of Sony's domestic robot programmed with an advanced version of Garmin's GPS software and Phocus 4.1 it will no longer be necessary for photographers to attend photoshoots in person. Simply programme in the coordinates of the shoot, number of photographs required, photographic content (portrait/wedding/architecture/glamour etc) and the credit card number of the client and press go. The robot will arrive at the location precisely on time, listen carefully to any instructions (contradictory or otherwise) of the Creative Director, make everyone a cup of coffee and get on with the shoot. Small jpegs will be sent to the photographers iPhone (on the beach or where-ever) to enable fine detail and creative input to be made if necessary and check the focus on the eyes.
This new product is called the Hasselbot and is available from your local Hasselblad dealer once they have completed deliveries of the H4D/60, series 2 lenses, and had a long holiday.
:)
Is that the one that is rumoured to carry the much sought Hello Kitty logo on the side??
Have a good weekend everyone
/y
-
At the risk of saying something that might be construed as offensive the Hasselblad H camera is not in your words a POS!!! I don't know where you are coming from but in the context of its MF competition it stands head and shoulders above anything else currently available including the Pentax and the Mamiya/Phase One. /quote]
Not at all sure how you can say that. The ergonomics of the H series are far behind the Pentax. Yes, it's much better than the Phase DF, but that isn't saying much. It's also bested by the S2 on usability by some margin.
Maybe some people like poorly laid out cameras with small, dim LCDs. I'm just not one of those people.
The H system can produces superb images, but the camera is long in the tooth. In terms of body design, the 645D is now, the DF and the H are yesterday. The up-and-coming generation of shooters will not tolerate these cameras.
As for 14 vs 16 bit, that appears to be all hat, no cattle. There is no magical extra information in the "16 bit" files that I can find. Maybe if I paid an extra $10K they'd tell me the Caramilk secret to unlock all that image data ;)
- N.
-
Canon is developping monster sensors, they have the structures and the knowledge to do almost whatever game changing device. And more importantly, they listen to the clients needs. (well, except for MLU ;))
IMO.
Where are they going to get those lenses they need for the monster sensor?
-
Where are they going to get those lenses they need for the monster sensor?
You don't need special lenses, it's called 8x10.
:)
Edmund
-
At the risk of saying something that might be construed as offensive the Hasselblad H camera is not in your words a POS!!! I don't know where you are coming from but in the context of its MF competition it stands head and shoulders above anything else currently available including the Pentax and the Mamiya/Phase One. /quote]
Not at all sure how you can say that. The ergonomics of the H series are far behind the Pentax. Yes, it's much better than the Phase DF, but that isn't saying much. It's also bested by the S2 on usability by some margin.
Don't agree. The Hasselblad is a modular system which enables easier sensor cleaning, waist level finders and so on. The Leica may be a great camera for some people but, like many others, I dislike the way the images look. From an ergonomic point of view it depends whether you use a tripod or not - in my case its 90% of the time and the camera attaches to the tripod real easy using a RRS L Plate.
Maybe some people like poorly laid out cameras with small, dim LCDs. I'm just not one of those people.
The H system can produces superb images, but the camera is long in the tooth. In terms of body design, the 645D is now, the DF and the H are yesterday. The up-and-coming generation of shooters will not tolerate these cameras.
So is the M9 but a good lasting design is beneficial in terms of the heritage of older systems and bodies. Who are the up and coming generation and many will tolerate these cameras once they understand the benefits available with these systems.
As for 14 vs 16 bit, that appears to be all hat, no cattle. There is no magical extra information in the "16 bit" files that I can find. Maybe if I paid an extra $10K they'd tell me the Caramilk secret to unlock all that image data ;)
How hard did you look. I have taken side by side images with a D3X and H3D-39 and please be assured that there is no contest in terms of smooth colour rendition and breadth of tonality. The D3X is good but MFDB's are just better.
- N.
-
L
3. Hassy is fine because they have such a strong hold on the pro market. For people who need what they offer, they are a compelling solution. That said, I can't imagine ever using their gear in its present form because (i) the camera's still a POS; (ii) the lenses are insanely large and heavy; and (iii) Phocus is a Phucking nightmare to me. (Their lenses are no better or worse than any others in the MF market - just much bigger).
I don't have a dog in this hunt because I don't own a blad, probably will never own a pentax, but I can promise you if you made your living shooting serious work for serious money, the last thing you'd worry about is the weight of the lenses.
I've said it before, but more professional work is shot with a Hasselblad H camera than probably all the other medium format cameras combined.
Now, if pentax up's their game, offers tethering, rentals, has a workable and fast repair center, dealers that know the cameras inside and out, they may make a dent in this already small market, but unless that happens, they are just a "serious" (whatever that means) amateur camera.
IMO
BC
-
Canon is developping monster sensors ...
Have you seen any evidence at all for this, or are you just restating a speculation (or wish) that has been going around online forums for many years?
My prediction for many years (and true so far!) is that Canon and Nikon have less reason now to go larger than 36x24mm than they did in the film era (MF being a far smaller market now than then, most of it lost to current Canon and Nikon alternatives), and so since neither of them went beyond 36x24mm with film, neither will with digital.
-
BJL, yes Canon they have been announcing/showing samples of unusually large sensors. Here is a 20x20 cm link. Whether these will ever make it into products is a different issue.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10083101canonlargestsensor.asp
Edmund
Have you seen any evidence at all for this, or are you just restating a speculation (or wish) that has been going around online forums for many years?
My prediction for many years (and true so far!) is that Canon and Nikon have less reason now to go larger than 36x24mm than they did in the film era (MF being a far smaller market now than then, most of it lost to current Canon and Nikon alternatives), and so since neither of them went beyond 36x24mm with film, neither will with digital.
-
I just think the Pentax is a small threat to Canon and Nikon makers, won't make a spittin' difference to blad and phase at least not for people that make money with cameras.
Could be wrong, but if it was in such hot demand they'd be selling em all over the world right now.
BC
-
I just think the Pentax is a small threat to Canon and Nikon makers, won't make a spittin' difference to blad and phase at least not for people that make money with cameras.
Could be wrong, but if it was in such hot demand they'd be selling em all over the world right now.
While I think you're right on Pentax not posing an immediate threat to the incumbents, hot demand for a product doesn't mean the producer necessarily has the manufacturing capacity to meet that demand. Even Nikon and Canon have troubles meeting demand on some of their hotter cameras from time to time.
-
While I think you're right on Pentax not posing an immediate threat to the incumbents, hot demand for a product doesn't mean the producer necessarily has the manufacturing capacity to meet that demand. Even Nikon and Canon have troubles meeting demand on some of their hotter cameras from time to time.
You might be right, but if the Pentax really could grab a share of the high end market, the holiday period is the time to hit it hard.
Most "serious" amateurs love to give themselves a present.
Most professionals have a few weeks of downtime and if your gonna add, change, upgrade a system, this is exactly the time to do it.
None of us really know the Pentax plan, even if there is a plan. Will they have a strong presence in the western world,or is like that Devlin guy says the only markets that matter are emerging economies? . . . once again who knows?
Either way, they sure as hell missed a big selling season.
The thing is I don't see anybody with medium format switching, just because they already have such a heavy investment in their current equipment and Phase/Leaf, Hasselblad keep improving their software to the point it probably would take Pentax 2 years to play catch up.
Just a thought.
BC
-
The thing is I don't see anybody with medium format switching, just because they already have such a heavy investment in their current equipment and Phase/Leaf, Hasselblad keep improving their software to the point it probably would take Pentax 2 years to play catch up.
Just a thought.
BC
I don't see such a thing either.
This Pentax is rather to attract new MF users and it is already to a price that it's not just like a fancy gift.
The integrated back will immediatly discard many potential buyers, and IMO many questions have not yet been answered. The lcd has been applauded, but is it really the end of tethering slavery?, how accurate is the focusing with that Pentax? Reviewers said that it is reliable, but as always, landscapes and facades are not giving harsh time to the focussing. I'd like to see a proper fashion shooting with this camera and that could be another story. Yes I know that some said that this Pentax is targeting landscapers, but...a MF camera for landscape? is that really a plan for Pentax executives?
Nothing about software. This is gona be the rather good (but amateur) silkypix Pentax provided in their consumer line? That wouldn't be serious, no?
At this point, investing 10000 euros minimum in a camera without knowing exactly the lenses line time table, software and studio tethering, is that a cheap operation?
-
Hi,
The film version of the Pentax 645 was very popular among landscape shooters. So there are probably a lot of Pentax lenses laying around wardrobes. The landscape photographers are perhaps not "pros" in the sense you mean, doing a lot of high value productions, but many are not pure amateurs either. Many photographers are selling art. Those photographers have different needs.
There are few photographers using digital backs on Contax 645, as far as I know. Pretty sure Contax does not have the infrastructure like Hasselblad, but it seems that it's still quite useful to pros!
I guess that Pentax's plan is not to dominate the world but to earn some decent money. They have done it with the 67, the 645 and hopefully will do with 645D.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Thank's a lot for your postings, always a good read!
You might be right, but if the Pentax really could grab a share of the high end market, the holiday period is the time to hit it hard.
Most "serious" amateurs love to give themselves a present.
Most professionals have a few weeks of downtime and if your gonna add, change, upgrade a system, this is exactly the time to do it.
None of us really know the Pentax plan, even if there is a plan. Will they have a strong presence in the western world,or is like that Devlin guy says the only markets that matter are emerging economies? . . . once again who knows?
Either way, they sure as hell missed a big selling season.
The thing is I don't see anybody with medium format switching, just because they already have such a heavy investment in their current equipment and Phase/Leaf, Hasselblad keep improving their software to the point it probably would take Pentax 2 years to play catch up.
Just a thought.
BC
-
Pentax knows what they are doing with this camera: it is targeted at (i) new entrants to MF digital; (ii) principally outdoor shooters; and (iii) people with Pentax MF legacy systems.
It's their substitute/answer for a FF 35mm system, which would not have been competitive with the Canonikons, due to their small overall market share. It probably cost a similar amount to bring the 645D to market as it would have to do a "me too" 35 FF system that would have been price-squeezed between the A900 and the 5DII.
Pentax is not going after 'Cooter, or anyone else making their living shooting anything but travel/landscape/etc.
Ironically, the 645D seems to be a very proficient studio camera. It generates gorgeous files, and focuses as well as any other MF system. I did a quasi-tethered shoot for fun using an eye-fi card (small jpegs to LR and RAW on the 2nd card) and, while it's a bit half-assed compared to proper FW800 tethering, it worked surprisingly well. More on this in a future article)
Also, I actually think it would give a lot of other systems a run for their money on, say, a fashion show (though why you wouldn't use a D3x for that escapes me).
That said, Pentax is going after a specific market, and has given them a very competitive and attractive product which has significant advantages (price, ergonomics, weather sealing, lens weight, etc.) over all of its rivals in its core target applications.
Phasy and Hassy have to be nervous because everyone in their core "pro" markets already own DBs, and have no reason to upgrade to newer or higher MP count DBs. The line-up of pros waiting to upgrade their 40MP backs to 80MP backs will form in the phonebooth to my left. Pros with existing Phase and Hassy systems are asking themselves how they'r going to deal with convergence, not whether they need a 200MB RAW file...
Phasy and Hassy's cameras still kind of suck ass, so they're not selling new cameras, either. So what's their market for new users?? Pros who enter the studio-shooting world, sure. But in North America and Europe, it has to be mostly the rich amateurs. What do rich amateurs shoot? Do they tether a lot? Do they travel? Do they do landscape? Do they like really heavy systems? Do they like a camera that's as user-friendly as their prosumer dslr? Hmm.
That's why I think the BRIC countries are key for Phase and Hassy's survival. If they can sell growing pro and rich amateur markets there on their 'brand value', they're golden for a bunch more years. If not, I think they're in trouble.
Fun times.
- N.
-
BJL, yes Canon they have been announcing/showing samples of unusually large sensors. Here is a 20x20 cm link.
Ah yes: I had forgotten that sensor design, apparently for large telescopes: hardly a MF (or LF) contender though, especially as it has only about 8MP, going by the "100x" sensitivity claim.
-
Ah yes: I had forgotten that sensor design, apparently for large telescopes: hardly a MF (or LF) contender though, especially as it has only about 8MP, going by the "100x" sensitivity claim.
They also just recently made a 120mp APS-H sensor.
-
Another thing that comes into my mind about that Pentax magical properties that suddenly amazes all the planet, is the cheap factor. Or accesibility. It can indeed be applaude but you know, we are living in a system that cheap is rarely going with quality. There are some exceptions certainly but they are the exceptions that confirm the rule.
True, but 10.000 US$ is not cheap by any means. It is already an amazingly expensive camera. These prices show their ugly face most in no inflation markets like Japan where the price of bread/rice has remained the same for 15 years while equivalent cameras have become 3 times pricier. Small format players have been just as guilty here.
Even in relative terms, you can still buy a car for that amount of cash. A decent one new and an amazing one second hand (a like new 5 years old BMW 3 series for instance).
What should be amazing the planet is how much more expensive the other guys are. The main reasons they could get away with it is a genius sales trick comparing the price to the previous expenditures on film, the provision of a quality service to technology unaware senior photographers and some smart marketing focused on influencers.
The gap between parts cost and end user price is just too high to remain sustainable in such a mature technology market. Pentax is showing us that there is simply little rationale for these kind of margins in the digital era. Pentax doesn't address yet the most niche applications like tethered shooting? Those who believe that Pentax doesn't have the means to implement good tethered shooting should stop fooling themselves. As soon as they have enough users in NA/EMEA they will become serious about it and we will get a stable and fast tethered shooting in the next generation of the camera using the fastest Firewire/USB3.0/lightpeak interface available or even wifi. They will work with Adobe on LR's improvement - they will love to have a partner in this segment... bandwidth will obviously be sensor limited in next gen MF devices.
My ignorant view is that the only ways to grow for Phase and Hassy is IMHO to either go for lower prices/higher volumes while shifting their business model more towards services by tuning their deal with VARs (increase the price of support and keep some margin for themselves for instance). That could work if their VARs can really bring added value instead of being a way to compensate for sub-par quality/ease of use. There is a huge opportunity here for top players like Capture Integration and it would result in a much healthier market where people pay themselves for what they get/need.
I believe that many photographers would fall for a 15.000 US$ version of the P65+ with an optional 5.000 US$ a year support contract.
But, what do I know?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What should be amazing the planet is how much more expensive the other guys are.
There is a huge opportunity here for top players like Capture Integration and it would result in a much healthier market where people pay themselves for what they get/need.
Cheers,
Bernard
I beg to differ. I think the MF dealers are going to see their profit stripped as H and P lower prices by looting the dealer margins. CI may make it because they are smart guys, but I wouldnt' count on it.
On the other hand there would certainly be a market now for people capable of selling into the emerging digital cine accessory and postprod market - my feeling is every major city is going to have at least one dealer specializing in computer configurations for cine shooters.Look at he Red forum, and you can see that the computer stuff is above most of the cine guys ability to set up and configure, while it is the biggest bottleneck during production.
Edmund
-
I beg to differ. I think the MF dealers are going to see their profit stripped as H and P lower prices by looting the dealer margins. CI may make it because they are smart guys, but I wouldnt' count on it.
On the other hand there would certainly be a market now for people capable of selling into the emerging digital cine accessory and postprod market - my feeling is every major city is going to have at least one dealer specializing in computer configurations for cine shooters.Look at he Red forum, and you can see that the computer stuff is above most of the cine guys ability to set up and configure, while it is the biggest bottleneck during production.
Edmund
We've all had these discussions about camera prices for years. Especially medium format and I doubt seriously if any camera maker, large or small really knows exactly what their going to be offering or at what price in the next few years.
It seems like high end cameras are at a standstill, the Pentax included. Even the canon rumors are all about the next next 5d. You hear nothing of substance about the next 1ds or the next Nikon, at least the next expensive Nikon.
The thing is none of us can make a camera maker do anything. If we could Phase would have had a 5" high def lcd by now and Hasselblad would have a mirror image of C-1.
The RED and it's prices are somewhat of an anomaly, because it's the only high def raw shooting, motion camera that is somewhat affordable. RED is also owned by one very rich guy so if it makes a lot of money or not really [robably isn't his biggest concern. His concern is covering the market, which he may well do.
Even with that the rumors are RED has sold 10,000 RED Ones and since I would imagine the average RED buyer spends at least 40 to 50k at RED, that totals 400 to 500 million bucks.
That's a lot of bread and none of it goes to dealers. It's all heads to RED and there is still a waiting line for about 1/2 of what RED sells.
BC
P.S. In regards to post production in the digital cinema world, there are a lot of companies that will configure anything you want. Promax one of the best known. The thing is as an on set image maker do you want to be that guy, the editor, colorists, matte painter, effects guy/girl, because if you do then you don't need a RED you need to rent a suite in North Hollywood and close the blinds, crank up the espresso and prepare for 4pm to 6am working days.
Even then very good effects companies like Asylum, http://www.asylumfx.com/index/index just went out of business (and they had a lot of on going projects in house), most high profile.
They just couldn't compete with countries like Canada and England that subsidized production or come in at the numbers India was charging.
In LA today there are blocks and blocks of closed editorial and effects houses. The work is there, the numbers aren't profitable.
IMO
BC
-
That's a lot of bread and none of it goes to dealers. It's all heads to RED and there is still a waiting line for about 1/2 of what RED sells.
BC
I was reading through the Red forum, looking at the enthusiasm some of the best people in the field are displaying about the imagery. Maybe their hardware is really improving faster than ours, maybe their software is getting better faster than Photoshop, and is more fun to do things with, maybe their budgets are still larger, or maybe actresses are more user-friendly after hours than models, but in any case there is a definite upbeat on their forum while we seem to be debating the fine points of taxidermy. Upbeat while you say the postprod houses are going bust - hmmm.
Edmund
-
They just couldn't compete with countries like Canada and England that subsidized production or come in at the numbers India was charging.
In LA today there are blocks and blocks of closed editorial and effects houses. The work is there, the numbers aren't profitable.
IMO
BC
I'm surprised to read that Britain is subsidising anything; it's almost broke!
As for the numbers being there but not profitable ones, that's probably much the same as with normal (not Nina Ricci et al) stills shooting. Look at stock: zillions of images available, zillions being used, and who's making money? The wheel has to stop turning at those revs or it's going to disintegrate completely or, as bad, just stop. I posted a 'contributions advice' from a magazine in the business section here, that strikes me as part of the malaise all photographers face: they are entirely open and vulnerable to extortion. Why? Because there are those who will submit just for the imagined glory of seeing themselves in print.
Rob C
-
a pentax 645D can't be used on a technical camera... so it won't affect leaf, phane 1, and Hassy in that market...
i'm shure, it will affects more D3X sales !
-
True, but 10.000 US$ is not cheap by any means. It is already an amazingly expensive camera. These prices show their ugly face most in no inflation markets like Japan where the price of bread/rice has remained the same for 15 years while equivalent cameras have become 3 times pricier. Small format players have been just as guilty here.
Even in relative terms, you can still buy a car for that amount of cash. A decent one new and an amazing one second hand (a like new 5 years old BMW 3 series for instance).
What should be amazing the planet is how much more expensive the other guys are. The main reasons they could get away with it is a genius sales trick comparing the price to the previous expenditures on film, the provision of a quality service to technology unaware senior photographers and some smart marketing focused on influencers.
Bernard
Yessir. Back in 1983 I bought a Yashicamat 124G (as a backup) for £65 which was in mint condition and produced MF negatives which were every bit as good in quality as my Rollei 2.8 or a Hasselblad of the period. Even new it would only have been about £150. The cost of MF photography now is simply outrageous by comparison, and eventually the market will collapse.
John
-
Yessir. Back in 1983 I bought a Yashicamat 124G (as a backup) for £65 which was in mint condition and produced MF negatives which were every bit as good in quality as my Rollei 2.8 or a Hasselblad of the period. Even new it would only have been about £150. The cost of MF photography now is simply outrageous by comparison, and eventually the market will collapse.
John
Beg to differ. Assuming a very modest 100 rolls per year at very modest prices, and without factoring in the cost of time for trips to and from the lab (add another $50-100/hr minimum):
20 x 120 PP @$20 + tax = $ 452
Processing (@$6/roll) = $ 678
Proof scan CD ($10/roll) = $1,130
Hi-res scans of the best = $1,469
20 shoots ($65 per)
Total = $3,729
Even if you take out the proof-scans (foolish) you'd be looking at $2,600 a year for a very minimal level of photography. This volume of film could easily be doubled for most serious (non-pro) shooters. This makes the $2,000 - 2,500 a year it costs to own the camera look downright reasonable.
- N.
-
True, but 10.000 US$ is not cheap by any means. It is already an amazingly expensive camera. These prices show their ugly face most in no inflation markets like Japan where the price of bread/rice has remained the same for 15 years while equivalent cameras have become 3 times pricier. Small format players have been just as guilty here.
Even in relative terms, you can still buy a car for that amount of cash. A decent one new and an amazing one second hand (a like new 5 years old BMW 3 series for instance).
I really don't like arguing about analogies, but that's not a fair comparison. Amazing 5-year-old second-hand BMW 3 Series has pretty much exactly the same performance as the same recent model, while a top-end camera would have twice the megapixels, stops higher DR and tonal range, and video. So it might be true that you're paying relatively more for the camera, but the tech has advanced far more.
Agree fully that the money (margin) is in services, not hardware, though.
-
I really don't like arguing about analogies, but that's not a fair comparison. Amazing 5-year-old second-hand BMW 3 Series has pretty much exactly the same performance as the same recent model, while a top-end camera would have twice the megapixels, stops higher DR and tonal range, and video. So it might be true that you're paying relatively more for the camera, but the tech has advanced far more.
Agree fully that the money (margin) is in services, not hardware, though.
Cars are always a bad comparison with anything else. Even with each other. Worse, is the lure of the second-hand. You buy that 5-year-old lux/hot chariot and what? What is that you discover that if you couldn't afford it new, you sure as hell can't afford it used! It's like boats, to make another false analogy: before we bought here I'd dragged my better-half to boat shows to look at things 'worth' the price of our house. So, I could have bought one that would have given a life of mobility (ha effin' ha!), nice aft cabin, plenty of sail or engine, but then... then, I'd have gone bust with maintenance and marina dues. Never truer than if you have to ask the price you can't afford it.
Where do snappers find themselves with running MF digii - any different a persepctive about needing to ask the price?
Rob C
-
Beg to differ. Assuming a very modest 100 rolls per year at very modest prices, and without factoring in the cost of time for trips to and from the lab (add another $50-100/hr minimum):
snip
Total = $3,729
- N.
There is no comparing film to digital. For one, films as dead as Zed, at least in the world of commerce. Secondly film was cheap compared to professional digital production. Film didn't require multiple computers, dozens of software packages, plug ins, monitors, monitor calibrators, 4 cloud servers, 300 terabytes of backed up storage space and a laptop/ipad/iphone stuck to your side for 99.999% of all waking moments.
The argument that digital is cheaper probably works for people like my dad that only sends out twelve snaps a year through his computer and rarely prints an image.
____________________
Rob,
Don't do the doom and gloom over post production and the link I posted to Asylum. Yes they went under, but none of us know the real reason because none of us are their accounting firm. They could have taken high executive salaries, been overleveraged on rental space, could have just underbid. None of us know.
What I do know is that good work is still produced, not every photographer that earns his/her living does it with a $300 camera and if your working... your going forward, not holding or clinging to yesterday.
90% of what is going on today is not an end of communications, advertising or well paid professionals, it's just that the whole world's business climate is a mess and until that clears up, every industry will do a lot of soul searching.
IMO
BC
-
There is no comparing film to digital. For one, films as dead as Zed, at least in the world of commerce. Secondly film was cheap compared to professional digital production. Film didn't require multiple computers, dozens of software packages, plug ins, monitors, monitor calibrators, 4 cloud servers, 300 terabytes of backed up storage space and a laptop/ipad/iphone stuck to your side for 99.999% of all waking moments.
The argument that digital is cheaper probably works for people like my dad that only sends out twelve snaps a year through his computer and rarely prints an image.
Don't disagree at all, but the original point was made viz. amateur users, who wax romantically on the good old days of 'cheaper' photography. For pros, whether you can make money at it is, I imagine, largely a question of an intelligent billing model, and whether some idiot who hasn't costed his overhead properly will undercut you. Of course, that kind of competition doesn't last long, but there's probably an inexhaustible supply of those guys in many markets. The same people who allow micro-stock to exist. l
The culture of constant connectedness and the expectation of instantaneous response pervades virtually every field nowadys, and has improved none of them. Litigation today takes three times as long and costs ten times as much, but god help you if the client call at 1:15 am doesn't get answered. Doesn't make us better as human beings or artists, that's for sure.
- N.
-
I really don't like arguing about analogies, but that's not a fair comparison. Amazing 5-year-old second-hand BMW 3 Series has pretty much exactly the same performance as the same recent model, while a top-end camera would have twice the megapixels, stops higher DR and tonal range, and video. So it might be true that you're paying relatively more for the camera, but the tech has advanced far more.
Agree fully that the money (margin) is in services, not hardware, though.
Agreed, but the comparison was not between the 2 BMWs... it was between a camera and a car. :)
I would have to agree that it is hard to take pictures with a car, but knowing the complexity of these fairly well, the camera appears a bit over-priced.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would have to agree that it is hard to take pictures with a car, but knowing the complexity of these fairly well, the camera appears a bit over-priced.
On the highlighted point, this gentleman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xYWehyfFcM&feature=player_embedded) would disagree ;D
-
Love it !!! (it reminds me to some degree in fine arts ;D) but how refreshing. Thanks for the link Feppe.
I doubt he's making those prints for the local newspaper or L'oreal, so I think it's definitely fine art :)
-
Without doubt. This guy has passion and does something where the process is unique. We are on the other extreme than duplications. I see a lot of things that I like here.
-
Without doubt. This guy has passion and does something where the process is unique. We are on the other extreme than duplications. I see a lot of things that I like here.
Yep. That video further convinced me to do my own thing, and continue pursuing the projects that I have in planning stages.
-
Beg to differ. Assuming a very modest 100 rolls per year at very modest prices, and without factoring in the cost of time for trips to and from the lab (add another $50-100/hr minimum):
20 x 120 PP @$20 + tax = $ 452
Processing (@$6/roll) = $ 678
Proof scan CD ($10/roll) = $1,130
Hi-res scans of the best = $1,469
20 shoots ($65 per)
Total = $3,729
Even if you take out the proof-scans (foolish) you'd be looking at $2,600 a year for a very minimal level of photography. This volume of film could easily be doubled for most serious (non-pro) shooters. This makes the $2,000 - 2,500 a year it costs to own the camera look downright reasonable.
- N.
Nick
I think you have completely missed my point here. Back in 1983 I processed all my own film (both B/W and E6) and printed everything in my own darkroom. Even the cost of the darkroom kit was much less than today's computer setups. My costs to shoot as much film as I liked and print the best stuff to just as high a quality as the top pros of the day from MF were very low indeed, basically just film, chemicals, and paper once I had the £65 camera and the darkroom setup. They must have been low, because I was managing to make a living and pay the mortgage on the proceeds. Now I'd need a mortgage for the camera.
John
-
Nick
I think you have completely missed my point here. Back in 1983 I processed all my own film (both B/W and E6) and printed everything in my own darkroom. Even the cost of the darkroom kit was much less than today's computer setups. My costs to shoot as much film as I liked and print the best stuff to just as high a quality as the top pros of the day from MF were very low indeed, basically just film, chemicals, and paper once I had the £65 camera and the darkroom setup. They must have been low, because I was managing to make a living and pay the mortgage on the proceeds. Now I'd need a mortgage for the camera.
John
Today's full-frame 35 is as good as the old MF; so a camera a PC and a desktop printer will do you. The absurd inflation is at the high end of the market where just an MF camera and the comp to run it fast will cost 3x much as all of the rest of the stuff you need to be a marriage photographer.
Edmund
-
Today's full-frame 35 is as good as the old MF; so a camera a PC and a desktop printer will do you. The absurd inflation is at the high end of the market where just an MF camera and the comp to run it fast will cost 3x much as all of the rest of the stuff you need to be a marriage photographer.
Edmund
Edmund
That's a fair point. My problem is that I don't much like 35mm cameras, and I have always shot MF and owned those sorts of cameras. So now I feel disenfranchised. It's nothing to do with IQ now, of course, although it was back then. But I very much prefer working with waist-level finders and having that compositional view of the world.
John
-
Very different is the pro scene, at least here I do not know in the US or Japan. Equipment is rather old. There are many many studios that work with the 1D3, the CS3 or "old" MF equipment etc...
There is no rush at all.
Because at the end those tools are plenty good and they are not what it "make it happens".
There is not night and day difference between a 1ds2 and a 1ds3.
-
I think you have completely missed my point here. Back in 1983 I processed all my own film (both B/W and E6) and printed everything in my own darkroom. Even the cost of the darkroom kit was much less than today's computer setups. My costs to shoot as much film as I liked and print the best stuff to just as high a quality as the top pros of the day from MF were very low indeed, basically just film, chemicals, and paper once I had the £65 camera and the darkroom setup. They must have been low, because I was managing to make a living and pay the mortgage on the proceeds.
The time spent in the darkroom should be included in the cost, unless you work for free.
-
Edmund
That's a fair point. My problem is that I don't much like 35mm cameras, and I have always shot MF and owned those sorts of cameras. So now I feel disenfranchised. It's nothing to do with IQ now, of course, although it was back then. But I very much prefer working with waist-level finders and having that compositional view of the world.
John
John,
I have a beautiful mirror contraption that costs a few dollars, glues on the back of my SLR, and gives me a waist-level view of the liveview image. Which, incidentally can be very precisely focused, with 1:1 pixel view of what the sensor sees (no focus screen focus errors). You may find acquiring one of these useful.
Edmund
-
Indeed. Actually the 1ds2 is still very present.
I can't see either a night and day difference. The 16mp canon is now reachable second-hand for very little and if in good shape a true bargain. I don't have any problem with cleaning sensors.
About what John and Edmund where pointing, it is true, but isn't it the case, not specially in photo industry that from a certain level of quality, any little increment multiply numbers drastically? (watch the cine gear)
I mean, do you really thing those brands are robing us or high prices are the logical consequence of high performances? (it's a true question, don't have the answer)
I do not have an answer either but just an opinion.
At the end nobody is pointing a gun to our head and we are free of not buying new cameras.
At least, I think this is possible since recents times, because most products have reached a quality that is plenty good for 90% of applications. Most of use does a few % of applications.
Between 2002 and 2008 was difficult not to upgrade, because the products were not mature enough, but now I cannot see many new compelling products.
-
I have a beautiful mirror contraption that costs a few dollars, glues on the back of my SLR, and gives me a waist-level view of the liveview image. Which, incidentally can be very precisely focused, with 1:1 pixel view of what the sensor sees (no focus screen focus errors). You may find acquiring one of these useful.
In several ways that's more functional than an optical WLF. 1:1 focusing, and also the image you're focusing on can be boosted (e.g. ISO6400) so that even very dim subjects are bright enough to focus on.
BUT the visual beauty, hard to describe joy, and tactile nature of the very 3D image presented in an RZ67 WLF can not be emulated by putting a mirror to an LCD.
Sometimes technology aids the process but takes away some of the fun.
All a matter of taste of course. To each his own.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Hi,
I only have experience with Pentax 67 and Hasselblad 500C WLF, hated both. Nothing to say about modern cameras. Just wanted to say that all WLFs are not created equal.
Best regards
Erik
-
I agree with Doug here.
When shooting I really don't want to look at a pixelated, white balanced, non-color managed, white and black clipping cheap and trashy LCD.
I don't want to view such an ugly transformation of the scene... I want to see the scene (and in particular the light).
At least as far "composition" is concerned. Checking an already captured image on a screen is fine.
For focus checking an LCD is certainly super... but as replacement for a finder it wouldn't work for me.
-
Liveview on the Nikons and Canons is pretty good actually. Pro movie guys doing million dollar productions slap a viewing loupe on the LCD and compose and focus their takes with Liveview.
Edmund
I agree with Doug here.
When shooting I really don't want to look at a pixelated, white balanced, non-color managed, white and black clipping cheap and trashy LCD.
I don't want to view such an ugly transformation of the scene... I want to see the scene (and in particular the light).
At least as far "composition" is concerned. Checking an already captured image on a screen is fine.
For focus checking an LCD is certainly super... but as replacement for a finder it wouldn't work for me.
-
Hi,
For me LiveView is a way of achieving dead on focus (by enlarging the focusing spot). In my view it's essential.
Best regards
Erik
Liveview on the Nikons and Canons is pretty good actually. Pro movie guys doing million dollar productions slap a viewing loupe on the LCD and compose and focus their takes with Liveview.
Edmund
-
For me LiveView is a way of achieving dead on focus (by enlarging the focusing spot). In my view it's essential.
Same here.
I have not forgotten how it feels to come back home from that amazing shoot only to find out on screen that many of my once-in-a-life-time-light images are slightly off focus. That really was the most frustrating experience for me when using the Mamiya ZD. I couldn't help counting mentally the money I was wasting.
I have not forgotten that feeling but it has mostly not happened to me in the last 2 years.
Now on the positive side, the absence of moire/artifacts on many MF images is the result of them being slightly out of focus. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Liveview on the Nikons and Canons is pretty good actually. Pro movie guys doing million dollar productions slap a viewing loupe on the LCD and compose and focus their takes with Liveview.
yes, compared to the low res black&white finders of other video cameras this is an improvement. But I was talking about photographs, not about video.
For me LiveView is a way of achieving dead on focus (by enlarging the focusing spot). In my view it's essential.
as I said: for focussing it's super.
I actually don't have issues to achieve accurate focus with split image screens on my Contax (shimmed to match the focus plane of my DB). And on my Cambo a laser distometer is working very good for me (if I am not shooting near or at infinity, which I do mostly).
Still... Live View would be a very welcomed improvement for me. But I would only use it for checking focus, not for composition.
-
I once posted a dead-sharp skateboard jump image on a forum, taken with 35mm AF. Immediately all the older members of that forum explained to me that the "right" way to take this image was with prefocused MF.
The same attitude is now pervading this forum. While video shooters are getting excellent results with LiveView, older members of this forum are explaining to us that the viewfinder is the ONLY way to compose and focus.
Of course, the sellers of the mostly outdated and overpriced clattering boxen which are now called "Professional Medium Format Cameras" cannot purchase MF sensors capable of LiveView. They state they publicly state cannot purchase decent back LCDs, and we're not even talking about the special chips and software needed to extract and process a real-time video feed.
So we're being told that spinach is good for you because in fact there is no meat to be had.
Edmund
Same here.
I have not forgotten how it feels to come back home from that amazing shoot only to find out on screen that many of my once-in-a-life-time-light images are slightly off focus. That really was the most frustrating experience for me when using the Mamiya ZD. I couldn't help counting mentally the money I was wasting.
I have not forgotten that feeling but it has mostly not happened to me in the last 2 years.
Now on the positive side, the absence of moire/artifacts on many MF images is the result of them being slightly out of focus. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well
In my opinion (and it is only my opinion) all these things - LCDs, EVFs, liveview, are utter trash and it is impossible to compose using them in any meaningful fashion. They do not represent the world in front of ourselves and the camera with any passion or romance, merely as a clinical array of pixels which has no magic or charm.
For this reason, I will hang on to my cameras with optical viewfinders until I am too old to take pictures any more ;) And if I get a few shots which are missing focus, well that's just tough. I'd rather have the odd missing focus than missing the magic of taking photographs.
John
-
While video shooters are getting excellent results with LiveView, older members of this forum are explaining to us that the viewfinder is the ONLY way to compose and focus.
could you please point me to a respective post of one of those said older members?
Do you actually read the posts you are referring to?
-
could you please point me to a respective post of one of those said older members?
No problem, just look at the one before the one of yours I am now replying to.
Do you actually read the posts you are referring to?
What, read other people's posts when I'm just enjoying being argumentative? Where's the fun in that ? :)
I understand that some users want THEIR way of doing things - that is a very reasonable point of view (pun intended). The problem is that the MF companies are insisting on doing things "the old way" and supplying junk: Which MF camera (Phase? Hassy? Leica?) lets the end-user fine-adjust lens focus, so the lens can be electronically shimmed to the body? Which one supplies a really good back LCD? Which one has Liveview? Which one lets you pick a point on the back LCD and sets exposure and/or focus and/or white balance for that point? Why are such things BAD? Why are most of these there on 35mm cameras? The fact that John or you don't need Liveview for COMPOSING doesn't mean that youwouldn't want to focus check in the field (actually, you do), that you gladly accept a lens that you cannot re-shim (you shim your lenses), or that you accept an LCD as sh*tty as the Phase one and smile about it.
I did an architecture test once, comparing my Nikon to my Phamiya. The Phase back wiped the floor with the Nikon ... until I started focusing the N with Liveview. At that point the Nikon images compared pretty well - less resolution, better focus.
Edmund
PS. I am really angry about the elitist attitude which companies use to justify an inferior product. I don't complain when my electronic Leica doesn't have an SLR viewfinder. I do complain when the Leica stops working when I'm on a press trip, and the dealer tells me "oh, that happens sometimes, you just have to wait 24 hours with the battery out." If they don't want to make a working electronic camera, they shouldn't make an electronic camera.The attitude now is "Oh, we're an elite company, we build the best products, we are going to make the product, and then when people have bought into it we'll fix the issues and give them something to upgrade to".
could you please point me to a respective post of one of those said older members?
Do you actually read the posts you are referring to?
-
Edmund
I think that you are overlooking one simple fact.
Nikon, Canon and the rest are huge companies with very big research and development budgets and massive economies of scale. Of course Phase and Hasselblad could make a camera that addresses all these issues but the development cost would be gigantic and irrecoverable given the tiny sales volumes in comparison with the big boys.
Instead they choose to focus (pun intended) on a bit by bit (pun intended) approach to their product development whilst keeping as much of the installed user base compatible with the new models as is possible.
Having used both MF and a D3X for my work over the past year there is no question in my mind that (admittedly properly focussed) images produced on my Hasselblad are much superior to those produced by the D3X. If I were a sports or wildlife photographer I would of course be using the best 35mm but I photograph landscapes and architecture (interiors and exteriors) and for my work MF i.e. Hasselblad is the best. Incidentally I have just as many out of focus images from my D3X because of the complexity of the focussing system switching between the normal and the one used in Live view.
-
Keith
Isn't that a desirable characteristic in a photographer?
:)
-
...
well, I riterate that I am finding Live View extremely useful for focus checking ... we are not in disagreement here. Not in the least. It would solve some problems for me.
But I also know that mostly achieving accurate focussing is not so much an issue for me (neither with the 645 nor the tech camera)... it requires some workarounds, though. And sometimes it's quite cumbersome. Still doable... at least if you don't have to shoot very fast (you can't with a tech camera anyway).
Of course there are also situations where it's quite hard to achieve accurate focus and you have to do some guesswork... under these circumstances I'd love to have Live View... sure! But I use a digiback model from 2005 and it simply doesn't provide Live View. Should I therefore throw it away? Again, it can be cumbersome, sometimes even more or less impossible, to achieve accurate focus. But mostly it is not.
As to the said attitude of the MFD companies ... I don't know. I don't care first of all.
I just use what is available and what I like to use for the things I do. And what I can afford, naturally.
Still like my prehistoric P45... especially when the captures are sharp ;-)
-
David,
Edmund
I think that you are overlooking one simple fact.
Just one? You're very polite here :)
Nikon, Canon and the rest are huge companies with very big research and development budgets and massive economies of scale. Of course Phase and Hasselblad could make a camera that addresses all these issues but the development cost would be gigantic and irrecoverable given the tiny sales volumes in comparison with the big boys.
Yeah, sure. Hasselblad and Leaf/Sinar (and probably Phase) already have the electronic system for shimming the lens, they just decided to make it a factory return rather than enable it for the user.
In the same way, I'm sure that Phase could change their LCD if they really wanted - surely it's easier to source a $10 LCD and implement it on all your product line than to source a $500 sensor and implement the electronics for driving it on just ONE model of the camera, and calibrate EVERY sample of the sensor before it leaves the factory?
Edmund
Having used both MF and a D3X for my work over the past year there is no question in my mind that (admittedly properly focussed) images produced on my Hasselblad are much superior to those produced by the D3X. If I were a sports or wildlife photographer I would of course be using the best 35mm but I photograph landscapes and architecture (interiors and exteriors) and for my work MF i.e. Hasselblad is the best. Incidentally I have just as many out of focus images from my D3X because of the complexity of the focussing system switching between the normal and the one used in Live view.
Hmm, you seem to have forgotten that a lot of commercial MF work does involve not wildlife but MODELS. Who do move a bit, in fact you often ASK them to move around a bit.
If you use Liveview on the dSLRs, why don't you just focus manually with Liveview? I find this works best, with architecture, and is GUARANTEED to give an image focused where you want it.
Edmund
-
It's strange, we're actually in perfect agreement.
I think you are getting well-focused shots because you are on a tech camera, and you have good technique. I am certain that an Alpa or Arca Swiss and a Disto will get good focus every time. Notice that these are in fact in many ways more modern objects than the Phamiyas :)
BTW, over the years I used a bunch of samples of Phase P45+ backs, and the only one which gave me dead-sharp pictures was an old P45 that I had as a repair loaner. Suddenly all my pictures were in focus.
Edmund
well, I riterate that I am finding Live View extremely useful for focus checking ... we are not in disagreement here. Not in the least. It would solve some problems for me.
But I also know that mostly achieving accurate focussing is not so much an issue for me (neither with the 645 nor the tech camera)... it requires some workarounds, though. And sometimes it's quite cumbersome. Still doable... at least if you don't have to shoot very fast (you can't with a tech camera anyway).
Of course there are also situations where it's quite hard to achieve accurate focus and you have to do some guesswork... under these circumstances I'd love to have Live View... sure! But I use a digiback model from 2005 and it simply doesn't provide Live View. Should I therefore throw it away? Again, it can be cumbersome, sometimes even more or less impossible, to achieve accurate focus. But mostly it is not.
As to the said attitude of the MFD companies ... I don't know. I don't care first of all.
I just use what is available and what I like to use for the things I do. And what I can afford, naturally.
Still like my prehistoric P45... especially when the captures are sharp ;-)
-
I think you are getting well-focused shots because you are on a tech camera, and you have good technique.
attached a screenshot from Capture One showing a P21+ shot I just have at hand taken with the Contax 80mm lens @ f2.8, manually focussed using a split image screen. I could show you the same with all of my lenses at all distances from near to mid distances to infinity at all apertures.
I am sure other 645 users could also show accurately focussed captures :-) ... not just tech camera users.
BTW, over the years I used a bunch of samples of Phase P45+ backs, and the only one which gave me dead-sharp pictures was an old P45 that I had as a repair loaner. Suddenly all my pictures were in focus.
my P45 was serviced twice (incl. change of sensor mounting resp. sensor replacement). I had to re-shim my screens and re-adjust my LF lenses after each repair. Slightly... but still.
edit: BTW the registration difference has always been within the tolerances of the Contax' AF. The split image improves the fine adjustment, though.
-
It's close to infinity that one needs Liveview most, I find. Even the best mirror-based AF deserts you past 30 meters on a standard lens, I find. Sometimes you have these trees at 50 meters, background buildings at 100, and you want the trees ... or the contrary :)
Edmund
And yes, I believe that once upon a time OCD was useful for a photographer, because you only saw the image AFTER it was too late to retake it, and any mistake would ruin it. So you'd always have to follow all these strange rituals - eg. slap the developer tank to get rid of the bubbles on the film.
Edmund
attached a screenshot from Capture One showing a P21+ shot I just have at hand taken with the Contax 80mm lens @ f2.8, manually focussed using a split image screen. I could show you the same with all of my lenses at all distances from near to mid distances to infinity at all apertures.
I am sure other 645 users could also show accurate focussed captures :-) ... not just tech camera users.
my P45 was serviced twice (incl. change of sensor mounting resp. sensor replacement). I had to re-shim my screens and re-adjust my LF lenses after each repair. Slightly... but still.
edit: BTW the registration difference has always been within the tolerances of the Contax' AF. The split image improves the fine adjustment, though.
-
It's close to infinity that one needs Liveview most, I find.
well, my split image screens do... even with the 35mm lens.
OCD
what does this abbreviation stands for? :-)
-
It's close to infinity that one needs Liveview most, I find. Even the best mirror-based AF deserts you past 30 meters on a standard lens, I find. Sometimes you have these trees at 50 meters, background buildings at 100, and you want the trees ... or the contrary :)
And yes, I believe that once upon a time OCD was useful for a photographer, because you only saw the image AFTER it was too late to retake it, and any mistake would ruin it. So you'd always have to follow all these strange rituals - eg. slap the developer tank to get rid of the bubbles on the film.
Edmund
OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. And as Edmund says, strange rituals were once the order of the day. He is also correct, that his Liveview would be extremely useful when near infinity. However, once again I believe that (for a certain type of photography) not being able to see the image until after you process it is actually a good thing. Even though I now shoot digital MF, I find that nearly all my best shots are the ones where I only took one frame, and never bothered to check it on the LCD. I somehow know when I've nailed it. The ones where I took several frames and kept checking the result are almost always pants.
John
-
OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
got it - thanks!
He is also correct, that his Liveview would be extremely useful when near infinity.
yes, of course. However a split image screen (in a 645 camera) is also "okay". But on the tech camera focussing near infinity with somewhat longer lenses is hard (well, at least for me)... as a laser disto is hard to point and sometimes it won't work, especially in bright sunlight (admittedly I don't use a D5). Too, I am quite untalented in guessing (longer) distances.
-
I somehow know when I've nailed it.
John
Yeah, I manage to do that with some cameras, others, no. Good feeling when it works.
Edmund
-
Well
In my opinion (and it is only my opinion) all these things - LCDs, EVFs, liveview, are utter trash and it is impossible to compose using them in any meaningful fashion. They do not represent the world in front of ourselves and the camera with any passion or romance, merely as a clinical array of pixels which has no magic or charm.
For this reason, I will hang on to my cameras with optical viewfinders until I am too old to take pictures any more ;) And if I get a few shots which are missing focus, well that's just tough. I'd rather have the odd missing focus than missing the magic of taking photographs.
John
Couldn't agree with you more! The most surreal experience is to go to a concert these days and watch the kids watching it, literally, on the screens of their smartphones (as they presumably make an unusably bad recording of it).
I always feel like grabbing them, and screaming: put down the fuc^&#! television..it's reallyhappening right in front of you!!
EVFs give me the same feeling.
That said......the sort of external monitor mentioned in Michael's review today is seriously useful, especially to MF users, where focus (i) matters more and (ii) is harder to achieve.
- N.
-
Couldn't agree with you more! The most surreal experience is to go to a concert these days and watch the kids watching it, literally, on the screens of their smartphones (as they presumably make an unusably bad recording of it).
I always feel like grabbing them, and screaming: put down the fuc^&#! television..it's reallyhappening right in front of you!!
EVFs give me the same feeling.
That said......the sort of external monitor mentioned in Michael's review today is seriously useful, especially to MF users, where focus (i) matters more and (ii) is harder to achieve.
- N.
Nick,
When you go to a concert do you yell out "turn the volume down" (insert smiley face here).
Whether one generation understands the other generation is not relevant because the next generation, is the one that we all sell to, whether your work is in a gallery, on a website, a printed page or your inventing the next new social network.
You are never going to get someone that was born in 1984 and grew up with an I-mac in their room to understand that a ground glass offers a better experience than an led/lcd and actually I'm not sure if it really does.
And I wouldn't dismiss these kids with their smart phones because even though most are just shooting a clip to put on their facebook page, there will be a few that use the experience to learn framing, composition, motion story telling that no school in the world can convey.
I have that Marshal monitor on a 5d2 that Michael reviewed and it works well, though I use it less and less as we have now moved our motion imagery to the RED (which works even better).
So my view is if your going to continue with professional image creation you have two options. Stick with the old ways and end up on the park bench, or embrace what the consumer market already understands.
I personally believe that cameras, (still and motion) have not gone future enough. You can see it with consumer cameras, they're oh so close in features, fall down in image quality but I think most of us don't realize that for all the professional systems, (canon and nikon included) we're still working with cameras that have the shape, usability very close to film cameras.
I think it's time that it all get's shaken up, but that topic is probably for another time.
IMO
BC
-
And I wouldn't dismiss these kids with their smart phones because even though most are just shooting a clip to put on their facebook page, there will be a few that use the experience to learn framing, composition, motion story telling that no school in the world can convey.
I think it's time that it all get's shaken up, but that topic is probably for another time.
IMO
BC
J,
You're right.
By the time they are 18 ALL these kids will have done more imagery than anyone outside a studio.
And those with an interest are going to be very good.
An artist friend of mine got a 5DII to backstop his other cameras, his son grabbed it, did some stop motion, soon my friend was bankrolling a 5DII production, doing the admin and driving the talent around. It was soon clear who was NOW the artist and who was the wallet with arms and legs :)
Edmund
-
Have you heard about fly-by-wire? The one who are not familiar with it I copy paste a wiki: A fly-by-wire (FBW) system replaces manual flight control of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the expected response. Commands from the computers are also input without the pilot's knowledge to stabilize the aircraft and perform other tasks.
Well, after decades of practises and studies, there is a general acceptance amongs the pilots and specially the military pilots who says this: A fly-by-wire control allows a good pilot to be very good but actually limits a very very good pilot. In some extremes situations, the best pilots actually hate those controls because not only it limits them but also can provoque accidents that would have been avoid in the hand of an expert.
The training is facing some dilema and back in less assisted tasks or mixed training, very young generations are trained on those system but if they really want to be the top elite, they have to master the non fly-by-wire flight. The human capacity in the right hands is still recognised and rehabilitated.
Last time I checked Boeing aircraft allowed pilots to override FBW in some circumstances, while Airbus doesn't. Guess which company's planes have better safety record? They're pretty much the same despite fundamentally different approach to FBW! Also, most recent military aircraft have FBW, including the F-16, F/A-18 and SU-27 which are widely considered some of the best military planes, ever. If there was acceptance among pilots about FBW being dangerous or even hindering their mad skills, do you really think countries and companies would spend billions upon billions to develop such systems?
Another data point is that pilot error accounts for almost half of airline accidents (http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism.htm), so it is questionable whether we even want pilots to have more or less control in extreme, rare, fast-paced and potentially dangerous situations.
For every accident allegedly the fault of FBW we have one for pilot error, one for metal fatigue, one for neglected maintenance, and one for flock of birds in the engine.
-
Edmund
I think that you are overlooking one simple fact.
Nikon, Canon and the rest are huge companies with very big research and development budgets and massive economies of scale. Of course Phase and Hasselblad could make a camera that addresses all these issues but the development cost would be gigantic and irrecoverable given the tiny sales volumes in comparison with the big boys.
That is an old "adagio", just to justify these "small" companies for their significantly overpriced products.
-
Utter unadulterated nonsense. There is no such thing as "general acceptance amongs the pilots," or anyone other than clueless armchair pilots on anything you imply about FBW.
I don't suppose you'll agree with a similar statement as to what race car drivers think about anti-lock brakes and traction control in production cars, either? For the average or below-average driver, they can indeed be helpful, but for a skilled driver, they are frequently a nuisance and in some situations, affirmatively dangerous (as anybody who has ever experienced ABS going into "ice mode" and backing off on the brakes at precisely the wrong time will attest). But I digress...
-
Hi,
We had at least two cases of what used to be called "Pilot Induced Oscillations" leading to two Swedish AJ39 Griffins crashes. The first was on a test aircraft and the other while on display flight over tightly populated areas. I'm not sure if those situations arose because of pilot error or FWB, but my guess is it was incompatibility between pilot and FWB.
Now, that plane has relaxed stability, like most modern fighters. That essentially means that it wont fly without computer controls, the computer essentially compensates for the relaxed stability. Sometimes a pilot's action can counteract with the computer, so the plane responds slow to pilot actions. The pilot involved in both PIO accidents was one of the most experienced test pilots at SAAB, the developer of the aircraft.
One additional Griffin was lost during an exercise when altitude radar misread reflections from the another plane and the computer made evasive action into the sea.
The last Griffin lost this far depended on unintended ejection of pilot during landing. It seems that inflation/deflation of the G-suit released the ejection handle. Pilot was ejected during approach. No one was killed in any of these accidents, although I have the impression that some people on ground got serious burns during the arial display over Stockholm Water Festival accident.
Best regards
Erik
Utter unadulterated nonsense. There is no such thing as "general acceptance amongs the pilots," or anyone other than clueless armchair pilots on anything you imply about FBW.
Last time I checked Boeing aircraft allowed pilots to override FBW in some circumstances, while Airbus doesn't. Guess which company's planes have better safety record? They're pretty much the same despite fundamentally different approach to FBW! Also, most recent military aircraft have FBW, including the F-16, F/A-18 and SU-27 which are widely considered some of the best military planes, ever. If there was acceptance among pilots about FBW being dangerous or even hindering their mad skills, do you really think countries and companies would spend billions upon billions to develop such systems?
Another data point is that pilot error accounts for almost half of airline accidents (http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism.htm), so it is questionable whether we even want pilots to have more or less control in extreme, rare, fast-paced and potentially dangerous situations.
For every accident allegedly the fault of FBW we have one for pilot error, one for metal fatigue, one for neglected maintenance, and one for flock of birds in the engine.
-
I see those younger generation, very creative, very enthousistic and productive. Then, I see my old boss and the way he does his shooting with lightning. Very little post prod and the kids are amazed.
I do also think that cameras are not designed for digital but following old patterns. I haven't stopped to put an emphasis on that. We are working with outdated tools in term of design. We need new stuff.
I would agree. The kids gain something, and they lose something. It's a bit like CGI animation compared to puppet and costume filming, each has its advantages. The kids often are not able to use the old stuff to its limits, although usually a few keep the "old tradition" alive.
But do tools matter?
I have a collection of Eric Rohmer films. The first ones are cheaply filmed on location eg. inside cafés in Paris, but the girls are really pretty. They are black and white, you can see the camera is cheap, auto-exposure changes as the camera pans, the operator is not expert. Dialogue is supplemented by heavy voice-over. The cutting is spare, to the point. These cheap films are really interesting in their exploration of simple relationships and the way they evolve.
Then Rohmer gets richer, one can see he now has "real" lighting, heavier equipment (camera lifts), professional cinematography, and color film. The work is visually more appealing, the cutting more indulgent then over-indulgent, unnecessary scenes and material intrude into the narratives, his work drifts.
Better tools do not mean better work, even when the same person is using them.
It is going to be very interesting to see whether fashion images improve when we can cut ONE frame from a motion capture instead of one frame per second with MF :)
Edmund
-
It is going to be very interesting to see whether fashion images improve when we can cut ONE frame from a motion capture instead of one frame per second with MF :)
That's an interesting point, albeit not a new one.
We had fashion photography, as well as portrait, even photo journalism go from large format to 35mm to digital and everything in between , with photographers using all sorts of equipment for any purpose till this day .
I don't think improvement is the right term, it's just different.
Also I believe a greater variety of easier to use technologies makes it harder for newcomers to develop a personal approach, when the solutions are too readily available .
Or maybe I'm just envious because I had to spend all the time in the darkrooms . ;)
-
Or maybe I'm just envious because I had to spend all the time in the darkrooms . ;)
Hmmm... no, I don't think you are being envious.
My own take is that anyone coming from the 'mid-level pro' old days (where the same guy did his processing as well a shooting and ran a strictly one-man show), had an excellent training for understanding how photography works. You learned how to expose as well as how to develop and print. All of those steps were essential, and only when exposure was understood could you know what the hell you were doing correctly or otherwise further along the production line.
Now with the wet mostly long gone, the old understanding of print contrast, exposure etc. is there as a very helpful base from which to move outwards into digital printing. One knows how a print could/should look. That's something based on experience, and I see several questions raised in LuLa on those points from people without the wet experience. They have little background on which to base expectation.
However, regarding camera exposures, I think digital and ETR has introduced a fresh breed of worm into the can. The certainty of incident light readings has been replaced by expose/check/expose/check and probably expose again!
However, all said and done, the value of immediacy of results can't be beaten, most of the time, as the paramount factor.
But, were I running a school, then I think I'd insist on the film path first, too. Hell, as most students never end up working as pros anyway, they may as well learn how to be 'art' photographers at the very least!
Rob C
-
Feppe, your infinite wisdom is indeed above my understanding and before jumping pompous and arrogant on people with ready-made infos that you picked-up here or there in magazines and internet, you will probably be interested to know that I was a former pilot, the second younger plane pilot in France so far and that I served in the Air Force in the B.A 118 wich is a nuclear and testing air force base and that I still maintain contact with active pilots in France, in England and in Spain, oh and russia, some of wich are test pilots. But this is my past, my story that I wanted to keep private but the last think I like is been taken as a stupid ignorant when it's not the case.
So I'm pretty much aware of what I'm talking about, not from certain vague journalistic informations or unformal conversation you might have had this or there on a vacacional airport.
If you read my post carefully, you'd have notice that I do not condamned the FBW and I'm refering of a mixed training back in the training planifications after they studdied the FBW.
This precision made, to close this parentesis and forget about it, and as this as now nothing to do with photography, I just wish you a nice night.
I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking your viewpoints. And I wasn't referring to you when I said clueless armchair pilots - I'm not even in armchair pilot category myself, and your assessment is spot on. But I've read too many discussions on FBW safety which are based on hearsay and anecdotes, and don't rely on data. Data which is available to anyone interested in airline safety which is important to me as a frequent flyer. Too many "Boeing wins because they allow pilot overdrive of FBW" when there are literally millions of other factors in aircraft safety.
I did misread your post as being an attack on FBW in general, though :-[ I've deleted the part in my previous post which implied you did so, but kept the rest as I stand behind my points about FBW safety.
Just for the record, human pilots will be outmaneuvred by pilotless aircraft one day, just like human chess players are today. It'll take a while, though. The closer we get to that day, the more desirable FBW becomes.
Back to normal programming.
-
Hmmm... no, I don't think you are being envious.
My own take is that anyone coming from the 'mid-level pro' old days (where the same guy did his processing as well a shooting and ran a strictly one-man show), had an excellent training for understanding how photography works. You learned how to expose as well as how to develop and print. All of those steps were essential, and only when exposure was understood could you know what the hell you were doing correctly or otherwise further along the production line.
Now with the wet mostly long gone, the old understanding of print contrast, exposure etc. is there as a very helpful base from which to move outwards into digital printing. One knows how a print could/should look. That's something based on experience, and I see several questions raised in LuLa on those points from people without the wet experience. They have little background on which to base expectation.
However, regarding camera exposures, I think digital and ETR has introduced a fresh breed of worm into the can. The certainty of incident light readings has been replaced by expose/check/expose/check and probably expose again!
However, all said and done, the value of immediacy of results can't be beaten, most of the time, as the paramount factor.
But, were I running a school, then I think I'd insist on the film path first, too. Hell, as most students never end up working as pros anyway, they may as well learn how to be 'art' photographers at the very least!
Rob C
Interesting perspective Rob but I seem to remember hearing similar opinions when DTP first started to appear. Suddenly every customer could be his or her own graphic designer. What did happen is that the journeyman paste-up artists with no creative ability fell by the wayside and those with creative ability grabbed the new tools and flew!! What technology, and in this instance digital imaging, has done for photography is to remove a barrier to entry that prevented those creative individuals with poor craft skills (and by that I mean the mechanistic details of darkroom processing rather than the creative aspects) from being able to use the photographic medium to express themselves. It has also opened the door to a whole new raft of ideas and techniques which may be alien to many of those brought up, as I was, with b & w film and dark room chemicals.
I am also not sure what use the ability to make a traditional print in a dark room is to those of us grappling with the intricacies of photoshop, colour managed workflows and ICC profiles.
I think that if you have a good eye - you have a good eye - irrespective of whether that is a "digital" or "film" eye.
These cameras are just tools in the same way as MF film, 5x4, whole plate, wet plate, daguerrotype and so on. they were a means to an end and that was to produce a representation or interpretation of what the artist/photographer saw.
In my view "the kids are all right" with their new technology and their new ideas. Let them get on with it and let's sit back and enjoy the show. We might even learn something or a lot.
-
I have a collection of Eric Rohmer films.
You woke up old memories.
I have to watch a few again.
-
You are never going to get someone that was born in 1984 and grew up with an I-mac in their room to understand that a ground glass offers a better experience than an led/lcd and actually I'm not sure if it really does.
So my view is if your going to continue with professional image creation you have two options. Stick with the old ways and end up on the park bench, or embrace what the consumer market already understands.
I personally believe that cameras, (still and motion) have not gone future enough. You can see it with consumer cameras, they're oh so close in features, fall down in image quality but I think most of us don't realize that for all the professional systems, (canon and nikon included) we're still working with cameras that have the shape, usability very close to film cameras.
A friend recently asked me whether I thought the MF camera companies had a future. The best answer I could come up with was that I thought it would be a very hard sell to get the next generation, reared on the Steve Jobsian vision of technological interface, to spend tens of thousands of dollars on camera technology that feels like it should be in a museum by comparison (ie: essentially everything in MF, and a lot of other cameras, too.).
I, too, am waiting for someone to come along and completely re-conceive the notion of the camera, rather than tinkering incrementally with a 1940s-1970s form-factor. That'll shake things up in just the way you say. However, that requires two things, together: (i) world-leading vision and (ii) about a billion dollars in capital to produce a consumer electronics product. You and I could sit down over a bottle of wine (a enduring analog technology, if there ever was one) and design a 'next' camera. Voice, eye, touch controls, virtually wearable ergonomics, etc. But who the hell will build it? It's like concept cars. Amazing minds have been creating a steady stream of amazing designs for decades. But somehow all that ever comes out of the production pipeline looks like a warmed-over Chevy Malibu.
- N.
-
A friend recently asked me whether I thought the MF camera companies had a future. The best answer I could come up with was that I thought it would be a very hard sell to get the next generation, reared on the Steve Jobsian vision of technological interface, to spend tens of thousands of dollars on camera technology that feels like it should be in a museum by comparison (ie: essentially everything in MF, and a lot of other cameras, too.).
snip
But somehow all that ever comes out of the production pipeline looks like a warmed-over Chevy Malibu.
- N.
I don't disagree, except I'm not too sure about the billion dollar thing, as most of what is truly modern is already out there in consumer grade cameras.
Hell, an I phone has a touch screen focus, a few of the consumer cameras have touch screen everything, image stabilization, incredibly high iso, they just don't have the depth, range or robust build to use for full fledged professional production.
In the professional realm we seem just over the wall happy to get an lcd that let's us see the image in decent detail, or tethering software that doesn't crash "too much".
Consumers would never put up with the beta testing process professionals have to endure. If they did there would be 2,000 class action lawsuits filed hourly.
Actually professionals of all pay grades put up with camera problems less and less. I can count about a dozen ex medium format owners that now shoot some kind of dslr, shoot a lot and are still turning a good profit in this economically challenged world. Some of them might go back to medium format if it was as usable as their Canons and Nikons, but not for the price, not for the problems, especially not for the slowdown in production.
Regardless, my point is the entry level photographers I've worked with in the last 10 years "want" to be a photographer and are slowly trying to embrace motion capture.
They might not know film but they "want" to use the best camera they can afford and where the medium format companies fall down in their marketing and sales efforts is they seem to have given up on this market to concentrate on the well heeled amateur. Nothing wrong with being well heeled, or an amateur but I find it amazing that almost daily some mfd back maker sends out an e-mail selling some shoot the rocks seminar (once again nothing wrong with shooting rocks . . . I guess).
It probably doesn't matter, because by the time mfd back makers find a way to get their cameras in the professional entry level photographers hands, RED "might" have something called a Scarlet or Rouge or Super Duper Epic camera that has a larger sensor, a 5" lcd, touch screen that track autofocuses and will probably be around the same price as a p65+.
To me that's when it is game over for traditional, professional cameras of all formats.
I think RED is the nightmare for every professional camera company, still and motion. They're owner is #110 on the Forbes 400, so obviously he can't be bought off, or probably out spent and if you just run the numbers RED has probably already sold well over half a billion dollars in cameras and accessories.
Imagine what they would do if they got product out faster.
IMO
BC
-
It's not that RED are particularly bright - it's that they can afford to put products on the market which will obsolete existing pro video producers like Sony. Sony of course has all these products ready to go, but they cannot afford to let them loose. C'mon, James, look at the 5DII - d'you really think Canon or Sony couldn't put the thing in a square box with a remote focus and exposure and viewfinder connector, and have it write wavelet compressed Raw to a RAID of miniature SSD drives? Give us a break.
Edmund
I don't disagree, except I'm not too sure about the billion dollar thing, as most of what is truly modern is already out there in consumer grade cameras.
Hell, an I phone has a touch screen focus, a few of the consumer cameras have touch screen everything, image stabilization, incredibly high iso, they just don't have the depth, range or robust build to use for full fledged professional production.
In the professional realm we seem just over the wall happy to get an lcd that let's us see the image in decent detail, or tethering software that doesn't crash "too much".
Consumers would never put up with the beta testing process professionals have to endure. If they did there would be 2,000 class action lawsuits filed hourly.
Actually professionals of all pay grades put up with camera problems less and less. I can count about a dozen ex medium format owners that now shoot some kind of dslr, shoot a lot and are still turning a good profit in this economically challenged world. Some of them might go back to medium format if it was as usable as their Canons and Nikons, but not for the price, not for the problems, especially not for the slowdown in production.
Regardless, my point is the entry level photographers I've worked with in the last 10 years "want" to be a photographer and are slowly trying to embrace motion capture.
They might not know film but they "want" to use the best camera they can afford and where the medium format companies fall down in their marketing and sales efforts is they seem to have given up on this market to concentrate on the well heeled amateur. Nothing wrong with being well heeled, or an amateur but I find it amazing that almost daily some mfd back maker sends out an e-mail selling some shoot the rocks seminar (once again nothing wrong with shooting rocks . . . I guess).
It probably doesn't matter, because by the time mfd back makers find a way to get their cameras in the professional entry level photographers hands, RED "might" have something called a Scarlet or Rouge or Super Duper Epic camera that has a larger sensor, a 5" lcd, touch screen that track autofocuses and will probably be around the same price as a p65+.
To me that's when it is game over for traditional, professional cameras of all formats.
I think RED is the nightmare for every professional camera company, still and motion. They're owner is #110 on the Forbes 400, so obviously he can't be bought off, or probably out spent and if you just run the numbers RED has probably already sold well over half a billion dollars in cameras and accessories.
Imagine what they would do if they got product out faster.
IMO
BC
-
It's not that RED are particularly bright - it's that they can afford to put products on the market which will obsolete existing pro video producers like Sony. Sony of course has all these products ready to go, but they cannot afford to let them loose. C'mon, James, look at the 5DII - d'you really think Canon or Sony couldn't put the thing in a square box with a remote focus and exposure and viewfinder connector, and have it write wavelet compressed Raw to a RAID of miniature SSD drives? Give us a break.
Edmund
I'm not saying Canon or Sony can or can't make whatever they want.
The thing is they don't and at some point something has to wake them up. RED killed them on a lot of ENG sales, cameras btw that we're small 2/3" chip with huge margins.
You know, we've heard all of this from the start of digital that the Japanese companies will produce a medium format back and kill off that segment.... buzzz.... wrong.
Next after the RED was introduced the thought was Sony and Canon would make a raw file/combo still and motion camera that would kill off the red......buzzz.....wrong.
Now we hear the next big Canon camera will be a 5d3 and the 1ds3 will be a year behind. So as RED is on the high end, Canon is going after the low priced market.
I don't have any preference. I bought a RED cause nothing else I could afford shot a raw motion file. I also bought a RED because I believe that is the future for professional cameras.
If one of the Japanese companies makes something equal for 1/10th the price, then good I'm there.
So far they haven't.
No in all honesty just like you need a dslr to back up a medium format camera, (for a lot of reasons), I believe you also need a 5d/7d to back up a RED if only for images i tight spots or lightweight car mounts.
Motion or stills. Not one camera does it all.
IMO
BC
-
No in all honesty just like you need a dslr to back up a medium format camera, (for a lot of reasons), I believe you also need a 5d/7d to back up a RED if only for images i tight spots or lightweight car mounts.
Motion or stills. Not one camera does it all.
IMO
BC
+1
My 5d2 doesn't get out of the case much, but I'm glad it's there because it's good enough to run second string for my P65+ AND my Red. I look at my Phase One files and think "nothing else would give me such a beautiful image" look at the Red footage and see how gorgeous and flexible it is and then remember how many times the Canon saved my ass when I didn't have time to set up either of the others. All tools in the box.
/word
-
Lovely work Chris (and a very good point).
My point was that there are very few people like JJ willing to throw gazillions of dollars at a blue-sky project like RED. Even Sony, for all its trillions, produces pretty predictable product (and the world's worst UI on a lot of it). Pentax built the 645D because they knew it would sell to a particular market, and they needed to show positive sales growth to sex-up their company for sale. Rumour I heard was that they bulk-bought 10K chips - an unheard of amount in the MF world - which made the price very attractive. But agai, it's the economics of the company, not any grand vision, driving the product.
The 'mass market' product (Nikon and Canon) is now so good for the price it makes no sense for pros not to own and use them. The economic sense of spending 3-10x as much for the last 15-20% of quality isn't there in most cases. This is why MF companies have turned heavily to the amateur market, where their customers are those for whom the backs are a discretionary spend, not a business case. I agree that this hardly drives pro-oriented innovation. But if it keeps these companies in business, that's preferably to a further narrowing of the market.
BC, I can't wait to see what you turn out with the RED, though I think you'll have trouble besting the stop-motion movies for raw creativity. I just love those. That's a new and untrodden art-form, whereas full motion is a mature one.
Me, I just want a stills camera that give me LF quality with 35mm ease of use ;)
- N.