Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: markymarkrb on December 20, 2011, 10:15:37 am
-
I wanted to get a few opinions on camera prices. With the new Nikon D800 rumored to be 36MP coming out shortly, do you think that this will have an affect on future pricing of the H4D-40/IQ140 pricing(not to mention the 645D)? I know the Nikon is not MF or anywhere near on quality but this has to have some pull on MF pricing and selling points. What do you think?
-
I would not anticipate any change to IQ pricing anytime soon.
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/")
-
Exactly how does the production cost of one product change because of another? A Ferrari is going to cost just as much no matter how cheap a Toyota Camry is.
-
Exactly how does the production cost of one product change because of another? A Ferrari is going to cost just as much no matter how cheap a Toyota Camry is.
Actually, if the H cameras are perceived as working tools, then yes, sales pricing (not production cost) should depend on the competitive landscape.
And one way to lower sales pricing is to cut dealer margin :P
Edmund
-
Its not really a fair comparison.
The better way to say it would be:
If Toyota made a supercar that could rival the performance of a Ferrari for the price of a Camry, would that affect Ferrari pricing?
Answer, probably not because of brand caché.
-
Hi,
No, I don't think so. MF digital seems pretty much to have a life of it's own.
Best regards
Erik
I wanted to get a few opinions on camera prices. With the new Nikon D800 rumored to be 36MP coming out shortly, do you think that this will have an affect on future pricing of the H4D-40/IQ140 pricing(not to mention the 645D)? I know the Nikon is not MF or anywhere near on quality but this has to have some pull on MF pricing and selling points. What do you think?
-
But in our era of modern technology time causes prices to fall instead of rise, Opposite historical pricing.
Marc
-
Its not really a fair comparison.
The better way to say it would be:
If Toyota made a supercar that could rival the performance of a Ferrari for the price of a Camry, would that affect Ferrari pricing?
Answer, probably not because of brand caché.
A fair comparison would be Nissan's GT-R (modified) and the two million dollar Buggati Veyron. Although often compared in hilarious online videos the price of a Buggati has, of course, never shifted. Same with the Lamborghinis the GT-R has slayed.
-
Exactly how does the production cost of one product change because of another? A Ferrari is going to cost just as much no matter how cheap a Toyota Camry is.
are we talking about ferraris? or rather about american muscle cars?
plenty of engine power but technology wise prettty mediocre and far behind modern standards.
the new sony nex-7 might be rather the new photographic ferrari.
-
These car analogies leave me dizzy. But suffice it to say that an [IQ140 + DF + Schneider LS lens] and a (rumored) [Nikon D800 kit] simply do not overlap much regarding features, extensibility, flexibility, advantages, disadvantages, design emphasis, ideal uses, intended markets, distribution/support/service methods, marketing, or really - much of anything other than they both take pictures and are both high-resolution.
Resolution is the most often sighted spec in digital photography but is often one of the less important aspects, especially when it comes to pricing. A Canon 5D Mark II, a Mamiya ZD, a Phase One P25+, and a iPhone 3g running a stitching app are all 22mp cameras but otherwise share very little in common with each other.
-
Shoot I gotta make it my new years resolution to stop comparing cameras when one of them doesn't (officially) exist yet.
-
I know the Nikon is not MF or anywhere near on quality...
Forgive me, but how are you able to comment on the lack of image quality of a yet un-released camera?
Extrapolating from existing cameras, the D800 should be in the same ballpark in terms of DR and, assuming it lacks an AA filter, feel as sharp as backs in the same resolution range. We know that many people judge image quality by the look of the file at 100% on screen.
Of course its live view capability will make it much easier to actually deliver on this resolution most of the time, which should result in superior real world image quality all other things being equal.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Of course its live view capability will make it much easier to actually deliver on this resolution most of the time, which should result in superior real world image quality all other things being equal.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ha, ha, ha. Now who is commenting on an unannounced camera? You are 100% sure it will have live view or even exists? But I happen to take pictures of 3-D objects/scenes and use DoF. Images of test targets don't do it for me. But neither situation requires live view to achieve focus.
-
Actually, if the H cameras are perceived as working tools, then yes, sales pricing (not production cost) should depend on the competitive landscape.
And one way to lower sales pricing is to cut dealer margin :P
Edmund
Already been done, believe me. And not much of a difference.
-
Right, I was thinking something alike. Since DMF has its own niche and it is not a consumer product, price won't be affected. I don't know about sales.
Eduardo
Its not really a fair comparison.
The better way to say it would be:
If Toyota made a supercar that could rival the performance of a Ferrari for the price of a Camry, would that affect Ferrari pricing?
Answer, probably not because of brand caché.
-
Well, if we are going to talk about Toyota vs Ferrari, we might as well get our facts straight. Check it out for yourself.
"Out of the box, Toyota’s first supercar beats a Ferrari. Yeah, you read that correctly. If Toyota put the same soul and passion into the rest of its cars, the company would be unbeatable."
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/lexus-lfa-vs-ferrari-599-hgte-comparison-test (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/lexus-lfa-vs-ferrari-599-hgte-comparison-test)
-
Ha, ha, ha. Now who is commenting on an unannounced camera? You are 100% sure it will have live view or even exists? But I happen to take pictures of 3-D objects/scenes and use DoF. Images of test targets don't do it for me. But neither situation requires live view to achieve focus.
Yes, I am 100% sure it will have live view.
I guess we might have different expectations about focus accuracy and diffraction limitations then. We might as well stick to 22 mp backs if that is the case. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, if we are going to talk about Toyota vs Ferrari, we might as well get our facts straight. Check it out for yourself.
"Out of the box, Toyota’s first supercar beats a Ferrari. Yeah, you read that correctly. If Toyota put the same soul and passion into the rest of its cars, the company would be unbeatable."
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/lexus-lfa-vs-ferrari-599-hgte-comparison-test (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/lexus-lfa-vs-ferrari-599-hgte-comparison-test)
Which finally makes the comparison with cars a lot more relevant! ;)
Now, we could do it in Tokyo Marc. I bring my - yet announced, un-produced,... - D800, you bring your IQ180 and we spend 2 hours shooting real things in Tokyo from similar positions with lenses providing the same crop. We select the best 5, optimze them to the extreme with our respective normal workflows, and print them at A1 size at my place (you pay).
We ask 5 friends to decide which image is the best over a few beers. Hey, michael used to do thee things back then, someone need to take over. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah! I heard that Ferraris have a lot of "issues".
-
Well - to see what happens just take a look at the used stuff (minimum)prices on Ebay.
a H20 today is starting at 1500 $, an H25 maybe at 2500$ (mention the jump for just 6 MPIx?) these backs have been really expensive 8 years ago,
P20 go for 3500$ and used P25 +go for 4500 $. A P45 used still goes for at least 8000 $ the P45+ are well over 10000 $
With the introduction of every new generation of newer backs or Mpix competition the prices have eroded.
Of course there never was a jump upwards with 18Mpix/100 %+ on the side of the 35mm competition before.
So nobody can exactly predict how fast the market will react,......... but it will, I expect the prices for comparable used MF backs (around 40 Mpix) to fall by at least a third,
maybe half.
This will not only be influenced by the new 35mm Bodies, but also by the fact that the new IQ´s and Aptus and H and CFV´s are sold with higher resolutions too.
Once those are a year old their price will fall also - this is normal- and this will pull down the smaller backs too.
Regards
Stefan
-
Yeah! I heard that Ferraris have a lot of "issues".
Last time I switched on the P45+ to do a project, it had lost a column and had to be sent back to be fixed. The Nikon did the project, the P45+ has stayed switched off. Interestingly, I just noticed that my Leica M8 has also dropped a column while sitting around unused. I think this is a CCD problem, and wish there were a quick software workaround.
Edmund
-
after a few beers everything will look the same.
Which finally makes the comparison with cars a lot more relevant! ;)
Now, we could do it in Tokyo Marc. I bring my - yet announced, un-produced,... - D800, you bring your IQ180 and we spend 2 hours shooting real things in Tokyo from similar positions with lenses providing the same crop. We select the best 5, optimze them to the extreme with our respective normal workflows, and print them at A1 size at my place (you pay).
We ask 5 friends to decide which image is the best over a few beers. Hey, michael used to do thee things back then, someone need to take over. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well - to see what happens just take a look at the used stuff (minimum)prices on Ebay.
a H20 today is starting at 1500 $, an H25 maybe at 2500$ (mention the jump for just 6 MPIx?) these backs have been really expensive 8 years ago,
P20 go for 3500$ and used P25 +go for 4500 $. A P45 used still goes for at least 8000 $ the P45+ are well over 10000 $
With the introduction of every new generation of newer backs or Mpix competition the prices have eroded.
Of course there never was a jump upwards with 18Mpix/100 %+ on the side of the 35mm competition before.
So nobody can exactly predict how fast the market will react,......... but it will, I expect the prices for comparable used MF backs (around 40 Mpix) to fall by at least a third,
maybe half.
This will not only be influenced by the new 35mm Bodies, but also by the fact that the new IQ´s and Aptus and H and CFV´s are sold with higher resolutions too.
Once those are a year old their price will fall also - this is normal- and this will pull down the smaller backs too.
Regards
Stefan
Prices have already dropped to around secondhand D3X prices in the UK.
Pro Centre (Hasselblad subsidiary) are offering used and guaranteed (better than Ebay) H3D-39's for £3495!
http://www.procentre.co.uk/Secondhand/hasselblad_digital.html
As to the utility of MFD v. D800 IMO it's horses for courses. 16 bit MF digital backs offer a different way of drawing compared to a 36MP 36x24 sensor. Todays MFD lenses (particularly Hasselblad) are a good match for the sensors - it will be interesting to see how well matched Nikon's lens offerings are to this alleged 36MP sensor. Time will tell. In any case I will certainly be very interested in buying one simply for its portability.
-
Last time I switched on the P45+ to do a project, it had lost a column and had to be sent back to be fixed. The Nikon did the project, the P45+ has stayed switched off. Interestingly, I just noticed that my Leica M8 has also dropped a column while sitting around unused. I think this is a CCD problem, and wish there were a quick software workaround.
Sorry to hear that!
Statistically you're pretty "lucky" to have had this happen with both your cameras. This year Phase One did develop a tool to deal with this remotely. The service can be done in 1-2 business days and involves taking a few test shots in a specific way, uploading the raw files to your dealer and then waiting for a correction file to upload to your back. If you're in a huge rush and it's during business hours and the technician isn't swamped it can usually be done even faster. It's covered under warranty and around $200 if not under warranty.
Speaking as the guy who had to explain why, previously, the back would have needed to go to Denmark and back (7-10 day turn around) I was very happy when they developed the remote calibration method! We get a few (3-4) of these every year amongst all our installed customer base and inventory of demo/evaluation units. For some reason I've not seen one in the last half year or so; maybe we're lucky? Maybe the stars are in alignment? Or... o no! Maybe that means we are due!
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/")
-
David,
Thank you for the link. When the H4D40 prices drop that far, I'll get one.
Edmund
Prices have already dropped to around secondhand D3X prices in the UK.
Pro Centre (Hasselblad subsidiary) are offering used and guaranteed (better than Ebay) H3D-39's for £3495!
http://www.procentre.co.uk/Secondhand/hasselblad_digital.html
As to the utility of MFD v. D800 IMO it's horses for courses. 16 bit MF digital backs offer a different way of drawing compared to a 36MP 36x24 sensor. Todays MFD lenses (particularly Hasselblad) are a good match for the sensors - it will be interesting to see how well matched Nikon's lens offerings are to this alleged 36MP sensor. Time will tell. In any case I will certainly be very interested in buying one simply for its portability.
-
Yes, I am 100% sure it will have live view.
I guess we might have different expectations about focus accuracy and diffraction limitations then. We might as well stick to 22 mp backs if that is the case. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, when I can get perfect focus, I don't think live view is going to is going to get it perfecter. As far as diffraction, hey, I am only limited to 4x5 foot single images and panoramas up to 12 feet long--so far. I am sure we have different expectations about focus and diffraction.
And so you have an inside to Nikon? Perhaps you work with the folks making the cameras?
-
And so you have an inside to Nikon? Perhaps you work with the folks making the cameras?
Nope, I don't.
There has not been a single reflex camera released for 2 years without live view because there has not been a single DSLR released without video capability.
That's why I am 100% sure that the D800 will have live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Okeee, Breath in breath out, calm down,
I always get a bit irritated by those lets face it ridiculous comparisons..
NO WAY the quality will get to the mid-formats, even a 33 mpix Leaf / or what ever, will give a better result than a small sensor loaded with much to small pixels... 36 mpix on a small frame, ( even full frame) is way to much...
25 mpix MAX, to make a nice image.. any more is because amateurs could say at there club there camera has a enormous mpix count for no money, just like Nissan GTR buyers...
Theres much more to it than the catalogue numbers as advertised...
And if the small sensor quality is enough for its use, so just use it, but take it that it's not as good as a 5 times more expensive one. exactly , the car analogy..
It's the same thing since after the second world war, 35 mm is good but it has its limitations, 120 is good but again it has its limitations, if you want better got to 4x5 and so on...
If you want to deliver the best possible, buy the best possible equipment ...
So i don't see why the price would have to drop as they are hand made... Buy one second hand, even a 22mpix mid format will give better results...
And do i compare, yes, i've got Full frame 35mm, and i've got Phase ones,... turn it as you wish the bigger the sensor the better... I would even want to buy a Scanback from better light, just to see what that brings...
-
I think you are right until Fuji introduces the new organic sensors and the whole quality versus size issue will take a new twist.
I agree that the 36MP Nikon will not compare to the quality of the Phase/Hasselblad as I mentioned in the very first post but that does not mean that it will not have any pull on their prices.
-
Did 35mm 22/24MP cameras have a pull on Phase/Leaf backs around the same resolution? Will the new Sony 24MP APS sensors have a pull on 35mm cameras? Folks looking for MPs and a good deal tend not to go into the MFD market. The Pentax 645D did not seem to have a large influence on the other MFD product prices. But none of this is new. "Professional" film formats have always been more expensive than 35mm. If you are thinking that MFD digital manufacturers are going to worry about a 35mm 36MP camera, I think you may be disappointed--very different customers, markets, and business models. You can't use a consumer-product pricing model very well for MFD, not unless you want to stay in business.
-
......snip
NO WAY the quality will get to the mid-formats, even a 33 mpix Leaf / or what ever, will give a better result than a small sensor loaded with much to small pixels... 36 mpix on a small frame, ( even full frame) is way to much...
.......
Why is it that when 'small pixels' are put on a 35mm chip that theyre considered to too small to be of high quality capability.... but the similarily sized small pixels found on the current generation of MFD backs (P65,iq160,180,Hassy60..) are perfectly acceptable? Is this anoher manifestation of the inherent 'magic' of MFD?
-
Historically, many prosumer products made in Europe or the US have ended up being quasi-eliminated by the Japanese competition. At some point being better is not good enough. Look at what happened to Zeiss who had some very nice electronic SLRs (Contarex) and lenses but turned into an also-ran, Leica who owned the 35mm market, Rolleiflex.
Edmund
Did 35mm 22/24MP cameras have a pull on Phase/Leaf backs around the same resolution? Will the new Sony 24MP APS sensors have a pull on 35mm cameras? Folks looking for MPs and a good deal tend not to go into the MFD market. The Pentax 645D did not seem to have a large influence on the other MFD product prices. But none of this is new. "Professional" film formats have always been more expensive than 35mm. If you are thinking that MFD digital manufacturers are going to worry about a 35mm 36MP camera, I think you may be disappointed--very different customers, markets, and business models. You can't use a consumer-product pricing model very well for MFD, not unless you want to stay in business.
-
Did 35mm 22/24MP cameras have a pull on Phase/Leaf backs around the same resolution?
Mostly... yes. Very close in DR (in fact a D3x is clearly superior in DR to backs like the P25) and just a bit behind in detail because of the presence of an AA filter.
The Pentax 645D did not seem to have a large influence on the other MFD product prices. But none of this is new. "Professional" film formats have always been more expensive than 35mm. If you are thinking that MFD digital manufacturers are going to worry about a 35mm 36MP camera, I think you may be disappointed--very different customers, markets, and business models.
Agreed, they won't give a damn, but they should. Today, most of the real world value of backs is in the excellent dealers supporting them. It won't take long until some smart photographers realize that they can keep paying the dealer the same price to get similar service while using cameras that cost 10 times less and deliver 95% of the real world performance.
You can't use a consumer-product pricing model very well for MFD, not unless you want to stay in business.
How is Pentax doing it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mostly... yes. Very close in DR (in fact a D3x is clearly superior in DR to backs like the P25) and just a bit behind in detail because of the presence of an AA filter.
I was referring to price. I don't remember Phase dropping the price of the P25 because of the 35mm competition.
Agreed, they won't give a damn, but they should. Today, most of the real world value of backs is in the excellent dealers supporting them. It won't take long until some smart photographers realize that they can keep paying the dealer the same price to get similar service while using cameras that cost 10 times less and deliver 95% of the real world performance.
Yeah , yeah, yeah. We know your high opinion of MFD. I am sure when Nikon finally gets around to announcing this camera, all the MFD photographers will sell out and move to the new wonder 35mm sensor because the only thing that is important in an image is the number of pixels and the only thing in a camera is Live View.
How is Pentax doing it?
So, now you think ten grand is cheap? I bet you Pentax has a larger distribution system and manufacturing base than its competitors. They most likely bet that a large production volume would support the costs as well as control them. They also have a larger product range to support individual products. There was also a push from the Japanese distributors/retailer to get rid of the Pentax 645 lens stock that got saddled with. With a customer base that had lenses but nothing digital to use them on, Pentax took a very good step. And it looks like it paid off. But the 645D is still not a $4000 camera and the customer base is still smaller than 35mm and APS.
Cheers,
Bernard
And a happy o-shogatsu to you.
-
Yeah , yeah, yeah. We know your high opinion of MFD. I am sure when Nikon finally gets around to announcing this camera, all the MFD photographers will sell out and move to the new wonder 35mm sensor because the only thing that is important in an image is the number of pixels and the only thing in a camera is Live View.
So, now you think ten grand is cheap? I bet you Pentax has a larger distribution system and manufacturing base than its competitors. They most likely bet that a large production volume would support the costs as well as control them. They also have a larger product range to support individual products. There was also a push from the Japanese distributors/retailer to get rid of the Pentax 645 lens stock that got saddled with. With a customer base that had lenses but nothing digital to use them on, Pentax took a very good step. And it looks like it paid off. But the 645D is still not a $4000 camera and the customer base is still smaller than 35mm and APS.
And a happy o-shogatsu to you.
Hum, there are many good reasons to want to work with MF other than image quality, but for those guys mostly willing to use MF for the supposedely superior IQ, I believe that an objective assessment of where 40 mp backs stand against a D800 would be a reasonnable thing to do.
As far as 10.000 US$ goes, I still think it is too big a chunk of money for a camera, but the 645d now sells in Tokyo for the exact same price I bought my D3x 3 years ago. So I could afford one if I were convinced that real world image quality would be superior in a variety of situations where my D3x has been delivering 100% reliably. Today I am not, and you are correct that the lack of live view is my #1 issue today, plus the cost of switching of course.
It is all about believing or not in the silver bullet. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is all about believing or not in the silver bullet. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
And I just thought you declared this new Nikon the last camera you would ever need in another thread on LuLa...
For a photographer, camera choice is entirely personal. So is image quality. I don't judge a book by its cover nor the photographer by the camera. It is all about the final work.
-
And I just thought you declared this new Nikon the last camera you would ever need in another thread on LuLa...
For a photographer, camera choice is entirely personal. So is image quality. I don't judge a book by its cover nor the photographer by the camera. It is all about the final work.
I'll probably downgrade from D3x to D4 as available light shooting is my thing; however I don't think there is anything to be gained apart from ISO by a move to the next generation; it takes 2 gens for pixels to make a real difference, and nowadays that means at least 6 years.
Edmund
-
And I just thought you declared this new Nikon the last camera you would ever need in another thread on LuLa...
For a photographer, camera choice is entirely personal. So is image quality. I don't judge a book by its cover nor the photographer by the camera. It is all about the final work.
It is indeed all about the final work.
On the other hand, image quality is an objective quantity that is easy to measure and compare. The camera with the better image quality might not be the one enabling a given photographer to produce his best work, but photographers defining image quality as important for them should look objectively at the tools available, without pre-conceived romantic ideas about sensor format. Clearly put, we have plenty of examples where a smaller sensor delivers better image quality.
As far as the D800 being potentially the last camera I'll ever need, I don't see the relationship with a silver bullet.
I know exactly what my needs are, I know exactly what is missing in the D3x relative to these needs, and - if the current rumors end up being true - it sounds like the D800 will be delivering just that. Nowhere am I saying I see it as the perfect camera, but I believe it to be the cheapest way for me to capture the image quality I need for my applications.
There are not romantic projections at play here, it is fairly easy to extrapolate on what can reasonnably expect whien moving between upgrade models of a single brand. Having used both a D3x and a D7000, I know within a few % what I will be getting from a D800. The situation is vastly different when moving from a DSLR to an MF camera as I have experienced in the past when I used a Mamiya ZD for one year or so. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard:
I've followed for many months with a lot of interest and even with certain joy every post of yours about the D3x (more on this later). There's no doubt that you (not alone) find this camera's IQ awesome. In the film days I always was a pro large capture photographer. Unluckily for me and for many others the prices of DMFB's never came to sensible levels as FF did years ago. Just a few posts up in this same thread, it was posted that when comparing this camera to a P25 back it stands a thin layer of air behind. Now, this sounds like a stretch for me. I always believed in capturing the world with the biggest gear you could carry. My eyes never deceived me nor disappointed me. Now with digital, things have changed a lot and I'm afraid they will keep changing for a long time. The difference in IQ among the different formats have diminished considerably. I can understand this as digital packs the detail in a uniform coherent patternly fashion. Once this uniform pattern is small enough to match the lens information, the capture becomes good enough to be called "photographic quality". When this parameters are exceeded, it is when we start enjoying the benefits of the super clean resolution that we rapidly became used to. Film entered the era of specialty photography.
But with both digital captures having the same attributes and pixels, how come a sensor that is twice as big physically won't show a real improvement over the smaller one? Is that, because 8 years later (I think) in sensor development can produce a sensor with twice the quality? In effect, obliterating the advantage of the bigger capture? If this is true, during the next decade an m43 camera will probably match the IQ of a P45 back.
Please mind, that when I say IQ (image quality) I don't mean just resolution, but all the qualities that shape a good image like tonality, good color, color separation, no artifacts, good contrast, accutance and last but not least, the subjective quality called 3D effect, that seems to be seen often in MFDB images and not so often seen in FF.
I mentioned earlier "with certain joy" because I am a FF sensor photographer myself currently working with everybody's workhorse, a 5D2 and it seems that I will remain as such for the rest of my life unless I win the lotto. I'm not questioning your integrity but only trying to understand what's going on here! The D3X seems to have broken the law of physics.
Best regards
Eduardo
Having used both a D3x and a D7000, I know within a few % what I will be getting from a D800. The situation is vastly different when moving from a DSLR to an MF camera as I have experienced in the past when I used a Mamiya ZD for one year or so. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard:
I've followed for many months with a lot of interest and even with certain joy every post of yours about the D3x (more on this later). There's no doubt that you (not alone) find this camera's IQ awesome. In the film days I always was a pro large capture photographer. Unluckily for me and for many others the prices of DMFB's never came to sensible levels as FF did years ago. Just a few posts up in this same thread, it was posted that when comparing this camera to a P25 back it stands a thin layer of air behind. Now, this sounds like a stretch for me. I always believed in capturing the world with the biggest gear you could carry. My eyes never deceived me nor disappointed me. Now with digital, things have changed a lot and I'm afraid they will keep changing for a long time. The difference in IQ among the different formats have diminished considerably. I can understand this as digital packs the detail in a uniform coherent patternly fashion. Once this uniform pattern is small enough to match the lens information, the capture becomes good enough to be called "photographic quality". When this parameters are exceeded, it is when we start enjoying the benefits of the super clean resolution that we rapidly became used to. Film entered the era of specialty photography.
But with both digital captures having the same attributes and pixels, how come a sensor that is twice as big physically won't show a real improvement over the smaller one? Is that, because 8 years later (I think) in sensor development can produce a sensor with twice the quality? In effect, obliterating the advantage of the bigger capture? If this is true, during the next decade an m43 camera will probably match the IQ of a P45 back.
Please mind, that when I say IQ (image quality) I don't mean just resolution, but all the qualities that shape a good image like tonality, good color, color separation, no artifacts, good contrast, accutance and last but not least, the subjective quality called 3D effect, that seems to be seen often in MFDB images and not so often seen in FF.
I mentioned earlier "with certain joy" because I am a FF sensor photographer myself currently working with everybody's workhorse, a 5D2 and it seems that I will remain as such for the rest of my life unless I win the lotto. I'm not questioning your integrity but only trying to understand what's going on here! The D3X seems to have broken the law of physics.
Best regards
Eduardo
I too have a D3x. Yes, it is an incredible camera. Yes it seems to have broken the laws of physics, it is much better than the 5D2 in field use because it focuses and has VERY good 1600 ISO. But the images have no "bite". My old 1Ds had "bite". My P45+ has bite. Even the 5D2 has bite except it only happens on say 30% of image-ligting situations. I don't know what "bite" is except I miss it. Maybe it's the Nikon lenses. Maybe it's something to do with noise reduction. It is something to do with texture and color.
And without "bite" the camera is only as good as what you put in front of the lens. It won't add anything, as strange as that sounds.
Would I let go of my D3x for something that cannot do Hi-ISO and focus? No way.
Would I go want to go back to the old 1Ds? If I were shooting 8x10, yes. The only 35mm I ever saw that was better than the 1Ds was the Leica DMR back.
Our friend with the strange name, something like the sound a hen makes, coot-coot-coot, he had a 1Ds too, maybe he will comment.
Edmund
-
I mentioned earlier "with certain joy" because I am a FF sensor photographer myself currently working with everybody's workhorse, a 5D2 and it seems that I will remain as such for the rest of my life unless I win the lotto. I'm not questioning your integrity but only trying to understand what's going on here! The D3X seems to have broken the law of physics.
Best regards
Eduardo
Hi Eduardo,
Nope, the D3x has not broken the laws of physics. Its pixels are about the same size as those in a IQ160/IQ180, it is therefore only common sense that its performance is similar.
In this context though, Nikon/Sony have been doing an outstanding job for a few years to optimize the shadow behavior of their sensors, which is their single most important characteristic. They have indeed created a gap vs their 35mm competition, but it is probably not larger than the gap Canon had gained when they released the 1Ds.
I have never claimed that the D3x was the equal of the backs in terms of total resolution.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry Bernard, Sony 24Mp sensor does have tons of noise even at base ISO. The 5dMk2 also is horrible with noise at 200 Iso. The Nikon D3x is OK but not as nice as the Leaf Aptus22. I thinkl there is a difference between measurable DR and usuable DR... and when comparing all sorts of 35mm files to MF files, MF clearely wins. MF is also about using a different kind of lenses, lenses that render different from 35mm lenses, it makes working a bit slower and pushes the photographer to think more before shooting. I really love my 35mm camera, but will never let MF go. These are simply two different tools, both doing a good job. ;)
-
Sorry Bernard, Sony 24Mp sensor does have tons of noise even at base ISO. The 5dMk2 also is horrible with noise at 200 Iso. The Nikon D3x is OK but not as nice as the Leaf Aptus22. I thinkl there is a difference between measurable DR and usuable DR... and when comparing all sorts of 35mm files to MF files, MF clearely wins. MF is also about using a different kind of lenses, lenses that render different from 35mm lenses, it makes working a bit slower and pushes the photographer to think more before shooting. I really love my 35mm camera, but will never let MF go. These are simply two different tools, both doing a good job. ;)
The D3x end result is somehow different from the Sony SLRs apparently; nobody knows why.
As for being better than MF, no.It isn't. But it is close enough that at the old MF prices most people wouldn't bother to go to MF. The same argument is truer of the 5D2, which can do video, takes a $100 50mm that costs less than an MF lenscap, and will work decently when AF is not critical.
Edmund
-
The Nikon D3x is OK but not as nice as the Leaf Aptus22. I thinkl there is a difference between measurable DR and usuable DR... and when comparing all sorts of 35mm files to MF files, MF clearely wins. MF is also about using a different kind of lenses, lenses that render different from 35mm lenses, it makes working a bit slower and pushes the photographer to think more before shooting. I really love my 35mm camera, but will never let MF go. These are simply two different tools, both doing a good job. ;)
There are many good reasons to want to work with an MF camera. I totally agree with that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To go back to the OP's question for a moment.
Actually, you would have thought that the introduction of the Pentax 645D should have had a greater impact on the established MF players and their pricing structure. But there was barely a ripple.
When I shot film I had both 35mm and MF gear, and I found that the way I used them barely overlapped. Even in this digital age, I would think the same applies.
John
-
I wonder also with Pentax, i read they will be bringing out a mirror less camera.
Would this be like a RF mid format cam , like the mamiya 7 ..? that would be coowl...
I also don't understand the fuzz about the mirror less markets, isn't that the concept of RF ? ..?
-
I wonder also with Pentax, i read they will be bringing out a mirror less camera.
Would this be like a RF mid format cam , like the mamiya 7 ..? that would be coowl...
I also don't understand the fuzz about the mirror less markets, isn't that the concept of RF ? ..?
A rangefinder would be too expensive to develop and service. It would most likely be mirrorless using monitors or EVFs.
No, a mirrorless is not a rangefinder. Mirrorless cameras don't use a rangefinder to focus--rangefinders not are defined by a lack of a reflex system and a viewfinder. Rangefinders don't even need a viewfinder. The attraction of the mirror less is the compact size and the ability to adapt lenses.
-
I too have a D3x. Yes, it is an incredible camera. Yes it seems to have broken the laws of physics, it is much better than the 5D2 in field use because it focuses and has VERY good 1600 ISO. But the images have no "bite". My old 1Ds had "bite". My P45+ has bite. Even the 5D2 has bite except it only happens on say 30% of image-ligting situations. I don't know what "bite" is except I miss it. Maybe it's the Nikon lenses. Maybe it's something to do with noise reduction. It is something to do with texture and color.
And without "bite" the camera is only as good as what you put in front of the lens. It won't add anything, as strange as that sounds.
Would I let go of my D3x for something that cannot do Hi-ISO and focus? No way.
Would I go want to go back to the old 1Ds? If I were shooting 8x10, yes. The only 35mm I ever saw that was better than the 1Ds was the Leica DMR back.
Our friend with the strange name, something like the sound a hen makes, coot-coot-coot, he had a 1Ds too, maybe he will comment.
Edmund
This is exactly why I've kept my 1Ds and my P25, they have something newer cameras are lacking. It's funny how whenever a new gazillion megapixel small format is released or is on the horizon people expect owners of digital backs to dump them on fleeBay for pennies. These kind of expectations are probably by people who haven't used MF backs, at least not in any kind of professional setting. I can tell you as a long time user of both MFD and 35mm that I wouldn't trade my P25 for a 100MP Canikon, well maybe I would, then I'd sell it and buy two P25s ;). There is so much more than MP that makes people choose to work with digital backs over 35mm.
-
Aijt but, i can't imagine it's "comfortable" to work with..
looking to a 'screen' , give me a viewer :) old fashioned ! ) yeah baby :D
-
Edmund:
Thanks for chiming in. Only your post is a bit confusing to me. It first seems that bite (lacking in the D3x) is a bad thing. Later you wrote "without bite the camera is only as good as what you put in front of the lens. It won't add anything, as strange as that sounds". Now, in this whole sentence "lack of bite" sounds like a positive issue to me. In my understanding, the sensor shouldn't add anything to the picture, Zilch. That's the lens job. "Qualities" are to be added in PP, I think.
For ASMP, bite without any doubt, seems to be a very good thing.
I'm not sure either what "bite" is. At some point time ago, I understood bite as something that added sharpness or an engraving quality to the resolution itself. Also, it seems that people talk about bite only in sensors with pixels around 9 units (can't remember the exact name right now). This is where the P25 and the 5DI are. I heard the 5DI had bite. I heard also that the 5D2 has less bite than the original 5D. Personally, I like my 5D2 images more than those from my 5D. I'd say they look "more photographic", or "less digital".
Can you both add more thoughts?
TIA
Eduardo
I too have a D3x. Yes, it is an incredible camera. Yes it seems to have broken the laws of physics, it is much better than the 5D2 in field use because it focuses and has VERY good 1600 ISO. But the images have no "bite". My old 1Ds had "bite". My P45+ has bite. Even the 5D2 has bite except it only happens on say 30% of image-ligting situations. I don't know what "bite" is except I miss it. Maybe it's the Nikon lenses. Maybe it's something to do with noise reduction. It is something to do with texture and color.
And without "bite" the camera is only as good as what you put in front of the lens. It won't add anything, as strange as that sounds.
Would I let go of my D3x for something that cannot do Hi-ISO and focus? No way.
Would I go want to go back to the old 1Ds? If I were shooting 8x10, yes. The only 35mm I ever saw that was better than the 1Ds was the Leica DMR back.
Our friend with the strange name, something like the sound a hen makes, coot-coot-coot, he had a 1Ds too, maybe he will comment.
ASMP also said:
"This is exactly why I've kept my 1Ds and my P25, they have something newer cameras are lacking. It's funny how whenever a new gazillion megapixel small format is released or is on the horizon people expect owners of digital backs to dump them on fleeBay for pennies. These kind of expectations are probably by people who haven't used MF backs, at least not in any kind of professional setting. I can tell you as a long time user of both MFD and 35mm that I wouldn't trade my P25 for a 100MP Canikon, well maybe I would, then I'd sell it and buy two P25s . There is so much more than MP that makes people choose to work with digital backs over 35mm!
Edmund
-
For ASMP, bite without any doubt, seems to be a very good thing.
I'm not sure either what "bite" is. At some point time ago, I understood bite as something that added sharpness or an engraving quality to the resolution itself. Also, it seems that people talk about bite only in sensors with pixels around 9 units (can't remember the exact name right now). This is where the P25 and the 5DI are. I heard the 5DI had bite. I heard also that the 5D2 has less bite than the original 5D. Personally, I like my 5D2 images more than those from my 5D. I'd say they look "more photographic", or "less digital".
Can you both add more thoughts?
TIA
Eduardo
Personally I'm not sure I would use the word "bite", but rather a fullness and more pleasing render to the files (in my eyes that is). I like the 5D mkII (never used the mkI), but there is something about the 1Ds that I like too, the files feel a bit more organic/analog maybe? It's hard to pinpoint, and I'm not that interested in doing so either tbh, I'm an image guy not a tech guy. The P25 on the other hand definitely has a richness to it's files that I've never seen by any 35mm, this is especially easy to tell when you do a lot of PP on them. It's also the closest thing to film as far as look & feel goes that I've found in the digital world. I'm sure the Mamiya glass coupled with the sensor has a hand in this too. As I said, I'm not interested in the tech behind it, but like you mentioned I think there might be something you loose by making smaller microns. At least I know there are others who have similar feelings of love for the older 9 micron backs.
-
Edmund:
Thanks for chiming in. Only your post is a bit confusing to me. It first seems that bite (lacking in the D3x) is a bad thing. Later you wrote "without bite the camera is only as good as what you put in front of the lens. It won't add anything, as strange as that sounds". Now, in this whole sentence "lack of bite" sounds like a positive issue to me. In my understanding, the sensor shouldn't add anything to the picture, Zilch. That's the lens job. "Qualities" are to be added in PP, I think.
Can you both add more thoughts?
TIA
Eduardo
If the camera results don't add pictorial quality, coloring, then one has to compensate by situational photography. In other words, if the model doesn't give off a skin glow, you'd better make her smile.
In some way, the D3x images don't make one feel "there". The P45+ I own, when it works, does do that. The 1Ds does too. Even the 5D2 does it when I'm lucky.
However, the D3x NEVER, Never, never misses a shot completely. It's the ideal camera to use when you cannot retake an image. It is never severely out of focus, it never exposes totally badly, it never screws up the colors or skin tone. And it captures a huge amount of detail, Whatever I do, it gets an image. The 5D2 is much more hit and miss; it sometimes gives completely extraordinary images, and then in different light just mush. The Phamiya is simply never sharp; I think it's not focus but the glass over the sensor. I had several samples, they were all yucky but a loaner P45 was dead sharp, razor sharp.
Edmund
-
I used to think that the cost of MF was sort of fixed. There are limited players in the sensor manufacture which could hold the market at a given price. It has been around 25-30k for a long time. So my thinking was they would stay there. However Pentax introduces a camera with a 40 MP sensor for about a 1/3 of the cost. So either they have a better business model or the price has been somewhat artificially high. My guess is the latter.
D800 if it exists wouldn't be a game changer. A 36MP camera in that format is simply marketing over physics. There was a great video circulating of a presentation given by the inventor of CMOS technology and he explains it quite clearly. Sorry I forget the name.
Basically as I see the MF pricing the way it is because they can. You essentially have two chip makers and up till recently 3 back or camera makers. Not a whole lot of competition and not a very big market. The car market is a good example. Most four door family sedans are within a certain price range because the marketing department knows that is what you are going to spend. If your a Kia or a new maker you need to offer something similar or more at the same price. It is how you gain market share when you are not well known. Enter Pentax.
Nikon is not a factor because it is in a different class not better or worse just different.
Paul Guba
-
Dear Paul
The market price is certainly not fixed among the different manufacturers of digital backs. A company has to price its products according to a certain gross margin to be profitable, respectively not to lose money, and to assure the survival for the company. The gross margin is what comes over the fix costs, which can easily be calculated. This gives the selling price. When it comes to digital backs, which is the main product (understand the product with which they need to make their profit) of the manufacturers of these backs, the leverage is very low: it simply needs a certain minimum margin. otherwise the company loses money. R&D is something which needs to be calculated in the price as well. Each new digital back costs 100s of thousands dollars or euros in R&D costs, in some cases over a million.
True, and you mention it yourself, the MFDB market is not a big market, and profit cannot be reached with mass sales and sales numbers like in the DSLR business. We are speaking about a market of a few thousands new digital backs every year, to be shared between the 3 players (4 and even more before).
The existing manufacturers are all located in countries with basically the same costs for salaries, taxes, etc ... These companies are also all of comparable size. It is only logical that the margin needed is more or less the same for those companies to not lose money.
There is no secret agreement between the back manufacturers like it has been said so many times and to keep the prices high. That doesn't make sense and wouldn't be possible.
Leica and Pentax are not back manufacturers and do certainly sell with another business model in mind and not for a market of a few thousands sales per year.
Best regards
Thierry
I used to think that the cost of MF was sort of fixed. There are limited players in the sensor manufacture which could hold the market at a given price. It has been around 25-30k for a long time. So my thinking was they would stay there. However Pentax introduces a camera with a 40 MP sensor for about a 1/3 of the cost. So either they have a better business model or the price has been somewhat artificially high. My guess is the latter.
D800 if it exists wouldn't be a game changer. A 36MP camera in that format is simply marketing over physics. There was a great video circulating of a presentation given by the inventor of CMOS technology and he explains it quite clearly. Sorry I forget the name.
Basically as I see the MF pricing the way it is because they can. You essentially have two chip makers and up till recently 3 back or camera makers. Not a whole lot of competition and not a very big market. The car market is a good example. Most four door family sedans are within a certain price range because the marketing department knows that is what you are going to spend. If your a Kia or a new maker you need to offer something similar or more at the same price. It is how you gain market share when you are not well known. Enter Pentax.
Nikon is not a factor because it is in a different class not better or worse just different.
Paul Guba
-
Dear Thierry,
Now you need to explain the Pentax :)
Edmund
Dear Paul
The market price is certainly not fixed among the different manufacturers of digital backs. A company has to price its products according to a certain gross margin to be profitable, respectively not to lose money, and to assure the survival for the company. The gross margin is what comes over the fix costs, which can easily be calculated. This gives the selling price. When it comes to digital backs, which is the main product (understand the product with which they need to make their profit) of the manufacturers of these backs, the leverage is very low: it simply needs a certain minimum margin. otherwise the company loses money. R&D is something which needs to be calculated in the price as well. Each new digital back costs 100s of thousands dollars or euros in R&D costs, in some cases over a million.
True, and you mention it yourself, the MFDB market is not a big market, and profit cannot be reached with mass sales and sales numbers like in the DSLR business. We are speaking about a market of a few thousands new digital backs every year, to be shared between the 3 players (4 and even more before).
The existing manufacturers are all located in countries with basically the same costs for salaries, taxes, etc ... These companies are also all of comparable size. It is only logical that the margin needed is more or less the same for those companies to not lose money.
There is no secret agreement between the back manufacturers like it has been said so many times and to keep the prices high. That doesn't make sense and wouldn't be possible.
Leica and Pentax are not back manufacturers and do certainly sell with another business model in mind and not for a market of a few thousands sales per year.
Best regards
Thierry
-
... The market price is certainly not fixed among the different manufacturers of digital backs. A company has to price its products according to a certain gross margin to be profitable, respectively not to lose money, and to assure the survival for the company. The gross margin is what comes over the fix costs, which can easily be calculated. This gives the selling price ....
Sorta ... customers don't care about your costs ... they care about the value a product adds ... so for pricing to be successful, it must reflect the value it brings to the end-user. If an customer-acceptable value/price dynamic results in a price that is in excess of costs, then you win ... if it is below your costs, you either bring costs down, value up ... or you lose.
-
Sorta ... customers don't care about your costs ... they care about the value a product adds ... so for pricing to be successful, it must reflect the value it brings to the end-user. If an customer-acceptable value/price dynamic results in a price that is in excess of costs, then you win ... if it is below your costs, you either bring costs down, value up ... or you lose.
Not really. In that case, you either sell something or your don't. Margins are really not that large and changing the price is not really an option.
-
Dear Thierry,
Now you need to explain the Pentax :)
Edmund
Except for some factors of scale, I thought his explanation would cover Pentax also.
-
Jeremy,
With all due respect and knowing that what you are saying may be true in other markets, that's not the way it worked in the back manufacturer company I used to work for 20 years, it is quite the opposite. Your remark may apply and be true for other markets, but not in the professional photography market in general and even less in the back business. Costs can not be brought down at will and wish, particularly not with digital backs in such a small and niche market. It is never as you describe it "If an customer-acceptable value/price dynamic results in a price that is in excess of costs, then you win ...": we would have gone bankrupt after 2 years.
Best regards
Thierry
Sorta ... customers don't care about your costs ... they care about the value a product adds ... so for pricing to be successful, it must reflect the value it brings to the end-user. If an customer-acceptable value/price dynamic results in a price that is in excess of costs, then you win ... if it is below your costs, you either bring costs down, value up ... or you lose.
-
So it is, little options left.
Thierry
Not really. In that case, you either sell something or your don't. Margins are really not that large and changing the price is not really an option.
-
Jeremy,
With all due respect and knowing that what you are saying may be true in other markets, that's not the way it worked in the back manufacturer company I used to work for 20 years, it is quite the opposite. Your remark may apply and be true for other markets, but not in the professional photography market in general and even less in the back business. Costs can not be brought down at will and wish, particularly not with digital backs in such a small and niche market. It is never as you describe it "If an customer-acceptable value/price dynamic results in a price that is in excess of costs, then you win ...": we would have gone bankrupt after 2 years.
Best regards
Thierry
Sorry, Thierry ... it applies to ALL markets. Customers don't know or care about your costs.
All you are saying is that you price above cost ... that's an important concept, but also obvious.
What I am saying is for that price and product to be successful, it must represent value to the end-user.
The fact that you didn't go bankrupt means your prices were both in excess of your costs and brought acceptable value to your clients.
The back market is not special in this regard.
-
Nothing to be sorry, just a discussion in which am trying to bring in my own experience from one of the previous leading companies in this market in which I was involved and well aware of the pricing policy and how it was calculated.
What I am saying is not only that one prices above costs (obviously as you say it), but that the margin which is calculated and which gives the enduser price is not a calculation coming from nowhere or resulting from some agreements between manufacturers (that was my initial answer to Paul, who wrote that prices were fixed and artificially hold high by the manufacturers). It is in the contrary a seriously made calculation involving all aspects of the company and resulting in the margin it needs to be profitable. And there is not much room left after this calculation is made: in other words, the manufacturers do also take in account the pricing of the competitors. And usually competition drives prices down. And also in other words, these prices must be at that level until the R&D costs are recovered (you can make yourself the calculation how many units to be sold this means when knowing that the whole market of MFDBs is about 10'000 units per year, that there are 3 or 4 manufacturers, that R&D costs for each new back introduced amount to anywhere between 4 or 500k and 1m.
That for this resulting price the product has to bring some value to the enduser is obvious, and it (this value) usually is not only a reflection or a consequence of the product itself but of the complete value of the company and its distribution channels in the eyes of the customer.
The professional photography/back market is special in this that it is on one hand a niche market (there are not many markets in the world involving at the best 10'000 units/sales per year to be shared between 3 or 4 manufacturers), with sales based on technicality (best possible quality) of the products and the capacity of the company manufacturing these products to be innovative and quick-responding when it comes to bring new products to the market (with lifetimes of maximum 2, at the best 3 years for each product developed and brought to the market). In this regard it is a very special market not allowing much playroom regarding margins.
Best regards
Thierry
Sorry, Thierry ... it applies to ALL markets. Customers don't know or care about your costs.
All you are saying is that you price above cost ... that's an important concept, but also obvious.
What I am saying is for that price and product to be successful, it must represent value to the end-user.
The fact that you didn't go bankrupt means your prices were both in excess of your costs and brought acceptable value to your clients.
The back market is not special in this regard.
-
Thierry,
Given what you said above, do you personally believe in the longevity of the medium format digital market?
Do you believe customers longterm will continue to pay $10K+ upgrades for only very incremental improvements?
I see room for one high end manufacturer (Leica in my opinion) and for Pentax and others that are willing to join at a lower price level, around $10K.
I have a harder time believing that Phase One and Hasselblad will be able to maintain their current business model in the future. Just my personal opinion.
Regards, Joris.
-
Why is it that when 'small pixels' are put on a 35mm chip that theyre considered to too small to be of high quality capability.... but the similarily sized small pixels found on the current generation of MFD backs (P65,iq160,180,Hassy60..) are perfectly acceptable? Is this anoher manifestation of the inherent 'magic' of MFD?
"Yes there is"!! The light sensitive area on a MFDB is positioned further back from the mount (and the focal length of the lens), than a 35mm camera, this makes the perception of light towards the edges of the frame easier than a 35mm camera (the light enters at a smaller angle), and hence a smaller pixel can record the info received better! Its the same really as it happens with FF and APS-c sensors, its much easier to built a smaller pixel on the APS-c sensor because the edges of the frame of the FF sensor are missing and thus light is received at a better angle. This means that a 36mpx sensor that would have the same technology with (say) the sensor used on the D7K AND the (nearly) same pixel size, would perform worst on the FF camera. Mind you that the microlenses used on the pixel do help, but don't eliminate the problem, they are needed on an APS-c sensor as well. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
As has been noted, MFDB's are primarily marketed to and for professionals. Given the low cost of entry to the pro market these days (read: basic DSLR system), we are really talking mostly about the high-end of the pro market.
It may be hard to comprehend from the perspective of an amateur or hobbyist, but the decision to purchase a MFDB, or to upgrade an existing one is not a mind-boggling prospect as some seem to think.
I can't speak for all shooters, but I know many who share my thinking. A decision to spend say USD50k on a system, which sounds like a large wedge of silver, has to be viewed in context of its earning potential over its expected service life (for me, that is typically 3-5years), the tax benefits over that time of depreciation, and its trade-in value at the end. If you are leasing, then you might consider the monthly cost versus the earning capacity. I expect my IQ180 to earn me a little over a million clams over the next 5 years, so would I lose too much sleep about the purchase? Not really.
Let me put it another way - would I be willing to allocate the fees from 12.5 days worth of shooting to cover this purchase, knowing that once I do, it will be 5 years before I have to do it again? If I was upgrading a back, this number is much smaller still.
Fortunately for the 3 players in the MFGB game, there are enough high-end shooters out there to keep them in business....
-
Joris,
I personally think that the MFDB market in the high-end segment is going to be at the same level for the coming years. As Bryan said, it is a professional market, and the purchase has to be put in context with earning and lifetime. And in this respect the market is quite stable since its begin.
Best regards
Thierry
Thierry,
Given what you said above, do you personally believe in the longevity of the medium format digital market?
Do you believe customers longterm will continue to pay $10K+ upgrades for only very incremental improvements?
I see room for one high end manufacturer (Leica in my opinion) and for Pentax and others that are willing to join at a lower price level, around $10K.
I have a harder time believing that Phase One and Hasselblad will be able to maintain their current business model in the future. Just my personal opinion.
Regards, Joris.
-
Joris,
I personally think that the MFDB market in the high-end segment is going to be at the same level for the coming years. As Bryan said, it is a professional market, and the purchase has to be put in context with earning and lifetime. And in this respect the market is quite stable since its begin.
Best regards
Thierry
Hi Thierry, although I agree with you about the expected "stability" of the MFDB market, I keep thinking that they (the makers) miss the opportunity to expand it. IMO they have worked a lot in the later years, to attract the customers from the top DSLRs, by trying to give MF the same user-friendly appearance on their cameras as a DSLR. OTOH much of the need for DBs is because of their ability to serve more purposes than just MF, the support to view and technical cameras, multishot and microstep, stitching and astrophotography (long exposures), are only a few that the use of a DB makes the difference. Although I don't believe that there will be any 36mpx D800, we have to realize, that the inevitable and welcome increase in the IQ of FF DSLRs, will make the use of a MFDB for the same purpose less appealing..., hence the makers should pay more attention to enhance the traditional values that DBs stand for and enhance on them. If I was to decide for manufacturers, I would ask Dalsa to introduce a cost effective, improved FF version of their traditional 22 & 33mpx sensor, at 28 & 42mpx respectively. Such a sensor could be beneficial for Sinar and Hasselblad to re-introduce multishot and microstep capable backs at sensible costs, it could be used by P1 to apply their sensor+ and exposure+ technology and if Hass would reintroduce their interchangeable adapter CF backs, they could along with Sinar, "wake up" the lot of MF that exists (Bronica, RB, LF.. etc), by creating a lot of base customers for the future. My opinion is, that its the solution providence of MF that should be enhanced, not the better IQ as such. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The second hand market of older DBs must also be expanded from the manufacturers, it can be very beneficial for them, if they give the opportunity to many more photographers to access MF.
-
I agree with you, Theodoros.
Best regards
Thierry
Hi Thierry, although I agree with you about the expected "stability" of the MFDB market, I keep thinking that they (the makers) miss the opportunity to expand it. IMO they have worked a lot in the later years, to attract the customers from the top DSLRs, by trying to give MF the same user-friendly appearance on their cameras as a DSLR. OTOH much of the need for DBs is because of their ability to serve more purposes than just MF, the support to view and technical cameras, multishot and microstep, stitching and astrophotography (long exposures), are only a few that the use of a DB makes the difference. Although I don't believe that there will be any 36mpx D800, we have to realize, that the inevitable and welcome increase in the IQ of FF DSLRs, will make the use of a MFDB for the same purpose less appealing..., hence the makers should pay more attention to enhance the traditional values that DBs stand for and enhance on them. If I was to decide for manufacturers, I would ask Dalsa to introduce a cost effective, improved FF version of their traditional 22 & 33mpx sensor, at 28 & 42mpx respectively. Such a sensor could be beneficial for Sinar and Hasselblad to re-introduce multishot and microstep capable backs at sensible costs, it could be used by P1 to apply their sensor+ and exposure+ technology and if Hass would reintroduce their interchangeable adapter CF backs, they could along with Sinar, "wake up" the lot of MF that exists (Bronica, RB, LF.. etc), by creating a lot of base customers for the future. My opinion is, that its the solution providence of MF that should be enhanced, not the better IQ as such. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The second hand market of older DBs must also be expanded from the manufacturers, it can be very beneficial for them, if they give the opportunity to many more photographers to access MF.
-
Resolution is the most often sighted spec in digital photography but is often one of the less important aspects, especially when it comes to pricing. A Canon 5D Mark II, a Mamiya ZD, a Phase One P25+, and a iPhone 3g running a stitching app are all 22mp cameras but otherwise share very little in common with each other.
+1
-
+1
OK! So... what? What about proposing something instead of just understand the problem and agree to it? To specify the (marketing) problem for real photography is not of help, to amplify solutions by combining your voice and thus create a market demand ...MAY BE a solution. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
OK! So... what? What about proposing something instead of just understand the problem and agree to it? To specify the (marketing) problem for real photography is not of help, to amplify solutions by combining your voice and thus create a market demand ...MAY BE a solution. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
What the hell are you on about, Theodoros? I was agreeing with a particular post.
And why say *regards* when you attack somebody? I understand that you are presumably not a native English speaker, but that is so dissonant (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissonant), it ain’t humourous.
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/1825/regards.png)
-
Aggression is not friendly.
-
I fully agree with the idea of a neccessary new chip for the whole industry.
I have already posted this in GetDPI and also in an interview that will come out in the German Digit very soon.
I can only kindly ask Phase/Leaf/Mamiya and Hasselblad to sit down on one table and discuss the idea of a large CMOS for them.
Alone the numbers will not be large enough for each of them to produce it.
Together they could do something like the fabulos Ford Cosworth formula one 8 cylinder motor that was lasting for nearly 16 years of winners driving it.
Make it a 60 Mpix 6x7 cm, with a nice large pixel pitch, allowing movements, give a rest to this "Digital lenses" madness with best sharpness only on open aperture,
allow 8 K video or at least about 5-10 images a sec, use oversampling and Pixel binning as well as Liveview.
PLEASE DO IT !!!! This is the only way of keeping professional Highend -Photography with movements and manual control alive.
Otherwise all the stuff will be substituted by the smaller and cheaper formats sooner or later. And as there are even smaller Pixels coming there will not be
modular concepts and no manual control. Everybody should think of this
And if this concept catches on they can safely earn some money and do even higher resolutions with 80, 100 or 120 Mpix (would be still the same pixel pitch as 60Mpix today on 4,5-6cm).
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
What the hell are you on about, Theodoros? I was agreeing with a particular post.
And why say *regards* when you attack somebody? I understand that you are presumably not a native English speaker, but that is so dissonant (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissonant), it ain’t humourous.
(http://img515 .imageshack.us/img515/1825/regards.png)
It's not an attack, it's a fact! ??? You and others, are rightfully specify the already specified problem without proposing what IYO should be done about it, I am not trying to be humourous neither to attack you, I only participate on a discussion to share a view for a common target that should be the advance of our photography, either if English is my native language or not, its whether I am right or wrong or being understood that should be noted and answered not your feeling about a hypothetical (non existing) attack! Please re-read my post to you, you may find that is your answer to it that's "out of subject". BEST REGARDS (truly), Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I fully agree with the idea of a neccessary new chip for the whole industry.
I have already posted this in GetDPI and also in an interview that will come out in the German Digit very soon.
I can only kindly ask Phase/Leaf/Mamiya and Hasselblad to sit down on one table and discuss the idea of a large CMOS for them.
Alone the numbers will not be large enough for each of them to produce it.
Together they could do something like the fabulos Ford Cosworth formula one 8 cylinder motor that was lasting for nearly 16 years of winners driving it.
Make it a 60 Mpix 6x7 cm, with a nice large pixel pitch, allowing movements, give a rest to this "Digital lenses" madness with best sharpness only on open aperture,
allow 8 K video or at least about 5-10 images a sec, use oversampling and Pixel binning as well as Liveview.
PLEASE DO IT !!!! This is the only way of keeping professional Highend -Photography with movements and manual control alive.
Otherwise all the stuff will be substituted by the smaller and cheaper formats sooner or later. And as there are even smaller Pixels coming there will not be
modular concepts and no manual control. Everybody should think of this
And if this concept catches on they can safely earn some money and do even higher resolutions with 80, 100 or 120 Mpix (would be still the same pixel pitch as 60Mpix today on 4,5-6cm).
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Don't you think that you forgot Sinar/Leica Stefan? Should they being left out?
Although I disagree by the proposal of a CMOS (I feel that MF is fine with CCDs), its the rest of your post that is of most importance, I also suggested a few days ago here, in LuLa, that MF manufacturers "should sit around a table" and agree to a policy that would be beneficial for them and our photography, instead of looking to "each other" as the real enemy! Opening their systems to each other and to the previous MF market that didn't survive the "digital massacre" of photography, is only a start that they should have already done! If they don't, they will be "sitting ducks" for the "Canonikons", who only care to eliminate whoever will deny them their target, which of course is THE whole PHOTO MARKET. They don't care about photography at all, they only care to convince the market that their camera and "IS-VRII" lens makes people feel photographers! They are asking for 7000 for a D3X/1DS3 toy for Christ shake, an Aptus 5 costs the same and proves the DSLR to be the TOY that it is! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Did anybody see the results of this year NPCI? ;) ...Its the proof for the above stated.
-
Theodoros
Sinar: that´s too complicated to explain in 2 sentences but I try. Given their actual market share and the fact that the Backs are still built by Jenoptic I guess it does not make much sense. Sinar is not what it once was, they still do carry the name, but it´s not the same company anymore. maybe Thierry wants to explain that in Detail, otherwise I would say - not of relevance (sad but true)
Leica: seems to be the company which will do best of all the mentioned. And as it is in the rumours - they will probably use the new Fuji organic CMOS chips this year, so I guess not much need for a joint venture.
Last but not least: Pentax - as they are on the well of japanese resources I think we do NOT need to consider Pentax a third player in a Joint venture.
I expect Ricoh to absorb the Pentax 645 into a soon to come GRX- Xtra Large.
Left over Hasselblad and Phase. And both - if they will not claim their part on this Pro Highend market will be in trouble in medium time frame of about 5 years latest, whereas I think that Phase has even more to loose on all these Frame and Tech users. And this is not only my opinion , this exactly was stated by Henrik Hakansson april 2010 in an interview with german "Profifoto". They are actually neighbours in Kopenhagen and probably know each other very well. So guys - get it settled, do the right thing - speak !
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
It's not an attack ... [BLAH BLAH]
It was rude and uncalled-for. Your behavior on this forum is disruptive and childish.
We are basically self-policed and rarely need help from "management" to keep this place pleasant and civil ... because most participants behave as adults.
You need to grow-up.
-
Answer, probably not because of brand caché.
Justin, a caché is something that is hidden; cachet is the real deal:
(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5770/cachet.png)
However, since you employed the acute accent with such aplomb, I have to assume you are a Mac guy! ;D
-
Shoot I gotta make it my new years resolution to stop comparing cameras when one of them doesn't (officially) exist yet.
Missed this post!
+1 LOL
-
Hello Thierry!
Would you mind to elaborate if those 10 000 units are only for backs or all MF cameras (including S2 and 645D integrated models)? Because based on my information Pentax makes 700 units per month and that alone accounts for 8.4K units per year.
Thank you!
Radu
Nothing to be sorry, just a discussion in which am trying to bring in my own experience from one of the previous leading companies in this market in which I was involved and well aware of the pricing policy and how it was calculated.
What I am saying is not only that one prices above costs (obviously as you say it), but that the margin which is calculated and which gives the enduser price is not a calculation coming from nowhere or resulting from some agreements between manufacturers (that was my initial answer to Paul, who wrote that prices were fixed and artificially hold high by the manufacturers). It is in the contrary a seriously made calculation involving all aspects of the company and resulting in the margin it needs to be profitable. And there is not much room left after this calculation is made: in other words, the manufacturers do also take in account the pricing of the competitors. And usually competition drives prices down. And also in other words, these prices must be at that level until the R&D costs are recovered (you can make yourself the calculation how many units to be sold this means when knowing that the whole market of MFDBs is about 10'000 units per year, that there are 3 or 4 manufacturers, that R&D costs for each new back introduced amount to anywhere between 4 or 500k and 1m.
That for this resulting price the product has to bring some value to the enduser is obvious, and it (this value) usually is not only a reflection or a consequence of the product itself but of the complete value of the company and its distribution channels in the eyes of the customer.
The professional photography/back market is special in this that it is on one hand a niche market (there are not many markets in the world involving at the best 10'000 units/sales per year to be shared between 3 or 4 manufacturers), with sales based on technicality (best possible quality) of the products and the capacity of the company manufacturing these products to be innovative and quick-responding when it comes to bring new products to the market (with lifetimes of maximum 2, at the best 3 years for each product developed and brought to the market). In this regard it is a very special market not allowing much playroom regarding margins.
Best regards
Thierry
-
Theodoros
Sinar: that´s too complicated to explain in 2 sentences but I try. Given their actual market share and the fact that the Backs are still built by Jenoptic I guess it does not make much sense. Sinar is not what it once was, they still do carry the name, but it´s not the same company anymore. maybe Thierry wants to explain that in Detail, otherwise I would say - not of relevance (sad but true)
Leica: seems to be the company which will do best of all the mentioned. And as it is in the rumours - they will probably use the new Fuji organic CMOS chips this year, so I guess not much need for a joint venture.
Last but not least: Pentax - as they are on the well of japanese resources I think we do NOT need to consider Pentax a third player in a Joint venture.
I expect Ricoh to absorb the Pentax 645 into a soon to come GRX- Xtra Large.
Left over Hasselblad and Phase. And both - if they will not claim their part on this Pro Highend market will be in trouble in medium time frame of about 5 years latest, whereas I think that Phase has even more to loose on all these Frame and Tech users. And this is not only my opinion , this exactly was stated by Henrik Hakansson april 2010 in an interview with german "Profifoto". They are actually neighbours in Kopenhagen and probably know each other very well. So guys - get it settled, do the right thing - speak !
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
But Leica did get possession of the Jenoptic shares in Sinar, didn't they? They don't want to loose their money, do they? I mean what I did propose up there (for all MFDB makers) and Thierry agreed, would give them a new momentum, that surely is for Leica's interest (especially if bad relationship with Imacon due to the DMR story comes into play...). MF makers have to realize that if one of them dies out of the three left (P1/leaf, Imacon/Hass and Leica/Sinar), they will all die, its not a game where the winner takes the prizes, people (photographers more so...) trust no one to act without competition, they know they will be ripped and tech advancement will be delayed! That's why I've said in other forums, that the MFDB manufacturers follow a suicidal policy! If I was to decide for them, I would additionally to what I state above, propose to Sinar/Leica to try resurrect the Contax 645 system (especially now that Rollei is dead (?)), this way they would be doing what Mamiya/Leaf is doing and leave Leica to do what Hass is doing, I would also propose to Hass, to bring the H4X into production (not just H1&2 upgrade), reintroduce the film backs AND THE INTERCHANGEABLE ADAPTER (Why do I shout?) CFs, by expanding their range to all the backs they make for the H system, P1/Mamiya should also reintroduce a film back (even if its unprofitable), work on their compatibility with older useful cameras (what the hell is an "one shot"?) and expand the physical size of their basic sensors. Regards, Theodoros.
P.S. My Opinion/proposal, is additional to what I stated on my previous discussion with Thierry, who's opinion I consider valuable and required, ...if we are to expand this discussion.
-
… based on my information Pentax makes 700 units per month and that alone accounts for 8.4K units per year.
Radu
Radu, that is production, not sales. How much is lurking in the channel? ;D
I believed that the Pentax 645D would be an industry game-changer, but the lack of lenses (what were they thinking?) and no tethering … ?
-
Dear Radu,
I didn't "count" Pentax nor Leica in these numbers, but spoke about 3 or 4 manufacturers, depending on if one still counts Sinar as a back manufacturer.
Best regards
Thierry
Hello Thierry!
Would you mind to elaborate if those 10 000 units are only for backs or all MF cameras (including S2 and 645D integrated models)? Because based on my information Pentax makes 700 units per month and that alone accounts for 8.4K units per year.
Thank you!
Radu
-
Radu, that is production, not sales. How much is lurking in the channel? ;D
I believed that the Pentax 645D would be an industry game-changer, but the lack of lenses (what were they thinking?) and no tethering … ?
+1.Its also a DSLR with only a larger sensor as the difference.., nothing to do with MF format as a purpose. At least not the way we discuss it with Thierry and Stefan up there and in which I would like your opinion/contribution, that is if you wish... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
we would all like the luxury of a crystal ball to see what the MFD world looks like in 5 years time, but one thing i do believe is that if a japanese manufacturer wanted to they could make all phamiyablad cameras obsolete overnight if they decided it was worth investing the money in a new system.
the sensor technology is there as is the lens technology (see the thread on canon 17/24mm tse on MFD) the reason pentax hasn't dented the pro market is no rock solid viable tether software or lens rental/hire back-up in major cities.
the problem with the MF manufacturers is they are dictated to by the sensor manufacturers and what they produce, this imho is not an ideal place to be. manufacturing/designing your own sensors puts you in a far better position to react to your customers needs.
the only aces being held are the software (Capture-1) and the cameras (H-blad)
it wouldn't surprise me to see more consolidation in the MF world and 35mm chipping away at the already small market once the 30+ sensors with no AAF and amazing iso performance and lenses with the 17/24mm performance enter the market.
whatever happens i will be surprised if all the major players are still there with the same owners in 5 years time.
-
Radu, that is production, not sales. How much is lurking in the channel? ;D
I believed that the Pentax 645D would be an industry game-changer, but the lack of lenses (what were they thinking?) and no tethering … ?
Pentax is not having a problem with selling the camera--it happens to be very much in demand, which is the main reason it is still in production. Apparently, ability to tether has not been impacting sales to a great degree--not everyone needs it. Right now I have four excellent lenses for my 645D (35mm, 55mm, 120mm, and 300mm) with plenty more available. Pentax has released two new lenses and a third will be released this year with several already planned after it.
-
the problem with the MF manufacturers is they are dictated to by the sensor manufacturers and what they produce, this imho is not an ideal place to be. manufacturing/designing your own sensors puts you in a far better position to react to your customers needs.
There are few sensor manufacturers than camera companies and so this is not a situation unique to MF. Designing and producing sensors is not easy. The R&D just to produce a new sensor is really great. MFD companies are not going to be able to change sensors on a whim--they are going to have recoup their outlay and there sales volume is not very large and so they would not be able to update their sensors as quickly as you imagine. Plus, to start from scratch would be a huge investment, not only in the tooling, but also getting the engineers and getting the engineers up to the point where they can make something equal to what the industry can produce now.
Leica having Kodak produce their CCD and then making it exclusive is one way of doing it. I am sure Leica had input into the design with more than just the aspect ratio.
-
we would all like the luxury of a crystal ball to see what the MFD world looks like in 5 years time, but one thing i do believe is that if a japanese manufacturer wanted to they could make all phamiyablad cameras obsolete overnight if they decided it was worth investing the money in a new system.
the sensor technology is there as is the lens technology (see the thread on canon 17/24mm tse on MFD) the reason pentax hasn't dented the pro market is no rock solid viable tether software or lens rental/hire back-up in major cities.
the problem with the MF manufacturers is they are dictated to by the sensor manufacturers and what they produce, this imho is not an ideal place to be. manufacturing/designing your own sensors puts you in a far better position to react to your customers needs.
the only aces being held are the software (Capture-1) and the cameras (H-blad)
it wouldn't surprise me to see more consolidation in the MF world and 35mm chipping away at the already small market once the 30+ sensors with no AAF and amazing iso performance and lenses with the 17/24mm performance enter the market.
whatever happens i will be surprised if all the major players are still there with the same owners in 5 years time.
Don't agree with the above, who constructs a sensor doesn't make the difference, it's how you tune and master it that does. Nikon doesn't make their own sensors either and all these Sony and Panasonic needing the now-how of Zeiss and Leitz, does prove that its not just a matter of some kind of Gorilla against monkey game, where the Gorilla can, but doesn't want to harm the monkey. The "Canonikons" have never done MF and Pentax 645D proves, that if they would, their approach would be the same as they do with their DSLRs. They just lack the now-how. IMO, they do try to vanish the MF makers, their game is all about resolution as such not IQ! By vanishing the small (economically) makers they can replace them on the "photography throne"! This will prove very profitable. They don't because they can't, so they influence much of the customers not to seek photography as such, but rather have created "pixel peepers", "resolution hunters" and "gadget consumers". If MF will fall in the trap of "your camera makes you a photographer" you will prove right, if it will serve the photographers FOR THEIR PHOTOGRAPHY, it will grow. Only my two cents. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Radu, that is production, not sales. How much is lurking in the channel? ;D
I believed that the Pentax 645D would be an industry game-changer, but the lack of lenses (what were they thinking?) and no tethering … ?
Hello MC,
Pentax started production in January 2010 with 500 units per month (that's a verifiable fact) then were unable to fulfill the initial preorders in Japan thus postponing the launch from May to June 2010 and after that (word of mouth somewhat confirmed by the serial numbers of cameras - not solid proof whatsoever) upped it to 700 units. This cannot suggest anything but inability to fill the channels not the other way around.
About the lenses Pentax is most often judged (on the net in the English speaking fora) by the abysmal performance of Pentax USA (which is fair because if you're US based it makes no difference for you personally what the situation is in the EU, Japan or rest of the Asia). Yet in those three zones Pentax probably sells 90% of the 645D production and (at least in Japan and EU) one can easily find at least 10 FA 645 lenses sold as new at great prices (under 600 Euro for the 75/2.8, bellow 1500 Euro for a lot of them) with warranty and all and under 2 weeks delivery time and can also order another few more expensive lenses (FA* 645 300/4, FA 400/5.6 and so on) with a delivery time of about 4 to 6 weeks.
Tethering will come maybe as soon as in 4 weeks time at CP+ show along with a brand new portrait lens and the prototype of the ultra-wide to normal zoom scheduled for next year (30 - 70 mm or so) which will replace two zooms (33-55 and 45-85).
[/quote]Dear Radu,
I didn't "count" Pentax nor Leica in these numbers, but spoke about 3 or 4 manufacturers, depending on if one still counts Sinar as a back manufacturer.
Best regards
Thierry
Thierry,
First of all thanks a lot for the answer it is nice to finally have some hard numbers from a professional in the business. So it may be possible that the total market for the cameras with a larger than 36x24 mm sensor to be around 20K units per year? And secondly in your opinion saying that Pentax and Leica mostly added new owners and less so impacted on "older" MF manufacturer sales numbers is a fair assessment?
Thank you both,
Radu
-
About the lenses Pentax is most often judged (on the net in the English speaking fora) by the abysmal performance of Pentax USA (which is fair because if you're US based it makes no difference for you personally what the situation is in the EU, Japan or rest of the Asia). Yet in those three zones Pentax probably sells 90% of the 645D production and (at least in Japan and EU) one can easily find at least 10 FA 645 lenses sold as new at great prices (under 600 Euro for the 75/2.8, bellow 1500 Euro for a lot of them) with warranty and all and under 2 weeks delivery time and can also order another few more expensive lenses (FA* 645 300/4, FA 400/5.6 and so on) with a delivery time of about 4 to 6 weeks.
Radu,
Just for my understanding, the lenses that you mention above, are they readily available on the US market as new lenses?
When you go to the website of B&H and search for the Pentax 645D you will see that there is one lens linked with the Pentax 645D and that is the 55mm, nothing else.
Regards, Joris.
-
I don't wish to elaborate on Sinar more than what you are saying here, Stephan. As you say, it's not the same company anymore as it used to be, only the name.
And "not of relevance (sad but true)" are about the right words used by you Stephan.
Thierry
Sinar: that´s too complicated to explain in 2 sentences but I try. Given their actual market share and the fact that the Backs are still built by Jenoptic I guess it does not make much sense. Sinar is not what it once was, they still do carry the name, but it´s not the same company anymore. maybe Thierry wants to explain that in Detail, otherwise I would say - not of relevance (sad but true)
Stefan
-
Hello Joris,
English is not my first language and I know it shows! What I meant was that in E.U. one can easily find FA 645 lenses newly manufactured and sometime even available in stock. In Japan the situation is much, much better with a lot of shops actively carrying the entire 645 lens range.
Here are some links:
http://www.ffordes.co.uk/category/Medium_Format/Pentax/645_Lenses#&&PageIndex=1&SortDirection=Ascending&SortExpression=ItemName (btw I see the new 25 mm being "just in" so a good sign)
www.tekade.de (write 645 in the search tab - sorry but their site is half baked)
Like I said Pentax USA is by far the weakest link in the Pentax chain and they should be presented as such. They should import FA 645 lenses and offer them to the three 645 dealers in the US. As they don't do so I wouldn't expect B&H, Adorama or Ace's to import on their own those lenses.
Regards,
Radu
Radu,
Just for my understanding, the lenses that you mention above, are they readily available on the US market as new lenses?
When you go to the website of B&H and search for the Pentax 645D you will see that there is one lens linked with the Pentax 645D and that is the 55mm, nothing else.
Regards, Joris.
-
No Theodoros, that never was the case. It was planed to happen, was announced, but did never conclude for reasons which I am not allowed to speak about.
Best regards
Thierry
But Leica did get possession of the Jenoptic shares in Sinar, didn't they?
-
Radu,
I have no idea about these figures, if by that you mean the inclusion of Leica and Pentax.
About your second question, my answer is yes, I don't think that they influenced the usual and professional customer base as it is since years, up to now. And I also think that this customer base is not their target.
Best regards
Thierry
Thierry,
First of all thanks a lot for the answer it is nice to finally have some hard numbers from a professional in the business. So it may be possible that the total market for the cameras with a larger than 36x24 mm sensor to be around 20K units per year? And secondly in your opinion saying that Pentax and Leica mostly added new owners and less so impacted on "older" MF manufacturer sales numbers is a fair assessment?
Radu
-
Hello Joris,
English is not my first language and I know it shows! What I meant was that in E.U. one can easily find FA 645 lenses newly manufactured and sometime even available in stock. In Japan the situation is much, much better with a lot of shops actively carrying the entire 645 lens range.
Here are some links:
http://www.ffordes.co.uk/category/Medium_Format/Pentax/645_Lenses#&&PageIndex=1&SortDirection=Ascending&SortExpression=ItemName (btw I see the new 25 mm being "just in" so a good sign)
www.tekade.de (write 645 in the search tab - sorry but their site is half baked)
Like I said Pentax USA is by far the weakest link in the Pentax chain and they should be presented as such. They should import FA 645 lenses and offer them to the three 645 dealers in the US. As they don't do so I wouldn't expect B&H, Adorama or Ace's to import on their own those lenses.
Regards,
Radu
Radu,
Thanks for the reply! Are the FA lenses film lenses or are they lenses for the Pentax DSLRs?
BTW, at ₤3799 (US equivalent $5823) the new 25mm lens is not exactly cheap...
Best, Joris.
-
IF.
If any medium format back went to 1000, to 1500 clean iso at about 30 to 40 mpx, tethered, had good skin tones, reliable robust software, I'd buy it . . . today . . . though even with that I will still only use it for about 25% of our work, which is more than my current backs that I use for about 10% to 15% of our work due to the iso limitations.
If the Pentax tethered I'd buy it, even with the lack of new lenses. At $10,000 and the fact that it has a good lcd, shoots a good in camera jpeg makes it a deal . . .IF it would reliably tether.
If Contax had continued with some new lenses and an upgraded body/viewfinder, they would have sold about $30,000 more to me and every other Contax user on the planet . . .if . . . they had continued.
If our industry had stuck with flash lighting , still only imagery I'd have probably bought into a new back or system, though without major iso changes I'd probably have just shopped used or demo. Right now about 10% of our work is shot with flash only, All of our work is shot with continuous lighting.
Now in regards to price, from a professional point of view, everything is too expensive unless you need it for commerce, then the price becomes less relevant.
I thought our original Canon 1ds' were expensive until we bought medium format backs, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema video cameras, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema lenses, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema lighting, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema supports, monitors, post production computers, software.............................
Is it really all about price? It seems on these forums price is mentioned a lot which kind of surprises me considering how long one of these backs last.
I really think it's more about usability. A Canon or Nikon under certain situations will not shot as nice a file as a medium format back, but overall a Canon or Nikon will shoot in just about any situation.
IMO
BC
-
"If any medium format back went to 1000, to 1500 clean iso at about 30 to 40 mpx, tethered, had good skin tones, reliable robust software, I'd buy it . . . today ."
me too, i would even settle for a clean 800 ;D
-
...Now in regards to price, from a professional point of view, everything is too expensive unless you need it for commerce, then the price becomes less relevant.
I thought our original Canon 1ds' were expensive until we bought medium format backs, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema video cameras, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema lenses, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema lighting, which I thought was expensive until we bought cinema supports, monitors, post production computers, software.............................
I think it's the chicken and egg thing. I don't know if the specialty camera market is small because the equipment is specialized, somewhat limited and more expensive, or is the market small because the equipment is specialized, somewhat limited and more expensive?
IMO
BC
I'd like to keep going with this idea because I'm very much into those thoughts recently.
I really think that the cost of the specialized equipments is in general totally overpriced and ultimatly scandalous.
You where talking about cine lightning. There is no refine high-tech in those if we think about it, it's a very old well known and rather simple circuitery. They are built to military standarts nothing more, but it's nothing much more than a brutal peice of metal. And it's priced a fortune.
But then, in my block, every month they film a silly tv show for the Canal + chanel (Jay Leno type, sorry for Jay...) that has absolutly nothing special and the medium displayed are simply huge. It costs a fortune per hour just to do something "crap" that target the sheep asleep masses. In the scandalous budgets and corruption that is the norm in a big part of this industry, 10.000, 100.000 is a joke. They would light your cigarette with a 1000 euros lighter it would not shock anybody and it will enter into the prod budget that nobody would notice it. Those costs are admited and there is no doubt for me that manufacturers are taking a great advantage of the situation.
But those days are numbered...
I'd really like the know the real cost of an average Arri HMI fresnel, and I would like to know for how much they sell those to our military forces by the way. The prices shouldn't be exactly the same than the ones we can access.
In the still world, to see the differences in print between a 5D2 and a muscled MF, a part from the maniacs because the clients-viewers aren't concern by those criterium but by the emotional response, you'd need to reach sizes that very few people are actually using-needing. But the cost of such an "excelence" is enormous.
In fact, we don't really pay for what we get, we pay for a spirit, a way to do things, a brand and a social status (expensive equipment).
Look at the softwares. What a strange situation indeed how suddenly suites that costed a fortuned and reserved to this industry's elite have, "just like that", gone down drastically and now accessible to almost eveybody. How strange...
Where the price then "real" ?
And I'm not sure that the very few who still are working with expensive Nucoda for ex are doing things that can't be done today with a much much cheaper equipment.
And the MF body designs. What have they done ? Nothing. Absolutly nothing! It's all about sensors and megapixels and even, they haven't been able to make a great lcd and significant progress in high isos. They use a body technology that is 50, 60 years old and looks adapted in a hurry to digital requirements. Nothing new, no great features, no designs improvements, almost no RAD in this. How much costs a new Mamiya-Phase without the back? Is it really serious, or are they really serious? I'd like to know.
Red comes into the scene ans started to put the mess in the cine world...it was refreshing indeed.
It's been the chicken with the golden eggs in the high-end.
I got the sensation that now they are going to eat stone eggs because the pushing generation is simply saying no (to stay polite) to those abuses (they build their own equipment, they pirat softwares, they hack cameras and they are much less asleep than their parents).
-
Joris,
Pentax nomenclature is FA 645 are the old film lenses, D FA 645 are the new designed for digital (but also for the entire film circle). The UK price has a VAT of 20% included so if you buy from overseas you can claim the price without that e.g. 5823*0.80. BTW, in the US the lens will cost 4999 with a March availability foreseen.
Best,
Radu
Radu,
Thanks for the reply! Are the FA lenses film lenses or are they lenses for the Pentax DSLRs?
BTW, at ₤3799 (US equivalent $5823) the new 25mm lens is not exactly cheap...
Best, Joris.
-
>>>I got the sensation that now they are going to eat stone eggs because the pushing generation is simply saying no (to stay polite) to those abuses (they build their own equipment, they pirat softwares, they hack cameras and they are much less asleep than their parents).<<<<
Exactly on target ! It does not count how to reach a result, it only counts you do it ! Either with iPhones, or GoProHero2, or cheap entry DSLR´s which are more than "pretty good" already. Use lens adapters, hack Pana´s GH2, use magic lantern. Put the results in After Effects, Maya and be really good have training, LEARN and be creative, no : _ BE CREATIVE_ !!!!
This is how the Kids are today, not all but the best - and - all over the world, they grew up with this and they will show us how this will change our little "ProGearOnly" idea of professional Imaging-media-making. The wind is blowing. For some it will be a cosy and warm breeze when they open their sails and use it, the other ones will find their houses destroyed by tornados.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
>>>I got the sensation that now they are going to eat stone eggs because the pushing generation is simply saying no (to stay polite) to those abuses (they build their own equipment, they pirat softwares, they hack cameras and they are much less asleep than their parents).<<<<
Exactly on target ! It does not count how to reach a result, it only counts you do it ! Either with iPhones, or GoProHero2, or cheap entry DSLR´s which are more than "pretty good" already. Use lens adapters, hack Pana´s GH2, use magic lantern. Put the results in After Effects, Maya and be really good have training, LEARN and be creative, no : _ BE CREATIVE_ !!!!
This is how the Kids are today, not all but the best - and - all over the world, they grew up with this and they will show us how this will change our little "ProGearOnly" idea of professional Imaging-media-making. The wind is blowing. For some it will be a cosy and warm breeze when they open their sails and use it, the other ones will find their houses destroyed by tornados.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Totally agree, and well described.
Cheers.
-
+1.Its also a DSLR with only a larger sensor as the difference.., nothing to do with MF format as a purpose. At least not the way we discuss it with Thierry and Stefan up there and in which I would like your opinion/contribution, that is if you wish... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
No, Theodoros, you want me to respond as to your wishes, and I do not have to do that.
-
Dear Radu,
I didn't "count" Pentax nor Leica in these numbers, but spoke about 3 or 4 manufacturers, depending on if one still counts Sinar as a back manufacturer.
Thierry
Why not, Thierry? Is it because the sensors are not removeable to attach to another camera?
-
If any medium format back went to 1000, to 1500 clean iso at about 30 to 40 mpx, tethered, had good skin tones, reliable robust software, I'd buy it . . . today . . . though even with that I will still only use it for about 25% of our work, which is more than my current backs that I use for about 10% to 15% of our work due to the iso limitations. If the Pentax tethered I'd buy it, even with the lack of new lenses. At $10,000 and the fact that it has a good lcd, shoots a good in camera jpeg makes it a deal . . .IF it would reliably tether.
Baby Cooter,
I have been shooting the Pentax 645D for quite a while now. I bought it from B&H, and bought a slew of lenses from KEH, and cobbled my Mamiya 80 with an adapter, to work on it too. My thoughts:
* Really nice camera.
* Incredible viewfinder. A joy to look thru, and compose thru.
* ASA goes to 1000, and in Lightroom, it's a really nice tight "grain" at 1000; i never hesitate setting it on 1000. Minimum ASA is 200, which I found kinda weird. No 100.
* Meter is really nice.
* LCD is large and bright. Controls are easy. Feels like a camera; not a computer.
* Shoots RAW to DNG; opens effortlessly in Lightroom. Invisible that it's a DNG.
* Lenses are dirt cheap. Except for the auto focus 35mm, which is kinda rare, and needs to be found in Asia. With 35mm lens, autofocus is worth paying for ($1500). But most lenses I choose to manual focus anyway, but that's just me. Most lenses: $300. I also have the autofocus version of the 75, but never use the autofocus.
* Lenses are really nice wide open.
* Shoots a really large file. Really nice. I output to 24x30 on my 7900, using Cold Press Bright.
* Main negative thing: It feels underpowered. Compared to the zip of the D3x, it feels like it wants to have a V-8 engine, but in actuality, it runs like it's got a four cylinder engine in it. The LCD is slow to report; frustrating when working really fast, with impatient people. I would gladly pay another ten grand for a V-8 engine in the Version Two of it, if there ever is a Version Two. Who knows if there'll ever be a version two.
* I have not shot a frame with the Nikon since buying the Pentax. Looking thru the viewfinder of the D3x is like looking thru a tiny black tunnel, compared to the Pentax viewer.
* If you're not in a super hurry, can't imagine a nicer camera than the 645D. Yes, kinda weird that you have to buy the lenses off the back of a truck, but it is what it is.
* Battery lasts forever. Seems to never go dead.
* Note: Weird dealer representation. I looked at the camera at Adorama, but they only offered a seven day return policy, and they weren't wild about offering that. Worse with K at Samy's; no return policy whatsoever. But B&H offered a full no questions asked return for 30 days, as long as camera as new. $9995 at B&H. Great company. I talked to humans on the phone, to confirm the return policy, since the camera was unproven.
* I opened the box and started shooting it. Never read the manual. Reminds me of the Contax -- old school, in a good way. I only shoot BW with it, and i set the LCD to show up in BW. I bought the on camera Pentax flash, because I secretly want to be Weegee.
* Two slots for SD cards. I keep a 32gig in Slot One, and only ever shoot to Slot One. I shoot Raw only; no JPG. I keep a 16g in Slot Two just as a back up, but mostly it just sits there. My 13" MBP has an SD card slot right in the computer; makes it really nice and easy.
Those are my thoughts on the Pentax 645D.
Hope you're well. Over and out.
-
Among other reasons, because the marget targeted is not the same as the one (high-end segment) targeted by the "traditional" back manufacturers.
Best regards
Thierry
Why not, Thierry? Is it because the sensors are not removeable to attach to another camera?
-
Baby Cooter,
I have been shooting the Pentax 645D for quite a while now.
gwitif,
Yea, we're dong pretty good, hope your doing the same.
About the 645d, thanks, that's good to know. We'll make some calls and see if we can get a body and a lens and do a quick test.
You say you dedicate it to black and white. Have you used it on color and since you mostly shoot people what are the skin tones on the 645D like?
Also what do you process in?
You know, it's funny, we were in Tokyo a few months ago and my partner and producer asked me if I wanted to go to Yodobashi the large camera chain in Japan.
They have everything and I'm sure brand new Pentax lenses.
I said, uh . . . no . . . . well yea, but uh, no because I'll only spend 10 grand or a lot more, buying the Pentax and I probably shouldn't buy it.
Maybe I was wrong.
P.S. I'm surprised that K at Samy's couldn't offer a buy back or warranty. She's been so good for our business and like you we've had nothing be great service from her.
Well, maybe Samy's doesn't have the pull like B&H.
Fred,
The two phrases I've heard in this business from the moment I picked up my first camera is 1. Things use to be better in the good ol' days (I don't believe that) and 2. Film (motion) crews think still guys make bank, still guys think cinema (motion) crews make bank and spend too much money on production.
Sure there is some waste sometimes, but in reality at least in my world, I don't know anyone throwing money around like it doesn't matter. I see the opposite. Our budgets aren't that much different, but the amount of volume we're required to produce is up 5 fold.
Also our 10 hour shoot days are now 12 to 14 hours, unless God turns off the light.
Anyway.
I understand that the world is getting smaller and it's easy to say we can all shoot on a tiny camera, tiny lights and do the next Michael Bay movie, or GQ spread, but in reality, with anywhere near serious money and high expectations on a project you have to have robust equipment.
Sure Arri, Mole, LTM, are all old meat locker technology, and weigh too much, have a hell of a power draw, but you can also toss two dozen of them into the back of truck and they won't break.
Try that with anything lighter, smaller and cheaper and I know from experience you'll have non working lights.
Actually, two years ago we bought some large fluorescents that had the biggest tube in each fixture I've ever seen. They always broke in transport, even though the maker finally came out with a hard case. Those lights still set on a shelf broken and I have no desire to replace them.
Now I do think some of the smaller cameras are fascinating and allow us to do some tricks that couldn't be done before, at least not without hours of rigging, but I also can't see me saying to myself, much less a client that uh, well, the RED went down but we have this little white Nikon that shoots video.
Maybe it's old school but that's one of the reasons I bought a second RED, one of the reasons we also have a Scarlet being delivered as I write this.
I have a problem with the word cheaper, maybe it's just a reflection of the way the market has gone the last few years with the economic downturn, but cheaper to me usually means a client wants the same if not more than they did before, just for less budget.
You know I've ridden this storm and come out ok, but me and my studios have done it by working harder and not dropping our production levels. Sure, sometimes you bite the bullet and don't make what you want, but in the end, looking to the medium term, it always pays off.
In fact we invested more during the "recession" than we did when things we're fat, (or is that phat?) and I know it's paid off.
Don't get me wrong, if someone makes a RED equivalent that sells for 3 grand I'll buy it, or if they make some camera that absolutely does what no other camera in the world will do for 50 grand, I might buy that also, but in the end, everybody says it's just about the photograph or the story or the video or the whatever, but what it's really about is delivering without problems, hesitation and excuses and the only way I know to do this is with professional people and professional equipment.
As far as dealers and their markup, I have no problem with that as long as it's fair market value. Hey, I have no problem with anyone making a healthy profit, because if they don't they won't be around and a good dealer can be a lifesaver.
IMO
BC
-
James,
I totally agree with all your lines. I don't think our thoughts are not compatible, on the contrary, they just reflect 2 sides of the same thing.
The big problem with cheap little equipment, as you pointed, is the reliability side. I'm facing actually this dilema. I've hacked the GH2 and gained incredibly in output. But then, the testings I'm doing at home aren't really reflecting the real world and surprises could show-up. Soon I know I'll have some fashion assignements, for sure with supermodels from what they told me, and there is no option for failure. I won't take yet the hacked GH2 because I have no idea if in real world conditions (and not in my homestudio) it will not crash because of the hack-cards, so a lot of previous testings are necesary. That's not possible to work like that for many pros. We indeed need very solid reliable equipments and those are expensive. (The question is that if they are fairly priced within the expensiveness? I think that they aren't and benefits margen are exagerate but that's another debate).
So I'm aware and agree 200% on the importance of the points you are making here.
On the other hand, in the post-prod side, we could also say the same: people will tell you that working with their Da-Vinci suites is a no-hassle and reliable process that is the norm in the high-end, for the same reasons than the prod side but it results that those millionaire suites are more and more empty, we know that, we're hearing stories all the time about prod houses that have their Autodesk, Nucoda etc...suites not working the way they did and should to be profitable, a lot actually have - are closing.
It results that an Edius 6 would edit 4K in real time and with wysiwyg capabilities and has the tools to grade as well (but with more steps) as Da-Vinci and this without going out of the same software and it's bloody intuitive. Things will be more and more like that, I think it's unstopable. Thank god I haven't put myself in Smoke workflow, like I wanted to do.
Because it seems that there is a paradox: you are absolutly right when you say that it's not so true that prods are throwing money by the windows. In fact they are really measuring costs to the lastest peny, but at the same time, there is a tremendous amount of wasting in different parts of the pipeline, corruption of all kinds, favors and false facturations etc etc...this is a paradox but I'm seeing both. The traditional way has become too heavy and IMO, ultimatly is going against the stream of our times.
It's not a elephant, it's a Mammoth and ice is melting...
This is where the dilema is really. We need reliable equipments, we need solid stable gear and softwares, we need no hassle, and that has a cost. And at the same time, we need to do things differently, we need lighter and simplified workflows, and specially in the PP.
The problem is that there is still no really satisfactory answer that covers those 2 parameters. So for one part there are people pulling the string on the Red-Alexa side and on the other side of the string, others pulling it on the small, cheap, Canons-GH2.
IMO, the solution lays exactly in the middle of the string. Maybe Epic sort of equipments.
I think that the coming times are going to be exciting because we will have what we need.
Cheers.
Ps: what gwhitf is using for motion ?
-
* ASA goes to 1000, and in Lightroom, it's a really nice tight "grain" at 1000; i never hesitate setting it on 1000. Minimum ASA is 200, which I found kinda weird. No 100.
Hello!
All contemporary Pentax cameras have a so called "expanded sensitivity" and so does the 645D. You can access an ISO range from 100 to 1600 instead of the default 200-1000 by;
1) Entering the Menu
2) Select C(ustom) tab
3) Select the 3rd row - Expanded sensitivity and switch from the default Off to position 2 - On.
4) You can now select ISO in steps from 100 to 1600.
Regards,
Radu
-
* Two slots for SD cards. I keep a 32gig in Slot One, and only ever shoot to Slot One. I shoot Raw only; no JPG. I keep a 16g in Slot Two just as a back up, but mostly it just sits there. My 13" MBP has an SD card slot right in the computer; makes it really nice and easy.
I love my 645D as well. I setup the card slot to duplicate the image on both cards so it acts as a mini-RAID 1--I use two 16GB cards which gets me about 280 RAW. I have had SD cards be corrupt and this is like a nice piece of insurance.
-
I love my 645D as well. I setup the card slot to duplicate the image on both cards so it acts as a mini-RAID 1--I use two 16GB cards which gets me about 280 RAW. I have had SD cards be corrupt and this is like a nice piece of insurance.
I love my dog and my cat... :o! Sorry.., wrong forum, I was looking for the one about MFDB in relevance with high res DSLRs pricing ;)! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
I love my dog and my cat... :o! Sorry.., wrong forum, I was looking for the one about MFDB in relevance with high res DSLRs pricing ;)! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
Indeed wrong forum, I guess dpreview would be much more appropriate for mean and stupid messages like yours. Now if I only find the ignore button ...
-
Yes I am still looking for the one about the MFDB pricing in relevance to high res DSLRs. Instead I only find the "lets promote... " one. ??? Which of course is very intelligent (and ethical) ;). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. Did you know that my dog and my cat is MF? Trully..(!), they are... bigger than yours! ;D
-
Hi Thierry, although I agree with you about the expected "stability" of the MFDB market, I keep thinking that they (the makers) miss the opportunity to expand it. IMO they have worked a lot in the later years, to attract the customers from the top DSLRs, by trying to give MF the same user-friendly appearance on their cameras as a DSLR. OTOH much of the need for DBs is because of their ability to serve more purposes than just MF, the support to view and technical cameras, multishot and microstep, stitching and astrophotography (long exposures), are only a few that the use of a DB makes the difference. Although I don't believe that there will be any 36mpx D800, we have to realize, that the inevitable and welcome increase in the IQ of FF DSLRs, will make the use of a MFDB for the same purpose less appealing..., hence the makers should pay more attention to enhance the traditional values that DBs stand for and enhance on them. If I was to decide for manufacturers, I would ask Dalsa to introduce a cost effective, improved FF version of their traditional 22 & 33mpx sensor, at 28 & 42mpx respectively. Such a sensor could be beneficial for Sinar and Hasselblad to re-introduce multishot and microstep capable backs at sensible costs, it could be used by P1 to apply their sensor+ and exposure+ technology and if Hass would reintroduce their interchangeable adapter CF backs, they could along with Sinar, "wake up" the lot of MF that exists (Bronica, RB, LF.. etc), by creating a lot of base customers for the future. My opinion is, that its the solution providence of MF that should be enhanced, not the better IQ as such. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The second hand market of older DBs must also be expanded from the manufacturers, it can be very beneficial for them, if they give the opportunity to many more photographers to access MF.
Which leaves us with the Pentax 645D, a camera that does nothing of the above, don't have the lens range and quality of the above and doesn't tether as all the above do! In fact the only thing that its different on it from the K5, in its approach to photography, is the size of its sensor. So... "does size matters... to better photography?". IMV, if size doesn't matter..., it should be ...shortened a bit. 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
... but in the end, everybody says it's just about the photograph or the story or the video or the whatever, but what it's really about is delivering without problems, hesitation and excuses and the only way I know to do this is with professional people and professional equipment.
Couldn't agree more. I'd like to put a sort of disclaimer or precise better my previous posts.
It's true that ultimatly, the content is always the most important, and there are outside many people who are doing great content, but professionaly that's another story, the difference lays in the sentence you posted.
Don't get me wrong, it would be completly ridiculous that a pro in your position and in commercial would work with plastic 800 euros cameras and not top team crew, although I'm sure the content would be the same quality because I know that what you (and we) produce rarely depends on the equipment when it comes to talent; but then, what you said is absolutly true and critical for anybody who wants to be taken seriously, work seriously and respect his clients as a professional.
My point was slightly different and it's not always easy for me to express myself correctly in english.
I think I can explain it better with Red. Red is professional. But you can't deny that James Jannard was a visionary and at the same time a great businessman. He knew how to surround himself with the best engineers, but he wanted to break patterns. The Red cameras have revolutionate how the things could be done in video-cine, to the prices of the equipment itself. From a cine point of view, a Red system is almost gifted.
If Red could break price to that level for such an equipment level, the only conclusion I can draw is that, or they loose money, or the competition was...well..."not very fairly priced".
Cine was a mammoth, Red came and put a tiger. The Alexa is 60.000 without Arriraw and not 4k...
Red did exactly what FCP did in it's time to Avid. Avid was over-expensive, unintuitive and arrogant. That was my point when I was talking about the overpriced equipment. Apple comes and sweep the dust with FCP.
I don't like FCP, but I recognize it's importance in the pp history.
That was what I had in mind when I wrote the post. Not that I thought that you should work with the D4 or the GH2 (I don't beleive that a second) or questioning your business model, I'm not anyone to give you professional advices, it's much more the other way, I'm actually learning a lot from you.
And Red has also been visionary with the Epic, although it has some beta issues, they will solve them and soon or later the Epic will be 100% reliable. Could we consider the Epic a non suitable camera for the high-end imagery? I think by any means. (well Bloom issues were because the beta factor, and he's been a bit careless not securing his set with the F3 or even a stable hacked gh2).
Same with FCPx. It's not there, but imagine tomorrow the FCPX 2 or 3, with the features you really need, great color correct features etc...maybe you would do all or most in just one editor. If it's good enough, it shouldn't affect the profesional side, as we know how painfull it is to go from a software to another. If this industry gives you the tool, you will probably abandon the Da-Vinci step simply because doing everything with the less possible manipulations, in one software is been wanted for a lot of people now. And we know that it will come soon.
As for team, I think you'd agree that if we were in a super-specialized era highly colaborative, complex and expensive, the swich is that the pros, the good assistants etc...are going to be each time more versatile and multitasks. I think that the micro gear and reduced team but highly trained and very professionals are going to have step by step a respected place in the commercial imagery, even in the high-end. The progress of technology is allowing that more and more.
Yeah, my point was the Red example, it's impact in the industry and how they changed the workflows, the mentalities and the prices-cost effectiveness. It's the closest example that comes to my mind and sorry if I didn't transmit it well.
Cheers.