Upgrading to MF digital

[Harold Clark]

Greetings All,

I have been shooting commercially since 1975, initially editorial and eventually industrial, architecture and corporate. My workhorse for 20 years was Mamiya RZ for most jobs, and Sinar 4x5 & rollfilm for the rest. Three years ago I got a 1DS11 and the other cameras haven't been used commercially since.

While a lot ( probably most ) of my work lends itself to the SLR approach, many times I would prefer MF digital if I had it. In fact I have rented a 39 MP system twice in the last two months for specific jobs. I am doing more architecture now, and the Canon lenses ( 17-40, 24 TS, 35 Olympus shift ) leave a lot to be desired in terms of distortion, CA, corner resolution etc.

The question is, for those who have gone this route, has it been commercially viable? As much as we all like the best equipment, in my case it has to be a financially sensible decision. Do you price jobs differently for MF, or has it allowed you to attract better assignments & therefore better rates? Any advice much appreciated.

Harold
www.haroldclark.com

[AndreNapier]

Harold,
This is a very complex question you have asked.
In short term the benefits are very low. No, you are not going to charge more because you bought DB because frankly nobody cares about your equipment. In long term however you are going to notice that more jobs comes your way. Since you were Rz guy you knew and appreciated the difference between prints from Rz as compare with Nikon F5. You were landing jobs because your work looked different and not because you had Rz. Nothing has changed. Regardless of what you read on various forums there is a big difference in quality between DB and DSLRs. Most buyers can not recognize which prints were shot with which camera but somehow in the long term they tend to like your work better than your DSLR competition. It is not the pixels but rather the drawing that you get from MF. It does work for me and I see very real returns on my investments.
Http://AndreNapier.com

[rainer_v]

i am going to sign andres words too.

[Morgan_Moore]

You are in toronto ?

This is a big city ?

They have rental ?

then rent when a client wants to pay

Find out the monthly cost on lease purchase of a back

When your monthly rental bills out  = twice the lease purcahse price of a DB over 24months

buy a back and continue to charge the rental fees

That is surely the hard nosed maths of it.

You may tone this down by a suitable percentage to factor in the fun you would get/extra stock images you might sell by being able to use it at the weekend for free

And tone it down again if you want to waste some cash to lower your profit/tax bill if you have a looming huge profit

ANd tone it down again that it will give you a 5% PR value over your competitors

---

I think it is most importatnt that these things are globally charged to clients in some manner else they make no economic sense whatever

With rental houses publishing thier costs on the net it is easy to show a client 'what they should' be paying for your use of such kit

SMM

ps you might want to rent one for a week yourself to familiarise yourself with the kit before offering this option

and rent a back that fits in your existant workflow be it ACR or C1 - else you will be having PP nightmares

[Harold Clark]

Thanks to all for your helpful and well thought out advice. With the Mamiya ZD as well as a good selection of used/refurbished equipment showing up lately the prospect of MF becomes more economically viable.

As good as the DSLRs are for many things, one disadvantage is that Suzy the receptionist just got a camera for her birthday that looks a lot like my cameras, therefore she could probably handle the job and save the company money. With 4x5, or even Mamiya, people looked on with awe at the photographer at work and would never dream of doing it themselves.

I have done work in the past for one of the most highly regarded, long established private schools in Canada. They did excellent, well conceived full page magazine ADs and attracted students from around the world. In a recent conversation with their marketing Dept. I was informed that photographers were no longer required because the school chaplain had just bought "a fancy new camera with a big zoom lens". Such is the state of our industry these days.

You are in toronto ?

This is a big city ?

They have rental ?

then rent when a client wants to pay

Find out the monthly cost on lease purchase of a back

When your monthly rental bills out  = twice the lease purcahse price of a DB over 24months

buy a back and continue to charge the rental fees

That is surely the hard nosed maths of it.

You may tone this down by a suitable percentage to factor in the fun you would get/extra stock images you might sell by being able to use it at the weekend for free

And tone it down again if you want to waste some cash to lower your profit/tax bill if you have a looming huge profit

ANd tone it down again that it will give you a 5% PR value over your competitors

---

I think it is most importatnt that these things are globally charged to clients in some manner else they make no economic sense whatever

With rental houses publishing thier costs on the net it is easy to show a client 'what they should' be paying for your use of such kit

SMM

ps you might want to rent one for a week yourself to familiarise yourself with the kit before offering this option

and rent a back that fits in your existant workflow be it ACR or C1 - else you will be having PP nightmares
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[eronald]

The entry price now is lower than $10K for a Mamiya and a ZD back I think there is an adapter for the back on the big Mamiyas- and Alpa for architecture. if image is so important it might be worth investing.

I think the consensus here among the fashion master shooters is that nothing can be done with an MF solution that cannot be halfway decently faked with a Canon 5D, so we're not strictly talking economics but rather passion or perfectionism.

But then, I don't run a studio, so what would I know ?

Edmund

Greetings All,

I have been shooting commercially since 1975, initially editorial and eventually industrial, architecture and corporate. My workhorse for 20 years was Mamiya RZ for most jobs, and Sinar 4x5 & rollfilm for the rest. Three years ago I got a 1DS11 and the other cameras haven't been used commercially since.

While a lot ( probably most ) of my work lends itself to the SLR approach, many times I would prefer MF digital if I had it. In fact I have rented a 39 MP system twice in the last two months for specific jobs. I am doing more architecture now, and the Canon lenses ( 17-40, 24 TS, 35 Olympus shift ) leave a lot to be desired in terms of distortion, CA, corner resolution etc.

The question is, for those who have gone this route, has it been commercially viable? As much as we all like the best equipment, in my case it has to be a financially sensible decision. Do you price jobs differently for MF, or has it allowed you to attract better assignments & therefore better rates? Any advice much appreciated.

Harold
www.haroldclark.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Snook]

HArold I hear what you saying about the susy the secretary thingyy..
Seems like everyone these days is some kind of Photographer and Digital has made it SOOOOOO easy for many.
They never had to go through the PICKY Film days which for me was the Schooling..:+]
In any case that is reality and you have to deal with it. It is not the camera that takes the Picture... Sounds cliche but it is some what true.
I deal on a dailty basis with young Punk photographers that learned Photoshop first and for most and Correct all their mistakes in Photoshop and they are considered good photographers.. I do a lot of photoshopping also so I am not knocking the Photoshop but there is a trend there...:+}

In any case to get to the main subject here.
Hate to Knock Mamiya here but I would NOT go with the ZD for sure. It is OLD technology and has had too many bugs,Blobs,Noise etc...
And now prices of "Better" backs have come down to a reasonable price and for the differences (to the ZD) are well worth the extra cash for sure. Ofocurse depending on what you do, but for most things they will be better for sure.

I would also, If you can, wait until Phase and Mamiya will announce. Might be a Pro/consumer based camera in the right price range on the horizon here soon.
Apparently they have already been working on something for a while now.
I just jumped into a Mamiya 645AFDII and RZ ProII D system with a P30 because I had been making the decision for a long time and actually kind of made the decision before the "annoucement"
Plus I got a great deal from a fellow Landscaper(Thanks Paul)..So I could not turn down the opportunity.
Good luck
Snook

[ericstaud]

Despite what appears to be a huge expense buying into a MFDB kit, it is still much less expensive than film and processing.  It is easy for a working architecture shooter to spend between 15K and 30k per year on film, processing, and polaroids.

As for whether it is a better choice for you than a Nikon or Canon solution is up to you, your clients needs and your workflow.  I never really felt those cameras were up to the task of replacing my 4x5.  They increased post production time as well.

[Chris_Brown]

The question is, for those who have gone this route, has it been commercially viable? As much as we all like the best equipment, in my case it has to be a financially sensible decision. Do you price jobs differently for MF, or has it allowed you to attract better assignments & therefore better rates? Any advice much appreciated.

Harold,

I was in the same boat as you. I had cases full of Mamiya RZ gear, Sinar 4x5 & 8x10 gear, and saw it all collect dust once I picked up a 1Ds. The nail on the coffin for me was the closing of E-6 labs all around my state.

I now have cases full of Canon gear and have kept my eye on MF gear & prices. What stops me from embracing MF is that I have many more focal lengths at my disposal. Being able to use anything from a fish-eye to a fast 600 mm gives me more enjoyment & options than I can currently get in MF. I am not a specialist either so it helps to have many focal lengths available.

Almost all of my images go to CMYK printing of some sort. Some SWOP, some sheetfed, some even hi-fi color, and I've never had a job rejected because of lack of resolution. From postcards to 175 lpi 2-page spreads, I've been able to serve my clients without needing more resolution. However, I do have to remind clients that a tight crop will provide better detail and this is a good argument for MF photography: the client can crop with more freedom when using a large file. The other great feature of MF photography: leaf shutters and high sync speeds. Boy, I miss that!

With my current success with 1Ds cameras, the cost to trade over to MF is not very enticing. I've rented a P45 with Mamiya 645 and have marveled at the detail in inkjet prints, but when my clients looked at the files, there was no comment on the increased resolution or anything else inherent in an MF back (e.g., no AA filter softness, higher dynamic range, 4x5 rectangle proportions, etc.).

Another factor which may push me to MF: what the other guy is using. Even now, clients ask how many megapixels my cameras are, and almost everyone recognizes the 1Ds series as a camera they could possibly own someday. Just like in the old days, when you'd set up your 4x5, people appreciate a "professional" when you're using gear they haven't seen and/or understand the price is that of a new car. Sad but true.

This leaves one other criteria: the ROI factor (Return on Investment). Find a good ROI calculator online (or Quickbooks, perhaps?) and plug in the numbers. I think you'd be surprised how much more you have to charge to pay off the investment in two years (the standard amortization period for digital/computer gear), given the same number of jobs you'd be shooting.

Good luck with your decision!

[Harold Clark]

Everybody is a photographer indeed! I use the analogy that although I have never had a single piano lesson, if I bought the best Steinway grand I could find I probably still wouldn't be on the concert circuit next week. I too learned in the old school, where you do it right so you DON'T have to ( or can't ) fix it later.

I am a bit wary of the ZD back, there seem to be mixed reviews. I do quite a bit of architecture and you can get into fairly long exposures sometimes with interiors or exterior dusk shots. Since I still have my RZ system it makes sense to get a back for that to start with, and have a look at the Cambo DS or similar setup for architecture. As you suggest, I will bide my time to see what Phase/ Mamiya come up with. Perhaps there will be two lines, with the less expensive backs carrying the Mamiya brand. Like VW, Audi, Porsche. Many of the parts are common and of equal quality, but priced accordingy to which dealership you buy them at.

I have heard good things about the P30 although for architecture I will need something else for lens shifts.

HArold I hear what you saying about the susy the secretary thingyy..
Seems like everyone these days is some kind of Photographer and Digital has made it SOOOOOO easy for many.
They never had to go through the PICKY Film days which for me was the Schooling..:+]
In any case that is reality and you have to deal with it. It is not the camera that takes the Picture... Sounds cliche but it is some what true.
I deal on a dailty basis with young Punk photographers that learned Photoshop first and for most and Correct all their mistakes in Photoshop and they are considered good photographers.. I do a lot of photoshopping also so I am not knocking the Photoshop but there is a trend there...:+}

In any case to get to the main subject here.
Hate to Knock Mamiya here but I would NOT go with the ZD for sure. It is OLD technology and has had too many bugs,Blobs,Noise etc...
And now prices of "Better" backs have come down to a reasonable price and for the differences (to the ZD) are well worth the extra cash for sure. Ofocurse depending on what you do, but for most things they will be better for sure.

I would also, If you can, wait until Phase and Mamiya will announce. Might be a Pro/consumer based camera in the right price range on the horizon here soon.
Apparently they have already been working on something for a while now.
I just jumped into a Mamiya 645AFDII and RZ ProII D system with a P30 because I had been making the decision for a long time and actually kind of made the decision before the "annoucement"
Plus I got a great deal from a fellow Landscaper(Thanks Paul)..So I could not turn down the opportunity.
Good luck
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[sergio]

It is all a sad matter of comparison. Not many years ago shooting an assignment with an 11 mpx camera was top of the line and everybody thought results were amazing. Try to pass an 11mpx in a commercial assignment these days and see your clients faces. It's no longer good enough in their expectations. I thought the Canon 1Ds noise in ISO 800 was astounding, now that I have newer cameras I find it is crap.

[Dinarius]

I have just ordered a HD3 ll 39Mp MS.

My local dealer made me an offer I simply could not refuse.

Much of my work is museum photography, for which my Sinar P has been my camera of choice for over 20 years.

Like some of you, I have only one E6 lab left and they've now gone half-time. The writing is on the wall.

Also, this camera will give me an advantage over some of the opposition. Many of my clients understand file size and resolution and actively seek the best they can get.

I also used a hired Canon 1DsMk lll this weekend and loved it. I will also be buying one of those.

As with medium and large format film, I will offer a two tier digital service. I don't want to carry a €30,000 Hasselblad around unless I have to and unless the client is paying for it!   The Canon will be used the rest of the time.

I will also charge differently. With film, I always charged more for a sheet of 4x5. I intend to charge more for the monster Hassie files too.

Finally, I got over 20 years out of the Sinar. I will now have two cameras, one which blows both 35mm and medium format out of the water. The other replaces 4x5 with ease. Will I need another camera in the foreseeable future? I think that digital photography has now reached the point that computers reached some years ago. You know how it is said that most people use only a few percent of their computers capability? I think that we are at that stage with high end DSLR and MFDB now too. If you have the best of what's currently available, you should be set for a long time to come. At least I hope so.
That said, my Hassie agent said that the throat of the camera will permit expansion to about 190Mb with a full size sensor. Apparently, this has been discussed at headquarters. But, who needs it?

I am also backing Hassie because their loyalty/trade-in/up programs have always been excellent.


D.

[Dustbak]

I have just ordered a HD3 ll 39Mp MS.

I don't want to carry a €30,000 Hasselblad around unless I have to and unless the client is paying for it!   The Canon will be used the rest of the time.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let us know how that worked out. Since I started working with MFDB I have tried avoiding usage of my DSLR. I only use it when it would be absolutely impossible to use the MFDB. Once you have seen what you can get out of the 39Mp back you will be addicted to it very quickly, I know I am

[nicolaasdb]

if it is commercially viable is a question you only know the answer to! It all depends on your fees and if you can ask rental fees (even when you own the equipment).

Nobody ever asked me what format I was shooting with. The client hires you for your vision and they judge you on your previous work.

All that said: I purchased a MF system (Leaf A65) about a year ago and use it for 99% of my commercial and 100% of my editorial work. I like to shoot with my canon 1dsMKII better...but only because it is easier (focus, speed, feedback from LCD)..the quality of my MF is less artificial compared to the 1ds. But after post production most of the difference is gone and after publication "forget about it" it all looks the same.

Hope this helps you  a little in your decision making...if you got the cash get the MF...if you don't DO NOT go into debt for it!! work on your photoshop skills to cover up the difference!

[eronald]

Contrast this with James Russell who very convincingly argues that he sometimes needs to move *down* to a smaller camera to gain creative freedom - I don't think that he then offers the client a discount.

The client pays for YOU. he should get the best you can offer witout additional expense. How would you feel if you dressed up for a concert and when you got there the violin virtuoso announced "I'm sorry, I left the Strad at home, because I only play it on gala evenings,  on other days I play my high school violin" ?

You could bill the client more for the hi-rez end product files, that's *after the art*. But if you bill more for the MF LOOK that creates the image then you are shooting yourself in the foot. And any art director who still takes the "Art" part of his title seriously may -nay, should- run, not walk, to some ambitious and deserving kid to whom he wil lend his own 5D

Edmund

Also, this camera will give me an advantage over some of the opposition. Many of my clients understand file size and resolution and actively seek the best they can get.

I will also charge differently. With film, I always charged more for a sheet of 4x5. I intend to charge more for the monster Hassie files too.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[SecondFocus]

How would you feel if you dressed up for a concert and when you got there the violin virtuoso announced "I'm sorry, I left the Strad at home, because I only play it on gala evenings,  on other days I play my high school violin" ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very well said! I like that!