Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: P65+  (Read 16299 times)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
P65+
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2008, 10:30:21 am »

That whole business about rich people buying MFDBs as a form of *bling* is mostly nonsense -- there isn't any prestige, outside the circle of people who want to be professional photographers, in owning one. A big white plumbing van costs as much as a MFDB, and an eighteen-wheeler costs even more -- but nobody buys these things as *bling.* The fact is, photography as a profession doesn't carry much prestige in the world of big bucks. Photographers are employees, they are courtiers, they're not the royalty itself. For those rich people who want to play artist -- as opposed to actually *be* an artist -- you get a much better ROI with a hand camera like a Leica: no problem to carry around, the brand is well-known, the camera is useful for taking pictures of your friends, etc., and it doesn't cost nearly as much. A big Phase makes you look like a working stiff.

I do believe that there are working stiffs who will buy a 65+ in a minute: they will make gorgeous life-size advertising print to hang outside the Victoria Secret stores. And that's who'll buy most of these backs -- advertising guys. And some will go to real working artists. Rich guys? A few, but not many.

JC
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 10:31:22 am by John Camp »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
P65+
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2008, 12:12:16 pm »

Well I guess that Phase buys back old digital backs so there is not a large second hand market.

Regarding the price I think that there is a significant cost associated with the large sensor, I think that surface costs while pixels are relatively cheap. If the chip has been developed for Phase it's development and tooling costs have to be amortized over a small series. The greenback is also not any longer what it used to be in the Greenspan days.

Best regards
Erik

Quote
My view is that they went clearly too far this time around. This back priced at 20.000 - 25.000 US$ would have attracted more people to MF, while now it should be clear for most shooters than the ROI is bad.

The very high prices of MFDB were justified at first because of the comparison with the price of film. The problem now is that nobody shoots film anymore, and the price of the P65+ will be compared with that of the D3x, 1ds3 and other MF digital backs - including many second hand units from... PhaseOne.

Future will tell, but I am 97.3% sure that this kind of pricing means the death of MF by October 2013. Phaseone is not alone, Dalsa and Kodak MF sensor division will go down with them. The reason is simple, the R&D cost of such devices can only be amortized through the sales of a sufficient number of units.

Since few people will buy the P65+ at this price point, Phaseone will get little return on their investement, and so will Dalsa. This will further reduce the funds available for R&D of the next generation, etc...

The very same story happened a few years back with high end graphic cards for Engineering workstations. Look now, all these cards are built on the very same hardware developped for gaming PCs and selling in the 100.000s units. Crays use regular ships nowadays,... examples abound.

The only field where high end electronics is able to survive is high end audio. Why? Because there is no objective measure of performance in audio and because the technology is basically fairly simple.

But what do I know.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 01:52:49 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
P65+
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2008, 02:30:21 pm »

Quote
That whole business about rich people buying MFDBs as a form of *bling* is mostly nonsense -- there isn't any prestige, outside the circle of people who want to be professional photographers, in owning one. A big white plumbing van costs as much as a MFDB, and an eighteen-wheeler costs even more -- but nobody buys these things as *bling.* The fact is, photography as a profession doesn't carry much prestige in the world of big bucks. Photographers are employees, they are courtiers, they're not the royalty itself. For those rich people who want to play artist -- as opposed to actually *be* an artist -- you get a much better ROI with a hand camera like a Leica: no problem to carry around, the brand is well-known, the camera is useful for taking pictures of your friends, etc., and it doesn't cost nearly as much. A big Phase makes you look like a working stiff.

I do believe that there are working stiffs who will buy a 65+ in a minute: they will make gorgeous life-size advertising print to hang outside the Victoria Secret stores. And that's who'll buy most of these backs -- advertising guys. And some will go to real working artists. Rich guys? A few, but not many.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John

That´s exactly why I suggested Leica as the rich man´s totem and figured that the MF alternative wouldn´t make it for him/her because of the sheer inconvenience and discomfort of toting around all that weight and excess baggage!

And as has been pointed out in the other thread running on this new back, photography itself, in the pro sense, looks like it´s seeing the light at the end of the tunnel - the light of the express train coming towards it on the same track.

Somebody there, on the parallel thread, yes, the chap in Madrid, mentioned the problems faced by new photographers. In the old days, you felt you had arrived when you could buy your first 500C! That, by today´s requirements, is chicken-feed and similar sums scaled up to today´s money would get you nothing in professional terms: easy maths - just look up the price of the current 500 iteration. The other point, about writing down the costs via taxation, implies that the business is there to support the write-off - will it be, is it now for most people?

It is easy to think about the photographers who find themselves busy and making big money today, but are they as numerous as the product makers imagine? I would like to think so, but my gut tells me that their number has dwindled as surely as have the magazines and advertising outlets that once supported them.

It is bleak out there; we are talking about a situation where your own bank might not be able to pay you out your own money one day soon. If only that was just scaremongering! There have been posts telling us that the photo-business CEOs and product managers DO have their eyes on the ball about customer requirements etc., much, I suspect, with the same vision as shared by the financial wizards who thought it a good marketing strategy to lend YOUR money to clients who hadn´t a snowball in hell´s chance of honouring their debt; sub-prime, I think it was titled... almost sounded good!

Rob C

Andy M

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 333
    • http://
P65+
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2008, 03:01:00 pm »

Quote
That whole business about rich people buying MFDBs as a form of *bling* is mostly nonsense -- there isn't any prestige, outside the circle of people who want to be professional photographers, in owning one.

...

Rich guys? A few, but not many.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John, have you ever travelled to Japan or Hong Kong?

If not, I think a trip may alter your view slightly.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
P65+
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2008, 06:00:03 pm »

You can't photograph a P65+ with the Porsche, you can photograph the Porsche with the P65+. P65+ wins 2:0 :-)

Erik

Quote
Anyone ever had a serious editing session with a 360MB 16 bit file? What's it like? What kind of computer do you need to have a reasonably productive editing session without taking some kind of time dilation drug?

Envy rant:
The Porsche 911 GT2, 530 hp, track speed 204 mph, cost $191,700 US. Any rock star or super athlete (football, basketball, hockey) can buy one. And I’ll bet half couldn’t find one of the two turbochargers even if you told them they’re located in the exhaust manifold. In other words, the market for exotic technology is mostly for rich people. Who, in general, don’t understand the engineering nor care to. But the Porsche sells because the experience of driving one is visceral whether you understand the technology or not. I don’t think the P65+ will have quite the same effect on the adrenal glands. But what do I know?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
P65+
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2008, 07:35:43 pm »

Quote
John, have you ever travelled to Japan or Hong Kong?

If not, I think a trip may alter your view slightly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have been in Japan for 10 years, shoot a lot in many locations where would be phaseone owners might want to show off, and I have never seen One single Phase back in Japan. Zero.

There are many Ferraris in tokyo, but people who want to show off with cameras in Japan buy a Leica or a 1ds3, brands that fellow Japanese know and recognize.

Nobody here knows Phase outside the very small circle of Fashion and Product shooters.

It could be different in China and HK.

Cheers,
Bernard

paulbk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
P65+
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2008, 08:15:40 pm »

With a huge base invested in 35mm glass, why hasn’t some progressive manufacturer made a 35mm camera with interchangeable & upgradeable digital back?

Is there some engineering reason why it can’t be done? It’s a crime to retire a perfectly good camera just to upgrade the capture sensor and chip set. I love my 1D mark II. It works as designed and has never failed me. But I’d like a little more dynamic range and a little less noise at high ISO. That can be done with a new sensor, chip set, and firmware (i.e., a digital back). No?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 08:19:44 pm by paulbk »
Logged
paul b.k.
New England, USA

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
P65+
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2008, 08:18:14 pm »

Quote
I have been in Japan for 10 years, shoot a lot in many locations where would be phaseone owners might want to show off, and I have never seen One single Phase back in Japan. Zero.

There are many Ferraris in tokyo, but people who want to show off with cameras in Japan buy a Leica or a 1ds3, brands that fellow Japanese know and recognize.

Nobody here knows Phase outside the very small circle of Fashion and Product shooters.

It could be different in China and HK.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In Florence I saw a Japanese tourist, in a large group, sporting a Linhof 617 around his neck on a strap.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
P65+
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2008, 08:26:31 pm »

Quote
You would think so, but all the companies who went bankrupt in the past had also a presumably perfect business plan...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No - that presumption can't hold. All these business plans depend on what they label as "forward-looking statements" - in other words FORECASTS. We all know by now how good those are likely to be, don't we? All those who forecasted $145 oil put your virtual hands up.

Their costs are probably very high for the volume they can actully produce so they hope there is inelastic demand in the range of the prices they need to charge for commercial viability. They likely have a sufficient degree of confidence in some market number - but that's all it is - a degree of confidence, with a corresponding probability of success and an obverse probability of failure. Time will tell. I wouldn't predict their demise before the product is even launched!
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
P65+
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2008, 08:57:04 pm »

Quote
No - that presumption can't hold. All these business plans depend on what they label as "forward-looking statements" - in other words FORECASTS. We all know by now how good those are likely to be, don't we? All those who forecasted $145 oil put your virtual hands up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was perhaps not clear enough, but that is my very point. A business plan is based on some forecast, and most companies believe in their forecast when they decide on a price point for a product.

So a high price point is no garantee of success.

Quote
Their costs are probably very high for the volume they can actully produce so they hope there is inelastic demand in the range of the prices they need to charge for commercial viability. They likely have a sufficient degree of confidence in some market number - but that's all it is - a degree of confidence, with a corresponding probability of success and an obverse probability of failure. Time will tell. I wouldn't predict their demise before the product is even launched!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Time will tell indeed. My guess is that their high costs are strongly impacted by the price Dalsa is charging for their sensor, and this price itself must be heavily influenced by the volume forecast in the business plan. You end up with a chicken egg situation where the low forecast volume is a consequence but also the trigger of the high costs.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
P65+
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2008, 09:49:54 pm »

Quote
I was perhaps not clear enough, but that is my very point. A business plan is based on some forecast, and most companies believe in their forecast when they decide on a price point for a product.

So a high price point is no garantee of success.
Time will tell indeed. My guess is that their high costs are strongly impacted by the price Dalsa is charging for their sensor, and this price itself must be heavily influenced by the volume forecast in the business plan. You end up with a chicken egg situation where the low forecast volume is a consequence but also the trigger of the high costs.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The more sophisticated ones would be doing probabilistic tests of their returns relative to ranges of assumptions for the key impacting variables.

I think that's right - a good part of the cost may be driven by the sensor price. I see what you're getting at with "chicken-egg", but in this particular case it wouldn't surprise me if the scenario were more straightforward: limited scale economies with high R&D and manufacturing costs over the (rather short) life cycle of the product. In this business, if I were them I would want to be recovering my costs as quickly as I can because the rate of technological change and the competitive environment doesn't give any one product very long to recoup its costs before it becomes yesterday's baby. This has to have a major influence on the prices they need to charge, don't you think?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
P65+
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2008, 10:01:33 pm »

Quote
In this business, if I were them I would want to be recovering my costs as quickly as I can because the rate of technological change and the competitive environment doesn't give any one product very long to recoup its costs before it becomes yesterday's baby. This has to have a major influence on the prices they need to charge, don't you think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208250\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most probably so, but this only points to the fact that their production capability is too low.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
P65+
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2008, 10:20:03 pm »

Quote
Most probably so, but this only points to the fact that their production capability is too low.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could be, but the notion of "too low" gets real tricky to define. Apart from human, financial and physical resource constraints, it also depends on the shape of the scale economies relative to demand at various price points; how much cost reduction at what volume? If it's a situation where they would need very high volume to achieve modest scale economies it makes much less economic sense to go for volume than if it were the reverse. Lots of variables I don't know how to dimension, but I would expect these kinds of considerations drive how much they produce at what price. I.O.W. I don't think they are intentionally trying to preserve this as a niche-luxury market, but the realities of technology, business needs and costs just make it such. But like so much new tech, we should expect MF to eventually become much cheaper.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
P65+
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2008, 10:25:29 pm »

Quote
But like so much new tech, we should expect MF to eventually become much cheaper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if anything it is currently moving in the opposite direction isn't it?

Regards,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
P65+
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2008, 10:32:50 pm »

Quote
With a huge base invested in 35mm glass, why hasn’t some progressive manufacturer made a 35mm camera with interchangeable & upgradeable digital back?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A person like Thom Hogan would be best suited to answer since he seems to be spending his free evenings unmounting DSLRs (), but it appears that this approach - although most probably doable - would impact significantly the way DSLRs are currently being designed.

It appears that many chips impacting image quality are located in strange places (like on top of the prism). These would have to be relocated towards the rear of the camera for a back approach to become realistic. This would probably affect the form factor of the cameras. Would DSLRs user accept less ergonomic designs?

Another thing is that DSLRs are supposed to be tough, meaning mostly waterproof. This would be a lot more difficult to garantee with a modular design.

But the main reason is probably commercial. Why would manufacturers want to make less money by focussing only on backs? Besides, this would potentially open the door to third party back manufacturers, and openess would pretty much kill the business model of Canon and Nikon.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
P65+
« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2008, 10:34:18 pm »

Well, it can look that way, but I'm thinking long-term; even for now, hard to say. Do you think so on a PER MEGAPIXEL basis? (ie. price/megapixels) and then that adjusted for groovy new features? In real dollars per MP there's no question that the high-end DSLRs have been getting considerably cheaper over the past six years, but it surely has fewer constraints than MF.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
P65+
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2008, 11:11:49 am »

Quote
But like so much new tech, we should expect MF to eventually become much cheaper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I doubt it, and the price trend is just one reason.

The two main reasons why some new tech gets "much cheaper" are (1) downsizing of semiconductor devices and (2) improved economies of scale through far larger production and sales volume as a new market sector grows, but only until the market matures and growth levels out at about the overall growth rate of the economy.

The first is irrelevant to any given sensor format, where instead size is a major factor in the persistently far high cost of larger formats.

The second is also working against medium format, and indeed is working against the larger format in every "small vs large" comparison over the range from compacts to mainstream DSLR formats to 35mm to medium format.

Reading the reactions to the new 50MP and 60M announcements from MF users, it seems that the great majority care little about further MP increases, and instead are far more interested in improvements in areas where 35mm systems are way ahead of MF. Thus I see strong signs that future improvements in 35mm format options will take even more sales away from MF than has already happened, forcing markups and prices higher on DMF. The next step in this could be Nikon and Sony SLRs with 25MP (4056x6096) sensors offering far better noise performance than any MF back, even the big pixel 22MP (4080 x 5440) ones.

For example,
- Total DMF sales are about 500/month (by Michael Reichmann's estimate of 6,000/yr).
- Nikon currently sells 10,000/month of the D3 and its sensor, and the D700 will surely increase this sensor's sales volume.
- Canon's best selling (EF-S) DSLR models are at production levels of 100,000/month or more, maybe as high as 200,000/mo planned for the 450D.


Price per MP costs are indeed going down, largely because pixel sizes are going down and so sensor area per MP is going down: see item (1) above. That is a fact pushing many photographers to get the image detail (MP count) that they desire from ever smaller sensors and shorter focal lengths. Maybe the 40MP 33x44mm MF sensors made possible by the new 6 micron pixel spacing will sell relatively well, especially if with micro-lenses to double their sensitivity (ISO speed.)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up