Cost of medium format in general

[JamesA]

So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors?  Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?  Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

[RobertJ]

Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

No.  They're mostly using the 1Ds3, 5D/5D2, and the D3x...

[Steve Hendrix]

So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors?  Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?  Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

P20 refurbished units are still available at $6,990. There are other attractive options - P21+/P25+/P30+ refurbished in the $10K - $13K price range. There are many factors which contribute to price, sensor cost being a prominent one.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

[Henry Goh]

So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors?  Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?  Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

JamesA,

I have been lurking for sometime to buy into MFDB but as the FF DSLRs progress, I think even if Phase lowered their 18 or 20 Mp backs further, there is now very little attraction.  The 21 - 24MP DSLRs have more going for them and most people should find them far more convenient to shoot with.  The only possible usefulness that these older backs have over the DSLRs is better dynamic range, which may or may not be significant enough to tilt against the advantages of the newer DSLRs.

Personally, I think it would only be worthwhile to consider buying from the 39Mp backs upwards right now because otherwise a Canon 1Ds MKIII or Nikon D3X should be able to deliver.  Don't get me wrong, I have always enjoyed shooting with MF and LF in film days but for digital, the economics just does not work in the same way.

YMMV

[Plekto]

The only possible usefulness that these older backs have over the DSLRs is better dynamic range, which may or may not be significant enough to tilt against the advantages of the newer DSLRs.

The newest DSLRS are equaling the DBs in dynamic range as well.  The only real difference is that the DSLRs have an AA filter on them and the DB doesn't.  But if you take off the AA filter on a DSLR, you get the same results.  Then again, a little AA filter is a good thing in most cases.

[erick.boileau]

No you don't get the same thing with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and a P45 , not at all, but  PhaseOne is overpriced

[kbolin]

No you don't get the same thing with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and a P45 , not at all, but  PhaseOne is overpriced

Overprice only if you think of it as a digital back only.  PhaseOne goes well beyond that and provides excellent post purchase support should you need it.  That does come at a cost.

[erick.boileau]

I know but a P45 is a wonderful back and doesn't need a 25000$ support, I own a P45 , I had a 1Ds Mark III and I have now a Canon 5D Mark II

[jing q]

Overprice only if you think of it as a digital back only.  PhaseOne goes well beyond that and provides excellent post purchase support should you need it.  That does come at a cost.

if MFDBs were well made without problems in the first place then you wouldn't need post purchase support would you?
I've only brought one canon camera in for repairs once in my life. after 3 years of heavy usage.
btw their post purchase support is excellent too.3 days turnaround in my case.

[Dustbak]

I have only brought in a piece of Nikon equipment twice in 25years. Their service is also excellent, in my experience that is. I find the service of Leaf and Hasselblad (I have no experience with the others) very good as well when I needed it which was also pretty rare. It is not something I want to spend a lot of money on BTW. I prefer trouble-free equipment instead of excellent service...

IMO, MF isn't even that much more expensive than high-end DSLR. Yes, it is more expensive but prices have been creeping towards each other lately. Nikon's D3x is priced pretty high, they have just increased prices on glasswork. Hasselblad (but also the others) have dropped their prices significantly. If Hasselblad would now only drop their price on the new zoom, HTS & 120mm I would be very happy

It is a pity that almost every discussion now on this board is about MF vs DSLR. Yes MF is not particularly cheap, IMO you even need to have 2 of everything when it is generating your income. For some that makes economic sense for others it doesn't.

[yaya]

So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors?  Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?  Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

One of the issues is that some of the sensors are no longer being made. The Kodak KAF-16802 (16.6MP) KAF-18000 (18MP) and KAF-22000 (22MP) are 3 examples. Hence why some products are only offered as refurbished at lower price points.

Entry level products are still popular for schools since the file size is not the deciding factor. For Pros, even at a low price point they might be not attractive enough compared to a higher MP DSLR, regardless of their respective qualities.

As Steve suggested, several refurbished models sell for 4 figures, some even less that $5K. You can see some prices on our website

Yair

[E_Edwards]

In my case, I think the quality of digital equipment has become very good, so there is little reason to buy new stuff.

For instance, I have two Aptus 65 that keep going on and on, not a problem in the two years I've had them, ditto with the Sinar P2s, they are made to last a generation. The Epson 7880 also seems to be giving me very good service and the NEC Spectraview 3090 monitors are fantastic. So is the Broncolor lighting. It all seems to work so well that there is little incentive for me to spend on anything. And there must be tons of people like me who are happy with what they have.

I would be willing to spend on something new and innovative that would actually improve my working life or my photography. But frankly, I don't see anything around that entices me sufficiently. I don't need larger sensors, and I don't need faster computers than I already have, I am into gadgets up to a point, i.e. when they serve some really practical usage.

It's nice to just be able to shoot without thinking of the equipment anymore.

Edward

[andershald]

So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors?  Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?  Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

Hi James.

I can understand why you ask, and I don't think there is one answer. What camera professionals use depends very much on the kind of work they do, their style and how they prefer to work. A DSLR is practical, affordable compared to MFDBs and has a number of advantages over DBs. On the other hand, DBs also have advantages and disadvantages. They are slower but some prefer the quality of the file. It's really about how you like to work.

I think the reason that 16-20mb backs still is interesting for some pros is because of the lenses available for medium format. A lot of users of the high end DSLRs now feel that the weakest parts of their system are the lenses. The sensors in the latest DSLRs have such incredible resolution that they 'outperform' a lot of 35mm lenses. Some pros, who don't necessarily need 30-60mp resolution, still feel it is worth going medium format with a 16-20mp back, simply because of the quality of the lenses.

No system is better than another if it doesn't suit your style and type of work.

[carl dw]

In my case, I think the quality of digital equipment has become very good, so there is little reason to buy new stuff.

For instance, I have two Aptus 65 that keep going on and on, not a problem in the two years I've had them, ditto with the Sinar P2s, they are made to last a generation. The Epson 7880 also seems to be giving me very good service and the NEC Spectraview 3090 monitors are fantastic. So is the Broncolor lighting. It all seems to work so well that there is little incentive for me to spend on anything. And there must be tons of people like me who are happy with what they have.

I would be willing to spend on something new and innovative that would actually improve my working life or my photography. But frankly, I don't see anything around that entices me sufficiently. I don't need larger sensors, and I don't need faster computers than I already have, I am into gadgets up to a point, i.e. when they serve some really practical usage.

It's nice to just be able to shoot without thinking of the equipment anymore.

Edward

I couldn't agree more.

I also think the perception of cost and value relates to usage; if you are making a living from your kit then high end digital is very reasonable. If it's for pleasure or a part-time affair it's horrendously expensive.

8 years ago I was spending an average of £6000 per year on film and processing. If you have a canny accountant you can depreciate your digital back in 3-5 years. If you lease it then it's a monthly expense - even better. For me, three years of not paying for film/process = £18,000.... or a P45.

I also think it's too easy to forget that their was a certain element of stress shooting film; you might get your f-stop right but there's always the possibility that the guy down the lab might screw things up in any one of a hundred imaginative ways! It's hard to put a value on the certainty and piece of mind digital provides as you're actually shooting.

When I first dipped my toe into digital I thought I'd take a hit on my bottom line and end up working hours on end for nothing in front of a mac. The reality is the reverse, yes I spend time in front of a mac, but charging a capture fee makes the invoice relate to the amount of time I spend glaring at the screen, plus additional editing of images provides another income stream.

I use an older Imacon back on a X-Act2 but find myself shooting most of my work on 1Ds3 - you point, you press, it works....and works.

Is anyone out there tempted to buy shares in a digital back manufacturer right now?

[Justin Berman]

Overprice only if you think of it as a digital back only.  PhaseOne goes well beyond that and provides excellent post purchase support should you need it.  That does come at a cost.

Preface: I love the way MF looks, I shoot MF film, I WANT to shoot MF digital.

Now wait a minute, that is a specious argument. I would argue that the post purchase support is only useful to MF Digital because they do need it. Things don't always work as expected, this creates problems and you need someone to tell you what is up. This is also why people hire digital techs. The closed system approach of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc. by nature of its large volumes means that things had better work as expected its all been engineered to just work.

The point of the above explanation is just that saying post purchase support is the driving factor for the price difference seems pretty off to me. The prices are high because they can be. No more, no less. For all the complaining people do on various forums about price, until the mass market of professionals stop buying high priced goods, the makers have no reason to stop selling them as high priced goods!

[paratom]

So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors?  Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?  Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?

I think if someone buys a digital back he/she wants high resolution as well.
The market for those only wanting lower resolution can probably be served by the refurbished backs.

[Snook]

No.  They're mostly using the 1Ds3, 5D/5D2, and the D3x...

Those are the semi professional...:+}

Snook

[BJL]

Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?

The unit cost of these sensors is mostly based on size, not pixel count, so there is not much production cost saving in continuing to make something like the 22MP 36x48mm sensors. Also, the marketplace clearly puts a higher value on the new higher resolution alternatives (forum chatter to the contrary notwithstanding), so the older sensor models become less profitable to produce.

[bcooter]

The unit cost of these sensors is mostly based on size, not pixel count, so there is not much production cost saving in continuing to make something like the 22MP 36x48mm sensors. Also, the marketplace clearly puts a higher value on the new higher resolution alternatives (forum chatter to the contrary notwithstanding), so the older sensor models become less profitable to produce.

Digital has sold megapixels from day 1 and up to this stage it has worked.  

Now whether it has anything to do with producing an interesting photograph is another matter and to me the megapixel race is only important to people who care about cameras more than photographs.

Right now the world is upside down and nobody knows where anything is going and I can honestly say that the cameras that I use for commerce are for different reasons than the ones I use for personal work.

For personal work I use a camera for the look, not the numbers or the detail.  I prefer m p21+ over the p30+ because it has more texture, less smoothing, less digital in appearance, in the past I prefered the Aptus 22 to anything over 22mpx because I just liked the look processed in photoshop.  For personal work in dslrs I prefer the original 1ds to my newer 3's just because I like the look.  

Now for commerce it's different, I'll either use a p30+ because it has more detail or just because i'm in studio and I can, but truth be told for commerce I can shoot 99% of my work with a 1ds3 and everything is much, much faster and easier.

The information on this forum seems to be somewhat myopic as it is about digital cameras, not essentially photography, but in my travels and knowing the photographers that I do I find it amazing that so few own the latest and greatest digital back or even dslr.  They will rent when required but at the high end of the photography world, I think everyone here would be surprised how many name photographers shoot film for personal projects.  If they do shoot digital how many will use an olds 1ds1, or 2, even a 5d.  I think everyone in the world seems to own a 5d.

The flip side to owning is renting and now that is easy as techs, digital companies and studios are falling out of trees looking for work.   I just got an e-mail yesterday from a firm that will rent a tech, two p65+, two H series cameras and a computer station (with backps) on a 10 hour day at $1,400.     That makes my brain rattle because I guess at retail price that is about 120k worth of cameras and computers for $1,400 a day and I would bet that is negotiable.



B

[bcroslin]

There are deals to be had right now IMO. I don't know if it's the economy or Hasselblad's price drops but I suspect it's a combination of the two. I just leased a demo P45+ for a very competitive price. As Steve mentioned, there are some great deals out there on P backs.

With that said, it's still the wild west as far as prices go unless you work with a dealer. I worked through Chris Snipes at Image Productions in the Tampa Bay area and he (as well as Steve H.) worked his butt off to get me a demo unit. For me it was very counter to the way I've purchased gear in the past but I was very happy with the result.  

As far as the comparison to a DSLR, it's really all about what you want from a camera system. I like my Canons but I LOVE my Hasselblads. The image quality between the Canon sensor and the P45+ isn't a huge leap but the experience of shooting with my V system tethered to Capture One versus my old 1Ds MKIII and DPP is night and day.