Cost of medium format in general

[JamesA]

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.

Doesn't surprise me, but the higher value must be true as well, otherwise Nikon couldn't sell a 24 megapixel D3 clone called the D3x for almost twice the price.

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

When I acquired a Sony a900 I wondered if I really needed my MFDB for my landscape work. So I went out and shot the same (detailed landscape) scene with it and with the P45+. Then I made 24 by 36 inch prints.

Result - simply no contest. The micro-detail, the tonality and the DR simply favor the MFDB by quite a large margin.

But if you don't make large prints....or if you're shooting wildlife (which is why I have the a900), then sure - spend the cash on other things.

Both DSLRs and MFDBs are great tools. Use each of them for their strengths.

Bill

[JamesA]

When I acquired a Sony a900 I wondered if I really needed my MFDB for my landscape work. So I went out and shot the same (detailed landscape) scene with it and with the P45+. Then I made 24 by 36 inch prints.

Result - simply no contest. The micro-detail, the tonality and the DR simply favor the MFDB by quite a large margin.

But if you don't make large prints....or if you're shooting wildlife (which is why I have the a900), then sure - spend the cash on other things.

Both DSLRs and MFDBs are great tools. Use each of them for their strengths.

Bill

Do you wonder though how landscapers got by with 20 megapixel backs 3-4 years ago?

[Josef Isayo]

Do you wonder though how landscapers got by with 20 megapixel backs 3-4 years ago?

Better yet how many people make a living shooting landscape?

[cyberean]

Do you wonder though how landscapers got by with 20 megapixel backs 3-4 years ago?

some even got by with, the laughable, 35mm film ...  
for example, this guy (LINK), whose photographs were
obviously lacking in very important image elements
such as micro-detail, tonality and dynamic range ...  

[Ben Rubinstein]

They probably realised that they were selling to clients who certainly couldn't tell the difference or more importantly couldn't care less if the image worked for them. Unlike here where it seems that expenses are justified based on differences that even the pro's themselves can't agree on and clients could care less about.

[ixpressraf]

A 22 Mp back from 5 years ago still blows away any DSLR on the market. I recently did some shooting of powerplants with a bleu sky and a lot of metal in it. I used both my 5Dmk2 and my 132c. None of the canon images even came close in rendering or detail to the ones shot with the mamiya with 132c back. as soon as you start shooting scenes with shiny walls lit by strobe with colored gels you will also see the enormous color gradations the canon displays where the hasselblad shows only the color that was present at the time of the shoot.
The only thing that changed between the 5d and 5dMk2 is the pixel count. the so called DR advantages is only a internal software "shadow/highlight" trick in the camera body and has nothing to do with real DR improvements.
Try it for yourself, shoot a shiny white wall lit by a bleu colored strobe, do some photography in a ill lit factory, etc.
In a studio environnement all dslr camera's look great, but for a lot of photographers that's not real life.
When i would be a fashion , people or other less difficult lighting user i easally could switch completely to a canon or nikon, but as myself there are thousends of other photographers shooting other stuff wich are much more challanging to a camera tham fashion and people photography.

[lisa_r]

A 22 Mp back from 5 years ago still blows away any DSLR on the market.

I think it's humorous reading about these differences and comparisons between cameras. Of course I don't shoot huge landscapes for a living, but I do wonder just how many people in the world are in fact making a good living at it.  I can think of not one of my hundreds of favorite images over the years which would have improved from more "micro-detail."  I am talking about my own work, prints I see in  galleries, magazines, museums, etc., etc.

I believe there are micro-differences, but I believe that these have little to do with the goodness of an image. I mean seriously, go over to your bookshelf, flip through the pages of some of your coffee table tomes, and tell me what you see. How many would have much greater impact with 20% more detail?

And as has been said many times, do what your business requires. Have your clients ever asked for more micro-detail? Do they even see it? Do they care? I use a variely of camera formats from 4x5 to polaroid to 5D2s. Just the 5D Mark I cameras have earned me 6 figures per year for the past several years, without any complaints from clients. One client had their best sales day ever during the economic meltdown just this past November - with sales exceeding $1.1 million on the Monday following Thanksgiving. The ads were all shot with the lowly 5D, with no complaints about micro detail or anything else. (and no moire either ;-))

I know that in terms of investing in my business, spending on plane tickets makes a lot more sense and will better my portfoilios to a MUCH greater degree than spending huge amounts on cameras.

I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.

[James R Russell]

I believe there are micro-differences, but I believe that these have little to do with the goodness of an image.

Lisa,

I agree 100%.

There is value in having the right tool, but the right tool in digital is way different than the days of film.  In film you could see the difference between 4x5, 8x10, 6x6 and 35mm.  All had a place.

Now the largest frame size is 645 which may be double that of a 35mm frame, but in reality that is not that much larger.

The only people I see today that really care or jones for the latest and greatest digital back are the guys sell cameras or that make their living off of seminars and classes.  Nothing wrong with that and some have made it an excellent and profitable business model, but it doesn't hurt to show up teaching a class with a camera that costs 6x the price of their students cameras.   It adds the same validity as seeing Mario Andretti show up at the driving school in a Ferarri instead of a toyota.

For photographers working in commerce, in the digital world the camera is just a very small part of the process.

[bcroslin]

I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.

This has got to be one of the smartest things ever posted in this forum. It's too bad it will largely fall on deaf ears.

[lisa_r]

This has got to be one of the smartest things ever posted in this forum. It's too bad it will largely fall on deaf ears.

Er, thanks Bob ;-)

Here is just one of the many people I know who spends her money traveling and shooting instead of on cameras (she uses a 5D) and has some great location fashion stories to show for it. I would bet that had she spent $30K or more on a camera two years ago, she would not have half of these images. Because she would have been broke and stuck in NYC where she lives.

http://www.dagmaraphotography.com/movie.htm

[Ben Rubinstein]

This has got to be one of the smartest things ever posted in this forum. It's too bad it will largely fall on deaf ears.

+1

[Enda Cavanagh]

That's exactly it.
I completely agree that there should be lower res and more economically priced options when purchasing a new medium format camera system. How many people have started with a basic canon or nikon camera system with descent lenses and than purchased the higher end models when it became possible financially. The same should apply with medium format cameras and not everyone wants to reisk buying a refurbished or 2nd hand camera. The option should be there.
I would buy a 22megapixel Hasselblad head and shoulders over a 22 megapixel Canon. The argument over sensors is one they but they also have better lenses and better software in phocus. I'm not a sports photographer and compared to the mamiya 7 medium format film cameras I'm used to in the past it's got more than enough features. Once tethered you have fantastic control at your fingertips.

They are bringing prices down but they should work harder at getting more amatures into medium format. Not everyone can have that much outlay for what would be a hobby.



 

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.

[BJL]

... that there should be lower res and more economically priced options when purchasing a new medium format camera system.

Maybe, but as I said above, lower pixel count sensors of the same size are not significantly cheaper to make, so keeping the older, lower resolution sensors in production is not a promising route to offering more economically priced options in DMF.

Pentax is pursuing the only realistic option for less expensive DMF option that support existing lenses, by adopting the smallest "medium format" sensor size of 44x33mm, and then adding a few lenses adapted to that format size, so that it will have decent normal (a new 55mm f/2. and super-wide angle (details TBA) lens options. Other DMF systems also offer 44x33mm "economy" back options: none has any lenses specifically adapted to that format, but maybe existing 55mm and 50mm primes are adequate as normals for 44x33 format.

[Streetshooter]

They are bringing prices down but they should work harder at getting more amatures into medium format. Not everyone can have that much outlay for what would be a hobby.

They SHOULD HAVE done this years ago but they blew it in my opinion. These very same students, new professionals, and maybe even keen amateurs balked at the prospect of getting ripped off and decided to buy Canon and Nikon DSLR's instead. They will not switch now it's too late.

I mean where have all the old backs, Aptus 17,22 and Phase models that have been exchanged and upgraded gone to ?  They COULD HAVE been sold cheaply to get people into the MFDB world. Instead of which the makers tried to control the second hand market and in doing so put people off instead.

Pete

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Not really sure about that stuff with lenses. Most of those MF-backs having around 22 Mpixels used to be less than full format on MF, so wide angles may be an issue. The Canon-L stuff in general is excellent except in the wide area range. Also the old MF lenses intended for film were not always that good, at least not if you are looking at MTF-charts. The Hasselblad H series uses lenses made Fuji, and those lenses are significantly better than the old Zeiss lenses, at least according to MTF data from Hasselblad and backs like the H39 of course are nearly full format. Schneider and Rodenstock digital lenses are probably best of the breed, but I don't think that they are usable on MF-SLRs.

Top of the range MFDBs are better than DSLRs, no question, but I very much doubt that a crop-factor MFDB on an old MF-body is really competitive regarding sharpness. DR and subjective image quality may be something else.

The landscape changed significantly for DSLRs when the Sony Alpha 900 and the Canon 5DII were introduced. Neither camera is really entry level, but both offer top of the breed image quality at least at low ISO at around a third of the price it used to be. So the $$$s we are discussing are more like 2500 than 8000.

I would add that there is a very significant advantage to DSLRs that there is a good choice of zooms. Zooms are very good for cropping. Of course you can crop by moving the camera but this is often not very practical, may it be that you are on a hilltop, a river bank or just have found the perfect perspective between the trees and below that power line. Once you crop an image you start to throw away pixels by the million.

Of course there will be folks who say that a 22 MP MFDB is that much better than a 21 or 24 MPixel DSLR, but my guess is that your mileage may vary. Some people would say that the lack of low-pass (AA) filtering on MFDBs improves sharpness radically, but as far as I understand most of that difference is essentially false resolution (caused by contrast inversion), and my guess is that AA-filtered images just take a bit more sharpening. That sharpening of course will increase noise, if not protected by an edge mask, on the other hand edge masking is quite convenient in ACR or Lightroom.

There are many other factors, convenience, workflow and some people may just prefer the feeling of a medium format camera.

Best regards
Erik

That's exactly it.
I completely agree that there should be lower res and more economically priced options when purchasing a new medium format camera system. How many people have started with a basic canon or nikon camera system with descent lenses and than purchased the higher end models when it became possible financially. The same should apply with medium format cameras and not everyone wants to reisk buying a refurbished or 2nd hand camera. The option should be there.
I would buy a 22megapixel Hasselblad head and shoulders over a 22 megapixel Canon. The argument over sensors is one they but they also have better lenses and better software in phocus. I'm not a sports photographer and compared to the mamiya 7 medium format film cameras I'm used to in the past it's got more than enough features. Once tethered you have fantastic control at your fingertips.

They are bringing prices down but they should work harder at getting more amatures into medium format. Not everyone can have that much outlay for what would be a hobby.

[Enda Cavanagh]

I guys. I think you misunderstood me a wee bit. I actually mean a lower res H3d option for example which can use the H Lenses as opposed to a camera than can take all the older lenses. So you are not having to deal with the whole cropping issue. I don't think it's a great idea of doing a nikon on the lenses because the sensor size as you all say is different in size to the old film format. There are the wide angle issues, losing autofocus and the new lenses are designed specifically for the latest H Cameras. I know if i was starting off, I would prefer the door open to the future, rather than using optics from the past. I think it would do the medium format companies no harm if they tried to entice serious amateurs in by having say a 16 megapixel H camera that can use the latest lenses which leaves the possibility of an upgrade. I'm speaking as a Hasselblad user, but obviously the same applies to the other manufacturers also. To me it seems like bad business sense. Now that the top models are been brought down anyway, they should be able to have a "budget" model which can strongly compete in terms of price with the top canons and nikons while having better sensors, lenses and software.

[Alex MacPherson]

I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.

Lisa ... you just shifted my paradigm.    

A voice of reason!

[ziocan]

I think finding used MF equipment that is on a good shape is a great compromise. It can be done with about 10/12k for a 30mp back and body with few lenses, if you opt for the mamiya system.
Actually if the equipment is on very good condition, it is not even a compromise, it is the best solution. You can get mint condition items for that budget. you can pay that off in 3 years for about 350$ a month and at the end you may be able to sell it for few grands.
The new offerings at higher res do not offer much more on term of image quality compared to 30mp, once the photo goes through PP and hit the paper or the web. AT least for 99% of fashion and AD work.

Then you add a 5d or a Sony with few lenses you may own already, and with 15k you are good to go for at least 4 years. what ever will replace the current equipment you have on the next few years, will not change a zic in the quality of your photos or on the way clients will perceive you and your work.

Also having just a couple of Sony's or new 5d and no MF, will do well for 95% of the possible work someone can get.

If the clients do perceive you as a photographer in relation with the equipment you use, then something is wrong on the relationship.

[Stefan.Steib]

Lisa

do you know the sentence about writing ?
"Nobody ever asked Hemmingway, which typewriter he used for the old man and the sea."
Translated: if you are a bad photographer not evena  650 MP back will make you any better and Microcontrast from an ugly picture is anotherone of the things the world doesn´t need.
Tools are only tools, but your brain and your eyes are the world.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

Er, thanks Bob ;-)

Here is just one of the many people I know who spends her money traveling and shooting instead of on cameras (she uses a 5D) and has some great location fashion stories to show for it. I would bet that had she spent $30K or more on a camera two years ago, she would not have half of these images. Because she would have been broke and stuck in NYC where she lives.

http://www.dagmaraphotography.com/movie.htm