Prepare for battle. The medium format market

[Barry Goyette]

An interesting article from the BJP:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870014



That's wrong. It is a question of price, relative to 35mm "pro" cameras.

If it was just a question of price, then both Phase and Hasselblad would already be out of business. The day I switched to MF digital was the day photography changed for me. Previous forays into digital left me worrying what my clients would think of the final product, left me worrying that the results weren't up to my standards. The hasselblad "amazed" me the very first time I used it. I can't say that about any 35mm dslr I've owned.

Today I am lucky enough to own both a a 1ds and an H3d, and I can honestly say that the 1ds gets used only on vacation. It's always around as a back up (although it's never actually been called off the bench), and the only exception is its occasional use when I need high ISO or fast framerate. The 1ds is the first 35mm digital I've used that matches 35mm film, but still doesn't have the resolving power of 120 film. But there is something tangibly different between the pixels in the two cameras, and anyone who has used both, knows it. (40mp on a 24x36mm sensor doesn't interest me. And, IMHO....take that AA filter off and you will truly expose the limits of 35mm glass.)

Today's Hasselblad's cost 3-4 times the highest end dslr's, a ratio that isn't that significantly different from film days. Today's hasselblads cost about  5 times what an H1 cost before the digital transition. A 1ds costs about 5 times what the top of the line film canon cost a few years ago. Today, the MF  digital market is infinitessimal compared to the 35mm dslr market. just as the MF film camera market was never more than a blip (even at 60,000 units) on the screen of Canon and Nikon in the golden age of film.

I think Poulsen's point is interesting, although it hasn't received much of a reception here. He's really talking the big picture and everyone here seems so focused on price. The whole "nerdy" comment really hit home. I remember the days of megavision, imacon, phase, leaf et al...these weren't photography companies...they were computer companies. If hasselblad (pre Poulsen) had quietly developed it's digital side back in the late 90's like canon and nikon did, then perhaps things would be different today. The vision of remaking Hasselblad as a photography company is a pretty bold move...one that Phase is also now doing. Long term, I think it's better for the MF industry...and yes part of that remaking is about making the cameras more usable and simple. Cheaper? That will come when and if "the competition" -- as Poulsen see's it --Canon and Nikon -- truly develop a group of products that compete not just in usability (they do) but also in quality (they don't). I don't think Poulsen is interested in selling 60,000 cameras next year at $7000 a piece. I think he rather do 12,000 at $30,000. I don't think the medium format market will ever hit the unit sales it used to, but I think it can remain an essential part of the industry...even at the high price point...for many years to come.

I work in a small market where a- one can't rent and b- there are no other photographers with a MF digital. The fact that I use one,  combined with years of passion and technique, puts me in demand. The MF premium is worth every penny to me. I'm happy with the work...my clients (who..as many have said, probably don't know better) are happy too.

Do I wish MF was cheaper...hell, yes. But despite that there are a small, but committed and amazingly talented group of photographers using it. I think you'll find it used in a disproportionate number of the highest dollar shoots...and there's a reason for it. And that reason isn't the price.

[ziocan]

If you depend on a camera to make clients go holy shit that's amazing it won't be long before all your competitors have written the same check you have and ** POOF ** there goes your competitive advantage and you'll be back where you started, $40,000 poorer.  Better to develop skills that nobody else can replicate.

Lately, I have not find a client that bother to find out what camera i'm using.

On early digital days, yes there were concerns, even my concerns, but today it is hardly something to lose sleep about.

Eventually I discuss with a CD or AD about the choice of going with a digital back or 35mm, but normally I'm the one rising the question. And I rise the question not mentioning the kind of equipment, but in terms of "intrinsic" quality the client is expecting. Once you know that, is normally photographer call to decide the right equipment and workflow.

As long as the images pop up on a large screen after they are taken, whatever is tethered or via card, everybody is normally amazed... if the photos are good enough to amaze.

[Rudy Torres]

Now when it comes to tethering, I've never met a photographer that "loves" tethering, anymore than I've met a DP, or good director that loves the video tap for cinema cameras.  It is just another level of complexity, limited mobility that gets in the way of making a photograph.

It is sometimes necessary, sometimes mandatory, but I've shot few sessions in the digital segment of my career, where at some point I didn't have to unplug to get the image I wanted.  In fact 99.9% of the best imagery I've produced have always come from an untethered camera, which is ironic because medium format prides itself on "superior" image quality though on the other hand makes it very difficult to tell if the photographer actually captured the "superior" image.

James

I guess I'm the oddball. I love tethered shooting. Most of my clients love it as well. Only one reason...Liability. Hey, give me a 30ft firewire cable and I can move around pretty good.
Tethered is the new polaroid. Still have to use post but at least the client feels good about the shoot over all.
Eghhh, my 2 cents.

- Rudy

[geesbert]

me too! the preview can't be big enough! I shoot 95% of my commercial work tethered. it's great, and it's the only way I can trust my captures. too often I looked at the back of my camera and thought I had it, but on the computer i found out i hadn't.

the screen on the 5d mk2 is especially mean: most pictures look fabulous there, but that doesn't transport to the real world.

I am qute happy that I can divide my set to a shooting area, with me and the subject, the camera and my computer amd a client area, with a big screen only for them. tha last thing I want is a client peeping over my shoulder to look at my LCD.

I tried to do that with the Iphone program, but it is just not big enough for the client to make them happy.

stefan

[Nemo]

Pentax finally will ship the 645D camera... they announce an "agressive price"... Let's see what happens:

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...08-03/07/p645d/

.

[pcunite]

But there is something tangibly different between the pixels in the two cameras, and anyone who has used both, knows it.

Barry,
Your eloquently stated thoughts are consistent with those who have drank the MFD kool-aid. You have spent a great deal of money and have spent a great deal of time looking at pixels at 100% and are now unable to detach yourself emotionally from the output. I am trying to help you to understand how at smaller viewing sizes than 16x24 it could be possible for some of us to have an enjoyable 35mm experience. How? The cameras work without frustration, the customer is happy, and we have not spent $40K + investing in MFD companies and their short-term improvements.

There is something wonderful about editing a well shot image from MFD. But all that pixel goodness is lost, and even on you a week later comparing prints side by side, when the viewing size is small that to invest in MFD is for personal reasons not sound economical ones. By all means buy what is enjoyable for you, but the rest of us should not feel like idiots because we supposedly can't see what MFD offers. How long has the p65+ been out now that everyone just has to have?

I would buy MFD for myself if the price where cheaper. There are several things about the experience that I would personally enjoy. But there is no way I would buy outdated MFD tech right now for business reasons. And I don't understand (actually I do) how several MFD owners here are so emotional about their equipment as to steer new users into the same purchasing decision that you have made without spelling out the real differences.

[BJNY]

Pentax finally will ship the 645D camera... they announce an "agressive price"... Let's see what happens:

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...08-03/07/p645d/

.

Hoping it has specs as their K-7 DSLR:
- DNG RAW option
- shake reduction in-body ( what a coup, IF )
- 3" TFT LCD with 921K dots
 
I'd consider it vs. Canon/Nikon DSLRs

[gwhitf]

This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".

http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html

Stunning printing, and 8x10 portraiture at its best, motivated by an interesting view of the world. No wonder she's taking the country by storm. I put down the book after viewing it, and had to exhale, because I realized that the pictures were so intimate that I'd held my breath throughout the whole first viewing. That's when you know you've accomplished something.

It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.

[Dick Roadnight]

¿Why do they not discount the lower res versions and continue to sell them? a 22Mpx back and an old Sinar is useful kit

Who do you mean by they ?

I was thinking mostly about Hasselblad, (who, I believe now make nothing lower -res than 39), but MF manufacturers in general.

[TMARK]

I think its really hard to do intimate portraits like that.  You have to show a certain tenderness to the subjects who are generally from a different class, think differently, consume differently.  Its hard to connect.  Katy Grannon's work is great.  Alec Soth's Niagra has the same quality, a tenderness towards the subjects that too easily could have slipped into mocking snarky waste.  This is different from Paolo Riversi's "Studio", which is raw 8x10 portraiture.  Studio is mind blowing, so raw.  The nudes are shocking in their honesty.   Blew me away.  Paolo R has a differnt subject, young Parisians, to whom he probably has something in common.

That is a long winded way of saying I agree, its all about the image ink on paper, which is only valuable if it represents a good idea.

This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".

http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html

Stunning printing, and 8x10 portraiture at its best, motivated by an interesting view of the world. No wonder she's taking the country by storm. I put down the book after viewing it, and had to exhale, because I realized that the pictures were so intimate that I'd held my breath throughout the whole first viewing. That's when you know you've accomplished something.

It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.

[Dick Roadnight]

Even if the 35mm sensor had 100 MP, it still would not put out the same image as the larger format.

A 24 * 36mm 40 Mpx sensor would have 4.65µ pixels... which would be possible without getting tooo close to the wavelength of light, which, I believe is .4µ to .7µ. At this size the spill to adjacent pixels caused by the wavelength would reduce or eliminate moire, so you could get away without an AA filter.

A 24 * 36mm 100 Mpx sensor would have 2.9µ pixels, so you would not get the full value of the pixel count, even if you had lenses good enough.

[Dick Roadnight]

As long as the images pop up on a large screen after they are taken, whatever is tethered or via card, everybody is normally amazed... if the photos are good enough to amaze.

A 2 Mpx HD TV picture looks about as good as a 20 Mpx DSLR (with AA) picture.

If they ever make 60 Mpx screens, clients will be even more amazed by 60 Mpx pictures... but now they see a 2 Mpx or so screen, and think that that is as good as it gets!

[BJL]

It happens that it may not be possible or worth using it above f5,6/f8 because of diffraction.

And that apply to any of the 35mm dslr makers.

And that need for f/5.6 or f/8 would be no disadvantage relative to medium format controlling diffraction at about one stop higher for equal pixel count.

At equal pixel count in different formats, the f-stop needed to limit loss of resolution to diffraction scales in proportion to pixel size and thus to format size, and the focal length used to get the same FOV scales in the same proportion, and the combined effect of scaling f-stop and focal length is that the circles of confusion in the focal plane scale in the same proportion as pixel size and image size. So the "per pixel OOF" effects are the same: when the equal pixel count images are viewed at equal size (equal PPI), the OOF effects and the diffraction effects are both equal.

The only differences are
1. The smaller format can get the same shutter speed at a lower ISO speed.
2. If the f-stop needed gets too small, aberrations are worse for the smaller format.

f/5.6 is fine for aberration control with the good 35mm format lenses that one would want to use with such a high res. sensor, and experiments show that diffraction is not an issue until pixel pitch is smaller than f-stop by a factor of about 1.4 to 2. That allows 35mm to use f/5.6 down to about 4 to 2.8 micron pixels, or 50MP to 100MP.

So if I wanted more than 100MP, I might be forced to consider a format larger than 35mm to avoid this diffraction/aberration/resolution problem. But at 100MP+, controlling diffraction would force very shallow DOF when the images are displayed big enough and viewed closely enough to show off all that detail, and then Dick Roadnight is right: view camera motions would probably be needed a lot of the time.

[BJL]

I was thinking mostly about Hasselblad, (who, I believe now make nothing lower -res than 39), but MF manufacturers in general.

But every other current DMF maker except Hasselbad offers a 22MP, 36x48mm option ... meaning just Phase One/Leaf/Mamiya!

It comes down to the fact that only one sensor suitable for MF cameras is still made with 9 micron cell size: the 22MP, 36x48mm from Dalsa that Leaf still uses, for example in the new Aptus-II 5 back. Kodak uses only 6.8 micron and the new 6 micron cell size in its recent MF sensors. Hasselblad is unlikely to shift from Kodak to Dalsa just for an entry level model like that, even though it has been forced to Dalsa for the new high end, almost full 645 sized sensor of the H4D-60.

By the way, Hasselblad still offers 31MP ... in its 44x33mm "entry level" model, the H3DII-31.

[Barry Goyette]

You have spent a great deal of money and have spent a great deal of time looking at pixels at 100% and are now unable to detach yourself emotionally from the output.

you, I think, are assuming a lot here. This argument could also have been used against richard avedon shooting simple portraits on white with an 8x10 and a team of assistants when he had a perfectly good rolleiflex sitting in his camera closet.

I am trying to help you to understand how at smaller viewing sizes than 16x24 it could be possible for some of us to have an enjoyable 35mm experience. How? The cameras work without frustration, the customer is happy, and we have not spent $40K + investing in MFD companies and their short-term improvements.

The quote I responded to was that it was simply all about price. I related my experiences relative to 35mm, but never suggested that the 35mm experience wasn't enjoyable..or could not be enjoyed by you or anyone else. I have recently produced two exhibitions of imagery shot on my 1ds...one travel, and the other some extreme low light work. Its the perfect tool for both. But, that said, the images from my hasselblad are in a completely different league. I shoot regularly for large format display work (fashion and portraiture)...where a 44x60 print designed for relatively close viewing is common. The 1ds is not sufficient in this situation. The skin tones provided by the hasselblad are a completely different animal from those provided by the 1ds, so again, as I am a people shooter, my feeling is that the hasselblad is a better tool. My argument was, and is...that it's more than just price.

But all that pixel goodness is lost, and even on you a week later comparing prints side by side, when the viewing size is small that to invest in MFD is for personal reasons not sound economical ones. By all means buy what is enjoyable for you, but the rest of us should not feel like idiots because we supposedly can't see what MFD offers. How long has the p65+ been out now that everyone just has to have?

I'm pretty sure that I could tell the difference between 16x24" prints shot on my 1ds and my H3d. I definitely could at my standard printing sizes of 32x44 and 44x60. Even after a week, I'd tell you that the hasselblad was better.

It doesn't sound like you need MFD. Why would you feel like an idiot because I (and a "small group of talented others") do have a need for it?

I would buy MFD for myself if the price where cheaper.  And I don't understand (actually I do) how several MFD owners here are so emotional about their equipment as to steer new users into the same purchasing decision that you have made without spelling out the real differences.

This is a forum for people who use, or have interest in medium format digital. I don't think that anything I said was an attempt to steer anyone towards buying anything. What I did do was try to reflect on Hasselblad's strategy for competing with 35mm, and to talk a little bit about the "real differences" between mfd and 35mm dslrs.

Now, as to the emotional thing...several times in the above quotes, you've suggested, I think, that somehow, having an emotional attachment to your camera...well...that this is a bad thing. Hmmm. I'll be proud to say that I do have an emotional attachment to my hasselblad. It produces images with a clarity and malleability that no other camera I own does. I'm also emotionally attached to my 5d markII for the beautiful video it produces. And I can remember being emotionally attached to the 165mm super angulon at the studio I worked at during college some 25 years ago. What a fucking great (and heavy) piece of glass. Cost about the same as a hasselblad kit if I remember right.  And poloroid type 55....now the loss of that is something to cry over, my friend. When I bought my first Imacon 132c and Hasselblad H, it was the largest purchase of my life. It was a business decision, but it was also an emotional one, brought on by the realization that I could finalize my transition to digital with something that felt like film in the end result. I could have just hung on to film for another 10 years waiting (that would be still waiting) for canon and nikon to produce something that equaled what I could do with my mamiya 645 and some ektachrome. Like I said in my earlier post, I feel lucky to own a hasselblad. If I had never made that step, I'm not sure I would be as happy a photographer as I am today. (he says as he wipes away the H3d kool-aid moustache from his upper lip :~)

Look, one of my best buddies is an amazing musician who owns a guitar that is worth much more than his car. I think it's safe to say that he has an emotional attachment to it. I think it's also safe to say that just about everyone would think that's pretty cool, a guy with a guitar that costs more than his car, more than most of my cameras, who doesn't have much more in life...but damn, when he plays that guitar.....

Why is it a problem for you that I believe in my camera? You seem to believe in yours.

[pcunite]

Barry,
LOL, great reply! I love good conversation. It seems MFD for some is for love (overlooking all current shortcomings with tech), for others it is the simple need for resolution.

[mtomalty]

This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".
It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.

Check out this story

http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/


A large image and unprocessed film archive from an unpublished and 'unknown' photographer was purchased at an estate auction.
The images are being rolled out on  this blog

[narikin]

This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".

http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html

Stunning printing, and 8x10 portraiture at its best, motivated by an interesting view of the world. No wonder she's taking the country by storm. I put down the book after viewing it, and had to exhale, because I realized that the pictures were so intimate that I'd held my breath throughout the whole first viewing. That's when you know you've accomplished something.

It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.

she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...

[asf]

she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...

It's a very nice book. If it makes a difference to your opinion it was shot many years back and on 4x5.

As for taking the country by storm, it may be a matter of perspective. I was actually having a conversation the other day and we wondered what happened to her recently (not just her, but she was mentioned among photogs we respected but weren't sure how their careers were doing).

[gdwhalen]

she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...

I don't like her work at all.  Just nothing that I would be interested in.