Topic: MF Digital Back vs 1Ds Mk II ($$$ - !!) (Read 7918 times)

Ralf · « **on:** December 01, 2004, 08:59:56 am »

Since early 2004 i've been shooting with a 1Ds, which was replaced by a 1Ds2 last week, and a mf-back concurrently. I'm not a "pro" and not committed to any photographic company. I don't have to compete.

In my opinion the advantages of the mf-back become obvious in combination with a view camera. This combination is unrivaled in view of image quality and ease of use.

If i have to be movable I'll prefer the Canon. Compared to digital mf the 1Ds2 lacks a litte bit in resolution, but is a notch above in almost every other aspect like white balance, high iso, af, light metering, number of available lenses and accessories, robustness, speed, etc.

My conclusion: Whenever possible and/or needed (camera movements, large prints), I use my viewcamera (Sinar p3) togheter with my mf-back.
Apart from that i take the 1Ds2.

Sfleming · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2004, 01:48:36 pm »

****Dude, prices of digital gear have been falling similarly to computers for the last several years.****

Well that is reasonably accurate as far as the pro-sumer and pro dslr cameras are concerned. I'm not really even taking into consideration point and shoot cameras. However still when I compare the cost of what a 1 series film camera costs against the 8k of the 1Ds .... it gets under my skin. When I add in the obsolescence factor it verges on infuriating.

You make it sound like Moore's law is at work here. It's not and it never will be. Especially given the lack of competition in the industry and the limiting technology of the imaging chip. Somebody needs to come up with something entirely new for prices to ever approach reasonable ground.

I hope you are right about Mamiya's new big chip offerings but I will bet you ten bucks right now they will be at least 3k North of the figures that have been bandied about. I also expect the performance of these chips to be well below Canon's and Phase-1 standards. Again, hope I'm wrong.

As to someone's failure to understand my meaning in lamenting the loss of so many cameras ... I didn't think I would have to spell it out. Bronica, Fuji, next will be Pentax then Rollei and not far away the only Hasselblad will be the H-1. The MF rangefinders are going away. Nothing new from Contax and I don't think they will be manufactured much longer. Meanwhile the ONE big company keeps consolidating their power. This doesn't bother you?

The field is getting way too narrow and it portends nothing positive. Digital capture is a wonderful technology but it's killing diversity. I'm not saying the sky is falling. There is still film to hold the foundation of photography strong. I just think digital tech is taking us way out on a slender limb.

BJL · « **Reply #2 on:** December 01, 2004, 05:15:08 pm »

Quote

I hope you are right about Mamiya's new big chip offerings but I will bet you ten bucks right now they will be at least 3k North of the figures that have been bandied about. I also expect the performance of these chips to be well below Canon's and Phase-1 standards.

About performance, "these chips" are the same 22MP Dalsa sensors used in digital backs by Creo / Leaf and Jenoptik, and which seem overall a good match for the quality of the Kodak sensors used by the other half of the digital back industry. So like Michael, I expect that the quality of the Mamiya ZD body and back will probably be quite good.

About price, I see no basis for you to predict that what everyone else is predicting is off by 3k except cynicism. Mamiya seems to be a far bigger company that any of the specialist digital back makers, and have reportedly made a high volume, long term, low price purchase agreement with Dalsa, so I expect that the ZD options will shake up MF digital pricing. Given the weakness of Hasselblad, Rollei and Bronica, and the incompatability of Pentax's MF bodies with digital backs, Mamiya is perhaps on the way to being the Canon of the MF world.

howard smith · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2004, 02:28:28 pm »

Jonathan, earlier you asked me: "And your point is...?"

My point is one can draw a small sample (someone who shoots music concerts) from a rather small portion (busy pros) of the general population (photographers) and come to the conclusion that digital will save you a lot of money.

Your conclusion may or may not be correct, but the logic is iffy.

John Camp · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2004, 12:11:56 pm »

I'm showing my age here, but when I first got interested in photography (and scraped and saved until I could buy a Pentax Spotmatic) a new top-end Hassy with a few necessary lenses cost about the same as a good new car. Now, a new Hassy/Imacon package with a few necessary lenses cost about the same as a good new car. People who *need* the equipment will find a way to buy it; a P25 back, financed through a credit union, would cost you $1,000 a month over three years. If you can't make $1,000 a month in your photography, maybe you don't need it.

*Want* is a completely different matter.

JC :p

Sfleming · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2004, 07:05:43 pm »

Surprised to see my old whine come back up.

Nice to know a luminary such as Sokolsky has similar opinions to my own.

Sfleming · « **Reply #6 on:** December 01, 2004, 12:38:41 am »

As we all wait for Michael's verdict I can't help but wonder which way everything will go. It's pretty obvious though.

Personally I've backed off of digital and sort of participate as an interested observer. It's all just too much money no matter which pro digital direction one might want to take. I have about ten k wraped up in my Contax MF system and am content to spend the money on film, processing and scanning rather than some questionable digital future.

I understand that pros cannot afford such luxury. They have to compete.

In a way It's pretty clear that the 1Ds route is the one that makes sense. I mean really! An extra $20k for 6 mega-pixels and a huge step down in flexibility and iso capability?! Don't think so. I doubt that it makes any real sense for pros either. What IS the point? Status?

When I heard the price of the P-25 a few months back my immediate reaction was mild rage. I also saw it as the death knel for MF digital backs. The price would drive the pros to the 1Ds and the back manufacturers would have no market to keep them alive. I still believe this will be the outcome and I think it is very near.

This is truly a shame. Think of all the wonderful cameras that are as good as dead. Really. Stop and think. All gone in another year or so.

What will we be left with? Canon. What will this do to photography? Why should a company continue to provide good service, quality control and innovation when they have no competition? They won't. Will there be anyone to step into the gap? Perhaps but there will be a huge catchup lag time. I think it even likely that the gap will not be filled. We live in the age of globalization and corporate piracy. There's no big money in pro cameras. It's a pittance.

Besides, haven't you noticed lately that things don't work so great any more? Each new firmware upgrade or operating system has worse bugs. Products are put on the market for the public to do the beta testing. The worlds premier computer operating system is verging on disfunctionality due to viri and spyware.

I think digital is taking photography to a dangerous precipice and flirting with disaster. It is good that billions of film cameras are still around and film is still plentiful. We should all buy more film.

I would like to shoot more digitally. Really. I have a 10D. The MF camera I have is a compromise that I stick with only because I had hoped for the eventuality of a digital back. But I'm so put off at the whole situation that I'm almost becoming anti-digital which I recognize as rediculous as I scan everything. I'm really POed. It just riles me that I have to buy just this one camera. Doesn't that alarm or anger anyone else? I think it's a truly awful situation.

« **Reply #7 on:** December 01, 2004, 10:19:50 am »

Ralf,

Well explained. I'll be publishing my comparison of the P25 and the 1Ds MKII soon, but you've essentiually nailed the differences.

Michael

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2004, 04:00:26 pm »

Quote

You make it sound like Moore's law is at work here. It's not and it never will be. Especially given the lack of competition in the industry and the limiting technology of the imaging chip. Somebody needs to come up with something entirely new for prices to ever approach reasonable ground.

You are absolutely wrong. Not long ago, a 3MP pro-level digital camera cost more than what a Phase One back costs now. Now D30s are maybe $500 on eBay. Medium format backs are just now arriving to market, and in a few years will be much less expensive than they are now.

Yes, DSLRs and MF backs are expensive, but for a busy pro the savings in just film & processing far outweigh the purchase cost. I've shot about 50,000 frames with my 1Ds in the last 18 months. The cost of purchasing 50,000 frames of 645 film and getting it developed is far more than the cost of the 1Ds when it was first introduced, leaving plenty for lenses, accessories, a 7600, laptop and other computer crap, and still have money left over. The same is true of the medium format backs. Working pros will buy enough of them to keep the back makers in business long enough to make a profit, advance the state of the art, improve manufacturing yields, and bring prices down. Think of digital cameras as coming with a lifetime supply of free film, and the purchase cost makes a lot more sense. MF digital backs will remain a viable segment of professional photography; they are just now really gaining traction in the market and as prices fall and performace improves, their sales will only increase.

Your pessimism regarding the future of photography is entirely unjustified; the companies going out of business are primarily those who failed to offer competitive digital back compatible options. Film-only systems are going by the wayside because they cost more in the long run and deliver results inferior to digital systems. The outlook only looks bleak if you are unable or unwilling to transition from film to digital.

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2004, 04:44:56 pm »

And your point is...?

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2004, 01:33:17 pm »

Quote

Shooting a lot of frames does not necessarily equal saving money. There needs to be an increase in productivity. Before you ask, my point is: Would you have shot 50,000 frames of 645 in the last 18 months?

Nope, because the cost would have been prohibitive for the concerts and such that I shoot where shooting a lot is necessary. I'm shooting in a manner that is only economically viable because I'm shooting digital. And yes, that means I'm more productive than I would have been shooting film. I'm doing jobs that I couldn't possibly consider otherwise.

As to my keeper rate, photographers are judged by whether they get the shot the client wants, not by how many frames they exposed to get it. I shoot enough so that I can be as anal as I like and still have something that pleases me and the client. Whether that is 1 frame or 100 is irrelevant.

Dinarius · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2004, 06:01:07 am »

"You're pissed off because the P25 costs 30 zillion dollars, compared to an 8,000 dollar 1Ds2 that contains 6 less megapixels than the P25"

Numerically, this is correct.

However, comparing CMOS with CCD is a bit 'apples and oranges'.

I totally agree that the P25 is priced in loolaa land and is very hard to justify for all but a very few.

D.

Rich Pontier · « **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2004, 02:01:59 pm »

Nice discussion.
As a new member I tested a Ixpress V90 only last week and I was happily impressed because my Kodak Pro slr/c gives me headaches, I cannot produce an image that is better compared with an image from my 10D.
I won't have to sell my H'blads and that makes me a happy guy.
It just depends what kind of work you do with it to make your living.

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #13 on:** December 01, 2004, 02:52:48 am »

Dude, prices of digital gear have been falling similarly to computers for the last several years. The P25 costs less than what a 3MP digital camera did 10 years ago. In a few years, the P25 will cost less than what a 1Ds-MkII does now. Besides the P25 there is the Mamiya RZ 22MP DSLR which supposedly will be less than $15000 and coming out soon. The performance/cost ratio of digital gear has never been higher than it is now, and is practically certain to go even higher. Go slit your wrists if you want to, but IMO there has never been a better time to be a photographer with regard to equipment options available. And it's only going to get better.

drew · « **Reply #14 on:** December 01, 2004, 11:23:10 am »

I have a 1ds MkII on order. I was going to sell an Arca Swiss 6x9 F-line compact in order to help finance it. I wonder though if this camera would be a good choice to use as a platform for an MF digital back? What do people think.

howard smith · « **Reply #15 on:** December 01, 2004, 04:39:41 pm »

"Photography is a large complex industry, and to judge it from just one persons limited perspective is to miss the larger picture." Michael Reichman

Larger than super B even?

Too small a sample from a large population can lead to an uneducated and an often wrong conclusion. The LL group is a very small segment of a very large photography world and has an arguably limited perspective.

howard smith · « **Reply #16 on:** December 02, 2004, 02:51:48 am »

Jonathan, if you would shoot 100,000 frames in the next 18 months instead of 50,000, you could save even more money on film/processing. Maybe even become wealthy.

Shooting a lot of frames does not necessarily equal saving money. There needs to be an increase in productivity. Before you ask, my point is: Would you have shot 50,000 frames of 645 in the last 18 months?

50,000 frames in 18 months is more than 90 frames a day, each and every day, rain, shine, holiday, sick day, day off, etc. Can anyone shoot 90 MEANINGFUL frames a day for a year and half? Take some time out to eat, sleep, urinate, deficate and read the LL, you get to about 8 an hour. Take some time to edit those frames and the time per shot is really small. I expect your trash rate must be (or should be) very high.

BJL · « **Reply #17 on:** December 02, 2004, 05:27:08 pm »

Quote

Obviously the chip is not the thing however.

That is not at all obvious to me; Phase 1 is just one of about five small companies successfully making digital backs that are good enough to sell at very high prices to very demanding customers, so my judgement is that Mamiya has a good chance of becoming another of those successes. I am even less persuaded that Canon's DIGICII processor is the dominant factor in their advantage over the only other 24x36mm DSLR (apart from its frame rate advantage); sensor differences seem far more important there.

By the way, in my Mamiya-Canon analogy, there is plenty of room for Contax to play, say, Nikon, and even for Pentax to play Pentax with their long-rumored integral digital "645" body.

howard smith · « **Reply #18 on:** December 02, 2004, 06:01:45 pm »

There are some commercial factors that cannot be accurately assessed. In the article on the visit to DALSA, Michael showed a photo of a very large imager that had "military" written all over it. Military equals near bottomless pockets in the US of A. So I would guess that at least some of the R&D and manufacturing costs are being underwritten by a government. What happens if the fat contract goes away? Well, the pro and consumer get to pay the load. That can spell doom for the company.

RobertJ · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2004, 07:51:14 pm »

Yeah, I was just restating what he had in his original post and making sure I understood everything correctly. It seemed like he was going to hang himself because digital photography is taking over.

Just like Michael's review, you can't really compare the two systems - apples and oranges.

T-1000

Author Topic: MF Digital Back vs 1Ds Mk II ($$$ - !!) (Read 7918 times)