Pentax: "Amateur" product means more value, less dealer margins?

[BernardLanguillier]

I really don't like arguing about analogies, but that's not a fair comparison. Amazing 5-year-old second-hand BMW 3 Series has pretty much exactly the same performance as the same recent model, while a top-end camera would have twice the megapixels, stops higher DR and tonal range, and video. So it might be true that you're paying relatively more for the camera, but the tech has advanced far more.

Agree fully that the money (margin) is in services, not hardware, though.

Agreed, but the comparison was not between the 2 BMWs... it was between a camera and a car.

I would have to agree that it is hard to take pictures with a car, but knowing the complexity of these fairly well, the camera appears a bit over-priced.

Cheers,
Bernard

[feppe]

I would have to agree that it is hard to take pictures with a car, but knowing the complexity of these fairly well, the camera appears a bit over-priced.

On the highlighted point, this gentleman would disagree

[feppe]

Love it !!! (it reminds me to some degree in fine arts ) but how refreshing. Thanks for the link Feppe.

I doubt he's making those prints for the local newspaper or L'oreal, so I think it's definitely fine art

[fredjeang]

Without doubt. This guy has passion and does something where the process is unique. We are on the other extreme than duplications. I see a lot of things that I like here.

[feppe]

Without doubt. This guy has passion and does something where the process is unique. We are on the other extreme than duplications. I see a lot of things that I like here.

Yep. That video further convinced me to do my own thing, and continue pursuing the projects that I have in planning stages.

[John R Smith]

Beg to differ.  Assuming a very modest 100 rolls per year at very modest prices, and without factoring in the cost of time for trips to and from the lab (add another $50-100/hr minimum):

20 x 120 PP @$20 + tax  = $ 452

Processing (@$6/roll)      = $ 678

Proof scan CD ($10/roll)  = $1,130

Hi-res scans of the best   = $1,469
20 shoots ($65 per)

Total                                = $3,729

Even if you take out the proof-scans (foolish) you'd be looking at $2,600 a year for a very minimal level of photography.  This volume of film could easily be doubled for most serious (non-pro) shooters.  This makes the $2,000 - 2,500 a year it costs to own the camera look downright reasonable.  

- N.

Nick

I think you have completely missed my point here. Back in 1983 I processed all my own film (both B/W and E6) and printed everything in my own darkroom. Even the cost of the darkroom kit was much less than today's computer setups. My costs to shoot as much film as I liked and print the best stuff to just as high a quality as the top pros of the day from MF were very low indeed, basically just film, chemicals, and paper once I had the £65 camera and the darkroom setup. They must have been low, because I was managing to make a living and pay the mortgage on the proceeds. Now I'd need a mortgage for the camera.

John

[eronald]

Nick

I think you have completely missed my point here. Back in 1983 I processed all my own film (both B/W and E6) and printed everything in my own darkroom. Even the cost of the darkroom kit was much less than today's computer setups. My costs to shoot as much film as I liked and print the best stuff to just as high a quality as the top pros of the day from MF were very low indeed, basically just film, chemicals, and paper once I had the £65 camera and the darkroom setup. They must have been low, because I was managing to make a living and pay the mortgage on the proceeds. Now I'd need a mortgage for the camera.

John

Today's full-frame 35 is as good as the old MF; so a camera a PC and a desktop printer will do you. The absurd inflation is at the high end of the market where just an MF camera and the comp to run it fast will cost 3x  much as all of the rest of the stuff you need to be a marriage photographer.

Edmund

[John R Smith]

Today's full-frame 35 is as good as the old MF; so a camera a PC and a desktop printer will do you. The absurd inflation is at the high end of the market where just an MF camera and the comp to run it fast will cost 3x  much as all of the rest of the stuff you need to be a marriage photographer.

Edmund

Edmund

That's a fair point. My problem is that I don't much like 35mm cameras, and I have always shot MF and owned those sorts of cameras. So now I feel disenfranchised. It's nothing to do with IQ now, of course, although it was back then. But I very much prefer working with waist-level finders and having that compositional view of the world.

John

[ziocan]

Very different is the pro scene, at least here I do not know in the US or Japan. Equipment is rather old. There are many many studios that work with the 1D3, the CS3 or "old" MF equipment etc...
There is no rush at all.

Because at the end those tools are plenty good and they are not what it "make it happens".

There is not night and day difference between a 1ds2 and a 1ds3.

[feppe]

I think you have completely missed my point here. Back in 1983 I processed all my own film (both B/W and E6) and printed everything in my own darkroom. Even the cost of the darkroom kit was much less than today's computer setups. My costs to shoot as much film as I liked and print the best stuff to just as high a quality as the top pros of the day from MF were very low indeed, basically just film, chemicals, and paper once I had the £65 camera and the darkroom setup. They must have been low, because I was managing to make a living and pay the mortgage on the proceeds.

The time spent in the darkroom should be included in the cost, unless you work for free.

[eronald]

Edmund

That's a fair point. My problem is that I don't much like 35mm cameras, and I have always shot MF and owned those sorts of cameras. So now I feel disenfranchised. It's nothing to do with IQ now, of course, although it was back then. But I very much prefer working with waist-level finders and having that compositional view of the world.

John

John,

 I have a beautiful mirror contraption that costs a few dollars, glues on the back of my SLR, and gives me a waist-level view of the liveview image. Which, incidentally can be very precisely focused, with 1:1 pixel view of what the sensor sees (no focus screen focus errors). You may find acquiring one of these useful.

Edmund

[ziocan]

Indeed. Actually the 1ds2 is still very present.

I can't see either a night and day difference. The 16mp canon is now reachable second-hand for very little and if in good shape a true bargain. I don't have any problem with cleaning sensors.

About what John and Edmund where pointing, it is true, but isn't it the case, not specially in photo industry that from a certain level of quality, any little increment multiply numbers drastically? (watch the cine gear)
I mean, do you really thing those brands are robing us or high prices are the logical consequence of high performances? (it's a true question, don't have the answer)

I do not have an answer either but just an opinion.
At the end nobody is pointing a gun to our head and we are free of not buying new cameras.
At least, I think this is possible since recents times, because most products have reached a quality that is plenty good for 90% of applications. Most of use does a few % of applications.
Between 2002 and 2008 was difficult not to upgrade, because the products were not mature enough, but now I cannot see many new compelling products.

[Doug Peterson]

I have a beautiful mirror contraption that costs a few dollars, glues on the back of my SLR, and gives me a waist-level view of the liveview image. Which, incidentally can be very precisely focused, with 1:1 pixel view of what the sensor sees (no focus screen focus errors). You may find acquiring one of these useful.

In several ways that's more functional than an optical WLF. 1:1 focusing, and also the image you're focusing on can be boosted (e.g. ISO6400) so that even very dim subjects are bright enough to focus on.

BUT the visual beauty, hard to describe joy, and tactile nature of the very 3D image presented in an RZ67 WLF can not be emulated by putting a mirror to an LCD.

Sometimes technology aids the process but takes away some of the fun.

All a matter of taste of course. To each his own.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I only have experience with Pentax 67 and Hasselblad 500C WLF, hated both. Nothing to say about modern cameras. Just wanted to say that all WLFs are not created equal.

Best regards
Erik

[tho_mas]

I agree with Doug here.
When shooting I really don't want to look at a pixelated, white balanced, non-color managed, white and black clipping cheap and trashy LCD.
I don't want to view such an ugly transformation of the scene... I want to see the scene (and in particular the light).
At least as far "composition" is concerned. Checking an already captured image on a screen is fine.
For focus checking an LCD is certainly super... but as replacement for a finder it wouldn't work for me.

[eronald]

Liveview on the Nikons and Canons is pretty good actually. Pro movie guys doing million dollar productions slap a viewing loupe on the LCD and compose and focus their takes with Liveview.

Edmund

I agree with Doug here.
When shooting I really don't want to look at a pixelated, white balanced, non-color managed, white and black clipping cheap and trashy LCD.
I don't want to view such an ugly transformation of the scene... I want to see the scene (and in particular the light).
At least as far "composition" is concerned. Checking an already captured image on a screen is fine.
For focus checking an LCD is certainly super... but as replacement for a finder it wouldn't work for me.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

For me LiveView is a way of achieving dead on focus (by enlarging the focusing spot). In my view it's essential.

Best regards
Erik

Liveview on the Nikons and Canons is pretty good actually. Pro movie guys doing million dollar productions slap a viewing loupe on the LCD and compose and focus their takes with Liveview.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

For me LiveView is a way of achieving dead on focus (by enlarging the focusing spot). In my view it's essential.

Same here.

I have not forgotten how it feels to come back home from that amazing shoot only to find out on screen that many of my once-in-a-life-time-light images are slightly off focus. That really was the most frustrating experience for me when using the Mamiya ZD. I couldn't help counting mentally the money I was wasting.

I have not forgotten that feeling but it has mostly not happened to me in the last 2 years.

Now on the positive side, the absence of moire/artifacts on many MF images is the result of them being slightly out of focus.

Cheers,
Bernard

[tho_mas]

Liveview on the Nikons and Canons is pretty good actually. Pro movie guys doing million dollar productions slap a viewing loupe on the LCD and compose and focus their takes with Liveview.

yes, compared to the low res black&white finders of other video cameras this is an improvement. But I was talking about photographs, not about video.

For me LiveView is a way of achieving dead on focus (by enlarging the focusing spot). In my view it's essential.

as I said: for focussing it's super.
I actually don't have issues to achieve accurate focus with split image screens on my Contax (shimmed to match the focus plane of my DB). And on my Cambo a laser distometer is working very good for me (if I am not shooting near or at infinity, which I do mostly).
Still... Live View would be a very welcomed improvement for me. But I would only use it for checking focus, not for composition.

[eronald]

I once posted a dead-sharp skateboard jump image on a forum, taken with 35mm AF. Immediately all the older members of that forum explained to me that the "right" way to take this image was with prefocused MF.

The same attitude is now pervading this forum. While video shooters are getting excellent results with LiveView, older members of this forum are explaining to us that the viewfinder is the ONLY way to compose and focus.

Of course, the sellers of the mostly outdated and overpriced clattering boxen which are now called  "Professional Medium Format Cameras" cannot purchase MF sensors capable of LiveView. They state they publicly state cannot purchase decent back LCDs,  and we're not even talking about the special chips and software needed to extract and process a real-time video feed.

So we're being told that spinach is good for you because in fact there is no meat to be had.

Edmund

Same here.

I have not forgotten how it feels to come back home from that amazing shoot only to find out on screen that many of my once-in-a-life-time-light images are slightly off focus. That really was the most frustrating experience for me when using the Mamiya ZD. I couldn't help counting mentally the money I was wasting.

I have not forgotten that feeling but it has mostly not happened to me in the last 2 years.

Now on the positive side, the absence of moire/artifacts on many MF images is the result of them being slightly out of focus.

Cheers,
Bernard