Are we going to see MF price decreases now that DSLRs reach 36 megapixels?

[BernardLanguillier]

I think what killed the medium format was not the megapixel count, a D800 is not going to beat the aged 33 or 39 mp backs in control or reasonable light.

That will be easy enough to verify in 2 months from now.

My personal bet is a D800 win along most metrics, but I could be wrong.  

I think people's desire to try better camera is still there, and the digital back is still the dream, even though it is not for everyone. I think the digital back sales will be dropped, not sure if price will drop that much. The biggest reason for the high price is the small quantity to cover the cost and R&D, sad truth!

There is nothing unavoidable about this. The current situation is the result of business decisions by the people running the MF companies. Pentax has clearly proven that it is possible to deliver a superior camera at a much lower price point.

Most companies assess the market, understand the value that needs to be delivered at a given price point and develop accordingly. The clear exception is luxury goods where the price is computed based on an assessement of the want of potential buyers (high end audio is a relevant example here). It could be argued that the initial pricing of high end digital backs was computed in terms of value relative to film cost savings, but this argument doesn't stand anymore.

We hear hundreds of photographers claim they want to work with MF. I can relate to that, but those guys are not saying that they want to keep paying 40,000 US$ for a new top back every 4 years. Those guys are saying they want to use equipment that gives them a good safety margin relative to their actual needs. The problem is that the D800 does that also for 99% of actual needs and so does the Pentax 645D.

Once photographers realize that these claims are not the result of some brand fan boyism but the result of real world usage, they will get back to Phaseone and Hassy and tell them "guys, I like you, you deliver good products, but so do the other guys. Considering the number of people willing to shoot phaseone, price your top offering at 15,000 US$, the medium level at 10,000 US$ and the entry at 7,000 US$ and you'll make a lot more people happy".

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

... we just have to wait until canon, nikon or sony developes a system like pentax or Leica did ...

Just imagine, a d3x-1ds like body, CMOS MF size sensor, quick shooting, quick processing, decent screen, leaf shutter, great high ISO (huge pixels) the downside would be new camera system, so it would not be cheap.

This wish keeps coming up, but it is almost certainly not going to happen. For those big players, by far the most cost effective strategy to win sales from MF is the one they have been following for a decade or more: make their cameras suitable to do more and more of what formerly required a larger format, leaving an ever shrinking sector for MF and LF. The lens systems needed are one major factor: not that Canon or Nikon ,could not afford the development costs, but that the cost would be too high re
Active to the increased earnings to make it worthwhile. I look at it this way: medium format was a relatively far larger market sector compared to 35mm and below with film than it is with digital, and neither Canon nor Nikon ever bothered to move into MF then, so they have even less reason to do so now. I keep hearing arguments about needing a "complete system" and "prestige", but those factors didn't do the job in the film era, and I see no reasons why it should change now. More to the point, despite speculation about this for a decade or more, there has not been the slightest hint of it.

Going even further back, none of the major MF makers bothered to go into LF, and Leica did not move into MF in the film ea, but did no only as a "retreat uphill", perhaps learning from Contax the futility of tacking Canon and Nikon on their home turf of 35mm SLRs.

Water does not flow uphill, and nor do the formats used by successful mainstream camera makers.

[BernardLanguillier]

Thursday I shot in my studio a model jumping high in the air. Client needed a file for a building wrap and for use in catalogue and POS banners. Shot using 6k of Elinchrom lighting at a thousands of a second on a Leaf Aptus12. No moire issues, no trouble with flash sync ant the high shutter speed. Pin sharp image at F11. Happy client and he has booked 5 weeks for next years catalogue. This is not a client that would like me to show up with a camera that cost less than a decent bicycle. Part of it might be placating a client, part of it might be creating barriers to entry to protect my market. I don't care. If leaf show up with a 120 MP camera I place the order.

Hum... I saw a 100 inch tall print made from the new 16 megapixel Fuji Pro-X1 on Saturday that looked... plain great 1m away. I don't mean just OK, I mean great. They would without any possible doubt be perfect for a building wrap.

I understand what you are saying in terms of image of the photographer and in terms of perception from the client, but I wonder if there is any connection with any real photographic need.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

There might be something to this idea that to win some clients, one must impress them with expensive, high end gear: another kind of "image quality". A friend of mine is a successful real estate agent, and drives a big Mercedes sedan that is totally out of step with her personal tastes, but matches what most other succesful real estate agents drive around here, so it seems like an obligatory "dress for success" item.

Maybe there will be a market for fake DMF box props, to flash around while the client is in the room.

P. S. building wraps probably go in the same category as bill-boards as a bogus argument for high resolution, given the typically large viewing distances and inattentive viewing:

"it's not the size of the file, it's how you view it".

[george2787]

BJL, I understand what you say, but with leica and pentax launching new systems I bet canon, nikon and sony are at least watching the situation, with FF sensor packing too many pixels the only way to impess the potential d4x or 1dsIII buyer is giving something else, who is buying today a 1dsIII or a d3x?? d800 and 5dII give better result because they are new at a fraction of the price.

Maybe the way is buying a MF company and put new electronics on an "old" system.

[BJL]

BJL, I understand what you say, but with leica and pentax launching new systems I bet canon, nikon and sony are at least watching the situation ...

And are more likely laughing at the tiny revenues and profits of that sector compared to the one they are in rather than feeling any envy. And Pentax did not create a new system from scratch: it added a Kodak sensor and related electronics to its existing 645 body design and lenses, with some updates.

With FF sensor packing too many pixels ...

What is your criterion for "too many pixels"? If you mean that the vast majority of photographers do not need 39MP, or even 24MP, I tend to agree, but that just makes the case for entering the MF market even weaker. If you are referring to the idea that cameras like the D800 have "tiny, noisy pixels", that cannot compete with DMF pixels, I expect that the comparisons to DMF will show otherwise, due to the sensor technology gap that has opened between CCD and active pixel CMOS over the last decade or so.

... who is buying today a 1dsIII or a d3x?? d800 and 5dII give better result because they are new at a fraction of the price.

Indeed, we might have seen the end of the $4000+ high resolution 35mm format camera. And the new wave of models like the D800 will make the price gap to DMF even more of a reason for the market, and camera makers, to shift away from DMF rather than towards it. The highest priced, highest profit margin 35mm format models will be high speed performers like the D4 and 1DX, taking Canon and Nikon back closer to where they were with film.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Not convinced about the "buzz being in DSLR and not in MFDB. A few years ago, OK quite a few, you could buy a DCS465 Kodak back with the same pixel count as DCS460. Years went by and the backs went up to 16MP while the DSLR's went to around 12MP. Now we have the latest greatest DSLR which is going to be 36MP while the high end backs are 80. Seems the gap is widening to me.

DSLR has improving auto focus and high iso and not much else in my opinion. People are buying a 5D over the top Canon IDS and DS cameras even though bodies are in my opinion not up to professional standards because they are chasing MP count. Same thing will happen with the new Nikon I suspect. DSLR lenses are barely coping, to the point that pixel peepers are choosing aperture not according to what depth of field they require but what is acceptable with the sensor.

 I hate that way of working. I like to choose aperture according to required depth of field and use movements on a view camera to assist when needed. When you have 80MP on hand and output is to be an A1 print you have a greater choice of apertures.

This is my drum I am banging I know but there is no competition between MFDB and DSLR. They are different beasts and always have been. I use both.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not convinced about the "buzz being in DSLR and not in MFDB. A few years ago, OK quite a few, you could buy a DCS465 Kodak back with the same pixel count as DCS460. Years went by and the backs went up to 16MP while the DSLR's went to around 12MP. Now we have the latest greatest DSLR which is going to be 36MP while the high end backs are 80. Seems the gap is widening to me.

Well, at the time of the 5D, D3 backs were 22mp and DSLRs were 12 mp, currently we are at 80 vs 36, sounds fairly close to be in terms of ratio, is it not? But what is more significant is the relative positioning between these pixels numbers and the actual needs.

DSLR has improving auto focus and high iso and not much else in my opinion. People are buying a 5D over the top Canon IDS and DS cameras even though bodies are in my opinion not up to professional standards because they are chasing MP count. Same thing will happen with the new Nikon I suspect. DSLR lenses are barely coping, to the point that pixel peepers are choosing aperture not according to what depth of field they require but what is acceptable with the sensor.

The behavior you describe is only the result of the the desire to avoid diffraction which is only a measure of the size of the pixels. So you should do the same thing with your 80 mp backs as D3x users have doing with their DSLRs, meaning shoot at f7.1 if you want best quality. You deciding to shoot at f11 is the same thing as a d3x user deciding to shoot at f11, a valid artistic decision but one that doesn't fully tap in the resolution potential of your sensor.

I hate that way of working. I like to choose aperture according to required depth of field and use movements on a view camera to assist when needed. When you have 80MP on hand and output is to be an A1 print you have a greater choice of apertures.

This is my drum I am banging I know but there is no competition between MFDB and DSLR. They are different beasts and always have been. I use both.

Nobody ever claimed that the latest DSLRs were at the same level as the latest 80 backs. One thing worth considering through is that Canon probably isn't a good benchmark for how close DSLRs can be from backs. Their sensors have been significantly behind the curve for a number of years now.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MrSmith]

and the elephant in the room is £2000  V's 'call for price'•

•here in the u.k. dealers are too embarrassed to mention the price of backs

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The same laws of physics apply to all formats. If you stop down you loose sharpness with MF as well as with DSLRs or a phone camera. With a larger format you need stop down more for the same DOF.

On the other hand, with larger pixels you have less to loose...

Best regards
Erik

The behavior you describe is only the result of the the desire to avoid diffraction which is only a measure of the size of the pixels. So you should do the same thing with your 80 mp backs as D3x users have doing with their DSLRs, meaning shoot at f7.1 if you want best quality. You deciding to shoot at f11 is the same thing as a d3x user deciding to shoot at f11, a valid artistic decision but one that doesn't fully tap in the resolution potential of your sensor.

Nobody ever claimed that the latest DSLRs were at the same level as the latest 80 backs. One thing worth considering through is that Canon probably isn't a good benchmark for how close DSLRs can be from backs. Their sensors have been significantly behind the curve for a number of years now.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fredjeang]

euh...

I don't know if it's just Spain (and could well be), but it seems that we are in crisis and ultimatlely in recession. Europe is dying step by step and the gravity center of business and inovation seems to displace slowly but surely towards the asiatic side.

Time are gone here, of the rock-star photographers, illimited budgets, hollydays shooting in the Bahamas with 50 people crew. Even the big names are counting numbers. Except in this forum. You talk about those 80 MP backs as you'd talk about having your morning coffee with milk.

I don't really see for how much more time a young photographer will be interested in 50.000 bucks equipment minimum considering all the system even if it gives more room, has a better dr or whatever. Those are gear where you need to really compensate this kind of investment, and they are less and less people who are in such position.

But maybe the rest of the world is living like Midas kings and we poor and unaware people in Spain aren't representative of how wealphy this profession has become in the lastest 5 years.



The thing is that personally, if I had no reasons to count money, I'd buy today a 80MP back and mount it on a Hcam. But what happen: if 35mm is going 30-40MP with video and much more flexible workflow for 3000 bucks, what really interest me in the MF proposal is something much more powerfull, so I'm in the P65+ as minimum. Here, numbers can not be ignored any longuer.

You got the budgets and clients for those? Good for you and go for it.

[BJL]

MF definitely maintains some advantages for sufficiently demanding situations: resolution, handling of scenes of high subject brightness range when base ISO speed can be used, flash sync at all speed (with leaf shutter lenses; in particular with Hasselblad). And lens quality might always give an edge at extremes of attention to resolution, distortion and aberration.


On the other hand:

- the limits on DOF control imposed by using an aperture big enough to get the full resolution that the sensor is capable of are the same in any format (until the needed f-stop is no low that lens aberrations become a problem, but we are not at that point yet): at equal pixel count the needed f-stop scale with focal length, format size and pixel count, giving the same DOF as judged on same size prints.

- for any given IQ need, there is a shift from needing MF to being able to do the job with more convenience and lower cost with 35mm format, and even onto smaller more mainstream formats: remember when DMF was needed for anything beyond 6MP?


On the third hand: some people, maybe in particular high profile clients or stock agencies, might tend to keep raising their requirements based on what is technologically possible wit a sufficient budget, rather than what is needed.

[theguywitha645d]

MF definitely maintains some advantages for sufficiently demanding situations: resolution, handling of scenes of high subject brightness range when base ISO speed can be used, flash sync at all speed (with leaf shutter lenses; in particular with Hasselblad). And lens quality might always give an edge at extremes of attention to resolution, distortion and aberration.


On the other hand:

- the limits on DOF control imposed by using an aperture big enough to get the full resolution that the sensor is capable of are the same in any format (until the needed f-stop is no low that lens aberrations become a problem, but we are not at that point yet): at equal pixel count the needed f-stop scale with focal length, format size and pixel count, giving the same DOF as judged on same size prints.

Photography is not an object lesson in matching diffraction to pixel pitch. Dividing your sensor into smaller pixels does not actually make the image softer. DoF is limited by format size.

- for any given IQ need, there is a shift from needing MF to being able to do the job with more convenience and lower cost with 35mm format, and even onto smaller more mainstream formats: remember when DMF was needed for anything beyond 6MP?

Please define "IQ need"? Exactly what aspect if IQ are you referring to? I don't understand this statement. It appears you are saying there is a technical criteria for IQ that is fixed and defined that is somehow objectively linked to a situation.

On the third hand: some people, maybe in particular high profile clients or stock agencies, might tend to keep raising their requirements based on what is technologically possible wit a sufficient budget, rather than what is needed.

So why the interest in the D800? There are plenty of cameras now that should be sufficient for any work you need to do.

[BJL]

So why the interest in the D800? There are plenty of cameras now that should be sufficient for any work you need to do.

I do not understand this comment at all. Yes for my particular needs, there are plenty of smaller, lighter, less expensive options than a D800, but the interest should be obvious to people who want
(a) more resolution than, say, 24MP cameras offer, and
(b) a far lower system cost than any other option (DMF, LF) that offers this resolution.
And that is ignoring low light capabilities and so on relative to anything else >24MP, at any price.

And for those with a reason to use Nikon lenses, like owning a bunch of good ones, one can replace "24MP" above by "12MP", given the huge price advantage over the D3x.

[theguywitha645d]

I do not understand this comment at all.

I guess I am confused by your comments about "IQ need." It seemed to imply that there was some metric to which it could be measured with which to choose a system, but it seems, from your reply, it is simply personal preference.

[Mr. Rib]

It's pretty obvious that the image quality gap between MF and 35mm will be shrinking and that's mainly because of R&D money put to create new generations of cameras and the fact that DMF is stuck with CCD. Yes, you may say that the gap didn't change or that DMF has made the gap bigger with new 80 mp sensors, but how does it correlate with actual needs? The more MP you put in that DMF ensor, the smaller is the actual market for it- (I'm talking about professional market, not the wealthy guys which buy something simply because it's currently the best). Where's the innovation?

We are not at the point in which 35mm dslr makes a DMF camera obsolete and maybe DMF will hold it's edge, but the fact is that for >>professional use<<, the DMF market is shrinking. I know quite a lot of photogs that switched from DMF to DSLR lately and the tendency won't change- just as fredjeang mentioned, if your camera is making money for you, the costs matter. The quality/cost ratio matters even more. And DMF in most cases is an unjustified expense / luxury only very small part of the market can afford. It all boils down to what you need to earn. Does the DMF provide an edge which will help you get the client? I think a "NO" will be more and more frequent answer to this question.
I hope that MF manufacturers won't settle for hobbyist market share- but if they don't change their policy and keep coming up with 100, 120, 150, 200 mp digibacks wth higher and higher retail prices, the only market they can count on is hobbyist + a dozen of top-end artists. If that's what Phase One wants to settle for, it's pretty sad but so be it (I think Leica has already settled for market share comprised of german dentists).
As for the camera, I'm very eager to see the output of it, as I've been waiting for a long time for a DSLR camera that costs a fraction of digiback and which you can attach to Arca M-line- use it with LF lenses without looking back at results from digiback. If you don't need a humongous singleshot (I don't), you could live without a DMF at all if the DSLR is decent enough..and with no compromising on the quality!
I really hope Nikon (and soon to follow Canon 5D MKIII ) is already at that point..

[BJL]

I guess I am confused by your comments about "IQ need." It seemed to imply that there was some metric to which it could be measured with which to choose a system, but it seems, from your reply, it is simply personal preference.

Do you really not understand? Did it really not occur to you that improved resolution might be part of what I was referring to? Because resolution seems an obvious area where 35mm format offers better performance now than in years past, so that cameras like the D800 can meet resolution needs than no 35mm format camera could in the past. And it seems to be the DMF world in particular where people talk about clients demanding a TIFF of X MB, where X is some large number, which I presume is a proxy for sensor resolution. (On your comment about "some metric", of course there is no single one for IQ, and I fail to see how you could have read that into my post, but TIFF MP is one crude example from the DMF world; pixel count needs derived from some combination of PPI and print size is another that many people argue has some relevance, sometimes.) Shadow and highlight handling is another area of improvement, with formats 35mm and smaller going from CCD's with distinctly worse DR than the CCD's in DMF to comparable or better DR (per pixel, anyway).

It seems rather clear to me that in many aspects of image quality (it does not have to be all possible aspects of IQ), formats 35mm and smaller have improved over the last decade. (I would say that all formats have actually, but this is irrelevant to my point). Do you disagree? Do you thing that all the areas of improvement I mention above are of little or no significance to anyone's choice between MF and a smaller format? Because all that "my TIFF is bigger than yours" talk suggests otherwise to me, for at least a significant number of MF users and clients. Are you suggesting that the desire for some high degree of resolution is merely "personal preference", rather than ever being a professional need or a legitimate need with respect to some artistic goals?


I agree with you about diffraction and pixel pitch: if you missed it, I was only pointing out that, to the extent that the issue of diffraction limitation is an issue at all (it seems overhyped to me) the problem is no better or worse with 36MP in 35mm format than it is with 36MP in any larger format: it is just one of the burdens of seeking very high resolution images (from a single shot, to exclude focus stacking or whatever.)

[theguywitha645d]

BJL, thanks. I was just confused by your post--actually, by this whole thread as the sands keep shift. That was all.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Some very good answers to the points I raised, no doubt about it but still I am not convinced that DSLR is snapping at the heels of MFDB.

Address the following and I will be a little more convinced

I fairly frequently shoot at 500 and 1000 shutter speed with 2 4K packs in my studio and on location. Not easily done with DSLR. seems this is never going to be addressed with DSLR and it is a big deal

The tethering of DSLR has not improved. In fact it has gotten worse. Perhaps the Nikons are ahead on this so I could be wrong but crappy little USB 2 cables are not great in a busy studio.

Why no lens cal file system? I realize it is more needed on MFDB using movements but hell, it would help with DSLR with wide lenses falling off on the edges.

With my MFDB I set up on location shooting an interior. Pocket wizard in place, FireWire cable running to the laptop and client changes layout and we need a vertical. All I do is rotate the sensor. No camera movement at all. No cranking the tripod head over with the attendant shift in lens position. Any idea how much easier that makes life? Trust me, when on a big shoot little things make a big difference.

The back is a big cost. No it is a massive cost. Compared to lights, light shapers, stands, lenses and computers it is not so big anymore. Every three or four years I change backs and just stick the new one on the same old Cambo with its 4 apo digital lenses and the same AFI with its lenses. No worries. I get a good trade in on the old back to go with it. It seems every time I upgraded my DSLR all the lenses fell over and my lens investment became a constant source of anxiety and a bottomless pit. Figures of $50K get bandied about but a new back doesn't cost near that with the trade in and when you already have the rest of the system it is a reasonable business cost.

The back is just a part of a camera system. The camera system is just a part of studio. It's plain wrong to say that MFDB will be bought only by well heeled amateurs. That devalues the whole profession. A busy professional has a fortune invested in equipment. Look at the cost of an ArcaSwiss cube. What will 12k of studio lighting set you back? If all that makes sense as far as a capture device goes is a $3000 DSLR then your business model is weak or your market is too small or something else is wrong.

Please guys, I am not getting into an argument over these systems but as someone who has works as a photographer for over 30 years and has used digital exclusively since 1996 and has owned 5 MFDB and I forget how many DSLR I can tell you that there is a lot more to a commercial studios success than the cost of one piece of equipment.

[BJL]

Martin,

    please do not misunderstand me; I am not prediction the irrelevance of MF, and I do net see anyone else in this forum doing so. I am just talking about a shift in the proportions of users from "44x33mm (or 45x30mm) and bigger" towards "36x24mm and smaller". You start of with one of several advantages for MF systems that offer leaf shutter lenses:

I fairly frequently shoot at 500 and 1000 shutter speed with 2 4K packs in my studio and on location. Not easily done with DSLR. seems this is never going to be addressed with DSLR and it is a big deal ...

And until I see evidence otherwise, my guess is that corner-to-corner control of lens aberrations can be done better in a larger format, if you pay enough for the lenses, if only because one can typically work at higher aperture ratios.

Please do not take my use of "niche" disparagingly; it just seems reasonable way to describe a sector that has always been well under 1% of the interchangeable lens digital camera market.