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

[hjulenissen]

i don't think anyone would say 35mm will kill off MF that would be foolish.

I am sure that people said the same about cars vs horses, and digital vs film. Very few technologies last forever, or at least remain widely competitive and used forever.

People (amateurs and pros) will make their choices based on what they perceive as "affordable", "gets the job done" etc. If anyone perceives that this new Nikon or other 35mm cameras delivers 90% of the qualities of MF at a fraction of the price, then a lot of those people will probably go for this 35mm.

-h

[Doug Peterson]

People (amateurs and pros) will make their choices based on what they perceive as "affordable", "gets the job done" etc. If anyone perceives that this new Nikon or other 35mm cameras delivers 90% of the qualities of MF at a fraction of the price, then a lot of those people will probably go for this 35mm.

Aye, there's the rub. For in that 10% a perfectly thriving digital back market is being made. And most of the other 90% were already shooting dSLRs.

"Gets the job done" sounds a lot like "good enough" to me which seems like one of the most sure fire ways to do poorly in a crowded field (which photography is becoming more and more). For pros: there is almost always someone else who can do "good enough" at a lower price than you. And in the enthusiast market why wouldn't you want to create the very best result you can afford, especially for the enthusiasts who have the disposable income and whose time to spend on their passions are limited. When I think through all the photographers (living and dead, pro or enthusiast) whom I respect the most "good enough" is not a phrase I think any of them would use.

Most people choose a product that is "good enough" for a particular purpose. Digital backs are not for most people nor does the market/future for DBs depend on most people.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

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

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

[hjulenissen]

Aye, there's the rub. For in that 10% a perfectly thriving digital back market is being made. And most of the other 90% were already shooting dSLRs.
...
Most people choose a product that is "good enough" for a particular purpose. Digital backs are not for most people nor does the market/future for DBs depend on most people.

I could have said 80/20 or 99.9999/(100-99.9999), the specific number was not my point. The point was that some will find a given technology sufficient (or their wallet or employer will). I don't think it is "foolish" to suggest that 35mm will "kill off" MF in the sense that MF will be an even tinier part of the market than it is. One may or may not agree with such a statement, though.

The CD player have for all intents been "killed off" by mp3. Not because of mp3s technical superiority, but because most people cannot hear a significant difference most of the time, and the ergonomic/economic differences are too large to ignore for most of us. There probably will always be a small elite still playing their CDs on dedicated CD players, just like there still are people using a horse daily instead of cars.

-h

[BernardLanguillier]

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.

Don't get me wrong, I am not denying the value of MFDB, but this cost argument I have a hard time dealing with.

The price difference btwn a high end DSLR and a high end back is about equal that of the car you need to move around.

Put is otherwise, it can also be the difference between the utility car you need and the high end BMW you might want.

Put it yet otherwise, had you bought Apple stock 3 years back with this difference you would now have enough cash to buy a small house.

This has to be looked at from the angle of the opportunity cost, at least this is how most business assess their expenditures.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hasselbladfan]

Great discussions, guys.

[MrSmith]

"For pros: there is almost always someone else who can do "good enough" at a lower price than you."
it's not about doing a 'good enough' job, it's about creating images that people want.
camera systems don't make good images, good photographers do and you don't always need a DMF camera to achieve this.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Don't get me wrong, I am not denying the value of MFDB, but this cost argument I have a hard time dealing with.

The price difference btwn a high end DSLR and a high end back is about equal that of the car you need to move around.

Put is otherwise, it can also be the difference between the utility car you need and the high end BMW you might want.

Put it yet otherwise, had you bought Apple stock 3 years back with this difference you would now have enough cash to buy a small house.

This has to be looked at from the angle of the opportunity cost, at least this is how most business assess their expenditures.

Cheers,

The high end BMW I actually dont want costs $100K in South Africa. My back cost quite a lot less than that. No taxes locally on tech items but big taxes on luxury cars. The Apple shares I didnt buy are not relevant in this argument. I am a photographer not a trader. If you are referring to opportunity costs and are using the shares as an example of that then that I will address.

There are a number of issues in this. I have a policy of constantly investing in new equipment. It is usually leased for local tax reasons. I currently have all the laptops, lights, lenses, computers, and stuff that I need. The new back which was bought when the highest res DSLR was at around 22MP was the best piece of kit around for my needs. I dont think you can possibly be in a position to assess my needs or what opportunities exist in Southern Africa that would have been a better purchase at the time. Yesterday I booked 3 shoots with a client 2  of which largely came because I can shoot such high res. Those 3 shoots are worth at least what I paid for the back.

Another issue is materiality. When you are working on a shoot that lasts 5 weeks and is worth perhaps twice what I paid for the back and involves 30 models, stylists,MUA and the rest then the cost of the back is not material.

Thirdly my clients are well heeled business owners. The back intimidates them. They own nothing like it. They are not even sure the Cambo is a camera when they first walk in. Perhaps a silly point but when they spend $50k a year, every year and have done so for a decade then it is worth something.

Anyway this has been one of the few interesting discussions on the forum from my point of view. It has been good to get other points of view. I am always up to learn new stuff relevant to my business. Just remember that my business model is working for me has has done so right through the digital revolution. Chucking out an 80 MP back to replace it with a 36 MP DSLR will be a tough sell for me and I am not about to risk it. The difference in costs over 3 years is only about $1000 a month. Not even one days work.

Thanks for the well thought out response Bernard

[MrSmith]

"Chucking out an 80 MP back to replace it with a 36 MP DSLR will be a tough sell for me and I am not about to risk it"

why even consider it?
surely it you can afford to own both, it's not always 100asa light in S.A. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for the well thought out response Bernard

Thanks Martin, I understand the situation you are in and would probably take the same decisions.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Fine_Art]

It will be time for another round of comparisons. Hows about putting two large prints in front of 100 photography students at a university or 100 photographers at a convention. Each one chooses #1 or #2 where either may be from the D800 or an MFDB.

What I really want to know is how fast are we approaching the point that any MFDB advantage is not big enough to show up in a 24"x36" print or lets say 'painting size'. When that point is reached buying an $80k back will seem pointless to many people that may be in the market for one.

[hasselbladfan]

MF is still sticking to a strategy to sell few cameras at high prices. This looks very similar to the Leica R story we all know.

If Hasselblad would be targetting the Mamiya price point, they would be selling much more cameras (see how much interest there is once a H3/H4 is offerend below 10k). And every camera buyer will buy 2-3 lenses in the next years.

It is not too late, but close .......

[jackmacd]

The lens requirements to handle 36 mexapixels of resolution are very high.
Fortunately, the MF lens makers for digital work are now up to the task. I left the FF Canon not for issues of megapixels but issues of lens quality and quality control.
But that lens quality is expensive. There are not that enough photographers who demand or require such high quality to sell larger quantities at a lower price point for an economic business in FF. So I went MF for the lenses not just the megapixels. And if you can justify the cost of such high quality lenses, the body or back cost can be justified too.

[Fine_Art]

The lens requirements to handle 36 mexapixels of resolution are very high.
Fortunately, the MF lens makers for digital work are now up to the task. I left the FF Canon not for issues of megapixels but issues of lens quality and quality control.
But that lens quality is expensive. There are not that enough photographers who demand or require such high quality to sell larger quantities at a lower price point for an economic business in FF. So I went MF for the lenses not just the megapixels. And if you can justify the cost of such high quality lenses, the body or back cost can be justified too.

My area of expertise is in business operations/ supply chains. It will probably be a shock to many people to hear that very high quality lenses, difficult to manufacture aspheres, are generally not in the $1000s. For some perspective look at the manufacturer websites. Edmunds is the biggest. http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2953

http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=3405
Look around the site. Some stuff is expensive. Know what is and what isnt.

As you know many manufacturers get their goods made cheaper than that in China.

[theguywitha645d]

My area of expertise is in business operations/ supply chains. It will probably be a shock to many people to hear that very high quality lenses, difficult to manufacture aspheres, are generally not in the $1000s. For some perspective look at the manufacturer websites. Edmunds is the biggest. http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2953

http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=3405
Look around the site. Some stuff is expensive. Know what is and what isnt.

As you know many manufacturers get their goods made cheaper than that in China.

Are you suggesting they are cheap? Since modern lenses can have 10+ elements, that you be about $1000 at edmund's prices (although those are small elements), and then you need all the barrel components, then you need the production line and tooling, and when you figure in tolerances and sales volumes not to mention packaging, shipping and warehousing, you can end up with an expensive product.

[BJL]

Some perspective on this idea that 36MP in 35mm format makes unprecedented challenges on lens resolution --- not for users of fine-grained monochrome film.

By my reckoning, Kodak T-MAX 100 film has distinctly higher resolution than a 36MP sensor can give (yes, even a monochrome or Foveon one), as measured by MTF 50. My reckoning is this:
 - T-MAX 100 is 125 cycles/mm (lp/mm): see http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf page 14, and http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
 - it takes a bit more than 2 pixels to resolve a cycle (Dr. Nyquist say so), and even more allowing for demosaicing of information from a Bayer CFA
 - at a conservative 2 pixel per line pair, one would need 4 micron pixel pitch to match 125 cycles/mm
 - 4 micron pixels in 36x24mm format would give 9000x6000 = 54MP.

So "Film still rules" and all that hype. And this is without playing the game of looking at extinction resolution or the Rayleigh criterion or such, which would give:
about 200 cycles/mm, <2.5 micron pixel pitch, > 14,400x9,600, > 140MP.

More seriously, this suggests that if your lenses were worth using films like Kodak  T-MAX 100 with, they will not be totally embarrassed by the D800, or even the D800E.

And people even use T-MAX 100 in 4"x5": I wonder how the lenses hold up to that resolution torture?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Lets put it this way: I have scanned a lot of film, and I was not impressed by negative film, except perhaps some shots a friend made on Technical Pan. Yes, negative film may resolve better on high contrast test targets, but not on low contrast detail.

I may be wrong, it's just I'm a bit skeptical.

Best regards
Erik

Some perspective on this idea that 36MP in 35mm format makes unprecedented challenges on lens resolution --- not for users of fine-grained monochrome film.

By my reckoning, Kodak T-MAX 100 film has distinctly higher resolution than a 36MP sensor can give (yes, even a monochrome or Foveon one), as measured by MTF 50. My reckoning is this:
 - T-MAX 100 is 125 cycles/mm (lp/mm): see http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf page 14, and http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
 - it takes a bit more than 2 pixels to resolve a cycle (Dr. Nyquist say so), and even more allowing for demosaicing of information from a Bayer CFA
 - at a conservative 2 pixel per line pair, one would need 4 micron pixel pitch to match 125 cycles/mm
 - 4 micron pixels in 36x24mm format would give 9000x6000 = 54MP.

So "Film still rules" and all that hype. And this is without playing the game of looking at extinction resolution or the Rayleigh criterion or such, which would give:
about 200 cycles/mm, <2.5 micron pixel pitch, > 14,400x9,600, > 140MP.

More seriously, this suggests that if your lenses were worth using films like Kodak  T-MAX 100 with, they will not be totally embarrassed by the D800, or even the D800E.

And people even use T-MAX 100 in 4"x5": I wonder how the lenses hold up to that resolution torture?

[BJL]

... I was not impressed by negative film, except perhaps some shots a friend made on Technical Pan. Yes, negative film may resolve better on high contrast test targets, but not on low contrast detail.

I was specifically using the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome film: color film (horrible stuff to scan, and lower resolution) was probably matched for resolution several sensor generations ago. At the Norm Koren page cited above, the highest MTF50 for any color film is 63 cycle/mm for Fujifilm Superia 100, and that brings my pixel count comparison down to "over 14MP", and less for Velvia. Does that fit more with your observations?

Back to the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome films: by all measures I see, T-MAX 100 has even better resolution that the famous but now discontinued Technical Pan:
Technical Pan MTF curves on page 9 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf
T-MAX 100 MFT curves on page 14 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Note that I stayed away from the "film is great" fanboyism by using MTF 50, not extinction resolution relevant only to very high contrast targets.


I meant the mainly as one way to get a reality check on the alleged inadequacy of 35mm format lens resolution. To DIY, dust of your old (Minolta?) 35mm film body, load some T-MAX 100, take some carefully focused photographs, scan carefully (or be old fashioned and print large!), and look.

[Fine_Art]

Are you suggesting they are cheap? Since modern lenses can have 10+ elements, that you be about $1000 at edmund's prices (although those are small elements), and then you need all the barrel components, then you need the production line and tooling, and when you figure in tolerances and sales volumes not to mention packaging, shipping and warehousing, you can end up with an expensive product.

High element counts are often a kludge to keep the image quality up while zooming. Aspheres greatly reduce the number of elements required. Some companies choose many sphericals, some choose fewer, more expensive aspheres. My point is that even asphere prices are dropping significantly.

Overall in an economy progress is when people can get more out of their limited resources. Selling more and more expensive cameras is the same strategy as the Hummer brand SUV. You can do that for a while until people get bored and move on to other things. A company that wants to continue in existence probably has to look carefully at the price performance increases in 135 format like the Nikon d800. I dont even use nikon so I am not a groupie. I think its an impressive system for the money. Soon Sony and Pentax will consumerize the 36MP for less money. They wont be quite as good as the D800 they will be maybe 2/3 the price.

In a prime lens, a cooke triplet or a 4 element double gauss will give excellent APO quality for maybe $1500-2000. When people talk of lenses like designer jewellery for many thousands $ I think they have lost the plot.

IMO of course.

[Fine_Art]

I was specifically using the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome film: color film (horrible stuff to scan, and lower resolution) was probably matched for resolution several sensor generations ago. At the Norm Koren page cited above, the highest MTF50 for any color film is 63 cycle/mm for Fujifilm Superia 100, and that brings my pixel count comparison down to "over 14MP", and less for Velvia. Does that fit more with your observations?

Back to the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome films: by all measures I see, T-MAX 100 has even better resolution that the famous but now discontinued Technical Pan:
Technical Pan MTF curves on page 9 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf
T-MAX 100 MFT curves on page 14 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Note that I stayed away from the "film is great" fanboyism by using MTF 50, not extinction resolution relevant only to very high contrast targets.


I meant the mainly as one way to get a reality check on the alleged inadequacy of 35mm format lens resolution. To DIY, dust of your old (Minolta?) 35mm film body, load some T-MAX 100, take some carefully focused photographs, scan carefully (or be old fashioned and print large!), and look.

Another way to really see what the film holds is reverse a 50mm prime or a 30mm prime. Tape the aperture open, get good backlighting on the slide and look around it. It looks great.

[RomanN.]

Why you always talk about so bad film like Tmax 100?
try Adox CMS 20, it is now also as 120 Film available.
I think when you done this you will never use Tmax again.
I scanned this film on a drum with 11000 dpi- no grain visible!
Tmax- if standard developed- you see grain at 3200 dpi.
Adox CMS is simply the best film ever made, known first as Gigabyte Film, but know in much better quality.
Just try this film and you all will see what film can delever. Forget Tmax, Delta, Techpan.
I will scann the film on my ICG with 12000 dpi when the scanner works again, I hope that the ICG can show the grain of this film.