Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: digital back prices  (Read 14812 times)

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
digital back prices
« on: February 22, 2014, 12:43:11 pm »

with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system?  you can't tell me that the high end mfdb  cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a  d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2014, 12:59:34 pm »

Each company offers a very wide range of products. If you want the absolute latest and greatest then it is, for each company, quite expensive. Bear in mind a lot of those latest and greatest will be purchased via an upgrade from a previous back at above the market value for that back, and therefore not a ton get purchased for $30k.

But more to your point you can get a NEW Credo 40 with DF+ and 80D lens for a hair under $13k. Yes, that's a promotion and not a permanent price, but the point stands that Team P1 offers very very good products at a wider price range than the flagship models.

Also remember that most Team Phase One Dealers are speciality value added partners that spend a lot of time and effort to provide a good range of pre-owned digital backs which can go down to around $5k for a back+body+lens with a warranty and dealer support/training/testing/rental-towards-purchase (it's hard to be more specific since pricing here is a lot more fluid since inventory changes nearly daily and a lot depends on shot count, mount, warranty, and condition - and posts on the internet last forever; we don't always have a kit that low, but almost always have something in the $6-$8k range).

These kits offer a point of entry into medium format for many customers who then later upgrade. Since Team P1 products are modular they can upgrade just the lens (e.g. from an 80 non D for a 80LS) or the body (e.g. an AFDII to a DF+ or from H1 to H4X) or just the back (e.g. P30 non plus to a Credo 40).

So while there are offerings at $30-40k (as Steve has rightly pointed out, this is the price range we've seen flagship models at for the entire history of medium format), there are also new offerings down in the $11-$14k range and pre-owned offerings of backs that still easily beat a 5DIII in image quality and have a wide variety of usability/flexibility advantages* over a 5DIII (e.g. tech camera, view camera compatibility, sync speed, WLF, C1 tethering speed, etc)

*Obviously the 5DIII or other dSLRS likewise have many usability/flexibility advantages like higher ISO, video, IS lenses, etc - no need to rehash these here. The point is that there are very compelling reasons to go with a pre-owned back than a new dSLR for many users/uses.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 01:10:11 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2014, 01:04:55 pm »

i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products.

Two thirds of the IQ250s we've sold in the last two weeks were to full time professionals or rental studios. Half of the pros purchased via a lease-to-own, but fall into the category that were already paying to rent backs on a frequent and regular basis anyway, so will actually be (I know it's weird to say this) saving money. Don't get me wrong, it's only been two weeks so I'm not talking about high volumes of units, but I'd expect as sales continue that we'll see similar ratios.

Obviously every market is different. NYC is going to have a different ratio (and absolute volume) in that regard than, for instance, Utah.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 01:18:13 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2014, 01:32:01 pm »

with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system?  you can't tell me that the high end mfdb  cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a  d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
Other that if one wants to buy a car ….he buys a car and one that wants to buy a camera ….buys a camera (as with stereos, home cinema, clothes and everything else), I would say that MF makers have followed a short minded policy with respect to the needs of the market, that has forced many traditional MF & LF users to turn their interest at lower size sensors thus restricting their base of possible customers to dangerous (to secure survival) low levels.
The basics of my opinion on the "ill market" is:

1. The wrong policy they followed with part exchanges
2. Hasselblad's decision to "close" their H system and stop making MFDBs
3. Price category depending on resolution
4. Design of products with DSLR consumer priorities
5. Absence of competition

However… I'm optimistic for the future! If one would ask my opinion three months ago, I would say for sure that MF wouldn't make it against the next generation of FF DSLRs …but, after Leica invested on Sinar I can see all the mistakes stated above answered… I believe that with Leica/Sinar's next move on the MF market (whatever that may be), the competition will have to review their today policy… After all, Leica can compete great against "the larger sensor DSLR idea" and Sinar, is the only maker that provides dedicated to traditional MF/LF photography specialised equipment.
Logged

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2014, 02:44:05 pm »

{Two thirds of the IQ250s we've sold in the last two weeks were to full time professionals or rental studios.} doug that is my point exactly. the middle class amateur photographer like myself does not have the ability to write off the equipment as does the professional or rental studios. there are many of us that have purchased the top of the line canon or nikon who would love to use medium format. i had a cfv-16 that i loved and used with both my 503 and arca swiss 6x9. i sold it and bought the d800 so i could have the ability to shoot wide and the leaf 40 is still a cropped sensor for what i do. now if phase one had the sensor size of a p45 in a back with just the basics, no long exposure, etc and priced it as an everyday entry level back into the phase one family i believe phase one would have a winner. don't get me wrong the promotional price is great for the credo 40 but i am not in the market for a new camera body or lens. now if there was a price for the back only that would fit the hasselblad v system (as well as any other mf system) and since i have the arca swiss adapter for v backs, now you have my attention and there are many photographers with the v systems out there that would also love an entry level back. now you have them hooked and like myself those who would purchase to use on a tech camera could now look for wide angle lenses, since they have saved mucho money on their back purchase, to use with the cropped sensor. an add-on for your company. win win. and doug you have always been helpful here on this forum as well as when i talked to you through e-mail.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2014, 03:33:50 pm »

With Phase, the price is part of the product.

Look at it like a Nike shoe - sure a lot of R&D goes into it, but ultimately it is a piece of plastic and costs $200. If the Nike shoe didn't cost $200, the people who are buying it now wouldn't be buying it. I'm pretty certain that is true, because when I was a kid my parents used to send me by myself to buy canvas and rubber laced athletic shoes - they were that cheap - and now the same canvas and rubber shoes are retailed in Paris near where I live, with a label stuck on, for the price of decent meal for two people.

Interestingly, some of those who *work* with shoes have doubts, and conjecture that running shoes actually cause injuries, and that competitive track runners would do well without shoes.

“I can’t prove this, but I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.”
— Vin Lananna, Director of Track and Field for the University of Oregon and seven-time NCAA Coach of the Year.
“Shoes do no more for the foot than a hat does for the brain.”
—Dr. Mercer Rang, the legendary orthopedic surgeon and researcher in pediatric development.

Of course, I wont go as far as saying that MF harms the brain of the user, but then many would say that anyone who forks out that amount of moolah for an MF system is already past help :)

Now, let me toggle the joke switch to off :) . It is clear, as the OP states that there is a disconnect between the stated price policies of P and H and the apparent engineering required to make these things. What is actually going on is not clear, but Pentax seem poised to cash in on the price escalation of the other actors.

Edmund


with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system?  you can't tell me that the high end mfdb  cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a  d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 03:47:55 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

buckshot

  • Guest
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2014, 03:43:40 pm »

The 'reassuringly expensive' business model adopted by P1 is fine for fancy Belgian beer, but - in my opinion - not a viable long term strategy for DBs. It's worked up 'til now - good for them - but will it do so for another 21 years?

If P1 had gone down a different road (cheaper cost of entry / more users) then maybe they wouldn't have needed to go cap-in-hand to a Vulture Capitalist. Sorry, I mean Venture Capitalist.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2014, 03:53:08 pm »

But in that parallel universe, John wouldn't have married Yoko, the Beatles would still be singing Love Me Do in annual reunion concerts, and Doug Peterson would have been the founder of B&H  :)

Edmund

The 'reassuringly expensive' business model adopted by P1 is fine for fancy Belgian beer, but - in my opinion - not a viable long term strategy for DBs. It's worked up 'til now - good for them - but will it do so for another 21 years?

If P1 had gone down a different road (cheaper cost of entry / more users) then maybe they wouldn't have needed to go cap-in-hand to a Vulture Capitalist. Sorry, I mean Venture Capitalist.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 03:55:55 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Ramirez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
    • silent-moment.com
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2014, 06:14:31 pm »

MF is expensive compared to 135. But it is not much if you are running successfully a photographic business. If I would by a company car for $40.000 people would think: cool, this guy has a new car bought with money he earned in photography. If I spend the same amount in camera equipment they say: are you crazy to spend that much money for a camera. Actually it should be vice versa. The investment in the equipment is far more intelligent and will give me some advantages and revenue. A car will give me none of that, that is just lost money. I hope you get the point here, there a many photographers who need to invest in order to reduce the tax load. So why don't by expensive gear?

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2014, 06:53:28 pm »

MF is expensive compared to 135. But it is not much if you are running successfully a photographic business. If I would by a company car for $40.000 people would think: cool, this guy has a new car bought with money he earned in photography. If I spend the same amount in camera equipment they say: are you crazy to spend that much money for a camera. Actually it should be vice versa. The investment in the equipment is far more intelligent and will give me some advantages and revenue. A car will give me none of that, that is just lost money. I hope you get the point here, there a many photographers who need to invest in order to reduce the tax load. So why don't by expensive gear?

again i say can either hasselblad or phase one live long term on a business model that only professional photographers, and rental outlets who have the ability to write off gear is their predominate purchaser.. mr. ramirez as a business person if product a and product b both mfdb's could do the job for you and one is half the price, which are you going to buy. are prices high because businesses who buy the backs are able to depreciate the investment,(doug said that 2/3s of the buys were at the professional end for the new 250) and so the initial price is not taken into consideration, because the price cannot be warranted  just by the cost of r&d, parts and labor to build the back.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2014, 07:02:59 pm »

a bmw 4 series car
the problem with the car is it can't take photos...
Logged

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2014, 07:49:46 pm »

with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system?  you can't tell me that the high end mfdb  cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a  d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.


For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.

I don't understand your point when you quote someone who says they can't tell the difference between a Nikon D800 with an Otus and MFD. If that's the case, then aren't you getting the opportunity you want by being able to affordably buy the Nikon?

What problem is presented for you, David?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2014, 08:13:37 pm »

with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system?  you can't tell me that the high end mfdb  cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a  d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.

Please stop quoting me in the wrong context.

I demonstrated how 3 images from 3 cameras can be processed to look similar. My point was that it takes a lot more work to get there with 35mm than with MFDB and that's why I prefer to use the latter (Plus also, the shooting experience I get with MF). Others may have different preferences.

Like Steve said, if one can't tell the images apart, why not live happily ever after with the D800?
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2014, 08:54:19 pm »


For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.

I don't understand your point when you quote someone who says they can't tell the difference between a Nikon D800 with an Otus and MFD. If that's the case, then aren't you getting the opportunity you want by being able to affordably buy the Nikon?

What problem is presented for you, David?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

it's not a problem for me but it will be a problem for phase one and hasselblad and again you answer my question. the mf market is small. why is it small? because the prices are way out of line. i didn't quote that they couldn't see a difference, what i said was the difference was very small and that knowledgeable people have a difficult time seeing the difference. at no time did i say that there isn't a difference. and yes with zeiss producing dslr lenses that blow everything away and nikon and canon set to launch in the not to distant future large 40 to low 50 mp cameras and pentax with their price point on the same sensor as the 250, it will leave the top 2 mfdb producers in a tough situation in the future if they stay with there pricing policy. the cost of creating mfdb's is in no way indicative of the selling price. canon and nikon have better live view and better af systems. the sensor is the same for nikon who use the sony sensor. phase one and hasselblad cmos sensors are sony sensors that sell for around $1,000 to $3,000 depending on what forum you want to believe. sony has done the research on the sensor so what is left. its not just me but many on this forum also believe that the prices are way out of line. as doug said 2/3 of the 250 sales from his company were to professionals. you can't live by professionals alone because as i said earlier, it is the amateur photographer who in the long run keeps a manufacturer in business. look what has happened to the compact digital camera. it has all but gone away because of iphone cameras. mf imo is just one economic downturn away from disaster if they don't increase their base of photographers and the best way to do that is having realistic prices. why can pentax sell the equivalant of the 250 for 1/3 the price? yes it is bare bones but many would love this as a bore bones back that can be picked up at the same price as the pentax and attach to their camera. 
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2014, 08:55:02 pm »


For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.

I don't understand your point when you quote someone who says they can't tell the difference between a Nikon D800 with an Otus and MFD. If that's the case, then aren't you getting the opportunity you want by being able to affordably buy the Nikon?

What problem is presented for you, David?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
David's thinking of marketing and judgment of performance, is clearly of one that has little or no self experience of the products that he addresses to… However, there is no doubt, that P1 can charge whatever they want, taking advantage from the fact that they have no competition in the MFDB market… It's not their fault…, it's clearly Hasselblad's fault…, If Hasselblad didn't "close" the H system and if they didn't discontinue the CF (with interchangeable adapters) series, P1 would have never be the "monopoly winner"… MFDB market would have been at more than 50K units annually by now and prices would be significantly lower, while quality would have advanced more… Ooh, I insist! …it's all Hasselblad's fault, they thought (when they had the upper hand) of taking it all and they ended up a step (now) from loosing everything... More than that… MF market shrinks because no one will trust a market that is run by one company only... MF market is about providing in photography things that DSLRs can't… It has nothing to do with sensor size… MF market's reasons of existence is for modularity, multishot, View/Tech camera compatibility, …anything that provides solution to a specialist. For people that want to buy better than DSLR, there is Pentax and Leica S, but this is not MF… It's only larger sensor DSLR that one can wait and enjoy it a few years later by a future model DSLR… My 528c however, has never had an alternative, …neither it will ever have! It will stay up there on the absolute "Everest" of what MF photography is, because it provides the solutions that MF makers no longer provide... All hopes are with Sinar now… Unless if Hassy wakes up from the "lunar nirvana" and puts some "Solar energy" into MF values, by putting the H4x (or other "open") as major platform and goes back to provide self contained backs for all MF cameras in the market… (inc. H4x of course) :-* Just my 2Cs…  ;)
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2014, 09:39:44 pm »

the mf market is small. why is it small? because the prices are way out of line.

If it is THAT easy to build a cheap  MF camera and subsequently expand the size of the market, Canon and Nikon would have done it already.

Look, this "I can't afford MF" argument has been around since forever. No one says that you HAVE TO buy the IQ250 at 30k. You can shoot with 35mm or get a used MF kit for 4-5K. Even those whoa re buying the IQ250 are probably trading something in and paying a lot less than the list price.

Price positioning of brands isn't something that will change just because some people scream "This price doesn't make sense to me". It does for other people. It's the same reason $300 Dell notebooks and $2,000 macbook pros co-exist.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2014, 09:50:02 pm »

David's thinking of marketing and judgment of performance, is clearly of one that has little or no self experience of the products that he addresses to… However, there is no doubt, that P1 can charge whatever they want, taking advantage from the fact that they have no competition in the MFDB market… It's not their fault…, it's clearly Hasselblad's fault…, If Hasselblad didn't "close" the H system and if they didn't discontinue the CF (with interchangeable adapters) series, P1 would have never be the "monopoly winner"… MFDB market would have been at more than 50K units annually by now and prices would be significantly lower, while quality would have advanced more… Ooh, I insist! …it's all Hasselblad's fault, they thought (when they had the upper hand) of taking it all and they ended up a step (now) from loosing everything... More than that… MF market shrinks because no one will trust a market that is run by one company only... MF market is about providing in photography things that DSLRs can't… It has nothing to do with sensor size… MF market's reasons of existence is for modularity, multishot, View/Tech camera compatibility, …anything that provides solution to a specialist. For people that want to buy better than DSLR, there is Pentax and Leica S, but this is not MF… It's only larger sensor DSLR that one can wait and enjoy it a few years later by a future model DSLR… My 528c however, has never had an alternative, …neither it will ever have! It will stay up there on the absolute "Everest" of what MF photography is, because it provides the solutions that MF makers no longer provide... All hopes are with Sinar now… Unless if Hassy wakes up from the "lunar nirvana" and puts some "Solar energy" into MF values, by putting the H4x (or other "open") as major platform and goes back to provide self contained backs for all MF cameras in the market… (inc. H4x of course) :-* Just my 2Cs…  ;)

excuse me, if you would have read my post i did own the cfv-16 which is the big fat pixel back that you have been fighting for on another thread. i have a post graduate degree in finance and accounting and have backpacked large format 8x10 and 8x20 cameras in the high sierra for platinum photography. to say i have little or no knowledge is an insult. no i have not used the latest phase one equipment but that doesn't preclude me from speaking about price. the d800 is my first dslr and i bought it because the prices for digital backs were out of my price range. to rent in the area i live is not possible even though i am 80 miles from yosemite and 35 miles from sequoia/kings canyon. maybe i should purchase to rent to others so i can have a write off or one of the big mfdb companies would like to set up shop near these fantastic locations.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2014, 10:43:40 pm »


For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.
teve Hendrix
Capture Integration


Wonderfully said. The distribution and marketing costs of luxury goods are of necessity high to achieve the luxury positioning, and thereby justify the luxury pricing for said goods. You should be teaching a course in a Paris fashion business school.

A few years ago a restaurant opened over here, nice menu, tables, cutlery, service, high bill. The originality was no food was served, but in spite or because of this feature the place did stay open ... for a while.  

Edmund
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 10:48:44 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2014, 10:49:18 pm »

If it is THAT easy to build a cheap  MF camera and subsequently expand the size of the market, Canon and Nikon would have done it already.

Look, this "I can't afford MF" argument has been around since forever. No one says that you HAVE TO buy the IQ250 at 30k. You can shoot with 35mm or get a used MF kit for 4-5K. Even those whoa re buying the IQ250 are probably trading something in and paying a lot less than the list price.

Price positioning of brands isn't something that will change just because some people scream "This price doesn't make sense to me". It does for other people. It's the same reason $300 Dell notebooks and $2,000 macbook pros co-exist.

no canon and nikon would not have done it already because they would also have to retool factories or build new factories to build the mf cameras as well as for a new set of lenses. so what you say makes no sense in that regard. when the nikon f5 was released in 1996 it was priced at $2300, ($3400 in todays dollars pretty much the same price as a d800) while the hasselblad 503 was $5,000 ($7483 in todays dollars.) a little more than 2x. so no it is not i can't afford argument as you state that has been going on forever because the price difference wasn't that great and mf had considerable more practitioners than today. as for complaining as you say to change prices, no, but price does change when new competition comes in or when sales start to drop.  as for apple, their computer sales have become stagnate downward because of price, and apple management see it continuing. so yes the dells of the world are growing and eating into apples market share. so no they are not co-existing, one is growing, dell, which in 2013 had a 7.4% growth in computer sales while the market as a whole including apple were down 6.9%. i would say price was a major factor for those numbers. i don't know if you are old enough but many of my generation remember the 1971 intro of the bowmar brain calculator that sold for $240 which in today's inflated dollars would be $1400. they were the first to make a digital calculator but competitors came into the market, undercut the brain, and bowmar left the calculator business. i don't believe canon or nikon will enter the mf market for the reasons i stated earlier, but i could see sony, since they developed the sensor and they have a working relationship with zeiss for their lenses. so yes price is very important if you want to survive.
Logged

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: digital back prices
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2014, 10:49:36 pm »

it's not a problem for me but it will be a problem for phase one and hasselblad and again you answer my question. the mf market is small. why is it small? because the prices are way out of line. i didn't quote that they couldn't see a difference, what i said was the difference was very small and that knowledgeable people have a difficult time seeing the difference. at no time did i say that there isn't a difference. and yes with zeiss producing dslr lenses that blow everything away and nikon and canon set to launch in the not to distant future large 40 to low 50 mp cameras and pentax with their price point on the same sensor as the 250, it will leave the top 2 mfdb producers in a tough situation in the future if they stay with there pricing policy. the cost of creating mfdb's is in no way indicative of the selling price. canon and nikon have better live view and better af systems. the sensor is the same for nikon who use the sony sensor. phase one and hasselblad cmos sensors are sony sensors that sell for around $1,000 to $3,000 depending on what forum you want to believe. sony has done the research on the sensor so what is left. its not just me but many on this forum also believe that the prices are way out of line. as doug said 2/3 of the 250 sales from his company were to professionals. you can't live by professionals alone because as i said earlier, it is the amateur photographer who in the long run keeps a manufacturer in business. look what has happened to the compact digital camera. it has all but gone away because of iphone cameras. mf imo is just one economic downturn away from disaster if they don't increase their base of photographers and the best way to do that is having realistic prices. why can pentax sell the equivalant of the 250 for 1/3 the price? yes it is bare bones but many would love this as a bore bones back that can be picked up at the same price as the pentax and attach to their camera. 


David

You're making the case for a desire, not a business plan. There are numerous assumptions in your statement that are skin-deep in real information. Only one example being that "Sony has done the research on the sensor, so what is left?" By this basis, one could say the same thing about every sensor that has been created for medium format. I'm pretty sure there's quite a lot left.

But anyway - the market for MFD isn't small because the prices are "way out of line". The market is small, because that is how MFD wants it (IMO). You have a small, but passionate target market that can afford your products and eagerly looks forward to the next generation. Your entry level products approach affordability for a larger market, and 2nd hand, previous generation products enrich this larger, secondary market as well, many of whom eventually find their way toward being able to afford one of the higher end systems.

Why would Phase One want to create products that costs less, that sell to more? By doing so, they necessarily lose a piece of their technological advantage, as inevitably, compromises are made in order to push product pricing downward, in order to attain greater unit sales numbers. By doing so, they lose ground to the companies that already play in those lower price point markets, in terms of their unique feature set advantages.

It is a huge risk, because to lower price points where I imagine you think they should be, Phase One would have to sell many, may, many times more the number of units they sell now. It is a very different market approach. I believe the pricing and the technology, and the capability/drive - whatever you wish to call it - to create products that fulfill their ambitions is a result of their market approach and this would suffer greatly by adopting a larger market approach. Or at least it would have a tremendous potential to.

Look - I personally want every single person who is passionate about photography, that loves creating images, to be able to afford whatever tool they would love to use for that purpose. I do wish MFD was more affordable for those individuals. But not at the expense of the health of any company that makes truly excellent products for photography.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up