Mamiya Leaf announces the New Leaf Credo 50

[eronald]

With my limited perspective of electronics and of semiconductor pricing, I see nothing special about the Pentax pricing. Ricoh have been a mainstream electronics company for a long time - they are not known as a charity; the Pentax brand is known for competence and many pros have used their MF products in film days; in fact quite a few forum members find that some of their old lenses are usable with the Z. There may be reasons justifying the Phase and Hassy price point, but I don't see them. Maybe as you say it's the fact that they are "professional", or that they work with the same dealers, or that they tether to existing bulletproof software.

Edmund

If I was buying a cmos digital back (I'm not)*, and I ran the numbers off the top of my head, given that I have 4 contax bodies, 6 finders, 35, 45, 55, 80 120, 140 lenses (twice for backup) two Leaf backs would cost me 50k U.S.

If I scratched everything and went with the Pentax and needed double everything, I'd be 20k for cameras, probably 30 or so for glass and other stuff, so the costs would be a wash or a little higher with the Pentax and of course with Leaf I'd
have a phone number of who to call, professional software since I use my contax fast lenses and waist level finders, along with a Leica S2 that cost me less than even the Pentax.

So the pricing  for the new credo doesn't sound "that" bad, though like everyone I'd rather see it at 15k.

For me and our present work,  where the bottom falls out with high priced still cameras, the Pentax included) is for 25k I can add another RED, which will get more use for my work than any medium format camera, or  . . . 3 more HMI's which definitely will get more use.

What I have to assume is the Leaf/Phase people know what they're doing and I don't think they're just thinking let's see what we can get away with, I assume they know what it costs to make a digital back and price it accordingly for the professional.

Which makes me wonder is Pentax making a profit off their camera, hoping to make it up on lens sales, or is there a huge economy of scale going on?

Either way I wish them all well.
_____________________

*Though I think there is nothing wrong with a cmos back, I kind if miss the point, as to me a still camera with a lot of pixels in a 43 format is usually for slower more contemplative imagery.



The first two of these images were shot with fairly low light, around 800 iso.  I never really think of needing 3200 iso for a larger, slower camera, but other image makers will differ in their needs.

50mp cmos wouldn't have changed these images one bit and for faster, more lifestyle work, I'd probably go with a smaller more flexible, faster system.


IMO

BC

[bcooter]

Hi, could you use a stop more dynamic range, live view?

Cheers,
Bart

No.

I'd like a better, more film like look, less roll your own in post and really really really like to be able to point a camera into the sun with the subject in the foreground and get that beautiful lens flare film produced  rather than the abrupt cut off of digital and most would call that more dynamic range, I think it's just the way digital works, except for the RED.

My RED's will do that, allow me to shoot with that soft lens flare and look very pretty, but overall when it comes to dynamic range, it's the role of a professional to learn how to control it with lighting, positioning, shooting at the right moment in the right place.

It seems to me that people and the camera makers want to find a machine that anyone can point in a scene, regardless of the ratios, take a snap and hold everything, but that's not how crafted photography works and having that ability doesn't change anything in my life.

That's why I showed work from these old cameras.  By the charts, blogs, sales messages you'd think if you didn't buy the latest camera you couldn't make a photograph worth showing and that's so very far from reality.

BTW:  With the REDs that truly have 14 stops of useable data, we crush the heck out of them in post to give a film like look.   Does having it help . . . sometimes, but usually not.

IMO

BC

P.S.    I have a friend that's financially well off and took a holiday with his spouse.  He photographed her, mostly backlit and he should have really used a fill card because her head was blown away on 1/2 of the images.

He asked me if I could fix them and I had two retouch teams, then I put weeks into these photographs rebuilding them piece by piece and btw: he had the latest and greatest cameras made as to him, what most of us spend on cameras he finds laying around in the creases of his sofa.

Bottom line . . .  we saved the images, they were presentable enough to run in world publication, but he could have shot them with my old 1ds, or a canon 5d, heck maybe an i phone and the results would have been the same.  Those claimed 12 stops didn't do anything, neither would 14, though at the time he was positive it would.

Funny thing is, he was holding 75 grand of cameras, but had he just bought one sheet of foam core or a 12' umbrella and paid some kid 200 bucks to hold it he would have had stunning images, because the setting, composition and subject were exceptional. 

Instead, he believed the camera brochure.   

Sometimes it takes just a little more thought, a lot less money.

[pedro39photo]

For several years i read many times that one of reasons for the huge prices in DMF (huge sensors...huge costs)
The base bodys of the Phase One are from the days of mamiya 645AF, the bodys of the H hasselblad are from the Fuji 645 AF, i know that those company's are making a huge effort and a great job for the digital medium format system, thanks for that as a photographer. But the only brand that launch a new base 645 body not a upgrade one are the cheap one...Pentax

But please, please can anyone justify or just explain me with some number or real facts why 3 or 4 systems based on the same 50MP Cmos sensor with 1.3x crop factor are so different in prices ? i know that are different backs, different brands with different costs - BUT 20.000$ difference from just a Credo 50 back, to new generation R&D body 645 system and 50MP CMOS sensor for the 645Z  

- Pentax 645Z 50 MP CMOS Medium Format DSLR Camera BODY - NO LENS - $8,496.95
- Hasselblad H5D-50c Medium Format DSLR BODY - NO LENS - $27,500.00
- Hasselblad CFV-50c - JUST BACK - $15.000
- Mamiya Credo 50 Digital Back -JUST BACK NO BODY - $27,000
- Mamiya Credo 50 Digital Back Kit with 645DF + f/2.8 80mm LS AF Lens - $30,995.00
- Mamiya 645DF+ Medium Format DSLR Camera (Body Only No LENS NO BACK NO SENSOR) - $6.000

I don´t have anything against a good company with a good product make good profit, but in this case with the same sensor, and this differences i just like to understand those price ranges in DMF, for me in the past i just could effort to by used 39MP DMF format systems under 8k now finaly its possible to buy a 50MP DMF for 10k !!! 

[JV]

For several years i read many times that one of reasons for the huge prices in DMF (huge sensors...huge costs)
The base bodys of the Phase One are from the days of mamiya 645AF, the bodys of the H hasselblad are from the Fuji 645 AF, i know that those company's are making a huge effort and a great job for the digital medium format system, thanks for that as a photographer. But the only brand that launch a new base 645 body not a upgrade one are the cheap one...Pentax

But please, please can anyone justify or just explain me with some number or real facts why 3 or 4 systems based on the same 50MP Cmos sensor with 1.3x crop factor are so different in prices ? i know that are different backs, different brands with different costs - BUT 20.000$ difference from just a back, to 645Z  

- Pentax 645Z 50 MP CMOS Medium Format DSLR Camera BODY - NO LENS - $8,496.95
- Hasselblad H5D-50c Medium Format DSLR BODY - NO LENS - $27,500.00
- Mamiya Credo 50 Digital Back -JUST BACK NO BODY - $27,000
- Mamiya Credo 50 Digital Back Kit with 645DF + f/2.8 80mm LS AF Lens - $30,995.00
- Mamiya 645DF+ Medium Format DSLR Camera (Body Only No LENS NO BACK) - $6.000

I don´t have anything against a good company with a good product make good profit, but in this case with the same sensor, and this differences i just like to understand those price ranges in DMF

And additionally the Pentax has better high ISO as well

I quite honestly don't think Phase and Hasselblad see Pentax as a competitor…

And for that arrogance they deserve to get their collective asses kicked!!  

I sincerely hope Pentax does well and that it reshapes the MF market.  In my opinion it is very much needed.  

[Theodoros]

And additionally the Pentax has better high ISO as well

I quite honestly don't think Phase and Hasselblad see Pentax as a competitor…

And for that arrogance they deserve to get their collective asses kicked!!  

I sincerely hope Pentax does well and that it reshapes the MF market.  In my opinion it is very much needed.  

They will do well... and they'll do even better if alongside the Z, they'll split the Z in two... a body and a back... and then make the (surely cheaper than the Z) back available for "the usual suspects"! That will really heart the competition but more than that, it will fill Ricoh pockets up.
Hey you guys in Pentax... please consider an interchangeable finder for the stand alone body and perhaps pay a visit to Zeiss premises in Tokyo for some resurrection of the C645 glass? 

[Ken R]

Pentax is Missing Leaf Shutter lenses (and more/better new lens choices), better tethering implementation and MUCH better service and support (expect to be without your camera 10 weeks if it needs service/repair). That last one is a HUGE deal for professionals or anyone who would not like to be without their gear for two months should anything go wrong.

IF Pentax fixes those things then the 645Z will basically be in a position kill the others among a good chunk of buyers. But I don't see that happening soon.

The Leaf Credo 50 / Phase IQ250 back will still be the best choice for those who want a removable back to be used on a wide range of systems with solid service and support (including software). No other option there.

I like the Hasselblad system but it seems moronic that they keep using a crappy screen on a new back/dslr system. I mean, its 2014 people, get with the program!

The Leica S system is solid and with the rumored 50mp CMOS Leica S almost out, the system should continue to be a player for many more years. 

All in all its great to have so many choices.

[JV]

expect to be without your camera 10 weeks if it needs service/repair

Ken,

I really feel this is a little bit unfair...

Given 30 minutes of Google time I am pretty sure I can come up with similar horror stories for Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad and Leica.  And for Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.

Also, the Leaf back is more than 3x the price of a Pentax 645Z and that is without the DF body, so you can easily buy a second 645Z body and still have more than $10K spare…

The main reasons to not invest in Pentax 645Z are in my opinion:

-) lack of leaf shutter lenses for fast flash synch
-) lack of robust tethering
-) lack of a removable back for tech cam usage
-) already being too deeply invested in another system

If none of this applies the Pentax 645Z is in my opinion a no-brainer if you want to shoot MF digital.

Best, Joris.

[torger]

For several years i read many times that one of reasons for the huge prices in DMF (huge sensors...huge costs)

That was a smoke screen. Huge sensors are costly indeed, and even the Pentax 645z is not a cheap camera, but Phase One products costs at least $20k more than they would need with a different business model. The business model is the reason. High cost sales channels with work-intensive sales, reaching only a small market. As far as I understand Phase One makes quite some money too, so they probably have a quite fat profit margin on top that customers obviously accept.

The products has so far not had much mass-market appeal. The 645z works just as any DSLR, and you don't really need a dealer-education to understand how to use and make the best of the camera, or at least you don't expect that you get that but you need to find out for yourself. The traditional digital MF systems are a bit more narrow in use case and gain more from having someone that can educate the customer. They are often released a bit early too so they may have all sorts of hickups before firmware has been fixed, and obviously you need to have a good dealer contact to pass this period without too much pain. It's difficult to change business model. However, Hasselblad has kind of opened up for that by selling their cameras through places like B&H... so I don't know maybe there will be as shift towards broader and more cost-effective sales channels.

With CMOS sensors and better bodies the MF cameras get more mass-market appeal, which could make this possible. Of course, you'd lose service compared to today, so it's not only advantages. Oh well, I personally prefer having a product that works and is well documented and has a healthy user community accessible through forums like this than having a sales person call me now and then to try make me upgrade, but that's maybe just me.

[RomanN.]

Nice back indeed,
but the price...
I think Leaf would make a big step to make the most popular back ( like Phase one 45 was) when the price would be like this of Hasselblad cvf 50c. This would make medium format itself really interesting for much wider groups of users, not only for commercial photographers.
But now the price is twice then the cvf 50 c.
The big price differences between between Pentax 645z, CVF50 c and Leaf 50 c (same Sony chip, same possible image quality) cant be justified, even with big edvertising promotion.
A back only solution open for all systems with this sony chip an Live view for the price of the whole Pentax 645 z is realistic to produce.
The company who will go this way first could be the winner in this game. Maybe someone from Pentax read this forum...