This is about marketing . . . right?
Since this thread started out as a link to an article about a phase one camera that is not in production yet, with no specifics on features, delivery or costs you have to assume it's just marketing, a way to keep the buzz going.
I don't know about most photographers but I'm curious, does this move anybody to buy anything, or consider phase over some other brand based on conjecture?
I find medium format strange, or at least some medium format companies. I get the feeling they're driving down the road looking in the rearview mirror rather than the windshield. Every now and then they stop the car and say, hey we're gonna be real good real soon. then get back in the car and drive looking in the mirror.
No photographer, ad agency or client will admit or even propose they want their images to be cheap looking or lacking in quality, but once again they will demand their images to be still, to be moving, to be good and be faster, less expensive, and oh yea better than before.
That's the view from the windshield and whoever makes equipment that works with that view will prosper, those that don't will keep on marketing.
When I see these articles on the "new" Phase, the HY6, the Pentax (which took about 5 years), the Canon rumors of a larger format it means nothing to me, because it's nothing I can use today. Actually it kind of pushes me away from a brand because I don't believe it till i've seen it and even if I do believe it I don't have time to wait for it.
No knock on Phase because they all do it, but let's get real, this thread has almost come to blows mostly with a few Phase defenders that are rabid about microns and "superior image quality" though hardly anybody talks about or shows photography.
To me, it just seems like cheap marketing and to anyone pushing a specific brand if your not getting paid for all that public loyalty, you should submit and invoice for services rendered.
But since this whole thread is either a defense or rebuke of a marketing effort, If I made a very expensive cameras, I think I would align myself with expensive looking images and place a ban on marketing images of brick walls, alley's, rainy streets and snapshots.
Let the pictures do the talking, because that's what pictures are for.
I strongly suggest looking at the way Hasselblad markets, because they kind of get the idea that expensive cameras are good for making expensive looking photographs.
Today I opened my e-mail box to the usual 395 messages, mostly spam about deals, offers, lower cost studio rental, apprentices that would love to work for free and a few dozen companies from the Ukraine that want to improve my sexual performance.
Anyway, from the three medium format players was a leaf ad of the 80mpx back stuck on a old V system, a Phase One software tip (I think) and a link to the new Hasselblad Victor magazine. I tossed everything but the blad link and opened up Victor.
Now this I understand because it's not just about a camera, or a light or a software seminar, it's about really pretty pictures from very good photographers. So pretty that it makes me want to buy a blad and no offense to anyone, but today I don't need to buy any new still cameras, so if showing pretty pictures can move me to consider a purchase, then I think that might be a good plan for all the companies.
IMO, Hasselblad pretty much gets it. They're not showing a 4 page spread of a camera to come, they're showing real photographs, produced beautifully from their current cameras and even using photographs shot with strobe and high sync (which is something they've had for a long time).
Pretty pictures.
That's what get's my blood flowing, not talks about microns, quotes about whose driving what ship, or the last three days to save 30% on software, or protect 90% of your camera investment.
Trust me, don't invest in cameras . . . use cameras.
BC
P.S. Just a suggestion to the Hasselblad Company. Stop that silly consuming log in procedure to view Victor. Just make it an e-mail address and send the link to everyone in the world, not just photographers, but clients, ad agencies, designers, anyone in the communications and arts industries (which pretty much means everyone). Keep the brand name going and make it a household word. Also give the contributors some reason to be published in the magazine rather than peer gratification, because after all photographers have to market too.
IMO.