Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: shootingalot on March 28, 2016, 05:17:38 am
-
I am working with MF gear in the past 3-4 years and constantly upgraded. What i experienced is a
painful reality when it comes to pre owned gear. P1 lenses in general i don't like unless its stopped
down. Schneider on the other hand are wonderful. However, get back to the bodies and backs.
P40+ is an excellent back, even being about 7 years old technology , still beats 5dsr or nikon cameras
any day. A good quality P40+ what i am trying to sell for a while now, i don't even get a single email
on a $5k asking price with Pelican case, papers, cables and all original parts. Not sure why is this huge
value loss. DF+ bodies are selling around $1200-$1500 on a good day used, Schneider lens i am getting
offers on my 80mm for $900.... Phase One should price a little more realistically. While you are a canon
user buying a 50mm f1.2 or 35mm f1.4 , they will sell for about $1200 in a blink of an eye...
I love MF and won't even try to compare the quality to a 35mm system. However, When i see that a back
once costs $20k+ and had to deal with the DF and DF+ issues forever with stuck mirrors, error codes ,
finally P1 comes out with a body that looks like a camera body we been waiting for, it does not support
the P backs... For the money paid and talking about sensors used in an IQ140 which will work on the XF,
i expect more from P1.. Not sure what is your experience selling MF gear but we are losing a lot of money
when selling. Upgrade options are not better with dealers as well. I guess its just something we have to swallow.
-
P40+ is an excellent back, even being about 7 years old technology , still beats 5dsr or nikon cameras
any day.
I love MF and won't even try to compare the quality to a 35mm system.
???
Maybe, if you did compare to similar resolution cameras from Sony and Nikon, you would understand why you are not able to sell it for the price you ask.
-
As all cameras, their purchase should IMHO be planned on top of a business plan targeting ROI from camera usage and a very low cash back from equipment sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well I think there are a few things at work here:
1. Normal loss of value over time. I bought a 5D Mk II in 2010 and paid about 2000€ for it. 2015 it sold for less than 700€, meaning it was reduced to a third of its value over 5 years. So your back might be considered to have an estimated value of 5.000$.
2. Low value for a trade-in. If you buy a back and you intend to get a deal from P1 in a few years this has to be considered. If P1 offered more for used backs the situation would change, but currently they themselves are devaluing the backs on the 2nd hand market.
3. Additional cost of equipment. A digital back needs a body and a lens and a stable tripod, capable computer,... all in all it's more expensive than a small format camera, even when it's 2nd hand. As you said the 80mm 2.8 will still fetch a hefty 2nd hand price of 900-1000$ which should actually be compared to a 50mm 1.4 - and those are very cheap. The 50mm 1.2 are very rare and that's what defines the price on the used market. But there are a lot of 80mm 2.8 around, just do a quick eBay-search. If you have to buy all that expensive additional equipment that will drive the price on the 2nd hand market down. Nobody wants to spend a lot when they're already on a budget.
4. Technological advances. Yes, the P40+ still delivers great images but it has a CCD chip and many people are dismayed by that. While CCDs are (to me) great and just as good as CMOS sensors at low ISO settings, they aren't as good at higher ISO. That limits their use somewhat. So a new high resolution CMOS sensor inside a complete camera will be much more appealing than an old high resolution CCD sensor on a back without a camera.
5. Limited upgradability. As you said, the P+ can't be used on XF bodies. That means you won't be able to use the latest camera and that will drive the price down even further. If you want to get a new body you're reduced to the AFD, AFDII, DF and DF+ - all of which have a lousy AF system and some knows problems (the DF+ is pretty stable, though).
Also let's not forget that the DF and DF+ do have their inherit limitations, they are not as "nice" as a new compact 35mm SLR.
In short: there isn't that much demand for old backs - and if there is, it's mostly for backs like the P45+ or ones with higher resolution (60mp+)
Also you should consider the fact that while the P40+ is a great back, it's heavily cropped - about 1.3x. That's not always a good thing or something that people desire if they get into MF photography.
-
I am sympathetic to your frustration but all digital equipment depreciate due to rapid advancements in the state of the art. Computers, TVs, BlueRay players, cameras or digital backs.
Such rapid product cycles are both good and bad. Good because consumers have the ability to experience the technological advancements very quickly. Bad because the prior purchases have a sharp downward slope as far as their resale value. Older film cameras e.g. TLRs or 617 panoramics etc. fare far better in terms ot resale values, since they do not become any more obsolete than they already were a couple of years ago.
The second point regarding the comparison to 35mm is that its a far smaller pool of buyers interested in MF equipment in comparison to 35mm. So in some ways its demand and supply.
The third point is that without question digital backs are absurdly priced to begin with which makes the actual $$ hit very painful.
-
Technology moves forward. Older digital backs produce excellent image quality just as you say, but most people want the newer stuff regardless of the quality of the older systems. Latest and greatest. Now with full-frame 100 MP with 15 stops of DR and CMOS live view available, who wants a 40 megapixel crop sensor with a crappy LCD? Not that many, and that shows in the price.
If you're one that can appreciate the quality of legacy stuff (like I do myself), there's an excellent opportunity to simply be the one that gains from the majority's preference of newer gear. Stay a bit behind the latest and buy pre-owned stuff. It's a buyers market. Price/performance of MFD has never been better -- if you buy pre-owned / second hand.
-
If you're one that can appreciate the quality of legacy stuff (like I do myself), there's an excellent opportunity to simply be the one that gains from the majority's preference of newer gear. Stay a bit behind the latest and buy pre-owned stuff. It's a buyers market. Price/performance of MFD has never been better -- if you buy pre-owned / second hand.
I agree! :)
Nobody can tell the difference between an IQ360 or a P65+ or an IQ140 or a P40+ - and both the P65+ and P40+ are getting very very affordable.
No point in buying MF gear for the resale value, it's not real estate nor jewelry. For that you have the Leica M system, Rolex and the like.
That's it. The only cameras you 'can' buy as an investment are collectors items such as certain Leicas or semi-historical cameras like a Deardorff (they'll keep their value even after years). But digital cameras are rarely worth collecting and lose their worth quickly. They are simply put tools. Very sophisticated tools but not an investment per se, as you use them and with use they lose value.
-
The resale market sucks because the pool is very very shallow, and very wide. Photographers aren't reaching higher and going with MF gear as a lot of their 'issues' have been solved with things like the B1/B2's.
I wouldn't ask Phase to take a loss on gear, but I would ask them to help drive interest with more events, especially showcasing CPO/refurb gear. Not everyone can afford a IQ3 100MP kit, but get someone into a P/P+ back on their RZ and life should be amazing. Come to think about it, with the pack film situation, I wonder if there will be a drive to utilize these older backs for test shots.
-
I am working with MF gear in the past 3-4 years and constantly upgraded. What i experienced is a painful reality when it comes to pre owned gear. P1 lenses in general i don't like unless its stopped
down. Schneider on the other hand are wonderful. However, get back to the bodies and backs. P40+ is an excellent back, even being about 7 years old technology , still beats 5dsr or nikon cameras
any day. A good quality P40+ what i am trying to sell for a while now, i don't even get a single email on a $5k asking price with Pelican case, papers, cables and all original parts. Not sure why is this huge
value loss. DF+ bodies are selling around $1200-$1500 on a good day used, Schneider lens i am getting offers on my 80mm for $900....
Phase One should price a little more realistically. While you are a canon user buying a 50mm f1.2 or 35mm f1.4 , they will sell for about $1200 in a blink of an eye... I love MF and won't even try to compare the quality to a 35mm system. However, When i see that a back once costs $20k+ and had to deal with the DF and DF+ issues forever with stuck mirrors, error codes, finally P1 comes out with a body that looks like a camera body we been waiting for, it does not support the P backs... For the money paid and talking about sensors used in an IQ140 which will work on the XF, i expect more from P1.. Not sure what is your experience selling MF gear but we are losing a lot of money when selling. Upgrade options are not better with dealers as well. I guess its just something we have to swallow.
I'm not surprised with the resale value of your P-40+ back... With new Hasselblad CFV-50c Cmos back selling at the price it is, or with Pentax 645Z costing even lees, not many will invest on a CCD back that (despite its quality) won't work with the modern XF platform, is not supported by P1 for future use, is not very good at high ISO and... one can't fit on different platform.
I'm sure that if your back was for a different platform , or if it used interchangeable plates that would adapt it in different platforms, it would have sold from day 1... IMO, other than P1's insane pricing policy for new backs, there are two more faults in their marketing policies...
1. They decided to exclude ALL backs that where for the older M/P1 645 interface but the IQ ones... (no reason to do so what so ever),
2. They charge unreasonable to alter a back's fitting from one platform to another... just my two cents...
-
The issue of IQ only backs on th XF is very understandable. If you follow the feature enhancements that Phase has delivered for the XF. Feature sets 1 and 2. It's very apparent that these feature would not work on the older P backs. So to me it was a good call by Phase One. Rather than get into a bunch of emails etc as to why this feature or that won't work on the P backs Phase made a clear line in the sand.
To use any of the newer feature sets for the XF the IQ back is needed for the more modern interface.
The interface swap, considering that hounding get your same back returned I have never seen that as a need. Phase just ships you a new back in the mount you are after. I would much rather keep the back I have and not inherit a used back with a possible set of new problems.
However if the photographer purchased the value add warranty at the time of the purchase of the P + back you get one mount swap at no charge during the warranty.
I also agree that the price point of the 50c and 645Z are making resale of the older CCD backs much more difficult. Especially those without the IQ interface.
Paul C
-
The issue of IQ only backs on th XF is very understandable. If you follow the feature enhancements that Phase has delivered for the XF. Feature sets 1 and 2. It's very apparent that these feature would not work on the older P backs. So to me it was a good call by Phase One. Rather than get into a bunch of emails etc as to why this feature or that won't work on the P backs Phase made a clear line in the sand.
To use any of the newer feature sets for the XF the IQ back is needed for the more modern interface.
The interface swap, considering that hounding get your same back returned I have never seen that as a need. Phase just ships you a new back in the mount you are after. I would much rather keep the back I have and not inherit a used back with a possible set of new problems.
However if the photographer purchased the value add warranty at the time of the purchase of the P + back you get one mount swap at no charge during the warranty.
I also agree that the price point of the 50c and 645Z are making resale of the older CCD backs much more difficult. Especially those without the IQ interface.
Paul C
Are you saying that it was difficult for P1 to include the older interface in parallel with the new one in the XF, giving the choice to the user for which to select? ...excluding the older backs (out of all MFDB makers) was done in purpose from P1... The thing is that the decision is more hurting to the company than to their benefit... and the other thing is that by the time they'll realise the mistake and turn back to include their ex-customers, there will be even more (marketing) damage as they will expose their previous blackmail to their own customers... Exactly as it happens with the O/P poster in this discussion.
-
Photographers aren't reaching higher and going with MF gear as a lot of their 'issues' have been solved with things like the B1/B2's.
As I frequently point out Phase One's sales/financials are public record. They show increasing sales every year since 2008.
-
As I frequently point out Phase One's sales/financials are public record. They show increasing sales every year since 2008.
That's irrelevant to the subject.... Also... "Increasing sales" doesn't mean "more new units"...
-
That's irrelevant to the subject.... Also... "Increasing sales" doesn't mean "more new units"...
Sales are nearly double what they were in 2009, and the price points are about the same as they were in 2009, so with respect... yes it does.
As to relevancy... someone suggested resales value of the OP were effected by decreased demand for Phase One backs. Given ever increasing sales that seems unlikely. I think, rather, that the jump between P+ and IQ backs was so significant that the resale value of P+ backs have taken a more than usual hit. The "generational" difference between a [P65+ and IQ160] is about the same as an [IQ160 and an IQ260], but the practical difference is quite large. The P+ backs still produce fantastic image quality, but the interface is quite dated at this point.
I also think that in general most buyers ready to shell out for medium format would prefer to buy a new or factory refurbished from a knowledgeable dealer who can provide a warranty and help them with the research and support them after purchase. But of course, in that regard, I am incredibly biased aren't I?
-
....I am incredibly biased aren't I?
Sure thing...
-
Are you saying that it was difficult for P1 to include the older interface in parallel with the new one in the XF, giving the choice to the user for which to select? ...excluding the older backs (out of all MFDB makers) was done in purpose from P1... The thing is that the decision is more hurting to the company than to their benefit... and the other thing is that by the time they'll realise the mistake and turn back to include their ex-customers, there will be even more (marketing) damage as they will expose their previous blackmail to their own customers... Exactly as it happens with the O/P poster in this discussion.
What I am saying is Phase One made a business call, just like Ford and Toyota do when making a new car. I don't think you can find the features of a 2009 or 2010 model in a 2016, and for that matter, never will. Phase One is a business just all the other camera companies.
I don't see it as blackmail. The DF+ has vastly improved AF over the DF and with the latest firmware Phase released, plus the Li-on battery backs lock up problems decreased dramatically. For a P+ back user, the DF+ is an excellent solution and the P+ back works with all the tech cameras, so IMO there is quite a bit of opportunity still available for that user, not to mention LS glass and all the latest versions of that also Blue Label versions.
If a customer needs the XF, the interface supported is the IQ and forward. The IQ interface alone has been around now for 5 years or more. To expect an even older interface/controller, electronics with this type of product, sorry not going to happen. Actually I was impressed that Phase found a way to pass on most of the IQ features and so far all the Feature additions of the XF to the IQ 1 backs.
I have been a customer of Phase since early 2008, and I have had my share of problems with them, however the XF support line is not one of them. I was made very aware of the possible issues of staying outside of the IQ interface back in 2011, long before the announcement of the XF last year.
I fully expect Phase to announce features in the future that I will be locked out of unless I stay 2 or 3 generations current.
Paul C
-
What I am saying is Phase One made a business call, just like Ford and Toyota do when making a new car. I don't think you can find the features of a 2009 or 2010 model in a 2016, and for that matter, never will. Phase One is a business just all the other camera companies.
I don't see it as blackmail. The DF+ has vastly improved AF over the DF and with the latest firmware Phase released, plus the Li-on battery backs lock up problems decreased dramatically. For a P+ back user, the DF+ is an excellent solution and the P+ back works with all the tech cameras, so IMO there is quite a bit of opportunity still available for that user, not to mention LS glass and all the latest versions of that also Blue Label versions.
If a customer needs the XF, the interface supported is the IQ and forward. The IQ interface alone has been around now for 5 years or more. To expect an even older interface/controller, electronics with this type of product, sorry not going to happen. Actually I was impressed that Phase found a way to pass on most of the IQ features and so far all the Feature additions of the XF to the IQ 1 backs.
I have been a customer of Phase since early 2008, and I have had my share of problems with them, however the XF support line is not one of them. I was made very aware of the possible issues of staying outside of the IQ interface back in 2011, long before the announcement of the XF last year.
I fully expect Phase to announce features in the future that I will be locked out of unless I stay 2 or 3 generations current.
Paul C
It still doesn't answer to: "Why didn't they include a parallel interface that would allow older users to keep their backs"... Is the few Kbs of memory space the problem?
-
I also think that in general most buyers ready to shell out for medium format would prefer to buy a new or factory refurbished from a knowledgeable dealer who can provide a warranty and help them with the research and support them after purchase. But of course, in that regard, I am incredibly biased aren't I?
As you are asking, I agree that you are a very knowledgable dealer, as well as incredibly biased.
Any other questions?
:)
Edmund
-
As I frequently point out Phase One's sales/financials are public record. They show increasing sales every year since 2008.
Yep, and it's great to see their year over year growth. The comment was directed at the number of photographers who stop at 35mm gear, without either an understanding or interest in pushing into MF gear. They accept the trade-offs, and for their business, it's ok.
-
Personally I would never buy a 7 year old back. Casting aside the fact the technology is old, I would not want to invest several thousand on an old piece of equipment when I could buy a brand new dSLR for a similar or likely less cost with 90% (or more in some instances) of the performance, a full warranty and support going into the next 5-7 years, more exciting because it's new and also because it's brand new with no surprises or mystery from mishandling, drops, etc. I can simply exchange for a new one if things are wrong. The Phase One DF and DF+ while capable is again a limiting platform as it's a dead end. I personally don't like and never have liked that platform. The depreciation is terrible now, it will be even worse in another 5 years.
There is so much going on in the industry, in almost all brands and formats, and my old gear is "good enough" to wait and see how things develop. This is another contributing factor I believe and another reason why I have no need to buy something now, particularly when it is old gear. With all this talk about small formats heading into 100mp+ - 200MP then I think it would be best to wait and see how technology fairs in the next year or so rather than invest further into a 7 year old 40MP CCD system with an old discontinued platform.
Then there is the large transition to motion that is occurring. Spending thousands on a system without at least 4K capture isn't a savvy option right now, unless it's offering something over and above, like 80-100MP on a large sensor.
There is certain gear you can buy which either holds it's value well or actually increases in value. Otherwise, unfortunately we need to accept that any gear that has technology as it's feature (ie. 99% of all gear today) is going to be next to worthless in some amount of time. after shooting for 20 years I have several dead systems that I could sell for pennies if I could only find a buyer, all gear that was expensive at the time of purchase. If you can make it work on a financial level, you are far better to cycle your upgrades sooner as to regain the maximum possible. Otherwise, it's status quo , I'm sorry to say, but I do empathise with you given we are all in the same boat.
-
You do realise that every DSLR is a dead end itself, right? You can't upgrade the Sensor or the shutter or anything else. Sure, the firmware can get better but that's it.
My reasons for getting a 7 year old back was as follows:
1. Bigger surface with rather big pixels and a high resolution.
2. bigger viewfinder
3. possibility to go for a 80 and even 100MP back sometime in the future (the IQ backs are backwards compatible). So in 5-10 years I could upgrade to the 100MP if I have the money and still shoot with the DF+ or just replace the DF+ with a used XF and keep all my lenses and other stuff like cables etc :) The system isn't just the back and the camera.
4. I don't need technological fancy-schmanzy to get the photos I need.
5. If the camera breaks down I can replace the camera with another used AFD, AFDII, DF or DF+ and keep shooting. The back is very, very unlikely to fail. No moving party means no mechanical wearout, only an electrical failure is possible. And after 7 years of 0 issues that would be quite improbable.
6. I don't think that having new technology improves your photos. I look at photographers who were doing amazing stuff 10 years ago. 20 years ago. 30 years ago. 70 years ago. I just want to work with a big format and have the precision and comfort of digital. Everything else is only necessary when it's necessary - not when a new product or feature emerges.
4K capture. That's what I call a buzz word. Sure - my clients are a bit amazed by the 60 MP resolution but they are more amazed by the image quality in general and the tethering - a lot of magazines are not used to having a photographer work with a MFD camera or using a tethered solution on location. That's a big plus. But nobody complained about resolution when people used 20mp full frame DSLRs - and many still do.
Sure, when you're creating photos for ads that's something else but even you would either rent a system or have enough money to get the lasted stuff anyway.
I think when it comes to robust, reliable technology - such as MF backs - there's hardly a reason to cycle or sell the gear before its time - unless it has serious issues/drawbacks. I can understand someone wanting to sell a back if it limits his/her ability for long time exposure or high ISO usage. But if that's not the case and you're not limited by the resolution either - why sell it?
For me it makes a lot of sense to invest in used equipment, even if it's "discontinued", you can upgrade all the way up to the latest product line on the 2nd hand market for a real bargain and if you sell your 2nd hand stuff again you won't lose nearly as much as those did, that bought them new from the factory.
And the DF/DF+ is a pretty good system and very stable and reliable when you have the latest firmware and the battery pack. Of course it has limitations but let's be reasonable here: it's a camera. It takes pictures. It doesn't have to brush your teeth or tuck you in at night.
-
Personally I would never buy a 7 year old back. Casting aside the fact the technology is old, I would not want to invest several thousand on an old piece of equipment when I could buy a brand new dSLR for a similar or likely less cost with 90% (or more in some instances) of the performance, a full warranty and support going into the next 5-7 years, more exciting because it's new and also because it's brand new with no surprises or mystery from mishandling, drops, etc. I can simply exchange for a new one if things are wrong. The Phase One DF and DF+ while capable is again a limiting platform as it's a dead end. I personally don't like and never have liked that platform. The depreciation is terrible now, it will be even worse in another 5 years.
There is so much going on in the industry, in almost all brands and formats, and my old gear is "good enough" to wait and see how things develop. This is another contributing factor I believe and another reason why I have no need to buy something now, particularly when it is old gear. With all this talk about small formats heading into 100mp+ - 200MP then I think it would be best to wait and see how technology fairs in the next year or so rather than invest further into a 7 year old 40MP CCD system with an old discontinued platform.
Then there is the large transition to motion that is occurring. Spending thousands on a system with at least 4K capture isn't a savvy option right now, unless it's offering something over and above, like 100MP on a large sensor.
There is certain gear you can buy which either holds it's value well or actually increases in value. Otherwise, unfortunately we need to accept that any gear that has technology as it's feature (ie. 99% of all gear today) is going to be next to worthless in some amount of time. after shooting for 20 years I have several dead systems that I could sell for pennies if I could find a buyer, all gear that was expensive at the time of purchase. If you can make it work on a financial level, you are far better to cycle your upgrades sooner as to regain the maximum possible. Otherwise, it's status quo , I'm sorry to say, but I do empathise with you given we are all in the same boat.
I agree with you on most, but to your view on older MFDBs... The P-40+ is a very capable back indeed (as is the P-25+ (and all other backs of the "fat pixel" family out of other makers) & the (same but larger sensor size) P-65+ or the Sinar E-motion 75LV, or the Hasselblad CF series of backs), the problem with the particular back is (as you mention) with the "dead end" platform... If the back was for a different platform, or if it used adapter plates for different platforms (like the Sinarbacks or the Hassy CF series backs do), or if could work with the XF platform, it would have sold already... perhaps a bit lower than the asking price, but not by much...
Prices have definitely being affected by Hasselblad's pricing policy and by Pentax 645z which both share a new technology Cmos sensor at previously unimaginable cost, but many older CCD backs still have a few things to teach to modern backs... if the price and platform is right of course...
You are 20 years in photography and have invested a lot of money in equipment that is now obsolete... Well, I'm more than 35 years in photography and have never chosen equipment that became obsolete... I use Nikons, Contax 645 & Fuji GX-680 for many years now with Sinar 54H & CF-39MS backs... If I ever decide to replace a part of my equipment, I know my loss (if a any) will be of minimum with respect to my investment... Some of the equipment I use, (the Fuji GX-680 5 lens system for instance) I bought S/H for peanuts, my first C645 kit, I bought new 11 years ago at less than half price taking advantage of the discontinuation of the system... My backs I bought S/H in perfect condition for very sensible prices too. I now will replace the GX-680 system with a Rollei X-act-2, which I highly modify as to use my new Sony A-7II or my MFDBs (in multishot mode too) with it by simply detaching the Sony and attaching the backs or vice versa... The lenses will be out of my existing system from 24mm up to 210mm and will work with full dedication of aperture control (electronically) with either leaf shutter (if a lens with leaf shutter is used - like the GX-680 lenses or Rollei 6000 system lenses) or focal plane shutter. Both front and rear standards will be corrected for true yaw free operation despite the lens used too. My Contax lenses work on my Nikons with full dedication and AF... I now use the minimum of equipment and can do with optimal quality all possible photographic tasks at the maximum possible quality level.... From shooting in the dark to the highest detail and colour accuracy repro work...
If I have one advice I can give to anybody, is to pre-calculate their investments well and look into the future... One can only hope not to "bleed" if he foresee into the gear he invests that it can live and perform up to the future standards.
Imagine if instead of the Contax system I would have invested in the Mamiya AFD platform? ...now I would be trapped under P1's policies, couldn't use my multishot backs on an XF body and couldn't share my glass on my Nikons either and would have to invest on a different series of ultra expensive lenses and electronic shutters for use on a view camera... not a penny less than a fortune...
-
I agree with you on most, but to your view on older MFDBs... The P-40+ is a very capable back indeed (as is the P-25+ (and all other backs of the "fat pixel" family out of other makers) & the (same but larger sensor size) P-65+ or the Sinar E-motion 75LV, or the Hasselblad CF series of backs), the problem with the particular back is (as you mention) with the "dead end" platform... If the back was for a different platform, or if it used adapter plates for different platforms (like the Sinarbacks or the Hassy CF series backs do), or if could work with the XF platform, it would have sold already... perhaps a bit lower than the asking price, but not by much...
Prices have definitely being affected by Hasselblad's pricing policy and by Pentax 645z which both share a new technology Cmos sensor at previously unimaginable cost, but many older CCD backs still have a few things to teach to modern backs... if the price and platform is right of course...
You are 20 years in photography and have invested a lot of money in equipment that is now obsolete... Well, I'm more than 35 years in photography and have never chosen equipment that became obsolete... I use Nikons, Contax 645 & Fuji GX-680 for many years now with Sinar 54H & CF-39MS backs... If I ever decide to replace a part of my equipment, I know my loss (if a any) will be of minimum with respect to my investment... Some of the equipment I use, (the Fuji GX-680 5 lens system for instance) I bought S/H for peanuts, my first C645 kit, I bought new 11 years ago at less than half price taking advantage of the discontinuation of the system... My backs I bought S/H in perfect condition for very sensible prices too. I now will replace the GX-680 system with a Rollei X-act-2, which I highly modify as to use my new Sony A-7II or my MFDBs (in multishot mode too) with it by simply detaching the Sony and attaching the backs or vice versa... The lenses will be out of my existing system from 24mm up to 210mm and will work with full dedication of aperture control (electronically) with either leaf shutter (if a lens with leaf shutter is used - like the GX-680 lenses or Rollei 6000 system lenses) or focal plane shutter. Both front and rear standards will be corrected for true yaw free operation despite the lens used too. My Contax lenses work on my Nikons with full dedication and AF... I now use the minimum of equipment and can do with optimal quality all possible photographic tasks at the maximum possible quality level.... From shooting in the dark to the highest detail and colour accuracy repro work...
If I have one advice I can give to anybody, is to pre-calculate their investments well and look into the future... One can only hope not to "bleed" if he foresee into the gear he invests that it can live and perform up to the future standards.
Imagine if instead of the Contax system I would have invested in the Mamiya AFD platform? ...now I would be trapped under P1's policies, couldn't use my multishot backs on an XF body and couldn't share my glass on my Nikons either and would have to invest on a different series of ultra expensive lenses and electronic shutters for use on a view camera... not a penny less than a fortune...
My obsolete gear I can still use with backs but have no interest in. RZ, Hassy V, Mamiya 645. all of these have lost interest (from buyers) and resale value. I had a Fuji GX but I consider that obsolete too (for my use, YMMV) - I'm glad I sold it when I did, a capable camera but too big to be useful in my use and experience. I have always been a Canon user, have a lot of older L lenses (not bought any in 6 years) which have recently slumped in value too - they have become somewhat obsolete, or at least, less favourable that the modern lenses. Witnessing all of this is one of the reasons i am invested, and continue to invest so heavily in Leica M, it's IQ is excellent but is it's resale can be incredible with the right buys - My 75mm Summilux, for example, has more than doubled in value since I bought it and it seems it's going to go a lot higher. Same for the f1 Noctilux and 35 Summilux aspherical. Too bad the M system bodies have somewhat levelled in performance - but the value has not, and it easily gets the job done, hiring 60-80MP when needed. I think the safest and smartest buy these days in terms of old tech and MFD CCD is the Leica S2-P because investing in that means you can set yourself up in a system that is moving forward into the future with first rate lenses and have excellent IQ at low ISO. I would ***personally*** (again, YMMV) choose this over an equivilant Phase One or Leaf back P40, P45 etc.
-
Well that's you loss and a gain for everyone looking for great gear on the 2nd hand market I'd say. :D
The Hasselblad V System is still great - put a PhaseOne back on it and you're ready to go! The GX-680 is also amazing, not only for film but with the right adapter for digital stuff too and they're all work horses. Actually all the gear you listed is excellent (okay, you're not able to use the 645 with modern backs (at least I don't think so) but you can still use the lenses etc).
I think it's a mistake to always buy and sell stuff as if your life depended on it (unless you're a dealer of course ;)) - as a photographer you're not dependent on having the lastest gear or the shiniest case. It might impress your customers but that will fade as soon as they see you fumbling around, trying to get something to work because you're not familiar with your tool.
Leicas are a different subject. They're valued for their name and the image behind it, especially the M-series. Without that image they wouldn't sell well - look at the Leica R-series. My grandpa bought one years ago and never really touched it. He bought it for thousands of €/$ with a 50mm 2.0 - now the camera is worth less than 300-400€, even though it's pretty much unused.
If PhaseOne had been around for as along as Leica has and had a red dot somewhere - who knows? But it's a mistake to believe that resale value should be the main reason for acquiring your gear if you truely intent to work with it.
-
Well that's you loss and a gain for everyone looking for great gear on the 2nd hand market I'd say. :D
The Hasselblad V System is still great - put a PhaseOne back on it and you're ready to go! The GX-680 is also amazing, not only for film but with the right adapter for digital stuff too and they're all work horses. Actually all the gear you listed is excellent (okay, you're not able to use the 645 with modern backs (at least I don't think so) but you can still use the lenses etc).
I think it's a mistake to always buy and sell stuff as if your life depended on it (unless you're a dealer of course ;)) - as a photographer you're not dependent on having the lastest gear or the shiniest case. It might impress your customers but that will fade as soon as they see you fumbling around, trying to get something to work because you're not familiar with your tool.
Leicas are a different subject. They're valued for their name and the image behind it, especially the M-series. Without that image they wouldn't sell well - look at the Leica R-series. My grandpa bought one years ago and never really touched it. He bought it for thousands of €/$ with a 50mm 2.0 - now the camera is worth less than 300-400€, even though it's pretty much unused.
If PhaseOne had been around for as along as Leica has and had a red dot somewhere - who knows? But it's a mistake to believe that resale value should be the main reason for acquiring your gear if you truely intent to work with it.
I'm not saying that people can't use the gear. If you can and you don't mind the above reasons then sure, go for it. It's not a loss for me because it has been paid for several times over with the work I've done with it, by the time I come to upgrade it or move on from it for any reason. I don't buy things unless it has a specific purpose, and I write that into my business model and plan. I don't upgrade until it has performed it's task and made the money it needs to have to be financially viable - it's not rocket science is it?
I've been using Phase One on various platforms for about 15 years. Mamiya RZ+645/Phase One DF, DF+, Hasselblad H+V. Hasselblad V is OK up to P45 in my experience and use, the H is better for P65, IQx80 and beyond, but it's lenses don't have the magic (IMO) of the Zeiss V's. It's a compromise I've lived with when I need the higher resolution. Mamiya RZ is making a comeback as a film camera at the moment, but still the resale value makes it a pointless sale. It's not my preferred choice for Digital back use with the crop factor and wake up cable mess. The Phase One, IMO is a great platform with monstrous IQ but the lenses are wanting, ****IMO*** - they do nothing for me, but are definitely better since the Schneider venture.
Who said I buy and sell stuff as though my life depended on it? Who said I fumble with gear in front of clients? :-/ Resale is a bonus, and if you can have a system which offers it, why wouldn't that bonus be considered favourable? Buying Leica M for me was more about what it offered as a tool - but the resale was a significant enticement.
Yes, Leica M is a another beast entirely. But that is the topic of the thread. If you want resale you have to buy where resale is favourable and live with what compromises it may present. To some that seems a pointless endeavour, for some it is not. There are few systems that give that level of resale interest - Leica M, for me, is close to perfect. I love the IQ, the lenses truly are magical and the camera is a joy to use. The resale is a completely bonus, though, ironically, because the system is so good I have little interest in selling it and I don't think I ever will. The Achilles heel at this point is the resolution limited at 24MP, and no real sign this will change in Leica land.
-
...... I think the safest and smartest buy these days in terms of old tech and MFD CCD is the Leica S2-P because investing in that means you can set yourself up in a system that is moving forward into the future with first rate lenses and have excellent IQ at low ISO. I would ***personally*** (again, YMMV) choose this over an equivilant Phase One or Leaf back P40, P45 etc.
Yes, the Leica S (any Leica S) seems a very good future-proof investment... Especially if one has invested on Contax 645 or a Hasselblad H system in the past and thus already has very capable lenses for the system... I can't stop thinking that an addition of a Leica S-007 into my system, it would:
1. Replace completely my Nikon system, which by selling it, would finance the Leica body itself,
2. Add a modern Cmos single shot MFDB in my system, completely compatible with the existing series of lenses from 24mm up to 300mm (210 + mutar 1.4x) that would then be shared between the two systems (24mm lens is my latest addition in Contax mount, by converting the ultra sharp & distortionless Nikkor 24mm f3.5 PCE -with full dediction- for Contax 645 mount).
3. Would save even more space and minimise considerably the equipment I have to curry... (only the Contax system and three of the GX-680 lenses + the view camera and the Leica S body... nothing else for any photographic task imaginable.
4. Improve image quality considerably over the Nikon bodies, but over the single shot quality of the MFDBs too...
5. Would secure the system's quality to last even more through the future...
Clearly deciding on the Contax 645 for my MF platform, was the smartest thing I ever done... I would strongly recommend any newcomer to MF to consider investing on a S/H Contax 645...
-
Yes, the Leica S (any Leica S) seems a very good future-proof investment... Especially if one has invested on Contax 645 or a Hasselblad H system in the past and thus already has very capable lenses for the system... I can't stop thinking that an addition of a Leica S-007 into my system, it would:
1. Replace completely my Nikon system, which by selling it, would finance the Leica body itself,
2. Add a modern Cmos single shot MFDB in my system, completely compatible with the existing series of lenses from 24mm up to 300mm (210 + mutar 1.4x) that would then be shared between the two systems (24mm lens is my latest addition in Contax mount, by converting the ultra sharp & distortionless Nikkor 24mm f3.5 PCE -with full dediction- for Contax 645 mount).
3. Would save even more space and minimise considerably the equipment I have to curry... (only the Contax system and three of the GX-680 lenses + the view camera and the Leica S body... nothing else for any photographic task imaginable.
4. Improve image quality considerably over the Nikon bodies, but over the single shot quality of the MFDBs too...
5. Would secure the system's quality to last even more through the future...
Clearly deciding on the Contax 645 for my MF platform, was the smartest thing I ever done... I would strongly recommend any newcomer to MF to consider investing on a S/H Contax 645...
I whole heartedly agree. The Contax lenses are relevant today (though are somewhat legacy looking in their rendering - something I personally like but others don't) and the S system is superb. The more and more I look at the S, the more it seems likely it's in my future and the most recent pricing makes it a better proposition with both initial acquisition and depreciation.
-
Good mechanical equipment used to be understandable: buy the best you can afford, take good care of it, and there was a reasonable floor to selling it.
Electronics are a different matter: for PCs, consider a straight-line depreciation to 0 value in 3-5 years. While harsh, it puts things in a different and clear light. Then anything better than that can be considered gravy.
OK... maybe its more than that... but its not the same as the older analog world.
-
I'm not saying that people can't use the gear. If you can and you don't mind the above reasons then sure, go for it. It's not a loss for me because it has been paid for several times over with the work I've done with it, by the time I come to upgrade it or move on from it for any reason. I don't buy things unless it has a specific purpose, and I write that into my business model and plan. I don't upgrade until it has performed it's task and made the money it needs to have to be financially viable - it's not rocket science is it?
I've been using Phase One on various platforms for about 15 years. Mamiya RZ+645/Phase One DF, DF+, Hasselblad H+V. Hasselblad V is OK up to P45 in my experience and use, the H is better for P65, IQx80 and beyond, but it's lenses don't have the magic (IMO) of the Zeiss V's. It's a compromise I've lived with when I need the higher resolution. Mamiya RZ is making a comeback as a film camera at the moment, but still the resale value makes it a pointless sale. It's not my preferred choice for Digital back use with the crop factor and wake up cable mess. The Phase One, IMO is a great platform with monstrous IQ but the lenses are wanting, ****IMO*** - they do nothing for me, but are definitely better since the Schneider venture.
Of course it's not rocket science - but it doesn't sound very reasonable either. I don't understand what you mean by "performed its task" - do you mean you buy a completely new system for a new job? Or that the image quality isn't enough for you personally or for your clients?
What's the reason for switching from Mamiya 645, 67 and Hasselblad to PhaseOne and Leica?
I hope you don't think I'm trying to annoy you, I'm just curious!
Who said I buy and sell stuff as though my life depended on it? Who said I fumble with gear in front of clients? :-/ Resale is a bonus, and if you can have a system which offers it, why wouldn't that bonus be considered favourable? Buying Leica M for me was more about what it offered as a tool - but the resale was a significant enticement.
Oh no I didn't mean you personally, I meant I know a lot of people who cycle their gear continuously and it never seems like they know their gear at all while doing so. I understand now that you really work long with your stuff and then sell it, I'm not sure why but I'm keen to know the reason behind it! :)
Yes, Leica M is a another beast entirely. But that is the topic of the thread. If you want resale you have to buy where resale is favourable and live with what compromises it may present. To some that seems a pointless endeavour, for some it is not. There are few systems that give that level of resale interest - Leica M, for me, is close to perfect. I love the IQ, the lenses truly are magical and the camera is a joy to use. The resale is a completely bonus, though, ironically, because the system is so good I have little interest in selling it and I don't think I ever will. The Achilles heel at this point is the resolution limited at 24MP, and no real sign this will change in Leica land.
Hmm that's trues but then again resale value drops as you keep using it, so I wouldn't suggest it's a good idea for a professional photographer to buy his main gear thinking of how much value he'll be able to get back when he's selling it.
I like to pick a system and stay with it as long as possible - only when I have multiple systems at once and I realise that I don't use one I'll sell it. Resale value is nice but I actually learned to prefer used stuff and secondly it limits my choices.
-
Yes, the Leica S (any Leica S) seems a very good future-proof investment... Especially if one has invested on Contax 645 or a Hasselblad H system in the past and thus already has very capable lenses for the system... I can't stop thinking that an addition of a Leica S-007 into my system, it would:
1. Replace completely my Nikon system, which by selling it, would finance the Leica body itself,
2. Add a modern Cmos single shot MFDB in my system, completely compatible with the existing series of lenses from 24mm up to 300mm (210 + mutar 1.4x) that would then be shared between the two systems (24mm lens is my latest addition in Contax mount, by converting the ultra sharp & distortionless Nikkor 24mm f3.5 PCE -with full dediction- for Contax 645 mount).
3. Would save even more space and minimise considerably the equipment I have to curry... (only the Contax system and three of the GX-680 lenses + the view camera and the Leica S body... nothing else for any photographic task imaginable.
4. Improve image quality considerably over the Nikon bodies, but over the single shot quality of the MFDBs too...
5. Would secure the system's quality to last even more through the future...
Clearly deciding on the Contax 645 for my MF platform, was the smartest thing I ever done... I would strongly recommend any newcomer to MF to consider investing on a S/H Contax 645...
Having just sold off my Leica S system I can assure you there is a significant loss in value as with any other MF system. Leica M lenses are the only pieces that retain their value to some extent (excluding rarities), even the M bodies drop dramatically once a new version is announced.
I agree with your points, but resale value is pretty poor.
Btw your idea of using Contax lenses with the S 007 is what was recommended by a Leica rep until they sort out their AF failures.
-
Of course it's not rocket science - but it doesn't sound very reasonable either. I don't understand what you mean by "performed its task" - do you mean you buy a completely new system for a new job? Or that the image quality isn't enough for you personally or for your clients?
What's the reason for switching from Mamiya 645, 67 and Hasselblad to PhaseOne and Leica?
I hope you don't think I'm trying to annoy you, I'm just curious!
Oh no I didn't mean you personally, I meant I know a lot of people who cycle their gear continuously and it never seems like they know their gear at all while doing so. I understand now that you really work long with your stuff and then sell it, I'm not sure why but I'm keen to know the reason behind it! :)
Hmm that's trues but then again resale value drops as you keep using it, so I wouldn't suggest it's a good idea for a professional photographer to buy his main gear thinking of how much value he'll be able to get back when he's selling it.
I like to pick a system and stay with it as long as possible - only when I have multiple systems at once and I realise that I don't use one I'll sell it. Resale value is nice but I actually learned to prefer used stuff and secondly it limits my choices.
Performed it's task = get the job done to expectation and specification, writing it's value based on $x amount per job, which is worked out separate to other expenses, rates and fees etc. So for example. 4 jobs per month at $500 per job = $2000 per month, or $24000 per year. So essentially you treat it as though each job is a rental. Once you have made your money back then that is what I mean by "performed it's task". I've never bought a system for one job - I would just hire in that instance.
I listed some of the reasons why the switch around my previous post but just quickly:
GX680 - Incredibly capable but cumbersome. Limiting for what I did, especially since my style went from tripod to handheld.
RZ was incredible and first choice for film, a good balance of size and tremendous IQ. annoying with digital because of the crop and extra wake up cables etc.
645/DF/DF+ - OK but I don't like the lenses, I found af problematic, it's an uninspiring system to me.
V - my favourite MF but limited to P45+ in my experience. When I needed the P65+ it was suddenly a lot more involving with focus and reliability and the lenses were showing their limits.
H - Most efficient and easiest to use. Super bright viewfinder makes for far better focusing with high res backs, better af, superior design, superior build tolerances, but ergonomically challenged at times, suffers with poor connection issues with Phase Backs, don't like the lenses as much as the Zeiss V's.
I guess here is how it is for me:
My first consideration with gear is necessity. eg. If I need the extra resolution then that will win over rendering or ease of use/handling.
Coming a close second is rendering. The way the pictures look.
Third, probably practicality/workflow/ease of use
Fourth most likely how much I like using the camera. ie I love using the M and the V hassy. The H Hassy is OK, the Phase One DF, not very much. I've not tried the XF yet, but it looks good.
Fifth, maybe, or maybe even less significant is resale or long term value. Even if I can get some of the money back, then it's a bonus. But is fun to buy a lens and have it double in value and continue to rise (e.g. Leica 75mm Summilux).
For the past 4 years I have been using 2 systems only. Leica M for almost all of my editorial (thought this is changing) or anything that the small file size will allow and Hassy H/Phase One for Commercial that needs higher res or something I need cropping flexibility with. These two systems have served me exceptionally well and I have no need to do anything drastic, though the Leica S does have quite a lot of allure.
-
Having just sold off my Leica S system I can assure you there is a significant loss in value as with any other MF system. Leica M lenses are the only pieces that retain their value to some extent (excluding rarities), even the M bodies drop dramatically once a new version is announced.
I agree with your points, but resale value is pretty poor.
Btw your idea of using Contax lenses with the S 007 is what was recommended by a Leica rep until they sort out their AF failures.
You date your bodies but marry your lenses. You really can't expect to get much back from well used bodies, no matter the brand.
-
Just wanted to add - I think it's safe to say that disappointment on resale is more apparent, and quite likely to become even more apparent with digital photography gear. I think it's more important to look at what the camera has done for you in it's life time. How much enjoyment it has given you, how much work it has given you, how it has contributed to your style, artistic progression and how many pictures you have made with it that make you happy. Those things are eternal and more important. Even if my Leica M kit had sweet f.a. resale value then I would be ultimately happy because those pictures I have made with it I love the most and it's value has been fully utilised.
-
Performed it's task = get the job done to expectation and specification, writing it's value based on $x amount per job, which is worked out separate to other expenses, rates and fees etc. So for example. 4 jobs per month at $500 per job = $2000 per month, or $24000 per year. So essentially you treat it as though each job is a rental. Once you have made your money back then that is what I mean by "performed it's task". I've never bought a system for one job - I would just hire in that instance.
I listed some of the reasons why the switch around my previous post but just quickly:
GX680 - Incredibly capable but cumbersome. Limiting for what I did, especially since my style went from tripod to handheld.
RZ was incredible and first choice for film, a good balance of size and tremendous IQ. annoying with digital because of the crop and extra wake up cables etc.
645/DF/DF+ - OK but I don't like the lenses, I found af problematic, it's an uninspiring system to me.
V - my favourite MF but limited to P45+ in my experience. When I needed the P65+ it was suddenly a lot more involving with focus and reliability and the lenses were showing their limits.
H - Most efficient and easiest to use. Super bright viewfinder makes for far better focusing with high res backs, better af, superior design, superior build tolerances, but ergonomically challenged at times, suffers with poor connection issues with Phase Backs, don't like the lenses as much as the Zeiss V's.
I guess here is how it is for me:
My first consideration with gear is necessity. eg. If I need the extra resolution then that will win over rendering or ease of use/handling.
Coming a close second is rendering. The way the pictures look.
Third, probably practicality/workflow/ease of use
Fourth most likely how much I like using the camera. ie I love using the M and the V hassy. The H Hassy is OK, the Phase One DF, not very much. I've not tried the XF yet, but it looks good.
Fifth, maybe, or maybe even less significant is resale or long term value. Even if I can get some of the money back, then it's a bonus. But is fun to buy a lens and have it double in value and continue to rise (e.g. Leica 75mm Summilux).
For the past 4 years I have been using 2 systems only. Leica M for almost all of my editorial (thought this is changing) or anything that the small file size will allow and Hassy H/Phase One for Commercial that needs higher res or something I need cropping flexibility with. These two systems have served me exceptionally well and I have no need to do anything drastic, though the Leica S does have quite a lot of allure.
Thank you, now I understand your reasons for switching gear!
For me image quality (including resolution & rendering) is the main aspect, handling is second - if both is good I like the camera even if it has quirks or is too heavy for handheld use and I wouldn't switch for any other reason. I started with 35mm about 10-11 years ago and quickly switched to medium format and large format, where I could enjoy the bigger frame and higher levels of detail - but film is very cumbersome to work with and that's why I kept on working with digital 35mm, bought a 5D mkII and used it for 7 years - but I never liked its image quality and the way it rendered the images and tethering was very slow and unstable. That being said my clients never were bothered by this, the resolution was good enough for magazine prints.
Now that I have sold the 5D and instead bought a 2nd hand P65+ with DF+ I'm very happy, it delivers amazing image quality and the lenses are great - and if one day i the future I decide that I need more megapixels I can always upgrade to 80 or 100 mpx and keep the rest of the system - and that'll save me a lot of money which I can invest in other stuff :)
In short - I'm happy as can be and looking forward to working with the back as soon as it gets back from being serviced!
-
.......I agree with your points, but resale value is pretty poor.......
I know, but I don't think it will apply for the S-007 the same as with the S-2 or the 006... There are several reasons why all MF CCD equipment (up to now) has great devaluation figures in the S/H market... Main reason IMO, is the recent introduction of Cmos sensors which are dominating the market, another reason is the major alteration of the pricing policies of both Hasselblad and Leica for new equipment, which made the modern equipment considerably more affordable than it used to be in the past, another reason is the high quality LV functioning which is very important to many photographers, but above all, one has to admit that older to S-007 Leicas couldn't replace DSLRs for Low light ability and speed, which enforced many photographers to build a DSLR system in parallel to their previous Leica S... Thus, I think that the S-007, having overcome all the above mentioned issues, will keep considerably higher prices than previous Leica S versions.... At least you was able to find a customer for your Leica S (even at a low price)... there other MF owners of different platforms (Hasselblad H3/H3II/H4D & Mamiya/P1 AFD to DF) that are struggling to find a customer at all for their equipment... :)
Never the less, I'm not thinking to add an S-007 having its resale value at the back of mind, as I think that even if Leica upgrades to an S-008 in the future (inevitably), there can't be much improvement in IQ as to justify the expense.... I predicted the same to friends when Nikon released the D800E... Look at its resale value if compared to the one of the D810... it's not much different, is it? I do predict that the same will happen with modern Cmos MF gear (P1 excluded because of their insane pricing policy), as most of the issues that caused the devaluation (same as the up to the S-006 issues as they are described above) have been taken care off by the makers... ;) Still, if the O/P had his back for Contax 645 platform, he would have sold it by now and I'm sure the existence of the Contax 645 platform is responsible for previous body Leica S owners to ...find customers for their S/H bodies, either directly (by selling the body to a C645 owner) or indirectly (by the C645 owners consuming Leica S bodies and thus keeping offerings in balance with demand)...
All the above said, I have to say that I find my self very fortunate not only to have invested in the Contax 645 system, but to also own two multishot CCD backs and both with interchangeable plates for different platforms... It may be true that CCD backs prices are dropping faster than ever, but to the contradict, Multishot backs demand (and thus prices) are rising considerably as they become rarer by the time and what they can do is priceless to many other photographers...
-
Btw your idea of using Contax lenses with the S 007 is what was recommended by a Leica rep until they sort out their AF failures.
I just sent one my lenses in for repair due to AF failure... 3 weeks ago and no estimate yet after sending two reminders requesting one... not so pleased with Leica at the moment...
If the Leica CEO wants to transform his company into a/o also a services company (see link below) he has got a long way to go...
http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/03/28/constant-change/
-
The rules for Canon/Nikon used market and P1/Hass used market are not the same.
In Canon, normally if you buy an item, you can sell it 5-10 years later for 80-90% of the original value. Bodies depreciate faster.
Why is that? Because product generations are relatively long. Once Canon release a lens, normally the next one doesn't come before 10 years. This protects resale value.
With P1, at least in the last 10 years, P1 was extremely aggressive in R&D and in closing the gap it had vs. Hass and then opening a new one. This means, that you buy an item which is top of the line at the time, and pay many thousands of dollars. Then just a couple of years later there's a new model which is better and everybody wants it. Meaning the buyers that can pay will be willing to pay for the top of the line only. This market has a limited volume. The more used equipment is passed around, the more bargain hunters are finding themselves with very nice systems, that don't really require upgrading anymore. Used backs values were much better 5 years ago before the trickle down segment of the market got saturated.
This is the price you pay for being the customer of a company that keeps releasing new products. They are not responsible for the second hand market. You are not buying items that are supposed to excel in value retention. They are making the best cameras and lenses they can make, and the previous attempts drop sharply in value. I do think that XF will keep very well in value, as there will probably not be a replacement any time soon. The same applies to Schneider lenses. But they have to release something - they have that R&D department which is very good and it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to fire all the engineers and just run with what they have for the next ten years - which will be ideal for resale value.
-
Hi,
Nice thoughts.
A different line of reasoning is that Sony has become very agressive and started releasing hi-rez sensors which are much more flexible than the old CCD sensors that were around until 2 years ago, causing a bunch of people to move to Nikon, D800, then Sony A7RII, and some to move to the new Sony-powered MF cameras. And Phase themselves chose not to make their XF body compatible with the P+ backs, so everything P+ is now basically orphaned. Also, Phase dealers and Hassy are selling warranteed refurbs into the used market. As a result the used market is now saturated.
Edmund
The rules for Canon/Nikon used market and P1/Hass used market are not the same.
In Canon, normally if you buy an item, you can sell it 5-10 years later for 80-90% of the original value. Bodies depreciate faster.
Why is that? Because product generations are relatively long. Once Canon release a lens, normally the next one doesn't come before 10 years. This protects resale value.
With P1, at least in the last 10 years, P1 was extremely aggressive in R&D and in closing the gap it had vs. Hass and then opening a new one. This means, that you buy an item which is top of the line at the time, and pay many thousands of dollars. Then just a couple of years later there's a new model which is better and everybody wants it. Meaning the buyers that can pay will be willing to pay for the top of the line only. This market has a limited volume. The more used equipment is passed around, the more bargain hunters are finding themselves with very nice systems, that don't really require upgrading anymore. Used backs values were much better 5 years ago before the trickle down segment of the market got saturated.
This is the price you pay for being the customer of a company that keeps releasing new products. They are not responsible for the second hand market. You are not buying items that are supposed to excel in value retention. They are making the best cameras and lenses they can make, and the previous attempts drop sharply in value. I do think that XF will keep very well in value, as there will probably not be a replacement any time soon. The same applies to Schneider lenses. But they have to release something - they have that R&D department which is very good and it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to fire all the engineers and just run with what they have for the next ten years - which will be ideal for resale value.
-
They are not responsible for the second hand market. You are not buying items that are supposed to excel in value retention.
Well...yes and no. I think the way they estimate the value of used backs for their trade-in program is very much a point of reference for many users.
And I think the PhaseOne lenses keep their value about as well as Canon lenses do - keep in mind that you're not 'forced' to use Phase lenses, you can also use Mamiya lenses and they'll work just as good - so people on the 2nd hand market (who want to save money after all) can get the same or similar performance for very little money these days.
If you want to get a 120mm macro you can chose between the old manual 120mm Mamiya 'A', the Mamiya 120mm Macro for AF (without AF) , the "D" Version, the PhaseOne without AF, the PhaseOne 'D', the PhaseOne with AF and the LS version...
With Canon in the other hand you can't use legacy lenses and that's kind of a big deal (or rather it was a big deal back when they ditched the FD-mount). I'd say the reason why PhaseOne lenses have a comparatively "low" resale value (compared to their initial investment) it that they were 'nice' enough to keep the Mamiya 645 mount. At least until now, who knows what future developments will bring...
-
Hi,
Nice thoughts.
A different line of reasoning is that Sony has become very agressive and started releasing hi-rez sensors which are much more flexible than the old CCD sensors that were around until 2 years ago, causing a bunch of people to move to Nikon, D800, then Sony A7RII, and some to move to the new Sony-powered MF cameras. And Phase themselves chose not to make their XF body compatible with the P+ backs, so everything P+ is now basically orphaned. Also, Phase dealers and Hassy are selling warranteed refurbs into the used market. As a result the used market is now saturated.
Edmund
I didn't talk about external influences which do exist. Don't exist as much for Canon as normally once you get into that you stay there, unless you change the type of your photography.
-
Well...yes and no. I think the way they estimate the value of used backs for their trade-in program is very much a point of reference for many users.
And I think the PhaseOne lenses keep their value about as well as Canon lenses do - keep in mind that you're not 'forced' to use Phase lenses, you can also use Mamiya lenses and they'll work just as good - so people on the 2nd hand market (who want to save money after all) can get the same or similar performance for very little money these days.
If you want to get a 120mm macro you can chose between the old manual 120mm Mamiya 'A', the Mamiya 120mm Macro for AF (without AF) , the "D" Version, the PhaseOne without AF, the PhaseOne 'D', the PhaseOne with AF and the LS version...
With Canon in the other hand you can't use legacy lenses and that's kind of a big deal (or rather it was a big deal back when they ditched the FD-mount). I'd say the reason why PhaseOne lenses have a comparatively "low" resale value (compared to their initial investment) it that they were 'nice' enough to keep the Mamiya 645 mount. At least until now, who knows what future developments will bring...
I disagree.
The market determines resale value based on actual demand, not based on MSRPs.
As far as 120mm macro lenses, I've used pretty much all generations - this is a classic example where there was a marked difference between each and every generation. Every model you go back you lose either functionality or quality.
-
Sometimes I find the conversations here maddening. :-\
Guess what, things depreciate, and expensive things depreciate by larger amounts. I hate to see some people here buy a car. :o
If you really want to make money off of the resale of digital backs (or maybe not loose any), get a dealer license, buy wholesale and start selling them. Or, buy your back, never take it out of the packaging, never shoot it, keep it pristine and in 50 or 60 years, blow the dust off, and perhaps someone will be willing to pay a high price for it, perhaps.
Otherwise, don't buy on emotions, don't expect a great return from reselling, and don't be scared to use your equipment.
Like I tell every green assistant who gets fascinated and nervous when standing near a MFD system, "it's just a camera!"
-
I disagree.
The market determines resale value based on actual demand, not based on MSRPs.
As far as 120mm macro lenses, I've used pretty much all generations - this is a classic example where there was a marked difference between each and every generation. Every model you go back you lose either functionality or quality.
If Phase 'paid' more their 2nd hand value would increase. It's as simple as that. :) If Phase values them as less their value would decrease. Someone who wants to trade up for the latest back would take every buck above what Phase offers - which is understandable - and word spreads about how much you can get for your old back.
As far as I know the optical performance hasn't really changed and you can't tell the difference between the PhaseOne 'D' and the Mamiya 'D' or the AF or the LS version by its optical performance. Sure, the AF is nice but the MF is pretty good and in most cases faster. But that's not my point, my point is that by allowing users to take full advantage of legacy lenses the 2nd hand value of new lenses (which are in most cases as good as their predecessors) dops a bit.
Had PhaseOne decided to change the mount (which would have been a bad idea) the 2nd hand value of their new lens line would not drop as much as it does.
-
Joe,
I like your sense of humor and clarity of thought
+1
It's an interesting question whether the backs will still be restorable in 50 years. I have restored a bunch of old Powerbook 180C, that are more than 20 years old, even have a new battery and an SSD in one of them, and for artistic purposes -writing, notes- the functionality is good.
Edmund
Sometimes I find the conversations here maddening. :-\
Guess what, things depreciate, and expensive things depreciate by larger amounts. I hate to see some people here buy a car. :o
If you really want to make money off of the resale of digital backs (or maybe not loose any), get a dealer license, buy wholesale and start selling them. Or, buy your back, never take it out of the packaging, never shoot it, keep it pristine and in 50 or 60 years, blow the dust off, and perhaps someone will be willing to pay a high price for it, perhaps.
Otherwise, don't buy on emotions, don't expect a great return from reselling, and don't be scared to use your equipment.
Like I tell every green assistant who gets fascinated and nervous when standing near a MFD system, "it's just a camera!"
-
Joe,
I like your sense of humor and clarity of thought
+1
It's an interesting question whether the backs will still be restorable in 50 years. I have restored a bunch of old Powerbook 180C, that are more than 20 years old, even have a new battery and an SSD in one of them, and for artistic purposes -writing, notes- the functionality is good.
Edmund
Sometimes Edmund, I have no idea if you are being sincere, but I'll assume you are here.
I think the problem with most is that they do not realize Phase One is in the business of selling cameras, so of course they are going to say they are the best and you need what they have to make a great image. This is not true, sort of, just like my clients do not need great images of their product to sell, sort of.
Of course, for certain types of work, a MFD system will enhance your ability and give you tools you otherwise would not have, but in others, it will greatly hinder your work.
So you really need to be able to understand what you need and buy accordingly.
I love my system, but I made my choose to buy after thorough research and looked at the purchase from the standpoint of a professional, which many here do not since they are not pros. I did not allow my emotions to take hold of me and my viewpoints really came down to the value of my work and how it will help me standout.
(Absolutely, my hobbyist inside wants an IQ3 100, but will it really make my work and business more valuable, probably not.)
So I bought what I needed, a P45+ 5 years after it was released. Not the newest back, but the only one that did long exposures well (at the time), and had enough MP to make client happy (and it still does). I also, from what I heard, was a pretty hard negotiator, and the IQ260 had been announced along with the discontinuation of the P45+ to the dealers (not the public though) during negotiations, which I am sure, unbeknownst to me, helped me get a lower price.
So, moral, don't buy on emotion and have an realistic expectation of what the back will do and the value it will offer and retain.
Personally, if I were to buy a back now, I would get a refurb IQ260 with an XF body, and bitch and moan enough to get the value added warranty of the back to extend onto the camera body as well. (And of course have my tech camera and lenses too :D)
-
Who cares whether *I* am sincere or not, *you* are certainly knowledgable, and clarifying the equation for the OP better than I could ever do it.
I think in a few years large low-rez sensors will appear and there will be a renaissance of large format. However, my feeling is that just now MF is too much bother for too much money and too little advantage.
Edmund
Sometimes Edmund, I have no idea if you are being sincere, but I'll assume you are here.
I think the problem with most is that they do not realize Phase One is in the business of selling cameras, so of course they are going to say they are the best and you need what they have to make a great image. This is not true, sort of, just like my clients do not need great images of their product to sell, sort of.
Of course, for certain types of work, a MFD system will enhance your ability and give you tools you otherwise would not have, but in others, it will greatly hinder your work.
So you really need to be able to understand what you need and buy accordingly.
I love my system, but I made my choose to buy after thorough research and looked at the purchase from the standpoint of a professional, which many here do not since they are not pros. I did not allow my emotions to take hold of me and my viewpoints really came down to the value of my work and how it will help me standout.
(Absolutely, my hobbyist inside wants an IQ3 100, but will it really make my work and business more valuable, probably not.)
So I bought what I needed, a P45+ 5 years after it was released. Not the newest back, but the only one that did long exposures well (at the time), and had enough MP to make client happy (and it still does). I also, from what I heard, was a pretty hard negotiator, and the IQ260 had been announced along with the discontinuation of the P45+ to the dealers (not the public though) during negotiations, which I am sure, unbeknownst to me, helped me get a lower price.
So, moral, don't buy on emotion and have an realistic expectation of what the back will do and the value it will offer and retain.
Personally, if I were to buy a back now, I would get a refurb IQ260 with an XF body, and bitch and moan enough to get the value added warranty of the back to extend onto the camera body as well. (And of course have my tech camera and lenses too :D)
-
I think in a few years large low-rez sensors will appear and there will be a renaissance of large format. However, my feeling is that just now MF is too much bother for too much money and too little advantage.
Edmund
That would be pretty awesome.
There are many advantages (when looked at from a certain perspective) to having longer lenses and a larger image recording plane.
Depth of field, or lack thereof, is one of them.
-
That would be pretty awesome.
There are many advantages (when looked at from a certain perspective) to having longer lenses and a larger image recording plane.
Depth of field, or lack thereof, is one of them.
I've noticed old landscape plate camera city imagery looks sharper and much more "3D" than the modern stuff. No idea why.
Edmund
-
If Phase 'paid' more their 2nd hand value would increase. It's as simple as that. :) If Phase values them as less their value would decrease. Someone who wants to trade up for the latest back would take every buck above what Phase offers - which is understandable - and word spreads about how much you can get for your old back.
As far as I know the optical performance hasn't really changed and you can't tell the difference between the PhaseOne 'D' and the Mamiya 'D' or the AF or the LS version by its optical performance. Sure, the AF is nice but the MF is pretty good and in most cases faster. But that's not my point, my point is that by allowing users to take full advantage of legacy lenses the 2nd hand value of new lenses (which are in most cases as good as their predecessors) dops a bit.
Had PhaseOne decided to change the mount (which would have been a bad idea) the 2nd hand value of their new lens line would not drop as much as it does.
You're expecting Phase to pay more than market value.
That would be nice for the customers, but Phase is not promising that nor doing that.
True that they are sort of implying it, but you can't sue them for that.
As far as 120, as I did say there is in fact a difference.
Mamiya D is much better optically than Mamiya non D.
Phase One D is optically better than Mamiya D from the period before Phase One D.
Mamiya D made after Phase One D is made, is the same lens.
AF lens is optically better than D.
LS is optically the same as AF, but functionally and cosmetically better.
-
(Absolutely, my hobbyist inside wants an IQ3 100, but will it really make my work and business more valuable, probably not.)
That's me every day, even if I do it just for fun. Still, I really need something longer than 50mm on crop!
-
You're expecting Phase to pay more than market value.
That would be nice for the customers, but Phase is not promising that nor doing that.
True that they are sort of implying it, but you can't sue them for that.
As far as 120, as I did say there is in fact a difference.
Mamiya D is much better optically than Mamiya non D.
Phase One D is optically better than Mamiya D from the period before Phase One D.
Mamiya D made after Phase One D is made, is the same lens.
AF lens is optically better than D.
LS is optically the same as AF, but functionally and cosmetically better.
No. I'm telling you that their policy is part of the general evaluation of the worth of second hand backs.
The differences between the Mamiya non-AF non-D and the LS version are so minute, that nobody will be able to tell the differences in the final image, especially when printed and with smaller apertures. Pixel peepers on a 100MP back might but they're not buying from the 2nd hand market anyway and that's the point.
-
The differences between the Mamiya non-AF non-D and the LS version are so minute, that nobody will be able to tell the differences in the final image, especially when printed and with smaller apertures.
In my actual experience that is not the case.
I'm sure you can design an experiment where the differences will be unnoticeable, but in my tests the differences are very noticeable.
There are a lot of different conditions under which a lens can be tested, and your statement is very far reaching.
-
In my actual experience that is not the case.
I'm sure you can design an experiment where the differences will be unnoticeable, but in my tests the differences are very noticeable.
There are a lot of different conditions under which a lens can be tested, and your statement is very far reaching.
Well I can only tell you that I have the nonAf nonD version and it's as good as it gets on 60mp. That's all I care about and on the 2nd hand market you wouldn't realistically go much beyond 60 - if that.
And I'm talking about real life scenarios, not tests.
-
Well I can only tell you that I have the nonAf nonD version and it's as good as it gets on 60mp. That's all I care about and on the 2nd hand market you wouldn't realistically go much beyond 60 - if that.
And I'm talking about real life scenarios, not tests.
I am testing my real life.
My real life is not the same as your real life.
Not everybody uses their lenses in the parameters you do.
-
Feel free to post comparisons and results! :)
Afaik they _all_ have the absolut exact same optical design and differ only in software and aperture/shutter design - and perhaps coatings. But the resulting differences should be close to 0.
-
If Phase 'paid' more their 2nd hand value would increase. It's as simple as that. :) If Phase values them as less their value would decrease. Someone who wants to trade up for the latest back would take every buck above what Phase offers - which is understandable - and word spreads about how much you can get for your old back.
I'm not sure I agree... P1 is consistently marketing their products as to turn a part of the market to funs of the particular firm... Hasselblad did the same until recently where they decided to "open" back the system... Now P1 blocked P+ backs (for no reason) from compatibility with the XF body, which (having a more capable platform) is exactly what their older customers where asking. They did that on purpose as to block third party backs (that are using the same interface as the P+ series) to be used on the XF body and thus blackmail them to change for an (overpriced) IQ series back since otherwise they'll have to change their lenses too if they decide to jump to a different platform... The aim is clearly to trap the customers in a (meaningless) upgrade path, where the customers will be forced, year by year with any new release, to spend a fortune as to feed the company... P+ series users now (like the O/P), are in a position where it is very difficult to find a customer for their backs (if it is in M645 mount) at all... If the O/P would be using a different platform, the back would have sold already at near to the asking price... The idea behind the policy, (it's an immoral policy, not a decision forced by tech advancement as they promote it - they could have both interfaces included in the XF and the let the customer decide as to when he would upgrade to a newer back and then select the later interface) is to force the customer as to trade his back for an (overpriced) IQ back and thus create customers out of nothing...
As far as I know the optical performance hasn't really changed and you can't tell the difference between the PhaseOne 'D' and the Mamiya 'D' or the AF or the LS version by its optical performance. Sure, the AF is nice but the MF is pretty good and in most cases faster. But that's not my point, my point is that by allowing users to take full advantage of legacy lenses the 2nd hand value of new lenses (which are in most cases as good as their predecessors) dops a bit.
Had PhaseOne decided to change the mount (which would have been a bad idea) the 2nd hand value of their new lens line would not drop as much as it does.
The optical performance hasn't change much for CCD backs either... only features have! The O/P's problem is that P1 has created an environment for him (in purpose) so that he can't find a customer at all of his back... The rapid devaluation is just a consequence...
-
I've noticed old landscape plate camera city imagery looks sharper and much more "3D" than the modern stuff. No idea why.
Edmund
Not sure if we will ever get that with digital, or not nearly as much.
I use to do a lot of silver printing and toning. When I started, I used cheap resin paper, then moved to Ilford fiber, which was a big difference.
Then I moved to Bergger Warm-tone Fiber, which is beyond silver rich.
Then, after toning the shadows with gold and the highlights and mid-tones with selenium, you could walk into those prints.
Just something about heavy metals ingrained in the paper, as oppose to just sitting on top, that just made the image so much more 3-d.
-
I don't think that there are too few options on the 2nd hand market for PhaseOne backs with a Mamiya mount.
Mamiya AF, AFD, AFD II, AFDIII, DF, DF+ Phase One AF, DF , DF+ - all of them work with digital backs and are quite affordable on eBay etc. and still capable cameras, especially for beginners.
The P40+ simply isn't as popular as the 45+ but I don't think the price difference between the Hasselblad or Mamiya mount is huge. It's mostly depending on the condition and accessories and a lot of people make the "mistake" of offering the whole set instead of selling individual components and compare that price to the price of a back alone.
It's true, the decision to exclude the P/P+ backs may seem hard to understand but on the other hand you have to consider the fact that the last P+ back was designed/released in 2008.
Before the P/P+ there were the H and Lightphase backs, the last camera to support them was the Mamiya AFD II. The last H back was released in 2003. The Mamiya AFD III was released in 2008. Only 5 years between them but no cigar.
I think 7 years really is good enough - it's not a purely mechanical interface between the camera and the back after all.
@JoeKitchen: have you tried that process with 'digital negatives'? Printing your images as negatives on transparencies and then using them like negatives? I've had some success with several printing techniques.
-
I don't think that there are too few options on the 2nd hand market for PhaseOne backs with a Mamiya mount.
Mamiya AF, AFD, AFD II, AFDIII, DF, DF+ Phase One AF, DF , DF+ - all of them work with digital backs and are quite affordable on eBay etc. and still capable cameras, especially for beginners.
The P40+ simply isn't as popular as the 45+ but I don't think the price difference between the Hasselblad or Mamiya mount is huge. It's mostly depending on the condition and accessories and a lot of people make the "mistake" of offering the whole set instead of selling individual components and compare that price to the price of a back alone.
It's true, the decision to exclude the P/P+ backs may seem hard to understand but on the other hand you have to consider the fact that the last P+ back was designed/released in 2008.
Before the P/P+ there were the H and Lightphase backs, the last camera to support them was the Mamiya AFD II. The last H back was released in 2003. The Mamiya AFD III was released in 2008. Only 5 years between them but no cigar.
I think 7 years really is good enough - it's not a purely mechanical interface between the camera and the back after all.
The cameras up to DF have nothing to offer over an AFD but only some better AF... Heck, the H5X will work with any third party back, even one made 16 years ago... and with film too... I bet you that not many will share the opinion that their backs should be good on their platform for only 7 years... Especially if they are excluded on purpose by the maker! What P1 has to answer to those customers that bought a refurbished DF & P+ back only a few months before XF was announced?
-
Every user who ever buys a products at any time risks every time that a new, better product will be announced shortly after his purchase - especially when you're talking about refurbished units.
It's not like P1 is required to stop people from buying stuff before they announce a new product - after all where do you draw the line? Someone might be alright having bought the camera a few days before the new one was announced, another customer might be unhappy even if he bought if 5 months ago.
Would you prefer a pre-announcement announcement? What would that do to the sales of the camera, that's still available?
If you buy apples at the supermarket and the tray is nearly empty but you still get a few good ones and after paying and walking out your realise they've put on another tray of apples on the shelve - would you demand to exchange your apples?
Nobody owes you anything. Nobody. The company owes only to support the product you've bought as long as your warranty is valid and honesty about the product itself. Nothing beyond that, even if it makes your life a little bit better. This isn't supposed to be mean but it seems people are treating certain companies differently based on their expectations alone.
If a computer from 2008 does not accept my cpu from 2016 (or vice versa) would I be annoyed? Sure. Would I be angry? Perhaps even that. But would I complain about that on a forum, expecting the manufacturer to support my quite 'old' product until the end of time? No. 7 years of support is quite enough for any digital gear. And it's still serviceable so if it breaks down you can get it repaired.
The cameras up to DF have nothing to offer over an AFD but only some better AF...
As far as I know each camera improved upon the AF and the communications and compatibility with digital backs and the AFDIII enables the use of LS lenses (but I don't know whether that includes the actual LS to be functional or just the aperture and AF to work). Those are surely minor but still noticeable differences - and that's over the span of many years.
To me even a slight improvement is an improvement and as far as I've heard many people were happy to get the DF+, especially with the Li-Ion batter back, which provided them with a very stable platform. Sure the XF has many bells and whistles and if you need AF it's good. But the DF+ is still a great camera, has amazingly long battery life and with latest firmware it's very stable. I don't know of any shot that the XF can take that a DF+ won't be able to take.
-
As a user of both the AFDIII P45+ and IQ160, then the DF, (which was offered as a upgrade when I purchased my P45+ kit), the AF was the same, no improvement, still 3 hits basically to really get a good AF hit.
The other issues the DF inherited from the AFDIII, were the lockup issues, bad battery life and communication unless Li-On AA's were used (which I did not do to cost and availability in the field locations I shot at the time). Lockups were standard and common, most times required a total power off, and sometimes required a battery pack pull. The firmware could only be upgraded with the Grip installed as it had the USB port.
Many folks still don't realize most of the modern Mamiya AF lenses require firmware, from the 105-210 generation on up. The firmware needs to be current with the camera and can be a mess at times and that also caused lockups, (at least on my Mamiya 28mm non LS).
The DF+ came out, with a improved AF and the ability to microadjust the AF (only one lens could be done and none were stored as I recall), but the AF was much better, and more reliable. The battery pack was changed to the LI-ON back, and for most the lockups went away. Not for all as there have been reports even with the XF doing this type of lockup.
The real take away from all of this, you really need to work with a dealer on these issues. It's next to impossible to talk to Phase One directly, (in NY) and if you open a tech case online they are not going to authorize a replacement of hardware. This equipment can be finicky and firmware updates can create bigger issues. Once you have one, it's not all that easy to get back. The latest Phase Firmware currently for the XF and IQ123 backs, has created a bricked back in several situations. Yet Phase has not reported this or pulled the firmware, but you can find several reported cases of this on different forums. So again, main take away is find a dealer and work with them, or you might need to consider a different purchase. Phase One gear IMO still requires more hands on support than other types of camera gear.
Paul C
-
Feel free to post comparisons and results! :)
Afaik they _all_ have the absolut exact same optical design and differ only in software and aperture/shutter design - and perhaps coatings. But the resulting differences should be close to 0.
I won't post results, since I am no longer in possession the older lenses, and I'm not sure if I even kept the test results since they were done just for my own benefit.
I've spent many thousands of dollars on these lenses, and with every generation I've made the comparison to determine if I need the upgrade or not.
However - what you say - "as far as you know" - doesn't match reality.
All the 120s are not "absolutely", nor even remotely identical.
The only two generations that were identical optically, as I've said, where AF and LS.
The optical design changed several times along the way, and the QC changed very significantly.
Comparing the first and last as equals would be quite preposterous.
You can insist on your "gut" truth, even though you clearly didn't really research to in any sort of depth. ("...differences should be...").
I know you are not supposed to say that here, but that kind of reminds me of someone who is very popular right now...
-
As a user of both the AFDIII P45+ and IQ160, then the DF, (which was offered as a upgrade when I purchased my P45+ kit), the AF was the same, no improvement, still 3 hits basically to really get a good AF hit.
The other issues the DF inherited from the AFDIII, were the lockup issues, bad battery life and communication unless Li-On AA's were used (which I did not do to cost and availability in the field locations I shot at the time). Lockups were standard and common, most times required a total power off, and sometimes required a battery pack pull. The firmware could only be upgraded with the Grip installed as it had the USB port.
Many folks still don't realize most of the modern Mamiya AF lenses require firmware, from the 105-210 generation on up. The firmware needs to be current with the camera and can be a mess at times and that also caused lockups, (at least on my Mamiya 28mm non LS).
The DF+ came out, with a improved AF and the ability to microadjust the AF (only one lens could be done and none were stored as I recall), but the AF was much better, and more reliable. The battery pack was changed to the LI-ON back, and for most the lockups went away. Not for all as there have been reports even with the XF doing this type of lockup.
The real take away from all of this, you really need to work with a dealer on these issues. It's next to impossible to talk to Phase One directly, (in NY) and if you open a tech case online they are not going to authorize a replacement of hardware. This equipment can be finicky and firmware updates can create bigger issues. Once you have one, it's not all that easy to get back. The latest Phase Firmware currently for the XF and IQ123 backs, has created a bricked back in several situations. Yet Phase has not reported this or pulled the firmware, but you can find several reported cases of this on different forums. So again, main take away is find a dealer and work with them, or you might need to consider a different purchase. Phase One gear IMO still requires more hands on support than other types of camera gear.
Paul C
Paul's comment sounds as a confirmation for me, that I did right when I choose to invest on the (dead) Contax 645 platform, rather on investing on the M645 platform back in 2005.... Strangely, my main criteria to make the choice at the days was the simplicity of the camera as well as the modularity of it (interchangeable finders - WLF)... the lens quality (at the days) was second. I never trusted equipment that is promoting complex interface as to include more (useless) features than I need.... The only function of the C645 I would wish to be improved is its AF speed and accuracy (i.e. a more sensitive sensor in it than the old one that exists)... Other than that, the C645 is as modern as any other camera and surely the most reliable camera out there, with the best of ergonomics too...
-
However - what you say - "as far as you know" - doesn't match reality.
Your perception of reality: as far as you know. :)
I did a lot of research, rented gear and talked to other users - so without any proof its your word against mine. A standoff.
Please refrain from using the argument from authority by inserting yourself as an authority, that doesn't work and never did and never will. That's why I asked your for images, comparison shots - I'm willing to change my position but I need more than the word of someone I don't know and who has 0 proof.
Right now I can only tell you what I've experienced and learned and you can tell me what you've experienced and learned. Without photos there's nothing more we can do.
-
Your perception of reality: as far as you know. :)
I did a lot of research, rented gear and talked to other users - so without any proof its your word against mine. A standoff.
Please refrain from using the argument from authority by inserting yourself as an authority, that doesn't work and never did and never will. That's why I asked your for images, comparison shots - I'm willing to change my position but I need more than the word of someone I don't know and who has 0 proof.
Right now I can only tell you what I've experienced and learned and you can tell me what you've experienced and learned. Without photos there's nothing more we can do.
The fact that P+ back owners of m645 mount (like the O/P) find it hard to find a customer for their back, although other mount P+ backs are far easier to sell, is a proof though... I agree with sbernthal that there is little between lenses... but there little between CCD backs too...
-
The fact that P+ back owners of m645 mount (like the O/P) find it hard to find a customer for their back, although other mount P+ backs are far easier to sell, is a proof though... I agree with sbernthal that there is little between lenses... but there little between CCD backs too...
Totally true. Many people say "back X is exactly identical to back Y", when in fact there is always some difference.
-
Hi,
I don't like that dealer model. There may be great dealers, but all dealers may not be great, and all dealers cost money. If you cannot connect to vendor service directly it is a shame. If you have a choice to go over a dealer it is just fine, but you should always have the option to work with vendors directly.
That said, I have the impression that dealers like Steve Hendrix of Capture Integration are really good and honest guys whom you always can trust.
To put this into perspective:
I bought my P45+ used from a great guy in Poland. I have been told that my sample is a very good one, but it came without finder masks. So I contacted Scandinavian Photo, something like BH PhotoVideo who are dealers for P1. So I got a call back on the phone. What is a viewfinder mask? Shouldn't you order that from Hasselblad? But they finally deferred me to D3Image who have been extremely helpful.
But, now-days all links at Phase One Partners go to Scandinavian Photo, the guys who were very kind but didn't have the slightest idea. Some months ago, Phase One was also listed by Goecker.se, but it seems that Goecker dropped P1 in favour of Hasselblad only.
Best regards
Erik
As a user of both the AFDIII P45+ and IQ160, then the DF, (which was offered as a upgrade when I purchased my P45+ kit), the AF was the same, no improvement, still 3 hits basically to really get a good AF hit.
The other issues the DF inherited from the AFDIII, were the lockup issues, bad battery life and communication unless Li-On AA's were used (which I did not do to cost and availability in the field locations I shot at the time). Lockups were standard and common, most times required a total power off, and sometimes required a battery pack pull. The firmware could only be upgraded with the Grip installed as it had the USB port.
Many folks still don't realize most of the modern Mamiya AF lenses require firmware, from the 105-210 generation on up. The firmware needs to be current with the camera and can be a mess at times and that also caused lockups, (at least on my Mamiya 28mm non LS).
The DF+ came out, with a improved AF and the ability to microadjust the AF (only one lens could be done and none were stored as I recall), but the AF was much better, and more reliable. The battery pack was changed to the LI-ON back, and for most the lockups went away. Not for all as there have been reports even with the XF doing this type of lockup.
The real take away from all of this, you really need to work with a dealer on these issues. It's next to impossible to talk to Phase One directly, (in NY) and if you open a tech case online they are not going to authorize a replacement of hardware. This equipment can be finicky and firmware updates can create bigger issues. Once you have one, it's not all that easy to get back. The latest Phase Firmware currently for the XF and IQ123 backs, has created a bricked back in several situations. Yet Phase has not reported this or pulled the firmware, but you can find several reported cases of this on different forums. So again, main take away is find a dealer and work with them, or you might need to consider a different purchase. Phase One gear IMO still requires more hands on support than other types of camera gear.
Paul C