Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JamesA on April 02, 2009, 10:41:37 pm
-
So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors? Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car? Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
-
Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
No. They're mostly using the 1Ds3, 5D/5D2, and the D3x...
-
So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors? Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car? Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
P20 refurbished units are still available at $6,990. There are other attractive options - P21+/P25+/P30+ refurbished in the $10K - $13K price range. There are many factors which contribute to price, sensor cost being a prominent one.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors? Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car? Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
JamesA,
I have been lurking for sometime to buy into MFDB but as the FF DSLRs progress, I think even if Phase lowered their 18 or 20 Mp backs further, there is now very little attraction. The 21 - 24MP DSLRs have more going for them and most people should find them far more convenient to shoot with. The only possible usefulness that these older backs have over the DSLRs is better dynamic range, which may or may not be significant enough to tilt against the advantages of the newer DSLRs.
Personally, I think it would only be worthwhile to consider buying from the 39Mp backs upwards right now because otherwise a Canon 1Ds MKIII or Nikon D3X should be able to deliver. Don't get me wrong, I have always enjoyed shooting with MF and LF in film days but for digital, the economics just does not work in the same way.
YMMV
-
The only possible usefulness that these older backs have over the DSLRs is better dynamic range, which may or may not be significant enough to tilt against the advantages of the newer DSLRs.
The newest DSLRS are equaling the DBs in dynamic range as well. The only real difference is that the DSLRs have an AA filter on them and the DB doesn't. But if you take off the AA filter on a DSLR, you get the same results. Then again, a little AA filter is a good thing in most cases.
-
No you don't get the same thing with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and a P45 , not at all, but PhaseOne is overpriced
-
No you don't get the same thing with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and a P45 , not at all, but PhaseOne is overpriced
Overprice only if you think of it as a digital back only. PhaseOne goes well beyond that and provides excellent post purchase support should you need it. That does come at a cost.
-
I know but a P45 is a wonderful back and doesn't need a 25000$ support, I own a P45 , I had a 1Ds Mark III and I have now a Canon 5D Mark II
-
Overprice only if you think of it as a digital back only. PhaseOne goes well beyond that and provides excellent post purchase support should you need it. That does come at a cost.
if MFDBs were well made without problems in the first place then you wouldn't need post purchase support would you?
I've only brought one canon camera in for repairs once in my life. after 3 years of heavy usage.
btw their post purchase support is excellent too.3 days turnaround in my case.
-
I have only brought in a piece of Nikon equipment twice in 25years. Their service is also excellent, in my experience that is. I find the service of Leaf and Hasselblad (I have no experience with the others) very good as well when I needed it which was also pretty rare. It is not something I want to spend a lot of money on BTW. I prefer trouble-free equipment instead of excellent service...
IMO, MF isn't even that much more expensive than high-end DSLR. Yes, it is more expensive but prices have been creeping towards each other lately. Nikon's D3x is priced pretty high, they have just increased prices on glasswork. Hasselblad (but also the others) have dropped their prices significantly. If Hasselblad would now only drop their price on the new zoom, HTS & 120mm I would be very happy
It is a pity that almost every discussion now on this board is about MF vs DSLR. Yes MF is not particularly cheap, IMO you even need to have 2 of everything when it is generating your income. For some that makes economic sense for others it doesn't.
-
So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors? Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car? Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
One of the issues is that some of the sensors are no longer being made. The Kodak KAF-16802 (16.6MP) KAF-18000 (18MP) and KAF-22000 (22MP) are 3 examples. Hence why some products are only offered as refurbished at lower price points.
Entry level products are still popular for schools since the file size is not the deciding factor. For Pros, even at a low price point they might be not attractive enough compared to a higher MP DSLR, regardless of their respective qualities.
As Steve suggested, several refurbished models sell for 4 figures, some even less that $5K. You can see some prices on our website (http://www.leaf-photography.com/usa/)
Yair
-
In my case, I think the quality of digital equipment has become very good, so there is little reason to buy new stuff.
For instance, I have two Aptus 65 that keep going on and on, not a problem in the two years I've had them, ditto with the Sinar P2s, they are made to last a generation. The Epson 7880 also seems to be giving me very good service and the NEC Spectraview 3090 monitors are fantastic. So is the Broncolor lighting. It all seems to work so well that there is little incentive for me to spend on anything. And there must be tons of people like me who are happy with what they have.
I would be willing to spend on something new and innovative that would actually improve my working life or my photography. But frankly, I don't see anything around that entices me sufficiently. I don't need larger sensors, and I don't need faster computers than I already have, I am into gadgets up to a point, i.e. when they serve some really practical usage.
It's nice to just be able to shoot without thinking of the equipment anymore.
Edward
-
So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors? Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car? Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
Hi James.
I can understand why you ask, and I don't think there is one answer. What camera professionals use depends very much on the kind of work they do, their style and how they prefer to work. A DSLR is practical, affordable compared to MFDBs and has a number of advantages over DBs. On the other hand, DBs also have advantages and disadvantages. They are slower but some prefer the quality of the file. It's really about how you like to work.
I think the reason that 16-20mb backs still is interesting for some pros is because of the lenses available for medium format. A lot of users of the high end DSLRs now feel that the weakest parts of their system are the lenses. The sensors in the latest DSLRs have such incredible resolution that they 'outperform' a lot of 35mm lenses. Some pros, who don't necessarily need 30-60mp resolution, still feel it is worth going medium format with a 16-20mp back, simply because of the quality of the lenses.
No system is better than another if it doesn't suit your style and type of work.
-
In my case, I think the quality of digital equipment has become very good, so there is little reason to buy new stuff.
For instance, I have two Aptus 65 that keep going on and on, not a problem in the two years I've had them, ditto with the Sinar P2s, they are made to last a generation. The Epson 7880 also seems to be giving me very good service and the NEC Spectraview 3090 monitors are fantastic. So is the Broncolor lighting. It all seems to work so well that there is little incentive for me to spend on anything. And there must be tons of people like me who are happy with what they have.
I would be willing to spend on something new and innovative that would actually improve my working life or my photography. But frankly, I don't see anything around that entices me sufficiently. I don't need larger sensors, and I don't need faster computers than I already have, I am into gadgets up to a point, i.e. when they serve some really practical usage.
It's nice to just be able to shoot without thinking of the equipment anymore.
Edward
I couldn't agree more.
I also think the perception of cost and value relates to usage; if you are making a living from your kit then high end digital is very reasonable. If it's for pleasure or a part-time affair it's horrendously expensive.
8 years ago I was spending an average of £6000 per year on film and processing. If you have a canny accountant you can depreciate your digital back in 3-5 years. If you lease it then it's a monthly expense - even better. For me, three years of not paying for film/process = £18,000.... or a P45.
I also think it's too easy to forget that their was a certain element of stress shooting film; you might get your f-stop right but there's always the possibility that the guy down the lab might screw things up in any one of a hundred imaginative ways! It's hard to put a value on the certainty and piece of mind digital provides as you're actually shooting.
When I first dipped my toe into digital I thought I'd take a hit on my bottom line and end up working hours on end for nothing in front of a mac. The reality is the reverse, yes I spend time in front of a mac, but charging a capture fee makes the invoice relate to the amount of time I spend glaring at the screen, plus additional editing of images provides another income stream.
I use an older Imacon back on a X-Act2 but find myself shooting most of my work on 1Ds3 - you point, you press, it works....and works.
Is anyone out there tempted to buy shares in a digital back manufacturer right now?
-
Overprice only if you think of it as a digital back only. PhaseOne goes well beyond that and provides excellent post purchase support should you need it. That does come at a cost.
Preface: I love the way MF looks, I shoot MF film, I WANT to shoot MF digital.
Now wait a minute, that is a specious argument. I would argue that the post purchase support is only useful to MF Digital because they do need it. Things don't always work as expected, this creates problems and you need someone to tell you what is up. This is also why people hire digital techs. The closed system approach of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc. by nature of its large volumes means that things had better work as expected its all been engineered to just work.
The point of the above explanation is just that saying post purchase support is the driving factor for the price difference seems pretty off to me. The prices are high because they can be. No more, no less. For all the complaining people do on various forums about price, until the mass market of professionals stop buying high priced goods, the makers have no reason to stop selling them as high priced goods!
-
So is the continued five-figure cost due solely to the cost of the sensors? Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car? Are all pros really only using cutting edge, 39-60 megapixel backs now?
I think if someone buys a digital back he/she wants high resolution as well.
The market for those only wanting lower resolution can probably be served by the refurbished backs.
-
No. They're mostly using the 1Ds3, 5D/5D2, and the D3x...
Those are the semi professional...:+}
Snook
-
Why don't companies like Phase keep the "lowly" 16-20 megapixel products going, selling them at less expensive prices as a way for people to enter this format without paying the price of a car?
The unit cost of these sensors is mostly based on size, not pixel count, so there is not much production cost saving in continuing to make something like the 22MP 36x48mm sensors. Also, the marketplace clearly puts a higher value on the new higher resolution alternatives (forum chatter to the contrary notwithstanding), so the older sensor models become less profitable to produce.
-
The unit cost of these sensors is mostly based on size, not pixel count, so there is not much production cost saving in continuing to make something like the 22MP 36x48mm sensors. Also, the marketplace clearly puts a higher value on the new higher resolution alternatives (forum chatter to the contrary notwithstanding), so the older sensor models become less profitable to produce.
Digital has sold megapixels from day 1 and up to this stage it has worked.
Now whether it has anything to do with producing an interesting photograph is another matter and to me the megapixel race is only important to people who care about cameras more than photographs.
Right now the world is upside down and nobody knows where anything is going and I can honestly say that the cameras that I use for commerce are for different reasons than the ones I use for personal work.
For personal work I use a camera for the look, not the numbers or the detail. I prefer m p21+ over the p30+ because it has more texture, less smoothing, less digital in appearance, in the past I prefered the Aptus 22 to anything over 22mpx because I just liked the look processed in photoshop. For personal work in dslrs I prefer the original 1ds to my newer 3's just because I like the look.
Now for commerce it's different, I'll either use a p30+ because it has more detail or just because i'm in studio and I can, but truth be told for commerce I can shoot 99% of my work with a 1ds3 and everything is much, much faster and easier.
The information on this forum seems to be somewhat myopic as it is about digital cameras, not essentially photography, but in my travels and knowing the photographers that I do I find it amazing that so few own the latest and greatest digital back or even dslr. They will rent when required but at the high end of the photography world, I think everyone here would be surprised how many name photographers shoot film for personal projects. If they do shoot digital how many will use an olds 1ds1, or 2, even a 5d. I think everyone in the world seems to own a 5d.
The flip side to owning is renting and now that is easy as techs, digital companies and studios are falling out of trees looking for work. I just got an e-mail yesterday from a firm that will rent a tech, two p65+, two H series cameras and a computer station (with backps) on a 10 hour day at $1,400. That makes my brain rattle because I guess at retail price that is about 120k worth of cameras and computers for $1,400 a day and I would bet that is negotiable.
B
-
There are deals to be had right now IMO. I don't know if it's the economy or Hasselblad's price drops but I suspect it's a combination of the two. I just leased a demo P45+ for a very competitive price. As Steve mentioned, there are some great deals out there on P backs.
With that said, it's still the wild west as far as prices go unless you work with a dealer. I worked through Chris Snipes at Image Productions in the Tampa Bay area and he (as well as Steve H.) worked his butt off to get me a demo unit. For me it was very counter to the way I've purchased gear in the past but I was very happy with the result.
As far as the comparison to a DSLR, it's really all about what you want from a camera system. I like my Canons but I LOVE my Hasselblads. The image quality between the Canon sensor and the P45+ isn't a huge leap but the experience of shooting with my V system tethered to Capture One versus my old 1Ds MKIII and DPP is night and day.
-
The unit cost of these sensors is mostly based on size, not pixel count, so there is not much production cost saving in continuing to make something like the 22MP 36x48mm sensors. Also, the marketplace clearly puts a higher value on the new higher resolution alternatives (forum chatter to the contrary notwithstanding), so the older sensor models become less profitable to produce.
Doesn't surprise me, but the higher value must be true as well, otherwise Nikon couldn't sell a 24 megapixel D3 clone called the D3x for almost twice the price.
-
When I acquired a Sony a900 I wondered if I really needed my MFDB for my landscape work. So I went out and shot the same (detailed landscape) scene with it and with the P45+. Then I made 24 by 36 inch prints.
Result - simply no contest. The micro-detail, the tonality and the DR simply favor the MFDB by quite a large margin.
But if you don't make large prints....or if you're shooting wildlife (which is why I have the a900), then sure - spend the cash on other things.
Both DSLRs and MFDBs are great tools. Use each of them for their strengths.
Bill
-
When I acquired a Sony a900 I wondered if I really needed my MFDB for my landscape work. So I went out and shot the same (detailed landscape) scene with it and with the P45+. Then I made 24 by 36 inch prints.
Result - simply no contest. The micro-detail, the tonality and the DR simply favor the MFDB by quite a large margin.
But if you don't make large prints....or if you're shooting wildlife (which is why I have the a900), then sure - spend the cash on other things.
Both DSLRs and MFDBs are great tools. Use each of them for their strengths.
Bill
Do you wonder though how landscapers got by with 20 megapixel backs 3-4 years ago?
-
Do you wonder though how landscapers got by with 20 megapixel backs 3-4 years ago?
Better yet how many people make a living shooting landscape?
-
Do you wonder though how landscapers got by with 20 megapixel backs 3-4 years ago?
some even got by with, the laughable, 35mm film ...
for example, this guy (LINK (http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.html)), whose photographs were
obviously lacking in very important image elements
such as micro-detail, tonality and dynamic range ...
-
They probably realised that they were selling to clients who certainly couldn't tell the difference or more importantly couldn't care less if the image worked for them. Unlike here where it seems that expenses are justified based on differences that even the pro's themselves can't agree on and clients could care less about.
-
A 22 Mp back from 5 years ago still blows away any DSLR on the market. I recently did some shooting of powerplants with a bleu sky and a lot of metal in it. I used both my 5Dmk2 and my 132c. None of the canon images even came close in rendering or detail to the ones shot with the mamiya with 132c back. as soon as you start shooting scenes with shiny walls lit by strobe with colored gels you will also see the enormous color gradations the canon displays where the hasselblad shows only the color that was present at the time of the shoot.
The only thing that changed between the 5d and 5dMk2 is the pixel count. the so called DR advantages is only a internal software "shadow/highlight" trick in the camera body and has nothing to do with real DR improvements.
Try it for yourself, shoot a shiny white wall lit by a bleu colored strobe, do some photography in a ill lit factory, etc.
In a studio environnement all dslr camera's look great, but for a lot of photographers that's not real life.
When i would be a fashion , people or other less difficult lighting user i easally could switch completely to a canon or nikon, but as myself there are thousends of other photographers shooting other stuff wich are much more challanging to a camera tham fashion and people photography.
-
A 22 Mp back from 5 years ago still blows away any DSLR on the market.
I think it's humorous reading about these differences and comparisons between cameras. Of course I don't shoot huge landscapes for a living, but I do wonder just how many people in the world are in fact making a good living at it. I can think of not one of my hundreds of favorite images over the years which would have improved from more "micro-detail." I am talking about my own work, prints I see in galleries, magazines, museums, etc., etc.
I believe there are micro-differences, but I believe that these have little to do with the goodness of an image. I mean seriously, go over to your bookshelf, flip through the pages of some of your coffee table tomes, and tell me what you see. How many would have much greater impact with 20% more detail?
And as has been said many times, do what your business requires. Have your clients ever asked for more micro-detail? Do they even see it? Do they care? I use a variely of camera formats from 4x5 to polaroid to 5D2s. Just the 5D Mark I cameras have earned me 6 figures per year for the past several years, without any complaints from clients. One client had their best sales day ever during the economic meltdown just this past November - with sales exceeding $1.1 million on the Monday following Thanksgiving. The ads were all shot with the lowly 5D, with no complaints about micro detail or anything else. (and no moire either ;-))
I know that in terms of investing in my business, spending on plane tickets makes a lot more sense and will better my portfoilios to a MUCH greater degree than spending huge amounts on cameras.
I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.
-
I believe there are micro-differences, but I believe that these have little to do with the goodness of an image.
Lisa,
I agree 100%.
There is value in having the right tool, but the right tool in digital is way different than the days of film. In film you could see the difference between 4x5, 8x10, 6x6 and 35mm. All had a place.
Now the largest frame size is 645 which may be double that of a 35mm frame, but in reality that is not that much larger.
The only people I see today that really care or jones for the latest and greatest digital back are the guys sell cameras or that make their living off of seminars and classes. Nothing wrong with that and some have made it an excellent and profitable business model, but it doesn't hurt to show up teaching a class with a camera that costs 6x the price of their students cameras. It adds the same validity as seeing Mario Andretti show up at the driving school in a Ferarri instead of a toyota.
For photographers working in commerce, in the digital world the camera is just a very small part of the process.
-
I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.
This has got to be one of the smartest things ever posted in this forum. It's too bad it will largely fall on deaf ears.
-
This has got to be one of the smartest things ever posted in this forum. It's too bad it will largely fall on deaf ears.
Er, thanks Bob ;-)
Here is just one of the many people I know who spends her money traveling and shooting instead of on cameras (she uses a 5D) and has some great location fashion stories to show for it. I would bet that had she spent $30K or more on a camera two years ago, she would not have half of these images. Because she would have been broke and stuck in NYC where she lives.
http://www.dagmaraphotography.com/movie.htm (http://www.dagmaraphotography.com/movie.htm)
-
This has got to be one of the smartest things ever posted in this forum. It's too bad it will largely fall on deaf ears.
+1
-
That's exactly it.
I completely agree that there should be lower res and more economically priced options when purchasing a new medium format camera system. How many people have started with a basic canon or nikon camera system with descent lenses and than purchased the higher end models when it became possible financially. The same should apply with medium format cameras and not everyone wants to reisk buying a refurbished or 2nd hand camera. The option should be there.
I would buy a 22megapixel Hasselblad head and shoulders over a 22 megapixel Canon. The argument over sensors is one they but they also have better lenses and better software in phocus. I'm not a sports photographer and compared to the mamiya 7 medium format film cameras I'm used to in the past it's got more than enough features. Once tethered you have fantastic control at your fingertips.
They are bringing prices down but they should work harder at getting more amatures into medium format. Not everyone can have that much outlay for what would be a hobby.
Hi James.
I can understand why you ask, and I don't think there is one answer. What camera professionals use depends very much on the kind of work they do, their style and how they prefer to work. A DSLR is practical, affordable compared to MFDBs and has a number of advantages over DBs. On the other hand, DBs also have advantages and disadvantages. They are slower but some prefer the quality of the file. It's really about how you like to work.
I think the reason that 16-20mb backs still is interesting for some pros is because of the lenses available for medium format. A lot of users of the high end DSLRs now feel that the weakest parts of their system are the lenses. The sensors in the latest DSLRs have such incredible resolution that they 'outperform' a lot of 35mm lenses. Some pros, who don't necessarily need 30-60mp resolution, still feel it is worth going medium format with a 16-20mp back, simply because of the quality of the lenses.
No system is better than another if it doesn't suit your style and type of work.
-
... that there should be lower res and more economically priced options when purchasing a new medium format camera system.
Maybe, but as I said above, lower pixel count sensors of the same size are not significantly cheaper to make, so keeping the older, lower resolution sensors in production is not a promising route to offering more economically priced options in DMF.
Pentax is pursuing the only realistic option for less expensive DMF option that support existing lenses, by adopting the smallest "medium format" sensor size of 44x33mm, and then adding a few lenses adapted to that format size, so that it will have decent normal (a new 55mm f/2.8) and super-wide angle (details TBA) lens options. Other DMF systems also offer 44x33mm "economy" back options: none has any lenses specifically adapted to that format, but maybe existing 55mm and 50mm primes are adequate as normals for 44x33 format.
-
They are bringing prices down but they should work harder at getting more amatures into medium format. Not everyone can have that much outlay for what would be a hobby.
They SHOULD HAVE done this years ago but they blew it in my opinion. These very same students, new professionals, and maybe even keen amateurs balked at the prospect of getting ripped off and decided to buy Canon and Nikon DSLR's instead. They will not switch now it's too late.
I mean where have all the old backs, Aptus 17,22 and Phase models that have been exchanged and upgraded gone to ? They COULD HAVE been sold cheaply to get people into the MFDB world. Instead of which the makers tried to control the second hand market and in doing so put people off instead.
Pete
-
Hi,
Not really sure about that stuff with lenses. Most of those MF-backs having around 22 Mpixels used to be less than full format on MF, so wide angles may be an issue. The Canon-L stuff in general is excellent except in the wide area range. Also the old MF lenses intended for film were not always that good, at least not if you are looking at MTF-charts. The Hasselblad H series uses lenses made Fuji, and those lenses are significantly better than the old Zeiss lenses, at least according to MTF data from Hasselblad and backs like the H39 of course are nearly full format. Schneider and Rodenstock digital lenses are probably best of the breed, but I don't think that they are usable on MF-SLRs.
Top of the range MFDBs are better than DSLRs, no question, but I very much doubt that a crop-factor MFDB on an old MF-body is really competitive regarding sharpness. DR and subjective image quality may be something else.
The landscape changed significantly for DSLRs when the Sony Alpha 900 and the Canon 5DII were introduced. Neither camera is really entry level, but both offer top of the breed image quality at least at low ISO at around a third of the price it used to be. So the $$$s we are discussing are more like 2500 than 8000.
I would add that there is a very significant advantage to DSLRs that there is a good choice of zooms. Zooms are very good for cropping. Of course you can crop by moving the camera but this is often not very practical, may it be that you are on a hilltop, a river bank or just have found the perfect perspective between the trees and below that power line. Once you crop an image you start to throw away pixels by the million.
Of course there will be folks who say that a 22 MP MFDB is that much better than a 21 or 24 MPixel DSLR, but my guess is that your mileage may vary. Some people would say that the lack of low-pass (AA) filtering on MFDBs improves sharpness radically, but as far as I understand most of that difference is essentially false resolution (caused by contrast inversion), and my guess is that AA-filtered images just take a bit more sharpening. That sharpening of course will increase noise, if not protected by an edge mask, on the other hand edge masking is quite convenient in ACR or Lightroom.
There are many other factors, convenience, workflow and some people may just prefer the feeling of a medium format camera.
Best regards
Erik
That's exactly it.
I completely agree that there should be lower res and more economically priced options when purchasing a new medium format camera system. How many people have started with a basic canon or nikon camera system with descent lenses and than purchased the higher end models when it became possible financially. The same should apply with medium format cameras and not everyone wants to reisk buying a refurbished or 2nd hand camera. The option should be there.
I would buy a 22megapixel Hasselblad head and shoulders over a 22 megapixel Canon. The argument over sensors is one they but they also have better lenses and better software in phocus. I'm not a sports photographer and compared to the mamiya 7 medium format film cameras I'm used to in the past it's got more than enough features. Once tethered you have fantastic control at your fingertips.
They are bringing prices down but they should work harder at getting more amatures into medium format. Not everyone can have that much outlay for what would be a hobby.
-
I guys. I think you misunderstood me a wee bit. I actually mean a lower res H3d option for example which can use the H Lenses as opposed to a camera than can take all the older lenses. So you are not having to deal with the whole cropping issue. I don't think it's a great idea of doing a nikon on the lenses because the sensor size as you all say is different in size to the old film format. There are the wide angle issues, losing autofocus and the new lenses are designed specifically for the latest H Cameras. I know if i was starting off, I would prefer the door open to the future, rather than using optics from the past. I think it would do the medium format companies no harm if they tried to entice serious amateurs in by having say a 16 megapixel H camera that can use the latest lenses which leaves the possibility of an upgrade. I'm speaking as a Hasselblad user, but obviously the same applies to the other manufacturers also. To me it seems like bad business sense. Now that the top models are been brought down anyway, they should be able to have a "budget" model which can strongly compete in terms of price with the top canons and nikons while having better sensors, lenses and software.
-
I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.
Lisa ... you just shifted my paradigm.
A voice of reason!
-
I think finding used MF equipment that is on a good shape is a great compromise. It can be done with about 10/12k for a 30mp back and body with few lenses, if you opt for the mamiya system.
Actually if the equipment is on very good condition, it is not even a compromise, it is the best solution. You can get mint condition items for that budget. you can pay that off in 3 years for about 350$ a month and at the end you may be able to sell it for few grands.
The new offerings at higher res do not offer much more on term of image quality compared to 30mp, once the photo goes through PP and hit the paper or the web. AT least for 99% of fashion and AD work.
Then you add a 5d or a Sony with few lenses you may own already, and with 15k you are good to go for at least 4 years. what ever will replace the current equipment you have on the next few years, will not change a zic in the quality of your photos or on the way clients will perceive you and your work.
Also having just a couple of Sony's or new 5d and no MF, will do well for 95% of the possible work someone can get.
If the clients do perceive you as a photographer in relation with the equipment you use, then something is wrong on the relationship.
-
Lisa
do you know the sentence about writing ?
"Nobody ever asked Hemmingway, which typewriter he used for the old man and the sea."
Translated: if you are a bad photographer not evena 650 MP back will make you any better and Microcontrast from an ugly picture is anotherone of the things the world doesn´t need.
Tools are only tools, but your brain and your eyes are the world.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Er, thanks Bob ;-)
Here is just one of the many people I know who spends her money traveling and shooting instead of on cameras (she uses a 5D) and has some great location fashion stories to show for it. I would bet that had she spent $30K or more on a camera two years ago, she would not have half of these images. Because she would have been broke and stuck in NYC where she lives.
http://www.dagmaraphotography.com/movie.htm (http://www.dagmaraphotography.com/movie.htm)
-
I actually mean a lower res H3d option for example which can use the H Lenses as opposed to a camera than can take all the older lenses. So you are not having to deal with the whole cropping issue.
To avoid "the whole cropping issue" with H lenses, the sensor needs to be fairly close to 645 format; maybe 49x37mm like the old 22MP will do, but certainly not 44x33mm as in the H3DII-31. And as I keep saying, MF sensor cost is mostly dictated by sensor size, so such a back will not have a significant production cost advantage over one using a newer, higher resolution sensor of the same size. However such a back will have a lower market value. Similar production cost but distinctly lower market value is not a viable business proposition.
-
As a landscape guy, I stick by my previous post (er... rant) about who should use DBs and who shouldnt bother:
I recently spent a lot (although a lot less than I could have) after bargaining down a dealer on a refurb P45. Altogether with a Phase Camera Kit it was less than twice what a Nikon D3X or Canon 1DsMkIII costs (which I sold for 1/2 what I bought it for one year after purchase). In the three years since I moved from LF to digital, I have lost a lot of $ on depreciation and finding out I personally can't use the Canon system worth a damn. Here are a few thoughts I have from the experience:
Medium Formal is probably worth it if you:
1-Are rich or make money hand over fist- buy new and enjoy!
2-If not rich or super lucrative, buy used or refurb, and don't be shy about the haggle. These dealers would rather sell an old back then wait for the next whale to walk through the door.
4-Want flexibility of use: like say by using a viewcamera, or a "plate" camera, or a homemade thing you machined in your garage.
5-Want your CAMERA to have shelf life beyond your sensor, and not just your lenses. I am actually pretty happy with the Phamiya and Mamiya glass, and imagine upgrading the back before the camera.
6-Like to take your time (or can afford to take your time) on jobs or making pictures in general. You can take Canon with a wide autofocus on the most demanding Architecture job, shoot a bazillion frames from all angles, and make passable work after having your assistant spend the weekend stitching and HDRing countless files. Or you can take a MFDB and a shifting camera, take twice the time and a tenth of the exposures, and have everything almost finished in camera, and totally finished in Capture One by the end of the day. Also you are more likely to get that beautifully simple easy-to-overlook shot.
7- If you Print big. Period. Ive spent a lot of time trying to make a triple stitch from a 21MP 35mm camera look like a clean LF exposure, and it just aint the same thing. It is different and easier and maybe better. But not the same thing. My outdated (and very ISO limited) P45 39Mp sensor just draws an image with a clarity that I havent seen with a Canon or Nikon.
8- Can't Stand the 2:3 ratio and wonder who the hell ever came up with it. Very simply, I don't make prints in a 2:3 ratio, therefore with the Canon I either had to crop or stitch. This is a particular and nitpicky bugaboo, but hey, we've all got problems.
Do not go MFDB if:
1-You want lowlight capability, at least until the P65+ comes down to a reasonable price point. But by then Canons and Sonys and Nikons will be able to shoot in pitch black and see through walls, so you still dont want to mess with the finicky DBs.
2-Size Doesnt Matter. Of the print, I mean.
3-You want speed, and the ability to get that impossible-to-catch shot. I pity the sports photographer that ever brings a Phase kit to shoot a tennis match. Or to his kids soccer game.
4-You are cheap. I'm actually pretty cheap. But I needed what the DB could give me, and didnt need the good stuff from Canon. However, the Canons of this world will ALWAYS have some hi-end product that will give ya a little more for your buck then Hassy Leaf or Phase are willing to give, pound for pound. Its simple economics and the higher competition & volume in the larger 35mm DSLR world.
These are just my opinions after giving Mr. B and Mr. H way too much of my money. Hope it helps.
-
Hi,
I think that the medium format segment has become even smaller with the rise of digital imaging. DSLRs are good enough, lighter and cheaper. Moreover, when many photographers shifted to digital, firms like Hasselblad could not offer a complete system on their own having to rely on digital back manufacturers. Once people chose Canon or Nikon instead of Hasselblad, they often stay with those systems. I think this is one important reason why Hasselblad and Mamiya lost so much of the wedding and portrait segments in the early 2000s.
Having studied Hasselblad in detail over the last years, I have put together a slideshow which explains what happened to the firm in the shift to digital imaging:
http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstr...tive-innovation (http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/hasselblad-from-the-moon-to-surviving-disruptive-innovation)
Best,
Chris
-
Having studied Hasselblad in detail over the last years, I have put together a slideshow which explains what happened to the firm in the shift to digital imaging:
http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstr...tive-innovation (http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/hasselblad-from-the-moon-to-surviving-disruptive-innovation)
Thanks for the interesting background Chris. Another good example of how companies who have no interest in the business they buy (other than money) ultimately wreck it.