Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on December 05, 2011, 09:33:25 pm
-
I was bored, while in my sickly state, so I figured out the average cost per megapixel, and the average cost of a lens for the major medium format digital manufacturers and their main camera systems. Nothing unexpected, but sort of interesting to see it in numbers.
645DF Family
PhaseOne IQ180 Cost Per Pixel $550
PhaseOne P65+ Cost per Pixel $533
Leaf Aptus II 80mp Cost Per Pixel $413
Leaf Aptus II 56mp Cost Per Pixel $464
Average Cost Per Lens $2786 (14 Available From B&H)
Hasselblad
Hasselblad H4D-60 Cost Per Pixel $700
Hasselblad H4D-200MS (50MP) Cost Per Pixel $880
Average Cost Per Lens $4270 (12 Available From B&H)
-
I am glad to see my Pentax 645D "only" cost me $247.50 per megapixel. Or I can get about 4,000 pixels for a dollar.
-
Sorry I was only counting interchangeable backs.
Leica S2's Cost Per Pixel is $575 if anyone cares as well.
and their average cost per lens is $6800
which is also to be expected...
-
I'm trying to figure out how you got to those figures. You must be going by list price, and maybe even with the camera body included, because I paid significantly lower for my backs, and I think the prices you list for HB backs seems wrong because in my experience they have been on par or cheaper per pixel than the other makes.
-
You really need to get well soon.
I know, Keith, it's almost as sad as my own final deal with Rusty: exactly a euro a cc...
Rob C
-
Can anyone calculate how much it costs to take a picture? How much the customer pays for a picture - adding up all the photos taken at the session ...
I wish you a successful computation ::)
-
Obviously your not serious.
This is like asking what does a car cost per mile?
Anyway . . .
What I can tell you is digital has NOT lowered the costs, if anything from film to digital , at least in commerce, the price has gone up 10 fold.
Maybe it's lower if you shoot a low volume, shoot for yourself, have long deadlines and a lot of free time, but for our studios it's not even close to imagine that for every day we shoot there are 3 to 4 days of post production, just to get to the web gallery stage.
Now we shoot motion and stills on every project, multiple cameras and with digital the volume per day has gone up 5 fold, still we are now our own labs, colorists, pre press houses, retouching/effects managers and in some case editors.
I'm not knocking it, because having the control of concept to delivery has upped our role with a client (either agency or direct), makes us a much larger player in the marketing plan and more importantly has allowed us to grow creatively and expanded our commerce.
It's also allowed us to be whatever we want to be. Film makers, still photographers, creative partners, the list goes on.
Still.
When we started with digital still capture 7 or 8 years ago, our then studio manager standing in front of his computer, with two calibration pucks around his neck, a stack of drives in front of his monitor said to me, "Someday, we'll look back at this and say wow, I remember when film was only 20 per roll".
He was so right.
IMO
BC
You're right, I agree with you.
It was a provocation. I just can not see any sense of calculating how much a pixel.
How much you pay for 1KM in Fiat Panda, and how much you pay for 1KM in Rolls-Royce. Or even better, it is cheaper in ferrarii or Rolls-Royce?
Everyone has different requirements, so these calculations have no meaning.
-
Sure they do. You take the cost as noted above, divide it by what you really paid, and generate a satisfaction index. >1, you feel great. <1, you stop reading.
-
Just got a P45+ for $323 per MP. Pretty good deal me thinks :D The Pentax deal does look pretty good though TGW645.
-
Just got a P45+ for $323 per MP. Pretty good deal me thinks :D The Pentax deal does look pretty good though TGW645.
See thats what I was talking about, not the value it has to the end user, simply purchasing price to mp, found it rather interesting way of thinking about it :D
-
I do not want to even come close to doing the math on my MF system it would put me in depression. ROTFLMAO
But end of day I absolutely love the results so i could care less what it cost and the ROI is nice but I shoot for me first. I'll get my money back eventually with the client end, not worried about it. I think sometimes we should forget the business side of things and just enjoy our passion for what we do.
-
I do not want to even come close to doing the math on my MF system it would put me in depression. ROTFLMAO
But end of day I absolutely love the results so i could care less what it cost and the ROI is nice but I shoot for me first. I'll get my money back eventually with the client end, not worried about it. I think sometimes we should forget the business side of things and just enjoy our passion for what we do.
+1000
TRUE
-
Maybe what Cooter is saying is that the days of the small, independent solo photographer are over?
Going on from there to what Guy was advocating: yep, that was my theme song too; and you know what, at the end of the day, when the business days are gone, you wish you'd handled it from the money point of view instead. Funny how your life and expectations are so much more demanding than you imagined they were going to be when you were young and living on adrenalin bursts.
On the other hand, when the calculations were telling you you'd be just fine, nobody told you about the banks effing you and everything else right up to the eyes. Bastards. And they still have the gall to pay themselves bonuses for having screwed you; mothers should be thinking about actually paying you some interest instead!
Rob C
-
I just can not see any sense of calculating how much a pixel.
Well, when you are sick in bed with only a TV to keep you company, you need something to keep you from going crazy. Or is that a symptom of it? I forget...
-
Maybe what Cooter is saying is that the days of the small, independent solo photographer are over?
Going on from there to what Guy was advocating: yep, that was my theme song too; and you know what, at the end of the day, when the business days are gone, you wish you'd handled it from the money point of view instead. Funny how your life and expectations are so much more demanding than you imagined they were going to be when you were young and living on adrenalin bursts.
On the other hand, when the calculations were telling you you'd be just fine, nobody told you about the banks effing you and everything else right up to the eyes. Bastards. And they still have the gall to pay themselves bonuses for having screwed you; mothers should be thinking about actually paying you some interest instead!
Rob C
Well I should really add to this also that for the younger aspiring Pros and for a lot of shooters 35mm is good enough and need to keep your eye on your books and your bottom line. I thinks older Pros or ones that have been in this for awhile get to the point its all about what you want from your files. MF is a damn slippery slope and the costs are very high, so we should be careful or at least i should advocating it in general. Sure I spent a load of money over the years and if I really looked at it maybe over spent too but I have done well for myself so its a easier pill to swallow but for the new breed coming in and younger ones getting there start watch this slope carefully as i have seen more shooters being forced out because of costs and lack of business. So as a person that advices a lot of people on this stuff I do need to be careful even though me personally has a somewhat different attitude towards it since I have been in it so long its all about me now and what i want. Certainly for some clients 35mm is good enough and I still shoot it but I'm after much more personally and Professionally. I love my MF files it is really just that simple.
For the hobbyist it's all about what they want and honestly I am a little jealous of that freedom. LOL
-
Can anyone calculate how much it costs to take a picture?
As has been said, obviously apples & oranges & pears.
I have a spreadsheet buried somewhere with my actual numbers before I closed my studio 3-4 years ago, going back to around 1995.
I migrated to the computer in 1998 for all output. Scanning film at the time, 35mm, 645, & 6x7. So all of the post capture costs, once the image is in the computer, are basically the same for film & digital. Digital capture takes out the cost of the scanner, no scan time, no spotting, filing, lab trips, etc.
I was doing fashion when I quit, so I was making a lot of images. More with digital than film of course. Averaging maybe 600-1,200 images from a 6-8 hour digital fashion shoot.
My cost per frame at the time, for pro 35mm film & develop only was $.33 per frame. For 6x7 it was $1 per frame.
For 2 years after ther Canon 1Ds2 came out, I averaged about 30,000 frames each year for studio & personal work with it. I bought for $7,800, and sold it at a price so that my total net cost was about $3,000, for the 2 years of use, with CF cards, etc. I was already a Canon photog, so no lenses et al.
So the 1Ds2 net cost was approx $.05 per frame, based on my volume. vs
* 1Ds2 at $.05 per image
* 35mm at $.33 per image (which I **hated** and had given up in 1998) ,
* 645 at $.60 per image = ($20/33 images on a Pentax 645N, I could tolerate 645) , and
* 6x7 at $1.00 per image ($20/20 image on a Mamiya 7II)
* 4x5 at $5.00 per image
In 1998, 1999, and 2000 I shot an average of 5,000 frames of 6x7 per year, at $1 per frame. Plus some 645 for personal work & family stuff. I was aware of that because I did a studio budget at the beginning every year. For film, equipment, conferences, marketing, trips, moldels, etc. based on the previous years actuals.
But with the 1Ds2 I was also shooting 30,000/5,000 = 6x as much as with 6x7 film.
So call it $.05x6 = $.30 per "image set" with the 1Ds2, or about the same as 35mm.
But a lot easier capture than scanning. And I was never happy with my 35mm images, whereas the 1Ds2 replaced my 6x7 eventually (I sold after 1 year with no use.)
For the film,, I have to add in the scanner cost. From 1998 to about 2003 or 2004, I was buying new scanners which cost me, on average, about $1,000 per year. That was for MF, those scanners were pretty expensive. I had 35mm scanners before that.
First in 1998 was $2,200 or so Dimage Multi, used that 2-3 years, never sold it. Then I bought an Agfa flatbed instead of a Nikon 8000 or Multi 2 around 2001 so that I could scan 4x5
At a rate of 5,000 images per year, that is an additional $.20 per image for scanner amortization. So a net $1.20 to capture a 6x7 frame into the computer.
I would expect, had I gone MFD about the time I bought ther 1Ds2, the cost may have equaled the $1 per frame of 6x7. Instaed I moved to 4x5 film capture, at a cost of $5 per sheet (excluding equip & scanner) for those captures that needed it. I think I budgeted for 400 sheets of 4x5 my last year, 2006 or 2007.
Sorry, not just sick, disabled & doing nothing but staring at the walls! :-\
Plus I have a photography undergrad and an MBA, so I followed the numbers pretty closely. Never made a decent image in my life, but I have nicely formatted spreadsheets to show for it!! 8)
Cheers!
Michael
-
As has been said, obviously apples & oranges & pears.
I have a spreadsheet buried somewhere with my actual numbers before I closed my studio 3-4 years ago, going back to around 1995.
I migrated to the computer in 1998 for all output. Scanning film at the time, 35mm, 645, & 6x7. So all of the post capture costs, once the image is in the computer, are basically the same for film & digital. Digital capture takes out the cost of the scanner, no scan time, no spotting, filing, lab trips, etc.
I was doing fashion when I quit, so I was making a lot of images. More with digital than film of course. Averaging maybe 600-1,200 images from a 6-8 hour digital fashion shoot.
My cost per frame at the time, for pro 35mm film & develop only was $.33 per frame. For 6x7 it was $1 per frame.
For 2 years after ther Canon 1Ds2 came out, I averaged about 30,000 frames each year for studio & personal work with it. I bought for $7,800, and sold it at a price so that my total net cost was about $3,000, for the 2 years of use, with CF cards, etc. I was already a Canon photog, so no lenses et al.
So the 1Ds2 net cost was approx $.05 per frame, based on my volume. vs
* 1Ds2 at $.05 per image
* 35mm at $.33 per image (which I **hated** and had given up in 1998) ,
* 645 at $.60 per image = ($20/33 images on a Pentax 645N, I could tolerate 645) , and
* 6x7 at $1.00 per image ($20/20 image on a Mamiya 7II)
* 4x5 at $5.00 per image
In 1998, 1999, and 2000 I shot an average of 5,000 frames of 6x7 per year, at $1 per frame. Plus some 645 for personal work & family stuff. I was aware of that because I did a studio budget at the beginning every year. For film, equipment, conferences, marketing, trips, moldels, etc. based on the previous years actuals.
But with the 1Ds2 I was also shooting 30,000/5,000 = 6x as much as with 6x7 film.
So call it $.05x6 = $.30 per "image set" with the 1Ds2, or about the same as 35mm.
But a lot easier capture than scanning. And I was never happy with my 35mm images, whereas the 1Ds2 replaced my 6x7 eventually (I sold after 1 year with no use.)
For the film,, I have to add in the scanner cost. From 1998 to about 2003 or 2004, I was buying new scanners which cost me, on average, about $1,000 per year. That was for MF, those scanners were pretty expensive. I had 35mm scanners before that.
First in 1998 was $2,200 or so Dimage Multi, used that 2-3 years, never sold it. Then I bought an Agfa flatbed instead of a Nikon 8000 or Multi 2 around 2001 so that I could scan 4x5
At a rate of 5,000 images per year, that is an additional $.20 per image for scanner amortization. So a net $1.20 to capture a 6x7 frame into the computer.
I would expect, had I gone MFD about the time I bought ther 1Ds2, the cost may have equaled the $1 per frame of 6x7. Instaed I moved to 4x5 film capture, at a cost of $5 per sheet (excluding equip & scanner) for those captures that needed it. I think I budgeted for 400 sheets of 4x5 my last year, 2006 or 2007.
Sorry, not just sick, disabled & doing nothing but staring at the walls! :-\
Plus I have a photography undergrad and an MBA, so I followed the numbers pretty closely. Never made a decent image in my life, but I have nicely formatted spreadsheets to show for it!! 8)
Cheers!
Michael
Wow, talk about meticulous. I found this fascinating to see the way you had recorded all of your costs in such detail. See I was only out of commission for a few weeks and I got to cost per megapixel, imagine if was longer where I would've gotten. Its amazing the things you wind up doing when your sitting in a room alone all day. I wound up doing some Macro photography (because it was easy and I didn't have to move) and some astrophotography (had someone else carry the camera out). Rather maddening not being able to shoot what I want, when I want. I do love how exactly you got down the specific cost per image for various formats for you.
-
Just don't apply the cost per megapixel formula to cameras like the A77 or NEX 7, or heaven forbid a point and shoot. ;D
I think I paid $5 per megapixel for my son's used Nikon point and shoot camera (4 megapixels, $20 price). :D
-
Just don't apply the cost per megapixel formula to cameras like the A77 or NEX 7, or heaven forbid a point and shoot. ;D
I think I paid $5 per megapixel for my son's used Nikon point and shoot camera (4 megapixels, $20 price). :D
I wouldn't even dignify those with my time ;)
besides 500 dollars is way more interesting then 5 ;)
-
Just don't apply the cost per megapixel formula to cameras like the A77 or NEX 7, or heaven forbid a point and shoot. ;D
I think I paid $5 per megapixel for my son's used Nikon point and shoot camera (4 megapixels, $20 price). :D
I paid £1.95 for an iPhone 3GS camera module....and another £0.95 for the toolkit
That's 90p per megapixel...
-
and how clueless were we in the digital beginnings to pretty much just give away internet usage??...and now there are some clients who want and demand that you shoot both still and motion and will only pay creative fees for the still because that is going in print and the motion is "just" internet. Seems I have always paid about over a grand per megapixel.. once you figure all the stuff you need to make it work for you..
with motion you use to be able to roll film for about 80,000 grand at least now you can have a red package for what, about 80 grand?.. but on the bottom its a different story..a af100 set up is not much more money from my old canon xl1 system, but the quality is not even close.
-
Wow, talk about meticulous. I found this fascinating to see the way you had recorded all of your costs in such detail. See I was only out of commission for a few weeks and I got to cost per megapixel, imagine if was longer where I would've gotten. Its amazing the things you wind up doing when your sitting in a room alone all day. ...
Yeah, can you say OCD? (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) :P
How about $ per MTF on the lenses? THAT should help me make great photos! ::)
I hit the wall with chronic pain/injuries about 4 years ago and had to give it up. Doing anything physical hurts, just picking up a camera. Hard to take eBay photos to sell stuff.
I just got an MRI 2 weeks ago and I'm starting to get it all sorted out. But I'll likely need fusion of 3-4 vertebre in my neck. Which just leaves the torn shouler, first rib, low back, and leg pain ...
I am hoping to find a younger photog to collaborate with in Jan/Feb. I love lighting, studio, fashion, styling, and still have a good kit. I am only 53, so I need to do something! In the mean time, I am bored as hell.
But - I am still alive, my wife works (as long as she willl let me hang around.) Sorry, I really don't mean to whine!
I hope you are back at it soon! I live vicariously now, so I can't have y'all out of action! (envious ..)
Cheers!
-
Or dollars per mm? The new 25mm from Pentax is $200 per mm, but my used 300mm is $2 per mm.
-
Or dollars per mm? The new 25mm from Pentax is $200 per mm, but my used 300mm is $2 per mm.
Wow, that 300 is a good deal! You think I could chop it, and make 12, 25mm? At 12x25$x200 = $60K off a $600 investment! Can you say "1%"? 8)
-
It's just saying my business model has changed, or should I say "our" business model has changed. It's impossible for me to pre produce, shoot multiple cameras, process, purpose, edit and deliver everything with just one or two people.
All you hear about is tech, tech, tech. This forum is fixated on it, some photographers have built their careers around brands and tech and blogs and I can promise you that it's not tech that sells a project, it's the human resource.
Content/image/vision is the 80%. The technical and production is the balance.
But now that there is no way to make a living on the low end, you also have to do complex process/project management + perfect execution + vision to earn any kind of niche with a livable return. You can't make a go of it on headshots or portraits while you learn the craft/art.
You are smart to build a good team and trust them. It is **hard** to do both the creative (right brain/left side/ intuitive creative) and technical (left brain/right side/analytical) + project/people/budget management all in the same brain at the same time. :o
As my memory started to fail, and I was whacked on my pain meds, I had to do lighting diagrams, timelines, & shot lists for all of my shoots. Every lens, aperature, background, styling change mapped out, so I could hand that to an assistant and let them mange me! Pretty pathetic!
So now I can do the analytic/technical. Too tired and medicated for the vision, at least right now.
When I was in grad school for photography (for 1 semester), the basic attitude was "We can teach someone all the technical they need to know in 6 months. Start with a good creative ..."
In undergrad, there was a woman who was 1 year ahead who is still a good friend. She was dyslexic and couldn't quite remember the technical or how to work her camera, but she has made a good career in photography.
Content trumps technical. But photogs are really the most conservative of "artists." Equipment is safer than talking about content, talent, meditation, vision, spirit, voice, energy - all that creepy stuff that so threatens your ego! And **that** is why Annie L. is a stupid bich! ??? ???
-
And **that** is why Annie L. is a stupid bich! ??? ???
Now that's too obscure for me to get.
I watched her sister's docu Life through a lens and enjoyed it very much - have watched it many times to fill the void when the tv sucks (often, indeed, even with a full range of UK and Spanish channels available) and then I saw her book Vida de una fotógrafa 1990 -2005, which I took to be the book they were planning in the film, and out came the credit card. It was, and it wasn't. In the event, it's a personal journey through her private emotional life, not at all what had been suggested (or understood) via the documentary. I would like my money back, though will certainly watch the film again.
So what exactly did you mean?
(You have my sympathy regarding health: I've had two heart attacks, two stents, and that friggin' fantastic Gitzo G 410 with its wonderful pan and tilt head is just too damned heavy for me to use outdoors. Period. I can manage a toy Slik. That's a very good reason for my coveting an M9 with a 35mm optic. Santa?)
Rob C
-
So what exactly did you mean?
Meant to be sorta ironic snark. 8)
About how wannabes and techies rag on her - "she doesn't even do her own lighting", "she just walks in and pushes the button."
I think, like you - she is doing it, I'm not. It's all just jealous sniping based on gossip.
When you have the vision, and consistently deliver iconic, world class, stunning imagery on the highest level. Well, take a close look and see what you can learn from someone who delivers, day after day, for 40 years, on the biggest, riskiest, most expensive and high pressure shoots. "Marie Antoinette" stills from that movie about her, etc. I still have that on my photo archive server, I'll have to watch it again for inspiration.
I realized when I woke up at 4 am that your post probably went astray from the "too complicated" thread? Oh well.
*****
I am really stunned to hear what you have gone through health wise! Congrats on making it. It is sobering to think that X numbers of years ago we might not still be here ...
It gives you a bit of perspective, doesn't it? It is so hard to adjust to limitations as we get older. Sounds like you are on the right track, with a good team you like and trust.
There is a good - though dated - book called "Men's Passages", about how our roles become less about "I" and more communal as we age. As you said - it doesn't matter who pushes the button And photography is so physically demanding.
Wow, I am glad to hear you are doing so well. Please take care of yourself! OT, but the one thing that helps me most, more than my 5 pain meds, etc. is meditation. I'll just leave it at that for now.
Cheers! I hope you are almost healed! M.
-
WOW! Why are photographers so snarky? Is there something about Annie's work that is raining on your parade?
She is a very talented photographer. It appears she made some bad business decisions, but given the state of the world economy, that does not seem that unusual, even in professions that should know better like banks and stock companies.
Naturally, if you are absolutely perfect and your work is second to none, then I guess you have a position from which to look down on your peers...
-
It was a joke about how everybody rags on her, because she doesn't clean her own lens and do her own photoshop.
I think she is kick-ass great, to quote my 23 year old MUA.
Personally, I am hoping I can get downstairs to get a cup of coffee in 2 hours. Maybe get dressed. That, to me, will be a successful day! ;D
-
It was a joke about how everybody rags on her, because she doesn't clean her own lens and do her own photoshop.
I think she is kick-ass great, to quote my 23 year old MUA.
Personally, I am hoping I can get downstairs to get a cup of coffee in 2 hours. Maybe get dressed. That, to me, will be a successful day! ;D
Not if we keep quoting your posts! What do you think about that? ;)
-
Not if we keep quoting your posts! What do you think about that? ;)
Anything that makes the minutes pass! Cold day and not enough sleep. Eff everything ....
Maybe I could become a professional troll? There must be some profit in that, if I could get paid per click! :o
-
It was a joke about how everybody rags on her, because she doesn't clean her own lens and do her own photoshop.
I think she is kick-ass great, to quote my 23 year old MUA.
she shot the queen, disney, agassi, most of her luios vuitton ads, clooney and so on with canon 1Ds and ef 24-70, which seems to be her favourite glass even for high-class-acts.
only-primes- and mf-lovers, listen: it's the photographer...
-
she shot the queen, disney, agassi, most of her luios vuitton ads, clooney and so on with canon 1Ds and ef 24-70, which seems to be her favourite glass even for high-class-acts.
only-primes- and mf-lovers, listen: it's the photographer...
One false conclusion does not support another. To follow your logic, let us just use cell phone cameras. But the equipment does impart qualities and it does hinder or complement a workflow. You would be also wrong to conclude that technical perfection is the point of comment. A Holga is as fine a tool as any camera is, if the qualities of the Holga are what you want. Annie's equipment choices are hers--I have other ideas about my work that lead me to my choice.
-
One false conclusion does not support another. To follow your logic, let us just use cell phone cameras. But the equipment does impart qualities and it does hinder or complement a workflow. You would be also wrong to conclude that technical perfection is the point of comment. A Holga is as fine a tool as any camera is, if the qualities of the Holga are what you want. Annie's equipment choices are hers--I have other ideas about my work that lead me to my choice.
who shot louis vuitton campaigns with a cell phone?
-
she shot the queen, disney, agassi, most of her luios vuitton ads, clooney and so on with canon 1Ds and ef 24-70, which seems to be her favourite glass even for high-class-acts.
only-primes- and mf-lovers, listen: it's the photographer...
Actually if you watch her documentary, she shoots, 35mm, medium format film, and medium format digital on most of her shoots....and she uses profoto, broncolor, leaf/mamiya/phase (you see it in the doc), Leica (m and s), and she uses Hasselblad for her Marie Antoinette pictures (which I think are some of her best modern pictures)....Although i have no doubt she owns a lot of equipment, I suspect a lot of it is rented, especially since she travels so much, it would be a rather large pain to lug too much...
-
who shot louis vuitton campaigns with a cell phone?
Hey, if it is only the photographer, then what does it matter what they use. ;)
-
Hey, if it is only the photographer, then what does it matter what they use. ;)
Oh so is that your clever way of implying that the gear DOES matter ;)
-
Why does so much stuff here end up as nothing but point-scoring?
All you need to win that is a natural ability with words - that implies nothing special and no greater mind.
Some folks use this and others that; there's room for everybody and room for very few. That's why the constant struggle, the competition and the occasional bitterness that comes wafting through. But relax, it's in the nature of life and was ever thus. Andy was more prescient than he imagined.
Rob C
-
Oh so is that your clever way of implying that the gear DOES matter ;)
;)
-
;)
Some I'm inherently twice as good as you because of my sensor? ;)
(I'm kidding)
-
Some I'm inherently twice as good as you because of my sensor? ;)
(I'm kidding)
Not so fast. Which manufacturer?
-
Not so fast. Which manufacturer?
Proud IQ180 owner
-
I was bored, while in my sickly state, so I figured out the average cost per megapixel, and the average cost of a lens for the major medium format digital manufacturers and their main camera systems. Nothing unexpected, but sort of interesting to see it in numbers.
645DF Family
PhaseOne IQ180 Cost Per Pixel $550
PhaseOne P65+ Cost per Pixel $533
Leaf Aptus II 80mp Cost Per Pixel $413
Leaf Aptus II 56mp Cost Per Pixel $464
Average Cost Per Lens $2786 (14 Available From B&H)
Hasselblad
Hasselblad H4D-60 Cost Per Pixel $700
Hasselblad H4D-200MS (50MP) Cost Per Pixel $880
Average Cost Per Lens $4270 (12 Available From B&H)
I know this is unusual game . I will correct your calculation for the H4D-200MS. If someone buys the 200MS to shout it at 50MP only the person is more than incompetent.
The H4D-50 is for that.
So the price/ pixel will be(calumet):
1. H4D-200MS:220
2. pentax 645 (list) :249
3. H4D-50 :580
4. Phase One IQ180 (back only ) :600
5. H4d-60 :667
6. Phase One IQ160 (back only ) :683
One can only wonder how your numbers got so wrong.
As always math reveals what is the name of the game.
Best regards,
James
-
How did you figure out your cost for the H4D-200ms, as much of a joke as it is, you couldn't count it as 200mp.......besides thats not a single image, so I don't even consider it to be anything worth comparing to the other single shot systems...
I used the numbers for the back only for the leaf/phase and the back+body for hasselblad since you can only buy the CFV's as back only otherwise you need the body...
-
Proud IQ180 owner
Hah! I got a Leica X1!!! It is all in the glass...
;)
(i certainly hope folks are not taking this seriously...)
-
Unfortunately, I feel like some of them are at this point.
I was making a small point originally, very small, and more a commentary on the boredom that comes with being cooped up inside all day with a computer....and finding it interesting to figure out how much a megapixel of medium format costs........
pour souls.....
-
How did you figure out your cost for the H4D-200ms, as much of a joke as it is, you couldn't count it as 200mp.......besides thats not a single image, so I don't even consider it to be anything worth comparing to the other single shot systems...
I used the numbers for the back only for the leaf/phase and the back+body for hasselblad since you can only buy the CFV's as back only otherwise you need the body...
Your numbers are based on using different sources for the prices. That is not valid from a scientific or technical point of view. In fact is not taken into account the results are meaningless. Of course you are on the more creative side of the word and that is ok.
"anything worth comparing to the other single shot systems..."
But you did.
Second I read this satire : http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2011/12/07/hasselblad-h4d-200ms-farce/
This quote don't have a price: "Well actually it scales down the megapixel count to 33.3mp and takes 6 images." (LOL)
-----
theguywitha645d: I am not, just correcting the bad math (guess who was a math teach for a long time ?)
I understand is about habbing some fun, like the quote above , it just a way to have some fun around MF.
Best regards,
James
*** Adobe <> Above LOL
-
Right but I only used the second source since the first one lacked somewhat accurate phase pricing...personally I trust B&H more then Calumet, only because I've never been in a Calumet store....and in the end is the difference really going to effect the numbers by anymore then +/- >50? which is really inconsequential for the point of the test...
-
Your numbers are based on using different sources for the prices. That is not valid from a scientific or technical point of view. In fact is not taken into account the results are meaningless. Of course you are on the more creative side of the word and that is ok.
"anything worth comparing to the other single shot systems..."
But you did.
Second I read this satire : http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2011/12/07/hasselblad-h4d-200ms-farce/
This quote don't have a price: "Well actually it scales down the megapixel count to 33.3mp and takes 6 images." (LOL)
-----
theguywitha645d: I am not, just correcting the bad math (guess who was a math teach for a long time ?)
I understand is about habbing some fun, like the quote adobe, it just a way to have some fun around MF.
Best regards,
James
someone read my website!
-
someone read my website!
Yes I did. I went because I was intrigued by the mis-math. But then I learn that I was there before. There is a lot of good stuff, and I mean it.
The first time I read the H4D-200MS article I was like: This guy don't understand the basic technology and is talking as if he was an expert.
Then after a second read I concluded that it was Satire, probably ignited by the price.
In general my favorites are the ones on the Leica S2. In fact I find your site doing a Google search for articles on the S2. A friend of mind is considering a medium format camera but the backs are not an option due to weight and volumes considerations.
Keep the good work.
Best regards,
James
-
Photography is about the quality of capture, not the cost involved or it becomes a business rather than art. So I feel the discussion about the cost (per megapixel, per sheet of film, per development or printing) is redundant. My own personal view ;-)
zenny
***Support http://thehumanape.org ***
-
For some people.....Not me.......it is their business....and to business people, these kinds of calculation can help them make financial decisions about their pricing etc etc...
-
Photography is about the quality of capture, not the cost involved or it becomes a business rather than art. So I feel the discussion about the cost (per megapixel, per sheet of film, per development or printing) is redundant. My own personal view ;-)
zenny
***Support http://thehumanape.org ***
And what if you cannot afford the equipment, materials, or process for your art to achieve the quality you want? Do you sell your children? Economics is not just a matter of profit and loss for businesses.
-
And what if you cannot afford the equipment, materials, or process for your art to achieve the quality you want? Do you sell your children? Economics is not just a matter of profit and loss for businesses.
very true, although a lot of people here do have very expensive equipment and it may seem like thats what everyone has.....there really aren't that many people who have mfdb's to begin with...In the wild, I have only met one other person who had one...it was in Oregon which kind of makes sense....but still. Equipment matters, in that how its built, functions, and how much it costs.
-
very true, although a lot of people here do have very expensive equipment and it may seem like thats what everyone has.....there really aren't that many people who have mfdb's to begin with...
And this is a really interesting bias in photo forums. I find the folks with some really expensive equipment seem rather indifferent to the cost, which is a very fortunate place to be. I have always felt blessed with the equipment I have had. I remember when I graduated, suddenly I did not have all the wonderful equipment that my college was blessed with and it took a bit of time and effort to afford good equipment. What I really like in MFD gear conversations with folks trying to get into the area where member X it thinking about a Phase/Mamiya 30MP system and then someone comes on and suggests an Alpa and an IQ180 as if it is really a simple choice and money is no object--like it was like choosing between a micro four thirds GH2 and E-P3.
The only photographers I meet with MFD equipment is at forums like this. I have yet to see anyone outside.
-
In the forty-odd years that I have have been shooting with MF gear (film at first, obviously, now digital) I have very rarely met another photographer using MF. At work I used to use MF for site recording and we also used it for aerial photography. But outside of that, 35mm ruled. And when I started, MF was not particularly expensive. You could pick up a Yashica 124G for about £65, or a Bronica kit for not much more and get great results.
So this scarcity of MF photographers is nothing new. If we go back thirty years, the only time you would ever see a Hasselblad would be at a wedding. That's why this forum is a great place to come and discuss a whole range of MF issues with very experienced users, because there certainly won't be many of them down at your local photo club.
John
-
But I have fewer friends with MFD than I did with MF film...
-
The only photographers I meet with MFD equipment is at forums like this. I have yet to see anyone outside.
Personally, I have encountered at least a half-dozen photographers using MFD gear "in the wild" over the past two years and the majority of those were photographing on the streets of NYC using various tech cameras. While I understand that nobody wants to be interupted while they're working, I found it interesting that with one exception, none of them were very friendly or outgoing, which surprised me somewhat, as I'd have thought they might be at least a little bit curious as to how an otherwise innocuous passer-by recognized that they were using an Alpa (the most common camera I have seen in NYC) or a Cambo or an Arca...
I also have a real-world (i.e., non-internet) friend who has an MFD outfit and we photograph together a few times each year, which has attracted some attention from other photographers when we're photographing at popular landscape locations such as Horseshoe Bend, etc. Unlike the NYC photographers I have encountered, I am usually happy to answer their questions and on a few occasions, I have even let them pop a CF card into my P30+ and capture a few frames so they can review them at home.
-
I have found few people on the streets of NYC very friendly...
-
Rarely have I encountered other photographers. If I do I know I'm in the wrong place.
;) Love it. Come to think of it, Keith, you are probably right.
John
-
Rarely have I encountered other photographers. If I do I know I'm in the wrong place.
That has to be the quote of the month, Keith! Bravo!
"if we go back thirty years, the only time you would ever see a Hasselblad would be at a wedding.
John"
And that has to be the most surprising one of the year. Totally contradicts my own experiences.
But we were always different up there in the north...
Rob C
-
I always find photographers friendly, and willing to talk about their equipment. If you ask them what they are shooting or something stupid like that, yeah they probably aren't going to talk to you...but like I was at the US Open (rather nice seats) and before the Nadal match and the Federer Match, I was down there talking to the photographers. They were more then happy to talk and stuff, me there with my D3s 70-200 vrii and teleconverter, I guess they found it intriguing or whatever. Also same day, met two people with M9's who were more then happy to talk about theirs and we exchanged what our favorite lenses are and fun stuff like that. I generally find photographers to be out going...
Once, I was at a beach taking some pics with my new IQ180 and some women and her husband who were bird photographers stopped and were talking to me. Nothing wrong with talking to people when your not on a timeline....
-
I always find photographers friendly, and willing to talk about their equipment. If you ask them what they are shooting or something stupid like that, yeah they probably aren't going to talk to you...but like I was at the US Open (rather nice seats) and before the Nadal match and the Federer Match, I was down there talking to the photographers. They were more then happy to talk and stuff, me there with my D3s 70-200 vrii and teleconverter, I guess they found it intriguing or whatever. Also same day, met two people with M9's who were more then happy to talk about theirs and we exchanged what our favorite lenses are and fun stuff like that. I generally find photographers to be out going...
Once, I was at a beach taking some pics with my new IQ180 and some women and her husband who were bird photographers stopped and were talking to me. Nothing wrong with talking to people when your not on a timeline....
Personally, I hate it.; it's a geat time to play deaf. Though in truth, I notice that it's less of a game these days... especially watching tv. Of course, with regards to the tv, perhaps it's just the mind's attempt at self-preservation... on the other hand, maybe not just with the tv.
Rob C