Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: yodelyo on November 16, 2006, 08:37:02 pm
-
hello
not really a question but more of a gripe: I have the canon 1Ds MkII and it is a good camera no doubt but I would rather use something else.....but i cant! I cant afford the MF backs and there is nothing inbetween, pricewise. in the old days new cameras came out all the time, but since the 1ds came out it has been that or $15-$35k mf backs that arent worth the $$$........and dont bring up the ZD because I have seen all those crappy images people have posted, they LOOK digital. I have a contax 645 and I am holding onto hope that a digital back will surface for under 10k but getting tired of waiting.........why doesnt someone come out with a new camera like the canon that is not a 35mm toy??? All those 35mm digi cameras (1Ds, 5d, nikon) are weak. Theimages they produce are pretty good but they arent big and sturdy like a real camera. I loved the RZ and I know others do also, cant someone make a great camera with a bright viewfinder that feels/focuses like a great camera ( RZ, contax, pentax 6x7, hassy 500 ).....I challenge someone to do it! Hah!
-
f
hello
not really a question but more of a gripe: I have the canon 1Ds MkII and it is a good camera no doubt but I would rather use something else.....but i cant! I cant afford the MF backs and there is nothing inbetween, pricewise. in the old days new cameras came out all the time, but since the 1ds came out it has been that or $15-$35k mf backs that arent worth the $$$........and dont bring up the ZD because I have seen all those crappy images people have posted, they LOOK digital. I have a contax 645 and I am holding onto hope that a digital back will surface for under 10k but getting tired of waiting.........why doesnt someone come out with a new camera like the canon that is not a 35mm toy??? All those 35mm digi cameras (1Ds, 5d, nikon) are weak. Theimages they produce are pretty good but they arent big and sturdy like a real camera. I loved the RZ and I know others do also, cant someone make a great camera with a bright viewfinder that feels/focuses like a great camera ( RZ, contax, pentax 6x7, hassy 500 ).....I challenge someone to do it! Hah!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might want to start by explaining us what exactly you dislike with the Canon? Is it just that it doesn't feel like a "real" camera?
Most of the digital backs are not using an AA filter, and that often results in some level of painterly look when you check the files at 100% on your monitor (is it what you call a digital look?). That is strongly influenced by the RAW converter used, but does overall typically not translate in any particular problem in print anyway.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've never heard anyone complain about the 1Ds2 build quality before. It's certainly sturdy and heavy enough. I can't say that I feel the same way about Canon lenses but that's a different gripe
I agree that there should be and could be a sub $10K MFDB. For some reason the manufacturers are keeping the prices up and justifying it with added features. I happen to know that the actual ex-factory cost of a back like the P25 is around $5K, and the R&D which went into that back has already been recouped. I think they could stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap at $8K and watch the medium format market boom. Oh well...
-
I've never heard anyone complain about the 1Ds2 build quality before. It's certainly sturdy and heavy enough. I can't say that I feel the same way about Canon lenses but that's a different gripe
I agree that there should be and could be a sub $10K MFDB. For some reason the manufacturers are keeping the prices up and justifying it with added features. I happen to know that the actual ex-factory cost of a back like the P25 is around $5K, and the R&D which went into that back has already been recouped. I think they could stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap at $8K and watch the medium format market boom. Oh well...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham,
you must have got wrong information: $5k is already about the price of a 22pmx CCD, with labour work when you need to replace a defective CCD. The ex-factory costs are far from these 5k. what many also forget: when a CCD was the most costly part in a dmfb at the begining of the digital age, it is now only a fraction of it. Today, firm- and software costs (which have also to be calculated in the porduction costs) are representing 30 to 40% of the costs of such a mfdb.
Aon
-
Graham,
you must have got wrong information: $5k is already about the price of a 22pmx CCD,
Ok, here is a more thorough answer.
The rest of the unit really isn't expensive (<$500). The price of the sensor does depend on quantity. If you order 500 of the KAF-22000CE, they cost $5245 each. If you order 1000 it drops to $4222 each. (These are the standard prices at least. Perhaps the big players get a sweeter deal.) So I maintain that if Phase One decided to attack the market with an $8K P25, it could easily be done.
-
Ok, here is a more thorough answer.
The rest of the unit really isn't expensive (<$500). The price of the sensor does depend on quantity. If you order 500 of the KAF-22000CE, they cost $5245 each. If you order 1000 it drops to $4222 each. (These are the standard prices at least. Perhaps the big players get a sweeter deal.) So I maintain that if Phase One decided to attack the market with an $8K P25, it could easily be done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham
I understand it this way as well, but let me tell you that no mfdb manufacturer will "sign" for 1000 ++ CCD's. You forget in your calculation the firm- and software costs: look how many people are involved in firm- and software. It is not 1 or 2, but teams of 10+ involved. You have to calculate and add the costs for a 3-Year warranty in the back costs. And you forget labour costs: in Danemark/Sweeden and Switzerland, you can imagine what those costs can be. And last but not least, any company in the world has to work with a minimum profit margin of 30 to 40%. When you calculate all these costs you are far from the $ 5k, very far.
Aon
-
Ok, here is a more thorough answer.
The rest of the unit really isn't expensive (<$500). The price of the sensor does depend on quantity. If you order 500 of the KAF-22000CE, they cost $5245 each. If you order 1000 it drops to $4222 each. (These are the standard prices at least. Perhaps the big players get a sweeter deal.) So I maintain that if Phase One decided to attack the market with an $8K P25, it could easily be done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graham,
another thing you forget: those backs are then shipped from the factory (shiping costs of about $ 200) NOT directly to endusers, but to distributors and/or dealers. Do you think that a profit margin for those people, with the necessary sales and support struture in thier company does not need as well a certain profit margin? I doubt any distributor would sell a mfdb for $ 800 to 1'000 (typical 10 - 15% dealer margin). It needs for them as well a minimum of 30%.
Aon
-
No I didn't forget. There is no new software or firmware to develop for the P25. It's already been written years ago!
I think it would be a safe bet to buy 1000 sensors if they were aiming for a $8K MSRP. The price shift would substantially swell the size of the MF digital market. If so, the total parts cost come to something like $4500. Another $500 should more than cover the minimal assembly and testing, even in Cph. (Btw I have been to the P1 HQ in Copenhagen and watched prototypes being put together).
Feel free to disagree, but look at the mamiya ZD. It uses a 22 MP sensor PLUS includes a whole MF camera AND they have all the R&D costs to cover because this is a new product. It still sells for $12K.
-
Graham,
another thing you forget: those backs are then shipped from the factory (shiping costs of about $ 200) NOT directly to endusers, but to distributors and/or dealers. Do you think that a profit margin for those people, with the necessary sales and support struture in thier company does not need as well a certain profit margin? I doubt any distributor would sell a mfdb for $ 800 to 1'000 (typical 10 - 15% dealer margin). It needs for them as well a minimum of 30%.
Aon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
$200 sounds extreme to me, and assumes that each dealer gets just one. Ship ten to a dealer for $100 and the cost becomes trivial.
Of course the dealers would sell this product. They will make the same profit through volume rather than per unit margin.
-
If you want to go MFD it can be done for under 10k. There have been refurbished Leaf and Phase backs offered in this forum for under 8k. I was able to score a Leaf Valeo Wi 22 for under 10k. If you're serious enough it's do-able.
My guess is that you're not serious. You'd rather gripe like the rest of the almost-mfd'ers that hang around this forum.
-
If you want to go MFD it can be done for under 10k. There have been refurbished Leaf and Phase backs offered in this forum for under 8k. I was able to score a Leaf Valeo Wi 22 for under 10k. If you're serious enough it's do-able.
My guess is that you're not serious. You'd rather gripe like the rest of the almost-mfd'ers that hang around this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would suggest you to ask PO what re-furbished in reality means: you would be surprised. I have no idea what Leaf understand under re-furbished.
Aon
-
$200 sounds extreme to me, and assumes that each dealer gets just one. Ship ten to a dealer for $100 and the cost becomes trivial.
Of course the dealers would sell this product. They will make the same profit through volume rather than per unit margin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, Graham, with all due respect: a (new) mfdb back (22 mpx) has ex-factory costs which lie already over $ 8k. And in this price you don't have the manufacturer, the distributor margin, the shipment costs included (not to speak about warranty = typicaly $ 2k per year).
There is a reason why those (new, i insist) mfdb are not sold at $8k. We are not in a consumer market, but in a small high-end market (7 to 10 tausend mfdb sold worlwide yearly?). Volume sales cannot be compared with normal volumes sales as it happens with consumer products. And nobody wants (can) to sell without making a gross margin, nor a manufacturer, nor a distributor.
As for Mamiya ZD: it sells at $ 12k, yes. Do you know why the Mamiya optic/photo division was sold? Any idea how much this ZD and 22 mpx back has cost to Mamiya and the current financial balance of this product for them?
When it comes to re-furbished backs, then one has to define and explain what the word "re-furbished" in reality means, in the eyes of a back manufacturer. Yes, you can have a 22 mpx back, re-furbished, but then you have to know what you buy. If you agree with it, then all is fine.
But you have the right to disagree as well. It is a simple calculation matter, based on facts and company rules to cover costs.
However, and here we agree all, it would be great to have a (new) mfdb at this (enduser) price of $ 8k.
Aon
-
hello
not really a question but more of a gripe: I have the canon 1Ds MkII and it is a good camera no doubt but I would rather use something else.....but i cant! I cant afford the MF backs and there is nothing inbetween, pricewise. in the old days new cameras came out all the time, but since the 1ds came out it has been that or $15-$35k mf backs that arent worth the $$$........and dont bring up the ZD because I have seen all those crappy images people have posted, they LOOK digital. I have a contax 645 and I am holding onto hope that a digital back will surface for under 10k but getting tired of waiting.........why doesnt someone come out with a new camera like the canon that is not a 35mm toy??? All those 35mm digi cameras (1Ds, 5d, nikon) are weak. Theimages they produce are pretty good but they arent big and sturdy like a real camera. I loved the RZ and I know others do also, cant someone make a great camera with a bright viewfinder that feels/focuses like a great camera ( RZ, contax, pentax 6x7, hassy 500 ).....I challenge someone to do it! Hah!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=85728\")
I don't think your really reading the situation properly.
Recently Leaf was offering the Leaf 17 aptus returned from a large upgrade purchase, at around 7 thousand each, which was a heck of a deal.
Even going to a Leaf 22 if you shop around can come in at around 18 grand. That may seem like a large buy in until you figure the years of use.
I am positive I will get a minimum 5 years out of my A-22 and that is around $3,500 per year.
Consequently using the 1ds(1 and 2) i replace those every 18 months and usually the resale is 1/2 of the original purchase price which is about $4,000 in depreciation for 18 months so the numbers are about equal though I get a better file and a better overal crop factor and presentation from the medium format equipment.
As far as Cameras you mentioned you already have a Contax investment so the camera cost is not an issue, still if bought correctly mf cameras like the Contax are a bargain.
In my 2 bodies, 2 finders, 10 lenses I have less than $10,000 invested which is actually less than the same I would invest in lenses and bodies of even a 35mm film camera system.
With the Contax I doubt if prices will drop in a few years and if recent trends continue they will rise in price.
Medium format really isn't that expensive if you buy carefully.
The key is to know which camera and back that fits your needs and look at it as a long term purchase.
IMO
JR
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/]http://www.russellrutherford.com/[/url]
-
hello
not really a question but more of a gripe: I have the canon 1Ds MkII and it is a good camera no doubt but I would rather use something else.....but i cant! I cant afford the MF backs and there is nothing inbetween, pricewise. in the old days new cameras came out all the time, but since the 1ds came out it has been that or $15-$35k mf backs that arent worth the $$$........and dont bring up the ZD because I have seen all those crappy images people have posted, they LOOK digital. I have a contax 645 and I am holding onto hope that a digital back will surface for under 10k but getting tired of waiting.........why doesnt someone come out with a new camera like the canon that is not a 35mm toy??? All those 35mm digi cameras (1Ds, 5d, nikon) are weak. Theimages they produce are pretty good but they arent big and sturdy like a real camera. I loved the RZ and I know others do also, cant someone make a great camera with a bright viewfinder that feels/focuses like a great camera ( RZ, contax, pentax 6x7, hassy 500 ).....I challenge someone to do it! Hah!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
The only way you are going to find out is test the digital backs yourself. If that means renting do it. Since you already own a Contax look at Leaf & Phase. As far as the ZD is concerned I own one and now process the files in RAW DEVELOPER and the files are close to the Aptus 22. They both use the same Dalsa chip and both have a film like quality. Test before you buy anything.
Thanks Denis
-
Dont forget about looking into leasing a DB over 2-3 years.
I have just done this on a re-manufactured Leaf Aptus 22.
The great thing with the way leasing works (here in UK at least - not sure about other countries) at the end of the lease I just pay one more months payment as a "payout figure" and then the DB requires no more payments - EVER! And of course all the monthly payments are fully tax deductible. It works out better for me than forking out £11500 upfront.
-
If the digital back manufacturers reduce the price of the their back enough to reduce their margins by 1/2 they would have to sell twice as many backs just to make the same amount of money.
There is a very limited amount of photographers that will use MF even if the cost of the camera, backs and lenses was the same as that of 35 mm sized cameras.
Medium format is for a special market segment and will never reach number of user like those of the smaller formats.
-
If the digital back manufacturers reduce the price of the their back enough to reduce their margins by 1/2 they would have to sell twice as many backs just to make the same amount of money.
There is a very limited amount of photographers that will use MF even if the cost of the camera, backs and lenses was the same as that of 35 mm sized cameras.
Yes, and I think they would sell twice as many or more. Look at the film days. There were plenty more pro MF users then even if they did cost a lot more than 35mm film setups. They regretfully abandoned MF by the boatload due almost entirely to price. I've chatted with so many photographers who are using 35mm digital and still have their MF gear because "they can't bear to part with it".
-
As James said
There were some great prices on Aptus 17's. You can get into Valeo's for $5k-$7k and they do produce stunning images. although the whole Harddrive QPAX viewer is a bit cumbersom it is not terrible. The RZ was a lot heavier. You already have a Contax and there are mounts out there.
You can pick up P20's for under $10k as well, even though it gives you a Square chip it still gives you an amzing file and lets you use the waist level finder on the Contax which is great.
On the profit margin. This is all debatable. Retail locations only make 8% profit on Apple products. That is nothing. But they want to draw you in to buy all the other accesories you will need. Like camera stores used to do as wel. They wanted to sell you film, CF cards, wipes, lens caps, camera bags, tripods, paper, gels, etc..etc..etc..
As someone said that they would have to sell twice as much to make it profitable. I know they would sell four times as much if they made a P20 at $5k and a P25 at $8k. You have all the weekend warriors and photo vest crowd that don't want to spend $15k on a used back. But would spend under $10k.
Backs are out there being returned and the people getting the sweet deals are the people that know the retailors of these systems. This is why I don't care about retailors, no retailor ever helped me and the only retail I use is B&H and K&M and don't expect anything from them other than ROCK BOTTOM PRICES. The only good retailor I use on a regular basis is Sammy's and they have been great. I have never met a person there either, it has all been phone orders.
With the way the internet sells today. Phase and all the makers could sell online only and cut out the retailors. They stock it at their facility they drop ship direct where the customer pays shipping. No need for US warehousing. You have SVEN in the warehouse being told what mount to put on the back. He tests it for accurate focus and you ship it out. You buy on line if something happens you have an AMAZING warranty return from Phase. I am sure Leaf and Sinar can do the same thing. You then make all the backs available from the Hassy V to the Contax 645 and everything in between. You reopen the use of the Hassy V and the Contax not just the AFD II and H1. The greed of the retail market is what killed the other cameras. If the retailor wants to order it and have his customer. They can order the same way and mark it up 8% and then they can talk the shit that for the extra 8% you get the support we can give you and have come to trust. They then can sell them the flying butterfly, air rocket, lens cloth, camera bodies and lenses. As a MFDB maker you can hire a teacher to give classes once a month in the cities that require, so they learn your software. Won't cost you anything, you hire the guy to teach the class rent the studio for the day. Charge $175 to $250 per student and your set. Leaf does this in NYC and LA every month.
The only retailor I like was Ken Hansen. FC, L&R and MOST of the others only care if you're Weber or Meisel and if you think otherwise you are wrong and they have snowed you.
Hell you can even have SVEN making Bronica mounts, Hassy V mounts that do not require a cable, plates for the RZ so you can fit any mounted back.
Why isn't this being done? Because all the backroom behind the door deals that goes on between all the greed of the retailor, manufacturer and reps. Why doesn't B&H sell this stuff? Because they do not need all the BULLSHIT that goes on here. They are laughing all the way to the bank every Friday at 1pm.
I go to B&H once a month and everytime I go there I see some one famous and I am NOT talking screech. Francis Ford Coppola, Rod Stewart, Billy Joel, the Albino Priest guy from Davinci Code, David Bowie and the list goes on. Do you think Coppola can't call his rep at Arri and say I want this and get it.
SO TO ALL MFDB MAKERS. MAKE SOME MONEY AND KEEP EVERYONE HAPPY!
-
You have SVEN in the warehouse being told what mount to put on the back.
...except that Phase One is Danish so he's called Carsten
-
Phase and all the makers could sell online only and cut out the retailors.
SO TO ALL MFDB MAKERS. MAKE SOME MONEY AND KEEP EVERYONE HAPPY!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Ric on this I disagree. Medium format is a lot differnet end user than the casual Nikon D2x buyer.
I know of two very good dealers, both in atlanta and both frequent this forum (Dave Gallagher and Steve Hendrix) that offer service way beyond the call and quite frankly a large number of their customers would have had triple the learning curve if it wasn't for them.
As you know medium format digital takes a digital photography to a much higher level of complexity and reward.
My take on Samy's is 180 from you. For 10 years I have bought, rented, bargained and delt with 75% of the people that come and go from the Fairfax and Venice stores and a large part of this has been far from pleasurable, informative of even fair. Rental is good, sales are obtuse at best.
If you walk into Samy's to buy a digital product you better do your homework first because they are absoulutely no help when it comes to real world information.
Personally there is a place for the B+H and Samy's cash and carry type of stores, but not when it comes to specialized medium format backs and software.
In fact I don't know how the good dealers really make a profit on medium format as the tech calls, instructions, free demos etc. seem to be almost consuming.
Let's face it these are specialized items and not every photographer will do their homework and learn the process from start to finish. Most want training and once they buy in expect most of that training to come from the dealer . . . usually for free.
IMO
JR
-
P20 is 8000 list, P21 is 11000 list, P30 is 17000 list....ALL of them easily outperform canon in terms of file quality (obviously not speed, handling, high asa...although the P21 is fast and the 800asa i am getting from my P30 makes me want the P30+ even more...)
all of these can be had with trade in deals....everybody who is serious can have a back in their hands for a very reasonable amount....
do your own footwork, but i can tell you that i was offered a brandnew p30 (any mount) for 12000...don't ask me how i did that or through who, yes there was a trade in deal involved, but i did not even have to find a back on ebay.....
sinar is offering their e75 for 12000off (trade in any back) until jan 07....please don't tell me that it is impossible to get into DMF......
-
I have heard from sources like Thom Hogan that there is typically a multiplier of about three between component cost to manufacturer and its impact on retail price. For example, mainstream DSLR sensors probably cost about $100, which adds about $300 to the retail price, fitting the price gap of $300-$400 between entry level film SLRs and entry level digital SLRs.
And that is in a highly competitive sector, so with high end gear like MFDB's, I would expect a similar or greater multiplier. So a $5000 price for the sensor could easily contribute $15,000 to the retail price.
-
the gap between 35mm and MF is why i hope the ZD and Pentax 645D do well. I would be a potential buyer of one of these system assuming they get released in the states. Give the amount of field work i would be doing I am leaning more towards the pentax, but in the end availability and price will dictate what I purchase.
Andy
-
Hello James,
Hows' the Zoerk working out?
I agree that the end user of a MFDB would be different than the D2X shooter. But you have a lot of people that woudl ahve gotten into P20, V17-22, A17-22 if there was some cooperation between the manufacturer. You and I both know there is so much backroom BS going you can't keep track. When I was talking about dealers I should have been clear that it was dealers in the NYC & LA market. I have a great dealer in Badger Graphic out in Wisconsin, but to my knowledge since my last purchase i believe they only handle 35 digital.
I have read Steve's post on these forums and have much respect for him and his orginization. I actually called there one day not being a customer and they answered a question I had.
I am not saying they're all bad.
But I think if you can get into digital and pay for a class for a small amount over a two three day period. Many people would do it.
On the Samy's front. You and I both dislike the same NYC establishments. I have never had to buy MFDB Digital in LA but I bought my 1ds Mark II's from them, my 5d, a ton of Profoto gear and everytime they really helped me out. Although, I do have a wonderful personal sales rep there, whom I have never met. When the 1ds MII's came out and everyone was charging $8500+ for it and had you waiting weeks to get it. Sammy's came through with two at $7,500.00. When no one had the H1 120 macro lens in stock and there were only three or four in NYC, Sammy's got me one at the ticket price.
I try not to bother anyone when I buy something. I bother them before I get it, ask the questions then purchase it. I never called any one to figure out my RZ, my Contax, my Pentax 67, my Rollie 6008i. All though they are different types of questions.
If I had known of Steve I would most likely had bought everything there. Hell, you can get to Atlanta and back in one day for $125.00 on Delta. Luckily it is their HUB so you can get tickets for nothing. GOD I HOPE US SCARE DOES NOT BUY THEM.
But the issue is that they can sell direct, offer a class and if retail wants to carry it, they can and market it up a certain percentage to offer their support and classes. Hell, they can even offer the classes and make the money themselves. But at the end of the day, all the back room stuff killed off Bronia almost Mamiya. Pentax would never have beeb viable and I think Contax saw the sales slipping away to the H1.
Well, Ric on this I disagree. Medium format is a lot differnet end user than the casual Nikon D2x buyer.
I know of two very good dealers, both in atlanta and both frequent this forum (Dave Gallagher and Steve Hendrix) that offer service way beyond the call and quite frankly a large number of their customers would have had triple the learning curve if it wasn't for them.
As you know medium format digital takes a digital photography to a much higher level of complexity and reward.
My take on Samy's is 180 from you. For 10 years I have bought, rented, bargained and delt with 75% of the people that come and go from the Fairfax and Venice stores and a large part of this has been far from pleasurable, informative of even fair. Rental is good, sales are obtuse at best.
If you walk into Samy's to buy a digital product you better do your homework first because they are absoulutely no help when it comes to real world information.
Personally there is a place for the B+H and Samy's cash and carry type of stores, but not when it comes to specialized medium format backs and software.
In fact I don't know how the good dealers really make a profit on medium format as the tech calls, instructions, free demos etc. seem to be almost consuming.
Let's face it these are specialized items and not every photographer will do their homework and learn the process from start to finish. Most want training and once they buy in expect most of that training to come from the dealer . . . usually for free.
IMO
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I've never heard anyone complain about the 1Ds2 build quality before. It's certainly sturdy and heavy enough. I can't say that I feel the same way about Canon lenses but that's a different gripe
I agree that there should be and could be a sub $10K MFDB. For some reason the manufacturers are keeping the prices up and justifying it with added features. I happen to know that the actual ex-factory cost of a back like the P25 is around $5K, and the R&D which went into that back has already been recouped. I think they could stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap at $8K and watch the medium format market boom. Oh well...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i liked your response the best so this is the one i am responding to.........yeah, the 1Ds is a solid built camera but geez, I want to focus the camera with my hand and switch f stops manually on a solid lens barrel, you know, like a real camera, an RZ or hassy or something. remember how good it felt to look through a pentax 6 x 7 and know that your subject was in focus because you could SEE it! Hey, I am only 36 and I remember.
I would easily pay 8k for a great digi back for my contax, something where I could shoot a job at 400ASA and not worry about the noise......and i would not use a square chip ever, i like my lenses to work how they were designed to. so who has a P25 or leaf22 for me for 8k, anybody out there?
-
Not everyone complains about the price of the digital backs.
Would that be because the professionals that actually make money from photography can see that it is worth it? Is it just the pro-sumers and amateurs that are compaining?
That is not meant as an insult to anyone that has commented on the expense as you all may be excellent photographers - but are you making money from your passion?
If it is just a hobby for some here then I suggest for the sake of your sanity and contentment with life to enjoy your hobby with MF film or digital 35mm SLR's, instead of wasting time compaining about something that you cannot afford. Put it on the same wish list as the Red Ferrari and be done with it.
There will always be something that is not attainable.
If you are a professional that makes money from this then I cannot see how it is too expensive.
I am only just starting in the "professional" arena... in fact I have never made a cent from a photo I have taken... but I can see that the Aptus 22 I have on order is worth every cent I will pay for it. I am confident in my ability to make an image that it will eventually pay for itself.
I feel that I cannot offer anything less than this level of quality to my prospective clients.
As I am not a "rich boy" it has taken me a lot longer than I would like to reach this stage of getting the back but if that is what I feel is necessary to do my job then so be it.
It is a small field and with the increasing popularity of "happy snap" little cameras that take semi-ok pictures, I do not see the medium format industry getting so big that they can afford to sell thousands more for half the price.
It is not going to change any time soon so it is best to move on from complaining about the price and focus on more important things.
Good luck to you all.
-
Not everyone complains about the price of the digital backs.
Would that be because the professionals that actually make money from photography can see that it is worth it? Is it just the pro-sumers and amateurs that are compaining?
That is not meant as an insult to anyone that has commented on the expense as you all may be excellent photographers - but are you making money from your passion?
If it is just a hobby for some here then I suggest for the sake of your sanity and contentment with life to enjoy your hobby with MF film or digital 35mm SLR's, instead of wasting time compaining about something that you cannot afford. Put it on the same wish list as the Red Ferrari and be done with it.
There will always be something that is not attainable.
If you are a professional that makes money from this then I cannot see how it is too expensive.
I am only just starting in the "professional" arena... in fact I have never made a cent from a photo I have taken... but I can see that the Aptus 22 I have on order is worth every cent I will pay for it. I am confident in my ability to make an image that it will eventually pay for itself.
I feel that I cannot offer anything less than this level of quality to my prospective clients.
As I am not a "rich boy" it has taken me a lot longer than I would like to reach this stage of getting the back but if that is what I feel is necessary to do my job then so be it.
It is a small field and with the increasing popularity of "happy snap" little cameras that take semi-ok pictures, I do not see the medium format industry getting so big that they can afford to sell thousands more for half the price.
It is not going to change any time soon so it is best to move on from complaining about the price and focus on more important things.
Good luck to you all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
AMEN
-
Well said Andrew!
You hid the nail on it's head!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
If you are a professional that makes money from this then I cannot see how it is too expensive.
Try living in a country where the average income is $7000/year! (and photography budgets are equally low)
-
Try living in a country where the average income is $7000/year! (and photography budgets are equally low)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The song remains the same.
I am sure there are people in countries that make less than $7000/year that would like a
MFDB as well. But if it not attainable then that is the way the cookie crumbles... Life in this world can suck!
If you are talking about your situation be happy with your Canon.
Judging by your website it does a wonderful job.
Regards
-
Hi
This is what I do at the moment with MFD, rent on the jobs that require it. On AD jobs the client pays for the rental of equioment including a MFD back. I own my camera kit and you have a Contax 645 af camera. The big advantage to this is that you will learn which brand you like best. I agree a square chip would drive me nuts, been there with the Kodax back. I have used the Valeo 6, and when I first used the Valeo 22 ( now Aptus 22 ) I got my lenses back. I felt the same way when I went from the Canon 10D to the 5D. I also talked to a senior Leaf person and he said it takes at least $1 m to develope a new back! Also these larger chips are way more expensive to make and have a big failure rate in manufacturing. I have heard that the Dalsa chip 22mp costs around $3000.00 alone. My dream is to own a Aptus 75s ( 1.1 recycle ). So in the meantime I will use my ZD for personal & editorial jobs, plus I have the 5D for higher iso. When the Aptus 75s comes uo for rental I will use it. Hope this helps.
Thanks Denis
-
It would be nice when Ferrari drops the price of their cars to about $40K instead of the $360.000
but you get what you pay for!!
It is expensive to reseach and develope a MF dig.back and the buyers market is small, lower prices won't change this much!!
It is still a small investment compared to what other businesses have to invest in their equipment, don't get me wrong I wish there was a cheaper solution (just dropped over 30K for a back and camera equipment, more harddrives space etc!...and let's not forget insurrances!!)
I love my ds1MkII camera...never had a problem with it (shot over 200.000 images in the last 2 years with it...only problem was worn out shutter, which was replaced under warranty)
BUT I don't like the 35mm format and the info I lose in the crop to 8.5x11.....the MFDB gives me the 16bit film look that I need and deserve....because I hated digital for the longest time (even a little with my canon) I don't want to suffer quality for technology....suffering financially I can deal with.
I went for the A65, tested the A75 for a couple of weeks and the 75 was just toooo slowwwww...have an order in for the 65s and hoping that this is the answer to having the (almost) the same speed as with my canon.
I read that the ZD is not 16bit.....so what's the use of switching..because Canon files are top of the line....only my Leaf files are better.
-
If you are talking about your situation be happy with your Canon.
Judging by your website it does a wonderful job.
I'm not happy with the 35mm DSLR files. That's reason enough. Look, I was responding to the comment that "if you're a pro, you can afford it". Clearly not always true.
-
It would be nice when Ferrari drops the price of their cars to about $40K instead of the $360.000
but you get what you pay for!!
I don't think the Ferrari analogy works at all. The market for cars is HUGE - in the tens of millions, and there is not another market (equivalent of DSLRs) eating away at the car market. In other words, the car market is huge, has strong demand, no competition, and there is room for many profitable players. Ferrari can afford to serve a niche.
The MFDB back market is in the region of 10,000 per annum, and many of the participants in this market (and MF market) are facing difficulties. Plus the market as a whole is under attack from Canon DSLRs *mainly due to price*. This market needs to compete on price, or more participants will go under.
-
the price of a MFDB will not go down by much...exactly because of the fact that the market is only about 10.000 units and they are serving a niche market (like Ferrari) the rest of the market is very well served by great 35mm dslr's...the nikon's and canon's...now the new Sony...the sensors are getting better and better and the prices are coming down.
I bought my first Dslr (a nikon D100) for 2 grand!! Now a much better camera goes for under 1K.
I hope the MFDB come down in price because I would like to have 2 or 3 (like when I was shooting film) but I don't see it happen...and I can't wait for it to happen....because the digital technology makes us much more than photographers......if you want to make a living you got to also take care of the pre and post-production (and that takes a lot of expensive computer power).
Compared to the computers and all other soft- and hardware (storage) the MFDB is actually pretty cheap!!
Take also into account that when my Ds1MarkII need to be updated..I need to put down another 8 grand...when I update (upgrade) my MFDB I just pay the difference or get a great discount toward the newer back.
-
Try living in a country where the average income is $7000/year! (and photography budgets are equally low)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well, i live in a country were the average income is not even 7000, is like 2-3000euros ayear, and still, there's more than 10 photographers i know that have bought a MFDB solution just in the last couple of months. compared to the small community of photographers and the equal low photography budgets this looks huge.
but if you're making a living from photography you'd probably spend in 12 months thousands of euros on film, e6, polaroids and scannings, anyway. just as much as a leasing rate.
not to mention how harder it is to find a proper lab and a proper scanner these days.
or, try to convince a client to wait for a polaroid 2 minutes (for several times).
one might try the 1ds2 route, but try to crop 60% from one 16mp image (at art director's request) and still print a decent 70X100cm poster...
so, as canon doesn't look like coming with anything new in the near future you have to look closer at mfdb. even you regard its price in the ferrari's zone.
as pss (paul schefz) once wrote, let's just compare our investments with those found in other businesses and we may find those even harder.
tintareanudotcom
-
the price of a MFDB will not go down by much...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The chip prices will fall; or at least the prices of the current-sized chips will fall indue course, look at the APS-sized SLRs and the way the prices have started falling there -
Of course, by the time we can really afford MF, the ADs will be saying that they insist on digital 8x10 in 48 bits per colour because nothing else is good enough for Naomi's skin pores.
Edmund
-
The chip prices will fall; or at least the prices of the current-sized chips will fall indue course, look at the APS-sized SLRs and the way the prices have started falling there -
Of course, by the time we can really afford MF, the ADs will be saying that they insist on digital 8x10 in 48 bits per colour because nothing else is good enough for Naomi's skin pores.
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=85910\")
Since the 17 to 22mp cameras, few if any clients are asking for more detail, or larger file sizes.
The choice to move to higher density backs is the photographer, not the client, and most photographers have moved only for higher iso, better lcds, etc.
Of the photographers I know if given the option they would rather have larger chips with the same resolution with higher iso, rather than ever increasing megabytes.
Still, clients rarely request anything and the few request that come up are usually from unknowing production people.
What is needed and wanted is higher iso, easier, faster post production and more stable software.
Still, I don't understand the problems of cost with these cameras. An A-22 and/or P25 can be bought for 15 to 18k and will easily work for 5 years or more, so in the land of professional photography that is less than the cost of upgrading your dslr every 12 months and you get a much better file in the process.
For serious amateurs, shoot film. There are some amazing film cameras out there for fractions of their original prices.
JR
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/]http://www.russellrutherford.com/[/url]
-
Try living in a country where the average income is $7000/year! (and photography budgets are equally low)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But what's your point ? Do you really expect DB manufacturers to adjust their prices according to your country's GNP ?
I do not know how many people Leaf or Phase have working on their backs, what their pay is and how many items they sell each year, so I won't even start commenting on prices.
However, the other day I went through my job files for this year, to calculate what I charged my clients for ( analog ) film & processing and polaroid.
It's been a slow year, and I shoot low volume ( still life, 2-3 shots per shooting day ).
It adds up to roughly 25k €, and the year isn't over yet, and personal work is not included.
In my case, I do not need to spend much on file processing, data storage and such, and can still charge the same or even slightly more when shooting digital compared to using film.
A few other aspects factored in, an Aptus 75 will be paid for within 2 years or less.
I'm working in both Germany and the US, which means I get low to decent budgets ( that's Western standards ), nothing too exciting.
That said, I agree with the above postings, if you can't finance a DB, you are probably not in a position to actually need one, being a professional photographer for advertising .
At this point, it might make more sense to stick to film for LF or MF, or just use a DSLR if you don't need camera movements and can accept the characteristics of 35mm bodies.
Just my 2 cents...
Best,
Tom
-
well, i live in a country were the average income is not even 7000, is like 2-3000euros ayear, and still, there's more than 10 photographers i know that have bought a MFDB solution just in the last couple of months.
You must have larger budgets there. There isn't a single MFDB in the country here. It's only thanks to a few overseas clients that I make anything at all
but if you're making a living from photography you'd probably spend in 12 months thousands of euros on film, e6, polaroids and scannings, anyway. just as much as a leasing rate.
The alternative isn't film, it's 35mm DSLR.
not to mention how harder it is to find a proper lab and a proper scanner these days.
Yes, another compelling reason to go digital.
But what's your point ? Do you really expect DB manufacturers to adjust their prices according to your country's GNP ?
Why not? It's been happening with many other goods for years. The same model car can be nearly half the price in one country compared to another.
I'm working in both Germany and the US which means I get low to decent budgets
Aren't they pretty much the two most lucrative markets in the world for photographers?
That said, I agree with the above postings, if you can't finance a DB, you are probably not in a position to actually need one
Well there are three good reasons: to be happy with the quality I provide my clients, to have a competitive advantage, and to be competitive in overseas markets which I am approaching.
Anyway this is getting a bit off track.
The MFDB manufacturers rely entirely on the health of the medium format market. The MF market is looking anything but healthy at the moment due to the MFDB price barrier. If the MFDB manufacturers want to secure their own future they need to help the market grow by introducing more affordable backs, not more features. Pretty simple. Just my $0.02
-
I think the cost of digital backs at the moment is probably about right.
For instance, you can buy an Aptus65 for around £10K and this is excellent value for a product that's going to do a very good job for most photographers.
These people moaning about the price have not quite made it or will never make it in the profession. Basically, they are not earning enough. I suggest that their energy should be directed at making their photo business viable and this has nothing to do with the camera, a camera is a mere tool - hire the backs in the meantime - and when they manage to have imagery that clients want to buy and pay good money for, they will find that 10 to 20 grand is peanuts to spend over three years (as James was saying).
There is even an argument to make the backs even more expensive, more elitist, thus eliminating at a stroke a large number of surplus photographers, as there are too many "fly-by-night" operators with cheapo cameras and absolutely no technique or creative flare whatsoever who degrade the value of the business, (only joking!)
Edward
-
just don't get the problem....a financed system should not be more then about 500$/month right now....i don't see how anyone shooting professionally can spend less per month on film/processing...on top of that a digital system allows you t shoot unlimited frames per month and after it is paid off, every single shot is free!!! from a business standpoint this is a no brainer!
i think the problem is that some people her think they need a P45...they can barely afford a P20, but htey think they need a P45 and complain that it is too expensive!
for this forum the ferari analogy is valid, because it seem like most people here don't look at these backs as a very basic business necessity, but as a toy! that they want, but can't justify....
i keep reading on how the ZD will bring prices down....it has not in the year(s) it has been out and it won't in the future! if anything, it proved the opposite!
nobody complains about canon charging 8000 for their flagship....when the 14n came out and was half the price of the top of the line canon, canon thought about dropping their price to 5-6000....they waited and saw that they did not have to....they make a ton on their 1DsmkIIs....but in the big picture it is peanuts as well, because they simply don't sell enough of them....enter 5D and that still does not compare to the rebel....
i think we all agree that 20mpix at 16bit is about all anyone needs for pretty much any comercial application...more is nice, but up to 11x14 you won't see the difference.....i am not talking about what you WANT, but what you NEED, what your clients NEED....
this quality can be bought for about 12-15000 today in different forms, P30, refurb P25, A65, several other refurbs...a mamiya 645afd system is about 3000 (including lenses) on ebay....so for 15-20000 a COMPLETE system can be had....
this set-up will allow the owner to shoot MF quality for free for the rest of the cameras/backs (the backs never die) life....if you can show me anything cheaper, please let me know, i am very interested....
by the way i have posted pretty much the same post several times in different forums in the last years....DMF prices have come down 30-50%....you could not have gotten a (refurb)P25 for 14000 a year ago....it would have been at least 25-30000....
also if anyone can show me to open ANY business with LESS then 30000, please let me know, i am interested.....even if you sell drugs on the corner, you have to buy the goods first....
-
you have to charge out the digital gear as if you where hiring it. when i bought i had worked out i will be charging my clients enough to have paid off my p25 in 6-8 months, and this is in a small market that charges at least half of comparable US photographers.
many of photographers i compete against hire digital systems at $1000 nzd a day (about 700 usd), so i didnt want to offer any discounts to my clients. my h1/p25 is on my quotes exactly as it would if i hired it. it will take just over 40day bookings to pay for it.
i also do all the post work, i charge this all out. every day of shooting can create a day of post charge out work. so even though i hate doing post, im making more money than when i just couriered the film to the lab.
this is a small investment compared to the sinar 5x4 systems that photographers had when i started my photography. i remember really wanting this flash gear when i was younger, but i did fine with an old RB67. its the same now, if you cant afford the med format systems, the canons are more than good enough. if you you clients expect better, get them to pay extra.
to be quite honest, my p25 is better than my 1dsmk2, but not by much. there are many things i miss about my canon that the h1 cant do.
also, i have a friend of mine who got 4 different pictures into the "top 200 advertising photographers" book that lurzers archive publish. all the shots where shot with a canon mk2.
i think if you cant afford the med format, the canons will do you fine.
paul jones
-
you have to charge out the digital gear as if you where hiring it. when i bought i had worked out i
to be quite honest, my p25 is better than my 1dsmk2, but not by much. there are many things i miss about my canon that the h1 cant do.
also, i have a friend of mine who got 4 different pictures into the "top 200 advertising photographers" book that lurzers archive publish. all the shots where shot with a canon mk2.
i think if you cant afford the med format, the canons will do you fine.
paul jones
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=85960\")
I agree with Paul and as of today you almost need a 35mm and medium format system as they both compliment each other.
The dividing line between mf and dslrs are getting closer as medium format is getting faster frame rates with higher iso and maybe Canon's next offering will be close to the quality of medium format.
For me the issue with the Canons is not the detail, (though I see a big difference between the 1ds2 and the A-22), but it's the overal look of the file. I strongly dislike the overly red skintones I get in the Canon files. They can be worked, but it takes effort. Canons DPP tends to neutralize the red, but it still is a very warm file.
Also I find the crop factor of 35mm to be annoying, even with cropped screens. I am always too tight on the 1ds2.
Digital capture is different than film in that we are now responsibile for the complete workflow, so the most important aspects of any system, 35 or medium format is to have a stable fast workflow and a file that moves easily with the least amount of color correction.
Also it's important that these cameras come out of the box correct. My original 1ds was issue free, the 1ds2 dropped files, The A-22 took a few months to sort out and now I am just beginning with an A-65 which I have yet to get the look or workflow sorted and I as many others have very little time to sort out a camera.
Learning curve is one thing, but having to reinvent your complete workflow everytime a manufacturer makes a new camer or back can be overly consuming.
I still think the one step back approach is the best.
I could step back and only keep my A-22 and original 1ds, selling the 1ds2, A-65 and Nikon D2x and would have saved myself an easy 35% in time through the last 18 months.
JR
[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/]http://www.russellrutherford.com/[/url]
-
Why can't someone make a 10 or 15MP MF back. The production costs will cost less than a 22MP+ sensor and the quality will be better than a DSLR of similar MP.
-
Why can't someone make a 10 or 15MP MF back. The production costs will cost less than a 22MP+ sensor and the quality will be better than a DSLR of similar MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
what is wrong with the P20? list 8000$
-
what is wrong with the P20? list 8000$
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing that a 20x magnifier won't solve.
The only problem with the P20 and all the square Kodak chipped cameras is such a tiny frame floating in that big ground glass.
They work and work very well, but you need to find some type of loupe to put over the ground glass for focus and while your at it, get use to stitching for anything wide angle.
JR
-
41 shooting days to pay off a $25,000 MFDB at $600.00 per day
100 shooting days to pay off a $6000.00 Profoto pack at $60.00 per day.
My work really requires I own all my lighting equipment. Many architecture shooters don't charge for their lighting kit like fashion shooters mostly do. So while my clients end up paying for the MFDB, I am stuck with the bill for the Lighting setup. In the end, the Aptus 75 feels much less expensive to me than my strobe setup.
I charged $300.00 per day for the D2X. In the first three months I billed it on 17 days of shooting and it was paid off. The cheapest camera I ever bought.
The biggest risk in the financing scenario is that other photographers will start to include their MFDB's without charge (most still life photographers own 30-100K worth of equipment that is not billed to the client).
-
I agree with the above statements.
2003 & 2004 my lab bills where on average from $30k to $50k per year. in 2005 I went digital and my lab bill was $15k and this year my lab bill was $00000. On top of that the cost of film, lasers for extra copies of the contacts, FedEx, messenger fees and I am at clos to $60k-$80k.
I rent out my digital rig for $2000.00 per day to my clients and that is a G5 with Two Eizo's an H1 with one lens and a P25. The Canon goes out for $1500.00 per day with kit. Ten days the P25 and all the travel bags for the Eizo's and G5 are paid for. I don't think of the cost of the tower or monitor because I would need that anyway.
No more lab, laser, or major FedEx and Messenger bills. The P25, A75, P45, Canon 1Ds MII are paid for as well as the H1's with all the lenses. I paid for a stupid fast connection at my office so FTPing is quick.
At the end of the day you have to bill for it. If I didn't own it I would rent it from a rental house and be giving them the money.
But you have to have the clients that are going to pay for it. If not, then you have to make that decision to eat it or use something less expensive.
I think I posted something here or maybe the RG forums last year.
I did a job last year with the P25 and the 1DsMII with a celebrity and it made the cover of a magazine. I had publicisits, managers, agents, cousins, girlfriends, hangers on, catering, etc.. all looking at the shots and adding their two cents. At the end of the day, the cover shot was a 1DsMII file. On top of that, it was on sides of Buses, POP, Tour posters and then made into a billboard size drape on the side of a building in London.
A 1DsMII is good enough for 70% of the jobs out there. There is a guy who shoots all the IBM server pictures that are made into billboards on the sides of buildings in Asia. All shot with a 1DsMII and 100 macro or 70-200. This is a guy who's day rate is $15K plus a day. He is using Canon. Sokolsky is another example who can use anything he wants. Only shoots Canon.
Wasting your time wanting a Ferrari 559 for $260k instead of a kick ass Audi will just drive you crazy. If you want to drive a Ferrari or an exotic car around for a day in Miami or LA? Just rent it for a day or a week and get stupid and then turn it in without the worry of the maintence and up keep. This is why rental houses have 10-20-30 digital backs. Because there is a demand.
Best of Luck with your decision. A P21 can be had at a great price or an A17, V22 and even some older Imacon or Sinar backs. But if you need higher than 100 ASA then the P30 is the way to go.
-
Also I find the crop factor of 35mm to be annoying, even with cropped screens. I am always too tight on the 1ds2.
Hi James
can you tell me where I can buy a cropped screen for the Canon Ds1..I have the same problem with the crop....and it sometimes takes me hours to recreate what I lost in the crop....which was one of the biggest reasons to go for MFDB
thanks
Nicolaas
-
can you tell me where I can buy a cropped screen for the Canon Ds1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...Bar&A=search&Q= (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=402209&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)
-
Well, Ric on this I disagree. Medium format is a lot differnet end user than the casual Nikon D2x buyer.
...
As you know medium format digital takes a digital photography to a much higher level of complexity and reward.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James,
Isn't that mostly the result of shortcomings of the current offerings rather than something intrisic with medium format digital?
As a user of both a D2x and a Mamiya ZD, I am not sure to understand what is so different between these 2 in terms of product.
Now I understand that MF buyers might have different expectations in terms of support (uptime requirements,...), but I don't see why Nikon/Canon couldn't create a special division to catter for these customers, and I also don't see why Phase couldn't decide to modify their packages to make their product more independant from the service that goes with it to make the product more available for those buyers who are willing to do away with the service.
Those who manage to use their D2x 100% without support will also manage to use their Phase P45 100% without support IMHO. Today you don't have this option with the Phase.
Regards,
Bernard
-
As a user of both a D2x and a Mamiya ZD, I am not sure to understand what is so different between these 2 in terms of product.
Now I understand that MF buyers might have different expectations in terms of support (uptime requirements,...), but I don't see why
It very much depends on what your shooting. If you just shooting to cards and downloading to folders and processing a few files, then yes the workflow for the d2x and a medium format back are quite similiar.
But if you are working in a room with 11 clients two monitors, tethered, batch processing in the background, changing color, setting input, output values, naming files, sorting files, etc. etc., then someobdy has to be very good at the computer and the workflow and must know it front and back.
V-8, lc10, C-1, flexcolor take a while to learn and all have some hidden, esoteric settings that you must be dead on right, or you will open yourself up to a world of hurt.
that's why so many photographers hire techs, or either learn it themselves or both.
I recommend both and a good dealer or tech service company can walk you through many of the issues.
Remember, medium format backs do not produce that good of an in camera preview and just to get to the first web gallery requires some form of batch processing.
I can give you 12 different sceanrios that can throw even the best workflow out the window.
The tethering shuts down and you must shoot one session to cards, or the client wants to edit on the fly, or the naming was wrong and must be changed after shooting or all of the above.
A good dealer like Steve Hendrix and Dave Gallagher can be a lifesaver and not rip you off in the process.
I am sure there are other good dealers but those two I know personally and those two will be there to help or find the person that knows the answers.
These aren't just cameras, these are cameras with drum scanners attached to them.
JR
-
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...Bar&A=search&Q= (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=402209&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks...after 2 years of cropping problems...finally!! now that I got my cropping problem solved the expensive way!! Aptus 65
-
Why can't someone make a 10 or 15MP MF back. The production costs will cost less than a 22MP+ sensor and the quality will be better than a DSLR of similar MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kodak and Dalsa certainly can, but they and their customers choose instead to move in the opposite direction, towards more, smaller photosites. This alone should tell you that there is something wrong with your argument (Unless you know better than the entire MF industry which products would be successful.)
Lowering the pixel count on a roughly 36x48mm "medium format" sensor would have little effect on sensor cost. The huge size of a "medium format" sensor compared to most integrated circuits is the main reason that they cost so much to make. 36x48mm is over four times larger than about any IC outside of the DSLR world, so IC fab. equipment is not designed to handle such sizes, and there is no likelihood that it will be in the future, as IC's overall continue to get smaller.
Thus unusual fabrication methods must be used, like multiple exposures to produce a single sensor. This greatly lowers the yield of usable sensors per wafer, increasing cost. (Alternatively, designing and making special purpose fab. equipment, but that has a huge costs too.) Canon explains in its recent white paper on "Full Frame CMOS Sensors" that these size problems already have a major effects on the cost of its 24x36mm sensors. (It seems that there is a big sensor fabrication cost jump somewhere between the 1D and 1Ds sensor sizes, as the former is just small enough to fabricate with the normal single exposure method.)
P. S. I also severely doubt that there is much market for a sensor that is larger than and yet gives lower pixel count than Canon's top of the line 24x36mm sensor. Consider the main arguments in favor of larger sensors:
a) Lower noise levels in high speed, low light situations?
Canon's sensors instead continue to have a clear advantage over MF sensors on that count. Bear in mind too that in almost any high speed situation, MF sensors need to use about twice the ISO speed due to factors like the higher minimum f-stops of MF lenses.
More Dynamic Range?
I have not seen many complaints about the DR of Canon's 24x36mm sensors at low ISO speed, and at higher ISO speeds, Canon's sensors move ahead, due to the higher shadow noise levels of MF sensors cutting of the bottom of the useful range.
-
Lowering the pixel count on a roughly 36x48mm "medium format" sensor would have little effect on sensor cost. The huge size of a "medium format" sensor compared to most integrated circuits is the main reason that they cost so much to make.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ajaaa!
But a P21 goes for $12k, a P45 goes for $27k (equal 1yr warranty), but the difference in chip size is quite small, basically the P45 has 23% more chip area than the P21 but costs 225% more.
Thats the thing a HUGE part of the cost of MFDB must be a combination of marketing, r&d and distribution ("middlemen") costs. Maybe if MFDBs were sold directly from the MFG they would be cheaper maybe not. Either way it seems the MFDB mfgs have some sort of deal or alliance going since what are the odds that all top of the line MFDBs hover around the $30,000 price point and have for years. One should have broken the Cycle and control the market.
Look at Canon, yes the lack of competition of the 1Ds mk2 keeps its price at $8k for several generations of the camera thanks to Nikons inability to deliver but in other price points they do offer more MP and overal performance for the money.
The MFDB market is actually then more competitive than the 1Ds mk2 segment since there are at least 5 MFDBs over 30mp that produce high quality results. Unfortunally tha hasnt resulted in lowering prices, yes maybe the fact that only Dalsa and Kodak produce the 30somehting MP sensors, still, that is more competition than the 1Ds mk2 has! which is none.
-
Ken, you just beat me to it. If the MFDB manufacturers are selling as these things at minimum margins and if the cost of the sensor is proportional to the area, then why does a P30 cost much more than a P21 (same sensor size), or why does a P45 cost so much more than a P21 (your example)? Clearly something doesn't add up.
-
cost of the sensor is proportional to the area[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The cost of sensors is not proportional to the area - it is exponentially proportional to the area (I believe)
Ie a twice the size sensor would cost 4x more
-----------------
The theory I have heard goes somthing like this..
Say you have a wafer with a chance of a defect being 50%
Say a defect is less than a 12th of the area
So from two wafers you can get typically 23 '12th size' chips out of a possuble 24 whereas you get typically 1 out of a possible two for a chip the size of the whole wafer
Your 'wafer wastage' for large chips is 50% whereas for small chips it is less than 5%
SMM
(That still doesnt make the difference 'ADD up')
-
The cost is directly proportional to quality of output. The better the back the more they can charge. It's market forces at work, nothing more. If Phase came out with a 50mp back with 48mm x 55mm CCD with useable 1600 iso and 3 frames a second continuous shooting, it would sell for $100,000 easily. This is irrespective of manufacturing cost.
Damien.
-
But a P21 goes for $12k, a P45 goes for $27k (equal 1yr warranty), but the difference in chip size is quite small, basically the P45 has 23% more chip area than the P21 but costs 225% more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly, I was talking about same-sized sensors: sensor costs grow rapidly with size increases as another poster has mentioned.
Secondly, the mark up over unit cost is surely far higher for the new higher resolution sensors than the older 9 micron pitch ones, giving a retail price difference larger than the difference in the unit cost of manufacturing such a sensor. Indeed, prices like $12k seem to be based on end-of-life pricing for previous generations of sensors, when a good part of the R&D has been defrayed, so sensor prices can be not much hover unit manufacturing cost. These prices are probably not sustainable for a new sensor, so it could well be that a new lower pixel count sensor would even have to be priced higher, not lower, to cover costs of setting up to manufacture it.
Thats the thing a HUGE part of the cost of MFDB must be a combination of marketing, r&d and distribution ("middlemen") costs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, and those costs would _not_ [added!] be much reduced by putting fewer pixels on a newly designed sensor of the same sized but with fewer pixels.
Look at Canon, yes the lack of competition of the 1Ds mk2 keeps its price at $8k for several generations of the camera thanks to Nikons inability to deliver ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Another possible explanation for the higher price of professional quality 24x36mm format DSLR's is that making those 24x36mm sensors and putting them in high-end bodies is inherently expensive, exacerbated by the relatively low unit sales that such products will have, requiring a higher unit mark up just to defray sensor R&D costs. (Canon only sold about 50,000 of the 12Ds sensor, about as many as it sells each week with entry level DSLR sensors.) 1Ds sales volume is not that high, well less than the 1DMkII or D2X, and Canon could surely sell many more by cutting the price closer to that of the D2X, so I have to think that doing so would reduce overall profit margins too much. (In other words, there is no sign that Nikon's failure to offer 24x36mm DSLR's is a matter of inability, and every sign that it is a deliberate and profitable choice to disregard a relatively small sector.)
-
The cost is directly proportional to quality of output. The better the back the more they can charge. It's market forces at work, nothing more. If Phase came out with a 50mp back with 48mm x 55mm CCD with useable 1600 iso and 3 frames a second continuous shooting, it would sell for $100,000 easily. This is irrespective of manufacturing cost.
Damien.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86210\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excuse the expression, but if the medium format back industry would just get this s___t together they would sell a lot more product.
Yes the Leaf, Phase and Hasselblad can produce stunning images, but all require some extra effort in comparision to a dslr.
Also just about the time all three of these manufactuerers's fix the bugs and update the firmware of thier current cameras, they are already advertising the next upgrade.
Leaf is the biggest culprit for this with thier new S series being announced, while the 2 year old A-22 still doesn't have Wi-fi and LC10 is still a work in progress.
For all three of these companies, the in camera previews tiffs are small, the high iso capabilties are still limited and all of their software suites require some workarounds. Leaf's V-8, LC-10 and Hasselblad's Flexcolor require a definate upgrade and LC10 a complete rethink in stability and speed.
Phase's C-1 is the most stable but also very power hungry (maybe V4 will fix that).
All of the manufacturer's are also going to have to address thier on camera lcd's sooner or later.
Some of the excuses are getting a little old, when you hear that Phase, or Hasselblad cannot buy great lcd's without placing huge orders like Canon, Nikon or Sony.
Heck, for the price of a digital back, why doesn't Phase just go out and buy 2,000 cheap fuji P+S and rip the lcd out of them and stick them on their backs.
I know for a fact anyone would pay an extra $500 for a really good medium format lcd like the little Fuji.
IMO
JR
-
Heck, for the price of a digital back, why doesn't Phase just go out and buy 2,000 cheap fuji P+S and rip the lcd out of them and stick them on their backs.
I know for a fact anyone would pay an extra $500 for a really good medium format lcd like the little Fuji.
IMO
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't this how Polaroid backs were first made for MF ? Companies bought Pola cameras and hacksawed them in half ...
Edmund
-
The new phase plus series have new lcds. Phase claims that the lcd are much better now.
How good are they now? Does anyone now.
That damn lcd was one reason, why I never considered phase in my midformat diciding process.
Now I do. Phase somehow got their act together with the low noise, better lced and stabel software.
So how good is their new lcds?
Tim
-
I have seen the display on the P30 with which I was not particularly impressed. Anyway it did give a good impression of the image without being either too red or too green (the example I have held in my hands that is). It also held up fairly well when the sun was shining
The screen on my Aptus is large however fairly poor quality, it is hardly visible when even a little bit of sun is shining. It is very visible indoors but than I am mostly shooting tethered and thus not using the screen
It would be fantastic to have the same quality screen I have in my 1300USD Nikon D200 especially when it is as large as the Aptus screen.
None of the DB's I have seen sofar (which is all but the Sinar eMotion) have an impressively good screen, nit by my standards anyway. None of them even comes close to the screens of much cheaper DSLR's.
-
So how good is their new lcds?
Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They were supposed to have one at Photo East, but again, a delay and an excuse. Big surprise.
To my knowledge, no one has seen one yet. The word is "one stop brighter and twice the resolution".
My personal feeling is that we must stop beating this dead horse. It might improve some, but I am not holding my breath. Leaf's is just as bad; it's only larger. Hasselblad's OLED is tiny, yet a slight bit better quality, but an odd color overall.
I feel that mediumformat photographers must begin to address this issue in other ways, other that continued bitching about a better LCD. Either we've got to shoot tethered, and shut up about the hassle, or devise some kind of instant-print system, similar to showing a client a polaroid, in the old days.
-
I think we discussed the lcd problem a lot at RG. It's still a shame that the backmakers are not able or willing to put some good lcds on their backs. Especialy at this price point. Every handheld has a better screen. I was hoping that the newer backs (plus and s series) would adress that.
My hasselblad dealer told me, that the better lcds would produce more heat and that wouldn't be to good for the sensors inside. Sounds like a poor excuse.
Tim
-
I feel that mediumformat photographers must begin to address this issue in other ways, other that continued bitching about a better LCD. Either we've got to shoot tethered, and shut up about the hassle, or devise some kind of instant-print system, similar to showing a client a polaroid, in the old days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, tethered is a PITA, but my clients love to see the big preview up on the screen, plus it gives me a chance to check focus at 100%. Even when shooting to cards, it's still a good idea have someone downloading and checking exposure and focus and relaying that info to the shooter.
What would be cool would be a "polaroid button" on the back that would process the RAW file on the fly, in the background while shooting and wirelessly spit out a 4x6 hard copy in almost real time to one of those little Canon Selphy printers or the like.
-
I think we discussed the lcd problem a lot at RG. It's still a shame that the backmakers are not able or willing to put some good lcds on their backs. Especialy at this price point. Every handheld has a better screen. I was hoping that the newer backs (plus and s series) would adress that.
My hasselblad dealer told me, that the better lcds would produce more heat and that wouldn't be to good for the sensors inside. Sounds like a poor excuse.
Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My point wasn't really to diss the manufacturerers, but the theme of this thread was that there was a big gap between the Canon's and medium format.
I just think if the medium format backs were a little more refined, the costs and use would be easier to accept.
We all have workarounds for the lcd. Me, I've move to tethering 75% of what I do and actually have grown to like the process.
Still, it's kind of hard for most of us to accept that a twice price product still has a barely readable lcd, or software is glitchy, or worse, we get into reboot, overshoot, freeze, white balance or corrupt file problems.
I sometimes wonder if the manufactuers of the backs are so focused on getting new product out to compete, they are producing backs that just are not ready.
Everyone I know that uses a medium format back tells me how much they love the files, then somewhere in the conversation it always gets around to how they have to reboot the back, or move to tethering to get a readable preview.
It's amazing what all of us go through just to get better quality.
I am amazed that I know look at a $15,000 purchase as a pretty good deal, when in the film days, a $15,000 camera purchase would yield a decade's worth of use.
We can all talk about the film and processing savings and sometimes they can be substatianial, though when I look at $30,000 a year in storage fees, the hours it takes processing, archiving, building web galleries and proofs I know that in the end, digital capture is not less expensive as film.
A few years ago I had a first assistant say that someday we will look back \remember when each film frame we shot only costs me 50 cents an image.
Given all of this, there is no going backward.
JR
-
i have also complained about the screen on my phase back, but now i actually think that the problem is not so much the screen itself, but the image it has to show....a raw file from a DMF back is a pretty awful looking thing, we all know that....flat, color probably off.....we make sure to get the highlights in and don't loose the shadows....it does not even look pretty on the LCD/laptop screen! so how can it look good on the little back? the images look a LOT better if i actually take the time in C1 to set up the shot tethered, apply the profile, curves,....and hit the button to send the setting to the back....at that point every shot pops up with the setting applied and all of a sudden the preview looks a lot better....not really more accurate, but more pleasing....
i always felt that the previews on the canons were much more pleasing, vivid colors, great contrast, but really that was more for show then anything else, i knew that was not really the image, but it made people who checked the screen a lot happier....
the new phase screens will have twice the resolution and better color and contrast....but if they still have to show a raw flat file with 12 stops DR, the image will still look like crap....
i even bought one of the sony UX series miniPCs (5" screen) to get a better picture straight from the back....i was able to get a nicer looking preview, but i had to go back to re-adjust everything later anyway....so the question is do i want the preview for myself or for the client? for me the screen works just fine, i can interpret what it says, for the client only a laptop screen will do anyway and even there i have to make sure they don't get a glimpse of the files before i can make some adjustments.....
the aptus screens don't really have any advantage for me because of these points....the only screen i have seen that deals better is the emotion22/75 screen...somehow it does a better job...just a little better, still not even half as flashy as canon....but then again none of these backs produce jpegs, which is what we see on those screens i believe....
-
Tomorrow, Wednesday, I will have a close look at the LCD on a P30+.
I will bring my P30 and maybe Canon 5D and compare.
Then I will report back here.
Willow
-
the problem is not the screen..it is the fact that all Dslr camera's create a jpg image in the RAW file..the MFDB don't do this or have no software to show you this on their screens.
The reason being: the jpg image is not a close enough representation of the quality of the actual RAW image (which we all know and don't care about as long as we can actually see the models face, light and shadow, so we can make a quick light adjustment etc).
I only shoot CF...because I treath my shoots as shooting film and downloading the images so the client can view them is kind of getting the contact back from the lab...you just don't have to wait that long! and for me a better lcd would be great..time will solve this issue...because more pixels is becoming a little rediculous..so they have to come up with new stuff to make us upgrade and for them to stay in business!
-
It sounds like I'm the only MFDB user here who is happy with their purchase. My P25 is not a work in progress, it worked straight from the box and has done so for 2 years without the need for a reboot, whatever that is. The files I get are great and way better than any 35mm type system I've tried. C1 software is okay, probably better than Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Apple, Adobe etc (all companies with far bigger budgets for this sort of thing yet still not able to make great software for image processing) and believe it or not, I prefer the lcd on the P25 to the one on my Nikon D200. In sunlight the D200 screen is unusable. If I worked in a studio, the Nikon type screen would be my choice, but I work in the big outdoors.
I agree there is room for improvement on my P25. I can't complain though, because in the last 2 years Phase have delivered 2, soon to be 3 superior products I can upgrade to. I'm not sure the same could be said for the top of the range products from Canon or Nikon etc. I know of Leaf users who like their backs too, so it's not just Phase who have some happy customers.
Damien.
-
maybee for the different subjects i shoot, but i dont have problems with the emotion screens, but they are some other technic,- no lcd. i forgot the word, but this creates have a very wide viewing angle.....
and also rarely i have clients take a look at them.
i dont shoot often tethered and i use the lcd mainly to check overexposures and histograms as well as 100% sharpness.
the shot itself i usually do on the groundglass or with my eyes before setting up the camera......
didnt liked the polas also too much.
( just bought a little optical viewer from leica with 21/24/28mm settings which equals my 28Hr and 35HR and, if i put the viewer vertical, it shows app. the 45mm perspective. nice tool for image composition).