Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on January 13, 2020, 11:22:36 am
-
It is surprising to see that most MF manufacturers are still selling the "now 6-7 years old" 50MP 43x33mm sensor. Surprising, especially at a time that 35mm cameras are catching up in MP.
With all the innovation Sony is having in its sensors, why is only P1 coming out with a 150MP? Why is there no low priced Pentax 645 Z II yet with 100MP?
Has Sony killed the goose with the golden eggs by moving too rapidly to a 100MP rather than selling first a mid range 75MP sensor?
Just some questions I don't have the answers for.
-
It is surprising to see that most MF manufacturers are still selling the "now 6-7 years old" 50MP 43x33mm sensor. Surprising, especially at a time that 35mm cameras are catching up in MP.
I am not sure that MF is about MP only.
With all the innovation Sony is having in its sensors, why is only P1 coming out with a 150MP? Why is there no low priced Pentax 645 Z II yet with 100MP?
Good question, may be that Hasselblad's customers are not willing to pay for full frame 645 sensors? Hasselblad may have their focus on the X1D? Or just trying to keep owner DJI happy?
I am not sure Hasselblad is in good shape. Phase One, who knows?! Seem though that Capture One is now on a separate site https://www.captureone.com/en/
Has Sony killed the goose with the golden eggs by moving too rapidly to a 100MP rather than selling first a mid range 75MP sensor?
As you may have heard the digital camera industry is going trough fast decline. The MFD market is in all probability a tiny one. So, Sony probably tries to rationalize development efforts. Sony now have at least four sensor sizes using a very similar pixel design.
- 26 MP APS-C
- 61 MP 24x36
- 101 MP 44x33
- 152 MP 54x41
Sensor development is expensive and Sony cannot meet demand in production. So, I guess that they want to keep development and production rational.
[/quote]
Well, my guesses....
Best regards
Erik
-
It is surprising to see that most MF manufacturers are still selling the "now 6-7 years old" 50MP 43x33mm sensor. Surprising, especially at a time that 35mm cameras are catching up in MP.
With all the innovation Sony is having in its sensors, why is only P1 coming out with a 150MP? Why is there no low priced Pentax 645 Z II yet with 100MP?
Has Sony killed the goose with the golden eggs by moving too rapidly to a 100MP rather than selling first a mid range 75MP sensor?
Just some questions I don't have the answers for.
The capabilities of 24x36mm and smaller cameras have risen dramatically in the last 15 or 20 years, to the point where they are good enough for most uses. That has made the MF market smaller as a percentage of the digital camera market, even if you exclude cellphones from the digital camera market. Lower sales means lower gross profit, which means less money to spend on R&D. That means longer development cycles, and less-sophisticated -- and more buggy -- firmware. I think the above trends will continue. Not sure why you said "except P1". It seems that Fuji has the lion's share of the MF marketplace now, and that doesn't leave much for others. Phase One is targeting the high end, and Hassy is scrambling, having shipped a Mk II version of the X1D that seems to only fulfill the promise of the Mk I.
I don't think you can blame Sony for using the same pixel design in different sized sensors; it seems like a smart way to leverage R&D. And slowing technical progress for marketing reasons has never been a long-term success model; it invites competition to eat your lunch.
Jim
-
> Have all the MF manufacturers fallen asleep (except P1)?
That's funny. Most arguments have been about P1 missing the boat with mirrorless.
Canon just released a 1DX MkIII costing $6500US (and more in most countries) that has 20MP. MP is not everything.
I certainly do not want more than 50MP because even with that each file is 85MB.
-
...
I certainly do not want more than 50MP because even with that each file is 85MB.
So no lossless compression? my d850 46mp takes about 50-55MP
But the size of the images is not important for me; new harddisks are big and cheap and new computers are fast.
I shoot sometimes 1000 images a day and still have no speed/harddisk problems.
-
So no lossless compression? my d850 46mp takes about 50-55MP
But the size of the images is not important for me; new harddisks are big and cheap and new computers are fast.
I shoot sometimes 1000 images a day and still have no speed/harddisk problems.
I am not going down the 14 vs 16 bit road.
Lossless compression loses features until you uncompress it again.
I have no storage or speed problems either with a 2013 iMac and a 8G/128G MacBook Air.
When you have 4TB data though backup disks start to be an issue.
Even 6TB disks are barely big enough and you need lots of them.
-
It is surprising to see that most MF manufacturers are still selling the "now 6-7 years old" 50MP 43x33mm sensor. Surprising, especially at a time that 35mm cameras are catching up in MP.
With all the innovation Sony is having in its sensors, why is only P1 coming out with a 150MP? Why is there no low priced Pentax 645 Z II yet with 100MP?
Has Sony killed the goose with the golden eggs by moving too rapidly to a 100MP rather than selling first a mid range 75MP sensor?
Just some questions I don't have the answers for.
It is a bit puzzling that Hasselblad has not yet upgraded its 44x33mm offerings to the newer 100MP sensor (neither for the mirrorless X system nor in backs for H), given that it seems to improve in other respects (like DR) not just pixel count, and so makes the IQ advantages over 35mm format more clear cut. Hasselblad does maintain a clear IQ advantage over 35mm format with its 100MP 54x40mm backs and the "400MP" multi-shot backs, but no new generation sensors there either. And Ricoh-Pentax does seem to be idling; not just in medium format.
Is it over-simplification to suggest that the shrinking niche of "larger than 36x24mm digital cameras" might be heading toward just two dominant systems: Phase One 645 format DSLRs and Fujifilm 44x33mm format mirrorless?
-
Lossless compression loses features until you uncompress it again.
Huh?
-
MF must be under some pressure. Many people chased a particular standard and didn’t necessarily chase after a relative “best available”. I personally know many photographers who used to shoot MF and now shoot DSLR or mirrorless. Brooks Jensen of Lensworks always shot 4X5 and now shoots M4/3. Sort of illustrates my point. He claims he is getting much the same quality at the print sizes he requires.
Of course a niche still exists for such admirable tools as the new super high res Phase Backs and so on. No longer for me however. I don’t think the manufacturers have fallen asleep but I think the sector left to them has become increasingly small, rarified and technically challenging while suffering from a shrinking market share due to the massively improved offerings from smaller digital formats. Less money for R&D means fewer options available. Not an easy place to make a living I’m sure.
-
Huh?
Hi Jim,
It is a property of certain medium format bits, they can only exist in non compressed state. Not sure that GFX of your implements that feature correctly, that may be the reason you have never noticed.
Best regards
Erik
-
Why did I exclude Phase One from the "sleepers"?
I recently saw a demonstration of the Phase One XT and I was really excited. What a fantastic landscape / architecture / travel camera! Do I need 150MP? No, probably not, especially if it costs more than 50k, which I don't have. Do I need a Rodenstock lens with carbonfiber shutter blades that last 500,000 clicks? No, probably not. Do I need the feature to take 120 clicks of the same shot in two seconds, in order to be able to remove all moving objects of your architecture shots? No, probably not, but at least this is innovation to me.
Hasselblad just (re)launched their Mark II with the same 6-7 years old 50MP sensor as the Mark I, so it will take at least till 2023 before they incorporate a 100MP sensor in the X2D. That is being very slow. I fully agree that MP is far from everything you buy in MF, but once you allow some MF uses to move down to Sony, you will not get them back. How many of us are ready to pay 35k for a H6D100? Isn't it time that Hasselblad starts selling this camera for 10-15k and give the guys who can afford it a 150MP for 35k? Hope someone is listening.
We all know MF producers are not at the top of their curve, but falling asleep will not make it better.
-
I think the thing about price is all relative.
Back in the '50s, as a kid amateur, I lusted after the Hassy 500 Series cameras, but they were way beyond hope. Years later, working as a self-employed pro, I went throughn a range of cheaper alternatives, spending way too much, until I was able to walk into the shop, lay my money down and walk out with a brand new 500C. There is a sad life lesson there: unless very well funded, which I was not, it seems impossible to save all that money wasted on cheaper options by buying best right away.
The difference for me today, though, is that long retired, money conscious since the banks decided to pay themselves bigger fortunes but depositors no visible interest (what a friggin' scam that is!), spending any big money on cameras etc. is seen as worse than pointless, and downright stupid, in fact. That said, for a young pro with the possibility of good work, why not take the gamble? I did, and it turned out to be a great life whilst it lasted.
In that proverbial nutshell: value for money depends on the point of reference from which you are able to make that call.
-
Why did I exclude Phase One from the "sleepers"?
I recently saw a demonstration of the Phase One XT and I was really excited. What a fantastic landscape / architecture / travel camera! Do I need 150MP? No, probably not, especially if it costs more than 50k, which I don't have. Do I need a Rodenstock lens with carbonfiber shutter blades that last 500,000 clicks? No, probably not. Do I need the feature to take 120 clicks of the same shot in two seconds, in order to be able to remove all moving objects of your architecture shots? No, probably not, but at least this is innovation to me.
Hasselblad just (re)launched their Mark II with the same 6-7 years old 50MP sensor as the Mark I, so it will take at least till 2023 before they incorporate a 100MP sensor in the X2D. That is being very slow. I fully agree that MP is far from everything you buy in MF, but once you allow some MF uses to move down to Sony, you will not get them back. How many of us are ready to pay 35k for a H6D100? Isn't it time that Hasselblad starts selling this camera for 10-15k and give the guys who can afford it a 150MP for 35k? Hope someone is listening.
We all know MF producers are not at the top of their curve, but falling asleep will not make it better.
What about Fuji? They have the biggest market share, but you didn't mention them.
Jim
-
It is a property of certain medium format bits, they can only exist in non compressed state. Not sure that GFX of your implements that feature correctly, that may be the reason you have never noticed.
I hope you're just pulling my leg, Erik.
For everyone else: there is no utility in worrying about where the bits go when the image is losslessly compressed; it is enough to know that they are restored with perfect accuracy upon decompression.
Jim
-
I hope you're just pulling my leg, Erik.
For everyone else: there is no utility in worrying about where the bits go when the image is losslessly compressed; it is enough to know that they are restored with perfect accuracy upon decompression.
Jim
At last! Religion, photography and faith combine to make the perfect whole, and the meaning of life is revealed within an enigmatic riddle!
;-)
-
Pentax forgot they make a MF camera years ago, what's out is all there will ever be. Hasselblad still shipping the old chip isn't a surprise, it's what they know and couldn't shoehorn the new 100mp into the form factor they sold everyone on with the X series. Hasselblad has forgotten their H users, hopeful that they never never leave, but deep down they know they will. The 907x got lots of attention 6 months ago, still hasn't been shipped & the only price that's known is a $7,500 Special edition with the CFV II 50c back. Hass had folks attention, didn't give a 'make a deposit' link to gauge interest & will move further into a camera folks say they want but never seem to acquire.
Leica is still around, but those S cameras are for existing Leica shooters.
Phase is doing everything right to be the high end, while Fuji runs circles around everything not based around the 150mp chip.
-
At last! Religion, photography and faith combine to make the perfect whole, and the meaning of life is revealed within an enigmatic riddle!
Don't forget math.
-
Don't forget math.
Ever my Achilles heel. My wife took care of numbers. As she did with grammar and spelling. I took pictures. Seemed fair at the time.
:-)
-
If people want to buy and own a 100MP brick then Hasselblad certainly makes one too. In Australia it will cost $63000. You can even buy a 400MP for around $94,000.
I can just add it to the cart and order one on line.
Phase One from the same vendor does not give prices on cameras. A Waist Level Viewfinder though is $1600.
Alternatively you can buy an X1D with less MP but also outstanding IQ for $9000. That seems to be why you normally have to go on wait list to get not just the camera but even the accessories. Marketing 101. Sell something the market wants or go broke.
I have a 50MP 35mm camera also but the image quality is poor in comparison. I may sell it and get a 20MP 35mm camera for the occasional use it now gets. The latest tier one Canon 1DX MkIII is also 20MP. So again, MP is not everything.
-
MF must be under some pressure. ... I don’t think the manufacturers have fallen asleep but I think the sector left to them has become increasingly small, rarified and technically challenging while suffering from a shrinking market share due to the massively improved offerings from smaller digital formats. Less money for R&D means fewer options available. Not an easy place to make a living I’m sure.
There is that downtrend in choices of format size of course (which has been going on for over a century), combined with the shift towards mirrorless which puts extra demands on R&D. Maybe Hasselblad has had to prioritize its new X system lenses first the X body second, updating for that body new 100MP sensor third, and has the shrinking market for "645 SLR legacy format" as lowest priority, or zero priority.
However I do not agree with this (though I do with most of what Joe says there):
Hasselblad ... couldn't shoehorn the new 100mp into the form factor they sold everyone on with the X series.
I see no reason why the new 100MP Sony sensor in the same 44x33mm format requires a bigger body: my guess is that the new Fujifilm GFX100 body is bigger mostly because it adds IS, which adds bulk for both the largest sensor shift mechanism in any cameras so far, and maybe needs more battery bulk to power it too.
-
I see no reason why the new 100MP Sony sensor in the same 44x33mm format requires a bigger body: my guess is that the new Fujifilm GFX100 body is bigger mostly because it adds IS, which adds bulk for both the largest sensor shift mechanism in any cameras so far, and maybe needs more battery bulk to power it too.
My guess is based around the support chips - the horsepower needed to make it feel snappy & work at top speed. Trade off the battery life & everything else, if the camera is a slug, folks won't be as forgiving as they have been with the X1D.
-
My guess is based around the support chips - the horsepower needed to make it feel snappy & work at top speed. Trade off the battery life & everything else, if the camera is a slug, folks won't be as forgiving as they have been with the X1D.
Maybe, but here’s another speculation: with the emphasis on being relatively small and hand-holdable, Hasselblad (like Fujifilm) thinks the next model needs IBIS, not just more pixels—and that needs work, and a new body design.
-
True, I am not a Fujifilmfan, hence my name, though my old B&W enlarger years ago had a Fujinon lens and I still use some of their glass (my HCD lenses).
But I don't like their bodies. They are IMHO so large, so large, so complicated, so ugly. I know it should to matter, but it does (in my case).
Learned a couple of things with this post. Thanks, guys.
-
Hasselblad is a strong brand with a history of many parts. It has the opportunity to rejuvenate all of the older lenses and cameras just laying out there with no use by giving them new life with the 907x. This is a grand move on their part. Unfortunately they have become a very passive marketing company that boggles the imagination of all rational photographers. Oh ya the X1D or X1Dii is crippled.
Phase has always been a multi tiered marketing company sell on a pyramid system (lease pricing) excluding cash buyers attracting a very small audiance.
Fuji today has caught the tiger by the tail at the exact right time to ride the market.
Leica missed the boat with the S3?
Funny though on all cameras mentioned above the color science is great!!!!!
-
Hasselblad is a strong brand with a history of many parts. It has the opportunity to rejuvenate all of the older lenses and cameras just laying out there with no use by giving them new life with the 907x. This is a grand move on their part. Unfortunately they have become a very passive marketing company that boggles the imagination of all rational photographers. Oh ya the X1D or X1Dii is crippled.
What's a rational photographer? To me a criteria is someone who buys a camera to match their needs.
If you buy any medium format camera thinking it is going to be faster to start up or auto focus faster than a 35mm or even your iPhone then you probably should not have bought a medium format camera. It never will.
For what it is worth I have never regarded the X1D (either one) as crippled and it also takes all of those old V series lenses for those with enough nostalgia to pay the price of a small car and then use it for old lenses. It also takes all of the H series lenses. I am very tempted to buy a second from one of the many that sells a camera 6 months old because there is a new one out. I think there are some here that have bought 4 new cameras in less years. Rational?
-
Hasselblad is a strong brand with a history of many parts. It has the opportunity to rejuvenate all of the older lenses and cameras just laying out there with no use by giving them new life with the 907x. This is a grand move on their part. Unfortunately they have become a very passive marketing company that boggles the imagination of all rational photographers. Oh ya the X1D or X1Dii is crippled.
Phase has always been a multi tiered marketing company sell on a pyramid system (lease pricing) excluding cash buyers attracting a very small audiance.
Fuji today has caught the tiger by the tail at the exact right time to ride the market.
Leica missed the boat with the S3?
Funny though on all cameras mentioned above the color science is great!!!!!
Marketing helps little if you have no products to sell...
Best regards
Erik
-
Marketing helps little if you have no products to sell...
If customers are prepared to pay for products months before they are even built who needs marketing help?
-
If customers are prepared to pay for products months before they are even built who needs marketing help?
I guess that customers prepared to pay for products they cannot buy will not create a lot of revenue. A company usually needs revenue to stay alive.
Best regards
Erik
-
A “rational photographer” is somebody who wants/needs what you want/need and buys what you buy. Of course, we all knew that.
-
OK, I have sat quietly and read for the last couple of days this thread.
The premise of this thread was questioning have all the manufacturers fallen asleep.
My opinion, No, it's not the manufactures of high end true MFD camera that are asleep, it's the vast majority of photographer that are
buying the goods before them at prices beyond the atmosphere of this planet!
When Phase recently suggest I dump well over $60K into their latest iteration of gear "optimized" for landscape work I cringed.
Just how many landscape shooters can recover that before it's of "null" value in the used market?
How many clients will pay the price for a print that allows the shooter to pay for it and extract a decent living?
Certainly not myself, and only two folks that I have known in this lifetime could pull that off today.
I found this one sentence to "haunt" me:
"In that proverbial nutshell: value for money depends on the point of reference from which you are able to make that call."
Agreed, yet in the MFD and MMFD world, this is morphing faster than a cancer cell in Dukes research lab!
As I said in another post, when the Eikonic camera was invented, the writing was on the wall, but few knew how to read it.
Reading the last couple of posts in a thread this morning brought back a distinct memory that popped out of my "little gray cells".
"Photography" has changed so dramatically in my lifetime, and the role of the truly professional photographer and especially the fine art photographer have morphed radically.
Since my days with Eikonic, I have tried to “bite my tongue” for years and just watch the evolution but I can no longer! The straw that broke the back of silence, other than among a few close friends, was the tool from Luminar for sky replacement!!! Many four letter words can describe how I feel about that manifestation of all my fears back in the Eikonix days!! It's happened!
We no longer need to be patient folks that sit sometimes for hours or return to the same spot day after day for the "right light", or the wind to quit, the right "clouds" or right action from the subject of interest to manifest.
Just push a button and you put in the sky of your choosing!
Eliot Porter, Galen Rowell have got to be cursing at us and what our definition of a Professional/Fine Art has turned into.
I’m sorry to say that photography as a whole has morphed from "fine art" to "POP Art" in so many ways. Andy Warhol has got to be laughing
Galleries showing "Smart Phone" images are art, what a transition!
But that is the times we all live in now.
My Grandson is 24, lives in Atlanta and has been infested with the "visualization" virus. He IS selling his video works and already making a decent living at it. He is using ALL of the tools before him and has none of the "romantic notion" that mega pixels and mega bucks destine one for success! He purchases only what the market before him requires!
Guess what, MFD is not a requirement by any stretch of the mind, and he is making good money!
I was having an interesting exchange with Carol recently, the founder of Gallery West in Carmel, who has a history of representing some of the finest photographers in the world. She still will not take any artists work that is not still working in the "wet" world.
A close friend of mine sells his huge landscape images for over $100K each to worldwide clients and today mixes his work with "wet" and digital. He's not accepted in her gallery as some of his work is now being done digitally. I have to respect her commitment to the traditional f.64 premise but admit I'm happy to no longer be breathing in the fumes from darkroom trays with Pyrogallic Acid or Amidol swishing around in them - carcinogens, but they got you the "blacks" we all wanted.
Just how many of us can actually recoup the investment in the top of the line Phase or Hasselblad H in the 2.5 year period before it is marginalized by new developments OR youngsters like my Grandson come along with a MMF (Mini Medium Format) Fuji GFX and takes the client away from you on price and work that is "good enough"?
Thus, those of us buying into a top of the line Phase or Hassie, etc. system today are clearly dancing with a dinosaur in my opinion. Yes, a dinosaur with a sexy "hook" of MP's and the appeal of a Bentley, but still a dinosaur.
There, Now I feel better.
-
Hasselblad ... has the opportunity to rejuvenate all of the older lenses and cameras just laying out there with no use by giving them new life with the 907x. ... Unfortunately they have become a very passive marketing company that boggles the imagination of all rational photographers.
Firstly, a bit of market reality: striving to enable people to keep using decades-old lenses is not a rational business approach, especially for a relatively small company like Hasselblad that is trying to keep up with rapid changes and the encroachments of giants like Fujifilm (directly in 44x33) and Canon, Nikon and Sony (with more rapid sensor and other technological advances arguably offsetting a lot of Hasselblad's format size advantage).
Secondly, can you give a rational argument for a 907x with its matching CFV II 50C 44x33 back over an X1D II? They have the same sensor and lens mount, and the same ability to use other lenses via adaptors, so the differences I know of are:
Favoring the 907x with CFV II 50C:
1) The back can also be used with an old classic Hasselblad "V system" body.
2) Looks are more esthetically compatible with those classic V system bodies and lenses?
3) ADDED Tiltable screen for easier waist level or short tripod usage. (Tip of the hat to Joe Towner)
Favoring the X1D:
1) EVF as an alternative to the rear-screen (so you do not have to "use it held out at arm's length", as some anti-rear-screen zealots keep claiming!)
2) Lower price (at least based on the "907X Special Edition" pricing we have so far).
3) Lower weight.
4) Better ergonomics for hand-held usage.
5) Looks are more esthetically compatible with X system (and H system) lenses?
-
Well said!
OK, I have sat quietly and read for the last couple of days this thread.
The premise of this thread was questioning have all the manufacturers fallen asleep.
My opinion, No, it's not the manufactures of high end true MFD camera that are asleep, it's the vast majority of photographer that are
buying the goods before them at prices beyond the atmosphere of this planet!
When Phase recently suggest I dump well over $60K into their latest iteration of gear "optimized" for landscape work I cringed.
Just how many landscape shooters can recover that before it's of "null" value in the used market?
How many clients will pay the price for a print that allows the shooter to pay for it and extract a decent living?
Certainly not myself, and only two folks that I have known in this lifetime could pull that off today.
I found this one sentence to "haunt" me:
"In that proverbial nutshell: value for money depends on the point of reference from which you are able to make that call."
Agreed, yet in the MFD and MMFD world, this is morphing faster than a cancer cell in Dukes research lab!
As I said in another post, when the Eikonic camera was invented, the writing was on the wall, but few knew how to read it.
Reading the last couple of posts in a thread this morning brought back a distinct memory that popped out of my "little gray cells".
"Photography" has changed so dramatically in my lifetime, and the role of the truly professional photographer and especially the fine art photographer have morphed radically.
I have tried to “bite my tongue” for years and just watch the evolution but I can no longer! The straw that broke the back of silence, other than among a few close friends, was the tool from Luminar for sky replacement!!! Many four letter words can describe how I feel about that manifestation of all my fears back in the Eikonix days!! It's happened!
We no longer need to be patient folks that sit sometimes for hours for the "right light", or the wind to quit, or right action from the subject of interest to manifest.
Just push a button and you put in the sky of your choosing!
Eliot Porter, Galen Rowell have got to be cursing at us and what our definition of a Professional/Fine Art has turned into.
I’m sorry to say that photography as a whole has morphed from "fine art" to "POP Art" in so many ways. Andy Warhol has got to be laughing
Galleries showing "Smart Phone" images are art, what a transition!
But that is the times we all live in now.
My Grandson is 24, lives in Atlanta and has been infested with the "visualization" virus. He IS selling his video works and already making a decent living at it. He is using ALL of the tools before him and has none of the "romantic notion" that mega pixels and mega bucks bucks destine one for success! He purchases only what the market before him requires!
Guess what, MFD is not a requirement by any stretch of the mind, and he is making good money!
I was having an interesting exchange with Carol recently, the founder of Gallery West in Carmel, who has a history of representing some of the finest photographers in the world. She still will not take any artists work that is not still working in the "wet" world.
A close friend of mine sells his huge landscape images for over $100K each to worldwide clients and mixes his work with "wet" and digital.
He's not accepted in her gallery as some of his work is now being done digitally. I have to respect her commitment to the traditional f.64 premise but admit I'm happy to no longer be breathing in the fumes from darkroom trays with Pyrogallic Acid or Amidol swishing around in them - carcinogens, but they got you the "blacks" we all wanted.
Just how many of us can actually recoup the investment in the top of the line Phase or Hasselblad H in the 2.5 year period before it is marginalized by new developments OR youngsters like my Grandson come along with a MMF (Mini Medium Format) Fuji GFX and takes the client away from you on price and work that is "good enough"?
Thus, those of us buying into a top of the line Phase or Hassie, etc. system today are clearly dancing with a dinosaur in my opinion. Yes, a dinosaur with a sexy "hook" of MP's and the appeal of a Bentley, but still a dinosaur.
There, Now I feel better.
-
OK, I have sat quietly and read for the last couple of days this thread.
The premise of this thread was questioning have all the manufacturers fallen asleep.
My opinion, No, it's not the manufactures of high end true MFD camera that are asleep, it's the vast majority of photographer that are
buying the goods before them at prices beyond the atmosphere of this planet!
When Phase recently suggest I dump well over $60K into their latest iteration of gear "optimized" for landscape work I cringed.
Just how many landscape shooters can recover that before it's of "null" value in the used market?
How many clients will pay the price for a print that allows the shooter to pay for it and extract a decent living?
Certainly not myself, and only two folks that I have known in this lifetime could pull that off today.
I found this one sentence to "haunt" me:
"In that proverbial nutshell: value for money depends on the point of reference from which you are able to make that call."
Agreed, yet in the MFD and MMFD world, this is morphing faster than a cancer cell in Dukes research lab!
As I said in another post, when the Eikonic camera was invented, the writing was on the wall, but few knew how to read it.
Reading the last couple of posts in a thread this morning brought back a distinct memory that popped out of my "little gray cells".
"Photography" has changed so dramatically in my lifetime, and the role of the truly professional photographer and especially the fine art photographer have morphed radically.
I have tried to “bite my tongue” for years and just watch the evolution but I can no longer! The straw that broke the back of silence, other than among a few close friends, was the tool from Luminar for sky replacement!!! Many four letter words can describe how I feel about that manifestation of all my fears back in the Eikonix days!! It's happened!
We no longer need to be patient folks that sit sometimes for hours for the "right light", or the wind to quit, or right action from the subject of interest to manifest.
Just push a button and you put in the sky of your choosing!
Eliot Porter, Galen Rowell have got to be cursing at us and what our definition of a Professional/Fine Art has turned into.
I’m sorry to say that photography as a whole has morphed from "fine art" to "POP Art" in so many ways. Andy Warhol has got to be laughing
Galleries showing "Smart Phone" images are art, what a transition!
But that is the times we all live in now.
My Grandson is 24, lives in Atlanta and has been infested with the "visualization" virus. He IS selling his video works and already making a decent living at it. He is using ALL of the tools before him and has none of the "romantic notion" that mega pixels and mega bucks bucks destine one for success! He purchases only what the market before him requires!
Guess what, MFD is not a requirement by any stretch of the mind, and he is making good money!
I was having an interesting exchange with Carol recently, the founder of Gallery West in Carmel, who has a history of representing some of the finest photographers in the world. She still will not take any artists work that is not still working in the "wet" world.
A close friend of mine sells his huge landscape images for over $100K each to worldwide clients and mixes his work with "wet" and digital.
He's not accepted in her gallery as some of his work is now being done digitally. I have to respect her commitment to the traditional f.64 premise but admit I'm happy to no longer be breathing in the fumes from darkroom trays with Pyrogallic Acid or Amidol swishing around in them - carcinogens, but they got you the "blacks" we all wanted.
Just how many of us can actually recoup the investment in the top of the line Phase or Hasselblad H in the 2.5 year period before it is marginalized by new developments OR youngsters like my Grandson come along with a MMF (Mini Medium Format) Fuji GFX and takes the client away from you on price and work that is "good enough"?
Thus, those of us buying into a top of the line Phase or Hassie, etc. system today are clearly dancing with a dinosaur in my opinion. Yes, a dinosaur with a sexy "hook" of MP's and the appeal of a Bentley, but still a dinosaur.
There, Now I feel better.
" I found this one sentence to "haunt" me:
"In that proverbial nutshell: value for money depends on the point of reference from which you are able to make that call." "
I didn't mean to spook anyone, but it's simply how life works.
I have discovered the Jay Leno Garage set of online videos, and there you see the perfect example of how value becomes absolutely relative to ability to pay. It puts everything material in life into perfect perspective.
Yesterday's Euromillions Lottery prize of over one hundred million euros went to one ticket holder. As the guy in the shop mentioned this afternoon when I bought my next ticket: any young guy under thirty winning that has just had his life ruined. I agree. It can destroy both appreciation and perspective, not to mention create the additional damage of never again knowing if it's you or your money that the friends you currently have, and the new ones waiting in line will find to be the attraction.
When you are a lot older, you think of your next-in-line and also the additional good your motherload can do for mankind.
Rob
-
You say:
"Favoring the X1D:
1) EVF as an alternative to the rear-screen (so you do not have to "use it held out at arm's length", as some anti-rear-screen zealots keep claiming!)
2) Lower price (at least based on the "907X Special Edition" pricing we have so far).
3) Lower weight.
4) Better ergonomics for hand-held usage.
5) Looks are more esthetically compatible with X system (and H system) lenses?"
I suggest taking the evaluation a step further:
Fuji
GFX 50S
Sensor: 51.4 MP, 43.8x32.9
CMOS
Max Resolution: 8256x6192
Sensor Size: 43.8x32.9
Dynamic Range: 14 Stops
Reported Bits: 14 RAW
True sensor Bits: 14 RAW
Sensor Cleaning Syst.: Ultra Sonic Vibration
Weight in Pounds: 2 32.45oz w/Battery+EVF+SD
920g/2lb EVF, Battery, card.
740g/26.10oz w/o
Body Price: $4,995.00
Lenses for basic Setup: Fuji recent Sale price
Wide Angle 23mm f/4 $2,099
Weight 1.9
Medium Zoom 32-64mm f/4 $1,799.00
Weight 1.9
Portrait 100-200 f/2 $1,500
Weight 2.2
Fuji GFX 50s System Cost w/23+100-200 zoom: $8,594.00
Fuji GFX 50s Total Weight w/23mm+ 100-200: 6.1
Fuji GFX 50s System Cost w/23+34-64: $8,893.00
Fuji GFX 50s Total Weight w/24mm+ 32-64: 5.8
Fuji GFX 50s System Cost w/23mm+32-64mm+100-200mm zoom: $10,393.00
Fuji GFX 50s Total Weight w/all lenses: 8
Image Stabilization available is certain lenses.
------------------
Hasselblad
X1DII
51.4 MP 43.8x32.9 (identical to Fuji GFX 50S in all respects)
CMOS
8272 x 6200
43.8x32.9
14 Stops (*)
16 RAW - sensor can only gen 14 bits so in camera up-res applied!
14 bits true RAW
NO
1.77 with battery & card
$5,750.00
Hasselblad XCD
21mm f/4 $3,750
1.32
35-75mm f3.5-4.5 $5,175
2.46
120mm f3.5 $4,495
2.14
System Cost: $19,170.00
Total Weight: 7.69
* 14 bits true converted to 16 in camera
Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution (HNCS)
Impression: No Image Stabilization in body or lenses.
Transparency: I have shot Hasselblad film and digital all of my life BUT the above "equation" is so overwhelming in my
mind that I now have the above GFX configuration on my back when out shooting.
Back when I had a lot of hair on top of this critter, I remarked to a best friend when I was consulting with Nikon and Hasselblad
about the development of each of their first digital cameras: The Japanese can't get enough of your thoughts and the folks in
Sweden are intimidated by anything that is "NIH" (Not invented here).
Again, that was the weakness of Hassie. I saw exactly the same with Silicon Graphics/Cray when my team was developing on those platforms.
-
To add to the list from BJL, CFV II + 907x has waist level screen positioning (tilted screen).
-
To add to the list from BJL, CFV II + 907x has waist level screen positioning (tilted screen).
I must admit, for Xmas I bought myself the GFX Tilt EVF device. I have surprised myself that I
have made it a permanent part of my camera. I was out shooting yesterday and it allowed me to point
the viewfinder straight up, drop my tripod height to change the FOV and use it a wee bit like the Hassie 500cm waist level viewfinder.
-
Sorry, but at a time when we have the first 100 MP MF body, with IBIS and modern AF, with solid glass and smart accessories like the EVF tilt adapter, with all the perks of the mirrorless tech, at a fraction of the cost of traditional MF ... it seems like all MF manufacturesrs are asleep at the wheel, except Fuji.
While leaf shutter lenses exist only adapted and with manual focus, and tech lenses are limited to adapted third party tilt-shift lenses, the GF system is the one leading into the future - all snobbery aside, camera ecosystems are just tools for creating images. And currently Fuji opened up many more possibilities for image creation (stabilization, EVF, eye-af etc.) for a lot more creators, with the significanly lower entry price.
I wish I had the XT / Rodenatock possibilities with Fuji, or AF leaf shutter lenses - but hey, I simply can’t afford 4x the cost of my current GFX 100 setup for that. And had the GFX 100 not showed up, with it’s combination of high MP count, solid & affordable lenses, and fast operation (again, stabilization, modern AF, EVF) I would still be shooting 35mm.
-
To add to the list from BJL, CFV II + 907x has waist level screen positioning (tilted screen).
Thanks; I added it. A bad oversight for me as a lover of the waist-level option for situations like maintain eye contact and interaction with human subjects, and getting eye-level perspective with children without the possibly off-putting act of kneeling.
To keep with the desire to use Hasselblad V lenses, I omitted mention of the extra VF options that Fujifilm G cameras offer. Those come in exchange for the loss of leaf-shutter lenses and so the bulkier bodies and lower flash sync speeds that go with a big focal plane shutter.
-
As I said in another post, when the Eikonic camera was invented, the writing was on the wall, but few knew how to read it.
My knowledge and Google have both failed me: what is the Eikonic camera?
-
My knowledge and Google have both failed me: what is the Eikonic camera?
And your a fellow Senior member??? LOL!
OK, it was a group of chaps out of MIT headed by a very nice man named George Helms.
I'm 6'4" and George made me feel short - he was about 6'7"!
Here is a little info on the initial version that I consulted on. Now remember, much of what can be found is from the Kodak days. But the real work was done before they brought out the company (exempting Sasson's initial invention. I remember a meeting with the VP or Kodak Digital at a Siggraph convention. They had the device for a couple of years and were terrible at improving it or marketing it. I was pissed and told him that his division of Kodak could run a virgin through death row and she'd come out a virgin on the other side! Naturally, I've never been good at holding back my thoughts, especially when I knew they were valid:
EIKONIX- 1982. Eikonix Corporation marketed the first digital filming instrument. It had a 3000 pixel scanner which moved across 4000 lines to provide a 12MP image. First images were shades of grey, but later red, blue and green filters were added resulting in the first digital color film. We believe we were the first digital camera history web site to provide a photo and information concerning this camera.
As I said somewhere else on the forum, clean and consistent electrical current was a huge problem in getting a quality scan out of it.
My group wrote some code to run it: Run 3 scans of a static scene, one through a red, then green then blue filter and composite it into
a image file.
It was similar to the logic that later appeared in Management Graphics (MGI), headed by Jim Teeter, film recorder that my team developed
drivers from on the SGI platform over the SCSI pipe.
MGI applied the inverse of the Eikonic capture device/camera - shoot to a piece of color film (we had drivers that ran the cine film recorders in Tri-Star, Columbia, etc studios)
though each of the RGB filters and there you have a frame on the film from a computer generated file. We'd take about 28 seconds
as I recall to dump a frame of digital data to a frame of Kodak Cine film.
I could not find much on the net:
http://www.cameramuseum.ch/en/N5880/la-revolution-numerique-en.html?M=7588
Attached is a photo of the earlier unit, again after Kodak took over.
Here is what a later version of it after Kodak bought the company and patents looked like:
http://www.peterjsucy.com/History/1988/EikonixBrochure.pdf
In short, to my knowledge it was the first real commercial digital camera after Sasson's invention/2MP device at Kodak.
I often ponder why there is so little info on the machine and the crew that invented it to be found on the
internet. Some time back I tried to find info on George but could not come up with much.
It certainly was an exciting time, yet as I said a few posts back, it troubled me about the future of "Fine Art Photography"
Jack
-
Interesting! And now that I now how to spell it, I discovered this bit of history from 1985, about the Kodak take-over:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/21/business/eastman-kodak-getting-eikonix.html
A sad quote in hind-sight: "Analysts said the acquisition was part of Kodak's campaign to reduce its dependence on its traditional photography business" with other efforts including "last year Kodak has expanded its production of floppy disks ...".
-
Interesting! And now that I now how to spell it, I discovered this bit of history from 1985, about the Kodak take-over:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/21/business/eastman-kodak-getting-eikonix.html
A sad quote in hind-sight: "Analysts said the acquisition was part of Kodak's campaign to reduce its dependence on its traditional photography business" with other efforts including "last year Kodak has expanded its production of floppy disks ...".
A great find, but NYT had it wrong as most of use in the early development felt after we interfaced with Kodak Digital for a year or two.
I still stick by my belief they either hired the dumbest group to run it or we were right to think they wanted to keep film alive.
The digital group did come out with a great color printer BUT they had no idea how to price and market it. That was another dud from
Kodak - If I remember right it was priced at $25K!!