Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: dustblue on September 09, 2008, 01:17:10 pm
-
I heard (I believe thierry said so too) that nowdays a ccd costs only 1/10th the final price of a mfdb, so why is the mfdb still so expensive? just because R&D cost and small scale business? Or the mfdb makers have some secret agreement about the price?
Anyone have some ideas?
-
Anyone have some ideas?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
the dealer markup the high costs and the model of the complete medium format business.
there is not so much free choice when the user is buying. most markets are controlled by one dealer and maybe some time two so the competition is small and the dealers get angry if someone from outside sells to their market.
they get more angry if you buy into other countries that may be less money.
the purpose of used cameras to go back to the maker and then recycled back into the dealers to compete at the low end. this makes the low end even controlled.
the goal of medium format is not to only be a sale of the camera. it is to be the sale of having the user buy all the system and then the shooter cannot get change to a different medium format without a big money loss. so to not take the big money loss it costs less to make a upgrade to a new digital back from the same makers. this keeps most all the used equipment with the makers and the makers dealers.
it is also the new way of complete camera and backs. if you change from sinar to hasselblad you will have to change everything and this is very high in money loss.
it is also the reason that many of the makers will only build a contax mount at the very end after they make mounts for their own new cameras. the makers want very much the contax and the older camera to go away so they can contol the complete front and back and if they do not go away then they will find ways to make it so.
this is why you see so few of the shooters change from one camera to the next camera.
if they do change it is usually to the canon or maybe soon to the new big nikon.
someday some maker will break free of this system and offer low prices and less markup. then it will all be less in expense and other makers will have to be the same.
now every medium format maker works very hard to keep you living within their house.
-
it is also the reason that many of the makers will only build a contax mount at the very end after they make mounts for their own new cameras. the makers want very much the contax and the older camera to go away so they can contol the complete front and back and if they do not go away then they will find ways to make it so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hm, not sure about that,
The old V-Mount is often the first mount available from manufacturer for a new back.
Tom
-
Yes, there is a secret understanding among the manufacturers. Actually something JR had already revealed, a few months back, here on LL. During these meetings, hold twice a year each time at a different location, the prices are decided and agreed among them, with the very valuable help of some invited "guests" (read well-known photographers) who help them to find out what prices are still acceptable by the potential customers/endusers. The last meeting, as you might know, was just hold a couple of weeks ago (Photokina soon).
And on a more serious note:
There are dedicated people working in those companies, whose bread depends on the service they provide to their customers. I know personally some of them, daily fighting for the users to satisfy their needs and support them whenever they need it, outside their working hours. It is a bit sad, for all these committed and hard-working people, to read such non-sense sometimes. A business-orientated company has however some rules to function adequately and to be able to survive, one of it being to calculate the right and necessary margins to be able to pay its employees, the invoices and possibly also to make some profit to be able to invest in new projects. When prices are set, it is with having these rules in mind, certainly not to "milk-out" the customers. And yes, we are more than happy if we can keep a customer with us, investing in new equipment when he needs it, but it seems to me that this can be achieved only if one provides a prefect service and support to these customers.
Sorry for reacting may be a bit strongly, but I feel it necessary to be said, with the risk of being "countered" by some.
Best regards,
Thierry
PS - edited for addendum: the same applies to the dealers and distributors, who are mostly hard-working and knowledgeable people.
-
I got into a really extended discussion about this with some guys at Leaf a few years ago, guys on the inside that I very much trust, and the bottom line is that the CCD is not that cheap. Nowhere near 1/10th. At that time, the CCD going into a 12K camera was about 7K, I think it was the Valeo 11 or something.
Also as far as today's really big chips goes, when chips get bigger, the cost goes up geometrically because of the manufacturing process.
Another thing is the silicon wafer market is very strictly controlled by the feds. They are literally limited to what they can buy, so the DOD can get its mitts on chips... the guys went off on that one for a bit too.
-
You know how much you have to pay for these elves by the hour now.
-
Actually you don't have to be so angry. Hard working guys like you always deserve respects, I think most profit is in the stockholders' pockets, whom decide everything.
I just want to know the components of the final price, like hardware 50%, R and D 50%, etc. And after we know that, we'll see if small scale is the main reason for the high mfdb price.
For example if the hardware:R&D is 3:7, then a 10 times bigger market will end up with roughly half the price; but if hardware:R&D is 7:3, then a 10 times bigger market just may reduce it's 20% price.
Yes, there is a secret understanding among the manufacturers. Actually something JR had already revealed, a few months back, here on LL. During these meetings, hold twice a year each time at a different location, the prices are decided and agreed among them, with the very valuable help of some invited "guests" (read well-known photographers) who help them to find out what prices are still acceptable by the potential customers/endusers. The last meeting, as you might know, was just hold a couple of weeks ago (Photokina soon).
And on a more serious note:
There are dedicated people working in those companies, whose bread depends on the service they provide to their customers. I know personally some of them, daily fighting for the users to satisfy their needs and support them whenever they need it, outside their working hours. It is a bit sad, for all these committed and hard-working people, to read such non-sense sometimes. A business-orientated company has however some rules to function adequately and to be able to survive, one of it being to calculate the right and necessary margins to be able to pay its employees, the invoices and possibly also to make some profit to be able to invest in new projects. When prices are set, it is with having these rules in mind, certainly not to "milk-out" the customers. And yes, we are more than happy if we can keep a customer with us, investing in new equipment when he needs it, but it seems to me that this can be achieved only if one provides a prefect service and support to these customers.
Sorry for reacting may be a bit strongly, but I feel it necessary to be said, with the risk of being "countered" by some.
Best regards,
Thierry
PS - edited for addendum: the same applies to the dealers and distributors, who are mostly hard-working and knowledgeable people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
PS - edited for addendum: the same applies to the dealers and distributors, who are mostly hard-working and knowledgeable people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think you have to look far at any segment of the professional photography industry and not understand very quickly that most people involved are hard working and well intentioned.
Medium format needs to be a less controlling and just plain easier to test, review, buy, use and sell.
JR
-
What about the services for used dbs? Anyone got a clue? If db makers want to sell more new backs or refurbished backs they have the reason to refuse to provide service for used backs, or charge unreasonable prices for repairing used backs.
If you want to hear about depreciation for photo stuff, ask some service bureau owners about the $200K+ drum scanners they can't even give away now. There is a high premium on the high end, low volume industry gear. That hasn't changed and won't most likely. Just what the actual items will change.
Reports just a few years back were that the 22MP sensors purchased in bulk might have been $5K or more per sensor. When the entire MFDB industry only sells maybe 10K units a year, I wouldn't expect prices to follow the normal electronics trends of the last few decades. Canon and Nikon make millions of DSLRs a year. That affords them lower and lower sensor costs.
I don't know what back you want, but I see reasonably priced backs on the used market all the time. A P45+ going for $18K is a great price for the second buyer but has to hurt for the original one who spent $32K just in the last 2 years.
If you use a Mac, download GarageBuy to keep an eye on ebay searches for digital backs. Just make searches for any search phrases you can think of and weekly you'll see good deals from reputable sellers.
As more new backs come on the market, people will sell their previous gear directly to get more money than a trade-in. Take advantage of some good deals.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I found it funny too, James. That's why it is still in my mind and the reason why I mentioned it.
Thierry
Also keep in mind the joke I made about meeting in an undisclosed location was a joke, one I think quite funny as thinking about Dick Cheny talking about medium format backs puts a smile on my face.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dustblue,
Am not angry at all.
These companies are profit-orientated companies, like in all business: if they make money to break-even (not writing down a loss) they survive, if they make money to have a little or big profit and they survive longer, if they loose money for years they shall disappear. This is true for ANY of the current MFDB manufacturers.
My point is: it happens more than often that these companies are presented as "thieves" with bad-intentioned people to get as much money as possible out of a customer. For having worked in this industry for nearly 20 years, I can say that there are other ethics governing our mind and behaviour when it comes to our customers. I know this from the company I am working for, and believe it to be true as well for others.
Best regards,
Thierry
Actually you don't have to be so angry. Hard working guys like you always deserve respects, I think most profit is in the stockholders' pockets, whom decide everything.
I just want to know the components of the final price, like hardware 50%, R and D 50%, etc. And after we know that, we'll see if small scale is the main reason for the high mfdb price.
For example if the hardware:R&D is 3:7, then a 10 times bigger market will end up with roughly half the price; but if hardware:R&D is 7:3, then a 10 times bigger market just may reduce it's 20% price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Just wanted to chime in, in defense of dealers too, having lived in those shoes for a while...
To be an authorized dealer for any of these brands, you are required to buy a minimum of product as demo. You do get a fairly good discount, and after a set time you may sell it as demo, but it is a staggering investment, especially for a small shop.
Add to that the fact the the markup is very small, despite what you may believe, and the costs to finance this stuff (most small dealers have to buy this stuff on credit...) and it boils down to, you have to sell a crap-ton of these $20+ K products to pay for the investment to be allowed to sell them in the first place.
Like photographers and the manufacturers, the dealers are trying to stay in business, against some pretty tough odds... keep that in the back of your mind.
I also want to echo the praise of Leaf support, as well as Hasselblad. Those guys are the best in the business (that business being imaging electronics... I'm sure Phase and Sinar are right up there, but I have no personal experience.)
I think the Hasselblad (Imacon) guys are still shaking their heads at the mention of my name... (the world's first digitally-modified Holga, using an Imacon Ixpress 96.) But they still support it!
holy crap, I found the link: http://www.teddillard.com/2008/05/history-digital-holga.html (http://www.teddillard.com/2008/05/history-digital-holga.html)
-
Hahaha Ted... i actually googled up your modified holga about a week ago. Talk about a small world =)
To be on topic though Ted is spot on here. The market for medium format have never been as large and i dare say will never be as large as the 35mm market. It was true with film when the difference in investment was less and it's definately true now.
For us who can't afford a new back and doesnt have the client base yet to lease one, there is always the used market. Its a very small market right now but it is there.
Me i think we wont see cheaper digital medium format cameras anytime soon since a lot of you buy in is investment in a service (or at least its going that way). And knowing that you will always have a camera to shoot a job with regardless if the studio blows up or not is worth quite a lot of money.
It can be frustrating however for us who do not want to rent it unless a client pays and do not wish to spent $1000 / month leasing one but STILL want to shoot medium format digitally and i believe those are often the once voicing their wish for cheaper backs. But as i said before, our way out is either to shoot film and scan or to get a older used digital back. In the end its the old supply & demand that comes into play again and demand is unfortunately very limited and so is actually supply, at least if you compare to a mass market like digital small format.
Personally i hope i can get my first digital back in a few days when my client pays the last invoices i sent out
/Henrik
Just wanted to chime in, in defense of dealers too, having lived in those shoes for a while...
To be an authorized dealer for any of these brands, you are required to buy a minimum of product as demo. You do get a fairly good discount, and after a set time you may sell it as demo, but it is a staggering investment, especially for a small shop.
Add to that the fact the the markup is very small, despite what you may believe, and the costs to finance this stuff (most small dealers have to buy this stuff on credit...) and it boils down to, you have to sell a crap-ton of these $20+ K products to pay for the investment to be allowed to sell them in the first place.
Like photographers and the manufacturers, the dealers are trying to stay in business, against some pretty tough odds... keep that in the back of your mind.
I also want to echo the praise of Leaf support, as well as Hasselblad. Those guys are the best in the business (that business being imaging electronics... I'm sure Phase and Sinar are right up there, but I have no personal experience.)
I think the Hasselblad (Imacon) guys are still shaking their heads at the mention of my name... (the world's first digitally-modified Holga, using an Imacon Ixpress 96.) But they still support it!
holy crap, I found the link: http://www.teddillard.com/2008/05/history-digital-holga.html (http://www.teddillard.com/2008/05/history-digital-holga.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yes, there is a secret understanding among the manufacturers. Actually something JR had already revealed, a few months back, here on LL. During these meetings, hold twice a year each time at a different location, the prices are decided and agreed among them, with the very valuable help of some invited "guests" (read well-known photographers) who help them to find out what prices are still acceptable by the potential customers/endusers. The last meeting, as you might know, was just hold a couple of weeks ago (Photokina soon).
And on a more serious note:
There are dedicated people working in those companies, whose bread depends on the service they provide to their customers. I know personally some of them, daily fighting for the users to satisfy their needs and support them whenever they need it, outside their working hours. It is a bit sad, for all these committed and hard-working people, to read such non-sense sometimes. A business-orientated company has however some rules to function adequately and to be able to survive, one of it being to calculate the right and necessary margins to be able to pay its employees, the invoices and possibly also to make some profit to be able to invest in new projects. When prices are set, it is with having these rules in mind, certainly not to "milk-out" the customers. And yes, we are more than happy if we can keep a customer with us, investing in new equipment when he needs it, but it seems to me that this can be achieved only if one provides a prefect service and support to these customers.
Sorry for reacting may be a bit strongly, but I feel it necessary to be said, with the risk of being "countered" by some.
Best regards,
Thierry
PS - edited for addendum: the same applies to the dealers and distributors, who are mostly hard-working and knowledgeable people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry -
Just for the record, could you please confirm the first paragraph is meant to be sarcastic, and not to be taken seriously. Seems silly to ask this, but these are strange times we live in....
Geoff
-
Dear Geoff,
I was with the belief that my sentence "And on a more serious note" would make it clear.
Yes, I was sarcastic, confirmed. I can't even imagine how such "agreements" on prices between manufacturers could be possible, even less how someone could believe such does exist.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry -
Just for the record, could you please confirm the first paragraph is meant to be sarcastic, and not to be taken seriously. Seems silly to ask this, but these are strange times we live in....
Geoff
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yes if it were true it would illegal and called price fixing
Dear Geoff,
I was with the belief that my sentence "And on a more serious note" would make it clear.
Yes, I was sarcastic, confirmed. I can't even imagine how such "agreements" on prices between manufacturers could be possible, even less how someone could believe such does exist.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
...
Medium format needs to be a less controlling and just plain easier to test, review, buy, use and sell.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FWIW, and with a mild interest in self-promotion, I wanted to just drop the note now that one of the projects I'm working on right now is a new, and unique digital camera review site, one that includes detailed reviews of the big digital backs as well as shooting impressions.
There's not a lot out there like what we're planning, and I hope it adresses just this issue.
Updates when it goes live...
-
Ted. Need any reviewers?
-
easy: low demand to limited market on a high R&D product
1 CCD or CMOS is INSANELY expensive to make. the reason you see them as "cheap" is because replication is cheap.
$10 million to develop a sensor with a $200 per sensor to replicate is expensive if you are only making 10K of them. make 10 million of them and the price drops to $201 per sensor.
-
easy: low demand to limited market on a high R&D product
1 CCD or CMOS is INSANELY expensive to make. the reason you see them as "cheap" is because replication is cheap.
$10 million to develop a sensor with a $200 per sensor to replicate is expensive if you are only making 10K of them. make 10 million of them and the price drops to $201 per sensor.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=220579\")
...also there's the hard, plain math that is in play. You make CCD's from a circular wafer. Like cutting circles from plywood (the reverse geometry, but just as much a factor), a small increase in size can increase the waste, thus the cost, enormously. Little tiny CCDs for little tiny cameras use the wafer real estate more efficiently.
For more than you ever wanted to know, check this site:
[a href=\"http://wfc3.gsfc.nasa.gov/MARCONI/manufacture.html]http://wfc3.gsfc.nasa.gov/MARCONI/manufacture.html[/url]
-
So how about the myth that MF sensors are indeed made of 6 cheap APS sensors? Thanks
-
So how about the myth that MF sensors are indeed made of 6 cheap APS sensors? Thanks
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=220611\")
I think the next question we will ask is why is 24mpx so inexpensive.
[a href=\"http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+megapixel-full+frame-dslr-official-only-3000]http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+m...icial-only-3000[/url]
JR
-
I think the next question we will ask is why is 24mpx so inexpensive.
http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+m...icial-only-3000 (http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+megapixel-full+frame-dslr-official-only-3000)
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
leeetle bitty pixels.
A typical MFDB is running from a 6 micron pixel to as big as a 12 micron pixel. It ain't the pixel count, it's the size of the pixels, and size of the chip.
-
myth
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yes this is exactly why I start this topic. A 3k$ sony A900 vs a 30k$ digital back, is the price difference between those two just because of the business scale? Is there someone here could provide us a list of the cost of a digital back's components? like ccd cost, R and D cost etc... we all need a clear view of what we are buying.
So how about the myth that MF sensors are indeed made of 6 cheap APS sensors? Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I just remembered where I read it
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ST&f=16&t=17745 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=17745)
page 2/3
I also understand that the AA filter used on most 35mm sensors is more expensive than the sensor itself. There is no AA filter on MF backs.
I think it s good that Kodak and Dalsa safes some money.
-
we all need a clear view of what we are buying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you know the price of the chassis of your car? Or of the cigarette lighter?
-
Ok, just for the cars, when you have another choice which is 90% cheaper but not exactly worse (even better in some respects), will you WANT to know why before you go buy the 10times priced one?
Of course we are not talking about luxuries...right?
Do you know the price of the chassis of your car? Or of the cigarette lighter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think the next question we will ask is why is 24mpx so inexpensive.
http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+m...icial-only-3000 (http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+megapixel-full+frame-dslr-official-only-3000)
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Simple... Nikon and canon dont need to make money off these cameras.. they are basically there to sell the consumer grade products. If their margin each camera is anything like what the dealer makes ($100-200) then they are probably losing money on it. However its a worthwhile expense when they know that they'll sell millions of thousands of Rebels and point and shoots because the consumer sees the pros use them.
For a medium format company to even have a chance to be profitable after the high cost of R&D, they need to make thousands on each back.
-
As it's been pointed out imaging companies are business and not charities. Another perspective is the amount of gross profit made by a selection of imaging companies in 2007:
19.9% Kodak consumer digital imaging
24.4% The whole KODAK group
27.4% Kodak graphic communications group (Inc. Leaf)
30.6% Jenoptik (Sinar parent)
39.8% Nikon
And by way of some context two of the worlds larger Pharma companies; who like imaging companies make significant R&D investment.
70.2% Roche
73.3% Novartis
Most imaging companies are consolidated in to lager groups so it's quite difficult to extrapolate something really precise.
-
Simple... Nikon and canon dont need to make money off these cameras.. they are basically there to sell the consumer grade products. If their margin each camera is anything like what the dealer makes ($100-200) then they are probably losing money on it. However its a worthwhile expense when they know that they'll sell millions of thousands of Rebels and point and shoots because the consumer sees the pros use them.
For a medium format company to even have a chance to be profitable after the high cost of R&D, they need to make thousands on each back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Back in 2000 I paid £15,650 + VAT for an Imacon 3020 35mm size chip digital back. Back then it was the 'state of the art'. Back then it was bloody expensive. The files it produced were 18Mb and of a quality that puts many latter day backs to shame.
Eight years later we now have the stunning addition of both a poor quality LCD and a bigger chip. Big deal. So what have they spent all that "R+D" money on over the last eight years?...... keeping up with OS X or maybe a marketing strategy!?
The introduction of big pixel count 35mm SLR's knocked 21+31MP back prices down a few grand earlier this year, and they are still making a profit at that. A digital back isn't a 'lost leader' - the profit is made at the point of sale... even more profit if you're talked into a "Value Added" package.
MF back manufactures will charge whatever they can get away with for as long as they can. They (like any business) are in it for profit, the price will only drop when people won't pay....usually because something comparable/better and cheaper enters stage left.
I'd like to bet that their are a few pencils being sharpened right now in order to get that stock moving.
-
So It's just the quantity right? Less buyers, higher price. Or make it this way: Higher price, less buyers. I don't think mfdb market is born to be small, it's the price make it small. Here in Beijing there are millions of MF cameras, but only 1/1000 of them with digital backs attached. Why? The price. In the "good old days" all pros like the look of a MF camera, now they just use canon or nikon. IF canon or nikon only sell 10000 camera a year, the FF DSLRs should be more expensive than MFDBs (the R&D of canon or nikon must cost more than a mfdb R&D right?). IMHO this is a really weird condition, and it won't last for too long. I think whom lower the price successfully will finally own this market, well, hopefully won't be NIKON.
-
I don't know if millions of MF cameras have even been made let alone all wind up in one city.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=220712\")
you would be wrong. millions have definitely been made since MF started
[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film)[/url]
over 20 companies for over 60 years wouldn't have survived if not.
-
Actual numbers in the wiki?
Stats over this current decade have shown a continual decline in MF bodies made, we're talking sub 10K units a year. In the heyday when people bought a 500 series Hasselblad they used them for decades not buying new ones all the time. I doubt millions have been made which have any chance of accepting a digital back. That's what were talking about here. I assume that would be obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that is a very good point. Cameras were more long lived.
but still, I can't see 20+ companies over 60+ years surviving off such a limited market.
-
oh come on, I mean billions, no, zillions :-}
I don't know if millions of MF cameras have even been made let alone all wind up in one city.
Remember this, if we photographers want everything we use and buy to be cheaper and cheaper, at what point do you think clients will demand the same everytime they hire us, "your equipment is getting cheaper, why don't you lower your rates."
You make money two primary ways, high volume/low cost or low volume/high cost. You won't see a lot in between.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Its so expensive because the target market for a digital back is not the photographer, its the rental houses, studios, techs, and wealthy landscapers. The rental houses, studios and techs are making about $500 a day on their backs, almost everyday. They make large sums of money from their backs, which are often leased, purchased at the end of the lease for a $1000 or less, then sold as "Off Rental" for a modest discount off new, or traded in. They buy in bulk and get them cheaper as well. Same with the new Profoto Pro8.
The wealthy landscape guys, well, they want the best and will pay for it. Over and over. Never making a penny but they don't care, they've drilled teeth all their lives so whatever. A $42k back is about half of that Porsche they just bought.
Who would you rather sell a back to? A photographer that bitches about everything, or some guy who just wants the best, at any cost, and then upgrades to the next back as soon as they are out?
The makers don't make them cheaper because they don't really have to, although that may change. They have been coming down in price, but still . . .
-
The wealthy landscape guys, well, they want the best and will pay for it. Over and over. Never making a penny but they don't care, they've drilled teeth all their lives so whatever. A $42k back is about half of that Porsche they just bought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If that's true them somebody screwed up when they signed the contract with F+H. For another 55 bucks they should have got Rolleiflex glued on the front of the camera.
Nothing wrong with AFI or HY6 but then again there is nothing wrong with the name VW (well maybe there is) but it sure doesn't get parked out front of the Gansevoort.
JR
-
... even less, James!
Thierry
For another 55 bucks they should have got Rolleiflex glued on the front of the camera.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The discussion about high prices of digital back keeps coming over and over with the same end conclusion every time.
What is being often forgotten is the fact that MFDB are and will be purchased by professional photogs who actually make money using them. It is a great tool to do just that - make money.
If you are anywhere close to be a busy ( working most days ) pro photog in any field of this profession the investment made in DB should be just a few percent of your annual income. Far less that any initial investment in most other businesses.
Digital backs are not tools meant to be for everybody who wants to make pictures the same way as Tango scanners were not for everyone in their days. Top tools produce top results and are reserved for top professionals who can afford it.
Photogs who use 5d are bitching when their clients are using the same cameras to snap pics of their kids. Lower the price of MFDB to couple grand and you will see thousands of MFDB in Disneyland.
Which way do we want it?
If they make Ferrari priced like Toyota than you probably buy Toyota since it is way more comfortable to ride and of the same status to own.
Andre
BTW lower the prices just a bit
-
I like the "BTW" much!
Best regards,
Thierry
BTW lower the prices just a bit
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The discussion about high prices of digital back keeps coming over and over with the same end conclusion every time.
What is being often forgotten is the fact that MFDB are and will be purchased by professional photogs who actually make money using them. It is a great tool to do just that - make money.
If you are anywhere close to be a busy ( working most days ) pro photog in any field of this profession the investment made in DB should be just a few percent of your annual income. Far less that any initial investment in most other businesses.
Digital backs are not tools meant to be for everybody who wants to make pictures the same way as Tango scanners were not for everyone in their days. Top tools produce top results and are reserved for top professionals who can afford it.
Photogs who use 5d are bitching when their clients are using the same cameras to snap pics of their kids. Lower the price of MFDB to couple grand and you will see thousands of MFDB in Disneyland.
Which way do we want it?
If they make Ferrari priced like Toyota than you probably buy Toyota since it is way more comfortable to ride and of the same status to own.
Andre
BTW lower the prices just a bit
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=220768\")
FWIW, I found a really interesting snippet about how the first Leaf was marketed, to save "thread", here's the link to my explanation, but it's right in line with this comment. (I already posted a thread about this, earlier here, but think it applies to this discussion.)
MFDBs were never marketed to the grassroots photographer. They still aren't.
Rather than a Ferrari, I look at them as a tractor-trailer. Expensive, built to make you money.
Here's my post: [a href=\"http://www.teddillard.com/2008/09/site-early-digital-marketing-leaf-dcb.html]http://www.teddillard.com/2008/09/site-ear...g-leaf-dcb.html[/url]
-
So who do people think has more money, the guy at the top of canon, sony or nikon or the guy at the top of phase one? The answer is obvious of course.
-
That's why the make Porsches and BMWs.
Fast and comfortable, and almost affordable.
Both are doing fine financially I believe.
Edmund
If they make Ferrari priced like Toyota than you probably buy Toyota since it is way more comfortable to ride and of the same status to own.
Andre
BTW lower the prices just a bit
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yea I agree about these two points.
However I expect more when I saw a $30k digital back, as James has said a thousand times, for that price it should be BETTER in nearly every respects than the top of the line DSLRs.
For instance a 1ds3's burst rate is 5fps, which result in 21mpx*14bit*5/s data processing rate, while the expected Leaf atpus 10's burst rate is said to be 1fps, which result in a 56mp*16bit/s data transfer rate. We can do the simple math and see the canon is 1.6 times faster, and it's a pruduct released one year ago.
Let alone the LCDs, high ISOs,availabilities...whatever, make it REALLY better than their 10%priced DSLRs, or lower the price to a reasonable point. That's what I expect, and I don't think I am alone.
People who are already busy working pros dont give a sh*t about the price, that's ok, it's supposed to be that way; but photogs like me, you know I definitely WILL buy in MFDB, this is just an issue of time, and the lower the price is, the sooner I'll get my rollei works again. I really hate the feeling that I got the D700 in my hand but lay rollei6008 in the cupboard.
Top tools produce top results and are reserved for top professionals who can afford it.
BTW lower the prices just a bit
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
...for that price it should be BETTER in nearly every respects than the top of the line DSLRs."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just don't think that's reasonable or realistic. They are two different machines, they are used for different jobs. You can not now, nor could you ever, expect to buy any camera that can do it all at any price, any more than you'd expect that from a vehicle. You can't expect that a 30K back will be better at shooting sports, for example, than a DSLR, just because of the price.
Did you feel that way about an 8x10 view camera, back in the day? That, for the price, it should be better at shooting everything than anything else? I think it's as close to a good analogy as I can make here... a very expensive system, compared to a Nikon F2AS, and my gramps used to shoot weddings with a Speed Graphic... heh.
And, to tell you the god's honest truth, I think you, and most photographers, should consider very carefully what you need to do before going with MFDB. The DSLR cameras are simply astounding now... Look at it as a tool for the job at hand, and consider which is the best tool for the job. I am a little reluctant to tell you what I've shot, for commercial jobs, with my $500 Canon G9!
-
So who do people think has more money, the guy at the top of canon, sony or nikon or the guy at the top of phase one? The answer is obvious of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't understand the question...
-
Yea I agree about these two points.
However I expect more when I saw a $30k digital back, as James has said a thousand times, for that price it should be BETTER in nearly every respects than the top of the line DSLRs.
For instance a 1ds3's burst rate is 5fps, which result in 21mpx*14bit*5/s data processing rate, while the expected Leaf atpus 10's burst rate is said to be 1fps, which result in a 56mp*16bit/s data transfer rate. We can do the simple math and see the canon is 1.6 times faster, and it's a pruduct released one year ago.
Let alone the LCDs, high ISOs,availabilities...whatever, make it REALLY better than their 10%priced DSLRs, or lower the price to a reasonable point. That's what I expect, and I don't think I am alone.
People who are already busy working pros dont give a sh*t about the price, that's ok, it's supposed to be that way; but photogs like me, you know I definitely WILL buy in MFDB, this is just an issue of time, and the lower the price is, the sooner I'll get my rollei works again. I really hate the feeling that I got the D700 in my hand but lay rollei6008 in the cupboard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think anything can beat the focus quality of the D700 at the moment, thse focus points can be moved to exactly where you need them.
Edmund
-
I just don't think that's reasonable or realistic. They are two different machines, they are used for different jobs. You can not now, nor could you ever, expect to buy any camera that can do it all at any price, any more than you'd expect that from a vehicle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Every time we have new equipment announcements, the conversations always go to costs, usability, costs, features, cost, brand loyalty and they turn philosophical.
I agree in the film days we never would think about having one camera to do everything, but in the film days a 35mm camera could never get to 70% of the output quality of 8x10.
Cost is always important but I don't think it's the costs that blurs the lines as much as the usability.
To be honest the Canons are just easy to buy and easy to use. The basic learning curve from a film camera (any camera) to a Canon is about 10 minutes.
The ability to easily flip through iso of 100 to 800 is crazy easy and the files look good. Not overwhelmingly jaw dropping good, but regardless very good.
The Canons aren't inspiring or thrilling cameras, but you can buy them anywhere, any lens anytime and produce virtually any look you could imagine.
It doesn't mean I am going to sell my medium format cameras tomorrow, but as the Canons get better the lines do get blurred more and more.
Post production blurs the lines even further. If your good at post, or you outsource to a firm that exceptional, few if any person can tell the difference between any medium format capture and a Canon file.
Shooting medium format, for any of us, for any priced production is an elective, it's rarely mandatory. I may chose to do it because I just like the look, or I may do it because I want the stability and speed of tethering, but the idea of going out to shoot an ad campaign around the world without a Canon in the bag (at least as a backup), is rarely if ever heard of.
Why is medium format more or so expensive? I have no idea, because I've been told it's the sensors, the dealer arrangements, the R+D costs, the limited market, but I assume it's all of the above. It may be none of the above.
Regardless if medium format is 2,3,4,5,6,7 times more expensive than the Canons I would love to see the backs and cameras do more. Better LCD's, higher iso, faster lenses at least the equal of the Canons would seem to be a given.
Maybe the latest announcements will all pan out and be everything that we need. At this stage it's always difficult to tell because information comes out in steps and we are probably months away before we really know, months after that before anyone gets the new equipment in their hands to work it hard.
Once we see photographs come from these cameras then we will know if it's worth the investment.
If the photographs that come from these new cameras are far and above anything possible before, then the investment starts to make real sense.
in the end It really is about the final photograph, not the process.
JR
-
I don't understand the question...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What I meant was, the person at the top of phase I'm guessing has a lot less of the worlds money coming to him than the person at the top of Sony or Canon therefore surely from this fact we should figure that if there is any ripping off going on its not from the DB makers.
-
What I meant was, the person at the top of phase I'm guessing has a lot less of the worlds money coming to him than the person at the top of Sony or Canon therefore surely from this fact we should figure that if there is any ripping off going on its not from the DB makers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ah, light dawns on marble head. ha!
yeah, well as far as ripping off the consumer goes, I'm a lot more concerned with EXXON than any camera maker.
-
ah, light dawns on marble head. ha!
yeah, well as far as ripping off the consumer goes, I'm a lot more concerned with EXXON than any camera maker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think thats just free market capitalism.
-
MFDBs were never marketed to the grassroots photographer. They still aren't.
Rather than a Ferrari, I look at them as a tractor-trailer. Expensive, built to make you money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I may believe you would be very pleasant or unpleasantly surprise to know the famous photographers that make the highest end of the money who prefer the canons over the more complicated medium formats.
photographers where camera price is not the important part of the decision and doing the shoot without problem is much more the important decision to make.
-
I may believe you would be very pleasant or unpleasantly surprise to know the famous photographers that make the highest end of the money who prefer the canons over the more complicated medium formats.
photographers where camera price is not the important part of the decision and doing the shoot without problem is much more the important decision to make.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...not surprised in the least, but I would add Nikon too. In the last ten years I've worked with literally hundreds of "top photographers". I'm very aware of who uses what, and why.
My point is just that there seems to be a feeling that these products are not targeted to the "normal" working photographer. Well, that feeling is correct. They are not.
(...and I shoot almost everything, except studio product, now, with a Canon G9. Why? The files are great, the camera is with me all the time and I do great work with it, and it all goes to press, not just web. Stop laughing. )
-
...not surprised in the least, but I would add Nikon too. In the last ten years I've worked with literally hundreds of "top photographers". I'm very aware of who uses what, and why.
My point is just that there seems to be a feeling that these products are not targeted to the "normal" working photographer. Well, that feeling is correct. They are not.
(...and I shoot almost everything, except studio product, now, with a Canon G9. Why? The files are great, the camera is with me all the time and I do great work with it, and it all goes to press, not just web. Stop laughing. )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what are your general impressions, of why people use which cameras?
-
People who are already busy working pros dont give a sh*t about the price, that's ok, it's supposed to be that way;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am sorry, but if this way of thinking extended to every piece of gear a pro photographer has to use to do his job, they would all go bankrupt.
A photographer needs a car? Why not buy a 60.000 US$ Lexus since the price gap with a 30.000 US$ Honda is only a few percent of their yearly income too...
The truth is that most photographers were/are perfectly happy with 22MP backs 2 years ago for whatever application. Now a 3000 US$ Sony can do much of the same thing. It doesn't take much to see that the range of applicatins that only MF can handle is shrinking fast.
So instead of sticking to a niche approach, my view is that these manufacturers should try to reach out for more potential customers by cutting their prices in half instead of remaining stuck in an ever narrower niche. Mamiya tried to do it, and succeded reasonnably well although they started from zero. All the other back manufacturers could only do better.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I absolutely agree with you.
I am sorry, but if this way of thinking extended to every piece of gear a pro photographer has to use to do his job, they would all go bankrupt.
A photographer needs a car? Why not buy a 60.000 US$ Lexus since the price gap with a 30.000 US$ Honda is only a few percent of their yearly income too...
The truth is that most photographers were/are perfectly happy with 22MP backs 2 years ago for whatever application. Now a 3000 US$ Sony can do much of the same thing. It doesn't take much to see that the range of applicatins that only MF can handle is shrinking fast.
So instead of sticking to a niche approach, my view is that these manufacturers should try to reach out for more potential customers by cutting their prices in half instead of remaining stuck in an ever narrower niche. Mamiya tried to do it, and succeded reasonnably well although they started from zero. All the other back manufacturers could only do better.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Now a 3000 US$ Sony can do much of the same thing. It doesn't take much to see that the range of applicatins that only MF can handle is shrinking fast.
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry but the only thing this camera produces is 24 mp of crap. Not a surprise really...
Wait and see how many pros actually buy one of those...
-
I think the medium format guys are looking over there shoulders though.
Canon and nikon duke it out over 35mm resolution and so MF continue to up the megapix anti. However, regarding megapixles, things are starting to become a finite (in the current state of features) as outlined in numerous articles.
If the MF guys just continue to up the MPix anti to justify the price difference, eventually, some pros, might not bother with the extra cost, when the extra benifit is blurred, and the file size to manage is just rediculous.
So, for the MF guys to compete on a pro-sumer level, they might have to develop there own (5D) 'poor mans' version, while having a flag ship.
-
The reason MF is so expensive is because they don't need to lower the prices.
Photographers keep buying and upgrading their backs each year.
The only way to see lower prices is tha top photographers start actually selling their backs because they get the job done with a Canon or Nikon. Write a letter to phase, leaf etc... "Dear company, I sold all of the stuff I bought from you. My canon does the job anyway and it's a lot of cheaper, Bye".
But you know what? Most DB users love their backs and even if they have a Canon they won't sell them. The will upgrade and buy new series afterall... Despite of the ISO, screen etc... Because at the end is the file quality that counts and thats what DB do. File quality.
-
The reason MF is so expensive is because they don't need to lower the prices.
Photographers keep buying and upgrading their backs each year.
The only way to see lower prices is tha top photographers start actually selling their backs because they get the job done with a Canon or Nikon. Write a letter to phase, leaf etc... "Dear company, I sold all of the stuff I bought from you. My canon does the job anyway and it's a lot of cheaper, Bye".
But you know what? Most DB users love their backs and even if they have a Canon they won't sell them. The will upgrade and buy new series afterall... Despite of the ISO, screen etc... Because at the end is the file quality that counts and thats what DB do. File quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its all business. If you can't make 15% - 20% on ypur back for 3 years, then sell it and rent, mark the rental fees up by 15% and get the benefits of ownership w/o the onerous capital outlay.
Just my opinion.
-
Sorry but the only thing this camera produces is 24 mp of crap. Not a surprise really...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure where you are getting your facts from.
The people who have played and processed its raw files are rather positive about the quality they are seeing, and this is just a start since the better raw processors like Raw Developper or C1 4.1 do not support it yet.
Smart pros who need new gear with these skill sets (essentially the same as those of MFDB), and prefer to buy a car instead of camera back, will IMHO buy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Its all business. If you can't make 15% - 20% on ypur back for 3 years, then sell it and rent, mark the rental fees up by 15% and get the benefits of ownership w/o the onerous capital outlay.
Just my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK. There is the little secret as to why anyone should shoot medium format.
The file holds up better in post. That may or may not matter to anyone, depending on what you shoot and who you shoot for, but when there is money on the line, a lot of high expectations and the files are going to go through one, two, three or four rounds of retouching, have backgrounds moved around, have 4 layers of soft masks for outlines, are going to be scrutinized by the retouchers, production people, AD's, pre press and the printer, the better the file the less blowback you are going to get.
Sure if the photo is beautiful there is less comment on technical details and technique is not as important as the art of the photograph, but when you go through that many layers of people, the better you start out the less issues you will have on the backend.
Now as far as renting, I'm not a rental guy. I like to know about my equipment and I like to know it works, can use it in my sleep or when I'm exhausted, or the pressure on set is high.
Renting just throws in another level of the unknown that i'm not that comfortable with.
Do I make money on my medium format backs . . . sure . . . but if I didn't I sure don't take any risk and even if I use it for only 1/3 of the day, that 1/3 is worth it.
The second little secret is why would anyone spend 2, 3, 4 times etc. more money for a camera or back.
Well . . . I have a good friend who is a very good photographer. Not famous, but makes a good living, works hard and is talented. He just recently bought a p21 for his old V system.
In just a few months he almost doubled his repeat business. It's not that the camera made him a better photographer, but it was obvious to his clients that he was offering them the very best image he could afford and though the p21 is a small file, it is a hell of a good file and the good thing about Phase is the p21 back by all appearances looks just like the p45.
In other words he invested in his clients and it showed.
Now the downside of medium format, regardless of costs, lcd, iso is the things are sometimes too color sensitive for some projects. I wish there was a dumb button on my backs to make them less sensitive to ambient color but overall the file on medium format is deep, detailed and pretty much a no compromise way to produce a photograph.
Medium format is not perfect and you still have to go out with a Canon in the bag, but overall is medium format worth it . . . if you have a lot of scrutiny it is.
JR
-
re. Sony & Canon (and soon Nikon's) MP Monsters vs. Medium format they can whack a 100MP on that for all that it matters, it still wont let more light through the lens and you will not have the same quality of the image.
That has been true even since the film days (anyone claimed that a 35mm negative produced as good of a image as a medium format? ) and it is still true today with digital.
Diffraction becomes really noticeable on small format at around F6-F8 and this is with some of the best lenses out there, so more MP only produces a larger file with still the crappy small fine detail.
Granted, you could argue that the higher mp resolution would let you post process more and retain a bit of the small detail but the fact is still that the medium format produces a better quality even at smaller MP.
And until someone produces a raw original from a small format that contradicts me thats my opinion and i stand by it. I have seen attempts but none that delivered
Now i also have a canon in my camerabag (3 actually for the times when i do not need the image quality and pixel resolution a medium format brings, and when i need to shoot fast or high-iso. But i do not see me tossing out my medium format anytime soon.
/Henrik
-
All of that is true, but you still have to focus that image on the sensor, and have the camera not move during exposure etc. MF makers have not been so good at investing in good viewfinders, in AF with multiple focus points, and mirror damping and all those other things.
I mean, just compare the Mamiya III body to a 1Ds3 or D3. Don't you feel ripped off ?
Emdund
re. Sony & Canon (and soon Nikon's) MP Monsters vs. Medium format they can whack a 100MP on that for all that it matters, it still wont let more light through the lens and you will not have the same quality of the image.
That has been true even since the film days (anyone claimed that a 35mm negative produced as good of a image as a medium format? ) and it is still true today with digital.
Diffraction becomes really noticeable on small format at around F6-F8 and this is with some of the best lenses out there, so more MP only produces a larger file with still the crappy small fine detail.
Granted, you could argue that the higher mp resolution would let you post process more and retain a bit of the small detail but the fact is still that the medium format produces a better quality even at smaller MP.
And until someone produces a raw original from a small format that contradicts me thats my opinion and i stand by it. I have seen attempts but none that delivered
Now i also have a canon in my camerabag (3 actually for the times when i do not need the image quality and pixel resolution a medium format brings, and when i need to shoot fast or high-iso. But i do not see me tossing out my medium format anytime soon.
/Henrik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Yeah, what about Mamiya II?
I mean, just compare the Mamiya III body to a 1Ds3 or D3. Don't you feel ripped off ?
Emdund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
Well i have only used Mamiya 645, RB and RZ-67's =)
The DSLR systems are smaller and faster to use, and thus works perfect when those are key elements to getting the image.
For studio or any situation where you dont have loads of action happening, i don't feel the slower pace of medium format is a big issue.
However, having said that i wouldn't mind a faster and more accurate medium format camera either But my point was that comparing the DSLR to the medium format today is the same as before. The DSLR is hampered mainly by its optical limits and not image sensor resolution. Afaik they CAN make even better glass than they are doing now, and that is probably where the main advances needs to be made. Problem is that it's extremely expensive to improve the optics on small format, and thus the prices will go sky high.
-
Diffraction becomes really noticeable on small format at around F6-F8 and this is with some of the best lenses out there, so more MP only produces a larger file with still the crappy small fine detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree that MF has some advantages, but not this one.
Diffracton is not a problem yet. As of now diffraction really starts to show around f9-f10 with a 1ds3, which happens to be slight below the optimal aperture of the lenses still. At around 30 MP on FF, the optimal lens aperture will coincide perfectly with the appearance of diffraction.
This is not a problem since you have as much DoF at f10 on a FF digital sensor than you have at around f14 on MF.
However you look at it, the smaller the format the best compromise between DoF and image sharpness.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Another good reason to shoot MF for me is I prefer the look, simple as that.
-
you can't put lipstick on a small sensor... hehe
I like to call the high cost of current gear " Surprise and demand "
I also think that we all agree that if money were no object.... we would buy the highest rez, biggest sensor we could get out hands on.... but that does not mean we would use it all of the time.... right?
-
Another good reason to shoot MF for me is I prefer the look, simple as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And then there's the camera:
I personally like MF cameras a lot. Practical and simple. Productive tools.
I loved my contax and my hasselblads and never felt that confortable with the 1ds series.
35mm cameras are way too computerized and have thousands of functions and menus I'll never use.
I wonder how much an 1ds would cost if they were as simple as a contax 465 or mamiya...
-
you can't put lipstick on a small sensor... hehe
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hahahha.
This same argument going on here could be going on with 35mm flilm vs. medium format film. For me nothing inspires me more than looking at the ground glass of a waist level medium format camera. I believe I take better photos because of it.
-
And then there's the camera:
I personally like MF cameras a lot. Practical and simple. Productive tools.
I loved my contax and my hasselblads and never felt that confortable with the 1ds series.
35mm cameras are way too computerized and have thousands of functions and menus I'll never use.
I wonder how much an 1ds would cost if they were as simple as a contax 465 or mamiya...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, when i need the canons they work great otherwise I want something slow,, precise, and mechanical.
-
Exactly, when i need the canons they work great otherwise I want something slow,, precise, and mechanical.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personally I love using the canon (except the silly aspect ratio) there light, quick, good batteries, good screens, less mirror slap, good AF etc. I really do have my fingers crossed for someone to come up with the best of both worlds. Maybe the new Leica?