Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: narikin on January 25, 2014, 08:55:03 am
-
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
Yes an improvement in ISO, a better live view, and.... err.... that's it?? We waited years for this?
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
Very sad about this. I was ready to buy another back to complement my low ISO IQseries CCD one, and get the best of both worlds, but this is not worth it. It's very much Gen 1, rushed to market once Sony released the chip.
Maybe some company like RED will unlock the chips latent potential. Maybe a larger full frame chip will follow. Maybe the Live View/EVF out will come with IQ3 series, but this... gives me none of those.
I'll pass.
-
The truth comes from the rosebud lips of spoilt children :)
Edmund
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
Yes an improvement in ISO, a better live view, and.... err.... that's it?? We waited years for this?
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
Very sad about this. I was ready to buy another back to complement my low ISO IQseries CCD one, and get the best of both worlds, but this is not worth it. It's very much Gen 1, rushed to market once Sony released the chip.
Maybe some company like RED will unlock the chips latent potential. Maybe a larger full frame chip will follow. Maybe the Live View/EVF out will come with IQ3 series, but this... gives me none of those.
I'll pass.
-
I'm slightly disappointed too, this reminds me of when features like live view first made their debut in the 5D mkII, but that was in 2008. This is what the first IQ series already should have had.
Watch Sony make an A7XL with this same sensor for under $10k a year or two down the road, it'll be much better value.
-
when i first heard about hasselblad and the cmos sensor last week i was thinking that maybe i would be able to buy "new" instead of "used" for a mfdb. the $35k price for the new phase 1 floored me. i would like someone to explain to me why a sensor that is approx. 60% larger in surface area is 12x the price of d800/e. is it because 16 bit vs 14 bit? is the sensor that much more expensive in larger sizes? i'm talking tech. price to build the back. what is it about mfdb that command such high prices. someone on this forum said that the differences is about 5% but if you want that extra 5% you are willing to pay for it. if you had $35k to spend you could buy the 250 back or a couple of d800/e and a s@#tload of lenses for that price, and have money left over to take trips to use the equipment. are the prices so high because they sell so few? few is a relative term in relation to all camera sales. if the prices were lower i believe that the companies would be able to expand their customer base and be just as profitable if not more profitable because of the increased acc they would sell. live few is nice since i have an arca swiss but it isn't that difficult to compose than put my hasselblad digital back on. so until i win the lotto i quess i will have to live with the d800 and medium and large format film and hopefully, with the introduction of both the phase one and hasselblad backs, used back will drop to the level i can afford.
-
Official Response from the Studio of Christopher Barrett: "Meh..."
I am, however, quite pleased with my IQ260
-
I believe on the main IQ250 comparisons page on Phase One's site has some fine print to the effect that only the 280 and 260 are 16 bit and the 250 is 14bit.
Whereas the 250 is 14 stops of DR vs 13 stops for the 280 and 260.
Paul
-
Sensor price is likely considerably larger compared to 24x36mm. My guess based on historic CCD prices is that this sensor costs about $2500-$3500 per unit to the manufacturer. Ie it's impossible to make a camera that's as cheap as a Sony A7r. Does it have to cost $35K? Not likely, but one should not under-estimate the cost of developing the supporting electronics, just showing a high FPS live view with touch interface requires substantial development effort, and low sales volumes means high cost.
I'm quite sure that the price is extra high because Phase One has among professionals a very good reputation as the medium format brand, join the family and you have access to the latest and greatest MF technology, with upgrade offers which are substantially sweeter than looking at the price list.
An interesting thing here though is that this sensor is not going to be unique for Phase One. Seems like anyone is free to develop their own back around it, it shall be interesting to see what the competitors can do. The "sanest" package concerning both pricing and features of this sensor I think will be presented by Pentax.
when i first heard about hasselblad and the cmos sensor last week i was thinking that maybe i would be able to buy "new" instead of "used" for a mfdb. the $35k price for the new phase 1 floored me.
-
when i first heard about hasselblad and the cmos sensor last week i was thinking that maybe i would be able to buy "new" instead of "used" for a mfdb. the $35k price for the new phase 1 floored me. i would like someone to explain to me why a sensor that is approx. 60% larger in surface area is 12x the price of d800/e. is it because 16 bit vs 14 bit? is the sensor that much more expensive in larger sizes? i'm talking tech. price to build the back. what is it about mfdb that command such high prices.
Phase One pricing has always been in the higher end of the market, even compared to other digital MF cameras. What is surprising, however, is that the IQ250 is even more expensive than the IQ260, which has a larger sensor and more pixels (35K$ versus 30K$).
Edit: crossed out the reflection about prices. The price of the IQ260 was wrong: confusion on my part between the prices in € and $.
-
i would like someone to explain to me why a sensor that is approx. 60% larger in surface area is 12x the price of d800/e.
Purchasing an exotic/boutique high-performance car is very different from purchasing a BMW M5, even though the M5 has excellent performance in a well-rounded package.
Catering to a much smaller niche using expensive raw material is always going to be expensive. Only the customer can decide if it is worth it.
-h
-
One thing that always surprises me about these conversations is that no-one ever seems to mention where the company is located.
Denmark isn't exactly the cheapest place in the world (look up some cost of living comparisons - I think you'll be shocked).
Just a guess, but I reckon simply because of where they are based, the products are priced 50% higher than they otherwise would.
-
Jerome,
Where did you see that price point on the 260, I don't doubt it but I had missed that big a price reduction as just a few weeks ago it was around 36,900 or more. List with no trade in.
Need to adjust my insurance.
Thanks
Paul
-
The price here is killing me. I don't understand how a D800 can be $3,000 and for that I get metering, AF and all the other stuff that comes with an actual complete camera. With the the new CMOS back, for the price of my 2012 Honda Crosstour EX I get a somewhat larger chip and a detachable platform. Can someone please explain WTF?
-
Purchasing an exotic/boutique high-performance car is very different from purchasing a BMW M5, even though the M5 has excellent performance in a well-rounded package.
Catering to a much smaller niche using expensive raw material is always going to be expensive. Only the customer can decide if it is worth it.
-h
but we are not talking about exotic materials. mfdb and nikon/sony d800 use the same materials. i can understand difference in price for a rolls vs bmw where different materials are used. in the mfdb you have a sensor, the most expensive part, processors, etc. the same as the d800. is the sensor 12x the price of a sony 24x36 sensor? i think not. the sensor prices i have seen bandied about on various forums for this new sensor is about $3k. yes mfdb prices have always been high, but like any product, the sensor prices would drop if more were used and if mfdb prices were lower you would sell more. i wouldn't be surprised if sony gets into the production of medium format cameras and undercuts everyone.
-
Where did you see that price point on the 260, I don't doubt it but I had missed that big a price reduction as just a few weeks ago it was around 36,900 or more.
You are right. I mistakenly confused the prices in € and in $. Sorry.
-
[...]
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
I think the price is the biggest question mark. Pentax was sourcing the sensor for the 645D at around $1000 in quantity. The price of the camera was equitable. I don't see how this sensor could be more than 2-3 times that price. It will be interesting to see if Pentax uses this in the 645DII, and at what price.
I don't begrudge the good folks at CI and DT getting actual salaries. But something in this market seems ripe for disruption. A major Japanese manufacturer could upset the status quo here with the right camera.
I'm not surprised about the readout or lack of video. The Exmor gets its low noise figures partly from doing a slow (sub MHz) readout, which is slow even with a column-parallel readout. As for video, I'm not sure this is a form factor that is suitable for video without a lot of other functionality built-in.
-
Same size means same price.
Not could, will.
Edmund
I think the price is the biggest question mark. Pentax was sourcing the sensor for the 645D at around $1000 in quantity. The price of the camera was equitable. I don't see how this sensor could be more than 2-3 times that price. It will be interesting to see if Pentax uses this in the 645DII, and at what price.
I don't begrudge the good folks at CI and DT getting actual salaries. But something in this market seems ripe for disruption. A major Japanese manufacturer could upset the status quo here with the right camera.
I'm not surprised about the readout or lack of video. The Exmor gets its low noise figures partly from doing a slow (sub MHz) readout, which is slow even with a column-parallel readout. As for video, I'm not sure this is a form factor that is suitable for video without a lot of other functionality built-in.
-
Danish engineers are not too expensive, high taxes etc just as here in Sweden, but compared to the US salaries are low. So development cost is likely not much higher than if made in US. Mounting cost will be more expensive than if made in China but I doubt it would be more than $1k per back in extra salary cost (and that is already a high figure), can't be too many hours in mounting. If it was the mounting would have been outsourced already. Equipment costs for companies are about the same in Denmark as otherwhere as companies don't pay tax the same way as individuals. So I don't think company location is the answer. If it was Hasselblad could not be as "cheap", Sweden and Denmark are very similar in terms of costs.
One thing that always surprises me about these conversations is that no-one ever seems to mention where the company is located.
Denmark isn't exactly the cheapest place in the world (look up some cost of living comparisons - I think you'll be shocked).
Just a guess, but I reckon simply because of where they are based, the products are priced 50% higher than they otherwise would.
-
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
Yes an improvement in ISO, a better live view, and.... err.... that's it?? We waited years for this?
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
Very sad about this. I was ready to buy another back to complement my low ISO IQseries CCD one, and get the best of both worlds, but this is not worth it. It's very much Gen 1, rushed to market once Sony released the chip.
Maybe some company like RED will unlock the chips latent potential. Maybe a larger full frame chip will follow. Maybe the Live View/EVF out will come with IQ3 series, but this... gives me none of those.
I'll pass.
+1
Victor
-
Always remember the marketing and financing costs, lots of backs are financed over a period of time and Phase also offers trade-ins this is built into the initial MSRP.
If you pay cash for the back you are in effect helping to finance the company's whole marketing strategy. To be fair they should offer a discounted price for cash, they mark in the financing, inflated residual value and charge you for the financing charges with purchase a safety valve in case they have to finance product themselves or outsource market rates go to high.
I don't believe Nikon offers financing and trade-ins?
-
I believe on the main IQ250 comparisons page on Phase One's site has some fine print to the effect that only the 280 and 260 are 16 bit and the 250 is 14bit.
Whereas the 250 is 14 stops of DR vs 13 stops for the 280 and 260.
Paul
Now that is shocking. If that is the case why didn't use the D800 derived technology and get a 48x 36mm sensor?
I hope that the new chip has some fantastic saving feature.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
Now that is shocking. If that is the case why didn't use the D800 derived technology and get a 48x 36mm sensor?
I hope that the new chip has some fantastic saving feature.
I think the yield would be significantly lower and the cost correspondingly higher.
While Sony has the process of making a 24x36mm sensor refined, the process of making something exactly twice the size is not made any easier by that fact. In every other respect, it is the same derived technology, AFAIK.
-
why can hasselblad sell the still in production cfv-50 for $17k? that to me is a price that is reasonable for mfdb. no way is a digital back worth the same amount of money as my f-250 4x4 diesel truck.
-
Probably true.
I guess that there is a larger market for cropped sensor as it would fit Pentax, Hasselbald and Leica.
That 16 bit stuff is just a marketing lie from Phase One, 12 bits signal and 4 bits of noise. Now they get 14 bits of signal and no noise and that is the exact reason they can increase ISO.
Best regards
Erik
I think the yield would be significantly lower and the cost correspondingly higher.
While Sony has the process of making a 24x36mm sensor refined, the process of making something exactly twice the size is not made any easier by that fact. In every other respect, it is the same derived technology, AFAIK.
-
For a significant part of high end/luxury buyers, high price is a desired feature.
In their mind, an expensive product from a reputable brand HAS TO BE superior than a much cheaper product from a mainstream brand.
So pricing the IQ250 high has a first value which is to de facto avoid real world performance comparisons.
The second things Phaseone probably thinks they are protecting with this pricing is the average selling price of their backs in the marketplace, in other words a key aspect of their brand equity.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I may be wrong but I understand as sensors get bigger it becomes more difficult to manufacture them and the rejection rate increases, hence the sensor costing substantially more than a 36x24mm sensor.
-
why can hasselblad sell the still in production cfv-50 for $17k? that to me is a price that is reasonable for mfdb. no way is a digital back worth the same amount of money as my f-250 4x4 diesel truck.
David, it is not worth it to you. To succeed, Phase One only needs their products to be worth it to their target market in the quantity they require. That is - somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 - 4,000 or so units annually, (of course more is always welcome). And their target market being those who desire their products and can afford such prices.
That is it in a nutshell. Phase One has identified their market and has been successful in creating products for that market. Sort of business 101. If the target market does not buy in sufficient quantity, they will fail. But that has not happened. Why should they change?
Traditionally, medium format (and larger formats) has always had a premium price. Medium format digital on the other hand, has always had a premium price several times that. This is not new. This is what medium format has been from the very beginning, starting with the 4 megapixel 24mm x 24mm chipped Leaf DCB in 1991 that sold for $32,000, not counting accessories.
With very few exceptions, medium format digital has always been priced in the $20,000 - $40,000 price range. It is the established price range that these companies target and have proven to be successful at.
I believe we may certainly see some continued dips into the below $20K price points in the future, but the majority of products will continue in this traditional range. It's unfortunate that more photographers cannot afford the high end of medium format digital, though there is a large amount of affordable second hand product available. I don't believe it is Phase One's pursuit to create products that a majority of photographers can afford. Phase One is in the business of providing excellent, top tier photographic solutions sold in a suitable quantity for the market that can afford them. That is their mission (successfully accomplished so far).
It doesn't matter how much anyone thinks a medium format CCD or CMOS sensor should cost and whether that justifies the ultimate price tag. It's irrelevant. And please no more random calculations of how many more they would sell at lower price points and their ensuing profits coming from all the additional accessory sales. ;)
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
Yes an improvement in ISO, a better live view, and.... err.... that's it?? We waited years for this?
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
Very sad about this. I was ready to buy another back to complement my low ISO IQseries CCD one, and get the best of both worlds, but this is not worth it. It's very much Gen 1, rushed to market once Sony released the chip.
Maybe some company like RED will unlock the chips latent potential. Maybe a larger full frame chip will follow. Maybe the Live View/EVF out will come with IQ3 series, but this... gives me none of those.
I'll pass.
And Narikan - c'mon, why the sour grapes?
Phase One finally breaks through and brings scaled CMOS chip technology to medium format and you're complaining? Now don't get me wrong - I understand where anyone who feels the same way is coming from. You want more. That's fine and you should want more. But gosh, how about Thank you Phase One for making this effort to do what hasn't been done before and I look forward to further evolution of the technology which will surely be coming in future generations?
Phase One has a tradition of introducing a technology for medium format digital and then scaling or refining it. Remember the first Phase One digital back was only 36mm 24mm (LightPhase in 1998). 4 years later, it had scaled to 49mm x 37mm (H25 in 2002). A couple years afterward portability was introduced with the P Series.
It takes time. It's not easy. I appreciate Henrik's response when asked about video capture and other features. They're not there yet - and he understands that. Medium format doesn't move as fast as smaller formats. This is nothing new. So - I don't understand the negative attitude toward the IQ250 when it is essentially version 1.0 of a very promising path forward. It's in the right hands.
I say well done - many photographers are going to love using this product. And I along with many others look forward to the possibility of some of those wish list items you checked off being implemented in future generations. I hope I don't sound like a fanboy here, since I'm anything but - I keep it real - but if I can hold manufacturers feet to the fire, I have the same right to pat them on the back.
So cheer up - you'll likely get a lot of what you want, just not so fast (though not so affordably). :) :(
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
The second things Phaseone probably thinks they are protecting with this pricing is the average selling price of their backs in the marketplace, in other words a key aspect of their brand equity.
This market is ripe for disruption. Here for the first time, we have a big-vendor source for high performance medium format sensors as a commodity. Any major camera-maker can put a bet on Sony as a supplier who will still be here in five years supporting and updating their product. Sensor price will converge more or less predictably as a function of volume. In short, a major manufacturer can justify developing a camera around this sensor.
There is one interesting thing about this sensor compared to its CCD predecessors:
I suspect that captures from the Sony sensor will look almost exactly the same between different camera implementations, with /a very small latitude for proprietary enhancements/. By putting the gain and A-D stages on the sensor, Sony has control over the digital product, and thereby, "the look". Anyone who designs a camera with this sensor can get "the look", and with a little work, maybe just a bit better.
By contrast, the CCD sensors need considerable support off the sensor. Choices of power conditioning, clocking, low-level signal routing, A-D conversion technology all made differences in the quality of the CCD capture. The manufacturers were actually contributing to a look through their sustained R&D.
In other words, it seems putting the Sony sensor in a $40,000 camera does not promise any additional image quality over putting the Sony sensor in a $10,000 camera.
-
Steve,
Agreed, kudos to Phaseone for releasing the IQ250! If usable on tech cameras it has the potential, thanks to live view, to increase the real world definition of backs significantly by enabling accurate focusing in all light situations.
Now, I am sure you understand that, for this appreciation to translate in spending, what remains by most standards, a huge pile of cash a due diligence is required in the form of a competitve comparison against the objective competitors of this new back, namely the D800e, Pentax and legacy phase backs?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Steve,
Agreed, kudos to Phaseone for releasing the IQ250! If usable on tech cameras it has the potential, thanks to live view, to increase the real world definition of backs significantly by enabling accurate focusing in all light situations.
Now, I am sure you understand that, for this appreciation to translate in spending, what remains by most standards, a huge pile of cash a due diligence is required in the form of a competitve comparison against the objective competitors of this new back, namely the D800e, Pentax and legacy phase backs?
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, a competitive comparison is relevant. And the value of one vs the other also relevant. But I don't believe that is relevant to Phase One. At least not to a large degree.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Yes, a competitive comparison is relevant. And the value of one vs the other also relevant. But I don't believe that is relevant to Phase One. At least not to a large degree.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Hi Steve,
Thank you for being direct and informative. I guess that won't get you elected, but it may mean that people treat you with greater respect over here.
Edmund
-
But gosh, how about Thank you Phase One for making this effort to do what hasn't been done before and I look forward to further evolution of the technology which will surely be coming in future generations?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
The fact that a representative believes that clients and potential clients need to be grateful to a company for improving their products it's either a joke I did not get or a symptom of the issues with the medium format market. It makes me remember the late xtranormal video.
Kudos, yes, they continue to do a great work (for me developing the IQ series with touch and Sensor plus that was great, this is not so much). But "thanks phase one"?
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
The fact that a representative believes that clients and potential clients need to be grateful to a company for improving their products it's either a joke I did not get or a symptom of the issues with the medium format market. It makes me remember the late xtranormal video.
Kudos, yes, they continue to do a great work (for me developing the IQ series with touch and Sensor plus that was great, this is not so much). But "thanks phase one"?
Best regards,
J. Duncan
Yes, I would say thanks Phase One. In an industry where too many threw the towel in too early in the game, they are one of the last remaining, pushing the limits consistently. more so than their competition.
Maybe that bleeding edge technology is not accessible to everyone (Myself included), but that doesn't mean it will benefit you and the way you shoot. This is a first gen product and with Phase' market positioning, it's not surprising to see them price it in such a way that there's a significant ROI per sold product. But in the longer term, the newly developed tech will trickle down into more accessible products. I won't be surprised if we see a Leaf equivalent with slightly gimped features (Shorter max exposure time, e.g.) in a year's time with a considerably more reasonable price tag.
I am pretty sure that the pre launch market research Phase did showed them that there would be enough orders at this price point to meet their KPIs for this project. No company worth its name would do a suicidal price positioning without these insights.
We also don't know yet what sort of upgrade paths would be offered for this model. Let's wait till Steve and Doug can throw some light on this?
Then of course, there is the competition from Sweden and Japan. Who arguably wouldn't be driven to push hard if it wasn't for phase pushing the technological limits in the first place.
Think about it like how the drive by wire tech developed for an aspirational and very inaccessible product from a while ago; the Ferrari 458 made its way to your average Fiat in a few years time. If Ferrari didn't sell a few of them at six figures; that tech might have never seen the light of the day.
-
The fact that a representative believes that clients and potential clients need to be grateful to a company for improving their products it's either a joke I did not get or a symptom of the issues with the medium format market. It makes me remember the late xtranormal video.
Kudos, yes, they continue to do a great work (for me developing the IQ series with touch and Sensor plus that was great, this is not so much). But "thanks phase one"?
Best regards,
J. Duncan
J -
Don't take me too literally or seriously. :P There - see my funny face emoticon? Just opening the thought for another perspective viewpoint. I didn't say I "believe that clients and potential clients need to be grateful to a company for improving their products". But no, it's not a joke. By saying "Thanks" I refer to the many who have been vocal about their desire for high ISO capability from MFD. Well - they now have it. Whether they want to say thanks or not, that's up to them. But more as a contrast to pooping on the party because version 1.0 doesn't have this and that, it's not a bad alternative.
And yes, it is true, I don't work for Phase One, but I do represent their products. I also represent my clients who use them.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Danish engineers are not too expensive, high taxes etc just as here in Sweden, but compared to the US salaries are low. So development cost is likely not much higher than if made in US. Mounting cost will be more expensive than if made in China but I doubt it would be more than $1k per back in extra salary cost (and that is already a high figure), can't be too many hours in mounting. If it was the mounting would have been outsourced already. Equipment costs for companies are about the same in Denmark as otherwhere as companies don't pay tax the same way as individuals. So I don't think company location is the answer. If it was Hasselblad could not be as "cheap", Sweden and Denmark are very similar in terms of costs.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Denmark
-
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
I'm sorry, but does any of that really surprise you? All digital sensor sizes started out as sub-ff sensors with crop factors. were lower MP, limited in features and expensive. Why would it surprise you that the first CMOS MFDB sensor would be expensive and somewhat limited in its offering? Further why would you expect a PhaseOne medium format back to be affordable? thats not the market they are going for.
And I would love to see a poll of who here would shoot a MFDB system with an EVF? I wouldn't, personally I can't stand EVF's and prefer optical viewfinders, not sure how universal that view is but I certainly know its a contentious topic as well.
-
I guess we'll have to wait another 4 or 5 years for a full-frame 645 CMOS back with 80+MP? Now THAT'S what I want on my view camera. With this new back, it's like MF digital starting all over again, back in the old days, with cropped sensors and now 50MP, instead of 11, or 16, or 22. :) I'll be waiting...
In the meantime, I think there's still way more goodness to be squeezed out of 35mm. 50MP+ seems legit, mostly because of new lenses like the Otus, or the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO. Then there's other sensor technologies like Sigma Foveon. What if Sony/Nikon or Canon develop their own? Sony currently has a patent for a 3 layer sensor...
-
With this new back, it's like MF digital starting all over again, back in the old days, with cropped sensors and now 50MP, instead of 11, or 16, or 22. :) I'll be waiting...
My point exactly!
-
Steve,
With respect, it is slightly disappointing. We are not at the beginning of the MF market. CCD has matured and we get a great product. To ask us now to embrace CCD, it needs to be on the same level or offer a compelling series of features impossible to get with CCD. For me, the IQ250 is not it.
It is very much a Gen 1 product and I understand that is the way it works, but as a gen 1 product, there is insufficient features/reason for me to buy it. Higher ISO and an improved LiveView is simply not enough. Who wants an EVF? I do. I would like to have that option, I'd like when my camera is up super high or low to have an external monitor or EVF at a convenient level to review focus. Is that asking too much from CMOS? I don't think so.
Equally important, do I want to step back into sub full frame and crop factors? No thank you. I left that behind 4 years ago, and will not go back. It seems like a decision Sony's accountants have made, rather than the engineers or Phase. I have no wish to submit to that.
I love Phase One and what they have done, but will wait for a G2 product. Hopefully an IQ3 series will be announced at Photokina. If that has 60+ Mp, and external viewer options, I'll buy in. Otherwise, I'm happy with my IQ180, and see zero reason to churn.
-
J -
Don't take me too literally or seriously. :P There - see my funny face emoticon? Just opening the thought for another perspective viewpoint. I didn't say I "believe that clients and potential clients need to be grateful to a company for improving their products". But no, it's not a joke. By saying "Thanks" I refer to the many who have been vocal about their desire for high ISO capability from MFD. Well - they now have it. Whether they want to say thanks or not, that's up to them. But more as a contrast to pooping on the party because version 1.0 doesn't have this and that, it's not a bad alternative.
And yes, it is true, I don't work for Phase One, but I do represent their products. I also represent my clients who use them.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Je, Ok. I was wondering since english is not my first language some time "it slips through my fingers".
Back to the discussion I still expecting that this is the first model with the first sensor and better things are coming.
The pricing is problematic but this are tiny companies that can't simple trow away existing models stock etc. So pricing was tricky.
I hope they (all of them including Pentax) sale of bunch of this to keep Sony interest.
Hasselblad insisted that the camera is for some people that needs specific thinks that this back gives.
I believe the same run for Phase.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
but we are not talking about exotic materials. mfdb and nikon/sony d800 use the same materials. i can understand difference in price for a rolls vs bmw where different materials are used. in the mfdb you have a sensor, the most expensive part, processors, etc. the same as the d800. is the sensor 12x the price of a sony 24x36 sensor? i think not. the sensor prices i have seen bandied about on various forums for this new sensor is about $3k. yes mfdb prices have always been high, but like any product, the sensor prices would drop if more were used and if mfdb prices were lower you would sell more. i wouldn't be surprised if sony gets into the production of medium format cameras and undercuts everyone.
>FF sensor is an exotic material.
The BMW M5 has (I would guess) something like a V8 5 liter engine producing 500HP. And it is made re-using crash-tests and interior and what not from a series that sells a load of units.
If a small company was to manufacture a car bettering the M5, they might fit it with a V12 6 liter engine (or whatever is a relevant performance metric). But developing components from ground up for a 1000 customers (or purchasing exotic components from suppliers that target 10000 customers) will be a lot more expensive per horsepower or whatever compared to the well-oiled german assembly line shipping 100000 units.
Once you put a really expensive, exotic engine into a car, my guess is that other expenses tends to increase as well. What is the point of a large engine if you do not upgrade the brakes and road-handling at the same time? There is some "balance" to a given design, and fitting a Fiat Punto with and enormous motor is probably not well-balanced. So what would it cost for a garage company to build something that matches the BMW M5 from ground up, then exceed the M5 performance with a considerable margin, then target 1000 sold units? I guess that will cost a lot per customer, only for the manufacturer to break even.
Of course, there are reasons to still purchase an exotic car. BMW has to do certain trade-offs to target a broad audience (e.g. global environmental demands, isofix for seating your kids in the back), while a boutique manufacturer can afford to target a smaller niche (i.e. those who care mainly about performance on a track). The more unusual your requirements are, the more likely that the inherent "inefficiency" of a small boutique manufacturer is cancelled by them being able to make more accurately what your requirements are.
I believe that Toyota are making a super-car that is not supposed to break even. It only serves as a marketing-tool (and possibly technology playground). When you have a really big player with such motivation, it must be really hard for those who build such cars to pay the rent.
-h
-
Phase One only needs their products to be worth it to their target market in the quantity they require ... And their target market being those who desire their products and can afford such prices.
That is it in a nutshell.
It doesn't matter how much anyone thinks a medium format CCD or CMOS sensor should cost and whether that justifies the ultimate price tag. It's irrelevant.
Confirmation , as if confirmation were needed, that the target market are well heeled amateurs more concerned with 'bling' than readily identifiable technological improvements. If the target market were 'pros' then presumably considerations of ROI would enter the equation.
-
Confirmation , as if confirmation were needed, that the target market are well heeled amateurs more concerned with 'bling' than readily identifiable technological improvements. If the target market were 'pros' then presumably considerations of ROI would enter the equation.
I don't get this kind of comment. I really don't.
Whether pro or amateur, clearly not every back is suitable for every scenario.
Whilst I'd love to own the entire IQ2 series (80 for the ultimate in resolution, 60 for the long exposure capabilities, 60 Achromatic for the purity, and 50 for creating 8K timelapses and also probably aerial photography), I can realistically only afford one. And I've not yet bitten the bullet on deciding which (if any) to up/cross-grade from my IQ180 to.
But the thing is, if one is a good professional photographer, then I can't for the life of me understand why one wouldn't be able to afford at least one of these backs.
Depreciation over 3 years on these things would appear to be around 60% - that's if you buy new from a dealer, and sell privately. So let's consider the most expensive of the lot - the 260 Achromatic. $49K with the value added warranty. Probably worth - at an absolute minimum - $20K after 3 years. That's 29K of depreciation, or a little over 800 bucks a month. Assuming you work just 10 days a month, that's under a hundred bucks a day.
So I actually think Steve is spot on with his comment - these backs are for those who desire them, and who can afford them. Well-heeled amateur or pro alike.
For a decent pro, the ROI would be a no-brainer.
As regards to your comment about well heeled amateurs being more concerned with "bling", than with readily identifiable technological improvements, I'm pretty sure that round these parts you won't find many of those, so perhaps you should be throwing out that insult somewhere else.
-
The big news for me, as a die-hard MF and LF shooter from the days of yore, is that I can finally look forward to the thrill I used to get from slipping a speedload of Fujichrome 1600 into my 4x5 field camera and capturing the majesty of the natural world at a level of graininess that traditional Ektachrome 64 never offered.
And, for studio and location portraiture, I will finally be able to shoot at 1/800th at f22, opposed at the 1/800th @f8 I'm now stuck with.
;)
Perhaps the biggest innovation is the fact that used 60MP backs are now going to be available sub-$15k. Now that is good news.
[inset many i'm-saying-this-with-a-smile emoticons]
- N.
-
I don't get this kind of comment. I really don't.
Whether pro or amateur, clearly not every back is suitable for every scenario.
I think what he means (and I would agree on this) is that pros don't get backs to be used on the same task that it can be performed with alternative an cheaper equipment... In other words, they can have LV and 6400 Iso as good with a much cheaper DSLR and even match the DOF (using faster lens) while gain the aperture difference in their favour to improve LL quality further (by reducing ISO)… Hence, they would prefer an "old tradition" MFDB that would add them the "CCD magic" (and save the change)… I also think he means (correct again), that MP count is the least pros consider to their choices… All the above is amateur criteria.
-
But the thing is, if one is a good professional photographer, then I can't for the life of me understand why one wouldn't be able to afford at least one of these backs.
For the price of an IQ250 you can buy a Leica S AND a Leica M…
If that does not illustrate how ridiculous the price setting of Phase One has become then I don't know anymore...
If Pentax were to put out a camera with the same sensor and a price tag of around $10K it would even become more obvious...
Joris.
-
I think what he means (and I would agree on this) is that pros don't get backs to be used on the same task that it can be performed with alternative an cheaper equipment... In other words, they can have LV and 6400 Iso as good with a much cheaper DSLR and even match the DOF (using faster lens) while gain the aperture difference in their favour to improve LL quality further (by reducing ISO)… Hence, they would prefer an "old tradition" MFDB that would add them the "CCD magic" (and save the change)
… I also think he means (correct again), that MP count is the least pros consider to their choices… All the above is amateur criteria.
There's no argument that for some - in fact, undoubtedly the vast majority of - pros, a MFDB of any persuasion does not make any financial sense.
But clearly there are plenty of pros out there for whom it does. And the financial side of it is not an issue.
And megapixels is amateur creteria?
Really?
Humour me - in excess of precisely which number does the megapixel count suddenly become redundant for all professional photographers?
-
For the price of an IQ250 you can buy a Leica S AND a Leica M…
So what?
For the price of a Leica M alone, I could buy a Sony A7r and a bunch of lenses.
The M still sells.
If that does not illustrate how ridiculous the price setting of Phase One has become then I don't know anymore...
You may find it ridiculous - I was simply demonstrating that, for some people, it could be perfectly justified from a financial perspective.
If Pentax were to put out a camera with the same sensor and a price tag of around $10K it would even become more obvious...
Joris.
That's already happened though.
645D vs IQ140.
I'm quite sure a lot of people found it very tough to justify the price of an IQ140 against the 645D.
Plenty of people managed it though, and I'm sure they weren't all amateurs.
-
I think some get a bit offended when a product is introduced with a price so high it's clear that the manufacturer are not interested in doing business with them. I think they say "if your business don't make enough money to afford the price we choose to set on our camera, then you're not worthy" ;D
I can't help getting a bit offended myself by this type of pricing, it feels like an act of snobbery. But of course, Phase One is free to charge whatever they want for their product, and the competition is free to make an equally good or better product with a lower price if they want to and can. While charging the most with a wide margin for a digital back, Phase One has so far succeeded in providing the best feature set, and that's their key to being able to have these prices.
Phase One is still in a good position to maintain this lead. Leaf have their hands tied of course, from being a competitor they been downgraded to Phase One's own budget brand (which must be a dreadful situation for any loyal Leaf engineer). Hasselblad have a long way to go in terms of digital back platform to be able to provide a feature set as modern as Phase One's. Sinar's technology is even more primitive (still very effective in their tethered niche of course).
-
Gerald,
Phase One used to position its products as photographic tools for which you had to pay a premium.
Now they position them as luxury goods for which you have to pay a significantly higher premium.
That is a big change and clearly not one appreciated by everybody.
I too find the price setting of Phase One insulting and arrogant but as long as people buy their products they are unlikely to change. They might even continue to increase the price with every new generation.
Phase One does not care about people who moan about price. They do not belong to their target audience.
Joris.
-
Gerald,
Phase One used to position its products as photographic tools for which you had to pay a premium.
Now they position them as luxury goods for which you have to pay a significantly higher premium.
Huh?
/disengage
-
...I too find the price setting of Phase One insulting and arrogant...
Wow...just......wow. :(
I completely fail to see how a person could be insulted by a company's pricing on a product. If it doesn't fit your needs or offer you enough value to be worth the price, then don't buy it. Simple. You're certainly no worse off than you were a week ago, when you couldn't buy a CMOS back at any price.
And the only arrogance I see is from a bunch of people with zero knowledge of how much it cost Phase One to bring this product to market going on and on about how wrong/insulting/offensive/exploitative/immoral/whatever the price is.
-
when you couldn't buy a CMOS back at any price.
registration distance allows to use modified CMOS cameras (like A7r) as backs in some applications (w/ whatever limitations of course, but the price, the price !) ;)
-
[...]
I completely fail to see how a person could be insulted by a company's pricing on a product. If it doesn't fit your needs or offer you enough value to be worth the price, then don't buy it. Simple. You're certainly no worse off than you were a week ago, when you couldn't buy a CMOS back at any price.
And the only arrogance I see is from a bunch of people with zero knowledge of how much it cost Phase One to bring this product to market going on and on about how wrong/insulting/offensive/exploitative/immoral/whatever the price is.
Market pressure and criticism from prospective customers gives a company a way to improve, to compete better, and to make more money. You should vote with your mouth as well as your wallet.
-
I completely fail to see how a person could be insulted by a company's pricing on a product. If it doesn't fit your needs or offer you enough value to be worth the price, then don't buy it.
I can ensure you that I have no intention of buying it. I thought I was pretty clear on that.
And the only arrogance I see is from a bunch of people with zero knowledge of how much it cost Phase One to bring this product to market going on and on about how wrong/insulting/offensive/exploitative/immoral/whatever the price is.
I am a customer of Phase One and have been shooting a Phase One back for 4 years. I also own another digital back.
May I ask you what makes you so much more knowledgeable and qualified to make the comments that you made?
-
Market pressure and criticism from prospective customers gives a company a way to improve, to compete better, and to make more money. You should vote with your mouth as well as your wallet.
Units sold will tell P1 a lot more about the correctness of their pricing than will listening to a bunch of internet caterwauling. :)
-
The problem of the pricing is very simple.
Envy.
In the moment I am not in a situation to buy such a great back and according system.
I envy people who have the change to do so.
But I won't piss in the pool because of that.
Regards
~Chris
-
I can ensure you that I have no intention of buying it. I thought I was pretty clear on that.
Yes, you were. I just don't understand all the emotion accompanying that decision.
I am a customer of Phase One and have been shooting a Phase One back for 4 years. I also own another digital back.
May I ask you what makes you so much more knowledgeable and qualified to make the comments that you made?
That's my point, I don't have any relevant knowledge, and neither do any of the people complaining about the price.
-
In the moment I am not in a situation to buy such a great back and according system.
I envy people who have the change to do so.
But I won't piss in the pool because of that.
Christoph,
I fail to see how I am pissing in the pool. Phase One backs are truly excellent and easily the best on the market in my opinion. That is why it is so unfortunate that so few people have access to them. To a certain extent I can rationally explain the price difference between Phase One and the competition by the fact that the Phase One product is better. I am purely talking about the back here, not about the camera. The rest of the price difference is just Phase One charging whatever they feel they can get away with.
It is obviously their good right to do so but please allow me as a customer to not feel happy about that and to challenge that and to not unconditionally open my wallet.
And please allow me as a customer to say that if I were to re-invest in MF digital it would be Leica, Hasselblad or Pentax, precisely for these reasons.
That's all. Nothing more.
Thanks, Joris.
-
That's my point, I don't have any relevant knowledge, and neither do any of the people complaining about the price.
Sure we do. We know the 645D costs < $7500. We know Pentax was paying under $1000 for that sensor.
This sensor doesn't cost all that much more. Moreover -- this sensor delivers the entire package, including amplifier and A-to-D..it delivers the digital product, and for the most part "the look". There isn't much a boutique manufacturer can add to this, unlike the earlier sensors which required extensive R&D to implement well.
There is room for a commodity MF DSLR market. Nikon, Canon, and of course, Pentax could fast follow in months with implementations of this Sony chip at the $10,000 price mark. So we are more than entitled to ask whether the premium is still worth it.
If people ask for what they want, they can eventually get it. If they don't, they won't. Acquiesce, and you lose.
-
This CMOS venture is a good thing. But, in my opinion, I prefer so far the CCD look, like I prefer more the M9 than the M240.
CMOS give more possibility and latitude, for sure, but I bet that the prices of CCD MFDB will not drop, even second hand, just because of the rendering.
This is why I'm not that impressed by this "half" event.
-
...
It is obviously their good right to do so but please allow me as a customer to not feel happy about that and to challenge that and to not unconditionally open my wallet.
...
You know what - I can understand you well.
Very well.
I have been wishing for a digital back for some years now, and I was tormented with scanning MF film in the meantime.
Some unforseen incidents have prolonged this situation.
Now I am split between my new Fuji X-E2 camera and my Mamiya 7 ii- both very fine systems, but not exactly what I wanted.
I either do not feel happy seeing these incredible prices for digibacks.
But having such a system wouldn't make be a better photographer one bit.
(I don't say you would think that, just to get that out of the way.).
It can also be doubted it would allow me to take better images.
Resolution and definition are only one of many parameters determining an images quality - I am not talking technical quality here - I'm talking artistically.
HCB shot 35 mm film. Any cheap compact today is technically better than that (Roughly - I know - he had Leica magic glass ...).
If not for commercial reasons or the total crazy strive for ultimate resolution power we simply don't need these cameras and backs.
And the most important thing: Developing my attitude and path as a photographer does only marginally depend on tools.
Let go the unhealthy wish for a digital back and you'll find your self in heaven instantly.
Get a Holga ! ;)
Cheers
~Chris
-
I don't think one should underestimate the complexity of supporting electronics for a CMOS sensor. Sure if you're just going to record an image at a slow pace, fine. But if you're going to display a live view usable for focusing it becomes a whole lot more complicated, quite a lot is required from the digital back platform. Phase One has probably already developed a lot of it, but if you look at competitors like Hasselblad they're still lagging behind, and Sinar don't even do displays any longer.
Still I don't think the price is this high just because of manufacturing and development cost, it's because customers are willing to pay and their whole business model with dealers and upgrade programs and trade-ins etc requires high prices to function well.
I think high-end digital backs sub $10K is possible with today's technology and market potential, but it requires a whole different business model and the current players are not going to change, even if they wanted it would be difficult for them and they'd probably lose substantial money in a transition period.
-
As the OP of this thread it's sad to see it degenerate into an argument solely about price, mostly by people who can't afford any Phase back, and compare it endlessly to a D800E, which is a very different beast. That is silly and not what this thread is about.
I simply wished to point out my disappointment that when CMOS finally arrived its in a fairly compromised form compared to what we expect from CMOS sensors here and now. Fast shooting, video capable, high ISO, highest resolution, are the norm, but we only get a high ISO from that list. Going back to a fairly strong crop factor is also a big negative for contemporary MF back users who might have considered this product. I expect a few people at Phase were a little disappointed at Sonys decision to make a substantially less than FF sensor, but of course they can't really say so.
Hopefully an IQ3 back generation will arrive at Photokina, along with a new camera body. Maybe the 3rd generation IQ's will have faster frame rates, mini HDMI out ports for external monitors, thunderbird, and in the case of the CMOS sensor, an EVF connection port.
Meanwhile I agree with the poster on LuLa who posits an RXM by Sony with fixed Zeiss lens (40/50mm?) and this MF CMOS sensor, with optical /EVF finder options. That would be great, and I'd be first in line to buy.
-
I don't think one should underestimate the complexity of supporting electronics for a CMOS sensor. Sure if you're just going to record an image at a slow pace, fine. But if you're going to display a live view usable for focusing it becomes a whole lot more complicated, quite a lot is required from the digital back platform. Phase One has probably already developed a lot of it, but if you look at competitors like Hasselblad they're still lagging behind, and Sinar don't even do displays any longer.
there is nothing complex in that, a $100 cameras/cell phones do a better liveview (for years) than IQ250... you are not reading off the whole 50mp sensels from its sensor to feed liveview...
-
I believe we can't really imagine what kind of fantastic image making machines are coming along our way the next years.
And I am sure it will be overwhelmingly awesometastic. The IQ250 surely is a great tool, despite the features it's lacking.
But the well understandable thrill about these technological developments should not let us forget what photography is about.
We are the victims of marketing specialists at the various companies playing with our delusions, especially narcissistic fantasies:
"The best tools for the best and most demanding photographers of the world..." - really - not my cup of tea and not where I want to go today ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
there is nothing complex in that, a $100 cameras/cell phones do a better liveview (for years) than IQ250... you are not reading off the whole 50mp sensels from its sensor to feed liveview...
I wonder why Hasselblad is not able to do it then...
In mass markets like cell phones you'll find custom chips do the most fantastical things. Mass market in electronics means more features, lower prices and higher quality. When a small company make a digital back they can't just buy those readily designed mobile phone chips and use them, they must implement similar functionality themselves. The medium format companies are small fish. They are not Sony or Samsung.
-
I wonder why Hasselblad is not able to do it then...
In mass markets like cell phones you'll find custom chips do the most fantastical things. Mass market in electronics means more features, lower prices and higher quality. When a small company make a digital back they can't just buy those readily designed mobile phone chips and use them, they must implement similar functionality themselves. The medium format companies are small fish. They are not Sony or Samsung.
Actually, Sony is a VENDOR of camera sensors, and doubtless supply a reference design, dev boards etc. so getting a *camera* that writes out files (uncalibrated, with all defects) from this chip or the Dalsa or the Kodak should be pretty easy - many of the guys on this forum could do it, even I could. But then you have all the issues related to stuff like reviewing images which means on-board Raw conversion, driving a display, overlaid menus, histograms, zebras, etc, that's creating a miniature PC with an operating system, and now you have liveview zoomed liveview etc. which means everything needs to happen *fast* with real-time constraints.
I think Sony probably supply a kit that can do much of this, because it's beyond the abilities of a new customer, but if you want to use your own base like Phase then it's a lot of R&D to mate what they give you to what your customers are already used to. And then there are all the calibration and Raw conversion issues which mean you can translate the data into a superb clean image without seams, bands, defects and color casts ...
Frankly I think that if Sony supply a good dev kit, someone starting from scratch might find it easier than the existing vendors.
Phase have probably invested about 2 years work of 3 or 4 engineers on this - at $150K/year total cost for a engineer in europe, that translates into a couple of million dollars at least; so the break even point is to sell two or three hundred of these backs.
Some kids working from a a garage, sinking the dev time, and using the Sony kit as a base could probably make a camera for less than $3K cost if they can find a third part to create the chassis for them.
Edmund
-
Actually, Sony is a VENDOR of camera sensors, and doubtless supply a reference design, dev boards etc. so getting a *camera* that writes out files (uncalibrated, with all defects) from this chip or the Dalsa or the Kodak should be pretty easy - many of the guys on this forum could do it, even I could. But then you have all the issues related to stuff like reviewing images which means on-board Raw conversion, driving a display, overlaid menus, histograms, zebras, etc, that's creating a miniature PC with an operating system, and now you have liveview zoomed liveview etc. which means everything needs to happen *fast* with real-time constraints.
I think Sony probably supply a kit that can do much of this, because it's beyond the abilities of a new customer, but if you want to use your own base like Phase then it's a lot of R&D to mate what they give you to what your customers are already used to. And then there are all the calibration and Raw conversion issues which mean you can translate the data into a superb clean image without seams, bands, defects and color casts ...
Frankly I think that if Sony supply a good dev kit, someone starting from scratch might find it easier than the existing vendors.
Phase have probably invested about 2 years work of 3 or 4 engineers on this - at $150K/year total cost for a engineer in europe, that translates into a couple of million dollars at least; so the break even point is to sell two or three hundred of these backs.
Some kids working from a a garage, sinking the dev time, and using the Sony kit as a base could probably make a camera for less than $3K cost if they can find a third part to create the chassis for them.
Edmund
I don't think that those 3-4 engineers you state, make research for one back only...
-
As the OP of this thread it's sad to see it degenerate into an argument solely about price, mostly by people who can't afford any Phase back, and compare it endlessly to a D800E, which is a very different beast. That is silly and not what this thread is about.
I simply wished to point out my disappointment that when CMOS finally arrived its in a fairly compromised form compared to what we expect from CMOS sensors here and now. Fast shooting, video capable, high ISO, highest resolution, are the norm, but we only get a high ISO from that list. Going back to a fairly strong crop factor is also a big negative for contemporary MF back users who might have considered this product. I expect a few people at Phase were a little disappointed at Sonys decision to make a substantially less than FF sensor, but of course they can't really say so.
Hopefully an IQ3 back generation will arrive at Photokina, along with a new camera body. Maybe the 3rd generation IQ's will have faster frame rates, mini HDMI out ports for external monitors, thunderbird, and in the case of the CMOS sensor, an EVF connection port.
Meanwhile I agree with the poster on LuLa who posits an RXM by Sony with fixed Zeiss lens (40/50mm?) and this MF CMOS sensor, with optical /EVF finder options. That would be great, and I'd be first in line to buy.
It would have been nice to hit a grand slam home run out of the gate that ticked all the boxes. I understand the lament. But I'm sure there will be further development of the IQ/CMOS platform in then future.
Phase One has a legacy of beginning with a platform (P Series, then IQ Series) and enhancing that platform with infrastructure or chip technological advances in future generations. Photokina 2014 might be a little soon for a next IQ generation. I'm more hopeful of camera platform news, and really, especially for this product, that is a more important development IMO.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I don't think that those 3-4 engineers you state, make research for one back only...
It's not research, it's system integration. And yes, the next back with a Sony sensor will only take a few months to set up.
Edmund
-
I'm not offended that Mercedes makes a vehicle that is out of my price range. I'm not offended that Chevrolet doesn't make higher quality cars. (Note - I don't really know that much hands on about either brand). I understand where Torger comes from because the price difference is so great, even compared to cars. But my point really is that medium format digital has been this way for over 20 years. This is how it is and how it has always been.
Maybe Pentax can change that or impact that. They have not so far. But I don't know if Pentax makes money with the 645D. Just because you can make a product for under $10,000 doesn't mean it's worth it to do so - especially if that is your only product line.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It's not research, it's system integration. And yes, the next back with a Sony sensor will only take a few months to set up.
Edmund
I would say "next Cmos back" instead of next "Sony sensor back'... Never the less, the cost can't be all applied to the first product only… Besides, it's reasonable to think of a Leaf version too.
-
I'm not offended that Mercedes makes a vehicle that is out of my price range. I'm not offended that Chevrolet doesn't make higher quality cars. (Note - I don't really know that much hands on about either brand). I understand where Torger comes from because the price difference is so great, even compared to cars. But my point really is that medium format digital has been this way for over 20 years. This is how it is and how it has always been.
Maybe Pentax can change that or impact that. They have not so far. But I don't know if Pentax makes money with the 645D. Just because you can make a product for under $10,000 doesn't mean it's worth it to do so - especially if that is your only product line.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Any information on what should be expected (when ?) from Leaf Steve with respect to the new sensor?
-
The problem of the pricing is very simple.
Envy.
In the moment I am not in a situation to buy such a great back and according system.
I envy people who have the change to do so.
But I won't piss in the pool because of that.
Regards
~Chris
Chris,
You may have a point.
I'm in the same boat as you for the moment and couldn't easily pay cash and buy an IQ250 on Monday. However, if I were a pro then Phase One have made it very attractive to lease a back vs the full capital expenditure.
-
The game/price point changer may be coming from the 35mm world at least in a CMOS chip. Nikon is coming out with something for a D4x and it's been talked about for over a year as a 50 to 54 MP chip. Canon has supposedly got the 3Dx coming or some new big DSLR.
Sony/Phase partnership more than likely has been going on for over a year Doug article will possibly shed more light on that. Sony has the impetus and now the fab process to get to 50MP and I am sure they can scale the process. Then it gets interesting CMOS vs CMOS.
It's only January and we have a huge announcement and possible direction change by Phase One, Hassy is following and maybe Pentax. It's just going to get more interesting.
Paul
-
Maybe Pentax can change that or impact that. They have not so far. But I don't know if Pentax makes money with the 645D. Just because you can make a product for under $10,000 doesn't mean it's worth it to do so - especially if that is your only product line.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve,
I think that people forget that small companies need to charge the appropriate price for goods to keep them in business, paying their staff and taxes, and creating quality products. The reality is that a low volume manufacturer can't compete on volume (or loss leader) terms with a massive corporation like Pentax, Sony or Canon. Arguably even the relatively small Nikon dwarf's Phase One and hence has more leeway to cut margins on premium products if their mainstream gear covers the gap.
I fully expect this to be the first release of an ever evolving family of products if history is a guide. However, I still don't see Phase One ever being able to do business at $10k or less per back and not destroy their existing market and customer base.
-
I'm not offended that Mercedes makes a vehicle that is out of my price range. I'm not offended that Chevrolet doesn't make higher quality cars. (Note - I don't really know that much hands on about either brand). I understand where Torger comes from because the price difference is so great, even compared to cars. But my point really is that medium format digital has been this way for over 20 years. This is how it is and how it has always been.
Your disclaimer is noted, but the analogy has some relevance. Consumer Reports has tested the latest Chevrolet Impala (list price US$ 27-36K) and the Mercedes E350 (US$ 51-102K) and gave the Chevrolet an overall rating of 95 points and the Mercedes an overall rating of 86 points. I live in an upscale community and I see far more MBs than Chevys and many seem to prefer the S-Class models rather than the E-models. These drivers are not looking for basic transportation but are more interested in making a statement. Many also prefer Rolex mechanical watches to electronic Seikos even though the latter is a much better time keeper. Myself, I have an Acura and Seiko and am satisfied, although I have an old Rolex that I no longer use much.
Regards,
Bill
-
Chris,
You may have a point.
I'm in the same boat as you for the moment and couldn't easily pay cash and buy an IQ250 on Monday. However, if I were a pro then Phase One have made it very attractive to lease a back vs the full capital expenditure.
I don't expect pros to buy this Graham, they can solve their LV and high ISO performance problems better with other, much cheaper products.
-
I don't expect pros to buy this Graham, they can solve their LV and high ISO performance problems better with other, much cheaper products.
Only those who believe in the other system benefits of the IQ back are going to be interested. as Steve and Doug have said, those may not matter to you but they certainly do matter to those that these backs are aimed at. That would apply to all of the forthcoming MF back implementations IMHO.
-
Steve,
If you want to set up as a seller of luxury goods, that's your right.
However, this forum still has some people on it who take pictures, or like high tech, and are not all about bling. And I think that you are being served notice that these guys will run, not walk, to B&H and Pentax, to purchase the same technology without the gold trimmings.
If I may be allowed the analogy, many of the guys here know they can eat at Mc Donald 's for $10, but they are looking for a really, really good steakhouse where one can get a steak and beer and apple pie and coffee for what seems a big lot of money eg. $100 a head, while you have switched to fancy cuisine and very nice wines at a 4x markup (like every prestige restaurant) leading to $500 and up dinner prices. This may be the business model for upscale restaurants, but as we're not part of the "it" crowd, we don't understand the necessity for the sommelier experience and will avoid the extra expense.
Edmund
I'm not offended that Mercedes makes a vehicle that is out of my price range. I'm not offended that Chevrolet doesn't make higher quality cars. (Note - I don't really know that much hands on about either brand). I understand where Torger comes from because the price difference is so great, even compared to cars. But my point really is that medium format digital has been this way for over 20 years. This is how it is and how it has always been.
Maybe Pentax can change that or impact that. They have not so far. But I don't know if Pentax makes money with the 645D. Just because you can make a product for under $10,000 doesn't mean it's worth it to do so - especially if that is your only product line.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It's marketing more than engineering
It's want more than need.
Phase took a page out of the high price marketing playbook.
Build interest through exclusivity based on costs.
This camera is a marketing excersize more than a technical change. After all higher iso cmos cameras, that do much more than the phase have been out for years.
Phase is good at identifying a subset of a market, keeping a high entry price (which makes buyers believe there is something exclusive in the purchase) and staying on that theme.
Actually they never move from that message.
You have to hand it to them, because here is a digital company that walked into the professional world from who? to oh yea I've heard of them, to sure I use a Phase.
Anyway, Phase's goal is to identify markets and hold their margins which may not make some people happy, but it works for them.
First it was professionals, who felt they had to upgrade to ever new model, until the advertising wolrd crashed and other lower costs cameras filled the void.
Then Phase targeted the advanced amateur, but honestly how many digital backs can that market absorb, so now the've targeted the only two private markets left.
Wedding and active/lifestyle.
The Phase back probably isn't the best tool for those photographic styles, but it does separate the standard wedding photographer from the rabble, when the photographer says, my cameras and lenses cost $50,000 and DON''t look like your cousin's Nikon or Canon.
This helps the photographer justify higher fees, even if the camera won't deliver anything better than cameras costing 1/10th the price.
Don't think for a moment that the underlying sales message you hear is "some can afford it, some can't" isn't well thought out.
Phase is good at this type of market placement and knows how to price in a way that purposely gives the impression that they're the best.
They also know how to play the game with the bloggists, the industry publications and pull them onto their side.
Look at the pdn samples and read the article. The imagery is 180 degrees from the praise, but then again reality and perception rarely cross points and it doesn't matter because the people that get lured into this phase back are gong to buy regardless of the final image.
I showed this snap of 4 cameras, a leica S2, a Contax with a p21+ back, a new omd em1 and a leica m-8. None but the olympus is cutting edge, all have a place and combined they costs the same as the new cmos phase back.
That compilation of cameras won't change anyone's mind one bit, any more than if Pentax or Sony comes out with the same sensor in a $5,000 or $10,000 camera. Phase isn't going for that market.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/STILL_CAMERAS.jpg)
They're going for the "you can't afford it market, but to keep up you should".
IMO
BC
-
As a fashion photographer, I guess you can recognize upscale branding methods when you see them.
Edmund
It's marketing more than engineering
It's want more than need.
Phase took a page out of the high price marketing playbook.
Build interest through exclusivity based on costs.
This camera is a marketing excersize more than a technical change. After all higher iso cmos cameras, that do much more than the phase have been out for years.
Phase is good at identifying a subset of a market, keeping a high entry price (which makes buyers believe there is something exclusive in the purchase) and staying on that theme.
Actually they never move from that message.
You have to hand it to them, because here is a digital company that walked into the professional world from who? to oh yea I've heard of them, to sure I use a Phase.
Anyway, Phase's goal is to identify markets and hold their margins.
First it was professionals, who felt they had to upgrade to ever new model, until advertising crashed, other lower costs cameras because just as good so that market slowed down, then Phase targeted the advanced amateur, but honestly how many digital backs can that market absorb, so now the've targeted the only two private markets left.
Wedding and active/lifestyle.
The Phase back probably isn't the best tool for those photographic styles, but it does separate the standard wedding photographer from the rabble, when the photographer says, my cameras and lenses cost $50,000 and DON''t look like your cousins Nikon or Canon.
This helps the photographer justify higher fees, even if the camera won't deliver in this genres anything spectacular.
Don't think for a moment that the underlying sales message you hear is "some can afford it, some can't" isn't well thought out.
Phase is good at this type of market placement and knows how to price in a way that purposely gives the impression that they're the best.
They also know how to play the game with the bloggists, the industry publications and pull them onto their side.
Look at the pdn samples and read the article. The imagery is 180 degrees from the praise, but then again reality and perception rarely cross points and it doesn't matter because the people that get lured into this phase back are gong to buy regardless of the final image.
I showed a snap of 4 cameras, a leica S2, a Contax with a p21+ back, a new omd em1 and a leica m-8. None but the olympus is cutting edge, all have a place and combined they costs the same as the new cmos phase back.
That compilation of cameras won't change anyone's mind one bit, any more than if Pentax or Sony comes out with the same sensor in a $5,000 or $10,000 camera. Phase isn't going for that market.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/STILL_CAMERAS.jpg)
They're going for the "you can't afford it market".
IMO
BC
-
I took a look at all the MF reviews on this site, last night.
every single ground breaking release. The "tiny" sensor P20, the P25, a few Aptuses, couple of blads... Everything that was a first gen product except the Pentax was priced in the same ballpark as the IQ250. Right from the very start.
I think some here are trying to make a rule out of what is, an exception.
-
Sony/Phase partnership more than likely has been going on for over a year Doug article will possibly shed more light on that. Sony has the impetus and now the fab process to get to 50MP and I am sure they can scale the process. Then it gets interesting CMOS vs CMOS.
The real question is the value for Sony semi-conductor (a separate entity from Sony cameras with their own business objectives).
The volumes Phaseone + Hassy will sell are probably 100 times too low to get a first meeting compared to their traditional mainstream sensor business.
Either they have a committed order from some other players for much larger volumes or they are prototyping different business models targeting more niche applications.
The first is the most likely which leads to the question who this may be. Pentax is one obvious candidate, Sony camera themselves is another one (the idea of a built-in fixed lens body with a 35mm f2.8 equivalent lens is very appealing for sure), Canon is probably sticking to their slowly suicidal in-house sensor only strategy... but what about Nikon?
It is of course a bit of a stretch, but...
- They made a very clear public commitment to focus on high end products with bigger margins,
- They have a very strong long term partnership with Sony semi-conductor and have till now been the first to introduce high end 35mm Sony sensors,
- They have been very quiet since the D800 with only point releases that must not have used many resources (I include the Df in this category),
- Their lenses release has been slow at best and I am not sure that the after effects of the tsunami are sufficient to explain this,
- They have several patents for modular systems,...
What if the D5 were a modular camera able to take both the new Sony sensor, a new set of very high end Otus class lenses to support it with an adapter to enable to mounting of 35mm sensors and legacy lenses?
It doesn't seem impossible to me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony make pro video equipment, and the whole japanese video industry wants to move beyond 4K, which means they need prototype cameras to create some experimental programming; it is likely that Sony will be making a greater number of in-house hi-rez prototype video cameras than Phase will ever buy chips, and they will be selling such next-gen video cameras to everyone in the TV industry.
Edmund
The real question is the value for Sony semi-conductor (a separate entity from Sony cameras with their own business objectives).
The volumes Phaseone + Hassy will sell are probably 100 times too low to get a first meeting compared to their traditional mainstream sensor business.
Either have a commited order from some other players for much larger volumes or they are prototyping different business models targeting more niche applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Steve,
If you want to set up as a seller of luxury goods, that's your right.
However, this forum still has some people on it who take pictures, or like high tech, and are not all about bling. And I think that you are being served notice that these guys will run, not walk, to B&H and Pentax, to purchase the same technology without the gold trimmings.
If I may be allowed the analogy, many of the guys here know they can eat at Mc Donald 's for $10, but they are looking for a really, really good steakhouse where one can get a steak and beer and apple pie and coffee for what seems a big lot of money eg. $100 a head, while you have switched to fancy cuisine and very nice wines at a 4x markup (like every prestige restaurant) leading to $500 and up dinner prices. This may be the business model for upscale restaurants, but as we're not part of the "it" crowd, we don't understand the necessity for the sommelier experience and will avoid the extra expense.
Edmund
I don't consider that I sell luxury goods. I sell solutions that cover a very wide range of price points, from $4,000 up (and up, and up...) to clients who want to have more of a supportive and interactive relationship before and especially after their purchase. My pursuit in our industry is to provide a valuable alternative to box mover, push the button receive the product, business models. I like to think there are enough in our industry who desire that service and our results have substantiated that.
The same can be said of Phase One. When I said "maybe Pentax can change that or impact that", it revealed my hope that medium format alternative solutions will one day be more accessible from a price standpoint to more users. It has, to a degree, by virtue of the second hand market, which we're extremely active in. But for the latest technology, I don't know if that day will ever happen, and if it does, I doubt it will be Phase One leading the charge.
We are an authorized Pentax dealer. I've put Pentax in front of plenty of people and the numbers that purchase are tiny. The product itself is viable, I feel. There's a lot about the 645D that I like. But to change the way that photographers purchase, they'll need to come a lot stronger to the party with those who are familiar with the more expensive contenders. The majority of our customers who can afford Phase One products (and Hasselblad and Leaf), simply aren't that interested, at least not enough to buy the product, when they can afford the other guys.
Until there is evidence that their business model no longer works, I don't see a reason for Phase One to change their "blingy" ways.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I don't consider that I sell luxury goods. I sell solutions that cover a very wide range of price points, from $4,000 up (and up, and up...) to clients who want to have more of a supportive and interactive relationship before and especially after their purchase. My pursuit in our industry is to provide a valuable alternative to box mover, push the button receive the product, business models. I like to think there are enough in our industry who desire that service and our results have substantiated that.
The same can be said of Phase One. When I said "maybe Pentax can change that or impact that", it revealed my hope that medium format alternative solutions will one day be more accessible from a price standpoint to more users. It has, to a degree, by virtue of the second hand market, which we're extremely active in. But for the latest technology, I don't know if that day will ever happen, and if it does, I doubt it will be Phase One leading the charge.
We are an authorized Pentax dealer. I've put Pentax in front of plenty of people and the numbers that purchase are tiny. The product itself is viable, I feel. There's a lot about the 645D that I like. But to change the way that photographers purchase, they'll need to come a lot stronger to the party with those who are familiar with the more expensive contenders. The majority of our customers who can afford Phase One products (and Hasselblad and Leaf), simply aren't that interested, at least not enough to buy the product, when they can afford the other guys.
Until there is evidence that their business model no longer works, I don't see a reason for Phase One to change their "blingy" ways.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve,
Could you explain more clearly what a value based MF solution would need to do to sell to your customers?
There's something I don't understand in what you say about Pentax.
Edmund
PS. the current announcement and pricing has clearly not gone down well with a big part of the LL crowd. I don't know why for certain, but maybe people are not faring well generally in this economy - fewer and fewer people have more and more of the money, and many of the others are not enjoying the novelty.
-
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
Yes an improvement in ISO, a better live view, and.... err.... that's it?? We waited years for this?
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
Very sad about this. I was ready to buy another back to complement my low ISO IQseries CCD one, and get the best of both worlds, but this is not worth it. It's very much Gen 1, rushed to market once Sony released the chip.
Maybe some company like RED will unlock the chips latent potential. Maybe a larger full frame chip will follow. Maybe the Live View/EVF out will come with IQ3 series, but this... gives me none of those.
I'll pass.
Forum Folks are a tough crowd. :)
-
"Could you explain more clearly what a value based MF solution would need to do to sell to your customers?
There's something I don't understand in what you say about Pentax. "
I'm sure Steve will answer that question but here in London there is no rental/back-up and no rock solid tethering/processing/organising software. I can pick the phone up and have a leaf/phase/Hblad body or lens delivered in minutes, if there's something wrong with it a replacement is sent.
For some people not having that back-up rules out pentax (and to a certain extent Leica) I'm sure the pentax is a great camera but a lot of people see it as a landscape or amateur camera and not viable in a studio environment, I would happily use one if that back-up was there.
-
"Could you explain more clearly what a value based MF solution would need to do to sell to your customers?
There's something I don't understand in what you say about Pentax. "
I'm sure Steve will answer that question but here in London there is no rental/back-up and no rock solid tethering/processing/organising software. I can pick the phone up and have a leaf/phase/Hblad body or lens delivered in minutes, if there's something wrong with it a replacement is sent.
For some people not having that back-up rules out pentax (and to a certain extent Leica) I'm sure the pentax is a great camera but a lot of people see it as a landscape or amateur camera and not viable in a studio environment, I would happily use one if that back-up was there.
This and a lack of any modern leaf shutter lenses.
I actually just recommended the 645D to a landscaper friend last week, but there is no way it would fit into my workflow.
Also, the Pentax dealer here is a box mover. Nothing more. 2 minutes on the phone with my Leaf dealer ensured me a demo of the IQ250 during a studio session I have in the future. Can't expect remotely the same for the 645D II.
-
I'm sure Steve will answer that question but here in London there is no rental/back-up and no rock solid tethering/processing/organising software. I can pick the phone up and have a leaf/phase/Hblad body or lens delivered in minutes, if there's something wrong with it a replacement is sent.
For some people not having that back-up rules out pentax (and to a certain extent Leica) I'm sure the pentax is a great camera but a lot of people see it as a landscape or amateur camera and not viable in a studio environment, I would happily use one if that back-up was there.
I would think that Pentax has a long list of issues from a go to market standpoint to succeed in the "MFDB marketplace":
1. The margin value added resellers get or don't get. Why push a 645D when they can get 3 or 4 times the margin with an IQ280?
2. The fact that the camera is way too cheap. Many of the non pro buyers of Phaseone buy their products mostly because they are the most expensive ones. Again, high price is a feature in high end,
3. Support for the (probably minority) part of the MF customers who use their backs professionally. A real problem that would require the creation of a dedicated support framework that is probably not justified from a revenue standpoint, although their could be ways to mitigate this easily with explicit support packages decoupled from the price of the hardware,
4. Some capabilities like thethered shooting are available, but probably not performing quite as well as Phaseone's offerings or mostly not available like leaf shutter lenses which affects some applications.
Now, I am not sure that Pentax is interested to succeed in what I am referring to as the "MFDB marketplace". It is a tiny microcosm, way over-inflated here at LL, that is far from being as lucrative as the landscape/portrait crowd in most countries on earth where spending 10,000 US$ on a camera body is seen as a very extreme level of spending already. This is where the gross cash is to be made and this is the market Pentax is focusing on.
Their culture remains that of a mass market company. It doesn't mean that their product is not 100% as good, or even better, than corresponding products from Phaseon/Leaf/Hassy, just that they are not focusing on the same market segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i would like someone to explain to me why a sensor that is approx. 60% larger in surface area is 12x the price of d800/e.
Because it's not what it costs it is what it earns that is important to the (main) customer base of the MF manufacturers and they know it. This customer base is very small and so the price is very high both from a development perspective and a realistic demand point of view.
It is invalid (in my opinion) to compare its value or price (as some will) relative to say a Mercedes as a high end pro won't earn a dime through his ownership of a luxury motor. (yes there may be some real or imagined perceived value to be had from possession of a Mercedes in this mercurial world but lets not get into that)
The main user of this back or any high end MF back for that matter will be servicing the ad agencies who are servicing their clients (increasingly) global campaigns. Perfume, Health, Consumer products etc etc.
The agencies make their real profit through the media spend of their clients and this can make the not inconsiderable production budget pale in comparison and so demand the best possible flexibility to answer their clients needs.
The client demands a response from the agency to every whim. So a campaign shot for the glossies may get rolled out as a 48 sheet at some future point in one territory or another (or all) and its a very lucrative and competitive business from anyones perspective.
So shooting MF for big campaigns makes sense to the agencies qualitatively because it can be repurposed to 48 sheet, 6 sheet, bus related, magazine campaign etc globally at any point the client decides they want to do such. (A smaller point is that the ratio of MF is well suited to magazine advertising particularly and in this arena the actual relative increase in surface area (over a D800) is increased via the aspect ratio of the media.)
The photographer who can win this work earns his/her real money through territory and usage rights, and when this is global it can be 10's of thousands of dollars for each territory / use.
The demand for a CMOS MF back is ultimately generated by the needs of the global brands as the advertising zeitgeist moves toward the real in many markets as they try to connect with their customers who now live in a social media world and advertising styles have shifted towards a more lo fi lifestyle look in many cases. Whilst these new channels to some degree diminish the need for such high quality the fact that these brands want through the line campaigns mean that the agencies need to provide even more flexibility in their creative product.
The new backs that have been announced this week are a direct response to this need.
Ultimately this is another pencil in the art box and very welcome it is to if your looking to be relevant in this way.
Phase One and Hass are pushing on, listening to and solving customers problems and bringing new solutions to try to answer these needs as part of an intelligent strategy to to remain relevant to the ultimate paymasters.
-
Their culture remains that of a mass market company. It doesn't mean that their product is not 100% as good, or even better, than corresponding products from Phaseon/Leaf/Hassy, just that they are not focusing on the same market segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeah, sure, a mass market company that made an interchangeable lens interchangeable finder wooden-handled 6x7 body that needed a weight lifting class to qualify ownership :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pentax_6×7_MU.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pentax_6×7_MU.JPG)
Edmund
-
That PDN review is painful. The samples look like they go with another piece entirely.
They also know how to play the game with the bloggists, the industry publications and pull them onto their side.
Look at the pdn samples and read the article. The imagery is 180 degrees from the praise, but then again reality and perception rarely cross points and it doesn't matter because the people that get lured into this phase back are gong to buy regardless of the final image.
IMO
BC
-
Steve,
Could you explain more clearly what a value based MF solution would need to do to sell to your customers?
There's something I don't understand in what you say about Pentax.
Edmund
PS. the current announcement and pricing has clearly not gone down well with a big part of the LL crowd. I don't know why for certain, but maybe people are not faring well generally in this economy - fewer and fewer people have more and more of the money, and many of the others are not enjoying the novelty.
Adding to what is already said, in the US, only 3 lenses are made available through Pentax USA.
When you e.g. look on the website of B&H you will only see these 3 lenses (25, 55 and 90mm)
Other lenses apparently need to be ordered in Canada or on eBay. Pentax USA does not seem to feel the need to import its own lenses…
It wouldn't be an issue for me personally but I can understand that this does not give everybody a good comfort level.
I would be interested to hear from Steve how he tackles this with his customers.
-
The 645D is an incredible camera. I even like that it uses SD cards. I like that it has an FP shutter that lets you use every nice piece of legacy glass you own with an adapter. I like its ISO1600. I like that they are cheap as chips, what a new one can be had for $6k? Gently used for $4800? There is a lot to like if you can live with the limitations. This is the camera wedding shooters should have as their BLING BLING camera.
I would think that Pentax has a long list of issues from a go to market standpoint to succeed in the "MFDB marketplace":
1. The margin value added resellers get or don't get. Why push a 645D when they can get 3 or 4 times the margin with an IQ280?
2. The fact that the camera is way too cheap. Many of the non pro buyers of Phaseone buy their products mostly because they are the most expensive ones. Again, high price is a feature in high end,
3. Support for the (probably minority) part of the MF customers who use their backs professionally. A real problem that would require the creation of a dedicated support framework that is probably not justified from a revenue standpoint, although their could be ways to mitigate this easily with explicit support packages decoupled from the price of the hardware,
4. Some capabilities like thethered shooting are available, but probably not performing quite as well as Phaseone's offerings or mostly not available like leaf shutter lenses which affects some applications.
Now, I am not sure that Pentax is interested to succeed in what I am referring to as the "MFDB marketplace". It is a tiny microcosm, way over-inflated here at LL, that is far from being as lucrative as the landscape/portrait crowd in most countries on earth where spending 10,000 US$ on a camera body is seen as a very extreme level of spending already. This is where the gross cash is to be made and this is the market Pentax is focusing on.
Their culture remains that of a mass market company. It doesn't mean that their product is not 100% as good, or even better, than corresponding products from Phaseon/Leaf/Hassy, just that they are not focusing on the same market segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 645D is an incredible camera. I even like that it uses SD cards. I like that it has an FP shutter that lets you use every nice piece of legacy glass you own with an adapter. I like its ISO1600. I like that they are cheap as chips, what a new one can be had for $6k? Gently used for $4800? There is a lot to like if you can live with the limitations. This is the camera wedding shooters should have as their BLING BLING camera.
I don't disagree, other than the 645d buffer is small and obviously for us it won't tether well.
But, you know marketing well, we probably see the same data, you understand how companies position themselves.
Phase has always come out first and pretty much complete. Their achilies heel is the df and it's a good camera now, considering from where it started.
But phase had higher iso and longer exposures than blad, had a better software suite and from a company that no layman on the planet knows about them positioned themselves into the industrial luxury goods arena.
They didn't duck their heads and go for the cheap, Phase kept their prices high, actually they did a better job at it than most of their customers.
Now would a pentax be a better fit for most of this intended cmos market . . . probably but as Steve says, he puts them on the counter, they reach for the phase at more than twice price.
Would I . . . no cause I own two and don't need another, but at this stage of what I shoot I'd either go hasselblad or Leica, but that's just me.
Perception/reality. You know the difference T.
IMO
BC
-
That PDN review is painful. The samples look like they go with another piece entirely.
Yeah Wow! Painful is the right word for those for so many different reasons.
-
2. The fact that the camera is way too cheap. Many of the non pro buyers of Phaseone buy their products mostly because they are the most expensive ones. Again, high price is a feature in high end,
.....
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Your observation #2 is absurd. I know and have shot with a lot of non-pro Phase One shooters and I can absolutely positively say that is total nonsense. (I'm being polite at this point).
Now I would not deny that there are folks who simply want the best regardless of cost but that is NOT the same as buying things just because they are expensive.
However, if were we discussing Hassy Lunar & Stellar then you might be on to something.
-
I find the PDN review surprisingly honest. They have clearly shot with the thing. Here are two telling excerpts.
--
Through trial and error—and timing—Matter was able to nail down the focus and capture crisp photos. If you're considering moving up from a full-frame DSLR to a medium-format system like the IQ250, this sort of adjustment is something to take into consideration. Despite many improvements on this back and with Phase One's 645DF+ camera body, shooting medium format is still more challenging than using a DSLR.
--
We used the IQ250's display to give us a sense if the timing was right on a shot but, despite its better than average resolution, it didn't give us a good indication of sharpness when we zoomed in.
--
I think a $250 Canon Rebel with a couple of fast primes would do a better job than the P1 on those shots, and give good separation - but then I'm not a professional photographer, and even less an "artist" :)
Edmund
-
The biggest objection that holds our clients back from the Pentax 645D is the uncertainty over the commitment Pentax has for the platform, and their lack of development for MFD before (and after) the 645D . Most of our clients are (at least somewhat) familiar with the products from Phase One/Leaf/Hasselblad, or have purchased MFD products before and will again. They know that Phase One is a proven brand for someone who wants MFD. They have been producing solutions for MFD since the 1990's, and they've continued to develop technology for the platform. They have a legacy and an impressive recent resume of accomplishment to go along with it. For someone ready to invest substantially into MFD, Pentax remains un-proven regardless of how nice some of the aspects of the 645D are.
Secondly, when someone is interested in a Pentax, they frequently choose to purchase a pre-owned Hasselblad H4D-40 from us instead. The price difference is small and they are similar solutions since they seem to use the same sensor, but Hasselblad has a much larger lineup of lenses and system accessories, much better software, etc. And they have a legacy and a tradition of MFD development. There isn't that much of a difference in the profit made from sale of a pre-owned H4D-40 compared to a Pentax 645D.
So, I have to say - any lack of "push" on our part for Pentax is as much a symptom of the same concern our clients have, which is, where is Pentax going with MFD, and how much future development will they invest in? When they build a legacy and prove that buyers can enjoy rapid development, not to mention scale, of products, then perhaps our clients will look harder and longer at the platform.
Until then, I feel the best success for Pentax comes from new users to MFD, or users who cannot or will not commit funds toward the higher cost options from Phase One/Hasselblad/Leaf/Leica, etc.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Your observation #2 is absurd. I know and have shot with a lot of non-pro Phase One shooters and I can absolutely positively say that is total nonsense. (I'm being polite at this point).
Now I would deny that there are folks who simply want the best regardless of cost but that is NOT the same as buying things just because they are expensive.
Graham,
I hope you have noticed that my point was that the 645D is IMHO not positioned high enough in price to appeal to some people who look for the best, simply because there is a natural tendency for them to see a strong correlation between "the most expensive" and "the best". I could elaborate on this, it is not just the price of the 645D but the equity of the Pentax brand in terms of high end photographic performance.
I agree that spending the biggest amount of money is not their goal per se, but using "the best" or what is widely accepted as "the best" is a clear goal in that it makes such a purchase more satisfactory than any other for them.
I have never said that this applies to all non pro phase shooters. It does also apply at different levels in terms of segments, price brackets,...
Among those people who behave this way, many of them are not willing to openly admit that their decisions are driven by such motives because they realize that they are hard to defend from a pure rationale standpoint, and those are typically people who have gotten where they are today because of their higher than average ability to act rationally.
Let's face it, when you have a certain level of income, spending 20,000+ US$ on a Phaseone back is not a big deal. At least is it not that bigger of a deal than spending 7,000 US$ on a 645D. So you might as well not take the risk of going cheap and spend the extra money because you know, based on different inputs starting with peer opinions, that you will get something good enough that your comfort that you have the best is not going to be challenged. That will be money well spent.
Anyway, I am not here to convince you, please ignore this if you feel that it doesn't make sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Steve,
Thank you. You bring an interesting perspective.
Edmund
The biggest objection that holds our clients back from the Pentax 645D is the uncertainty over the commitment Pentax has for the platform, and their lack of development for MFD before (and after) the 645D . Most of our clients are (at least somewhat) familiar with the products from Phase One/Leaf/Hasselblad, or have purchased MFD products before and will again. They know that Phase One is a proven brand for someone who wants MFD. They have been producing solutions for MFD since the 1990's, and they've continued to develop technology for the platform. They have a legacy and an impressive recent resume of accomplishment to go along with it. For someone ready to invest substantially into MFD, Pentax remains un-proven regardless of how nice some of the aspects of the 645D are.
Secondly, when someone is interested in a Pentax, they frequently choose to purchase a pre-owned Hasselblad H4D-40 from us instead. The price difference is small and they are similar solutions since they seem to use the same sensor, but Hasselblad has a much larger lineup of lenses and system accessories, much better software, etc. And they have a legacy and a tradition of MFD development. There isn't that much of a difference in the profit made from sale of a pre-owned H4D-40 compared to a Pentax 645D.
So, I have to say - any lack of "push" on our part for Pentax is as much a symptom of the same concern our clients have, which is, where is Pentax going with MFD, and how much future development will they invest in? When they build a legacy and prove that buyers can enjoy rapid development, not to mention scale, of products, then perhaps our clients will look harder and longer at the platform.
Until then, I feel the best success for Pentax comes from new users to MFD, or users who cannot or will not commit funds toward the higher cost options from Phase One/Hasselblad/Leaf/Leica, etc.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
I don't know. It seems like a real shooting in real life conditions with bad light.
I have checked out the 6400 ISO image, see actual pixel crops below. It is not bad for 6400 at 1:1 view, and they could probably be improved in processing.
Best regards
Erik
That PDN review is painful. The samples look like they go with another piece entirely.
-
Can anyone say how the PDN samples compare to D800's ISO for ISO? I am wondering if there might be some updates to C1 coming that will improve the rendering of these files? Seems too early to start discounting, but wow those PDN sample files …. ugh! Maybe when the RAW processing, profiles, etc are further developed, Phase will tell the photog's it's okay to start taking sharp shots now... ;)
-
Hi,
Those images are pretty much unmanipulated, AFAIK. In this case the photographer probably had some intention to use motion induced unsharpness as an artistic expression (if it fails or not is another question).
Something I note is that there is significant colour bookeh on the out of focus background. So I guess the lenses are not as well corrected as the Otus.
The boots in the attached image are almost sharp, there is still some motion unsharpness. That is the 400 ISO shot. A static studio shot would be sharper.
Regarding the 6400 ISO image I would say it is very clean. I don't see patchy colours, and blacks are pretty clean. There is clearly quite a bit of noise reduction, either in the image or applied in post. A bit to much for my taste. Pixel for pixel I guess it is pretty much what I have seen from Sony sensors.
Best regards
Erik
Can anyone say how the PDN samples compare to D800's ISO for ISO? I am wondering if there might be some updates to C1 coming that will improve the rendering of these files? Seems too early to start discounting, but wow those PDN sample files …. ugh! Maybe when the RAW processing, profiles, etc are further developed, Phase will tell the photog's it's okay to start taking sharp shots now... ;)
-
Erik,
Quit kidding around okay? This is serious stuff here we are talking about. ;) Next time take a real careful look at the files before posting okay? ;)
No let's wait to see how these look with the C1 update….
but you might be right about at least one thing - not all of what's visible (in not a good way) in those PND samples can be due to the sensor - some might be from the lens (CA) and DF combo. Might but can't say for sure.
-
Hi,
The CA is definitively axial chroma, also known as LoCa or spherochromatism. Almost all lenses have it at full aperture. Otus has almost eliminated it.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Quit kidding around okay? This is serious stuff here we are talking about. ;) Next time take a real careful look at the files before posting okay? ;)
No let's wait to see how these look with the C1 update….
but you might be right about at least one thing - not all of what's visible (in not a good way) in those PND samples can be due to the sensor - some might be from the lens (CA) and DF combo. Might but can't say for sure.
-
Did not find the link to PDN IQ250 review in the thread, so here it is:
http://www.pdnonline.com/gear/Phase-One-Unveils-Fi-10189.shtml
It has full-size large jpegs, casually shot images of some dancers in natural and artificial light, some are smaller than max resolution but I assume it's due to cropping rather than downscaling.
The ISO 100 image looks fine although the subject is not too good for evaluation (and the image is not sharp). The high ISO pictures are obviously noise-reduced quite heavily, and frankly I don't like the look at all. You can't judge colors when lit with those artificial lights, but the ISO images are heavily smeared, no way near 50 megapixel detail coming out of those. As the shots are not sharp the detail loss is a bit hard to judge though.
Already at ISO800 it looks pretty bad.
My guess is that processing is somewhat to blame rather than the sensor. Crude noise reduction = detail and color destruction.
One of the advantages of my old CCD sensor which does not have the best dynamic range by modern standards is that its noise quality is nice and random, film-grain like, so I rarely do any noise reduction at all. I'm hoping this sensor has the same quality, but I have not yet seen any samples without noise reduction.
I should say though that I don't shoot high ISO very often so I'm no expert on how good it can get. Are those images close to what you would see when pixel-peeping a D800 or Sony A7r?
-
Hi,
Attached is an 800ISO shot from my Alpha 99, actual pixels of course, my default processing in LR5.3
Best regards
Erik
Did not find the link to PDN IQ250 review in the thread, so here it is:
http://www.pdnonline.com/gear/Phase-One-Unveils-Fi-10189.shtml
It has full-size large jpegs, casually shot images of some dancers in natural and artificial light, some are smaller than max resolution but I assume it's due to cropping rather than downscaling.
The ISO 100 image looks fine although the subject is not too good for evaluation (and the image is not sharp). The high ISO pictures are obviously noise-reduced quite heavily, and frankly I don't like the look at all. You can't judge colors when lit with those artificial lights, but the ISO images are heavily smeared, no way near 50 megapixel detail coming out of those. As the shots are not sharp the detail loss is a bit hard to judge though.
Already at ISO800 it looks pretty bad.
My guess is that processing is somewhat to blame rather than the sensor. Crude noise reduction = detail and color destruction.
One of the advantages of my old CCD sensor which does not have the best dynamic range by modern standards is that its noise quality is nice and random, film-grain like, so I rarely do any noise reduction at all. I'm hoping this sensor has the same quality, but I have not yet seen any samples without noise reduction.
I should say though that I don't shoot high ISO very often so I'm no expert on how good it can get. Are those images close to what you would see when pixel-peeping a D800 or Sony A7r?
-
I'd say that your example looks better, but it's difficult to compare. Safe to say is that the PDN review sample images does not make the best to show the IQ250 from it's best side. As it looks there it might be that some would prefer sensor plus on an IQ260 for high ISO shooting.
However, as it's Sony that's made the sensor I would expect that the high ISO is very similar to other Sony cameras, possibly slightly worse due to bayer design optimized for color at base ISO, but that would be fractions of a stop.
The raw converter can make a huge difference to the look of a high ISO image. Noise reduction settings of course, but also the demosaicer. I'd love to have a raw file to play with :)
Comparing a 135 camera with a MF will be a bit difficult though, it's probably better to compare with say IQ260 sensor plus to make a valuable comparison, or why not the current Pentax 645D. I think the 135 cameras will be much better in practice as you can have wider aperture. Ie instead of an 80/2.8 you might be using a 55/1.4 and gain more than 1 stop just in the glass, and if you look at the journalist flagships you gain say one extra stop on the sensor compared to the high resolution CMOS (Sony Exmor was never the best concerning high ISO, unparalleled base ISO DR is its thing), so in a typical high ISO use case comparison with a Canon 1DX or Nikon D4 I think the IQ250 would look like a joke.
I don't think this model is to compete with 135 though (obvious from the price if nothing else), but rather to be a evolutionary improvement of high ISO in medium format space. Remains to be seen who will need it. It seems to me that the best rational way to go would still be to keep your current CCD back and get a flagship DSLR if you need high ISO shots at as good quality as possible. When you're spending this amount of money on gear there should be no problem to have that extra DSLR on the side.
-
[...] ...(Sony Exmor was never the best concerning high ISO, unparalleled base ISO DR is its thing), so in a typical high ISO use case comparison with a Canon 1DX or Nikon D4 I think the IQ250 would look like a joke.
The Exmor has mainly one enemy, and that's thermal noise. Except for thermal noise, which can be mitigated with a manual black-frame subtraction, the sensor in the D800 does as well as my D4, and in some respects better.
In very dim lighting, there is often some scene feature that is better lighted than the rest, and that area in the scene is rendered with noticeably more detail by the D800. A small well-lighted face can pop out of an otherwise grainy image. Since the IQ250 does black-frame subtraction full time automatically, it might produce some very good mood shots at ISO 12800-25600 equiv. We shall see if that turns out to be the case or not.
-
Detail looks murdered in the high ISO shots shown so far, but with other processing settings it may turn out well. If the D800 can do well, the IQ250 should be able too, minus the smaller aperture optics penalty.
-
Detail looks murdered in the high ISO shots shown so far, but with other processing settings it may turn out well. If the D800 can do well, the IQ250 should be able too, minus the smaller aperture optics penalty.
It's more than sensor, or body or lens, or lighting. It's everything.
I've shot a lot of 800 to 1000 iso with every camera and no matter how you cut it you need light and you have to know the complete system to make it work.
These cameras are like film, where it takes a while to zone in on what works, what doesn't, it's not just point and shoot.
That's the problem with most of these early samples, they're point and shoot, thinking it's going to work and well we see the results.
I'm amazed that the little olympus, which is a 43 sensor and tiny compared to the Phase shoots such an amazing 1000 iso file, but it took me a month to really learn what works, on what seting.
I think this is where these samples fell through, that and somebody thought they could hide noise in post processing, which really screws things up, unless you do the noise reduction in layers.
Hi,
I don't know. It seems like a real shooting in real life conditions with bad light.
I think there is just a lotta bad all the way around.
IMO
BC
-
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31/1502801_10151983566099209_984013918_o.jpg)
800 ISO with somewhat decent available light. Credo 40.
Frankly, I don't need any higher ISO performance. If it does, that's probably a shot I am not interested in publishing anywhere.
-
Here's a 100% crop from a ISO800 shot of my ancient Leaf Aptus 75, no noise reduction, basic unsharp mask sharpening. For being a back announced in 2005 I think it looks rather good, and a good amount of detail is kept. It will only work if you have a well-exposed image though and you don't need to push anything, because dynamic range at this ISO is very poor. And color fidelity is bad, so you get a certain "look" which is quite unlike what you get at base ISO, the loss of color fidelity rather than noise and DR is mainly what makes the use case narrow from my point of view. But still, images can be made :).
Modern sensors don't lose as much color fidelity at high ISO but it's an aspect that sometimes is forgot when looking at the results. Engineer types like me is often focused on noise and forget about color. Careless noise reduction also kills color.
-
--
Through trial and error—and timing—Matter was able to nail down the focus and capture crisp photos. If you're considering moving up from a full-frame DSLR to a medium-format system like the IQ250, this sort of adjustment is something to take into consideration. Despite many improvements on this back and with Phase One's 645DF+ camera body, shooting medium format is still more challenging than using a DSLR.
--
We used the IQ250's display to give us a sense if the timing was right on a shot but, despite its better than average resolution, it didn't give us a good indication of sharpness when we zoomed in.
--
"EXACTLY!!" he proclaims, he with the exalt of vindication.
- N.
-
"EXACTLY!!" he proclaims, he with the exalt of vindication.
I read that too, and it feels a bit odd that the display and image rendering on it (or live view) would not be good enough for sharpness check. I suspect that they're not used to it yet and when you get used to it you can identify what's sharp and not. Otherwise it would be a major problem, but if so it's probably fixable through firmware.
-
@torger, I haven't met a single camera where LV works for critical manual focus. It's a total fail on the D800e. Maybe Canon is better, but who cares.
- N.
-
I consider Canon good, that's what I'm used to in terms of live view. I have tried Nikon's briefly and remember that it was considerably worse, but I don't remember that it was that hard to nail focus anyway. However, as I shoot mostly a view camera (Linhof Techno) most of my focusing I do on ground glass with a 20x loupe, so I'm used to evaluating focus in challenging conditions :). It just needs to be barely possible to satisfy someone like me.
I think key to a good live view is a quick update rate (so you can wiggle back-and-forth and find the peak) and preferably some sort of sharpening with a little over-sharpening (a little haloing) so it's easier to find the peak.
I've heard the focus mask of the IQ series is supposed to be good, but I don't know if it's available realtime in live view on the IQ250.
-
I read that too, and it feels a bit odd that the display and image rendering on it (or live view) would not be good enough for sharpness check. I suspect that they're not used to it yet and when you get used to it you can identify what's sharp and not. Otherwise it would be a major problem, but if so it's probably fixable through firmware.
For an additional $10K you get your very own bespoke engineer in a trailer to fix the bugs customize your photographic experience.
Edmund
-
For an additional $10K you get your very own bespoke engineer in a trailer to fix the bugs customize your photographic experience.
:)
It's well-known that first releases of digital backs can be a bit buggy, they're not as well-tested as a typical mass-market product. However as bugs are discovered they're fixed in firmware updates, for free.
-
Hi,
I just took that sample to show what things look like on my sensor, which is a Sony Exmor at 6 microns, slightly larger pixels than on the IQ250.
Best regards
Erik
I'd say that your example looks better, but it's difficult to compare. Safe to say is that the PDN review sample images does not make the best to show the IQ250 from it's best side. As it looks there it might be that some would prefer sensor plus on an IQ260 for high ISO shooting.
However, as it's Sony that's made the sensor I would expect that the high ISO is very similar to other Sony cameras, possibly slightly worse due to bayer design optimized for color at base ISO, but that would be fractions of a stop.
The raw converter can make a huge difference to the look of a high ISO image. Noise reduction settings of course, but also the demosaicer. I'd love to have a raw file to play with :)
Comparing a 135 camera with a MF will be a bit difficult though, it's probably better to compare with say IQ260 sensor plus to make a valuable comparison, or why not the current Pentax 645D. I think the 135 cameras will be much better in practice as you can have wider aperture. Ie instead of an 80/2.8 you might be using a 55/1.4 and gain more than 1 stop just in the glass, and if you look at the journalist flagships you gain say one extra stop on the sensor compared to the high resolution CMOS (Sony Exmor was never the best concerning high ISO, unparalleled base ISO DR is its thing), so in a typical high ISO use case comparison with a Canon 1DX or Nikon D4 I think the IQ250 would look like a joke.
I don't think this model is to compete with 135 though (obvious from the price if nothing else), but rather to be a evolutionary improvement of high ISO in medium format space. Remains to be seen who will need it. It seems to me that the best rational way to go would still be to keep your current CCD back and get a flagship DSLR if you need high ISO shots at as good quality as possible. When you're spending this amount of money on gear there should be no problem to have that extra DSLR on the side.
-
Hi,
I always use live view (at max magnification) for focusing on my Sony Alpha, far more exact than AF. That is I use it if I can, camera on tripod and a non moving subject.
Best regards
Erik
@torger, I haven't met a single camera where LV works for critical manual focus. It's a total fail on the D800e. Maybe Canon is better, but who cares.
- N.
-
I'm a bit annoyed that every review of this back has pin-pointed high ISO shooting... Really?!? Who needs ISO 1600 - 6400 in MF? I never even push my Canons that far.
Sure it's CMOS, but the live-view is more significant, IMO. Backs are designed to be moved from platform to platform, camera to view-camera. No more sliding backs, no more ground glass, yay!
Let's look at critically focused images using live-view at base ISO and show what the back can really do. These reviews are really stupid, and for the record, I'm not interested in purchasing the back, but I like that we have sort of a new beginning in MFD.
-
Hi,
I essentially agree with your view, but Phase One put a lot of emphasis on high ISO. It may even be a bad thing if they compromised colour rendition for high ISO.
The PDN article had some hints that the display was not good enough for accurate focus. Hopefully we see someone sharing experience.
Best regards
Erik
I'm a bit annoyed that every review of this back has pin-pointed high ISO shooting... Really?!? Who needs ISO 1600 - 6400 in MF? I never even push my Canons that far.
Sure it's CMOS, but the live-view is more significant, IMO. Backs are designed to be moved from platform to platform, camera to view-camera. No more sliding backs, no more ground glass, yay!
Let's look at critically focused images using live-view at base ISO and show what the back can really do. These reviews are really stupid, and for the record, I'm not interested in purchasing the back, but I like that we have sort of a new beginning in MFD.
-
I essentially agree with your view, but Phase One put a lot of emphasis on high ISO. It may even be a bad thing if they compromised colour rendition for high ISO.
They did not. More details in a 6-page article I've just submitted to LL for publication. Due to their workshop travel it may take several days to get published.
The PDN article had some hints that the display was not good enough for accurate focus. Hopefully we see someone sharing experience.
I really, really do not understand their comment here.
It's possible they mean hand-held in low-light or something specific. I played with focusing via live view and found it on par with any canon/nikon. Most of my testing was tripod or monopod based, but I find it fairly hard to critically focus using live view hand held with Canon/Nikon as well - preferring to use those on a tripod or monopod when intending to use live view for critical focus.
But I guess it's best to let many people get their hands on it and let opinions form from broad real world use. Our Phase IQ250 launch party (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/event/phase-one-iq250-launch-nyc) in NYC will be February 12. That and similar events throughout the country and world will be a good chance to have a ton of opinions from hands on shooting.
-
I'm a bit annoyed that every review of this back has pin-pointed high ISO shooting... Really?!? Who needs ISO 1600 - 6400 in MF? I never even push my Canons that far.
Sure it's CMOS, but the live-view is more significant, IMO. Backs are designed to be moved from platform to platform, camera to view-camera. No more sliding backs, no more ground glass, yay!
Let's look at critically focused images using live-view at base ISO and show what the back can really do. These reviews are really stupid, and for the record, I'm not interested in purchasing the back, but I like that we have sort of a new beginning in MFD.
You don't improve a back to be ok at ISO6400 in order that most people will shoot it at 6400. You do it so that e.g. ISO 800 can be used without hesitation.
Whenever a back launches with a NEW feature the emphasis of the marketing and reviews (and for that matter, forum discussion) will always be on the NEW features. The fact is this back is a Phase One IQ2 back, which, in and of itself, is pretty cool: high resolution capture, great screen, touch interface, fast UI, fast continuous shooting, USB3 and FW800, wireless review and control, Capture One, etc. But there won't be discussion of those features because they are already present in the rest of the IQ2 series and aren't new. The thing that is new is the CMOS sensor which means better live view, higher ISOs, and faster continuos full-res shooting.
-
@torger, I haven't met a single camera where LV works for critical manual focus. It's a total fail on the D800e. Maybe Canon is better, but who cares.
- N.
Nick, this statement takes me aback. Then how do you focus with manual focus lenses such as the superlative Zeiss apochromatic lenses or for that matter with any autofocus lens with manual over-ride? With my Zeiss 135 f/2 I am able to obtain precise focus with live view, more so than with merely focusing via the viewfinder or with use of the focus indicator. In his review of the D800, Diglloyd states that, although live view on the D800 is suboptimal, he is able to obtain pinpoint focus using live view and that live view focusing with the D800 is as good as that with the 5D Mark III. He does suggest a picture control that improves contrast and edge definition with live view on the D800.
I would welcome input from other users of the Zeiss and other manual focus lens on how they achieve focus.
Regards,
Bill
-
I am sorry to say, but having focused manually litterally 10s of thousands of images using the live view of the D800, I am yet to find one that is obviously not focused optimally when reviewed at 100% in PS. I am using various lenses including the Zeiss 100mm f2, 50mm f2.0 and recently the Otus. With Nikon lenses I typically use AF in live view mode with very accurate results on most subjects.
That is done by using the high magnification and checking flickering on edges. It is not sexy but works wonders.
I am very surprised by your comments Nick, have you really tried to make this work???
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Nice to hear they didn't compromise on CGA, looking forward to your article!
Best regards
Erik
They did not. More details in a 6-page article I've just submitted to LL for publication. Due to their workshop travel it may take several days to get published.
-
Hi,
I always use live view when the camera is on tripod and the subject doesn't move, it works very well.
A problem with live view focusing is focus shift, focusing at maximum aperture, but when stopping down focus shifts. I don't use large aperture lenses, so I have little problems.
Best regards
Erik
It's possible they mean hand-held in low-light or something specific. I played with focusing via live view and found it on par with any canon/nikon. Most of my testing was tripod or monopod based, but I find it fairly hard to critically focus using live view hand held with Canon/Nikon as well - preferring to use those on a tripod or monopod when intending to use live view for critical focus.
-
Pretty sure on canon you can set it to use live view with the selected aperture (or possibly with magic lantern anyhow).
-
Pretty sure on canon you can set it to use live view with the selected aperture (or possibly with magic lantern anyhow).
There's a dof preview button in standard canon, hold it in and aperture closes to the target aperture. The issue with focus shift is only bound to a few specific lens designs though as far as I know so it's not a big problem.
-
Hi,
I always use live view when the camera is on tripod and the subject doesn't move, it works very well.
A problem with live view focusing is focus shift, focusing at maximum aperture, but when stopping down focus shifts. I don't use large aperture lenses, so I have little problems.
Best regards
Erik
Most MF "electronic" cameras have got a DOF button...with some you can even stop down from the capture software if you shoot tethered; on others you can leave the lens set to the working aperture...
-
Most MF "electronic" cameras have got a DOF button...with some you can even stop down from the capture software if you shoot tethered; on others you can leave the lens set to the working aperture...
Is there a nearby plan for Leaf to release a new MFDB fitted with the new Cmos sensor Yair? …judging from P1's release, there should be….
-
Is there a nearby plan for Leaf to release a new MFDB fitted with the new Cmos sensor Yair? …judging from P1's release, there should be….
And maybe somebody can explain to me why there need to be two series of backs and double development costs?
Edmund
-
Most boutique brands have a diffusion range. ::)
-
And maybe somebody can explain to me why there need to be two series of backs and double development costs?
It's quite common that an exclusive brand also owns a "budget" brand which sells essentially the same product (ie not double development cost) somewhat scaled down in feature set to sell to a wider market, to those that don't want to (or can't) spend the premium on the exclusive brand.
As far as I understand this is the new role of Leaf. When they were independent they were competitors to Phase One, now they're their budget brand. I'm sure many of the Leaf people is not so comfortable with this, and I think they've succeeded quite well in providing a unique product which embodies the "Leaf experience", you can even prefer their products over Phase One's, but as long as they're owned by Phase One they will never be allowed to lead the market in terms of technology or feature set.
To save development costs (ie reuse Phase One's product technology), Leaf products will always lag behind Phase One's. That Phase One is first with the latest is one key to making it the premium brand, which is quite good for those that want the budget product, as the Leaf product then can be less scaled down than it otherwise would be if it was released at the same time.
Remains to be seen if Leaf will come out with a CMOS product soon. An alternate strategy is to stay low for quite some time until CMOS has found it's users. I don't think anyone really knows yet which users that will be most appealed by this new mix of features.
-
And maybe somebody can explain to me why there need to be two series of backs and double development costs?
Edmund
Because of the brand value that Leaf still has in the market? Because of how distinct the Leaf color profiles and user experience are from Phase One and people value that? Because maybe, just maybe they do make enough profits to justify the continued investment in two brands?
Maybe somebody can explain to me what questions like these hope to achieve.
-
...Because maybe, just maybe they do make enough profits to justify the continued investment in two brands?...
Duplicating efforts seems to be something that bean-counters generally dislike.
Of course, if this duplication leads to a corresponding increase in sales (or more), then the bean-counters might be happy.
For one small company to have two brands of heavily overlapped products with no attempts at "synergy-effects" (i.e. firing duplicated people) seems kind of unusual.
-h
-
Duplicating efforts seems to be something that bean-counters generally dislike.
Of course, if this duplication leads to a corresponding increase in sales (or more), then the bean-counters might be happy.
For one small company to have two brands of heavily overlapped products with no attempts at "synergy-effects" (i.e. firing duplicated people) seems kind of unusual.
-h
if their bean counters didn't like it, it wouldn't exist.
do we not have better things to do than worry about things that dont affect us in any way?
-
For one small company to have two brands of heavily overlapped products with no attempts at "synergy-effects" (i.e. firing duplicated people) seems kind of unusual.
The Phase buy of Leaf seems to be somewhat unusual, it does look like Leaf has kept more autonomy than typical. This could be thanks to great negotiators from Leaf backed up by a strong Leaf customer base. Even before the buy Leaf products were considerably cheaper too. Due to the established customer base the Leaf brand would lose much of its strength if it it suddenly lost the feel of providing the unique Leaf experience and instead just became a scaled down Phase One copy. So there's a delicate balance to play, to keep Leaf a strong separate unique product while still gain from shared development and double its role as a budget alternative to Phase One's own products.
-
The price of the next Hassy and Phase 50MP Cmos its just stupid...
The only two DMF brands are killing this segment with hardcore por** prices, 35.000$ / 45.000$ for a sistem with a few lens in today profissional photo market?
35.000$ for a tuned Mamiya 645 15years old body and a larger 35mm format sensor with 1.3 crop???? my good this medium are mad or what???
Don´t the people see that this p**n prices are reducing the users of this systems just to few top photographer and rich amateurs?
Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ ??? THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT
The biggest advantage of the Medium Format its the large viewfinder and the DOF, i was a Hassy H3D39II user, and sold it and bought a Mamiya ZD DSLR just because i love MF DOF and Viewfinder, not megapixeis.... stop the megapixeis war, por** prices and think about bring new user again to the MF
In my country Portugal, in 2 or 3 years i saw great number of profissional photographers leaving DMF for the D800
Its sad, very sad...
-
I don't think it's wise to use the word p**n in a post that is to be taken seriously. F**k seems more appropriate ;)
Hasselblad hasn't disclosed their pricing yet. It will be a lot cheaper than IQ250, that's for sure. If it will be priced as entry-level or high-end within their own range (like Phase One has chosen) remains to be seen. There's still a chance that Hasselblad will choose the entry level path, which I think makes more sense with this feature set.
Good point though, seems like the entry-level ambition as seen in Mamiya ZD is now gone to some extent. If 44x33 is large enough for you there's Pentax though.
Phase One's entry level today is P40+ (44x33mm Dalsa CCD, crop of P65+). With my local Swedish dealer I get a complete kit including 645DF+ and 80mm lens for $18k + VAT. I could lease it too. That's not too bad if I've been a professional. Then you can use upgrade programs to get into better backs as supported by your professional business. A corresponding Pentax kit is less than half though, and is roughly the same price as a Canon 1D X. It's a bargain.
-
A corresponding Pentax kit is less than half though, and is roughly the same price as a Canon 1D X. It's a bargain.
It's not been much discussed, but the problem with Pentax is the glass. It's nearly all old film era optics.
There is a 90mm lens that is up to date but it costs $4500 which is pretty expensive for a near normal length lens.
If you consider the lack of flexibility, (no use on a tech camera because there is no modular back), poor glass, relatively high cost of any new glass, probable higher depreciation of a camera without a sensor that can be upgraded, then I think the apparent low price of the Pentax is rather illusory.
You could pick up a Contax kit, plus a second hand Aptus 65 or 75 for less money and you'd have fabulous glass and results.
If you stooped to a Mamiya AFD you would be in DSLR price territory. I have one kicking around as a backup body, I think the bodies go for a few hundred on Ebay.
-
Oh, did not know it was that bad on the glass side of it :-\, hope they shape up the system.
-
"poor glass"
not a pentax user but i find that hard to believe, like most systems there's some real gems and some dogs and often age of design isn't always an indicator of quality, that goes for all makes.
-
To me, a more interesting exercise than simply complaining about the price of the IQ250 is to ask the following question: where would the IQ250 have to be priced for YOU to decide to buy it? Or, what would the upgrade price have to be for you to trade in your IQ160, 180, 260 or 280? I think the answers to those questions tell you a lot about the compromised feature set of the IQ250. I think that's the real reason why there is so much vitriol over the price of the IQ250. There just isn't that much about it that's exciting.
I have an IQ180. I wouldn't trade it in for an IQ250 if Phase gave ME $10,000!
What would I pay for one? Not much, because I have a Sony A7R, and that has 36MP, REAL Live View, and fits in the palm of my hand.
-
"poor glass"
not a pentax user but i find that hard to believe, like most systems there's some real gems and some dogs and often age of design isn't always an indicator of quality, that goes for all makes.
+1. I also find that hard to believe. From what I have read Pentax has some excellent legacy FA glass.
-
+1. I also find that hard to believe. From what I have read Pentax has some excellent legacy FA glass.
You might as well want to check Contax 645 and Rollei 6xxx… you'll be surprised more!
-
Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ ??? THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT
The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings. There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.
With each generation of backs the cheapest model (P30+, P40+, IQ140, IQ250) has gone up in price and now it is almost as expensive as the top line.
-
The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings. There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.
With each generation of backs the cheapest model (P30+, P40+, IQ140, IQ250) has gone up in price and now it is almost as expensive as the top line.
Again, this is because they now have Leaf to take care of the Entry level buyer.
I am an "Entry level" MF user. I did not waste time crying about how expensive an IQ 140 is. I got myself a Credo 40 instead. In fact, I much prefer the Credo to an IQ, price notwithstanding.
BTW: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-firstlook.shtml
20K for a P20, 30K for a P25. Adjusted for inflation, how much is that?
If you're looking for the "Value" card, MF is the wrong game to play.
-
You might as well want to check Contax 645 and Rollei 6xxx… you'll be surprised more!
Agreed. I own a Hy6 and 12 lenses, so I am familiar with the Rollei glass. It is excellent.
I used to own a Contax 645 but I sold that when I bought a back for the Hasselblad H system.
In hindsight a very bad decision because they have only gone up in price since then... :)
-
I think the answers to those questions tell you a lot about the compromised feature set of the IQ250. I think that's the real reason why there is so much vitriol over the price of the IQ250. There just isn't that much about it that's exciting.
I think the largest single disappointment is that it's 44x33, an entry-level size, and putting a price on it that's almost the same as full-frame. Those with the money that can afford this type of back are probably already doing full-frame, and if I had full-frame I would find it really really hard to step down to 44x33.
You're practically given the choice between 44x33 CMOS or 54x41 CCD, price is very similar. I know what I would choose. But say you have a IQ140 and have invested in a lens-line that work with that and you're used to the format, perhaps you'd prefer to upgrade within the same format size.
Full-frame CMOS is coming though (as said in the interviews). I'm guessing that there will be parallel CMOS and CCD lines, and IQ250 will be the entry-level CMOS in a line which is substantially more expensive than the CCD line, ie a full-frame CMOS back will cost more than the IQ280 does today.
I think time will show that at base ISO these CMOSes provide as good or even slightly better image quality than the CCDs, and combine that with an excellent live view and a bit better ISO performance and you have an evolutionary feature upgrade that people will like and buy.
-
Concerning the so called inferiority of old film era glass there's quite a lot of personal taste to it.
Some people shoot film, not because of film, but because of the look of this old glass, which often is
softer, which some prefer for portraiture, for example.
-
The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings. There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.
Used / refurbished backs is part of the business model though. All dealers provide options to buy refurbished at a lower price. Then these can be used in upgrade programs later on. If you want in real cheap the private-to-private second hand market is the way to go though.
-
It's not been much discussed, but the problem with Pentax is the glass. It's nearly all old film era optics.
There is a 90mm lens that is up to date but it costs $4500 which is pretty expensive for a near normal length lens.
If you consider the lack of flexibility, (no use on a tech camera because there is no modular back), poor glass, relatively high cost of any new glass,...
There are at least 3 recent Pentax 645D lenses that appear to be pretty much best in class: the 90mm f2.8, the 25mm f4 and the 55mm f2.8.
Besides, some other optics are legendary such as the 120mm macro.
Overall, the 645 lenses line up is widely considered in Japan as the best for landscape work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... ask the following question: where would the IQ250 have to be priced for YOU to decide to buy it? Or, what would the upgrade price have to be for you to trade in your IQ160, 180, 260 or 280? … There just isn't that much about it that's exciting.
Or, what are the real IQ improvements that would make you want to trade-in your IQ2x back ?
CMOS and higher ISO ? I think not.
I have an IQ180. I wouldn't trade it in for an IQ250 if Phase gave ME $10,000!
What would I pay for one? Not much, because I have a Sony A7R, and that has 36MP, REAL Live View, and fits in the palm of my hand.
+1
and it takes a variety of Leica, Contax, Nikon and Canon glass (plus a host of others).
I think the largest single disappointment is that it's 44x33, an entry-level size, and putting a price on it that's almost the same as full-frame… and if I had full-frame I would find it really really hard to step down to 44x33.
And why would you ? other than increased reach due to the crop factor.
Whether or not CMOS eventually proves to be as good or slightly better than CCD at base ISO, one thing is certain - in 12 months time the landscape in MF will be substantially different.
-
ps
@T.Dascalos
You were spot on in your assessment in#45.
-
The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings. There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.
With each generation of backs the cheapest model (P30+, P40+, IQ140, IQ250) has gone up in price and now it is almost as expensive as the top line.
There never has been a cheap entry level policy in MFD. There have been a few releases from various manufacturers over the years that have strayed down below the standard entry level, but these have been the exception, not the rule. The rule has been from Day One in 1991 - $25,000 - $30,000 and up. If anything, today offers options closer to "entry level" pricing than ever before (Leaf Credo 40 @ $15K, Phase One IQ140 @ $20K, Hasselblad H5D-40 @ $18K). Not to mention more refurbished options covering multiple generations. It's just expensive and always has been and probably always will be.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
There never has been a cheap entry level policy in MFD. There have been a few releases from various manufacturers over the years that have strayed down below the standard entry level, but these have been the exception, not the rule. The rule has been from Day One in 1991 - $25,000 - $30,000 and up. If anything, today offers options closer to "entry level" pricing than ever before (Leaf Credo 40 @ $15K, Phase One IQ140 @ $20K, Hasselblad H5D-40 @ $18K). Not to mention more refurbished options covering multiple generations. It's just expensive and always has been and probably always will be.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
+1
The "Entry level" is the $4K used back on Steve's site right now. several years ago, when that back was brand new, there was nothing at that price point to get your foot through the MF door.
The "Entry level" has never been cheaper. Whether one's ego can digest a "Used" sample is another matter altogether.
-
There never has been a cheap entry level policy in MFD. There have been a few releases from various manufacturers over the years that have strayed down below the standard entry level, but these have been the exception, not the rule. The rule has been from Day One in 1991 - $25,000 - $30,000 and up. If anything, today offers options closer to "entry level" pricing than ever before (Leaf Credo 40 @ $15K, Phase One IQ140 @ $20K, Hasselblad H5D-40 @ $18K). Not to mention more refurbished options covering multiple generations. It's just expensive and always has been and probably always will be.
There is a high-end business model for equipment that has combined professional use and v.high end enthusiast use. You can see it in the professional audio market as well (above the Guitar Center level). [The nice thing about pro audio is that you can buy a pair of Schoeps, as good as they get, for $3500 and they will last your lifetime and your children's lifetime, and still sound absolutely amazing.]
People like Phase One, working in conjunction with people like Steve and Doug, have to build their own international sales, service, support organizations, fund their own R&D, develop their own software. They built a market based on the expectations that people like Steve will wake up in the middle of the night to make sure a client has a working unit. The business model in a sense sets its own expectations that, ok, customers will get these things, but they will cost money. This further narrows the customer base to those customers with matching expectations and ability to pay.
But the model could be disrupted. The Japanese could bring back the commodity medium-format camera. Using their existing worldwide sales, service, and support networks, and their existing R&D and IP assets, and the availability of key parts at commodity pricing (e.g., the Sony MF CMOS sensor needing very little support circuitry), they could enter the market at under $10k. Note that while Pentax has an under $10k MFD camera on the market, they have yet to undertake the kind of focused penetration or functional fine-tuning (e.g., seamless tethering) that would take market share away from Scandinavia. I don't think it will put Phase One out of business, but it could give them new challenges.
-
Wow, this is indeed (Forum Members) a really tough crowd.
Here is my take on a lot of the topics that have been mention / discussed.
1- The IQ250 is the first digital back that can be used at any iso with full resolution and very little image quality compromises.
2- It should be a great back for available light work and it allows the use of medium format cameras and lenses in a lot of situations where previously one would go for a 35mm DSLR
3- The IQ250 gives you state if the art sensor performance in a lot of different camera platforms. That is cool.
4- Could it be cheaper, of course, ideally the IQ250 would be priced at $10,000, that would increase the customer base immensely and most likely help in medium format camera and lens sales. Of course if that happens the service and sales infrastructure would have to change. I guess phaseOne priced it so that it remained the same with a similar sales volume as other new products they have introduced in the past and hence the service won't be affected. Sell much more with less profit margin or sell much less with much more profit margin, that is the question.
5- Is the IQ250 a good value, No, get over it and get a D800E and or an A7R if you want the best image quality for your dollar.
6- Is the IQ250 unique? Yes it is. Its the only CMOS digital back so far and it can be used in many camera platforms.
7- Could the sensor be bigger, yes, of course, but the 44x33mm size is great for portraiture and for working with normal to tele lenses. Its not great for wide angle landscapes. (for that get a IQ160 or P65+, awesome sensor and a good value)
8- But what about the 645D? It is a really good camera. I had it for a few weeks. As a design and product it is very very good but the service is suspect since the company sells a very wide range of products and it is not really set up to service high end medium format digital gear. The lens range (new) is limited and they are expensive although old lenses can be had for cheap but the quality varies quite a bit.
9- What about the DF+? Well, it is obvious PhaseOne is working on a replacement and the IQ backs do seem ready for a much better camera body. They certainly look and feel much more advanced than the DF+.
10- What about Tech Cameras? It is obvious the IQ250 is not made to be used on tech cameras (from the info provided so far) but PhaseOne still makes the IQ160/180/260/280 and P40/65+ that work great with tech cameras.
So the IQ250 seems like a great addition to the PhaseOne product line. It is obviously not meant to replace all of the other backs in their line.
-
There is a high-end business model for equipment that has combined professional use and v.high end enthusiast use. You can see it in the professional audio market as well (above the Guitar Center level). [The nice thing about pro audio is that you can buy a pair of Schoeps, as good as they get, for $3500 and they will last your lifetime and your children's lifetime, and still sound absolutely amazing.]
People like Phase One, working in conjunction with people like Steve and Doug, have to build their own international sales, service, support organizations, fund their own R&D, develop their own software. They built a market based on the expectations that people like Steve will wake up in the middle of the night to make sure a client has a working unit. The business model in a sense sets its own expectations that, ok, customers will get these things, but they will cost money. This further narrows the customer base to those customers with matching expectations and ability to pay.
But the model could be disrupted. The Japanese could bring back the commodity medium-format camera. Using their existing worldwide sales, service, and support networks, and their existing R&D and IP assets, and the availability of key parts at commodity pricing (e.g., the Sony MF CMOS sensor needing very little support circuitry), they could enter the market at under $10k. Note that while Pentax has an under $10k MFD camera on the market, they have yet to undertake the kind of focused penetration or functional fine-tuning (e.g., seamless tethering) that would take market share away from Scandinavia. I don't think it will put Phase One out of business, but it could give them new challenges.
I agree.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It's not been much discussed, but the problem with Pentax is the glass. It's nearly all old film era optics.
.........poor glass,
??? Which lenses are you referring to? I use many "old" Pentax lenses on the 645D; their performance ranges from very good to outstanding. Here's an old lens test you might find interesting:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html
-
??? Which lenses are you referring to? I use many "old" Pentax lenses on the 645D; their performance ranges from very good to outstanding. Here's an old lens test you might find interesting:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html
Nice test but I had a Pentax 35mm FA and it was not that good when used at or near infinity as one normally would in most landscape situations. (which is why I got the lens for, for my 645D). Focused closer at 10-15 feet it was excellent. I got the 35mm A (manual) lens and it worked really nice for landscapes at infinity and is much smaller and lighter to boot. So there are alternatives. Generally speaking none of the Pentax FA or A lenses I tried were very good wide open. At f11 they were mostly very good.
Most people forget when doing lens tests or looking at lens tests that most lenses do not perform the same at all focus distances. The best do perform great regardless but a whole lot do not.
-
Hi,
My take on the IQ 250, after a few days:
- A most welcome addition to the Phase One program for anyone looking for a modern CMOS sensor
- Live view is important for some users
- High ISO capability a boon for many
- If no compromise in CGA-design for high ISO, good news for anyone
- An extra stop or two in DR doesn't hurt anyone
A couple of things I don't like:
- Crop factor is not a good fit for large systems built around large sensors. Better for Leica and Pentax who build their systems around smaller sensors.
- I feel higher resolution would make a lot of sense, but it is an opinion not shared by many
Regarding the price, it is very high. Phase obviously feels it is a good price point for the feature/performance mix. It is their decision. Anyone can build and sell a back at a lower price. Let's see if someone is going to do that.
Best regards
Erik
It was a long wait for CMOS to come to MF and then this disappointing IQ250 arrives.
A step back into large crop factors
Just 50mp
No EVF output
Same back form and features (or lack thereof)
Same crazy price at $35,000
Yes an improvement in ISO, a better live view, and.... err.... that's it?? We waited years for this?
It can't even do 2fps? It has no line out for an external monitor/EVF? It can't shoot a 4k video let alone the 8k it potentially has, no matter how short the duration?
Very sad about this. I was ready to buy another back to complement my low ISO IQseries CCD one, and get the best of both worlds, but this is not worth it. It's very much Gen 1, rushed to market once Sony released the chip.
Maybe some company like RED will unlock the chips latent potential. Maybe a larger full frame chip will follow. Maybe the Live View/EVF out will come with IQ3 series, but this... gives me none of those.
I'll pass.
-
It shall be interesting to see the response when a full-frame version arrives (no idea when that will be). I think it will be a lot more positive. By that time users have been convinced that CMOS colors can be as good as CCD (hopefully), and then a full-frame version will only provide advantages compared to the full-frame CCD. Except possibly price ;)
(...and wide angular response that I always complain about, but we haven't seen test results of the IQ250 yet, maybe it's not as bad as I think... that would be a nice surprise)
-
+1
The "Entry level" is the $4K used back on Steve's site right now. several years ago, when that back was brand new, there was nothing at that price point to get your foot through the MF door.
The "Entry level" has never been cheaper. Whether one's ego can digest a "Used" sample is another matter altogether.
Yet, you speak on S/H after the (whatever - it should be much larger) "base" that has been created... Clearly, if makers didn't charge a premium for "part exchange" in all new backs and if the S/H backs they take as part exchange would return to the market, both the base would have been wider and the "part exchange" premium wouldn't exist and the prices would be cheaper and the sales would be higher… My guess is that they don't care about their impact to photography… "I don't give a dime" as Butler said to Scarlet...
-
It shall be interesting to see the response when a full-frame version arrives (no idea when that will be). I think it will be a lot more positive. By that time users have been convinced that CMOS colors can be as good as CCD (hopefully), and then a full-frame version will only provide advantages compared to the full-frame CCD. Except possibly price ;)
(...and wide angular response that I always complain about, but we haven't seen test results of the IQ250 yet, maybe it's not as bad as I think... that would be a nice surprise)
I wouldn't… whatever impact Cmos will make, it will make it now! …with the "entry" of it. Larger sensor won't affect the perception or rejection of the IQ from the MF users...
-
we all (maybe not all) remember the $3,000 tandy computer with 8mb of hard-drive capacity. today's computers for the same price will perform what, 500x better if not more. with all technology through the years, as it improved, the prices have gone down so that more people could own them. the p25 was what $25,000 at introduction. we have seen considerable improvement in the technology of this and other mfdb's as the years have passed, but we have not seen the same drop in price as with other technologies. now don't say well we really have a price drop for mfdb's because for the same price of a p25 you are now getting better technology. yes we are but at the same price. in other technologies we get a better product at a lower price. would hasselblad, and phase one sell more mfdb's at a lower price by bringing in more photographers into the mf arena? yes, would they be profitable at lower prices and larger volume? i believe yes. do they want to increase the market for mfd equipment? i think not. phase one has done a very good job of being profitable, by mf photographers consider p1 the rr of db's. hasselblad has made mistakes but i think that with the new ceo they can turn it around and become real competition to p1. someone earlier said that keeping the price high sets a bling standard. i think in some ways that plays into the equation. i think though that a company such as sony who is manufacturing the sensors could decide that there is a cry for many photographers who would like to shoot mf but at these prices are not able to. there is a need for an entry level mfdb. to say, well if you can't afford a new one there is always the used market is insulting. many people like the idea of owning brand new. i don't mind buying used from reputable dealers such as doug and steve because i know they will stand behind the product. canon and nikon and sony all have entry level cameras to make these customers theirs for future sales of better cameras and lenses. i think a bare bones mfdb such as the hasselblad cfv-50 which sells for $17,000 would bring in many new photographers to the mf family.
-
This is probably the widest read MF forum, and I think people generally feel unhappy with the absence of a value proposition in this market.
If Doug and Steve tell us they have no problems selling Ferraris, I say "Good luck, couldn't happen to nicer guys, enjoy the results of your work, live well, invite me to your parties!"
If Phase tells me there can be no alternative to Ferrari pricing because this product is so difficult to make and needs such expensive components, well forgive me, as an electronic engineer I ROTFLMAO*.
I will paraphrase a verse of Herbert, and dedicate it Phase One:
Here lies a fallen God,
His fall was not a small one
His people built him a pedestal
A narrow and a tall one.
Edmund
* Roll on the floor laughing my ass off.
-
This is probably the widest read MF forum, and I think people generally feel unhappy with the absence of a value proposition in this market.
If Doug and Steve tell us they have no problems selling Ferraris, I say "Good luck, couldn't happen to nicer guys, enjoy the results of your work, live well, invite me to your parties!"
If Phase tells me there can be no alternative to Ferrari pricing because this product is so difficult to make and needs such expensive components, well forgive me, as an electronic engineer I ROTFLMAO*.
I will paraphrase a verse of Herbert, and dedicate it Phase One:
Here lies a fallen God,
His fall was not a small one
His people built him a pedestal
A narrow and a tall one.
Edmund
* Roll on the floor laughing my ass off.
Well said… I remember during the 80s when I bought my first MF system (Bronica ETRS)… There were 'blads and Rolleis around and there were Bronicas and Mamyias… Would a car market survive with Ferraris and Porsches only?
-
Steve Hendrix / Doug Peterson
Marginally off-topic but nevertheless quite relevant to the ongoing discussion:
Is the PhaseOne guarantee on new backs now 'world-wide' or is it still region-specific ?
-
I'd love to see someone (Fuji?) do a "Texas Leica" with this sensor... If the sensor is similar in cost to the 645D sensor (I agree with the folks who say that has to be ~$1000 in quantity, or Pentax couldn't sell the camera at $9000), that opens up an option for an overgrown X-Pro1 at $8000. Still expensive? Yes, it is, but it is a 50 MP large-sensor camera that is SMALLER and LIGHTER than most pro DSLRs. If Fuji really wants to go crazy, they could include an electronic mechanism that tilts the sensor in response to a control - since there's no mirror, it's relatively easy. Suddenly, you have back tilt (and swing?). Toss the screen from a top-end smartphone on it (the best phone screens can't cost more than $100 at most), and you have the 21st century take on a Linhof Technica at the same time as the old Fuji rangefinders? It's perfectly handholdable with the eye-level finder (probably a good EVF), and, when tossed on a tripod (and it doesn't even need an especially heavy one), it's an electronic view camera. Shift would be trickier than tilt, because you'd need a lot of room inside to shift the big sensor, and the lenses would need a ton of coverage.
-Dan
-
I'd love to see someone (Fuji?) do a "Texas Leica" with this sensor... If the sensor is similar in cost to the 645D sensor (I agree with the folks who say that has to be ~$1000 in quantity, or Pentax couldn't sell the camera at $9000), that opens up an option for an overgrown X-Pro1 at $8000. Still expensive? Yes, it is, but it is a 50 MP large-sensor camera that is SMALLER and LIGHTER than most pro DSLRs. If Fuji really wants to go crazy, they could include an electronic mechanism that tilts the sensor in response to a control - since there's no mirror, it's relatively easy. Suddenly, you have back tilt (and swing?). Toss the screen from a top-end smartphone on it (the best phone screens can't cost more than $100 at most), and you have the 21st century take on a Linhof Technica at the same time as the old Fuji rangefinders? It's perfectly handholdable with the eye-level finder (probably a good EVF), and, when tossed on a tripod (and it doesn't even need an especially heavy one), it's an electronic view camera. Shift would be trickier than tilt, because you'd need a lot of room inside to shift the big sensor, and the lenses would need a ton of coverage.
-Dan
Even the most expensive MF sensor is well under 1000 Dan… Even the most expensive 24x36mm sensor is no more than 100 nowadays…
-
we all (maybe not all) remember the $3,000 tandy computer with 8mb of hard-drive capacity. today's computers for the same price will perform what, 500x better if not more. with all technology through the years, as it improved, the prices have gone down so that more people could own them. the p25 was what $25,000 at introduction. we have seen considerable improvement in the technology of this and other mfdb's as the years have passed, but we have not seen the same drop in price as with other technologies. now don't say well we really have a price drop for mfdb's because for the same price of a p25 you are now getting better technology. yes we are but at the same price. in other technologies we get a better product at a lower price. would hasselblad, and phase one sell more mfdb's at a lower price by bringing in more photographers into the mf arena? yes, would they be profitable at lower prices and larger volume? i believe yes. do they want to increase the market for mfd equipment? i think not. phase one has done a very good job of being profitable, by mf photographers consider p1 the rr of db's. hasselblad has made mistakes but i think that with the new ceo they can turn it around and become real competition to p1. someone earlier said that keeping the price high sets a bling standard. i think in some ways that plays into the equation. i think though that a company such as sony who is manufacturing the sensors could decide that there is a cry for many photographers who would like to shoot mf but at these prices are not able to. there is a need for an entry level mfdb. to say, well if you can't afford a new one there is always the used market is insulting. many people like the idea of owning brand new. i don't mind buying used from reputable dealers such as doug and steve because i know they will stand behind the product. canon and nikon and sony all have entry level cameras to make these customers theirs for future sales of better cameras and lenses. i think a bare bones mfdb such as the hasselblad cfv-50 which sells for $17,000 would bring in many new photographers to the mf family.
For as long as I can remember (and I had my first home computer in the early-80's), a decent performing PC has cost around $1500, and an exceptional one, $5-10k.
It's ludicrous to compare their relative price/performance ratio over time, and totally irrelevant to compare them with pretty much any other consumer product, because Moore's law simply doesn't apply.
-
As regards to your comment about well heeled amateurs being more concerned with "bling", than with readily identifiable technological improvements … perhaps you should be throwing out that insult somewhere else.
Gerald/
You're back! Just for the record,
I was referring specifically to the IQ250 and the title of this thread. T.Dascalos got it right in #45 as did the OP in #64. As for my 'bling' post being 'insulting' - It did not impugn Steve Hendrix's integrity in any way but was a comment on PhaseOne's ethos.
Many have expressed disquiet in the past. 'It's about the principle'. Remember ? In essence it's probably not so different this time round ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80363.msg655085#msg655085
-
Gerald/
You're back! Just for the record,
I was referring specifically to the IQ250 and the title of this thread. T.Dascalos got it right in #45 as did the OP in #64. As for my 'bling' post being 'insulting' - It did not impugn Steve Hendrix's integrity in any way but was a comment on PhaseOne's ethos.
Many have expressed disquiet in the past. 'It's about the principle'. Remember ? In essence it's probably not so different this time round ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80363.msg655085#msg655085
I've never been away.
You are invoking the mother of all non-sequiturs there.
The specific instance of Phase One placing a different trade-in value on an IQ180 (to the tune of $7K) depending on whether a customer is looking to move to an IQ260 or IQ280 has, to be perfectly blunt, bugger all relevance to this discussion.
-
For as long as I can remember (and I had my first home computer in the early-80's), a decent performing PC has cost around $1500, and an exceptional one, $5-10k.
It's ludicrous to compare their relative price/performance ratio over time, and totally irrelevant to compare them with pretty much any other consumer product, because Moore's law simply doesn't apply.
why because you say so. why is it irrelevant. it is nothing but technology. as all technology has improved prices have come down. why is this product different from other consumer products. and don't say because mf is a small market. it is a small market because of the artificially high prices. mf and large format were a much bigger market when film was used and mf could be just as large with realistic prices for the product. explain to everyone that a product, mfdb, that has a sensor that runs about $1000 should sell for 30k.
-
that a product, mfdb, that has a sensor that runs about $1000 should sell for 30k.
Well, digital came and MF shrunk. MF digital was extremely small to start with when technology was new, very small volume products, thus very high prices. The quality of the smaller formats increased, today to a point that prints made from a high resolution DSLR is close to 4x5" large format film in resolution. In the film days larger format meant more resolving power, but when you get almost 4x5" quality out of a DSLR today, who needs more? Not many.
MF became a niche market, and you get to pay development costs for backs that sell a few hundreds or thousands. And the business model works, very well for Phase One it seems. So why change?
Well, I too hope for a change, I often talk about amateur landscape photography as market waiting for affordable backs, but it's not likely to happen, not with the current list of players at least.
-
so. why is it irrelevant. it is nothing but technology. as all technology has improved prices have come down. why is this product different from other consumer products. and don't say because mf is a small market. it is a small market because of the artificially high prices. mf and large format were a much bigger market when film was used and mf could be just as large with realistic prices for the product. explain to everyone that a product, mfdb, that has a sensor that runs about $1000 should sell for 30k.
The lack of other brands pushing down the prices. competition...competion
-
I'm curious, do people go to the Porsche forums when a new model is announced to complain about the pricing? Perhaps they do.
Bottom line for a pro is that the price is irrelevant if you can get a return on investment. I can still remember the stunned look on my bank manager's face when I asked him for $30K for a 6 megapixel back some 13 years ago.
That pack paid for itself in about 14 months.
From a business perspective if a new system can generate more/better work that will make you more money then go for it.
If you cannot see the return on investment then don't invest, put the money into your portfolio instead, but I can't see why complaining on the forums helps your business...
Nick-T
-
Even the most expensive MF sensor is well under 1000 Dan… Even the most expensive 24x36mm sensor is no more than 100 nowadays…
I don't think these are accurate at all. You say this with some assurance. Do you have a source?
-
I'm curious, do people go to the Porsche forums when a new model is announced to complain about the pricing? Perhaps they do.
Nick-T
AFAIK quite a few people are MF users. They want to complain? It's on topic, and they have a perfect right to make their opinions politely known.
And btw, a Porsche Boxster or Macan is roughly in the same price range as a Phase back these days.
Edmund
-
I'm curious, do people go to the Porsche forums when a new model is announced to complain about the pricing? Perhaps they do.
Nick-T
I am afraid that there is more tecnology in a new 20.000$ toyota car, that in a new DMF system, and they dont sell new porsches with the same chassis of a 10 years old model.
If you saw a new car model lauch with all exact the same specs year after year with just more more speed you dont see complains in the forums?
-
Its a shame the prices of DMF with no huge leaps in technology. In the last 8 years we just saw small upgrades in technology and re-branding, re-brandig
P1
2008: P45+
2011: IQ180
2014: IQ250
Canon
2008: 5DII
2012: 5DIII
2014: Still 5DIII
Nikon
2008: D3X
2012: D800
2014: Still D800
I'm not saying Canon and Nikon haven't made improvements - they have. I'm just saying that "no huge leaps in technology" doesn't seem to apply to the P+ --> IQ1 --> IQ2 leap that Phase One has made in that time, either in absolution or relative to the same period in Canon/Nikon.
Of course you're entitled to your view, and clearly if you're frustrated then the improvements have not effectively targeted the areas you find important. But I can tell you when I put a P, P+, IQ1, and IQ2 back on the table it sure feels like a lot of progress to me.
-
Doug, lay that Phamiya on the table next to a Canon 1Dx and smile :)
My impression is that as a body the Canon is slightly better.
I've never heard anyone complain about the *recent* top pro Nikon and Canon bodies. The files are what they are, but the bodies are something else.
The Phase backs are expensive, but everyone agrees they are impeccable.
Now when it comes to the Phamiya, I am not the only one who considers it a mediocre object, compared to dSLRS and even comparedd to the Leica or the Rollei (and Hassy) who show what can be done for camera and lens even with European MF R&D investment resources.
If you disagree, please tell me one thing the Phamiya does better than any of the above, apart from the fact that it takes a Phase back.
Edmund
P1
2008: P45+
2011: IQ180
2014: IQ250
Canon
2008: 5DII
2012: 5DIII
2014: Still 5DIII
Nikon
2008: D3X
2012: D800
2014: Still D800
I'm not saying Canon and Nikon haven't made improvements - they have. I'm just saying that "no huge leaps in technology" doesn't seem to apply to the P+ --> IQ1 --> IQ2 leap that Phase One has made in that time, either in absolution or relative to the same period in Canon/Nikon.
Of course you're entitled to your view, and clearly if you're frustrated then the improvements have not effectively targeted the areas you find important. But I can tell you when I put a P, P+, IQ1, and IQ2 back on the table it sure feels like a lot of progress to me.
-
If you disagree, please tell me one thing the Phamiya does as well, apart from the fact that it takes a Phase back.
I honestly find the DF+ to be a perfectly capable body. It lacks some sex appeal, and I'm looking forward to something new-from-ground-up as much as anyone else, but to me the DF+ represents exactly what it is: the best possible refinement of the original Mamiya 645. It's not revolutionary, and it doesn't feel as ahead of the competition as the IQ or IQ2 backs (funny, Phase is already on the IQ2, but I still think the IQ would be the leading back by a wide margin if it weren't for the IQ2) but it's perfectly capable.
Some great aspects of the DF+:
- Flash Sync Speed up to 1/1600th
- Takes wonderful Schneider LS lenses
- Has built in FP shutter so takes a huge list of legacy glass including very inexpensive Mamiya non D glass which is an excellent value for someone starting an entry level kit
- Take a vertical grip which has built in wireless flash sync
Will the P1 system benefit when the body is on the same ahead-of-the-curve level as the backs and lenses? Sure.
I'd also agree the Canon bodies have improved markedly in many areas, but they are also, IMO ripe for a complete ground-up rethink. A 5D III has several major improvements over a 5D but it is still basically an improved 5D.
-
I honestly find the DF+ to be a perfectly capable body. It lacks some sex appeal, and I'm looking forward to something new-from-ground-up as much as anyone else, but to me the DF+ represents exactly what it is: the best possible refinement of the original Mamiya 645. It's not revolutionary, and it doesn't feel as ahead of the competition as the IQ or IQ2 backs (funny, Phase is already on the IQ2, but I still think the IQ would be the leading back by a wide margin if it weren't for the IQ2) but it's perfectly capable.
Some great aspects of the DF+:
- Flash Sync Speed up to 1/1600th
- Takes wonderful Schneider LS lenses
- Has built in FP shutter so takes a huge list of legacy glass including very inexpensive Mamiya non D glass which is an excellent value for someone starting an entry level kit
- Take a vertical grip which has built in wireless flash sync
Now tell me something it does better than the competition.
Frankly, I'm happy to be out of MF for the moment, because that means I don't have to carry that thing and get angry at it. It's like doing creative writing on a computer when you hate the keyboard and screen -
When I was a journalist, all my colleagues, and I hated the PCs. People kept explaining to us that they were "as good", but we still all bought Macs for our own use, and intrigued to manage to get them in the office. And it is true that the PCs are as good as the Macs, but for some reason the Macs are more fun.
Edmund
-
why because you say so. why is it irrelevant. it is nothing but technology. as all technology has improved prices have come down. why is this product different from other consumer products. and don't say because mf is a small market. it is a small market because of the artificially high prices. mf and large format were a much bigger market when film was used and mf could be just as large with realistic prices for the product. explain to everyone that a product, mfdb, that has a sensor that runs about $1000 should sell for 30k.
Because it's a fatuous straw man.
Moore's law is what fundamentally drives computer performance. It is only applicable to transistors on an integrated circuit.
-
Doug Peterson, please there no new change in the DMF for the last years like the 5D mark II and the D800
The 5D mark II bring the live view and change the movie industry with the HD video....forever....
The D800 bring the best sensor technology in digital sensors...you saw several professionals photographer change DMF to 35mm because o this model.
The mamiya 645AF was a leap, the hasselbald 500 series was a leap,the mamiya ZD dslr but that was long long time ago.
I love DMF Doug, but its sad for me to just see the news of another sensor, another lcd...etc
Its time for a " Black Magic" or a " RED " cameras...in the DMF industries...a game changer
Just a emotional statement i know that Phase One its a great brand, and they keep pushing ther systems, but please give me a "black magic" DMF with a 10.000$
Lets Keep Calm, and make pictures.
Best Regards Doug, you are one of the best supports in this area.
Pedro
-
If you saw a new car model lauch with all exact the same specs year after year with just more more speed you dont see complains in the forums?
I'm sorry, I'm not a car expert. But aren't most car releases nearly identical compared to the previous year, but with a few minor feature changes/improvements and a few fixes/improvements to whatever issues were getting the most warranty repairs the previous year?
The IQ250 is a very different back than the IQ140 (I'm taking that as closest in the "last year's model" way). It can shoot three stops higher at full resolution, is 50mp rather than 40mp (minor, but welcome), includes 24fps live view, long exposures, wireless review/control. For those who wanted mid-to-high ISO it is FIVE times higher resolution (50mp vs. sensor+ mode on an IQ140).
Anyway, it's revolutionary for what I shoot, when I shoot (wedding photography (http://doug-peterson.com/)). And it's revolutionary for the people who have been calling in to get in line for a demo.
-
Doug you have a point there, yes sometimes a small improvement its a great leap for a workflow to someone.
I never discus this passion topics because i am a low profile person, but yes its frustration to me never see the DMF in the last years push the biggest advantage points. Camera feel, viewfinder, and DOF.
Its sad but its true, 20 years ago anyone in photography, amateur or profissional or just a police...could identify that a hassy 500cm or a mamiya 645 was in fact a photo camera.
Today the DMF its a niche so small that in the field working with a H3D sometimes photographers ask me what its that????? this say very very much about the industry.
And its sad for me, because i dont really understand why he have to buy a used DMF camera for 5000$ to have a entry in this beautiful photgraphic medium.
my best regards Doug
Pedro
-
Now tell me something it does better than the competition.
I am curious to see some of the exceptional work you have produced with the much superior competition after ditching the primitive Phamiya.
After all, it was the DF that was holding you back from creating a masterpiece, right? At least that's what I gather from the above posts...
-
I'm sorry, I'm not a car expert. But aren't most car releases nearly identical compared to the previous year, but with a few minor feature changes/improvements and a few fixes/improvements to whatever issues were getting the most warranty repairs the previous year?
The IQ250 is a very different back than the IQ140 (I'm taking that as closest in the "last year's model" way). It can shoot three stops higher at full resolution, is 50mp rather than 40mp (minor, but welcome), includes 24fps live view, long exposures, wireless review/control. For those who wanted mid-to-high ISO it is FIVE times higher resolution (50mp vs. sensor+ mode on an IQ140).
Anyway, it's revolutionary for what I shoot, when I shoot (wedding photography (http://doug-peterson.com/)). And it's revolutionary for the people who have been calling in to get in line for a demo.
So… it's for wedding photography after all… Heck, I think I'll stick to D4 for that, open the aperture 2 stops wider to get the same Dof and lower ISO down a couple of stops too for the same exposure… I guess the IQ 250 will beat that…. Well, those who wouldn't bet on that, could save the change. Maybe could even spend the "change" to some XQD cards and shoot some extra frames, could even bring along a D800E (as a spare) if had any "change" left...
-
I am curious to see some of the exceptional work you have produced with the much superior competition after ditching the primitive Phamiya.
After all, it was the DF that was holding you back from creating a masterpiece, right? At least that's what I gather from the above posts...
Actually, the 35mm cameras get me my everyday clean-in focus realistic ISO family and travel imagery when I want it. Obviously my images are not of interest to a great photographer such as you, but I can invite you if I do a show again. I guess taking my own pix of my kid is still cheaper than hiring you to do it :)
One really interesting thing about the P45+ was that I had a couple of samples, and then at one point I was lent a P45 while the back was being recalibrated. And the P45 was incredibly sharp and had incredibly good color, compared to my own back and the other P45+ I had used. I mean the P45+ had good resolution and good color, but it was never over-sharp. The P45 was simply in another league. I always wondered if some optical component eg. IR filter had changed between the two models.
Edmund
-
I love DMF Doug, but its sad for me to just see the news of another sensor, another lcd...etc
Its time for a " Black Magic" or a " RED " cameras...in the DMF industries...a game changer
Just a emotional statement i know that Phase One its a great brand, and they keep pushing ther systems, but please give me a "black magic" DMF with a 10.000$
Lets Keep Calm, and make pictures.
Best Regards Doug, you are one of the best supports in this area.
Pedro
lets see if not sony is on the way to make some changes in the game. they started with APS and the nex , they gave nikon a one year exclusivity with their ( really advanced ) 36mp ff sensor, after this year they brought out their own camera with the same resolution but still more advanced sensor. their new optics made by zeis are nothing less than spectaculous. and this is where the music plays : in the optics !
it seems like there are some people really thinking how to make cameras and searching new ways,- and it doesnt look at all as if this are doing the big old camera players as leica, canon, nikon and so on. not to speak about the mf manufactors. i cant see any ideas which go really forward here, small increases ok,- and even this sometimes i doubted. ... i think its more that tehy are trying not to fall too much behind making a living at first from rich amateurs which believe in the "you get what you pay for it" rule.
lets see how long sony will give phase one some exclusivity, i could imagine that they would not developed a mf sensor without using them as well, seeing the energy which they put in the camera business in the last few years.
-
Actually, the 35mm cameras get me my everyday family and travel imagery when I want it. Obviously my images are not of interest to a great photographer such as you, but I can invite you if I do a show again.
I am but a mere grain of sand on this vast beach, but images are the ONLY thing of interest to me. As they say, the bullshit stops when the JPEG drops.
An invitation to your prestigious event might be too much to ask for; what with all the blue chippers hanging around and all that. But surely, a web gallery is not impossible in the year 2014 AD?
-
One time i have a problem with a H3D Li-On charger battery, i was in a hurry to have fix done that i drive to electronic warehouse components near my house and asked to the electronic engineer that repairs mostly LCDs and high end Hi-FI that if it can help me to fix my hasselblad charger, he said will try. After 2 days it give a call and said was a small fix and was 20$
But he was in totally shock after i said her that charger was 200$ and the battery was 250$, he drop the mouth and run to the internet to confirm...he could believe after opened the charger saw the components and told " men that its just a simple li on charger and a li-on battery i really really don´t understand why that price tag...but if i know i could charge for the fix...60$ not 20$....heheheh said he laughing
This mad prices for simple tech and a Hassy logo hurts... more hurts with the Lunar rebranding madness...was like a bell for me to wake up.
-
I am but a mere grain of sand on this vast beach, but images are the ONLY thing of interest to me. As they say, the bullshit stops when the JPEG drops.
An invitation to your prestigious event might be too much to ask for; what with all the blue chippers hanging around and all that. But surely, a web gallery is not impossible in the year 2014 AD?
The crybaby is all you get :)
Everything else is prints.
Edmund
PS. when your favorite model comes to Paris tell her to visit me and I'll take a picture of her :)
-
The crybaby is all you get :)
Everything else is prints.
Edmund
Something other than a graph.
We're making progress here!
PS. when your favorite model comes to Paris tell her to visit me and I'll take a picture of her :)
When my favorite model travels to Paris, she does so to be photographed by someone who's actually known for this stuff.
-
Something other than a graph.
We're making progress here!
Absolutely. Here is more 35mm Jpeg quality.
I like the dSLRs; they give clean, focused results. It's never "perfect" but almost always "really good".
Edmund
-
Absolutely. Here is more 35mm Jpeg quality.
I like the dSLRs; they give clean, focused results. It's never "perfect" but almost always "really good".
Edmund
A fashion show is perfect hunting grounds for 35mm DSLRs.
-
A fashion show is perfect hunting grounds for 35mm DSLRs.
Sports, wildlife, street and weddings too…
-
A fashion show is perfect hunting grounds for 35mm DSLRs.
Actually I think the Hassy and the Leica would do well there too. The new Phase back seems made for that environment but the camera itself may have issues and I would avoid being put in that position. Maybe you can try when Steve loans you one? :)
Edmund
-
Actually I think the Hassy and the Leica would do well there too. The new Phase back seems made for that environment but the camera itself may have issues and I would avoid being put in that position. Maybe you can try when Steve loans you one? :)
Edmund
I have no interest in a Hassy or a Leica, but here's something I shot while the model was jumping around. No 758 point AF system. Just one point that works well for those who know how to use it properly.
Also, the chances of Steve loaning me anything is far less likely than the world getting to see an online portfolio from you. ;)
-
Hi,
The A7/A7r and what may be coming after it may be interesting. I am no buyer, right now. Next year, we will see.
Best regards
Erik
lets see if not sony is on the way to make some changes in the game. they started with APS and the nex , they gave nikon a one year exclusivity with their ( really advanced ) 36mp ff sensor, after this year they brought out their own camera with the same resolution but still more advanced sensor. their new optics made by zeis are nothing less than spectaculous. and this is where the music plays : in the optics !
it seems like there are some people really thinking how to make cameras and searching new ways,- and it doesnt look at all as if this are doing the big old camera players as leica, canon, nikon and so on. not to speak about the mf manufactors. i cant see any ideas which go really forward here, small increases ok,- and even this sometimes i doubted. ... i think its more that tehy are trying not to fall too much behind making a living at first from rich amateurs which believe in the "you get what you pay for it" rule.
lets see how long sony will give phase one some exclusivity, i could imagine that they would not developed a mf sensor without using them as well, seeing the energy which they put in the camera business in the last few years.
-
I have no interest in a Hassy or a Leica, but here's something I shot while the model was jumping around. No 758 point AF system. Just one point that works well for those who know how to use it properly.
Also, the chances of Steve loaning me anything is far less likely than the world getting to see an online portfolio from you. ;)
You know, I think online portofolios are an excellent way to get jobs, but otherwise there are so many pictures online that it is really hard to stand out. Prints are in a way less generic.
Edmund
-
You know, I think online portofolios are an excellent way to get jobs, but otherwise there are so many pictures online that it is really hard to stand out. Prints are in a way less generic.
Edmund
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
-
1991 - $1,900
http://www.apple-history.com/classic_ii
2011 - $1,999
http://www.apple-history.com/imac_mid_11
Not exactly apples to apples (sorry.....) ::) But technology doesn't always get better and cheaper. There's plenty of examples of that. It does usually get better, and sometimes cheaper. But if you want an all in one Mac, maybe not cheaper.
Personally, I'd like to see more MFD prices in the reach of (at least some) more photographers. I only engage in the discussion because regardless of my or anyone else's opinion, Phase One (Hasselblad, Leica, Leaf, whoever) has the right to target any part of the photographic market they wish. To be able to produce - quite good! - products for a segment that doesn't really have many other choices that offer (at least some) of the features and occupy that price range is, from a business standpoint, a very nice space to play in. As long as your products continue to sell in sufficient numbers, which they have. I do believe Phase One does strongly like making products for the photographic industry. I don't have the sense that some of those talented individuals would necessarily enjoy toiling at some other pursuit with the same gusto. Just my sense.
However, that is different from some sort of ethical obligation to provide photographic products for a certain segment of photographers (working photographers who might be able to afford just a little more than a Canon/Nikon). Phase One's primary early market segment really was working pros who could afford their products. And they still target that segment today. The difference is that in the early days, they really only competed against film, and the cost justification for a working pro was not so difficult. Today, the cost justification is much tougher, because a working pro can get a lot done with so many cameras costing 10% or less what MFD costs. So - the competitive landscape for digital capture products changed the equation for the working pro from a cost justification standpoint. When products are being produced that cost 90% less than your technology and fulfill the requirements of most of your client base, then you have some choices to make. You can try and compete on price and operate in that lower cost space where most working pros went to. But from a competitive standpoint, what a mess. So many more competitors, and the price pressure to create a winning competitive product, but with a restricted production budget. Why would they want to? It doesn't sound like much fun to me. Another option is to create the best and most unique product they can at whatever price the market can bear (within some amount of parameter that will profitably enable enough users to purchase). That sounds like a nice gig. It sounds like a business plan that might be a good model for some (but not too many) photographers to adopt.
Apple has also been linked to particular user markets. Similarly, a big part of Apple's success drew from imaging professionals (and still does). But there has been a strong sense in recent years that Apple has "abandoned" the professional market, meaning graphics professionals. What Apple has really done instead, is to continue to leverage their innate technology to create products that convey what they are all about as a company. The market for their products is more fluid than the technology itself. And I feel Phase One operates in a similar vein.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
Hi,
1991$ is not the same 2011$.
I essentially agree what you say on Phase One pricing. I wouldn't be surprised if Hasselblad comes out with an alternative at lower price.
But, it seems that Hasselblad doesn't get their act together on live view, which happens to be important to me. Some others need sync with electronic flash in full daylight. If a camera has a feature set you need and no competition than it is just a buy or don't buy decision.
I am not into buying a new MFDB anyway, cannot afford it. I am shooting a P45+ and try to find out how I feel about it.
Best regards
Erik
1991 - $1,900
http://www.apple-history.com/classic_ii
2011 - $1,999
http://www.apple-history.com/imac_mid_11
-
I am not into buying a new MFDB anyway, cannot afford it. I am shooting a P45+ and try to find out how I feel about it.
...but the sooner great technology arrives to MFDB the better. Deprecation rate is real quick if you think in five year periods, just wait a few years and you may be able to get one. That's how I'm thinking at least. New MFDB products also push down prices on second hand market, so the better products and the lower the prices the better for us dealing second hand.
As I have a tech camera interest, the new MFDB technology is also important as it decides how vital a certain system will be. For my chosen system to thrive it needs live view, wide angular response and larger than 44x33 sensors, so I hope for that to arrive as soon as possible.
The discontinuation of Copal shutters, reduced popularity of Schneider wides, the race for increased resolving power making organic view camera style of work less practical are all things that worry me -- it indicates health issues with the system I love. Sure I can work for years with a discontinued system (just look at Contax, RZ, Hassy V etc), but it feels better if it's alive an well in current products. The arrival of CMOS and live view is on the other hand positive news. Just waiting for a bit larger sensor (will happen) and great wide angular response (might happen, but less likely).
-
Hi,
Hi,
1991$ is not the same 2011$.
I essentially agree what you say on Phase One pricing. I wouldn't be surprised if Hasselblad comes out with an alternative at lower price.
But, it seems that Hasselblad doesn't get their act together on live view, which happens to be important to me. Some others need sync with electronic flash in full daylight. If a camera has a feature set you need and no competition than it is just a buy or don't buy decision.
I am not into buying a new MFDB anyway, cannot afford it. I am shooting a P45+ and try to find out how I feel about it.
Best regards
Erik
True - inflation, etc, accounts for some factor for that period of time.
I'm looking forward to the Hasselblad implementation of CMOS. I wouldn't assume it will cost less. It might, or it might cost more. We'll see.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
True - inflation, etc, accounts for some factor for that period of time.
I'm looking forward to the Hasselblad implementation of CMOS. I wouldn't assume it will cost less. It might, or it might cost more. We'll see.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
I an ideal world they will make multi shot standard with the CMOS back at no extra price and let the other guys sort it out.
But it's unlikely, that will payoff in the long run, but initially will impact revenue, not sure Hasselblad is able or willing to do so.
So lets wait and see. For me what the CMOS could bring is a level play (sensors with no exclusive deals) and Dynamic range.
My concern is color. In particular when shooting colored people (in particular black skin) the Hasselblad natural color solution is supreme*.
Hight iso in a back is nice but not for me: medium format time is "I am controlling the light" time, If I can't there is the Nikon.
As you say let's wait for Hasselblad implementation.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
*I guess the same for Phase, it's just that I have never shoot one.
-
With the newest Phase One crop sensor camera+body listed at between one and a half and twice the price of a Leica S, I guess Phase should be worried about Leica becoming the value competition.
Some pros with anorexic wallets might move to "Leica", a less known brand from an obscure european country, despite the fact that these cameras are mostly used by amateurs, the system is not "open", and their lenses are sadly known for inferior optical quality ;)
Edmund
I'm looking forward to the Hasselblad implementation of CMOS. I wouldn't assume it will cost less. It might, or it might cost more. We'll see.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Apple has also been linked to particular user markets. Similarly, a big part of Apple's success drew from imaging professionals (and still does). But there has been a strong sense in recent years that Apple has "abandoned" the professional market, meaning graphics professionals. What Apple has really done instead, is to continue to leverage their innate technology to create products that convey what they are all about as a company. The market for their products is more fluid than the technology itself. And I feel Phase One operates in a similar vein.
Apple is still a great company, but their business model has encountered difficulties lately as depicted in this article (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/29/after-iphone-pressure-mounts-on-apple/?intcmp=features), which says " Now, the trend-setting company is losing ground to rivals that offer what Apple has stubbornly refused to make: smartphones with lower prices and larger screens than the iPhone."
Could the same thing happen to PhaseOne once the Japanese enter the MFDB market in earnest?
Bill
-
Steve Hendrix / Doug Peterson
Is the PhaseOne guarantee on new backs now 'world-wide' or is it still region-specific ?
bump ?
-
One of my friends is a VERY successful marketing consultant, and we've had this discussion.
I said the competition have better cameras, bigger screens, pens etc. He explained to me that the iPhone is "better" because of "the intangibles". Eg. the brand, the brand, the brand, the software, and the ecosystem and the Appstore. In the mean time, my aging eyes can barely read the tiny screen of my iPhone and Apple keeps promising a larger screen in a year (like CMOS).
In the end, I guess Apple have now positioned themselves like Nike shoes - they cost about $5 to make, and people buy them at $200 because of branding. When I was a kid, canvas and rubber sports shoes were so cheap that my parents would send me to buy them on my own, out of pocket money, and every kid had the same ones.
Edmund
Apple is still a great company, but their business model has encountered difficulties lately as depicted in this article (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/29/after-iphone-pressure-mounts-on-apple/?intcmp=features), which says " Now, the trend-setting company is losing ground to rivals that offer what Apple has stubbornly refused to make: smartphones with lower prices and larger screens than the iPhone."
Could the same thing happen to PhaseOne once the Japanese enter the MFDB market in earnest?
Bill
-
I would be surprised if Hasselblad's CMOS is not cheaper, as Hasselblad's stuff generally is a little bit cheaper than Phase One's. But then again they did mention multi-shot in the press release, and if there's only a version with multishot it can be more expensive. As far as I understand the wording in the press release it will be one version without and one version with multishot though, and anything other would seem strange.
In one scenario the price difference could be quite large; Phase One has chosen to value this back almost as much as a full-frame CCD. Maybe Hasselblad makes a different decision and price after sensor size and put it somewhere inbetween the current H5D-40 and H5D-50. Concerning feature set I think that would be the most logical thing to do, for a back without multishot. With multishot it becomes a different story.
-
Apple is still a great company, but their business model has encountered difficulties lately as depicted in this article (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/29/after-iphone-pressure-mounts-on-apple/?intcmp=features), which says " Now, the trend-setting company is losing ground to rivals that offer what Apple has stubbornly refused to make: smartphones with lower prices and larger screens than the iPhone."
Could the same thing happen to PhaseOne once the Japanese enter the MFDB market in earnest?
Bill
It could be that Apple positioned themselves as a disrupter, as a "we can do it better" (much better) company. The danger is the market they entered is a commodity market - music players, phones. I feel that if Phase One or Hasselblad tried to engage in lower pricing, ala Pentax, meaning approaching top end 35mm price points, that they would be putting themselves in the same precarious position with tons of competitors.
Perhaps Apple is re-considering this for their next move. Many expected an entry into TV, but the competition there is brutal, there are poor competitors but also really good ones. Just like the 35mm and smaller digital capture market.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
At some point Olympus and Co will release a firmware update for the anti-shake in-body stabilization that allows multi-shot. As soon as they've run out of other easy to implement "features".
Edmund
-
At some point Olympus and Co will release a firmware update for the anti-shake in-body stabilization that allows multi-shot. As soon as they've run out of other easy to implement "features".
Edmund
$5 says they'll never do it ;)
-
Is the PhaseOne guarantee on new backs now 'world-wide' or is it still region-specific ?
bump ?
Manoli -
As far as I know, from the first it has been available for any region, though there may be differences in the regional implementation. Since we're based in the USA, I can't attest to that from a hands-on perspective.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
$5 says they'll never do it ;)
I'm willing to bet that Sony have a patent cross-licensing deal with Hassy :)
Edmund
-
I would be surprised if Hasselblad's CMOS is not cheaper, as Hasselblad's stuff generally is a little bit cheaper than Phase One's. But then again they did mention multi-shot in the press release, and if there's only a version with multishot it can be more expensive. As far as I understand the wording in the press release it will be one version without and one version with multishot though, and anything other would seem strange.
In one scenario the price difference could be quite large; Phase One has chosen to value this back almost as much as a full-frame CCD. Maybe Hasselblad makes a different decision and price after sensor size and put it somewhere inbetween the current H5D-40 and H5D-50. Concerning feature set I think that would be the most logical thing to do, for a back without multishot. With multishot it becomes a different story.
That sounds like 50MP single shot version, and 50MP multi-shot. The multi-shot makes sense for Hasselblad to keep from losing share in the reproduction market to IQ250 with the enhanced live view.
Regarding pricing, Hasselblad has the perception of lower pricing than Phase One. But in reality, the price points are mixed:
Entry - 40MP
$20,495 - H5D-40/80mm
$23,990 - IQ140/DF+/80mm
Mid - 50/60MP
$29,495 - H5D-50/80mm
$34,990 - IQ160/DF+/80mm
Upper - 60MP
$42,495 - H5D-60/80mm
$40,990 - IQ260/DF+/80mm
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Regarding pricing, Hasselblad has the perception of lower pricing than Phase One. But in reality, the price points are mixed:
I see. Here in Sweden it's different, also the H5D-60 kit is a little cheaper than the 645DF-IQ260 kit, ie the whole range is cheaper (prices from the major dealer which sells both Hasselblad and Phase One)
-
I'm willing to bet that Sony have a patent cross-licensing deal with Hassy :)
Edmund
The rights for piezo-based multi-shot belong to Jenoptik. Anyone using it is licensing it from them. For other methods there are numerous patents and some pending ones, and that includes Canon's from last year...
-
After watching this thread and and others around the announcement of these Sony 50 MP based cameras I get a panicky feeling like:
"Lets get out of here quick and shoot 4x5" film, whatever the hassle and disadvantages compared to digital MF may be ..."
-
I see. Here in Sweden it's different, also the H5D-60 kit is a little cheaper than the 645DF-IQ260 kit, ie the whole range is cheaper (prices from the major dealer which sells both Hasselblad and Phase One)
Yes, that's true, there can be some regional differences depending on distribution arrangements.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I'm willing to bet that Sony have a patent cross-licensing deal with Hassy :)
Edmund
What Sony has to do with MS? …MS is a method applied on the back by the back maker, not by the sensor maker… As it is, (unless if another maker gets rights rouse the licence) only Hasselblad (through ex-imacon) and Sinar (hence Leica too) have the rights to use the technology. Sony has nothing to do with it.
-
The rights for piezo-based multi-shot belong to Jenoptik. Anyone using it is licensing it from them. For other methods there are numerous patents and some pending ones, and that includes Canon's from last year...
Was ever Leaf interested to join the MS company Yair…? what about Phase? …why are you absent from the ultimate IQ by far whenever subject is still?
-
What Sony has to do with MS? …MS is a method applied on the back by the back maker, not by the sensor maker… As it is, (unless if another maker gets rights rouse the licence) only Hasselblad (through ex-imacon) and Sinar (hence Leica too) have the rights to use the technology. Sony has nothing to do with it.
I believe Edmund was imagining that in a /cross/ licensing deal, Hasselblad would receive the new sensor technology from Sony, and Sony would gain the ability to use the IP involved in multishot.
-
I believe Edmund was imagining that in a /cross/ licensing deal, Hasselblad would receive the new sensor technology from Sony, and Sony would gain the ability to use the IP involved in multishot.
I noticed Edmund is …on line.
-
I believe Edmund was imagining that in a /cross/ licensing deal, Hasselblad would receive the new sensor technology from Sony, and Sony would gain the ability to use the IP involved in multishot.
Yes, this is what I thought. However Yair has corrected me, indicating that Jenoptik originated the patents for piezo displacement of the sensor, which I naively assumed belonged to Imacon and thus Hassy.
Still, I'm astonished that no japanese manufacturer is doing multishot in a consumer camera, as it is a fairly obvious application of in-body vibration reduction technology. One could even imagine it being done handheld with an electronic shutter on a CMOS sensor.
Edmund
PS. It *is* possible that Sony has licensed True Focus, which might be useful even in 35mm hi-rez cameras.
-
Was ever Leaf interested to join the MS company Yair…? what about Phase? …why are you absent from the ultimate IQ by far whenever subject is still?
The Cantare XY had multi-shot, which at the time (2000) was a nice addition to the stable although it could not touch the Volare: TRUE MS, B&W chip, high quality RGB filters...nothing else could touch it...but that was 15 years ago and both technology and the market have moved on...no need to open a subject that has been discussed to death already...
-
The Cantare XY had multi-shot, which at the time (2000) was a nice addition to the stable although it could not touch the Volare: TRUE MS, B&W chip, high quality RGB filters...nothing else could touch it...but that was 15 years ago and both technology and the market have moved on...no need to open a subject that has been discussed to death already...
Fashion and technology are wheels, they go round and round -
Look how Tesla was ridiculed and bankrupted by Edison for suggesting AC was a good idea for power transmission, and was ridiculed up to a few years ago for his ideas of power transmission by induction which are now suddenly all the rage in the consumer industry - while DC may also come to have its day again.
Anyway, you know as well as I do that some form of multispectral imaging will come back in the art repro market - it's just a matter of time - maybe the filter wheel will resuscitate :)
Edmund
PS. Here is a nice piece of history which shows how advanced Leaf were. There is a discussion of multishot vs. single shot.
http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9906cs.html
-
That sounds like 50MP single shot version, and 50MP multi-shot. The multi-shot makes sense for Hasselblad to keep from losing share in the reproduction market to IQ250 with the enhanced live view.
Regarding pricing, Hasselblad has the perception of lower pricing than Phase One. But in reality, the price points are mixed:
Entry - 40MP
$20,495 - H5D-40/80mm
$23,990 - IQ140/DF+/80mm
Mid - 50/60MP
$29,495 - H5D-50/80mm
$34,990 - IQ160/DF+/80mm
Upper - 60MP
$42,495 - H5D-60/80mm
$40,990 - IQ260/DF+/80mm
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Out of curiosity : Do you know what is the difference between the 40990 and the 43990 from this other vendor ?
http://www.calumetphoto.com/INTERSHOP/web/WFS/Calumet-US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewParametricSearch-SimpleOfferSearch?SynchronizerToken=6786309a2a72ea0706a24cd7c9b949d62a69379f82d60e9c96a29b096ad58113_%2Fe3dLGenmTOND7TvRe9X6g%3D%3D&SearchTerm=IQ260&search=
I know is not your page, but the page of a different company, but you may know.
By the way the H5D-50MS is $37495 (with lens) and the H5D-200Ms is $42995 (body only) So maybe a little hope.
Thanks,
J. Duncan
-
Out of curiosity : Do you know what is the difference between the 40990 and the 43990 from this other vendor ?
http://www.calumetphoto.com/INTERSHOP/web/WFS/Calumet-US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewParametricSearch-SimpleOfferSearch?SynchronizerToken=6786309a2a72ea0706a24cd7c9b949d62a69379f82d60e9c96a29b096ad58113_%2Fe3dLGenmTOND7TvRe9X6g%3D%3D&SearchTerm=IQ260&search=
I know is not your page, but the page of a different company, but you may know.
By the way the H5D-50MS is $37495 (with lens) and the H5D-200Ms is $42995 (body only) So maybe a little hope.
Thanks,
J. Duncan
Hi J -
My guess is a typo, the $43,990 is the pricing for an IQ260 with DF+/80LS Lens kit, but instead of 1 Year Classic Warranty, this would be 5 Year Value Add Warranty for the same configuration. Not speaking for them, just my best guess.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi J -
My guess is a typo, the $43,990 is the pricing for an IQ260 with DF+/80LS Lens kit, but instead of 1 Year Classic Warranty, this would be 5 Year Value Add Warranty for the same configuration. Not speaking for them, just my best guess.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Thanks,
J. Duncan
-
Its sad but its true, 15 years ago anyone in photography, amateur or professional or just a police...could identify that a hassy 500cm or a mamiya 645 was in fact a photo camera.
Today the DMF its a niche so small that in the field working with my H3D II sometimes even photographers ask me what its that? Huh? this say very very much about the industry.
And its sad for me, because i dont really understand why he have to buy a used DMF camera for 5000$ to have a entry in this beautiful photographic medium tool with huge selling points like Viewfinder and DOF and not 50MP wars...
I am thing if in the present the photography schools still show the advantages of the Medium Format ??? or the 2 major brands invest marking in this segment?
my best regards
Pedro
-
Still, I'm astonished that no japanese manufacturer is doing multishot in a consumer camera, as it is a fairly obvious application of in-body vibration reduction technology. One could even imagine it being done handheld with an electronic shutter on a CMOS sensor.
Edmund
MS has nothing to do with "vibration reduction" (applied on sensor) Edmund, it's a completely different principle. MS handheld? ….how can one align different pixels recording exactly the same position with a non constant subject with respect to a non constant sensor?
-
In-body vibration reduction is just a technology for moving the sensor with microscopic precision. Moving the sensor with microscopic precision is needed for multishot. Hence, maybe the existing in-body VR technology could be adapted (when the camera is otherwise /fixed/) to perform multishot sensor moves.
-
In-body vibration reduction is just a technology for moving the sensor with microscopic precision. Moving the sensor with microscopic precision is needed for multishot. Hence, maybe the existing in-body VR technology could be adapted (when the camera is otherwise /fixed/) to perform multishot sensor moves.
One might imagine a flexible/fast/accurate sensor movement system to be used for "camera stabilization", OLPF-emulation (Pentax k-3 was it?) and multi-sampling (Hasselblad style).
Can such a system be deviced economically? Or does it make more sense to spend component cost e.g. bumping the sensor resolution?
-h
-
One might imagine a flexible/fast/accurate sensor movement system to be used for "camera stabilization", OLPF-emulation (Pentax k-3 was it?) and multi-sampling (Hasselblad style).
Can such a system be deviced economically? Or does it make more sense to spend component cost e.g. bumping the sensor resolution?
-h
Yes - this is exactly what the K3 does.
-
In-body vibration reduction is just a technology for moving the sensor with microscopic precision. Moving the sensor with microscopic precision is needed for multishot. Hence, maybe the existing in-body VR technology could be adapted (when the camera is otherwise /fixed/) to perform multishot sensor moves.
Is what you are saying that by "moving the sensor" (like with vibration reduction) you will also be able to align different pixels (polluted with different colour via Bayer pattern) in a signal capture too, as to create a "true colour" capture?
-
Yes - this is exactly what the K3 does.
??? ?
-
In-body vibration reduction is just a technology for moving the sensor with microscopic precision. Moving the sensor with microscopic precision is needed for multishot. Hence, maybe the existing in-body VR technology could be adapted (when the camera is otherwise /fixed/) to perform multishot sensor moves.
It seems related, but it's not like the same capabilities. Moving the sensor to shake dust is "motora gruesa" in comparison with multi shoot.
I will say that the same runs for VR. Alining the pixels in for a multi shot sensor seems to be in a different order of magnitude.
You need to align the pixels that are at the micron scale.
Now it may be posible to adapt it: Ingenuity has won many battles.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
??? ?
Not entirely sure as to the meaning of the smiley, but the K3 allows you to vibrate the sensor to mimic an OLPF.
-
It seems related, but it's not like the same capabilities. Moving the sensor to shake dust is "motora gruesa" in comparison with multi shoot.
I will say that the same runs for VR. Alining the pixels in for a multi shot sensor seems to be in a different order of magnitude.
You need to align the pixels that are at the micron scale.
Now it may be posible to adapt it: Ingenuity has won many battles.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
Rather …not possible ::)
-
Not entirely sure as to the meaning of the smiley, but the K3 allows you to vibrate the sensor to mimic an OLPF.
…and "multisampling"? (wrong term for pixel alignment in MS) :-[
-
…and "multisampling"? (wrong term for pixel alignment in MS) :-[
What about it? Not of relevance to the question asked that referred to the K3, nor the answer given to that question.
Are being deliberately obtuse?
-
Hi,
This summer Hasselblad had very low prices on some 4 series cameras, I think something like 21k$US for a complete kit with a lens. That started me thinking MFD (for the N-th time), but I finally ended up with a V-series Hasselblad and a P45+ and five V-series lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, that's true, there can be some regional differences depending on distribution arrangements.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
After waiting years for live view on a medium format digital back which would make my life so much easier when composing shots with the technical camera, than along comes a medium format digital back that can do just that……...but just not really with a technical camera..at least not if you want to use shift….which is the main reason one buys a technical camera….and even if you don't use shift, your Rodenstock wide angle lenses, which cost several thousand are now no longer wide angle lenses because of a 1.3 crop factor…and your Schneider wide angle lenses are ornaments.
At one time the substantial difference in price between medium format digital backs and dslrs equated to a substantial difference in quality. Now there is a much smaller difference in quality but the difference in price remains the same. Part of the substantial difference in quality previously was due to the vastly superior Schneider and Rodenstock lenses used on technical cameras. Now the IQ250 back is not suited imo to the majority of technical camera users (at least not the ones that utilize one of the main benefits of a technical camera. IE shift and rise/fall)) Newer dslr lenses have been released over the last few years in tandem with the newer dslr's with their substantial sensor improvementnts. This has lessened the gap in ultimate image quality. After all just like film, the sensor is only half the story.
So you have an IQ250 50 megapixel sensor with a crop factor of 1.3. The same sensor probably as what will appear in other medium format cameras in the upcoming future. And you will have a new Canon Camera most likely coming out in the 2nd quarter of 2014 with a minimum 40 megapixel sensor along with God knows what else, further reducing the gap in image quality….Will the price difference remain the same. The Canon will be probably be nearer the $8,000 mark than the $3000 mark but it will have hd video, vastly improved screen, no need for a dark frame (or at least the option to turn it off) and a whole plethora of features and functionality not found on medium format digital. That's still a lot less than ¢30000. You have the newer Canon lenses like the 17mm and 24mm TS lenses which are crackers. You will have no alternative on the IQ250 because of the crop factor. You can use the IQ260 and IQ280 but than you don't have the live view. (probably THE most important feature an architectural or landscape photographer would need on a technical camera) Of course much of what I write in this paragraph has to happen yet so you can take it with a pinch of salt. :P
The difference in quality between camera platforms will change substantially in 2014 in one shape or form. Hats off to Phase One, Sony and Hasselblad for working hard to push the envelope but unfortunately due to budgetary constraints of medium format manufacturers the pace of progress is much slower than on dslrs. This has allowed the goal posts to move substantially. It will definitely be an interesting year.
-
After waiting years for live view on a medium format digital back which would make my life so much easier when composing shots with the technical camera, than along comes a medium format digital back that can do just that……...but just not really
The moment I read the specs, I could feel the tech camera guys pain. That's a drag.
Though I think the camera companies that are really pushing it are the smaller ones like Olympus and Fuji.
It took me a long time to get use to an evf for stills but once use to it I find it the greatest attribute and something I find hard to do without.
When I bought the Leica S2, I put it to my eye, moved the shutter dial and nothing in the viewfinder changed. I thought, hmmm what's not working, until it hit me that I was working old style with an ovf.
I like the S2 wouldn't have bought it if I didn't, but if olympus made a approx 645 sensor camera (think pentax 6x7 modern) with the electronics they have in the omd series, it would be hard to deny.
BTW: I have a question I've never understood. Live view on ccd still cameras is close to awful, but they're were and still are ccd eng video cameras that obviously have super live view. What is the difference between those sensors (though small) vs. the ccd's used in medium format cameras?
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
Just a few reflections.
I definitively agree on the crop factor issue. But it would be possible to use the IQ 250 on an Alpa FPS or Hartblei HCam with Canons 17 and 24 lenses both being very good.
Regarding the Rodenstock lenses, let's see how all test CI and DT makes come out.
With regard to the cost, Phase One obviously feels it is a reasonable or feasible price for the product.
Best regards
Erik
After waiting years for live view on a medium format digital back which would make my life so much easier when composing shots with the technical camera, than along comes a medium format digital back that can do just that……...but just not really with a technical camera..at least not if you want to use shift….which is the main reason one buys a technical camera….and even if you don't use shift, your Rodenstock wide angle lenses, which cost several thousand are now no longer wide angle lenses because of a 1.3 crop factor…and your Schneider wide angle lenses are ornaments.
At one time the substantial difference in price between medium format digital backs and dslrs equated to a substantial difference in quality. Now there is a much smaller difference in quality but the difference in price remains the same. Part of the substantial difference in quality previously was due to the vastly superior Schneider and Rodenstock lenses used on technical cameras. Now the IQ250 back is not suited imo to the majority of technical camera users (at least not the ones that utilize one of the main benefits of a technical camera. IE shift and rise/fall)) Newer dslr lenses have been released over the last few years in tandem with the newer dslr's with their substantial sensor improvementnts. This has lessened the gap in ultimate image quality. After all just like film, the sensor is only half the story.
So you have an IQ250 50 megapixel sensor with a crop factor of 1.3. The same sensor probably as what will appear in other medium format cameras in the upcoming future. And you will have a new Canon Camera most likely coming out in the 2nd quarter of 2014 with a minimum 40 megapixel sensor along with God knows what else, further reducing the gap in image quality….Will the price difference remain the same. The Canon will be probably be nearer the $8,000 mark than the $3000 mark but it will have hd video, vastly improved screen, no need for a dark frame (or at least the option to turn it off) and a whole plethora of features and functionality not found on medium format digital. That's still a lot less than ¢30000. You have the newer Canon lenses like the 17mm and 24mm TS lenses which are crackers. You will have no alternative on the IQ250 because of the crop factor. You can use the IQ260 and IQ280 but than you don't have the live view. (probably THE most important feature an architectural or landscape photographer would need on a technical camera) Of course much of what I write in this paragraph has to happen yet so you can take it with a pinch of salt. :P
The difference in quality between camera platforms will change substantially in 2014 in one shape or form. Hats off to Phase One, Sony and Hasselblad for working hard to push the envelope but unfortunately due to budgetary constraints of medium format manufacturers the pace of progress is much slower than on dslrs. This has allowed the goal posts to move substantially. It will definitely be an interesting year.
-
Hi,
Just a few reflections.
I definitively agree on the crop factor issue. But it would be possible to use the IQ 250 on an Alpa FPS or Hartblei HCam with Canons 17 and 24 lenses both being very good.
Regarding the Rodenstock lenses, let's see how all test CI and DT makes come out.
With regard to the cost, Phase One obviously feels it is a reasonable or feasible price for the product.
Best regards
Erik
What Phase One think and what I think (and my bank manager) are 2 different things ;D If Canon bring out the new high megapixel camera, what real advantage would you have using an IQ 250 on a Hartblei + Canon Tilt Shift lenses. I mean what real advantage that would equate to multiples in price difference.
I was never one to get involved in the whole dslr versus medium format argument. I LOVE my arca swiss RL3D and Hasselblad H3D 39 and for me the reason to use it was quality quality. That difference in quality will be vastly reduced this year. (In my case probably surpassed.) Medium format manufacturers have started very late into cmos territory. In the meantime dslr cameras have ploughed ahead in all aspects of their design. You have HD video, you have high quality live view, you have new high quality lens design, you have improved high iso, you have through the lens viewfinders with tilt shift lenses (as opposed to technical cameras) you have higher shutter rates, you have accurate autofocus and now you have sensors getting closer to medium format quality.
The argument going back to the film days with large and medium format versus 35mm was about quality, quality and more quality and also how it slows you down to think about the shot, but if the only substantial difference soon will be how much it slows you down than I suggest we all shoot on dslr and take a moment to contemplate what wen will do with the $25,000 we can save ;D ;D ;D
-
BTW: I have a question I've never understood. Live view on ccd still cameras is close to awful, but they're were and still are ccd eng video cameras that obviously have super live view. What is the difference between those sensors (though small) vs. the ccd's used in medium format cameras?
A video stream involves 345k pixels per frame (SD) or about 2M pixels per frame (full HD). A camera can do this 60 times per second without breaking a sweat. And a little bit of noise doesn't ruin the show in ENG applications. A still camera delivers 12-24-36-?? MP per frame. That's another order of magnitude in speed. I don't know of any APS-c or larger chips that can deliver an entire frame at video rates. But getting fast readout has been a research priority recently for just these sorts of reasons, so expect newer chips to perform better. Some smaller chips (GH, Nikon 1, etc) already do.
-
Hi,
Just a few reflections.
I definitively agree on the crop factor issue. But it would be possible to use the IQ 250 on an Alpa FPS or Hartblei HCam with Canons 17 and 24 lenses both being very good.
Regarding the Rodenstock lenses, let's see how all test CI and DT makes come out.
With regard to the cost, Phase One obviously feels it is a reasonable or feasible price for the product.
Best regards
Erik
Sometimes it helps to take a look at a different but related market space.
IBM let go the possibility of making a lot of money on the server space with Power. After the Power5+ they got a definitive advantage against basically everybody. What they do was price the systems out of most of the potential clients.
It seems non sense for the people that is not on the CS /IT environment, but it's classic modern IBM.
I believe that this strategy (price the higher price possible) is useful when you lose confidence in your product. You have the convinced that there is no way out. You are sure that no pricing or improvement with increase volume. If that is the case, the proper pricing is the higher one that will not lead to a faster dead. In few words :You get as much as you can and then you sale what is left.
IBM just accepted this quarter that the server lines will never get back to the profit levels.
They were convinced of this (my intuition) from long time ago. It became a self fulfill prophecy.
They did have an opportunity to grow when the workloads moved to processor agnostic web architectures. They did not launch a killer strategy even when Sun was with no competitive processor and HP was fighting with underperforming itaniums. The space has change, the opportunity gone. Now the marker have competitive processors and the cloud has handle the kingdom to x86.
PhaseOne is fighting for medium format. Hasselblad was confuse under the previews CEO. They have to solve the price issues and even more important understand that they can't be in the cutting edge of the technology for longer periods of time*. They need to focus in their core advantages, including low volume. That means yields are not as pressing, and you can give better service.
Sensor size is one of the key advantages; The crop factor high end camera is a mistake (but maybe was the only option). I hope a bigger sensor is coming (48mm x36mm ). Now if Leica and Pentax (that happens to be a Japanese company) are leading we are for a not so funny ride.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
* An example will be Intel, even with the (almost) monopoly on the server space the Xeons can't be stage of the art. They are previews generation systems improved for server loads (an example is multiprocessing and number of PCIe lanes). The sensor on the IQ250 will be state of the art but I will expect for it (or the next one) to have a longer cycle that mainstream sensors.
-
BTW: I have a question I've never understood. Live view on ccd still cameras is close to awful, but they're were and still are ccd eng video cameras that obviously have super live view. What is the difference between those sensors (though small) vs. the ccd's used in medium format cameras?
IMO
BC
The interline CCDs have lines of optically masked bucket brigade circuitry between lines of sensels; the masked circuits can convey the data off the chip during the time the unmasked circuitry accumulates an exposure. So called Fullframe sensors employ all the chip real estate for sensels, but are "frozen" during the exposure. I'm not convinced that one couldn't combine the benefits of both designs, but this ship has sailed as all the research money is poured into better CMOS camera phone sensors whose technology then trickles down to compacts, dSLRs and finally MF.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Using an interline design would use half of the surface for the output buffer, so DR would be cut in half and noise increase 41%.
Best regards
Erik
The interline CCDs have lines of optically masked bucket brigade circuitry between lines of sensels; the masked circuits can convey the data off the chip during the time the unmasked circuitry accumulates an exposure. So called Fullframe sensors employ all the chip real estate for sensels, but are "frozen" during the exposure. I'm not convinced that one couldn't combine the benefits of both designs, but this ship has sailed as all the research money is poured into better CMOS camera phone sensors whose technology then trickles down to compacts, dSLRs and finally MF.
Edmund
-
Yeah, but there are microlenses ...catching the light over the whole cell and piping it over the floating gate ...if a Bayer filter is a necessity, then turning it into a microlens solves several problems at once. Come on, Erik, we all know I'm not the sharpest knife in the box but this is a case where the applications never warranted the research effort needed to solve the apparent shortcomings of the technology within the context of consumer photography.
Edmund
Hi,
Using an interline design would use half of the surface for the output buffer, so DR would be cut in half and noise increase 41%.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Problem is that half of the sensor is used for the buffer, so full well capacity is cut in half. So the sensor can hold half the electrons compared with a frame transfer design. Half the electrons give 41% more noise, Poisson statistics you know. DR is FWC/read noise so that is cut in half.
Best regards
Erik
Yeah, but there are microlenses ...catching the light over the whole cell and piping it over the floating gate ...if a Bayer filter is a necessity, then turning it into a microlens solves several problems at once. Come on, Erik, we all know I'm not the sharpest knife in the box but this is a case where the applications never warranted the research effort needed to solve the apparent shortcomings of the technology within the context of consumer photography.
Edmund
-
If you want to "prove" that existing interline designs are more noisy and have less DR than fullframe designs, then I will give you the point; if you want to "prove" that some CCD design with adequate liveview or better efficiency is not feasible, well, I'm not so sure of that. If you just need liveview and not full video output, you can emplace some buffer area between several sensels one buffer for multiple real sensels, giving you reduced size LV. You could even have a Fuji-type design with small less sensitive cells tesselated between the larger sensels.
In the end, who cares? It's technology. It'll all be obsolete in 10 years, and we'll have Gigapixel 6400 ISO cameraphones with all the wonderful colors of the Nikon D4 ;)
Edmund
Hi,
Problem is that half of the sensor is used for the buffer, so full well capacity is cut in half. So the sensor can hold half the electrons compared with a frame transfer design. Half the electrons give 41% more noise, Poisson statistics you know. DR is FWC/read noise so that is cut in half.
Best regards
Erik
-
...
In the end, who cares? It's technology. It'll all be obsolete in 10 years, and we'll have Gigapixel 6400 ISO cameraphones with all the wonderful colors of the Nikon D4 ;)
...
We'll have that as technology integrated into contacts, controlled by a wiggle of the ears ... ;)
-
Actually, there are two type of CCD that can provide video output for live view and such, but both are distinctly inferior for still image quality than the full frame type of CCD used in all DMF (until this week!).
1) Frame Transfer CCDs support a global (non-progressive) shutter by having half the area of each photosite "masked", and used to transfer the signal from the other, light receiving half. So a frame is captured by shunting the electrons to the masked region simultaneously across the whole frame, and then these are read out while the next frame accumulates. The obvious downside is a halving of well capacity, hurting dynamic range, even if microlenses succeed is directing almost all of the incoming light to the light-sensitive region. I have never heard of this type being used in still cameras.
2) Interline Transfer CCDs instead have some wiring between the light-sensitive regions that supports more rapid read-out, good enough for progressive scan video, while taking up far less than half the total photosite area. This is what most CCDs used in still cameras are or were, including all the Sony ones formerly in SLRs. The only exceptions I know of are the full frame CCDs used in medium format and in the early Olympus Four Thirds SLRs.
Note well that Kodak/Truesense makes interline transfer CCDs (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/interline-transfer-ccd) as well as full frame CCDs (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/full-frame-ccd), and comparing the spec sheets, it seems that the interline type has two disadvantages: somewhat lower full well capacity (no surprise) and somewhat higher noise floor (which does surprise me a bit). This means that amongst Kodak CCDs, the interline ones are worse than the full frame ones both at low ISO speed and at high ISO speed. [EDIT: I see now that the noise floor disadvantage has decreased with recent Kodak/Truesense interline CCDs but they still have both a bit more noise and less well capacity. By the way, Truesense also offers CMOS sensors (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/cmos) for video, and they have about the same electron well capacity per photosite area and three times lower noise floor, so within Truesense, the CMOS technology beats both CCD options at both low and high ISO speeds. And this at an operation whose history is dominated by CCD development far more than CMOS!]
-
Yeah, but there are microlenses ...catching the light over the whole cell and piping it over the floating gate ...if a Bayer filter is a necessity, then turning it into a microlens solves several problems at once. Come on, Erik, we all know I'm not the sharpest knife in the box but this is a case where the applications never warranted the research effort needed to solve the apparent shortcomings of the technology within the context of consumer photography.
Edmund
You can't turn a Bayer pattern element into a micro lens… what will then happen is that the number of photons that are deflected (and are entering a "wrong" pixel well) will be polluted with two colours (two different wavelengths), thus, their entering speed with respect to the others will be affected and colour information per pixel will be uncontrollable by the processor. :)
-
(I had posted this to GetDPI before, but it fits very well here also - so sorry for the ones who have read it already-I´ll add some more comment for this one)
Interesting thread. I have been quiet for now but here comes my analysis how I see this release:
Phase One was under pressure (as are all the other MF makers) for a new CMOS technology (lets spare out the technical details here-I want to see it from a product placement and marketing point of view). Right now the DF+ Body does not make all the users happy, but it is the base platform for the actual back portfolio. Phase One themselves have called their CCD products not ideally suited for sports or action photography, as well as for low light shots for high ISO (not to be mixed up with long exposure capability with low ISO ! I also think the Pixel Plus is giving only a second grade solution as the resolution is only a quarter of the full one, but that´s another story).
This gap had to be filled and as you can see from the presentation on the Phase website, that is what the purpose was to reach.
I don´t think this makes much sense on a tech cam, although I understand the interest of many of my colleagues for better focusing also for their tech cams.
As I have proposed here for several occasions some time ago, the only way to get to a larger (than 24x36) CMOS chip was cooperation with other companies to increase the volume, otherwise the production would have been impossible.
The common denominator for all 4 existing customers of this Sony chip is the format that Leica and Pentax are using (which draws an interesting image of the proportions per company of the projected chips).
So this chip is tailored mainly for a more compact and SLR oriented concept. Phase has used this to scale it as an extension of the existing back portfolio.
If Phase One will make this perfect, a full body with incorporation of this chip will be needed. I am nearly sure this will happen in the not so far future.
(addition: I would give the advice to Leaf/Mamiya to incorporate this technology into a Mamiya 7 body. Keep this exact formfactor, use the lenses and earn a fortune, people woud buy this like crazy. give the body a pricepoint of under 10k, that differentiates it from the back portfolio and would earn the company some easy money -and- bring up the chip numbers to enable the development of a second bigger one to replace the highres 80 Mpix sometime soon (2015 ?).
And - I would not be surprised if they have listened to their customers very carefully and are preparing a solution that will be a market leading body , maybe showing some of the concepts already used in the industrial cameras.
I welcome this policy very much and for us as HCam producers this chip is also a godsent: it opens a much greater range of available lenses of the world market, very many cover this smaller format. And 50 Mpix is enough for most of todays working tasks( though a bit small for fine art imaging).
It is the right decision, the CCD´s will hold their stake for some more years in the traditional highres range (which they do very well).
This protects the investment of existing customers, opens the market for new ones and extends the usability of the DF+ system -Plus- gives a perspective for a future devellopment.
(addition: for all those complaining about too high prices for hardware: you are comparing apples and peas here. Phase has a dealer modell which offers support and direct sales channel by high specialist trained sales personel. You have to pay for this. If someone would want to market such a complex product in a supermarket warehouse chain, he would miserably fail). Even Pentax (now Ricoh!) may have overlooked the fact that getting such a product to the Promarket is a timeconsuming and cost intense work.
What is described as a "paid" Brand reputation here, has been worked on for 18 years now. It was and is expensive and even Canon and Nikon are spending comparably much more to the prosection sold products than to consumer products. Actually is is a lesser profit for more work business. But the larger companies cross finance it from marketing budgets to tell consumers how good their standard bodies are. Phase / Mamiya-Leaf and Hasselblad can´t do this. Hasselblad tries to break this scheme with their Lunar/Stellar experiment.)
Well done Phase One. Pure logic and good strategy !
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
Hi,
Thanks for putting things straight.
Best regards
Erik
Actually, there are two type of CCD that can provide video output for live view and such, but both are distinctly inferior for still image quality than the full frame type of CCD used in all DMF (until this week!).
1) Frame Transfer CCDs support a global (non-progressive) shutter by having half the area of each photosite "masked", and used to transfer the signal from the other, light receiving half. So a frame is captured by shunting the electrons to the masked region simultaneously across the whole frame, and then these are read out while the next frame accumulates. The obvious downside is a halving of well capacity, hurting dynamic range, even if microlenses succeed is directing almost all of the incoming light to the light-sensitive region. I have never heard of this type being used in still cameras.
2) Interline Transfer CCDs instead have some wiring between the light-sensitive regions that supports more rapid read-out, good enough for progressive scan video, while taking up far less than half the total photosite area. This is what most CCDs used in still cameras are or were, including all the Sony ones formerly in SLRs. The only exceptions I know of are the full frame CCDs used in medium format and in the early Olympus Four Thirds SLRs.
Note well that Kodak/Truesense makes interline transfer CCDs (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/interline-transfer-ccd) as well as full frame CCDs (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/full-frame-ccd), and comparing the spec sheets, it seems that the interline type has two disadvantages: somewhat lower full well capacity (no surprise) and somewhat higher noise floor (which does surprise me a bit). This means that amongst Kodak CCDs, the interline ones are worse than the full frame ones both at low ISO speed and at high ISO speed. [EDIT: I see now that the noise floor disadvantage has decreased with recent Kodak/Truesense interline CCDs but they still have both a bit more noise and less well capacity. By the way, Truesense also offers CMOS sensors (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/cmos) for video, and they have about the same electron well capacity per photosite area and three times lower noise floor, so within Truesense, the CMOS technology beats both CCD options at both low and high ISO speeds. And this at an operation whose history is dominated by CCD development far more than CMOS!]
-
We can only dream.
And if they do it (M7 digicam) replace one of the green pixels in the Bayer pattern with a yellow one ....
-
T -
dyed material for the microlens.
Edmund
BJL -
Thanks - very nice writeup
Edmund
You can't turn a Bayer pattern element into a micro lens… what will then happen is that the number of photons that are deflected (and are entering a "wrong" pixel well) will be polluted with two colours (two different wavelengths), thus, their entering speed with respect to the others will be affected and colour information per pixel will be uncontrollable by the processor. :)
-
(addition: I would give the advice to Leaf/Mamiya to incorporate this technology into a Mamiya 7 body. Keep this exact formfactor, use the lenses and earn a fortune, people woud buy this like crazy
That's a good idea Stefan! There are a few cameras that people work hard to adapt digital backs to where no commercial solution is available and the Mamiya rangefinder is one of them and the other is the Rolleiflex TLR (and lots ask about the SL66 too).
I'm still behind the idea of digital backs design with universal adapter plates so that the back itself can be moved between platforms by changing the adapter.