Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on February 22, 2014, 12:43:11 pm
-
with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system? you can't tell me that the high end mfdb cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
-
Each company offers a very wide range of products. If you want the absolute latest and greatest then it is, for each company, quite expensive. Bear in mind a lot of those latest and greatest will be purchased via an upgrade from a previous back at above the market value for that back, and therefore not a ton get purchased for $30k.
But more to your point you can get a NEW Credo 40 with DF+ and 80D (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/mamiya-credo-special-promo) lens for a hair under $13k. Yes, that's a promotion and not a permanent price, but the point stands that Team P1 offers very very good products at a wider price range than the flagship models.
Also remember that most Team Phase One Dealers are speciality value added partners that spend a lot of time and effort to provide a good range of pre-owned digital backs (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/used-digital-backs) which can go down to around $5k for a back+body+lens with a warranty and dealer support/training/testing/rental-towards-purchase (it's hard to be more specific since pricing here is a lot more fluid since inventory changes nearly daily and a lot depends on shot count, mount, warranty, and condition - and posts on the internet last forever; we don't always have a kit that low, but almost always have something in the $6-$8k range).
These kits offer a point of entry into medium format for many customers who then later upgrade. Since Team P1 products are modular they can upgrade just the lens (e.g. from an 80 non D for a 80LS) or the body (e.g. an AFDII to a DF+ or from H1 to H4X) or just the back (e.g. P30 non plus to a Credo 40).
So while there are offerings at $30-40k (as Steve has rightly pointed out, this is the price range we've seen flagship models at for the entire history of medium format), there are also new offerings down in the $11-$14k range and pre-owned offerings of backs that still easily beat a 5DIII in image quality and have a wide variety of usability/flexibility advantages* over a 5DIII (e.g. tech camera, view camera compatibility, sync speed, WLF, C1 tethering speed, etc)
*Obviously the 5DIII or other dSLRS likewise have many usability/flexibility advantages like higher ISO, video, IS lenses, etc - no need to rehash these here. The point is that there are very compelling reasons to go with a pre-owned back than a new dSLR for many users/uses.
-
i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products.
Two thirds of the IQ250s we've sold in the last two weeks were to full time professionals or rental studios. Half of the pros purchased via a lease-to-own, but fall into the category that were already paying to rent backs on a frequent and regular basis anyway, so will actually be (I know it's weird to say this) saving money. Don't get me wrong, it's only been two weeks so I'm not talking about high volumes of units, but I'd expect as sales continue that we'll see similar ratios.
Obviously every market is different. NYC is going to have a different ratio (and absolute volume) in that regard than, for instance, Utah.
-
with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system? you can't tell me that the high end mfdb cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
Other that if one wants to buy a car ….he buys a car and one that wants to buy a camera ….buys a camera (as with stereos, home cinema, clothes and everything else), I would say that MF makers have followed a short minded policy with respect to the needs of the market, that has forced many traditional MF & LF users to turn their interest at lower size sensors thus restricting their base of possible customers to dangerous (to secure survival) low levels.
The basics of my opinion on the "ill market" is:
1. The wrong policy they followed with part exchanges
2. Hasselblad's decision to "close" their H system and stop making MFDBs
3. Price category depending on resolution
4. Design of products with DSLR consumer priorities
5. Absence of competition
However… I'm optimistic for the future! If one would ask my opinion three months ago, I would say for sure that MF wouldn't make it against the next generation of FF DSLRs …but, after Leica invested on Sinar I can see all the mistakes stated above answered… I believe that with Leica/Sinar's next move on the MF market (whatever that may be), the competition will have to review their today policy… After all, Leica can compete great against "the larger sensor DSLR idea" and Sinar, is the only maker that provides dedicated to traditional MF/LF photography specialised equipment.
-
{Two thirds of the IQ250s we've sold in the last two weeks were to full time professionals or rental studios.} doug that is my point exactly. the middle class amateur photographer like myself does not have the ability to write off the equipment as does the professional or rental studios. there are many of us that have purchased the top of the line canon or nikon who would love to use medium format. i had a cfv-16 that i loved and used with both my 503 and arca swiss 6x9. i sold it and bought the d800 so i could have the ability to shoot wide and the leaf 40 is still a cropped sensor for what i do. now if phase one had the sensor size of a p45 in a back with just the basics, no long exposure, etc and priced it as an everyday entry level back into the phase one family i believe phase one would have a winner. don't get me wrong the promotional price is great for the credo 40 but i am not in the market for a new camera body or lens. now if there was a price for the back only that would fit the hasselblad v system (as well as any other mf system) and since i have the arca swiss adapter for v backs, now you have my attention and there are many photographers with the v systems out there that would also love an entry level back. now you have them hooked and like myself those who would purchase to use on a tech camera could now look for wide angle lenses, since they have saved mucho money on their back purchase, to use with the cropped sensor. an add-on for your company. win win. and doug you have always been helpful here on this forum as well as when i talked to you through e-mail.
-
With Phase, the price is part of the product.
Look at it like a Nike shoe - sure a lot of R&D goes into it, but ultimately it is a piece of plastic and costs $200. If the Nike shoe didn't cost $200, the people who are buying it now wouldn't be buying it. I'm pretty certain that is true, because when I was a kid my parents used to send me by myself to buy canvas and rubber laced athletic shoes - they were that cheap - and now the same canvas and rubber shoes are retailed in Paris near where I live, with a label stuck on, for the price of decent meal for two people.
Interestingly, some of those who *work* with shoes have doubts, and conjecture that running shoes actually cause injuries, and that competitive track runners would do well without shoes.
“I can’t prove this, but I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.”
— Vin Lananna, Director of Track and Field for the University of Oregon and seven-time NCAA Coach of the Year.
“Shoes do no more for the foot than a hat does for the brain.”
—Dr. Mercer Rang, the legendary orthopedic surgeon and researcher in pediatric development.
Of course, I wont go as far as saying that MF harms the brain of the user, but then many would say that anyone who forks out that amount of moolah for an MF system is already past help :)
Now, let me toggle the joke switch to off :) . It is clear, as the OP states that there is a disconnect between the stated price policies of P and H and the apparent engineering required to make these things. What is actually going on is not clear, but Pentax seem poised to cash in on the price escalation of the other actors.
Edmund
with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system? you can't tell me that the high end mfdb cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
-
The 'reassuringly expensive' business model adopted by P1 is fine for fancy Belgian beer, but - in my opinion - not a viable long term strategy for DBs. It's worked up 'til now - good for them - but will it do so for another 21 years?
If P1 had gone down a different road (cheaper cost of entry / more users) then maybe they wouldn't have needed to go cap-in-hand to a Vulture Capitalist. Sorry, I mean Venture Capitalist.
-
But in that parallel universe, John wouldn't have married Yoko, the Beatles would still be singing Love Me Do in annual reunion concerts, and Doug Peterson would have been the founder of B&H :)
Edmund
The 'reassuringly expensive' business model adopted by P1 is fine for fancy Belgian beer, but - in my opinion - not a viable long term strategy for DBs. It's worked up 'til now - good for them - but will it do so for another 21 years?
If P1 had gone down a different road (cheaper cost of entry / more users) then maybe they wouldn't have needed to go cap-in-hand to a Vulture Capitalist. Sorry, I mean Venture Capitalist.
-
MF is expensive compared to 135. But it is not much if you are running successfully a photographic business. If I would by a company car for $40.000 people would think: cool, this guy has a new car bought with money he earned in photography. If I spend the same amount in camera equipment they say: are you crazy to spend that much money for a camera. Actually it should be vice versa. The investment in the equipment is far more intelligent and will give me some advantages and revenue. A car will give me none of that, that is just lost money. I hope you get the point here, there a many photographers who need to invest in order to reduce the tax load. So why don't by expensive gear?
-
MF is expensive compared to 135. But it is not much if you are running successfully a photographic business. If I would by a company car for $40.000 people would think: cool, this guy has a new car bought with money he earned in photography. If I spend the same amount in camera equipment they say: are you crazy to spend that much money for a camera. Actually it should be vice versa. The investment in the equipment is far more intelligent and will give me some advantages and revenue. A car will give me none of that, that is just lost money. I hope you get the point here, there a many photographers who need to invest in order to reduce the tax load. So why don't by expensive gear?
again i say can either hasselblad or phase one live long term on a business model that only professional photographers, and rental outlets who have the ability to write off gear is their predominate purchaser.. mr. ramirez as a business person if product a and product b both mfdb's could do the job for you and one is half the price, which are you going to buy. are prices high because businesses who buy the backs are able to depreciate the investment,(doug said that 2/3s of the buys were at the professional end for the new 250) and so the initial price is not taken into consideration, because the price cannot be warranted just by the cost of r&d, parts and labor to build the back.
-
a bmw 4 series car
the problem with the car is it can't take photos...
-
with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system? you can't tell me that the high end mfdb cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.
I don't understand your point when you quote someone who says they can't tell the difference between a Nikon D800 with an Otus and MFD. If that's the case, then aren't you getting the opportunity you want by being able to affordably buy the Nikon?
What problem is presented for you, David?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
with the expected price for hasselblad's cmos sensor camera rumored to be $25,000, $10,000 less than the phase one db, i believe that new mfdb prices have lost all sense of proportions. nobody can convince me that it takes more money to produce either a hasselblad or phase one high end back then it takes to produce a bmw 4 series car. both the back and car sell for the same price and the depreciation for the car is far less then a mfdb. i know some people will say that the r&d for the digital backs, because they sell fewer units, have to be spread over the fewer units then for the car, which adds more cost to the mfdb. that's just it. how large could medium format be if the backs were priced so many more photographers could upgrade to mf? how many more lenses and acc. could phase one and hasselblad sell if more photographers had their camera system? you can't tell me that the high end mfdb cost to produce is 10 to 15 times the price of a d800/e. i think pentax is on the right track. the wealthy and professional photographers have become the target market for new mfdb's but imo the amateur photographer, over the long run, is the life blood of a camera company and by and large they have been locked out of the mf digital market for new products. i believe it was bernard on this forum who said that a d800 image with the otus lens, (and more otus lenses are on the way) is practically impossible to tell apart from a well made mfdb image and we saw that with synn's little test that even people on this forum had a difficult time telling the difference. i believe that if phase one or hasselblad produced a bare bones mfdb similar to the hasselblad cfv back that could be mounted on different mf camera's and/or tech cameras priced like the new pentax, either company would see a large increase in sales and by adding these new customers a pathway is created for upgrades to newer models as they become available.
Please stop quoting me in the wrong context.
I demonstrated how 3 images from 3 cameras can be processed to look similar. My point was that it takes a lot more work to get there with 35mm than with MFDB and that's why I prefer to use the latter (Plus also, the shooting experience I get with MF). Others may have different preferences.
Like Steve said, if one can't tell the images apart, why not live happily ever after with the D800?
-
For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.
I don't understand your point when you quote someone who says they can't tell the difference between a Nikon D800 with an Otus and MFD. If that's the case, then aren't you getting the opportunity you want by being able to affordably buy the Nikon?
What problem is presented for you, David?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
it's not a problem for me but it will be a problem for phase one and hasselblad and again you answer my question. the mf market is small. why is it small? because the prices are way out of line. i didn't quote that they couldn't see a difference, what i said was the difference was very small and that knowledgeable people have a difficult time seeing the difference. at no time did i say that there isn't a difference. and yes with zeiss producing dslr lenses that blow everything away and nikon and canon set to launch in the not to distant future large 40 to low 50 mp cameras and pentax with their price point on the same sensor as the 250, it will leave the top 2 mfdb producers in a tough situation in the future if they stay with there pricing policy. the cost of creating mfdb's is in no way indicative of the selling price. canon and nikon have better live view and better af systems. the sensor is the same for nikon who use the sony sensor. phase one and hasselblad cmos sensors are sony sensors that sell for around $1,000 to $3,000 depending on what forum you want to believe. sony has done the research on the sensor so what is left. its not just me but many on this forum also believe that the prices are way out of line. as doug said 2/3 of the 250 sales from his company were to professionals. you can't live by professionals alone because as i said earlier, it is the amateur photographer who in the long run keeps a manufacturer in business. look what has happened to the compact digital camera. it has all but gone away because of iphone cameras. mf imo is just one economic downturn away from disaster if they don't increase their base of photographers and the best way to do that is having realistic prices. why can pentax sell the equivalant of the 250 for 1/3 the price? yes it is bare bones but many would love this as a bore bones back that can be picked up at the same price as the pentax and attach to their camera.
-
For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.
I don't understand your point when you quote someone who says they can't tell the difference between a Nikon D800 with an Otus and MFD. If that's the case, then aren't you getting the opportunity you want by being able to affordably buy the Nikon?
What problem is presented for you, David?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
David's thinking of marketing and judgment of performance, is clearly of one that has little or no self experience of the products that he addresses to… However, there is no doubt, that P1 can charge whatever they want, taking advantage from the fact that they have no competition in the MFDB market… It's not their fault…, it's clearly Hasselblad's fault…, If Hasselblad didn't "close" the H system and if they didn't discontinue the CF (with interchangeable adapters) series, P1 would have never be the "monopoly winner"… MFDB market would have been at more than 50K units annually by now and prices would be significantly lower, while quality would have advanced more… Ooh, I insist! …it's all Hasselblad's fault, they thought (when they had the upper hand) of taking it all and they ended up a step (now) from loosing everything... More than that… MF market shrinks because no one will trust a market that is run by one company only... MF market is about providing in photography things that DSLRs can't… It has nothing to do with sensor size… MF market's reasons of existence is for modularity, multishot, View/Tech camera compatibility, …anything that provides solution to a specialist. For people that want to buy better than DSLR, there is Pentax and Leica S, but this is not MF… It's only larger sensor DSLR that one can wait and enjoy it a few years later by a future model DSLR… My 528c however, has never had an alternative, …neither it will ever have! It will stay up there on the absolute "Everest" of what MF photography is, because it provides the solutions that MF makers no longer provide... All hopes are with Sinar now… Unless if Hassy wakes up from the "lunar nirvana" and puts some "Solar energy" into MF values, by putting the H4x (or other "open") as major platform and goes back to provide self contained backs for all MF cameras in the market… (inc. H4x of course) :-* Just my 2Cs… ;)
-
the mf market is small. why is it small? because the prices are way out of line.
If it is THAT easy to build a cheap MF camera and subsequently expand the size of the market, Canon and Nikon would have done it already.
Look, this "I can't afford MF" argument has been around since forever. No one says that you HAVE TO buy the IQ250 at 30k. You can shoot with 35mm or get a used MF kit for 4-5K. Even those whoa re buying the IQ250 are probably trading something in and paying a lot less than the list price.
Price positioning of brands isn't something that will change just because some people scream "This price doesn't make sense to me". It does for other people. It's the same reason $300 Dell notebooks and $2,000 macbook pros co-exist.
-
David's thinking of marketing and judgment of performance, is clearly of one that has little or no self experience of the products that he addresses to… However, there is no doubt, that P1 can charge whatever they want, taking advantage from the fact that they have no competition in the MFDB market… It's not their fault…, it's clearly Hasselblad's fault…, If Hasselblad didn't "close" the H system and if they didn't discontinue the CF (with interchangeable adapters) series, P1 would have never be the "monopoly winner"… MFDB market would have been at more than 50K units annually by now and prices would be significantly lower, while quality would have advanced more… Ooh, I insist! …it's all Hasselblad's fault, they thought (when they had the upper hand) of taking it all and they ended up a step (now) from loosing everything... More than that… MF market shrinks because no one will trust a market that is run by one company only... MF market is about providing in photography things that DSLRs can't… It has nothing to do with sensor size… MF market's reasons of existence is for modularity, multishot, View/Tech camera compatibility, …anything that provides solution to a specialist. For people that want to buy better than DSLR, there is Pentax and Leica S, but this is not MF… It's only larger sensor DSLR that one can wait and enjoy it a few years later by a future model DSLR… My 528c however, has never had an alternative, …neither it will ever have! It will stay up there on the absolute "Everest" of what MF photography is, because it provides the solutions that MF makers no longer provide... All hopes are with Sinar now… Unless if Hassy wakes up from the "lunar nirvana" and puts some "Solar energy" into MF values, by putting the H4x (or other "open") as major platform and goes back to provide self contained backs for all MF cameras in the market… (inc. H4x of course) :-* Just my 2Cs… ;)
excuse me, if you would have read my post i did own the cfv-16 which is the big fat pixel back that you have been fighting for on another thread. i have a post graduate degree in finance and accounting and have backpacked large format 8x10 and 8x20 cameras in the high sierra for platinum photography. to say i have little or no knowledge is an insult. no i have not used the latest phase one equipment but that doesn't preclude me from speaking about price. the d800 is my first dslr and i bought it because the prices for digital backs were out of my price range. to rent in the area i live is not possible even though i am 80 miles from yosemite and 35 miles from sequoia/kings canyon. maybe i should purchase to rent to others so i can have a write off or one of the big mfdb companies would like to set up shop near these fantastic locations.
-
For the size of the market that can afford and choose to buy their products, plus the costs associated with creating, marketing, and distributing those products, the end result is yes, a product that costs 10-15 times more than a Nikon D800.
teve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Wonderfully said. The distribution and marketing costs of luxury goods are of necessity high to achieve the luxury positioning, and thereby justify the luxury pricing for said goods. You should be teaching a course in a Paris fashion business school.
A few years ago a restaurant opened over here, nice menu, tables, cutlery, service, high bill. The originality was no food was served, but in spite or because of this feature the place did stay open ... for a while.
Edmund
-
If it is THAT easy to build a cheap MF camera and subsequently expand the size of the market, Canon and Nikon would have done it already.
Look, this "I can't afford MF" argument has been around since forever. No one says that you HAVE TO buy the IQ250 at 30k. You can shoot with 35mm or get a used MF kit for 4-5K. Even those whoa re buying the IQ250 are probably trading something in and paying a lot less than the list price.
Price positioning of brands isn't something that will change just because some people scream "This price doesn't make sense to me". It does for other people. It's the same reason $300 Dell notebooks and $2,000 macbook pros co-exist.
no canon and nikon would not have done it already because they would also have to retool factories or build new factories to build the mf cameras as well as for a new set of lenses. so what you say makes no sense in that regard. when the nikon f5 was released in 1996 it was priced at $2300, ($3400 in todays dollars pretty much the same price as a d800) while the hasselblad 503 was $5,000 ($7483 in todays dollars.) a little more than 2x. so no it is not i can't afford argument as you state that has been going on forever because the price difference wasn't that great and mf had considerable more practitioners than today. as for complaining as you say to change prices, no, but price does change when new competition comes in or when sales start to drop. as for apple, their computer sales have become stagnate downward because of price, and apple management see it continuing. so yes the dells of the world are growing and eating into apples market share. so no they are not co-existing, one is growing, dell, which in 2013 had a 7.4% growth in computer sales while the market as a whole including apple were down 6.9%. i would say price was a major factor for those numbers. i don't know if you are old enough but many of my generation remember the 1971 intro of the bowmar brain calculator that sold for $240 which in today's inflated dollars would be $1400. they were the first to make a digital calculator but competitors came into the market, undercut the brain, and bowmar left the calculator business. i don't believe canon or nikon will enter the mf market for the reasons i stated earlier, but i could see sony, since they developed the sensor and they have a working relationship with zeiss for their lenses. so yes price is very important if you want to survive.
-
it's not a problem for me but it will be a problem for phase one and hasselblad and again you answer my question. the mf market is small. why is it small? because the prices are way out of line. i didn't quote that they couldn't see a difference, what i said was the difference was very small and that knowledgeable people have a difficult time seeing the difference. at no time did i say that there isn't a difference. and yes with zeiss producing dslr lenses that blow everything away and nikon and canon set to launch in the not to distant future large 40 to low 50 mp cameras and pentax with their price point on the same sensor as the 250, it will leave the top 2 mfdb producers in a tough situation in the future if they stay with there pricing policy. the cost of creating mfdb's is in no way indicative of the selling price. canon and nikon have better live view and better af systems. the sensor is the same for nikon who use the sony sensor. phase one and hasselblad cmos sensors are sony sensors that sell for around $1,000 to $3,000 depending on what forum you want to believe. sony has done the research on the sensor so what is left. its not just me but many on this forum also believe that the prices are way out of line. as doug said 2/3 of the 250 sales from his company were to professionals. you can't live by professionals alone because as i said earlier, it is the amateur photographer who in the long run keeps a manufacturer in business. look what has happened to the compact digital camera. it has all but gone away because of iphone cameras. mf imo is just one economic downturn away from disaster if they don't increase their base of photographers and the best way to do that is having realistic prices. why can pentax sell the equivalant of the 250 for 1/3 the price? yes it is bare bones but many would love this as a bore bones back that can be picked up at the same price as the pentax and attach to their camera.
David
You're making the case for a desire, not a business plan. There are numerous assumptions in your statement that are skin-deep in real information. Only one example being that "Sony has done the research on the sensor, so what is left?" By this basis, one could say the same thing about every sensor that has been created for medium format. I'm pretty sure there's quite a lot left.
But anyway - the market for MFD isn't small because the prices are "way out of line". The market is small, because that is how MFD wants it (IMO). You have a small, but passionate target market that can afford your products and eagerly looks forward to the next generation. Your entry level products approach affordability for a larger market, and 2nd hand, previous generation products enrich this larger, secondary market as well, many of whom eventually find their way toward being able to afford one of the higher end systems.
Why would Phase One want to create products that costs less, that sell to more? By doing so, they necessarily lose a piece of their technological advantage, as inevitably, compromises are made in order to push product pricing downward, in order to attain greater unit sales numbers. By doing so, they lose ground to the companies that already play in those lower price point markets, in terms of their unique feature set advantages.
It is a huge risk, because to lower price points where I imagine you think they should be, Phase One would have to sell many, may, many times more the number of units they sell now. It is a very different market approach. I believe the pricing and the technology, and the capability/drive - whatever you wish to call it - to create products that fulfill their ambitions is a result of their market approach and this would suffer greatly by adopting a larger market approach. Or at least it would have a tremendous potential to.
Look - I personally want every single person who is passionate about photography, that loves creating images, to be able to afford whatever tool they would love to use for that purpose. I do wish MFD was more affordable for those individuals. But not at the expense of the health of any company that makes truly excellent products for photography.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I thought the industrial revolution, and things like cars, jet travel were essentially based on the idea of economy of scale. Ah, yes - chip production, also. In fact there seems to be a trend that electronics generally get cheaper the more one makes off them, as what one designs is essentially the tooling and not the object, and marginal item costs are minuscule compared with production startup costs. Also there's a learning curve during production: You make more of a chip, it costs you less and less because you amortize the design but also because you push the yield up year by year. You make more of a machine and your materials costs decrease.
Edmund
David
Why would Phase One want to create products that costs less, that sell to more? By doing so, they necessarily lose a piece of their technological advantage, as inevitably, compromises are made in order to push product pricing downward, in order to attain greater unit sales numbers. By doing so, they lose ground to the companies that already play in those lower price point markets, in terms of their unique feature set advantages.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Wonderfully said. The distribution and marketing costs of luxury goods are of necessity high to achieve the luxury positioning, and thereby justify the luxury pricing for said goods. You should be teaching a course in a Paris fashion business school.
A few years ago a restaurant opened over here, nice menu, tables, cutlery, service, high bill. The originality was no food was served, but in spite or because of this feature the place did stay open ... for a while.
Edmund
Edmund, you cut out out the word "creating" (which is certainly a substantial portion of the cost) and harpooned only on marketing and distribution. Rather than just focus on the core material costs, I do understand that there are more costs associated with the end price of a product. Since David has a post degree in finance and accounting, I was surprised to hear that conclusion from him. If the separation between the "costs" associated with MFD and the selling price is so great, as many seem to believe, then Phase One must be one of the most financially successful companies in history. And in that case, then it really would be a head scratcher as to why Phase One would want to risk that for greater market share.
Also - David, you have been focusing on the market being for professionals and/or rental houses, based on Doug's sales data input. That is completely missing the fact that the amateur market has been the highest growth market for at least the past 5 years for Phase One. Yes, these amateurs can afford MFD, and they are not professional photographers.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Is the "cost" of a balloon the price of the rubber thingie, or the hot air to blow it into a ma
Edmund,
If the separation between the "costs" associated with MFD and the selling price is so great, as many seem to believe, then Phase One must be one of the most financially successful companies in history.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Or, maybe, their indispensable marketing and management personnel, advertising costs and general expenses are eating up their sales revenue.
Edmund
-
Is the "cost" of a balloon the price of the rubber thingie, or the hot air to blow it into a ma
Or, maybe, their indispensable marketing and management personnel, and general expenses are eating up their sales revenue. This is a common situation in the computer industry, just look at Microsoft who were explaining a few years ago that a retail CD of Windows sold at retail in Europe (no computer) had to cost $500.
Edmund
Edmund
Or maybe, not eating up sales revenue, but contributing toward it...
Great analogy with Microsoft by the way, just dead on... ::)
Regardless, however one would like to think they know how the costs add up to MFD prices, I still hold that while Phase One could indeed lower prices and catch a larger market, they choose not to (IMO), possibly for good reason.
It wasn't long ago that Hasselblad pretty famously dropped their pricing across the board by an average of 30%. We were calculating that to make up the lost revenue of that reduction, they would have to roughly triple their unit sales. I don't think that happened...And since then prices have actually gone back up.
So assuming, by affordable, that David means somewhere in the $10K - $15K range at most, then we're banking on Phase One increasing their unit sales by a factor of something in the neighborhood of 7 - 8 X or more? I don't see that as anywhere near a sure thing. And even if it projected as a possibility, Phase One would have to want to do this. As it stands now, they have a tremendous license to create really great products without too much (reasonable) need to keep an eye on the budget, and recent years have brought record validation that people are digging what they're doing. I don't see anyone at Phase One telling the group - guys, this isn't going the way we'd like it to.
I'm not against affordable pricing and I'm not against creating great products regardless of ultimate cost (if you're successfully doing so). I like to understand. I understand David, what you (and others) want. But that doesn't mean I can refuse to understand what Phase One wants (and does). And given the results, I also don't agree they have something that is broken and needs fixing (from their perspective).
**Now, back to deconvoluted sharpening!
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
My guess is that Phase One can set whatever prices they want, after all, we live in a free market economy. There is competition in the MF market, that starts with Pentax, over Leica, Hasselblad and Phamiya. If the market was that lucrative, we would see more competition.
On the other hand, we may see more competition. Technical cameras just became more attractive with live view and I think Alpa, Arca and Hartblei would gladly cooperate with anyone offering an MFDB at a reasonable price.
Best regards
Erik
Or maybe, not eating up sales revenue, but contributing toward it...
Great analogy with Microsoft by the way, just dead on... ::)
Regardless, however one would like to think they know how the costs add up to MFD prices, I still hold that while Phase One could indeed lower prices and catch a larger market, they choose not to (IMO), possibly for good reason.
It wasn't long ago that Hasselblad pretty famously dropped their pricing across the board by an average of 30%. We were calculating that to make up the lost revenue of that reduction, they would have to roughly triple their unit sales. I don't think that happened...And since then prices have actually gone back up.
So assuming, by affordable, that David means somewhere in the $10K - $15K range at most, then we're banking on Phase One increasing their unit sales by a factor of something in the neighborhood of 7 - 8 X or more? I don't see that as anywhere near a sure thing. And even if it projected as a possibility, Phase One would have to want to do this. As it stands now, they have a tremendous license to create really great products without too much (reasonable) need to keep an eye on the budget, and recent years have brought record validation that people are digging what they're doing. I don't see anyone at Phase One telling the group - guys, this isn't going the way we'd like it to.
I'm not against affordable pricing and I'm not against creating great products regardless of ultimate cost (if you're successfully doing so). I like to understand. I understand David, what you (and others) want. But that doesn't mean I can refuse to understand what Phase One wants (and does). And given the results, I also don't agree they have something that is broken and needs fixing (from their perspective).
**Now, back to deconvoluted sharpening!
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
My guess is that Phase One can set whatever prices they want, after all, we live in a free market economy. There is competition in the MF market, that starts with Pentax, over Leica, Hasselblad and Phamiya. If the market was that lucrative, we would see more competition.
On the other hand, we may see more competition. Technical cameras just became more attractive with live view and I think Alpa, Arca and Hartblei would gladly cooperate with anyone offering an MFDB at a reasonable price.
Best regards
Erik
You're right Erik, competition can certainly have an impact and disrupt business models. We shall see. Regardless of whether or not the competition is successful in forcing Phase One to adopt a lower price point approach to the market, their efforts will still present more choices to consider, and that's a good thing.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
David
You're making the case for a desire, not a business plan. There are numerous assumptions in your statement that are skin-deep in real information. Only one example being that "Sony has done the research on the sensor, so what is left?" By this basis, one could say the same thing about every sensor that has been created for medium format. I'm pretty sure there's quite a lot left.
But anyway - the market for MFD isn't small because the prices are "way out of line". The market is small, because that is how MFD wants it (IMO). You have a small, but passionate target market that can afford your products and eagerly looks forward to the next generation. Your entry level products approach affordability for a larger market, and 2nd hand, previous generation products enrich this larger, secondary market as well, many of whom eventually find their way toward being able to afford one of the higher end systems.
Why would Phase One want to create products that costs less, that sell to more? By doing so, they necessarily lose a piece of their technological advantage, as inevitably, compromises are made in order to push product pricing downward, in order to attain greater unit sales numbers. By doing so, they lose ground to the companies that already play in those lower price point markets, in terms of their unique feature set advantages.
It is a huge risk, because to lower price points where I imagine you think they should be, Phase One would have to sell many, may, many times more the number of units they sell now. It is a very different market approach. I believe the pricing and the technology, and the capability/drive - whatever you wish to call it - to create products that fulfill their ambitions is a result of their market approach and this would suffer greatly by adopting a larger market approach. Or at least it would have a tremendous potential to.
Look - I personally want every single person who is passionate about photography, that loves creating images, to be able to afford whatever tool they would love to use for that purpose. I do wish MFD was more affordable for those individuals. But not at the expense of the health of any company that makes truly excellent products for photography.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
1.You are right that the makers want MF market small… and you are right that is not the cost that keeps it small… The problem is, that to keep it small they destroy the base of it by using their part-exchange policy… The other problem is that they misjudged the damage done to the base of the market (they excluded too many people that wanted to enter the market) to an extend that instead of keeping it constant and have a small growth, the market is shrinking to dangerous level.
2. P1 can't compete internally with Leaf… It's Leaf that is setting the base of the new market… It's like if one would think that Audi should compete with VW, that, is clearly a wrong policy. However, what they are doing wrong, is that they support only a few MF products and they do that intentionally (for example, they deny selling to the users of Rollei cameras although these cameras have great compatibility with digital backs) because they thought of it as competition instead of additional sales… Another problem is that they pay less attention all the time to LF/tech camera compatibility and other special uses of MFDB (scanning and MS is another example), which makes their products look more and more as better alternatives to D800… My opinion, is that Leaf and Dalsa should work on increasing the size of their 22mp & 33mp sensors up to 54mm size (because they are the most compatible with LF cameras), if they would offer a 41.5mp 54x40.5mm back (by expanding the size of their 33mp sensor) and if they would jump on to the MS ship (will Leica/Sinar let them do so? …or they will block any possible negotiations with Jenoptik? …I'm afraid of the later.) as well, I could see a great future for them, otherwise I can see Leica/Sinar causing them huge problems with their future products… (Sinar may want a "payback" here for what happened with the HY6). As of Hasselblad… they jumped off the MF train themselves, they have to correct all the mistakes they've done over the years… and that's no easy path…. I don't know what they were thinking with all those multiple "suicidal" decisions….
P.S. Having user interchangeable adapter plates is another path that Phamyia should consider…. at least as far as Leaf is concerned.
-
Steve,
It seems to me that we're seeing an unusual level of unhappy comments about pricing at this announcement. I don't know what that means, but it probably means something.
Edmund
-
Steve,
It seems to me that we're seeing an unusual level of unhappy comments about pricing at this announcement. I don't know what that means, but it probably means something.
Edmund
Edmund, see also: every single Phase launch ever. The 65+ Launch: sky is falling, too pricey, yet... Sold well. IQ series, sky is falling, too little to late, too pricey... Sold well. The IQ260, too pricey... Sold well. IQ250, too pricey... Already selling well.
See also also the introduction of every new dSLR or competitive product ever. The 16mp dSLRs were supposed to end medium format, then the 22mp, then the cheaper 22mp, then the 36mp.
The sky in the forums must be very very high, because it's always falling :).
-
Steve,
It seems to me that we're seeing an unusual level of unhappy comments about pricing at this announcement. I don't know what that means, but it probably means something.
Edmund
It means there is nothing in this world that makes everyone happy at the same time and the internet amplification effect shows up more negative comments than positive; especially now that more and more people are connected.
Go back and check the reviews of every cutting edge digital back on this site. First gen technology in MF has always been priced at this same level. Sometimes even more. This includes even backs like the P20+ that had a sensor barely bigger than 35mm and not much more resolution than the best 35mm cameras then.
The way some people are portraying the IQ250 pricing as a "Neverbeforeseen event" is kinda silly.
-
Doug, Steve,
Firstly, I would like to apologize for having being a bit too trollish in the previous discussion.
I agree with the fact that the pricing per-se is in a way in line with previous products.
But I do get a feeling of genuine unhappiness from the comments. Something is off, maybe people don't think they will be cutting edge by getting a new back, maybe participants in this forum are embittered at the strictures created by economic change.
One member contacted me privately to say "I payed $38,000 8 years ago for a Leaf Aptus 75 and it didn't bother me cause at the time there was no other product on the market which came close to the quality of image it produced. Now with the choices available (Nikon, Pentax) its is a completely different ball game"
Edmund
Edmund, see also: every single Phase launch ever. The 65+ Launch: sky is falling, too pricey, yet... Sold well. IQ series, sky is falling, too little to late, too pricey... Sold well. The IQ260, too pricey... Sold well. IQ250, too pricey... Already selling well.
See also also the introduction of every new dSLR or competitive product ever. The 16mp dSLRs were supposed to end medium format, then the 22mp, then the cheaper 22mp, then the 36mp.
The sky in the forums must be very very high, because it's always falling :).
-
I do believe that pricing is more than it should be, but not that it is at insane level as others suggest… IMO, P1 latest models, should be at Credo prices and Leaf prices should be comparatively lower… Is this achievable? I think it is, ...if the "trade premium" that is included in MF price will be vanished and makers will stop charging "thin air" to trade a back that will never return back to the market… The worst thing however is that this policy, 1. "Pockets" the premium from one that enters MF without having anything to trade (…sometimes people are forced to buy a cheap MFDB and then trade it to get maybe three times the price they payed to buy it, just to get (what should have been) a discount), 2. It shrinks the base of customers, which is what (despite Doug's "sold well" comment - total number of new MFDBs sold is lower by each year) causes the whole MF market to shrink… To an extend, I believe that MF makers are taking "their own eyes off"… I said it before and I will say it once more… Leica/Sinar will beat them to death with their future products… They'll come with a Cmos sensor alternative (Cmosis?) for a future Leica S body capable of "FF DSLR high Iso" and they will come up with new CCD self contained backs from Sinar, with interchangeable adapters for most cameras and full tech/view camera compatibility and their (traditionally supported) MS capability that will give solutions and diverge the market back to its original values of modularity and ability to "perform the task", …catching them with their "pants down"… Does anybody here believes that they are so naive in Leica as to invest on a company that is losing money without having in mind a prosperous future?
-
One member contacted me privately to say "I payed $38,000 8 years ago for a Leaf Aptus 75 and it didn't bother me cause at the time there was no other product on the market which came close to the quality of image it produced. Now with the choices available (Nikon, Pentax) its is a completely different ball game"
*shrugs* I see this argument.
But the Pentax 645 and D800 and 5D3 have all been on the market long enough to measure their impact. Phase sales have gone up since the introduction of each.
If, in some alternative history, mfd was a 50% market share product the year before the D800 or 645D were release I suspect their introductions would have crashed the mfd market. But MFD hasn't been a majority player in well over a decade, so the market dynamics are more based on niche-dynamics then what the middle 50% wants (which drives the consumer and prosumer and low end pro markets). Frustrated d800 users were one of our biggest markets for sales last year.
-
I do believe that pricing is more than it should be, but not that it is at insane level as others suggest… IMO, P1 latest models, should be at Credo prices and Leaf prices should be comparatively lower… Is this achievable? I think it is, ...if the "trade premium" that is included in MF price will be vanished and makers will stop charging "thin air" to trade a back that will never return back to the market… The worst thing however is that this policy, 1. "Pockets" the premium from one that enters MF without having anything to trade (…sometimes people are forced to buy a cheap MFDB and then trade it to get maybe three times the price they payed to buy it, just to get (what should have been) a discount), 2. It shrinks the base of customers, which is what (despite Doug's "sold well" comment - total number of new MFDBs sold is lower by each year) causes the whole MF market to shrink… To an extend, I believe that MF makers are taking "their own eyes off"… I said it before and I will say it once more… Leica/Sinar will beat them to death with their future products… They'll come with a Cmos sensor alternative (Cmosis?) for a future Leica S body capable of "FF DSLR high Iso" and they will come up with new CCD self contained backs from Sinar, with interchangeable adapters for most cameras and full tech/view camera compatibility and their (traditionally supported) MS capability that will give solutions and diverge the market back to its original values of modularity and ability to "perform the task", …catching them with their "pants down"… Does anybody here believes that they are so naive in Leica as to invest on a company that is losing money without having in mind a prosperous future?
T...
Team Phase One does not do MS or interchangeable plates - their unit sales, revenue, and profit keep growing.
Hasselblad/Imacon and Sinar do MS and interchangeable plates - how are they doing financially?
What in the world, with those real world case studies, makes you think Team P1 should start doing MS and interchangeable plates? Do you not see a large gap between what is important to you (specifically you) as one individual photographer with specific needs, and what has actually made financially successful digital back companies?
If you're hoping Leica will come with a value-priced CMOS version of the S and that a new back from Sinar is going to take a significant (even double digit) market share - I fear you will be waiting for a very long time.
-
Do you not see a large gap between what is important to you (specifically you) as one individual photographer with specific needs, and what has actually made financially successful digital back companies?
Actually, yes, I see a *camera* as a necessity and my P1 dealer sold me a back. That is why I sold my P1 system and will not buy another. And yes, I as an individual photographer care about my wishes and needs, and not about the bottom line of the company which makes the things. And by the way, Hasselblad make backs but they sell *cameras*, not backs. Nikon and Canon have been financially successful, in case you haven't noticed, and they managed this in large part by building very flexible systems rather than telling their customers that they are idiots with unrealistic wishes.
Edmund
-
Actually, yes, I see a *camera* as a necessity and P1 sold me a back with junk in front. That is why I sold my P1 system and will not buy another.
Edmund
I just shot a pretty nice gig today with this "Junk" you speak of.
I must have got the only good one they had. Lucky me.
-
I just shot a pretty nice gig today with this "Junk" you speak of.
I must have got the only good one they had. Lucky me.
Of course, you are so highly skilled you could also have done the job with a D800, I bet :)
Reminds me of a friend of my father's, a violin player called Kreisler, quite well known in his day - played, got applauded, smashed the violin, told the public: "that was just a cheap violin I picked up to make a point", pulled out his Strad and went on with the concert.
Edmund
-
Nikon and Canon have been financially successful, in case you haven't noticed, and they managed this in large part by building very flexible systems rather than telling their customers that they are idiots with unrealistic wishes.
Lol. Seriously?
Go to Thom Hogan's blog to see a huge laundry list of all the times Nikon has treated their customers as idiots who should be taking what's given to them. And he has been shooting Nikon for decades.
-
Of course, you are so highly skilled you could also have done the job with a D800, I bet :)
Reminds me of a friend of my father's, a violin player called Kreisler, quite well known in his day - played, got applauded, smashed the violin, told the public: "that was just a cheap violin I picked up to make a point", pulled out his Strad and went on with the concert.
Edmund
...and looks like you can't get the job done with your "cheap violin" either. :)
-
T...
Team Phase One does not do MS or interchangeable plates - their unit sales, revenue, and profit keep growing.
Sure they do… they have lots of space left without any competition around… Still, MF sales are shrinking… It is MF where P1 operates …no?
Hasselblad/Imacon and Sinar do MS and interchangeable plates - how are they doing financially?
H/Imacon does badly exactly because they stopped doing interchangeable plates and MS MFDBs... (leaving P1 some of their space…), Sinar suffered not having a camera platform to promote their backs… (P1 "helped" there…) now they are under the power of Leica… You do know who Leica is and its financial strength …no? Everybody does… for (much) more than a century now….
What in the world, with those real world case studies, makes you think Team P1 should start doing MS and interchangeable plates? Do you not see a large gap between what is important to you (specifically you) as one individual photographer with specific needs, and what has actually made financially successful digital back companies?
I don't suggest what P1 should do… I state why MF market shrinks… again, P1 is in the MF market …no? If P1 thinks that their customers are the "D800 disappointed people", what will they do when D810 will have less "disappointed customers"? …and later on with the D820? …what then?
If you're hoping Leica will come with a value-priced CMOS version of the S and that a new back from Sinar is going to take a significant (even double digit) market share - I fear you will be waiting for a very long time.
Where did I say "value-priced"? …they don't need price to compete, they 've proven that already, I better repeat my saying: "Does anybody here believes that they are so naive in Leica as to invest on a company that is losing money without having in mind a prosperous future?" …do you?
-
I believe some of the issues are because many feel that since this is CMOS, it should be cheaper. Before the chips were all CCD and no one was making these but Dalsa (and before Kodak) Teledyne/Dalsa is a large company, with huge U.S. gov. contracts and I believe that the MF CCD manufacturing was a small part of their entire company revenues. However for Phase One, and the other players, there was not a CCD in a 35mm camera that could approach even the P65+. It was clear if you wanted high resolution, you needed CCD and Medium format.
35mm quickly switched over to CMOS years ago I believe since the D800 36MP chip, the gap did close quite a bit. I base this on my use of both systems. I am sure there were people that moved to Phase One after using the D800, but I am also sure there were many other photographers that moved from either older or lower end MF backs to the D800. At least with photographers who shoot outdoor landscapes. I am still amazed daily at what I can get from the D800, in both color and dynamic range. If Phase One increased their sales over last year by 1% that is an increase. But I am sure it's more than that. I also believe that Phase One sales in China may account for quite a bit of their overall revenue. Phase One being a private company does not publish any sales results.
I personally feel that the cost of the chip in the IQ250 is considerably less than a comparable CCD chip mainly because the cost of the current 36MP 35mm chips are keeping the D800 at 3K, this is for a entire camera solution, not just a back. But 36MP at 35mm, vs 50MP in 1.3 crop MF, the yields will be a bit different. However Sony surely has the fab process figured out, and they have already published specs for their own 54MP 35mm chip. This is not a rumor, it's on the Sony site and Sony has talked about this chip several times in regards to the fact that the camera associated with this chip will not fall into the 3K price range. So the cost of these larger chips is more, but more than likely not 20K more.
Right now, Phase One is the only company shipping a MF CMOS back. Pentax and Hassi, may ship something later on, but for now Phase One has the only "real" product. If I was Phase One, I would charge what the market will bare. Will that change if Pentax and Hassi ship a product? Only time will tell.
But if the spec's for the 645DII do hold to what the early reports show, for the first time the players will be on an even playing field, CMOS 50MP, Sony chip. This was never there before. It took Pentax years to get the 645D to market and when it did, Phase was shipping the P65+. When the 645D did ship, it was hard to find, get service and purchase lenses at least in the U.S. This has improved and large dealers, like CI, now carry the Pentax line and they will be possibly in a great position when and if the 645DII does hit the market. For me at the price point of any of these solutions, I prefer the removable back, as it can be used on both a 645 camera and tech solution. Is this capability worth the large extra cost, that is something that each person has to determine.
Paul C
-
In my experience very few people know why two companies merge/are-acquired, even within those two companies.
For instance distribution channel, market share, client base, brand, personnel, parents, property, product line, items in R+D or personal factors can come into play that are not obvious to the average employee let alone individual customers. Sometimes it's done with nothing more than the intention to keep it out of the hands of competitors. Sometimes a third party or political force can come in and push two players together (see also banking crises in the US).
I definitely cannot say for sure, but my guess is strongly against that Leica bought Sinar with the hopes I making it a profitable digital back manufacturer. My guess is some combination of other factors was the primary driver.
The wild card in any such transaction is the price paid to acquire the company and how much if any debt is being acquire alongside it. At a very high price you need (or would expect) very strong reasons. At a low price you don't need very much justification at all. In some cases the price can be so low you start to think in terms of "what reasons do we have to *not* I acquire this company?" I'm not saying that's the case here - I have no idea what Sinar went for, but based on them being fourth or fifth place in a niche market I'd guess it wasn't crazy high.
But again, if both of us are being honest with ourselves, neither of us *know*. We are both guessing.
-
...and looks like you can't get the job done with your "cheap violin" either. :)
Actually, after selling my MF back I also swapped my 5D2 for an old tired 1Ds3 ($500 difference) , and the 1Ds3 has proved incredibly good, focus issues went away. Of course, my antique Canon 200/1.8 cost me $2000, about as much as a Hassy or Phase 80mm, but I think it is almost as good ;)
Some of the Canon and Nikon lenses are quite decent, you know ...
I find the "cheap violin" more useful for my own purposes.
Edmund
-
P.S. Having user interchangeable adapter plates is another path that Phamyia should consider…. at least as far as Leaf is concerned.
I doubt whether this will ever happen.
I estimate that 60-70% of the backs sold today is already in the Mamiya M mount.
Support of other platforms is increasingly becoming less important to Phase One.
Moving forward it will become harder to even find used backs in H mount. Up till the P30+ and P45+ this was quite easy.
-
2 things 1) steve, even though my degree is in finance and accounting, during my undergraduate days one book for my finance class had an epilog which to this day i believe to be true and right on the mark. the author stated that the demise of america will not come from an outside force but from the lunacy of harvard business school and the greed of wall street. printed well before the financial downturn of 2008. that is why i felt i had to do something worthwhile and instead of working in my field i became a special education teacher for the severe and profound mentally challenged children. yes i could have worked in my field screwed people and made tons of money where a purchase of a mfdb would be just a drop in the bucket. as an anti-capitalist i wanted to make a difference for children and their parents who society wants to throw away and i chose a school district that has a per capita income of a little over $20,000.
2) there is someone on this forum who shall remain nameless but uses a an alter-ego picture who seems to have a short fuse and always seems to feel picked on and denigrates others on this site because that person believes they are the be all and end all of photography. every time now when that persons alter-ego shows up i laugh and read the writings as part of my comics for the day. edmund and erik show class when they write, mr. alter-ego that does not go for you. the photographic world does not revolve around you! you are just a tiny fish in a very large sea!
-
I'm no Prima-Donna!
-
No, definitely all present and correct :)
-
Actually, after selling my MF back I also swapped my 5D2 for an old tired 1Ds3 ($500 difference) , and the 1Ds3 has proved incredibly good, focus issues went away. Of course, my antique Canon 200/1.8 cost me $2000, about as much as a Hassy or Phase 80mm, but I think it is almost as good ;)
Some of the Canon and Nikon lenses are quite decent, you know ...
I find the "cheap violin" more useful for my own purposes.
Edmund
As I have said many times, if the tool you have chosen suits your purposes, use it and be happy with it. How many MF users do you see hanging out in Canon/ Nikon forums commenting endlessly on what needs to be fixed? Can't we ask for the same courtesy?
P.s. I do own and use a few rather nice Nikon lenses. I also have three excellent Mamiya lenses that altogether cost me $1400 and feature stellar optics. Not every thing in MF land is stratospherically priced as some people would like to say.
-
The fundamental issue is that the business model is designed for low sales volume and thus a high price is required. But I'm sure that Phase One through its leading position in this niche segment adds $10K or so on top just because they can and it increases their revenue.
$3k CCD sensors ended up in $30k backs, even if the CMOS sensor is a lot cheaper it won't change anything significant in back pricing.
The current products are not so user friendly, if you're used to DSLRs what you'll see is a product that essentially worse at everything except resolution, until a sales person teaches you the advantages. With CMOS backs and improved bodies (hopefully coming soon) the product will start to become as versatile it needs to be to "sell itself", and only then it can fit into a volume-based business model. I doubt Phase One has the interest to try something like that unless market conditions force them, and I see no signs of that happening.
-
The fundamental issue is that the business model is designed for low sales volume and thus a high price is required. But I'm sure that Phase One through its leading position in this niche segment adds $10K or so on top just because they can and it increases their revenue.
$3k CCD sensors ended up in $30k backs, even if the CMOS sensor is a lot cheaper it won't change anything significant in back pricing.
The current products are not so user friendly, if you're used to DSLRs what you'll see is a product that essentially worse at everything except resolution, until a sales person teaches you the advantages. With CMOS backs and improved bodies (hopefully coming soon) the product will start to become as versatile it needs to be to "sell itself", and only then it can fit into a volume-based business model. I doubt Phase One has the interest to try something like that unless market conditions force them, and I see no signs of that happening.
3k sensors? …do you mean that Dalsa sells a sensor (even the 80mp one) for that price to MF makers? …If that was the case, the P280's final price would be considerably more than 100k…
-
Wow, long discussion. The price of MFDigital has always been an issue since I can remember.
I guess if PhaseOne came out with a medium format digital mirror less camera like the A7R but with a much larger and better EVF, custom made CMOS sensor (53.9mm x 40.4mm or close to that size) that handled tech wides perfectly, awesome high iso and long exposure performance, great live view, robust wifi and cable tethering + stunning LS lenses in the $4k range and charged $12,000 for that body there would not be much of an discussion would it. ;D
Also in regards to image quality there is only one sensor in all of the 35mm or smaller digital camera land that really makes the argument against MFD, that is the Sony 36MP sensor, And only two bodies, the Sony A7R and the Nikon D800/E. Even so, in many situations the MFD offerings (mainly the 60 and 80mp CCD sensors and to some degree the new 50mp CMOS) wipe the floor with that sensor in regards to the ultimate image quality possible. Never mind the fact that there are many configurations possible with MFDigital (many options available regarding SLR bodies, tech bodies, lenses, etc). That is a huge deal for a lot of customers.
Steve Hendrix mentioned that Hasselblad tried to lower prices and it didn't worked out. Well, maybe they did not get to the magic number level where sales volume / customer base would have jumped tremendously and or their products were not good enough (or required too many compromises) to attract a large number of buyers, at any price over the current DSLR offerings (was it pre or post D800E?). I mean the current competition has to be taken into consideration also, it is not just about the price point. The Canon 1DS3 was a VERY tough sell when the 5D2 came out and it only got worse after that. Does not mean its a bad camera at all and Canon sold a lot of them at over $7k since at the time it was introduced there was no other camera that beat it in image quality.
-
No offense intended Ken, but the term "wipe the floor" comes across to me as a bit extreme. Sure the upper end Phase One backs have a lot more resolution. But overall image quality is pretty darn close. At least to me.
Paul C
-
No offense intended Ken, but the term "wipe the floor" comes across to me as a bit extreme. Sure the upper end Phase One backs have a lot more resolution. But overall image quality is pretty darn close. At least to me.
Paul C
Have you tried them side by side? "At least to me" suggests so… I say this because my 10 years old 22mp MFDB is still better than my D800e… it even has (slightly) better resolution, but this may well be due to the superior lenses….
-
No offense intended Ken, but the term "wipe the floor" comes across to me as a bit extreme. Sure the upper end Phase One backs have a lot more resolution. But overall image quality is pretty darn close. At least to me.
Paul C
I specified that in regards to ultimate image quality possible. My bad, I should have been clear that In the case of the 60/80mp medium format backs that means with the best tech wide angle lenses and with perfect technique and good light (or at least within a decent range). Of course in some setups the differences will be less (for example if you use the digital back with a Hasselblad V legacy system or some of the Mamiya Legacy glass etc) and in some situations the A7R/D800E is the better tool. In all cases I am assuming perfect technique and the absolutely best glass on the D800E/A7R. Once you downgrade the Nikon/Sony image from its ultimate potential by using lesser glass or technique then it changes things obviously.
I have used the D800E with the best glass and technique and I can achieve results with my RM3Di, 40mm HR / 70mm HR Rodenstock lenses and the Phase IQ160 back that are just significantly better (for my purposes) than what I could achieve with the Nikon. I would be the first to be happy if that was not the case.
In any case a MF Digital solution is worth looking into if you are serious about photography (whether you make a living as a photographer or not). At the very least just to see what they have to offer.
-
Have you tried them side by side? "At least to me" suggests so… I say this because my 10 years old 22mp MFDB is still better than my D800e… it even has (slightly) better resolution, but this may well be due to the superior lenses….
I have but I am talking about my particular case which is Landscape, Wide Angle lenses and Large Prints. Everyone has different priorities obviously so as usual YMMV. But no matter what It is always great to have more choices!
-
I specified that in regards to ultimate image quality possible. My bad, I should have been clear that In the case of the 60/80mp medium format backs that means with the best tech wide angle lenses and with perfect technique and good light (or at least within a decent range). Of course in some setups the differences will be less (for example if you use the digital back with a Hasselblad V legacy system or some of the Mamiya Legacy glass etc) and in some situations the A7R/D800E is the better tool. In all cases I am assuming perfect technique and the absolutely best glass on the D800E/A7R. Once you downgrade the Nikon/Sony image from its ultimate potential by using lesser glass or technique then it changes things obviously.
I have used the D800E with the best glass and technique and I can achieve results with my RM3Di, 40mm HR / 70mm HR Rodenstock lenses and the Phase IQ160 back that are just significantly better (for my purposes) than what I could achieve with the Nikon. I would be the first to be happy if that was not the case.
In any case a MF Digital solution is worth looking into if you are serious about photography (whether you make a living as a photographer or not). At the very least just to see what they have to offer.
Ken, I couldn't agree more with you here. It's a huge investment as we both know and the results can be impressive. One area Nikon lacks is a good wide TS lens. And as you pointed out to get the best from the Phase backs tends to be a solution with a SchneiderLS lens or the tech camera route.
T. Yes I own them both currently and use both in my daily workflow.
Paul C
-
2 things 1) steve, even though my degree is in finance and accounting, during my undergraduate days one book for my finance class had an epilog which to this day i believe to be true and right on the mark. the author stated that the demise of america will not come from an outside force but from the lunacy of harvard business school and the greed of wall street. printed well before the financial downturn of 2008. that is why i felt i had to do something worthwhile and instead of working in my field i became a special education teacher for the severe and profound mentally challenged children. yes i could have worked in my field screwed people and made tons of money where a purchase of a mfdb would be just a drop in the bucket. as an anti-capitalist i wanted to make a difference for children and their parents who society wants to throw away and i chose a school district that has a per capita income of a little over $20,000.
David
There is nothing wrong with a degree in finance and accounting, and I didn't mean to imply that there was (if I did). What people do with that degree is another matter, just like anything else. I was already aware you were involved in education. It is very commendable that you've applied yourself in an endeavor where you can really make a positive difference for those who truly need someone in their lives that can.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
3k sensors? …do you mean that Dalsa sells a sensor (even the 80mp one) for that price to MF makers? …If that was the case, the P280's final price would be considerably more than 100k…
It's not so easy to get the pricing from Dalsa. Kodak published it in their press releases back in the days, here's for the 50 megapixel KAF-50100 used in H4D-50 etc, the price was "$3500 in volume" back in 2008, and the H3DII-50 which used it was priced $36,000 at the same time:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1309562
If yield factors are better today than back then the prices could be lower. In 2008 the KAF-50100 was pretty high end, probably comparable to a 80 megapixel Dalsa today. I've heard that the 44x33 truesense sensor in Pentax 645D was about $1000 or so, but haven't seen any official statement on that. Sounds reasonable though.
The costly sensors make it impossible to make the backs very cheap, but it's not true as some say that what you pay for is the sensor. What you pay for is that sales volumes are so low that you need to pay significantly for the development costs, and probably also a significant amount to make it possible to stack components to support these backs for 10 years or so. I also think the MF market is a bit too small and specialized to have competition that spawns more cost-effective business models and products.
It seems like there's been a misconception that CCD sensors are extremely expensive, as many seem to expect that CMOS backs should cost less. To make backs cost less there must be a change in business model towards selling volume.
-
It's not so easy to get the pricing from Dalsa. Kodak published it in their press releases back in the days, here's for the 50 megapixel KAF-50100 used in H4D-50 etc, the price was "$3500 in volume" back in 2008, and the H3DII-50 which used it was priced $36,000 at the same time:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1309562
If yield factors are better today than back then the prices could be lower. In 2008 the KAF-50100 was pretty high end, probably comparable to a 80 megapixel Dalsa today. I've heard that the 44x33 truesense sensor in Pentax 645D was about $1000 or so, but haven't seen any official statement on that. Sounds reasonable though.
The costly sensors make it impossible to make the backs very cheap, but it's not true as some say that what you pay for is the sensor. What you pay for is that sales volumes are so low that you need to pay significantly for the development costs, and probably also a significant amount to make it possible to stack components to support these backs for 10 years or so. I also think the MF market is a bit too small and specialized to have competition that spawns more cost-effective business models and products.
It seems like there's been a misconception that CCD sensors are extremely expensive, as many seem to expect that CMOS backs should cost less. To make backs cost less there must be a change in business model towards selling volume.
Re. R&D costs, the new Sony CMOS chip is digital, so the R&D is considerably simpler and cheaper than for a CCD unit - no complex and expensive analogue conversion circuitry . Also I have heard that Sony supplies an SDK to help with the software development.
Maybe one should remember that Apple built their first computer in a garage - at that points single-chip processor chips had become so easy to use that 2 people could do the R&D.
Whenever I go to the local shop, they have a bunch of old cameras which they sell for $5; many of those are from small french workshops from the 1920s or so. Some are cheapish bakelite contraptions, sometimes there are expensive stereo cameras, with some strange french name on them. What is clear is that many small companies were capable of sourcing shutters and lenses and making cameras back then, there is no reason this possibility should have disappeared now.
When I studied in the early 70s the computer I used occupied a part of a computer lab building and cost real money; I needed an hour to run a deck of cards through. In the 80s, I went an bought an MPU for about $5, some flat resistor packs, and a crystal, plugged the thing into a breadboard with a a battery and it came alive. Technology does get cheaper, and I don't think digital backs will hold this price point forever.
Edmund
-
A friend of mine had an offer from Sinar, to have his 36x48 sensor (which he damaged by accident) replaced and his six years old back (with more than average use) serviced, as well as some parts of the case replaced for 2500 Euros inc. VAT… I think that some of the people on the conversation are under the wrong impression, (considerably higher) for what makers buy them for… I believe that there is no sensor around (which is used on an MF application) that costs more than 1000… If Pentax sensor was at 1000 for the maker, there is no way that the camera would cost less than 20000 under any offer or discount policy… Dealer margin and transportation cost is around the 25-30% of the final pricing anyway, if one adds the cost of marketing, distribution and warranty, the cost can in cases approach half of the final price… and that is only after the product left the factory. :-\
-
Phase Backs cost what they cost because they can. They have "taught" the marketplace that this is what MF costs, and will fight like a cornered wolverine to protect that concept (myth). This has been relatively easy until recently, since no one has been around to prove them wrong.
The Sony chip may well change that. This chip is a cost-effective consumer-electronics item. Pentax will 'weaponize' it into a camera two generations ahead of what Phase and Hassy peddle, sell it for $10K and make a tidy profit on every unit.
But that alone won't change the market, bc Pentax lacks (i) a lot of core pro functionality like tethering, (ii) a decent lens line-up at a good price and (iii) tech/dealer support. This is what allows the other two to keep the ante high.
Today, I would have a very hard time constructing a rational purchase-case for a new Phase or Hassy at retail prices for anyone other than a rental house. But of course, purchasing cameras is anything but a rational decision. Desire, ego, and a myriad of other more powerful forces drive these choices. Fortunately for these companies, there are enough potential buyers for whom money is a tertiary concern, that the racket holds, for now.
- N.
-
This is tiring - if y'all feel so angry about this, then put up a kickstarter campaign to design a back for the old Hassies, or a new mirrorless steel box with liveview using the Hassy or even AF Rollei or AF Contax lenses, and I'll be in line to contribute a few $ in exchange for for one of the first units.
In fact, send me a working physical unit and I'll even write the firmware for myself - I suspect that quite a few people on this forum have at least my skills and would be willing to participate - and some of my friends would do the Raw software and stitching. After all, photography can be a hobby as much as a job :)
Edmund
-
This tiring - if y'all feel so angry about this, then put up a kickstarter campaign to design a back for the old Hassies, or a new mirrorless steel box with liveview using the Hassy or even AF Rollei or AF Contax lenses, and I'll be in line to contribute a few $ in exchange for for one of the first units.
In fact, send me a working physical unit and I'll even write the firmware for myself - I suspect that quite a few people on this forum have at least my skills and would be willing to participate - and some of my friends would do the Raw software and stitching. After all, photography can be a hobby as much as a job :)
Edmund
Perhaps not exactly what you had in mind... :)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/96793993/hasselnuts-hasselblad-camera-iphone-digitalback-ki
-
Phase Backs cost what they cost because they can. They have "taught" the marketplace that this is what MF costs, and will fight like a cornered wolverine to protect that concept (myth). This has been relatively easy until recently, since no one has been around to prove them wrong.
The Sony chip may well change that. This chip is a cost-effective consumer-electronics item. Pentax will 'weaponize' it into a camera two generations ahead of what Phase and Hassy peddle, sell it for $10K and make a tidy profit on every unit.
But that alone won't change the market, bc Pentax lacks (i) a lot of core pro functionality like tethering, (ii) a decent lens line-up at a good price and (iii) tech/dealer support. This is what allows the other two to keep the ante high.
Today, I would have a very hard time constructing a rational purchase-case for a new Phase or Hassy at retail prices for anyone other than a rental house. But of course, purchasing cameras is anything but a rational decision. Desire, ego, and a myriad of other more powerful forces drive these choices. Fortunately for these companies, there are enough potential buyers for whom money is a tertiary concern, that the racket holds, for now.
- N.
The racket - nice.
Pentax and who knows who else, don't compete with Phase One. They are potential competitors. For now, they're not. We'll see.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
+1 Unfortunately, I must agree with you.
I say unfortunately because Steve and Doug are nice guys.
Edmund
Phase Backs cost what they cost because they can. They have "taught" the marketplace that this is what MF costs, and will fight like a cornered wolverine to protect that concept (myth). This has been relatively easy until recently, since no one has been around to prove them wrong.
- N.
-
The racket - nice.
Don't worry Steve, I won't indict you. ;) I'm happy when good people can make a living. Some people seem genuinely angered by the price. I'm not one of them. I'm amused at most, so none of this is personal.
Pentax and who knows who else, don't compete with Phase One. They are potential competitors. For now, they're not. We'll see.
Exactly. It's fun to watch.
-
I find this whole conversation, well, funny and comical. The fact that so many people are upset with the price of a high end camera system and at the same time discuss how the quality is not that much better than what you can get with a Nikon or Sony just gives me a good laugh. If the latter is true, why do you care how much the damn thing cost?
Personally I dislike everything about 35mm DSLRs. I am not trolling the 35mm forums, bashing Nikon and Canon for their crappy lenses, the fact they really only have one type of camera design, that the 2:3 aspect ratio does not work well for commercial ad space (and is pretty bad for vertical shots anayway), no lenses that have leaf shutters, not being able to do true multiple exposures, etc.
I like using MF, I don't like the price, but I rack it up to the cost of doing business and move on. I have more important things to worry about. And in the grand scheme of things, $35K for a business purchase is not that much.
I also find it funny that there so many people on this forum who do not have a good business sense. I read the comments on the prices of components, like the sensor, and see nowhere people talking about the R&D that goes into the system and needs to be recovered. PhaseOne employees people and pays them a salary. Many of these people work countless hours designing, engineering and assembling the backs. Those hours and those salaries need to be recovered. Not to mention, finding, employing and retaining the best at what they do is, usually, expensive. Also, every business needs to take into account marketing and pay for it somehow. None of these figures are shown in the price of raw material costs alone.
-
It is what it is, the reasons don't matter.
-
+1 Unfortunately, I must agree with you.
I say unfortunately because Steve and Doug are nice guys.
Edmund
Steve also sells Hassy… no? or is it Leica/Sinar? Doug is entirely on the Phamyia boat… I think!
-
Maybe one should remember that Apple built their first computer in a garage - at that points single-chip processor chips had become so easy to use that 2 people could do the R&D.
Two people? I think there was one person doing the R&D (a lot of which was done while he was at hp, which turned down the product), and a one-man marketing department.
Jim
-
Joe,
As you seem to know more than most of us professional engineers about the cost and process of designing electronics, I do wonder exactly why you switched from engineering to photography?
Edmund
I also find it funny that there so many people on this forum who do not have a good business sense. I read the comments on the prices of components, like the sensor, and see nowhere people talking about the R&D that goes into the system and needs to be recovered. PhaseOne employees people and pays them a salary. Many of these people work countless hours designing, engineering and assembling the backs. Those hours and those salaries need to be recovered. Not to mention, finding, employing and retaining the best at what they do is, usually, expensive. Also, every business needs to take into account marketing and pay for it somehow. None of these figures are shown in the price of raw material costs alone.
-
I was genuinely mad few years ago. I could never and still can't understand why DB's are so expensive. I was especially mad at Hasselblad for neglecting the V system and that they couldn't see this huge mistake (my opinion).
I saw how my huge V investment vanished over time. I waited and waited for an affordable back for years. They finally showed up (sort of with the CFV's) but they made it to work only in landscape mode. C'mon guys! To create a back that doesn't rotate in any way to be specifically used with a square boxy 6X6 camera with a WLF is moronic!
Time passed by and my anger went away (almost :)). A few interesting things happened, the dslr cameras substantially increased mp count, many old lenses were replaced by new formulas that together they surpassed the best of analog medium format, while the prices went down. In essence, the slr replaced the medium format rig all over the world. Meanwhile MF replaced LF.
I recall reading many times in popular photo magazines that MF was the best medium. It had super IQ and portability. The other two had either one but not both. I concurred. Now that title belongs to the heavy, big dslr with huge glass. Something very interesting is going to happen soon: The mirrorless technology will shrink the dslr system to its size of analog 70's, perhaps smaller.
I think the last call for MF has been tolled. If Pentax releases the 645DII with the same sensor as the IQ250 for ten grand, I may buy it or may not buy it, but for sure I'm going to be really pissed off all over again.
Eduardo
Don't worry Steve, I won't indict you. ;) I'm happy when good people can make a living. Some people seem genuinely angered by the price. I'm not one of them. I'm amused at most, so none of this is personal.
Exactly. It's fun to watch.
-
Two people? I think there was one person doing the R&D (a lot of which was done while he was at hp, which turned down the product), and a one-man marketing department.
Jim
To be fair, I suspect that somebody used a lot of expensive test equipment which just happened to be lying around at his day job, where they made it :)
Edmund
-
This is tiring - if y'all feel so angry about this, then put up a kickstarter campaign to design a back for the old Hassies, or a new mirrorless steel box with liveview using the Hassy or even AF Rollei or AF Contax lenses, and I'll be in line to contribute a few $ in exchange for for one of the first units.
In fact, send me a working physical unit and I'll even write the firmware for myself - I suspect that quite a few people on this forum have at least my skills and would be willing to participate - and some of my friends would do the Raw software and stitching. After all, photography can be a hobby as much as a job :)
Edmund
Actually that is a fantastic idea.There are so many things today that we have now that would make doing this much cheaper and actually feasible. I Instead of having to spend time and money on complex electronics for LCD, and processing, rig it up to use a smartphone as the "LCD". I am pretty sure you could even offload the processing to the smartphone as well. Am not an expert on this, but I have seen similar projects do this. Seems digital backs would most benefit.
I envision basically a modular box, with just a sensor and just the most bare bones possible electronics. Processing, LCD, mount, storage, battery, and other aspects can be added on. Release a open source development kit with it, I would love to see a myriad ecosystem of unique solutions and additions for a system like this.
Remember that guy who made a 8x10 digital back? Now, he did say it costs as much as a good house, but still, that is just one unit, and an extraordinary one at that. Maybe it would not hurt to contact some companies and ask around the cost of something like this. It may not be that bad.
-
Two people? I think there was one person doing the R&D (a lot of which was done while he was at hp, which turned down the product), and a one-man marketing department.
Jim
Phase one, Mamyia and Leaf employes are more than 300 people...
-
To be fair, I suspect that somebody used a lot of expensive test equipment which just happened to be lying around at his day job, where they made it :)
And isn't it convenient that Chuck House and his team had just invented the perfect tool for the job:
http://www.hpmemory.org/timeline/chuck_house/lsa_birth_03.htm
Jim
-
steve, now that you have a store in los angeles will you be having rental units there? will you also have previously owned units there to examine?
-
Joe,
As you seem to know more than most of us professional engineers about the cost and process of designing electronics, I do wonder exactly why you switched from engineering to photography?
Edmund
I don't think this a fair comment, and I never claimed to know more about engineering than the engineers. I simply recognize that the cost to develop and innovate is more than what people tend to think.
-
This is tiring - if y'all feel so angry about this, then put up a kickstarter campaign to design a back for the old Hassies, or a new mirrorless steel box with liveview using the Hassy or even AF Rollei or AF Contax lenses, and I'll be in line to contribute a few $ in exchange for for one of the first units.
In fact, send me a working physical unit and I'll even write the firmware for myself - I suspect that quite a few people on this forum have at least my skills and would be willing to participate - and some of my friends would do the Raw software and stitching. After all, photography can be a hobby as much as a job :)
Edmund
I bet that you are right about the 'hidden' talents viewing these threads. I'm sure a LuLa forum team could be put assembled to design and build our own digital backs. Why not? Quite seriously, count me in on this idea. Who else?
Now in jest - when we did have success, there are plenty of other forum participants anxiously waiting to analyze the RAW files from our product and compare it to the next NiCanSon product and tell us how we could have done better.
-
I bet that you are right about the 'hidden' talents viewing these threads. I'm sure a LuLa forum team could be put assembled to design and build our own digital backs. Why not? Quite seriously, count me in on this idea. Who else?
Now in jest - when we did have success, there are plenty of other forum participants anxiously waiting to analyze the RAW files from our product and compare it to the next NiCanSon product and tell us how we could have done better.
Will the base be the Dalsa 7.2μm pixel size sensor, blown up to 54x40.5 size at 41.5Mps, self contained using dual XQD cards, but with 4x and 16x MS capability as well? :D Hooray…. ;D
-
Eric, the first thing to do here is to get some concrete knowledge of the CMOS chip abilities. Sony have a semiconductor division which SELLS these things, but I cannot yet find a datasheet etc on the MF sensor Maybe someone here has an idea how one gets the info?
Truesense (ex Kodak) and Dalsa sell devkits, and datasheets are posted on the web, so it's feasible (for an engineer) to figure out how much engineering effort is needed to use their products.
http://www.truesenseimaging.com/support/evaluation-hardware/cmos-evaluation-hardware
(http://www.truesenseimaging.com/images/CMOS_Eval_Kit_for_website.jpg)
I am sure with your help one could convert some scrap Rollei bodies into testbeds.
If and when TrueSense or Dalsa bring out an MF CMOS chip that is released to the public with a devkit, things will get much easier for "hobbyists".
Edmund
I bet that you are right about the 'hidden' talents viewing these threads. I'm sure a LuLa forum team could be put assembled to design and build our own digital backs. Why not? Quite seriously, count me in on this idea. Who else?
-
I find this whole conversation, well, funny and comical. The fact that so many people are upset with the price of a high end camera system and at the same time discuss how the quality is not that much better than what you can get with a Nikon or Sony just gives me a good laugh. If the latter is true, why do you care how much the damn thing cost?
Personally I dislike everything about 35mm DSLRs. I am not trolling the 35mm forums, bashing Nikon and Canon for their crappy lenses, the fact they really only have one type of camera design, that the 2:3 aspect ratio does not work well for commercial ad space (and is pretty bad for vertical shots anayway), no lenses that have leaf shutters, not being able to do true multiple exposures, etc.
I like using MF, I don't like the price, but I rack it up to the cost of doing business and move on. I have more important things to worry about. And in the grand scheme of things, $35K for a business purchase is not that much.
I also find it funny that there so many people on this forum who do not have a good business sense. I read the comments on the prices of components, like the sensor, and see nowhere people talking about the R&D that goes into the system and needs to be recovered. PhaseOne employees people and pays them a salary. Many of these people work countless hours designing, engineering and assembling the backs. Those hours and those salaries need to be recovered. Not to mention, finding, employing and retaining the best at what they do is, usually, expensive. Also, every business needs to take into account marketing and pay for it somehow. None of these figures are shown in the price of raw material costs alone.
+1
Excellent post.
-
I find this whole conversation, well, funny and comical. The fact that so many people are upset with the price of a high end camera system and at the same time discuss how the quality is not that much better than what you can get with a Nikon or Sony just gives me a good laugh. If the latter is true, why do you care how much the damn thing cost?
Personally I dislike everything about 35mm DSLRs. I am not trolling the 35mm forums, bashing Nikon and Canon for their crappy lenses, the fact they really only have one type of camera design, that the 2:3 aspect ratio does not work well for commercial ad space (and is pretty bad for vertical shots anayway), no lenses that have leaf shutters, not being able to do true multiple exposures, etc.
I like using MF, I don't like the price, but I rack it up to the cost of doing business and move on. I have more important things to worry about. And in the grand scheme of things, $35K for a business purchase is not that much.
I also find it funny that there so many people on this forum who do not have a good business sense. I read the comments on the prices of components, like the sensor, and see nowhere people talking about the R&D that goes into the system and needs to be recovered. PhaseOne employees people and pays them a salary. Many of these people work countless hours designing, engineering and assembling the backs. Those hours and those salaries need to be recovered. Not to mention, finding, employing and retaining the best at what they do is, usually, expensive. Also, every business needs to take into account marketing and pay for it somehow. None of these figures are shown in the price of raw material costs alone.
+1
Excellent post.
Not really relevant within the context of this thread though…
The OP has made it abundantly clear that that he is talking about non-professionals.
If you can fit MFD into your business model then that's fine but that is not what this thread is about.
-
Not really relevant within the context of this thread though…
The OP has made it abundantly clear that that he is talking about non-professionals.
If you can fit MFD into your business model then that's fine but that is not what this thread is about.
The last paragraph (which is the crux of it IMO) is relevant, no matter who the target buyer is. Low volume businesses have to have very healthy margins over and above the component parts, or they don't cover their costs and they go out of business.
I own a company that sells motorcycle fork springs. Simple, low tech product. The steel in them costs a few dollars. They sell for $80. And we're the low price seller in that market, by quite a bit.
Most people just have no clue what it costs to keep the doors open.
-
I bet that you are right about the 'hidden' talents viewing these threads. I'm sure a LuLa forum team could be put assembled to design and build our own digital backs. Why not? Quite seriously, count me in on this idea. Who else?
Now in jest - when we did have success, there are plenty of other forum participants anxiously waiting to analyze the RAW files from our product and compare it to the next NiCanSon product and tell us how we could have done better.
It would probably be best to start this as an open source project in order to define the specs, and come up with a matching high level design. The costs would be reasonably low in that phase and I am sure that those interested could mostly cover these trivial costs themselves.
The key success factors would probably be:
- Collect the right inputs from potential customers,
- Have the right skills in the team,
- Use the right collaborative design platform to come up with the design.
Kickstarter could come as a second phase when the need arises to actually build them, which includes ordering a few thousand sensors from Sony and more stuff from other vendors.
It is anybodies guess how cheap this could be done.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Low volume businesses have to have very healthy margins over and above the component parts, or they don't cover their costs and they go out of business.
I don't disagree but that's the other part of the discussion. Do the volumes have to be so low?
Even the dealers here on the forum seem to think that volumes are low by choice. Volumes are low because Phase is not willing to throw open the market.
It is obviously their good right to do so but likewise it is also the good right of current, potential and ex-customers to voice their opinion and say that they don't particularly like that.
The market is also such now that for standalone backs Phase One has a monopoly.
As a monopolist they can do and charge what they want. And they do… Don't expect most people to be wildly enthusiastic about that… It is just not a healthy situation...
-
Bernard, I've taken your suggestion and started a thread to explore the idea of an open source back (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87558.0).
The open source model worked well for phones, so I guess it might work for cameras.
I wonder if you could be so nice as to try and get information from Sony on the devkit for their MF CMOS sensor? I expect they will sell a cheap version with a "dud" engineering grade sensor.
Edmund
It would probably be best to start this as an open source project in order to define the specs, and come up with a matching high level design. The costs would be reasonably low in that phase and I am sure that those interested could mostly cover these trivial costs themselves.
The key success factors would probably be:
- Collect the right inputs from potential customers,
- Have the right skills in the team,
- Use the right collaborative design platform to come up with the design.
Kickstarter could come as a second phase when the need arises to actually build them, which includes ordering a few thousand sensors from Sony and more stuff from other vendors.
It is anybodies guess how cheap this could be done.
Cheers,
Bernard