Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on May 09, 2014, 03:22:50 pm
-
just completed on ebay was a phase one p25+ that sold for $3000. hasselblad having a special for the h5d40. on ebay anyone who is trying to sell their phase one db from p45+ and lower or hasselblads are going unsold if their prices are a reflection of pre 645z. and it will only get worse when the camera is finally delivered. hasselblad and phase one are going to have to meet this challenge. there just aren't that many photographers who are willing to shell out an extra $20,000+ for the perceived differences. and what would stop schneider to offer lenses for the 645z if sales really take off. and the economy is not moving forward. in the last 3 years more u s businesses failed then were started. and this is during the supposed economic growth period. so photographers will be watching their money to get the best bang for their buck. imo a new p45+ back should sell at the price of $8999.00 based on the 645z price. i know though, that phase one couldn't sell at that price point, because of the r&d costs, advertising costs, etc. divided by the units sold would leave almost no room for a profit as well as losing the status symbol. interesting times are ahead.
-
just completed on ebay was a phase one p25+ that sold for $3000. hasselblad having a special for the h5d40. on ebay anyone who is trying to sell their phase one db from p45+ and lower or hasselblads are going unsold if their prices are a reflection of pre 645z. and it will only get worse when the camera is finally delivered. hasselblad and phase one are going to have to meet this challenge. there just aren't that many photographers who are willing to shell out an extra $20,000+ for the perceived differences. and what would stop schneider to offer lenses for the 645z if sales really take off. and the economy is not moving forward. in the last 3 years more u s businesses failed then were started. and this is during the supposed economic growth period. so photographers will be watching their money to get the best bang for their buck. imo a new p45+ back should sell at the price of $8999.00 based on the 645z price. i know though, that phase one couldn't sell at that price point, because of the r&d costs, advertising costs, etc. divided by the units sold would leave almost no room for a profit as well as losing the status symbol. interesting times are ahead.
I think you miss the point.
For some that don't need a removable back, or have an investment in lenses and bodies, the Pentax might be the best move.
But for a lot of others, the Pentax isn't any more cost effective than any previous back, though granted the Phase $35,000 cmos back does seem expensive, even by 2007 standards and technology, budgets and where we show images has changed a lot since 2007.
You know, I bought the Leica S2 because of the Sony A7r. I looked at the Sony's, what I shoot, what I need to do with a camera and since the Leica took my existing contax lenses, it was a better camera and less expensive for me to go with the Leica than start all over again with Sony.
That's kind of the way I see the Pentax. If your starting clean sheet, don't need high sync or specialized lenses like tilt shift your good, but if you do need those other functions then the Pentax probably isn't the best deal, though I wish them well.
Still, other than price I really wouldn't call it disruptive to the market.
IMO
BC
-
I've been following the 645Z announcements with great interest. I'm not in a position to need one, but nonetheless, I'm still interested. I love the 645NII system for shooting film, as I've found that it's a great system, and I love the look/draw of the lenses.
P1 and Leaf/Sinar,etc. still have an advantage however, in the "niche" MF technical camera arena, with the likes of Alpa, Cambo, Horseman, Silvestri, etc. For users of those systems and lenses, a removable back is a necessity. However, I do see this 645Z becoming a very hot ticket as soon as it hits stores. As long as the tethering works well, is stable, and the files can be manipulated by capable/comparable software to P1/Leaf Capture, I'd say it's definitely "game on".
Interesting times ahead, but a camera is just that: a camera. It still takes skilled hands to make great photographs. Not just technical specs and a low price point.
just my 2¢
-Dan
-
The thing with MF cameras is they lose value FAST from new.
To me, as someone who buys his kit used I don't get hit by the $30,000 premium. I paid $8000 for my H4D50 and that was three years ago.
Still have it now, still love it and have a H1 for film use. I even use it at weddings sometimes.
-
I think you miss the point.
For some that don't need a removable back, or have an investment in lenses and bodies, the Pentax might be the best move.
But for a lot of others, the Pentax isn't any more cost effective than any previous back, though granted the Phase $35,000 cmos back does seem expensive, even by 2007 standards and technology, budgets and where we show images has changed a lot since 2007.
You know, I bought the Leica S2 because of the Sony A7r. I looked at the Sony's, what I shoot, what I need to do with a camera and since the Leica took my existing contax lenses, it was a better camera and less expensive for me to go with the Leica than start all over again with Sony.
That's kind of the way I see the Pentax. If your starting clean sheet, don't need high sync or specialized lenses like tilt shift your good, but if you do need those other functions then the Pentax probably isn't the best deal, though I wish them well.
Still, other than price I really wouldn't call it disruptive to the market.
IMO
BC
Yeah... the "Z" is one of the best DSLRs out there... isn't it? ...and it is a DSLR, ...but what if Pentax decides to sell an MFDB version of it, say for M645, H and Contax 645 mount only... What then? What if they decide on a new interchangeable back (perhaps with provision for a film back?) body, based on the "Z" (small investment) and an MFDB to support it along with some major other mounts? Surely, the back would be even less than a "Z" and the body.... Well... I do have a "dirty" mind...
-
Yeah... the "Z" is one of the best DSLRs out there... isn't it? ...and it is a DSLR, ...but what if Pentax decides to sell an MFDB version of it, say for M645, H and Contax 645 mount only... What then? What if they decide on a new interchangeable back (perhaps with provision for a film back?) body, based on the "Z" (small investment) and an MFDB to support it along with some major other mounts? Surely, the back would be even less than a "Z" and the body.... Well... I do have a "dirty" mind...
You mean to say that Pentax could saw the Z in two, and maybe even make a tech camera with shift that takes 6x7 Pentax lenses? No, that is clearly impossible. Insert reason here ...
Edmund
-
This thread got me thinking. Once upon a time I came very close to buying a Pentax 645NII. On paper, it was about the best camera value going. There were only two flaws. The low sync speed was one. The other was it didn't have a removable back. OK, sure you obviously could change the film, but that was a cartridge, not a back. You couldn't setup your shot, pull a couple polaroids and then switch to film. Or shoot on color and black and white at the same time. Those wound up as deal breakers for me.
Fast forward a handful of years and the Pentax 645z is the best value going in medium format and anyone who buys something else is an idiot. There are only two flaws ... . While the Pentax is a fraction of the price of a Phase, Hasselblad or Leica, it isn't necessarily a better value. The people who bought Pentax cameras in the film days were nature, landscape and wildlife photographers who wanted higher image quality than 35 mm but didn't want to deal with the hassle or cost of a view camera. It seems that little has changed. The only people the 645z makes sense for are outdoor photographers who don't use strobes, and are not willing to make the leap to tech cameras. The 645z is neither a good value nor a bad one. It is a camera with a clear market niche, and for the people in that niche, it makes a lot of sense and is a pretty reasonable compromise on all levels.
-
if you are not going to shell out big bucks for a P1 or Hasselbald rig because of the new Pentax, then why would you not just buy a cheap DSLR instead of buying the more expensive Pentax... or a P&S instead of a DSLR?
???
-
Hi,
I guess it expands the market.
Best regards
Erik
I think you miss the point.
For some that don't need a removable back, or have an investment in lenses and bodies, the Pentax might be the best move.
But for a lot of others, the Pentax isn't any more cost effective than any previous back, though granted the Phase $35,000 cmos back does seem expensive, even by 2007 standards and technology, budgets and where we show images has changed a lot since 2007.
You know, I bought the Leica S2 because of the Sony A7r. I looked at the Sony's, what I shoot, what I need to do with a camera and since the Leica took my existing contax lenses, it was a better camera and less expensive for me to go with the Leica than start all over again with Sony.
That's kind of the way I see the Pentax. If your starting clean sheet, don't need high sync or specialized lenses like tilt shift your good, but if you do need those other functions then the Pentax probably isn't the best deal, though I wish them well.
Still, other than price I really wouldn't call it disruptive to the market.
IMO
BC
-
This thread got me thinking. Once upon a time I came very close to buying a Pentax 645NII. On paper, it was about the best camera value going. There were only two flaws. The low sync speed was one. The other was it didn't have a removable back. OK, sure you obviously could change the film, but that was a cartridge, not a back. You couldn't setup your shot, pull a couple polaroids and then switch to film. Or shoot on color and black and white at the same time. Those wound up as deal breakers for me.
Fast forward a handful of years and the Pentax 645z is the best value going in medium format and anyone who buys something else is an idiot.
I have an IQ250. I use it on an ALPA FPS with Rodenstock and Canon lenses (from the 8-15, through the TS-E's, the 35/1.4, the /1.2's, and all the big whites - up to and including the 1200/5.6).
Since acquiring it, I've shot something in the region of 30,000 images with the back.
Even if the Pentax were available, not a single one of those images could have been taken with the camera.
Still, regardless of that, I guess that I'm still an idiot.
-
Hi,
Horses for the courses. Personally, I feel that MFD on technical cameras makes a lot of sense, especially in combination with live view.
In a sense, I would say that Pentax has a problem, in that they are compering with high end 135, and the competition may have some awesome lenses.
Best regards
Erik
I have an IQ250. I use it on an ALPA FPS with Rodenstock and Canon lenses (from the 8-15, through the TS-E's, the 35/1.4, the /1.2's, and all the big whites - up to and including the 1200/5.6).
Since acquiring it, I've shot something in the region of 30,000 images with the back.
Even if the Pentax were available, not a single one of those images could have been taken with the camera.
-
I wouldn't trade my leaf shutter lenses for anything.
The Pentax could be 6k and still wouldn't be a factor for me and the work that I do.
-
Yes,
Horses for the courses.
Personally I am never using flash for real life shots. So I am happy with FP shutter. Many MFD users use ALPA FPS or Hartblei HCam, both use focal plane shutters, but I guess they don't use outdoor flash.
On the other hand, I am shooting wide angles and would like to be able to do Scheimpflug. I bought a Hasselblad Flexbody for immediate needs but my long term plan used to be a Hartblei HCam to be used with the Hasselblad lenses but also Canons 17 and 24 T&S lenses. Pretty much everything can be adapted to the HCam.
Best regards
Erik
I wouldn't trade my leaf shutter lenses for anything.
The Pentax could be 6k and still wouldn't be a factor for me and the work that I do.
-
Wow, this conversation is still going on.
I thought we settled this, the Pentax is going to drive the final nail into Phase One's and Hasselblad's coffin. But ... wait ... wasn't it ... I thought the D800e, handed down to us from Mount Olympus by Zeus himself, already put that nail in place? Or was it the 5DII, with it's HD video, that did it? No, it probably was the AR7, right? Yes, that's right, the AR7 was the final coup de gras.
-
this was never meant to be the "final nail in the coffin for medium format digital." what i was alluding to was a realignment of prices for mfdb's, especially for s/h digital backs from p45+/leaf 40mp/ and hasselblad 40mp downward. of all the mfdb photographers, what percent used tech cameras? a small percent i would imagine and i was one of them and i loved it. how many mfdb owners or potential owners require leaf shutters? again a small number. if you require either, the product is available. you will not stay in business unless you bring ever increasing photographers to your table. you just can't stay in business, with people already owning your product, and trading in for the newest model. that is why i believe that in the post pentax 645z era, pricing will become very important. the rich may be able to spend big bucks without blinking an eye but it is the average joe who will keep you in business. from 2011 to 2012 medium format digital backs used by professional photographers dropped from 16% to 12%, a 25% drop and price had a lot to do with it.
-
The main fault with these discussions is their binary nature. This is a better choice than, and thus will supersede, that. Full stop. This, of course, being my prefered gear—or at least L'Objet du Jour that's caught my eye—and that being someone else's. It doesn't match the way the world works. I suspect that if the new Pentax is genuinely successful it'll be more 'cuz it creates its own market niche and less 'cuz it makes significant inroads into an existing one. But it won't be just one or the other.
I bought my 645D because I already had the lenses, Pentax had just cut the price and I wanted a solid tripod camera that produced a big file for potential large prints (less of an interest now) and future 8k display (more of an interest). I think of it as a Canikon style camera rather than "medium format" per se. That the sensor is both larger than 135 format and smaller than 120/220 is neither here nor there.
-Dave-
-
Wow, this conversation is still going on.
I thought we settled this, the Pentax is going to drive the final nail into Phase One's and Hasselblad's coffin. But ... wait ... wasn't it ... I thought the D800e, handed down to us from Mount Olympus by Zeus himself, already put that nail in place? Or was it the 5DII, with it's HD video, that did it? No, it probably was the AR7, right? Yes, that's right, the AR7 was the final coup de gras.
Yeah, yeah, but digital went and killed 35mm film SLRs, 35mm point and shoots, then it killed Kodachrome, and then it went and essentially killed the film-use Hassy V and Pentax and Mamiya and Fuji and and .. cousins, diminishing the total sales of MF film to the point where it's getting really hard to buy and process. So sure, you are right we shouldn't fear progress, photography has shown that obsolete formats hang on, but they sure don't thrive.
Edmund
-
Here is a link to a list of shift and tilt / shift lenses for the pentax 645 mount
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-645d-medium-format/182276-pentax-medium-format-third-party-resources-ii-t-s-lenses-tilt-shift-lenses.html
-
Still, regardless of that, I guess that I'm still an idiot.
I honestly can't tell whether you understood the point of my post out missed it completely, so I'll spell it out just in case. I have no doubt that this Pentax, just like all medium format Pentax cameras before it, is innovative and a lot of camera for the money. Still, for me persinally, and most working pros, it is not a viable tool at any price because it lacks the flexibility we need. To most of the internet elite, we are idiots because we fail to see the value in what is clearly the deal of the century. Put simply, the shoe doesn't fit.
-
I honestly can't tell whether you understood the point of my post out missed it completely, so I'll spell it out just in case. I have no doubt that this Pentax, just like all medium format Pentax cameras before it, is innovative and a lot of camera for the money. Still, for me persinally, and most working pros, it is not a viable tool at any price because it lacks the flexibility we need. To most of the internet elite, we are idiots because we fail to see the value in what is clearly the deal of the century. Put simply, the shoe doesn't fit.
i hope you didn't think i said you were an idiot. far from it. every photographer has to pick the best tool for them to complete their task. my point is, of all mf photographers, not just pros, it is a small percentage who use tech cameras or flash sync. this is defiantly a plus for the phase one and hasselblad. but for the vast amount of photographers who may be contemplating mf digital, the pentax price point puts many more non 1%ers into the ballgame. all of this is predicated on the image that the pentax 645z delivers. if the phase one iq250 or the hasselblad h5d50c produce considerably better images then all bets are off, but if they produce minimal improvement, and that is up to each and every photographer to determine, then i believe that the pentax 645z is a game changer.
-
I got 2 645D's. Will keep what I got. The high ISO of the Z is interesting. But the giant size compared to my Fuji or Leica hurts the deal. The sensor on the 645D puts out a beautiful, painterly image. I have 645D samples at the end here:
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/
-
You mean to say that Pentax could saw the Z in two, and maybe even make a tech camera with shift that takes 6x7 Pentax lenses? No, that is clearly impossible. Insert reason here ...
Edmund
I don't know what you read Ed... I think that my English is better than what you imply... Why is it impossible for Pentax to offer an MFDB version of the "Z"...? Who said anything about Pentax making a view camera? ...where did you read this?
-
Hi,
It is not impossible, but the 645Z is integrated with the Pentax 645 body. Would Pentax make a back, they would to integrated it (electronically) with another vendor's camera. There are not so many MF camera vendors. Phase/Mamiya, Hasselblad and Rollei Hy6. Phase is supposedly open, but I don't know if they have their camera bodies open to a competitor. Hasselblad is pretty closed, the main reason Phase went into the camera business.
I would guess that it is feasible that Ricoh (who own Pentax) or Sony would buy Hasselblad if they were seriously interested in MF digital.
Hasselblad would be a good buy, I guess. Well established, probably the best interchangeable back MF camera, well designed accessory program and a great engineering team in Gothenburg.
Best regards
Erik
I don't know what you read Ed... I think that my English is better than what you imply... Why is it impossible for Pentax to offer an MFDB version of the "Z"...? Who said anything about Pentax making a view camera? ...where did you read this?
-
what about fuji and their contribution to the H?
-
Hi,
It is not impossible, but the 645Z is integrated with the Pentax 645 body. Would Pentax make a back, they would to integrated it (electronically) with another vendor's camera. There are not so many MF camera vendors. Phase/Mamiya, Hasselblad and Rollei Hy6. Phase is supposedly open, but I don't know if they have their camera bodies open to a competitor. Hasselblad is pretty closed, the main reason Phase went into the camera business.
I would guess that it is feasible that Ricoh (who own Pentax) or Sony would buy Hasselblad if they were seriously interested in MF digital.
Hasselblad would be a good buy, I guess. Well established, probably the best interchangeable back MF camera, well designed accessory program and a great engineering team in Gothenburg.
Best regards
Erik
could you see for example, pentax designing a mfdb. even if it was the same price as the 645z and have it fit the hasselblad v system. i think they would clean up with all the v system cameras out there. one of hasselblad's biggest mistakes was to abandon the v system. if it fit the v system it would also be able to be used on a tech camera with the v system adapter like i have for my arca swiss. again this is all based on the possibility of engineering such a product and the image quality being comparable to the phase one and hasselblad cmos sensor.
-
Hi,
Yes, quite possible, but…
Sony has an MF CMOS sensor now, it may be they are interested in MFD. Fuji seems not do much sensor development, at least no large size sensors. If they want to expand into MFD, Hasselblad would be a good buy.
Best regards
Erik
what about fuji and their contribution to the H?
-
Hi,
Yes, quite possible, but…
Sony has an MF CMOS sensor now, it may be they are interested in MFD. Fuji seems not do much sensor development, at least no large size sensors. If they want to expand into MFD, Hasselblad would be a good buy.
Best regards
Erik
As Fuji already manufacture the H bodies and lenses, Fuji would have little catching up to do :)
Edmund
-
The Fuji GX645 is a completely "open" system... if they where to make an MFDB it would be compatible with all their bodies, they don't have to buy Hasselblad to achieve that....
-
Two things have got me startled with disbelief. First, Hasselblad putting to a slow painful death the most solid sound MF system of all times, the V system. And second, Phase One buying a comatose camera brand, the Mamiya.
I think P1 didn't seek purchasing the Hy6 camera out of a rebound as first being excluded of the supporting group, Leaf, Rollei and Sinar. I think acquiring Leaf was a hell of a satisfaction. When they finally bought Mamiya, the Hy6 was kaput. Why not get the finest camera system when you are clearly the best MfDb manufacturer?
Now they are stuck with Mamiya. Fortunately, if Pentax did it, most certainly Mamiya can do it too. I don't know if the Hy6 system can be purchased but if I was Sony...... pocket change!
Eduardo
-
Two things have got me startled with disbelief. First, Hasselblad putting to a slow painful death the most solid sound MF system of all times, the V system. And second, Phase One buying a comatose camera brand, the Mamiya.
I think P1 didn't seek purchasing the Hy6 camera out of a rebound as first being excluded of the supporting group, Leaf, Rollei and Sinar. I think acquiring Leaf was a hell of a satisfaction. When they finally bought Mamiya, the Hy6 was kaput. Why not get the finest camera system when you are clearly the best MfDb manufacturer?
Now they are stuck with Mamiya. Fortunately, if Pentax did it, most certainly Mamiya can do it too. I don't know if the Hy6 system can be purchased but if I was Sony...... pocket change!
Eduardo
It isn't always the purchase price but what the purchase does for you afterward, in terms of profitability. There were clearly issues behind the scenes that resulted in the insolvency status that F&H fell under. Phase One is presented as being stupid for not jumping in - but I haven't seen anyone give them credit for staying away. Ideally, I like our manufacture partners to be financially strong and robust. That could have sucked if Phase One had bought in early.
Sometimes the best deals made are the ones you don't.
Instead, they probably got a great deal with Mamiya, and were able to also acquire Leaf. They have not killed the Hy6 - though with control of Leaf, they could have done so. Adding Phase One into the DHW mix is probably seen as a financial and resource distraction, taking away from the efforts toward Mamiya (including whatever new camera system is being developed) and future digital back end R&D.
I'll say it again - sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make. Sometimes a deal doesn't add so much as take away resources.
I'm not saying it isn't worth second guessing, but let's think about this more from their perspective, which isn't hey, let's buy the 3rd best camera system (perhaps in some people's minds), but maybe instead, let's move forward to position ourselves for our 5 - 10 year product plans. Financial viability is a big part of that.
Let's be real - who wouldn't like a Phase One digital back option on a Hy6 camera? But that is more about our desire for a camera we love than Phase One making the right or wrong strategic choices.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Thanks for your reply. Certainly there was one or many powerful reasons for how things developed for P1 concerning the acquistion of Mamiya and Leaf.
Your (kind of) insight helps understand a bit these things that seem so incoherent for those at the outer side of the factories walls.
Unfortunately on behalf of Hasselblad, it is undefendable, I think. :( but I may love to be proven wrong.
Eduardo
It isn't always the purchase price but what the purchase does for you afterward, in terms of profitability. There were clearly issues behind the scenes that resulted in the insolvency status that F&H fell under. Phase One is presented as being stupid for not jumping in - but I haven't seen anyone give them credit for staying away. Ideally, I like our manufacture partners to be financially strong and robust. That could have sucked if Phase One had bought in early.
Sometimes the best deals made are the ones you don't.
Instead, they probably got a great deal with Mamiya, and were able to also acquire Leaf. They have not killed the Hy6 - though with control of Leaf, they could have done so. Adding Phase One into the DHW mix is probably seen as a financial and resource distraction, taking away from the efforts toward Mamiya (including whatever new camera system is being developed) and future digital back end R&D.
I'll say it again - sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make. Sometimes a deal doesn't add so much as take away resources.
I'm not saying it isn't worth second guessing, but let's think about this more from their perspective, which isn't hey, let's buy the 3rd best camera system (perhaps in some people's minds), but maybe instead, let's move forward to position ourselves for our 5 - 10 year product plans. Financial viability is a big part of that.
Let's be real - who wouldn't like a Phase One digital back option on a Hy6 camera? But that is more about our desire for a camera we love than Phase One making the right or wrong strategic choices.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I wonder if the Hy6 would not have died if Phase One had been including them in deals like it did and does with the Mamiya junk? To be frank that is the only thing which saved that camera. The only thing keeping it alive.
-
I wonder if the Hy6 would not have died if Phase One had been including them in deals like it did and does with the Mamiya junk? To be frank that is the only thing which saved that camera. The only thing keeping it alive.
First the Hy6 is not dead. And the future remains to be seen.
"Mamiya junk" is your opinion, of course.
But saying that Phase One investing is the only thing that kept them alive is not profound - you could make the same statement about almost any other medium format camera system.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
First the Hy6 is not dead. And the future remains to be seen.
"Mamiya junk" is your opinion, of course.
But saying that Phase One investing is the only thing that kept them alive is not profound - you could make the same statement about almost any other medium format camera system.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve,
While "Mamiya junk" is a pretty strong term, the very fact that it can be -and not for the first time- credibly written in this forum is pretty disturbing.
No one here would ever write "Hasselblad H junk", as far as I know.
Sometimes the best product to have is a good product, not a good enough product.
Edmund
-
Steve,
While "Mamiya junk" is a pretty strong term, the very fact that it can be -and not for the first time- credibly written in this forum is pretty disturbing.
No one here would ever write "Hasselblad H junk", as far as I know.
Sometimes the best product to have is a good product, not a good enough product.
Edmund
From the manufacturers's standpoint, the best product to have is one that allows your company to be successful (and sustain that success). Whether the Mamiya for Phase, the H for Hasselblad or the Hy6 for DHW is best at that remains to be seen.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
From the manufacturers's standpoint, the best product to have is one that allows your company to be successful (and sustain that success). Whether the Mamiya for Phase, the H for Hasselblad or the Hy6 for DHW is best at that remains to be seen.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve,
I have deleted some political commentary from my post.
However, I would like to leave you with a thought: If the "winner" of the business strategy game ends up offering a solution that no customer likes to live with, and MF disappears because very few can be convinced to use the products or can afford the pricing, will that help *you* ?
I don't think users who refer to "Mamiya junk" will be inclined to buy that junk if is the only product on offer. We are not talking about the only water in the desert, we're talking about cameras that employ slightly bigger sensors than their dSLR competition.
Edmund
-
First the Hy6 is not dead. And the future remains to be seen.
Thanks Steve, and yes the Hy6 is doing well. :)
And on the other topic, it does seem sort of ironic to me that the companies that tried to protect themselves to competition by closing out others got hurt the most.
-
Steve,
I have deleted some political commentary from my post.
However, I would like to leave you with a thought: If the "winner" of the business strategy game ends up offering a solution that no customer likes to live with, and MF disappears because very few can be convinced to use the products or can afford the pricing, will that help *you* ?
Microsoft has had some interesting difficulties in the past few years, which can in the end be traced to overstrong business acumen that allowed them to keep selling inadequate products. As MS essentially achieved a monopolistic position by dint of business competence rather than product quality, most computer manufacturers are now hurting.
Edmund
Edmund -
You're incorrect that "no customer likes to live with" the P1 solution. The vast majority of our sales occur on Phase One 645 bodies, though clients have the option of numerous other systems, including the Hasselblad.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's the worlds greatest camera, but I am also not saying that it is the height of Phase One's ambitions (in terms of camera systems).
I will respond by saying all of this is early in the book and I believe that your perspective is pre-mature in terms of how the story will continue to develop.
I don't know about your Microsoft perspective, but I don't see the same situation at all with Phase One anyway. It may appear that way to you, but Microsoft has shown their business strategy for a far longer period of time than Phase One has had investment into the Mamiya company. Phase One has generally achieved in their segment by having superior products and technology - the Mamiya camera is not their legacy nor their crowning achievement, it is a starting point to a sustainable digital platform. While they have turned it around since then, at the time, it was hard to imagine how sustainable DHW might be. And those were the options at the time.
I think Phase One did well with the hand it was dealt - and we'll see where they head in the future, when it comes to camera systems. I of course know nothing - but it wouldn't surprise me to see surprises.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
I read a lengthy interview with Hasselblad's CEO at that time the closed the system. He essentially said that the earnings were in the backs and not in the system. Farther, they felt that they could choose a smaller sensor and optimise the system around it.
That of course made Phase One a vendor of MFD backs with no camera to put their backs on. Phase made the decision to make a controlling investment Mamiya, which was a bold decision for a small electronics company. They could go with the Hy6 instead, but that was not their choice.
It seems going into Mamiya was a successful investment.
As a side note, rumour was that Phase One tried to acquire rights to Contax 645 manufacture and tools set, but negotiations were not successful.
I would like to see Hasselblad surviving, I don't thing it is history is where they belong, but we live in a world of harsh realities, a company needs significant earnings to survive. In a real world there is need for a lot of R&D so just reaching break even is not enough to keep a company afloat. But it happens that companies that have not made earning for a long time can come alive again, Leica is an example of that. But, Leica also developed a new camera platform, new lenses, paid for development for a new CMOS sensor and also bought Sinar. They expand, may be needed to survive.
Best regards
Erik
-
They could go with the Hy6 instead, but that was not their choice.
This is incorrect. They didn't have a choice then when the Hy6 was introduced. They could now but in a way they do with the Leaf backs.
-
Edmund -
You're incorrect that "no customer likes to live with" the P1 solution. The vast majority of our sales occur on Phase One 645 bodies, though clients have the option of numerous other systems, including the Hasselblad.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's the worlds greatest camera, but I am also not saying that it is the height of Phase One's ambitions (in terms of camera systems).
I will respond by saying all of this is early in the book and I believe that your perspective is pre-mature in terms of how the story will continue to develop.
I don't know about your Microsoft perspective, but I don't see the same situation at all with Phase One anyway. It may appear that way to you, but Microsoft has shown their business strategy for a far longer period of time than Phase One has had investment into the Mamiya company. Phase One has generally achieved in their segment by having superior products and technology - the Mamiya camera is not their legacy nor their crowning achievement, it is a starting point to a sustainable digital platform. While they have turned it around since then, at the time, it was hard to imagine how sustainable DHW might be. And those were the options at the time.
I think Phase One did well with the hand it was dealt - and we'll see where they head in the future, when it comes to camera systems. I of course know nothing - but it wouldn't surprise me to see surprises.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve,
The question here is what "likes" means :)
Would Phase have far greater sales if there were something not better but plain good? Would MF in general fare better if there were an MF camera that had the abilities of a C or N, upscaled, with all the bells and whistles in focus, looks, lenses, accessories?
At the moment I believe people buy MF mostly because they like the files, and tolerate the limitations of the cameras and the aggravation of high back/system prices. To the contrary, a lot of us buy dSLRs specifically for the features of the cameras and the genuine pleasure one gets from using them - think of the wonderful look of the Canon super-telephotos, the wide range of primes and stabilized zooms, the speedy and mostly spot-on of focus and follow-focus of the pro SLRs, the frame rates, the bright finders, decent review screens and ability to shoot in the quasi dark. And the low prices of some prosumer models. And then we accept that the files from the dSLRs have limitations. I don't think anyone here in this forum would claim that a Mamiya and a Canon 1Dx are closer relatives than a Sausage-Dog and a German Shepherd.
Frankly, I have no *need* for MF, and I suspect that with the ability to stitch with Canon shift lenses, and the D800 and A7R out there only about 5% of the pros and 5% of the amateurs at most feel they *need* SLR-MF (not tech cam). So the question is how many of the other 95% will buy an MF camera, and how many of the total will go Phase, H, Pentax or Leica in body. And then if you do the maths again you see that if people hate the cameras then the choices of the 5% who feel they *need* the files are determinative, if people love the cameras the choices of the other 95% who buy what they like make the market.
YMMV :)
Edmund
PS. Put me in the camp of the 95%. I have no *need* for MF. And I had MF and opted out of MF because the price/feature/bother didn't make sense any more. The files were ok, the experience was not. I would really like to use MF again if the price/feature/usability combination were acceptable.
-
Just to put into perspective my use of the term 'Mamiya Junk', ours has caused us no end of problems and when we are thinking of the need for a backup body just to have while the other is away for repair, but when that simplistic backup body which has hardly managed to reach two decades old camera technology, is almost the cost of the entire 645Z my eyes start to cross and steam comes from my ears....
-
£4500 for a 645df+ which is nuts when you compare the technology that goes into a d800/A7r/645z and the prices charged. i could understand if the df+ was associated with the phrase ‘jewel like precision and reliability’ but it’s a long way from that.
-
£4500 for a 645df+ which is nuts when you compare the technology that goes into a d800/A7r/645z and the prices charged. i could understand if the df+ was associated with the phrase ‘jewel like precision and reliability’ but it’s a long way from that.
So if the Phase/Mamiya DF/DF+ (and lenses) were much cheaper new the they would not get pounded as much in the forums? Where is that line?
-
the lenses are well made and high quality and their prices reflect that, quality costs money. the phase body is the weak link in the chain compared to the rest of the system.
-
So if the Phase/Mamiya DF/DF+ (and lenses) were much cheaper new the they would not get pounded as much in the forums? Where is that line?
If it were a normal price, say $1200, then all we could cream it about is being a frankly terrible camera to be marketing in 2014.
-
I have the DF, but don't shot it much anymore since I moved to a tech camera for wides. However if you are looking for a backup, I would look in the used channel. There are several DF bodies on ebay, or the forum for sale sites, like this site or getdpi. Sure it's used, but it's also a backup and prices seem to run from $1500.00 to 2K. Still a bit more than $1,200 but lots less than the 5,995.00 for a new one (or is it $4995.00) I have not checked in a while.
Main differences I was able to see between the DF and DF+ were more accurate (on first press of shutter release) AF and the LI battery back, which makes a huge difference.
I don't see the Mamiya stuff as junk. I personally am very thankful for Mamiya and their MF lineup. It let me start stitching with 35mm back in 2003 with a Zork adapter for use with Canon bodies using the Mamiya 35mm and 55mm MF lenses. Then I switched to the P45+ and AFDIII, upgraded to a DF and the only issue I ever had was the AA battery life and that's a well known issue. My DF has been through the wringer and still keeps working.
Phase One has also continued to further the lineup with their partnership with Mamiya and the creation of the LS lenses, all of which are excellent lenses.
I agree the DF+ body is long in the tooth and is not full featured like a D800 or 5D MKIII, but it can get the job done. If you use a lot of focus points sure it's not the camera for you. I also believe that Phase will come out with a newer body sooner than later to compliment the IQ250, as the current DF+ would be a limited factor for many photographers looking for AI focus, action work, etc. I realize it has the feature set, but it's not really up to the task with only one focus point in the center. I also agree that the price point for current feature set is way out of line. I would also be wary of buying a DF+ new with a new body on the horizon. Phase can't charge much more than the current price of the DF+ if they plan to sell any of them (well they can always charge anything they want the market will determine if it's a good price or not)
September will be interesting.
Paul
-
...with a new body on the horizon.
I haven't heard anything about a new phase camera for a while. After two years of talk about a new body, the rumor mill has gone quiet which of course could mean something is imminent and lips are sealed or there is nothing there. Are you sure there will be a completely new phase body at photokina? Of course we all are curious. Most of the things Phase has done from scratch are top notch.
-
Considering that I could afford only a P30+ of the Phase One backs, would you say that such a back on a Hasselblad 503cw is still preferable to a Pentax 645z.
I hate all the "extras" of the Pentax and I love manual medium formats camera, but I cannot afford a P45+ or a P65...
-
Hi,
I would suggest that you consider what your needs are.
If you want to shoot Hasselblad V-series the P30+ would be a nice alternative, I think.
The Pentax 645Z gives you:
- Quite a few more pixels
- A wider dynamic range
- Live view that is very helpful in accurate focusing
- Very good high ISO performance
- Well working AF
Than, there are some other things to consider, like lenses. If you shoot outdoors flash, leaf shutter versus focal plane shutter is a consideration.
With small sensors like the P30+ and P645Z wide angles are limited. Pentax makes a 25 mm lens, but it is very expensive. The widest lens on the Hasselblad V series is the 40/4 Distagon, which corresponds to about 52 mm on film.
Best regards
Erik
Considering that I could afford only a P30+ of the Phase One backs, would you say that such a back on a Hasselblad 503cw is still preferable to a Pentax 645z.
I hate all the "extras" of the Pentax and I love manual medium formats camera, but I cannot afford a P45+ or a P65...
-
Considering that I could afford only a P30+ of the Phase One backs, would you say that such a back on a Hasselblad 503cw is still preferable to a Pentax 645z.
I hate all the "extras" of the Pentax and I love manual medium formats camera, but I cannot afford a P45+ or a P65...
Aptus 22 and P25 are also good "starving student" MF solutions. At least, they have bigger sensor compared to P30.
-
Same here. My 500CM could well be the best camera again with a live view cmos 48 square sensor. Just like me and my 500 there must be thousands of V camera owners around the world in the same situation.
Talking about the 44X33 sensor, 52mm is fine. For years I used a 50mm CF as sole WA because I couldn't afford the 40. Only the CF-IF 40 is expensive these days. But inflation and digital media format madness makes it look "affordable".
Eduardo
"Considering that I could afford only a P30+ of the Phase One backs, would you say that such a back on a Hasselblad 503cw is still preferable to a Pentax 645z.
I hate all the "extras" of the Pentax and I love manual medium formats camera, but I cannot afford a P45+ or a P65..."
"The widest lens on the Hasselblad V series is the 40/4 Distagon, which corresponds to about 52 mm on film."
-
;) Some great news for higher sync speeds on the 645Z taken from the image resource and pentax forum.
Presuming the 645Z operates in the same way as the 645D the Pentax LS lenses will work
(namely the Telephoto 135mm f/4 LS and the 90mm f2.8 LS via the 67 lens adapter 645) but with some limitations......
You'll need to expose manually, shoot in single-frame mode, can't use mirror lockup, can't bracket, no exif data or lens corrections etc. and of course you'll have to focus manually.
The flash will need to be connected to the X-sync connector on the lens itself for full flash sync speeds up to 1/500th of a second ;D
-
;) Some great news for higher sync speeds on the 645Z taken from the image resource and pentax forum.
Presuming the 645Z operates in the same way as the 645D the Pentax LS lenses will work
(namely the Telephoto 135mm f/4 LS and the 90mm f2.8 LS via the 67 lens adapter 645) but with some limitations......
You'll need to expose manually, shoot in single-frame mode, can't use mirror lockup, can't bracket, no exif data or lens corrections etc. and of course you'll have to focus manually.
The flash will need to be connected to the X-sync connector on the lens itself for full flash sync speeds up to 1/500th of a second ;D
Those limitations don't seem too bad for the type of shooting when LS lenses would be used.
cheers,
Bernard
-
With the very reasonably priced FA and 67 leaf shutter lenses + higher flash sync speeds, fast tethering via proprietry USB 3.0, full live view display/previews, remote camera control, wireless image transfer via the FLU card LAN function to IOS or Android phones/tablets and fast 27 point AF.....it looks like the 645Z more than meets all the requirements I'm looking for in a portable high rez MF camera at a price point that just really makes me smile ;)
-
Finallt all questions and mysteries will start being answered on June 27th. Release date.
Eduardo