H3D Concerns

[MarkKay]

Perhaps I did misinterpret his letter.  However, The size of the sensor in a 35mm format is limited and at 22 megapixels full-frame, most lenses will have reached their resolution limit before reaching the 22megapixel sensor.  So I still think the two formats are not directly comparable. Mark

I think (but I'm not sure) that you misinterpreted what he said, or at least what he meant. I think he meant that Hasselblad got squeezed at the high end **in film cameras** years ago, because Nikon and Canon cameras became so good that MF in general began to lose out. That's what he doesn't want to happen again, with digital.

Most people would now tell you that film was more or less matched at ~ 6mp; or at about the Nikon D1x level, and that the top-end Canons and Nikons now challenge MF. When he says he doesn't want it to happen again, he doesn't want Canon and Nikon, expected to move up to the ~22mp arena in the next step, to again squeeze Hasselblad out of the market.

He may have an argument, but I suspect MF is a long-term loser and a niche product anyway. In four to six years, I doubt there will be any big commercial application for which Nikons, Canons, etc., will not be adequate. MF, IMHO, will pretty much become the preserve of art shooters and people who need to make super-sized prints.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Photomangreg]

I think (but I'm not sure) that you misinterpreted what he said, or at least what he meant. I think he meant that Hasselblad got squeezed at the high end **in film cameras** years ago, because Nikon and Canon cameras became so good that MF in general began to lose out. That's what he doesn't want to happen again, with digital.

Most people would now tell you that film was more or less matched at ~ 6mp; or at about the Nikon D1x level, and that the top-end Canons and Nikons now challenge MF. When he says he doesn't want it to happen again, he doesn't want Canon and Nikon, expected to move up to the ~22mp arena in the next step, to again squeeze Hasselblad out of the market.

He may have an argument, but I suspect MF is a long-term loser and a niche product anyway. In four to six years, I doubt there will be any big commercial application for which Nikons, Canons, etc., will not be adequate. MF, IMHO, will pretty much become the preserve of art shooters and people who need to make super-sized prints.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's kinda funny, when digital started many years ago, MF backs were at 5.8mp and 35mm DSLR were at 6mp, now with backs at 39 and DSLR's at 16, the gap has never been greater.

[cescx]

It's kinda funny, when digital started many years ago, MF backs were at 5.8mp and 35mm DSLR were at 6mp, now with backs at 39 and DSLR's at 16, the gap has never been greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but in this epoch, the MF backs are 24*36 mm dimensions, and, today, the difference are the double dimensions of the MF Vs 35 mm DSRL, of all ways, if is certain that, those of 35 arrive at the half of resolution that those of MF, 39 to 17, and the 17 MP, are A3 applications (offset 300 ppp), the 80% of the professional printing, the discusion, I think, is not which is better, the question is that, many applications of MF, they can be done without problems with a 35.

In this way, Hass and the other, they see its market reduced, and enlarged the difference in 8x the price of a DB-MF that in the best of the cases, multiplies for 2 the resolution of a 35...  In the epoch that your speeches, a DB-MF cost around 12.000 and the first one DSRL, of Kodak for Nikon F-3 some 7.000.

I believe that, the hasty descent of sales in MF, by photographers that utilized MF and now they utilize 35, is very large for which has carried on the one hand to the businesses MF-makers to close or to stop manufacturing (bronica,pentax,contax,yasica,rollei??) and by another, due to the great investment, cannot do more accessible its product, and therefore the present difference of price has grown so much.  

Y belive, the solution for the manufacturers, is to produce more affrodable products, to entry to the MF, and versatile than 35 cameras. The Mamiya Way.

[Rob C]

Yes, but in this epoch, the MF backs are 24*36 mm dimensions, and, today, the difference are the double dimensions of the MF Vs 35 mm DSRL, of all ways, if is certain that, those of 35 arrive at the half of resolution that those of MF, 39 to 17, and the 17 MP, are A3 applications (offset 300 ppp), the 80% of the professional printing, the discusion, I think, is not which is better, the question is that, many applications of MF, they can be done without problems with a 35.

In this way, Hass and the other, they see its market reduced, and enlarged the difference in 8x the price of a DB-MF that in the best of the cases, multiplies for 2 the resolution of a 35...  In the epoch that your speeches, a DB-MF cost around 12.000 and the first one DSRL, of Kodak for Nikon F-3 some 7.000.

I believe that, the hasty descent of sales in MF, by photographers that utilized MF and now they utilize 35, is very large for which has carried on the one hand to the businesses MF-makers to close or to stop manufacturing (bronica,pentax,contax,yasica,rollei??) and by another, due to the great investment, cannot do more accessible its product, and therefore the present difference of price has grown so much. 

Y belive, the solution for the manufacturers, is to produce more affrodable products, to entry to the MF, and versatile than 35 cameras. The Mamiya Way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Francesc

I think you are right when you suggest that the entry point into MF digital is too high. I understand the reasons given - high cost of sensors and the difficulty of getting more than a small number of them out of a single larger unit - but I think it is far more than that: I think that the prices are being kept high intentionally in a move to attract the few (relatively) professionals who have the work to justify the price (or even the clients that demand the size of image); it seems to me to be a 'last man standing' situation with the players, at the end of which shoot-out there will be one player left to satisfy the pro market I referred to as well as the wealthy amateur who might feel inclined to burn some of his bucks in photogaphy.

Wipe out the competition. Always the ideal business model.

Hasta leugo - Rob C

[cescx]

Francesc

I think you are right when you suggest that the entry point into MF digital is too high. I understand the reasons given - high cost of sensors and the difficulty of getting more than a small number of them out of a single larger unit - but I think it is far more than that: I think that the prices are being kept high intentionally in a move to attract the few (relatively) professionals who have the work to justify the price (or even the clients that demand the size of image); it seems to me to be a 'last man standing' situation with the players, at the end of which shoot-out there will be one player left to satisfy the pro market I referred to as well as the wealthy amateur who might feel inclined to burn some of his bucks in photogaphy.

Wipe out the competition. Always the ideal business model.

Hasta leugo - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Amigo...

I think the same, and I believe that besides there is too much coincidence in the prices of all the manufacturers. but alone can remain one.. or two  .

In the other hand...  The price, is not it more important at this time.  But they are obliging the buyers to be moved toward one or another, if we recall the principle of the article, Michel is a perfect example, a pro with a P45 and a H2.. that option has remained without future, and what remains us for seeing...  

Nos vemos...

[pprdigital]

He may have an argument, but I suspect MF is a long-term loser and a niche product anyway. In four to six years, I doubt there will be any big commercial application for which Nikons, Canons, etc., will not be adequate. MF, IMHO, will pretty much become the preserve of art shooters and people who need to make super-sized prints.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Despite the opinions of some, MFDB cannot be profitably produced in the price range that many would like ($8K - $12K) - at least not without some considerable drawbacks that deteriorate the end product competitively to 35mm.

That means that the only viable path for medium format is to enhance the quality of the product at the best price they can offer for profitability. Medium format will definitely not survive by offering "adequate solutions".

For many years - even in the film days, 35mm has far outsold medium format. In the commercial world, medium format lost it's shirt in the digital age because 35mm started to approach it in image quality, and ease of use blew it away. Many who moved in the direction of 35mm digital did so because medium format didn't offer an easy to use, viable alternative, and the price of entry for 35mm digital was low in comparison.

However, MFDB sales have increased in recent years, and dramatically of late. Price points have remained relatively stable, although new, slightly smaller chipped products like the Aptus 65 and the P30 have extended some range on the entry level side of MFDB's ($15K - $20K). The increase in sales can be sourced to the enhanced ease of use that MFDB's have been able to develop recently and the continuously evolving superiority in image quality.

Today, many commercial photographers have found that with 35mm, the upgrade path seems to be constant, so that after 5 or 6 years, you've invested as much as you would have in a MFDB system - even more. And 35mm appears to be hitting the ceiling in terms of image quality and resolution, wheras medium format still has legs. And I think a lot of photographers - while valuing what 35mm does well - realized that they missed shooting medium format for many reasons. Our customers who have recently purchased MFDB's, after shooting 35mm digital for the past few years, seem to feel like they're "home" again. Their creative energy seems invigorated.

As to how some photographers afford these systems and others aren't able to or choose not to, I can't fathom. Without peeking into every photographer's business plan and budget, it's impossible to say why two photographers who shoot the same niche, serve the same industry, and enjoy comparable success, have divergent opinions about what each can afford.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital

[Rob C]

Despite the opinions of some, MFDB cannot be profitably produced in the price range that many would like ($8K - $12K) - at least not without some considerable drawbacks that deteriorate the end product competitively to 35mm.

That means that the only viable path for medium format is to enhance the quality of the product at the best price they can offer for profitability. Medium format will definitely not survive by offering "adequate solutions".

For many years - even in the film days, 35mm has far outsold medium format. In the commercial world, medium format lost it's shirt in the digital age because 35mm started to approach it in image quality, and ease of use blew it away. Many who moved in the direction of 35mm digital did so because medium format didn't offer an easy to use, viable alternative, and the price of entry for 35mm digital was low in comparison.

However, MFDB sales have increased in recent years, and dramatically of late. Price points have remained relatively stable, although new, slightly smaller chipped products like the Aptus 65 and the P30 have extended some range on the entry level side of MFDB's ($15K - $20K). The increase in sales can be sourced to the enhanced ease of use that MFDB's have been able to develop recently and the continuously evolving superiority in image quality.

Today, many commercial photographers have found that with 35mm, the upgrade path seems to be constant, so that after 5 or 6 years, you've invested as much as you would have in a MFDB system - even more. And 35mm appears to be hitting the ceiling in terms of image quality and resolution, wheras medium format still has legs. And I think a lot of photographers - while valuing what 35mm does well - realized that they missed shooting medium format for many reasons. Our customers who have recently purchased MFDB's, after shooting 35mm digital for the past few years, seem to feel like they're "home" again. Their creative energy seems invigorated.

As to how some photographers afford these systems and others aren't able to or choose not to, I can't fathom. Without peeking into every photographer's business plan and budget, it's impossible to say why two photographers who shoot the same niche, serve the same industry, and enjoy comparable success, have divergent opinions about what each can afford.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Steve

What you say is true, but also true is the opposite; it all comes down to my point of budget and not, I think, anything much to do with the latter part of your post where you talk about MF photographers 'coming home' as it were. Simply put, I was in a position where I had two Hassleblads, a 500C and a 500CM as well as at least 3 Nikons at all times, I was able to use either and my field then was fashion and calendar girls. So, why didn't I use the Swede all the time? Again, as with so much photographic, the answer was gut reaction, a visceral feeling, an unarticulated knowledge that made me pick up the right camera at the right time in the shoot.

You can't then, make the argument that format per se is what calls the shots, at least, not in the world I inhabited, it wasn't.

But you can make the argument that high prices for MFD has put a stop to having the choice.

Just a way of seeing things, but as you know, it all comes down to big business trying to stay there.

Ciao - Rob C

[pprdigital]

Hi Steve

What you say is true, but also true is the opposite; it all comes down to my point of budget and not, I think, anything much to do with the latter part of your post where you talk about MF photographers 'coming home' as it were. Simply put, I was in a position where I had two Hassleblads, a 500C and a 500CM as well as at least 3 Nikons at all times, I was able to use either and my field then was fashion and calendar girls. So, why didn't I use the Swede all the time? Again, as with so much photographic, the answer was gut reaction, a visceral feeling, an unarticulated knowledge that made me pick up the right camera at the right time in the shoot.

You can't then, make the argument that format per se is what calls the shots, at least, not in the world I inhabited, it wasn't.

But you can make the argument that high prices for MFD has put a stop to having the choice.

Just a way of seeing things, but as you know, it all comes down to big business trying to stay there.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps instead of saying my customers who have shot 35mm, and have gone back to medium format, and coming home, I could say my customers who abandoned their medium format systems to shoot 35mm exclusively, feel like they've come back home. Most of my customers were predominantly medium format shooters in the past. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with 35mm, or that 35mm doesn't have a place as a tool for a commercial photographer. Indeed, nearly all of my MFDB customers still shoot 35mm when the occasion calls for it.

If I had been a photographer who employed medium format for the majority of my work - as many did - and I could go back to shooting medium format, after going to 35mm exclusively, I gladly would if it enhanced my work. The challenging and unfortunate part, and upon this we agree, is being able to pay for a medium format digital system. Of course, many do, and knowing how some do and others don't is the puzzle I've never been able to explain.

But the medium format manufacturers have no choice but to continue to push the envelope with their solutions. Which means their solutions will never be in the same price range as 35mm. Which means that their market will continue to be intensively competitive, and not likely to ultimately support all the current players.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital

[John Camp]

The point I was trying to make above is that given the requirements of the end product of most professional work, MF simply will no longer be required. Or, put another way, the amount of professional work that most photographers could generate, that would require a MF system, and for which a 35mm system would not be adequate, wouldn't be large enough for most people to invest in a system.

As for paying for it, however, I don't think that many pros who need a MF system would have a problem. People routinely spend as much for a car. So you get a bank loan for five years and pay a eight hundred dollars a month, which is really (in the states) only $500 or so after you deduct it as a business expense...if you can't afford $500 a month for a MF system, then you don't need the MF system. IMHO, of course.

JC

[samuel_js]

Well, in this link there's a DISCONTINUED PRODUCT called H2D-39 (among others) and I fully understand that the feeling must be horrible!!! And after spending that kind of money...How old is the H2D? A year? Even the 503CW (the one I own) is till presented as a modern tool with future.....  It really sounds like forcing all the digital Hasseblad to the HD3.