Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.  (Read 28194 times)

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454

I had a conversation with a friend lately that happens to be a dealer and I have a long term relation with, who specializes in equipment for pros or passionate photographers who are on the demand for high end equipment and the conversation ended up relating more on the view camera market and the recent developments on it...

He ended up that pros either stick up with their (sometimes very) old equipment, that there is a continuous drop in demand for the later 10 years, that the market has come in a position where there is hardly any demand and that this year there is a boost in demand from both the enthusiast and the professional market towards the mini view cameras that appeared lately (mainly the Cambo Actus) which customers order in combination with FF mirrorless (almost entirely with Sony A7 series camera) as to either replace their older (but much more expensive) equipment, or enter the view camera world.

The customers seem to claim that the system helps them to be more creative, while there is very little (if any) they miss from using a view camera + mfdb combination in IQ... They seem to praise the LV ability more than anything and even abandon tethered captures for the rear screen flexibility, but also praise the maneuverability and the time consumption to perform a task...

It also seems that the demand for the same camera + MFDB combination is only a very small fraction of the demand as the customers find the cost difference not to be justified and that the ones that insist of using their older equipment, are mainly the ones that own multishot backs for their work (although they are also attracted to the "mini view camera" solution) and want to retain the multishot ability but can't overcome the poor LV that their MFDBs offer...

The lenses that the customers seem to use are mainly Mamyia RZ & Hasselblad V, but also old enlarger lenses able to project wide image circles as well as Canon or Nikon as to use the respective "perspective correction" (some call them "architectural") lenses on the mini view camera, which offer wider image circle and some of them are able to cover the wider AOV that MF lenses can't.... There is also demand from people that own (from the past) MF lenses that use motors for their aperture control (such as Rollei or Contax 645 or Blad H) who are trying to find a solution as to use them on a mini view camera...

We ended with a conversation concluding the following in agreement:

1. That the view camera market as we know it should completely change during the following years with more makers (Sinar, Linhoff ...etc) entering the "mini" view camera market,
2. That there should be more major makers (Canon, Nikon) moving into the FF mirrorless camera market,
3. That there should be interfaces developed as to control the aperture of the MF lenses that have electronic control, as well as to control the MF lenses that have electronic leaf shutters (Rollei, Bronica, Fuji GX680 etc), but focal plane shutters for the rear standard of these "mini" cameras too, as to attract users that would insist to retain their older MFDBs (and will allow multishot operation of the MS backs),
4. That the MFDB market should shrink further as another (major) application that was dominated by MFDB use is now under serious attack from cameras with smaller image area sensors, but without the technical disadvantage that the mirror box introduces,
5. That the view camera dedicated lens market should shrink considerably as MF lenses seem to be perfect of the job (and with good quality) at a fraction of the cost, especially if one considers the availability on the S/H market of (now) abandoned systems,
6. That there should be FF mirrorless cameras with multishot ability soon in the market as to provide an alternative to "true color" MFDB users.

Interesting subject.... What are your thoughts?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 03:03:27 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2015, 01:11:38 pm »

Aaaah... forgot to mention another (very important for future imaging) aspect of use that we discussed... View cameras being used for cinema... There seems to be a good (and steadily increasing) number of creative cinematographers that adapt the cameras they use (them being mirrorless) on the back a view camera and use movements for creative video... Here is an example with Actus + Blackmagic, but Sony A7 seems to be (again) the most popular implementation (at least up to now)... https://cambouk.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/cambo-actus-and-blackmagic-compact-cinema-camera/ 

I believe that Leica had all the O/P & the above in mind when announcing the SL (the recently announced Leica SL has the wider mount - 4mm more diameter than the Sony A7 - and thus seems ideal to be integrated with a view camera)... but I'm sure there are more applications to come... There seems that FF mirrorless + view camera combination has a lot of applications that are related with imaging that may prove revolutionary (as far as solutions are concerned) in the future... and all that with a significant reduction in costs while "enthusiast" & "professional" equipment (even for cinema) seems to be closing the cost gap and creativity seems to have more opportunities to be promoted...
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5027
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2015, 02:00:03 pm »

Interesting topic.  I would say that your dealer is right; many are going for the smaller FF and smaller tech camera setups.  (I can tell you that before all of this, the idea of having to lug around a camera with bellows was too much, which is why I only considered the plate tech cameras.)

Now, due to the "grip" you can not hook a Sony to a plate camera, so bellows is the name of the game again and those smaller bellows cameras look nice.  However, I was told by another avid pro that the smaller bellows camera are not as robust and that he can notice twisting/tilting on live view as he adjusts shift.  So, I feel having a more robust (and larger and heavier) bellows camera is important just because digital is so much more sensitive to the standards being out of plane.  But a Sony A7rII on a M Line 2 seems like a nice setup.

I like the idea of having movements for video.  That sounds pretty awesome.

With that being said though, I have been starting to explore table top and still life photography and I am finding it to be difficult to get the background as out of focus as I would like to.  I am mainly using my Rodenstock 90mm with my P45+, but feel that the 135mm or 180mm would be better for many of my images, just due to shorter depth of field.  (Hopefully soon I will have a 135mm.)  Going to a 35mm system, is going to shorten your focal length for the same angle of view and increase your depth of field.  So, I guess it really depends on what you need to do. 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 02:20:02 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2015, 02:41:08 pm »

Interesting topic.  I would say that your dealer is right; many are going for the smaller FF and smaller tech camera setups.  (I can tell you that before all of this, the idea of having to lug around a camera with bellows was too much, which is why I only considered the plate tech cameras.)



One however must take into account that cameras with bellows have a greater range of movements to the extend that the limits of a project may be not satisfied by a plate tech camera... and of course "mini" view cameras have solved the portability factor (up to a limit) ...not to mention the cost.


Now, due to the "grip" you can not hook a Sony to a plate camera, so bellows is the name of the game again and those smaller bellows cameras look nice.  However, I was told by another avid pro that the smaller bellows camera are not as robust and that he can notice twisting/tilting on live view as he adjusts shift.  So, I feel having a more robust (and larger and heavier) bellows camera is important just because digital is so much more sensitive to the standards being out of plane.  But a Sony A7rII on a M Line 2 seems like a nice setup.



+1... However, quality of build and sturdiness are not related to the design... one would expect to improve with time as systems develop.




With that being said though, I have been starting to explore table top and still life photography and I am finding it to be difficult to get the background as out of focus as I would like to.  I am mainly using my Rodenstock 90mm with my P45+, but feel that the 135mm or 180mm would be better for many of my images, just due to shorter depth of field.  (Hopefully soon I will have a 135mm.)  Going to a 35mm system, is going to shorten your focal length for the same angle of view and increase your depth of field.  So, I guess it really depends on what you need to do.


A longer lens always helps (for the same distance to the subject), but I believe that any DOF is possible with the right lens image circle vs. image area combination...  :)  (exactly the limit with non bellows cameras as well as with limited movement cameras) accuracy (and good mechanical gearing) are very important for one to experiment with the Scheimpflug theory as to implement it as fast as possible...

Tanks for posting this,  Theodoros.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5027
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2015, 03:43:08 pm »

Something that I just do not think about being a photographer is adjusting focus.  I often pick my focus and then just setup the shot.  However, recently I was doing some video and needed to have a second person adjust my focus as I panned and moved the camera within the scene. 

I have to think this would be very difficult to impossible on a view camera. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2015, 04:06:02 pm »

I have to think this would be very difficult to impossible on a view camera.

Or much easier... no? Yet again, the use of a view camera is not necessarily a better option.... One may use it or not according to his needs. It's good to have the option though rather than it not being available at all...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 04:12:53 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 730
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2015, 04:43:08 pm »

I've used tilt/shifts on the Red for composing architectural master shots.  These aren't generally the kinds of scenes you pull focus on.  You could, however, pull focus if using slr lenses on the view camera (versus copal lenses).  I would probably try to use my wireless ff to keep everything as smooth as possible.

I don't expect that we'll see development for all of the electronic mf lenses out there.  I just don't think the market will support a ROI.  The guy from Cambo that I spoke to at Photo+ said that they would only be doing the Canon mount.  Martin from Arca said that they would be open to exploring different possibilities if the demand were there.  I'd love an electronic mount for Leica S2 glass, but I can't imagine anyone other than myself buying it.  Martin agreed.

Hell, I'm just happy that the Canon mount is coming and otherwise, I'm very happy with my CFi/e set.

CB

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3307
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2015, 04:44:14 pm »

I frequently use the Actus with my Olympus cameras. The main problem is that the widest lens that I am able to use with the kit is a WA 40mm Schneider Componon S. So, the effective focal length is equivalent to 80mm on a FF 35mm camera. For a brief while I had a second-hand Sony A7 that I used with the Actus. I didn't like the A7, so I sold it.

I use enlarger lenses exclusively. I've designed a universal lens shade to cut out glare. I bought most of the lenses on eBay.

My major beef with the Actus is the detente for the swing movement is sloppy. I am careful to check focus on the left and the right side of the frame to ensure accurate focus along the y-axis. This can be a bit cumbersome when stitching. I contacted Cambo just this week to tell them about the detente issue. They said the slop is deliberate and it shouldn't compromise focus. HAH! I am not the only photographer whose called them on that.


Still, I really enjoy using the Actus. I love using front tilt to get deep depth-of-field on tele lenses at f/8. I just picked up a small Manfrotto gear head for around $200 (money well spent). I do not recommend the Actus for MFD.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 04:52:09 pm by BobDavid »
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2015, 05:21:04 pm »

I've used tilt/shifts on the Red for composing architectural master shots.  These aren't generally the kinds of scenes you pull focus on.  You could, however, pull focus if using slr lenses on the view camera (versus copal lenses).  I would probably try to use my wireless ff to keep everything as smooth as possible.

I don't expect that we'll see development for all of the electronic mf lenses out there.  I just don't think the market will support a ROI.  The guy from Cambo that I spoke to at Photo+ said that they would only be doing the Canon mount.  Martin from Arca said that they would be open to exploring different possibilities if the demand were there.  I'd love an electronic mount for Leica S2 glass, but I can't imagine anyone other than myself buying it.  Martin agreed.

Hell, I'm just happy that the Canon mount is coming and otherwise, I'm very happy with my CFi/e set.

CB

Hi Chris... I suspect (highly) that Sinar will be releasing an electronic aperture control for Leica S lenses which (automatically) would mean that Blad H & Contax 645 lenses will also be usable (via the H & C adapters)... It doesn't make sense if they don't, since they (the Leica group) introduced the Leica SL and announced an "S" adapter for the SL and this means that they have the interface ready... It would be like them refusing to sell more equipment (both Sinar & Leica), since the SL seems perfect (it has 4mm wider mount than the Sony A) for use instead of an MFDB on a view camera, but it is also specified very highly for video.  ;)

In addition it should be expected for Sinar to soon enter the "mini" view camera market since it is the only part of view camera market that there is demand on... I think then that the other makers will have to react with making the same interface adaptable to their cameras, or by introducing alternative interfaces, or (most possible) doing both... I think we have a long way to go on the matter since the view cameras are the only sector of imaging that still has ..."archaic" interface communication which affects directly its marketing results... Lets not forget that Sinar & Rollei pioneered on the matter (although at a financial penalty that costed them their independance or even survival) and that Alpa lately introduced communication interfaces with movements for their 12 FPS... I don't expect it to end here... Even if a maker says "it's not in our plans" I think they'll be forced by the marketing needs to change their (current) position on the matter... (fingers crossed).  :)
Logged

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 636
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2015, 05:23:23 pm »

Bob,  really appreciate your honest and frank feedback regarding the Actus.  I wish Arca users would also give some feedback regarding mechanical detente accuracy's especially for swing which is very important. 

Victor
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2015, 05:51:52 pm »

Sinar could have made a similar thing since long time, making a cambo like camera with a canon or nikon mount on the back and an adapter with their sinar m mount lenses, which are not worse than the leica s counterparts. But as Chris said, 4 or 5 people would have bought that .... or less.
There will not be many architecture photographers who have a leica s or sinar m system with lenses resting at home, and if - these will already have the best available shift equipment as well.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2015, 05:56:30 pm »

I had a conversation with a friend lately that happens to be a dealer and I have a long term relation with, who specializes in equipment for pros or passionate photographers who are on the demand for high end equipment and the conversation ended up relating more on the view camera market and the recent developments on it...

He ended up that pros either stick up with their (sometimes very) old equipment, that there is a continuous drop in demand for the later 10 years, that the market has come in a position where there is hardly any demand

I always find it interesting to hear about other markets. Here in the US the NYC and LA market for Phase One gears has been increasing year-over-year for both the pro and enthusiast market since 2008. Phase One's public financial statements show increasing revenue and healthy profit during that period. Is he a dealer for Phase One or for Hassy and Sinar (or all three)?

What geographic market are you in again? How is the health of the economy in general there?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 06:33:01 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2015, 06:16:36 pm »

Sinar could have made a similar thing since long time, making a cambo like camera with a canon or nikon mount on the back and an adapter with their sinar m mount lenses, which are not worse than the leica s counterparts. But as Chris said, 4 or 5 people would have bought that .... or less.
There will not be many architecture photographers who have a leica s or sinar m system with lenses resting at home, and if - these will already have the best available shift equipment as well.
As you said, there would be only a handful of photographers (maybe) interested... I believe that the major reason for the success that "mini" view cameras have, is that one can use the lenses he already owns or (if he doesn't) purchase very cheap alternatives with high quality performance... With Sinar m lenses and mirror-box cameras on the rear standard, one would end up with poor performance (due to the mirror box) and still with expensive lenses...

But, lets imagine something real... (say) a pro that is (still) using an H1 or H2 and a 22mp or 33/39mp MFDB on it (there are plenty)... Wouldn't it be great for him if he adds an Actus, get an FF mirrorless and use the H-lenses he already uses on it? Compare that with the investment needed to set up a "real" view camera system, adapt his MFDB on it and buy new lenses that can cope with the system... and then compare the result difference (if it worth the investment) then the flexibility of use and then time required to perform a certain task... I guess it then is easy to guess the winner and explain the recent marketing reaction that the mini view cameras have... 
Logged

Franzl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2015, 06:27:33 pm »

After a long field test today of a Linhof Techno with Rodenstock and Schneider Lenses, Cambo with Rodenstock lenses, IQ Back, Phase with Schneider lenses and also the new SK Bluering lens (35mm) and the Canon 5Dsr with many different lenses, I cannot sea DMF business shrink. The Canon is not coming near a proper DMF + Schneider Bluering lens or Rodie. All the big guns are using DMF, even if it is just used as a symbol. A Sony A7rII setup needs 4-6 batteries at least, during a shooting...just carrying those chargers and find power supply is a joke on set...the A7r is just not made for professional use. It is a great cam, but for real work it isn't working in the field imho...also charging proper money and standing there with such a cam, every AD has is just not what puts a good image on the photographer. This maybe works in still life. And many of the new creative cool league who used to shoot analogue for a long time, switched to DMF in the mean time. CMOS sensors helping a lot too and the Pentax system. Every camera brand is pushing towards bigger sensors and there are more FF 35mm sensors cams ever (Sony 4 Models, Canon 5 Models, Nikon 6 models?, Leica 4 Models, Pentax coming up, Fuji coming up, Olympus missing the boat?, many FF mirrorles cams coming up) and than everyone says the trend is away from bigger sensors? This is not how I am experiencing it. So many photogs in my city are using DMF, 3-4 years before I knew everyone personally. Now so many have them, people I never heart of are shooting with DMF. I am waiting for 2 month on the XF upgrade as PhaseOne didn't expect such a huge demand. Doesn't sounds like a shrinking market.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 06:36:49 pm by Franzl »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2015, 06:31:04 pm »

This is not how I am experiencing it. So many photogs in my city are using DMF, 3-4 years before I knew everyone personally. Now I so many have them, people I never heart of are shooting with DMF. I am waiting for 2 month on the XF upgrade as PhaseOne didn't expect such a huge demand. Doesn't sounds like a shrinking market.

What city are you in?

I'm genuinely interested by the drastically different views I hear. I'm very knowledgable about the state of medium format digital in the NYC and LA markets and to some extent the rest of the US market, but very little about the rest of the world.

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2015, 06:42:08 pm »

I think on the forums the buzz around tech cams has died off a bit during the last year. It's more and more about the mirrorless Sonys. Forum buzz is not an accurate view of the whole market though. I don't really know what's happening.

I think it will all reduce to a very tiny speciality money-no-object market, and I think I myself will probably not shoot MFD tech in 5-10 years, most likely be back to Canon with whatever tilt-shifts they have then.

A CMOS back that can do my soon-to-be-discontinued Schneider Digitars is probably the only thing that can make me continue past those 5-10 years, but it's one of those less-than-ten people products.

I see convergence, MFD and 135 will look more alike in features. Popular replacement of copal shutter is not an e-shutter, but a focal plane shutter. Flange distance will increase, more similar lens designs. Supersharp 135 lenses like Otus will have a good market and more will come. With the increase in similarity in image quality, lens lines and movement capabilities the attraction to MFD for me will decrease. I want something more than just more pixels (if I even get that).

For now I'm very happy with my Techno 50MP CCD and Schneider Digitar lens line, but I don't see an attractive upgrade path unless that compatible CMOS back arrives...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 06:46:45 pm by torger »
Logged

Franzl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2015, 07:04:46 pm »



I think on the forums the buzz around tech cams has died off a bit during the last year. It's more and more about the mirrorless Sonys. Forum buzz is not an accurate view of the whole market though. I don't really know what's happening.

I think it will all reduce to a very tiny speciality money-no-object market, and I think I myself will probably not shoot MFD tech in 5-10 years, most likely be back to Canon with whatever tilt-shifts they have then.

A CMOS back that can do my soon-to-be-discontinued Schneider Digitars is probably the only thing that can make me continue past those 5-10 years, but it's one of those less-than-ten people products.

I see convergence, MFD and 135 will look more alike in features. Popular replacement of copal shutter is not an e-shutter, but a focal plane shutter. Flange distance will increase, more similar lens designs. Supersharp 135 lenses like Otus will have a good market and more will come. With the increase in similarity in image quality, lens lines and movement capabilities the attraction to MFD for me will decrease. I want something more than just more pixels (if I even get that).

35mm Tilts for proper architecture work is not working imho. An Otus lens is as expensive as a DMF lens, but without auto focus. A canon 5Dsr will be old after 3 years, a IQ150 will be fine for 5-8 years and will sell for proper money after this. I used a refurbished P45+ for 4 years and lost 4000€ of investment, after I went for an upgrade. Made more money on charging equipment cost to client than I could have for a Canon cam. This has been a smart investment although it was huge at the beginning.

The big question is who your clients are. But the expensive stuff is the 24/7 upgrades on 35mm camera gear. A 3 year old Canon L lens is not usable at the newest Canon cam. Serious tilt is not really usable on the newest Canon cam. Every system has its fit and in the analogue time people had LF, MF, 35mm...now people just focus on 35mm, but in fact all systems have their point..some analogue cams got used till they fell apart and where even tuck taped. These days people got the feeling a p45+ cannot do the job. Although there have been done awesome work with it over a decade. The most expensive part in all that is, if you replace stuff to early. If you look at the Sony A7, you could have spent 12k in the last 3 years or so (at least it feels like that).
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2015, 07:08:12 pm »

After a long field test today of a Linhof Techno with Rodenstock and Schneider Lenses, Cambo with Rodenstock lenses, IQ Back, Phase with Schneider lenses and also the new SK Bluering lens (35mm) and the Canon 5Dsr with many different lenses, I cannot sea DMF business shrink. The Canon is not coming near a proper DMF + Schneider Bluering lens or Rodie. All the big guns are using DMF, even if it is just used as a symbol. A Sony A7rII setup needs 4-6 batteries at least, during a shooting...just carrying those chargers and find power supply is a joke on set...the A7r is just not made for professional use. It is a great cam, but for real work it isn't working in the field imho...also charging proper money and standing there with such a cam, every AD has is just not what puts a good image on the photographer. This maybe works in still life. And many of the new creative cool league who used to shoot analogue for a long time, switched to DMF in the mean time. CMOS sensors helping a lot too and the Pentax system. Every camera brand is pushing towards bigger sensors and there are more FF 35mm sensors cams ever (Sony 4 Models, Canon 5 Models, Nikon 6 models?, Leica 4 Models, Pentax coming up, Fuji coming up, Olympus missing the boat?, many FF mirrorles cams coming up) and than everyone says the trend is away from bigger sensors? This is not how I am experiencing it. So many photogs in my city are using DMF, 3-4 years before I knew everyone personally. Now so many have them, people I never heart of are shooting with DMF. I am waiting for 2 month on the XF upgrade as PhaseOne didn't expect such a huge demand. Doesn't sounds like a shrinking market.

I really fail to understand your post Franzi... Do you deny that mini view camera + FF mirrorless are dominating the view camera market (even among pros) currently? ...As I said in the O/P, there are still plenty of pros that use MFDB + view camera combinations, but the current sales of traditional view camera equipment is only a handful in comparison... mostly it is existing stuff for many years that people have invested a lot in it and wouldn't (of course) abandone it for inferior equipment (let alone the financial loss)...

The question here is different... It is whether the value difference justifies the cost difference, whether skills can overcome the difference in performance and whether one can work faster, untethered and still keep up to the task... The estimation that "MFDB market should shrink further", doesn't implement a suggestion that Sonys are better than MFDBs... (I have two MFDBs myself - both with multishot ability - as to implement such nonsense), it is rather a natural estimation that one would do because -as it is mentioned in the O/P- "another aspect of photography that MFDBs where dominant on, is now under invasion from FF mirrorless cameras"... nothing more, nothing less of an estimation based on facts that is.
Logged

Franzl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2015, 07:20:42 pm »

I really fail to understand your post Franzi... Do you deny that mini view camera + FF mirrorless are dominating the view camera market (even among pros) currently? ...

 "another aspect of photography that MFDBs where dominant on, is now under invasion from FF mirrorless cameras"... nothing more, nothing less of an estimation based on facts that is.

Maybe I am lost in translation and misunderstood the original post. Not denying, just posting my experience. Have to admit, I don't have a big understanding of the still life and food photography market. Just know one still lifer who used 35mm since the beginning because DMF was a pain without proper live view and depth of field was his enemy anyway. For stuff like that 35mm FF works well I would say. All I wanted to say is that the DMF market is growing imho.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2015, 07:47:45 pm »

Maybe I am lost in translation and misunderstood the original post. Not denying, just posting my experience. Have to admit, I don't have a big understanding of the still life and food photography market. Just know one still lifer who used 35mm since the beginning because DMF was a pain without proper live view and depth of field was his enemy anyway. For stuff like that 35mm FF works well I would say. All I wanted to say is that the DMF market is growing imho.

I would wish that it would, but since there is no reports on the matter posted from the makers, it makes me very suspicious for the opposite...  :) Maybe MF DSLRs (Leica 007 & Pentax Z) are doing well at the moment (again an estimation based on the price and own experience out of wedding pros I know that found an opportunity to add digital next to their Contax 645 using the same glass on Leica S 007), but even if they do, wouldn't that share "cut" more out of MFDB + camera combinations? Personally I strongly protest against "closed systems" (a reason why I never used Phamyia or Blad platforms) and additionally, I think that the major maker's decision (P1 of course) to close the system with the XF will seriously damage their sales and the MFDB market in total... but that's a different conversation...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up