Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Michaels comments about MFD  (Read 51825 times)

David WM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 241
    • http://
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2008, 08:11:08 am »

Quote
It wasn't a prediction or speculation, it was just a statement of fact. Any business partnership can change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hasselblad & Imcon worked together, then there was one, Sinar & Jenoptic worked together, now Jenoptic is the majority shareholder.
Maybe Phase will buy Mamiya, or Mamiya buy Phase?  If they need to work together to remain in the market, ownership my not make any difference, except that if all the money is in the back, Mamiya might not be happy.
David
Logged

tgphoto

  • Guest
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2008, 09:27:26 am »

SO there are three major forces right now - Hasselblad, F&HLS, and Mamiya/Phase.  How much more consolidation could REALLY happen?  

Hasselblad - has made it clear what they think of their customers in recent months by axing support for H1 and H2, and their sights are clearly set on a digital-only future.  Those of you with shiny new H3Ds and H3DIIs...how long before an H4D comes along and they pull the plug on supporting your rig?

F&H, Sinar, Leaf - seems Thierry is the only person who think their equipment is in line with the rest of the competition.  Sorry, Thierry, but the prices I have seen in the US don't jive.  Bottom line is, a new system at a higher price point = a gamble.  This conglomerate will need to focus on strengthening its existing customer base and leveraging its existing relationships within the professional photographic community if it wants to keep its head above water.

Mamiya/Phase - They had no choice to but to pair up given the circumstances  But this duo, to me it seems, offers the most bang for the buck.  Mamiya had the foresight to see a need to introduce a MF rig at a pricepoint that would be attractive to those shooting FF 35mm.  They also realized they needed to support their existing customer base, hence the separate ZD back.  Phase One has always supported Mamiya, and is the only company that still offers open support for multiple systems.  As long as Mamiya keeps focusing on breaking with convention, and Phase continues to innovate, they're not going anywhere.
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2008, 09:37:22 am »

Quote
It wasn't a prediction or speculation, it was just a statement of fact. Any business partnership can change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh please, they both need each other equally much so that's not gonna happen. Mamiya is the most sold medium format camera brand in the world, and Phase the most sold back, so if anyone is going out of business it's sinar. But I don't really see anyone of the few players left closing down anytime soon. The market has more or less stabilized IMO.

And the statement that 22MP backs are useless now that there are SLRs with the same amount of MP makes me laugh my ass off. 'Nuff said.  
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2008, 09:44:34 am »

Thank you for your confidence in this brand, but please don't speculate too much.

Thierry

Quote
... so if anyone is going out of business it's sinar.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2008, 09:57:45 am »

Quote
Thank you for your confidence in this brand, but please don't speculate too much.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Like I said, I DON'T think anyone is going out of business, I'm just saying that out of all the brands of digital backs Sinar has the least amount of users. Or am I wrong? Anyway, this is a ridiculous discussion from the start.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 09:57:56 am by amsp »
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #45 on: February 07, 2008, 10:07:10 am »

yes, it is ridiculous.

You seem to forget: Sinar has the largest system, from LF to MF, with MFDBs, lenses and accessories, and has the largest LF installed base.

Thierry

Quote
Like I said, I DON'T think anyone is going out of business, I'm just saying that out of all the brands of digital backs Sinar has the least amount of users. Or am I wrong? Anyway, this is a ridiculous discussion from the start.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

hankg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
    • http://www.hankgraber.com
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #46 on: February 07, 2008, 10:31:57 am »

Quote
Phase is doubly fragile because they rely on another company to produce cameras to work with their backs. Mamiya is the only such producer left, and they can close the door on Phase at any time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All the back makers rely on other companies for cameras. For Hasselblad it's Fuji, for Sinar and Leaf it's F&H. Pretty much the same deal with chips. I'd say they are all fragile as even those owned by larger entities can be cut loose at any time. I don't have numbers but I think Phase has the largest installed base by quite a bit which is the most important business advantage.

I think Canon is the only truly integrated manufacturer capable of doing everything in house.
Logged
Hank Graber
[url=http://www.hankgraber.c

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2008, 10:53:45 am »

Quote
Oh please, they both need each other equally much so that's not gonna happen.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you forgotten the Mamiya ZD? Mamiya is in direct competition with Phase because it also sells digital backs. I'm certain that the only reason Mamiya hasn't closed the door on Phase is because they just don't have the capital to R&D a series of higher performance backs and compete with Phase's entire product line. Remember how long it took them to get the ZD out?

There are many Mamiya users out there. Must be tempting for Mamiya to bring out a new camera with a proprietary mount for their own backs, and have that entire user base to themselves. Perhaps that's what Cosmo planned to do with the platform when they bought it a few years ago. Who knows. It's certainly an opportunity waiting to be siezed.

Phase needs Mamiya but not vice versa.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 10:57:20 am by foto-z »
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #48 on: February 07, 2008, 10:56:29 am »

Quote
I think Canon is the only truly integrated manufacturer capable of doing everything in house.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where do you draw the line? Canon sources many components from different suppliers too. Perhaps not the glass for the lenses or the sensor chip itself, but plenty of other parts. No-one builds anything 100% from raw materials.
Logged

NicholasR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2008, 11:10:41 am »

Quote
Have you forgotten the Mamiya ZD? Mamiya is in direct competition with Phase because it also sells digital backs. I'm certain that the only reason Mamiya hasn't closed the door on Phase is because they just don't have the capital to R&D a series of higher performance backs and compete with Phase's entire product line. Remember how long it took them to get the ZD out?

There are many Mamiya users out there. Must be tempting for Mamiya to bring out a new camera with a proprietary mount for their own backs, and have that entire user base to themselves. Perhaps that's what Cosmo planned to do with the platform when they bought it a few years ago. Who knows.

Phase needs Mamiya but not vice versa.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I find the ZD back quite compelling myself, and wonder about a medium format 'shakeout' removing all the low end (22MP) players.  The price point of their back is drastically lower than anyone elses.   Yes, I know a 1DSIII would have compable resolution, but a 645 format camera is not the same as a 35mm format camera.  I'd rather do my shooting with a ZD over a 1D.

There were a couple key reasons I didn't choose it, but I think the ZD at it's price point is really viable.  Then again, maybe everyone in this group is just twisted from spending so much money on our tools.

Regardless of any of this.  I recently purchased a MFDB.  It was expensive, and a couple years down the road better cheaper equipment will exist.  So what.  The work I do today is on as good of equipment as I need, and I don't want to spend the next 2 years shooting sub-par files while waiting for that to come along.  I don't expect my digital equipment to last forever, I just want it to provide me brilliant files that help me succeed in my goals.  If that happens, who cares about anything else?
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #50 on: February 07, 2008, 01:14:15 pm »

Quote
Have you forgotten the Mamiya ZD? Mamiya is in direct competition with Phase because it also sells digital backs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not any more it isn't.  Remember Mamiya was recently in trouble and the ZD back was threatened.  Mamiya and Phase are a perfect fit.  It may or may not last forever, but for the foreseeable future, Mamiya get support and technology from Phase, and Phase get access to the most widely used medium format platform and an essential outlet for their products

The ZD is already in production and once the Mamiya commitment to buy Dalsa chips for it is at an end they can decide on their next move - could be a Mamiya branded entry level Phase produced back, for example.  

Quentin
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2008, 01:15:55 pm »

"Have you forgotten the Mamiya ZD? Mamiya is in direct competition with Phase because it also sells digital backs. I'm certain that the only reason Mamiya hasn't closed the door on Phase is because they just don't have the capital to R&D a series of higher performance backs and compete with Phase's entire product line. Remember how long it took them to get the ZD out?

There are many Mamiya users out there. Must be tempting for Mamiya to bring out a new camera with a proprietary mount for their own backs, and have that entire user base to themselves. Perhaps that's what Cosmo planned to do with the platform when they bought it a few years ago. Who knows. It's certainly an opportunity waiting to be siezed.

Phase needs Mamiya but not vice versa."

I don't think so.  The ZD does not compete with Phase or any of the big boys in the new, never owned market.  Even in the used/refurb market, most commercial photogs would choose an A17 or a P21 over a ZD.  The advantage of the ZD is price, and the price is, I suspect, artificially low.  I suspect that the ZD price is a little over cost of materials and perhaps labor and does not include recovery of any R&D costs.  These costs were born by Mamiya's previous owners.

I also think that Mamiya's user base would dump their AFd's for Blad's or F&H products if the only back we could use would be Mamiya's own.  I'd rather have an H3D-22 than an AFd with a ZD back. I believe that much of the remainder of the user base feels the same way.

I don't know if Mamiya plans on releasing any other backs.  Perhaps they want to compete, maybe they will.  Maybe Phase will help them out with a ZDII at 33 mpix., who knows.  I think the money is there from Cosmo, but really, would you want to enter a market crowded with established, successful competitors with few buyers?  The smart money says NO.  It would be smarter to compete for 1ds2/3 users who don't need a sports camera and don't shoot commercially.  Just my thoughts, I could be totally off base.  

There is also the issue of selling bodies and lenses.  The new lenses are amazing, but without a competitive back to take advantage of these new optics, who's buying?  To shoot film?  To use the ZD back that can't be used in a commercial environment?  They need Phase and Leaf and Sinar and even Hasselblad back to fit the AFd mount to sell lenses and new bodies.  Thus Mamiya needs Phase, and the other back makers, very much.  Due to a lack of a proprietary body, Phase also needs mamiya.

OK, I'm done for the week.
Logged

NicholasR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2008, 01:29:11 pm »

Quote
I also think that Mamiya's user base would dump their AFd's for Blad's or F&H products if the only back we could use would be Mamiya's own.  I'd rather have an H3D-22 than an AFd with a ZD back. I believe that much of the remainder of the user base feels the same way.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, I think most everyone would agree with that, but its just not a fair comparison.  If I want to go into B&H today and buy a 22MP 'kit' the H3D22 is going for $25,000, the ZD kit is going for $10,000.   That is 2.5x the price, this pricing discrepancy also extends to most lenses.

Maybe I am just distorted by working in a small market where I cannot charge NY/LA/SF prices, but 15k in my pocket is very compelling.  Would my (or yours, or anyones) work be drastically different with these 2 tools?

So, yes, it may be 'artificially low' pricing, but so what.   What is so wrong with the ZD back that it's the red headed stepchild of the MFDB world?  Why is there no place for a reasonably affordable 645 chipped dslr solution?  Why can the zd back not be used in a commercial environment?  I'm not trying to be an ass...  I just think that I must be missing some huge problem with the zd back?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 01:34:19 pm by NicholasR »
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2008, 02:08:51 pm »

Interesting thread - but going back for a moment to what started this thread, the tea leaves article....  Just how many of you now shooting MFD would switch to a high pixel count DSLR?  Got to be easier to use with great fast and accurate AF, superior flash eTTL, lighter weight kit and of course the promise of cost savings?    Come on, what's holding you back?  

Me?  With purchase of the Rollei 6008 / p20 just last fall I'm moving the other way.   I don't need a ton of pixels but sure appreciate the greater DR and the look of the image I can get with my MF system.  The DR is improved with the 1Ds3 but still about 1.5-2 stops less than my old P20 and from what I have read about the new Sony sensor its not going to have only 12bits not 14bit or 16bit processing so it will probably also have less DR.  Still the physical properties of a larger film plane change the way the images look and I don't think even if the 1Ds4 has improved DR it will be able to completely replace MF.

Now to pricing....   well if I want to upgrade my system now  I can buy a p45+ and have it fit for my camera or I can switch platforms and buy a p45+/mamiya system with free lens, or I can buy a new Hy6 with 33mpix back  all apparently within 10% of the same price.   My point here is that prices all seem on par so I wouldn't think that will knock out F&H or Sinar or Leaf.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

snickgrr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 270
    • http://
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2008, 02:33:26 pm »

I hate, no that's not a strong enough word, I loathe the 35 mm format proportions.  For me I find that 95% of the time nothing fits well within it and so no, it would take a lot for me to go back to that dreadful aspect ratio.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #55 on: February 07, 2008, 02:43:00 pm »

Quote
Sure, I think most everyone would agree with that, but its just not a fair comparison.  If I want to go into B&H today and buy a 22MP 'kit' the H3D22 is going for $25,000, the ZD kit is going for $10,000.   That is 2.5x the price, this pricing discrepancy also extends to most lenses.

Maybe I am just distorted by working in a small market where I cannot charge NY/LA/SF prices, but 15k in my pocket is very compelling.  Would my (or yours, or anyones) work be drastically different with these 2 tools?

So, yes, it may be 'artificially low' pricing, but so what.   What is so wrong with the ZD back that it's the red headed stepchild of the MFDB world?  Why is there no place for a reasonably affordable 645 chipped dslr solution?  Why can the zd back not be used in a commercial environment?  I'm not trying to be an ass...  I just think that I must be missing some huge problem with the zd back?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


B&H list prices are for Europeans with their valuable Euros.  They don't cary stock of H3Ds.  Go to a dealer and get an H3D (not the H3DII) that is either old stock or demo, and you can get it for MUCH less than $20k.  So much less, that you couldn't buy a Nikon D3 with the difference.

I looked at a ZD and ruled it out for several reasons.  First and foremost, the shadows were off in every sample file I saw and in the one I was loaned by Allkit.  Secondly, it crapped out on me twice when shooting tethered.  Third, I shoot slowly and I was hitting the buffer.  I could shoot more slowly, but why?  Fourth, is there an upgrade path? Not that I can tell.  Fifth, is there support?  Not like with the other back makers.  I know I can call Lance at Capture Integration almost 24/7 if I have a problem with my Phase. These issues make it a non-starter for me.  Fine art, personal projects, sure.  The files do look really nice, and the shadow problems can be hidden in post.  But for commercial and magazine work, its a no go.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2008, 02:49:37 pm »

Quote
I hate, no that's not a strong enough word, I loathe the 35 mm format proportions.  For me I find that 95% of the time nothing fits well within it and so no, it would take a lot for me to go back to that dreadful aspect ratio.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The loathing for the 35mm aspect ratio, the burning hate I feel in my heart, is what keeps me warm all winter in NYC.  So awful in portrait, long and skinny, you end up cropping away those AA filtered pixels to fit something onto a page.
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2008, 03:00:27 pm »

Quote
Sure, I think most everyone would agree with that, but its just not a fair comparison.  If I   Why can the zd back not be used in a commercial environment?  I'm not trying to be an ass...  I just think that I must be missing some huge problem with the zd back?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well of course it can and is, and moreover you'd not be able to tell the difference for almost any conceivable use, but if you'd just spent 2.5 times its price on an alternative 22mp solution, you'd need to justify that to yourself and to others, wouldn't you  

Quentin
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2008, 03:33:54 pm »

Quote
Well of course it can and is, and moreover you'd not be able to tell the difference for almost any conceivable use, but if you'd just spent 2.5 times its price on an alternative 22mp solution, you'd need to justify that to yourself and to others, wouldn't you   

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Its not that the ZD can't be used for commercial work, but it is not really suitable for the commercial work I do.  Aside from the shadow problems that seem to pop up from time to time, image quality is excellent.  If you work slowly without clients looking over your shoulder or at a monitor, then it is a great value.  

I personally can justify the extra expense for a Phase back:  peace of mind.  I'm confident that it will shoot tethered without fail.  I am also confident enough that I would use it to shoot store displays for my more demanding and better paying clients.  When I've shot their displays, they pay me my day rate to stand around at the lab while the images are sent through post and printed on a lightjet at actual size.  The AD and CD stand around under different lighting conditions (simulated day light, tungsten and flourescent) and examine the print with a magnifying glass for sharpness and color.  My more delicate parts shrink deep into my body while this is going on/  In the past I rented Leaf A75 backs or Phase P30 backs and I was still nervous.  I wouldn't even shoot the job with a ZD, not because it  couldn't perform, but I wouldn't have the confidence to stand there without feinting, what with the odd and intermittent shadow problems.  But this is me and my usage.  Everyone is different.
Logged

NicholasR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Michaels comments about MFD
« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2008, 03:52:47 pm »

Quote
I personally can justify the extra expense for a Phase back:  peace of mind.  I'm confident that it will shoot tethered without fail.  I am also confident enough that I would use it to shoot store displays for my more demanding and better paying clients.  When I've shot their displays, they pay me my day rate to stand around at the lab while the images are sent through post and printed on a lightjet at actual size.  The AD and CD stand around under different lighting conditions (simulated day light, tungsten and flourescent) and examine the print with a magnifying glass for sharpness and color.  My more delicate parts shrink deep into my body while this is going on/  In the past I rented Leaf A75 backs or Phase P30 backs and I was still nervous.  I wouldn't even shoot the job with a ZD, not because it  couldn't perform, but I wouldn't have the confidence to stand there without feinting, what with the odd and intermittent shadow problems.  But this is me and my usage.  Everyone is different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with you 100%, for your uses and your clients one of the big backs from phase, leaf or blad is the way to go.  I think that you are not a target ZD audience though.

I think the point that I was trying to make, and it took me filling the internet with my inane chatter to get there, is that I do not agree with Michael about the shakeout.  I think *for some photographers* the concept of a lower cost, ~22mp 645 back is a fantastic thing.   I think that although the ZD may have flaws it is a solid product idea, and one that will remain viable for a while.  The idea of 'entry level MFDB'.  Michaels argument is that high end 35mm will take that entire segment over.

Giving the industry a couple of years, I could see these lower end MFDBs getting rid of their flaws, and costing very similar if not less than the highest end 35mm cams.   I for one find that appealing.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up