Next generation MF sensors

[ThierryH]

Dear Edmund,

This is a very untrue claim, far from the reality.
Sorry, I have to correct it, to avoid any confusion among the readers here.

Best regards nevertheless,
Thierry

I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000.
Edmund

[pcunite]

I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000. Then factor in dealer rebate (40% on final price), local rep payroll, unsold stock, inhouse demo units, repair units etc, and the COST OF RUNNING A BUSINESS+PROFIT. and you end up with a final user prince of $6-8K.

It does not matter what Leaf, Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya think the price should be. The market is speaking for them. Either make it cheaper or go out of business.

[BJL]

I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000.

Post #59 above gives a source for pricing of US$3,500 for volume purchase of a Kodak 49x37mm sensor with 6 micron cell size. How do you get from there to $1000 total cost to Leaf, even if the sensor is downsized a bit to 44x33mm (about 20% less area)? Using older sensor designs with bigger photosites does not significantly reduce sensor fab. costs, though Kodak and Dalsa probably sell those older sensor models at lower margins than the new 6 micron models.

There is a strange trend in these discussions of base-less optimism about the true costs of DMF gear, coupled with equally evidence-free cynicism about the stupidity and/or greed of DMF makers in their pricing policies, technological choices etc. I feel for Thierry, Steve and others associated with the industry, whose probably well-informed comments are so often dismissed as excuses and propaganda.

[ThierryH]

I feel for Thierry, Steve and others associated with the industry, whose probably well-informed comments are so often dismissed as excuses and propaganda.

Thanks BJL,

I simply wish to remind that I can't any longer be accused of propaganda or of having a biased speaking: I do not work for any manufacturer since a few months now, and as such simply contribute here only to give information and share experiences, as long as it does not harm my previous employer, beside learning also from other members.

Best regards,
Thierry

[BJL]

... I can't any longer be accused of propaganda or of having a biased speaking: I do not work for any manufacturer since a few months now, and as such simply contribute here only to give information and share experiences, as long as it does not harm my previous employer ...

Indeed, that makes you an especially valuable asset in these discussions ... even if I sometimes challenge you to support your claims and interpretations, because as a scientist, I do not totally believe anyone. (Even Einstein got some things badly wrong!)

[ThierryH]

Indeed, that makes you an especially valuable asset in these discussions ... even if I sometimes challenge you to support your claims and interpretations, because as a scientist, I do not totally believe anyone. (Even Einstein got some things badly wrong!)

BJL,

No problem to be challenged, that makes the discussions interesting and going forward, as long as the challenge comes with respect and sensed claims, without rant or cynicism or even insults.
In this case I will always try to explain it with words based on my experiences and to try to open the minds about the manufacturer's side of the things: no, it isn't as easy as often described and explained here (and elsewhere).
What is interesting here is the"old" idea that was floating around for years now, deep in the minds and considered as a fact: that sensor costs represent the major part in the cost of a MFDB. I tried to correct it (on this platform) already 3 years ago, a couple of times. I am glad "georgl" did find the current price of one of the most recent and newest sensor to eventually prove this.

Best regards,
Thierry

[stevesanacore]

AGREED!

In fact price has no elasticity. Say Leaf AFi II 10 sold at $40000, if the price was $10000, would you buy 4 outfits? Unlikely. But at $10000, Leaf has no profit at all.

Xin

Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.

[stevesanacore]

The current CCDs cost about 3000-5000$ each if they're bought in quite large numbers (>1000): http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_ima...t2008-html.aspx
The MF-systems propably could be cheaper, but they would still be much more expensive than 35mm-systems due to stricter testing.

"I think we just need another Jim Jannard to go after the MF market."

Great! We could call it "GREEN", it would have a large CMOS-sensor (let's say 36x48mm) made by Sony (but of course "GREEN" would never admit that and call it "Millenium") and be sold just for 5000$ - great sensor-size/price-ratio! But it would be manufactured in Singapore with low environmental standards by cheap (guest-)workers (<<1000$/month) instead of skilled craftsmen. The body will be made out of plastic/cheap metal, the camera overheats from time to time and it has no optical viewfinder, instead they use a 800x600-EVF! And then they rehouse old bronica-lenses and call them "GREEN"-lenses and sell them for twice the price. But what's really great about it: it has "GREEN-RAW" (so you cannot use LR, C1...)- it interpolates the 25megapixels to 100Megapixels @12bit and compresses it with JPG2000 in a 10:1-ratio to handy 10MB-files! That would be a revolution!

I think Phase and Hasselblad/Fuji should really invest R&D into their systems (at least Phase has some money) - custom ASICs, better screens and mabye a custom-designed CMOS when the technology finally means no trade-off in low-ISO-quality. But they shouldn't become a "standard 35mm-system" with a large sensor at any price - be careful what you wish for...

I take it you are a filmmaker that for some reason hates the RED camera? Not sure where you get your information from but they are doing very well and have more than a few loyal followers like Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson,.... but I guess they don't know what they are doing, right?

It's a fantastic camera that went through some growing pains but is now working very well and allowed a huge number of filmmakers to produce a look that was 'out of reach' expensive before it's introduction.

I totally agree with your last paragraph, and that is exactly what Jim did with his camera. But I am not sure what you mean by "standard 35mm system at any price?"

[mattlap2]

I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000. Then factor in dealer rebate (40% on final price), local rep payroll, unsold stock, inhouse demo units, repair units etc, and the COST OF RUNNING A BUSINESS+PROFIT. and you end up with a final user prince of $6-8K.

A single craftsman, or a small craft firm, working on order and doing direct sales, could probably get buy selling the same product direct for $4K.

 
Edmund

40% Dealer margin in the photo industry?   Not unless you are a filter or a camera strap.   Even in the days when digital sales took a LOT of customer support the margins were no more than the 20% range.   Today they are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller ......

[Steve Hendrix]

Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.

The primary optimism I have for the market is that over time, Photographers have shown they are willing to go through quite a bit to get the equipment that tilts the room for them. I don't know about medium format revolutions, but in my eyes the core advantages of medium format compared to 35mm have been image quality and the look of the file. What holds medium format back now is the lack of sophistication in the camera and the inability of many photographers to afford the larger sensor products.

I do not believe 30% of the previous medium format market will ever return, regardless of how much the products evolve, mostly because of economics and how the market has changed since 100,000 shot medium format. Even if medium format provided high ISO, and in-camera sophistication to go along with their core image quality advantage, I imagine no more than 10%-15% of the market would return due to the fact that - commercially - they can get close enough for much less financial outlay.

But if medium format produces a compelling product that approaches the sophistication seen in 35mm competitors, they can succeed and grow, as the portion of the market that can afford and choose to afford that level of quality certainly has shown the ability and the inclination to switch.

I also feel that while medium format manufacturers have made their share of business mistakes, clearly they have struggled with developing in-camera functionality that approaches 35mm functionality. Whether this is due to CCD technology dependence, I don't know. But certainly some of it is - lack of high ISO and in-camera Live Video, etc. And scaling CMOS technology to medium format sizes remains a challenge. If it was so easy, what is keeping Canon or Nikon from doing the same thing? Perhaps they will , or perhaps they've already realized that while it's possible, the amount of resources to make it happen - in a near-term time span -  will ensure that final prices would exceed the market's ability to purchase in numbers sufficient to reclaim their investment.

I do know that medium format manufacturers are not as stupid and ignorant as some think - they are looking at CMOS technology, they are not blindly married to CCD. Tthe most effective way to large sensors that perform is the march they must continue on, doesn't matter whether it is CCD or CMOS. Whichever gets them there quickest and easiest. Because that is a major part of the reason the photographers who choose to, still shoot medium format. Perhaps entry-priced products is an important strategy for medium format, but I believe the continued pursuit of larger sensor sizes - 6x7? - and core image quality, combined with enhanced in-camera capability, is just as important and I think, actually more critical.


Steve

[BJL]

Steve,
    many good points. I go for Canon and Nikon not bothering with MF now for the same reason they did not in the film era, when it was a far large market sector: not enough potential ROI to spend big on entering MF. And I go for the "larger sensor sizes" being 56x42mm!

... Whether this is due to CCD technology dependence, I don't know. But certainly some of it is - lack of high ISO and in-camera Live Video, etc. ...
I do know that medium format manufacturers are not as stupid and ignorant as some think - they are looking at CMOS technology, they are not blindly married to CCD.

Live View and video might be a more important addition than high ISO, and does not necessarily require CMOS: interline CCD can do the job, with not too much DR loss to Full Frame CCD in this era of far smaller feature size fabrication (consider Sony's interline CCD's for DSLRs). And interline CCD with microlenses can do a whole lot better at high ISO that DMF has done so far (consider Sony's interline CCD's for DSLRs again!). And Kodak offers interline CCD, and can stitch it up it in large sizes.

So there are options that might be more rapidly attainable than CMOS, even if CMOS is in the more distant future.

[Slough]

What is interesting here is the"old" idea that was floating around for years now, deep in the minds and considered as a fact: that sensor costs represent the major part in the cost of a MFDB. I tried to correct it (on this platform) already 3 years ago, a couple of times. I am glad "georgl" did find the current price of one of the most recent and newest sensor to eventually prove this.

I'm certainly glad to have been corrected.

[Slough]

Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.

The problem is that people such as wedding photographers who were big consumers of MF film gear can get the desired end result from a 35mm DSLR. So much if not most of the old market has gone. Many MF makers have gone, and maybe more will until the number each makes allows prices to be reduced to a more competitive level. Or maybe MF will always be for niche work (huge prints, internet/software millionaires, etc).

[gwhitf]

I do know that medium format manufacturers are not as stupid and ignorant as some think - they are looking at CMOS technology, they are not blindly married to CCD. Tthe most effective way to large sensors that perform is the march they must continue on, doesn't matter whether it is CCD or CMOS.

Steve:

I want MF to succeed as much or more than the next guy. I shoot people, and I shoot fast, but I still prefer the way the MF lenses render focus, over anything I own in Canon.

But how can one tiny guy in Orange County come up with a way to make a large CMOS in his built-from-ground-up camera, when all the brains at Hasselblad, Phase, and Leaf can't? Or I guess I should say Dalsa and Kodak? How does this happen?

You are to be given credit for shipping this Leaf back and under ten grand, but with base ASA of something like 25, coupled with the fact that MF are slower than 35 lenses, how can this back be competitive in this economy? At some point, you can't drag around Profotos to light everything; you've simply got to be able to bump up the ASA to get you in the safe mirror-slap area, of at least 125th.

Are we not beginning to see a radical split in the market, where the landscape guys, car guys, tripod guys, studio guys are the only ones that can justify CCD/MF backs any longer?

In my opinion, there is no time for "the march to go on". The time to come to market is RIGHT NOW, in order to survive.

Again, how can that Oakley guy do what he's doing, when giant multinational corporations can't? Did someone just roll the dice, years ago, and say that "ASA 100 will be enough"?

[eronald]

Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.

Sensors will get commoditized in due course; at that point Hasselblad will be back to selling cameras, with spare "digital magazines". Get a lo-rez video magazine or a hi-rez still magazine, or a magazine that can shoot fast etc.



Edmund

[gwhitf]

If'n I was Phase, this would be my Catalogue. The choices would be very small. Achieve lower price point by having fewer backs, and get the volume up:

1. The Terry Richardson 22: 22mp, two frames per second, usable ASA of up to 800. Price point: around ten grand.

2. The Crewdson/Misrach 60: A billion megapixels, one frame every two seconds, ASA doesn't matter 'cause you're on a Majestic Tripod. Price point: around thirty grand.

3. (Optional) The SallyMann/PaoloRoversi: 80 megapixels, one frame every two minutes, ASA doesn't matter 'cause you're on a Foba Stand, comes with a custom made f 0.005 lens mounted onto the handmade wooden Mamiya 645 body. Not for sale, available for rent only, in some dusty hardwood-floor, window-lit loft in SOHO. Daily rental around ten thousand. Kit includes nude model, espresso machine, clove cigarettes, B/W custom printer profile for Epson 7990. (Now THIS option would put them on the map, kinda like that old Polaroid 20x24 camera in Boston).

[uaiomex]

I entirely agree with you.
Eduardo

Sensors will get commoditized in due course; at that point Hasselblad will be back to selling cameras, with spare "digital magazines". Get a lo-rez video magazine or a hi-rez still magazine, or a magazine that can shoot fast etc.



Edmund

[BJL]

But how can one tiny guy in Orange County come up with a way to make a large CMOS in his built-from-ground-up camera, when all the brains at Hasselblad, Phase, and Leaf can't? Or I guess I should say Dalsa and Kodak? How does this happen?

First, note that Jim Jannard and RED have not yet delivered anything beyond cinema 35mm format, with the next step up probably to 24x36mm format, so still catching up with Canon, Nikon and Sony on CMOS size (and for all I know, someone like Sony or Dalsa is actually making these sensors for RED.)  Let us see what he and RED actually deliver in medium format sizes, and at what price.

Two guesses though:

1. There is a lot more money to be made in the young and rapidly growing market for digital cinema cameras than in the shrinking sector of "still photography offering IQ greater than full 35mm format digital". If that is true, or just if that is the perception of the capital markets, then capital is far easier for RED to raise.

2. Jannard has a 2.8 billion dollars net worth, and a willingness to gamble with a big chunk of it guided by his enthusiasm for photography. (The dude owns a 1200/5.6)
On the other hand, Hasselblad (like Rollei) has been close to bankruptcy on and off over recent decades, and Mamiya more recently, and I do not think that any of the companies in the DMF game (H., Phase One, Mamiya, Leaf, Leica, etc.) are "huge multi-nationals": I have seen figures of a few hundred employees for several of them.

[Graham Mitchell]

But how can one tiny guy in Orange County come up with a way to make a large CMOS in his built-from-ground-up camera, when all the brains at Hasselblad, Phase, and Leaf can't?

He hasn't. Words are cheap.

[cyberean]

(The dude owns a 1200/5.6)

so he can keep an eye on his island, from home base ...