The question is whether the low volumes resulting from the niche market strategy of Phaseone generate enough business potential to give Dalsa the means to do serious technological investment.
Exactly Bernard.
IMO, what is happening with MFD is that they are in a dramatical crossroad, and the choices they will make from now will have transcendental consequences.
1- We are seeing an exponential increment of the "low-cost" cameras performances, at least what we call the prosumer products. They have became so good that it's completly possible for a professional to work seriously with a minimum investment.
2- Habits have changed in all the chain. We are in an economical crisis, the middle class (where pro photographers are) is being pushed each time more and more towards poverty while the capital is concentrated in the hands of less and less people. Cost is not any more a weired fantasy but almost a necesity.
I remember how, not many years ago, we where all spending huge amount of money for any kind of irrelevant project. It was the time of abundance, rock-star photographers models and agencies that where acting like the Rolling Stones production.
Cost-effectiveness is the norm today, included for agencies. What MF are producing is the highest possible image quality at low-isos at the highest possible resolution. But they are not cost-effective. For some applications, MF qualities are indeed important but the range of their excelence is reducing more and more and for many pros, the justification for such an investment is questionned more than ever.
At the same time, the gap between what was the top equipment and the lower devices has been reduced. In other words, DSLRs are going faster and have increment their output quality dramatically.
3- Video has irrupted into many (not all, I know) photographers pro requirements. Not every body can afford a Red or an Alexa and even, not everybody can afford both a proper video camera and a proper high-end still camera. The necessity that the lens line is also adaptable to the video mount is also a big factor.
So, even if for the moment, convergence designs are far from being perfect, they are a rational choice for many on a budget (and many are on a budget now). I even know a recognized international photo-video grapher, with a long experience in motion, who's team works with Arri and now uses a GH2 even for serious projects, and he has the team and the prod for using whatever. Reason? he has more fun with the gh2. (ps: I also concur on that. Since I bought the GH2, I use it as much as I can, and it's more fun in use than the Canons). Those new generation cameras are really fun in use, but more importantly, very capable.
4- Softwares, specially the high-end ones in cine prod have never stopped to drastically cut their prices in the recent years. HD are cheap now, and softwares are following that tendency. Almost everybody has access now to really high-end workstation without breaking the bank account. Workstations that not a long time ago, where only seen in big production houses.
5- The increment of low-light performances has drastically changed the norms in terms of equipment required on set.
6- The eye education-perception, is changing. So as supports, like internet getting huge protagonism. People (ADs) are asking more and more for different requirements than the "best IQ possible" because they know that the message is the most important, and that this message is going to be displayed in a format that doesn't require 500000MP.
The pixel race as the holly grail is over. I think that we enter really into seriousness: the design and convergence time. Finally.
So, MF manufacturers will, or will not, embrasse those changes. It's up to them to decide which target they want to fullfill. (ps: and that will also be a Leica dilema IMO, not only MF)
What's left for them? IMO, 3 kind of clients:
- the wealphy amateur, ready to spend that money and get the satisfaction of its image excelence.
- Special apps like museums, repro, aerial etc...
- Artists who print big or really want the MF qualities in their imagery, and-or, are interested in the slower and more "religious" approach, using view cameras or directly MF bodies.
If they can live with that, I don't think that they need to change a lot the way they are doing. It just depends.
