Leica has 20% market share in digital MF

[JeffKohn]

We are roughly at 20%

Hmm, so I guess that means they sold 10 or 12 cameras last year....

[LKaven]

Thanks for the info about X->Leica S Mount converters.

I think the thrust of my point still stands.  Putting lenses aside for the moment -- if Pentax is charging $8500 for the 645D, and Leica is charging $24-27k for the S2, then Leica only needs to sell a third of the number of bodies Pentax does in order to equal its market share. 

[hasselbladfan]

In the interview, they did not mention Pentax.

So, I guess their ranking is

1. Hasselblad or Phase One
2. One of the above two
3. Leica
4. Pentax

[Dick Roadnight]

Leica have never made a Medium format digital camera ¿on the nominal 6cm {120 film} definition, nor has anyone else? ¿so they have 20% of nothing?

If you miss it
Right now, Hasselblad H4/H5 and PhaseOne/Mamiya DF can't work with film.....   

One very good reason for pseudo-MF systems not being able to use film is that they are not MF, and are not big enough to cover the 57mm format width of 120 film.

¿Do the "MFD" cameras with which you can use 120 film actually give you full format 645 ¿57 * ?mm?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there are many different size sensors in MFD and most are smaller than full frame 645. The largest sensors with the least crop factors are the ones sitting in the high end backs.

If a vendor decides on a smaller sensor size it makes a lot of sense to build the rest of the system around it, optimizing the lenses for a smaller format. That also means that they give up some of the advantages of sensor size, such a system also won't work with film.

Best regards
Erik

Leica have never made a Medium format digital camera ¿on the nominal 6cm {120 film} definition, nor has anyone else? ¿so they have 20% of nothing?
One very good reason for pseudo-MF systems not being able to use film is that they are not MF, and are not big enough to cover the 57mm format width of 120 film.

¿Do the "MFD" cameras with which you can use 120 film actually give you full format 645 ¿57 * ?mm?

[Dick Roadnight]

Hi,

Correct me if I'm right, but my understanding is that there are many different size sensors in MFD and most are smaller than full frame 645. The largest sensors with the least crop factors are the ones sitting in the high end backs.

If a vendor decides on a smaller sensor size it makes a lot of sense to build the rest of the system around it, optimizing the lenses for a smaller format. That also means that they give up some of the advantages of sensor size, such a system also won't work with film.

Best regards
Erik

...Yes, and decades ago, when Hasselblad made the Flexbody, there was enough image circle in their standard lenses for shift and tilt - now they make a zoom that does not cover the sensor of their "nearly FF 645" Flagship camera, and they make a **** (H)T/S adapter with optics in it, that will  not work with their 120 Macro. (The Zeiss 120 Macro with the Flexbody was a very useful tool.

Now their best option is to make a Large-format/technical camera compatible 1/800th electronic shutter that could integrate their cameras with standard Schneider etc. lenses.

Film backs are too mechanically complicated... would it be worth integrating film wind-on mechanics into a modern camera?

[ondebanks]

¿Do the "MFD" cameras with which you can use 120 film actually give you full format 645 ¿57 * ?mm?

Yes, of course they do. They all started life as MF film cameras - 645 (Mamiya, Contax, Hasselblad H) or larger (Hasselblad V, Rollei, Mamiya RB/RZ etc.)

Ray

[Wim van Velzen]

Hi,

Correct me if I'm right, but  (..)

Erik

 

[LKaven]

Correct me if I'm right, but my understanding is that there are many different size sensors in MFD and most are smaller than full frame 645.

It seems worth remembering at this point that early MFDBs, like the Leaf Valeo 6 had 24x36mm sensors.

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks! Fixed!

Erik

[paulmoorestudio]

the whole medium format issue is a dead end.. I really don't know why after 10 years we are still getting caught up with pre-digital nomenclature.  You can call the S what ever
pleases you but the proof is in the pudding and the files from it stand very nicely next to anything you are calling MF..The fact that Leica never made a film camera which took 120 roll film has nothing to do with anything except trollism.  Until someone comes out with a 3"x5" sensor and thereby creates a new threshold for "large sensor format" I don't see the point fussing over all these similar sized sensors..like people fretting over the difference between a d800 and a phase back.  The old film era terms small medium and large all were tied to the optics needed for each format..thus creating a different look for format.. an 80mm on a hassy 6x6 had a different feel than a 180mm on a 4x5 sinar.  It is a whole new ball game now and the sooner we drop the old world view the better, there must be a forum for those that want to discuss the good ole days of 220 film or wax poetically about dip and dunk.  Regarding the sales numbers, I highly doubt leica has ever made any such claim, afaik they never release sales numbers. Also I think Dr. K and company run a much improved company, just this week Leica NJ went out of their way to give me great service, they are now clearly setting the bar for the industry.

[gerald.d]

Until someone comes out with a 3"x5" sensor and thereby creates a new threshold for "large sensor format" I don't see the point fussing over all these similar sized sensors..

Err, really?

Surely sensor size (and ratio for that matter) is pretty important?

Sensor diagonal on the S2 is a 1.3 crop from that on "FF" MFDB, no? That's the same crop as a 1D4 from a 5D2.

And of course it's 3:2 rather than 4:3.

Now I know from personal experience when I owned both of those Canon cameras at the time, it made a huge difference. Especially if you wanted to shoot at the wide end.

[Wim van Velzen]

Don't look at it as a 'crop' but as a different format. Makes more sense as you can value a camera on its own merits.

[Wayne Fox]

Thanks for the info about X->Leica S Mount converters.

I think the thrust of my point still stands.  Putting lenses aside for the moment -- if Pentax is charging $8500 for the 645D, and Leica is charging $24-27k for the S2, then Leica only needs to sell a third of the number of bodies Pentax does in order to equal its market share. 

market share is based on total unit sales, not on dollar volume.

[BJL]

Don't look at it as a 'crop' but as a different format. Makes more sense as you can value a camera on its own merits.

Quite right (full disclosure: my digital gear is all in 4/3" format with lenses designed for that format), but if we folowed your advice we would lose the irony of applauding 36x24mm for giving us "full frame" while denigrating the new, larger 45x30mm Leica S system as a "crop". Maybe Leica should market it as a "super-sized DSLR format" and avoid the anachronistic term "medium format".

[gerald.d]

Quite right (full disclosure: my digital gear is all in 4/3" format with lenses designed for that format), but if we folowed your advice we would lose the irony of applauding 36x24mm for giving us "full frame" while denigrating the new, larger 45x30mm Leica S system as a "crop". Maybe Leica should market it as a "super-sized DSLR format" and avoid the anachronistic term "medium format".

What's the shortest focal length lens (non fisheye) available on the Leica S2, and what field of view does it give? I believe it's the 24mm, yes?

The same focal length lens on a FF MFDB (they are available) would give a larger field of view.

You have to compare like for like from a system perspective.

So, the S2 is a crop when comparing it to other MF systems.

The shortest (decent quality) focal length lens on the Canons is 14mm. It works just fine on both the 5D and 1D, but the 1D crops the field of view.

It makes little sense to compare the Leica to that system, because there's no lens available for it that gives the equivalent field of view.

This matters at the wide end, like I said in my original post.

[paulmoorestudio]

Err, really?

Surely sensor size (and ratio for that matter) is pretty important?

Sensor diagonal on the S2 is a 1.3 crop from that on "FF" MFDB, no? That's the same crop as a 1D4 from a 5D2.

And of course it's 3:2 rather than 4:3.

Now I know from personal experience when I owned both of those Canon cameras at the time, it made a huge difference. Especially if you wanted to shoot at the wide end.

a 39 x 56 sensor is the biggest ( dimensional ) we have right now.. unless I missed something in the last 12 months.. this is not that much bigger. than a current full frame dslr.. we can all do the math.. 
it's now where near the range of film sizes once used.. 35mm to 8x10.. the optics required for 35mm are vastly different from those of 8x10.. that is my point.. life is not all about resolution..resolution does not create a different qualitiy to the photograph like the change in focal length does... that was my point. I made up the 3x5" size to illustrate the point that in the digital world we are no where close to what we used to call large format,optically that is.. increased resolution obscures this.. I think a ms back out performs all I ever shot on 4x5. but it will never look like 4x5..

[Wim van Velzen]

What's the shortest focal length lens (non fisheye) available on the Leica S2, and what field of view does it give? I believe it's the 24mm, yes?

The same focal length lens on a FF MFDB (they are available) would give a larger field of view.

You have to compare like for like from a system perspective.

So, the S2 is a crop when comparing it to other MF systems.

The shortest (decent quality) focal length lens on the Canons is 14mm. It works just fine on both the 5D and 1D, but the 1D crops the field of view.

It makes little sense to compare the Leica to that system, because there's no lens available for it that gives the equivalent field of view.

This matters at the wide end, like I said in my original post.

Huh, this doesn't make sense [ unless I don't understand you ]. Calling something a 'crop' does only make sense when a camera was designed for a larger (film) format but is now used for a smaller digital sensor.
Medium Format SLR in the film time never had the ultra wide lenses as the 35mm SLRs. That didn't make them cropped 35mm.

[Petrus]

the optics required for 35mm are vastly different from those of 8x10.. that is my point.. life is not all about resolution..resolution does not create a different qualitiy to the photograph like the change in focal length does.

Actually you can get EXACTLY the same projection ("image") with any sensor/film size with correct focal length lens and f-stop combination. That is basic descriptive geometry math only.

[paulmoorestudio]

Actually you can get EXACTLY the same projection ("image") with any sensor/film size with correct focal length lens and f-stop combination. That is basic descriptive geometry math only.

you are right, and it is becoming easier to match as lens manufactures expand their capabilities. I was including large format technical movements as part of the look and difference between large and small format but this has nothing to do with the sensor size or focal lenth, I stand corrected.