You wait years for CMOS backs to arrive, and then... Disappointment.

[synn]

And maybe somebody can explain to me why there need to be two series of backs and double development costs?

Edmund

Because of the brand value that Leaf still has in the market? Because of how distinct the Leaf color profiles and user experience are from Phase One and people value that? Because maybe, just maybe they do make enough profits to justify the continued investment in two brands?

Maybe somebody can explain to me what questions like these hope to achieve.

[hjulenissen]

...Because maybe, just maybe they do make enough profits to justify the continued investment in two brands?...

Duplicating efforts seems to be something that bean-counters generally dislike.

Of course, if this duplication leads to a corresponding increase in sales (or more), then the bean-counters might be happy.

For one small company to have two brands of heavily overlapped products with no attempts at "synergy-effects" (i.e. firing duplicated people) seems kind of unusual.

-h

[synn]

Duplicating efforts seems to be something that bean-counters generally dislike.

Of course, if this duplication leads to a corresponding increase in sales (or more), then the bean-counters might be happy.

For one small company to have two brands of heavily overlapped products with no attempts at "synergy-effects" (i.e. firing duplicated people) seems kind of unusual.

-h

if their bean counters didn't like it, it wouldn't exist.
do we not have better things to do than worry about things that dont affect us in any way?

[torger]

For one small company to have two brands of heavily overlapped products with no attempts at "synergy-effects" (i.e. firing duplicated people) seems kind of unusual.

The Phase buy of Leaf seems to be somewhat unusual, it does look like Leaf has kept more autonomy than typical. This could be thanks to great negotiators from Leaf backed up by a strong Leaf customer base. Even before the buy Leaf products were considerably cheaper too. Due to the established customer base the Leaf brand would lose much of its strength if it it suddenly lost the feel of providing the unique Leaf experience and instead just became a scaled down Phase One copy. So there's a delicate balance to play, to keep Leaf a strong separate unique product while still gain from shared development and double its role as a budget alternative to Phase One's own products.

[pedro39photo]

The price of the next Hassy and Phase 50MP Cmos its just stupid...

The only two DMF brands are killing this segment with hardcore por** prices, 35.000$ / 45.000$ for a sistem with a few lens in today profissional photo market?
35.000$ for a tuned Mamiya 645 15years old body and a larger 35mm format sensor with 1.3 crop? my good this medium are mad or what???

Don´t the people see that this p**n prices are reducing the users of this systems just to few top photographer and rich amateurs?
Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT
The biggest advantage of the Medium Format its the large viewfinder and the DOF, i was a Hassy H3D39II user, and sold it and bought a Mamiya ZD DSLR just because i love MF DOF and Viewfinder, not megapixeis.... stop the megapixeis war, por** prices and think about bring new user again to the MF

In my country Portugal, in 2 or 3 years i saw great number of profissional photographers leaving DMF for the D800

Its sad, very sad...

[torger]

I don't think it's wise to use the word p**n in a post that is to be taken seriously. F**k seems more appropriate

Hasselblad hasn't disclosed their pricing yet. It will be a lot cheaper than IQ250, that's for sure. If it will be priced as entry-level or high-end within their own range (like Phase One has chosen) remains to be seen. There's still a chance that Hasselblad will choose the entry level path, which I think makes more sense with this feature set.

Good point though, seems like the entry-level ambition as seen in Mamiya ZD is now gone to some extent. If 44x33 is large enough for you there's Pentax though.

Phase One's entry level today is P40+ (44x33mm Dalsa CCD, crop of P65+). With my local Swedish dealer I get a complete kit including 645DF+ and 80mm lens for $18k + VAT. I could lease it too. That's not too bad if I've been a professional. Then you can use upgrade programs to get into better backs as supported by your professional business. A corresponding Pentax kit is less than half though, and is roughly the same price as a Canon 1D X. It's a bargain.

[free1000]

A corresponding Pentax kit is less than half though, and is roughly the same price as a Canon 1D X. It's a bargain.

It's not been much discussed, but the problem with Pentax is the glass. It's nearly all old film era optics.

There is a 90mm lens that is up to date but it costs $4500 which is pretty expensive for a near normal length lens.

If you consider the lack of flexibility, (no use on a tech camera because there is no modular back), poor glass, relatively high cost of any new glass, probable higher depreciation of a camera without a sensor that can be upgraded, then I think the apparent low price of the Pentax is rather illusory.

You could pick up a Contax kit, plus a second hand Aptus 65 or 75 for less money and you'd have fabulous glass and results.

If you stooped to a Mamiya AFD you would be in DSLR price territory. I have one kicking around as a backup body, I think the bodies go for a few hundred on Ebay.

[torger]

Oh, did not know it was that bad on the glass side of it , hope they shape up the system.

[MrSmith]

"poor glass"

not a pentax user but i find that hard to believe, like most systems there's some real gems and some dogs and often age of design isn't always an indicator of quality, that goes for all makes.

[hubell]

To me, a more interesting exercise than simply complaining about the price of the IQ250 is to ask the following question: where would the IQ250 have to be priced for YOU to decide to buy it? Or, what would the upgrade price have to be for you to trade in your IQ160, 180, 260 or 280? I think the answers to those questions tell you a lot about the compromised feature set of the IQ250. I think that's the real reason why there is so much vitriol over the price of the IQ250. There just isn't that much about it that's exciting.
I have an IQ180. I wouldn't trade it in for an IQ250 if Phase gave ME $10,000!
What would I pay for one? Not much, because I have a Sony A7R, and that has 36MP, REAL Live View, and fits in the palm of my hand.

[JV]

"poor glass"

not a pentax user but i find that hard to believe, like most systems there's some real gems and some dogs and often age of design isn't always an indicator of quality, that goes for all makes.

+1. I also find that hard to believe.  From what I have read Pentax has some excellent legacy FA glass.

[Theodoros]

+1. I also find that hard to believe.  From what I have read Pentax has some excellent legacy FA glass.

You might as well want to check Contax 645 and Rollei 6xxx… you'll be surprised more!

[JV]

Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT

The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings.  There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.

With each generation of backs the cheapest model (P30+, P40+, IQ140, IQ250) has gone up in price and now it is almost as expensive as the top line.

[synn]

The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings.  There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.

With each generation of backs the cheapest model (P30+, P40+, IQ140, IQ250) has gone up in price and now it is almost as expensive as the top line.

Again, this is because they now have Leaf to take care of the Entry level buyer.
I am an "Entry level" MF user. I did not waste time crying about how expensive an IQ 140 is. I got myself a Credo 40 instead. In fact, I much prefer the Credo to an IQ, price notwithstanding.

BTW: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-firstlook.shtml

20K for a P20, 30K for a P25. Adjusted for inflation, how much is that?

If you're looking for the "Value" card, MF is the wrong game to play.

[JV]

You might as well want to check Contax 645 and Rollei 6xxx… you'll be surprised more!

Agreed.  I own a Hy6 and 12 lenses, so I am familiar with the Rollei glass.  It is excellent.

I used to own a Contax 645 but I sold that when I bought a back for the Hasselblad H system.

In hindsight a very bad decision because they have only gone up in price since then...

[torger]

I think the answers to those questions tell you a lot about the compromised feature set of the IQ250. I think that's the real reason why there is so much vitriol over the price of the IQ250. There just isn't that much about it that's exciting.

I think the largest single disappointment is that it's 44x33, an entry-level size, and putting a price on it that's almost the same as full-frame. Those with the money that can afford this type of back are probably already doing full-frame, and if I had full-frame I would find it really really hard to step down to 44x33.

You're practically given the choice between 44x33 CMOS or 54x41 CCD, price is very similar. I know what I would choose. But say you have a IQ140 and have invested in a lens-line that work with that and you're used to the format, perhaps you'd prefer to upgrade within the same format size.

Full-frame CMOS is coming though (as said in the interviews). I'm guessing that there will be parallel CMOS and CCD lines, and IQ250 will be the entry-level CMOS in a line which is substantially more expensive than the CCD line, ie a full-frame CMOS back will cost more than the IQ280 does today.

I think time will show that at base ISO these CMOSes provide as good or even slightly better image quality than the CCDs, and combine that with an excellent live view and a bit better ISO performance and you have an evolutionary feature upgrade that people will like and buy.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Concerning the so called inferiority of old film era glass there's quite a lot of personal taste to it.
Some people shoot film, not because of film, but because of the look of this old glass, which often is
softer, which some prefer for portraiture, for example.

[torger]

The entry level is completely gone now in the Phase offerings.  There is no relatively cheap way anymore to step into MFD without buying use used backs.

Used / refurbished backs is part of the business model though. All dealers provide options to buy refurbished at a lower price. Then these can be used in upgrade programs later on. If you want in real cheap the private-to-private second hand market is the way to go though.

[BernardLanguillier]

It's not been much discussed, but the problem with Pentax is the glass. It's nearly all old film era optics.

There is a 90mm lens that is up to date but it costs $4500 which is pretty expensive for a near normal length lens.

If you consider the lack of flexibility, (no use on a tech camera because there is no modular back), poor glass, relatively high cost of any new glass,...

There are at least 3 recent Pentax 645D lenses that appear to be pretty much best in class: the 90mm f2.8, the 25mm f4 and the 55mm f2.8.

Besides, some other optics are legendary such as the 120mm macro.

Overall, the 645 lenses line up is widely considered in Japan as the best for landscape work.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

... ask the following question: where would the IQ250 have to be priced for YOU to decide to buy it? Or, what would the upgrade price have to be for you to trade in your IQ160, 180, 260 or 280? … There just isn't that much about it that's exciting.

Or, what are the real IQ improvements that would make you want to trade-in your IQ2x back ?
CMOS and higher ISO ? I think not.

I have an IQ180. I wouldn't trade it in for an IQ250 if Phase gave ME $10,000!
What would I pay for one? Not much, because I have a Sony A7R, and that has 36MP, REAL Live View, and fits in the palm of my hand.

+1
and it takes a variety of Leica, Contax, Nikon and Canon glass (plus a host of others).

I think the largest single disappointment is that it's 44x33, an entry-level size, and putting a price on it that's almost the same as full-frame…  and if I had full-frame I would find it really really hard to step down to 44x33.

And why would you ? other than increased reach due to the crop factor.
Whether or not CMOS eventually proves to be as good or slightly better than CCD at base ISO, one thing is certain - in 12 months time the landscape in MF will be substantially different.

-
ps
@T.Dascalos
You were spot on in your assessment in#45.