digital back prices

[Paul2660]

I believe some of the issues are because many feel that since this is CMOS, it should be cheaper.   Before the chips were all CCD and no one was making these but Dalsa (and before Kodak)  Teledyne/Dalsa is a large company, with huge U.S. gov. contracts and I believe that the MF CCD manufacturing was a small part of their entire company revenues.  However for Phase One, and the other players, there was not a CCD in a 35mm camera that could approach even the P65+.   It was clear if you wanted high resolution, you needed CCD and Medium format.   

35mm quickly switched over to CMOS years ago I believe since the D800 36MP chip, the gap did close quite a bit.  I base this on my use of both systems.  I am sure there were people that moved to Phase One after using the D800, but I am also sure there were many other photographers that moved from either older or lower end MF backs to the D800.   At least with photographers who shoot outdoor landscapes.   I am still amazed daily at what I can get from the D800, in both color and dynamic range.  If  Phase One increased their sales over last year by 1% that is an increase.  But I am sure it's more than that.  I also believe that Phase One sales in China may account for quite a bit of their overall revenue.  Phase One being a private company does not publish any sales results. 

I personally feel that the cost of the chip in the IQ250 is considerably less than a comparable CCD chip mainly because the cost of the current 36MP 35mm chips are keeping the D800 at 3K, this is for a entire camera solution, not just a back.  But 36MP at 35mm, vs 50MP in 1.3  crop MF, the yields will be a bit different.  However Sony surely has the fab process figured out, and they have already published specs for their own 54MP 35mm chip.  This is not a rumor, it's on the Sony site and Sony has talked about this chip several times in regards to the fact that the camera associated with this chip will not fall into the 3K price range.  So the cost of these larger chips is more, but more than likely not 20K more. 

Right now, Phase One is the only company shipping a MF CMOS back.  Pentax and Hassi, may ship something later on, but for now Phase One has the only "real" product.  If I was Phase One, I would charge what the market will bare.  Will that change if Pentax and Hassi ship a product?  Only time will tell. 

But if the spec's for the 645DII do hold to what the early reports show, for the first time the players will be on an even playing field, CMOS 50MP, Sony chip.  This was never there before.  It took Pentax years to get the 645D to market and when it did, Phase was shipping the P65+.  When the 645D did ship, it was hard to find, get service and purchase lenses at least in the U.S.  This has improved and large dealers, like CI, now carry the Pentax line and they will be possibly in a great position when and if the 645DII does hit the market.   For me at the price point of any of these solutions, I prefer the removable back, as it can be used on both a 645 camera and tech solution.  Is this capability worth the large extra cost, that is something that each person has to determine.

Paul C

[Doug Peterson]

In my experience very few people know why two companies merge/are-acquired, even within those two companies.

For instance distribution channel, market share, client base, brand, personnel, parents, property, product line, items in R+D or personal factors can come into play that are not obvious to the average employee let alone individual customers. Sometimes it's done with nothing more than the intention to keep it out of the hands of competitors. Sometimes a third party or political force can come in and push two players together (see also banking crises in the US).

I definitely cannot say for sure, but my guess is strongly against that Leica bought Sinar with the hopes I making it a profitable digital back manufacturer. My guess is some combination of other factors was the primary driver.

The wild card in any such transaction is the price paid to acquire the company and how much if any debt is being acquire alongside it. At a very high price you need (or would expect) very strong reasons. At a low price you don't need very much justification at all. In some cases the price can be so low you start to think in terms of "what reasons do we have to *not* I acquire this company?" I'm not saying that's the case here - I have no idea what Sinar went for, but based on them being fourth or fifth place in a niche market I'd guess it wasn't crazy high.

But again, if both of us are being honest with ourselves, neither of us *know*. We are both guessing.

[eronald]

...and looks like you can't get the job done with your "cheap violin" either.

Actually, after selling my MF back I also swapped my 5D2 for an old tired 1Ds3 ($500 difference) , and the 1Ds3 has proved incredibly good, focus issues went away. Of course, my antique Canon 200/1.8 cost me $2000, about as much as a Hassy or Phase 80mm, but I think it is almost as good

Some of the Canon and Nikon lenses are quite decent, you know ...

I find the "cheap violin" more useful for my own purposes.

Edmund

[JV]

P.S. Having user interchangeable adapter plates is another path that Phamyia should consider…. at least as far as Leaf is concerned.

I doubt whether this will ever happen.

I estimate that 60-70% of the backs sold today is already in the Mamiya M mount.

Support of other platforms is increasingly becoming less important to Phase One. 

Moving forward it will become harder to even find used backs in H mount.  Up till the P30+ and P45+ this was quite easy.

[david distefano]

2 things 1) steve, even though my degree is in finance and accounting, during my undergraduate days one book for my finance class had an epilog which to this day i believe to be true and right on the mark. the author stated that the demise of america will not come from an outside force but from the lunacy of harvard business school and the greed of wall street. printed well before the financial downturn of 2008. that is why i felt i had to do something worthwhile and instead of working in my field i became a special education teacher for the severe and profound mentally challenged children. yes i could have worked in my field screwed people and made tons of money where a purchase of a mfdb would be just a drop in the bucket. as an anti-capitalist i wanted to make a difference for children and their parents who society wants to throw away and i chose a school district that has a per capita income of a little over $20,000.

2) there is someone on this forum who shall remain nameless but uses a an alter-ego picture who seems to have a short fuse and always seems to feel picked on and denigrates others on this site because that person believes they are the be all and end all of photography. every time now when that persons alter-ego shows up i laugh and read the writings as part of my comics for the day. edmund and erik show class when they write, mr. alter-ego that does not go for you. the photographic world does not revolve around you! you are just a tiny fish in a very large sea!

[MrSmith]

I'm no Prima-Donna!

[MrSmith]

No, definitely all present and correct 

[synn]

Actually, after selling my MF back I also swapped my 5D2 for an old tired 1Ds3 ($500 difference) , and the 1Ds3 has proved incredibly good, focus issues went away. Of course, my antique Canon 200/1.8 cost me $2000, about as much as a Hassy or Phase 80mm, but I think it is almost as good

Some of the Canon and Nikon lenses are quite decent, you know ...

I find the "cheap violin" more useful for my own purposes.

Edmund

As I have said many times, if the tool you have chosen suits your purposes, use it and be happy with it. How many MF users do you see hanging out in Canon/ Nikon forums commenting endlessly on what needs to be fixed? Can't we ask for the same courtesy?

P.s. I do own and use a few rather nice Nikon lenses. I also have three excellent Mamiya lenses that altogether cost me $1400 and feature stellar optics. Not every thing in MF land is stratospherically priced as some people would like to say.

[torger]

The fundamental issue is that the business model is designed for low sales volume and thus a high price is required. But I'm sure that Phase One through its leading position in this niche segment adds $10K or so on top  just because they can and it increases their revenue.

$3k CCD sensors ended up in $30k backs, even if the CMOS sensor is a lot cheaper it won't change anything significant in back pricing.

The current products are not so user friendly, if you're used to DSLRs what you'll see is a product that essentially worse at everything except resolution, until a sales person teaches you the advantages. With CMOS backs and improved bodies (hopefully coming soon) the product will start to become as versatile it needs to be to "sell itself", and only then it can fit into a volume-based business model. I doubt Phase One has the interest to try something like that unless market conditions force them, and I see no signs of that happening.

[Theodoros]

The fundamental issue is that the business model is designed for low sales volume and thus a high price is required. But I'm sure that Phase One through its leading position in this niche segment adds $10K or so on top  just because they can and it increases their revenue.

$3k CCD sensors ended up in $30k backs, even if the CMOS sensor is a lot cheaper it won't change anything significant in back pricing.

The current products are not so user friendly, if you're used to DSLRs what you'll see is a product that essentially worse at everything except resolution, until a sales person teaches you the advantages. With CMOS backs and improved bodies (hopefully coming soon) the product will start to become as versatile it needs to be to "sell itself", and only then it can fit into a volume-based business model. I doubt Phase One has the interest to try something like that unless market conditions force them, and I see no signs of that happening.

3k sensors? …do you mean that Dalsa sells a sensor (even the 80mp one) for that price to MF makers? …If that was the case, the P280's final price would be considerably more than 100k…

[Ken R]

Wow, long discussion. The price of MFDigital has always been an issue since I can remember.

I guess if PhaseOne came out with a medium format digital mirror less camera like the A7R but with a much larger and better EVF, custom made CMOS sensor (53.9mm x 40.4mm or close to that size) that handled tech wides perfectly, awesome high iso and long exposure performance, great live view, robust wifi and cable tethering + stunning LS lenses in the $4k range and charged $12,000 for that body there would not be much of an discussion would it.  

Also in regards to image quality there is only one sensor in all of the 35mm or smaller digital camera land that really makes the argument against MFD, that is the Sony 36MP sensor, And only two bodies, the Sony A7R and the Nikon D800/E. Even so, in many situations the MFD offerings (mainly the 60 and 80mp CCD sensors and to some degree the new 50mp CMOS) wipe the floor with that sensor in regards to the ultimate image quality possible. Never mind the fact that there are many configurations possible with MFDigital (many options available regarding SLR bodies, tech bodies, lenses, etc). That is a huge deal for a lot of customers.

Steve Hendrix mentioned that Hasselblad tried to lower prices and it didn't worked out. Well, maybe they did not get to the magic number level where sales volume / customer base would have jumped tremendously and or their products were not good enough (or required too many compromises) to attract a large number of buyers, at any price over the current DSLR offerings (was it pre or post D800E?). I mean the current competition has to be taken into consideration also, it is not just about the price point. The Canon 1DS3 was a VERY tough sell when the 5D2 came out and it only got worse after that. Does not mean its a bad camera at all and Canon sold a lot of them at over $7k since at the time it was introduced there was no other camera that beat it in image quality.

[Paul2660]

No offense intended Ken,  but the term "wipe the floor" comes across to me as a bit extreme.  Sure the upper end Phase One backs have a lot more resolution.  But overall image quality is pretty darn close.  At least to me. 

Paul C

[Theodoros]

No offense intended Ken,  but the term "wipe the floor" comes across to me as a bit extreme.  Sure the upper end Phase One backs have a lot more resolution.  But overall image quality is pretty darn close.  At least to me. 

Paul C

Have you tried them side by side? "At least to me" suggests so…  I say this because my 10 years old 22mp MFDB is still better than my D800e… it even has (slightly) better resolution, but this may well be due to the superior lenses….

[Ken R]

No offense intended Ken,  but the term "wipe the floor" comes across to me as a bit extreme.  Sure the upper end Phase One backs have a lot more resolution.  But overall image quality is pretty darn close.  At least to me.  

Paul C

I specified that in regards to ultimate image quality possible. My bad, I should have been clear that In the case of the 60/80mp medium format backs that means with the best tech wide angle lenses and with perfect technique and good light (or at least within a decent range). Of course in some setups the differences will be less (for example if you use the digital back with a Hasselblad V legacy system or some of the Mamiya Legacy glass etc) and in some situations the A7R/D800E is the better tool. In all cases I am assuming perfect technique and the absolutely best glass on the D800E/A7R. Once you downgrade the Nikon/Sony image from its ultimate potential by using lesser glass or technique then it changes things obviously.

I have used the D800E with the best glass and technique and I can achieve results with my RM3Di, 40mm HR / 70mm HR Rodenstock lenses and the Phase IQ160 back that are just significantly better (for my purposes) than what I could achieve with the Nikon. I would be the first to be happy if that was not the case.

In any case a MF Digital solution is worth looking into if you are serious about photography (whether you make a living as a photographer or not). At the very least just to see what they have to offer.

[Ken R]

Have you tried them side by side? "At least to me" suggests so…  I say this because my 10 years old 22mp MFDB is still better than my D800e… it even has (slightly) better resolution, but this may well be due to the superior lenses….

I have but I am talking about my particular case which is Landscape, Wide Angle lenses and Large Prints. Everyone has different priorities obviously so as usual YMMV. But no matter what It is always great to have more choices!

[Paul2660]

I specified that in regards to ultimate image quality possible. My bad, I should have been clear that In the case of the 60/80mp medium format backs that means with the best tech wide angle lenses and with perfect technique and good light (or at least within a decent range). Of course in some setups the differences will be less (for example if you use the digital back with a Hasselblad V legacy system or some of the Mamiya Legacy glass etc) and in some situations the A7R/D800E is the better tool. In all cases I am assuming perfect technique and the absolutely best glass on the D800E/A7R. Once you downgrade the Nikon/Sony image from its ultimate potential by using lesser glass or technique then it changes things obviously.

I have used the D800E with the best glass and technique and I can achieve results with my RM3Di, 40mm HR / 70mm HR Rodenstock lenses and the Phase IQ160 back that are just significantly better (for my purposes) than what I could achieve with the Nikon. I would be the first to be happy if that was not the case.

In any case a MF Digital solution is worth looking into if you are serious about photography (whether you make a living as a photographer or not). At the very least just to see what they have to offer.

Ken,  I couldn't agree more with you here.  It's a huge investment as we both know and the results can be impressive.  One area Nikon lacks is a good  wide TS lens.  And as you pointed out to get the best from the Phase backs tends to be a solution with a SchneiderLS lens or the tech camera route. 


T.   Yes I own them both currently and use both in my daily workflow. 

Paul C

[Steve Hendrix]

2 things 1) steve, even though my degree is in finance and accounting, during my undergraduate days one book for my finance class had an epilog which to this day i believe to be true and right on the mark. the author stated that the demise of america will not come from an outside force but from the lunacy of harvard business school and the greed of wall street. printed well before the financial downturn of 2008. that is why i felt i had to do something worthwhile and instead of working in my field i became a special education teacher for the severe and profound mentally challenged children. yes i could have worked in my field screwed people and made tons of money where a purchase of a mfdb would be just a drop in the bucket. as an anti-capitalist i wanted to make a difference for children and their parents who society wants to throw away and i chose a school district that has a per capita income of a little over $20,000.

David

There is nothing wrong with a degree in finance and accounting, and I didn't mean to imply that there was (if I did). What people do with that degree is another matter, just like anything else. I was already aware you were involved in education. It is very commendable that you've applied yourself in an endeavor where you can really make a positive difference for those who truly need someone in their lives that can.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[torger]

3k sensors? …do you mean that Dalsa sells a sensor (even the 80mp one) for that price to MF makers? …If that was the case, the P280's final price would be considerably more than 100k…

It's not so easy to get the pricing from Dalsa. Kodak published it in their press releases back in the days, here's for the 50 megapixel KAF-50100 used in H4D-50 etc, the price was "$3500 in volume" back in 2008, and the H3DII-50 which used it was priced $36,000 at the same time:

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1309562

If yield factors are better today than back then the prices could be lower. In 2008 the KAF-50100 was pretty high end, probably comparable to a 80 megapixel Dalsa today. I've heard that the 44x33 truesense sensor in Pentax 645D was about $1000 or so, but haven't seen any official statement on that. Sounds reasonable though.

The costly sensors make it impossible to make the backs very cheap, but it's not true as some say that what you pay for is the sensor. What you pay for is that sales volumes are so low that you need to pay significantly for the development costs, and probably also a significant amount to make it possible to stack components to support these backs for 10 years or so. I also think the MF market is a bit too small and specialized to have competition that spawns more cost-effective business models and products.

It seems like there's been a misconception that CCD sensors are extremely expensive, as many seem to expect that CMOS backs should cost less. To make backs cost less there must be a change in business model towards selling volume.

[eronald]

It's not so easy to get the pricing from Dalsa. Kodak published it in their press releases back in the days, here's for the 50 megapixel KAF-50100 used in H4D-50 etc, the price was "$3500 in volume" back in 2008, and the H3DII-50 which used it was priced $36,000 at the same time:

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1309562

If yield factors are better today than back then the prices could be lower. In 2008 the KAF-50100 was pretty high end, probably comparable to a 80 megapixel Dalsa today. I've heard that the 44x33 truesense sensor in Pentax 645D was about $1000 or so, but haven't seen any official statement on that. Sounds reasonable though.

The costly sensors make it impossible to make the backs very cheap, but it's not true as some say that what you pay for is the sensor. What you pay for is that sales volumes are so low that you need to pay significantly for the development costs, and probably also a significant amount to make it possible to stack components to support these backs for 10 years or so. I also think the MF market is a bit too small and specialized to have competition that spawns more cost-effective business models and products.

It seems like there's been a misconception that CCD sensors are extremely expensive, as many seem to expect that CMOS backs should cost less. To make backs cost less there must be a change in business model towards selling volume.

Re. R&D costs, the new Sony CMOS chip is digital, so the R&D is considerably simpler and cheaper than for a CCD unit - no complex and expensive analogue conversion circuitry . Also I have heard that Sony supplies an SDK to help with the software development.

Maybe one should remember that Apple built their first computer in a garage - at that points single-chip processor chips had become so easy to use that 2 people could do the R&D.

Whenever I go to the local shop, they have a bunch of old cameras which they sell for $5; many of those are from small french workshops from the 1920s or so. Some are cheapish bakelite contraptions, sometimes there are expensive stereo cameras, with some strange french name on them. What is clear is that many small companies were capable of sourcing shutters and lenses and making cameras back then, there is no reason this possibility should have disappeared now.

When I studied in the early 70s the computer I used occupied a part of a computer lab building and cost real money; I needed an hour to run a deck of cards through. In the 80s, I went an bought an MPU for about $5, some flat resistor packs, and a crystal, plugged the thing into a breadboard with a a battery and it came alive. Technology does get cheaper, and I don't think digital backs will hold this price point forever.

Edmund

[Theodoros]

A friend of mine had an offer from Sinar, to have his 36x48 sensor (which he damaged by accident) replaced and his six years old back (with more than average use) serviced, as well as some parts of the case replaced for 2500 Euros inc. VAT… I think that some of the people on the conversation are under the wrong impression, (considerably higher) for what makers buy them for… I believe that there is no sensor around (which is used on an MF application) that costs more than 1000… If Pentax sensor was at 1000 for the maker, there is no way that the camera would cost less than 20000 under any offer or discount policy… Dealer margin and transportation cost is around the 25-30% of the final pricing anyway, if one adds the cost of marketing, distribution and warranty, the cost can in cases approach half of the final price… and that is only after the product left the factory.