Neil Gould wrote:

Hi,

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

What Bob has put forward s very ineresting, but is not (!) about the
MF market. It can not be taken to be indicative of what will happen
in the MF market either. Transferring the trends in 2 MP cell phone
camera market to MF is rather pointless.

I agree with you that MF users are not an appropriate subset of all
photo-takers (or even all photographers), and that thne 2 MP cell phone
market will not be much of a factor one way or another to the MF market.
However, I have difficulty with your pessimistic view of the furture for
MF photography.

I also find his view to be pessimistic, though the real danger is that he is
entirely correct (I hope not).



We accept that higher resolution cameras will be the trend until the
returns diminish to the point where higher resolution sensors just aren't
worth manufacturing. I don't know what that point is, but if pressed, I'd
put it somewhere in the 20 MP range. As it is, many feel that 6 MP
satisfies the majority of 35 mm user's requirements, and the same feel
that the 11 - 14 MP cameras exceed the capabilities of 35 mm. I don't
agree, and was faced today with a scenario where I chose 35 mm over
digital.

I think the early marketing efforts for direct digital imaging convinced many
people that a low MP number was good enough. It seems that some of that early
marketing is now making it tougher to sell higher MP cameras. Adding other
capabilities, like short video, or merely changing the shape and size of the
gear, or adding more memory, seem to be more common, indicating that
"features" are being pushed more to sell the cameras. Until the Bayer pattern
norm changes to other technology, or some other colour improvement, or noise
reduction become more common, just trying to sell newer gear on MP
comparisons will fail to increase sales volumes.

A similar numbers game was already played out in the marketing of computers,
with the results that sales went down. Now with the wide spread introduction
of camera phones, many are deciding those are good enough. Direct digital
imaging, in the form of a camera, could become a niche market within the next
two or three years.



There is an aspect of digital that is correlative to photography that I
haven't seen discussed yet (not that it would be difficult for me to miss
if it has been discussed). What if the *only* images you could take using
film were 20" x 30" (or the equivalent of a 24" field camera)? This may
sound strange, but if you think about it, MF film gives you the
opportunity to not have to decide ahead of time which images will be used
at the maximum practical enlargement size, e.g. maximum resolution of the
medium.

I think you really hit on an important aspect. I wish I had kept some
bookmarks to all the different articles I have read, but the basic idea is
that most direct digital imaging usage does not mirror film camera usage.
Very few digital camera users print anything. Sales of easy to use printers
for cameras are really low in comparison, and usage of digital printing
services (drop off your memory card, or camera type of services) are in low
usage. The industry (through PMAI, et al) has figures, but even personal
investigation will show these trends. Go to any electronics store in the US,
and listen in on how people buy digital cameras (often P&S). The other
amusing thing is that electronics store have now become a good market for
disposable one-time-use cameras, since they are still an easy device to use
when someone wants some cheap photo prints.



OTOH, with digital, the best thing to do is always shoot at maximum
resolution in the event that at some point one wants to produce a maximum
sized enlargement. One of the consequences of this are that quite a bit of
time will be spent downsampling those 20 MP images for use at 4" x 6" or
smaller. This isn't going to be a one-jump move if you want any control
over the quality of the results. Then, there's storage, and archiving.

I find that almost everyone I know with digital cameras uses the medium to
low quality settings. Yet when they describe their cameras, nearly all of
them mention how many MPs, and what features enticed them to buy that
particular digital camera. Of course, digital SLR bodies are more of an
enthusiast market, much lower volume, and different usage patterns.



So, resolution isn't the only concern when it comes to making a choice of
what medium to use. Today, I attended my 5-year-old granddaughter's first
dance recital. My first thoughts were, grab the digicam. Then, after
considering all of the ramifications, I grabbed the Leica. Why? Because
the odds that she'll be able to view images of this recital 20 years from
now are far greater than if I put them on any available digital media.

I think this recording history aspect is one thing that separates film usage
from direct digital usage. While there are some who use there direct digital
cameras like film cameras, they are the exception.



So, there's two aspects that should keep film around for a while yet. At
one point, I thought that it would be great to have a digital back for the
MF camera. I no longer think so. Like others, I've concluded that the
smaller format digicam is the better tool.

I agree completely, and I think this fits the usage and advantages of these
devices.



For one thing, while there was a lot of snickering and denial going on
when Olympus announced a couple of years ago that they were making
digital-specific lenses for their prosumer digicams, a look at the field
now suggests that they were, once again, just *way* ahead of the pack.
Well, EVERYBODY has digital-specific lenses now. And every review I've
seen that compares the digital-specific lenses to film lenses on a digicam
claims that the new digital-specific lenses produce observably better
quality images.

I think also that this goes back to the early marketing efforts. Too much
early emphasis on MP counts, and overuse of terms like "film quality" and
"photo quality", have left little to proclaim as innovative in newer
marketing efforts.



Hmm. Forget that digital back for the Leica. And, for the same reasons,
forget that digital back for the Rollei. Instead, put that money into a
decent MF film scanner, buy a decent mid-range digicam. Those digicams are
coming down in price and at the same time outperforming their high-end
predecessors in every way. The MF film scanner will still outperform the
best of the current, and more than likely any future digicams. And, you
can pocket the remaining $2-3kUS.

Best of all worlds, I say.

Regards,

Neil

Excellent post Neil. Probably one of the best overviews of this issue I have
yet read.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com