If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: It's that digital definitely is the future. And the moment that it will take over in all aspects (including quality - in the "more than good enough" bracket) is getting closer and closer. Definitely, and it is the "more than good enough" attitude that I think sucks. Too many people are becoming satisfied with mediocre. Of course, I see that in more than just photography, so perhaps it is a reflection of current society. You dont seem to grasp what "more than good enough" means. It does not (!) mean mediocre. Well, in southern California, if you use that phrase, it does mean mediocre. I guess this is the difference of the parts of the world where both of us reside. . . . . . . . . [...] The consumer end drives the main photographic market, yet I think few enthusiasts nor professionals would use the biggest selling consumer film product: one time use cameras. I don't think medium format has ever been much in the general consumer view, with the possible exception of folder cameras a long time ago. Well, that "long time ago" is indeed where MF has been in general consumer use (but not just folders. there were many box-cameras too). Some might even argue that that's where the non-general consumer use of MF belongs too: some period in the past best forgotten. Anyway, a few enthusiasts and/or professionals will not keep MF afloat. The balance will not tip backwards towards film based MF again. So it's now or never: MF manufacturers (or rather the companies making the things that plug current MF systems into the Digido) must do all they can to prevent their current users switching to other things in the first place. I will comment more in some other parts of this thread, since several other people have brought up some points to consider. Basically, taking your pessimistic view into account (and it might be 100% correct), I think all the medium format companies should just liquidate their assets this year, and shut down their companies. . . . . . . . . [...] Bottom line is that these are very expensive cameras, and the economy is still down. Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those people who do still have money to spend... Which seems like thriving in a niche market could be an answer. The problem then becomes what volume of sales will sustain a niche? Large format is already a niche market, yet there is still diversity, just as an example. . . . . . . . And i don't see much of a retro market either. What "retro" product can you see selling anywhere? The greatest retro market is automotive (and a few motorcycles) based on [...] Perhaps the reason you do not see much "retro" market is that you are not a consumer of those types of things. It could also be that it is more of a US (or North American) trend, and not very prominent in Europe. I see. No, the very reason why i do not see that retro market was because i was thinking photography. Apart form a brief 35 mm RF revival (which realy has gone again already), there simply is no retro-trend in photography. The only retro photography trend I see, and mostly southern California (and some other cites in the US), is more younger people buying used film cameras. These could be considered accessories to match trendy retro style clothing (especially anything with "That 70's" look), though the funny thing is that many of these used camera buyers actually use their gear. While they may not fit into enthusiast, nor consumer models, many of them like the aspect of controlling the camera, rather than the automation controlling them. This is the "technology backlash" reaction to too much technology in everyday life. Retro is popular because it reminds one of simpler times, even though that memory is created in those that did not live in those times. If anything, traditional brands most associated with "the good old days" of photography are in danger of becoming extinct. The only true, and strong, trend in photography today is that digi-thingy. True, based on volume sales, or even number of articles. Of course, the reality is about as true as the "paperless office". I think wireless imaging will soon become the next big thing, and the future volume leader of "photography" (if you can still call that photography). Whether it is something i like or not, whether i would part with my beloved MF equipment or not gladly is another matter. But that's the reality: we, the customers, drive the market. And we drive it towards digital. And that drive results in digital becoming better and affordable too. And at the same time it is driving MF towards its end. So again, why should the medium format companies even continue? Why not liquidate now, and get a last profit off their assets? Why did the distributor for Hasselblad buy the company? Why did Tamron buy Bronica? Why does Mamiya still advertise? Why did Rollei and Contax make autofocus cameras? I only have a smaller view of marketing efforts in Europe, though in North America, it seems that Mamiya are the only company that really advertises in many locations. Some of that is combined digital and film capability promotion, and some directed at the Mamiya 7 II. I rarely see Hasselblad products in many ads, though that could be from the financial issues they had (maybe the buyout could help that). With Rollei, hardly anyone knows these cameras in the US, except in reference to really old Rollei TLR cameras. Most of the very sparse Rollei ads are for P&S film and digital. I don't think MF manufacturers should advertise more. It would do absolutely no good. Unless... They (MF manufacturers) should instead go banging their fists on MF digital back manufacturer's tables, demanding they come up with more sensibly priced products, explaining that if they don't the game's over for both (!) manufacturers of MF equipment and the manufacturers of digital backs that have to be hung on MF cameras. I think the price point will always be high. Even with Kodak making digital backs, any Medium Format direct digital will be high. If you compare to the cost of a scanner, around $2000, that is the competition for digital backs, and I don't see them ever getting close. With that in mind, they (MF companies) should liquidate assets this year. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Michael Benveniste wrote:
. . . . . . . I think a low cost MF entry level camera is the key to attracting people to MF photography. But where are the reliable under $1k new MF cameras? The lack of ads for MF with only 10,000 or so sales worldwide, per major brand, makes it hard to compete against a million+ nikon SLRs etc. ;-) I think that's a losing tactic. Medium format is inherently more expensive than 35mm. Nor has it been a hotbed of technological innovation. I don't see any film format taking back the innovation role from digital. Nor do most amateurs need (or even perceive) the advantages of medium format. That leaves a couple of niches where MF could succeed. The first is as a professional tool. The second is as a luxury good. Neither niche lends itself well to a low price strategy. Excellent points, and I think this accurately reflects the market. As a professional tool, MF is under attack from digital SLR's. In order to hold on to this market, the MF manufacturers must give professional photographers a competitive edge. Otherwise, the systems built around smaller, less expensive formats will crowd them out. Agreed, though it still amazes me that the MF manufactures, except perhaps Mamiya, have so little presence in adverting to the professional market. Turning to the luxury good strategy, you won't find "entry-level" Ferraris, Rolexes or even Leicas. Occasionally, someone like Cadillac will try something like the Cimarron, typically with disasterous consequences. Instead, to survive as a proider of luxury goods, you have to create an aura of quality, exclusivity, and fashion. Leica and to a lesser extent Rollei have all three. Hasselblad has the first two, but not the third. Until the H1, 'blads were square, literally and figuratively. Bronica, Mamiya, and Pentax have neither fashion nor exclusivity. They all have quality, but have failed to project an aura of quality beyond professional photographers. Another really good point. I am reminded of the ads and write up I saw for the ALPA Paul Frank Edition. Paul Frank is a fashion designer, and basically just added a graphic pattern grips, and slightly different finish, yet this was enough to get a really big exposure in a non photography magazine (GQ - Gentleman's Quarterly). Of course, we are also reminded of the multi colour Hasselblad cameras a couple years ago. Add in things like special edition Leica cameras, like the Hermes Edition, and these might become boutique items. Much like the Swiss chronograph market, there may be a luxury niche for medium format. Then the question becomes what volume is needed to sustain the production. Mamiya in particular has tried to woo new customers based on price and theoretical advantages. IMHO they would have been better off if they focused on image instead. I agree. While the initial results have been a lowering of used gear prices, it seems to be that emphasizing quality and advantages would be better ways to sustain a market. Lower prices seems too much like damage control. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
Gordon Moat wrote:
Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those people who do still have money to spend... Which seems like thriving in a niche market could be an answer. The problem then becomes what volume of sales will sustain a niche? Large format is already a niche market, yet there is still diversity, just as an example. LF is dead already. It's just that those corpses are pretty well balmed. ;-) MF has been a niche market since way back when. The trouble isn't supplying a niche market. The trouble is that people occupying that niche are leaving. And that hurts. Take Hasselblad: a small company, yet doing very well selling in numbers that are absolutely nothing compared to, say, Nikon. Recently, they decided they could no longer survive without the (financial) support of some large company. How long will that work should the MF market not recover from the current dip? Rollei have put all their eggs in one basket: new customers would come, and sales go up again, if only they could offer modern AF technology. Now they *do* offer AF technology. And? Right: nothing! The Japanese companies are a bit larger, and perhaps operate differently too. But how long can you not sell a product and keep up the pretence things are going well, even when the company's live does not depend on it? A niche is fine, as long as it is not empty. The only retro photography trend I see, and mostly southern California (and some other cites in the US), is more younger people buying used film cameras. These could be considered accessories to match trendy retro style clothing (especially anything with "That 70's" look), though the funny thing is that many of these used camera buyers actually use their gear. While they may not fit into enthusiast, nor consumer models, many of them like the aspect of controlling the camera, rather than the automation controlling them. This is the "technology backlash" reaction to too much technology in everyday life. Retro is popular because it reminds one of simpler times, even though that memory is created in those that did not live in those times. That trend has not been seen this side of the pond. I wonder if it will last. If anything, traditional brands most associated with "the good old days" of photography are in danger of becoming extinct. The only true, and strong, trend in photography today is that digi-thingy. True, based on volume sales, or even number of articles. Of course, the reality is about as true as the "paperless office". I think wireless imaging will soon become the next big thing, and the future volume leader of "photography" (if you can still call that photography). The paperless office we were promised has not materialized, no. But where are those typewriters and blue paper? You can't deny a trend moving us in one direction becuase some augurs in the past predicted we would have green wallpaper and we find we have gray wallpaper when we finally get to where this ternd was taking us. At the moment, the reality is that consumers want convenience (when did they ever not want that?) and fun. And that currently means digital. And not just in photography. And yes, wireless imaging may well be the next thing. "Blue tooth" transfer of images between camera and storage device is possible even today. So why not. Whether it is something i like or not, whether i would part with my beloved MF equipment or not gladly is another matter. But that's the reality: we, the customers, drive the market. And we drive it towards digital. And that drive results in digital becoming better and affordable too. And at the same time it is driving MF towards its end. So again, why should the medium format companies even continue? What else will they do? Why not liquidate now, and get a last profit off their assets? What value is there in their assets, they being MF manufacturing infrastructure, when there is no demand for ? Why did the distributor for Hasselblad buy the company? Good example. Hasselblad wanted to go public, i.e. cash in on their "assets". That went sour when the MF market went downhill. Doesn't mean that some other company would not want to show off with a "luxury brand of great repute". They do not need a sensible return ontheir investment as much as bread and butter investors. There's posing value to consider... Why did Tamron buy Bronica? Why does Mamiya still advertise? Why did Rollei and Contax make autofocus cameras? Hope springs eternal. If you're, say, a MF manufacturer, you can only manufacture MF. If you don't, you're not a MF manufactuer anymore. You'll be nothing. Right? Leica still make cameras, nor scarfes and handbags, do they not? So you keep trying, and trying until you really can't anymore. Does not mean it makes a lot of sense towards the end. Yet Pandora's most cruel gift to mankind is very powerful. I think the price point will always be high. Even with Kodak making digital backs, any Medium Format direct digital will be high. If you compare to the cost of a scanner, around $2000, that is the competition for digital backs, and I don't see them ever getting close. With that in mind, they (MF companies) should liquidate assets this year. Well, if they do not get prices down... I'll come and tell you "told you so" in, oh..., a year. ;-) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
Hi,
Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted: (many good points snipped for brevity) Gordon Moat wrote: Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those people who do still have money to spend... Which seems like thriving in a niche market could be an answer. The problem then becomes what volume of sales will sustain a niche? Large format is already a niche market, yet there is still diversity, just as an example. LF is dead already. It's just that those corpses are pretty well balmed. ;-) MF has been a niche market since way back when. The trouble isn't supplying a niche market. The trouble is that people occupying that niche are leaving. And that hurts. By leaving, do you mean that they are selling off their MF gear in favor of another format (e.g. digital), or that the retirement rate exceeds the recruitment rate? If the former, then I think one would have to determine whether these folks are no longer shooting MF, or just unloaded part of their gear to finance the new format. If the latter, then only time will determine whether that is a concern. Take Hasselblad: a small company, yet doing very well selling in numbers that are absolutely nothing compared to, say, Nikon. Recently, they decided they could no longer survive without the (financial) support of some large company. How long will that work should the MF market not recover from the current dip? I'm sure that Sinar is also not selling in numbers that compare with Nikon. Are they worried? I doubt it. Rollei have put all their eggs in one basket: new customers would come, and sales go up again, if only they could offer modern AF technology. Now they *do* offer AF technology. And? Right: nothing! Rollei is a bit different from Hasselblad, in that they offer a fairly wide range of MF products. If AF bombs, that doesn't necessarily doom the rest of their line. Frankly, in a market where every other MF company offers AF, Rollei had little choice. I don't know what their sales expectations are. I think the price point will always be high. Even with Kodak making digital backs, any Medium Format direct digital will be high. If you compare to the cost of a scanner, around $2000, that is the competition for digital backs, and I don't see them ever getting close. With that in mind, they (MF companies) should liquidate assets this year. Well, if they do not get prices down... I'll come and tell you "told you so" in, oh..., a year. ;-) I'm not sure I understand your response, Q.G., but digital backs for MF have many moving targets that they have to nail to be practical. They have to exceed the performance of scanners as well as the price point. Otherwise, small format digital will eat their lunch. They have to perform with existing film-specific lenses better than the small format digitals do with digital-specific lenses. If few MF users are willing to buy digital backs, even fewer would be willing to maintain a redundant set of lenses, one for film and one for digital. It's unlikely that full-frame, hi-res MF sensors are going to hit the market any time soon, which means that even fewer photographers would own a wide angle lens. But, I think that it is exactly the quality issue that will keep MF around. Digital images will serve a certain segment of the photographic market well. But, after the dust settles, I suspect that many of those that shot MF but "left" for digital will return to the fold once they try to get the same image quality out of critical shots. Best regards, Neil |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
"Neil Gould" wrote in message hlink.net... I'm sure that Sinar is also not selling in numbers that compare with Nikon. Are they worried? I doubt it. At their prices, they only have to sell a few! |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Recently, Gordon Moat posted:
Neil Gould wrote: 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. I think that the manufacturers are trying everything they can think of in the way of "features", many of which are not of interest or concern to the photographer that would otherwise shoot MF. If one is after good quality images, then the only features that matter are those that counteract the limitations of digital images. 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. I suspect that computer sales went down because of many factors, with mHz ratings being just one. For what most people do with a computer, a 1 gHz machine is more than adequate. I think we're seeing a saturated market. Computers are available for little or no money to almost anyone. In my business, I have to keep fairly current hardware, and I've taken to giving the earlier generation machines away to friends. This isn't an unusual occurance; I know several people that do the same thing, and there are even computer recycling programs managed by local communities to distribute used but functional equipment. I suspect that what we're seeing is a saturation of the market. Many people just don't need another computer, and almost anyone that wants one can get it for free. The parallel is that once most cell phones take digital images, 2 MP digicams will be superfluous. 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. I agree that digital usage doesn't mirror film. That's true in more ways than just printing images. But, if we're talking about MF users, we're talking about people who *do* intend to print their images, no? So, the issues surrounding that function are important, and have differences between these media. My wife is a big fan of art shows, and since I have to tag along, I spend most of my time talking to photographers. I'm alarmed by the number of folks trying to sell ink jet prints for hundreds of dollars in the same way that optical prints have been sold. I usually start chatting with these folks about the archival quality of their prints, and find that many of them don't have a clue about whether their shots will be the same color next year that they are today. Wait until someone drops big money on one of those images only to have it fade to yellow in a couple of years! 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. Again, this is true for the casual shooters. For those of us getting paid for their images, we can't afford to get stuck with a low-resolution shot that the client might want to enlarge. And, that translates into a lot of editing time for small prints. Excellent post Neil. Probably one of the best overviews of this issue I have yet read. Why, thank you, Gordon! Regards, Neil |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Neil Gould wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . I agree that digital usage doesn't mirror film. That's true in more ways than just printing images. But, if we're talking about MF users, we're talking about people who *do* intend to print their images, no? Very true, and agree completely. So, the issues surrounding that function are important, and have differences between these media. My wife is a big fan of art shows, and since I have to tag along, I spend most of my time talking to photographers. I'm alarmed by the number of folks trying to sell ink jet prints for hundreds of dollars in the same way that optical prints have been sold. It bothers me as well, and I see too many poorly done examples. I usually start chatting with these folks about the archival quality of their prints, and find that many of them don't have a clue about whether their shots will be the same color next year that they are today. Wait until someone drops big money on one of those images only to have it fade to yellow in a couple of years! Probably a few too many rely on the statements of manufacturers. I have only rarely seen people who try to properly prepare their images so they will last, and that use good quality paper. The reality is that really high quality inkjet prints are not cheap, and only some people will spend the time and money to get the best results. Then the very slight cost savings is not much better than having a lab do chemical prints. Some of the better work includes a fade guarantee, almost like a warranty, and that might become the accepted norm in the future. 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. Again, this is true for the casual shooters. For those of us getting paid for their images, we can't afford to get stuck with a low-resolution shot that the client might want to enlarge. And, that translates into a lot of editing time for small prints. Absolutely, and one of the main reasons I stick to film for work. I hear from nearly every advertising and editorial photographer I know that the editing time of direct digital puts them in front of the computer for too long, and it is tougher to justify billing out computer time to clients. Editing on a light table is fast. While there are some people who have learned fast editing on the computer monitor, they are the exception. Computer editing is a linear process, while light table editing is non-linear. Some clients want direct digital, though the reality is that the request is often because they think that since it is new, it is better. Another issue is that they think the turnaround time can be faster, though there is not often a need to have the images faster. There are many work issues to consider, and turnaround time is only one. The issue of digital backs is often approached through a rental or lease program, though even then a very high volume is needed for good return on investment. Quality can keep medium format going, but the quality needs of many have decreased. When clients are willing to now accept fairly small image files, even scanned 35 mm seems like very high quality. Photographers who shoot for publication and advertising only need to cover a two page spread, and rarely that much. While I think the quality of medium format over smaller formats is apparent, it is unfortunate that the extra quality is lost on many end users (clients). Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:28:48 GMT, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote: Raphael Bustin wrote: On 23 May 2004 22:21:57 -0500, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format 64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at end of article fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...foveon16mp.asp And who appointed Carver Mead as the authority on this topic? Carver's got a specific product to sell, and so far it's been a very hard sell. Foveon continues to play a very small role in the digicam market. He's got the physics on his side. The wavelength of light isn't changing. You can't use smaller than five micron pixels, and even those are pretty noisy. 64MP with 7x7 micron dots is 6x6cm in size, even without the electronics between the pixels. I'm not arguing your basic point. To date, the limiting size for area-array sensors is around 20+ Mpixels, and that's with "Bayer" arrays and pixel-counts. Foveon, IMO, is a non-issue and non-starter, at least for the time being. I think you could have found a better source to cite than a four-year-old press release from a third-rate player in the industry. Imaging chips are at extreme odds with traditional silicon processing, where feature sizes and overall geometries are under constant downward pressure. So good, hi-res imaging chips will be expensive, maybe forever, but at least until they're produced and sold in very high volume. I think MF and LF may continue to have a role in niche applications. It will be many years (if ever) before a silicon sensor can return the sort of pixel counts that I get from scanning either of these. The only real issue I see is how long will Kodak and Fuji (et al) continue to make film in these formats? Film will be competitive for a long time. When you start handling 64MP (or 400MB) images, you'll soon notice some things: - memory isn't cheap, and you need lots of it - digital processing needs memory all the way from scanning workstations to permanent storage - permanent storage isn't permanent, unless it is refreshed every five years or so - the rest of the equipment gets obsolete even faster... In terms of total cost of ownership, MF is still hard to beat. Digitals win when you need the speed. Again, I mostly agree with your main point. It's all quite relative. MF is middle of the road if you consider LF on one side and 35 mm on the other. Comparing any one of these to digital is like comparing religions. In the overall scheme of things, memory really is cheap these days... $100 will buy you: * half a gigabyte of fast DDRAM, or * a 120 gigabyte hard drive, * a DVD writer. Hard drives fail -- don't I know it. I've had my ways tested recently but so far my CDs and DVDs are holding up and have saved the day, literally. Constant vigilance... thanks for reminding me. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those people who do still have money to spend... Which seems like thriving in a niche market could be an answer. The problem then becomes what volume of sales will sustain a niche? Large format is already a niche market, yet there is still diversity, just as an example. LF is dead already. It's just that those corpses are pretty well balmed. ;-) Of course, the funny thing is that large format films sales (at least Fuji and Polaroid numbers) has increased. However, that does not mean more people are buying cameras. MF has been a niche market since way back when. The trouble isn't supplying a niche market. The trouble is that people occupying that niche are leaving. And that hurts. Sure, they are leaving because they are getting older. There is an ageing population of users, and very few new (or younger) users. That is why I spoke about advertising and awareness. While you choose to think there is no point, I think a small effort might show some results. I am not writing about having medium format become big volume, nor big business, and I would never expect that to happen. Take Hasselblad: a small company, yet doing very well selling in numbers that are absolutely nothing compared to, say, Nikon. Why is success must be judged on high volume? Are Linhof and Horseman not successful because they don't sell half a million cameras a year? If volume was the only criteria for success, then Sony is the "winner" or "best" of all camera companies. Recently, they decided they could no longer survive without the (financial) support of some large company. How long will that work should the MF market not recover from the current dip? Hasselblad has a name, and could become a niche luxury product. I would expect the current tooling to produce limited run examples in the colour finish of your choice. Perhaps they can turn some of the bodies into handbags, or makeup cases. Rollei have put all their eggs in one basket: new customers would come, and sales go up again, if only they could offer modern AF technology. Now they *do* offer AF technology. And? Right: nothing! Well, Rollei has an extensive line of compact cameras (many digital) that trade on the value of their brand name. I think Rollei will survive, though their medium format line could end up a built to order prestige product (luxury again). So the company should survive, though the medium format line might become marginalized. If the medium format line becomes rare, or scarce, yet the company survives off compact cameras, does that mean they were unsuccessful? The Japanese companies are a bit larger, and perhaps operate differently too. But how long can you not sell a product and keep up the pretence things are going well, even when the company's live does not depend on it? A niche is fine, as long as it is not empty. Okay, so if the slightly older industry sales figures from Japanese medium format manufacturers indicated only 200000 unit sales a year world wide, how low can that figure go to still have a market? Would 50000 new camera sales a year (one fourth) still be a viable market? The only retro photography trend I see, and mostly southern California (and some other cites in the US), is more younger people buying used film cameras. These could be considered accessories to match trendy retro style clothing (especially anything with "That 70's" look), though the funny thing is that many of these used camera buyers actually use their gear. While they may not fit into enthusiast, nor consumer models, many of them like the aspect of controlling the camera, rather than the automation controlling them. This is the "technology backlash" reaction to too much technology in everyday life. Retro is popular because it reminds one of simpler times, even though that memory is created in those that did not live in those times. That trend has not been seen this side of the pond. I wonder if it will last. Well, it is hitting about the six year point now, so I wonder the same thing. As these people get older, will they hold onto the same habits . . . also, will the next generation follow the same trends . . . only time will tell. As for this trend exporting to other parts of the world, I can only hope that some aspects of American trends stay in the US. If anything, traditional brands most associated with "the good old days" of photography are in danger of becoming extinct. The only true, and strong, trend in photography today is that digi-thingy. True, based on volume sales, or even number of articles. Of course, the reality is about as true as the "paperless office". I think wireless imaging will soon become the next big thing, and the future volume leader of "photography" (if you can still call that photography). The paperless office we were promised has not materialized, no. But where are those typewriters and blue paper? Indeed, computers are just glorified type writers. ;-) . . . . . . . At the moment, the reality is that consumers want convenience (when did they ever not want that?) and fun. And that currently means digital. And not just in photography. Sure, the fast food mentality. It might be the biggest trend, but not everyone follows it. We see this in many products, with some people thinking anything new is better (or progress), while other wish to maintain control. I hate analogies, but a good example is that you can still buy a car with a manual transmission, and not just a cheap one. Why not liquidate now, and get a last profit off their assets? What value is there in their assets, they being MF manufacturing infrastructure, when there is no demand for ? Factories, equipment, assembly facilities, and other business support systems are assets that can be sold off for use in other endeavours, and not just for cameras. Even then, some of that equipment could be used to produce cheaper consumer products, even cheap consumer cameras. The cameras that are already manufactured could be sold off to clear inventory, and likely to find buyers at the much reduced liquidation prices. Why did the distributor for Hasselblad buy the company? Good example. Hasselblad wanted to go public, i.e. cash in on their "assets". That went sour when the MF market went downhill. Doesn't mean that some other company would not want to show off with a "luxury brand of great repute". They do not need a sensible return ontheir investment as much as bread and butter investors. There's posing value to consider... Like Hermes buying controlling stock of Leica. Of course, this could be the luxury niche market for medium format too. Leica also license their name for many cheaper products, including P&S digital cameras. It might only be a matter of time before we hear of a Leica lens on a camera phone. So perhaps the Hasselblad P&S is soon to appear. Or more coloured leather cameras sold as luxury goods. Maybe they can sell one with every Rolex as a package deal. Why did Tamron buy Bronica? Why does Mamiya still advertise? Why did Rollei and Contax make autofocus cameras? Hope springs eternal. If you're, say, a MF manufacturer, you can only manufacture MF. If you don't, you're not a MF manufactuer anymore. You'll be nothing. Right? You lost me on that one. Rollei make many P&S and compact film and digital cameras. Does that mean they are nothing? Is it bad to survive on cheap consumer product sales? Leica still make cameras, nor scarfes and handbags, do they not? Have you seen the Hermes Leica? Looks suspiciously like a Handbag, except it only holds one roll of film. ;-) . . . . . . If you compare to the cost of a scanner, around $2000, that is the competition for digital backs, and I don't see them ever getting close. With that in mind, they (MF companies) should liquidate assets this year. Well, if they do not get prices down... I'll come and tell you "told you so" in, oh..., a year. ;-) Hey, you might be right. This might be the last year in the history of medium format new camera sales. Rollei still have P&S cameras, and compact digital cameras, so I expect they might be the only survivor. Everyone else will be making Swiss chronographs . . . err, I mean cameras . . . we shall see. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |