Anti-digital backlash continues ...

From: (Sabineellen)

Bill, if expensive digital gear depreciates, it only means medium format is
a better option for me, and many others, now and the cost of developing
occasional shots is far less than the cost of depreciation in digital gear.

No "if" about it, digital bodies depreciate really, really fast.

Digital makes sense economically if you shoot a LOT of film, otherwise it's too
expensive, I feel. The guy shooting 10-20 rolls of film a year should stick
with film (from an economic point of view). The guy shooting 100-200 rolls of
35 mm quality slide film (Velvia, Provia 100F or similar) will pay for a 6
Mpixel class body in a year or so, or at least he would at the prices I pay for
film and processing ($12.24 / roll for Velvia). Of course he's giving up some
image quality when swapping 35 mm for 6 Mpixels but not enough to bother many
people.

The guy shooting 1,000 rolls a year (like many busy pros and over-the-top
amateurs) will pay for even the best digital bodies pretty fast. I figure I
need to shoot the equivalent of 600-700 rolls to break even on my Canon 1Ds
purchase, and I won't have any problems reaching that this year. So even if my
1Ds is worth half as much in two years I'll still be ahead financially. But
ONLY because I'm shooting a lot with it and saving on film costs.

As a well-known professional told me last year (after she switched to digital)
"I used to buy film but now I spend that money buying digital bodies instead,
and I come out way ahead."

BTW, I still prefer shooting medium format for landscapes and scanning it. I'm
the proud owner of two Pentax 645 bodies and seven lenses from 35 mm to 300 mm
and of two Mamiya 7 II's (co-owned with the wife) and five lenses from 43 mm to
210 mm, so I'm not one-sided for digital. But the 1Ds image quality surpasses
35 mm and is getting surprisingly close to the 645 for good-sized prints, plus
I have a wide range of quality lenses for it from 17 mm to 1,000 mm. I can see
why people considering buying a new medium format system might be holding out
to see what's next with digital.

Bill

From: Gordon Moat

How many D2H and D1X cameras sell each year? How many more digital P&S
cameras sell each year?

Good questions ... you can guess at the answers from the Reuters release ... if
they're ramping up to 90,000 D70's per month and hope to sell one million total
dSLR's in a year then it's clear a high percent (almost all?) of that million
are low end D70's and not the high end models like the D2H and D1x. But I
wonder how it is at Canon, where the high end models are doing much better
because of higher pixel counts etc? There's a two month wait for the Canon 1D
Mark II (same features as the D2H except twice the pixel count) and it's still
hard to get the 1Ds ... the price on it has actually gone up since April, from
$7,300 to $7,450).

As for the P&S models, I think the article said Nikon hopes to sell 7.8 million
total digital cameras so subtract the one million dSLR's and you end up with
close to 7 million P&S models.

How many of those buying a D2H or D1X sold a medium format camera
to get one? How many sold a medium format camera to buy a digital P&S?

Probably not many in either case, but how many prospective *new* MF buyers
bought a Nikon or Canon dSLR instead? Or how many people who own both MF and
35 mm or dSLR's bought new lenses for the 35 mm type systems instead of buying
more MF lenses?

Do any of the new high end digital users miss the ease of manual control
or ergonomics of their medium format gear?

I have just as much "manual control" with the 1Ds as one has with the 1V film
camera, which is substantial (if you want it). Actually, just as much as with
either my 645 or 6x7 systems, come to think of it. As for ergonomics, my two
MF systems are both different from 35 mm and digital and from each other but
there are certainly no special ergonomic advantages to them. Not sure what you
mean here.

How many think that the lenses are less important when
using direct digital?

My Canon lenses are exceptional, especially the 180 L macro and the 500 f/4 L
IS. My Mamiya 7 lenses are excellent optically but have a very limited focal
range compared to my Canon lenses, especially at the long end (ie, in 35 mm
equivalents, 17-1,000 mm vs 22 - 105 mm). The Pentax lenses for my 645 are
very good but not really as good as either the Mamiya or Canon lenses and the
equivalent focal range is limited to roughly 21 mm - 180 mm (ie, 35 - 300 mm).

Gartner have defined a term called Hype Cycles, which refers to
buying and usage patterns found in technology.

When sales of Nikon dSLR's jumped 300% while sales of medium format keep
falling there's something other than hype behind it.

Technology backlash is very real, but is never any reaction that reverses
any trend. It is merely a step that occurs just prior to a more normal growth

If all you're saying is "sales can't grow 300% a year compounded for very long"
then yeah, I'll buy that So what? When it slows down what are the odds
people will go back to MF?

Bill

From: "Mike"

Stacey said:

Mike, thanks for quoting Spacey Stacey, I rarely see his posts since I've long
considered him one of the dumbest people I've run across on Usenet and flushed
him into the killfile long ago. I can see I haven't missed much.

I'll take this rare opportunity to respond to his usual idiocies and hopefully
never see the name again

Stacey said:

Yes my $150 used mamiya M645 kicks your 1Ds's butt! :-)

I use the 1Ds as a 35 mm replacement, mainly with long lenses. If you weren't
such a horse's ass I'd invite you to go photographing birds or bears and see
how well your M645 holds up against a 500 mm f/4 with IS. Not that well, I'd
wager. Different tools for different jobs.

Please take these unrelated posts to a relevant newsgroup.

Yes, there are far too many people worried about digital on this NG, for some
reason. I started this particular thread to tweak Bob M, who said digital was
a passing fad that would blow over soon ... I'm bad, what can I say! Bob
probably caught on to the joke.

Hopefully the Ketchum thread meets with your approval, since he does shoot with
a Pentax 67 medium format camera. If it didn't I have a suggestion for where
you can put it.

Now I see why you're continuosly on such a "pro-digital" rant ...

First, I'm not on a "pro-digital" rant but I do know a LOT more about digital
printing than many of the people posting here and can't resist pointing out the
error of their ways. I probably own and use a lot more MF gear than you (12
lenses and four bodies for my 645 and 6x7 cm systems) and we have an exhibit of
mostly medium format prints every year or so. I always tell people you need
medium format or large format to get such nice looking large prints, which
probably does more to promote MF than most of the posts on this NG. You have
to show people there's a benefit or they won't go for it.

... you've invested many thousands of dollars and need to feel you didn't
waste your money.

I knew I hadn't wasted my money on the 1Ds the first time I printed 20x30" from
it I only need to shoot the equivalent of another 500 or so rolls of film
and I figure it's paid for itself in film savings. Hope to hit that in the
Pribilofs shooting birds and fur seals or in Katmai when we fly in for a week
of close-up bear photography (no, your M645 won't cut it there . The rest is
gravy ...

Hopefully I'll never see your stupid, pointless posts again!

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:

From: "Mike"

Stacey said:

Mike, thanks for quoting Spacey Stacey, I rarely see his posts since I've
long considered him one of the dumbest people I've run across on Usenet
and flushed
him into the killfile long ago. I can see I haven't missed much.

I'll take this rare opportunity to respond to his usual idiocies and
hopefully never see the name again

Stacey said:

Yes my $150 used mamiya M645 kicks your 1Ds's butt! :-)

I use the 1Ds as a 35 mm replacement, mainly with long lenses.

Then why are you posting about it in a medium format newsgroup?

Stacey

Gordon Moat writes:

The have never been a big volume seller in P&S, yet it seems odd that
the profits from half a million to a million P&S cameras would be worse that from
90k direct digital SLRs.

It depends on margins.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

David J. Littleboy writes:

Well, pros seem to like heavy cameras, but in terms of ergonomics, the
10D/D70/300D kick MF's butt just as 35mm did years ago.

If 35mm kicked MF's butt years ago, why is MF still around?

Most people think the lenses are more important, since the digital sensor
gets more out of the lens than film does.

Most people think lenses are important because the digital salesman told
them so.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Bill Hilton writes:

When sales of Nikon dSLR's jumped 300% while sales of medium format keep
falling there's something other than hype behind it.

Not necessarily. At different times in history, sales of mood rings,
pet rocks, and hula hoops have jumped by 300% or more, too.

If all you're saying is "sales can't grow 300% a year compounded for very long"
then yeah, I'll buy that So what? When it slows down what are the odds
people will go back to MF?

A percentage of them will certainly return to MF, older and wiser. The
others will find that digital is good enough (and sexy enough to please
shallow-minded art directors who claimed they needed MF quality but
really never wanted anything more than the snob appeal of expensive
gear), and will not go back.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Kiev - commie garbage. And I still say 645 is for amateurs.

Strange, how come mine takes such good pictures?

And I still say 645 is for amateurs.

Strange, how come mine takes such good pictures?
Strange, how come mine takes such good pictures?

Most of us operate under the belief that it's the photographer who makes the
pictures, good or bad, and that the camera is only a tool that the
photographer uses. There are a few innocents so naive as to refer to "good
pictures" as having been taken by their camera but not many participate in
this group. So welcome, different viewpoints are always refreshing.

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Kiev - commie garbage. And I still say 645 is for amateurs.

Strange, how come mine takes such good pictures?

A percentage of them will certainly return to MF, older and wiser. The
others will find that digital is good enough (and sexy enough to please
shallow-minded art directors who claimed they needed MF quality but
really never wanted anything more than the snob appeal of expensive
gear), and will not go back.


Don't forget those who flood photocritique sites with images that no one
would've bothered to capture on film, their shallow-minded self-proclaimed
"art" will keep them in digital land, which is good for the film folks.

The cost of film imposes a discipline that i find lacking in those who shoot
digital.