Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:27:03 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


Actually, Zeiss has done an incredible job of pushing their name as
quality lenses. Largely this started with associations with video
gear, but even at the consumer P&S level (film and digital) they have
established name recognition. Leica may in fact be able to do the
same, largely through their association with Panasonic. Which sort of
leaves Hasselblad in the dust, since they don't make lenses. :-(

Zeiss was well-known and well-respected in consumer cameras long before
there was any such thing as consumer video. Their lenses were standard
issue on many early 35 mm & MF film cameras. Otherwise, your point is well
taken! The question that I have is how important any of this is to the
digital camera consumer. I see people making purchases based more on the
camera's physical size, and not giving much regard to its technical
qualities. It really appears to be a matter of style over substance.


IIRC, both Sony and Kodak digicams (or at least certain models) use
Zeiss lenses, and the advertising certainly makes bold mention of the
fact. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption are of such a
nature these days that these things become common knowledge.
It's precisely the sort of factoid that a retail clerk would mention,
and after that the knowledge is spread by word of mouth.


Many of those who might want to upgrade to MF in
the past from 35mm film are now upgrading from a web digicam to a
higher MP DSLR or P&S.

Mostly consumer level, or some enthusiasts. I would not include
professionals in that market segment.

I'd also add that this curve is likely to change once the masses have made
their initial purchase of a digicam. Unless manufacturers are able to
provide digicams with readily-perceived advantages over those that were
initially purchased, the only reason to buy another one would be to
replace broken cameras.


Large prints will be the breaking point. That, and the first
severe data loss. But if the largest image you take is a
4 Mbyte JPG, then your data storage problems can be
dealt with simply by posting/storing the images online.

(Those of us that work with 300 Mbyte TIF files have a
very different problem.)



So much of this outlook for MF seems to be looping back on the consumer
market practices rather than the pro / serious amatuer markets. I'd say
that the consumer market has not been a major factor in MF sales for
decades, now.

Exactly. I think most of us know that. Intuitively obvious,
I'd call it.

It would seem that the weekly sales figures for MF cameras
have been rather low for a long time, so the question that I have is what
the drop-off really reflects and whether this level of sales is viable for
the manufacturers that are still in the game.

As Gordon pointed out, eBay has created a market for used MF camera sales.
I don't see many of those going unsold, and I can't imagine that only a
few "collectors" are doing all the buying. This may be a good indication
that the format is not being abandoned. Perhaps the upgrades to new MF
cameras may come from these purchasers.


Or perhaps the scenario I proposed is playing out...
these eBay sales are to folks moving up from digital.
Not a backlash, but a somewhat logical progression.

When a 10D or 1Ds runs out of steam, the only place
to go is scanned MF or LF film. 35 mm is only
marginally better (and sometimes not at all) and
altogether too much effort, when compared to
the above mentioned dSLRs.

In terms of "shrinkage" from digicams I think the
tradional film formats will be hit inversely to their
image area. Ie., 35 mm most of all, MF far less,
and LF not at all.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:27:03 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Zeiss was well-known and well-respected in consumer cameras long
before there was any such thing as consumer video. Their lenses were
standard issue on many early 35 mm & MF film cameras. Otherwise,
your point is well taken! The question that I have is how important
any of this is to the digital camera consumer. I see people making
purchases based more on the camera's physical size, and not giving
much regard to its technical qualities. It really appears to be a
matter of style over substance.

IIRC, both Sony and Kodak digicams (or at least certain models) use
Zeiss lenses, and the advertising certainly makes bold mention of the
fact. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption are of such a
nature these days that these things become common knowledge.
It's precisely the sort of factoid that a retail clerk would mention,
and after that the knowledge is spread by word of mouth.

It's true that both Sony (7x7, 8x8 series) and some Kodak models are using
Zeiss lenses. Similarly, Panasonic is using Leica lenses in some models.
However, I don't think that these models appeal to either the mass
consumer or high-end dSLR users. I see it as an attempt at market
segmentation that may be interesting to watch. Those that would buy on the
basis of Leica and Zeiss lenses (to address BobM's original point)
*should* be attracted to the higher-end digicams, but other than on the
Leica digicams and MF backs that fit Hasselblads, Contax or Rollei, these
lenses aren't offered. Very curious marketing, if you ask me.

Mostly consumer level, or some enthusiasts. I would not include
professionals in that market segment.

I'd also add that this curve is likely to change once the masses
have made their initial purchase of a digicam. Unless manufacturers
are able to provide digicams with readily-perceived advantages over
those that were initially purchased, the only reason to buy another
one would be to replace broken cameras.

Large prints will be the breaking point. That, and the first
severe data loss. But if the largest image you take is a
4 Mbyte JPG, then your data storage problems can be
dealt with simply by posting/storing the images online.

(Those of us that work with 300 Mbyte TIF files have a
very different problem.)

In a way, yes, in a way, no. At this point, there isn't a truly archival
process or medium at the consumer level. A few years ago, magneto-optical
drives were available. I have those in my notebook and internet machines,
and find that the media is more reliable than CD-Rs and DVD discs over
time. But, you can't easily find those drives or the media these days.

As Gordon pointed out, eBay has created a market for used MF camera
sales. I don't see many of those going unsold, and I can't imagine
that only a few "collectors" are doing all the buying. This may be a
good indication that the format is not being abandoned. Perhaps the
upgrades to new MF cameras may come from these purchasers.

Or perhaps the scenario I proposed is playing out...
these eBay sales are to folks moving up from digital.
Not a backlash, but a somewhat logical progression.

I'm not sure this is an "either/or" proposition! ;-)

Apparently, there is still significant interest in MF gear, and I suspect
that at least some of those buyers will eventually buy new rather than
used, especially if the used market gets smaller, as BobM, Q.G.deB, and
others predict. That would be an interesting "backlash".

In terms of "shrinkage" from digicams I think the
tradional film formats will be hit inversely to their
image area. Ie., 35 mm most of all, MF far less,
and LF not at all.

I agree with you, but, interestingly, Q.G. deBakker doesn't!

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Bob Monaghan wrote:

Second, I doubt many people recognize leica or hasselblad or even
zeiss as brand names of quality cameras or lenses; perhaps the upper
classes do, but the average joe in the street?

Actually, Zeiss has done an incredible job of pushing their name as
quality lenses. Largely this started with associations with video
gear, but even at the consumer P&S level (film and digital) they have
established name recognition. Leica may in fact be able to do the
same, largely through their association with Panasonic. Which sort of
leaves Hasselblad in the dust, since they don't make lenses. :-(

Zeiss was well-known and well-respected in consumer cameras long before
there was any such thing as consumer video. Their lenses were standard
issue on many early 35 mm & MF film cameras. Otherwise, your point is well
taken! The question that I have is how important any of this is to the
digital camera consumer. I see people making purchases based more on the
camera's physical size, and not giving much regard to its technical
qualities. It really appears to be a matter of style over substance.

I have watched and listened to people in electronics stores compare cameras.
About the only quality comment that usually comes up is "well, this one has a
Zeiss lens". Other than that, established camera companies like Canon and
Nikon do okay at the consumer compact digital market level, though Sony
outsells both of them, and it is interesting that Sony often uses Zeiss
(branded) lenses. This is only observations from southern California and
Texas, so maybe it does not extend to other areas shopping habits.



Many of those who might want to upgrade to MF in
the past from 35mm film are now upgrading from a web digicam to a
higher MP DSLR or P&S.

Mostly consumer level, or some enthusiasts. I would not include
professionals in that market segment.

I'd also add that this curve is likely to change once the masses have made
their initial purchase of a digicam. Unless manufacturers are able to
provide digicams with readily-perceived advantages over those that were
initially purchased, the only reason to buy another one would be to
replace broken cameras.

I suspect that some manufacturers are building their cameras to barely last
past the warranty period. Really small buttons will probably fail faster than
chips or displays, and there will be little reason to repair the cameras.



I don't expect the newbies to drop to zero, but I do wonder if a few
thousand lost here and there won't mean the loss of major mfgers in
MF as the average weekly sales drop from 100 to 90 or 75 MF brand-X
cameras/week?

I would be surprised if Pentax keeps medium format production going,
except maybe as a special order. Perhaps outsourcing, or just doing a
couple production runs per year. Of course, that could mean
development stagnation in medium format, which would increase the
competition from used gear, and might indicate fewer new lenses being
developed.

Why would these issues be unique to Pentax? The main differentiation
appears to be the cost of buying into a system. As I see it, their
offerings are as viable as any of the other manufacturers' MF cameras, and
fall in a low-middle price range.

I don't think they have the name recognition, compared to other choices.
Another factor is that they are much less common in the North American rental
market than Hasselblad and Mamiya. While I think Pentax makes some very nice
medium format gear, they don't have the volume following of other brands. Add
in to that a lack of easily attached digital backs, and I think things look a
little bad for Pentax in medium format. However, as Bob M. pointed out, the
tooling for their 67 was likely paid for years ago, so it might not cost them
much to continue production.

Even for photographers not considering buying a digital back, having the
option of renting one can be a consideration. Available rental lenses and
accessories are another consideration. While the Pentax gear is nice, at the
professional level, renting is a consideration, and a Pentax choice might
leave one stranded on a few levels.



This is why we have already seen some pulling back by Fuji,
Tamron/Bronica and soon others are likely to follow, based on the
above numbers, yes?

Tamron has greatly simplified the Bronica line-up, mainly by
eliminating the large GS line. They could cut even more, or just keep
one assembly line going, and switch model production every few
months. With Fuji, I think the outsourcing for Hasselblad should be
enough to keep camera lines going. Plus, they have the 680 to through
in as a value added product for their digital back sales.

Mamiya is really pushing the advertising blitz. I think the lack of
recognition is one aspect, and they need to establish the Mamiya name
with quality optics. I only see them making it on a further pull-out
of other companies, or landing a strategic partnership to use their
name on lower priced camera gear (film, digital, video, or even P&S
type consumer products). Name recognition and establishing brand
could provide other revenue sources that keep some medium format
products going as high end, high prestige items.

To the pros, Mamiya needs no introduction; Bronica is largely perceived as
sub-standard and thus should fall victim to the upgrading consumer faster
than any of the others; and Fuji's hardware division has already committed
their production to digital products, removing themselves from the MF film
lineup.

So much of this outlook for MF seems to be looping back on the consumer
market practices rather than the pro / serious amatuer markets. I'd say
that the consumer market has not been a major factor in MF sales for
decades, now. It would seem that the weekly sales figures for MF cameras
have been rather low for a long time, so the question that I have is what
the drop-off really reflects and whether this level of sales is viable for
the manufacturers that are still in the game.

I would be interested in knowing more about how these cameras are
manufactured. If there are only a few lightly skilled employees needed, then
I don't see too much problem. However, if there is a need for highly
specialized skills, then a lack of workforce could indicate an end for some
camera production (or a shift to China).



As Gordon pointed out, eBay has created a market for used MF camera sales.
I don't see many of those going unsold, and I can't imagine that only a
few "collectors" are doing all the buying. This may be a good indication
that the format is not being abandoned. Perhaps the upgrades to new MF
cameras may come from these purchasers.

The problem of many used sales is that new products become less common.
Without continued new products, little innovation, or even new lenses, might
be produced. Taken over a longer time period, there could be a point at which
no more spare parts are sold. Leica recently announced a 30 year parts
guarantee for their MP, and just started a factory repair service. The idea
that Leica has taken assures those who purchase their expensive cameras; it
might be a good idea for one or two medium format companies to offer a
similar guarantee.

Ciao!

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

but photographers are being practical in not adopting the rollei or
hasselblad arc/flex body or other MF mini-view cameras, largely because
most have concluded that it is far cheaper to buy a 4x5" kit with full
movements and a rollfilm back, if you really need perspective controls,
yes?

Sure, but my point was that the convenience of a digital solution minimized
the need to even have a large format camera with movements, or a mini-view
camera. I am sure many architecture photographers already had a view camera
(or two), but if they can deliver more images to a client by using a smaller
camera system, then why not do so. I suppose a roll film back is another
choice, though even 35 mm starts to look good, especially with Nikon and
Canon shift lenses available at reasonable prices.

Plus you have the option of extra quality from larger 4x5" vs 6x6cm
film formats, panoramic rollfilm formats, and so on. Isn't that why these
more costly cameras haven't sold well, because most pro photographers
already had and knew how to use LF cameras to do the same sort of tasks?

Probably did, but when the image already needs to be an image file on a
computer, for final delivery for printing to either the client or a print
shop, then a more software oriented solution becomes more convenient. Okay, I
agree that the quality of software "movements" is weak in comparison to a
properly done image on film with true movements, though you cannot deny the
convenience in a software solution.



I and others documented that the identical rodenstock lenses and shutters
sold by hasselblad for their bellows camera bodies were often double the
cost of buying the same lenses and shutters in other lens mounts. Ouch!

Yeah, that high cost of focusing mounts, or just the bayonet set-up, really
changes the prices. Shame there is not an easier solution, or our mythical
"ideal camera" might be easier to construct. I am still leaning towards an
ALPA way of finding that ideal, but their cost is way out of my range at the
moment.



But the mfgers are waaay ahead of me; now they have a whole line of
"digital" lenses. What is wrong with our old film lenses, you ask? Why
they are too good, too high resolution to be a good match to the digital
sensors, causing aliasing and other problems. So we need to spend major $$
to buy, er, dumbed down lenses which don't perform as well, right? ;-) ;-)

As I understand it, the digital optimized lenses need to be even more
retrofocus in nature. The idea is that each image cell site is three
dimensional in nature, and more like a miniature hole, or well. So if you
visualize what is needed, then a lens that places light more perpendicular to
the sensor would work better. The other option could be a curved sensor, but
I doubt anyone is working on that. One thing that is improving greatly is
micro lens technology. The micro lens focuses light into each sensor well,
and limits stray light hitting between cell sites. Of course, a micro lens
system could work well with older lenses, yet a change of technology to
digitally optimized lenses could mean less need for a microlens array, or
just a simpler microlens array.

My guess is that the upcoming Leica M digital will use a microlens array.
They are working with Kodak and Imacon on this solution, who are also teamed
on the Digital R body. I would be surprised if they ever introduced a
digitally optimized lens, though it could happen in the future.

Ciao!

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

yes, I do feel the skill sets for photography and digital scanning,
monitor calibration, software installation (and re-installation, after
crashes ;-), and photoshop esp. are very different skills. People good at
one may not be good at all the others. And it does take time to learn
those skills and keep them current with new versions of software and
hardware and upgrades needed every year or two.

True. Like wet-darkroom printing (remember? ;-)) was a very (well...)
different thing too.

I don't agree with you there. While people may indeed be good at one thing
while other people are not, it really isn't that difficult.

One survey for microsoft found the average user knew something like 12-17%
of the features in their current products, and even their certified
experts only knew circa 30% of product features. Most of the requested
features by users are already in the products, and have been for four or
five versions ;-) So much for software skills ;-)

You're good at this game. ;-)

The conclusion that computer skills are few and hard to get by is,of coirse,
in no way supported by the fact that a manufacturer of software (or even all
manufactuers of software) pack their products with features noone needs or
uses, and thus are not "learned". Who would bother?
Only 12 - 30%, hey? Impressive show of good plain old common sense on the
part of users. ;-)

[...]
So yes, I think the claims of doing high quality large scale portraiture
with a 5 MP or even 8MP or 11 MP digicam is problematic, and I still see a
future for film in such niches, just as MF is used over 35mm today for the
same reasons.

Yes, there's that "high quality" thing creeping in again, in the company now
of "large scale" too. ;-)
Still, "Portraiture, by the way, is one of those fields [...]"

But before people start believeing i'm the apostle of the Digido, i agree
with you.
It's just that you and i are not setting trends, are not directing the
market...

And Gordon's comment (IIRC) about shooting in super-16 FILM as backup to
digital

Amazing, isn't it? I think it is so ridiculous it's almost sublime again.

so as to accommodate future improvements in digital displays is
quite on point; we have a new display convention in USA this week, with
rolled up displays and 3D displays and all that.

A display convention?

But I think you are wrong that folks will not care about their images in
the future, esp. since they are now outlasting their own wedding and
graduation videos (15-20 years on magtape?) and the growing scandal about
"archival" DVDs and so no that are NOT archival in typical use etc. ;-)

Well, i don't know... (which is just another way of saying i don't agree.
;-))

Future historians may well see this as the black ages, black because just
like NASA can't read their own pre-moon landing tapes, the majority of the
digital stuff being recorded today won't be readable in our lifetimes (at
least, I hope to live that long and longer ;-)

Future historians will be very, very pleased. We are conserving (keeping)
far too much of our insignificant rubbish. It's too hard to find the few
things really worth keeping amongst the heaps of trivia as it is.

Yes, i know: we do have a tendency to think that every snapshot we take of
aunt Hilda on the back porch will have some great historic value, and
mustn't be mislaid lest our entire civilisation will go awry (good word,
that ;-)).

But that's wrong, isn't it? Transience is a very important thing. "Big" in
our world. But somehow we don't like to accept that we are all destined for
oblivion. So we try to hang on to every fleeting moment to prove it is not
so.
But that doesn't mean that indeed everything we produce is of historic
interest. In fact, very little is.

So let our DVDs rot... ;-)

Gordon Moat wrote:

Stats again...
Who did they survey? And how are the percentages photographers who need
(!!!) to produce prints and the percentage that don't?

You can go to http://www.pmai.org to get more information. Repeating
what
they have available would make this post too long. Also, since I am the
original provider of this source to Bob M., I should also point out that I
have
access to many financial reports, and industry analysis reports for AGFA,
Kodak, and Fuji, many of which have very similar analyses and figures.
Your
questions would be better placed in those directions.

Still, stats...
Statistics are forms in which people want to present information they think
is significant in a form best suiting their needs.
There's not a statistic in this world that can not be turned around to
present a very different picture. Anyway,
What we're told by stats is who produced the data, what data were allowed to
appear in the stats, and what data was not, why the stats were produced, and
why they are presented the way they are.
And financial reports? As it happens i have been presented one just this
week that paints a very pretty picture i actually know (from "first hand
insider knowledge") is not right. Mind you, the figures are all correct. The
picture isn't.

Anyway, let's not get hung up on that. ;-)

And that cell-phone thing again....

I do think he puts too much emphasis on that. However, there is no denying
those devices are huge volume sellers. I don't think it is too much of a
stretch to consider they impact P&S digital sales.

Right.
But again: see subject line. ;-)
MF is not as yet in danger of being abandoned in favour of 3 MP P&S
digicams.

The guy i mentioned who did his sums for me (and i'm not sying his sums
are
corect, just pointing out that these considerations are actually "out
there", people do base certain decisions on this premisse) already
scanned
almost everything he shot. Very many do.

While I might not be a normal user model here, I certainly have never
scanned
every shot on any roll. [...]

Ah, no! That's not what i meant. He scanned every shot he was going to
*use*. Not every single shot on the role.

Point was, and is, that while being a film-shooter before, he already had
acquired all the skills and accoutrements.
His work flow was so near completely digital already that there were no new
costs for him except buying the digital camera.

[...]
To the credit of Adobe, PhotoShop CS is more user friendly than in past
versions. While there is almost nothing in the new version that could not
be
done in the past, it is now easier for some to figure out how to do
things, and
time savings can be a good thing. Also, many professionals have found out
that
the absolute latest version is not always needed, and often provides no
advantages to the experienced user.

Indeed.
I found the single most important improvement was not in PS features, not in
the interface either, but in computer power: faster, more memory, larger
disks. What was already possible in early versions often could still not be
done because of the sheer amount of time it took.

I think these "costs" that Bob M. refers to should be restricted to
enthusiasts
who feel they "must" have the latest gear, or those who do lots of inkjet
prints. He needs to separate the consumer, enthusiast, and professional
users,
since their needs and influences differ widely.

Right you are.
Shall i ask Bob to have a look at MF future bit in the subject line? ;-)

Something very personal in choice that needs to be worked out by each
potential
user. There are few absolutes, and this is one area in which this is
obvious,
and will differ for each individual. [...]

Indeed.
The thing is that the usual arguments put forward against digital (rapid
obsolesence = rapid depreciation, hidden costs, different skills, etc.) too
are not absolutes. They have been (and still are) bandied about so long and
so much in discussions, while in the real world people are steadily moving
towards digital in blatant disregard of all these considerations. And
mostly, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, without experiencing any of them.

I think we should stay awake, stay "with it", see what's happening. Or else
we may end up clenching our MF equipment, still mumbling "nah... digital
will never take...", in an all-digital world with no use for oldies with
antique gizmos.

Or perhaps we may not. ;-)

So while bills always have included film and lab costs, they now include
"digitizing" costs. The bills have not gone up because of that, the one
just
replaced the other.

Absolutely, and this follows somewhat common professional practices, at
least
for some types of professional photography.


The photographers still using film do have to pay film and processing
costs.
So if they eliminate these, they do create a profit.

I bill out my costs, so it is a net zero expense.

If you bill out film purchasing and processing costs and digitizing costs
and get away with that (and why wouldn't you?), you could eliminate them
all, bill the same amount, and create a profit.
Right?
Some might argue that a potential profit not taken equals a loss. So what
"net zero expense"? ;-)

So far, film still has more
profit for my work needs, and for the majority of professionals I know,
talk
to, and sometimes read about. Of course, what each person does is slightly
different, and it might be a situation in the future that direct digital
might
be more profitable for what I do, but that time is not now for me.

I can see how that would be, yes.
But how about the future? When will it be?
I think this year will answer a lot of the "when?"s and "what?"s.

Yes.
But that's no guarantee that film based MF camera lines will survive
into
the future as current products.

Luxury niche, ultra low volume (ALPA concept) only?

Don't know... But i somehow doubt that. Maybe one or two selected products.

c) improved displays (HDTV..) will mean the limits of low MP digicams
against film will be more obvious, esp. in MF ;-)

How quaint a thought... ;-)
Displays, especially TV, have a lot of catching up to do already.

So why would there be any need for more MPs?

Certainly not for displaying on screens. A quality (!!! Important!) 3 MP
(already too many) camera already provides more than enough MP for that.

How about print?

Raphael Bustin wrote:

[...]
I wonder if, in the short term, there might be market for
a dSLR halfway between 35 and 645... ie., using a
sensor like in the DCS Pro back, but in a body nicely
optimized for that sensor - and a lens system to match.

Or put another way, a "4/3" system downscaled from
MF film formats.

We're already looking at that: why do you think we have seen movement in the
645 segment over the past few years, while any other MF format has either
stood still or been in recession?
645 *is* the digital-designated scaled down MF format.

Some people even predict that, with pixel densities being limited
physically, 35 mm based digital cameras will have to "grow up" and become
645 cameras to be able to house the larger sensor needed to get more pixels.
I think that may be right. I however do not think the larger "645" sensors
will need current 645 or larger MF cameras: they will be housed in purpose
built cameras that only resemble current MF cameras marginally.

In article , Gordon Moat wrote:

Unless some digital technology will prove better at limiting piracy, then I
think film will continue to be used for motion imagery for quite a while
longer. Even some taped video is transferred to film for final showing. Don't
even get me started on all the problems with digital projection. :-(

In a few years it will not be a problem at all. We won't have projection
at all. Organic LED's (O-LED) technology will have reached the point that
a movie screen will be one big O-LED screen.

The problem with O-LED screens is the blue LEDs don't last very long,
around 3,000 hours before they are at half the brightness of the red
and green ones.

What will happen is that movie sized screens will come in a huge roll.

If your average movie theater runs 10 hours a day, once a year or so,
they remove the old screen and replace it with a new one, at less cost
than the electricity for the old projection lamps.

This is assuming that by that time, the blue problem hasn't been solved.

Okay, bottom line, I still think that the largest factor is profits. As long
as some companies can generate profits from MF and LF film sales, then some
companies will continue making them.

Tht's really it. As long as someone buys film (in any format) someone
will continue to make it. Many of the films we know and love will slowly
fade away, except Kodachrome, which I fear is very near to death in any
size.

Black and white film will last longer as it can be safely stored in
a cool, dry place (without refrigeration) for many years, and powdered
developers (and rodinal) can last longer than the film.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Bob Monaghan wrote:

but photographers are being practical in not adopting the rollei or
hasselblad arc/flex body or other MF mini-view cameras, largely because
most have concluded that it is far cheaper to buy a 4x5" kit with full
movements and a rollfilm back, if you really need perspective controls,
yes?

Some, yes.
Most, i think, have not bought one of those mini-thingies because they do
not even have to buy a 4x5", but already own such a thing. Cheaper still ;-)

Plus you have the option of extra quality from larger 4x5" vs 6x6cm
film formats, panoramic rollfilm formats, and so on. Isn't that why these
more costly cameras haven't sold well, because most pro photographers
already had and knew how to use LF cameras to do the same sort of tasks?

And those mini-view cameras are not really easier in use.

I and others documented that the identical rodenstock lenses and shutters
sold by hasselblad for their bellows camera bodies were often double the
cost of buying the same lenses and shutters in other lens mounts. Ouch!

Ouch, indeed.
You do know why they asked so much, don't you? It's "because they can". At
one time the dominant "Leitmotiv" in Hasselblad's marketing.
Turned out that they couldn't. (being the evil person that i am, this fills
me with joy...;-))

But the mfgers are waaay ahead of me; now they have a whole line of
"digital" lenses. What is wrong with our old film lenses, you ask? Why
they are too good, too high resolution to be a good match to the digital
sensors, causing aliasing and other problems. So we need to spend major $$
to buy, er, dumbed down lenses which don't perform as well, right? ;-) ;-)

No, no.
The new "specially designed with digital photography in mind" Distagon 40 mm
lens actually outperforms any other lens of similar focallength (it really
does).
It's only dumbed down in that it shows more distortion than before. But only
in those parts not captured by the typical too small digital sensors...
And anyway, we don't want to put the manufacturers of softeners, uhm... "low
pass filters" i mean, out of business, do we?
So we need to spend major $$ to buy lenses having "too high resolution to be
a good match to the digital sensors".
;-)

Bob Monaghan wrote:

but photographers are being practical in not adopting the rollei or
hasselblad arc/flex body or other MF mini-view cameras, largely because
most have concluded that it is far cheaper to buy a 4x5" kit with full
movements and a rollfilm back, if you really need perspective controls,
yes? Plus you have the option of extra quality from larger 4x5" vs 6x6cm
film formats, panoramic rollfilm formats, and so on. Isn't that why these
more costly cameras haven't sold well, because most pro photographers
already had and knew how to use LF cameras to do the same sort of tasks?

I and others documented that the identical rodenstock lenses and shutters
sold by hasselblad for their bellows camera bodies were often double the
cost of buying the same lenses and shutters in other lens mounts. Ouch!

But the mfgers are waaay ahead of me; now they have a whole line of
"digital" lenses. What is wrong with our old film lenses, you ask? Why
they are too good, too high resolution to be a good match to the digital
sensors, causing aliasing and other problems. So we need to spend major $$
to buy, er, dumbed down lenses which don't perform as well, right? ;-) ;-)



Nice idea but Sinar, for example, selected higher performing examples
for labelling as digital - not the reverse. It was ages and ages ago now
but they issued some press packs with MTF stuff in showing the
superiority of these lenses.

TV or video lenses, yes, you need lower res.

David