Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
Again, Zeiss' tests were field tests at a photo show IIRC, and they
achieved up to 200 lpmm. I agree that getting 100+ lpmm is difficult, but
possible for lesser mortals too ;-) However, there is a lot of difference
between DSLRs at 40 to 50+ lpmm and 100+ lpmm, and that quality range is
still the exclusive domain of film ;-)

And using zeiss' real-world ratings (see quote below in Postscript) using
my half dozen zeiss lenses, that puts velvia in the 300 Megapixel+ range
for 6x6cm shots ;-) Think we're gonna see that in a digital back soon? ;-)


http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e....4079BFC75477C8
C1256CED0054968E


grins bobm

PS quoting Zeiss:
our procedure is based on typical photo conditions like outside sunlight,
exposures controlled by normal camera shutters, focusing done with the
normal focusing aids of the camera, standard film developing by a normal
photo finisher, and of course, using normal Carl Zeiss photographic camera
lenses. In other words: we use equipment and techniques which are readily
accessible and our results are therefore relevant to every photographer.
endquote:

for 160 lpmm velvia and table of film resolutions see

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9...DB74C1256CEF00
2B0246


This is marketing literature, with no useful technical information.

Paraphrasing Zeiss: they don't provide data sheets to end users, for many
various and good reasons. You'll agree they are all various and good once
you hear them. No lens data at that link, of course.

Regarding film testing, they *displayed* at photokina 1996 what they say are
"The sharpest color photos ever taken", 200 lpmm on Ektar 25. Read that
marketing blurb again. It wasn't shot on the trade show floor. They
*displayed* photos at photokina 1996, and are thinking of showing them again
(as of March 2003). The results are so far removed from expectable results
that "employees from film manufacturers who saw this display were deeply
impressed and finally saw the fruit of their work". I can't reconcile that
with the other blurb you quoted for us above.

Take marketing hype for what it is, and leave it for what it isn't. I have
not seen credible evidence of a sizeable performance gap between film and
digital capture.

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Why, do you think, advertising works at all? ;-)

Quite simply, it just provides a compelling distraction. I work mainly
with the
advertising industry, though business has been a little down lately.

A "compelling distraction"...
;-)

I thought you would like that. ;-)



Care to share some ads in China that you have found? I have not found any
examples yet, but I would enjoy seeing some.

Ads?
Would you care to explain why you think people in China do not know what's
happening in the rest of the world?

Yes, that is right, advertising. You don't think people find out about
everything on the internet? I would like to know how things are being marketed
to people in China.



Replace cameras with phones?
Or cameras with cameras in phones? Those cameras in phones which "do"
direct
digital imaging?

Absolutely. Remember, this refers only to the mass market, not to high end
digital SLR buyers.

You miss my point.
You appear to believe that "direct digital imaging" is not what digital
cameras do, as long as thgese digital cameras are in cell phones.
How's that?

Okay, I will conceded your point that camera phones are direct digital imaging.
I still see them differently than I see direct digital P&S cameras.

This is one of the problems in trying to discuss these things. There are
digital cameras that do video, video cameras that do still images, and even
phones that do video and still images. Should we call all these digital
cameras?



... Which do direct digital imaging in a way worse, and (more
importantly)
more expensive (!!!) than consumer digital cameras.

Actually, the cost structure is lower than consumer level P&S digital
cameras. [...]

The "cost structure"?

Cell phones with cameras built-in cost more than more capable consumer
digital P&S, and getting an image captured out of a phone costs more than
getting one out of a camera (that, after all, is why phone companies love
cameras in cell phones).

Maybe it is different in Europe, but in the US, I can get a camera phone for
$99 at many locations (brand new, with one year service agreement). I can even
e-mail images from a phone without even a need to own a computer, and that is a
very low cost structure.


You get less for more money. But of course, the "cost structure" may look
favourable...

People don't care if it is less . . . they are easy to use, and meet their
needs. In the US, these things are far outselling all other digital imaging
products combined, and the sales pace is growing.


. . . . . . . . . .

Many P&S digital camera users have already found that 3 MP solves
their e-mail needs more than enough.

Strike two: e-mail needs???

Sure, that is what most direct digital P&S users do with their cameras. That is
why so many are now buying camera phones. Once you can do 1024 by 768 pixels,
that meets the e-mail need.



"Dear Hasselblad,

I'm afraid i have some bad news.
I will no longer be buying your products, because they do not fulfill my
e-mail needs...

Yours sincerely, etc."

Something like that?
:-0

Different market entirely. :-P How many people sold their Hasselblad to get
a digital P&S?



There are also camera phones that have
zoom lenses, and LED flash systems, that will soon enter the larger world
market.

That's strike one again.

Know who the largest volume camera sales company was last year . . . Sony!
Compare there top sales to the camera phone market just this last year, and
camera phones sales volume in the first four months this year exceeds that
volume, and continues to grow.



Nokia just started marketing a video capable camera phone in the US,
which surprises me a bit, since this is about one year earlier than I
expected
to see anything like that.

A camera phone exactly meets the needs of about 90% of the digital imaging
users. [...]

And that's strike two again.
Come on! Don't let me down. Have another, fresh swing!

When there is industry data showing that few people print their digital images,
and the largest usage is for e-mail, then yes the majority using these things
are not using them in a way in which we normally associate with photography.



[...]
You sound just like Bob: no end to the "camera-phone" theme. ;-);-)

Who do you think got him started on camera phones and wireless imaging?
;-)

Carver Mead.

Well, I think Sony will be the company to benefit most from the imaging chip
market.



Anyway, as I tried to state, the mass market is very different from niche
markets. Direct digital SLR cameras are a niche market.

Ah! Strike three!

You must really go out and see what people are doing.

I am beginning to think things are very different in the Netherlands than they
are in southern California. It should not really surprise me, since the
Netherlands was at the forefront of internet development as well.


Visit any park, or tourist spot, and you'll see countless "direct digital"
P&Ss. Very few of them i might add, with cell phne attached.

San Diego is a huge tourist market. What I see is direct digital P&S (less than
last year), very small video cameras, some digital things termed ZLRs, and many
camera phones (latest thing this year). I also see lots of one-time-use
cameras, and older film cameras. Like I said though, this market may be very
different, though wasn't it you that suggested that one market is like any
other?


And you'll see increasing numbers of (still predominantly Canon 300D) DSLRs.

Very rare in southern California, especially compared to any P&S, ZLR, or even
video. In fact, I still see more film SLRs locally, and in the Los Angeles
area. Maybe this is the exception in southern California as compared to the
rest of the world.



Niche market? Hardly.

A direct digital SLR is a niche item in southern California, and sales volume
is substantially smaller than film SLRs. Maybe sales are the opposite in the
Netherlands?



Sure, I think they are gimmicks. I might even get one at some point in the
near
future. They are actually fun for people photos, especially the ones that
go
"Say Cheese!" instead of making a click shutter sound.

[Shudder]

I am glad some people still want prints.

Some?

Sure, the local department store one hour labs are still busy. Pro labs
printing is about flat currently, though film processing is slightly down in
volume. The industry figures for North America show that very few digital
camera users print anything, which is what my statement above referenced.



I doubt many professionals use
one-hour labs.

Right.
But we were talking about your "direct digital imaging"-is-a-niche-market
thingy. It's not.

****, you completely missed what I wrote: "direct digital SLRs are a niche
market". That only applies to the digital SLR market, not any other aspect of
digital. Why is it those who state the "greatness" of direct digital lump all
technologies together . . . it would be as bad as someone claiming the the
increase in disposable film camera sales is an indication of increased medium
format camera usage . . . these all encompassing types of statements always
fail.

We need to split high end digital imaging from the rest of the (largely)
consumer market. It is not the same thing, and the sales volume (lack) reflects
that.


It's not a new thing, restricted to a few strange people, but taking over
the entire consumer segment (almost accomplished, that). You know, the thing
often referred to as the "mass market".
;-)


Are you suggesting that everyone is buying direct digital SLRs? That they are
the highest volume in digital imaging unit sales?


Pros are part of what is now a almost entirely digital process, from picture
taking (last bit to go completely digital) to publishing.
A "niche market", that image consuming industry?

Publishing accounts for about 6% of GDP in the US. There are also many
different groupings of pros. Even with all the money in the professional
imaging market (and I exclude photojournalists, and motion imaging
professionals, since those markets function quite differently), there are few
people involved in this industry compared to other industries. That low density
of people is what makes it a niche.



Anyway, professional photographers are a niche market with many

Oops!
;-)

Do you not understand the definition of niche? I sure as hell do! I don't lump
all digital imaging together to inflate the numbers either.



subdivisions, and not likely to act in the same way a mass market will.

Not necessarily, no.

See!

But the reasons behind the digital advent have little
to do with pro vs. consumer issues.

So are you suggesting we should all sell our Hasselblad and Rollei gear, and
buy a Sony digital P&S? The Sony P&S digital cameras are the largest volume
sales in the world, so that must make them the "best" choice. ;-)



Again that "niche" thing. Digital imaging is not a niche thing, and will
not
be one in China or anywhere else either.

I don't lump P&S digital in the same grouping with direct digital SLR
cameras,
nor even those with digital backs. Thus, I look at the digital still
imaging
market as three groups, consumer P&S, digital SLR, and digital backs.

Okay.
And where's that "niche"? Digital backs, right?

Also, digital SLR. The volume is small compared to other digital imaging sales.
If I through in the fourth group, wireless imaging (camera phones), then the
sales of digital SLRs is less than 5% of the overall market . . . definitely a
niche.



You're sure you're not a board member of one of those MF companies who
only
know wake up to see where their market is moving off to? ;-)

Funny, I think if you were on the Hasselblad board, you would shut down
the
company. ;-)

They don't need me. They are busy doing that all by themselves... :-(

Okay, so just send me all your medium format gear, and go be happy with your
direct digital SLR.



But you apparently missed why that is, though i have pounded that point over
and over again.
They to thought that "direct digital imaging" would amount to nothing. They
(literally) say they are surprised that it does.

Why would you buy a low cost digital back instead of a digital SLR?



. . . . . . . . . .

But that's not the point. You seem to believe that because something is
still small, it will not be any bigger.

True with some things. I don't see endless growth in some areas. I think there
is always a stabilizing limit. Recall that I graduated from college in 1998,
and went through the dot com bubble and burst, with computer industry bubble
and bursts. I see the digital imaging market (other than camera phones) as
following the same path as the computer industry.

Even though it is taking over
everywhere in a huge way.

I am not denying what is happening, and frankly I don't give a **** about the
mass consumer market in that regard. I am not a mass market consumer, and my
current interest in this is the affects on niche markets, namely medium format,
in this discussion. P&S anything, and even camera phones, meet very different
requirements for the people who buy these things, and no, I do not think those
specific devices affect medium format sales directly.


Where people say a growth market exists (which may be debatable), you say
that it has reached it's full growth potential already (which is even more
debatable, to say the least).

Easy enough to prove that one. Take last years sales volume, then look at this
years volume in a few more months, then wait for next years results. While five
years would be better, I think three is fine to accurately see what happens. Of
course, this is also why I read the reports of experts judging these things . .
.. I don't make this stuff up as I go.


And that because the Chinese are different from other people, or so you say.

You don't think the Chinese are different? You don't think the government in
China places restrictions on market growth within China?



Well, what to think of that... ;-)

Please, do not take just my word on these things. Read and investigate, if you
are truly curious or concerned.



Okay, then I feel that the direct digital imaging market will remain
"still
small".

But why?

Costs, market restrictions unique to China, and an already existing
wireless
imaging market.

Sorry, but i don't think either one of those is very convincing.

That's fine. These are not just my opinion, but drawn from existing data, and
projections of companies with substantial investments in the China market.
There is a ton of information that can be read about these matters. I am likely
not even reading as much as I could on this, though I doubt anyone else here on
this group would make a statement like that (that is a challenge, if you read
it that way).


Costs are on a steep incline, downwards.

Costs don't keep companies going, profits do. If you look and see that profits
are also down, why does that not worry you?


Market restrictions are not that much of a problem.

This is the Chinese government that restricts the market. I don't understand
why you fail to understand the impact they have on all consumer products in
China.


And wireless imaging is quite simply not to be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter if we take it seriously! I think they are gimmicky pieces of
****! So what, lots of people are buying these as fast as they hit the shelves.
The volume of camera phone sales in the US is already more than double the
volume of all other digital cameras in the US this year. While you are not
taking it seriously, people are buying more and more . . . this is your future
digital imaging "growth" market, whether you or I like it, or not.



But how have we ended up here?
All i was hoping to bring to our attention was that MF manufactuers are
in
deep trouble.
Not in the near future, but right now.

Sure, I think we agree on that. I think we arrived at China in the hopes
that
some new sales might happen there, especially that new sales in the west
are
likely under 40000 new units a year.

Ah, yes!
The idle hope that people on the other side of the globe from the "old
world" would want to buy the things the "old world" discards as "old". Hopes
firmly based on the assumption that, because they are far away (relative
notion), they are behind a silk curtain, they will be ignorant about the
other things they could be having too.
;-)

No, I don't think they would buy from ignorance. To suggest that of the Chinese
would be racist. I believe there is a quality appeal of medium format cameras.
I think that quality can have a limited (niche) appeal in China. Apparently,
Hasselblad think the same, since they are doing a marketing tour of major
Chinese cities this year.

Why buy a Mercedes when a Toyota will get you there cheaper? Why buy a Ducati,
when a Suzuki is faster and cheaper? Why buy a Hasselblad, when a Seagull is
cheaper?



[...]
Where we might differ is that I doubt
medium format backs will suddenly drop substantially in price to suddenly
support the current new unit sales volume. [...]

I doubt that too.
But i think it is the only shimmer of hope MF has to catch a ride on the
digital wave and prolong their stay on this, our sublunary world.


Okay, the words "prolong their stay" indicates that you feel these cameras will
exist in the same realm there now is for large format. You really should just
send me all you Hasselblad gear . . . you won't get any money trying to sell
it, so I will pay for the shipping for you . . . you can take comfort in the
fact that I would be using it, rather than see it collect dust on your
bookshelf.


They should have done something earlier...

They never had the money, nor market share, nor profits to increase the
development pace of large chip digital imaging. I think they would have been
better off making film scanner bundles with the cameras, since at least that
would have shown a digital imaging direction some people miss recognizing.
Anyway, I do think it is already too late for a turnaround, and expect some
companies to disappear entirely, without even a name to continue.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

What would it take for China and India to have similar access rates to pro
quality MF gear for amateurs and pros as the rest of the world?

Since Hasselblad's intro, we have had 50+ years of pro MF cameras sold
mainly into the free world, with most going to USA/Europe/Japan, fewer to
S. America (exclusionary tariffs until recently) and Africa/Asia. I'm
ignoring the Soviet/Post-USSR block, and the Kiev-related production here.
I'm not counting seagull TLRs or folders either, nor used pre WWII MF etc.

We have sales figures around 50,000/yr for japanese made MF/LF, perhaps
40k/yr (1999) for japanese MF, to which we need to add Hasselblad and
Rollei etc. So 50,000/yr would seem to be a conservative estimate for
annual sales of pro MF cameras, more in peak years (1975-85) less before
and after.

So 50 years of production at 50K/yr is 2.5 million pro MF cameras as our
estimate. Of the 6 billion in the world, subtract out 2 billion+ for China
and India. So we are estimating 2.5 million pro MF for 4 billion folks, or
0.625%, or one pro MF camera for every 1,600 persons. Actually, much of
the world is also tariff walled (cf. Brazil), and probably we are closer
to one pro MF camera per 1,000 people?

So how many pro MF cameras would it take for China and India to end up
with similar density to the rest of the world, at 1 per 1,600 persons
(here including all countries in Africa, Asia, S. America with USA/Europe
and Japan, so not just rich country estimation)?

Yep, one and a quarter MILLION pro MF cameras would be needed. ;-)

If China/India take the same 50 years to acquire MF cameras as we did,
they still have to buy 25,000 pro MF cameras per year to get there too ;-)

And of course, many of those third world and former CSSP satellites are
now also emerging into the world economy.

Okay, maybe they aren't going to achieve our level of pro MF camera
ownership for sundry reasons. But I don't think 10,000 MF camera sales/yr
is impossible in such a large emerging market. If the projections and
estimates are right, then China will emerge as the one of the world's top
three leading economies in several decades. What if MF camera ownership in
China and India parallels that in Japan? Wow! ;-)

Again, MF is a niche market, but that also means it won't take much in the
way of new markets with unmet demands to have a big impact on sales.

The key issue, as QGdeB points out, is whether these sales coupled with
any "digital backlash" will be enough to restore the market demands for MF
gear. I am also pessimistic in the short to mid-term, and think we will
lose some more players and options (pentax 67, bronica etr...). But I
think there will be survivors over the long term, and perhaps new
entrants and more diverse products, just as with LF currently?

With Hasselblad HQ'd in China, and Mamiya making low cost 645E MF pro gear
and lenses there, it seems possible that the hereto high costs of MF may
drop significantly. This would be pretty helpful for many markets in Latin
America, where lower tariffs alone may not be enough. If mamiya/USA can
sell 645E in the USA, with heavy (costly) advertising, at circa $750, then
you have to suspect the same cameras could be sold in China (where they
are made) for under $500 (without mamiya/usa's substantial markups etc.),
and perhaps in other markets for similar prices. That would be within
reach of many more buyers than a currently priced Hasselblad kit with 20%
WTO tariffs added on ;-)

The USA has over 57,000 pro full-time photographers per USDept Labor stats
IIRC for the latest period. This is down from 100,000+ in the 1980 period.
(Wolfman report). But I doubt China has half as many full-time pros as the
USA, at 30K or so per Gordon's estimate. I would expect rather more per
million population, because so many folks don't have cameras to have their
portraits (a big factor in ancestor focused religions and societies), you
can't rely on overseas stock agencies and related infrastructure issues.

As an example, China has two oil companies with over a million employees
in each, plus many other oil enterprises. The USA entire oil industry is
much smaller, but produces far more output per employee. I would be
surprised if similar dynamics don't apply elsewhere. This is one reason
why overall efficiency is relatively low. And politically, it is critical
to provide jobs to people so they won't cause trouble, yes? So I will bet
there are lots of marginal photography positions filled with employees who
are scheming to figure out how to get their enterprise (over 100,000 state
owned agencies control 85% of chinese economy) to buy them a nice
Hasselblad outfit ;-) Just like here ;-)

grins bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi Mike,

if you want data sheets on the film, you can get that from most of the
film mfgers web sites. I have cited a number of film resolution limits in
my recent postings based on these figures, and they are consistent with
Zeiss' claims (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html for charts etc.)

If you want data on zeiss lenses, you can get that from the sellers, e.g.,
Hasselblad's website with MTF charts and lens specs as for example:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/Archive...wnloads_files/
Productsheets/CFE250Sa.pdf for CFE250 SA lens by zeiss etc.

the key point about the zeiss images is that they were taken of real world
subjects under typical photographic conditions (sunlight exposures, film
lab processing, etc.) rather than under laboratory conditions, a criticism
which David L. correctly makes about some of my arguments ;-) But my
arguments are rather conservative (viz. 28 MP for velvia when the film
resolution specs and Zeiss real-world tests both suggest 88 MP is
possible). ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

In article ,
"MikeWhy" wrote:

Take marketing hype for what it is, and leave it for what it isn't. I have
not seen credible evidence of a sizeable performance gap between film and
digital capture.

Except that Velvia & E100vs blow away all the digital capture I've seen,
and you don't have to spend hours twidling with the computer to
determine which exposures are good,....lay um out on the light box
and chuck all the bad ones,.....times money. If your exposing correctly
your chucking less.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
the key point about the zeiss images is that they were taken of real world
subjects under typical photographic conditions (sunlight exposures, film
lab processing, etc.) rather than under laboratory conditions, a criticism
which David L. correctly makes about some of my arguments ;-) But my
arguments are rather conservative (viz. 28 MP for velvia when the film
resolution specs and Zeiss real-world tests both suggest 88 MP is
possible). ;-)

I only found the lab test film table. What's the link to the "real world"
film tests?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:40:40 GMT, Fil Ament
wrote:


Except that Velvia & E100vs blow away all the digital capture I've seen,


In what way? Saturation beyond reason or
belief?

Don't I recall you suggesting that we stick to
"objective reality" in a recent post?

And then to lavish praise on these two films,
in particular? Get serious.


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

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
...
"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
the key point about the zeiss images is that they were taken of real
world
subjects under typical photographic conditions (sunlight exposures, film
lab processing, etc.) rather than under laboratory conditions, a
criticism
which David L. correctly makes about some of my arguments ;-) But my
arguments are rather conservative (viz. 28 MP for velvia when the film
resolution specs and Zeiss real-world tests both suggest 88 MP is
possible). ;-)

I only found the lab test film table. What's the link to the "real world"
film tests?

There aren't any. In the real world people use wide angle lenses, stop down
for DOF*, open up to blur the background. 30 lp/mm at decent contrast is
what you get if you are very very lucky. Film MTF is 50% at 40 lp/mm.

*: Note that if you need more than a few mm of DOF, you are looking at
really lousy resolution.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:40:40 GMT, Fil Ament
wrote:


Except that Velvia & E100vs blow away all the digital capture I've seen,


In what way? Saturation beyond reason or
belief?

Don't I recall you suggesting that we stick to
"objective reality" in a recent post?

And then to lavish praise on these two films,
in particular? Get serious.

Yes well I would expect that to be the sole thread and attribute
you would gasp at. How about grain structure? Which was my
premise. The two films do have lots of saturation, they also scan&
publish well ;-) I know from experience. As for objective reality
thats for discussion, not perhaps for the artwork.

And I wouldn't say Velvia was way beyond belief.....E100vs IS very
saturated, probably more so than Velvia & which Velvia was I refering
50 or 100F ? Thanks for looking for the op to jump my ****. Maybe I'll
return the favor.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:25:26 GMT, Fil Ament
wrote:


Yes well I would expect that to be the sole thread and attribute
you would gasp at. How about grain structure? Which was my
premise. The two films do have lots of saturation, they also scan&
publish well ;-) I know from experience. As for objective reality
thats for discussion, not perhaps for the artwork.


In general, chromes, and in particular, contrasty chromes,
are more difficult to scan than any color negative film.

Or let's just say that it takes a good scanner and a
skilled operator to capture the 3.5+ decades of contrast
on a good slide. If you're using color management you'll
want to use a particularly large color space, at the very
least AdobeRGB.

So I wouldn't claim that slides "scan well" at least not
from personal experience, compared to the obvious
alternative of print films.

Grain structure of Velvia? None that I can discern, but
then I'm not Dave L. I cut my teeth on Tri-X and Accufine.

When I look at digicam pix or scans from chromes, I
have to suspend my disbelief in the lack of grain... it
just doesn't look right G. OTOH, Reala suits me fine.


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