Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

Gordon Moat wrote:

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.

Well, we disagree.

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?

Who's suggesting it must be? There's just an inherent danger in having a
small customer base.
In a small volume market, what few people do in terms of buying decision has
a large impact.
And companies are smaller too. And not proportionally smaller. A reduction
in sales volume of, say, 5% will hit a small firm much harder that it would
a large firm.

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.

Well, give Sony a push that will throw Linhof, and Sony will not even
notice...

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.

Yes. It could sell not because they make cameras, but because they make
fashion accessories.
Quite possible. But never (!) profitable.
It's like advertising budgets: everybody knows the money send is never
recovered. But when you're a giant supermarket chain you won't even notice
the money isn't thgere anymore. But you don't see small "corner stores"
spend anything even approaching comparable (i.e. relative) amounts on
advertising. They just can't afford the luxury.
Hasselblad made sure they are now part of a comany that can, and hopefully
is willing too, take a knock without shutting the company down. But, if
things go wrong as they well might, for how long?

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.

They tried clocks, haven't they? ;-)

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?

Yes. I guess any company that resets its goals, reorganizes according to
where their customers are going, and aims to meet the new market, in time,
will be able to survive.
So Rollei may end up being a company wholy devoted to selling the in-phone
digital cameras Bob seems to like so much. ;-)

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?

Where is the limit? You'd have to know more than anyone can know to make an
authoritative statement about that.
But i really doubt the MF industry could survive on 25% of its current diet.
And i'm 100% sure it can't in the present shape and form: some brands will
have to vanish, others find additional income, others merge.

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.

You know, i really do share that hope! ;-)
(And before hell beaks loose: no, this is neither a pro- nor anti-american
sentiment. It's just the enjoyment of all those other things that still
exist too. Diversity. You can't help but love it.)

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. ;-)

But paperless typewriters they are...
It's those rotten printers that spew out paper faster than it can be
produced.
;-)

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.

Or a Panasonic plastic lens in a camera badged Leica... ;-)
Fuji was Leica's preferred digido partner, before they teamed up with
Hasselblad and produced that panorama-Leica, the XPan.
Perhaps partnering with Fuji will produce surprising new "Hasselblad"
products too. Perhaps some 3 MP compact digicams.
Hasselblad also worked with phone giant Ericcson in the H1 project. So
perhaps a Hasselblad camera-pho is not too strange a thought? I bet it will
produce a few extra pixels, poking out of the image's left side at two well
chosen places. ;-)

So perhaps the Hasselblad P&S is soon to appear. [...]

Ah! You were ahead of me!

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? [...]

Rollei does make those gadgets. Yes.
But it's not "core business". They still see themselves as MF manufacturer.
And they (like a few other) will, i bet, be inclined to throw in the towel
when it turns out that all they can keep producing is digital P&S.

[...] . . . we shall see.

That's right. Rather sooner than later too.

Hi,

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

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.

I'm talking about people buying new digital stuff, whether or not
they can still get a buck for their MF stuff.
Some even have given up the idea that they might see a single penny in
return for their obsoleted MF equipment at all. Their decision was
"too late" they say. I see that happening around me a lot.
People remember the demise of 35 mm. Many were left holding rather
expensive 35 mm cameras impossible to get rid of unless abandoned
behind some tree in a quiet part of some distant wood on a dark and
moonless night.

Ay yi yi! I'm glad I'm not on *that* side of the world! As it is, my Leica
lenses have actually been *appreciating*.

So i guess the thing i mean is the first of your options, but without
the "we just do it so we can raise some money by selling MF gear"
stipulation. ;-)

If they're hanging on to their MF, I bet they'll be back to shooting with
it for at least some types of work.

I'm sure that Sinar is also not selling in numbers that compare with
Nikon. Are they worried? I doubt it.

Oh, yes they are!
Have you not noticed what they have been doing the last 10 - 20 years
already?

If you mean charging incredible prices for their cameras, then I noticed.
;-)

They tried to find something to do to their cameras that would cach
people's eyes, hoping to keep ahead of a shrinking market.
They even let Colani design the LF-camera of the future. It looked
weird. What;s more, you could not take photo's with it, let alone
have movemenets etc. They finally designed a computerized LF camera.
Oh, and they did feel the need to play along and produce a tiny thing
of the "X-Acto"/FlexBody/"what-have-you" class when that "wave" came.
The wave has past.

All these attempts to do something to keep the market alive failed.
All their "new inventions" have disapperaed again. Now they abandoned
LF photography (yes, they still sell LF cameras. When asked) and set
their hopes on (wait for it...) digital and mirror housings that can
go between their digital back and 35 mm format lenses.

Bye, bye LF... leaving Sinar worrying their socks of.

We'll see how it all plays out. I don't see a lot of alternatives to LF...
certainly not digital.

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. [...]

That's what i'm saying all along.
So let me repeat another bit: if small format digital will eat MF
digital back manufacturer's lunch, MF camera manufacturers will
starve too.
And the moment somebody's lunch will be pinched by someone else is
upon us. It is now, not next year, not next month, now that MF
digital back manufacturers must react.

And that's the length and breadth of it.

As I see it, the notion of a digital MF back may have less merit than
people thought. I know I have changed my opinion about it, and not just
because of the economic factors. Consider that direct digital imaging is
still on the steep part of the development curve, where niche markets make
little sense w/r/t the need to generate development dollars. Only the mass
markets can produce the kind of capital required. Also, robust
large-volume portable storage is another requirement of MF direct digital,
and so far, it doesn't really exist. So, it may be sheer suicide for MF
digital back makers to rush products to market. Then, there's that
"digital lens" issue...

It seems to me that the best use of MF is pretty much opposed to the
benefits of direct digital imaging. MF is not fast. MF is not "convenient"
in the small format sense. And, MF is about maximizing image quality for
images of a particular size, which often means that a lot of ancillary
equipment is used on MF shoots. Are you suggesting that jobs warranting
this extra effort and attention to detail will just disappear, and if so,
why?

Regards,

Neil Gould

Neil Gould wrote:

Ay yi yi! I'm glad I'm not on *that* side of the world! As it is, my Leica
lenses have actually been *appreciating*.

Must be because they are Leica lenses. ;-)

If they're hanging on to their MF, I bet they'll be back to shooting with
it for at least some types of work.

Wel, no.

That's what this discussion is about: even those who bought a 35 mm format
based digicam to replace their 35 mm film only find themselves using that
thing more and more instead of (!) their MF too.

MF actually is losing to 6+ MP 35 mm based digicams...
Wake up, MF! Or enjoy your well deserved eternal rest six feet below...

If you mean charging incredible prices for their cameras, then I noticed.
;-)

No. I mean doing insane things to their basically perfect (there's that "P"
in the name of these things) cameras.

We'll see how it all plays out. I don't see a lot of alternatives to LF...
certainly not digital.

I do.
I know quite a few photographers (and art directors) who don't bother using
movements much because it's so easy to "fake it" in Photoshop. So give them
a digicam that produces plenty pixels (and they're being handed out right
this moment), and they won;t bother with those heavy, awkward things again,
ever.

As I see it, the notion of a digital MF back may have less merit than
people thought. I know I have changed my opinion about it, and not just
because of the economic factors. Consider that direct digital imaging is
still on the steep part of the development curve, where niche markets make
little sense w/r/t the need to generate development dollars. Only the mass
markets can produce the kind of capital required. Also, robust
large-volume portable storage is another requirement of MF direct digital,
and so far, it doesn't really exist. So, it may be sheer suicide for MF
digital back makers to rush products to market.

The one thing that speaks in favour of a digital back is that it helps
protect the investment in MF gear. With affordable digibacks, there is no
real need for us to give up MF equipment yet.
But still, present digital backs ask from us to accept to be tethered, to
haul heavy MF equipment, large MF lenses, and still produce no "more" image
than a lighter and smaller 35 mm based thingy would give us...
And then there indeed is that economic factor. ;-)

And (still only in theory) larger sensors can produce more pixels (In
theory, because even the 35 mm based Kodak SLR/n produces just as much
pixels as those pricy MF backs manage).

Then, there's that
"digital lens" issue...

Yep. We need extra high resolution, *and* have a "low pass" filter (in my
days, the old man said, such a thing was called a softener) in front of the
sensor.

It seems to me that the best use of MF is pretty much opposed to the
benefits of direct digital imaging. MF is not fast. MF is not "convenient"
in the small format sense. And, MF is about maximizing image quality for
images of a particular size, which often means that a lot of ancillary
equipment is used on MF shoots. Are you suggesting that jobs warranting
this extra effort and attention to detail will just disappear, and if so,
why?

Yes, for all the reasons already discussed.
Do i like it? Now there's quite a different matter...

Hi,

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
If they're hanging on to their MF, I bet they'll be back to shooting
with it for at least some types of work.

Wel, no.

That's what this discussion is about: even those who bought a 35 mm
format based digicam to replace their 35 mm film only find themselves
using that thing more and more instead of (!) their MF too.

I think that once the novelty aspect wears off, and they're looking at the
images they shot years ago with MF side by side with their digicams, only
the most jaded photographers are going to shrug off the loss of quality.

MF actually is losing to 6+ MP 35 mm based digicams...
Wake up, MF! Or enjoy your well deserved eternal rest six feet
below...

It's a bit of a stretch to say that MF is *losing* to digicams. People
don't typically buy bunches of midrange to high-end equipment on a daily
basis. If they already have MF, then it's only logical that the current
trend is to buy digicams. But, I don't see these as competing media, in
the same sense that digicams and P&S cameras compete.

We'll see how it all plays out. I don't see a lot of alternatives to
LF... certainly not digital.

I do.
I know quite a few photographers (and art directors) who don't bother
using movements much because it's so easy to "fake it" in Photoshop.

They must be nearly blind. That practice would make me wonder why they
needed LF in the first place.

So give them a digicam that produces plenty pixels (and they're being
handed out right this moment), and they won;t bother with those
heavy, awkward things again, ever.

It sounds like the best decision for them. But, they sound more like
digital novices to me. I don't think they're typical of LF shooters.

The one thing that speaks in favour of a digital back is that it helps
protect the investment in MF gear. With affordable digibacks, there
is no real need for us to give up MF equipment yet.

Based on what you're presenting, I'd have to say that we should all dump
our gear now! ;-)

I'll continue to shoot MF film, and have given up on any notion of buying
a digital back. Even if there was a 64 MP back for $2k, it would not be of
great interest to me (yeah, I'd buy it anyway). I just don't think that
the benefits of digital are well-matched to the benefits of MF.

It seems to me that the best use of MF is pretty much opposed to the
benefits of direct digital imaging. MF is not fast. MF is not
"convenient" in the small format sense. And, MF is about maximizing
image quality for images of a particular size, which often means
that a lot of ancillary equipment is used on MF shoots. Are you
suggesting that jobs warranting this extra effort and attention to
detail will just disappear, and if so, why?

Yes, for all the reasons already discussed.
Do i like it? Now there's quite a different matter...

So... are you going to stop shooting MF film? If not, why not?

Neil

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

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.

Well, we disagree.

Okay, I can accept that. Simple enough, we disagree.



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?

Who's suggesting it must be? There's just an inherent danger in having a
small customer base.

Your statement above, and other statements, imply volume for success. Yes, I
understand large companies can be flexible, or research in many directions. I
have also seen small companies that can be innovative, though obviously they
will not employ many people.


In a small volume market, what few people do in terms of buying decision has
a large impact.

Very true. I have read some lamenting at the Hermes Leica, the MP, and other
more style exercises. They (Leica) recently announced a build to order program,
aimed mostly at the camera finish choice. Clearly this is heading towards
luxury boutique markets. Hasselblad and Rollei may be close behind.


And companies are smaller too. And not proportionally smaller. A reduction
in sales volume of, say, 5% will hit a small firm much harder that it would
a large firm.

Sure, lots of layoffs. If they loose the talented engineers, then all that is
left is the old products. Some companies are likely to shut down in that
environment, and probably soon.



. . . . . . . . . . .


Hasselblad has a name, and could become a niche luxury product.

Yes. It could sell not because they make cameras, but because they make
fashion accessories.
Quite possible. But never (!) profitable.

Actually, we differ in that regard, since I have seen many luxury products that
were produced at a profit. However, none of these things are high volume. In
fact, limiting the volume can add to the exclusiveness, the price, and the
profits. The Swiss Chronograph industry is a good example, even if much was
bought out by ETA, who also control Swatch.


It's like advertising budgets: everybody knows the money send is never
recovered. But when you're a giant supermarket chain you won't even notice
the money isn't thgere anymore. But you don't see small "corner stores"
spend anything even approaching comparable (i.e. relative) amounts on
advertising. They just can't afford the luxury.

I have a great deal of information in luxury markets and luxury products
advertising. It is a very interesting world, and does not operate in the same
manner as more readily available consumer products. Obviously, this realm is
often out of the view of the general public, though some brands have the name
recognition outside the luxury only realm.

I think Hasselblad could do that, though obviously with a much smaller company.
The fact the Fuji is doing so much for Hasselblad now shows their name has
value as a brand, and may be the sole reason their former distributor acquired
controlling interest in Hasselblad.


Hasselblad made sure they are now part of a comany that can, and hopefully
is willing too, take a knock without shutting the company down. But, if
things go wrong as they well might, for how long?


It could be that the only Hasselblad camera production occurs at Fuji, with the
H1 and Xpan becoming the only product lines. This would then be badge
engineering trading solely on the Hasselblad brand name. At that point, it
becomes a luxury product, and is likely to never return to a larger market,
unless they start making digital P&S cameras (like Rollei).


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.

They tried clocks, haven't they? ;-)

Yeah, surprised they haven't done sunglasses yet, though Zeiss has the optics
name over Hasselblad recognition. The fitted leather bags for their cameras are
already hinting at the shift to luxury only products.



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?

Yes. I guess any company that resets its goals, reorganizes according to
where their customers are going, and aims to meet the new market, in time,
will be able to survive.
So Rollei may end up being a company wholy devoted to selling the in-phone
digital cameras Bob seems to like so much. ;-)

Sure, I think any day now, we should be seeing Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Rollei, and
Leica branded lens design (or just branding) on camera phones. I think it is
only a matter of time. Would anyone buy a Hasselblad phone? ;-)



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?

Where is the limit? You'd have to know more than anyone can know to make an
authoritative statement about that.

Okay, that was an unrealistic question for this discussion. However, I bet some
medium format company executives are wondering about what constitutes a viable
market.


But i really doubt the MF industry could survive on 25% of its current diet.
And i'm 100% sure it can't in the present shape and form: some brands will
have to vanish, others find additional income, others merge.

On that we agree. I think we will see some companies disappear. Fuji has mostly
discontinued camera production, with only a few exceptions. It would not
surprise me if Pentax and Bronica have already stopped producing some products,
and are just selling remaining stock. Kyocera basically controls Contax, and
might continue the 645 line just for the prestige product appearance. Rollei
could place the 6000 line as a special order only, and I think the small
success of their TLR line indicates a niche market for Rollei is already
established (though there biggest revenue is compact cameras). Which leaves
Hasselblad without too clear a direction . . . yet.

Mamiya is really the only fighter, but with all the advertising recently, they
might become a known brand. Whether they could transition to luxury product
status is tough to determine. They might become the largest volume medium
format company (with largest market share), if they are not already.



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.

You know, i really do share that hope! ;-)
(And before hell beaks loose: no, this is neither a pro- nor anti-american
sentiment. It's just the enjoyment of all those other things that still
exist too. Diversity. You can't help but love it.)

Oh, I agree. Despite that I am German, I have lived for quite a while in the
US. My statement was not meant to be anti-American, though like you I enjoy the
diversity of other places. Some of that diversity has disappeared in some US
cities, which is unfortunate.

. . . . . . .

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.

Or a Panasonic plastic lens in a camera badged Leica... ;-)

Yeah! It is coming, and I will not be too surprised when it happens.


Fuji was Leica's preferred digido partner, before they teamed up with
Hasselblad and produced that panorama-Leica, the XPan.

Yeah, bet that did not make Leica management too happy.


Perhaps partnering with Fuji will produce surprising new "Hasselblad"
products too. Perhaps some 3 MP compact digicams.
Hasselblad also worked with phone giant Ericcson in the H1 project. So
perhaps a Hasselblad camera-pho is not too strange a thought? I bet it will
produce a few extra pixels, poking out of the image's left side at two well
chosen places. ;-)

So perhaps the Hasselblad P&S is soon to appear. [...]

Ah! You were ahead of me!

Rollei has shown the path for future profits, and to a smaller extent, so have
Leica. Just makes sense that Hasselblad would consider going a similar
direction. Of course, that might drive the new camera (medium format) prices
even higher, since they would become high prestige, niche only, products.



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? [...]

Rollei does make those gadgets. Yes.
But it's not "core business". They still see themselves as MF manufacturer.

Though the funny thing is that looking at their revenue figures, those gadgets
generate the bulk of profits. While they may chose to define their technology
emphasis to assert themselves as a medium format company, that sort of
statement seems like one of more a historical reflection.


And they (like a few other) will, i bet, be inclined to throw in the towel
when it turns out that all they can keep producing is digital P&S.

I don't see it as all or nothing, so I guess that is largely where we differ. I
see medium format cameras surviving as a niche product, much like large format.
However, if the film is no longer produced for these cameras, then they will
become nice things to stick on a shelf, and no more new sales.



[...] . . . we shall see.

That's right. Rather sooner than later too.

Maybe, but I see a change, rather than an extinction. ALPA is not high volume,
nor high profit, yet they are still in business. Cosina bought the rights to
the Voigtländer name, and I think other companies may buy into older brands to
get those names.

One thing that would be nice if your extinction prediction is correct is that
used medium format should drop to really low prices, like a slightly used
Hasselblad with normal lens for under $US 300, Mamiya RZ67 for $200, Rollei
6008 for $250, Bronica anything for $100 . . . . . maybe I should start looking
at those Estate Sales . . . . . . .

Ciao!

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

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:11:35 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


I'll continue to shoot MF film, and have given up on any notion of buying
a digital back. Even if there was a 64 MP back for $2k, it would not be of
great interest to me (yeah, I'd buy it anyway). I just don't think that
the benefits of digital are well-matched to the benefits of MF.


If you mean digital backs for MF, for sure.

OTOH, I see no problem scanning MF or LF.
Right now, that's pretty much the best of all worlds.

My Nikons have been pretty idle lately, I just
can't bear the hassles of shooting & scanning
35 mm when I compare against effortless 10D
captures.

If I get a "winner" with the 10D, I have to accept
that its overall value won't be the same as if I'd
captured it on 645 or 4x5. OTOH, with the 10D
there are just that many more opportunities and
possibilities and images to choose from.


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

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:11:35 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

I'll continue to shoot MF film, and have given up on any notion of
buying a digital back. Even if there was a 64 MP back for $2k, it
would not be of great interest to me (yeah, I'd buy it anyway). I
just don't think that the benefits of digital are well-matched to
the benefits of MF.

If you mean digital backs for MF, for sure.

Yes, that's what I was referring to in my comment.

OTOH, I see no problem scanning MF or LF.
Right now, that's pretty much the best of all worlds.

Exactly what I wrote in another post a while back. We're on the same page,
here.

If I get a "winner" with the 10D, I have to accept
that its overall value won't be the same as if I'd
captured it on 645 or 4x5. OTOH, with the 10D
there are just that many more opportunities and
possibilities and images to choose from.

From the sound of it, you've substituted the 10D for your Nikons, in terms
of the kind of photographs you are shooting with it.

Regards,

Neil

actually, Carver Mead is Mr. CMOS and Mr. VLSI, see for example, awards:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...ectAchiev.html
or http://www-cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ne...AMPresent.html

and physics is physics

;-)

bobm

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

The repairability issue Gordon raises is a double-edged sword IMHO. You
can take a broken mechanical part to a machinist and get another one made,
if at a high price. A donor camera or two can supply parts for many camera
repairs. Most mechanical cameras only need CLA and a few minor parts
(springs, foam..) to be good for another 20 years or so of amateur use ;-)

My feeling is that the labour costs will be more than any parts. So what I
meant by my statements was that the individual would need to substitute
themselves for the labour. This is another learning curve that only a few
will achieve successfully.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

By contrast, proprietary chips used in many electronic cameras means they
are unrepairable and unsupported as soon as the supplies of chips runs
out. And for digital cameras, I have found that it quickly costs more to
repair a 2 or 3 year old (Kodak) digital camera than it would cost to buy
a working replacement on EBAY, or an even better current model with higher
resolution ;-)

I think that with the higher end Kodak digital SLR bodies, many of those had
shutter failures die to heavy usage. While I imagine that chips fail, or
develop dead cells (like some LCD displays), I thin a bigger issue might be
software support. Already, Kodak offers that on their newest digital SLRs and
digital backs, but how long would they really support an older product.



I think film will continue to be available in 120 format for my lifetime
anyway, but in fewer emulsions. We may have to have it scanned to print or
display.

Very likely true, maybe in boxes from China. I see nothing wrong with
scanning, or digital printing, except for B/W.



If larger size chips - both in resolution to 64MP or larger, and with
larger sites for lower noise, so MF format in size - become mass produced,
the costs could easily be significantly less than today's $20k digital
backs. Just as we now have organic LED displays at much lower costs for
cellphones, we could have some kind of organic photosensor array which
could also produce a cost breakthru.

Organic photosensor . . . sounds like colour film!

But at the density where 16 MP is on
a 22mm square die, as with Foveon's CMOS process devices, Carver Mead the
designer has noted that they are already being limited by the basic
physics (size of sensor area, light wavelength size, noise levels etc.).

Easier to control noise in CCDs, though CMOS is cheaper to produce. Perhaps
the Phillips seeming technology for LCD displays could be applied to stack
smaller chips into larger pads arrays. Of course, noise becomes more of an
issue as the chip size scales up more, though Imacon and a few others are
working one better ways to address that. Anyway, I think 48 MP might be a
more reasonable limit, and Sinar might reach that soon.


So a low noise 64MP sensor is rather more likely to be MF in size than
35mm in size. At that point, you need MF sized lenses to cover the image
(unless we get a "lenslet" breakthru there too) ;-)

Microlens technology? With CMOS, it is very necessary. With CCD, it might
also help, though another solution might be software within the device.
Again, Imacon is working on a few methods that address noise and other issues
largely through software and careful current control.


----

Personally, I think we are about to see the "digital bubble" burst. The
low cost of the volume consumer 5MP and above cameras doesn't leave a lot
of margin for stores and distributors, nor a lot for mfgers to use to prop
up R&D for high end low sales volume products. And for most consumers, I
am not sure that more than 4 or 5 MP is going to be needed for mostly
emailed photos and webphotos anyway, yes? ;-)

Sure, but I don't think many of those buyers were in the regular photography
market much prior to that. It might impact disposable film camera sales,
though so far the indications from sales volume is that it has not. Perhaps
that is odd, but I don't think the small digital P&S cameras get used like
film cameras. Many electronics retailers in California now have disposable
film cameras hanging on racks next to the printers, and next to the digital
P&S cameras; and they are definitely selling and needing to be restocked
often. So what does that tell you about usage?

So will the majority of
consumers stick with their paid-for digicams, or will they keep
"upgrading" and replacing them every 12 or 18 months as the digital sales
model now requires? ;-)

Mostly when they break, or the storage media is somewhat obsolete (floppy
disk cameras).

If they hold on to the good enough 4 and 5 MP
cameras, then the digital camera bubble seems ripe for bursting, yes? ;-)

Well, there is a whole new crop of somewhat small 8 MP cameras, and the
smaller cameras still seem to be the better sellers. I better qualify this by
mentioning that this is California, which is a manufactured materialistic
area/society/culture, so other areas may have different buying and usage
patterns. It might be better to look at what is happening in Japan.

Convenience and ease of use is in camera phones. Already large in sales
volume, they just need zoom lenses, some type of variable focus, and some
type of flash combined in one unit. When the combination becomes more common,
it will impact digital P&S camera sales.

Ciao!

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



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

On 25 May 2004 22:27:57 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

actually, Carver Mead is Mr. CMOS and Mr. VLSI, see for example, awards:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...ectAchiev.html
or http://www-cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ne...AMPresent.html

and physics is physics


I'm not saying Carver Mead isn't a very smart cookie, but
he's not the end-all of digital imaging. He's been pushing
a specific imaging technology that's been very slow to
catch on. The "promise" of Foveon technology (IMO) has
more to do with marketing hype than physics or physiology.

As for the physics...typical photosites are 6 to 8 um on a side,
as opposed to visible light with wavelengths in the range of
350-750 nm. More or less an order of magnitude difference
there, if my calculations are right.

The "physics" problem is one of noise, of collecting
enough photons, converting the photon flux linearly into
charge, and getting that charge down a long analog
shift register with negligible loss. Simple problem?
Not at all, but not (yet) dominated by the wavelength
of light.

I'd venture that CMOS & CCD sensors from Phillips, Sony,
Toshiba, NEC, Kodak and Canon have done far more to
advance digital imaging than National Semi's paltry
production of Foveon chips. (Equal credit would have
to be given to the technology of thermal and piezo
inkjet heads.)

I don't know how the image sensor pixel count trajectory
will look over the coming years or if Foveon technology
will ever catch on. There clearly are constraints from
many directions -- memory and processing requirements,
issues with semiconductor manufacture and die size, and
of course marketing factors, as others have pointed out.
The vast majority of camera owners don't really need
more pixels than what's relatively cheap and widely
available right now.

Digital imaging will need other technologies to catch
up and keep up. Eg., there's no need for 16 million
pixels to make a 4x6" print when our printers really only
have an effective contone resolution of, say, 250 dpi.

Those of us who want "more" may have to wait... or be
willing to pay hefty premiums. OTOH, we're familiar with
that situation, being from the MF world.


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