Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

I disagree with several points:

a) I don't think digital will take over every photo niche over film; for
example, I think high quality portraiture may continue to be done on film
rather than 8 MP digicams, and architecture may be on sheet film with view
cameras just as it has for decades of cheaper MF and 35mm competitors ;-)

Digital photo's real strengths seem to be in speed (if uploading images to
the web, see camera cell-phone popularity) and convenience, but not
image quality or even total costs and skills required. As noted by PMAI
stats and user surveys, 89% of digicam owners NEVER print ANY images (!!!)
The skills needed to get good computer scans and prints are very different
from making good photo compositions etc.

b) The people who sell digital on lower costs fail to account for many
hidden costs, including the opportunity costs lost during photo
manipulations and learning software and so on. Today, there is huge
depreciation which is ignored in evaluating the relative costs of digital
vs film.

c) Is digital really more convenient than just dropping off your film at
the lab for scanning and printing (half-digital? ;-) ?

Is digital really cheaper than just billing your client for film and lab
costs? Maybe it _is_ cheaper for the client, but is it more profitable for
the pro photographer? Didn't they add overhead to film and printing costs
too? Are photographers doing extra hours of digital photo manipulation and
editing for free, because they can't raise their rates given they are
supposed to be saving so much $$ from using digital over "costly" film?
;-)

in short, I don't think digital is going to take over all film niches
anytime soon. I expect the opposite to happen. I expect folks who suddenly
realize their digicam is obsolete after 2 years, and now they have to
shell out major bucks for the new models, and new software and all that,
to start wondering if maybe things were better and cheaper with buying a
film SLR every decade or so? ;-)

If the archival problems now being forecast for low cost media, plus the
huge number of folks not doing any backups (per Fuji UK's study I cited),
then I expect a Backlash!!! against digital from folks who have lost their
treasured family digital photos and snapshots, yes? ;-) Most are just one
worm or crash away from digital photo amnesia now, right?

in short, I see the future of digital photography using mid-$ cameras and
MP sensors to be a niche market, with the masses using camera cellphones,
yes? But a film based MF camera line is easier to sustain over 25+ years
(see hassy 500cm, pentax 67 etc.) than a digital DSLR over 2.5 years
today, yes?

the anti-digital photography backlash will focus on:

a) digital's hidden costs will be more obvious as folks have to upgrade
again and again for little image improvement, and learn over and over
again too ;-)

b) digital's major cost savings, in large sized prints, will also be
available to scanned and printed film users, while a large fraction of
print makers will be film users, not the 89% PMAI stat digicam owners who
never make prints, right? ;-)

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

d) 177 million film cameras already in use can't be wrong - or ignored ;-)

....

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

yes, that's one reason I shoot a lot of slides in MF ;-) But seriously, if
ink remains a major cost, and ink costs drop significantly with new
printers, then the costs for 40x60" prints might be close to today's
11x14"? Then you and I will splurge for bigger prints, which have a lot
more impact (cf. Thomas Struth ;-)).

the bigger problem with large prints is you need MF/LF or similar levels
of image data to provide a good image, yes? This doesn't need to be a big
market, in digital terms, to be a big market in MF terms (only 50,000
units sold/year in 2001 etc.)...

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

In article , Raphael Bustin
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:55:34 GMT, "RSD99"

Excuse me ... but isn't this

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format ? ? ?


Right, so why does bobm typically start off these
threads bemoaning the popularity of cell phone
cameras? Who gives a whoop?

Bob's comments have a certain relevance as a point of departure. It
strikes me that you are the one who jumps when someone disrespects digial.
It seems you have a hidden agenda to promote or defend it.

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:57:26 -0500, (jjs)
wrote:

In article , Raphael Bustin
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:55:34 GMT, "RSD99"

Excuse me ... but isn't this

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format ? ? ?


Right, so why does bobm typically start off these
threads bemoaning the popularity of cell phone
cameras? Who gives a whoop?

Bob's comments have a certain relevance as a point of departure.

Maybe once, but bobm's done it any number
of times. I think bobm likes to stir up the pot.


It strikes me that you are the one who jumps when someone disrespects digial.
It seems you have a hidden agenda to promote or defend it.


Frankly, it doesn't mean diddly to me if you or
bobm shoot digital or not. I'm not out to evangelize
for digital, but find it annoying when mistruths and
innuendo are used in the debate, on either side.


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

In article , Raphael Bustin
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:57:26 -0500, (jjs)

It strikes me that you are the one who jumps when someone disrespects
digial.
It seems you have a hidden agenda to promote or defend it.


Frankly, it doesn't mean diddly to me if you or
bobm shoot digital or not. I'm not out to evangelize
for digital, but find it annoying when mistruths and
innuendo are used in the debate, on either side.

Fair enough, Raphael. I'm willing to level the rhetoric. My particular
stance is that digital has nothing to do with my peculiar interest in
film, MF and LF. I've said it. No need for any more of my comments.

Peace,
John

Bob Monaghan wrote:

yes, some good points. However, I think we already see a small market for
mechanical and simple electrical repair parts, such as the nikon resistor
used in many metering systems, from some experimenters who have developed
a replacement. There are 9V battery alternatives for the varta hassy ELM
battery. Springs can be substituted easily, and kits are available. My
guess is that people who learn to repair their own MF cameras, or learn
from manuals etc., will continue to offer repair services to others at
some price, and build their own stores of replacement parts. The reality
is that most pro cameras fail at some bad design weak point, in many
cases, so if you can replace that weak element, then you are okay.

There is a small and steady growth of repair services on EBAY. Much of it is
brand specific, though the prices look competitive enough. Of course, since I
used motorcycle restoration services to pay for much of my college courses, I
already have a hint of that concept. The problem was that only some brands
were worth fixing (due to reasonable labour rates), and I think the same
thing could happen with cameras.



I should add that I have considered that some electronic elements might be
replaceable with future substitute microcontroller devices, at least for
some of the simpler electronics, by reverse engineering the functionality.
An example might be the first autoexposure MF camera, the bronica ECTL
series, where the electronics are simple enough to be literally "Scoped"
out, and thus replicated on a simple reverse engineering replacement
board.

Soldering electronic components is a skill. Furthermore, it requires some
level of continuous practice to ensure good results.



On the other hand, the only source of shutter timing FRE flex circuits for
a nikon FE is another nikon FE, and that is one of the most common
elements to fail. The chips are proprietary, and the supply from nikon has
been used up.

Luckily, that was a large volume seller in the camera world. There are lots
of used replacement bodies, almost to the point of not needing to repair one.



But I do feel that the repairability of mechanical cameras, as
demonstrated by their long history to date, is much higher than today's
digital cameras, which are characterized by rapid obsolescence and
changes.

Gordon's point about changing software is very well taken; I have several
digital cameras I can't use on my newer XP PCs because they don't have the
right port cabling, and even if I hacked one up, there aren't software
drivers for them. The companies want to sell me newer models, obviously;-)

An OS upgrade relegated older Kodak capture software almost unworkable. I get
an error message when I start it, and some features do not work at all. I
suppose if I kept and old computer with the older OS, then that
incompatibility would not have happened.



The reverse is also true; I can't run my digital video mini-DV into
anything less than an XP or more recent system, even if the cables fit;
the software drivers really want to be in an XP environment including
video extensions ;-) If there aren't software upgrades with the next M/S
OS, then I guess I'll have to buy a new mini-HDTV digital camera and junk
my obsolete mini-DV camera? ;-)

Completely other realm, but I have also worked in video. A new 4000 line
monitor development, for future home theatre usage was announced recently.
Considering that is beyond even current HD, that already indicates that HD is
a transient technology.

DV and Standard Definition Video, have a large installed user base (end
users), while HD has little current market penetration. The surprising thing
of why we should consider the land of video at all, is that current still
camera digital imagery makes use of the chip technology of video. Another
consideration is that many production companies are switching to Super 16
film to try to "future proof" their content to match future even higher
resolution displays (beyond HD).



so it goes ;-)

By the way, the current miniHD cameras are just a little too early, and lack
some important low cost editing and infrastructure support. Save your money a
bit longer.

Ciao!

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

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

But how about the future? ;-)

Rollei will still be around, though I have no idea on where the price of
their
6000 series will go. Mamiya is trying hardest of all, and have a few
famous
names behind them, so they might establish enough brand recognition to
push
other lines (digital P&S, co-branding, who knows?) . . . maybe even a
partnership with Epson.

So that leaves Hasselblad . . . a great brand name, but what direction?
While
the boutique is nice, I doubt many know about it. Perhaps Lambretta is the
example for them. The famous name of the past no longer exists as
scooters, but
there is a successful clothing line. Placing the Hasselblad name to
something
else, increasing the name recognition, might be enough to continue camera
production. Sounds crazy, but could work.

I notice you're a Rollei man.

Well, I learned with a really ancient Rollei TLR that belonged to my family. I
also really like using a 6008i.


We Hasselbladians like to think that the H1 is the single most "direction
giving" thing that happened in MF lately. It outdoes the Contax and other
645 contenders in all aspects.

I have not seen one yet, though I have rented a Contax 645. While I did like
the Contax, I am a little cautious on praising the more expensive H1. I would
like to try one, but I will reserve judgement until then. Just to qualify this
a bit, I have rented and borrowed Hasselblad gear in the past, but never quite
liked the ergonomics, which might be why I like the Rollei 6000 system more.


So if there is a future for any of the current MF players, it is Hasselblad
leading the pack! Not Rollei with their quaint AF thing. Even less with
their retro-TLR (if anyone should like one (and why not indeed), they should
want a true 1950s-1960s one. One from the era in which TLRs at least could
claim to be king rooster in the hen house.)

Yeah, funny how people are buying new Rollei TLRs, and at such ridiculous
prices. I don't have much interest in autofocus, though I suppose if I was old
with failing eyesight, it might be a nice option.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Ciao!

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

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:10:16 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Bob Monaghan wrote:

On the other hand, the only source of shutter timing FRE flex circuits for
a nikon FE is another nikon FE, and that is one of the most common
elements to fail. The chips are proprietary, and the supply from nikon has
been used up.

Luckily, that was a large volume seller in the camera world. There are lots
of used replacement bodies, almost to the point of not needing to repair one.


'xactly. The price of a decent FE body on eBay about
equals what you'd expect for a CLA and/or minor repair.

Much as I love my old FE, I can't see sinking another
$120 into it, just not worth it. Now, a mint FE2 at that price
would be very tempting.

Seems sinful to have those old (and wonderful) manual
focus AI lenses just gathering dust.


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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

well, if you liquidate the MF mfgers, who will you liquidate them too?

The machines for production could be retooled for other non-photographic
products, or even other camera solutions. Equipment is equipment.


What element of those assets can be used to make modern digital cameras?

Lens production, or just optics would be one thing.


Or will they end up in third world low labor cost countries, still turning
out hasselblad-ski's ;-) /?/ ;-)

Sure, why not? There is already predicted to be a film and camera usage
explosion of interest in China. While camera phones will also be big items,
direct digital cameras are expected to be low volume due to limited computer
access. This is what emerging markets are all about, and we could write books
about these things.



this is the counter argument. Pentax has been using the basic tooling of
the Pentax 6x7 for decades. So is hasselblad with 500cm etc. models. Once
you pay for the R&D for lens and body design and build the tooling, it
costs very little to keep the production line going periodically
(semi-annual runs?), provided you have other lines to keep skilled workers
employed productively.

Sure, but how many workers, and for how long? Skilled labour is not often
easily replaced. Also, questionable labour skills could affect quality
control, which would affect sales.

Ciao!

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

actually, the JCIA stats for japanese branded (including foreign factory
made) MF and LF cameras a

MF/LF
1999 60,000
2000 50,000
2001 49,000

see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/economics.html#99

The big drop was in Japan, dropping from 25k in 1999 to 16k in 2000 or 36%
decline in one year (!). I suspect something similar is now hitting other
markets, including Europe, USA, and perhaps China soon? The drop is blamed
on digital camera sales diverting people from upgrading to MF from 35mm
etc.

Suppose that 49,000 MF and LF japanese mfg'd cameras are perhaps 40,000 MF
and 9,000 LF cameras worldwide sales. Brands include Fuji, Hasselblad/Fuji
(H1..), Rollei (japan factories?), contax/Kyocera, pentax, tamron/bronica,
and mamiya, among others. That's perhaps 5 or 6,000 cameras per brand,
worldwide, per year - roughly 100 per week. Just how much do sales have to
drop to make it non-economic to advertise and maintain a major production
line?

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?


Third, our demographics are aging fast. Few new MF users are entering to
buy new gear, and the pro ranks are declining in numbers too, so are
buying fewer MF kits too. 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. They have been "sold" on the high costs of film cameras
and the huge "savings" from buying a digital camera (ignoring many costs
and depreciation and time spent learning non-photo stuff etc. as I've
noted).

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?

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?

my $.02 ;-)

bobm

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