Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

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? ;-) ;-)

grins

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

The photos I have seen of MF production lines are pretty low tech by
today's standards; lots of pricey MF lenses are costly because they use
hand-picked and hand-labor assembly. The Pentax 67, as one example, dates
back decades, as does the hassy series, as does the rollei SLX/6k/SL66
series, as does the Rollei TLR (lots of decades there ;-), and even the
Bronica 645 and now discontinued MF SLR series go back 30 years. The new
hassy factory may be an exception.

Remember these MF kits are small volume lines, as my JCIA stats show, only
40-50k units per year worldwide for all japanese made MF camera
brands/models, only 50-100 per week worldwide on average, not exactly
"mass" producton lines, yes? ;-)

The big $$ investment in these lines are in specialized hand-tooling for
parts production etc. This is why there are so few major design changes,
and fewer format/configuration changes, in MF over the decades. It just
costs too much to re-do the major tooling. This tooling is design and
camera model specific (side panels for hassy 500 series, prism cover for
Pentax 67 etc.).

So I think the salvage value of such 25+ year old factory lines, much
used, is pretty minimal. Perhaps the optical machines could be recylced,
but again I bet most of that is going on the side of current lines for the
lens elements and coatings, and the major mechanics are being done on the
older equipment setups? Hard to see pentax making MF lenses in brass
machined mountings on the same line that turns out AF micromotor lenses
made of plastic and aluminum consumer zooms? ;-)

We might get a series of factory tooling buyers trying to keep parts and
cameras in production after the main supplier bowed out, like the Norita
66, Rittreck 66, and Warner 66 and Graflex/Norita 66 series see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/norita.html

I think it might be better, therefore,if the old lines do get sold off, so
that the buyers can continue to make short parts runs on the older
tooling, at high markups, to keep the older cameras repairable for users
and collectors, and perhaps even run off new collectible models (leica Ur
models? ;-)

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

What a great laugh, so the digital video types are shooting in super -16
_FILM_ to future proof their movies against changing and higher quality
digital formats? ;-) ;-)

I don't think that should be too surprising. The data rate for true HD
digital video is quite high. While editing is possible on desktop gear, it
can be painfully slow. Another option is renting an expensive editing suite,
sometimes with a well experienced editor.

Consumer level (prosumer?) video gear has somewhat marginalized the industry,
making expensive equipment investment, and frequent replacement, a dodgy
strategy. None in the industry want to chance being stuck with the previous
generation of gear when it is considered substandard. Also, considering the
lower pay scales for much video work, future re-sales are where it is at for
a proper scheme to insure some income.

Of course, I could explain quite a bit more, but this is a still photography
forum, so why bore everyone.

What does this say about shooting MF to future
proof our shots against future improvements in digital technology and 4000
line displays (which are going to make current 720x480 mini-DV quality
look rather sickly, yes? ;-) Maybe I should start exploring the
"panoramic" format in my mini-DV camera, which is like 16:9 or some such?

Interesting that prior to the Hasselblad XPan, there was not much popularity
in the panorama aspect ratio, except in motion imagery. Perhaps that long
rectangle aspect ratio is a direct, though judging by the size of a Horseman
6x12, Fuji 6x17, or Linhof 6x17, I doubt medium format answers this very
well. Perhaps a cut down 6x9 style camera might work better, though that is
very close to an XPan size.



some good tips esp. upcoming ultra-high definition video (4k lines@!)
;-) Somewhat related to the obsolescence issues, my local blockbuster is
getting out of VHS tape entirely, and the mgr is salivating at the
prospect that as soon as we all run out and replace our VHS tapes, they
will have "mandatory" A.D. 2006 switch to HDTV (per FCC regs, likely to be
stretched out IMHO though), which means we will all need to run out and
rebuy all our favorite films in HDTV format, and no doubt all over again
for the next higher definition format after that.

I think HDTV is still behind schedule, and might be pushed even farther into
the future. Regardless, it will be a standard. There may be a decade or more
before another greater resolution standard becomes more common, though niche
markets could be one direction for those ultra-high definition screens.



maybe I should buy some stock in Blockbuster instead of trying to buy
movies there? ;-)

Basically, I think the largest issue is piracy. The push to digital
projection has been stalled by piracy issues, and it is much tougher to
pirate actual film (other than sneaking a video camera into a theatre, and
filming the movie as it plays). So we get a scenario that film gets used in
the motion industry for a much longer time period, partially for future
proofing, partially for aesthetic reasons, and a little to minimize piracy
problems.

Super 16 is a different direction, though most of the newer cameras have
video assist. The idea is to get a video copy, either from the camera, or
afterwards at a processing facility for that, and edit the video. Then the
EDL (Edit Decision List) is exported with the video to make a final cut of
the film. The film can then be copied to larger 35 mm film, duped to standard
definition (SD) video for broadcast, or duped to HD.

However, I would not extend the continued need for motion films, especially
not Super 16, to any hope for an extended production run for medium format
films. With the still films, there is still the paper backing, and very
different spools. Also, most motion films are very different from still
films, so direct production is not readily apparent. The large 70 mm motion
film seems like a direct comparison, except it is a very low usage speciality
product, which I doubt affects medium format still film production at all.

Ciao!

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

given the view that digital is displacing MF sales (probably true, as I've
noted), I think the questions about MF future are tied to the future of
digital photography too, yes?

My point about cell phone cameras is that they will displace most of the
current digital camera using base, at 2 MP or so, including the 89% of
digicam users who do NOT make any prints. So only 11% of digicam owners
are doing any prints, including those who have kiosks print for them(!).
This is a very different view from what I see in the photo mags about
digital use and future, yes?

What we see as digital photography today will become a modest niche market
in a few years, as camera cell phones become the norm. That also means a
decline in sales and fervor as the masses who are supporting much of the
present "mania" happily switch to camera cell phones for direct uploading.

I mostly agree with this viewpoint.



Gordon's post makes the point that the MP of still digital cameras are
tied to the technology for digital video (and market demands thereof), and
that as displays reach 4,000 lines etc. the push will be on for higher
quality higher MP video, which might carry over into higher MP still
digital imagery.

Maybe, but the effect of motion blur actually works quite well at low
qualities. I would think that a technology effect would be better noise
control, or faster transfer rates inside the camera/device. On the chip end
of production, high end professional video is largely three chips, and I
don't see that happening again in still imagery digital, mostly because the
cameras would be physically too bulky.



This might be the "killer app" which I am seeking to justify 32 MP or even
64 MP sensors. Again, my expectation is that such larger 32/64 MP devices
would require larger optics (and larger sensor sites to reduce video noise
etc.?).

48 to 54 MP? I still think this might be a made to order item, though we
might see some "military surplus" sales in twenty years. ;-)



The reverse of the cell phone issue for digital DSLRs is the switch to
digital from 35mm film users; the lost sales make it more problematic that
film production for 120 and LF can continue without this mass market base.
Of course, the really, really big user of 35mm film stocks are the movies,
and there again, I have expressed my concerns if the film industry does
finally switch to direct digital bypassing film entirely, those thousands
of miles of film sales lost would be more devastating than the current
losses in consumer film sales due to changeovers to digital cameras.

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. :-(



Again, trying to understand these market dynamics has consequences, as
QGdeB implies, whether to stay invested in MF, or if film will continue to
be available, or if the digital bubble will burst, as I suggest, pushing
current 35mm equiv. DSLRs into a niche market, rather larger than MF but
not the all-encompassing goliath that many now envision? ;-)

There is still a power in still images that motion images just cannot inspire
in the viewer. More photojournalists are also carrying video gear, though
largely to increase saleable product for their employers. Anyone who has seen
the weight of gear some of these guys (and gals) carry into many parts of the
world, should see a market for really good video gear that allows nice still
images, and is fast and easy to use (not too bulky). Since I am taking a
guess that sports and photojournalism photographers are the largest user base
of professional direct digital SLR bodies, then that market could become a
bigger HD video market, but only if good stills capability was in the camera.

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. This might mean limited choices,
catalogue (internet) sales outlets, or even self processing, at some time in
the future. Take a deeper look at emerging third world economies (we have had
that discussion previously), then there is a potential non-Western market for
film and cameras.

Ciao!

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

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 ;-)

Smaller view cameras and software solutions are becoming more common. At some
point, the movement advantages of large format may disappear. With medium
format, there is the unfortunately high cost of flex body cameras, and shift
lenses. Once again, convenience rears it's ugly head.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, film is a creative choice.
There will continue to be photographers that will use film because they like
the results, and they are familiar with the effects. However, the same people
will likely also become expert at digital post production of those films, or
they may find themselves out of a profession.



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.

However, if you just look at the example of product photography, you find
clients satisfied with high volume and quick delivery. You might also find
that several of these companies have little prior photography experience, and
are largely in business due to spending lots of money on high end equipment .
.. . all of which can impress (wrongly) many clients.

Consumer practices never reflect enthusiast approaches. Any high end, or high
quality, product exists in a niche. Sure, that niche could disappear, but it
would be unlikely to be replaced by a consumer level ordinary product. Of
course, the user base could just get old and not have younger enthusiasts
getting into that same niche.



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.

I think you are wrong on this. They are just getting the profits as quick as
possible, and making each quarterly report look as good as it can appear.
Depreciation should not be an issue, since many people will accept it as part
of the myth that direct digital imagery is "free".



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

Simplicity, ease, and convenience . . . probably why disposable P&S film
cameras are still sold in large numbers, even in electronics stores. "You
take the picture, we do the rest" . . . though of course I noticed that some
VCR (DVD players) set the time themselves (no more blinking 12:00).



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?

Tough issues, and very different from the consumer level of thoughts. Already
there is a model of image optimization, or preparation for printing, that is
becoming a nice option for additional billing. One example is charging extra
for delivery as CMYK, rather than RGB. There are some other examples.

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?
;-)


I here that complaint too often. Unfortunately, there are also many clients
who want digital images, not understanding that film can provide digital
images on CD-R, or just thinking that newer is better. This is part of the
reason why being a professional often involves educating your clients. There
is also a bad concept of "just PhotoShop it later", which is even more
unfortunate.


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? ;-)


I think you really should separate the professional market, as well as
separating the professional from consumer markets. The issues really are
different, and combining some ideas in the same paragraph just looses impact,
and clouds the real issues.


. . . . . . . .

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 ;-)

Not really . . . I just think they will add camera phones.



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? ;-)

Probably for the immediate future. However, if disposable digital delivers
higher profits for the film companies than using disposable film cameras,
then that situation might change. Film is still very high profit, so this
might not happen.



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

No. Display considerations take a back seat to bandwidth limits. The maximum
usable file size that can be sent to someone else will dictate a functional
MP limit. This is why camera phones are such great sellers.



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

.. . . with an unfortunately smaller, and mostly old and getting older, user
base for medium format and large format. Without anything being done to
introduce MF and LF to younger enthusiasts and professionals, only 35 mm
might continue into the future.

Ciao!

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

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Bob Monaghan wrote:

I disagree with several points:

Good! ;-)

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.

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.


. . . . . . . . .

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.



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.

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. Even when I was getting most of my film converted to
Kodak Pro Photo CD, I never had an entire roll scanned. If I really needed to
have everything available for internet viewing, then maybe I might consider it,
but then that would mean I was not editing (selecting) properly. The majority
of the other professionals I know follow similar patterns, and rarely have an
entire roll scanned.


So what hidden costs? And learning digital post-processing is, buying
software, etc. is not something on the "to do" list.
And missing opportunities? Why, they'll have more time to take on new jobs.
That's potentially more income, not less.

Even six years ago, if you wanted to be a professional (in advertising or
editorial), it was almost a requirement to know PhotoShop (version 3 or 4
then), and understand commercial printing. This was a survival issue, since
rates where staying the same, or in some cases dropping. While there use to be
many Service Bureaux doing this, they have since become more scarce. Affordable
scanners also sped the demise, and did printing places that began to offer more
services.

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.

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.



Today, there is huge
depreciation which is ignored in evaluating the relative costs of digital
vs film.

Yes, i can see that may often be the case. But is it always ignored?

Good point, and I do think it is ignored by many. When people are used to their
computers ageing and dropping in value, a lower cost digital camera likely gets
little thought.


The same guy's sums said that he could afford to buy a new digicamera in the
same price range (who knows what you'll get for that money next year) at
least as often as once every two years. It would eat most if not all the
profits not buying and processing film produced. But with less times spend
scanning these films, time that could be spend doing mre productive
things...

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.



. . . . . . . .

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?
;-)

You know, times have changed already. Could photographers not so long ago
charge extra if the client wanted the images in digital form, the client now
demands to get CDs, and will actually pay less if you don't supply images in
digital form. After all, he needs digital files, so the images will have to
be scanned, and it costs him, the client, money to have them scanned.

Sure, an example is that I lowered my cost for scans (what I charge each
client). I make that up partially with image adjustments, higher resolution
scans, or extra manipulations.



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. 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.



. . . . . . . .

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?

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?


. . . . . . . .

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?


. . . . . . .

Ciao!

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

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:18:28 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:


. . . with an unfortunately smaller, and mostly old and getting older, user
base for medium format and large format. Without anything being done to
introduce MF and LF to younger enthusiasts and professionals, only 35 mm
might continue into the future.


My guess is that only the very low end of 35 mm will survive;
for those that don't want or can't afford a computer at home,
or just want to stick with the devil they've known for the last
fifty years or so.

My guess is that those who own a film SLR will most likely
go digital on their next serious camera purchase -- if they
haven't already. I've seen no sign of a backlash yet.

Have there been any breakthrough, milestone 35 mm
high-end (flim) SLRs introduced in the last several years?
How long has it been? The Nikon F5 was introduced in
1996. Most breakthroughs are in cost-reduced models,
eg. the N80 and N65.

For the forseeable future, film formats larger than 35 will
not be matched by affordable or practical digicams.
That's pro-level gear (almost by definition) and thus
subject to a very different market dynamic.

It'll be interesting to see how the various film and camera
manufacturers approach that market in the next few years.

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.


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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

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.

This is largely prior to direct digital P&S sales really taking off, and at
an early time when the Kodak DCS digital SLR was still very expensive. I
don't think your correlation works for the 1999 through 2001 time frame. Do
you have any 2002 or 2003 figures?

What is interesting about the 1999 through 2001 time period is that EBAY was
really taking off, and becoming well established. It makes the decrease in
new sales volume seem more likely due to excessive competition from used
medium format gear. Prior to EBAY, it was tough for many enthusiasts to even
find much used gear, and prices in the past were less proportionally
favourable than in 2001.



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?

Well, Fuji jas largely pulled out, with only a couple exceptions. Of course,
it might be considered that Fuji and Hasselblad have partnered on newer
projects, which makes the per weak number change. Add in Pentax, lots of used
gear on EBAY, and some lower prices on 645, then perhaps only 50 cameras per
weak might be the number. At that level, which companies want to make ten
cameras a day, and what workforce need could meet that number . . . this
suggests an even more specialized need, or more partnerships in the near
future.



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. :-(



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.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the impression I have always had of
medium format was that it was the camera of wedding photographers (at least
in North America). Since the "instant gratification" and fast turnaround
could be advantages for some wedding photographers, it seems only natural to
go direct digital. Add in the "photojournalist style" wedding imagery now
popular in the US for several years, and even 35 mm film suits that style
better.

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.

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?

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.



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.

Ciao!

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Neil

In article , wrote:

Smaller view cameras and software solutions are becoming more common. [...]

So true. I was reading Simmons' View Camera journal yesterday when I came
upon the ad for Calumet's Cambo 35 and at first I thought "What is a
miniature camera format doing in this book?" ... but silly me, the
magazine is about _view_ cameras, which are not necessarily large format.
A little future shock is good for the nerves. (But the platform sure
ain't small.)