A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Used MF Prices --- I Should be Happy but not



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 16th 04, 01:39 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jjs wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

The main point of the post is how long will 120 film be made ? I don't
want to spend a 1000 dollars on equipment that I will not be able to get
film for
in two years or so.


Think of it this way, in 5 years your digital rebel will be worth maybe
$100
so what's the difference? And no 120 film isn't going to disappear in 2
years.


CORRECT! And I'll bet that digital Rebel will more likely be $25. There
will be bins of digital cameras at Goodwill just like there are bins of
old point-n-shoots now... if they will even take them!



Example, I just picked up a new old stock JVC mini DV video camera, 2 years
old originally MSRP was $1128, street price was $875, I just paid $165. Now
it's considered "Old school" and about 10% it's original price.
--

Stacey
  #22  
Old October 16th 04, 07:21 AM
MATT WILLIAMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Possibly true, however the replacement cameras that these future people will
be buying will be Digital not film based. As an example I am selling an old
lap top from six years ago for around $80 dollars on ebay. Unit works fine.
It cost my brother-in-law $2500 dollars new. He got a lot of use for work
and pleasure out of the unit. If my drebel will be worth only $25 dollars in
a few years and I got a lot of pleasure and use out of the unit then that is
okay. My Mamiya M645 with 80mm lens that I bought five years ago for $450
dollars is now worth about $250 to $275. It does not diminish my happiness
with buying the camera and all of the great shots (and some not so great)
that I have taken and will in the future take. The only fear I have is being
able to get film for it in the next decade. I remember when CD's first came
out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to
be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making
records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the
time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years.
There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different
titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished
greatly in the coming years.
"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

The main point of the post is how long will 120 film be made ? I don't
want to spend a 1000 dollars on equipment that I will not be able to

get
film for
in two years or so.


Think of it this way, in 5 years your digital rebel will be worth maybe
$100
so what's the difference? And no 120 film isn't going to disappear in 2
years.


CORRECT! And I'll bet that digital Rebel will more likely be $25. There
will be bins of digital cameras at Goodwill just like there are bins of

old
point-n-shoots now... if they will even take them!




  #23  
Old October 16th 04, 07:21 AM
MATT WILLIAMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Possibly true, however the replacement cameras that these future people will
be buying will be Digital not film based. As an example I am selling an old
lap top from six years ago for around $80 dollars on ebay. Unit works fine.
It cost my brother-in-law $2500 dollars new. He got a lot of use for work
and pleasure out of the unit. If my drebel will be worth only $25 dollars in
a few years and I got a lot of pleasure and use out of the unit then that is
okay. My Mamiya M645 with 80mm lens that I bought five years ago for $450
dollars is now worth about $250 to $275. It does not diminish my happiness
with buying the camera and all of the great shots (and some not so great)
that I have taken and will in the future take. The only fear I have is being
able to get film for it in the next decade. I remember when CD's first came
out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to
be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making
records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the
time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years.
There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different
titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished
greatly in the coming years.
"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

The main point of the post is how long will 120 film be made ? I don't
want to spend a 1000 dollars on equipment that I will not be able to

get
film for
in two years or so.


Think of it this way, in 5 years your digital rebel will be worth maybe
$100
so what's the difference? And no 120 film isn't going to disappear in 2
years.


CORRECT! And I'll bet that digital Rebel will more likely be $25. There
will be bins of digital cameras at Goodwill just like there are bins of

old
point-n-shoots now... if they will even take them!




  #24  
Old October 16th 04, 03:08 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, MATT WILLIAMS posted:
(much snipped)
Possibly true, however the replacement cameras that these future
people will be buying will be Digital not film based.

[...]

That presumes a lot about the place that digital cameras occupy in the
photographic world. As has been pointed out, photography hasn't eliminated
any other artform in well over a century of use. While we *presume* that
digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace
all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam
products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and
performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below. Those
specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so
the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest
cost rather than who can do better.

I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished
greatly in the coming years.

[...]

I suspect that your concern isn't over the number of choices of MF film,
as there are many more than you'd probably be willing to consider. Too
many for the market to support. Niche products are likely to be
discontinued as volume drops below a practical minimum. For example, if
one can manufacture more product in a short run than can be sold over the
course of years, only an irresponsible management would keep making it.
The longer you keep an inventory, the less profitable the product, among
other practicalities.

Regards,

Neil


  #25  
Old October 16th 04, 04:22 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Neil Gould"

While we *presume* that
digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace
all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam
products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and
performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below.


These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras that serious
photographers are comparing to medium format are the dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels)
and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally different animals than the 5 Mpix
point-and-shoots.

Those
specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so
the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest
cost rather than who can do better.


You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition
continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel model out
early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark II which will ship
in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix 4/3 model and since the sensor
is about 1/4 the size of the full-frame models you can extrapolate that
full-frame models from Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same
pixel pitch, so we're not done by a long shot.

All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm film (I
know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf. I've been testing
my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same scenes and making 16x20"
prints for comparison and while Velvia has better colors and a wider gamut and
I feel I get better big landscape prints from scanned film there's no doubt
that the digital files are good enough for many pro applications like product
shots (catalogs, etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide,
saturated color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but
anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film would likely
find digital appealing and that's where the high volume film sales come from.

Bill
  #26  
Old October 16th 04, 10:07 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Bill Hilton posted:

From: "Neil Gould"


While we *presume* that
digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really
replace all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass
market digicam products have stopped increasing the resolution at
around 5 mp, and performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and
below.


These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras
that serious photographers are comparing to medium format are the
dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels) and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally
different animals than the 5 Mpix point-and-shoots.

I wasn't referring to point-and-shoots, alone. Many dZLRs and dSLRs are in
the 5-8 mp range, and there doesn't seem to be any big rush to go beyond
that, even though the capability to do so has existed for quite a while.
Of course, for some applications the top-end dSLRs are viable alternatives
to MF. But, that's not to say that they match MF quality.

Those
specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to
buy, so the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product
at the lowest cost rather than who can do better.


You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition
continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel
model out early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark
II which will ship in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix
4/3 model and since the sensor is about 1/4 the size of the
full-frame models you can extrapolate that full-frame models from
Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same pixel pitch,
so we're not done by a long shot.

I agree with you, but, resolution isn't the only race in town! Pixel pitch
is only one dimension of an image, and for my money, it isn't the most
critical dimension for anything but enlarged prints. Then too, when I look
at the comparisons between film and digital, I'm often appalled by the
image aspects that many people seem to love.

All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm
film (I know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf.
[...]

Well, having used some of them, I still wouldn't trade my Leica SLR kit
for any of them. By comparison, the dSLR renditions look "flat", lacking
both tonality and detail. Then again, some people like that look.

I've been testing my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same
scenes and making 16x20" prints for comparison and while Velvia has
better colors and a wider gamut and I feel I get better big landscape
prints from scanned film there's no doubt that the digital files are
good enough for many pro applications like product shots (catalogs,
etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide, saturated
color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but
anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film
would likely find digital appealing and that's where the high volume
film sales come from.

Agreed. But, as I suggested above, these are application-driven issues.
It's not superior image quality that makes digital attractive; it's the
suitability for specific applications that are not sensitive to digital's
limitations. Even having said that, one can't presume that all product
shots benefit from a limited, unsaturated color gamut. One nightmare job
that I had was to edit a couple thousand dSLR images of technical products
that were painted in monochromatic schemes (I wasn't the photographer, but
the photog wasn't the problem). The lack of tonality obliterated the
subtle gradations that defined the shape and important features of these
products! I spent hundreds of hours enhancing these for use in a catalog
that I was publishing. It would have saved that client tens of thousands
of dollars to have shot these products using film instead. I believe that
one has to evaluate the task, then choose the appropriate tools rather
than the other way around.

Also, let's not overlook that film scanners have come a long way as well,
and will likely keep ahead of direct digital for quite a while. Some of us
are not going to pay 5x+ the price of a decent "pro-sumer" film scanner
for inferior dSLR quality. So, there are many concurrent options at this
point, and I'm content to simply sit back and observe how people actually
spend their money. ;-)

Neil


  #27  
Old October 16th 04, 10:07 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Bill Hilton posted:

From: "Neil Gould"


While we *presume* that
digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really
replace all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass
market digicam products have stopped increasing the resolution at
around 5 mp, and performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and
below.


These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras
that serious photographers are comparing to medium format are the
dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels) and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally
different animals than the 5 Mpix point-and-shoots.

I wasn't referring to point-and-shoots, alone. Many dZLRs and dSLRs are in
the 5-8 mp range, and there doesn't seem to be any big rush to go beyond
that, even though the capability to do so has existed for quite a while.
Of course, for some applications the top-end dSLRs are viable alternatives
to MF. But, that's not to say that they match MF quality.

Those
specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to
buy, so the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product
at the lowest cost rather than who can do better.


You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition
continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel
model out early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark
II which will ship in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix
4/3 model and since the sensor is about 1/4 the size of the
full-frame models you can extrapolate that full-frame models from
Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same pixel pitch,
so we're not done by a long shot.

I agree with you, but, resolution isn't the only race in town! Pixel pitch
is only one dimension of an image, and for my money, it isn't the most
critical dimension for anything but enlarged prints. Then too, when I look
at the comparisons between film and digital, I'm often appalled by the
image aspects that many people seem to love.

All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm
film (I know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf.
[...]

Well, having used some of them, I still wouldn't trade my Leica SLR kit
for any of them. By comparison, the dSLR renditions look "flat", lacking
both tonality and detail. Then again, some people like that look.

I've been testing my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same
scenes and making 16x20" prints for comparison and while Velvia has
better colors and a wider gamut and I feel I get better big landscape
prints from scanned film there's no doubt that the digital files are
good enough for many pro applications like product shots (catalogs,
etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide, saturated
color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but
anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film
would likely find digital appealing and that's where the high volume
film sales come from.

Agreed. But, as I suggested above, these are application-driven issues.
It's not superior image quality that makes digital attractive; it's the
suitability for specific applications that are not sensitive to digital's
limitations. Even having said that, one can't presume that all product
shots benefit from a limited, unsaturated color gamut. One nightmare job
that I had was to edit a couple thousand dSLR images of technical products
that were painted in monochromatic schemes (I wasn't the photographer, but
the photog wasn't the problem). The lack of tonality obliterated the
subtle gradations that defined the shape and important features of these
products! I spent hundreds of hours enhancing these for use in a catalog
that I was publishing. It would have saved that client tens of thousands
of dollars to have shot these products using film instead. I believe that
one has to evaluate the task, then choose the appropriate tools rather
than the other way around.

Also, let's not overlook that film scanners have come a long way as well,
and will likely keep ahead of direct digital for quite a while. Some of us
are not going to pay 5x+ the price of a decent "pro-sumer" film scanner
for inferior dSLR quality. So, there are many concurrent options at this
point, and I'm content to simply sit back and observe how people actually
spend their money. ;-)

Neil


  #28  
Old October 17th 04, 01:57 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

I remember when CD's first came
out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to
be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making
records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the
time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years.
There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different
titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished
greatly in the coming years.


I remember the so-called transition from LPs to CDs as well. First of all
pre-recorded Cassette tapes were outselling LPs even before CDs were available.
Most of the public were perfectly happy with their cassette tapes as they are
with MP3s today. Record store management couldn't wait to get rid of the LPs as
they took up way too much floor space. They relegated them to the corner as
soon as they could and then discontinued selling them shortly afterward. The
oft cited comparisons between LPs and film are dead wrong. First of all it cost
around $3,000 at that time to have a record mastered and to run off a small run
of LPs. It costs me around $12 to buy a roll of film and have it processed
(E6). No one mastered LPs in their basement, however I know of many people who
process their own film and have their own darkroom. Plus, there was no internet
then either. If the internet had been turned up in the mid-80s, you would not
have seen the rapid decline in LPs that we saw. There were many people who
wanted to purchase them but the record stores didn't want to handle them. I
agree with most in this group that film will ultimately be made in low-wage
countries and will be mostly available by mail order. It is comforting for me
to see 110 film still for sale at the drug store and film sizes like 126, 127
and even 620 available by mail order. There is no need to fear the LP scenario
with film.

  #29  
Old October 17th 04, 01:57 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

I remember when CD's first came
out. It was thought that the vinyl LP would take about five to six years to
be replaced. It took less than two years and most companies stopped making
records. I still own over 2500 albums. I sell and buy used on ebay all the
time. However, I have not bought a new release LP in over fifteen years.
There are few produced, but they are very expensive and not many different
titles. I just don't want my choices of film I can purchase diminished
greatly in the coming years.


I remember the so-called transition from LPs to CDs as well. First of all
pre-recorded Cassette tapes were outselling LPs even before CDs were available.
Most of the public were perfectly happy with their cassette tapes as they are
with MP3s today. Record store management couldn't wait to get rid of the LPs as
they took up way too much floor space. They relegated them to the corner as
soon as they could and then discontinued selling them shortly afterward. The
oft cited comparisons between LPs and film are dead wrong. First of all it cost
around $3,000 at that time to have a record mastered and to run off a small run
of LPs. It costs me around $12 to buy a roll of film and have it processed
(E6). No one mastered LPs in their basement, however I know of many people who
process their own film and have their own darkroom. Plus, there was no internet
then either. If the internet had been turned up in the mid-80s, you would not
have seen the rapid decline in LPs that we saw. There were many people who
wanted to purchase them but the record stores didn't want to handle them. I
agree with most in this group that film will ultimately be made in low-wage
countries and will be mostly available by mail order. It is comforting for me
to see 110 film still for sale at the drug store and film sizes like 126, 127
and even 620 available by mail order. There is no need to fear the LP scenario
with film.

  #30  
Old October 17th 04, 06:00 AM
jerry gitomer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Neil Gould"



While we *presume* that
digital quality will just continue to increase until it can really replace
all that MF offers, the market seems to disagree. The mass market digicam
products have stopped increasing the resolution at around 5 mp, and
performance is being limited to around 400 ISO and below.



These are the consumer grade models though ... the digital cameras that serious
photographers are comparing to medium format are the dSLR Kodak 14 (14 Mpixels)
and the Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels), totally different animals than the 5 Mpix
point-and-shoots.


Those
specifications appear to be a "sweet spot" in what people want to buy, so
the contest now is to see who can deliver the best product at the lowest
cost rather than who can do better.



You're right about the "sweet spot" for consumers, but the competition
continues at the high end ... Nikon recently announced a 12.4 Mpixel model out
early next year and Canon announced the 16 Mpixel 1Ds Mark II which will ship
in a month or so. Oly is bringing out an 8 Mpix 4/3 model and since the sensor
is about 1/4 the size of the full-frame models you can extrapolate that
full-frame models from Canon or Kodak/Nikon could offer 30 Mpixels at the same
pixel pitch, so we're not done by a long shot.


These products will become available only if the manufacturers
are convinced that there is a large enough market to allow them
to become profitable. If I was a camera manufacturer I would be
quite content to let my competition spend their R&D money
"fighting for bragging rights" while I concentrated on the low
end consumers market because that is where the money is.


All of these dSLRs with pixel counts over 11 Mpix should beat 35 mm film (I
know my 1Ds does) and are starting to encroach on MF's turf. I've been testing
my 1Ds against a 645 and a 6x7, shooting the same scenes and making 16x20"
prints for comparison and while Velvia has better colors and a wider gamut and
I feel I get better big landscape prints from scanned film there's no doubt
that the digital files are good enough for many pro applications like product
shots (catalogs, etc) or portraits (where you don't really WANT a wide,
saturated color gamut). I think MF film is still better for landscapes but
anyone with a busy studio shooting many hundreds of rolls of film would likely
find digital appealing and that's where the high volume film sales come from.

Bill


Given that the bulk of the film market is 35MM and that the
high-end digital cameras already surpass 35MM further product
improvements are not required. I do not believe there is any
incentive for the camera manufacturers to build a product
superior to those already announced.

Jerry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy Thanksgiving! Basic Wedge 35mm Photo Equipment 5 October 13th 04 10:11 PM
New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices Alan Browne Digital Photography 57 October 7th 04 11:10 PM
Not happy with prints from Kodak T400CN Phil Film & Labs 5 May 27th 04 03:25 PM
Shutter CLA prices and qualities AArDvarK Large Format Photography Equipment 5 April 15th 04 07:55 PM
Happy Easter ! Benedikt Schenker Film & Labs 0 April 8th 04 01:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.