Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

yes, once again some very good points from QGdeB. I agree that most people
are happy with "good enough" (as I have also noted in this NG ;-). But
some small fraction (1%) have traditionally wanted more quality than 35mm
(and now sub-16MP digital cameras) could provide. These folks have taken
up MF and LF photography as serious amateurs.

Did Mamiya say why they thought their sales at year end would be better
and bring them back into profitability? Is it just an improving economy?

My recent posting on US Dept Labor stats show pro photographer numbers
have continued to decline in the USA, now to about half of 1980s numbers.
Yet LF sales seem steady or rising slightly per some posters, and new LF
buyers are more heavily pros than MF sales by a goodly margin. Why?

So on the one hand, we have lost sales of new MF gear to pros because

a) there are fewer pros now than in past decades (esp. after bad economy)

b) pros are spending $ to go digital rather than on new MF gear

We have lost new MF sales to serious amateurs because

a) there are fewer serious amateur photographers coming into our ranks
(more to do, video couch potatoes etc.) or into other serious hobbies

b) those who are taking up MF are getting great buys on used MF gear at
EB*Y and online. How many decent MF cameras are sold on all the EB*Y
outlets (germany, USA,...) in a year? There are hundreds listed each day.

Given that worldwide new gear MF sales to amateurs is under 1,000 per
week, sale of a few hundred more used MF kits to amateurs instead of new
kits would account for a 20% drop in new MF sales alone.

Now add in a few hundred amateurs who take up DSLRs instead of MF based on
the hype and lack of any promotion of MF, and you are left with the
current grim sales picture, with an industry shakeout under way, yes?

===========

We obviously can't convert the masses to see or demand higher quality
images, given "good enough" and the push by Kodak et.al. to reduce image
quality standards (cf. Kodak Disc ;-).

Gordon makes some interesting points people not printing digital
images because such costs conflict with their expectations of no-cost
digital photography. So 79% of digicam owners just email images or view on
screen only per PMAI stats. This is bad news for digital vendors too, yes?

=========== MF costs more cuz it is much better quality than digital? ;-0)

Maybe QGdeB is right (! ;-) - we should be selling MF _because_ it is more
expensive. It costs more to get higher quality results. If you don't want
higher quality, go on and use your cell phone camera. But if you do, then
you need to "step up" to film based MF.

We need to push the idea that MF film is a low cost way to get 64+
megapixels using a low cost film scanner (and yes, QGdeB, we _will_ have
to make the scanners MUCH faster ;-)

We also need to push the idea that serious amateur photographers also use
MF and film as a way to pursue high quality images for their hobby

We need to set the record straight:

a) about how MF image quality still handily exceeds digital DSLRs etc.,

b) about how total costs of shooting film are comparable to costs of
shooting digital when you factor in depreciation and other gear costs

c) about how film remains the best archival medium unless you make serious
efforts to protect your digital images (and to be nasty, that if you have
lost your digital images to a hard drive crash, maybe you should be
shooting film instead? ;-)

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

yes, I agree that Hasselblad sales in China will always be a niche market;
they are here too ;-)

I think they will sell precisely because they are high cost and foreign,
and recognized as high quality, just as they do in Japan (while locally
made Japanese cameras have less foreign cachet).

Second, with 45%+ of China's college graduates in engineering and
technical fields, the chance of a high quality precisely machined camera
appealing to these engineers seems good too (look at how many of us are
engineers on this NG, yes? ;-0).

I am not saying these groups won't use digital cameras, but that they may
well see digital (Still&video) cameras built into cellphones or PCs as
different from "real" stand alone high quality film cameras like 'blads.

If there are enough of them to represent a good market to sell say 10,000
"extra" 'blads among 150-250 million upwardly mobile chinese each year,
then that is sufficient to keep the company above water, yes? ;-)

And then there's the Indian market and ...

grins bobm

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

Hi Bill ;-)

Guess the guys in Hong Kong who bought Hasselblad must disagree with you,
eh? ;-) Maybe the local view in China is clearer on the potential there?

China has the world's largest pool of new savings, and is currently
funding much of the USA twin deficits too, right? And the WTO mandated
tariff rate decreases will mean prices on imported goods will fall by
nearly 2/3rds on average over the next five years. I suspect these factors
probably helped convince the new Chinese owners to buy Hasselblad?

MF isn't selling in the USA and Europe partly because both economies
haven't been growing, partly as the DOT.COM bust burned $6.5 trillion+ out
of the wealth of US citizens etc. China is past 8% growth and the world's
fastest growing economy. Savings rates for Chinese are also the world's
highest.

Yes, I expect lots of Chinese to buy digital cameras and cell phone
cameras, just like here. But I think there is also a pent-up demand for
high quality cameras, esp. MF, which hasn't been met by local production
and which has been blocked by high tariffs until now. The costs for high
end digital DSLR, when you include the full cost of buying computers and
all the rest, is comparable to a quality film camera. Film mfgers like
Kodak see their big growth area for film sales to be in China and India
over the next decade too.

The Chinese infrastructure is not yet as advanced outside of the major
cities. So a film based camera will still have many benefits for travel
and business users. And just as lots of folks buy Leicas as male jewelry,
so I suspect many will buy expensive Hasselblads and watches and all the
rest as status symbols.

time will tell ;-)

bobm



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

In article ,
Bob Monaghan wrote:

b) those who are taking up MF are getting great buys on used MF gear at
EB*Y and online. How many decent MF cameras are sold on all the EB*Y
outlets (germany, USA,...) in a year? There are hundreds listed each day.

puts hand up

That's me. I recently bought a Yashica Mat 124G, although it was from a used
camera dealer, rather than online. As a result, the only sales figures of
anyone involved in manufacturing MF "equipment" that I'm currently affecting
are those of Fuji, because I'm now buying Velvia in 120 as well as in 35mm.

We need to set the record straight:

a) about how MF image quality still handily exceeds digital DSLRs etc.,

Er, just a bit. My first scanned 6*6 image blew me away, and that's just on
an Epson 4870. I can downsize the scan to 36 megapixels to get the same sort
of "per-pixel" quality I'm getting from my EOS 10D, and I expect I'd be able
to get even more with a dedicated (but expensive) film scanner.

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message

Then, you should try some of the Portra 400 films. I think the UC is
a bit over the top for my taste, but the VC and NC are very nice,
and won't present the "godawful mess" that David fears, even in 35
mm format. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at its performance.

How do they compare to Reala? I find Reala enough worse than
Provia/Velvia 100F that I won't use it...

I like Portra's color balance much better than Reala, though I realize
this is a matter of taste rather than strictly a technical matter. As long
as the Portra isn't seriously underexposed, the grain is not a problem for
print sizes appropriate to the format. Portra is also a very good film for
scanning. Portra 160 is a sharper film, but I don't think that most people
would be able to reliably determine which shots were done with which film
until you get near the maximum enlargement sizes.

Neil

Bob Monaghan wrote:

A $700 Mamiya 645E SLR kit doesn't compete against a $300 35mm film
camera, but it does compete against a $1k- digital DSLR in price.

I suspect that a bigger problem with competing against digital is that
Mamiya has only a relative handful of mainly pro shop dealers, with most
of the classic camera stores having gone under by now, yes?

Yeah, not too many outfits. However, to their credit, they are more active
with Mamiya Days at those few good stores still left.

Digital is
sold at half a dozen major chain stores in the same mall, for the same
brands, and in a discount price atmosphere ;-)

Relevant how? I don't think putting medium format into a Best Buy, Fry's, or
similar would help sales.



I see a number of ads for used MF SLRs selling for well under $500-600
US$; even some hassy 500 series camera kits are going for under $400! My
last MF SLR buy with prism finder was $200-ish - with a spare back ;-)

With a lens?

The
prices for ETRS and older pentax 645 kits have also fallen significantly.

I have seen fairly low Mamiya RB67 prices, surprising for a big camera,
though some of them are quite old.



Again, this may be a major problem for new gear sales. The problem is not
so much the mfgers have to compete against digital for their new sales,
but that their new sales to serious amateurs, which may be 80% of new
sales (other 20% to pros), are being lost to smart amateurs buying used
gear at fractions of the cost of new gear?

I assume that many pros, with limited incomes (under $25k/yr on median in
USA), can't afford to buy $10k in DSLR and associated printers, scanners,
computers, storage, software, and manuals and so on.

I have around $16k to $20k (roughly) of gear, including ageing computer
equipment and peripherals. My purchase, or repair, decisions are based on a
cost to benefit analysis. Sometimes buying used is good, sometimes buying new
is better, and sometimes getting repairs works out best.

So they have to sell
off their backup gear to add digital to their workflow options.

Well, I sometimes sell off less used lenses to get other lenses. Direct
digital is another direction, though I am quite satisfied with the current
level of scanning equipment. That might change in the future.

However,
my sense is that most of the gear I see for sale from pros is rather more
often the older models, rather than a recently purchased kit.

Maybe worn out, or judged no longer worth repairing.

So I am
hopeful that the pros at least have maintained some MF kit for future use.
I think the big sellers (and losers at these prices) of new MF kits are
largely amateurs who bought in, now have decided to go digital?

Maybe.



As QGdeB has noted, Hasselblad's worst problem is competing with itself,
in the form of its own very good past products, now on the used market?

I think quite a few manufacturers are in that condition, including Rollei and
Mamiya.


It may be that some of the "missing" MF new gear sales are simply buyers
unable to resist used gear at half the previous prices being dumped by
folks going to digital.

Maybe the EBAY volume would be a good numbers place to make an informed guess
at this.

Ciao!

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

Michael Benveniste wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:39:04 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

I think you forgot Kodak Disc cameras . . . not that it matters. ;-)

Didn't forget it, just left it off the list along with a bunch of
other dead formats. I also left off 35mm disposables, one-hour labs,
and a bunch of other enabling technologies.

But in the case of Disc, the lack of quality was apparent to even the
least critical eyes. So after the initial "cool" factor wore off,
people correctly rejected Disc.

.. . . and a damn good thing they did . . . . . ;-)



Cost can often be time. Many people will not put forth more time, nor any extra
effort, to gain any quality. There is a lack of appreciation of the effort to
get quality, yet people still complain about some things not turning out "good
enough".

Again, I disagree.

Okay, fair enough.

People don't act against their own perceived best
interests. They'll spend the extra time and effort if they feel the
results will be worth it. But the test is subjective, not objective.
Each of us have different sets of priorities.

Yeah, likely too much of a subjective nature to draw any absolutes about this.



As for people complaining things aren't "good enough," that's simple
human nature. I wish my Usenet posts were more eloquent.

As do I. However, I sometimes try to be more eloquent, especially when it improves
understanding.

But there's
only a limited amount of time and effort I'm willing to put into each
paragraph. If that means I butcher a thought every so often, so be
it.

If medium format dies, it will not be because people don't care about
quality. Rather, it will because it no longer offers enough to people
to warrant the expense, effort, and nuisance to use it.
Double entendre? Does not the second sentence reflect the first? If people do
not put forth extra effort for quality, it seems to me they do not care enough.

It's not a a Double entendre, but rather a cost/benefit equation.
Unless you're regularly turning out 8x10's and 11x14's for framing,
rather than emailing pictures to relatives and putting 4x6's in
albums, owning MF gear doesn't make financial sense.

Okay, that was a specific example, and relevant for those who just want small
prints. The statement makes me wonder why you use medium format gear. Do you make
many large prints?



To you, it may mean that people "do not care enough." To me, it means
that like most of us, they try to choose reasonable compromises.

I also own and use 35 mm gear, in fact more than medium format. There are
advantages to having several different film formats, and related gear. I do not see
one group excluding the usage of another, nor any one (like 35 mm) as a replacement
for another. Of course, that means owning more than one camera, so maybe some
people don't want to get that involved in photography.

Ciao!

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

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:07:21 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Okay, that was a specific example, and relevant for those who just want small
prints. The statement makes me wonder why you use medium format gear. Do you make
many large prints?

For one of the projects I'm working on, I'll be printing 100+
portraits at either 8x10 or cropped to 10x10, so yes. Some of that's
already "in the can" using 35mm. For that project, I'm already
dragging around monolights, stands, a backdrop, tripod, cable release,
and the like, so the additional weight of a 645 camera over 35mm is
not as significant.

Even so, since I'm doing this as a volunteer for a non-profit, I don't
think I could have justified the cost had the bottom not dropped out
of the market for used medium format gear. I paid less for a Pentax
645 with 75mm and 135mm lenses than I did a couple of years ago for a
Nikon F100 with a 50mm f/1.8.

I also own and use 35 mm gear, in fact more than medium format. There are
advantages to having several different film formats, and related gear. I do not see
one group excluding the usage of another, nor any one (like 35 mm) as a replacement
for another. Of course, that means owning more than one camera, so maybe some
people don't want to get that involved in photography.

I would _guess_ that due to digital, there are now a lot of two-camera
households out there even among non-enthusiasts. But your points are
still right on.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Craig Schroeder wrote:

I heard a couple of interesting statements that relate to this. From
memory, but generally a correct recollection, I believe:

Enough people in China live at a high enough level of affluence and
consumption that it is becoming a major market for many items that are
not easily produced there. There are currently 55 million cell phones
in the US and in the last 2 years, central Africa, China and India put
over 500 million cell phones into use. The largest motorcycle
manufacturers by far are the Chinese and India (manyfold over anyone
else). There are over 500 industrial diamond factories in China and
they have reduced American diamond companies to be nothing more than
importer/brokers of Chinese product. A co-worker recently returned
from Shanghai and the building and explosion of the economy was
staggering.

It's hard to determine what sort of niche that Hasslblad will fit into
in the worlwide scheme of imaging over the next couple of decades.

I would imagine a Hasselblad being somewhat near price to a Chinese motorcycle. If
that was considered as a hobby, or enthusiast item, then there could be some sales
potential. Keep in mind that some would be using a motorcycle only as
transportation. In a similar manner, there could be a professional photography
market that might also provide some camera sales.


It's hard to imagine that they could have the resources to keep pace
in the digital world without a techno partner/owner.

It is too early to tell how their purchase by a large distributor affects other
aspects of the business. I would guess the management looked to the possible
future, otherwise they would not have made that deal.

It is interesting to note that Hasselblad has two major photo exhibition events
scheduled in China this summer. One is near Shanghai, and the other near Beijing.
Maybe those will test the market conditions . . . . . .

Ciao!

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

"Chris Brown" wrote...
[...] My first scanned 6*6 image blew me away, and that's just on
an Epson 4870. I can downsize the scan to 36 megapixels to get the same
sort
of "per-pixel" quality I'm getting from my EOS 10D, and I expect I'd be
able
to get even more with a dedicated (but expensive) film scanner.

Just like many times before, it's not possible to compare film to
digital media unless you get down to the same common denominator,
in your case -- [mega]pixels. Bob knows that, you probably know
that too, but we keep doing it because it just seems like a fair
thing to do. But it ain't. So, don't.