Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

My guess is that the upcoming Leica M digital will use a microlens
array. They are working with Kodak and Imacon on this solution, who
are also teamed on the Digital R body. I would be surprised if they
ever introduced a digitally optimized lens, though it could happen in
the future.

That's an interesting tidbit of information. Now, all we need to find out
is whether it outperforms digicams that cost about 1/5th of what we
suspect Leica will want for an R back. Given that 8 MP models are = $1k,
I wouldn't bet on it.

Regards,

Neil

Bob Monaghan wrote:

That's the problem, the only way you can stay with what you have is if you
"freeze" a computer system with compatible O/S and hardware and maintain
it. [...]

Should i buy a digital camera soon, i will indeed upgrade to a new one as
soon as new subjects, incompatible with the camera's hardware, come along.
;-)

But no, you do have a point.
However, my present computer can still read the disks i used with my XT.
Maybe not all things are equally short lived?

Neil Gould wrote:


It's true that both Sony (7x7, 8x8 series) and some Kodak models are using
Zeiss lenses. Similarly, Panasonic is using Leica lenses in some models.


It is worth commenting that in all cases the lenses are not MADE by
Zeiss or by Leica. They are designed and licensed. Even the Leica lenses
in the Leica versions of the Panasonic are actually Japanese-made lenses.

David

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.

I don't understand this at all. In the U.S. at least there were plenty of
dealers who sold used medium format gear long before e bay existed, all
anyone had to do to find them was pick up in issue of "Shutterbug" and other
publications. I bought much of my medium format system used around 1994, it
wasn't hard finding any of it. Competition from used equipment sales may be
hurting new equipment sales but the "excessive competition" exists because
people are dumping their used gear to buy digital, not because of e bay.

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
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:

Neil Gould wrote:
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.

I have watched and listened to people in electronics stores compare
cameras. About the only quality comment that usually comes up is
"well, this one has a Zeiss lens". Other than that, established
camera companies like Canon and Nikon do okay at the consumer compact
digital market level, though Sony outsells both of them, and it is
interesting that Sony often uses Zeiss (branded) lenses. This is only
observations from southern California and Texas, so maybe it does not
extend to other areas shopping habits.

I hear that kind of talk in *camera* stores, but not general electronics
stores such as Best Buy. Sony's consumer models are popular, though I
don't know anything about the comparative sales volumes of their
"pro-sumer" models such as the 828, vs. Nikon's 8700 or other offerings in
that range.

I suspect that some manufacturers are building their cameras to
barely last past the warranty period. Really small buttons will
probably fail faster than chips or displays, and there will be little
reason to repair the cameras.

I fully agree with you about this. The build quality is not what one would
expect from products that cost so much to buy.

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.

I don't think they have the name recognition, compared to other
choices. Another factor is that they are much less common in the
North American rental market than Hasselblad and Mamiya. While I
think Pentax makes some very nice medium format gear, they don't have
the volume following of other brands. Add in to that a lack of easily
attached digital backs, and I think things look a little bad for
Pentax in medium format. However, as Bob M. pointed out, the tooling
for their 67 was likely paid for years ago, so it might not cost them
much to continue production.

Perhaps it's a regional matter, but the Pentax 6x7s were fairly popular
around here. A lot of users liked the "big 35mm" aspect of these cameras.
As for rentals, the same lack of support can be said of Rolleiflex. I
don't know of one place in a hundred mile radius that I could rent a lens
for my 6008i. All that meant was that I had to buy the lenses I needed.

Even for photographers not considering buying a digital back, having
the option of renting one can be a consideration. Available rental
lenses and accessories are another consideration. While the Pentax
gear is nice, at the professional level, renting is a consideration,
and a Pentax choice might leave one stranded on a few levels.

Perhaps that's true, but I just don't see the value of a MF digital back.
I expect that even the mid-range digicams outperform the best of them.

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.

The problem of many used sales is that new products become less
common. Without continued new products, little innovation, or even
new lenses, might be produced.

I guess that I don't really expect a lot of innovation in MF gear. The
basic idea of camera function was established decades ago, and the only
significant changes have been in the area of metering. As I see the
electronics as being the weak link in the modern camera system, I don't
know that adding more to do basically the same thing that one can do with
none is A Good Thing.

Taken over a longer time period, there
could be a point at which no more spare parts are sold. Leica
recently announced a 30 year parts guarantee for their MP, and just
started a factory repair service. The idea that Leica has taken
assures those who purchase their expensive cameras; it might be a
good idea for one or two medium format companies to offer a similar
guarantee.

The problem is finding that "magical number" that makes the investment
worthwhile. Are Leicas really expensive, compared to, say a Fuji or Nikon
dSLR? I don't think so.

Neil

Gordon Moat 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,

???
That started way before people even knew we would have something like video
in the then distant future.

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.

I don't believe that.
Both Zeiss and Leica are using the potential already in their trade marks,
put there during their very long history, to be able to push branded
products.
Panasonic is not helping Leica to enter the cheap end of the market. Leica
was looking for a manufacturer to put their high end name on a
cheap-end-of-the-market product they then can sell for more than it's worth
so they can both profit.
That only works (and it does work), and the association with Panasonic only
exists because Leica already was a well established name.

And even though many people do know Zeiss, and do associate Zeiss
(correctly) with high quality optics, i think not many know the Zeiss
cameras. Most people will associate Zeiss with eyeglasses and contact
lenses, perhaps binoculars too.
(Which, by the way, is not of major improtance to a company like Zeiss: the
entire photo related department is extremely small, compared too the other
things Zeiss do and most people do not know of. So they will not be worried
by an eventual/possible demise of MF.)

Which sort of leaves Hasselblad in the dust,
since they don't make lenses. :-(

They do now, sort of. But very little people know, or would believe, that.
;-)
They do make that other thing, and they do have the brand recognition too.
But not on the same level as Zeiss and Leica.
Which leaves Hasselblad in the dust indeed. After all, you can't continue to
peddle pictures of Moon dust. People's interest in that wanes rapidly.
;-)

But yes, Hasselblad enjoys a high level of recognition inside the
photo-community. I doubt there are serious photographers who do not know
Hasselblad. And while a very large part of Hasselblad's customers are/were
non-professional photographers, i think it is fair to say that they are not
nearly as well known as Zeiss or Leica outside the photo-community.

The same will be true for many, if not all, other MF manufacturers. Remember
the niche-market thing?
Mamiya? Pentax? Bronica? Even Rollei. Household names? I don't think so.

So i agree that not many people will recognize any of these as brand names
of quality cameras or lenses.
Which sort of leaves the entire MF consortium in the dust.

[...]

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.

Why not?

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.

Just a thought: what's there left to develop?

Gordon Moat wrote:

[...] However, as Bob M. pointed out, the
tooling for their 67 was likely paid for years ago, so it might not cost
them
much to continue production.

I think that may not be quite as simple as that.
The development of tooling might have been paid for years ago, keeping the
things in fit shape for production is an ongoing non-trivial investment.
Machines will eventually reach the end of their life span, are taken out of
service and wil be replaced by modern all singing all dancing CNC machinery,
costing a bit or two. Moulds have a limited life span. Cutters do too. Etc.
That is: if they want to keep the line alive. If not...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

In article , Gordon Moat wrote:

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. :-(

In a few years it will not be a problem at all. We won't have projection
at all. Organic LED's (O-LED) technology will have reached the point that
a movie screen will be one big O-LED screen.

The problem with O-LED screens is the blue LEDs don't last very long,
around 3,000 hours before they are at half the brightness of the red
and green ones.

What will happen is that movie sized screens will come in a huge roll.

We are starting to get way off topic, but I have also looked into the OLED
technology. There are indeed many possible uses. However, there is still and issue
of digital file technology being too easy to copy and distribute, even illegally.



If your average movie theater runs 10 hours a day, once a year or so,
they remove the old screen and replace it with a new one, at less cost
than the electricity for the old projection lamps.

This is assuming that by that time, the blue problem hasn't been solved.

I think eventually this will be solved, and many interesting devices could be
developed. Even more compact laptops could be one development, with a pull out
(roll out) screen.



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.

Tht's really it. As long as someone buys film (in any format) someone
will continue to make it. Many of the films we know and love will slowly
fade away, except Kodachrome, which I fear is very near to death in any
size.

Shame that Kodachrome processing was never more widely available.



Black and white film will last longer as it can be safely stored in
a cool, dry place (without refrigeration) for many years, and powdered
developers (and rodinal) can last longer than the film.

Definitely agree that B/W films may be the last to go, if ever. There is so much
similarity between B/W film technology, and with some commercial printing
technologies.

Ciao!

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

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Bob Monaghan wrote:

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? ;-)
;-)

No, no.
The new "specially designed with digital photography in mind" Distagon 40
mm
lens actually outperforms any other lens of similar focallength (it really
does).

Actually, it doesn't. What it does do is have a flat field so the edges of
the test chart fall in the plane of focus.

I don't believe it has anything to do with digital at all. It has to do with
Fuji's 35/3.5 for the H1 having better MTF charts than the earlier 40mm
Distagons, and Zeiss not liking that state of affairs.

It's only dumbed down in that it shows more distortion than before. But
only
in those parts not captured by the typical too small digital sensors...
And anyway, we don't want to put the manufacturers of softeners, uhm...
"low
pass filters" i mean, out of business, do we?
So we need to spend major $$ to buy lenses having "too high resolution to
be
a good match to the digital sensors".
;-)

That was cute. But wrong. You have to low pass filter if you are going to
sample periodically. So you want to maximize the MTF of your lenses at just
under the cutoff frequency to get the best images. The limiting resolution
(MTF10) is predictive of higher MTFs at those frequencies, so you like
lenses with higher limiting resolution. (Another way to look at it is that
the MTF in the image is the product of the low-pass filter MTF and the lens
MTF, so you always want a better lens MTF.)

But as always, looking at the 10% MTF resolution for 1000:1 contrast targets
is completely unrelated to real photography, film or digital.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

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.

Still, stats...
Statistics are forms in which people want to present information they think
is significant in a form best suiting their needs.
There's not a statistic in this world that can not be turned around to
present a very different picture.

Sure, there is that old saying that there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
Regardless, these are slightly better than nothing, and slightly better than
only opinions, no matter how learned those opinions might be.

Anyway,
What we're told by stats is who produced the data, what data were allowed to
appear in the stats, and what data was not, why the stats were produced, and
why they are presented the way they are.
And financial reports? As it happens i have been presented one just this
week that paints a very pretty picture i actually know (from "first hand
insider knowledge") is not right. Mind you, the figures are all correct. The
picture isn't.

Anyway, let's not get hung up on that. ;-)

Fair enough, I just didn't want you to think I was making up the information,
so I like to mention sources.



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.

Right.
But again: see subject line. ;-)
MF is not as yet in danger of being abandoned in favour of 3 MP P&S
digicams.

Yeah, but Bob M. keeps bringing it up. Maybe if low end digital is replaced by
camera phones, it might change public perception of direct digital imaging . .
.. or maybe not. I don't see it as relevant to the MF market either.



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. [...]

Ah, no! That's not what i meant. He scanned every shot he was going to
*use*. Not every single shot on the role.

Okay, slight confusion with that . . . thanks for clearing that up.



Point was, and is, that while being a film-shooter before, he already had
acquired all the skills and accoutrements.
His work flow was so near completely digital already that there were no new
costs for him except buying the digital camera.

Though that can be a very high cost. I am sticking to renting only when I
absolutely must have direct digital for a particular client, and that need is
actually rare at the moment. I suppose I have a luxury in getting at least
three days to deliver results, which allows lots of careful consideration in
editing.



[...]
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.

Indeed.
I found the single most important improvement was not in PS features, not in
the interface either, but in computer power: faster, more memory, larger
disks. What was already possible in early versions often could still not be
done because of the sheer amount of time it took.

Agreed, computers have become much better, especially the faster hard drives
now on the market.



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.

Right you are.
Shall i ask Bob to have a look at MF future bit in the subject line? ;-)

Good idea! ;-)



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. [...]

Indeed.
The thing is that the usual arguments put forward against digital (rapid
obsolesence = rapid depreciation, hidden costs, different skills, etc.) too
are not absolutes. They have been (and still are) bandied about so long and
so much in discussions, while in the real world people are steadily moving
towards digital in blatant disregard of all these considerations. And
mostly, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, without experiencing any of them.

I think we should stay awake, stay "with it", see what's happening. Or else
we may end up clenching our MF equipment, still mumbling "nah... digital
will never take...", in an all-digital world with no use for oldies with
antique gizmos.

Or perhaps we may not. ;-)

Oh, I definitely keep a watch on technology. I think it would be tough if my
only choices were consumer level products. I am glad there are still limited
production items, and thanks to the modern technology of the internet, they are
often more accessible, and easier to discover.



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.

If you bill out film purchasing and processing costs and digitizing costs
and get away with that (and why wouldn't you?), you could eliminate them
all, bill the same amount, and create a profit.
Right?

I have yet to find a fellow professional that has a good model for charging
that to their clients. The clients perception of digital is (unfortunately)
that the images are free, and that "cost savings" should be passed on to the
client. The reality is that selecting images (transparencies) on a light table
is very non linear, and a very fast process. Computer editing is always linear,
and despite some attempts at digital lightbox software (I have five separate
software programs that do this currently), they are all slower than pushing
transparencies around by hand. Maybe if I had a really giant computer monitor
that tilted downward like a large light table, then it might be easier, though
there is still a software issue. Also, a computer monitor as large as my
biggest light table would cost a fortune. These are all time related issues.


Some might argue that a potential profit not taken equals a loss. So what
"net zero expense"? ;-)

Everyone has a slightly different working method. My time is shorter editing
(selecting) images on a light table, than in computer capture software. Believe
me, I have tried doing computer image selection as long ago as 1996, from
direct digital capture, and it is always linear.

While I am certain someone out there must be faster selecting images on a
computer than on a light table, I have yet to meet anyone who has stated that.
The usual idea of direct digital is to save scanning time, but honestly it
really does not take much time with the right gear. Also, the file sizes I use
most of the time would make some really slow digital camera captures, or mean
many memory cards to sort through. Of course, you could be suggesting that I
just accept the smaller file sizes, and welcome the convenience.

Okay, so my term "net zero expense" means I bill out exactly what I spend. I do
not mark up my film, nor processing, so there are no extra profits there. I do
that because of the ridiculous nature of California resale, usage, and sales
tax laws . . . basically my method avoids all that paperwork at the beginning
of each year.



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.

I can see how that would be, yes.
But how about the future? When will it be?
I think this year will answer a lot of the "when?"s and "what?"s.

Okay, I really took some interest in the Kodak full frame (35 mm) digital SLR.
I might actually buy one used in a couple years, though there is still a colour
issue I have with all Bayer pattern direct digital cameras. With the work I do,
the colour accuracy and range are more important than resolution, meaning I
look at direct digital gear differently than most people.

Other than that, scanned medium format is so much more affordable than digital
backs. I have rented digital backs a few times, and I am mostly happy with the
results, except the cropping factor. Anyway, renting to supplement film is not
a bad idea, and I doubt I would ever buy one. If I got some really huge
billings out to large clients, then I might buy a digital back (or lease) just
to get the tax write-off. Scanned film still offers a colour quality
improvement at lower cost, and that makes it tough to consider only using
direct digital.



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?

Don't know... But i somehow doubt that. Maybe one or two selected products.

I am okay with that, especially in light of the huge used market choices.
However, I have also thought of going 35 mm only for my work. Already 75% of my
work is handled with 35 mm, so I am not sure how that will change my opinion in
the future. I just don't do enough really large images to need medium format
that often, which is a shame. I would be more worried about difficulty getting
medium format film, though I think B&H can keep me happy for several more
years.



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?

Certainly not for displaying on screens. A quality (!!! Important!) 3 MP
(already too many) camera already provides more than enough MP for that.

How about print?

With B/W printing, I still have a preference for true chemical prints. Some
commercial B/W printing is quite good (usually duotone, but sometimes tritone
or quadtone); just look at the currently produced photo books for excellent
examples. I am less fond of anything inkjet in B/W, and I have seen many
examples. I just don't like B/W inkjet at all.

With Colour printing, I like the results I get from transparencies, though the
only images I get printed directly like that are for my fine art work. My
commercial photography printed work is always publication or commercial press
(almost never newsprint), though scanned film has covered that quite well since
1995, when I started doing this. With commercial colour images, I need 300 to
400 dpi at full page, or two page spread (Tabloid) size). Most 35 mm will
handle a single full page, and sometimes double (spread), though obviously
medium format works better on larger printed pages. Direct digital in 35 mm
size is only just getting there, but there is still that problem I have with
the colours. Digital backs are already at the correct resolution capability,
and the cooling helps the colours more, but I am still happier with the colours
from scanned films.

If a company puts PMTs into camera bodies, or gets away from the Bayer pattern
limitations, then I might get really interested in direct digital. I would
never abandon film, since for me it is a creative choice. I even make heavy use
of Polaroid materials, and I don't see that changing, unless that technology is
no longer available.

Ciao!

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