Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

In article ,
"MikeWhy" wrote:

I think you're BobM writing under a pseudonym. You and he share a remarkably
munificent talent for reinterpreting words.

You had a thought? Too bad,..... your incorrect.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

Gordon Moat wrote:

Yes, that is right, advertising. You don't think people find out about
everything on the internet? I would like to know how things are being
marketed
to people in China.

No, i don't think people find out abut everything on the internet. I don't
think advertising is the major source of information you apparently think it
is either.

[...]
Okay, I will conceded your point that camera phones are direct digital
imaging.
I still see them differently than I see direct digital P&S cameras.

Yes, i do too.
That's why i keep wondering why you brought them up. ;-)

This is one of the problems in trying to discuss these things. There are
digital cameras that do video, video cameras that do still images, and
even
phones that do video and still images. Should we call all these digital
cameras?

Oh, let's see... "video" cameras that do stills are "video" cameras,
"phones" that do video and still images are "phones", "digital cameras" that
do video are "digital cameras".
The answer is right there, isn't it? Why make a problem where there so
apparently is none?
;-)

Maybe it is different in Europe, but in the US, I can get a camera phone
for
$99 at many locations (brand new, with one year service agreement). I can
even
e-mail images from a phone without even a need to own a computer, and that
is a
very low cost structure.

Then yes, it is quite different. Looking at the "cost structure" you
couldn't do anything nore foolish than buy a phone-cam if what you want is
take pictures, digitally. And that's not even considering quality.

You get less for more money. But of course, the "cost structure" may
look
favourable...

People don't care if it is less . . .

Not per sé, perhaps. But when the phrase "for more money" is involved,
things start looking a bit different.

they are easy to use, and meet their
needs.

That's really amazing. Quite unbelievable.
Gives a whole new leash of life to the "film is better than
digital"-discussion. I guess noone thought of comparing film with phone-cam
digital before. ;-)

Unless when saying "their" you're talking about the gadget-crowd, not about
the common or garden snap-shooter, and anyone aspiring to anything more
sophisticated than that.

In the US, these things are far outselling all other digital imaging
products combined, and the sales pace is growing.

I see. Interesting.
And to whom are they selling these things? what market are we talking about?

Strike two: e-mail needs???

Sure, that is what most direct digital P&S users do with their cameras.
That is
why so many are now buying camera phones. Once you can do 1024 by 768
pixels,
that meets the e-mail need.

You are still equating direct digital with camera phones. Stop doing that!
The very words fit much more than that segment. And it's not the thing we
are talking about.
Believe you me: camera phones are not (!) the thing that is giving MF
manufacturers bad dreams or sleepless nights.

"Dear Hasselblad,

I'm afraid i have some bad news.
I will no longer be buying your products, because they do not fulfill my
e-mail needs...

Yours sincerely, etc."

Something like that?
:-0

Different market entirely. :-P How many people sold their Hasselblad to
get
a digital P&S?

Ah! We're moving closer to the issue!

"How many people sold their Hasselblad to get a digital camera" is the
important question.

Your excursion that took us to cell phone cameras and email needs was a bit
of a... well... it doesn't help us in any way.
;-)

The thing is, people are indeed selling their Hasselblads, or not buying
their first Hasselblad (and we can safely substitute Hasselblad with any MF
brand name) because they are buying "direct digital imaging" cameras
instead.

MF manufacturers are missing that market, because they have nothing to offer
themselves, and the "direct digital imaging" MF products that are on offer
can not compete, because they are far, far too expensive.

Now can MF manufacturers hope that "new markets" will provide them with
enough sales to prolong their unchanged (i.e. still not reacting to what
people apparently want) business practices?

Any affirmative answer to that question presumes that people in those new
markets do not want what other people are wanting, and thus will indeed buy
the refuse of the rest of the world.

I cannot see how or why anyone could believe that. No matter how hard i try.

So MF manufactuers must either "go with the flow", or close shop for ever.
And that first option will only work if (!) it's not too late already.

What a first bit of that first option could be i have mentioned many times
before.
As if it matters when all they do in reaction to the way the market moves is
sack people...
:-(


[...]

And where's that "niche"? Digital backs, right?

Also, digital SLR. The volume is small compared to other digital imaging
sales.

Again, you mistake the early stages of growth, i.e. still being small with
"niche".

Compared to the same time last year, digital SLR volume has exploded.
And we all know what may become of exploding small things, like, for
instance, singularities.
Indeed, they can become "the world".
;-)



[...]

Okay, so just send me all your medium format gear, and go be happy with
your
direct digital SLR.

Well, well... Time to sigh again... ;-)

You just don't pay attention to what people are trying to tell you, do you?
Nor seem to register the reasons why people are saying what they are.

If you do, you certainly do not show that you do. Quite the contrary.
:-(

But i will forgive your impetuous youth, which surely is to blame for that.
;-)

Why would you buy a low cost digital back instead of a digital SLR?

Because it would make my MF equipment do anything i would ever want it to
do.
And that without me having to change system and spend too much money on
things i basically already have.

That's reason enough for me.


And that because the Chinese are different from other people, or so you
say.

You don't think the Chinese are different?

I think people from the north of my tiny country are different form the
people in the south of the same.
Depends on how closely you look. And on what you are looking for.
We have a saying, which is about how people have to use the "little boys
room", no matter who, what or where they are.I'm sure it's not very
original.

I think that people are more alike than they are different, yes. And that
this being alike is in all the major, essential aspects.
Differences are minor, and accidental.

You don't think the government in
China places restrictions on market growth within China?

Sure. And i do believe too that the market will do its thing anyway. It
always does.
It would help not to have restrictions, but still.


[...]

Sorry, but i don't think either one of those is very convincing.

That's fine. These are not just my opinion, but drawn from existing data,
and
projections of companies with substantial investments in the China market.

Statistics... And that cell phone camera thing... You're sure you aren't Bob
M?

What statistics might that be? Cell phone sales figures extrapolated to the
photography market?

[...]

Costs are on a steep incline, downwards.

Costs don't keep companies going, profits do. If you look and see that
profits
are also down, why does that not worry you?

Costs (the ones consumers are charged when they show enough interest in the
company'e products to actually want to take one home) can keep markets from
becoming what they could be, or allow markets to bloom. Which in turn has a
major effect on profits.
So yes, costs keep companies going.

Market restrictions are not that much of a problem.

This is the Chinese government that restricts the market. I don't
understand
why you fail to understand the impact they have on all consumer products
in
China.

I do understand the impact.

I don't fear those restrictions like you apparently do, no.
There's that thing about security-blanket-fairy-godmothers again. ;-)

You know what? Companies are going to China, They are settling in, finding
their place amidst all the "restrictions". And it works out quite well.
You know why? Because people are people, they do what people do, they want
what people want.

And restrictions? Yes, they are a bother.
But how many one-child families are there in China again?


Ah, yes!
The idle hope that people on the other side of the globe from the "old
world" would want to buy the things the "old world" discards as "old".
Hopes
firmly based on the assumption that, because they are far away (relative
notion), they are behind a silk curtain, they will be ignorant about the
other things they could be having too.
;-)

No, I don't think they would buy from ignorance. To suggest that of the
Chinese
would be racist.

Don't be too hard on yourself. ;-)

No (excuse me), you say it is because they don't have as much advertising as
we do. And the result of that is, hm...

I believe there is a quality appeal of medium format cameras.

.... Which appeals to Chinese enough to make MF a viable thing in China, but
not so (anymore) in the rest of the world.
You're again suggesting Chinese are different, are you not?

I think that quality can have a limited (niche) appeal in China.

Ah! That's different.

Apparently,
Hasselblad think the same, since they are doing a marketing tour of major
Chinese cities this year.

I do think that too. We have never doubted the possibility (!) of a niche
existance for MF.

What is in question though is whether this niche will be large enough.
Whether, even with the inclusion of about 3 billion people in growth
markets, this possible niche will proof to be anything more than an academic
possibility.

Why buy a Mercedes when a Toyota will get you there cheaper? Why buy a
Ducati,
when a Suzuki is faster and cheaper? Why buy a Hasselblad, when a Seagull
is
cheaper?

Those are not the right questions. MF manufacturers have known the answer to
that kind of question for a long time. And they believed the answers too.
And why not? I believe the answer as well.
Meanwhile however...

Now they have woken up to a whole new bunch of questions, all boiling down
to the one: *who* will buy my product when it appears that nobody wants to
anymore?
Al those "why"s and the once compelling answers to them appear to have lost
their value. The world has changed. MF hasn't changed with it.

But i think it is the only shimmer of hope MF has to catch a ride on the
digital wave and prolong their stay on this, our sublunary world.


Okay, the words "prolong their stay" indicates that you feel these cameras
will
exist in the same realm there now is for large format.

No, they do not.
They indicate that there is (or perhaps "was" is better?) a possibility for
MF to "prolong their stay".

There is (or better perhaps: "was') a possibility for MF to stay, and
maintain their market share.
There is (or better ... etc.) a possibility that their
prolonged-stay-market-share will drop drastically (and still they can
prolong their stay).
And there's even a possibility that they can increase their market share.
Not very likely at all, but it would be possible.

None of which is indicated by the words i used.
What possibility i think is the likely one, however, should be painfully
clear from the many other words i used.

You really should just
send me all you Hasselblad gear . . . you won't get any money trying to
sell
it, so I will pay for the shipping for you . . . you can take comfort in
the
fact that I would be using it, rather than see it collect dust on your
bookshelf.

Argh!!!
You just don't get it...
Stop fighting the things you think is opposing you, and start listening to
what actually is being said. Please!

They should have done something earlier...

They never had the money, nor market share, nor profits to increase the
development pace of large chip digital imaging.

???

Hasselblad, for instance, had an entire subsidary firm working on digital
imaging even when that was still the thing to come, one
day in the distant future. Now almost twenty years ago.
They produced a whole palet of products, including a film scanner / image
transmitter (yes, in the days before cell-phone cameras even were a twinkle
in mr. and mrs. Sony's eyes ;-)), and a digital back.
They were funding Carver Mead's research too (you know, the person Bob likes
to quote a lot).

So yes, they could very well have done something earlier.

Same for other MF manufacturers.

The thing is, they simply didn't.
Hasselblad's activities were ill timed, directed wrongly (Mead), and lacked
a "follow through". No gumption to take up the digido when its time finally
was upon us.
"Been there, done that", and most of all the "we don't need it" attitude you
think will not harm MF.

Anyway, I do think it is already too late for a turnaround, and expect
some
companies to disappear entirely, without even a name to continue.

Well, if it isn't already too late, it will be pretty soon.
That's where i came in. Perhaps it's time to get out again. ;-)

Ciao!

Arrivederci!

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .

Maybe it is different in Europe, but in the US, I can get a camera phone
for
$99 at many locations (brand new, with one year service agreement). I can
even
e-mail images from a phone without even a need to own a computer, and that
is a
very low cost structure.

Then yes, it is quite different. Looking at the "cost structure" you
couldn't do anything nore foolish than buy a phone-cam if what you want is
take pictures, digitally. And that's not even considering quality.

True.



You get less for more money. But of course, the "cost structure" may
look
favourable...

People don't care if it is less . . .

Not per sé, perhaps. But when the phrase "for more money" is involved,
things start looking a bit different.

they are easy to use, and meet their
needs.

That's really amazing. Quite unbelievable.
Gives a whole new leash of life to the "film is better than
digital"-discussion. I guess noone thought of comparing film with phone-cam
digital before. ;-)

Unless when saying "their" you're talking about the gadget-crowd, not about
the common or garden snap-shooter, and anyone aspiring to anything more
sophisticated than that.

My opinion on this is that many people with camera phones do not have a general
interest in photography. If anything, it might give some a desire to do more
than just use a gadget, maybe leading to getting a real camera of some type,
and adding photography as a hobby. We shall see if that pattern develops,
though currently it seems much more the gadget crowd as main interest. Phones
are definitely mini status symbols in California, though this is a culture
built on materialistic habits.



In the US, these things are far outselling all other digital imaging
products combined, and the sales pace is growing.

I see. Interesting.
And to whom are they selling these things? what market are we talking about?

Mostly younger individuals, say about college age to young professional level.
They are mostly computer literate, or heavy internet and e-mail users. Some may
have had a digital P&S at one time, though few seem to be photography
enthusiasts (at least going by limited data in M Power magazine). The high
sales volumes seem to indicate a mass market in the US, though I don't have
breakdown figures by region (it might be a western, or southern phenomena, or
maybe nationwide).



Strike two: e-mail needs???

Sure, that is what most direct digital P&S users do with their cameras.
That is
why so many are now buying camera phones. Once you can do 1024 by 768
pixels,
that meets the e-mail need.

You are still equating direct digital with camera phones. Stop doing that!
The very words fit much more than that segment. And it's not the thing we
are talking about.
Believe you me: camera phones are not (!) the thing that is giving MF
manufacturers bad dreams or sleepless nights.

Agreed. I felt it important to mention camera phones, since we have agreed they
are digital imaging. Quite a few financial analysts and industry reporters are
stating that camera phone sales are impacting sales of low end digital P&S
cameras, with a few thinking that the low end digital camera market might be
marginalized by camera phone popularity.



"Dear Hasselblad,

I'm afraid i have some bad news.
I will no longer be buying your products, because they do not fulfill my
e-mail needs...

Yours sincerely, etc."

Something like that?
:-0

Different market entirely. :-P How many people sold their Hasselblad to
get
a digital P&S?

Ah! We're moving closer to the issue!

Glad to see you agree.



"How many people sold their Hasselblad to get a digital camera" is the
important question.

Yes, but not just any digital camera, more likely a direct digital SLR with
interchangeable lenses. It seems that the amount of money spent might be fairly
close. Like I stated above, I don't think people are selling Hasselblads to get
a P&S digital . . . though I could be surprised.



Your excursion that took us to cell phone cameras and email needs was a bit
of a... well... it doesn't help us in any way.
;-)

Ahh . . . . . well, it was fun while it lasted. At least now we are on somewhat
equal discussion levels.



The thing is, people are indeed selling their Hasselblads, or not buying
their first Hasselblad (and we can safely substitute Hasselblad with any MF
brand name) because they are buying "direct digital imaging" cameras
instead.

Okay, if the face value number of 50000 new unit sales medium format is
compared to direct digital SLR sales, the numbers are way different. Direct
digital SLR sales, just going by the Nikon and Canon numbers, are at least four
times the sales of Medium Format cameras annually. The annual decrease of 35 mm
film SLR cameras has only been about a 10% drop. If we look at the sales
volume, some sales are to 35 mm film SLR owners, others may be new users,
others are upgrading from P&S (film or digital), and some new to photography.
Just by the numbers, it seems that sales to former medium format users might be
a low percentage of former sales. Perhaps that is where some emphasis should be
placed in our discussion.



MF manufacturers are missing that market, because they have nothing to offer
themselves, and the "direct digital imaging" MF products that are on offer
can not compete, because they are far, far too expensive.

Sure, there is something to offer. Mamiya has three different 645 bundle
packages with lens and Leaf digital back. These are available now in the US,
starting at about $7000. This would seem to compete with the high end Canon,
and the Kodak DSC digital bodies. However, sales at the high end of digital
bodies, the few full 35 mm frame chips, are very small in comparison to smaller
chipped digital SLR bodies. This would seem to indicate cutting Hasselblad
level costs to go for much lower cost small chip (1.5 or 1.6 multiplier)
cropped digital SLRs, rather than the digital body high end.

If we just look at new sales, think someone with the money to consider medium
format would have around $US 4000 or so to spend. That would place them near
the Kodak full frame digital SLR, but slightly below the top of the line Canon.
Another close price option is the top of the line Nikon. Even the lowest price
Mamiya / Leaf bundle does better on controlling noise in the file, which would
allow better tonality, something that might be of interest to a more
traditional medium format consideration. While I don't have any sales figures
for the Mamiya / Leaf package (too new), if I were to guess about this, I would
state that I do not expect it to sell well.



Now can MF manufacturers hope that "new markets" will provide them with
enough sales to prolong their unchanged (i.e. still not reacting to what
people apparently want) business practices?

Well, Mamiya is trying this in the US now. However, I have a theory on why I
think it is too late. If you look at the hype surrounding direct digital
imaging for the last several years, you will find that there has been a steady
increase in the acceptance of smaller file sizes for printed items. There are
more magazines now than just six years ago, and improvements in paper and
printing, yet the demand for higher image quality, or even medium format
chromes, has diminished. When I graduated in 1998, most publications and
clients did not take you seriously if you only used 35 mm. I had to use medium
format to play along with expectations. Slowly, more people became interested
in direct digital, despite the smaller file sizes. With that came lower prices
on film scanners (at least for 35 mm), and greater capability. People became
use to image files of small sizes sent in by ZIP disc or CD-R . . . and soon
anything that produced a larger than direct digital image file became more
accepted for publication usage. Early 2000 through 2002 made scanned 35 mm more
acceptable for publications, and left less reasons to use medium format. Of
course, I am only speaking of the publications market, which is a very small
slice of overall potential sales.

Basically, my feeling is that much smaller image files are now more acceptable
in the professional market. We might actually see a change towards a larger
image file bias, since newer papers and printing technologies are now available
in the publishing world, and as more full 35 mm frame chips appear in digital
SLRs. There might be a perceived need for larger files (or a perceived quality
of larger file sizes) as full frame 35 mm approaches 22 MP (which I think is
the upper practical limit of this technology).



Any affirmative answer to that question presumes that people in those new
markets do not want what other people are wanting, and thus will indeed buy
the refuse of the rest of the world.

I cannot see how or why anyone could believe that. No matter how hard i try.

Because you are absolutely sold on direct digital imaging . . . and I am not.



So MF manufactuers must either "go with the flow", or close shop for ever.
And that first option will only work if (!) it's not too late already.

What a first bit of that first option could be i have mentioned many times
before.
As if it matters when all they do in reaction to the way the market moves is
sack people...
:-(

Yes, if they get rid of too many engineers, or too many skilled labourers, then
it would be extremely difficult to return. Two things that might happen would
be extremely low priced medium format (like Seagull), or extremely high priced
luxury boutique items (like Hermés leather Leica). I think a little of both
will happen, which is enough to declare the "death of medium format".



[...]

And where's that "niche"? Digital backs, right?

Also, digital SLR. The volume is small compared to other digital imaging
sales.

Again, you mistake the early stages of growth, i.e. still being small with
"niche".

Compared to the same time last year, digital SLR volume has exploded.
And we all know what may become of exploding small things, like, for
instance, singularities.
Indeed, they can become "the world".
;-)

Sorry, I don't see your vision of digital SLR bodies all over the place. While
I am sure the manufactures would like to see that, the small and portable P&S
style has always been the largest slice of the photography market, previously
film, though now split with digital P&S. Why do you think that Sony is the
volume leader in "camera" sales?



[...]

Okay, so just send me all your medium format gear, and go be happy with
your
direct digital SLR.

Well, well... Time to sigh again... ;-)

You just don't pay attention to what people are trying to tell you, do you?
Nor seem to register the reasons why people are saying what they are.

Sorry, I don't buy into the marketing onslaught like the mass market does.
There are few things that I buy that would fit into mass market mentality. Lots
of people might be eating at McDonald's, or drinking coffee at Starbuck's, but
I am not one of them, and I think there are enough people who feel the same way
I do to keep smaller businesses viable.



If you do, you certainly do not show that you do. Quite the contrary.
:-(

I do not put faith in all encompassing statements that try to extend mass
market predictions onto all markets. People still buy luxury goods, niche
products, and products that indicate quality of manufacture. Sure, lots of
people buy somewhat disposable, or short lifespan products, especially P&S
cameras, but I think there is still a market for other products, even if that
is 1% of overall sales.



But i will forgive your impetuous youth, which surely is to blame for that.
;-)

Why would you buy a low cost digital back instead of a digital SLR?

Because it would make my MF equipment do anything i would ever want it to
do.

So is it the convenience of direct digital over scanned film?


And that without me having to change system and spend too much money on
things i basically already have.

Spending money is a cost issue. This would seem to indicate a preference for
reducing costs of photography, and achieving a perceived economy. Changing a
system would change the way you take photos, since the ergonomics and learned
camera functioning would need to be altered.


. . . . . . . . . . . .

[...]

Sorry, but i don't think either one of those is very convincing.

That's fine. These are not just my opinion, but drawn from existing data,
and
projections of companies with substantial investments in the China market.

Statistics... And that cell phone camera thing... You're sure you aren't Bob
M?

What statistics might that be? Cell phone sales figures extrapolated to the
photography market?

No, go to Gartner group, and get try to get a copy of their report on the
digital imaging market. Also, I have a stack of reports on the printing,
publishing, film, electronics, and telephone industries. These are courtesy of
two friends who work in the investment and financial analysis markets, and from
other sources for which I sometimes act as a technology consultant (like the 3G
group for which I am a design consultant).

I have repeated in the past that often heard phrase: "there are lies, damned
lies, and statistics". However, when the access to large amounts of information
is presented from numerous sources, one can develop a more concise opinion than
merely pulling information out of one's rear orifice. ;-)


. . . . . . . . . . .

Ah, yes!
The idle hope that people on the other side of the globe from the "old
world" would want to buy the things the "old world" discards as "old".
Hopes
firmly based on the assumption that, because they are far away (relative
notion), they are behind a silk curtain, they will be ignorant about the
other things they could be having too.
;-)

No, I don't think they would buy from ignorance. To suggest that of the
Chinese
would be racist.

Don't be too hard on yourself. ;-)

Are you accusing me of something?!? I don't consider that humorous at all!



No (excuse me), you say it is because they don't have as much advertising as
we do. And the result of that is, hm...

I believe there is a quality appeal of medium format cameras.

... Which appeals to Chinese enough to make MF a viable thing in China, but
not so (anymore) in the rest of the world.
You're again suggesting Chinese are different, are you not?

I think that quality can have a limited (niche) appeal in China.

Ah! That's different.

See, read a bit further, and you might understand my statements.



Apparently,
Hasselblad think the same, since they are doing a marketing tour of major
Chinese cities this year.

I do think that too. We have never doubted the possibility (!) of a niche
existance for MF.

Glad to see we finally agree on that.



What is in question though is whether this niche will be large enough.
Whether, even with the inclusion of about 3 billion people in growth
markets, this possible niche will proof to be anything more than an academic
possibility.

Yes, the size of the niche is yet to be seen. Also, there will need to be some
tangible value reason for people in China to buy foreign medium format cameras
instead of local Seagull cameras.



Why buy a Mercedes when a Toyota will get you there cheaper? Why buy a
Ducati,
when a Suzuki is faster and cheaper? Why buy a Hasselblad, when a Seagull
is
cheaper?

Those are not the right questions. MF manufacturers have known the answer to
that kind of question for a long time. And they believed the answers too.
And why not? I believe the answer as well.

Good, then we are left with seeing if the Chinese people will indeed buy
Hasselblad (or others) over Seagull.


Meanwhile however...

Now they have woken up to a whole new bunch of questions, all boiling down
to the one: *who* will buy my product when it appears that nobody wants to
anymore?

Sure, perhaps we could try to identify a market.


Al those "why"s and the once compelling answers to them appear to have lost
their value. The world has changed. MF hasn't changed with it.

So maybe they will only be luxury products, which is a direction Leica is
headed already. How about a Louis Vitton or Gucci Hasselblad? ;-)



But i think it is the only shimmer of hope MF has to catch a ride on the
digital wave and prolong their stay on this, our sublunary world.


Okay, the words "prolong their stay" indicates that you feel these cameras
will
exist in the same realm there now is for large format.

No, they do not.
They indicate that there is (or perhaps "was" is better?) a possibility for
MF to "prolong their stay".

There is (or better perhaps: "was') a possibility for MF to stay, and
maintain their market share.
There is (or better ... etc.) a possibility that their
prolonged-stay-market-share will drop drastically (and still they can
prolong their stay).
And there's even a possibility that they can increase their market share.

I would be surprised to see any increase in medium format market share.


Not very likely at all, but it would be possible.

None of which is indicated by the words i used.
What possibility i think is the likely one, however, should be painfully
clear from the many other words i used.

You really should just
send me all you Hasselblad gear . . . you won't get any money trying to
sell
it, so I will pay for the shipping for you . . . you can take comfort in
the
fact that I would be using it, rather than see it collect dust on your
bookshelf.

Argh!!!
You just don't get it...
Stop fighting the things you think is opposing you, and start listening to
what actually is being said. Please!

So easy to frustrate you, isn't it? ;-)



They should have done something earlier...

They never had the money, nor market share, nor profits to increase the
development pace of large chip digital imaging.

???

Hasselblad, for instance, had an entire subsidary firm working on digital
imaging even when that was still the thing to come, one
day in the distant future. Now almost twenty years ago.

Far too early, and far too much cash outlay. Now only the Mamiya and Leaf
market test remains, and we should know within six months if that worked at
all.

Ciao!

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

What would it take for China and India to have similar access rates to pro
quality MF gear for amateurs and pros as the rest of the world?

Since Hasselblad's intro, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . we are estimating 2.5 million pro MF for 4 billion folks, or
0.625%, or one pro MF camera for every 1,600 persons. Actually, much of
the world is also tariff walled (cf. Brazil), and probably we are closer
to one pro MF camera per 1,000 people?

Okay, I was guessing closer to 1%, though that is close enough to define a
niche.



So how many pro MF cameras would it take for China and India to end up
with similar density to the rest of the world, at 1 per 1,600 persons
(here including all countries in Africa, Asia, S. America with USA/Europe
and Japan, so not just rich country estimation)?

Yep, one and a quarter MILLION pro MF cameras would be needed. ;-)

Okay, so due to costs, let us put 75% of that number as used purchases, or
low cost Seagull TLRs. That would leave around 300000 new purchases, or at
the current level of 50000 per year, only six years of continued new sales.
That seems to me to indicate there are still too many medium format
manufacturers, and too many cameras being made. You likely have figures on
camera replacement, though I would guess at every 9 to 12 years for quality
medium format gear, with only maintenance being a more continual expense.



If China/India take the same 50 years to acquire MF cameras as we did,
they still have to buy 25,000 pro MF cameras per year to get there too ;-)

I don't see China and India combined new annual sales becoming half of the
current world sales volume. I think that is far too optimistic. I would be
surprised to see 5000 to 8000 new sales in India and China in the next twelve
months.



And of course, many of those third world and former CSSP satellites are
now also emerging into the world economy.

Okay, maybe they aren't going to achieve our level of pro MF camera
ownership for sundry reasons. But I don't think 10,000 MF camera sales/yr
is impossible in such a large emerging market. If the projections and
estimates are right, then China will emerge as the one of the world's top
three leading economies in several decades. What if MF camera ownership in
China and India parallels that in Japan? Wow! ;-)

Maybe 10000 in a few years, but not right off the start. This indicates the
current problem. To look at Hasselblad and Mamiya, they are near breaking
even this year, to a slight profit. This is barely hanging on. Of course,
1000 new sales for either company might be enough to keep them going, but
there is little room to grow or develop new products. When innovation slows
or stops, then people look more towards used values.



Again, MF is a niche market, but that also means it won't take much in the
way of new markets with unmet demands to have a big impact on sales.

Sure, even 1000 more new camera sales could help. The problem is that this
niche is fast becoming isolated. Also, other than those who previously had
little access to this gear, how can new markets and buyers be identified?
What will entice people to stay with medium format?



The key issue, as QGdeB points out, is whether these sales coupled with
any "digital backlash" will be enough to restore the market demands for MF
gear. I am also pessimistic in the short to mid-term, and think we will
lose some more players and options (pentax 67, bronica etr...). But I
think there will be survivors over the long term, and perhaps new
entrants and more diverse products, just as with LF currently?

I can see it becoming more like the large format market, though obviously
that leaves a trail of dead companies.



With Hasselblad HQ'd in China, and Mamiya making low cost 645E MF pro gear
and lenses there, it seems possible that the hereto high costs of MF may
drop significantly. This would be pretty helpful for many markets in Latin
America, where lower tariffs alone may not be enough. If mamiya/USA can
sell 645E in the USA, with heavy (costly) advertising, at circa $750, then
you have to suspect the same cameras could be sold in China (where they
are made) for under $500 (without mamiya/usa's substantial markups etc.),
and perhaps in other markets for similar prices. That would be within
reach of many more buyers than a currently priced Hasselblad kit with 20%
WTO tariffs added on ;-)

Sure, it could help, but then maybe only Mamiya and Hasselblad will continue.
With only to choices, innovation could stagnate. This scenario only prolongs
an eventual collapse a few more years.



The USA has over 57,000 pro full-time photographers per USDept Labor stats
IIRC for the latest period. This is down from 100,000+ in the 1980 period.
(Wolfman report). But I doubt China has half as many full-time pros as the
USA, at 30K or so per Gordon's estimate. I would expect rather more per
million population, because so many folks don't have cameras to have their
portraits (a big factor in ancestor focused religions and societies), you
can't rely on overseas stock agencies and related infrastructure issues.

Might become a mini industry, though I am not sure how much of that already
exists in China (or India). Who knows, there could be a wedding industry
there that grows as people become more affluent, though it remains to be seen
if that would increase camera sales (maybe just film).



As an example, China has two oil companies with over a million employees
in each, plus many other oil enterprises. The USA entire oil industry is
much smaller, but produces far more output per employee. I would be
surprised if similar dynamics don't apply elsewhere. This is one reason
why overall efficiency is relatively low. And politically, it is critical
to provide jobs to people so they won't cause trouble, yes? So I will bet
there are lots of marginal photography positions filled with employees who
are scheming to figure out how to get their enterprise (over 100,000 state
owned agencies control 85% of chinese economy) to buy them a nice
Hasselblad outfit ;-) Just like here ;-)

Maybe, but it remains to be seen if it will be enough. Also, if more ageing
photographers abandon medium format in the west, then there would not likely
be enough emerging market buyers to float the companies. I think we will read
many announcements by the end of this year, and by this time next summer
(2005), we might see all that survives.

Ciao!

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

I just would like to say that the trend in emerging markets is that often
they're more likely to adopt newer technologies because they tend to be less
invested in older ones. This trend seems to be almost universal.

"Gordon Moat" wrote:

The thing is, people are indeed selling their Hasselblads, or not buying
their first Hasselblad (and we can safely substitute Hasselblad with any
MF
brand name) because they are buying "direct digital imaging" cameras
instead.

Okay, if the face value number of 50000 new unit sales medium format is
compared to direct digital SLR sales, the numbers are way different.
Direct
digital SLR sales, just going by the Nikon and Canon numbers, are at least
four
times the sales of Medium Format cameras annually.

You may be looking at the wrong numbers. Nikon just upped their _MONTHLY_
D70 production from 70,000 units to 90,000 units.

This is, I suspect, a temporary phenomenon, with large numbers of Nikon film
users finally jumping.

But when things calm down, you will see dSLR sales on a monthly basis
trouncing annual MF sales. At steady state, the yearly figures will differ
by more than an order of magnitude.

My intuition is that it should be over two orders of magnitude.

The annual decrease of 35 mm
film SLR cameras has only been about a 10% drop. If we look at the sales
volume, some sales are to 35 mm film SLR owners, others may be new users,
others are upgrading from P&S (film or digital), and some new to
photography.
Just by the numbers, it seems that sales to former medium format users
might be
a low percentage of former sales. Perhaps that is where some emphasis
should be
placed in our discussion.

I wonder if you have these numbers right as well.

You guys talk a lot, so I can't even read it all, let alone comment.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote:

The thing is, people are indeed selling their Hasselblads, or not buying
their first Hasselblad (and we can safely substitute Hasselblad with any
MF
brand name) because they are buying "direct digital imaging" cameras
instead.

Okay, if the face value number of 50000 new unit sales medium format is
compared to direct digital SLR sales, the numbers are way different.
Direct
digital SLR sales, just going by the Nikon and Canon numbers, are at least
four
times the sales of Medium Format cameras annually.

You may be looking at the wrong numbers. Nikon just upped their _MONTHLY_
D70 production from 70,000 units to 90,000 units.

I was actually only looking at the top of the line, not the newer $1000 (or
lower) digital SLR bodies. I should have been more clear about that
distinction. The reason why I chose that level of comparison, is because I
think the price level better matches medium format new prices.

Without some survey to find people stating specifically that they bought a new
direct digital SLR over a medium format camera, we can only look at the numbers
and guess. I think the guessing might be made easier for products in the same
price range, since price would then not be a factor in the decision (or less of
a factor).



This is, I suspect, a temporary phenomenon, with large numbers of Nikon film
users finally jumping.

I have seen predictions that most 35 mm film SLRs would be out of production
(no new sales from major manufacturers) by 2008. Since that is less than four
years, I think we will see many sub $1000 level full frame digital SLRs by that
time.

Current year sales figures have also shown a slowing in new sales volume for
all digital cameras (except camera phones), though currently only about a 20%
slowdown. It might indeed be a temporary event, though the volume of digital
SLRs is expected to increase slightly overall this year over last year, perhaps
reflecting the new lower (subjectively) prices.



But when things calm down, you will see dSLR sales on a monthly basis
trouncing annual MF sales. At steady state, the yearly figures will differ
by more than an order of magnitude.

Agreed. My estimation of the differences in volume is quite low. The point is
that medium format is an ever decreasing niche.



My intuition is that it should be over two orders of magnitude.

You lost me on the math term, but it looks to me like barely 1% of total
cameras new sales each year go to medium format gear. Probably even less goes
to large format. Lack of any future new sales increases, or just status quo,
could make medium format a cottage industry within two years.



The annual decrease of 35 mm
film SLR cameras has only been about a 10% drop. If we look at the sales
volume, some sales are to 35 mm film SLR owners, others may be new users,
others are upgrading from P&S (film or digital), and some new to
photography.
Just by the numbers, it seems that sales to former medium format users
might be
a low percentage of former sales. Perhaps that is where some emphasis
should be
placed in our discussion.

I wonder if you have these numbers right as well.

Film SLRs are largely available at a much lower price point than the lowest
cost direct digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses. Also, the latest data is
only through the last quarter of 2003 for last year, and the first quarter of
this year for a couple companies. Since we are on the second quarter of 2004,
there could indeed be a great deal of difference in my numbers.

While I hate to guess, I would venture that film SLR sales have dropped a
further 20 to 30% this year. When we start seeing sub $500 direct digital SLRs
with interchangeable lens capability, then I think film SLRs may become less
than 10% of total SLR sales.



You guys talk a lot, so I can't even read it all, let alone comment.

Sorry about that David. I like to read your views on this as well, though I
think in some ways, Q.G. and I have come almost full circle in our long
discussion. It is almost tough for me to not get lost in this.

Ciao!

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

Sabineellen wrote:

I just would like to say that the trend in emerging markets is that often
they're more likely to adopt newer technologies because they tend to be less
invested in older ones. This trend seems to be almost universal.

Yes, good point with that. It has been predicted by some industry watchers and
financial analysts that wireless imaging (the newest imaging technology) could
erode up to 50% (or more) of the current digital P&S market. Wireless imaging
is already present in China, where sales are expected to be nearly 20% to 25%
of all world-wide camera phones. Total world-wide camera phone sales are
expected to be three or more times the unit volume of all other digital cameras
this year.

Okay, so to get this back into this group a bit, I think none of us (except
maybe Bob M.) thinks there will be large volume new unit sales of medium format
cameras in China. I tried to find some data about how many Seagull TLRs are
sold in China, but I could not find any numerical data. My guess is that even
in China, there could not be more of a hoped for sales volume for new medium
format than 1% of all imaging products, digital and film. While that is my
guess, I think few would think that sales would be greater.

There may be some that think less than 1000 new medium format cameras would be
sold in China. Such a low number would not keep any company in that emerging
market.

Ciao!

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

While I hate to guess, I would venture that film SLR sales have dropped a
further 20 to 30% this year. When we start seeing sub $500 direct digital
SLRs
with interchangeable lens capability, then I think film SLRs may become less
than 10% of total SLR sales.

Film buffs will probably go medium format then, though used medium format.

Gordon Moat wrote:

I feel it's getting a bit belligerent. And it shouldn't.
Yet i will reply, once more, to some chose points.

I cannot see how or why anyone could believe that. No matter how hard i
try.

Because you are absolutely sold on direct digital imaging . . . and I am
not.

And again you show that you have not understood my concerns at all...
I really must ask: do you not try to understand what people say?

Sorry, I don't see your vision of digital SLR bodies all over the place.
While
I am sure the manufactures would like to see that, the small and portable
P&S
style has always been the largest slice of the photography market,
previously
film, though now split with digital P&S. Why do you think that Sony is the
volume leader in "camera" sales?

You are good when it comes to expressing opinions. ;-)
The sad fact is the thing that actually is happening: MF companies are
hurting badly, due to (according to their own admission too) the thing you
don't see.

So let's stop this "why do you think" stuff, and face the thing MF that took
manufacturers by surprise because they too were sitting back in their comfy
chairs, pondering "visions".

You just don't pay attention to what people are trying to tell you, do
you?
Nor seem to register the reasons why people are saying what they are.

Sorry, I don't buy into the marketing onslaught like the mass market does.

There you go again... (yes, again) :-(

You haven't paid attention before, which made you say silly things like ...
Well , if you had paid attention now you would have known what. Right?


[...]
Because it would make my MF equipment do anything i would ever want it
to
do.

So is it the convenience of direct digital over scanned film?

Sure. And the matter of spending less, both on film and processing, on gear
to replace my non-digital gear. And less time spend scanning, which could be
spend doing productive things.

And that without me having to change system and spend too much money on
things i basically already have.

Spending money is a cost issue.

You don't say... ;-)

This would seem to indicate a preference for
reducing costs of photography,

Over what?
Yes, reducing cost is important.
You're not saying it isn't, are you? Are you that rich? ;-)

and achieving a perceived economy.

Perceived it is not. I believe "we" (i.e. participants in this thread. It's
so long now i can't remember who exactly said what back then when this thing
started) have been over this before.

Whether we MF-ers might like it or not, many, many times using MF is just
"overkill". Not just in quality, but in costs and time as well.

Changing a
system would change the way you take photos, since the ergonomics and
learned
camera functioning would need to be altered.

Another reason to keep using my existing MF. And use digital backs if and
when needed.

But that's another side track i didn't come out of planned retirement from
this thread for. ;-)

No, I don't think they would buy from ignorance. To suggest that of
the
Chinese
would be racist.

Don't be too hard on yourself. ;-)

Are you accusing me of something?!? I don't consider that humorous at all!

This is the important bit that made me react.

No, i'm not accusing anyone of anything.
But go back and read the thread. See who it is who insist that one group of
people is different from other people.
There may well be no humour in that. But you can't deny the copious amount
of irony present.

What is in question though is whether this niche will be large enough.
Whether, even with the inclusion of about 3 billion people in growth
markets, this possible niche will proof to be anything more than an
academic
possibility.

Yes, the size of the niche is yet to be seen.

Now sit back and ponder that for a while.
;-)

Also, there will need to be some
tangible value reason for people in China to buy foreign medium format
cameras
instead of local Seagull cameras.

There would be, if they, unlike we in "the West", would be interested in
MF...

I know, someone is indeed saying they are unlike us in that respect.
You know i don't see any reason, nor sign, that would make me agree. So i
will not go into that again.

Those are not the right questions. MF manufacturers have known the
answer to
that kind of question for a long time. And they believed the answers
too.
And why not? I believe the answer as well.

Good, then we are left with seeing if the Chinese people will indeed buy
Hasselblad (or others) over Seagull.

Good?
That's the worst thing imaginable for MF!

But lets agree on a divison of labour: you keep an eye on how Hasselblad
sales will develop in China.

And i will keep my eye on how Hasselblad and the rest of MF dissappears
before that, for no other reason than that they too are hoping things will
change if only they can find more people to sell their stuff to, still
disregarding the reasons why their stuff doesn't shift so well in their
"traditional" markets anymore.

Meanwhile however...

Now they have woken up to a whole new bunch of questions, all boiling
down
to the one: *who* will buy my product when it appears that nobody wants
to
anymore?

Sure, perhaps we could try to identify a market.

If you can find one, be my guest!
And it's not hard to find one. It's the one we're in. The one that is moving
in the wrong direction...

And there's even a possibility that they can increase their market
share.

I would be surprised to see any increase in medium format market share.

There we are. So let's forget about this entire "China and India as growth
market" thing.

Argh!!!
You just don't get it...
Stop fighting the things you think is opposing you, and start listening
to
what actually is being said. Please!

So easy to frustrate you, isn't it? ;-)

Well no.
But when you have read and responded to so many of my writings in this
thread, and still haven't the faintest idea of what i a talking about...

Then yes, it's very hard to keep from uttering not so nice things...

They should have done something earlier...

They never had the money, nor market share, nor profits to increase
the
development pace of large chip digital imaging.

???

Hasselblad, for instance, had an entire subsidary firm working on
digital
imaging even when that was still the thing to come, one
day in the distant future. Now almost twenty years ago.

Far too early, and far too much cash outlay. Now only the Mamiya and Leaf
market test remains, and we should know within six months if that worked
at
all.

And that's another of those things adding to the irony. ;-)
This thing about you talking "authoritatively" about things, while showing
you don't know the field you're talking about. This, you will recall, is not
the first "surprise" to you.
While just a moment ago you shown to be quite ignorant about the things MF
manufacturers have done, you are very confident in telling us why the thing
you didn't know about did not work?

Excuse me if i find it humerous after all.
;-)))