Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

From: (Bob Monaghan)

Foveon has two sensor designs out in mass marketed products. But as I
noted, the foveon 16MP 22x22mm CMOS sensor was NOT X3 technology, but a
conventional Bayer array with 16+ million sensors on the 22x22mm die.

We know that, but that was four years ago and they seem to have dropped it
because it's not listed as a current product. For whatever reason it wasn't
good enough to bring to market, maybe the image quality wasn't up to par or
maybe it cost too much, dunno. Four years is two product life cycles in this
business.

The
key point here is that using CMOS memory chip style technology and
production techniques they were able to produce a 16MP sensor design.

The other key point is that they appear unable to bring it to market in a
product someone will buy

National Semiconductor's CEO noted the production economics, viz. millions
will need to be produced, but at those volumes prices will drop under $10
per 16 MP CMOS sensor chip.

No matter what the volumes, unless the chip is small enough you won't see the
price drop to these levels. I worked in the chip industry as a designer for 20
years and there is simply no way a chip this size can be sold that cheaply.

You can pack a lot of transistors and sensors into a smaller (cheaper) die but
then the noise is terrible, especially at higher ISO.

Now if Foveon and National Semiconductor can produce a 16 MP device and
demo it four+ years ago, how long before they or somebody else starts
making production volumes of 16MP sensors?

Making them isn't the problem, Kodak is already at 14 Mpix and Canon at 11
Mpix. But these are used only in very expensive cameras, in part because the
die size is so costly.

The main answer is when will there be a market for millions of cheap 16MP
sensors to drive production to the millions of devices/month needed to get
costs down into the under $10 per chip range?

Doesn't work that way ... no matter what the volume the chip size is too big
for low costs.

One possible solution is to array smaller chips, a back-of-the envelope guess
tells me a chip .5" per side would cost about 1/50th as much as one 1" per
side, so if you could array four of them to get the same pixel count the cost
drops to 1/12th ... but the problem with this is the missing pixels at the
intersection points, a problem that doesn't seem insurmountable via software
but is still daunting. But this would be the breakthrough to get us to lower
chip costs.

And who knows, it might even be Foveon's proven 16 MP sensor design
that gets made? ;-)

When you were young I'll bet you were the last kid on your block to quit
believing in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, right Bob

Bill

Dan Fromm wrote:

Interesting that they claim better resolution for TMX than Kodak does.

Hm...
It would be highly surprising if two people measuring the same thing would
come to the excat same result. Even if one and the same person measuring one
thing twice would come to the same result.
So look at the relative values, how Kodak and Zeiss place for instance TMX
relative to other films.

I don't have the figures at hand, maybe you do? I'd be interested to know!

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

[...]
One possible solution is to array smaller chips, a back-of-the envelope guess
tells me a chip .5" per side would cost about 1/50th as much as one 1" per
side, so if you could array four of them to get the same pixel count the cost
drops to 1/12th ... but the problem with this is the missing pixels at the
intersection points, a problem that doesn't seem insurmountable via software
but is still daunting.

Making an array of sensors (or more correctly, an array arrays - sensors
are already arrays) to produce high photo quality is a huge challenge.
They aren't so great for astronomy, and in fact it's a common thing in
that field. But theye are not caputring images, per se, but discreen
points of information that can be integrated as datapoints.

One problem in an array of current technology chips for photography is
that there has to be overlaps of the separate physical chips. This makes
the sensor-set physically very large. The market population won't find it
an endearing prospect to carry camera larger than a Pentax 67 to make
digital pictures that are only marginally better than a single 4x4cm
sensor.

But I am positing that the greater problem is lenses for a massive sensor
set. Proper digital lenses are different. It is far easier and
cost-effective to make high quality small lenses than large lenses.

But this is today. Who knows what will occur later - possibly optics-free
lenses.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote (a long time ago):

The ony thing that can safe MF now is a rather drastic reduction in MF
digital costs. Noone in his or her right mind should even contemplate
spending really huge amounts to get a MF 20 MP digital back when he/she
can
get the same amount of equal quality pixels for 1/10th or 1/20th of the
money in the shape of a 35 mm format based digital SLR.

[...]

So the Mamiyas, Hasselblads, Rolleis, etc. should strongly urge the
manufacturers of digital MF backs to redress the balance. Their fate is in
their hands, and time really is running out fast.

So Hasselblad responded. Finally.
They point us towards a magazine article expressing surprise about the large
quality difference between pictures produced by Imacon digital backs and a
"well known DSLR".

They (almost) fail to mention the disparity between the differences in
quality and price.

They say that "there can't be many who would turn down the chance of being a
rung above the others...".

Well, that's right, isn't it? But then, there can't be many who would turn
down the chance of a nice holiday either. So ...?

And the venom is in the tail: it continues "...on the quality front at
least."

So they too know that people are not queueing to be one... what am i
saying... quite many rungs above the others on the expenditure front?

Sorry Hasselblad, but it really saddens me...
Go and beat Imacon on the head until they drop their back's price down to
competitive levels! Than you will have something to put on your website
"news" thingy!

Which in itself will do not much for sales of the H1, only help existing
V-system users remain with Hasselblad.
So drop the price of the H1 too to a level that will make enough people want
to even consider buying the thing.

Sabineellen wrote:

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.

Tough to tell what direction. The needs for larger images in publications is not
always there, meaning that some professionals can do quite a bit with smaller
formats, like 35 mm. Now with the introduction of some full frame chip digital
SLRs, there is another choice, since the few on the market meet printing
requirements (just) for two page spreads. As the costs go down within the next
couple years, the reasons to use film might only be for the colour capabilities,
namely anything approaching pure Cyan, or pure Yellow.

Obviously, medium format can give a tonality advantage, even when the printed
sizes remain small. Another advantage for a working professional is that sorting
medium format transparencies on a light table is often quicker than sorted 35 mm
transparencies, since they are just a bit easier to see without using a loupe.
Of course, that sort of consideration would mean little to an enthusiast.

While the numbers are not well organized, it does seem that Kodak, Fuji, and
even Polaroid have sold more large format (mainly 4" by 5" films) films
recently. To contrast this, there has not been a reported growth in sales
volumes of roll films. While there might be economic factors, such as the severe
recent decrease in advertising, publishing, and printing, it could also be a
trend of moving away from roll films. The discontinuation of some 220 roll films
would seem to negatively reinforce that feeling, and might contribute to some
buying habits. I don't know if professionals buy more roll film than
enthusiasts, since there is no data . . . so obviously we could speculate widely
about this.

I think those that like the cameras and lenses might find enough reason to stick
to medium format. Again, obviously many will decide to abandon film, for many
reasons that have been stated many times. Some others might move towards larger
films, like 4" by 5" films (or bigger), and view cameras.

I have read predictions that by 2008, new film SLR sales (35 mm) will be less
than 5% of all digital SLR sales. If we look at the pace of the imaging chips
changes, and pricing, it seems that full frame chips should be common by 2008,
and near a price similar to what $1000 buys today. This also assumes that
enthusiasts would still envision a feeling of quality from using an SLR over an
all in one zoom lens design, which I think is a safe assumption.

Unfortunately, my feeling is that there will be a decline in medium format usage
in North America, Japan, and Europe. These are heavy computer density areas,
with many people tuned into the latest direct digital imaging technology. The
only question mark that still remains in these markets for the photo industry is
getting more people to make prints.

Ciao!

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

Jack wrote:

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.

Perhaps, but due to the higher complexity of your typical modern MF camera,
as soon as parts start to disappear, people are going to give up.

That is sort of what I meant by "cottage industry". Think built to order, low
volume cameras, and likely quite high prices. The longer in production items
could have a used parts inventory, which could see an introduction of some
specialists repair. Unfortunately, very few would want to continue using such
limited systems.

LF has a
better chance because fixing a bellows, lens board, ground glass or even a
mechanical shutter is pretty easy compared to repairing a broken AF module,
or building one from scratch.

Large format systems are very interchangeable. Medium format is very
proprietary. Small format (mainly 35 mm), has somewhat of a range of both;
different lens suppliers, and proprietary bodies.

Sure, cameras will last a while, but
eventually a Rolleiflex will be a more attractive purchase than a clapped
out 6008.AF.

Could be one reason the old style TLR production is selling now. I think even
under a cottage industry, or independent repair specialists, type of
situation, the more complex electronic cameras might disappear entirely. Just
going by electronic component availability, if those electronic spares
disappear, the camera is dead. At least with mostly mechanical cameras, some
parts might be able to be fabricated, though at a cost.



Without the influx of money it will become hard for MF companies to keep
things going.

I agree, and I think we will see several companies leaving the medium format
market within the next year. Whether that reduction in choices leaves enough
room for much smaller new sales volumes, or enough to keep a couple companies
going, is yet to be seen. Below a certain level of sales, suppose 5000 new
annual sales minimum, there would be little point in continuing a company.

Ciao!

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

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

I feel it's getting a bit belligerent. And it shouldn't.

I agree, and I think we should move on to other postings.

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

Agreed.



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.

Agreed, largely the same as my usage preferences.


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

Good?

Only in that Hasselblad might continue as a company, with maybe one or two
other companies.


That's the worst thing imaginable for MF!

True, it would signal an end to volume medium format sales, perhaps no more
than 5000 new cameras sold world-wide each year. I suppose that is low enough
to proclaim the death of medium format. The major film companies might continue
with roll film, as long as sales were high enough, but that too could become
very tough to find in the future.



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

So far, eleven dealers and three distribution centres. Unfortunately, the sales
volumes for Hasselblad are not split in the figures I have found, meaning that
the Xpan is included in sales reports. Since the Xpan uses 35 mm film, it could
be argued that it is not medium format. There are only slightly less than
fifteen months of data, so I would not use this to project a potential future.



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.

New sales could easily trickle down to large format sales levels, which is not
enough to support manufacturing as it currently exists. ALPA sells a couple
hundred cameras a year . . . could they become the volume sales leader in
medium format . . . yes, that is the "death" of medium format.

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

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.

------Skip this three paragraph section, unless interested in specific details
of the market in China------

Well, there are figures for China to indicate that since early 2003, there have
been more Hasselblad purchases. So far, the figures do not indicate that
overall new sales volume is enough to replace lost sales volumes in the west.
This could simply be boosted figures from Xpan sales, or just a factor of a new
item on the market, and initial interest that could disappear in the future.
The Shriro Group do not break down sales by type of Hasselblad system, so maybe
it is mostly Xpan. So from 2003 through early 2004, China was a local "growth"
opportunity for Hasselblad, while sales in the rest of the world decreased.
Note that this localized China sales could easily be an anomaly, and no
indication of any future potential. Shriro mention the value of the Hasselblad
"brand" often in their literature, which might mean they have other future
plans for using the name.

Mamiya did not disclose specific details about sales volumes in China, nor did
any other company than Zeiss. Zeiss only reported specifically about China in
relation to their name on lenses for Sony digital cameras. Digital camera sales
are projected in China to increase 10% in volume this year, based on data from
the last three quarters, with Sanyo and Sony projected as the leaders in the
market in China. In comparison, camera phone sales volume has a projected 180%
increase over the previous reporting period, though that is largely placed upon
the newness of these devices in the China market (analysts comments, not
manufacturers). Fuji have opened 50 new Frontier system based imaging centres
in major Chinese cites, aimed at an "increased professional market" (Fuji
comments). The increased professional market pointed out by Fuji and others is
due to a sudden increase in the graphic design, printing, and advertising
markets in China. Those are basically newly independent enterprises, so this
early development could be expected to taper off, and stabilize in the future.

A check of the photo finishing industry in China finds a predominance of 35 mm,
especially one-time-use cameras. Roll film processing is available in several
places in the larger cities, though I found no specific data on sales volumes
of roll film (I cannot read Chinese, so there might actually be data there).
Specific details on Seagull, or Chinese made Mamiya cameras, are not in
english. About the only written reports that mention local Chinese camera
production speculate that local production might preclude a market for foreign
made products, since it would be easier to increase any volumes to meet demand.
This last factor could put foreign camera makers, especially medium format,
into a short term sales (novelty, newness, etc.) situation, without expectation
of increased future sales. If one applies the Gartner analysis of "Hype Cycles"
to the current data, then the short term early sales of Hasselblad in China
could drop substantially, meaning that 2003 through mid 2004, could be their
highest sales.

------End this three paragraph section, specific details of the market in
China------

I would never expect sales of any Medium Format cameras in emerging markets to
increase the total volume levels of medium format over past levels. In fact, I
would be surprised if the current new world sales volume was maintained, and I
expect it to decline. There is no overall world-wide growth potential in medium
format.

Ciao!

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

Bob Monaghan wrote:

a) some MF makers have already dropped models, i.e., fuji, bronica, and
others may do so shortly too (Pentax?..). So the remaining new MF sales
have to be split among fewer players, yes? An industry shakeout should
ideally leave the better products and/or stronger players standing at the
end (its only a theory though ;-)...

Maybe. Reduce the market to 10000 new sales, then find only companies
remaining with that volume of new sales, for example.



b) my calculations on pro MF ownership rates (~1 per 1,000) in the
West/Japan was only meant to show how small a number 5,000 or 10,000 MF
cameras might be against the unmet pent-up demand for MF cameras and other
"luxury" goods in a rapidly expanding economy in China and Japan.

I think the concept of "luxury" goods might keep things going, though those
potential purchasers seem to be a finite market, and not likely to keep
buying. Enthusiasts and professionals would be needed to allow a market to
continue at a sustainable level.

It would
take only 1% of that 1.25 million potential sales (to reach western pro
MF ownership levels) to create those 10,000 pro MF new sales per year in
China and India combined.

c) the big MF players are already in china, with Hasselblad owned by a
Hong Kong firm and Mamiya producing MF 645 cameras and lenses in China

Well, there are figures for China to indicate that since early 2003, there
have
been more Hasselblad purchases. So far, the figures do not indicate that
overall new sales volume is enough to replace lost sales volumes in the west.

This could simply be boosted figures from Xpan sales, or just a factor of a
new
item on the market, and initial interest that could disappear in the future.
The Shriro Group do not break down sales by type of Hasselblad system, so
maybe
it is mostly Xpan. So from 2003 through early 2004, China was a local
"growth"
opportunity for Hasselblad, while sales in the rest of the world decreased.
Note that this localized China sales could easily be an anomaly, and no
indication of any future potential. Shriro mention the value of the
Hasselblad
"brand" often in their literature, which might mean they have other future
plans for using the name.

Mamiya did not disclose specific details about sales volumes in China, nor
did
any other company other than Zeiss. Zeiss only mentioned specifically about
China in
relation to their name on lenses for Sony digital cameras. Digital camera
sales
are projected in China to increase 10% in volume this year, based on data
from
the last three quarters, with Sanyo and Sony projected as the leaders in the
market in China. In comparison, camera phone sales volume has a projected
180%
increase over the previous reporting period, though that is largely placed
upon
the newness of these devices in the China market (analysts comments, not
manufacturers). Fuji have opened 50 new Frontier system based imaging centres

in major Chinese cites, aimed at an "increased professional market" (Fuji
comments). The increased professional market pointed out by Fuji and others
is
due to a sudden increase in the graphic design, printing, and advertising
markets in China. Those are basically newly independent enterprises, so this
early development could be expected to taper off, or stabilize in the future.

A check of the photo finishing industry in China finds a predominance of 35
mm,
especially one-time-use cameras. Roll film processing is available in several

places in the larger cities, though I found no specific data on sales volumes

of roll film (I cannot read Chinese, so there might actually be data there).
Specific details on Seagull, or Chinese made Mamiya cameras, are not in
english. About the only written reports that mention local Chinese camera
production speculate that local production might preclude a market for
foreign
made products, since it would be easier to increase any volumes to meet
demand.
This last factor could put foreign camera makers, especially medium format,
into a short term sales (novelty, newness, etc.) situation, without
expectation
of increased future sales. If one applies the Gartner analysis of "Hype
Cycles"
to the current data, then the short term early sales of Hasselblad in China
could drop substantially, meaning that 2003 through mid 2004, could be their
highest sales.





So QGdeB is not right in suggesting that I think millions of chinese are
going to replicate our MF history, starting with folders and TLRs and
finally 6x6cm and then 645/67 MF kits ;-)

I think you miss that they already have a medium format history. Roll film is
already in use, and easy to get processed at many locations in China. I could
not find sales figures for Seagull TLRs in english, but there is a suggestion
that any increased demand could have been met (or still achieved in the
future, if needed), if there was a desire for more medium format imaging.
Thus, foreign companies need to enter the market in China, and hope that
Chinese people would want to buy foreign products over local products, and
pay a much higher price for those.

I do think there are many
thousands of pro photographers in China and India who will want MF kits
(as well as digital etc.) as the WTO tariffs kick in and drop the price of
imports by 2/3rds or more.

Some price reductions might help in the short term, though that type of
change is not a sustainable one. The only largely private recent change has
been an increase in graphic design, printing, and advertising. Similar to
western markets, those companies might have a desire to use medium format,
though there is no requirement for them to follow that example.



The infrastructure problem is still key to why MF and why many won't be
able to simply jump to digital.

The University of Pennsylvania has a large study about the slowness of
internet rollout and usage in China. That is one infrastructure issue, though
it affects rural populations much more than the major cities. The other
problem with your statement is that there is no reason many will not just
stick to 35 mm based systems, rather than medium format. Perhaps someone with
a Seagull might want to upgrade to a Hasselblad or Mamiya, but that is a huge
financial jump. Also, if you look at the infrastructure support just for
Hasselblad, they only have three repair centres in China, each in a major
city. This would seem to place professional and enthusiasts usage to areas in
or near those three cities only. They also have eleven current distributors,
so again, there is not much opportunity for some to even see these cameras
from Hasselblad.

As I noted, you can shoot film and carry
or mail it to developers and clients. With digital, you need a lot more
support infrastructure which isn't going to be readily available outside
of a few big cities.

Though those few big cities are also the outlets for foreign medium format
cameras. Seagull and made in China Mamiya cameras might be better placed
choices. This will be very easy to see in the near future. This time next
year, if sales have not increased, nor if more distributors, outlets, nor
even repair centres are present, then medium format will not be growing in
China. The current data could just be a one time early success, due to a new
market presence.

Ciao!

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

Fil Ament wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .

You go to the same towns outside the main cities with your digital DSLR.
You fill up your memory stick(s). You show up and ask the local lab for
prints. They ask what are these stick things? Where is your film ;-)

No need for prints (at least not right away) with a dSLR.
How many minilabs still use all-optical processing?

All optical? For mini labs to survive they need some digital
capability. There are quite a few that still print from film, and
don't scan the negatives, but that justs a portion of their over all
process.

Some industry and company reports indicate that the photo finishing business in
China is largely switching to a digital mini lab system. I would think these
types of places would be much more common in China than purely optical labs.



So you decide to download to a PC and store on CDROMs. You go around town
looking for CDROMS. What are these plastic things used for, tea coasters?
No CDROMs.

Why do you suppose these would have to be purchased
on location?

It depends on where the photographer lives I guess. It depends on alot of
factors. I would think that major cities one could get just about anyting one
desires.

A casual look at retailers in China reveals these to be easy to get items, so I
think Bob M. was stuck in the past with the CD-R comments. Computers are still
very expensive, relative to income, in China, and not even close to the density
per capita as anywhere in North America, Europe, or Japan.



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

Ciao!

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

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

. . . . . .
So drop the price of the H1 too to a level that will make enough people want
to even consider buying the thing.

I agree on that. The Contax 645 is over $2000 lower cost as a kit (B&H Photo
latest prices), than the base Hasselblad H1 kit. The Mamiya AFD is also
slightly lower in price, as a kit, than the Contax 645, and Mamiya offers a
starter Leaf digital kit and AFD bundle for about $1000 more than the H1 kit
(film only). How can Hasselblad justify such high prices?

Ciao!

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