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

Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Neil Gould"


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


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


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


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

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


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

Bill

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

Jerry

Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Neil Gould"


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


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


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


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

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


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

Bill

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

Jerry

"jerry gitomer" wrote in message
...

These products will become available only if the manufacturers
are convinced that there is a large enough market to allow them
to become profitable.

With so many manufacturers (especially well-funded electronics companies) in
the running, one can expect regular improvements, especially in the number
of megapixels, for some time to come. And the improvements they develop
will not necessarily be limited to still photos, so there is added incentive
for them to remain inventive.

Digital imaging is now the fast-track item, much as VCRs were in the 70s and
computers were in the late 80s and digital wireless phones were in the 90s.

There will soon be a whole generation of photographers that have never
handled a film camera. Sounds incredible, but think about how many members
of your own families have never seen an 8mm "Home Movie Camera," or seen
"Home Movies" projected onto a screen.

When is the last time most people saw slide shows, with a slide projector?
How many of them would not even know what a slide is, if they were to hold
one in their hands?

Don't those examples speak volumes about the long-term consumer prospects
for film?

"jerry gitomer" wrote in message
...

These products will become available only if the manufacturers
are convinced that there is a large enough market to allow them
to become profitable.

With so many manufacturers (especially well-funded electronics companies) in
the running, one can expect regular improvements, especially in the number
of megapixels, for some time to come. And the improvements they develop
will not necessarily be limited to still photos, so there is added incentive
for them to remain inventive.

Digital imaging is now the fast-track item, much as VCRs were in the 70s and
computers were in the late 80s and digital wireless phones were in the 90s.

There will soon be a whole generation of photographers that have never
handled a film camera. Sounds incredible, but think about how many members
of your own families have never seen an 8mm "Home Movie Camera," or seen
"Home Movies" projected onto a screen.

When is the last time most people saw slide shows, with a slide projector?
How many of them would not even know what a slide is, if they were to hold
one in their hands?

Don't those examples speak volumes about the long-term consumer prospects
for film?

Jeremy wrote:

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

When is the last time most people saw slide shows, with a slide projector?
How many of them would not even know what a slide is, if they were to hold
one in their hands?

Don't those examples speak volumes about the long-term consumer prospects
for film?

Just a funny side note on this. I showed some friends a few 6x9 transparencies,
and a couple actually asked how I did the transparent "prints". When I
explained it was actually film, like a slide (just much bigger), they were a
little amazed that something like that existed.

Ciao!

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

Jeremy wrote:

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

When is the last time most people saw slide shows, with a slide projector?
How many of them would not even know what a slide is, if they were to hold
one in their hands?

Don't those examples speak volumes about the long-term consumer prospects
for film?

Just a funny side note on this. I showed some friends a few 6x9 transparencies,
and a couple actually asked how I did the transparent "prints". When I
explained it was actually film, like a slide (just much bigger), they were a
little amazed that something like that existed.

Ciao!

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

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Just a funny side note on this. I showed some friends a few 6x9 transparencies,
and a couple actually asked how I did the transparent "prints". When I
explained it was actually film, like a slide (just much bigger), they were a
little amazed that something like that existed.

I had a similar experience a little while back when I showed someone a 6*6
slide. Her response was, "Is this film or digital?"

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Just a funny side note on this. I showed some friends a few 6x9 transparencies,
and a couple actually asked how I did the transparent "prints". When I
explained it was actually film, like a slide (just much bigger), they were a
little amazed that something like that existed.

I had a similar experience a little while back when I showed someone a 6*6
slide. Her response was, "Is this film or digital?"

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Just a funny side note on this. I showed some friends a few 6x9 transparencies,
and a couple actually asked how I did the transparent "prints". When I
explained it was actually film, like a slide (just much bigger), they were a
little amazed that something like that existed.

I had a similar experience a little while back when I showed someone a 6*6
slide. Her response was, "Is this film or digital?"

Gordon Moat wrote:


Just a funny side note on this. I showed some friends a few 6x9 transparencies,
and a couple actually asked how I did the transparent "prints". When I
explained it was actually film, like a slide (just much bigger), they were a
little amazed that something like that existed.

I had some advertising phots shot a few years ago. Was 645 on E100S. About a
year later we get a new marketing assistant. She comes to me with the film and
asked what it was. She believed I was deceiving her until I asked if anyone had
ever shown slides projected. Blank stare, then "oh".

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--