BlinkingEye
New member
Good find. Thanks. :thumbs:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Good find. Thanks. :thumbs:
In the film days, a medium format negative was three to four times as large as a 35mm negative. The Sony MF sensor is around twice the size of a 35mm sensor. Still, all medium format cameras except Leica, which is the only one that was built as a digital system from the bottom, are roughly the same size as the 645 cameras they were built upon.In the film days MF systems cost around 3X the cost of 35mm. With the advent of the super MP FF bodies and the need for sharper glass, the prices are coming higher every year while MF bodies are coming down. Perhaps when DMF prices get to be again 3X the prices of FF, DMF survival will be guaranteed.
Eduardo
Nikon D810: USD 2796.95In the film days MF systems cost around 3X the cost of 35mm. With the advent of the super MP FF bodies and the need for sharper glass, the prices are coming higher every year while MF bodies are coming down. Perhaps when DMF prices get to be again 3X the prices of FF, DMF survival will be guaranteed.
Eduardo
..but an otus & fullframe combination is equal or offers better image quality than your leaf /mamiya for 1/2 the price. btw. stefan is absolut right sony, canon and nikon high mp count cameras are the workhorses in professional photography this days. for me it is absolut ridiculous what people are able to see in digital mf files having shot every format from 8x10 to 35mm in my carrier. there is absolut nothing special except resolution with 645 and with todays offerings even this gap is almost closed too. enjoy your camera but don´t draw any conclusion how the pro market works or what pro photographers need from your experience.Nikon D810: USD 2796.95
Zeiss Otus 55: USD 3990.00
Total: USD 6786.95
Canon 5DSR: USD 3899.00
Zeiss Otus 55: USD 3990.00
Total: USD 7889.00
Leaf Credo 40 (With 645DF+ and 80mm LS): USD 13,995.00
Leaf Credo 50 (With 645DF+ and 80mm LS): USD 27,995.00
Less than 2x and a bit more than 4x times, depending on what you want from 35mm and DMF respectively.
If you believe this, good for you. You've saved yourself some money...but an otus & fullframe combination is equal or offers better image quality than your leaf /mamiya for 1/2 the price.
It's interesting to go down below his post and read comments. It's clear that no one really knows what is going on. Even some of the pretty well known names. But everyone sure has an opinion on the state of the MF market. Probably one of the best kept secrets of photography.New story on Photo Rumors......???
I think speaking in absolutes like this is a very difficult thing to do when making comparisons. Whether Pro, Semi-Pro or Advanced Amateur, the standards, functional expectations, and actual aesthetic demands of each photographer can vary widely...but an otus & fullframe combination is equal or offers better image quality than your leaf /mamiya for 1/2 the price. btw. stefan is absolut right sony, canon and nikon high mp count cameras are the workhorses in professional photography this days. for me it is absolut ridiculous what people are able to see in digital mf files having shot every format from 8x10 to 35mm in my carrier. there is absolut nothing special except resolution with 645 and with todays offerings even this gap is almost closed too. enjoy your camera but don´t draw any conclusion how the pro market works or what pro photographers need from your experience.
As far as I am aware, MFD has always been a low volume, high margins market. While that market has shrunk, so has the entire interchangeable camera market. Everyone including canon and nikon have been slashing sales and profit projections quarter after quarter for some time now. Almost every other week, you see some sort of deal for their lenses, which was unheard of a few years ago. So no, I don't see any sort of mass exodus happening in MF. Sure, we see posts about how someone left MF behind for sony or whatever, but for every one of those posts, there are a dozen blogposts online about how someone left canikon behind for M43 or something. And then those who left M43 behind for the next iphone. And so on.It's interesting to go down below his post and read comments. It's clear that no one really knows what is going on. Even some of the pretty well known names. But everyone sure has an opinion on the state of the MF market. Probably one of the best kept secrets of photography.
Sadly I have to agree with Thom's predicdition of one the MF market continuing to be low volume high price. Current list price of just the XF body confirms this.
Only Pentax seems aimed at a growth/volume bid i.e. New XF + $400= 645Z.
Paul
you are really funny, what a twisted view ! i wonder where your expertise comes from, i own both a hasselblad DMF system as well as sony, cambo, zeiss & schneider and i'm very sure using the sony is not a downgrade when you talk to people in the industry it becomes very clear in what direction the pro market moves, ask someone at schneider kreuznach for example the lens manufacturer of your most loved toy. i would not be surprised if they leave the dmf lens market. for high end work light, composition and postproduction are the key skills you have to know not the camera and how to master it. the camera as center of great photography is such a amateurish view.....In every format, there are people who end up purchasing too much camera for their skill level and needs. At some point of time, they WILL downgrade and feel an incessant need to justify the downgrade. The thing is that MF is a significant investment, so MF downgraders tend to be louder than the rest. Apply some internet amplification and well... You know how it goes.
Tell that to Hasselblad not to mention Rolleiflex, Bronica, Sinar, and Leaf to name but a few who'd probably say differently judging by the state of their finances over history - "...because it delivers and saves money" is not universally accepted amongst most professionals. Studios with big budgets or in niche fields (repro) get to use the most expensive equipment because they can. Probably the type of work demands the extra 5-10% more clout MFD offers which their clients demand and ultimately but most importantly pay for. The remaining 80% of professional photographers are obviously not feeling restricted by other formats lack of quality and choose to vote with their wallet and why venture capital firms are now in control of all (?) MFD manufacturers.I know everyone here wants to believe that small format is every bit as good as MFD but it just isn't, not from a "professional" standpoint anyway.
We have tested ad nauseum in house, as well as talked to our peers (other shooters in the $1M/yr gross range) and they are all reaching the same conclusions. They all shoot MFD not because its fancy or big or impressive...but because it delivers and saves money.
there must be a reason why some see big difference others can´t see. maybe self fulfilling prophecy plays a roll ?I know everyone here wants to believe that small format is every bit as good as MFD but it just isn't, not from a "professional" standpoint anyway..
I'm not so sure with the latest CMOS backs but there are differences between the formats. However, like any product at the top of its game you have to look closely for those difference (A/B comparison) to see MFD's supremacy and as most clients would never notice (or compare) why pay the price of entry? Will a bride see the extra 5% more detail in her wedding dress or a editor see a minuscule extra sharpness in the editorial shots for a lifestyle magazine? I think those questions have already been answered considering the MFD market today compared to 20 years ago.there must be a reason why some see big difference others can´t see. maybe self fulfilling prophecy plays a roll ?
Who said that it isn't better? ...what I said is that it's not better than older MF (especially with view cameras) and that it doesn't improve ones photography than if using a DSLR (or older MF)... There is a proof for that... Show me a picture that one couldn't do 10 years ago with the equipment that existed at those days and I'll "eat my tongue"... As simple as that! :OT:ummm....I'm a pro and we use MFD because its better in every step along the way when producing images for clients. Its that simple.