surprised or not?

[fotografz]

You know the benefits of MFD are subtle - except for resolution. In many applications - MFD is in fact inferior to a good DSLR. I dont mind stating the obvious.

Consider the obvious for example - to get the most out of the MFD you need very good light and lots of it - note how a lot of stuff posted her is shot in BIG LIGHT situations and the better stuff has fill and reflected liht added in..

So the lighting workshop is a great idea - and one of the lessons I am sure participants will come away with is that a decent lighting set-up is going to contribute much more to your shot than an extra 20 megapixels. In fact the extra megapixels - may in fact detract from your ability to extract the subtlety from your MFD files.

if people want to push the MFD makers to deliver 800 and 1600 and more ISO - all they are asking for is a dumbed down DSLR - this will take a year or so for people to figure out - by which time it will be common knowledge..and ther ewont be any decent backs left in inventory.

cheers
Pete

Lucid commentary Peter. Hopefully a sobering one for many who want their MFD tool to act like a Nikon D3 except with quintuple the resolution. One need only look at what the native ISO is for these backs to realize how much minupulation is being done.

I say that because IMO it diverts the manufacturer's attention away from the job at hand. Right or wrong, the back makers have to follow consumer demands to survive, and as they expand beyond the more narrow confines of the Pro studio market in order to find new areas of marketing opportunity, it's driving odd and less useful innovations that starve the areas of performance where we need that innovation. After all, there are limits to the developmental resources of these companies.

I think if we started a thread as to what innovations people want in MFD ... bet a dollar to a donut that it'd be centered around turning MFD into a 35mm DSLR ... because that's the majority of digital experience for those moving to MF digital ... and admitedly a prime target of the manufacturers trying to expand their market.

A note on lighting: anyone who has dropped a bundle on a MFD back would do well to add one more accessory ... Jack and Guy's Lighting work shop! It'll be a revelation to those struggling with their 30K investment. The guys have gone to great lengths to provide what Peter termed "Big Light" ... both inside and outside.

My personal take on lighting is exactly that. Everything I shoot with my big back is using Big Light ... when it isn't then I might as well be using the M8 or D3. My studio ISO is ALWAYS 50 ... so I have well over 12,000 w/s at my beck and call. My "lite" travel kit is a tinyl Hensel 1200 w/s generator backed up by 1200w/s of monoheads ... and that's just for small jobs. When I shoot the 31 meg back on the fly at higher ISOs, it's often with a Metz 70Mz with "lightening strike" output that I use even in decent outdoor light ... it just takes practice to make it look like no flash was used. I don't live in California, Flordia or out West where God often provides the Big Light.

 

[KeithL]

Hi Marc, et al...

I'm a little confused here, are you saying that there is little if any advantage - in terms of IQ - in using high end digital backs without employing "Big Light". For example, how about location work - think available light landscape - is there much advantage over top end DSLRs other than the increase in file size?

As an aside, personally I wouldn't be looking to MFD to ever replicate the advantages of DSLRs in terms of high ISO or high shooting speeds.

 

[PeterA]

Very well put Marc - insightful comment re high end DSLR users as being natural market expansion targets...everyone ends up one or the other version of CaNikon X 60 megapixels - LOTSA MESS AND MUSH big files with more crap in them. If that happens you may as well be shooting film and getting it processed in Wal-Mart.

Keith - to adress your question 'better files' are an outcome not an input. IF you use a quality digi back in optimal shooting conditions MFD dlivers an over the horizon superior raw file to a DSLR, BUT the further one shoots from a MFD optimal setting and conditions the less difference in image quality one sees.

Now the two governing factors on what the optimal shooting requirement will be are chip and software. there is a difference in file quality that is quite distinct to many between a high ISO capable MFD back and a lower ISO capable digi back.

If you want the ultimate file quality - you dont want the type of chip that high ISO capable digi backs have - you go for fewer but fatter pixels. SO if the MFD makers decide to go for DSLR capability except with more megapixels ( too simplify things) you are changing the game - I didnt move into MFD capture for the file size, shooting speed, high iso capability, frame rate , buffer size blah blah blah - I moved over for the file quality..

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

From what I've been reading here and especially on the LL forum, the first manufacturer to come out with a really good LCD and also fast WiFi connectivity to a laptop/whatever in a cheap 30 megapixel back will clean up the entire market. If it happens to be Hasselblad (most likely) then it would do a Canon vs Nikon (until the D3) to the rest of the market. The market research of the manufacturers seems to suggest that photographers are looking for a well integrated and well supplied system that has a back that can detach and be used on a view/technical camera. That is what they all seem to be making now. The Hasselblad 30 megapixel package has really become popular (I spoke to the 'blad representative in Manchester a couple of weeks ago, they are selling like hot cakes with the new very reduced price) and if they add the above features....

There is room now for one manufacturer to cut prices, add a really good LCD and a useable iso 800 at just 30 megapixels and to really make a killing. What are they giving instead? Funky sized sensors and huge amount of megapixels. Can't say that I see that as innovation.

I appreciate Marc's point that a MF camera is not a DSLR, what I think is fueling the drive for DSLR type functionality is the fact that a lot of the stuff being shot by MF shooters is no longer 'big light' types of photographs. A lot more of the stuff I see in commercial photography is not studio based, not 50 lights and a hundred person crew. There is incredible work being done with natural light and just a single fill/accent light and that is where I see the fashion/commercial industry going, no doubt the point of change was the fact that so many were using that original 1Ds and learnt the ability to do something different without being tied to the studio for technical/financial reasons.

I know I'm just a simple wedding photographer but at least in my field the work being done now with DSLR's is absolutely incredible in its breadth, the difference between the medium format static wedding album of yesteryear and the DSLR natural light, relaxed and spontatnous storybook album of today is incredible. It's as if freed from the shackles of the technical limitations wedding photography has finally spread it's wings and began to feel the freedom of expression. There are those few who still use MF film to do the same thing (Marc) but the revolution was sparked by the DSLR.

I think the same thing is true for a great deal of the world shooting MFDB's. They want the quality provided by those backs, but with the freedom of a DSLR to express themselves in different, more modern and dynamic ways.

Anyone with an eye on the future of photography can see that big changes are happening. The LL MF forum is heavy with talk of that realisation, sportshooter is full of the changes affecting their world, the newspaper world is finding it incredibly difficult and anyone wanting to stay dynamic in todays, but more importantly tomorrows photographic world has to be ready to ride the very cutting edge or sink into mediocrity. With that in mind, is wanting to have DSLR versatility with the quality of MFDB's such a bad thing? Shouldn't we all want to have the least technical limitiations so that we can innovate without a culture (if not reality, there are always those few in a generation who will shine whatever the limitations) of boundries?

 

[fotografz]

Hi Marc, et al...

I'm a little confused here, are you saying that there is little if any advantage - in terms of IQ - in using high end digital backs without employing "Big Light". For example, how about location work - think available light landscape - is there much advantage over top end DSLRs other than the increase in file size?

As an aside, personally I wouldn't be looking to MFD to ever replicate the advantages of DSLRs in terms of high ISO or high shooting speeds.

It's not that the MFD backs can't deliver excellent available light landscape images Keith ... there are enough examples of that demonstrated here to reassure anyone.

It's that it's not optimal to use a smaller pixel back with a native ISO of 50 at ISO 800 or 1600. Obviously, you get the benefit of a larger file size for bigger prints without software interpolation, but the further away you move from the optimal delivery, the less your huge investment pays off. This is the reason I am interested in the new hardware technology in the latest releases more than that they are bigger size, or sport yet more but even smaller pixels. The proof will be in the pudding.

The elephant in the room is that in less experienced MFD hands, or for certain applications, a lesser back can produce stunning results and make one wonder about a 39 meg., or 50 meg., or 60 meg back's incremental improvements. For example, a sub $10,000. CFV, 16 meg., 9X9 micron sensored back can produce stunning results for certain applications and end use that rival a back costing $40,000 ... witness John's Shipyard Series (that probably sold more CFVs than Hasselblad's ads have: -) Irakly opted for a P25 for his Contax 645 because of the way he shoots ... having come from a Kodak ProBack he wanted to preserve the 9X9 micron performance that was a known enity with the Kodak, but be able to capture a wider field of view.

However, when I shoot commercial work in the studio the CFV takes an obvious IQ dive compared to the H3D-II/39. Or if I'm working on location and have the light we all want and love, the big back shines ... and I assume/hope this next "more" generation will too.

The in-between for me are the backs with microlenses to boost performance. NG for T/S, but I don't use it that way. That camera replaced my Canon 1DsMKIII in the applications I used the Canon for ... and delivered much better IQ. So, all of this is very application sensitive.

 

[yaya]

Nicely put Peter,

The challenge for us, is to maintain a high level of IQ while using advanced pixel design that allows it to be smaller yet still to be able to hold the same amount of light and low noise, even when pushed to higher iso.

In 10 years we've moved from 12µ down to 6µ without sacrificing DR or base iso noise levels.

Personally I think that a 6µ sensor that gives a low-noise base iso of 50 and that can be pushed to 800 or even 1600 and still keep a broad DR (which is not the case with the latest CMOS DSLRs, is quite an achievement and I'm convinced that no one in our industry is willing to compromise one market (e.g. studio based, flash etc.) for the benefit of others (location, available light etc.).
We are, however, trying to bring out products that are more versatile than before so they can still capture those who move up from 35mm.

Yair

 

[Graham Mitchell]

You know the benefits of MFD are subtle

Really? What about:

- faster flash sync speeds (up to 1/1000)
- more dynamic range (several stops)
- ability to push and pull an image more than DSLR files can stand
- higher resolution
- option of working with waist-level or 45 degree or 90 degree finders
- digital back works with view cameras
- better lenses on the whole
- better colour
- with some MF cameras, no need to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode
- and believe it or not there are features which some MF cameras have which Canon et al do not, afaik, such as focus bracketing, focus trap or colour temp sensor

 

[KeithL]

Marc, Peter, many thanks, I now understand your point.

 

[fotografz]

From what I've been reading here and especially on the LL forum, the first manufacturer to come out with a really good LCD and also fast WiFi connectivity to a laptop/whatever in a cheap 30 megapixel back will clean up the entire market. If it happens to be Hasselblad (most likely) then it would do a Canon vs Nikon (until the D3) to the rest of the market. The market research of the manufacturers seems to suggest that photographers are looking for a well integrated and well supplied system that has a back that can detach and be used on a view/technical camera. That is what they all seem to be making now. The Hasselblad 30 megapixel package has really become popular (I spoke to the 'blad representative in Manchester a couple of weeks ago, they are selling like hot cakes with the new very reduced price) and if they add the above features....

There is room now for one manufacturer to cut prices, add a really good LCD and a useable iso 800 at just 30 megapixels and to really make a killing. What are they giving instead? Funky sized sensors and huge amount of megapixels. Can't say that I see that as innovation.

I appreciate Marc's point that a MF camera is not a DSLR, what I think is fueling the drive for DSLR type functionality is the fact that a lot of the stuff being shot by MF shooters is no longer 'big light' types of photographs. A lot more of the stuff I see in commercial photography is not studio based, not 50 lights and a hundred person crew. There is incredible work being done with natural light and just a single fill/accent light and that is where I see the fashion/commercial industry going, no doubt the point of change was the fact that so many were using that original 1Ds and learnt the ability to do something different without being tied to the studio for technical/financial reasons.

I know I'm just a simple wedding photographer but at least in my field the work being done now with DSLR's is absolutely incredible in its breadth, the difference between the medium format static wedding album of yesteryear and the DSLR natural light, relaxed and spontatnous storybook album of today is incredible. It's as if freed from the shackles of the technical limitations wedding photography has finally spread it's wings and began to feel the freedom of expression. There are those few who still use MF film to do the same thing (Marc) but the revolution was sparked by the DSLR.

I think the same thing is true for a great deal of the world shooting MFDB's. They want the quality provided by those backs, but with the freedom of a DSLR to express themselves in different, more modern and dynamic ways.

Anyone with an eye on the future of photography can see that big changes are happening. The LL MF forum is heavy with talk of that realisation, sportshooter is full of the changes affecting their world, the newspaper world is finding it incredibly difficult and anyone wanting to stay dynamic in todays, but more importantly tomorrows photographic world has to be ready to ride the very cutting edge or sink into mediocrity. With that in mind, is wanting to have DSLR versatility with the quality of MFDB's such a bad thing? Shouldn't we all want to have the least technical limitiations so that we can innovate without a culture (if not reality, there are always those few in a generation who will shine whatever the limitations) of boundries?

Ben, I think you have to define DSLR functionality. Personally, I am pro integration with a detachable back for tech camera use ... and voted that way with my wallet. But ISO 25,000 or 10 frames a second is of little interest. Even the state of development many of the systems are at now allow the freedom of expression you refer to. That is exactly how I use the H3D-II/31. Frankly, for the applications I use it, it's plenty. And the success of that promotion goes to the point that alternative offerings are welcome to those migrating from DSLRs.

Frankly, the H3D-II's new LCD is darned close, and WI Fi would be okay as long as I don't have to pay a lot for it ... or pay another $20,000. for a new upgrade to get it. What I would like is even MORE dynamic range. That the P-65+ boosted it some is VERY interesting. When it comes to dynamic range, a little is a lot.

My use of 35mm DSLRs has gone retro ... 1DsMKII ... gone. D3/D700 is now the weapon of choice for weddings ... and I will not be in the target market group for a big meg Nikon.

 

[David K]

What I'm reading both on this forum and LL does not bode well for sales of the new backs. IMHO, the company to emulate at this point in time is Nikon. Seems to me they listened to what the market place was saying (not only to comments by Nikon users but to the laments of Canon shooters too) and responded accordingly with, from anecdotal evidence, spectacular results. Canon, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in the same mold they've been in for a while and their sales are suffering accordingly. (A local dealer I know recently sold his one remaining 1Ds Mk III below his cost just to move it out of the store). One thing I've noticed about the folks that frequent the forums is that they are not shy about saying what they want and they are very articulate in expressing those wants. All that's needed now is for a company to listen and respond accordingly.

 

[fotografz]

Really? What about:

- faster flash sync speeds (up to 1/1000)
- more dynamic range (several stops)
- ability to push and pull an image more than DSLR files can stand
- higher resolution
- option of working with waist-level or 45 degree or 90 degree finders
- digital back works with view cameras
- better lenses on the whole
- better colour
- with some MF cameras, no need to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode
- and believe it or not there are features which some MF cameras have which Canon et al do not, afaik, such as focus bracketing, focus trap or colour temp sensor

Some of that is application, end use and camera make sensitive.

Mamiya and Contax 645 sync speed is 1/125th.

Push-pull is dependant on ISO used. With-in the bounds of end size, I can do things with an ISO 800 D3 file that would be stretching an ISO 800 MFD file.

Higher resolution is a given and wasn't disputed.

35mm DSLRs can and are being used with view cameras.

Rotating a D700 is a no brainer.

Horses for courses.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

One thing I've noticed about the folks that frequent the forums is that they are not shy about saying what they want and they are very articulate in expressing those wants. All that's needed now is for a company to listen and respond accordingly.

At those prices I should certainly hope not! What really did make me sit up and notice was the price the 'blad rep quoted for that 30 megapixel package, wow but the prices have come down!

 

[fotografz]

At those prices I should certainly hope not! What really did make me sit up and notice was the price the 'blad rep quoted for that 30 megapixel package, wow but the prices have come down!

I believe the whole strategy of that was to snag the high end DSLR consideration group and get them into the system ... which is exactly what appears to be happening ... Hasselblad has extended the promotion to the end of the year now.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

If I had the money...

Thing is that I don't need more megapixels and when I do it's static stuff and I'm getting 39 megapixels and incredible tonality from stitching. When the new 5D's come out I ain't upgrading, can't make it a financially correct business decision. Yes I can now get the 'blad for under 10 grand (sterling) but although it's an incredible price, if you don't need it and by need I mean as a financially correct business decision, then it might as well still be at the old price. Business hasn't changed, if you need it then the money isn't important and if you don't then you're wasting your money however cheap it is. That's what I find confusing about these new backs, who can say that it's a correct financial decision to buy a 60 megapixel back? If the extra 20 or 30 megapixels aren't making profit over and above what a 40/30 megapixel back would, if there is no client pressure to need those extra megapixels, why on earth could any business justify it? And for those who can, for whom it is needed, what where they doing before and who the heck needs that much single shot resolution for the end product?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I have to agree Marc, Hassy wants people in there system and lowering the price to a level that can attract more folks in the better. They still have to buy lenses and we all know that is really where the money is at in a lot of ways. Even Phase will come very close in price with the P30 plus and body. Leaf also lowered there price on the 65s . So most of them see the market in pricing as being very close to the high end DSLR's. Also we will see prices coming down on demo's and refurbs. Even here the prices are posted that are very attractive in the buy/sell section for the vendors. Than the new high pixel backs will drive prices down. This is all good for us to get in easier and actually even add more to the existing user base.

 

[fotografz]

What I'm reading both on this forum and LL does not bode well for sales of the new backs. IMHO, the company to emulate at this point in time is Nikon. Seems to me they listened to what the market place was saying (not only to comments by Nikon users but to the laments of Canon shooters too) and responded accordingly with, from anecdotal evidence, spectacular results. Canon, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in the same mold they've been in for a while and their sales are suffering accordingly. (A local dealer I know recently sold his one remaining 1Ds Mk III below his cost just to move it out of the store). One thing I've noticed about the folks that frequent the forums is that they are not shy about saying what they want and they are very articulate in expressing those wants. All that's needed now is for a company to listen and respond accordingly.

I think part of that is sticker shock in this economy David. Gotta think long and hard before parting with that kind of money. People will grouse about it and try to convince themselves they don't need it ... which in 90% of the cases is true, so it's an easy argument to make publicly : -)

What will alter that is IF the backs deliver obvious, and I mean obvious, advancements in IQ ... then those with a real application for that kind of performance will pony up for it. But the weekend landscape shooter better have a trust fund to dig into to play that game.

I agree with your Nikon assessment verses Canon as a poster child for listening and delivering. It advances what you want a DSLR for ... speed in every area of performance.

Give me a full 645 frame, 9X9 micron, 30ish meg back and I'm squirming with delight.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Give me a full 645 frame, 9X9 micron, 30ish meg back and I'm squirming with delight.

Almost there. LOL But I agree and I really like these 9 micron backs, bigger would be nice though.

 

[yaya]

Ben and all,

I would just like to add that basing the market's requirements on what is reflected via 2-3 public forums can be very tricky.

No disrespect to anyone on this forum or on LL, quite the opposite actually, but if you were a manufacturer of a high-end professional tool (in our case, cameras), will you be making your camera go to 1600iso because 25 people have expressed their desire for it and knowing that the majority of these 25 people already own or use a 200/400/800 device and produce good work with it (and hopefully make some good money with it as well)?

Obviously I'm exaggerating but do you see my point? Here's an exercise with numbers:

If there was, today, a 30MP back in FULL 56X42 format that shoots 2 fps at 1600iso with a D3 screen offered at $30K, how many more backs do you really think will be sold WW?

Let's assume that every poster on LL represents another 100 photographers that he/ she knows from college, work, APA, AOP, BIPP etc.

So from 76 voters we'll get 760 sales, split between 4 manufacturers, that's a $5.7M revenue per manufacturer, at a relatively low margin that will have to reflect on the dealer's margin...now due to limited resources, this will have to come on the expense of producing and selling allot more $15K-$20K backs and/ or similar numbers of $40-50K with higher margins?

Much of the above is hypothetical, but what I'm trying to say is that as much as these 2-3 forums might be the only "representative" vehicle, they should not necessarily be used as a true reflection of the WW market/s

Yair

 

[PeterA]

So Yair - you are saying that the total market isnt very big...??

 

[LJL]

As a guy that is presently peering over that precipice, I have to say that a $15-25K "fall" for the first tumble is still a long way to drop, but may be more doable if the camera/system offers enough features and capabilities for intended use. Ah, the catcher.....intended use. If looking to replace a 35mm DSLR, there is nothing in the MF stables that can do that now from a handling, functions, ease of use, high ISO, speed, perspective. Why should there be? (I know I would not think of using a MF for all of the things that I can do more easily or better (resolution and DR may be the exceptions) with a top end DSLR.) What I would like it to have the same sort of feature set on MF that is available on high end DSLRs. Not everything, but more of the things that are ergonomically and functionally useful, and at a price that more encouraging to pull me in. The Hassy and Phase offerings are starting to get there, and that is very encouraging. The volumes for some of the new offerings are not going to be high, as Yair points out....at least not until there is a much larger user base in MF. We can bash Canon and Nikon all we want about their shortcomings, but both were able to create a market interest with their low end DSLRs, while selling much fewer high end units. (That may be an exception with the sports shooter cameras, but even there, the prices were reachable at $4-5K.) The serious crowd the migrated up the DSLR ladder and that is looking for even more in IQ brings a lot of expectation and maybe baggage about use, features, capabilities, etc. That is a market group that should be the target for the MF makers, so meeting more of those wishes will translate to more sales. That in turn will create the upward migration path and volumes for the bigger guns. Trying to sell 5,000 or so 60MP backs to a market with only 6-10K users ain't gonna get you there. However, selling 10-15K 30MP backs on bodies that have the features developed over time in the DSLR world will get you a much larger user base to increase sales of those higher end backs. It is a numbers game here too, and by increasing the market base with affordable and useful entry products that have lots of practical features, it can finetune the expectations for the next round of offerings.

I think the MF makers have started down this path, but are still limited in their ability to deliver things at the demand pace of the new and growing market coming from the DSLR world. Wanting a 9 micron, full 645 frame, broader ISO range, 30MP back does not sound unreasonable for folks coming from a world that has 20-24MP, full 35mm frame, very high ISO, cameras with great LCDs, flexibility to shoot, speed, etc. There are some limitations for sure, but that is not going to dampen the expectations.

I agree with Peter and Marc and others that changing the expectations to work within the present MF parameters is important, such as big light, shooting for more DR, etc., but that is not going to eliminate the other expectations, wants, needs, desires for more functionality, utility, ease of use, affordability, reliability, etc. I like were some of these innovations and developments are going in MF. I like that it is looking easier to get into MF with more competitive pricing. I am still impatient to see more features wrapped up into more affordable packages sooner, but that is just me ;-)

LJ