surprised or not?

[KurtKamka]

Great discussion. Traditional MF market share is most likely limited. But, when you start recruiting current and potential high-end DSLR users, it becomes interesting.

You can see where digital back manufacturers might be looking at an updated overall business strategy. Lower the margins and increase the number of backs sold as entry level backs ... and keep developing higher priced/margin trade-up backs to support the overall business. Buyer demographics aren't the same and the potential size of the market is smaller ... but, a similar strategy has been profitable for DSLR manufacturers.

Whoops ... I see that LJ just posted much of the same while I was writing this ...

 

[woodyspedden]

Woody you will gain a lot more knowledge at the lighting workshops. We have some of the best folks on site at the workshop with a ton of MF knowledge and experts with processing on hand. Not to throw out a ad but folks really need to come to this one.

Guy

I could not agree more and that is why I am attending the workshop and would suggest others consider this as well.

After a six week period with the H3DII-39 it is clear that the money you spend does not guarantee higher IQ. What is for sure is that you bought the capability for higher IQ. And once you master the tool, understand the limitations etc (much of which is being discussed in this thread!) you can probably consistently get great results a la Marc Williams.

Just for the hell of it I took mine to a water park with my two grandkids the other day just to see what my results would be. When I came home and looked at the images my disappointment was palpable! I missed a lot of shots because the auto focus is slow compared to my Nikons. I find it harder to hand hold because of shake compared to either the M8 or the D3/D300.

On the other hand, I also have been doing product shoots for my daughter's new business. Here I am always using a tripod and have everything optimal for such work in terms of ISO, focal length, shutter speed etc. And as Marc vividly describes, plenty of big light. Now the IQ is spectacular compared to the Nikons.

My next set of experiments will be landscapes. Here again I will be shooting with a tripod. Manual focus. Optimum F stop etc. I will be shooting primarily at the native ISO of 50 but will also experiment at 100 and 200. Nothing higher. I will get back with results so all can hopefully learn from this.

Woody

 

[David K]

Yair... I think you need to add a zero to your example (unless you're figuring a 10% sales rate in there). Wish you guys would make the same mistake in pricing these things Seriously though, I do understand the point you are making, i.e. there's a finite number of $30k + buyers in the world. I mentioned in another thread that Harley Davidson just announced they'd be buying an Italian manufacturer of $120k motorcycles for over $100 million. While I've got no insight into why they're doing this, it's seems clear that they want bragging rights to one of the "best bikes in the world" not because they expect to sell that many of them but to lure buyers in to their lower priced line. Ford and Dodge did the same thing with their "fastest pickup truck in the world" battle. These guys are all smarter than I and I've got to believe this is a valid marketing strategy. If this is what the Big 4 MF manufacturers are thinking, i.e. let's develop HUGE megapixel backs and we'll sell a lot of the lower end stuff, then I certainly hope it works, but I'm not convinced that it will. I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of MF users who think, that for the money they're spending (or spent) they should have gotten a better LCD, etc. and that those areas are where the Big 4 should be spending their limited R&D dollars. I don't know... maybe Marc is correct in thinking that the public comments are rationalizations about why they don't need the new generation of back when the reality is that they don't want to part with the bucks. One thing I'm sure of is that all of us are rooting for the industry to grow and be profitable. That can only be a good thing for everybody.

 

[KurtKamka]

Hi David,

A different insight on the the Harley acquisition. Here in the Milwaukee media (Harley's corporate home) the rationale for the purchase has been placed on increasing marketshare in Europe vs. giving high-end US enthusiasts something more exotic. Although, a few high-end, high-profit sales always help the bottom-line.

Harley has never been a big player in the European market because European tastes largely favor touring and sport bikes. They've tried pushing Buell in Europe but it's been a non-starter. Harley management knows that the US market has leveled off, so they need to become more aggressive in Europe. It was probably a necessary move to acquire a European badge for the company to think seriously about increasing share in Europe.

Sorry for the off-topic post ...

 

[pcunite]

I am very new to the MF world (in research mode right now). I think the MF companies had better do something about only advertising resolution. As it stands right now I could buy a 1DsMKIII right now if I wanted to. But I am not seeking merely 21 mega pixels. I want the quality of the 9 micron pixels. When I hear about 60mp backs that only shrink the pixels it makes me sad. I want to leave that world not spend thousands more to play the same game.

So my question is how committed are the MF companies to image/pixel quality? Will I get support for my 30/16 9x9 backs if I buy one now?

I don't mind the slow pace of MFD but I do need an LCD to judge exposure with because I won't have a tech with me.

To summerize here is what I wound jump on:

• ISO 100 to 400
• Flash sync 1/500
• 25mp 9 micron pixel (or same quality tech)
• Good lens that is equivalent to a 35mm lens in 35mm format. So if a cropped sensor I need an equivalent lens.
• An LCD to check exposure with
• $15,000

I am close to just staying 35mm because MFD can't seem to improve in areas that matter to me... If I am not a target customer then let's see who lasts the longest

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

If the world wide market is so small the shouldn't companies be trying to corner it unlike what Yair seems to be saying? If a company has the guts to sell a package at a price where it really is competing with high end DSLR sales, if they are willing to make DSLR shooters like me go 'hmmm' then they will corner the market, not with switchover sales from their current user base which is pretty small anyway, but by making themselves not only the first address for a first time MF buyer, but also a serious contender for the 1Ds mkIII buyer.

However what is more interesting is applying Yair's logic to the new very high megapixel chips, especially the Leaf wide chip. Will that really make more money than trying to pursuade an entire segment of the market to invest in your products? More than that, what you are essentially asking is whether people will upgrade or sidegrade for better options, why don't you ask Phase with their '+' backs? They put in a better screen and an extra iso and I doubt they made a loss doing it but given the amount of pre + backs for sale, and I'd love one of the sellers to back me up here, people really did upgrade for those minor features.

Yair, you're saying that these forums are not representative of the world wide MFDB market. So what is? When I spoke to to the 'blad representative he was in my local pro store arranging to have them sell the cameras for him rather than referring people straight to him. He's selling loads of the 31 megapixel package and he wants them sold through stores so that people coming in for a high end DSLR will have the camera in front of them, to give them a choice at an almost affordable price. Seems to be working too. If what we are reading here isn't representative then please tell us what is, what your own research is telling you that is different? Can we be blamed for believing what we read from users if no one is telling us any different?

Seems to me that MFDB's can remain a small volume niche market making ever increasingly niche products or they can try to tackle people like me (I only have a couple of years left in the wedding business and then will have to diverse) and make some real money through volume rather than skimping on what seem to be essential details such as LCD's with the excuse of low margins. Canon don't make their money on the 1Ds mkIII, they're making a fortune on the 450D...

First manufacturer to market a decent MFDB at the DSLR crowd wins a coconut!

 

[yaya]

I am very new to the MF world (in research mode right now). I think the MF companies had better do something about only advertising resolution. As it stands right now I could buy a 1DsMKIII right now if I wanted to. But I am not seeking merely 21 mega pixels. I want the quality of the 9 micron pixels. When I hear about 60mp backs that only shrink the pixels it makes me sad. I want to leave that world not spend thousands more to play the same game.

So my question is how committed are the MF companies to image/pixel quality? Will I get support for my 30/16 9x9 backs if I buy one now?

I don't mind the slow pace of MFD but I do need an LCD to judge exposure with because I won't have a tech with me.

To summerize here is what I wound jump on:

• ISO 100 to 400
• Flash sync 1/500
• 25mp 9 micron pixel (or same quality tech)
• Good lens that is equivalent to a 35mm lens in 35mm format. So if a cropped sensor I need an equivalent lens.
• An LCD to check exposure with
• $15,000

I am close to just staying 35mm because MFD can't seem to improve in areas that matter to me... If I am not a target customer then let's see who lasts the longest

This is a very good "starter kit" list. maybe only the 25MP 9µ is missing (there is no, and won't be, such sensor) but much of the rest is available with good support and decent features:

An Aptus 65 gives you 28MP, 7.2µ, 44X33cm, 50-800iso (bit of leg/headroom), a 6X7 screen that gives a bit more than just exposure reading.

This (used or refurbished), a used 500 C/M body with a 40mm or 50mm Zeiss Distagon will give you the 1/500 sync and will likely fit into your budget.

It's fully serviceable and supported by a wide dealer network, software that runs on PC/ Mac, files that work in LR, ACR, Aperture, iPoto...plus it can be traded in as/ if/ when you choose to get something newer/bigger/ faster etc.

Yair

 

[Mitchell]

I'll be clear; I know nothing. !:^) Thanks for a really great discussion.

I've heard it said a number of times that the new 31-39 mega backs have as good IQ as the older 22 meg 9 micron backs. Is this not true?

I've also heard from dealers that the bigger backs far outsell the smaller backs so they aren't interested in improving the smaller backs.

I'm very interested because I'm looking at a good deal on a demo that's actually more megs than I probably need, but being the new generation it has improvements including a much better LCD over the smaller backs.

I like the idea of the 22 meg back, but it seems that the companies see the demand as too low to bring a new generation of small backs to the table. They sell more 30 something backs at higher margins.

Best,

Mitchell

 

[Uaiomex]

Well, I'm really surprised. I don't own a dback yet, but been following a lot of theads like this here and in other sites for the purpose of keeping up and when time comes (pretty soon I believe), I'll make the best decision when buying.

I'm surprised that the 30 something backs outsell the 22mp crowd. Most posters say they all love their big fat pixel sensors for the quality.

I'm surprised that the 30mp backs outsell their less dense siblings because a lot of posters complain about increasing computer needs for processing.

I'm surprised too because they mostly claim there is no real advantage in resolution unless you are printing real big.

I think that there must be other motives for this to happen. Maybe the 9 micron stamp tool got broken and nobody has been able to replicate it. Now, seriously, I don't understand why, it beats me. Manufacturers keep coming with denser and denser backs while the great mayority of photographers claim better DR and physical larger sensors (in that order).

Some makers claim that brighter lcd displays would worsen the problem of noise because of increased heat. Why not build a 10% bigger back to allow for some room to cool off?. Why not come with a swinging back like Kodak did a short while ago? That would allow for extra cooling and with the big bonus of flipping the lcd like waist level finder. Now, that's cool!!

Well, I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised that now all is about bokeh. With this denser pixel backs lenses start to difract shortly after f5.6, now everybody brags about how nice bokeh they get with their brand new glass but nobody seems to keep both eyes in focus!!

I'm surprised and not.
Eduardo

I'll be clear; I know nothing. !:^) Thanks for a really great discussion.

I've heard it said a number of times that the new 31-39 mega backs have as good IQ as the older 22 meg 9 micron backs. Is this not true?

I've also heard from dealers that the bigger backs far outsell the smaller backs so they aren't interested in improving the smaller backs.

I'm very interested because I'm looking at a good deal on a demo that's actually more megs than I probably need, but being the new generation it has improvements including a much better LCD over the smaller backs.

I like the idea of the 22 meg back, but it seems that the companies see the demand as too low to bring a new generation of small backs to the table. They sell more 30 something backs at higher margins.

Best,

Mitchell

 

[fotografz]

I think a lot of the responses in this thread serve to re-enforce the point I made about so many alternative demands on the manufacturers that it must absolutely drive them crazy ... and, IMO, if they respond to all these demands. it will serve to take the eye off the ball as to what MFD is really all about ... IQ ... just like Peter said in the beginning.

On the other hand, users and potential users feel they know what they want ... however, I would offer that those "wants" are based on previous experience more than "what can be" ... maybe even "should be." I also think many folks aren't aware of where these MFD systems are currently ... and I'd suggest renting to find out. Actually experiencing them is a lot different than theoretically chatting about them on-line.

As Yair pointed out, a couple of these forums only represent a fraction of actual MFD users. Lots of landscape shooters and advanced amateurs (not meant as a negative,) that isn't truly representative of the universe of MFD shooters. Anyone making a living with this stuff has incredible demands put on them to produce very versatile files that increasingly are serving a multitude of usages, cropping and manipulation. In this environment, IQ is king. Moiré is a no-no, small file size doesn't cut it, color fidelity is paramount. and so on. I'd estimate that 90% of the end result of MFD work ends up being produced in CMYK printed on paper, not RGB out-puts from a inkjet or Fuji photo printer. You have to have a lot going in to maintain any quality going out.

As far as hardware features, controls and software are concerned ... IMO the priority should be "does it help increase IQ?"

If the new multi-channel, bigger backs deliver visably superior IQ, and I have no reason yet to doubt they will, then a % of that universe out there will opt for it.

 

[yaya]

I think a lot of the responses in this thread serve to re-enforce the point I made about so many alternative demands on the manufacturers that it must absolutely drive them crazy ... and, IMO, if they respond to all these demands. it will serve to take the eye off the ball as to what MFD is really all about ... IQ ... just like Peter said in the beginning.

On the other hand, users and potential users feel they know what they want ... however, I would offer that those "wants" are based on previous experience more than "what can be" ... maybe even "should be." I also think many folks aren't aware of where these MFD systems are currently ... and I'd suggest renting to find out. Actually experiencing them is a lot different than theoretically chatting about them on-line.

As Yair pointed out, a couple of these forums only represent a fraction of actual MFD users. Lots of landscape shooters and advanced amateurs (not meant as a negative,) that isn't truly representative of the universe of MFD shooters. Anyone making a living with this stuff has incredible demands put on them to produce very versatile files that increasingly are serving a multitude of usages, cropping and manipulation. In this environment, IQ is king. Moiré is a no-no, small file size doesn't cut it, color fidelity is paramount. and so on. I'd estimate that 90% of the end result of MFD work ends up being produced in CMYK printed on paper, not RGB out-puts from a inkjet or Fuji photo printer. You have to have a lot going in to maintain any quality going out.

As far as hardware features, controls and software are concerned ... IMO the priority should be "does it help increase IQ?"

If the new multi-channel, bigger backs deliver visably superior IQ, and I have no reason yet to doubt they will, then a % of that universe out there will opt for it.

Thanks Marc, for putting into a few sentences what I was trying to say in long winded posts...guess there's still lots room for improvement on my English...

Indeed IQ is always 1st priority with workflow (whatever this means to different people) and features following, all at a reasonable cost...

To Ben I would say that we run our own surveys, usually using ~2,000 working photographers and sometimes these surveys are very short and focused or sometimes using a very small group for a very specific purpose.

We also have about 25 field people around the world, who work with more than 100 dealers and see and talk to customers, prospects, students, teachers, scientists etc on a daily base. and the information and requests are being fed through in a very organised way. We also have 3-4 professional photographers working for R&D who are all used to 35mm, MF and LF film and digital. Add to that trade shows, seminars, real shoots...it adds up. And of course there are public forums that are closely monitored by several of us on a regular base, as they provide a wealth of instant feedback and ideas.

Yair

 

[David K]

Yair, I have no intention of being argumentative but have you found that the feedback from your impressively extensive network differs from that which we read on the forums... Not to beat a dead horse, but the Canon/Nikon example I've mentioned before indicates that the issues raised by Canon shooters on the forums (I've read) which were addressed by Nikon has had a real world impact on sales of those two brands. Perhaps this simply does not apply to the MF world...

 

[PeterA]

Yair - if I could have one wish it would be that the 4 back manufacturers got together and agreed on certain basic commonalities that would allow users greater cross platform choice.

I know this is a pipe dream BUT
Imagine if manufacturers agreed on standard back interfaces for example..how much hassle that would save everyone..how much unnecessary duplication could be removed. some extra dollars could be spent on other areas more important to back makers and photographers than physical connections.

All these proprietary devices are artificial barriers to entry and put up switching costs which dont really make a bigger market.

I think Hasselblad made a strategic blunder going for a closed system - and unfortunately we now have a 3 cornered camera and lens base of competition with some soon to go away cross platform band aid solutions.

I preferred the old days when one could much more easilly mix and match their equipment with their film choices - if backs were more like film and less like part of a marketing trick - we would all be better off.

I would love a 40 megapixel black and white back for example - imagine the tonal range with no RGB sharing you coudl get ...!! WOW I woudl love a B&W only back and a colour back which could be used on ANY camera body lens combo.

I would love to see digital lens corrections and better raw processing as plug in modules working on DNG files that were the same as teh native RAW files from manufacturers..

i dont want to learn different raw processing software for each back I own..

I have a list of lenses that I would love to use which come from 4 different manufacturers..I would even buy 4 different camera bodies to use my favourite lenses with - why do I need to buy 3 different backs with 3 different adaptors? see what i mean? nad when 'forced' to choose -well one naturally goes with wher one has greatest investment in lenses...eg to stay with Leaf I would have had to sell out of HC lenses..AND I would have had to take a big hair cut on my Aptus 75 switch to Afi as well on top..

I loved my Leaf back - more even than my H3D11-39 - but now way will I ever allow myself to be forced into an upgrade like Leaf was trying to make me do as well as sell all this great glass I had paid a lot of money for - sorry but I think these closed systems force peoel to make sub-optimal decisions, because that is all they can do. tehy also limit the total market size potential.

the list is long..-

cheers and thanks for your input.
Pete

 

[fotografz]

Yair - if I could have one wish it would be that the 4 back manufacturers got together and agreed on certain basic commonalities that would allow users greater cross platform choice.

I know this is a pipe dream BUT
Imagine if manufacturers agreed on standard back interfaces for example..how much hassle that would save everyone..how much unnecessary duplication could be removed. some extra dollars could be spent on other areas more important to back makers and photographers than physical connections.

All these proprietary devices are artificial barriers to entry and put up switching costs which dont really make a bigger market.

I think Hasselblad made a strategic blunder going for a closed system - and unfortunately we now have a 3 cornered camera and lens base of competition with some soon to go away cross platform band aid solutions.

I preferred the old days when one could much more easilly mix and match their equipment with their film choices - if backs were more like film and less like part of a marketing trick - we would all be better off.

I would love a 40 megapixel black and white back for example - imagine the tonal range with no RGB sharing you coudl get ...!! WOW I woudl love a B&W only back and a colour back which could be used on ANY camera body lens combo.

I would love to see digital lens corrections and better raw processing as plug in modules working on DNG files that were the same as teh native RAW files from manufacturers..

i dont want to learn different raw processing software for each back I own..

I have a list of lenses that I would love to use which come from 4 different manufacturers..I would even buy 4 different camera bodies to use my favourite lenses with - why do I need to buy 3 different backs with 3 different adaptors? see what i mean? nad when 'forced' to choose -well one naturally goes with wher one has greatest investment in lenses...eg to stay with Leaf I would have had to sell out of HC lenses..AND I would have had to take a big hair cut on my Aptus 75 switch to Afi as well on top..

I loved my Leaf back - more even than my H3D11-39 - but now way will I ever allow myself to be forced into an upgrade like Leaf was trying to make me do as well as sell all this great glass I had paid a lot of money for - sorry but I think these closed systems force peoel to make sub-optimal decisions, because that is all they can do. tehy also limit the total market size potential.

the list is long..-

cheers and thanks for your input.
Pete

As far as I can tell, Hasselblad and Sinar still offer the option of a digital back that can be used on any camera platform. Yes, adapters have to be employed, but that's because each camera maker uses different mount configurations and e-connections ... so it really isn't the back maker's fault.

Hasselblad actually tried to use in-camera DNG with the initial H2D in an effort to unify capture format ... that flopped because it slowed down the capture rate and caused more issues than it solved as the meg rate increased to 39. Might be more possible now, but it wasn't then. That had potential to unify the software issue. My only current major issue with Phocus is that the Phocus corrections can't migrate to a DNG conversion like they do for a Tiff conversion. :wtf:

I too was bitterly disappointed when my 30K Aptus 75s wasn't able to be used on the AFi ... and the AFi conversion meant a scalding bath on my current back, a new camera/back, plus all new AF lenses ... so a basic kit with 3 AFD lenses and the "haircut" on the 75s added up to over 60K ... to end up with the SAME back I already owned. Hard to justify that one no matter how you "cook the books." :thumbdown:

IF Hasselblad would just make a focal plane H camera body ... I COULD use all my favorite lenses in one system ... all the 200, 500, and HC series lenses in one system. :clap:

If that H focal plane camera were open to other backs that would be even better. But that will happen when Dante's Hell freezes over. :banghead:

 

[David K]

Seems like more than a few of us would still be with Leaf if they had a decent upgrade program for us former Aptus users.

Pete,
The desire to use your favorite lenses from different manufacturers is one of the main reasons I went with Sinar. I'm shooting the Hy6 and Contax 645 on the same back and bought the Hassy adapter so I could use it on a 200 series camera with the F lenses. Unfortunately, that combo didn't work out well but I still get to use lenses like the Hassy 110 f/2 FE and the Super Achromats on the Contax kit via adapter, albeit in stop down mode.

 

[PeterA]

Marc, I share your pain as you well know..:bugeyes::banghead:

David - as I recall one of my first posts on this site was my testing of an early version of the Hy6 - bacause the Afi hadnt been released - yet. The test made some passing remarks regarding my surprise at the differene between look and feel of the body as well as soem concern re the example of the 80 Schneider it came with.

My sole reason for buying into Leaf was the promised Afi body. The positive experience was hwo well the back worked on my Hasselblad - but the real revelation came with my Alpa + Schneider lenses.

So I was happy to switch from Hasselblad and three lenses to Leaf Afi and start again. But then I found out that my Back was not suitable and like Marc - changeover costs would have been like - RIDICULOUSLY UNFAIR.:angry::angry:

Like you I thought a switch to Sinar was something I could consider - seriously - because of the multiple adaptor system. However, I found the software to be way out of my league in terms of what I was happy to put up with. the software really turned me off..I was possibly too harsh..anyway..

Since then I have switched to a more complete Hasselblald system. and Hasselblad have completed their silly closed system strategy...

When if Rollie release a body that will take a Phase One back or a Hasselblad back I would consider it. There are a few lenses in Rollie guise that i would love to own and use!

(Anyway being a gear head means that eventually I will probably try the Hy6/7/8 :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL I am sure you guys ill have figured out how to really use the software and make teh files sing - at which point Ihave no barrier to entry!

for now though I am looking forward to choosing my view camera system - and I think I have found the perfect solution ( for me)..

Cheers ( long winded response) sorry.
Pete