The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Digital Medium Format pricing

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I'm not comparing. Medium format is more expensive to produce for many reasons. It doesn't matter how the build quality (or anything, really) compares to 35mm. The fact is it costs more to produce an equivalent net profit, regardless of the quality. Yes, it would be nice to have better build quality on the cameras (perhaps we will). But seriously, given that the entry level price of medium format is around $10K, and you're proposing $3K, don't you think your math is just a little bit ambitious Fred? ;) Why not also make the 5D-MKII $800? As laughable as that seems, it actually would be the more likely of the two scenarios.


Steve Hendrix


Why not have both? It most certainly does matter how they compare. When I first saw the mounting surface of the Phase DF to a DB, I was not impressed and remember thinking that for the $ this thing looks cheap. but I wanted a MFD sensor, so there was a compromise. Why should I compromise at these so called entry level prices? Even the top of the line DB still has to use the DF if you shoot that style and have that mount. The Hasselblad at least, seemed more robust with better quality, but none of these cameras matches the battery or functionality or weather sealing of their 35mm counterparts. Being able to put a MFDB on a tech camera or other options is most certainly useful, but it seems MFD's R/D forgot about the camera aspect. If the 5D MKII didn't have the ability to shoot HD broadcast quality video, perhaps it would only cost $800!
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Steve,

What publicly disclosed information and which blanks?

Thanks,

Matt

I don't wish to re-publicize all the information concerning it, considering it is not all positive. There's enough of it there if someone wants to find it. And as I said, it helps to have some knowledge of undisclosed information, which is not available to most, and so one is left with their own conclusions. Often there's not much a manufacturer can do about perception when it is not in their best interest pull the curtain aside. But clearly Leaf was enthusiastic about the project (as they poured tons of money into and still have holdings). And I believe Phase One appreciated the product, while their feelings about the project and the best path forward for a camera platform for the long term may not have been compatible with any enthusiasm over the product.


Steve Hendrix
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Why not have both? It most certainly does matter how they compare. When I first saw the mounting surface of the Phase DF to a DB, I was not impressed and remember thinking that for the $ this thing looks cheap. but I wanted a MFD sensor, so there was a compromise. Why should I compromise at these so called entry level prices? Even the top of the line DB still has to use the DF if you shoot that style and have that mount. The Hasselblad at least, seemed more robust with better quality, but none of these cameras matches the battery or functionality or weather sealing of their 35mm counterparts. Being able to put a MFDB on a tech camera or other options is most certainly useful, but it seems MFD's R/D forgot about the camera aspect.

There's no reason to not have both a 35mm and medium format system, in fact the vast majority of our medium format clients do indeed have both. I'm only saying that - regardless of how they compare - the developmental costs are inheritantly different, and that will dictate the pricing, along with the market (to a degree). If entry level medium format is priced at $10,000, then that is the result of development costs and what the market has indicated they will pay - in the amount of volume that will produce an acceptable profit amount. The only way price would be reduced is if production costs decreased, and/or if reducing the price would increase unit sales by such a factor as to increase the amount of profit, worst case not decrease it, but also not impact negatively on the overall pricing strategy of the manufacturer.

Features are not typically forgotten, they are added or subtracted in the pursuit of producing a product that will be able to be sold profitably, given the development costs. In that sense, features are budgeted. There are a lot of design and implementation decisions that are also based on timing.

Theoretical case in point, when the P65+ came out, there was an outcry over the same mediocre LCD with this nice new large sensor. It's quite possible that Phase One coud have pushed the development of a higher resolution LCD into the P65+, but perhaps that would have been at the expense of delaying the IQ product with not just the high rez LCD, but the entire re-designed chassis and touch interface. The equation of adding say, a 450K dot LCD to a P65+ vs delaying the IQ by 18 more months doesn't necessarily add up, particularly if the projections don't reinforce that the enhanced LCD for the P65+ would have increased sales by X factor (it wouldn't have) to offset the lack of revenue that an on-time launch of the IQ would produce.

These are an example of the type of decision-making processes that can occur. It is not a matter of them thinking the camera is great as-is and doesn't need any improvement. It is a matter of what to improve and when. Of what the amount of benefit will be and what the effect the cost of the benefit for today will have on the benefits of tomorrow.


Steve Hendrix
 

torger

Active member
I've always wondered if the delay of live view is a purely technical issue, or if it is something held back as long as possible in order to provide nice upgrades in the future.

A live view as good as DSLR live views would be a revolution in tech camera work. No more sliding backs, no more ground glass, no more focus shifts, less need for shimming etc.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I've always wondered if the delay of live view is a purely technical issue, or if it is something held back as long as possible in order to provide nice upgrades in the future.

A live view as good as DSLR live views would be a revolution in tech camera work. No more sliding backs, no more ground glass, no more focus shifts, less need for shimming etc.
MFD cameras use CCDs which makes it a challenge to make a live view.
 

torger

Active member
MFD cameras use CCDs which makes it a challenge to make a live view.
Yep, I knew that. But there have been some kind of live views in tethered mode for a while. It needs cooling down and ND filters and stuff.

Refresh rates fast enough for focusing (perhaps hard too?), a high quality screen 640x480 would be enough. On the cooling part, perhaps run five seconds, freeze and cool 1 second (still allow scrolling around/zooming etc on the last update) and then continue new five seconds of live updates. And manual ND filter on top of that, it would be good enough to work with.

Perhaps Phase One IQ series are there? I have not seen them so I don't know. But it will be several years before I can afford that kind of back.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
I'm not comparing. Medium format is more expensive to produce for many reasons. It doesn't matter how the build quality (or anything, really) compares to 35mm. The fact is it costs more to produce an equivalent net profit, regardless of the quality. Yes, it would be nice to have better build quality on the cameras (perhaps we will). But seriously, given that the entry level price of medium format is around $10K, and you're proposing $3K, don't you think your math is just a little bit ambitious Fred? ;) Why not also make the 5D-MKII $800? As laughable as that seems, it actually would be the more likely of the two scenarios.


Steve Hendrix
I am referring to the body when I say $ 3K. It's really not much more than a mirror box, focusing screen and auto focus from 10 years ago....

The Canon 5D mark II is a complete body with sensor, better autofocus, AUTO FOCUS THAT CAN BE USER CALIBRATED and shoots video.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I am referring to the body when I say $ 3K. It's really not much more than a mirror box, focusing screen and auto focus from 10 years ago....

The Canon 5D mark II is a complete body with sensor, better autofocus, AUTO FOCUS THAT CAN BE USER CALIBRATED and shoots video.
I understand. But medium format camera bodies are not typically purchased by themselves, so assigning a $3,000 value to one is a somewhat limited proposition. And actually, your price is not that far off Fred, when you consider that buying a Phase One/Mamiya DF Camera Body is list priced $5,990, but when bundled with Leaf or Phase One digital backs, the pricing ranges from $2,000 - $4,000, depending on which digital back, and this includes a lens as well. And that is the dominant method for which medium format camera bodies are purchased (at least DF bodies).


Steve Hendrix
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I am referring to the body when I say $ 3K. It's really not much more than a mirror box, focusing screen and auto focus from 10 years ago....

The Canon 5D mark II is a complete body with sensor, better autofocus, AUTO FOCUS THAT CAN BE USER CALIBRATED and shoots video.
Alpas are just chucks of machined metal and are more expensive. Comparing unrelated products and markets to each other does not really give an answer. It is simply an error folks make who work outside a particular industry--do amateurs have a realistic view of professional photography? Why can't a professional photographer shoot a wedding for a $100--$100 a day and to have free food is a great deal. Why aren't shot rates determined by the camera a photographer uses--the camera cost the same, so why do I pay more to Arnold Newman vs. Sears? Why is commissioned photography more expensive than stock? Surely if a stock agency sells an image for a dollar, then all images are worth a dollar.

One thing I do know, photographers have no idea about pricing in the photographic manufacturing business.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I don't use medium format to shoot video- if I did I'd go RED.

Saying that a MF Body is nothing more than a "mirror box, focusing screen and auto focus ..." is a very simplistic viewpoint. Let's not forget the small computer hidden inside that drives everything including the interface to the digital back and on this I'm over simplifying...

There's a need and use for both types of systems and for the life of me I can't understand why people continue to try to compare the two. I have this vision of someone pounding a round peg in a square hole. Their different for a reason.

We have three systems here; a 1DsIII and a P65+ which goes on a Phase DF and Cambo WRS body. All three take beautiful images as long as we do our part. The 1DsIII is used as my wife's primary camera for landscape and occasional wildlife. It works for her. I use the Cambo well over 90% for landscape and the DF is used for landscape and wildlife. Actually I use the DF when I'm too lazy to set the Cambo up.

Again, if I wanted/needed to shoot video in a medium format setting I'd have gone RED a long time ago. So for me I hope Phase never gets there.

Going back to the thought of an integrated system (body and sensor combined). Again, no thank you. I shoot landscape in various conditions, very cold to very hot. Sand, blowing sand, snow, sleet and combinations of blowing stuff. This can make for a dirty sensor no matter how careful I try to be. The fact that I can remove the back completely from the body is a godsend to me. It's so much easier to clean the sensor than any 35mm I've ever used. Sandy's 1DsIII has that auto clean function which works well 95% of the time however I feel I need a clean room the other 5%.

Okay money talks and bullstuff walks. The cost of a 1DsIII is around $7,000 and than includes all the bells and whistles (sensor). The cost of a DF is just about the same and lacks the sensor. The digital back is in the neighborhood of a car. Yes, there's a huge difference in price. Equally so is the huge difference in image quality (again if you do your part). I just had an inquiry on a huge wall mural for an office. The person calling liked 2-images and wanted to see if either or both would fit their wall. Sadly one of the images they liked was shot with the 1DsIII (print offered at 50x30) however the other was from the P65+(print offered at 60x30). Guess which they ended up liking better for the project? Guess which image paid the entire cost of the DF body?

Anyone want to ask me why I continue to shoot MF? Certainly medium format is costly. I made the switch to medium format around 6 years ago and have never regretted it.

Don

We recently sold 9-images. 7 were medium format. All 9 were landscape and wildlife with one being licensed for a new website.
 
Last edited:

FredBGG

Not Available
I understand. But medium format camera bodies are not typically purchased by themselves, so assigning a $3,000 value to one is a somewhat limited proposition. And actually, your price is not that far off Fred, when you consider that buying a Phase One/Mamiya DF Camera Body is list priced $5,990, but when bundled with Leaf or Phase One digital backs, the pricing ranges from $2,000 - $4,000, depending on which digital back, and this includes a lens as well. And that is the dominant method for which medium format camera bodies are purchased (at least DF bodies).


Steve Hendrix
Yea Yea.... but if you get a DSLR kit with a zoom you end up paying way less for the body.

The DF body has issues to the point that one cannot rely on having just one or one backup. The problem is that your backup camera is going to cost $5K
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Yea Yea.... but if you get a DSLR kit with a zoom you end up paying way less for the body.

The DF body has issues to the point that one cannot rely on having just one or one backup. The problem is that your backup camera is going to cost $5K

Fred - I don't know what problems you have with your DF however I've none with mine. I used it last year in Jackson WY in very extream weather and again jsut a couple week ago while I was back there in very harsh, very cold weather and never had any problems. So, what problems are you having?
 

torger

Active member
It may be possible to make a mass-market lower cost MFDB, but it would require massive investment and risk, something the current MF players can't do. The small MF companies can't do a mass-market business model, they must do it the high-end way.

Concerning features it requires a mass-market and huge profits to be able to develop a feature-set similar to what is found in a 35mm DSLR.

MF products will continue to be simplistic in feature-set and high cost because the market is the way it is.

I'm not sure how MF will cope in the future. People abandoned 4x5" film when digital became "good enough". Will we see the same move from MF to 135 DSLR when/if they become "good enough"?
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Yea Yea.... but if you get a DSLR kit with a zoom you end up paying way less for the body.

The DF body has issues to the point that one cannot rely on having just one or one backup. The problem is that your backup camera is going to cost $5K

Fred, your feelings about the value and quality of the product are not relevant to the OP topic, to which I am addressing my responses, so I'll leave those issues for you to work through.


Steve Hendrix
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Alpa's are beautifully engineered. Do what they are designed to do FLAWLESSLY.
The body of DSLR is a more engineered form and one with higher tolerance requirements. And how hard is it to make a spacer--that is all an Alpa body is, with or without shifts. All cameras can hold a lens and a sensor apart. So why the cost?
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Fred, your feelings about the value and quality of the product are not relevant to the OP topic, to which I am addressing my responses, so I'll leave those issues for you to work through.


Steve Hendrix
Actually I think that the fact that I'm not in love with my camera gear, but consider them simply tools. Fine tools. I do not consider my self to be in another league because I own and use MF.

I recommend MF format film and digital left right and center, but I am realistic about what you have to "put up with" for that increased image quality.

But I also think that it is important for a working photographer like me to share a realistic opinion on gear. In a discussion regarding pricing I think that features, performance and reliability are part of the debate.

Or do we just have to do nothing but praise MFD here?
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Fred has a point, no pro works without a backup body and you could buy 1.5 D800's for the price of a backup DF and that's before the back. Although I'm sure there are clients who can tell the difference and will pay for it, I'd be very interested to see how much longer that argument can be used to justify such huge cost differences at the lower end of the MFDB market (20-30 megapixels). The MFDB market already lost rather a lot to the 5DII. There is only one goal with whatever system however some may to romanticize the process. The only goal is that final image. If it's good enough, if it fits the clients requirements, that's the goal accomplished. The hobbyist market doesn't count, hobbyists traditionally ignore cost craziness, it's the only reason Leica are still alive today.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Fred has a point, no pro works without a backup body and you could buy 1.5 D800's for the price of a backup DF and that's before the back.
Dan Lindberg works without a backup. I do. I believe Avadon did not have a backup. And the D800 could be the backup.

If it's good enough, if it fits the clients requirements, that's the goal accomplished.
My clients always like the fact I exceed their requirements. When you talk about the professional photographic artist, good enough is really not the criteria.

It is nice to say "this is what I do and think and therefore it is the same for the rest of the profession," but in all honesty, you are only speaking for yourself. Now, I don't criticize what works for you--it is a valid approach. But likewise, other photographers have come to different solutions which are equally valid.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Or do we just have to do nothing but praise MFD here?
I am not sure that is what this post is about. We are talking about price. It costs a lot of money to make MFD cameras regardless of features or anything else. I don't see price as praise or condemnation of MFD.

If you need lots of features, then you may have to buy another format. Cameras are always a compromise. And price is one of those compromises.
 
Top