Digital Medium Format pricing

[Ben Rubinstein]

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.

But you work without backup. Right.

 

[Don Libby]

Going far away from the original purpose of this thread...:deadhorse:

I agree with Fred in that it's important for a working photographer to share realistic opinions on gear. The opinion expressed however must be from real-world experience and not anecdotal as it serves no purpose other than to mislead.

 

[Don Libby]

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

If you've read this section of GetDpi you will have seen that while this section is devoted to medium format and digital backs, we have in the past debated their weaknesses - both film and digital.

 

[Shashin]

But you work without backup. Right.

Right.

 

[Don Libby]

I too work without a net unless you consider having two different systems. There's just no way I'd entertain the thought of 2-DF's, 2-Cambos or 2-P65's. What about the lenses? Where does it stop? The most I do is have multiple batteries.

I also have a kickass great dealer to rely on if things go south....

Don

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

This is most certainly a relevant conversation to the original thread. Build a MFD camera that's worth these prices and you won't need any marketing research!

 

[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?

Fred, I think you're misunderstanding me. You don't see me defending medium format here. I have no issue with anyone who wishes to discuss products, the good and the bad. We typically talk about the bad as well for any product we discuss.

Share your realistic opinion, by all means.

I am simply responding with the (FMP) realities of manufacturer pricing and what factors are taken into account that impact how they price products. From that standpoint, whether you personally feel the entry level medium format products are not up the quality standards of top end 35mm does not matter, unless your perspective is shared by enough buyers who do not buy for a similar reason in numbers that prevent optimal profit.

Please feel free to express your opinions about the product, but IMO they do not impact the pricing strategy of medium format, nor should they (unless as a result profitability is too heavily compromised as a result of lack of sales).

I am - in spirit and heart - all for making products affordable for photographers and pricing them based on their merit, regardless of how the market and costs impact the pricing. But - in my head - I have to also take into account the reality of how pricing is arrived at from the manufacturer side. I cannot just pretend that reality does not exist.

Oh, and in case I have created a new acronym, FMP is "from my perspective".


Steve Hendrix

 

[dhazeghi]

It's mainly to do with the sales structure.

Consumer DSLR cameras are sold just about everywhere and made in high quantities.

MF are made in smaller quantities and with less competition. Manufactures prefer to go the specialized dealership rout. These dealers obviously want to make good money and are good at doing so.

This makes sense, but is this really that different from the way medium format gear was sold during the film era? It seems to me that the delta in price between formats has changed, but the distribution model has not.

DH

 

[dhazeghi]

Why? Have large format camera prices been dropping? Have car prices been dropping? I really am unsure why you started this thread? What exactly do you want to know?

I'll try to be clearer.

With both film gear prior to digital and digital gear today, there is a difference in price between medium format and 135 format gear. It is my impression that the difference is considerably larger with the digital gear.

My question is what accounts for this increased difference.

(Note that I'm not asking whether the difference is worth it - as with film, I assume there are pros and cons to different formats, and it's a matter of personal preference. Me, I like large negatives when printing, and I like printing large...)

Thanks,

DH

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I'll try to be clearer.

With both film gear prior to digital and digital gear today, there is a difference in price between medium format and 135 format gear. It is my impression that the difference is considerably larger with the digital gear.

My question is what accounts for this increased difference.

(Note that I'm not asking whether the difference is worth it - as with film, I assume there are pros and cons to different formats, and it's a matter of personal preference. Me, I like large negatives when printing, and I like printing large...)

Thanks,

DH

DH -

The primary contributing factors are the development costs of the larger sensors and the smaller market for medium format digital (which is also smaller than the market was at its peak for medium format film).

The specialized or non-commodity dealer channel has a negligible effect on pricing. Let's say, for sake of argument, the margin for medium format products are 10% higher than 35mm. A Phase One P45+/DF Kit is $22,990. Reduce 10% and you are at $20,690. Not much of a difference and negligible effect on unit sales.

Further - and I have made this point before - those specialized dealer support resources will need to be replicated by the manufacturer, which means additional expenditure for personnel and infrastructure resources. If anything, eliminating additional margin for specialized dealers could even result in a price increase.


Steve Hendrix

 

[homeiss]

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.

I can definitely see the point of a backup, but just because someone might use a DF as their main camera, do they really need another DF as a backup? Call me crazy but wouldn't an AFD or AFD II get a person through a technical failure in a pinch? I got my AFD with 80mm lens and film back for $750, it works great as my main camera. I don't see why anyone would need the latest and greatest just for a back up.

 

[dhazeghi]

Well, MFD has been marching forward ... at one time the popular 16 meg square format Kodak DCS Pro Back 645 was $12,000. without a camera or lens. Add those, and the base MFD kit would be about $16,000 back then. And those dollars were worth more compared to now. Slow performance, 1.5X lens crop factor, questionable battery life, even more questionable ISO performance topping out at 400.

Flash forward to today, 40 meg Pentax 645D kit @ $10K, much better ISO performance, 1.3X crop factor, weather sealed, fast etc., Hasselblad H4D/31 kit still for less than that Kodak kit by $2.5K, and the Phase/Leaf equivalents.
Keeping in mind that those are today's dollars, not 10 years ago.

Where it gets really pricey is buying the latest, greatest, biggest, baddest kit on the planet. Top dogs always command the big bucks.

Best to buy a generation or two behind ... after the breath taking initial drop in value as the next best thing takes its place, it gets a lot more affordable.

-Marc

Interesting. It does sound like prices have moved down significantly from where they were back in 2000 when the Kodak DCS back came out.

I'm less surprised to hear of the technical improvements. One of the great things about technology is that it tends to keep improving

But do you think that the price of entry-level DMF kit is still going down these days, inflation notwithstanding?

DH

 

[dhazeghi]

DH -

The primary contributing factors are the development costs of the larger sensors and the smaller market for medium format digital (which is also smaller than the market was at its peak for medium format film).

I see. So the sensor really does play a big role. Is it primarily the R&D on the sensor, or the production cost that comes into play?

I didn't realize that MF digital is smaller niche than MF film. That's a shame. I guess that begs the question whether the price is higher because the market is smaller, or the market is smaller because the price is higher!

The specialized or non-commodity dealer channel has a negligible effect on pricing. Let's say, for sake of argument, the margin for medium format products are 10% higher than 35mm. A Phase One P45+/DF Kit is $22,990. Reduce 10% and you are at $20,690. Not much of a difference and negligible effect on unit sales.

This makes sense. I don't have the impression that anybody is making huge gobs of money in this business, so it would stand to reason that margins can't be all that large!

Thanks for your explanation.

DH

 

[David Schneider]

But do you think that the price of entry-level DMF kit is still going down these days, inflation notwithstanding?

I'm not an expert on these things nor a historian, but I have a feeling if I could go back to the time I bought my Nikon Ftn and compared it to the medium format film options of the day (maybe 1970) the multiplier between the two cameras isn't that different than the multiplier between a professional level dslr and a mfd of today.

 

[fotografz]

But you work without backup. Right.

Ben, few commercial MFD users have a back-up ... many MFD shooters don't even have a MFD camera ... they rent one, and hire a tech guy to run it. When they rent, there isn't a back-up either, the back-up is at the rental house. It'd be a rare client bean-counter that'd okay a double rental line item anyway.

Encroachment of 35mm DSLR into the commercial areas once dominated by MFD is more a function of a lowered standard of need and use. Internet applications are often seen as not needing MFD quality. However, there are still plenty of applications that do warrant it. Those people know who they are, and know how to build costs into their business model for purchase, (or job quotes in the case of rentals).

The Paradigm shift has been the migration of more advanced enthusiasts looking to move up. Some enthusiasts have the means, where others are more pressed.

So the grousing about costs and value for costs comes to the forefront. Or the endless debates that some less expensive, high meg DSLR is as good as MFD.

This stuff costs what it does. Either we pony up or we don't. But I seriously doubt that wishing it was 1/2 the price is a wish that'll come true any time soon.

-Marc

 

[Shashin]

I am just waiting for the buy one, get one free, President's day specials...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I see. So the sensor really does play a big role. Is it primarily the R&D on the sensor, or the production cost that comes into play?

I didn't realize that MF digital is smaller niche than MF film. That's a shame. I guess that begs the question whether the price is higher because the market is smaller, or the market is smaller because the price is higher!



This makes sense. I don't have the impression that anybody is making huge gobs of money in this business, so it would stand to reason that margins can't be all that large!

Thanks for your explanation.

DH

One thing not mentioned here is the yield factor on producing large senors its very low. From my understanding many sensors don't make it past the process floor so these low yields have a direct impact on costs. Also the process is smaller in production than lets say Canon making thousands and thousands . So
these kinds of factors have impact on price. It's much easier to pass a smaller sensor on the yields since defaults can be trimmed out but on the big sensors there is very little room for trimming out the defaults which drives costs.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Although the word value, has many meanings, as in its usefulness with respect to a purpose, or its worth compared to its price. Some advanced enthusiasts have evolved into full time professional photographers who might expect the equipment (MFD) to be worth its "value", or evolve too; which for many it certainly has not. I think the standard has been raised by these enthusiasts and not the other way around. Look how many generations it took for MFD, to finally get an LCD that actually has more usefulness than just to check the histogram, and how much does that cost?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Its very simple if the usefulness is not there in your mind than don't buy in BUT their are many that simply want the best they can get bar none. Usually that goes hand in hand with price. Just look at Leica for example is a M9 really worth its cost in terms of usefulness when you don't get a viewfinder to see what you are shooting and you can't even confirm focus, well a tech cam is the same thing also. That does not mean they are not worth the money it simply means you are paying for something that you want to shoot and has something that might mean quality high end product to someone. I rented a ferrari testarossa once to drive to Lake mead for a big shoot. Well nice engine but the worst driving experience i ever had thought I was in a go cart with a 35 dollar AM radio. But fast as ****. Would i buy one not on your life but many did for many different reasons.

Honestly I laugh when it comes to pricing , sure i want a good deal who doesn't and I think many things are well overpriced and not worth it to me but thats me someone is buying them and they don't give a rats *** what i think. I bought a IQ 160 i certainly know about price it was not easy to buy and took a lot of pain to get one. But I wanted one, so I took it on the chin and bought it. Does not make it a sane purchase or even a good one, it is what it is. But I'm not going to bitch about it , I knew what i was buying. Its the same old story for the last 10 years i have been on forums or however long the guy with the 5d thinks that he spent 1800 is the best damn thing on earth bar none, no matter how much proof you put in front of him he will defend that 5d till he is blue in the face. Someone please tell me I am wrong here, I dare you. LOL Its the same stuff everyday day in day out. The swan song has not changed in years when it comes to pricing. It goes back to the film days why buy a F3 when I got a FM2 its the same damn film in it. I'm I wrong here.

Hope everyone realizes I am laughing here but it is a daily thing about price. I'm over it , get what you want and no need to defend it in any way. Lets have fun and create Art.

 

[Shashin]

I have spent most of my career with cameras with only manual exposure and focus. Funny thing is I produced good work. My Pentax 645D is one of the fanciest cameras I have ever owned, but I don't miss that it does not have Sweep Panorama or those neat scene selector exposure modes. I even don't care if I have live view--I still seem to be able to focus.

Bottom line: if I can control the focus and exposure, and the camera can produce the technical quality I want, what else do I need? The rest is window dressing.