MF... will it survive?

[Shashin]

You thought wrong... read the posts! :facesmack: I'm telling you (and some others) right from the beginning!:toocool: This is not a post trying to compare FF with MF... it's about MF losing its own values and the danger that this has for its survival... The (inevitable) improvement of DSLR IQ can of course influence things, but this (or any comparison) was never my subject... :watch: ...again, read the previous posts! :salute:

I guess I am confused. From your original post:

MF sales continue to drop as higher resolution and better IQ FFs become cheaper all the time

BTW, this is called a conversation and so we can go off in tangents if we so choose. You have no control over this.

 

[craigosh]

I can't see how you can say that MF is lacking in modularity. Especially compared to the past!? From my eyes it's much the same as it's always been. In fact its better as we never had lens adapters in the film days. You would buy into a system and that was it, you would be using just Mamiya/Hasselblad/Bronica/Fuji etc. Ok so you may not be able to get the latest back to fit your contax 645, but manufacturers have to draw a line somewhere. Especially when you are talking about systems that are not as greatly adopted as others.

What I think MF needs to do to survive is to bring costs of backs down closer to that of the smaller formats. I've been looking at MF and tech cameras for a while now, and while I could easily pick up a camera and lenses there is no way I could afford a back to go with it all. I can't even justify renting one for jobs, leasing is out of the question also.

It needs to be more like the days of film where the price jump between pro 35mm, MF and LF wasn't actually that great.


By the way LF is far from dead. Look at Ebony/Shen Hao/Linhof/Sinar/Arca Swiss/Walker for various cameras in various large formats.

If this post is off topic please feel free to delete.

 

[Nathan W. Lediard]

And this is where I think your hypothesis falls down. You are taking the need for bells and whistle which drive the low-end market is needed at the high end. As a photographer, the quality of the image is the only thing that counts for me. If I have more technology, that is great, but if not, that is fine too. I am a professional and I can get all my camera systems to work for me if it delivers the quality I need--and lets face it, how hard is exposure and focus anyway?

And this has always been true. AF, AE, motor winders, zoom lenses, auto bracketing, multi-point AF, etc always came in 35mm before it hit medium format. This technology is clearly absent in LF. Naturally, there are narrow fields where the technology is helpful, but MF was really never used in those fields and thrived.

Photography is fundamentally an art. There is an emotional, not rational, connection to it. It is not the bottom-line account type mentality that drives the creative process. Until that is factored in, you are simply not going to understand the market. Give me a well designed camera with great quality that I can control focus and exposure and I will do just fine. And personally, I want a camera I can use for a long time. The point of photography is not buying cameras--that is consumerism.

I couldnt have said it better myself!

But here is my two penneth in addition..

One reason I shoot MFD, quality. I want to deliver my clients the best quality I can.

This is my job, I have to use this tool day in day out, I want it to be a pleasure to use. My Hasselblad is a pleasure to use.

Even with fast glass my 35mm digital just cant give me that 3D look , that certain something, that I get from a larger chip...

Higher than 1/250 flash sync...

The huge viewfinder that makes manual focus when needed an actual viability (although with True Focus I rarely need it)

etc etc etc,,,,

Did you notice something? I didnt mention megapixels! why? well thats actually lower on the list of reasons , my reasons for shooting MFD...

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Okay back to the question of innovation. From what I see without fundamental changes in sensors , size and costs than very little can be done to change simplybecause we are at the wall with CCD technology and without a significant new change they have nowhere to go or develop the current technology any further. The IQ is the latest and greatest back but its features not sensor changes. To really get to the next level of size, weight, noise levels, higher Iso , live view and features like that we only have CMOS to do that as our current technology base and we have yet to see a CMOS back but trust me its being looked at , worked on, debated and tossed around in engineering labs or Phase and Hassy would be pretty stupid if they where not. Problem is we are not flys on the wall in those meetings.

My opinion Guy, is that improvement in Higher Iso or Size or speed are important, but not first priority for MF users... They will always prefer the couple of stops that fast FF glass will provide them for LL and this will always give the advantage to 35mm (equivalent) format... IMO, it's the turn back to modularity that is the first which should MF makers be after... If MFDBs for instance had adapters, one could invest in the back only and look for the rest of the system in the future... what a 5 lens Bronica ETRSi system would cost him today? ...more than 6/700? OTOH... his MFDB would be much more salable in the S/H market and his investment much safer... In other words, it would create a huge "marketing base" which is a fundamental for healthy business... clearly MF makers did the mistake to abandon "skilled" photographers that couldn't invest huge amounts, but could create the most out of equipment that is now... :deadhorse: Another thing IMO, is all these implementation of P, S modes and electronics that a traditional MF photographer would never use... serious photographers don't like to be treated as idiots from makers... and what about those LCDs on bodies... who needs more than a speed control on a body? ...and the lack of interchangeable finder in some bodies? ...now that's a joke, isn't it? :talk028:

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

I can't see how you can say that MF is lacking in modularity. Especially compared to the past!? From my eyes it's much the same as it's always been. In fact its better as we never had lens adapters in the film days. You would buy into a system and that was it, you would be using just Mamiya/Hasselblad/Bronica/Fuji etc. Ok so you may not be able to get the latest back to fit your contax 645, but manufacturers have to draw a line somewhere. Especially when you are talking about systems that are not as greatly adopted as others.

What I think MF needs to do to survive is to bring costs of backs down closer to that of the smaller formats. I've been looking at MF and tech cameras for a while now, and while I could easily pick up a camera and lenses there is no way I could afford a back to go with it all. I can't even justify renting one for jobs, leasing is out of the question also.

It needs to be more like the days of film where the price jump between pro 35mm, MF and LF wasn't actually that great.


By the way LF is far from dead. Look at Ebony/Shen Hao/Linhof/Sinar/Arca Swiss/Walker for various cameras in various large formats.

If this post is off topic please feel free to delete.

No... this is no way of topic... (Nathan above is!!!) just a (welcome) different view that I disagree with... :argue: You see, I consider ability to change light sensitive area, choose another one, change the VF, the screen or use my light sensitive area on another camera, ...much more of modularity than being able to use some more lenses... A different POV I think...

 

[MaxKißler]

I think you're generalizing a bit too much Theodoros.

My RZ system for example is increadibly versatile. There are several different finders and backs to choose from. It even enables me to shoot film! It's very cheap second hand and you can get it all new if you want as it's still in production.
Your Contax on the other hand is a dead platform (I'm sorry but you have to face it). Now you blame a certain manufacturer for not supporting it, I mean does that make sense? From the manufacturer's position it certainly does not. Would you sell backs (for very little money at best) to customers who buy their cameras on the second hand market while you could earn so much more through the sale of lenses, vertical grips etc?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm gone for the day folks just keep it friendly.

 

[MaxKißler]

Please tell me what it is that you are missing from todays MF industry. Is this all just about multishot technology?

 

[GregMO]

Given Nikon's stock plumment, you may well ask if tradional cameras will survive.

Nikon Stock Plummets 19% After Cutting Profit Forecast, Biggest Drop Since 1985

Tom

This news doesn't surprise me. It was just a matter of time. Nikon/ Cannon were driven enormously by dslr sales over the past many years. Now that virtually everyone owns a dslr and given the base level cameras offer more then average public needs (those who only shoot and upload to facebook, flickr). There is no reason for them to continue the buying cycle.
Medium format is best left as a niche market for it to be successful. I personally do not own a MFDB..shoot medium & LF film. Look at Ilford, they are doing very well.

 

[Nathan W. Lediard]

No... this is no way of topic... (Nathan above is!!!) just a (welcome) different view that I disagree with... :argue: You see, I consider ability to change light sensitive area, choose another one, change the VF, the screen or use my light sensitive area on another camera, ...much more of modularity than being able to use some more lenses... A different POV I think...

Off topic? how so? I am giving examples of why I choose DMF, I am sure I am not the only one.. that means that there are photographers buying digital medium format equipment, if people are buying it then the chances of survival are higher are they not?

Sorry I didnt spell it out, but I thought it was clear enough reading between the lines

 

[Don Libby]

Very short no B.S. answer is Yes. However it's my opinion and you know what they say....

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

I think you're generalizing a bit too much Theodoros.

My RZ system for example is increadibly versatile. There are several different finders and backs to choose from. It even enables me to shoot film! It's very cheap second hand and you can get it all new if you want as it's still in production.
Your Contax on the other hand is a dead platform (I'm sorry but you have to face it). Now you blame a certain manufacturer for not supporting it, I mean does that make sense? From the manufacturer's position it certainly does not. Would you sell backs (for very little money at best) to customers who buy their cameras on the second hand market while you could earn so much more through the sale of lenses, vertical grips etc?

But Max... selling to my Contax, or my (again Contax back fit) Fuji GX680, or Mr. X's Bronica for that matter, is ...additional sales! ...it doesn't prohibit you for buying goods for your Mamiya... besides, P1 (Mamiya and Leaf for that matter) sells even its most extensive backs for the Contax... too bad none of them can do "true color multishot"!!! (you know that my 528c will result in a much better image than an IQ180 in a still shot, ...don't you?)

 

[MaxKißler]

...too bad none of them can do "true color multishot"!!! (you know that my 528c will result in a much better image than an IQ180 in a still shot, ...don't you?)

No I don't, sorry. Then again, there is no real need for you to upgrade anyway right?

 

[craigosh]

Don't think I'm to off topic really. I understand what your saying about how modern MF systems should maybe have a universal fitting for backs to interchange with different cameras through adapters (!!??) But your using film platforms as examples that NEVER offered this other than cameras like the Mamiya Press which used baby graflock for backs, but then needed dedicated helical mounts for lenses.

I think using the ETRSI as an example of what someone could do isn't the best, An RZ maybe!! But then you can buy an adapter for an RZ to fit a Hasselblad V fitting MFDB, giving you access to the 503cw as well, with all that glass, and tech cameras should you need one. How much more modularity can you actually want.

I'm still of the opinion that cost is a major factor to allowing MF to survive in the future, certainly beyond highly specialist equipment such as the Sinar Exact back anyway.
I'm not talking about bringing MF into competition with DSLR's cost wise, but at least making it more accessible to pro photographers like myself, who would love to have one as a tool for particular jobs but plain and simply can't justify spending £15k+ on just a chip with a box of electronics attached.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

No I don't, sorry. Then again, there is no real need for you to upgrade anyway right?

I would... if I could have a better multishot image..., but I can't check this out can I? ...Is having much better image than an IQ180 for you a reason for a pro not to further advance his work? If that was the case Max, people with an old Imacon 4040 (2003 - again better than IQ180 in stills, as all multishot backs are) should never need to upgrade... Unfortunately Max, painting reproduction is the most demanding still photography (you see the painters pallet is not 8 or 10 or 14 bits) and starting with a great file is the most important factor.... much more important than some more detail in a good landscape shot Max... honest!

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I actually do agree with you Theodoros, and find it somewhat interesting that your biggest detractors seem to be the ones who already own MFD equipment. I owned a H4D/40, that I sold because of reliability issues. I was ready to purchase a DF, but it too had shutter issues, but at least wasn't a closed system. Then came the S2, but too overpriced with very few lenses. Actually the H1/H2, or even a RZ seemed the best utility for a camera system that was a decade old. MF film will always prevail as an art form, but i'm not so sure about MFD. Personally, I would prefer a 40MP DB, (sweet spot for lenses), that will fit an Alpa or Cambo rig for LF imaging, but all the rest goes to the D800. MFD will not get my business...for now.

 

[AlexLF]

I've had Linhof Technikardan 4x5 for years. I love the camera. But since late 2011 it gets problematic to buy a good sheet film. At least here in Moscow. There are laboratories that still process film but that's rare. More so with scanning services. At the end I do think 4x5 is dead. It's SO inconvenient to shoot with 4x5 that I do not want to do that. So yeah, it's dead.

Digital MF clearly is not dead but it will if its price doen't get 30-50% lower. What next cameras will be like? I don't see any great improvements really.

As to the D800 ... having D3x I've ordered D800e to be my main camera. And I'm not selling D3x, I'm still happy with it
What cameras the future will bring us in this area? I guess more resolution and GREAT lenses.

So comparing these futures I may conclude things will get worse with digital MF. Unless, again, it won't get a lot cheaper.

 

[Shashin]

...and find it somewhat interesting that your biggest detractors seem to be the ones who already own MFD equipment...

It is funny, some members have had a bad experience with MFD and have had a chip on their shoulder ever since--I wonder which "bias" is worse. Now, I am a detractor only in the fact that what is being assumed in the argument simply does not exist. I am not sure MFD is dead, but this horse certainly is. :deadhorse:

 

[fotografz]

Okay Theodoros, I'll play. I'm stuck in the house recovering from a total knee replacement and have time to kill

I wonder what user needs the MFD makers have to respond to? More importantly, who makes up the user base, and how is that changing? Some MFD users are represented here, but the majority certainly are not.

You have thoughtfully outlined some personal thoughts on this, but clearly they are not the same as the expressed needs of others, nor are they the same as mine. It seems you think that you speak for the MFD user base, but do you really? Or is it simply your own personal frustrations and situational needs ... which leads to prejudices for or against the specifics you outlined in some of your posts here?

I do agree that for some photographers higher resolution 35mm DSLRs like a D800 (and those that may follow) fill a need gap that they previously had to use a MFD camera to fill. In other words, they never needed all that MFD had to offer, plus they had to put up with a form factor they were not comfortable with.

The future of MFD will be determined by where photography in general goes over the next decade. Of that, we can only speculate in general terms.

I truth, each of us (professional and advanced enthusiast) has to subjectively determine what it is we want, and what fills our creative need to express ourselves, and/or engage in a pastime we enjoy just for the sake of it.

I've used a Hasselblad H camera for a really long time, and there is not much I can point to that I do not like. My only wish for many years was that Hasselblad would produce a camera with a dual shutter. As luck would have it, Leica did exactly that AND made it possible to use my Hasselblad lenses on the S2 either in FP or CS mode.

I'm now approaching a less demanding shooting agenda as I retire, and I have thought to eliminate the H4D/60 system ... yet it is such a good tool, and so much a part of my photographic life, that I'm not sure I can go through with it. There are still many pictures to make, and it is the best tool I own.

-Marc

 

[MaxKißler]

I would... if I could have a better multishot image..., but I can't check this out can I? ...Is having much better image than an IQ180 for you a reason for a pro not to further advance his work? If that was the case Max, people with an old Imacon 4040 (2003 - again better than IQ180 in stills, as all multishot backs are) should never need to upgrade... Unfortunately Max, painting reproduction is the most demanding still photography (you see the painters pallet is not 8 or 10 or 14 bits) and starting with a great file is the most important factor.... much more important than some more detail in a good landscape shot Max... honest!

So what's wrong with the H5D200MS apart from it's price? For your repro work do you need a lot of movements (honest question)? If not, it could be the ideal camera for you if coupled with the lens that suits the job best such as the 120mm. I mean it's all about working more effectively isn't it? So you could gain the resolution you would otherwise have to stitch together with your back thus resulting in a faster workflow. But the question remains: Don't you have enough options?