MF... will it survive?

[Theodoros Fotometria]

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:

Nobody said that "it's dead" Shashin... that's another assumption of yours that you misunderstood..., the whole argument is about the mistakes that MF makers are doing in their approach... which may end up to their vanishment! ...turning the MF system into "larger DSLRs" by "closing" their system is one, not emphasizing to things unique to them (like multishot or support to view and technical cameras) is another, support of the S/H market of older backs is a third, extensive complexity (too many electronics) is another... but here we can find much more many things to suggest to them for our needs to be fulfilled and their survival to be secured.... :chug:

 

[David Schneider]

As I get closer to retirement from my studio I keep thinking I might sell off my Hasselbald H3D2-39 and four lenses since I really won't need them for the work I'll continue to do as I wind down the studio over a couple of years. But then I do a test and compare the same image taken with my Canon to the Hassie. The MFD is just a better file for studio work.

 

[Shashin]

Nobody said that "it's dead" Shashin... that's another assumption of yours that you misunderstood..., the whole argument is about the mistakes that MF makers are doing in their approach... which may end up to their vanishment! ...turning the MF system into "larger DSLRs" by "closing" their system is one, not emphasizing to things unique to them (like multishot or support to view and technical cameras) is another, support of the S/H market of older backs is a third, extensive complexity (too many electronics) is another... but here we can find much more many things to suggest to them for our needs to be fulfilled and their survival to be secured.... :chug:

From your post:

...or is it the end of the road for MF?

You reiterate this again in the quoted post here by suggesting it will vanish.

Apparently, that is causing my confusion.

I guess we just have a different view. Personally, I don't think you have made the argument that the MFD future is in doubt. Phase (IQ), Leaf (Credo), Hasselblad (5H), Alpa, and Leica (S) have all come out with new backs or cameras in the last year or so. You can see by the response here by actual MFD shooters, they are very satisfied. There has been a post here by an MFD dealer--Doug is saying the MFD market is healthy.

So, where or what is the threat? Are you thinking the Hasselblad Lunar will cause everyone to ditch their equipment for something more stylish?

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

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

But Marc... wide appeal to ALL different photographers needs is one (if not THE) of the greatest of what we call "traditional MF values" ...no? :toocool: I don't find anything to disagree on what you say... I suggest my needs, you do yours, another does his ...and they decide if they want survival, ...or continue the path to appeal only to customers that want ...."larger sensor DSLRs"!!! :salute: I guess it will be best if we hear of what all different DMF users have to suggest... :talk028:

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Differentiating the professionals from the advanced enthusiast should be a key element to Theodoros original point. From a professional stand point, there' not enough enthusiasts to sustain MFD.

 

[Richard Osbourne]

Well, I bought a second hand Phase One back, a P45+, last year - it cost a quarter of the price of a new IQ180 and, even though it's five year old technology, I have been TOTALLY delighted with it. The image quality, and particularly the colours, are so superior to any DSLR out there that I think I've got a bargain. When used on my Cambo technical camera, I'm getting results that I always wanted but could never attain with DSLRs.

I've just bought a D800e to complement (not replace) the MFD gear - because Canon simply haven't kept up and produced a DSLR that can compete, with either the D800 or medium format equipment. I'm using it for a few, mainly high ISO, situations that the P45+ doesn't do so well. Whilst the resolution of the D800 is very high, the colours certainly aren't anywhere near the Phase back. And the lenses aren't in the same league as the Cambo either.

So, contrary to your original post, Theodoros, I'm going the opposite way and buying IN to medium format because it gives me image quality that simply isn't available in DSLRs. As are a lot of other photographers from what I hear from my dealer. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see cheaper new MFD gear and a lot of innovation, but I for one both appreciate what it gives me and will eventually pay the prices of new gear because my business is benefitting hugely from the step up in quality. My business is art - producing images that are printed full-wall size and larger, so every tiny improvement in quality is clearly obvious to my cutomers, who are buying more from me as a result.

I'm getting a bit fed up with these kinds of negative, doom-mongering posts about the 'death of MFD'. This is supposed to be a forum for MFD gear discussions - FredBGG on LL is bad enough with his extraordinarily dogged and vehement criticism of just about any positive MFD post. Please don't reproduce that here.

Positive discussions about what you'd like to see in future camera systems are very welcome, but please, enough with the 'death of MFD' - it's just not true and it wastes a lot of time that we should all be using more productively!

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

From your post:



You reiterate this again in the quoted post here by suggesting it will vanish.

Apparently, that is causing my confusion.

I guess we just have a different view. Personally, I don't think you have made the argument that the MFD future is in doubt. Phase (IQ), Leaf (Credo), Hasselblad (5H), Alpa, and Leica (S) have all come out with new backs or cameras in the last year or so. You can see by the response here by actual MFD shooters, they are very satisfied. There has been a post here by an MFD dealer--Doug is saying the MFD market is healthy.

So, where or what is the threat? Are you thinking the Hasselblad Lunar will cause everyone to ditch their equipment for something more stylish?

No... Shashin, DMF market is not healthy at all... it is under serious threat!

 

[Shashin]

Differentiating the professionals from the advanced enthusiast should be a key element to Theodoros original point. From a professional stand point, there' not enough enthusiasts to sustain MFD.

Can't agree at all. This is to do with a camera market. Everything needs to be factored in. And what is the ratio of enthusiast to professional purchases--do you actually have data? Not all MFD shooters at GetDPI are professional. Not all professionals use it for professional work. And what is a "professional"? Just commercial studio photographers?

 

[Shashin]

No... Shashin, DMF market is not healthy at all... it is under serious threat!

By who or what? Please give me some data that supports that assertion.

It is fine to say something, but if you cannot back it up, then it is meaningless. We have enough folks coming just saying stuff that has no reality. You either have something that supports your argument, or you are just wasting our time.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

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?

Max... I wouldn't consider 200MS because of res... I have enough of this... but if I ask to test it against the 528c to make sure it's better (you never know with MS - none of the previous MS-CFs were better), Hass has no option but to send me a whole camera! I have no intention to change my C645 though, for two reasons...
1. Sometimes I have to use faster shutters and this can only work well with focal plane shutters (for even light distribution when capturing art work), for leaf shutter not to be an issue, speeds need to be on the low side.
2. I think the (Contax)Zeiss 120macro is the best lens in the world for what I do.
For a part of my work, I do need movements (when capturing a wall painting in a monastery), besides, I don't do paintings only, I also do sculptures and other stills, but for this I use the Fuji GX680 which is fully compatible with my back and has a revolving back... so, if Hass would produce a CF200MS, for my Contax (as they did with CF22ms, CF39ms and CF50ms), that would be an option... otherwise...

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

By who or what? Please give me some data that supports that assertion.

It is fine to say something, but if you cannot back it up, then it is meaningless. We have enough folks coming just saying stuff that has no reality. You either have something that supports your argument, or you are just wasting our time.

Financially of course, but.... Sorry Shashin..., no evidence! ...it is something I know of though... can't share it!

 

[wentbackward]

Actually "dead" means that it's not in production.... or that there is no demand to support a production... The only view cameras that are still in production are of 2x3 image area... in the extremely rare case that a customer wants larger image area, there is usually a NOS or left on the shelve replacement part at a good price...

I bought my brand new Chamonix 10x8 a few months ago from Hugo Zhang, who is very active here. I could have bought a Toyo, or a Shen Hao, I lust after and Ebony, don't we all!! A new Deardorff would be lovely too, no doubt I'll get a Deardorff, even if I can only use it once in a while.

BUT what's the point of buying a brand new LF camera if you only have a selection of 147 brand new LF lenses!!!

The camera I use with my digital back is a Linhof Techno. Another view camera that covers 6x7 and is still in production, in fact, still actively updated over the past few years.

I strongly recommend doing some homework and gaining some real knowledge before firing off completely false statements such as you did above.

 

[docmoore]

Wel

I've just bought a D800e to complement (not replace) the MFD gear - because Canon simply haven't kept up and produced a DSLR that can compete, with either the D800 or medium format equipment.

Guy said Play nice so I will keep this as PC as possible.

Everyone is enamored with the D800e....why I am unsure. I have played with the files and they are generous with respect to resolution ... otherwise one has to work very hard in post to make them even approach MF quality. And their stellar lenses seem to suffer at this level of resolution.

Having a history with H1, H2 with Phase P20, H3D 39 II and now the Leica S2-P I am very sensitive to the suggestion that the Nikon D800e is a slam dunk replacement for MF...if so why are all the folks who have used MF not enamored with it...why have they either abandoned it or are wringing their hands over the poor quality of 35mm lenses.

Canon keeps getting slammed as not measuring up...except everyone loves their PC lenses , the 85 1.2 50 1.2 135 2 etc.....

I might suggest that the Canon AF is stellar...the large photosite 1DX reminds me of the Phase P 20 and CFV 16 sensors. They will release a competitor to the D800....

HOWEVER....its all a box with a hole .....

There seems to be a whole lot of angst over process rather than vision. I have seen so many here drop completely adequate systems in a seemingly vain attempt to improve their output...with varied success. Count me in .... but at a point the incremental gains may not be worth the disruption.

I think the larger question is not whether MF survives but can we find hardware that allows us to focus on output and not on process....

That said ... small incremental gains in usability may make us more likely to define the vision and accomplish it.

All I know for certain is that disruptive changes will stess all MF players...they will need to address new environments and pricing. The key to survival is adaptation.....


JMHO,

Bob

 

[fotografz]

But Marc... wide appeal to ALL different photographers needs is one (if not THE) of the greatest of what we call "traditional MF values" ...no? :toocool: I don't find anything to disagree on what you say... I suggest my needs, you do yours, another does his ...and they decide if they want survival, ...or continue the path to appeal only to customers that want ...."larger sensor DSLRs"!!! :salute: I guess it will be best if we hear of what all different DMF users have to suggest... :talk028:

When, if ever, did MF have wide appeal? I've been shooting for 40+ years and MF has always been a more aspirational, or even esoteric format, requiring a certain type of visual thinking, and related shooting style.

-Marc

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Guy said Play nice so I will keep this as PC as possible.

Everyone is enamored with the D800e....why I am unsure. I have played with the files and they are generous with respect to resolution ... otherwise one has to work very hard in post to make them even approach MF quality. And their stellar lenses seem to suffer at this level of resolution.

Having a history with H1, H2 with Phase P20, H3D 39 II and now the Leica S2-P I am very sensitive to the suggestion that the Nikon D800e is a slam dunk replacement for MF...if so why are all the folks who have used MF not enamored with it...why have they either abandoned it or are wringing their hands over the poor quality of 35mm lenses.

Canon keeps getting slammed as not measuring up...except everyone loves their PC lenses , the 85 1.2 50 1.2 135 2 etc.....

I might suggest that the Canon AF is stellar...the large photosite 1DX reminds me of the Phase P 20 and CFV 16 sensors. They will release a competitor to the D800....

HOWEVER....its all a box with a hole .....

There seems to be a whole lot of angst over process rather than vision. I have seen so many here drop completely adequate systems in a seemingly vain attempt to improve their output...with varied success. Count me in .... but at a point the incremental gains may not be worth the disruption.

I think the larger question is not whether MF survives but can we find hardware that allows us to focus on output and not on process....

That said ... small incremental gains in usability may make us more likely to define the vision and accomplish it.

All I know for certain is that disruptive changes will stess all MF players...they will need to address new environments and pricing. The key to survival is adaptation.....


JMHO,

Bob

Bob... I do agree with you (after all I own a D800E and I can confirm) but I suspect that Richard would also ...agree with you! ...He said that he choose a D800E to use instead of an MFD, ...he didn't implemented that the D800E is as good or better... and let's face it... he is right on that, depending on the limits one sets! In fact I know many other photographers that did the same, either for financial reasons or for "what the hey" reasons!!! After all it is the best DSLR out there and the only one that can approach MFDB quality ....no? :chug:

 

[Shashin]

Financially of course, but.... Sorry Shashin..., no evidence! ...it is something I know of though... can't share it!

Yes, I know about the financials too. Nothing I can share, of course, but I know better than anyone here. Fortunately, the MFD market is fine. So you can stop worrying. What ever your source, they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

When, if ever, did MF have wide appeal? I've been shooting for 40+ years and MF has always been a more aspirational, or even esoteric format, requiring a certain type of visual thinking, and related shooting style.

-Marc

Marc.... its appeal (of digital MF) is less (in percentage) than ever before!

 

[MaxKißler]

Max... I wouldn't consider 200MS because of res... I have enough of this... but if I ask to test it against the 528c to make sure it's better (you never know with MS - none of the previous MS-CFs were better), Hass has no option but to send me a whole camera! I have no intention to change my C645 though, for two reasons...
1. Sometimes I have to use faster shutters and this can only work well with focal plane shutters (for even light distribution when capturing art work), for leaf shutter not to be an issue, speeds need to be on the low side.
2. I think the (Contax)Zeiss 120macro is the best lens in the world for what I do.
For a part of my work, I do need movements (when capturing a wall painting in a monastery), besides, I don't do paintings only, I also do sculptures and other stills, but for this I use the Fuji GX680 which is fully compatible with my back and has a revolving back... so, if Hass would produce a CF200MS, for my Contax (as they did with CF22ms, CF39ms and CF50ms), that would be an option... otherwise...

You're contradicting yourself. You need focal plane shutters but use the fuji gx680? I assume you need fast shutter speeds to lock out ambient light when capturing art work in a monastery for example but you say you use the fuji there. Doesn't make too much sense to me but I might have gotten you wrong.

Also it appears as if you're pretty happy with what you've got (You don't need the resolution of the 200MS). So why would you care about the future of MF if you're happy with the gear you're using?

 

[Shashin]

Marc.... its appeal (of digital MF) is less (in percentage) than ever before!

Actually, I have seen the data. You are wrong. It is an expanding market.

 

[fotografz]

Max... I wouldn't consider 200MS because of res... I have enough of this... but if I ask to test it against the 528c to make sure it's better (you never know with MS - none of the previous MS-CFs were better), Hass has no option but to send me a whole camera! I have no intention to change my C645 though, for two reasons...
1. Sometimes I have to use faster shutters and this can only work well with focal plane shutters (for even light distribution when capturing art work), for leaf shutter not to be an issue, speeds need to be on the low side.
2. I think the (Contax)Zeiss 120macro is the best lens in the world for what I do.
For a part of my work, I do need movements (when capturing a wall painting in a monastery), besides, I don't do paintings only, I also do sculptures and other stills, but for this I use the Fuji GX680 which is fully compatible with my back and has a revolving back... so, if Hass would produce a CF200MS, for my Contax (as they did with CF22ms, CF39ms and CF50ms), that would be an option... otherwise...

Here is a perfect example of such narrow specificity, probably required by a relative handful of MFD users, that one wonders about the wider applications and requirements of the MFD majority that you seem so concerned about.

I'm sure Hasselblad did not stop making CF and CF/MS backs because there was a huge demand for them. They did make a decision, like it or not, to produce an integrated system camera with all kinds of innovations undreamed of back in the Contax 645 days (I had that system, and saw the limitations going into the future).

You still want to retrofit new technology to old ... which in some cases you can still do. How is that forward looking in vision for MFD?

Personally, I could not be more disinterested in fiddling with that stuff ever again. I can shoot all kinds of work with my current Hasselblad, from studio, to on the run stuff. Tethered, it is plug and play simple ... snatch it off the camera stand and shoot a portrait in the forest using True Focus, slap on the HTS/1.5 and do T/S ... or if more is needed, slap the back on my Rollie Xact/2 with full front/back movements using modern view lenses unmatched by any camera maker.

BTW, being a ground-up design for digital capture, the Leica S120/2.5 Makro murders the old Contax/Zeiss 120/4.

If I were doing your work, I'd look to the H5D/50MS ... which is a more modern sensor design. 6 shot/200 meg is better but how much better do you need?

Here is a comparison study you may find of interest:

Sample File Images

-Marc