Phase One CEO interview..

[PeterA]

Intelligent perspective's like your's,Joe Colson and Wayne's make are what make this forum one of the best if not the best resource on the web for people that have a serious interest in learning about high end photography..

I do think he does his best to mitigate the price issue when he make's a strong point of the Phase1 buy back scheme which takes in a 4-6yr old back at up to four times the price of a top canikon DSLR...

I am not so sure if current backs will become obsolete anytime soon,there is a thread on here for fat pixel backs,these old back's can still give superior I.Q to new DSLR's at base iso.. the price may fall fast but the I.Q remains..

Rob

Interesting choice of words that....

because it is a meaningless phrase.oke:

what do you mean by 'high end'?

if you mean it is a good forum for reading people's views MFD who actually own these things and use them - to make great shots or whatever then the forum is useful indeed

but please 'high end'.....no I don't think so...

you are kidding yourself if you think MFD equates to the best photography or the most interesting or the most lucrative or the most anything - MFD is just another capture device - which is differentiated by resolution capability and for those prepared to muck around some adaptability regarding the use of cameras which employ movements.

thats is it.

from a value per printed inches perspective it is probably 'low end photography'

 

[RVB]

Interesting choice of words that....

because it is a meaningless phrase.oke:

what do you mean by 'high end'?

if you mean it is a good forum for reading people's views MFD who actually own these things and use them - to make great shots or whatever then the forum is useful indeed

but please 'high end'.....no I don't think so...

you are kidding yourself if you think MFD equates to the best photography or the most interesting or the most lucrative or the most anything - MFD is just another capture device - which is differentiated by resolution capability and for those prepared to muck around some adaptability regarding the use of cameras which employ movements.

thats is it.

from a value per printed inches perspective it is probably 'low end photography'

Hi Peter

I would use "high end" to describe the two aspects,the use of high end equipment such as medium format camera's such as Hasselblad/phase and leica etc and medium format backs with tech camera's such as alpa and schneider/rodenstock glass etc but it also apply's to other gear (35mm etc)and getting the best of it your chosen system as opposed to spray and pray photography..

Perhaps "high end photography" is a somewhat nebulous concept.. but I think most people will know where I am coming from .. some people might call it advanced photography..in fact Diglloyd has a subsection called D.A.P (digital advanced photography.. )

The other aspect is the work itself,many of the guy's on here are producing work of an extremely high standard,Wayne Fox and Joe Colson are two such photographer's who produce very high quality work..

"from a value per printed inches perspective it is probably 'low end photography' "

Cant argue much with that but of course there are some pro's that make so much that a phase\alpa system or any other system pay's for itself many times over..

best

Rob

 

[torger]

If you take away the image quality advantage, what is then left?

There are things left, like a larger viewfinder and fast leaf shutters for SLRs, and for tech cameras there's movements in lots of focal lengths. And the joy of simply using something different.

However with the current image quality difference is as it is (ie better but not as clear differentiator as it once was) I don't think the price difference well represents what you get, and that's a challenge for MF marketing to tackle.

He emphasizes "being different" and "more fun" in the interview, and I agree with those as selling points, but it costs a whole lot to get that. I like his way to tackle it better than Hasselblad's though, which sound kind of desperate in their marketing.

Another "mean" question to ask is, "image quality aside, what type of images can you shoot with a medium format camera which you cannot with a DSLR, and the other way around?". While the higher flash sync speed does offer opportunities I would not consider MF to be the platform with the most versatile creative possibilities, but rather the other way around. MF suits particular shooting styles very well (my own is very well fitted to a digital view camera) but you need to know what you want to do and make sure it fits into the MF envelope.

When MF digital was new, the challenge was to attract large and medium format film photographers into the format. Now the new photographers have started off with DSLRs so the challenge has changed to attract DSLR photograpers, and I'm sure it's going to become harder. The current strategy seems to be to give-a-damn and instead put more eggs into other genres like industrial, aerial and repro where price sensitivity is much lower and DSLR competition is non-existent.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter

I would use "high end" to describe the two aspects,the use of high end equipment such as medium format camera's such as Hasselblad/phase and leica etc and medium format backs with tech camera's such as alpa and schneider/rodenstock glass etc but it also apply's to other gear (35mm etc)and getting the best of it your chosen system as opposed to spray and pray photography..

Perhaps "high end photography" is a somewhat nebulous concept.. but I think most people will know where I am coming from .. some people might call it advanced photography..in fact Diglloyd has a subsection called D.A.P (digital advanced photography.. )

The other aspect is the work itself,many of the guy's on here are producing work of an extremely high standard,Wayne Fox and Joe Colson are two such photographer's who produce very high quality work..

"from a value per printed inches perspective it is probably 'low end photography' "

Cant argue much with that but of course there are some pro's that make so much that a phase\alpa system or any other system pay's for itself many times over..

best

Rob

Seems to me that you are saying - the equipment makes the photograph...
anyway no big deal everyone should explore their passion the best way they see fit.

all the best
Pete

 

[fotografz]

If you take away the image quality advantage, what is then left?

There are things left, like a larger viewfinder and fast leaf shutters for SLRs, and for tech cameras there's movements in lots of focal lengths. And the joy of simply using something different.

However with the current image quality difference is as it is (ie better but not as clear differentiator as it once was) I don't think the price difference well represents what you get, and that's a challenge for MF marketing to tackle.

He emphasizes "being different" and "more fun" in the interview, and I agree with those as selling points, but it costs a whole lot to get that. I like his way to tackle it better than Hasselblad's though, which sound kind of desperate in their marketing.

Another "mean" question to ask is, "image quality aside, what type of images can you shoot with a medium format camera which you cannot with a DSLR, and the other way around?". While the higher flash sync speed does offer opportunities I would not consider MF to be the platform with the most versatile creative possibilities, but rather the other way around. MF suits particular shooting styles very well (my own is very well fitted to a digital view camera) but you need to know what you want to do and make sure it fits into the MF envelope.

When MF digital was new, the challenge was to attract large and medium format film photographers into the format. Now the new photographers have started off with DSLRs so the challenge has changed to attract DSLR photograpers, and I'm sure it's going to become harder. The current strategy seems to be to give-a-damn and instead put more eggs into other genres like industrial, aerial and repro where price sensitivity is much lower and DSLR competition is non-existent.

I think that is very well put.

I started with MFD in the studio using lighting to do commercial projects that 35mm wasn't up to at the time. Any MFD ISO as long as it was 100. Thethered. Didn't think of it any other way. Big assed battery if you wanted to go mobile. Then the Kodak ProBack 645 made mobility more viable ... moved out of the studio with it mostly because I could. It still ruled the studio, and paid for itself quickly.

At the time, such a MFD back plus camera was maybe 5 or 6 times the cost of a 35mm digital camera. 6 to 8 meg verses 16.

Now, (setting aside all the debates regarding IQ) to provide the same resolution gap that existed in past ... (like a 36 meg D800 verses a 60 meg MFD back/camera) is at least 11 to 12 times the cost. Basically, the application gap narrowed enough while the cost ratio doubled.

Back to the future: My H4D/60 MFD system has now returned to the studio for the most part ... and without a doubt, it still rules supreme in that environment. However, that application is now waining as I ramp down that type of work.

If I had continued my previous business model, sustainability would be fairly easy. It had its well defined purpose, did its job, and easily earned its keep. Now it is an extravagance to keep going.

The hard thing to give up is the versatility as defined by MFD applications ... I use the back on a full movement view camera, or can use many different lenses on the HTS/1.5 tilt-shift unit, do low angles with a WLF, heavy use of leaf-shutter lenses in combination with portable lighting.

Now that the S2 system is finally coming to fruition ... I may opt to forego some of those attributes and concentrate on that as my big gun.

-Marc

 

[KeithL]

The only thing that would drive me to invest any further into MFD would be Holy Grail of a CMOS back with proper liveview.

 

[etrump]

Just because Henrick can't articulate the benefits of MF doesn't mean that is reality. CEO's rarely have the marketing prowess and the MF justification is more complicated than most. MR would have been better off interviewing Claus or Kevin.

The fact is P1 is having a good run due to innovative products, market consolidation and Hasselblad totally imploding. (How many collector edition products do they need?)

Most MF shooters will also have a 5diii or d800e in their kit. 35mmD is two generations behind MF but when p1 is on a 3 year cycle and MF on a 18-24 month cycle the point will be made in 4-5 years.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

The only thing that would drive me to invest any further into MFD would be Holy Grail of a CMOS back with proper liveview.

If Leica concentrates on putting out a live-view enabled S ala the M9 -> M 240 transition, that would be the camera for me, they seem to be the closest to getting it right.

 

[RVB]

If Leica concentrates on putting out a live-view enabled S ala the M9 -> M 240 transition, that would be the camera for me, they seem to be the closest to getting it right.

Ergonomic's are subjective but I have one and it feels great in the hand,the lens collection is beginning to reach maturity,the release of the anticipated tilt and shift 30mm will be a giant step..

I would love to see a true focus system added and wonder If Leica might consider a monochrom version like phase1's achromatic.

 

[fotografz]

Just because Henrick can't articulate the benefits of MF doesn't mean that is reality. CEO's rarely have the marketing prowess and the MF justification is more complicated than most. MR would have been better off interviewing Claus or Kevin.

The fact is P1 is having a good run due to innovative products, market consolidation and Hasselblad totally imploding. (How many collector edition products do they need?)

Most MF shooters will also have a 5diii or d800e in their kit. 35mmD is two generations behind MF but when p1 is on a 3 year cycle and MF on a 18-24 month cycle the point will be made in 4-5 years.

What point?

 

[fotografz]

The only thing that would drive me to invest any further into MFD would be Holy Grail of a CMOS back with proper liveview.

As I don my Nomex suit and say ...

Still not seeing it from any CMOS camera to date. The M240 stuff looks and feels like Canon or Nikon imagery to me ... from a $7,000 body and using incredibly expensive optics.

Hope I'm wrong in the end because it seems that is the direction, like it or not.

-Marc

 

[engel001]

I predict that around five years from now, if MFD goes CMOS, there will a be thread on this forum discussing nostalgically the qualities of CCD sensors. Just like the current very popular thread about "fat pixel" backs.

- Christopher

 

[RVB]

I predict that around five years from now, if MFD goes CMOS, there will a be thread on this forum discussing nostalgically the qualities of CCD sensors. Just like the current very popular thread about "fat pixel" backs.

- Christopher

I wonder if we will ever see a medium format foveon sensor?

 

[KeithL]

As I don my Nomex suit and say ...

Still not seeing it from any CMOS camera to date.

Give me a flat but colour accurate Raw with bags of detail and I'll forego the look.

Give me a compact Alpa or Arca-Swiss tech camera in combination with a CMOS back with user-friendly liveview and I'll create the look.

 

[KeithL]

If Leica concentrates on putting out a live-view enabled S ala the M9 -> M 240 transition, that would be the camera for me, they seem to be the closest to getting it right.

Make it a non-focal-plane system with leaf shutter lenses and I might even buy into it. But then it wouldn't be an S.

 

[RVB]

Make it a non-focal-plane system with leaf shutter lenses and I might even buy into it. But then it wouldn't be an S.

Why would you want the S to be a non FPS camera when it currently has both option's? just curious..

 

[KeithL]

Why would you want the S to be a non FPS camera when it currently has both option's? just curious..

One word, vibration.

1.Shutter released
2.Mirror goes up
3.Aperture diaphragm closes down to desired f-stop
4.Focal plane shutter opens
5.Camera starts exposure electronically
6.Central shutter closes
7.Aperture opens
8.Focal plane shutter closes
9.Central shutter opens
10.Mirror returns

Now, I admit I've never used an S but would imagine that vibration could be a issue even with the mirror locked up. Most of my exposures are in the range of 1/15 sec to 8 sec so I'd prefer the simplicity and lack of vibration inherent in a leaf shutter system.

 

[RVB]

One word, vibration.

1.Shutter released
2.Mirror goes up
3.Aperture diaphragm closes down to desired f-stop
4.Focal plane shutter opens
5.Camera starts exposure electronically
6.Central shutter closes
7.Aperture opens
8.Focal plane shutter closes
9.Central shutter opens
10.Mirror returns

Now, I admit I've never used an S but would imagine that vibration could be a issue even with the mirror locked up. Most of my exposures are in the range of 1/15 sec to 8 sec so I'd prefer the simplicity and lack of vibration inherent in a leaf shutter system.

Thx for that,I knew that there was a sequence involved with CS shot's,I have one CS lens but haven't really had a need to use the CS yet ,but I am interested in having a look.. the other side of the coin is that with A blad you have no FPS so get a "pure" leaf shutter action but the downside is maximum shutter speed of1/800sec..

I wonder if Leica can change the CS sequence with firmware so that the FPS is completely deactivated in CS mode.

 

[fotografz]

How does the Phase One DF camera implement use of their leaf shutter lenses? Is the FPS disabled?

That may be a clue whether it can be done, since the Phase One camera was originally a FPS camera before it became dual shutter capable.

The use of the S-CS lenses is a bit awkward sounding as it cycles through the sequence. For non-flash work, there is no advantage to using the S camera in CS mode.

The advantage comes with high sync speeds up to 1/1000th using lighting in bright conditions that allows better control of background exposures ... then flipping a switch and working with shutter speeds to 1/4000 in ambient conditions.

-Marc

 

[docmoore]

One word, vibration.

... but would imagine that vibration could be a issue even with the mirror locked up. Most of my exposures are in the range of 1/15 sec to 8 sec so I'd prefer the simplicity and lack of vibration inherent in a leaf shutter system.

I have many captures with loss of sharpness with mirror locked up on the S2-P...longer focal lengths at speeds faster than 1/15 second...probably analagous to the P67.

Much better even handheld with the H39II as no focal plane shutter was involved....killed the system for landscape for me.

Bob