Perhaps this has been seen by most of you guy's But I thought it would be interesting to post for those who haven't seen it..
Henrick Interview on Vimeo
Perhaps this has been seen by most of you guy's But I thought it would be interesting to post for those who haven't seen it..
Henrick Interview on Vimeo
I found it interesting he also said they are working on new shutters.
Not to mention the fact that he pretty much promised the long awaited new camera they've been working on since before they bought Mamiya is coming in 2013/14.
Finally watched that interview last night. I wasn't impressed. The Phase One CEO wasn't able to clearly articulate a compelling rationale for medium format photography, other than giving photographers a way of differentiating themselves from the "Toyotas". I think most medium format photographers on this forum and on LuLa could offer more convincing arguments to the question, "Is medium format dead?" In fact, I think Reichmann was more convincing than the CEO.
There wasn't much new information in there, and the most I could discern was that 2013 and 2014 would bring new products, including possibly a new camera to replace the one they "inherited" (his word, not mine). This from a guy who promised me USB 3.0 in June 2011 when I bought my IQ180.
My prediction is that we've seen their major announcement for 2013 - the IQ260 and IQ280 - and no new camera will be announced until 2014, perhaps at Photokina. Possibly more S/K lenses in 2013.
I've moved on to the Leica S, so I'll watch from the sidelines.
Joe Colson Photography
I think the argument he puts forward about MF being dead was there. Yes he gushed the normal stuff, but I read more into it's current situation when he mentions of things like their best year ever, as well as the ability to continue to design new sensors, cameras, and lenses. A company sucking wind would have a hard time designing anything new.
I do agree, he overstated the "differentiate yourself" argument, but as with anything it can be and is used effectively by many photographers. (regardless of how valid or invalid the concept is).
True, but I don't think this presentation was about converting shooters from 35mm to MF, it was more to answer the specific question that despite all the talk about MF being dead it isn't. LuLa has been inundated with this type of stuff and every thread seems to eventually get infected by it. We've seen plenty of it here on getDPI. I think the video was a direct result of all those threads.I just thought his articulation of the advantages of medium format was weak, given that he is the CEO of one of the "big three" MF contenders. If his goal is to move photographers from 35mm to medium format, his value proposition needs to be more powerfully presented.
Other than perhaps Steve Jobs, I can't think of man CEO's who articulate and handle "sales" presentations well. (I'm sure there are some) They are usually afraid of putting their foot in their mouth, so they tend to spout oft repeated "safe" concepts. He seems to suffering from that somewhat.
Odd interview IMO. Not quite sure what to make of it.
The technological aspect seemed mostly predictive and anyone involved in MFD knows most of that is extremely unreliable regardless of brand, especially in terms of timings. I guess it was there to say "We hear you, we are fine, and moving forward".
Not sure that such strong use of predictive innovation at such a heightened degree of change (CMOS/Live View) is the wisest path to support the MFD category ... it promises a ferocious rate of both obsolesces and new expenditures at what is ubiquitously considered stratospheric pricing structures.
The notion of constant upgrading at these price points argues against bringing in new converts to what will soon be obsolete equipment ... while this is common to all categories, all the others are far more sustainable. Those with existing MFD gear would either have to have a very healthy business success to sustain the rate of change, or own an oil field .
IMO, what is needed is strong support for those already in the category from all the brands, and especially such a strong player as Phase One/Leaf. As someone already mentioned, there are stronger arguments here on Get DPI than was presented in the video. Quantifiable arguments straight from the horse's mouth would further endorse already positive beliefs. These MFD companies need to mercilessly hammer this home, consistently and relentlessly.
I think MFD has made a fundamental mistake in catering to consumer cries for higher ISO, faster rate of shooting, multiple AF points or any other functional aspect they cannot ever hope to win against 35mm offerings. IMO, it has wasted precious R&D resources, caused incremental change that is expensive to maintain on the users part, and done little to forward the real advantages of MFD
I winced when the CEO used the word "slow" ... which plays right into the hands of those weighing MFD against the higher res 35mm cameras already deemed much faster, and cost a fraction of MFD. A stronger case can and should be made for MFD as the thinking photographer's choice, where concept and intent ... ideas and fulfillment of a thoughtful artistic vision ... is paramount, and all functional aspects of the MFD system are in support of that cause.
In reality, that is exactly what does happen at the users end. While there are those who stretch their use of MFD into areas better suited to other formats, it is playing to weakness, not strength ... and catering to this minority with the product is the tail wagging the dog.
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..
Having been on the MFD upgrade merry-go-round, including trade-in and buy-backs, they certainly mitigate the cost factors, but the gap is still mind-boggingly expensive no matter how you do the math. MFD is very expensive to get into, and expensive to say in compared to any other category. If the rate of innovation excellerates over the next few years, it'll get even more expensive.
Plus that formula only works if you stay pat and resist upgrades, or stay current using upgrades. If you decide to opt out you'll quickly discover the real cost of MFD
Marc,if you were to take control of Phase P.R and advertising what would you consider to be the main selling point of MF?? Ultimate image quality?
Me? Oh, you wouldn't want me take over anything if you place any value on it.
I already mentioned some of what I think these companies should be doing ... selling against the ubiquitous, willy nilly, promiscuous making of images that other formats tend to promote.
I also think MFD is the ultimate "craftsman's" tool. The gestalt of it, not just the IQ. It is a sum that is greater than its parts.
If you think about it, that is how most practitioners actually use it. Much of what is shot is thought out in advance, or is at least thoughtful in nature (most advertising work, architecture, landscape ... even much portrait work).
As 35mm has advanced on the IQ front, and as it goes even further, one is forced to get more "craftsman" like to have any hope of realizing the ability of the camera at all. So now the two ways are on equal footing as far a process is concerned ... and it is here that MFD reveals the real advantages of operation and modular versatility for problem solving ... from a big bright viewfinder ... to all the specialized do-dads ... to the IQ itself ... even leaf-shutters (which is something I cannot live without now).
2 Member(s) liked this post
I also like the earlier comment about selling out being very expensive,I came close to selling my H4d last year but it was not worth it in the end,I will hang on and upgrade when I have the greenbacks to spare..
It really is like a mafia,easy to get in and hard to get out..
A interesting view on CMOS vs CCD
Are All CCDs Dinosaurs? | Teledyne DALSA Imaging Blog
because it is a meaningless phrase.
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'
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..
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.
Last edited by torger; 29th March 2013 at 03:20.
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.
The only thing that would drive me to invest any further into MFD would be Holy Grail of a CMOS back with proper liveview.
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.
Ed Cooley Fine Art Photography
1 Member(s) liked this post
I would love to see a true focus system added and wonder If Leica might consider a monochrom version like phase1's achromatic.
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.
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.
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
8.Focal plane shutter closes
9.Central shutter opens
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.
I wonder if Leica can change the CS sequence with firmware so that the FPS is completely deactivated in CS mode.
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.
Much better even handheld with the H39II as no focal plane shutter was involved....killed the system for landscape for me.
Folks, the point is given the choice I'd always choose a leaf shutter system. I have no need for high sync speeds.
I posted a question here a couple of days ago for which I've had no replies. I'll repost it here in the hope that someone can help.
I’m currently shooting Hasselblad H series and thinking of adding a Nikon D800E. Almost all of my current exposures are in the range 1/15 second to 8 seconds. I’ve never experienced any vibration problems using the H leaf shutters - always use mirror-up with the Blad and would use liveview with the Nikon - and was just wondering if I should be at all concerned about the focal plane shutter on the Nikon at similar exposures?
re: fps + leaf shutter in the S
Need I remind about this article? - The New ALPA 12 FPS
Scroll down to where they are comparing a Copal leaf shutter to the ALPA 12 - "You will need a good monitor to look at these two images, particularly because things are not quite as clear with a JPEG, but if you look carefully at the edges of the numbers, at the fine textures and at the fine "pebble like" finish of the background in the license plate I trust you will agree that the image on the bottom is sharper and shows finer detail. (the FPS result)" The shutter used in the ALPA 12 is modified Mamiya unit.
I think any worries about shutter vibrations need to be put to rest with a simple objective test. It could be a current design limitation that requires the S to activate both shutters, but it's also no guarantee that even so, the damping might be good enough for it to not matter. If you had to pick any manufacturer that knew the most about soft shutters, it'd be Leica; for them to overlook something like that would be like hiring a model, but no hairdresser or makeup artist.