Phase One => not for photographers

[fotografz]

Interesting thread indeed. The person making the original post has obviously never owned Phase products or dealt with the company. They are both a dream to deal with, great products and great people worth the money IMO.

MF products are pricey but the quality difference was obvious to me with the first exposure i made on the P30+. The difference in price pales in comparison to the cost to staff a studio running or travel expenses for a busy landscape photographer. Add in marketing and production costs and the difference to upgrade to the best kit available doesn't seem so high, especially with the generous trade-in programs if you stay current.

In the past twelve months I have been in 22 states, Argentina, Australia and Antarctica. I couldn't imaging spending the money required to travel and not have the best equipment to do my job. Seems silly actually.

Phase has the broadest market strategy in the MF marketplace. Anyone who can afford a D3x and full kit of lenses can opt into MF with phase, leaf or Mamiya products for a small price premium.

I know several Canon/Nikon shooters who have or are contemplating the jump to MF by purchasing one of the trade-in backs. There is as much a market for those recon'ed backs as there is for the backs they are traded in on. They usually run out of them once the upgrade cycle nears completion.

As Don Libby mentions, the P45+ is still a great back and like him I have several P30+ and P45 images that well and I haven't owned one for a few years now. With each new version of C1 I can go back and reclaim a few images from those archives of hard drives. On of my most popular images was a P30+ file from which C1 v6 allowed me to finally produce a quality print.

Phase is at the top of the MF food chain because they push the envelope. Their technologies are not cheap to develop. I recently met a few of the Phase One staff at an IQ180 release party and they are very passionate about keeping their customers on the leading edge of what is available. They are already working on the upgrade for the IQ series backs and you can't even get them yet. Chip design, software, hardware engineering is a constant cycle and keeping those wheels in motion is not cheap. As incredible as it is those technologies are they do make their way into their lower end offerings.

My suggestion is compare the entry level and slowly upgrade to the higher end. The difference in quality is worth the money.

Yes, "Let them eat cake!" ...

Despite the rambling endorsement ad for Phase One, it wouldn't hurt to go back and re-read the OPs original post. It is easy to blow off his appeal using our own lofty justifications ... especially here on a forum that attracts those able to foot the bill (or at least the vocal members seem to, including me BTW).

Perhaps think back to our own entry, or an earlier part of our own photographic experiences. Heck, it wasn't all that long ago when I had to take out a loan to buy a Hasselblad V camera to shoot film for commercial jobs. But hey, it was worth it, you bought it and used it forever ... or so we thought.

Then the paradigm shift to digital media (print and electronic) changed everything overnight. I went into debt for a $12,000 Kodak back ... but in that time of transition from film to digital, you could charge a digital capture fee and justify the line expense as off-setting the film scanning charges. In many cases that way of paying for digital gear has now evaporated for most working photographers. The point is ... if you were in on the ground floor, the upgrade path curve was a bit more gentle, and many of those riding the upgrade train have a history stretching back some time. However, add up the actual cost of 10 or 15 years of upgrades if you dare. It is a sobering exercise.

Frankly, there has been a second paradigm shift in the past 5 or so years ... where the new product cycles are growing closer together and are bigger jumps (technically and financially) and the curve has become ferociously steep ... this, while the income producing potential of photography has become generally lessened, and the over-all demands for image quality has most certainly been down-sized as electronic media went on the ascendancy (the competition for digital backs isn't against $9K Nikons, it's $2,500 5Ds). Add to this the expense of now needing to upgrade your lens systems, which both major players are doing, and we're getting into some pretty rarified usage and financial territory.

It will be interesting to see how long-term this business model will sustain itself before it is indeed a product category for governments, institutions, wealthy dabblers, and a few highly successful photographers (if it isn't already) ... where not so long ago, one could spring for that V camera or RZ and be on the same image quality level as the rich and famous ... where knowledge and talent was the key perceptual determinator for the majority of working photographers. Note the word "perceptual" because this "better gear" has oddly become inextricably linked to somehow equating to better work no matter how vociferously we'd deny that ... there is definitely an air of superiority attached to it thanks a great deal to the marketing efforts of those duking it out for market share.

Just an alternative thought or two.

-Marc

 

[etrump]

His original post sounded like a sour grapes gripe about not being able to afford the top of the line equipment.

It is naive to think that P1 only sells a few hundred units of their backs. Truth be known, there is probably a thousand unit backlog already.

If that were the case Phase would already be gone.

 

[fotografz]

His original post sounded like a sour grapes gripe about not being able to afford the top of the line equipment.

It is naive to think that P1 only sells a few hundred units of their backs. Truth be known, there is probably a thousand unit backlog already.

If that were the case Phase would already be gone.

"The truth be known ... " Really? Is that a full brainwashing, or just a light rinse?

"Sniff, sniff, how vulgar ... the riff-raff can't afford to eat cake? ... just sour grapes methinks ... here, here, what, what ..." (in my most insensitive British, mouth full of marbles voice ...) :ROTFL:

I guess I don't care either. Whaaaatever! (in my best valley-girl inflection).

Maybe they can do a reality show about the OP, and the thousands of disenfranchised photographers out there? Sponsored by Pentax :thumbup:


Just yanking the old chain for grins.

 

[MGrayson]

I thought this was GetDPI. Looks more like Lu-La. :shocked:

... must have made a wrong turn in Albuquerque ...

 

[KeithL]

I thought this was GetDPI. Looks more like Lu-La.

You've got problems, for some unfathomable reason I keep thinking this place is GetDP1.

 

[MGrayson]

You've got problems, for some unfathomable reason I keep thinking this place is GetDP1.

:ROTFL: I got DP1. Two of the four 16x24 prints hanging in my house were taken with it. Damn fine camera!

:OT:, I know... we now return you to the Phase/Hasselblad wars.

 

[fotografz]

:ROTFL: I got DP1. Two of the four 16x24 prints hanging in my house were taken with it. Damn fine camera!

:OT:, I know... we now return you to the Phase/Hasselblad wars.

On the contrary ... Hassey and Phase are lumped together in this one ... it's a photographic class war ...

Come on ... warm up that funny bone.

 

[MGrayson]

On the contrary ... Hassey and Phase are lumped together in this one ... it's a photographic class war ...

Come on ... warm up that funny bone.

Well, this has been a multi-faceted thread (mixed metaphor?). True, the OP was lamenting the price of Phase MFDB, but we had a pleasant interlude on exactly which manufacturer represents Pros and which is for "Gentlemen Photographers" (how's that for a euphemism? I include myself solidly in that category, as I have the artistic eye of a house plant, but love glass, precision machinery, and computers. For that matter, why am I posting here? I don't .. yet... have any MF digital gear, and if I get some, it will almost certainly be Pentax, and that barely counts ).

OK, funny bone warmed up. Carry on!:salute:

Matt

 

[Steve Hendrix]

On the contrary ... Hassey and Phase are lumped together in this one ... it's a photographic class war ...

Come on ... warm up that funny bone.

Well, the OP sentiment is - let's assume - reasonable to have, so to keep from veering into DP Review territory....

I really hate car analogies, but who is BMW's targeted customer? Wealthy drivers, yes? Why do they market their cars to this niche instead of a product for all drivers? Why do they price their cars so high? What are the answers to these questions?

Perhaps BMW could produce cars at a lower price point. I don't drive an expensive car (my money goes to....other pursuits, guess what they are...), so I'm not intimately familiar with that category, but my wife Rachel is and we've both passed by Mercedes Benz models that were targeted at a more thrifty market and even at a glance, these vehicles seem a pale comparison to their more expensive siblings. As a result, we've seen these companies play with this market, rather than dive in. My moral to the story - Phase One could make products that are more affordable for more photographers, but they likely wouldn't fare as well. Nor would there products at this price level that offer as compelling a mix of features at larger sensor sizes.

Phase One's true strength is in producing large sensor products that, in the right hands, result in amazing images. The core nature of their products is the large sensor portion, which necessarily pre-determines a large degree of the cost, and as a result, the price. So, the question becomes, are they marketing to this segment and is that the strategy, or are the development costs of their solutions naturally going to arrive at this price point and thus, they are smart to advertise to this segment? Is the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?

As I've said before, there's a large user market with these products, much larger than is known by just looking at what's around you. The photographic market itself is much larger (in terms of knowing these photographers) than is known. It stands to reason many of them use products and you have no idea what they use, who they shoot for, etc.

It would be great if these products weren't so expensive. That said, many pros, non-pros, and users of all stripes and sizes own and continue to purchase these products as they are improved.

http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/our-clients/

Just perusing this list, there's a wide range of photographic applications and users, architectural, commercial studio, landscape, editorial, portrait, reprographic, commercial fashion, etc.

Photography equipment has always been a purchasing challenge for professionals, and it is even more so today with digital. Certainly the record quarter of this year owes a great deal to the wealthy user market - whether they are pro or not. The wealthy user market is not restricted to enthusiasts. But my belief is that if the commercial market is not purchasing medium format in the same numbers they have in the past, it is a result of the business climate and changing business model of commercial photography (note I am not stating "the economy"), as well as very capable products on the market (Canon 5DMK-II, Nikon D3, etc) that fulfill most general commercial needs satisfactorily. And yet, just last week, one of my Leaf 33MP users upgraded to the Aptus-II 12 80MP. He shoots food, mostly.

That said, we sell so many pre-owned units, we don't see these as "rich people's hand me downs". We sell large sensor solutions, that still have unique capabilities, from $4,000 on up. There's also brand new products that start at $7,990.

So, I would say, in response to the OP, that the latest and greatest in large sensor technology has a cost. But the option of purchasing and using large sensors is certainly much more viable than he stated. And we believe Phase One will continue their success as a leader and innovator in this segment.


Steve Hendrix

 

[jlm]

paraphrasing a quote about cars..."If I had all the money I'd spent on cameras...I'd spend it all on cameras".

 

[fotografz]

paraphrasing a quote about cars..."If I had all the money I'd spent on cameras...I'd spend it all on cameras".

Now THAT is a funny bone at work ...:ROTFL:

 

[BANKER1]

Let me make another analogy. The US Air Force put a lot of money into the development of the F-22. Then congress, in all their wisdom, decided to cut the production in half. Divide the development cost into half the number of planes. Whopping!. Then they divided production in half again. Monstrous! I think they cut that number as well, so we now have each aircraft costing hundreds of millions of dollars per copy.

Somewhere in the thread a wise person suggested that many thousands of units could be produced instead of many hundreds of units. If that were the case the R&D costs would far less per unit allowing the companies to sell their backs for a price that more people could afford. That decision is, of course, made by each MFDB manufacturer. It is not our money on the line so we must accept their decisions. We can lament that decision, but we can't change it.

Greg

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Let me make another analogy. The US Air Force put a lot of money into the development of the F-22. Then congress, in all their wisdom, decided to cut the production in half. Divide the development cost into half the number of planes. Whopping!. Then they divided production in half again. Monstrous! I think they cut that number as well, so we now have each aircraft costing hundreds of millions of dollars per copy.

Somewhere in the thread a wise person suggested that many thousands of units could be produced instead of many hundreds of units. If that were the case the R&D costs would far less per unit allowing the companies to sell their backs for a price that more people could afford. That decision is, of course, made by each MFDB manufacturer. It is not our money on the line so we must accept their decisions. We can lament that decision, but we can't change it.

Greg

Yes, but I'm going to have to counter that profitability is determined by more than just the development cost and that the reduction of the development costs is based on the presumption of the appropriate number of increased sales. And I believe that the number of increased sales would be insufficient to provide the necessary revenues to produce profitability at the price levels most users would have in mind.


Steve Hendrix

 

[KeithL]

paraphrasing a quote about cars..."If I had all the money I'd spent on cameras...I'd spend it all on cameras".

Now, if I had all the money fotografz has spent on cameras...

:ROTFL:

 

[cmb_]

Now, if I had all the money fotografz has spent on cameras...

:ROTFL:

I'd settle for all the money Guy has spent on multiple purchases of the SAME lens!

 

[BANKER1]

Steve,

Point well taken. However, how can you go from $14,000 for the H4D31 and $18,000 for the H4D40 to forty grand for the H4D60? No one will get me to believe that the chip for the 60 (primarily the only difference) can raise the cost of the camera $26,000 to $30,000. Now, I have the 60 so I'm only making an argument most others have considered. Thankfully I was able to go the upgrade path.

Think about it. If enough sales were generated to allow the 31 to be $7-10,000 and the 60 to be $20-24,000 how many more photographers would be enticed to enter medium format digital land. Just thinkin'.

Greg

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Let me make another analogy. The US Air Force put a lot of money into the development of the F-22. Then congress, in all their wisdom, decided to cut the production in half. Divide the development cost into half the number of planes. Whopping!. Then they divided production in half again. Monstrous! I think they cut that number as well, so we now have each aircraft costing hundreds of millions of dollars per copy.

This is just a recognition that the value of the R&D is greater than that of the plane itself. Much of what's done can be shared and reused in other projects. I've been part of many similar projects myself, and the key to success is understanding the value created. Not every product has to be a success to be a profoundly good investment. Understanding this is key to a successful long-term product strategy, and often the people in the project themselves (especially more junior staff) see it as a failure when in fact it's a success. Not sure how this relates to Phase One though.

 

[T.Karma]

It is not for photographers - it is for people who confuse state of the heart with state of the art.

Maybe there is also something else and that is keeping the rest of the pack at some distance by the brute force of expense. In the film days amateurs and photographers were easy to recognise, because irrelevant of the talent the pros had to put up a high initial investment in gear to start out. Today with all those 5d like cameras even regular folks can do pro like work, given they are skilled enough.

 

[BANKER1]

It is not for photographers - it is for people who confuse state of the heart with state of the art.

Good one!

Greg

 

[etrigan63]

Ok, I just noticed this thread and read it from beginning to end. To the OP, getting into medium format even back in the film days meant a significant investment of money (remembering to bring the value of a dollar up to current standards). Medium format was not a be-all, end-all, do-it-all camera format. Never has. It was a means to grant photographers access to higher-quality negatives without having to jump up to large format.

Many film photogs who wanted to move up to medium format, did so by tapping the secondary market at a significant level of savings. This time-honored tradition remains the same in the digital era. The DSLR revolution has programmed us to always buy new and that is a misconception that needs to be overcome if one wants to proceed in this business with requiring TARP funds.