MF for landscape architecture

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve you always repeat the same thing about pixels, if a company propose only 60 - 80 - 100 mp they will loose customers

a company will offer some day a MF FF with 40 mp and a decent price and it will be a killer

I factually disagree. No medium format company has lost customers because they offer too many megapixels. Maybe they will lose you, Erick (which would be unfortunate), but overall, there is zero sales evidence that shows a loss of customers due to increasing megapixel counts. If this was the case, we would be selling more IQ140's and IQ160's than IQ180's, but this is not so, nor has it ever been.

Anytime a new sensor has been introduced with higher megapixels, even when the technology around the sensor is unchanged, the higher megapixel sensor always outsells the lower.

It doesn't mean there's an overt demand for higher megapixels, nor a repudiation of lower megapixels (though the evidence might actually point to this). But the decision to purchase always moves toward the higher.

I can see this tempering for the commercial market - indeed have seen this - but that is driven more by price (based on not just megapixels, but also sensor size) than the cost of the product. The ratio of high megapixel to lower megapixel purchases is more equivalent in our mainstream commercial clients than with other segments. But this is primarily because of the price, not the megapixel count.

As has been pointed out, whether due to technical constraints, or marketability/profitability, a large sensor (full frame, what have you) will never offer reduced megapixel count. And if it did, the cost would still likely be more prohibitive due to the large sensor size for the markets that would welcome such a product (those that might truly not need the higher megapixel count).

Well, actually, there already is such a product, a full frame 20MP digital back that has a fast capture rate and an expanded ISO range from 200 - 3200 ISO called the IQ180. It also has the option of shooting at 80MP's for those occasional projects that require large output/more detail.


Steve Hendrix


Steve Hendrix

 

[erick.boileau]

Steve read the forums and you will see how many users will buy a MF at a decent price with less pixels

the companies have not lost customer they just didn't get them, because the customers will never buy it

even if I could throw 40 000 , for the same price I shall take 40 mp not 80 ...

a large sensor (full frame, what have you) will never offer reduced megapixel count.
And if it did, the cost would still likely be more prohibitive due to the large sensor size for the markets that would welcome such a product (those that might truly not need the higher megapixel count).

a P45 + or a P25+ is a 1.1 sensor with 40 mp and it works very well ... nobody will say that it is not a good back

 

[stephengilbert]

I can see how a company might lose customers if they offered only an 80MP back (at the higher price such a back would entail), but don't see how offering one in addition to other options could possibly hurt.

 

[erick.boileau]

I can see how a company might lose customers if they offered only an 80MP back (at the higher price such a back would entail), but don't see how offering one in addition to other options could possibly hurt.

and with a 40 MP or 120MP back they will anyway sell the same lenses and accessories

... Pentax is on the way

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

If you shoot at night with a P45 with one battery you can do 3 or 4 photos

I'm not sure that statement is accurate. Long exposures do require a dark frame, but you won't find a Hasselblad capable of shooting 1 hour exposures either. Ambient conditions will effect battery performance in any camera, but if you're shooting 3 or 4 one hour exposures that's 6 to 8 hours! Just enough time to fully charge your H4D!

 

[erick.boileau]

but if you're shooting 3 or 4 one hour exposures that's 6 to 8 hours! Just enough time to fully charge your H4D!

at home but not in the mountains

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve read the forums and you will see how many users will buy a MF at a decent price with less pixels

the companies have not lost customer they just didn't get them, because the customers will never buy it

even if I could throw 40 000 , for the same price I shall take 40 mp not 80 ...


a P45 + or a P25+ is a 1.1 sensor with 40 mp and it works very well ... nobody will say that it is not a good back

Erick - I can tell you that forums are a very poor indicator of sales figures.

Customers will buy high megapixels in overwhelming numbers if they can afford it. Price is the issue, not the megapixel count. To your point, if medium format could offer lower price points, they might gain some extra portion of the market, however, the evidence for how much gain they would add shows that gain would be relatively modest. Already there are Mamiya and Leaf products available for below $10,000. While we sell our share, it is not the majority of our sales, certainly not from a revenue standpoint.

Now, yes, these are generally older sensor technologies (22MP/48x36 & 28MP/44x33), and if a full frame, 30MP sensor with say, IQ capabilities were offered around the same price point, would more buy at that price? Yes, no question. But the financial realities based on development costs to overcome the technical difficulties of providing optimal image quality with large photosites over a large sensor (combined with the drastic reduction in revenue compared to those development costs) would not be recovered in revenues from increased market share. At least not in sufficient quantities. It could (and would) probably be done if the end result would be increased profitability. That it hasn't been done is a clear indicator this is not the case.


Steve Hendrix

 

[erick.boileau]

we shall see

 

[Steve Hendrix]

we shall see

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

This thread seems to have changed topics from the original question regarding landscape and architecture, to more of marketing strategies as it relates to MFD. I'm sure you'll find most cameras are comparable in resolution in the 40MP range, more than enough for big prints. If your only printing up to A2, then you could use many 35mm FF cameras.

 

[Jérôme.E]

However, we feel that the 40MP offering from Kodak is superior for many reasons compared to some of the other options (33MP Dalsa) for example.

30MP full frame would actually be a very bad choice for a sensor. The pixel sites would have to be quite large leading to moire issues and a loss of fine detail - not much good for landscapes at all.

Sorry David if i didn't exactly get your point.
But it was a little confusing with your first sentence.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

This thread seems to have changed topics from the original question regarding landscape and architecture, to more of marketing strategies as it relates to MFD. I'm sure you'll find most cameras are comparable in resolution in the 40MP range, more than enough for big prints. If your only printing up to A2, then you could use many 35mm FF cameras.

True indeed. I don't there are any other practical options for medium format tilt/shift camera systems that also offer auto focus than an HTS 1.5 with H4D or Phase One/Leaf/Mamiya/Sinar digital backs on H1/H2 cameras.

So, other than considering a separate system for auto focus use and one for dedicated landscape/architecture (like a tech cam with Schneider/Rodenstock lenses), the only discussion would seem to be what back would be ideal.

This thread may have run it's course before I helped yank it off the tracks...


Steve Hendrix

 

[Jérôme.E]

Erick - I can tell you that forums are a very poor indicator of sales figures.

Customers will buy high megapixels in overwhelming numbers if they can afford it. Price is the issue, not the megapixel count. To your point, if medium format could offer lower price points, they might gain some extra portion of the market, however, the evidence for how much gain they would add shows that gain would be relatively modest. Already there are Mamiya and Leaf products available for below $10,000. While we sell our share, it is not the majority of our sales, certainly not from a revenue standpoint.

Now, yes, these are generally older sensor technologies (22MP/48x36 & 28MP/44x33), and if a full frame, 30MP sensor with say, IQ capabilities were offered around the same price point, would more buy at that price? Yes, no question. But the financial realities based on development costs to overcome the technical difficulties of providing optimal image quality with large photosites over a large sensor (combined with the drastic reduction in revenue compared to those development costs) would not be recovered in revenues from increased market share. At least not in sufficient quantities. It could (and would) probably be done if the end result would be increased profitability. That it hasn't been done is a clear indicator this is not the case.


Steve Hendrix

Even if some (already or future) customers would appreciate FF 30-40, i think Steve is clearly right.
I understand that when you look at 30-40 (even 22) DB's images it's already so astonishing that why some would care about more.
Sales and market have their rules that keen customers have to "suffer".

 

[dougpeterson]

redacted as it was off topic

 

[erick.boileau]

If your only printing up to A2, then you could use many 35mm FF cameras.

it is not only a matter of pixels
a H3D 22 and a Canon 5D mark II have exactly the same number of pixels but the RAW are different