The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

why is tech cam equipment so expensive?

Doppler9000

Active member
This is pretty much as correct as it can get. The entire Cambo factory team (including Administration, R&D, and Factory staff) fluctuates slightly but is mostly under 20 people most of the time.

The average product is produced in very limited numbers per run, and are all hand assembled once machined, cleaned, and anodized. All of this done to an extreme level of tolerance.
Cambo is clearly segmenting its markets by limiting offerings based on the potential customer’s camera body.

For example, they produced a limited run of the Actus for the GFX based on the “B” set up, which sells for $1,975. Lee Varis has articles and videos showing this product.

They chose not to make more of these, opting to limit the offerings to either the $2,895 Actus GFX or the kit to upgrade from the “B” for $1,375. So the Actus for the GFX sells for a premium of ~ 50% over what one would pay if one had a pro FF DSLR body.

This premium does buy some additional functionality. It also moves the product into direct price competition with the Arca Swiss Universalis.

I assume the initial decision was based on an analysis of the potential Actus market for 50S owners. I wonder if the pricing/market segmentation strategy would have been different had they anticipated the much less costly 50R.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I've only been to Alpa, Dave's been to Cambo, I would really like to visit Arca Swiss one day.

https://captureintegration.com/behind-the-curtains-at-alpa/

I love that the primary companies that make tech cameras are such craft people, and that they have very non ostentatious offices. As Dave mentioned, when you visit their headquarters, they are quite modest. And they all share this passion about making things really, really well. It does cost something, yes, but their passion is about craft, not about luxury.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

Doppler9000

Active member
Cambo is clearly implementing a market segmentation strategy with the Actus, based on their perceptions of the owners of different camera bodies.

For example, they limit GFX owners to the new G camera, at $2,895, a ~50% premium over the $1,975 Actus B, which supports the heavy pro DSLR bodies.

The G has some additional functionality, but is also priced at the level of the Arca Swiss Universalis.

I wonder if they would have chosen a different strategy had the much less expensive GFX 50R been available at the time they made these decisions.
 

Alkibiades

Well-known member
I dont think that there will be ever cheap technical cam Made in china, it is simply to complicated to make (with this precision that Arca,alpa,cambo,sinar deliver) the marked is pretty small... But there is a really cheap alternative: a very underrated company from Italy: Silvestri. Thay are the cheapest and offer some interesting solutions that no other company have. I dont know why nobody write about them...
 

Doppler9000

Active member
I dont think that there will be ever cheap technical cam Made in china, it is simply to complicated to make (with this precision that Arca,alpa,cambo,sinar deliver) the marked is pretty small... But there is a really cheap alternative: a very underrated company from Italy: Silvestri. Thay are the cheapest and offer some interesting solutions that no other company have. I dont know why nobody write about them...
It is ridiculous to suggest that no Chinese company could make a technical camera because the task is too complicated or requires more precision that they are capable of. If the market is attractive enough, it will be just a matter of time.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Outsourcing is not a bad thing. After all the firm sourced probably can have more specialized equipment and better expertise than a small firm.

The way things are, it takes a a lot of effort to market a product. It is not just the design effort and manufacturing costs. You still need to get those products to customers and that takes effort to.

But, all those things need to be amortized over a relatively small volume.

Best regards
Erik

Those examples sound like a great deal! [says an Alpa shooter].
:cry:

I don't know what the volume is, but it cannot be much. I can say I've been to Alpa in Switzerland. The office is not ornate, and there are not fast expensive cars out front. I don't think they are rolling in the dough smoking expensive cigars and drinking $500 shots of cognac.

If you add up the factors of outsourcing (especially in Alpa’s case), small volumes and relatively tight tolerances it fits the expensive, low-volume business model.

And, the last thing I want is for either one of them to go out of business!

Dave
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
It is ridiculous to suggest that no Chinese company could make a technical camera because the task is too complicated or requires more precision that they are capable of. If the market is attractive enough, it will be just a matter of time.
I agree. Most of our hi tech devices are built in ... China. CNC machines work just as well there as they do in Europe or USA.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
It’s a matter of quality control. There are good Chinese manufacturers and less good, just like here. Remember when everyone said British manuf. was lousy - except they also had the corner on Formula 1 car making. It’s a question of who does the work, and to what tolerances.
 

TheDude

Member
... there is a really cheap alternative: a very underrated company from Italy: Silvestri. Thay are the cheapest and offer some interesting solutions that no other company have. I dont know why nobody write about them...
"Really cheap"! I don't know? At least, their accessories are at Linhof prices!
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I thought the argument for extreme tolerances in tech cams is that there are a chain of connections that must all be perfect for the results to line up. Does good live view ameliorate that issue? It is no longer necessary to get out the laser distance meter and set the high accuracy helicoid accordingly. One can check sharpness directly.

Or am I wildly exaggerating the usefulness of live view here? Some people attach large monitors to their tech cam rigs.

Matt
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Good live view goes a long way. Never needed a laser range finder however even with the 160 and 260. Playback image review on the backs LCD was plenty enough for me.

Sadly now I find the live view much less helpful on the 4140 with a tech camera. Lacks the contrast and ability to determine fine focus that the 150 and 3100 both had. It’s been a problem for since day one. Was a big surprise and disappointing evolution for me. But the sensor’s last of color cast and lessened need for constant LCC shots is a huge step forward.

Paul C
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I thought the argument for extreme tolerances in tech cams is that there are a chain of connections that must all be perfect for the results to line up. Does good live view ameliorate that issue? It is no longer necessary to get out the laser distance meter and set the high accuracy helicoid accordingly. One can check sharpness directly.

Or am I wildly exaggerating the usefulness of live view here? Some people attach large monitors to their tech cam rigs.

Matt
I would say that live view and focus peak pretty much removed the need for the extreme tolerances that you dialed in for back/infinity setting. Without the shimming on the Alpa you could focus at infinity (or any intermediate distance) and the focus could be off. With live view you can nail focus regardless of the lens helicoid settings and in fact it’s pretty much the only way that a rail based camera like the Cambo Actus can be used in the field since there are no accurate distance markings.

Of course precision is still required for everything being square/parallel to start with.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I thought the argument for extreme tolerances in tech cams is that there are a chain of connections that must all be perfect for the results to line up. Does good live view ameliorate that issue? It is no longer necessary to get out the laser distance meter and set the high accuracy helicoid accordingly. One can check sharpness directly.

Or am I wildly exaggerating the usefulness of live view here? Some people attach large monitors to their tech cam rigs.

Matt
That might have to do more with advertising and a customer base that is a little OCD. I you take something like a Hasselblad V camera, the tolerances are far higher because of the reflex system: not only does the ground glass have to be positioned accurately in relation to the image plane, but the movable mirror needs to return to the same position every time and that position increases tolerances. It is more than just lens to image plane tolerance of a tech cam.

I would imagine live view would compensate for the focusing scale, but not the need for parallel planes. Since we are pixel peepers, the tolerance would be in relation to the pixel pitch and f-number in use--also know as Depth of Focus (not Depth of Field), but with the CoC equal to the pixel pitch.
 

dchew

Well-known member
The only critical thing now is that all lenses focus at or beyond infinity, and that only applies to helical-based systems. After getting a new lens or a new back, I just check that it focuses accurately or at least has a bit of back focus.

Despite the tight-tolerance claims, each one of my lenses arrived with slightly different "shim requirements." I adjust the helical to get it close and err on back focus. I do still use the HPF rings, and try to position them so they read accurately. Helps when it is very dark to know where infinity really is.

Dave
 

Pradeep

Member
It is ridiculous to suggest that no Chinese company could make a technical camera because the task is too complicated or requires more precision that they are capable of. If the market is attractive enough, it will be just a matter of time.
At the risk of causing major thread drift........

Pardon me for saying so, but I sense a Eurocentric superiority complex here. I wonder how many here have actually traveled to China in recent times and seen what they are capable of. Most of the 'stuff' we buy in the US has been made in China for a long time now, heck even Apple is moving its new Mac Pro production to China

India sent a successful mission to Mars for less than it cost to make the Hollywood movie 'Gravity'. I doubt your camera plates need more precision manufacturing than a rocket and probe that travels 34 million miles and yet it can be made for far less than it costs elsewhere in the world.

It is not that advance technology requires a ton of money (sure it does more than simple stuff) but what most people forget is the other costs - predominantly human. A person working in a high tech company or on an assembly line in The Netherlands requires at a minimum, a certain amount of money to support a specific lifestyle. This is several times that of a similar worker in China, India, Malaysia or Vietnam. It is not just the cost of labor, but the expectations from that labor, from that company that are different in the West. Everything is aimed at a higher standard of living that people living in the rich parts of the world are used to, the cost of production of anything in such places has to be much higher. Which is why there is so much friction on trade tariffs and such.

I humbly submit that the cost of technical cam parts (or anything of a similar nature) has less to do with 'how difficult it is to make them' and more to do with how much money the maker needs to keep his business afloat and to provide a decent livelihood to the workers living in that part of the world. In a world becoming increasingly flatter, there is very little difference now in the capabilities of workers any where, what is really different is the cost of living and the expectations of the people working there.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
The only critical thing now is that all lenses focus at or beyond infinity, and that only applies to helical-based systems. After getting a new lens or a new back, I just check that it focuses accurately or at least has a bit of back focus.

Despite the tight-tolerance claims, each one of my lenses arrived with slightly different "shim requirements." I adjust the helical to get it close and err on back focus. I do still use the HPF rings, and try to position them so they read accurately. Helps when it is very dark to know where infinity really is.

Dave

I also still like the HPF Rings. With live view, they are now more optional than before, but I simply like having the larger focus ring wrapped around the lens, easier to find in the dark (or the light, for that matter).

BTW - remember, that as long as one doesn't have a Tilt/Swing mount on their Cambo, that the Alpa HPF rings will also fit the Cambo WRS mounted lenses.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
The only critical thing now is that all lenses focus at or beyond infinity, and that only applies to helical-based systems. After getting a new lens or a new back, I just check that it focuses accurately or at least has a bit of back focus.

Despite the tight-tolerance claims, each one of my lenses arrived with slightly different "shim requirements." I adjust the helical to get it close and err on back focus. I do still use the HPF rings, and try to position them so they read accurately. Helps when it is very dark to know where infinity really is.

Dave
It's rare that the literal-distance on the lens is of much direct use in an age of live view.

However there are, in my view, three very compelling use cases for high precision helicals:
- A/B testing (or A/B/C/D/E... testing): in the field if you want to compare your current focus position (A) to some other focus position (B) it is enormously helpful if you can return precisely to (A) if it turns out (B) was worse. In other words if you say "I think this is the best point of focus, but I wonder if it would be better if I pushed focus very slightly back" and then find out that the answer is "no" then the ability to recall the previous focus position (with extreme accuracy) means you don't then have to re-test. Otherwise you end up in a situation where you're always unsure whether your current point of focus is the best point of focus.
- Presets: For pre-dawn when it's too dim to work, or in a building with dim lighting, or when shooting hand held street photography... in such situations the ability to set the focus to a known-good preset, that is either a hyperfocal (infinity included), pseudo-hyperfocal (some known far distance like 100 feet included, but not infinity), or zone focus (e.g. 6-7 feet). A precise helical means that once you've determined that preset, you can recall it with extraordinary precision, meaning no second guessing where the focus will lay in the scene.
- Focus Stacking: as an extension of the "presets" above it's possible to find a "second shot" position that compliments the hyperfocal preset such that in two shots you have some (but not much) focus overlap for a great two-shot focus stack. Of course the concept can be further extended to multiple shots. The result can be something like a sharpie-on-tape note of "32HR 5/15/33 @ f/9, 3' to ∞" as a preset on the lens cap of your 32HR that indicates the proper focus positions for a 3-shot focus stack that covers from 3 feet to infinity. Without a precise helical you end up going very conservative on tech camera focus stacking to ensure you overlap between the frames, making a could-be-done-in-3-shots focus stack into, often, a 6-shot focus stack or more.

From this point of view the Arca Swiss R system takes the cake as having, by a very large margin, the most precise helical both in terms of movement precision and in terms of physical markings.
 

dchew

Well-known member
- Focus Stacking: as an extension of the "presets" above it's possible to find a "second shot" position that compliments the hyperfocal preset such that in two shots you have some (but not much) focus overlap for a great two-shot focus stack. Of course the concept can be further extended to multiple shots. The result can be something like a sharpie-on-tape note of "32HR 5/15/33 @ f/9, 3' to ∞" as a preset on the lens cap of your 32HR that indicates the proper focus positions for a 3-shot focus stack that covers from 3 feet to infinity. Without a precise helical you end up going very conservative on tech camera focus stacking to ensure you overlap between the frames, making a could-be-done-in-3-shots focus stack into, often, a 6-shot focus stack or more.

From this point of view the Arca Swiss R system takes the cake as having, by a very large margin, the most precise helical both in terms of movement precision and in terms of physical markings.
Focus stacking is a big one, especially since the helical pitch are all very similar, at least for Alpa: sk 0.02778 mm/degree; Rodi 0.03333 mm/deg. With a bit of experimenting it is easy to figure out how many degrees / tick marks you need to rotate in between images. I just rotate 5 degrees between images regardless of the lens mounted or the focus range. A bit overkill for f/11 but good for f/8.

Dave
 

Alkibiades

Well-known member
"Really cheap"! I don't know? At least, their accessories are at Linhof prices!
Yes. I would say they are really cheap compared with other high quality small companies.
take a look:

a new bitcam II something about 1400 euro (Linhof Techno 6000 euro?),
Digital Adapters for 300 euro- others 600-800 euro?
I would say they are really cheap.

I do own Linhof Techno, 679CS, Cambo WRS and Arca R 3D, I can compare the prices.
I like all of these companies, thay all have stong products but when somebody would ask me for a cheap technical camera so I would say Silvestri is the best solution for that.
I love some Arca or Linhof pruducts becouse thay are so absolutly unique. Not becouse there is a arca or Linhof name on it.
All that copy stuff from china made for analoge large format was not of that quality that these small company could deliver. Some of them are usable some absolutly not. For digital use were the precision is so important the china stuff absolutly not usable, for example: sliding backs with radiculous cheap focusing screens, absolutly not usable.
You could alway say if they would want it theay would do it but the fact is: thay can not, whatever the reason for it is.
The market for technical cameras was always small and will become even smaller so there is also no reason for a change.
To make big money the big china tech companies will make great i-phones and they can make it very good indeed.
But this fine hand made precision is something like making machanical watches ( swiss made!).
 
Top