Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: why is mfdb still so expensive?  (Read 21685 times)
Hägar the horrible
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2008, 12:06:46 PM »
ReplyReply

So how about the myth that MF sensors are indeed made of 6 cheap APS sensors? Thanks
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2008, 12:30:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So how about the myth that MF sensors are indeed made of 6 cheap APS sensors? Thanks
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the next question we will ask is why is 24mpx so inexpensive.

[a href=\"http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+megapixel-full+frame-dslr-official-only-3000]http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+m...icial-only-3000[/url]

JR
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2008, 01:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the next question we will ask is why is 24mpx so inexpensive.

http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+m...icial-only-3000

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


leeetle bitty pixels.  

A typical MFDB is running from a 6 micron pixel to as big as a 12 micron pixel.  It ain't the pixel count, it's the size of the pixels, and size of the chip.
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2008, 01:24:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
myth

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ted Dillard
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2008, 01:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes this is exactly why I start this topic. A 3k$ sony A900 vs a 30k$ digital back, is the price difference between those two just because of the business scale? Is there someone here could provide us a list of the cost of a digital back's components? like ccd cost, R and D cost etc... we all need a clear view of what we are buying.
 
Quote
So how about the myth that MF sensors are indeed made of 6 cheap APS sensors? Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Hägar the horrible
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2008, 02:03:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I just remembered where I read it

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ST&f=16&t=17745

page 2/3

I also understand that the AA filter used on most 35mm sensors is more expensive than the sensor itself. There is no AA filter on MF backs.

I think it s good that Kodak and Dalsa safes some money.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 02:04:36 PM by Hägar the horrible » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1697


« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2008, 02:26:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
we all need a clear view of what we are buying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you know the price of the chassis of your car? Or of the cigarette lighter?
Logged
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2008, 03:01:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, just for the cars, when you have another choice which is 90% cheaper but not exactly worse (even better in some respects), will you WANT to know why before you go buy the 10times priced one?
Of course we are not talking about luxuries...right?


Quote
Do you know the price of the chassis of your car? Or of the cigarette lighter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

JDG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2008, 03:35:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the next question we will ask is why is 24mpx so inexpensive.

http://gizmodo.com/5047193/sony-a900-246+m...icial-only-3000

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Simple... Nikon and canon dont need to make money off these cameras.. they are basically there to sell the consumer grade products.   If their margin each camera is anything like what the dealer makes ($100-200) then they are probably losing money on it.  However its a worthwhile expense when they know that they'll sell millions of thousands of Rebels and point and shoots because the consumer sees the pros use them.

For a medium format company to even have a chance to be profitable after the high cost of R&D, they need to make thousands on each back.
Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2008, 05:21:55 PM »
ReplyReply

As it's been pointed out imaging companies are business and not charities. Another perspective is the amount of gross profit made by a selection of imaging companies in 2007:


19.9% Kodak consumer digital imaging
24.4% The whole KODAK group
27.4% Kodak graphic communications group (Inc. Leaf)
30.6% Jenoptik (Sinar parent)
39.8% Nikon

And by way of some context two of the worlds larger Pharma companies; who like imaging companies make significant R&D investment.

70.2% Roche
73.3% Novartis

Most imaging companies are consolidated in to lager groups so it's quite difficult to extrapolate something really precise.
Logged
carl dw
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2008, 06:23:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Simple... Nikon and canon dont need to make money off these cameras.. they are basically there to sell the consumer grade products.   If their margin each camera is anything like what the dealer makes ($100-200) then they are probably losing money on it.  However its a worthwhile expense when they know that they'll sell millions of thousands of Rebels and point and shoots because the consumer sees the pros use them.

For a medium format company to even have a chance to be profitable after the high cost of R&D, they need to make thousands on each back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Back in 2000 I paid £15,650 + VAT for an Imacon 3020 35mm size chip digital back. Back then it was the 'state of the art'. Back then it was bloody expensive. The files it produced were 18Mb and of a quality that puts many latter day backs to shame.

Eight years later we now have the stunning addition of both a poor quality LCD and a bigger chip. Big deal. So what have they spent all that "R+D" money on over the last eight years?...... keeping up with OS X or maybe a marketing strategy!?

The introduction of big pixel count 35mm SLR's knocked 21+31MP back prices down a few grand earlier this year, and they are still making a profit at that. A digital back isn't a 'lost leader' - the profit is made at the point of sale... even more profit if you're talked into a "Value Added" package.

MF back manufactures will charge whatever they can get away with for as long as they can. They (like any business) are in it for profit, the price will only drop when people won't pay....usually because something comparable/better and cheaper enters stage left.

I'd like to bet that their are a few pencils being sharpened right now in order to get that stock moving.
Logged
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2008, 06:24:36 PM »
ReplyReply

So It's just the quantity right? Less buyers, higher price. Or make it this way: Higher price, less buyers. I don't think mfdb market is born to be small, it's the price make it small. Here in Beijing there are millions of MF cameras, but only 1/1000 of them with digital backs attached. Why? The price. In the "good old days" all pros like the look of a MF camera, now they just use canon or nikon. IF canon or nikon only sell 10000 camera a year, the FF DSLRs should be more expensive than MFDBs (the R&D of canon or nikon must cost more than a mfdb R&D right?). IMHO this is a really weird condition, and it won't last for too long. I think whom lower the price successfully will finally own this market, well, hopefully won't be NIKON.
Logged

revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2008, 07:15:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know if millions of MF cameras have even been made let alone all wind up in one city.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you would be wrong. millions have definitely been made since MF started
[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film)[/url]
over 20 companies for over 60 years wouldn't have survived if not.
Logged

revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2008, 08:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actual numbers in the wiki?

Stats over this current decade have shown a continual decline in MF bodies made, we're talking sub 10K units a year. In the heyday when people bought a 500 series Hasselblad they used them for decades not buying new ones all the time. I doubt millions have been made which have any chance of accepting a digital back. That's what were talking about here. I assume that would be obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that is a very good point. Cameras were more long lived.
but still, I can't see 20+ companies over 60+ years surviving off such a limited market.
Logged

dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2008, 08:56:36 PM »
ReplyReply

oh come on, I mean billions, no, zillions :-}

Quote
I don't know if millions of MF cameras have even been made let alone all wind up in one city.

Remember this, if we photographers want everything we use and buy to be cheaper and cheaper, at what point do you think clients will demand the same everytime they hire us, "your equipment is getting cheaper, why don't you lower your rates."

You make money two primary ways, high volume/low cost or low volume/high cost. You won't see a lot in between.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2008, 10:49:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Its so expensive because the target market for a digital back is not the photographer, its the rental houses, studios, techs, and wealthy landscapers.  The rental houses, studios and techs are making about $500 a day on their backs, almost everyday.  They make large sums of money from their backs, which are often leased, purchased at the end of the lease for a $1000 or less, then sold as "Off Rental" for a modest discount off new, or traded in.  They buy in bulk and get them cheaper as well.  Same with the new Profoto Pro8.

The wealthy landscape guys, well, they want the best and will pay for it.  Over and over.  Never making a penny but they don't care, they've drilled teeth all their lives so whatever.  A $42k back is about half of that Porsche they just bought.

Who would you rather sell a back to?  A photographer that bitches about everything, or some guy who just wants the best, at any cost, and then upgrades to the next back as soon as they are out?

The makers don't make them cheaper because they don't really have to, although that may change.  They have been coming down in price, but still . . .
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2008, 11:34:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The wealthy landscape guys, well, they want the best and will pay for it.  Over and over.  Never making a penny but they don't care, they've drilled teeth all their lives so whatever.  A $42k back is about half of that Porsche they just bought.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If that's true them somebody screwed up when they signed the contract with F+H.  For another 55 bucks they should have got Rolleiflex glued on the front of the camera.

Nothing wrong with AFI or HY6 but then again there is nothing wrong with the name VW (well maybe there is) but it sure doesn't get parked out front of the Gansevoort.

JR
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2008, 11:48:36 PM »
ReplyReply

... even less, James!

 

Thierry

Quote
For another 55 bucks they should have got Rolleiflex glued on the front of the camera.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2008, 12:42:57 AM »
ReplyReply

The discussion about high prices of digital back keeps coming over and over with the same end conclusion every time.
What is being often forgotten is the fact that MFDB are and will be purchased by professional photogs  who actually make money using them. It is a great tool to do just that - make money.
If you are anywhere close to be a busy ( working most days ) pro photog in any field of this profession the investment made in DB should be just a few percent of your annual income. Far less that any initial investment in most other businesses.
Digital backs are not tools meant to be for everybody who wants to make pictures the same way as Tango scanners were not for everyone in their days. Top tools produce top results and are reserved for top professionals who can afford it.
Photogs who use 5d are bitching when their clients are using the same cameras to snap pics of their kids. Lower the price of MFDB to couple grand and you will see thousands of MFDB in Disneyland.
Which way do we want it?
If they make Ferrari priced like Toyota than you probably buy Toyota since it is way more comfortable to ride and of the same status to own.
Andre

BTW lower the prices just a bit
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2008, 01:03:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the "BTW" much!

 

Best regards,
Thierry


Quote
BTW lower the prices just a bit
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad