Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: why is mfdb still so expensive?  (Read 18953 times)
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2008, 05:47:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FWIW, I found a really interesting snippet about how the first Leaf was marketed, to save "thread", here's the link to my explanation, but it's right in line with this comment.  (I already posted a thread about this, earlier here, but think it applies to this discussion.)  

MFDBs were never marketed to the grassroots photographer.  They still aren't.  

Rather than a Ferrari, I look at them as a tractor-trailer.  Expensive, built to make you money.  

Here's my post: [a href=\"http://www.teddillard.com/2008/09/site-early-digital-marketing-leaf-dcb.html]http://www.teddillard.com/2008/09/site-ear...g-leaf-dcb.html[/url]
Logged

Ted Dillard
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2008, 06:50:38 AM »
ReplyReply

So who do people think has more money, the guy at the top of canon, sony or nikon or the guy at the top of phase one? The answer is obvious of course.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4115



« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2008, 07:00:28 AM »
ReplyReply

That's why the make Porsches and BMWs.
Fast and comfortable, and almost affordable.
Both are doing fine financially I believe.


Edmund

Quote
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2008, 07:43:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Yea I agree about these two points.
However I expect more when I saw a $30k digital back, as James has said a thousand times, for that price it should be BETTER in nearly every respects than the top of the line DSLRs.
For instance a 1ds3's burst rate is 5fps, which result in 21mpx*14bit*5/s data processing rate, while the expected Leaf atpus 10's burst rate is said to be 1fps, which result in a 56mp*16bit/s data transfer rate. We can do the simple math and see the canon is 1.6 times faster, and it's a pruduct released one year ago.
Let alone the LCDs, high ISOs,availabilities...whatever, make it REALLY better than their 10%priced DSLRs, or lower the price to a reasonable point. That's what I expect, and I don't think I am alone.

People who are already busy working pros dont give a sh*t about the price, that's ok, it's supposed to be that way; but photogs like me, you know I definitely WILL buy in MFDB, this is just an issue of time, and the lower the price is, the sooner I'll get my rollei works again. I really hate the feeling that I got the D700 in my hand but lay rollei6008 in the cupboard.


Quote
Top tools produce top results and are reserved for top professionals who can afford it.

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

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2008, 08:32:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...for that price it should be BETTER in nearly every respects than the top of the line DSLRs."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I just don't think that's reasonable or realistic.  They are two different machines, they are used for different jobs.  You can not now, nor could you ever, expect to buy any camera that can do it all at any price, any more than you'd expect that from a vehicle.  You can't expect that a 30K back will be better at shooting sports, for example, than a DSLR, just because of the price.  

Did you feel that way about an 8x10 view camera, back in the day?  That, for the price, it should be better at shooting everything than anything else?  I think it's as close to a good analogy as I can make here...  a very expensive system, compared to a Nikon F2AS, and my gramps used to shoot weddings with a Speed Graphic...  heh.  

And, to tell you the god's honest truth, I think you, and most photographers, should consider very carefully what you need to do before going with MFDB.  The DSLR cameras are simply astounding now... Look at it as a tool for the job at hand, and consider which is the best tool for the job.  I am a little reluctant to tell you what I've shot, for commercial jobs, with my $500 Canon G9!
Logged

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

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 11, 2008, 08:39:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So who do people think has more money, the guy at the top of canon, sony or nikon or the guy at the top of phase one? The answer is obvious of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't understand the question...
Logged

Ted Dillard
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4115



« Reply #46 on: September 11, 2008, 08:53:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yea I agree about these two points.
However I expect more when I saw a $30k digital back, as James has said a thousand times, for that price it should be BETTER in nearly every respects than the top of the line DSLRs.
For instance a 1ds3's burst rate is 5fps, which result in 21mpx*14bit*5/s data processing rate, while the expected Leaf atpus 10's burst rate is said to be 1fps, which result in a 56mp*16bit/s data transfer rate. We can do the simple math and see the canon is 1.6 times faster, and it's a pruduct released one year ago.
Let alone the LCDs, high ISOs,availabilities...whatever, make it REALLY better than their 10%priced DSLRs, or lower the price to a reasonable point. That's what I expect, and I don't think I am alone.

People who are already busy working pros dont give a sh*t about the price, that's ok, it's supposed to be that way; but photogs like me, you know I definitely WILL buy in MFDB, this is just an issue of time, and the lower the price is, the sooner I'll get my rollei works again. I really hate the feeling that I got the D700 in my hand but lay rollei6008 in the cupboard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think anything can beat the focus quality of the D700 at the moment, thse focus points can be moved to exactly where you need them.

Edmund
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 11, 2008, 09:40:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just don't think that's reasonable or realistic.  They are two different machines, they are used for different jobs.  You can not now, nor could you ever, expect to buy any camera that can do it all at any price, any more than you'd expect that from a vehicle. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Every time we have new equipment announcements, the conversations always go to costs, usability, costs, features, cost, brand loyalty and they turn philosophical.

I agree in the film days we never would think about having one camera to do everything, but in the film days a 35mm camera could never get to 70% of the output quality of 8x10.

Cost is always important but I don't think it's the costs that blurs the lines as much as the usability.

To be honest the Canons are just easy to buy and easy to use.  The basic learning curve from a film camera (any camera) to a Canon is about 10 minutes.

The ability to easily flip through iso of 100 to 800 is crazy easy and the files look good.  Not overwhelmingly jaw dropping good, but regardless very good.

The Canons aren't inspiring or thrilling cameras, but you can buy them anywhere, any lens anytime and produce virtually any look you could imagine.

It doesn't mean I am going to sell my medium format cameras tomorrow, but as the Canons get better the lines do get blurred more and more.

Post production blurs the lines even further.  If your good at post, or you outsource to a firm that exceptional, few if any person can tell the difference between any medium format capture and a Canon file.

Shooting medium format, for any of us, for any priced production is an elective, it's rarely mandatory.  I may chose to do it because I just like the look, or I may do it because I want the stability and speed of tethering, but the idea of going out to shoot an ad campaign around the world without a Canon in the bag (at least as a backup),  is rarely if ever heard of.  

Why is medium format more or so expensive?  I have no idea, because I've been told it's the sensors, the dealer arrangements, the R+D costs, the limited market, but I assume it's all of the above.  It may be none of the above.

Regardless if medium format is  2,3,4,5,6,7 times more expensive than the Canons I would love to see the backs and cameras do more.  Better LCD's, higher iso, faster lenses at least the equal of the Canons would seem to be a given.

Maybe the latest announcements will all pan out and be everything that we need.  At this stage it's always difficult to tell because information comes out in steps and we are probably months away before we really know, months after that before anyone gets the new equipment in their hands to work it hard.

Once we see  photographs come from these cameras then we will know if it's worth the investment.

If the photographs that come from these new cameras are far and above anything possible before, then the investment starts to make real sense.

in the end It really is about the final photograph, not the process.



JR
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #48 on: September 11, 2008, 10:17:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't understand the question...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I meant was, the person at the top of phase I'm guessing has a lot less of the worlds money coming to him than the person at the top of Sony or Canon therefore surely from this fact we should figure that if there is any ripping off going on its not from the DB makers.
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 11, 2008, 10:46:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I meant was, the person at the top of phase I'm guessing has a lot less of the worlds money coming to him than the person at the top of Sony or Canon therefore surely from this fact we should figure that if there is any ripping off going on its not from the DB makers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


ah, light dawns on marble head.  ha!  

yeah, well as far as ripping off the consumer goes, I'm a lot more concerned with EXXON than any camera maker.
Logged

Ted Dillard
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #50 on: September 11, 2008, 11:24:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
ah, light dawns on marble head.  ha! 

yeah, well as far as ripping off the consumer goes, I'm a lot more concerned with EXXON than any camera maker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think thats just free market capitalism.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #51 on: September 11, 2008, 02:55:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
MFDBs were never marketed to the grassroots photographer.  They still aren't. 

Rather than a Ferrari, I look at them as a tractor-trailer.  Expensive, built to make you money. 


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I may believe you would be very pleasant or unpleasantly surprise to know the famous photographers that make the highest end of the money who prefer the canons over the more complicated medium formats.

photographers where camera price is not the important part of the decision and doing the shoot without problem is much more the important decision to make.
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 11, 2008, 04:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I may believe you would be very pleasant or unpleasantly surprise to know the famous photographers that make the highest end of the money who prefer the canons over the more complicated medium formats.

photographers where camera price is not the important part of the decision and doing the shoot without problem is much more the important decision to make.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...not surprised in the least, but I would add Nikon too.  In the last ten years I've worked with literally hundreds of "top photographers".  I'm very aware of who uses what, and why.

My point is just that there seems to be a feeling that these products are not targeted to the "normal" working photographer.  Well, that feeling is correct.  They are not.  

(...and I shoot almost everything, except studio product, now, with a Canon G9.  Why?  The files are great, the camera is with me all the time and I do great work with it, and it all goes to press, not just web.  Stop laughing.    )
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 04:05:10 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #53 on: September 11, 2008, 05:24:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...not surprised in the least, but I would add Nikon too.  In the last ten years I've worked with literally hundreds of "top photographers".  I'm very aware of who uses what, and why.

My point is just that there seems to be a feeling that these products are not targeted to the "normal" working photographer.  Well, that feeling is correct.  They are not. 

(...and I shoot almost everything, except studio product, now, with a Canon G9.  Why?  The files are great, the camera is with me all the time and I do great work with it, and it all goes to press, not just web.  Stop laughing.    )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So what are your general impressions, of why people use which cameras?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8186



WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2008, 06:04:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
People who are already busy working pros dont give a sh*t about the price, that's ok, it's supposed to be that way;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am sorry, but if this way of thinking extended to every piece of gear a pro photographer has to use to do his job, they would all go bankrupt.

A photographer needs a car? Why not buy a 60.000 US$ Lexus since the price gap with a 30.000 US$ Honda is only a few percent of their yearly income too...

The truth is that most photographers were/are perfectly happy with 22MP backs 2 years ago for whatever application. Now a 3000 US$ Sony can do much of the same thing. It doesn't take much to see that the range of applicatins that only MF can handle is shrinking fast.

So instead of sticking to a niche approach, my view is that these manufacturers should try to reach out for more potential customers by cutting their prices in half instead of remaining stuck in an ever narrower niche. Mamiya tried to do it, and succeded reasonnably well although they started from zero. All the other back manufacturers could only do better.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 06:04:54 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2008, 06:21:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I absolutely agree with you.

Quote
I am sorry, but if this way of thinking extended to every piece of gear a pro photographer has to use to do his job, they would all go bankrupt.

A photographer needs a car? Why not buy a 60.000 US$ Lexus since the price gap with a 30.000 US$ Honda is only a few percent of their yearly income too...

The truth is that most photographers were/are perfectly happy with 22MP backs 2 years ago for whatever application. Now a 3000 US$ Sony can do much of the same thing. It doesn't take much to see that the range of applicatins that only MF can handle is shrinking fast.

So instead of sticking to a niche approach, my view is that these manufacturers should try to reach out for more potential customers by cutting their prices in half instead of remaining stuck in an ever narrower niche. Mamiya tried to do it, and succeded reasonnably well although they started from zero. All the other back manufacturers could only do better.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #56 on: September 11, 2008, 08:01:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now a 3000 US$ Sony can do much of the same thing. It doesn't take much to see that the range of applicatins that only MF can handle is shrinking fast.

Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry but the only thing this camera produces is 24 mp of crap. Not a surprise really...
Wait and see how many pros actually buy one of those...
Logged
BFoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2008, 08:13:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the medium format guys are looking over there shoulders though.

Canon and nikon duke it out over 35mm resolution and so MF continue to up the megapix anti. However, regarding megapixles, things are starting to become a finite (in the current state of features) as outlined in numerous articles.

If the MF guys just continue to up the MPix anti to justify the price difference, eventually, some pros, might not bother with the extra cost, when the extra benifit is blurred, and the file size to manage is just rediculous.

So, for the MF guys to compete on a pro-sumer level, they might have to develop there own (5D) 'poor mans' version, while having a flag ship.
Logged

samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2008, 08:17:21 PM »
ReplyReply

The reason MF is so expensive is because they don't need to lower the prices.

Photographers keep buying and upgrading their backs each year.

The only way to see lower prices is tha top photographers start actually selling their backs because they get the job done with a Canon or Nikon. Write a letter to phase, leaf etc... "Dear company, I sold all of the stuff I bought from you. My canon does the job anyway and it's a lot of cheaper, Bye".

But you know what? Most DB users love their backs and even if they have a Canon they won't sell them. The will upgrade and buy new series afterall... Despite of the ISO, screen etc... Because at the end is the file quality that counts and thats what DB do. File quality.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2008, 09:21:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The reason MF is so expensive is because they don't need to lower the prices.

Photographers keep buying and upgrading their backs each year.

The only way to see lower prices is tha top photographers start actually selling their backs because they get the job done with a Canon or Nikon. Write a letter to phase, leaf etc... "Dear company, I sold all of the stuff I bought from you. My canon does the job anyway and it's a lot of cheaper, Bye".

But you know what? Most DB users love their backs and even if they have a Canon they won't sell them. The will upgrade and buy new series afterall... Despite of the ISO, screen etc... Because at the end is the file quality that counts and thats what DB do. File quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its all business.  If you can't make 15% - 20% on ypur back for 3 years, then sell it and rent, mark the rental fees up by 15% and get the benefits of ownership w/o the onerous capital outlay.

Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 09:23:41 PM by TMARK » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad