Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad/Phase One Prices with D800 intro  (Read 19350 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2011, 05:43:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah! I heard that Ferraris have a lot of "issues".

Last time I switched on the P45+ to do a project, it had lost a column and had to be sent back to be fixed. The Nikon did the project, the P45+ has stayed switched off. Interestingly, I just noticed that my Leica M8 has also dropped a column while sitting around unused. I think this is a CCD problem, and wish there were a quick software workaround.

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 05:44:57 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
ixania2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2011, 07:01:39 AM »
ReplyReply

after a few beers everything will look the same.

Which finally makes the comparison with cars a lot more relevant!  Wink

Now, we could do it in Tokyo Marc. I bring my - yet announced, un-produced,... - D800, you bring your IQ180 and we spend 2 hours shooting real things in Tokyo from similar positions with lenses providing the same crop. We select the best 5, optimze them to the extreme with our respective normal workflows, and print them at A1 size at my place (you pay).

We ask 5 friends to decide which image is the best over a few beers. Hey, michael used to do thee things back then, someone need to take over.  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 394


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2011, 07:24:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Well - to see what happens just take a look at the used stuff (minimum)prices on Ebay.

a H20 today is starting at 1500 $, an H25 maybe at 2500$ (mention the jump for just 6 MPIx?) these backs have been really expensive 8 years ago,
P20 go for 3500$ and used P25 +go for 4500 $. A P45 used still goes for at least 8000 $ the P45+ are well over 10000 $

With the introduction of every new generation of newer backs or Mpix competition the prices have eroded.
Of course there never was a jump upwards with 18Mpix/100 %+ on the side of the 35mm competition before.
So nobody can exactly predict how fast the market will react,......... but it will, I expect the prices for comparable used MF backs (around 40 Mpix) to fall by at least a third,
maybe half.
This will not only be influenced by the new 35mm Bodies, but also by the fact that the new IQs and Aptus and H and CFVs are sold with higher resolutions too.
Once those are a year old their price will fall also - this is normal- and this will pull down the smaller backs too.

Regards
Stefan

Prices have already dropped to around secondhand D3X prices in the UK.

Pro Centre (Hasselblad subsidiary) are offering used and guaranteed (better than Ebay) H3D-39's for 3495!

http://www.procentre.co.uk/Secondhand/hasselblad_digital.html

As to the utility of MFD v. D800 IMO it's horses for courses.  16 bit MF digital backs offer a different way of drawing compared to a 36MP 36x24 sensor.  Todays MFD lenses (particularly Hasselblad) are a good match for the sensors - it will be interesting to see how well matched Nikon's lens offerings are to this alleged 36MP sensor.  Time will tell.  In any case I will certainly be very interested in buying one simply for its portability.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2767


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2011, 07:50:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Last time I switched on the P45+ to do a project, it had lost a column and had to be sent back to be fixed. The Nikon did the project, the P45+ has stayed switched off. Interestingly, I just noticed that my Leica M8 has also dropped a column while sitting around unused. I think this is a CCD problem, and wish there were a quick software workaround.

Sorry to hear that!

Statistically you're pretty "lucky" to have had this happen with both your cameras. This year Phase One did develop a tool to deal with this remotely. The service can be done in 1-2 business days and involves taking a few test shots in a specific way, uploading the raw files to your dealer and then waiting for a correction file to upload to your back. If you're in a huge rush and it's during business hours and the technician isn't swamped it can usually be done even faster. It's  covered under warranty and around $200 if not under warranty.

Speaking as the guy who had to explain why, previously, the back would have needed to go to Denmark and back (7-10 day turn around) I was very happy when they developed the remote calibration method! We get a few (3-4) of these every year amongst all our installed customer base and inventory of demo/evaluation units. For some reason I've not seen one in the last half year or so; maybe we're lucky? Maybe the stars are in alignment? Or... o no! Maybe that means we are due!

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2011, 08:01:50 AM »
ReplyReply

David,

Thank you for the link. When the H4D40 prices drop that far, I'll get one.

Edmund

Prices have already dropped to around secondhand D3X prices in the UK.

Pro Centre (Hasselblad subsidiary) are offering used and guaranteed (better than Ebay) H3D-39's for 3495!

http://www.procentre.co.uk/Secondhand/hasselblad_digital.html

As to the utility of MFD v. D800 IMO it's horses for courses.  16 bit MF digital backs offer a different way of drawing compared to a 36MP 36x24 sensor.  Todays MFD lenses (particularly Hasselblad) are a good match for the sensors - it will be interesting to see how well matched Nikon's lens offerings are to this alleged 36MP sensor.  Time will tell.  In any case I will certainly be very interested in buying one simply for its portability.
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2011, 08:51:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I am 100% sure it will have live view.

I guess we might have different expectations about focus accuracy and diffraction limitations then. We might as well stick to 22 mp backs if that is the case. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard


Well, when I can get perfect focus, I don't think live view is going to is going to get it perfecter. As far as diffraction, hey, I am only limited to 4x5 foot single images and panoramas up to 12 feet long--so far. I am sure we have different expectations about focus and diffraction.

And so you have an inside to Nikon? Perhaps you work with the folks making the cameras?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2011, 08:57:23 AM »
ReplyReply

And so you have an inside to Nikon? Perhaps you work with the folks making the cameras?

Nope, I don't.

There has not been a single reflex camera released for 2 years without live view because there has not been a single DSLR released without video capability.

That's why I am 100% sure that the D800 will have live view.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 228


« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2011, 11:57:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Okeee, Breath in breath out, calm down,

I always get a bit irritated by those lets face it ridiculous comparisons..

NO WAY the quality will get to the mid-formats, even a 33 mpix Leaf / or what ever, will give a better result than a small sensor loaded with much to small pixels...  36 mpix on a small frame, ( even full frame) is way to much...
25 mpix MAX, to make a nice image.. any more is because amateurs could say at there club there camera has a enormous mpix count for no money, just like Nissan GTR buyers...

Theres much more to it than the catalogue numbers as advertised...
And if the small sensor quality is enough for its use, so just use it, but take it that it's not as good as a 5 times more expensive one. exactly , the car analogy..

It's the same thing since after the second world war, 35 mm is good but it has its limitations, 120 is good but again it has its limitations, if you want better got to 4x5 and so on...

If you want to deliver the best possible, buy the best possible equipment ...
So i don't see why the price would have to drop as they are hand made... Buy one second hand, even a 22mpix mid format will give better results...

And do i compare, yes, i've got Full frame 35mm, and i've got Phase ones,... turn it as you wish the bigger the sensor the better...  I would even want to buy a Scanback from better light, just to see what that brings...
Logged
markymarkrb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2011, 02:22:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you are right until Fuji introduces the new organic sensors and the whole quality versus size issue will take a new twist.

I agree that the 36MP Nikon will not compare to the quality of the Phase/Hasselblad as I mentioned in the very first post but that does not mean that it will not have any pull on their prices.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2011, 03:35:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Did 35mm 22/24MP cameras have a pull on Phase/Leaf backs around the same resolution? Will the new Sony 24MP APS sensors have a pull on 35mm cameras? Folks looking for MPs and a good deal tend not to go into the MFD market. The Pentax 645D did not seem to have a large influence on the other MFD product prices. But none of this is new. "Professional" film formats have always been more expensive than 35mm. If you are thinking that MFD digital manufacturers are going to worry about a 35mm 36MP camera, I think you may be disappointed--very different customers, markets, and business models. You can't use a consumer-product pricing model very well for MFD, not unless you want to stay in business.
Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2011, 03:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

......snip
NO WAY the quality will get to the mid-formats, even a 33 mpix Leaf / or what ever, will give a better result than a small sensor loaded with much to small pixels...  36 mpix on a small frame, ( even full frame) is way to much...
.......

Why is it that when 'small pixels' are put on a 35mm chip that theyre considered to too small to be of high quality capability.... but the similarily sized small pixels found on the current generation of MFD backs (P65,iq160,180,Hassy60..) are perfectly acceptable? Is this anoher manifestation of the inherent 'magic' of MFD?
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2011, 05:17:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Historically, many prosumer products made in Europe or the US have ended up being quasi-eliminated by the Japanese competition. At some point being better is not good enough. Look at what happened to Zeiss who had some very nice electronic SLRs (Contarex) and lenses but turned into an also-ran, Leica who owned the 35mm market, Rolleiflex.

Edmund

Did 35mm 22/24MP cameras have a pull on Phase/Leaf backs around the same resolution? Will the new Sony 24MP APS sensors have a pull on 35mm cameras? Folks looking for MPs and a good deal tend not to go into the MFD market. The Pentax 645D did not seem to have a large influence on the other MFD product prices. But none of this is new. "Professional" film formats have always been more expensive than 35mm. If you are thinking that MFD digital manufacturers are going to worry about a 35mm 36MP camera, I think you may be disappointed--very different customers, markets, and business models. You can't use a consumer-product pricing model very well for MFD, not unless you want to stay in business.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 05:56:24 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2011, 05:20:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Did 35mm 22/24MP cameras have a pull on Phase/Leaf backs around the same resolution?

Mostly... yes. Very close in DR (in fact a D3x is clearly superior in DR to backs like the P25) and just a bit behind in detail because of the presence of an AA filter.

The Pentax 645D did not seem to have a large influence on the other MFD product prices. But none of this is new. "Professional" film formats have always been more expensive than 35mm. If you are thinking that MFD digital manufacturers are going to worry about a 35mm 36MP camera, I think you may be disappointed--very different customers, markets, and business models.

Agreed, they won't give a damn, but they should. Today, most of the real world value of backs is in the excellent dealers supporting them. It won't take long until some smart photographers realize that they can keep paying the dealer the same price to get similar service while using cameras that cost 10 times less and deliver 95% of the real world performance.

You can't use a consumer-product pricing model very well for MFD, not unless you want to stay in business.

How is Pentax doing it?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2011, 05:46:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Mostly... yes. Very close in DR (in fact a D3x is clearly superior in DR to backs like the P25) and just a bit behind in detail because of the presence of an AA filter.
Quote

I was referring to price. I don't remember Phase dropping the price of the P25 because of the 35mm competition.

Quote
Agreed, they won't give a damn, but they should. Today, most of the real world value of backs is in the excellent dealers supporting them. It won't take long until some smart photographers realize that they can keep paying the dealer the same price to get similar service while using cameras that cost 10 times less and deliver 95% of the real world performance.

Yeah , yeah, yeah. We know your high opinion of MFD. I am sure when Nikon finally gets around to announcing this camera, all the MFD photographers will sell out and move to the new wonder 35mm sensor because the only thing that is important in an image is the number of pixels and the only thing in a camera is Live View.

Quote
How is Pentax doing it?

So, now you think ten grand is cheap? I bet you Pentax has a larger distribution system and manufacturing base than its competitors. They most likely bet that a large production volume would support the costs as well as control them. They also have a larger product range to support individual products. There was also a push from the Japanese distributors/retailer to get rid of the Pentax 645 lens stock that got saddled with. With a customer base that had lenses but nothing digital to use them on, Pentax took a very good step. And it looks like it paid off. But the 645D is still not a $4000 camera and the customer base is still smaller than 35mm and APS.

Quote
Cheers,
Bernard

And a happy o-shogatsu to you.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2011, 06:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah , yeah, yeah. We know your high opinion of MFD. I am sure when Nikon finally gets around to announcing this camera, all the MFD photographers will sell out and move to the new wonder 35mm sensor because the only thing that is important in an image is the number of pixels and the only thing in a camera is Live View.

So, now you think ten grand is cheap? I bet you Pentax has a larger distribution system and manufacturing base than its competitors. They most likely bet that a large production volume would support the costs as well as control them. They also have a larger product range to support individual products. There was also a push from the Japanese distributors/retailer to get rid of the Pentax 645 lens stock that got saddled with. With a customer base that had lenses but nothing digital to use them on, Pentax took a very good step. And it looks like it paid off. But the 645D is still not a $4000 camera and the customer base is still smaller than 35mm and APS.

And a happy o-shogatsu to you.

Hum, there are many good reasons to want to work with MF other than image quality, but for those guys mostly willing to use MF for the supposedely superior IQ, I believe that an objective assessment of where 40 mp backs stand against a D800 would be a reasonnable thing to do.

As far as 10.000 US$ goes, I still think it is too big a chunk of money for a camera, but the 645d now sells in Tokyo for the exact same price I bought my D3x 3 years ago. So I could afford one if I were convinced that real world image quality would be superior in a variety of situations where my D3x has been delivering 100% reliably. Today I am not, and you are correct that the lack of live view is my #1 issue today, plus the cost of switching of course.

It is all about believing or not in the silver bullet. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2011, 06:43:31 PM »
ReplyReply

It is all about believing or not in the silver bullet. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard


And I just thought you declared this new Nikon the last camera you would ever need in another thread on LuLa...

For a photographer, camera choice is entirely personal. So is image quality. I don't judge a book by its cover nor the photographer by the camera. It is all about the final work.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2011, 07:25:28 PM »
ReplyReply

And I just thought you declared this new Nikon the last camera you would ever need in another thread on LuLa...

For a photographer, camera choice is entirely personal. So is image quality. I don't judge a book by its cover nor the photographer by the camera. It is all about the final work.

I'll probably downgrade from D3x to D4 as available light shooting is my thing; however I don't think there is anything to be gained apart from ISO by a move to the next generation; it takes 2 gens for pixels to make a real difference, and nowadays that means at least 6 years.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2011, 07:32:15 PM »
ReplyReply

And I just thought you declared this new Nikon the last camera you would ever need in another thread on LuLa...

For a photographer, camera choice is entirely personal. So is image quality. I don't judge a book by its cover nor the photographer by the camera. It is all about the final work.

It is indeed all about the final work.

On the other hand, image quality is an objective quantity that is easy to measure and compare. The camera with the better image quality might not be the one enabling a given photographer to produce his best work, but photographers defining image quality as important for them should look objectively at the tools available, without pre-conceived romantic ideas about sensor format. Clearly put, we have plenty of examples where a smaller sensor delivers better image quality.

As far as the D800 being potentially the last camera I'll ever need, I don't see the relationship with a silver bullet.

I know exactly what my needs are, I know exactly what is missing in the D3x relative to these needs, and - if the current rumors end up being true - it sounds like the D800 will be delivering just that. Nowhere am I saying I see it as the perfect camera, but I believe it to be the cheapest way for me to capture the image quality I need for my applications.

There are not romantic projections at play here, it is fairly easy to extrapolate on what can reasonnably expect whien moving between upgrade models of a single brand. Having used both a D3x and a D7000, I know within a few % what I will be getting from a D800. The situation is vastly different when moving from a DSLR to an MF camera as I have experienced in the past when I used a Mamiya ZD for one year or so. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2011, 09:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard:
I've followed for many months with a lot of interest and even with certain joy every post of yours about the D3x (more on this later). There's no doubt that you (not alone) find this camera's IQ awesome. In the film days I always was a pro large capture photographer. Unluckily for me and for many others the prices of DMFB's never came to sensible levels as FF did years ago. Just a few posts up in this same thread, it was posted that when comparing this camera to a P25 back it stands a thin layer of air behind. Now, this sounds like a stretch for me. I always believed in capturing the world with the biggest gear you could carry. My eyes never deceived me nor disappointed me. Now with digital, things have changed a lot and I'm afraid they will keep changing for a long time. The difference in IQ among the different formats have diminished considerably. I can understand this as digital packs the detail in a uniform coherent patternly fashion. Once this uniform pattern is small enough to match the lens information, the capture becomes good enough to be called "photographic quality". When this parameters are exceeded, it is when we start enjoying the benefits of the super clean resolution that we rapidly became used to. Film entered the era of specialty photography.

But with both digital captures having the same attributes and pixels, how come a sensor that is twice as big physically won't show a real improvement over the smaller one? Is that, because 8 years later (I think) in sensor development can produce a sensor with twice the quality? In effect, obliterating the advantage of the bigger capture? If this is true, during the next decade an m43 camera will probably match the IQ of a P45 back.    
Please mind, that when I say IQ (image quality) I don't mean just resolution, but all the qualities that shape a good image like tonality, good color, color separation, no artifacts, good contrast, accutance and last but not least, the subjective quality called 3D effect, that seems to be seen often in MFDB images and not so often seen in FF.

I mentioned earlier "with certain joy" because I am a FF sensor photographer myself currently working with everybody's workhorse, a 5D2 and it seems that I will remain as such for the rest of my life unless I win the lotto. I'm not questioning your integrity but only trying to understand what's going on here! The D3X seems to have broken the law of physics.
Best regards
Eduardo
 

    

Having used both a D3x and a D7000, I know within a few % what I will be getting from a D800. The situation is vastly different when moving from a DSLR to an MF camera as I have experienced in the past when I used a Mamiya ZD for one year or so. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 09:37:02 PM by uaiomex » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2011, 02:22:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard:
I've followed for many months with a lot of interest and even with certain joy every post of yours about the D3x (more on this later). There's no doubt that you (not alone) find this camera's IQ awesome. In the film days I always was a pro large capture photographer. Unluckily for me and for many others the prices of DMFB's never came to sensible levels as FF did years ago. Just a few posts up in this same thread, it was posted that when comparing this camera to a P25 back it stands a thin layer of air behind. Now, this sounds like a stretch for me. I always believed in capturing the world with the biggest gear you could carry. My eyes never deceived me nor disappointed me. Now with digital, things have changed a lot and I'm afraid they will keep changing for a long time. The difference in IQ among the different formats have diminished considerably. I can understand this as digital packs the detail in a uniform coherent patternly fashion. Once this uniform pattern is small enough to match the lens information, the capture becomes good enough to be called "photographic quality". When this parameters are exceeded, it is when we start enjoying the benefits of the super clean resolution that we rapidly became used to. Film entered the era of specialty photography.

But with both digital captures having the same attributes and pixels, how come a sensor that is twice as big physically won't show a real improvement over the smaller one? Is that, because 8 years later (I think) in sensor development can produce a sensor with twice the quality? In effect, obliterating the advantage of the bigger capture? If this is true, during the next decade an m43 camera will probably match the IQ of a P45 back.    
Please mind, that when I say IQ (image quality) I don't mean just resolution, but all the qualities that shape a good image like tonality, good color, color separation, no artifacts, good contrast, accutance and last but not least, the subjective quality called 3D effect, that seems to be seen often in MFDB images and not so often seen in FF.

I mentioned earlier "with certain joy" because I am a FF sensor photographer myself currently working with everybody's workhorse, a 5D2 and it seems that I will remain as such for the rest of my life unless I win the lotto. I'm not questioning your integrity but only trying to understand what's going on here! The D3X seems to have broken the law of physics.
Best regards
Eduardo
 

    


I too have a D3x. Yes, it is an incredible camera. Yes it seems to have broken the laws of physics, it is much better than the 5D2 in field use because it focuses and has VERY good 1600 ISO. But the images have no "bite". My old 1Ds had "bite". My P45+ has bite. Even the 5D2 has bite except it only happens on say 30% of image-ligting situations.  I don't know what "bite" is except I miss it. Maybe it's the Nikon lenses. Maybe it's something to do with noise reduction. It is something to do with texture and color.

And without "bite" the camera is only as good as what you put in front of the lens. It won't add anything, as strange as that sounds.

Would I let go of my D3x for something that cannot do Hi-ISO and focus? No way.
Would I go want to go back to the old 1Ds? If I were shooting 8x10, yes.  The only 35mm I ever saw that was better than the 1Ds was the Leica DMR back.

Our friend with the strange name, something like the sound a hen makes, coot-coot-coot, he had a 1Ds too, maybe he will comment.  


Edmund
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 02:30:25 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad