Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 45925 times)
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #120 on: March 04, 2013, 09:07:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry but I don't see how the "new" backs are going to expand the market reach of phaseone.

Why? The Japanese just released a bunch of DSLRs that have no big jump from the previous models. New models are for new customers. They keep the lines fresh and address old problems or weaknesses. I think you also probably missed they also released a monochrome 60MP back, which should make it a lot easier for their customer base to get those as well as being innovative--no Japanese manufacturer has come out with a monochrome camera. You seem to have a strange idea that every new product must have some technological break through. Not in the camera industry--there is so much a camera can do.

You are also missing the point. Phase does not have to expand its "market reach" as you call it. They simply need to develop the market they target. Apparently, it is big enough to support them.
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #121 on: March 04, 2013, 09:16:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Only time will tell whether the business model of Phase One is shortsighted or not.  Right now it quite frankly does not appear to be...

Phase seems to have moved into its own 60-80 MP space, little to no competition, only Hasselblad a bit with their 60 MP backs...

Existing users seem willing to upgrade and enough new users are stepping in.

If you are not willing to spend $30-40K and/or upgrade to 60-80 MP backs then you are probably not part of their target audience.

You can then choose between Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Nikon D800... or buy a 4-5 year old used Phase back for around $10K...

Well said but the problem is most folks do not understand exactly what you just said or maybe better phrased is understand it. Phase like Leica is a niche product supported though by top end end shooters, big studios, big productions, industrial, scientific fields, government and the arts are there biggest customers along with hobbyists that simply want the best they can shoot. Money is very secondary to the purchase of them and most folks on these forums are a very small percentage of the target audience and even fewer that actually make a purchase. Problem is some folks cannot for the life of them understand what we both just said. For them its money as primary and/or how can they cheat around these type of products. As you can see in these posts how that thought pattern runs rapid is how can they get away from spending this kind of money . Understandable but they need to realize they are not the target audience anyway. Prices will not drop to the floor and MF will not die because Nikon has a new freaking toy. The DSLR world is a completely different target audience. MF was and never will be a mass market product and even when we shot film was it a mass market product. Not sure why people simply do not understand that. Seriously MF has not changed since the beginning, it got updated with digital but not market share.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #122 on: March 04, 2013, 09:16:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

When you shot this test, did you have the slight shutter delay set on the Hasselblad?  It has a huge mirror and even though it looks sharper in your samples, I think with the slight mirror shutter delay makes for a even sharper image.

Also when you do a test like this did you shoot any full length images?  I always test detail (which I rarely test) by shooting a horizontal framed full length adult.

I've always found that a head a shoulders image doesn't really show me as much as full length, as most cameras look very good at this distance.

One more thing, what was the light source you tested with?  Flash, HMI, daylight, tungsten.

The few times I've tested and compared cameras just for the sake of comparison I've always tried all four of these light sources because every sensor/camera/processor reacts differently.

I've found medium format, at least my phase and previous aptus backs, worked very well with tungsten, much better than my 35mm cameras.

I also test hand held and with a tripod.  Some cameras really require a tripod, some don't.

Did you shoot this test with a tripod?

IMO

BC



Test was done by these guys. Studio with strobes.

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format

MichaelEzra from the forum here did the processing and made this file:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 09:51:40 PM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #123 on: March 04, 2013, 09:37:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Well said but the problem is most folks do not understand exactly what you just said or maybe better phrased is understand it. Phase like Leica is a niche product supported though by top end end shooters, big studios, big productions, industrial, scientific fields, government and the arts are there biggest customers along with hobbyists that simply want the best they can shoot. Money is very secondary to the purchase of them and most folks on these forums are a very small percentage of the target audience and even fewer that actually make a purchase. Problem is some folks cannot for the life of them understand what we both just said. For them its money as primary and/or how can they cheat around these type of products. As you can see in these posts how that thought pattern runs rapid is how can they get away from spending this kind of money . Understandable but they need to realize they are not the target audience anyway. Prices will not drop to the floor and MF will not die because Nikon has a new freaking toy. The DSLR world is a completely different target audience. MF was and never will be a mass market product and even when we shot film was it a mass market product. Not sure why people simply do not understand that. Seriously MF has not changed since the beginning, it got updated with digital but not market share.

The medium format market share among professional photographers was much larger in the film days. The vast majority of MF film cameras were replaced by 35mm DSLRs.

Just looking at the numbers for MF cameras made in the transition years.

2003 18,006 Cameras
2004 10,507 Cameras
2005   7,950 Cameras (over 2,000 of them coming from unsold 2004 stock).



 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 09:41:32 PM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7635


WWW
« Reply #124 on: March 04, 2013, 10:36:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

There is a difference between professional photographers and professional photographers. Being a "professional photographer" just means that you take pictures for living. Some professional photographers work on small scale and some on large scale.

I'm pretty sure that serious photographers also care about money and return on investment. Our frequently posting friend BC illustrates this a bit. Most of his productions are resource intensive and he prefers using MF. But he seems quite happy with a couple of old Contax 645 and a few Phase backs of yore. BC says that they are the best investment he ever made. So my impression is that BC has an extensive operation but does care about money.

I don't think Phase is getting a lot of money from BC. That said I'm pretty sure that BC would go for an expensive Phase back if he needed it. Or a Hasselblad, but good customer experience and working relations also matter a lot for a businessman.

On the other hand I don't think business is insensitive to cost. I have been in the computing business a long time. When I started in my present job, thirty years ago the business was dominated by "mini computers", they were horribly expensive and slow. Market offered new computers called "Work stations" with ten times the performance at a tenth of the price. The old computers survived quite a few years, it took our company 7 years to make the first switch. The dominant work station vendor was Sun Microsystems at that time. Once the Workstation/UNIX environment was established hardware cost went down, except the need for performance going up. So we essentially replaced very expensive low performing system with quite expensive high performance systems.

Than, PC-s came around. Management lowed PC-s, because it was what was on they desktop. We started converting our simulators to PC-s much sooner than we switched to work stations. The switch has been painful, but no simulator is now days built on work station (UNIX) technology. But, Microsoft licensing is expensive, so we are moving to Linux. We would not make that move was it not for the young and enthusiastic engineers we have who love Linux. The conversion is of course painful, it always is.

To me it seems that Phase now what they do. It seems that they make the money to develop their backs and build their own camera platform. It also seems that they develop a new camera, which is more than an upgrade of the Mamiya based platform. To me Phase seems to be an innovative company making good business.

Best regards
Erik

The medium format market share among professional photographers was much larger in the film days. The vast majority of MF film cameras were replaced by 35mm DSLRs.

Just looking at the numbers for MF cameras made in the transition years.

2003 18,006 Cameras
2004 10,507 Cameras
2005   7,950 Cameras (over 2,000 of them coming from unsold 2004 stock).



 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 11:24:01 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2880



WWW
« Reply #125 on: March 04, 2013, 11:10:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Being a "professional photographer" just means that you take pictures for living.

Not to get off topic, but I work with many "professional" photographers through my store.  Your definition fits many of them, but probably isn't the accepted definition.  Most that represent themselves as a professional photographer in the U.S. make the substantial portion of their living from some other profession, but because they charge money for doing photography they classify it as professional.  This side profession of photography is usually priced accordingly ... if they were to do photography full time, they wouldn't make enough money to support their needs.

There is nothing new about this, but the numbers of these types of professionals has grown exponentially over the past 8 to 9 years.  The number of full time professional photographers has declined dramatically as this process has fragmented the market and eroded prices, forcing many full time professionals into either part time photographers with a another means of income or out of photography altogether.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7635


WWW
« Reply #126 on: March 04, 2013, 11:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Wayne,

I am much aware of that, just intended to keep it a bit simple. But my emphasis was really that many professional photographers work with small budget and some with large budgets.

Than I of course started talking about large business...

Best regards
Erik



Not to get off topic, but I work with many "professional" photographers through my store.  Your definition fits many of them, but probably isn't the accepted definition.  Most that represent themselves as a professional photographer in the U.S. make the substantial portion of their living from some other profession, but because they charge money for doing photography they classify it as professional.  This side profession of photography is usually priced accordingly ... if they were to do photography full time, they wouldn't make enough money to support their needs.

There is nothing new about this, but the numbers of these types of professionals has grown exponentially over the past 8 to 9 years.  The number of full time professional photographers has declined dramatically as this process has fragmented the market and eroded prices, forcing many full time professionals into either part time photographers with a another means of income or out of photography altogether.
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #127 on: March 05, 2013, 01:16:35 AM »
ReplyReply


2.    Telling someone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "can't afford it" is shitty and alienating, and is in fact not true.  Anyone can get credit, at least in the states.

This is not what I said. I said that they do not belong to the target audience because they do not intend to spend the money to buy a MF. It is like luxury cars: I would be rejected at the door of a Ferrari or Rolls Royce dealership, because I am not a prospective customer and they know it. They don't care about my opinion on their motors or the colour of their seats, because I am not a prospective customer. There are people driving Ladas who bash at Rolls Royce or Ferrari for being too expensive. Rolls Royce and Ferrari do not care about them, because they are not prospective customers. They are not part of their business model.

All cars drive you from A to B like all cameras take pictures. Some cars like Ferrari and Rolls Royce are marketed as Veblen goods. They cost considerably more, the added benefits as to speed or comfort are small in relation to the added price. But they sell very well, because they sell on the frustration of people who cannot afford them (this is the principle of Veblen's paradox, read about it). The customer pays for the privilege to show the world that he or she can afford that kind of car. The intangible benefits can be real, BTW. Some say that Ferraris attract girls like honey attract flies...  Roll Eyes


4.    The arguments about color and tonality are misleading, mostly.  Almost all digital devices need some color grading in post.  The only digi cameras I've used that nail color out of the box are the Arri Alexxa, Aptus 75, and Fuji X100, S3, S5.  It's mainly a matter of how much time you need to spend on a file.

For someone charging for their time a camera giving nice colours without much time spent on its file is an attractive proposition. That is part of the attraction for MF: they give nice skin tones out of the box (nice, not accurate). You can tweak a Nikon to give similar colours, but that is not the point.


5.    Arguments about sharpness are lame.  Its mastabatory.  There are very few digital cams made that are not good enough for print publication.

Some people need very high resolution, especially in technical photography. For them it is not lame. Try to visit an exhibition by Hiroshi Sugimoto or Andreas Gursky.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #128 on: March 05, 2013, 01:31:36 AM »
ReplyReply

If I make a test and it is not sharp I may not know why it was not sharp. But I can go back and retest. But I certainly feel that I would not feel OK about that image.

If you are going to dismiss all the tests which do not find out that your camera of choice is the best one, you will certainly find out that your camera of choice is the best one.

The reason why that particular picture appears less sharp than what you believe is the average picture one gets out of a D800 is because it is an average picture and not one for which the conditions have been chosen to favour the D800, as in other tests. If I take a picture of a young girl with a small tele, the D800 will appear better because:
-the skin of a young girl has little high frequency content
-small tele lenses are easier to build than wide angle for SLRs.

I said it already: that picture is a direct jpeg (raw appears a bit sharper), from a D800 (not "E"), taken with a 14-24 in poor light. There are other samples on my flickr account if you can be bothered to clic around and I intend to upload a few more in the coming days.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7635


WWW
« Reply #129 on: March 05, 2013, 02:04:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have seen dozens of images from D800/D800E and have processed quite a lot of those from raw. Admittedly, I didn't have the opportunity to analyze images from 14-24/2.8.

I never shoot jpeg, so I have little experience with in camera image processing.

I would also point out that the Nikon D800/D800E is not my camera of choice, but it is the only camera 36 MP camera around 3000 USD. Nikon can also take Zeiss lenses and even Leica lenses with Leitax adapters so it is an interesting alternative for those seeking a cost effective way of achieving maximum image quality.

The new Zeiss 24/2 seems to be an interesting lens, about the sharpest one I have seen at center, but it probably has weak corners.

And no, I don't own the Zeiss 24/2. I own three Zeiss lenses, 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar is old but T*.

Best regards
Erik

If you are going to dismiss all the tests which do not find out that your camera of choice is the best one, you will certainly find out that your camera of choice is the best one.

The reason why that particular picture appears less sharp than what you believe is the average picture one gets out of a D800 is because it is an average picture and not one for which the conditions have been chosen to favour the D800, as in other tests. If I take a picture of a young girl with a small tele, the D800 will appear better because:
-the skin of a young girl has little high frequency content
-small tele lenses are easier to build than wide angle for SLRs.

I said it already: that picture is a direct jpeg (raw appears a bit sharper), from a D800 (not "E"), taken with a 14-24 in poor light. There are other samples on my flickr account if you can be bothered to clic around and I intend to upload a few more in the coming days.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 02:08:49 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #130 on: March 05, 2013, 07:01:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure you don't mean a Zeiss 25mm F 2 for Nikon. I have it , very nice sharp lens and corners look very good too. Maybe the best lens in this focal length for Nikon.
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #131 on: March 05, 2013, 07:12:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I have seen dozens of images from D800/D800E and have processed quite a lot of those from raw. Admittedly, I didn't have the opportunity to analyze images from 14-24/2.8.

I never shoot jpeg, so I have little experience with in camera image processing.

I would also point out that the Nikon D800/D800E is not my camera of choice, but it is the only camera 36 MP camera around 3000 USD. Nikon can also take Zeiss lenses and even Leica lenses with Leitax adapters so it is an interesting alternative for those seeking a cost effective way of achieving maximum image quality.

The new Zeiss 24/2 seems to be an interesting lens, about the sharpest one I have seen at center, but it probably has weak corners.

And no, I don't own the Zeiss 24/2. I own three Zeiss lenses, 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar is old but T*.

What does this have to do with the discussion?
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #132 on: March 05, 2013, 07:33:47 AM »
ReplyReply

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Guess you missed the memo. Anything Nikon is now MF. LOL
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7635


WWW
« Reply #133 on: March 05, 2013, 08:17:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It is an answer to your posting. You seem to assume that I base my opinion whatever it may be on the image posted by Mr. Koskolov, the one with the young girl. That is however not the case. The only point I made that there is somevthing odd about the image you have posted. The D800 images I have seen where mostly sharp.

Best regards
Erik

What does this have to do with the discussion?
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #134 on: March 05, 2013, 08:44:38 AM »
ReplyReply

It is an answer to your posting. You seem to assume that I base my opinion whatever it may be on the image posted by Mr. Koskolov, the one with the young girl. That is however not the case. The only point I made that there is somevthing odd about the image you have posted. The D800 images I have seen where mostly sharp.

So your experience with the D800 is that you have seen and processed images made by others. Is that correct?

I still wonder why you mentioned that you own the 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4, none of which is relevant to the discussion, or why you wrote about the Zeiss 24 f/2.0 lens being an interesting lens with poor corners. Is your reasoning that you own 3 Zeiss lenses and find them sharp, therefore a different, unrelated Zeiss lens must be just as sharp and I should consider using it in place of the 14-24 zoom to improve what you perceive as a lack of sharpness?
Logged
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


WWW
« Reply #135 on: March 05, 2013, 08:52:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I have 2 - 645D's. They offer a differnt color look than a dslr and love them for many types of shots.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #136 on: March 05, 2013, 09:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Never ceases to amaze how folk get their knickers in a twist over other's choices.

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a testosterone fuelled play pit.

But wait...
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #137 on: March 05, 2013, 09:37:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Never ceases to amaze how folk get their knickers in a twist over other's choices.

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a testosterone fuelled play pit.

But wait...


As we say in the States:  No Shit. 
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #138 on: March 05, 2013, 09:44:07 AM »
ReplyReply

For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #139 on: March 05, 2013, 09:51:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Not to get off topic, but I work with many "professional" photographers through my store.  Your definition fits many of them, but probably isn't the accepted definition.  Most that represent themselves as a professional photographer in the U.S. make the substantial portion of their living from some other profession, but because they charge money for doing photography they classify it as professional.  This side profession of photography is usually priced accordingly ... if they were to do photography full time, they wouldn't make enough money to support their needs.

Ah, we Limeys say "Gentlemen Photographers".
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad