Large Format Camera Sales

[photobackpacker]

For some time, I have been working to come up with a SWAG (Scientific Wild A** Guess) as to the sale of domestic US Large format cameras. This is a market segment that is soooooo far below the radar screen of current interest, it isn't even a microscopic blip - except to those of us who love LF. No one is looking at this niche so if you want data - you need to come up with it yourself.

Interestingly, after looking at the average sales of LF cameras on eBay, and doing some interpolation of new camera sales based on old history, discussions with current sellers and some analysis of serial numbers and flat out gut-feel - I have come up with a SWAG.

Currently, I would estimate that the domestic US used camera sales of LF systems in the Domestic US market run in the neighborhood of 4000 units per year. New cameras probably run in the neighborhood of 1000 new systems per year. (As a side note, PMA fixes digital SLRs at 750,000/year!)

The average lenses per LF camera body seem to be in the neighborhood of 3 per in 4X5 and 2 per for 8X10. 5X7 is probably closer to the 8X10 average but seems to be a bit of an orphaned format by comparison to 8X10 and 4X5.

Systems larger than 8X10 get a lot of press but seem to represent a very small niche within a niche. I could not come up with sufficient data to even come up with a SWAG for this segment.

Informed opinion seems to be that there are in the neighborhood of 50,000 active shooters of LF systems in the US - increasingly composed of dedicated hobbiests and several handfuls of fine-art field photographers.

Interestingly, the data seems to indicates (pessimistically) a less-rapid drop or (optimistically) even a slight upward trend in the LF market - unlike the trends in 35mm an MF. The massive amount of professional LF gear being dumped on the market at bargain prices seems to be drawing people into the LF niche - even growing it, albeit to a very small degree as amateurs put otherwise idled pro gear into active use. This does not translate into an upward trend in film and/or paper as the rate of use for the hobby shooter is far less than that of the pros former "burn rate."

MF seems to be facing the bleakest future - formerly the refuge of wedding photographers, it is being abandoned in favor of digital production. High-end CCDs have made possible a digital image quality equal to that of MF - or at least close enough for the customer who loves the instant gratification offered by digital.

These are bald-faced SWAGs based upon snippets of market data and selective sampling of eBay statistics. If these data are correct, LF represents a unique line between the precipitous drop in 35mm and MF and a slower decline (perhaps even stable to slight growth.)

It suggests that, at least in the short term, the Digital revolution will top-out at the MF level for image quality. The demand for digital accutance greater than MF is missing at current prices and this will continue to work against the production of affordable CCD's approaching accutance achieved by LF. Admittedly, the drive to produce consumer-level CCDs more cheaply will probably make affordable LF digital backs a reality.

Your WAGS, SWAGS and comments are welcome. I've formed my opinions but am eager to be pursuaded differently. Please - no analog v digital tangents. I think we've been there done that, already.

 

[rbarker]

FWIW, Bruce, your conclusions seem consistent with my even less scientific observations. Up to the point of affordable digital capture for LF becoming available in the future. My sense is that the LF market is just too small to create the level of interest among digi manufacturers that will result in lower prices. When the R&D costs are amortized across the potential sales volumes, the resulting prices, I think, will remain too high for widespread availability. That, in turn, will keep LF sensors (which are really MF sensors adapted to LF cameras) limited to very specialized market segments. The associated technical issues, such as battery life, image storage, etc. don't mix well with the typical usage of LF in the field.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I agree. A few years ago I was looking into getting into the business and did a similar calculation. I also agree that no digital manufacturer is going to find it worthwhile to make anything like a large format sensor at an affordable price. This bodes well for LF continuing to maintain it's current popularity, such as it is. Even the Better Light scan backs, as good as they are, haven't found a large market - even Calumet dropped them.

My only small concern is that the methods of scanning LF are going to be reduced to flatbeds and Imacons only, as drum scanners become obsolete and parts/updates dwindle.

This fits well with my strategy of using digital for jobs and quick shooting, and using LF for the highest quality personal work. As for medium format - why bother? Although getting a Hasselblad 110/2 and 2100 FCW for $500 is appealing...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The small LF camera manufacturers seem to be able to sell all the cameras they can make. I wonder how companies like Sinar and Linhof are holding up, though, with so much excellent used equipment out there available at a fraction of the price of new equipment.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Wasn't Sinar sold to somebody lately?

I don't think the issue is company size. The companies selling all they can make seem to be making field cameras and not studio cameras. If you accept the point that the majority of the LF shooters are doing non-studio work I think that makes sense.

I think you'll find the 5x7 lens number closer to the 4x5 number. Why? Because all of my 4x5 lenses fit my 5x7. Actually so do all my 8x10 lenses. I admit I've selected lenses with enough coverage for both 4x5 and 5x7 but I doubt I'm the only one.

The big issue I see is how many are actually buying new anything?

If you look at the problems the various digital companies are having. Leading almost all of them to cut things like R&D I doubt we will see much quality improvement that can't be sold mass market. It wouldn't suprise me to see better PDA cameras. But I'd be suprised to see big $$$ prosumer cameras that will sell in relatively small numbers but require big R&D investments.

 

[BBarlow690]

Your estimates square pretty well with my own guesses. And they correlate closely to research we did at Zone VI in the late 80s, too, if we assume that the LF market has not grown substantially since then (which, I think, is a pretty safe assumption).

Good job! Interesting stuff!

 

[Frank Petronio]

Companies like Arca-Swiss don't need to market themselves at all (in fact they are anti-marketing it seems), proving that at the high end, people will pay for quality. Same for Phillips and Canham, and I bet Ebony and Lotus. Sinar is in trouble because of overhead, and Hasselblad was saif to be bought at firesale prices. I don't know how Linhof is doing, but they never introduce new products so I suspect they are just riding it out. peter Gowland is looking for a buyer as he getting older.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I think the numbers could be a little high as some of the purchasing on Ebay would be linked to individuals buying bargains and then trying to re-sell at a later date.

Along with David I wonder how well high end manufacturers such as Sinar and Arca Swiss are doing. I didn't even know Sinar was still making cameras. As David pointed out you can regularly buy an 8x10 Sinar in mint condition that new sold for over $7000 on Ebay for around $1500.

I do know that from talking with Jim at Midwest Photo last spring, they are doing a brisk business with new field cameras.

As far as ULF, there is a very large interest and pent up demand with the resurgence of alternative methods as well as contact printing on silver gelatine emulsions. The problem is the cost of these cameras coupled with expense of film holders keep them out of the reach of most interested parties.

I don't know if the interest in 4x5 and 8x10 can really support new mfg of cameras. For every person that wants to make the jump to 4x5 or 8x10, there seems to be 5 used cameras available in almost every price range and flavor.

The same holds true for MF but on larger scale. For every person wanting to go expand into MF there is probably dozens of used kits available for a fraction of what new costs. I don't even know if anyone besides Hassleblad even is still mfg new MF cameras.

 

[Dave Parker]

The 4x5 field market seems to be doing quite well, if the numbers of screens we sell are any indication, I would say on average 1 of our 10 orders comes from a person that tells me they are brand new to LF, now this could be they bought a new camera or a used one, the prevelant new camera right now seems to be the Shen, I suspect, they are doing okay, mainly due to price point, I drop into the Mamiya forums everyonce in a while and the Toyo sales seem to be pretty good as well, but I would doubt there are more buying than getting out at this time, which seems to maintain the same level of participation as it has been for the last 20 years

Dave

 

[jp80874]

I don't even know if anyone besides Hassleblad even is still mfg new MF cameras.

Mamiya seems to be alive and well with the 645, RZ67, 7 II.
Offerings: http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=21
Sales: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...arch&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=mamiya&image.x=0&image.y=0

John Powers

 

[photobackpacker]

My research on ebay - shows that "fieldable" cameras sell well. Studio cameras sell but at a depressed price.

Interestingly, the speed graphics and crown graphics are blowing out the door and seem to represent a low-cost entry to LF. My guess is that these are then used to upgrade.

My estimate of 1000 new field cameras sold each year (US domestic) is a guess based upon the number of active manufacturers, the serial numbers of cameras like Zone VI and Wisner and then generous amounts of Kentucky windage. I, too, have heard that they are selling all they can make but this statement needs to be tempered by the observation that many of these camera makers are running very small shops with low overhead.

This would seem to support my theory as to the fate of more vertically integrated manufacturers, like Wisner. I owned a technical field and loved it. I know that Ron's customer service is blamed for some of his company's problems but that is what the customer sees when a vertically intigrated manufacturer suffers a market decline - they can no longer afford the infrastructure to maintain their previous market postion. It is easier to ramp-up production than it is to contract your manufacturing base in a way that is seamless to your customers.

eBay is a goldmine for raw data. They are selling field cameras (not including speed and crowns) at a rate of roughly 3500 per year. My guess is that ebay represents around 80% of used camera sales. (This is pure guess but it serves the purpose of conservative estimate for overall sales) eBay is a huge churn factor that is a double-edged sword for LF.

On the one hand, price of entry (or trial) is a fraction of what it was when I took the LF plunge in 1987. This is drawing in new players. On the other hand, the availability of outstanding used gear has to make it tough sledding for LF OEMs trying to stay viable.

I am extremely interested in any data that may be out there regarding new camera sales. My 1000 new units is the bare minimum necessary to maintain the current market partipants on a subsistance budget. I suspect this estimate is conservative (it is designed to be) but I have no clue how conservative.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As for the high-end studio cameras, I think that the high-end studios do purchase them, since even a $12K camera is not an enormous expense for the commercial studios that are buying them new and using them day in and day out for an expected life of 10 years or so. Consider what the monthly rent is on a Manhattan studio with high ceilings, big windows, maybe a kitchen for food preparation, wiring for heavy duty lighting, in a secure building, plus insurance, and a couple of new Sinar P2's seem like a bargain.

There is also a market for high-end copy equipment in museums, libraries, government, and the printing industry that we usually don't pay much attention to, and is probably doing more to keep Linhof afloat in the US than we realize.

 

[Nick Zentena]

With the crowns etc I think you're seeing "common wisdom". Everybody tells everybody that they represent a cheap way to try out LF. Soon enough it's not that cheap. Same thing used to happen to Spotmatics. Similar M42 cameras would sell for pennies even with lenses worth more then the camera.

 

[Changeling1]

Why are the (used) prices for LF lenses so high when one can buy "a $7000 Sinar for $1500" ? It seems that quality glass is maintaining its value much better than all the various used camera bodies that are available. When I am I going to be able to buy a $4000 lens for $500 or less (maybe much, much, less)?

 

[Dave Parker]

I doubt your ever going to be able to buy a $4000 lens for $500 or less, good glass will always maintain its value, and it will not matter the format or the method of taking pictures, you still require the glass.

Dave

 

[photobackpacker]

Dave, I have to agree with you - in fact, if you are ever able to buy a 4K len that cheaply, it will be because the whole LF niche has collapsed.

From the informal surveys I have done on Apug, we LFers are gearheads by nature. When I started in LF, I had one lens - a 210. I now have 5 and am keeping my eye out for a nice backpackable 400mm. I am not alone as quite a number of apuggers have multiple formats and an array of lenses for each. I would not be surprised to learn that the average field photographer carries a wider selection of glass than the studio photographer shooting under more predictable set-ups. I wonder if we aren't seeing the lenses being absorbed more readily than the camera bodies.....

 

[Ole]

I recently bought a £24 lens for £24. But the original price was from 1912, and the price would be closer to £4000 if adjusted for inflation. But I paid £24 in 2005 money...

Lens prices do drop. Top lenses as of 40 to 50 years ago are ridiculously cheap, at least compared to new prices.

$4000 is about what I have paid for my entire lens collection, which includes a broad selection of the top lenses of just about every decade from 1870 to 1970.

Also look at Repro lenses - 15 years ago they cost well over $4000, now you can get them for $40.

 

[Nick Zentena]

You can find cheap lenses it's just it's the lenses most don't want.

If the average person is looking for a 300mm they either want a small light one or one with lots of coverage. That means my Fuji gets ignored and I got it for less. It's the better part of 2lbs and still only packs around 340mm of coverage.

Those big buck modern lenses. How many are actually out there?

 

[waynecrider]

Informed opinion seems to be that there are in the neighborhood of 50,000 active shooters of LF systems in the US

I wonder how many sheets of film that represents per year? Too bad we couldn't get some info on this from the manufactuers.

 

[MattKing]

$4000 is about what I have paid for my entire lens collection, which includes a broad selection of the top lenses of just about every decade from 1870 to 1970

Ole, by my calculation, this means that, on average, your lenses only cost $4 each!!

(there must be at least 1000, mustn't there?)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Y'know, its a world-wide market. LF camera manufacturers sell to other countries, in fact not all are located in the US, and film is sold world-wide too. If you're concerned about the larger formats' commercial viability -- from the point of view of manufacturers of film and equipment, not buyers of photographic services -- you should look abroad. Try ebay.de, ebay.fr, and ebay.co.uk too.

 

[photobackpacker]

Dan, you are exactly right.

I wanted to develop my figures based upon some element of research rather than pure guessing. I was able to talk with a number of retail, marketing and maufacturers in the US where this was not practical on a worldwide basis. No intent to deny the worldwide aspects of the LF niche, more of an acknowledgement of my limitations.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I can only speak for myself but I think many others might feel the same way. Although I had used LF in the past, I really got into it the last two years for a couple of reason.

First it kept me off the computer. Working with digital images and photoshop everyday is enough. When I do my personal work I don't want to use the computer.

Secondly, I still enjoy the darkroom.

Finally, Forums like this one have rekindled my interest because of the community feeling. I can see what others are up to, and hear their stories. In the past I would think most LF shooters felt they were a dying breed and out on their own. You might only have one or two others to share notes with. Now I can send an email to a group of shooters and ask for help... or post a question online to the LF community.
I hope it grows, that new products become available and someone sells 7x17 film so I can justify a new camera.
-Rob Skeoch

 

[steve simmons]

The November/Dece,mber issue of View Camera has part one of an article on The Future of Large Format. We asked dealers of used equipment to answer a series of questions about their sales (not sales figures as this is always a closely kept secret) but on trends in camera sales.

The answers are encouraging and interesting.

steve simmons

 

[nworth]

I talked with a representative from Kodak last month who told me that, overall, large format film sales were holding up and maybe increasing a bit. Contrast that to the near total collapse of the 35mm film market. He also noted that the large format market, month to month, is highly irregular.