MF a dying breed?

[David Hall]

I hear you (well, read you) Robert, but I see the same thing in other areas of niche technology. A Mac work station to do sound production was $25k just a few years ago, now it's less than $2k. There are probably more radio station and recording studio production managers than there are 4x5 shooters, but they're more or less in the same ballpark. TV cameras, the ones TV news crews use, used to be $100k just about five years ago. Now a good digital Canon is what...maybe $10k at the most? That would make for a value decreasing twice as fast as those mass marketed consumer DVD players at Target.

dgh

 

[docholliday]

Steve:

Nope, you'd just use it on the standard camera and lens. They've even got an adapter to attach the back to an RB/RZ setup. For LF, it's just a filmholder with a SCSI port on the top.

 

[SteveGangi]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 3 2003, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Nope, you'd just use it on the standard camera and lens. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
OK, that sounds smart at least (probably a one-shot back). I had thought you needed an electronic shutter to synchronize with the back (is that only for multipass scanning backs?). The statement about prices eventually coming down is true. It all boils down to tooling/manufacturing costs and quantities. The more of somethng you make and sell, the cheaper you can price it once you recoup the intial startup money. That's why the first run of anything costs a mint.

 

[Donald Miller]

Yes, I agree with what everyone is stating. "Economy of Scale" is definitely a consideration of every product ever produced. The question that then arises, in the case of MF, does "Sufficient Scale" actually exist? I think that as one moves up in format size "Scale" decreases proportionately. There are fewer MF shooters then there are 35 mm and still fewer LF and ULF shooters then the formats beneath them in size. For this decreasing market base, I do not foresee the rapid price decline that one would find in items of great mass demand such as video and music players. Certainly, I can see that MF will probably be affected by advances in technology. I do not see it as a vanishing format, however.

 

[Robert]

I'd think the best comparison would be to look at current large format cameras. If you can sell a camera which isn't much more advanced then anything produced 50 years ago for a fairly hefty chunk of change then why would any one sell something like a fancy digital back for give away prices?

 

[Robert Kennedy]

The Mac analogy doesn't quite work. Specialty Macs are basically regular Macs with some cool stuff cobbled onto it. Which is great because it makes it cheaper to build. To make an MF or LF back you need to build a bigger sensor. You can't just cobble together a bunch of >35mm ones. This makes for a VERY expensive device.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Is medium format a dying breed? I think of several answers, none of which are as flipant as they sound:

answer 1 - yes, but who cares?

answer 2- no, digital backs will save it (maybe).

answer 3 - yes, digital 35 in the 20 megapixel area will replace digital MF.

two years ago if you were buying a professional portrait/wedding/studio camera, it would probably smart to buy a medium format camera. image size/production costs were a good mix of quality/film-processing costs relative to 35mm and 4x5. and, as digital improves its price/performance, someone is going to make a digital back for my medium format camera.

thanks primarily to Canon and its high end digital camera, that answer is becoming less correct. if you're shooting digital, 35mm is beginning to look like a great way to go. quality and price will soon reach a level where it is sharp enough and cheap enough that a Canon is all you'll ever need for wedding photography. wedding photographers don't shoot 4x5 anymore - the increased quality is not necessary and MF wins in terms of ease of use.

since canon will sell far more 1Ds's than Kodak will DCS backs for a Hassleblad, inevitably, the price for a "good enough" (and i don't mean that in a bad sense) canon will be way lower than than the MF with a digital back. at that point, no reason for digital MF to exist, and soon, with no reason for digital MF to exist, then no reason for MF to exist.

But, who cares? I keep coming back to "digital is digital and film is film". the members of this forum understand the difference and judge film to be superior, and perhaps judge that it will always be superior for aesthetic or simply archive reasons.

I went through this scare 4 years ago when Kodak announced it was discontinuing the production of 5x7 film. This, after I had just completed my equipment setup including a new Omega enlarger. Four years later Kodak is still making 5x7 film and I realize that if they don't, someone else will.

Take a worst case, you are a 20 year old student and love B&W film. If you bought a 30 year old Leica M4 or Hassleblad 500CM today, because you couldn't afford something newer, by the time you are 60 the camera would still be repairable and there would be film available for it. For your own work, would you ever need better than an M4 with a 35mm Summicron or a 500CM with a 150 Sonar? Large format will survive even longer!

Be glad you got your beautiful yellow Hassleblad before they stopped making them and just enjoy taking pictures with it.

 

[David Hall]

Well, nothing is sold for giveaway prices in LF. But I can see a back coming from a market entry $25k to "large format" prices in just a few years, can't you?

dgh

 

[Robert]

The thing is I think $25k might be considered normal for a LF back. I'm looking at a webpage for the Shen-Hao which I think is made in China. I bet it doesn't cost them too many big Macs to build the thing. It still sells for over $500.

The other thing is prices don't tend to drop until the tech has basically levelled off. My first DVD player was the DVD-rom in my computer. While it was a pain to get the cables all hooked to watch a movie it worked just fine. In reality once the movie is started you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the DVD-rom and my Sony DVD player.

Now think of that back. Some one claimed it takes a few minutes after the exposure to process the image. If instead of lowering the price they give you one that takes 30 seconds? Prices don't really drop until they can't convince people to pay the big bucks to upgrade. Unlike the computer industry which used to sell big buck items to business users then move it down the food chain a LF digital item isn't going to be bought by too many non-pros.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[SteveGangi]

There may be a solution.... wait a few years, and buy the stuff used. The big depreciation is during the change from new (still in the store) to used (as soon as you walk out of the store). After that, it may depreciate even more because it is "legacy equipment". The tricky part might be the drivers.

 

[azdustdevil]

MF is NOT a dying breed. Nor is large format. Or even 35mm for that matter. Each format has its place and so does digital. Each does a specific job better than the others.

When television was becoming popular, everyone thought radio was on its way out. Well, 50 years later radio is alive and well.

 

[gr82bart]

WOW!

I am very hopeful that with all the passion about MF, you are all but a small sampling of many, many more people out there who share the same thoughts that MF is here to stay. Honestly, every photographer I have encountered in the commercial fashion and glamour industry has gone 35 mm digital. I know there are more subject areas to photography, but it was shocking to feel that I was a holdout!

Ironically, I'm the farthest from being a technophobe.

You guys are giving me a lot of hope.

Thanks.

 

[SteveGangi]

You won't find many technophobes here. Several of us are engineers.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[bmac]

The bottom line is, medium format is not a dying breed. You are going to need a camera to attach that digiback to... It isn't like 120 film went out when they started making 220 backs. Every back has its own aplication... botttom line... long live film, god bless mamiya.... good night!

 

[Jim Chinn]

I am doing my part to keep it alive. Plan on buying an additional Mamiya TLR at an upcoming camera show and possibly an extra lens set. There is such a huge jump in image quality from 35mm to MF that I find I leave the 35mm at home most of the time and take the Mamiya along with my LF gear.

I just don't know what film availability will be. I think there will be no problems for several years, but 120 film cameras are not going to be sold in emerging markets overseas, so the volume of film used will continually drop. As with everything else it is a matter of supply and demand. There may come a time when the cost of producing, cutting and packaging MF film becomes unprofitable.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

I doubt that. The price may go up, but film production is pretty easy now. We have been doing it for decades and the technology to make a decent piece of film is pretty old. I am sure someone will buy up some of the old film making gear and start a cottage industry. Hell, they still make albumin paper! Now the price may go up, but film will be around for a long while. And 120 is just as easy to make as 35mm.

Remember too film has an amazing user base. Millions upon millions of cameras are out there that use film. As to MF, remember too that a plant producing film stock can easily produce 120 and 220 stock. And film based movie cameras are not going to go away any time soon. If ever.

 

[Robert]

I thought 120 was more popular outside of North America and Western Europe ? When you had to wait for a camera you didn't throw away a good 120 just because somebody was selling a new 35mm.

 

[David Hall]

I saw the CEO of Kodak on PBS a couple of months ago saying what Robert just said...that there are two BILLion film users out there, and it will take forever for enough of them to be using digital to put Kodak out of the film business.

dgh

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Mar 5 2003, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I saw the CEO of Kodak on PBS a couple of months ago saying what Robert just said...that there are two BILLion film users out there, and it will take forever for enough of them to be using digital to put Kodak out of the film business.

dgh </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The problem with this is that 99.9999% of that 2 billion might be 35 mm users, which might prompt Kodak to say, ah heck we dont need to hassle with MF and LF, lets close down these formats, lay off all the workers and save ourselves a bundle.

 

[jd callow]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Mar 5 2003, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The problem with this is that 99.9999% of that 2 billion might be 35 mm users, which might prompt Kodak to say, ah heck we dont need to hassle with MF and LF, lets close down these formats, lay off all the workers and save ourselves a bundle.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No, Kodak will or some other company will understand the inverse of economies of scale and charge extortionist prices for the niche market -- MF and the super niche -- LF

On second thought Kodak won't otherwise they'd be making ektar 25 in small batches and charging 8 or 10 bucks a roll to willing bozo's like me

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcallow @ Mar 5 2003, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Mar 5 2003, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The problem with this is that 99.9999% of that 2 billion might be 35 mm users, which might prompt Kodak to say, ah heck we dont need to hassle with MF and LF, lets close down these formats, lay off all the workers and save ourselves a bundle.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No, Kodak will or some other company will understand the inverse of economies of scale and charge extortionist prices for the niche market -- MF and the super niche -- LF&lt;p&gt;On second thought Kodak won't otherwise they'd be making ektar 25 in small batches and charging 8 or 10 bucks a roll to willing bozo's like me </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yeah and how about Kodachrome 25? many people were dismayed when they discontinued this. To be fair, some of these films got discontinued due to higher enviromental restrictions, which I think is good. OTOH with the trend of more profits with less or cheaper workforce I would not be surprised if Kodak went the lay off route. Think about it, no more different bases for 35 mm, MF and LF, no more having to cut different sizes, no more different formulations for the different size films. If Kodak went and shut down MF and LF film production now, they would loose very little in income and might even save more by not having to pay all that workforce with the human resources commitments they carry.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, people are paying around $14 a roll for Kodachrome 25 on eBay. At prices like that, you can probably find a few people willing to part with their Ektar 25 in the freezer.

 

[Sean]

to that guy who lost some images on a cdr, I feel for you. I just recently found out that all cdr's are not created equal. The cheapo 20 cent disks may only last for a year, if left in bright light forget it, or if played a lot forget it. Some of the high end cdrs seem ok. I use kodak gold cd's to make family home movie video cd's (they are supposed to last 100 yrs or so, who knows). I think the kodaks are discontinued now. Verbatim has a new disk that is supposed to be as good, and I think mitsubishi makes some gold cd's too. Anyway, my days of buying the cheapo 50cd spools for important things are over. I have also heard of people pulling out their stored cd's to find a metal eating bacteria has infested it.