Phase one takes major stake in Mamiya

What does this mean for Leaf?

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=848629

And then, Calumet goes solo with hasselblad, leaving Leaf in the dust...

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=848285

To me it means that the MF market has shrunk to such a degree that Leaf and mamiya felt that they would be better served by joining forces -- especially in the light of Hassy restricting the compatibility of their camera backs.

The shrinkage seems to have also required that Calumet limit their selection. This may also have been a power play by either or both Hassy and leaf with Hassy winning.

I think that Leaf and mamiya are in a tough spot. With Leaf taking over R&D for the combined company it may mean that the focus will not be on body and lenses, but on backs -- I don't know that that is a good thing. On the flip side with the H2 being a Fuji body and the backs being imacons,t Hassy may not be same company going forward.

If I were to take a WAG I'd say that Mamiya/Leaf will aim to be a price point digital MF system producer with a boutique offering (Mamiya 7) and possibly the end of the line for their non-DSL offerings.

The thing with all these guys is that mini DSLR's are now being produced that will meet 99% of the needs of commercial photogs at a fraction of the cost and weight. Unless they can produce a MF sized chip that is either significantly better and or cheaper this all may be an exercise in moving the deck chairs. On top of that there is this pesky recession thing. All the camera makers are probably going to be running at a loss for the next couple years. It may be that even with good product Mamiya/Leaf or even Hassy won't be able to survive.

interesting

I read JD's remarks as meaning that MF is becomming less and less relevant with 35mm and APS sensor digital covering 99% of what MF once did for commercial folks.

With the complexity and precision required of MF cameras I wonder if this means that LF might just survive better?

I wonder which film will be out of supply first 120 or 4x5?

)

Barring a quantum leap in optics I don't believe there is going to be a lot more improvement from DSLRs, either APS size or full 35mm size.

In terms of APS size, the Canon 50D is already just at, or over the line in that the limitation to resolution is the lens, not the sensor. Full frame DSLRs may be able to get up to about 30mp, then they too will see the limits of optics.

None of this comes close to 4X5 film, though 30 mp may rival MF in color (but not in B&W). For example, a Mamiya 7II 6X7 Acros negative, scanned with a drum scanner at 4000 spi, or Nikon LS-9000 film scanner, gives a useful file of close to 100 mp.

Sandy King

pellicle said:

interesting

I read JD's remarks as meaning that MF is becomming less and less relevant with 35mm and APS sensor digital covering 99% of what MF once did for commercial folks.

With the complexity and precision required of MF cameras I wonder if this means that LF might just survive better?

I wonder which film will be out of supply first 120 or 4x5?

)

Click to expand...

It is not a matter of whether or not a miniature DSLR (I was thinking full frame) is as good as MF (film or digital), but whether or not it is a better tool for most (as in 99%) commercial photography. Being lighter, cheaper, faster, having a wider range of lenses of all types and having the image making capabilities to exceed the needs of the vast majority of jobs makes the current top of the line mini DSLR cameras very formidable. What jobs are out there that require a MF DSLR? LF or cameras with movements are still uniquely placed, but the jobs that require movements are probably <1%.

This is not to say that there isn't a place for MF (film or digital) or LF in the world of photography, only that commercial photography has found its match and it is commercial photography that buys the bulk of the MF cameras -- or at least it used to be.

I don't know which film format will go first or if any will go away all together, but I am very worried that Kodak may not survive as it is today (which is not so good by any measure) or at all if the current downturn continues through 2010.

Hi

sanking said:

Barring a quantum leap in optics I don't believe there is going to be a lot more improvement from DSLRs, either APS size or full 35mm size.

Click to expand...

agreed, but the commercial world is often satisfied with less. I have a friend who works in an ad agency. They have some high profile "gloss" clients (bathroom fittings) who love high detail big images but put through small amounts of business nationally. Another client is a major national supermarket chain who put out HEAPS of work but price is essential not high gloss large image quality.

I watched that account go from some 120 and 35mm to totally digital in a matter of years.

I guess the rag trade are a similar story with the top end DSLR doing 99% now. Heck, even food stuff can be done nicely with a FF DSLR and TS-E 24, 45 and 90.