Future of Medium Format?

Dear all,

 

Not so long time ago one or more fellows suggested me to move to

Medium or Big Formats instead of switching from Nikon to Canon

stating the fact that the price on Medium and Big format going down

very low.

 

I shoot mostly (am not professoinal but am serious amateur)birds but

almost equally love landscapes too. The current prices on internet

market on bigger format made me tempted to rethink the suggestion of

fellows as above.

 

But first of all, the bigger MF gears can not substitute the AF of

35mm. And another worry is how about the future of them?

 

Now, great 35mm AF Film bodies are being dumped for very poor price,

what's about that of bigger formats in future? Will the films be

continued to produce?

 

Honestly, I am really tempted to see the prices of great medium

format gears on the web but at the other hand I am confused about

the future of those gear.

 

Would love to hear how you think about it.

 

Thanking you all.

This has been discussed over and over again. I'm not worried.

If you have doubts about medium format, don't switch. If you ever have or ever will want to try it,you should buy a modest camera and lens in MF. But not at the sacrifice of a good AF 35mm with a lens that can takd care of your bird shots. I hope you see what I am getting at. Even amateurs should be careful about putting all eggs in one basket as we say in this country. MF is a commitment. Some love it. Most do without it.Some use both. Its tools, like the different size Crescent wrenches in my shed...GS

why worry about the future? take your pix now!

The bigger, the better!!!!!! As for the future? who knows. Today, there is plenty of film available and it will be so for a while.

In a nuttshell:<br><br>- People seem to embrace the digido in a big way. More than the "serious end" of the photo industry expected.<br><br>- Photographers are abandoning MF and LF for 35 mm based digital cameras. Which comes even more as a surprise to the industry.<br><br>- Unless MF manufacturers find a way to compete with this "newcomer", it's over. The end. Curtains for MF.<br><br>- MF currently can not (!) compete: digital products are way, way too expensive, pound for pound. The premium to be paid for using MF instead of 35 mm based products, and yet only het results that are hardly better, if at all, in return is, quite simply, ludicrous.<br><br>- So the ball is in MF manufacturer's park: they mst show that they can offer a way onto the digido that is competitive, both in quality and price.<br><br>- Size still counts, on the digido as much as in the "film world". It's up to someone to put that format advantage into a viable business proposition in today's market.<br><br>- MF manufacturers however do not control the product development nor marketing of products that will set their products on the digido. They are 100% passively dependent on what digital back manufactuers choose to do or not to do.<br><br>- MF manufacturers have remained 100% passive: they have not done anything to make sure that those people they depend on do something that is in their (MF manufacturers) interest. Instead, they have been sitting back comfortably, letting things slip out of their hands.<br><br>- Digital back manufacturers can easily switch to other segments of the market if the MF segment should perish. MF "as we know it" itself cannot.<br><br>So in resume: not a healthy outlook.

for digital, that is.

Medium format telephoto lenses aren't dropping as much in price, Dhruba, which

makes 35mm -- and especially digital, with its multiplier effect -- more affordable and

useful for bird photography.

Andre Noble , jul 18, 2004; 06:21 p.m.

for digital, that is.

 

- Did not get you.

"The bigger the better..." Generally correct. But, it is not a question of one format being better than another. Each has its place. As a serious amateur, I moved up to MF for specific purposes that MF offers better results in. I more recently moved up to LF (4x5) , again for other purposes. Yes, the bigger I go, the more stunning are the images' quality. Some days I use 2 formats and on other days I use one - "horses for courses". You should only go MF if it offers you specific advantages.

 

Will film die? - I very much doubt it (in the forseeable future). However, the number of manufacturers may decline, the range may narrow and supply may be less readilly available (through more specialist outlets) - all due to the lower volumes sold. But, that by itself will not kill the formats - digital technology will likely progressively offer more and more affordable backs over time in MF and LF. Wether we shoot MF or LF on film or pixels will not necessarily kill the formats.

 

My view is that the regularly quoted statements about how good digital technology is becoming say it all - they mostly make statements comparing the digital image to a film image (such as "the shaddow detail is nearly as good as Velvia... The noise at 400asa is nearly as fine grianed as film..."). I wonder how long it will take to match a 4x5 image???!!!

 

Take great photos!

build a bridge...

Bird photography is vastly easier with 35mm than with MF; I'm not even sure you can get fast long glass for MF, not to speak of bracketing, AF, image stabilization etc. If you're good at setting up blinds and can get really close perhaps MF is feasible. Salim Ali and Loke Wan Tho, to mention a couple of famous names, stuck to 35mm.

 

Digital tech is good news for birds because you can deal with rapid light changes much better, and don't have to reload every 36 frames.

 

For landscapes MF wins and I wouldn't worry too much about obsolescence. Large format equipment can be had quite cheap but you will pay much more per shot.

By the time MF gear won't be used anymore we'll probably all be

dead. So what's the worry? Use it and you'll help it to survive.

 

I happen to know professional colleagues who have invested a

lot of money in MF digital backs, and you know what? Several of

them are already returning to film for a number of reasons. Not

that they dump their digibacks (unfortunately for those who want

a cheap one) but they simply see now that film still has its place

an will have for a long, long time.

I am actually looking forward to the digital revolution taking over the LF and MF world. Why?

 

Because I am sick and tired of these threads. Every website, every users group has this conversation / debate. A simple google search of this site would have confirmed your thoughts and suspicions.

 

You can not do a damn thing about the digital push. So get over it and continue doing what you do today until you can't anymore. It will be many years before medium format film is gone. In the meantime, have fun and produce work.

 

Can we please stop this already?

What you really need is medium format for landscape and digital or 35mm for birds. Medium format is not user friendly for wild birds. Whether 35mm or digital is adequate for your landscapes is up to you, but these are not up to my standards. If I was looking for something to shoot birds with, I would take a hard look at a dedicated digital system like the Olympus with a 300mm 2.8 that is very compact. Unfortunately, several markets only seem to be interested in files from that expensive Canon. As for the future, if it is a worry, don't invest in photography. Maybe you should build a bridge. The cutting edge technology goes obsolete before the old stuff. Piles of digital stuff versus ancient view cameras for example.

Robert's right, digital is for the birds.

I shoot MF and am happy with it. For birds, I would stick with 35mm though, and for serious landscapes, you might be better of with a LF camera and all the movements and such. If you go through all the trouble of putting a camera on a tripod, it may as well be a large format one (less expensive than MF too!).

You could stick with your Nikon for bird photography and get a nice basic MF camera and maybe a second lens for landscapes. I don't see a need to limit yourself to just one system or format, since they both have advantages and disadvantages.

 

Switching from Nikon to Canon would be a waste of money, IMO. You're not likely to see any improvement or degradation in your images at all.

 

The future of MF? I'm not concerned. My favorite films -- Velvia and Provia -- are likely to be around for a very, very long time since they are still profitable despite the boom in digital imaging. I don't care whether or not my equipment goes up or down in value, or is made "obsolete" by digital... I can still use them to make images and that's what's important.

 

I've got one foot in digital and the other one in medium format... and it's quite nice this way.

Thank you David. B!

 

This is such a dumb issue. I like MF for quality BW. I have a nice

3mp digital for fun shots around the house, camera collection,

etc, and am amazed at how much fun it is to use. No, I can't get

to to give me what film does.

 

But why argue this over and over? Plastic cameras are here, for

better or worse, digital will get better, the software easier to use

and in time, it will probably become the vehical of choice. So

what? I still use 6x9 format because io know how lovely detail

can be and I use all old equipment because hat is essentially

what I prefer. We are all this way; we find what makes us happy

and develop good technique and even make some good

pictures. Why fight, argue, worry about it? This is one big tent

with plenty of room for everything and everyone......

 

Now, having said that, can anyone please tell me why they shoot

color when BW is obviously so superior....... :>)

 

 

Jerry

Isn't it interesting that the advent of color film didn't kill B/W years ago?

Note to Jerry and David: If you're tired of reading discussions about the future of medium format, skip over posts titled "Future of Medium Format."

 

My own guess (and we're all guessing) is that is that there won't be continued development of digital MF cameras--the quality in 35mm will be sufficient for pros, and therefore there won't be enough demand. MF will become an enthusiasts' format. There will probably be MF film available for a long, long time, however.

I'm 57 and my life expectancy per the charts is 21.1 years. If they still have Provia and Velvia in 2025, who cares. I'll deal with it then.

I'm with Xato. I am 51 and plan to shoot until I'm 75 then just print. Maybe in 100 years will our MF camers be considered Model T's but they still get us around the block.

 

Get what you need now.

I live in San Diego. In two different pro level camera stores two different salesman said they know of professionals who tried digital are are now back to film.

I actually think that MF will be around longer than 35mm.

 

It's obvious that 35mm compact cameras are being eaten alive by digital compacts. The same thing will happen to 35mm SLRs when the price of D-SLRs drops to comparable levels, which is practically inevitable given volume production savings and the high price elasticity of demand of consumer electronic goods. (What that means is, if you can reduce the price 10%, sales increase more than 10%, therefore you make more revenue.)

 

Professionals using MF are likely to buy digital backs rather than just junk these expensive systems they have so much knowledge in using.

 

A big reason for the current decline of MF is that 'advanced amateurs' who previously would go and spend $1,000s on MF cameras are now spending the money on high-end D-SLRs instead. Once high-end D-SLRs go away (that is, the price of the Canon EOS1-Ds drops to about $1,500, the same as a Canon EOS-1v) there will be a 'price space' above that where the more expensive MF gear still fits in.

 

Not all the manufacturers will survive. I would put my money on Mamiya, Hasselblad and Rollei. Bronica is edging out of the market. Fuji may continue with their GX-680 system, which is a superb studio camera, but they have dropped all their other MF stuff in the past 1-2 years. Contax have always been a minor player, their 645 autofocus system is challenged by Mamiya and Hassleblad.

 

In the medium term, I expect digital compact cameras to be severely cannibalised by camera phones. There will be a new generation of D-SLRs not constructed around the 35mm body. Freed from the 35mm legacy, manufacturers will be able to reduce body and lens sizes, introduce optimised lenses, and improve CCD chip yields. The Olympus 4/3 system is the first of this type of camera.