I Wish We Had A Crystal Ball

I know you all wish the same. What is going to happen with the world of MF?

 

I've truly come to love it. Cameras are like boats. There's just no such thing as the perfect

boat for all uses. Each boat is a compromise. The boater tries to get the one that meets

the most of his needs but laments that he is not rich enough to own more than one if

he desires to go boating in very different bodies of water.

 

To me MF is that great compromise of a format. It can go many ways and serve many

needs. When it became obvious that digital backs would come out with the possibility of

reaching full frame 6 x 4.5 cm ( now a reality with Phase ONe) it more than doubled the

possibilities of MF. It is supposed that a P-25 may rival 4 x 5 film. It will be very

close.

 

Here is where the Crystal ball would come in handy. If two manufacturers will stay in the

game and at least two others continue to make backs then to me there is just no reason

ever to invest in 35mm digital. This of course is not so for those who never print large

and those who demand the speed of 35mm digital.

 

But the signs are not good: Long ago promised lenses for Hassy and Contax MF never

coming to pass. Kodack dropping out of the back business. Pentax not even seeming to

TRY to keep up. And the worst sign of all, the backbone of the MF world, wedding

photogs, moving to 35mm in droves.

 

If I had lots more money I would buy into a Contax or H1 right now and get on the list

for a P-25 and not care if it was the end of the line. I'd just shoot untill the equipment

fell apart and I could no longer get it repaired. But I'm not that wealthy. I have to hope

the MF world stays healthy and that the price of backs comes down.

 

That may never happen. I don't know about you but this really ticks me off.

 

I'm very negative about all this because I know something about the corporate world. It's

about nothing but profit any more. I guess it always was but many corporations were

willing to hold unto a small division that just paid it's way and made a tidy profit. Not

anymore. It's all about consolidation, layoffs and massive profits. Small operations are

dropping like flies. I'm surprised that Leica and Hasselblad are still in existence actually.

I look for Pentax to die any day and Mamiya to be absorbed or just croak.

 

Fortuneately or unfortuneately, given your perception, digital is a dead end for many

many of us. This is all good news for film. After a year of experimmentation and fun

with my 10D (it's my P&S camera now) I am back to film. It's the wait and see position.

Irony of Irony this will help along the demise of medium format. Film may remain and

actually

may be the only future for all of us amateurs and hobbyists who want to print large. I'm

even

going to buy a film scanner which is something I just did not want to get involved in.

 

I could afford a 1Ds. Not gonna do it. If MF backs never come down (or the

possibility of a back on a view camera reach affordability) .... film is the foreseeable

future.

 

Phase One could go a long way towards giving MF a future. Surely they make enough

money with Capture One that they could carry the back business and allow more people

to get into the game.

<<I Wish We Had A Crystal Ball

 

I know you all wish the same. >>

 

I would if I didn't have two eyes and a brain. It's obvious to anyone with those, and no pathological need to deny reality, that film in any format is taking its last bow.

Jay,

 

Six months ago I would have agreed with you. But what about all of us who demand at

least the resolution of 4 x5? Such a back will never be affordable if MF goes away. that

leaves many thousands of photographers still using film.

 

Of course you will be right if something like Foveon can fit 4 x 5 type resolution on a

smaller chip and make it affordable to the dedicated amateur landscape shooter. It

could happen but by no means is assured.

Jay,

 

I take it your extended "vision" doesn't include the 3rd world, where 'digital' is not even in the lexicon yet. Granted, digital is/has/continues to make great gains in the US and Europe, but the remainder of the world remains heavily influenced in film. I think it's a safe bet it'll be around a while.

Just a couple thoughts...

 

There are a number of manufacturers of digital backs for MF. To wit: Leaf, SinarBron, PhaseOne, Imacon, Jenoptik (eyelike), Megavision, BetterLight (scan backs, works with some MF). Some contend that the 22mp multishot and/or scanbacks meet or exceed 8x10 film. Single shot backs are very good. Sinar reputed to be a bit on the slow side but most affordable. Leaf and PhaseOne software seem to have a stellar reputation.

 

Many of these backs work well with existing MF as well as LF gear, using the appropriate adapter(s).

 

Prices will drop. Leaf has their student prices about 10,000 less than list, ie: $18,000 instead of $28,000 for the 22mp.

 

Hopefully said mfg's will realize there is money to be made from those of us who are not pro's, but still like a quality result. Once they do typical mfg savings and marketing competition should help drive down the cost.

 

When purchasing a digital acquisition system this will be your 'film' for a few years, though the resulting look can be modified in PS.

 

When figuring how much these systems cost remember that you will no longer be spending on film and processing. Time on dodging and burning for just the right look is trivial in PS compared to optical printing.

 

Also consider that when someone buys your MF gear, they are probably now going to be buying MF film. Perhaps this will eventually result in an increase in MF film sales???

 

So if you don't burn a lot of film right now, you may help the situation by selling to someone who will.

 

Idle thoughts only, so don't read too much into the above statements. I am in the same boat as the rest of you. Have just been perusing through a bunch of old prints trying to decide which way to go. Keep or sell existing relatively new MF system, and go with a 1ds or equivalent, or what...

 

Realized that I really like 35mm ultra grainy (ilford 3200) a lot. So bottom line...I can't make up my mind either so I guess I'll just go find something interesting to shoot.

 

Hmmm, I have a few cartridges of old 110 film here, wonder if this old minolta 110 still works...

 

 

enjoy your day,

vic...

why not concentrate on photography, and quit obsessing over the future of the camera industry? buy a Holga, buy a Canon G5, log-off of photo.net and start exploring capturing light. it doesn't matter how you do it, but odds are that it will serve you better than sitting at the computer wishing for a crystal ball.

 

best of luck ...

<I>why not concentrate on photography, and quit obsessing over the future of the camera industry?</i><P>Amen. A digital back takes roll film out of the equation, which is most of the advantage with MF over 4x5 anyways. Why not concentrate on 4x5 digital backs and actually have tilts and swings to work with? Both formats are basically geared towards subject matter that doesn't move anyways, so what difference does it make? They're both basically imobile compared to dSLRs save for maybe the Contax AF. This is what's called a solution in search of a problem.

<i>I take it your extended "vision" doesn't include the 3rd world, where 'digital' is not even in the lexicon yet. </i><p>

 

Guess you haven't spent much time there.

Dan,

 

It's a hundred degrees with stratospheric humidity out today. The sun is straight up and

there's not a cloud in the sky. I have been off this board for months. Don't resent my

desire to talk over things in a bit of my idle time. Please.

Victor,

 

Good post. Your positive outlook and informed opinion boosts my awareness and raises

the spirit.

 

Thank you.

<I>Kodack dropping out of the back business. </I><P> I am told that the

decision to stop selling backs in a retail channel had two forks: They decided

that perhaps they shouldn't compete with their best customers (Kodak makes

the imaging chip (the sensor array) in most of the medium format digital

backs sold today by Sinar, Imacon, Phase One, and Eyelike.) Secondly (and I

am really just guessing at this) it was a matter of spending more R&D money

to develop a product that would be competing with their best customers for

those chips.<P><I>When it became obvious that digital backs would come out

with the possibility of reaching full frame 6 x 4.5 cm ( now a reality with Phase

ONe) it more than doubled the possibilities of MF. It is supposed that a P-25

may rival 4 x 5 film. It will be very close. </I><P> The Phase One H25,

Jenoptik Eyelike, Sinar 54H and 54M, The Leaf Valeo 22 andthe Imacon 825

backs have been at that size and resolution for awhile now. I reviewed all of

the above for the current issue of PEI. Any of the digital backs will work on

any view camera that has an option for attaching a square format Hasselblad

film back. <P>

 

Scott: My suggestion is that if you want to continue with film for awhile will be

to get a mid-range Imacon scanner.

for someone 'skewered on the horns of a dilemma', I thought some free advice might be of some value and relief.

 

cheers ...

Affordable digital back for MF? Doubtful in the near future, at least.

 

As a hobbyist, I could never justify $8,000 for a camera body (1Ds). For me, that's five months of house payments for a camera that doesn't even have a lens. Or roughly 2,667 rolls of b/w 120 film at $3 a piece.

 

I often hear that people say the camera pays for itself in six months. But when you hear of people taking 5,000 images in a month, you have to wonder. Certainly quantity -- but quality?

 

I don't even want to think of a digital MF back. If you have any money left, you'll always have to have it tethered to a desktop or laptop and a power supply. Or I suppose lug around a big battery pack. That should be fun. It will be impossible to just go out and shoot for the sheer fun of it.

 

I love getting out there with my light meter, a simple folder or a Rolleiflex and a few rolls of film in my pocket ... doing my thing.

Jay:

 

You really need to hump it over to the stereophile forums and tell those poor ignoramuses that tubes are soon going to disappear. They don't seem to realize it yet. Admittedly, it's been a long curtain call for tube based equipment, 30 + years? Still, it's bound to end any time now and you seem uniquely qualified to tell them so.

<<Sm. Alec , jun 01, 2004; 03:03 p.m.

Jay,

I take it your extended "vision" doesn't include the 3rd world, where 'digital' is not even in the lexicon yet. Granted, digital is/has/continues to make great gains in the US and Europe, but the remainder of the world remains heavily influenced in film. I think it's a safe bet it'll be around a while.>>

 

ROFLMAO! It never fails, somebody *always* puts forth this same lame, ridiculous, preposterous, quintessentially ignorant argument. Mostly anyone you see in 3rd-world countries using cameras are using digital cameras. Unless maybe those malnourished kids with distended stomachs and bulging eyes whip their Hasselblads out from under their rags and take pictures of us rich American tourists while our backs are turned.

Re: Films impending demise, by reason of that delightful digital miscreant, the pixel.

 

For those 'worry worts' and others who enjoy such 'worthy' consternations here is something else for you:

 

http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2004/05/29/rtr1389115.html

 

This is probably old news already but thought I'd throw this out here for what little its worth.

 

Please note that its starting with Agfa therefore I can only presume that Berger will be next, soon to be followed by Ilford and Kodak. (I thought there was a film that began with a 'C' but it escapes me)

 

 

now get outside and enjoy the rain...

 

vic... :)

<<You really need to hump it over to the stereophile forums and tell those poor ignoramuses that tubes are soon going to disappear. They don't seem to realize it yet. >>

 

Amazing. While I'm busy taking care of one ignorant buffoon another one pops up with an equally pathetic false analogy. Tube-amps are hardware, albeit archaic, like an 8x10 Deardorff. You can play a CD through a tube amp and put a digital back on a Deardorff. Film is a consumable. An intelligent analogy is to wax-drums (Gramophones) and 8-track tapes. Nobody's making either of them.

I do completely agree with Daniel Taylor.

 

One more point : I have a hasselblad with 3 lenses. If i want to take picture what is the most convenient for me ?

 

- A $20k digital back ?

 

- A $8K Canon plus lenses I do not have ?

 

- a $3.00 roll of Tri-X ?

 

Guess what ? i have lots of tri-X in my fridge.

Scott, I guess Jay has a crystal ball behind his two eyes, so he�s the authority here. So Jay, what date can we look for to retire our film cameras �of any format�? Good thing these posts are archived so we can all look back at these types of predictions with amusement.

 

Let�s face reality for a minute, we all like to be proven right but nobody here knows the future, or we wouldn�t be here on this forum reading this thread. All of it is nothing but speculation. Again, shoot whatever suits your style and disregard any of these either/or viewpoints. Since when has any one product been right for everybody? Film for some, digital for others, and some will choose both; it�s called choice and is something we should all fight to preserve despite what marketing geeks bombard us with.

If I had a crystal ball, I wouldn't squander it on the pendng demise of film based photography, but rather, on knowing who the next American Idol winner will be. After all, first things first.

"What is going to happen with the world of MF? "

 

Oh no - the world of MF? Relax my friend - there is certainly hope that MF will outlast your soul upon this planet.

<p>

<a href="http://www.alternativephotography.com/process_saltprints.html">make your own salted paper prints?</a> <p>

 

<a href="http://www.blackshadowyachts.com/centurydarkroom.html">want to shoot Daguerreotypes?</a> <p>

 

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4200&item=3818791148&rd=1">Get that 620 outta the closet?</a> <p>

you get the idea

<i><blockquote> But what about all of us who demand at least the resolution of 4

x5? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

How many is all of you? How large a market? How big compared to 35mm or digital?

And aren't film stats showing that the market is shrinking?

<I>I often hear that people say the camera pays for itself in six months. But

when you hear of people taking 5,000 images in a month, you have to

wonder.</I><P>As you say, you are a " hobbyist". The people who say it pays

for itself are :<P>

A.) Professional photographers who make photograaphs for a living.<P>B.)

delusional.<P>or <P>C.) both A & B. The two quite often go hand in hand.

<i><blockquote> <b><u> when you hear of people taking 5,000 images in a month,

you

have to wonder. </u></b> <p>

 

As you say, you are a " hobbyist". The people who say it pays for itself are : <p>

 

A.) Professional photographers who make photograaphs for a living. <p>

 

B.) delusional. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

An amateur who shoots a roll a day (1,100 shots/month) will find that a low-to-mid-

end DSLR pays for itself within a year, whether he exclusively shoots b&w (and develops

himself) or color, or any mix. I've crunched the numbers, posted before about it, and

found the results compelling.

This has been pretty good. As much as I enjoy film I really got hooked on the control of

digital. Both the control in capture using the histogram and the simplicity of boosting

contrast and or saturation in photoshop to make ordinary or poorly exposed images

come alive. See I never got into scanning so it was only when I got the 10D that I found

out what the digital revolution was all about.

 

Going through the process and challenges in this thread I have to admit to myself ... I

really want a Phase One P25 back on a MF camera. But it's just a dream. I don't have the

money and it would take me two years to amass it.

 

So I just have to be happy where I am and stop resisting film scanning.