Wither the Digital DSLR Market and What effect on MF?

I am at this time very content with MF. I want to have the digital option for this format

one day but I don't see ever giving up film. That's not my subject here however. The

1Ds tempts me and has since it first came out. Now at 16mp it looks even more

inviting. I don't like the aspect ratio however and the derth of decent wide angle lenses is

a drag. If large enough non tethered MF backs

don't ever become affordable ($10k) however (probably won't) I will eventually have to

head that way.

 

I can't help but wonder however, where do all the used expensive outdated DSLRs end

up? ?Are there enough income challenged hobbyists longing to get into digital to absorb

them all? ?Somehow I doubt it.

 

I suspect there must be a lot of three year old (and older) Kodak models sitting on shelves

collecting dust?. ?Will this ?be the fate of many 1Ds (not Mk II) cameras as well? ?Possibly

1D units too? ?Seems to be an awful lot of them on ?the sales block right now and ?prices

are dropping weekly.

 

And what of the ?future? ?The makers of ?these digital wonders have pulled off quite a coup

these ?last two years. ?Getting thousands and thousands of shooters to part with ?more

money ?than they ever dreamed they would. ?Can this continue? ?What will happen to

Canon's balance sheet (the camera division of course) when everybody has two or ?even

three generations ?of ?cameras they ?spent way too much money on sitting on their

shelves?

 

It's not ?like there is a constant flow of new blood into this market. ?Many here I know

still enjoy film and like me have decided they are quite happy with film and MF. I enjoy my

Contax 645 and the Zeiss lenses enough to wait untill such time as a MF digital back

comes down out of the stratosphere (or lunar ?orbit). If that never happens then so be

it. ?

 

Of course I'm only a landscape shooter who is not ?in ?the business of ?making hundreds of

exposures in an outing. ?Three rolls (occasionally 4) of 120 ?pretty much does it ?for ?me ?

on any given day. ?Sounds ?weird to the ?digital enthusiasts ear I know.

 

But even the ?most prolific fashion shooter can and will be satisfied with a 1Ds Mk II for a

few years at least. ?Why would they ever need ?more ?than 16 MP to fill even a double page

spread?

 

Will there be a future implosion in the ?digital manufacturing sector soon? ?Or will the

millions who will buy at the D70 or 20D level keep the production workers receiving

paychecks? ?Are there millions?

 

Will this help us old weirdos hanging onto MF and film and hoping for a digital back at a

price we can stand? Or hurt us?

From what I heard, the re-branded 16MP Imacon back is now at $9999 (under $10k).

<I>The 1Ds tempts me and has since it first came out. Now at 16mp it looks even more

inviting. I don't like the aspect ratio however and the derth of decent wide angle lenses is a

drag. If large enough non tethered MF backs don't ever become affordable ($10k) however

(probably won't) I will eventually have to head that way.</I><P>Hasselblad 96C (or V96C

back for hasselblad "V" series cameras): 16 mp (and a better

16mp than from the EOS 1Ds mark II). It was just announced. price is just under $10K.

more details at http://www.hasselbladusa.com. Once there go: products> digital backs.

you should also keep an eye out for the Kodak 645C pro Backs which are

extremely underrated and seem to go for about 5-6K.<P><I>Are there enough income

challenged hobbyists longing to get into digital to

absorb them all? ?Somehow I doubt it.</I><P>You are failing to understand the size of

the worldwide marketplace.<P><I>I suspect there must be a lot of three year old (and

older) Kodak models sitting on shelves collecting dust?. ?Will this ?be the fate of many 1Ds

(not Mk II) cameras as well? </I><P>Well there is a huge quality difference between a 2

-4mp

camera that was a $25,000 wonder 4 or 5 years ago and todays 8-16mp DSLR. I really

doubt that you will see a 24 or 32mp DSLR -- or have need of one, anytime in the

foreseable future, that is the kind of quantum leap in quality. Lots of people professional

and amateur find a 6mp camera just fine for their needs: witness the number of Nikon

D1X is being used and abused daily. But I take your more general point. <P>

 

Don't forget that with bigger files you will want a faster computer, more RAM, more

storage space, a better monitor, a way to calibrate and profile the monitor, a good printer,

software upgrades, etc., etc. (and you thought crack cocaine and junk fod addictionswere

bad)<P>Hey Scott, enjoy some of that Texas Hill Country BBQ for me! --

 

Ellis

why does it even matter? if you're content with MF film then stick with it. I would love to have a 16MP camera like the 1DS MKII and like you, a landscape shooter who is not in the business. I want the image quality that a 16MP 1Ds can give me but I simply cannot afford it like other photographers, however I can at least match or beat the image quality (in terms of pixels, tonality, and dynamic range) with a MF Film camera. The 1Ds type cameras will always be more expensive because I doubt they sell as many as the D70s or 20Ds do, they're too expensive for the mass market.

Ellis:

 

"Hasselblad 96C (or V96C back for hasselblad "V" series cameras): 16 mp"

 

The problem with this route for Scott (and me!) is that the imaging chip is only 37mm square, so even with the SWC, this only give very moderate wide angle capabilities.

 

At least I can get a 24mm TS-E on the 1DsMkII.

 

OTOH, a 22MP chip with a long dimension of 49mm starts to make wide angle work possible... I just keep playing the lottery!

It is hard to say what the future will be but no industry enjoys unlimited and everlasting growth and it maybe that the growth of digital has peaked and is starting a downward trend.</p>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04102801camera_production.asp" >Sanyo cuts digital camera production plans</a></p>

As the article says, quoting a Sanyo official, "... this is due to the popularity of digital cameras slowing in Japan and competitive pricing among manufacturers, which is affecting profit margins."</p>

Meryl

 

The point you have raised is very relevant, and my belief is that the tens of millions who in the past have bought P&S cameras, but were seduced by the misleading and phoney mega-pixel wars, where a camera,s pixel count was touted as THE defining quality standard, will in the near future start to not replace these constantly upgraded models but will change over to the new or next generation of very sophisticated camera phones - why carry two items when one can do both, and more things.

 

Maybe these companies have shot themselves in the feet, and also as the sale of these P&S cameras largely funded the development of the DSLRs what will happen to their growth?

 

Interesting times!

 

Regards

 

Bruno

I actually store my films in the freezer, I need a new one but will wait for the next generation of very sofisticated freezer-film-camera. Why buy two items when one can do both.

P&S digi cameras are about to be replaced by cell phones.

Bad news for camera shops who have been pushing digi P&S

"Maybe these companies have shot themselves in the feet, and also as the sale of these P&S cameras largely funded the development of the DSLRs what will happen to their growth?"

 

I'm pretty sure that, by now, the sale of DSLR cameras funds the development of new DSLRs.

 

"P&S digi cameras are about to be replaced by cell phones. Bad news for camera shops who have been pushing digi P&S"

 

I doubt it's very bad news for camera shops. They don't want to sell you a camera or even lenses. No profit. They want to sell you batteries, film, media cards, and prints.

Aaron

 

Couldn't agree more ,but if people do switch in large enough numbers who going to buy all those cards,batteries etc that the current P&S digi-cam owners are buying now?

 

In the past we all used the same medium [film] and a huge industry had grown up around that, so that the people who would only start a film off on holiday and finished it at Christmas, still contributed to that industry, but now images are stored on phones, MMS'd around to friend etc and ,largely the current industry [printers, ink cartridges and paper suppliers ] do/will not receive much support from these users.

 

It is a time of big changes, and I feel that one of the main benefits of the old system was its stabilty, something that appears to be gone.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

"But even the most prolific fashion shooter can and will be satisfied with a 1Ds Mk II for a few years at least. Why would they ever need more than 16 MP to fill even a double page spread? "

 

Maybe because pixel count is not everything? And maybe because there IS a visible difference between images taken with a 1Ds Mk II and a MF/Leaf combo? I don't know of many fashion shooters who seriously work with DSLRs anyway (catalogue shooters aside).

I had a Mamiya with three lenses and I sold it. Then they come out with the ZD. !

@#$%^&*(!!! So I get a Contax 645 with wonderful lenses that takes me six months to pay

for. Promptly Kodak goes out of the back biz. Now you want me to buy a Hasselblad and

another bag of lenses so I can get a back for $10k?

 

Don't think so.

One significant commercial user of medium fomrat cameras is wedding photographers. Although many were using 35mm SLR's, a good number did also brought along a medium format. They have switched in droves to DSLR's.

 

One reason is the large number of images that can be stored on a 1 gig memory card versus the number of film backs one would have to bring for a long wedding shoot.

 

I expect digital backs for MF to continue to be a specialty item.

I love all of these references to the image quality of the Canon EOS 1DsMkII. This is a camera that is not yet shipping with a final version of its firmware, and for which, no one has released or even described any controlled tests of image quality against film or MF digital backs. I still don't know about its AA filter or noise characteristics. Big DITTO for the Mamiya ZD, which, as far as I can tell, hasen't even been built yet (in a functioning package).

 

Please correct me if you have more info!

After all the images in the world are captured digitally, what's next? :-)

$10K for a digital back seems expensive, but I am no longer a pro. How long do

these gizmos "live" between failures? Who fixes them? How much does THAT cost?

If all you are shooting for is based on books, magazines, or paper output of 10x10

inches or smaller, why use Med Format Digital? The DSLRs modelled after 35mm

cameras should work fine. I think I'm headed back to large format and contact prints

for landscape. The next generation can burn up the pixels, batteries & memory cards.

Bruno has hit on the key issue, stability of an industry based on different classes of users. Most familiar were the days when business travellers paying full fare supported low cost seats for vacationers. So far, the low cost hasn't completely vanished, but many airlines have!

 

For me, the worry is the E6 market. Commercial use has supported the availability of this film for low volume users like me. Unlike C41, the mass market was professional use which is evaporating at an alarming rate. Already, my local E6 labs have cut back to one run a day. One is considering only Mon-Wed-Fri runs. Thats no problem, but its not far from the slippery slope where the very maintenance of the line is no longer profitable. Then I go to mailers?

 

I suspect Kodak will bail out of E6 film production before Fuji given the greater pressure on their balance sheet from the investment community. That should give Fuji a few more years to profit from E6 film production. The time scale for all of this is very uncertain but I suspect it is shorter than any of us imagine. I feel safe for 3 years, resonably comfortable for 5 year and very worried for 10 years. I had always envisioned shooting much more film when I retire, but I will be amazed if I can still get E6 in 15 years.

 

Oh well, by then maybe I can pick up a used 35MP back for $5K or so.

<I>The point you have raised is very relevant, and my belief is that the tens of millions who in the past have bought P&S cameras, but were seduced by the misleading and phoney mega-pixel wars, where a camera,s pixel count was touted as THE defining quality standard</i><P>Meryl doesn't shoot MF nor dSLR, so why are you agreeing him?<P>This also the biggest of all straw horses promoted by the film zealots here who are making up this stupid scenario to make them feel good about owning absolete film equipment. It's very easy to shoot this one down.<p> I encounter almost daily some ignorant film SLR user on photo.net that owns a thousand dollars worth of 35mm equipment and likes to shoot amatuer print film. And for each one of those, there are thousands like them.<P>What kind of a leap in quality would it be to go from 35mm amatuer print film to medium format using professional print or slide film? Maybe 10x?????? A helluva lost less than going from one generation P&S digicam to the next.<P>So, if digital cameras are subject to rapid market obsolescence because there's something better, why aren't 35mm film cameras subject to this same phenomenon when MF clearly and without controversy produces much better images? What makes 35mm SLRs so damn 'speshul' and not obsolete when there are clearly larger and better formats available, have been available for decades, and a Canon D-Reb produces better images? Double-standard? More religious fanatacism devoted towards film? Brain damage? Dimensia? I think it's all of the above.<P>I know this much. The average digital P&S owner and dSLR owner I encounter is much happier with their camera than the film P&S or SLR they replaced it with, so who gives a damn if the maker of their camera produces a higher rez model next week, and they aren't screwed when their favorite film lab down the street closes it's doors? <b>Once again, the film-fanatics here are more obsessed with what digital shooters are doing than the digital shooters themselves.</b><P><I>How long do these gizmos "live" between failures? Who fixes them? How much does THAT cost?</i><P>Likely less than the film P&S they owned before. My RB has a torn bellows that's going to cost a mint to fix, and I'm sick of re-foaming the backs every two years. My 10D has it's quirks, but is MUCH more reliable and available.<P><I>Maybe because pixel count is not everything? And maybe because there IS a visible difference between images taken with a 1Ds Mk II and a MF/Leaf combo?</i><P>What he said. There is also a quantified and dramatic difference in the way a 16mp back records images, and MF slide film. The two are not always interchangeable *regardless* of improved mega-pixel counts

<i>... maybe that the growth of digital has peaked and is starting a downward trend...As the article says, quoting a Sanyo official, "... this is due to the popularity of digital cameras slowing in Japan...</i><p>

 

This is a slick edit job, you should go for a position in politics. If anyone takes the time to read the article, they will find out that Sanyo decreased its <i>forecast</i>, not its production. Reading further, one finds that Canon also decreased their <i>forecast</i> for a net increase of "only" six million cameras over the prior year.<p>

 

What this article really says is nothing like Meryl's interpretation, it solely reflects a significant error in forecasting on Sanyo's part. In addition, it completely ignores the impact of the rapidly growing digital camera production in China, which may have more impact on Sanyo than they expected.<p>

 

I'm sure it's fun to reconstruct the news to fit one's position, but it's totally bogus once someone reads the news.

Well, I think Jeff is reading evil motivations into my posting. If I was seriously intending to mislead people, I would not have posted the link to the source article.

 

I think people can make their own decisions.

You really rubbed him the wrong way, ey? Did he accuse you fo harbouring terrorists? He

probably just forgot to work it in. Perhaps laying out muti thousands for cameras

obsoleted in months has him in a bad mood.

one has to wonder if jeff gets a commission from the digi folks.

 

seriously, i think he just thinks digi works for him and therefore it is the messiah.

 

but i think the original question has a lot of merit. how many of these new, upgraded, uber digi cams will sell before the market is saturated? all the mom and pops have their kodak and canon digis and are just going to use them for the family picnic into the next millenium.

 

i no longer print my scanned negs on my inkjet because it costs about 60 bucks for the ink cartridges and i can just upload the file and get "real" photos for a fraction of the cost and better quality.

 

i think the price of inkjet photo printers and the inksets as well as the cost of digi cams will plummet. and soon.

 

oh, don't bother, jeff, to point out that this is speculation and guesswork. that is what can make you some good money on "the street."

Scott E.

 

What I said was that the point [ that no industry enjoys unlimited and everlasting growth] that Meryl raised, was very relevant. I have no idea what Meryl uses for photography, but why should that have any bearing on whether or not I agree with the point raised?

 

Amateur and professional film of the same type, is the same, except that professional film has been allowed to reach peak ripeness, and so will allow consistant results [colour balance etc], and therefore there is no major jump in quality in using one or the other.

 

Pros even use amateur labelled film when they don't have access to refridgeraters for any extended time.

 

Digital P/S cameras are subject to rapid obsolescence because of the ever changing digital technology [and marketing of course]whereas 35mm film P/S cameras have/had reached a plateau in development where the need to upgrade models every 6 months or so was not there. Probably not the best example but just look at the Canon G4, G5 and G6 models.

 

I can see that digital use has merits of its own, such as changing from b/w to colour, ISO changes and not being restricted by the number of shots available on a roll of film, but for me until digital can offer more than film use can [overall] I'll wait, but in the meanwhile I'm very interested in what digital users are doing, to see if my point of change has arrived[if ever].

 

Regards

 

Bruno

Digital quality may be terrific if used wisely. I`ve never seen anything close to prints made on LightJet using source file from P25 PhaseOne back. It is simply gorgeous. But how many prints can you afford to do on Durst Lambda or LightJet?

 

Inkjet prints may be affordable if you get cheal inks and spent a lot of time building custom profiles but it still will be just an inkjet poster. Simple Noritsu minilab will print much better on Fuji Crystal paper.

 

Nothing is perfect but the final result depends of the workflow you use. Better workflow leads to better results. One story is to work considering double page spread printed on pro grade CMYK press, other story is to consider art gallery as a buyer for your 50" panorama.

 

As of future predictions - technology goes forward. 22mp probably will exist in 35mm format at least I bet Canon will do it.

If Sony will build full frame Nikon sensor using D2x technology it will be 22mp. So 22mp source translates into a gorgeuos 16x20" print.

Probably 645 format will see 40mp backs.

 

If one can afford that - why not. Currently P25 is a very very nice tool. If one can afford it - why not? If one takes only 3-5 shots per quarter that will be converted into 20x24 prints on lightjet - why not to drum scan them spending $100 on each and get 100mp source image to work with? Everything is possible.

 

I am in the same situation rigt now and do have same dilemma - to invest into D2x and use it for 99% of my business and hobby applications or try to invest into 645C back and start using it for 40% of applications it can handle together with Fuji S2.

What is worst, what is better - only life will show.