Future of Medium Format?

[david_henderson]

At today's prices, how long does Medium Format have to last

before its the right thing to do? You won't use it for birds anyway,

so it's a bit of a waste of time unless you're prepared to use two

systems, and that's more of an issue (and more resolvable)

than speculating on the life of MF with a bunch of MF owners.

 

Try the following

 

Do you photograph birds and landscapes on the same day or

same trip?

 

If so, do you usually do both close to your car/hotel/home, so you

have somewhere to leave system A while you're using B?

 

If no, are you prepared to carry two systems?

[p_l_jensen]

I would not bet on the future of manufacturer who make their living from making MF cameras, like Mamiya, Hasselblad or Rollei. Digital MF systems future is not by digital backs but in digital bodies with sensors larger than 35mm. Large companies who develop digital cameras that sells in high volumes are the most likely candidates for making digital systems based on MF platform. There are only two companies that come to mind: Kyocera and Pentax.

 

The Pentax boss, Fumio Urano, said recently in an interview that their MF system are still being manufactured in the same rate as before the digita era. Whats more he says that Pentax will release a DSLR (not a digital back) on the 645 platform early next year. The sensor size will be almost full 6X4,5 frame.

 

On the other hand the same source said a year ago that they would make a more compact 67 but that one still haven't seen the light of day, so who knows?

[jerry_friedman]

Chris- you point is well taken. But I think what I and David are

trying to note is that this debate is not meaningful in light of all

the many people who write for first advice about which MF

camera they should buy. Its apeal will continue. It will continue to

be used because it has strengths, despite digital. And digital

will continue to improve to the point where it will become an

obvious alternative to those who do not want to do chemistry. --

Just as someone pointed out (thank you!) that color had not

replaced black and white, digital will not replace film and

chemistry. Oils did not replace water color or even carbon

pencils and crayons.

 

This debate is like trying to determine whether an appetizer is

better than dessert. If you are not full from your choice of entr鬠

does it pay to debate whether a piece of chocolate cake is a

better topper than a good piece of cheese or a salad?

 

Best wishes to everyone, including Chris. :>)

 

Jerry

[edgar_njari]

I wouldn't compare digital vs. film with water color vs. oil

because water color and oil are not products of billion dollar industries. There is a huge amount of money involved, and nobody

is goping to waste it on something that is not bought by customers anymore. Making a simple set of crayons is a lot easier investment,

you won't backrupt if the bussines does not go well, you did not

invest millions.

 

I agree on your point though. You can still buy vinyl records,

and record players. And there are special shops where records are still soled (brand new). A whole bunch of new albums can be found in

vinyl versions today, it is just hard to find it, nad I think they

are made on special order or something. The worse thing that can happen to film is that it slips away from the mainstream into underground, but It won't dissapear.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Isn't it interesting that the advent of color film didn't kill B/W years

ago? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

What percentage of film sales are color to b&w? If you knew you'd understand how

many nails are in that coffin. Also consider Agfa's reported plans to drop Agfapan if

they can't find a buyer for their film division....

[edgar_njari]

That is not the issue. THe sales for the BW are low, but

you can still buy the film. It is being manufactured. that is the point.

[richard_milner2]

Film and cameras and so on don't have to be made by billion-dollar companies. The things that big companies do well are A) R&D, B) mass production.

 

R&D is irrelevant for the future of film. It's arguably as good as it needs to be.

 

Losing mass production on film stuff will cause prices to increase. However, amateur MF photographers are not in it for the low prices.

[titrisol]

IMHO digital doe not have the "magic" that a real picture has.

 

I spend most of my day in fornt of a computer at work, so when I do my pics I want to have some time with myself locked in the basement/den/attic/bathroom developing my own.

 

As for the future, I don't know. But I hope film is still around for another 30 years (or until I become blind)

[photoinnature]

Many thanks folks taking your time to post your comments here.

 

I don't agree with a few folks who say it is old topics and should not be discussed here any more. If it was the case, why are here so many responses?

 

Well, seems I should stick with my 35mm AF gears (am still using Nikon F5+F100 with most AFS lenses and am switching to Canon USM ones) with birds and keep on using Mamiya 6 light weight system. I wish this set had longer lens up to 400mm or so.

 

And personally, I wish sometimes, it would be great if there was no digital world in this universe. I prefer film world. I still think I will stick with film cameras for at least a few years more. I don't like digital for several reasons.

 

Thanking you all.

[edgar_njari]

I too like film, and am not planing to switch to digital in the near future, but isn't that a little bit selfish? I bet that anti-film folks think the same thing about film. There should

be both choices. In fact, the situation as it is now is perfect.

[._._z]

"Anti-film folks"? I'm sure that kind of absurd phraseology bucks up the mindsets of

conspiratorial film uers who have watched film sales plummet by half in the last 4

years, but it doesn't really wash.

[edgar_njari]

Z, you must admit that there are both "anti-digital" and "anti-film"

people. One hate the word digital to the point of obession, and other

hate traditional film. Others are open minded and healthy minds.

 

I don't know why you even commented my post like that!!

I am criticising people like that, and now you are criticising me for the same thing. Perhapse you didn't understand me

[._._z]

Loaded terminolgy to attack anonymous fies may make you feel better but is useless.

And about as meaningless as calling the current situation "perfect." Kodak's sales in the

US were down 20+% last year (with souble digit percentage declines in the three

previous years as well) -- that's perfect for film users? Fuji's sales last year were

reported in a front page Wall Street Journal Article from last month to be down around

40% -- is that "perfect" too?

[everitt]

"anti-film"? People who have switched to digital don't harbor a deep-seated hatred of film, they simply recognized the advantages of digital capture and switched formats. The vast majority of irrational behavior has come from a small percentage of photographers who are afraid of the digital market having overtaken the film market, worrying about the massive investments they put into their gear and say stuff like "And personally, I wish sometimes, it would be great if there was no digital world in this universe", or curmudgeons who can't see past their blinders and talk about digital not being able to give "the look of film". Stop worrying about what will be available, and go out and shoot. Cameras are just tools, their not objects of idolation and we shouldn't get sentimental about metal or plastic boxes.

[h_kan_th_rngren]

Whether negative color film sales plummet or not I do not really care

since I hardly ever use it. B&W and slide film has always been a

very tiny part of the market, yet there is an adequate selection of

different films to choose from.

 

 

I have invested in a new medium format camera with the idea that I

should enjoy it while it is still possible, it is a hobby for me.

I hope/expect to shoot 100 film per year for 10 years. If I can get

around doing that then it is fine with me, even if I have to start

processing slide film myself during the journey.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not have a digital camera, but a digital darkroom. I work with

computers all day and enjoy using a manual camera that does not eat

batteries. I also do not want to get into the backup dilemma of

digital and there simply is not a single digital camera in the market

that appeals to me. Offer me a Leica Digilux 2 with anti-shake, good

raw buffer handling, optical range/viewfinder and good B&W ability

and I am ready to consider parting with some cash. I would use

it as my secondary/sketch pad camera for which I today use either a

Konica Hexar or Leica M.

[nabghani]

I am no worrywart (sic) ... jumped into TLR MF in a big way last year and haven't turn back since (except for furtive glances to RF). Nine months ago, today was the future ... nine months of joy utterly denied had I not made the plunge.

[mike_kearney]

I predict that within 6 months the gamma rays generated by the widespread use of digital cameras will render my darkroom and film cameras completely useless. Medium format has 6 months left.....

 

If you like digital, shoot digital.

 

If you like medium format, shoot MF.

 

Worry more about lighting and exposure.

[edgar_njari]

Some of you just read my posts far to quickly.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT PEOPLE WHO LIKE DIGITAL ARE ANTI FILM,

I AM SAYING THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO EITHER HATE FILM OR DIGITAL.

MOST OF PEOPLE DO NOT FALL IN EITHER OF THESE CATHEGORIES.

 

Can't you just read my words literally without looking for any

hidden meaning.

 

I know some people that think that everything digital is crap,

because it is digital, and they do not even consider digital to be

photography. Now how would you call them? I call them anti-digital.

 

There seem to be some problems in out comunication.

[edgar_njari]

And Jason, how can you criticise my post, and say exact same points

that i tried to make? It is not logical.

 

Z..

Yes, i think the situation is perfect because you can buy film anywhere, process it anywhere, and the equipment is cheaper because

of digital photography. I am not saying that the situation is going to stay perfect, I say it is perfect if you freeze the time.

It is perfect now. Well maybe digital SLR's could be a bit cheaper,

so it is not perfect, but it is good.

[richard_milner2]

There is a qualitative difference between film and digital because digital uses a regular pixel array whilst the sensors in film (the halide crystals) have a chaotic irregularity.

 

Whether this makes a difference to the viewer I don't know. Lots of people say they can tell a digital photo from a film photo by its look. Most people probably don't know or care, and would get used to the digital look in the end anyway.

 

Presumably when you digitise film, the file has a regular pixellated structure. If you digitise at a high enough resolution, you start to digitise the grain rather than the genuine picture information.

[edgar_njari]

And it shouldn't make much of a difference in the end.

What matters is the image itself, not the medium

[everitt]

I meant to direct most of my rant at a wide audience, not you. Except that the

anti-film phrase you stated was nonsensical.. digital shooters aren't against

film, they just like the advantages of digital.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> you can buy film anywhere </blockquote> </i><p>

 

You don't get around much if you think you can get medium format film anywhere.

(This is the MF Forum and a Mf discussion, you know.) MF is a tiny percentage of film

sales, getting even smaller as people pour out of it, and while Kodak film sales are

down 20+% last year, MF film sales are plummeting even faster. If you think this is a

"perfect" situation, I don't know what could convince you otherwise. Good processing is

rarer to find, non-digital printing near-impossible.

[jonathan_bundick]

Films availabiliy is not a problem for me. Anyone out there that can buy what they want??? My local Film Depot will order almost anything they don't regularly stock, regardless of format, at no extra charge. If I want a large supply, there is always B&H. Anyone not have access to mail order?? And for short dated and discontinued items, Ebay supplies.

 

BWC in Dallas delivers quality E6 processing and always has. I've never had a problem. If you are experiencing inconsistent quality in E6 processing, there are plenty of labs that would love to have your business, and no I don't work for BWC, just a happy customer.

 

While MF might not be the best choice for Bird photography, if you want a larger format and are tempted by todays prices, I see no reason not to make the purchase. Film will probably be around much longer than a current manufactured DSLR will remain functional.

[edgar_njari]

I ment film in general, not just MF.

 

"rising" or "falling" is a dynamic word, it describes changes in something, not the state of something. I was thinking about the situation of the moment.