Anyone worried about their medium format investment

[a._bhan]

I currently own a slew of MF cameras...all mamiya...i'm very

satisfied with the results but have a hybrid digital system (i scan a

lot myself etc)...but the more and more i've been going to pro

quality camera shops or have been surfing the web, i get this strange

feeling that medium format may be severely hampered (although i

doubt , cease to exist) because of the digital revolution. Now

granted i have two cameras (the mamiya rz67proII and the new 645AFD)

that can be fitted with a digital back..but damn...even the cheapest

one (the Leaf C Most )is selling for $$$$9,995.00 I have a stinking

feeling that even in five years, it may come down to 7grand.. but

that's it....so what are we all to do..those of us who have thousands

invested in the MF system...???

just a thought

[george_huczek]

There are a few good ways to scan MF negs/slides if you want to go digital. Keep using film, scan what you need, and don't rush to buy a digital back yet. Film still gives you the best options -- using both traditional wet darkroom techniques and digital imaging. Film is far from being obsolete! It is still your best option. The cost of digital backs will continue to drop, and today's state-of-the-art digital equipment will be obsolete in a decade.

[rick_campbell]

Well, I plan to take pictures. As long as they make film at least. The digital revolution doesn't affect you at all unless they also pass a law outlawing analog photography. And I bet my slides will still be viewable in 50 years unlike all the digital files on obsolete media. Even NASA had to go to a museum to get equipment to transfer some of their oldest files. I also remember reading about stored NASA files being erased by a floor buffer motor.

 

I've got slides I took over 30 years ago that I can still access unlike a box of 8 inch floppy disks I found in a cabinet the other day.

[mariel]

I have calculated that digitalAnything loses roughly 4 cents a minute in value. check back on e-bay in a a year or two, and enjoy your feast on outdated digital equpiment selling for a couple o' bucks.

 

if it were only possible to go back in time... :-(

[barry schmetter]

Mutual funds are an investment. Stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, real estate, gold bullion, pork bellys, venture capital; these are all investments. Cameras are *not* investments :-). My medium format cameras are a joy and a delight. My mutual funds on the other hand...*sigh*.

[john_hoang]

Why should we worry about our MF equipments? Look at the case of a Canon D30 SLR, it looses 2/3 of its value in one single year. And wait until the newer model D60 be put on the market in the next couple months, one can get the D30 for well under $1000 and who knows how much under...

[mark_mitchell5]

John, above, I believe hit the nail on the head. There's no real investment here - it's equipment you wanted to buy. Eventually, digital will catch both 35mm & MF in terms of quality/output, but so what. It will be just like buying your next computer, you never catch up & when you think you do, you're behind again.

[bengt_rehn]

It is impossible to know what would be the best long term camera investment. I dont think it will be more worse than we have to use a much smaller CCD sensor than the film format our MF gear are made for. Full size sensors may not exist or would be too expensive. The larger MF gear the more off-sized it will be.

[art_haykin]

If just ONE of them eventually becomes a sought after collector's item, you're made.

[Spearhead]

I measure "investment" in my equipment by how many photographs I can take with it. I could care less what it will sell for in six years, six months, or six days. I bought it to take photographs, not to worry about its value.<p>

 

If you are serious about <i>photography</i> rather than equipment collecting, then buy what you need to take <i>photographs</i>, not what you want to sell sometime.

[rick_falck]

I worry about it no more than the constant loss in value of my car. All of my previous computers cost thousands and became worthless in two years. My camera equipment is a bunch of toys and tools that I use for fun. If I were trying to make money with it, I would depreciate it on my taxes.

[david_haardt1]

Rick,

 

You write "As long as they make film at least". I believe that film production will never be stopped. Maybe 35mm film will become rarer, but anyway - you can still buy photographic plates today!! And several companies make a living from cutting film into obsolete formats. Sheet film and roll film will always have a market from enthusiasts or old-style lovers.

 

I also believe that a digital back (or a high quality digital camera) only make sense for somebody who needs the speed _and_ who can make profits from his use of that back or camera. They are so rapidly losing value that you need to save megabucks on film to equalise for that.

 

As somebody did already mention, film is far more archivally stable. Also traditional prints compared to digital prints. Somebody who needs some shots for a newspaper won't care about that, but somebody who does photography out of a passion probably will.

 

Libraries are already facing that - despite living in the information age - our time will be the least documented ever. Incompatibilities and problems with archival stability are much more severe with a digital storage medium than with papyrus or paper. The Austrian National Library for example wants to keep its stock of books and papers from growing and growing - that's why they need to destroy many "less important" works. Although they are digitally saved, they do already know now how much of a cultural loss this is.

 

Only some thoughts ;-)

 

Cheers,

[wim_van_velzen]

At university I did some papyrology. Very nice and often you wished there were more preserved. <br>

But imagine that every piece of paper and every image would have been in our archives. That leads immediatly to the thought <i> if something isn't seen, is it really there? </i>.<br>

I like the thought that I can still view all of my photos when I will be 80 (2053 AD), but I am not sure if my son will. Better leave him the best I made along these years.</p>

Let's face reality: most images aren't useful after a few years and won't be missed.

[glen_johnson]

I'm not sure why we should worry about our medium format investments. I think that medium format digital backs will eventually come down to the same price range as high end digital SLRs in the 135 format - at least for comparable file size capabilities. Medium format backs that offer things like 2 to 3 times the number of pixels will certainly continue to be more expensive, but they also offer more to the user.

[henry_kinsey]

The only thing that I havn't seen pointed out here is the fact that if digital backs drop to 7K or 5K what average photographer can afford to own more than one? I have dozens of film backs for my MF outfit that can be set up on 4 or 5 cameras at various locations at a wedding, or at several events happening concurrently or as backups.

Try to do that with digital. I can still use backs that are 30 years old....anyone out there using a digital anything that old?

[russ_barnett]

I usually don't weigh in to these threads, but I think a quick word here may be appropos.

"If things keep happening this way, the computer of the future may indeed only weigh 50-60 tons and break the half-million mark"

[desmond_kidman]

Don't worry, film for specialty sizes will be around for a long time! Specialty labs will be there if you don't do your own (even in my small city in NH, as the number of black and white labs dwindles, there is a lab expanding and now doing toning, as it is now a viable business in which to specialize as the larger quantity of players dwindles).

 

Eventually, as there are breakthroughs in the sensor arrays, large units will become available. Hundreds of thousands of medium format cameras in the field spells O-P-P-O-R-T-U-N-I-T-Y for someone to sell large arrays. Where there's opportunity, demand (if the price is right, which it will be someday)then the void will be filled by suppliers. Even if small sized arrays end up equalling medium format results on film, demand will be there for medium format arrays whose results equal larger film sizes in quality. Until then, go the cheap way and shoot film, then scanning it.

 

Read this month's Shutterbug for an example of a supposed sensor breakthrough that would make medium format arrays possible in the future. It will come......................

[glen_johnson]

Aside from having one backup back, I'm not sure why one would need a whole slew of digital backs. You don't need to worry about running out of film in mid-shoot, you don't need to have one back with b&w, one with tungsten, one with color negative, one with transparancy film, one with ISO 100 and one with ISO 400, etc. This is a serious shortcoming of film compared to digital. I will predict digital backs with on the order of 6 to 10 Mega Pixels at a price of $3k, within five years. At that price point, I'd just as soon have a couple of digital backs as a whole drawer full of 30 year old backs loaded with film that has to be refridgerated, and has to be stocked in five or more flavors, not to mention the costs associated with processing, archiving the end result, etc. At this point I'm still happy to use film because of cost issues, but costs are changing rapidly, and I'll bet that 10 years from now I'll probably wonder why I stuck with film for so long.

[ron_l]

Let me just state that I shoot with a 40 year old Rolleiflex E3, have zero digital equipment and no intention of buying any in the future (just so you know my bias).

 

I think people overlook an important point when they talk about the future decline in prices for digital. I don't think that is going to happen to the extent that others do. Yes the current technology will become cheaper but it will also be outdated and undesirable. Ten years ago it cost about $3k to set yourself up with the newest PC technology (286/386 or whatever it was then). While it is true that you could get that same set up now for pennies on the dollar....I doubt anyone is searching the web looking for one (unless they are trying to retrieve some data off of 4 1/4 floppies). And what does a it cost to set yourself up with the latest PC technology today? Well I haven't checked recently but I bet you it is not below that $3k, even adjusted for inflation.

 

I am not disputing the obvious advantages of digital over film. And while I have no desire to play with pixels and spend MORE time on this computer than I already do.....I realize that some people absolutely love it. And I know it is the way of the future for capturing images. Just don't delude yourself into thinking "in a few years, it is going to be SO cheap! I can hardly wait!" Just MHO.

[cxc]

Let me get this straight -- you are worried that a superior product (digital) may surpass your present equipment (MF)? In what way is that a problem? Buy the new product if you perceive it as advantageous to you, otherwise, stick with what you got.

 

If Zeiss suddenly figured out how to make even better lenses out of plastic for $10, you wouldn't worry about it, you would either buy it or not. From the point of view I am currently arguing, both film and digital cameras do the same thing, record images; there are always ongoing improvements that one must weigh, whether to upgrade or not. It just so happens that the digitial revolution has clustered a bunch of versions in a short period of time.

 

But then what do I know, the last 3 cameras I bought were all pinholes. ;-)

 

CXC

[boris_krivoruk3]

This is what was in NY Times on Feb 11:

Foveon is set to begin shipping new type of digital image sensor that is said to be first to match or surpass photographic capabilities of 35-millimeter film; sensor, invented by Foveon's founder, Carver Mead, and made by National Semiconductor, is being used in $3,000 camera that will soon be sold by Sigma; device contains approximately 3.53 million pixels; Foveon sensors may perform equally well capturing moving images and could make photographic film obsolete.

[jonathan_bundick]

Dam, marketing is so...............good, it has a huge % of folks woried about keeping up with "the best" new product. I'm in the wrong business.

 

Designed obsolescence has been the name of the game for decades. Its effect is felt sooner in digital, than the traditional film market.

 

To take a famous quote, �Don�t worry about it.� If your current batch of equipment does the job you need it to do, then why change?

[ron_l]

Boris -

 

Call me crazy but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that film will outlive Foveon's digital sensor.

[geoff_mcauliffe]

No, I'm not worried. Even the best digital these days is no where near 35 mm in sharpness. It is my understanding that 35 mm with fine grained film gives over 20 million pixels (please correct me if you have real data, not an ad from PC Photo). That point was not mentioned in the NY Times article of Feb. 11. Think of all of the "next great thing" the advertisers and marketing types have tried to sell the public over the years. Most are history.

[tom_bowling1664874721]

I have a 4Mp Sony DCS 80. It is closer to 35 mm than you'd think, and is capable of dealing with mixed lighting in ways no film can. It's extraordinarily responsive to being used on a tripod! It doesn't have a hope of competing with fine grain 35mm film, but not many people use fine grain 35mm film, do they? I mean, what's the point? 35 mm is speed and compactness, 6x6 is take your time and look what a nice negative I've got. The trouble with the DCS 80 is that at its finest setting you can get about 90 pictures on a £100/100Mbyte card. You can view them except on the little screen unless you bring a laptop with you. I imagine if you were to extract the same information from a 6x6 field you'd be using at least £400/400Mbytes of media, plus a £1500 laptop with at least an 80Gbyte hard disk... and it goes on. I'm sure the chip manufacturers will eventually manufacture a chip to extract the info from your lens, but if you're not in the studio what the hell are you going to do about it then? I recently visited Portugal with a dozen rolls of Ektachrome and a dozen rolls of APX25 (don't ask). With my rolleiflex and filters and meter they went in a little bag on my hip. The equivalent amount of equipment for digital imaging to a similar quality (if it were available) wouldn't even qualify as cabin luggage! I think your film camera is going to last a long time yet, except for Sports photographers/newsmen who will just whack the stuff down an isdn without ever looking at it.