Will MF die first?

[peter_ochmann]

Observing for example eBay, it seems to me that a lot of people get

rid of their MF stuff. Pro's don't seem to invest in MF anymore, are

always talking about going digital. Your opinion ?

 

Peter

[matt_m__toronto_]

Digital is quite new, so it, like many other things has become a fad. Here's the problem. In the film industry, the Sony F900 digital camera has replaced the F700 camera which came out a few years ago. The 700 was the coolest thing, now nobody uses it, and everytime you see a digital film that looks "off" you can say "oh it was shot on one of those 700's" So now the F900 is the hot item. In a few years there'll be an F1100 and people will frown upon the look of the 900.

 

Do you see where I'm going?? If digital camera's are always improving, there will always be improvement of quality...and where does it end? Digital is made to look like film. You don't see film companies making film to look like digital! Film emulsions do get better, but look at prints made back in the 40's...they're great and the quality rivals that of todays!!!

 

I don't see film ever kicking the bucket. I like the simplicity of keeping my negatives in acetine sheets and my slides in my little cases. I don't have much trust in storing my pics on a c.d or floppy, knowing that these formats will be osolete in 10 years.

 

My $0.02

[peter_weimann1]

I had the same question a couple of month ago. After playing with a Canon G2 and endless hours with the PC to archive and organize, or just bring the system back to live, I decided to make a step backward and buy into a Pentax 645 system. Now I know again what daylight looks like and how much fun it is to see such a big slide on the lightbox. The problem with digital is that it is an interim solution. Nothing is set so far. No archiving system, no file format, no operating system. It will keep you busy all time to rearrange, update, buy and sell outdated equipment (for a lousy resale value!) and at the very moment you need a special photo the PC doesn´t start, the CD can´t be read, the file can´t be opened. Another day on the PC for just one photo! I like to be outdoors. And that is what I am now doing again, with this fantastic Pentax 645NII. I am really happy having finally made that decision. Digital is fine for snappies. But not for high end professional use, except for photojournalism and some studio works.

[something1]

I too am in something of a dilemma...

I have a Mamiya RZ67 that I use for the majority of my work. However, I can see that the next crop of digitals at what will probably be 10 or 12MP will be a real challenge to the validity of my MF investment. The problem as I see it is that everyone is clammering to produce cost-effective (relatively) 35mm replacements, but a digital back for MF still costs $10K and skywards...

 

So I'm faced with either dumping the MF gear while it's still worth something, or hoping that somebody makes an affordable digital back. It's a hard one to call and I'm comforted only slightly by the fact that there is so much MF gear out there, so there's definitely a market. Does anyone know of a manufacturer planning to launch the first sub $5000 digital back?

 

There will be a growing number of posts on these forums about the film v digital debate, but these seem to focus only on picture quality, but there seems to be little mention of handling considerations. I love the way my RZ handles...I love a waist-level finder and the bright image that I get to compose with. OK, so it's built like a tank and weighs about the same, but that's all part of the fun.

 

I also don't relish the idea of upgrading my camera body every 6 months to keep up with the Megapixel race. Isn't it about time someone came up with a removable imaging sensor? After all, we have come to expect this in our PC's, so why not in our cameras? I'm worried that the manufacturers are going to have a very dominant position in terms of forcing us to virtually give away perfectly good bodies just to upgrade a CCD.

 

Surely if manufacturers can produce a whole camera for $3K then they could produce a digital back of similar resolution too? Preferably with a removable (upgradeable) CCD or CMOS sensor...then maybe I'd sleep a little better.

[peter_weimann1]

Hi Ian,

AFAIK Jenoptiks Eyelike digibacks can be upgraded. But this doesn´t solve the main problem: Archiving for a reasonable price and amount of work. This is the achilles heel in my eyes. And for my business: Editors and agencies still want transparencies. Editing slides is much faster (around factor 10) than editing digital files.

[colmmccarthy]

<i>Observing for example eBay, it seems to me that a lot of people get rid of their MF stuff.</i>

<p>

If you use that same observation you could say that a lot of people are getting rid of their 35mm and digital stuff.

<p>

I think at the moment digital is a greater threat to 35mm. It's got a long way to go before it can match the quality of the larger film formats.

<p>

Of course the biggest threat is to the point and shoot brigade who are the main consumers of digital cameras anyway.

[godfrey]

If anything, a good digital camera makes it more likely that when

you want the kind of quality that a larger negative can return,

you'll go straight to medium format.

 

Buying a 5MPixel digital camera has changed my shooting

habits. Before this, I would shoot 10 rolls of 35mm a month at

least, and a roll of medium format once in a while. Now, the

digicam takes over most of my 35mm shooting and I shoot 5 or

more rolls of medium format a month.

 

Of course, I've also started shooting with my old Polaroid SX-70

more again, but I leave that up to my usual perversity rather than

point it out as a market trend... [grin}

[cxc]

I think large format will be the first to die. As manufacturers lose interest in film production, film with the smallest market share (i.e. LF) will go first, with cameras naturally following. That's why I just bought 2 LF cameras, so I can have the experience before it is too late...

 

CXC

[photomark]

<i>Will MF die first?</i><P>

No. The current generation of digital cameras will die first

followed closely by the next generation of digital cameras.

[jackflesher]

If you look at the newest generation of high-end digital backs, you'll see they are all being made to fit most of the existing popualar MF systems with interchangeable backs. (The new Kodak back is an AWESOME example!) Hence, I doubt MF *systems* will face death anytime soon. MF *film* sales OTOH may see a significant decline in the near future...

 

As for the eBay (and Photo.Net) gear dumping, this seems to happen with all high-end gear to a certain degree during almost every economic downturn. To wit, I've recently seen almost new D1X's listed for $3000 and F5's listed for under $1000 along with all of the bargains on Hassy, Contax, Mamiya, Bronica and Pentax MF gear.

 

Cheers,

[richard_oleson]

wouldn't it be cool if you could upgrade your camera's resolution performance just by popping in a little cartridge of some sort, that you could buy at a local shop for, say, five bucks? and maybe just drop it off there later to have them print your photos out of it?

 

:)=

[fpa]

According to my local 'prosumer' shop (Central Camera, in the Chicago Loop), what they're seeing is Large Format becoming a specialist/artiste market, with only the occasional box of anything larger than 4x5 sold, and less and less of that (not that it means they're offering much of a discount on that 14" Ektar yet..), MF taking over that niche that LF used to have, but MF giving way to smaller formats in the 'people' (commercial portriature/wedding) categories. More people are also interested in the digital gadgets on the low-end, but the 35mm SLR types aren't quite ready to give it up yet.

 

So, no, MF isn't going to be the first to go, though it is going to become more of a conniseur market (not like it isn't already; when's the last time you saw your mother-in-law take a Rolleicord on vacation). The scanning backs are too slow yet, and it's hard to beat the modern emulsions and lenses when you have a 2x3" piece of film. I would expect more MF will be scanned and digitally retouched than straight printed. For many pros, that is 'going digital'; there's a film camera at the start of the process, and a pile of 1's and 0's from the middle to the end. You'll probably see traditional color printing go away first, but there are still too many times when you need a poster-sized or larger enlargment, and it's hard to get with current digital direct capture.

 

Don't panic yet. Look at it this way; those great pictures from the 40s were often shot with 20lb 8x10s. 10 yrs ago, you'd have taken a 6x7, and now a 6x4.5. People who are serious will package as much camera as they can stand to get the image quality they want. This may be a good time to trade in that Kodak D2 for a 2x3 Linhof, but it's not time to trade it in for anything smaller.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

The basic problem is that people are no longer quality concious, and we have been brainwashed into eating junk food and putting up with junk pictures: low resoloution with keystoning.

 

It will be a long time (if ever) before digital can come close to the quality of 5 x 4, but you can pick up LF gear very cheaply 2nd hand on eBay: where else can you buy good 600mm or 900mm lenses for a Hasselblad for £600?

 

Most Amateur photographers have been sucked in by the hype, and few of them are taking advantage of the bargains in MF and LF gear.

[andreas_carl]

During a trip to Europe last Fall (France, Italy, Germany) I took my Nikon Coolpix and my Hasselblad. The Coolpix is so small and convenient that you don't even notice you are carrying it. At the end of the trip I had taken about 1,000 pictures with the Coolpix and (ahem...) one picture with the Hasselblad (didn't actually bother to develop that roll...) ... So I thought, wow - digital is great....

 

Now, a year later I find that none of the digital pictures I took on that trip is of a quality that I would make an enlargement and be proud to put on my wall. I sold my Coolpix (at a steep loss) and bought another medium format camera (Bronica RF645) and am looking forward to going to Europe again next month!

[jackflesher]

Fred:<p>

 

<i>The scanning backs are too slow yet, and it's hard to beat the modern emulsions and lenses when you have a 2x3" piece of film.</i><p>

 

Just as an FYI: The new Kodak back I referred to earlier can be used as a one-shot back offering 1.6 frames per second(!), and it even has it's own LCD viewing screen built-in (!!), OR it can operate as a tethered back for studio use. It generates 20 Meg images that some (not me) claim are superior to film. Of course it costs about $16,000!!! But I think it points out that the future is either here or very near...<p>

 

:-),

[ShunCheung]

I'd say the future is here when you can drop a trailing 0 from that $16,000-price tag; i.e. $1,600 instead. :-) Seriously, for most people, $16K is way too steep a price to pay for something that depreciates quickly. When it drops down to the $3K,4K range, a lot more people will be interested in buying one.

[roger_urban3]

Photographers of the world, I ask you, "Are we going to allow ourselves to be total effect of whatever exaggerated statements/claims/promises that the digital marketers throw at us to push more product and earn their commissions?"

 

"Are we going to naivly believe all inflated pronouncements coming from the digital provocateurs that want to make us feel film is dying, to force us to drop what we're doing, abandon ship and jump on their bandwagon?"

 

The quality obtainable from my 3.3megapixel digital camera looks ok up to about uncropped 4x6 inches. It's good for run-of-the-mill snapshots only. Beyond that, it's crap. Pure and simple. It'll take several more generations of digital invention before the quality and features are worth using instead of APS, and a couple more to match 35mm. At a price that is affordable.

 

If you're with me, then vote with your dollars. Don't be suckered into paying $16,000 for a digital back. Marketers, when they can't figure out what to price there product at, charge a lot. They watch to see how many of the items are sold, and when sales drop off or when newer technology and competition becomes available, they lower their prices. It's called 'skimming', as in skimming the cream.

 

 

Then, talk about the benefits of film.

 

We've all read and heard a lot of hyperbole about digital. The digital gang downplays the disadvantages of digital while trying to push film out of the picture. It ain't fair, but it does happen.

 

Not one single digital magazine that I've read has had any decent pictures worthy of hanging on the wall. To date, I know a fair number of photogs, and not one has a digital picture framed and hanging on the wall.

 

Is it just me or am I hanging out with a Film Cult?

[_____133]

There is the convenience crowd and the quality uber alles crowd.

 

For the former, good enough is good enough as long as it is convenient.

 

For the latter, only the closest to perfect is good enough and even then, it is not good enough.

 

One hopes that the latter overwhelms the former but it is a lost cause.

 

However, film won't disappear. It will only get more expensive and the choice in emulsions will dwindle.

 

Pros talk about digital because of convenience, good enough quality and time pressure. Their work is not meant for eternity and is disposable for the most part. Clients demand digital because the work have been shot yesterday. Besides, digital allows them to micro-art-direct the photographer and make last minute changes (there are always last minute changes and for clients, digital is a god-send).

 

For those who sing the praises of the Kodak DCS Pro Back, did you ever notice how milky-looking and veiled the highlights appear in print? Looks fine on the monitor though. Okay, it was an early sample and it could be due to a bad printer. If so, then Kodak should not have approved the proof-prints.

[c_yu]

Will MF die first?

No. The current generation of digital cameras will die first followed closely by the next generation of digital cameras.

 

-- Mark Meyer

 

Lol

[brian_c._miller]

Maybe the reason that there aren't any digital pictures worthy of hanging on the wall is because noone has taken the time to think through to the print like we do with our film cameras.

 

I bet that if a person slowed down a bit with the digital camera, there'd be some photos worthy of hanging.

[john_tanner]

Go try to buy some MF equipment, it is hardly dead. The prices are not going down in my experience. If you want to sell something fast on an auction put up a mf item. There is a 205 fcc now that has had 45 bids. Same thing for lenses. Anyone who says MF is dead is probably selling a digital item. I shoot in every format. My best stuff is always from mf. It is more expedient to set up a digital studio, see what you have got etc. but the cost and the results do not justify it for most people.

[shutters]

Peter,

 

The Pro's that move onto digital are merely responding to market desire/demand. As previous poster's mention, it's their "bread-n-butter" and they do what they can to decrease time/costs ergo - improve profit. Pro's/photo businesses have a job to do - and they do it, and if they do it well, they flurish.

 

As far as MF "dying" - don't count on it. While many appreciate digital works and the individuals that create these images - to degrees, it is the ease of image manipulation via $500 software applications - such as Adobe Photoshop. Digital is a wonderful "tool." However, IMHO, you will never achieve the tonality, depth and artistry that celluloid offers - the medium is overwhelming!

 

I may erk some folks out there - and again, I respect their work and their accomplishments, but true, qualitative image manipulation is done in the darkroom - not in a CPU. I am, quite obviously, a romantic - so forgive me.

 

IMHO, FWIW, and just my 2 cents.

[douglas_cummings]

This reminds me of the mid-late 80's when people discussed

whether anything (Vevia) could ever overtake Kodachrome...

clearly a matter of timing. MF exists because it generally gives

superior results compared to 35mm. If smaller cameras deliver

better results than heavier MF gear and deliver me from the ball

and chain of two round trips for processing and another one or

two for scanning (or a $3000 scanner) and the cost of $20 a roll:

SIGN ME UP. For now though I have just invested in another MF

body and lens. It won't be till late 2003 when our beloved rollfilm

is surpassed and then I may resent the built in obsolesence of

the Dcamera and the fact that I no longer have any format

advantage so I will just have to make good pictures.

[hugo1]

Here's my two cents. As a photography student I can vouch that we are all using film. Secondly, after destroying a Nikon I'm going to invest in medium format, Rolleiflex for starters, not in digital. I see more and more advanced students buying medium format, or hauling around 4x5 cameras they have rented or borrowed. If the newcomers are using the stuff, then there will be probably be a market for it in the future. My vote is with MF; then again I still use a wind up pocket watch, a wind up stopwatch to measure film developing time, the only phone I own is a rotary, and I drive a car with a manual choke. Then again, doesn't everyone?

[wim_van_velzen]

And for those who like to project their slides on a screen, there isn't anything near MFprojection at the moment nor in the next few years.

 

And if the prices for film would be raising, but of equipment is lowering, I won't complain too loud.