This massive attack of 35mm digital...

[ike k]

Hi all,

 

I've been concerning that on the forum lately has been many threads

that discussing about digital VS medium format, I'm not gonna start

another flame here, instead I just would like to know how's the

possibility of the major manufacturer such as Hasselblad, Mamiya,

Rollei etc would anticipate so people would not migrate totally and

go with 35mm DSLR.I'm sure that one solution is to make an

affordable digital back for all camera that available to adapt such

thing so they won't loose many their loyal market. price as you know

for MF digital back is way up there $7500 at least (Kodak DCS ? I'm

not sure myself).

 

I myself still stick with my Rollei gear eventhough the envy of how

easy and convinient those people with DSLR without worrying of film

and shoot as many as they want and see the result on spot while some

of us as film users start worrying how long MF film will gonna stay

in production for us and post production cost like processing and

turnaround time of the processing itself.

 

At least one MF loyalist like me still wish that someday the

digiback will hit bottom price under $5000 so we as MF users would

still be proud that we are a different breed/style. And hopefully

it's gonna be 1-2 years??? big wish isn't it?. Just a thought guys

no more than that,Cheers and long live Medium Format!!!.

 

IKe

[simon_batley2]

Ike

 

This film vs digital sensor debate is appearing everywhere. To my mind it is case of people (consumers and some pros) trying to justify to themselves they have made the correct purchase/investment decision. Call it insecurity?

For those of us who enjoy photography and get are lucky enough to also sometimes get paid for it we just carry on taking pictures.

I for one have tried digital, and gave up on it and went back to film. Why - my customers prefer it, I have more control and transparency film quality in terms of latitude, flexibility, robustness, tonality is streets ahead of digital sensor equivalents available to me. But that is my choice - and I strongly advise those who love photography to regularly try both and form a quality judgement based on their experiences and not hype.

 

So I get on with it and don't brag or try and justify to myself that I have made the right purchase.

 

BTW my preferred workflow is film -> scan -> print - to me this is the best of all worlds at the moment. The new generation of low noise scanners are superb!!

 

Simon:

www.suffolkimages.com

[h._hillebrand]

"while some of us as film users start worrying how long MF film will gonna stay in

production"

 

Don't worry.

 

Maybe Kodak will vanish, maybe Agfa will, but there's still Ilford and Fuji, and maybe

there will be smaller companies in the future ready to supply our needs. As long as

there is someone who buys it, someone will produce it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In smaller cities; the E6 labs have gotten worse in performance; cost; and delivery. With reduced volumes; these labs fold; go under; ie close down. Then we have the added delay and costs of mailing off our E6 roll films. In big cities; the E6 will last longer before closing down; or merging with a rival. Here I shoot way less MF E6 films; and 35mm E6 films; because the local lab folded.

[nikos peri]

I have to agree with Simon here, as he expressed my own opinions much better that I could have myself. MF digital backs will follow the relentless trend that 35mm or APS sized sensor digital has been doing for some time now. Namely, whatever you buy today will cost half as much in one year, and be twice as performant. I believe Hasselblad and Mamiya have both addressed the issue of retaining MF clients by opening the door to digital backs. Hasselblad with the H!, and Mamiya (together with Leaf) in their 645. <p>

But as Simon says (I like that!), for a working pro I'd imagine it's what gets the job done in the best and most economically intelligent manner that counts. For the amateur like myself, it's what gives me the most pleasure. I can honestly say that pulling my freshly developed roll of Tri-X out of the tank, or my sheet of Technical Pan out of the tray, or looking at my 4x5" Velvia on a lightbox far FAR surpasses the "thrill" of connecting a CF card to a reader. <p>

In response Ike, "The King is dead, long live the King!"

[bacsa]

Besides digital back, another option is a cheaper and much better way to scan MF film. That too has inproved lately, and I don't think big names would have invested so much in R&D of scanner equipment in the last few years, if they would see "the end".

[david_henderson]

Forget affordable digital backs. With sales of MF falling; with

many -maybe even most- professional MF users now content

with "35mm" digital, which manufacturer in his right mind is

going to dedicate a load of R&D resource to a tiny niche market?

If someone just fell over a way of getting something out for $500

maybe, but that's pie in the sky.

 

Either settle for film and scan to print, or decide that "35mm "

digital capture will do. If you don't make very big prints, like the

look of digitally captured images and shooting with a 35mm style

camera, and you can live with the workflow implications, there's

possibly little reason to resist.

[sliu]

Quote my friend Todd Frederick:

<p>

<i>I also think the Holgas will survive along with the cockroaches when we're long gone! Amazing cameras.

</i>

<p>

<center>

<img src="/users/SLIU/sliu-04-04-18-0-NF400TX-00.jpg">

</center>

<p>

[sliu]

<i>one MF loyalist like me ...</i>

<p>

But you panicked ;-)

<ul>

<li>

March 4, 2004: WTB: Rollei 6008i body only ...

<li>May 13, 2004: Rollei 6008i with 3 lenses (60,90 &180) plus Metz 45 C

L4 please look ...

</ul>

[jeffrey_abelson]

" for one have tried digital, and gave up on it and went back to film. "

"BTW my preferred workflow is film -> scan -> print "

 

There is a paradox here...

[stephen_w.]

It has always been and always will be penis envy: If one uses what the "pro's" use one will produce what they do. It's like computers and cars: one always buys more than one needs. Who needs a car that can exceed 200 MPH? If you shoot for the news or magazine production it won't matter, the resolution doesn't matter. If one doesn't make 16X20 prints, it doesn't matter. If one doesn't like quality tools, it doesn't matter. If one likes being tethered to a power cord, computer, Photoshop, storage, printer, etc...try to find it in Daqing, China or Skikda, Algeria, or Siem Riap, Cambodia, etc...

[madwand]

I don't think that there is a enough of a need to do so. Moreover, this is a defeatist argument. There's clearly going to be a demand for them, and hence a supply. The volume of the demand and the manufacturing capability will determine the prices. The technology will also in part be shared with other hot markets, so the prices will tend to come down. Finally, "affordable" for MF means at least the cost of a good MF lens, which means thousands, not hundreds, and this cost would also be reasonably related to the cost of a full-frame 35mm digital body.

 

A $500 MF digital back is not even a goal -- the MF consumer wants something good, not dirt cheap.

 

And Kodak backs can be bought used/reconditioned for $7500 or less -- that's not far from the $5000 figure that the original poster mentioned.

 

Even defeated, I wouldn't be defeated -- when the current users moved off the current $20-$30K digital backs I'd probably be there waiting for them to come down to my price and jumping up towards them.

 

In the meanwhile, as shown in another thread, current MF scanning has enough resolution to fit all my needs affordably full-frame, though not including the convenience of immediate feedback capture, and quick transfer to computer.

[ike k]

S.Liu,

 

I'm selling one of my integral body cause trying to get the AF model so I need some justification on expenses, :-).

 

Ike

[sliu]

<i>

I'm selling my Rollei gear since I bought digital system, ...

</i>

<p>

Forgive my English, because I think "since" means "because" in this sentence. Obviously you didn't mean that ;-)

[simon_batley2]

Jeffrey

 

" for one have tried digital, and gave up on it and went back to film. " "BTW my preferred workflow is film -> scan -> print "

 

>>There is a paradox here...

 

 

You are right as it is written - I meant to have said I have tried Digital capture ie DSLR and then went back to film.

 

Luckily scanning of film using a modern scanner seems to provide me far better results than a DSLR. One example? Lattitude in highlights....

 

Cheers

 

Simon

[scott_eaton]

<I>At least one MF loyalist like me....long live medium format </i><P>I'm loyal to my girlfriend, my family, etc., and I don't extend loyalty to inanimate pieces of metal. Cameras are tools, and I've come to the conclusion long ago reading these threads that the degree of emotional based affection one extends towards film based cameras <b>and</b> wet processing is often inversely proportional to their photographic talent.<P>I moved to MF from 35mm a long time ago because I got sick of the quality provided by such a small frame of 35mm film. I didn't move to MF because I liked the cameras better or they handled better. Indeed, the loss of mobility and spontaneity while slinging my MF gear is pretty severe, and you guys with your Hasselblads claiming they are just as mobile as a 35mm SLR or dSLR are just being ignorant. The reason most of us shoot MF is because of the larger piece of film - period.<P>Why then with this obsession over digital backs for MF if it's not only expensive, but forces you into the ergonomic straight jacket of shooting MF in the first place? If I'm a commercial studio shooter I can possibly see the justification if it meets your workflow, but I'd otherwise shoot 4x5 and afford the flexibility of tilts are swings. The otherwise expanding dSLR base and the quality of those sensors is going to catch up and defeat the market for MF or MF backs, and the hand writing is already on the wall. Many of you are looking for a reason to justify holding on to your MF gear while I'm looking for a reason to NOT use my RB and get back into using a camera that's as flexible as shooting 35mm while not taking the quality hit. That sure the heck isn't buying a used capture back for eight grand.<P><I>If one doesn't like quality tools, it doesn't matter. If one likes being tethered to a power cord, computer, Photoshop, storage, printer, etc...try to find it in Daqing</i><P>Man, just for once I'd like an (I) ignore switch on Photo.net for people like this. I'd like to know how Stephen hauls his E-6 and K14 processor to Daqing, China or Skikda, Algeria, or Siem Riap, and Cambodia.

[lucas_griego]

<center><i>"...I've come to the conclusion long ago reading these threads that the degree of emotional based affection one extends towards film based cameras and wet processing is often inversely proportional to their photographic talent."</i></center>

<p>

Very similar to those who ooze saccharin in regards to DSLR's and the digital darkroom.

[lucas_griego]

Stephen,

Not sure how much you get out to the places that you mentioned but in China there are a ton of places that you can pop into and upload and download files to CD off of CF cards etc.

 

The same in Siam Reap, Cambodia. There are only dozens of internet cafes. Yes you can also get a CD burnt your CF card files.

 

In Siam Reap I'd trust this sooner than E6 processing there - if they f*ck up a neg then it's bye bye - if they screw up a CF card -I've got a back up. For those of us shooting both film and DSLR's things are pretty easy.

[Spearhead]

Lucas beat me to it, a trip to the "Third World" shows rapid adoption of new technology. I spent December in an Asian country poorer than China, although somewhat better off than Cambodia, and what you notice is that there are very few film cameras. There aren't that many digital cameras either, but the stores were selling almost exclusively digital cameras. Places that processed film, even in small and not particularly well-traveled villages, advertised that they did digital. Labs processed from digial media and offered backup services.

 

On the other hand, when I went looking for 120 film, even in a large city, it was almost impossible to find.

 

It's like telephones - most people where I was had never had a home phone but have cell phones. I've seen this in Africa and Latin America as well. Technology adoption is very fast.

 

The message to take from this is that the Third World isn't going to save film.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/53a.jpg"><br>

<i>Cala Lily - Canon 10D + 50/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

 

- I am not loyal to any camera or format. I've used whatever was required for my

photographic interest, from 8x10 view cameras to Minox subminiature, since I started

doing photography nearly 40 years ago.

<br><br>

- No digital camera is a "35mm digital". That's a nonsense expression. Most modern

digital SLRs are based on a 35mm chassis, but there is so much different that it is foolish

to think of them as 35mm cameras with a digital sensor.

<br><br>

- From sources close to the industry, I get the impression that medium format film may

well out-live even 35mm film for still photography. But the same sources indicate that all

film use is decreasing rapidly as digital capture is ramping up in quality and becoming

lower in price at a very fast pace. A 10Mpixel digital camera with appropriate large sensor

for low noise is pretty much the equivalent of any medium format camera in terms of

image quality now, due to the lack of grain and other film defects. And higher density

cameras will surely happen if required.

<br><br>

- A full format digital back for a Hasselblad with the pixel density of a Canon 10D sensor

would be awesome, particularly if it would work correctly with a 903SWC. Sadly, I don't

think that's going to happen any time soon, nor do I think I could afford one if it did. But

what a great wide angle camera that would be!

<br><br>

Remember: the important thing isn't the <b>CAMERA</b>, it's the <b>PHOTOGRAPH

</b>.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[madwand]

All the holier-than-thou and better photographer-than-thou attitude espoused here has merely confirmed the "massive attack". Is it a crime to actually like your hardware and want to keep using it and to adapt it to digital capture? Is it an affront to you? Do you think instead that people should be essentially forced to throw away otherwise good hardware due to a lack of supplies, services and support and buy new hardware? You're welcome to that opinion, especially if you're a hardware manufacture, though you'd deserve the loyalty that I give to hardware manufacturers that don't have your perspective.

 

You're also welcome enjoy small format. Smaller the better in many ways. But I don't see how that should concern me or my interest in a digital back, if my back is up to it.

[brian_c._miller]

The important things you have to remember about the general public's use of cameras is convenience and no real care about quality.

 

<p>They don't care that much about focus. They want it mostly focused.

 

<p>They don't care about quality. They want something to make the picture now.

 

<p>They <b>do</b> care about convenience. Something easy to take along, something easy to use, etc.

 

<p>I knew one lady who always threw away the negatives. Why? Because she already had the pictures.

 

<p>All of that coupled with the newness and gloss of digital of course dictates events.

 

<p>Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? The consumer <i>doesn't care</i>.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Digital backs have been around for almost a decade; at least for 4x5. I first saw one in 1995; mounted on a process camera; to shoot artwork. I think it was about 50K. The one we use here is old; it cost 25K new; we got it used for way less. Using an older scan back means at some point lack of software upgrade/support; and no way to repair the scan back; if broken. Thus one must do it all yourself; if possible.<BR><BR>Today many MF digital backs exist; the new untethered ones are expensive.<BR><BR><b> I dont really see low cost MF digital backs ever being made; since the real costs of the sensor; mounting hardware/mount; and software have to be paid for. Production volumes are low; and the Engineering and tooling costs are expensive. </b><BR><BR> Everyone wants a high res back; without paying the dues for making them. Current 35mm digital DSLR's are made in much higher volumes than specialty MF backs; and have reduced cost structures. Many folks just move to a high end 35mm digital camera; and avoid the pipe dream of low cost MF digital backs.

[madwand]

I don't agree that lower-cost digital backs is a pipe dream. For one, it's something of a reality -- the Kodak backs performed better and were and are comparably priced to the 1Ds. It's in the ballpark, which is good enough for the argument.

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005lW2

 

If you're trying to argue that digital prices won't come down, you're being silly.

 

If we're hoping that high-res MF digital backs will be available for the price of a DRebel this decade, we're being silly.

[kelly_flanigan1]

MAD; the average user wants a MF back as cheap as a Canon drebel. I dont think this is going to happen. That is what I thought you were talking about. Here I have followed the prices of 4x5 and MF backs for a long time; a decade; and I dont see any real massive plunge in their pricing; to a grand. Hopefully I will be wrong; and low cost MF backs will pop up like mushrooms. High end users already use MF digital backs; if their workflow makes the tool profitable.<BR><BR>I see the dream of a low cost 1 grand MF back sort of like the dream of the Silicon Film module for 3mmm slr; just not happening. Hopefully I will be wrong.