LaurensAntoine 4 FHM wrote:
If someone makes a 200MP 35mm camera it still won''''t replace MF. Just make a big workflow mess.

That''''s not to say that MF won''''t die on it''''s own, but sensor size does matter in several major ways.

This is a bit of a strange argument.

In one side you are saying that MF is special because of sensor size.

On another you are saying that is not special, and it will die on its own.

Also, many cameras, including 35mm and cellphone cameras have already replaced MF.
Many things that used to be done on MF are done on 35mm or are done on an iphone or whatever.
That sounds to me like replacement.

And the more MF is replaced, the less viable it becomes and the faster it gets replaced.
I have a hard time imagining any other way for things to go.

normad-moth wrote:

This is a bit of a strange argument.

In one side you are saying that MF is special because of sensor size.

On another you are saying that is not special, and it will die on its own.

Also, many cameras, including 35mm and cellphone cameras have already replaced MF.
Many things that used to be done on MF are done on 35mm or are done on an iphone or whatever.
That sounds to me like replacement.

And the more MF is replaced, the less viable it becomes and the faster it gets replaced.
I have a hard time imagining any other way for things to go.

So the masses are the only people who matter?  More fodder for the great unwashed and don't worry about anything else?

Maybe...

I hope Phase/Leaf (I shoot Leaf) introduce a true 6x7 sensor, even if it's at 50mp (though I'd prefer 60 or 80).  I'll pay $40K for that.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
This misses the point.

It''s not just about how many megapixels they can cram onto a sensor.

If anything, the Pentax 645D is more destructive to Phase One and Hasselblad than anything Nikon or Sony put out.  Now, if Nikon/Canon/Sony develop a line of medium format sized sensor cameras with some of the bells and whistles that are in their FF camera lines -- and put it in a body that costs under $7k, THEN, that''s the death knell for the Hasselblad.

Don''t forget.  Everyone was saying that the D800 with 36MP would start to infringe on the MF market.  I didn''t see that happen as much as Hasselblad just making some very poor product decisions which were largely rebranded Sony products.

It's not 100% how many megapixels one can cram into a sensor.  But it's the majority.  If Phase One and Hasselblad are selling 50MP cameras for $30,000 and Canon, Sony, Nikon are doing the same for $3,000, guess who goes down the toilet.  Phase One and Hasselblad already use Sony sensors in their 50MP offerings.  These companies argument will be that their superior color science and big - old - lens are worth a $25,000 difference.  Few photographers are going to buy that.  Those rare few who will be willing shell out the price of a good car for .1% improvement in the images, will not be enough to support the companies continued existence.  So they will go under.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
So the masses are the only people who matter?  More fodder for the great unwashed and don't worry about anything else?

Maybe...

I'm not gonna say that only the masses matter, but the masses matter *a lot*.

I used to hear this argument on the server processors side.
Only my Power5+ matters, because it is better than blah blah intel.
Only my SPARC-7 blah blah. I have a big 21064!
The unwashed intel stuff is just that, unwashed and for the lesser beings.

These days, I believe only Power and SPARC are left, and only for a little bit longer.
Motorola? dead. PARISC? dead. High end MIPS? dead. AXP? dead. I could go on.
CRAY, CSC, etc etc.
Intel + AMD + ARM ate their lunch with cheap processors. And their dinner. And the breakfast.
Heck, they stole their spouses and kids!.

The amount of research and development that you can throw at large volume products makes the small volume products die faster unless they are halo products for the cheap products (who owns.  Maserati?  Ferrari? Fiat, Lamborghini? VW. do you see the pattern? Unwashed take over all the time. Which suggests that the "unwashed" are simply better, imho.)

In an ideal world, that would be the case in the camera products, Leaf is a subsidiary of sony or something. Buuuut, that does not seem to be the case here.,..

I hope Phase/Leaf (I shoot Leaf) introduce a true 6x7 sensor, even if it's at 50mp (though I'd prefer 60 or 80).  I'll pay $40K for that.

I hope you get to shoot to your hearts content in the cameras of your dreams :-)
I hope so for everybody.
It just seems to me that if your dreams are MF, those dreams are trickier than if they are 35 mm.

me voy wrote:
It's not about the price or how many MP can you put in a sensor. It's all about the size of the sensor. There is a difference between FF and crop. Now, imagine the difference on a MF. Not to mention large format. So you can have a million MP on a cell phone but the images are not going to be the same as MF.

sure ...

yet ...
"shot on iphone"
on google:
About 126,000 results (0.37 seconds)

"shot on leaf"
About 4,110 results (0.67 seconds)

(mind the quotation marks)

The images are gonna be different, sure.
Does it matter? For a key demographic: the facebook masses, the answer is not.

me voy wrote:
It's not about the price or how many MP can you put in a sensor. It's all about the size of the sensor. There is a difference between FF and crop. Now, imagine the difference on a MF. Not to mention large format. So you can have a million MP on a cell phone but the images are not going to be the same as MF.

Considering I shoot primarily with a Phase One, I'm well acquainted with that difference.  Well, me and less than 1% of the population.  And how many photographers will be willing to pay a $25,000 premium so that less than 1% of the population can say... ah, he shot it on an MF camera.  Most magazines don't care.  You certainly can't tell on instagram, which is becoming more important to photography (at least fashion) with every passing day.

There is also the issue that MF cameras are a pain in the ass to work with.  An issue one would work with when there was a significant difference between MF and FF.  But when the RAW sizes are the same, the smidgeon of benefit of a MF sensor versus FF, will not be tolerable when compared with the reliability, lens selection, and easy of use of Nikon, Sony, and Canon gear.

Btw, the price of used MF gear on ebay is tanking.   Not surprising.

normad-moth wrote:

This is a bit of a strange argument.

cellphone cameras have already replaced MF.

I honestly don't even know how to comment back to a post that contains this.

me voy wrote:
It's not about the price or how many MP can you put in a sensor. It's all about the size of the sensor. There is a difference between FF and crop. Now, imagine the difference on a MF. Not to mention large format. So you can have a million MP on a cell phone but the images are not going to be the same as MF.

This is a big part of it, as is the aperture size you can shoot with the same depth of field. So are lenses. Plus there's more glass to work with when using a bigger sensor (or film plane). I used to comment about "that MF look" without really being able to describe it (other than DOF and the obvious) and then a friend at a camera shop who constantly amazed me with his brilliance mentioned he believed it was more about the lenses than anything else.

As a comparison, shoot a Canon with say a 85mm 1.2 at 2,8. You'll get a comparable perspective and DOF with the Hassy 135 at 5.6. The difference is astounding.

WIth all that said though, I still can see the end of MF - best case probably boiling down to one manufacturer.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Don''t forget.  Everyone was saying that the D800 with 36MP would start to infringe on the MF market.  I didn''t see that happen as much as Hasselblad just making some very poor product decisions which were largely rebranded Sony products.

That did actually happen, I think.

PitchBlack wrote:
Most people who proclaim the end of MF have never shot MF... it's a different shooting experience and the photos look different. I love the angle of view of MF that is very hard to reproduce on FF without using lenses that are super long and having to stand so far back from the model that you lose all sense of rapport. It's a matter of optics, not megapixels.

+1000

PitchBlack wrote:
Most people who proclaim the end of MF have never shot MF... it's a different shooting experience and the photos look different. I love the angle of view of MF that is very hard to reproduce on FF without using lenses that are super long and having to stand so far back from the model that you lose all sense of rapport. It's a matter of optics, not megapixels.

I haven't shot a lot of MF, but in the 90s when I was primarily shooting 35mm Kodachrome, I shot some MF chromes and it is a different look - definitely wanted one (I'd rent) - but never could afford it.

Now with digital, I'd love to have a MF digital, but my feeling is that I'm not about to spend all that money for what is presently available (MF crop sensors). If I'm going to go MF digital, I want MF size so it mimics MF film. I've lived through the technological compromise of 35mm crop sensors and now that I have the technology to mimic 35mm chrome, I'm not about to pay all that money just to go with a sort-of MF technological compromise.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Now with digital, I'd love to have a MF digital, but my feeling is that I'm not about to spend all that money for what is presently available (MF crop sensors). If I'm going to go MF digital, I want MF size so it mimics MF film. I've lived through the technological compromise of 35mm crop sensors and now that I have the technology to mimic 35mm chrome, I'm not about to pay all that money just to go with a sort-of MF technological compromise.

My thought is that MF is a nice idea, better than tiny FF DSLR sensors, but we need big sensors to really take advantage of photography.  I want a 30cm by 30cm sensor that has about 36MP.  That would make me very happy.

alessandro2009 wrote:
If Hasselblad and Phase One (and partially Leica) dramatically improving their camera bodies while deciding, at the same time, to practice the same prices as the Pentax body (1) for their digital back (Hasselblad and Phase One),  I think they could increase their market share (some point percent), since the majority of the full-frame lens already struggling with 36 megapixels.

1) The huge difference in price between product that use the same Cmos Sony sensor is entirely unjustifiable.

The sensor is only one part of the camera. Zeiss and Schneider have both produced the exact same lenses for different brands of vastly different price and quality. Back in the 60s you could buy a Kodak with the same German Schneider lens on it as an Exacta or some Alpas, minus a different mount. That does not mean the Kodak was as good as an Alpa, and the used prices today bear that out. All that means is that one specific part was as good as the Alpa ... And even then, that's assuming that the cameras are made to the same tolerances, which they were not.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Did Cassette tape replace vinyl records?  Did CDs replace cassettes?  Did digital download replace everything?
If so, then why was 2014 the biggest year for vinyl record sales on record?

WHOH...slow down there Professor! Did you even bother to read the article? It was the biggest year on record SINCE 1991, which is when Nielson started tracking this data to compare it against CDs and cassettes. That doesn't really say much. The biggest selling vinyl album in this sample period only sold 87,000 copies.

moving pictures wrote:
Lot of replies here are that MF won't go away for good.  I don't think anybody is arguing against that.  After all, there are people out there still using wet plate process.  My point is that the annual number of MF purchasers will drastically taper off as Nikon, Sony, and Canon release viable and far less expensive alternatives.  The far diminished cash inflow will not let P1 or Hassy survive in anything near their present form.

Still old news. From a standpoint of overall market relevance (see the previous post on LPs), digital MF hasn't been big enough to push the market one way or the other for about 4 years, or whenever the first 20MP+ FF cameras came to market.

We're talking about a product that, with all brands together, has optimistically one-half of one percent of the overall market. It is the Ferrari of the camera world:  equal parts worth it, a waste of money, and just bragging rights depending on the buyer.

At the current market share, Phase One(or everyone, for that matter) could sell half the cameras in 2015, and it wouldn't affect anything. They could also sell double, and that wouldn't affect the market as a whole either.

Zack Zoll wrote:
The sensor is only one part of the camera.

Sure but in any case even just lower the cost of the body/digital back contribute to lowering the cost of access to this kind of systems.

Zack Zoll wrote:

Still old news. From a standpoint of overall market relevance (see the previous post on LPs), digital MF hasn't been big enough to push the market one way or the other for about 4 years, or whenever the first 20MP+ FF cameras came to market.

We're talking about a product that, with all brands together, has optimistically one-half of one percent of the overall market. It is the Ferrari of the camera world:  equal parts worth it, a waste of money, and just bragging rights depending on the buyer.

At the current market share, Phase One(or everyone, for that matter) could sell half the cameras in 2015, and it wouldn't affect anything. They could also sell double, and that wouldn't affect the market as a whole either.

Zack,

I'm not talking about market relevance, but about company finances.  You don't think that if P1 or Hassy only sold half the cameras in 2015 then they did in the previous years, they're not going to face bankruptcy?  I do.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Now, if Nikon/Canon/Sony develop a line of medium format sized sensor cameras with some of the bells and whistles that are in their FF camera lines --

Probably not as Nikon ect have been in partnership with Capture One for tethering and image processing.
If Nikon ect were taking the route of developing a medium format they would avoid the Phase One partnership and develop their own capture ect program.

Sony Development

Phase One today announced that starting today, a special version of Phase One’s Capture One Express software will be available free of charge for owners of selected Sony cameras worldwide. Now, these Sony camera owners can leverage the renowned high-quality raw image conversion that Capture One delivers. “Sony shows great innovation and leadership in the photography industry,” said Henrik O. Håkonsson, CEO and President of Phase One. “We are excited and proud to be cooperating with Sony to provide advanced photographers with tools that bring out the best in their images.” Additionally, Phase One has developed a special version of its Capture One Pro software that gives Sony camera owners access to more pro grade features.

PitchBlack wrote:
Most people who proclaim the end of MF have never shot MF... it's a different shooting experience and the photos look different. I love the angle of view of MF that is very hard to reproduce on FF without using lenses that are super long and having to stand so far back from the model that you lose all sense of rapport. It's a matter of optics, not megapixels.

Exactly. This has always been my point. But I must also add, the price has always been the other factor. Imo, medium format as a whole is not going away. I think that Phase and Hassy's demise has more to do with Pentax's MUCH cheaper price compared to the other two that share the same sensor. It's a no brainer to me, if I want a to shoot with a camera where it's more like a dslr with a lower and reasonable price. Those high price days are over with.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
This misses the point.

It''s not just about how many megapixels they can cram onto a sensor.

If anything, the Pentax 645D is more destructive to Phase One and Hasselblad than anything Nikon or Sony put out.  Now, if Nikon/Canon/Sony develop a line of medium format sized sensor cameras with some of the bells and whistles that are in their FF camera lines -- and put it in a body that costs under $7k, THEN, that''s the death knell for the Hasselblad.

Don''t forget.  Everyone was saying that the D800 with 36MP would start to infringe on the MF market.  I didn''t see that happen as much as Hasselblad just making some very poor product decisions which were largely rebranded Sony products.

I know I want the Pentax, and to reuse some of my old/favorite lens.  No interest in yet another mount system from Sony - great technology but they still treat the pro market like the consumer market of disposable goods.  That does work nor does it make good business sense for the photographer.