You must be High to pay for the new Hy6

[Gordon Moat]

Absolutely on falling prices and depreciation. This is one of the reasons a 36 month plan is somewhat common on these purchases. Of course, the lenses and body last much longer, but the back is practically a consumable item, sort of like film.

Look at the occaissional 11MP digital back that comes up for sale, either refurbished, or simply used, and you can see the drop in pricing. These sold for nearly the same prices new, and now three to five years later are less than 1/5 new cost. If it was a refurb item from a manufacturer, I would consider it reasonable for an advanced enthusiast to acquire. I would imagine we might expect prices on 22MP backs to fall within the sub $4000 range not too long from this year, if not sooner.

Unlike P&S digital and purely consumer digital cameras, the per frame cost is not free for a professional using a medium format digital back. However, the economics are very much an individual consideration: while I might consider a high end flatbed scanner reasonable, another photographer or studio might see a 33MP or 39MP back as a relatively good expenditure.

The choices for an enthusiast are quite different. Here it would be about disposable income. However, how many people would know the difference in an older 11MP back, and a much newer back just looking at the camera or module? Only when a capture goes to print will much difference be visible, and then only at larger print sizes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[George Kara]

So here is my question. Are professional photographers making significantly higher NET income than in the old days? I mean net income. Or is it simply a matter of keeping up with your competition to get the job.

Changing a variable cost (film - pay for what you use), to a fixed cost is a tricky business. Unless of course the market forces you to do it.

[Kirk Gittings]

As per the rumored 22MP Canon. Even now the 16MP camera stretches the ability of their lenses, a 22MP camera would far exceed the capability of L series lenses and require a new lens line. Think major$$$$$$ for upgrading your Canon system in that scenario. I don't see it. I see a 16MP 14 bit camera soon. MPs at a certain point are are overrated. The real news is the development of 14 bit processing.

[Gordon Moat]

One area where medium format digital backs have helped is in high volume product photography. The savings in time mean the ability to do more volume, though that is offset by the somewhat higher cost. It is not simple to calculate, and the break point might be difficult to factor.

In advertising photography, the deadlines are not as tough, volume might be lower, and it makes less of a difference whether film or digital capture was used. This is an area of professional photography in which the income levels have risen, though oddly enough still many people using film. When you can include the cost of film, or charge for film and scanning, and your deadlines are not ultra short, then using only digital capture might not always make economic sense.

In photojournalism and sports photography, most figures indicate over 85% direct digital capture. This is a practical matter of the shortest deadlines, and delivery over satellite or wired connections. However, there is little to no point in high MP cameras, because electronic transmission rates are limited, and many images going to newsprint just do not need the extra MegaPixels.

Fashion photographers are another realm, with some getting big enough accounts to justify the expense of a digital back. While I do not personally like the practice, it seems that tethered shooting is becoming more popular. However, just judging an image on the highest resolution computer monitor, or a large widescreen HD display, really does not demand too many MegaPixels to show a good image. In some ways, a MFDB might justify charging more, but I might get criticized for suggesting that. Anyway, if the large display prints I see in many malls are any indication, lots of MegaPixels don't seem to be showing any advantages.

One recent experience has been an architectural photographer I know who went high end digital strictly for work for one client that wanted that capability. At least with him, and that work, his expenditure (near $40k) was covered in a few jobs, leaving the rest of the expected future work as mostly profit (not counting on breakage, maintenance, or outright failure). Even with that one client, the rest of that photographer's work remains film based, simply because it works.

When you show a portfolio to a prospective client, you don't (normally) give them a gear list. While there are photographers who sell the capabilities based upon their gear, I have seen more of those at the very top of this profession rarely ever speak about gear. If I were going to emulate anyone, I would look at the very top and find those photographers doing work similar to what I would like to be doing. When I have done that over the last half year looking into what top level advertising photographers have used (when I could find out anything about gear), I have often found that they used large format, and their work was scanned, sometimes with post processing done later.

So a MFDB might be useful and should be more than capable. I think it gets tougher to consider it a necessity to proceed towards future work. That's were I would draw the line. All the gear needs to accomplish is allow you to express your creative vision, and allow you to work with your clients, hopefully always meeting or exceeding their expectations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Frank Petronio]

There are less catalogs to shoot than ten years ago, and many of the bigger catalogs have been brought "in-house" where buying a MF digi set is a no brainer. Amongst independent prof photographers around Rochester, I think only 4-5 own a modern MF digital set-up, and those guys have solid long-term, high-volume accounts that make the investment easier to justify.

If anything the average net income has been static or declining. Hell, most togs have gone out of business... duh. But of the remaining shooters, somebody has to do the higher quality commercial work and those are the ones who bite the bullet and drop $80 grand (cuz you need two MF backs, one for back-up, according to the guy I know who did this)(I bet he nets $350K or so).

People charge a capture and processing fee, and some charge rent for the camera. That helps make up for the extra time spent editing and to pay for the camera.

Remember that pros shot chromes not because they were somehow better than negative films, but because editing and delivery was faster and easier, it clearly defined the workflow. It used to be rare to charge for editing with film - now you have to w digital cause it takes so long to do.

As for the Rollei, the $$$ is for the back... the lenses and chassis aren't cheap, but the back is the largest portion of that $33K price.

Personally I think the tech is maturing and the resolution is as high as anyone really needs for 99.9% of the work, so I would expect the market to slowly shrink, new model improvements to slow, and the prices to climb, not lower. Think of these MF digis getting more exotic and expensive, like an Alpa or Sietz $$$$. Most people will use a Canon dslr or "arty" film.

[Brian Ellis]

Is Pentax out of all medium format? I remember reading that they were coming out with a digital 645. That was a couple years ago. I assume it never hit the market? Too bad if they are gone, I used a Pentax 67 system for years, it was a great system at a fraction of the cost of Hasselblad and Rollei.

[bsimison]

Luminous Landscape reports that Pentax has cancelled their digital 645 body.

[Gene McCluney]

People mention the COST of film and processing, as if it impacts on the net profit of a photographer. I have been a commercial/industrial photographer for 31 years now, and I have NEVER priced a job at a fixed rate including all materials. I doubt anyone would be silly enough to do that. I always charge for the materials used, and the processing as separate invoice entries in addition to my labor rate. Thus the film, processing and polaroid do not impact negatively on my net profit, and in fact, in my case, since I do all of my E-6, C-41, scanning, and B/W processing in-house, I make an additional profit on this. I also mark up the materials I use and resell to the client.

While in the realm of wedding and portrait photographers there has always been this elusive sitting fee concept, which seems to cover labor, fllm, processing, proofs, this business model has never (in my observation) been a part of the Commercial Photography industry. If you are not charging the client for the materials consumed in the execution of work for them, then you do not have the correct business model.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Gene,

Recall that many on this forum are either art photographer, or simply enthusiasts. Art photography is very speculative, so all costs might be expected to be absorbed by the photographer, and potential payout could be more like a flat fee. The lure of digital capture would be reducing expenditure on film. Also, it seems what I have observed of art photographers is that they place different importance on time; in other words, they seem to sometimes be more willing to trade greater time commitment to reduce materials expenses.

What I do is mostly usage based billing. It depends upon the client whether they get a detailed invoice showing film, processing, and scanning, or if the overall fee includes that amount. That fee is never fixed in the proposal, but the range of the proposal assumes a certain amount of time, film, and difficulty. While I have been at this only a few years, this was the manner in which I learned this model. Those in the business before me sometimes used a day rate, and might not want to change that model of billing. It also seems to be variable how this is done, depending upon the specialities of work that a photographer offers.

Wedding and portrait photographers do seem to fit more into a model of package pricing, often some sort of fixed fee. It is my understanding that has been calculated, so it would consider all expenses. I suppose if one always worked in a similar manner for each subject, then it might make sense, though I agree with you that it is not a good way to go about business.

I think amateurs and enthusiasts are more likely to consider film cost, because they are rarely seeing a direct return in some form of income. This is often when comments about how much film the dollar value of digital anything would buy. My film is essentially a zero cost item, because I bill out exactly what I pay for film and processing. I understand people who mark up these things, and generate another profit item, but I have chosen to simplify some paperwork by not doing that. This would make the only economic arguement for me to get a MFDB the matter of time, in other words allowing me to do a higher volume of work; at this point, it does not make economic sense for me. Perhaps enthusiast photographers miss those aspects of choices.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[foto-z]

Well the Hy6 won't be cheap but a) it is in line with the only real competition (Hass), and b) it is a leap forward compared to the 6008AF (which I use).

The image quality itself won't be any different to the 6008AF/MFDB combination directly, but it will:
- be able to take more digital backs
- it is smaller and lighter because it doesn't include the film motor in the body (rather the optional film magazine)
- it won't require a flash sync cable
- it will record EXIF data
- the back and camera ISO settings should sync.
- improved battery life
- other improvements

If you are working with this equipment every day then the large list of advantages, plus a new warranty, is probably worth the upgrade price over the 6008AF. I will be able to sell my 6008i backup body to help cover the cost too.