I agree that these are improvements I didnt know I would have such problems using a digital back with my Rollie. These changes arent much in the way of overall mprovements rather than a catch up to the most rudimentary of digital cameras now in the marketplace.
Indications are that the Hy6 will also be available as a film bundle. In this case, Sinar has said that the Hy6 will be priced competitively with the 6008AF. So if you prefer to shoot film, you do not have to worry about "sticker-shock".
If you do decide to go digital, then you'll get the big price tag for the digital back, but will be able to enjoy Schneider glass optimized for digital capture. I think it's wise of them to be giving the purchaser the choice.
Best regards,
Brad
Kirk says "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."
Kirk this is just flat out wrong! Canon make some of the finest lenses there are. Their only weakness is on the wide angle side. Their 200 1.8, 300 2.8, 400 2.8 and 600 4, their 85 1.2 and 50 1.0 are simply incredible lens. The DO lenses are also a great innovation with continuing improvements.
Their business is fast action, ultra fast AF, high rez shots. And they are at the top of this game. The leica myth is just that and certainly zeiss and schneider have nothing on them. I know from personal ownership, using both analog and digital.
Why do you think so many sports pro's use this stuff when their living depends on it. I have shot with some of these guys and they are very fine and discerning photographers who migrated to digital for business practice reasons.
Wow, what a wonderful thread, some great insight. Some random comments...
Gordon, excellent points.... specially regarding the readership of this forum, which often dictates the positions we take. Which made me think, with the prices of these MF digital systems, for the shooter who does not shoot thousands of shots per year, truly, 8x10 film format is quite the bargain.....moreso than we ever thought. It's only real shotcoming IMO, compared to MF backs is extreme DOF, allowing diffraction to reduce the resolution gains of the larger film size. Of course, the obvious size, weight, expense of film, difficulty in processing are all deterents.... but $80k investment for a good MF system can be a strong motivating factor to work through these issues. ;-)
Ben, their is no single greater contributor to price gouging than "lack of competition". It's what capitalism is all about. However, I am not so sure this is the case here. I wonder what the real mark-up is on these cameras / backs. To round out the equation, what is the R&D cost to produce them and what kind of volume exist in the MF digital back market. At this stage of the game, digital back makers must consider that a 39MP back is not regarded as a consumable evolution of a product, like the evolution of the Canon cameras. These backs are superb, and although they may deprecite a bit, I don't see people replacing them for some time. This must play into the pricing structure a bit.
The next Canon release may also finally fall into this category also, hence why we may see its price to $10 - 12k. Anyway, my point is, sometimes the volume is so low vs. the R&D and support cost, it justifies high margins to keep the business afloat. And based on how most of the MF back makers are struggling (maybe except PHase One), this might be the case. With the likelyhood of future pressure coming from Canon, closing the gap a bit more in image quality / MP, IMO, this high end pricing may remain. Next, it will take a huge jump in techology to alter the equation, and I don't see that coming anytime soon.
George, I agree that Canon has room to squeeze more image quality from their existing top tier lenses, as well as their future release of more digital friendly lenses. hence why, they hold the future for high quality digital back pricing, as if they can close the gap a bit with 14 or 16 bit sensors, slightly bigger chip, more MP 22- 25 would be nice, improved s/n ratio....with the advantage of having a very fast system, more handholdable, etc..... they will take the fat out of the market, even further reducing the volume of the MF back producers. It seems Nikon does not want to play at this level....
In 30 years, all this will be a "case study" in MBA school... very interersting watching capitalism at work.
That is plain wrong. Leica outperforms the Canon equivalents at almost all focal lengths (Zeiss too). The biggest difference is wide open performance. Stopped down, well many lenses are very similar then. Yes, Canon has some great (and seriously expensive) telephotos but that is just one niche covered and this is not a niche which the Hy6 will be serving, so it's irrelevant.Originally Posted by George Kara
Foto-Z. I own a rollei 6008af with zeiss 110/2 and schneider 80 2.8 and 180 2.8 and like the system very much. Please demonstrate BY PHOTO where these lenses out-perfom the canons. Canon teles are intended to shoot wide open in dim lighting as in night sports action. Over the years, many fashion photographers would shoot with the 600/4 and call over a bullhorn for the models to hear them. Fashion/glamour, and high motion, this is a fairly large part of the market.
The 200 1.8 canon is probably the best piece of glass I own when examining its bokeh, ultra high speed af, and speed at 1.8. Its the only lens I own that has been increasing in value about 1K per year. I purchased mine for approx $ 1,800 USD three years ago and now they sell between 4-5K.
I suspect alot of these opinions have more to do with snobbery and prejudice against the japanese manufacturers.
Seriously lets take a couple of similar shots wide open and compare. You shoot with your summi , crummi, mega, ultra what ever and Ill shoot with vastly inferior 200 1.8 wide open. We can post the results and let the viewers make a decision.
Sure the best Canons over 50mm are excellent lenses, maybe the best ever... but Manochevitz, under 50mm they pretty much reek.
They just came out with a new 16-35mm zoom to replace the old one. That ought to put a dent in the problem.
George, I have beend drooling for a 200 / 1.8. Can't figure out why Canon would stop making that lens. It's been quite a few years since its discontinuance, maybe 8? Hopefully they have one on the drawing board to replace it. By far, IMO, Canons best lens of all time ;-) I would be shocked if any lens can touch it....
There may actually be something to what Kirk said, but not because of image quality. What might do it is that to get to 22 megapixels without reducing the size of the photosites, they'll have to increase the size of the sensor, and therefore launch a new line of lenses with a larger image circle than the current L line.
A large part of their high cost comes from simply being big. Those medium-format backs don't sell in particularly high volumes, and the chips are, compared to what the rest of the semiconductor manufacturers make, enormous. That means that they can't produce a lot of dies from a given wafer, and since they don't have a lot of volume, they don't have the economies of scale, so the semiconductor manufacturing costs alone for a medium format back are VERY high. I wouldn't be surprised if the manufacturing cost alone for one of those sensors reached into the thousands.
(In contrast, Intel can make a chip with 1.7 billion transistors at an estimated per-chip cost of approximately $150-200, and Intel has the best economies of scale of anyone in semiconductors. Most of their chips are considerably smaller than 1.7 billion transistors, as well.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks