PDA

View Full Version : Sinar bad news? - just rumour?



tim atherton
9-Dec-2004, 08:59
Hope this isn't really bad news


http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ANcu (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ANcu)

vies witht he reports of them tryig to sell off all their parts and accessories though and their apparently bad showing at Photokina

martin_4668
9-Dec-2004, 09:07
Im afraid it is so. i have been informed with this news, both from the danish Sinar agency and from a german newsletter.
The P2 is selling in really low quantities, the P3 isnt working properly, The M system is not for sale yet (after 3 years since the annoucnement) and the Sinarback is not made by sinar but Eyelike....they have really no product at the moment.

Frank Petronio
9-Dec-2004, 09:33
When an $8000 Canon 1Ds Mk2 is considered higher quality than last year's Kodak ProBack, and competitive with the Phase One P25, it's really hard to justify the Sinar system. Especially since using wide angle lenses for architecture is a compromise on all the digital systems - paying 2-5X the cost of the Canon is really hard to accept for only slightly better quality. If I wanted to stick a 35mm SLR lens in front of the Sinar M system's chip, why wouldn't I just use a lower cost Canon or Nikon digital instead? And for product photography, I'd just use a longer perspective control lens and/or fix the distortion in Photoshop.

Plus, their cameras never wear out (same with Arca and Linhof) and with so many on the used market, why would anyone buy a new F2 or P2?

What they should do is become a boutique manufacturer and hammer guys like Wisner by coming out with lightweight ULF system cameras using their existing designs. Imagine how much nicer - and with parts widely available - a Sinar 12 x 20 ULF F2 could be... They really are lightweight and nice cameras, especially in the larger sizes - where they become even more practical for field work and fine art photography, than some wooden yuppie contraption.

Edward (Halifax,NS)
9-Dec-2004, 09:50
Frank, that is where I got my 210mm Sinaron from: Sinar Bron. I guess this explains the low price.

Frank Petronio
9-Dec-2004, 13:46
Yeah, they've had some great lenses on eBay lately - especially if you don't mind remounting the DB mounted ones into proper shutters. They had a beautiful 480 go in the $400, I'm kicking myself.

Armin Seeholzer
10-Dec-2004, 03:13
Hi

But at photokina they introduced a smaller Digi cam like the F version with not so strong standards!
But of course this days are bad for them because almost every larger studio goes digital and sells there Ps and Fs on ebay or elswere!
So not really a demand for a new P2 or F2 only if somebody has to much money!

Ellis Vener
11-Dec-2004, 07:43
Not all LF manufacturers are having the problems Sinar apparently is. Martun Vogt at Arca-Swiss told me they are selling as many 69 F series cameras as they can make -- mostly for use with high res digital backs. He has alo been surprised by the increased demand for 8x10 cameras. Keith Canham says he is doing well too.

A friend of mine is a well respected dealer in new & used photo gear. Last year he pointed out that you could put everyone involved in specifically making & marketing and selling LF gear together with all of the people who use LF gear in a medium size sports stadium and the place would be half empty -- and everyone would have 4 cameras to themselves.

Jenoptik may manufacture Sinar's digital backs but the Sinar backs are different from the Jenoptik Eyelike backs. Among the differences, as of last summer Sinar was using the Kodak made CCD while the Jenoptik eyelike M22 and eMotion 22mp backs use a Dahlsa FTF 4052 CCD,

tim atherton
12-Dec-2004, 22:10
"I haven't looked at Sinars product line in a very long time (I'm a
Horseman guy), but I don't remember them ever building a flatbed field
camera when I was buying back then. Every other mfr has one (Horseman,
Linhof, Wista, Toyo, etc)."

Arca Swiss?

Frank Petronio
13-Dec-2004, 08:38
Bring the Canon 1Ds2 into the discussion was my bad, especially when I read over on Galbraith about how poorly the Canon lenses are doing when tested by such a high resolution chip. Apparently all but the best quality, random lenses give acceptable results - the chips are out performing the lenses. And I imagine this would be the case with the Sinar M that uses 35mm SLR lenses as much as the Canon or Kodak full-frame DSLRs - the lenses just aren't up to snuff.

Yet, the argument for using a tiny digital view camera is almost as difficult - I just can't imagine trying to make use of subtle movements on a 24mm x 36mm chip (i.e. yes to gross rise and fall, no to 1 degree front tilts...). But maybe an electronically controlled, geared mini view camera with a very flexible bellows would work - the Sinar P3 - but then the photographer is basically buying into an entirely new system - new lens, new camera components - which eliminates the main advantage that Sinar has long enjoyed - the backward compatibility and systematic approach to building whatever camera you need from interchangable parts. Because the photographer no longer has to worry about buying a Sinar to maintain compatibility with his legacy equipment, he can now choose from other mini views from Rollei, Horseman, Arca, etc.

So long as they don't need anything wide angle. Architectural photographers - probably the people who really need movements - don't have a good digital solution, at least from Sinar.

Glenn Kroeger
13-Dec-2004, 10:36
Frank:

I have been following the Galbraith threads, and working with one of the folks there who's been doing alot of the testing, and I think you may be overstating the problems with lenses. There are certainly issues in the edges and corners with many of the zooms, and some of the wide primes. Most of the moderate wide to tele primes are great. Quality control is also an issue, particularly with the zooms where manufacturing tolerances don't seem up to snuff.

Nonetheless, these sensors are beginning to tax even the best optics which certainly argues against the claims of some that 30-40MP is needed to match 35mm film results. Afterall, if the lenses aren't that good on digital, they aren't magically better on film!

But it does suggest that MF digital is going to be needed to get the quality many of us seek. The 36x48mm 22MP backs will tax lenses a bit less in terms of absolute resolution, since the pixels are larger. Also, most MF lenses are already designed to cover more than that area, so hopefully the results in edges and corners will be better.

It is hard to imagine exactly what the ideal view camera is for this size sensor. I suspect that tilt/shift lenses will suffice for most use, but there are precious few made. The Hasselblad Flexbody is one approach, and although not perfect, at least attempts something novel. Viewing will have to be done on some larger screen. I am playing around with a TabletPC as a viewing device (cabled at present, but hopefully BlueTooth soon), and it's like having an 8x10 groundglass for my poor old eyes.