A Digital Cautionary Tale...

[Eric Leppanen]

I know that MF digital prices are collapsing, but this tale of woe still staggered me:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33618

$105K bites the dust, eh??? :eek: There goes a down payment on a nice house!

Another fairly recent thread at getDPI follows similar lines:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4972

If a hobbyist like me won the lottery and suddenly decided to make Jeff's day at Badger Graphic by ordering a new 8x10 dream kit (featuring huge high-end glass), it might tally up something like this:

Ebony SV810U $7995
APO Tele Xenar 600/800 $4639
APO Symmar L 480 $3430
APO Sironar S 360 $2700
APO Sironar S 300 $2400
APO Sironar S 240 $1850
SS210XL $3480
SS150XL $2080
20 Fidelity 8x10 film holders $1550

TOTAL $30124

If I had the patience to buy used, then I could probably get the price down to $20K or so.

$105K???

Certainly for amateurs, who don't shoot high volume and don't need fast turn-around time, we should thank our lucky stars that so many film options are still around, and that the highest quality work is attainable without such ridiculous outlays.

Maybe we shouldn't badger Kodak quite so much about only 10 sheet boxes of 8x10 TMY-2...

(Actually, I wouldn't go that far!) :)

[Marko]

Those backs are not made with amateurs in mind to begin with. A pro should decide to buy or not buy one of those guided only by business logic and after doing the hard business math. A clear buyer's remorse in the case of that poster indicates that at least some part of this was not done right if at all.

The number in question is certainly large enough to cause shock when thrown around like that, but it's not so different with cars or other big ticket items. That's why the car salesmen always insist on discussing monthly payments. Speaking of the comparison, cars cost like digital MF backs, give or take, and depreciate at about the same rate, but they consume like film cameras along the way and do not put the food on the table, except for domino's delivery, taxi drivers and limo services.

[Henry Ambrose]

A two year old $40,000 dump truck will haul just as much rock as a brand new $100,000 truck. Sounds like he made a poor business decision and threw his money away. Does a taxi driver expect his taxi to be worth what he paid for it after he's used it for a year? I don't think so.

I've made some goofy decisions but at maybe 1/20th of the price of this one but I kinda think if I'd done this I might not tell anyone!

[Brian Ellis]

As Marko said, those backs are marketed to pros who deduct the cost for tax purposes and pass the balance of the cost on to clients. I have a friend who bought a digital back for a medium format camera a couple years ago for about $30,000 and said he recouped the net cost on one big catalog job. Digital hasn't devastated the market for film related gear with $50,000 and up backs. It's done the job with $300 and up 8 mpx and up cameras.

[Kirk Gittings]

Comparing MFD to an 8x10 outfit in this instance is comparing apples an oranges. In the heated pursuit of finding fault with digital you have missed the point. Andre Napier appears to be a top fashion, studio and catalog photographer and a first class 8x10 simply would not meet his needs in any way. He was simply making a point about shopping smarter for his digital needs in this economy. If I made my living in his area of photography I would be using MF digital (if I couldn't do it with a top DSLR which is becoming more viable everyday) for a variety of reasons, such as we have no labs left in town and turn around on shipping out of town is untenable or a scanning work flow is either way to slow or too expensive if you have any kind of volume etc. Film is dead for me in my commercial business. He is simply trying to figure out how to minimize costs in this economy-"financial market being the way it is".

[Frank Petronio]

Even when I shot stupid little local jobs, the Art Directors -- who knew very little -- would ask, "Why don't you have a Hasselblad?" when I was using my cheap Fuji rangefinder. Or "So-and-So has a Sinar" when I'd have a Wista. And this was for jobs that they nickel-and-dimed me on.

It's probably worse at the high end. Cripes they all have Hasselblad H3Ds on "America's Next Top Model" even the silly model-hostess. Right now I bet most large ad "national" clients are expecting their national-level photographers to have two complete medium-format digital systems, plus a good DSLR set, plus a couple of workstations with dual 30" monitors and a complete rack of Profotos, a grip truck full of Matthews, plus a lighting assistant, digital tech, and stylists for hair and make-up. And that's for a simple headshot portrait.

In other words, simply buying a $30K medium-format digital isn't enough. It is more like a 4-5x $150K investment to be shooting with that kind of gear in a truly professional manner.

You don't show up with only a $30K camera and not have the rest of the gear to support it and back it up. Which includes spare cameras, computer systems, and lighting gear.

Optimists buy all that gear and hire all those people to be on staff.

Realists make sure they have plenty of credit and rent what they need when they need it.

It's now like the movie industry. The cinematographer doesn't necessarily own their own 35mm movie camera (some of the established ones do and they rent the camera as a separate item from their skills and services).

I don't see why anyone needs a MFD camera for doing portfolio work, especially since 90% of it only seen online. Shoot with film or a dslr. Prove yourself with your portfolio and rent what you need when the opportunity arises.

[mandoman7]

I would say the bulk of camera purchases are done without a serious return on investment consideration. There's a comparable pattern in the music world. Why?
"Because buying into a delusion is easier than working for a dream".
I can't remember where I got this quote, but I think it applies.

[mandoman7]

Totally, Frank.
We to live in an era where people think that replicating the speech patterns and buying the tools makes you an artist. It seems like most of the view cameras that get listed in the classifieds, for example, are from people who "just haven't found the time" to use these things they spent 3 to 5 grand on. It applies to digital or analog.

You might agree that it would be interesting if there was a survey to find out how much the higher end equipment ties in with the income sources of the average pro photographer today. My guess would be that most professionals are working with less than 10 grand. That is a wild guess but this guess is based on the observation that, in many fields, the core workers are doing their magic with basic tools.

There's a very similar phenomenon in the music world. The fine instrument builders know fully well that its not the pro players who drive their market. Its the would-be players. I've been in situations, even, when the sales pitch of a builder will completely change when he realizes that I'm a gigging player, knowing that such a person rarely buys the upper-end, ego-massage toy. I have some of these builders as clients, and in most cases, they can't even afford to own their own instruments!

JY







Even when I shot stupid little local jobs, the Art Directors -- who knew very little -- would ask, "Why don't you have a Hasselblad?" when I was using my cheap Fuji rangefinder. Or "So-and-So has a Sinar" when I'd have a Wista. And this was for jobs that they nickel-and-dimed me on.

It's probably worse at the high end. Cripes they all have Hasselblad H3Ds on "America's Next Top Model" even the silly model-hostess. Right now I bet most large ad "national" clients are expecting their national-level photographers to have two complete medium-format digital systems, plus a good DSLR set, plus a couple of workstations with dual 30" monitors and a complete rack of Profotos, a grip truck full of Matthews, plus a lighting assistant, digital tech, and stylists for hair and make-up. And that's for a simple headshot portrait.

In other words, simply buying a $30K medium-format digital isn't enough. It is more like a 4-5x $150K investment to be shooting with that kind of gear in a truly professional manner.

You don't show up with only a $30K camera and not have the rest of the gear to support it and back it up. Which includes spare cameras, computer systems, and lighting gear.

Optimists buy all that gear and hire all those people to be on staff.

Realists make sure they have plenty of credit and rent what they need when they need it.

It's now like the movie industry. The cinematographer doesn't necessarily own their own 35mm movie camera (some of the established ones do and they rent the camera as a separate item from their skills and services).

I don't see why anyone needs a MFD camera for doing portfolio work, especially since 90% of it only seen online. Shoot with film or a dslr. Prove yourself with your portfolio and rent what you need when the opportunity arises.

[Eric Leppanen]

My point in making this post is not to find fault with digital per se. I am intrinsically agnostic in the film versus digital debate.

When digital began taking over significant segments of the film camera marketplace, I began tracking MF digital as the corresponding digital transition point for the LF film user. Hence my comparison to an 8x10 film camera: not because it is an exact match in capabilities (clearly it is not), but from an image quality perspective MF digital is the closest digital analogy to the 8x10 gear I shoot (I ignore scanning backs because they are not appropriate to my type of subjects). Remember that several years ago, when film demand first started seriously plummeting, local film labs were closing down right and left, Perez at Kodak was making his "film is dead" pronouncements, etc., many of us had a serious concern as to where we would go if a tiny niche product like LF color film was deemed no longer cost-effective to manufacture. MF digital was (and still is) theoretically the only place to go.

What also became clear was that the MF digital market consisted of an oligopoly of small companies all pursuing the same low volume, high cost, dead-end business model, which was clearly ripe for a huge fall once the "big boys" (Canon, Nikon, etc.) started attacking from the low-end. In such an environment any purchase of digital equipment is fraught with peril from a resale perspective, unless you are willing to completely depreciate the investment (and most amateur users are clearly not).

I mean absolutely no disrespect to Mr. Napier. He appears to be a successful professional who apparently got caught up in the MF digital hoopla and bought more equipment than was prudent. I do think that Mr. Reichmann, who I think has generally done a fine job with his LL web site and as a pundit, has contributed a bit to the oversell of digital (his pronouncements at times that film use "is all over but the shouting" reflect more enthusiasm than prudence in my opinion).

I am just thankful that LF film is still plentiful and there has been little temptation (so far) for amateurs to tread in such waters.

[Frank Petronio]

One good thing about the ugly, sort of old-fashioned housing these MFDBs all have is that they all look alike and it is hard for the client to belittle you for having the 29mp version instead of the luxe 45mp one. They still are clumsy compared to a Nikon or even a Canon DSLR.

$30K and you get a 2.2" LCD when a $400 Nikon D40 has a 3" LCD? jeez

[Doug Dolde]

[QUOTE=
APO Tele Xenar 600/800 $4639
APO Symmar L 480 $3430
APO Sironar S 360 $2700
APO Sironar S 300 $2400
APO Sironar S 240 $1850
SS210XL $3480
SS150XL $2080
[/QUOTE]

Heck you don't need nearly that many closely spaced focal lengths to have a great 8x10 kit. Not to mention carrying all those big honkers.

[Eric Leppanen]

Heck you don't need nearly that many closely spaced focal lengths to have a great 8x10 kit. Not to mention carrying all those big honkers.I completely agree. I'm just saying that even if one went hog wild purchasing a maxed-out brand new 8x10 kit, the cost would not remotely approach $105K. For most LF amateurs, MF digital will not be cost-effective until the industry consolidates and prices decline substantially.

[Joseph O'Neil]

As I see it, the big problem is not just digital photography (any size or format), but the whole new business model of the past few years where anything digital or computerized is in reality obsolete within 4-5 years.

Specific example - I do a lot of desktop publishing. My dad used ot own a printing press, about 100 years old. The "old" business model was you bought a good piece of equipment, keep it in running order and upgraded it when you could, and you might get 20 years out of it. In some cases, even longer.

What hit me hard was the fact not long before we moved on form a printing press to 100% desktop publishing, is that it was - without exaggeration - easier to get a new part for our old printing press that it was a part for a 4 year old printing. aboslutely true here.

Not true anymore however, as the old, small, machine shops that used ot be happy to make you a small part within a week are now almost out of business, mostly put there by cheap imports form China.

So the bottom line is to me, anything digital or computers, you simply cannot make a living on a business model where you have to replace your core equipment/machinery every 3-4 years. You could not in the past, and certianly cannot do it now with the economy the way it is.

Oh yeah, one more thing - the 8x10 I bought used off a seller on this forum no less, with a decent used g-claron lens I bought off another seller on this list, and the good used Gitzo tripod I bought at a local auction - all those things added up together came out to less money that my Nikon D40 DSLR and my VR24-120 lens cost me, and i bought my 24-120 used too!
:)

Large format rocks!
:D

[Marko]

I don't see digital being a problem at all. If it weren't for digital, being an amateur, I would have never been able to afford (or at least justify) a LF kit, but with eBay and all the pros dumping their gear for next to nothing, I can comfortably own and use both LF and MF at what used to be a very professional level until several years ago.

With digital, I also get the kind of control and possibilities I could never have in the traditional darkroom. Not to mention difficulty and cost of just having and maintaining a traditional darkroom. And I don't have to worry about film processing and such, especially when traveling.

As for computers, they put the food on the table for me, have been for almost my entire work life. Never had a problem upgrading or replacing my tools, it is all just the cost of doing business and gets appropriately factored in, billed, deducted and/or amortized. If nothing else, they (the computers of all sorts) make both my life and my work easier, more efficient, more comfortable and above all more fun than it would have been without them. :)

P.S.

How much did that old press cost relative to, say, annual profit it generated? And how much do you pay for film and processing, annually, to feed that used 8x10 you bought so cheaply?

[QT Luong]

For most LF amateurs, MF digital will not be cost-effective until the industry consolidates and prices decline substantially.

By definition, for an amateur, *any* photographic equipment is not cost effective. If one derives more satisfaction from shooting MF digital than other gear, so be it.

[Eric Leppanen]

I don't have an issue with digital. I think digital has significantly enhanced our photographic capabilities in many applications and, on balance, has been a force of tremendous good in the photographic world.

I also think the rate of obsolescence in the DSLR world is slowing as those products are maturing. Most new DSLR lenses in the market today were designed with digital in mind, and aside from some product refreshes at the high end (i.e., new lenses with sufficient resolution to accommodate the new 20+MP DSLR's) I think new lenses purchased today may hold their value quite well for many years. And the rate of improvement in new camera bodies is slowing too. My D70 is several years old, and I'd like some more resolution to better make out labels and other details in my architectural photographs. But I can't justify buying a D700 (don't need high ISO or a more bulky FF camera). I can't justify buying a D90 ($1K is too much for the incremental benefits offered). When a D40 replacement finally arrives I'll probably jump, but only because the cost will be relatively modest. I think the DSLR market has become relatively mature, cost-efficient, has excellent economies of scale, and represents excellent value for many applications.

My issue is with the MF digital market space. A boutique business model just will not survive in what is inevitably becoming a commoditized business. So a painful industry-wide consolidation (with attendant substantial price drops) is inevitable. And those folks who approach this market without an abundance of caution (as Mr. Napier admittedly did) are getting hugely burned.

Professionals who require MF digital capabilities to be competitive are forced to navigate these difficult waters. Amateurs have more options. Personally, I'm thanking my lucky stars that I did not jump into MF digital at this juncture.

[Eric Leppanen]

By definition, for an amateur, *any* photographic equipment is not cost effective. If one derives more satisfaction from shooting MF digital than other gear, so be it.I agree, and I've encountered more than one amateur MF digital shooter in the field who much preferred their rig to LF film or other options.

I think most amateurs, though, would argue that some amateur equipment choices are less "not cost effective" than others... :)

[Robert Fisher]

Eric, have you ever used the Symmar L 480 among all the great lenses that you have owned?

[Eric Leppanen]

Eric, have you ever used the Symmar L 480 among all the great lenses that you have owned?Hi Robert,

Yes, I have, as has Jim Kitchen and Tim Povlick (I think, he has a 480 but I'm not sure if it is an "L"). A variety of threads include discussions of this lens, this one is fairly recent:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=44587&highlight=480

[Tim Povlick]

Hi Robert,

Yes, I have, as has Jim Kitchen and Tim Povlick (I think, he has a 480 but I'm not sure if it is an "L"). A variety of threads include discussions of this lens, this one is fairly recent:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=44587&highlight=480

I believe it's the L as the lens is marked "Schneider - Kreuznach APO-Symmar 8.4/480 L -56 degrees". I am not sure what the L signifies.

I have tested the lens using a various resolution charts and it is very sharp on-axis and at the corners.

Yesterday I took a test shot using the Panatomic-X II film Steve S. found using this lens in a Canham 8x10 wood traditional. About 120 (?) yards away one can easily see the blades of grass. A stone wall at 250 (?) yards shows good texture. If anyone is interested I can scan and post. (Estimating distance is difficult for me).

Best Regards,

Tim

[Joseph O'Neil]

How much did that old press cost relative to, say, annual profit it generated? And how much do you pay for film and processing, annually, to feed that used 8x10 you bought so cheaply?

-snip-

Actually I did a spread sheet on my own a few years back, lost it now, but I did do a cost analysis on my own. Believe it or not, the printing press in terms of repair, upkeep & supplies was far, far less than the computer. I think that may be an issue out there.

Not criticizing you or anyone else, but how many people are like myself, right in that gap that have had hands on experience in both camps, and have been there as things have changed over? How many people have had first hand experience are able to compare before and after?

For example, compare the cost of a can of ink, a bottle of varsol, some wood sticks, rags, and even the amortized cost of your lead type, compared to the cost of a toner cartridge, and you know what, from memory here, for a $5 can of ink and $5 worth of the assorted supplies above, you could print well in excess of 100,000 copies, 8.5 x 11. Can you print 100,000 copies, text, form a single $150 toner cartridge?

Look, not starting a war here, and yes, you can do many, many more things now with a computer than you could in the past, and faster too. All I am saying is people either don't know or seem to have forgotten there was another business model that worked just fine before the age of "obsolete in three years."

OT - but I say 3 years because my dad's hearing aids, 4 years old, could not be adjusted by the people who sold them to him originally. They don't have the software to adjust hearing aids for anymore more than 3 years old, even though his hearing aids work fine. yes, he has moved on to somebody else more reasonable, but my point is, at one point in time, a BS line like that would of been an embarrasement to say in public.

Again, I am not looking to critcize, condemn or embarass anybody. Nor am I a luddite - heck, I've been "on-line" since the days of 300 baud acoustic modems - how many of you can say that? :) Well, maybe a few of you can. :D Or just because I disagree with MS that I need to dump XP and upgrade to Vista doesn't mean I am out of touch at all either. I have three machines running linux, thank you very much. :)

But I think in many areas we've gone too far with this built in obsolence, and I personally think that one many factors in the current economic mess we are in, if I can refer to the old Aesop fable of the straw that broke the camel's back, I think this idea you have to replace & junk everything on a continual basis is hurtful more than helpful in the long run.

Look, you guys can line up and make fun of me all you want, bottom line is, my dad made a higher profit ratio on his old printing press than I ever made on any computer, printer & software combo.

Two other things, a bit OT, but a comparison to how things were in the past. First, I use fully legal & registered versions of both Corel & Adobe software products. In fact, somewhere in storage, I think I still have my original 3.5" floppy disks for installation under Win 3.1, and i used to have my original 5.25" floppies of Wordperfect for Dos. So some of us do stay legal and follow the system, eh?

However, and maybe it's just me, but I am PO'd at how the registration process still manages to make you feel like you are some sort of criminal. Your mileage may vary. Secondly, in the good old days when " dinosaurs walked the earth " and grumpy old bastards like myself actually had a few hairs on the head that were not all grey or white, there was a certian degree or respect for work that came out of a wet darkroom or a printing press.

Today - and i know I say this all the time, but it happens all the time - everybody knows more than you do when it comes to computer, and printing images. Trying to convince a person that there's a world of difference in cost between their home printer that is making one or two colour prints, and my commercial quality printer that has to do a consistent job over the next 500 prints, it's almost impossible to explain to some people in the general public.

So I just don't know, because the whole idea of technology in any area is to make the job easier and less expensive in the long run. But in many ways, comparing past to present, this is simply not always true.

joe

PS sorry for that long, rambling pile of crap I wrote. Need another coffee, or maybe another bottle of scotch.
;)

[Marko]

Yes, computers were invented so we could do the work in less time, it is not their fault that we ended doing more work in the same amount of time for the same pay... The law of unintended consequences still rules. :D

But I still think that the TCO of a printing press relative to the profit it generated was far greater than the cost of the computer and software, otherwise nobody would've bothered switching. There was a big reason why computers replaced typewriters too although they were much more expensive initially. I still remember the grumbling and whining of all those old-fashioned authors who claimed that computers robbed the process of creativity, were so much more expensive, less reliable, harder to learn and that they'd die rather than switch, etc. Well, guess what? 15-20 years later, a typewriter is a museum exhibit at best. Same thing happened with the press industry, the music industry and imaging industry. USPS is pulling out their mailboxes and is going to stop working on Saturdays because fewer and fewer people send letters and use email instead.

A computer may be more expensive than most traditional single-use devices, but it replaces so many of them and is so much more efficient and convenient at each of those tasks that it simply does not make sense not using them, upgrades et al.

And it makes even less sense comparing what we do today with how things were done in the past. The present is now and the past is, well, past. Gone and never coming back. If that business model were that good, it wouldn't have been gone. Simple as that.

No sense whining, better use the time to get used to and get better at what we do now or will be doing tomorrow.

P.S.
I'm not Irish, but if there is room for another chair at the table, coffee and scotch sound really good. :)

[Robert Budding]

So what's the problem? Your investment return in MF digital is similar to the return in my 401(k)!

[Henry Ambrose]

I think there is a huge amount of truth in what Joseph O'Neil has written. I also think it might warrant a thread of its own. Not because "the good old days were better" or "computers suck" but for an exploration of the loss of magic that went with the loss of the old processes.

[Marko]

Magic is in the mind of the beholder. I remember the sense of magic I had when I exposed my first piece of photo paper and watched it appear slowly in developer, under the safelight many years ago. I also remember the sense of magic I had when I started making sense of Photoshop, many years after that, but still many years ago.

These were very different processes with the same end purpose and the same sense of magic to them for anybody willing to feel it. I consider myself very fortunate for having been able to feel both. Had I resisted the change, I would have denied myself one of those two opportunities.

Memories of the old processes and old times may be fond ones, but it is also worth remembering that we will spend the rest of our lives in the future. Better to embrace it with a sense of new magic than with a sense of dread. IMO, of course.

[Brian Ellis]

I agree, and I've encountered more than one amateur MF digital shooter in the field who much preferred their rig to LF film or other options.

I think most amateurs, though, would argue that some amateur equipment choices are less "not cost effective" than others... :)

Well sure. For an amateur the most cost effective is that which costs the least amount of money. But few of us base our buying decsions solely on cost. If we did we'd all be using 50year old beaters.

[Eric Leppanen]

Well sure. For an amateur the most cost effective is that which costs the least amount of money. But few of us base our buying decsions solely on cost. If we did we'd all be using 50year old beaters.Of course, camera choice is a balance of many factors. If a buyer can afford a suite of equipment (no matter how pricey) and is happy with it, then it was a good purchase. No dispute about that.

IMO the price depreciation now underway in the MF digital market is unusual even by digital photography standards, and is cutting its adherents very deeply. And I think photographers with even the deepest pockets are not indifferent to what is going on (some losing 40-50% of their investment in a matter of weeks), and will obviously be much more wary about any purchases in the future. The situation goes beyond quantitative affordability. No one likes to lose. And MF digital owners are losing right now (Mr. Napier calls the situation "sickening" and describes himself as a "sucker"), the heavy price depreciation being just the opening salvo of an industry implosion now underway.

I only posted this because a number of folks on this forum (including myself) have actively considered migrating to MF digital over the last several years. Some have already migrated. Those with solid justifications have no reason to question their decision. For those who don't, it has clearly proven better (to paraphrase Candide) to stay home and cultivate our garden.

I admit to being irritated by half-stagnant, inefficient industries (which I consider MF digital to be one, since it continued unchanged for years even though its business model was clearly unsustainable), and some have apparently taken exception to a seemingly dismissive tone in my initial post. Any annoyance was aimed solely at the industry, not at its customers, and certainly not at Mr. Napier, who I think should be lauded for honestly sharing his experience.

[Oren Grad]

IMO the price depreciation now underway in the MF digital market is unusual even by digital photography standards, and is cutting its adherents very deeply.

If one was used to the relatively stable market for photography equipment in past decades, the apparent peculiarity of the current market situation is not limited to MF digital. If you buy virtually any of the few remaining 35mm or medium format film cameras that can still be purchased new, you will experience comparably rapid and severe depreciation. For example, try re-selling any Mamiya film camera that you purchase new today through authorized channels. Or a V- or H-system film Hasselblad. Or a Canon EOS-1v, which can still be purchased new. Or a Nikon F100. Or even a Leica M7, for that matter.

In the case of the film cameras, the problem is one of transition, where there's a residual stock of new cameras that remain pricey because of the economics of manufacturing and distribution, while the prices of used ones have been greatly devalued by the drop in demand caused by the transition by most users away from those tools. In the case of the digital cameras, it's one of adapting to what will likely be a permanent or at least long-term situation of more rapid depreciation of the tools of the trade, driven especially by the pace of technological change. But users of both kinds of camera need to think more carefully than many are used to, about whether the purchase of expensive new equipment can be justified.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Memories of the old processes and old times may be fond ones, but it is also worth remembering that we will spend the rest of our lives in the future. Better to embrace it with a sense of new magic than with a sense of dread. IMO, of course.

-snip-

My point of view has always been just because you embrace the new, doesn't mean you must give up the old. I still use a fountain pen, in fact, two months ago, I bought both a new fountain pen, and a new laptop (netbook) to be exact, so you see, the old and new can and do co-exist side by side. It's the thought process that embracing the new somehow means that you *must* abandon the old I object too.

For example, there's nothing wrong with the old colour dye transfer process, I still think nothing matches it today. My personal, "conspiracy theory" is the real *problem* for corporations like Kodak and others isn't that old processes don't make money, it's they don't make enough money. :)

[Marko]

My point of view has always been just because you embrace the new, doesn't mean you must give up the old. I still use a fountain pen, in fact, two months ago, I bought both a new fountain pen, and a new laptop (netbook) to be exact, so you see, the old and new can and do co-exist side by side. It's the thought process that embracing the new somehow means that you *must* abandon the old I object too.

Quite to the contrary - my favorite fountain pen remains Montblanc and I still love using it. But it has been a very long while since I used it for its original, intended purpose. I do that via email these days because everybody's expecting an email with attachment now rather than an envelope in the mail several days later. I still think nothing matches the old, mechanical hand-made preferably Swiss :) wrist watches too, for example. I still have a few of those but I do wear one of the hybrids when I go out, except in very rare occasions.

It is not about abandoning the old, it is about putting it into perspective. On the other hand, appreciating the old does not mean that you have to dislike the new either...


For example, there's nothing wrong with the old colour dye transfer process, I still think nothing matches it today. My personal, "conspiracy theory" is the real *problem* for corporations like Kodak and others isn't that old processes don't make money, it's they don't make enough money. :)

Absolutely. There is no conspiracy per se, it's just the nature of the beast. Because they are big, everything related to them has to be too. Including failures.

[Eric Leppanen]

If one was used to the relatively stable market for photography equipment in past decades, the apparent peculiarity of the current market situation is not limited to MF digital. If you buy virtually any of the few remaining 35mm or medium format film cameras that can still be purchased new, you will experience comparably rapid and severe depreciation. For example, try re-selling any Mamiya film camera that you purchase new today through authorized channels. Or a V- or H-system film Hasselblad. Or a Canon EOS-1v, which can still be purchased new. Or a Nikon F100. Or even a Leica M7, for that matter.

In the case of the film cameras, the problem is one of transition, where there's a residual stock of new cameras that remain pricey because of the economics of manufacturing and distribution, while the prices of used ones have been greatly devalued by the drop in demand caused by the transition by most users away from those tools. In the case of the digital cameras, it's one of adapting to what will likely be a permanent or at least long-term situation of more rapid depreciation of the tools of the trade, driven especially by the pace of technological change. But users of both kinds of camera need to think more carefully than many are used to, about whether the purchase of expensive new equipment can be justified.When evaluating market rate-of-change, I like to compare digital photography to the personal computer market, since DSLR's are essentially portable computers with an optical sensor and lens tacked on. And even though Moore's Law seems alive and well (at least for the moment), the PC market and technology has matured to such an extent (accelerated by the Intel/AMD battle) and machines have gotten so powerful that generational improvements now make little difference to most users. How many users really need 64-bit operating systems, large memory arrays, 3 GHz processors, etc.? Intel's latest CPU family (Core i7) has sold poorly to date (roughly 1% of CPU's sold per the last data I saw), even though its introductory price points compare favorably to previous CPU generations.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I think the DSLR market has now matured to the point where generational migration will significantly slow, and depreciation rates will improve. This is because these products now universally share feature sets (excellent usability, at least 12+MP resolution, large LCD displays, etc.) that fulfill most user needs regardless of the price point picked. The latest generation of 20+MP DSLR's have filled the last remaining product segment that users were waiting for; future product generations will offer incremental capabilities at best (improved HD video, etc.), at least until the next major industry paradigm shift (non-Bayer sensors, etc.). Cutthroat competition and preemptive strikes by manufacturers have benefited customers (and kept the industry dynamic) once again.

In contrast, the MF digital industry oligopoly, despite signs in the tea leaves for years that trouble was brewing, resisted industry consolidation and has now retreated to a last bastion of ultra-high resolution products useful to only a minute fraction of photographers. True, part of this is just human nature. Industry consolidation typically means layoffs, and employees want to keep their jobs, CEO's want to retain their power, boards of directors want to retain their cushy stipends, etc. So meaningful change doesn't occur until forced by the threat of bankruptcy or hostile take-over’s. This is the same thing that happened to Osbourne, Kaypro, AST Research, Compaq, DEC, etc. in the computer market space. Hopefully the MF digital industry will become vibrant and progressive once it consolidates to maybe two players with much better production efficiencies and R&D budgets. Until then, the industry is a mess.