Reading mode: Light Dark

MF price war and Canon's 1D series

Go to last post
J

jindrich

Well-known member
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Location
DE
This Photokina 2008 has brought a very agressive Hasselblad who's definetely slashed all its prices ("...due to increased volume and improved production techniques.."), up to a 50%, causing a revolution in the MF world and forcing every other MF manufacturer to follow suit.

That means one can already step into MF territory for just €12k (31MP back+body+viewfinder+lens) or €15k for the H3D-39 (also with lens). This is putting a lot of stress on the 1Ds at €8k, which now looks like a total rip off. The new 5DmkII at just €2.6k doesn't help either.

After this unexpected MF pressure, to add to the one from Nikon and Sony, will we see the next 1D series at prices of €5k or less? Would you still get a new 1D body at €8k when MF is so affordable now?
 
jindrich said:
This Photokina 2008 has brought a very agressive Hasselblad who's
definetely slashed all its prices ("...due to increased volume and
improved production techniques.."), up to a 50%, causing a revolution
in the MF world and forcing every other MF manufacturer to follow
suit.
That means one can already step into MF territory for just €12k (31MP
back+body+viewfinder+lens) or €15k for the H3D-39 (also with lens).
This is putting a lot of stress on the 1Ds at €8k, which now looks
like a total rip off. The new 5DmkII at just €2.6k doesn't help
either.

After this unexpected MF pressure, to add to the one from Nikon and
Sony, will we see the next 1D series at prices of €5k or less? Would
you still get a new 1D body at €8k when MF is so affordable now?
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument, let's say that the next 1 series is the same in $ as it is in Euros. Often that's the case, lately. Now, I have an extensive list of Canon lenses, but no Hassy lenses, (or Leicas, which interest me more than a Hassy,) so the difference between an $8000 Canon and a $12000 Hassy or Leica becomes more along the lines of not $4000, but closer the $10000, or enough to buy a second 1Ds and another lens. Yeah, the Canon is a bit overpriced, especially in contrast to the higher res MF bodies, but when you tally the entire package, it becomes less feasible to buy into it, if your only reason is pique. The biggest IF is whether Canon will continue to a) charge $8000 for the camera, b) how much of an increase in resolution and c) whether they will continue with a 24x36 sized sensor.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
The H3D-39 at .5fps is competition for the 5fps 1DsIII? In what way exactly? I have trouble imagining an application other than a studio fashion shoot where the two cameras could be in direct competition with one another. Otherwise they're two completely different beasts.
jindrich said:
That means one can already step into MF territory for just €12k (31MP
back+body+viewfinder+lens) or €15k for the H3D-39 (also with lens).
This is putting a lot of stress on the 1Ds at €8k, which now looks
like a total rip off. The new 5DmkII at just €2.6k doesn't help
either.
Click to expand...
 
try comparing the h3d-31 and the 1ds.

the 1ds has a much better AI servo AF, some more fps, and the chance to shoot with superteles, ( although that's more the task of the 1d3 as the 1ds is too slow for sports). That's all there is.

The 1ds is more a studio/controlled enviroment shooting camera to me, where the hassys are perfectly at home.

The hassy h3d-31 has iso 100-1600, 1/800 xsync, 1 fps, better LCD, it's 4 times faster when shooting tethered, DR and colour fidelity are on a whole another planet, and lenses are much better (though more expensive). The canon's 16-35 and 24-70 are already struggling with 21mp, while Hasselblad's zoom for instance, is at at least as good as an L prime.
 
the fact that hasselblads with fuji glass take much better pictures than any canon, nikon, sony combined?

that appears to be missing from your meditation, which is therefore useless to the photographers and useful to the almost-as-good gear makers and their marketing departments

now the only reason why I didn't buy one was because of the absurd price and when you talk to any of their reps you feel like you're talking to a priest (they do talk "slowly".. almost whispering to justify the prices they're selling LOL .. try and check it out if you don't believe me. it will be fun.)

Hasselblad will come back to earth soon, believe me.

and they didn't cut the listings (in terms of money) because they are nice: they did it because there are "movements" in the segment. Anything they do is because of the money .. what else? even if the are whispering ..it is still about the money they have to make. more is better, until they can of course.
 
the only segment where the "almost-as-good" but "fast" category will sell is sports and fast'n'light PJ , or street-PJ

all the rest will only benefit from a better quality. Pretty much as it used to be with film

all the rest includes enthusiasts and amateurs, not just pro photographers (again as it used to be before digital)

if not then there will be another funny thing to watch: why do you think people were buying a 10 fps capable camera if they are not shooting sports at all, not even professionally, and not even as amateurs? it makes no sense, and that only because the better one was 3K more? only because of that?

and THAT was funny.. wasn't it?

well now it's over with that nonsense: there will be no more 1Ds for that absurd price to make yourself believe that you didn't really need it.
 
i dont know wheter the MF is in trouble or not, but I know the recent $40k prices for the top bodies were getting nowhere and were annoying many phtogs, and now Hasselblad has put an end to that.

On the other hand, i dont see 35mm entering in the commercial world at all, even less if prices get this close as they're since this week. From the tip of my head

-tethered shooting with DSLRs is very embarrasing, to both the photog and clients

-MF files are bottomless in pospo while DSLR are plasticy and have highlights and shadow trouble
-resolution is there in spades
-most 35mm glass are getting trouble with the sensor pixel increase
-paying clients expect big cameras unless your surname is Lebowitz

At PK many photogs were very excited at the news, many shooting numbers to find out the total cost of a switch. A clever move by Hasseblad IMO is the zoom. With just the zoom, the 100mm f2 and the x1.7 (which is awesome unlike those in 35mm), you get the equivalent of 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135 in 35mm focal land. Just two lenses and one converter. A great starting pack.
 
Really, I don't think you'll be doing the same things with a $20,000 5lb 1fps camera that shoots 40MB RAW files at a minimum of 1/800 sec as you will with an $8,000 2.5lb 5fps camera that shoots at a minimum of 1/8000 sec and that you can use as a blunt weapon with no ill effects. You can do anything with a 1Ds that you can with a 1D and take it to any of the same places, as long as you don't need to shoot more than 5fps.

The Hassy, it needs a little TLC unless $10,000 here, $50,000 there isn't a big deal.

But it shoots nicer photos if you need them.
jindrich said:
try comparing the h3d-31 and the 1ds.
Click to expand...
 
Dude, you want to carry around a $15,000 brick instead of an $8,000 half-a-brick, go right ahead! Do you shoot MF? Do you shoot sheet film? If you want to pick up the camera, walk around the planet with it, and fire away, you pick up the 35mm no matter how nice the 6x6 is. If you have tripods, cables, computers, lights, $500/hr models, and someone to hold things for you, then why not use the 6x6.

If there's any price pressure on the 1Ds from Hasselblad, or whoever, I'm sure it can sell for $6,000 instead of $8,000.

Personally I think the 1.3 crop 1D will go away in the not too distant future, leaving 1 or 2 FF pro models, so all this becomes pretty much irrelevant anyway.

-j
cityphotographer said:
the only segment where the "almost-as-good" but "fast" category will
sell is sports and fast'n'light PJ , or street-PJ

all the rest will only benefit from a better quality. Pretty much as
it used to be with film

all the rest includes enthusiasts and amateurs, not just pro
photographers (again as it used to be before digital)

if not then there will be another funny thing to watch: why do you
think people were buying a 10 fps capable camera if they are not
shooting sports at all, not even professionally, and not even as
amateurs? it makes no sense, and that only because the better one was
3K more? only because of that?

and THAT was funny.. wasn't it?

well now it's over with that nonsense: there will be no more 1Ds for
that absurd price to make yourself believe that you didn't really
need it.
Click to expand...
 
Irrationally, what set me off about Hassy was their claim to be the first full frame DSLR, made with the HD3. It's not full MF frame, in any format, and Canon was the first in 35mm format. That sort of claim irks me. And the absurd prices they charge(d) for the privilege...
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
the current big sensor people will have to cut much more than what they did during this past month .

much much more

this whole "better quality" in digital has been all a fiction. Canon started it shooting 8K for the first 1Ds

if you remember Canon was with no competition for 5 years.

the price of the best DSLR did influence the bigger sensor people. All avid to make money the way they were used to with film. Sinar, Hasselblad (when they bought imacon) and then phase, Kodak making big sensors for (finally) some profit, dalsa, now even Leica! (LOL go figure)

With the only exception of Mamyia. (honestly I have no idea why their project didn't work.. at all)

I do believe that the entrance of Sony (as a sensor maker as well) put a great scare not only to Canon, but to everybody. I have an idea about it: it may be because of Zeiss. Let's don't forget that the hassy (and also the new 50MP one) doesn't speak German (yet) with the glass.

:)
 
I'm no big fan of the "new Hasselblad" company, but dissing MF doesn't get us anywhere.

Digital MF can do some stuff that DSLRs cannot do and vice versa. Both have their places, and I would be happy to see either or both become less expensive.

Certainly DSLRs can shoot faster, are smaller and lighter, have more available lenses and other accessories, and cost less. But for certain application (certain kinds of studio work, landscape, etc.) the MF bodies and lenses have some very real attractions that make them worth the price, and even more so if the prices come down.

By the way, while we are familiar in these forums with those who feel that FF DSLRs can produce quality equivalent to film MF, are you aware that there are some very good LF photographers who are moving to digital MF because the same holds true (in their opinions) regarding a comparison between film LF and digital MF?

Horses for course and all that.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
Blog: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3/
 
jindrich said:
i dont know wheter the MF is in trouble or not, but I know the recent
$40k prices for the top bodies were getting nowhere and were annoying
many phtogs, and now Hasselblad has put an end to that.

On the other hand, i dont see 35mm entering in the commercial world
at all, even less if prices get this close as they're since this
week. From the tip of my head
Click to expand...
You'd better get the tip of your head out of where ever it is, 'cause 35mm based digital entered the commercial world a long, long time ago. And, as I pointed out in my other post to this thread, it's not just the cost of the bodies. Lenses are much more expensive for MF, and those prices aren't changing. There's still a large gulf in pricing between the top of the 35mm DSLR chain and the bottom of the MF digital market.
jindrich said:
-tethered shooting with DSLRs is very embarrasing, to both the photog
and clients
Click to expand...
That requires an explanation. In what way is shooting tethered with a 35mm digital embarrasing? In what way is shooting tethered with any camera embarrasing? In what way is shooting tethered with a 35mm DSLR different from shooting tethered with an MF DSLR? How is any of the preceedingr embarrasing to a client???
jindrich said:
-MF files are bottomless in pospo while DSLR are plasticy and have
highlights and shadow trouble
Click to expand...
Until recently, MF files were hard to work with, from what I gather from my few friends who shoot it, anything outside of ISO400 was pretty much unusable. I'm not sure if any of that has changed. And I'd emphatically disagree with the outdated notion that 35mm DSLR files are "plasticy." Only if the operator loses his/her way in post, and that can happen to any file, 35mm, MF, or P&S.
jindrich said:
-resolution is there in spades
Click to expand...
In some iterations, yes. Others, no. Mamiya ZD is a case in point.
jindrich said:
-most 35mm glass are getting trouble with the sensor pixel increase
Click to expand...
Proof?
jindrich said:
-paying clients expect big cameras unless your surname is Lebowitz
Click to expand...
Hardly.
jindrich said:
At PK many photogs were very excited at the news, many shooting
numbers to find out the total cost of a switch. A clever move by
Hasseblad IMO is the zoom. With just the zoom, the 100mm f2 and the
x1.7 (which is awesome unlike those in 35mm), you get the equivalent
of 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135 in 35mm focal land. Just two lenses and one
converter. A great starting pack.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Cost and bulk, too. I can get 24, 35, 50, 70 and 135 in 35mm digital with only two lenses, and I don't need a converter.

I'm not saying that MF isn't superior to 35 in some ways. I just take exception to most of your points.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
all this makes one wonder who a potentially great camera like the Leica S2 will fare
at $30,000... not too well I think
Tony
 
Well I haven't found a digital body of any size that can shoot expired 4x5 Polaroid film.

There's never one "best." There's just the one that's best for "X."
gdanmitchell said:
By the way, while we are familiar in these forums with those who feel
that FF DSLRs can produce quality equivalent to film MF, are you
aware that there are some very good LF photographers who are moving
to digital MF because the same holds true (in their opinions)
regarding a comparison between film LF and digital MF?
Click to expand...
 
Ken Phillips said:
MOST commercial work is done with DSLR's. Period.
Click to expand...
sure, I guess you're right.

take the product images of canon's DSLR cameras (for the Canon's brochures for example or to spread over the net), done with the DSLR phase one?

I mean.. it's a DSLR ..... correct?

So I agree: most of the commercial work is done with Digital Single Lens Reflex 35mm class Cameras, all but the ones made for Canon.

Fair enough?

now about the rest of the commercial work I kinda doubt that the big studios use those worthless phase or hasselblad. A DSLR is much more ... how can I say this?.. ok, heck.. they are cool and the photographer holding one of those feels cool too. Who cares about the pictures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top