Some info on the 24 MP Nikon - from a Sony engineer

Started Oct 29, 2008 | Discussions thread
Octane Senior Member • Posts: 2,993
Re: Let's make it "odder"

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Can you show where someone promised you, in writing, that things were
going to make sense?

When it comes to business, it has to make sense. Economically, financially. Anything else it just suicide for a company.

But maybe, just maybe, it isn't the medium format concept itself that
is faulty, but the business models, the companies currently making
them, and their disaster of a distribution channel that is flawed.

Plain and simple: no. MF is not a failed system, it is simply a very small volume system. Only a very small number of people need and I mean really need the extra quality and resolution for their work. For thei business it makes sense to spend a lot of money on a slow, expensive, unflexible and cumbersome system.

Maybe, just maybe, in the hands of a Nikon or Canon, MF could work.
Double the sensor area, kill off the 4:3 aspect ratio and go to 2:3,
and offer a lens range that includes an 80mm f2.0 normal and two or
three f2.0 portrait length teles, and a couple of f2.8 wides (35mm
has a shallow DOF advantage over existing MF systems because MF only
increases the diagonal by about 40%, which is a 1 stop improvement,
but they waste it by making all the normals, wides, and portrait
lenses two stops slower). Then shock the world with a 75mm f1.4

See here is what I keep trying to say here but the nature of this forum makes it hard to understand. Reality has very little to do with the theoretical numbers thrown together. MF is large, heavy, slow, creates huge data, costs as much as a high class car. It's just not what people want. The theoretical, technical possibilities are close to meaningless. The low volume of cameras and lenses means they have to be sold at much higher prices which again reduced the number of units sold.

True. However, a move like this would have ripples such as destroying
the entire existing MF industry, and bringing the existing users (I'd
estimate around 25,000 customers) into the Nikon fold. That's a
potential 250,000,000 a year, say $10K/year/customer (based on two
$15k cameras, $10k in lenses with about a 4 year replacement cycle on
cameras and a lesser replacement cycle, but new lens, flash,
software, etc. additions of $2000/year).

Again, you are adding some theoretical numbers that you made up. Highly unrealistic though. The people who have and use an MF system have a lit of money invested in their systems. They won't jump ship. Why would they? The work they do doesn't require a fast performing AF, they already have super shallow DoF, they don't shoot sports events where they need high ISO, they work in studios, they already use Zeiss lenses and have high resolution sesnors.

Most of the things we get all excited about in SLR cameras are of little interest for a studio photographer who spends a good amount of time lighting and setting up each individual shot. That means there are only a few things left where you can try to beat the competition.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow