# some may say its because of the D800.... MF gets cheaper



## Astro (May 19, 2012)

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/05/19/hasselblad-cuts-prices-makes-owning-a-medium-format-cheaper/#more-55869




> Many a photographer would love to have a medium format camera gracing their camera bag, but not everyone can afford to drop anywhere between twenty and forty thousand dollars on a Hasselblad. Fortunately, the price of owning one just dropped by 22.9-percent. In an attempt to make medium formats more affordable and commonplace, Hasselblad is launching a global marketing initiative that will significantly drop the price of many of their cameras, including the entry-level H4D-31 (down by ~$5,000), and the 60MP H4D-60 (down by ~$8,000).


----------



## dr croubie (May 20, 2012)

Damn, an H4D-31 for the price of a D3X?

Maybe it is because of the D800, maybe because of the Pentax 645D.

Marketing theory means it's probably about locking people into a brand, the same way some people start on an 1100D or 550D and end up buying a 1DX a few years later (eh, Neuro?)

Or they could just be doing the same as Canon, with all those 5D2 specials and rebates, conveniently a few months before the 5D3 dropped...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 1, 2012)

http://www.hasselblad.com.au/hb/index.cfm?pageID=12&subPrdGroup=52&modelID=174&

not a bad deal actually


----------



## aznable (Jun 2, 2012)

dont think so...the sigma sd1 resolve more pixels than d800 since a year and nothing happened...maybe pentax is putting pressure on them


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 2, 2012)

aznable said:


> dont think so...the sigma sd1 resolve more pixels than d800 since a year and nothing happened...maybe pentax is putting pressure on them



Yeah, but then, it may resolve more effective pixels, but it saves it to an image file with less pixels than either. Doesn't help for billboard-printers or wildlife-croppers, which everyone around here is now.

That, and the 'sigma' brand/logo and '$8000' just made everyone else laugh...


----------



## psolberg (Jun 7, 2012)

head over to http://diglloyd.com/ (payed site but has some reader comments) about just how silly the D800 is making the MF guys look.

so yeah, it is because of the D800.


----------



## ajw123 (Jun 7, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9UBTE4xpvpk#!

I don't think there is a huge difference between the Nikon and the Hasselblad.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 7, 2012)

While it is nice to see MF manufacturer trying to drop prices, they are going to have to reduce them a LOT more if they want to compete with the D800 and things likely to come after it.

There are mechanical advantages to having that physically larger sensor, but they are becoming less and less important relative to the additional cost. Sure there will always be people willing to pay a premium for small incremental gains (or for that matter, the additional cred you can convey to customers if they see one), but the number of people willing to do that will likely be slowly decreasing.

I know MF sensors, being larger, are more expensive to produce.. but they really need to find a way to bring that price down if they want to survive in any significant way. Maybe they need to start looking at tiled sensors again?


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 7, 2012)

ajw123 said:


> I don't think there is a huge difference between the Nikon and the Hasselblad.



That was a really interesting comparison.
What I take away from this is that the D800 eats into some of the use cases that MF would normally be used for, but does not do well across the board.. so for situations where MF was not that great of a fit in the first place might find the D800 to be better.

So as is often the case, as you get more options, each option covers a smaller and smaller domain, but they rarely completely replace each other.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> While it is nice to see MF manufacturer trying to drop prices, they are going to have to reduce them a LOT more if they want to compete with the D800 and things likely to come after it.



Nomination for the joke of the evening:

D800 owners always put over the mps of the D800 as to why its IQ is so much better than the 5DIII

When a 80mb MF comes along they say the MF will struggle to compete.

Foot the boot other hurts when is on


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 8, 2012)

I think realistically comparing and 35mm sensor with a hassleblad or phase IQ digital back is like steve urkel
stepping into the ring with mike tyson


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Neeneko said:
> 
> 
> > While it is nice to see MF manufacturer trying to drop prices, they are going to have to reduce them a LOT more if they want to compete with the D800 and things likely to come after it.
> ...



Well, for starters, I am a 300D owner, not a D800 one.

Second the D800 is not going to take much of a chunk out of the high MP MF cameras, but the gap is getting smaller between the capabilities of the high end DSLRs and low end MF cameras. MF cameras already operate on the law of diminishing returns, they cost a lot more for a marginal improvement. As they get closer this ratio is going to get worse and worse. As market shrinks they can only raise prices so much before it hurts their business. It will not wipe them out, but will shrink them.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Neeneko said:
> ...



Same applies to DSLR and P&S, 4/3 etc - the bottom end ie 600D is so much better than the 400D for example. And so the MF will have to continue with improving their bottom end. The Pentax 645 must be due for a major revision soon - perhaps 60mps and 2fps?


----------



## lola (Jun 8, 2012)

When I see Phase One's IQ series prices going down, then I'll believe that D800 is threatening the MF market!


----------



## Aglet (Jun 8, 2012)

ajw123 said:


> I don't think there is a huge difference between the Nikon and the Hasselblad.



different boats for different floats.

I DID get a kick out of them saying *they like the snob factor* (my words) of them showing up with the Hassie cuz it makes them LOOK more professional. 

I still prefer skin tones from my Canon's over my Nikons, perhaps that'd make an interesting comparison to the Hassie too?


----------



## kdsand (Jun 8, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I think realistically comparing and 35mm sensor with a hassleblad or phase IQ digital back is like steve urkel
> stepping into the ring with mike tyson


 
I can't help but have a visual of poor urkel dodging about desperately trying to get away screaming "he's hungry" "*O God eek!*"


----------



## kdsand (Jun 8, 2012)

Aglet said:


> ajw123 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there is a huge difference between the Nikon and the Hasselblad.
> ...



Many people are at the core just fanboys or posers - sadly.
Random imperfections often give a human element to art. 

Perhaps some time with a pinhole camera would be beneficial for many.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 8, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I DID get a kick out of them saying *they like the snob factor* (my words) of them showing up with the Hassie cuz it makes them LOOK more professional.



That is less 'snob factor' and more 'business factor'. It is like showing up to an interview in a nice suit, if it is more likely to get you the job then you better well do it.

Now, going with a solution that is less likely to get you the job because you want to avoid the 'snob factor', that is what I would call pretty elitist. 'I am so twue that I am going to use equipment which is against my business interest and potentially loose (or fail to acquire) clients because being true to the hardware is more important to myself image then ability to get work'


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Same applies to DSLR and P&S, 4/3 etc - the bottom end ie 600D is so much better than the 400D for example. And so the MF will have to continue with improving their bottom end. The Pentax 645 must be due for a major revision soon - perhaps 60mps and 2fps?



*nods* that is where I was going with the idea of more choices causing issues for some companies. When there are a few choices, most fit poorly, and many people go with something that is less then ideal but is as close as they can get. MF manufacturers currently use this to get customers who are not really impacted by the best features of MF but need something that DSLRs do not have.

The same thing is eating into DSLRs from the other end. Mirrorless cameras are not 'better', but as they start to overlap DSLR capabilities, people who were only using DSLRs because they lacked a better suited option will migrate to them.

Now, the real risk to some MF manufactures is their lack of diversity. If you look at Canon/Nikon/Sigma/etc, they produce a range of cameras so if markets shift they can shuffle production... in other words they can cannibalize their own sales rather then have others eat into them.

Some MF manufactures can do this.. Sigma has a nice broad range of photographic cameras, Megavision has its scientific imaging and other specialty offerings.. but PhaseOne or Hasselblad? If the MF market shrinks then they shrink (though I could be wrong there in that I do not know if either of those two examples actually do have other markets)


----------



## psolberg (Jun 8, 2012)

> When a 80mb MF comes along they say the MF will struggle to compete.



I think nikon can make said sensor easily, but price is the key aspect here. for 3K you can have a decent rig that can rival the majority of what you use MF for. For the things MF can do better, the price increase goes exponential and the market shrinks further and competition gets tougher. 

make not mistake about it. the D800 will keep a LOT of people from going to the bottom end of MF even if there remain uses for 80+MP true MF wonder cameras. Any MF manufacturer is taking the D800 seriously as a sign of things to come. Canon will inevitably follow Nikon with an high MP body and MF will have to deliver more value if it is to justify its price.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 8, 2012)

Actually, thinking about it... the real thing that could be a threat to them wouldn't be the high MF bodies, but instead of lower size manufactures start producing sensor packages with the same colour depth. The bigger the sensor the longer the product lifecycle, the older the generation of technology going into it. I could easily see Sony or Canon deciding to focus on how many bits per pixel they are getting out of the sensor and leapfrog over the 14 or 16 bit of MF.

For that matter if they get their MP up a bit more and have more bits, they could do some serious tricks with the CFA like baking ND into the array and getting some really impressive DR, which would take the MF sensor makers a while to catch up to.


----------



## Danielle (Jun 9, 2012)

LOL. I don't care what the reason is, this is positive news to me.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 9, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> That is less 'snob factor' and more 'business factor'. It is like showing up to an interview in a nice suit, if it is more likely to get you the job then you better well do it.



That's a better analogy.

Altho I still don't quite get it, I've never worn a suit to an interview, just a funeral. 
And only out of respect for the occupant of the casket I helped carry. (still wore hiking boots for traction  )

As for bits-per-pixel, 16 will be plenty for a LONG time.
12 can be good enough, 14's even better, but the data better come clean from the sensor to start with.
Not much of that happening in Canon bodies yet, those 2 LSB are mostly encoding noise instead of tonal detail.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 9, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Altho I still don't quite get it, I've never worn a suit to an interview, just a funeral.
> And only out of respect for the occupant of the casket I helped carry. (still wore hiking boots for traction  )



This fits in pretty well with the example, context and audience are key. For professional photographers, some types of clients will care, others will not. A while back I was arguing with a fine arts photographer that was pointing out in his community digital was stigmatized and nothing short of high resolution film with 50 year old $10k+ lenses would get you a second look.... so if you wanted recognition (work and awards) you used exotic film and expensive antique lenses.

With interviews, some will care, some will not. At my place, last person who showed up in jeans we just sorta shook our heads, but I have been on interviews for other types of jobs that a suit was not necessary or appropriate.


----------



## aznable (Jun 9, 2012)

psolberg said:


> > When a 80mb MF comes along they say the MF will struggle to compete.
> 
> 
> 
> I think nikon SONY can make said sensor easily



corrected… and...maybe they can in labs just as canon did and aps-h 120mpix one.

but bring it to market it's a totally different story


----------



## psolberg (Jun 12, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Altho I still don't quite get it, I've never worn a suit to an interview, just a funeral.
> ...



I agree that in some situations you need to present yourself. yet what camera you use, as long as it is not an iphone, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant as long as you deliver what is expected of you. Sure Canon/Nikon are seen as kid's toys in the Hassy, Leica, Mamiya circles. Yet the images coming out of the D800 are really putting a black eye on these OEMs which demand huge prices that are not proportional to the gains. People wake up to this and OEMs of MF equipment will either be forced to adjust prices to remain competitive, or have to take leap forwards to fend off 35mm dslrs.

Nikon's D4X could very well be a 50MP monster based on the 24MP APSC sensor just like the D800 is based on the 16MP APSC sensor.

Dedmands for these types of cameras exists and it will not scape the eyes of Sony and Canon either which both will inevitably be playing catchup now that nikon was blazed the he trail.


----------

