Future of 35mm format lenses

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Then why are photoalbum services growing so rapidly?...

More retired people perhaps?

[lct]

Then why are photoalbum services growing so rapidly?...

More retired people perhaps?

[jaapv]

Some were indeed, but in my perception most were just clamoring for "full frame" without a clear perception of why

[jaapv]

Some were indeed, but in my perception most were just clamoring for "full frame" without a clear perception of why

[SJP]

True, most are driven by unfounded emotion. I am a technogeek/nerd type i guess.

[SJP]

True, most are driven by unfounded emotion. I am a technogeek/nerd type i guess.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In this case, I would suggest driven by excellent Canon marketing:p

[jaapv]

In this case, I would suggest driven by excellent Canon marketing:p

[bbbonthemoon]

There are already MF digital at lower price and weight,

Pentax 645D, priced around 10k usd (not that far from D3X) with weight of 1.5kg(again close to pro 35mm digital cameras). How long it will take before we see MF digital cameras around 3-5k price brackets and even lesser size/weight? I think we speak matter of few years.

 

And as I told before, if majority of curent amateur/pro customers preferred size over files quality, there would be no market for current FF bodies, they are much bulkier than ASP-C or 3/4 cameras. So the moment MF cameras arrive at consumer grade price/size, and many oh-so-lovely reviews appear, many current DSLR users will be tempted to switch. Despite of the fact that 35mm cameras probably got smaller at that time. Someone who prefers his 1kg D700, over tiny 0.5kg D5100 now, most probably will trade weight for files quality again.

 

But anyway, thaths purely theoretical, only the time will show what is gonna happen. Still, as owner of some Leica M glass, with aims to buy more, I feel that common justification such as "I can always sell it for the amount I paid" may fail me

[bbbonthemoon]

There are already MF digital at lower price and weight,

Pentax 645D, priced around 10k usd (not that far from D3X) with weight of 1.5kg(again close to pro 35mm digital cameras). How long it will take before we see MF digital cameras around 3-5k price brackets and even lesser size/weight? I think we speak matter of few years.

 

And as I told before, if majority of curent amateur/pro customers preferred size over files quality, there would be no market for current FF bodies, they are much bulkier than ASP-C or 3/4 cameras. So the moment MF cameras arrive at consumer grade price/size, and many oh-so-lovely reviews appear, many current DSLR users will be tempted to switch. Despite of the fact that 35mm cameras probably got smaller at that time. Someone who prefers his 1kg D700, over tiny 0.5kg D5100 now, most probably will trade weight for files quality again.

 

But anyway, thaths purely theoretical, only the time will show what is gonna happen. Still, as owner of some Leica M glass, with aims to buy more, I feel that common justification such as "I can always sell it for the amount I paid" may fail me

[mmradman]

In this case, I would suggest driven by excellent Canon marketing:p

 

Agree. But it was not only marketing, technological prowess too.

 

Canon developed FF sensor DSLR early on and developed market dominance with Ds1 and D5, but also 1.3 crop D1 models.

Angst in Nikon camp was unbearable until August 2007 when D3 was finally launched, shortly followed by reasonably priced D700. Nikon started increasing market share and catching up with Canon.

Sony jumped on the bandwagon with 24Mp A900 - same sensor is employed in Nikon D3x.

Leica followers had to wait for M9 till September 2009, if it didn't happen maybe M8 would have followed R system.

Getting FF frame digital camera was question of survival for Leica. Without FF frame M9 making new M lenses would be meaningless.

On the other hand launching S2 was drive to carve prominent position in a niche market but this could only happen on the back of M9 success.

Market for medium format in volume terms is very limited as technology is and will remain expensive. I would imagine annual global sales of all makes is several thousand.

Full frame market has good offering of models but total number of sales across all manufacturers is few percent of the total so real volume sales (selling in millions) are cameras with small form, small sensor that also translate into low price.

[mmradman]

In this case, I would suggest driven by excellent Canon marketing:p

 

Agree. But it was not only marketing, technological prowess too.

 

Canon developed FF sensor DSLR early on and developed market dominance with Ds1 and D5, but also 1.3 crop D1 models.

Angst in Nikon camp was unbearable until August 2007 when D3 was finally launched, shortly followed by reasonably priced D700. Nikon started increasing market share and catching up with Canon.

Sony jumped on the bandwagon with 24Mp A900 - same sensor is employed in Nikon D3x.

Leica followers had to wait for M9 till September 2009, if it didn't happen maybe M8 would have followed R system.

Getting FF frame digital camera was question of survival for Leica. Without FF frame M9 making new M lenses would be meaningless.

On the other hand launching S2 was drive to carve prominent position in a niche market but this could only happen on the back of M9 success.

Market for medium format in volume terms is very limited as technology is and will remain expensive. I would imagine annual global sales of all makes is several thousand.

Full frame market has good offering of models but total number of sales across all manufacturers is few percent of the total so real volume sales (selling in millions) are cameras with small form, small sensor that also translate into low price.

[mmradman]

And as I told before, if majority of curent amateur/pro customers preferred size over files quality, there would be no market for current FF bodies, they are much bulkier than ASP-C or 3/4 cameras. So the moment MF cameras arrive at consumer grade price/size, and many oh-so-lovely reviews appear, many current DSLR users will be tempted to switch. Despite of the fact that 35mm cameras probably got smaller at that time. Someone who prefers his 1kg D700, over tiny 0.5kg D5100 now, most probably will trade weight for files quality again.

 

You may find that D5100 has pretty good image quality compared to D700, especially at base ISO - there is three years difference in sensor technology between the two. What makes D700 attractive to some users, apart from FF sensor size, is the fact it is literally bomb proof compared to D5100, weight is necessary attribute to achieve robustness.

 

Many D5100 buyers would faint by just contemplating the price they would have to pay for D700.

 

Some DSLR users will switch to medium format but bigger majority will switch to smaller body forms - small size and low price sells.

[mmradman]

And as I told before, if majority of curent amateur/pro customers preferred size over files quality, there would be no market for current FF bodies, they are much bulkier than ASP-C or 3/4 cameras. So the moment MF cameras arrive at consumer grade price/size, and many oh-so-lovely reviews appear, many current DSLR users will be tempted to switch. Despite of the fact that 35mm cameras probably got smaller at that time. Someone who prefers his 1kg D700, over tiny 0.5kg D5100 now, most probably will trade weight for files quality again.

 

You may find that D5100 has pretty good image quality compared to D700, especially at base ISO - there is three years difference in sensor technology between the two. What makes D700 attractive to some users, apart from FF sensor size, is the fact it is literally bomb proof compared to D5100, weight is necessary attribute to achieve robustness.

 

Many D5100 buyers would faint by just contemplating the price they would have to pay for D700.

 

Some DSLR users will switch to medium format but bigger majority will switch to smaller body forms - small size and low price sells.

[jaapv]

Agree. But it was not only marketing, technological prowess too.

 

Canon developed FF sensor DSLR early on and developed market dominance with Ds1 and D5, but also 1.3 crop D1 models.

 

Angst in Nikon camp was unbearable until August 2007 when D3 was finally launched, shortly followed by reasonably priced D700. Nikon started increasing market share and catching up with Canon.

 

Sony jumped on the bandwagon with 24Mp A900 - same sensor is employed in Nikon D3x.

 

Leica followers had to wait for M9 till September 2009, if it didn't happen maybe M8 would have followed R system.

 

Getting FF frame digital camera was question of survival for Leica. Without FF frame M9 making new M lenses would be meaningless.

On the other hand launching S2 was drive to carve prominent position in a niche market but this could only happen on the back of M9 success.

 

Market for medium format in volume terms is very limited as technology is and will remain expensive. I would imagine annual global sales of all makes is several thousand.

 

Full frame market has good offering of models but total number of sales across all manufacturers is few percent of the total so real volume sales (selling in millions) are cameras with small form, small sensor that also translate into low price.

According to Leica the annual market for medium format is about 10.000 (2009) The S2 marketing target is 10%. As far as I can guess that target is easily met, so the camera is a success.

[jaapv]

Agree. But it was not only marketing, technological prowess too.

 

Canon developed FF sensor DSLR early on and developed market dominance with Ds1 and D5, but also 1.3 crop D1 models.

 

Angst in Nikon camp was unbearable until August 2007 when D3 was finally launched, shortly followed by reasonably priced D700. Nikon started increasing market share and catching up with Canon.

 

Sony jumped on the bandwagon with 24Mp A900 - same sensor is employed in Nikon D3x.

 

Leica followers had to wait for M9 till September 2009, if it didn't happen maybe M8 would have followed R system.

 

Getting FF frame digital camera was question of survival for Leica. Without FF frame M9 making new M lenses would be meaningless.

On the other hand launching S2 was drive to carve prominent position in a niche market but this could only happen on the back of M9 success.

 

Market for medium format in volume terms is very limited as technology is and will remain expensive. I would imagine annual global sales of all makes is several thousand.

 

Full frame market has good offering of models but total number of sales across all manufacturers is few percent of the total so real volume sales (selling in millions) are cameras with small form, small sensor that also translate into low price.

According to Leica the annual market for medium format is about 10.000 (2009) The S2 marketing target is 10%. As far as I can guess that target is easily met, so the camera is a success.

[Jeff S]

In my perception it is the demand for quality per size going up, not the demand for quality staying stable and the size going down.

 

I agree with this. Quality improvement is demanded in all segments for the 'discerning photographer' market.

 

My earlier point was that, given this principle and trend, more people will buy the smaller and still less expensive (35mm) format than the larger format (as recent history demonstrates), once quality considerations are met in each respective format. That's my rebuttal to the OP's argument that MF will replace 35mm.

 

Only time will tell.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

In my perception it is the demand for quality per size going up, not the demand for quality staying stable and the size going down.

 

I agree with this. Quality improvement is demanded in all segments for the 'discerning photographer' market.

 

My earlier point was that, given this principle and trend, more people will buy the smaller and still less expensive (35mm) format than the larger format (as recent history demonstrates), once quality considerations are met in each respective format. That's my rebuttal to the OP's argument that MF will replace 35mm.

 

Only time will tell.

 

Jeff

[pico]

Well, I dont see any technical problem to make digital medium format camera in a size of current, say, canon 5d mark ii. Until the body is wide enough to accommodate the sensor(which cannot be minimized due to laws of optics), all the other parts eventually get smaller. Probably it will be possible to put one in M9-a-like size rangefinder body also :-)

 

If you can discover a way to make a camera bigger on the inside than it is on the outside, then forget the camera stuff and apply it to women's fashions.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

Well, I dont see any technical problem to make digital medium format camera in a size of current, say, canon 5d mark ii. Until the body is wide enough to accommodate the sensor(which cannot be minimized due to laws of optics), all the other parts eventually get smaller. Probably it will be possible to put one in M9-a-like size rangefinder body also :-)

 

If you can discover a way to make a camera bigger on the inside than it is on the outside, then forget the camera stuff and apply it to women's fashions.