/p/ - Photography » Thread #3728050

[35 / 5 / ?]

46KiB, 660x440, 09ede0-bf517b-640x516x2.jpg

Affordable Photography

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 15:41:12 No.3728050 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3728059 >>3728161 >>3728297 >>3730197 >>3730669

Something has been rolling around in my mind for awhile.
Affordable Photography. Why haven't manufacturers given us "affordable' photography options in larger format cameras?

One idea is that they add all the video stuff to the camera/body. This goes beyond just the hardware too - man hours making they system software able to do video, format licensing, etc.

SO why don't they make a CAMERA-ONLY medium format digital camera? Why not? Would it really be that stupid to have "Just a camera" if it lowered the cost?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:17:40 No.3728058 Report

Quoted By: >>3728068 >>3728175 >>3730670

Very, very few medium format bodies do video. The vast majority are CAMERA-ONLY and are still very expensive.

You can already get affordable medium format in the fujifilm gfx50R, which is only $3500 for the body. That's a hell of a deal. You can also get used Phase one bodies for under a grand. The lenses are very expensive, but adapters exist.

Honestly, though: shoot film if you want medium format. The cameras are pretty cheap, the film is expensive but widely available, and the quality is still very high.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:19:21 No.3728059 Report

Quoted By: >>3728062 >>3728069

>>3728050
Anything larger than full-frame is almost purely professional territory. Professionals that can write things off as business expenses. If you aren't to that point yet, them you really don't need to upgrade from FF - price really doesn't matter unless you're an amateur.
Even then, it's a very very small subset of today's professionals who even move to MF or LF cameras at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:23:25 No.3728062 Report

Quoted By: >>3728065

>>3728059
>Anything larger than full-frame is almost purely professional territory.

Dude, even most FF shit is beyond the necessity for majority of people. Nobody prints photos anymore (for the most part). There's no need for soccerdad to be sporting a 24mp FF camera when he's just going to post the full res to FB for it to compress the fuck out of anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:26:22 No.3728065 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728062
As an amateur that shoots both MF and 4x5, I'm very aware. People don't buy things just out of necessity, though. I'd be lying if I said that a gfx 100 wouldn't be neato for landscapes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:31:03 No.3728068 Report

Quoted By: >>3728070 >>3728077

>>3728058
You can't just state a shitty, biased, anchored, and deluded opinion like "that's a hell of a deal" and have it be fact. Get that through your thick fucking skull.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:31:28 No.3728069 Report

Quoted By: >>3728075

>>3728059
But isn't that a chicken and the egg? It's professional / business expense because they all seem to be $5000 +

You wouldn't honestly think some photographers wouldn't want to pick up a medium format for $2500?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:32:09 No.3728070 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728068
Calm down, sperg

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:36:02 No.3728075 Report

Quoted By: >>3728093

>>3728069
No, it isn't a chicken / egg situation because of the larger production costs. It's far harder to produce a 645-sized sensor than a full frame one - far more are trashed for each good sensor that's installed in a camera. Not to mention the larger data throughput, lower number of bodies and lenses sold, etc. There wouldn't be any profit to be made with a $2500 camera. A company wouldn't lose money just to carry favor with budget-minded ameteurs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 16:39:42 No.3728077 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728068
You seem upset, mongo.

Just because you're a gay broke boy doesn't mean that a medium format camera that retails for literally 1/10th the cost of its competition isn't an amazing deal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:07:08 No.3728093 Report

Quoted By: >>3728097 >>3728099

>>3728075
I disagree. I think there would be more demand than you would think

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:10:24 No.3728097 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728093
Demand doesn't matter if the products can't be made in the first place. There would be zero profit to be made on a $2500 medium format stills-only camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:11:20 No.3728099 Report

Quoted By: >>3728109

>>3728093

bro why not just sell cameras for a dollar the demand would be insane

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:24:26 No.3728109 Report

Quoted By: >>3728110 >>3728116

>>3728099
I could use a strawman argument too, but it wouldn't make me correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:25:57 No.3728110 Report

Quoted By: >>3728115

>>3728109
That's not a strawman argument, buddy. Just chill out - there's no need to be so aggressive over somebody's joke.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:29:59 No.3728115 Report

Quoted By: >>3728118 >>3728119 >>3728129

>A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

>>3728110
I assume you're just retarded then? Or maybe you should just shut up. There wasn't any 'joke' in your failed argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:30:59 No.3728116 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728109
So, what's the break-even on a medium format camera? What's your target price point?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1596055297954.png, 141KiB, 608x439

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:33:14 No.3728118 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728115
I like how aggressively you're arguing, as if we're the ones making the cameras and you're going to bully us into making one cheap for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:34:50 No.3728119 Report

Quoted By: >>3728125

>>3728115
It isn't my argument, sperg. I was just saying that it was a clear joke. Nobody is insulting you. It was an exaggeration meant to be humorous.
Chill out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 17:56:26 No.3728125 Report

Quoted By: >>3728137

>>3728119
You're clearly trying to continue to argue with me and feigning the joke. Nobody believes you.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8x8 halftone.png, 16KiB, 546x495

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 18:13:44 No.3728129 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728115
tell me tales about your psychosis

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20200916-151237_Firef (...).png, 479KiB, 1440x3040

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 19:14:52 No.3728137 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728125
Holy moly, you actually are insane, huh? I mean it when I say you should calm down. It isn't healthy to be this upset over literally nothing. Seek help.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 20:18:43 No.3728161 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728050
>affordable
what do you think the fuji gfx and pentaks 645d are?

A 8 year old FF dslr already creates file sizes that are bigger than the average person needs. you won't see the slightest difference between a nikon d800, sony a7, or pentax 645 when printing under 16x20 assuming you have good lenses.
you might start to see differences when printing larger than 24" on the short side

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 21:08:43 No.3728175 Report

Quoted By: >>3728199

>>3728058
>fujifilm gfx50R
>43.8 mm x 32.9 mm
Is that sufficiently larger than a 35mm sensor to provide a really substantial difference? I have to wonder if it's worth it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 16 Sep 2020 22:12:21 No.3728199 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728175
they have one in the rental pool at my local store, I have used it for some commissions / large 5x9 foot prints.
The 50mp files up sampled much better than the 36mp files out of my d800e. small prints no noticeable difference but the colour was better from the fuji

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 17 Sep 2020 02:48:28 No.3728297 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728050
>SO why don't they make a CAMERA-ONLY medium format digital camera? Why not? Would it really be that stupid to have "Just a camera" if it lowered the cost?
The material cost of all bells and whistles on medium format cameras are a rounding error in comparison with the cost of the medium format sensor. So, leaving out things like video in modern MF digitals would not lower the price in any significant way--it's just a little bit of extra software plus a few cents for the button.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 20 Sep 2020 20:56:05 No.3730197 Report

Quoted By: >>3730630

>>3728050
They do, its called a 120 film camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 16:06:54 No.3730630 Report

Quoted By: >>3730645

>>3730197
Yep, and you can get shitty medium format film cameras for pretty cheap. Film is kinda expensive, but it makes you consider your shots more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 16:24:19 No.3730645 Report

Quoted By:

>>3730630
Would rather have amortized cost on the back end than a huge front end depreciation but what do I know.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO silicon-image-wafer.png, 33KiB, 300x240

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 17:02:59 No.3730669 Report

Quoted By: >>3730671 >>3730679

>>3728050
because the sensors are difficult to manufacture. the way sensors are manufactured, you cast a wafer of them that will turn into like ~500 sensors and then only a percentage of those come out good enough to make a camera out of.

https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/understanding-digital-image-sensors/

ballpark approximations..... Pretend each little region in the sensor has independent probability of being good, so now P(the whole sensor is good) shrinks ballpark EXPONENTIALLY in sensor area.
> FF sensor is ~1.33 square inches
>APSC sensor is about .65 square inches
> Fuji GFX50R sensor is ~2.25 square inches
so in terms of pure manufacturing yield, you can expect exp(2.25-0.65)~5 good APSC sensors using the resources it costs to make one good MF sensor, or exp(1.33-0.65)~2 good APSC sensors for every 1 good FF sensor.

And the market for MF sensors is already a niche within a niche so companies are going to be more reticent to do as large of manufacturing runs which would yield the cost-effectiveness formulas im using above. So IRL it's even worse.

My guess is that they're already spending so much on the sensors that the price is already slimmed way down so it costs them negligible amounts to tack on shit you say is useless like video and processors that support dual sd card bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 17:08:19 No.3730670 Report

Quoted By:

>>3728058
its insane to me that they can make a medium format camera as cheap as 3500 dollars. really sad that that system is about to get axed

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 17:10:45 No.3730671 Report

Quoted By: >>3730677 >>3730684

>>3730669
You can get more than 2 good APSC sensors per FF sensor. The square area for that sensor needs to be defect free. If you have x defects per square y area, they're not all equal distances apart. You have less places you can cut a larger sensor from.

If you had say a sheet only the size of 50mm X 32mm and a defect right in the middle, you wouldn't be able to cut 1 FF sensor, but you could cut 4 APSC sensors and discard the defect area

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 17:18:41 No.3730677 Report

Quoted By:

>>3730671
divide the area into epsilon*epsilon squares. P(less than N defects for the sensor region) ~ binomial cdf on ((sensor area)/eps^2) trials with probability P(one eps^2 area has a defect) which is exponentially dependent on sensor area.

My prediction is that your suggestion to also consider error proximity in the formulas ("we can permit more defects at least if they're far apart") just makes a mess of the analysis and in the end does not significantly affect the approximation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 17:23:03 No.3730679 Report

Quoted By:

>>3730669
I wonder what the wafers look like for something like a new hassy mf sensor, they must be an absolute nightmare. I bet they dont even always get a sensor per wafer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2020 17:27:33 No.3730684 Report

Quoted By:

>>3730671
also that's not how it works. you don't get to cut sensors out of the wafer avoiding defects like cutting pieces from a moldy cake. all you can do is cast your die with sensors in locations it has etched on it, see where defects come out, then just discard the pieces that end up with defects in them.

the fact that a FF sensor takes up more space than an APSC sensor just makes the numbers even worse for FF. in my numbers I am pretending a 50x full frame die is the same size as a 50x apsc sensor die which is obviously wrong since you can fit less FF sensors in the same size die as you can APSC sensors

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Affordable Photography