[672]

At $10/roll of 120 (film+developing) it costs $50,000 to take the same number of photos as the 645D's

….and we need to add memory cards, high powered computers, and high end monitors, photo printers with ink cost since we now do the developing.

[Nicolas06]

Imagine that the cost of designing a lens and market it is 1 million $.

Imagine then a 18-50 APSC kit lens. Unitary factory cost is maybe $20. You sell maybe 100 000/year at $50 bundled with bodies. You can recover your cost in 3 years and after make a profit.

Now imagine 645 lens. The initial cost is still 1 million. But you plan to sell not 100 000/year but 100/year. The lens is big, lot of glass and so own and so unit cost is maybe 100$.

If you want to get back you investment in 3 years, you need to sell each lens at minimum 3300$.

[TomB_tx]

In modern marketing price is determined by competition - not by the cost to produce (as long as the competitive price provides adequate profit). The MF market competition tends to be high priced - therefore prices are set to compete in that market segment. If the anticipated new MF players do introduce new lines at lower prices, there may either be price adjustments (If Pentax sales fall off) - or decisions to back out of the market. That's when we learn if the cost to manufacture gives a high margin now.

[atlnq9]

Except that no one who shoots film ever does it a rate that a person does with digital.

Also a film 6x7 body will last forever with minimal maintenance and are easy to fix.
You will go through eight 645 digital bodies in the 40 years my 6x7 has been in existence.

Phil.

There is no reason you still can't have the same reserve on a trigger finger... I would say I am only taking 10-20% more.

Even if it does last 40yrs (not that it would, there is nothing to indicate the 645 shutters last longer than 50,000 actuations before needing replacement even in the film days) you still pay 35k every life cycle you would pay 8k for with a 645 digital... The economics are clearly there for digital over film now. Preference is the other side of the story though. It is the same kind of preference that makes somebody go with a 645D now over a aps-c sensor or ff 35mm...

In modern marketing price is determined by competition - not by the cost to produce (as long as the competitive price provides adequate profit). The MF market competition tends to be high priced - therefore prices are set to compete in that market segment. If the anticipated new MF players do introduce new lines at lower prices, there may either be price adjustments (If Pentax sales fall off) - or decisions to back out of the market. That's when we learn if the cost to manufacture gives a high margin now.

Alternatively it just means that by lowering the price they can sell more and make out with less mark up. It is all linked... Price too high and you will sell fewer and need more mark up to cover expenses. Lower price and you will sell more at lower mark up. You can see it in all the brands. Do you think it really costs Pentax that much less than Hassy or Phase?

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 08:18 PM ----------

At $10/roll of 120 (film+developing) it costs $50,000 to take the same number of photos as the 645D's

….and we need to add memory cards, high powered computers, and high end monitors, photo printers with ink cost since we now do the developing.

Now we are getting off topic, but I'll go along.

Memory cards are cheap, cheaper than the cost you would pay either driving to get film or having it shipped to you. But I think I added in like $500 on the 645Z to cover hard drive archiving. Which even with film you still have a cost for archiving. Need binders and film pages and air conditioned file cabinet...

In todays world you will find few people that don't scan and edit slides on a computer so there is already that cost and you would also go with digital file storage in that case. Also few people would still do enlargements off of negatives, if so the cost would be higher depending on the volume you do. So a lot of those costs are required on either media...

I have no problem with people that stay with film. I held out until 2011 when something finally came out to spark my interest, meet my needs, and offered a reduction in costs... I don't think anybody trying to make the case for film could justify it as cheaper unless they didn't have the cash available and their interest rate on a loan would be through the roof and they only took like 500 pictures a year...

---

Last edited by atlnq9; 08-08-2014 at 08:01 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

Is it possible to start a thread here, and disagree perhaps, without getting insulted? What is this, DPR? It seems other posters understood me pretty well, and there have been some speculative answers, and I thank you for your first one, but not this one....

Some people always have a burr in their bottom.

Everyone else understood you, don't let it bug you.

[gofour3]

There is no reason you still can't have the same reserve on a trigger finger... I would say I am only taking 10-20% more.

Even if it does last 40yrs (not that it would, there is nothing to indicate the 645 shutters last longer than 50,000 actuations before needing replacement even in the film days) you still pay 35k every life cycle you would pay 8k for with a 645 digital... The economics are clearly there for digital over film now. Preference is the other side of the story though. It is the same kind of preference that makes somebody go with a 645D now over a aps-c sensor or ff 35mm...

Not sure where you are getting the costs to shoot MF film, but they are way off from what it costs me and probably most other MF film shooters on this forum.

I average 1 roll of 120 film a week, at a cost of about $1,100 per year. To hit your 35k mark would be 35 years of MF shooting for me. In that period you will go through 5-7 digital MF bodies and I’ll still be using the same old 6x7 camera, with maybe a couple hundred dollars in costs for a few CLAs. (I also shoot about 25 rolls of 35mm film a year.)

Also you are forgetting the cost of the new lenses for the 645Z, some as high as 5k.
An entire 6x7 kit can be had for less than one of these new lenses and the old 6x7 ones will also last forever as they don’t have auto focus or other features to break.

Unless you have a business shooting MF 120 film, most of us that do it for pleasure don’t get anywhere close to your numbers.

Phil.

[atlnq9]

Not sure where you are getting the costs to shoot MF film, but they are way off from what it costs me and probably most other MF film shooters on this forum.

I average 1 roll of 120 film a week, at a cost of about $1,100 per year. To hit your 35k mark would be 35 years of MF shooting for me. In that period you will go through 5-7 digital MF bodies and I’ll still be using the same old 6x7 camera, with maybe a couple hundred dollars in costs for a few CLAs. (I also shoot about 25 rolls of 35mm film a year.)

Also you are forgetting the cost of the new lenses for the 645Z, some as high as 5k.
An entire 6x7 kit can be had for less than one of these new lenses and the old 6x7 ones will also last forever as they don’t have auto focus or other features to break.

Unless you have a business shooting MF 120 film, most of us that do it for pleasure don’t get anywhere close to your numbers.

Phil.

It is quite simple. The life of a 645D is 50,000 photos before it needs a simple shutter replacement. So what is the cost to take 50,000 photos with a 67? You are saying now that it is $2/picture based on you numbers (I used to develop my own slides...) so that is $100,000 for the same number of photos. Back when I had a 67 and 645n they were never going to last more than 8-10yrs. Just not built to a robustness to handle it. Mine was nearly dead when I retired it. Maybe I am just rougher on my gear because I have it bouncing around in Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and Jeeps all over the world. Use it in sandy, dusty environments. Go through countless airport transits.

I am not forgetting the cost of new lenses. Old lenses are perfectly usable and served me well for over 3yrs with the 645D. But you can add in a lot of new lenses at 5k each for the price difference. At $1100/yr you spend on film and processing you could get a 10yr loan to cover the 645Z and still be paying the same as you do now on film so it would be no difference to your pocket book (a bit more if you want new lenses...). At the end you would still have 45,000 photos left to take for free. At such a low use rate the 645's will easily last for many years. The need to constantly upgrade digital cameras is something the manufactures have driven us into thinking we have to do all the time but there is no need to, you still find *ist D's up to K10D's and 20Ds floating around...

I will certainly go through 2 or 3 more bodies but that is because I take ~5k photos a year and my gear sees rough use...

I think you missed this part of the post as well. Taking only 500 photos a year makes it harder for you to justify it but the economics are still very good. Notice I also speak about personal preference which you allude to...

I have no problem with people that stay with film. I held out until 2011 when something finally came out to spark my interest, meet my needs, and offered a reduction in costs... I don't think anybody trying to make the case for film could justify it as cheaper unless they didn't have the cash available and their interest rate on a loan would be through the roof and they only took like 500 pictures a year...

[Silent Street]

It is quite simple. The life of a 645D is 50,000 photos before it needs a simple shutter replacement. So what is the cost to take 50,000 photos with a 67? You are saying now that it is $2/picture based on you numbers (I used to develop my own slides...) so that is $100,000 for the same number of photos. Back when I had a 67 and 645n they were never going to last more than 8-10yrs. Just not built to a robustness to handle it. Mine was nearly dead when I retired it. Maybe I am just rougher on my gear because I have it bouncing around in Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and Jeeps all over the world. Use it in sandy, dusty environments. Go through countless airport transits.

I am not forgetting the cost of new lenses. Old lenses are perfectly usable and served me well for over 3yrs with the 645D. But you can add in a lot of new lenses at 5k each for the price difference. At $1100/yr you spend on film and processing you could get a 10yr loan to cover the 645Z and still be paying the same as you do now on film so it would be no difference to your pocket book (a bit more if you want new lenses...). At the end you would still have 45,000 photos left to take for free. At such a low use rate the 645's will easily last for many years. The need to constantly upgrade digital cameras is something the manufactures have driven us into thinking we have to do all the time but there is no need to, you still find *ist D's up to K10D's and 20Ds floating around...

I will certainly go through 2 or 3 more bodies but that is because I take ~5k photos a year and my gear sees rough use...

I think you missed this part of the post as well. Taking only 500 photos a year makes it harder for you to justify it but the economics are still very good. Notice I also speak about personal preference which you allude to...

*********

The big question: just how many of those thousands and thousands of photographs actually are printed, framed and sold? ~5,000 photos a year!!? Come on! Yes, I do want to know how many are printed, framed and sold. What are you hitting up on, steroids!?

Nice to know the 645Z is built for 50,000 shutter actuations. I wonder how that stacks up against my EOS 1N with 143,428 (June test)... and still going... 50,000 is a significantly small number for a camera wearing a price tag of many thousands...

A few points. My photographic consumption is the same as Gofour's: a roll of 120 each week (I have run through 2/120 in my pinhole camera as of last week), and with some exceptions (not the last several rolls) every single image is printed and framed, never dumped into a PC blackhole to be dredged up once in a blue moon. That is not photography! There is absolutely nothing "hard to justify" in shooting 500 images a year with the 67 system. Especially if we are speaking of people long-qualified as photographers and artists who by dint of their profession and training, can recoup their investment in real money terms. A repeating theme is that people are talking, talking, talking .... endlessly!, about irrelevant, superfluous aspects of a camera rather than showing a proven metric in foundation photographic and image conceptualisation skills. Nauseating.

By the way, my 67 is more than 20 years old, as are the lenses, probably older (as if I care). The initial cost of the system has been recouped several times over (cleared with just one print sale, actually, and we are talking in thousands, not a few dollars). I have absolutely no use for fancy technology that purports to make me a better photographer, because I am better educated than that!

[Rondec]

If people are happy with film, then there is no particular reason to change. If you do a lot of work with developing and scanning and your time is worth money, then that is a factor as well. Owning a camera (even an expensive one) doesn't make you an artist, but that doesn't mean that the 645Z is a bad camera.

Everyone makes choices about what they want to shoot with and those choices will be quite personal in nature. Hard to attack others for not enjoying the film experience if they didn't grow up in an era when film was ubiquitous.

[Califmike2003]

At $10/roll of 120 (film+developing) it costs $50,000 to take the same number of photos as the 645D's

….and we need to add memory cards, high powered computers, and high end monitors, photo printers with ink cost since we now do the developing.

I agree, the cost of a good computer, software, printer, good monitor is thousands and thousands of dollars alone. Well then the cost of the camera, you could buy a nice car, really nice car for the price of the 645z. I think film is cheaper, of course depending on the amount you shoot, but cheaper i believe. The time post processing digital files, and fixing them, hours in front of a computer, i say film in the long run is cheaper when compared to a camera like the 645Z.


I shoot film, and i have really been trying to talk myself into the digial arena, but the investment to own all of the above products, i wont take out a huge loan for a camrera, i dont need the latest greatest gadget to come out. I have seen the photos from this camera, and its a great piece of modern technoligy, but the price tag is stagering to me, for now im staying with film, maybe someday these medium format digital camrears will be affordable for regular income people.

[ElJamoquio]

I dunno.

I think the argument against 645z as only lasting a few years is a bit incorrect. Sure there will be a nicer camera by then, but you don't have to purchase it.

If your clients require the latest and greatest, it's another story, but then if that was the case then we wouldn't be talking about medium format film.

[texandrews]

I dunno.

I think the argument against 645z as only lasting a few years is a bit incorrect. Sure there will be a nicer camera by then, but you don't have to purchase it.

If your clients require the latest and greatest, it's another story, but then if that was the case then we wouldn't be talking about medium format film.

I agree with you on these points, and let me add something else: I thought the 645D was a terrific camera at a more than fair price when it was introduced, but I never seriously considered it due to its iso limitations---and I am really not one of those people ga-ga over high iso's! But being limited to iso 400 and below in the 21st century for $10K did seem a bit much to me, and given what was starting to happen just below it in FF made me think that waiting was the better option.

The Z, otoh, seems to me to have 90% or more (depending on your shooting) of what it needs to have to stay relevant for some years to come---startling iso performance, great DR well up into those high iso's, faster speed, a good compromise of MP's and sensor size, robust build and weathrproofing---and all for $1,500.00 less??? Count me in. I know I'll be shooting it until it completely dies in my hands. There will be improvements in the coming years, to be sure, but they will be "nice to have's" not "need to have's" for me. This camera is for me a major antidote to GAS, at least at the top end of my gear. So, all in, it was this camera that made me jump---and the much lower and pretty reasonable 645D prices still didn't move me. As always, YMMV.

The only knocks I can see (that missing 10%, more for some I understand...) are the slow synch speed (but I now have both 645 LS lenses...) and the poor video implementation/codec....and maybe this latter can be ameliorated some with firmware (jury's out on that, though...). But those things aren't enough to stop me from getting involved right now with a system that I know will be incredibly useful/advantageous to me immediately and for the foreseeable(5+ years) future.

But I will say this in addition: yes, not only do we need to rethink our computing requirements processing wise, but storage wise as well.. I've just gotten a nasty shock this past week with a deteriorated hard drive, and have already discussed what I'm going to need going forward in terms of a new box and new storage and storage routines.

[FrankC]

Except that no one who shoots film ever does it a rate that a person does with digital. Also a film 6x7 body will last forever with minimal maintenance and are easy to fix. You will go through eight 645 digital bodies in the 40 years my 6x7 has been in existence.

I completely agree with you about the number of frames shot on digital vs film. However this and your point regarding the longevity of the 67II may all be moot since 120/220 film will most certainly be discontinued if not by the end of the decade then sometime within the next. Thus turning your 67II & my RZ67 into interesting conversation pieces sitting on our mantels.

[Califmike2003]

I completely agree with you about the number of frames shot on digital vs film. However this and your point regarding the longevity of the 67II may all be moot since 120/220 film will most certainly be discontinued if not by the end of the decade then sometime within the next. Thus turning your 67II & my RZ67 into interesting conversation pieces sitting on our mantels.

Dont count on film being discontinued, there are more film shooters than you might think, and if there is a following and demand, it wont die, long live filmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[FrankC]

I wonder how much minimum advertised price (MAP) policies have altered the street prices. It used to be that a camera would have a MSRP of one price, but the street price would be 20-30% lower, and if you were smart enough to check the ads at back of a Popular Photography magazine, you'd see even lower prices. I remember the MSRP of a Nikon F4 being about $2,000, store prices at $1,800 and B&H selling it for $1,500. You don't see this anymore. The MSRP is the street price, it is the price list at the back of the photo mags.
I saw the price drop of the 645D from $9,999 in 2011 and then as soon as the D800 hits the shelves it drops to $6,800. Does anyone really believe the manufacturing costs somehow magically dropped the second the D800 came out? Now the 645D is at $4,999 which tells me that any retail shop could have sold it for far less than MAP, but the restrictions put upon them by the manufactures prevents them from doing so.
It's common belief that internet pricing pretty much killed off the brick-and-mortar camera shops. However, with the pricing restrictions put onto online retailers, it's ironic that now it's cheaper to buy from a local store than from B&H or Amazon. When I bought my 645D B&H was at $9,999, but I paid $1,000 less because I went to retail shop and asked for a discount. You can't do that online, so if you're a little pissed about the pricing of the 645 lenses as I am, call a small mom & pop store and strike a deal. I seriously doubt that any of them would refuse to make a deal - especially in today's market.