[photoptimist]

Wait till global shutter is implemented. Although seems impractical at this point. But is imminent. Whether you choose to accept it or not. Mechanical shutter is a bottleneck. It has reached it's peak. You can't make a mechanical shutter go much faster, than it's going.

A global shutter dramatically increases the complexity, cost, and peak power consumption of the sensor and data collection systems. Instantaneously storing or converting tens of millions of delicate analog photocharges is not easy.

Mirrorless looks mechanically cheaper on the outside but is actually more electronically costly on the inside. Sony's latest 3-layer stacked design sensor uses 3X the fabricated silicon area of a standard sensor. That's not too expensive for the tiny sensor chips in smartphones but does add a lot of cost to larger sensor devices.

It's also interesting to note that the A9 sacrifices IQ for speed (and even the A9 does not implement a true global shutter). Speed along with the heat and EMI/RFI that it creates is bad for sensitive analog devices.

[rdenney]

The Fuji 50s is a thousand dollars more expensive than the Pentax at the usual street prices for new models.

The 50r is stripped down. It has slow video, contrast-detect focus only, and a range of other limitations. The Pentax is far more versatile as a camera. We keep forgetting that the sensor is just one aspect of the camera.

The 50r is aiming at “full-frame” mirrorless cameras, where it will be an expensive resolution step up.

Interesting times to be sure. But while Fuji’s non-SLRs were always respected in the film era, they were never dominant.

Rick “time will tell” Denney

[serothis]

“Everyone?” Do you have hard statistics?

The GFX50S and the 645z use the same sensor, so cost differences with the sensor are a wash. So, if the Fuji is easier and simpler to make, why is it more expensive than the Pentax?

(Diesel-electric is used only in the mountains there? Why? Maybe it fulfills requirements alternatives do not, for some use cases. Even “there.”)

Rick “tired of binary assertions” Denney

Price is not necessarily indicative of the cost of manufacturing. The name stamped on the product is important. Fuji is a bigger name than Pentax and can more easily sell at a higher price. As an example, are Nikon or Canon lenses more expensive than Pentax because they're more expensive to manufacture? I doubt it.

[photoptimist]

As an example, are Nikon or Canon lenses more expensive than Pentax because they're more expensive to manufacture?

They may not be more expensive to manufacture but they are a hell of a lot more expensive to market and sell. Someone it paying for all those big ads and all that inventory sitting on retail shelves -- Canikon lens buyers.

[rdenney]

Price is not necessarily indicative of the cost of manufacturing.

Correct. I was using it as a gauge of the perception of some parts of the market.

But it does call into some question the value of these mirrorless attributes we keep hearing about.

Such as:

New lenses. What do I care if I can’t afford them?

Smaller and lighter. I’ll give you that one.

Mechanically simpler. Then why does it cost more? What value does simplicity have for me if not reflected in the price? I use 6x7’s ranging from 25 to 40 years old, and they are far more complicated mechanically than a 645z. So I’m not buying the “reliability” aspect of that attribute.

Short flange distance. To what end? Smaller and simpler lenses? Okay. Then why are the lenses still large, complicated, and expensive? More adaptability? Fine. But I have all I need with that with the 645z (already having perhaps three dozen lenses I can mount on that camera).

I’m sure the Fuji is a great camera for certain use cases. But it is as different from the 645z as a GS645S is from a Pentax 645NII or a Hasselblad 501c. Or as different as a Mamiya 7 (also a darling among amateurs) is from a Pentax 67 (a darling among pros).

Rick “expecting simpler designs to lower the cost of ownership” Denney

[Alex645]

Price is not necessarily indicative of the cost of manufacturing.

True.

The name stamped on the product is important.

True.

Fuji is a bigger name than Pentax and can more easily sell at a higher price.

Not so sure that A+B here equals C. Fujifilm has invested more in R&D to come out with their recent line of new products. There is also a greater demand for their current system offering vs. Pentax accepting legacy lenses.

As an example, are Nikon or Canon lenses more expensive than Pentax because they're more expensive to manufacture? I doubt it.

Made in Japan, China, or Vietnam can be one of many cause and effect reasons. And is the assumption that Nikon or Canon lenses are more expensive than Pentax?

All three 18-55mm kit zooms are just under $200.

How does one really compare, for example, just 50mm primes?
Pentax DA 50mm f/1.7 $117
vs.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM $125
vs.
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G $217

I think it really comes down to supply & demand. Canon has the volume but marketing expenses. Nikon has less of both, but still significantly higher than Pentax. Is the Pentax the cheapest because of the name, or because of the build quality and materials (i.e. AF on the plastic fantastics), location of manufacture, and low marketing expenses?

Certainly some names (Zeiss, Schneider, Yongnuo) command prices at the extremes in part of because of the brand, but the cost of manufacture and supply/demand are bigger factors. And then you have anomalies like Sigma that is only recently considered a quality brand, but their prices has more to do with quality and cost of manufacture and not brand name.

[Fcsnt54]

“Everyone?” Do you have hard statistics?

The GFX50S and the 645z use the same sensor, so cost differences with the sensor are a wash. So, if the Fuji is easier and simpler to make, why is it more expensive than the Pentax?

(Diesel-electric is used only in the mountains there? Why? Maybe it fulfills requirements alternatives do not, for some use cases. Even “there.”)

Rick “tired of binary assertions” Denney

When everyone is talking about price, are we looking at current price or introductory price? Those two are different and makes the argument slanted in favor of one point compared to the other. Remember when the Z was released it was selling for 8499, that is hardly cheaper than the gfx50s which was around 6500 on its introduction. So in essence, if we were to argue on price and first production run, mirrorless is cheaper. That is not looking at any other factors; price due to name, lenses, accessories, etc. as the production goes to the end of its run, and they start selling off the supply, id like to hope that the price gets cheaper.

[SunnyG.]

True.


True.


Not so sure that A+B here equals C. Fujifilm has invested more in R&D to come out with their recent line of new products. There is also a greater demand for their current system offering vs. Pentax accepting legacy lenses.


Made in Japan, China, or Vietnam can be one of many cause and effect reasons. And is the assumption that Nikon or Canon lenses are more expensive than Pentax?

All three 18-55mm kit zooms are just under $200.

How does one really compare, for example, just 50mm primes?
Pentax DA 50mm f/1.7 $117
vs.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM $125
vs.
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G $217

I think it really comes down to supply & demand. Canon has the volume but marketing expenses. Nikon has less of both, but still significantly higher than Pentax. Is the Pentax the cheapest because of the name, or because of the build quality and materials (i.e. AF on the plastic fantastics), location of manufacture, and low marketing expenses?

Certainly some names (Zeiss, Schneider, Yongnuo) command prices at the extremes in part of because of the brand, but the cost of manufacture and supply/demand are bigger factors. And then you have anomalies like Sigma that is only recently considered a quality brand, but their prices has more to do with quality and cost of manufacture and not brand name.

Tbh the DA 50 f1.8 is 80$! & the DA 35 is 96$

---------- Post added 10-03-18 at 01:24 AM ----------

When everyone is talking about price, are we looking at current price or introductory price? Those two are different and makes the argument slanted in favor of one point compared to the other. Remember when the Z was released it was selling for 8499, that is hardly cheaper than the gfx50s which was around 6500 on its introduction. So in essence, if we were to argue on price and first production run, mirrorless is cheaper. That is not looking at any other factors; price due to name, lenses, accessories, etc. as the production goes to the end of its run, and they start selling off the supply, id like to hope that the price gets cheaper.

I agree completely!

[rdenney]

When everyone is talking about price, are we looking at current price or introductory price? Those two are different and makes the argument slanted in favor of one point compared to the other. Remember when the Z was released it was selling for 8499, that is hardly cheaper than the gfx50s which was around 6500 on its introduction. So in essence, if we were to argue on price and first production run, mirrorless is cheaper. That is not looking at any other factors; price due to name, lenses, accessories, etc. as the production goes to the end of its run, and they start selling off the supply, id like to hope that the price gets cheaper.

Fair enough. But the Pentax filled a hole in the market (as did the 645D). When one offers the only product in a large range of price points, one will price accordingly. The 645z was introduced at a lower price than the 645D’s intro price simply because the 645D had already established a price expectation. And the landscape of competing cameras was different. But the next medium-format digital camera to the 645z was three or four times as expensive.

The Fuji was introduced into a world where the 645z already existed.

But the Pentax has been at $5500 for a year now, and the GFX-50S is still at $6500. And we paid that $5500 price for mine, so our buying decision was based on that (and on the lenses I already owned—having been a 645NII user—or could easily afford).

So that value question was directly relevant for me—why do I have to pay more for a camera that is simpler, easier to produce, and providing no additional (or accessible) benefit except size and weight? I don’t like paying for fads, having seen many of them come and go in the last 45 years of photographic experience, and you can see that I waited until the price of the 645z came down substantially.

Rick “pricing is driven by the market” Denney

[Alex645]

Tbh the DA 50 f1.8 is 80$! & the DA 35 is 96$[COLOR="Silver"]
!

Yes they are, but not because of the name brand on the lens.

[Fcsnt54]

Fair enough. But the Pentax filled a hole in the market (as did the 645D). When one offers the only product in a large range of price points, one will price accordingly. The 645z was introduced at a lower price than the 645D’s intro price simply because the 645D had already established a price expectation. And the landscape of competing cameras was different. But the next medium-format digital camera to the 645z was three or four times as expensive.

The Fuji was introduced into a world where the 645z already existed.

But the Pentax has been at $5500 for a year now, and the GFX-50S is still at $6500. And we paid that $5500 price for mine, so our buying decision was based on that (and on the lenses I already owned—having been a 645NII user—or could easily afford).

So that value question was directly relevant for me—why do I have to pay more for a camera that is simpler, easier to produce, and providing no additional (or accessible) benefit except size and weight? I don’t like paying for fads, having seen many of them come and go in the last 45 years of photographic experience, and you can see that I waited until the price of the 645z came down substantially.

Rick “pricing is driven by the market” Denney

Oh i completely agree. Pentax was the reason why we are enjoying a less expensive medium format cost. The Z is 4 years old though while the gfx is only a little over a year. It is still hard to discuss current prices, thus is why we need to discuss introductory prices when comparing the two.

On a side question, so im not miss reading why, why do you say that fuji’s medium format is a fad? Is it because of mirrorless or other reasons?

[rdenney]

It’s because of mirrorless design, with no optical viewfinder. Being a fad is not at all the same thing as being unworthy, but it does add to the price the market will pay.

Rangefinder-based medium-format cameras were a fad in the 90’s, as an alternative to SLRs. They were popular because they were light and portable, and gave Leica lovers some much needed film area. But they were never dominant, mostly because they lacked versatility. I’m thinking of the Fuji rangefinders, but even more the Mamiya 6 and 7. I recall a magazine article wondering if a Fuji GA645zi could do service as a pro wedding camera, but it never caught on in that application. It was the only one of the Fuji rangefinders with a zoom lens (55-90). It had a horizontal film travel, so it made photos in portrait mode. I handled one—my Mamiya C were in need of replacement—but it handled too much like a point-n-shoot and was too hard to critically compose or read perspective anomalies from the camera being tilted. And I didn’t frame vertically for most photos. (That’s when I bought the Pentax 645NII with the 45-85—still after the rangefinder fad had peaked and prices were more accessible.)

The Fuji rangefinders first came out in the 80’s, but it was the Mamiya 6 that generated the vibe, as I recall. It was available in the 90’s, and it even more of a “Texas Leica” than the Fuji. The optics were superb, but slow and limited to three focal lengths. It’s all anyone wanted to talk about in those days, but pros that used roll film mostly still used Hasselblad, Bronica, Pentax, Mamiya SLR, and even Mamiya TLR cameras.

A direct-view viewfinder is the attraction of a rangefinder camera, but also the limitation. It was like just looking at the scene directly, which pleased the “decisive moment” types but not the careful composition types.

EVFs address those issues by viewing through the taking lens, which allows the full range of lenses. But if people preferred the immediacy of optical direct viewfinders over ground-glass reflex viewfinders, then an EVF, which is laggy and jaggy, seems a step in the wrong direction. Some just won’t tolerate it. I’m not quite that strong, but I prefer a bright optical system over an internally illuminated digital display in 90% of cases. And the reason is the same as why pictures always look “better” on an iPhone than on the wall. The punchiness is artificial, and in the finder I need reality.

Rick “video is another set of requirements” Denney

[SylvainB]

That is very well put, Rick. I couldn't have said better.

[Digitalis]

The size of 645 film is 56 x 42! But the current generation of medium format sensors are 44 x 33. Why is this?

in a nutshell: the cost of sensor production.

[texandrews]

It’s because of mirrorless design, with no optical viewfinder. Being a fad is not at all the same thing as being unworthy, but it does add to the price the market will pay.

Rangefinder-based medium-format cameras were a fad in the 90’s, as an alternative to SLRs. They were popular because they were light and portable, and gave Leica lovers some much needed film area. But they were never dominant, mostly because they lacked versatility. I’m thinking of the Fuji rangefinders, but even more the Mamiya 6 and 7. I recall a magazine article wondering if a Fuji GA645zi could do service as a pro wedding camera, but it never caught on in that application. It was the only one of the Fuji rangefinders with a zoom lens (55-90). It had a horizontal film travel, so it made photos in portrait mode. I handled one—my Mamiya C were in need of replacement—but it handled too much like a point-n-shoot and was too hard to critically compose or read perspective anomalies from the camera being tilted. And I didn’t frame vertically for most photos. (That’s when I bought the Pentax 645NII with the 45-85—still after the rangefinder fad had peaked and prices were more accessible.)

The Fuji rangefinders first came out in the 80’s, but it was the Mamiya 6 that generated the vibe, as I recall. It was available in the 90’s, and it even more of a “Texas Leica” than the Fuji. The optics were superb, but slow and limited to three focal lengths. It’s all anyone wanted to talk about in those days, but pros that used roll film mostly still used Hasselblad, Bronica, Pentax, Mamiya SLR, and even Mamiya TLR cameras.

A direct-view viewfinder is the attraction of a rangefinder camera, but also the limitation. It was like just looking at the scene directly, which pleased the “decisive moment” types but not the careful composition types.

EVFs address those issues by viewing through the taking lens, which allows the full range of lenses. But if people preferred the immediacy of optical direct viewfinders over ground-glass reflex viewfinders, then an EVF, which is laggy and jaggy, seems a step in the wrong direction. Some just won’t tolerate it. I’m not quite that strong, but I prefer a bright optical system over an internally illuminated digital display in 90% of cases. And the reason is the same as why pictures always look “better” on an iPhone than on the wall. The punchiness is artificial, and in the finder I need reality.

Rick “video is another set of requirements” Denney

All true! I had both the real Texas Leica, the 6x9 Fuji, mine a GSW690II, and later a Pentax 645N and several lenses as a hedge against affordable digital medium format, which I never thought I'd be able to get into.

I used the 6x9 all the time, but for personal work and as a way to do quick/easy transparencies of my artwork---it was about 1/2 the size of a 4x5 trans, yet still very easy for galleries and curators to view, as opposed to the awful thing they's do with a sheet of 35mm slides, just holding it up at arm's length against whatever light source was above them.

But I would never have thought it a replacement for a system camera. And the Mamiya 7's were the medium format versions of Leica's----lots of cachet, lots of cost. I would have loved one if they had been about 50-60% less.

So, tex is way, way happier with his Z today.