[normhead]

Question is why did Fuji drop the price so drastically? Is it a move to preempt a competitor's new camera?
Thanks,
barondla

Maybe they couldn't sell it. Think about it, from my film days I have my 645 and couple of lenses. All I need is a camera body. If. buy the Fuji what am I looking at? Upwards of $10k?

What people who don't print don't realize is that even digital professional gear barely catched-up with the best 8x10" film.

They did? link?

I find it hard to believe digital has caught up with even 4x5 film.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-05-2021 at 07:11 PM.

[photoptimist]

Thank you! With no disrespect intended to @MJKoski or @biz-engineer , I agree.

I don't doubt the increase in detail possible from a medium format sensor with 100 or more megapickles, or a stitched image of several hundred megapickles. I'm sure it's most impressive when you pixel-peep, and I accept that - with good very-close-range eyesight (or decent prescription lenses) - you can probably see a big difference when viewing a six-foot-tall print on a wall from a foot or two away. Nor do I doubt that @MJKoski has clients who, as he stated, "appreciate being able to look closer". What I still haven't been convinced of is the need for such resolutions in order to be able to sell (more) large prints. I just don't quite believe there's a commercially-significant sub-culture of corporate and individual large print buyers who closely examine their purchases to ensure every detail is rendered razor-blade sharp when they have their noses pressed up against them. A great image is a great image - and a medicore one still medicore - regardless of resolution (within reason, of course)... and I maintain that the majority of those interested in buying large wall art are looking at the overall image aesthetic, not the pin-sharp detail at unnaturally-close viewing distances. If the image is impressive, I believe they'd buy it whether it had been captured on 36MP full frame, 50 or 100MP medium format, or stitched into a 300MP mega-image... and I don't believe resolution (again, within reason) would be the deciding factor between choosing one photographer's image of a particular scene over another. If it is, that's a sad indictment of art and folks' appreciation of it, photographic or otherwise.

I do, however, understand why a photographer seeking the best possible detail in everything they print could be drawn by a 50MP - and now, 100MP - medium format body, temptingly-priced like this new Fujifilm GFX100S... and I don't feel there's anything wrong with the photographer pursuing that goal of ultimate detail if (a) they want it and (b) they can afford the camera, lenses, and technology to process and store the resulting images. I can even see how, at the point of sale, the photographer may - in discussion, over a glass of wine - highlight the resolution used when promoting a print to the prospective buyer, in the same way a jewellery maker might mention the 24k gold accents on a platinum ring when presenting it to a potential customer... but let's not kid ourselves - if the image looks great, or the ring has already captured the lady's heart, they're going to buy it regardless.

Actually, I can appreciate @biz-engineer 's motives more easily... printing large and viewing the detail of a huge-resolution stitched image for his own enjoyment as the photographer. I get that as a personal achievement / enjoyment / ego-trip thing... something that can be done if you have the means and skill; but otherwise, I don't see the need (though I remain open-minded and willing to be convinced).

Just my humble opinion, of course... but I have at least a little experience as someone who's actually bought wall art - including some pretty costly original oil paintings - and never viewed them from a foot away.

EDIT: Lest it appear I'm unduly critical of this new Fujifilm camera, or folks' desire to own and use one, I'm really not. I'd be delighted if I were gifted one, and a brace of lenses to accompany it... and some extra SSD and archival HDD storage for the images. Knowing Fujifilm, I'm sure it'll be a fantastic camera, and those who buy and use it will be well-pleased...

I totally agree that most photography doesn't need high resolution. And we can make the same arguments for shallow depth-of-field, high frames-per-second, 14-bit dynamic range, crazy-wide or super-telephoto lenses, etc.

That said, I'd love a 100 MPix camera (although not the Fuji) for landscapes because I do love detail in some of my images. Although I have yet to "print large," I love sharp high resolution images for a kind of arm-chair tourism of my own photos. For example, after a recent hike to a local mountain peak, I spent a good two-three hours panning across my images at pixel-peeping zoom, cross comparing them with other photos I'd taken in the area, and also to the Google satellite view. It was fun to be able to spot the same tongue of rock and trees at the end of an alpine lake (6 miles away) that I'd hiked to about a month earlier. And the high-resolution photos gave me a new reconnaissance view on another mountain I really want to hike up that has no official trail to the top. Getting to zoom in on these landscape photos lets me revisit and savor the location.

The other thing that is interesting is the cost of a camera like the new Fuji is certainly much less than the differential price between a "nice big car" and a "basic smaller car" or the annual rent/mortgage differential between a place in the city versus smaller place in a suburb/rural area. People in the developed world who earn the median wage (or more) are likely to be able to afford a nice camera, especially if they practice just a little budgeting in terms of picking a more modest place to live, transportation, and other spending priorities. Photography isn't cheap but it's about as affordable as many other adult hobbies like owning a motorcycle, boat, fixing up old cars, or overseas travel.

I can understand why a pro photographer needs to honestly ask themselves if a $6,000 camera really will bring in more than $6,000 in added profits to the business. But for a hobbyist, they can justify it just by liking it in the same way they like any other hobby.

P.S. And in a bit of contrary evidence about spending big to get high resolution shots, one of my sharpest lenses is a 50-year-old Super Tak 135/3.5 (the cheaper 4-element variant) bought at an estate sale for $15. An oldy but a goody, LOL!

[normhead]

For example, after a recent hike to a local mountain peak, I spent a good two-three hours panning across my images at pixel-peeping zoom, cross comparing them with other photos I'd taken in the area,

We recently did a 13 km (9mile) hike after planting flag on the ridge near our house. After s 5km drive and a 7 km hike we pointed Tess's K-5 with the 55-300 PLM back in the direction of our ridge, went home, blew up the image and found the flag. Would a 645 100 MP image have been worth over 10 grand to do the same thing? I doubt it. Some of us actually do these kinds of things.

[surfar]

Question is why did Fuji drop the price so drastically

What price drop?....the 100S is a new product, the price isn't official but will be January 27th.

Is it a move to preempt a competitor's new camera?

There is no competitor.

[biz-engineer]

Some of those 40"x60" canvas posters from Ikea and Amazon can sell in their thousands due to low unit cost, wide distribution, and an overwhelming majority of the public for whom the resolution and print quality is more than good enough. 5,000 units at 39 euros each is 195,000 euros... Not bad at all. I suspect there's probably more revenue and profit in these posters than the low-volume sales of individual high-quality prints from Lumas...

This statement contains everything. Small pictures (or large pictures with low PPI) sell at low price. The gross profit margin per unit on small prints is very small. The gross profit margin on large high resolution prints is much higher. You can verify this by comparing production prices to production costs for the prints. Large pictures at high ppi resolution sell for much higher prices, regardless of the author who took the photograph. Check prices at IKEA and Lumas.
Small cameras are cheaper to buy than larger cameras. Small cars are cheaper to buy than large cars. Small houses are cheaper to buy than large houses. The same way, large prints are more expensive to buy than small prints.

---------- Post added 06-01-21 at 07:51 ----------

I can understand why a pro photographer needs to honestly ask themselves if a $6,000 camera really will bring in more than $6,000 in added profits to the business. But for a hobbyist, they can justify it just by liking it in the same way they like any other hobby.

Not the even need to be a professional. Some people buy large multi-million USD properties because they have the money for it. Other people buy a small flat as personal and financial choice or because they don't have the money to buy larger property. You can go tell other people who like to own and live in large properties that large properties are useless because you your don't see the point of owning and using a large property. For photographs, there is a range of price from cheap to expensive, the same way as there is a range of prices for cameras from cheap to expensive. It is the market.

Regarding the value of high resolution, I wonder how valid is the judgement of someone who look at his picture on a 4K monitor and seldom print at most 8x10" prints. It's like telling car owners that cars are useless because you don't own one.

[BigMackCam]

This statement contains everything. Small pictures (or large pictures with low PPI) sell at low price. The gross profit margin per unit on small prints is very small. The gross profit margin on large high resolution prints is much higher. You can verify this by comparing production prices to production costs for the prints. Large pictures at high ppi resolution sell for much higher prices, regardless of the author who took the photograph. Check prices at IKEA and Lumas.

Small cameras are cheaper to buy than larger cameras. Small cars are cheaper to buy than large cars. Small houses are cheaper to buy than large houses. The same way, large prints are more expensive to buy than small prints.

...

Not the even need to be a professional. Some people buy large multi-million USD properties because they have the money for it. Other people buy a small flat as personal and financial choice or because they don't have the money to buy larger property. You can go tell other people who like to own and live in large properties that large properties are useless because you your don't see the point of owning and using a large property. For photographs, there is a range of price from cheap to expensive, the same way as there is a range of prices for cameras from cheap to expensive. It is the market.

Regarding the value of high resolution, I wonder how valid is the judgement of someone who look at his picture on a 4K monitor and seldom print at most 8x10" prints. It's like telling car owners that cars are useless because you don't own one.

No-one said high end cars, big houses or high resolution prints are useless. They're great, and there's definitely a market for all of them. Some folks have a lot of money and are willing to pay big for premium products. Nothing wrong with that at all.

BUT...

Smaller, cheaper prints... Smaller, cheaper cars... Smaller, cheaper houses... all have a much larger potential market due to accessibility, and whilst the unit profits may be low, the volumes sold are high. A large, high-quality print from Lumas may have a high unit profit, but relatively few people are able or willing to pay for such a product, so it sells in rather limited numbers (indeed, such exclusivity is one of its attractions). A smaller, lower-quality print from IKEA may have a low profit per unit, but many people are able and willing to pay just 39 EUR for it... hence why you find the same IKEA prints in countless living rooms worldwide... why you see way more Ford Fiestas on the road than Mercedes S-Class... and why towns are filled with modest two and three bedroom homes rather than eight bedroom mansions.

Look, I applaud those who produce premium products, from luxury cars and homes to artisanal photographic works. I applaud you and Matti for creating beautiful, large, high-resolution prints. I'm just not convinced that such products necessarily equate to greater profits once sales volumes are taken into account... and so, where commercial photography is concerned, I have to wonder if the greater investment in equipment, and the considerable time required in producing wall art images that are pin-sharp and detailed from a few inches away, is justified economically. I completely understand the desire of the photographer to create a premium-quality work of art, and I fully appreciate their satisfaction in achieving such a goal. If that were the argument in buying and using a 100MP camera, or spending hours stitching and processing multiple images into one, that's absolutely valid - admirable, even - and I need no further convincing. I just don't (yet) buy the argument that large, expensive, super-high-resolution prints generate more profits over time than 39 EUR prints from IKEA... nor that a 100MP or 300MP rendering of a scene will necessarily sell for a higher price than a 50MP version (i.e. that resolution is a significant differentiator). I don't get that... but I'm willing to be convinced.

As I said before, though, I wouldn't say no to owning a 100MP medium format camera, the requisite lenses and sufficient technology to process and store the images... and I'd love to try my hand at stitching multiple photos to create one super-high-res image. That approach is a lot more accessible to me, and I imagine it would be very satisfying

Question is why did Fuji drop the price so drastically? Is it a move to preempt a competitor's new camera?

I suspect it's the same reason I've discussed above. More accessible pricing means lower profit per unit, but should translate into a lot more cameras sold. I'd guess the execs at Fujifilm believe they'll make more from higher volume sales of a cheaper product than low volume sales of an expensive one... especially once folks are hooked into the system and start buying lenses and accessories, where the profit margins are - presumably - bigger.

[BarryE]

I do wonder how large domestic house walls are in North America or for that matter businesses. I've sold several A1 size prints, but many more A2s of the same image. A constant comment was, "I just don't have the space". Once mounted and framed an A1 print takes a significant space on a wall. I did sell 4 A1s to a business, but that was a new start up development, so they had room, but these opportunities are few. Many customers did the getting up close thing and stared at the detail and obviously liked what they saw. All this with a K-1 and, and this is key, with good printing technique.

Maybe then houses in North America have both large walls and much empty spaces. The reality is that there are few real needs for professional photographers to much exceed 36/50mp, unless there's a specific need for, say product photography as I mentioned earlier. There's just not the demand for this gear for most professionals. Guess it will sell to amateurs, though.

[Rondec]

I do wonder how large domestic house walls are in North America or for that matter businesses. I've sold several A1 size prints, but many more A2s of the same image. A constant comment was, "I just don't have the space". Once mounted and framed an A1 print takes a significant space on a wall. I did sell 4 A1s to a business, but that was a new start up development, so they had room, but these opportunities are few. Many customers did the getting up close thing and stared at the detail and obviously liked what they saw. All this with a K-1 and, and this is key, with good printing technique.

Maybe then houses in North America have both large walls and much empty spaces. The reality is that there are few real needs for professional photographers to much exceed 36/50mp, unless there's a specific need for, say product photography as I mentioned earlier. There's just not the demand for this gear for most professionals. Guess it will sell to amateurs, though.

I think it is a mistake to think that it is resolution that sells images. In the case of the images that Norm posted, they are good images, but the reason someone would pay a bunch of money for them is the name of the photographer who took them. If you or I took them -- even with a 400 megapixel camera -- we'd have a hard time selling more than 8 by 10 prints of them. Rich folks by art as an investment and are willing to pay large amounts for it from a well known photographer.

It is interesting that the price on medium format is coming down some, but it is still a decent investment, when you include some glass, and for most photographers wouldn't be worth the extra money (I still think 6000 is quite a bit of money).

[biz-engineer]

nor that a 100MP or 300MP rendering of a scene will necessarily sell for a higher price than a 50MP version (i.e. that resolution is a significant differentiator). I don't get that... but I'm willing to be convinced

You are right, because the difference between 50Mp and 100Mp isn't much (approx. 30%). If you print a Pentax K1 image, it fits 20x30" (40x60cm) at 300ppi and the quality is excellent even looking very close. The same K1 image printed at 30x40" (70x105cm) start to look a little soft if you look closer than 1m, the quality is Ok but not excellent (I have printed at those two sizes to compare). A file from a GFX100 prints to about 60x90 at 300ppi, with the price of a GFX100 being four times that of the Pentax. That's why most people print small. But that not because printing large at photography quality is very expensive that people have to dismiss the quality.

I think it is a mistake to think that it is resolution that sells images.

Well. Why then photo production labs offer very large prints and are able to charge $3000 each? They find customers who order the extra large version. Why the customer doesn't order the smaller size print at a cheaper price? And in order to make the extra large print you need the resolution for it. The resolution itself isn't what sell the product. It's the immersive effect of the large product that make people buy it. And resolution is what technically allows to make the product. And a small print doesn't produce the same feeling as a small print in a photo book. For example, if you take a photograph of a Lion's face closeup, printed in a photobook (or smartphone display) it not scary at all, people will say "it's a nice picture" and move on to the next page. The same picture printed 40x60" in portrait orientation will impress the viewer, the viewer will feel like being face to face with the lion, the size of the print will trigger a "wow" effect. And so, there is always the question about how large you're going to print a photograph to trigger intended feeling in the observer, the size of the print is one element of the creation of a photograph (something totally ignored by most people who take photos and see them on a smartphone).

[surfar]

when you include some

gla$$!

[BigMackCam]

You are right, because the difference between 50Mp and 100Mp isn't much (approx. 30%). If you print a Pentax K1 image, it fits 20x30" (40x60cm) at 300ppi and the quality is excellent even looking very close. The same K1 image printed at 30x40" (70x105cm) start to look a little soft if you look closer than 1m, the quality is Ok but not excellent (I have printed at those two sizes to compare). A file from a GFX100 prints to about 60x90 at 300ppi, with the price of a GFX100 being four times that of the Pentax. That's why most people print small. But that not because printing large at photography quality is very expensive that people have to dismiss the quality.


Well. Why then photo production labs offer very large prints and are able to charge $3000 each? They find customers who order the extra large version. Why the customer doesn't order the smaller size print at a cheaper price? And in order to make the extra large print you need the resolution for it. The resolution itself isn't what sell the product. It's the immersive effect of the large product that make people buy it. And resolution is what technically allows to make the product. And a small print doesn't produce the same feeling as a small print in a photo book. For example, if you take a photograph of a Lion's face closeup, printed in a photobook (or smartphone display) it not scary at all, people will say "it's a nice picture" and move on to the next page. The same picture printed 40x60" in portrait orientation will impress the viewer, the viewer will feel like being face to face with the lion, the size of the print will trigger a "wow" effect. And so, there is always the question about how large you're going to print a photograph to trigger intended feeling in the observer, the size of the print is one element of the creation of a photograph (something totally ignored by most people who take photos and see them on a smartphone).

So my points remain... How many people are actually able and willing to pay $3,000 for a huge print specifically because it was taken at - or stitched to - very high resolution, enabling them to examine it from a few centimetres away (like a "Where's Wally" puzzle) and make out the finest details? Would they still buy the print if it was taken at a lower resolution that dictated a viewing distance of a more realistic one or two metres? Would they pay the same price because it's the image in its entirity they like, not the finest details at super-close-range? ... and if that lower resolution image was priced at, say, $1000, would it have a larger potential market and sell more copies? I understand that some of Matti's clients "appreciate being able to look closer", but I question whether that's a key factor in their buying decisions. Even if it is, that must be a small subset of the total market...

Again, I do acknowledge the technical merit in producing these huge, high resolution artworks, and I applaud the photographers that produce them... but considering the market, specific demands and expectations, pricing and sales volumes, I don't see the economic advantage - except, perhaps, on a unit cost and unit profit basis. That takes nothing away from the achievement, and how impressive small areas of these images look with your nose up against them...

[normhead]

That's why most people print small. But that not because printing large at photography quality is very expensive that people have to dismiss the quality.

Printing at 200 DPI and upscaling is practically identical to printing at 300 DPI.

So my points remain... How many people are actually able and willing to pay $3,000 for a huge print specifically because it was taken at - or stitched to - very high resolution, enabling them to examine it from a few centimetres away (like a "Where's Wally" puzzle) and make out the finest details?

Exactly.... where are these people? As far a I can tell these people are a fabrication. People arguing for ridiculously high resolution claim they exist, but it's never been verified. It's all "I know a guy who knows a guy." like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. (Ya I know a guy who claims to have seen the Loch Ness monster) but I don't know anyone who claims that super hi-res images turns their crank.

Name one Pentax forum user that will pay the big bucks for high res images, simply because they are hi-res. Heck, name anybody. Names and attributable quotes or they don't exist.

Time to bury this antiquated mythology. 4 of the most expensive top 10 sellers in are grainy low res scans from 35mm movie film, yet you don't see people paying $10,000 for special low res film cameras duplicating that style. And as biz pointed out, it's the name of the photographer that has sold these images, not the resolution, well except in the case of Gursky and Lik both of whom use larger format cameras, and part of their rep is that they produce hi-res. But that's a really hard market to break into.

I think next time someone says " I know guy who insists on being able to walk right to print hand have it appear to be as sharper as a 4x6 print from 8 inches away." I'm going to say "I was kidnapped by aliens once." The problem with both being, they are viewpoints probably started by mis-interpretations of events, rather than actual events. And once started, those with an interest kept them alive despite their lack of personal experience. Some people's nonsense meters need to be recalibrated.

But let's put this out there for the pros. Who has client who will pay and extra $1000 for an image based on it being a 100 MP file, not a 50 MP file? Anyone?

Or is all this "hi-res" stuff promoted by folks who still believe in the easter bunny?

I will personally buy a Fuji 100 MP MF camera when someone offers me a contract worth at least $75,000 that requires it, where in the 100 MP is specifically written into the spec.

As for someone claiming they need to spend $12,000 for their own personal gratification, too me, that's just senseless bragging about how high their standards are. I expect that from con artists, and ya, some photographers are essentially con artists. The fact that some photographer somewhere said so is irrelevant.

[Rondec]

You are right, because the difference between 50Mp and 100Mp isn't much (approx. 30%). If you print a Pentax K1 image, it fits 20x30" (40x60cm) at 300ppi and the quality is excellent even looking very close. The same K1 image printed at 30x40" (70x105cm) start to look a little soft if you look closer than 1m, the quality is Ok but not excellent (I have printed at those two sizes to compare). A file from a GFX100 prints to about 60x90 at 300ppi, with the price of a GFX100 being four times that of the Pentax. That's why most people print small. But that not because printing large at photography quality is very expensive that people have to dismiss the quality.


Well. Why then photo production labs offer very large prints and are able to charge $3000 each? They find customers who order the extra large version. Why the customer doesn't order the smaller size print at a cheaper price? And in order to make the extra large print you need the resolution for it. The resolution itself isn't what sell the product. It's the immersive effect of the large product that make people buy it. And resolution is what technically allows to make the product. And a small print doesn't produce the same feeling as a small print in a photo book. For example, if you take a photograph of a Lion's face closeup, printed in a photobook (or smartphone display) it not scary at all, people will say "it's a nice picture" and move on to the next page. The same picture printed 40x60" in portrait orientation will impress the viewer, the viewer will feel like being face to face with the lion, the size of the print will trigger a "wow" effect. And so, there is always the question about how large you're going to print a photograph to trigger intended feeling in the observer, the size of the print is one element of the creation of a photograph (something totally ignored by most people who take photos and see them on a smartphone).

Photo labs offer very large prints for high prices because they make money on them. I am not clear as to whether most of these prints are being done by professionals who are putting them in a gallery or if they are being done by hobby photographers who think they will impress their friends a family with their skills.

I have seen plenty of high quality small prints that impressed me and large, poorly done images that didn't impress me. Obviously if you print a 120 megapixel image that is pixel sharp really big, you should have an impressive image. But I have seen plenty of images that were big, but not exactly impressive.

[normhead]

Photo labs offer very large prints for high prices because they make money on them. I am not clear as to whether most of these prints are being done by professionals who are putting them in a gallery or if they are being done by hobby photographers who think they will impress their friends a family with their skills.

I have seen plenty of high quality small prints that impressed me and large, poorly done images that didn't impress me. Obviously if you print a 120 megapixel image that is pixel sharp really big, you should have an impressive image. But I have seen plenty of images that were big, but not exactly impressive.

Which leads to another question. If you can sell your 20x30 prints someplace like the Algonquin visitor's centre or art centre using 20 MP to 36 MP files, why would you add to your overhead by buying into a whole new camera line? The rate their seems to be $200-$500 for photographs. Does anyone actually think you'd sell more, with images that look the same from a normal viewing distance for $1000 more? Economics suggest this might be a losing strategy. Artists like Lik and Gursky look for one incredibly rich buyer, most of us use a "many smaller purchasers" model. I assume since the hi-res model has been suggested, that we have people using the Lik-Gursky model. In Lik's case, I know this story. He spent 5 yers touring, produced a coffee table book called "The Sprit of America" that was reasonably popular and made his reputation. And here we are many years later and he can command 6.5 million a print. But he gamble 5 years of his life establishing a reputation, and that could have gone either way. I'd be interested in hearing why these "do nothing more than buy a high res camera" types, think they can just wander into that market, just by buying a camera. Or that their images will even be worth looking at.

That image of Lik's is seriously one of the best I've ever seen. Sure you can say he only got the money because he was famous, but you can also say he got to be famous by consistently producing much better than average work. People look at his work because of what he produces, the whole package, not simply because of the resolution of what he produces.

If I were a billionaire, I'd be interested in buying an original of that image. There aren't even 5 images I've seen in over 60 years of photography I could say that for. Saying Lik and Gursky only sell for the big bucks because of their reputations, implies those reputations were't earned with quite a lot of devotion and sacrifice. To me, it's nothing more than an appalling lack of respect, for the champions of the genre.

As I've often said, I always knew what it would take to be an artist like Lik or Gursky and what a gamble it would be to try. I you want to buy a 100 MP camera and try and build a rep, as they have go for it. Personally, I chose a safer path. If you chose that path, be prepared to end up broke with nothing if your talent isn't what you think it is. Because that is the likely outcome.

[MJKoski]

The points is, everyone and their cousin has a cellphone which provides ~20MP worth of detail. When you provide average customer with a print, they usually start looking how detailed it is. I do not print under 1.25m wide side anymore, 1.5m wide being the usual size. That size takes all the camera has got in terms of resolution, 100MP is only average for such size. For K-1 files I have used GigaPixel for ~two years with good results (works very very well with pixelshift). Distant trees in landscape images actually look like trees @ 100MP compared to a bunch of pixels from subres camera's output.

100MP and 16MP weight about the same in your bag. 100MP can be downsampled to 16MP anytime, the other way not so much.

K-1 MKIII most probably has ~45MP FF sensor and new pixel shift method (16x) for ~160MP images. Then, nobody will question who needs such resolution because their favorite Pentax camera has it. Actually, comparisons start popping up how bad the CaNikon MILCs are. If Pentax comes up with 645Z MKII, it probably has the same 102MP BSI sensor or even the 150MP variant. The lenses (D-FA) are up for it.