Bill,

Let's remember that Kodak's first digital SLR with, if I remember correctly, 1 megapixel cost about $20,000.

Frans Waterlander
frans2001@netzero.net

Really, it was that small? I though it was something like 14MP. Anyway, I understand your point. Thinking of it in terms of the progressive development in computers, imagine what it would have cost 30 years ago for the kind of processing power we can purchase now for about $2K - and how big a room you'd need to keep it in......

Bill,

I think it would you would be hard pressed to find anyone unless they had more money then sense to spent that kind of money on a digital camera. Even though at times I would not mind having the new Canon 5D it is way above my lifestyle. The other reason is I still feel they could be more affordable if the truth be known. True recovery cost,production and marketing cost need be considered, but lets get real here my car cost less then this camera. I think many of us stay with film just because we are more satisfied at this point with the results for the money we spend. Until that evens out some I will stay where I am at. A 39meg camera does get my interest because I can see the possibilities there, but nothing is worth that price. Monte Johnson.

I think its really important to remember that "everyday people" are not the target audience for this equipment. I have run a studio for about 10 years now and about 3 years ago I made the migration from hybrid photography ( transparancy film scanned digitally) to straight digital capture. I do mainly low end commercial photography, architecture for real estate brokers, stock work etc... I stress "low end" because I certainly cannot afford the $20K that something like this will cost...

BUT its not hard to see how equipment like this can pay for itself very quickly. Even my studio..which is nothing special..routinely shoots 2000-3000 images a week. And that number is very consistant with the business we were doing 10 years ago. Do you have any clue how long it takes to sort, scan, edit and archive just the "keepers" from that batch? dont think of it as a $33K camera back. Think of it as a solid replacement for most medium format work ( with only a few exceptions). Think of it as hundreds of man hours a month that dont need to be spent editing images at the pixel level to remove dust....think of it as dozens of hours that dont need to be spent simply going to the lab to drop off and pick up film...think of it as serious $$$ that doesnt need to be spent in real man hours ( MY MAN HOURS) cataloguing and storing... hand numbering EVERY frame and putting it into a database. Most importantly ...think of it as me working 40 hours a week and doing the same work as I used to do in 70 hours.

this is not a pro digital rant..or an anti film rant... its simple commercial reality for my studio and most of my peers have followed this same business plan. I only waited as long as I did because I do a huge amount of night photography..something that still requires me to shoot film and scan the transparancies.

Labor is where the back pays for itself. ...and REALLY FAST. I was able to buy my first 2 Leaf backs 3 years ago and I paid for them in film cost alone in under 6 months time...if you figure in labor cost, the real break even point was in the 90 day range. Of course, I cannot justify the cost of upgrading those backs to a new $33K Kodak 40MP back...... thats a whole different issue.. :-)

These backs will likely forever be the stuff of pros...since only they can really justify the expense and complication of these backs..and in case there is any misunderstanding...the Kodak is not a camera, its a back.. that must be attached to medium or large format camera to operate. In fact its even more complicated then that since Kodak is completely out of the pro digital camera business and likely will only be supplying these sensors to other parties who will include them in their products.

and before you start wondering if you will wait for them to come down in price and snag one. Id ask myself this question. ...now that youve got this huge sensor, exactly how are you going to print that gorgeous 20x24 print? if you think digital backs are expensive, try pricing a large format printer and even if you could afford that, then calculating the cost to make that print, then figure out what you are going to do with it.

the consumer market was quite satisfied with 8x10 and 11x14 enlargeability for a reason. Its just about as big as you normal everyday person ever wants to print. If you own a printer that can do 13x19 prints...how many do you actually print at that size? the reason this stuff is largely in the realm of "pros" is not that its "super special stuff"...it often is WAY more gear then the average every day person could even use...even if they could afford it. A pro SELLS those 20x24 to clients... exactly how much wall space does the average everyday person have to hang all the huge enlargements you'll be making with your new $33K 40MP back, the $10k large format printer, the $5K computer you had to buy because the 250MB files CRUSHED your Imac...the storage arrays for the images, the $10K camera you had to own to even use the 40MP back...etc...etc...etc.

there really will be a point where the consumer DSLR market normalizes and we see something in a "standard" DSLR sensor size ( in terms of MP..not pysical size)..and I think that time is close at hand, especially with most medium format companies fumbling to "normalize" the 645 camera as the "pro" DSLR...

most people are not even aware that these "pro" backs would be considered "deficient" products by most current DSLR standards... unless you LIKE the idea of having to shoot at ISO 50 or 100 to get noise free images. The 200, 400 and 800 ISO response from most of these backs is less than stellar and way below that of most top shelf DSLR's. Do you LIKE the idea of having to edit ALL your images in raw... ALL of them? no choice!..lets not forget these are 16 bit files...not the 8 bit you get in your DSLR. ( and oh what a difference the 16 bit makes!). We're talking about 2 miuntes just to OPEN a single file on your computer!! and that's my 17MP back...who knows with the 39MP monster. Some of these backs even have to be tethered to computers to operate, many of them DO NOT have LCD screens on the back so you need to have a PC to proof.( and it better be a Mac because Leaf backs dont work on PC's) This is similar to most pro gear...its not as easy as it looks, the results might be spectacular and OOFAH, the skin tones...but this is no DSLR. Its a BEASTIE and most amatures would regret ever having bought it. You don't buy something like this unless you can make money from it, otherwise its such a pain that its not worth the trouble.

just a rant.. :-)

Well I think I got the point of this one. I was not thinking in the terms you presented here. What you say makes sense. Not knowing the way things work for the pros I guess I looked at this from my point of view. I know that scanning images on my mac takes time when i have files at 40 to 80 megs. I cannot imagine working with endless files to get all the images you would have to process to keep up with the work flow. Thanks for pointing this out to me Monte Johnson.

Give it a few years Sony is making a 10 mpix for the prosumer. Where were we at 3 to 5 years ago before todays 13 mpix? You might even give up your 645, NOT.