Re: Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
Why would they be more expensive if the volume is the same? I don't think the demand would be lower. The only reasons for 3:2 are historical, because of the width of 135 film.
Just look at MFT. With your argument the demand for such cameras would be very low.
Sony mirrorless cameras benefit from the same sensors being sold to manufacturers of DSLRs. Make them 4:3 and those sensors stop being sold to DSLRs, the volume goes down and the price goes up.
The case of M43rds is different as they were starting from scratch with a completely new format (with more than one manufacturer involved) and sensors which are intrinsically much cheaper. If a manufacturer wanted to offer a 4:3 version of an existing system then they would be starting with a small volume and therefore higher cost. They would also have to change the firmware to support the different aspect ratio, use a different screen for the EVF which would push the cost up further.
I'm also pretty sure demand would be lower even if the cost was the same. People on FM are fairly atypical - most people don't print their images, and screens have become progressively wider over time. At one point 5:4 monitors were the norm. Now it is pretty much impossible to even buy a 4:3 or even 3:2 LCD screen. The default ratio for most camera phones is 16:9 even though their sensors are generally 4:3, why? Because it fits better on the screen.
Makten wrote:
And if photographers demanded 3:2, why do almost all MF cameras use 4:3?
Mass market prefers 3:2. Full frame 35mm cameras are mass market. MF is a niche market where people are much more likely to print (or have their work appear in print).
Re: Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
Why would they be more expensive if the volume is the same? I don't think the demand would be lower. The only reasons for 3:2 are historical, because of the width of 135 film.
Just look at MFT. With your argument the demand for such cameras would be very low.
Sony mirrorless cameras benefit from the same sensors being sold to manufacturers of DSLRs. Make them 4:3 and those sensors stop being sold to DSLRs, the volume goes down and the price goes up.
The case of M43rds is different as they were starting from scratch with a completely new format (with more than one manufacturer involved) and sensors which are intrinsically much cheaper. If a manufacturer wanted to offer a 4:3 version of an existing system then they would be starting with a small volume and therefore higher cost. I just don't think people would buy it.
I'm also pretty sure demand would also be lower even if the cost was the same. People on FM are fairly atypical - most people don't print their images, and screens have become progressively wider over time. At one point 5:4 monitors were the norm. Now it is pretty much impossible to even buy a 4:3 or even 3:2 LCD screen. The default ratio for most camera phones is 16:9 even though their sensors are generally 4:3, why? Because it fits better on the screen.
Makten wrote:
And if photographers demanded 3:2, why do almost all MF cameras use 4:3?
Mass market prefers 3:2. Full frame 35mm cameras are mass market. MF is a niche market where people are much more likely to print (or have their work appear in print).
Mar 08, 2017 at 08:21 AM
Previous versions of Matt Grum's message #13952140 « Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) »
