The Changing MF Landscape: What's a Mother to do?

[LJL]

After reading a lot more from various other forums, reviews and postings, I keep coming back to what Marc posted as the opening topic.....the MF is anything but settled or easy to figure out what to get and what works for most. There is a lot of really interesting gear out there....superb optics, interesting approaches, systems, etc. As always, the glass is a big part of the story, but so are the imagers now.

Just about the time I started to get comfortable thinking about one approach, such as the Hasselblad H3 system, the thoughts of not having access to other backs, or other glass started to rear its ugly head. Same thing holds for the Leaf/Sinar/Rollei Hy6 route, and the Phase/Mamiya path. Still looks like there is no way to get the best of all worlds worked out, unless one drops back to discontinued models (H2), or will sacrifice some useful modern additions (AF, metering, etc.), that were less prevalent on older systems. Not saying this as a bash, but more as a lament to trying to wend my way through things. All have great things going for them. I love the size and most of the promise of the Hy6 platform, but getting solid, accurate information on availability, prices, compatibility, and future deliveries has been difficult. The Hasselblad path is not quite as bad, but there is concern over what may change next there and whether one could get stuck with things that are no longer supported and not compatible with others. The Phase/Mamiya path is not that different. To my thinking, it offers up some reasonable options, as well as some forward plans that are a bit more detailed.

I understand the various states of evolution of the MF market and the players, but have to say, none of them are making it very easy for folks to jump into the fray. In one ideal scenario, I would opt for a Rollei Hy6 body, some Schneider lenses plus others, and maybe put on a Phase One back. No can do....yet there are rumors. In another scenario, a Mamiya AFDII with a Phase One back (supposedly the promise), and the ability to use some interesting new lenses, like the Hasselblad HCD 28/4. Again....no can do.

While at first this does not seem all that different than the DSLR world now, because the MF market is smaller, has much higher associated costs for gear, has quite demanding (in the good way) users that are picky about optics and options and use, things also seem so much less clear, less clearly communicated, less predictable than makes sense to me. None of these folks make their own sensors. Only Dalsa and Kodak are supplying to everybody. So I can understand each coming out with their own interpretation of a digital back, but why not have greater interchangeability with other parts, like making any back fit any body? I could see having a Phase back for somethings, and possibly a Sinar back for others, but that now requires one to have too completely different systems, and any one system is hard enough to keep up with.

Maybe I am totally missing something in all of this, but it does keep me, and others from jumping into a market that we could use and that could use us also for sales and development. I am not expecting everything to work with everything else, but it would seem so much more reasonable (not saying "practical") if there was a bit more cross utility of all of this great and rather expensive gear. Would I like the HCD 28/4 on a Sinar or Mamiya body? You betcha. Or how about the Scheider Super-Angulon 40/3.5 on the H3DII 39? Yeah, that could be nice too. Just not going to happen as things stand now. Not saying that there are not good choices in each line/system, but folks would love to mix and match things a bit more, just like putting Zeiss or Contax glass on a 5D and getting those benefits.

Sorry if this got off the more existential thread, and we can go back to that, but some of that artistic/gear/business balance is getting forestalled for me and probably others, because the MF scene is so cloistered and confusing at times. I have a pretty good idea what I could get and do and expect if I spend $30K in the Canon or Nikon line, but I am not getting that same feeling about any of the MF paths right now. What am I missing?

LJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I don't think you are missing anything because I feel the same way , we are sitting back reading this and this is not a new script being written , your thoughts LJ have been the same as many for a long time and there not changing anytime soon. Bottom line MF reps you want us fence sitters than you need to answer the tough questions with your product lines and make them work better , faster , cheaper and give us a road map that we can purchase by which none of us feel comfortable about throwing 30k out there for what we see today without any plan for the future. I'm sorry but i have been on this fence for a long time and my nerves are not even close to being settled . I see folks buying systems at 30k and within a year they are selling for 17k. That is a huge loss in your investment. I don't car how you slice the bread that is real money from my pocket and i am simply not that comfortable. i would take a chance on a Mamiya ZD at 10 k or 15 K for a whole system because the risk is far less. I can afford maybe a 5 k loss but not a 15 k one buying Hassy or others. We first need to make sound investments than we can proceed to be creative with it. But business is business and ROI is ROI , how much can you suck up on depreciation. Is the real question folks like me have to ask. You want guys like me than you have to have some answers because we will not jump on anybody's side of the fence on blind faith. I maybe stupid but I ain't dumb either. These are the facts and until there addressed and until it makes sense , i will not buy.

 

[Jack]

LJ:

At the end of the day, if you want to cover all the MF bases you'll need two systems; the main differences as expressed earlier are leaf-shutter lenses v focal plane shutter bodies. IF you can live with the top shutter speed of 1/800th for your work, then IMO leaf-shutter lens systems offer other benefits and should be a primary choice. OTOH, if you need higher shutter speeds or want to experiment with alternative optics, you'll need a focal-plane body system. Frankly, this was the reason I went with the Mamiya 645 -- my LAST choice for body BTW -- was it offers the most flexibility for backs and glass of any system out there, AND is relatively affordable (you can buy an entire system with several lenses used for what a single Rollei Hy6 lens will cost new).

HOWEVER! For studio, I would invest in another, leaf-shutter system. At this point in time, that will be a Hassy H (probably the 2) or Rollei Hy6. The Sinar back will have adapter plates to mate their backs to either system, although somewhat expensive at ~$1800 each.

HOWEVER #2, FWIW: the Mamiya RZ is a leaf-shutter system (1/400th max speed) and can use the same back as the 645 system with a relatively inexpensive adapter and is also affordable (similar used prices to the 645 above). AND the glass is outstanding, at least in the latest versions. AND that system offers a series of tilt/shit lens options that are probably the BEST MF options for t&s at the moment. BUT, it is NOT an AF system, only manual focus, the system is a tank, big and heavy; not the one you want to be using for a fast-paced model shoot under studio lighting. So yo are back to something like the Hassy H or Hy6.

Cheers,

 

[Stuart Richardson]

This GIGANTIC post is more for me to try to set it straight in my own head. Please disregard if you like, though it does give a summary of the medium format digital options as I have been able to look at them.


LJ -- it really is a difficult situation. I have been looking around at digital MF options and I have been a bit baffled. Here's some of what I have found:

A demo H3D-39 is 2000 dollars cheaper than a demo CF-39, which makes 0 sense to me considering the H39 is an entire camera and back system, while the CF-39 is just a back...pretty much the same back, by the way.

Leaf's AFi 7 is listed at 36,000 dollars (!) with no lens, while the Sinar Hy6 and emotion 75 with the 80mm lens is 32,500, though both of their 22mp backs are priced fairly similarly.

A 22mp AFi or Hy6 is around 28,000, while the 39mp H3D is demo priced at 21500 (and someone here got one for significantly under 20,000 through Kurland Photo).

This is a dilemma for me, because I have several Rollei lenses already that add up to a good investment...worth more now than they were when I bought them. That said, when an H3D-39 is 21,500, and a 22mp Hy6/AFi is 28,000 or so, it is difficult to stomach.

The Sinar adapter for the Rollei 6008AF is over 2000 dollars, so there is no real point in buying a back for that camera...it is essentially the same cost to just buy a Hy6 when the package pricing and the sale of the used 6008af is factored in.

The H3D seems nice, but I have 0 lenses for it, and none of the lenses I currently have would work on it. Given how much I like the Schneider lenses on film, I would be dubious about getting rid of them. Speaking of film, the H3D will shoot it, but you cannot see the whole 645 image...the viewfinder is cropped to "full frame 48mm"

Mamiya would allow me to shoot with my Hasselblad FE lenses (I have 2), but it would be a no-go for the schneider stuff, and no leaf shutter availability.

Sinar is the strongest draw for me, but they have some serious downsides -- they LCD is considered to be the worst of all current backs, their customer service is politely referred to as "an issue" even by their dealers, and their software is considered to be poor. I know Exposure is just out, so hopefully that will mitigate that last problem. Finally, the Hy6 is a lovely camera to use, but as a package, it is still very expensive compared to the other MF digital options out there. The best part would be that I could get adapters to use the back on my 203FE and actually use the lenses...they are the only manufacturer with full support for the FE lenes on the 200 series cameras. The back flexibility is a very strong draw for me, but the service issues and price remain a strong disincentive to go with them.

Leaf does not have the back flexibility of Sinar, and they remain very expensive. On the plus side, I could use my current 6000 series lenses on the camera. They have a big, nice LCD on the rear of the camera (though I admit, I prefer the Hasselblad and Phase one approach -- smaller, simpler, with actual buttons). Their biggest draw is that their service is universally regarded as superb in the US. But the high price, and the lack of camera flexibility prove a strong disincentive for them as well.

Hasselblad is also difficult. Their price, integration, software and service (and frankly ubiquity) are strong draws, but their closed platform architecture and record of ignoring backward compatibility are troubling. Going with hasselblad would mean that none of my current investment in medium format would have any use on the new camera. I would have to sell a bunch of glass and cameras that I am very happy with and buy a new set that is an unknown quantity for me. If I were to go the CF route and use my existing 6008AF, I could use my current system, but it is unlikely that they will offer an adapter plate for the Hy6, so I would be locked out of the latest platform for my lenses...the Hy6 has a lot of advantages over the 6008 in terms of weight reduction, ergonomics, battery life, AF speed and performance etc...using 6000 series glass, I would eventually want to make the jump, and the CF back probably would not make the jump with me. Also, the CF back is inexplicably more expensive than the entire H3D camera system.

Mamiya and Phase seem like a good option, but I don't know enough about them. Again, no ability to use my 6000 series glass, but at least I could use the FE lenses in stop-down mode. Otherwise it would mean new lenses. Mamiya's camera system is the cheapest of the big options, but I am not sure how it compares in terms of performance. I use the Mamiya 7II, so I know that they can create superb lenses, but have they for the AFD? Phase makes good backs and has good software, but you are locked into the platform that the back was made for.


Also, since when is the cheapest camera also the one with the most megapixels and the highest degree of camera integration? A hasselblad no less. It is a very strange time for medium format indeed!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just a FYI my last comments are to challenge the industry to get this on track so we can get more shooters working with MF. I often find myself in the big mouth position for the industry at large to make change and to engage companies to work with us more on better product and with less costs to get us working. Sometimes it sounds like a whine it is not , it is to get us all thinking to better make use of the gear we need.

 

[LJL]

Well, I knew I was not alone in these feelings of frustration/question/confusion, so our commiseration is good, but does not lessen the concerns.

Jack - thanks for your thoughts. I do understand the focal plane v. leaf design, and I do agree that each has its place....sort of. Personally, I think Hasselblad and Hy6 are coming the closest to having that greater usability camera concept. My interests have to be multi-purpose, as Marc and others have commented about. I want a camera/back/lens kit that can do most of the things I would select something like a top end Canon or Nikon to do for me, save the super-tele stuff, the very high ISO and "machine gun" stuff. In other words, I need to be able to do that runway shooting as well as the formal still or portrait in the studio.

Stuart - your "Reader's Digest" version of the MF industry and the issues is spot on. I am glad that someone did enumerate a bit more of the mess we face. I have been wrestling with the exact same kind of "lets build a kit" thoughts, and keep running into unbelievable prices and mis-match problems that defy explanation....and are even harder to get clear, accurate explanations from those MF reps/dealers that do reply. Again, not bashing anybody here, and I do appreciate folks like Thierry hanging around and keeping facts straight for Sinar as best he can. Not feeling that same love or sense of commitment from too many others. Not blaming them, but am starting to question what the heck some of these manufacturers are thinking at this point.

Guy - as always, your anergy and lack of fear to stir the pot when needed is a very good thing. You bring up a very good point....many of us, not all, are in this for some sort of business, and we do not have unlimited budgets, regardless of how much work we try to book and how much we try to charge for that. For others that are serious, but maybe not trying to earn a living at it, their budgets are also probably not unlimited either, so some sense of roadmaps and cost structures would really help everybody out, including the manufacturers, to get some better appreciation of what their line offers, what their competition is offering, and most importantly, what their client base is needing, wanting, and able/willing to pay for.

I do not want this to devolve into a bash, or anything of the sort. Rather, it would be so helpful to be able to get some realistic information, roadmaps, compatibility, practical usage, and other kit building tools pulled together to make some sense. I have spent a lot of time, as many have, looking over manufacturer Web sites to get answers and and information.....horrificly poor to be polite. The best info is coming from places like this forum, and a couple others, where folks are open, professional and willing to talk about these things, raise concerns, ask questions, etc. I would not even be thinking seriously about getting back into MF again were it not for places like this to actually get useful information, stripped of promise and PR hype, for the most part.

O.K., I feel a little better about that part, but still not much closer to figuring out what I should be targeting to assemble a kit that I can use and grow with. Not asking for folks to solve that issue for me, and I am thankful for all the comments and thoughts shared. Let's keep this going, and invite or re-invite the MF makers/marketers to read this stuff and then actually do something about it.

LJ

 

[Jack]

Stuart:

A FWIW on Mamiya 645 glass and it's performance:

First, let me point you to this link where Mamiya reprints a lens test against COntax glass. Note center and corner numbers: http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf

Then let me add that I have been comparing Mamiya's lenses to Hasselblad F equivalents and the result has floored me. The Mamiya 55-110 ZOOM (yes, the zoom) was sharper at 55 than a clean Hassy 50 F across the apertures and across the entire field. Serious. I understand the Mamiya 45 and 55 AF are both significantly sharper than the zoom (and on par with the Mamiya 80). I tested the Mamiya 150 f3.5 AF to a Hassy 150 f2.8 F, and again, the Mamiya literally blew it away on resolution, but did show a bit more CA. The Mamiya 80 is stunning. A Mamiya 200/2.8 APO manual focus lens is as sharp as I have ever used wide open -- I read online where folks have hand-selected that particular lens to do astral photography because it is so good wide open. You can buy ANY of these Mamiya lenses for less than $1000 used. The 50 shift is also very sharp, even in the corners fully shifted. FWIW, the only Hassy lens I've seen in the same league is the 110 Planar, and it is nearly as good wide open as the 200 APO, so it is a stunner too.

Added recently are digital specific versions that are supposed to absolutely stunning, though I have not tried these as they are priced like Hassy glass: a 28D AF, 75-150D AF and a new 120 D macro.

The real irony is the AF lenses seem pretty cheap in build quality compared to anything else when you look at a picture of one, but they are actually very well-built when you feel them in hand. That was the main weirdness that turned me off to the system to begin with. What can I say? For all that, they're inexpensive, well built and they work very, very well...

All FWIW,

 

[LJL]

Here was another related thought to my above post:

P.S. On those thoughts about budgets....one of my bigger issues in this MF debate is the ability to realistically have a back-up, should something go south on a shoot. Right now, having a "second" back, or a compatible body is either not possible or prohibitively expensive. So the "solution" becomes having a 1DsMkII or MkIII and lenses to support that kit also. At that point, one does start to ask if it is not a bad choice to just stick with the Canons (and maybe Nikons if they grow a D3x at 24MP or so), and just live with that. I really would prefer the better IQ, 3D look, DR, colors and everything else that is so damn sexy and attractive on the MF side of things, but I may run out of kidneys to sell before I can assemble a kit and be able to use it as confidently as my present Canons ;-) The one "out" would be to carry film and a film back for some models (not the H3DII!!), but that still does not address a "second" body issue if that fails.

Jack - The 645ADFII is looking better all the time as having "all around" potential to some degree. From what I understand, it is not all that zippy a rig, but good glass can make up for some things. The Hasselblads are still interesting to me, as is the Hy6 for all the mentioned reasons, but the costs and overall compatibility issues are worrisome.

LJ

 

[gogopix]

Stuart:

A FWIW on Mamiya 645 glass and it's performance:

First, let me point you to this link where Mamiya reprints a lens test against COntax glass. Note center and corner numbers: http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf


All FWIW,

Methinks they do protest too much:ROTFL:

For those who have used zeiss leica and other german glass, I do not think they are going to be impressed by numbers, any more than low THD solid state audio devices sound better.
In comparing images, the german glass just looks better. I suspect it has to do with the glass itself (expensive), the details of assembly and the design trades. The latter make it a 'taste' not 'who is better' issue.

However, I have seen on LL the 28mm Mamyia lens, a much touted device and many were not impressed. It was then blamed on a 'bad example'

The old addage 'you can fool some all time, all some time but not all, all the time' works in products as well. Zeiss hasn't been around for 150 years selling expensive products because of mass hysteria, (at least I don't think)

SO, for all the curves, we have the IQ evidence from Son, top phtographers and others who think that there is something better for THEM. and they are will to pay extra.

I don't notice M lenses selling the way the 21mm 2.8, zeiss 60 year, 35-70 2.8 Leica do.

I think M have a role in MF just as C and N do in 35mm. But Rollei, S-K, Zeiss and Leica (fingers crossed !) are not going out of business. The high end is tough though, and in many categories the best doesn't win, the mass market does. That is why what usually get's high end into trouble is trying for mass market. It just can't be done, from a cost point of view. Andreas Kaufman got it right when he said, "If asian products were built to european standards and manner, they would be just as expensive."

Now, when the product ITSELF is just as good, the game is up!

I don't think we are there yet.

Regards
Victor

 

[fotografz]

Since we've gone back to the practical side of the thread, perhaps some clarifications and additional thoughts based on the last couple of posts. I've been doing this for some time now, and in the course of doing that, learned a thing or three.

Since the advent of high meg 35 DSLRs, the whole MF category has become more rarified. The number of MF users has plummeted even before digital backs became available in such variety. To keep the clear ascendency of MF Digital over 35mm, the manufacturers had to go big again ... beginning with Sinar, and soon followed by others. Very expensive R&D and manufacturing costs for a smaller and smaller market. We all know economics well enough to realize what that means. Plus, each succeeding development has a huge price tag attached to it that has to be absorbed by the end user since none of these companies are philanthropic organizations. It is the buyer of the "latest-greatest" that funds all of this ... they have to, the product cycle is too short for the manufacturer to spread it out over multiple years.

Now as to prices ... the number thrown out all the time is 30K+. This is a fallacy. There are big profitable studios that can do those costs as well as many institutions. Someone has to pay it, but it doesn't have to be you. People are bringing a truck driver's appetite to a Gourmet table. Like with their little 35 DSLR they want the latest greatest, except the latest greatest IS indeed 30K+ not 5K. If you want to be on the cutting edge, then YOU are the one funding the next MF digital R&D development.

Here's a little secret: no matter what the manufacturer hype says, these cameras are all very close to the same in end result. There are some operational aspects and compatibility benefits that provide choice to match your needs, but the reality is: "22 meg 645 is 22 meg 645". 2 year old 22 meg 645 backs enjoy the same software improvements as the back bought new today. Paying the long dollar for a better LCD, or some other hardware change here and there, doesn't change the fact that it's a 22 meg 645.

Here's another little secret, if you are using a legacy camera like a Contax 645, Hassey V, Mamiya AFD or RZ and the lenses made for those cameras all you need is a 22 meg back. The 9 micron pixels perform really well with those cameras/lenses ... which is why the Hassey CFV can bark with the big dogs for most print sizes. If you use a camera with digital lenses like a view camera or some MF unit with Apo glass, then the 39 & MS units are a consideration.

What can be looked at are some of these refurbished units or used ones from a known source. Those drooling over a P45 just a year ago, can now get one for under 20K. My buddy just got a P25 for his Contax 645 for 11K. I just sold a pristine Mamiya 645AFD-II kit with a BRAND NEW 33 meg Leaf Aptus 75s for just over 20K (the back alone is over 30K new)... and I did not lose a dime due to the way I worked the system moving from one back to another over time ... I started with a 22 meg Leaf Valeo Aptus conversion. Like anything, you have to work the system, get the deals, leverage loyality discounts, snap up promotions ... last year I got the H/C 28mm lens brand new for less than I could get it used in beat-up condition due to a special promotion.

Final Tip for those who make money with this stuff: For us it's FREE. That's right FREE! I've never paid a dime of my own money for any of this MF stuff. Here's why:

There are two types of Pro MF users ... those who own, and those who rent. If you rent a MF camera system for a job, do you pay for it out of your own pocket? (If you do, you need an new business plan.) If not, who pays? ... the client pays ... it's a line item on every bid I've ever approved for my ad agency. It's a line item on every paying job I've ever done with a MF digital camera. No one ever paid for film and processing nor expensive scans before, why would we pay for digital capture? I get $250 a day for digital rental. Not one client has ever questioned it. A H3D 39 runs around $600.+ a day from a rental house, (and that's just the basic kit, no other lenses), so my clients are getting a deal. The H3D-II/39 camera cost me 25K ... So, factoring in depreciation and residual value, it takes me about 50 days rental over 1.5 to 2 years to pay the camera to zero ... which is about my cycle of upgrades. Cost? Zip, Nada, Zero.

Ya gotta work the angles, play the game, as I said before ... where there's a will, there's a way.

I just did a job today, four 2009 Corvette Wheels while my wife was at Palaties class. $125 half day rental, and a handsome photographic fee for 2 hours of fun ( I love lighting shiny stuff : -)

 

[fotografz]

Here was another related thought to my above post:

P.S. On those thoughts about budgets....one of my bigger issues in this MF debate is the ability to realistically have a back-up, should something go south on a shoot. Right now, having a "second" back, or a compatible body is either not possible or prohibitively expensive. So the "solution" becomes having a 1DsMkII or MkIII and lenses to support that kit also. At that point, one does start to ask if it is not a bad choice to just stick with the Canons (and maybe Nikons if they grow a D3x at 24MP or so), and just live with that. I really would prefer the better IQ, 3D look, DR, colors and everything else that is so damn sexy and attractive on the MF side of things, but I may run out of kidneys to sell before I can assemble a kit and be able to use it as confidently as my present Canons ;-) The one "out" would be to carry film and a film back for some models (not the H3DII!!), but that still does not address a "second" body issue if that fails.

Jack - The 645ADFII is looking better all the time as having "all around" potential to some degree. From what I understand, it is not all that zippy a rig, but good glass can make up for some things. The Hasselblads are still interesting to me, as is the Hy6 for all the mentioned reasons, but the costs and overall compatibility issues are worrisome.

LJ

Simple: 1) Rental. 2) Cheaper second back ... $5,000. Imacon that fits your camera. Better IQ than a 1DsMKIII. 3) Hot Swap Warranty 4) read my post above about charging clients for your MF digital gear and get a second one.

I now have 2 MF digital cameras ... both Hasselblad H3Ds. I can use Zeiss 500 series lenses on both. If I only had one H3D, I'd take along my Canon 1DsMKII and the adapter to use the same Zeiss lenses.

The only thing I'm missing after selling my Mamiya AFD is the ability to use my FE lenses ... for that I need a focal plane shutter unit. We'll see what develops over the next months : -)

 

[fotografz]

Well, I knew I was not alone in these feelings of frustration/question/confusion, so our commiseration is good, but does not lessen the concerns.

Jack - thanks for your thoughts. I do understand the focal plane v. leaf design, and I do agree that each has its place....sort of. Personally, I think Hasselblad and Hy6 are coming the closest to having that greater usability camera concept. My interests have to be multi-purpose, as Marc and others have commented about. I want a camera/back/lens kit that can do most of the things I would select something like a top end Canon or Nikon to do for me, save the super-tele stuff, the very high ISO and "machine gun" stuff. In other words, I need to be able to do that runway shooting as well as the formal still or portrait in the studio.

Stuart - your "Reader's Digest" version of the MF industry and the issues is spot on. I am glad that someone did enumerate a bit more of the mess we face. I have been wrestling with the exact same kind of "lets build a kit" thoughts, and keep running into unbelievable prices and mis-match problems that defy explanation....and are even harder to get clear, accurate explanations from those MF reps/dealers that do reply. Again, not bashing anybody here, and I do appreciate folks like Thierry hanging around and keeping facts straight for Sinar as best he can. Not feeling that same love or sense of commitment from too many others. Not blaming them, but am starting to question what the heck some of these manufacturers are thinking at this point.

Guy - as always, your anergy and lack of fear to stir the pot when needed is a very good thing. You bring up a very good point....many of us, not all, are in this for some sort of business, and we do not have unlimited budgets, regardless of how much work we try to book and how much we try to charge for that. For others that are serious, but maybe not trying to earn a living at it, their budgets are also probably not unlimited either, so some sense of roadmaps and cost structures would really help everybody out, including the manufacturers, to get some better appreciation of what their line offers, what their competition is offering, and most importantly, what their client base is needing, wanting, and able/willing to pay for.

I do not want this to devolve into a bash, or anything of the sort. Rather, it would be so helpful to be able to get some realistic information, roadmaps, compatibility, practical usage, and other kit building tools pulled together to make some sense. I have spent a lot of time, as many have, looking over manufacturer Web sites to get answers and and information.....horrificly poor to be polite. The best info is coming from places like this forum, and a couple others, where folks are open, professional and willing to talk about these things, raise concerns, ask questions, etc. I would not even be thinking seriously about getting back into MF again were it not for places like this to actually get useful information, stripped of promise and PR hype, for the most part.

O.K., I feel a little better about that part, but still not much closer to figuring out what I should be targeting to assemble a kit that I can use and grow with. Not asking for folks to solve that issue for me, and I am thankful for all the comments and thoughts shared. Let's keep this going, and invite or re-invite the MF makers/marketers to read this stuff and then actually do something about it.

LJ

Do what about it? Just curious.

There are choices. Yes it can be confusing, but it takes research just like with any system. None of them do everything no matter what we wish they'd do. Some come closer than others, but a jack of all trades will most likely be a master of none.

There is a lot of miss-information flying around, and very little of that mis-information is coming from the manufacturers. If you assemble your needs in order of priority and talk directly to one of these better reps, you'll get clear answers including some you may not want to hear.

 

[Jack]

With all due respect Victor, I have owned and used the C645 and ALL of it's lenses -- it was my MF sytem of choice in both film and early (Kodak DCS) digital. Yes, the lenses are excellent, but more modern APO glass from anybody will kick it, sorry. I can tell you that the files I'm getting from the Mamiya 645 glass with the ZD back (same pixel pitch as the Kodak DCS) are better than what I got from the C645, but I suspect that is mostly due to improvements in the back. I agree that the Contax glass has a unique look and I agree the C645 is a great system.

Re that look... The "Zeiss" lenses for the Contax were Kyocera/Zeiss, not German-Zeiss like the Hassy and Rollie glass... And yes, I do believe there is a difference in the look between the Kyocera Zeiss and the German Zeiss lenses. I find the Contax 645 glass to be high-contrast and tending toward an almost "brittle" look while the Hassy Zeiss is smoother. FWIW I find the current Mamiya AF glass somewhere in-between. I have not spent a lot of time with the system, but the files I have played with from a borrowed H series Hassy (Fujinon glass I think) look in-between to my eye also, very similar to the Mamiya. (Though the Hassy H zoom is pretty amazing, essentially matching the H primes in that range; SIGNIFICANTLY better than the zoom for the C645.) My .02 only on renderings, but it's after using the C645 for a very long time...

Cheers,

 

[fotografz]

This GIGANTIC post is more for me to try to set it straight in my own head. Please disregard if you like, though it does give a summary of the medium format digital options as I have been able to look at them.


LJ -- it really is a difficult situation. I have been looking around at digital MF options and I have been a bit baffled. Here's some of what I have found:

A demo H3D-39 is 2000 dollars cheaper than a demo CF-39, which makes 0 sense to me considering the H39 is an entire camera and back system, while the CF-39 is just a back...pretty much the same back, by the way.

Leaf's AFi 7 is listed at 36,000 dollars (!) with no lens, while the Sinar Hy6 and emotion 75 with the 80mm lens is 32,500, though both of their 22mp backs are priced fairly similarly.

A 22mp AFi or Hy6 is around 28,000, while the 39mp H3D is demo priced at 21500 (and someone here got one for significantly under 20,000 through Kurland Photo).

This is a dilemma for me, because I have several Rollei lenses already that add up to a good investment...worth more now than they were when I bought them. That said, when an H3D-39 is 21,500, and a 22mp Hy6/AFi is 28,000 or so, it is difficult to stomach.

The Sinar adapter for the Rollei 6008AF is over 2000 dollars, so there is no real point in buying a back for that camera...it is essentially the same cost to just buy a Hy6 when the package pricing and the sale of the used 6008af is factored in.

The H3D seems nice, but I have 0 lenses for it, and none of the lenses I currently have would work on it. Given how much I like the Schneider lenses on film, I would be dubious about getting rid of them. Speaking of film, the H3D will shoot it, but you cannot see the whole 645 image...the viewfinder is cropped to "full frame 48mm"

Mamiya would allow me to shoot with my Hasselblad FE lenses (I have 2), but it would be a no-go for the schneider stuff, and no leaf shutter availability.

Sinar is the strongest draw for me, but they have some serious downsides -- they LCD is considered to be the worst of all current backs, their customer service is politely referred to as "an issue" even by their dealers, and their software is considered to be poor. I know Exposure is just out, so hopefully that will mitigate that last problem. Finally, the Hy6 is a lovely camera to use, but as a package, it is still very expensive compared to the other MF digital options out there. The best part would be that I could get adapters to use the back on my 203FE and actually use the lenses...they are the only manufacturer with full support for the FE lenes on the 200 series cameras. The back flexibility is a very strong draw for me, but the service issues and price remain a strong disincentive to go with them.

Leaf does not have the back flexibility of Sinar, and they remain very expensive. On the plus side, I could use my current 6000 series lenses on the camera. They have a big, nice LCD on the rear of the camera (though I admit, I prefer the Hasselblad and Phase one approach -- smaller, simpler, with actual buttons). Their biggest draw is that their service is universally regarded as superb in the US. But the high price, and the lack of camera flexibility prove a strong disincentive for them as well.

Hasselblad is also difficult. Their price, integration, software and service (and frankly ubiquity) are strong draws, but their closed platform architecture and record of ignoring backward compatibility are troubling. Going with hasselblad would mean that none of my current investment in medium format would have any use on the new camera. I would have to sell a bunch of glass and cameras that I am very happy with and buy a new set that is an unknown quantity for me. If I were to go the CF route and use my existing 6008AF, I could use my current system, but it is unlikely that they will offer an adapter plate for the Hy6, so I would be locked out of the latest platform for my lenses...the Hy6 has a lot of advantages over the 6008 in terms of weight reduction, ergonomics, battery life, AF speed and performance etc...using 6000 series glass, I would eventually want to make the jump, and the CF back probably would not make the jump with me. Also, the CF back is inexplicably more expensive than the entire H3D camera system.

Mamiya and Phase seem like a good option, but I don't know enough about them. Again, no ability to use my 6000 series glass, but at least I could use the FE lenses in stop-down mode. Otherwise it would mean new lenses. Mamiya's camera system is the cheapest of the big options, but I am not sure how it compares in terms of performance. I use the Mamiya 7II, so I know that they can create superb lenses, but have they for the AFD? Phase makes good backs and has good software, but you are locked into the platform that the back was made for.


Also, since when is the cheapest camera also the one with the most megapixels and the highest degree of camera integration? A hasselblad no less. It is a very strange time for medium format indeed!

Some answers and speculations for you Stuart:

Hasselblad makes far less CF-39s compared to the whole kit. They bundle the whole H3D kit and keep the camera manufacturing lines running. They sell a CF-39 and it's highly likely that you aren't buying their camera. You buy their camera and you buy into the system including lenses and future upgrades. Marketing 101. Smart.

Leaf's pricing IS a bit of a mystery... but I'll bet it's because they don't make or market cameras, and never did like Sinar & Rollei ... and they are based in Israel not Europe ... Common Market and all that, then there is the exchange rates for different currencies.

I think ALL the Hy6 cameras systems are priced to stop your heart. However, I can guess exactly why ... huge R&D recovery in a small base market. Go for the big studios and institutions that buy this stuff multiples at a time and get your initial investment back as fast as possible.

IMO, you can't compare a demo or used price to a new one. Read my other post. It's like comparing a 2 year old car to a new one ... of course it's more for the new one, even with less options and a smaller motor.

Yes, you can find good deals on used and demo gear. Depends on how much a dealer wants to dump a demo or used piece at any given time. Plus, you don't know the condition of the Kurland camera, but I'd say $18,000.-$20,000. will get you a H3D.

H3D does come with a mag viewfinder: HVD 90X. There is another viewfinder that shows full frame: HV 90X. I also have this one for my H3D/31 along with 2 film backs. There is also a waist level finder that's full frame.

The H camera is a leaf shutter unit. Hasselblad makes a fully automatic adapter to take all 500 series Zeiss lenses, many of which are identical to Rollei Zeiss lenses. You like that look, sell the Rollei stuff and you'll have more than enough cash to outfit a Zeiss H system.

Currently there are no focal plane shutter digital cameras with leaf shutter lenses. They've been promised forever. Still waiting. So we have to choose. It's just the way it is.

Frankly, for a lot of what I use FE lenses for, I prefer some of my H/C glass. I like my 110/2.2 on the H3D more than I did the 110FE on the Mamiya AFD.... why? ... because with wafer thin DOF autofocus trumps any minor difference in lens character.

The problem is that you have to make a decision ... and by definition, making a decision means you eliminate all the other possibilities.

IMO, the only real decision that has to be made is Leaf Shutter or Focal plane shutter ... or buy two cameras ... LOL

All the rest is nit picks. There are two sensor makers: Kodak and Dalsa. All the backs are so close in performance that it's difficult to tell the results apart (unless you're into a Multi-Shot.) But one thing is for certain, all of them absolutely blow away everything else.

 

[gogopix]

With all due respect Victor, I have owned and used the C645 and ALL of it's lenses -- it was my MF sytem of choice in both film and early (Kodak DCS) digital. Yes, the lenses are excellent, but more modern APO glass from anybody will kick it, sorry. I can tell you that the files I'm getting from the Mamiya 645 glass with the ZD back (same pixel pitch as the Kodak DCS) are better than what I got from the C645, but I suspect that is mostly due to improvements in the back. I agree that the Contax glass has a unique look and I agree the C645 is a great system.

Re that look... The "Zeiss" lenses for the Contax were Kyocera/Zeiss, not German-Zeiss like the Hassy and Rollie glass... And yes, I do believe there is a difference in the look between the Kyocera Zeiss and the German Zeiss lenses. I find the Contax 645 glass to be high-contrast and tending toward an almost "brittle" look while the Hassy Zeiss is smoother. FWIW I find the current Mamiya AF glass somewhere in-between. I have not spent a lot of time with the system, but the files I have played with from a borrowed H series Hassy (Fujinon glass I think) look in-between to my eye also, very similar to the Mamiya. (Though the Hassy H zoom is pretty amazing, essentially matching the H primes in that range; SIGNIFICANTLY better than the zoom for the C645.) My .02 only on renderings, but it's after using the C645 for a very long time...

Cheers,

well, I will take the comment at face value, and say in return that I certainly respect you comments. If fact, I would largely agree; newer glass is possibly better (but that's the one area I am not sure helps IQ; most APO lenses use formulas that aim for RGB corrections rather than dispersion due to impurities say.) Contax was made in Japan, but to Zeiss specs. I have found the 210 to be marginal, the zoom I use as a paper weight and the 120 MaKro, though testing better than even the 120 Hassey, dissappoints; it is BORING.

Now what's left is a great camera, 35, 45, 55(sometimes) a fantastic 80/2.0and 350. and it takes those great hassey lenses; 40 (IF, of course) 110, 180, 250 Apochromatic and I even have the 30mm fisheye and 500/8.

Now, M-S glass WAS pretty good (used with Bronica ages ago, and favored M-S!), and I would certainly put Mamiya-Sekor into the top range as all the MF if only because they are all good, and good and expensive!

As with anything; audio, cars, clothes the difference at the high end will be quite subjective. And here you will have the M-B vs Lexus, Armani vs Boss, and Linn vs Krell arguments. (I am in 1st camps.) What strikes me is that the 1st camps, such as Mercedes likers, as with Contax/Linn etc is that the objective/quantitative criteria (MTF like curves, like THD) )don't seem to aim at what we see as the important; we go for the qualitative albeit somewhat intangible qualities. We LOOK, we LISTEN, we DRIVE; then we close our eyes and say-what did I like better.

I do not see these disussions and posts as debates actually, but thoughts by thoughtful people. Right now I can say, for example that whereas I am still "From Missouri on Mamiya" (we should set that to music! :ROTFL in the first few examples from the Nikon I can see a clear winner, at least to my eye. If someone said today "You can have Leica and Canon, or Zeiss and Nikon " I would be in the second camp! The high ISO, great AF, even , dare I say it, a kind of 3-d look. Maybe it is back to the briar-patch- my first 'bought' camera was a Nikon on my honeymoon.

If someone said you could have Contax and Hassey or Mamiya and Hassey , I would stay in camp #1; for now.:toocool:

Part is investment, part is taste, part is intangible; so far I just like the look more, as do others (Son seens to be in the camp, and a few others), but hey, we are all open to change, and it is through disussions in fora like these that I make my decisions (after trying! NOBODY should trust the opinions of the likes of us who prowl these pages.)

with best regards
Victor

 

[David K]

Since cost is obviously a major consideration when buying into one of these systems I think Marc's experience with the recent sale of his Aptus is informative. It cost him nothing to own and use his back because he's a sharp buyer. I'm not quite as sharp but I figure the cost of owning my Aptus back will be somewhere in the vicinity of $4k-$5k per year. Unfortunately, no line item rental fees for me, since I have no clients Not trying to sound like a big shot but this really isn't that big of a premium over the cost of owning a top end Canon. You still have to plunk down the big chunk of change to get in the game but once you're in it's not like owning polo ponies.

 

[fotografz]

well, I will take the comment at face value, and say in return that I certainly respect you comments. If fact, I would largely agree; newer glass is possibly better (but that's the one area I am not sure helps IQ; most APO lenses use formulas that aim for RGB corrections rather than dispersion due to impurities say.) Contax was made in Japan, but to Zeiss specs. I have found the 210 to be marginal, the zoom I use as a paper weight and the 120 MaKro, though testing better than even the 120 Hassey, dissappoints; it is BORING.

Now what's left is a great camera, 35, 45, 55(sometimes) a fantastic 80/2.0and 350. and it takes those great hassey lenses; 40 (IF, of course) 110, 180, 250 Apochromatic and I even have the 30mm fisheye and 500/8.

Now, M-S glass WAS pretty good (used with Bronica ages ago, and favored M-S!), and I would certainly put Mamiya-Sekor into the top range as all the MF if only because they are all good, and good and expensive!

As with anything; audio, cars, clothes the difference at the high end will be quite subjective. And here you will have the M-B vs Lexus, Armani vs Boss, and Linn vs Krell arguments. (I am in 1st camps.) What strikes me is that the 1st camps, such as Mercedes likers, as with Contax/Linn etc is that the objective/quantitative criteria (MTF like curves, like THD) )don't seem to aim at what we see as the important; we go for the qualitative albeit somewhat intangible qualities. We LOOK, we LISTEN, we DRIVE; then we close our eyes and say-what did I like better.

I do not see these disussions and posts as debates actually, but thoughts by thoughtful people. Right now I can say, for example that whereas I am still "From Missouri on Mamiya" (we should set that to music! :ROTFL in the first few examples from the Nikon I can see a clear winner, at least to my eye. If someone said today "You can have Leica and Canon, or Zeiss and Nikon " I would be in the second camp! The high ISO, great AF, even , dare I say it, a kind of 3-d look. Maybe it is back to the briar-patch- my first 'bought' camera was a Nikon on my honeymoon.

If someone said you could have Contax and Hassey or Mamiya and Hassey , I would stay in camp #1; for now.:toocool:

Part is investment, part is taste, part is intangible; so far I just like the look more, as do others (Son seens to be in the camp, and a few others), but hey, we are all open to change, and it is through disussions in fora like these that I make my decisions (after trying! NOBODY should trust the opinions of the likes of us who prowl these pages.)

with best regards
Victor

It all is a matter of opinion based on a wide swath of varied experiences. I shot Contax 645 for a long time, had all the lenses and the Hassey adapter (right up until recently when I opted for the H). Film and Kodak Pro-Back 645C. Lenses were fine. I disagree on the 35. The barrel distortion was horrible on that lens. 55, wonderful front Bokeh ... something you don't see very often. 350 was great, but the H/C 300 is it's equal. One of the best 80s ever. Slow AF. Battery eater. Discontinued. Transition to the H was easy because they are similar.

All along I also shot Mamiya RZ. Vastly underrated Camera/lenses ... but used for many famous photos, so there's something some pretty good shooters saw in it. Maybe the most important thing I learned about the RZ was how well suited to digital capture the optics are when using a high meg back. More so IMO than the Zeiss.

I like Zeiss for film. It's suited to it for some reason. I also shoot Zeiss on my HD3 cameras along with the H/C lenses. Zeiss is okay, but mostly it's just a novelty and it fills out some focal lengths not available in the H/C series yet. I tested the Zeiss 120/4 macro against the H/C 120/4 macro ... same camera on a tripod, same studio lighting, same software settings. The H/C out performed the Zeiss in every area you shoot Macro for. Next test I'll be doing is the H/C 120/4 against a Rodenstock 120/5.6 Digital on a Rollei Xact ... same subject, same back, same lighting. Bet I know who'll end up the new "Champ."

 

[Jack]

Next test I'll be doing is the H/C 120/4 against a Rodenstock 120/5.6 Digital on a Rollei Xact ... same subject, same back, same lighting. Bet I know who'll end up the new "Champ."

:ROTFL: Yes you do and it won't be a contest! I tested that lens with my BL scanning back in super-high-rez mode and it was stunning, seriously great...

,

 

[robmac]

Jack

"The Mamiya 80 is stunning" - I assume you mean the 2.8?

 

[Jack]

Jack

"The Mamiya 80 is stunning" - I assume you mean the 2.8?

Yes I did, and actually mean the 80/2.8 AF -- sorry for not clarifying.