The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

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

fotografz

Well-known member
There are all kinds of threads here on different MF digital subjects, cameras, backs, software and adaptability. I thought it might be useful to start a thread to discuss all this in one place as a central resource.

First, I'd state an opinion: Nothing in the 35 DSLR world even approaches the IQ abilities of these MF backs. I do not think that will change unless there is some incredible technological breakthrough in imaging ... and one would presuppose that breakthrough could also be applied to MF ... it seems "size will always matter" just as it did with film.

WHAT CAMERA/BACK SYSTEM?

I think one of the most important subjects being discussed is digital back platform compatibility. Broadly speaking, there seems to be two digital camps: "Cross Platform" (probably best personified by Sinar), and "Dedicated" (probably best personified by Hasselblad H3/3-II.)

I freely admit that this subject is confusing to me. For example, to this day Hasselblad still offers CF and CF/MS digital backs that use iAdapters (many with direct electronic data bus connections) to fit the Contax 645, Rollei 6000 series, Mamiya 645AFD & Pro, Mamiya RZ & RB, Fuji GX680 ... plus every Hasselblad camera ever made including the 200 series using C type lenses (Sinar is the only one that supports the 200 series with FE optics).

CAMERAS: I've owned and used everything MF out there except an ALPA & Hy6 (which I've used briefly). To my way of thinking there are just two broad categories of MF cameras: "Leaf Shutter", and "Focal Plane Shutter". In more recent years AF was added as a feature in both "shutter type" categories ... Contax 645, Mamiya AFD (& recently Mamiya/PhaseOne) ... AND Hasselblad H, Rollei AF leading to the Hy6. Older "legacy" manual focus systems like the Hasselblad V, Rollei manual, Mamiya RZ Pro-II and even Bronica are still out there trucking along with digital backs. I'm not differentiating here based on 645 verses 6X6 or 6X7 because there are no digital sensors larger than 645 and speculating on that future possibility just confuses the current decision issues even more. Currently 645 is where it's at because the wide angle lenses are wide angle.

Now, here's another point of confusion: Digital backs with dedicated mounts like Phase One, Leaf Aptus, and older Hasselbald/Imacon could be configured with the so called "Universal V" mount ... which, with the use of adapters, could be used on a number of platforms: Hasselblad 500 series, Mamiya RZ, Fuji, Bronica, ALPA, and virtually every view camera made. Not quite the versatility of Sinar or Hasselblad CF backs which seem to adapt to even more platforms, but pretty good coverage.

I think the versatility issue revolves around the desire to use one of these VERY expensive digital backs with both MF shutter systems ... like on a Contax 645 and a Mamiya RZ or Hassey 503CW. Contax was suppose to come out with come leaf shutter lenses (never did) and the new PhaseOne/Mamiya AFD are also suppose to.

THE ROLE OPTICS PLAY IN THE DECISION PROCESS:

Many of us are influenced by optical choices and have a bias. That argument is one that can't be won. Besides, on most of these MF cameras you can adapt different lenses systems, so it's often a mute argument.

In fact, I considered Hasselbald H only after they offered the CF adapter which allowed use of my entire CFi, and CFE lens line-up with full aperture metering and focusing ... while taking advantage of the in-viewfinder focus confirmation.

SOFTWARE:

Another mute point IMO. If the software isn't what is needed to be competitive it soon will be. C1 is excellent, Phocus promises to also be excellent, Sinar is here with new processing software, Leaf has always been supported by Adobe as is the ZD. By mid year all this will be sorted out, and I doubt software will be a deciding point any longer.

CONCLUSION:

you really can't go wrong with any approach. If you want to continue using 5 different MF camera systems there are excellent choices. If you want a dedicated and integrated system, there are equally excellent choices.

Personally, I wasn't interested in versatility despite owing 2 Hasselblad V systems (500 & 200), a Contax 645, and a complete RZ Pro-II system ... then a Mamiya AFD-II with a Leaf back ... it was getting ridiculously expensive to maintain it all ... plus, I have to have 2 digital backs no matter what. Clinging to past legacy systems or dead-end ones seemed to be a path to ruin. So, I decided on the H system and using them with H/C AF lenses as well as all ready paid for CFi & CFE optics. I prefer the whole H handling experience and integrated approach which I've now used under fire, on the job, job after job.

Swapping systems has gotten outrageously, mind numbingly expensive, and from a business POV is not justifiable. I will not do it again. If I want to use my old legacy cameras I may get a used Sinar ... but frankly, it's an idiosyncratic extravagance that in the real world is neither needed nor justifiable. My best move would be to just sell it all off except the CFi and CFE lenses. Watch the F/S forum, it may soon "Fatten Up" with some pretty good MF deals : -)

Your thoughts?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks. Irritating because spell-check doesn't catch misused words ... besides, how would IT know?

More coffee please.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
This is interesting since it covers some territory I've been avoiding simply because it seems so complex (which you have proven to a certain degree), and also because it doesn't seem to be a direction I am likely to follow.

But I have a question from the the standpoint of an interested observer. How are the digital MF systems being used and who is using them? By that I mean, are they more prevalent in certain fields of speciality within professional photography than others?

When I was making a living as a photographer back in the late 70s and early 80s, a general format-to-market segment existed (or so it seemed to me). An oversimplified description of how the formats were being used might be something like: 35mm was primarily used for photo journalism and informal event (i.e. grip and grin) shooting. Medium format was for portraiture, wedding, fashion, and some higher-end location work. Large format was the format of choice for product photography and fine art photography.

Since I no longer travel in a world populated by pros, I'm not sure if that sort of format-to-market segment still holds up. But one thing seems clear (and I could be wrong about this), MF is too expensive and cumbersome for anyone BUT a Professional. Which doesn't mean I'm not curious about it and its advantages.

Please feel free to disabuse me of my misconceptions. And thanks for your run down of the systems.

Tim
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Nicely stated Marc!

First off, I agree whole-heartedly with your initial premise: MF digital, even 22MP, surpasses (and significantly) all 35mm digital capabilities. This includes not only resolution, but tonal range and color fidelity as well.

I also agree with your comments on the two basic camera types being foremost considerations. Leaf shutter or focal plane, the benefit to offset ratios depend largely on what type of imaging you do.

As I see it, the main benefits of leaf shutter are 1) flash sync at all shutter speeds giving more aperture choices in studio settings and 2) less shutter vibration, especially relevant at slow speeds when working hand-held, leading to "crisper" slow shutter images. The only real offsets are 1) the top speeds are limited generally to something under 1/1000th; which in turn means fast lenses cannot be used in bright light unless one adds an ND filter -- not a huge issue, though at times may be inconvenient, as when moving in and out of bright and dim areas. 2) you generally are stuck to using only lenses within your camera brand due to the mechanical and electronic linkage required, meaning less overall flexibility in lens choice...

Focal plane generates basically the opposite weightings: Plusses, 1) high top shutter speeds allow using fast glass wide open in bright light; 2) many other brands of lenses can be adapted for use, though most of the auto functions will be disabled -- IOW manual focus and stop-down metering. The minuses are 1) limited flash sync speeds and 2) more shutter vibration.

So I think depending on what you normally shoot, there are reasons to choose one over the other, or potentially both -- primarily studio, then leaf shutter; primarily location/available light, probably focal plane. I agree that maintaining two complete systems is a chore, especially when transporting gear for shooting on location -- let's face it, it's bad enough carrying one system around and deciding what to take... OTOH, the second system, assuming it's the opposite shutter type to your main, certainly adds flexibility. And of course cost..

In the end, I'm not sure there is an easy answer for everybody, but I can say this having only owned the Mamiya AFD and Hassy 110 Planar for less than a week: Whatever system I end up with, I will almost certainly always have one that can utilize the 110 Planar!

Cheers,
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Tim,

I think system costs have defined many of the usage categories. For example, Wedding and Event work, once the domain of "life time" purchases into Hasselblad and Bronica MF gear, is now dominated by 35mm DSLRs. I use a H3D/31 at weddings, but not to the exclusion of my Canon 1 series cameras ... and can safely say I'm a rarity in this respect.

On the other hand, a lot of commercial work, once done with 4X5 view cameras, RZs, and to some degree 6X6, is going to the MF digital backs on 6X8 view cameras, 6X6 and 645 cameras. This can be manifested both by studio ownership or rental units. The advantages of MF digital for commercial work are legion ... least of which is instant approval of shots while the product set-up is intact, and/or the models are still there, (i.e., no reshoots or call backs.) I purchase a great deal of commercial photography for my ad agency, and only had one "editorial" type job shot on film in the past 6 years. Catalog shooters involved with fabrics mostly use MF digital, as do car shooters, fashion, high end jewelry and many food photographers. One reason for this is the wide size array of client usage for the images ... from digest sized ads ... to spreads in tabloid sized glossy publications ... to outdoor and close viewed in-store posters ... all using the same key visual.

I've also noted a number of landscape shooters migrating to MF Digital capture. Some portrait shooters are looking at the smaller, more affordable digital backs like the Mamiya ZD and Hasselblad CFV to use on existing legacy systems they already own. Also, some who document art objects use these backs. According to some sales people I know, there are many "institutions" who buy MF digital backs in multiples.

Then there are the well heeled non-professionals that "know and go" for the best. There are a few on this forum like that.

Jack,

Your analysis is spot on. For years I used 2 Kodak Probacks ... one on a RZ (leaf Shutter), and the other on a Contax 645 (focal Plane shutter). The Contax had some fast aperture glass and the 1/4000th top shutter speed allowed use of lenses wide open in bright conditions. I also used FE lenses like the 110/2 on that camera. The RZ was for strobe work in studio. When Hasselblad brought up the H system sync speed to 1/800th, and provided ISO 50 it helped a little ... allowing use of the H/C 1OO/2.2 in all but the brightest conditions without resorting to NDs. While not quite the optic that the Planar is, it's pretty close with a beautiful bokeh ... the difference with the H/C has been very accurate AF when using a DOF that is wafer thin. My hit ratio went way up with the 100/2.2 ... in fact, I rarely miss with it.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
fotografz: thanks for that explanation. Digital has changed things, and what you describe as the current pro landscape makes perfect sense. Appreciate it.
Tim
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
After making my post about Leica R in the other forum, I came to a bit of an epiphany about medium format digital. While it is a very high initial cost, it is in some ways a better deal than what I have currently been experiencing. I bought almost all of my Leica R stuff used, other than the DMR, but when I add up its value, it is more than the cost of many of the medium format digital backs now available. I am mostly using the DMR for portraiture and landscape, something that I could do as well or better with MF digital. Since I already shoot with the Rollei 6008 and Hassie 203 for film (I don't have complete systems, but I have a wide, normal and tele in each), it would seem to make sense to sell the expensive Leica R gear and just get either a Sinar or Hasselblad CF back so that I can use digital on the MF gear I already own. I am already familiar with FlexColor, so it seems like Hasselblad might be a good way to go.

Anyway, as much as I love Leica, I use the M8 for most of my general photography, and I don't think it makes much sense to have two 35mm digital systems. Having a light, 35mm digital platform like the M8 combined with a heavy duty MF digital system might be a better combo than the M8 and DMR. Well, who knows, I am just brain storming here...I need to find out exactly how much this would all cost, how much I could get for my Leica R stuff and other random things I don't use much to see whether or not it makes sense.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Good points Stuart.

I came to a similar conclusion regarding quality 35mm DSLR --- at the end of the day, the R10 (vaporware) or 1Ds3 or even a new D3 and the best wide, normal and short tele lenses is not much different in total outlay than a Mamiya 645 ZD outfit and a similar set of lenses. Yet as already pointed out, the IQ is far superior.

I too use my M8 for most of my general photography, street and travel (and even casual sports!), and will continue to do so -- it's just too much fun not to! The MF outfit covers my more serious landscape and studio work. I still have a 4x5 view camera as well, and don't plan on selling it -- they are relatively inexpensive to get into and own, only the per-shot costs are high.

However, I still see value/need or a quality DSLR, at least for many applications, like sports, wildlife and event. But... I don't really do enough of any of those to warrant a high-end DSLR system, hence my decision to bypass waiting for an R10 and go straight to entry-level MF...

Cheers,
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Frankly guys and girls . i feel like chucking it all away today and go sell used cars. I need three systems and this just flat out bites the big dog for me. I love my M8's and now i have a nikon system which as much as i wanted to avoid the DSLR's i can't , just can't do it. Too much work is calling for it , today i leave for a job in Kansas. Here is the shot list I have to do. Product shots for a brochure , Cockpits of three not one but three general aviation aircraft. Than let's do shots of them sitting on runway, oh and BTW how about take off's and landing of the three aircraft. Okay my head is spinning and there is no way out . Need a T/S lens for the cockpits and will have to stitch for the quality. Need at least a 180 mm or more for the flying stuff. On the ground is easy stuff and products is somewhat easy also. This is the stuff i face a lot , I need everything and no one bloody system is going to cut it. So now you need a 100 k in just gear to get work done and the MF system for me is my ultimate goal and getting into this is just putting my bank account on fire. Sorry I am venting just in a rotten mood today. Ignore me
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely understand the need of some people to have multiple systems! With the state of imaging these days and the economy the way it is, most photographers have to do all the work they can get their hands on -- portraiture, weddings, events, architecture, commerical and product...the smaller the market, the more versatile they have to be. For these people a good 35mm DSLR from Nikon or Canon will give them super wides to super telephotos, macros, and tilt shift lenses....all at quite good quality. On the other hand, some fine art photographers are happy to do all their work with a 4x5 camera and a 210 lens. I fall in between. Most of the work I get and/or sell is portraiture, landscape or street photography (broadly stated). I primarily do it with 35mm and MF rangefinders for the street and landscape, and 35mm digital or MF SLR for the portraiture and other types of the landscape stuff. For me, the blazing fast AF, super high ISO and super telephotos, and 1:1 macros are not very important, so it makes sense that I consolidate into 35mm rangefinder and MF digital SLR. Anyway, I think I would probably be best like Jack is talking about...mostly the M8 and MF, and then if I find that I am missing an aspect, then get an entry level DSLR to do super telephoto, fast AF and ISO 6400.
Sorry if I am derailing the thread here...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
If I had my way it would be M8 and MF only like Jack is able to do. I just can't but I need to get my stuff down to minimum somehow to get to MF in my process.

But to add to this thread in a positive way is these MF OEM's run into more guys like me that need to be so spread out gear wise they need to figure ways to get us in the door better than outputting 30k on a back and body only. We still need glass. The prices or the gear has to fit into reality of more normal shooter. Not just the specialized shooters that may only need MF to do there work. I just can't justify 30k
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think a few things have happened in recent times ...

the AF has gotten much better in some of these MF cameras ... not "sports: level but most certainly an increase in speed and accuracy of single focus. My old Contax 645 AF was close to unusable in low light ... but this is less the case with the H3D, and I suspect the same with new Mamiya/Phase camera ... plus there is new generation of Hy6 AF.

Some of these cameras are the equal to or superior to many DSLRs in terms of controls and ergonomics .. at least I think so. I am now very fast when adjusting the H3D and can do most of it without removing the camera from eye level. The flash controls are also very accurate ... much better than the fancy Pants Canon approach.

In the more recent MF iterations of firmware and software, ISO has improved greatly. ISO 800 is very good now, and things are nicely moving toward 1600 in some models. Again, not exotic speeds like Canon & Nikon, but in a range more commonly used.

Guy, you are hampered by your love and attachment to the M8. Nothing you are shooting couldn't be done with a solid DSLR kit and a MF system.

But I get it, and suffer from the same M disease : -)
 

LJL

New member
A slightly different take on things for me..... Personally, I would love to only shoot 35mm for my action/sports stuff and MF for all the other cool stuff. The M8 is just too addictive and somewhat discrete to NOT use more often. The bigger issue that comes into play, and this is where I think Guy gets his skivvies in a knot, is that there is no single system or platform that can deliver it all. This gets compounded by trying to recreate these duplicate equipment cadres that really do not exist. To me, the tools should fit the need, and one should not try to make them do everything all the time.

So, if you need to cover a lot of imagery types, and for many uses, you have little choice than to work with at least a full-blown DSLR system and a MF for specific product shots, and other preferences. One can do it all with a Nikon or Canon DSLR system, but gets into trouble when individual expectations (shooter, not client most of the time) for certain "looks" or resolution come into play. One can make a higher end Canon or Nikon do everything they need. All of it may not be as great as one might like or want, but you can push a single system to get things done. We cannot do that with just the M8 or MF systems. They are not designed for a whole range of things, yet we try to press them further into service in each area because we have invested so much in great glass, love the image files, need the resolution, etc.

This gets to some of the issues raised by Stuart, and they are very on point. Photogs have a hard time saying "no" to jobs, especially in tougher economic climates like now, so they will agree to undertake an extremely broad range of things that requires a broad range of tools. Guy's latest gig is a good example. Truth is, all of those shots could easily be handled by a Canon or Nikon DSLR with 3-4 lenses max. Problem is there would be some "sacrifice" in the overall IQ for some shots, not many, but some. This all boils down to how the client is really going to use the shots. If nothing more than an annual report, or something, IQ is not critical. If it was a big ad campaign, then I would shoot as much as possible with MF to get the IQ needed for multiple uses, and blow off shooting with anything else. Not the easiest nor cheapest to do from an equipment standpoint, so it comes back to picking and choosing what kind of work you really are going to shoot, and setting yourself up to handle that the best. We all fall into the pit of wanting to be able to do it all, and that means a lot of very expensive gear. Funny how the guys doing high fashion work do not really concern themselves with this as much. They get a Hassie and lenses, and throw in a 1DsMkx and a couple of portrait length lenses, and that is it. They do not even try to get the jets taking off or landing. They may do a few close-ups, but anything beyond what their kit is set up for, they just do not bother doing. Not saying that is optimal, but it works for many of them. All about the niche of shooting for our style and budget.

I have been very tempted to jump back into MF, but as Marc and others have pointed out, lots of very expensive options with uncertainty about paths forward. Until that gets better sorted for me, I will stick with my Canons and Leica and shoot what I can as best as I can with them. Not going to chase high fashion or product work where MF gear shines. Not going to agree to work that is beyond what I can reasonably cover with my present gear. I will start to "retire" some gear as I focus more on certain types of things more, but I will not try to outfit myself in every format to do everything. Way too expensive, and not really allowing the development of a signature look for any one type of shooting.

Sorry for the ramble, but this is a very interesting topic that I do think about. Just a matter of getting my "wants and wishes" sorted out from practical realities. If I was shooting mainly stuff that was the purview of MF, I would probably not even bother with a DSLR, and would keep the M8 and 3 or so lenses more for personal use only. I shoot action stuff now, and there is no MF system that can handle that. Once I move away from chasing horses, I will change gear. If my portrait business starts booming more, I may ditch a lot of the DSLR in favor of MF. (However, last three shoots were done only with the M8!)

LJ
 

LJL

New member
Round two.... Guy's comments about costs of gear got me thinking again. The MF costs are so astronomically high for several reasons, but the biggest one is the huge developmental costs that must be offset by the lower volume of sales. Those big sensors are not cheap to make, and it is hard to defray costs when you do not sell too many of them. The thing that is making all of this harder right now is that there are several makers all competing for a share of the market. The competition is good for pushing development and addressing feature needs, but it is only going to kick in with lowered prices IF the volumes of MF kits starts to go way up. If there are not a lot of backs being sold, their prices will remain quite high. The gamble that Mamyia ZD is trying out is to get a high volume with a lowered entry price point. This is a huge gamble, but it could pay off. If all of the backs had a much lower entry cost point, there probably would be some significant market growth in this segment, thus increasing volumes to help offset development costs.

The approach of so many different backs, systems, compatibilities, is not going to help sort that market out much, and will not do a lot to lower entry prices due to lower overall volume sales. When Hasselblad closed their present system, they helped force this issue. Too soon to tell if it will be a good move for them or not, but when one looks over the rest of the landscape, it is a bit of a nightmare playing mix and match with bodies, lenses and backs. The new Phase One backs that do fit more cameras more easily is a more attractive approach, but until the rest of those systems get further along with updates and features for lenses and bodies, there will be a struggle, and prices will remain high. Competition can be good for many things, but it can also eliminate some things from markets before they get a chance to take hold.

If one has been shooting MF film and has a fairly complete kit, the MFDB choices are still costly, but within being managed. If one is looking to migrate to MF, the entry costs are very high at this point for most things, unless one is willing to compromise with older bodies and lenses that do not have some of the more modern features and options. All this tends to underscore some of my earlier comments about making tough choices on what gear to have and use, and what kinds of work to chase.

If one is doing or targeting commercial, fine art, fashion and other MF type work, they should concentrate there and stop wasting money and time with DSLR systems or anything else, except for more personal or "fill-in" work only. If one is really trying to be more of the all-around shoot everything type of person, stick with a DSLR system and resist the others. The M8 creates more of a dilemma for most of us because it is so much more fun to shoot and delivers superb images. It just has such a high price tag on it that it makes dabbling in the others difficult without some severe limitations.

If the M8 was more in line with some of the DSLRs, I think more folks that are thinking about MF would jump in there also. It is just too costly to maintain the M8, DSLR system and MF all at once for most folks. Jack's approach of M8 + MF is a great strategy for many, but does not really support lots of action/sports stuff. If my present work did not have so much of that now, I would ditch most of my DSLR gear, get a MF system and trim back my M8 stuff a bit. Best images for most needs.

LJ
 

robmac

Well-known member
This thread as helped push me to something of an epiphany as well. The more I ponder my longer-term upgrade path (strictly as a hobbyist), the more it keeps pointing to a MF starter kit (ZD or CWD).

Be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or the hoped-for R10, the laws of diminishing return for the user and of noise abatement for the camera are the same.

To go the uber-DSLR route, you're going to have to:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Invest what would amount to an try-level MF system for modestly more MP.

2. Lower your clean & sharp ISO expectations as sensors bump into their own law of diminishing returns. Being able to get 21MP+ pics at ISO X is one thing, being able to get clean and sharp high-rez pics at those levels is another.

3. Cull/enhance your lens collection to the best of the best to get the best from that costly new sensor. This costly house-cleaning will most certainly, with the possible exception of the R10?, require stop-down usage of Zeiss, Leica or MF Zeiss/Schneider glass anyway.

4. Do 1-3 while limiting yourself to a 24x36mm sensor

When you look at the above and do a pros/cons vs. entry-level MF, the more the preceding makes little sense (business requirements blissfully ignored):

MF Cons:
----------
1. Big $$,. True, but see above
2. Limiting ISO performance. True, but will get better - see above again.
3. Need to revamp glass. Yup, but see above. Also will be able, unlike Nikon and likely Leica to use a wide-variety of Hassy/Zeiss, Mamiya, Rollei/Scheider, etc., glass.

The more I keep looking at it, the more it seems time, much like moving from APSC to FF, to hit the 'reset button' as to where my next (long-term) step may be.

For MF vendors, even Hassy, to prosper, they will have to continue to offer lower-cost entry systems in an ever-increasing MP bracket, starting at 16-22 MB, to get that initial 'hook' into users.

The Crack-Dealer School of Business - "....come on, just a taste, it's not addictive...."
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I have a slightly different take on all this from experience shooting a pretty wide array of work with MF digital cameras.

First of all I think many people have a residual impression of MF cameras that's a bit dated. These cameras are NOT your father's Hasselblad. They are far more like DSLRs than they are like MF gear of the past. The Mamiya/Phase, Hasselblad H, and Hy6 are faster, easier to use, and more automated (if you want). They can be thoughtful and plodding, or swift and intuitive.

All it takes is practice and living with the camera in hand for a bit of time.

For example, one day I can shoot a wedding ... not a tripod bound old school MF wedding approach ... an on the move, candid journalistic approach. I use a hand strap, and on camera fill with a Metz & diffuser and mirror delay for slower shutter speeds so I can drag the shutter. I have a Boda lens bag with a couple of H/C lenses. 50, 100 & 150 does the job.

Another day, I have a location job shooting running horses for a rain gear company. Since they will be doing 6' prints for a trade show booth, it's the H3D/31 and H/C300/4.5 on a monopod. Rapidly shooting hundreds and hundreds of shots, so I connect up the thousand shot Image Bank-II and let her rip. The prints are amazing.

Next day, its a table top food shoot. Pop the back off the H3D and hook it up to the Rollei Xact-II and shoot live view directly to the computer. Tilt/Shifts, amazing lenses.

Next is a portrait, mount the CF adapter on the H3 and use Zeiss glass fully automated. On my H3D/31, I can pop off the digital back and mount a film back to shoot some B&W.

In reality, THIS is the primary system and all the others are ancillary systems that can be paired down to a few pieces or eliminated. What I need and what I want are two completely different issues : -)

Once you get the hang of it, you get sucked in by the images. Stuff from other tools become less and less "impressive." It's the worst disease of them all : -)

Prices?

Horrifying NEW, a lot easier if not new. These backs are tanks. They are built to shoot and shoot and shoot.

Example: last year I bought like new H2D/22 with a 120/4 macro and a film back in a hard case for $15,000. Sold the Macro for $2,200 since I already had one. Added an H2D/22 for $12,800. Used it to upgrade to the H3D/31.

Refurb units from qualified dealers net big price reductions for the previous model. Buying from some folks here can save a bundle. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Sorry for the evangelical post. But this stuff delivers over a broad range of applications, and it's getting better everyday regardless of system or brand.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Once you get the hang of it, you get sucked in by the images. Stuff from other tools become less and less "impressive." It's the worst disease of them all : -)
That was perhaps the most telling single paragraph written yet... And then of course, my own personal favorite motto, at least when I really want something:

Where there's a will, there's a way.
But it can sting a bit, at least initially...

:)
 
Top