Why did you choose your back?

[RayM]

I've now been part of this circle of hell for several weeks. I've read nearly everything that everyone has written on this particular forum in the last many weeks, and I've re-read a few forums from a few weeks ago that I would consider essential reading for anyone interested in getting a medium format digital back. (This seems to me in some ways, trying to describe what a good wine tastes like)

What I'm always struck by is the diversity of what others seem to value most. It could be coming upon a 'good deal," detail, file size, moire, square or rectangular, price, acceptable performance at higher ISO speeds, software, capture speed, some of the above, all of the above, and none of the above, etc. It nearly starts my head spinning again, but not as much as my head was spinning a few weeks ago. I've read notes about how some folks feel that their backs can outresolve their own best lenses. All of these choices and preferences are personal, and they're each "weighted" as compared to other considerations.

So, how did you come to choose what you chose? What are the factors you valued most in your choice of the back you chose? When you got to know your MFDB, did you have "buyers remorse" on any your choice? What unpleasant surprises have you had once you started to get to know your MFDB? Thank you.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Excellent question. Will post later my thoughts, on deadline right now.

 

[Mammy645]

I bought my P25 for it's reputation of being rock solid, both in construction and file quality, and have never been disappointed by either. In fact I'm amazed by the image quality every time I open a file in post. I used to shoot 6x7 film before going digital, and there is no way in hell I'd go back, MFD just blows film away in every way. You will especially notice this if you work the files a lot in post production. This is jmho though, so don't start any film vs. digital war please

 

[Dale Allyn]

Ray,

I agree, that this is an excellent question to post. Like you, I have read and re-read most of the threads here and elsewhere regarding the topic.

So here is sort of how my process went:

I watched Guy move from Canon gear to Canon w/Leica glass, to Leica DMR, to Nikon and M8, to the Mamiya 645 w/ZD back, and finally (at least for now) to his P25+ back and soon-to-be PhaseOne AFD III. Guy's nature of being brand agnostic and being willing to flip this stuff with ice water in his veins is helpful to watch. He always seems to be mostly looking for improvements in image quality within a practical range of usability, expense, etc. (Not being a "Guy Mancuso fanboy, but it sure is cheaper to let him run through all of this gear first! :ROTFL: )

So as Guy tested the Mamiya ZD and ultimately moved to the P25+ (for now), his process was meaningful to me. My needs are not assignment work, events, etc. I'm an enthusiastic amateur who sells some prints now and then. And my budget is limited. My original plan was to get the 1Ds3, but with the help of Jack's thread of test photos (and much research and shooting it) I decided I needed to move to a MFDB for the visible step up I was wanting.

I chose the Mamiya AFD II for the ergonomics which allow for hand-held shooting and walking around kind of use, and the affordable glass which allows me to experiment a bit without (yet) selling body parts. I expect I'll upgrade it to the Phase body. From all of my reading, I knew that I wanted an open system, so that factored in as well.

The original plan was to get a ZD back and then move up to one of the others such as Phase or Sinar, but a P25+ became available to me a good price so the decision was easier to jump ahead a bit in my plans. (Sinar's rotating back adapter is really appealing to me.)

The Phase back was on my short list anyway because of the button layout, large(ish) and bright LCD and the range of back models from which to choose. The kind of support that was illustrated by people like Lance here had an influence on my long-term goals as well. The same is true of my feelings toward Thierry and Sinar.

So, in my case, it was a matter of looking for the best that I could get within a budget that sort of compares to 35mm DSLR gear. The move to a P25+ this week was the result of an unexpected opportunity to buy a pre-owned, but unused back at a special price. I'm very pleased with the purchase so far. It handles well; the menus are easy; the first few files came off as if they were my good 'ol DSLR files (no process headache), but with the MFDB look and quality I'm seeking.

My thanks to all here who freely share their experience and ideas.

Edit to add: I chose the P25+ because I can not afford the P45+, which I think for landscape is probably one of the best choices. The absence of mircrolenses on both of these models appeals to me. And high ISO performance is of limited value to me for this format – I like my DSLRs for that.

 

[David K]

I moved from having two backs, Aptus 75S and Mamiya ZD, to the Sinar Hy6/e75L recently. My motivations and priorities were:

The ability to shoot multiple camera platforms on a single back simply by changing the adapter plate. This gives me the option to shoot my Contax, Hasselblad, and Mamiya RZ kits in addition to the Hy6.

I was quite happy with my Aptus 75S and decided to stick with the same Dalsa chip that I had in that back.

Having a big, bright viewfinder is very important to me. I find myself mostly using manual focus and with the shallow DOF in MF, it's critical to nail the focus point (at least when shooting people).

My kit came with a 5 year hot swap warranty. Extending the warranty for a MF back can be quite expensive, ($2600 or $2700 per year for Leaf), so this was a major motivation for me to make the move when I did.

 

[jlm]

I went used: Marc gave it excellent reviews: 205TCC Blad, 80mm/2.8 FE lens, CVF 16Meg back: about $10k.
have completely loved it:
pros:
Back: sq format, seamless integration, no cables, etc. great post software (phocus), absolutely great image quality. 16meg is more than enough for me.
Body, 205TCC (203 is similar): blad quality, ergo and compactness, FP shutter (i prefer this), takes most all blad lenses, many available used, can be used sync or FP depending on lens, prism or waist finder, has built in very good spot meter. (503 is a bit different: requires sych shutter lenses only, no in-body electronics or meter)

cons: more limited electronic integration compared to newer systems; LCD displays are better on others (doesn't matter except in bright light, where they all probably fall down anyway), MP count is low
the 1.5 crop factor limits wide angle choices from Blad

 

[BradleyGibson]

In another thread, I posted the following:

...I can tell you from direct personal experience that David has hit the nail on the head when he refers to the priorities we place on the many factors that go into the choice of back. This is everything.

In my experience, if you want ultra-clean low-ISO files, the Phase does a better job. If you want deep shadow detail the Sinar does a better job. If you want the highest possible resolution, the Phase does a better job. If you want superior high ISO performance, the Sinar does a better job. I could go on...

In some cases, it is possible to change the rules and improve one back's performance significantly with extra work and post-processing. In many cases, it isn't.

The point to take away is which are the things you care about most in your image files, workflow or even handling of the back while shooting? Do you want these attributes "out of the box", or are you willing to do extra work to have them? I truly believe there is no "best" solution--if there were, we'd all have found it by now.
...


With that as an understanding, I'm happy to tell you about the factors which drove me. I'm sure you understand that those factors may not be the same, or even relevant for you (or perhaps they might)...

I am a fine art nature photographer. In two words, I began my transition from small format to medium format for one thing: image quality.

I was willing to pay lots of money, carry bigger, heavier and slower gear, deal with more limited focal lengths and apertures all to be able to print larger fine art prints with what I refer to as 'effortless detail'. Large format produces work like what I wanted to achieve, and I was interested if medium format digital could take me some or all of the way there. I concluded that it could.

Realizing that my sensor is only going to record what is delivered to it, the glass my MFD system would be using was critical. I evaluated Mamiya, Fuji (Hasselblad H), Hasselblad Zeiss, Contax Zeiss, and Rollei Zeiss and Schneider.

Bokeh on the Rollei Schneider was outstanding, as were several other qualities. Zeiss came in a close second for me, but the Hasselblad Zeiss aperture rendered very disturbing hexagonal bokeh which was part of the reason I ultimately decided against them (Both Rollei and Contax Zeiss do a better job in this respect).

In the end, I decided to go with the new Hy6 platform. The 6008AF allowed me to connect a few more digital backs, but the ergonomics (including weight) were not as nice for the work I do. So in the end, this limited me two only two different backs: Leaf AFI 7 and Sinar eMotion 75LV.

But despite this narrowing of the field, I still evaluated every digital back in production.

I had many criteria:

Image Quality (my top 3: 1. Hasselblad CF39-MS, 2. Phase P45+, 3. Sinar eMotion75LV). Most of my subject matter would not lend itself to multishot, so the Hasselblad didn't win. The Sinar multishots don't have screens, so that eliminated them for my purposes.

I also considered, service that I could get based on where I live (Seattle, USA), weight that I'd have to carry in the field, whether it had moving parts (ie. fans) which may fail, or become noisy over time, venting (I may be in wet or dusty conditions--I don't want to bring the environment home with me inside my digital back), low- and high-ISO performance, performance (speed of capture), post-capture workflow, health and viability of the manufacturer, adaptability of the platform, oh and number of megapixels.

I share all this to show how broadly I looked at this decision before I leaped. And after all that, I still didn't get it right on my first try. The back I bought (P45+) ended up not being an option (for the time being at least) on the camera platform I wanted (Hy6). So after a year on the P45+, I sold it and moved to the Sinar.

I'm not sure if my story helps at all, but I do empathize with where you are. If there is anything in my experience that might be of help, please let me know--I'd be happy to share what I've learned to hopefully help you make the right choice the first time around.

Great question, Ray.

Best regards,
Brad

 

[Graham Mitchell]

I knew I wanted a 22MP chip. I also knew I wanted an adapter system to allow me to change my mind about platforms or maybe use same back on several cameras. That narrowed choice down to Sinar or Hasselblad. I was very interested in the (at that stage) rumoured Hy6 camera, and not very impressed with some of Hasselblad's strategies, so the Sinar became my obvious choice.

 

[fotografz]

It was simple. Having had shot with most of the backs pretty extensively, or worked with photographers I hired to shoot for my ad agency, I knew that in the right hands, with the right experience, all the major backs were/are basically the same ... excellent.

Agonizing over this or that as being "superior" is short lived ... what's top dog today, is kicked to the curb tomorrow ... in Guy's case, literally tomorrow : -)

So, my choice was easy ... I chose my dealer ... it didn't really matter what brands he carried. With his help, I sorted out my needs, matched them to what was available and he made it all happen ... then personally set up everything, and was/is available to help ... in my studio. I honestly believe that the dealer is the most important piece of gear in the MFD bag :thumbup:

So IMO, get on with it, love the one you're with, and go make photos.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

have to agree and i do give Lance credit for my decision not too mention all the folks at Phase also, he walked me through everything made suggestions and provided extremely excellent service along the way. About time someone actually held my hand and helped me instead buying it all and than try to figure it all out. HUGE plus for that folks. Find a good dealer to start. I agree Marc that really helped me make my decision.

 

[David Klepacki]

For my studio and various types of still life shooting that I do (fine art, copy, and technical macro work), I need the highest resolution and image fidelity possible, since I also need to print large. Without getting into custom made imaging equipment, it came down to two choices for me: Hasselblad CF22-MS and the Sinar 54H, both capable of producing native 88MP non-interpolated images. I purchased and tried both, but now only have the 54H. Both of these backs have open interfaces, and basically support the same set of cameras (ie, they both can get the job done).

For my mobile single-shot work, I ended up choosing the 33MP Sinar emotion 75LV, mostly because of the reasons already stated here, like preferred lenses and multiple camera support.

 

[PSon]

For me it is about the optics first since most digital backs will yield similar results. This reason got me tried all kind of digital backs and even now I cannot totally give up the 35 mm format yet due to a couple of lens. I would like to have a system where I can use a single back for multiple platforms and thus the Sinar appeal to me the most this way but when I use the Phase One back with Capture One I also have to admit it fits me well. I also love the Hasselblad back especially the CFV since it works on both the Hasselblad 200 and 500 series. In the end I do not think you will lose going with any of the medium format system. I like to see all of the companies do well to keep the balance for users like us and the varieties always makes life more interesting. I have no fear in the step I take but yet with great enthusiasm for the next challenge.

Best Regards,
-Son

 

[Mitchell]

Great question Ray. I'm in exactly the same place. This seems much harder than buying a car though the price is the same!

Bradley, thanks for your helpful comments. I'm looking at the Hy6 and have the same use and priorities in mind, though my post processing skills and patience are, I'm sure, at a lower standard than yours. How is the Hy6 working out for you?

Thanks,

Mitchell

 

[PeterA]

The dealer and support system is everything.

I was an early buyer into MFD straight into a Leaf75 3 years ago. I didn't like what Hasselblad was doing with H cameras and I liked the idea of the AFi. However the dealer I bought my Leaf from failed to inform me of the Leaf75s coming out a month after I bought my back and misled me about how long it would take to get the Hy6 platform to the market= more lies and BS and cover ups. The same dealer also sells Sinar here in Australia - and they went out of their way to make me not consider Sinar.

I think that Leaf produces great files - but the software is clunky and I think Sinar's software is even clunkier. Phase One in Australia - well the dealer is 1000miles away so never got a chance to play here.

I got to try out an early Hy6 body and a few lenses - and was not impressed with the ergonomics for me - and I made a commitment to NEVER dealing with this dealer group in Australia again anyway and telling anyone who asks what a load of BS I went through - because I hold grudges and never forget or forgive.

Meanwhile Hasselblad kept on quietly servicing my queries always had stock on hand and was quick to answer questions. So I got to play with Phocus late last year - that was the clincher for me.

I sold my Leaf - more to get away from these charlatans and moved to a H3D-31 which I tested against a second hand Phase back and Contax - and then quickly moved to a H3d11-39 when the price dropped by $10K.

If I didnt have an extensive collection of HC lenses, and some rare v series lenses - I think I would have tossed a coin between Phase One and Hasselblad. I will probably buy a P45+ after Photokina and some Mamiya gear.

I would have bought a Sinar back because you can change the adaptor plates - as I have said many times - this is a killer feature as far as I am concerned - but I am very old fashioned - I despise crooked dealers, lies mistruths and rip-offs.

There ya go - my decision was more about what dealers support didnt do for me than any particular for or against system prejudice.

Oh on a final note - I am extremely happy with my blad total workflow and system - but actually dont wish to be a fan boy marketer for any of thee manufacturers - so in the main when guys boast about teh wonderful quality of their Zeiss glass I just laugh to myself and let people enjoy their silliness.

The best support network you can have is an online community like this - everyone here can ask questions and get real feedback - without the usual dealer bullying and BS.


Pete

 

[Graham Mitchell]

The same dealer also sells Sinar here in Australia - and they went out of their way to make me not consider Sinar.

...I would have bought a Sinar back because you can change the adaptor plates - as I have said many times - this is a killer feature as far as I am concerned - but I am very old fashioned - I despise crooked dealers, lies mistruths and rip-offs.

Please pass on this experience to Sinar. Having dealers like this is not doing anyone any good.

 

[woodyspedden]

In another thread, I posted the following:

...I can tell you from direct personal experience that David has hit the nail on the head when he refers to the priorities we place on the many factors that go into the choice of back. This is everything.

In my experience, if you want ultra-clean low-ISO files, the Phase does a better job. If you want deep shadow detail the Sinar does a better job. If you want the highest possible resolution, the Phase does a better job. If you want superior high ISO performance, the Sinar does a better job. I could go on...

In some cases, it is possible to change the rules and improve one back's performance significantly with extra work and post-processing. In many cases, it isn't.

The point to take away is which are the things you care about most in your image files, workflow or even handling of the back while shooting? Do you want these attributes "out of the box", or are you willing to do extra work to have them? I truly believe there is no "best" solution--if there were, we'd all have found it by now.
...


With that as an understanding, I'm happy to tell you about the factors which drove me. I'm sure you understand that those factors may not be the same, or even relevant for you (or perhaps they might)...

I am a fine art nature photographer. In two words, I began my transition from small format to medium format for one thing: image quality.

I was willing to pay lots of money, carry bigger, heavier and slower gear, deal with more limited focal lengths and apertures all to be able to print larger fine art prints with what I refer to as 'effortless detail'. Large format produces work like what I wanted to achieve, and I was interested if medium format digital could take me some or all of the way there. I concluded that it could.

Realizing that my sensor is only going to record what is delivered to it, the glass my MFD system would be using was critical. I evaluated Mamiya, Fuji (Hasselblad H), Hasselblad Zeiss, Contax Zeiss, and Rollei Zeiss and Schneider.

Bokeh on the Rollei Schneider was outstanding, as were several other qualities. Zeiss came in a close second for me, but the Hasselblad Zeiss aperture rendered very disturbing hexagonal bokeh which was part of the reason I ultimately decided against them (Both Rollei and Contax Zeiss do a better job in this respect).

In the end, I decided to go with the new Hy6 platform. The 6008AF allowed me to connect a few more digital backs, but the ergonomics (including weight) were not as nice for the work I do. So in the end, this limited me two only two different backs: Leaf AFI 7 and Sinar eMotion 75LV.

But despite this narrowing of the field, I still evaluated every digital back in production.

I had many criteria:

Image Quality (my top 3: 1. Hasselblad CF39-MS, 2. Phase P45+, 3. Sinar eMotion75LV). Most of my subject matter would not lend itself to multishot, so the Hasselblad didn't win. The Sinar multishots don't have screens, so that eliminated them for my purposes.

I also considered, service that I could get based on where I live (Seattle, USA), weight that I'd have to carry in the field, whether it had moving parts (ie. fans) which may fail, or become noisy over time, venting (I may be in wet or dusty conditions--I don't want to bring the environment home with me inside my digital back), low- and high-ISO performance, performance (speed of capture), post-capture workflow, health and viability of the manufacturer, adaptability of the platform, oh and number of megapixels.

I share all this to show how broadly I looked at this decision before I leaped. And after all that, I still didn't get it right on my first try. The back I bought (P45+) ended up not being an option (for the time being at least) on the camera platform I wanted (Hy6). So after a year on the P45+, I sold it and moved to the Sinar.

I'm not sure if my story helps at all, but I do empathize with where you are. If there is anything in my experience that might be of help, please let me know--I'd be happy to share what I've learned to hopefully help you make the right choice the first time around.

Great question, Ray.

Best regards,
Brad

Brad

Just a question from curiosity as i have been laboriously going through the same process.

You are a fine art nature photographer. Yet when you evaluated the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses you ranked them lower than the others based on bokeh. I may agree with you on the bokeh issue although I have not had the opportunity to evaluate some of the others on your list but as a fine art nature photograher myself issues such as color, microcontrast etc would be much higher on my list as important. Since you didn't mention some of these issues I wondered about your thoughts here.

Thanks for any advice and counsel

Woody

 

[RayM]

What a great thread! Thank you all for taking the time to contribute so generously to helping me learn from all of you. I now see more clearly that most of you had very specific needs in mind that you addressing in your decision-making.

As for me, I've now put together a Contax system for myself, and the only thing missing is the digital back (I now have the 45, 80, 120 makro, and the 140, and a number of accessories). I will soon be selling off a bunch of lenses and I'll use the proceeds of the sales for a back. I've pretty much settled on the Phase P21+. It seems to be the basic introduction to medium format digital that I'm looking for. I'd like very much to get the P25+ for its increased resolution and crop factor, but the dollars for it are just that much more of an extra stretch right now that I've pretty much decided to go with the P21+. I suppose that I could wait longer to get the P25+ with print sales, etc., but I'd like to get into it sooner than that. I'm quite certain that the P21+ back will be plenty for me to do the kind of shooting I want to do, and will hold me till something else far more tempting comes along in a couple of years.

And, in the meantime, if you have any additional thoughts on the P21+, I'd like to hear them too. Thank you again.

 

[BradleyGibson]

Great question Ray. I'm in exactly the same place. Bradley, thanks for your helpful comments. I'm looking at the Hy6 and have the same use and priorities in mind, though my post processing skills and patience are, I'm sure, at a lower standard than yours. How is the Hy6 working out for you?
Mitchell

Hi, Mitchell,

The camera hasn't arrived yet--perhaps this week. I'm using my Sinar eMo75LV on a Hasselblad H2, currently, with Zeiss CFe glass and a CF adapter.

Kudos to 'blad for offering an upgrade path for those with V glass, but the system as I'm using it isn't really effective as an artist's tool for me.

I'll let you know how things go (good or bad) after I spend some time with the Hy6.

Best regards,
Brad

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Ray, in case you are not aware the P21 uses a smaller sensor chip than the 22MP, 33MP and 39MP sensors. This means the crop factor is higher, your lenses become a little more telephoto, and the active area of your viewfinder is a little smaller.

 

[BradleyGibson]

Brad

Just a question from curiosity as i have been laboriously going through the same process.

You are a fine art nature photographer. Yet when you evaluated the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses you ranked them lower than the others based on bokeh. I may agree with you on the bokeh issue although I have not had the opportunity to evaluate some of the others on your list but as a fine art nature photograher myself issues such as color, microcontrast etc would be much higher on my list as important. Since you didn't mention some of these issues I wondered about your thoughts here.

Thanks for any advice and counsel

Woody

I was quite surprised by what I saw (see attachments I've uploaded) in that the bokeh could actually take 'center stage' in a photograph. But I found this kind of performance overwhelmed the other considerations you mention.

I found that the Schneider glass has a (subjectively) more pleasing color rendition, but the difference between it and the Zeiss was small enough for it not to be a factor. If I were shooting in a studio with consistent lighting, this might be different, but since I'm going to have to deal with widely varying lighting situations, I doubt I'd be able to tell which of my images was Zeiss or Schneider after retouching by their color rendition.

Similarly for microcontrast (here there is quite a bit of variance *within* a given manufacturer's lineup as well as across manufacturers--with lenses as good as these two brands--Zeiss & Schneider) it was hard to make a call based on this. Rollei having good support for both makes, is compelling, to say the least--these days, it can be downright shocking to actually get a choice??? :bugeyes:

Zeiss' exotic lenses (the Superachromats, and especially the Telephoto Power Pack) were lenses that I spent some time looking at. Unfortunately given the Hasselblad 200-series poor level of digital back support, I couldn't justify sticking with the lineup to get these lenses... Not sure I would have been able to justify it even if the 200's were well-supported, but it would have been worth further investigation.

Take a look at these samples, and I think you'll get an idea of why the bokeh was such a top-of-mind issue.

You mention that you've be laboriously going through the same issue--I'm curious to hear about what your top-of-mind issues are and where you stand with them.

Best regards, Woody,
Brad