Any feedback on Phase One P20, Kodak DCS 645M, or Mamiya ZD?

[GrahamWelland]

Two 645M's only because the first broke. So technically one working 645M at a time. Does that sound better and less sluty?

 

[dougpeterson]

The thing is, even Phase One, who have admirably long support, do eventually end that support too. This past year, IIRC, they ended support on the tethered Lightphase/H5/10/20/25 backs.

To clarify though the Lightphase and H5/10/20/25 are still supported in:
- raw file support in Capture One v7 in all modern OS versions
- tethered support in Capture One v7 in all modern OS versions
- technical support cases, dealer support, troubleshooting
- availability of accessories (in new condition) like firewire cables and sync cables for speciality cameras
- repairs where possible

This for a series of backs introduced in 1998 to 2003.

The "repairs where possible" is the heart of the announcement of their announcement of support. They are out of inventory on some internal components which are impossible to source today. So they cannot guarantee that they will be able to repair backs. They will still gladly look at one of these backs and repair it when the faults/failures are within their ability to repair.

Phase One does not have a stated limit to how long they provide support for one of their products. They still support the Phase One FX and FX+ released in 2000 and only discontinued support of the Powerphase (released 1996/1997) because it was a SCSI device and support for SCSI was growing impossible to maintain.

 

[dougpeterson]

And, you can shoot IR with the DCS 645 and the ZD, as they have easily detachable IR-blocking filters. Can't do that with the P20.

Other tricks up the DCS 645 sleeve are in-camera jpeg processing (albeit slowly), an intervalometer, optional long exposure dark frame subtraction (can't turn it off in the P20), and complete remote control of the Mamiya 645AFD when tethered.

But the P20 has a bigger image buffer than the DCS 645 (640 MB vs 256 MB), a faster frame rate (1.15 seconds per frame vs 1.8 seconds per frame), and a marginally larger LCD (2.2 inches vs 2.0 inches).

As for ruggedness and reliability of the DCS 645 - Kodak used all their know-how in technology, materials and user interface from their DCS versions of the professional Nikon F5 and Canon EOS-1n workshorses. It is not lacking in those departments. I've had a DCS 720x (F5 modification) and it is almost exactly the same as the DCS 645.

I would put the toughness of the P/P+ chassis up against any camera.
2.3 tons of steel | P+ extreme scenarios | Phase One - YouTube
On the rocks | P+ extreme scenarios | Phase One - YouTube
Baking a back | P+ extreme scenarios | Phase One - YouTube
Humidity | P+ extreme scenarios | Phase One - YouTube

The JPG thing was very useful at the time the back was developed. But of course now even a mid-range computer can generate JPGs from a batch of 16mp raw files at lightning pace.

The IR filter is one huge advantage (other than price) of the Kodak over a P20. I love IR. I spent my last two weeks analyzing the usefulness of the IR spectrum in increasing legibility on burnt documents (see our blog article today). I genuinely wish that more modern digital backs included a user removable IR filter like the ZD and Kodak did.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Ray's post about the DCS645M images out on the web including some of my old images from PhotoSig got me interested in taking a look at what I had out there. What I found most enlightening was that those files from 2003/2004 still crap on most of my DSLR images taken up until I re-entered the poor house with my Leaf and then Phase One backs. If there's one thing that comes across with even vintage MFDBs it's that the colour rendering has always been superior. They may not compete with the latest batch of DSLRs, especially when you consider resolution (which believe me, isn't the be all of things!) but they hold their own over time.

I say go for it if you can find a good deal on a well looked after DCS645 and you go into it knowing about the batteries, the need to have it fully checked over so that it's working perfectly, and the general realization that if anything significant goes wrong with it then you're basically replacing it. For a couple of $k it's a wonderful entry into medium format. One last word of warning - the reason I finally ended up going back to a 35mm DSLR (the D2X at the time) was due to the back/AFD body occasionally locking up. That said, it seems to have taken Mamiya/Phase another EIGHT years to finally fix that problem in 2012!! :cussing:

Btw, I'd still buy a P20/P20+ though if it were me ...

Here are a few old images from the DCS645M and AFD, 35AF, 55-100AF, 120M and 105-210AF:

 

[weinlamm]

Very intersting videos from Phase One. Intersting kind of testing... I like the 'cake-video'.

 

[weinlamm]

@ Graham:

Are your pictures made with a P20/P20+ or with a Kodak...?

 

[GrahamWelland]

Those are all with the DCS645M. I've never had the P20 myself but I do have a P25+ and I've also had the P40+ before trading up to the IQ160.

I'd process them somewhat differently today but back then I used the original Kodak raw converter and then in to Photoshop. The Kodak application was much better than any version of ACR from that era (2003/4).

 

[weinlamm]

Thanks for your explanation! You wrote first something about P20/P20+ and then "from that back" - so I was a little bit confused.

You have shown very nice pictures! My Kodak DCS needs much light, too. But if you have this, the pictures are very good - even today. But without enough light I take out the battery and let it lay on the desk... Without light that's the better way. :shocked:

 

[msadat]

i used the kodak 645 back on both contax 645 and mamiya and i also had the zd. the zd was pretty bad and did not get used that much till i sold it. the kodak's were great and out of the two setups, i liked the contax 645 cause the lenses were better. overall i was very happy with the kodak backs.