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!

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

afkuang

New member
Hi there! I had originally posted this on the Flickr 'Medium Format Digital' group on flickr, but was told I might have better luck with responses over here so here goes nothing!

I've been looking around forums and on eBay in hopes of purchasing a used MFDB in the sub $2500 price range. I've found many instances of these three digital backs fitting into the price range and I was wondering if anyone had any experience with it or had one they were looking to sell?

I know the Kodak was discontinued and very hard to find servicing for nowadays; however, it is also significantly cheaper than the other two backs mentioned.

Also, I am aware of the differences on paper (color bit differences between the backs, megapixels, cropping factor); however, I was hoping to see if anyone had some real life experience with them (ie. how much does the 12-bit of the Kodak actually differ from say the 14 bit of a Mamiya ZD or DSLRs, etc.)

Thank you! :)
 

torger

Active member
I don't have any real-life experience with these backs but I'd be careful. As far as I know the ZD is very poor at exposures longer than a few seconds, but can work well in the studio where you always shoot short shutter speeds. I've heard that it has some various reliability issues though. I would not expect the Kodak to be really competitive in terms of dynamic range, but I don't know for sure. As the bottom bits are all noise anyway of the 16 bit backs 12 bits would theoretically be enough, but I very much suspect that the Kodak DCS has significantly worse DR than a P20. If you shoot in a studio with controlled lighting that may not be a problem though.

The P20 however should be alright, AFAIK it's the square version of the KAF-22000 sensor, a sensor which is in most 22 megapixel backs and known for the "fat pixel back" look. The DR of those is still competitive today, not as good as a D800 but better than Canon DSLRs, and many love the color rendition and some find it more pleasing even to modern backs.

A Hasselblad CF22 or Imacon Ixpress 528c might be found for a similar price, but are quite rare on the market.

If I were you I'd increase the budget a little so you can get one of those 22 megapixel backs with CF card, or the square versions (P20, CFV-16). If you can accept tethered only operation there's other options which can be cheap, the Sinarback 54m or Phase One H20/H25 for example.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
The P20 is 16mp, not 22mp. But Torger is correct that the P20 sensor is the sister of the 22mp sensor used in the H25/P25/P25+ (which is quite well respected for it's generation).

We sell Phase One products, so I'm clearly biased, but of the three backs the P20 has by far the best reputation for consistent image quality, rugged and reliable build quality, simple and fast operation, and continuing support from the manufacturer (both hardware and software).

To me the choice is not even close.
 

ondebanks

Member
I would not expect the Kodak to be really competitive in terms of dynamic range, but I don't know for sure. As the bottom bits are all noise anyway of the 16 bit backs 12 bits would theoretically be enough, but I very much suspect that the Kodak DCS has significantly worse DR than a P20.
You need have no such suspicions - the DCS 645 has just as much DR as any of the 16 bit backs with the same sensor (such as the P20). I've tested my DCS 645M and it has readout noise of 22 electrons/pixel; its KAF-16802 CCD is specced by Kodak at 21 electrons/pixel. Since DR is limited by readout noise, it can't get any better than that.

The P20 however should be alright, AFAIK it's the square version of the KAF-22000 sensor, a sensor which is in most 22 megapixel backs and known for the "fat pixel back" look. The DR of those is still competitive today, not as good as a D800 but better than Canon DSLRs, and many love the color rendition and some find it more pleasing even to modern backs.
All of this also applies to the DCS 645, as it has the same sensor as the P20.

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.

Also consider the rather scary disparity in costs for servicing these backs (Midwest Camera Repair for the Kodaks, and Phase One in Denmark). If you scratch or break the IR-block filter, for example, a replacement filter for the Kodak is $195 and you pop it on yourself. There are Phase One users here who could tell you the equivalent cost of getting Phase One to replace their filters...

Regarding software support, you have plenty of choices. Kodak's original DCS software is frozen in time at 2004 (all still available from the Kodak website, BTW), but I find it effective. Nearly all other RAW developers are based on the dcraw engine, which supports the DCS 645...for example you can use RawTherapee. Or you can use the free Adobe DNG raw converter for DNG-aware software, such as ACDsee. Or you can process the original Kodak raw files directly in Photoshop CS5 Extended (I haven't tried CS6 but it's probably fine too).

I would never favour the original P20 over the DCS 645. If you offered me a free swap, I would not take it. I would however certainly consider the P20+, because of the big step forward in long exposure quality.

Ray
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I had the DCS645M as well (two actually) and generally I'd agree with Ray's comments although the problem I ran into was power. The batteries were becoming scarce and also their efficiency dropped over time which was a potential future issue. Also, whilst it's true that the IR / anti-aliasing filters were self mountable and cheaper than Phase One, actually finding the one could be a challenge today. I had one back develop an imaging board fault and it was economically cheaper to buy another used replacement than to get it fixed. They wanted $8k to replace the board vs $7k to buy another back at that time. You should always check a Kodak back for firewire board damage too - that was the root of my original back's fall into electronic madness. Dead firewire is very common.

I must admit that if I were choosing a back of this vintage that I'd go with Phase One as they do support their older hardware and there is at least a dealer/support network still active should you need it.
 

afkuang

New member
You should always check a Kodak back for firewire board damage too - that was the root of my original back's fall into electronic madness. Dead firewire is very common.
I noticed there was an auction on eBay on a Kodak DCS 645M that had a faulty firewire port. Is this something I should be worried about (potential future failureS) if I don't intend on using the firewire port? I plan on simply shooting onto a CF card. Hopefully you can provide some insight having used these backs. Thank you everyone for all the responses; they were a very informative read.
 

weinlamm

Member
Perhaps it could be a good deal - perhaps it could be the begin of its end...
:eek:
The problem should be, that there none, who could repair it...

I wouldn't take a Kodak, today. Only just for fun. I have a Kodak DCS SLR - but it's only possible to shoot in summer; you need very much light. Then you will get good colors. You can see the pictures at flickr.

Today I have a Mamiya ZD (the camera; not the back). It's amazing and I love it - but if it's not summer, it's the same as with the Kodak. Don't have fun...

Some days ago there was a Mamiya DM22 for 2.4 (but in Euro). I think today, if I hadn't my ZD, I would wait a while longer and would take a back, which would be possible to stay longer here. For the whole year 16bit would be a better choice... :rolleyes:
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Phase backs are not 16-bit--just because they do 16-bit A/D conversion does not mean they are actually giving 16-bit data. They are 14-bit backs. There are no true 16-bit camera on the market today.
 

weinlamm

Member
Are you sure? A friend, who is photographer, told me this. And his old Phase One (no plus) is much better in the tones (especially in the dark tones) than my ZD. And somewhere I found the "14bit story" of the ZD vs. "16bit everywhere else".
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
There's a 'really 16bit?' blood lust over at LuLa if you do a search. No, they aren't native 16bit despite what people claim. However, they are more than 14bit.
 

weinlamm

Member
Agree on '15 bit'? ... :D

For the threadopener is important what he would get. And I believe, that's better to save some more money and wait for a 'better' back.

But if you feel 'it's time' or if your wife didn't allow more money - go and buy a cheaper one.
 

ondebanks

Member
I had the DCS645M as well (two actually) and generally I'd agree with Ray's comments
Thanks for chipping in, Graham.

You know what's mad? Do a Google Images search for "DCS645M". 21 of the first 28 hits are my photos! I have a few others further down as well. And most of the images from hits 40 - 55 seem to be yours!

although the problem I ran into was power. The batteries were becoming scarce and also their efficiency dropped over time which was a potential future issue. Also, whilst it's true that the IR / anti-aliasing filters were self mountable and cheaper than Phase One, actually finding the one could be a challenge today.
Midwest Camera Repair still have the filters (IR and AA) at low prices (for MFD). I just checked their site. I bought a spare IR filter and a few more batteries in 2011. But the news is not so good in other respects. According to updates on their site, they sold out of batteries and battery chargers in 2012, DB imaging boards are becoming rare, and their DB repair person is out on medical leave since April this year. Looks like the twilight of this model is upon us. Still, if you get a good sample and look after it, it should last well.

And there's always the bcooter approach - when something you really like is discontinued, buy several of them so that you always have spares (as he did with his Contax 645 gear).

I had one back develop an imaging board fault and it was economically cheaper to buy another used replacement than to get it fixed. They wanted $8k to replace the board vs $7k to buy another back at that time. You should always check a Kodak back for firewire board damage too - that was the root of my original back's fall into electronic madness. Dead firewire is very common.
That's the problem with all electronics...replacement/upgrading often costs less or makes a better value proposition than repair.

I must admit that if I were choosing a back of this vintage that I'd go with Phase One as they do support their older hardware and there is at least a dealer/support network still active should you need it.
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.

Ray
 

ondebanks

Member
There's a 'really 16bit?' blood lust over at LuLa if you do a search. No, they aren't native 16bit despite what people claim. However, they are more than 14bit.
I tested files from a Hasselblad 39MP back. The 16th bit was not even used; it was hardwired. This gave the 16 bit histograms a weird "comb" appearance.

So, ok, they were putting stuff into 15 bits...but that 15th bit was just random noise. It corresponds to a variation of +/- 3 electrons...in a sensor with readout noise of +/- 21 electrons! 14 bits would be plenty in this case.

Ray
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
The Kodak 645M was my first MFDB, and it was a great MFDB at the time. The "special looks" added modules for their software was really ahead of its time compared to different looks/profiles not a feature of C1 Pro until much later. Very nice portrait colors.

One workaround for the lack of batteries/chargers----there is an adapter cord that works with the Quantum Turbo battery. Yes it means using an external battery pack, but at least you've still got power for the 645M.

ken
 

ondebanks

Member
The Kodak 645M was my first MFDB, and it was a great MFDB at the time.
You see, afkuang? All the greats started with a Kodak DCS MFDB:salute:

The "special looks" added modules for their software was really ahead of its time compared to different looks/profiles not a feature of C1 Pro until much later. Very nice portrait colors.
Yes that's the "Custom Looks" module. I really like that too...it does great B&W conversions for example, emulating some Wratten filters.

One workaround for the lack of batteries/chargers----there is an adapter cord that works with the Quantum Turbo battery. Yes it means using an external battery pack, but at least you've still got power for the 645M.
Thanks for pointing that out, Ken. Yes, it's the Quantum MDC5 cable that you need, and a Quantum Battery 2 (not Quantum Turbo). A good strategy is to pick up an old QB2 on ebay and replace the dead/tired SLA battery cell with a new 3rd party one such as this one.

Ray
 

afkuang

New member
Thanks for all the replies! It's surprising to hear about the 16-bit vs 14-bit dilemma on even today's current backs. Just like many of the posters, the Kodak DCS 645M would be my first digital back and I'm thinking that, even though it is very outdated, it is affordable enough to keep my 35mm digital equipment. Of course, I would jump on a P20 or P20+ if I sold my DSLR, but at this point I'm hoping to test the waters of MFDBs. Who knows, maybe one day I will have a Phase One IQ series :rolleyes:
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
I do think the age of the 645M and ability to service this MFDB are valid concerns. It's enough that if in the same position, I would probably save a bit more and opt for a more recent generation Phase MFDB that I know would be easier to service if needed. But all things considered, and shooting at 100 ISO, this square format MFDB creates some beautiful images. Don't get caught up in the silly 16 bit vs 14 bit arguments. What's the image look like? What's the file look like? I still have some 30" square portraits in my studio from the 645M. I had fun with my 645M.

If you do go this route, I might have the Custom Looks software still around on the shelf somewhere...

ken
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
You see, afkuang? All the greats started with a Kodak DCS MFDB:salute:
.....
Ray
Be careful, afkuang. Ray's being an instigator here, (And Graham--you had two 645Ms??!!) ---and it won't be long before you are so entrenched in Dante's Inferno, your next post here will be about how you cashed in your IRA/401K retirement savings and are really enjoying your new IQ260....

:D ken
 
Top