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!

What I am thinking..feel free to tell me why I am wrong!

PeterA

Well-known member
I want MFD backs to be like film. I want to be able to use this MF digi 'film' on any damn camera / lens system I choose whenver I choose to use it.

I dont want any MF digi 'film' company to tell me what hardware I can or cannot use. In fact I REFUSE to give any company any more of my dollars if they think I am fool enough to fall into their perpetuity user trap.

The only two companies that allow me the choice of using one of their backs on pretty much ANY camera/lens system I choose in pretty much ANY format I choose to use - are Sinar and Hasselblad.

Sure I can change mounts with Leaf and Phase one - but these changes are permanent and not cheap. I like being able to use a little screwdriver and whack a Sinar back on any camera I choose.

I shoot with a lot of different bodies and lens systems - because I LIKE to. I want a studio 6x9 made for digi - and I want a landscape architecture system with rise and tilt and shift - that WORKS.

Buying the best available out there is not much more cost to me as a BLOODY UPGRADE from 40 megapixels to 50 - NO THANKS mr megapixel BS - the game is OVER.

I KNOW I will make much more interesting and varied PHOTOGRAPHS that will be PRINTED when I can use the right camera/lens combination as required.

There -now tell me why I am stoopid with my thinking - I m ALL EARS.

Pete
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Hi Pete:

Well, for the most part I at least *understand* your plight, but for my part do not necessarily agree with it...

Let me back up a bit and share a bit of my personal history. In a past life I was a competitive marksman and participated in a variety of shooting competitions. If you think photographers obsess about gear, you should go to a shooting match. There are guys that will run a round of skeet with a matched pair of Purdy's so neither overheats. They usually shoot well, but at the end of the day there are always a few folks who rise to the top of the game and invariably they have nice gear, but not a lot of it. Some of them don't eve have particularly nice gear. In the case of a skeet match, the guy with the matched pair of Purdy's had (and this was many years ago) around $20,000 invested in that one pair of guns, and I assure you he had more to choose from, but the guy that won most of the time shot with a single, $400 Remington 1100 autoloader...

The moral of the story for shooting sports was taken from an old saying, origin unknown: Beware of the man who only owns one gun; he probably knows how to use it.
~~~

My point. For me, being intimately familiar with my gear, its controls, it menus, its metering idiosyncrasies, lenses and their anomalies and being able to change lenses seamlessly without thought are paramount to my being able to work comfortably. And when I'm comfortable and fluid when working with my gear, I tend to focus less on it and more on making images. In many ways, I think less is more in photography.

Now I realize most folks think of me as a gear slut, but the truth is I do not really own that much gear. I do buy and sell a bunch to test a bunch of it, and I do own some nice stuff, but what I keep and use is usually the minimum I need to meet a particular set of shooting needs. Heck, I don't even keep really good lenses if I don't use them regularly.

Final point: I see the concept of using a single back on multiple bodies as a kluge. The engineer in me says the added adapter interface needed is simply one more point for errors or instability to show up in the total imaging system. This concern is supported to a large degree by the fact that companies like Hassleblad often have to custom shim their backs to mate to a specific body, and these shims are very, very thin in most cases. (And I do not yet understand how Phase gets away with virtually perfect focus with any back on any body -- at least that's true with Mamiya bodies -- it seems a virtual impossibility, yet they accomplish it...) So in the end, call me suspicious of the long term mechanical veracity of any product wanting to provide that type of totalitarian versatility and flexibility.

My .02 only,
 

PeterA

Well-known member
G'day Jack,

I understand the one gun analogy it is rather like the beware of the quiet guy at the back of the bar not the guy who is making the most noise at the front - same story different locations.

However, I am sure you know Jack- that as good as double barrel side by side or under and over is with birds - it is useless @ nailing a wild boar or a fox at 100/200 or 300 meters - Given your experience with shooting, I am sure you are aware of the fact that one uses different guns for different purposes. Down here they are just necessary tools on the farm.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
i went down this path. started with the 20ttcc and cfv, a fine system, then added the horseman which takes the cfv; the whole shooting match as long as you don't want tilts.
then Son sells me his Rollei Xact 2 with the phase 20 back, giving me the whole she-bang. added the rollei 6008. i am not having any interchanging problems with the rollei gear and phase, didn't have any with the blad gear either
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Not heard the one about Hassey backs needing shims Jack. Both my 31 and 39 mount on the Rollei Xact via an adapter without shims needed for either back. If a Phase back will mount on any Mamiya body, wouldn't that mean the tolerences were pretty tight from body to body since they are the variable?

Peter, that's a tough one. Fortunately, there are two makes of backs that give you what you want verses two that don't.

In the end I tend to slide toward Jack's POV, and prefer an integrated system aproach ... the more integrated the better.

However, I guess I do fall under the title of gear slut ... but actually it's more that I'm a photographic Pack Rat ... when I add, I don't subtract the same amount ... and a few years of that adds up :ROTFL:

If I don't have enough different things to play with, I get bored. I personally don't feel a lack of flow with different gear ... I look at all cameras as the same ... a box with media in them ... The switches and dials may be in different places camera to camera, but I know they are there, and intuitively remember where.

Let's face it, there is no prefect system for everyone, and I certainly hope there never will be.
 

BradleyGibson

New member
I'm with Peter on this one. My back my tools. Even if I never switch, I'd still want the comfort of knowing that some backs are designed without switchability in mind.

How many of us have only ever owned a single medium format camera system? Wouldn't it be nice to at least have the option of taking your back with you?

That being said, once I find my system, I tend to dial into it until it's invisible to me, but I'd still like the freedom and flexibility of mount adapters.

-Brad
 

fotografz

Well-known member
My problem has been less about a single, multi-use back .... it's more about the need for bigger sensors when it comes to using multiple MF systems. I didn't gravitate to a 6X6 203FE because I wanted a chopped format, nor for the 6X7 RZ system which I still have. That is more how I used and supported multiple MF systems in the days of film.

I'd gladly support two dedicated backs if one of them was a 54X54 sized sensor in a dedicated mount CFV type back for my 203FE/503CW. Now that would be a perfect use of one back on 2 types of camera just like the CFV is now.

So, I do understand those that have two 645 systems ... one focal plane and the other a leaf shutter ... but I gave that up as not being practical since maintaining two complete systems of lenses and accessories for the same size sensor was pretty costly ... especially since 85% of my 645D work required high speed sync. However, if Hasselblad offered a H focal plane body, I'd pay a premium for it.
 

David Klepacki

New member
I also agree with Peter (and Bradley) on this topic. It is becoming less about the megapixels and more about the capability and flexibility of your (total) camera system.

Using a MFDB system with adapters, more capabilities are immediately available to you. You can shoot with the lenses and camera body that you like and that you feel are the most appropriate for the job at hand, regardless of brand. One day it may be the arTec, another day it may be a Linhof or P3, another day it maybe a 6x6 RZ or Hy6, another day the 645 of your current preference, .. etc. You can change the type of equipment you wish to use back and forth at any time.

I am not advocating supporting a lot of different camera systems, but rather the flexibility to allow the photographer the freedom to choose and to change more easily. Indeed, it may be only one particular camera system at the present time, but you could change or expand at any time, and take advantage of the strengths of any particular system when you need it. Furthermore, no one camera system can do it all. For example, a 645 AF system is great for fashion and general speed, but is not the most appropriate for other work requiring finer perspective control or larger image circles such as for architecture (and vice versa of course).

In fact, I see most professional photographers moving towards at least three systems for their MFDB:
-- a portable architectural rangefinder (e.g. arTec, Alpa, Cambo, etc.)
-- a general purpose SLR w/ AF leaf shutter and/or focal shutter (645 or 6x6)
-- a studio based view camera (e.g., Linhof, Xact2, P3, etc.)

With an adapter based MFDB, you will have the widest selection of choices as to which of these systems you wish to use at any time, without having to invest in multiple backs. Careful consideration of lenses typically results in needing only a few for each type of system. When money and jobs are tight, this kind of flexibility may keep your business going, as opposed to paying top dollar for the most megapixels.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
The only two companies that allow me the choice of using one of their backs on pretty much ANY camera/lens system I choose in pretty much ANY format I choose to use - are Sinar and Hasselblad.
Pete - so if there are 2 brands which offer what you want-why dont you just use a Sinar or Hasselblad and be happy?
 
A

Aitor

Guest
I agree Peter. Only one thing, change mounts in Sinar is not cheap at all. I have two CMV lenses in a P3 that are more a problem than a solution if you want to change the back
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I also agree with Peter (and Bradley) on this topic. It is becoming less about the megapixels and more about the capability and flexibility of your (total) camera system.

Using a MFDB system with adapters, more capabilities are immediately available to you. You can shoot with the lenses and camera body that you like and that you feel are the most appropriate for the job at hand, regardless of brand. One day it may be the arTec, another day it may be a Linhof or P3, another day it maybe a 6x6 RZ or Hy6, another day the 645 of your current preference, .. etc. You can change the type of equipment you wish to use back and forth at any time.

I am not advocating supporting a lot of different camera systems, but rather the flexibility to allow the photographer the freedom to choose and to change more easily. Indeed, it may be only one particular camera system at the present time, but you could change or expand at any time, and take advantage of the strengths of any particular system when you need it. Furthermore, no one camera system can do it all. For example, a 645 AF system is great for fashion and general speed, but is not the most appropriate for other work requiring finer perspective control or larger image circles such as for architecture (and vice versa of course).

In fact, I see most professional photographers moving towards at least three systems for their MFDB:
-- a portable architectural rangefinder (e.g. arTec, Alpa, Cambo, etc.)
-- a general purpose SLR w/ AF leaf shutter and/or focal shutter (645 or 6x6)
-- a studio based view camera (e.g., Linhof, Xact2, P3, etc.)

With an adapter based MFDB, you will have the widest selection of choices as to which of these systems you wish to use at any time, without having to invest in multiple backs. Careful consideration of lenses typically results in needing only a few for each type of system. When money and jobs are tight, this kind of flexibility may keep your business going, as opposed to paying top dollar for the most megapixels.
Sorry, I guess I don't quite follow this argument.

I have a so called closed MFD system. However, I can use the back on a field tech camera (with the Image Bank-II), on my Rollei Xact-II studio view camera, or on the faster, more fully integrated 645 AF body ... a body which also allows me to use either the HC lenses or any of my vast collection of Zeiss 500 series lenses without all that stop down meter/shoot nonsense.

If I'm not mistaken, any Phase One back can be used on all three types of professional applications you mention. So can any Leaf back. And their on board battery makes it even easier to use on a field tech camera.

The ONLY thing missing with the H system is use on a focal plane shutter 645 camera ... which in all honesty I have very little use for professionally, and tend to turn to high meg 35mm DSLRs for applications of that type anyway... which is why I sold my Mamiya 645/Aptus 75s kit ... it just wasn't earning it keep.

What you have made me interested in is securing a H "dumb adapter" for my RZ. Since that is a leaf shutter camera, it will also work with the H3D back set to sync mode just like any view camera.

I DO agree that flexibility is more important than adding some incremental megapixel count. In today's economic environment, a view camera system could bring more diversified ROI than 10 more meg IMHO.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I like to 'empathize' with other people's point of view - which for me is looking at the world through their eyes and then seeing how it fits (or not) in my world and my uses. I get to learn a lot from unbiased views and from people whose views I respect. So thanks Marc and David for your contributions.:salute:

I look at the responses and I am getting confirmation of my simple premise - and that is wouldn't it be great if ALL backs would allow us to use ANY camera/lens system we wished to whenever we wished - just like film did.

Sounds weird I know, coming from our current experience and available options. For sure everyone has preferences about this versus that in terms of how we can work around the basic inability to use whatever camera system format we like whenever we like.

Anyway - the world is as it is. I think I have all bases covered now - it means two backs though. Fortunately the cost of used backs is plummeting in line with the huge decline in new prices which Hasselblad started.

The only thing that is missing - a point made by you Marc previously is a large square format chip- wouldn't that be a blast!

( cheecky aside the Hasselblad may go IF / WHEN you guys PROVE that the S2 is better I am thinking that that is 2 years away) :ROTFL:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I think you maybe looking at the 4/3rds model in which you can use glass on different bodies and such. In theory i think it works but in practice not sure it took off as well as expected. Not sure many folks would go for like Phase back , Sinar body , Hassy lens setup and reason being is get's very confusing . Although some of it is practice today but even switching adapter plates is not exactly cheap either.Plus you need complete buy in from all 4 MF OEM's which would be very hard. The thought is there but not sure folks would actually do it
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I would think that its allready nice that you can use the most digital backs on different camera systems.
The wish for each back fitting on each camera probably interferes with the wish for integration between back and camera.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Guys- all i am saying is that the connections between digi backs and camera bodies - should be standardised - just like we have standards for firewire USB electrical plugs etc etc etc..

Yes it would require industry standards. but industries around the world have grown in size and profitability and lowered costs - BECAUSE of the existance of standards.

We dont have standards in this cottage industry. MFD back to camera bod(ies) would not interrupt companies ability to produce DAC corrections or choose which lenses to design and incorporate - progress would still occur.

In fact in many ways the makers are already conforming to industry standards- otherwise you couldnt use a CF card or a tethered connection etc etc..

All that is happening now is small companies kidding themselves that these artificial barriers to exit and entry protect their market shares - the revcerse is happenning - too much focus on protecting and not enough focus on delivering quantum leaps in progress.

Anyway - if these attitudes continue - I can tell you what will happen to the industry - it has happenned to other industries like this forever and a day...we wont have 4 or five back manufactureres - thats for sure...and at the end of the day - those who make the better body/lenses will win - not the back software dudes - this is being commidified ..-:)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I get the desire to be able to use a back on a variety of cameras. I certainly get the concept of wanting to be able to have a focal plane AND leaf shutter system at hand. I even get the wanting a system that allows for WLF and rotating back. (And FWIW I can already get all of this with my current Phase back, and it's perhaps the most limited fitment of all the backs.) However, I don't quite see it as the Sony Betamax v VHS scenario; I see it more like the Mercedes versus Lexus situation.

Yes, it would be nice if they standardized, but not sure that it's truly feasible from an engineering standpoint UNLESS you have adapter plates a la Sinar since all the camera bodies are so vastly different.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I am sure that you will agree that the engineering requirements for standardised interfaces is hardly rocket science Jack. There is greater than zero utility in giving the user the choice.

Even Phase recognise that there is some demand for changing mounts - they charge for it and ask like they do for their current mamiya bodies - that this stuff is physically sent back to them for a firmware upgrade or mount change - like they are doing you a favour.

I dont want to mail my back 1000 miles up the coast so that they can then mail the back to someone somwhere around the world and take all the risk and hassle just to change a body configuration. Sure I can get it done - but I cant do it myself a few times a day if the mood or need takes me - or just for the heck of it.

Hence - exit Phase ( somewhat reluctantly I might add). replace with a back and a few adaptors - 3 screws and a screwdriver required - even my fat fingers can handle that. keep other system ( DAC works lets see if HTS gives me what i need for movements) if not bye bye that one as well.

There is method to my madness. If I were close to real Phase support - maybe less of an issue. Everyone's personal circumstances are different.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Just to clarify the 3 year Value Added Warranty that we recommend with Phase One backs includes a free platform swap. Though in theory the idea of changing systems being freeing we find very few customers end up changing platforms using this free swap and end up using the free platform swap to increase the resale value of their back. It's a decent insurance policy though in case the platform you choose ends up not being right for you.

And yes, the P series of Phase digital backs can be used on tech cameras, view cameras, home-made pinhole cameras, as well as the SLR for which they are fitted. In addition they can do so without the need for an Image Bank, additional battery, or laptop. The Mamiya and Hassy V mounts can also be used on the Mamiya RZ and the V can also be used with a Fuji 680III.

Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer | Personal Portfolio
 

Arjuna

Active member
Peter

I think that your desire is driven by economics (hardly surprising, given your line of work).

"I want MFD backs to be like film. I want to be able to use this MF digi 'film' on any damn camera / lens system I choose whenver I choose to use it."

In the film realm, you can use the same kind of film in any (medium format) camera/system, but you would be unlikely to use the same roll, and you almost certainly wouldn't use the same film back. The cost of film backs is relatively small compared to the cost of the rest of the system, so having film backs for each system was not a big deal. But the cost of a medium format digital back is much, much bigger than the cost of the rest of the system (in both cases, meaning the cost of a body, viewfinder and one or two lenses - plainly there can be a wide range of costs for a medium format system exclusive of film or digital back), so now there is a big economic incentive to re-use it.

In the digital realm I would say that the CF card is closer to the equivalent of film - you can use it on pretty much any system (i.e. back), perhaps with a reformat. In terms of relative costs, a medium format digital back is now the core of a system, with the camera body really being reduced to a kind of lens/viewfinder adapter.
 
Top