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!

A few questions about MF digital

JTL

New member
Hi, this is my first post.

I'm starting to get curious about medium format digital, but as yet I have not used it (I did shoot a few rolls of MF film a while back and I was definitely impressed with the look). I'm an amateur and basically don't make money from photography, so the absolute top of the line stuff is out of the question. I'm more interested in the shooting process and whether or not there is a noticeable improvement in image quality from smaller formats. I've shot with everything from an iPhone to full frame 35, but currently I'm using an APS-C camera and a one-inch sensor camera.

As I'm still new to MF digital, I have a few questions, and this seems like a good place to ask them. So with your indulgence, I will.

1) How much of a role does the body play, assuming we are talking about a modular system? For instance, a Hasselblad H1, H2 and H3 - does it make a big difference? I was under the impression that the back and the lens are the two most important elements.

2) Assuming the backs work with the bodies (and I know that some do and some don't), does any one company make better backs than any other?

3) In terms of image quality, do the older backs (with big pixel pitches, i.e the 20-30 mp ones) still match up to, for instance, the best of the current full frame 35mm cameras (D810, etc)? I'm fairly well aware that apart from the newest of the new, MF digital is not renowned for high ISO quality, but in terms of acuity, resolution, colour accuracy, etc, how do they match up?

4) Reliability issues - who's good, who's dodgy?

Any answers and opinions on these will be received with thanks!
 
3) In terms of image quality, do the older backs (with big pixel pitches, i.e the 20-30 mp ones) still match up to, for instance, the best of the current full frame 35mm cameras (D810, etc)? I'm fairly well aware that apart from the newest of the new, MF digital is not renowned for high ISO quality, but in terms of acuity, resolution, colour accuracy, etc, how do they match up?
Depends how you define image quality.

Acuity: of course the larger sensor size with fat pixels would mean crystal clear pixels.

Resolution: nope. If the smaller sensors (e.g. fullframe 35 format) are equipped with some of the lately refreshed lenses (e.g. Sigma Art, Canon II/III, Nikon E FL, Sony GM etc) then the number of pixels becomes the dominant factor, so no, 20-30MP digital backs would have less details than A7R-II/5DSR etc.

Color accuracy: this is a subjective measurement. If you enjoy the sense of accomplishment by owning a larger sensor, then it's easy to derive such metaphysics. On an objective basis you can calibrate the color in post-processing and fool the most.

Under easy shooting conditions, e.g. you can shoot a low contrast scene at low ISO without fast autofocus, and don't need to do long exposure etc, then these old larger CCD sensors does a fantastic job and can still produce better images than those new smaller CMOS sensors.

Under difficult shooting conditions (the opposite of above) then you might find the new smaller CMOS sensors (A7R-II, D810, IQ150 etc) doing a better job. This is like an iPhone 7 Plus beating the computing power of the supercomputer which NASA used decades ago to send a rocket to the moon.
 

Charles S

Well-known member
Hi, this is my first post.

I'm starting to get curious about medium format digital, but as yet I have not used it (I did shoot a few rolls of MF film a while back and I was definitely impressed with the look). I'm an amateur and basically don't make money from photography, so the absolute top of the line stuff is out of the question. I'm more interested in the shooting process and whether or not there is a noticeable improvement in image quality from smaller formats. I've shot with everything from an iPhone to full frame 35, but currently I'm using an APS-C camera and a one-inch sensor camera.

As I'm still new to MF digital, I have a few questions, and this seems like a good place to ask them. So with your indulgence, I will.

1) How much of a role does the body play, assuming we are talking about a modular system? For instance, a Hasselblad H1, H2 and H3 - does it make a big difference? I was under the impression that the back and the lens are the two most important elements.

2) Assuming the backs work with the bodies (and I know that some do and some don't), does any one company make better backs than any other?

3) In terms of image quality, do the older backs (with big pixel pitches, i.e the 20-30 mp ones) still match up to, for instance, the best of the current full frame 35mm cameras (D810, etc)? I'm fairly well aware that apart from the newest of the new, MF digital is not renowned for high ISO quality, but in terms of acuity, resolution, colour accuracy, etc, how do they match up?

4) Reliability issues - who's good, who's dodgy?

Any answers and opinions on these will be received with thanks!
Dear JTL, like you, I don't make money from photography, and I went through the same questions and now shoot digital MF.

The key question is what kind of photography do you do. For myself, I have dabbled in different kinds and used DSLRs, Leica M digital and LF, before ending up with the Digital MF as my most used system, and selling most of the rest. This was driven by a shift towards portraits as my main subject. I have a Hasselblad V system (all manual) with an ancient Ixpress 96c back, which does 16Mpix of fat CCD pixels, in a square. This back is about 13 years old and temperamental. If I was making money from photography or had time pressure to produce, I would never use it, but as a hobbyist shooting mostly in a controlled environment and with only self-induced pressure this works very well. When the moon and the stars align, or my lighting set-up is good, my metering is on-point, I shoot at ISO 50 or 100 and off a tripod, and nail the focus, there is a very noticeable difference with DSLRs (don't know about Sony 7R2s etc). The skin tones and transitions are simply smoother, almost painterly. It creates a unique, more emotional look that I like. However, if Flickr or IG posting are your main outlet it won't show as clearly. Full-screen or printed to A3 it is very visible.

If you are into still-life, there are Multi-shot backs available from Hasselblad from around the same time period that are still being used for still-life, which supposedly still outperform many other digital backs.

The trade-offs for me and my kind of photography are:

The positives
---------------
1) I love the feel of the images - which is really the only thing that keeps me in this game
2) the system was affordable, I paid slightly over 1000 USD for the back, I had a V body and lenses. The whole set-up is probabaly the most afordable entry into MF digital.
3) In controlled environments (studio, tethered shoot, tripod etc) it works great. I have shot with it while travelling, in the street, with great results as well, but it can be a bit hit or miss, and i always carry an RX100 with me for low-light, fast moving subjects or grab-shots. Here is an example of what I mean with the painterly look: link shot handheld in the street while travelling.
4) 16MP is good enough for my purposes. It would be nice to have more, but not at the cost it would take me to get there. Also to consider is that higher MPix count requires tighter tolerances of the body and the lenses, which might force me to upgrade other elements of the system.
5) I can shoot film with the same system.

Negatives
-----------
1) The shooting envelope is limited to mostly static subjects because of the manual focus (yes, you can work with more DOF, but it sort of defies the purpose)
2) ISO 100, f/4, 1/60s is as far as you can go handheld in low-light, so this is pretty limiting. Also long exposures get noisy quickly.
3) Mirror slap and manual focus really push you to use a tripod, or a monopod if you are walking around
4) The system is big and heavy. This is a system with an external drive box, which is an extra thing to carry and there are more cables, connections etc that could break. There are newer versions of the 16MP back which have built-in battery pack and CF card slot, which are easier to operate.
5) Only one company in the world still services this back
6) The crop factor limits the use of WA lenses. 40mm is more or less the widest lens and after the crop factor is the equivalent of a 35mm lens on a FF DSLR body.
7) It took me a year to get really comfortable with this set-up. It took me time to understand the limitations and quirks. There have been times that i was so frustrated that i considered selling it all and getting a DSLR again, but then one outstanding image would lift my spirits again and convinced me to persevere.

My 2 cents. If I were to do it again, I would rent or borrow a back first before buying.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
I suspect you'll get a variety of responses, some of which will sound like "if you get it, you'll like it", which is not too reassuring when you are unsure.

My own personal experience is of great pleasure with MFDB, and its amazing what some modest money can get you into today. The Leaf 33mp backs are nicely affordable, have great profiles and color, enough resolution to make very fine large images, and ease of use a step up from the generation before.

The downsides of MFDB shooting are well known - the gear is biggish. Doesn't tolerate mirror slap. Likes base ISO best, so a bunch of tripod work. Dynamic range isn't as good as the newer DSLRs, and its not as flexible.

So why do it? Oh those files. Those colors. The quality. If you see it, work with it, and get it, you won't go back. Its just that simple. I wish it weren't, I wish it was something else a bit more tangible or measurable, but there we are. For me, its basically 4x5 qualityin a slightly more portable setup and with faster processing. Its that good. The larger backs take you up to say 5x7 or even 8x10 equivalent, but aren't necessary.

In general, you are correct - it is the lens and back that matters. Where this gets sticky is the package in between, and that, unfortunately is highly highly personal. It is related to touch and feel, personal work habits, and general usability. Some like pancake tech'l cameras, others like DSLR-types, etc. My own take is that the way you see, and what you shoot, will change, and then the question is what works for you in that "new" way of working. Its tricky. I'm a big fan of leaf shutters, avoiding mirror issues - but that sends you down a particular path.

As to the backs - any of the Phase or Leaf backs, if they aren't too old, are just fine. C1 is superb software. The Hassy backs are OK too, but because some of them go on the V cameras, they have kept a higher value, even as they require the use of Hassy software. The CMOS vs. CCD is a fair discussion - I'm with CCD, and no real urgency to get into CMOS. The effective cost of CMOS is outside your realm - CCD files are just so lovely anyway.

I recommend you work with a good dealer, as its worth the help in getting through the complexities of this. I made the change some 10 years ago, and wouldn't go back for a minute. But its not a DSLR and doesn't do well judged by those criteria. Its a different way, a very fine way, but not for everyone.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
1) The body can play a big role, but if you're looking at older stuff the role is minimal IMHO and it comes down to personal preference. The only real difference between the H1/H2/H3 is that I think the H1 and H2 will accept film backs and Phase One backs, whereas the H3 won't. With the H4 you gain the True Focus feature (but no film back compatibility). There are differences between the Mamiya/Phase AF/DF/DF+ but I think they are also relatively minute. There are other bodies, such as Contax, Rollei, etc, but those are no longer being made and technical support is more limited. With Phase, keep in mind that the older P series backs are not compatible with the new XF body.

2) This is one of those "can of worms" questions that's pretty subjective. What qualities are you looking for? Will you be using it in the field (landscapes), studio, both? The main objective feature difference I can think of is the Phase IQ and Leaf Credo backs have a much better rear LCD screen (easier for image review in the field) than Hasselblad H3D/H4D/H5D, Phase P+ backs, and Leaf Aptus backs. If you're doing long exposures, different backs have different maximum exposure times, so look into that.

3) They match up well and colors will be better with MF IMHO, however you have to be aware of the limitations of older CCD backs (you're already aware of their ISO limitations and that they are light hungry), and the differences in image quality other than color with an older CCD back and an A7RII/D810 will most likely be marginal in real world use. When I shot my Hasselblad H4D-40 alongside my D800E, I preferred the colors out of the Hasselblad, but I'm not sure one would really be able to tell the difference between images shot with the two systems side by side. I preferred shooting with the Hasselblad and some of my best images to date I shot with the Hasselblad, but that was simply a subjective preference. For me resolution was a huge advantage of MF, and I wouldn't consider buying a back with lower resolution in MP than an A7R/D810/5DS. I will say too when it comes to editing, MF files are pretty malleable and can be pushed/pulled quite a bit before falling apart.

4) Regardless of who you go with, you will probably find horror stories from any manufacturer if you ask. With Hasselblad service you can deal with them directly whereas with Phase you have to go through a dealer for service. Leaf/Mamiya is now part of Phase One and I don't know how service is handled with Leaf/Mamiya products. I never had issues getting my Hasselblad serviced in the US. Cost of ownership with MF is higher than FF 35mm, and expect larger service bills than 35mm if/when gear needs servicing.

You will find ppl here on the forum that will say go for it and others will say forget about it and just upgrade to FF 35mm, so only you can really decide for yourself what is best at the end of the day. I would also recommend working with a dealer so you can test out different systems and see for yourself if MF is worth it. I loved shooting with the Hasselblad but sold it because the upgrade cost to CMOS was too high within the Hasselblad system, and the limitations of the CCD sensor meant it sat on the shelf a lot. I ended up picking up a Pentax 645z, which is something you may want to consider as well. Used prices are reasonable these days (not uncommon to see cameras less than $5k), and you get MF CMOS for not much more than you would spend on a CCD Hasselblad/Phase/Leaf system. Another thing I would mention is if I were you and if you can be patient, I would wait until the summer or fall to purchase. With the X1D shipping and the Fuji GFX estimated to ship Feb 23, the prices of older used systems I imagine will drop further once the X1D and GFX become readily available.
 

jerome_m

Member
1) The body can play a big role, but if you're looking at older stuff the role is minimal IMHO and it comes down to personal preference. The only real difference between the H1/H2/H3 is that I think the H1 and H2 will accept film backs and Phase One backs, whereas the H3 won't. With the H4 you gain the True Focus feature (but no film back compatibility).
There have been 2 series of H3. The H1, H2, H3D, H4X, H5D, H5X and H6D will accept film backs. The H3D2 and H4D won't. I think that third party digital backs will only work on the H1, H2, H4X and H5X.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

My experience is with an Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ back and Sony cameras, mainly the 24 MP Alpha 99 and the 42 MP A7rII.

The positives with the MFD system were for me:

  • Affordable lenses
  • All Sonnars and Planar 100/3.5 very good
  • Good image quality the way I use the camera (minimium ISO, tripod, mirror lockup, cable release)
  • Flash sync at 1/500s

The downsides were:

  • Heavy and slow to set up
  • Needs sync cable between lens and back
  • Hard to achieve critical focus (use a 3X monocolar on the PM90 prism)
  • Short battery life and back needs to be removed from camera for battery change
  • Very frequent colour aliasing problems on rippled water and sailboat rigs. The wires are often one pixel wide and the raw processor cannot estimate correct colour.
  • Distagons not so great, the Distagon 40/4 CFE IF is said to be very good but it is rare and expensive

Compared to the Sonys, which I am shooting in the same way, I have not really seen any significant advantage of the P45+ at A2 (16"x23") that is my normal print size. Printing larger like A1 or viewing the image using a loupe the P45+ was better than the Sony A99 (24 MP)

When I got myself the 42MP Sony A7rII my P45+ usage dropped to essentially nil, but that can in part be attributed to newest gear is most fun. On the other hand the A7rII has tremendous flexibility.

This page has some Hasselblad P45+ and Sony A7rII comparisions:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html

Raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/index2.html

Here are a lot of raw images from the P45+:
My MFD Journey, summing up - Raw images and links

Some posters suggested that I am not using proper technique and I don't get the expected crispness expected from the system. The amount of aliasing I see indicates that my technique is not too bad, as aliasing occurs when the resolution in the image plane exceeds the resolution of the sensor.

Screen Shot 2017-01-12 at 05.24.03.jpg
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Aliasing/20130920-CF044127.jpg



The aliasing problem is dependent on pixel size and lens quality.

  • Larger pixels -> increased risk for observable aliasing
  • Sharper lens -> increased risk for observable aliasing

Stopping down causes diffraction that can reduce aliasing:
The image below is actual pixels at f/8:


The image below was shot at f/16 and diffraction has taken it's toll and most of the aliasing is gone:


Here is an example of "sail boat rig aliasing":
Screen Shot 2017-01-12 at 05.34.49.jpg

I am living and working near the Swedish coastline so I often shoot rippled water and there are often sail boats in my images.

To sum up, I have shot MFD for 3.5 years. I liked the experience but it did not really work for me.

Here are a bunch of sample images:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/P45-Samples

Best regards
Erik
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
All I can say is that some of my favourite images came from my Kodak 645M 16mp square sensor back.

I do have many backs now, and have migrated through a myriad of digital backs to my current IQ3-100, and they've ALL been awesome. Some more awesome than others but typically based on the current state of the art and feelings of not being good enough quality.

That said, I have a IQ3-100 (which genuinely is AWESOME beyond belief as of 2016/2017) but I also have an infrared Actus 65M, CFV-16, and a Leaf 5-II. I really, really like the colour from my lowly Aptus II5 that cost me $3k along with a 645DF and 80D lens. Can I rationalize this? No. All I can say is that obviously the IQ3-100 is the total mac-daddy of sensors - bar none. However, if you're not hung up on irrelevant resolution (for prints especially), you'll see that fat pixel backs, non-XF bodies and blue-ring LS lenses did just fine. Excellent in fact.

:thumbs:

Don't get sucked in to the idea that you need to bankrupt yourself for MF digital. If you can give up magnificent DR, live view, reliance on low ISO, long exposure support (albeit available with P+ backs which are STILL excellent IMHO), you can put together a system that will kill a Sony A7RII or Nikon D810 system. I have the A7RII and pretty much any lens you can consider and my Aptus II5 / DF (although I use my old DF+) is such a much nicer system to use.

Of course, the XF3-100 platform is way better, but ignorance is bliss :thumbup: (and to be honest, is it $45k better? Probably not but I'm one of those folks who want the best so that only I am the limiting factor to my images)
 
Last edited:

drevil

Well-known member
Staff member
When I got myself the 42MP Sony A7rII my P45+ usage dropped to essentially nil, but that can in part be attributed to newest gear is most fun. On the other hand the A7rII has tremendous flexibility.
i can second that, but i dont appreciate it, i still love my contax more than the sony, which will very likely leave me again soon.

yes the loxia 21mm is an amazing lens and quite a bit sharper than the C645 35mm 3.5
but i just realized that i prefer the slow workflow over the machine gun dslr/mirrorless style.

i might return to mirror less again towards the end of the year if there are good C645 adapters for the fuji gfx, time will tell
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't see your point. The way I shoot is:

  • Find a subject
  • Look for a viewpoint
  • Put up tripod
  • Select a crop
  • Put camera on tripod
  • Select a lens for the crop
  • Adjust tripod and composition
  • Focus mostly at 11X magnification
  • Select an exposure
  • Shoot an exposure
  • Check display and histogram
  • Probably take another exposure

It doesn't matter if I shoot with the A7rII or the Hasselblad 555/ELD. The main difference that it is harder to focus on the Hasselblad.

But, I cannot really use tilts on the Hasselblad, the Flexbody is to messy to use in the field, but I regularly use tilts on the A7rII.

Best regards
Erik


i can second that, but i dont appreciate it, i still love my contax more than the sony, which will very likely leave me again soon.

yes the loxia 21mm is an amazing lens and quite a bit sharper than the C645 35mm 3.5
but i just realized that i prefer the slow workflow over the machine gun dslr/mirrorless style.

i might return to mirror less again towards the end of the year if there are good C645 adapters for the fuji gfx, time will tell
 

drevil

Well-known member
Staff member
i guess its something psychological, if i have something big in hands, i work slower.

i think 90% of people can agree on that
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi, this is my first post.

I'm starting to get curious about medium format digital ...

As I'm still new to MF digital, I have a few questions ...

1) How much of a role does the body play, assuming we are talking about a modular system? For instance, a Hasselblad H1, H2 and H3 - does it make a big difference? I was under the impression that the back and the lens are the two most important elements?

Depends on the body being considered. If the body is a Hasselblad V, and you use a CFV back with a rectangle format sensor (39 or 50 meg), it is all but impossible to use it in portrait mode. I would avoid the H1 body in favor of the H2 or H3. If you do not intend on shooting film, then I'd recommend a H4D/40 or 50. Bodies matter depending on intended use. The H4D body is definitely worth it because the back is tuned to the camera and the LCD resolution is higher than previous models ... most importantly, the H4D provides True Focus which is a fantastic feature still unmatched by any other MF system.

2) Assuming the backs work with the bodies (and I know that some do and some don't), does any one company make better backs than any other?

Phase One backs compared to same era backs from others are often considered more advanced. One additional advantage they have is an integrated battery as opposed to a clip on one (like the Hasselblad CFV and Leaf backs). Hasselblad H cameras draw power from a grip battery so the clip on battery approach its also avoided, but many older H backs cannot be removed from the H camera and used on technical camera without an aux battery ... Phase backs work without the aux battery. Phase One also provides proprietary software with their very highly regarded C1 Raw Processing.

That said, Hasselblad has consistently made excellent products and improved them from model to model. For most of the history of MFD, their bodies were better than Phase One ... mostly impacting used choices now.

3) In terms of image quality, do the older backs (with big pixel pitches, i.e the 20-30 mp ones) still match up to, for instance, the best of the current full frame 35mm cameras (D810, etc)? I'm fairly well aware that apart from the newest of the new, MF digital is not renowned for high ISO quality, but in terms of acuity, resolution, colour accuracy, etc, how do they match up?

I may be in the minority of over-all photographers in that I see a marked difference in MFD compared to any 35mm higher meg cameras. The 35mm offerings may be better when considering diverse use, but for more dedicated use of MFD, the differences in Image Quality and especially Image Qualities are pronounced to my eye. Color fidelity is one particular area I see as superior.

4) Reliability issues - who's good, who's dodgy?

I do not know all brands. I had a long run of good luck with the Hasselblad H products starting with the H2D/22 through the H4D/60. While I love my current Leica S system recent issues with the AF of the S and CS lenses has been far from reliable. I also used a V camera with a CFV back to good result, and had less success with a Mamiya 635 camera and a Leaf back (I liked the 33 meg back, but the rest of the system was problematic). I once used a Contax 645 and a 16 meg Kodak back which served me well back then, but both companies abandoned manufacture.


Any answers and opinions on these will be received with thanks!
See answers in body of quote.
 

Jamgolf

Member
When comparing the same generation of each format i.e. latest MF vs latest 135FF vs latest M4/3 or 10 year old MF vs 10 year old 135FF vs 10 year old M4/3, the larger formats have decidedly better quality. As they should given the differences in price.

When comparing an older MF to the latest 135FF, I think it gets interesting. Here is my take on it...

Given the choice to buy a 10 year old Porsche 911 or the latest Toyota Camry Hybrid for the same price I'll pick the 911 every time. It would not have Bluetooth audio or 45mpg fuel economy or stellar reliability, but it would have emotion. It might even be a pain in the a$$ to drive or maintain but it would put a smile on my face. I admit this is not a very practical way of thinking, but I do not think photography is such a practical hobby or even profession.

Good luck to you !
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I have always preferred my Pentax 645D over a D800E. Yes, in purely terms of seeing small stuff in an image, it is hard to distinguish them. But there is a bit more contest in the larger sensor, even though it is a CCD. I like the colors better as well. Whether that is a sensor-size thing or a Pentax/Nikon, I have no idea.

Digital MF is not Film MF. The look is very different. Which should not be a surprise as the process is very different. I went straight form Film MF to Digital MF. I lost somethings as a result and gained others. It took a bit of time to understand what the Digital MF was.

You could look into a Pentax 645D body and lenses. It is a relatively low cost system and perhaps one of the nicest CCDs in a DMF camera. It is also a very reliable body with a good selection of fairly responsibly priced lenses.

BTW, I would do a little research on the reliability of the Phase DF bodies, and there are quite a few versions. I am not sure they are the most reliable of the MFD systems.

I have also used a P25 on a Linhof view camera. The P25 in nice at base ISO, but noise catches up with it quickly with higher ISOs. The things feels really archaic. Unless I wanted the movements of the view camera, the Pentax 645D is a much better system.

A few thoughts on the MF "look." I am starting to think it has less to do with the camera and more to do with style. MF always had less extreme focal lengths and apertures--the idea you get less DoF in MF or LF is a bit of a myth. These formats were also always something other than 3:2. The quality difference you would see jumping film formats just does not exist in digital--there is a difference, but it is much harder to quantify. I think the MF look is conservative focal lengths, formats other than 3:2, a more studied composition (they had to be with film), and moderate DoF where the separation was visible, but subtle.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

A lot of good points!

I knew a great guy on the net who used to have a P645D, Miles Hecker. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago. Miles was very positive about the 645D.

In general, my impression is that Pentax did a very good job on both CCD (P645D) and CMOS (645Z).

Regarding colours it is a bit personal. There are some different views:


Phase One has a very good camera body with the FX and they have a lot of good and advanced features for future development.

My guess would be that Japanese cameras are more mature, bug free and stable. ILCE sales in are about 10 millions and MFD sales are around 10 thousands. Japanese companies probably try to do things right the first time.

In Europe we used to have the approach that customers do final testing, in Japan the final testing is done in factory. They also try to keep failure rates low.

Best regards
Erik




I have always preferred my Pentax 645D over a D800E. Yes, in purely terms of seeing small stuff in an image, it is hard to distinguish them. But there is a bit more contest in the larger sensor, even though it is a CCD. I like the colors better as well. Whether that is a sensor-size thing or a Pentax/Nikon, I have no idea.

Digital MF is not Film MF. The look is very different. Which should not be a surprise as the process is very different. I went straight form Film MF to Digital MF. I lost somethings as a result and gained others. It took a bit of time to understand what the Digital MF was.

You could look into a Pentax 645D body and lenses. It is a relatively low cost system and perhaps one of the nicest CCDs in a DMF camera. It is also a very reliable body with a good selection of fairly responsibly priced lenses.

BTW, I would do a little research on the reliability of the Phase DF bodies, and there are quite a few versions. I am not sure they are the most reliable of the MFD systems.

I have also used a P25 on a Linhof view camera. The P25 in nice at base ISO, but noise catches up with it quickly with higher ISOs. The things feels really archaic. Unless I wanted the movements of the view camera, the Pentax 645D is a much better system.

A few thoughts on the MF "look." I am starting to think it has less to do with the camera and more to do with style. MF always had less extreme focal lengths and apertures--the idea you get less DoF in MF or LF is a bit of a myth. These formats were also always something other than 3:2. The quality difference you would see jumping film formats just does not exist in digital--there is a difference, but it is much harder to quantify. I think the MF look is conservative focal lengths, formats other than 3:2, a more studied composition (they had to be with film), and moderate DoF where the separation was visible, but subtle.
 

Jamgolf

Member
I agree with Will and Erik regarding Pentax 645D.
It was my first MF digital camera as well and I liked it very much.
I think it is a gateway camera and also a sensible way to test waters and see if MF digital is for you.
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
I'm not going try to answer your direct question, but for me, when I was shooting in the Studio, and had the time, there was NO substitute for the MF digital backs. Shot some 4X5 film, 645 Film, and a whole bunch of Nikon D300. When making the decision between a D3X and a Mamiya ZD, the ZD was light years better.

It's not just about the mega Pixel race, I never print bigger than 16X20 ...

For me, the tonality, DR, and the way the MF lenses transition from sharp to OOF areas is the most important issue.

The ergonomics were about equal. The muse left, and I tried landscape, but that did not catch my interest. Too ADD for a tripod I guess.

When that happened, there was no need for the Phase one I had upgraded to. So, sold it off.

I've looked a lot at the D800/810 and Sony A7 files, and they just do not give me the same WOW factor that I got from MF in C1

So, to me, look at what you output, decide on the MP needs for that output, and if you can, buy the most current MF system. They are all robust. As mentioned before, give the Pentax a strong look. with Fuji and Hasselblad going mirrorless, there may be a Pentax glut on the market soon.

As Guy says ... Abandon Hope ....

Dave
 
Top