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!

The MF kit...ideas and reasons...

LJL

New member
Here is a an opportunity to build a virtual “dream kit” for MF. There is so much incredible information within these threads, plus tons of anecdotal stuff, but it is more than a challenge to sift through things at times. This exercise can be a benefit for all....folks looking to migrate to MF and build a kit (me), folks now working seriously with MF and thinking about what to get/change for their growing needs, manufacturer reps to understand more about needs and directions plus help guide folks a bit, and just for other readers wanting to explore things in greater depth and gain more understanding.

That may be asking a lot from contributors, and there are so many wonderfully experienced and generous folks on this forum, but it could also be a great learning tool for them also. (Yes, a lot of the info may be buried in other threads, but bringing things to one spot in a somewhat concise way may be helpful also.) If this flies, Jack or somebody may want to make this a “sticky” thread.

To keep things from going totally crazy, I offer up some guidelines to consider.
- just a couple of categories (explained below)
- suspend the cost discussions, unless they really are important in choices
- suspend existing gear discussions also, unless a system is important or something
- provide a Target Use, Equipment Selection, and Reasons for Choices
- offer any images or perspectives to keep things interesting and fun

For Categories, a suggestion for a couple, not trying to be restrictive, but simple:
Minimalist Kit - This would be a more “bare bones” configuration to suit several interests, such as entry level, travel/weight, ease of use/set-up, etc. Keep it to a minimum number of components (body, back, lens(es), important accessories). Think about forward planning for growth/diversity if important (Reasons for Choice section).
Heavy Lifting Kit - This would be a more involved selection of things to cover a wider range of work and interest. Trying to avoid the “pro” versus “non-pro” debate, as there are many serious shooters that do a lot of serious work for their own interest. This is about tools to best accomplish a variety of shooting needs.
No Holds Barred Kit - This is pretty much what it sounds like. Assume no limits, but please do explain the reasons for the selections and their target use, rather than just listing everything and the kitchen sink.

An example of a good Minimalist Kit might be something like:
Target Use: all around shooting, available light mostly
Equipment Selection: Mamiya AFDII with 22MP ZD back and 80mm f2.8 AF lens
Reason for Choices: good entry level with room to grow; compact kit; sufficient resolution for most shooting; focal plane shutter for DOF control in bright light shooting with fast lenses; good high ISO performance; large variety of available lens options, etc.

Or another Minimalist Kit:
Target Use: fine art, portrait, travel, and some commercial shooting
Equipment Selection: Sinar Hy6 with eMotion 75LV back, Schneider Super-Angulon 35/4 PQ and HC 110/2 w/adapters
Reason for Choices: versatile, light, fast camera with leaf shutter for higher speed syncs as needed; great studio or location use; option for using film back if needed; high resolution back for commercial or enlargement needs with variety of mounting options to other cameras with adapters; fast, sharp WA lens with low flare and excellent colors for shooting interiors, landscapes and panos; sharp, fast short tele for portraits with excellent bokeh

You get the idea. The above descriptions may be a bit too short, but they get the points across, and could generate some good added side discussions or point to other useful threads/links if they are known. Again, this is not to be definitive, but a chance to work with a clean slate and pull a few thoughts together for the kinds of things that may make for a useful kit for others also. Some folks may be refining their own kits or finding some things that are not quite what they thought. Please feel free to share those thoughts too. Let's see what we can build :toocool:

LJ
 

gogopix

Subscriber
you may find many choices in one band of capability. MF is also a longer term investment (since almost all back makers have upgrade programsa.

It may come down to preference of 'look'
Phase vs Aptus; phase a little cooler but more accurate
Cointax, vs Mamiysa vs Hy6 may be cost and which primary glass you like, if AF matters at all. or event hassey V with ANY back
but remember hassey lenses will go on anything.

I know several who have gone contax/Phase P25 but the free mamiya may change your mind (unless, like me, you prefer Zeiss glass.)

The new Hy6 with sinar has one advantage if you want two bodies, since Phase is for one where sinar adapts to the body.

If you have preferences, like glass, MF vs AF or 'look' that should narrow you down. I would bet in the end you could make any set come within 10% of any other.

regards
Victor
 

LJL

New member
Victor,
All good points, and what I would hope folks would consider and talk about in their selection. The choices are pretty amazing, and there is so much mix and match opportunity. Just saying buy a Phase solution, or a Hasselblad solution is fine, but what would be the main components and for what reason? There could be several kits within a system, or across a system. The idea of a specific "look" or style comes into play also, and folks should mention that too. I stayed away from the entire processing discussion, as that is somewhat tangential, but lenses do impart a particular look, and some are better than others for consideration. Lots of options to think about for sure.

LJ
 
T

thsinar

Guest
with all due respect to Phase One and Leaf, as well as to you, Victor:

I do not agree with your claim "phase a little cooler but more accurate": one should definitively and eventually come away from those believes like "more accurate, "more this" or "more that".

All is a question of the RAWs produced and how much they are modified (I would say twicked) from the very original RAW, by default and by the manufacturer, BEFORE they come out on your screen: for example, one can apply tonal curves (affecting only the shadows, or only the highlights, or ...), one can clip the highlights, one can apply some sharpening, one can apply profiles, one can apply noise reduction filters or other artifacts filters, etc ... All this without the user even noticing it, but all of these having a tremendous influence on the look of the produced files.

From that, the question is then to ask ourselves what is the most natural/original "look". From this perspective, the Sinar files (since they have not been mentioned) have among the most natural "look" or visual impression: nothing much is done/applied to the files, they come out with a linear tonal curve which looks flat and un-contrasty but is exactly what is captured by the sensor. Also, no noise reduction filtering or whatsoever, no sharpening or other twicking applied to those produced raw images.

It leaves the user with the full freedom to create his own "look", with his own profiles (depending on the subject and light conditions), to apply his own tonal/contrast curves (again depending on the subject and light conditions), to make color corrections in PP, to apply sharpening (depending on output size and subject) by his own wish and need.

Therefore the term "more accurate" is very relative, IMO: basically, you can create the same accuracy and the same look with any file, coming from the same sensor(s). It is the way how you get it and the choices and freedom of choices to achieve it which makes the differences.

Best regards,
Thierry

It may come down to preference of 'look'
Phase vs Aptus; phase a little cooler but more accurate

The new Hy6 with sinar has one advantage if you want two bodies, since Phase is for one where sinar adapts to the body.

If you have preferences, like glass, MF vs AF or 'look' that should narrow you down. I would bet in the end you could make any set come within 10% of any other.

regards
Victor
 

David Klepacki

New member
LJ,

Your request cannot really be answered in any meaningful way. This is because every MF vendor has more than adequate solutions. There are minimalist and no holds barred solutions from every vendor. And, they are all capable of supporting most professionals in their work. I know of one wedding photographer who is able to run his business with just one lens (45-90 zoom), and another that shoots for stock image companies with nothing more than a standard 80mm lens. There are also solutions for architectural work, catalog work, copy work, etc., all with different solutions and capable by every MFDB manufacturer.

Most people are governed by their respective budgets. I recommend that you start with whatever you feel comfortable in your initial investment budget, and then grow from there, once you spend more time and develop a better understanding of what you personally like and does the job for you.

I would be willing to say that ANY MFDB system will provide you with such incredible images that it really does not matter where you start (unless you have very specific needs, in which case you would already know the answer to your thread). Just start shooting MF, and eventually you will find what you need and prefer.
 

David Klepacki

New member
LJ,

Since the digital back will most likely be the biggest decision for you, I will share my experiences. I own or have owned the following backs:

Kodak DCS 645 (9um, 16MP)
Hasselblad CF22 (9um, 22MP)
Sinar 54H (9um, 22MP - 88MP)
Leaf Aptus 65 (7.2um, 28MP)
Phase P30+ (6.8um, 31MP)
Sinar eMotion 75LV (7.2um, 33 MP)

In addition, before my purchases above, I have also examined files from the following backs:

Leaf Aptus 22 (9um, 22MP)
Sinar 54M (9um, 22MP)
Phase P25 (9um, 22MP)
Leaf Aptus 75 (7.2um, 33MP)
Phase P45 and P45+ (6.8um, 39MP)
Hasselblad HD39 (6.8um, 39MP)

Having worked with so many backs and images, I have found a very generic pattern as far as image "quality". Here are my own findings:

1. ALL backs produce stunning images, period.
2. The larger 9um pixel backs have the highest signal/noise ratio (no surprise), and richest colors. However, except for the 54H, all of them suffer from moire much more than the other backs. The 54H is the only back that is moire-free in single shot mode, but it is a tethered-only back.
3. To reduce the moire issues and strive for more resolution, the MFDB makers attempt to go to smaller pixel sizes. However, this results in a reduction of the signal/noise ratio.
4. At 6.8um pixel size, it is EXTREMELY difficult to produce "accurate" colors. Noise is still a problem and limits the maximum ISO capability of these backs.
5. To address these color and noise issues, some backs are now offered with microlenses (e.g., P30+ and H3DII-31) which give great color and much higher ISO....but then this causes issues with ultra-wide lenses and lens movements.
6. To avoid adding microlenses, some back makers just use slightly larger pixels (7.2um). Right now, this seems to be the best compromise for "best" sensor quality, in terms of sensor size, resolution, ISO (signal/noise ratio), color richness, and moire reduction.

Please, please no flames. I am only sharing my own personal journey. Again, for the record, let me state that ALL of the MF backs produce incredible images and are ALL capable of the highest professional work.
 

LJL

New member
David,
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I understand what you are saying. This thread was not really meant to be just for my interests and selection, but to offer up some ideas for others to consider also. Yes, budget cannot be ignored, but there are some pieces that really fit together nicely for certain kinds of use, just as you have commented on about your colleagues. It does depend upon one's shooting preferences and kinds of things they chasing for sure, and nearly all manufactures offer a broad range of options for almost all needs.

That being said, my thinking about this thread to for folks to really think about some combinations of things, whether they have and use them themselves, or are on their own "wish list" for various reasons. To me, even with the overlap of performance in shooting, things like the Mamiya with its focal plane shutter seem better suited to some applications than maybe a Hasselblad, Sinar, etc., with a leaf shutter. That in turn impacts some lens choices and maybe some back choices also. I may be totally off base in this thinking, and that is good to consider also, as some of these preconceptions may need to be debunked a bit for some folks, myself included. I used to shoot Hasselblad film cameras many years ago in the studio only. Today's Hassies seem more capable than before, but older 200 and other models can take a variety of backs, but may still lack other useful features for some things (e.g, AF).

And with respect to the budget again, there is an absolute treasure trove of knowledge and information out there from folks that know what really works with what and how, and is worth seeking solutions, such as the HC 110/2.0 F or FE mentioned. Not something one might look for at first blush if they were thinking a new Sinar system for example.

Not trying to be defensive, nor asking for the impossible. Just thought that this would be a very interesting and useful exercise for folks to think about. Not really any different than folks thinking about the lens selections for the M8 or any other camera for that matter. Lots of opinions and wishes, as well as hopefully some reasons why some things are worth thinking about. (I selected a Zeiss Distagon 25/2.8 for my M8 over the more traditional Leica 24/2.8, and made the mount swap etc., because I think is produced a sharper image with higher contrast, and is ideal for street shooting. Just a case where some folks may not even consider the Zeiss because the lensmount needs to be changed to bring up proper framelines in the viewfinder, yet it can be a dream lens in a kit for some folks.)

That is sort of the same kind of thing I am hoping folks might consider here. There may be dozens of "kits" based on what folks think they are best for. The Mamiya RZ Pro can do some incredible stuff and handle just about everything, but it is all manual, and quite substantial as a camera goes, and may not be a "dream kit" choice for folks traveling a lot and only wanting to shoot street scenes.

Give it some thought....that is a great part of the fun of this, and it can help folks think about things differently than they may have, including systems, budgets and uses.

LJ
 

LJL

New member
David,
Our messages crossed:

P.S. I was typing this while you were typing your second response, so there may be some overlap of thoughts. Your experiences are important and valuable, and should get folks thinking about the purpose and planned use, and how to deal with some behaviors of various imagers. Your example of the 54H is a good one, but shooting tethered could be a problem for some kinds of shooting, but not others. This is great stuff.

LJ
 

PeterA

Well-known member
kit advce - lessons I have learned the hard way..

Every back maker is offering good products which in the hands of a knowledgeable user deliver outstanding results. Each one of these backs in the hands of a user who doesn't know how to extract the quality is a waste of time and money.

Some backs deliver files which look 'better' straight out of the camera versus others - but the reality is that all files from all manufacturers are great. These backs are NOT designed to be point and shoot systems capapble delivering average acceptable files under shooting conditions. You need to knwo what you are doing under different conditions.

There is no such thing as a bad MF lens - buy what you need and buy second hand if you can.

Spend money on good lighting - because that is where you will get the most of the benefit from these systems - shooting in good light be it artificial or natural.

Which back you buy at which price point from which dealer depends on at the margin uses and individual preferences - try and do business with people who have technical knowledge and arent just box shifters.

You will hear people say positive things and negative things about any and all backs and camera bodies and lenses - ignore strong biases for or against this or that it is BS.

Be careful about total work flow (in particular software) - one person's great raw processing work flow is another person's disaster.

NONE of these cameras is going to make you a better photographer.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Peter,

all thoughts/experiences which to I absolutely agree.

Best regards,
Thierry

kit advce - lessons I have learned the hard way..

Every back maker is offering good products which in the hands of a knowledgeable user deliver outstanding results. Each one of these backs in the hands of a user who doesn't know how to extract the quality is a waste of time and money.

Some backs deliver files which look 'better' straight out of the camera versus others - but the reality is that all files from all manufacturers are great. These backs are NOT designed to be point and shoot systems capapble delivering average acceptable files under shooting conditions. You need to knwo what you are doing under different conditions.

There is no such thing as a bad MF lens - buy what you need and buy second hand if you can.

Spend money on good lighting - because that is where you will get the most of the benefit from these systems - shooting in good light be it artificial or natural.

Which back you buy at which price point from which dealer depends on at the margin uses and individual preferences - try and do business with people who have technical knowledge and arent just box shifters.

You will hear people say positive things and negative things about any and all backs and camera bodies and lenses - ignore strong biases for or against this or that it is BS.

Be careful about total work flow (in particular software) - one person's great raw processing work flow is another person's disaster.

NONE of these cameras is going to make you a better photographer.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Personally I haven't and don't make my MFDB decisions based on the more technical aspects... they are just way over my head. I generally work backwards from my choice of glass, to the camera body I prefer to the back that allows me to use it. In this regard I think Sinar's flexibility with adapters offers ME the best option. Then there's the software issue which many have said, and I agree, has as much or more to do with what the final image will look like as the back. The gear you choose may not make you a better photographer but it can certainly impact your ability to realize your own potential... in the words of the US Army... "To be all that you can be..."
 

LJL

New member
Personally I haven't and don't make my MFDB decisions based on the more technical aspects... they are just way over my head. I generally work backwards from my choice of glass, to the camera body I prefer to the back that allows me to use it. In this regard I think Sinar's flexibility with adapters offers ME the best option. Then there's the software issue which many have said, and I agree, has as much or more to do with what the final image will look like as the back. The gear you choose may not make you a better photographer but it can certainly impact your ability to realize your own potential... in the words of the US Army... "To be all that you can be..."
David,
This is kind of the thinking I had starting this thread. As Peter and others point out, and most of us should be aware, the gear is not going to make one a better photog. However, the selection of that gear, how it works with other pieces, software, etc., can have an impact on one's work, I believe. When I am shooting polo, I know that I can get some very good shots for publication use with any of my gear, but if I want something more outstanding, I know to press the 1DsMkII and 400mm f2.8L IS into service more, and then I also change processing for better conversion.

That is sort of my carryover thinking about some aspects of MF....all sensors and all lenses and all bodies are capable of delivering great output, especially in the hands of someone skilled at their use. But some lenses, bodies and backs may be able to work better in concert for certain kinds of shooting to permit more flexibility, or get out of your way, or actually help the composition and capture process. Maybe my thinking is wrong here, but my other experiences suggest that there are some tools that are better suited for some kinds of jobs. That was sort of the thinking going into asking folks to think about the Target Use part, and back it up with thoughts and reasons for the choices.

This is good to think about....some folks build from the back, others from the glass, others from the handling of the body. My thoughts were to explore some of the how and whys of those selection choices that seem to work more for specific kinds of shooting situations.

LJ
 

David Klepacki

New member
I think Peter nicely sums up the issues with MF systems.

I would like to add one more comment regarding lenses. While there may not be a bad MF lens, it turns out that some lenses are much better than others.

For example, I would caution you about CA control. The color fringing due to poorly controlled CA in some lenses can be VERY annoying. It is an optical issue which is exacerbated by digital capture. Some of the MF manufacturers (lke Hasselblad) are able to deal with such issues in their total system by tightly integrating their software with the camera, lens and back.

Without an automatic software solution, you will have to deal with CA in your post-processing which can slow down your workflow considerably.

Another option is to seek out lenses that are optically corrected for CA, the so-called APO (or even Super-achromat) lenses. All MF lens makers offer at least some APO corrected lenses in their lineup. Digital LF lenses, like the Rodenstock HR APO series might also be an option for you, especially if you need lenses that also minimize distortion optically. Such lenses can make a real difference for you.
 

David Klepacki

New member
... I generally work backwards from my choice of glass, to the camera body I prefer to the back that allows me to use it. In this regard I think Sinar's flexibility with adapters offers ME the best option...."
This is the current state of my journey...I am a Sinar user now. The flexibility of the back to accommodate different cameras is a big plus for me.

Like DavidK, I end up remaining loyal to my glass, as they are what primarily determines the look of an image that I want. I view the camera body itself more or less like an adapter that simply connects the lens to the back.

This way, I am free to use the strengths of the different lenses and bodies from Hasselblad, Contax, Rollei, and Mamiya. With Sinar, you are not locked into one camera line or a single lens lineup.

The key to managing these different systems is to base your workflow on the standard DNG file format. That way, once your images are in DNG, you can have a common workflow for them.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Well, LJL, you have stimulated some interesting discussion.

In terms of a 'kit' from scratch, very few have that option, and when they do, they have little personal experience. I think we raise here items that will affect MF kit for that person. The two that seem to be driven in the comments here, are
1a. Glass
1b. Body feel

However, even these are not issues for older lenses of hasselblad; all have adapters

the glass that drives are the AF Contax, Rollei and Mamiya AF just cant work (without extensive fooling, or shooting wide open)

For those that want to switch glass tied to bodies, Sinar is the only choice unless you want buy two! (WIth due respect to Lance, and the other Phase and Leaf proponents; FTR, I have owned and still do, the Phase backs! As I said, it is all about your history. Thierry, have a good swap deal?))

1b, on body is personal preference. I find my Contax actually MORE co0mfortable than my R9/DMR setup. Feel for a serious amateur, spending 8-9 hours for two weeks while travelling and trekking is a pretty 'professional' workout! However, for studio (and I found this out in a calendar shoot I did; 9 hours of moving lights! and rarely touched the camera.)
Here, ity seems having AF is good, and then you flat out need to make you Body/glass combo choice.

On back and software, as Thierry points out, much CAN be handled post precess, but you may like the 'look' right out of the raw, so to speak. I have only firect experience with phase and leaf raw (thierry, if you have a raw file or two, I would relly like to see what the Sinar can do. Although I am a Phase user, the switchable back issue is comming to be a real problem. As someone said; it's all about the files.)

So, maybe these longer winded discussion can help people think in some sequence. Were I to choose Contax/P45 today.......?? :angel:

regards
Victor
 
Last edited:

gogopix

Subscriber
From what I have seen SO far (not had sinar or Hy6;tried all others) the answer is...

yes :).... but...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
LJ,

Since the digital back will most likely be the biggest decision for you, I will share my experiences. I own or have owned the following backs:

Kodak DCS 645 (9um, 16MP)
Hasselblad CF22 (9um, 22MP)
Sinar 54H (9um, 22MP - 88MP)
Leaf Aptus 65 (7.2um, 28MP)
Phase P30+ (6.8um, 31MP)
Sinar eMotion 75LV (7.2um, 33 MP)

In addition, before my purchases above, I have also examined files from the following backs:

Leaf Aptus 22 (9um, 22MP)
Sinar 54M (9um, 22MP)
Phase P25 (9um, 22MP)
Leaf Aptus 75 (7.2um, 33MP)
Phase P45 and P45+ (6.8um, 39MP)
Hasselblad HD39 (6.8um, 39MP)

Having worked with so many backs and images, I have found a very generic pattern as far as image "quality". Here are my own findings:

1. ALL backs produce stunning images, period.
2. The larger 9um pixel backs have the highest signal/noise ratio (no surprise), and richest colors. However, except for the 54H, all of them suffer from moire much more than the other backs. The 54H is the only back that is moire-free in single shot mode, but it is a tethered-only back.
3. To reduce the moire issues and strive for more resolution, the MFDB makers attempt to go to smaller pixel sizes. However, this results in a reduction of the signal/noise ratio.
4. At 6.8um pixel size, it is EXTREMELY difficult to produce "accurate" colors. Noise is still a problem and limits the maximum ISO capability of these backs.
5. To address these color and noise issues, some backs are now offered with microlenses (e.g., P30+ and H3DII-31) which give great color and much higher ISO....but then this causes issues with ultra-wide lenses and lens movements.
6. To avoid adding microlenses, some back makers just use slightly larger pixels (7.2um). Right now, this seems to be the best compromise for "best" sensor quality, in terms of sensor size, resolution, ISO (signal/noise ratio), color richness, and moire reduction.

Please, please no flames. I am only sharing my own personal journey. Again, for the record, let me state that ALL of the MF backs produce incredible images and are ALL capable of the highest professional work.
I've also used, or owed/still own, most of the backs mentioned. As I understand it some of the most recent high meg backs have addressed signal/noise ratio by reducing the electronic channels between the light gathering wells allowing the wells to be larger therefore the Pixel Pitch numbers can be misleading. As it was explained to me the H3D-II 39 is one of these ... and I may be wrong, but I'd assume that to be also true for Phase One P+ backs since both are made by Kodak.
 

David Klepacki

New member
Yes, the latest generation of backs have much improved electronics that attempt to boost the signal/noise, but the results are marginal in comparison to the more aggressive approach of adding microlenses. That is why Hasselblad supplements its product line with the 31MP option using microlenses. Their 31MP camera is able to boost to ISO 800, whereas their 39MP cameras are limited to ISO 400. Similarly, Phase provides a microlens solution, the P30+, that can go to ISO 1600, and their non-microlens offering can go to ISO 800. However, there is no free lunch, and I see differences in color rendition between the P30+ and the P45+. Whether or not these color differences are meaningful or not is of course a totally subjective thing.

The approach from Sinar using the Dalsa sensor is somewhat different, and they are able to produce a back that can go to ISO 800 without adding microlenses or sacrificing color rendition.

For me, the H3D-II system does not give me enough ISO speed, not to mention not being able to shoot faster than 1/800. The sinar 75LV offers me the right compromise in ISO speed, chip size, etc., and allows me to mount on various cameras, some with 1/1000 flash sync, and others with 1/4000 shutter speed.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes, the latest generation of backs have much improved electronics that attempt to boost the signal/noise, but the results are marginal in comparison to the more aggressive approach of adding microlenses. That is why Hasselblad supplements its product line with the 31MP option using microlenses. Their 31MP camera is able to boost to ISO 800, whereas their 39MP cameras are limited to ISO 400. Similarly, Phase provides a microlens solution, the P30+, that can go to ISO 1600, and their non-microlens offering can go to ISO 800. However, there is no free lunch, and I see differences in color rendition between the P30+ and the P45+. Whether or not these color differences are meaningful or not is of course a totally subjective thing.

The approach from Sinar using the Dalsa sensor is somewhat different, and they are able to produce a back that can go to ISO 800 without adding microlenses or sacrificing color rendition.

For me, the H3D-II system does not give me enough ISO speed, not to mention not being able to shoot faster than 1/800. The sinar 75LV offers me the right compromise in ISO speed, chip size, etc., and allows me to mount on various cameras, some with 1/1000 flash sync, and others with 1/4000 shutter speed.
FYI, when Phocus is finalized and new firmware attached, the ISO on all Hasselblad backs will jump a stop ... so 400 backs will be 800 without microlenses, and the H3D/31 goes to 1600.

In addition to shooting quite a bit with a Dalsa sensored Aptus 75 (which suffered from centerfolding until a software patch came along, especially at ISO 800), I've worked extensively the H3D/31 and H3D/39, often side-by-side on the same job ... and unlike your observation of the Phase Backs, I see no difference in color rendition between the two.

When working with microlens sensors using severe T/S, many pros have worked out some interesting color balance techniques to swiftly correct any color shifts that may happen. A bit to technical for me, but made for interesting reading.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
The approach from Sinar using the Dalsa sensor is somewhat different, and they are able to produce a back that can go to ISO 800 without adding microlenses or sacrificing color rendition.

.
Dear David,
Short renting a sinar back is there any source of raw images? Phase and leaf users have offered but I have not yet seen an offer of raw from a sinar.

(and BTW, THierry, is there a place in the washington DC area to rent a sinar back, preferably the 33MP, with Contax adapter?)

regards
Victor
 
Top