Dragged, kicking & screming into the 21st century!

<p>I'm a retired pro. I spent 20+ years behind one camera or another and got out before digital completely took over. I'm still interested in photography but on my own terms now. Digital is a mystery to me beyond P&S. I'm interested in getting equipment capable of serious digital imaging but have been "out" too long to have any understanding.<br>

<big>I have looked into a film back for the RB-67 since I still own two and a host of lenses. Unless there is something on the horizon in terms of full-frame digital backs, it appears as though they will get retired and sold. If there are plans for such a back, at some affordable pricing then clue me in. I'd hate to sell them only to find out that they can be "reborn". I've looked into 35mm and that may work, but I'd sooner stay with medium format and am looking into the 645 as a serious possibility. I've worked with 645 Mamiyas several times over the years and liked the handling, even though I preferred the larger negs that the RB's offered. Ideally, what I'd like to accomplish is to marry an older, manual-focus body to an also older digital back and keep the total outlay to a minimum. I no longer work with moving subjects, so I don't need the fast-follow-focus. I also won't "recoup the expense" in 6 months...or 12...or even 24 months, since there are no longer any clients.<br /></big><br>

<big>I need information though and am finding it hard to come by. Please answer the following so that I have some idea of how much of an investment it will take to get me into a digital Mamiya 645.<br /> <br /> 1) Let's start with compatibility. The 645 has undergone several changes over the years. What models are digital compatible <em>without</em> modifications?<br /> <br /> 2) I know that the AFD model will handle the latest digital backs, will it also handle older digital backs as well? <br /> <br /> 3) Will the AFD take Mamiya Secor "C" lenses on a manual focus basis? (I have several lenses already and prefer manual focus anyway)<br /> <br /> 4) While I have an understanding of megapixel counts, I have no idea whether there is a difference between 35mm and 645 in terms of image quality. I guess my question here is, if I have a 12MP 35mm, am I getting the same image quality (sharpness, contrast, ability to enlarge) that I would from a 12MP 645 camera? </big></p>

<p><big>Thanks in advance for sharing any knowledge acquired on the subject.<br /></big></p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Digital MF and LF backs are generally a 'low production' sort of thing, with prices to match. Others can fill you in on what's out there now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess my question here is, if I have a 12MP 35mm, am I getting the same image quality (sharpness, contrast, ability to enlarge) that I would from a 12MP 645 camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In general, a pixel is a pixel. However, very much depends on the kind of sensor, how closely packed the sensors are, and a host of other specific characteristics of particular sensors. Within the same generation of sensors, probably a more widely spaced array of sensors (sensors per mm or some such) will generate less 'noise' in use from heat, etc. However, this really can't be extended across generations as these things are getting better all the time. So a new smaller sensor of a particular MP size may be 'better' in many regards than an older, larger one. It depends on the maker, kind of sensor, and even the software that interprets the sensor data.</p>

<p>Don't forget that the newer dSLRs in any size are going to have lots of other improved features too. Video, for just one example.</p>

<p>I shoot old manual MF and other cameras for fun, but I tend to use 35mm and APS-C digital cameras when the images themselves are the thing, rather than the process of getting them.</p>

<p>1) Stick with the AFD (I, II or III) or the newer version, the DF.<br /><br />2) Yes, the AFD was designed to handle all but a few really old (6mp) backs.<br /><br />3) Yes, Sekor C lenses work, but must be stopped down manually. LS lenses will NOT work...so you're stuck with 1/125 sync speed.<br /><br />4) Due to the lack of an AA filter, I find MFDB megapixels to be about 2x as sharp as DSLR megapixels. This is for technology that's a few years old, but it should hold for newer versions.<br /><br />The trade-off is not insignificant, though. <br>

1. You can get aliasing and moire patterns<br>

2. You lose a LOT of sensitivity. Even though the pixels are bigger, they usually operate best below 100 ISO. DSLR's can go many stops higher.<br>

3. Weight, size, speed, etc...all are worse for MFDB.<br /><br />I shoot a 22mp 48x36 back now, but I expect to retire it when I get a FF DSLR this year. The photos are great, but the novelty of maintaining two systems (645 and RZ67) to shoot it (and film) is wearing thin. The times when the MFDB would be the format of choice is about once a year for my hobbiest uses....hard to justify maintaining a multi-thousand dollar depreciating investment when I can get similar quality to my MF film with my DSLR. </p>

<p>Here is a recent blog post about a photographer choosing the 645 digital option over the latest Nikon D4. His thought process sounds similar to what you are looking at. He also gives a general idea of what his outlay was.<br>

<a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2012/01/bailing-on-nikon-d4.html">http://strobist.blogspot.com/2012/01/bailing-on-nikon-d4.html</a><br>

I hope this helps you.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>Gregory's given great answers already. I would only add:</p>

<p>1) Although the 645AFD, which is what I use, is the most <em>sensible </em>choice for digital back use (there's a bidirectional, integrated communication interface between the back and the body), it isn't your <em>only </em>choice. The Mamiya 645 Pro/ProTL does actually work (without modifications) with a few older digital backs that are based on modular adapter systems: Sinar, Imacon/Hasselblad, and Jenoptik. These are mostly from the early 2000's. There are even some older ones from the late 1990s (such as from Megavision, or the Leaf Volare/Cantare) which were made in Pro/TL fitting, since the 645AF was not yet or only just out. All of these are made "aware" of what the camera body is doing by a cable which goes into the electronic remote-release socket of the Pro/TL.</p>

<p>But most of these backs have one big limitation: they can only be used "tethered" to a computer, most commonly a Mac. Some predate Firewire and so they require special, obscure computer hardware as well - fibre-optic boards or SCSI.<br /> Most of the rest of them are only "portable" in the sense that there's a big battery pack or image-bank hanging off your belt (the camera is tethered...to you!) or the tripod.<br /> There were many MFDB companies in this period, many design permutations and restrictions; it's all pretty complicated, and will take quite some research if you choose to go down this road.</p>

<p>The great pity is that the Pro/TL was a great, completely modular camera, but by the time properly neat, integrated, and truly portable digital backs came out (i.e. built-in LCD screen, CF card slot, small battery attached directly, and tethering optional), the somewhat less modular 645AF(D) was well established, and nearly all the newer self-contained backs (starting with the Kodak DCS 645M in 2002) were made for it, rather than for the Pro/TL. The only exceptions - the only self-contained backs which can fit the Pro/TL - are a few Hasselblad CF and Sinar eMotion models. Once you factor in a Pro/TL adapter - if you can find one - these backs are not exactly cheap, even in the used market. There is often better value in a 645AFD system.</p>

<p>3) It's also important to note that the 645AF(D) bodies give focus confirmation with the manual focus lenses, which I find tremendously useful (and accurate).</p>

<p>4) The bigger pixels (9 microns is typical of all the older backs) and lack of an AA filter make "per pixel" sharpness a lot higher than 35mm digital. My 21MP Canon 5DII matches 645 film quality, while my 16.7MP Kodak DCS 645M back matches 6x6 film quality. It sounds like it shouldn't, but it does.</p>

<p>Gentlemen,</p>

<p>Thank you all for responding, It helped greatly to hear your points of view and gave me fuel for consideration.<br /> JDM, I appreciated your points of view on the merits of a DSLR vs the 645. I considered the points you made as valid but still think I'm going with a MF. I don't shoot "SLR-style" anymore. I have a tripod that is half as heavy as the Titanic and I prefer to drag it around and perch my camera on top. I guess I've just become more "studio-style"<br /> Greg, Thanks for the background on the "not too old" equipment. I do believe I'll be heeding your advice in my purchase. You provided all the right answers I was hoping for.<br /> DS, Your contribution helped me make my mind up. The article caused me to review WHAT I want to photograph as much as HOW. All of which define WHICH equipment to invest in.<br /> Ray, Last, but by no means least! Your contribution to "the stew" was helping to condense the "what came before". I paid virtually NO attention to what was happening in the digital world over the past decade(?). I was going to stick with my film come hell or high water. Unfortunately, no one want to process color any longer and all of my labs are gone. I still intend to keep my view cameras, and the darkroom that supports them, but the rests goes digital. My problem then is what did I miss and you very kindly filled in many of those blanks and avoid some pitfalls with buying "too old" equipment.</p>

<p>Thanks to all of you for your insight and advice.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Bill</p>