TerraPix digital mf back?

<p>Hi,<br>

Would anybody know something about the above, called a TerraPix Digital Medium Format Back , Pixel Physics IJ27503? Would it be usable on the gx680 with some sort of adaptor, and are the cables and things available?<br>

The other one is a LightPhase Phase One digital back BB for Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ RB, gx680. Obviously compatible, how much shoulod it be worth (used) and what sort of cables and stuff would be required?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Dilip,</p>

<p>Been scouring ebay for bargain basement digital backs, eh?</p>

<p>It's a fascinating world to explore, but you may find that it ultimately leads you nowhere.</p>

<p>OK first of all - you are fully cognisant that both of these items you mention are tethered-only backs? - no LCD, no battery, no memory cards, no built-in user interface of any sort. They must be connected to a PC/laptop for everything - power, user operation, image transfer and storage.</p>

<p>In the late 1990s and very early 2000s, there were dozens of such backs from a large number of makers. The backs were so dumb that the R&D was not beyond smaller companies. That changed once Kodak brought out the first modern self-contained backs, the DCS Proback in 2001 and DCS Proback 645 series in 2002. Many of those smaller makers are now gone, or have exited the photography market to concentrate on niche scientific/medical imaging.</p>

<p>Terrapix are an example. Their backs never really caught on, outside these niche applications. The IJ27503 you quoted is just a serial number, BTW. It doesn't user Firewire or any other "nice" modern standardized interface, so I just wouldn't bother with it. Especially if it is not sold with all original cabling, power supply, PC cards, and software...ideally, in fact, with the actual PC/Mac/Laptop it was used with.</p>

<p>There were basically 2 different Lightphase models. They had 35mm-sized sensors (6MP with 12 micron pixels and 11 MP with 9 micron pixels) made by Dalsa. They use Firewire 400 for power/data so that's good. Phase One's naming policy was all over the shop in those days so the same back might be called a Lightphase for Mamiya, a Lightphase C645 for Contax, a H10 for the Hasselblad V, and a H101 for the Hasselblad H1. Generally H5 was the name used for the 6MP version and H10 for the 11MP version.<br>

Remember, these are 35mm full-frame sized sensors, so you'd probably be better off sticking a used Canon 5D on the back! Especially if you want to shoot above ISO 200, or make exposures longer than a few seconds. You do NOT want to shoot a long exposure with a Dalsa sensor - even to this day (the megabucks Phase One IQ series and Leaf backs are similarly afflicted).</p>

<p>If you do get a digital back for your GX680, and it starts to make sense once you get to the larger-than-35mm ones, you'll probably need a Hasselblad V mount digital back with a Kapture Group adapter. There are loads of gotchas (like some backs needing you to press two different release buttons in succession), so my advice is research, research, and then research some more, before you spend a cent on anything. LuLa and getDPI are probably the two best places for this; I recall at least one really good GX680/digital thread in recent months on LuLa.</p>

 

<p>Hi Ray,<br>

You caught me there. There is always something round the corner!<br>

Many many thanks for your wonderfully lucid response, I will do the research as advised. I like your verdict that it's better to use a DSLR as a back! Makes immense sense. Anyway I am right now scraping together a good lens selection.. so thanks for the references, and thanks for saving me a ton of aggravation!<br>

This is one advice I sure am not going to regret!</p>

 

<p>Hi...LuLa= Luminous Landscape!! Went all over the Brazilian political scene, with a few free-form entertainers thrown in before I thought of adding gx to the search :)</p>

<p>OK...in case this thread is still on, may I venture one more question...<br>

There are examples on the web of images taken with a canon 1d Mk2 help against the gx680 back (danlindberg is one)... when I try with a nikon D7000, I find I can focus only very near objects ... like 6 ft (by racheting in the gx680 lens, I'm using the 180mm f5.6). Distant objects just can't be focused on the nikon body. Is this because the nikon (with its bulky on-camera flash and rounded grip) is just too fat (front-to-back)? Is the canon camera less fat? Can I get a better range in focus with a less bulky nikon... say one without on-camera flash?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this because the nikon (with its bulky on-camera flash and rounded grip) is just too fat (front-to-back)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, an inability to get the sensor in close enough is the problem. The grip and built-in flash are probably the main reasons for that.</p>

<p>I don't know if some Canon models would be less "fat" in terms of grip. Not having the overhang of a built-in flash would certainly help.</p>

<p>A Canon does have a couple of mm shorter flange distance, which is why there's room to fit an adapter between a Nikon lens and a Canon body and still hit infinity focus. That helps, but not by much.</p>

<p>A CSC with live-view, or a Leica M9 for the bigger sensor, would be a very thin body (very short flange distance and little or no grip protruberance), so it should readily hit infinity if held behind the big Fuji. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Ray,<br>

Thanks for the considered response.<br>

CSC=? Compact something Camera? I guess I'll have to experiment with a few small digital cameras to see whether they will fit into the space behind the back panel. I guess a camera without a bulky flash and grip should fit, the laws of physics being what they are... it's not as though the gx680's own rollfilm holder is that slim! Something with the size and profile of the FE2, maybe!</p>

<p>Hi Dilip,<br>

Sorry for my use of jargon. CSC = Compact System Camera, which is what the camera industry is now calling the likes of the Sony NEX series, the Panasonic/Olympus Micro-4/3rds compacts, Fuji X-Pro1 and so on. For some odd reason, they didn't like people calling them EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) ;)</p>

<p>The GX680 rollfilm holder is not slim, but the film plane is near the front of it, and that's the position that these other cameras would have to match.</p>

<p>Ah...brilliant point Duh! I guess a 'recessed board' would be required then to bring thee sensor to the correct plane. Are the CSC very small compared ro FX (or DX). Guess a little research is called for...the more we go back, the more we have to advance!</p>

<p>Yes, the sensors on the 'CSC' cameras are generally smaller than my little fingernail. /..</p>

<p>[[Yes, the sensors on the 'CSC' cameras are generally smaller than my little fingernail. /..]]</p>

<p>The only CSC with a small sensor is the Pentax Q. All of the other ones listed have much larger sensors, as you will see when you look up the specs. </p>

<p> </p>