Affordable Medium Format Digital Backs

<p>Hello</p>

<p>As we all know, the official Medium Format Digital Back distributors charge an arm and a leg for their products.</p>

<p>If you purchase a digital Back from them, be it: Leaf Aptus, Phase One, Sinar, Hasselblad; you can pretty much guarantee yourself that if you were to turn around and sell that Digital Back on the open market, you would get only half your money back.</p>

<p>So, before I buy my next Digital Back, i was hoping everyone could suggest more affordable venues, aside from Ebay, for purchasing a Digital Back.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For anyone else reading this, let me say that eBay is a very good place to find used models of backs available at steep discounts (I have both bought and sold a good quanity of digital medium format gear there).<br /> <br /> In addition to eBay, take a look at the For Sale forums of Luminous-Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=40.0). A lot of medium format digital photographers frequent the board, and digital backs do pop up for sale relatively frequently.<br /> <br /> GetDPI's buy and sell forum (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29) is another place to look.<br /> Best regards,<br />-Brad</p>

<p>"Affordable Medium Format Digital Backs" - We can dream Carlos, we can dream.</p>

<p>You pretty much get what you pay for, and yesterday's wonder is today's commonplace. I remember when the first digital "Medium Format" backs appeared how disappointed I was that they weren't actually Medium Format at all, but just about the same size as a 35mm film frame. Now you can get a Full-frame DSLR with a higher pixel count and far superior IQ to any of those so-called MF digital backs of a few years ago. But today, if you want a true 56mm across sensor, then the word "affordable" can't be part of your vocabulary.</p>

<p>What I'm trying to say is that by the time any MF back becomes "affordable", the IQ it produces will have been overtaken by something in a smaller format that's lighter, cheaper, more versatile and with a higher ISO sensitivity to boot! If you want high image quality on a limited budget, then a full-frame DSLR gives you more bang for your buck.</p>

<p>Bradley<br>

Thank you for the response. Those are very useful resources.<br>

I'm sure i'm not the only person on this forum that apprecites your contribution.<br>

I hope other people can add sources to this thread.<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rodeo Joe hit the nail on its head. It's like the dog chasing it's own tail - only more expensive.</p>

<p>I have to agree. It still does not seem to be 56mm either, still only 36mm x 48mm. My interest will be peeked when a superwide Hasselblad is able to project onto a 56mm x 56mm sensor. I know they have their multishot systems but that is primarily for studio photography, where nothing is moving.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now you can get a Full-frame DSLR with a higher pixel count and far superior IQ to any of those so-called MF digital backs of a few years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I agree with this RJ. Even an older Hasselblad CV back performs very well when compared to a Nikon D3. You also have to consider more than MPs when it comes to MF IQ.</p>

<p>In my view, because of sensor size compared to price, M/F backs don't cut the cheese. Not that I have checked recently, but if I'm not totally wrong a state-of-the-art Leaf, Phaseone or Blad digiback lists for close to $40k. Note: I'm not talking older backs here but the top of the line available today. Compare that to how many rolls of film you could buy - and even have money to spare for an Imacon scanner. And those can be had 2nd hand at quite reasonable prices, in fact in some cases cheaper than the Nikon 9000's.</p>

<p>So I must agree with RJ. M/F digibacks, the way the market is today and for the foreseable future, are not worth investing in. Certainly not a yesteryears model. If you have an application which is better suited to digital workflow, then get a full-frame DSLR.</p>

<p>As I said in another thread: As any woodworker with less than ten fingers will tell you, it pays to know your tools. Using a chainsaw to hammer in nails is usually not a good idea.</p>

<p>Anyway. IMHO and all that, of course.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some people think that you can't use "affordable" and "digital medium format" in the same sentence. What is affordable varies from person to person.<br>

Many find a Mercedes Benz affordable, while others will be hard pressed to buy a used Nissan Sentra.<br>

It's true that such a digital back can be, or exceed the price of a full frame dslr, however, if you have invested a lot of money in your current medium format equipment (lenses, filters , viewfinders,bellows, etc), then the purchase of "just" a back could be quite "affordable" versus the replication of your equipment in full frame dslr format from another manufacturer. </p>

<p>Does anyone else want to suggest sources where I may purchase used Medium Format Digital Backs?</p>

<p>You could try the dealers that specialize in them -- Capture Integration, Optechs Digital, Fotocare etc. You can also call the digital customer service representatives at Hasselblad, Leaf and Phase One -- they can probably help you find one. You usually get a lot more customer service when you are ready to spend around or above 10,000 USD on a camera...the stores especially are happy to sell a used back because then they get to make a large commission on it again....</p>

<p>Agreed with Colin,<br>

I am lucky to invest in Hasselblad V series some 20 years ago. Now, I get totally 5 lenses ranging from 40mm to 250mm and flexbody, SWC and 503CXi. At the time I bought a Leaf Aptus at $7,000, I was very happy to see all gears could be used in a plug-and-play manner. And the result is very very good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want high image quality on a limited budget, then a full-frame DSLR gives you more bang for your buck.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thinking laterally, I feel the standard A12 backs have the potential to give you even more bang for your buck, in some ways. . .</p>

<p>Affordable if you are a busy professional with solid clientele and a healthy cash flow. Then you can can't afford to be without one.</p>

<p>At one time both Leaf and Phase One (when separate companies) were advertising refurbed older backs at lower prices. I see they're not overtly advertising such a service now, but it's still worth contacting them - people don't just chuck these things in the garbage, especially if they've been on lease-hire.</p>

<p>As someone already said "affordable" is relative, and what's easily affordable to a thriving business with a large turnover is well beyond reach for those of us who are semi-retired or just starting out or amateur enthusiasts.</p>

<p>Just BTW, an amusing "review" quote from PhaseOne's website - "Huge, badass 80-megapixel files let you see skin pores from 20 paces."<br>

Ya man! Tha's the way we like to roll in tha fashun an' portrit worl'.</p>

<p>Your own statement gives you one answer: "If you purchase a digital Back from Leaf Aptus, Phase One, Sinar, Hasselblad; you can pretty much guarantee that if you were to sell that Digital Back you would get only half your money back." So obvious solution to get affordable digital back is to buy secondhad. However, they are not easy to find, and I do not quite agree that they sell for half the price, unless really old.<br>

For low volume of pictures, the best value digital is still medium format film and scanning. For a bit bigger volume, a lower resolution digital back starts to be pretty competitive (25 or so MP). To get higher resolution, you need 6x7 film and a very good scanner which is not cheap either. </p>

<p>After working for almost 3 years at a portrait studio that shoots with Hasselblad and a ten year old Phase One H20 as well as a P25+ as backup, I can sincerely say the results from the 16mp H20 blow any DSLR out of the water(I've seen the prints, I've worked the files, and this studio likes to sell big prints) and I've shot 5D, 5D MarkII, D3. In fact I sold my Canon kit and bought a Hasselblad 500CM with 80mm lens, and an H20 on craigslist for 2500. There are many things other than resolution to take into account: color rendition, tonality, and these things have as much to do with the sensors as the lenses. There is also the process in shooting MF. Personally, I prefer to shoot portraits with my camera on a tripod, with a 45 degree prism or WLF instead of 'hiding' behind a DSLR. I find I can connect much more with my subject. Also a bigger viewfinder is always nice and shooting square is also magnificent. I found my digi back on craigslist, but I think ebay is a safe bet if you do you're homework. Capture integration seems to have good deals on demo backs as well.</p>

<p>Marc, That is exactly my experience as well. Many are quick to jump to conclusions when they compare megapixels between systems. The MF backs have a little something extra going for them, including bit depth. It makes a huge difference. I too have compared results from a 16mp CV back to that of a Nikon D3. Both were excellent, but the prints from the Hasselblad back were superior. Then again, the purpose of these two systems is quite different for professional use.</p>

<p>On top of the optics and a bigger sensor, meaning a bigger pixel pitch, especially in terms of the H20 which is relatively 'low' in resolution. The lack of an AA filter means the pixels are sharper from the outset. I also suspect the software that is used to process the files has as much to do with the incredible color and tones as anything else. Of course, with ISO's of 50 or 100 and a slow capture rate, the H20 does not lend itself to anything other than studio photography, where lighting is controlled, and shooting on a tripod mitigates any camera shake. If anybody wants, I can send them RAW and/or processed files. As I said, these files look best when processed in C1, as ACR does not do them any justice.</p>

<p>Marc, Michael. The H20 is about the same size and pixel density as a 12Mp full-frame DSLR sensor - agreed? In fact if it was cropped to the same aspect ratio as 35mm it would only be a little over 11Mp.</p>

<p>Now I'm not trying to instigate any sort of format wars here, just trying to get to the bottom of exactly why you think the older technology H20 is superior to newer and supposedly improved DSLR sensors. I'm pretty sure it can't just be 16bit depth as opposed to 14bit, and equally Capture 1 processing can be applied to any DSLR RAW file.</p>

<p>Assessment of the differences between the H20 and DSLRs has been a bit vague so far, if you don't mind me saying. So could you put your finger on what aspect(s) make(s) the H20 better. Colour fidelity? Detail rendering? Dynamic range? What? Could you also give details of the lenses and conditions used for any comparison shots between the H20 and other camera bodies? Theoretically I really can't see why a modern DSLR shouldn't give as good or better IQ as an old H20 back. If it's down to AA filtering then we should campaign for Nikon and Canon to remove or modify theirs. If it's down to superior lenses then that again could be addressed.</p>

<p>I have for some time been of the opinion that there must be something approaching an "ideal" format size and pixel density. A format which offers the ability to easily control a shallow depth-of-field but not require working at tiny apertures to get enough of it. And a pixel density which is sufficient for most requirements without ludicrously outnumbering the capabilities of lens design. Of course these parameters may change with technological advances, but I haven't seen that happening terribly quickly so far. Film previously set a maximum resolution per unit area that could be achieved, but digital has freed us of that stricture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Joe, the high megapixel DSLR's beat the H20 in detail sharpness at larger print sizes, though not by much, due to the inherent sharpness of the pixels of a non AA'd sensor. You'll see what I am talking about: <a href="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2176/img0032kp.jpg">Here</a> are 100% crops from 40x60 and 60x60 made from 5Dmk2, H20 and 50D. All shot at 100 ASA, with strobe, 125th of a second etc. Interpolated in PS in one go( Bicubic smoother) from native resolution. I will try to run a test for tonality and color in the near future ( same subject, lighting etc).<br>

I'm not interested in starting a format war either. Far from it. If I needed the speed of a DSLR I would've kept it, but for what I shoot, it's simply not needed. If I was a working pro (photographer, not assistant ;)) I would have a 35mm kit in my arsenal. Each format has it's merits, from point and shoots to LF technical cameras and I respect that, and of course my opinion of the H20 is based on what I've seen, shot, worked with etc. <br>

For me it's not all about resolution, sharpness or DR and In terms of the H20's qualities, IMO, for portraiture, there are two that standout: color fidelity and great tonality (ie transition's from highlight to midtone to shadow) and the colors within those tones, although detail rendering is certainly up there. There is virtually no shadow noise at 100 ASA (you can see some in the crop), and none at 50. The only side by side I've done was with an H20 and a P25+ as we were trying to profile the P25+. The P25+ could not replicate the colors or tones as well as the H20. The P25+ was much more contrasty: it brought down the shadows and pushed the highlights way up and there was some color shifting throughout the tones as well. The colors were not accurate either. We suspect, though we can't be sure, that it's due to the backs added high ISO capability/ increased light sensitivity, which is similar to what happens with DSLR's, again IMO. I'm not sure if this answers your question well enough...</p>

<p>Oops... Just realized I had the sharpening set (albeit very low) in C1... Significant difference though. <a href="http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4748/img0032copy.jpg">Here</a> is the unsharpened H20 file.</p>

<p>Hmm. I'm seeing a lot of Chroma noise in the H20 sample, which results in some mottling or dithering of the skin tones, and although the lighting appears much more contrasty in the rightmost image (50D?) it still appears to have the best detail rendering of the three.</p>

<p>To be honest, based on those samples I think I'd go for the leftmost image - the 5D MkII I presume. I don't see anything about the difference in skin tones that couldn't be tweaked with a curves, hue/saturation or white-balance adjustment. But really the only way to settle it would be a head-to-head comparison with the exact same lighting, subject, lens and processing used. And even then we'd probably find that one camera favoured certain subjects or colours over others. I once spent hours tweaking an ACR profile to match a set of spot-colour swatches to the camera output (or rather the other way round); only to find that when another set of swatches was substituted that the colour match was way out again. It's all very subjective.</p>

<p>The right most image was shot with the 5Dmk2, processed in ACR, interpolated in CS4. No color correction. The H20 image is processed in C1, interpolated in CS4, no CC. The 50D image (left most) is processed in ACR, color corrected (levels, selective color etc), and retouched in CS4. Both Canon images shot with the same 24-70mm lens. I think they all performed well considering how big these files are (40x60in, 30dpi) I agree that the Canon images have a slight edge in terms of detail and resolution, and yes the color/tones can be fixed in post, however the least post work I have to do, the better for me. I do agree that a head to head would have to be done, I just wanted to post this to show that despite the older tech back, it still keeps up with the newer DSLR's and IMO still wins in terms of color and tones. If I get a chance to do a comparison I will post the results.</p>