Digital MF SLR or Digital Back on View Camera

<p>As part of my mid-life crisis, I'm thinking of a medium format digital back instead of a sports car. This post is not a question about which back (I'm leaning towards a P45+). This question is about camera systems.</p>

<p>Currently, when I'm not using a point-and-shoot at a school event for one of my kids, I shoot 4x5 film in an old press camera with a 135mm lens, always on a tripod. My main subjects for this are landscapes and architecture and with medium format, this practice would remain (though I might add some portraits). (Although I don't know, I've got to believe that hand holding a medium format back negates much of its advantage over a camera with a smaller sensor.)</p>

<p>The option I'm leaning toward right now is an Mamyia RZ67 Pro IID along with a tilt shift adapter and as a few RZ lenses, assuming that I can afford them. My first question is whether the tilt-shift adapter will work in the digital setup.</p>

<p>My second question goes to image quality and requires a bit of explanation. I read that the gold standard for medium format shooting is a view or technical camera with digital specific lenses. If I were to go this route, and could afford it, I'd probably buy an Alpa system. But even for stable shooting environments, I'd prefer the ergonomics of the RZ67 as I fear that the swapping out the digital back for a focusing screen would get old after a while (though I realize that this won't be necessary for many landscape and architecture shots). And I've read that the RZ lenses produce a pleasing film-like quality, which strikes me as good. However, if this pleasing film-like quality is just a euphemism for not nearly sharp enough, then I worry about spending tens of thousands of dollars on a system that could be replicated by a 35mm SLR at 1/5 the price. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Do you use tilt/shift now? Or is that a "nice to have feature"?<br>

I would be tempted to consider a sealed system rather than a seperate back. Pentax 645D, or for the real mid-life splurge, Leica S2.</p>

<p>I'd go w/ the sports car.</p>

<p>I think you've got the point Lobalodo... it's the image circle that puts the requirement on the lens and the image areas have shrunk considerably with digital. Hence, one can either choose a "digital" (there is no such thing, there are only very good lenses designed for the shrunk image area so that they can cope with sensor analysis) lens for his digital LF... which has no reason to be more than 2x3inch anymore, or can choose an MF camera with good lenses which aim for a shrunk image area anyway and can be considered as "digital" because of that!!! <br>

Then, it all comes down in whether you need movements or not... and THE COST... IMO, LF digital is a very expensive story that has to be avoided, so, if you are to do what I did, I would suggest a S/H digital back with either Contax 645 (my choice), or Mamyia AFD, or Hasselblad H (H1, H2, H2F or H4X) "open to backs" system AND a (S/H) Fuji GX680 with an inexpensive adapter to share the same fit back of the 6x4.5 system of your choice to retain movements!!!<br>

I also have to add on the above, that I think that your choice for a medium resolution back is very wise indeed... I would even go further and suggest to also consider the 33mp backs that bear the Dalsa sensor, ...one thing is for sure, <em>the 80mp backs are no where near the analysis </em>of my Imacon 528c when used in 16x micro step mode which <em>proves beyond any doubt </em>that there is no lens to cope with such resolution and since DR is not much better either, ultra high resolution backs are not a wise (financially) decision.<br>

That was my choice after I sold my Sinar P2, because turning my Sinar into digital and especially <em>able to do MULTISHOT digital </em>which is absolutely essential for what I do,<em> </em>would prove more expensive <em>and worthless </em>than buying a couple of brand new expensive cars... with the GX680 all this costed me no more than a ...cable! ...and I am not sure that the "digital" LF lenses would beat the lenses of the GX680. Have you noticed the prices of Fuji GX680?? ...have a look at E-Bay, ...and mind you, no shift, tilt swing adapter is required, nor any complicated transformation to fit your (any fit) MFDB on to it... and the lenses... OH YEAH... the LENSES!!! ...at less than 200USD each! ...I already have five! ...Mind you that if you don't use film with it, MK1 or MK2 are better than the considerably more expensive MKIII which can offer you <strong>absolutely nothing </strong>in digital only use! ...Personally, I would never buy a 6X4.5 or 6X6 back for the GX680III, if I use film, I want the maximum out of it (and the wider AOV) and hence 6x8 will do just fine, after all, I was only using 120 film with my P2 all the later years before I sold it (which I should have done earlier)!!! Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>To David: Actually I use shift quite a lot (and would use it more if I had a camera better designed for it). As for a closed system, it's tilt-shift again: I don' think that there is a tilt-shift adapter for the 645D, though I may be wrong; the one for the Hasselblad HD system is ridiculously expensive (even by the astronomical price standards of MF Digital); and on either system the lenses produce a limited image circle, not ideal for tilt-shift. Don't get me wrong; it's not as if I'm buying this camera only for tilt-shift or even mostly; it's just at this expense I'd like a system with few limits form the equipment when I take the time to set up a shot.</p>

<p>To Steve: If the comment about the sports car is just a joke, great. But if it is because you don't think that MF Digital produces significantly better results, even from a tripod on a carefully set exposure, then I am interested in that opinion. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks, Theodoros: A few questions. First, do you find that you use the MF DSLR with your digital back much, or does the back ordinarily stay on the GX680? Second, for a MF DSLR, you mention the H1, H2, and H4x open back system, but not he later Hasseblad closed end systems. Is this because you don't like the image quality on the Hasselblad backs as much as the Phase One backs? Third, and most importantly, in my research the GX680 with a Phase One back requires a "One Shot" box, which may be more hardware than I want to set up every use on the beach, e.g. Do I have this wrong? Thanks again.</p>

<p>You need a tripod with MF if you want MF results.</p>

<p>There are small technical cameras, similar to the traditional view cameras, or specifically for digital MF photography. There are also scanning digital backs 4"x5" or larger, which are slow but have exceedingly high resolution. The best results for real-time photography are probably with a technical MF camera and speciallized lenses. These are discussed at length in <a href="http://www.luminous-landscapes.com">www.luminous-landscapes.com</a>. Perhaps the most convenient camera would be a 6x6 Hasselblad with a digital back, or a digital 645 camera.</p>

<p>Many of the technical cameras have a sliding back, which facilitates switching between GG and the digital back.</p>

<p>Shift and rise can be easily emulated in Photoshop with little loss of quality. You do lose some field of view through cropping, however. There's no simple way to emulate the focus effects of tilt and swing, however, other than "focus stacking".</p>

<p>I've shot MFD (Aptus 22) with an RZ67 system and will try to answer a few of your questions.</p>

<p>Some of the RZ lenses are *very* good. The 110mm and 150mm that I had were stupid sharp, as good as any glass on any system that I've used. As you go wider I don't think the glass is quite as good as a technical camera system. The 65mm L/A I had was quite sharp, but perhaps a little behind the others. Certainly a very capable lens though. The 50mm ULD is supposed to be quite good too, probably on par with the 65 L/A. I think that a P45+ with the 50mm ULD, 65mm L/A, 110, and 150mm lenses would easily beat a DSLR setup in pure sharpness/resolution. </p>

<p>Yes, the tilt adapater will work. I think it is designed to be paired with the 75mm and 180mm short barrel lenses if you want to keep infinity focus. Not sure how they are for sharpness, but they should be good. </p>

<p>FWIW, I compared my 1Ds III with L glass against the RZ67/Aptus 22 combo and the Aptus was much sharper. I ultimately sold the RZ/Aptus because it was a bit slow for my style of shooting. Let me know if you'd like samples though, I've got a couple shots saved. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Edward and Sheldon: If I go the technical camera route (though I'm not sure that's quite the right word for it), I'd go with an Alpa system, which is modular, small, and simple (intuitively obvious how it works from my examination); designed for lenses that will cover a MF,not LF back. The process of focusing is what would give me pause. A MF system camera would be easier, but because I will rarely use it off of a tripod, and because I will thus have some leisure in setting shots (exactly the purpose), I wouldn't want to pay too high an image quality price for the ergonomics.</p>

<p>This brings me to Sheldon's post, for which I'm also grateful. I'd love to see some sample images from RZ67/Aptus 22 setup. Because I'm not a pro and am looking for something to spend some time with, if the image quality is as good as you say, this is likely the way I'll go, always having the option of the Alpa using the same back later (if I have a second midlife crisis, or win the lottery).</p>

<p>Sure thing, send me a message via the Photo.net system with your email address and I'll send a few files over your way.</p>

<p>Hi Lobaldo, here are your answers:<br /> 1. I use my MFDB primarily on the Contax and only use it on the Fuji whenever movements are needed, but if I was using tripod or movements as much as you do, I wouldn't hesitate to use the Fuji all the time. <br /> 2. No... I like both the H lenses and the H backs as much as the P1 backs, although I think that C645 lenses are even better and I prefer MFDbacks that have user interchangeable adapter plates. Its having a closed system that I hate and not being able to have a second (or third or fourth) back up body, or update my camera without having to replace my back, or the opposite, or being able to use film on the same camera that I use my MFDB on... Clearly, IMO Hasselblad did the most stupid and arrogant decision when they closed the system and I will never be their customer.... IMO modularity is among the main features that MF stands for, I don't think that is the sensor size that makes a system MF, I think it's the values behind it! From this POV, Hasselblad H3-5 is not MF anymore, nor I think that Pentax 645 or Leica S are MF... they are just (larger image area) DSLRs! <br /> 3.No, you don't (have this wrong)... P1 backs do require one shot with the GX680, but again, P1 doesn't make multishot backs and this is even worst.... If you do insist on the P45+ however, I don't think that you'll find using the one shot as obstructing as it sounds with the GX680... It wouldn't (the one shot) stop me from getting the GX680/P1 combination, but again that's just me. Actually, I am now in the process to add a single shot back of medium resolution in my system, to increase flexibility (stop carrying the image bank around as well as stop having connections or cabling) and "protect" the Imacon 528c (which is a work horse when tethered) for the future and P45+ is in the list as possible choice... along with Aptus75/7, Sinarback emotion75, or Hasselblad CF39. To tell you the truth, if it wasn't for moire, I would even consider an even lower resolution back for single shot... in fact I don't mind the quality (if only moire was abscent) of the 528c in single shot at all... it beats my D800E easy... (at least if it is used with the Zeiss glass of the Contax), it's having more mobility (having a back with card) and getting rid of moire that makes me being after a second back... Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>I had been a long time (over 40 years) large format shooter (4x5 field camera) as well as having owned numerous medium format systems. I take a lot of architecture (I'm an architect) and was always frustrated by the MF solutions to rise ( let alone tilt). I also always enjoyed using the 35mm and 28mm shift lenses on a series of Nikon bodies but was never satisfied with the image quality (once in a while on Kodachrome maybe).</p>

<p>I purchased a 800E and the 24 shift/tilt and have found the image sharpness to be at least as good as the MF film systems I used over the years. The 24mm is roughly equal to the 90 that lived on my field camera and the 28mm & 35mm are always there (but probably not the quality of the 24mm).</p>

<p>It depends a lot on what you want to end up with. I believe the Nikon will take me up to 20"x30" or even larger. I've resd the MF backs have an edge on shadow detail but actually lose to the 35mm systems on low light performance but for still subjects I can manipulate shadow detail with blending multiple exposures.<br>

If image quality is your thing and you don't mind tripods, then sheet film and a scan will still get you more than a MF digital back. If convenience and flexibility is key, then the Nikon or Canon systems give great results at a fraction of the cost and weight of the MF systems. I think the rationale for MF is fading for anyone but the professionals able to keep on the cutting edge and is increasingly representing a technological dead end for anyone with limited means. Be aware any investment in a digital back is going to fall in value (unlike a sports car). I will be able to buy a state of the art Nikon in two years for $3500 an sell mine for $2000. The numbers for MF are not as convincing. I've talked to a few professional architectural photographers who have come to the same conclusion. Some have invested in expensive MF systems just to impress the clients.</p>

<p>If you really need a MF back and can live with a limitation on no long lenses, the Cambo wide will give you LF capability and digital back options.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will be able to buy a state of the art Nikon in two years for $3500 an sell mine for $2000. The numbers for MF are not as convincing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That actually cuts the other way, at least for me. If MF backs depreciate rapidly, that would be great because I'd by a used one at the lower price. Sadly, though, I haven't noticed this--even used MF backs are extraordinarily expensive. I'd bet the ratio of new to used in MF is about the same as for full-frame 35mm gear. In my observations, it is the point-and-shoot cameras that depreciate rapidly, primarily because, I think, they are well within the price range of anyone who can afford a new one. (Take the Panasonic LX7, e.g., an excellent pocket-size camera; it sold for $500 new because a lot of enthusiasts who wanted a small camera wanted the best right away and could pay that price; you can now pick one up for $350 less than year later, and that's new. I doubt one could find a digital back that sold new for $20,000 last year for $14,000 today, even used (though if I'm wrong, please let me know).<br>

<br>

As for image quality, I agree that scanning film will probably give me at least the image quality of a good digital back (though Luminous Landscape have a number of photographers who think otherwise). This is the primary reason that I described a MF back for me as a mid-life crisis purchase (as in, nothing I'd do if I were being rational). Still, at $135 a drum scan, that's about 150 images before a $20,000 digital back would pay for itself (and that's not even taking into account the $6 per capture developing fee). As an amateur (with limited wall space) will I have 150 images that justify drum scans over the life of a MF back? Maybe not, but still the expense isn't quite as clear cut as it might seem at first.</p>

<p>Finally, I am skeptical that even your Nikon 800e can produce quite the image quality of a MF back <em>on a tripod with (any) mirror locked</em>. There is a direct comparison in the following link, and you'll note that the author is in fact quite favorably inclined toward the Nikon camera, noting that there are only rare instances in which the MF superior image quality would be noticeable. There are differences, though, (clear from the test images provided) and the question is whether the rare instances are frequent enough.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/">http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/</a></p>

<p>Yet Warren, there are a few things that need revision on the above response of yours... 1. Is that Lobalodo wants advise for a digital solution, he already shoots LF film (like you do and I was) and knows the benefits, the limits, the workflow and the results... 2. I think that you do have some misunderstanding of costs... if he chooses with Mamiya RZ or Fuji GX680 and would buy S/H equipment, it seems to me that there is much less investment than buying a D800 and lenses with movements, or keeping an LF system which most probably he will only be able to ...give away for free in the near future! Also, recent history has proven that both the MF systems (RZ & GX680) are very good "value keepers" after the original "price shock" impact that came with digital and the original drop in price which <em>was related to the much shrunk image area...</em> (same reason why LF has very few customers actually). 3. As far as MFDBs are concerned, the value keeping is pretty much equal in percentage with that of DSLRs, but.... if one is to use tripod against a still subject (like many times in architecture) and he chooses an MS back (e.g. the CF39MS or my 528c or CF22MS), he most probably ...<em>will make money out of it in the future AND BEAT ANY (</em>even 8x10 film by far) <em>OTHER MEDIA </em>by quite a margin in all aspects of photography (15stops of DR, true color, Res. that has no comparison whatsoever... etc) by far! ...ITOH, he will still have excellent image quality in single-shot shooting but in LL conditions, which is of less importance if one uses tripod and low shutter speed anyway! Theodoros, http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>Lobalodo..., (I was typing my response when you was posting yours), I have one question for you... do you have the experience of a Multishot MFDB and what the result is, or is it only info through forums that you may have shared on the matter... I ask this, because if I was to give the magnitude out of my own experience that led me to respond on your OP would be this...:<br /> 1. An MFDB of 22mp "fat pixel" will give you (just) better resolution than a D800E and about 85% of a 33-39mp back which in return will be as sharp as 4x5 film, there will be no difference (or negligible difference) in color or DR... (with film or the higher res back, there is some difference to the MFDB against D800... not in <em>actual</em> <em>DR, but rather in actual (</em><em>usable) </em>DR that favors the MFDB).<br /> 2. If the 22mp back is a MS one used in 4x, then the resolution would beat any 60mp of today and would exceed 90% of a 33-39mp back again shot in 4x... (would leave them in "dust" if shot shingle shot), ...additionally, that image (the MS one with either 22 or 33-39mp sensor) would exceed the best film by more than 2.5 stops in DR and <em>any other sensor by almost 2 stops (that includes any 80mp sensor),</em> as for color balance and density ...<em>don't ask! ...there is no comparison what so ever! ...</em>moire <em>you can forget about at 4x!</em><br /> 3. If the back is of 22mp 16x and is used in that mode, ...keep the color, DR and general image quality of the 4x described above and ....<em>MULTIPLY RESOLUTION BY X4!!!!</em> ...can you imagine this? ...let me (again) give you an idea, ...compare 4x5 with 8x10, it's 4x times the area right? ...right! ...but the res difference you see is no more than 20-30% ..right? Right again! ...now this is because of lens resolution with respect to the image area... right? ...right again! ....Now take all the above described in 4x... and multiply it ...BY EXACTLY 4X in resolution when shooting 16x... can you imagine that? ....It's like you are shooting a 7.4x9.8cm size sensor with 9μm of of pixel size and all the benefits from it, at 4x, with true color and no moire (the above described situation with 4x backs) ...but at 4x the area! EVEN A "BLIND" MAN CAN SEE THAT!!! Theodoros, http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>Theodoros Before I do too much revising some questions shoudl be asked. How big of an image do you want and how far will you be standing from it. Unless you are talking about more than 24x36 and standign closer than 3' (norma viewing is avout the diagional) you will not see a difference between the 35mm and Mf digital.<br>

Read the third comment from the physicist Dusan Maletic. He tries to make the arguement that on pure physics the MF will always have the theoretical advantage but the differnce doesn't show up because the "medium format leader is technologically lagging in sensor engineering behind 35mm leader..". Unfortunately given the economics of research investment and ROI this gap is just likely to widen not narrow. As MF equipment faces technical challanges not from newer MF equipment but from consumer priced 35mm equipment the prices will fall becaues the IQ will be worse than what is available from consumern oriented products. I sort of hppe so since I have a SWC I'd love to get a back for.</p>

<p>We don't disagree here Warren, we only share one others experience to form our own... IMO, the advantage with MF is with lenses, this doesn't contradict with which image area has the benefit... sensor size is a different discussion altogether... ITOH, printing size is different to printing resolution and this (printing resolution) is different to analysis as such which is relevant on how lenses can cope with sensor's pixel size and the number of them... What I stated in my previous comment (a MS sensor of 22mp beating <em>easily </em>the best of the currently available 80mp sensor when used in 16x mode - which comes out in 88mp - and to many sounds equal in resolution) is not theory, but <em>a fact</em> and is own experience... Clearly the result is relevant with one lens being asked to cope with 22mp of sensor resolution for each of the 16 shots that it performs, while the (one-shot) 80mp sensor can't cope with what the lens may be able to provide.... This refers to resolution only though, the rest (color and DR) is clearly related with technology... where MS is a dream that single shooting has no relevance with, or a chance to even approach in the future.... As far as FF sensors are concerned, with comparison to MF sensors, I believe that<em> because physics gives the advantage to the MF lens </em>(obviously due to the larger image area) MF will always have the advantage in IQ no matter if sensor technology is (slighty) better or (slightly) worst... OTOH, since it's obvious that there isn't going to be a sensor of LF image area, LF lenses <em>do have a large disadvantage if asked to serve a small image area....</em> IMO, Lobalodo's choice to use a medium sensor resolution is ideal for MF... it's the same really when you compare D800's sensor with the D600 one... the second one <em>is slightly better and doesn't luck a bit in printing resolution, because the first one is too much for what 35mm lenses can do. </em>Theodoros, http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>Why do you say physics gives the advantage to the MF lens. With their greater coverage area aren't MF lenses harder to design. I was under the impression a 50mm lens will almost always out reslove a 80mm MF or a 180 LF lens assuming all are good quality. This didn't matter when the resolving power of the film was the limiting factor but with digital that is no longer true so it will be much more expensive for the medium format lenses tokeep up with the higher resolution of the MF digital backs.Phyics will give the advantage to combined lens/sensor system but at a price<br>

Speaking of price, you are throwing an enormous amount of money at a difference that is very small (and getting smaller as the 35mm sensor market will develop more rapidly than the MF sensor market). Furthermore, if this difference is invisible in "normal" printing at less than 20x30 why are you spending money on it? Isn't it like recording sounds that speakers can't reproduce</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thought you had this impression Warren, the thing is, that a lens analysis is measured on the image area and as such, two equally well designed lenses one for a smaller and another for a larger image area, if they show similar resolution per mm, the larger image area will have the (obvious) advantage... hence, the lens will out resolve the one that is designed for the smaller image area (the one that has smaller image circle) by that much <em>when printing at equal size....</em> Remember, that resolution of a lens in mm applies for all image areas, no matter if it is film or sensor... OTOH, the large format lenses, are designed for image areas that are too big for todays shrunk image areas, so their resolution is under mechanical restrictions (especially because the resolution that the first element can "suck" is limited with respect to its surface area), additionally they have to serve movements too, which leads to even bigger image circles... That is why the new "digital" LF designs are for much smaller image areas than the past and the old LF lenses are considered as incapable of serving MFDBs... Of course, a lens design benefits a lot from not having a focusing system at all (as with LF, or Rollei sl66, or Fuji GX680, or the Voightlander Prominent) but this benefit is not enough to counterbalance the disadvantage of having to serve a much bigger image area as far as LF lenses are concerned. In addition, the later "digital" LF lenses are too expensive and the approach to LF systems is completely different than the past (obviously due to the shrinkage of the image area), while with MF and 35mm (FF) the image area is similar to the past and many of the older lenses are still able to cope with the resolution of sensors. Theodoros http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>I thought image circle and edge resoution are mostly a function of fundamental lens design and f stop. If I want to shift or tilt I need a significantly larger image circle so a tilt and shift for a 35mm sensor has to be a medium format image circle and a MF shift and tilt had to be a "large format" circle. The old LF lenses would often cover the next sheet film sizeup without any room for shift. The new LF digital lenses ae just highly corrected LF lenses without the excess image circle.<br>

I stand by my original statement: it is easier to design for a small imge circle than for a large image circle and you can more easily get higher resoloution for a small image circle than for a larger circle. The advantage goes to the 35mm sensor.</p>

<p>Warren,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you say physics gives the advantage to the MF lens. With their greater coverage area aren't MF lenses harder to design.</p>

<p>I stand by my original statement: it is easier to design for a small imge circle than for a large image circle and you can more easily get higher resoloution for a small image circle than for a larger circle. The advantage goes to the 35mm sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to dispute what you're saying here. The physics is that a perfect lens will be diffraction limited at all f-stops. And <em>all diffraction-limited lenses deliver the same lp/mm resolution at the same f-stop</em>, regardless of their focal length or their image circle or their intended "format". So if you have two lenses performing identically per mm of sensor/film, but one lens covers a larger sensor/film, then that lens delivers better image quality overall. That lens can have a longer focal length, but still deliver the same angular field of view due to the larger image circle. In that case it magnifies the image more, improving the real resolution of scene detail. That in a nutshell is why MF has outperformed 35mm and LF has outperformed MF, on the same sensing medium (a given film emulsion or a given sensor technology).</p>

<p>It is not really harder to design a lens for a larger format than for a smaller format. For a given angular field of view and focal ratio, they can have the same design, just linearly scaled up/down in image circle and focal length . Most aberrations are proportional to focal ratio, so that factor cancels out for equal f-ratios.</p>

 

<p><strong>Great post Lobalobo!</strong></p>

<p>Midlife crisis = looking for new experiences. Moving to a different MFD T/S system = new experience. </p>

<p>Most midlife crisis solutions are <strong>not</strong> inexpensive, but most are a lot of fun ... I know, at 68 I've been through two of them, maybe three if you count the younger 2nd wife ... LOL! </p>

<p>Exotic sports cars are really fun, but can kill you literally and financially. You can get a used one, but unless you are also an expert mechanic, the high cost of maintenance is ferocious ... same can be said about the trophy wife. Plus, both will leave you on the side of the road when the money runs out : -)</p>

<p><strong>That leaves photography ... for those passionate about it, it stays with you always, and enriches your life. Trust me, it's the better choice.</strong></p>

<p>All of the technical debates and opinions aside, the actual physical experience of working with a MFD kit is different from that of a 35mm DSLR ... and is aesthetically/visually different no matter what is, or will become available, in 35mm DSLRs. So, are you after practicality, or that new physical and visual experience?</p>

<p>In my 40+ years of shooting, I've owned/used almost everything from V cameras, to Contax 645, to Mamiyas, to M/S backs, to a H4D/60 ... or had close friends that had or still have what I didn't. Here are a few thoughts:</p>

<p>Nothing beats a multishot back for image quality. I won't get into a deep debate about it because I do not think M/S is right for your applications. M/S requires tethered operations, a dead still camera, and a dead still subject. Great for studio work on a locked down camera stand. I've worked with an Imacon 1-4-16 shot back, Sinar MS, and a Hasselblad CF39/MS on a H2F, plus seen a H4D-200 in action (OMG!).</p>

<p>I have a Mamiya RZ Pro-IID, and my pal has a Fuji GX680 ... best MF cameras for the money. Both are beasts. Buying them is easy, Selling them is not. Unfortunately, the size of available sensors, and what is available in wide lenses for these type cameras precludes most of the wide-end of architectural or landscape work. </p>

<p>Most recently, I worked with a Hasselblad H4D/40, H4D/60 (Dalsa Sensor), and the HTS/1.5 tilt-shift unit. Great set up with very good IQ. The HT/S is nifty because it takes lenses from 24mm to 100mm. Not so great because the 1.5 means a 1.5X lens factor ... so a 24mm is a 36mm field-of-view. Since retiring from most paying work, I've sold the H4D system to become a "gentleman photographer" : -)</p>

<p>In that "gentleman photographer" role, my current kit is a dual shutter Leica S2, with lenses from S24mm (on order), to CS-35, CS-70, CS-120, CS-180. I also kept the HT/S unit and HC100/2.2 lens for table-top applications and selective focus portrait work ... which works on the S2 using the full function Leica H to S electronic adapter. In side-by-side IQ tests, the S2 beat my H4D/40, and equaled my pal's H4D/50 ... which was enough for me given the physical size/form factor for taking the S2 on my retirement adventures ... plus the fact that I work a lot with strobes and can shoot up 1/1000 sync in CS mode with a flip of a switch. However, I would NOT recommend it for your applications. The HT/S is still a 1.5X factor using a HCD24mm lens, and to date there is only one T/S lens for the S system: a 120mm.</p>

<p>I guess that leaves modular view/technical cameras with a digital back. These are heavily discussed on the GetDpi forum where there is a wealth of information down to most minute detail, and bunch of dealer reps to answer questions. I have not used an Alpa, but glean for the numerous tech camera posts on GetDpi that it requires a tinkerer's patience, and a new set of skills and knowledge = new experiences. </p>

<p>If a new experience is the goal, one that provides IQ rarely if ever questioned even by those who own both a MFD/tech kit and Nikon D800 ... then search out the best kit you can afford ... the top dog seemingly being the Alpa with movements. Some of these guys even set hyper-focal distance focusing, higher shutter speeds, and use their Alpa's as a hand-held point-and-shoot : -)</p>

<p>I have a Rollie Xact-II view camera that I used various backs on. I went for that solution because I wanted front and back standards for ultimate control. The last digital back I used was the H4D60 (which finally will have a clip-on battery solution, being the same as the new H5D clip on battery). This rig is currently equipped with a H mount sliding back mount from Kapture Group ... and I used "digital" 28mm, 45mm, 90mm and a 120 macro view lens on it. Not all these lenses were the <em>latest greatest</em> "digital designs" but held up well even with the 60 meg back ... using a 39 meg back like the H3D-II/39 or Phase One P45+ they were more than fine, and produced better results than any reflex lens (except maybe some of the Leica S optics).</p>

<p>Also, a good word for the Leaf backs ... last one I used was the 33 meg Aptus 7s mostly on the Mamiya RZ using the T/S adapter and SB75 and SB180 lenses that retain infinity focus). I added one of those accordion bellows shade devices to the back so I could see the LCD in bright conditions which worked great. There is a nice balance between Image Quality and Image Qualities with this combination. BTW, The 210mm APO is a killer lens on the RZ, and barks right up there with any of the big dogs.</p>

<p>Here's my current rig ... easy to take with S2 and HT/S with HC-100/2.2 ... loving it for my applications!</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Marc. This is really useful advice. Hope you don't mind two follow-up questions drawing on your extensive experience with different systems:</p>

<p>Did you notice any image quality differences between the Hasselblad backs on the one hand and the Phase One/Leaf on the other? (Some comments suggest that the latter are superior, others that there is no noticeable differences.)</p>

<p>Did you notice any issues in the reflex setups because the backs may not be precisely aligned? That you find the view setups and the Leica better than the other systems you tried is consistent with the following Luminous Landscape article, which attributes the problem the (nonLeica) reflex systems to imprecise back location: <br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/thoughts_on_medium_format_cameras.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/thoughts_on_medium_format_cameras.shtml</a></p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you notice any issues in the reflex setups because the backs may not be precisely aligned?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>FWIW, the RZ67 has adjustable screws that the focus screen rests on so you can do your own precise focus adjustments. I even used an 8x loupe on the focus screen in some situations to get even more focusing precision. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lobalodo, i thought of answering your Q to Marc, as well as adding a few things to Marc's previous (excellent) post... I'll start by saying that my discussion on MS was purely to prove that lenses (even the best ones) are incapable to cope with ultra high res sensors... if they where capable, then 80mp backs would be able to show the same detail as 16X done on an old 22mp sensor (=88mp)... which is far, far, ....too far from truth! <br>

Now to your enquires... what I see between backs sharing the same sensor, is only related with respect to the software that accompanies them! My 528c for instance, is no different than a P25+ when used in comparison (I have used P25+ on my Contax) and it improves with each update of "phocus" or "flexcolor" as does the P25+ with each update of C1..., but again the same happens with D700 as Camera Raw is advancing...!!!! Now generally, Capture One is considered a more advanced program than the rest, personally, I think it is great, but I am not sure it is <em>that much better than competition... nor its advantage is </em><em>guaranteed for the future! </em>Personally, if I was to choose between a P45+, a CF39 and an Aptus 7/75... I would buy the cheaper one! (unless if the CF39 was the MS version)!!<br>

<em><br /></em>Back alignment? ...NO!!! ...no issues at all with any back I know and I know plenty! As of Lula... I wouldn't trust Michael's "reviews" any more than I would trust any "maker biased" site that keeps finding "issues" with the competition and the owner uses "granted equipment" which additionally is paying to be advertised on the site... Theodoros, http://www.fotometria.gr</p>