Anyone else BLOWN away by the Kodak DCS ProBack for Mamiya or Contax?

[fotografz]

Been working with the Contax version for a couple of weeks now.

I must say it's quite suprising. Totally portable. No pesky tether.

Not even a Quantium battery pack on hip. LED preview right on

the back like a Digital SLR !

 

The lens X factor is less than on a 'Blad due to the 645 coverage.

I'm using the Contax AF lenses, and all my Hasselblad glass via

an adapter. I even have an adapter to use Mamiya 645 lenses

on the Contax ( Mamiya has a few lenses not available from

Contax).

 

Image capture is square 4X4, so there's no need to turn a 645

on it's side or use a flip bracket. Raw capture produces 96 Meg.

files in 16 Bit. Or, if you use a Flash Card Reader direct to

desktop, a 48 Meg. Tiff in 8 Bit via the web download conversion

program for PhotoShop.

 

Very easy digital camera to navigate. Easier than a Canon D-30!

 

 

Produces initial images about 13.5'X13.5" @ 300 resolution.

Easy enlargement to twice that size without resorting to Genuine

Fractals. Great for cropping. Excellent new firmware for long

exposures.

 

IMO, this puppy is definately a breakthrough for all my wedding

work, and then some.

[brooks short]

Marc,

 

Three months ago I bought the Kodak DCS Pro Back Plus. I use it on a Mamiya RZ and a Sinar F2. With adapters for both cameras, the cost was just at $20,000. The Back alone was $15,000.

 

In my studio we shoot commercial advertising , still-life, product, corporate, food and architectural photography. I was also blown away by the quality of the pro back. This digital back will probably replace 80-90% of the film we used to shoot.

 

The only drawback I can see is the lack of wide-angle lenses because of the small physical size of the chip. So interior architectural shots are not doable. but for everything else, the Pro Back is better than I could have ever imagined.

 

We use the back in the studio, mostly fire-wired to a Mac. Seeing the shot pop onto the screen after capture is great. We're able to adjust lighting, composition etc, and pop a new shot with minimum hassle. No polaroids is a wonderful thing !

 

Is the new long exposure firmware something you can download from Kodak's web-site?

[jackflesher]

Marc:

 

I posted as much on a digital question here about two weeks ago after I had seen it demo'd and got slammed! Folks telling me it had to be cabled to the computer, slow writing to the memory card, and a bunch of other nonsense! So I let it go.

 

But.... HECK YES! The DCS back is incredible! Didn't I read that the D-max was 6.2? WOW! Better latitude than film and 20 meg raw files to play with. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Digital, here I come. Just as soon as the price hits about $6K.

 

;-),

[masatoshi_yamamoto]

Dear Mr. Williams,

 

I am most interested in the value of 16 bit digital capture. Like many, I have

"gotten my feet wet" with a digital P&S. While the resolution is not bad

considering the tiny size of the chip, the 8 bit capture can not come close to

even slide film. Examples of 12 bit that I have seen are closer to slide film,

but still far from the large dynamic range of my favorite low contrast film,

Reala. Does 16 bit capture make digital closer to this? Is it possible that this

will eventually appear in systems more affordable to amateurs? Can you post

any samples of how this system deals with high contrast? Thank you again!

[glen_johnson]

I'm with Jack. If the price were to drop to $6K, I would buy one in a heart beat. I can rationalize $6K, but right now even my vast powers of rationalization won't let me jump in as an amateur :-).

[pete_andrews]

One thing I must query - <i>"The lens X factor is less than on a 'Blad due to the 645 coverage."</i><br>So. An 80mm lens on a Contax is shorter than an 80mm lens on a 'blad, then? And the 56 mm long side of a 645 frame is shorter than the width of a 6x6 frame? I don't think so. In fact, I think the 'blad only gives a 54mm square image, doesn't it?<p>There may be slightly less of a crop in the the viewfinder area, but the lens 'X' factor of the CCD sensor will be the same in either camera.

[jeff_tiemann3]

I will own one of these backs for my contax by december... I am really excited about what I am reading thus far. any word on how the AA filter affects the sharpness of the images? also, with the 35mm lens, dose any one know the equivilent angle of view that I would achieve as related to 35mm cameras? I would like to see this particular string develope over the next few months so that I can know as much as possible about this product when I finaly get to pull it out of the box. Thanks,

 

Jeff Tiemann

[fotografz]

Since my last postings, I've run into a glitch in using this back.

One that has yet to be resolved by Kodak, although I am

hopefully confident that they will make everything right.

 

I was getting a few shots out of focus when using the Contax

lenses wide open. I chalked it up to user error when under

pressure at a darkly lit wedding. Then one day I ran a studio

controlled test after a bunch of shots with the 80 @ f/2 were OOF.

 

Sure enough, when on a t-pod and using a Contax magnifier to

focus with, the focus point was revealed to be a few inches in

front of what the viewfinder said it was ( and confirmed by the

viewfinder focus confirmation light ). All previous in-focus images

had been the result of DOF at f/5.6 or f/8 masking the problem. I

then switched to my 2nd C645 with 2nd finder and lens, and the

results were identical. I then called a friend to test his brand new

C645 and Kodak 645C digital back. Same result!! After going

around and around with Kodak who asked for endless examples

to be e-mailed to them, he simply returned it to the dealer for a

credit.

 

I, on the other hand, want this back to work!

 

Last week, Kodak finally relented and requested my complete

C645 camera system and their back for evaluation.

 

I have not heard from them yet, but will keep everyone posted as

to the outcome.

 

ANYONE getting this back had better immediately bench test it

using the 80mm WIDE OPEN. In fact it affects all the lenses, but

the best test is with the ones with shallower DOF. I know of one

photographer that did not experience the problem. Yet, 3 Contax

645 kits, and 2 different Kodak backs not focusing at the correct

plane are a lot of evidence that... "Huston, we have a problem" .

[richard_freedman1]

Hmmm, is it the digital back itself, or the interaction of the back with the Contax camera in general? Anyone out there using the other version of this digital back with the Mamiya 645 camera?

[max_milo]

I too have a Proback and Contax and find the same focus problem.

Even at smaller apetures I have to compensate focus to get sharp images. I also noticed this problem with a demo camera (Contax 645).

We set up seven dominos and focused on the middle one only to find number 2 to be in focus. We had rented the Mamiya version that didn't appear to have this problem. I too am looking for answers. I'll let Kodak know of my problem as well.

[_________1]

Hi Marc

 

I remember vaguely your saying that the problem has been solved. But how was it solved by Kodak? More importantly, do all Contax 645 users of the Kodak digital back have to send theirs in for a perfect match?

[ken_lam2]

I found that OOF problem too !

But the focus point , with 80mm Hass, appeared to be few

inches at THE BACK ! ! !

 

Will test again.