Sunday musings: I'm being tempted by digital backs and would like some advice

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>The idea of buying a digital MF system is quite exciting indeed. Of course the outright cost of a system is somewhat greater than a film based system. And in a lot of ways, 120 is more flexible and technically superior even though it doesn't have the glam factor that digital has. But there are a few reasons why I would want MFD.</p>

<p>In the long run, MFD will be less expensive and, arguably, less hassle. It's the same, tired old argument as we had with 35mm. And, dollars for pixels, DSLRs (i.e. 35mm based digital systems) are cheaper. A D800 body is cheaper than a used 22Mpx back. However, I do understand that there is a subtle - but real - difference in quality that digital backs have innately.</p>

<p>All the digital backs that I know of are CCDs. DSLRs are now all CMOS. The advantage of CMOS is that ISO can be treated as mere metadata. This allows you to shoot at base ISO and underexpose. You would then correct exposure later. This protects your highlights while shadows remain unchanged (I have a Sony NEX and do this almost all the time if I need an ISO higher than base). Now, this means that CMOS sensors could have a much higher DR than CCD sensors. So I have a couple of questions:</p>

<p>1. Is the DR of a digital back on par with a modern DSLR? Officially some of them are rated at 12 stops, which doesn't sound like a lot.</p>

<p>2. Can you underexpose the CCD in the same way you can a CMOS?</p>

<p>I recall the odd comment from owners of the Leica M9 that it was quite underrated, as most people looked at its paper specs instead of looking at its results. I hear it has great DR and great colour, thanks to its CCD. I also understand that in general, photographers pay more for MFD and there are very good reasons for that. Some are obvious, some not so much.</p>

<p>So what sort of software should I be using? I like Aperture and DxO Optics but I'm not certain that either will read files from digital backs. I guess I might have to buy Capture One or something? I also wouldn't mind downloading some RAW files but I can't find a lot. I have discovered www.rawsamples.ch, while some manufacturers have a download section but these are for current products. If you know of a larger depository of RAW files, please let me know.</p>

<p>The system I'll probably end up buying is Mamiya AFD based. Right now I'm considering buying an AFD with 55-110mm and the old DCS Pro 645M back (which I'll eventually replace with a 22Mpx back). At worst, I'll gain experience with such a system. I don't know much about MF lenses but I hear they're excellent. It might be a problem to get wide-angles though. What I don't appreciate about 35mm lenses (zooms and wide-angles) is their distortion (fixable but at the cost of resolution). How do MF lenses compare in that department?</p>

<p>Here's one article which I found helpful, where the photographer explains why he bought a MFD system:</p>

<p>http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/why-i-moved-to-medium-format-phase-one-iq140-review</p>

<p>One of the take-away messages was that old MFD can be a better option than a new DSLR. From what I have seen, I can believe it.</p>

<p>Of course, in the end I might end up shooting 120 instead and buying a scanner. I have shot some 120 with a Lomography camera and, despite messing up some of the shots, I loved it! But I like both options and I very much look forward to your comments, should you have any.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>"In the long run, MFD will be less expensive and, arguably, less hassle".</p>

<p>I'm not sure about that. You can pick up a big supply of film for $200-$300. Stick it in the freezer, then buy an enlarger w/ lens, developing and printing equipment, and the needed chemicals for around $300. Spend another $200 on papers (you'll need papers even w/ digital), and another $150 will get you a Rolleicord, Autocord, or any number of excellent folding 6x6 MF cameras. Now, you're set. Go out and shoot a couple of rolls of Tri-X, and return home and develop it in a little tank in the kitchen sink. Dry the film, and 3 hours after you come home you're ready to print something. Don't worry about the learning curve. I switched from scanning my film to a darkroom, and I'm 61. You can figure it out. It's very rewarding, and you can do it in a bathroom. If you want to shoot color, it's a different story. It's been wonderful getting away from the computer, scanners, and printers. </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>You are the only one who can decide if the quality difference is worth the extra price to you. Before plopping down a lot of money, I would rent the camera you are thinking about buying. It is one thing to read about supposed quality differences, and another to see the results for yourself. </p>

[tim_bosley1]

<p>deleted.....</p>

[tim_bosley1]

<p>deleted.....</p>

[tim_bosley1]

<p>Since the thread is a Sunday musings:<br>

Agree that only you can really decide if you need to change formats and I can understand your pros for such. I can also see (however I do not agree) with those wanting pocket cams, video, high iso, etc...<br>

I recently had an opportunity to search through years (and I mean decades) of film images. When I looked at the early digital and what I get now with the Mamiya 645 compared to the film images, I am glad I made the switch. <br>

Without discussions of MF "look" and large format DR, I can say that I loved the realism of the film era images. I began to emerge back into the place and time with the film. The early digitial did not do that for me. I a world of ultra ISO and super frame rates, I have learned to appreciate the simpler items with medium format. Truer skin tones, great DR and easier handling full function SW. <br>

Medium format digital is a pain to lug around, but you will be rewarded when you look on the images years later.</p>

<div></div>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I have shot some 120 with a Lomography camera and, despite messing up some of the shots, I loved it!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are impressed by lomography cameras I have no idea why you would go through the time trouble and expense of getting a digital back.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Right now I'm considering buying an AFD with 55-110mm and the old DCS Pro 645M back</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That back is over a decade old and if it is in decent working condition still sells for a ridiculous price.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One of the take-away messages was that old MFD can be a better option than a new DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well it depends on what you mean by "old" and "better." For the price of the back you mentioned you could get a couple higher resolution modern DSLRs. Unless you are in some kind of professional environment where you are taking a lot of pictures and getting paid for it I have never been able to justify the expense of a digital back. Believe me I've looked into it. I mean I already own a very nice MF camera with a set of Zeiss lenses so it kind of makes sense to just buy a back vs upgrading my DSLR. The problem is no matter how much I look I can't find a digital back that is worth it for a casual shooter. Technology marches on and dropping thousands on an old digital back simply doesn't make sense.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>From my perspective I could justify a digital back ( or at least some of them) on the basis that I don't spend approximately £5 000 a year on film, processing and to a lesser extent the incremental cost of scanning and lab-based print-making vs that which I now pay to have digtal prints made on a Lightjet or Inkjet from files I make myself. </p>

<p>So why don't I have one? Well three reasons really. The first and main reason is that whilst I can justify a digital back, I can justify a FF dslr even more- a one year payback for body and lenses vs multiple years. I agree that the images from a digital back might be better. What I don't believe is that the extent of that "better" would transform my enjoyment of or the success of my photography. The second is that I started off with MF in the wrong place with Bronicas and a Mamiya 7ii. So basically I'd need to change my MF cameras in order to use the back, and I've felt (right or wrong) a considerable uncertainty about what I could keep running/buying/fixing in the longer term. A Hasselblad H system would be nice but the cost of a system plus back-up is beyond what's sensible for me. Despite all that, I did once set out to buy one of the cheaper backs for Hasselblad v system and a CW body and several lenses. Then I realised that wide angle photography wasn't going to be possible as the wide lenses became pretty much standard lenses; I didn't like the screen, and Hasselblad UK, ever trying to push me towards an H system I'd told them wasn't on the agenda, managed to communicate that support for the V system wasn't necessarily a long term thing. So I backed away from that and bought FF dslrs and I have to say I have few regrets. I'm not losing commercial opportunities because of what I shoot and I don't have any feeling of settling for second best. My photography is limited by whats in my head, not what's in my bag, and the fact that I upgrade every few years creates a backup body that would have been an issue with a digital back. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd personally very much like a full 4x5" digital back for a 4x5 view camera, lens and all for under $10,000.</p>

<p>I'd also like to have a rent-controlled 7,000 sq foot penthouse in Manhattan and a Ferrari with an Italian mechanic, but I am not holding my breath.</p>