hassy V camera with a digital back

[savagesax]

Well I'm a bit lost and I did do a search first. What happens with the hassy digital back with a 503 CW body? Do you use

a CF card with the digital back or are there cables connecting to something? The prices of used digital backs are fairly

inexpensive. I'm very excited about the high pixal sizes. Right now I'm loaded up with the top of the line Canon lenses

and the 1Ds Mark 3. I will keep this camera setup, however I spent 20 years using Blads with film. I'm hoping to make

amazing enlargements using Zeiss lenses. As we all know Zeiss lenses are pretty special.

 

I'm very interested in any other hassy systems that you all may think would be a really great setup. H3? I have no idea!

hehe - I need a crash course in "Hassy's for Dummies!"

 

Hey, thanks for all of your kind help.

[ellis_vener_photography]

If you are expecting a6x6cm format and your lenses to take in these angle of view as they do on the V- series native

6x6cm format you'll be disappointed. That is both bad and good: you'll be disappointed if you like wide angle views and

pleased if you like telephoto views.

 

As to your media question (in-back CF vs Tethering), that will depend on which back you go with.

 

Older MF backs don't have the ISO range or dynamic range that more recent ones do.

 

On the other hand if you shoot still life and interior architecture and the back you are looking at has micro-step movements, that is an amazing if slow way to work.

 

Bottom line: While I too love working with the 500- series Hasselblads, unless the back you are looking at is under $4,000

USD, and over 39mp, you'll be better off with the Sony A7r.

[savagesax]

Wow Ellis, thanks for responding. I was looking at the 39 mp back. I had no idea that the Sony camera was

that good. Medium format quality.

 

When I was shooting wth the hassy film backs I did pretty much everything with it. From nature, weddings,

modeling, everything. I didn't own a 35 mm camera.

 

So with that in mind would you think that the Sony would be a better choice? A camera that will be pretty

much an everything type of camera. I like the idea of less weight. The only thing that would worry me a bit

are product shoots. I only do a few of those a year.

 

Thank you Ellis.

[ellis_vener_photography]

While the Sony A7r and he Nikon D800 /D800E have camera resolution to rival a 39mp medium format back, because

they use shorter focal length lenses for the same angle of view, the results won't have the same feel. Also the there will be obvious camera operating and handling differences.

[Aoresteen]

<p>Bob, since you are in LA I'd try to rent a back for a couple of days and see how you like it. You may find that it isn't your cup of tea. Or that it is.</p>

[savagesax]

Good point. There are a few places which allow me to rent. The Sony sounds pretty good, so I will need to

rent that along with a hassy. I'm not sure where my brain is, I should have thought of renting. Thanks

Anthony and Ellis. I'll keep you both posted.

[savagesax]

UPDATE

 

I shot both cameras. The Sony 24-70. It feels really great in your hands and much lighter regarding the

weight.

 

I used my Canon 1ds mark 3 with a 24-70.

 

Then finally the Hasselblad with the 39 mp back and an 80mm lens.

 

All of the cameras were excellent using my Kodak d-sub printer, printing 8X10's. Frankly I couldn't see

any differences so I then cropped and enlarged the cropped photo's. Oh, needless to say I was using

the same object and the same F stops.

 

The Hasselblad won hands down. The Sony was great. The Canon was very surprising. It kept up very

well.

 

I don't know what the problem was with the Sony. Sometimes the image was out of focus. Yes I used a

tripod. A $300 pod.

 

My conclusion is the Hasselblad won but it was pretty close to the Sony. We have to remember that

the Hasselblad had a prime lens. The other 2 cameras were zooms. However, I think I will buy the Sony

because of being lighter in weight. I have to try another Sony camera because of this strange focusing

issue before buying it. I'm also going to take a look at the reviews.

 

I'll post something regarding which camera I will go within a few days.

[fotografz]

<p>Bob, I have a lot of experience with the Hasselblad V and H cameras and digital backs … as well as Contax 645 with a digital back … and my current medium Format camera is a Leica S2P with CS lenses.</p>

<p>I also currently use a Sony A900 and A99SLT 35mm system … to which I have added a<strong> Sony A7R</strong> that takes many of my Leica M lenses, all of my ZA lenses using a LAEA-4 SLT adapter, and two existing new FE mount Primes (FE35/2.8 and FE55/1.8). I have the Zeiss 24-70/4 on order. </p>

<p><em>(NOTE: I am surprised that you were able to do a hands on with the Sony-Zeiss FE24-70/4 since it is not available for sale in the USA yet). </em></p>

<p>The Hasselblad V cameras, (like the 503CW, with a Hasselblad CFV digital back … 16 meg, 39 meg, or 50 meg) … are unique in that the backs were made specifically for the V cameras and look like a bit larger V film backs … and they do not require any additional sync cord from lens to back like all other digital backs do when used on a V camera.</p>

<p>The above kits provide more than just high res images … there is a certain look and feel that in itself is quite distinctive (likely due to the Zeiss lenses for the V system). Some of the Zeiss greats IMO are the 40IF, 60/3.5, 100/3.5, 180/4 … and of course all of them sync with lighting to 1/500. Lighting is where these choices really shine : -)</p>

<p>Obviously, the V is less adept at lower available light … they are slower to focus and the ISOs are lower than most any standard DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras today. The CFV LCD read-outs are not as high res, and none feature Live View. </p>

<p>In short, it takes skill and patience often not present with most photographers used to shooting with today's do-it-all digital cameras.</p>

<p>The reward is readly apparent in the images themselves (and the fun of mastering using such well crafted tools with a tactile feel totally missing in today's <em>here today, gone today</em> cameras). The CFV backs use CCD sensors which are still regarded as delivering the best color at the lower ISO settings.</p>

<p>Some of my favorite wedding images were shot with a 503CW and a square format 16 meg CFV back featuring 9um pixels … the so called magical "fat pixel" effect. The crop factor with this back was 1.5X of any focal length used. Here is a section of the Hasselblad website where I talked about this combination when I first got it:</p>

<p>http://www.hasselblad.com/planet-v/word/marc-a-williams.aspx</p>

<p>I have already shot some event work with the Sony A7R that is stirring up so much hubbub lately. Its' chief claim to fame is having packed a 36 meg Full Frame sensor into a camera smaller than a Leica M. I have nick named my Sony A7R "Mighty Mouse" : -)</p>

<p>Pros and cons can be read almost anywhere on the web. It is a mirror-less camera with an electronic view finder … which some like and others do not. It takes getting used to and has its advantages. Be aware that there is discussion about the shutter shock from its louder than normal shutter that can cause some vibration blur when certain lenses are used while mounted to a tripod. Personally, I do not see using this camera on a tripod … it has a <strong>very good</strong> higher ISO response, so I use it hand-held. Also be aware that it doesn't have a flash small enough to balance on such a small camera … the Sony TTL flashes are bigger than the camera. </p>

<p>Since I own and shoot with MFD and this A7R, I can say in no way does it equate to Medium Format Image Qualities (note I say "Qualities" not "Quality" … they are very both good, but different) … Just because the A7R is 36 meg doesn't make it an equal … any more than a 40 meg cell phone is the equal to a 24 meg APSc camera. The A7R is just a tool that makes some shoots easier, but I have formed no attachment to it what-so-ever … the images are okay, but do not light my fire like other camera/lens combinations have in past. My Leica S2P DOES light my fire, as did my H4D/40 with its wonderful True Focus AF system. </p>

<p>Other than its' admittedly VERY attractive tiny size and ease of taking it with you almost anywhere, you will not gain anything eye-poping in practical image quality over of your Canons. However, with focus peaking and focus magnification, the A7R is an easy camera to manually focus, so you can also use your Canon lenses on the A7R with an adapter (current Canon to Sony E AF enabled adapters should be avoided since they are glacial slow).</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Bob, if you find gear you like that gives you good results and fits your budget, more power to you, enjoy it. But just to point out, there may be factors that skewed the results of your testing, e.g.:<br>

* Your test shots would have looked different because they had different depth of field. You tested at the same aperture ("I was using ... the same F stops."). If the 39 MP back used a 37x49mm sensor, then you need to stop down the Hassie about 1 1/3 stops more, e.g., f/5.6 on the Sony and Canon versus f/9 on the Hassie.<br>

* You are comparing a prime on the Hassie to zooms on the Sony and Canon. Try the A7r with the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8, and the Canon with one of their 50mm primes (or maybe better, the current Sigma 50mm f/1.4).</p>

<p><em>I don't know what the problem was with the Sony. Sometimes the image was out of focus.</em></p>

<p>Presumably (as Marc hinted at) you were either testing a pre-production Sony FE 24-70mm f/4, or else a Sony A-mount 24-70mm f/2.8 with an adapter. In either case, if you really want to test ultimate performance, I think you need to focus manually using full-magnification focus-check live view.</p>

 

[savagesax]

Marc and Dave, I asked the guy over at Samys Camera (Los Angeles) to set me up with the 24-70 lens.

I never looked at it closely, so I have no idea what it was on the camera. grrrrr frustrating. Does Sony

make a Sony 24-70 lens thats not a Zeiss? Dave and Marc, Thanks for the advice. Now I'm leaning

towards the hassy system. You can buy a lot of the Hasselblad gear for a very decent price, used. I

also prefer the 503cw body too. You don't see those dark sides in the view finder with some of the

longer lenses. I still saw the vignetting with the 500mm.

 

The cool part is I'm able to fix most of the problems with the V Hasselblad cameras and lenses, such as

simple light leaks to replacing the shutters, and the shutter springs. People say it's hard to find parts for

them, so I worry a bit about that. Another example is when the film backs overlapped. Well all you had

to do was open the back and add a touch of thin oil to the plastic gear, I think. I remember replacing

that gear one time. It's been some time since seeing the insides of a film back. Being able to repair the

V cameras sure makes me very interested in owning the mechanical beasts. I have no idea of how to fix

digital backs. Not a clue in the world!

 

Mark, I really loved the 100mm as well. For whatever reason I owned both the 50mm and the 60mm

Hassy and I didn't see much of a difference. I'm also with you 100 percent about the 180mm lens. I also

had the 500mm and that was a pretty fun, but a very heavy and big lens. The F stops went from F8 to

F64. I don't think I shot more than 500 shots using this lens.

 

One of my personal questions was how can Sony jam 36mp into a screen? It can't be the same as the

medium format backs. For example I read about the 50 mp Canon sensor. They can't fit this sensor into

the 35 mm size cameras. Well long story short is Canon thinking about making a medium format

camera? Wouldn't that be nice. It's a rumor at the moment of course. My guess is no. There is so little

money to be made with medium format cameras.

 

You both have sold me with getting the hassies. My birthday present in a few weeks, right after taxes!

Hopefully we get a refund. We have for the past 20 years.

 

Thanks so much.

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>Does Sony make a Sony 24-70 lens thats not a Zeiss?</em></p>

<p>Actually, Sony has two different 24-70's, both Zeiss-affiliated:<br>

(1) the A-mount (designed for SLR's) Sony / Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM; and<br>

(2) the (not yet officially available in the U.S., but ?) FE-mount (designed for the A7 and A7r) Sony / Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS.<br>

To use the A-mount lens on an A7r, you need an adapter. Sony makes <em>four</em> different ones, but the one that would give full functionality on an A7r is the LA-EA4. There are also various third-party adapters.</p>

<p>I don't mean to suggest that the A7r can equal the basic image quality of a 503 + 39 MP back. I do mean to suggest that for many uses and users, the image quality differences are likely to be subtle, and the handling (and maybe cost) differences are likely to be big.</p>

 

[savagesax]

Wow- All of you guys are nothing short of the very best professionals. There is no possible way I could read

all of the information by reviewing the sites; Sony and Hassy, and find out all of these details, pro's and

con's, that you have all shared for me. Also giving up your time to write.

 

OK, my last few questions! Will PHOTOSHOP 6, not the Cloud version, support this Sony camera? Can

I also use the Hassy V system digital back, probably around the 39 to 50 megapixel range again

with PHOTOSHOP 6?

 

Well I need to talk to my wife and my foto partner Craig. We both shoot with the great Canons. I'm

beginning to think that I may sell all of the Canon gear, some of my modeling lights, I have 16! And this dye sub

Kodak printer and use the Sony with a few lenses as my wedding camera and a walk around type of

camera and use the Hassy's as my formal camera and a back up wedding camera if needed. Oh, I could use the Hassy for the formal wedding shots. I'd use it for nature, product shoots, a few of the movie stars, Playboy shoots, not the nudes, the Miss America

events, and all of the jobs that demand clean, crisp images at 60 inch size prints.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Not quite on topic, but i always worry what impression people who read threads like this might get. What info might settle in the backs of their heads. So two minor corrections:<br>- Viewfinder vignetting in Hasselblads shows itself in the top part of the viewfinder only. Not on sides.<br>- There is no plastic or nylon gear in Hasselblad backs. There is a nylon stop, something to cushion the hit of a metal part rotating, driven by a spring, coming to a stop.<br>;-)

[nathan_wong2]

<p>I know I'm late to this party and I've spewed my opinion a few times in this forum, but my 2-cents, if it's worth anything, is to stick with a pure digital camera, whether it's DSLR or medium format. I'm dying to get a digital back again for my Hasselblad V, but I know it's not really going to be in the cards. I was buying a used CFV-39 for a relatively cheap amount (just under $6k) but someone sniped me at some camera store. I was told, biasedly, to get a Phase One P25 or P45. I just liked the integration of the CFV back with the Hasselblad cameras though.<br /> <br />Anyway, I had a Kodak DCS Pro Back Plus (same sensor as a CFV-16) and though I enjoyed the photos that came out of it, I didn't like the fact that I had to check the lighting, take a reading, then take my eye from the viewfinder, transfer the readings to my lens, then take the picture. For some reason it was okay with film, but for a digital back it just didn't feel right. Also, depth of field isn't anything like a full frame DSLR, as you'd expect. It's much, much more shallower, so choosing the focus area was critical. Oh, and you need to be extra careful with the focus. Just the slightest amount of focusing error is the difference between a great shot and just an okay shot. Almost forgot the crop factor. There is a crop factor to take into account with the backs. For the 16MP back it was pretty huge with a 60mm lens being a 90mm, but I think the newer backs you get to retain the most of the wide part of the lenses. <br>

<br /> A modern camera with AF and autoexposure isn't a luxury with digital backs, but a necessity. Sure you can work with a digital Hasselblad V successfully and probably work perfectly for years, but you need to try it out first. So, definitely follow the suggestion that one person gave and rent a digital back before going full bore into it.<br /> <br />Here are the old photos I took with the Hasselblad and the Kodak back. The Maserati photo was just a tiny, tiny portion of the photo. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157637666796456/ What I found was that the highlights didn't burn out as would have happened with a DSLR</p>

[savagesax]

An off the wall topic - Since this is a medium format site, have any of you shot with the Pentax? Any

non biased opinions? It seems like the price is just too good to be true for a 40 megabyte camera. I

won't buy one, it's something that caught my eye messing around at medium format cameras.

 

Q. G. You know what? I never realized that the vignetting was only on the top. Well it's been a long

time, about 12 to 13 years from last shot was taken. Do you remember the longer 90 degree view

finder? The one that extends beyond the camera backs and way above the backs, made to fit the

polaroid film backs? Well I used this prism. Could that make a difference in reference to the vignetting

on the sides as well? I may be wrong here. However, I thought I remembered the sides vignetting as

well. With the 250mm and the 500mm lenses on the 500 CM. Thanks for the update and the correction

if I was wrong. Also you are TOTALLY correct about me calling the plastic/nylon a gear. I couldn't

remember what the correct name of it was. Funny story. Before I learned how to fix the cameras I had

Hasselblad in Calvar City, CA fix it for me at a price of $125. It was about the same price for a light seal

leak. This was the west coast Hassy repair place. It's long gone. Well that tiny drop of oil was just a

tiny bit over priced! Yes the nylon is a stop. You only needed the tiny drop of oil. Even with backs that

were from the 1960's didn't need a nylon replacement. I must say that these V bodies, backs, and

lenses were built like tanks. If Hasselblad reads this, well I'm sorry if I feel it is a total rip off. It's a 5

minute repair. If you hurry it's 3 minutes!

 

Well again, thank you. By the way, I bought a Hassy repair book from a guy named Dick Warner in

Burbank. He really made repairing so easy. He took pictures with every step of the needed repairs. If

anyone is interested in these repair manuals email me and I will send the needed info to you. The price

is so inexpensive. Don't wait very long, he's really old and his health is fading fast. I need to talk with

him and maybe I can take this over someday. He also makes the light seals. Hasselblad charges a lot

for them. He makes them for around 10 cents and the rubber lasts longer than the Hassy rubber. Q.G. -

a fun topic! Thanks for sharing.

 

NATHAN - Wow! Your photo's are incredible. I am so impressed. It makes people want to run out, grab

the camera and start shooting.

 

hehe, you are never late to a party! I've been looking at the phase one backs. Boy they are a lot of

money. The price of a small house! I will continue to look for them as used. Maybe I will be able to get

one that way.

 

Well my friends I am going to take my time here. Just a few days ago I was ready to run out and buy a

hassy system. I need to slow down.

[dave_redmann]

<p>Bob, trying to hits some of your questions / points:<br>

* I kind of <em>suspect</em> that Photoshop CS6 (Photoshop 6 is ancient, ca. 2000?) is too old and does not natively support the A7 / A7r. However, you can probably use the latest version of Adobe's free raw-to-DNG converter to convert A7r raw files to DNG, then process those in Lightroom, ACR, PS CS6, whatever.<br>

* Even among relatively modern medium-ish format digital cameras / digital backs, there are non-trivial differences in sensor sizes. The Pentax 645D's sensor is 33 x 44 mm; the Leica S / S2 sensors are 30 x 45 mm; IIRC the older Hasselblad 39 MP backs are 37 x 49 mm; current backs range from 33 x 44 mm to 40 x 54 mm. I'm not suggesting that the quality differences are huge, but there are at least differences in 'crop factor' and probably to some extent quality (due to smaller pixels and/or sensors putting more demands on the lenses).<br>

* The Pentax 645D has gotten pretty cheap ($6997 body-only today at B&H). But: it is in the process of being replaced by a new 50 MP, CMOS-sensor version; the current Pentax 'digital' lenses are not cheap; and there are other <em>relatively</em> inexpensive new options, like Mamiya kits with a body, digital back, and lens starting at $9990. Not saying the Pentax isn't the best deal, just that there are several issues and options to consider.<br>

* Indeed, if there is no compelling business need, taking your time on this sort of expenditure, and renting to try before you buy, make the most sense!</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Bob,<br>Yes, i have the long 90 degree prism. Don't use it much, haven't for a long time. I do remember that at least one of them, the short or long tube version, has rather poor eye relief, so that when your eye isn't centered on, and close enough to, the eyepiece, viewing is difficult. They may both also not show the entire screen (the short one - of the two used most by me - certainly doesn't), which would obscure slight vignetting.<br>Viewfinder vignetting occurs because of the insufficient length of the mirror (made short to avoid hitting a lens that protrudes a bit too far into the camera : the 80 mm), so it's only when the exit pupil of the lens is far enough from the mirror that part of the cone of light coming from it manages to miss the mirror and cannot be reflected up to the focussing screen. The mirror is wide enough, but doesn't extend down far enough, so only light destined to reach the top of the viewfinder image isn't caught by it.<br><br>The nylon stop, sadly, will need replacing after it has been beaten enough. It will 'develop' a dent, and the gear doesn't stop in the right position anymore. When it will acquire that new shape enough to cause problems (it eventually will) depends on how often it gets hit, i.e. on the amount of use.<br>When needed, it is indeed a quick repair. But a drop of oil will not help (your magazine must have had another problem for that drop to work). How much it should costs depends on how much the shop is charged for the new parts, if needed, and how they have to price their time.<br><br>I know the repair sheets Dick Werner produced. They are good indeed. But i'm sure he will not like any offer to distribute free copies of them. So i trust the information you are offering is about where to buy them from him.<br>I also cut my own seals, from a dense black closed cell foam i get in sheets from a hobby/crafts store for a couple of Dollars (well... Euros). If you cost them per piece (only counting the cost of the material), mr Werner is making a healthy profit selling them for 10 cents. ;-)

[savagesax]

Yes Q.G, he makes a lot of money. He buys a sheet, about 6 feet by perhaps 4 feet for probably $5 or so.

You can probably make around 50 to100 deals. He's a real business man and doesn't offer discounts. I've

been to his house perhaps 10 times. He doesn't give out secrets. However I like the guy. He's pretty darn

smart so I feel it's worth the prices and the prices are still so much less than the Hassy's.

 

I'm glad to see that you repair your gear as well. It's actually fun, knowing that you fixed something for

pennies and Hasselblad charges at least $100. Equal to thousends of pennies! Is 10,000 pennies correct?

You need to be a weight lifter!

[q.g._de_bakker]

yes...<br>Now if only we could make our own digital backs, right?<br>I made a start some 20 years ago, with a couple of friends, converting a cheap hand scanner (remember those?) into a scanning camera. Not too difficult, using all the electronics already available. Some soldering, a motor driving an threaded axle, driving the scan bar on a threaded nut, a second rod to guide the scan bar and keep it 'squared', and a new line counter wheel to give the proper line pulse. A nylon housing to put it all in, a lens mount in front, some cables (serial bus, back then) and the thing worked. Never progressed from there.<br>People do make their scanning backs for LF cameras out of flatbed scanners, i hear. Must give that a go too. Will never equal a BetterLight back in quality, but it must be a fun project.<br>But what to use to convert into a one-shot digital back, except a one shot digital back? And if you have to carry the equivalent of what those cost in pennies... Surely impossible.

[savagesax]

Holy cow! Thats a fantastic ideals about the scanners. The hand help ones are somehow still around.

[timb196]

<p>I'm late to the party as well. I have the same desire to get a digital back for my Hassie especially for a trip to Antartica currently scheduled for early 2016. Just to update; Sony is producing a 50 MP sensor for Phase 1, Hassie and Pentax that will go in these folks latest generation. It apparently will have, as I recall, ISO up to 6400, is approximately 6 x 4.5 size and is capable of a little over 1.1 FPS. I may not have all the specs correct as it is from memory. If it comes in a Phase 1 back then I assume (hopefully not incorrectly) that it will be adaptable to a Hassie V series. So that is sort of where the techology is going.<br>

Lumunious Landscape has a discussion with the Phase 1 folks about the sensor and the back on their site. It is rumored that Sony is also working on a 50 MP (I think actually 54) Full Frame sensor for inclusion in their camera line. Latest rumor is that is of stacked design (aka a Foevon sensor). It is hard to argue the quality of the Sigma Foevon sensor at low ISOs so maybe a Sony FF 54 might be another choice. However whether or not it would be equal to a 6 x 4.5 sensor is of course subject to much of the discussion in this thread. Also it will probably not be available til 2015. Since it is confirmed that this 50 MP sensor is in fact in production for these vendors then I surmise that the older Phase 1 backs will hit the used market. That may be a viable alternative too but obviously this requires time which you may or may not have. In my case, I do so I am going to wait for the fallout and what Sony may do since I shoot with Sony gear.<br>

This is just my .000000002c worth<br>

Tim</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That would be a fine thing, these new backs driving prices of a P45+ or P60+ to below, say, $2000 (only 1.000.000.000.000 times as much as that amount you mentioned). Really can't see it happening though.

[DB_Gallery]

I'll admit I have been looking at P45+ backs lately. I just love using my Hassy system so much that I could really get a lot

out of having it on certain jobs. I'm pretty much at the stopping point in digital with my Nikon system with the D800, doubt I

will upgrade again so the likely choice is a back for my Blads in a couple years. It feels good to be moving away from

digital in general so it's nice to be relaxed about it, not stress over it. If I could score a P45+ for $4,000-$5000 in a few

years, that would work although the CFV16 being square has more appeal in some cases...

 

I just wish there were more activity on these forums like there used to be. Photo.net has really died compared to where it

was 8-10 years ago. I recently picked up a mint 40mm FLE and paged back a number of years in the Hasselblad forums, wow, lots of great insight, activity, names I had long forgotten about....all gone.

 

Places like APUG and LFF are vibrant and filled with activity, young talented new members, really great stuff. But photo.net....wow, the party is truly over. I guess that is digital in a nutshell though, overstaurated market in decline, the big corporate digital speculators are getting their asses handed to them via Wall Street as people decide they want to engage in art forms that bear their fingerprints.

 

I'll wait and see what happens to the prices of the back in the next 2-3 years, after all, digital is a luxury and film very much a necessity at least for me...

[timb196]

<p>Well in the interest of furthering discussion, I proudly provide the following<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

... and <a href="http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00cKLB">this thread on PNet</a>.