Thoughts from buying and testing MF Backs and 1Ds

[jaryd_fletcher]

We have just tested the following cameras and backs - Canon 1Ds,

Kodak Proback 645, Leaf Valeo 11 & Phase One H20.

 

For what it is worth, here is what we came up with.

 

Firstly let me say that I am not a professional photographer. I own a

prepress graphic reproduction bureau that is part of a high quality

sheet fed printing group. This means I do know something about high

resolution images, color, noise, software etc but I do not shoot all

day every day.

 

We were looking for a camera setup to do copy work, photo archiving,

digitization projects, some fine art reproduction and basic product

shots for our more cheap and cheerful catalogue clients. We also

wanted teach ourselves more about digital photography to work in

better with the growing digital needs and support the real

professional photographers require that supply us images for printing.

 

One thing that became very clear to us is that it is true that there

is no one camera solution that is the best one for every one. It does

really depend on what type of photography you want to do and

therefore which of the different factors become most important to

you. Our "front runner" camera changed 5 times over the space or a

month worth of investigating and testing.

 

We found you have to do your own tests. We were surprised at the lack

of empirical evidence online. It almost felt like a conspiracy...

Even through inevitably your own tests are likely to be flawed in

places and far from complete - it was the only way to make a

confident real world decision. Doing research online could only

really point you in the right directions and maybe plug gaps in what

you found yourself.

 

 

*** Resolution, Square vs. 3x2, Price and why we bought the Kodak

Proback 645M ***

 

I really wanted to buy the Canon 1Ds. In our opinion it is an

absolute bargain. It is definitely in the league of the medium format

backs and far above the other lower megapixel DSLRs. We wanted to

save ourselves thousands of dollars buying the Canon 1Ds setup but in

the end the resolution was close but not close enough to the Kodak

Proback to allow us to save the money.

 

The Kodak Proback 645 on a Mamiya 645AFD was significantly sharper.

We are not sure but think that this is because there is not an anti

aliasing filter on the 645 and because the 645 has the reduced lens

coverage of the 4x4 chip in the 6x4.5 system, using the centre "sweet

spot" of the Mamiya lenses versus the Canon's full frame using all of

the lens. Maybe this made the difference even through the Canon "L"

lenses may be slightly technically better overall.

 

The image out of the Leaf Valeo 11 blew us away; it was beautiful

sharp with great color, on par maybe better than the Kodak. If you

could put up with the 3:2 ratio frame and were Mac literate, we are

confident that the Leaf camera and great workflow were up to pretty

much any task you wanted to give it.

 

However, when we added the resolution / sharpness factor to in our

case most of the objects or scenes we are shooting are more in a 5x4

ratio, or squarer that 3x2, shooting them through a 3x2 ratio chip of

the Canon 1Ds or the Leaf Valeo 11 heavily reduced the resolution of

what we could capture.

 

At a 5x4 ratio we get 1.5 times of the data (13 megapixels vs. 9

megapixels) with the square format Proback 645.

 

The Kodak's overall sharper resolution and Square clip was the

clincher that made us buy the Kodak Proback 645M over the "obvious

bargain" Canon 1Ds or the Valeo 11.

 

 

*** What about the Phase One H20??? ***

 

The Phase One H20 shots were saw were very good and the Capture One

software was very good but we could not justify one and half to two

times the price of the other systems for any marginal difference in

quality from the Kodak Proback that might of been there and the

tethering tradeoffs were not worth considering, for us anyway.

 

There was a configuration of the H20 with a flex adapter for a 5x4

view camera which allowed you to take 2 shots and automatically

stitch them together for large hi res images which was interesting

for art repro work but it still was too much money...

 

 

*** Color Rendition and Dynamic Range ***

 

Being prepress guys who see and do a lot of drum / hires scans coming

in from all over the place. We were surprised at how good the colors

straight out of the box the H20, Valeo 11 and the Proback were

through their best software options. Both the H20 and Valeo 11 make a

selling point on their color accuracy and transitions while the

Proback seems to sell more on their flesh tones. Honestly we could

not tell any significant distinguishing differences in the final

files between the 12, 14 and 16 bit backs color wise. All were going

to need to be tweaked for you to be confidently setup with the colors

the way you like it.

 

The Canon 1Ds was a slightly different story. The colors through

Capture One were far superior to those generated by the Canon

software but it was obvious that there was going to be definite color

failures along the line that were going to take work and compromises.

The usual suspect colors were where the work was reds, oranges and to

a lesser extent some purples and greens. That said it really depends

on how important color accuracy is to what you are shooting.

 

We can see how capturing and manipulating the files with the higher

bit depth in their corresponding Raw workflows is important. However,

as for the 16 bit making a difference over the 12 or 14 bit systems -

bottom line was we could not really see any corresponding difference

in the end product files. We don't think many people could be handed

printed output or a set of 8 bit files in Photoshop and tell you

which one came out 12, 14 or 16 bit as Raw.

 

The only thing that we could think of the larger bit depth making a

difference was if you were forced to do excessive amounts of

manipulation on a file to correct a severe problem or to get a

certain look. With these backs though that is becoming less and less

likely because the files out of any of them are impressive and we all

are shooting to limit the amount of time consuming and destructive

processing we have to do in post.

 

 

*** Noise, Moiré and Chromatic Aberrations ***

 

We only did tests at ISO's of 50 and 100 and the H20, Valeo 11 and

Proback were all clean as a whistle. The Canon 1Ds through the Canon

Software had noise that was definitely noticeable on the test shots

inspecting the blue channel in Lab color. This did pretty much

disappear when using the 1Ds with Capture One DSLR and brought it

closely into the range of the backs. The noise would have been

acceptable to us to buy a 1Ds.

 

There has been some talk about noise on the Proback and Canon 1Ds at

ISO 400 however we personally think this is really all crap from the

point of view that the other contenders, the H20 and the Valeo 11,

can't even do ISO 400. The noise at 400 is better on the Proback than

the Canon 1Ds. And as Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape says on

his review - Neat Image will fix any of them up.

 

There was some but not excessive chromatic aberration on the Canon

1Ds test shots but everything easily fixable.

Interestingly the Valeo 11 did give us a hint of a strange chromatic

aberration / moiré effect on one shot in a screen printed pattern on

a can, but another difficult fabric test shot done on the Valeo was

pretty damn excellent and had little to no moiré. Seeing fabric is

not something we will be shooting often and we had decided to buy the

Proback we did not look into this any further.

 

 

*** Software ***

 

Overall the Leaf Valeo 11 software was the best, having the best set

of features and workflow.

 

Leaf have been making digital backs for 10 years and Leaf software

gets great reports and at version 8 it is a very mature and refined

workflow. We also liked that fact that and has been developed with a

print focus. Leaf also had a second piece of software called oXYgen

with even more color, press and retouch control and 16 bit workflow

all the way through to output. We already use Creo prepress gear and

workflow and can vouch for it being efficient and their support

prompt and informative. The limiting factor with the Leaf software is

that it is only on the Macs. We run both PC's and Macs.

 

We have even read two reports where others have wanted PC workflow

but ended up buying a Mac to use the Valeo 11. That is a pretty big

step for some. We also have seen reports of studios liking the Valeo

workflow and consistent quality of shots over the Phase One H20 and

H25 shots at almost twice the price. We think it is definitely worth

investigating it or the new 22 megapixel version.

 

The two Capture One versions for the H20 and DSLR for the Canon 1Ds

and the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in used with the Kodak Proback were all

good and fairly close to each other. You would really need to try

them personally to work out which one works better for you.

 

In choosing the Proback we are using the Camera Raw plug-in and look

forward to see what Adobe pulls out of the bag in PShop 8 for the Pro

DSLR users.

 

With things moving quickly from film and scanning towards direct to

digital Adobe are bound to be spending serious time and money

building in a functionality wall to shoulder out any niche the likes

of Capture One etc will be trying to make themselves launching

software for a range of other digital cameras.

 

Kodak's Photodesk was not up to scratch and pretty basic. We found

ourselves in Photoshop pretty quick.

 

We were warned off Canon's own 1Ds software very early and our test

results through that software were enough to put you off the

camera... noise and colors were definitely a worry. Our 1Ds tests

through Capture One DSLR meant we ignored it and used Capture One

instead - there was no competition.

 

 

*** Neat solid equipment feel / Portability of system / Tethering ***

 

The Canon 1Ds being just a body was obviously the most neat and

portable of the systems we looked at. It is a big camera, as big as

the medium format Proback on the Mamiya 645AFD.

The Mamiya/Proback 645 combo looks and works like one camera with no

external wires and the LCD on the back.

 

The Valeo 11 on the Mamiya is not as neat with the "digital magazine"

storage / battery unit underneath, separate to the back and a small

Firewire cable between the two. It is probably no big deal and mainly

cosmetic but when you combine this with no LCD and the Palm pilot

viewing device solution it took a bit of getting your head around.

The Valeo 11 did not feel as simple or tight to us. We worked with

the Valeo 11 tethered when testing and that worked very well with the

software and would give you the best results. We weren't convinced

that the Valeo 11's portability solution wasn't really a bit of a

compromise and only suited to one specific type of shoot, namely high

end Professional catalogue work - it would be great at this.

 

The Phase One H20 was the only solution we looked at that had to be

tethered full time. The H20 is a high end, high priced bit of kit

that makes no excuses for being the most common choice for the

studio/location Mamiya RZ67 Pro II / H20 crowd. It has one proven

workflow - use it and love it. In the end we didn't want to spend the

extra bucks so we didn't have to choose.

 

 

*** Lens Choice Quality ***

 

I would have loved to have a play with the range of Canon lenses on

the 1Ds, especially the "L"s, but it was not to be. Their sharpness,

the macros, the white zooms... mmm white.

 

With the backs it obviously comes down to which MF camera system you

put it on.

We went with the Mamiya 645AFD and are confident the Mamiya Lenses

are on a par with the usual "big name" suspects. The range of lenses

offered was more the limiting factor here.

 

 

*** Dust ***

 

Sensor cleaning would be a breeze on any of the backs. There are many

posts on the net about dust in the Canon 1Ds. We didn't test it long

enough to make any informed opinion accept to say supposedly it is a

problem and PacPad are releasing a swab specifically designed to deal

with the problem.

 

 

*** Image Storage ***

 

The H20 deals with image storage by being always tethered.

The Canon 1Ds and Kodak Proback 645 use Compact Flash memory cards

and this system seems to be fairly simple and effective.

The Leaf Valeo 11 has a small "digital magazine" storage device

tucked under between the tripod and camera body. It seems to be a

type of Firewire hard disk and you can get them in 5 and 10 gig

sizes. This means you can shoot 200 - 400 shots before either

swapping magazines or downloading to a computer.

 

 

*** Why we almost bought the Leaf Valeo 11 ***

 

As we have already said the images out of the Leaf were fantastic

with great color, clean and smooth. We saw no negative reports about

noise or moiré on the Valeo 11. Its downfall for us was the 3x2 35mm

style ratio - simple as that.

 

We like the Mamiya 645 AFD and the fact that Mamiya chose the Leaf as

its promoted digital solution was a feather in their cap.

 

Locally the company supporting Leaf has a very good name and has been

very knowledgeable and professional so far. There is a deal to

directly upgrade for the difference in price to the Valeo 22 within 6

months if it proves to be good and you need the higher performance.

 

 

*** Why we almost bought the Canon 1Ds ***

 

The Canon 1Ds is a bargain. I would also love to save the money and

buy the Canon 1Ds but we had had several reports of it just not being

up to the task in the studio and this is what we found for us also.

 

The deeper we looked the more we are turned up mixed reviews by

professionals with questions about limits to the resolution, noise,

chromatic aberration, moiré, etc. We think a fair bit of this is

because the 1Ds is no longer "brand new" and there are more people

really using it in the real world rather than the number of medium

format backs there are out there.

 

*** Why we did buy the Kodak Proback 645 / Mamiya 645AFD / Adobe

Camera Raw Plug-in solution? ***

 

This combination gave us the best balance of the things we were after

and bang for our buck.

 

* The resolution is sharp as a tack.

 

* The square format gave us more options and one and half times the

megapixels to play with more often that not.

 

* The colors were good across the range with few potential failures

to contend with.

 

* The images were beautifully clean and free of noise, moiré and

chromatic aberrations.

 

* The hardware worked as one tight solid portable package that gave

us confidence that it would work consistently and reliably.

 

* The workflow / software seemed simple but with the functions we

needed to get the job done quickly and efficiently.

 

 

*** One final off-topic rant for those that got this far... ***

 

We had a few people comment that they thought that the Canon 1Ds

might kill off Medium Format and we can see how it could make a hefty

dent in things.

We have just invested serious money in a new medium format solution

but if the next logical jump was to something coming from the 35mm

camp we wouldn't hesitate.

 

"Killing off medium format" is not the way we would think about these

things. We think of it more that the fantastic advances in quality

digital technologies are making higher quality equipment much cheaper

and more widely available to everyone. In the long run that has to be

a very good thing. It is up to all manufacturers regardless of format

to try and bring something to the table and still be playing in one

way or another in the future.

 

The more things move into digital the less things will be about what

size film format a manufacture once made cameras for. It will be

about who is making the best gear for one job or another. The

Horseman DigiFlex II is already an example of this.

 

The Pollyanna in me says we will all be closer to having the best

optics on the best capture device etc... regardless of format.

 

I hope some of this info is of use to any poor souls that are going

through the decision making process and sorry if I have offended

anyone�s sensibilities.

 

 

cheers,

 

Jaryd

[jimvanson]

Superb rant ;>} I wish they all were one tenth this good...I knew you'd won the race as soon as your stride hit this point:<p>"<i>We found you have to do your own tests. We were surprised at the lack of empirical evidence online. It almost felt like a conspiracy... Even through inevitably your own tests are likely to be flawed in places and far from complete - it was the only way to make a confident real world decision. Doing research online could only really point you in the right directions and maybe plug gaps in what you found yourself.</i>".<p>Well done and thanks.

[larry_lambert1]

Total cheers to you for putting the time into this report!!!! This is exactly the kind of non-biased straightforward reporting that the net is aching for. Regardless of the outcome of your test, and your ultimate choice, I would feel 100% more confident in stepping into the shopping arena with this depth of insight. MUCH THANKS TO YOU!!

[ellis_vener_photography]

Jaryd,<P>Thank you very much for this excellent "hands on/eyes on" report. I read it

with great interest. I am curious on one point you did not discuss. Did you compare

your results with the Canon EOS1Ds using Adobe Camera Raw vs. CaptureOne DSLR

and if so what were your conclusions?

[jaryd_fletcher]

Ellis,

 

We did not try the 1Ds with the Camera Raw Plugin sorry so I can't really comment.

 

The Outback Photo guys seem to be using Camera Raw with 1Ds maybe you could ask them.

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_04/essay.html

[jaryd_fletcher]

One other thing I forgot to mention in my original post is that we found a strange tendancy for the Canon 1Ds to pick up reflection or shine off of old photos and dark parts of flat art that was not present in the backs.

 

This was seen from two seperate 1Ds cameras and lenses.

 

We did not work out why this was and thought a polarizing filter would sort most of it out. However, it is not something you want in a camera you are going to be shooting copy with.

 

Our only guess was maybe it had something to do with the difference in the way CMOS chips work versus CCD but this is something we know little about.

[brooks short]

Jaryd,

 

Excellent report on the various digital capture backs and cameras on the market today.

 

I've owned a Kodak ProBack Plus for over a year and use it daily in the studio on a Mamiya RZ II and Sinar 4x5, tethered to a Mac G4. I shoot mostly food, product, still-life and some corporate work. I also use the ProBack on location tethered to a Mac G4 laptop. The quality of the files and the versatility of the Capture Studio software make it a joy to use. My clients love seeing the captured images appear on the computer immediately after capture.

 

Recently I purchased a Kodak 14N which produces a 300 dpi tiff at 10"x15" versus the Proback's 300 dpi tiff at 13.5"x13.5". Even with the 14Ns longer size tiff when it's cropped to 4x5 it becomes a 10"x12.5" image; a full 1" shorter than a 4x5 crop on the ProBack's 13.5"x13.5" tiff.

 

Still, I like the files from the 14N as much as those from the ProBack. In fact I might go so far as to say that the 14n's files have slightly less exagerated color that the ProBack's. But the difference is slight.

 

I do agree that the Photo Desk software shipped with the 14N and the Proback is very limited compared to the Capture Studio software which was bundled with the ProBack. Unfortunately Capture Studio is incompatable with files DCS files from the 14N.

 

Anyway thanks for the report and congratulations on your new ProBack.

[jaryd_fletcher]

I received the following email from Uwe Steinmueller of Outback Photo. In the last week he updated his site with a review diary about the Proback 645H on a Hassy H1. With his permission I attach our exchange to clarify a couple of things in my original post.

 

*** Uwe Wrote ***

 

Jaryd,

 

nice review about your MF journey.

 

Which lens did you use on the 1Ds? I ask as my test:

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/hasselblad_h1_proback/h1_645h.html

 

with the 1Ds and 100mm Macro compared to the Pro Back

on the Hasselblad H1 indicated a slighly sharper image

on the 1Ds (but also 1Ds with C1 and Pro Back with

Photo Desk).

 

For us at least the Color Checker showed bad blue for

the Pro Back with Camera Raw. But of course I know

that there are many factor that could be off.

 

Uwe

 

 

*** Here is my reply ***

 

Hi Uwe,

 

It is an honour to get an email from you.

I love your site, it has been a great help on many occasions.

 

It is entirely possible our tests were flawed in one way or another.

Our resolution tests were far from scientific and based mainly on what we perceived on screen.

 

Maybe it does not come out clear enough in my original post but what really swung us round the most was the extra pixels we got with the square Proback chip in a 5x4 ratio (13 mp vs 9mp).

 

Because of the "squareness" of much of the specific things we are regularly doing this made a big difference to us. In the end we came to the conclusion that the difference in "resolution" we would get between 13 megapixels of really sharp pixels versus 9 megapixels of other also really sharp pixels made more difference than any separation in their sharpness either way.

 

Sorry if this is not clear enough in the original post.

 

As for lenses, unfortunately we did not have any of the macros lenses available to us at the time of the tests.

 

The tests on the Canon 1Ds were done using two cameras with different lenses attached. One was a standard 50mm and the other the newish "L" 24 - 70 zoom using it in the middle of its range. The Mamiya/Proback tests were done using their standard 80mm.

 

There was much less difference between the primes rather than the zoom as you would expect.

I suppose with the good name the Canon 24 - 70 zoom has, I probably expected more from it than I should have anyway.

 

The difference was not huge by any means between the primes but we did feel the end resolution result was better on the Proback.

 

We compared the unprocessed raws together and the processed (sharpened etc) files together.

We tried the Canon files through the Canon software and the Capture One software and Kodak files through the Adobe Camera Raw and Photodesk.

 

I would also accept that it is entirely possible I have attributed the difference we saw too much to the cameras and not enough to the lenses we used.

 

The resolution differences could have been small enough that the 100mm macro on the Canon could have tipped things the other way as far as sharpness was concerned.

We have not done many lens tests before and were really just telling people what we saw with our eyes. I suppose that is why we stressed that people needed to do their own tests to be confident in their own decision about quite an expensive purchase.

 

I haven't received my Mamiya 80mm macro yet. Ideally would have loved to do the testing with the 50mm macro or 100mm macro on the Canon and the 80mm macro on the Kodak 645. But it wasn't to be.

 

With the "bad blue" issue - now you've got me worried and I'll look into it a bit further...

 

To be honest, being in the prepress game we see a lot of VERY dodgy colours in files coming in and are pretty used to tweaking colours.

All of the files bar the Canon 1Ds through the Canon software were far better than most of the junk we have to put up with every day.

So maybe this made us a bit more lenient on all of the colours than others may have been. Some of the reds on the 1Ds we the only real SHOWSTOPPERS we saw and maybe that made us look more critically at the other 1Ds colour output after that.

 

For us and our circumstances the Proback was the way to go.

 

Also maybe there was a bit of the classic "big purchase" self justification creeping into the post as well for good measure favouring the Proback I have just shelled out for versus the 1Ds I now don't get to play with.

 

I have tried to be as objective as I can. As I said in the original post we think the 1Ds is an absolute bargain and really wanted to buy one.

I had visions of me going snap happy in the great outdoors of the weekend with a bunch of lenses, some of them white, with a big smile on my face. But our real world work needs said we were getting the Proback with a few less lenses and I needed to tone down my "great white hunter" dreams a notch.

 

By the way do you mind me adding your email and my reply to the end of the posts on Photo dot net to help clarify any indiscretion on my part?

 

regards,

 

Jaryd Fletcher

 

[jaryd_fletcher]

As for the blue in Adobe Camera RAW plugin - Uwe is indeed correct.

 

The colour failure in the blue is more significant than I had noticed. With most of the things we have been shooting and playing with it has not caused us a problem but upon going back to the Color Checker Charts it is definitely there.

 

Camera RAW so far has been really good. It is by far the most user friendly workflow we have tried. Hopefully when the Proback is properly supported rather than a bit of a bonus (or in PShop 8) this issue will be resolved.

 

In the last couple of days we have also had a bit of a play the mac Capture Studio software. It is definitely worth having a look at if you are Bilingual or speak Macintosh. It is significantly more advanced and fully functioned than Photodesk. It reminds us more of the software for the Leaf Valeo or to an extent Capture One.

 

It will take more time to get our head around how it could be used effectively and what works and what doesn't. You have much more control and can muck about more with levels, curves, set points etc and also adjust color sliders in the shadows, midtones and highlights or use a colour wheel.

 

We need to do more testing but we could use Capture Studio if the blues through Camera RAW became a problem.

[brooks short]

Jaryd,

 

I've been using a Kodak Pro Back Plus in my commercial advertising studio for over a year now.

 

Capture Studio running on the Mac is far and away the best software to use for adjusting color, curves, exposure contrast etc. I try to do all of my corrections to the raw files in Capture Studio before exporting tiffs to Photoshop. The only thing I usually do in Photoshop is cropping, sizing, retouching and sharpening the tiffs that Capture Studio creates.

 

I've been forced to use Photo Desk with my Kodak 14N and it is far inferior to Capture Studio for anything other than exposure compensation and neutral balancing. Photo Desk has no curve adjustment, color control (other than color temperature) or contrast control.

 

Rather than a raw file plug-in for PhotoShop, I'd rather see a version update to Capture Studio which would allow Capture Studio to read raw files from the 14N so that I could both shoot the 14N to Capture Studio and edit the dcs files.

[john_eskey]

Jaryd,

 

Great article! I wish there were more honest and objective reviews such as yours for confused buyers like me.

 

I am trying to decide if the correct move for me is to sell my newly purchased Contax 645 and go for one of the 35mm full frame digital cameras (canon 1Ds) or bite the bullet and purchase a Valeo 11 or similar back. The focal length issue is a problem for me although the Valeo 22 (soon to be released) back solves that, but is cost prohibitive.

 

Could the next round of 35mm cameras be worth waiting for?

 

I also shoot a lot of 4x5 and MF back I purchase could be used there as well. Hmmm.

 

Thanks,

John

[gary_ferguson1]

What a great post, thank you for taking the time to share your experiences.

[qdb]

Jaryd,

 

Thaqnks for sharing your experiences - all the more useful because this is no theoretical test; your needed to make the right choice for business reasons.

 

You mentioned Michael Reichmann's review. for those who have not seen it, this is the link:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml

 

Similar conclusions to your own regarding the 1Ds v Pro Back comparison.

 

I understand that Kodak will shortly be upgrading Photodesk to include more colour control. I use a 14n, and like Brooks, I get great results from it. Some love Photodesk, some hate it. I am somewhere in between. I certainly apppreciate th ERI feature.

[eos 10 fan]

Interesting read; Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts Jaryd.

 

I am wondering why the Nikon based Kodak DCS Pro 14n was not a candidate? Just curious.

 

--

[jaryd_fletcher]

The Kodak 14n did not get a look in for two reasons:

 

Our search really started from the bottom up. We initially started thinking that the 14n or 1Ds would romp in anything we wanted to do.

 

Then we saw the Phase H20 we realised that there was a possible next step and maybe it was worth investigation.

 

To us the 1Ds was the obvious winner of the 1Ds / 14n battle already so when we started investigating the backs we stuck to the 1Ds as our DSLR contenter.

 

The number of negative issues raised with the 14n really put us off. One or two things from one or two sources, similar to what we saw with the 1Ds and the Proback 645, would have been worth further investigation but with the amount of negative press it got and the fact that we had already put off buying a 1Ds in anticipation of the soon to be released "better and cheaper" 14n for a number of months... we focused on the 1Ds.

 

With the benifit of hindsight... For our particular needs, even with the larger amount of pixels on the 14n, the square format Proback is more versitile and still beats it for 5x4 resolution 13mp to 11mp anyway.

 

I'm not saying the Proback is the best choice for everybody, just for us and what we are doing with it. There are bound to be people that the 14n is the way to go.

 

For instance - We went for the Mamiya 645AFD rather than looking more closely at the Contax 645 because we had played with and liked the Mamiya and had an opportunity to buy the Mamiya 645AFD / Proback 645M kit we tested ex demo for $6k US off.

 

All the best and happy testing,

 

Jaryd

[fg]

Jaryd,

 

how about the Imacon Ixpress? I've tested it against the Kodak Proback and eventually

bought it for its great control of moirè, overall color rendition, single and multishot

capabilities and larger storage when untethered. Best purchase ever, for my clients

too.

[jaryd_fletcher]

Francesco,

 

On paper the specs of the Imacon Ixpress looked good and their scanners have a reasonable name.

 

The reason it was not in the running for us was we were not confident the local support was going to do the job here in Australia.

 

----- *** -----

 

By the way - Kodak have announced a Photodesk upgrade will be shipping in a month with significantly more features so we are currently waiting to have a play with that.

 

regards,

 

Jaryd

[hans_van_ommeren]

I am a dutch advertising photographer. We are working in the studio and on

location with H1 with backs Kodak H645 and Hasselbl555ELD with Proback

16milj. so using the new and the old Hasselblad lenses.

I have made tests with the 'old' lenses 40 mm (new type) and on the H1 the

new30mm japenese one. On a square meter output on glossy paper(1440

dpi) on the EPSON10000cf you cannot find any difference.

Produced in1. Kodak CaptureStudio and 2. in Psd 8.0cs in RAW.

 

Be happy with the new Hasselblad H1 lenses and the body and in my

opinion you can only speak when you are working with this new stuff.

The new wideangle lens has other mistakes but not the sharpness and

not any chromatic color failures. In my opinion the h1 is the most beautiful

camera on this moment. Output from the H1 versus 14 N is the H1 realy better

and of course not in the price. For any question: hans@hansvanommeren.nl

[jabash]

Excellent thread, but I was wondering if there might be some updates on the technology.