theodoros_fotometria

<p>I guess, it all comes down to consumers perception of "good camera"... IMO, there are three types of consumers, ...actually there much more than that which fill the gap from one category to another... but, let's talk about MO on where boundaries should be...<br>

1. The one that chooses a camera from reviews/web info...and tries to combine/translate all this info to his priorities (which often may change through experience)...<br>

2. The one that tries/tests himself the stuff he is after but he (mainly) is after image quality, thus he is putting the rest of body qualities, or specification (AF, frame rate, cards etc...) in second review...<br>

3. The one that wants to "communicate" with his hands more, feels the camera as extension of his hands and thus puts the body (and its specs) as first priority and then IQ is of second thought...<br>

I can only speak of my self as a pro and as a creative photographer... Out of the recent Nikon FF sensors, I prefer the D800E one for special occasions, where it can replace an MFDB, i.e. at low ISOs with superb glass on it and when having the time (or payed for) to use C1P1 as processing tool as well as in tethered capturing... For usual DSLR work (events, LL, street, etc...), I prefer the D4 sensor, then the D600 sensor, then the D800 ("plain") sensor... as for bodies, I first have to disagree with Shaun that the D600 and D800 bodies are similarly build (the D800 is much better), but I will agree that the D600 is adequately build and that <em>all MODERN Nikon bodies are crearly ahead of direct (in price) competition... the same would apply for the sensors too!! </em>My choice of body, would go for the D800 if price/size comes into the equation and with D4 in absolute terms (for what I do, clearly D4 is an overkill)... I do use both D800s ("plain" & "E") professionally, but I would prefer the D600 sensor in the "plain" than the one it has, ....or much, ....much better, I would go anyday for the D4 sensor in the "plain" and <em>would replace the D700 with another such camera... </em><br>

The D700 body, I find equal to the D800 and much better than D600... I keep it, because it is a back up camera now... if the D800s didn't exist and the choice had to be D700 or D600... <em>well, I really don't know... D600 has </em><em>considerably better IQ, while D700 (IMO) has considerably better body... </em>I guess the balance would (just) benefit the IQ... <em>but nothing to do with the MP count whatsoever! ...with "IQ" I mainly mean DR and less so color and LL performance!</em></p>

<p>Oh! ...how much do I miss people neglecting the pixel count when mentioning a sensor's quality? ...It's totally irrelevant, so why do they do it? ...D700 is only inferior to D600/D800/D4 sensor <em>...because the maker improved the sensor performance, </em>NOT BECAUSE MP count is less... It's still better than much of the (modern) competition, ....no? Theodoros,</p>

<p>That's about it Jake..., my advice is to look for an as large as possible sensor area S/H MFDB, with "fat enough" pixels to serve your lenses well and superb IQ, pay as less as possible and try your back to have an interchangeable adapter for other cameras... If you change the "black box" for a modern 6x4.5 one and keep your lenses as you should, you'll improve nothing of your images... SO LET IT DIE! - you can do that (change the body) later... (after it dies). I do believe that MF users are all about <em>modularity (that Hasselblad introduced (!!!)) and they are smart enough to </em><em>condemn any attempt of crooks to blackmail them! ...</em>And yes! ...the MF makers, they are "μαλ..." that! Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>That's for the H1/2/2F/4X bodies Jake... By the way, <em>they don't sell the H4X... you have to trade your H1/2/2F and pay something like 5000 to get one (so that they can keep you in the "system" and black mail you again and again)!</em> Also, if you get a S/H H1/2 and decide to use an "independent" MFDB on to it, you'll most likely "loose your brains" with all the bags, termites and digital ghosts that will hit you... P1 does make backs for the H1/2/2F/4X <em>after they won in courts against Hasselblad.... </em>Note that the prices for S/H H3/H3II/H4D/H5 are much less (if you consider the cost of the included MFDB) than getting an "independent" H1/H2... IN THE MEAN TIME P1/Leaf (one brant) are having a real party being the only MFDB supplier in the market... So, <em>either side... you are under blackmail and have to decide which blackmail you prefer! ...</em>Both are "killing" the trades they "buy" (they don't buy them, you pay for it - they get it for free) back, so that you don't have an alternative! In reality MFDB market has turned into an insane "monopoly market" of crooks that rip you off... <br>

All the "market" that you practically see on the web, (you know, "my IQ 180 this... my H4D50 that..." are in reality "image makers" of two sites that take advantage of the "photographers dream" and make lots of "thin air money" on your back... Pros (or artists) don't use stuff like that... (that's why you'll never see "great pictures" from 80mp back owners or H4D60 owners), they buy S/H equipment or D800E and shoot the hell out of it... Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr<br>

P.S. Do you know what's the difference between a P25+ and a P180+...? <em>About 15% of resolution.. nothing more nothing less!!! </em>All the (most important) rest is equal. Yet, some "gadget collectors" are paying many 10ths of thousands to buy 15% of resolution while an old 22mp back would provide more resolution than any MF film ever did! No wonder why old back and film users <em>do better photography!</em></p>

<p>But of course some one else will benefit from their ...naive decisions Dave! ...One that has no competition anymore (being left alone in the market), that will (like Dracula) shuck the blood off the owners that will decide to stay with the system! Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

 

<p>Andrew... what makes the "surprising number of people that demand D4 sensor in a D800 body" is the quality of the sensor.... Try it (don't just be based on web reviews to form an opinion) and you will find the reason behind it! Also..., D3S is worst IQ (not by much but it is there) than D700 up to 1600 ISO... Besides, the D700 AA filter is anything but "strong"... it is the more prone to moire FF camera (equal to all other 12mp Nikons) than all the rest after all... Theodoros.</p>

<p>Paul, said it all, .....NO? Very well said Paul, it's the decisions made by "golden boys" of crap that lead legend firms of man kind achievement to vanish... The difference of today and "<em>then", </em>is that "<em>then", </em><em>photographers where making cameras for other photographers... while today, "stupid golden boys" think that they can direct a photographer's mind in what he wants... </em>and them not being photographers (or being stupid camera users that have no relationship with photography as an art whatsoever), ...they lead (historical) makers to take "their own eyes off". Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>Nope Shun... there is no problem with any of my SD cards and they are very fast too. It's (like you correctly mention) that the slower card dominates the write speed... Now there is no SD card that is as fast as a CF card, ...is there? At least not as far as "write" speed is concerned (but you'll notice that even same "read" speed on paper, the SD card is more likely to be slower too)... OTOH, if you test on your D800 <em>your SD card alone... you'll find that the camera is faster and has more buffer space (although slower than the CF card alone) than having both cards in place! ...</em>and again, speed/buffer for pros has a different meaning than an enthusiast, especially if feeling the buffer can cause missing an (irreplaceable) shot in an event... Regards, Theodoros.</p>

<p>OK John, I'll take the word back... I must add however, that if one has in mind to "blackmail" the customer later (by repeatedly changing the camera technology or introducing lenses that don't work with past (same-mount) bodies) and takes advantage to the fact that the customer has invested a large amount of money to an extend that changing to another system is out of the question... there are many that don't find this kind of policy "ethical"... OTOH, P1 does the same thing (as Hasselblad) when it comes to part-exchange, (keeps the new product overpriced - doesn't discount the difference to the "new" customer - (in reality "new" customer pays the included value of part exchange discount without giving anything to part exchange) and then the part exchange disappears from the market... I think that there are plenty who don't find much ethics into this policy either... Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr <br>

P.S. ....Do you know what they offer me to part exchange my Imacon 528c for a 200MS? ....about double than what the 528c would ever get into the S/H market just to destroy it! And it's still more money than the (better) Sinar Exact... Now how do I convince Sinar that they have to add an adapter for Contax 645 too and keep my 528c as a back up to an "Exact"? (they seem to have misjudged the demand, while there is no multishot "open system" left to the market other than theirs), ...or perhaps it's best to keep fingers crossed and wait for (another) one that is fed up with Hasselblad and decides (instead of the "part-exchange") to sell me his MS back while he will change for an "open system" solution himself. </p>

<p>Cynthia... forget the second card slot if you upgrade to D800... it makes the camera much, much slower and (most important) it blocks the buffer! The D800 is still an one card camera for pro use.... The one advantage it will give you with respect to D700 is IQ improvement... that said, I don't consider resolution to the IQ improvement, it will offer you about 2/3rds of a stop better high iso noise, about a stop improvement in DR and better AF performance... in return, it will slow you down, it will require more effort and may force you to change some of your glass with more expensive one....<br>

The only other sensor that would offer you all the above advantages that D800 will offer you while none of the disadvantages is the D4 sensor... which, if Nikon was wise enough to put in D800 body, would provide a <em>real D700 replacement...</em> as things stand at the moment, (with the 16mp D800 being only a rumor) you either have to get an (obviously overkill for your needs) D4, or get the D800/E and try to work around the problems it will induce in your work if upgrading D700 is what you will decide... My opinion is before you decide to try (borrow - rent) a D4 anyway, even if you'll never consider the camera... it will give you an idea of how good (perfect) a 16mp D800 would be (the IQ is better than both the D600 & D800 plain) and perhaps it will direct your thoughts into consider saving for the D4... If you count the superb IQ, (which you may never consider upgrading again - even if it will improve further in the future) the long term survival and reliability and the productivity it will bring into your work, you may consider it worths the ..."pain"!<br>

What did I do? I bought two D800s (one E & one "plain") and kept the D700 too... (my glass was already good enough for the D800), but still, if Nikon will ever introduce the (highly demanded) 16mp D800, I'll only keep the "E" and replace both the D800 and the D700 with two of these... Regards, Theodoros.</p>

<p>My opinion is, that Hasselblad did the most unethical approach to the MF market by closing the H-system and then by stoping the CF backs and replace them with the CFV backs.... Clearly, they judged that the market would consider their products as superior and would choose them than those from competitors and then they could blackmail the customer, using trade in policies as media, for future upgrades... <br /> What they clearly did by discontinuing the CF backs (which had interchangeable camera fitting) was to make sure that the customer would only be able to keep his investment as long as he uses a V body... If a customer would have a CF back, he could any time buy a Mamiya 645 or Contax 645, also buy an adapter for his MFDB and another for his lenses and ...keep all the IQ that his lenses and sensor provided while at the same time having a much more modern and flexible "black box" which would provide him a secure path to the future and with more choices too!!! They even denied the opportunity of their own customer to buy an H4X and fit his MFDB back on it and use a V to H adapter for his lenses... Noooo.... as with the H system, "<em>you can't upgrade your back only or your body only..., neither you can use film and digital if you wish..., you can't even have a back-up body for your MFDB if you are a pro... You have to buy another camera"!</em><br /> My advise Jake, is to give them another six months... to put H4X into production (you can't demand from a maker to keep making a system (i.e. the V) that has not enough customers to support it), reintroduce the CF backs and the adapters, stop withdrawing from the market what they take as part exchange and face the competition in direct! Otherwise, buy yourself a used Mamiya AFD or Contax 645, keep your lenses and turn that into digital.. They (Hass) have no disadvantage as far as IQ is concerned... With their current policy, not only they damage the whole MF market, not only they discourage customers, not only they loose their customer image, ...but they loose money too!!! Practically they are taking their own eyes off! Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr <em><br /></em><br /> P.S. As far as future prices are concerned..., don't worry... they will drop to a surprising low level (!!!) ...especially the CFV backs! In fact the best offer a current owner will ever have, I suspect it will come from Hasselblad itself for a brand new H... and then the customer will fall into the trap forever, while his "part exchange" will never see the market again...</p>

<p>John, my opinion is that trying to work with light meter, with a camera that has inaccurate shutter, is like the man that tries music with a bad instrument which will "ruin" his ears... enough said! The possible advantage with the Kiev is that it can shoot with some great glass... My advise is stick to that (i.e. the great glass) and shoot by underexposing using a hand held meter, to find out (about) the value by how much each shutter speed is overexposing (it may differ from one shot to another) and then use that knowledge to develop a "light meter" mind, that can be very beneficial for all your photography.... Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>Lobalodo... the article you refer too is one in Lula ...no? I personally wouldn't trust any source that is promoting any specific maker and "makes up" articles that are trying to show this maker as more careful than the others... <br /> The image area, in all cameras (SLRs, or technical, or view, ...or whatever) is calibrated <em>with respect to the focusing screen </em>of the camera... All MFDBs with constant fit <em>makers </em><em>assume that the focusing screen of the camera that the MFDB has been originally designed to fit </em>are made accurately and they make their backs for that ideal position... if the image area is off, there is a good chance that the flaw is with the mirror/focusing screen assembly (since all makers primarily design their backs for a MF dslr)... When Imacon (later Hasselblad) started their CF backs and Sinar their older backs, they took into account that there maybe small variations within samples of the same camera maker and they where providing a shimming plate for the back, so that the user could achieve "near perfect" calibration with respect to the focusing screen for the exact camera that he would use the back on... (my imacon 528c or the Sinarback e-motion I used to own was like that) ...that, was the best method! The user would have both interchangeable fit on his back ...and accurate calibration for his own camera... Now, for cameras in which a sliding device replaces the screen (after focusing) with the sensor, the shimming can be either on the back or on the screen itself! ...if the screen has to be taken off the camera and replaced by the image area and focusing is not accurate, again you will have to calibrate the screen or the back itself (I suggest the screen)! If a rangefinder design is used... then its best to first insure that the rangefinder focusing distance to subject is accurate and well calibrated with respect to what the lens is focusing at... but inaccurate shimming of the sensor of a back <em>with respect to the fit that it was originally designed for... </em>this I have never heart off... Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>JMD... I think you may have misunderstood my comment... there was nothing political into it, "lemons" are common between modern Japanese lenses too... The thing is, that my (huge) experience with the P6 mount glass, led me on doing some research for the CZJ lenses and not to make "bold" statement... I had to change 3 180s f2.8 and test about 20 before I hit one that was superb! This doesn't mean that all the rest where crap, a couple of them where poor, some others good, some others very good and a couple real crap! The same happened with the 300... where I've hit the great one with the second attempt, after being based on a good sample and started testing looking for one to replace it... The 120 (IMO the star of the lot) is the easiest one to fool you, because even the poorer ones perform well! With the 80 ...don't ask! With the 65, you can consider yourself lucky if you hit a "non-lemon" one because they are the rarest of the lot and the 50 flektogon is a complex design that its assembly should require much better process than what was followed... In general, for the two flektogons, the 65 and the 50 its best to start looking from the previous series (the unicoated ones - 65 wasn't made as MC at all) between the lenses that carried the Q1 mark on them from factory... this would secure a good base. As I say in my previous post, one can hit masterpieces in all six lenses that would reveal todays lenses even if used with demanding MFDBs... Thank God, the lenses are widely available and at pretty much constant prices and demand, so if one puts some effort into it, he can have a superb series of lenses ...and when he upgrades (if he does) to a modern focal plane shutter 6X4.5 with MFDB ...he can keep the P6 instead of another film back for his 6x4.5... definitely the most wise decision to start with MF and to develop the system into Hi-end performance taking his time and developing his needs without ever severely hurting his pocket or having to change path... Other than the great lens designs, the biggest advantage with the P6 mount cameras is that one can make a plan and stick to it for decades to come... He can even start with a volna lens (around 20usd) if he insists to start with 150USD for both a (very good at that price) body and a lens! <br>

Myself... after having started the above way (but with an 80 biometar MC), I now use professionally a huge Contax 645 system with all the lenses but the 350, three bodies, all finders, screens and all accessories and a Fuji GX680 with 3 finders and 5 lenses with which I share my Imacon 528c MFDB (via an adapter for C645 mount MFDBs).... but I still own both my Arax 88cm and my Pentacon 6!!! <br>

Let alone the fact that one can take advantage from the wide image circle of the lenses and use them with shift/tilt adapters (or with constant adapters) on his DSLR and/or his ...Roundshot 220vr with shocking results!</p>

<p>Atanas, I believe if you are in a so tight budget and want good glass, you are only left with one choice... The Pentacon Six... You can buy a bright interchangeable screen for it, for about 15USD which features a split screen too... If you know how to test good glass, you can find some lenses for it made by Carl Zeiss Jena, that <em>are really superb... BUT, mind you... DON'T BUY THEM ON E-BAY... </em>the "comrades" where using inexperienced workers to assemble these superb designs and the quality control was simply non existed, so there is a good chance, to get a "lemon" if you choose a lens only out of its physical appearance, <em>you have to test what you are buying and if you do it right, the lenses can be excellent performers even if used <em>(via an inexpensive adapter) </em>on a Mamiya 645 or Contax 645 with a modern MFDB!!!</em> (I've seen lenses that are crap and then another lens that looks the same ...challenging the best of ultra expensive modern glass).<br /> Alternatively you can look for an (same pentacon six mount) Arax or Hartblei CM88, these have an ultra bright screen with split screen and the mount (which has a useful lock lever) is converted to accept <em>all East German CZJ lenses and even the really excellent W.German Shneiders of the (same mount) Exacta 66! </em>The CM88s are Hasselblad copies (the interchangeable viefinders even fit to the Hassy V) and you will have interchangeable backs and inserts, which are pretty good quality and inexpensive in their later version (called NT backs). Regards, Theodoros. http://www.fotometria.gr</p>

<p>What you miss is that because the lens is still.... and the image area is (almost) constant ...it doesn't mean that the same res will be captured per unit of image area, <em>because the image area moves in four directions!</em> (this means that the lens doesn't record the same information on the image area as it would at a single shot with an 80mp back... think about it! I am sorry, I won't reply back if you can't get it...<br>

If sensors where trying to catch up with lens resolution as you suggested earlier, then you would be able to see 4 times the resolution of a single shot 22mp sensor if using an 80mp back... which is far from truth... while with 16X <em>that's exactly what you get..., 4 times the resolution of a 22mp "fat pixel" MF sensor... </em>think about it.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>O.G.... I am not in a mood for an argument... and it's not helpful to Lobalodo's requirements, what I say, I have discussed with the makers of the (MS) backs themselves... so I suggest you think about it... Theodoros.</p>

<p>What you are saying is totally wrong O.G.... The 88mps of 22mp backs when shot in 16mp mode, <em>are exactly because each one of the shots made are of only 22mp (</em><em>i.e. require only 22mps) analysis of the sensor... the 88mp outcome is one of true 88mps but it's an (real) outcome of 16 shots (21 actually) that each one of them only records 22mps... </em>it's not interpolation either..., it's a mechanical process that:<br>

A. Records even in the space between pixels...<br>

B. Splits a pixel into four smaller ones that each one records different information... <em>IN TRUE COLOR (no Bayer pattern involved). </em><br>

This is all because a there is a mechanism in the camera (i.e. the MFDB) based on a piezzo electric sensor, which <em>moves each pixel by half its side length in four directions,</em> but still each shot is one of 22mps... and thus the requirement from the lens is to cope with that (the 22mp) analysis. Regards, Theodoros http://www.fotometria.gr</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>

<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>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>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>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>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 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>