Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Dinarius on January 12, 2007, 12:52:25 pm
-
I am seriously thinking of taking the plunge and buying a 39Mp back.
I have never owned Hasselblad cameras, so I have no bias towards their products. I have always used Mamiya RBs, but if I have to sell them, I will.
Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back, when the Hasselblad back will give me the same straight 39Mp capture, in addition to Hasselblad/Imacon's patented multishot capture?
Most of my work is fine art documentation for catalogue. Currently, 4x5 tranny is my staple. I have also looked at the BetterLight backs and, while they are much cheaper, they do seem a tad unwieldly and slow.
Research seems to indicate that high end medium format backs are now replacing 4x5 in the museum/gallery world. That's good enough for me.
Any suggestions?
Thanks.
D.
-
Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cant see one.
Historically phase were first to the scene with thier untehered 22mp back - creating a rush down that road
So now many people are phase rigged - so there is lots of rental and lots of techs who know the phase score - that could be a reason
Phase may still be ahead with capture rates and ISO
I dont have experience of the software or workflow of either - but it is worth checking out the diffeerences
FYI Sinar also make a tethered multishot back Evolution which could be worth checking out and tethered Eyelike 22 (second hand) still makes amazing files
Obviously the choice of camera system will affect your choice - for example phase seem unclear on the HY6 camera system and also on the H3 system and who knows how long H2s will be araound - maybe a long time - but hassy arent clear on this point either
Sinar/Eyelike backs are made differently with adapters that mean thay will work on most MF systems with the correct adapter - the adpters are not easy to change though and not suited for change in the field - but at leat a back doesnt have to go back to the factory for XX months
Good Luck
SMM
-
I also don't believe you'll find any appreciable quality advantages between the two products.
Slightly different bells and whistle and workflows with each but that you won't know untill
you see,firsthand,what fits best with your taste.
The multishot option might offer you some advantage,though,since you say your primary
focus would be fine art reproduction.
I have no firsthand experience,but have read fairly regularly,in some public and private
forums that color fidelity with respect to reproducing accurate color in artwork,for example,
is facilitated by the multishot option.
These claims have been made by photographers with a similar specialty to yours and were
relating experiences when comparing single and 4 shot captures taken with the same
Imacon/Hasselblad back. These comparisons were not being made between different brands.
Mark
-
xx
-
I was truly amazed on how much difference there were between two backs (different 39mp brands) with the same chip. The test (cityscape) was done with the same camera Hasselblad and the same lens. I asked the reps (who knows the software) to develop the raw files and give me the best result they could.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Torben, Do I understand correctly that the results were better with H3D-39, hence the purchase or was it because of 28mm lens, you bought H3D-39??
-
I think nearly everyone agrees that Phase set the gold standard for their software - which doesn't mean it cant be improved, but it really works and all others fail to measure up in quality of results or usability.
that is not to be overlooked. it's a serious consideration for working pros.
the new + series backs look like they will answer a lot of the 'cons' against phase - good screen, live focus, and still lower noise levels at every speed.
the Hasselblad is a great product though, and its a tidy package.
a P45 should cost you about $27,000 US give or take a bit.
so a H2D + P45 is about the same as an H3D.
I would never use the 28mm, so its not a factor either way.
alternatively you could wait for the MF Canon that is rumored to be on the way later this year. and wait.
-
xx
-
Hi Dinarius:
I highly recommend you go to a dealer that specializes in high-end digital photography and try the systems: Hassy/Imacon, Phase One and Better Light.
Picking the camera, H-system, V-system, Mamiya would be a personal choice depending on what lenses you need/like. More than likely, you would create custom profiles for whatever camera/back system you're using in order to color match for catalogs anyways.
I own and use a P45 with Hasselblad V for fine art landscape. I came from 4x5 and still use it--I'm in the learning and transition phase. One of my photographer comrades has been using the P45 with the Mamiya 645 system since it came out. The P-backs are great for untethered shooting. They have a small LCD display for checking the histogram and composition that is great for backcountry shooting. The workflow software (Capture One) is fabulous and works not only with digital backs, but DSLRs too.
As you’re aware, the Better Light back is like a Quickload holder and shoots tethered. However, tethered doesn't work well for me in the backcountry.
Moving to Medium Format (standard camera systems) you will LOSE the control you have with the 4x5. No tilts, shifts and swings or “built-in macro”. The reason I am in the transition phase is that for many of my landscapes, I need lots of depth of field. Having f/45 w/minimal diffraction and tilt is important. I also use front rise a lot to prevent convergence. I’m still seeing how the P45 works with the 38mm Biogon and 50mm Distagon compared to my LF lenses on Velvia 100.
I would call Mike Collete at Better Light and walk him through what you're trying to do. He will give you a good idea of what the scanning times, etc. will be. In addition, he can give the advantages of a scanning back over a “one shot”.
Make sure you get the right product for your shooting and business. You’ll be a lot happier. Hope this helps.
All the best,
Rich
NGOphotographer
-
I've been using an Imacon 384C on a Mamiya 645 AFD for fine art reproduction. The 384C is a 4-Shot back. I'd recommend a 4-shot over a single shot back any day of the week. Color is more accurate and you'll never have to deal with moire. My only complaint about the 384C is that it is a square chip. I'd much rather have a rectangle chip for fine art repro. The Sinar 54H is a good 22MP 4-shot option, as is the Imacon 528C 4-shot 22MP chip. I still think that a 4-shot 22 MP chip is better for fine art reproduction than a 39 MP single shot.
I am amazed by the quality -- sharpness (center and corners), color, contrast, lack of pin cussion or barrel distortion, of the Mamiya 645 80MM macro and the 120MM Macro.
As far as fine art repro goes, excellent strobe lights, cross polarization, and a decent copy stand are crucial too.
I'd much rather use a medium format DB than a 4" X 5" and a Better Light back. The Better Light backs are very accurate and produce exquisite files, but to really make it work, you need highly stable continuous light sources. Using a scanning back is more time and labor intensive too.
-
After buying an Aptus 75 and dealing with the frustration of issue after issue month after month I finally returned the back to Leaf for a full refund. I then tested Phase and Hasselblad. I opted for the H3D for a number of reasons and I am 100% pleased with my decision.
The H3D is a solid, stable platform. After nearly 3,000 exposures I have yet to suffer a singe error message, centerline, or software lockup. I also use the H3D on my Alpa as SWA with 24, 35 and 47mm lenses.
The lens distortion correction is simply amazing and worth the price of admission. Flexcolor is stable, full featured and get's better with every release.
Not many users on the forums yet, but as people see the files the H3D produce and the new Flexcolor slated to be released in March or April I am sure this will change. I am told that Hasselblad is to release ISO 800 & 1600, as well as longer exposure times.
-
I have settled on the Phase P45 and Contax 645 and love it. It was a bit rocky in the beginning; I found the canned Phase input profiles were not at all good for skin tones. If you go the Phase route, expect that you should learn the built-in Color Editor inside of Phase One, where you can generate your own custom ICC input profiles, for your own taste and style. Once I reached that point, it was a major improvement overall. Now, I am loving the P45; the resolution and color continues to amaze me, and the workflow with CaptureOne is very nice, for volume work. Yes, the LCD is still bad, but I've learned to chill out about it; that is still its Achilles Heel, if working with strobe, when shooting untethered. But when you open the files, all that is forgotten; it feels like you're looking at 4x5 Ektachrome. I shoot IIQSmall, to keep the file sizes down; no compromise in quality if you shoot at low ASAs.
Whatever you choose, I strongly suggest to test all the backs, to make sure you find the one that fits your own style of shooting. But make sure you shoot the test in volume, and come home and actually process out the test, just like it was a job. It's easy to forget about the software portion; that's where CaptureOne shines.
-
I am seriously thinking of taking the plunge and buying a 39Mp back.
I have never owned Hasselblad cameras, so I have no bias towards their products. I have always used Mamiya RBs, but if I have to sell them, I will.
Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back, when the Hasselblad back will give me the same straight 39Mp capture, in addition to Hasselblad/Imacon's patented multishot capture?
Most of my work is fine art documentation for catalogue. Currently, 4x5 tranny is my staple. I have also looked at the BetterLight backs and, while they are much cheaper, they do seem a tad unwieldly and slow.
Research seems to indicate that high end medium format backs are now replacing 4x5 in the museum/gallery world. That's good enough for me.
Any suggestions?
Thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius:
Your post seems to indicate that you'll be in a studio capturing paintings, etc. If this is the case, a multi-shot back will deliver the best results in terms of color and detail. As you mentioned, a scanning back is tempting, but the workflow and technology pose some challenges.
Cost can be a factor as well - single shot captures certainly are in play in some archival environments. But a multi-shot back will exceed the quality of a single shot back - that is without question. But it will generally cost as much or more.
You also mentioned "for catalogue". If the output size is not great, the advantages of multi-shot are reduced. To make life easier, you'll probably also want to look into investing in a new camera system, one that allows for capture and control from a computer, if desired.
As always, you'll want to test the systems out before making a choice. Another piece of advice: When testing equipment, listen to what the representative is saying that is positive about their product. Verify any of this that is critical to your work. And also listen to anything the representative says that is negative about their competition. Confirm this also.
It's a very competitive playing field out there right now, and some sale reps have a habit of tossing out misleading innuendo about their competitors products. Don't accept it as fact - check any negative claims with the actual product's manufacturer, as well as some of that product's users - and I emphasize USERS, not people who have tried it out or rented occasionally. Once you buy it, YOU have to live with it, not them.
Good luck.
Steve Hendrix
-
I'm primary doing museum photography, and went for a P25 with a V-Mount (flexbody).
The quality is somewhere between 6x9cm and 4x5inch, I think.
I decided against a multishot or Scanback because i often have to visit private collectors and I am on location. I only work with Flashheads, no hot-light.
I tested the P45 too, the results were great, I really mean great. It was a money decision to go for the P25. The file is easier to handle too and perfect for coffee table books size.
A collegue works with an older Sinarback 54 and 4 shot.(16 shot is a PITA).Results are great too.
I never had Moiré problems with flat paintings (oil, aquarelle, drawings, old and new).
tom-
-
I am seriously thinking of taking the plunge and buying a 39Mp back.
I have never owned Hasselblad cameras, so I have no bias towards their products. I have always used Mamiya RBs, but if I have to sell them, I will.
Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back, when the Hasselblad back will give me the same straight 39Mp capture, in addition to Hasselblad/Imacon's patented multishot capture?
Most of my work is fine art documentation for catalogue. Currently, 4x5 tranny is my staple. I have also looked at the BetterLight backs and, while they are much cheaper, they do seem a tad unwieldly and slow.
Research seems to indicate that high end medium format backs are now replacing 4x5 in the museum/gallery world. That's good enough for me.
Any suggestions?
Thanks.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius,
All the advice given here is dead on, I'd just like to throw my ¢2 worth in.
You mention that your staple is 4X5 tranny so I assume you use a view camera not only for the size but also for the movements. If I'm wrong and you use the RB only that's fine as well.
Going into a museum at 7am to get a few frames before the galleries open, use flash heads because the glass roof doesn't really bring any daylight in at that time, shooting a 10' X 10' old masters with a 3' tripod etc.
You need to be able to get the framing/ composition right (Ground glass or Live View), focusing, DOF and exposure.
So you either use a laptop or a reliable LCD that allows 100% zoom.
Colour reproduction is a lot more critical in this environment then with shooting people. You need a package that offers a good starting point and a facility to create your own profiles, with the available lighting to work with the materials and pigments used.
The way to go forward, as a first step, is to call the dealers in your area and get their reps to meet you outside the museum at 06:45 on a rainy day, with their backs and whatever adapters needed for your RB camera/ lenses (for the RB ask for a rotating adapter), get in, shoot and make the best tiff they can for you to open in Photoshop in a size of your choice.
They should also then leave you the raw files and a copy of their software and if they are serious, they should also spend the time with you to go through the software with any tips and tricks that they mey have.
If any issues occure (diffraction at f32, moire, chromatic aberration, blotchy shadows, missfiring, smearing, blooming...) they should be able to advise on possible solutions/ alternatives and also explain the cause of the problem.
This first step will provide an idea on which system is capable of produces the best result in this environment.
I also suggest that you try talking to photographers who work in museums about the systems they choose. These people invest a lot of time and effort in testing and evaluating these system before purchasing.
They also have vast experience in working in a closed workflow; from capture to print and work closely with the in-house repro department.
Another option is to talk to auction houses. At least the two big ones produce large volumes of catalogue size prints in demanding conditions in terms of time-frames, colour accuracy etc.
The dealers/ reps should be able to provide these references.
If at all possible, try to borrow/ rent a system for a few days to get a more personal "feeling" about the handling, the software and the results. The dealers should have this facility and should offer to take some of the rental money off in case you buy their system.
I hope this helps and good luck with your process. I think you will be amazed at how easily you will forget film once you've settled into the digital domain.
Yair
[span style=\'font-size:7pt;line-height:100%\']Yair Shahar | Regional Manager | Leaf EMEA |
mob: +44 77 8992 8199 | yair.shahar@kodak.com | www.leaf-photography.com
Leaf, part of Kodak's Graphic Communications Group
[/span]
-
Phew! Really lots of excellent food for thought. Many, many thanks.
A few observations.........
1. I hadn't really considered the digital Sinar route (I use an old P. Has paid for itself a thousand times over.) If they make an adaptor that would allow me to use their back on my Mamiyas, that would be a strong plus in their favour, in addition to the multishot facility. But, can it be used untethered when on a medium format camera? i.e. Does it have a screen?
2. Mark, yes I too have heard mention of better colour in relation to multishot. I am a slave to my Gretag CC and find that when I correct it so that the bottom two rows are exactly as they should be (via ACR, Curves and Hue/Sat) the painting/sculpture looks pretty much bang on too. I usually only have problems with contrast. i.e. lack of.
3. narikin,
"I think nearly everyone agrees that Phase set the gold standard for their software - which doesn't mean it cant be improved, but it really works and all others fail to measure up in quality of results or usability.
that is not to be overlooked. it's a serious consideration for working pros."
I must admit I have never used C1 Pro, only LE. I use ACR's nine point colour sampler facility religiously when correcting my Gretag CC, in combination with the Adjust and Calibrate tabs, so I'm stuck with it. Perhaps C1 Pro has similar features, but I like ACR.
4. Rich, as it happens there are no BetterLight agents in my part of the world. Based on what I've read, I can't imagine the speed of workflow being helpful. I am frequently expected to make a lot of captures in a day and I don't think that the BetterLight could keep up! Seriously, I imagine they are most suited for the in-house pro rather than the freelancer, if that makes sense.
5. Bob, your post pretty much sums up my entire attitude to this connundrum! Everything you write is what I have already been lead to believe (your comment about preferring 4-shot 22Mp to 39Mp single shot prompted one fellow pro to suggest that I try and pick up a second hand Imacon 22Mp) or what I was already tending towards myself. The 'belt and braces' approach of having the option of multishot, while also having the same single capture as others are offering is very, very appealing. It's very much a case of me thinking, 'What are the reasons for NOT choosing multishot?'
6. Tom, my understanding is that the Imacon multishot technology is patented. How come Sinar offer a similar product? Is it licensed to them?
7. Yair, if I decide to go multishot, I'll have to replace the RB since it doesn't work with it. At least not with the Imacon offering. On the point of speaking to others in the trade. Yes, the one I spoke to has gone the Hassie/Imacon route - 39Mp MS.
Thanks to all
One other question.........what's the HY6?
Many thanks.
ps....Would have replied to you all much earlier, but I couldn't load this site. Kept timing out. Annoying! ;-)
-
to1. no, the sinar 54h cant be used untethered. it has no screen and no own energy supply. it is
powered by the firewire connection. i think there are mamiya adapters. i use it with the
contax645 , which works fine. use contax and hasselblad lnses on it.
on disadvantage has the contax for multishot use,- it can not freeze its mirror in the up position,- after every shot it slaps back again. i taped the mirror up, which works.
also it works fine if you damp the mirror little bit more where it hits the body. i use 4 layers of fabric- matte isolation tape. it makes the mirror slap smooth enough to use it in 16 shot mode without any vibration !! ,- ( also you gain one stop if you use the contax handheld...).
i posted some days ago comparision crops from a sinar 16shot back to 33mp e75 back.
i wouldnt say 16shot is a PITA as stated above, although you have to work some hours or days with it to become familiar to its shortcomings.... .
but if you are able to get it the quality is only comparable with hiend scanbacks.
you also can use this back ( sinar 54h ) in single shot mode with 22mp resolution.
if i would do more studio or reproduction work for sure would go that multishot way.
at the moment i am still very busy with a book publication of Quilts for a known german museum.
here i use this sinar 54h back in 16 shot mode. it allows perfectly sharp prints up to 100x100cm and acceptable and still impressive prints up to the original ( maximum ) size of the Quilts around 220x220 cm. you can see at this size every detail of the fabrics without any of the typical upsize degradations for the complete lack of bayer interpolation artefacts.
-
I think a few Sinar backs do multishot, there's a new one too, but don't know if it has a screen.
Multishot works best with a view camera, or a camera where you can lock the mirror.
I still have a RB, but never bought the adaptor and so, nver tried with my back. Rumors said that the lenses wouldn't give their best with a digital back. Maybe nobody ever tried.
I wasn't very sure if a MF camera could be used for my kind a work. Working with a non geared view camera for reproductions was so easy (except for recocking these old lenses), with a back i thing a geared view camera (with digital lenses) is the way to go if you work in your studio. When i go to collectors, galleries a MF camera works just fine.
Profiles, well, i didn't create any. With cross polarising, the only problem that occurs, is that you loose early detail in the blacks than in the high tones. With C+ software i shoot linear, and work with this file. Not very professionnel maybe but i rarely do more than 30 paintings a day.
Problems were the same with film these last year when it became more and more difficult to find a neutral film.
The best thing is really to test all the backs that are available in your area.
tom
-
Ninety nine per cent of what I do is location since the work I shoot is too fragile/valuable/awkward to bring to me.
Therefore, shooting tethered, which I have never done, fills me with dread. While I would like to use my Sinar for digital, particularly given the ease with which it could be used for multishot, I have been lead to believe that Hasselblad have come up with a successful solution to this problem with their H(?) System.
That said, even if I choose a system which could be used on both my Sinar and medium format (Mamiya RB or AN Other), it would have to have a screen. I am a slave to the histogram! ;-) So, I guess that reduces my choice.
D.
ps...slightly off topic......Tom, I rarely use polarizing filters for the reasons you describe. Dark areas can fade to black very easily. The only reason for using them, IMHO, is to help with lighting oil paintings with heavy finishing varnish - to avoid flare. But, I usually find that this problem can be circumvented by rearranging the lighting.
-
That said, even if I choose a system which could be used on both my Sinar and medium format (Mamiya RB or AN Other), it would have to have a screen. I am a slave to the histogram! ;-) So, I guess that reduces my choice.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you insist on using the back's screen on location, this rules out the muti-shot option.
You may have not been made aware of that, but this option, on all these backs, is only available in tethered mode.
BTW the original patent for multi-shot bayer patterned chips belongs to Eyelike, which of course made it available to Sinar and licenced to Imacon.
Yair
-
If you insist on using the back's screen on location, this rules out the muti-shot option.
You may have not been made aware of that, but this option, on all these backs, is only available in tethered mode.
BTW the original patent for multi-shot bayer patterned chips belongs to Eyelike, which of course made it available to Sinar and licenced to Imacon.
Yair, many thanks for pointing that out. No, I hadn't been made aware of it. So, I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet on that score.
Nevertheless, for my other work, I would like the option of a screen when I'm not shooting multishot, assuming I go the multishot route, which is looking more likely now! ;-)
So, what are my choices for multishot systems with screens apart from Hasselblad/Imacon?
One other point......mention has been made of the next generation of chips being fully 6x6cm. Given that it only involves making an existing technology bigger, the cynic in me says that this is nothing short of including built in obsolescence in the manufacturer's existing offerings. It reminds me of a conversation I had with an Intel employee some years ago. He said that they had the capability at that time to offer twice the processing speed then available. Given that my 25 year old Sinar P is all I need, I suspect that the manufacturers realize that a digital camera with a 6x6 chip (or even better a 6 x 8 chip) would fulfil the same role. Cynic? Moi? Never! ;-)
D.
-
i dont believe at all that the next back generation will be 6x6, but i really dont want to start another (useless) topic about this speculations...
if you want a smart little setup go for a 12" pb mac. they are very nice little laptops for tethered shooting if the setup should be little.
if the p3 is too big the contax 645 is a fine working system with electronic bus for backs ( phase, leaf and sinar are using it, dont know bout imacon ). it works fine with multishot, after making the litle mirror modification i described above.
-
Yair, many thanks for pointing that out. No, I hadn't been made aware of it. So, I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet on that score.
Nevertheless, for my other work, I would like the option of a screen when I'm not shooting multishot, assuming I go the multishot route, which is looking more likely now! ;-)
So, what are my choices for multishot systems with screens apart from Hasselblad/Imacon?
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius:
There are no other digital backs besides the Hasselblad MS that capture in multi-shot and also have a screen. However, as Yair points out, even the Hasselblad MS backs with a screen wouldn't allow you to capture multi-shot without being tethered, as the software has to automate the release(s).
So, capturing multi-shot without a computer or laptop is out. And if that's a deal breaker, then your evaluation becomes more complex, because then you are really comparing all the models in single shot, and the results are very similar. Which means you have to shoot with the different systems, evaluate the software and workflow, camera integration, compare pricing, support, etc.
All that fun stuff!
Steve Hendrix
-
Dinarius:
There are no other digital backs besides the Hasselblad MS that capture in multi-shot and also have a screen.
Steve,
Many thanks.
Starting to look seriously like the Hassie in that case.
D.
-
assuming I go the multishot route, which is looking more likely now! ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See if you can't get hold of some multi-shot/single shot comparisons, the difference is very apparent.
Lighting needs to be fairly consistent across the 4 frames of a multi-shot (say within 5-10%) or you will get artifacts.
If you are shooting a scene that has movement in it (say trees through a window) be sure to shoot a single shot as well for comping later.
The H3d is a good platform for multi-shot as the mirror will lock up and stay up for the 4 (or 16) shots. The Back from an H3D will also go on a view camera. (Note if you want multi-shot on a view cam you will need an electronic shutter ala Rollei or Schneider).
Hope that helps
Nick-T
-
One stupid question.
I was under the impression that the Hassy 28 mm could only be used with the standard one shot back of the H3D.
The current thread leads me to think that the Imacon multi-shot backs could also be used instead of the standard one shot back with the H3D.
Is this correct?
Regards,
Bernard
-
One stupid question.
I was under the impression that the Hassy 28 mm could only be used with the standard one shot back of the H3D.
The current thread leads me to think that the Imacon multi-shot backs could also be used instead of the standard one shot back with the H3D.
Is this correct?
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard:
I'm not clear on your question - can you re-phrase that? The first part is true - 28mm only on H3D.
Steve Hendrix
-
Bernard:
I'm not clear on your question - can you re-phrase that? The first part is true - 28mm only on H3D.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tethered mult-shot can be done with the H3D back, right? I think Bernard was under the impression that a different back would be required for multi-shot.
-
Tethered mult-shot can be done with the H3D back, right? I think Bernard was under the impression that a different back would be required for multi-shot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Robin and Steve,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I was indeed under the impression that the H3D-39 back couldn't do multi-shot.
This un-substantiated belief (I confess I didn't check the Hassy site) came from the fact that there were different version of the Imacon/Hassy back in the H2D days, but - if I am correct - the H2D "built-in" back couldn't do multi-shot. Back then, the multi-shot back appeared to be significantly more expensive than the other ones.
If the H3D back can do multi-shot thethered, that clearly makes the H3D an even more attractive solution, with one more differentiator compared to the P45 IMHO.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Robin and Steve,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I was indeed under the impression that the H3D-39 back couldn't do multi-shot.
This un-substantiated belief (I confess I didn't check the Hassy site) came from the fact that there were different version of the Imacon/Hassy back in the H2D days, but - if I am correct - the H2D "built-in" back couldn't do multi-shot. Back then, the multi-shot back appeared to be significantly more expensive than the other ones.
If the H3D back can do multi-shot thethered, that clearly makes the H3D an even more attractive solution, with one more differentiator compared to the P45 IMHO.
Regards,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=95764\")
According to the Hasselblad website the technical spec's on the H3D say its a single shot back.
[a href=\"http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx]http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx[/url]
-
So Multishot would appear to be required by the OP as most suitable for art repro and on occasion non tethered - that would mean the only solution is the Blad which appears from hassy site to have adapters available for all the owners current kit
One thought
The OP uses a sinar F1
To create good files they could consider using double stitching images with a sinar, sliding back and a single shot digi-back to create nice files being chip size times 2, no multishot - still moiree but on a larger file than a straight P45
THis method would likely lower (but not nullify) out the need for very accurate lighting systems and expensive electronic shutters (and shots ruined by floor wobble etc)
Using a sinar F and a sliding back IMO is easy if not using a wide angle lens
This solution may mean less re-kitting as non digital lenses are good in this scenario and their 'softness' might actually help with moiree
In terms of tethering - musems and galleries would seem to be the ideal envrionment
Dry - flat floors - spacious
I dont think the OP should worry about tethered if they are used to the faf of shooting 54
Surely it revolves around the price difference betweent a single shot back to a multi shot one
I still think the OP shoud consider a S/h multishot Eyelike or sinarback 22mp - great files (p45 beating) for a low price - the downsides - multishot and tethered
Personally I would get a Sinar Emotion 75, on a mamiya mount and a linhof sliding back adapter for the sinar and create the money shots using two stitched exposures with the sinar and and the mamiya in hurried situations
no new lenses - no electronic shutter - no new lighting - no new mF system - future proof as camera system can be changed
SMM
-
Robin and Steve,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I was indeed under the impression that the H3D-39 back couldn't do multi-shot.
This un-substantiated belief (I confess I didn't check the Hassy site) came from the fact that there were different version of the Imacon/Hassy back in the H2D days, but - if I am correct - the H2D "built-in" back couldn't do multi-shot. Back then, the multi-shot back appeared to be significantly more expensive than the other ones.
If the H3D back can do multi-shot thethered, that clearly makes the H3D an even more attractive solution, with one more differentiator compared to the P45 IMHO.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard:
None of the Hasselblad DSLR's have ever done multi-shot, meaning the H1D, H2D, or H3D. The solution for multi-shot with Hasselblad is currently the CF-22MS and CF-39MS digital backs, which are platform independent digital backs that will go on just about any camera you want.
Steve Hendrix
-
Prompted by Sam's suggestions above, I've been taking a long look at the Sinar site.
http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-132...s-rand-968.html (http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1321-23-1408-urlvars-rand-968.html)
Click on 'Digital Backs' in the menu on the left.
Question......
They tout the eVolution 75H as the successor to the Sinarback 54 H. However, unless I'm reading the technical details incorrectly, the 75H has the 1 shot and 4 shot multishot modes, but it does not have the 16 shot mode of the 54 H. If I am correct, why is this?
While accepting that neither back has a screen, I note from the French distributors website - http://www.semelec.fr/photo/site.php?rubr=30 (http://www.semelec.fr/photo/site.php?rubr=30) - that the 54H is on offer for €17500. Considering that I already have the cameras, at less than half what a switch to Hasselblad would cost me, that's seems very good indeed. (It would cost far more if I was to buy Hasselblad lenses to match my Mamiya lenses, lens for lens.) Yes, I know it's not 39Mp and it doesn't have a screen, but...............! ;-)
My two concerns are that my RB might not permit multishot mode and there is no mention of an adaptor plate for my Sinar P on the website, only the P2 and P3. I have emailed the UK distributors for clarification.
All in all, very interesting.
D.
-
Prompted by Sam's suggestions above, I've been taking a long look at the Sinar site.
http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-132...s-rand-968.html (http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1321-23-1408-urlvars-rand-968.html)
Click on 'Digital Backs' in the menu on the left.
Question......
They tout the eVolution 75H as the successor to the Sinarback 54 H. However, unless I'm reading the technical details incorrectly, the 75H has the 1 shot and 4 shot multishot modes, but it does not have the 16 shot mode of the 54 H. If I am correct, why is this?
While accepting that neither back has a screen, I note from the French distributors website - http://www.semelec.fr/photo/site.php?rubr=30 (http://www.semelec.fr/photo/site.php?rubr=30) - that the 54H is on offer for €17500. Considering that I already have the cameras, at less than half what a switch to Hasselblad would cost me, that's seems very good indeed. (It would cost far more if I was to buy Hasselblad lenses to match my Mamiya lenses, lens for lens.) Yes, I know it's not 39Mp and it doesn't have a screen, but...............! ;-)
My two concerns are that my RB might not permit multishot mode and there is no mention of an adaptor plate for my Sinar P on the website, only the P2 and P3. I have emailed the UK distributors for clarification.
All in all, very interesting.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius:
The 75H will only do 1 shot/4 shot. Same with the Hasselblad CF-39MS (the CF-22MS will do 16 shot). Several factors for this -
Price: More cost to enable 16 shot mode. And with 200MB 16 bit files, they probably decided the demand wouldn't justify the extra expense for most end users.
Quality: 16 shot mode captures half or quarter pixels (not sure which, I've never gotten a confirmed answer), which are smaller than the one whole pixel that the 1 shot/4 shots capture. With the smaller pitch of the new sensors (7.2 with the Dalsa 33MP), getting optimal quality out of the 16 shot would likely be a challenge.
That extra screen and CF card slot are extras you're paying for on the Hasselblad that you may not need. As far as quality goes - both Sinar and Hasselblad multi-shots are phenominal, so if you don't need the extras, save the cash.
You can adapt Sinarbacks to a Sinar P - either with a Sinar sliding back or a KaptureGroup sliding back. Both have ground glass. The KaptureGroup sliding back is half the price, although doesn't quite have the build quality of the Sinar. You can also mount the back to your P with a flat plate and use Live Video, but you'll need a hardware piece (about $2,400) to really get usable video.
No winder on an RB, so that rules out multi-shot. On that note, on your Sinar P, you would need lenses with electronic shutters (Schneider, Rollei, or Sinar). That will add some cost. You might consider picking up a Mamiya 645AFD, for multi-shot use, or something similar, if costs are a factor.
Steve Hendrix
-
" the 75H has the 1 shot and 4 shot multishot modes, but it does not have the 16 shot mode of the 54 H."
I think 16 shot is a hangover from native 6MP chips where a file of 16*6*3 228MB was required
Does any one need a 16*33*3 file 1528MP is not really needed and hard to compute
16 shot is very fiddly
(this is conjecture an I think the umbers are wrong but you get the idea)
"Considering that I already have the cameras,"
Be aware that
-you can use almost any back on a sinar camera (exept h2d,h3d??)- not just sinar backs
-anything that will go on a P2 will go ony any F or P camera
I have little knowledge if the RB system - it is not much listed for compatabliiity with backs while the RZ is - are the lenses the same - could you swap?
==========
You are still not seeming to register that I would consider using a sliding back adapter and a single shot back with the sinar
You can use this to make two exposures that are then stitched together (phase/C1 automates this)
You will still have moire issues (that are only relvant for clothand gratings) but a massive file and you dont need to get electronic shutters for your sinar
With this single shot back you would need to probably get a new MF system but a contax or Mamiya 645afd is pretty chaep (or even 645 pro TL with sinar)
You can use a hassy back on the v system too..
http://www.hasselblad.com/media/890fe86e-d...cbb12-CF_UK.pdf (http://www.hasselblad.com/media/890fe86e-d85c-4295-9aa4-9705acfcbb12-CF_UK.pdf)
WHich is much cheaper than an H system
Ultimately the Hassy CF-MS seems generally ahead of the game becuase it is both multishot and can be untethered for single shot
THe reason I like Sinar backs is that you can change system with thier range of adapters in a way that is not possible with phase or leaf which have to go back the factory
It is all down to money and convienece in the end you must find your own position on this scale
SMM
-
OK I can't let it go without mentioning Leaf as a (very) viable option:-)
Starting with the RB: Leaf makes a (relatively) cheap and chearful RB interface that allows you to rotate the back on the camera. The RB, being mechanical allows you to use Live Video as well and the Leaf Live Video is the best of them all without having to use an external LCD shutter.
If you buy the back in a V-mount for the RB and later on, once the AFi is available, decide to change camera system, you will be entitled for a free exchange with a brand new back for the AFi. You also get a discount on the RB adapter.
If you buy it in AFD mount you can then use it also on a cheap AFD if you decide to go that route.
Over to the view camera, again Leaf makes a cheap and chearful Graflok plate that goes directly onto your Sinar and lets you use Live Video.
If the ground glass and stitching is your choice, like Sam has suggested, pick a KG/ Cambo/ Linhof/ Plaubel/ Mergin-X sliding back and you're off.
In a gallery environment (indoors) for shooting untethered, the Aptus's LCD is by far the best one for evaluating composition and the only one that gives a true 100% preview with/ without sharpening. It also allows an accurate WB and a spot meter as well.
More food for thought, if you need any further help let me know which part of the world your are located and we can give you some references.
Good luck again
Yair
[span style=\'font-size:7pt;line-height:100%\']Yair Shahar | Regional Manager | Leaf EMEA |
mob: +44 77 8992 8199 | yair.shahar@kodak.com | www.leaf-photography.com
Leaf, part of Kodak's Graphic Communications Group
[/span]
-
Hi. I may be one of the few who has owned simultaneously an H2/P45 and an H3/Imacon39. Frankly, imagewise, both backs are excellent although in several direct comparisons using the 120mm Macro and the 300mm telephoto lenses I gave the edge to the Imacon. On some images and under certain conditions, the P45 evidences an artifact (only faintly visible on a monitor at 100% and more obvious at higher magnifications) which appears to be a micro tiling of pixels. At 400% the tiles consist of square matrices of 6 by 6 pixels. However, these artifacts have never shown up on prints up to 36 inches but the mere presence of them on the monitor is annoying. Several other monitors in two different studio locations have displayed the same artifacts so it's not something unique to my setup. I would expect that this is a software issue which will be corrected in the future release of CaptureOne 4.0. I might also add that another owner of an H2/P45 back has never noticed this artifact so it might be unique to my copy.
I have since sold my H2/P45 and have taken hundreds of images with the H3/39 with no problems. Flexcolor software continues to improve and, in my opinion, is equal to CaptureOne in capabilities. However my chief reason for going with the H3 is their fantastic new 28mm lens (boasting the best MTF's in medium format photography) which will only work with the H3. This will apparently also be the case with any new Hasselblad lenses unless they relent and make them available to other back manufacturers.
-
Bernard:
None of the Hasselblad DSLR's have ever done multi-shot, meaning the H1D, H2D, or H3D. The solution for multi-shot with Hasselblad is currently the CF-22MS and CF-39MS digital backs, which are platform independent digital backs that will go on just about any camera you want.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95823\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve,
Thank you for your answer. That was indeed my understanding.
I assume that it means that there is no possibility to use the new Hassy 28 mm lens together with the CF-39MS, correct?
Regards,
Bernard
-
Steve,
Thank you for your answer. That was indeed my understanding.
I assume that it means that there is no possibility to use the new Hassy 28 mm lens together with the CF-39MS, correct?
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard:
Correct. The limitation of the 28mm affects some of Hasselblad's own products as well as 3rd party back users. Unfortunately, the 28mm will only work on H3D.
Steve
-
no quality comparision between single shot and 4 or 16shot for textil or repro.
the results ( colors / edges ) are so much cleaner in 4/16 shot mode......
the 54h for sure is a interesting alternative regarding the price, further the 16shot deliver you by far better quality than any stitched bayer image, but also the 4shot 22mp imager looks better for this kind of stuff than a nominal bigger bayer file.
one difference between the new evolution ( dalsa sensor ) between the 54h ( kodak sensor ) could be the exposure length. the kodak sensor starts to bring in noise at exposures longer than 2-4 seconds. 10-15 seconds still are possible, but you have to make very carefull white shadings to injvert noise with it.
probably the evolution will have similar noise behavor than the emotion backs, which means 30 seconds @iso50 should not be any problem.
-
Dinarius:
The 75H will only do 1 shot/4 shot. Same with the Hasselblad CF-39MS (the CF-22MS will do 16 shot). Several factors for this -
Price: More cost to enable 16 shot mode. And with 200MB 16 bit files, they probably decided the demand wouldn't justify the extra expense for most end users.
Quality: 16 shot mode captures half or quarter pixels (not sure which, I've never gotten a confirmed answer), which are smaller than the one whole pixel that the 1 shot/4 shots capture. With the smaller pitch of the new sensors (7.2 with the Dalsa 33MP), getting optimal quality out of the 16 shot would likely be a challenge.
That extra screen and CF card slot are extras you're paying for on the Hasselblad that you may not need. As far as quality goes - both Sinar and Hasselblad multi-shots are phenominal, so if you don't need the extras, save the cash.
You can adapt Sinarbacks to a Sinar P - either with a Sinar sliding back or a KaptureGroup sliding back. Both have ground glass. The KaptureGroup sliding back is half the price, although doesn't quite have the build quality of the Sinar. You can also mount the back to your P with a flat plate and use Live Video, but you'll need a hardware piece (about $2,400) to really get usable video.
No winder on an RB, so that rules out multi-shot. On that note, on your Sinar P, you would need lenses with electronic shutters (Schneider, Rollei, or Sinar). That will add some cost. You might consider picking up a Mamiya 645AFD, for multi-shot use, or something similar, if costs are a factor.
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some little precisions Steve, with your permission:
- it is not yet completely out of discussion if the eVolution 75 H will have the 16-shot capabilty or not: this depends on the demand from ur customers. One has to realize that with 16-shot the file size is 4 times bigger!
- the optimal quality is effectively a challenge (vibrations, lenses sed, ...), but there would still be a noticeable difference if all is done the right way and wit the right lenses.
- it does actually not change a lot in price, to acivate the 16-shot (the eVolution has it built-in, with the piezo plate used for the 4-shot). It is just a question of "piezo calibration".
- in 16-shot captures the CCD is moved by 1/2 pixel.
- there is a solution on the p3 where one can use manual Copal lenses: no need of lenses with electronic shutter.
Hope this helps.
Thierry
Sinar AG Switzerland
-
no quality comparision between single shot and 4 or 16shot for textil or repro.
the results ( colors / edges ) are so much cleaner in 4/16 shot mode......
the 54h for sure is a interesting alternative regarding the price, further the 16shot deliver you by far better quality than any stitched bayer image, but also the 4shot 22mp imager looks better for this kind of stuff than a nominal bigger bayer file.
one difference between the new evolution ( dalsa sensor ) between the 54h ( kodak sensor ) could be the exposure length. the kodak sensor starts to bring in noise at exposures longer than 2-4 seconds. 10-15 seconds still are possible, but you have to make very carefull white shadings to injvert noise with it.
probably the evolution will have similar noise behavor than the emotion backs, which means 30 seconds @iso50 should not be any problem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i confirm Rainer's comments on multishot quality.
As for long exposure capability without noise: the 54 H and captureshop have a bult-in "Get Back Reference": you have to actvate it when shooting longer than 2 seconds. It will empty the pixels from residual noise and give you clear and clean channels up to 32 seconds (at the nominal 50 ISO). However, when using Live Video one has to know that the CCD is getting heated up by the live function: it is therefore also suggested to get a manual "Black Reference" before the final shot and/or to close the Live Video and wait for some time for the CCD to cool down with the built-in "Active Cooling" system. The eVolution should effectively allow even more.
Thierry
Sinar AG Switzerland
-
Some little precisions Steve, with your permission:
- it is not yet completely out of discussion if the eVolution 75 H will have the 16-shot capabilty or not: this depends on the demand from ur customers. One has to realize that with 16-shot the file size is 4 times bigger!
- the optimal quality is effectively a challenge (vibrations, lenses sed, ...), but there would still be a noticeable difference if all is done the right way and wit the right lenses.
- it does actually not change a lot in price, to acivate the 16-shot (the eVolution has it built-in, with the piezo plate used for the 4-shot). It is just a question of "piezo calibration".
- in 16-shot captures the CCD is moved by 1/2 pixel.
- there is a solution on the p3 where one can use manual Copal lenses: no need of lenses with electronic shutter.
Hope this helps.
Thierry
Sinar AG Switzerland
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry:
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, that's news on the potential 16 shot addition to the eVolution. If it doesn't add significantly to the price - we're all for it.
Most of the reliable sources had indicated 1/2 pixel, I think some confusion creeps in because of the 4X file size, leading one to think in terms of 1/4 pixels. Thanks for clearing that up.
By use of the electronic shutter, I meant for multi-shot mode, although you can capture multi-shot without electronic shutters (by dousing the lights), it can be a pain.
Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
-
Thierry:
By use of the electronic shutter, I meant for multi-shot mode, although you can capture multi-shot without electronic shutters (by dousing the lights), it can be a pain.
Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve,
yes, absolutely right, it can be a pain.
Thierry
Sinar AG Switzerland
-
Wow! A lot of excellent replies....to which here's my tuppence worth.
Steve, the thought of stitching 30-50 paintings after a long day's shooting is simply a non-starter! I spend too much time on the computer as it is. ;-)
Got a quote today from my local Hassie dealer. 39Mp MS back with 6x4.5 body, prism finder and 80mm lens is €35500. Frankly, Sam's advice to consider Sinar is looking more and more attractive.
For copy work, what focal length/make electronic lens would you guys recommend for my Sinar? Just out of curiousity, what is the state-of-the-art piece of glass that fits this bill?
I could pick up an RZ easily enough. I think that the RB lenses fit. If not, it's not the end of the world to buy one or two. Or the Mamiya 645, as Steve suggested.
Yair, thanks for your input. Can you post a couple of links to backs that you think would suit, bearing in mind that stitching is not an option? Thanks.
On balance, the file size from the 54 H is fine for what I do, and if the advent of the 75 H makes the 54 more affordable, then all the better. As Morgan Moore said above, the Hassie offers the ultimate in convenience. It has all the bells and whistles, but at a price. If I had been a Hassie user for the last twenty five years, there would be no decision to be made. But, I haven't been.... I use Canon also, and when the mythical 22Mp is released, I will probably buy one. With a reasonably (I use the word advisedly!) priced medium/large format back already purchased by then, I should be well set up.
One last thing on the mechanics of the multi-shot......Steve, are you saying that if I'm shooting in a blacked out studio and I turn off the modelling lights, I can shoot multi-shot with a manual shutter?
Thanks to all.
D.
ps........
Thierry, why isn't the 54 HC mentioned on your website? I mean this link......
http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-132...s-rand-968.html (http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1321-23-1408-urlvars-rand-968.html)
(Click 'Digital Backs' on the left menu)
pps........
Just Googled this thread.........in case others hadn't seen it.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofive...php/t13330.html (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t13330.html)
I presume a bog standard PC laptop with Firewire will do the video job?
D.
-
"I presume a bog standard PC laptop with Firewire will do the video job?"
Be warned some of the backs dont even run on PC !!!!!!!!!!
Sinar for one I think !
-
did you saw the thread i made some days ago? comparing the 54h in 16shot mode with the e75 with differnt options to avoid moiree?
scroll down to see the images ( 100% crops ).
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=13976 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13976)
-
Wow! A lot of excellent replies....to which here's my tuppence worth.
Steve, the thought of stitching 30-50 paintings after a long day's shooting is simply a non-starter! I spend too much time on the computer as it is. ;-)
Got a quote today from my local Hassie dealer. 39Mp MS back with 6x4.5 body, prism finder and 80mm lens is €35500. Frankly, Sam's advice to consider Sinar is looking more and more attractive.
For copy work, what focal length/make electronic lens would you guys recommend for my Sinar? Just out of curiousity, what is the state-of-the-art piece of glass that fits this bill?
I could pick up an RZ easily enough. I think that the RB lenses fit. If not, it's not the end of the world to buy one or two. Or the Mamiya 645, as Steve suggested.
Yair, thanks for your input. Can you post a couple of links to backs that you think would suit, bearing in mind that stitching is not an option? Thanks.
On balance, the file size from the 54 H is fine for what I do, and if the advent of the 75 H makes the 54 more affordable, then all the better. As Morgan Moore said above, the Hassie offers the ultimate in convenience. It has all the bells and whistles, but at a price. If I had been a Hassie user for the last twenty five years, there would be no decision to be made. But, I haven't been.... I use Canon also, and when the mythical 22Mp is released, I will probably buy one. With a reasonably (I use the word advisedly!) priced medium/large format back already purchased by then, I should be well set up.
One last thing on the mechanics of the multi-shot......Steve, are you saying that if I'm shooting in a blacked out studio and I turn off the modelling lights, I can shoot multi-shot with a manual shutter?
Thanks to all.
D.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dinarius:
Actually, Morgan was proposing the stitching - not I.
Ironic that the Sinar is the economical choice, eh?
Actually, to be fair, you're comparing 54H to CF-22MS, which is a generation ahead. You could also look at the iXpress 528C, which is closer in price to a 54H. The iXpress 528C uses the same chip as the 54H, has interchangable plates like the 54H, and adds some semi-portability (it has a screen and an external hard drive to shoot to).
And I'm not recommending the Hasselblad over the Sinar, they both do multi-shot, so if that's the game, they're the only ones in town. The quality from both in multi-shot mode is excellent for this type of work - your choice might ultimately come down to software preference.
Steve Hendrix
-
Dinarius,
The new P45+ might possibly fit your workflow, but I might suggest getting it with a Hassey V mount. That way you could fit it to a RZ with an adapter plate or even put it on a 4x5 with a
FlexAdapter.
Here is a link from Phase One's web site to show you some of the new P+ features:
http://www.phaseone.com/upload/06_pplus.pdf (http://www.phaseone.com/upload/06_pplus.pdf)
Chris Lawery
-
I could pick up an RZ easily enough. I think that the RB lenses fit. If not, it's not the end of the world to buy one or two. Or the Mamiya 645, as Steve suggested.
The RB lenses fit the RZ and there's even a setting on the shutter speed knob that says "RB" so you can set the speed from the lens.
Yair, thanks for your input. Can you post a couple of links to backs that you think would suit, bearing in mind that stitching is not an option? Thanks.
http://www.leaf-photography.com/pages/products/Aptus75.aspx (http://www.leaf-photography.com/pages/products/Aptus75.aspx)
For the RB you can buy it in either AFD or V mounts with a rotating adapter
For the RZ in either AFD, H1 or V mounts, again with a rotating adapter
and for the Sinar any mount will do, there is currently a bundle with a Graflok plate and Live Video, contact the Leaf dealer in your area for prices.
I would still suggest TESTING as many backs as possible (within your budget of course) before buying.
Yair
-
One last thing on the mechanics of the multi-shot......Steve, are you saying that if I'm shooting in a blacked out studio and I turn off the modelling lights, I can shoot multi-shot with a manual shutter?
Thanks to all.
D.
ps........
Thierry, why isn't the 54 HC mentioned on your website? I mean this link......
hi Dinarius,
- Multisot in dark studio: yes, in this case you can use the multishot mode with normal Copal lenses or then with a Copal "Behind-the-lens shutter" and DB lenses. Set the shutter to "B", open it, and release in Slave mode from Captureshop.
- 54 HC: there is no such a Sinarback. You are probably speaking about the 54 MC, the latest version of the 54 M. This is a single-shot 22 MPx DB. The normal M version has an active electronical built-in cooling system. The MC in addition has a built-in fan for long exposure times and maximum noise reduction.
Thanks, Thierry
Sinar AG Switzerland
-
I am very familiar with the 54H. It is a nice back. However, you have to shoot tethered to a Mac. Opt for the firewire instead of optical connection if you buy it used.
For my money, the best deal on the market is a used 22 MP Imacon multi-shot back. Use it on a Mamiya 645 AFD. The 120MM and 80MM macro lenses are a steal on Ebay, and they are extremely sharp. The Mamiya 645 AFD is also a steal on Ebay.
I have only used 16-shot once. If you use a PC, you'll want to have a speedy processor and 4 GB of RAM. It takes a long time to shoot 16 exposures. 16-shot exerts a lot of use on your camera and strobes. I've concluded that the resolution advantage of 16-shot is not worth the hassle.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm using an Imacon 384C. It's a square 16 MP chip. I use the camera for making giclees for several artists in Central Florida. I have had wonderful success printing onto canvas up to 37" wide. As far as printing onto paper, I typically stay under 36." If I need to print larger than 36" or if there is extraordinary detail in the original, I take two 4-Shot exposures of the artwork and stitch together in Photoshop. I move the artwork, not the camera back.
The Imacon 384C with a Mamiya 645 adaptor, Mamiya 645 AFD, 80 Macro and 120 Apo Macro cost about $13K.
The Imacon/Mamiya works untethered in single shot mode.
-
It has been some months since this thread was active!
I still haven't bought a back, but I am about to.
I have ruled out the Sinar MS because of the lack of a screen and a flash card slot. Pity. So, it's down to Hasselblad or Phase.
I spent the last two days testing the Hasselblad 39Mp. First impressions........
(please bear in mind that I can only compare it to the [wonderful!] interface on a Canon 5D)
1. The screen is awful. It's soft and the colour is terrible. On the Canon, I always use Auto White Balance and, quite literally, what you see is what you get. On the Hassie I couldn't find an AWB setting, so I chose flash. The colour looks like daylight film shot under tungsten.
2. When you enlarge the image on the screen to check something, it is nowhere as sharp as the Canon. Even worse, the arrow keys move the image around in leaps, not in tiny increments like on the Canon. So, it's very difficult to obtain a clear view of a precise detail.
3. On the issue of the same arrow keys button. It felt cheap and unsure and I wonder if it would give trouble?
4. Moving around the interface is not very intuitive. A simple action like deleting an image takes too many steps, in my view.
Processing............this is where the fun really begins!
5. Both ACR and Capture One are the products of, quite literally, millions of feedback opinions.
FlexColor is the product of a handful (relatively speaking) of user opinions and it sure shows.
Like me, many of you will have started out on ACR and, at some point, downloaded C1LE. Within minutes you will have been finding your way around it. Try doing that with FlexColor!
a. There is no multi-sample tool, as in ACR, which is essential for my work.
b. You can export to DNG via FlexColor and then use ACR. But, you CANNOT convert the files to DNG using Adobe DNG. It's strictly one way traffic using Hasselblad's closed shop approach.
c. When I did export to DNG, half of the files appeared with the same thumbnail image when opened in ACR4 via Bridge! When I clicked on a file in Bridge, the correct image appeared in the preview window on the right, but the folder of files in the middle remained with over half of them showing a repeat of one image. Weird!
d. The interface is dire, pure and simple.
Why do Hasselblad have to be so bloody minded and myopic? Why not leave the processing to others who just do it better?
I accept that there are many photographers better than me who use FlexColor all the time and will swear by it. But, as someone who uses a Gretag CC in every shot, it just wouldn't work for me.
How much do Hasselblad really gain by all but forcing users to process their images via a second rate (to my way of looking, I hasten to add) piece of software? If they concentrated on the cameras and backs and left the rest to others, they might have more users. This arrogance is now being repeated with the closed shop approach of the H3D.
For me the four shot facility is a major attraction. Without it, the Hasselblad would not be worth consideration. I just wish they were more open minded about access to their files.
Would this camera/back/software combination pass muster if it were a DSLR? Not a hope, in my opinion.
I will shortly be testing a Phase P45.
D.
-
I just received my CF39 and my first impressions are, it is built differently than my Leaf. The Leaf feels sturdier. The firewire cable in the CF is in a really weird location, dangerous in my opinion. If I step on it with my Leaf it gets disconnected. Annoying but that only, I do not want to think how it is when it happens to the CF.
Flexcolor is just another program which is workable but will be obsolete within the near future, it is just that Hasselblad is not aware of it yet.
The Ixpress adapter I find a blessing. The MS option is nice. The screen is bad but so is it for all others. IMO you should only use the screen for the histogram.
My biggest fear was the bigger file size but sofar I find it doable but I have yet to do a 500image shoot that needs to be on FTP a couple of hours later
Did you also check on the Leaf? I would not rule them out beforehand.
-
It has been some months since this thread was active!
I still haven't bought a back, but I am about to.
I have ruled out the Sinar MS because of the lack of a screen and a flash card slot. Pity. So, it's down to Hasselblad or Phase.
I spent the last two days testing the Hasselblad 39Mp. First impressions........
(please bear in mind that I can only compare it to the [wonderful!] interface on a Canon 5D)
1. The screen is awful. It's soft and the colour is terrible. On the Canon, I always use Auto White Balance and, quite literally, what you see is what you get. On the Hassie I couldn't find an AWB setting, so I chose flash. The colour looks like daylight film shot under tungsten.
2. When you enlarge the image on the screen to check something, it is nowhere as sharp as the Canon. Even worse, the arrow keys move the image around in leaps, not in tiny increments like on the Canon. So, it's very difficult to obtain a clear view of a precise detail.
3. On the issue of the same arrow keys button. It felt cheap and unsure and I wonder if it would give trouble?
4. Moving around the interface is not very intuitive. A simple action like deleting an image takes too many steps, in my view.
Processing............this is where the fun really begins!
5. Both ACR and Capture One are the products of, quite literally, millions of feedback opinions.
FlexColor is the product of a handful (relatively speaking) of user opinions and it sure shows.
Like me, many of you will have started out on ACR and, at some point, downloaded C1LE. Within minutes you will have been finding your way around it. Try doing that with FlexColor!
a. There is no multi-sample tool, as in ACR, which is essential for my work.
b. You can export to DNG via FlexColor and then use ACR. But, you CANNOT convert the files to DNG using Adobe DNG. It's strictly one way traffic using Hasselblad's closed shop approach.
c. When I did export to DNG, half of the files appeared with the same thumbnail image when opened in ACR4 via Bridge! When I clicked on a file in Bridge, the correct image appeared in the preview window on the right, but the folder of files in the middle remained with over half of them showing a repeat of one image. Weird!
d. The interface is dire, pure and simple.
Why do Hasselblad have to be so bloody minded and myopic? Why not leave the processing to others who just do it better?
I accept that there are many photographers better than me who use FlexColor all the time and will swear by it. But, as someone who uses a Gretag CC in every shot, it just wouldn't work for me.
How much do Hasselblad really gain by all but forcing users to process their images via a second rate (to my way of looking, I hasten to add) piece of software? If they concentrated on the cameras and backs and left the rest to others, they might have more users. This arrogance is now being repeated with the closed shop approach of the H3D.
For me the four shot facility is a major attraction. Without it, the Hasselblad would not be worth consideration. I just wish they were more open minded about access to their files.
Would this camera/back/software combination pass muster if it were a DSLR? Not a hope, in my opinion.
I will shortly be testing a Phase P45.
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your feelings about Flexcolor? I had exactly the same reaction to Capture One. Totally non-intuitive to me. I detested it. My view is that all of the software programs from the MFDB makers are dinosaurs compared to Lightroom and ACR. Same with the LCDs. They all suck compared to the LCD on the Canon 1DIII. I cannot imagine using the LCDs on any of the MFDBs to do anything other than checking the histogram and changing settings. And if you use the Hasselblad in the studio in mutlti-shot mode, why would you not shoot tethered to a computer and use the computer for checking focus and color?
Why would anyone need a choice of DNG converters? The one in Flexcolor works simply, quickly and effectively. However, the major drawback to converting to DNGs is that you lose the benefit of the digital lens corrections in Flexcolor.
Deleting files on the Hasselblad back is easy(if you know what you are doing). You just hold down the bottom arrow key for 3 or 4 seconds.
I do not understand why the use of a Gretag CC in every shot makes things more difficult with the Hasselblad. I would think it's a good thing that makes it way easier to set the WB precisely.
BTW, how were the multi-shot files compared to the 5D?
-
Dinarius,
The Sinar MS (I understand multishot) does not have a display, but on the other hand PO does not have a multishot. The reason is obvious, since mostly multishot is used in studio locations, one shoots then tethered.
If you want to have a display, I would give it a try with the eMotion 54 or 75 LV.
Best regards,
Thierry
It has been some months since this thread was active!
I still haven't bought a back, but I am about to.
I have ruled out the Sinar MS because of the lack of a screen and a flash card slot. Pity. So, it's down to Hasselblad or Phase.
I spent the last two days testing the Hasselblad 39Mp. First impressions........
(please bear in mind that I can only compare it to the [wonderful!] interface on a Canon 5D)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
They all suck compared to the LCD on the Canon 1DIII. I cannot imagine using the LCDs on any of the MFDBs to do anything other than checking the histogram and changing settings.
I have a P30+ back, with the NEW Screen...SUCKS. Hcubell nailed it. You will have to TRUST your light meter. Almost unusable outside.....I love my 5D screen, oh well.......
Best of luck
Ken
-
Been busy, hence the delay in coming back to this topic........
Another gripe with the H3D.......
e. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot view separate RGB channels on the screen? Like most, I expose to the right, but this resulted in at least one channel being blown in most shots. Mickey Mouse cameras have this feature. Does the Hasselblad?
On balance, it seems to me that you're paying (Kodak) for the sensor. Just about everything else is an afterthought and given almost grudgingly. The same all round (lack of) quality sold as a DSLR wouldn't sell a single camera. That's the truth of it, IMHO.
In response to your questions........
Thierry, I have only a Hasselblad and a Phase dealer in my area. I do not wish to have to deal with someone by phone or, even worse, have to mail a camera somewhere to be repaired.
Dustbak, why do you think that Flexcolor will become obsolete? I don't mind if they want to keep it. The best solution would be to be able to impose the lens corrections BEFORE converting to DNG. That would be the best of both worlds. I could then avoid Flexcolor for processing.
hcubell, totally agree that ACR4 is the dog's cojones. Worth upgrading to CS3 for on its own. (LR does not have a 9 point sampler, I think.) As to the screen, it should be at least as good as a €200 6Mp camera. It isn't. I borrowed a H3D, so no MS.
Am borrowing a P45 next week.
D.
-
e. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot view separate RGB channels on the screen? Like most, I expose to the right, but this resulted in at least one channel being blown in most shots.
The histogram on the Leaf Aptus back can show you the 3 separate channels.
Which part of the world are you in, if I may ask?
-
Hi
My feeling is that LR will become an industry standard in about a year. I still think RD is a better developer. I find it interesting that the ZD back in the US will have LR included & they will in a few months be tethered for the ZD back. If that is the case they will be tethered for other backs & DSLRs in the future. I know this is off track but this is my feeling on LR as I think it will become the industry standard.
Thanks Denis
-
yaya,
No leaf dealer near me either. Only the two I mentioned above.
Just confirmed the P45 for a day next Wednesday. Looking forward to that.
D.
-
I think it will become obsolete because eventually there will be support in ACR. Flexcolor will then only be used to have the DAC corrections and for tethered use. I don't always need the corrections nor do I use a camera that can take advantage of it.
At the moment it just adds another step in your workflow. A step I would be very happy to drop the second I get decent files in ACR.
I reckon Flexcolor will still be there to use tethered (and when you do need DAC) but the moment the files are on my machine I want to process them through ACR. The Flexcolor step adds at least another hour to my working day which I could do without. It would be very unwise of Hasselblad not to get ACR support.
This is also the way I use Leaf Capture 11, only in some situations I process through LC11. Most of the times I use RD (portrait work) or ACR.
-
D.
Just correcting you, cause you're wrong
Yes you can view separate RGB histograms. Also Flexcolor does have a multi-sample tool (palette called Color Info..you get 5 points). And it has a neutralize feature that is far superior to anything in ACR, which I use everyday with my canon. And while FC may seem to counter intuitive to you, as someone who's been using the software since it was called ColorFlex (imacon scanning software), I can tell you that I found ACR to be incredibly un-intuitive...so I guess it's what you learn first.
Yes, FC is buggy. The interface was pretty good 8 years ago, but it definitely needs some freshening....but it is a good program that does a really good job at what it does. The batch processing is extremely easy to use and works very pleasently in the background. And it's free...I can give copies to my assistants, clients, my mom...all legal. Try that with ACR or C1.
Also, why it's not going away: Hasselbad is light-years ahead of the other back makers in terms of the amount of camera information that gets sent with the file. the new ultrafocus technology is just one of several that, from my understanding, adobe really doesn't want to include in its, by necessity, "generic" program ACR. Hasselblad's system is necessarily closed, just like Apple's is closed, so that certain technologies can be developed without having to ask adobe's (or microsoft's) permission. Oh, and also so they can make more money.
Anyway, good luck with your decision.
Barry
Been busy, hence the delay in coming back to this topic........
e. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot view separate RGB channels on the screen? Like most, I expose to the right, but this resulted in at least one channel being blown in most shots. Mickey Mouse cameras have this feature. Does the Hasselblad?
D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mr. M.,
Glad you've finally caught up with me on this thread!
Thanks for the input.
D. (M.)