Kodak DCS ProBack 645 Contax still viable?

[scott_dobry]

I'm considering entering into the MFDB arena and so far I really like what I hear about the Contax system (despite the fact that it is out of production).  I've handled the Hassy, Mamiya and Contax bodies side by side and the Contax has the best, most solid feel IMO.  I like the old-school dials and aperture rings as well.

Is the Kodak ProBack 645C (the 16MP) still viable coming from the perspective of a 1Ds user?  Due to crop factor and the fact that it is a square sensor, it's my understanding that I'm not really gaining a whole lot more real estate over the 1Ds.  Perhaps dynamic range and transitions are superior in the Kodak?

I've seen some limited reviews and comparisons that really didn't nail it down for me.

Obviously, with the Contax system I can upgrade to a P25 or P30 or whatever down the road.

I'm just wondering if this particular Kodak back is even worth looking from where I'm coming from or if I should reserve those funds for something better.

Scott

[Don Libby]

I'm considering entering into the MFDB arena and so far I really like what I hear about the Contax system (despite the fact that it is out of production).  I've handled the Hassy, Mamiya and Contax bodies side by side and the Contax has the best, most solid feel IMO.  I like the old-school dials and aperture rings as well.

Is the Kodak ProBack 645C (the 16MP) still viable coming from the perspective of a 1Ds user?  Due to crop factor and the fact that it is a square sensor, it's my understanding that I'm not really gaining a whole lot more real estate over the 1Ds.  Perhaps dynamic range and transitions are superior in the Kodak?

I've seen some limited reviews and comparisons that really didn't nail it down for me.

Obviously, with the Contax system I can upgrade to a P25 or P30 or whatever down the road.

I'm just wondering if this particular Kodak back is even worth looking from where I'm coming from or if I should reserve those funds for something better.

Scott
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Scott, I too am coming from but still am using a 1Ds II.  I went to a Mamiya AFD II and was able to pick up a Kodak back from a member of this forum.  Kodak has stopped making the backs sometime ago but they are still available on the used market - I'd suggest trying (in no particluar order) KEH, Ebay and this site.

Hope this helps.  BTW, I plan on using the Mamiya to continue shooting landscape and the MKII for nature and some limited landscape.

Cheers

don

[Ben Rubinstein]

Interesting question, would that kodak back when cropped to a non square format have many/any advantages over a 5D for example? The 5D has DR, latitude and noise control to make you weep after the original 1Ds (I owned the 1Ds and now have two 5D's), I would be interested if someone had compared the kodak back to the 5D at iso 100...

[scott_dobry]

Interesting question, would that kodak back when cropped to a non square format have many/any advantages over a 5D for example? The 5D has DR, latitude and noise control to make you weep after the original 1Ds (I owned the 1Ds and now have two 5D's), I would be interested if someone had compared the kodak back to the 5D at iso 100...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have seen only one comparison with the 1dsII and there *might* be a slight edge to the Kodak in that case.

I guess you might say I'm debating whether or not to jump into the MF arena or wait to see what Canon comes out with for the 1ds series.  It would seem the Canon's are potentially now at their limit due to lens resolution constraints.  Obviously the Contax lenses are legendary and you can keep the system and just upgrade backs over time.  And for what I do, something in the 22 to 30 MP range would really be more than enough.

FWIW, I came from medium format film for my bread and butter.  I love the look of the larger film plane (sensor) with short focus.  6x7 + 110mm + f2.8 = glory.  Granted, this particular Kodak back doesn't have a very large sensor so I'm not going to get a look much different from FF 35.

[Graham Mitchell]

Unless you are producing square images, you will keep cropping away precious pixels. If you crop to 4:3 ratio, you will be left with 12 MP. If you crop a Canon 1Ds2 to 4:3 you will be left with 14.2 MP.

Secondly, the crop factor is quite high so if you are hoping to achieve a wide angle, you might be out of luck. If you are shooting with normal and tele FOVs only, then you will be ok.

[jimgolden]

i looked @ ProBack as well. Kodak will cease to even support these backs Dec. 31 2007, so anything that goes wrong, you may be up a creek. once I discovered this, I completely ruled out the ProBack and will continue w/ the 5D for a while, renting MFDB when needed.

There are pelnty of other discontinued MFDB around that you can still get service for (namely Phase, Leaf, Imacon) so why risk it? These other back may be slightly more money, but think about
upgrade paths as well - no such path for the ProBack.

also, I've seen RAW files from different ProBacks w/ tons of hot pixels and "lines" down the frames - these were in normal exposed images, not long exposures or anything. One of these backs had recently been serviced and reconditioned by Kodak.

The one spot that the ProBack excels, the ablity to shoot untethered. most system sof this vintage
required you to be tethered.

IMHO, I would tread wisely forward into the ProBack abyss...

jim

[MarkKay]

From the aspect of image quality the Kodak back gives similar resolution and detail to the 1Dsmk2.  The Kodak back gave better Dynamic range.  However, the Kodak back is essentially an iso 100 machine.  High iso images are very noisy.  The other issue is that as long as you are not shooting fast action, the Contax - kodak combo will be fine.  I was very impressed with the images this combo produced. Mark  

i looked @ ProBack as well. Kodak will cease to even support these backs Dec. 31 2007, so anything that goes wrong, you may be up a creek. once I discovered this, I completely ruled out the ProBack and will continue w/ the 5D for a while, renting MFDB when needed.

There are pelnty of other discontinued MFDB around that you can still get service for (namely Phase, Leaf, Imacon) so why risk it? These other back may be slightly more money, but think about
upgrade paths as well - no such path for the ProBack.

also, I've seen RAW files from different ProBacks w/ tons of hot pixels and "lines" down the frames - these were in normal exposed images, not long exposures or anything. One of these backs had recently been serviced and reconditioned by Kodak.

The one spot that the ProBack excels, the ablity to shoot untethered. most system sof this vintage
required you to be tethered.

IMHO, I would tread wisely forward into the ProBack abyss...

jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[ARCASWISS]

I had exactly this combination and sold it off.  I did not like the look of the files and could not get the resolution I  wanted.  I shoot only 4x5 film now.

Plus who is going to repair the Kodak back when it fails?

[scott_dobry]

Unless you are producing square images, you will keep cropping away precious pixels. If you crop to 4:3 ratio, you will be left with 12 MP. If you crop a Canon 1Ds2 to 4:3 you will be left with 14.2 MP.

Secondly, the crop factor is quite high so if you are hoping to achieve a wide angle, you might be out of luck. If you are shooting with normal and tele FOVs only, then you will be ok.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I thought might be the case.  better to wait for a larger sensor in this regard.

[scott_dobry]

There are pelnty of other discontinued MFDB around that you can still get service for (namely Phase, Leaf, Imacon) so why risk it? These other back may be slightly more money, but think about
upgrade paths as well - no such path for the ProBack.

IMHO, I would tread wisely forward into the ProBack abyss...

jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very good point.  Phase One is looking much more attractive in more ways than one....

[mcfoto]

Hi
Don't waste your time with the Kodax back, I had a really bad experiece with that back back in 2002.

[dmck@pollara.ca]

What is the difference between buying a square sensor Kodak back and a Phase One p20 which is also square, in terms of lost pixels?

You lose with both don't you? I realize there may be quality issues, but read the reviews which came out at the time the Kodak back was released,  they were glowing.

And the P20 - which is often seen with an H2 attached, is $10k....

If you buy new, you would have to start with a Leaf Aptus or P21 plus.  That's another $7-$8k...plus tax. You'll wait a long time I think before you see a 4:3 sensor back used on the market.

BTW, I noted that Calumet took all but six of their phase one listings down on the weekend...there seem to be supply shortages.

[alexjones]

Scott,

The ProBack Plus was my first back and it made fantastic files.  With the AA filter there was no moire (except once or twice, then not bad).  It worked well and the quality was excellent.  However, given the state of Kodak and the age of the technology I would go for a newer back.  If a used back for less money is what you want, look at an Imacon 96c.  Same size chip and better files.  A 132c would give you a larger chip and a solid back.  Beyond that a new back for more money.  I use a 132c for most of what we do and have been very pleased with the performance, support and files.  It is a rock solid system and the Hasselblad V series stuff is easy to come by on the cost side.  It also works on a wide variety of other cameras very nicely.

Best,

Alex Jones, Digital Tech / Photo Assistant Pittsburgh

http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/capability.html

[Ken Doo]

Plus who is going to repair the Kodak back when it fails?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Kodak Proback 645M was a great workhorse for me and produced absolutely stunning portraits.  

I just spoke with Kodak Professional this morning (April 2----not April 1st, mind you...) and was told that Kodak Professional will continue to support the Proback digital back with service provided by a third party----Midwest Camera Repair in Michigan.  I asked if they were receiving many requests for service----and was told no----the back is solid and very dependable.  Digital backs generally do not wear like a camera body.

...and I do miss the Kodak software with the Custom Looks Module...

[jimgolden]

I just spoke with Kodak Professional this morning (April 2----not April 1st, mind you...) and was told that Kodak Professional will continue to support the Proback digital back with service provided by a third party----Midwest Camera Repair in Michigan.  I asked if they were receiving many requests for service----and was told no----

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

there was a guy on this board (was leeing a proback last month) who brought his back into Midwest and they said it was over their heads and sent it in to Kodak...

so I guess they're gonna start stepping up??

[vgogolak]

there was a guy on this board (was leeing a proback last month) who brought his back into Midwest and they said it was over their heads and sent it in to Kodak...

so I guess they're gonna start stepping up??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had the Contax with Kodak and it was quite impressive. Yes there is the crop issue, but the IQ pixel for pixel seemed better than the equivalent SLR. Larger dynamic range for one, and better software.

I have since gone P25, P45 and now wait for the P45+, but when I go backto my images

he is an old shot, and 100%  Kodak back Contax ISO 100 1/180, f/16

Regards
Victor

[johnkraus]

I used the 645H ProBack with my H1 before going with a P30, and here's my input:

- The back is gorgeous for skin tones.
- It's a medium format back with DOES have a different look from the 1DsII or 5D. I shoot with all of them. Color is richer, detail is finer, etc. You'll see the difference less in a printed ad or editorial and more in a big print. This is partially due to MF lenses as well.
- The back does not have a great buffer and does heat up. For shooting a portrait sequence with many frames it can be quite frustrating. As the session continues the back heats up, and eventually you just have to let it cool down.
- For shooting at a slower pace the back is much more suitable. Product, more formal portrait setups, etc.
- Never had a technical problem with the back.
- Back was fine for me up to around ISO 320. 400 OK, however Canon has it all over even the most current MF backs in terms of high ISO, low-light shooting.
- Hope this is useful-

[Ave]

I have had proback and H1 also. Excellent in studio but agree it heats up, and the whole tethered system not infrequently freezes. I kept up a amaintenance contract with Kodak, but will probably drop it.

Have used it for some landscape by the ocean, and it didn't seem to like the salt air -- worked very poorly after a summer of that. After sending camera and back in to respective service depts, things were back to original performance. I always have a backup system when I use the H1 + proback.  But I do love the color and skin tones and large prints are wonderful on my Epson 4000. I love the Kodack chip -- I believe they are making the M8's sensor?

As one last go with the system am thinking of taking it to Iceland for a workshop with Daniel Bergman. Will probably kill it. Anybody have any feedback on using the system for outdoor, rugged landscape work? I probably know the answer but thought I'd check.