MFDB is not ready for everyone?

[Henry Goh]

After reading on this and other forum for the past few months, I am of the view that MFDB is not ready for everyone.  Am I wrong or totally out of whack?

I think for selected professionals whose clients are demanding big digital files, you probably do not have a choice but to go ahead and use MFDB because you can at least keep those clients with you (and make some money at it) while these backs get better and cheaper, down the road.  When I say "these backs get better" do I mean they are totally crap right now? NO.  I mean the whole pleasant shooting experience is not there yet.

There are still issues with high (not even high but medium) ISO noise, lock-ups, camera platform changes costing you a lot of money, "closed" systems, and one that sticks out most for me - software.  I have read about one MFDB maker whose software is so bad they are talking about abandoning it and going to the next version.  I have also read about frequent lock-ups and users seem resigned to telling their peers "oh just remove the battery and re-insert" like it was supposed to work that way.  Why? I asked.

I asked one MFDB distributor "is MFDB ready for general users?"  He said "of course!  We are selling more backs now"  I think he missed the point completely.

Customers pay us for our service.  That service (or product) makes the customers' problems go away and so they are willing to pay us for it.  In the case of MFDB, we seem to be paying but also receiving unneccessary problems, albeit not everyone and not everytime.  Worst still, in one maker's forum which I happen to read some posts, I found to my horror the tech support person's tone to be totally rude and arrogant when his MFDB users asked for help.  His rudeness and arrogance is so bad, I would not want to own their backs (now) even if they knocked on my door and handed me one for free.

Have I been reading the wrong stuff and become blinkered?  Please tell me that I am wrong.  Thanks.

Henry

[Dustbak]

I believe you are wrong. Yes, the experience is not like the one I have with my Nikon. From a camera point of view and from a ergonomical kind of view that comes close to perfection.

I use a back that has issues with software. These issues were there and some of them are still there but there are alternatives that work very good.

My 503 is a fundamentally different camera than my Nikon, so is my Flexbody and so is my Digiflex II. All serve their purpose.

Over the last year I have used my Nikon only twice, shooting car races. All other occasions I take the camera I need with the back, in most cases the Digiflex. The files that the back generates reduces my Nikon to a toy.

Besides the operational issues from the various cameras, I have very rarely problems with my back. It locks up sometimes (once a month) when I just continue shooting however I found that it is processing in the background and the screen is locked. Only very rarely the thing is actually lockedCompared to my Nikon, that thing never ever had one problem. BTW, Nikon Capture has a reputation of being slow and clumsy as well.

So, yes there are issues. I don't mind them too much, I don't mind them at all when looking at the results.

Does this mean it is perfect? No not at all, there are a bunch of things that can be a lot better in my opinion.

The horror stories are what people vent on fora, and are the stuff that is passed along. Most of these things will also be exaggerated if only to get the point acros. Naturally there are issues however these will not stop me from using a MFDB. The people that are downplaying the IQ differences between MFDB's and high-end DSLR's are mostly the people that are not using MFDB's. I find the quality difference substantial, it is not just having a bigger file.

MFDB's and MF equipment do require you to work differently but hasn't that always been the case?

[nicolaasdb]

I haven't been shooting with my ds1mkII much lately, until last week.....and what a breath of fresh air!!! Fast focussing...nice, lighter weight...nice, almost perfect preview...nice, not needing 8 batteries...nice...NEVER missing a shot again...PRICELESS!!

I like to shoot with my A65...but the focusing of the MD camera's is a pain...why did they never come out with a better system??

MDFM is also SLOW!! I can't wait until they come out with the S series.....I am missing so many great images.

But if you are shooting anything than fashion, beauty or portraits I guess the MDFM is the way to.... I personally can't wait for the next generation 35mm canon Ds....I might even sell my MDFM...unless ofcourse the digital back manufacturers shape up and come out with a better system!

[pwhyte]

Well said Dustbak!

In the past, many photographers shot 35mm film, while others shot 120, 4x5 and 10x8 using polaroids, lab rolls, clips tests etc. For a while, the market demanded digital, and many photographers changed to dslrs. For the 35mm shooters, the change was not great. For MF and LF photographers the compromises were ultimately unacceptable.

Yes MFDBs are slow to work with, use clumsy software, require a lot of colour management knowledge... and give me the ultimate control I require. Image quality is what it is about, and nothing comes close to MFDBs. I now shoot A65 and like Dustbak, I have only used my DSLR on less than 5 jobs in the last year. I agree you have to work differently, and I found the return to MF liberating.

[awofinden]

Hey, P21 with a mamiya 645 AFD. Piece of cake, no issues at all, cheap, fast, a frame every 1.2 seconds. Stick a 4 gig card in it and you've got 280 frames to go at. Not a single issue with the software, no lock ups, great colour. It seems like a no brainer to me. I really dont know why anyone bothers with other backs from other companies. The phase backs work, well, easy as that.

[ixpressraf]

Thas the same experiance i do have with my Hasselblad backs. Just put an imagebank or a cf card to the back and you are ready to take pictures, time after time again and again. Not only Phase one makes good stuff  .
And when i want to have ultimate picture quality i just switch my back to multishot mode, something that Phase isn't yet capable to.

[ixpressraf]

But serious now as Ray pointed out, digital medium format isn't for everybody. I never used 35mm camera's ( exept for making diaduplicates) in my carreer. I switched to digital in the mid 90's using a scanback and a nikon D1. But taking pictures with a DSLR like my nikon was a total different experiance then using a hassie or rollei. Just the differance in viewing a scene or the time you take to make a picture.
So stating that MFDB isn't ready for all of us, isn't the wright way to put it. I yhink that some people will never be ready to use a quality tool as a MFDB, just like in the old day's a lot of people weren't ready for large format or view camera's.

[snickgrr]

Having spent almost twenty years shooting view camera I came into the digital world and bought a CMost back when they came out.  That was 2001 and I shot it on the Fuji 680 because it had the swings and tilts.  The chip porportion was a 2X3.  I started grumbling under my breath but not really sure why.  Eventually it dawned on me.  That chip proportion is 97% of the time dead wrong. I absolutely abhor it. I also bought the Nikon DX for those times I couldn't be tethered.
 I shoot studio still life and I found myself forever backing the camera up in order to give enough cropping room for the agency/art director/designer and by doing you've made the shot so small you've wasted a large portion of the chip.  It might work if you shot a single bottle of wine, but add a glass to the shot and you're backing up, add another element to the shot and your backing up with all kinds of wasted space on top and the foreground. About the only thing that that chip proportion works in is a horizontal landscape, even then most of the time you're wanting a little more headroom or foreground.
So after 100,000 plus exposures on the CMost I bought the Aptus 75 with the 3X4 proportion and emailed my friend titling the email "Good God Almighty, Free at Last!"  I will only pick up my Nikon from now in the most dire of circumstances and will be swearing and cursing as I do as I loathe that POS designed not by photographers but by engineers.  I have never hated a camera more then the DX.
So far the Aptus and the vilified Leaf software have been bulletproof.

[pss]

After reading on this and other forum for the past few months, I am of the view that MFDB is not ready for everyone.  Am I wrong or totally out of whack?

I think for selected professionals whose clients are demanding big digital files, you probably do not have a choice but to go ahead and use MFDB because you can at least keep those clients with you (and make some money at it) while these backs get better and cheaper, down the road.  When I say "these backs get better" do I mean they are totally crap right now? NO.  I mean the whole pleasant shooting experience is not there yet.

There are still issues with high (not even high but medium) ISO noise, lock-ups, camera platform changes costing you a lot of money, "closed" systems, and one that sticks out most for me - software.  I have read about one MFDB maker whose software is so bad they are talking about abandoning it and going to the next version.  I have also read about frequent lock-ups and users seem resigned to telling their peers "oh just remove the battery and re-insert" like it was supposed to work that way.  Why? I asked.

I asked one MFDB distributor "is MFDB ready for general users?"  He said "of course!  We are selling more backs now"  I think he missed the point completely.

Customers pay us for our service.  That service (or product) makes the customers' problems go away and so they are willing to pay us for it.  In the case of MFDB, we seem to be paying but also receiving unneccessary problems, albeit not everyone and not everytime.  Worst still, in one maker's forum which I happen to read some posts, I found to my horror the tech support person's tone to be totally rude and arrogant when his MFDB users asked for help.  His rudeness and arrogance is so bad, I would not want to own their backs (now) even if they knocked on my door and handed me one for free.

Have I been reading the wrong stuff and become blinkered?  Please tell me that I am wrong.  Thanks.

Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

medium format isn't for everybody! MF compared to 35mm is a major pain....and actually my P30 on mamiya is less of a pain then if i would shoot film with it......4x5 or 8x10 are a MAJOR hassle...digital or not....if you are even thinking about the hassle, why would you think about getting into it? i know someone who makes daguerrotypes....now that is a pain....

most of the stuff you are reading here is the bad stuff....nobody comes here and says: we shot 1500 frames today, already have a rough edit, the galleries are going online as we speak and the client went home knowing he has all he needs....all this without any problems!" .....try that with film....

all horror stories are to some extent a little over the top....becuase it come down to personal opinion and experience....there are some issues i am willing to put up with and others i just won't....and this might be different for everybody......the one thing i don't understand is why it seems that people actually spend 30000-40000 on a kit because the salesperson says it is great or because someone here says so or because the brand made a great body 25 years ago.....look at everything, check it out, i know that there is something out there that would make you VERY happy......

[Willow Photography]

I am pretty sure MFDB is not for everybody.
I was not sure it was for me either.

I had/have a Canon and was very impressed/satisfied with that.
I refused to admit that going to MFDB could give me more quality, well
not more, taking price and a more cumbersome handling in consideration.

Then I tried a A22 and H2D and was still convinced that I would
be more happy with my Canon.

Still I was eager to get more quality and tried the P30.

WOW - what a difference to Canon. Like going from 35mm to 4x5".

Sometimes I use my Canon for the speed and LCD, but
every time I see the result I regret not to have used the P30.

I admit the difference is not that big in print ( semigood print anyway ),
but on screen it is a huge difference.

Better color, contrast, transition and a lot more detail.

Detail is not that much better when you shoot a head shot, but when you are shooting full length,
the difference is very big.

When P30+ arrives in 4 weeks, I think I will be even less eager to
use my Canon.

And tethered P30 is way better than Canon.

The IQ of a P30 image ( and probably A65/75 and H3D also ) has not stopped to amaze me yet.


PS

I have not had any problems with H2/P30 combo since I bought it 7 months ago.

[Digital_Nut]

"When P30+ arrives in 4 weeks, I think I will be even less eager to
use my Canon.

And tethered P30 is way better than Canon.

The IQ of a P30 image ( and probably A65/75 and H3D also ) has not stopped to amaze me yet."


Totally agree with these comments having just started to see the visual results of shooting with the new rock solid H3D-31 (understand it has the Phase P30 equivalent sensor - with Hasselblad micro-lenses over sensor which allow for fast shooting on the H3D-31 (1.2 seconds capture rate - fast for MFD) and ISO 100 to 800 with almost no evidence of noise in shadows).

The image quality is, as you stated amazing once over 30MP!!!

[Henry Goh]

Now I'm beginning to hear positive comments which are also helpful to anyone looking at switching to MFDB.


Please keep them coming.

Thanks.

Henry

[Don Libby]

I’ve only been shooting MF since the beginning of the year and started with the Kodak 645M.  I now have a loaner P30 waiting for the Plus to arrive.  The difference between the Kodak and the P30 are light years.  Up till now I’ve been shooting (and very much in love with) a Canon 1Ds II, but I can foresee the Mk II sitting on the shelve more and more.  I don’t anticipate using the MFDB as a one size fit everything.  I’ll use the MFDB for landscape and some nature and the Canon for nature and wildlife, sort of a perfect marriage of two different types of cameras.  I’m headed up to Alaska next Spring (driving) and will take both cameras.

For what I do, mainly landscape I saw no problems going MFDB.  My concern was more in the line of which body and which back to best suite my needs.  The Mamiya 645 AFD II was the most logical choice for me.  The back actually gave me more worries.  I need(ed) a back that would stand up to the extremes that landscape photography requires, I wanted a back that was as robust as my Mk II, therefore I chose the P30+.


Don

[jimgolden]

Don

curious...

how did the 645M compare to the 1Dsmk2 files?

[Don Libby]

Don

curious...

how did the 645M compare to the 1Dsmk2 files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've had some other things that needed to be done since I rec'd the back so I really haven't been able to compare the two as yet.  If what I've seen so far there'll be no regrets.

[thsinar]

... well, I guess the reason why "anyone" bothers with other backs from other companies is because they may have some qualities as well!

Not only Phase backs work well.

Thierry

I really dont know why anyone bothers with other backs from other companies. The phase backs work, well, easy as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[ivan muller]

hi

If you put a camera on a tripod you might as well go for the biggest and best. Med format also has a nice big viewfinder. I like the slightly slower pace when shooting, I am getting older you know! Also med format gives you shallower depth of field for the same angle of view and fstop. As for comparing systems and which is best etc etc. Well thats another story. Just read all the threads before this one! Does make sense to buy a system you can afford though, not what you want but what you need and can afford within the constrains of your budget. One lesson that I have learned is first get the job and then buy the equipment!

Thanks Ivan

[alanshoot]

Hey Henry,

I started, like so many others twenty-some years ago with Hasselblad cameras and lenses. THey were and are wonderful tools. I started scanning the film in '97 and was very happy with the results. In 2002-3, I can't remember exactly, ( see above twenty-some years ) my client needed me to do a digital shoot, so I could just hand the CF card over to the press, so I bought a Fuji S3. I loved that camera, and when I started shooting it side by side with the MF film, I realized that for my client's purposes, the digital capture was better. Then the Kodak 14 mk2 came out. The camera did a reasonable job within very tight tolerances; deviate slightly, and you're dead kind of thing. THe big problem with the Kodak though was intermitent file corruption. You shoot forty shots and come back to the studio and there are ony three files in the folder. I got rid of the Kodak and the Fuji and got the Canon 1ds2. THe files are hugely superior to the Kodak and Phase one is great for tethered shooting. But I just didn't like the camera; it never seemed critically sharp, even after compensating for the AA filter. My assistant's 5d was sharper. Then I realized....I hate looking through that damn keyhole, and I hate the 2:3 format even more.

I've had the Hass H3D-39 for a whole week now, and I feel like I can see again. Yes the wealth of detail is astonishing, but the real payoff is in dynamic range. It's a whole new world out there. Is the MF solution for everybody? No, of course not. There are trade-offs in speed, price, and portability. But if your work cries out for the quality available in MF, it's the only way to go. Best of luck...ak

[awofinden]

... well, I guess the reason why "anyone" bothers with other backs from other companies is because they may have some qualities as well!

Not only Phase backs work well.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Other back companies do have qualities as well but can anyone argue that there software is as good as phase one or there backs are as reliable as phase?
I remember waiting 3 months that turned into a year waiting for my sinar 54M back with a 54s loaner. Then when they became available I had to plead for one and was told I had to ship it insured back to sinar (100 dollars) and when they recieved it they'd send me the 54M leaving me without a camera for at least a week. And dont even get me started on the software.

[thsinar]

Dear awofinden,

this is certainly not right, agreed. But such things happen in all companies, and does not mean that the backs or the software are not reliable. Sinar has however provided a loaner, which is the most important.

Things can always been improved, and that's also why I am here, to hear and report complains or mistakes.

Thierry

Other back companies do have qualities as well but can anyone argue that there software is as good as phase one or there backs are as reliable as phase?
I remember waiting 3 months that turned into a year waiting for my sinar 54M back with a 54s loaner. Then when they became available I had to plead for one and was told I had to ship it insured back to sinar (100 dollars) and when they recieved it they'd send me the 54M leaving me without a camera for at least a week. And dont even get me started on the software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]