Kodak DCS 16MP Pro Back vs Leaf Aptus17 DB

[R_Medvid]

Hi there,

Any personal experience with these devices (I'm particularly interested in the back with Mamiya mount)?

Not expecting the outright "This one's better, this one's worse" statements, but what are the benefits and the issues of each one, Kodak's and Creo's? Thanks!

[klane]

Ive never personally used the dcs kodak, but consider the fact they are no longer a supported product.


I own a valeo 17( same chip as the aptus 17) and Im happy with the leaf software and have a 3:4 chip is much better for most people instead of the square.  

Color reproduction between the two is different as well, kodak is 12bit, leaf is 16.

I think if you want the square, you might look at an imacon 96c as well.

[ixpressraf]

The imacon 96c is a wonderfull back, I own two of them because i love the image filmlike rendering and the fact that it fits all my camera systems. They are full supported backs and can be upgraded.
I have tried to sell one but gave up because people only want to give peanuts for them. But if you can find one. go for it. Mine is used on hassie H, V contax 645, mamiya RZ, 645pro TL, 645 super and 645AFD aswel as on my fuji GX680, sinar P2 and rollei X-act.
it is the back that fits all.

[ddk]

Hi there,

Any personal experience with these devices (I'm particarly interested in the back with Mamiya mount)?

Not expecting the outright "This one's better, this one's worse" statements, but what are the benefits and the issues of each one, Kodak's and Creo's? Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206237\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a couple of the the Kodak Pro Backs for Contax, the 645C, and also a 22MP Aptus. As far as ergonomics and screen go the Kodak can't touch the Leaf but then when it comes to IQ, color and tone, the Kodak is still special. I don't feel that the Leaf nor the Phase 25 that I owned have surpassed it, they're just different. I prefer the Kodak software over both Leaf Capture and Cap One, not too many features but easy to get great colors with it.

david

[BobDavid]

I had the Imacon 384c which uses the same chip as the 96c. The image quality from that chip is terrific, especially for portraiture. However, I wouldn't advise shooting higher than ISO 100. I found 200 to be too noisey.

[ixpressraf]

double posting  sorry      

[ixpressraf]

I had the Imacon 384c which uses the same chip as the 96c. The image quality from that chip is terrific, especially for portraiture. However, I wouldn't advise shooting higher than ISO 100. I found 200 to be too noisey.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this was before firm- and software upgrades.
I now use 200 iso very often and 400 iso is as tri-x like digital.
Attached an image at 100 iso without fil-in flash, only the sun.... I also had my 50 with me, useless to say non of the images were asgood as these. When testing a back one must do it in challenging circomstances like this or better in a factory or other facillity where there are multiple lightsources: vapor, sodiom, tungsten. TL, PL etc mixed. Go in a nuclear reactor or powerplant and try to balance pictures shot with a canon.... Then you know what a DB is all about.( forget all the theoritical paperfilling told by people who never owned or properly used a back but do the test as explained above.

[yaya]

Pro Aptus (Mamiya mount)

1.2 sec/ frame either tethered or to CF card

Compatible with view cameras and with RZ/ RB (and offers very good Live View on both

4:3 sensor, this means more pixels per page

Touch screen with advanced GUI allowing for most image parameters to be set on screen

25-400 iso

Over 100 dealers world wide, offering service and support


Good luck!!!!

Yair

[Bernd B.]

When shooting the usual rectangular formats you can use almost 100 per cent of the Aptus/Valeo 17 resolution (something 43x32mm if I remember correctly). With the Kodak 36x36mm you would loose 1/4 of your data, then having effectively 12 MP.

I once considered the Kodak and asked a photographer (seller) to shoot a picture for my needs (a person from head to feet) and send me the raw data. I did not find much difference resolutionwise to my 5D. I then bought a Valeo 17 (same chip as Aptus 17) and was overwhelmed with its performance.

Bernd

[shutay]

I think this was before firm- and software upgrades.
I now use 200 iso very often and 400 iso is as tri-x like digital.
Attached an image at 100 iso without fil-in flash, only the sun.... I also had my 50 with me, useless to say non of the images were asgood as these. When testing a back one must do it in challenging circomstances like this or better in a factory or other facillity where there are multiple lightsources: vapor, sodiom, tungsten. TL, PL etc mixed. Go in a nuclear reactor or powerplant and try to balance pictures shot with a canon.... Then you know what a DB is all about.( forget all the theoritical paperfilling told by people who never owned or properly used a back but do the test as explained above.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have to agree with this. Based on the review of the older Ixpress 96 on this site, one would think that ISO 400 was designed to put Christmas lights into the shot, but my Ixpress V96C has had firmware upgrades all the way up to and including FlexColor 4.8.4 (the current version is 4.8.6), and I find ISO 400 very usable, but then I guess it depends on what you're shooting. Consider this when comparing the Kodak proBack which as I understand it, no longer has such support whereas the Aptus 17 is more current and I believe you should have better luck getting it supported if anything happens.

I have previously posted in this forum an [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=6719]ISO 400 sample here[/url] shot with my Ixpress V96C, Bronica Zenzanon-S 150mm f/3.5 lens @ ISO 400, 1/60th sec, f/3.5 (wide open), mounted on a tripod. It was a little tricky as he was talking and moving while I was shooting.

With the square sensor, your mileage may vary in terms of how much usable real-estate there is for you, however, my own assessment is that the square sensor 16-megapixel digital back gives me more than what our Canon 5D gives, but maybe that's just me. Would I consider an Aptus 17 over my Ixpress 96C? Sure.

[Bernd B.]

Ahem...

On thing just came back to my mind:

With my Valeo 17 ISO 200 was 100 per cent usable, even when I "pushed" the speed in ACR for another 1,5 stops. Just a little bit of noise, less than on a scan.

But: ISO 400 were completely unusable. Just large amounts of noise all over the picture, even with an absolutely correct exposure.

I don´t know whether this is the same with an Aptus 17. I just wanted to let you know.

Otherwise there were no drawbacks with the Valeo 17. A very fine piece of equipment. Way superior to any MarkII.

Bernd

[James R Russell]

Ahem...

On thing just came back to my mind:

With my Valeo 17 ISO 200 was 100 per cent usable, even when I "pushed" the speed in ACR for another 1,5 stops. Just a little bit of noise, less than on a scan.

But: ISO 400 were completely unusable. Just large amounts of noise all over the picture, even with an absolutely correct exposure.

I don´t know whether this is the same with an Aptus 17. I just wanted to let you know.

Otherwise there were no drawbacks with the Valeo 17. A very fine piece of equipment. Way superior to any MarkII.

Bernd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207401\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Valeo 22 rocked and was dead on stable, good color, fast even on older G4's power pc's using version 8.  No lcd, low power draw, ran on anything.   Once I tried it on an old 12" powerbook and it work fine.

Portable, forget it, 400 iso forget it, 200 iso in photoshop . . . film.

Probably the buy of the century if you only shoot tethered.

Probably now is the time to add a new section to the forum . . .Legacy Digital.

We can talk about the great 1ds1, how stable the Valeo is, why an H25's lcd is just as good as the current medium format lcds (the h25 didn't have an lcd btw).



JR

[BrianWoolf]

Never used the Kodak ProBack, but did use the Kodak Pro SLR/n and liked the Kodak software.
I do use a Leaf Valeo 17wi for still life studio work with Leaf 'LiveView', which works great, ugly implementation but it works. For tethered studio work this back is great. The 100% crop is a tea mug set with a very fine metal mesh tea infuser. I am using a sinar p 4x5 with a Schneider Apo-Symmar 150mm shooting a f16 or under. Needed a touch of the moire filter in the Leaf software to correct some mild moire. Simply a great tool.

[Morgan_Moore]

Never used the Kodak ProBack, but did use the Kodak Pro SLR/n and liked the Kodak software.
I do use a Leaf Valeo 17wi for still life studio work with Leaf 'LiveView', which works great, ugly implementation but it works. For tethered studio work this back is great. The 100% crop is a tea mug set with a very fine metal mesh tea infuser. I am using a sinar p 4x5 with a Schneider Apo-Symmar 150mm shooting a f16 or under. Needed a touch of the moire filter in the Leaf software to correct some mild moire. Simply a great tool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had a proback - liked the colours and software although SilkyPix did an even better or quicker job

They are a great back (at 100ISO less than 1/8s)

BUT

I wouldnt get one - no service - old technology - and not that great reolution once you crop to a rectangle

If I specialised in square arty portraits and one came up for $500/1000 and was too skint for a proper back I would get one

The file is not the problem - it is the age stability and lens crop

I would go for a supported back unless it is dirt cheap

BTW the SLRn still knocks the D3 about in the right (bright) conditions (I own em both and a 22mp)

S