Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: John R Smith on January 28, 2010, 05:50:14 am
-
Fellow photographers
There must by now be a considerable accumulated experience here of many thousands of captures using a wide variety of (very expensive) MF digital backs. I am interested in the issue of reliability - have users experienced any electronic issues such as sensor failure, firmware crashes, or mechanical issues with control interface buttons or card slots using these devices? And if so, were the problems satisfactorily resolved by the suppliers and manufacturers? And in your opinion, are MF digital backs now as rugged and reliable a proposition as using a film magazine in the field or studio?
Thanks in advance for your response.
John
-
Well
It looks as if MF digital backs are extremely reliable. Full marks to the manufacturers.
John
-
Well
It looks as if MF digital backs are extremely reliable. Full marks to the manufacturers.
John
No, certainly not, and there have been lots of comments here and in other forums through the years. Every single brand has trouble from time to time, yet there are always people who do not experience any problems, or find solutions to everything.
Personally, my back (Sinar eMotion 54 LV) had problems crashing for a long time, until I took everything apart and cleaned all the contacts, then it stabilized. It still crashes once in a while, but no more often than, say, a Windows PC, so I consider it normal at this point. There is also an issue with the occasional dramatic under-exposure, but again, I suspect contacts or my camera (Contax 645 AF), which is a bit older and probably needs maintenance.
There are also issues like how does the back respond to incorrect settings, like in my case, writing to the CF card when the main buffer is full (there must be room for one image, since it is stored there temporarily), and so on.
Phase backs have had issues with colour casts, CF Card recognition, and so on, but perhaps Phase owners can speak up here. Leaf I don't know exactly, Hasselblad I don't really remember either, but I am almost certain that I have read of problems with all the backs. None are as reliable as film, but I think they are all reliable enough, with the possible exception of some of the Mamiya backs, which could be pretty flaky.
-
Any electronic device is susceptible to problems and as you touched on the matter it is often how quick your local agent can help resolve the issue.
The Leaf system has if the agent wishes a module that can get the back up and running in 2-3 hours or they could let you have a loaner to get the job done while the repair is seen to.
So no fear to go down the DB route.
-
The Leaf system has if the agent wishes a module that can get the back up and running in 2-3 hours or they could let you have a loaner to get the job done while the repair is seen to.
I'd like to know more about this. It's a discretionary thing on the agent's part?
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Thank you for your input.
Just to expand this a little further - this was not an idle post or intended to stir up a load of rants as in film v digital. Here, at work, we do quite a lot of aerial photography. The biggest expense in this is actually the cost of the aircraft hire and flying time, so we must have a reliable camera system. Weather, too, is key - there are very few days in Cornwall when we have clear skies, no haze, and optimal low light for archaeological work, at the time of year when growth patterns are suitable for crop-mark and relict earthwork recording. So a camera failure in-flight would be quite disastrous, and costly. We are considering the purchase of a Hasselblad H-system camera, but as these are now apparently digital only we will not be able to carry a couple of film magazines to cover us in case of sensor failure, as was possible in the past. And we certainly can't afford a spare digital back on top of the cost of the camera, to take with us just in case.
Hence my question as to reliability.
John
-
Thank you for your input.
Just to expand this a little further - this was not an idle post or intended to stir up a load of rants as in film v digital. Here, at work, we do quite a lot of aerial photography. The biggest expense in this is actually the cost of the aircraft hire and flying time, so we must have a reliable camera system. Weather, too, is key - there are very few days in Cornwall when we have clear skies, no haze, and optimal low light for archaeological work, at the time of year when growth patterns are suitable for crop-mark and relict earthwork recording. So a camera failure in-flight would be quite disastrous, and costly. We are considering the purchase of a Hasselblad H-system camera, but as these are now apparently digital only we will not be able to carry a couple of film magazines to cover us in case of sensor failure, as was possible in the past. And we certainly can't afford a spare digital back on top of the cost of the camera, to take with us just in case.
Hence my question as to reliability.
John
Hi John,
I have to admit that my digital experience is far more extensive than the one I have with film. I do know, however, that a film back is as reliable as the skills of the person that loads it or as the ability of one's lab to process the film.
Like others have suggested, an electronic device, be it the GPS on the plane or the digital back on the camera, can fail.
In that regard, digital backs, in general are considered very reliable.
A Phase One 645AF camera, mated to a Leaf or a Phase One back can work very well in your environment, offering high shutter speeds and some very good lenses, plus it can be used with a 645 film back, if a back up is ever needed.
For critical assignments, one can always rent a backup system.
Yair
-
deleted post
-
[quote name= Kumar]
I'd like to know more about this. It's a discretionary thing on the agent's part?
The manufacturer cannot force the agent to perform the task if he is understaffed or has not the required knowledge.
-
Thank you for your input.
Just to expand this a little further - this was not an idle post or intended to stir up a load of rants as in film v digital. Here, at work, we do quite a lot of aerial photography. The biggest expense in this is actually the cost of the aircraft hire and flying time, so we must have a reliable camera system. Weather, too, is key - there are very few days in Cornwall when we have clear skies, no haze, and optimal low light for archaeological work, at the time of year when growth patterns are suitable for crop-mark and relict earthwork recording. So a camera failure in-flight would be quite disastrous, and costly. We are considering the purchase of a Hasselblad H-system camera, but as these are now apparently digital only we will not be able to carry a couple of film magazines to cover us in case of sensor failure, as was possible in the past. And we certainly can't afford a spare digital back on top of the cost of the camera, to take with us just in case.
Hence my question as to reliability.
John
Hi John,
we only have experience with tethered Leaf backs. All four backs we used never had an issue. Working on location with models, stylists, lighting etc makes our production time quite expensive too and we also couldn´t afford a waste of time. The only thing that ever happened was a broken firewire cable. Leaf backs seem to be very reliable.
We use our backs with the H System, you could use film backs on the H1 and H2 for backup. If you are going the Hasselblad way you better worry about a spare body for instant replacement. We never go on a job without one and we needed them from time to time :-(
Cheers, Ulf
-
I'd like to know more about this. It's a discretionary thing on the agent's part?
The manufacturer cannot force the agent to perform the task if he is understaffed or has not the required knowledge.
Then on what basis would a manufacturer appoint an agent - if he's understaffed or does not have the required knowledge??
Kumar
-
Hi John,
we only have experience with tethered Leaf backs. All four backs we used never had an issue. Working on location with models, stylists, lighting etc makes our production time quite expensive too and we also couldn´t afford a waste of time. The only thing that ever happened was a broken firewire cable. Leaf backs seem to be very reliable.
We use our backs with the H System, you could use film backs on the H1 and H2 for backup. If you are going the Hasselblad way you better worry about a spare body for instant replacement. We never go on a job without one and we needed them from time to time :-(
Cheers, Ulf
I second the Leaf backs. Phenomenal reliability. Never even had one single small hickup (I used 4, valeo11, valeo17, Aptus17 & C-Most). The Leaf simply felt like it would never let you down which it hasn't. My Hasselblads have been slightly less reliable I must admit but even these have had only one break down in the last 3 years. Which was expensive unfortunately.
-
P45+, 2.5 years, not one issue, 30K+ exposures, same with P25 prior to that
-
Thank you for your input.
Just to expand this a little further - this was not an idle post or intended to stir up a load of rants as in film v digital. Here, at work, we do quite a lot of aerial photography. The biggest expense in this is actually the cost of the aircraft hire and flying time, so we must have a reliable camera system. Weather, too, is key - there are very few days in Cornwall when we have clear skies, no haze, and optimal low light for archaeological work, at the time of year when growth patterns are suitable for crop-mark and relict earthwork recording. So a camera failure in-flight would be quite disastrous, and costly. We are considering the purchase of a Hasselblad H-system camera, but as these are now apparently digital only we will not be able to carry a couple of film magazines to cover us in case of sensor failure, as was possible in the past. And we certainly can't afford a spare digital back on top of the cost of the camera, to take with us just in case.
Hence my question as to reliability.
John
Hi John,
If you want a reliable MF system that does both digital back and retains film back compatibility with the same body, consider the Rolleiflex / Sinar Hy6 or Leaf AFi systems. Don't let yourself be scared off by some others. The Hy6 can be obtained new from both Sinar and DHW Fototechnik, successor to its manufacturer Franke & Heidecke. With the Hasselblad H you forgo film compatibility unless you carry another film body such as the H2F in addition to a H3D series model. Plus the viewfinders of the Hy6 / AFi systems do not have to be changed and are fully usable as is when switching between film and digital backs, which is not the case with the Hasselblad digital viewfinder.
Pascal
-
"Thank you for your input.
Just to expand this a little further - this was not an idle post or intended to stir up a load of rants as in film v digital. Here, at work, we do quite a lot of aerial photography. The biggest expense in this is actually the cost of the aircraft hire and flying time, so we must have a reliable camera system. Weather, too, is key - there are very few days in Cornwall when we have clear skies, no haze, and optimal low light for archaeological work, at the time of year when growth patterns are suitable for crop-mark and relict earthwork recording. So a camera failure in-flight would be quite disastrous, and costly. We are considering the purchase of a Hasselblad H-system camera, but as these are now apparently digital only we will not be able to carry a couple of film magazines to cover us in case of sensor failure, as was possible in the past. And we certainly can't afford a spare digital back on top of the cost of the camera, to take with us just in case.
Hence my question as to reliability.
John"
Hi John,
Just wondered if you have considered the Leaf Aptus II (22,28,33 or 56 million pixel) used in conjunction with the AF body and PhaseOne digital lenses would allow you the luxury of using analogue film backs as a back-up if you felt you needed a comfort blanket. Fabulous quality,the best detail in highlite and shadow. Have one here if you want to test.
Kindest
-
Then on what basis would a manufacturer appoint an agent - if he's understaffed or does not have the required knowledge??
Kumar
Beggars cannot always be choosers!
-
I'd think my phase back has been about as trouble free as any piece of gear. Nothing has had more problems than my Leica gear. The Canon is in the middle, with most of the problems with new gear coming from the manufacturer DOA or not within spec. Not a whole lot to go wrong with the backs themselves - pretty solid except the batteries, and connection points.
I've had several e-mail interchanges with people using the Rollei 6008 for aerial cameras and seen several specially built aerial cameras using Rollei lenses (for the very reliable and fast electronic shutter 1/1000 and low distortion lenses ) and Phase P45 backs.
-
Hi John,
If you want a reliable MF system that does both digital back and retains film back compatibility with the same body, consider the Rolleiflex / Sinar Hy6 or Leaf AFi systems. Don't let yourself be scared off by some others. The Hy6 can be obtained new from both Sinar and DHW Fototechnik, successor to its manufacturer Franke & Heidecke. With the Hasselblad H you forgo film compatibility unless you carry another film body such as the H2F in addition to a H3D series model. Plus the viewfinders of the Hy6 / AFi systems do not have to be changed and are fully usable as is when switching between film and digital backs, which is not the case with the Hasselblad digital viewfinder.
Pascal
Pascal,
you are certainly right with considering the Rolleiflex 6008 serie of bodies (there are many in the market, lenses can be found, servicing seems to be warranted with the new DHW structure, etc ...), but I would not recommend to go the Hy6 way, being it from Sinar or with the Rolleiflex brand: the Hy6 system is as good as dead, the lens line will not be developed any further, accessories are sparse, service is provided but nobody knows for how long, .... It is simply not wise to invest in it, IMO.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
Beggars cannot always be choosers!
ced, perhaps you'd care to amplify? Or maybe some of the dealers/reps here? I specifically want to know about the Leaf module that ced speaks of.
Kumar
-
Hi John,
If you want a reliable MF system that does both digital back and retains film back compatibility with the same body, consider the Rolleiflex / Sinar Hy6 or Leaf AFi systems. Don't let yourself be scared off by some others. The Hy6 can be obtained new from both Sinar and DHW Fototechnik, successor to its manufacturer Franke & Heidecke. With the Hasselblad H you forgo film compatibility unless you carry another film body such as the H2F in addition to a H3D series model. Plus the viewfinders of the Hy6 / AFi systems do not have to be changed and are fully usable as is when switching between film and digital backs, which is not the case with the Hasselblad digital viewfinder.
Pascal
The H2F takes CF backs and film magazines without having to change the viewfinder.
-
here you go.
video from Leaf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDNsFegKeWw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDNsFegKeWw)
-Dan
-
I've been using my Hasselblad in studio and relatively benign location shooting conditions for a year, with no hint of any problem. I don't shoot tethered. I've never had any hint of hissy fits from the camera or back.
If you go for an H3, why not pick up a second hand H1 or H2F plus film back(s) at the same time? Procentre in London have usually have these in their second hand section and the cost is comparable with the cost of an MF lens. That way you do have the film backup option right to hand.
Or, if the shoots where you critically need backup come in reasonably tight batches, hire a second H plus back for the duration.
Or, take a 5D Mk2 as backup. Sure, it isn't up the quality of the H3's, but 21 megapixels with good Canon L series glass on the front (especially primes) is far better than no shots at all from an expensive shoot day. That's what we do for our location shoots, mainly because we already had the Canons lying around from before we acquired the Hasselblad. The only times we've used the backup cameras are where we have split into two shooting units on location to make the best of the place and the models' time.
I don't know what the conditions are like in your shoots, but I'd probably want a backup I could just pick up and use immediately in case of any technical hitch, not something I'd want to change lenses on or backs on in mid-flight. So if it were me I'd go for a complete ready-to-roll backup with lens on the front, even if the lens/camera choice is a little less than ideal (say a H2F with standard 80 mm on the front...) as that minimizes wasted time fiddling around in case something were to go wrong with the primary system.
Cheers, Hywel Phillips
-
John,
you may also have an interest in this:
http://www.rollei-metric.com/index.php?id=...ome&lang=en (http://www.rollei-metric.com/index.php?id=12&page=home&lang=en)
-
The H2F takes CF backs and film magazines without having to change the viewfinder.
True but I was referring to the latest H3D-II series offerings, which do not allow use of film backs. Moreover, if you were to use the standard digital viewfinder on the older H3D, which does give film back compatibility, the viewfinder image would not cover the entire area for film. Hence the normal viewfinder would be needed in addition. Anyway, the point with Hasselblad is that you either go for the H2F (with both film and only Hasselblad CF digibacks, but not the highest digital IQ and no choice of 3rd party digital back) or the latest H3D-II series (or even H4D) (with digital back only, with very high IQ but also no 3rd party digital back). If you want the latest and most integrated digital solutions (H3D-II and up), you forgo film back compatibility, which is only restored by adding a second body (H2F, H2, H1) for film.
-
How about the ability of MFDBs to withstand heat, dust and vibration?
Would it be gearcide to take a MFDB on an overland trip by local bus and by foot in a very hot & dusty tropical environment?
I have seen Phase One's macho MFDB ads on youtube but of course even these ads are shot in a studio, which is where most MFDBs are mostly designed to be used.
Of course any sensible photographer would opt for a weather sealed DSLR. But if just being sensible was the only option many of us would be reading some other forum
-
The back is like a solid sealed brick which you put on the back of your camera.
So it's not a camera system like a DSLR.
Been around the world with mine and like I said before, no problems to report after 139968 Captures.
The camera body and lenses are a different story - that's the week link these days - not the back.
Happy to hear this - as I have a lot more $$ invested in my precious eMotion MFDB than in my secondhand Contax 645 body. Would you go so far as to say vibrations from a moving vehicle on a rough road, dust and tropical heat are unlikely to do any damage to a MFDB (yes, I know "what did I say - read my lips" but, well, errr Wow!
Maybe it is time to stop nursing my MFDB as if it were a fragile computer?
Have you ever tried dropping it from a plane?
BTW if it were possible to produce photos like the ones on your website just by buying a MFDB the risk would be worthwhile
-
I have had 3 Phase backs P25+, P30+ and now the P40+ backs and knock on wood never had any performance issues or mechanical failures on any of the backs. I push them pretty hard too. Frankly the back is the least of my worries in the total system . The bodies are more my concern. I did have a failure in a Mamiya AFDIII body but a backup body is relatively cheap like a AFD or AFD II you can find a used one for 1k or less. Again though any electronic body can go down.
-
I have had 3 Phase backs P25+, P30+ and now the P40+ backs and knock on wood never had any performance issues or mechanical failures on any of the backs. I push them pretty hard too. Frankly the back is the least of my worries in the total system . The bodies are more my concern. I did have a failure in a Mamiya AFDIII body but a backup body is relatively cheap like a AFD or AFD II you can find a used one for 1k or less. Again though any electronic body can go down.
Guy,
You travel all over too. Maybe you could volunteer to drop your P40+ from a plane and report back to us on the impact?
I have in mind the famous story about the war photographer who dropped his Leica from a war plane somewhere and continued to use it after it was found in a ploughed field and returned to him. If I remember right it was a Leica. But I guess there are not so many soft ploughed fields left any more and a motorway would make for a rougher landing.
Just dropping a MFDB on a hard floor sounds more than sickening enough
-
Guy,
You travel all over too. Maybe you could volunteer to drop your P40+ from a plane and report back to us on the impact?
I have in mind the famous story about the war photographer who dropped his Leica from a war plane somewhere and continued to use it after it was found in a ploughed field and returned to him. If I remember right it was a Leica. But I guess there are not so many soft ploughed fields left any more and a motorway would make for a rougher landing.
Just dropping a MFDB on a hard floor sounds more than sickening enough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFnQVnMY3Co (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFnQVnMY3Co)
-
Guy,
You travel all over too. Maybe you could volunteer to drop your P40+ from a plane and report back to us on the impact?
I have in mind the famous story about the war photographer who dropped his Leica from a war plane somewhere and continued to use it after it was found in a ploughed field and returned to him. If I remember right it was a Leica. But I guess there are not so many soft ploughed fields left any more and a motorway would make for a rougher landing.
Just dropping a MFDB on a hard floor sounds more than sickening enough
LOL Well I did lose a Hassy V out of a helicopter with film back up in Calgary over Lake Louise . Never did get that one back.
Seriously though I just shot three days in the rain here in Phoenix shooting this huge storm that came in with a 2 gallon ziplock bag and without on occasion and no issues. 25 cents to waterproof your camera who needs to spend more than that. Worked great actually. I actually think they way the designed the Phase backs that they have some very nice structural integrity and maybe reason why the elephant did not crush it . Obviously if it was turned a another way maybe a different ending.
-
alternatively: here (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00QZIE) though admittedly this is a vintage model MFDB that was perhaps mishandled and otherwise may be still running today regardless of stampeding elephants, washing machines and ice machines not to forget helicopters.
Quite positive that it is hard to find any post about unreliability or failure of any MFDB anywhere...
-
alternatively: here (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00QZIE) though admittedly this is a vintage model MFDB that was perhaps mishandled and otherwise may be still running today regardless of stampeding elephants, washing machines and ice machines not to forget helicopters.
Quite positive that it is hard to find any post about unreliability or failure of any MFDB anywhere...
Have to agree with any of the backs from all the OEM's it is pretty rare to hear of any of them going down. I'm sure it happens but you would think we would hear about it more and we don't . Which tells me they all do a good job of staying alive. Seriously for the money we spend that can't be beat for sure. The other nice thing is the actuations which really seem to have no effect on life with them. My last back had 18k on it and still going strong.
-
ced, perhaps you'd care to amplify? Or maybe some of the dealers/reps here? I specifically want to know about the Leaf module that ced speaks of.
Kumar
Hi Kumar,
The Leaf Aptus and subsequent models after, have been designed in a modular manner that allows the electronics, ie everything except the mount plate, IR filter and sensor to be changed as one unit, known as the 'E' box. This can be done by a dealer, who has completed the extensive Leaf training course. The dealer then holds stock of these replacement E boxes. This means that on the odd occasion that the back fails a dealer can, after performing various diagnostic procedures, turn a back around in a matter of hours, instead of shipping back to Denmark or Sweden and the subsequent delays this would incur.
-
Hi Kumar,
The Leaf Aptus and subsequent models after, have been designed in a modular manner that allows the electronics, ie everything except the mount plate, IR filter and sensor to be changed as one unit, known as the 'E' box. This can be done by a dealer, who has completed the extensive Leaf training course. The dealer then holds stock of these replacement E boxes. This means that on the odd occasion that the back fails a dealer can, after performing various diagnostic procedures, turn a back around in a matter of hours, instead of shipping back to Denmark or Sweden and the subsequent delays this would incur.
Hi Darius,
this is interesting information.
Another question: aren't Leaf backs manufactured by Leaf in Israel ? Why would they have to be sent to Denmark or Sweden ?
Just curious...
Pascal
-
Hi Darius,
this is interesting information.
Another question: aren't Leaf backs manufactured by Leaf in Israel ? Why would they have to be sent to Denmark or Sweden ?
Just curious...
Pascal
Hi pascal,
You are indeed correct, Leaf backs are manufactured in Israel, I was talking about the competition.
cheers
-
Darius, thanks for clarifying. This is for the Aptus 17 and later models, right? And how would one know which dealer has undergone the requisite training? Leaf would have some kind of list?
Kumar
-
Darius, thanks for clarifying. This is for the Aptus 17 and later models, right? And how would one know which dealer has undergone the requisite training? Leaf would have some kind of list?
Kumar
Hi Kumar,
Actually this applies from the Valeo 17 onwards at present. Don't know whether there is a list that exists, I suppose you just ask your local dealer. Currently Support for the old 'legacy' backs ie some Valeos all Aptus and Aptus S and some Aptus II (with serial number prefix LF) is handled by the old Kodak company and support for new Aptus II (with serial number prefix LI) from the new Leaf Imaging company.
-
I'm going to chime in here since no one seems to hear of any problem with DBs. I've had a few issues with my P30+. The first P30+ I owned suffered from a severe magenta color cast on exactly half of the frame (exacerbated at high ISOs). My dealer swapped me out of that back, and into the P30+ I currently own. This one intermittently has the same half-frame magenta cast (even after being sent out for repair) and also randomly shoots black frames (also sent in for repair on this, to no avail). I have been pressing my dealer for another replacement, but this has been an uphill battle. I also had focusing issues with my Phase AFD body, but that's another deal. Unfortunately, every repair cycle costs me about $100 in shipping. So far I've had to ship various pieces of my MF back and forth at least four times.
I don't doubt the reliability of MFDBs in general, but they aren't perfect.. I think the issues I'm having were existing when the equipment was new, not due to reliability or wear and tear.
-J
-
... randomly shoots black frames ...
is it not supposed to do this?
-
Phase one user since the original Lightphase ( 6mp )
Only use tethered systems never shot to a CF with a Phase ( Canon works too nicely for handheld/location work for me ) but I can say that I've only encountered one problem with Phase backs in the 12 or so years I've been using them and it was ENTIRELY MY FAULT. At the time the longest firewire cable available was 16' IIRC but it may have been 11' anyways regardless I was "sold" these little firewire multipliers that worked passively and you simply plugged the firewire in one side and added another cable on the out port and voila you could double your cable length... Well... What I didnt realize was these things were not all that reliable and one day with a three way boosted line I literally put my Phase back up in smoke... Scary day as at the time it was my only back. Anyways some panicked phone calls and a mighty excellent service from Phase with a loaner and I was back in business within a day and the repair took about a week. Never had another single issue with any of the backs I've had or used and I'd hate to guess the total capture numbers but I have terrabytes of final images in my archive.
Phase quality? Better than I would have ever imagined A+++++++++
-
And we certainly can't afford a spare digital back on top of the cost of the camera, to take with us just in case.
Hence my question as to reliability.
John
I understand how it's not always possible to have a spare digital back on a shoot, or nearby, much less own one ; but keep in mind, if your equipment fails and there's no backup, it's you who's not reliable, not the camera or back.
When an extra MFDB and camera body is not available, I have at least a high-res 35mm system with me for outdoor shoots, just in case .