MF digital back question

[igid digi]

Okay, so this is what's plaguing me in my research, and just to get something out of the way, quality is key as the camera will be used for art reproduction.

1.  Where's the best deal with the Kodak KAF-22000CE sensor?
2.  Is CMOS really going to trample CCD within 3 years?
3.  Should I even buy a back if it's not microstepping/MultiShot?
4.  Is anything really significant about to hit the market and shift the scales?

I'm interested in the following MF rig... Does anyone have any advice, precautions, or praise for this setup?:

Hassleblad H1 w/ imacon 528c plus some extras ~ $32,000

Is there anything better in that price range in terms of quality or resalability that you're using or know about?

I appreciate any and all contributions to this topic, I've spent a good deal of time researching what the heck is going on with all this technology, the MP marketing blitz, etc., but I still can't figure out if there's a technological boogeyman about to jump out of the closet, take my money and leave me with an outmoded camera grandma would laugh at in five years!

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi there,

if all you do is art reproduction, my view is that a scanning back is probably the best option:

- cheeper,
- higher resolution/better image quality,
- better color reproduction thanks to the fact that there is Bayer interpolation,
- larger surface covered makes it possible to use regular LF lenses (no need to buy the new smaller image circle Digitar like lenses),

Betterlight is a key contender if portability is required, if it is not, you have other options (Phase + a German manufactuer whose name I have forgotten).

I guess that it all depends on the kind of art work you are trying to reproduce though...

What I mean is that at the resolution of a BL 6K (8000x6000), it seems that the diffraction limit is around f16 on LF. If you go higher in resolution (Super 6K or super 8K), you will need to open up you lenses even more if you want to tap into the resolution provided by the back.

This is OK if your art work is more or less flat. If it is a 3D sculpture that you need to be fully in focus, then there is probably not too much sense in going for the super high resolutions, unless you are willing to to DoF stacking...

I haven't done much art reproduction, I'll let more experienced contributors comment further.

cheers,
Bernard

[pchaplo]

Hassleblad H1 w/ imacon 528c plus some extras ~ $32,000

 if there's a technological boogeyman about to jump out of the closet, take my money and leave me with an outmoded camera grandma would laugh at in five years!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
Yes, for using the good LF glass (I still have my Schneider 90mm SA XL and 150 SS HM in the freezer awaiting some new LF back that will appeal to me), the BetterLight seems best. Still, the museums want their transparencies in the vault, so dont waste too much - shooten film for another 2 years, then switch?

I. Digi, ;-)
The H1 has problems. Get the Mamiya AFD (II).

The bogeyman is named that as he is full of surprises and by definition will jump out and make us all look silly.

I would look at the new PhaseOne and Leaf offerings - they both have new backs this year. PhaseOne has excellent support and software of their own that you must use. H25's are on sale!

Remember to smile for the candid shot with the Bogey Man
Paul

[jecxz]

The H1 has problems.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you be more specific and provide a list please?

Thank you in advance.

dG

[BernardLanguillier]

Can you be more specific and provide a list please?

Thank you in advance.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some of the issues I had with the H1:

- buggy firmware, sometimes the body tells me that no lens is attached, or that no magazin is attached,
- short battery life,

No real problems, but annoying nonetheless:

- heavy lenses that are very expensive.

Regards,
Bernard

[igid digi]

Thanks everyone for your input, I'd appreciate any further comments as well.

Also, I wanted to share one thing I found while researching the H1, apparently (and perhaps someone could verify this) using a polaroid back makes some of the buttons/viewfinder inaccessable.  

And for those who might not have known, the H series was made after Imacon(maker of Ixpress 528c) and Hasselblad merged.  It is widely speculated that the merge has not only affected the mentality of the company, but also the composition of the products themselves.  The H series, from what i understand, is also the first to not use the Carl Zeiss glass, a key component to the quality synonomus with the name Hasselblad.  Instead, Hasselblad has opted to go with a glass developed in Japan under Fugi, which reportedly has some issues with Bokeh.  Perhaps someone could verify this as well.

[SeanBK]

Digi(2),
     I have H1 for 2.5 yrs. I have seen it but NOT installed Polaroid back on H1. In past 20+ yrs of using Hasslblad SWC/M & 2000FC/m with it's Polaroid back, I can't imagine ANYBODY let alone Hasselblad would make a Polaroid Back, so you can't see thru' the viewfinder??? How would you even take a pic??? The only button that may be closest to the Polaroid back would be the "USER" button, which is a short cut for your favorite settings, i.e.one does not need to use it while operating PolaBack. If you are looking at H1 w/132c back than why are you even talking @ PolaBack, isn't Digiback would do everything PolaBack can do and much much more???
  I bought my H1 before Imacon was purchased by Hasselblad. H1 lenses are indeed made by Fuji with Hasselblad specs. The quality of H1 glass is definately comparable to Zeiss..bokeh...The quality of results from H1 on digiBacks is excellent, may be better than Zeiss. But what I or others think is not important, you HAVE to run some test shot with the $32,000. investment under your own working conditions. And then decide.
P.S For clarification of PolaroidBack's accessibility call Hasselblad service/tech dept, they are very cooperative & thorough. GoodLuck

[BJL]

The H system was developed jointly by Hasselblad and Fuji, before the Hassleblad-Imacon merger.

It is more Fuji than Hasselblad: the lenses are entirely Fuji designed and made, and Fuji also makes most of the components for the bodies (with AF sub-systems from Konica-Minolta?), with Hasselblad doing mostly the final assembly.

Despite the habit of some to judge products by brand-name prestige ("Zeiss good, Fuji bad") and high prices, the mostly Fuji designed and made H series has clearly had the greatest success of all 645AF systems in persuading professional MF users to choose it.

[Gary Ferguson]

quality is key as the camera will be used for art reproduction.

What do you mean by "art reproduction"? Flat artwork, three dimensional sculpture, miniatures, house-sized installations? Because the best route to quality will be strongly influenced by these factors.

Once this is fixed I'd suggest starting with the lens, moving on to the back, then deciding on the body which could join these two components together. For all artworks, but in particular flat art, then low distortion will be critical.

You may find that a 38mm Hasselblad 903 SWC fits the bill (it's often used for copying), or you may need to go the whole way and get a process lens. And once the reproduction ratio at the sensor gets to about 1:10 the benefit of a macro lens starts to become important, and by 1:5 it's pretty much essential. So the size of the artworks is important.

Finally, the location of the artworks is also relevant. If they're large and/or in a fixed position, for example hung on a wall, then a camera with movements may be needed if you're to keep the image square and true. I don't know how familiar you are with all this, so forgive me if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs, but pulling an image back into true in Photoshop is a non-starter for high quality repro work.