Kodak DCS MFDB image quality

[evgeny]

I mostly shoot models, portraits and still life; it's my very small, not full time business.
My equipment is:
- Contax 645
- Nikon F6
- Nikon D40
- Nikon 9000 scanner for 35mm and MF

I think spend approx $2-3K in the like new, latest version, Kodak Professional DCS Pro Back for fast digital production with my Contax 645. I want to grow slowly and see return on investment before I will buy a better and more expensive MDBF.

I looked at the technical specs of the Kodak DCS Pro back, but I want to hear from photographers who have hands on experience:

1. Will I see better images compared to my D40?
2. Will I see better images compared to Nikon D300 (D3)?

I mean "better images" at ISO 100 - colors, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, etc.

Thanks.

[BJNY]

Certainly it would be better than the Nikons at 100 ISO.
First and foremost from the lack of AA filter.

I used the ProBack645 on an H1 years ago, and found the skintones to be beautiful.
No surprise since Kodak knows filmlooks.

[mcfoto]

Hi
I remember that Kodax DCS from 2001 & 2002. Used it for a few assignments but in the end it was one of the worst backs I have ever used. It is too slow about 1 frame for every 2 seconds. Since you are a Nikon user the D300 & the D3 would be a much better investment. I found the Kodax files to be noisy........bottom line it is an old back that wasn't very good in the first place. If you want to go for a MFD back at a low price look for an Aptus 11 or 17. Take a look at some of the Phase & Sinar backs to.
Denis

[evgeny]

Thanks for replies!

I don't shoot sports and my Hensel strobes need 1-2 seconds to recharge capacitors, so 1 frame for every 2 seconds is Ok for me.

I don't found Aptus 11 or 17 for Contax 645 mount at reasonable price, yet.

Phase and Sinar are made such expensive to be able drop in price every year or two.


UPDATE: important to know how Kodak DCS MFDB compares at ISO 100 to Nikon D40/D300/D3 in studio. Thank.

[Morgan_Moore]

Thanks for replies!

I don't shoot sports and my Hensel strobes need 1-2 seconds to recharge capacitors, so 1 frame for every 2 seconds is Ok for me.

I don't found Aptus 11 or 17 for Contax 645 mount at reasonable price, yet.

Phase and Sinar are made such expensive to be able drop in price every year or two.
UPDATE: important to know how Kodak DCS MFDB compares at ISO 100 to Nikon D40/D300/D3 in studio. Thank.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188404\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had a kodak back

Overall I think money is best spent on a D3 or considering you are studio a D300 and saving until a 22mp nikon comes out or an A17 or similar becomes affordable

I thinkg the 3 is only really better than the 300 with high Iso or wide lenses

But to answer you question I think kidak back produces wonderful files in good light

I got rid of mine because of the wide crop and some focussing issues with my mamiya - not because of the file quality

If you shoot rectangle you might get good results with a kodak SLRn - really sharp and cheap ! (but moiree and IR heavy) ($600??)

I reckon the SLRn is good against the D3 in the right conditions !

S

[evgeny]

I just reviewed sample DCS images.
Thank to a luminous-landscape photographer for sharing.

I found that evening and night scenes miss details in shadows. The day light images look not crisp and a bit dark and blarred.

Ok, these images were not processed, but my unprocessed 35mm slide scans usually look better.

It could be just these samples or settings in the back. If you have sample images taken with the DCS back, please show here or post a link to external resources.

Thank!

[Ken Doo]

I shot with the Kodak 645M for several years in studio---and thought that the files it produced were exceptional for portraits.  To me it was more than just the MFDB, it was the ability to shoot with a MF camera and lenses (Mamiya 645AFD).  I shot only at 100 in studio.

Not often mentioned is the Kodak "Special Looks" software----an add-on module to the Kodak Software, that I found was exceptional.

During that time period, in selecting "favorite" images for a promotional piece, I found in retrospect that I had selected images taken with MF in every instance, except for one, over those taken with a DSLR.

The Kodak back is "slow" but as a studio solution I suspect it still produces beautiful work. I moved to the Phase P30 not because I needed to----but because I felt I deserved it!  

[evgeny]

Wow, Ken, exceptional image, thank you!

John, thank you for comment, that's useful.

[vgogolak]

Dear evgeny,

Although I think the P30 or P25 wor even P21 would be no question relative to Kodak back, I would caution against running to a D3 or other 35mm system. Even old MF technology had a better IQ, to my eyes. I reviewed some of my older Kodak back Contax 645 images, and am still impressed, sometimes they have a real filmlike quality, and the 'looks' software for Photodesk created some wonderful results.

Here is an example, outake from a travel series, that was is poor light but still has wonderful depthg. The 100% crop has jpg artifacts but raw is clean.

I would suggest getting some raw images to play with.

I would be happy to send you some .dcr files, and Photodesk from Kodak is free.

regards
Victor

PS: I did trade up to phase, so I no longfer have. But even for $5k I would get the Kodak back again instead of the D3.

[evgeny]

Viktor, thank you for sharing images. What are the .dcr files ? Profiles?

[vgogolak]

.dcr is the designation for the Kodak back raw files. They are processed in an application, PHotodesk that many considered quite good. It was what you could apply the "looks" profiles in for portrait, product etc.

[ddk]

I mostly shoot models, portraits and still life; it's my very small, not full time business.
My equipment is:
- Contax 645
- Nikon F6
- Nikon D40
- Nikon 9000 scanner for 35mm and MF

I think spend approx $2-3K in the like new, latest version, Kodak Professional DCS Pro Back for fast digital production with my Contax 645. I want to grow slowly and see return on investment before I will buy a better and more expensive MDBF.

I looked at the technical specs of the Kodak DCS Pro back, but I want to hear from photographers who have hands on experience:

1. Will I see better images compared to my D40?
2. Will I see better images compared to Nikon D300 (D3)?

I mean "better images" at ISO 100 - colors, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, etc.

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188397\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Shooting with any MF back is a different experience than shooting with 35mm dslrs. Most of the negatives regarding speed & consistency mentioned above apply to all but the latest and greatest backs. IMO the Kodak 365c is a great bargain when you consider its 2-3k price today. The IQ at iso 100-200 is superior to any Nikon that I've used including the D3, far better colors with deeper & richer tones, specially the skin tones are to die for. And lets not forget the quality of the Contax lenses vs the Nikkors. One caveat, you have to use Kodak's software if you want those Kodak colors & tones, otherwise you're not going to see enough of a difference processing your raw files with PS or LR, then you might as well stick with Nikon or whatever camera that you're using now. You just have to be watchful of the deep shadows.

david

PS Your D40 isn't anywhere close to the quality of the Kodak!

[evgeny]

David, thanks!

[evgeny]

PS Your D40 isn't anywhere close to the quality of the Kodak!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By the way, here are two last images I shot with D40 and 70-200 lens.

[ddk]

nice colors evgeny but there's very little tonal range here, you'll see the difference if you ever get the Kodak back or even a Fuji S5.

rgds, david

[evgeny]

Interesting

[vgogolak]

yes, tonal range and dynamic range and a presence. Here's an old KD the second being a 100% crop, so it's down to all the info from just the RGBG 4 cells.

hope these help Victor

[evgeny]

What does this DCS back worth today?

If seller asks a higher amount, what would be a better buy?

Thank!

[ddk]

What does this DCS back worth today?

If seller asks a higher amount, what would be a better buy?

Thank!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It depends on the condition, there were a few recently on e-bay that sold from $2500 to $3800. The cheaper ones usually have visible signs of use with paint missing in various areas and/or the FW input is bent and have more than 20k in actuations but work fine. The more expensive ones are in better cosmetic condition and have fewer actuations. There should be a focusing screen included with Kodak crop marks. Additionally there was an optional AA filter which will add to the value if included.

david

[evgeny]

Ok, this is within my price range. I will buttle tomorrow for the back