Which MF system?

[vantomas]

hi everybody,

i am in the very same position right now. have been wanting to buy a digital back for some time now, but my friend and and frequent contributor flashfredrikson said, that i am fine with my canon 1ds mkIII.

but...i really want to buy a MFDB, and it is quite difficult to decide which one at the moment. here in europe we have two good offers from Phase1: cam with 21+ back or H3DII-31 for round about 10 grand.

my concerns: P21+ is the same than my canon 1DS MkIII. so why bother.
the hasselblad H3D-31 seems a good deal but comes with the useless Phocus-software and is not upgradeable, never mind the crop factor. i could look for H2D and mount a phase1 back to it or buy some old contax 645...etc etc.

we all seem to have the same problems.

the leica s2 solution looks good, but when the camera will hit the street it is totally outdated and the aspect ratio is 2:3 anyway. so why bother.

so what is there to do?
i really don't know.

best
thomas

[Graham Mitchell]

the hasselblad H3D-31 seems a good deal but comes with the useless Phocus-software and is not upgradeable, never mind the crop factor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have a look at the Sinar Hy6-65. I believe the price is similar to the Hasselblad and comes with 3yr warranty. This back in the only back ever to generate jpegs and DNGs internally, meaning you can pull the DNGs straight out of the camera and into your favourite raw processing program. The sensor is the same as in the Hass 31 though.

[Brady]

I really don't agree with those which use digital back with an old medium format camera with analogic lenses; a digital back it's not like film or polaroid...so hasselblad V it's not a good one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

eeeehhhh......i think it depends on what you're lookin' for in a camera, file,  and not to mention your budget...a back w/ a V mount is the best value and most flexible option IMHO....plenty successful commercial photogs using old hassy v cameras and RZ's w/ digi backs and I guarantee you wouldn't know the difference if you saw it in print next to an h3d or whatever back w/ those new digi lenses.

If Mark Seliger is shootin' 503cw's w/ phase backs without any problems i be willing to bet it's probably good enough for the rest of us as well unless you need extreme wides or are doing super tech stuff.

[michele]

eeeehhhh......i think it depends on what you're lookin' for in a camera, file,  and not to mention your budget...a back w/ a V mount is the best value and most flexible option IMHO....plenty successful commercial photogs using old hassy v cameras and RZ's w/ digi backs and I guarantee you wouldn't know the difference if you saw it in print next to an h3d or whatever back w/ those new digi lenses.

If Mark Seliger is shootin' 503cw's w/ phase backs without any problems i be willing to bet it's probably good enough for the rest of us as well unless you need extreme wides or are doing super tech stuff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225104\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, you are right. If something works for you that's all right. If Annie Leibovitz takes photos with a Canon or with a Leica or with a Holga who cares? What it actually metters is the picture and in my personal case also the money I earn for my living and what the art directors say... But tell me: why should I buy a digital back that outresolves the resolution of the lenses I use? And tell me: is it better a back that outresolves the resolution of the lens or a lens that outresolves the resolution of the back?