MF Digital Back Reliability

[John R Smith]

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

[John R Smith]

Well

It looks as if MF digital backs are extremely reliable. Full marks to the manufacturers.

John

[Carsten W]

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.

[ced]

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.

[Kumar]

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

[John R Smith]

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

[yaya]

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

[ced]

deleted post

[ced]

[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.

[UlfKrentz]

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

[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.

Then on what basis would a manufacturer appoint an agent - if he's understaffed or does not have the required knowledge??

Kumar

[Dustbak]

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.

[Jeffreytotaro]

P45+, 2.5 years, not one issue, 30K+ exposures, same with P25 prior to that

[rolleiflexpages]

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

[Lawrie_Hope]

"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

[ced]

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!

[EricWHiss]

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.

[ThierryH]

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

[Kumar]

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

[BobDavid]

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.