Request for advice getting started in digital medium format

[Wolven]

Hi Ken, thanks for pointing the DSLR alternatives out but it is not just the image quality I am after. Otherwise I would have gone out and bought a Sony A7R. I rather want to get into medium format territory and learn the techniques associated. I am hopeful that for 12k and compromising on a cheap back I would be able to get a setup that would give me a huge learning and experimenting opportunity.

Cheers.

Wolven:

Since your budget is $12k I would advice you to steer away from a tech camera Medium Format Digital system. $12k is enough for a good body and one or two lenses but not enough when you add a good digital back. Yes, you might have enough for a System with an older P+ or Leaf back but it will have compromises that I don't think are worth having to endure when there are excellent cameras like the D810 (or A7R or 645z) readily available.

With a $12k tech camera system you will gain the ability to shift/tilt quite a bit, the awesome lens quality and of course the experience of working with such a system plus the possibility of upgrading components in the future. But keep in mind that you will most likely not gain image quality over a D810/A7R and most likely loose some.

[Wolven]

Thanks Erik. I believe an upgrade to my D600 will be quite some ways away after I invest in a medium format system.

Until then I am sure I will enjoy the tech camera's varied possibilities.

Hi,

You can use T&S on Sony A7r. The D810 is not so flexible in that sense.


Best regards
Erik

[Paul2660]

Hi,

I just own the P45+ back. It is interesting that "Synn" finds that his Credo 40 is superior in all aspects, but it is not really a surprise. The Credo has a much more modern DALSA sensor while the P45+ has an older Kodak sensor.

I would say that Paul may be a bit to hard on the P45+, it can make some excellent images, but I would say that Paul is very much right that the later and more expensive sensors are more useful. Paul may also feel that the P45+ represent poor value compared to 36MP DSLRs. I have never had owned a 36 MP DSLR, but I have every reason to believe that is the case.

On the other hand, Anders Torger is also right in that the P45+ is a good choice for technical cameras.

I have posted some samples from my P45+ here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/

Best regards
Erik

Hello Eric,

I wasn't trying be too harsh on the P45+, and your point of comparing to a 36MP DSLR is a good one  I actually used the P45+ for around 30K to 35K actuations, all with a AFDIII or DF body, more than I have used with either my 160 or 260.  And as Torger pointed out, when the P45+ was first announced in 2007 it was the best solution available for digital.  You might still be able to find some of the reviews from the owners of this site.  The P45+ had the single greatest amount of resolution that was in any standard digital camera that could be carried in the field.  The best DSLR at that time was the Canon 1ds MKII at 16MP and in October of 2008, Canon announced the 1ds MKIII, which I briefly owned, but sold to purchase the P45+.  I was after base resolution and 39MP was 2x the Canon, or very close.

But now in 2014, there are just a lot more alternatives, both in the MF lineup and DSLR lineup.  

I am unique in that I personally don't see much difference from the file of the MF back or DSLR like the D800.  Others do.  Where the MF back will have a bit better color response, it loses in the shadow DR, as even at iso 50, the files are not as clean as a D810, again at least to my eyes.

My main reason for the move up to MF was the higher resolution, in that in a single capture I had 40MP and good get a large print with less or none uprezing.  I moved to the tech camera because none of the offered Mamiya/Phase One wide lenses, 28mm 35mm or 45mm offered good frame wide sharpeness.  Thus my 40MP shots were more like 30MP after cropping the soft/smeared corners.  The tech camera with movements offers much better overall details, center and corner and adds the ability to have movements which I use in almost all my wide shots.  

Again, no doubt the P45+ sensor is going to be much more tech lens friendly, as it has no readout lines (which create tiling) and no microlenses (which create both crosstalk and ripple).  It's a 1:1 crop, which is not too much penalty.  (how I wish Phase One had made the 250 1:1 instead of 1:3)  However the DR of the P45+ is pretty limited, which is a big deal for me.  Eric has shown this in his comparisions with his A99 and P45+ shadow comparisons.  

Are the Dalsa chips better, well, they are still basically a base iso +1 level chip.  So 50 to 100 iso.  They have excellent DR towards to the highend, thus highlights have a lot more room, they still can be tricky in the shadows still much better than the P45+ in my work.  Are the the best for tech cameras, NO, they are not.  They have read out lines, which breakout sensor read into 8 segments, very often one of these segments gets out of calibration and you get tiling.  They have microlenses and thus have both ripple and crosstalk.  So your tech lens choice is pushed towards the Rodenstocks not the Schneiders, even though the Schneiders are excellent glass.  The 260 claims 1 hour but from what I have seen from mine it's more like a 30 minute max unless you are shooting in the dead of winter where the chip will stay cool.  Somehow, Phase got a very very clean, and detailed image from the P45+, IMO it's still the KING for long exposure in MF land.  

I have moved to DSLR's for my long expsoures, and since I stack, the MF design won't work anyway due to the mandatory dark frame.

Take a look at the DxO score for the P45+, P65+.  The P65+ was an amazing step up in DR and still is a great back.  If it only had USB and thus could be tethered to a small device like the Surface Pro!  

I hope that the OP can setup sometime with a dealer or other photographer using some of this gear, test it and then see what he feels.  Try the P45+/Phase One DF+ or DF or another body like Hasselblad as Eric has.  Then shoot maybe a P65+ or Credo 60/iq160 and shoot your D600.  Go back spend some time working the files in C1, yes C1, as C1 just does better with Phase One/Leaf files, then look at the shots you would have taken with your D600.  That's the only way to really make the call.  Hopefully you can do this.  

Paul

[Wolven]

You have brought up a good point seeded deeply in my mind, Edmund.

To invest too much into a great back only to find that I am not all that keen to continue this line of work would be a big blow financially. At my current budget, I will be dipping my toes sufficiently to whet my appetite.

Live view and Ipad tethering are nice to have but not as essential as, say long exposure capability for me. Its something I have to learn to adapt to.

Cheers

Wolven,

 There is something to what Ken says. Backs were always expensive, and with your budget you will get an older back, which dSLR tech has caught up with. So you may not gain a lot because probably what can be done with a P25 can also be done at least as well with a Sony.

 On the other side, you can certainly get a decent tech camera and lens, a cheap old back, and wait a couple of years to upgrade the back if you think this working style really will suit you in the future.

 My own feeling is that good tech is fun to have, but these days work can be done with fairly cheap equipment if one is motivated. In particular, I think liveview and remote viewing via iPad is simplifying working methods a lot.

Edmund

[torger]

My own feeling is that good tech is fun to have, but these days work can be done with fairly cheap equipment if one is motivated. In particular, I think liveview and remote viewing via iPad is simplifying working methods a lot.

That is very true. If I was only in it for the image quality I would probably use a Sony A7r and stitching techniques today. Having a tech camera as an amateur is a bit like having a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, or indeed a large format film camera. It's not all about quality, it's about enjoying the image making process having a bit of fun.

Although I will ditch the sliding back when good tech cam friendly affordable liveview backs appear I actually find it a bit charming to work with this all-mechanical camera using old-school techniques. It took a while but now I indeed can understand the upside-down and mirrored ground glass image. Photography is so simple in a way. ISO is always 50, you have aperture and shutter speed in the mechanical copal shutter. The technical camera body is just a purely mechanical device that's designed to hold the lens and sensor in relative positions to each other adjustable in precise ways. Digital back is just there to short cut the film development process.

I see new photography products blazing by and I do follow them from my engineering interest, but it's also relaxing to have this old school tech cam system for my photography, I've released the pressure on having the latest, I don't have the stress to upgrade it to keep the distance from the 135 crowd.

So if budget tech cam system will work or not will depend on what expectations you have. If it's about best possible image quality in the most cost effective way a high MP 135 camera complemented with stitching techniques must be the answer.

I don't know if I will be using tech cams in 5 - 10 years from now or not. It depends on what will happen, there are so many scenarios. Say if we get lots of great tilt-shift lenses in the smaller format in many focal lengths then 135 would be more attractive for me, and if the same time MF continues to develop in a tech-unfriendly way and continues the high pricing, it could tip over so I move back to 135. However say if next CMOS is tech friendly, Hasselblad continues its CFV line and the new trend with much more attractive pricing that could be a natural upgrade when my Aptus 75 electronics finally dies or I just get too much megapixel-envy in my mind so I just have to upgrade.

[Paul2660]

Actually CCD backs have held very good value, look at the before mentioned P45+, as they are still selling for around 8K, for a back that cost new 29K in March of 2008, that's much much better value than any DSLR to date.  My D800e which sold for 3.2K in June of 2012 is only worth 1.2K at KEH and about 1.6 on the open market. 

What will be a huge factor for CCD backs, is when Phase One brings the next CMOS chip out, sometime next year or early 2016.  I figure it's another Sony chip. 

Quesitons:

1.  Will it have the same design for microlenses, which will limit tech lenses even more
2.  Will it be full frame or 1:1
3.  What MP resolution will it have? 70, 90?
4.  Will it stay in the "reasonable" price point?
5.  Will Phase One offer a realistic trade in from say a IQ180, or 260 or etc.

You will still have the photographers who prefer the "look" of CCD backs, and they will continue to purchase them and justify the differences they feel are there.  But these CCD backs will always have the exact same limitations you have today, and we have gone over those plenty of times.  If you like the look, can live with the limits, then it's the right back.

However I feel for many, the first full frame CMOS Medium format back will be a huge seller for Phase One, "world wide" and if they figure out a way to make the chip more useable for movements, then even better. 

For my work, I would easily move to the Credo 50 (I prefer the look from testing on Getdpi by Guy Mancuso) but the 1:3 crop is a big enough issue I just can't justify the move.  I feel after looking at Guy's shots especially the solid blue skies, I could make the shifting still work, especially since there would be no tiling. 

The other option, that has been both discussed and fully reviewed on this site, the 645z, for sure if I was just starting out, and had no investment in Phase One gear, the 645z would be an easy choice.  50MP is plenty of resolution for what I need.  And 3 years ago, I had 6 Pentax lenses all I used with a Zork adatper, all excellent, but they are gone, not going to start from scratch again.    If you can work with the current Pentax warranty and support structure that is in place, for sure look that direction also.

Paul

[Ken R]

Hi Ken, thanks for pointing the DSLR alternatives out but it is not just the image quality I am after. Otherwise I would have gone out and bought a Sony A7R. I rather want to get into medium format territory and learn the techniques associated. I am hopeful that for 12k and compromising on a cheap back I would be able to get a setup that would give me a huge learning and experimenting opportunity.

Cheers.

In that case a P25+ might be a good back for you or one of the Leaf Aptus backs. Schneider lenses are more than good enough for those backs. One can do LOTS of great work with that setup and have some fun in the process.

[Wolven]

Hi Torger, the SK47XL certainly looks to be in my price bracket. The SK 35XL mentioned by Gigi further down the thread seems a bit more pricier but still looks to be within reach if I stretch.

With that in mind, if I manage to get a Linhof Techno to go with it I should be all set until I save up enough to get a Rodenstock like you suggest. The reason for Linhof over the Sinar is that amongst all three primary components of technical cameras (The back, the body and the lens), I suspect getting a good body will hold me in good stead for a long time while I will presumably go through a few digital backs and even more lenses over time. Out of the lot, Linhof Techno seems more future proof than the rest. But I'll keep a close eye on Arca Swiss. Will have to make my decision closer to the date I suppose.

$12k is indeed a bit on the low side, you may need to buy all components second hand for that.

It's not impossible though. Start off with an SK47XL, wait with the SK35 until later. Really think long and hard if you really need the SK28, which while cheaper than many of the Rodenstock wides still is an expensive lens. I don't have the SK28 myself, and if you look at traditional large format work they don't go that wide as those lenses did not really exist. If you go with the 22 megapixel back you can probably get away with the old-school Rodenstock Sironar Digital 35mm. I had that first but sold it in favor of the SK35 which is sharper.

A second hand 4x5" Sinar X is probably the cheapest you can get while still have some usability left (high quality geared movements is important), and find some old-school Digital Arts sliding back for that. I would not recommend it though, it's very bulky to carry. A friend of mine have such a system with a 22 megapixel back and I think the total with a couple of lenses was like $4k. It works, but it doesn't see outside that much due to the bulkiness.

Of practical and current cameras I think Silvestri is the cheapest you can get. The new Arca-Swiss F-Universalis is however cheap too, I haven't really studied which get you the most economical system. Arca-Swiss MF-two is somewhere inbetween.

The Linhof Techno is unfortunately not a cheap camera. I bought my Techno second hand with sliding back and  three lenses (the Rodenstock Sironar Digital 35, SK47XL and SK90 I think it was) for about $12k, but then I needed to add a digital back on top. Every little Linhof-branded accessory to the Techno costs a fortune, the sliding back is painfully expensive. You can get a Silvestri sliding back for it though, I'm not sure how good that ground glass is though compared to Linhof's own.

If I was on a tighter budget and I was buying a system all over again I'd probably go for the Arca-Swiss MF-two or the F-Universalis. The F-Universalis is so new so I don't really know what the differences are from the MF-two. If I lose some geared movements with the F-Universalis I'd probably go for the MF-two. With a larger budget, I'd get the Techno, the reason being it's better portability.

Attaching a photo of my own system, it has seven lenses from 35 to 180mm packed in a single F-stop XL ICU. Few tech systems are this portable. Few choose to have as many lenses as I have though.

[Wolven]

The Cambo is not something I have looked at so far (even though the Ads pop up on this site every now and then). I'll certainly look into that aspect.

Thanks for the tip on 35XL, looks very impressive on paper, I'll need to check some unprocessed files showing colour performance etc for those.

"This way of shooting is a very different experience, more thoughtful and contemplative" - this is a good summary of what I'm after. Recently, I have been slowing down my photography, making it more deliberate not taking hand held shots at all. This system will force me to do that every single time and hopefully make me consider every photograph I make. Instead of being driven by the DSLR enabled mentality of mine to 'spray and pray', which has plagued me so far.

Cheers.

You've gotten some very good and very specific advice. So here's some more - .02$ worth from a more relaxed vantage point: I've been shooting for some years with a Leaf Aptus II back, 33 mp, and very happy with it. It has enough resolution to do whatever is needed, smaller files so that the time to check focus isn't so long, full 100% viewing to check focus (very nice), and the colors/highlights are just lovely. Can't imagine a nicer place to be, although it isn't cutting edge, it works very nicely.

The recommendation I'd offer would be to get a Cambo WRS, a lens, and a back. If you get something like the back above, you can happily shoot with the last generation of lenses (such as the 47, Apo Sironar 55, etc.) and be quite happy. They aren't so expensive, and maybe not 20mm shifters, but pretty much up to 15mm. If you want to go more extreme, the 35XL isn't so beloved anymore by the "bleeding edge" guys, so you can get that for less $$, and with some care, get some shift out of it. But maybe the 43 would be better. With shifting you can make these lenses do all sorts of things, and with a pancake camera, the stitching is rather straightforward.

The Cambo is very good value for the $, a simpler and honest camera. With the movements in 2 directions, you can get enormous real estate out of your lens. Rather than going for "the best" or "the right", try getting into the swimming pool and see how you feel about the water. You could get into this system for your budget.

This way of shooting is a very different experience, more thoughtful and contemplative, and the results are quite different. Hard to assess from a distance. It is only suggested if you are looking for some variant of the view camera experience, but in digital. If you want something faster, or not tripod based, that's a totally different line of thought.

[Wolven]

A very thoughtful post, Paul!

I intend to get a digital back first and then setup an appointment with my local dealer to test various bodies that they may have in stock. The dealer has kindly agreed to this. I will probably avoid trying the newer digital backs simply because I cannot afford them for a long while nor can I justify their cost for my purposes.

And yes, I'll certainly take my shots back to be viewed on CaptureOne. In fact I've been using Capture One for the last few months to process my D600 files and even then, the quality is a huge step up from Lightroom. I rarely do the Lightroom -> Photoshop these days. Its mostly straight out of CaptureOne or CaptureOne -> Photoshop. The black and white processor on CaptureOne gives quite a bit of control that I skipped on buying the SilverFx plugin from Nik!!

Once I get my hands on a back for starters, I'll post back here. Cheers.

..snipped for brevity...(Wolven)

I hope that the OP can setup sometime with a dealer or other photographer using some of this gear, test it and then see what he feels.  Try the P45+/Phase One DF+ or DF or another body like Hasselblad as Eric has.  Then shoot maybe a P65+ or Credo 60/iq160 and shoot your D600.  Go back spend some time working the files in C1, yes C1, as C1 just does better with Phase One/Leaf files, then look at the shots you would have taken with your D600.  That's the only way to really make the call.  Hopefully you can do this.  

Paul

[Wolven]

In that case a P25+ might be a good back for you or one of the Leaf Aptus backs. Schneider lenses are more than good enough for those backs. One can do LOTS of great work with that setup and have some fun in the process.

Thanks Ken! I'm certainly going down the P25+ line as the Leaf backs don't seem to offer as much in terms of long exposure photography.

[synn]

Not sure if this might work on the D600 files, but using the IQ250 color profiles on the D800 files instantly makes the files look so much nicer.

[Wolven]

Not sure if this might work on the D600 files, but using the IQ250 color profiles on the D800 files instantly makes the files look so much nicer.

I've never tried that before! I'll go home today and give it a shot.

Cheers mate.

[torger]

If 22 megapixels is enough for you to start with it can be mentioned that much of the angst related to poor LCDs, having the sharpest lenses etc go away.

With 22 megapixels the focusing challenge becomes less of an issue and you don't feel the same need to pixelpeep directly on the back. In difficult conditions you can stop down to f/16 and not really loose any resolution.

While the Kodak sensors indeed are a bit aging, they have a good reputation concerning a nice saturated "film-like" look, and indeed they're good at a slide-film type of look. This you can find also in old CCD-based DSLRs Kodak made once. Incorporating that look in your style will put good use of the back.

Use grads and strive for natural looks rather than crazy overly tonemapped stuff and the DR won't be a problem either.

You might be interested in using the same type of grad technique I do. Tech cameras need a calibration shot (the one with the white LCC card in front) and I shoot that with the grad filter still on. Then when you apply the LCC the grad will disappear too, you get a flat file with better exposed foreground. Then you can tonemap that in whatever way you want in your raw converter, which indeed to me often means applying a virtual grad again as the central part of tonemapping. The advantage with this technique is that you can apply more precise tonemapping and you can have sharper and stronger grads in the field and if it's not perfectly placed it does not really matter, as you cancel it out. The disadvantage is that you lose a little bit of the joy of "finishing the image in camera" which for some is the very reason they use grads.

[torger]

Just to throw in my 2 pence worth. If you don't mind doing 4-8 shots of the same scene at 8-20 secs exposure each time and stack them in Photoshop you will get a noiseless very long exposure picture without the need for buying a P+ back.

Then a Hasselblad back could be good as I think they don't do a black frame so you can get virtually gap-less exposures. Haven't tried this technique in person though, but I might, a friend of mine got a nice old CF-22 which I've used quite some when my Aptus was in and out of repair. If Wolven manages to find a Hasselblad CF-22 (aka CF-132) it should be around $3k or perhaps even less. It's so old though that it's likely that the clock battery is dead (that's the case with my friend's CF-22) so you don't have good timestamps on the photos. Probably you can get that replaced by sending it in, but that would be $700 or so in service cost.

Another thing to consider when choosing a P25+ or P45+ is the need of wakeup procedure which can be irritating. The need of wakeup is somewhat related to the Kodak sensor, but Hasselblad has managed to solve it without needing wakeup, but can on the other hand be a bit dodgy in sync on really short shutter speeds. I don't think that is a major problem though as you rarely go below say 1/30 with a tech cam, and issues start at say 1/250 from my experience. In those rare cases one can set the back to a fixed shutter speed to solve the problem.

With an Aptus back (Dalsa-based) you don't need wakeup, just attach the synch cable and shoot and never have issues, but the price you pay for that is a fan that runs at full speed all the time. I guess it's needed to keep the sensor cool. You can't run the Aptus without the black frame though so the multi-frame long exposure trick won't be gap-less.

[torger]

About long exposure, if you do them by applying a 10 stop filter, ie shoot in daylight, you're fine, but if you're really shooting at night and you intend to focus with ground glass you're up for some challenges. I manage to focus my SK35 on the Linhof bright groundglass in conditions so dark that it would require 4 minutes exposure, but it's not super-easy, and you need to do tricks like focus directly on center and compose afterwards, and test-shoot to really see where the edges of the frame are as you can't really see that on the ground glass.

I have a strong headlamp with me so if I need to focus on something close rather than infinity it's okay. A laser pointer can work too, but I find it easier to focus on real subjects lit by a lamp, and I need a headlamp as a part of the safety equipment anyway. If you have nighttime city-scapes there's always street lamps to focus at. But pitch-dark kind of shooting conditions is not going to be fun with ground glass. Then having an RM3Di or Alpa or Cambo and just dial in the hyperfocal or infinity will certainly be appreciated. You will still have issues to see where the corners of the frame will get though.

With the Linhof Techno I know some actually use the infinity stops in their traditional use, ie as stops for hyperfocal or inifinty for a certain lens and aperture, but I find them extremely hard to place with the precision I'd like to have, so I only use two pairs for parallelism guarantee, one placed for short lenses and one pair for long. I think the design of the rail on the Techno is flawed, they use a traditional film design (infinity stops, spring-loaded mechanism, just as they've always had on their Technika 4x5" field cameras) that is not adequate for the extreme parallelism precision we've come to expect in digital. Using of infinity stops works around that flaw though, and in total I think the Techno is still the best field view camera for landscape work you can get for digital.

[Justinr]

I posted this in the beginner's section and was advised that I might have better luck posting in this subsection of the forum.. so here goes..

Hello folks!

I am a long time lurker, first time poster/amateur who does landscape photography purely for the love of it. Been shooting for 4 years and have quite a long distance to go.

I'm a huge fan of work by Joe Cornish who uses a Linhof Techno (if I can remember correctly) for some precision tilt/shift work.

I currently use a D600 with a 24mm PC-E lens for most of my landscape photography and complement it with a 200mm F4 Micro Nikkor and a nifty fifty.

I want to start looking at digital medium format.

I'm on a budget when considering the high RRP for medium format in general so I'll end up buying second hand products most of the time.

What would your recommendation be for someone like me? I'm in no hurry to get started and would like some sound knowledge before proceeding.

Some attractive options (for various reasons) seem to be the older Phase One backs with some cheaper alternative to either a Linhof Techno or one of the Alpa 12 line of cameras with a tilt-shift adapter

Then there is the Pentax 645z with Hartblei TS purely attractive from a, high value for money, perspective...

Am I completely off the mark? Please advise.

I've come a bit late to this thread so this may have been said before but if you have the readies then Mamiya's with a P25 back or similar can be had for a reasonable money. There are also 50mm Mamiya-Sekor 'shift' lenses to be had if you look for them, I have one which is wasted in a way as I use it only as a wide angle lens, and very nice it is to. My personal advice would be to just get out there and do it, it's the best way to work out what you really want.

[eronald]

Actually, the ideal solution for *cheap* tethered shooting may be the old Imacon/Hasselblad backs with ImageBank which trade at 1/2 the price of the untethered CF backs, or the Leaf Valeos, or even the various tethered backs marketed by Sinar and designed by Jenoptik. An advantage is that the files will be cleaner as there are less electronics in the back. For all I know some of these may even do a form of liveview on the computer.

There is a world of cheap kludgy solutions out there, based on out of maintenance products that work fine, but have no repair workshop, and mostly rely on obsolete software. Anyone who wants to go there needs real help eg. in locating cables and spares, not forum advice. A person buying a car that is 30 years old faces very different issues from somebody who bought the car new and kept it running for 30 years. In terms of electronics, an Imacon back is now the equivalent of a 1985 car.

Is it really the intention of this forum to let a newbie get lost in this labyrinth, or will someone tell him to get a dealer to help him?  -Steve, Doug let an honest devil appear now!  

Edmund

[Justinr]

Actually, the ideal solution for *cheap* tethered shooting may be the old Imacon/Hasselblad backs with ImageBank which trade at 1/2 the price of the untethered CF backs, or the Leaf Valeos, or even the various tethered backs marketed by Sinar and designed by Jenoptik. An advantage is that the files will be cleaner as there are less electronics in the back. For all I know some of these may even do a form of liveview on the computer.

There is a world of cheap kludgy solutions out there, based on out of maintenance products that work fine, but have no repair workshop, and mostly rely on obsolete software. Anyone who wants to go there needs real help eg. in locating cables and spares, not forum advice. A person buying a car that is 30 years old faces very different issues from somebody who bought the car new and kept it running for 30 years. In terms of electronics, an Imacon back is now the equivalent of a 1985 car.

Is it really the intention of this forum to let a newbie get lost in this labyrinth, or will someone tell him to get a dealer to help him?  -Steve, Doug let an honest devil appear now!  

Edmund

All levels of photography can become a labyrinth if you allow them to. There is not an awful lot that is complicated about buying a standard Mamiya AFD with a Leaf or Phase one back. Certainly old software can become an issue with ZD backs, as I am suffering myself in that respect, but for someone who can happily handle a dSLR what great technical steps need be taken in moving to a basic dMF set up?

[torger]

There is a world of cheap kludgy solutions out there, based on out of maintenance products that work fine, but have no repair workshop, and mostly rely on obsolete software.

I don't see anyone that has suggested a tethered-only solution, but maybe I missed that. P25+ is actually quite modern and while Hasselblad CF-22 / CF-132 is 10 years it still stand-alone with compact flash. So as long as the electronics does not die and you have a stash of not-too-new-and-large CFs it will work. I would certainly not recommend going tether only say with a Phase One H25 or Sinarback.

It's true that running with old electronics is a risk project. Digital backs are officially supported for about 10 years, you can find out in advance what type of repairs that can still be made. Even if a back is no longer officially supported some repairs can still be made, like changing IR filter if you scratch it or replacing clock battery. You probably can't get a total electronics replacement or sensor replacement but for such an old back it wouldn't be worth it anyway, it would be cheaper to buy a new second hand unit.

With US dealers there is quite competitive prices on older "pre-owned" units, going through them is probably a good idea. Around here the prices are however much less competitive, I get considerably better deals off forums. Even with my repair debacle I had on my unit it became a lower cost deal than going through a dealer here in Sweden.

With new digital backs costing easily $30k, spending $4k on an old back is a relatively low economical risk. As an amateur you won't lose income if the back breaks, you probably even have a backup system in the form of a DSLR. People often forget the absolute value of money when these things are discussed. Even if a high end modern back lose relatively little in value seen in percent it's often way more than 100% of the cost of an old back.

Concerning labyrinth, medium format tech cameras is the trickiest labyrinth you can get into in the photography world. If you need a dealer to hold your hand or not will depend on your ability to do own research and willingness to accept risk. And in my case the availability of dealers that actually can help...