Digital Back for Mamiya RB67 Pro S?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Claudia Engel - 21 Feb 2004 04:37 GMT

I've heard mixed stories about whether or not there is such a thing as a
digital back that will work properly with a RB67 Pro S. Anyone have any
experience in this area?

Thanks.

Signature

Bis bald und alles Gute!

Reply to this Message

David J. Littleboy - 21 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT

> I've heard mixed stories about whether or not there is such a thing as a
> digital back that will work properly with a RB67 Pro S. Anyone have any
> experience in this area?

Reality check: If you need a digital back _AND_ you can afford a digital
back, then you can afford a camera to put in front of the digital back.
Digital backs start at US$15,000. One digital back mfr was throwing in a
free Mamiya 645AFD if you bought the back.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Reply to this Message

Claudia Engel - 21 Feb 2004 22:27 GMT

> Reality check: If you need a digital back _AND_ you can afford a digital
> back, then you can afford a camera to put in front of the digital back.
> Digital backs start at US$15,000. One digital back mfr was throwing in a
> free Mamiya 645AFD if you bought the back.

it took me a few minutes to get back into my chair after falling over...
anyway: I guess that's about what I expected. Thanks for the info.

Signature

Bis bald und alles Gute!

Reply to this Message

David J. Littleboy - 22 Feb 2004 00:22 GMT

> > Reality check: If you need a digital back _AND_ you can afford a digital
> > back, then you can afford a camera to put in front of the digital back.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> it took me a few minutes to get back into my chair after falling over...
> anyway: I guess that's about what I expected. Thanks for the info.

The digital backs are only now reaching full-frame 645 size. Here's some
reviews (by a rather controversial character, so read with lots of grains of
salt).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h-25.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/mf-backs.shtml

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Reply to this Message

Lourens Smak - 24 Feb 2004 15:17 GMT

> I've heard mixed stories about whether or not there is such a thing as a
> digital back that will work properly with a RB67 Pro S. Anyone have any
> experience in this area?

www.imacon.dk
They fit most camera's. I know for a fact that the Flexframe 4040 fits
mamiya RZ but other backs might fit too.

www.sinar.ch
The various Sinarbacks also fit most camera's including mamiya RZ.

Both brands have several different digital backs, in various
sensor-sizes and megapixels, and with or without multi-step technology.

I don't have experience with both of these brands, but as I have an
extensive Rolleiflex 6000 system I'm also looking at various backs and
not all will fit...Leaf for example. (for whom it may concern: the above
two brands also fit Rolleiflex)

;-)
Lourens

Reply to this Message

Neil Gould - 24 Feb 2004 17:05 GMT

Recently, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> posted:

> I don't have experience with both of these brands, but as I have an
> extensive Rolleiflex 6000 system I'm also looking at various backs and
> not all will fit...Leaf for example. (for whom it may concern: the
> above two brands also fit Rolleiflex)

Thanks for the tip! I've always liked Sinar's build quality. It should
make a nice accessory for the Rollei. Now, I'll take a _long_ break before
I glance at the price. =8-O

Neil

Reply to this Message

Lourens Smak - 24 Feb 2004 20:25 GMT

> Recently, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> posted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> make a nice accessory for the Rollei. Now, I'll take a _long_ break before
> I glance at the price. =8-O

There's also the Jenoptik Eyelike, it will also fit the Rollei.
(www.eyelike.com??) This one is priced a bit more friendly.
(I said "a bit"...)

Rollei also sells a 6008 with a fixed Phaseone back. (2 different types
if I'm correct) It isn't mentioned at all on the PhaseOne site; I think
I saw it on the German Rollei site. (www.rollei.de)

Lourens

PS: I like the sticker-shock smiley!

Reply to this Message

Neil Gould - 24 Feb 2004 21:36 GMT

Hi,

Recently, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> posted:

>> Thanks for the tip! I've always liked Sinar's build quality. It
>> should make a nice accessory for the Rollei. Now, I'll take a _long_
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> types if I'm correct) It isn't mentioned at all on the PhaseOne site;
> I think I saw it on the German Rollei site. (www.rollei.de)

I'm sure that you've visited this site:
http://www.sl66.com/slx/acc_digital.htm

I still think it's too early in the curve to spring for a MF digital back.
They're interesting curiosities, but for the money, one can get a complete
dSLR system that will likely outperform them. I also find it interesting
that, while everybody laughed at the idea that lenses should be optimized
for digital sensors when Olympus first suggested it, lo and behold, every
major maker now offers "digital lenses". I would think that has
implications for MF digital backs for use with existing film lenses.

> PS: I like the sticker-shock smiley!

Thanks!

Neil

Reply to this Message

Lourens Smak - 25 Feb 2004 17:21 GMT

> I still think it's too early in the curve to spring for a MF digital back.

First time I worked with one is now over 10 years ago... You have to
have the jobs for it, that's all. If you have a studio and do
product-catalogs, it can maybe even save money. But it will replace
variable costs with fixed costs, and that may or may not be wise, from a
business point of view.

If you're an amateur, buying one is just crazy... (but maybe keep an eye
on Ebay... studio's go bankrupt you know, and somebody will be selling
the gear...)

> They're interesting curiosities, but for the money, one can get a complete
> dSLR system that will likely outperform them.

I wouldn't count on a DSLR outperforming a MF back, from what I've seen
so far. But most MF backs will be best suited to make catalog-images in
a studio environment. The crop-factor for one is a major problem, when
40mm is the shortest lens... As a general-purpose camera, they're just
not the right thing; a Canon 1Ds or so will be a much better way to
spend your money.

> I also find it interesting
> that, while everybody laughed at the idea that lenses should be optimized
> for digital sensors when Olympus first suggested it, lo and behold, every
> major maker now offers "digital lenses". I would think that has
> implications for MF digital backs for use with existing film lenses.

Things like field-curvature and light fall-off are probably more
important with digital, and I personally think it could make sense to
design a completely new system like Olympus did. (Haven't seen E1
results yet, apart from the web-reviews) Those "adapted" 35mm bodies
with smaller chips just don't seem like a final digital solution to me,
but I guess 24x36 chips will be the future for 35mm brands. We will
either get smaller Nikons and many DX lenses, or full-frame chips, I
guess. (Canon I think is going for the full-frame thing; otherwise they
would also have produced a 12-24mm or so by now...)

Strange enough the 6MP Philips 24x36mm chip is only used in MF
backs....and the Contax N1 digital, which flopped... This chip has been
around for quite a while; I wonder why there isn't a Nikon, Pentax, or
Minolta that is equipped with it....

;-)
Lourens

Reply to this Message

Neil Gould - 25 Feb 2004 19:28 GMT

Recently, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> posted:

>> I still think it's too early in the curve to spring for a MF digital
>> back.
>
> First time I worked with one is now over 10 years ago... You have to
> have the jobs for it, that's all.

I'm not sure there is a direct corelation between product curves and
real-time. ;-)

> If you have a studio and do
> product-catalogs, it can maybe even save money. But it will replace
> variable costs with fixed costs, and that may or may not be wise,
> from a business point of view.

Having worked with digital images for catalog work for the last few years,
I've found that it actually costs *more*, because *every* image requires
at least re-sizing in addition to color correction, etc. When scanning
from negatives or prints, the size can be set at the time of the scan, as
can several other adjustments.

>> They're interesting curiosities, but for the money, one can get a
>> complete dSLR system that will likely outperform them.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> camera, they're just not the right thing; a Canon 1Ds or so will be a
> much better way to spend your money.

Presumably, you're speaking of the scanning backs, because the one-shot
backs @ 4-6 mp are not all that impressive to me.

> We
> will either get smaller Nikons and many DX lenses, or full-frame
> chips, I guess. (Canon I think is going for the full-frame thing;
> otherwise they would also have produced a 12-24mm or so by now...)

Kodak has also offered full-frame 35 mm sensors, but their flagship camera
(14n) is also best suited to studio work. None the less, at $4kUS for 14
mp, it's still a better deal than most MF digital backs.

Neil

Reply to this Message

Lourens Smak - 25 Feb 2004 23:27 GMT

> Having worked with digital images for catalog work for the last few years,
> I've found that it actually costs *more*, because *every* image requires
> at least re-sizing in addition to color correction, etc. When scanning
> from negatives or prints, the size can be set at the time of the scan, as
> can several other adjustments.

Funny you say that, because I have indeed seen many people work many,
many, (unpaid) hours behind the screen because of their new "great"
digital camera... ;-)

But with decent software (I have used the Leaf software mostly) you can
also set output size, and color-correction is rarely needed in my
experience when the camera is used in a studio, and when the neutral
grey point has been set.

for clarity: I worked for a few big studio's, and never owned any
high-end digital camera gear. Now I work alone and these days I rent
whenever a client insists on shooting digitally. (usually only when
they're in a hurry, but almost all ask about digital)

> Presumably, you're speaking of the scanning backs, because the one-shot
> backs @ 4-6 mp are not all that impressive to me.

I've worked only for a short while with a 4x5" scanning back, we called
this "nuclear photography" (the next step up from digital!) because of
the enormous heatflash-resembling amount of HMI or PL light needed...
silly stuff, totally useless for anything other than reproductions.

What I've seen so far from 35mm-digibodies isn't very impressive to my
eye, apart from the 1Ds. I've tried only a few, Fuji S2, Nikon D1x, and
Canon 1Ds. I would want something that is as good as a well-scanned MF
slide, and the Fuji and Nikon certainly aren't. I would like to try the
Kodak 14n. (it has just been updated btw)

;-)
Lourens

Reply to this Message

Neil Gould - 26 Feb 2004 03:50 GMT

Recently, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> posted:

>> Having worked with digital images for catalog work for the last few
>> years, I've found that it actually costs *more*, because *every*
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> many, (unpaid) hours behind the screen because of their new "great"
> digital camera... ;-)

I try to work as few unpaid hours as possible, so I find the trend toward
"digital everything" to be a lot less appealing than some. ;-)

> But with decent software (I have used the Leaf software mostly) you
> can also set output size, and color-correction is rarely needed in my
> experience when the camera is used in a studio, and when the neutral
> grey point has been set.

Rarely does one know what the final use, and thus size, will be at the
time of the shooting. As for color balance, that is an issue related to
how the piece will be printed. Once that's determined, one can optimize
the image for the media, press, etc. In short, there's post-production
work to do on images either way. But, when you have to start with a large
digital image and need with a small one for use, it takes extra effort to
downsample the image without botching it up in the process (i.e. not just
making one big jump to the final size). Given that most images are shot
full-resolution because the final size is unknown, that can result in a
lot of hours spent on downsampling.

> I would want something that is as good as a
> well-scanned MF slide, and the Fuji and Nikon certainly aren't. I
> would like to try the Kodak 14n. (it has just been updated btw)

I don't care what the "digi-heads" say, it will be some time before MF
film is matched by digital gear.

Neil

Reply to this Message

Lourens Smak - 26 Feb 2004 21:38 GMT

> Rarely does one know what the final use, and thus size, will be at the
> time of the shooting.

The catalog work I did was fully sketched most of the time, so I could
just measure the (rough) sketch how big the image needed to be, and I
usually exported at 110% of that to give some room for play in the
layout process. When there wasn't a sketch, usually the space of the
image on the page was marked.

> I don't care what the "digi-heads" say, it will be some time before MF
> film is matched by digital gear.

An interesting bonus of shooting film is that a good slide is simply a
good slide... When it ends up too green or too dark or whatever, you
know who screwed up, or at least you know that it wasn't you! (which can
be extremely important to point out, in some cases...)

With digital, the printer or whatever is usually quick to point at the
photographer... and who can say who is right, with the same digital file
looking different on every screen or printer? All that's left is a
disappointed client that you will probably never see back. (even when
*someone else* screwed up...)

;-)
Lourens

Reply to this Message

Neil Gould - 27 Feb 2004 01:15 GMT

Recently, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> posted:

>> Rarely does one know what the final use, and thus size, will be at
>> the time of the shooting.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> layout process. When there wasn't a sketch, usually the space of the
> image on the page was marked.

I see... you get the *good* jobs! ;-)

I have customers that would stand at the printing press with an eraser if
they thought that would work. They often don't proof read the material
until you hand them the finished job. I should be so lucky to know what
size the images will be... they typically don't even have the copy started
before they want a quote on the work. I could go on, but... ;-)

>> I don't care what the "digi-heads" say, it will be some time before
>> MF film is matched by digital gear.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> a disappointed client that you will probably never see back. (even
> when *someone else* screwed up...)

Even though it's easy for someone that knows their stuff to know where the
screw-ups are, the customer is often not one of those enlightened folks.
So, there's usually a finger-pointing circle jerk where the "nice guy"
finishes last. All enhanced by our digital technology! And, it's loads of
fun bidding against folks who have piddled their hourly worth to a
negative number by spending so much unpaid time twiddling files. Oh, well!
;-}

Neil

Reply to this Message

lowrance@comcast.net - 28 Feb 2004 15:59 GMT

I have one and would be willing to sell it at a very good price.
It is the Kodak 465 digital back. A 6 megapixel. Chip size is about
35mm size. I have the rotating back adapters for both the RZ and RB
cameras. I aslo have all software and books. It is a selfcontained
unit with internal battery and uses 340mg microdrives in a built in
reader. There is a SCSI port to view images onto a computer if
desired. It has a ISo of 80 and can aslo accept voice anotations.
There is no LCD for image viewing on the unit, but has a small lcd
which shows image number and back status. Let me kwo if you are
interested. david@lowrancephoto.com

>I've heard mixed stories about whether or not there is such a thing as a
>digital back that will work properly with a RB67 Pro S. Anyone have any
>experience in this area?
>
>Thanks.

Reply to this Message