Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Kodak 645 Dig. Back  (Read 9269 times)
Guest
« on: August 07, 2003, 07:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Why not read the review of the Kodak Pro Back and then come back here if you have any more questions?

Michael
Logged
Erik M
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2003, 10:02:47 AM »
ReplyReply

>>The price difference is what really jumps out at me, though. For the price of a medium format camera and the back (no glass included), you can buy a 1Ds, and a nice assortment of glass and accessories (maybe even a backup 10D, if you wanted).<<

If you already own a good deal of MF equipment and perhaps little or no 35mm glass a digital back can be a good deal. It all depends on your individual needs.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5140


« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2003, 02:22:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... the Canon 1Ds ... is a far more suitable tool for what I do, even though the format ratio is not too well suited for editorial work.
Sergio,

what format ratios do you find good for editorial work? Are there common shapes that the publishing industry asks for? This brings me back to a question I had recently about the sometimes surprising shape choices in high end digital backs.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5140


« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2003, 04:41:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Segio;

   it seems that the popular shape range 5:4 through 4:3 to 7:5 pops up there too, as I have seen in other places like artists' pads, prestretched cavases and the diversity of old large format frame sizes. I am taking your "6x7" to mean the shape of the Mamiya 67 frame, which I believe is more or less 5:4 (70x56mm?).

P. S. What country are you in? Canada? You mention 100x70cm whereas I have it seems that some European countries seem more rigidly standardised on A paper shape in publications, just judging from the magazine racks.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2003, 08:01:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Jules,

Certainly if I had the choice on a rainy / snowy day the 1Ds would the the hands down winner. But the way things are shaping up right now, it's MF for landscape and 35mm for wildlife, just like it's been for me for several decades. Except, now it's all digital instead of all film.

The most things change, the more they stay the same.

Michael
Logged
Ralph M. Wagner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2003, 03:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting reading/review on this same subject at this link:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005lW2


--RW
Logged
victoraberdeen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2003, 03:36:39 AM »
ReplyReply

The larger format backs are still very new, I am sure that they will begin to pull away from the DSLR's soon. The question will be how keen is the market to purchase such high quality digital cameras enough to bring the price down?

And I know this is off topic

European paper sizes are I am told designed to get the most from the raw materials. They also are simple to understand the size relationships. Fold an A0 sheet in half and you have A1 and so on...

Most editors or creative directors want to have enough image for them to it crop to fit the photo into the shape of the hole they have on the page!
Logged
JJP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2003, 05:34:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Just heard that you've purchased a Dig. Back.  How much better are they compared to a Canon 1Ds, Kodak DCS 14n or Contax ND?  All things considered (price, ease of lugging gear, image quality, battery life....the whole gamut)
Jules
Logged

JJ
X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2003, 09:05:42 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading Michael's review, it struck me that the answer is "maybe" - it highly depends on your needs, and your pocketbook. Can you get medium format quality work out of a 1Ds - yes. Does the Pro Back 645 offer the same level of quality, with a little more flexibility on cropping, etc - yes.

     The price difference is what really jumps out at me, though. For the price of a medium format camera and the back (no glass included), you can buy a 1Ds, and a nice assortment of glass and accessories (maybe even a backup 10D, if you wanted).  

     I'm looking forward to Michael's reviews of the 22MP backs - I suspect we'll see medium format digital really show what its capable of with more sensor resolution.

     Hey, Michael, when are you going to review large format backs??

     Dave
Logged

sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2003, 01:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I had the chance to compare the 1Ds to the Kodak ProBack Plus and the Phase One H20 in a friends studio. He was shooting a set with the Kodak and agreed with another friend to take over his H20 and make a small test. We didn't have much time to do it since there was the client at the studio too. But anyway, the Kodak and the 1Ds turned out to be very similar in every respect with maybe a little more aparent sharpness in the Canon shot.Canon lens was 50 USM 1.4 @ f16, Kodak was on a hasselblad CW with a Planar 2.8 @f16.
I say apparent because it was negligible. Take into account Canon autofocuses, Hasselblad CWs don't. We developed both files in ACR same settings. The H20 had to de developed in C1. I never could actually access the RAW file, nor do I know how the owner processed it but to my surprise it was very noisy.Apart from having a bigger picture area fro framing I don't see any advantages of the Kodak over my 1Ds. For my job, the Canon 1Ds outweighs greatly in every respect the ProBack. It is a far more suitable tool for what I do, even though the format ratio is not too well suited for editorial work. Nevertheless, I'll keep my RZs for a while and see what the future might bring ( something a lot better than the 1Ds and still affordable).
Logged

sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2003, 04:09:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I have found that the 6x7 ratio is probably the best suited for the majority of editorial work. Printers cut paper in several sizes where there's a minimum loss. These sizes usually fit several times in a 100x70 cms. which is the standard measure for the sheets most printers use, without producing too much waste.  I moved up from Hasselblad to Mamiya in part for this reason. My 6x6 ended up as a 6x4.5 (unless you are shooting CD covers). The 35mm format is way too panoramic for the majority of publications to cover the page vertically. You end up losing sensor space on the long side.
Logged

sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2003, 06:29:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I am currently in Colombia. The standard in America is 100x70 cms, though different paper stocks can vary in size by a few cms. Yes, the europeans use different sizes. A4 is way more popular than letter. In America its the other way around.
Logged

JJP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2003, 04:58:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Great review Michael,
However, what really surprised me the most is how good the 1Ds images are compared to the 645 images.  It really can compete with MF backs (with the 16 MPix ones anyway). And since the 1Ds has O-rings / seals to keep out water/dust in rainy/grainy conditions I'd bet that you'd use it before any of the MF backs on a wet day.
Jules
Logged

JJ
kyle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2003, 10:30:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering how the 1Ds stacks up against these pro digital backs if one is shooting posters or billboards. It can (and is) done now quite a lot with the 1Ds but never having used MF digital backs I'm curious to know how much perceived detail would be lost in using a 1Ds instead of MF. My gut feel tells me not much as these are usually viewed from a fair distance -- I'm not talking about exhibition quality prints here.

Anybody made the switch to the 1Ds totally from digital backs yet.

Just curious.
Thanks
Logged
Doug Nork
Guest
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2003, 07:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been using a Phase One Lightphase back on a Hasselblad for studio work for about a year or so. I read Michael's review of the Kodak 645 back and was impressed. I have a chance to pick up a Kodak Pro Back Plus for a really good price but I keep hearing that Kodak is still having problems with shadow noise and hot pixels compared to Phase One. But having never used a Kodak back I was hoping someone could shed some light on this. Michael's images seem to have very clean shadows. Any comments are appreciated.
Logged
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2003, 12:54:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a chance to pick up a Kodak Pro Back Plus for a really good price but I keep hearing that Kodak is still having problems with shadow noise and hot pixels compared to Phase One.
I am using the 645M and I have to admit that there are a number of hot pixels even after 4000 shots. I expect that I'll be sending my back to Kodak for a re-map pretty soon.

One thing though, I haven't had too much problem with shadow noise and since I'm shooting landscape I just turn on the long exposure processing mode for all shots - sure I don't get 2fps but the hot pixels and other stuff are normally eradicated if you do this and the images are pretty much perfect 16mp images.
Logged

Graham
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad