digitalMF backs

[RalphLambrecht]

I noticed that the prices for some (Phase One for example)have really come down.If you have and use one ,fitting the System,please share your experience and opinion.I'm interested for mostly portrait work and currently used Nikon D800

 

[GG12]

I have used these for some time and really enjoy them. They tend to be better if used at base ISO and on a tripod, but there is something just so delightful about the files that is totally seductive. Made me change shooting approach... and go to more deliberate shooting. Think of them as a smaller and slightly faster (maybe) version of a 4x5. They are not really competitive (unless one gets the more contemporary CMOS backs, $$$) with DSLR. They are different.

 

[DDTJRAC]

I'm waiting for a FF 6mp back for my SWC for $1200. That is by budget.

 

[Richard Man]

You have to shoot at ISO 50 or 100. If that works for you, they are really good bargains. A PITA to use on some systems as it will probably require a sync cable from the flash sync port to the back, and sometimes even a "double wake up" cable. Unfortunately, for the 203FE lover like me, there's not a whole lot of good options.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will wait for a higher resolution 6x6 digital back with 16 bits/color or higher at an affordable price. I will shoot film until then. Film is still much cheaper than a digital back.

 

[Oren Grad]

The old backs may cost a fraction of what they used to when new, but the cost of service is not similarly discounted. You can see Hasselblad's charges here (scroll down to the second page), though AFAIK Phase One has similarly high costs. So part of the calculation is how much risk you're comfortable taking that if something goes wrong the back will be a total writeoff because of prohibitive service costs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Still to much for my blood. I will stick to film.

 

[Oren Grad]

I should have added, many of the most attractively-priced backs - for example, Hasselblad H1-H3 series, Phase One up to the p-non-plus series, Leaf backs of comparable vintage - are either no longer serviced at all or have only a very limited subset of parts available.

 

[Paul Howell]

In terms of MF and LF, film is still much more affordable than a new digital back. I know a couple of MF and LF shooters who moved to a digital back, after a few years the cost of maintenance and upgrading got so high they bought back what they had sold.

 

[Richard Man]

Well, even for "cheap" MF backs ("fat pixel" CCD 10-20 years old back), as they are mostly electronics, I wouldn't worry too much about service and repair. There aren't any moving parts.

As for cost, they are probably at their bottom now. Certainly, they will flounder around this low range for a few years instead of dropping 20-30% per year like they were.

OTOH, since I invested in a Flextight scanner (and a couple others), it's true that I can shoot a lot of film even for the low end bottom of the barrel prices of around $3000.