Digital Back for Mamiya RB67 Pro S?

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.

--
Bis bald und alles Gute!

"Claudia Engel" wrote:

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

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.

--
Bis bald und alles Gute!

"Claudia Engel" wrote in message
m...
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.

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/re...ras/h-25.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...mf-backs.shtml

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Recently, Lourens Smak 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

Hi,

Recently, Lourens Smak posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

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

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)

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

Recently, Lourens Smak posted:

In article k.net,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

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.

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.

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

Recently, Lourens Smak posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

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... ;-)

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

Recently, Lourens Smak posted:

In article k.net,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

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 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.

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...)

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

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.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 04:37:47 GMT, Claudia Engel
wrote:

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.