Reading mode: Light Dark

DCS digital back photo sample..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony Rawlings
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
T

Tony Rawlings

Guest
Candid shot, point and shoot, with a Metz flash.

400 ISO

The Contax with the DCS 645 digital back is working out better than the Mamiya 645 AFD set up.

It is now a "point and shoot" MF camera. The Mamiya required more work, particularly, with a shoe mount flash. I used the same Metz flash and had problems with the Mamiya. With the Contax, it's as simple as set it on "A" and shoot away with consistency.

I may have more samples with strobes soon.

http://www.pbase.com/tonyr/inbox
 
Please, please, please post a full size image... it would be great to see even a single shot straight from the camera taken with one of these digital backs.

--
Rod Graves
 
The tif file is much better. I certainly didn't do justice when I coverted it into JPG and, sharpening.

With a trained eye, you'll see noise in almost every "digital image".

Remeber, this was point and shoot situation. I set the camera on "X" at 1/60th. Then I set the Metz on "A".

Typically, with a MF, we don't normally shoot as a "point and shoot". With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.

This simple test was...pick up the camera, turn it on, point and shoot (autofocus).

The 100 ISO and outdoor shots, properly exposed, are nice.

The key is, working around its weakness(s).

It's nice though to be able to shoot MF, almost anywhere, digital, with 1GB microdrives, autofocus (for old eyes), Zeiss lenses, etc....for around $10k. Of course this does not include body or lenses.

Someone had requested a full image file. I don't think it's ideal to pass a 48 meg file over the web, unless you want to open a FTP account.

Again, this was just a point and shoot situation. Normally, I would use a D60 or 1D. But now, I find myself picking up the MF and digital back more often. Of course the other two cameras will do better at higher ISO's. Shooting at 400 ISO low-lit is probably pushing this back to its limits.
A.M.P. said:
Major Noise problem in the dark areas, what is it like at 100 iso ?
Ashley
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is not the case in nature.

Uwe
Tony Rawlings said:
With a trained eye, you'll see noise in almost every "digital image".

Remeber, this was point and shoot situation. I set the camera on
"X" at 1/60th. Then I set the Metz on "A".

Typically, with a MF, we don't normally shoot as a "point and
shoot". With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit
subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.

This simple test was...pick up the camera, turn it on, point and
shoot (autofocus).

The 100 ISO and outdoor shots, properly exposed, are nice.

The key is, working around its weakness(s).

It's nice though to be able to shoot MF, almost anywhere, digital,
with 1GB microdrives, autofocus (for old eyes), Zeiss lenses,
etc....for around $10k. Of course this does not include body or
lenses.

Someone had requested a full image file. I don't think it's ideal
to pass a 48 meg file over the web, unless you want to open a FTP
account.

Again, this was just a point and shoot situation. Normally, I
would use a D60 or 1D. But now, I find myself picking up the MF
and digital back more often. Of course the other two cameras will
do better at higher ISO's. Shooting at 400 ISO low-lit is probably
pushing this back to its limits.
A.M.P. said:
Major Noise problem in the dark areas, what is it like at 100 iso ?
Ashley
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You subject looks bored with the whole process, my guess is he has been through this before :).

What are some of the other strengths and weaknesses of the kodak back system that you have found?
Tony Rawlings said:
With a trained eye, you'll see noise in almost every "digital image".

Remeber, this was point and shoot situation. I set the camera on
"X" at 1/60th. Then I set the Metz on "A".

Typically, with a MF, we don't normally shoot as a "point and
shoot". With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit
subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.

This simple test was...pick up the camera, turn it on, point and
shoot (autofocus).

The 100 ISO and outdoor shots, properly exposed, are nice.

The key is, working around its weakness(s).

It's nice though to be able to shoot MF, almost anywhere, digital,
with 1GB microdrives, autofocus (for old eyes), Zeiss lenses,
etc....for around $10k. Of course this does not include body or
lenses.

Someone had requested a full image file. I don't think it's ideal
to pass a 48 meg file over the web, unless you want to open a FTP
account.

Again, this was just a point and shoot situation. Normally, I
would use a D60 or 1D. But now, I find myself picking up the MF
and digital back more often. Of course the other two cameras will
do better at higher ISO's. Shooting at 400 ISO low-lit is probably
pushing this back to its limits.
A.M.P. said:
Major Noise problem in the dark areas, what is it like at 100 iso ?
Ashley
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
No Tony, they meant a full-size JPEG, not a TIF. Much like the full-size images on this site.....D
Tony Rawlings said:
With a trained eye, you'll see noise in almost every "digital image".

Remeber, this was point and shoot situation. I set the camera on
"X" at 1/60th. Then I set the Metz on "A".

Typically, with a MF, we don't normally shoot as a "point and
shoot". With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit
subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.

This simple test was...pick up the camera, turn it on, point and
shoot (autofocus).

The 100 ISO and outdoor shots, properly exposed, are nice.

The key is, working around its weakness(s).

It's nice though to be able to shoot MF, almost anywhere, digital,
with 1GB microdrives, autofocus (for old eyes), Zeiss lenses,
etc....for around $10k. Of course this does not include body or
lenses.

Someone had requested a full image file. I don't think it's ideal
to pass a 48 meg file over the web, unless you want to open a FTP
account.

Again, this was just a point and shoot situation. Normally, I
would use a D60 or 1D. But now, I find myself picking up the MF
and digital back more often. Of course the other two cameras will
do better at higher ISO's. Shooting at 400 ISO low-lit is probably
pushing this back to its limits.
A.M.P. said:
Major Noise problem in the dark areas, what is it like at 100 iso ?
Ashley
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tony Rawlings said:
With a trained eye, you'll see noise in almost every "digital image".

Remeber, this was point and shoot situation. I set the camera on
"X" at 1/60th. Then I set the Metz on "A".

Typically, with a MF, we don't normally shoot as a "point and
shoot". With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit
subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.

This simple test was...pick up the camera, turn it on, point and
shoot (autofocus).

The 100 ISO and outdoor shots, properly exposed, are nice.

The key is, working around its weakness(s).

It's nice though to be able to shoot MF, almost anywhere, digital,
with 1GB microdrives, autofocus (for old eyes), Zeiss lenses,
etc....for around $10k. Of course this does not include body or
lenses.

Someone had requested a full image file. I don't think it's ideal
to pass a 48 meg file over the web, unless you want to open a FTP
account.

Again, this was just a point and shoot situation. Normally, I
would use a D60 or 1D. But now, I find myself picking up the MF
and digital back more often. Of course the other two cameras will
do better at higher ISO's. Shooting at 400 ISO low-lit is probably
pushing this back to its limits.
A.M.P. said:
Major Noise problem in the dark areas, what is it like at 100 iso ?
Ashley
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hello Tony,

Since the firmware menu allows one to set the dark frame "long-exposure noise reduction" for "exposures > 1/4 sec" or for "all exposures" regardless of shutter speed, have you tried the noise reduction on ISO 400 shots to determine whether it significantly reduces the noise in the darker areas? (I realize that noise reduction can also be done in post-processing with PhotoDesk.)

I like the picture ... beautiful color and resolution, and the auto-focus seems quite precise. What lens and aperture did you use?

I know that everyone is going to be requesting various tests, ... but

(1) could you please post a well-stopped-down (great depth of field) outdoor shot that includes trees and shrubs in the middle and far distance?

(2) There have been so many statements of what the FOV crop factor or "multiplication factor" is for this back (1.3, 1.55, 1.7+,...), could you perform a test, perhaps using a wall chart, with the regular film back and then with the Pro Back from the same tripod-mounted position, to settle this question once and for all?

Thank you very much for your experience reports and your picture posting!!!

Best regards,
Don
 
Straight from Kodak.
Factor is 1.3 BUT.
Image is square, which means a 35mm on a contax 645 is actually a 60mm.
Not good if you like wide angle.
Don Savoy said:
Tony Rawlings said:
With a trained eye, you'll see noise in almost every "digital image".

Remeber, this was point and shoot situation. I set the camera on
"X" at 1/60th. Then I set the Metz on "A".

Typically, with a MF, we don't normally shoot as a "point and
shoot". With a MF workflow, it's common to shoot a well lit
subject, strobes, metered, and at 100 ISO.

This simple test was...pick up the camera, turn it on, point and
shoot (autofocus).

The 100 ISO and outdoor shots, properly exposed, are nice.

The key is, working around its weakness(s).

It's nice though to be able to shoot MF, almost anywhere, digital,
with 1GB microdrives, autofocus (for old eyes), Zeiss lenses,
etc....for around $10k. Of course this does not include body or
lenses.

Someone had requested a full image file. I don't think it's ideal
to pass a 48 meg file over the web, unless you want to open a FTP
account.

Again, this was just a point and shoot situation. Normally, I
would use a D60 or 1D. But now, I find myself picking up the MF
and digital back more often. Of course the other two cameras will
do better at higher ISO's. Shooting at 400 ISO low-lit is probably
pushing this back to its limits.
A.M.P. said:
Major Noise problem in the dark areas, what is it like at 100 iso ?
Ashley
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hello Tony,

Since the firmware menu allows one to set the dark frame
"long-exposure noise reduction" for "exposures > 1/4 sec" or for
"all exposures" regardless of shutter speed, have you tried the
noise reduction on ISO 400 shots to determine whether it
significantly reduces the noise in the darker areas? (I realize
that noise reduction can also be done in post-processing with
PhotoDesk.)

I like the picture ... beautiful color and resolution, and the
auto-focus seems quite precise. What lens and aperture did you use?

I know that everyone is going to be requesting various tests, ... but

(1) could you please post a well-stopped-down (great depth of
field) outdoor shot that includes trees and shrubs in the middle
and far distance?

(2) There have been so many statements of what the FOV crop factor
or "multiplication factor" is for this back (1.3, 1.55, 1.7+,...),
could you perform a test, perhaps using a wall chart, with the
regular film back and then with the Pro Back from the same
tripod-mounted position, to settle this question once and for all?

Thank you very much for your experience reports and your picture
posting!!!

Best regards,
Don

--
Click to expand...
 
Hey Tony,

Have you tried shooting at all with the anti-aliasing filter removed.

If so have you noticed any difference/improvement in the overall sharpness of the image?

Reason I am asking is that I am comparing the Kodak Proback to the Phase One H20, and the Kodak Back seems not quite as sharp, and I am thinking that this is due to the anti-aliasing filter. On the other hand, the H20 does seem to on occassion exhibit moire, which I have not seen evidence of with the Kodak samples (including yours) that I have seen.

All the best
Kevin
Tony Rawlings said:
Candid shot, point and shoot, with a Metz flash.

400 ISO

The Contax with the DCS 645 digital back is working out better than
the Mamiya 645 AFD set up.

It is now a "point and shoot" MF camera. The Mamiya required more
work, particularly, with a shoe mount flash. I used the same Metz
flash and had problems with the Mamiya. With the Contax, it's as
simple as set it on "A" and shoot away with consistency.

I may have more samples with strobes soon.

http://www.pbase.com/tonyr/inbox
Click to expand...
--
Kevin Logan
http://kevinlogan.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top