THE NEW DIGITAL BACKS

With Photokina 2008 coming up, Hasselblad, Phase One and Leaf all announced backs in the 50 to 60 megapixel range. Clearly the digital back makers want to separate themselves from Canon, Nikon and Sony by being at least double the number of megapixels compared to the 1Ds Mark III for the moment. Product differentiation makes sense, but the digital back makers are alienating dSLR users by creating a 4 to 5x price gap. I had hoped the medium format players would broaden their market by offering more products at a $10,000 USD price point.

A refurbished back is an alternative in the $7,000 to $15,000 price range depending on sensor size and megapixel count, but these older backs are based on 2004-2005 technology. The trade offs include poor LCD’s, limited ISO, increased susceptibility to sensor bloom, older IR filter designs and presumably older electronics. In contrast there are the latest dSLR offerings from Canon and Nikon for much less money. I realize the back makers do not want to compete with dSLRs, so they raised the bar. But, how do they plan to get new buyers? With each price increase they further reduce their addressable market size.

PIXEL QUALITY VS SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY

Comparing a 22 megapixel Phase One P25 file at ISO 50 to a Canon 1Ds Mark III file at ISO 100, the Phase One P25 file easily wins based on sharpness, definition and contrast. After 6 months with the 1Ds Mark III, color is more or less on par with medium format when it comes to pushing around files in Photoshop. But the 1Ds Mark III files do not match the sharpness and definition of a P25 file. The delta between the two is mostly the sharpness. At ISO 100 the tide begins to change and the Phase One P25’s advantages  lessen. By ISO 200 the P25 is noisy and exhibits color shifting (due to the noise). At this point the 1Ds Mark III easily wins. A Phase One P30+ back would compete much better and hold its ground to around ISO 800.

While the 1Ds Mark III leaves me wishing for better definition (sharpness), the system works smoothly. The 1Ds Mark III has all the benefits of modern dSLRs - great auto focus, good LCDs, a big and bright viewfinder, great high ISO performance, an endless array of lens options, long battery life, etc. With the 1Ds Mark III “getting the shot” is not a concern. I know I will come back home  with some keepers. Not every shot is perfect, but the hit rate is much better compared to the Mamiya 645AFDII and Phase One P25. And this is the trade off - while the Phase One P25 will bring back a great file at ISO 50, the big question is - can the system actually capture the shot?

In relatively static conditions with plenty of time to frame, compose, focus and set the exposure - the keeper rate with medium format is respectable. To stack the odds in my favor, typically I was bracketing exposure and focus, so a single scene usually consisted of 6 to 12 attempts. Whereas with the 1Ds Mark III may have 2 or 3 attempts (usually fussing to find the right amount of negative EC offset). For landscapes pictures the medium format was manageable. As for pictures like the puppy shots on this page, I cannot imagine the Mamiya 645AFD II’s auto-focus being able to lock anywhere near fast enough.

With these newest 50-60 megapixel digital backs, back makers have upped the sensor sizes and pixel quality to a new level. Supposedly Phase One P65+ can be shot in a 16 MP mode allowing for even greater dynamic range, or improved high ISO performance. Perhaps the digital back makers have out-paced the medium format camera makers? The HY6 looks to be a very capable camera, but its auto-focus is primitive compared to Canon’s 45 points and Nikon’s 51 points. A super-sized digital back is worthless if the pictures are all out of focus. The new backs are nice, but I would rather see more affordable medium format solutions paired with more capable, dSLR-like bodies.

Today’s dSLRs have big LCDs, Live View, auto ISO, fast auto focus, well dampened shutters and so on. These features are designed to capture the shot and ultimately get the picture. The digital back makers are putting forth better digital backs, but the cameras lack the underpinnings to capture the image . It is similar to putting a great engine in a sports car, and then handicapping it with poor suspension, steering and brakes. Meanwhile dSLR image quality is getting better - what will cameras like the 1Ds Mark IV and Nikon D4X deliver? How does someone justify $30-40k in a digital back these days?