Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mcfoto on November 30, 2006, 01:08:50 am
-
https://digitaltransitions.com/promo/q4_promo.htm (https://digitaltransitions.com/promo/q4_promo.htm)
Hi
Just came across this from DP review. Not a bad price, the camera is worth about $3000.00 alone.
Thanks Denis
-
not bad at all.....the P20 is a 3 yr old system...how does it compare against the canon ds1mkII?
If equal the Phase one P20 is the way to go!
-
not bad at all.....the P20 is a 3 yr old system...how does it compare against the canon ds1mkII?
You know how you look thru the viewfinder of most any camera, and there's that center area that's sometimes boxed in, and it indicates either the metering area, or the focusing area? Well, that's the basic effect of this camera, or any 645 camera with the p20 mounted on it -- except, in this case, that center area is indicating the actual chip/sensor/taking area.
Unless you're doing copywork or scientific work, where the camera was on a copystand all day, and all you wanted to do was record items over and over, like a catalogue, then I'd suggest this camera is worthless.
Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.
Yes, the Canon is CMOS, but in the end, it's a picture-making machine; very efficient, compared to this P20 approach, on any camera body.
-
You know how you look thru the viewfinder of most any camera, and there's that center area that's sometimes boxed in, and it indicates either the metering area, or the focusing area? Well, that's the basic effect of this camera, or any 645 camera with the p20 mounted on it -- except, in this case, that center area is indicating the actual chip/sensor/taking area.
Unless you're doing copywork or scientific work, where the camera was on a copystand all day, and all you wanted to do was record items over and over, like a catalogue, then I'd suggest this camera is worthless.
Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.
Yes, the Canon is CMOS, but in the end, it's a picture-making machine; very efficient, compared to this P20 approach, on any camera body.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=87810\")
Hmm, seems a bit of a harsh judgement to me.
Of course there is the counter argument that the square crop viewfinder can be an advantage if you like to shoot with visibility outside of the actual capture area - think in terms of how you shoot with the framing lines with a RF camera and use the visibility of what's coming in/out of frame to help with composition. Also, if your preference is for square framing, coming from a 6x6 MF background for instance, then you'll feel very much at home with this arrangement.
Maybe I'm the odd one out here who actually PREFERS this type of arrangement? Heck, I have custom Katz Eyes screens on my D2X's with square composition lines to match the layout I have on my 645AFD II/645M so obviously there's no hope for me....
Anyway, here's [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-firstlook.shtml]Micheal's take on the P25/P20.[/url]
As regards day to day shooting & flexibility, I'd agree with the comparison of the Canon as a picture-making machine vs AFD II/back combo. (I shoot Nikon but the analogy is the same). Even my 'old' 645M produces beautful imagery with the Mamiya platform in 4k x 4k full resolution - it's just not as 'easy' to use as a general camera. The AFD II is pretty darn close though.
This seems like a decent deal to me! There's $4000 worth of camera/lens & Capture One in that package making the P20 basically a $5k digital back. Even used P25's, which are essentially identical but with a slightly larger sensor, still sell for in the $15k+ range on eBay.
-
mamiya and phase have partnered up and are offering 1000$ off any phase back if you buy it with a 645afdII....this goes for all phase backs....the pricing of the phase backs is very agressive right now...the P21 is a great deal and as much as i like the P20, i think the P21 is the better solution and a 645 afd can be had on ebay for very little...
the promo you are linking to really is just the base 6,990 for the P20 plus the 3,000 (minus 1000) for the mamiya...
regardless: much better file then canon, no comparison....
-
...
Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
is this camera really THAT bad an useless?
-
With respect to the cropped viewfinder it's the same thing as a Kodak DCS Pro Back on the Contax 645 that I once owned.
I didn't get rid of it for the crop factor..that wasnt a big deal. And I like shooting square as well.
Rather it didn't have the resolution I wanted for landscape work. The P20 is a much better back than the Kodak WRT color fidelity, operational ease, servicibility, etc.
-
Considering the cropped viewfinder, lower resolution and problems this back creates for wide angles, I'd be more tempted by the ZD.
-
You know how you look thru the viewfinder of most any camera, and there's that center area that's sometimes boxed in, and it indicates either the metering area, or the focusing area? Well, that's the basic effect of this camera, or any 645 camera with the p20 mounted on it -- except, in this case, that center area is indicating the actual chip/sensor/taking area.
Unless you're doing copywork or scientific work, where the camera was on a copystand all day, and all you wanted to do was record items over and over, like a catalogue, then I'd suggest this camera is worthless.
Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.
Yes, the Canon is CMOS, but in the end, it's a picture-making machine; very efficient, compared to this P20 approach, on any camera body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
for me it looks like a good price to enter the digital medium format world.
or not?
-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oops
New to this site as a contributor
What i wanted to say was this. taking pictures with dslr is the best 'brain to image' experience I've ever had in a few years of taking pictures.However I do i have an issue, which is a bit irratating, and that is the viewfinder experience of a dslr.If you are doing 'environmantal' portraiture,for instance, it gets hard to see expresion in the viewfinder; so I am being tempted by medium format, not for the quality, but more for the viewfinder experience.Having said this,and by way of contradiction, i am finding a solution; namely using a dslr like a 5x4 and looking 'over' the lens. I'm getting a lot more hits in terms of expression from my subjects this way.
Does medium format improve the viewfinder experience enough to make the jump?
regards tino www.tinotedaldi.com
-
Are you using a full-frame like a 1Ds/5D or a cropped camera? The cropped cameras have smaller and dimmer viewfinders in general.
-
Oops
New to this site as a contributor
What i wanted to say was this. taking pictures with dslr is the best 'brain to image' experience I've ever had in a few years of taking pictures.However I do i have an issue, which is a bit irratating, and that is the viewfinder experience of a dslr.If you are doing 'environmantal' portraiture,for instance, it gets hard to see expresion in the viewfinder; so I am being tempted by medium format, not for the quality, but more for the viewfinder experience.Having said this,and by way of contradiction, i am finding a solution; namely using a dslr like a 5x4 and looking 'over' the lens. I'm getting a lot more hits in terms of expression from my subjects this way.
Does medium format improve the viewfinder experience enough to make the jump?
regards tino www.tinotedaldi.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i have exactly the same problem with seeing the smaller details with my 1dsmk2. ive got a h1/p25 now and its heaps easier to focus manually and see the details. but i miss my canon (i had to sell it to afford the MFD) - you just cant pick it up to take a snap. theres aways a bit of a procedure to follow. im missing a real wide as well.
as for the comments on the p20/afd, i know its traditional to have square format, but what pages/ ads/ billboards are square? sure if you bought it for art and square prints, but these cameras are really commerse machines (imho). if you crop a p20, you must be around the 11mp mark, and you must be only using 50% of the viewfinder area (comapred with 645), so many of the advantages of MFD are not there, except maybe 16 bit files.
paul
-
for me it looks like a good price to enter the digital medium format world.
or not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you mostly deliver to your clients in a rectangle then a square crop camera is as mark says a bit useless
13MP and very restricted lenses and bad to compose and pricey compared to a 5d kit
If you are portrait/wedding shooter with an established history/style of delivering square images it could be cool
If you own a pile of Mamiya lenses it could be a cool way to 'digitise' them
If you shoot with a view camera and have time to stitch (interior/still life) it can equal a bigger chip
I am of the opinion that the whole MF digital world is a place to steer clear of completely if budget is an issue
One should only get this overpriced kit if it gives EXACTLY what you have been seeking
I am also of the opinion that all of the gear is actually pretty cheap viewed as part of the cost of running a photography business my MF gear costs less then lots of my other costs - office space, secetary , Vito Van, digital backup and storage etc
So it can be the right thing but probably only for a small segment of people
It is most important to understsnd the quality/lense restrictions caused by the smaller chip before making this jump
Personally Id take a 5d and a pile of glass over this rig
-
One should only get this overpriced kit if it gives EXACTLY what you have been seeking
I am also of the opinion that all of the gear is actually pretty cheap viewed as part of the cost of running a photography business my MF gear costs less then lots of my other costs - office space, secetary , Vito Van, digital backup and storage etc
So it can be the right thing but probably only for a small segment of people
It is most important to understsnd the quality/lense restrictions caused by the smaller chip before making this jump
Personally Id take a 5d and a pile of glass over this rig
After shooting this P45 for a few weeks, my opinion is: If you're going to dive into the murky waters of medium format, get one of the giant backs. Don't mess around with the smaller ones, because the 1ds2 or even the 5D can keep up with them, for a fraction of the money.
In film days, you might have kept a 35, a Hasselblad, and maybe even a 4x5. I view the P45 like a 4x5 or even an 8x10, and I view the 1ds2 like a film Hasselblad, but the point is -- there is a huge gap in between the two cameras, and it seems a logical step.
With Canon being so good, and so affordable, why mess around with a P20? It does not make sense. Shoot them side by side -- trust me, the Canon will keep up. But the Canon will NOT keep up with a P45 or A75.
So, either step in DEEP, or don't step in at all. Otherwise, it's potentially wasted money, and lots of wasted time.
-
After shooting this P45 for a few weeks, my opinion is: If you're going to dive into the murky waters of medium format, get one of the giant backs. Don't mess around with the smaller ones, because the 1ds2 or even the 5D can keep up with them, for a fraction of the money.
In film days, you might have kept a 35, a Hasselblad, and maybe even a 4x5. I view the P45 like a 4x5 or even an 8x10, and I view the 1ds2 like a film Hasselblad, but the point is -- there is a huge gap in between the two cameras, and it seems a logical step.
With Canon being so good, and so affordable, why mess around with a P20? It does not make sense. Shoot them side by side -- trust me, the Canon will keep up. But the Canon will NOT keep up with a P45 or A75.
So, either step in DEEP, or don't step in at all. Otherwise, it's potentially wasted money, and lots of wasted time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm asking about this on another thread actually. If you were shooting for your book, which I guess is 11 * 14 and your using a P45 and your printing about full frame then you have to massively downsample the P45, with some quality loss, why would you want to do that rather than use say a P21 ( 18mp) which won't need much dowsampling and therefore won't degrade so much and should therefore look better?
-
It is some talk about downsample here and that it is degrading the image.
Has anyone seen this degrading ( examples ) or is it only a theory?
And is this downsampling in PS or is it as much degrading when
making a smaller image from RAW?
Willow
-
It is some talk about downsample here and that it is degrading the image.
Has anyone seen this degrading ( examples ) or is it only a theory?
And is this downsampling in PS or is it as much degrading when
making a smaller image from RAW?
Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It depends on the image, downsampling can introduce jaggies on certain images.
-
I understand the theory, but the question is:
has anyone seen it in a real life situation?
There is a lot of theory going around, but I
am only interested in what I can see in print.
Any examples of this degrading??
Willow
-
I understand the theory, but the question is:
has anyone seen it in a real life situation?
There is a lot of theory going around, but I
am only interested in what I can see in print.
Any examples of this degrading??
Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no I can't give you an example, I don't keep these things on my hard drive, I have seen it though, it is very slight mind, given the choice though I'd rather not up rez or downrez. Still why the extra resolution if your just going to throw it away 95 percent of the time?
-
I'm asking about this on another thread actually. If you were shooting for your book, which I guess is 11 * 14
If that is your repro size, why not just a Canon? With proper 16bit import, and proper USM, the Canon is perfect. Unless there are other factors that you don't mention.
For me, I want to also print large on my Epson 9800; really large. Plus, there is sheer enjoyment from opening a portrait from the P45 and seeing three dimensional eyelashes. Would it make a difference in CMYK print at most common repro sizes, 99% of the time? Probably not.
If 11x14 is your target goal, keep your money in your pocket and wait a few more months for the next Canon, and then, if that's not enough, then spring for the medium format. Canon, in terms of workflow and related issues, is braindead easy compared to BS of medium format. Why did a hole?
-
If that is your repro size, why not just a Canon? With proper 16bit import, and proper USM, the Canon is perfect. Unless there are other factors that you don't mention.
For me, I want to also print large on my Epson 9800; really large. Plus, there is sheer enjoyment from opening a portrait from the P45 and seeing three dimensional eyelashes. Would it make a difference in CMYK print at most common repro sizes, 99% of the time? Probably not.
If 11x14 is your target goal, keep your money in your pocket and wait a few more months for the next Canon, and then, if that's not enough, then spring for the medium format. Canon, in terms of workflow and related issues, is braindead easy compared to BS of medium format. Why did a hole?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree, I've been using the canon for a year now and with carefull raw conversion and unsharp mask you can get it fairly sharp but you can't get that 3 dimensionality you talk about. ( I used to have a sinar 54M and I remember it). However, why do you need 39 mp for this dimensionality, the extra resolution is usefull for big prints, cutting down on moire and thats it. To dismiss the smaller res backs doesn't make sense to me.
-
I disagree, I've been using the canon for a year now and with carefull raw conversion and unsharp mask you can get it fairly sharp but you can't get that 3 dimensionality you talk about.
It sounds like you've already made your decision. Go and buy it, and be done with it.
I do not care for the lower rez backs due to viewfinder crop. I shoot Contax, and you cannot afford to cut into the small viewfinder. The Canon viewfinder is larger than the Contax viewfinder, if you can imagine that. Even the P45 crops slightly into the Contax viewfinder; the others crop more.
Take your 35s. Find a dealer. Go and pitch camp at his shop for a half day and TEST THEM SIDE BY SIDE. That is the only way to know. Do not rely on me, or anyone else here, to advise you. It is a very personal choice, and the only way to arrive at an answer FOR YOU is to go and test. And make damn sure to shoot a lot of images when you test, and treat it like a job, then go home, process EVERYTHING, and then compare that factor too. It's the back end of MF that bites you in the ass; the post production. Also, much slower tethering. This list goes on and on. The only way to know is to test, and to test multiple days.
-
It sounds like you've already made your decision. Go and buy it, and be done with it.
I do not care for the lower rez backs due to viewfinder crop. I shoot Contax, and you cannot afford to cut into the small viewfinder. The Canon viewfinder is larger than the Contax viewfinder, if you can imagine that. Even the P45 crops slightly into the Contax viewfinder; the others crop more.
Take your 35s. Find a dealer. Go and pitch camp at his shop for a half day and TEST THEM SIDE BY SIDE. That is the only way to know. Do not rely on me, or anyone else here, to advise you. It is a very personal choice, and the only way to arrive at an answer FOR YOU is to go and test. And make damn sure to shoot a lot of images when you test, and treat it like a job, then go home, process EVERYTHING, and then compare that factor too. It's the back end of MF that bites you in the ass; the post production. Also, much slower tethering. This list goes on and on. The only way to know is to test, and to test multiple days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know about the shooting issues, I previously have owned a back for about a year and I have tested the new backs, there still good. I understand the viewfinder crop issue but this is quite different to what you were saying regarding the image quality of the lower res' backs.