Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question  (Read 1966 times)

Endeavour

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question
« on: July 26, 2016, 06:48:56 am »

Why is the P30+ considered 'better' for portraiture than landscapes?
quite a bit of commentary on this DB talks about its use in portrait & fashion and not much on landscape work

why is that?
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2016, 07:17:50 am »

Why is the P30+ considered 'better' for portraiture than landscapes?
quite a bit of commentary on this DB talks about its use in portrait & fashion and not much on landscape work

why is that?

As compared to the otherwise similar p45+ it has a one stop ISO advantage, modestly faster sustained shooting speed, and a modestly lower resolution. For those reasons, more people went with the 45+ for landscape and the 30+ for people shooting. But either can be used very effectively for either type of imaging.

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2016, 07:22:20 am »

The main issue I remember was the fact that the P30+ has microlenses which did not work well when a tech camera was used due to color shifts. The issue may have been overstated a bit.

Very clean files from the back. I don't remember the chip size but believe the P30+ was a crippled sensor to some degree.

I also don't believe the P30+ could do long exposure work like the P25 or P45+ backs.

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Ken Doo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1079
    • Carmel Fine Art Printing & Reproduction
Re: Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2016, 10:23:01 am »

The P30/P30+ back is a great MFDB. Easy to use and great color and images right out of the box. Yes, it has microlenses which helped with its speed advantage, but I agree with Paul that the issue with regard to movements was exaggerated---still not a great choice for tech cameras with movements though. The crop on the P30 Kodak sensor is 1.3.  It was also capable of long exposures, maybe not as good as the revered P45+, but I do believe the specs were 30 minutes for the P30 and one hour for the P30+.

I enjoyed using the P30 for both portraiture and landscapes.  The crop also allowed me to use more of the Mamiya lenses (at the time) as the crop basically cropped out the weaker corners.  Moving up to the P65+ you could noticeably see the pressure placed on the lenses.  P30/P30+ is a solid MFDB. It just worked....

ken

Don Libby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
  • Iron Creek Photography
    • Iron Creek Photography
Re: Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2016, 04:13:33 pm »

My first Phase One back was a P30+ that I used on a Mamiya AFD.  I mainly capture landscape and found the P30 an excellent back for my work.  I'd like to think I'd still be using it today if Ii hadn't decided to beginning using a Combo WRS.   A couple of our best selling landscape images were taken with the P30 (one of which was licensed by Phase One; a 30x60)


Don

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: Phase 1 P30+ - a quick question
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2016, 03:32:31 pm »

The P30/P30+ back is a great MFDB. Easy to use and great color and images right out of the box.
ken

Agreed.  C-1 and their profiles got much better as time went by.   Early on with the p30+ with some skin profiles, but Phase fixed that and it's still to this day a tremendous piece of equipment.

We are hard on equipment, but also careful, though the P series backs are just bulletproof.  I guess you can break them, but you'd have to try.   Also Phase supports their back forever.

The downside is the small lcd on the back.  By modern standards it's less than good, but honestly if you stare at the lcd you're not getting the shot.   We usually tethered our p backs so the lcd was somewhat irrelevant, but I never worried about pulling the cord and shooting.

I've never really tested one camera to the other, as I never saw the point.  You shoot with what you have and well, you adapt and everything is fine.

Given that when I bought my Leica S2 we did a quick test with the Leica compared to the p30+ and honestly the p30+ was a superior file.  Not so much the Lecia vs. the contax, but the file from the p30+ to me is just amazing.  I routinely took the p30 file to 800 and the Leica kind of tops out at 640.    At 800 asa you have to kill some shadow noise which isn't difficult in stills, but the file has so much sharpness and color depth for photographing people it would be difficult for me to find a better file.   

I've shown this image before, at 800 asa using a fairly low powered HMI and tungesten fresenels and you can just dig and dig into this file.  It's very moveable and low powered constant lighting changes the file more than flash.   With flash everything is fine, especially the older ccd backs.



FPS is okay, not that fast, but with the p backs they just never hit the buffer. 

Maybe it's just me and I know with 100 mpx cameras out now, it probably seems like these older backs are not professional, though the detail on the p30+ heck even the p21+ at 18mpx is much more than you would think.

I have a friend in Paris that shoots portraits for a renowned studio.  He has a p21+ on his old Hasselblad V and the other photographers use modern dslrs.    His bosses and clients constantly ask how he get's that "look".  He'll probably use that back another 10 years which most people would fine absurd, but hey if it looks good, it looks good.

A couple of years ago we shot a book cover and the AD went through our work with a fine tooth comb.  She had a keen eye and everything she liked came from a p back.   She thought they we're film, not because they actually looked like film but because they do look different, very sharp very deep.  At least that's what she thought so  . . .

Sorry to go on, but I think we kind of get too caught up in the tech vs. the look or better put the photograph.  For a long time, most digital has been very good.  I know some people need or enjoy huge files, but I think of these cameras/backs as film.  Some of the best films just weren't that detailed, but nobody cared if it was a pretty photograph.

You know a lot of kids that work for me are going to film.  They want that analog feel and that's good, it's actually a great learning experience, but film is kind of a pain if you shoot people.  Processing, scanning, making galleries can be done, but transporting is the real issue.  I tell them all to find an old contax, or blad or mamiya and put one of these old backs on it.  You get the analog experience and learn to craft light, work an image within the cameras capabilities and it will always make you better, while giving you a different look.



IMO

BC
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 03:44:28 pm by bcooter »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up