So I guess the previous backs by P1 are all "inaccurate", in regards to color? Do you feel that the cost of 35 to 45K for such backs is now a waste, unless you have the most current version?
This whole issue of "more accurate color" really amazes me.
How much more accurate, 1% 2%, 10% 50%, ?? I can't see this amount of inaccuracy being more than 5%, and if it's greater then shame on P1. Other companies with much less expensive cameras (Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji) all are claiming "great color accuracy"
Looking at images I have been able to download I can't really see a great deal of difference. No more than could be corrected in post processing.
Now bring into the fact that for the ability to gain this great amount of color accuracy, you will loose 1 stop, 1/2 stop? (it's still not quantified).
Which do you feel is harder to fix in post, excessive noise? or slightly inaccurate color (blue with a red tint) or slight difference in greens. BTW I believe that pretty much everyone has a different view of the same scene in regards to color anyway. Back to my question. The IQ3100 (mine) still has noise issues at base ISO of 50, and if this back is now moving down to 35 for the new base, I would feel it's safe to assume that your higher ISO ranges are now going to be compromised to some degree.
Maybe if P1 had added a few other things:
tilting screen (huge benefit for me)
better 100% review with Capture Pilot (you still can't get a clean 100% review on the iPhone with Capture Pilot from any P1 back)
Focus peaking (should not be that hard to incorporate)
100% coordination between back and camera (even with the XF last time I checked you still need the camera top LCD for many setup scenarios)
More weather sealing (not sure if this can be done to current back designed but long overdue for field work)
The cost might be worth the consideration, but to say "more accurate color" and that is worth the cost of 45K for me is bit of a stretch.
You can also expect no LR/ Adobe support on this New more accurate back for at least 1 year, same as with the IQ3100. I realize that this statement to purists is shocking (the use of other raw converter than C1 on P1 raw) but C1 is long lacking in many areas that Adobe has long since improved on.
Things like HDR exposure blending, pano creation, Auto mask (C1's is pretty much worthless in outdoor scenes and has been since inception).
I am sure for those that can own it, it will be the best there ever was. But to spend such on outlay just based in "improved color accuracy"? To me is excessive.
Paul Caldwell