Phase One P65+

[thsinar]

Jack,

I guess you did not get Steve's post in detail: he is speaking about being less sharp because he "suffered from mirror slap". That alone can definitively not destroy a myth, if there is one.

Best regards,
Thierry

Ditto here.  I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality.  Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures.  The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...

[Paul2660]

I agree with Jack's comments on the 55mm  very sharp corner to corner.  

The 28mm at least my version not so good as Guy's.  For my work with the 28mm in the F8 to F12 range, the lower left corner is very soft, but if you
increase the aperture to F16 or ever F22 it gets much better.  The only other issue I have with the 28 is the use of filters, I have a solution that was
developed by Tim Ernst that works, but it's still a pain and takes a long time to setup.   I still like the use of a CLPL in my outdoor work.  
Once the season is over here, I am going to send my 28 back to Mamiya and see if what they feel about it.  

My only issue on the 55mm is what I could call a very shallow DOF.  Which always surprises me.   With F7 to F11, on the 55mm I find that you get a
considerably shallow DOF.  

Paul Caldwell
www.photosofarkansas.com

[Jack Flesher]

Jack,

I guess you did not get Steve's post in detail: he is speaking about being less sharp because he "suffered from mirror slap". That alone can definitively not destroy a myth, if there is one.

Best regards,
Thierry

No, I didn't miss Steve's point about mirror slap.  I was merely piggy-backing on his comment and sharing my own findings on the so-called "superiority" of Zeiss glass.  We all have our pet peeves and one of mine is broad-stroke generalizations...  FWIW I compare lenses by shooting a complex test target at 50x focal length, except for macros which I test at 2x focal as well.  I use a tripod and mirror-up to eliminate as many errant vibrations as possible.

And Thierry, please have no worry ---  as I said above I did not specifically test any *Rollei* versions of the Schneider lenses, so am not making any assertions about the specific lens line your company-branded camera uses.  And at that, please note I only commented on a few of their Hasselblad brethren...

,

[thsinar]

Thanks for these details.

Why should I worry? I invite you to test the "Rollei" version anytime: you can have mine, if needed, but you will then have to give me yours.

 

Thierry

No, I didn't miss Steve's point about mirror slap.  I was merely piggy-backing on his comment and sharing my own findings on the so-called "superiority" of Zeiss glass.  We all have our pet peeves and one of mine is broad-stroke generalizations...  FWIW I compare lenses by shooting a complex test target at 50x focal length, except for macros which I test at 2x focal as well.  I use a tripod and mirror-up to eliminate as many errant vibrations as possible.

And Thierry, please have no worry ---  as I said above I did not specifically test any *Rollei* versions of the Schneider lenses, so am not making any assertions about the specific lens line your company-branded camera uses.  And at that, please note I only commented on a few of their Hasselblad brethren...

,

[jmvdigital]

Oooo, I smell a dual brewing. Will Jack throw down? Stay tuned after a word from our sponsors...
 

Thanks for these details.

Why should I worry? I invite you to test the "Rollei" version anytime: you can have mine, if needed, but you will then have to give me yours.

 

Thierry

[Jack Flesher]

Oooo, I smell a dual brewing. Will Jack throw down? Stay tuned after a word from our sponsors...
 

No duel here Justin.  I tried a Sinar Hy6/e75 outfit with a couple lenses when I was first deciding on which MF DB option was best for me, and didn't care for it...

[gwhitf]

No duel here Justin.  I tried a Sinar Hy6/e75 outfit with a couple lenses when I was first deciding on which MF DB option was best for me, and didn't care for it...

In a caring, loving, gentle, supportive, constructive way, could you hit the high points of what you found less than desirable in that combination, in your style of working?

[erick.boileau]

What kind of long exposures can the P65+ handle?  Can it go up to an hour like my P45+?

that's also for me a main reason not to upgrade

[Jack Flesher]

In a caring, loving, gentle, supportive, constructive way, could you hit the high points of what you found less than desirable in that combination, in your style of working?

Given the emotions that some folks display over their particular brand, I find it is virtually impossible to share ones personal views if they are non-complimentary without creating dissension, so I generally avoid it.   But since you asked I will try as gently and lovingly as possible. Please keep in mind these are my personal opinions and are in no way intended to cause offense to anybody...

1) I liked the WLF and ability to rotate the back to landscape or portrait orientations.

2) I liked the adjustable grip.

3) I like the ability to use an optional 45 degree finder.

~~~

4) I did not care for the button layout on the body.  I suspect after time one would get used to it though. To me, it seemed a more logical configuration for maybe a camera designed to be used tripod-mounted most of the time...

5) I found AF erratic in anything except relatively good light. The camera with the 80 would hunt endlessly in normal indoor light where the other cameras (Hassy H and Mamiya) had no problem locking with their 80's.

6) I had odd white balance issues that were difficult to correct in post.  (This most likely had to do with my unfamiliarity and certain complexities with the conversion routine...)

7) At the time, converting a raw file to be useable required using a couple separate softwares -- I assume that is now fixed, but do not know for certain.

The back I used showed uneven color-casts across many of the images, noted more frequently when the 50mm lens was mounted. This cast appeared similar to what my Phase back shows when used with a really wide lens on a shift camera.  I assume this is not an inherent issue and was just an isolated issue with that specific back...  

Again, all the above my personal impressions only,

[Guy Mancuso]

If I may add the buttons on the left side of the HY6 did not have strong enough indents to them and could easily be moved by accident or some type of safety feature would be helpful. This really bugged me but for others may be okay. My personal preference is more DSLR feel to it and obviously this is different but never felt comfortable to me and at the end of the day spent my money elsewhere, it has to work and it has to work fast for me without fiddling. All of these camera's have some compromise to them on how they feel and how they work. I want to think about the image so the easiest one out of the gate to work with get's my vote for ME.

[Vernonclarke]

Jack,

I guess you did not get Steve's post in detail: he is speaking about being less sharp because he "suffered from mirror slap". That alone can definitively not destroy a myth, if there is one.

Best regards,
Thierry

Whilst I did put some of my issues down to mirror slap, I also had problems actually getting the image sharp on both of my 501's, when I upgraded to the P45+ I welcomed the live video as I used it to aid the focus.  But after some time I used my option with Phaseone to change platform and decided "after a months test" to go with the Phase/Mamiya 645 platform.  I can now use this system untethered with confidence, and am delighted with camera...

I just need to say that my choice of lens and camera is what works for me, some people prefer other brands etc, but when shooting with a client on my shoulder, I need sharp fast and consistent results every time and this system delivers it for me....

All the very best

Steve

[Don Libby]

This reminds me of whenever the question comes up of what should I get?  The easiest and most correct answer is whatever feels best and works best for you in your hands and for the type of photography you do.  When I first started looking to upgrade my landscape photography from 35mm to medium format I did my reading and other research however it wasn’t till I actually had the camera body in my hands did I make the final decision.  It’s been a while now when I did that but I can still remember not liking the “feel” of the hassy as I held in my hands and up to my eye; I know I could have worked around the issues in time but didn’t feel I had to as I liked the feel of the other camera.  It’s not the camera taking the image it’s the person operating the camera, so long as the person holding and working the camera knows what he/she is doing so the bottom line is personal preference; you need to ask yourself will it fit your style, does it feel right, and in some sense does it make you happy.  

Just reminded myself of a car commercial here in the States, “When you turn your car on does it return the favor?”  

We take images to captivate the viewer; in order to do that we should be as interested (or turned on) in taking the image as we can in order to share the expression to the viewer.  I don’t think we can succeed if we are using tools we don’t like or can’t get to work for us.

Jack is correct when he said that emotions play a large part in what we feel about our gear but we also need to remember that it simply is not a one size fits all world.  I love my Cambo RS1000 and P45+ kit but I also know that it isn’t suitable for everyone or every shooting style (that’s why I still have my Phase 645).  We need to check our emotions and egos at the door whenever we speak about gear, what works best for you might not work for everyone which is a point we need to remember.

Best to all

don

[woof75]

The non-subjective improvements of the plus included dramatically long exposure times and sustained and faster capture rates. While the LCD screen, high ISO and dynamic range were certainly improved, the amount of improvement was judged subjectively thus the mileage varied as a result.

The P65+ offers non-subjective improvements with respect to capture rate, physical sensor size, and resolution. It will also offer expanded dynamic range, expanded ISO, variable resolution via Sensor + technology, as well as potential future features also via Sensor + technology. Some of those aspects will again be subjective and yes, judged accordingly. The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

"The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising."
Lines like this sound like your saying that you were lying a bit last time when you said about better high ISO performance but this time your not.
When I was deciding between the P21 and P21 plus I was told about the high ISO advantage, better screens, wireless file transfer and non of it was true. This time it will be different though, just need to get the firmware updated. How about a bit of honesty and integrity, the product is great, just cut out the spin. (with regard to the screen it is sharper but less viewable outside, different, not better).

[woof75]

Ditto here.  I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality.  Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures.  The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...

I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything but because they look cheap people think they aren't good. There great lenses. It's amazing how bias works.

[EricWHiss]

I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything but because they look cheap people think they aren't good. There great lenses. It's amazing how bias works.

Actually I haven't seen any tests where the mamiya 645 lenses come out on top so if you have any links handy that would be much appreciated.  I have seen several tests where the mamiya 7 series lenses do excel and its a pity that there are no digital backs that work with that camera.  I've also read lots about the RZ series of lenses being the preference for fashion shooters, but honestly not so much about the 645 series lenses - really until this thread.  I'm definitely curious.

[Graham Mitchell]

I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything

I've never seen one. Can you provide a link?

[BJNY]

Would this be the PDF you'all are discussing?

[Carsten W]

Would this be the PDF you'all are discussing?

That summary compares only the 45, 80 and 210, hardly the best Contax 645 lenses. The Contax 80/2 is even a full stop faster than the Mamiya, a design choice which has ramifications throughout the aperture range. The test also compares only resolution, not colour or boke, etc. Is there anything comparing the 35, 55, and 120 Macro? There were meant to be numerous tests...

[macfly]

I'd love to chime in here on the design of the Hy6 and also the Mamiya vs H2/H3 systems.

I used to use a Contax 645 quite a lot back in film days, and really liked it as a camera. I have never liked the H1/H2, which ironically is the machine I use for work the most, because I feel it is very poorly laid out, and I've never gotten to love it like almost all the other cameras in my life. I was really excite about the Hy6 until I spent about three minutes holding it. IMHO it is both plasticy and agricultural at the same time. I hated the layout of all the controls, and was very disappointed in the overall build quality and feel. My local store is very good about letting me borrow things, since I both buy and rent a lot of gear with them each year, but the 'feel' of camera gave me no desire to even try it.

I don't really understand why folks who make these machines don't come on a little two week field trip to those of us who are shooting several terrabytes a month to see how we'd really like things to work, feel and look. I'd be happy to open my doors to any camera designers, and give my input into how to make their stuff really desirable to both working pros and high end enthusiasts.

Last week I actually spent a few minutes with the Mamiya 645, as it is so linked with Phase, the back I use the most because it is the defacto system at Industrial Color who do all my back end work. I really liked the simple clean analog layout of the controls, and will certainly test one out with some of it's lenses soon, as the silly marrying up of the closed loop H3 and it's digiback mean that system is now of less use to me.

Since I spent almost 20 years married to my RZ67, and loved my little 6 & 7's I have no problem with Mamiya, but the 645 system always seems a bit to like an amateur toy than a real workhorse.

I'd love to see some new lens tests for the current Mamiya 645 vs Sinar vs H2/3 to help aid my decision to switch.

[Steve Hendrix]

"The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising."
Lines like this sound like your saying that you were lying a bit last time when you said about better high ISO performance but this time your not.
When I was deciding between the P21 and P21 plus I was told about the high ISO advantage, better screens, wireless file transfer and non of it was true. This time it will be different though, just need to get the firmware updated. How about a bit of honesty and integrity, the product is great, just cut out the spin. (with regard to the screen it is sharper but less viewable outside, different, not better).

Woof:

You're entitled to your opinion.

But I object to the term "lying", and the implication of a lack of honesty and integrity.

There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. A completely new sensor with new technology certainly does offer more potential for advancement. I don't see what does not ring true about that statement.

The screen from the plus is certainly better than the non plus. It has more resolution and more brightness. The fact it is less viewable in direct sunlight is yes, one aspect that was a minus. However, I have not met anyone who has told me they would prefer to have the older screen. And wireless file transfer was not part of the plus upgrade package. It is a feature that we felt confident enough to publicize our plans for and obviously we have so far failed to accomplish this. Guilty as charged.

I do understand that until rubber meets the road, skepticism exists (and rightfully so). Nonetheless, the potential of the P65+ product is exciting and that is directly what I was stating.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One