Phase P20 image quality?

[mjrichardson]

I run a P20 on a 'blad body. I was very concerned about the crop before purchase. Phase supply a mask to fit over the screen which is translucent so you do not see just the crop but the area surrounding it. As Leica M shooter this was familiar territory and I adapted quickly. In use I have not found the crop screen any problem. I did acquire a 40mm lens as I did miss a wide angle (widest previously a 50mm) but the 40mm Zeiss is such a good lens this was to my benefit as well. The freedom from not changing magazines every 12 shots was quite liberating, don't underestimate it if you have been a MF user. In use it's just like a magazine except with the 'blad a sync cord. Quality wise I love it. I am an amateur so I don't look for billboard enlargements and have not yet run out of resolution for what I want. The problems I have had have been camera shake, I like to think mirror    , when hand held visible below 1/125th, it was there in film but not seen and the lack of quality at higher iso. I don't touch 400 asa unless it's essential but then I shot at 160 with film and didn't miss it, expectations change.

Thanks for your thoughts Chris, I was concerned about the wide side but I am used to it and stitch with a dslr when I want that sort of shot. I understand the 12 shot limit will be a nice thing to break! I'm hoping I can keep the attention I pay to an image when I only have 12!

I have always tended to stick to low ISO so I hope I won't be bothered to much by the backs ability, I have priced a new P20+ but far to expensive with the 6008 adapter, I can buy all sorts of other kit with that money.

Thanks again everyone for youtr input, I think I'll go for it.

Cheers!

Mat.

[Carsten W]

I have always tended to stick to low ISO so I hope I won't be bothered to much by the backs ability, I have priced a new P20+ but far to expensive with the 6008 adapter, I can buy all sorts of other kit with that money.

The Sinar eMotion 54LV is about 8000 Euro new in Europe, really a good deal, and the adapters are generally around 1000 Euro or less, in case you want to switch to another system later. Phase One charges about 3000 Euro for an adapter-change, and that is a one-time change until you want to do it again, and pay again... (one change is free with the 3-year warranty, I think).

On the other hand, the Phase P+ backs can do exposures up to an hour, whereas other backs only usually go to 32s or perhaps 1-2 minutes. Also, the Sinar and Leaf backs use Dalsa sensors, whereas the Phase and Hasselblad backs use Kodak sensors. Both are very good, but you might want to check out the results of both before deciding. Perhaps you see something to swing you one way or another.

[tho_mas]

Actually I have no idea why people would even want to use a proprietary raw processor like C1 for anything but tethering

To store the captures as 16bit TIF in the original camera profile. And not in one of the 4 ICC profiles Adobe graciously supports... and that are all completely useless for me. DNG is a proprietary format, too. With regard to long time safety TIF is the way to go.
Upside of DNG is certainly that you can pass the files to someone else for post.

[Carsten W]

To store the captures as 16bit TIF in the original camera profile. And not in one of the 4 ICC profiles Adobe graciously supports... and that are all completely useless for me. DNG is a proprietary format, too. With regard to long time safety TIF is the way to go.
Upside of DNG is certainly that you can pass the files to someone else for post.

DNG and TIFF (Tagged Image File Format, all data chunks are "tagged") are practically the same thing. DNG uses the same basic file structure, with a couple of extra and a couple of different tags. The file format itself is open, but it doesn't require the chunks of data to be open, so each company can choose to encode their data in a non-open way, which is typically what happens. If you rename a DNG to TIFF or vice versa, you could probably still get the same info out them. I have read the TIFF 6.0, TIFF/EP and DNG standards, and implemented a DNG reader, to read Leica M8 DNGs, and it is not that difficult until you get to the bits which are not open.

What needs to happen is not that we use TIFF instead of DNG, but for companies to open up their data storage formats. Currently only a very few companies are choosing to do this. The problem is not the file formats, but that the companies don't want to go open.

[tho_mas]

... it is not that difficult until you get to the bits which are not open.

That's all great... maybe. But I find it somewhat boring to hack my files. The question was, why should someone use a proprietary RAW Software. Because it is the straight way to a 16bit TIF in an useful color space.

[Carsten W]

That's all great... maybe. But I find it somewhat boring to hack my files. The question was, why should someone use a proprietary RAW Software. Because it is the straight way to a 16bit TIF in an useful color space.

My point was that neither TIFF nor DNG is proprietary. Both are owned by Adobe, AFAIK, but both are open. The camera companies choose to stay closed.