Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test

[Dave Gallagher]

Hello All,

The medium format digital back marketplace can be quite confusing, even for the people who are supposed to be the experts. The only way that you will truly understand the new technology is to shoot any new system side by side the older systems. With the arrival of our new P40+ the first test that we wanted to conduct was a shooting scenario on a technical camera with movements. We wanted to answer the question, ” will the P40+ produce an LCC that was unacceptable.” The answer is clear in our examples, however so much more can be learned from this comparison than just LCC information. We will leave it up the veiwer to determine which relationships are more significant to them. Enjoy!

Downloads
Download 100% JPGs at our website
Download Raw Files (EIP format) at our website

Equipment / Testing Procedure

• Cambo RS with Schnneider Digitar 35mm f/5.6 XL Lens
• 10mm of fall on rear standard
• 1/4 second , f/11.5 , ISO 100 on all DB’s
• Blue sky, direct sunlight, deep shadows, Capture Integration famous Alley
• Nothing optically or on the camera body changed between DB exposure

[Dave Gallagher]

That alley is sexy like Paul Blart - Mall Cop

The next time, have an office bet and whoever pulls the short straw has to put on a dress and get out there for some fashion shots (guys only eligible). That'll spruce up those test shots.

John, you have a permanent invite to model whichever tube top you prefer....

[marcs]

i think it would be a helpful, from a "recruiting"/marketing standpoint, to add examples of 4x5 and/or 8x10 film next to those images for comparison.  

there is much discrepancy on these topics, and there shouldn't be.

[pixjohn]

.

[michaelnotar]

it sure looks like the P65 has a noticeable better DR, the other too look the same.

as an architectural and general photographer with a p25 where a view camera and WDS system are the norm, how much of a difference is that 1.3x crop? when i bought the p25 i debated the P30 for being cheaper and more MP, but decided to spend the extra money for the P25, i believe i didnt know it couldnt be used on VC/WDS but that problem seems to be resolved now.

[antonyoung]

as an architectural and general photographer with a p25 where a view camera and WDS system are the norm, how much of a difference is that 1.3x crop?

He just posted side by side examples of how much of a difference the chip size is, and linked thumbnails in his post. You don't even have to click a link to find out.

[Kitty]

it sure looks like the P65 has a noticeable better DR, the other too look the same.

as an architectural and general photographer with a p25 where a view camera and WDS system are the norm, how much of a difference is that 1.3x crop? when i bought the p25 i debated the P30 for being cheaper and more MP, but decided to spend the extra money for the P25, i believe i didnt know it couldnt be used on VC/WDS but that problem seems to be resolved now.

P30 has microlens on CCD. So it is not suitable for large format with tilt and shift lens. There is color cast problem and files is not very sharp when tilt or shift.

I thought it is quite difficult to compare quality for these 3 images. I don't know why but it seems tilt or shift angle is a bit different.

[Doug Peterson]

I thought it is quite difficult to compare quality for these 3 images. I don't know why but it seems tilt or shift angle is a bit different.

We were very very cautious not to change anything when switching digital backs. The captures are as close to identical as possible. Overlayed in Photoshop I measure the variation between captures as less than +/- 0.2 degrees of rotation.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[bcooter]

how much of a difference is that 1.3x crop?

$1,000,000



B

[Guy Mancuso]

Interesting question since I just went from a P25 framing to a P30 framing. It's bugging me a little and the only reason is I can see outside the crop lines but the crop lines are thin. If I did one or two things it may help . Make the crop lines a little bolder with a sharpie and/or I had another idea use matte tape to mask it but still let the light in since I THINK the meter works off the full frame . That needs to be confirmed though. Steve , Doug would love a answer on that. Other than that no real issues except my 28mm is a little less wide but also no issues with corner sharpness either, so a blessing in disguise.

[hubell]

Thanks for posting those files, Dave. As between the P65 and P45 files, I can see a real improvement in the dynamic range with the P65 compared to the P45. The P65 has better shadow detail and also seems to hold a bit more highlight detail. There are differences in the colors between the  files, but my preference for the colors in the P45 file is obviously subjective. Of course, the colors in both files can be easily adjusted in the raw conversion or PS, but I do prefer to start with a color rendition that is more pleasing to me off the bat. What is difficult for me to assess is that the P45 file APPEARS sharper in some areas of the image than the P65 file, but in what might be a brittle/digital way. The P65 file seems "smoother" and "less digital" than the P45 file, which is generally a good thing, but I can't tell if that is at the expense of real sharpness. (Leaf files from Dalsa sensors are often described as "more filmlike", and I wonder if that is what I am seeing.)

[ziocan]

Thanks for posting those files, Dave. As between the P65 and P45 files, I can see a real improvement in the dynamic range with the P65 compared to the P45. The P65 has better shadow detail and also seems to hold a bit more highlight detail. There are differences in the colors between the  files, but my preference for the colors in the P45 file is obviously subjective. Of course, the colors in both files can be easily adjusted in the raw conversion or PS, but I do prefer to start with a color rendition that is more pleasing to me off the bat. What is difficult for me to assess is that the P45 file APPEARS sharper in some areas of the image than the P65 file, but in what might be a brittle/digital way. The P65 file seems "smoother" and "less digital" than the P45 file, which is generally a good thing, but I can't tell if that is at the expense of real sharpness. (Leaf files from Dalsa sensors are often described as "more filmlike", and I wonder if that is what I am seeing.)

I keep reading about this "leaf being more like film" and "phase looking more digital".
I cannot express judgement of Leaf files, since I have used them seldom, but to me the Phase files, in general I mean, look like the "real thing". On a 30 inches monitor it is like being in front of the photographed subject in real life. that may not appeal to everyone, but that is how good they are.
then if we want to get the look of film, that should not take more than a few clicks per files.
Or am I missing something?

[Carsten W]

I keep reading about this "leaf being more like film" and "phase looking more digital".
I cannot express judgement of Leaf files, since I have used them seldom, but to me the Phase files, in general I mean, look like the "real thing". On a 30 inches monitor it is like being in front of the photographed subject in real life. that may not appeal to everyone, but that is how good they are.
then if we want to get the look of film, that should not take more than a few clicks per files.
Or am I missing something?

Without being particularly knowledgeable in this, what you are saying doesn't seem to have any contradictions. "like real life" is one thing, and "film-like" is something else. I suppose the Phase files are quite neutral, whereas the Leaf files have colour which is more "designed". Film is not neutral, by any means, the colours were designed to be pleasing in some particular way.

I suppose that any file is a few clicks away from any look, give or take some clicks. That pros use Canons instead of Leafs or Phases is solid proof for this. I don't think anyone would claim that the Canon files are as good, but after a few clicks, few can tell the difference.

I suppose it is all in how you want to work. If you like the file out of the box, there is more time for photography. The less the native look matches your preferences, the more you will sit in front of the computer.

[gwhitf]

Isn't there just part of you that wants to see a Comparison Test like this, but with:

A. Hasselblad version of 50MP, whatever it's called.

B. P40+ or P65+, either one.

C. Nikon, whatever the big one is called, the eight grand one.

D. 5D Mark II.

Nobody's ever really done that, except maybe once, with that obscure Tech place in LA, years ago.

What I'd like to do is ignore the Chip Size, and just pick a size, on the short side. Any size. Maybe 11 inches wide. And rez all the files to that same size.

Shoot all four, with NO sharpening, and with the default color profile, and get a model on a set, with strobe, so there are no variables with ambient changing. (And no Cowboy Drunks).

I'd love to shoot them all tethered, with someone with each camera/back that knew how to run the software, and REALLY knew how to get the best out of each camera/back in processing settings. No monkey business in the processing. No vignetting or whatever.

Have some guy there in a black/white striped shirt to be a Referee, and be able to throw a flag if Dougie tries to add some sharpening.

Shoot them all at about f11, with strobe, and bracket in third stops.

And then, in the end, make a nice Epson 7900 or 3800 print, about 11" wide image area on the short side, and put them tacked to the wall, cropped the same proportion, and then ask a bunch of normal people to come in and judge them. Not photographers.

Wouldn't that be funny?

I'd love to have a non-invested Observer to sit in a big high back Directors Chair, and watch all the shenanigans, and then watch the hassle factor of tethering and processing, and then judge the prints, and then walk over into one corner of the boxing ring at the end of the night, and hold up an arm of The Winner.

[Doug Peterson]

Have some guy there in a black/white striped shirt to be a Referee, and be able to throw a flag if Dougie tries to add some sharpening.

Wouldn't stop me. I'd just use clarity instead :-P.

Anyone is welcome to come to our studios and try any gear we have on hand. We have all the Phase backs and all the Canon cameras. Bring your own Nikon/Leaf/Hassy.

It's really really really a nightmere though trying to decide what is "fair".  Just for instance your choice of f/11. On really good dSLR glass that hits diffraction. Should you instead match the apparent DOF; shoot each lens at each f-stop? Should we use a Phase One back on a Phase One body or an H2? Maybe we should put all the digital backs on a tech camera. When lenses don't match up between systems.  How do you account for the different aspect ratios (match the diagonal FOV, horizontal FOV or vertical FOV).

Heck if you look at this test we chose ISO 100 for each of the four backs because the P30+ doesn't have an ISO50 (which we only used to show the LCC reinforcing a 30+ is not suited to tech camera usage). Is that fair or are we handicapping the three backs that start at ISO50?

etc etc etc etc

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[gwhitf]

It's really really really a nightmere though trying to decide what is "fair".  Just for instance your choice of f/11. On really good dSLR glass that hits diffraction. Should you instead match the apparent DOF; shoot each lens at each f-stop?

Diffraction, Schiffration -- big deal. Tell me this -- If you were in the middle of a real job, and you had eight more setups to do before you left that day, and the assistant took a meter reading, and he yelled out, "Uh, Dougie, it's f11", would you stop and relight the shot, and not do the shot at f11? Get serious. Don't make me drive down there.

I understand what you're saying, if we were both Molecular Scientists, and not photographers, but in the end, there are eight more shots to do before we have a drink. Can we forget about some stupid MTF Chart and get real?

I know there would be some variables, but if there were at least one guy there that KNEW each system, and there was a Referee, we could make it work, and learn something.

Another sub-test, if there was time: Take out a stopwatch, and do a shot with each camera, and time it on how it takes before you get a processed TIFF, after shooting the picture.

But in the end, all I want to look at on those monitors, and on those prints, are Skin Tone, basic sharpness, Shadow Detail, and overall color. We could find a model somewhere that could hit a pose, and repeat it exactly for all four cameras.

[Doug Peterson]

Diffraction, Schiffration -- big deal. Tell me this -- If you were in the middle of a real job, and you had eight more setups to do before you left that day, and the assistant took a meter reading, and he yelled out, "Uh, Dougie, it's f11"

[...]

But in the end, all I want to look at on those monitors, and on those prints, are Skin Tone, basic sharpness, Shadow Detail, and overall color. We could find a model somewhere that could hit a pose, and repeat it exactly for all four cameras.

I 100% agree with you for your usage/style/subject-matter. In that situation I wouldn't give a single thought to diffraction or most other technicals.

If I were a car shooter I, a landscape shooter, an interior/architecture shooter, a high end macro table-stop shooter (e.g. watches) then yes I would really care about the sharpest aperture and I wouldn't give a thought to "skin tone". If I were shooting black and white nudes I wouldn't give a thought to "overall color"

That gets the core of the problem of all such testing. Not everyone cares about (or should care about) the same image attributes.

That's why I say anyone is welcome to come to our studio and do their own test.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[ziocan]

Isn't there just part of you that wants to see a Comparison Test like this, but with:

A. Hasselblad version of 50MP, whatever it's called.

B. P40+ or P65+, either one.

C. Nikon, whatever the big one is called, the eight grand one.

D. 5D Mark II.

and put even a Sony in the mix. with a prime zeiss it may deliver the best of the dslr lot.  

[michaelnotar]

He just posted side by side examples of how much of a difference the chip size is, and linked thumbnails in his post. You don't even have to click a link to find out.

ya i realize that, other than looking at crop alone, i was hoping to see what peoples real world experience has been. i obsess about the details too much. its not all that much difference unless you are backed into a corner shooting the inside of a house. that being said, it seems my clients want WIDE, i live off my 24mm for architecture insides.

[SecondFocus]

"Nothing optically or on the camera body changed between DB exposure"

Yes but the lighting in the alley changed. If you look on the left wall you will see a horizontal line running down the wall. The shadow running along that line changes indicating that the light hitting the alley is changing. Also if you look at the cloud at the very end of the alley you can see that it changes too. So there might be clouds running across the sky also changing the lighting.

I somewhat agree with gwhitf, you must use things in the practical circumstances of what you shoot. But if money were not a consideration, I would buy a P65+ and get on with it.