Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test  (Read 18239 times)

bcooter

  • Guest
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2009, 03:03:08 am »

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


Dave's smart.

He knows that throwing up three files and using the word comparison is the fuel that drives these forum threads.

This comparison is slightly informative, also slightly flawed, but Like Hollywood has known forever there is no such thing as bad publicity and like I said, Dave's smart.

Actually to get everybody's motor running he should have shot a 5d2 with a Tamron lens and that would sent this thread into the 84,000 views category.

The test you want to see, does a Nikon or Canon work as well as a peefourty, peesitxyfive, or peefourtyfive, will never happen and even if it did, the internet noise factor alone would render any conclusion mute   See that DXO thread for example.

B
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 10:28:20 am by bcooter »
Logged

Nick_T

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2009, 06:08:32 am »

Quote from: gwhitf
Diffraction, Schiffration -- big deal.
EDIT

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.

George you are such a dumbass.
You are the absolutely the very best photographer I know* (*as in "internet" know).

Medium format is different from 35mm.

NIck-T
Logged
[url=http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.c

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2009, 02:25:01 pm »

Quote from: Dave Gallagher
The medium format digital back marketplace can be quite confusing, even for the people who are supposed to be the experts.


I think this comparison is like every other one I see on the interweb  It's ok, but for some reason it's either a photo of a brick wall or a tree.

Maybe that's the perceived market, brick wall and tree photographers.

The test I would love to see is skin tones and how they react under different lighting and ambient color.

The Leaf backs I owned were less succeptable to ambient color bounce, but had an awful time with direct hard light on light caucasian skin.  One hard Frensel or profoto head on those pasty white models threw up a magenta cast in the arms and legs from highlight to shadow.  Maybe because the transition is so abrupt

Then again the Leaf back  loved soft key like window light and would produce a beautiful look.

The P30+ I use Works well under direct lighting, really well under direct tungsten light, as long as you have a lot of watts, but it also picks up every single skin blemish, or change in color like nothing I've ever seen.  I'm sure this sensitivity is great for shooting food, but sometimes it means a lot of extra post production work to paint out the the over sensitivity to color.  Great news if your a retoucher, bad news if your paying for the retouching.

The Hasselblad 39 mpx back I very briefly tested probably produced the best skin tones of any medium format back I've tried.  More of a Canon like skin tone, which I find nice.

The thing about medium format is none of the makers really show the true value of their files, which is working a file deep in post.  Even a 18mpx p21 file you can beat the hell out of in post and get that deep uber sharp look, especially with hard light.

The p30+ takes more abuse still and that is the one area where medium format squashes the dslrs with their AA filters.



I know dealers don't have the resources, but some db maker should show an image from start of capture though all the retouching steps to finish to illustrate how well their files hold up.

JR
Logged

Kitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
    • http://
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2009, 10:52:13 pm »

James, I agree with you all. Thank you for sharing us.
Just want to add P30+ files develop by C1 3.7?
With the same digitalback P30+ develop by C1 v.4. Skin is totally difference.
Skin texture is much more like Phocus or leaf.

kitty
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2009, 08:34:02 am »

beside the fact that other comparisions probably would be nice to see as well I appreciate this comparision (whatever should make someone at Phase One to do comparisons with a DSLR??? This is up to people who have both systems. Or maybe we will see another "measuring megabytes" article on LuLa in the future).
Looking at the images the first impression is that they are... close. The most obvious difference is the crop of the P40+.
Given the change of light I think it's hard to tell differences in DR. Too, if you set the film curve for the P45+ to "extra shadow" it's getting closer to the P40+/P65+ files. So maybe the film curve presets for the new backs are a bit different to those of the old backs.
Colour reproduction is a question of the camera profiles. I like the blues and cyans shifted towards yellow in the P65+/P40+ files. But this is very easy to adjust for the P45+ file as well with the Color Editor.
Some moirée in the P45+ file whereas the P40+ and P65+ are almost clean.

A few days ago I "compared" the Sony A900 of a friend with the P45 (non plus) and the P21+.
Far from scientific or precise... just a quick and dirty side by side setup.
The DB files look "richer" while the A900 files look somehow "airy" (again - to a certain extend - a question of camera profile).
The DB files look more "3D" while the A900 files look more "flat" - detail reproduction in dark tonal values is much better with the DB files.
Though overall the detail reproduction of the A900 with good glass is very impressive.

Info for Doug and Dave: I've downloaded the EIP files. In the P45+ LCC is okay (can turn in on/off). In the P40+/P65+ the LCC is set in the respective menu but has no effect (so the EIPs seem to contain the settings but not the actual LCC file).
edit: after unpacking the EIPs the LCC works.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 04:16:40 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2009, 11:00:57 am »

I appreciate these comparison files and especially the inclusion of the RAWs, which is vital for real comparison of backs.  With this said, I don't know why Phase One has refused to include download of sample RAW files on their site from ALL their backs.  I would like to see RAW files done with each segment of the market in mind....ie: landscape (me), fashion, architecture, long exposure samples and so on.  They could take their time to do controlled consistent tests with say a "normal" lens on the Phase camera and make the best shots that the back/camera is capable of making.  This shouldn't be hard to do.  All Phase has even put on their site are these tiny jpgs., mostly fashion, some architecture, cars, but not really much landscape.......  the only way to really evaluate a back is to see the RAWs.

Hope Phase is listening.  Eleanor
Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2009, 04:15:04 pm »

Quote from: gwhitf
Skin Tone
Quote from: James R Russell
skin tones
in Capture One V3 there were 4 Skintone Profiles for the H25... I think they were only available in the Windows version for some reason (but I'm not quite sure). So maybe you don't know them:
http://tinyurl.com/mmmhan (308KB)

Logged

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2009, 09:00:09 pm »

Quote
I know dealers don't have the resources, but some db maker should show an image from start of capture though all the retouching steps to finish to illustrate how well their files hold up.
JR

Actually, more value, and objectivity, would be had if someone like yourself produced this exercise.

In your spare time, of course  :>))

Mark
Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2009, 03:05:02 am »

Quote from: tho_mas
The DB files look "richer" while the A900 files look somehow "airy" (again - to a certain extend - a question of camera profile).
The DB files look more "3D" while the A900 files look more "flat" - detail reproduction in dark tonal values is much better with the DB files.
Though overall the detail reproduction of the A900 with good glass is very impressive.

What do you mean with airy? I did some tests of the A900 (alone), and found that in general the files had a lot of detail, more than Canons, but the darkest shadows, even in properly exposed files, were showing some posterization. This is the type of thing I expect the DBs to handle better.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2009, 05:32:14 am »

Quote from: carstenw
What do you mean with airy?
thin, lean, skinny compared to the DB files ... (auf Deutsch würde ich sagen: "dünn", während die DBs "satte" Bilder produzieren).
Quote
I did some tests of the A900 (alone), and found that in general the files had a lot of detail, more than Canons, but the darkest shadows, even in properly exposed files, were showing some posterization. This is the type of thing I expect the DBs to handle better.
yes, I agree. And this is especially noticable when uprezing images (and in this particular use the AA filter is limiting again).
However the A900 is a great camera (above all regarding the price) and there are some very nice lenses in the Minolta/Sony line.

Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2009, 06:34:06 am »

Quote from: tho_mas
thin, lean, skinny compared to the DB files ... (auf Deutsch würde ich sagen: "dünn", während die DBs "satte" Bilder produzieren).

Ah, okay. Perhaps "weak" or "unsaturated". I don't have this impression of the A900 photos, but I have not yet been able to compare all colours. Blues look okay.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Phase One P40+, P45+, P65+ Comparison Test
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2009, 07:28:57 am »

Quote from: carstenw
Perhaps "weak"
yes, thanks :-)
Quote
I don't have this impression of the A900 photos, but I have not yet been able to compare all colours. Blues look okay.
it's not just about the colours but the overall "look"...
As to the colours the comparission is unfair anyway - viewing/processing with C1 the colour profiles for the DBs are specific while the A900 profile is a generic profile (that tends to turn the reds to magenta and oversaturate magenta in daylight). With a few adjustments in the Color Editor this can be solved.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up