P45+ firmware update, What do you want?

[ondebanks]

There are many good points being made here. I would "+1" Edmund's suggestion of a slower-readout mode for lower readnoise with the P+ backs (another option that can be enabled if the situation calls for it). Apparently Leica are doing/planning this with their S2.

Yes there are new backs with "retina" displays and whatnot, but the P45+ is still the best long exposure back.

This prompts a question that's been at the back of my mind for some time. Why doesn't the P30+ have exactly the same reputation as the P45+ for long exposure quality? They are the same generation of CCD design (Kodak 6.8 micron process), and the datasheets give the exact same dark current characteristics in mV/pix/sec (which is only a whisker different when converted to electrons/pix/sec), and the exact same temperature dependence. So the sensors bring the same long exposure capabilities to the table.

What then does PhaseOne do differently with the sensor in the P45+ that it doesn't do with sensor in the P30+?

Or is it the case that the P45+ got its "best long exposure back" reputation only because the P30+ was never tested in quite the same way as the P45+?

Ray

[Audii-Dudii]

Or is it the case that the P45+ got its "best long exposure back" reputation only because the P30+ was never tested in quite the same way as the P45+?

Based upon my limited, personal experience -- I've owned a P30+ and used it primarily for long-exposure nighttime photography since September 2010, and earlier this year, I bought a P45+ with the intention of replacing the P30+, but ultimately decided to sell it after I determined it wasn't the upgrade I had hoped it would be -- I don't believe the two backs are all that different in terms of their long-exposure performance.

That said, I did find it difficult to perform an apples-to-apples comparison between them, as the P45+ has an ISO 50 setting the P30+ lacks, the P45+ is a 1.1X back whereas the P30+ is a 1.3X back, the P45+ doesn't have micro-lenses and the P30+ does, and the P45+ captures files that are approx. 25% larger than the P30+ files.  While I didn't perform any rigorous, scientifically valid testing, I did conclude after approx. six weeks of using the two backs side-by-side that the IQ of the P45+ files was only slightly (and I mean very slightly!) better than the IQ of the P30+ files, and only when it was used at ISO 50 (which was problematic for me, as it doubled the length of my exposures).  Otherwise, to my eyes, their performance was essentially indistinguishable when viewing 15x20 prints, which is the usual size of my prints.

As I said, though, I didn't perform any scientifically valid tests, so my results could also mean that my particular set of Contax 645 lenses don't perform well enough to highlight the P45+'s superior IQ, that the P30+ was a better match (or the P45+ a poorer match) for my particular pair of bodies in terms of sensor placement/focus accuracy, or possibly even that I'm just not very picky about these things, but in the end, having also decided for financial reasons I wouldn't be "upgrading" to a tech camera any time soon (which was the primary reason I bought the P45+), I decided that for my purposes, the P45+ wasn't worth 2.5 times what I had paid for my P30+ and when the opportunity to make a $700 profit on it arose, I sold it without any reservations or regrets.

So, based upon all of that, I suspect your latter premise is fundamentally correct: The P45+'s reputation as the "best" back for long exposures has to do with other factors (ISO 50 mode, larger sensor, lack of micro-lenses, larger files) rather than its actual performance and when the two backs are compared apples-to-apples, the P30+'s performance is almost indistinguishable from the P45+'s performance. That said, ymmv, of course...

[Paul2660]

I also was bitten by the night photography bug about 2 years ago and it has become a real focus for me.  

I owned a P45+ at the time and felt I had the best back for the job, boy was I surprised when I first used my P45 in 2009 and looked at the image.  Horrible.  This began a long quest for me after about 6 months of back and forth with my dealer and others, I learned to ugly truth.  

Early P45+'s (which mine was) were by no means able to get anywhere close to longer exposures approaching 1 hour unless you could install the latest firmware ( I believe it was 2.3.3)  may still be the latest.  As it turns out, Phase shipped two versions of the P45+ and depending on serial you could have a older style controller card that would not accept the firmware to allow 1 hour exposures.  Long story short, Phase fixed the problem ( I was still under value add warranty) and the new back really was a vast improvement.  

With the fix I now had Long exposures approaching 1 hour and very clean ISO 400. 
Plus totally acceptable ISO 800 in daylight.  Before the fix most time past ISO 200 and files were pretty much worthless due to noise.  

Why mention this, just to point out that if you are looking at a used P45+ make very sure that it runs the latest firmware or you will be very disappointed in the longer exposures and high ISO results.  

And to mention that Phase One, had a plan for the P45+ it took them about 1 full year after full ship to get all the promised features (longer exposures to 1 hour was not available when the backs 1st shipped).  To get there, Phase had to change out the controller cards in the back (I know this because I owned one and if you upgraded the 1st gen card you could kill the back as I did) Net, they determined that the controller card had to be changed or tweaked to get the longer exposures, they made the changes and delivered the results.  I don't think you will be getting any more changes to the P45+.  Many people forget, Phase first shipped the P45 (not +) and the P45+ was not a upgrade (firmware etc.) to the owners of the P45.  You were offered a trade in, but you were not given a P45+.  It was with the (+) backs where you got the 1 hour exposures but when these first shipped you were limited to 30 min max for at least 1 year till Phase One released 2.3.3. I really don't think Phase is going to pursue development on firmware for the P45+ as they have already reached the chipset limits.  

They still sell them new and list them on the website, however with the number of used P45+ backs out there, I really doubt anyone will purchase a new back.  Phase met their commitments on features for the P45+ and (I hate to sound harsh) I really don't think they are going to work on anything more.  You quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.

Paul Caldwell

[ondebanks]

Very interesting info, Paul.

So it begs the follow-up question: are there the same differences between "early" and "late" versions of the other long-exposure capable P+ backs (P20+, P21+, P25+, P30+) ?

Ray

[Audii-Dudii]

Why mention this, just to point out that if you are looking at a used P45+ make very sure that it runs the latest firmware or you will be very disappointed in the longer exposures and high ISO results.

Hmm.  My P45+ was bought used and in view of the results I discussed above, I'm now curious as to whether it was the early or late version, so I'll dig through my files tonight to try to identify the serial number and/or firmware version that was installed.

In my case, though, this is now a purely academic exercise as having decided that a tech camera isn't in my near-term future, I am no longer interested in replacing my P30+ with one.  Contrary to popular wisdom, it is possible to use the P30+ with some shift lenses despite its use of micro-lenses (at least for my B&W photography, anyway) and given my present budget limitations, this means my need to upgrade to a tech camera as a way to gain access to the movements I use with my view cameras has been mostly satisfied.

For now.   

[Jack Varney]

Paul, I am surprised regarding your post-
"Early P45+'s (which mine was) were by no means able to get anywhere close to longer exposures approaching 1 hour unless you could install the latest firmware ( I believe it was 2.3.3)  may still be the latest.  As it turns out, Phase shipped two versions of the P45+ and depending on serial you could have a older style controller card that would not accept the firmware to allow 1 hour exposures.  Long story short, Phase fixed the problem ( I was still under value add warranty) and the new back really was a vast improvement.  "

I have never heard of two versions and have no idea what an early version P45+ might be, but thought mine would be in that category, SN DT000129. I have had no problem updating the firmware several times over the years.

Note that the current firmware for the P45+ is 5.1.2.

[Paul2660]

Jack, point well taken as the entire issue was never discussed openly.  I only realized it by a tip of the hat by Capture Integration/Atlanta.

I am not sure what the root cause was, however I am assuming it was due to a dual parts source for some of the components.  Mainly the System board/controller board.  Net, certain boards when upgraded  to the firmware lever (2.3.3) seems to stick in my head could "possibly" cause the entire board to become corrupted and the back would no longer fail.  Also the entire firmware upgrade process for the P45+ IMO was a joke.  ( My experiences here are way too much for this post).  Net was I finally got 2.3.3 on and on reboot the screen went black, DOA.   On return to Denmark, Phase replaced the "main board" and processed the upgrade to the firmware and the resulting back really was a totally different camera as I mentioned earlier.  My serial was higher than yours but not higher than 450.  The improvements with the repair really crossed every facet of the back's performance, not just long exposures.  Faster, Cleaner and much more usable ISO 800, faster writes, less write fails, just a much more steady performer.  

Net the P45+ with the ability to run the latest firmware is a truly amazing camera and my decision to part with it was a tough one that ran months.

Paul

[lance_schad]

" Plus totally acceptable ISO 800 in daylight and useable ISO 1600.  Before past ISO 400 and files were pretty much worthless due to noise. "

Paul the P45+ has an ISO range of 50-800. How have you achieved getting ISO1600 off if it?

Lance

[Paul2660]

Lance,

My error,  800 tops.  I have had my Canon's out too much lately. 

What I should have stated was before the firmware update/controller card change, My back was 50 to 100 very good and good, 200 usable and 400 pretty much worthless.  AFter the fix, I found even 50 and 100 better, 400 very usable and 800 OK very dependent on the image shooting conditions. 

Facts that I had firmware/controller card issues definitely keeping me from getting to anything past 15 minutes exposures, that were fixed by Phase One are stated correctly.

Thanks for the catch.
Paul
 

[Doug Peterson]

Jack, point well taken as the entire issue was never discussed openly.  I only realized it by a tip of the hat by Capture Integration/Atlanta, after a long drawn out mess with my dealer.  (My dealer did work with me and make it right, but I didn't feel that they led the charge and for sure didn't leave with a good feeling that things would be fixed until I pushed back)

Would you mind clarifying that we (Capture Integration) were the good guys in this story? The sentence structure is not especially clear here and it can be misread that the opposite was true.

The story can be hard to read but basically: improvements were made in firmware, some early units had trouble accepting the new firmware, and Paul was able to get his back serviced to accept the new firmware.


------

Separately:

Probably, I shouldn't comment on this thread because it would be more PR-wise to just ignore it. But I value honesty above PR.

There is essentially no chance Phase One will do any feature-additions via firmware on the P45+ at this point. They released several firmware updates over the years since the back was released, some to get up to pre-release promises (e.g. 1 hour exposure), some adding overall better quality, speed, and some adding support for new CF cards.

They still support the back in their current software (as they support all single shot Phase One backs ever made), which is more than can be said for most camera companies (see also: Canon 5D mark 1 and 1Ds Mark 2 support in EOS Utility) and will provide support/service/warranty/repairs for it for many years to come.

If for some reason a firmware update needs to happen to fix a new issue (e.g. a major change to the firewire spec, or an entirely new CF card) that may well happen.

But development of new features on any product ends at some point, usually when a new generation is released (e.g. the P65+) and certainly by the time two new generations have shipped (e.g. the IQ series). For better or worse, it's just not going to happen. I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to cite any camera company that has added significant features to a product 4.5 years after starting to ship it.

Specifically with *firmware* the process to do a feature addition - in a way that you're extremely confident the feature you've added is bug free, works with all backs made, works with all accessories (e.g. cf cards), and doesn't screw up any related functionality, in all situations - is not trivial no matter how small the feature you're trying to add. Now imagine you're an engineer and the last time you looked at the firmware for a P45+ was over a year ago, and you've been focused on firmware for the 40/65+ and then the IQ - and it becomes even more challenging.

Steve has already jumped in on this thread because we view ourselves as advocates for our customers - intermediaries trying to help a manufacturer understand users in the real world and trying to help customers understand the abilities and limitations of the manufacturer. Anytime we see a chance for Phase to do something reasonable that would help it's customers we advocate for it hard. And trust me, I do understand some of the frustration in that the 45+ is still a currently-sold product, specifically because of it's long exposure and some of these features are seemingly easy to add. I also think it's enormously constructive to have a conversation about "what features would I liked to have had on the P45+ I purchased". Specifically, I've always (meaning after it was brought up and discussed intelligently here on LL) been in favor of allowing (optionally - a la a custom function) the user greater control/transparency into the dark-frame process. Perhaps an onscreen indicator of sensor temperature, the ability to disable a dark frame, capture it later (not ideal but perhaps needed for some applications), control whether or not the previously captured dark frame will be used or a new one captured etc. Wrapping features like that into firmware for the current line or into future products would be a great idea. It's this sort of feedback about the P+ that resulted in the IQ.

It's just not going to be added to the 45+.

Don't shoot the messenger here - I just hate to see this thread go on with only voice indicating the reality of the situation.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

[Steve Hendrix]

I thought I would refresh this topic a little. 

I was thinking if I was Phase One I would offer a firmware update to the P+ series just for the sake to make the customers feel assured that 4 years after they spend $32,000 on a digital back Phase One has not forgotten about them. 

Yes there are new backs with "retina" displays and whatnot, but the P45+ is still the best long exposure back.

Even if the firmware upgrade is minimal, it would be nice to know that Phase One still cares about us. 

It may give me more confidence when I decide to upgrade to a new back.  I am not going to upgrade if Phase One doesn't do everything they can do make me feel that my digital back's firmware will be updated and worked on to make the best camera possible.

My main firmware upgrade would be that the back can not be turned off during a dark frame subtraction.  It is already designed not to turn off while storing an image - can't they extend this feature to dark frame subtraction.  If you push the power button once during the dark frame it will bring up a warning that dark fram subtraction is happening - then if you push the power button a second time it will actually turn off the back, incase you are meaning to cancel the dark frame.

Please Phase One.  Make me feel important.  I gave you $32,000!!!

As we've said, not optimistic about P45+ new firmware. This was a product that was released almost 7 years ago. However, I would say that amongst digital back manufacturers, Phase One does an excellent job of "not forgetting you", comparatively. Even if you bought a digital back from Phase One 13 years ago (original 6MP LightPhase), the latest version of Capture One has still been made to be compatible with that product and indeed, it improves images taken with that product at no expense to you 13 years later. It still supports tethered capture with a LightPhase. And by compatible, that means the software and hardware combination are "officially supported", meaning that if you have an issue, there will be effort spent on the technical team to sort it out and resolve it. Software and firmware are two very different things and I don't see firmware updates happening to the P45+ that wouldn't have already happened.


Steve Hendrix

[Jack Varney]

I must agree with Doug and Paul. After a career with a large IT manufacturer, I understand that products cannot be enhanced forever. Many firms discontinue all support after just a few years.

Certainly no complaints about the P45+ and, in particular, none with Capture Integration!

[Graham Welland]

I have no dillusions about future product updates for the P45+ (or other similar generation P+ backs) but it would be nice to see Phase One have a road map for other backs that can handle longer exposures than the current P60/40+ & IQ series. It's a niche that for those who use the feature is pretty vital. It would be rather ironic to be driven back to film at a time when even the current camera bodies no longer support film backs too.

[ondebanks]

I have no dillusions about future product updates for the P45+ (or other similar generation P+ backs) but it would be nice to see Phase One have a road map for other backs that can handle longer exposures than the current P60/40+ & IQ series. It's a niche that for those who use the feature is pretty vital. It would be rather ironic to be driven back to film at a time when even the current camera bodies no longer support film backs too.

+1

This is something I've consistently been asking for as well.
It is REALLY important.

It's not like the world is still waiting around for a successor to the sensors used in the P45+ and P30+ - they are already out there (KAF-40000, KAF-50100) and being used by Hasselblad and Pentax - and generating massive sales in medium format terms, it would appear.

Furthermore, the KAF-50100 datasheet says "The sensor shares a common pin-out and electrical configuration with the KODAK KAF-40000 Image Sensor, allowing a single camera design to support both members of this sensor family."

In the hands of PhaseOne engineers, these two sensors would totally kick ass for long exposures.
They have even better dark current specs than the older KAF-31600 and KAF-39000 in the P30+ and P45+; around 5 times better at 20 degrees C and 7 times better at 0 degrees C.
You could probably expose all night! (and wait as you sleep through the next day for the dark frame to finish  )

There's also a monochrome version of the KAF-50100 - perfect for updating the P45+ Achromatic/IR.

PhaseOne could make a lot of money from adopting these new sensors...if I put it in those terms, maybe they'll listen?

Ray