Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Christoph B. on September 15, 2015, 11:58:25 am
-
Hello!
Well basically the title says it all - I'm thinking about buying a used P65+ (+ 645DF+ and 80mm 2.8 LS) for less than 9.000$.
The reasons for me are the big sensor (I don't like 35mm and prefer the look and feel of larger formats) and of course the high resolution.
I'm planning to use it for mainly for magazine shots, portraits and landscape/still life photography (no exposures longer than a minute or so). Until now I've always rented the necessary equipment to get the job done, but I'm not happy working with "somebody else's stuff" and if I want to use it for my personal work as well it'll get expensive really fast.
Now, the 65+ is somewhat 'aged' and has been on the market for more than 6 years - is it still worth buying?
Who's still using his/her 65+ today?
If you were in my shoes - would you buy one as an entry into digital medium format?
I really hope my questions aren't as stupid as I think they are - but I'm really not too sure what to do at this point and I could use some guidance from experienced users.
-
The 60mp chip is just as beautiful as the day she was announced. If what you're shooting allows the workflow and time, I don't see a reason not to. The newer IQ backs have a few features not on the P+, but the price point is damn good. I'm almost sure you could purchase, and flip it if needed with minimal loss.
-
I think its more than entry level. Only downside is Phase One has blocked the P series from the new XF body.
-
Hello!
Well basically the title says it all - I'm thinking about buying a used P65+ (+ 645DF+ and 80mm 2.8 LS) less than 9.000$.
The reasons for me are the big sensor (I don't like 35mm and prefer the look and feel of larger formats) and of course the high resolution.
I'm planning to use it for mainly for magazine shots, portraits and landscape/still life photography (no exposures longer than a minute or so). Until now I've always rented the necessary equipment to get the job done, but I'm not happy working with "somebody else's stuff" and if I want to use it for my personal work as well it'll get expensive really fast.
Now, the 65+ is somewhat 'aged' and has been on the market for more than 6 years - is it still worth buying?
Who's still using his/her 65+ today?
If you were in my shoes - would you buy one as an entry into digital medium format?
I really hope my questions aren't as stupid as I think they are - but I'm really not too sure what to do at this point and I could use some guidance from experienced users.
The P65+ and IQ160 are the same sensors, you just get the IQ interface on the 160. IMO the P65+ was a benchmark sensor for Phase One and can produce excellent files. I often have regretted my upgrade to the 260 from 160 as the files IMO are not as clean. Just a fact.
Some thoughts:
1. It's 60MP and a very powerful 60 at that.
2. You have the option to move to a tech camera and your P65+ will take pretty much any lens once you decide which brand
3. Details with the glass you are considering will be excellent
4. As long as you work with the DF+ you can use either LR or C1, both offer great output from the P65+
5. Tethering is very limited to Fire wire, so use in the field tethered will be not as convenient as the IQ backs with USB3
6. The LCD is pretty much worthless for any type of focus check, it's the same LCD that was on the P45+. When zoomed in it's very very hard to tell focus. It's not a touch screen and it will take a while to move around
7. Phase One will not be adding any more upgrades to it via firmware
8. It won't work with the XF body (at least for now)
9. For the price point are you getting any warranty? from the dealer?
10 I would at least consider a P645z for the price you are at.
No one right answer, but there is still a lot of life left in the P65+, however I sure would look at a IQ160 also if you can make it work.
Paul
-
Hello!
Well basically the title says it all - I'm thinking about buying a used P65+ (+ 645DF+ and 80mm 2.8 LS) for less than 9.000$.
The reasons for me are the big sensor (I don't like 35mm and prefer the look and feel of larger formats) and of course the high resolution.
I'm planning to use it for mainly for magazine shots, portraits and landscape/still life photography (no exposures longer than a minute or so). Until now I've always rented the necessary equipment to get the job done, but I'm not happy working with "somebody else's stuff" and if I want to use it for my personal work as well it'll get expensive really fast.
Now, the 65+ is somewhat 'aged' and has been on the market for more than 6 years - is it still worth buying?
Who's still using his/her 65+ today?
If you were in my shoes - would you buy one as an entry into digital medium format?
I really hope my questions aren't as stupid as I think they are - but I'm really not too sure what to do at this point and I could use some guidance from experienced users.
The only way to fully answer this question, is for you to play with one and see what you think. Everyone's needs, preferences, and budget are different. You've mentioned renting equipment in the past; is the P65+ something you've rented and used in the past?
The P65+ in brief:
- The image quality is great.
- All the core unique elements of medium format (high sync speed, high res, great color depth and tonality, large sensor size, shallow DOF, great tethering, physically robust, upgradeable, modularity, compatibility with view cameras and tech cameras) are there.
- The user interface for reviewing images when untethered is mediocre, at best. Framing/composition and exposure are easy to check. Focus review is not up to modern standards. It's a button driven rather than touch interface, and there aren't the set of advanced tools for review like there would be with the Credo 40 (same ballpark of price: we have a refurb Credo 40 kit in stock with full warranty and new accessories for US$9990 or new for $13,995).
If you're shooting tethered the user interface is not as important since you can use the tethering station for any significant image review. If you're shooting untethered it's a bigger deal, and I'd even more strongly suggest getting your hands on one to see if you can live with the limitations of the image review interface.
It's true that this back is not compatible (and will not be compatible) with the XF. The Credo 40 is a compelling alternative for that reason as well as the Credo will (in the future) be updated to include XF compatibility. That said, the P65+ can also be traded in for an XF compatible back in the future, so if you really want a larger sensor you shouldn't let that hold you back.
-
Thank you all for your time and effort in answering my questions and eliminating my doubts! :)
I have used the P45+ and the Hasselblad 3DII31 but most of my work is done with smaller format, 1D/5D etc - however I have never owned a digital medium format camera.... analog medium and large format yes - but 60mpx MF is a whole new level - which is why I wanted to know your opinions beforehand!
Well it looks like I've made up my mind - thanks to your encouragement! I can absolutely live with an abysmal preview screen, I'm used to not seeing the negs until they're developed anyway ;) so the 2-3 seconds of waiting until they appear on my computer won't really matter all that much. I prefer looking at them of the big screen anyway.
As I don't intend to upgrade to a new back or camera for the foreseeable future the incompatibility with the XF system doesn't matter at all - the 645DF+ should do fine for the next couple of years.
The only reason I was worried about the purchase is the fact that I hardly see theses backs in the hands of professionals any more, most of them traded them in for IQ(2) backs.
-
The only way to fully answer this question, is for you to play with one and see what you think. Everyone's needs, preferences, and budget are different. You've mentioned renting equipment in the past; is the P65+ something you've rented and used in the past?
The P65+ in brief:
- The image quality is great.
- All the core unique elements of medium format (high sync speed, high res, great color depth and tonality, large sensor size, shallow DOF, great tethering, physically robust, upgradeable, modularity, compatibility with view cameras and tech cameras) are there.
- The user interface for reviewing images when untethered is mediocre, at best. Framing/composition and exposure are easy to check. Focus review is not up to modern standards. It's a button driven rather than touch interface, and there aren't the set of advanced tools for review like there would be with the Credo 40 (same ballpark of price: we have a refurb Credo 40 kit in stock with full warranty and new accessories for US$9990 or new for $13,995).
If you're shooting tethered the user interface is not as important since you can use the tethering station for any significant image review. If you're shooting untethered it's a bigger deal, and I'd even more strongly suggest getting your hands on one to see if you can live with the limitations of the image review interface.
It's true that this back is not compatible (and will not be compatible) with the XF. The Credo 40 is a compelling alternative for that reason as well as the Credo will (in the future) be updated to include XF compatibility. That said, the P65+ can also be traded in for an XF compatible back in the future, so if you really want a larger sensor you shouldn't let that hold you back.
+1, very well said.
I own an IQ160 and the Image Quality is stunning.
The IQ interface really does justice to the quality of the sensor and feels quite current even though it was introduced in 2011 (IIRC).
The P+ back chassis and interface is quite a bit older and feels like so. The screen is garbage and overall response feels slow. If you can work through that then you will love and enjoy the sensor quality and tethering performance.
-
I've always said use it till the paint wears off and it's always worked for me.
Thank you! :)
That's exactly my motto and that's party why I delayed moving to digital MF for so long - but as I'm not living in the states . I definitely plan on using the back as long as possible and if the paint wears off I'll just repaint it ;)
By the way I browsed through your portfolio - great work! Kudos! :)
-
The image quality from the P65+ is exceptional and will blow your mind.
-
Oh and one last question - didn't think it'd be necessary to open up a new Topic/thread;
I was thinking about a portrait and beauty lens - something like 150mm would be pretty neat. Would a Mamiya Sekor C 150mm 3.5 N be alright?
It most likely won't be as sharp or contrasty as a modern Schneider lens and I'm not expecting it to, I'm just intrigued because on paper they would fit the bill (though I also found some 150/3.5 with a leaf shutter - but that probably won't work, right? ;) ).
I heard and read good things about the 120 4.0 Macro as well but for closeups I think it's a little bit too short for my taste - but just out of curiosity - are the old Mamiya 120mm macros basically the same design as the new Schneider ones?
What do you guys think about Zooms like the 75-105mm or 105-210mm ULD? Are they even worth considering?
-
Oh and one last question - didn't think it'd be necessary to open up a new Topic/thread;
I was thinking about a portrait and beauty lens - something like 150mm would be pretty neat. Would a Mamiya Sekor C 150mm 3.5 N be alright?
It most likely won't be as sharp or contrasty as a modern Schneider lens and I'm not expecting it to, I'm just intrigued because on paper they would fit the bill (though I also found some 150/3.5 with a leaf shutter - but that probably won't work, right? ;) ).
I heard and read good things about the 120 4.0 Macro as well but for closeups I think it's a little bit too short for my taste - but just out of curiosity - are the old Mamiya 120mm macros basically the same design as the new Schneider ones?
What do you guys think about Zooms like the 75-105mm or 105-210mm ULD? Are they even worth considering?
Do you mean the 150 AF? I have the 150 and it certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
If you don't mind the extra reach, get the 210mm ULD. Amazing lens, even on the new backs.
A used 110mm LS would be another option, but certainly not as cheap.
-
Actually I was talking about the manual focus lens - I couldn't find the AF lens anywhere anyway ^^
The 210 ULD! Interesting - I wasn't even considering that...hmmm isn't that a bit long though?
The 110 on the other hand is even shorter than the 120mm ;) hehe
And the two zooms - do you have any opinions on them?
-
No experience with the zooms, sorry.
Second hand info tells me that the 210 is sharper than them though.
-
Actually I was talking about the manual focus lens - I couldn't find the AF lens anywhere anyway ^^
The 210 ULD! Interesting - I wasn't even considering that...hmmm isn't that a bit long though?
The 110 on the other hand is even shorter than the 120mm ;) hehe
And the two zooms - do you have any opinions on them?
The 105-210, in manual or AF is a good lens, and some are better than others. I had the AF version for several years, but sold it for a cracker sharp 210 AF. The 210 is the range I mainly used the 105-210 anyway. The 210 is much smaller and lighter but the hood is pretty lame. It's built in and the catch breaks pretty easily so it won't stay closed down. Not a big deal but one of these days I plan to send it back to be fixed as the lens is just that good.
The 75-150, AF (I wasn't aware there was a MF version) is excellent. One of the first modern Zooms Mamiya built up. They never did make their 45-90 which I wanted for years. The LS version and non LS version share the same optics, just the Leaf shutter is the difference. I believe the LS version is longer also but optically the same.
You can find the 210 AF on ebay often and it may be worth pursuing. The 75-150 shows up a bit less and you may want to work with your dealer on that one.
One note, both the 105-210 and 75-150 use firmware at the lens level. You can't update the lens firmware without a DF or DF+ with the V grip (I guess you can use the XF for this now). If you don't have the most current firmware (most used on ebay won't) you need to get the lens firmware updated as it most likely will have AF issues with the DF+ or DF.
Paul
-
Every format and camera has its own unique look that can never be 100% duplicated by any other. But a [full frame 645 sensor + a 130mm f/2 lens + capture one] evokes for me a lot of the feel of an 8x10 portrait.
https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/fast-portrait-lens-phase-one
-
Hello Johannes,
I'm not an exclusive 8x10 shooter, I also use small and medium format though I never really felt comfortable with the 'look' of small format and always preferred shooting on medium or large format, but the quality (and especially the colour) suffers when you scan the film, even with a drum scanner you always have to put a lot of work into the files to get even close to what you see on your slides.
Right now I'm shooting with a 5D II, a Pentax 67 and on 8x10 but I'm planning to get rid of the 5D and the Pentax and replace both of them with the PhaseOne - it's right in the middle of the two (speed-and sizewise) but produces more accurate colours and a higher resolution than both systems. I'll keep the 8x10 for personal projects and some commissions (a few people like the look and feel of 8x10 and film in general, so I can keep them satisfied as well :) )
You can see some of the rest of my work (professional and personal) here: http://christoph-m-bieber.com/?page_id=1356 (gosh, I really really need to update my page...)
-
Hello Johannes,
I'm not an exclusive 8x10 shooter, I also use small and medium format though I never really felt comfortable with the 'look' of small format and always preferred shooting on medium or large format, but the quality (and especially the colour) suffers when you scan the film, even with a drum scanner you always have to put a lot of work into the files to get even close to what you see on your slides.
Right now I'm shooting with a 5D II, a Pentax 67 and on 8x10 but I'm planning to get rid of the 5D and the Pentax and replace both of them with the PhaseOne - it's right in the middle of the two (speed-and sizewise) but produces more accurate colours and a higher resolution than both systems. I'll keep the 8x10 for personal projects and some commissions (a few people like the look and feel of 8x10 and film in general, so I can keep them satisfied as well :) )
You can see some of the rest of my work (professional and personal) here: http://christoph-m-bieber.com/?page_id=1356 (gosh, I really really need to update my page...)
Yes, I agree on this, accuracy (and especially color) does suffer when scanning film, if one tries to digitize old captures of paintings that have been done with large format sheet film, it becomes quite obvious.... Trying to overcome the matter, I've ended up that it is best to avoid scanner altogether when digitizing film. I now try to convince customers that the best method is to use a good lightbox with even distribution of light and shoot the negative using a high resolution multishot MFDB.... I have impressive results using a Kaiser lightbox and shoot on a Sinarback 54H in 16x true color mode for (only) 88mp files using a Zeiss 120mm micro APO lens. Other than the color accuracy problem that is solved, one will be be surprised to find out that he rarely needs stitching two 16x multishot shots even for 8x10 film as to achieve enough resolution.
-
Yes, I agree on this, accuracy (and especially color) does suffer when scanning film, if one tries to digitize old captures of paintings that have been done with large format sheet film, it becomes quite obvious.... Trying to overcome the matter, I've ended up that it is best to avoid scanner altogether when digitizing film. I now try to convince customers that the best method is to use a good lightbox with even distribution of light and shoot the negative using a high resolution multishot MFDB.... I have impressive results using a Kaiser lightbox and shoot on a Sinarback 54H in 16x true color mode for (only) 88mp files using a Zeiss 120mm micro APO lens. Other than the color accuracy problem that is solved, one will be be surprised to find out that he rarely needs stitching two 16x multishot shots even for 8x10 film as to achieve enough resolution.
Indeed many institutions are scanning film using our system that employs a refined implementation of that method:
http://dtdch.com/film/
-
Indeed many institutions are scanning film using our system that employs just that method:
http://dtdch.com/film/
Thanks, that looks impressive.
-
Indeed many institutions are scanning film using our system that employs a refined implementation of that method:
http://dtdch.com/film/
Those copy stands do indeed look great! I use my LPL 7700 Enlarger with a dedicated accessory that replaces the enlarger's head for a sturdy camera base...
-
Okay so I have one last question;
Which CF cards should I use?
I saw a list of 'compatible' cards here https://www.phaseone.com/en/Search/Article.aspx?articleid=1591&languageid=1
How relevant is this list?
Do I have to worry about something if I use a card that's not listed there? I was thinking about using a SanDisk Extreme Pro 16/32GB (160MB/s) but it's not listed there....
Am I going to run into some trouble by using a non-verified card? Never occurred to me that would or could be possible...
-
Okay so I have one last question;
Which CF cards should I use?
I saw a list of 'compatible' cards here https://www.phaseone.com/en/Search/Article.aspx?articleid=1591&languageid=1
How relevant is this list?
Do I have to worry about something if I use a card that's not listed there? I was thinking about using a SanDisk Extreme Pro 16/32GB (160MB/s) but it's not listed there....
Am I going to run into some trouble by using a non-verified card? Never occurred to me that would or could be possible...
I use those cards (Sandisk Extreme Pro 32GB) and have had no issues.
-
Okay, thank you -it's just...weird having a list of "compatible" or "tested" CF-cards, makes you wonder why they did that...
-
So just as a quick follow-up;
I received the camera a week ago and I couldn't be happier! The resolution, the colour fidelity, the comfort of tethering - everything works as it should (well except for some few issues with the AF but that doesn't matter to me).
The 80mm and 210mm are great for working in a studio environment and today I got my 50mm shift lens and I'm very surprised at how sharp it is!
Thank you all again for aiding me in my decision, I don't think I would have (or rather could have) made the switch without your knowledge and advice!
-
Congrats and Enjoy your kit!
The 50mm shift is a guilty pleasure of mine too. Got one for a pittance last month and I am amazed at how beautiful its rendering is. Pixel for pixel, it is not as sharp as the Schneiders, but it is very filmic and has plenty of resolution.
-
Okay, thank you -it's just...weird having a list of "compatible" or "tested" CF-cards, makes you wonder why they did that...
This is the list of CF cards they have specifically tested during firmware development.
A CF card which is not on this list has not been specifically tested with that back/firmware. This does not mean it won't work; in fact, almost always it will.
As an example of when this matters... imagine your back is giving you error messages about the CF card (not common, but certainly not impossible); when you call your dealer to troubleshoot they will ask if you are getting the same error messages when using more than one CF card all of which are on the "compatible" list. If the answer is yes then they will know it is almost certainly an issue with the back. If the answer is that you ONLY have CF cards that are not on the list, then they will suggest that the first step to troubleshooting is to try two or more CF cards on the "compatible" list (a good dealer will have several of these cards in their own testing inventory that they can loan you if needed).
Because of this I think it is good practice to have at least two cards that are on the list. After that, buy any Lexar/Sandisk pro line card you want, as long as you do some testing with each card before using it on an important shoot.
-
I believe a big advantage of the P65+ with respect to competition is its ability to shoot in exposure + mode gaining 2 stops in sensitivity and reducing the resolution at 15mp but retaining the full image area of the sensor... I've heard very positive comments about the picture quality in that mode and although I've used a P-65+ on a Mamiya on the past, I didn't test the (+) mode properly...
I wonder if one can post some comparison samples of the two modes and comment on his experience about the (+) mode...
-
I believe a big advantage of the P65+ with respect to competition is its ability to shoot in exposure + mode gaining 2 stops in sensitivity and reducing the resolution at 15mp but retaining the full image area of the sensor... I've heard very positive comments about the picture quality in that mode and although I've used a P-65+ on a Mamiya on the past, I didn't test the (+) mode properly...
I wonder if one can post some comparison samples of the two modes and comment on his experience about the (+) mode...
I have used that mode on my IQ160 and the file looks stunning. Much more detail than the 15mp would suggest. It allows one to retain the look of the large sensor format and optics when 15mp is more than enough (which is a lot of times) and one gains high iso performance. I would imagine the 20mp on the IQ180/280/380 is even better. The P+ file is just so so smooth with a less "digital" look to it. Color is just awesome. No scientific measurement, analysis or judgment, just my own experience.
-
Honestly I never thought about using the + mode at all. Wouldn't downsampling the 60mpx to 15mpx give the same result?
-
AFAIK, the phase backs use some sort of super pixel binning whereby the results are better than a straight downsampling.
-
Honestly I never thought about using the + mode at all. Wouldn't downsampling the 60mpx to 15mpx give the same result?
I'm surprised your dealer didn't cover this with you prior to purchase; its one of my favorite features of the 65+.
The sensor+ mode is doing diagonal hardware pixel binning at the sensor level BEFORE recording the sensor output. This means:
- 2 stops of free ISO gain (ISO1600 in sensor+ is really quite good when combined with the catered processing of C1)
- faster shooting (tethered or untethered)
- smaller raw files (easier on storage, loads faster on older computers or in high volumes)
- you're still getting the full frame (no crop / no change in effective focal length).
The 65+ was the first back that I really enjoyed bringing to weddings, and sensor+ was a huge part of that.
-
Well I knew about it obviously but I just don't see the advantage for me. I don't have to shoot that fast (1fps is more than enough) and I actually like noise in my photos...and if perchance I really do decide that it's too much for this or that photo - well than I can still resize afterwards :)
In short: I prefer having the big files to work with, however I do see your point for wedding photographers (though if that was my main profession I would've rather gone for a Pentax 645Z).
-
Glad it's working for you.
FWIW, had dinner this weekend with a friend of mine that lives in France.
His main genre is traveling the world, shooting portrait settings for very wealthy people (think three Verons, two yaghts, 3 homes type of people).
Most of the finished prints are approx 1.2 to 2 meters.
For 8 or so years he's used the p21+ with a hasselblad V using mostly tungsten light.
The agency he contracts with are always amazed at his final output and thinks it's a 60 something megapixel back to the point their other photographers have moved to high megapixel backs and the new Canon 50mpx.
He doesn't lie to them, he just doesn't bring it up, but the interesting thing is he's used the p21+ for about a trillion gigs and only had one small electronic glitch, which was coming from the hasselblad.
He wouldn't trade it, or upgrade it for anything at any cost.
So my point is you should have a great experience with your p65 regardless of the pixel count and they last forever.
IMO
BC
James, I just want to thank you fo the solid advice you hand out in this forum. A few weeks ago I brought my Contax 645 off the shelf and back into my working arsenel with a P65+ purchase, in no small part because of your comments about how solid and useable a system it is another thread here. they gave me a lot of confidence in making the investment. (If you can call any photo equipment purchase an investment.)
Thanks for your perspective.
DAF
-
I once got hired as an assistant by a guy who specialises in portraits used in ads (think pianist, explorer etc). So we traveled all day to this explorer guy who lives halfway up a mountain when he's not travelling, and portrait man pulls out one 5D or 5D2 and one lightbox and tripod with a portable flash, gets it done outdoors in 40 minutes or so, including a second nearby location. The mountain was quite a bit cold and windy, mini-siberia the explorer called it, the lightbox tried to turn into a zeppelin. I don't think any client ever asked him what his camera was. He couldn't have used anything larger anyway, since he had a calibrated carry-on go bag with camera, flash, lightbox, comp and clothes. Maybe as you suggest the camera really doesn't matter.
Now for the interesting part: The ads were for a pharma company. The portrait subjects were customers, and the images he made were of a heartbreaking sadness, when you actually looked at them. He was really too good, as an artist.
Edmund
Glad it's working for you.
FWIW, had dinner this weekend with a friend of mine that lives in France.
His main genre is traveling the world, shooting portrait settings for very wealthy people (think three Verons, two yaghts, 3 homes type of people).
Most of the finished prints are approx 1.2 to 2 meters.
For 8 or so years he's used the p21+ with a hasselblad V using mostly tungsten light.
The agency he contracts with are always amazed at his final output and thinks it's a 60 something megapixel back to the point their other photographers have moved to high megapixel backs and the new Canon 50mpx.
He doesn't lie to them, he just doesn't bring it up, but the interesting thing is he's used the p21+ for about a trillion gigs and only had one small electronic glitch, which was coming from the hasselblad.
He wouldn't trade it, or upgrade it for anything at any cost.
So my point is you should have a great experience with your p65 regardless of the pixel count and they last forever.
IMO
BC
-
Now for the interesting part: The ads were for a pharma company. The portrait subjects were customers, and the images he made were of a heartbreaking sadness, when you actually looked at them. He was really too good, as an artist.
Edmund
I'm interested to see the portraits, not for the camera quality, but the story you laid out sounds so interesting. Any keyword to google ?
-
I'm interested to see the portraits, not for the camera quality, but the story you laid out sounds so interesting. Any keyword to google ?
Long time ago. I'll try and do a search.
Edmund
-
BTW, between the p65+ and the aptus ii 12, which one would you get ? is 80mp just over kill ? I saw one just going on eBay for cheap at about 8k.
-
Hi everyone, I'm sorry but I have to ask. Do you think it will also work and now? I guess that it will be a very good investment. You know, now I started to take care more about the investments that I make. I try to buy only things that I really need and to keep some more money in order to make a big investment in a small business or in some funds. I was inspired by one of my friends who share this blog with me. There I read how to invest correctly and I think that after I'll save enough money I'll make my first big investment. Till then I have to buy little but important things.
-
Hi everyone, I'm sorry but I have to ask. Do you think it will also work and now?
We still sell a lot of P65+ via out outlet (https://dt-outlet.com/product-category/digital-backs/).
It's one of the best image-quality-to-dollar values of the backs we have. BUT you have to go in eyes-wide-open regarding its usability/features.
There are significant limitations in usability/flexibility that feel anachronistic/dated compared to modern cameras. Namely the ISO (max 800 at full res, 3200 at 1/4th res), the LCD screen that was okay in its time but now feels very low res and dim since we are all used to iPhones and which did a pretty poor to absent job of helping you judge focus post capture, and Firewire for tethering.
If you can live with those limitations, the image quality is really quite good. Skintones are pleasing, dynamic range is excellent for its era, it's a full-frame 645 sensor (most backs of that era are at most a 1.1x crop from a 645 frame), and 61.5 mp is pretty competitive for large prints even today.
Ideally you would try one out before you buy. I think our rental team still offers P65+ rentals with credit toward purchase, but you'd have to contact them to confirm.