Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: clawery on October 28, 2008, 10:04:57 am
-
Capture Integration was lucky to be the first to show the P65+ in the US. Please take a look at some of the test shots we shot. The detail from the DB is amazing!
http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/)
http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/p65/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/p65/)
(more details about the P65+)
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year
877-217-9870 | National Atlanta / Miami
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter
-
Capture Integration was lucky to be the first to show the P65+ in the US. Please take a look at some of the test shots we shot. The detail from the DB is amazing!
http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/)
http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/p65/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/p65/)
(more details about the P65+)
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year
Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter
I have not been tempted till now to upgrade from 39 mp to 60mp, but the detail on the nasal hair of the old guy may change my mind. Brilliant vehicle for showcasing a $40K camera.
-
I have not been tempted till now to upgrade from 39 mp to 60mp, but the detail on the nasal hair of the old guy may change my mind. Brilliant vehicle for showcasing a $40K camera.
Did you guys Over sharpen the files..?
The crops look really over sharpened...?
Does look nice.. I guess, if you really need all those megapixels...
Thanks for the information as usual
Snook
-
I'm interested in the high ISO claims for this back, ie, 800. Just how realistic is it? Yes, I know it depends on the user, subject, etc, but maybe a general guide could be offered? Eg, a comparison with 39 backs, which claim 400 (but I'm never happy over 100, would only use 200 as an emergency and 400 is not even a possibility). YMMV.
-
We pushed sharpening a bit past defaults (also reduced the radius from defaults), and also included clarity (a new feature of 4.5 Pro). It's rough subject matter and this sharpening looked most appropriate to us (read: me) and of course shows off the back/lens best. We were very cognizant that sharpening is subjective and the choice of sharpening is critical for analyzing IQ.
That's why we included a raw file with which you can do your own sharpening and analysis.
I'm sure we'd all benefit if you want to DL the raw, apply your own sharpening (in C1 or elsewhere) and compare/contrast crops (our or your own).
Did you guys Over sharpen the files..?
The crops look really over sharpened...?
Does look nice.. I guess, if you really need all those megapixels...
Thanks for the information as usual
Snook
-
I'm interested in the high ISO claims for this back, ie, 800. Just how realistic is it? Yes, I know it depends on the user, subject, etc, but maybe a general guide could be offered? Eg, a comparison with 39 backs, which claim 400 (but I'm never happy over 100, would only use 200 as an emergency and 400 is not even a possibility). YMMV.
Yep, so are we. But this is very dependent on firmware, and backs like this one with pre-production firmware are poor indications of high ISO performance.
Once final-production units ship to us we will definitely be testing them for ISO.
Doug
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
What hits me is: the very first images that you see from a new back or camera are really important. It's about that first impression. If I was Phase (or any maker) I'd make darn sure that the first posted images were stunning.
That guy ain't a cowboy.
When you look at a picture from a forty some thousand dollar back, and the first thing you think of is the smell of stale Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboys, I'm not sure that's the best sales approach.
-
What hits me is: the very first images that you see from a new back or camera are really important. It's about that first impression. If I was Phase (or any maker) I'd make darn sure that the first posted images were stunning.
That guy ain't a cowboy.
When you look at a picture from a forty some thousand dollar back, and the first thing you think of is the smell of stale Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboys, I'm not sure that's the best sales approach.
We all know that the P65 or Leaf 10 are great in resolution and noise at ISO 50 and 100, but there is still no images from ISO 400 or 800. I mean shouldn't both backs ship short after Photokina ?
-
What hits me is: the very first images that you see from a new back or camera are really important. It's about that first impression. If I was Phase (or any maker) I'd make darn sure that the first posted images were stunning.
That guy ain't a cowboy.
When you look at a picture from a forty some thousand dollar back, and the first thing you think of is the smell of stale Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboys, I'm not sure that's the best sales approach.
If you're looking for glossy sales pictures we can send you some large format bound sales materials or you can check out phaseone.com. You'll be looking at images with sharpening, noise reduction, skin-retouching, etc etc.
If you're looking for real-world images with raw files provided with which you can make real-world judgments of image quality then note that you're viewing the test section of our website provided as what I believe is a real value to the community.
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
That guy ain't a cowboy.
You are right. He is head of the department at Phase One that sources their LCDs.
-
I can't understand what the others are complaining about. I understand that the model depicted in the photograph doesn't actually come with the back!
I appreciate the fact you've posted a P65+ raw file and shot a character with texture in an outdoor environment.
And I look forward to high ISO samples in the future.
Thanks, Doug,
Brad
-
You are right. He is head of the department at Phase One that sources their LCDs.
LOL hahaha
That is funny..
Seriously and with out trying to sounds offensive,
When I first open the image a truly thought to myself..
This could have been shot with my little Leica Point and shoot.
I think everything shown on internet is way to hard to decide image quality.
About the Cowboy.. I also , coming from Miami, thought he looked like some Vagabond who found those clothes at the Salvation army..
He is no cowboy for sure.
I hope for you all at Phase they sell a lot of these backs.. I just don't see it happening in these tough times and haven't we gotten to a point of enough megapixels??
Time to work on the LCD, even though I was jumped on for saying this, and the lens for crying out loud.
Ashame that Phase did not change even a little bit the design, whether their old design works or not... It is a marketing 101 to revamp your product a little.
Why is Phase the only one NOT improving this...
I do not give a Rat's @ss what others say.. I would like to see a better LCD and so would my clients....!
Snook
Would it be un-ethical to start a "Who would buy a P65+ and why?"
I seriously would like to know what market/photographer is going to NEED,not want, so many megapixels??
and going to pay Top premium oil$$$ for it.
Is Phase going to follow the others and lower their prices?
-
If you're looking for glossy sales pictures we can send you some large format bound sales materials or you can check out phaseone.com.
I"m just ribbing you, Doug.
But I do remember those early samples that Melvin S. shot, I think it was the 1ds2, and the AA filter was certainly showing itself (badly). It's just human nature that, when a new product comes out, you want it a very noticeable improvement over what you already own.
It will be interesting with the P65 -- kinda like that quote, "If you have to ask how much, then you can't afford it". I'm sure everyone has already decided if they'll upgrade to that back or not.
Still, what would be more useful to me, as a potential customer: Side by side views at 100%, at same magnification, between P45, P30 and P65, with no sharpening.
Oddly, much more than file quality, the main reason to upgrade to that back would be for a 100% unobstructed view of the viewfinder. No mask. That, and the ability to be using more chip, in terms of focus falloff, would be my main reasons to buy that.
-
Oddly, much more than file quality, the main reason to upgrade to that back would be for a 100% unobstructed view of the viewfinder. No mask. That, and the ability to be using more chip, in terms of focus falloff, would be my main reasons to buy that.
Yes, I agree. It is true that relatively few polled respondents were requesting more resolution (although some were, to be sure). And yes, the LCD needs improvement. However, physically larger chips have always been heavily requested. Unfortunately with larger chips comes a larger price tag.
But price aside (and I know it's not easy to do that), I find this product to be a uniquely versatile product for a photographer. Many have focused on the megapixel count only.
*Unmatched Resolution (for some, this actually is very important):
- Particularly photographers who have been shooting multi-shot devices on product would certainly fall into this category.
*Unmatched Image Quality:
- Extremely high resolution also minimizes image quality issues that appear at lower resolutions (color artifacting, edge aliasing, moire, etc).
*Largest medium format lens coverage available:
- As mentioned, no masks to deal with, and wider coverage on wide lenses. Lenses are "true".
*Fast, sustained capture speeds:
- Makes this a very versatile product that can go from the highest quality table top product shot to many other applications which require continuous, fast capture rates.
*High ISO Range:
- With the Sensor + technology, light gathering will be dramatically enhanced, meaning this product becomes usable in varied lighting situations.
*Variable Resolution:
- Ability to adjust output sizes with full lens coverage is a unique and valuable feature.
Naturally there is a price tag to match this, but I find the features and the potential of the P65+ to be unique, above and beyond the megapixels.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Yes, I agree. It is true that relatively few polled respondents were requesting more resolution (although some were, to be sure).
There is one other important benefit of the large file size of these kinds of backs, and that is retouching for reproduction. I know that many people say, "The 1ds3 is just fine for my repro needs", and that's true for a lot of people. But if you're doing doing lots of extensive retouching, ie flying things in, or swapping heads, there is a benefit in doing that retouching at 200% size or so. Then, when you rez down for the repro size, any weird edges get lost in the mix, in a good way.
I can remember back to film days, when I'd see a Dye Transfer ordered from one of my images. They'd always order the Dye at 200% of repro size, so that the retouch edges would not be so noticeable at 100%. Maybe that Anthony R can speak to this more.
I just know it's scary, doing extensive retouch, when you're working right at the repro size. The retouch had been be perfect, because everything will show.
Still, even after all that, the big question for me is: How different is the P65+ from the P45+, even if the P45+ had to be rezzed up slightly? Is there a ten thousand dollar difference?
-
There is one other important benefit of the large file size of these kinds of backs, and that is retouching for reproduction. I know that many people say, "The 1ds3 is just fine for my repro needs", and that's true for a lot of people. But if you're doing doing lots of extensive retouching, ie flying things in, or swapping heads, there is a benefit in doing that retouching at 200% size or so. Then, when you rez down for the repro size, any weird edges get lost in the mix, in a good way.
I can remember back to film days, when I'd see a Dye Transfer ordered from one of my images. They'd always order the Dye at 200% of repro size, so that the retouch edges would not be so noticeable at 100%. Maybe that Anthony R can speak to this more.
I just know it's scary, doing extensive retouch, when you're working right at the repro size. The retouch had been be perfect, because everything will show.
Still, even after all that, the big question for me is: How different is the P65+ from the P45+, even if the P45+ had to be rezzed up slightly? Is there a ten thousand dollar difference?
I'm sure we'll see some comparative tests soon. Whether that resolution difference alone would be worth the $10K is hard to say. But that along with the faster shooting speed (1.0 FPS vs 1.5 FPS - and half a second can be a long time for some shooters), the better high ISO performance and the better lens/viewfinder coverage make a more compelling argument for those who are looking for more benefits than just pure resolution.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Still, even after all that, the big question for me is: How different is the P65+ from the P45+, even if the P45+ had to be rezzed up slightly? Is there a ten thousand dollar difference?
What kind of long exposures can the P65+ handle? Can it go up to an hour like my P45+?
-
the better high ISO performance and the better lens/viewfinder coverage make a more compelling argument for those who are looking for more benefits than just pure resolution.
Funny, we heard a lot of these promises from Phase when the Plus series was introduced. That the P45+ was going to be better ISO, and better LCD, and better file quality.
I took delivery on the P45+, and then returned it. I saw very little if ANY difference between the Plus and the Non-Plus.
So yes, it better be a LOT better to justify ten grand.
-
What kind of long exposures can the P65+ handle? Can it go up to an hour like my P45+?
No, currently the P65+ is rated at 1 minute maximum. Whether that can be expanded at some point remains to be seen, but we have not published any indication of that yet. So, long exposure benefits favor the P45+.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Funny, we heard a lot of these promises from Phase when the Plus series was introduced. That the P45+ was going to be better ISO, and better LCD, and better file quality.
I took delivery on the P45+, and then returned it. I saw very little if ANY difference between the Plus and the Non-Plus.
So yes, it better be a LOT better to justify ten grand.
The non-subjective improvements of the plus included dramatically long exposure times and sustained and faster capture rates. While the LCD screen, high ISO and dynamic range were certainly improved, the amount of improvement was judged subjectively thus the mileage varied as a result.
The P65+ offers non-subjective improvements with respect to capture rate, physical sensor size, and resolution. It will also offer expanded dynamic range, expanded ISO, variable resolution via Sensor + technology, as well as potential future features also via Sensor + technology. Some of those aspects will again be subjective and yes, judged accordingly. The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
*Unmatched Resolution (for some, this actually is very important):
- Particularly photographers who have been shooting multi-shot devices on product would certainly fall into this category.
*Unmatched Image Quality:
- Extremely high resolution also minimizes image quality issues that appear at lower resolutions (color artifacting, edge aliasing, moire, etc).
Naturally there is a price tag to match this, but I find the features and the potential of the P65+ to be unique, above and beyond the megapixels.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
To go deeper into this. Do you think the added resolution is a match for a 39MP multishot, considering color artifacting, CA at the edges & moire?
Problem for product with a larger chip is the even smaller DoF. Even 37x49 is sometimes already difficult to get enough without focus blending (which is not ideal). Sure you can get a bit more distance to get more DoF but you will end up having to crop getting you again closer to the same as the 39MP back you are giving.
I am very sceptical it would be a good substitute for a 39MP MS back. The things it has going for it; You can downsize to obscure some misery & you don't have to do 4shots but if that will be enough? My 16MP MS back would outperform my 39MP single shot at times...
-
To go deeper into this. Do you think the added resolution is a match for a 39MP multishot, considering color artifacting, CA at the edges & moire?
Problem for product with a larger chip is the even smaller DoF. Even 37x49 is sometimes already difficult to get enough without focus blending (which is not ideal). Sure you can get a bit more distance to get more DoF but you will end up having to crop getting you again closer to the same as the 39MP back you are giving.
I am very sceptical it would be a good substitute for a 39MP MS back. The things it has going for it; You can downsize to obscure some misery & you don't have to do 4shots but if that will be enough? My 16MP MS back would outperform my 39MP single shot at times...
I've done some tests in the past with single and multi-shots from my experience selling them. What I found was that as resolution gets higher, the multi-shot advantage is diminished. The difference between 6MP/11MP/16MP single and multi was night and day. At 22MP I started to see the differences begin to shrink, and at 30+ megapixel on many shots I would have to point out where the customer would need to look to see the difference - it wasn't as obvious, though it was there. Of course we have not done comparisons yet with the P65+, but I hope to soon and I expect that trend to continue.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Ah.... now you are telling me, I expect my new 39MS back in tomorrow!
BTW. I wonder whether this also applies to garments. I found it was almost impossible to do those with the single 39 without severely being punished with color shifts and moire now and than.
-
I had a brief play with a 65+ last week. During this test I took a shot by mistake where the exposure was set for the flash heads and the subject was not illuminated by them, so it was dreadfully underexposed, nearly black in fact. Though after a quick tweak in Capture 1, the person was not only clearly visible but the skin tone/texture was pretty good quality too. Very impressive. I should add, that this was at 50 ISO.
I also did some shots at higher ISOs and although not brilliant, they were way, way better than on the H3D-39 I last used at a high ISO on and that was 400ISO, not the 800ISO I tried here. Bit I was told that this body was not yet finished and there was more tweaking to be done. So promising.
Underexposure at high ISOs led to the funny grain clumping/artifacting I also experienced on the H3D, not as bad, but still present.
I like to see how well kit does when conditions are not optimum as when shooting outside of studios, that may well be the case as I have experienced!
-
Quick question.
Is the reason for a limit of 1 minute exposure time the DALSA sensor?
From my memory the P-65+ is using a newly developed DALSA sensor.
All the other P-series Phase backs are using Kodak sensors and they handle long exposures better.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Willem
-
Dumb question -- is it possible to design a back that's "full frame 645", similar to the Hassie 50 or P65+, but you could set it not to shoot a gigantic file? I desire full frame viewfinder, but I want to work tethered with a MacBookPro, and not have the file size choke the laptop, thus forcing me to drag around a tower. Ideal file size, about 28-31MP.
-
Dumb question -- is it possible to design a back that's "full frame 645", similar to the Hassie 50 or P65+, but you could set it not to shoot a gigantic file? I desire full frame viewfinder, but I want to work tethered with a MacBookPro, and not have the file size choke the laptop, thus forcing me to drag around a tower. Ideal file size, about 28-31MP.
That's what I've been dreaming of (out loud) for some time. A 645 sized 30 MP chip. Seems just right.
-
Dumb question -- is it possible to design a back that's "full frame 645", similar to the Hassie 50 or P65+, but you could set it not to shoot a gigantic file? I desire full frame viewfinder, but I want to work tethered with a MacBookPro, and not have the file size choke the laptop, thus forcing me to drag around a tower. Ideal file size, about 28-31MP.
Perhaps there are technical reasons why these larger sensors also have more resolution, smaller photosites, or perhaps sales volume is behind it.
As 35mm continues to trend upward, for some anyway, the advantage of more resolution is a buying issue. More resolution sells, period. Case in point, as soon as 39MP sensors hit the market, 22MP sensor sales dried up, even though the cost was significantly lowered. The thought of a 645 size sensor with 9 or 12 micron sites sounds exciting, but it also gives up the benefits of resolution, which include minimizing negaitive issues like color artifacting, aliasing, and moire (and associated) patterns.
The P65+ addresses the issue by providing the benefits of the resolution but allowing you to control that resolution to suit your workflow with the sensor + technology.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
steve, what about wifi? phase one was talking about it before!!!
-
That's what I've been dreaming of (out loud) for some time. A 645 sized 30 MP chip. Seems just right.
that is why the P65 is so interesting...they said from the start that you can shoot it at 30mpix if you want....and i believe the cleaner high iso is only possible with smaller file sizes (pixel binning or such).....i doubt i would ever shoot that back above 30mpix but is great to be able to get mf files at 800 iso at 30mpix.....but i guess we will have to wait and see about that....
the other thing i was excited about (and what the samples show really well, only brutal sun can do that) is the high DR which this back really seems to have....white beard to deep shade under the hat at high sun and everything has detail....very impressive.....
this really takes things to a new level....
-
More resolution sells, period.
Everything comes to an end, young man. Please tell the higher ups that. While it might be possible to keep making larger chips, there will come a point when reality hits most people, and they'll say "enough is enough".
We have to store this stuff.
We have to process this stuff.
Not everyone wants to drag around a Tech and a Tower for every single image that they make.
I can't believe that I'm agreeing with that FotoZ guy on anything, but yes, a full frame 645 viewfinder, couple with a file size around 31MPs, seem to be a great combination.
So that's what I want to know -- is it even physically possible to have 31mp occupy the physical space of a full frame 645? I know (or care) nothing about photosites or microns. But if that P65+ had an option to set it to about 31MP, at one frame per second, you'd have a winner. Especially if you could do some "price binning" too. If everyone promised to shoot it at only 31MP, then maybe the price could be fractionized too.
-
deleted
-
the other thing i was excited about (and what the samples show really well, only brutal sun can do that) is the high DR which this back really seems to have....white beard to deep shade under the hat at high sun and everything has detail....very impressive.....
this really takes things to a new level....
That's the DALSA sensor for you at work!
The Leaf AF 10 also uses a DALSA
Cheers,
Willem.
-
white beard to deep shade under the hat at high sun and everything has detail....very impressive.....
Except we don't know what surfaces were around providing fill light. You really can't judge DR accurately from someone else's photo.
-
I can't believe that I'm agreeing with that FotoZ guy on anything, but yes, a full frame 645 viewfinder, couple with a file size around 31MPs, seem to be a great combination.
So that's what I want to know -- is it even physically possible to have 31mp occupy the physical space of a full frame 645? I know (or care) nothing about photosites or microns.
Yes, it is physically possible. Heck, in the mid 1990's, Dicomed was one of the big players in the digital photography equipment biz. They produced a full frame 6x6 16MP digital back. Granted it was incredibly expensive ($56K) and had big heat issues and a crummy SCSI interface, but it is an example of what is possible. It also put Dicomed out of business.
I think Kodak or Dalsa, (or Canon or Sony?) certainly have the technical ability to manufacture such a true full frame chip in the 645 or even 6x6 format. The big question is whether Phase One, Leaf, Sinar, Hasselblad (Canon, Sony?) would be able radically alter their marketing strategies to sell them.
I believe such a Digital Back in the 30MP range at a price point around $20K would be a all time best seller, but the MFDB makers are very deeply entrenched on a different path. The Mega Pixel number will continue to be the most important marketing feature for any digital camera product. And for the Medium Format camera market that Mega Pixel number has to continue to be sufficiently higher than the "35mm" sensor cameras to spearhead sales......................................
IMHO,
Joe B.
-
I can't believe that I'm agreeing with that FotoZ guy on anything
You were bound to get something right sooner or later (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
-
This back has huge potential for amazing files. Wowzers.
Can you guys say which camera/lens was used for the sample file?
-
Except we don't know what surfaces were around providing fill light. You really can't judge DR accurately from someone else's photo.
Absolutely true. For the record though he was in front of a red brick wall with no fill lights or reflectors. The ground was light gray sidewalk, so obviously that provided some degree of fill, but not much.
If I have the chance to do all the leg work I'll try to post a shot looking out down the street to see how slow we could hand-hold the 80mm and stay 100% sharp. That image shows a lot of open and closed shadows which should allow a better diagnosis of the DR of the back, but given that it's a really really boring picture and that I shot it by itself (without another back/slr to compare it to) I'm sure my effort would garner negative comments and complaints.
This back has huge potential for amazing files. Wowzers.
Can you guys say which camera/lens was used for the sample file?
The metadata tab (an 'i' in a circle) in Capture One 4.5 Pro should display the camera/lens etc. In this case:
- Phase One 645 AFD @ 1/200th sec [hand held with good shooting posture]
- Phase One 80mm lens @ f/6.3
- Phase One P65+ @ ISO 50
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
Everything comes to an end, young man. Please tell the higher ups that. While it might be possible to keep making larger chips, there will come a point when reality hits most people, and they'll say "enough is enough".
We have to store this stuff.
We have to process this stuff.
Not everyone wants to drag around a Tech and a Tower for every single image that they make.
I can't believe that I'm agreeing with that FotoZ guy on anything, but yes, a full frame 645 viewfinder, couple with a file size around 31MPs, seem to be a great combination.
So that's what I want to know -- is it even physically possible to have 31mp occupy the physical space of a full frame 645? I know (or care) nothing about photosites or microns. But if that P65+ had an option to set it to about 31MP, at one frame per second, you'd have a winner. Especially if you could do some "price binning" too. If everyone promised to shoot it at only 31MP, then maybe the price could be fractionized too.
from everything I have seen, most photographers asked for higher iso, better lcd, bug free fast software, larger frame size and lower price.
right now this product has hit only one of the 5 top requests and for the landscape/architecture guys only goes to 1 minute exposures.
now before someone jumps at the 60mpx thing, does anybody here ever have a client that has asked for more resolution that what your 31 or 39 mega pixel back delivers?
ever? and if so is this aimed at the still life 39 mega pixel multi shot guys, because I would think those photographers are pretty much covered at this point.
what I have a hard time understanding with these type of early demonstrations is that the firmware is still not in it's final stages. I think this takes a lot of credibility away from the product.
somehow, someday medium format might actually deliver a product that on the day of the demonstration hits on all cylinders with the software, firmware, lenses, accessories . . . everything in place.
-
This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising.
The Phase/Dalsa sensor is more than likely a repackaged 'AFi 10' sensor with 6 microns. The truth will lie in the camera firmware and the software processing program.
David
-
Chris,
Will you be attending the event in Orlando on the 6th?
Peter
-
The P65+ addresses the issue by providing the benefits of the resolution but allowing you to control that resolution to suit your workflow with the sensor + technology.
Steve,
Sure, there is value in the P65+, no doubt. It appears to be an amazing product although things are still early.
The question is whether at 40.000 US$ it is worth 16.500 US$ more than the H3dII 50 that was on ebay yesterday at 23.500 US$. Part of the issue is obviously the Euro to US$ highly fluctuating exchange rate. If I were you I would stop quoting a price in US$ until the time the camera ships, you are scaring away potential buyers big time. Just give the price in Euro as a reference. It will make the P65+ look 20% cheaper for now.
Back to the point though, my contention is that less than one percent of expert viewers would be able to tell the difference reliably in 40x60 inch properly made prints between a 50 MP Hassy and a 60 MP Phaseone. The slightly larger sensor just isn't that big a deal.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Chris,
Will you be attending the event in Orlando on the 6th?
Peter
Peter,
Which event is that? I'd love to attend if possible.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year (http://www.captureintegration.com)
877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Steve,
Sure, there is value in the P65+, no doubt. It appears to be an amazing product although things are still early.
The question is whether at 40.000 US$ it is worth 16.500 US$ more than the H3dII 50 that was on ebay yesterday at 23.500 US$. Part of the issue is obviously the Euro to US$ highly fluctuating exchange rate. If I were you I would stop quoting a price in US$ until the time the camera ships, you are scaring away potential buyers big time. Just give the price in Euro as a reference. It will make the P65+ look 20% cheaper for now.
Back to the point though, my contention is that less than one percent of expert viewers would be able to tell the difference reliably in 40x60 inch properly made prints between a 50 MP Hassy and a 60 MP Phaseone. The slightly larger sensor just isn't that big a deal.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard:
I appreciate the thoughts.
First off, the P65+ is not $16,500 more than the H3DII-50, the difference is $13,490. And it is quite a different product in terms of capability than an H3DII-50. For those who value the differences, the price will be up to them to consider, and there are more differences than just the physical sensor size, which is a big deal to some. If the price puts it out of consideration, then someone who would consider the P65+ might consider the P45+ instead just as easily as they might consider the H3DII-50.
It would not be fair to our US buyers to not quote the price in USD, as we have already begun accepting orders and the product is due to ship in Q4 of this year.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
This test is a great testiment to the quality of the Mamiya glass -- I'm very impressed with the sharpness, and the smoothness of the out of focus areas. I'm an H/P30+ user, and I don't think my 80mm could match that.
-
Dear Steve,
you are certainly right, the difference becomes smaller, but it HIGHLY depends on the lens used to make such a comparison. By using the highest resolution lenses available, the HR, the difference single vs multi-shot is obvious even for a non-trained eye. And this becomes the more obvious the more small and fine structures/details the subject has.
Best regards,
Thierry
I've done some tests in the past with single and multi-shots from my experience selling them. What I found was that as resolution gets higher, the multi-shot advantage is diminished. The difference between 6MP/11MP/16MP single and multi was night and day. At 22MP I started to see the differences begin to shrink, and at 30+ megapixel on many shots I would have to point out where the customer would need to look to see the difference - it wasn't as obvious, though it was there. Of course we have not done comparisons yet with the P65+, but I hope to soon and I expect that trend to continue.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
The promise will then be in form of a written and signed contract, with yearly checks.
Thierry
Especially if you could do some "price binning" too. If everyone promised to shoot it at only 31MP, then maybe the price could be fractionized too.
-
This test is a great testiment to the quality of the Mamiya glass -- I'm very impressed with the sharpness, and the smoothness of the out of focus areas. I'm an H/P30+ user, and I don't think my 80mm could match that.
I have been using mamiya glass with my P45+ for a year and just switched to V series hasselblad with an 80mm CFE lens. I am noticing considerable sharpness difference when compared to my Mamiya 120mm macro.
-
I have been using mamiya glass with my P45+ for a year and just switched to V series hasselblad with an 80mm CFE lens. I am noticing considerable sharpness difference when compared to my Mamiya 120mm macro.
Funny thing is that I have just switched my 45+ from Hass V to Phaseone 645 just recently and find the mamiya lenses much sharper than the Hassy, all my lenses were the latest CFI and CFE etc. I suffered from mirror slap from both my 501cms (also very late models). The Phase 645 gives me no problems whatsoever...
Steve
-
The promise will then be in form of a written and signed contract, with yearly checks.
Thierry
You joke now, but come February or March of 2009, when this entire market segment completely dries up, and all four MF makers only show one potential order on the books from some guy in Omaha, Nebraska, named "W. Buffett", you might not think I"m joking.
What is appealing, at least in my tiny limited mind, is that you might have a way to design backs, with the P65+ style, where you have one case and chip design, but the firmware would determine how large a MP it was. To streamline the manufacturing process and get some volume going.
With my old Phase back, I remember a setting: "IIQ LARGE" and "IIQ SMALL". Set it Small for 31MP, or set it to Large for 50MP. Simple as that. At least that's my dream for the P65.
If you bought the IIQSmall, and you wanted to shoot larger, just change it to Large, and give it your AMEX number to upgrade! One back; one case; one LCD; full size 645 chip; and only the internals changed.
The goal: do something, anything -- to get the price down, to generate volume, to survive these next eighteen months. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
-
Yes I was joking, on this one, but not in a disrespectful manner, I found your remark funny. It needs some fun from time to time.
This being said: we have the product you are looking for, the Sinarback eSprit 65, 31,6 MPx, DNGs/JPGs/RAWs processed in-board, etc ... I guess I have described it in detail in other threads.
So if somebody is ready to "promise" not to use such a "scalable" 60 MPx back at a higher resolution, this Esprit back is the right back for him. I know what you will answer me now: BUT it is not the same "full-frame" size. Agreed, though ....
Best regards,
Thierry
You joke now, but come February or March of 2009, when this entire market segment completely dries up, and all four MF makers only show one potential order on the books from some guy in Omaha, Nebraska, named "W. Buffett", you might not think I"m joking.
What is appealing, at least in my tiny limited mind, is that you might have a way to design backs, with the P65+ style, where you have one case and chip design, but the firmware would determine how large a MP it was. To streamline the manufacturing process and get some volume going.
With my old Phase back, I remember a setting: "IIQ LARGE" and "IIQ SMALL". Set it Small for 31MP, or set it to Large for 50MP. Simple as that. At least that's my dream for the P65.
If you bought the IIQSmall, and you wanted to shoot larger, just change it to Large, and give it your AMEX number to upgrade! One back; one case; one LCD; full size 645 chip; and only the internals changed.
The goal: do something, anything -- to get the price down, to generate volume, to survive these next eighteen months. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
-
steve, what about wifi? phase one was talking about it before!!!
bumping my question...especially in the light of missing firewire on the macbooks and future availability of firewire...
-
Yes I was joking, on this one, but not in a disrespectful manner, I found your remark funny. It needs some fun from time to time.
This being said: we have the product you are looking for, the Sinarback eSprit 65, 31,6 MPx, DNGs/JPGs/RAWs processed in-board, etc ... I guess I have described it in detail in other threads.
So if somebody is ready to "promise" not to use such a "scalable" 60 MPx back at a higher resolution, this Esprit back is the right back for him. I know what you will answer me now: BUT it is not the same "full-frame" size. Agreed, though ....
Best regards,
Thierry
how did you just fit a cube into an octopus hole?
-
isn't it true?
Best regards,
Thierry
how did you just fit a cube into an octopus hole?
-
Funny thing is that I have just switched my 45+ from Hass V to Phaseone 645 just recently and find the mamiya lenses much sharper than the Hassy, all my lenses were the latest CFI and CFE etc. I suffered from mirror slap from both my 501cms (also very late models). The Phase 645 gives me no problems whatsoever...
Steve
Ditto here. I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality. Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures. The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...
-
Myself I am getting really nice results from the Mamiya glass, If anyone is a lens whore it is me. I had every leica lens known almost M and R and shot Hassy for years. As Jack said they are not built great especially the non D lenses. I have three D lenses the 150 mm 2.8 , 80 mm 2.8 and the 28mm . Have to say these lenses are extremely good and whatever anyone says about the 28mm makes me wonder . I have had some corner issues also and i can see where the comments come from but i shot interiors all day and night last night every shot was the 28mm and there not lacking for anything. And the new corrections in C1 which they still have more to do are really nice for the 28mm. Bottom line i am not kicking them out of my bag anytime soon.
-
When you did your testing did you happen to compare the Rollei/zeiss 120mm macro or one of the newer AFD 120mm macros? Just asking because I've got an older 120mm PQ (Zeiss) and its certainly one of the sharpest lenses I have seen. Because I have a crop sensor, I'm not able to evaluate the sharpness all the way out to the 6x6 corners but still a very impressive lens - if you only consider sharpness. I evaluate lenses on look, and color rendition, flare, distortion and bokeh in addition to sharpness. How is the Mamiya 120 with these other factors and how much do you think your opinion has been colored by your apparent relationship with Phase and CI? This is not an attack, but a question. Here in a forum of image makers comparison photos would carry the idea much more effectively than words. If the mamiya is so much better as to destroy the myth of Zeiss superiority - show it to us.
Ditto here. I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality. Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures. The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...
-
When you did your testing did you happen to compare the Rollei/zeiss 120mm macro or one of the newer AFD 120mm macros? Just asking because I've got an older 120mm PQ (Zeiss) and its certainly one of the sharpest lenses I have seen. Because I have a crop sensor, I'm not able to evaluate the sharpness all the way out to the 6x6 corners but still a very impressive lens - if you only consider sharpness. I evaluate lenses on look, and color rendition, flare, distortion and bokeh in addition to sharpness. How is the Mamiya 120 with these other factors and how much do you think your opinion has been colored by your apparent relationship with Phase and CI? This is not an attack, but a question. Here in a forum of image makers comparison photos would carry the idea much more effectively than words. If the mamiya is so much better as to destroy the myth of Zeiss superiority - show it to us.
Eric:
I only tested Hassy versions of the Zeiss glass, at least in comparing them directly to Mamiya glass. If the Rollei versions are of a different optical formulae, somebody should point out what those differences are.
As for my being biased, anybody that knows me knows I always call them as I see them --- if a lens or camera is crap, I say so. Of course this does not sit well with some folks, but usually only those whose system came out second in my tests... Furthermore, I am not a rep or salesman for any photo-related product or company (other than my own workshops, consulting services and print sales) so I have nothing to gain either way --- I simply share my findings so others may benefit without going through the time and expense of testing themselves.
That out of the way, I do look at all characteristics of a lens when I test it, but resolution is what weighs most. After that comes a balance of distortions, oof renderings, contrast and flare resistance. For example, like I said above -- the Hassy 110 FE is stellar, and I have and use a copy of it myself. This lens is very sharp even wide open and has an almost etherial oof rendering. Contrast is balanced, not too harsh or soft. In short, I wish all my lenses performed as it does. I'll ad that if I already owned a Hassy 120 Macro, I would probably not bother replacing it with a Mamiya version as the only gains are the conveniences of setting the aperture from the body instead of the lens and more complete exif data.
Hope that clarifies,
-
Funny thing is that I have just switched my 45+ from Hass V to Phaseone 645 just recently and find the mamiya lenses much sharper than the Hassy, all my lenses were the latest CFI and CFE etc. I suffered from mirror slap from both my 501cms (also very late models). The Phase 645 gives me no problems whatsoever...
Steve
Funny. I am using 503cw and almost always on tripod with mirror up.
-
EPd,
Thanks for your reply and information. Forgive me if I have asked this question already but maybe you might know - I have read that Schneider optics for the Rollei system are all color matched - meaning if you are shooting a project with one focal length and then switch to another focal length the color rendering will be the same - which can be important. True? A further question is would this also be true of the zeiss lenses made for the Rollei mount and if so does this explain the differences in coatings?
Jack,
Thanks for your reply as well. Part of what I was trying to point out in my question to you is that when a lens is evaluated on one criteria alone such as sharpness its not necessarily useful information for all users - since distortion or lack of it, or the character of the lens may be just as important or even more so to others. Lens design as you know is a set of compromises. One lens might be super sharp but have terrible distortion, or only be optimized for certain focal lengths. The later condition is what hurt the zeiss 120mm macro in the MTF department as its meant to be used close up but was tested at infinity. Furthermore most testing is done in a perfunctory way - often with different conditions and test subjects so its very difficult to come to conclusions about anything really. Most of it very subjective - so that's why its very useful to post test images along with statements about lenses such as yours - and the more real life a subject the better. Not saying you haven't done a good job testing, but how can a reader evaluate or compare your results to theirs and their equipment without an image?
Eric
-
Jack,
I guess you did not get Steve's post in detail: he is speaking about being less sharp because he "suffered from mirror slap". That alone can definitively not destroy a myth, if there is one.
Best regards,
Thierry
Ditto here. I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality. Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures. The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...
-
I agree with Jack's comments on the 55mm very sharp corner to corner.
The 28mm at least my version not so good as Guy's. For my work with the 28mm in the F8 to F12 range, the lower left corner is very soft, but if you
increase the aperture to F16 or ever F22 it gets much better. The only other issue I have with the 28 is the use of filters, I have a solution that was
developed by Tim Ernst that works, but it's still a pain and takes a long time to setup. I still like the use of a CLPL in my outdoor work.
Once the season is over here, I am going to send my 28 back to Mamiya and see if what they feel about it.
My only issue on the 55mm is what I could call a very shallow DOF. Which always surprises me. With F7 to F11, on the 55mm I find that you get a
considerably shallow DOF.
Paul Caldwell
www.photosofarkansas.com
-
Jack,
I guess you did not get Steve's post in detail: he is speaking about being less sharp because he "suffered from mirror slap". That alone can definitively not destroy a myth, if there is one.
Best regards,
Thierry
No, I didn't miss Steve's point about mirror slap. I was merely piggy-backing on his comment and sharing my own findings on the so-called "superiority" of Zeiss glass. We all have our pet peeves and one of mine is broad-stroke generalizations... FWIW I compare lenses by shooting a complex test target at 50x focal length, except for macros which I test at 2x focal as well. I use a tripod and mirror-up to eliminate as many errant vibrations as possible.
And Thierry, please have no worry --- as I said above I did not specifically test any *Rollei* versions of the Schneider lenses, so am not making any assertions about the specific lens line your company-branded camera uses. And at that, please note I only commented on a few of their Hasselblad brethren...
,
-
Thanks for these details.
Why should I worry? I invite you to test the "Rollei" version anytime: you can have mine, if needed, but you will then have to give me yours.
Thierry
No, I didn't miss Steve's point about mirror slap. I was merely piggy-backing on his comment and sharing my own findings on the so-called "superiority" of Zeiss glass. We all have our pet peeves and one of mine is broad-stroke generalizations... FWIW I compare lenses by shooting a complex test target at 50x focal length, except for macros which I test at 2x focal as well. I use a tripod and mirror-up to eliminate as many errant vibrations as possible.
And Thierry, please have no worry --- as I said above I did not specifically test any *Rollei* versions of the Schneider lenses, so am not making any assertions about the specific lens line your company-branded camera uses. And at that, please note I only commented on a few of their Hasselblad brethren...
,
-
Oooo, I smell a dual brewing. Will Jack throw down? Stay tuned after a word from our sponsors...
Thanks for these details.
Why should I worry? I invite you to test the "Rollei" version anytime: you can have mine, if needed, but you will then have to give me yours.
Thierry
-
Oooo, I smell a dual brewing. Will Jack throw down? Stay tuned after a word from our sponsors...
No duel here Justin. I tried a Sinar Hy6/e75 outfit with a couple lenses when I was first deciding on which MF DB option was best for me, and didn't care for it...
-
No duel here Justin. I tried a Sinar Hy6/e75 outfit with a couple lenses when I was first deciding on which MF DB option was best for me, and didn't care for it...
In a caring, loving, gentle, supportive, constructive way, could you hit the high points of what you found less than desirable in that combination, in your style of working?
-
What kind of long exposures can the P65+ handle? Can it go up to an hour like my P45+?
that's also for me a main reason not to upgrade
-
In a caring, loving, gentle, supportive, constructive way, could you hit the high points of what you found less than desirable in that combination, in your style of working?
Given the emotions that some folks display over their particular brand, I find it is virtually impossible to share ones personal views if they are non-complimentary without creating dissension, so I generally avoid it. But since you asked I will try as gently and lovingly as possible. Please keep in mind these are my personal opinions and are in no way intended to cause offense to anybody...
1) I liked the WLF and ability to rotate the back to landscape or portrait orientations.
2) I liked the adjustable grip.
3) I like the ability to use an optional 45 degree finder.
~~~
4) I did not care for the button layout on the body. I suspect after time one would get used to it though. To me, it seemed a more logical configuration for maybe a camera designed to be used tripod-mounted most of the time...
5) I found AF erratic in anything except relatively good light. The camera with the 80 would hunt endlessly in normal indoor light where the other cameras (Hassy H and Mamiya) had no problem locking with their 80's.
6) I had odd white balance issues that were difficult to correct in post. (This most likely had to do with my unfamiliarity and certain complexities with the conversion routine...)
7) At the time, converting a raw file to be useable required using a couple separate softwares -- I assume that is now fixed, but do not know for certain.
8) The back I used showed uneven color-casts across many of the images, noted more frequently when the 50mm lens was mounted. This cast appeared similar to what my Phase back shows when used with a really wide lens on a shift camera. I assume this is not an inherent issue and was just an isolated issue with that specific back...
Again, all the above my personal impressions only,
-
If I may add the buttons on the left side of the HY6 did not have strong enough indents to them and could easily be moved by accident or some type of safety feature would be helpful. This really bugged me but for others may be okay. My personal preference is more DSLR feel to it and obviously this is different but never felt comfortable to me and at the end of the day spent my money elsewhere, it has to work and it has to work fast for me without fiddling. All of these camera's have some compromise to them on how they feel and how they work. I want to think about the image so the easiest one out of the gate to work with get's my vote for ME.
-
Jack,
I guess you did not get Steve's post in detail: he is speaking about being less sharp because he "suffered from mirror slap". That alone can definitively not destroy a myth, if there is one.
Best regards,
Thierry
Whilst I did put some of my issues down to mirror slap, I also had problems actually getting the image sharp on both of my 501's, when I upgraded to the P45+ I welcomed the live video as I used it to aid the focus. But after some time I used my option with Phaseone to change platform and decided "after a months test" to go with the Phase/Mamiya 645 platform. I can now use this system untethered with confidence, and am delighted with camera...
I just need to say that my choice of lens and camera is what works for me, some people prefer other brands etc, but when shooting with a client on my shoulder, I need sharp fast and consistent results every time and this system delivers it for me....
All the very best
Steve
-
This reminds me of whenever the question comes up of what should I get? The easiest and most correct answer is whatever feels best and works best for you in your hands and for the type of photography you do. When I first started looking to upgrade my landscape photography from 35mm to medium format I did my reading and other research however it wasn’t till I actually had the camera body in my hands did I make the final decision. It’s been a while now when I did that but I can still remember not liking the “feel” of the hassy as I held in my hands and up to my eye; I know I could have worked around the issues in time but didn’t feel I had to as I liked the feel of the other camera. It’s not the camera taking the image it’s the person operating the camera, so long as the person holding and working the camera knows what he/she is doing so the bottom line is personal preference; you need to ask yourself will it fit your style, does it feel right, and in some sense does it make you happy.
Just reminded myself of a car commercial here in the States, “When you turn your car on does it return the favor?”
We take images to captivate the viewer; in order to do that we should be as interested (or turned on) in taking the image as we can in order to share the expression to the viewer. I don’t think we can succeed if we are using tools we don’t like or can’t get to work for us.
Jack is correct when he said that emotions play a large part in what we feel about our gear but we also need to remember that it simply is not a one size fits all world. I love my Cambo RS1000 and P45+ kit but I also know that it isn’t suitable for everyone or every shooting style (that’s why I still have my Phase 645). We need to check our emotions and egos at the door whenever we speak about gear, what works best for you might not work for everyone which is a point we need to remember.
Best to all
don
-
The non-subjective improvements of the plus included dramatically long exposure times and sustained and faster capture rates. While the LCD screen, high ISO and dynamic range were certainly improved, the amount of improvement was judged subjectively thus the mileage varied as a result.
The P65+ offers non-subjective improvements with respect to capture rate, physical sensor size, and resolution. It will also offer expanded dynamic range, expanded ISO, variable resolution via Sensor + technology, as well as potential future features also via Sensor + technology. Some of those aspects will again be subjective and yes, judged accordingly. The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
"The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising."
Lines like this sound like your saying that you were lying a bit last time when you said about better high ISO performance but this time your not.
When I was deciding between the P21 and P21 plus I was told about the high ISO advantage, better screens, wireless file transfer and non of it was true. This time it will be different though, just need to get the firmware updated. How about a bit of honesty and integrity, the product is great, just cut out the spin. (with regard to the screen it is sharper but less viewable outside, different, not better).
-
Ditto here. I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality. Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures. The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...
I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything but because they look cheap people think they aren't good. There great lenses. It's amazing how bias works.
-
I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything but because they look cheap people think they aren't good. There great lenses. It's amazing how bias works.
Actually I haven't seen any tests where the mamiya 645 lenses come out on top so if you have any links handy that would be much appreciated. I have seen several tests where the mamiya 7 series lenses do excel and its a pity that there are no digital backs that work with that camera. I've also read lots about the RZ series of lenses being the preference for fashion shooters, but honestly not so much about the 645 series lenses - really until this thread. I'm definitely curious.
-
I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything
I've never seen one. Can you provide a link?
-
Would this be the PDF (http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf) you'all are discussing?
-
Would this be the PDF (http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf) you'all are discussing?
That summary compares only the 45, 80 and 210, hardly the best Contax 645 lenses. The Contax 80/2 is even a full stop faster than the Mamiya, a design choice which has ramifications throughout the aperture range. The test also compares only resolution, not colour or boke, etc. Is there anything comparing the 35, 55, and 120 Macro? There were meant to be numerous tests...
-
I'd love to chime in here on the design of the Hy6 and also the Mamiya vs H2/H3 systems.
I used to use a Contax 645 quite a lot back in film days, and really liked it as a camera. I have never liked the H1/H2, which ironically is the machine I use for work the most, because I feel it is very poorly laid out, and I've never gotten to love it like almost all the other cameras in my life. I was really excite about the Hy6 until I spent about three minutes holding it. IMHO it is both plasticy and agricultural at the same time. I hated the layout of all the controls, and was very disappointed in the overall build quality and feel. My local store is very good about letting me borrow things, since I both buy and rent a lot of gear with them each year, but the 'feel' of camera gave me no desire to even try it.
I don't really understand why folks who make these machines don't come on a little two week field trip to those of us who are shooting several terrabytes a month to see how we'd really like things to work, feel and look. I'd be happy to open my doors to any camera designers, and give my input into how to make their stuff really desirable to both working pros and high end enthusiasts.
Last week I actually spent a few minutes with the Mamiya 645, as it is so linked with Phase, the back I use the most because it is the defacto system at Industrial Color who do all my back end work. I really liked the simple clean analog layout of the controls, and will certainly test one out with some of it's lenses soon, as the silly marrying up of the closed loop H3 and it's digiback mean that system is now of less use to me.
Since I spent almost 20 years married to my RZ67, and loved my little 6 & 7's I have no problem with Mamiya, but the 645 system always seems a bit to like an amateur toy than a real workhorse.
I'd love to see some new lens tests for the current Mamiya 645 vs Sinar vs H2/3 to help aid my decision to switch.
-
"The non plus and plus backs utilize the same sensor. This is a completely brand new sensor, so the potential for more objective improvement is real and promising."
Lines like this sound like your saying that you were lying a bit last time when you said about better high ISO performance but this time your not.
When I was deciding between the P21 and P21 plus I was told about the high ISO advantage, better screens, wireless file transfer and non of it was true. This time it will be different though, just need to get the firmware updated. How about a bit of honesty and integrity, the product is great, just cut out the spin. (with regard to the screen it is sharper but less viewable outside, different, not better).
Woof:
You're entitled to your opinion.
But I object to the term "lying", and the implication of a lack of honesty and integrity.
There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. A completely new sensor with new technology certainly does offer more potential for advancement. I don't see what does not ring true about that statement.
The screen from the plus is certainly better than the non plus. It has more resolution and more brightness. The fact it is less viewable in direct sunlight is yes, one aspect that was a minus. However, I have not met anyone who has told me they would prefer to have the older screen. And wireless file transfer was not part of the plus upgrade package. It is a feature that we felt confident enough to publicize our plans for and obviously we have so far failed to accomplish this. Guilty as charged.
I do understand that until rubber meets the road, skepticism exists (and rightfully so). Nonetheless, the potential of the P65+ product is exciting and that is directly what I was stating.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. A completely new sensor with new technology certainly does offer more potential for advancement. I don't see what does not ring true about that statement.
The screen from the plus is certainly better than the non plus. It has more resolution and more brightness. The fact it is less viewable in direct sunlight is yes, one aspect that was a minus. However, I have not met anyone who has told me they would prefer to have the older screen. And wireless file transfer was not part of the plus upgrade package. It is a feature that we felt confident enough to publicize our plans for and obviously we have so far failed to accomplish this. Guilty as charged.
I do understand that until rubber meets the road, skepticism exists (and rightfully so). Nonetheless, the potential of the P65+ product is exciting and that is directly what I was stating.
Steve,
With all due respect, what I object to is seeing the ads, and the promotion, and the exclamation points, and the claims, and the promises, and the boasts, about what an improvement that the Plus series was going to be, over the non-plusm and then have it delivered and see hardly any difference whatsoever. And then to read your sentence above, about how you REALLY feel about the Plus: "There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades."
I totally understand that there is a limit, but at that time of upgrade, I simply bought into Phase's claims, and I paid my money, and they kept me enrolled in their Methadone Upgrade Addiction Program.
But no more.
And as you say above, I urge everyone here, with any and all brands, not only Phase, to wait til "the rubber hits the road" before getting sucked into any Wimpy Hamburger program, which is basically, paying you today for a hamburger in six months.
The trust is gone.
You guys have got to prove your claims now. I urge everyone: keep your money in your pocket until a product is proven. Make these companies earn the copy that's in their ads.
Good economy, bad economy -- makes no difference. There are simply other options available (Canon, Nikon, etc) that work as claimed, right out of the box, with no excuses.
You say you know of no customers who preferred the old LCD, but there were customers that preferred keeping their old, original back, and keeping that extra Five Grand Upgrade Money in their pocket. I was one of them.
I hope the P65+ does well for you. I just hope those copywriters are held at bay, and the energy is invested in getting that back into the street, to be tested and put through the wringer.
-
When I upgraded from a P45 to a P45+ I did so not just for a better screen, but for the live video function that could help my focus problems that had dogged me so far on the Hassleblad V. In addition to this I chose to have value added as opposed to the classic package I have always had.
I was also told by my dealer that the plus series was "wi-fi ready", something to do with the back was prepared to take a future release of this facility.
As it happens I'm not convinced that the wi-fi would be of any use to me, I can't see Apple discontinuing any sort of firewire connection and if it did the digital backs would have some sort of connection...
I'm where I need to be with my P45+ on a Phase 645 camera and really have no need for a higher pixel count, therefore can't see the need for me to upgrade for some time now. However, if the sensor plus technology was to find its way into a 39mp back, I'd order one. The ability to change the resolution from 39 to 16 mp when shooting a cut out of a tin of beans would be well worth the upgrade.
Kind regards
Steve
-
Steve,
With all due respect, what I object to is seeing the ads, and the promotion, and the exclamation points, and the claims, and the promises, and the boasts, about what an improvement that the Plus series was going to be, over the non-plusm and then have it delivered and see hardly any difference whatsoever. And then to read your sentence above, about how you REALLY feel about the Plus: "There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades."
I totally understand that there is a limit, but at that time of upgrade, I simply bought into Phase's claims, and I paid my money, and they kept me enrolled in their Methadone Upgrade Addiction Program.
But no more.
And as you say above, I urge everyone here, with any and all brands, not only Phase, to wait til "the rubber hits the road" before getting sucked into any Wimpy Hamburger program, which is basically, paying you today for a hamburger in six months.
The trust is gone.
You guys have got to prove your claims now. I urge everyone: keep your money in your pocket until a product is proven. Make these companies earn the copy that's in their ads.
Good economy, bad economy -- makes no difference. There are simply other options available (Canon, Nikon, etc) that work as claimed, right out of the box, with no excuses.
You say you know of no customers who preferred the old LCD, but there were customers that preferred keeping their old, original back, and keeping that extra Five Grand Upgrade Money in their pocket. I was one of them.
I hope the P65+ does well for you. I just hope those copywriters are held at bay, and the energy is invested in getting that back into the street, to be tested and put through the wringer.
I agree with the above, in regards to all digital back manufacturers.
The lack of integrity in fufilling the claims and promises made compared to Canon and Nikon is astounding.
-
I was really excite about the Hy6 until I spent about three minutes holding it. IMHO it is both plasticy and agricultural at the same time. I hated the layout of all the controls, and was very disappointed in the overall build quality and feel. My local store is very good about letting me borrow things, since I both buy and rent a lot of gear with them each year, but the 'feel' of camera gave me no desire to even try it.
I don't really understand why folks who make these machines don't come on a little two week field trip to those of us who are shooting several terrabytes a month to see how we'd really like things to work, feel and look. I'd be happy to open my doors to any camera designers, and give my input into how to make their stuff really desirable to both working pros and high end enthusiasts.
Well, they almost certainly did! Not you, but others. Many love the layout, others don't. It is very personal, like anything. I don't think that they made any grave mistakes with the camera, they just didn't hit the preferences of some, that's all. Maybe with time they can tune the layout a bit to make more people happy.
-
I agree with the above, in regards to all digital back manufacturers.
The lack of integrity in fufilling the claims and promises made compared to Canon and Nikon is astounding.
Jing q --- just curious, which MF back and camera system do you currently own?
-
Dear jing q,
If your "lack of integrity" of the DB manufacturers means to say "not adhering to moral principles or to professional standards", which is actually its definition, then I find it to be very strong worded and am asking myself what brings you to this judgement.
Best regards,
Thierry
I agree with the above, in regards to all digital back manufacturers.
The lack of integrity in fufilling the claims and promises made compared to Canon and Nikon is astounding.
-
Yes, I would not hold Canon or Nikon up as examples of virtuous marketing organizations. Each has had teething issues with their releases and not been too quick to admit issues. I work in the technology industry and our biggest challenge is keeping our marketing department from running their mouth about the new features that are coming when those new features were only discussed in a hallway as a "wouldn't it be cool if we could" concept. Of course the marketing guy who overheard the concept then goes and issues a press release. This results in the head of marketing getting upset when it doesn't happen and wants me to ask why development did not do it. When I ask development I get the blank look and a "we never published that feature in our roadmap" response.
The moral is whenever you have marketing people working with technology developers you will always have disconnects and promises that may never be fulfilled. And I always end up arbitrating the ensuing finger pointing.
-
Yes, I would not hold Canon or Nikon up as examples of virtuous marketing organizations. Each has had teething issues with their releases and not been too quick to admit issues. I work in the technology industry and our biggest challenge is keeping our marketing department from running their mouth about the new features that are coming when those new features were only discussed in a hallway as a "wouldn't it be cool if we could" concept. Of course the marketing guy who overheard the concept then goes and issues a press release. This results in the head of marketing getting upset when it doesn't happen and wants me to ask why development did not do it. When I ask development I get the blank look and a "we never published that feature in our roadmap" response.
The moral is whenever you have marketing people working with technology developers you will always have disconnects and promises that may never be fulfilled. And I always end up arbitrating the ensuing finger pointing.
After having dealt with medium format digital backs, I have to say Canon seems like angels comparatively.
Canon delivers the features they promise, I can go into B&H, get it, and know that I'm getting what I paid for.
Jack, I use a Leaf, it works well but it has its quirks. Now I understand that there are quirks in these backs but when you're in a high stress shoot situation, the client doesn't bloody care about quirks.
It's embarrassing as a professional not to be in full control of your quirky $30k equipment.
For $30k I want rock solid dependability.
Let me tell you what I think lack of integrity is, it's letting your dealers go around promising things which never get fufilled. Every MFDB manufacturers promise stuff which they don't fufill.
I don't expect the Phase One back to be any different in that aspect. Take all the marketing claims with a pinch of salt until it's been tested in a proper shoot situation.
I shoot with a Leaf and honestly I don't trust any of the new features until I see them working properly. I've been burnt already, waiting for a Windows version of Leaf Capture which was promised for years. FINALLY came out, and still quirky. Prevents my computer from shutting down. Firewire refuses to recognise after it wakes up from sleep mode. So on and so forth.
If all this sounds harsh to you, well guess what, try paying $30k for something and watch the value wither away as you get irritated with the back's moods.
This applies to all manufacturers. Shopping around for a back was like trying to figure out which one would screw me over less in the long run. I have to say Hasselblad's new marketing direction looks very very good.
Ironic thing is that I'm looking into upgrading my back because I am irritated with the screen and I feel the resolution could improve, and hopefully the noise of the newer model is better (whoever says that you can use a digital back's 400 ISO must be joking, the loss of color gamut/tonality and loss of quality is just unbelievable, better off using a DSLR in such situations). Is this the manufacturer's marketing model? It's like being stuck in a marriage where I was promised Ms Universe and ended up with the 6th runner up with pimples, now I have to send her for plastic surgery hoping that she'll look better but knowing inside that there are going to be quirks again.
The list of issues with MFDB have been listed time and time again. Just to let the reps know, I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't usually voice their disgruntlement but I have to agree with most of what's been said time and time again. I just don't say it. The people here use their cameras in work-scenario shoots. We get pissed at failed promises and half-arsed solutions. Our arses are on the line.
As stated by gwhitf,
"I totally understand that there is a limit, but at that time of upgrade, I simply bought into Phase's claims, and I paid my money, and they kept me enrolled in their Methadone Upgrade Addiction Program.
But no more.
And as you say above, I urge everyone here, with any and all brands, not only Phase, to wait til "the rubber hits the road" before getting sucked into any Wimpy Hamburger program, which is basically, paying you today for a hamburger in six months.
The trust is gone.
You guys have got to prove your claims now. I urge everyone: keep your money in your pocket until a product is proven. Make these companies earn the copy that's in their ads."
You've got a huge skeptic here of the belief that a firmware update is going to make your back perform much better, later on, oh maybe one, two, oops three years later, oh yes we did mention we were going to do this firmware thing...
I paid at least 50% more because I was suckered into believing that the S model of the Aptus had better noise control than the non-S model! *rolls eyeballs*
I think a photographer's idea of improvement vs a MFDB maker's idea of improvement differs greatly. Probably like how the Phase One screens "improved"
When Nikon says their screens improve, you know they mean it.
-
Oh here's a quirk for you. It tends to happen at the most important shots. I'm not the only one with this problem I'm sure.
Leaf America has been great in helping me try to fix the issue, but I'm too tired to keep sending it back so I just learn to live with it. Especially after it happens even in the replacement back. Some of us actually have shoots and fly around here and there. We prefer not to spend enough time and energy on dealing with hardware issues.
I don't pay good money to troubleshoot the manufacturer's problems. I thought that's something that only happened in China when buying cheap crap.
If Canon had such a problem with their cameras the whole of dpreview would have ripped Canon to shreds. Funny how we MFDB just learn to live with the quirks of our backs.
-
Jack, I use a Leaf, it works well but it has its quirks. Now I understand that there are quirks in these backs but when you're in a high stress shoot situation, the client doesn't bloody care about quirks.
It's embarrassing as a professional not to be in full control of your quirky $30k equipment.
For $30k I want rock solid dependability.
Hi Jing:
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but in your post above you seem to lump all the DB manufacturers into the same pile and without specifics like you shared above for Leaf. I don't think the broad-blame approach is fair to the other manufacturers you do not have direct experience with -- that's all my point was
Hope the issues related to your back get sorted out soon,
-
Woof:
You're entitled to your opinion.
But I object to the term "lying", and the implication of a lack of honesty and integrity.
There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. A completely new sensor with new technology certainly does offer more potential for advancement. I don't see what does not ring true about that statement.
The screen from the plus is certainly better than the non plus. It has more resolution and more brightness. The fact it is less viewable in direct sunlight is yes, one aspect that was a minus. However, I have not met anyone who has told me they would prefer to have the older screen. And wireless file transfer was not part of the plus upgrade package. It is a feature that we felt confident enough to publicize our plans for and obviously we have so far failed to accomplish this. Guilty as charged.
I do understand that until rubber meets the road, skepticism exists (and rightfully so). Nonetheless, the potential of the P65+ product is exciting and that is directly what I was stating.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve,
I'm fine with digital equipment reps, dealers and all their new found associates putting their product in a favorable light. that's your and their job and it should be expected.
what i'm not fine with using the word potential when it comes to what you product may, or may not eventually do.
if your selling to professional photographers and I assume you are, none of us would ever even think of selling ourselves into a project based on our "future" potential.
we have to prove we can do it before we even get a chance to produce an estimate and even then jump through more hoops, prove references, deliver exactly, actually deliver more than we promised for the prices we negotiated.
period.
so before you talk about potential like gw says deliver first, talk about upgrades paths later.
as far as the plus backs they're ok, actually they are an upgrade just for the ability to tether through apple's flaky firewire ports, but as far as higher iso, there may be a 20% difference at best and I know because I've tested higher iso until my eyes bleed. then again why should we be expected to pay thousands more for a back that will power itself if the firewire ports are flaky?
and before someone shows me an image of an overlit patio at 800 iso and says see how good it is be aware we don't use 800 iso when we have the ability to overlight. we use it because we need that "film/digital" speed because the light levels have dropped, we're blending with continuous sources, or we just are mixing a lot of different lights for effect.
you haven't met a person that prefers the regular series phase lcd compared to the plus? we'll i guess you haven't shot on a rooftop or a beach because then you'd pay double for that old cell phone looking lcd because at least you could see something.
i just came off a rooftop with 18 clients and forget about tethering at 14 stores up and forget about showing them the lcd on the plus series because I can't see anything so I'm sure as hell positive they can't.
in fact in the last few weeks i've shot over 3,000 images and only 800 of those are with my plus backs and I've dragged those things have way around the world to use them.
honestly have you picked up a Nikon N90? if you have you'd find that if medium format had the features of that little $800 camera there would be headlines on the front of every photography magazine that read "finally a medium format camera that works as easily as a film camera".
I don't get the medium format world, don't understand a single thing you sell or say. I can give you reasons why I will shoot medium format when I can but those reasons are getting harder to justify everytime you guys introduce new product. more megapixels, higher costs, software still in the very early stages of development and for the "future" potential of what a camera may or may not do.
this is the same old song, for the same number of years and there is always an excuse. it's ccds, it's the inability to source better lcds, it's the lenses are on the way, it's always something. we keep asking for more stability, higher iso, lower prices and complete ready to buy cameras, including lenses and we keep getting more megpixels.
in fact, regarding software phase surprises me more than any company because their #1 benefit was the fact their software was stable and though I've just browsed through 4.5 I kind of wonder if they ever looked at lightroom. phase 4.5 may produce better color than lightroom out of the can but it's got about 1/2 of the functionality of lightroom and less than that when it comes to stability.
no thanks man, I'm full. if your company could/would give us what we keep asking for I might be inclined to write that $40,000 check, but not on the promise of buy today and see what might be delivered tomorrow.
I don't care about brands, format size, lighting seminars or demonstrations. I care about producing the most beautiful photograph my skills and budget allow and when there is a lot on the line, after 15 minutes on set no client cares about it either. they only care about getting their shot and seeing a a beautiful preview and be very clear about this, clients consider it "their" shot.
try turning to one of those clients that just spent 5, 6 or even 7 figures on a shoot and say, sorry, but my camera just won't work in that light, or hey hold on, we're trying to get the software started but it's a new release and well, you know this digital stuff takes time.
I know about 15 photographers that have bought digital backs and I know that about 1/2 of them have sold them off. they may have kept their cameras hoping for that nirvana back that doesn't cost 40 grand and will work as well as a Canon or Nikon, but even of the ones that kept their digital backs, all of them have a 5d, 1ds3, or Nikon D3 in the bag and all of them go to it more and more of the time.
no customer asked phase to mention wi-fi, phase published that piece of information and gave the impression it was coming. no photographer asked phase for software to hit the streets not ready for prime time, or to miss their own self imposed deadline and no photographer or client on this planet understands why most medium format lcd's look 1/4 as good as a little $800 camera.
now, since I'm not in the camera selling business maybe I'm wrong. maybe the p65+ will sell off the shelves in record numbers but I'd love to see a show of hands of who is gong to buy this today.
I'd also like their e-mail address because I'd love to sell them a condo I bought last year.
-
Yes, I would not hold Canon or Nikon up as examples of virtuous marketing organizations. Each has had teething issues with their releases and not been too quick to admit issues. I work in the technology industry and our biggest challenge is keeping our marketing department from running their mouth about the new features that are coming when those new features were only discussed in a hallway as a "wouldn't it be cool if we could" concept. Of course the marketing guy who overheard the concept then goes and issues a press release. This results in the head of marketing getting upset when it doesn't happen and wants me to ask why development did not do it. When I ask development I get the blank look and a "we never published that feature in our roadmap" response.
The moral is whenever you have marketing people working with technology developers you will always have disconnects and promises that may never be fulfilled. And I always end up arbitrating the ensuing finger pointing.
Hahahaha, so true. It sounds like you originally come from the technology guys pool (marketeers more often have a different point of view in my experience. I have been involved in high tech until the suits took over and development became the realm of lawyers and marketeers. Even more fun when you have hardware developers working together with software developers in the mix...
-
Hahahaha, so true. It sounds like you originally come from the technology guys pool (marketeers more often have a different point of view in my experience. I have been involved in high tech until the suits took over and development became the realm of lawyers and marketeers. Even more fun when you have hardware developers working together with software developers in the mix...
Nope, I am the industry vertical guy brought in to help guide product concepts. I have to try to get the two groups to "play nicely" Photography is what keeps me sane enough to deal with them. My two children are better behave than many of the adults at work.
Bcooter: I agree. Maybe the MFD firms should focus on the hardware and conncectivity and work with Adobe (or others) for the software. Think of the R&D funds that would free up and the streamlined workflow.
-
Big Cooter speaks the truth. I think the turning point came, for me anyway, with the P65+ intro and the publication of the price. At the time, I was feeling very pushed by technology that didn't work as advertised, be it iPhone crashes/freezes, MFDB bullshit, OSX issues, C1 4.1 not tethering correctly, etc. I was spending hours a day dealing with this crap. I was also trying to collect from editorial clients with little luck, I was getting push back from clients on budgets and rates, payments coming in very slowly, health insurance not paying for labs, etc etc . I was pissed at my Mamiya AFd. The shutter lag was unbearable on a shoot. I wanted to smash the body. I was disapointed with teh AFdIII/Phase camera, because the lag is still there, and Phase wanted $8k for it. The only issue I have with the Mamiya 645 cam and it still isn't improved, but Phase wants $8k for it with a real warranty. I'm miffed by all this. I had a G-Raid crap out on me and was rebuilding it when I saw the P65+ was announced, at $43,000. I realized, at that moment, with the collapse of the editorial market, magazines going under, general economic uncertainty and turmoil, frustration with technology, that I'm not the target market for Phase One.
I am MUCH happier renting when I need it, which is only for high end beauty and some catalogue work. I rented a Leaf A17/H2 (and a tech) for a catalogue shoot in New Orleans, but shot all the natural light stuff with a 5D or an RZ on 400VC. I even broke out the Leica for some hot Tri-X action. Technology did not get in the way of shooting.
Will I buy another back? Sure will. I wanted to buy a Sinar 54LV at the lower price but I'm not willing to go through a 10 page thread to find the US list price, then shake a best price deal out of a dealer, go through that bullshit. If Sinar sold directly, had a US price on their site or through B&H that wasn't an inflated number, I'd have a 54LV. And to tell you the truth, with the economic climate as it is, I think I'll hold off until next Spring. Although I was HOT TO TROT and buy a week and a half ago.
And as a general rant, what is up with the apologists? I can't believe some of the crap I read on these boards.
Steve,
I'm fine with digital equipment reps, dealers and all their new found associates putting their product in a favorable light. that's your and their job and it should be expected.
what i'm not fine with using the word potential when it comes to what you product may, or may not eventually do.
if your selling to professional photographers and I assume you are, none of us would ever even think of selling ourselves into a project based on our "future" potential.
we have to prove we can do it before we even get a chance to produce an estimate and even then jump through more hoops, prove references, deliver exactly, actually deliver more than we promised for the prices we negotiated.
period.
so before you talk about potential like gw says deliver first, talk about upgrades paths later.
as far as the plus backs they're ok, actually they are an upgrade just for the ability to tether through apple's flaky firewire ports, but as far as higher iso, there may be a 20% difference at best and I know because I've tested higher iso until my eyes bleed. then again why should we be expected to pay thousands more for a back that will power itself if the firewire ports are flaky?
and before someone shows me an image of an overlit patio at 800 iso and says see how good it is be aware we don't use 800 iso when we have the ability to overlight. we use it because we need that "film/digital" speed because the light levels have dropped, we're blending with continuous sources, or we just are mixing a lot of different lights for effect.
you haven't met a person that prefers the regular series phase lcd compared to the plus? we'll i guess you haven't shot on a rooftop or a beach because then you'd pay double for that old cell phone looking lcd because at least you could see something.
i just came off a rooftop with 18 clients and forget about tethering at 14 stores up and forget about showing them the lcd on the plus series because I can't see anything so I'm sure as hell positive they can't.
in fact in the last few weeks i've shot over 3,000 images and only 800 of those are with my plus backs and I've dragged those things have way around the world to use them.
honestly have you picked up a Nikon N90? if you have you'd find that if medium format had the features of that little $800 camera there would be headlines on the front of every photography magazine that read "finally a medium format camera that works as easily as a film camera".
I don't get the medium format world, don't understand a single thing you sell or say. I can give you reasons why I will shoot medium format when I can but those reasons are getting harder to justify everytime you guys introduce new product. more megapixels, higher costs, software still in the very early stages of development and for the "future" potential of what a camera may or may not do.
this is the same old song, for the same number of years and there is always an excuse. it's ccds, it's the inability to source better lcds, it's the lenses are on the way, it's always something. we keep asking for more stability, higher iso, lower prices and complete ready to buy cameras, including lenses and we keep getting more megpixels.
in fact, regarding software phase surprises me more than any company because their #1 benefit was the fact their software was stable and though I've just browsed through 4.5 I kind of wonder if they ever looked at lightroom. phase 4.5 may produce better color than lightroom out of the can but it's got about 1/2 of the functionality of lightroom and less than that when it comes to stability.
no thanks man, I'm full. if your company could/would give us what we keep asking for I might be inclined to write that $40,000 check, but not on the promise of buy today and see what might be delivered tomorrow.
I don't care about brands, format size, lighting seminars or demonstrations. I care about producing the most beautiful photograph my skills and budget allow and when there is a lot on the line, after 15 minutes on set no client cares about it either. they only care about getting their shot and seeing a a beautiful preview and be very clear about this, clients consider it "their" shot.
try turning to one of those clients that just spent 5, 6 or even 7 figures on a shoot and say, sorry, but my camera just won't work in that light, or hey hold on, we're trying to get the software started but it's a new release and well, you know this digital stuff takes time.
I know about 15 photographers that have bought digital backs and I know that about 1/2 of them have sold them off. they may have kept their cameras hoping for that nirvana back that doesn't cost 40 grand and will work as well as a Canon or Nikon, but even of the ones that kept their digital backs, all of them have a 5d, 1ds3, or Nikon D3 in the bag and all of them go to it more and more of the time.
no customer asked phase to mention wi-fi, phase published that piece of information and gave the impression it was coming. no photographer asked phase for software to hit the streets not ready for prime time, or to miss their own self imposed deadline and no photographer or client on this planet understands why most medium format lcd's look 1/4 as good as a little $800 camera.
now, since I'm not in the camera selling business maybe I'm wrong. maybe the p65+ will sell off the shelves in record numbers but I'd love to see a show of hands of who is gong to buy this today.
I'd also like their e-mail address because I'd love to sell them a condo I bought last year.
-
Hi Jing:
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but in your post above you seem to lump all the DB manufacturers into the same pile and without specifics like you shared above for Leaf. I don't think the broad-blame approach is fair to the other manufacturers you do not have direct experience with -- that's all my point was
Hope the issues related to your back get sorted out soon,
let's put it this way
I've used other backs,Leaf's one is already one of the more reliable ones.
I could be more specific but what's the point? There are tons of other people helping to chime in and fill you in on the specific problems they faced.
I don't have experience with a Sinar, but phase one and hassy had their fair share of problems, thanks.
-
I've had something like this happen to me with my Phase back, and like you wrote, it always seemed to crop up at the worst possible times. Well not sure I had the same issue you had, but mine turned out to be that when things were looking good I started to shoot faster, and faster, and ended up over shooting the back. Once in a while, one frame in a fast sequence would get messed up. Problem went away when I learned the pace of my back. Actually it shouldn't happen either way, but still I feel that I was able to solve the problem myself by just knowing how my equipment (and myself) behaves under certain circumstances.
Oh here's a quirk for you. It tends to happen at the most important shots. I'm not the only one with this problem I'm sure.
Leaf America has been great in helping me try to fix the issue, but I'm too tired to keep sending it back so I just learn to live with it. Especially after it happens even in the replacement back. Some of us actually have shoots and fly around here and there. We prefer not to spend enough time and energy on dealing with hardware issues.
I don't pay good money to troubleshoot the manufacturer's problems. I thought that's something that only happened in China when buying cheap crap.
If Canon had such a problem with their cameras the whole of dpreview would have ripped Canon to shreds. Funny how we MFDB just learn to live with the quirks of our backs.
-
I've had something like this happen to me with my Phase back, and like you wrote, it always seemed to crop up at the worst possible times. Well not sure I had the same issue you had, but mine turned out to be that when things were looking good I started to shoot faster, and faster, and ended up over shooting the back. Once in a while, one frame in a fast sequence would get messed up. Problem went away when I learned the pace of my back. Actually it shouldn't happen either way, but still I feel that I was able to solve the problem myself by just knowing how my equipment (and myself) behaves under certain circumstances.
Hey, I think we're missing the opportunity to make our jobs better and the clients happier. Think of your 30k+ investment as an eco-friendly, green polaroid proof machine! Get it all dialed in with your MFDB, get your client to sign off and then slap a roll of 120 on your camera and shoot away! Remember all those glorious images our forefathers used to create???
OK, just joking!!!!
-
Hey, I think we're missing the opportunity to make our jobs better and the clients happier. Think of your 30k+ investment as an eco-friendly, green polaroid proof machine! Get it all dialed in with your MFDB, get your client to sign off and then slap a roll of 120 on your camera and shoot away! Remember all those glorious images our forefathers used to create???
OK, just joking!!!!
Not a bad joke.
a long time ago in a galaxy far far away I met with the polaroid people and asked for some kind of digital polaroid. this was before iphone, itouch, wi-fi but I asked if there was some way that they could make a small megapixel digital back that fit like a polaroid back and had a wire that went to some kind of video device, like a small marshall monitor. I said i'd pay $25,000 that minute for such a device.
they laughed, or somewhat laughed and said why would we do that, we would never sell any more polaroid film?
I never had problems with film, it was just polaroid i found too time consuming and unstable and under changing light conditions too hard to adjust.
anyway, they didn't make it, probably couldn't and now we're into the digital age where we have to use digital cameras as polaroid and make our own film, be our own lab, make our own contact sheets and web galleries and for many of us even do our on effecting, retouching and delivery.
just think though if somebody had made that polaroid device that covered everything from 6x7 to 35mm gave us a 4" lcd that was detailed and a client could hand hold and view. then we just load film and shoot.
I would bet labs would still be around.
now take that one step further and just think how frustrating it would be if during the days of film, every time kodak or fuji made a new film emulsion it took a new lab machine to process it, or for the photographer if we had to buy a new camera and new lenses just to use the new film.
what I wonder is why Canon or nikon or epson doesn't make such a device for our cameras. imagine the epson or canon hand held screen that would take in jpegs direct from the camera for display without having to carry a computer or a computer workstation?
-
I'd love to chime in here on the design of the Hy6 and also the Mamiya vs H2/H3 systems.
I was really excite about the Hy6 until I spent about three minutes holding it. IMHO it is both plasticy and agricultural at the same time. I hated the layout of all the controls, and was very disappointed in the overall build quality and feel.
Could you please explain what you meant by the use of the word "agricultural" in your description of the Hy6, above?
Thanks
Sean
-
Could you please explain what you meant by the use of the word "agricultural" in your description of the Hy6, above?
I was wondering the same, as you seemed to love the Mamiya RZ and that is about as 'agricultural' as these medium format SLRs get.
-
Woof:
You're entitled to your opinion.
But I object to the term "lying", and the implication of a lack of honesty and integrity.
There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. A completely new sensor with new technology certainly does offer more potential for advancement. I don't see what does not ring true about that statement.
The screen from the plus is certainly better than the non plus. It has more resolution and more brightness. The fact it is less viewable in direct sunlight is yes, one aspect that was a minus. However, I have not met anyone who has told me they would prefer to have the older screen. And wireless file transfer was not part of the plus upgrade package. It is a feature that we felt confident enough to publicize our plans for and obviously we have so far failed to accomplish this. Guilty as charged.
I do understand that until rubber meets the road, skepticism exists (and rightfully so). Nonetheless, the potential of the P65+ product is exciting and that is directly what I was stating.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve,
You said: There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. My dealer didn't say that when he was trying to sell me a plus back nor did the Phase one advertising info. I was told that it would be able to do wireless soon, it didn't. You admit that the screen has a minus in the only conditions that most use the screen. The sales literature didn't tell me that.
No-one likes to be called a lier but what term do you think would best describe the divergence of the promise and what was delivered? (of course bearing in mind that all the mistakes made the back seem more favorable than it was also).
-w
-
Funny, we heard a lot of these promises from Phase when the Plus series was introduced. That the P45+ was going to be better ISO, and better LCD, and better file quality.
I took delivery on the P45+, and then returned it. I saw very little if ANY difference between the Plus and the Non-Plus.
So yes, it better be a LOT better to justify ten grand.
you might like to check your screen set up then. I did the same and found a definite improvement. well worth the upgrade price, plus the improved LCD etc.
I only wish the P65+ was the same upgrade price as P45 > P45+. they overcooked it on this one... and need to make a special offer for a month or so, to kick it into gear.
-
That summary compares only the 45, 80 and 210, hardly the best Contax 645 lenses. The Contax 80/2 is even a full stop faster than the Mamiya, a design choice which has ramifications throughout the aperture range. The test also compares only resolution, not colour or boke, etc. Is there anything comparing the 35, 55, and 120 Macro? There were meant to be numerous tests...
Yes thats the test I was referring too, I don't know about you but I'd say those focal length's are pretty critical and also, for me, resolution is pretty important in lens design. You have to be very careful not to get caught up in the Zeiss hype. It reminds me of hearing about a big orchestra that had hardly any women on it, they felt the women they auditioned just weren't good as good as the men, these were experts of course, then, they started doing the auditions blind, the player was behind a curtain so the player couldn't be seen, all of a sudden, the number of women players in the orchestra was about equal to the number of men. No-one knew that they were unfairly discriminating, they were all amazed.
-
Hi!
I've been reading this forum for quite some time because I want to upgrade from my large format and Canon 5D to MFDB. And obviously I read pretty much everything that's available to make a right decision. Sufficient to say, I'm not a pro and I don't make money on photography (yet ). I shoot landscapes and I used to do some fashion in the past.
The main reason I want to upgrade is I think 50 megapixel DB is quite comparable (or even exceeds) in quality to LF but it's a lot more "comfortable" to work with. But as to this discussion, I just want to share some thoughts on P65+ compared to Hasselblad H3dII-50.
Some say that closed system is a drawback and even it will bound one's creativity. But to me Hassy's "closed" system is an advantage - I don't really need to think about what will work with what. It's all done already for me. All I need to do is just get camera, lens, DB and software and to start shooting. And I'm sure the quality of all of the ingredients will be very good. Besides, look at Canon or Nikon, they are closed systems too...
The other thing is customer's feedback regarding to equipment brand. I don't have much experience with photo buyers but I don't think they really care about if some photo was taken with Phase or Hassy. What's more in this, in my opinion, is the difference between 39-50-60 megapixels. I think in most cases customers also don't care because this difference is really not seen on sizes up to 20*30 (which I suppose the most useful size range).
What's really important to me as a photographer is price. Sorry, but I really don't understand why I need to pay 14000$ more for P65+ compared to H3DII-50. P65+ has larger sensor and 10 more megapixels in resolution. Fine, but will my end product be so much better quality-wise? I'm sure not. For this price difference I can buy two or three more lenses.
I may be wrong somewhere due to lack of real photo business experience though.
Alex.
-
Yes thats the test I was referring too, I don't know about you but I'd say those focal length's are pretty critical and also, for me, resolution is pretty important in lens design.
Right, I am not saying that this test is not valid, just that it is incomplete. All the best lenses in the Contax 645 were skipped, in favour of some of the weaker ones. It gives an incomplete, and skewed, picture of the total situation.
There were meant to be many tests showing the Mamiya lenses were at least as good as the Zeiss lineups. Where are the other tests?
-
Sorry, but I really don't understand why I need to pay 14000$ more for P65+ compared to H3DII-50. P65+ has larger sensor and 10 more megapixels in resolution. Fine, but will my end product be so much better quality-wise? I'm sure not. For this price difference I can buy two or three more lenses.
Alex.
Alex, you touched on a point that is valid across most of the backs. Is the P30+ worth and extra $10k over the P45+, when we're only talking a less-than 8mp difference? The fact is, 60mp is not 50mp, and a bigger sensor is a bigger sensor. And both models have different +/-'s. The more surface area, the exponentially more expensive. Same reason a P25+ is slightly more than a P30+. The 30+ has more pixels, but the 25+ has a larger area sensor.
The question you should be asking yourself is not between the H3DII-50 and P65+, but how much resolution to do you really need, regardless of price? If you're ok with slidingfrom 60mp to 50mp because the difference isn't that great, I bet you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 39mp and 50mp in anything short of a wall-size print. The jump from 39mp to 60mp? Noticeable, but again, it's all relative to what you're doing.
-J
-
Right, I am not saying that this test is not valid, just that it is incomplete. All the best lenses in the Contax 645 were skipped, in favour of some of the weaker ones. It gives an incomplete, and skewed, picture of the total situation.
There were meant to be many tests showing the Mamiya lenses were at least as good as the Zeiss lineups. Where are the other tests?
There aren't any more tests that I know of.
-
I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything but because they look cheap people think they aren't good. There great lenses. It's amazing how bias works.
Woof, here is an earlier post where you mentioned "test after test" showing the Mamiya lenses are at least as good as other lenses. If there is only one test against Zeiss glass, and that only covers the 45, 80 and 210, then I guess the rest of the Zeiss lineup is still in question? Here I mean the Contax 645 lineup, since they are more modern than the V glass. I don't know about the Rollei glass. Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".
I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.
-
Woof, here is an earlier post where you mentioned "test after test" showing the Mamiya lenses are at least as good as other lenses. If there is only one test against Zeiss glass, and that only covers the 45, 80 and 210, then I guess the rest of the Zeiss lineup is still in question? Here I mean the Contax 645 lineup, since they are more modern than the V glass. I don't know about the Rollei glass. Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".
I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.
Sorry, your correct. I should have said a documented test showed Mamiya glass to be good. What I meant by test after test was unpublished tests where people have just compared them themselves and come up with similar results and spoken about them on forums or in studios, with digital techs etc.
-
I've been burnt already, waiting for a Windows version of Leaf Capture which was promised for years. FINALLY came out, and still quirky. Prevents my computer from shutting down. Firewire refuses to recognise after it wakes up from sleep mode. So on and so forth.
Gee I have a bunch of hard drives that do the same thing.... and even Safari now hangs up on Macs. So what? Work around it, or go to Windows and have even more quirkiness.
Perfecion is sought after, rarely achieved.
Geoff
-
Gee I have a bunch of hard drives that do the same thing.... and even Safari now hangs up on Macs. So what? Work around it, or go to Windows and have even more quirkiness.
Perfecion is sought after, rarely achieved.
Geoff
I know I complain about Phase but there backs and the 3.7.1 software are absolutely rock solid. I don't think people should put up with things not working correctly, (unless it was advertised that it wasn't going to work properly)
-
The question you should be asking yourself is not between the H3DII-50 and P65+, but how much resolution to do you really need, regardless of price? If you're ok with slidingfrom 60mp to 50mp because the difference isn't that great, I bet you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 39mp and 50mp in anything short of a wall-size print. The jump from 39mp to 60mp? Noticeable, but again, it's all relative to what you're doing.
-J
Well, I make prints 80*70cm (31"x27") from my LF slides and the resulting scans resolution is about 9300x7440. P65+ would come really nicely (it's 8984 x 6732) but ... and there's BIG one... the price. So 8176 x 6132 that H3DII-50 has is not far enough especially regarding the mentioned price difference.
-
Gee I have a bunch of hard drives that do the same thing.... and even Safari now hangs up on Macs. So what? Work around it, or go to Windows and have even more quirkiness.
Perfecion is sought after, rarely achieved.
Geoff
what?
sorry but that is the most irrelevant analogy I've heard.
You have a bunch of $300 hard drives that fail?
I have a propriety software for tethering my $30k back that was promised and didn't exist for years??
Sorry but where's the connection here?
-
Well, I make prints 80*70cm (31"x27") from my LF slides and the resulting scans resolution is about 9300x7440. P65+ would come really nicely (it's 8984 x 6732) but ... and there's BIG one... the price. So 8176 x 6132 that H3DII-50 has is not far enough especially regarding the mentioned price difference.
The resolutions cannot really be compared, resolutions being, in this case, scanned LF chromes and digital files. Digital is so much cleaner than scanned film. A scanned film file contains a lot of crappy information, while the digital file should contain nothing but signal, which is why 100 meg tiff from a digital camera beats a 100 meg tiff from a film scan. So, bottom line, save some cash and get a 31 megapixel solution.
-
The resolutions cannot really be compared, resolutions being, in this case, scanned LF chromes and digital files. Digital is so much cleaner than scanned film. A scanned film file contains a lot of crappy information, while the digital file should contain nothing but signal, which is why 100 meg tiff from a digital camera beats a 100 meg tiff from a film scan. So, bottom line, save some cash and get a 31 megapixel solution.
70x80cm isnt any problem with a 22/33/39 mp back even for the sharpest pp eyes. check it out by yourself.
-
Well, I make prints 80*70cm (31"x27") from my LF slides and the resulting scans resolution is about 9300x7440. P65+ would come really nicely (it's 8984 x 6732) but ... and there's BIG one... the price. So 8176 x 6132 that H3DII-50 has is not far enough especially regarding the mentioned price difference.
You don't need anything like 60mp to make files that big, 30 would do it so easily, MF files up res so well it's pretty amazing. (edit) I guess i just repeated the guy above. It is true though.
-
70x80cm isnt any problem with a 22/33/39 mp back even for the sharpest pp eyes. check it out by yourself.
TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...
But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.
-
TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...
But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.
You can easily get lower pixel count backs at the moment, there's never been a better time to get some nice mature backs. I have no idea why anyone would buy a 60mp back unless you fairly regularly make 40 by 50 inch prints at least.
-
Woof, here is an earlier post where you mentioned "test after test" showing the Mamiya lenses are at least as good as other lenses. If there is only one test against Zeiss glass, and that only covers the 45, 80 and 210, then I guess the rest of the Zeiss lineup is still in question? Here I mean the Contax 645 lineup, since they are more modern than the V glass. I don't know about the Rollei glass. Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".
I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.
Hmmm... Carsten, I think you're onto something here when you hint that the arguments about the superiority of whatever lens system is incomplete. Anyone that reads these threads might be mislead by a few strongly opinionated or even perhaps financially biased users. It's like anything else - you must test it for yourself to know for certain if a product will meet your own needs. And I certainly would not trust any forum opinion that can not be backed up with the inclusion of the test images and test methodology.
There are a certain few posters that drop it to this forum and others, post very lovingly about an optic or other piece of gear then wait a few weeks and put it up for sale in the buy and sell forums. Usually its a piece of gear they just bought 'low' on ebay and are now trying to sell 'high'. If you're astute you can pick them out by just noticing that the main forum they post in is the buy and sell and typically these traders post very few actual photographic images or if they do post a photo its of a wall calendar or a picture of a box from some other piece of gear.
-
TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...
But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.
some guys do 160x200cm stuff ( as me ). anyway never asked me any client for higher resolutions than i deliverd, even if i handled with 5d files.
so this is for exhibits only. i often stitch, which is easy done with cameras which allow shift- lenses. but it has its limitations too and if you add to make 32bit files
you end up with 8 or more shots each motif. on the other hand it frightens me to handle on location always so huge files as the new back
generation might bring up for location work, moreso because the new p-books arent tempting at all with their glossy******.
even with the 33mp files i am at the limit if i work outside if i want to convert the shots in the hotel for previewing what i have and what not.
-
Hmmm... Carsten, I think you're onto something here when you hint that the arguments about the superiority of whatever lens system is incomplete. Anyone that reads these threads might be mislead by a few strongly opinionated or even perhaps financially biased users. It's like anything else - you must test it for yourself to know for certain if a product will meet your own needs. And I certainly would not trust any forum opinion that can not be backed up with the inclusion of the test images and test methodology.
There are a certain few posters that drop it to this forum and others, post very lovingly about an optic or other piece of gear then wait a few weeks and put it up for sale in the buy and sell forums. Usually its a piece of gear they just bought 'low' on ebay and are now trying to sell 'high'. If you're astute you can pick them out by just noticing that the main forum they post in is the buy and sell and typically these traders post very few actual photographic images or if they do post a photo its of a wall calendar or a picture of a box from some other piece of gear.
Eh hem, that was pointed at me was it?
-
TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...
But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.
Actually Alex, the current models for both Phase One and Hassy include 31 and 39mp. The P25+ (22mp) P30+ (31.6mp), and the P45+ (39mp) are still very current. The P65+ is an addition to the P+ line and only just released. Same goes for the H3DII line. It's not a one back per company type of thing. The P45+ is not a newer/upgraded model than the P30+, it just has different features and price point is sold right along with all the other in the line.
-J
-
Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".
I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.
Carsten,
I know you realize this, but I want to clarify for the posterity of this thread, *my* claim is only for the specific Hassy CF and F/FE "Zeiss" lenses I mentioned. What I think is the more important concept for folks to grasp is that just because it says "Made by Zeiss" on it doesn't necessarily mean it will be magically better than something made by "Anybody Else" including "Mamiya" -- that is the "myth" I was questioning... Also understand that even though the Hassy lenses I mentioned did not resolve as much as the Mamiya equivalents, I am not implying in any way they are inferior optics.
Hope that clarifies,
-
TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...
But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.
The answer is . . . I don't. I saw the P65 release and decided to exit the market. 60 megapixels and $42k is not what the market demands, at least not my market. I sold my P30+. I loved it. I think the IQ is close to 4x5 film. It was awesome. But I think that digital has too many draw backs and is too expensive to justify owning an MFDB, at least when my editorial clients are even more broke this year than last year, or are closing their doors, and my money clients pay for my rentals. Why own? There are good reasons to own, but I think I'm covered. Now that 22 mpx backs are going for between $5k and $8k on the used market, I'll get one. In the mean time, I rent and shoot film, or (gasp) shoot a 5D.
-
The answer is . . . I don't. I saw the P65 release and decided to exit the market. 60 megapixels and $42k is not what the market demands, at least not my market. I sold my P30+. I loved it. I think the IQ is close to 4x5 film. It was awesome. But I think that digital has too many draw backs and is too expensive to justify owning an MFDB, at least when my editorial clients are even more broke this year than last year, or are closing their doors, and my money clients pay for my rentals. Why own? There are good reasons to own, but I think I'm covered. Now that 22 mpx backs are going for between $5k and $8k on the used market, I'll get one. In the mean time, I rent and shoot film, or (gasp) shoot a 5D.
Yes, there's some great deals on lower pixel backs, I guess I'm going to have to use my P21 till it's wheels fall off as it's resale value must be quite low. Fine by me. With the new C1 4.5.1 it is better than ever.
-
Yes, there's some great deals on lower pixel backs, I guess I'm going to have to use my P21 till it's wheels fall off as it's resale value must be quite low. Fine by me. With the new C1 4.5.1 it is better than ever.
The P21, Aptus 17 are great deals right now. The P21 makes a really nice file. All a people shooter really needs. Really, really great backs. P25 and Aptus 22 backs can be had cheap. Apparently Sinar is selling the 54LV back, w/o adapter, for about $10k. A new Leaf 54s back, the fastest shooting back around, sells for about $10k new, if you ask. So, there should be even better deals on these backs come January, in the depths of the recession.
-
Eh hem, that was pointed at me was it?
No, no not you My post was more of general "caveat emptor" type of post. There are several (and really just one in particular) traders who do a disservice to the photo community by posting inaccurate or faulty claims about how great a lens or piece of gear is only for their own self serving interests of driving up demand just prior to their sale. I want to point out that I am also not referring to any of the dealers or manufactures reps that frequent these boards.
-
The P21, Aptus 17 are great deals right now. The P21 makes a really nice file. All a people shooter really needs. Really, really great backs. P25 and Aptus 22 backs can be had cheap. Apparently Sinar is selling the 54LV back, w/o adapter, for about $10k. A new Leaf 54s back, the fastest shooting back around, sells for about $10k new, if you ask. So, there should be even better deals on these backs come January, in the depths of the recession.
And there is a camera named 5D Mark II which will make wonderful images for less than $3k new and there is a Sony which makes great images for under $3k. Now don't come back to me with the MFDB look SOOOO fucking better and different, I have own both a MFDB and DSLR and yes there are differences, but in the End the images matters 1000 times more than the tiny difference between both systems.
Sorry had to say it :-P
-
And there is a camera named 5D Mark II which will make wonderful images for less than $3k new and there is a Sony which makes great images for under $3k. Now don't come back to me with the MFDB look SOOOO fucking better and different, I have own both a MFDB and DSLR and yes there are differences, but in the End the images matters 1000 times more than the tiny difference between both systems.
Sorry had to say it :-P
Down boy.
First off, I never said anything to contradict your statement. I agree, which is (one of the reasons) why I sold my MFDB. I can get the "look" by shooting film and clients pay for rentals if an MFDB is necessary.
No sorry needed, my partner and I have four 5Dmk2s on order. Yes, four. My partner and I have a production company. We have a raft of Sony EX1 and EX3s, and a Red 1. These 5d2s might open up new avenues to us.
Yes, there is something about MFDB that is different. At $5k USD, what the fuck, why not. I looked at the P30+ sitting on the shelf, unused, and thought: why not get rid of this thing, the whole industry is about the crash, and I'm mainly shooting video now, why not free up the capital for something else? At $7k, its no bug deal.
-
And there is a camera named 5D Mark II which will make wonderful images for less than $3k new and there is a Sony which makes great images for under $3k. Now don't come back to me with the MFDB look SOOOO fucking better and different, I have own both a MFDB and DSLR and yes there are differences, but in the End the images matters 1000 times more than the tiny difference between both systems.
Sorry had to say it :-P
Goya wouldn't be Goya if his blacks weren't quite so black though....
-
Ok, we started about MFDB upgrade but ended up with downgrade to 5DMkII
But seriously, every business requires the most effective tools. That said, it's obvious that some use 5DMkII and others MFDB. Some use both. Business photographers take pics for clients and others do this for their own need of creativity and self-expression. (Of course, there is combination.) That's why we argue I guess on this topic.
-
Hmmm... Carsten, I think you're onto something here when you hint that the arguments about the superiority of whatever lens system is incomplete. Anyone that reads these threads might be mislead by a few strongly opinionated or even perhaps financially biased users. It's like anything else - you must test it for yourself to know for certain if a product will meet your own needs. And I certainly would not trust any forum opinion that can not be backed up with the inclusion of the test images and test methodology.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my real motivation is protecting my Contax 645 35mm, 80mm and 120mm Macro against (unfair) attacks. I am willing to bow to fact, but not to opinion I am as guilty as anyone of wanting what I chose to be the best.
Jack, good points; taken. It is easy to forget that it isn't all about sharpness. I do love my 500C w/ chrome 80/2.8, even if it isn't loved by anyone else.
Tmark, watch out for rolling shutter...
Anyway, we are horribly off topic here.
How about that P65+? So, how many people are planning to buy, beg or steal one (or rent)?
-
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my real motivation is protecting my Contax 645 35mm, 80mm and 120mm Macro against (unfair) attacks.
My camera never seems to get too upset never mind what people say to it or about it, they generally have fairly thick skins you know.
-
My camera never seems to get too upset never mind what people say to it or about it, they generally have fairly thick skins you know.
Especially the older Hassies But watch out for the photographers. Those guys are crazy sensitive!
-
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my real motivation is protecting my Contax 645 35mm, 80mm and 120mm Macro against (unfair) attacks. I am willing to bow to fact, but not to opinion I am as guilty as anyone of wanting what I chose to be the best.
Jack, good points; taken. It is easy to forget that it isn't all about sharpness. I do love my 500C w/ chrome 80/2.8, even if it isn't loved by anyone else.
Tmark, watch out for rolling shutter...
Anyway, we are horribly off topic here.
How about that P65+? So, how many people are planning to buy, beg or steal one (or rent)?
Every motion cam we have has a rolling shutter issue if we whip-pan. The Red has the issue, the Sonys have the issue. We don't whip-pan much because we don't shoot docs and we are all over 28 years old. The only way to avoid the rolling shutter issue in whip-pans is to turn it off!
-
I was wondering the same, as you seemed to love the Mamiya RZ and that is about as 'agricultural' as these medium format SLRs get.
The RZ is more industrial to me than agricultural, it is heavy, solid and very well made. The Sinar/Rollie camera is just poorly conceived and made, like an old piece of farm equipment rather than a fine scientific instrument.
The question I asked here went unanswered, and reading the threads that followed I think I jumped into the wrong discussion in the wrong place.
Good luck to you all, over and out.
-
Dear macfly,
... and your questions were/are...?
I seem to find none, simply and only your opinion about a camera design which has been praised by all owing and using it. There is nothing to answer to this, you have the right to have your own opinion, even against the vast majority.
But you are right also, this is the wrong thread anyway.
Best regards,
Thierry
The RZ is more industrial to me than agricultural, it is heavy, solid and very well made. The Sinar/Rollie camera is just poorly conceived and made, like an old piece of farm equipment rather than a fine scientific instrument.
The question I asked here went unanswered, and reading the threads that followed I think I jumped into the wrong discussion in the wrong place.
Good luck to you all, over and out.
-
You don't need anything like 60mp to make files that big, 30 would do it so easily, MF files up res so well it's pretty amazing. (edit) I guess i just repeated the guy above. It is true though.
From my personal experience printing my own art work, I find that 33mp has about the quality of 6x7 film depending on camera, but no way in hell it reaches 4x5 film.
It provides cleaner files but at the expense of a certain tonality.
-
Every motion cam we have has a rolling shutter issue if we whip-pan. The Red has the issue, the Sonys have the issue. We don't whip-pan much because we don't shoot docs and we are all over 28 years old. The only way to avoid the rolling shutter issue in whip-pans is to turn it off!
Rolling shutter is dramatically worse when combined with CMOS technology though. The line-by-line readout adds to the effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s)
And that is a Canon camcorder! CCD does much better here, leaving only the shutter effect. I would test the 5D2 carefully before committing to it as a video camera.
-
Rolling shutter is dramatically worse when combined with CMOS technology though. The line-by-line readout adds to the effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s)
And that is a Canon camcorder! CCD does much better here, leaving only the shutter effect. I would test the 5D2 carefully before committing to it as a video camera.
We'll see when we get them, but I don't see it as a potential problem for how we work. We block shots, usually use tripods, etc. We have never planned a whip-pan shot, and we only shoot planned shots. We're not making skateboard videos. We are buying the 5dmk2's to use as a still camera (for me) and as B or C camera for cut aways. We'll see how well the 5Dmk2 video hangs together with the Red and Sonys.
-
Peter,
Which event is that? I'd love to attend if possible.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year (http://www.captureintegration.com)
877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
Chris, I got this in my email.
Phase One invites you to see our many new innovations at Image Productions in Tampa / St Petersburg and Orlando Florida. Come and check out the world's first full-frame 60.5 mp digital back in action and explore the perfection of RAW capture in the new Capture One 4 PRO.
Chris Snipes from Image Productions and Steve Hendrix from Phase One will be your host to discuss all your digital capture needs. Live product and model sets will be available from 2:00-6:00 PM to allow you to try out the entire Phase One family of digital camera backs. We will also have a Cambowide and Arca Swiss view camera systems available for testing.
If you are not able to attend but would like more information, please contact Chris Snipes of Image Productions, Inc at 727-823-8909 Studio or chris@imageproduction.com
-
what?
sorry but that is the most irrelevant analogy I've heard.
You have a bunch of $300 hard drives that fail?
I have a propriety software for tethering my $30k back that was promised and didn't exist for years??
Sorry but where's the connection here?
From your perspective, I'd agree. Not much connection.
What I was trying to say was that quirkiness in software is often to be expected. It would be nice to say its only in the small volume productions that it is found, but it certainly seems to be more prevalent than we'd like.
As to "vaporware", that's another matter entirely, and not very forgivable.
Like other posters, C1 3.7 is rock solid and very enjoyable to use.
Sorry for the drift off topic. No more.
-
I agree with Doug here. I am sick and tired of Phase One pushing fashion studio stuff. That doesn't show what a back is capable of. This RAW image of the "cowboy" (or whoever he is) is the most impressive image sample I've ever seen. Now in addition I would like to see an outdoor shot with trees/grasses....stuff that really puts these backs to the test. (P45+ user thinking about the P65+) Eleanor
If you're looking for glossy sales pictures we can send you some large format bound sales materials or you can check out phaseone.com. You'll be looking at images with sharpening, noise reduction, skin-retouching, etc etc.
If you're looking for real-world images with raw files provided with which you can make real-world judgments of image quality then note that you're viewing the test section of our website provided as what I believe is a real value to the community.
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)