Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rainer_v on March 22, 2009, 07:13:31 pm
-
which sense has the + technology seeing the results of it here in michaels test? maybe someone may enlighten me cause w.o. help i am not.
its looks far behind the actual dslr qualities at even lower resolution,- so what the hell is this + technology for.
at least in my working field i dont see any sense for it but i would like to know how you guys rate this "hi" iso capacities of the new 65+ backs.
-
which sense has the + technology seeing the results of it here in michaels test? maybe someone may enlighten me cause w.o. help i am not.
its looks far behind the actual dslr qualities at even lower resolution,- so what the hell is this + technology for.
at least in my working field i dont see any sense for it but i would like to know how you guys rate this "hi" iso capacities of the new 65+ backs.
If low light photography is your main or a very important part of your shooting then Sensor+ won't get you there as well as a 5DII.
However I can think of many times in the last year where I had a P45+ kit over my shoulder on the way back from shooting and I saw something I wanted to shoot but knew I simply could not get there with the P45+ because it's maximum ISO was 800, and I preferred not to use it at above 400.
I did a test similar to Michael's last Friday and should be posting the results early this week. The shots I did were of my friend using only the light from streetlamps at night handheld. This is not a shot I could have taken at all with nearly any digital back, and the fact that I could do so with the same back which the next day I could shoot the highest resolution single-shot image in the world was pretty neat. I got to use the body and lens that I love.
I'll be the first to say I could have done the same thing with a 5D Mark II with a 50mm f/1.2 lens; likely that would have been a better tool.
Still, I don't see any reason not to like having more flexibility on a given back.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
which sense has the + technology seeing the results of it here in michaels test? maybe someone may enlighten me cause w.o. help i am not.
its looks far behind the actual dslr qualities at even lower resolution,- so what the hell is this + technology for.
at least in my working field i dont see any sense for it but i would like to know how you guys rate this "hi" iso capacities of the new 65+ backs.
Perhaps in a pinch if you can not afford a DSLR with high-iso capability, but I could honestly not see who could not afford a DSLR if they can afford a P65+.
Even though you can shoot at higher ISO with the Sensor+ tech, you still have to work with a large mirror and no IS/VR, making the technology fall far behind the capabilities of a DSLR with higher resolution to boot. Also if you are a photographer at the level of owning a P65+, then you have a backup with you on important shoots, and that backup is most likely a 16-24mpix DSLR.
Performance gains at ISO 400 and 800, plus higher DR across the p1 product range would be better invested R&D if you ask me, but then I'm a photographer, not a camera-manufacturer
The real plus I see in the P65+ is the sensor size, it's not much, but sometimes those extra millimetres are all you need to get the interior just right.
-
michaels crops look far worse than a 5dmk2 in my eyes. maybe i am wrong herein.... just my impression from the posted images.
-
I must say that these ISO 800 (and above) crops do not convince me at all in terms of clean files and details rendition: I have seen (and shot myself) much cleaner and better images at ISO 800 with the back I used to have, while keeping details even in the shadows, and with much less light than it seems to be the case in the presented situations (person with MacBeth chart). For me the crops are extremely filtered and smeared, with a complete loss of details, IMO.
Thierry
-
One should not forget that any comparision should be done at the same scaling.
Grab the JPG and resize it to 50% and you can compare it to a 30MP DB.
Or ~ 30% to compare it to the 5D2.
And each again 32% (depending on your monitor resolution) to view print size.
-
This is like shutting down 8 of 12 cylinders in your Ferrari in order to get better gas mileage.
-
This is like shutting down 8 of 12 cylinders in your Ferrari in order to get better gas mileage.
And if you only have enough gas left to go 10 miles, and the gas station is 12 miles away, wouldn't you be glad to shut down some cylinders and make it, rather than have to walk?
I say it all the time, and I'll say it again now – photographers have differing needs. The worst mistake that one can make is to imagine that what we need and want is the same as what someone else will. (Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).
Also, people please – do not judge image quality based on web crops. It's pointless. If a product is of practical interest to you, do your own tests. If it isn't, and it's simply academic, go by what the author says, not what you see on the web.
The most common thing that I hear when people look at prints at my gallery is .. "I can't believe that this is the same image that I saw on your web site!"
Michael
-
This is the fruit of four years of Phase R&D to improve upon the P45, and it strikes me as a sad commentary on the state of MF digital. At higher ISO, you get what looks like half the quality and half the megapixels of a D3X for 5x the price. What a technological tour de force!
-
Dear Michael,
You are certainly right about the different needs of different people, but with all due respect and being well aware of the web's limitations when it comes to show images, having posted ISO 800 images on the web myself, here is much more than simply the needs to speak about. Howard in his post below puts it rightly. I do myself not see any quality improvement in terms of "clean and detailed" ISO 800 files as compared to what I have been getting 2 years ago with a 33 MPx sensor technology and under worse light conditions, in the contrary.
Best regards,
Thierry
And if you only have enough gas left to go 10 miles, and the gas station is 12 miles away, wouldn't you be glad to shut down some cylinders and make it, rather than have to walk?
I say it all the time, and I'll say it again now – photographers have differing needs. The worst mistake that one can make is to imagine that what we need and want is the same as what someone else will. (Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).
Also, people please – do not judge image quality based on web crops. It's pointless. If a product is of practical interest to you, do your own tests. If it isn't, and it's simply academic, go by what the author says, not what you see on the web.
The most common thing that I hear when people look at prints at my gallery is .. "I can't believe that this is the same image that I saw on your web site!"
Michael
-
Howard,
Unless your comment is based on tests and photography that you yourself have done with the P65+, then I can't give it any credence.
Some of the most talented and technically astute photographers that I know have used this back in recent weeks and many are deciding to buy one themselves, because they are seeing image quality that is beyond anything that they've seen before, from any imaging device.
If your personal experience with this product is such that you disagree, then fine. We can disagree. But if you're basing your comments of web images that you've seen then I suggest that you hold your opinions, because they are simply not a reflection of what some pretty talented and savy photographers are saying.
Sensor+ does exactly what is claims it does – produces an image with almost identical quality to its unbinned version, but with two stops higher ISO, which at up to ISO 400 in 60MP mode and ISO 1600 in 15MP mode, is about as good as it gets. I for one think that its quite an accomplishment and I'm very happy to have it as an available feature.
Just remember that it was only a few short years ago that the biggest MF backs were 16 MP, and anything above ISO 100 was pretty sorry. I'd say that the jump to ISO 3200 at 15 MP with Sensor+ is therefore a pretty decent advance in technology in such a period of time, given that 60MP is just a button push away.
Michael
By the way – as a general comment to other readers as well, if I sound like I am being rhapsodic over the P65+, it's simply because I'm finding it to be the highest quality imaging device that I have ever used. People can disagree, and that's fine, but I won't leave gratuitous comments to the contrary unresponded to, because they simply don't hold much water for me.
-
I speak from experience with three Phase digital backs (currently I have a 45+) and I say that to make the point that I've been (and still am) a dedicated phase customer ever since the P25 came out. With that said, I can't understand all the hoop- la about 16 megapixels at higher iso speeds in a 60+ megapixel back. Frankly I would rather sling my Canon 5D Mk II over the other shoulder with a 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 lens, and get better 21+ megapixel high iso files. (this personal viewpoint comes from one that rarely shoots over 100 iso anyway.)
I could be a little more enthusiastic about pixel bining at 30 megapixels so am hoping Phase is working on that. Eleanor
-
Howard,
Unless your comment is based on tests and photography that you yourself have done with the P65+, then I can't give it any credence.
Some of the most talented and technically astute photographers that I know have used this back in recent weeks and many are deciding to buy one themselves, because they are seeing image quality that is beyond anything that they've seen before, from any imaging device.
If your personal experience with this product is such that you disagree, then fine. We can disagree. But if you're basing your comments of web images that you've seen then I suggest that you hold your opinions, because they are simply not a reflection of what some pretty talented and savy photographers are saying.
Sensor+ does exactly what is claims it does – produces an image with almost identical quality to its unbinned version, but with two stops higher ISO, which at up to ISO 400 in 60MP mode and ISO 1600 in 15MP mode, is about as good as it gets. I for one think that its quite an accomplishment and I'm very happy to have it as an available feature.
Just remember that it was only a few short years ago that the biggest MF backs were 16 MP, and anything above ISO 100 was pretty sorry. I'd say that the jump to ISO 3200 at 15 MP with Sensor+ is therefore a pretty decent advance in technology in such a period of time, given that 60MP is just a button push away.
Michael
By the way – as a general comment to other readers as well, if I sound like I am being rhapsodic over the P65+, it's simply because I'm finding it to be the highest quality imaging device that I have ever used. People can disagree, and that's fine, but I won't leave gratuitous comments to the contrary unresponded to, because they simply don't hold much water for me.
Michael, I have not tested the P65 back(yet) and the image quality at 60mp may very well be better at the margins than the P45. I look forward to testing how discernible that is in real world shooting and printing. However, that's not my point. I just cannot fathom sticking into that back the capability to do a 15mp file that appears from the web crop you posted to be a terribly noisy 1600 ISO that could not come close to standing up to a D3X or a 5DII file at ISO 1600. I see it the same as Phase sticking into the P65 a low def video capability.
I am very disappointed at the lack of significant progress among all of the MFDB makers. The only thing they reliably seem to be able to offer as an upgrade is more and more MP. I care so much more about dynamic range and a bunch of other things than another 10-20MP. For my needs doing landscape work, higher ISO is also not a big deal. If it were, I would buy a D3x.
Edit:
I did not find this latest Phase One piece rhapsodic. I think hyperbolic is a better fit in terms of the description of Sensor Plus technology as a "game changer".
-
I wonder how an image, taken at ISO 800 without sensor +, but with compareable post processing like noise reduction and bicubic resizing to 15MP would look?
-
And if you only have enough gas left to go 10 miles, and the gas station is 12 miles away, wouldn't you be glad to shut down some cylinders and make it, rather than have to walk?
I say it all the time, and I'll say it again now – photographers have differing needs. The worst mistake that one can make is to imagine that what we need and want is the same as what someone else will. (Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).
Also, people please – do not judge image quality based on web crops. It's pointless. If a product is of practical interest to you, do your own tests. If it isn't, and it's simply academic, go by what the author says, not what you see on the web.
Unless your comment is based on tests and photography that you yourself have done with the P65+, then I can't give it any credence.
Some of the most talented and technically astute photographers that I know have used this back in recent weeks and many are deciding to buy one themselves, because they are seeing image quality that is beyond anything that they've seen before, from any imaging device.
i think here in LL are also some of the most talented photographers and i just want to listen how many of these here are thrilled by this binning technic in its actual form.
till now i count zero.
ofcourse one can judge image quality of jpegs, as long one has a good monitor standing in front of his eyes, most here have and most have calibrated screens and eyes.
there is no problem with properly done and displayed jpeg crops.
the thing is simple: if you would display 1600/3200 iso canon 5dmk2 files they would look nicer, although still jpegs and still web.
there are really features still missed in the phase backs ( display ) so why they build things which noone is asking for. at least noone i know.
-
The question is not whether Michael's back can do 1600, it's whether the one YOU will get can do 1600.
If you're very lucky, you get a "good" back. If you're a normal customer normal you may get an ISO 200 ok back.
When I got my P45+ I paid for that lesson dearly, after buying, when I complained the dealer explained to me that it was "supposed" to be used at ISO 100 or below.
The issue isn't that a given sample sensor is noisy, it is that it will streak, and the streaks destroy the pictures. The noise behavior -eg Michalels test- of the old P45+ is actually pretty good, well comparable to a 2 gen old dSLR.
So, I have no doubt that Michael's P65+ is ok at Hi-ISO, but I would strongly recommend that anyone who needs Hi-ISO test his own camera before buying it, or get a "good" used back.
Note that the more expensive the sensor, the higher incentive for the trading company to market marginal samples.
There is zero incentive nowadays for a dSLR company to market marginal APS-C sensors, and I'd say that even all new P30+ sized sensors (HIIID31) are probably very well tested nowadays as the yield is good which also translates into the low price. There's a big difference between wriitng off a part when you have one good one in 20 made and 9 good ones out of ten.
Edmund
BTW, I think the upshot of this forum is that one can trust the good Phase and medium format dealers. By now we all know who these are. These are the ones who will tell you the truth before you buy, and make sure that what you buy works as described.
-
The first sample doesn't look too great, but the studio-comparisons are quite impressive because you always have to keep in mind two facts:
- MFDBs (or all CCD-based cameras?) don't filter their RAW-files like todays DSLRs do. So be careful when comparing noise levels on RAW-files.
- The P65+ has no microlenses, usually that means about one stop effective loss in sensitivity.
-
Have a look here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683)
Shot by myself at ISO 800 and with a 33 MPx sensor, about 1 year ago.
Best regards,
Thierry
I wonder how an image, taken at ISO 800 without sensor +, but with compareable post processing like noise reduction and bicubic resizing to 15MP would look?
-
I must say that these ISO 800 (and above) crops do not convince me at all in terms of clean files and details rendition: I have seen (and shot myself) much cleaner and better images at ISO 800 with the back I used to have, while keeping details even in the shadows, and with much less light than it seems to be the case in the presented situations (person with MacBeth chart). For me the crops are extremely filtered and smeared, with a complete loss of details, IMO.
Thierry
i could not agree more. D3x at high iso beats these files to death. clear case of overenthusiasm.
peter
-
i could not agree more. D3x at high iso beats these files to death. clear case of overenthusiasm.
peter
I do not understand comparing a P65+ to a 35mm DSLR, or, for that matter, getting all hung up about shooting the P65+ at ASA800. To me, there is only one reason to spend the money on that P65+, and that is to shoot it at the sweet spot ASA, probably 50 or 100, and at full rez. Anything else, it's like buying a sledgehammer in order to drive an 8-penny nail. Why would you do that?
Let each camera have their own projects. If you need ASA 25million, then of course, whip out a Nikon or Canon. No CCD back is going to compete with Nikon/Canon at high ASA.
Inversely, would you pit that same Nikon against the P65+ in the studio, with strobe, at full rez, at ASA 50? No, you would not.
-
Inversely, would you pit that same Nikon against the P65+ in the studio, with strobe, at full rez, at ASA 50? No, you would not.
Everything down to the consumer compacts is now competing for place in the studio. The guy who builds my electronics hardware designs routinely takes macro images of boards and components with a Coolpix that I couldn't do with any of the dSLRs I own. Ambient light, huge depth of field. Don't ask me how the camera does it, it's certainly not the photographer.
Edmund
-
Have a look here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683)
Shot by myself at ISO 800 and with a 33 MPx sensor, about 1 year ago.
Best regards,
Thierry
Sure looks like a LOT of smoothing going on in those images..
Looks like noise reduction was put on those files for sure.. The leaves are WAY to smooth... But good try..:+]
Snook
-
with all due respect Snook, the noise filtering was set at 25 in ACR, not more not less. If you would know the textures of those leaves in reality, you would understand why they are smooth: it's their nature.
Best regards,
Thierry
PS: it was in no way any "try", simply my opinion that what I see here with the P65+ at ISO 800 is simply not good, at least under such good light conditions. And as you know, I am not longer working for any brand.
Sure looks like a LOT of smoothing going on in those images..
Looks like noise reduction was put on those files for sure.. The leaves are WAY to smooth... But good try..:+]
Snook
-
the noise filtering was set at 25 in ACR, not more not less. If you would know the textures of those leaves in reality, you would understand why they are smooth: it's their nature.
Me I find the waterdrops quite soft as well. I do not suspect any kind of "try" and I don't want to bother you, not at all! But it's somewhat strange that this seems to be the sole example of the HighISO capabilities of the Sinar Backs all over the web. I am courious to see another example and preferable not in sunlight. Then again I find the noise result quite good in your example. But I find the ISO800 of the P65+ not that bad, too... with regard to print size in generic image dimensions at 300dpi. And one would certainly not use ISO800 with a MFDB when the capture is targeted to extensive upscaling and/or Galery prints.
-
I could be a little more enthusiastic about pixel bining at 30 megapixels so am hoping Phase is working on that. Eleanor
Yes, please!
-
Inversely, would you pit that same Nikon against the P65+ in the studio, with strobe, at full rez, at ASA 50? No, you would not.
No I wouldn't, but I do think before I spent $40,000 for this 60,000,000 pixel P65+with sensor Plus, I'd take a hard look at the 56,000,000 pixel Leaf 10 that cost $25,000 plus a 25,000,000 pixel Nikon D3x that sells for $8,000 and still have another $8,000 saved in my pocket.
There is a lot of zeros in that statement, but I guess we've become accustom to a lot of zeros in financial numbers lately.
Actually, I would like to have higher iso from medium format, but I doubt seriously if I would pay an extra anything for 15mpx higher iso, regardless of how these crops are received.
Edit: In the process of writing the above, I was stopped to go into a conference call on an upcoming project. We talk soul, depth, story, lighting, locations and of course numbers, but nowhere in this conversation did anybody mention megapixels, 800 iso noise in shadows or can the image be cropped down to 12% of the original frame.
Photography is not about science, it's art aided by science, not controlled and I do applaud that this phase back is trying to give us more options in regards to higher iso, but there is so much that gets missed that we really do need and really do keep asking for that I wonder if anybody that makes these cameras listens past the first few sentences.
-
I'm trading my 45+ in for the 65+ because of the incredible image quality at iso 50 and 100 at FULL RESOLUTION. The improvement with Sensor + at iso 200 and 400 at FULL RESOLUTION is welcome icing on the cake. Pixel bining never entered the equation....the last thing I want are files at 15 megapixels using pixel bining at compromised quality. I have my lightweight compact 5DII for that at 21 megapixels. I personally think Phase has done a yeoman's job with this new back but I think using 15 megapixel files as something that is going to sell the back is not going to be a huge factor. I could be very wrong but it certainly was not a factor in my decision. Eleanor
I do not understand comparing a P65+ to a 35mm DSLR, or, for that matter, getting all hung up about shooting the P65+ at ASA800. To me, there is only one reason to spend the money on that P65+, and that is to shoot it at the sweet spot ASA, probably 50 or 100, and at full rez. Anything else, it's like buying a sledgehammer in order to drive an 8-penny nail. Why would you do that?
Let each camera have their own projects. If you need ASA 25million, then of course, whip out a Nikon or Canon. No CCD back is going to compete with Nikon/Canon at high ASA.
Inversely, would you pit that same Nikon against the P65+ in the studio, with strobe, at full rez, at ASA 50? No, you would not.
-
Edit: In the process of writing the above, I was stopped to go into a conference call on an upcoming project. We talk soul, depth, story, lighting, locations and of course numbers, but nowhere in this conversation did anybody mention megapixels, 800 iso noise in shadows or can the image be cropped down to 12% of the original frame.
Photography is not about science, it's art aided by science, not controlled and I do applaud that this phase back is trying to give us more options in regards to higher iso, but there is so much that gets missed that we really do need and really do keep asking for that I wonder if anybody that makes these cameras listens past the first few sentences.
Cutie Cooter,
Of course they don't talk about ASA 800 noise -- they expect that you are technically proficient, and you have your shit together. It's an assumed thing. It's something that should never be talked about, unless you're Sarah Moon or Michael Ackerman. It's a foregone conclusion that, for the rate that they're paying you, that you're not going to deliver inferior files. Part of your job is about science; it's about having your shit together (again). It's about not setting your 5D on AutoWhiteBalance and AutoExposure, or Program, and just blasting away and expecting every file to be perfect; it's about being in command of your tools, and knowing what you're going to get.
In my eye, the only people that this P65 is designed for is rich landscape guys, or still life ad guys, or architectural guys, or even car guys -- anyone who has tons of light; is not shooting three thousand frames per day; or just, for whatever reason, wants to start his retouching on a file that's 200 or 300 megs, (whether it's needed or not). The P65 is for people who could give a damn what it costs -- "if you have to ask, then you can't afford it". I'm not saying I want it or need it, or whether you want it or need it, but if you were a car guy or a still life guy, I'd bet you'd long ago whipped out your checkbook. "Why do we deliver a 300 meg file? Because we CAN"; that's all the reason they need. I'd rather have the p65 put into this marketplace than yet another DSLR; at least somebody's upping the game. Don't tell me you wouldn't want to have a 40x60 beauty print on your wall from that back, (and I'd guarantee you you could see the difference from your Nikon). If you regularly shot studio, with ten packs, you'd love to have that back. But you don't, so that's fine too. But there is room for it in the marketplace.
-
I'm trading my 45+ in for the 65+ because of the incredible image quality at iso 50 and 100 at FULL RESOLUTION. The improvement with Sensor + at iso 200 and 400 at FULL RESOLUTION is welcome icing on the cake. Pixel bining never entered the equation....the last thing I want are files at 15 megapixels using pixel bining at compromised quality. I have my lightweight compact 5DII for that at 21 megapixels. I personally think Phase has done a yeoman's job with this new back but I think using 15 megapixel files as something that is going to sell the back is not going to be a huge factor. I could be very wrong but it certainly was not a factor in my decision. Eleanor
What did you see in the P65 files that you shot that impressed you compared to your P45 files?
-
I do a lot of high frequency finely detailed work (Eliot Porter was influential to me in this choice of subject matter) and I am able to make large prints on my 44 inch printer that make one feel like they can "walk into the image" because of the realism and micro detail available. Initially I said on one of these boards that I would never go beyond my 45+ but, alas, changed my mind. (I'll be putting some Hasselblad HC lenses on the forum for sale soon to help make up the trade- in difference)......... another reason is that on my antarctica trip my ship sailed through a place that was like none other that I'd ever seen (ice packed Lindblad Cove around 11pm). I was determined to shoot with my Phase back because the light was so otherworldly and I felt that the images would make stunning large prints. (small prints of this place don't convey what I saw). I was shooting at iso 200 and that was a stretch for me as I like to stay at 100 iso or under on Phase equipment). The light was low and I really needed more quality at 400 iso as many of the iso 200 files are soft. I felt that had I had the sensor plus technology at iso 400 at that time I would have been more satisfied with the resulting files. (However, I never would have considered shooting anything higher than 400 iso even with sensor + as I have a major aversion to noise/grain and never would have gone to the pixel bining of 15 megapixels on a Phase back when I also had my Canon at hand).
Oh also, one other reason.... a while back on a forum I also said that I wouldn't go to a larger pixel back just to be able to crop and still have a high res. image file to work with. Since that comment I injured by spine by lifting a heavy computer monitor the wrong way and that resulted in spine surgery (with fantastic results and I want to keep it that way). My surgeon told me not to go around packing 35 lbs. of equipment on my back anymore so now I'm limiting how much I take on trips, usually limited to three HC lenses, the longest being the 100 lens. With the 65+ I can now crop when necessary to simulate a longer focal length lens if need be. Eleanor
What did you see in the P65 files that you shot that impressed you compared to your P45 files?
-
I do a lot of high frequency finely detailed work (Eliot Porter was influential to me in this choice of subject matter) and I am able to make large prints on my 44 inch printer that make one feel like they can "walk into the image" because of the realism and micro detail available. Initially I said on one of these boards that I would never go beyond my 45+ but, alas, changed my mind. (I'll be putting some Hasselblad HC lenses on the forum for sale soon to help make up the trade- in difference)......... Eleanor
I understand the motivation. However, I remain sceptical that, using the very best sharpening and image enlargement techniques, I will be able to see in even very large prints a "meaningful" difference between 39mp and 60mp files.
BTW, for what the upgrade will cost you, you could probably afford in this economic environment to hire someone to carry your equipment for you for the next two years. [G]
-
the whole pixel binning sensor + tech talk got me REALLY excited when the P65 was announced....now, a year later....it comes down to that?
sorry....the files can't compare to any 20+mpix DSLR at the same iso....and that isn't even a fair comparison....i shoot at 1.4 with the 5DII all the time....which gives me an even more shallow depth of field (not scientific, just a gut feeling and remembering my own mamiyas,...) then 2.8....so even without the whole mirror slap, weight,....shake factor of MF....i can shoot at least 2 stops faster with DSLR.....so the P65+ at 1600 would compare to a 5DII at 400? not even in DR.....and i really won't go into the AF performance of any MF system (which can't even compare to the 5DII).....
when i heard about the P65+ i thought it would be a 30mpix @ 800 file as clean as a 60mpix @ 200...or something like that....
these look like iso 400 files from my P20....useable, liked the "grain" but a joke compared to D3, 5DII, DsIII,....
i totally see the point for getting a P65+, i am sure it is amazing at base iso, but it is worrying (not for me, but for DMF) that this seems to be the best they can do in terms of "highish" iso (since the DSLRs have raised the bar so high lately, you can't even call 800 high anymore)....
dead, dead, dead...i know there is still a market for it and i will be giddy to shoot with it when i need one (and rent one) but it is like 8x10 cameras....and i wouldn't not be surprised if they actually sold more of those....
the last announcement to really get me excited was the S2, but it will be the same thing....barely useable 800 at 2.8 with a heavy camera with soso AF is definitely limiting for most commercial shoots involving people...with so many other choices around....
-
BTW, for what the upgrade will cost you, you could probably afford in this economic environment to hire someone to carry your equipment for you for the next two years. [G]
or easily buy a view camera with some nice lenses and stitch the files of the P45+... in this case there is certainly almost zero difference from P45+ to P65+
-
After my equipment trade (Phase and Canon) and Hasselblad and Canon equipment sales, my final cash output will actually be quite low--much less than a view camera and "some nice lenses". eleanor
or easily buy a view camera with some nice lenses and stitch the files of the P45+... in this case there is certainly almost zero difference from P45+ to P65+
-
I could be a little more enthusiastic about pixel bining at 30 megapixels so am hoping Phase is working on that. Eleanor
There are probably a few good reasons for the binning to be a factor of four. First, every set of four pixels in the standard Bayer array contains full color information (GRGB), so complex color interpolation is not required for the binned pixels. This must help a little to mitigate the resolution loss. Second, binning improves sensitivity only by reducing electronic noise from the pixel read process (by reading fewer pixels), so the noise/sensitivity improvement is directly tied to the pixel count reduction.
-
"Why do we deliver a 300 meg file? Because we CAN"
Photographers are a paranoid bunch. It's like the arms race. Nobody stops and says, hold it, don't we have enough missles to blow up the world 40 times over? Nope, they just keep making more missles.
Maybe somebody really does need 60 million pixels, I don't know who, but it's their money so have fun, or feel secure that today (today meaning 12 months) you have the "best imaging device possible in the known history of mankind", or however this thing is labeled.
Maybe somebody really needs a 1.04 crop instead of a 1.14 crop or a 1.24 crop, but can you really see the differnce? It's not like this is measured in inches from 4x5 to 8x10.
You gotta remember that it wasn't to long ago that 6 mpx was the best imaging device in the history of mankind, then 22 mpx, 33, 39, 50, 54, 60 and I'm almost positive that someday, somebody is going to make a 400 mpx back just about the time Nikon makes a 50mpx coolpix, Canon has a 1ds Mark XXII at 150mpx and the drive space for my 24 core 12 processor mac will be the size of the AT+T world headquarters.
Still I'll bet it sells.
I also will bet that 400 mpx back will have a postage stamp lcd, requires a 30 ft. cable to view a polaroid and the batteries last for under two hours.
But really, let's get back to my earlier post, does a 60mpx Phase at $40,000 really out anything a 54mpx Leaf does at $25,000?
-
There are probably a few good reasons for the binning to be a factor of four. First, every set of four pixels in the standard Bayer array contains full color information (GRGB), so complex color interpolation is not required for the binned pixels. This must help a little to mitigate the resolution loss. Second, binning improves sensitivity only by reducing electronic noise from the pixel read process (by reading fewer pixels), so the noise/sensitivity improvement is directly tied to the pixel count reduction.
Thirdly, binning by 4 means an exact division by two in each dimension. Binning to half the resolution means the division is by the root of 2 in each dimension, meaning that the entire image will be interpolated, rather than "binned", so to speak. It is not clear what the best way is to do that, at least to me.
-
I think also that the Leaf would suit the landscape shooters better.
You don't have to crop the image as much as with the Phase.
Aptus 56x36 size is more landscape friendly and goes wider too!
Just my 2CW,
Cheers,
Willem.
-
I do a lot of high frequency finely detailed work (Eliot Porter was influential to me in this choice of subject matter) and I am able to make large prints on my 44 inch printer that make one feel like they can "walk into the image" because of the realism and micro detail available. Initially I said on one of these boards that I would never go beyond my 45+ but, alas, changed my mind. (I'll be putting some Hasselblad HC lenses on the forum for sale soon to help make up the trade- in difference)......... another reason is that on my antarctica trip my ship sailed through a place that was like none other that I'd ever seen (ice packed Lindblad Cove around 11pm). I was determined to shoot with my Phase back because the light was so otherworldly and I felt that the images would make stunning large prints. (small prints of this place don't convey what I saw). I was shooting at iso 200 and that was a stretch for me as I like to stay at 100 iso or under on Phase equipment). The light was low and I really needed more quality at 400 iso as many of the iso 200 files are soft. I felt that had I had the sensor plus technology at iso 400 at that time I would have been more satisfied with the resulting files. (However, I never would have considered shooting anything higher than 400 iso even with sensor + as I have a major aversion to noise/grain and never would have gone to the pixel bining of 15 megapixels on a Phase back when I also had my Canon at hand).
Oh also, one other reason.... a while back on a forum I also said that I wouldn't go to a larger pixel back just to be able to crop and still have a high res. image file to work with. Since that comment I injured by spine by lifting a heavy computer monitor the wrong way and that resulted in spine surgery (with fantastic results and I want to keep it that way). My surgeon told me not to go around packing 35 lbs. of equipment on my back anymore so now I'm limiting how much I take on trips, usually limited to three HC lenses, the longest being the 100 lens. With the 65+ I can now crop when necessary to simulate a longer focal length lens if need be. Eleanor
Hi
This might be off topic & since you are trying to save weight on your equipment. Have you thought about going to the Mamiya platform? This would give you access to the 28mm & maybe Phase would have some added incentive for you to switch over? I know my partner prefers the Mamiya over the H series because the lenses are lighter.
Thanks Denis
-
That's exactly what Michael Reichmann did!
-
Hi Denis, no I really didn't consider the new Phase camera system. I'm so confident in my H2 and several prime lenses that I decided to stick with that. My travel "system" is one H2 body and 3 primes..all very very sharp and reasonably fast and reasonably light....the 50, 80, and 100/ 2.2. All that adds up to be reasonably lightweight and compact. One of the lenses I'll be selling is the HC zoom.....great lens but too bulky and heavy for me. Eleanor
Hi
This might be off topic & since you are trying to save weight on your equipment. Have you thought about going to the Mamiya platform? This would give you access to the 28mm & maybe Phase would have some added incentive for you to switch over? I know my partner prefers the Mamiya over the H series because the lenses are lighter.
Thanks Denis
-
the high iso noise performance seems rather disappointing it is imho below what actual hasselblad backs deliver today without an extra fee. ( maybe + stands for + marketing hype ). but i think DR is at least as important as noise. with a canon @ 3200 we still get around 7-9 stops of useable dynamic range how does mf compare ?
-
I'm trading my 45+ in for the 65+ because of the incredible image quality at iso 50 and 100 at FULL RESOLUTION.
Congratulations on your new camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).
For my needs (fine art landscape) it does feel like the high ISO capabilities is like shutting down 8 of my 12 cylinders--but you're absolutely right--there are many others for which this is a perfectly acceptable compromise. And for those folks, having the option may be a big advantage.
That being said, I also test drove a P65+ a couple of months ago (non Sensor+ version). All my tests were done at full resolution, because, like Elenor, I do print large, and I'm not interested in a 15MP image from the back at any ISO, really.
But at full resolution, I did not find even its low-ISO noise performance to be on par with the P45+ in areas of smooth tonality (low frequency). Of course the 20% increase in resolution was welcome, but I found the files to have a characteristic 'Dalsa' look that I see with the Leaf and Sinar 33Mpxl products which I do not like as much as the Phase/Kodak look.
Again, this is totally subjective. Colleagues have commented that the Dalsa-based imagers deliver noise that looks much more film-like, or natural--and I agree, they do. But for low-ISO outdoor/natural light work, I prefer not to see any grain. Whatever Phase has done with the KAF-39000 has yet to be equalled to my eyes.
I have no argument or quibble with those who have fallen in love with the P65+. I found the improved shooting speed to be much more welcome than I had expected, for example. I just thought that folks might be interested in knowing that not everyone has fallen in love with the P65+ -- at least, not in its current offering.
Best,
-Brad
-
(Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).
Michael
I thought they were less than nine, but apparently there are quite a bunch of fashion photographers that use that button to makes small prints, from tiny portable printers, for the fashion editors that still want to stick their polaroids and look how the "story" is progressing....
not mentioning event photographers that sell their images on the spot.
I do not know if that was worth to make a direct print button, but apparently Canon cares.
-
Brad, did you download the new 65+ image offered on the capture integration site...the image of the bar? The smooth tonalities in this jpg sample really impressed me. I printed out a portion of the image (sized large at about 300 dpi) and was again, quite impressed. Think this jpg was from a production sample back. Eleanor
For my needs (fine art landscape) it does feel like the high ISO capabilities is like shutting down 8 of my 12 cylinders--but you're absolutely right--there are many others for which this is a perfectly acceptable compromise. And for those folks, having the option may be a big advantage.
That being said, I also test drove a P65+ a couple of months ago (non Sensor+ version). All my tests were done at full resolution, because, like Elenor, I do print large, and I'm not interested in a 15MP image from the back at any ISO, really.
But at full resolution, I did not find even its low-ISO noise performance to be on par with the P45+ in areas of smooth tonality (low frequency). Of course the 20% increase in resolution was welcome, but I found the files to have a characteristic 'Dalsa' look that I see with the Leaf and Sinar 33Mpxl products which I do not like as much as the Phase/Kodak look.
Again, this is totally subjective. Colleagues have commented that the Dalsa-based imagers deliver noise that looks much more film-like, or natural--and I agree, they do. But for low-ISO outdoor/natural light work, I prefer not to see any grain. Whatever Phase has done with the KAF-39000 has yet to be equalled to my eyes.
I have no argument or quibble with those who have fallen in love with the P65+. I found the improved shooting speed to be much more welcome than I had expected, for example. I just thought that folks might be interested in knowing that not everyone has fallen in love with the P65+ -- at least, not in its current offering.
Best,
-Brad
-
I support the development of the P65+ for one reason only: To be able to remove the viewfinder from my H2, and grab that stupid cardboard mask (from the old P45 days), and take that mask, and hurl it as far as humanly possible, and get back to looking thru a camera the proper way, and seeing the whole frame.
My hope is that one day, that P65+ will drop in price if they get the volume up, and the price down, and one by one, Contax users, and H users, and everyone else, can do that ceremonial "Removing Of the Mask", and they toss that damn thing in the campfire, never to be seen again.
That single item alone is why I want everybody here to order a P65+, and shoot their cameras like they ought to be shot.
Having a mask in the viewfinder is like buying a sports car, but then cutting a four inch long 2x4 and sticking it underneath the accelerator. It's just not right, in any way.
-
For my needs (fine art landscape) it does feel like the high ISO capabilities is like shutting down 8 of my 12 cylinders--but you're absolutely right--there are many others for which this is a perfectly acceptable compromise. And for those folks, having the option may be a big advantage.
That being said, I also test drove a P65+ a couple of months ago (non Sensor+ version). All my tests were done at full resolution, because, like Elenor, I do print large, and I'm not interested in a 15MP image from the back at any ISO, really.
But at full resolution, I did not find even its low-ISO noise performance to be on par with the P45+ in areas of smooth tonality (low frequency). Of course the 20% increase in resolution was welcome, but I found the files to have a characteristic 'Dalsa' look that I see with the Leaf and Sinar 33Mpxl products which I do not like as much as the Phase/Kodak look.
Again, this is totally subjective. Colleagues have commented that the Dalsa-based imagers deliver noise that looks much more film-like, or natural--and I agree, they do. But for low-ISO outdoor/natural light work, I prefer not to see any grain. Whatever Phase has done with the KAF-39000 has yet to be equalled to my eyes.
I have no argument or quibble with those who have fallen in love with the P65+. I found the improved shooting speed to be much more welcome than I had expected, for example. I just thought that folks might be interested in knowing that not everyone has fallen in love with the P65+ -- at least, not in its current offering.
Best,
-Brad
I am considering a move to a MFDB. I also do mainly nature, landscape and cityscapes. I said this in a different forum, but the sensor + binning to get 1/2 the resolution for higher ISO is not useful to me. I would much prefer the long exposure capability of the p45+ (but I want the resolution of the p65). This is much more useful for low light landscapes, star trails, light painting, extreme exposures of water/ocean to get the "fog" look, northern lights, very low light interiors, night shots. These seem to be the type of creative uses that persons using the p65 in the field would be interested in (studio is a different story but even there, where you control the light, why go high ISO and low resolution?).
No MF camera is a really useful sports, concert, theatre, photojournalism, street photography, or action tool and these are the main things that high ISO quality matters for. A DSLR is superior to the p65 every time for this. To call the p65 high ISO/low resolution mode a "game changer" just makes no sense to me. I can plop for a p45+ and a canon or nikon DSLR with many lenses for the extra cost of a p65.
I would love the high resolution, but until Phase can work out the long exposure benefit, the sensor+ is no incentive for me.
Just one photographer's thought.
Guy
-
Having a mask in the viewfinder is like buying a sports car, but then cutting a four inch long 2x4 and sticking it underneath the accelerator. It's just not right, in any way.
Uh, no just a 1" long 2x4 underneath the accelerator.
(http://www.imagehut.eu/images/50281Picture%207.jpg)
-
No I didn't. I shot with one for a day.
Optechs Seattle was kind enough to let me put one through its paces for an afternoon (Phase One AFD III, P65+ kit). I shot and kept dozens of raw files from the back taken in different scenarios.
The concern I have about taking a JPEG file, is even the act of compressing as a JPEG can mask detail (particularly high frequency detail).
I'm upgrading my array at the moment, so my library is offline (I've actually been bitten by the Seagate 1.5TB HD firmware bug ), so it may be a couple of weeks before I'm back on my feet again, but I'd be happy to share a raw file with you if you'd like to take a look at one.
Let me know,
-Brad
Brad, did you download the new 65+ image offered on the capture integration site...the image of the bar? The smooth tonalities in this jpg sample really impressed me. I printed out a portion of the image (sized large at about 300 dpi) and was again, quite impressed. Think this jpg was from a production sample back. Eleanor
-
That comparison is not correct to scale, this is not either but by my document it should be "more" like this:
)
Uh, no just a 1" long 2x4 underneath the accelerator.
(http://www.imagehut.eu/images/50281Picture%207.jpg)
-
Concerning yourself with the P65+ size compared to 645 frame all seems moot.
Mamiya AFDI/II/II has 94% viewfinder coverage
Contax 645 AF has 95% viewfinder coverage
Hassy H - "The Hv 90X viewfinder offers near 100% image view" which tells me nothing of truth.
So who cares if the P65+ sensor area matches the 645 frame size. Absolutely splitting hairs or fraction of hairs. You are not shooting cameras where you actually see 100% unless it's an RZ or AFi type camera. So for 645 it's back to how it was with film with the P65+.
We can talk about slightly different variations in film-gates, viewfinder coverage, etc etc etc.
Or you can do this...
1) pick up a Mamiya AFDI, II, III or Phase One 645 with NO mask installed
2) put a P65+ on it
3) frame and take a shot
4) see that the image matches what you framed
What you see (with no mask at all) is what you get... does anything else matter??
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
(http://www.imagehut.eu/images/50281Picture%207.jpg)
The above is not accurate, below is from our technical department. Not only is the purple not accurate, the artist used a fatter marker. But, as John mentions, it is essentially like shooting with film. There is no mask issue.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
[attachment=12478:P1_P65_.png]
-
No I didn't. I shot with one for a day.
Optechs Seattle was kind enough to let me put one through its paces for an afternoon (Phase One AFD III, P65+ kit). I shot and kept dozens of raw files from the back taken in different scenarios.
The concern I have about taking a JPEG file, is even the act of compressing as a JPEG can mask detail (particularly high frequency detail).
I'm upgrading my array at the moment, so my library is offline (I've actually been bitten by the Seagate 1.5TB HD firmware bug ), so it may be a couple of weeks before I'm back on my feet again, but I'd be happy to share a raw file with you if you'd like to take a look at one.
Let me know,
-Brad
Files from the P65+ will continue to be enhanced with software upgrades. Certainly a pre-production file will not match a file from a current P65+ or one processed through soon to be released C1 4.7, which will improve high ISO and long exposure results.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Steve I am not at all interested in any of the sensor plus 15 meg.pixel files in a 60 meg.pixel back. What I am interested in is clean (or nearly so) files at max. resolution at iso 100, 200, and 400. Currently how do files with the 65+ at these iso speeds compare to comparable iso speeds in the 45+ for instance. (assuming they are processed with current Capture One software. Many thanks, Eleanor
Files from the P65+ will continue to be enhanced with software upgrades. Certainly a pre-production file will not match a file from a current P65+ or one processed through soon to be released C1 4.7, which will improve high ISO and long exposure results.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
The above is not accurate, below is from our technical department. Not only is the purple not accurate, the artist used a fatter marker. But, as John mentions, it is essentially like shooting with film. There is no mask issue.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
[attachment=12478:P1_P65_.png]
Boy you camera sales guys are sensitive.
Don't blame me, blame Yair, I just lifted his image.
Anyway, here in Cooter, Mo., we use those big china markers for our Kodak Gold Contact Sheets so I think those lines look pretty small.
-
Steve I am not at all interested in any of the sensor plus 15 meg.pixel files in a 60 meg.pixel back. What I am interested in is clean (or nearly so) files at max. resolution at iso 100, 200, and 400. Currently how do files with the 65+ at these iso speeds compare to comparable iso speeds in the 45+ for instance. (assuming they are processed with current Capture One software. Many thanks, Eleanor
From what I've seen for myself, you gain a bit on the P45+. Not enough to make it a real upgrade.
I'm impatiently waiting for the P85+.
Edmund
-
Just one photographer's thought.
Guy
I came to the very same conclusion.
In a nutshell:
+ faster shot-to-shot speed
+ 20% more resolution
- No long exposure capability
- Increased luminance noise at low ISO in available light over P45+
- Not-particularly-useful (for my work at least) 15MPxl mode for not-particularly-high high ISO performance
- Significant price jump
-Brad
-
i had exactly the same with upgrading to my 5dMk2.
plastic fantastic body
simply bad image quality compared to whatever digital back at low iso
bad autofocus
very easy to get "moving blurred" images because of bad body construction
miles away from the built of real body such as 1DsMk2/3/1
bad balance when using pro lenses etc....
but still it is the most bought camera among pro's.
-
I came to the very same conclusion.
In a nutshell:
+ faster shot-to-shot speed
+ 20% more resolution
- No long exposure capability
- Increased luminance noise at low ISO in available light over P45+
- Not-particularly-useful (for my work at least) 15MPxl mode for not-particularly-high high ISO performance
- Significant price jump
-Brad
And I am curious how well large format lenses will perform with the 6 micron chip at larger movements on view cameras.
Too, stitching with view cameras seems to be limited. The wide lenses' image circle do not cover a double shoot in portrait mode (admitted just with regard to the spec of the Digitars):
[attachment=12501:digitar_..._circles.jpg] [attachment=12503:imagecir..._digitar.jpg] [attachment=12504:imagecir...r_stitch.jpg]
As on the P45 at larger shift there is already significant loss of sharpness (still good enough, but there is of course) I doubt that there will be any advantage over the P45 in this particular field.
-
Of the P65+, Bradley Gibson says
- Increased luminance noise at low ISO in available light over P45+
Is that based on
a. low ISO speed sample images from the P45+ and P65+ displayed at equal size
b. low ISO speed sample images from the P45+ and P65+ displayed at equal PPI, so enlarging the P65+ images about 20% more
c. a prediction based solely on pixel size, ignoring the technological improvements in the new 6 micron cell design claimed by Dalsa?
-
i had exactly the same with upgrading to my 5dMk2.
plastic fantastic body
simply bad image quality compared to whatever digital back at low iso
bad autofocus
very easy to get "moving blurred" images because of bad body construction
miles away from the built of real body such as 1DsMk2/3/1
bad balance when using pro lenses etc....
but still it is the most bought camera among pro's.
shot yesterday with 5dmk2 in left copper mine.
two hours walk inside the earth together with my assistant till we met this dead monster..
90-100% hum, app 30 degree temp,
800iso. 30 sec exp. 24-105 canon L lens ( a selected one ).
smallest gitzo carbon ( 200gr? ),
2 canon 420ex flashes with several exposures.
i recommend to repeat a shot as this with mf equipment with or without "+" technology.
[attachment=12528:090326_1...k2_small.jpg]
100% crop of image
[attachment=12529:090326_1...mk2_crop.jpg]
-
Dear tho_mas,
I did shoot this one sample because I was asked at the time, and it was shot and processed in Brumbaer, then uploaded to the site I have indicated, within 1 hour, no special trics or whatsoever. What you might have a look at is rather the shadows and how much details are left (water drops are by definition soft). I am sure that there are other such high ISO shots, but "without" me. I do not longer have such a back at disposal, since not longer working for this company.
What I can say and assure you of, is that there was VERY little light, taken during the first sun rays in the morning at around 6.30am (in Bangkok). My guess is that there was about 1/10th of available light as compared to Michael's MacBeth Chart samples.
Best regards,
Thierry
Me I find the waterdrops quite soft as well. I do not suspect any kind of "try" and I don't want to bother you, not at all! But it's somewhat strange that this seems to be the sole example of the HighISO capabilities of the Sinar Backs all over the web. I am courious to see another example and preferable not in sunlight. Then again I find the noise result quite good in your example. But I find the ISO800 of the P65+ not that bad, too... with regard to print size in generic image dimensions at 300dpi. And one would certainly not use ISO800 with a MFDB when the capture is targeted to extensive upscaling and/or Galery prints.
-
I thought they were less than nine, but apparently there are quite a bunch of fashion photographers that use that button to makes small prints, from tiny portable printers, for the fashion editors that still want to stick their polaroids and look how the "story" is progressing....
not mentioning event photographers that sell their images on the spot.
I do not know if that was worth to make a direct print button, but apparently Canon cares.
The direct print button is also for the Japanese market, where it is very popular. Or so I'm told.
-
My guess is that there was about 1/10th of available light as compared to Michael's MacBeth Chart samples.
Thanks Thierry!
I do not longer have such a back at disposal, since not longer working for this company.
yes, I know. That was totaly unexpected and inexplicable news. Truly hope everything goes well for you (so far) ...