Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: perbernal on April 28, 2009, 03:03:59 pm
-
Just got this emailed to me;
Announcing a Capture Revolution - The P 40+!
For the first time in Phase One's history we hereby announce a new product AND at the same time it's availability! Meet the P 40+...
P 40+ will provide a Capture Revolution. With capture rates up to 1.8 fps, it is the fastest digital back in the market – ever. Adding to this, P 40+ also sports Sensor+, which means it has scalable resolution (40/10 mega pixels) and a high quality ISO working range of between 50 and 3200.
So what about the price? This is another very attractive feature of the P 40+! With list prices from 19,990 USD / 14,990 EUR we decided to set very aggressive prices to help you get the P 40+ on the photographer’s most wanted list!
-
Do you happen to know the sensor size?
-
Do you happen to know the sensor size?
This is what I have been told;
Sensor size 33x44
40 megapixel back with option to use and shoot 10 megapixel
ISO 50-800 with 40 megapixel setting
ISO 200-3200 with 10 megapixel setting
1 minute exposure time
1.8 fps.
-
DO we know yet if the chip as micro-lenses preventing view camera use?
-
Some clarifications:
P40+ is the first Phase One digital back to actually have the amount of megapixels match the name of the product! Yeah, baby!
Also:
*Very fast - faster than any current portable digital back on the market!
- details: 1.2 frames per second @ 40MP, 1.8 frames per second @ 10MP (with Sensor Plus activated)
*High resolution - more resolution than H3DII-39, P45+, Aptus 75s/Sinar 75LV
- details: 40 megapixels, 6 micron sensor at 44mm x 33mm.
*Good high ISO performance - from what I've seen close to 2 stops better than P25+/p45+
- details: 50-800 at 40MP, 200 - 3200 at 10MP (with Sensor Plus).
*Versatility - works on view cameras with very little need for LCC, no wake up necessary
- details: No issues like P30+ with micro lenses, and even less need for LCC than other chips.
*Bonus - Sensor Plus Technology
- details: Allows 10MP images at up to 3200 ISO.
*Great price
- details: $19,990 Digital Back/$21,990 Digital Back, P1 Camera & 80mm Digital Lens
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
"Jimmy cracked corn...."
-
Steve,
Curious if it's the same chassis, FW400 and LCD?
Thanks,
Billy
-
Really nice specs, Steve, but without a revised LCD -- one that's much larger and much more accurate -- it's sorta falling on deaf ears.
How long do people have to ask about LCD before they respond? How long?
But good luck with it.
-
And the screen?... (drumroll...)
Some clarifications:
P40+ is the first Phase One digital back to actually have the amount of megapixels match the name of the product! Yeah, baby!
Also:
*Very fast - faster than any current portable digital back on the market!
- details: 1.2 frames per second @ 40MP, 1.8 frames per second @ 10MP (with Sensor Plus activated)
*High resolution - more resolution than H3DII-39, P45+, Aptus 75s/Sinar 75LV
- details: 40 megapixels, 6 micron sensor at 44mm x 33mm.
*Good high ISO performance - from what I've seen close to 2 stops better than P25+/p45+
- details: 50-800 at 40MP, 200 - 3200 at 10MP (with Sensor Plus).
*Versatility - works on view cameras with very little need for LCC, no wake up necessary
- details: No issues like P30+ with micro lenses, and even less need for LCC than other chips.
*Bonus - Sensor Plus Technology
- details: Allows 10MP images at up to 3200 ISO.
*Great price
- details: $19,990 Digital Back/$21,990 Digital Back, P1 Camera & 80mm Digital Lens
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
So why would it not be on the Phase One site yet? or even dealer sites.
And the biggest question, is it the same screen as all other Phase backs. If it has the same screen then I think it's time for all of us to sell everything medium format and buy D3X's because the industry is not listening while the rest of the world is moving at a fast pace.
Dealer's were asked to hold off until the PUBLIC announcement. The OP appears to have gotten the Phase-One internal memo.
It's very good policy since it gives folks like me the time to get answers to all (or at least most) of OUR questions so that we can actually inform the public with accuracy.
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/)
-
Some clarifications:
...
*Versatility - works on view cameras with very little need for LCC, no wake up necessary
- details: No issues like P30+ with micro lenses, and even less need for LCC than other chips.
...
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
So, i suppose this is a Dalsa Sensor then?
Tom
-
I suppose 44x33 from this 6 micron technology:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....47&hl=dalsa (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30447&hl=dalsa)
-
Some clarifications:
P40+ is the first Phase One digital back to actually have the amount of megapixels match the name of the product! Yeah, baby!
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
I am so happy that at least some one has a sense of humor. Almost good enough to spew coffee into the keyboard, but not quite....
-
Really nice specs, Steve, but without a revised LCD -- one that's much larger and much more accurate -- it's sorta falling on deaf ears.
How long do people have to ask about LCD before they respond? How long?
But good luck with it.
Phase may get a kick back from Apple. So we continue to buy those Macbook Pro.
It is pretty astonishing that we are at an age were the iPod touch with its great lcd display exists, it can be got for 199$ and a 15K device still is released with an early 1990 Casio grade display.
Someone will chime in and explain to me the old story of: research and development cost and implementation issues for a device that is produced on small quantities, but IMO the "dots" still don't connect.
To my view it is the case of a company who knows that can still get away with this kind of policies.
A part for that, nice specs for this P30+ replacement.
-
Will the p40+ do long exposure times like the p45+ or are we still relegated to "old" sensor technology for that? Also, will the p45+ be replaced by this newer model?
Guy
-
Will the p40+ do long exposure times like the p45+ or are we still relegated to "old" sensor technology for that? Also, will the p45+ be replaced by this newer model?
Guy
Guy:
This is a Dalsa sensor. Think of it as a smaller (and much less expensive) version of the P65+. So, it will share similarities, including the long exposure limitations, same chassis, and yes - the LCD screen, unfortunately.
None of our existing products have been discontinued. P45+ and P30+ units are still considered current, and are still manufactured, albeit at lower pricing than last year ($23,990 and $14,990, respectively).
Steve Hendrix
-
Why, Steve, why the same crappy LCD?!?!? For Pete's sake.
-
Geez and I was a good boy this time. Let's wait till it is all announced by Phase even though Steve stepped in here. We really should wait for the official word and specs. like the LCD.
-
Nevermind. LOL
-
Guy, read Steve's post just above mine ;-)
" So, it will share similarities, including the long exposure limitations, same chassis, and yes - the LCD screen, unfortunately. "
-
Did anyone say it is the same LCD. No it has not been released officially YET.
I would not assume anything until it is officially posted.
Guy, it is, and sorry to say, because it obscures some very positive features.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
I deleted my post after I saw that , I actually missed that sorry folks. I do understand , there is just no room on the back for a bigger screen unless they moved the 4 buttons to the corners and that can cause problems as well. Funny thing is I JUST picked up my P30+ after selling my P25+. LOL . I kind of knew what was coming so not a big deal for me but someday i would like to upgrade to the P40 plus sounds SWEET and FAST. Steve would love to test it bud. LOL
-
So can you tell us why Steve??
Funny, just saw this quote from cooter:
"Someday I assume somebody from medium format land is going to actually shoot a dslr side by side one of their cameras and realize how difficult they've made the process, simply because the lcd preview is so rough.
I've done it and a client will look at a Nikon D3 lcd vs. a Phase, point at the Nikon and say "use the big camera"."
Best,
-
This is a Dalsa sensor. Think of it as a smaller (and much less expensive) version of the P65+. So, it will share similarities, including the long exposure limitations, same chassis, and yes - the LCD screen, unfortunately.
It would be really interesting to hear the board of directors' logic on not improving the screen, possibly the single-most, if not the *only* thing consistently criticised by absolutely everyone who has ever discussed Phase backs. Only good for histogram viewing is something I have heard too many times. At the very least it should be made bright enough to be viewed in full daylight.
Anyway, I actually wanted to ask something else: is Phase One now with Dalsa, instead of Kodak, or will there be more Kodak backs?
-
1 minute exposure time , crappy LCD , batteries for a mobile phone
I have sold my P45 and it's good to know that Leica S2 is coming soon
-
This back kind of reminds me of the "me too" point&shoots
-
1 minute exposure time , crappy LCD , batteries for a mobile phone
I have sold my P45 and it's good to know that Leica S2 is coming soon
i heard a rumour about a new back coming.... i was so hoping it would be a back that i would be excited about- but honestly, this is a real disappointment.
The screen is a big issue. the sensor size is small. so what if it can shoot 1.2 frames a second- its hardly better than the p30+. iso is only any good at a useless 10MP.
im sure its sharper than the p30+ not having any microlenses, but the iso claim isnt any higher.
all this makes the leaf aptus look better and better (and ive owned both brands)- better screen, IMO better software, more image ontrol at the back, and fast shooting and cheap price (comparing an A75s).
paul
-
1 minute exposure time
unsurprisingly that there is a crop version of the p65+ to come.
but the strategy is not understandable...
long exposure was a usp of the phase backs. so capture one v3 was.
now long exposure is limited to the expiring product line and capture one v4 is still far away from v3 regarding workflow speed and overall responsiveness (and stability on older computer systems).
"sensor +" might be a kind of usp but very hard to sell against current hi res dslr as long as "sensor +" is limited to a quarter of the resolution.
the p65+ still has the usp "full frame" (and highest resolution).
what is the usp of the p40+ compared to the p45/+ or the p30/+ and over the similar backs of leaf, sinar, hasselblad?
the price maybe?
strange...
-
unsurprisingly that there is a crop version of the p65+ to come.
but the strategy is not understandable...
long exposure was a usp of the phase backs. so capture one v3 was.
now long exposure is limited to the expiring product line and capture one v4 is still far away from v3 regarding workflow speed and overall responsiveness (and stability on older computer systems).
"sensor +" might be a kind of usp but very hard to sell against current hi res dslr as long as "sensor +" is limited to a quarter of the resolution.
the p65+ still has the usp "full frame" (and highest resolution).
what is the usp of the p40+ compared to the p45/+ or the p30/+ and over the similar backs of leaf, sinar, hasselblad?
the price maybe?
strange...
usp?
-
usp?
unique selling proposition
-
usp?
Unique Selling Point? Just guessing here...
-
Unique Selling Point?
no ;-)
-
Unique Selling Point? Just guessing here...
It can be both proposition or point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_selling_proposition)
-
It would be really interesting to hear the board of directors' logic on not improving the screen, possibly the single-most, if not the *only* thing consistently criticised by absolutely everyone who has ever discussed Phase backs. Only good for histogram viewing is something I have heard too many times. At the very least it should be made bright enough to be viewed in full daylight.
Anyway, I actually wanted to ask something else: is Phase One now with Dalsa, instead of Kodak, or will there be more Kodak backs?
Carsten - we utilize both Dalsa and Kodak sensors.
1 minute exposure time , crappy LCD , batteries for a mobile phone
I have sold my P45 and it's good to know that Leica S2 is coming soon
Eric - you sold your P45 with long exposures, you're looking at Leica S2 and you criticize the P40+ for not having long exposures?
i heard a rumour about a new back coming.... i was so hoping it would be a back that i would be excited about- but honestly, this is a real disappointment.
The screen is a big issue. the sensor size is small. so what if it can shoot 1.2 frames a second- its hardly better than the p30+. iso is only any good at a useless 10MP.
im sure its sharper than the p30+ not having any microlenses, but the iso claim isnt any higher.
all this makes the leaf aptus look better and better (and ive owned both brands)- better screen, IMO better software, more image ontrol at the back, and fast shooting and cheap price (comparing an A75s).
paul
Paul - yes, the screen is a big issue, guilty as charged. The sensor size is the same size as a P30+, 5mm x 4mm smaller than P45+ (4mm x 3mm smaller than Aptus 75s). We already have a large sensor size, this is a different type of product. Speed-wise, 1.2 frames per second is a lot faster than the P30+ at one frame every 1.25 seconds, that is a significant difference. The high ISO even at 40MP appears to me 2 stops better than P25+/P45+, very close to P30+. You are welcome to your opinion about the Aptus - I disagree on most counts.
what is the usp of the p40+ compared to the p45/+ or the p30/+ and over the similar backs of leaf, sinar, hasselblad?
the price maybe?
strange...
Compared to P45+: Way faster, slightly higher resolution, better high ISO, less expensive
Compared to P30+: Faster, able to use on view cameras with no LCC in most cases
There are no exactly similar Hasselblad or Leaf products. The most similar products that come to mind are H3DII-31 or Aptus 65s, but P40+ shoots faster than both, will work on view cameras (unlike H3DII-31) and has better high ISO than Aptus 65s.
And the pricing is a definite USP (not sure what that stands for, but I think I have your meaning).
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
there is just no room on the back for a bigger screen
What?
Did Phase get a deal if the bought a lifetime supply of black metal boxes with a small hole?
OK, even if they got the 20,000 unit discount how about an lcd as good as the original 1ds?
And since were on the subject what is the real difference between 40mpx and 31mpx.
I wish them luck, but I don't get it.
B
-
Carsten - we utilize both Dalsa and Kodak sensors.
Eric - you sold your P45 with long exposures, you're looking at Leica S2 and you criticize the P40+ for not having long exposures?
Paul - yes, the screen is a big issue, guilty as charged. The sensor size is the same size as a P30+, 5mm x 4mm smaller than P45+ (4mm x 3mm smaller than Aptus 75s). We already have a large sensor size, this is a different type of product. Speed-wise, 1.2 frames per second is a lot faster than the P30+ at one frame every 1.25 seconds, that is a significant difference. The high ISO even at 40MP appears to me 2 stops better than P25+/P45+, very close to P30+. You are welcome to your opinion about the Aptus - I disagree on most counts.
Compared to P45+: Way faster, slightly higher resolution, better high ISO, less expensive
Compared to P30+: Faster, able to use on view cameras with no LCC in most cases
There are no exactly similar Hasselblad or Leaf products. The most similar products that come to mind are H3DII-31 or Aptus 65s, but P40+ shoots faster than both, will work on view cameras (unlike H3DII-31) and has better high ISO than Aptus 65s.
And the pricing is a definite USP (not sure what that stands for, but I think I have your meaning).
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
sorry steve- yes, the back is a lot faster, i read the specs wrong.
still, i was hoping for more. i like to blown away by new product releases, and most times i am- apples new laptops, nikons(and canons) new cameras, new cars, these all make me want to find the money to upgrade. but this anouncement has left me flat.
paul
-
Compared to P45+: Way faster, slightly higher resolution, better high ISO, less expensive
Compared to P30+: Faster, able to use on view cameras with no LCC in most cases
but less wide angle as the p45 due to the lens factor. yes... maybe a compromise of p45 and p30 - actually a faster p30 without micro lenses and with the resolution of the p45. and improved iq wise.
i'm still curious how well wide angle lenses perform with the 6 micron sensor at larger movements.
improvements regarding colour cast are very welcome.
-
i heard a rumour about a new back coming.... i was so hoping it would be a back that i would be excited about- but honestly, this is a real disappointment.
The screen is a big issue. the sensor size is small. so what if it can shoot 1.2 frames a second- its hardly better than the p30+. iso is only any good at a useless 10MP.
im sure its sharper than the p30+ not having any microlenses, but the iso claim isnt any higher.
all this makes the leaf aptus look better and better (and ive owned both brands)- better screen, IMO better software, more image ontrol at the back, and fast shooting and cheap price (comparing an A75s).
paul
the irony of the faster recycle time is that as soon as I need faster than 1 fps, I'm better off shooting with a 20mp+ dslr, because of AF speed and reliability. (maybe not with a 5d though)
If I need more than 1fps, it means that my subject is moving and on that case any dslr will deliver more good shots and sharper photos than all these MF AF systems, including the upcoming Leica and the well regarded Hasselblad.
-
the irony of the faster recycle time is that as soon as I need faster than 1 fps, I'm better off shooting with a 20mp+ dslr, because of AF speed and reliability. (maybe not with a 5d though)
If I need more than 1fps, it means that my subject is moving and on that case any dslr will deliver more good shots and sharper photos than all these MF AF systems, including the upcoming Leica and the well regarded Hasselblad.
For better or for worse a LOT of fashion shooters are pushing past 1 fps in just standard shooting. This back is almost twice as fast as a P30+ which is the current fashion-king (at least in the rental market that I know: South Beach / South Florida).
For those shooters this will be very welcome speed.
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/)
-
Drat! Phase, can I have P50+ pretty please? You know the one with the 50mp KODAK sensor that Hassy Happens to use? That way the Phase faithful can have long exposure and a decent sized chip. Pretty please? As I see it 9mp and faster shooting isnt making me want to trade in my P30+ anytime soon. Does anyone know if RED has a trade in deal on MFD gear? ;-)
-
If I need more than 1fps, it means that my subject is moving and on that case any dslr will deliver more good shots and sharper photos than all these MF AF systems, including the upcoming Leica and the well regarded Hasselblad.
Not true. The faster frame rate is useful if you are shooting fashion, for example. A DSLR will likely give you more keepers if you are shooting subjects which change distance to camera quickly, like sports, but then why would you even consider a MF system for that?
-
Drat! Phase, can I have P50+ pretty please? You know the one with the 50mp KODAK sensor that Hassy Happens to use? That way the Phase faithful can have long exposure and a decent sized chip. Pretty please? As I see it 9mp and faster shooting isnt making me want to trade in my P30+ anytime soon. Does anyone know if RED has a trade in deal on MFD gear? ;-)
What the hell you going to do with RED..
Waste a lot of time in conversion maybe..:+}
Snook
-
For better or for worse a LOT of fashion shooters are pushing past 1 fps in just standard shooting. This back is almost twice as fast as a P30+ which is the current fashion-king (at least in the rental market that I know: South Beach / South Florida).
... And they're probably shooting tethered, with a Tech, so I guess the old-timey LCD is a non-issue here as well.
Still, it is very odd to think (read: know), that if you want to shoot an image that's lit, with a Phase back, where you're balancing ambient to strobe, and that balance is delicate, then you're FORCED to shoot it with a computer chained to it.
The more you do that, the less you want to do that. But Phase has clearly voted that the LCD issue is a non-issue to them. One day, a 3.5 inch LCD is gonna show up on a Nikon or Canon, along with about 31MP, and there's gonna be an immediate Sea Change, overnight. But it's not like they weren't warned, so their demise will be of their own making.
-
My Strobe Packs can't even keep up with a Leaf Aptus 75. How many people can shoot fashion with strobes at 1.8 fps or even faster at 1 frame a second?
-
John, you are probably not mixing daylight with strobe? When doing so, the power can be (needs to be) set very low and the recycle time is usually instantaneous with most any pack at that low power setting.
Steve, I'll politely ask again, why the shrimpy LCD??
Please answer, as many people would like to know.
Best,
-
John, you are probably not mixing daylight with strobe? When doing so, the power can be (needs to be) set very low and the recycle time is usually instantaneous with most any pack at that low power setting.
Steve, I'll politely ask again, why the shrimpy LCD??
Please answer, as many people would like to know.
Best,
Lisa
I honestly do not know. As someone who has sold systems from all of the represented medium format manufacturers at one time or another, my experience with lackluster LCD's goes back quite a ways. I have asked many times and have never received a complete answer that spells out the reasons. I've heard they are difficult to source, I've heard they are difficult to implement with CCD chips the size we use and still maintain low noise, I've heard a new chassis (and the resulting new machining, costs, etc) would have to be deployed to fit a new LCD, etc. These answers have come from various manufacturers and various sources.
If I can find a reason for the size of our LCD that makes any sense I will post it here.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Ok Steve, thanks for trying ;-)
Snook: That moving Esquire cover looks pretty cool to me.
Anyway when I think of video instead of stills, it makes me think that much of the stress will be removed from the shoot, as you will not need to be selecting a thousand precise instants per day. That's where a lot of the stress comes from for me: I'll take a shot NOW, NOW and....NOW - oops, did I get that expression? Oops, she's moving again...NOW, NOW...NOW...
Whereas if you are shooting video you will have gotten every last facial expression the model made that day. And you can chose your moments for the stills later at the computer. Pretty cool. I have dabbled in video recently, and it is WAY less stressful IMO.
-
P40+ is the first Phase One digital back to actually have the amount of megapixels match the name of the product! Yeah, baby!
Thank you, Phase!!!! This is so much clearer!
I love it already.
-
My Strobe Packs can't even keep up with a Leaf Aptus 75. How many people can shoot fashion with strobes at 1.8 fps or even faster at 1 frame a second?
Never eared about that thing called the sun?
-
My Strobe Packs can't even keep up with a Leaf Aptus 75. How many people can shoot fashion with strobes at 1.8 fps or even faster at 1 frame a second?
Hi-end rental studios have Profoto packs (like the new Pro-8a) that can recycle to full power (2400Ws) in 0.9 sec or up to 20 times per sec at lowest power!
David
-
Eric - you sold your P45 with long exposures, you're looking at Leica S2 and you criticize the P40+ for not having long exposures?
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve,
The S2 is not limited in exposure time like the P40/P65 backs. According to the S2 product manager, there is no hard limit on exposure time in bulb, and there is even a convenient incrementing counter on the snazzy color OLED status screen.
David
-
Was the expected availability date of the P40+ disclosed in the leak and I missed it or will it be given at the official announcement? A little humor was intended, but I am curious about the date.
Mark Gowin
-
Steve,
The S2 is not limited in exposure time like the P40/P65 backs. According to the S2 product manager, there is no hard limit on exposure time in bulb, and there is even a convenient incrementing counter on the snazzy color OLED status screen.
David
Well, when the S2 is released and it performs hour long exposures with little noise as the P45+ does, then I will understand Eric's post better.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Was the expected availability date of the P40+ disclosed in the leak and I missed it or will it be given at the official announcement? A little humor was intended, but I am curious about the date.
Mark Gowin
Wow - did I not mention this?
Availability is immediate. Operators are waiting.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Wow - did I not mention this?
Availability is immediate. Operators are waiting.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
OK that's funny.
-
Well, when the S2 is released and it performs hour long exposures with little noise as the P45+ does, then I will understand Eric's post better.
One must have a really good reason to sell what's available now and wait for something in the distant future.
-
Very underwhelming.
Same LCD? I'm sure some people will stop to read the spec sheet after that line.
Absolutely no incentive to spend money upgrading an old back and even less to get into the MFDB game.
What did PhaseOne do? They beat the individual specs from different offerings with the P40+:
******************************************************************************
P65+, P45+,P30+, Hassy, Leaf, etc are slower
Canon/Nikon, P45+,P30+, Hassy H3D2-31/39, Leaf, have less resolution
P65+, P45+ are more expensive
But the other side of the medal:
*****************************
P65+ has more resolution
P65+, P45+, Hassy H3D2-39, Leaf Aptus 75s, Leaf Afi 10, etc have bigger sensors
Canon / Nikon, P65+, P45+, Hassy H3D2-39, Leaf Aptus 75s, Leaf Afi 10 shoot wider lenses
P45+ has way longer exposure times available
The old backs and most DSLR's have bigger pixels
Canon / Nikon / every damn Point & Shoot, iPod, iTouch, etc have better LCD's
Canon / Nikon have faster capture rates
Canon / Nikon have better battery life
Canon / Nikon have better/faster workflow
Canon / Nikon/ P30+ have better pricing
Canon / Nikon have better usability / user interfaces
Canon / Nikon have more (custom) functions that allow adopting to ones shooting style
Canon / Nikon have better weather sealing
Canon / Nikon have wireless image transmitters (WIFI)
etc
So the unique selling proposition is "THE UNIQUE COMBINATION" of features (and shortcommings).
Doesn't that mean that there's better suited offerings out there depending on the core requirement?
The P40+ is certainly the wrong offering for the current economic environment.
No sane photographer will buy a P30+/P45+ now as everyone knows that you'll loose at least 50% of the resale value as soon as you take the back out of the shop. Steve Sherman is trying to sell his Aptus 75s for 12k$. Great deal. No takers. H3D2's show up all over the place for sale. And all that second hand equipment seems to sit there or go at insanely reduced prices. The P40+ will help to kill the second hand prices even more. But is that good for a niche that is based on overcharging, minor updates, lack of long-requested features and a extremely tiny user base?
Probably very few will upgrade from P30+ or P45+ to a P40+. Going from 31/39 MP to 40 is barely noticable when printed. On screen even less. But then the smaller sensor of the P40+ compared to the P45+ will hurt many shooters (landscape, architecture, still-life, product, etc).
I'm not a marketing expert but shouldn't a new product actually LOOK NEW? It's not like anyone would trade in their car to get a car that looks exactly the same with just a different sticker on the back and 20% better performance.
Let's talk about performance. I wouldn't get a new computer that didn't at least offer 100% better performance and offer features that my old computer didn't. But quite honestly shooting a P45+/P30+ still feels like shooting a P25 five years ago.
There's groundbreaking new technology out there. Development was never as fast in the high tech business as now (check out www.engadget.com and look at Plasma, LCD, LED, OLED TV sets, miniaturization of storage and MP3 players, SSD hard drives, etc).
There are new bayer pattern designs,
black silicon,
back-illuminated sensors with better sensivity ( http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/20...069E/index.html (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200806/08-069E/index.html) )
the Fujifilm sensors with two different sizes of pixels (that could perform great if enough sensor area was available to get it up to a useful resolution level),
Foveon,
faster wifi chips,
CMOS sensors that use less energy and stay cool,
The R, B, 2xG pattern was modified by Sony once and the second green pixel was replaced with emerald.
Why are we never seeing anything like that announced for MFDB's? It seems like MFDB companies are led by old conservative farts instead of young, eager, hungry and risk-taking individuals. MFDB cutting edge?
That's probably what will slowly kill the MFDB industry.
NO REAL PROGRESS.
I have absolutely no clue about business numbers and all this is wild ass guessing but my ignorant market perception is that F&H will go completely belly up, Leaf will not have their shared Rollei/Sinar/Leaf Hy6/AFI platform any longer. Instead of crawling to Mamiya they'll just go belly up because Leaf AFI photographers will be pissed and invested. Kodak will stop throwing money at Leaf. Steve Hendrix changed to the PhaseOne camp. Calumet stopped selling Leaf. First signs?
Sinar is small enough to get out of the MFDB business altogether as indicated by the colaboration with Leaf producing some of their backs. Also Thierry that helped many people here at LL was laid off by Sinar. And PhaseOne suddenly switching to Dalsa sensors would indicate that Kodak could stop producing MFDB sensors or at least further development.
So now it's PhaseMiya and Hasselblad remaining. Slowly Canon, Nikon and Leica S2 type cameras will become better in many areas where MFDB's had their biggest strengths and they will cost 10 times less with all the added convinience, working workflows, great multipoint AF, improved colors/whitebalance, etc.
Now who's going to bother keeping MFDB companies alive? Even Annie Leibovitz shoots Nikons D3X and Canons 1Ds line whenever you see a behind the scenes vid. Sure she'll shoot occasionally a RZ or an AFI or whatever. But not exclusively. So clearly even highest caliber pro's where money doesn't matter the least bit and assistants (would) work for free MFDB doesn't seem to be the ideal solution.
Most work shot on a MFDB can be emulated with a DSLR and enough Photoshop skills. And some of the work where absolutely highest quality is required MFDB's alone are insufficient so it's done IN or with the help of CGI.
Just some random thoughts.
-
I'm excited about the higher ISO Performance as that was way more important to me than a big screen. This is a big plus as far as I am concerned as that's one of the areas I had trouble with my p20 with most often. I can work around a dull small screen but I can't work with a noisy file.
Steve if the backs are indeed ready now - how about sharing a couple high ISO sample images with us?
Thanks,
Eric
-
What the hell you going to do with RED..
Waste a lot of time in conversion maybe..:+}
Snook
Snook,
don't write RED off so easily. They are eager. They have the funds. They have backup. Fanboys. Early adopters. Great directors looking to use Red. And so far the posted specs seem incredible. Sure they first need to deliver what they promissed but after Red One I have little doubt that they will offer an amazing package.
I agree with Lisa. If you can just videotape a model he/she will never feel in that strange "photo shooting situation" where she's waiting for the camera and the strobes. There's plenty good models that can work around those stops and always have great expressions and poses. But many new-comers, talents and even actors stare at the camera as if they were waiting for the train. Often it looks staged or posed. For them it's going to be so much easier when they can freely move and ACT.
Why should conversion take more time? I'd even expect editing to be more efficient for the shooter. You just play the video and skip parts where you didn't like the light or pose (although you can already see that live during the shooting on a GREAT big wide-gamut screen) and change whatever needs change. Downsize the video and send it on a DVD to the art director / customer. Let them tell you which second of the shooting is interesting to them. Then you just watch at the frames in that area. You'll just need to charge the customer for a 1 TB harddisk - they are going around 100$ a piece nowadays. So storage cost is not an issue either.
I ask myself often why cinema movies have those great colors and obvious great dynamic range that I need to hop through loops for when setting up the lights and spend hours on conversion and partially coloring bits of the pic. Sometimes I'm making 3 and more different conversions of one pic (one for the sky, one for the skin and one for the background) then fixing it all together on layers in photoshop. The skin whitebalance feature in C1 sounded like it could solve the problem with ugly over-pinkish or white skin. Not really.
Don't you miss the days where you just shot some Astia or Provia if you wanted gorgeous golden skin? Some NC for desaturated tones, Velvia for crazy wild colors, etc. Digital offers more resolution than we could ever ask for but the color and dynamic range... I just don't feel it even if all tests and experts say something else. It feels flat and wrong.
Shooting digital pics just gives you more work when retouching. Reddish skin? Green venes pushing through? This was a non-issue. How are they solving that in digital moved pictures? I assume they can't retouch every single frame of the movie by hand :-)
I'm very interested where the Red journey goes. Much more than looking at those incremental MFDB one-up's.
-
Well, when the S2 is released and it performs hour long exposures with little noise as the P45+ does, then I will understand Eric's post better.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve you don't see a difference between hours and 1 minute ?
at night I shoot very often 4 or 5 minutes , I can do it with a Canon 1DS Marl III (I did very often 8 minutes and the batteries are fantastic) and a Canon 5D Mark II (for 2000 euro ! a perfect screen and good batteries) , it will be possible with a Leica S2 with certainly fantastic lenses , native DNG and a cheaper price
I have loved my P45 but what you get actually for 2000 doesn't justify to pay 20 000
If I pay the price you are asking for you back I want to get what I need , 3 years ago and now are different, for that price and what you get you are not anymore in the game
-
Snook,
don't write RED off so easily. They are eager. They have the funds. They have backup. Fanboys. Early adopters. Great directors looking to use Red. And so far the posted specs seem incredible. Sure they first need to deliver what they promissed but after Red One I have little doubt that they will offer an amazing package.
I agree with Lisa. If you can just videotape a model he/she will never feel in that strange "photo shooting situation" where she's waiting for the camera and the strobes. There's plenty good models that can work around those stops and always have great expressions and poses. But many new-comers, talents and even actors stare at the camera as if they were waiting for the train. Often it looks staged or posed. For them it's going to be so much easier when they can freely move and ACT.
Why should conversion take more time? I'd even expect editing to be more efficient for the shooter. You just play the video and skip parts where you didn't like the light or pose (although you can already see that live during the shooting on a GREAT big wide-gamut screen) and change whatever needs change. Downsize the video and send it on a DVD to the art director / customer. Let them tell you which second of the shooting is interesting to them. Then you just watch at the frames in that area. You'll just need to charge the customer for a 1 TB harddisk - they are going around 100$ a piece nowadays. So storage cost is not an issue either.
I ask myself often why cinema movies have those great colors and obvious great dynamic range that I need to hop through loops for when setting up the lights and spend hours on conversion and partially coloring bits of the pic. Sometimes I'm making 3 and more different conversions of one pic (one for the sky, one for the skin and one for the background) then fixing it all together on layers in photoshop. The skin whitebalance feature in C1 sounded like it could solve the problem with ugly over-pinkish or white skin. Not really.
Don't you miss the days where you just shot some Astia or Provia if you wanted gorgeous golden skin? Some NC for desaturated tones, Velvia for crazy wild colors, etc. Digital offers more resolution than we could ever ask for but the color and dynamic range... I just don't feel it even if all tests and experts say something else. It feels flat and wrong.
Shooting digital pics just gives you more work when retouching. Reddish skin? Green venes pushing through? This was a non-issue. How are they solving that in digital moved pictures? I assume they can't retouch every single frame of the movie by hand :-)
I'm very interested where the Red journey goes. Much more than looking at those incremental MFDB one-up's.
If you guys think that editing raw files from a still camera is a pain and time consuming, wait and see when you will try pick few frames out of many thousands from a video footage. I did it once and it was not funny at all.
Not mentioning the amount of continuous light (and the cost, the bulk and the man power) you need for shooting motion at high resolution.
And beside all that, even shooting at 25fps, you may skip that wonderful moment that you dream of.
-
One must have a really good reason to sell what's available now and wait for something in the distant future.
the P45 photos are fantastic but batteries and screen sucks , it is from another age, and I don't see a future with PhaseOne/H1
I need, like many photographers, the flexibility of a Canon or Nikon, IQ of medium format , and perfect lenses
I thought PhaseOne could do something like that but when I see the P65+ and now the P40+ I stop looking in that direction
-
Specs look fine to me.
Everybody wants something else, there's no perfect back, like there's no perfect car.
For studio, my perfext back would have 60-100 MP, 25-100 ISO, better LCD with direct live view, no lens cast problems and a price around 10000 €;-). ISO, don't care, FPS, don't care, size, doesn't matter. Some people need higher ISO, others don't. Some people want longer exposures, higher resolution, bigger sensors...
and ehm, better screens? Yes please:
I suppose if there's a new LCD in a few years(?), and it's still the same size than the current screen, people won't be happy either. They will have to redesign the whole back architecture, I suppose in the current economic situation, this is a no go. Maybe the manufacturers should join their efforts to get a decent price for some >20000 LCD's?
Tom
-
Specs look fine to me.
To begin . . . all of these comments seem negative, but it's only because we want more than just file size and expense.
It's all listed here on this thread, actually has been listed on these posts everytime somebody comes out with a new product, but it's like nobody reads this stuff, they just keep making pretty much the same thing they've always made.
It's just confusing. Why does a P40+ cost less than half of a P65+ though only has a few mm less size in the sensor.
Is there really a $20,000 price break from Dalsa just by knifing off the edges, or is the p65+ overpriced.
It seems like somebody in Denmark said "hey, let's go after Hasselblad in this way. For $2,000 more we can offer 9 more mpx . . . yea, that'll do it".
Obviously it's possible to make a good lcd and in camera processing, Sinar did it but they've fallen off the radar, so maybe that's not the goal.
Leaf can make a great file and offer an almost full frame camera at this price of the P40+, but in the end does it gain them market share?
Medium format is just confusing.
B
-
People who want something like the P40+ with a better screen should look at the Sinar eSprit65 which has a 640x480 resolution 3" screen. It is also the only back which processes DNG and JPG files on board. So there IS a back maker listening...
-
People who want something like the P40+ with a better screen should look at the Sinar eSprit65 which has a 640x480 resolution 3" screen.
(http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/preview/k_142_0_sbesprit65mitdame.jpg)
Wow this is an actual photo of a Sinar screen? I mean you're saying it's not stripped in?
Nick-T
-
Actually the pixel binning would make sense to me, if I could shoot at 20 MP up to 3200 Iso. This would be a reason to buy a 40+. It would be the perfect setup. But only 10 MP in high iso mode doesn't do anything for me.
-
Wow this is an actual photo of a Sinar screen? I mean you're saying it's not stripped in?
I can only guess that a photo has been dropped in for the sales image but that was not the point of my thread. This is a 640x480 screen, which is 4 times the number of pixels on the P+ screens. Big difference!
-
Yes, an image has been dropped in here, BUT I can affirm that this is the best screen I have ever seen: high res, bright, 3", as mentioned by Graham. It has actually the same image quality as the Nikon LCD.
I had actually mentioned this many times already, when the eSprit 65 back was launched, and still, everybody seems to look for something which already exists since nearly a year now.
Best regards,
Thierry
I can only guess that a photo has been dropped in for the sales image but that was not the point of my thread. This is a 640x480 screen, which is 4 times the number of pixels on the P+ screens. Big difference!
-
Carsten - we utilize both Dalsa and Kodak sensors.
Yes, that is clear. In the current line, the old backs use Kodak sensors, and the new ones Dalsa. I was asking if that is a trend, or if mixing will be the trend.
-
Probably very few will upgrade from P30+ or P45+ to a P40+.
I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think that the intended market is P30+/P45+ owners. Anyone owning anything Phase up to and including the P25+ is a prime candidate for this back. Whenever someone wanted more than a P25+, one common struggle for the P30+ was price and high ISO vs. microlenses (i.e. no tech camera usage). The difference in resolution is only interesting for a few fanatics (not using that in a derogatory sense). The P40+ nicely solves this. The price is competitive, the ISO good and there are no microlens issues. It will also be attractive for new buyers of Phase products, and I presume that this back will replace the P30+ fairly soon, OR that the P30+ price will drop to put pressure back on Hasselblad and Leica.
-
don't write RED off so easily.
RED is neat technology, but to use it to the fullest, imagine what continuous lighting you must buy, and what your power bill will be after that. Makeup and models will melt after 5 minutes. Your computer can be trashed, and you will need to get a monster rig with tonnes or RAM and an extremely fast set of disks, possibly optical, or E-SATA. The investment will be significant. And in the end, people act differently in front of a camera and a movie camera, and not all models will be suitable for filming. You may end up with the same good poses as with a camera, and junk in between. This is a very serious move in hope of a little serendipity.
-
RED is neat technology, but to use it to the fullest, imagine what continuous lighting you must buy, and what your power bill will be after that. Makeup and models will melt after 5 minutes. Your computer can be trashed, and you will need to get a monster rig with tonnes or RAM and an extremely fast set of disks, possibly optical, or E-SATA. The investment will be significant. And in the end, people act differently in front of a camera and a movie camera, and not all models will be suitable for filming. You may end up with the same good poses as with a camera, and junk in between. This is a very serious move in hope of a little serendipity.
Not to mention there's a ton of photographic tricks, often used in fashion editorials, that you can't do with video capture. Besides, what's stopping you from shooting with continuous lighting and the 5fps or whatever on your still camera? I think RED is doing some very cool things, but I also think people are over hyping the impact video will have on regular photography.
-
I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think that the intended market is P30+/P45+ owners. Anyone owning anything Phase up to and including the P25+ is a prime candidate for this back. Whenever someone wanted more than a P25+, one common struggle for the P30+ was price and high ISO vs. microlenses (i.e. no tech camera usage). The difference in resolution is only interesting for a few fanatics (not using that in a derogatory sense). The P40+ nicely solves this. The price is competitive, the ISO good and there are no microlens issues. It will also be attractive for new buyers of Phase products, and I presume that this back will replace the P30+ fairly soon, OR that the P30+ price will drop to put pressure back on Hasselblad and Leica.
Well after just picking up the P30+ more for the higher ISO than anything else . I did limit myself to a non tech camera and the micro lenses. Now at some point the P40+ would have a advantage for me to upgrade for a couple reasons. The tech camera usage and also a much faster shooting camera. Also when shooting event type work shooting a 10 mpx would be fine and actually wanted so there for me at least I see some advantage. Now I say all this because I DON"T want a DSLR for some of that work. Obviously a DSLR D700 say would do that for me but I really have no interest in having two systems. So for some folks this does help and make some sense. Others it will not. I don't think many or any P45 shooters would make a change here. I also look at this as another option among the 5 or 6 they have in there line and I think we forget that a lot around here. It obviously may not be for the landscape shooter since the P45+ with 1 hour exposures would be the better choice. I think some things we forget a lot are some shooters only specialize in one area and some like myself do many different types of shooting. For me this is always a struggle with gear because you are always trying to find the balance between what works best for all of it and the specialist is a much easier call on what works the best. I think that get's forgotten a lot. Fashion shooters for example are looking for speed and landscape folks could care less. The general theme though seems to be around the LCD and here is when I laugh at most of these posts. Maybe I am a old dog and don't forget the days of shooting Kodachrome on set with a million lights and not even a polaroid back and waiting by your favorite lab hoping for the miracle that you actually got it. Sure the 3in LCD is a wonder but man have we gotten that far away from trusting yourself and your abilities. I know many arguments on that but bottom line we are spoiled silly. I actually like the LCD and the quality of the Phase screen is actually good, okay pull around the white truck and sweep me away and warm up the padded cell. But I can actually use it. Maybe I am so used to the small DMR and M8 screen that I don't miss a bigger one either. Or just maybe I actually trust myself, now that one is something to ponder.
-
Personally I don't see any value in the pixel binning at all, and it seems I'm not alone. Just curious - is anyone a fan of this feature?
I am interested in pixel-binning. I haven't tested it yet, but will in a week or so. It might not be everyones idea of progress... but it seems to provide yet more versatile tools for photographers. Isn't that what we want?
I hope that looking forward, this kind of sensor tecnology will allow us to get single captures with HDR, rather than having to resort to multiple exposures for dynamic range, and for focus, and for movement (especially as files get bigger and bigger).
It would be really neat if one back could go on a technical camera, or on a medium format camera with zooms, whilst also offering a choice of files as large as anyone could need, or smaller and faster files, or higher ISO files, or higher dynamic range files... all with the same back at the switch of a button or two. Most of that is possible now, and things will get better still. It is expensive, but it is exciting too.
Admittedly the screen on these backs isn't great... but it is not that bad either. As it happens, i'd be more interested in better viewfinders than a better screen; a histogram and highlight warnings that can be displayed at the same time; highlight warnings based on raw data rather than jpegs.
Scott
-
Random thoughts:
1. I have seen the screen from that Sinar back, in person. It's a tad better than the Phase LCD, but still a far cry from the SIZE of the Canon screen. When I look at these LCD's, to me they require both Size and Density to be effective, when you're judging subtleties of light. Maybe it's the amount of backlight coming in a window behind the subject, and you're trying to judge how much you want to fry it, or maybe you're also doing mild subtle fill, and you're trying to really see how much foamcore or strobe to add. Density alone doesn't do it for me, I need Size. 3" is the bare minimum starting place, from any brand of back.
2. And for anyone clueless enough to say, "Carry around the Polaroid back for your camera", don't even bother. Yeah, you're going to stand there in a field, or a beach, on a job, with sand or dirt blowing around, holding that exposed back, while the assistant fumbles with attaching/removing the Polaroid back? Film is dead; it's a non issue. Don't even bring it up.
3. The Phase casing is starting to feel like a 1968 Dodge Dart. I don't have any idea how much money it would take to redesign the casing to enlarge the LCD area, but I do know a 1968 Dodge Dart when I see it, standing next to a 2009 Lexus. I'm a photographer, not a product designer. At some point, you've gotta face facts and listen to customers, and pony up the money, (or just fade away).
4. With all due respect, Mr. Mancuso means well, I'm sure, but he seems to be too close to CI and/or Phase to be critically objective. It might be just fine for him to be "waiting by your favorite lab hoping for the miracle that you actually got it", but in this economy, (or any modern economy), hoping that you got it simply does not provide a solid foundation for a business model. Mr. Mancuso seems to be fine with living in his nostalgic memories, which on some level is fine, but when you're dropping $20-35k on the ass end of one camera, "hoping you got it" does not seem sufficient.
5. The inferior LCD on the Phase also requires that if you're working on an even half-complicated image, either for Test or for a Job, you're required to also drag along the Dog/Pony Laptop. Honestly, when working fast, it's a buzz kill many times, and really slows down the process -- a tripod for the laptop; the cable; etc etc. With the 1ds3, or Nikon, you actually *could* trust fill lighting, right from the LCD. That might not be a big deal to a designer in Denmark, but it is to a working photographer. When you take away the Polaroid option, you simply NEED a large, accurate LCD to do anything other than available light, and let's not bullshit each other -- How many real money jobs are shot with available light?
6. I wish Steve Hendrix well, and he's gotten massive feedback from photographers, but Phase One is shockingly slow to implement change. They are becoming the company that Cried Wolf, and people simply stopped listening.
-
LCD... with their last generation, you can see the image from a leaf back on your Iphone... not a bad idea !
-
1. I have seen the screen from that Sinar back, in person. It's a tad better than the Phase LCD, but still a far cry from the SIZE of the Canon screen.
Then you haven't seen this one. It is exactly the same size (3") and pixel density (640x480) as the Canon 5DII and the Nikon D3X screens.
-
I also look at this as another option among the 5 or 6 they have in there line and I think we forget that a lot around here.
There you go.
- faster shooting than anything we have by a LOT
- very high resolution
- priced below the 45+ and 65+
- still able to be used on a tech camera
- long lenses are longer (less ultra wide options)
None of our backs (or any camera / back in the world) solve every problem. This one has some strong advantages and some disadvantages.
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/)
-
Then you haven't seen this one. It is exactly the same size (3") and pixel density (640x480) as the Canon 5DII and the Nikon D3X screens.
If it was the 65, then I assume you are correct, and I stand corrected. Maybe it was colored by the fact that it was a PhotoEast, and the back was still pre-production, and it kept crashing and locking up, and the Sinar guy in the booth couldn't figure out how to make it work properly. He just stood there, perplexed, and I thanked him for his time, and walked away.
-
What the hell you going to do with RED..
Waste a lot of time in conversion maybe..:+}
Snook
I own a third of a Red System, about a $30k investment. I just bought a house (yesterday) in mostly cash with what I made with it over the past year or so. Beats the hell out of shooting catalogues on seamless, geting nickel and dimed by clients.
-
4. With all due respect, Mr. Mancuso means well, I'm sure, but he seems to be too close to CI and/or Phase to be critically objective. It might be just fine for him to be "waiting by your favorite lab hoping for the miracle that you actually got it", but in this economy, (or any modern economy), hoping that you got it simply does not provide a solid foundation for a business model. Mr. Mancuso seems to be fine with living in his nostalgic memories, which on some level is fine, but when you're dropping $20-35k on the ass end of one camera, "hoping you got it" does not seem sufficient.
Give me a break . I would flip it on a dime if there was something better, you keep forgetting it's MY 20-30k money also. Proved that one about 4 times already switching systems. I'm sorry it may not be the best LCD out on the market but if you can't figure it out than you need the help not me. Please if you don't know you own abilities and your own experience there is not a LCD out there that will save your ass on any level. If a LCD is that important and your not thinking you can shoot without one. Do one of two things use a tethered solution or go get a Nikon. Your not going to fit a 3 inch screen on a back that will be effective for you.
Too close to Phase , unfreaking believable BS. When someone one actually pays me than that comment may be relative.
-
DO we know yet if the chip as micro-lenses preventing view camera use?
This is a new Dalsa 44x33mm 6 micron pixel sensor, and for this generation of sensors, Dalsa is touting a new micro-lensed sensor design which more or less eliminates the off-perpendicular sensitivity fall-off problems of all previous micro-lenses, accepting light up to about 35º off-perpendicular with only modest fall-off. That should allow use with view cameras, shifts and such, while adding the roughly one stop of sensitivity that micro-lenses give.
-
Personally I don't see any value in the pixel binning at all, and it seems I'm not alone. Just curious - is anyone a fan of this feature?
I'd have to agree with you. I see it as a feature, but useful only for certain occasions -- occasions where we would all likely be better served with a good 11-22 MP, sub $3000 DSLR. And given the cost delta, the DSLR might be a better investment...
On a similar note, the thing I find interesting is that the P40+ requiring the binning for high ISO leaves the P30+ as the only MF back I am aware of that does ISO 1600 at full resolution? Seems to me that in and of itself is more useful than pixel binning. At present prices this makes the P30+ an interesting value proposition as a back-up/second to my P45+ -- I would own both backs for less than the cost of the P65+ and could simply add the P30+ to my bag (it's only about the size of an 80mm lens) if I felt there was going to be a situation calling for very high ISO; the P30+ uses the same batteries and UI as my P45+, yet has over twice the binned resolution of the P65+ and 3 times the binned resolution on the P40+.
Or am I missing something?
-
This is a new Dalsa 44x33mm 6 micron pixel sensor, and for this generation of sensors, Dalsa is touting a new micro-lensed sensor design which more or less eliminates the off-perpendicular sensitivity fall-off problems of all previous micro-lenses, accepting light up to about 35º off-perpendicular with only modest fall-off. That should allow use with view cameras, shifts and such, while adding the roughly one stop of sensitivity that micro-lenses give.
I have found these kinds of claims to be meaningless. The only way to know if this back would work for LF shooting is to shoot a test it with the 24, 35, and 47 Digitar lenses shifted to their limits. I don't see why Phase doesn't do this. Otherwise were just stuck reading the kind of fuzzy PR stuff that you've quoted, waiting for some sucker to buy this back and test it for the purpose of shooting architecture.
-
I have found these kinds of claims to be meaningless. The only way to know if this back would work for LF shooting is to shoot a test it with the 24, 35, and 47 Digitar lenses shifted to their limits. I don't see why Phase doesn't do this. Otherwise were just stuck reading the kind of fuzzy PR stuff that you've quoted, waiting for some sucker to buy this back and test it for the purpose of shooting architecture.
Or have your friendly dealer do the leg-work for you. It can be tough sometimes because there are a lot of lenses (23, 24, 28, 35, 47, 72 come to mind) and everyone will want their lens of interest to be tested. I can't speak for all dealers, but if you told us that you were interested in the back but wanted to see "X" test first then if it is at all possible we will do that test or make the equipment available for you at our studio for you to do the test yourself or give you a very good deal on a rental (when feasible) to test in your location.
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/)
-
I have found these kinds of claims to be meaningless. The only way to know if this back would work for LF shooting is to shoot a test it with the 24, 35, and 47 Digitar lenses shifted to their limits.
The claim was in a published research paper, backed by graphs of measured sensitivity fall-off as a function of off-perpendicular angle, so rather more than a fuzzy advertising claim. Of course, if you wish to believe that a company that has to sell its sensors to technically savvy customers like the companies that buy and use Dalsa sensors and uses of digital back on view cameras can get away with publishing falsified graphs or making vague claims that do not hold up in practice, I will not try to persuade you otherwise. But "I have found this kinds of cynicism to be worthless".
-
One other comment I'd like to add to this (surprisingly mixed reaction) thread.
I want to commend Phase for holding off on announcing this back until it was actually shipping. Now, I've not tried to buy one, but assuming Mr. Hendrix hasn't been misinformed, this is really wonderful.
As for the screen comments, as a P45+ owner, I will agree that the screen could use improvement. (As a former P45 owner and a former Sinar eMotion75LV mark I and mark II owner, the + screens are definitely a step up IMHO.) But still, the P45+ screen can't hold a candle to the latest in small format screens, that's for sure. But to imply that the product isn't worth buying because it 'only' has the P45+ quality screen? A disappointment perhaps, but I'm having a hard time understanding how it's *that* big a deal.
I know that everyone is different, but I thought I'd weigh in with positive feedback on this product, the 'restraint' in the marketing name (I'm sure SOMEBODY felt the need to call it a P46+ just to put it ahead of the P45+; honest naming is a good thing), and the simultaneous leak/announcement and (reported) product availability.
I hope both practices are here to stay. Kudos, Phase.
-Brad
-
I see it [pixel binning] as a feature, but useful only for certain occasions -- occasions where we would all likely be better served with a good 11-22 MP, sub $3000 DSLR. And given the cost delta, the DSLR might be a better investment...
Once someone has a use for the 40MP MF option, occasionally using the 10MP binning avoids extra cost, so is cheaper and lighter than having both the MF and the 35mm gear. Though I do see it possible that 44x33mm MF is just barely keeping its tail ahead of the lunging jaws of high end 35mm ...
On a similar note, the thing I find interesting is that the P40+ requiring the binning for high ISO leaves the P30+ as the only MF back I am aware of that does ISO 1600 at full resolution? Seems to me that in and of itself is more useful than pixel binning.
But as far as I can tell, ISO 1600 with CCD MF sensors has no advantage over using ISO 800 at the same exposure level (same f-stop and shutter speed) and then pushing one stop in PP ... except saving a little bit of PP time. The dark noise level of these CCD's at ISO 800 is already well above the noise floor of the A/D conversion.
-
I think it's a joke to call 20.000 a good deal. that would buy me a 1dsmk3, a 3dx, a 5dmk2 and a Leica m8, with spare change for a lens or two....
-
The claim was in a published research paper, backed by graphs of measured sensitivity fall-off as a function of off-perpendicular angle, so rather more than a fuzzy advertising claim. Of course, if you wish to believe that a company that has to sell its sensors to technically savvy customers like the companies that buy and use Dalsa sensors and uses of digital back on view cameras can get away with publishing falsified graphs or making vague claims that do not hold up in practice, I will not try to persuade you otherwise. But "I have found this kinds of cynicism to be worthless".
I'm just speaking from my experience of purchasing the Aptus 75. The first MFDB suitable for architectural photography because of its lack of color casts. I'm sure Dalsa had research papers too. I'm sure Leaf was surprised when the 75 didn't behave the way they expected out in the wild.
I just read on Wikipedia that cynicism "can result from a negative evaluation of past experiences". So yeah, I'm being cynical here. I don't want Doug or I to run around shooting a bunch of tests to see if the P40+ works with these lenses. I also don't think a research paper adequately answers that question. I'm from Missouri.
-
Please forgive my ignorance but what is the difference in fps between this new back which is being touted as 'fastest by a large margin' and the P30+ with the new back in non pixel binning mode?.
-
Give me a break . I would flip it on a dime if there was something better, you keep forgetting it's MY 20-30k money also. Proved that one about 4 times already switching systems. I'm sorry it may not be the best LCD out on the market but if you can't figure it out than you need the help not me. Please if you don't know you own abilities and your own experience there is not a LCD out there that will save your ass on any level. If a LCD is that important and your not thinking you can shoot without one. Do one of two things use a tethered solution or go get a Nikon. Your not going to fit a 3 inch screen on a back that will be effective for you.
So what you're saying is: If your eyes go bad you shouldn't use glasses and instead trust in your own abilities. Or if your light meter was WILDLY inaccurate you would still blame yourself? Isn't that kinda bizarre? Taking the blame for shitty equipment / tools? Don't worry, customers will put the blame on the photographer as soon as they are not happy with even the most minute thing.
Your suggestion is funny too... because that's what's happening. More and more people are getting Nikons/Canons. And that as said will lead to the death of MFDB's. And who's to blame? Nikon and Canon for their improvements or the MFDB's for their sluggish response to customer requirements?
C'mon, let's get real. We spend 3-6k$ for a single computer screen, buy color calibration devices and software to make sure that what you see is what you get. And suddenly the capture process is a non-issue? Seing what you're going to get is the reason people do tether - why people want better LCD's. Showing that crappy PhaseOne LCD to a customer is embarrassing.
MFDB manufacturing is really about putting new sensors into old packages. And "what they can get away with" instead of real innovation. With that price tag? Current economic environment? I don't think so.
-
I think it's a joke to call 20.000 a good deal. that would buy me a 1dsmk3, a 3dx, a 5dmk2 and a Leica m8, with spare change for a lens or two....
Do that, and then gaffe tape them together so you can take a single shot 40 megapixel frame, and don't forget to always shoot two exposures to stack to HDR so you're getting the same ultra-clean shadows and smooth color transitions that phase p+ backs deliver (my experience being with the 20,21,25,30,45, and 65; haven't shot the 40+ yet).
Then find a way to magnify and brighten the viewfinder so that it touches the experience of a medium format body. If you can find a way for it to also mount to my Phase One body, RZ body, architecture camera and view camera then that would also be a good bonus.
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/)
-
Please forgive my ignorance but what is the difference in fps between this new back which is being touted as 'fastest by a large margin' and the P30+ with the new back in non pixel binning mode?.
Pom:
The P40+ in non-binning mode captures 40MP at 1.2 frames per second (.8 secods per frame, 72 captures per minute) versus the P30+ at 31MP capturing .75 frames per second (1.25 seconds per frame, 45 captures per minute).
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Give me a break . I would flip it on a dime if there was something better, ..................... if you don't know you own abilities and your own experience there is not a LCD out there that will save your ass on any level.
Guy, you can sing the tune of all day long of a photographer has to trust their abilities without viewing a decent lcd, but it's not my abilities I'm worried about when I'm on set. It's getting the client to look at the lcd and know what the hell they're looking at. Point a phase LCD at a client, (even if the client is Phase One) and ask them if they would bet $100,000 on that preview. You know that answer.
Trust me, until your on set with an academy award winning director screaming for "your" subject, 2 publicists, 2 personal managers, 6 ad agency principles, 11 clients and a crew of 20 . . . until a scheduled 8 hour shoot is compressed down to 2 hours, until you working in a room where the production costs are the price of a very nice resort condo, you don't really know how important it is to have a great preview and sometimes you have to pull the cord, forget the computers and shoot the damn thing and since we all got a boss, the boss gotta say "looks good".
There is a reason Annie uses a Canon and a Nikon and it's not that she's afraid of a large camera or can't afford it.
In a way I'm glad that Phase didn't go George Jetson on us and stick on a 4" lcd and a sat/nav phone because the upside to this is I'm good with the hand I'm playing as no client is going to look at my Slumdog peethirtyplus and say we wish he had a Beverly Hills peefourtyplus back. If I want to shoot fast, I stick on a peetwentyoneplus and honestly nobody I shoot for will notice the difference. Not after it gets out of post production.
B
-
Hey believe me a larger LCD is something we all want but a larger screen that shows no detail is something we don't want either. I do commercial work too with many folks on set. If it is important than tether than rip the damn cord out if you have too. Seriously what the hell did we do before digital was even born. Come on guys not a damn thing has changed with clients except wanting it yesterday and what there not the same demanding people they where than that want it cheaper and faster . That was my point and depending on a LCD is not something I would ever count on but it's usefulness is there and it is your guide. I think we forget one simple basic law of physics here a back is maybe 4 inches wide and a Nikon like 7 inches so all the guts and all can be on either side on the LCD .Where do they do that in a back that is much smaller. I'm not joking can someone actually answer this. That is a big chunk of glass on a back and a lot that goes with it including power. I realize this is a fruitless argument because this just goes round and round and comes back to the same thing.
Trust me, until your on set with an academy award winning director screaming for "your" subject, 2 publicists, 2 personal managers, 6 ad agency principles, 11 clients and a crew of 20 . . . until a scheduled 8 hour shoot is compressed down to 2 hours, until you working in a room where the production costs are the price of a very nice resort condo, you don't really know how important it is to have a great preview and sometimes you have to pull the cord, forget the computers and shoot the damn thing and since we all got a boss, the boss gotta say "looks good".
Is this supposed to impress me or something. We ALL have important clients no matter what name tag you put on them or what demands they require.
-
Is this supposed to impress me or something. We ALL have important clients no matter what name tag you put on them or what demands they require.
Nobody's trying to impress you.
Your the cat that fires out the lines that we have to be good enough to trust our instincts or we're not complete.
My point is when there is a lot of money people screaming, these are the times you want to use your best camera not your worst and yes, the digital backs makes a better image under these circumstances, it's just the usability that hobbles it.
I firmly believe that what I do only has importance for about 30 days and it hits the bottom of the birdcage, so no I'm not trying to impress you, or think anything I do will change the world.
Then again, what would the medium format market be like if they could sell to people that shoot under real pressure like wedding photographers (I'm not kidding about this). There opportunity is only there for a moment and they have to get the shot and have to be sure they got it.
With the iso, the speed a peefourtyplus would be good for wedding guys, but not if they have to judge off the lcd.
I just see these annoucements to be like hearing GM designed a new Suburban. Uh ok, I guess it will sell, but to how many and is it the vehicle for our times?
B
-
Hey believe me a larger LCD is something we all want but a larger screen that shows no detail is something we don't want either. I do commercial work too with many folks on set. If it is important than tether than rip the damn cord out if you have too. Seriously what the hell did we do before digital was even born. Come on guys not a damn thing has changed with clients except wanting it yesterday and what there not the same demanding people they where than that want it cheaper and faster . That was my point and depending on a LCD is not something I would ever count on but it's usefulness is there and it is your guide. I think we forget one simple basic law of physics here a back is maybe 4 inches wide and a Nikon like 7 inches so all the guts and all can be on either side on the LCD .Where do they do that in a back that is much smaller. I'm not joking can someone actually answer this. That is a big chunk of glass on a back and a lot that goes with it including power. I realize this is a fruitless argument because this just goes round and round and comes back to the same thing.
Trust me, until your on set with an academy award winning director screaming for "your" subject, 2 publicists, 2 personal managers, 6 ad agency principles, 11 clients and a crew of 20 . . . until a scheduled 8 hour shoot is compressed down to 2 hours, until you working in a room where the production costs are the price of a very nice resort condo, you don't really know how important it is to have a great preview and sometimes you have to pull the cord, forget the computers and shoot the damn thing and since we all got a boss, the boss gotta say "looks good".
Is this supposed to impress me or something. We ALL have important clients no matter what name tag you put on them or what demands they require.
Guy,
You can defend the MFDB makers until the cows come home. But unless they start giving the customers what they want (and the majority want a decent state of the art screen) then the market will decide their fate, and we all know what that will be. That's why more and more people are migrating to Canon and Nikon.
Most of the clients I know all want to see what they are spending their money on at the time it is being shot. In the past it was via a Polaroid now it is the LCD screen or monitor if you're working tethered. The crap screens are the main reason I haven't bought a MFDB. I mean, who are they kidding, 20 grand for a screen like that ? !!!
Pete
-
As someone who owned Phase backs with a Contax 645 for several years (the P30 then the P30+) and then recently sold my Phase back and am now shooting a D3X instead, I'll jump in here.
It's worth noting at the outset that I wrote a glowing review/report of the P30 for this very site a couple of years back:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...%20review.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/P30%20review.shtml)
I stand by what I said then -- the P30 was the finest capture device I'd shot with at that time.
But now ain't then. Comparing the digital end of my former setup (P30+ versus D3X), I concluded that there was little to be gained in terms of image quality by shooting with the P30+ for my type of work. So when Doug suggests that you'd have to "tape together" a couple of D3Xs to get the image quality of a single shot frame from a P40+, I have trouble believing that's true. At the time I wrote my P30 report, my base of comparison was the only full frame 35mm cameras then available, the Canon 1Ds Mark II and the Canon 5D, both of which I shot extensively. I concluded that as compared to those cameras, the P30 did offer MUCH better color, tonal transitions, and color depth (in a non-technical sense) and that the P30 files were more "robust", that is, they could better handle a greater range of adjustments in post-production. It's worth noting, however, that even as compared to my 1Ds Mark II and 5D, I did NOT find that the P30 and P30+ offered "ultra-clean" shadows in terms of noise at base ISO (the shadow-to-highlight transitions did look better on the P30/+, however).
Now, however, I have found that the D3X matches the P30+ in terms of color, tonal transitions, and color depth. From my brief testing of a 1Ds Mark III, I feel relatively sure the same is true of that camera as well. And as we all know, the 35mm full frame cameras beat any medium format back in terms of noise at higher ISOs, responsiveness, etc.
Nor was I convinced to keep my P30+ (and certainly not to upgrade to a P40+) by the marginal increase in resolution over a D3X. But then, I'm not a landscape shooter where the highest degree of micro-detail and maximum resolution are make-or-break propositions. The fact is that 24 megapixels of the D3X is certainly resolution enough for any conceivable screen usage, and for reasonably large prints (16x24 at about 240ppi, if memory and math serve me correctly).
One additional area where I always felt the 35mm style digital cameras fell down compared to the Phase backs was with regard to the moderate, but noticeable, effect of the AA filter on the 35mm cameras. The images form the P30 would just "pop" at me straight out of the camera before sharpening in a way that the 35mm images never did. But I did a side by side portrait shoot with the P30+ (remember, with contax lenses, including the spectacularly sharp 120mm macro) and the D3x with both Nikon and Zeiss lenses, and I have to say, the effect of the AA filter is far less pronounced with the D3x than any other 35mm digital that I've shot with, other than the Leica R9/Digital Module R system. This is especially true when the D3X files are processed in Capture NX or Capture One. I truly was not expecting to be as impressed with the look of D3X files as I have been, especially in direct comparison to side-by-sides with the P30+ from the same shoot. There were certainly P30+ images from that shoot that I preferred over the D3X files, but that was because of the different look of medium format lenses, especially for headshots or head and shoulders work.
Here's my point: For someone who doesn't shoot landscape (where micro detail and absolutely the highest numerical resolution has some actual objective benefit) or architecture shooters (who need to be able to to use tilt/shift and/or a view camera), the technological improvements in the D3X over the last generation of full frame 35mm cameras has narrowed the gap with regard to medium format digital such that, in terms of the digital back end, I have a very hard time justifying the massive cost difference.
That said, the analog front-end is what almost led me to keep the P30+. I like shooting medium format. And medium format lenses provide a "look" that's different from 35mm (not sharpness, resolution, or depth of field alone, but some combination of these and other factors). So if shooting medium format -- as opposed to medium format DIGITAL -- offers some real benefit to you, then I think it makes sense to go the digital medium format route. Not because the digital end is that much better than 35mm digital like the D3X to justify the additional cost in terms of visual image quality (as opposed to "look").
Don't get me wrong; as I said, I'm a Phase fan and I'm sure the P40+ will be great. And if I were independently wealthy or earning the kind of revenue where cost didn't matter, or shooting architecture or landscape, I'd have kept my P30+ and/or bought a P40+ to go along with the D3x.
Do that, and then gaffe tape them together so you can take a single shot 40 megapixel frame, and don't forget to always shoot two exposures to stack to HDR so you're getting the same ultra-clean shadows and smooth color transitions that phase p+ backs deliver (my experience being with the 20,21,25,30,45, and 65; haven't shot the 40+ yet).
Then find a way to magnify and brighten the viewfinder so that it touches the experience of a medium format body. If you can find a way for it to also mount to my Phase One body, RZ body, architecture camera and view camera then that would also be a good bonus.
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/)
-
As someone who owned Phase backs with a Contax 645 for several years (the P30 then the P30+) and then recently sold my Phase back and am now shooting a D3X instead, I'll jump in here.
It's worth noting at the outset that I wrote a glowing review/report of the P30 for this very site a couple of years back:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...%20review.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/P30%20review.shtml)
I stand by what I said then -- the P30 was the finest capture device I'd shot with at that time.
But now ain't then. Comparing the digital end of my former setup (P30+ versus D3X), I concluded that there was little to be gained in terms of image quality by shooting with the P30+ for my type of work. So when Doug suggests that you'd have to "tape together" a couple of D3Xs to get the image quality of a single shot frame from a P40+, I have trouble believing that's true. At the time I wrote my P30 report, my base of comparison was the only full frame 35mm cameras then available, the Canon 1Ds Mark II and the Canon 5D, both of which I shot extensively. I concluded that as compared to those cameras, the P30 did offer MUCH better color, tonal transitions, and color depth (in a non-technical sense) and that the P30 files were more "robust", that is, they could better handle a greater range of adjustments in post-production. It's worth noting, however, that even as compared to my 1Ds Mark II and 5D, I did NOT find that the P30 and P30+ offered "ultra-clean" shadows in terms of noise at base ISO (the shadow-to-highlight transitions did look better on the P30/+, however).
Now, however, I have found that the D3X matches the P30+ in terms of color, tonal transitions, and color depth. From my brief testing of a 1Ds Mark III, I feel relatively sure the same is true of that camera as well. And as we all know, the 35mm full frame cameras beat any medium format back in terms of noise at higher ISOs, responsiveness, etc.
Nor was I convinced to keep my P30+ (and certainly not to upgrade to a P40+) by the marginal increase in resolution over a D3X. But then, I'm not a landscape shooter where the highest degree of micro-detail and maximum resolution are make-or-break propositions. The fact is that 24 megapixels of the D3X is certainly resolution enough for any conceivable screen usage, and for reasonably large prints (16x24 at about 240ppi, if memory and math serve me correctly).
One additional area where I always felt the 35mm style digital cameras fell down compared to the Phase backs was with regard to the moderate, but noticeable, effect of the AA filter on the 35mm cameras. The images form the P30 would just "pop" at me straight out of the camera before sharpening in a way that the 35mm images never did. But I did a side by side portrait shoot with the P30+ (remember, with contax lenses, including the spectacularly sharp 120mm macro) and the D3x with both Nikon and Zeiss lenses, and I have to say, the effect of the AA filter is far less pronounced with the D3x than any other 35mm digital that I've shot with, other than the Leica R9/Digital Module R system. This is especially true when the D3X files are processed in Capture NX or Capture One. I truly was not expecting to be as impressed with the look of D3X files as I have been, especially in direct comparison to side-by-sides with the P30+ from the same shoot. There were certainly P30+ images from that shoot that I preferred over the D3X files, but that was because of the different look of medium format lenses, especially for headshots or head and shoulders work.
Here's my point: For someone who doesn't shoot landscape (where micro detail and absolutely the highest numerical resolution has some actual objective benefit) or architecture shooters (who need to be able to to use tilt/shift and/or a view camera), the technological improvements in the D3X over the last generation of full frame 35mm cameras has narrowed the gap with regard to medium format digital such that, in terms of the digital back end, I have a very hard time justifying the massive cost difference.
That said, the analog front-end is what almost led me to keep the P30+. I like shooting medium format. And medium format lenses provide a "look" that's different from 35mm (not sharpness, resolution, or depth of field alone, but some combination of these and other factors). So if shooting medium format -- as opposed to medium format DIGITAL -- offers some real benefit to you, then I think it makes sense to go the digital medium format route. Not because the digital end is that much better than 35mm digital like the D3X to justify the additional cost in terms of visual image quality (as opposed to "look").
Don't get me wrong; as I said, I'm a Phase fan and I'm sure the P40+ will be great. And if I were independently wealthy or earning the kind of revenue where cost didn't matter, or shooting architecture or landscape, I'd have kept my P30+ and/or bought a P40+ to go along with the D3x.
Though I think one thing that has certainly changed the past year or so is the difference in cost is not necessarily "massive". Looking back just 2 to 3 years, you really were at low $20K and higher for medium format systems. Now, a P30+ starts at $14,990 new and $11,990 refurbished. So for those who want medium format - whatever their reasons - the cost difference over high end 35mm is higher, but not nearly as much as in the past.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Then find a way to magnify and brighten the viewfinder so that it touches the experience of a medium format body. If you can find a way for it to also mount to my Phase One body, RZ body, architecture camera and view camera then that would also be a good bonus.
To complete the MF experience don't forget to tape a piece of crap dime store cellphone screen onto the back of the apparatus
Mark
-
To complete the MF experience don't forget to tape a piece of crap dime store cellphone screen onto the back of the apparatus
Mark
True enough.
-
Guy,
You can defend the MFDB makers until the cows come home. But unless they start giving the customers what they want (and the majority want a decent state of the art screen) then the market will decide their fate, and we all know what that will be. That's why more and more people are migrating to Canon and Nikon.
Most of the clients I know all want to see what they they are spending their money on at the time it is being shot. In the past it was via a Polaroid now it is the LCD screen or monitor if you're working tethered. The crap screens are the main reason I haven't bought a MFDB. I mean, who are they kidding, 20 grand for a screen like that ? !!!
Pete
Seriously I am not defending anyone. We need a new Phase body and we need new LCD screens that are bigger but more important can actually show the detail. What I am saying is it does not bother me that much as it is made out to be and that is all I am saying it is obviously not very popular to say it's okay but improvement would be great. The body needs a new makeover as well and I will be the first to say it and have. I honestly don't give a rats ass about any of these companies, I want good product just like everyone else. But I am getting it done without much complaint is all I am saying and it is not as bad as it all sounds with whining on every post and thread about LCD screens. Frankly I think Sinar and leaf suck just as bad and the Leaf is bigger but I could deal with it. With the way the economy is right now any company going back in and doing R&D and say spending 300 grand to retool and design a new chassis may not be the way to go for them. I think we can all understand this to some level with our own businesses. The P40+ sounds great on some levels but I am not running to the bank to withdraw my money for it right now. If I thought a Nikon D3x would be best for me, I would buy it in a heart beat and trust me the thought has run through my mind more than once. I just happen to love shooting MF as weird as that may sound I just like it and even doing stupid PR jobs with it, yea i need a white paddy wagon to pick me up on that one because that is just sick thinking but I do enjoy it. Sure these systems have there issues but do we really want them to be passing on more of there debt to us right now for a redesign, you know we are the ones that are going to pay for it. Okay enough said but all I was saying is we need to trust ourselves as well and it is not the greatest but it's not the worst either. I have shot digital for over 15 years and it was really freaking ugly back than. There has been much improvement but I agree some of it has not trickled into MF and i don't know the true answer to that but my guess is power to run big files and big LCD screens and that management and raw horsepower needed for that. We are pushing bigger files than Nikon and such and we are limited on space to do that and the DSLR has a lot more space for processors and such. But we need to hear from real engineers on why this maybe. Okay just for clarification I hate the LCD screens too , okay everyone feel better but even though they may suck . I have seen a lot worse maybe I am just easier to please. really need to get back to the grind. Bye
-
I have to agree with William.
Since I've been shooting with the D3x,I'm very happy with the results.
I did use MFDB for a while and also compared the 2 and found the results very close.
Actually I preferred the results from my D3x.
It's also so much easier and quicker!
Am I a purist,I tought so?
Always used large format in the filmdays.
Is a MFDB with HR lenses better?
Sure,however it's also a $60K + investment.
I spend $25K on my D3x with 3 PC-E lenses,the 14-24 Nikkor and 3 Zeiss ZF's.
At the end of the day,the money part is not the dealmaker for me,
it's the workflow.
Best,
Willem.
-
I have to agree with William.
Since I've been shooting with the D3x,I'm very happy with the results.
I did use MFDB for a while and also compared the 2 and found the results very close.
Actually I preferred the results from my D3x.
It's also so much easier and quicker!
Am I a purist,I tought so?
Always used large format in the filmdays.
Is a MFDB with HR lenses better?
Sure,however it's also a $60K + investment.
I spend $25K on my D3x with 3 PC-E lenses,the 14-24 Nikkor and 3 Zeiss ZF's.
At the end of the day,the money part is not the dealmaker for me,
it's the workflow.
Best,
Willem.
It's too bad you had to buy from Nikon. I bet a knock-off would have cost a lot less than $25K.
-
Very funny Eric!
I guess you're relating to my purchase of the Multiflex?
Only fools would pay $2400 USD for the "real" thing.
Would I have purchased the Cube at $1000 USD? Of course!
Best,
Willem.
-
A couple of points on the LCD screens... most of these screens (usually the best ones) are protected by patents for several years, so not
everyone can have them, which might mean developing your own ($$$) or making deals with a manufacturer that hasn't already done so
with someone else, if you can find one.
The larger screens requires a lot more from the battery(s). So switching from a small to a large screen demands a change in battery
design as well.
To switch from a small LCD (Phase) to a larger (Leaf or Sinar) of course means a body redesign, from someone whom has been inside a lot of these backs, it is not a simple, quick or cheap effort.
I'm just guessing, but with the world economy as it is, maybe Phase is working slowly on a redesign, spreading out the cost. Or like someone said, maybe they still have 20,000 bodies in a Danish warehouse. I'm sure ultimatley there will be a redesign, but my experience
with Phase is they tell very few people (even their reps) what they are doing in Denmark until it is ready or close to being ready.
The question is.... as already pointed out.... if they take too long will the customers still be there?
I see both sides of the "need for a larger" LCD... yes the clients want to see a big pretty picture, yes it's nice to glance down and see more of your image, but, as an old school shooter I don't usually rely on the screen. The tools are there to use or maybe I'm like Guy, just easy to please. I think as photographers we are being pushed harder than ever to please everyone at every stage... 30 years ago when I started in this business if a we could bark at the art director or even the client and get away with it. We (as a group) were ecentric artsy people... the art director could just wait to see the image (polaroid or film) until we were ready to show it! But times have changed and now we can't (as easily anyway) get away with that. The need for a larger LCD is real or at least a fast alternative... although my personal opinion is that the need is more for the client than the shooter.
Over all I'm a little puzzeled on why this particular unit was made... doesn't seem to be a demand for it's exact features... I guess we'll all find out soon enough.
TP
Filmless Tech & Photo
-
A couple of points on the LCD screens... most of these screens (usually the best ones) are protected by patents for several years, so not
everyone can have them, which might mean developing your own ($$$) or making deals with a manufacturer that hasn't already done so
with someone else, if you can find one.
The larger screens requires a lot more from the battery(s). So switching from a small to a large screen demands a change in battery
design as well.
To switch from a small LCD (Phase) to a larger (Leaf or Sinar) of course means a body redesign, from someone whom has been inside a lot of these backs, it is not a simple, quick or cheap effort.
I'm just guessing, but with the world economy as it is, maybe Phase is working slowly on a redesign, spreading out the cost. Or like someone said, maybe they still have 20,000 bodies in a Danish warehouse. I'm sure ultimatley there will be a redesign, but my experience
with Phase is they tell very few people (even their reps) what they are doing in Denmark until it is ready or close to being ready.
The question is.... as already pointed out.... if they take too long will the customers still be there?
I see both sides of the "need for a larger" LCD... yes the clients want to see a big pretty picture, yes it's nice to glance down and see more of your image, but, as an old school shooter I don't usually rely on the screen. The tools are there to use or maybe I'm like Guy, just easy to please. I think as photographers we are being pushed harder than ever to please everyone at every stage... 30 years ago when I started in this business if a we could bark at the art director or even the client and get away with it. We (as a group) were ecentric artsy people... the art director could just wait to see the image (polaroid or film) until we were ready to show it! But times have changed and now we can't (as easily anyway) get away with that. The need for a larger LCD is real or at least a fast alternative... although my personal opinion is that the need is more for the client than the shooter.
Over all I'm a little puzzeled on why this particular unit was made... doesn't seem to be a demand for it's exact features... I guess we'll all find out soon enough.
TP
Filmless Tech & Photo
-
Sorry about the double post... I'm using a satilite uplink and it "blinked".
TP
-
We've posted two sample files from the P40+ here:
http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/)
Thought the thread could use a little show+tell :-).
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/)
-
People who want something like the P40+ with a better screen should look at the Sinar eSprit65 which has a 640x480 resolution 3" screen.
Nice. If it had live view on the LCD, it would be the greatest digital back ever made.
-
Well after just picking up the P30+ more for the higher ISO than anything else . I did limit myself to a non tech camera and the micro lenses. Now at some point the P40+ would have a advantage for me to upgrade for a couple reasons. The tech camera usage and also a much faster shooting camera. Also when shooting event type work shooting a 10 mpx would be fine and actually wanted so there for me at least I see some advantage. Now I say all this because I DON"T want a DSLR for some of that work. Obviously a DSLR D700 say would do that for me but I really have no interest in having two systems. So for some folks this does help and make some sense. Others it will not. I don't think many or any P45 shooters would make a change here. I also look at this as another option among the 5 or 6 they have in there line and I think we forget that a lot around here. It obviously may not be for the landscape shooter since the P45+ with 1 hour exposures would be the better choice. I think some things we forget a lot are some shooters only specialize in one area and some like myself do many different types of shooting. For me this is always a struggle with gear because you are always trying to find the balance between what works best for all of it and the specialist is a much easier call on what works the best. I think that get's forgotten a lot. Fashion shooters for example are looking for speed and landscape folks could care less. The general theme though seems to be around the LCD and here is when I laugh at most of these posts. Maybe I am a old dog and don't forget the days of shooting Kodachrome on set with a million lights and not even a polaroid back and waiting by your favorite lab hoping for the miracle that you actually got it. Sure the 3in LCD is a wonder but man have we gotten that far away from trusting yourself and your abilities. I know many arguments on that but bottom line we are spoiled silly. I actually like the LCD and the quality of the Phase screen is actually good, okay pull around the white truck and sweep me away and warm up the padded cell. But I can actually use it. Maybe I am so used to the small DMR and M8 screen that I don't miss a bigger one either. Or just maybe I actually trust myself, now that one is something to ponder.
the screen is ok at best. it is barely usable. seeing the whole image the IQ on the screen is horrible, but when you zoom in you can see some detail. i do get accustomed to the a dslr screen, but shooting MFD is just like shooting film, i have to measure ratios with a HH meter. it slows me down. i get more keepers in less images. i use the histogram. i use a p25 and i considered the p30 but decided to pay more for the larger chip though lower res. i am not a fan of the crop backs tho havent used them.
personally a used p45 is the same price as the 40+ and would look at that. the 40+ is a cheaper version of the p65+, its little brother per say. i dont see it created to be an upgrade from the p30+/45+, its a separate route. i was excited for the P65+ for having no crop, but 1 min exposures like my old p25 is a no sale for me.
dslr screens are much better but are not perfect.... the mark II screens where better than my mark III's screen. its bigger but the color is super saturated and its not as sharp (lower res). i shoot home interiors and wood often goes bright yellow/orange though it will be brown on the computer screen. sometimes in homes with daylight/tunsten mixed rooms, really bright areas of tungsten light have a green cast on the screen.
-
dslr screens are much better but are not perfect.... the mark II screens where better than my mark III's screen. its bigger but the color is super saturated and its not as sharp (lower res). i shoot home interiors and wood often goes bright yellow/orange though it will be brown on the computer screen. sometimes in homes with daylight/tunsten mixed rooms, really bright areas of tungsten light have a green cast on the screen.
sounds like you're not familiar with the screens from
5D MkII, Sony A900, nor the Nikons D3/x & D700/300 ...
-
i have had limited experience with the 5d2 and it was quite nice, so yes you are right. that will probably become the norm for the mark 4 cameras etc.
-
Wrong Mr. Mancuso, absolutely wrong:
The LCD used in the Sinarback eSprit 65 IS of the quality of the Nikon, and has a 640x480 resolution in a 3" screen (4 times the resolution of the P+ LCDs): yes, it IS possible to fit such a 3" LCD in a back.
Best regards,
Thierry
Please if you don't know you own abilities and your own experience there is not a LCD out there that will save your ass on any level. If a LCD is that important and your not thinking you can shoot without one. Do one of two things use a tethered solution or go get a Nikon. Your not going to fit a 3 inch screen on a back that will be effective for you.
-
@ Doug Wow that iso800 file looks NICE. Not sure about the light on the face though
-
I really don't care a bit about this new back, but ONE thing I find absolutly fantastic and which kinda is falling of the grid in this topis is, that the back is SHIPPING NOW. If it is really true it is by far the best new concept and great. Now more stupid paperlaunches like all the companies do. I hope it stays that way. Would be nice if you actually could by the product right away, instead off waiting up to 6 months or so.
-
If it's impossible to fit a bigger screen, you would think it possible to make it so you could plug in your iPhone and use that screen or something like it.
Kevin.
-
Wrong Mr. Mancuso, absolutely wrong:
The LCD used in the Sinarback eSprit 65 IS of the quality of the Nikon, and has a 640x480 resolution in a 3" screen (4 times the resolution of the P+ LCDs): yes, it IS possible to fit such a 3" LCD in a back.
Best regards,
Thierry
Isn't it funny? For years we've been told that it was not possible to get more resolution on the LCD, due to the characteristics of sensor design, or the heat, blah, blah, blah. Now it turns out that it is possible after all. I bet the same applies to live Preview. Where there is a will...
That Sinar back looks good and it's reasonably priced too. If the quality, accuracy of colour and definition of the LCD is as good as what you get on the Canon 5DII, (pretty good to judge your pictures), then this is a camera worth a look.
Edward
-
If it's impossible to fit a bigger screen, you would think it possible to make it so you could plug in your iPhone and use that screen or something like it.
Kevin.
It's not just the phase lcd screen, well it is the lcd screen, but there is more to the story.
It's also the in camera preview which doesn't seem to apply noise reduction or a preview file big enough for detailed viewing. Shoot a peethirtyplus at 800 iso and look at the lcd, it looks like a snowstorm hit it.
Digital backs are very computer software dependent in producing the preview to the final enlarged image, unlike dslrs that do a lot of pretty fantastic in camera processing.
It's also not the size of the digital back, because a Nikon D90 is probably smaller than any phase back and has live view, in camera processing, a 3" lcd, shoots video and has a battery not any larger in physical size than the phase battery, but last forever.
DSLR's have progressed leaps and bounds and the cheap Nikon D90 is very close in final image quality to a Canon 1ds, maybe even the 1ds2 all for 1/7th of the price of a top end dslr, 1/20th the price of a medium format back.
-
Dear Edward,
From my knowledge, there was never a MFDB manufacturer claiming such, when it comes to LCD resolution or its size. At least that was never my "excuse" concerning Sinarbacks and LCDs.
The only reason for it is the price (for such small quantities) and the fact that it is difficult to find a LCD manufacturer ready to go in production for your special needs: usually such LCD manufacturers have much bigger buyers. After that, once one has found such a LCD, it needs to re-design the back, but that is not that much a problem, from one generation of backs to the next. One simply also forgets often, that from one generation of backs to the next one, there is often at least 2 years passing.
I doubt I still can be criticized for having an "agenda" here, if I ever had one before and while working for Sinar. I say things how they are and how I know them to be, as much as I did before.
Best regards,
Thierry
Isn't it funny? For years we've been told that it was not possible to get more resolution on the LCD, due to the characteristics of sensor design, or the heat, blah, blah, blah. Now it turns out that it is possible after all. I bet the same applies to live Preview. Where there is a will...
That Sinar back looks good and it's reasonably priced too. If the quality, accuracy of colour and definition of the LCD is as good as what you get on the Canon 5DII, (pretty good to judge your pictures), then this is a camera worth a look.
Edward
-
Thank you. Not actually referring to you Thierry, or to anyone in particular. All I have is a recollection of excuses, and I don't want to know the particulars, all excuses tend to blur into one, details don't matter. Either it's available or it isn't.
However, I don't recall hearing that it was price that prevented proper LCDs from materialising.
Edward
-
Wrong Mr. Mancuso, absolutely wrong:
The LCD used in the Sinarback eSprit 65 IS of the quality of the Nikon, and has a 640x480 resolution in a 3" screen (4 times the resolution of the P+ LCDs): yes, it IS possible to fit such a 3" LCD in a back.
Best regards,
Thierry
Forgot about that one , actually never hear much about this back to be honest but it is also based on the jpeg file and not the Raw which can be different. Seriously does anyone actually have this back in there hands , never seen anyone mention they have one. Like to hear what they say about it. Is this back maybe not only thicker compared to others because of the screen, trying to figure out how they did it. BTW the name is Guy, I'm not that old. LOL
-
It's also the in camera preview which doesn't seem to apply noise reduction or a preview file big enough for detailed viewing. Shoot a peethirtyplus at 800 iso and look at the lcd, it looks like a snowstorm hit it.
This is an artifact of how the back is generating the preview. The technique is called decimation (or nearest-neighbor interpolation) where a pixel is simply extracted from the full-sized image. I haven't seen the algorithm Phase uses, but I'd be willing to bet the pixels are carefully selected directly from the raw and subsequently demosaic'ed ("developed") to create the preview.
Even though this yields a "low quality" preview, with all the noise in an image highly accentuated, it is a "cheap" way of creating a preview. It requires less processing, consumes less battery power, and yields more performance.
The "snowstorm" look of the Phase previews is an artifact of the quality of the data it's being fed, not because of the LCD itself. This could be improved immensely with a different preview generation algorithm, potentially at the expense of one or more of the benefits mentioned above.
-Brad
-
... but it is also based on the jpeg file and not the Raw which can be different.
I don't get it?! Are you saying that the view of the image on the LCD screen is not the RAW? If yes, that was never the point in that discussion, and neither Nikon nor Canon, nor any DB manufacturer do display a RAW. But may be I misunderstood this one.
Is this back maybe not only thicker compared to others because of the screen.
Why should it be thicker?!
Thierry
-
Exactly, Brad, thanks for this.
For your information, Mr. Mancuso.
Best regards,
Thierry
This is an artifact of how the back is generating the preview. The technique is called decimation (or nearest-neighbor interpolation) where a pixel is simply extracted from the full-sized image. I haven't seen the algorithm Phase uses, but I'd be willing to bet the pixels are carefully selected directly from the raw and subsequently demosaic'ed ("developed") to create the preview.
Even though this yields a "low quality" preview, with all the noise in an image highly accentuated, it is a "cheap" way of creating a preview. It requires less processing, consumes less battery power, and yields more performance.
The "snowstorm" look of the Phase previews is an artifact of the quality of the data it's being fed, not because of the LCD itself. This could be improved immensely with a different preview generation algorithm, potentially at the expense of one or more of the benefits mentioned above.
-Brad
-
good idea , and by the way it will be nice to plug the battery of the car
-
A Question:
If a company knows in February that a new product is almost ready, and will ship in April or May, should it
1. Tell people what it knows in February, by announcing that the product is coming in a couple of months' time.
or
2. Keep it a secret until it is ready for sale, so that some customers will buy the current product that is about to be replaced by a better one at about the same price?
Some people seem to be fans of "keep us in the dark so that the product ships as soon as it is announced"; I am not, seeing it mainly as a way to avoid depressing sales of a product that is soon to be superseded, to the benefit of the company but to the disadvantage of its customers.
Ironically, I suspect that some of these same "hide it from us until Christmas morning" people are also enthusiastic for news of leaks about forthcoming products, effectively preferring a mix of real leaks and false rumors to the more solid information that the company could be giving us about its plans.
P. S. That said, a new 40MP 44x33mm 6micron pixel sensor from Dalsa was a very easy prediction .... when will be know about Kodak's?
-
A Question:
If a company knows in February that a new product is almost ready, and will ship in April or May, should it
1. Tell people what it knows in February, by announcing that the product is coming in a couple of months' time.
or
2. Keep it a secret until it is ready for sale, so that some customers will buy the current product that is about to be replaced by a better one at about the same price?
Some people seem to be fans of "keep us in the dark so that the product ships as soon as it is announced"; I am not, seeing it mainly as a way to avoid depressing sales of a product that is soon to be superseded, to the benefit of the company but to the disadvantage of its customers.
Ironically, I suspect that some of these same "hide it from us until Christmas morning" people are also enthusiastic for news of leaks about forthcoming products, effectively preferring a mix of real leaks and false rumors to the more solid information that the company could be giving us about its plans.
It really is a hard question. Each method has ups and downs. Medium format (all brands) is notorious for announcing a product and then either 1) it doesn't get released 2) the specs change 3) it is delayed. So this method prevents much of that problem. However, giving a roadmap for the future also has benefits. All I can say here is that if you work with a trustworthy dealer they will advise you as best as they can; we DO care about our customers both for personal reasons (I am friends with many of our best customers) as well as business reasons (happy customers = referrals and future business) and do everything we can to make sure the right product gets into their hands.
However, you should note that the P30+ was reduced in price in advance of the launch, so anyone who purchased one in the recent months should not feel cheated. If any of our customers (I can only speak as a dealer) who purchased with that lower price in the last few months still feel cheated somehow we (as a dealer) would take care of them somehow.
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/)
-
I don't get it?! Are you saying that the view of the image on the LCD screen is not the RAW? If yes, that was never the point in that discussion, and neither Nikon nor Canon, nor any DB manufacturer do display a RAW. But may be I misunderstood this one.
Why should it be thicker?!
Thierry
Simply because the jpeg is a processed file inside the back or camera and can represent differently than the actual raw file. And yes that matters a great deal and is a issue in the 35mm world because of different parameters. But as Brad points out than it is a different process from the Raw itself. But some camera's will show from a jpeg and that was what I wanted to know.
I'm simply asking a question if the back got thicker or the chassis for that matter over a older back that does not have the larger screen. Wondering about the room inside to actually carry it and the electronics.
-
I'm simply asking a question if the back got thicker or the chassis for that matter over a older back that does not have the larger screen. Wondering about the room inside to actually carry it and the electronics.
Guy, they just changed the button layout and case design to make room for it.
old:
(http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pics/emotion75.jpg)
new:
(http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pics/eSprite65LV.jpg)
-
The only time companies seem to announce their forthcoming products ahead of time is when they want to prevent customers from buying a *competitors* product that is superior today. They want to sell the vapor until they have time to come up with the real deal. But even then, the customer is in control of what to do with the information and how much to value or trust it. Having the information is always better, IMHO.
-
Guy, they just changed the button layout and case design to make room for it.
old:
(http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pics/emotion75.jpg)
new:
(http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pics/eSprite65LV.jpg)
Thanks Graham. Reason I asked is I am wondering from memory I thought the Sinar back was a touch thicker than the Phase backs and seeing if Phase had to make there design a little thicker to accommodate it. By the photos you posted it actually looks small for the 65 over the 75 though which is always a good thing but just maybe the angles we are seeing. I know the Phase backs since I have one is pretty svelte as far as thickness so it may have to get a litter bigger, just a guess.
-
it may have to get a litter bigger, just a guess.
actaually the area is there:
[attachment=13343:p45.jpg]
-
[quote name='tho_mas' date='Apr 30 2009, 02:41 PM' post='280318']
actaually the area is there:
[attachment=13343:p45.jpg]
[/quote
That looks much better.
-
Guy, they just changed the button layout and case design to make room for it.
old:
(http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pics/emotion75.jpg)
new:
(http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pics/eSprite65LV.jpg)
Just curious Graham, what is the actual diagonal LCD dimension for both of those screens. The reason I ask is the old one looks smaller than the Phase while the larger one is of course is larger than Phase. I think the current Phase back has a 2.2 inch diagonal LCD at something weird like 414x532 pixels.
Cheers,
-
Just curious Graham, what is the actual diagonal LCD dimension for both of those screens. The reason I ask is the old one looks smaller than the Phase while the larger one is of course is larger than Phase. I think the current Phase back has a 2.2 inch diagonal LCD at something weird like 414x532 pixels.
Hi Jack,
The older Sinar is 2.2", the newer one is 3" and 640x480. The Phase P+ backs are only 320x240 (so the Sinar has 4 times the pixel count).
-
Looking at the Phase brochure here 2.2 QVGA TFT with 230,000 pixels whatever that works out to be
Jack multiplying your numbers it comes to 220,248
Graham yours comes to 76,800 so your both off. LOL
Okay Steve enlighten us
-
Here I will just post that page of it from Phase
-
actaually the area is there:
[attachment=13343:p45.jpg]
That is pretty nice , you lose the power button but simply make the right top 4 button to hold down for 1 second or so and power from there.
-
Graham yours comes to 76,800 so your both off. LOL
QVGA means 320x240 pixels. P1 have obscured this very low resolution by not only multiplying the number of pixels, but counting each R, G and B pixel as a separate pixel. I like the Phase backs but this kind of marketing nonsense gets to me. It's an insult to the customers, imo. Why not just tell the truth and print 320x240 which is what everyone will understand and wants to know?
320 x 240 x 3 = 230,400
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVGA)
-
That is pretty nice , you lose the power button
you can place the power button somewhere else.
Question is: what is behind the LCD and how much space a bigger display would need; looking at my mobile phone not more than maybe 0.5cm or so... :-)
-
That is what I was thinking how much thicker does the back have to extend out for the display and it's guts. Maybe not much at all
-
QVGA means 320x240 pixels. P1 have obscured this very low resolution by not only multiplying the number of pixels, but counting each R, G and B pixel as a separate pixel. I like the Phase backs but this kind of marketing nonsense gets to me. It's an insult to the customers, imo. Why not just tell the truth and print 320x240 which is what everyone will understand and wants to know?
320 x 240 x 3 = 230,400
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVGA)
Thanks I just don't pay attention to some of this stuff but I agree just saying 320x 240 would be better for the user to understand
-
That is pretty nice , you lose the power button but simply make the right top 4 button to hold down for 1 second or so and power from there.
The layout of the phase backs need to change anyway. The buttons on the side are way too easy to push around when moving fast and though after a period you learn the process, it is not the world's most intuitive design.
As far as the lcd, who cares if it's 240,000 vs, 920,000, it just depends on what it looks like and it ain't that pretty.
Still, there is nothing new about this and nothing Phase or their dealers don't know about. In fact I'm positive if the new p40 and p65 had a high rez 3" lcd, all the talk would be how crappy the old lcds were, (think 3.7 previews vs. 4.8 previews).
This is just selling what you got and for the price I think most of us want more.
Now the strange thing about all this is the Sinar did hit all of the right buttons (pun intended) and obviously theirry or someone at Sinar was listening. High rez lcd, in camera processing, dng native files out of camera and I don't spend my life digging around camera stores, but I've never seen this new Sinar in the flesh, in fact the 4 Sinars I've seen in 4 separate dealers all had dead batteries, which leads me to believe Sinar needs some serious marketing effort of their product.
JRR
-
wow
I see the P21+ is no longer listed...
I guess it's been dropped off the line up.
am
-
The layout of the phase backs need to change anyway. The buttons on the side are way too easy to push around when moving fast and though after a period you learn the process, it is not the world's most intuitive design.
As far as the lcd, who cares if it's 240,000 vs, 920,000, it just depends on what it looks like and it ain't that pretty.
Still, there is nothing new about this and nothing Phase or their dealers don't know about. In fact I'm positive if the new p40 and p65 had a high rez 3" lcd, all the talk would be how crappy the old lcds were, (think 3.7 previews vs. 4.8 previews).
This is just selling what you got and for the price I think most of us want more.
Now the strange thing about all this is the Sinar did hit all of the right buttons (pun intended) and obviously theirry or someone at Sinar was listening. High rez lcd, in camera processing, dng native files out of camera and I don't spend my life digging around camera stores, but I've never seen this new Sinar in the flesh, in fact the 4 Sinars I've seen in 4 separate dealers all had dead batteries, which leads me to believe Sinar needs some serious marketing effort of their product.
JRR
I agree and it still uses the same P30 / H31 sensor which maybe for some outdated. For some maybe but I just bought a P30 + so not all of us think that. I think the buttons should actually be indented into the chassis some.
-
When you look at that chart, I'm amazed that anyone would think that a P40+ is an "upgrade" to a P45+. You go from a nice big chip, and a large viewfinder image, back down to a cropped chip and a smaller viewfinder image. I just think it's a back that's designed to compete with Canon or Nikon, but in my book, it just can't compete. I mean seriously, how many people need to shoot two frames a second with a medium format back with one autofocus point in the center? Who the hell is shooting the Super Bowl with a P40+? Even in fashion, who *really* does that, unless you're some coked-up Austin Powers dork? Who shoots two frames in a row without checking focus? I still maintain that the P21+ was a killer back; it shot fast, it was super affordable. To me, this P40+ is a replacement for the P21+.
All this talk about "the 3D effect of MediumFormat" is due to the size of the chip; why would anyone want to go smaller, by choice? You wanna see full 3D -- go shoot some 8x10 film. Seems to me you're shooting MF, (with all its hassles), for the optical effect, and the smaller the chip, the more you kill that effect. I still maintain that the P65+ is The Shits; but sadly, how many people are gonna write that check, just for a few more millimeters? Very few. I wish Phase would discontinue every back in the lineup except for the P65+, cut the price in half, and try to get the volume up. Because there is simply no way to compete with Nikon and Canon on their own turf. No way.
-
Anyway when I think of video instead of stills, it makes me think that much of the stress will be removed from the shoot, as you will not need to be selecting a thousand precise instants per day. That's where a lot of the stress comes from for me: I'll take a shot NOW, NOW and....NOW - oops, did I get that expression? Oops, she's moving again...NOW, NOW...NOW...
Whereas if you are shooting video you will have gotten every last facial expression the model made that day. And you can chose your moments for the stills later at the computer. Pretty cool. I have dabbled in video recently, and it is WAY less stressful IMO.
When making films, they have a stills photographer to take, well er stills. So why not do frame grabs like you seem to be suggesting? The quality that makes for perfectly good film/video looks a bit ropey as a still. 1/50th of a second is a slow exposure if you want sharp pictures, particularly without flash and if camera is not fixed to a tripod, they you make it even worse. Also for some people simply being in front of a video camera that rolls continuosly may make for a a subject that either moves continously and risk blurry images or one that may not know when to make poses as there is no feedback with camera noise/flash going off that gives shoots a rhythm.
The time when it may be best for some photographers is when it's least good - capturing action as with 25fps, you may get the position, but will it be sharp enough as movement will be even faster. I've had blur when shooting dancers with studio flash as the duration wasn't short enough.
-
wow
I see the P21+ is no longer listed...
I guess it's been dropped off the line up.
am
Not listed in the unified tech spec sheet and unlikely to lead any marketing materials, but still available, and still very very good. It's not secret the sensors are not made anymore. However, they will be sold as refurbished units as people trade up to newer systems.
It may be "only" 18 megapixels, but for a variety of reasons I would rather enlarge an 18 megapixel P21+ file than a 22-24 megapixel dSLRs.
Old backs never die, they just... fade away. :-)
Doug
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/)
-
When you look at that chart, I'm amazed that anyone would think that a P40+ is an "upgrade" to a P45+. You go from a nice big chip, and a large viewfinder image, back down to a cropped chip and a smaller viewfinder image. I just think it's a back that's designed to compete with Canon or Nikon, but in my book, it just can't compete. I mean seriously, how many people need to shoot two frames a second with a medium format back with one autofocus point in the center? Who the hell is shooting the Super Bowl with a P40+? Even in fashion, who *really* does that, unless you're some coked-up Austin Powers dork? Who shoots two frames in a row without checking focus? I still maintain that the P21+ was a killer back; it shot fast, it was super affordable. To me, this P40+ is a replacement for the P21+.
All this talk about "the 3D effect of MediumFormat" is due to the size of the chip; why would anyone want to go smaller, by choice? You wanna see full 3D -- go shoot some 8x10 film. Seems to me you're shooting MF, (with all its hassles), for the optical effect, and the smaller the chip, the more you kill that effect. I still maintain that the P65+ is The Shits; but sadly, how many people are gonna write that check, just for a few more millimeters? Very few. I wish Phase would discontinue every back in the lineup except for the P65+, cut the price in half, and try to get the volume up. Because there is simply no way to compete with Nikon and Canon on their own turf. No way.
I doubt seriously if Phase is after Canon or Nikon Sales. That ship has sailed along with the 10 million ex RZ users that moved to Canons. If there had been p25's, for around 15k, medium format would look a lot different today. but back in the good ol' days, they were all charging 30 grand a hit.
Don't get me wrong, Phase and all the medium format guys would love to have every Canon guy "upgrade" to a P65+ but as far as meeting Canon and Nikon toe to toe with features, it ain't gonna happen.
I think this P40 is to try to put some distance between themselves and Hasselblad and maybe Leica.
It's no secret that Blad is getting damn aggressive and trying to make a push to pick up the digital tech, renters market. That's why you see things like Calumet features Hasselblad or the Hasselblad Univeristy.
It's also no secret that the professional rental market has been dominated for a long time by Phase and to a lesser extent Leaf (both using used H-1s and H2s), so Blad would like a cut of that pie and this new Phase gives them 10 more megapixels and a faster shooting rate than the Hthreedtwothiryone or whatever Hasselblad calls their low price leader.
As far as Leica goes, I guess nobody is worried about them taking the professional market by storm, but there is a lot of dentists out there just itching to buy a bigger camera and the new phase will up the Leica by a few megapixels and medium format has been selling megapixels forever.
Their slogan should be "supersize me".
From this point on the gloves are off. Medium format can't be picking up that much market share so that just leaves 4 people at the poker table all holding a pair of jacks.
You know it's a tough professional market out there when the camera dealer I use says he sold 40 something d3x's but not one to a professional photographer.
As far as the peetwentyone, for a cropped sensor it's a great back and shoots fast, enlarges well and has a nice texture to the files. The lcd sucks (ah the phase lcd) and I'm sure hanging out at the tower club and saying your camera only has 18 megapixels doesn't turn any heads, but it's a damn good deal and the best way to get into medium format.
B
-
Forget one-upping Hasselblad or cutting into the DSLR crowd, The P40+ to seems to be going after the existing P30 crowd. Over the last several year Phase has sold a lot more backs than anybody else out there and in this economy you cant expect to draw in a lot of new users. But... If you can a take a camera that already sold extremely well to the next level, you might have alot of buyers. The P30 was geared toward the fashion crowd... fast capture, higher ISO etc. Just looking at NY and LA you have a lot of photographers using these backs and alot available in rental. I wouldnt call it a saturated market, but the biggest sales days are gone with this segment. Bring in the P40+ and you might be able to make a bunch of new sales... especially to rental houses. Think about it, what does the back offer for this market?
1. Its really really fast, fast enough you would never have to wait for it. the P30 was pretty fast, but could have been a bit better.
2. CCD is the same size as the P30, so your making a compromise in this market.
3. High ISO. Yes it only goes to 800 in standard mode, but assuming its like the P65+, that 800 is actually usable whereas 800 on the P30 was marginal at best.
4. Smaller pixel=less moire
5. Cant do long exposure, but how often do you need more than 30sec-minute in fashion? (or most photography outside of landscape) I dont think this is a deal breaker to this market.
-
Simply because the jpeg is a processed file inside the back or camera and can represent differently than the actual raw file. And yes that matters a great deal and is a issue in the 35mm world because of different parameters. But as Brad points out than it is a different process from the Raw itself. But some camera's will show from a jpeg and that was what I wanted to know.
Well, this we all know, that the preview generated does not display the full RAW information. Of course it matters. And no, the preview image on the LCD is not generated from a JPG, in the Sinarbacks, and never was.
I'm simply asking a question if the back got thicker or the chassis for that matter over a older back that does not have the larger screen. Wondering about the room inside to actually carry it and the electronics.
Nope, a 3" LCD does not need much more space as compared to the previous 2,2" or 2,5" ones. If it has influence on something, then it is on the backs layout of the different functions and menus (see Grahams post of the 2 generation of backs).
Thierry
-
Just a little correction, Graham:
The newer eMotion 75 has a 2.5" display. It was the previous e75 model which had a 2.2" LCD.
http://www.sinarcameras.com/site/index__ga...87-23-2014.html (http://www.sinarcameras.com/site/index__gast-e-1887-23-2014.html)
Best regards,
Thierry
Hi Jack,
The older Sinar is 2.2", the newer one is 3" and 640x480. The Phase P+ backs are only 320x240 (so the Sinar has 4 times the pixel count).
-
actaually the area is there:
[attachment=13343:p45.jpg]
not far away from your idea but it could be done! NO EXCUSES!
ATT:Phase ONE
if nothing "PLEASE KEEP THE DAMN SIZE BUT GLUE THE BETTER SCREEN ON"
-
This sounds like an interesting back. Not a sea change, but basically a 2009 version of the p45+.
-
To those who are ranting about the LCD: please. I mean... please. The LCD does suck, but what did you do with film? Have a lackey process on a Jobo in the corner of the studio to not have to wait for the lab to process and contact?
you should stay in the 19th Century my friend but I know you'll miss your Iphone crap/application so of course let's not talk or as you would say rant about the new LCD instead let's talk about practically similar SH*T
why not have both good adequate LCD according to todays standards and your/others IPhone application
without please this... or please that...
-
As for the "client prefers to look at the d3x lcd" argument, who the hell shows their client the job on a 3" LCD, as anything other than a casual reference?
Phase LCDs do suck. In fact, all LCDs are pretty awful photo viewing devices. Even the shiny Canon and Nikon ones. But if you have a MFDB, you didnt buy it for getting a big shiny picture on the back, but a big beautiful file (after doing the work to get it) in your harddrive.
hrm. I show my client the 3" image on the job. I guess that comes with working fast and guerilla style when we don't have the time to set up a generator and a 30inch screen, when we're doing multiple angles to figure out what works best, having an instant 3" preview that gives a very good idea of how the final image is going to look is a big boon
I'm sending my canon in for a maxmax aa-filter removal, maybe that will make it easier for me to just rely on my 5D MkII for jobs (shock!)
-
not far away from your idea but it could be done! NO EXCUSES!
ATT:Phase ONE
if nothing "PLEASE KEEP THE DAMN SIZE BUT GLUE THE BETTER SCREEN ON"
Really nice mock-up. I think Phase would do well to go this direction. But... I doubt they will invest a lot of $$$ to rework their P-series back design. Right now they can just throw in a new sensor and they have another back in the line-up. To put in a higher res screen would involve a change to the body/chassis as well as updating the electronics to drive the higher res screen and generate more detailed previews and zoom views, all without sacrificing speed and performance. This is not that easy, and certainly not cheap. In this economy, many MFDB companies are adopting a more conservative R&D schedule. Keep in mind that the P65+ was announced at Photokina in Sept before the global meltdown. I'm sure that the P40+ was well along in development and had been on the road map alongside the P65+ at that time. So, consider this as a product that was already in the works and was on last fiscal year's books. I doubt that you will see any major redesign of the back or the P1 camera for quite some time. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see where the investment will come from.
David
-
Really nice mock-up. I think Phase would do well to go this direction. But... I doubt they will invest a lot of $$$ to rework their P-series back design. Right now they can just throw in a new sensor and they have another back in the line-up. To put in a higher res screen would involve a change to the body/chassis as well as updating the electronics to drive the higher res screen and generate more detailed previews and zoom views, all without sacrificing speed and performance. This is not that easy, and certainly not cheap. In this economy, many MFDB companies are adopting a more conservative R&D schedule. Keep in mind that the P65+ was announced at Photokina in Sept before the global meltdown. I'm sure that the P40+ was well along in development and had been on the road map alongside the P65+ at that time. So, consider this as a product that was already in the works and was on last fiscal year's books. I doubt that you will see any major redesign of the back or the P1 camera for quite some time. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see where the investment will come from.
David
I could go on with this topic but it's not worth our time so I'll make it short
"I doubt they will invest a lot of $$$" you say... THE END INVESTORS ARE ACTUALLY US CUSTOMERS (NEVER FORGET THAT) investing and paying triple of whatever the cost is some times even more.. you can believe that for sure 'cause even their dealers don't know what the true cost is.. of course they are told certain numbers to have during negotiation events and I'm sure most dealers believe that by default of course like in the car industry or any other but thats about it.
time is not on their side either, so things that are long overdue like that (their first generation screen if I'm not mistaken) LCD should be done soon so should number of others things along the same road but please don't lead me to believe that I or we should be worried about their pockets 'cause as i said before it's us who are paying for it
mind you we are talking here about the leader in this MFDB industry
as I wrote before if nothing "PLEASE KEEP THE DAMN SIZE BUT GLUE THE BETTER SCREEN ON"
shame but it can't be done cheaper than that!
-
Is it too late for the leica S2 to have this sensor than what is currently planned (inferior?), which is I believe the sensor in the P30 - correct me if I'm wrong ? This would be the best use of this sensor, unless you are a MF shooter who often uses high iso for fashion or weddings etc...
As for landscape photographers, all this means is that the P45+ is a bit "cheaper" and in fact costs about the same as the P40+ now and alot less used. As has been menntioned already - why do you go into MF if you are not interested in sensor real estate and some niffty wide angle options ?
Even so the P40+ should be appluaded as a P60+ for thoose with smaller pockets and who are happy with teh chip size (as far as I am concerned the res (40MP) is fine)
Ed
-
Is it too late for the leica S2 to have this sensor than what is currently planned (inferior?), which is I believe the sensor in the P30 - correct me if I'm wrong ?
No, Leica is using something else with 3:2 ratio (unfortunately)
-
No, Leica is using something else with 3:2 ratio (unfortunately)
I really regret that choice too, I don't like it
-
The Phase One P40+ and P65+ and the Leaf Afi-ll 10 use the new DALSA 6micron-architecture, while the Hasselblad H3D-50 and the Leica S2 use the new Kodak 6micron-architecture.
Over the past decade, just a few new architecture-generations were developed, the predecessor of the Kodak/DALSA-6micron-architecture (7,2/6,8micron) was introduced about 4 years before so I don't think we can expect another step forward for another 3/4 years!
The architecture is the real technology inside the sensor, (used properly) defines sensitivity and DR - how big are the differences between the 31/39MP-Kodak-backs regarding IQ? What sizes you cut out or which filters/microlenses you use in the end, is another story.
I don't think we can expect major differences in IQ between cameras/backs using this architecture, it's more about the integration of the technology, the ergonomics, the mechanical quality and the lenses.
Using a 33x44mm-back on a 6x6 (Hy6) or 645-System makes it a "crop-system", heavier, bigger and slower than it needs to be. I think the market goes into two directions, really modular and big like P65+ and technical cameras/lenses, slow but superior IQ and flexibility. On the other side more compact systems with professional IQ like the S2. But old 645-systems with 1,3x crop? Maybe for people who "only" want to invest 20k$ to keep their system active...
-
When you look at that chart, I'm amazed that anyone would think that a P40+ is an "upgrade" to a P45+. You go from a nice big chip, and a large viewfinder image, back down to a cropped chip and a smaller viewfinder image.
that tells something about how Phase sees the ranking. It's ranking by resolution, not ranking by format. But hasn't it been always like this? It was always the order P45, P30, P25... instead of P45, P25, P30 ...
not far away from your idea but it could be done!
I'd prefer the power button on the right side :-)
-
I'd prefer the power button on the right side :-)
on the right side but still on the front panel? :-)
seriously, I actually thought the power button could be positioned on the side panel left or right
but can't go away from the original design, you know R&D ;-)
-
I would think left since you have to hold the camera with your right hand which leaves your left hand free.
-
Really nice mock-up. I think Phase would do well to go this direction. But... I doubt they will invest a lot of $$$ to rework their P-series back design.
David
And then again, maybe we will. Really, David, I think we're doing quite a good enough job of roiling up people's emotions without your assistance.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
you have to hold the camera with your right hand
shooting hand held the camera "lies" (more) in my left hand to focus manually (and in addition nearly all adjustments of the Contax are on the right side). Too, to power on my camera (Contax) I take the right hand while holding the camera (more) in the left. Anyway... was intended as a little joke as I actually don't care at all were to power on the back.
-
And then again, maybe we will. Really, David, I think we're doing quite a good enough job of roiling up people's emotions without your assistance.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Now is a good time to turn this discussion to a money maker.
We can do a reality show "Battle Of The Medium Format Wars".
With all the dealers and reps on this forum we could hold a hell of a show.
It could be taped in Estonia because God knows flights to Europe are cheap right now and the judges could be Theirry and Foto Zee.
Can't you just feel the excitement, the suspense.
Question One. Which medium format back has an LCD detailed enough to view from 9 inches
Buzz.
Phase - Nope, Leaf/Hasselblad Yes but you can't tell if the subject is a man or a woman, Sinar (Sorry nobody is at the Sinar Podium).
Question two. Which medium format back has software that doesn't take a learning curve and a class.
Buzz.
Phase - Nope, Hasselblad - No, Sinar (sorry nobody at the Sinar Podium), Leaf- YES
Question three. Which medium format brand has a wide angle lens.
Buzz.
Phase - Yes but no leaf shutter deduct 1/2 point, Leaf - Nope, Hasselblad - Yes, but only works on H3's deduct 2 points, Sinar (Sorry nobody is at the Sinar Podium).
Question Four Which medium format company has software that is not in perpetual upgrade?
Buzz.
Sorry no replies from the contestants.
Bonus Round Question One - directed to the studio audience.
Of the Medium Format Digital Back Users/Owners, who in the studio audience could trade their Medium Format Digital Back for a Nikon D3x?
Just stand or hold up your hand.
Studio is quiet, oh no hold it, there is one person standing . . . sorry that is a Nikon Rep on his way home.
Tune it next week for "Battle Of The Medium Format Wars", where the topic will be "selling used or upgrading" with a special Bonus Round for call in E-bay Power Sellers.
Roll Credits
Battle Of The Medium Format Wars is brought to you by
JUST STICKER IT a cost effective new way to upgrade your
digital back without having to remortgage your home.
Comes in 12 new designs, Phase P95+, Hasselblad H4dIII60, LeafAFI4-v2-75 and Sinar Espresso 31.
-
It could be taped in Estonia because God knows flights to Europe are cheap right now and the judges could be Theirry and Foto Zee.
Haha, happy to oblige.
-
Is it too late for the leica S2 to have this sensor than what is currently planned (inferior?), which is I believe the sensor in the P30 - correct me if I'm wrong ? This would be the best use of this sensor, unless you are a MF shooter who often uses high iso for fashion or weddings etc...
The P40+ uses a 33x44mm 6um Dalsa chip. The S2 uses a 30x45mm 6um Kodak chip, not the older 31MP 6.8um sensor from the P30. These are of the same latest generation 6um architecture. As georgl wrote, the next sensor generation probably 3-4 years away. Both offerings from Kodak and Dalsa are the current state-of-the-art. I really don't think one or the other is inferior. There are small differences like max exposure time, but the pixel binning and high ISO performance should be very comparable.
David
-
And then again, maybe we will. Really, David, I think we're doing quite a good enough job of roiling up people's emotions without your assistance.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve,
Not trying to roil people up. I was just trying to explain that putting in a larger LCD isn't as simple as just popping one in. There are under-the-hood and financial challenges associated. With two new products out the door in the last 6 months, the decision to go bigger/higher-res would have to have been made a year ago. I have no doubt, that based on user feedback and the fact that Phase One is known as a very customer-focused company, they will eventually move in this direction.
David
-
Steve,
Not trying to roil people up. I was just trying to explain that putting in a larger LCD isn't as simple as just popping one in. There are under-the-hood and financial challenges associated. With two new products out the door in the last 6 months, the decision to go bigger/higher-res would have to have been made a year ago. I have no doubt, that based on user feedback and the fact that Phase One is known as a very customer-focused company, they will eventually move in this direction.
David
Yeah, and Phase is going to sell the P65++ and P40++ (two "+") with marginally improved/brighter LCD for 8000$.
Sometimes I wish I could do stunts like that with my customers and get away with it. But then again... just delivering what customers want seems to be the better business practice with better future prospects.
-
Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but I just checked with my dealer and the "upgrade" price from P30+ to P40+ is...... are you ready? ....$14990. hmmmm.
-
Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but I just checked with my dealer and the "upgrade" price from P30+ to P40+ is...... are you ready? ....$14990. hmmmm.
So that means the trade in value of a PeeThirtyPlus is now $500?
Sounds like a good deal.
Remember
Battle Of The Medium Format Wars is brought to you by
JUST STICKER IT a cost effective new way to upgrade your
digital back without having to remortgage your home.
Comes in 12 new designs, Phase P95+, Hasselblad H4dIII60, LeafAFI4-v2-75 and Sinar Espresso 31.
B
-
$14990
-
*deleted*
-
There are small differences like max exposure time
David
small ? with Dalsa in winter at 6 PM you must go to bed and stop shooting
-
The layout of the phase backs need to change anyway. The buttons on the side are way too easy to push around when moving fast and though after a period you learn the process, it is not the world's most intuitive design.
As far as the lcd, who cares if it's 240,000 vs, 920,000, it just depends on what it looks like and it ain't that pretty.
Still, there is nothing new about this and nothing Phase or their dealers don't know about. In fact I'm positive if the new p40 and p65 had a high rez 3" lcd, all the talk would be how crappy the old lcds were, (think 3.7 previews vs. 4.8 previews).
This is just selling what you got and for the price I think most of us want more.
Now the strange thing about all this is the Sinar did hit all of the right buttons (pun intended) and obviously theirry or someone at Sinar was listening. High rez lcd, in camera processing, dng native files out of camera and I don't spend my life digging around camera stores, but I've never seen this new Sinar in the flesh, in fact the 4 Sinars I've seen in 4 separate dealers all had dead batteries, which leads me to believe Sinar needs some serious marketing effort of their product.
JRR
I know this is off the topic but when it comes to Sinar here in Australia, Sun Studios just dropped Sinar ( Feb 2009 ) & has kept Leaf. The very first shoot I did was with a Sinar 2x2 chip in 1999 & that was when Sinar & Leaf were working together. Then in 2000 Sinar & Leaf went it alone. I started shooting ( renting & still do ) with Leaf, I just liked the software better & liked the file quality. But since 2000, where Sinar was in the top three now they are in the no 4 position. And letting go of Thiery was a stupid idea since no one has replaced him on this form. Sinar better wake up & being very quiet about F&H over the past 6 weeks is not helping either.
Denis
-
hi Denis,
Just a little, nevertheless IMPORTANT precision: there is MUCH more behind what you may know or have been told by Sun Studios concerning the change of Sinar's distributor in AU. Saying that Sun Studios has dropped Sinar is not corresponding to the reality at all.
Best regards,
Thierry
I know this is off the topic but when it comes to Sinar here in Australia, Sun Studios just dropped Sinar ( Feb 2009 ) & has kept Leaf.
Denis
-
I can't ever complain about a new camera. I almost think this is a good thing for previous + back owners. Long exposures is priceless to me and many others, therefor I think the value of the P45+ will stay up a little. The P45+ is still the highest resolution DB with exposures longer than 1 minute.
-
No, Leica is using something else with 3:2 ratio (unfortunately)
Well, considering that Leica has always used this format, and that the S2 appears to be going after the high-end DSLR crowd, you can see where they are coming from. For every photographer complaining about 3:2, there are 10 (or more) who don't. I am not saying I like it, just that I don't think it is necessarily a bad decision.
-
So that means the trade in value of a PeeThirtyPlus is now $500?
Sounds like a good deal.
Remember
Battle Of The Medium Format Wars is brought to you by
JUST STICKER IT a cost effective new way to upgrade your
digital back without having to remortgage your home.
Comes in 12 new designs, Phase P95+, Hasselblad H4dIII60, LeafAFI4-v2-75 and Sinar Espresso 31.
B
No.
It is like saying we can shove it up...
-
A Question:
If a company knows in February that a new product is almost ready, and will ship in April or May, should it
1. Tell people what it knows in February, by announcing that the product is coming in a couple of months' time.
or
2. Keep it a secret until it is ready for sale, so that some customers will buy the current product that is about to be replaced by a better one at about the same price?
It's a good question--there's not going to be a good answer for everybody, but I can tell you where I stand... It depends on if I'm the manufacturer or the consumer!
As a consumer (I'm pretty decisive), I'd prefer option 1. I can deal with the ambiguity, factor in the company's track record of shipping, estimate the pricing impact to the current model(s) and decide whether or not go with the current model.
As a manufacturer, it's a bit trickier. If I feel that the competition has the upper hand in their product line, I'll be much more likely to pre-announce, in an attempt to prevent defection/new customers from going over to the other side. On the other hand, if I feel that I'm the 800-lb gorilla, I'll play my cards close to my chest, so as not to tip off the competition to my next-generation feature set. Some of my customers will be frustrated with me, but I can deal with that separately (offer sliding scale rebates or special trade-ins for recent purchasers, for example), should that be necessary.
-Brad
-
We can do a reality show "Battle Of The Medium Format Wars".
LOL!!
-
QVGA means 320x240 pixels. P1 have obscured this very low resolution by not only multiplying the number of pixels, but counting each R, G and B pixel as a separate pixel. I like the Phase backs but this kind of marketing nonsense gets to me. It's an insult to the customers, imo. Why not just tell the truth and print 320x240 which is what everyone will understand and wants to know?
320 x 240 x 3 = 230,400
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVGA)
I completely agree. Yep, I hate this too. Just makes everything confusing.
Traditionally a pixel is a full-color element. If it's just "R", it's not a pixel, it's a sub-pixel, a sensel, or whatever.
I teach this stuff and my beginner students are thoroughly confused at the start.
Message to manufacturers: Truth in advertising is not a bad thing!
Many of us laughed at Hasselblad for their "full frame" marketing shenanigans. But now Phase takes up with mantle with the P65+. "Almost full-frame" would be just fine in my book. (And for anybody who disagrees, I'll happily give you 94 cents for every dollar you give me.)
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now.
-Brad
P.S. Love those big-screen P45+'s! Sexy.
-
"I completely agree. Yep, I hate this too. Just makes everything confusing.
Traditionally a pixel is a full-color element. If it's just "R", it's not a pixel, it's a sub-pixel, a sensel, or whatever."
Absolutely right, RED does the same with their video-cameras. Resolution in the professionel video/cinematic-world was always measured in real color information. They buy a 12MP-sensor with bayer-filtering (which isn't used by professional systems for a good reason) and claim it's "4k" but basically just creating huge files, which are compressed again to tiny files, which are then called RAW...
I'm not surprised about this stuff in the mass-market but 20k$-RED or Hasselblad lying to pros? Does that really work? Well, it seems so, long enough to bring "honest" companies into deep trouble...
-
"I completely agree. Yep, I hate this too. Just makes everything confusing.
Traditionally a pixel is a full-color element. If it's just "R", it's not a pixel, it's a sub-pixel, a sensel, or whatever."
Absolutely right, RED does the same with their video-cameras. Resolution in the professionel video/cinematic-world was always measured in real color information. They buy a 12MP-sensor with bayer-filtering (which isn't used by professional systems for a good reason) and claim it's "4k" but basically just creating huge files, which are compressed again to tiny files, which are then called RAW...
I'm not surprised about this stuff in the mass-market but 20k$-RED or Hasselblad lying to pros? Does that really work? Well, it seems so, long enough to bring "honest" companies into deep trouble...
The digital film industry traditionally measures the long edge of the frame in k for thousands of pixels, which for a 12MP sensor (4520x2540) really is about 4000, i.e. 4k.
-
As a consumer (I'm pretty decisive), I'd prefer option 1. ... As a manufacturer, it's a bit trickier. If I feel that the competition has the upper hand in their product line, I'll be much more likely to pre-announce, in an attempt to prevent defection/new customers from going over to the other side. On the other hand, if I feel that I'm the 800-lb gorilla, I'll play my cards close to my chest, so as not to tip off the competition to my next-generation feature set.
Much like my thoughts; along with keeping a coming upgrade secret to protect a current product from depressed demand.
The other extreme that I did not mention is "vaporware": announcing an optimistic release date for a product that you hope to have some time in the future, to compete with something that a competitor already has or will have before you, perhaps to avoid defections. The Hasselblad announcement last September of an H3DII-60 coming this April is looking like a case of that. (Not that I mind knowing that Hasselblad is working on such a product; only the dodgy availability dates bother me.)
-
Much like my thoughts; along with keeping a coming upgrade secret to protect a current product from depressed demand.
The other extreme that I did not mention is "vaporware": announcing an optimistic release date for a product that you hope to have some time in the future, to compete with something that a competitor already has or will have before you, perhaps to avoid defections. The Hasselblad announcement last September of an H3DII-60 coming this April is looking like a case of that. (Not that I mind knowing that Hasselblad is working on such a product; only the dodgy availability dates bother me.)
normally your competitors knows what you are coming up with next, early enough.
the public does not.
so, if you think that releasing a statement of a new product coming in the future can hurt your competitors sales, then, sure you release the statement.
-
I'd bet Dalsa's at least a big part of this delay. The new sensor is supposedly crazy low yield at the moment. Painful for all concerned (customers, Phase and Hasselblad). Dalsa, too, I expect...
Much like my thoughts; along with keeping a coming upgrade secret to protect a current product from depressed demand.
The other extreme that I did not mention is "vaporware": announcing an optimistic release date for a product that you hope to have some time in the future, to compete with something that a competitor already has or will have before you, perhaps to avoid defections. The Hasselblad announcement last September of an H3DII-60 coming this April is looking like a case of that. (Not that I mind knowing that Hasselblad is working on such a product; only the dodgy availability dates bother me.)
-
"which for a 12MP sensor (4520x2540) really is about 4000, i.e. 4k"
Yes, when you shoot B/W. Professional video cameras create a signal with full color-information without any interpolation. Video-images have to be handled very carefully in post, even small artifacts that can be dealt with in single-photography-images (like oversharpening, moire, interpolation artifacts) make video-images nearly unusable by professional standards. To create a 1920lines wide signal they use 3x 1920x1080pixel-sensors or filtered sensors which have at least 6MP (1920x1080x3) - 4k-color-cameras don't exist yet except for prototypes (33MP on a 18x24mm-sensor! Have you seen the noise...). But this cheap trick worked, of course "4k" is not HD anymore but the standard digital-cinema with much higher resolution and people bought it!
It's like the trick with the display-pixels, RED is counting "sub-pixels", others do not, therefore RED has higher resolution, just like a 920000pixel-LCD (640x480xRGB) has a higher resolution than a 307000pixel-LCD (640RGB-pixels x 480RGB-pixels)...
-
It's like the trick with the display-pixels, RED is counting "sub-pixels", others do not, therefore RED has higher resolution, just like a 920000pixel-LCD (640x480xRGB) has a higher resolution than a 307000pixel-LCD (640RGB-pixels x 480RGB-pixels)...
Well, not really. If it has three different sensors, offset to give a combined 4k image, then that is really almost exactly like what regular still digital cameras do. Whether other cameras output full RGB or interpolated RGB is irrelevant here. The important part, for that spec, is what image is output, not how they got there. One can argue that it has less resolution than other cameras or not, that is a separate matter.
In other words, unless you consider a 5D Mark II to have 7MP, the RED has 4k, since it does the same interpolation. In fact, it is even better, since the three sensors means that the three sub-channels actually sample larger areas, and are therefore more representative.
However, if the three colour sensors are *not* offset, but deliver exactly the same view with 1920x1080 resolution, then yeah, they are hyping their tech beyond believability. I presume that they are offset, for exactly this reason.
In fact, the same measuring standard is exactly why Foveon's 14MP claim is garbage: the sensor outputs 4.7MP, with full colour information, not 14MP. (Upressing an entire image is something completely different than interpolation between offset colour signals.)
-
Read the specs of the Red camera, http://www.red.com/cameras/tech_specs (http://www.red.com/cameras/tech_specs)
You don't seem to understand that the Red cam is not your mom's HD camera.
The single sensor is 4520 (h) x 2540 (v) that shoots a color raw frame, up to 30 times a second. It's like a raw 5D frame shooting in motion at a different aspect ratio, but not the same physical size. As far as the Red camera, they aren't making up any of the specs. Unlike the Sigma DP-1 which states it's a 14 MP camera, now that's a joke.
But John - reading the specs - would umm..require ..liek some ..you know...reading... LOL
the RED technology is very scary to a traditional mindset...umm decisive moment? which one would you like ...or better yet ..which view of the decisive moment do you prefer? LOL
still i wouldn't fancy trying to carry around one of the current model REDS to shoot with..the big challenge will be size and portability ...pretty much rules out hand held street/candid/landscape..etc..
-
"In other words, unless you consider a 5D Mark II to have 7MP, the RED has 4k"
Yes, the resolution-specs given in still-photography are also wrong, because it's interpolated. That isn't such a big deal, because it's still comparable to other systems, because they all interpolate and most of the time you can deal with the artifacts. But when Foveon arrived, it made it quite difficult for them to explain the difference of their system, that's why they multiplied the resolution for RGB, which also isn't comparable to a bayer-filtered image with the same size.
But professional video-cams are different, nobody ever used color-interpolation. Professional (cine-)cameras like the Panavision Genesis use a 12MP-CMOS-Super35-sensor just like the RED but the output is an uncompressed, uninterpolated signal with 1080p (4:4:4). RED interpolates from a quite similar sensor (single CMOS, 12MP, Super35-size) a 4k-signal and compresses it, giving a much lower data-rate at 4 times the image size! It's pure marketing, because they wanted to offer something beyond HDTV and 4k is about the resolution of 35mm-film. http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awi...ex1_f23_red/P2/ (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/three_three_letter_cameras_ex1_f23_red/P2/) Here is one of the few comparisons, it's not entirely fair, because there are sharper lenses for the RED (but not so much in the center at this aperture) but it demonstrates the quality of systems without color interpolation (forget about the sharpening).
Most Pros don't buy it and use the Genesis or D-21 when they have to use digital (mostly for TV-series) but "newcomers" who come from the classical prosumer-market (with small 1/3"-sensors) don't have this comparison and just see "4k" or count megapixels... It's unbelieveable that customers fall for this when investing more than 20k$!
-
As far as I understand, the RED's attraction isn't the high res only anyway, but also the fact that it is the first camera to offer a proper raw pipeline with required tools, giving more scope for better image quality. The interpolation at those resolutions is less of an issue than at lower resolutions anyway, and in moving pictures as well, where the information is just seen for a fraction of a second. Another attraction of the RED is the very low price-point compared to anything similar, as well as the very modular approach taken. Whether one likes the interpolated results or not, there are many interesting reasons. The "rolling shutter" problem is far more serious, IMO, and RED hasn't properly dealt with it yet. I work in the computer graphics/motion pictures industry, and I know some people who have to work with the generated material to make it look good. None of them complain about image quality, but there are lots of complaints about having to fix rolling shutter issues, and the tools for it aren't very good yet.
-
WHy doesn't anybody talk about the space and time needed to transfer the RAW format?
For one I would like to know but have rumors that is is a PITA right now. Maybe better in the future?
Anybody care to comment.
Also I have been on a lot of local TV commercials lately, I am shooting the campaigns with the actors and usually have to wait in between takes. When conversing with some of the directors they have told me that they mainly still shoot film b/c the DOF on digital is supposedly "crap" in their minds.
I thought most were shooting HD by now, But they told me not so as most guys do not like the outcome!
I was watching them film a sectio and the actors looked so shiny (sweat) and I said to my self that would look like crap on digital and that is when thye told me they do not shoot digital. I saw the commercial finally on TV and in deed to the shine was not there.
I for one know nothing about filming video, but am always interested in new things.
What is the reality and how soon do you think people will actually be able to film a few minutes of a session and use the clips from a session for Print like Magazines and or Billboards...
Where I live they are just starting to install HD cables for TV here and may take a while for it to be the norm.
By the way the Director of the TV commercial was a fellow Advertising photographer tha has gone to Video and mainly does TV commercials now.
Thanks for any more information or opionions on the matter.
Snook
-
Most video cameras, including the high-end ones, use very small sensors, so they have large depth of field. I can well imagine that this does not enamour them with more visually creative directors who like having DoF as another tool in the bag.
-
The RED is a small revolution, because it's the first HD-prosumer-cam with a big single super35-sized-CMOS-sensor and uses a "RAW" approach, while other HD-cameras use very powerful algorithms to create finished data (with sharpening, WB...) which can be used with little to no manipulation and quite small sensors (1/3" - 2/3") and large DoF.
The size of the RAW-format is indeed very problematic, especially for 4k, which results in more than four times the data rate than 1080p! That's why they use a very strong, lossy compression on "RED-RAW" with only 220MBit/s at 4k, the professional 1080p-cameras with a real RAW mode without lossy compression have a ten times higher data rate! You see the paradox? On one side they interpolate to create bigger images and on the other side they compress the RAW-signal.
Film in the movie-industry has reached an incredible quality, the negative stocks are more advanced, the scanners are better, one of the best of them uses the same sensor as the HD-camera but takes 24 images from one negative to resolve nearly all the information (4x pixel shift, 3x RGB, 2x highlight exposure) The film-cameras from legendary companies like ARRI and Panavision are professionally designed, developed in collaboration with the cinematographers and unsurpassed in handling and reliability. If anyone is interested, here's a comparison of a prosumer and state-of-the-art HD-cam with the small film-format Super16: http://www.ecctv.de/videos/hdtv/mountain_top_reasons.wmv (http://www.ecctv.de/videos/hdtv/mountain_top_reasons.wmv)
You're distracted by the grain? See how advanced their filters have become: http://www.digitalfilmcentral.com/english/...16_anewlook.pps (http://www.digitalfilmcentral.com/english/super16_anewlook.pps)
Film-costs and processing time are not really relevant for movie-productions, they have to deal with other problems...
That's why 95% of the Hollywood-productions are still made on film, sometimes I whish we could get this technology for our medium-format-cameras, too :-)
What has this to do with the P40+? .
-
The RED is a small revolution, because it's the first HD-prosumer-cam with a big single super35-sized-CMOS-sensor and uses a "RAW" approach,...........
Film in the movie-industry has reached an incredible quality, the negative stocks are more advanced, the scanners are better, ........................
That's why 95% of the Hollywood-productions are still made on film, sometimes I whish we could get this technology for our medium-format-cameras, too :-)
What has this to do with the P40+? .
There are a lot of parallels between digital stills and digital video.
Just like a few years ago in stills, the film Indie crowd and some episodic TV have been begging for a full frame (movie full frame) digital camera, rather than the small 3ccd chip cameras that pull focus for miles and just the frame size is a big attraction with RED, maybe even more than the raw format. That and the price, because even at $30,000 owning a full fledged movie camera at that price is pretty cheap.
You can kind of think of the RED like the original Canon 1ds as it's the closest anyone has come in digital video with a film quality look and ease of use . . . and also costs.
The issue with digital motion beyond the rolling shutter, is the standards for color timing and post processing are not as accepted as film. With film you call go to almost any major post house and colorists, explain the look you want and they will get you there all with time code intact.
With digital video it's a different process and just like digital stills pretty much a roll your own process.
Also just like digital stills, digital video can look beautiful and film like under one sceanrio, casted and digital looking in others. It really is lighting subject dependent.
Most people that shoot digital video try to use a desk top computer to color grade the video and it can be done, actually with desktops and most higher grade software anything CAN be done, but that's the problem because it's usually a slow process rendering dozens of filters and transitions on a motion clip.
The best and most cost effect way to color time/grade video is to go to an expert colorist that works a DiVinci. It's a process and expensive, but the time savings is more than worth the costs as a DiVinci works in real time.
When we shoot motion, I take a few still frames from each scene, process the stills out in photoshop, make prints and bring them to the colorist for a base. Then after the first session I can usually leave and they run the colortiming on line and I can check it back in my studio while I get on to other work.
It's a big time and money saver and a nicer way to work than sitting in the room for 12 hours saying try a little less red.
But back to the original question, what does the RED have to do with a p40+. Well in a way the process is the same, the smaller planned RED cameras will be a lot cheaper than the larger 4 and 5 k cameras, the process of do everything yourself is also alive and well in the the video world just like the still world and the backend process is much more complicated with digital than it was with film.
As with digital stills, with digital video the more time you put into the front end, lighting, selecting scenes, marking the "print" scenes instead of just shooting wildly, the less time you put into the back end.
Also digital video is going through the same adolescent period as stills, with roll your own color, multiple formats, frame sizes and the same standard issues as monitor calibration, file format delivery, even down to delivering a final cut.
B
-
Film-costs and processing time are not really relevant for movie-productions, they have to deal with other problems...
All costs are relevant!
And one of the big costs is in striking prints for distribution. Digital projection is already making big inroads and will make huge savings for distributors when it's all digital.
...That's why 95% of the Hollywood-productions are still made on film.
And only a few years back one would have said the same about stills, now it is probably 95% digital. Movies will be 95% digital in 10 years time, if not sooner.
-
"All costs are relevant!
And one of the big costs is in striking prints for distribution. Digital projection is already making big inroads and will make huge savings for distributors when it's all digital."
"And only a few years back one would have said the same about stills, now it is probably 95% digital. Movies will be 95% digital in 10 years time, if not sooner."
Saving a few thousand dollars on film stock and processing on a >>1million $ production is just stupid.
Before still photography switched to digital, barely any acceptable digital technology was available. Now, in cinematography digital technology is available and is used by making a DI (digital intermediate, scanning film for post-production and various output formats like 35mm prints, digital cinema or blu-ray) - but this is a purely professional, very demanding market with more technical skilled customers and much less prone to marketing-tricks. Sony tries to kill film since over 15 years without even offering a optical viewfinder... As long as film-cameras are this superior, they will use film (unless the studios don't act entirely stupid). There is only one way to capture real (not color-interpolated) 4k resolution and up to 16 stops DR right now, it's film properly processed with a dedicated scanner.
-
"All costs are relevant!
And one of the big costs is in striking prints for distribution. Digital projection is already making big inroads and will make huge savings for distributors when it's all digital."
"And only a few years back one would have said the same about stills, now it is probably 95% digital. Movies will be 95% digital in 10 years time, if not sooner."
Saving a few thousand dollars on film stock and processing on a >>1million $ production is just stupid.
Before still photography switched to digital, barely any acceptable digital technology was available. Now, in cinematography digital technology is available and is used by making a DI (digital intermediate, scanning film for post-production and various output formats like 35mm prints, digital cinema or blu-ray) - but this is a purely professional, very demanding market with more technical skilled customers and much less prone to marketing-tricks. Sony tries to kill film since over 15 years without even offering a optical viewfinder... As long as film-cameras are this superior, they will use film (unless the studios don't act entirely stupid). There is only one way to capture real (not color-interpolated) 4k resolution and up to 16 stops DR right now, it's film properly processed with a dedicated scanner.
I don't think anyone who shoots to a refined level, still or motion, believes that digital is superior or for that matter easier than film. At least not in the complete process of production to finsh out.
What most paying clients know, movie studios, advertising agencies and magazines is that more production can be done in a digital day than a film day (still or motion). That's where the real cost is.
What most paying clients also know is that in todays world working in backend post regardless of the original carrier is going to be extensive anyway.
I'm not advocating digital over film, or vice versa, but it's a digital world, with digital intermediate processes and digital delivery and the toothpaste is not going to go back into the tube, so sooner or later the cinema world will accept digital by choice or force.
Now I'm no expert on the Red, but I find it quite amazing that for about 10 years indie film makers, commercial film makers, even video production companies have begged the camera makers for a digital motion camera that had a large frame size so selective focus could be used AND didn't cost the price of a Presidential Helicopter.
Red, whether anyone likes it or not answered that call way before Sony and all the other video giants. The video camera makers were content to offer $100,000 ENG's that really didn't do cinema well and back that up with tiny chipped prosumer cameras that required huge workarounds to get close to the quality of film, even super 16.
I root for Red and applaud them with the courage to make there camera(s) and hope they do become the standard of the digital motion industry, marketing claims or not.
This forum talks cameras and puts a whole lot of emphasis on buying or upgrading to a new camera, but I know the next major camera purchase I make will have to have real, full frame, manually controlled motion capabilities.
B
-
I also think that RED is a great opportunity for indie-film-makers, students etc. to create a look which comes closer to classical cinema than ever before with "cheap" solutions. Sony doesn't come from the film-world and they don't understand it (that's why they didn't offer larger sensors or 24fps isntead of 25/30fps) and Panavision/ARRI are absolute high-end solutions, the limitations that come with buying a 35mm-sensor and somehow putting it in a body for 20k $ instead of 150k $ are unacceptable for them. They also behave entirely different, ARRI started their digital basis in 2003 with a special scanner and they used this technology to build a digital-camera. It wasn't even sold but tested for nearly 5 years (!!!) by customers as a "working prototype" - they use a 6MP-sensor, but they don't even offer 2k but 1080p (like Genesis - because it's HDTV, not cinema), they don't offer it as a revolution, a superior device but an interesting option. RED is different, they have a big marketing budget (which they use very efficiently with web 2.0) but only a few employees. They buy components, but advertise everything as 100% RED, they selll a 500$ sigma-zoom for 6k$ with a better housing (but still bad optical performance), their cameras overheat easily and are not as reliable. They try to work these things out - but AFTER the customers bought it. ARRI/Panavision would never do that, their customers have to rely on their tools.
They generate gigantic 4k-images out of their sensor by interpolation, they compress the signal to make these files usable in end. Why? Not because it makes sense by the engineers point of view but from a marketing point of view...
And so we're back on-topic: Advertising a display with subpixels or a sensor/system with interpolated data to impress customers is just the first step. When customers fall for that, it becomes worse and engineer-driven companies get into trouble... We have to be very careful, it would be great if we could rely on such a company (like ARRI/Panavision) in the photography-world again! Right now we have some gigants which sometimes mix-up their consumer-grade stuff with their professional-products and very little companies, which aren't able to offer whole systems.
-
I also think that RED is a great opportunity for indie-film-makers, students etc. to create a look which comes closer to classical cinema than ever before with "cheap" solutions. Sony doesn't come from the film-world and they don't understand it (that's why they didn't offer larger sensors or 24fps isntead of 25/30fps) and Panavision/ARRI are absolute high-end solutions, the limitations that come with buying a 35mm-sensor and somehow putting it in a body for 20k $ instead of 150k $ are unacceptable for them. They also behave entirely different, ARRI started their digital basis in 2003 with a special scanner and they used this technology to build a digital-camera. It wasn't even sold but tested for nearly 5 years (!!!) by customers as a "working prototype" - they use a 6MP-sensor, but they don't even offer 2k but 1080p (like Genesis - because it's HDTV, not cinema), they don't offer it as a revolution, a superior device but an interesting option. RED is different, they have a big marketing budget (which they use very efficiently with web 2.0) but only a few employees. They buy components, but advertise everything as 100% RED, they selll a 500$ sigma-zoom for 6k$ with a better housing (but still bad optical performance), their cameras overheat easily and are not as reliable. They try to work these things out - but AFTER the customers bought it. ARRI/Panavision would never do that, their customers have to rely on their tools.
They generate gigantic 4k-images out of their sensor by interpolation, they compress the signal to make these files usable in end. Why? Not because it makes sense by the engineers point of view but from a marketing point of view...
And so we're back on-topic: Advertising a display with subpixels or a sensor/system with interpolated data to impress customers is just the first step. When customers fall for that, it becomes worse and engineer-driven companies get into trouble... We have to be very careful, it would be great if we could rely on such a company (like ARRI/Panavision) in the photography-world again! Right now we have some gigants which sometimes mix-up their consumer-grade stuff with their professional-products and very little companies, which aren't able to offer whole systems.
Still or motion there are two cameras artists use. The camera we build our reel, editorial portfolio and personal projects with, then the cameras we use for commerce.
Some people own both, but usually the camera that you use for yourself on a 4 person crew project is different than the camera that sits on a tripod with 30,000 watts of light and a crew of 20.
Technically, the expensive camera is superior, but it's funny that the work we produce that gets us hired is usually shot with the less than technically perfect camera which goes a long way to explaining why Canon 5d2's fly off the shelf and medium format still cameras are still trying to find ways to keep their market from contracting.
With motion, digital cameras are still a generation of use behind still cameras, because few people have $40,000 to buy a red, many less $100,000 to buy an Arri, but the biggest stumbling block with using digital video is not the compression, the file format or even the exacting quality of the file, it's just the ability to use a larger frame size that will give more of control.
With motion there are just some looks you cannot produce with digital simply because the makers are protecting their current market. Why a 5d2 doesn't offer manual controls is a marketing decision, not technical and here in is the real issue of shooting motion. Nobody expects Arri to start selling film or digital cameras for $3,000 but on the other hand few people want to produce work for their reel or an indie project with a Sony ENG (because it looks "video) and even at 30 to 40k the Red seems like a deal compared to any other way of shooting with a professional look.
B
-
Sorry to jump back into talking about the P40+ back...
I am so glad to hear about this MF back that it isn't even funny! I am first and foremost a wedding and portrait photographer... Having the ability to jump to ISO 3200 is awesome and being able to drop into 10mp images is a really great feature... BUT for $20k+ I don't think I would want to do that unless it is a wedding job. The reason for that is because it isn't uncommon to shoot 1500+ images during an all day wedding. 1,500 40mp images would be a joke to edit them all. I would keep the 40mp files for all portraits and the "money shot" wedding portraits that the couple would most definitely want enlarged.
With me trying to branch out into the landscape photography side of things, the 40mp should provide stellar resolution which would rival only a couple other backs that are out now...
Might I add that the 12+ stop dynamic range would be to kill for!!!
I think I am going to be dropping my Hassy fetish asap and start counting my pennies for one of these bad boys...
-
I have to agree some may see this as a gimmick but from someone that shoots a lot of events along with the advertising stuff for a lot of the same corporate clients . The need for a 31mpx file on the P30+ is not always needed nor wanted. Dropping into a ISO 800 file at 10mpx covers all that stuff and still having a 40 mpx file for the landscape or advertising stuff brings some nice diversity to your back. I know this would certainly help me on processing in a hotel room on a laptop and having a show ready in the morning to work with the 10 mpx files instead. Been here and done this many times already and as nice as the S file is on the Phase backs it still is a big file to be working with on deadline. Most of these event things are ISO 800 type shooting anyway so like events I do see this as a good tool for the wedding folks as well. The other thing this back brings to the table is raw speed that only a P21+ may have or a DSLR which I do not want to buy. I see no value buying a 35mm system and some may disagree with that thinking but frankly what would be the real point except another system with more money outlay and you don't like the files anyway. I just processed yesterday shots from last year for a show with D300 and P25 Plus files doing stage work. Processing the D300 files was so much more work with recovering highlights and tweeking that it was frustrating as hell compared to processing the P25 + files and in almost every case the Phase files just beat up the Nikons. That I found it a complete waste even shooting the D300 on that job. So for some folks that do a variety of shooting I do see some REAL advantages to the Sensor Plus, others may see it as a gimmick or what's the point. For people that shoot many different types of work the more diversity a back can bring you the better use you will have. I like the P30+ because it does give me the higher ISO over the P25+ but this P40+ is very tempting. Hopefully I will get a chance to test it and see how it fairs in the real world.
-
I have to agree some may see this as a gimmick but from someone that shoots a lot of events along with the advertising stuff for a lot of the same corporate clients . The need for a 31mpx file on the P30+ is not always needed nor wanted. Dropping into a ISO 800 file at 10mpx covers all that stuff and still having a 40 mpx file for the landscape or advertising stuff brings some nice diversity to your back. I know this would certainly help me on processing in a hotel room on a laptop and having a show ready in the morning to work with the 10 mpx files instead. Been here and done this many times already and as nice as the S file is on the Phase backs it still is a big file to be working with on deadline. Most of these event things are ISO 800 type shooting anyway so like events I do see this as a good tool for the wedding folks as well. The other thing this back brings to the table is raw speed that only a P21+ may have or a DSLR which I do not want to buy. I see no value buying a 35mm system and some may disagree with that thinking but frankly what would be the real point except another system with more money outlay and you don't like the files anyway. I just processed yesterday shots from last year for a show with D300 and P25 Plus files doing stage work. Processing the D300 files was so much more work with recovering highlights and tweeking that it was frustrating as hell compared to processing the P25 + files and in almost every case the Phase files just beat up the Nikons. That I found it a complete waste even shooting the D300 on that job. So for some folks that do a variety of shooting I do see some REAL advantages to the Sensor Plus, others may see it as a gimmick or what's the point. For people that shoot many different types of work the more diversity a back can bring you the better use you will have. I like the P30+ because it does give me the higher ISO over the P25+ but this P40+ is very tempting. Hopefully I will get a chance to test it and see how it fairs in the real world.
I am going to also give this system a look-see. Your information about the files from the Nikon D300 is pretty interesting. Would you mind posting or PMing me an X-Y comparison of a similar image between your D300 and Phase One?
-
Saving a few thousand dollars on film stock and processing on a >>1million $ production is just stupid.
Uh, it's not a few thousand dollars, it' s a lot more than that. Plus more affordable cameras allow for multiple angles being shot at once which can also reduce costs.
Before still photography switched to digital, barely any acceptable digital technology was available.
Is that like saying before people had legs, no-one walked?
Not quite true either, I worked digitally from about 1994 about 10 yrs before I got a DSLR, I used film and scanned images into computer then.
Now, in cinematography digital technology is available and is used by making a DI (digital intermediate, scanning film for post-production and various output formats like 35mm prints, digital cinema or blu-ray) - but this is a purely professional, very demanding market with more technical skilled customers and much less prone to marketing-tricks.
and also full of people who want to push boundaries, features are already being shot digitally and have been for some time now, both by people new to the industry and those who can afford to do anything they want like George Lucas. Final Cut completely undercut Avid as not only was it waaaaay cheaper, but was better too for many users. Now you can do editing with software+ kit that anyone can afford which is more than capable of doing high end features.
Sony tries to kill film since over 15 years without even offering a optical viewfinder... As long as film-cameras are this superior, they will use film (unless the studios don't act entirely stupid).
Are you seriously crediting studio execs with knowing what they are doing?
There is only one way to capture real (not color-interpolated) 4k resolution and up to 16 stops DR right now, it's film properly processed with a dedicated scanner.
I've seen digitally shot films that look better than those shot on film and I hate the look of video. All depends on the end user and context. Some films have been shot on DV and they not only worked but were successful too.
Things are changing, just like in stills a few years back, when people were saying exactly the same as you, "film is so much better than digital SLRs" - now try and find someone shooting film with an SLR, can you even buy them?
As an aside - both '24' and 'Phonebooth' were inspired by a film made with cheap video cameras bought on the high street - by an Oscar nominated director.
-
Let me find some similar raws to put together
-
I have to agree some may see this as a gimmick but from someone that shoots a lot of events along with the advertising stuff for a lot of the same corporate clients . The need for a 31mpx file on the P30+ is not always needed nor wanted. Dropping into a ISO 800 file at 10mpx covers all that stuff and still having a 40 mpx file for the landscape or advertising stuff brings some nice diversity to your back. I know this would certainly help me on processing in a hotel room on a laptop and having a show ready in the morning to work with the 10 mpx files instead. Been here and done this many times already and as nice as the S file is on the Phase backs it still is a big file to be working with on deadline. Most of these event things are ISO 800 type shooting anyway so like events I do see this as a good tool for the wedding folks as well. The other thing this back brings to the table is raw speed that only a P21+ may have or a DSLR which I do not want to buy. I see no value buying a 35mm system and some may disagree with that thinking but frankly what would be the real point except another system with more money outlay and you don't like the files anyway. I just processed yesterday shots from last year for a show with D300 and P25 Plus files doing stage work. Processing the D300 files was so much more work with recovering highlights and tweeking that it was frustrating as hell compared to processing the P25 + files and in almost every case the Phase files just beat up the Nikons. That I found it a complete waste even shooting the D300 on that job. So for some folks that do a variety of shooting I do see some REAL advantages to the Sensor Plus, others may see it as a gimmick or what's the point. For people that shoot many different types of work the more diversity a back can bring you the better use you will have. I like the P30+ because it does give me the higher ISO over the P25+ but this P40+ is very tempting. Hopefully I will get a chance to test it and see how it fairs in the real world.
I don't disagree the quality of medium format file visibly superior than the better/best of FF DSLR in studio and in normal light, but I don't see much value for sensor plus technology, but of course, it has its value, just that I also know little photographers who own the MFDB does not also own a Canon or Nikon. Especially for event, with the much advanced TTL flash system, I don't even consider MFDB, even it is a P65+ and able to shoot at higher ISO with sensor binning. Why not just use D700? 5D2, 1Ds 3 or D3X? But of course if it is an emergency then something is better than nothing, but as a photographer, we need to prepare contingency for those emergency, or it is a set-up production designed to use MFDB. I see the sensor + a convenience feature, not a solution, but of course the absolute resolution for production is another matter, and the reason why so many photographers are still rely on it, me included, for most of our production. I don't see myself will give up my MFDB and continue to look for high resolution backs to come, even the FF DSLR comes closer and closer, the 2 system has more difference in workflow rather than the absolute quality in print. I use either P45+ or H3D39, and 1Ds3 and D3X, you will see the difference between the 2 system, for regular magazine print I do not hesitate using any of them. For evening and night photography, I will leave MFDB behind.
-
I don't disagree the quality of medium format file visibly superior than the better/best of FF DSLR in studio and in normal light, but I don't see much value for sensor plus technology, but of course, it has its value, just that I also know little photographers who own the MFDB does not also own a Canon or Nikon. Especially for event, with the much advanced TTL flash system, I don't even consider MFDB, even it is a P65+ and able to shoot at higher ISO with sensor binning. Why not just use D700? 5D2, 1Ds 3 or D3X? But of course if it is an emergency then something is better than nothing, but as a photographer, we need to prepare contingency for those emergency, or it is a set-up production designed to use MFDB. I see the sensor + a convenience feature, not a solution, but of course the absolute resolution for production is another matter, and the reason why so many photographers are still rely on it, me included, for most of our production. I don't see myself will give up my MFDB and continue to look for high resolution backs to come, even the FF DSLR comes closer and closer, the 2 system has more difference in workflow rather than the absolute quality in print. I use either P45+ or H3D39, and 1Ds3 and D3X, you will see the difference between the 2 system, for regular magazine print I do not hesitate using any of them. For evening and night photography, I will leave MFDB behind.
Different tools for different uses may apply. And having Sensor Plus doesn't mean that all event photographers will now shoot MFDB. However, I do feel that the Sensor Plus will be a benefit to many photographers who, while shooting MFDB, as light fades and you see your shutter speed losing a stop (or 2), rather than stop the action, grab the 35mm out of the bag, you just press a button and keep going. If the 35mm will work for that situation in terms of quality, then 15 high quality MF pixels certainly will. I don't see Sensor Plus as something that one would utilize all the time necessarily, but some have said they'd never use it. I feel the usefullness of it is being under-rated. I see it as one of those features that once you have it, winds up being used more than you thought it would be.
I've already seen some anecdotal feedback expressing the same from some of our users.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
I feel the usefullness of it is being under-rated. I see it as one of those features that once you have it, winds up being used more than you thought it would be.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
I shoot 1ds3 and P45+. I've changed my mind on this several times, but now after shooting this H2/P45+ for a while now, my recommendation to Phase is "do not try to compete with Canon or Nikon", because they will clean your plate, in terms of run-and-gun photography like that. At this point, I'd say for Phase to compete with megapixels and file size only; stay ahead of 35; that's the only way to keep individuality and relevance. It's just simply a no-brainer; the Canon is light years easier to use, as a camera system.
Can't imagine being an "event photographer" and doing it with MF, but it's a free country, especially if using on camera flash. Canon/Nikon would win hands down. And for that kind of work, 22Mp or even less is plenty fine. Hell, even half that. Set it on ASA 3200, pop in a little fill flash, set it to JPG, upload it to CostCo, and go home.
To me, Phase's future is in the P65+, and the P85+ after that, and the P95+ after that, if they're still around.
The other massive downside to me is Phase aligning with Mamiya, but we've covered that. Kinda like Julia Roberts marrying Lyle Lovett -- looks OK on paper, but it's just not a good fit. Every time I see a picture of a Phase back mounted onto a Mamiya body, I kind cringe a little bit.
Phase needs some Sex in their life -- a bigger better LCD and a little more aerodynamic shape, to keep up with The Joneses. They're getting left in the dust a bit, sex-wise and cool-wise. And don't underestimate that factor, when you're dealing with Rich Guys With Disposable Income. They need all the sex they can get, in any form that they can get it.
-
I shoot 1ds3 and P45+. I've changed my mind on this several times, but now after shooting this H2/P45+ for a while now, my recommendation to Phase is "do not try to compete with Canon or Nikon", because they will clean your plate, in terms of run-and-gun photography like that. At this point, I'd say for Phase to compete with megapixels and file size only; stay ahead of 35; that's the only way to keep individuality and relevance. It's just simply a no-brainer; the Canon is light years easier to use, as a camera system.
Can't imagine being an "event photographer" and doing it with MF, but it's a free country, especially if using on camera flash. Canon/Nikon would win hands down. And for that kind of work, 22Mp or even less is plenty fine. Hell, even half that. Set it on ASA 3200, pop in a little fill flash, set it to JPG, upload it to CostCo, and go home.
To me, Phase's future is in the P65+, and the P85+ after that, and the P95+ after that, if they're still around.
The other massive downside to me is Phase aligning with Mamiya, but we've covered that. Kinda like Julia Roberts marrying Lyle Lovett -- looks OK on paper, but it's just not a good fit. Every time I see a picture of a Phase back mounted onto a Mamiya body, I kind cringe a little bit.
Phase needs some Sex in their life -- a bigger better LCD and a little more aerodynamic shape, to keep up with The Joneses. They're getting left in the dust a bit, sex-wise and cool-wise. And don't underestimate that factor, when you're dealing with Rich Guys With Disposable Income. They need all the sex they can get, in any form that they can get it.
Maybe your business model but not mine. Here is the point I DON"T WANT another system like a DSLR system. I don't want different workflows, software , batteries and all that goes with it. I see no need. If that is all I ever did I may think differently but it is NOT. I am NOT going to tell a 50k a year Corporate client that I do there marketing and advertising for to go hire another shooter to shoot there events . I will LOSE that client PERIOD. BTW I feel I get better results to boot. Now can you believe that one and I would rather shoot MF. Please after 32 years I don't need the advice on how to do my job or what are the best tools for it. All I am saying is the Sensor plus looks to have some advantages for certain things, Phase does not want to compete with Nikon or Canon but they will take every fence jumper that wants to move up. That you can bet money on. If a back can have some diversity in it than it is a good thing not a bad one, if you don't feel the need DON"T BUY IT.
-
At this point, I'd say for Phase to compete with megapixels and file size only; stay ahead of 35; that's the only way to keep individuality and relevance. It's just simply a no-brainer; the Canon is light years easier to use, as a camera system. (...)
To me, Phase's future is in the P65+, and the P85+ after that, and the P95+ after that, if they're still around.
100% agreed! For the most purposes 35 DSLRs have plenty resolution, great IQ and are very very fast... by any account. MFDB is for those who care about the ultimate IQ and resolution (may it be for art, landscape... whatever) and have the time to process those "single" images (or maybe 10... but not 200).
Recently James R. said Sinar adressed all the requests of MFDB shooters (LCD, in camera processing, DNG ...). That's right. But Sinar was too late. Nikon, Canon and Sony were faster. There is still a reason to shoot ~ 30MP with MFDB if you like the look of Medium Format. But at these price tags (and the Sinar is not that expensive actually) the 21-24MP of 35 DSLRs are just... too good. MFDB is for "specialists" and the MFDB companies should stress (and advance) this and shouldn't try to run after the 35 DSLRs... because in this race they already lost big time.
-
Maybe your business model but not mine. Here is the point I DON"T WANT another system like a DSLR system. I don't want different workflows, software , batteries and all that goes with it. I see no need. If that is all I ever did I may think differently but it is NOT. I am NOT going to tell a 50k a year Corporate client that I do there marketing and advertising for to go hire another shooter to shoot there events . I will LOSE that client PERIOD. BTW I feel I get better results to boot. Now can you believe that one and I would rather shoot MF. Please after 32 years I don't need the advice on how to do my job or what are the best tools for it. All I am saying is the Sensor plus looks to have some advantages for certain things, Phase does not want to compete with Nikon or Canon but they will take every fence jumper that wants to move up. That you can bet money on. If a back can have some diversity in it than it is a good thing not a bad one, if you don't feel the need DON"T BUY IT.
Photographers will buy P65+ , as I did, for its absolute resolution, less on the sensor plus technology, which I said it has its value, but I don't see that a big value, of course other people can think it otherwise. To me the sensor plus is a convenience, not a solution, at least "not yet". Same apply for the P40+.
The choice of camera is not relate to quality of picture nor client, or Terry Richardson can't use Olympus miu or other compact camera to shoot Sisley AD, Karl Lagerfeld should not use his Nikon, and Annie Lebovitz should leave her Canon in box, they all have the resources to use any camera they want, but the client pay for the photographer's quality, not the camera quality. Camera quality is a choice of the photographer, it is a subjective decision the photographer take for his job, some may use just one system, so may use a lot, good example as Michael of Luminous Landscape, I don't see why he could not exhibit picture taken by a P65+ or a G10, a good picture is a good picture, I also don't think Harper's Bazaar will ask Karl Lagerfeld go home if he intend to shoot by using a Nikon.
-
Here (http://watch.fashiontelevision.com/fashion-icons/designers/karl-lagerfeld/clip99418#clip99418) you can see Karl Lagerfeld shooting with Nikon LOL
-
Here (http://watch.fashiontelevision.com/fashion-icons/designers/karl-lagerfeld/clip99418#clip99418) you can see Karl Lagerfeld shooting with Nikon LOL
Yes indeed.....
-
I just want to know where he gets his Don Cherry-esque (fellow Canadians will know) shirts and those gloves.. The funny thing is that if you saw the average designer on the street, one look at how they dress would make them the LAST guys you'd take fashion advice from.... ;>
-
Yes indeed.....
sure, and he also shot with Hasselblad H, and Alpa 12 and many more, Nikon among them, it is about him as a photographer, not what his client ask what he will use. Use of camera is photographer's subjective choice.
-
Yes indeed.....
This image of Karl would make me buy Hasselblad . . .. actually this image would probably make me want to go into plumbing repair.
Why does everyone get their knickers in such a twist over these cameras.
This forum especially is a Phase driven marketing vehicle of dealers, reps, users, friends, dealer associates and seminar givers.
I own 2 Phase plus backs, they work ok when your on a tripod and have lots of light because that's what they were designed for.
The rest of the time, if you work under pressure they're a slow, overpriced, antiquated, hugely depreciating pain in the ass and the only thing that Phase can deliver on time are more megpaixels.
They miss all of they're deadlines on lenses, software and any real improvement in the use of the cameras/backs and instead of getting better at fulfilling past promises, they just change their policy not to make any promises. That's pretty funny.
But that's ok, so have all the medium format companies, that's their business model.
Fast speed? I have a p21+ that is also suppose to shoot at .8 of a second and that is still a lot slower than the Contax was with film. In fact the only way you can get to the real speed of a peewhateversensorplus back is to NOT use a Phase camera, you have to use an old Hasselblad H.
The thing I find totally amazing is of all the people that proclaim the goodness of the "new" Peewhateversensorplus backs is how few have actually said they use them for commerce.
I don't care what anybody shoots with, including High Collar Karl, but the question ol' Snook asked was legitimate. The dealers and reps were pushing their chest out saying they have sold MANY peehwhateversensorplus backs and he just asked what is many?
In the world of medium format that probably means 6.
He also made the mistake of asking "how much" and God knows in the world of medium format sales, nobody wants to publish prices, they want you to come into the dealers office, real or virtual, while they go back and forth to the "manager" to get you that "special" price. Kind of like the way you use to buy a Chrysler. (Remember the phrase, "use to").
Buying a new car or a new medium format back are the only two ways I know to drop $30,000 to $40,000 and not have a good time.
In fact buying a Chrysler (sorry I meant Phase) is the only way I know to trade in your old machine, get a new one and they still look the same.
I should be the customer Phase targets. So should Snook. We both own Phase products could buy another, but speaking only for myself, until I see something that is more than 20 more horsepower under the hood and a resale value of 40%, I'll wait.
B
-
I just want to know where he gets his Don Cherry-esque (fellow Canadians will know) shirts and those gloves.. The funny thing is that if you saw the average designer on the street, one look at how they dress would make them the LAST guys you'd take fashion advice from.... ;>
+1 for the Don Cherry comment! I am from Buffalo, NY and Hockey is our thing over here and Don Cherry is the man!