Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Let's talk about money: Upgrade prices, value depreciation, promotions for P1  (Read 108747 times)

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter

Genres in which artists more accomplished than Mr. Song have created (And are still creating) exceptional images with CCD backs.

Short version: It'S fine if some of y'all hate CCDs. But dont impose that opinion on the rest of us.

If you shoot with the same gear as the legendary photographers then you live in their shadow (with low dynamic range  ;D) and there is less chance for you to make innovations and improve. With better gear you then gain the power and flexibility to try out different styles of photography, meaning that you could probably capture what they could not.

I'm not forcing anyone to hate CCD. I'm just expressing my doubt that CCD would bring any obvious advantage outside studio. Chances are that if you can shoot a scene with low dynamic range then such scene probably has been photographed many times already by previous people because it is not challenging. If you bracket with CCD then I could also stitch with CMOS. If you live with the DR of CCD then noise could probably destroy resolution to a degree below CMOS.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 10:16:17 am by voidshatter »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3978
    • Photos of Arkansas

To the OP, you might consider locking this thread, as it's gone way beyond the scope of your question i.e. what are people paying for upgrades.  

As  IQ260 owner, I was interested in potentially upgrading to the 380, mainly based on the fact that there is all new tech in this back.  I have heard several times from various sources that the 380 is not just a 260 on steroids.  That does interest me for sure.  

The price in US dollars to move for me is $17.595.00 and that doesn't include a XF camera or a discounted XF camera.

NET to me that's a bit too much of a delta.  Historically Phase DOES NOT lower prices so I guess I will wait out the next refresh, which I assume is not till late 2016.  

This post has turned from that subject to a much more different one, CCD vs CMOS, and that's one that no two people tend to agree on.  Personally I hate to see folks get so heated up over this.  It's simple, it either works for you or it doesn't.   No point to pushing opinions and or trying to make one person's opinion look wrong as there is no RIGHT answer to this.  Just because a full frame CMOS is coming, does not mean that photographers will just stop buying CCD tech, I don't see that as the cost to get to a full frame 645 CMOS will not be cheap.  At least in an offering from Phase One.  Someone should start a new post CCD vs CMOS and let folks share opinions, images etc.

Sincerely

Paul Caldwell

Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

MTGFender

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 714

I am very interested in the original topic "Let's talk about money: Upgrade prices, value depreciation, promotions for P1".
Would you mind going back to the original topic? It is very useful to me.
If someone want to continue with the battle, CMOS vs CCD, would you mind opening the new discussion? I read about this too many times. I was so excited in the beginning (several months ago) and really admired the person who did the test but after hearing a hundred times, I've been so sick to hear about it.
Thank you in advance.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 10:28:29 am by MTGFender »
Logged

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter

Paul, looking forward to see a darkframe raw file of the IQ380 LE if you are going to do a test drive - you know what I mean  ;D
Logged

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter

I am very interested in the original topic "Let's talk about money: Upgrade prices, value depreciation, promotions for P1".
Would you mind going back to the original topic? It is very useful to me.
If someone want to continue with the battle, CMOS vs CCD, would you mind opening the new discussion? I read about this too many times. I was so excited in the beginning (several months ago) and really admired the person who did the test but after hearing a hundred times, I've been so sick to hear about it.
Thank you in advance.
Unfortunately depreciation is strongly related to technology advancement. This is especially true for semi-conductors. If the purpose of pixel peeping is defeated then how much justification is left?
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

If you, or Synn, or Erik, or Uncle Tom Cobley, judge images by looking at raw files at 100% on screen in Photoshop then I'd suggest you're looking at the wrong thing.

I do, when I am retouching. Not the same thing as measurebating.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

My apologies, Kieth. Wrong interpretation.
Yes, I am with you on this. I prefer to judge my images when they are on a wall.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto

Hi Keith,

Yes, I agree. I am even considering to write an article about it.

The reason is really that images have some intended purpose, and actual pixels viewing is seldom one of those purposes. The way I see it, we either print an image or view it as a small image on screen. By definition a screen image is small, even 4K is just 8 MP or even less if aspect ratios don't match.

With prints it is a bit different. Printing large enough we can use every bit of information in a large file. But even with large prints it will be low to medium frequency detail that dominates our visual impression. So, pixel peeping and sharpening for actual pixels may ignore the part of the image that dominates our visual impression. So, we actually need to optimise for print.

Colour can be judged pretty well on screen, however. But, showing small JPEGs say very little about the source of the image. Some posters here, me included, feel that colour is much dependent on colour profiles. CFGA (colour filter grid array) differences may play a lesser roll than colour profiles.

A couple of things worth mentioning:

- Michael Ezra, a very fine art photographer, did look at "Synn's" raw images of the night scenery shots and could not reproduce the Aptus images with the Nikon shots using any of his profiles. That may speak for those images having spectral separation that Nikon's CFGA cannot separate. But, to learn anything we need to se the raw image.

- "Synn" has produced a comparison of his own, where he has presented three different images shot with different cameras. It was kind of a blind test, hardly one reader identified the involved cameras correctly.

- Another point is that Tim Parkin is known to have issues with colour rendition with the P45+ and enjoys the colour rendition of the Sonya Alpha 900. I have both cameras and I have tried to look into that issue. What I have seen is that the issue is a bit more complex. Tim also told me that Joe Cornish (a friend of his and a well know photographer)  feels that the P45+ is quite problematic with colour and needs a lot of fine tuning in PS to fix. But, I also have the impression that Joe Cornish is more happy about the Dalsa based IQ-180 (?) he uses now.

From some recent work and discussion by Anders Torger, I got the impression that colour profiles may matter a lot more than we may think.

What I also would say is that white balance plays a great role.

Personally, I shoot both P45+ and Sony Alpha 99. In general I find the Sony more dead on accurate. I could say, with the Alpha 99 it is more like marksmanship while the P45+ is more like archery. I like shooting both ways. Obviously, the P45+ delivers more pixels, that is an advantage when printing large.

On my last exhibition, not a single P45+ image has made it to the wall. I don't know why, but they seem to be a bit boring or dull.

Best regards
Erik




If you, or Synn, or Erik, or Uncle Tom Cobley, judge images by looking at raw files at 100% on screen in Photoshop then I'd suggest you're looking at the wrong thing.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 04:39:15 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter

If you, or Synn, or Erik, or Uncle Tom Cobley, judge images by looking at raw files at 100% on screen in Photoshop then I'd suggest you're looking at the wrong thing.

So perhaps a smartphone picture could outperform a CCD back under the condition of not looking at raw files at 100% on screen in Photoshop?
Logged

gdh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • https://www.facebook.com/Gallery833-Fine-Art-in-Redding-160225810674500/

No, not at all.  I thought so at first, but listen to the LULA interview with the P1 tech guy--the IQ380 actually gives up to 60 minutes of exposure time with little noise--comparable to the 260, but with 80MP.

For me that was a deciding factor as I need the resolution but also need night and long exposures. The interview confirmed what P1 was saying re up to 1  hour exposure capability--it's just not the timer, it's the ability to do so with little noise.

If there are any other P1 techs on board, correct me if I'm wrong or confirm your understanding.

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter

First of all, here we have someone who doesn't care about SNR - he regards high SNR as "plastic look".

Secondly, it is probably true that Phase One has implemented some advanced alien tech to beat IQ260 @ ISO140 with IQ380 @ ISO200 in terms of SNR.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3978
    • Photos of Arkansas

No, not at all.  I thought so at first, but listen to the LULA interview with the P1 tech guy--the IQ380 actually gives up to 60 minutes of exposure time with little noise--comparable to the 260, but with 80MP.

For me that was a deciding factor as I need the resolution but also need night and long exposures. The interview confirmed what P1 was saying re up to 1  hour exposure capability--it's just not the timer, it's the ability to do so with little noise.

If there are any other P1 techs on board, correct me if I'm wrong or confirm your understanding.

I own a 260. It really can't go any longer than 15 minutes unless you are working in winter conditions. The noise is excessive and so are the stuck pixels.  The dark frame really won't get it all.  The resulting files are

I hope the 380 does better but I can't see it getting an hour. Also the LE. Mode starts at ISO 200 which is pretty high. I have been told the 380 is using similar tech of the 260. I know I was pretty disappointed by what the 260 delivered with long exposures. The P45+ will totally blow the 260 away in 30 minutes or longer.


Maybe the 380 has all new tech and can deliver what the 260 did not. But you still have to get around the heat the back generates. 

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13533
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

Listening to all this, the IQ280 to IQ350 upgrade should cost max 5,000 US$ IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter

Listening to all this, the IQ280 to IQ350 upgrade should cost max 5,000 US$ IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard


This is a "downgrade", and unless you have a special offer from a dealer, it would cost you a lot more than $5000. This is Phase One's ridiculous policy.

Back in Nov 2014 a dealer in the UK offered me (currency in us-dollars) $18000 trade-in value of a used IQ260 (/w VAW) for a new IQ250 (so that I would need to pay $15000 extra for the swap). I did not take that ridiculous offer. At about the same time a dealer in China offered me a free swap from a used IQ260 towards a new Credo 50 (with no additional charges). I did not take that offer either. In the end I managed to get my IQ250 with a good offer (thanks to the help from a very good dealer).

I personally know a friend who traded his used Credo 80 for a used Credo 50 (with no additional cash). I did not play the missionary role. He made his decision before I even knew him. There's also another user who sold his Credo 80 after he purchased a Credo 50. He discovered the advantages of Sony CMOS independently (not my agenda).

In my group of Alpa users, the most popular digital back there is indeed Credo 50. They laugh at my IQ250 as it would depreciate more than the Credo 50.

Phase One's pricing is ridiculous and the trade-in offers are indeed more expensive than taking the depreciation of Credo digital backs when you sell as second hand for next generation upgrade.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 11:43:40 pm by voidshatter »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Jeff Schewe has made that test and published in several of his books. On pages 30-33 of his book "Real World Image Sharpening" second edition he demonstrates that small prints from different cameras, including the iPhone (4s?) and P65+ are virtually indistinguishable. He also repeats this in his later book "The Digital Negative" in Figure 1.27 comparing iPhone 4 with IQ-180. I would suggest that these exemples illustrate that iPhone images can be perfectly usable for small prints.

That is under good light. DR is more limited on the iPhone, due to the small sensor area. Downscaling a large sensor image improves DR, so in this area the larger sensors win hands down. If the luminance range of the subject fits within the DR of the iPhone, the additional DR may matter little.

Personally, I don't shoot phone cams and not really compacts either, but I would say there is no reason to be ignorant about their capabilities. "F8 and being there" has been a great recipe for memorable images and cell phones are very good at the "being there" factor.

Best regards
Erik



So perhaps a smartphone picture could outperform a CCD back under the condition of not looking at raw files at 100% on screen in Photoshop?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 04:10:47 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

Jeff Schewe has made that test and published in several of his books.

Correct, ignoring the impact of lenses (which can be considerable) and lighting (I did a real good job of matching lighting between the iPhone 5S and IQ 180) then the difference between an 8MP and 80MP capture is only shown to be useful when output size is factored into the equation.

It really all depends on the manner of capture (and quality of lighting). Once you pass the threshold of usable resolution (equating to print resolution) all other factors ignored, there is no difference between an 8MP and 80MP capture if the output is small enough.
Logged

haplo602

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43

The beginning of the thread was quite interesting, then it turned around ...

Anyway, I'll take any donation in the form of a useless CCD back. I don't care about mount or brand. I just need something for "polaroids".
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram

The beginning of the thread was quite interesting, then it turned around ...

Anyway, I'll take any donation in the form of a useless CCD back. I don't care about mount or brand. I just need something for "polaroids".

Me too. But of course I would prefer an 80Mp.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

haplo602

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43

Me too. But of course I would prefer an 80Mp.

Edmund

Oh, even an old Valeo 22 will do for me ... :-)
Logged

FMueller

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74

Then you wait until December. Just a hunch...

These trade-in offers are only available until the end of July.

Don't know what happens after that.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13   Go Up