65+ still up to the task / worth an investment?

[Christoph B.]

Hello!

Well basically the title says it all - I'm thinking about buying a used P65+ (+ 645DF+ and  80mm 2.8 LS) for less than 9.000$.

The reasons for me are the big sensor (I don't like 35mm and prefer the look and feel of larger formats) and of course the high resolution.
I'm planning to use it for mainly for magazine shots, portraits and landscape/still life photography (no exposures longer than a minute or so). Until now I've always rented the necessary equipment to get the job done, but I'm not happy working with "somebody else's stuff" and if I want to use it for my personal work as well it'll get expensive really fast.

Now, the 65+ is somewhat 'aged' and has been on the market for more than 6 years - is it still worth buying?
Who's still using his/her 65+ today?
If you were in my shoes - would you buy one as an entry into digital medium format?

I really hope my questions aren't as stupid as I think they are - but I'm really not too sure what to do at this point and I could use some guidance from experienced users.

[Joe Towner]

The 60mp chip is just as beautiful as the day she was announced.  If what you're shooting allows the workflow and time, I don't see a reason not to.  The newer IQ backs have a few features not on the P+, but the price point is damn good.  I'm almost sure you could purchase, and flip it if needed with minimal loss.

[ddolde]

I think its more than entry level.  Only downside is Phase One has blocked the P series from the new XF body.

[Paul2660]

Hello!

Well basically the title says it all - I'm thinking about buying a used P65+ (+ 645DF+ and  80mm 2.8 LS) less than 9.000$.

The reasons for me are the big sensor (I don't like 35mm and prefer the look and feel of larger formats) and of course the high resolution.
I'm planning to use it for mainly for magazine shots, portraits and landscape/still life photography (no exposures longer than a minute or so). Until now I've always rented the necessary equipment to get the job done, but I'm not happy working with "somebody else's stuff" and if I want to use it for my personal work as well it'll get expensive really fast.

Now, the 65+ is somewhat 'aged' and has been on the market for more than 6 years - is it still worth buying?
Who's still using his/her 65+ today?
If you were in my shoes - would you buy one as an entry into digital medium format?

I really hope my questions aren't as stupid as I think they are - but I'm really not too sure what to do at this point and I could use some guidance from experienced users.

The P65+ and IQ160 are the same sensors, you just get the IQ interface on the 160.  IMO the P65+ was a benchmark sensor for Phase One and can produce excellent files.  I often have regretted my upgrade to the 260 from 160 as the files IMO are not as clean.  Just a fact.

Some thoughts:

1.  It's 60MP and a very powerful 60 at that. 
2.  You have the option to move to a tech camera and your P65+ will take pretty much any lens once you decide which brand
3.  Details with the glass you are considering will be excellent
4.  As long as you work with the DF+ you can use either LR or C1, both offer great output from the P65+
5.  Tethering is very limited to Fire wire, so use in the field tethered will be not as convenient as the IQ backs with USB3
6.  The LCD is pretty much worthless for any type of focus check, it's the same LCD that was on the P45+.  When zoomed in it's very very hard to tell focus.  It's not a touch screen and it will take a while to move around
7.  Phase One will not be adding any more upgrades to it via firmware
8.  It won't work with the XF body (at least for now)
9.  For the price point are you getting any warranty? from the dealer? 
10 I would at least consider a P645z for the price you are at. 

No one right answer, but there is still a lot of life left in the P65+, however I sure would look at a IQ160 also if you can make it work.

Paul

[Doug Peterson]

Hello!

Well basically the title says it all - I'm thinking about buying a used P65+ (+ 645DF+ and  80mm 2.8 LS) for less than 9.000$.

The reasons for me are the big sensor (I don't like 35mm and prefer the look and feel of larger formats) and of course the high resolution.
I'm planning to use it for mainly for magazine shots, portraits and landscape/still life photography (no exposures longer than a minute or so). Until now I've always rented the necessary equipment to get the job done, but I'm not happy working with "somebody else's stuff" and if I want to use it for my personal work as well it'll get expensive really fast.

Now, the 65+ is somewhat 'aged' and has been on the market for more than 6 years - is it still worth buying?
Who's still using his/her 65+ today?
If you were in my shoes - would you buy one as an entry into digital medium format?

I really hope my questions aren't as stupid as I think they are - but I'm really not too sure what to do at this point and I could use some guidance from experienced users.

The only way to fully answer this question, is for you to play with one and see what you think. Everyone's needs, preferences, and budget are different. You've mentioned renting equipment in the past; is the P65+ something you've rented and used in the past?

The P65+ in brief:
- The image quality is great.
- All the core unique elements of medium format (high sync speed, high res, great color depth and tonality, large sensor size, shallow DOF, great tethering, physically robust, upgradeable, modularity, compatibility with view cameras and tech cameras) are there.
- The user interface for reviewing images when untethered is mediocre, at best. Framing/composition and exposure are easy to check. Focus review is not up to modern standards. It's a button driven rather than touch interface, and there aren't the set of advanced tools for review like there would be with the Credo 40 (same ballpark of price: we have a refurb Credo 40 kit in stock with full warranty and new accessories for US$9990 or new for $13,995).

If you're shooting tethered the user interface is not as important since you can use the tethering station for any significant image review. If you're shooting untethered it's a bigger deal, and I'd even more strongly suggest getting your hands on one to see if you can live with the limitations of the image review interface.

It's true that this back is not compatible (and will not be compatible) with the XF. The Credo 40 is a compelling alternative for that reason as well as the Credo will (in the future) be updated to include XF compatibility. That said, the P65+ can also be traded in for an XF compatible back in the future, so if you really want a larger sensor you shouldn't let that hold you back.

[Christoph B.]

Thank you all for your time and effort in answering my questions and eliminating my doubts!

I have used the P45+ and the Hasselblad 3DII31 but most of my work is done with smaller format, 1D/5D etc - however I have never owned a digital medium format camera.... analog medium and large format yes - but 60mpx MF is a whole new level - which is why I wanted to know your opinions beforehand!

Well it looks like I've made up my mind - thanks to your encouragement! I can absolutely live with an abysmal preview screen, I'm used to not seeing the negs until they're developed anyway so the 2-3 seconds of waiting until they appear on my computer won't really matter all that much. I prefer looking at them of the big screen anyway.

As I don't intend to upgrade to a new back or camera for the foreseeable future the incompatibility with the XF system doesn't matter at all - the 645DF+ should do fine for the next couple of years.

The only reason I was worried about the purchase is the fact that I hardly see theses backs in the hands of professionals any more, most of them traded them in for IQ(2) backs.

[Ken R]

The only way to fully answer this question, is for you to play with one and see what you think. Everyone's needs, preferences, and budget are different. You've mentioned renting equipment in the past; is the P65+ something you've rented and used in the past?

The P65+ in brief:
- The image quality is great.
- All the core unique elements of medium format (high sync speed, high res, great color depth and tonality, large sensor size, shallow DOF, great tethering, physically robust, upgradeable, modularity, compatibility with view cameras and tech cameras) are there.
- The user interface for reviewing images when untethered is mediocre, at best. Framing/composition and exposure are easy to check. Focus review is not up to modern standards. It's a button driven rather than touch interface, and there aren't the set of advanced tools for review like there would be with the Credo 40 (same ballpark of price: we have a refurb Credo 40 kit in stock with full warranty and new accessories for US$9990 or new for $13,995).

If you're shooting tethered the user interface is not as important since you can use the tethering station for any significant image review. If you're shooting untethered it's a bigger deal, and I'd even more strongly suggest getting your hands on one to see if you can live with the limitations of the image review interface.

It's true that this back is not compatible (and will not be compatible) with the XF. The Credo 40 is a compelling alternative for that reason as well as the Credo will (in the future) be updated to include XF compatibility. That said, the P65+ can also be traded in for an XF compatible back in the future, so if you really want a larger sensor you shouldn't let that hold you back.

+1, very well said.

I own an IQ160 and the Image Quality is stunning.

The IQ interface really does justice to the quality of the sensor and feels quite current even though it was introduced in 2011 (IIRC).

The P+ back chassis and interface is quite a bit older and feels like so. The screen is garbage and overall response feels slow. If you can work through that then you will love and enjoy the sensor quality and tethering performance.

[Christoph B.]

I've always said use it till the paint wears off and it's always worked for me.

Thank you!

That's exactly my motto and that's party why I delayed moving to digital MF for so long - but as I'm not living in the states . I definitely plan on using the back as long as possible and if the paint wears off I'll just repaint it

By the way I browsed through your portfolio - great work! Kudos!

[Bo Dez]

The image quality from the P65+ is exceptional and will blow your mind.

[Christoph B.]

Oh and one last question - didn't think it'd be necessary to open up a new Topic/thread;

I was thinking about a portrait and beauty lens - something like 150mm would be pretty neat. Would a Mamiya Sekor C 150mm 3.5 N be alright?

It most likely won't be as sharp or contrasty as a modern Schneider lens and I'm not expecting it to, I'm just intrigued because on paper they would fit the bill (though I also found some 150/3.5 with a leaf shutter - but that probably won't work, right?  ).

I heard and read good things about the 120 4.0 Macro as well but for closeups I think it's a little bit too short for my taste - but just out of curiosity - are the old Mamiya 120mm macros basically the same design as the new Schneider ones?

What do you guys think about Zooms like the 75-105mm or 105-210mm ULD? Are they even worth considering?

[synn]

Oh and one last question - didn't think it'd be necessary to open up a new Topic/thread;

I was thinking about a portrait and beauty lens - something like 150mm would be pretty neat. Would a Mamiya Sekor C 150mm 3.5 N be alright?

It most likely won't be as sharp or contrasty as a modern Schneider lens and I'm not expecting it to, I'm just intrigued because on paper they would fit the bill (though I also found some 150/3.5 with a leaf shutter - but that probably won't work, right?  ).

I heard and read good things about the 120 4.0 Macro as well but for closeups I think it's a little bit too short for my taste - but just out of curiosity - are the old Mamiya 120mm macros basically the same design as the new Schneider ones?

What do you guys think about Zooms like the 75-105mm or 105-210mm ULD? Are they even worth considering?

Do you mean the 150 AF? I have the 150 and it certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
If you don't mind the extra reach, get the 210mm ULD. Amazing lens, even on the new backs.

A used 110mm LS would be another option, but certainly not as cheap.

[Christoph B.]

Actually I was talking about the manual focus lens - I couldn't find the AF lens anywhere anyway ^^

The 210 ULD! Interesting - I wasn't even considering that...hmmm isn't that a bit long though?

The 110 on the other hand is even shorter than the 120mm hehe

And the two zooms - do you have any opinions on them?

[synn]

No experience with the zooms, sorry.
Second hand info tells me that the 210 is sharper than them though.

[Paul2660]

Actually I was talking about the manual focus lens - I couldn't find the AF lens anywhere anyway ^^

The 210 ULD! Interesting - I wasn't even considering that...hmmm isn't that a bit long though?

The 110 on the other hand is even shorter than the 120mm hehe

And the two zooms - do you have any opinions on them?

The 105-210, in manual or AF is a good lens, and some are better than others.  I had the AF version for several years, but sold it for a cracker sharp 210 AF.  The 210 is the range I mainly used the 105-210 anyway.  The 210 is much smaller and lighter but the hood is pretty lame. It's built in and the catch breaks pretty easily so it won't stay closed down.  Not a big deal but one of these days I plan to send it back to be fixed as the lens is just that good. 

The 75-150, AF (I wasn't aware there was a MF version) is excellent.  One of the first modern Zooms Mamiya built up.  They never did make their 45-90 which I wanted for years.  The LS version and non LS version share the same optics, just the Leaf shutter is the difference.  I believe the LS version is longer also but optically the same. 

You can find the 210 AF on ebay often and it may be worth pursuing.  The 75-150 shows up a bit less and you may want to work with your dealer on that one. 

One note, both the 105-210 and 75-150 use firmware at the lens level.  You can't update the lens firmware without a DF or DF+ with the V grip (I guess you can use the XF for this now).  If you don't have the most current firmware (most used on ebay won't) you need to get the lens firmware updated as it most likely will have AF issues with the DF+ or DF.

Paul

[Doug Peterson]

Every format and camera has its own unique look that can never be 100% duplicated by any other. But a [full frame 645 sensor + a 130mm f/2 lens + capture one] evokes for me a lot of the feel of an 8x10 portrait.

https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/fast-portrait-lens-phase-one

[Christoph B.]

Hello Johannes,

I'm not an exclusive 8x10 shooter, I also use small and medium format though I never really felt comfortable with the 'look' of small format and always preferred shooting on medium or large format, but the quality (and especially the colour) suffers when you scan the film, even with a drum scanner you always have to put a lot of work into the files to get even close to what you see on your slides.

Right now I'm shooting with a 5D II, a Pentax 67 and on 8x10 but I'm planning to get rid of the 5D and the Pentax and replace both of them with the PhaseOne - it's right in the middle of the two (speed-and sizewise) but produces more accurate colours and a higher resolution than both systems. I'll keep the 8x10 for personal projects and some commissions (a few people like the look and feel of 8x10 and film in general, so I can keep them satisfied as well )

You can see some of the rest of my work (professional and personal) here: http://christoph-m-bieber.com/?page_id=1356 (gosh, I really really need to update my page...)

[Theodoros]

Hello Johannes,

I'm not an exclusive 8x10 shooter, I also use small and medium format though I never really felt comfortable with the 'look' of small format and always preferred shooting on medium or large format, but the quality (and especially the colour) suffers when you scan the film, even with a drum scanner you always have to put a lot of work into the files to get even close to what you see on your slides.

Right now I'm shooting with a 5D II, a Pentax 67 and on 8x10 but I'm planning to get rid of the 5D and the Pentax and replace both of them with the PhaseOne - it's right in the middle of the two (speed-and sizewise) but produces more accurate colours and a higher resolution than both systems. I'll keep the 8x10 for personal projects and some commissions (a few people like the look and feel of 8x10 and film in general, so I can keep them satisfied as well )

You can see some of the rest of my work (professional and personal) here: http://christoph-m-bieber.com/?page_id=1356 (gosh, I really really need to update my page...)

Yes, I agree on this, accuracy (and especially color) does suffer when scanning film, if one tries to digitize old captures of paintings that have been done with large format sheet film, it becomes quite obvious.... Trying to overcome the matter, I've ended up that it is best to avoid scanner altogether when digitizing film. I now try to convince customers that the best method is to use a good lightbox with even distribution of light and shoot the negative using a high resolution multishot MFDB.... I have impressive results using a Kaiser lightbox and shoot on a Sinarback 54H in 16x true color mode for (only) 88mp files using a Zeiss 120mm micro APO lens. Other than the color accuracy problem that is solved, one will be be surprised to find out that he rarely needs stitching two 16x multishot shots even for 8x10 film as to achieve enough resolution.

[Doug Peterson]

Yes, I agree on this, accuracy (and especially color) does suffer when scanning film, if one tries to digitize old captures of paintings that have been done with large format sheet film, it becomes quite obvious.... Trying to overcome the matter, I've ended up that it is best to avoid scanner altogether when digitizing film. I now try to convince customers that the best method is to use a good lightbox with even distribution of light and shoot the negative using a high resolution multishot MFDB.... I have impressive results using a Kaiser lightbox and shoot on a Sinarback 54H in 16x true color mode for (only) 88mp files using a Zeiss 120mm micro APO lens. Other than the color accuracy problem that is solved, one will be be surprised to find out that he rarely needs stitching two 16x multishot shots even for 8x10 film as to achieve enough resolution.

Indeed many institutions are scanning film using our system that employs a refined implementation of that method:
http://dtdch.com/film/

[Bo Dez]

Indeed many institutions are scanning film using our system that employs just that method:
http://dtdch.com/film/

Thanks, that looks impressive.

[Theodoros]

Indeed many institutions are scanning film using our system that employs a refined implementation of that method:
http://dtdch.com/film/

Those copy stands do indeed look great! I use my LPL 7700 Enlarger with a dedicated accessory that replaces the enlarger's head for a sturdy camera base...