Thoughts on the P21+?

[Juanito]

I just tested the H2 with a P21+ back. I posted a couple of test shots that I did in the new work thread, but I'll repost them here for reference. I liked the speed of the back - it was great not having to wait for the card to write. For the outdoor strobe shots, where I was working with a 7b at full power, I was waiting for the strobe to recycle - not the camera.

Are there any other options that I should look at besides the P21+ back? I was considering going with an RZ system, but one thing that I like about the Hassie is that I can see the histogram on the camera lcd - not just on the back. The histogram on the back nearly completely covers the preview image so it's kinda hard to work with. I also never really got the hang of working with the menus on the back either. (Nearly all of my work is on location and tethering is rarely an option.)

Just wondering what's the word on this back. It's a little light in megapixels, but I'm wondering how it stacks up in dynamic range and image quality against its bigger brothers. I've thought about the P30+ but I don't like the idea of having to wait an extra 1/2 sec between shots. Are there any lifestyle/fashion shooters out there using the slower backs? What's your experience like?

Just trying to get some feedback before I spend a lot of money.





John

[James R Russell]

Just trying to get some feedback before I spend a lot of money.


John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It all depends on what you shoot and what your client expectations are.

If you have a client that uses an outside retouching firm and wants the raws for processing, then go with a P30 or similiar sized back because if not your going to eventually hear he shot with something too small.

If you always do your own processing, then honestly nobody will know the difference between the p21+ or the P30+.

I own both, and use the p21+ more than the p30+ but that's just me and I personally like the look of the p21+ more, especially pushed a stop as it has a little more "texture".  I think huge mpx digital downsized looks way too smooth as it is, but then again that's just me.

As far as the speed of shooting, I don't really notice any difference, because we all shoot only as fast as the equipment or the scene will allow.

If I'm shooting with the p30 I get in that rythm, a p21 I get into that mode, so I don't think there is much difference.

I think we've been caught up in this bigger is better thing since the start of digital, but in reality it's really the look of the photograph, not the pixel count.

Given that, as I work with crew around the country most assistants that come off a lifestyle retail project pretty much say the photographer shot with a P30 or p30+, but that's probably because there are so many digital tech companies that have these cameras in their rental kit.

But let your own eyes be the judge.  If what you tested with a P21+ worked well, didn't moire, or stairstep, held to the iso you work under, then save some money and get only what works for you.



JR

[woof75]

I shoot the P21 and I love it, it's fast and really 18mpx is great unless you need massive files, your going to be downsizing a P30 much more than your going to upsize a P21  (which do upres really well). One thing I dont know is the difference between the P21 and the P21+. I know the theoretical, or marketing differences but have never heard anyone really claiming that the plus series backs had any real advantage, anyone?

[Harold Clark]

I shoot the P21 and I love it, it's fast and really 18mpx is great unless you need massive files, your going to be downsizing a P30 much more than your going to upsize a P21  (which do upres really well). One thing I dont know is the difference between the P21 and the P21+. I know the theoretical, or marketing differences but have never heard anyone really claiming that the plus series backs had any real advantage, anyone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is of interest to me too, the practical differences between P21 & P21+. This DB would be best suited to the work I do, unless Mamiya comes out with an upgrade on the ZD soon. What do you find is the maximum ISO you can use? Also, any experience with long exposures?

[James R Russell]

This is of interest to me too, the practical differences between P21 & P21+. This DB would be best suited to the work I do, unless Mamiya comes out with an upgrade on the ZD soon. What do you find is the maximum ISO you can use? Also, any experience with long exposures?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Once again, high iso on all the digital cameras, except the Nikon D3 is very dependent on style of lighting, (high key, low key), color temp. of the light, and subjects.

Someone posted a still life at 800 iso on the p21+ and it looks ok, until you look at the fine detail edges and you see break up.  Shooting something like a women's jacket with that type of transitional breakup will be very noticeable.

Regardless, even the Canon's have noise at anythng above 400 iso and I know someobody might post a sample but once again it is lighting/subject dependent.

One of the reasons most people think the dslrs work better under low light is the lenses are much faster and require less stop down for the same depth of field as a medium format camera and if you come in close, you have less bellows factor (falloff) on a 35mm lens than most medium format lenses.

I can shoot the p21 at 400 iso all day long with no issue, but it does require some very delicate post work, balancing luminousity and color noise reduction vs. sharpness.

You also have to shoot the phase backs at large IQ at high iso or you see more break up and I can't stress this enough you have to work these cameras in a lot of ways to find the best quality for the circumstance.

With the P30+ with a lot of light at 100 or 200 iso I get a much better look slightly underexposed than dead on or over exposed.  With the same camera at 800 iso, shooting slightly underexposed can be a real problem as the automatic noise reduction kicks in and kills too much detail, hence you have to manually adjust.

The only way to really tell if any of these backs will work for you is to test them in the EXACT conditions you want to shoot in and mess with the exposure.  Sometimes 400 iso one stop under will process cleaner than 800 iso.

Anything other than working these cameras in a real project under your absolute worst conditions  is just a random guess.

I can tell you the P21+ is fast enough for me, but maybe not for you.  I am postiive that the P30+ is the very best all around back for the work I do, (which is varied), but that's just for the way I work.

I doubt if it will translate for everyone the same.

The interesting thing for me is I got the p21+ mostly as a backup for the P30+, but now I use the smaller back more often.

JR

[Juanito]

Thanks for the response and the info James.

John

[Harold Clark]

Once again, high iso on all the digital cameras, except the Nikon D3 is very dependent on style of lighting, (high key, low key), color temp. of the light, and subjects.

Someone posted a still life at 800 iso on the p21+ and it looks ok, until you look at the fine detail edges and you see break up.  Shooting something like a women's jacket with that type of transitional breakup will be very noticeable.

Regardless, even the Canon's have noise at anythng above 400 iso and I know someobody might post a sample but once again it is lighting/subject dependent.

One of the reasons most people think the dslrs work better under low light is the lenses are much faster and require less stop down for the same depth of field as a medium format camera and if you come in close, you have less bellows factor (falloff) on a 35mm lens than most medium format lenses.

I can shoot the p21 at 400 iso all day long with no issue, but it does require some very delicate post work, balancing luminousity and color noise reduction vs. sharpness.

You also have to shoot the phase backs at large IQ at high iso or you see more break up and I can't stress this enough you have to work these cameras in a lot of ways to find the best quality for the circumstance.

With the P30+ with a lot of light at 100 or 200 iso I get a much better look slightly underexposed than dead on or over exposed.  With the same camera at 800 iso, shooting slightly underexposed can be a real problem as the automatic noise reduction kicks in and kills too much detail, hence you have to manually adjust.

The only way to really tell if any of these backs will work for you is to test them in the EXACT conditions you want to shoot in and mess with the exposure.  Sometimes 400 iso one stop under will process cleaner than 800 iso.

Anything other than working these cameras in a real project under your absolute worst conditions  is just a random guess.

I can tell you the P21+ is fast enough for me, but maybe not for you.  I am postiive that the P30+ is the very best all around back for the work I do, (which is varied), but that's just for the way I work.

I doubt if it will translate for everyone the same.

The interesting thing for me is I got the p21+ mostly as a backup for the P30+, but now I use the smaller back more often.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks very much for the info James. You are absolutely right, I will have to test the system in my working environment to see how it performs. It is very helpful to have some actual user experience to get started. Another good thing, at least the P21 won't break the bank.

[woof75]

James, why do you prefer the P30+ to the P21+? Also, do you ever work with the non plus series backs?

[James R Russell]

James, why do you prefer the P30+ to the P21+? Also, do you ever work with the non plus series backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know, it shoots faster, it uses less drive space, the previews come up faster when tethered, it has a little more texture to the files so when up or down sized they don't look too smooth.

Though the 1.3 or should I say 1.26 crop doesn't bother me that much, compared to the 1.16 crop of most of the other makes, My perfect scenario would be a p21 that was 1.1 or 1.16.

I've never used the non plus series of the p21 though for a brief period had a non plus of the p30 and in comparision to the plus can't see that huge of a difference.  In fact I liked the regular lcd better in bright sunlight as it was easier to read and none of the medium format lcd's are that good.

I'm a believer of you use what you have and if you only have a p21 you'll use it to it's advantage as long as you don't spend too much time thinking about a larger back, though few people can do this.

I do see a difference in detail between the 21 and the 30 but nothing that seems to bother anyone, includling me.

We've have the p21 a short time but already shot two advertising and one editorial projects with it with no issues so I guess it' fine.

I know that we all want to move forward and that's a positive, but I'm pretty much at the point where I can stay still with what I have, unless there is some huge leap forward, like wi-fi, or a much, much better preview screen and even then I'd have to weigh the costs vs. the results.



JR

[woof75]

I don't know, it shoots faster, it uses less drive space, the previews come up faster when tethered, it has a little more texture to the files so when up or down sized they don't look too smooth.

Though the 1.3 or should I say 1.26 crop doesn't bother me that much, compared to the 1.16 crop of most of the other makes, My perfect scenario would be a p21 that was 1.1 or 1.16.

I've never used the non plus series of the p21 though for a brief period had a non plus of the p30 and in comparision to the plus can't see that huge of a difference.  In fact I liked the regular lcd better in bright sunlight as it was easier to read and none of the medium format lcd's are that good.

I'm a believer of you use what you have and if you only have a p21 you'll use it to it's advantage as long as you don't spend too much time thinking about a larger back, though few people can do this.

I do see a difference in detail between the 21 and the 30 but nothing that seems to bother anyone, includling me.

We've have the p21 a short time but already shot two advertising and one editorial projects with it with no issues so I guess it' fine.

I know that we all want to move forward and that's a positive, but I'm pretty much at the point where I can stay still with what I have, unless there is some huge leap forward, like wi-fi, or a much, much better preview screen and even then I'd have to weigh the costs vs. the results.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I'm super happy with my P21. I really appreciate not having to buy even more storage than I already do. I really do think 18mp is the sweet spot for me. I don't remember the last time I had to upres. I have no desires for a higher res back, a better screen, higher iso, yes but I don't need any more resolution. It's cheap cheap too, a lovely and often overlooked back, I use it for everything. Though I am thinking of adding a 5d to the mix, I shot one recently and really liked it. How are you finding the new nikons at 400 ISO? When do you reach for the nikon rather than the canon?

[James R Russell]

Yes, I'm super happy with my P21. I really appreciate not having to buy even more storage than I already do. I really do think 18mp is the sweet spot for me. I don't remember the last time I had to upres. I have no desires for a higher res back, a better screen, higher iso, yes but I don't need any more resolution. It's cheap cheap too, a lovely and often overlooked back, I use it for everything. Though I am thinking of adding a 5d to the mix, I shot one recently and really liked it. How are you finding the new nikons at 400 ISO? When do you reach for the nikon rather than the canon?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Depending on what you shoot, there are going to be some clients that demand more resolution.

I haven't seen much of that in the last few years as I think most people accept that any professional digital capture will prettty much cover any size you need, but clients can pick up on some strange ideas sometimes, though usually it's just because they've been given the wrong information from a production house or printer.

At some point you have to step back and be realistic about how we present and sell ourselves.

95% of what we show is on the web or in 11x14 portfolios, (though web presence get's much more play that printed books).

So, given that your rarely going to show huge, huge images to get a gig, I think the most important thing to look at for a camera is first does it allow you to shoot in the style you want to shoot in.

(Actually I've present 44"x60" prints from the original Canon 1ds that got the gig and at the time these were clients looking for a reason not to shoot digital, so I guess if 11mpx works, 18mpx should be a slam dunk).

I like the p21 and agree it's overlooked, but that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

I do think the texture is pretty and the one thing I liked about my previous aptus 22 was processed in photoshop I saw a film like texture to the images, which I think the p21 also has, so maybe that's what I like about it.

As far as the Nikon, at 400 iso it's just warming up, 1000 iso is still very clean.

I use the Nikon for fast action or twice when we were shooting motion and I needed to freeze the subjects using tungsten lighting, (oh and once to use the compression and fall off of the 200mm f2).

I like the Nikon at high iso, though not too experienced with it at low iso.

JR

[woof75]

Yes, I have been working on a show I have coming up at a gallery (which is nothing like the fashion I shoot) and I print these 50 *60 inches sometimes from the P21. Of course by there nature I can go as big as I want because resolution isn't a factor but if you have unpleasant noise it becomes a problem. P21 noise is really nice and the tonality is beautiful.

[wildstork]

Woof,
If resolution were a factor...
Given the thumbnail you posted at the bottom of your last comment:  if the large tree in the center were sharply focused and you wanted to capture all of that sharpness in the largest possible print, how large could you print that image given the limits of the P21 back?

I fully understand your comment: "Of course by there nature I can go as big as I want because resolution isn't a factor but if you have unpleasant noise it becomes a problem" with respect to the shot you posted.  This image is more abstract and is undoubtedly beautiful in very large sizes.  I'm working at the opposite end, however, where sharpness and resolution of detail is needed in extreme enlargements.

Thanks for your input,
Lawrence

[woof75]

Woof,
If resolution were a factor...
Given the thumbnail you posted at the bottom of your last comment:  if the large tree in the center were sharply focused and you wanted to capture all of that sharpness in the largest possible print, how large could you print that image given the limits of the P21 back?

I fully understand your comment: "Of course by there nature I can go as big as I want because resolution isn't a factor but if you have unpleasant noise it becomes a problem" with respect to the shot you posted.  This image is more abstract and is undoubtedly beautiful in very large sizes.  I'm working at the opposite end, however, where sharpness and resolution of detail is needed in extreme enlargements.

Thanks for your input,
Lawrence
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's actually a composite image that I posted, I noticed the tonality broke up a little when viewed in Safari, it's amazing how bad most web browsers are with profiles and hence colour. Anyhow, that aside, just off the top of my head, printing on an inkjet printer, a good image that didn't have any obvious sharpness problems to begin with could be printed up to about about 35 by 20 inch, something like that before it started to get too rough depending on your expectations and upressing technique. I find P21 files (I'm sure other backs are similar) up res incredibly well, much more so than my old 1ds mark2. Of course this is all super subjective, if you need super sharp still life pictures of eye shadow containers at 35 by 20 it would be a different story. Sorry to be vague but there is no definates here, it's all very subjective.

[Juanito]

At this point resolution is only marginally a factor. I've been shooting with the 5D for the past couple of years now. My stuff runs on billboards and in magazines all the time and no one has asked for more pixels. That said, I had one client who took a vertical image, cropped it and then ran it over two pages. It looked like hell.

Of course, everyone has different needs and standards. I've never been interested in the 4x5 at f64 look so if that's what you need, then my experience won't count for much.

What I like about the p21+ is the speed. I hate waiting to take the shot. When something is happening in front of me, I want to nail it - not be caught up in waiting for a buffer to clear.

All in all though, I'm a bit disappointed in the overall price in relationship to performance of the medium format systems. I don't understand why they are so expensive, slow etc relative to small format systems which are half the cost, almost the same resolution, faster, better focusing, and easier to use. (The H2 is a sharp camera, but that doesn't help when you've only got one focus point and shutter slap up the whazzo.) My guess is that the next 5D will offer a similar resolution but many more features to the p21+ for a fraction of the cost. Whether to invest $20k just to get a faster shutter sync speed and marginally better file is the big question for me.

John

[woof75]

At this point resolution is only marginally a factor. I've been shooting with the 5D for the past couple of years now. My stuff runs on billboards and in magazines all the time and no one has asked for more pixels. That said, I had one client who took a vertical image, cropped it and then ran it over two pages. It looked like hell.

Of course, everyone has different needs and standards. I've never been interested in the 4x5 at f64 look so if that's what you need, then my experience won't count for much.

What I like about the p21+ is the speed. I hate waiting to take the shot. When something is happening in front of me, I want to nail it - not be caught up in waiting for a buffer to clear.

All in all though, I'm a bit disappointed in the overall price in relationship to performance of the medium format systems. I don't understand why they are so expensive, slow etc relative to small format systems which are half the cost, almost the same resolution, faster, better focusing, and easier to use. (The H2 is a sharp camera, but that doesn't help when you've only got one focus point and shutter slap up the whazzo.) My guess is that the next 5D will offer a similar resolution but many more features to the p21+ for a fraction of the cost. Whether to invest $20k just to get a faster shutter sync speed and marginally better file is the big question for me.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think with regard to the cost of MF it should be remembered that the number of MF products made are really small so don't benefit from the economics of scale.

[wildstork]

"I've never been interested in the 4x5 at f64 look so if that's what you need, then my experience won't count for much. "  

I agree with you there, Juanito.  Razor sharp focus foreground to background has never been my thing either.  My subject matter is more about f8 @ 1/500, sharp subject and foreground/background falling off.  My Leica DMR can go up to around 18x26 before things start to go flat.  Drum scanned Kodachrome can beat that... as can drum scanned medium format, by a wide margin.

Sure, there are things one can do to get more of a "film" look with digital, but once you've gone beyond a certain point... the returns diminish significantly.  Up until now, I've been content to drum scan film.  I don't need immediate turnaround when I'm doing the fine art stuff.  Love the convenience of digital capture, but the quality of very large prints is of paramount importance, so I'm just doing the due diligence to see if it is time to go MF digital.

Thanks for your input.

Lawrence

[woof75]

"I've never been interested in the 4x5 at f64 look so if that's what you need, then my experience won't count for much. " 

I agree with you there, Juanito.  Razor sharp focus foreground to background has never been my thing either.  My subject matter is more about f8 @ 1/500, sharp subject and foreground/background falling off.  My Leica DMR can go up to around 18x26 before things start to go flat.  Drum scanned Kodachrome can beat that... as can drum scanned medium format, by a wide margin.

Sure, there are things one can do to get more of a "film" look with digital, but once you've gone beyond a certain point... the returns diminish significantly.  Up until now, I've been content to drum scan film.  I don't need immediate turnaround when I'm doing the fine art stuff.  Love the convenience of digital capture, but the quality of very large prints is of paramount importance, so I'm just doing the due diligence to see if it is time to go MF digital.

Thanks for your input.

Lawrence
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Film is lovely stuff isn't it. I add monochrome noise on a 50 % grey layer on overlay mode which does a fair job of giving me a grain like feel. How do you get a film look (or try and get close to it)? Getting that film like tonal curve is so hard.

[wildstork]

Film is lovely stuff isn't it. I add monochrome noise on a 50 % grey layer on overlay mode which does a fair job of giving me a grain like feel. How do you get a film look (or try and get close to it)? Getting that film like tonal curve is so hard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've played a bit with the noise thing, Woof, but don't generally go there as film will give me what I want if and when I need to go bigger.  

I'm working on a book on Hummingbirds of the Andes and wouldn't trade what I'm getting with the DMR and long Leica APO glass for anything at any price.  We're only talking the printed page here, and though I've personally printed some images 18X18" and they're still stunning... I wouldn't take the files much larger for landscape work.  Up 'till now, the 67 film format has been my "go to" tool for big enlargements.

Given the cost of a MF digital system that meets my needs (long super sharp glass that can take 1.4 converters and the capability of exceptional large prints), I won't go there unless I see something that significantly improves upon what I'm getting now with drum scanned 6x7 trannies.