Phase One P65+

[woof75]

Woof:

You're entitled to your opinion.

But I object to the term "lying", and the implication of a lack of honesty and integrity.

There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. A completely new sensor with new technology certainly does offer more potential for advancement. I don't see what does not ring true about that statement.

The screen from the plus is certainly better than the non plus. It has more resolution and more brightness. The fact it is less viewable in direct sunlight is yes, one aspect that was a minus. However, I have not met anyone who has told me they would prefer to have the older screen. And wireless file transfer was not part of the plus upgrade package. It is a feature that we felt confident enough to publicize our plans for and obviously we have so far failed to accomplish this. Guilty as charged.

I do understand that until rubber meets the road, skepticism exists (and rightfully so). Nonetheless, the potential of the P65+ product is exciting and that is directly what I was stating.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Steve,

You said: There is a limit to what can be accomplished by tweaking the same sensor via readout adjustments and circuit board upgrades. My dealer didn't say that when he was trying to sell me a plus back nor did the Phase one advertising info. I was told that it would be able to do wireless soon, it didn't. You admit that the screen has a minus in the only conditions that most use the screen. The sales literature didn't tell me that.
No-one likes to be called a lier but what term do you think would best describe the divergence of the promise and what was delivered? (of course bearing in mind that all the mistakes made the back seem more favorable than it was also).
-w

[narikin]

Funny, we heard a lot of these promises from Phase when the Plus series was introduced. That the P45+ was going to be better ISO, and better LCD, and better file quality.

I took delivery on the P45+, and then returned it. I saw very little if ANY difference between the Plus and the Non-Plus.

So yes, it better be a LOT better to justify ten grand.

you might like to check your screen set up then. I did the same and found a definite improvement. well worth the upgrade price, plus the improved LCD etc.
I only wish the P65+ was the same upgrade price as P45 > P45+. they overcooked it on this one... and need to make a special offer for a month or so,  to kick it into gear.

[woof75]

That summary compares only the 45, 80 and 210, hardly the best Contax 645 lenses. The Contax 80/2 is even a full stop faster than the Mamiya, a design choice which has ramifications throughout the aperture range. The test also compares only resolution, not colour or boke, etc. Is there anything comparing the 35, 55, and 120 Macro? There were meant to be numerous tests...

Yes thats the test I was referring too, I don't know about you but I'd say those focal length's are pretty critical and also, for me, resolution is pretty important in lens design. You have to be very careful not to get caught up in the Zeiss hype. It reminds me of hearing about a big orchestra that had hardly any women on it, they felt the women they auditioned just weren't good as good as the men, these were experts of course, then, they started doing the auditions blind, the player was behind a curtain so the player couldn't be seen, all of a sudden, the number of women players in the orchestra was about equal to the number of men. No-one knew that they were unfairly discriminating, they were all amazed.

[AlexLF]

Hi!

I've been reading this forum for quite some time because I want to upgrade from my large format and Canon 5D to MFDB. And obviously I read pretty much everything that's available to make a right decision. Sufficient to say, I'm not a pro and I don't make money on photography (yet ). I shoot landscapes and I used to do some fashion in the past.

The main reason I want to upgrade is I think 50 megapixel DB is quite comparable (or even exceeds) in quality to LF but it's a lot more "comfortable" to work with. But as to this discussion, I just want to share some thoughts on P65+ compared to Hasselblad H3dII-50.

Some say that closed system is a drawback and even it will bound one's creativity. But to me Hassy's "closed" system is an advantage - I don't really need to think about what will work with what. It's all done already for me. All I need to do is just get camera, lens, DB and software and to start shooting. And I'm sure the quality of all of the ingredients will be very good. Besides, look at Canon or Nikon, they are closed systems too...

The other thing is customer's feedback regarding to equipment brand. I don't have much experience with photo buyers but I don't think they really care about if some photo was taken with Phase or Hassy. What's more in this, in my opinion, is the difference between 39-50-60 megapixels. I think in most cases customers also don't care because this difference is really not seen on sizes up to 20*30 (which I suppose the most useful size range).

What's really important to me as a photographer is price. Sorry, but I really don't understand why I need to pay 14000$ more for P65+ compared to H3DII-50. P65+ has larger sensor and 10 more megapixels in resolution. Fine, but will my end product be so much better quality-wise? I'm sure not. For this price difference I can buy two or three more lenses.

I may be wrong somewhere due to lack of real photo business experience though.

Alex.

[Carsten W]

Yes thats the test I was referring too, I don't know about you but I'd say those focal length's are pretty critical and also, for me, resolution is pretty important in lens design.

Right, I am not saying that this test is not valid, just that it is incomplete. All the best lenses in the Contax 645 were skipped, in favour of some of the weaker ones. It gives an incomplete, and skewed, picture of the total situation.

There were meant to be many tests showing the Mamiya lenses were at least as good as the Zeiss lineups. Where are the other tests?

[jmvdigital]

Sorry, but I really don't understand why I need to pay 14000$ more for P65+ compared to H3DII-50. P65+ has larger sensor and 10 more megapixels in resolution. Fine, but will my end product be so much better quality-wise? I'm sure not. For this price difference I can buy two or three more lenses.

Alex.

Alex, you touched on a point that is valid across most of the backs. Is the P30+ worth and extra $10k over the P45+, when we're only talking a less-than 8mp difference? The fact is, 60mp is not 50mp, and a bigger sensor is a bigger sensor. And both models have different +/-'s. The more surface area, the exponentially more expensive. Same reason a P25+ is slightly more than a P30+. The 30+ has more pixels, but the 25+ has a larger area sensor.

The question you should be asking yourself is not between the H3DII-50 and P65+, but how much resolution to do you really need, regardless of price? If you're ok with slidingfrom 60mp to 50mp because the difference isn't that great, I bet you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 39mp and 50mp in anything short of a wall-size print. The jump from 39mp to 60mp? Noticeable, but again, it's all relative to what you're doing.

-J

[woof75]

Right, I am not saying that this test is not valid, just that it is incomplete. All the best lenses in the Contax 645 were skipped, in favour of some of the weaker ones. It gives an incomplete, and skewed, picture of the total situation.

There were meant to be many tests showing the Mamiya lenses were at least as good as the Zeiss lineups. Where are the other tests?

There aren't any more tests that I know of.

[Carsten W]

I'm amazed that this myth goes on, test after test show the Mamiya's being at least the equal to anything but because they look cheap people think they aren't good. There great lenses. It's amazing how bias works.

Woof, here is an earlier post where you mentioned "test after test" showing the Mamiya lenses are at least as good as other lenses. If there is only one test against Zeiss glass, and that only covers the 45, 80 and 210, then I guess the rest of the Zeiss lineup is still in question? Here I mean the Contax 645 lineup, since they are more modern than the V glass. I don't know about the Rollei glass. Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".

I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.

[woof75]

Woof, here is an earlier post where you mentioned "test after test" showing the Mamiya lenses are at least as good as other lenses. If there is only one test against Zeiss glass, and that only covers the 45, 80 and 210, then I guess the rest of the Zeiss lineup is still in question? Here I mean the Contax 645 lineup, since they are more modern than the V glass. I don't know about the Rollei glass. Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".

I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.

Sorry, your correct. I should have said a documented test showed Mamiya glass to be good. What I meant by test after test was unpublished tests where people have just compared them themselves and come up with similar results and spoken about them on forums or in studios, with digital techs etc.

[Gigi]

I've been burnt already, waiting for a Windows version of Leaf Capture which was promised for years. FINALLY came out, and still quirky. Prevents my computer from shutting down. Firewire refuses to recognise after it wakes up from sleep mode. So on and so forth.

Gee I have a bunch of hard drives that do the same thing.... and even Safari now hangs up on Macs. So what? Work around it, or go to Windows and have even more quirkiness.

Perfecion is sought after, rarely achieved.  

Geoff

[woof75]

Gee I have a bunch of hard drives that do the same thing.... and even Safari now hangs up on Macs. So what? Work around it, or go to Windows and have even more quirkiness.

Perfecion is sought after, rarely achieved.  

Geoff

I know I complain about Phase but there backs and the 3.7.1 software are absolutely rock solid. I don't think people should put up with things not working correctly, (unless it was advertised that it wasn't going to work properly)

[AlexLF]

The question you should be asking yourself is not between the H3DII-50 and P65+, but how much resolution to do you really need, regardless of price? If you're ok with slidingfrom 60mp to 50mp because the difference isn't that great, I bet you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 39mp and 50mp in anything short of a wall-size print. The jump from 39mp to 60mp? Noticeable, but again, it's all relative to what you're doing.

-J

Well, I make prints 80*70cm (31"x27") from my LF slides and the resulting scans resolution is about 9300x7440. P65+ would come really nicely (it's 8984 x 6732) but ... and there's BIG one... the price. So 8176 x 6132 that H3DII-50 has is not far enough especially regarding the mentioned price difference.

[jing q]

Gee I have a bunch of hard drives that do the same thing.... and even Safari now hangs up on Macs. So what? Work around it, or go to Windows and have even more quirkiness.

Perfecion is sought after, rarely achieved.  

Geoff

what?
sorry but that is the most irrelevant analogy I've heard.
You have a bunch of $300 hard drives that fail?
I have a propriety software for tethering my $30k back that was promised and didn't exist for years??
Sorry but where's the connection here?

[TMARK]

Well, I make prints 80*70cm (31"x27") from my LF slides and the resulting scans resolution is about 9300x7440. P65+ would come really nicely (it's 8984 x 6732) but ... and there's BIG one... the price. So 8176 x 6132 that H3DII-50 has is not far enough especially regarding the mentioned price difference.

The resolutions cannot really be compared, resolutions being, in this case, scanned LF chromes and digital files.  Digital is so much cleaner than scanned film.  A scanned film file contains a lot of crappy information, while the digital file should contain nothing but signal, which is why 100 meg tiff from a digital camera beats a 100 meg tiff from a film scan.  So, bottom line, save some cash and get a 31 megapixel solution.  

[rainer_v]

The resolutions cannot really be compared, resolutions being, in this case, scanned LF chromes and digital files.  Digital is so much cleaner than scanned film.  A scanned film file contains a lot of crappy information, while the digital file should contain nothing but signal, which is why 100 meg tiff from a digital camera beats a 100 meg tiff from a film scan.  So, bottom line, save some cash and get a 31 megapixel solution.

70x80cm isnt any problem with a 22/33/39 mp back even for the sharpest pp eyes. check it out by yourself.

[woof75]

Well, I make prints 80*70cm (31"x27") from my LF slides and the resulting scans resolution is about 9300x7440. P65+ would come really nicely (it's 8984 x 6732) but ... and there's BIG one... the price. So 8176 x 6132 that H3DII-50 has is not far enough especially regarding the mentioned price difference.

You don't need anything like 60mp to make files that big, 30 would do it so easily, MF files up res so well it's pretty amazing. (edit) I guess i just repeated the guy above. It is true though.

[AlexLF]

70x80cm isnt any problem with a 22/33/39 mp back even for the sharpest pp eyes. check it out by yourself.

TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...

But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.

[woof75]

TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...

But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.

You can easily get lower pixel count backs at the moment, there's never been a better time to get some nice mature backs. I have no idea why anyone would buy a 60mp back unless you fairly regularly make 40 by 50 inch prints at least.

[EricWHiss]

Woof, here is an earlier post where you mentioned "test after test" showing the Mamiya lenses are at least as good as other lenses. If there is only one test against Zeiss glass, and that only covers the 45, 80 and 210, then I guess the rest of the Zeiss lineup is still in question? Here I mean the Contax 645 lineup, since they are more modern than the V glass. I don't know about the Rollei glass. Jack has debunked the superiority of the V glass, at least for himself (I personally trust him), but I guess there is more to do before concluding that the Mamiya lenses are "at least the equal to anything".

I am not saying that they aren't, I am just saying that there appears to be nothing available to support that statement, beyond that single test and Jack's tests.

Hmmm...   Carsten, I think you're onto something here when you hint that the arguments about the superiority of whatever lens system is incomplete.  Anyone that reads these threads might be mislead by a few strongly opinionated or even perhaps financially biased users.  It's like anything else - you must test it for yourself to know for certain if a product will meet your own needs.  And I certainly would not trust any forum opinion that can not be backed up with the inclusion of the test images and test methodology.  

There are a certain few posters that drop it to this forum and others, post very lovingly about an optic or other piece of gear then wait a few weeks and put it up for sale in the buy and sell forums. Usually its a piece of gear they just bought 'low' on ebay and are now trying to sell 'high'.   If you're astute you can pick them out by just noticing that the main forum they post in is the buy and sell and typically these traders post very few actual photographic images or if they do post a photo its of a wall calendar or a picture of a box from some other piece of gear.

[rainer_v]

TMax, Rainer_V, thanks guys. I understand the quality of information contained by slide and digital. It's just at the moment the current models are 50 or 60, not 31/39...

But I have a question - so, why then to upgrade at all? No, really. What is the reason for people then to upgrade (and manufacture) to 50 and 60 megapixel backs? What aspect of photography gets better? I personally treat it only as a new alternative to my old LF gear without resolution compromise.

some guys do 160x200cm stuff ( as me ). anyway never asked me any client for higher resolutions than i deliverd, even if i handled with 5d files.
so this is for exhibits only. i often stitch, which is easy done with cameras which allow shift- lenses. but it has its limitations too and if you add to make 32bit files
you end up with 8 or more shots each motif.  on the other hand it frightens me to handle on location always so huge files as the new back
generation might bring up for location work, moreso because the new p-books arent tempting at all with their glossy******.  
even with the 33mp files i am at the limit if i work outside if i want to convert the shots in the hotel for previewing what i have and what not.