Phase One P65+

[petermacc]

Chris,

Will you be attending the event in Orlando on the 6th?

Peter

[BernardLanguillier]

The P65+ addresses the issue by providing the benefits of the resolution but allowing you to control that resolution to suit your workflow with the sensor + technology.

Steve,

Sure, there is value in the P65+, no doubt. It appears to be an amazing product although things are still early.

The question is whether at 40.000 US$ it is worth 16.500 US$ more than the H3dII 50 that was on ebay yesterday at 23.500 US$. Part of the issue is obviously the Euro to US$ highly fluctuating exchange rate. If I were you I would stop quoting a price in US$ until the time the camera ships, you are scaring away potential buyers big time. Just give the price in Euro as a reference. It will make the P65+ look 20% cheaper for now.

Back to the point though, my contention is that less than one percent of expert viewers would be able to tell the difference reliably in 40x60 inch properly made prints between a 50 MP Hassy and a 60 MP Phaseone. The slightly larger sensor just isn't that big a deal.

Cheers,
Bernard

[clawery]

Chris,

Will you be attending the event in Orlando on the 6th?

Peter

Peter,

Which event is that?  I'd love to attend if possible.

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year

877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell  
Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve,

Sure, there is value in the P65+, no doubt. It appears to be an amazing product although things are still early.

The question is whether at 40.000 US$ it is worth 16.500 US$ more than the H3dII 50 that was on ebay yesterday at 23.500 US$. Part of the issue is obviously the Euro to US$ highly fluctuating exchange rate. If I were you I would stop quoting a price in US$ until the time the camera ships, you are scaring away potential buyers big time. Just give the price in Euro as a reference. It will make the P65+ look 20% cheaper for now.

Back to the point though, my contention is that less than one percent of expert viewers would be able to tell the difference reliably in 40x60 inch properly made prints between a 50 MP Hassy and a 60 MP Phaseone. The slightly larger sensor just isn't that big a deal.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard:

I appreciate the thoughts.

First off, the P65+ is not $16,500 more than the H3DII-50, the difference is $13,490. And it is quite a different product in terms of capability than an H3DII-50. For those who value the differences, the price will be up to them to consider, and there are more differences than just the physical sensor size, which is a big deal to some. If the price puts it out of consideration, then someone who would consider the P65+ might consider the P45+ instead just as easily as they might consider the H3DII-50.

It would not be fair to our US buyers to not quote the price in USD, as we have already begun accepting orders and the product is due to ship in Q4 of this year.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

[G_Allen]

This test is a great testiment to the quality of the Mamiya glass -- I'm very impressed with the sharpness, and the smoothness of the out of focus areas. I'm an H/P30+ user, and I don't think my 80mm could match that.

[thsinar]

Dear Steve,

you are certainly right, the difference becomes smaller, but it HIGHLY depends on the lens used to make such a comparison. By using the highest resolution lenses available, the HR, the difference single vs multi-shot is obvious even for a non-trained eye. And this becomes the more obvious the more small and fine structures/details the subject has.

Best regards,
Thierry

I've done some tests in the past with single and multi-shots from my experience selling them. What I found was that as resolution gets higher, the multi-shot advantage is diminished. The difference between 6MP/11MP/16MP single and multi was night and day. At 22MP I started to see the differences begin to shrink, and at 30+ megapixel on many shots I would have to point out where the customer would need to look to see the difference - it wasn't as obvious, though it was there. Of course we have not done comparisons yet with the P65+, but I hope to soon and I expect that trend to continue.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

[thsinar]

 

The promise will then be in form of a written and signed contract, with yearly checks.

Thierry

Especially if you could do some "price binning" too. If everyone promised to shoot it at only 31MP, then maybe the price could be fractionized too.

[simplify]

This test is a great testiment to the quality of the Mamiya glass -- I'm very impressed with the sharpness, and the smoothness of the out of focus areas. I'm an H/P30+ user, and I don't think my 80mm could match that.

I have been using mamiya glass with my P45+ for a year and just switched to V series hasselblad with an 80mm CFE lens.  I am noticing considerable sharpness difference when compared to my Mamiya 120mm macro.

[Vernonclarke]

I have been using mamiya glass with my P45+ for a year and just switched to V series hasselblad with an 80mm CFE lens.  I am noticing considerable sharpness difference when compared to my Mamiya 120mm macro.

Funny thing is that I have just switched my 45+ from Hass V to Phaseone 645 just recently and find the mamiya lenses much sharper than the Hassy, all my lenses were the latest CFI and CFE etc.  I suffered from mirror slap from both my 501cms (also very late models).   The Phase 645 gives me no problems whatsoever...

Steve

[gwhitf]

The promise will then be in form of a written and signed contract, with yearly checks.

Thierry

You joke now, but come February or March of 2009, when this entire market segment completely dries up, and all four MF makers only show one potential order on the books from some guy in Omaha, Nebraska, named "W. Buffett", you might not think I"m joking.

What is appealing, at least in my tiny limited mind, is that you might have a way to design backs, with the P65+ style, where you have one case and chip design, but the firmware would determine how large a MP it was. To streamline the manufacturing process and get some volume going.

With my old Phase back, I remember a setting: "IIQ LARGE" and "IIQ SMALL". Set it Small for 31MP, or set it to Large for 50MP. Simple as that. At least that's my dream for the P65.

If you bought the IIQSmall, and you wanted to shoot larger, just change it to Large, and give it your AMEX number to upgrade! One back; one case; one LCD; full size 645 chip; and only the internals changed.

The goal: do something, anything -- to get the price down, to generate volume, to survive these next eighteen months. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

[thsinar]

Yes I was joking, on this one, but not in a disrespectful manner, I found your remark funny. It needs some fun from time to time.

This being said: we have the product you are looking for, the Sinarback eSprit 65, 31,6 MPx, DNGs/JPGs/RAWs processed in-board, etc ... I guess I have described it in detail in other threads.
So if somebody is ready to "promise" not to use such a "scalable" 60 MPx back at a higher resolution, this Esprit back is the right back for him. I know what you will answer me now: BUT it is not the same "full-frame" size. Agreed, though ....

Best regards,
Thierry

You joke now, but come February or March of 2009, when this entire market segment completely dries up, and all four MF makers only show one potential order on the books from some guy in Omaha, Nebraska, named "W. Buffett", you might not think I"m joking.

What is appealing, at least in my tiny limited mind, is that you might have a way to design backs, with the P65+ style, where you have one case and chip design, but the firmware would determine how large a MP it was. To streamline the manufacturing process and get some volume going.

With my old Phase back, I remember a setting: "IIQ LARGE" and "IIQ SMALL". Set it Small for 31MP, or set it to Large for 50MP. Simple as that. At least that's my dream for the P65.

If you bought the IIQSmall, and you wanted to shoot larger, just change it to Large, and give it your AMEX number to upgrade! One back; one case; one LCD; full size 645 chip; and only the internals changed.

The goal: do something, anything -- to get the price down, to generate volume, to survive these next eighteen months. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

[heinrichvoelkel]

steve, what about wifi? phase one was talking about it before!!!

bumping my question...especially in the light of missing firewire on the macbooks and future availability of firewire...

[jing q]

Yes I was joking, on this one, but not in a disrespectful manner, I found your remark funny. It needs some fun from time to time.

This being said: we have the product you are looking for, the Sinarback eSprit 65, 31,6 MPx, DNGs/JPGs/RAWs processed in-board, etc ... I guess I have described it in detail in other threads.
So if somebody is ready to "promise" not to use such a "scalable" 60 MPx back at a higher resolution, this Esprit back is the right back for him. I know what you will answer me now: BUT it is not the same "full-frame" size. Agreed, though ....

Best regards,
Thierry

how did you just fit a cube into an octopus hole?

[thsinar]

isn't it true?

Best regards,
Thierry

how did you just fit a cube into an octopus hole?

[Jack Flesher]

Funny thing is that I have just switched my 45+ from Hass V to Phaseone 645 just recently and find the mamiya lenses much sharper than the Hassy, all my lenses were the latest CFI and CFE etc.  I suffered from mirror slap from both my 501cms (also very late models).   The Phase 645 gives me no problems whatsoever...

Steve

Ditto here.  I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality.  Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures.  The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...

[Guy Mancuso]

Myself I am getting really nice results from the Mamiya glass, If anyone is a lens whore it is me. I had every leica lens known almost M and R and shot Hassy for years. As Jack said they are not built great especially the non D lenses. I have three D lenses the 150 mm 2.8 , 80 mm 2.8 and the 28mm . Have to say these lenses are extremely good and whatever anyone says about the 28mm makes me wonder . I have had some corner issues also and i can see where the comments come from but i shot interiors all day and night last night every shot was the 28mm and there not lacking for anything. And the new corrections in C1 which they still have more to do are really nice for the 28mm. Bottom line i am not kicking them out of my bag anytime soon.

[EricWHiss]

When you did your testing did you happen to compare the Rollei/zeiss 120mm macro or one of the newer AFD 120mm macros?    Just asking because I've got an older 120mm PQ (Zeiss) and its certainly one of the sharpest lenses I have seen. Because I have a crop sensor, I'm not able to evaluate the sharpness all the way out to the 6x6 corners but still a very impressive lens - if you only consider sharpness.  I evaluate lenses on look, and color rendition, flare, distortion and bokeh in addition to sharpness.  How is the Mamiya 120 with these other factors and how much do you think your opinion has been colored by your apparent relationship with Phase and CI?   This is not an attack, but a question.   Here in a forum of image makers comparison photos would carry the idea much more effectively than words.  If the mamiya is so much better as to destroy the myth of Zeiss superiority - show it to us.

Ditto here.  I hear all this talk about the superiority of "Zeiss" glass myth, so spent the time and money testing a bunch of Hassy CF and F/FE glass. Not wanting to start a flame war, but in the end, the 110 FE was stellar and I kept a copy to use on my Mamiya, the 120 Makro was basically equal to the Mamiya macro and the rest were visibly not as good -- from a resolution standpoint -- as their Mamiya counterparts. Frankly, this suprised me since some of the Mamiya lenses have such a crappy-feeling build quality.  Take the 55 for example: feels like cheap plastic, yet it is a freaking laser corner to corner and blew away the 50 FE lens I compared it to at all apertures.  The Zeiss-superiority myth has been debunked for me...

[Jack Flesher]

When you did your testing did you happen to compare the Rollei/zeiss 120mm macro or one of the newer AFD 120mm macros?    Just asking because I've got an older 120mm PQ (Zeiss) and its certainly one of the sharpest lenses I have seen. Because I have a crop sensor, I'm not able to evaluate the sharpness all the way out to the 6x6 corners but still a very impressive lens - if you only consider sharpness.  I evaluate lenses on look, and color rendition, flare, distortion and bokeh in addition to sharpness.  How is the Mamiya 120 with these other factors and how much do you think your opinion has been colored by your apparent relationship with Phase and CI?   This is not an attack, but a question.   Here in a forum of image makers comparison photos would carry the idea much more effectively than words.  If the mamiya is so much better as to destroy the myth of Zeiss superiority - show it to us.

Eric:

I only tested Hassy versions of the Zeiss glass, at least in comparing them directly to Mamiya glass. If the Rollei versions are of a different optical formulae, somebody should point out what those differences are.

As for my being biased, anybody that knows me knows I always call them as I see them --- if a lens or camera is crap, I say so. Of course this does not sit well with some folks, but usually only those whose system came out second in my tests...   Furthermore, I am not a rep or salesman for any photo-related product or company (other than my own workshops, consulting services and print sales) so I have nothing to gain either way --- I simply share my findings so others may benefit without going through the time and  expense of testing themselves.

That out of the way, I do look at all characteristics of a lens when I test it, but resolution is what weighs most.  After that comes a balance of distortions, oof renderings, contrast and flare resistance.  For example, like I said above -- the Hassy 110 FE is stellar, and I have and use a copy of it myself.  This lens is very sharp even wide open and has an almost etherial oof rendering. Contrast is balanced, not too harsh or soft.  In short, I wish all my lenses performed as it does.  I'll ad that if I already owned a Hassy 120 Macro, I would probably not bother replacing it with a Mamiya version as the only gains are the conveniences of setting the aperture from the body instead of the lens and more complete exif data.

Hope that clarifies,

[simplify]

Funny thing is that I have just switched my 45+ from Hass V to Phaseone 645 just recently and find the mamiya lenses much sharper than the Hassy, all my lenses were the latest CFI and CFE etc.  I suffered from mirror slap from both my 501cms (also very late models).   The Phase 645 gives me no problems whatsoever...

Steve

Funny.  I am using 503cw and almost always on tripod with mirror up.

[EricWHiss]

EPd,
Thanks for your reply and information.  Forgive me if I have asked this question already but maybe you might know  -  I have read that Schneider optics for the Rollei system are all color matched - meaning if you are shooting a project with one focal length and then switch to another focal length the color rendering will be the same - which can be important.  True?   A further question is would this also be true of the zeiss lenses made for the Rollei mount and if so does this explain the differences in coatings?


Jack,

Thanks for your reply as well. Part of what I was trying to point out in my question to you is that when a lens is evaluated on one criteria alone such as sharpness its not necessarily useful information for all users - since distortion or lack of it, or the character of the lens may be just as important or even more so to others.  Lens design as you know is a set of compromises.  One lens might be super sharp but have terrible distortion, or only be optimized for certain focal lengths.  The later condition is what hurt the zeiss 120mm macro in the MTF department as its meant to be used close up but was tested at infinity.  Furthermore most testing is done in a perfunctory way - often with different conditions and test subjects so its very difficult to come to conclusions about anything really.  Most of it very subjective - so that's why its very useful to post test images along with statements about lenses such as yours - and the more real life a subject the better. Not saying you haven't done a good job testing,  but how can a reader evaluate or compare your results to theirs and their equipment without an image?  

Eric