which sense has sensor + technology ?

[rainer_v]

which sense has the + technology seeing the results of it here in michaels test? maybe someone may enlighten me cause w.o. help i am not.
its looks far behind the actual dslr qualities at even lower resolution,- so what the hell is this + technology for.
at least in my working field i dont see any sense for it but i would like to know how you guys rate this "hi" iso capacities of the new 65+ backs.

[Doug Peterson]

which sense has the + technology seeing the results of it here in michaels test? maybe someone may enlighten me cause w.o. help i am not.
its looks far behind the actual dslr qualities at even lower resolution,- so what the hell is this + technology for.
at least in my working field i dont see any sense for it but i would like to know how you guys rate this "hi" iso capacities of the new 65+ backs.

If low light photography is your main or a very important part of your shooting then Sensor+ won't get you there as well as a 5DII.

However I can think of many times in the last year where I had a P45+ kit over my shoulder on the way back from shooting and I saw something I wanted to shoot but knew I simply could not get there with the P45+ because it's maximum ISO was 800, and I preferred not to use it at above 400.

I did a test similar to Michael's last Friday and should be posting the results early this week. The shots I did were of my friend using only the light from streetlamps at night handheld. This is not a shot I could have taken at all with nearly any digital back, and the fact that I could do so with the same back which the next day I could shoot the highest resolution single-shot image in the world was pretty neat. I got to use the body and lens that I love.

I'll be the first to say I could have done the same thing with a 5D Mark II with a 50mm f/1.2 lens; likely that would have been a better tool.

Still, I don't see any reason not to like having more flexibility on a given back.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[julius0377]

which sense has the + technology seeing the results of it here in michaels test? maybe someone may enlighten me cause w.o. help i am not.
its looks far behind the actual dslr qualities at even lower resolution,- so what the hell is this + technology for.
at least in my working field i dont see any sense for it but i would like to know how you guys rate this "hi" iso capacities of the new 65+ backs.

Perhaps in a pinch if you can not afford a DSLR with high-iso capability, but I could honestly not see who could not afford a DSLR if they can afford a P65+.

Even though you can shoot at higher ISO with the Sensor+ tech, you still have to work with a large mirror and no IS/VR, making the technology fall far behind the capabilities of a DSLR with higher resolution to boot. Also if you are a photographer at the level of owning a P65+, then you have a backup with you on important shoots, and that backup is most likely a 16-24mpix DSLR.

Performance gains at ISO 400 and 800, plus higher DR across the p1 product range would be better invested R&D if you ask me, but then I'm a photographer, not a camera-manufacturer  

The real plus I see in the P65+ is the sensor size, it's not much, but sometimes those extra millimetres are all you need to get the interior just right.

[rainer_v]

michaels crops look far worse than a 5dmk2 in my eyes. maybe i am wrong herein.... just my impression from the posted images.

[ThierryH]

I must say that these ISO 800 (and above) crops do not convince me at all in terms of clean files and details rendition: I have seen (and shot myself) much cleaner and better images at ISO 800 with the back I used to have, while keeping details even in the shadows, and with much less light than it seems to be the case in the presented situations (person with MacBeth chart). For me the crops are extremely filtered and smeared, with a complete loss of details, IMO.

Thierry

[tho_mas]

One should not forget that any comparision should be done at the same scaling.
Grab the JPG and resize it to 50% and you can compare it to a 30MP DB.
Or ~ 30% to compare it to the 5D2.
And each again 32% (depending on your monitor resolution) to view print size.

[Josef Isayo]

This is like shutting down 8 of 12 cylinders in your Ferrari in order to get better gas mileage.

[michael]

This is like shutting down 8 of 12 cylinders in your Ferrari in order to get better gas mileage.

And if you only have enough gas left to go 10 miles, and the gas station is 12 miles away, wouldn't you be glad to shut down some cylinders and make it, rather than have to walk?

I say it all the time, and I'll say it again now – photographers have differing needs. The worst mistake that one can make is to imagine that what we need and want is the same as what someone else will. (Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).

Also, people please – do not judge image quality based on web crops. It's pointless. If a product is of practical interest to you, do your own tests. If it isn't, and it's simply academic, go by what the author says, not what you see on the web.

The most common thing that I hear when people look at prints at my gallery is .. "I can't believe that this is the same image that I saw on your web site!"

Michael

[hubell]

This is the fruit of four years of Phase R&D to improve upon the P45, and it strikes me as a sad commentary on the state of MF digital.  At higher ISO, you get what looks like half the quality and half the megapixels of a D3X for 5x the price. What a technological tour de force!

[ThierryH]

Dear Michael,

You are certainly right about the different needs of different people, but with all due respect and being well aware of the web's limitations when it comes to show images, having posted ISO 800 images on the web myself, here is much more than simply the needs to speak about. Howard in his post below puts it rightly. I do myself not see any quality improvement in terms of "clean and detailed" ISO 800 files as compared to what I have been getting 2 years ago with a 33 MPx sensor technology and under worse light conditions, in the contrary.

Best regards,
Thierry

And if you only have enough gas left to go 10 miles, and the gas station is 12 miles away, wouldn't you be glad to shut down some cylinders and make it, rather than have to walk?

I say it all the time, and I'll say it again now – photographers have differing needs. The worst mistake that one can make is to imagine that what we need and want is the same as what someone else will. (Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).

Also, people please – do not judge image quality based on web crops. It's pointless. If a product is of practical interest to you, do your own tests. If it isn't, and it's simply academic, go by what the author says, not what you see on the web.

The most common thing that I hear when people look at prints at my gallery is .. "I can't believe that this is the same image that I saw on your web site!"

Michael

[michael]

Howard,

Unless your comment is based on tests and photography that you yourself have done with the P65+, then I can't give it any credence.

Some of the most talented and technically astute photographers that I know have used this back in recent weeks and many are deciding to buy one themselves, because they are seeing image quality that is beyond anything that they've seen before, from any imaging device.

If your personal experience with this product is such that you disagree, then fine. We can disagree. But if you're basing your comments of web images that you've seen then I suggest that you hold your opinions, because they are simply not a reflection of what some pretty talented and savy photographers are saying.

Sensor+ does exactly what is claims it does – produces an image with almost identical quality to its unbinned version, but with two stops higher ISO, which at up to ISO 400 in 60MP mode and ISO 1600 in 15MP mode, is about as good as it gets. I for one think that its quite an accomplishment and I'm very happy to have it as an available feature.

Just remember that it was only a few short years ago that the biggest MF backs were 16 MP, and anything above ISO 100 was pretty sorry. I'd say that the jump to ISO 3200 at 15 MP with Sensor+ is therefore a pretty decent advance in technology in such a period of time, given that 60MP is just a button push away.

Michael

By the way – as a general comment to other readers as well, if I sound like I am being rhapsodic over the P65+, it's simply because I'm finding it to be the highest quality imaging device that I have ever used. People can disagree, and that's fine, but I won't leave gratuitous comments to the contrary unresponded to, because they simply don't hold much water for me.

[eleanorbrown]

I speak from experience with three Phase digital backs (currently I have a 45+) and I say that to make the point that I've been (and still am) a dedicated phase customer ever since the P25 came out.  With that said, I can't understand all the hoop- la about 16 megapixels at higher iso speeds in a 60+ megapixel back.  Frankly I would rather sling my Canon 5D Mk II over the other shoulder with a 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 lens, and get better 21+ megapixel high iso files. (this personal viewpoint comes from one that rarely shoots over 100 iso anyway.)

I could be a little more enthusiastic about pixel bining at 30 megapixels so am hoping Phase is working on that.  Eleanor

[hubell]

Howard,

Unless your comment is based on tests and photography that you yourself have done with the P65+, then I can't give it any credence.

Some of the most talented and technically astute photographers that I know have used this back in recent weeks and many are deciding to buy one themselves, because they are seeing image quality that is beyond anything that they've seen before, from any imaging device.

If your personal experience with this product is such that you disagree, then fine. We can disagree. But if you're basing your comments of web images that you've seen then I suggest that you hold your opinions, because they are simply not a reflection of what some pretty talented and savy photographers are saying.

Sensor+ does exactly what is claims it does – produces an image with almost identical quality to its unbinned version, but with two stops higher ISO, which at up to ISO 400 in 60MP mode and ISO 1600 in 15MP mode, is about as good as it gets. I for one think that its quite an accomplishment and I'm very happy to have it as an available feature.

Just remember that it was only a few short years ago that the biggest MF backs were 16 MP, and anything above ISO 100 was pretty sorry. I'd say that the jump to ISO 3200 at 15 MP with Sensor+ is therefore a pretty decent advance in technology in such a period of time, given that 60MP is just a button push away.

Michael

By the way – as a general comment to other readers as well, if I sound like I am being rhapsodic over the P65+, it's simply because I'm finding it to be the highest quality imaging device that I have ever used. People can disagree, and that's fine, but I won't leave gratuitous comments to the contrary unresponded to, because they simply don't hold much water for me.

Michael, I have not tested the P65 back(yet) and the image quality at 60mp may very well be better at the margins than the P45. I look forward to testing how discernible that is in real world shooting and printing. However, that's not my point. I just cannot fathom sticking into that back the capability to do a 15mp file that appears from the web crop you posted to be a terribly noisy 1600 ISO that could not come close to standing up to a D3X or a 5DII file at ISO 1600. I see it the same as Phase sticking into the P65 a low def video capability.
I am very disappointed at the lack of significant progress among all of the MFDB makers. The only thing they reliably seem to be able to offer as an upgrade is more and more MP. I care so much more about dynamic range and a bunch of other things than another 10-20MP. For my needs doing landscape work, higher ISO is also not a big deal. If it were, I would buy a D3x.

Edit:
I did not find this latest Phase One piece rhapsodic. I think hyperbolic is a better fit in terms of the description of Sensor Plus technology as a "game changer".

[schaubild]

I wonder how an image, taken at ISO 800 without sensor +, but with compareable post processing like noise reduction and bicubic resizing to 15MP would look?

[rainer_v]

And if you only have enough gas left to go 10 miles, and the gas station is 12 miles away, wouldn't you be glad to shut down some cylinders and make it, rather than have to walk?

I say it all the time, and I'll say it again now – photographers have differing needs. The worst mistake that one can make is to imagine that what we need and want is the same as what someone else will. (Except for the Direct Print button. There are only nine people in the whole world that need or have ever used it).

Also, people please – do not judge image quality based on web crops. It's pointless. If a product is of practical interest to you, do your own tests. If it isn't, and it's simply academic, go by what the author says, not what you see on the web.
Unless your comment is based on tests and photography that you yourself have done with the P65+, then I can't give it any credence.

Some of the most talented and technically astute photographers that I know have used this back in recent weeks and many are deciding to buy one themselves, because they are seeing image quality that is beyond anything that they've seen before, from any imaging device.

 i think here in LL are also some of the most talented photographers and i just want to listen how many of these here are thrilled by this binning technic in its actual form.
till now i count zero.

ofcourse one can judge image quality of jpegs, as long one  has a good monitor standing in front of his eyes, most here have and most have calibrated screens and eyes.
there is no problem with properly done and displayed jpeg crops.
the thing is  simple: if you would display 1600/3200 iso canon 5dmk2 files they would look nicer, although still jpegs and still web.

there are really features still missed in the phase backs ( display ) so why they build things which noone is asking for. at least noone i know.

[eronald]

The question is not whether Michael's back can do 1600, it's whether the one YOU will get can do 1600.

If you're very lucky, you get a "good" back. If you're a normal customer normal you may get an ISO 200 ok back.

When I got my P45+ I paid for that lesson dearly, after buying, when I complained  the dealer explained to me that it was "supposed" to be used at ISO 100 or below.

The issue isn't that a given sample sensor is noisy, it is that it will streak, and the streaks destroy the pictures. The noise behavior -eg Michalels test-  of the old P45+ is actually pretty good, well comparable to a 2 gen old dSLR.

So, I have no doubt that Michael's P65+ is ok at Hi-ISO, but I would strongly recommend that anyone who needs Hi-ISO test his own camera before buying it, or get a "good" used back.

Note that the more expensive the sensor, the higher incentive for the trading company to market marginal samples.

There is zero incentive nowadays for a dSLR company to market marginal APS-C sensors, and I'd say that even all new P30+ sized sensors (HIIID31) are probably very well tested nowadays as the yield is good which also translates into the low price. There's a big difference between wriitng off a part when you have one good one in 20 made and 9 good ones out of ten.

Edmund

BTW, I think the upshot of this forum is that one can trust the good Phase and medium format dealers. By now we all know who these are. These are the ones who will tell you the truth before you buy, and make sure that what you buy works as described.

[georgl]

The first sample doesn't look too great, but the studio-comparisons are quite impressive because you always have to keep in mind two facts:

- MFDBs (or all CCD-based cameras?) don't filter their RAW-files like todays DSLRs do. So be careful when comparing noise levels on RAW-files.

- The P65+ has no microlenses, usually that means about one stop effective loss in sensitivity.

[ThierryH]

Have a look here:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683

Shot by myself at ISO 800 and with a 33 MPx sensor, about 1 year ago.

Best regards,
Thierry

I wonder how an image, taken at ISO 800 without sensor +, but with compareable post processing like noise reduction and bicubic resizing to 15MP would look?

[markowich]

I must say that these ISO 800 (and above) crops do not convince me at all in terms of clean files and details rendition: I have seen (and shot myself) much cleaner and better images at ISO 800 with the back I used to have, while keeping details even in the shadows, and with much less light than it seems to be the case in the presented situations (person with MacBeth chart). For me the crops are extremely filtered and smeared, with a complete loss of details, IMO.

Thierry

i could not agree more. D3x at high iso beats these files to death. clear case of overenthusiasm.
peter

[gwhitf]

i could not agree more. D3x at high iso beats these files to death. clear case of overenthusiasm.
peter

I do not understand comparing a P65+ to a 35mm DSLR, or, for that matter, getting all hung up about shooting the P65+ at ASA800. To me, there is only one reason to spend the money on that P65+, and that is to shoot it at the sweet spot ASA, probably 50 or 100, and at full rez. Anything else, it's like buying a sledgehammer in order to drive an 8-penny nail. Why would you do that?

Let each camera have their own projects. If you need ASA 25million, then of course, whip out a Nikon or Canon. No CCD back is going to compete with Nikon/Canon at high ASA.

Inversely, would you pit that same Nikon against the P65+ in the studio, with strobe, at full rez, at ASA 50? No, you would not.