New PhaseOne - P40+

[Steve Hendrix]

As someone who owned Phase backs with a Contax 645 for several years (the P30 then the P30+) and then recently sold my Phase back and am now shooting a D3X instead, I'll jump in here.

It's worth noting at the outset that I wrote a glowing review/report of the P30 for this very site a couple of years back:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...%20review.shtml

I stand by what I said then -- the P30 was the finest capture device I'd shot with at that time.

But now ain't then.  Comparing the digital end of my former setup (P30+ versus D3X), I concluded that there was little to be gained in terms of image quality by shooting with the P30+ for my type of work.  So when Doug suggests that you'd have to "tape together" a couple of D3Xs to get the image quality of a single shot frame from a P40+, I have trouble believing that's true.  At the time I wrote my P30 report, my base of comparison was the only full frame 35mm cameras then available, the Canon 1Ds Mark II and the Canon 5D, both of which I shot extensively.  I concluded that as compared to those cameras, the P30 did offer MUCH better color, tonal transitions, and color depth (in a non-technical sense) and that the P30 files were more "robust", that is, they could better handle a greater range of adjustments in post-production.  It's worth noting, however, that even as compared to my 1Ds Mark II and 5D, I did NOT find that the P30 and P30+ offered "ultra-clean" shadows in terms of noise at base ISO  (the shadow-to-highlight transitions did look better on the P30/+, however).

Now, however, I have found that the D3X matches the P30+ in terms of color, tonal transitions, and color depth.  From my brief testing of a 1Ds Mark III, I feel relatively sure the same is true of that camera as well.  And as we all know, the 35mm full frame cameras beat any medium format back in terms of noise at higher ISOs, responsiveness, etc.

Nor was I convinced to keep my P30+ (and certainly not to upgrade to a P40+) by the marginal increase in resolution over a D3X.  But then, I'm not a landscape shooter where the highest degree of micro-detail and maximum resolution are make-or-break propositions.  The fact is that 24 megapixels of the D3X is certainly resolution enough for any conceivable screen usage, and for reasonably large prints (16x24 at about 240ppi, if memory and math serve me correctly).

One additional area where I always felt the 35mm style digital cameras fell down compared to the Phase backs was with regard to the moderate, but noticeable, effect of the AA filter on the 35mm cameras.  The images form the P30 would just "pop" at me straight out of the camera before sharpening in a way that the 35mm images never did.  But I did a side by side portrait shoot with the P30+ (remember, with contax lenses, including the spectacularly sharp 120mm macro) and the D3x with both Nikon and Zeiss lenses, and I have to say, the effect of the AA filter is far less pronounced with the D3x than any other 35mm digital that I've shot with, other than the Leica R9/Digital Module R system.  This is especially true when the D3X files are processed in Capture NX or Capture One.  I truly was not expecting to be as impressed with the look of D3X files as I have been, especially in direct comparison to side-by-sides with the P30+ from the same shoot.  There were certainly P30+ images from that shoot that I preferred over the D3X files, but that was because of the different look of medium format lenses, especially for headshots or head and shoulders work.

Here's my point: For someone who doesn't shoot landscape (where micro detail and absolutely the highest numerical resolution has some actual objective benefit) or architecture shooters (who need to be able to to use tilt/shift and/or a view camera), the technological improvements in the D3X over the last generation of full frame 35mm cameras has narrowed the gap with regard to medium format digital such that, in terms of the digital back end, I have a very hard time justifying the massive cost difference.

That said, the analog front-end is what almost led me to keep the P30+.  I like shooting medium format.  And medium format lenses provide a "look" that's different from 35mm (not sharpness, resolution, or depth of field alone, but some combination of these and other factors).  So if shooting medium format -- as opposed to medium format DIGITAL -- offers some real benefit to you, then I think it makes sense to go the digital medium format route.  Not because the digital end is that much better than 35mm digital like the D3X to justify the additional cost in terms of visual image quality (as opposed to "look").

Don't get me wrong; as I said, I'm a Phase fan and I'm sure the P40+ will be great.  And if I were independently wealthy or earning the kind of revenue where cost didn't matter, or shooting architecture or landscape, I'd have kept my P30+ and/or bought a P40+ to go along with the D3x.

Though I think one thing that has certainly changed the past year or so is the difference in cost is not necessarily "massive". Looking back just 2 to 3 years, you really were at low $20K and higher for medium format systems. Now, a P30+ starts at $14,990 new and $11,990 refurbished. So for those who want medium format - whatever their reasons - the cost difference over high end 35mm is higher, but not nearly as much as in the past.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

[mtomalty]

Then find a way to magnify and brighten the viewfinder so that it touches the experience of a medium format body. If you can find a way for it to also mount to my Phase One body, RZ body, architecture camera and view camera then that would also be a good bonus.

To complete the MF experience don't forget to tape a piece of crap dime store cellphone screen onto the back of the apparatus

Mark

[Doug Peterson]

To complete the MF experience don't forget to tape a piece of crap dime store cellphone screen onto the back of the apparatus

Mark

True enough.

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy,

 You can defend the MFDB makers until the cows come home. But unless they start giving the customers what they want (and the majority want a decent state of the art screen) then the market will decide their fate, and we all know what that will be. That's why more and more people are migrating to Canon and Nikon.

Most of the clients I know all want to see what they they are spending their money on at the time it is being shot. In the past it was via a Polaroid now it is the LCD screen or monitor if you're working tethered. The crap screens are the main reason I haven't bought a MFDB.  I mean, who are they kidding, 20 grand for a screen like that ? !!!

Pete

Seriously I am not defending anyone. We need a new Phase body and  we need new LCD screens that are bigger but more important can actually show the detail. What I am saying is it does not bother me that much as it is made out to be and that is all I am saying it is obviously not very popular to say it's okay but improvement would be great. The body needs a new makeover as well and I will be the first to say it and have. I honestly don't give a rats ass about any of these companies, I want good product just like everyone else. But I am getting it done without much complaint is all I am saying and it is not as bad as it all sounds with whining on every post and thread about LCD screens. Frankly I think Sinar and leaf suck just as bad and the Leaf is bigger but I could deal with it. With the way the economy is right now any company going back in and doing R&D and say spending 300 grand to retool and design a new chassis may not be the way to go for them. I think we can all understand this to some level with our own businesses. The P40+ sounds great on some levels but I am not running to the bank to withdraw my money for it right now. If I thought a Nikon D3x would be best for me, I would buy it in a heart beat and trust me the thought has run through my mind more than once. I just happen to love shooting MF as weird as that may sound I just like it and even doing stupid PR jobs with it, yea i need a white paddy wagon to pick me up on that one because that is just sick thinking but I do enjoy it. Sure these systems have there issues but do we really want them to be passing on more of there debt to us right now for a redesign, you know we are the ones that are going to pay for it. Okay enough said but all I was saying is we need to trust ourselves as well and it is not the greatest but it's not the worst either. I have shot digital for over 15 years and it was really freaking ugly back than. There has been much improvement but I agree some of it has not trickled into MF and i don't know the true answer to that but my guess is power to run big files and big LCD screens and that management and raw horsepower needed for that. We are pushing bigger files than Nikon and such and we are limited on space to do that and the DSLR has a lot more space for processors and such. But we need to hear from real engineers on why this maybe.  Okay just for clarification I hate the LCD screens too , okay everyone feel better but even though they may suck . I have seen a lot worse maybe I am just easier to please. really need to get back to the grind. Bye

[rethmeier]

I have to agree with William.
Since I've been shooting with the D3x,I'm very happy with the results.
I did use MFDB for a while and also compared the 2 and found the results very close.
Actually I preferred the results from my D3x.

It's also so much easier and quicker!
Am I a purist,I tought so?
Always used large format in the filmdays.

Is a MFDB with HR lenses better?
Sure,however it's also a $60K + investment.
I spend $25K on my D3x with 3 PC-E lenses,the 14-24 Nikkor and 3 Zeiss ZF's.

At the end of the day,the money part  is not the dealmaker for me,

it's the workflow.

Best,

Willem.

[ericstaud]

I have to agree with William.
Since I've been shooting with the D3x,I'm very happy with the results.
I did use MFDB for a while and also compared the 2 and found the results very close.
Actually I preferred the results from my D3x.

It's also so much easier and quicker!
Am I a purist,I tought so?
Always used large format in the filmdays.

Is a MFDB with HR lenses better?
Sure,however it's also a $60K + investment.
I spend $25K on my D3x with 3 PC-E lenses,the 14-24 Nikkor and 3 Zeiss ZF's.

At the end of the day,the money part  is not the dealmaker for me,

it's the workflow.

Best,

Willem.

It's too bad you had to buy from Nikon.  I bet a knock-off would have cost a lot less than $25K.

[rethmeier]

Very funny Eric!

I guess you're relating to my purchase of the Multiflex?

Only fools would pay $2400 USD for the "real" thing.

Would I have purchased the Cube at $1000 USD? Of course!

Best,

Willem.

[filmless]

A couple of points on the LCD screens... most of these screens (usually the best ones) are protected by patents for several years, so not
everyone can have them, which might mean developing your own ($$$) or making deals with a manufacturer that hasn't already done so
with someone else, if you can find one.

The larger screens requires a lot more from the battery(s).  So switching from a small to a large screen demands a change in battery
design as well.

To switch from a small LCD (Phase) to a larger (Leaf or Sinar) of course means a body redesign, from someone whom has been inside a lot of these backs, it is not a simple, quick or cheap effort.  

I'm just guessing, but with the world economy as it is, maybe Phase is working slowly on a redesign, spreading out the cost. Or like someone said, maybe they still have 20,000 bodies in a Danish warehouse. I'm sure ultimatley there will be a redesign, but my experience
with Phase is they tell very few people (even their reps) what they are doing in Denmark until it is ready or close to being ready.

The question is.... as already pointed out.... if they take too long will the customers still be there?

I see both sides of the "need for a larger" LCD... yes the clients want to see a big pretty picture, yes it's nice to glance down and see more of your image, but, as an old school shooter I don't usually rely on the screen. The tools are there to use or maybe I'm like Guy, just  easy to please. I think as photographers we are being pushed harder than ever to please everyone at every stage... 30 years ago when I started in this business if a we could bark at the art director or even the client and get away with it.  We (as a group) were ecentric artsy people... the art director could just wait to see the image (polaroid or film) until we were ready to show it!     But times have changed and now we can't (as easily anyway) get away with that. The need for a larger LCD is real or at least a fast alternative... although my personal opinion is that the need is more for the client than the shooter.

Over all I'm a little puzzeled on why this particular unit was made... doesn't seem to be a demand for it's exact features... I guess we'll all find out soon enough.


TP
Filmless Tech & Photo

[filmless]

A couple of points on the LCD screens... most of these screens (usually the best ones) are protected by patents for several years, so not
everyone can have them, which might mean developing your own ($$$) or making deals with a manufacturer that hasn't already done so
with someone else, if you can find one.

The larger screens requires a lot more from the battery(s).  So switching from a small to a large screen demands a change in battery
design as well.

To switch from a small LCD (Phase) to a larger (Leaf or Sinar) of course means a body redesign, from someone whom has been inside a lot of these backs, it is not a simple, quick or cheap effort.  

I'm just guessing, but with the world economy as it is, maybe Phase is working slowly on a redesign, spreading out the cost. Or like someone said, maybe they still have 20,000 bodies in a Danish warehouse. I'm sure ultimatley there will be a redesign, but my experience
with Phase is they tell very few people (even their reps) what they are doing in Denmark until it is ready or close to being ready.

The question is.... as already pointed out.... if they take too long will the customers still be there?

I see both sides of the "need for a larger" LCD... yes the clients want to see a big pretty picture, yes it's nice to glance down and see more of your image, but, as an old school shooter I don't usually rely on the screen. The tools are there to use or maybe I'm like Guy, just  easy to please. I think as photographers we are being pushed harder than ever to please everyone at every stage... 30 years ago when I started in this business if a we could bark at the art director or even the client and get away with it.  We (as a group) were ecentric artsy people... the art director could just wait to see the image (polaroid or film) until we were ready to show it!     But times have changed and now we can't (as easily anyway) get away with that. The need for a larger LCD is real or at least a fast alternative... although my personal opinion is that the need is more for the client than the shooter.

Over all I'm a little puzzeled on why this particular unit was made... doesn't seem to be a demand for it's exact features... I guess we'll all find out soon enough.


TP
Filmless Tech & Photo

[filmless]

Sorry about the double post... I'm using a satilite uplink and it "blinked".

TP

[Doug Peterson]

We've posted two sample files from the P40+ here:

http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/

Thought the thread could use a little show+tell :-).

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

[RobertJ]

People who want something like the P40+ with a better screen should look at the Sinar eSprit65 which has a 640x480 resolution 3" screen.

Nice.  If it had live view on the LCD, it would be the greatest digital back ever made.

[michaelnotar]

Well after just picking up the P30+ more for the higher ISO than anything else . I did limit myself to a non tech camera and the micro lenses. Now at some point the P40+ would have a advantage for me to upgrade for a couple reasons. The tech camera usage and also a much faster shooting camera. Also when shooting event type work shooting a 10 mpx would be fine and actually wanted so there for me at least I see some advantage. Now I say all this because I DON"T want a DSLR for some of that work. Obviously a DSLR D700 say would do that for me but I really have no interest in having two systems. So for some folks this does help and make some sense. Others it will not. I don't think many or any P45 shooters would make a change here. I also look at this as another option among the 5 or 6 they have in there line and I think we forget that a lot around here. It obviously may not be for the landscape shooter since the P45+ with 1 hour exposures would be the better choice. I think some things we forget a lot are some shooters only specialize in one area and some like myself do many different types of shooting. For me this is always a struggle with gear because you are always trying to find the balance between what works best for all of it and the specialist is a much easier call on what works the best. I think that get's forgotten a lot. Fashion shooters for example are looking for speed and landscape folks could care less. The general theme though seems to be around the LCD and here is when I laugh at most of these posts. Maybe I am a old dog and don't forget the days of shooting Kodachrome on set with a million lights and not even a polaroid back and waiting by your favorite lab hoping for the miracle that you actually got it. Sure the 3in LCD is a wonder but man have we gotten that far away from trusting yourself and your abilities. I know many arguments on that but bottom line we are spoiled silly. I actually like the LCD and the quality of the Phase screen is actually good, okay pull around the white truck and sweep me away and warm up the padded cell. But I can actually use it. Maybe I am so used to the small DMR and M8 screen that I don't miss a bigger one either. Or just maybe I actually trust myself, now that one is something to ponder.

the screen is ok at best. it is barely usable. seeing the whole image the IQ on the screen is horrible, but when you zoom in you can see some detail.  i do get accustomed to the a dslr screen, but shooting MFD is just like shooting film, i have to measure ratios with a HH meter. it slows me down. i get more keepers in less images. i use the histogram. i use a p25 and i considered the p30 but decided to pay more for the larger chip though lower res. i am not a fan of the crop backs tho havent used them.

personally a used p45 is the same price as the 40+ and would look at that. the 40+ is a cheaper version of the p65+, its little brother per say. i dont see it created to be an upgrade from the p30+/45+, its a separate route. i was excited for the P65+ for having no crop, but 1 min exposures like my old p25 is a no sale for me.

dslr screens are much better but are not perfect.... the mark II screens where better than my mark III's screen. its bigger but the color is super saturated and its not as sharp (lower res). i shoot home interiors and wood often goes bright yellow/orange though it will be brown on the computer screen. sometimes in homes with daylight/tunsten mixed rooms, really bright areas of tungsten light have a green cast on the screen.

[cyberean]

dslr screens are much better but are not perfect.... the mark II screens where better than my mark III's screen. its bigger but the color is super saturated and its not as sharp (lower res). i shoot home interiors and wood often goes bright yellow/orange though it will be brown on the computer screen. sometimes in homes with daylight/tunsten mixed rooms, really bright areas of tungsten light have a green cast on the screen.

sounds like you're not familiar with the screens from
5D MkII, Sony A900, nor the Nikons D3/x & D700/300 ...

[michaelnotar]

i have had limited experience with the 5d2 and it was quite nice, so yes you are right. that will probably become the norm for the mark 4 cameras etc.

[ThierryH]

Wrong Mr. Mancuso, absolutely wrong:

The LCD used in the Sinarback eSprit 65 IS of the quality of the Nikon, and has a 640x480 resolution in a 3" screen (4 times the resolution of the P+ LCDs): yes, it IS possible to fit such a 3" LCD in a back.

Best regards,
Thierry

Please if you don't know you own abilities and your own experience there is not a LCD out there that will save your ass on any level. If a LCD is that important and your not thinking you can shoot without one. Do one of two things use a tethered solution or go get a Nikon. Your not going to fit a 3 inch screen on a back that will be effective for you.

[Rick_Allen]

@ Doug Wow that iso800 file looks NICE. Not sure about the light on the face though  

[Christopher]

I really don't care a bit about this new back, but ONE thing I find absolutly fantastic and which kinda is falling of the grid in this topis is, that the back is SHIPPING NOW. If it is really true it is by far the best new concept and great. Now more stupid paperlaunches like all the companies do. I hope it stays that way. Would be nice if you actually could by the product right away, instead off waiting up to 6 months or so.

[KevinA]

If it's impossible to fit a bigger screen, you would think it possible to make it so you could plug in your iPhone and use that screen or something like it.

Kevin.

[E_Edwards]

Wrong Mr. Mancuso, absolutely wrong:

The LCD used in the Sinarback eSprit 65 IS of the quality of the Nikon, and has a 640x480 resolution in a 3" screen (4 times the resolution of the P+ LCDs): yes, it IS possible to fit such a 3" LCD in a back.

Best regards,
Thierry

Isn't it funny?   For years we've been told that it was not possible to get more resolution on the LCD, due to the characteristics of sensor design, or the heat, blah, blah, blah. Now it turns out that it is possible after all. I bet the same applies to live Preview. Where there is a will...

That Sinar back looks good and it's reasonably priced too. If the quality, accuracy of colour and definition of the LCD is as good as what you get on the Canon 5DII, (pretty good to judge your pictures), then this is a camera worth a look.

Edward