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.shtmlI 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.
Do that, and then gaffe tape them together so you can take a single shot 40 megapixel frame, and don't forget to always shoot two exposures to stack to HDR so you're getting the same ultra-clean shadows and smooth color transitions that phase p+ backs deliver (my experience being with the 20,21,25,30,45, and 65; haven't shot the 40+ yet).
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.
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
