Are U sure this is 400 iso and not 800 or accidently boosted a stop???? I am absolutely not impressed with what i see in this picture. It is about the same quality in noise and colornoise as was my Ixpress 384 before the upgrade to flexcolor 4.6 and now even that back is better than what i get to see here.
I think something went terrebly wrong with that image you posted .

If I'm not mistaken, I think preliminary observations from people with the P30+ may be in some other threads on this forum.

As it happens, I took the P30+ out for a quick spin today with a friend of mine (note: yes, I'm still considering selling the P30+ and no, I didn't drop it or anything when playing around today!).  As a preliminary matter, the only criticism I have thus far is that the auto white balance is less than spectacular for daylight shots.  This was also the case with my P30.  (Although I mostly shot the P30 in the studio with strobes, so white balance was much more controlled and therefore spot-on).  Also, while I was shooting, the shots looked underexposed on the LCD so, rather than trusting my in-camera meter, I opened up by about 1/3 of a stop so the shots looked correct on the LCD.  Lo and behold, I open them in C1 and they're all overexposed by almost exactly 1/3 of a stop.  Lesson: If I'm going to rely on the screen for exposure feedback (no, I wasn't using the histogram; I generally don't because I find it distracting for this type of shooting), I need to adjust the screen brightness.

The attached JPEG was processed quickly in Capture One (I'm sure I coul optimize it with more time).  No adjustments other than levels to compensate for my overexposure.  Shot with a Contax 645 w. 140mm lens at 2.8.  I purposefully shot at ISO 400 even though it was bright enough outside to use 100, because I wanted to see the ISO 400 quality.  To my eye, the ISO 400 is a *substantial* improvement over the P30; I considered ISO 400 on the P30 to be useable in a pinch, but certainly not on a regular basis.  By contrast, I'd use ISO 400 on the P30+ without much reservation.  In the attached shot, there's a bit of noise visible in the shadows, but it seems minimal and not really an issue for most shooting.

No flash or reflectors, just natural light.  (This shot could have used a bit of a reflector from below to lighten up the darkness udner the eyes.  But I can fix it in post.).

Conclusion: if someone doesn't buy this from me soon, I'm keeping it. 

(Sorry about the large image size, but I though people would prefer to see a large image).

And yeah, I kind of think she looks like Angelina Jolie.  If you can afford a MF digital back, she's too young for you.  :-)  (And me too).

If you can't photograph young girls without attatching jokey sexual conotations your probably best off not shooting young girls.

Please note that in light of the continuous stream of snotty comments, I've deleted my post above.  It was intended to let you draw your own conclusions; I don't have the time or inclination to be the P30+ whipping boy, so I deleted the post.

Feel free to carry on.

You may want to reconsider your pricing on the P30+ if you don't get bites at $20,000 as there are P45+ backs being sold NEW in the US for $22K.

Gee, thanks for the advice.  I'll take your wisdom to heart.

Please check your spelling ("you're" not "your") before being snotty in the future.

Thanks for the spelling help although the spelling of your or you're seems besides the point. I do think that you do have a certain responsability when your working with young girls, or young boys for that matter. One of those responsibilities is not making jokey sexual inuendoes about them on the internet after you've taken there picture. The undertones of your comment are quite unpleasant when you think about what it really means.

Thanks for the spelling help although the spelling of your or you're seems besides the point. I do think that you do have a certain responsability when your working with young girls, or young boys for that matter. One of those responsibilities is not making jokey sexual inuendoes about them on the internet after you've taken there picture. The undertones of your comment are quite unpleasant when you think about what it really means.

Hm.  Thanks, I didn't know that.  For reference, would you be willing to post links to or names of dealers selling at that price?

No dealer will ever acknowledge this type of pricing. The only way you get it is in the context of a real purchase negotiation where Phase and certain of its dealers are willing to pull out all of the stops to offer a deal that is at least the equal of what you can you can get on an H3D. Trust me, there is no cartel in play here on pricing among the makers of MFDBs. The pricing competition behind the scenes is very intense, and Phase probably leads the pack in pricing aggressiveness. Even in the US, some people are paying close to the list prices that Phase is charging and others are paying WAY less. Why? Who knows? Everyone here can say what they want about Hasselblad, but at least everyone has access to their aggressive rebate deals. Oh, and BTW, the best Phase prices are not from the marginal dealers who offer no service.

The pricing competition behind the scenes is very intense, and Phase probably leads the pack in pricing aggressiveness. Even in the US, some people are paying close to the list prices that Phase is charging and others are paying WAY less. Why? Who knows? Everyone here can say what they want about Hasselblad, but at least everyone has access to their aggressive rebate deals. Oh, and BTW, the best Phase prices are not from the marginal dealers who offer no service.

This reminds me of the souks in the Southern suburbs of Tunis, and it speaks tons about the kind of margins MFDBs are having.

Cheers,
Bernard

Let me explain this clearly: the girl that was in the photo in the post I deleted is very much of legal age.  She is "young," but not a minor.  The two terms ("young" and "minor") are not equivalent.  Some young people are minors, some "young" people are just young in relative terms.  So if that's your problem, you're off base.  In other words, you may not have found my little aside to be funny but that doesn't make me a pedophile.

Are U sure this is 400 iso and not 800 or accidently boosted a stop???? I am absolutely not impressed with what i see in this picture. It is about the same quality in noise and colornoise as was my Ixpress 384 before the upgrade to flexcolor 4.6 and now even that back is better than what i get to see here.
I think something went terrebly wrong with that image you posted .

Reactions?  (To the amount of noise.  I'm not posting this to have my photography critiqued.  Yes, I could always use critiques, but that's not the point of this post.  And yes, I realize the tiny flowers/weeds are cheesy. but she had them in her hand at the time)

My earlier reaction wasn't really directed at you.

Regardless, I'm now indoors with the lights dimmed and see a LOT more noise in that first shot I posted than I thought was there.  I am now going to post a second photograph of that same woman shot at ISO 400 and F2.8 (notice I said "woman" -- she's over 18).  Please note that this has been retouched; levels, healing brush, minimal skin smoothing.  Point of focus was on her left eye if you want to assess "sharpness" (which is obviously as much dependent on the lens and aperture as the back).

Can those of you reading this thread react to the "noise factor"?  I'm now thinking that either (1) I'm going blind or (2) I (or Capture One) screwed up the processing in the earlier (now removed) shot or (3) there's some sort of JPEG conversion or resizing artifacts going on. 

Looking at the PSD of this image on my screen in Photoshop, I see little noise.  (I do see noise, but not much).  But that's what I initially thought of the first  photo as well (granted, under different viewing conditions)....

Reactions?  (To the amount of noise.  I'm not posting this to have my photography critiqued.  Yes, I could always use critiques, but that's not the point of this post.  And yes, I realize the tiny flowers/weeds are cheesy. but she had them in her hand at the time)

William, be real - we can only evaluate the Raw file, retouched small versions are useless - email it to yourself with www.yousendit.com and then post or pm everyone who asks the link.

Edmund

Nah, never mind.  I'm not going thru that much effort.