Well, it appears that the architectural guys, the still life guys, the landscape guys, the car guys, and the food guys now have their back, either in the Phase 60 or the Hasselblad 50. They're happy as clams, I'm sure. If you're only shooting fifty frames a day, who cares if every frame you shoot is 300megs of storage. And obviously, the sports guys and the wedding guys have their 1dsIII or their D3, so they seem happy too.

But what about the people shooters who do location advertising, or editorial, or fashion, but who also prefer to shoot medium format? I still insist that the perfect system has not been devised. There is a Sweet Spot in the development of this camera. We're not there yet. There's money to be made. Please, somebody design this camera/back/software:

* About 28-30 megapixels. That's all we need. Seriously. We're throwing away most of the data already, even from the Canon or the P21, when it comes time to size for repro size. Make a big sensor well, or whatever it's called, to reduce noise or diffraction, but only give us 28-30mp. Anything else will get thrown away.

* Multi point autofocus. Personally, I manually focus everything, everyone seems to want multi point autofocus, so that should be added to the list.

* One frame per second, minimum. We don't need a Canon/Red motor drive at 24fps, but we do need to capture spontaneity, so no slower than one frame per second.

* Process in any software. No more of this Hasselblad craziness, with whatever they're doing that forces you to convert all those files before you can open them. Make the file where you can easily open it in ACR, Lightroom, CaptureOne, Raw Developer, or whatever. More more Hocus Phocus.

* Easy operation. Make it fast and intuitive, like a Canon or a Nikon. Personally, I'd love to see this body be a unibody, with no removeable back, but many would not agree with me. I just want to be "turn it on, pop in a card, format it, and start shooting". One power switch; one set of batteries.

* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixles. No cardboard masks, no hyped-up reduced finders. Just full-frame 645.

* ASA ranges from 25-1600. You need 25 in order to do flash fill outside with Profotos, but you also need 1600 in case you find a great window in the back of a dark warehouse. No idea if this is technically possible, but the truth is the truth: we need 25-1600, in one back. Please figure it out. (Edit, see post #49 later in this thread. Appears that 25-1600 is reaching for the moon, so let's reduce the dream to maybe ASA 50-800. I listed the ASA ranges to show the two radically different types of photographers -- fill-flash-bring-down-the-sky guys, and Available Darkness guys).

* A great LCD, like the Nikon. I think Hasselblad is starting to understand about the importance of the LCD. Obviously Phase does not. If that P65 was five hundred dollars, I'd never buy it, due to the LCD quality. What they don't understand is: If you've got a usable, really good, DAMN good LCD, you could actually shoot a real job, with a real art director, without a $1500-a-day Digital Tech. You could actually bring the AD over to the back of the camera, point to it, maybe even zoom in, and say to him/her, "Hey, this is what I'm shooting, check it out". I wonder if Phase even understands this issue; that we have to get a shot approved. That it's just not us, standing behind the back, looking at a histogram, knowing that we're not clipping endpoints and knowing that we can deal with it in post. We've generally got a lot of money on the line, and it's us, standing in some tick-infested field somewhere, sweating, in bright sunlight, with a motor home, four C-Stands, three Profoto packs, and we're balancing strobe to ambient, and you NEED a trustable LCD to be able to SEE the relationship of the Strobe to the Ambient. And in this challenged economy that we're all in, sometimes it's hard to justify adding in a Digital Tech, for multiple days, not to mention all the ball-and-chain he adds, with his cart, and his G5, and his multiple Eizo monitors, and his Honda generators. Sometimes, honestly, you'd love to just be able to shoot a real job without a Tech. I know I would. I have nothing against Techs, but once they drag their DogPonyShow onto the set, something just changes. And for me, not in a good way. I would pay thousands of dollars extra for a camera that had an LCD that was about 4 inches or so, with great great color, and tight resolution. I have not seen the Nikon D3 screen, but everyone raves about it. It seems to be the only game in town, seriously. It needs to be roughly the same size as an old 669 Polaroid; big enough for a nervous art director to look at, and say, "Ok, I get it, it looks great, let's shoot". Anything short of that, and it's simply a failure. What Phase needs to hear, and what Sinar needs to hear, and what Leaf needs to hear is: Add an extra battery, if battery life is shorter with a good LCD. Yes, megapixels are important, (but only up to a certain point), but MORE THAN ANYTHING, a really usable LCD is just absolutely essential. Until they make an LCD that's four inches across, all of these backs are, for the most part, unusable by a location photographer. My opinion is that people will, more and more, migrate to Nikon and Canon MERELY for the LCD alone. (I know I did).

Edit: * A leaf shutter body, with flash sync at 1/500th or so. I'm adding this, from another suggestion. It could be that the days of focal plane shutter bodies are just in the past. Everyone seems jazzed about how the H bodies sync at 800th. Maybe that is what is needed from now on. No more focal plane.

Edit: * More Canned Presets/Profiles/Styles. Of course you'd have the standard white balances, ie Strobe, Daylight, Tungsten, etc, but I'd also love a submenu for Skin Tone presets as well. I'd love about ten Skin presets alone. Maybe you'd call them Presets, or Styles, or whatever, but I'd love these companies to ship a back that nails skin tone right out of the box. I know with Canon, they tend to skew red, and with Phase as well; always fighting red in skin tone. I just wonder if these companies tweak their color with a bunch of brightly colored packages thrown down on a table, lit by strobe, and they're going for that punchy color. But I find that, with skin, it's a very skilled science, to fight that color crossover from yellow to magenta.

Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery. (I don't know how many times I can edit this post, but as people respond here with good points, I'm adding them). Yes, there is nothing more frustrating than shooting a three day lifestyle job on location, (without a tech in tow), and then as you're packing the van at the end of the job, the AD comes up to you with that congratulatory beer in his hand, and says, "OK, we're outta here, we're headed to the bar. And oh by the way, this job is pretty hot; we'd just love to see web galleries by tomorrow afternoon, to begin the edit". It's at that point that you realize that you've now got to batch three days of eight setups per day, from the RAW into a 1200x900 sRGB JPG. So let's just mention: You won't be joining him in the bar.

----------

I know that this is a medium format forum, and everyone seems to get upset at the mention of anything 35, but, if the truth were known, I think that there is a race toward this Sweet Spot Camera; something that balances speed and ease of use and portability, with high resolution. In my honest opinion, Canon and Nikon are winning that race. When this 24MP Nikon comes out, I think a lot of MF companies are going to be nervous. I think Phase and Hasselblad are clearly choosing their market segment, and recent announcements seem to show that they're not choosing Location/Portable photographers; they're going for the studio guys, and the dog/pony show guys. Or, they're going for the Clueless Photographer Who Always Rents From A Tech, who generally thinks, "More Megapixels are Always Better".

All I'm attempting to do here is to hold up a flag to these MF companies, and say, "Hey, don't forget the Location Photographers".

The 'perfect' system never will, but I think we are quite close (see below).



Agreed. Already exists.



Actually I'd like to see 2 or 3 fps. My 22MP sensor can handle 3fps according to the spec sheet so it is the back slowing it down. 1 fps already exists (my own Sinar back for example).



Sinar already uses the DNG format, so this is another point which already exists.



I definitely don't agree. I like to be able to use the back on other platforms. If a camera body fails, would be nice to move the back to a backup body. Removeable back makes it easier to clean the sensor. Also means that you can upgrade just the back or the body without having to pay for both every time.



I agree and also have my fingers crossed for a 30MP 645 sensor.



Agreed. We need better high ISO performance rather than more pixels. 50-1600 would do me. I have never found 50 to be too sensitive, and I am usually mixing Profotos with outdoor light.



Agreed. Would be nice to have a screen which you could easily use to know that you really nailed a shot.

You forget to mention high flash sync speed, but we have that already in 2 platforms.

I think the Hy6 camera is nearly everything we need for location people photography. The current backs are about a generation away from being in the "sweet spot". If/when a new 30MP full 645 size back with at least 2fps, ISO 1600, and better LCD comes out, we'll be there too. Just my $0.02

Hmmm, not a perfect camera, but something that should be possible.

Top Priority:

A full frame 645 30mp sensor.

Multi software usability would be fantastic. But I'll settle for lightning fast software that allows me to make precise tonal and color adjustments, capture and view thousands of pictures at fast speeds, have a 10 flag system for seperating, rating, ordering, etc. however I like, export small jpegs in lightning speed

Also, multi preset color and tone corrections in the software (or as action uploads, which I would gladly pay for if they were really, really good), that would allow you to shoot tri-x pushed two stops, Porta 160nc, etc. with the possibility to tweak the presets in the software with real curves.
and could be applied to the preview jpegs.

No single body unit, I want to be able to change backs if Ineed to.
But the back should provide fast and easy controll of all the important parameters ala Nikon.

ASA 50 to 3200 (grain is okay at 3200)

A high definition 4 inch LCD or an extra wireless LCD viewer.

A scroll thumbwheel for accessing the menus and scrolling through pics. (may sound stupid, but I don't have one on my back...)

A wide array of fast glass at well thought out focal lenghts, with fast autofocus motors and leaf shutters.


Lower Priority:

Multi-Point Autofocus with a wide array of cross hair sensors would be great.

3 FPS.

A focal plane shutter in the camera for use with non leaf shutter lenses. 1/4000th max. shutter speed.

Either a rotating back/chip or an extra rightangle grip ala contax.

A lighter weight, low key, simple matt black finished metal allow body with rubberized grip and fully body/back sealed.

What a great collection of words that I think sums it up for the location advertising shooter. If only the decision makers would read this one paragraph, understand it, ask more questions, then I think the "gap" that MF shooting creates would close to a hair line crack.

Came at a great time because Chris Lawery is about to walk through my door to talk stuff with me.

Ken

I use to think the tail wagged the dog.

I use to think the process was Kodak or Dalsa made a sensor with all of these different limitations in iso, shooting speed, color response and expsoure time and told the medium format makers take it or leave it.

I use to think that medium format digital was stuck with whatever camera they could stick there backs on, whether that was a Contax or a Hasselblad V.

Obviously that has changed and now the back makers are designing the sensors and are very much alingned with the camera makers.

All this makes me believe that medium format really isn't targeting my type of photogrpahy to their product.

I know everyone screams 60mpx, both ways. Some think it's peachy, some think it's the end of the world, I personaly just think (actually I know) that no client I have is asking for a 300mb file.

In fact if I shipped 300mb files they would return them.

This variable frame size iso thing sounds good on paper and if it gives me a 30mpx file that will shoot fast and go to high iso that's great, but what happens when I need a low iso studio setting?

Am I stuck to 60mpx, because 40mb raw files x 800 frames a day is 320 gigs of storage a day x 3 backups, which puts us near a terabyte a day of storage.

Start pricing out storage because whether your running a server, Raid 5's or just stacking drives inn the corner, it's very easy to spend $3,000 a month on storage.

Then the thought of waiting for previews to build on 800 60mpx files and batch correcting and batch processing those images, may make the digital techs that charge per file happy, but for me crunching through 10 hours of post processing a day is not something me or anyone in my studio is going to look forward to.

I don't know who medium format talks to when they make their decisions, but I wish they wouild listen in on the 2 hour conference callas I have with clients prior to a shoot.

They would hear the terms, speed, volume, costs, timing, costs, long hours (limited light), costs, delivery dates and oh did I mention costs.

I have a p21+ and a P30+ and if someone asked me what camera/back I would want it would be two p21+ backs. Both that went to something like 30 mpx real full frame, one back that would go easily to a REAL 1000 iso clean and one back that would go to 50 to 400 ISO clean.

I wish they were on set when we shoot 20 setups a day and try to look at one of their lcd's and make a judgement. Or better yet see what happens when the computer and cart won't fit into the room.

The very next thing I would ask for is an lcd that was useable, because I have yet to see a medium format lcd, including Hasselblad's new one, that was as good as the original 1ds and 1/100th as good as my leica.

Quite honestly I am amazed and even shocked that any maker would still try to sell a camera/back that costs $20,000 to $40,000 and has an lcd that was unuseable.

The next thing I would ask for is a full lens and accessory range. Fast lenses at F2, along with a full range of leaf shutter lenses (and by full I mean from wide angle to medium telephoto).

I am also blown backwards by the fact that any camera maker that attempts to sell a $30,000 to $40,000 system would have an asterick that said, lenses, accessories, software to be released later.

Though I will reserve final judgement until I see this back work in the real world, I really believe medium format has decided to ignore the people that shoot what I shoot.

In fact other than just raising the costs and rasing the mpx count, I don't see anything that was annouced recently that would move me to do anything, other than look at the new Nikon.

The only camera company that now hits on all cylinders is the RED. They're covering the low end to high end. 3k to 5k, all the lenses and accessories with compatibility of lenses that are industry standards. They have all kinds of lcd previews, good high iso, autofocus lenses, standard cinema lenses, zooms, storage medium and most of it from the ground up in two years.

RED listened to their customers.

JR

P.S. I've asked this twice to the dealers so I will ask it again (obivously nobody wants to answer this) but what is the quote that ISO is an upgrade to come in 2009? How do you upgrade the ISO?

if i see the things right the p1 / 65 is also a 645 30mp sensor so far.
and... photokina is not far away. we havent seen all what will to be seen there.
i am sure about that.

... but in general.: i agree.
esp. about the immense costs if you want to stay in the first row with your gear.

I agree. I think alot of what we need is here, but not in one box, and apparently it cannot be jammed into one camera/back/lens package at this time. The new Phase will, apparently, bin the pixels and give a 30 mega pixel 645 frame. That's cool but its retarded expensive and thus not suited for most of the people shooter market.

The LCD issue is really, really annoying. The 5D LCD is better than my P30+ LCD outside. I shot part of a catalogue in the damn woods in CT a week or so ago. I was tethered to a MBP on a Multicart powered by a homemade inverter of the tech's design. Mostly natural light with bounce. I had to walk to the end of the 16 foot cable to see what was going on and to talk to the AD about the shots. This sucked. Broke the mood, made the light difficult to replicate because of clouds and the position of bead board changed because it was handheld. A big LCD or a wireless transfer to an iPhone would be nice. AD's all have iPhones, they could get the preview sent to their iPhone, but then you would need to have a real jpeg preview and that will never happen.I shot a bunch of "atmospheric" stuff for this catalogue on film, wandering around with two models and the stylist. Great stuff. No AD, no tether, just shooting and reloading.

I like the focal plane shutter. Any lens can be used with adapters and 1/4000 is a nice option when outside without strobes. mamiya says they will have some really expensive leaf shutter lenses available for their FP shutter camera, which would give you both high flash sync and high shutter speed abilities. I find I need 1/4000 more than I need 1/500 flash sync.

I don't think we'll get multi AF points for years. The mamiya selectable AF points are a cruel, cruel joke. Much too close to gether and they don't light up. It was an after thought in the design process.

I bet Leaf will make their 6x7 LCD better and will enable wifi/bluetooth to portable device on their new backs, much like they had with the old Valeos.

Shutter lag needs to be eliminated. I haven't tried them all, but the H with a Phase back has some lag, not much but some. The AFD and AFD2 have bad shutter lag that never happened with film, which results from the back to body communications protocol. The AFD3 is better, but still has lag. The Hy6/AFi has no lag. It just shoots like a film camera or a Nikon D2X or Canon 1 series.

Frame rate: the P21+ has a nice fast frame rate, something like .8 frames a second. The Leaf 54S also shoots really fast. Plenty fast for me. I have a P30+ and find the frame rate on a Mamiya AFd to be a hair too slow, sometimes.

ISO of the P30+ is really good. Slightly cleaner 1600 would be nice.

What needs to be understood by the product managers is that the people shooters can more easily do our jobs, especially outside of a studio, with a 5D than with any of the MFDB/cameras out there. The 1ds3 and I'm sure the new and rumored Nikon megapixel machine have/will have IQ that is good enough for much of what we do. Hell, the 5D, 1ds, and 1ds2, D3, D2x have good enough IQ. And with these cheap cams you spend more time taking pictures than dicking around with all that unwiedly gear, work arounds, etc. We use MFDB because its OUR choice. Not a client requirement. Make these cameras more usable, with lower pixel count, and make the price for entry reflect the market in which we find ourselves. Hint: Look at the Phase Refurbs. This should be the price point for new backs with a body.

I read Michael Reichmann's thoughtful reply the other day, in that P65+ thread. As usual, it was well-reasoned, and not reactionary, like most commercial photographers would write. I thought he made good points.

But, in the end, if this is all about business, and sales, and dollars and cents, I would just wonder, how many potential photographers are there out there, that truly need a 60 megapixel back? Versus, say, the number of potential photographers that need a 28 megapixel back, (but one that truly works great, instead of still shipping with lots of asterisks and apologies and "we're working on its".)

I would think a hugely larger number of 28MP customers. But maybe Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie have just resigned themselves to competing head-on with Canon/Nikon. Maybe they simply know they can't win, if they go head to head, so they're choosing the "more megapixels is better" avenue of marketing, (even if most people are throwing half the file away, by repro time).

The other thing I wonder is: Why do these MF companies sell to Digital Techs? For every time that I rent a camera/back from a Tech, that's one more back that'll never get sold. I wonder why Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie don't write something into their Licensing Agreements that's similar to what those color profiling services write into theirs? In other words, you can buy our Profiling Package, but you can't write profiles for other people. It's only for your own use. Almost similar to iTunes, when you buy a song.

Phase sells three backs to a Digital Tech, and over the life of that back, maybe a hundred different photographers use it, and thus, never buy their own back.

It just makes you wonder.

The Profile packeges are intellectual property, so what they are selling us is a license to use the software, and that license has restrictions, like the license we sell to a client to use our images. The backs are physical goods and cannot, I believe, be sold with strings attached.

But the software could. What good is a P65+ back tethered to a G5 tower if you can't run CaptureOne on the G5, for another photographer?

I'm betting on Leaf also. They came close with theirs, except of course, it doesn't work outdoors. James' point he brings up all time is a good one. Make the screen operate when tethered, it would cut down on running back to the computer.

I know it ain't goin' happen but I would love the MF reps that speak here to start to speak from the cuff about why some features are doable and others aren't...and why.

By extension,why does any photo product allow its products to be purchased by
rental companies.

If you determine that DB's can't be sold to Digital Techs then,by law,to avoid discrimination
you'll have to restrict sales of cameras,lenses,power packs,...... to rental outfits.

For every Profoto pack rented,for example, that's one less powerpack sold.

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about this :>))

Mark

From the rumors we all hear I think the only one that interests me is Leica. If they rumors are even half true, the idea of a new format, 35mm type body with a 4:3 ratio, fast lenses, autofocus, useable manual focus and the sweet spot of 30mpx is just perfect and could be the ONLY camera that I could use for everything I do.

Now whether Leica has the resources or funding to do this I don't know, though since I've had to return 3 leica lenses because they front of back focused about 5 feet I do know that if they do make that R-10, they had better hire some quality control people from Porsche to check each one.



JR

deleted

Some of us remember the good old days... All we had to complain about back then was the manufacturers not being to able to make an ISO 400 film that didn't show grain like sandpaper, or not being able to give us close, let alone accurate, color. We also complained that different batches of film had different ISO's and oh yes, let's not forget the printed ISO was rarely the actual ISO! Then there was the issue of actually being to find your favorite emulsion in stock when you needed it for an "emergency" shoot, or when the manufacturers just discontinued it for some unknown reason.

Yeah the good old days were far better than what we are faced with now...

,

Photographers use to paint their own emulsion on glass.

What does that have to do with an lcd?

Then again when they were processing those plates in a tent, I bet they didn't have a hundred grand of expenses sitting outside waiting withh the clock ticking.

You shoot what you shoot which is different that what I shoot.

Not that one is better than the other, though one does come with a great deal more monitary pressure.

JR

I remember not feeling like a Zork geek sitting at a computer for hours and hours and hours. And Hours. When I was a kid in LA I would play Zork on my Apple II for 20 hours straight. I feel that way with digital. If I charged full freight for the time in post I'd lose that client.

I still shoot lots of film, especially for editorials, and you know, with a small shoot, film takes about the same time to get a client proofs as it takes with MFDB, and you don't have to spend your time at a computer to do it. Canons are different because of the onboard JPGs, so lets get some on board jpegs Phase Leaf Sinar Blad!

How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?

Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important?

DR, frame rate, sensor size, ISO sensitivity and noise are all key factors to a MFDB that can't be gotten any other way.

You can see the images you took with big screen tethered, by zooming in on your back, check exposure with a tiny histogram, measure with a lightmeter... all kinds of ways. Its not a make or break feature to a camera. The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?

Mr Hiss,

What do you shoot? What do you do for a living?

The subject line of this thread was about the appropriate camera/features for advertising photography. In that line of work, there's generally always at least one, if not more, ADs or CDs in tow, that need to see and sign off on what you're shooting. In the old days, you'd shoot a polaroid, stand around and fold it, and they'd give the thumbs up or down. Now, with no polaroid, you either hire a Tech, with all his mess and cables and drudgery, or you have a USABLE LCD on the medium format back. So you're either showing the AD the back of the camera (LCD) or you're walking him/her up to the Tech's monitor for approval.

Image quality is, of course, very important, but of equal importance is the communication with the client, during the shoot, and making sure that they are feeling good about the setups. Again, there is no more Polaroid.

Personally, I resist using Techs because of the Ball and Chain effect that it has on the project. On location, any and every time you move or explore a new shot, or a better angle, it's a whole affair of moving the cart, and the firewire cable access, and that dreaded effect of the whole damn crew slowing to begin to hover around the monitor, like they're being paid to watch TV or something, instead of looking/watching the live talent.

What is hard to understand about that?

And as you know, HCB or AA didn't really shoot for clients, and if AA did, from time to time, I'm sure he shot a polaroid and handed it to the AD that was in the factory with him.

Deleted...Redundant reply

Uh guys, I shoot digital essentially 100% now... My point was that we have always complained about the products of our trade and will NEVER see, have, or even get close to, a "perfect" camera, perfect digital back or even a perfect film emulsion...

Sheesh,

To tell you the truth its for the client, because you can't always shoot tethered, and if you are outside you are blind. If an AD can't approve a shot or approves a shot under pressure that s/he can't really see, you will not be working with that client again, and for $43k this should not be a issue.

Overall I think there is a lot of good ideas in this thread... but at the same time all the talk about the P65+ and H3DII-50 has gotten quite ridiculous. I don't post a whole lot, mostly because I don't always have time to constantly be posting back responses. Anyway, boring introduction aside... i'll probably anger the LL forum faithful, but here is what it boils down to....

I pretty much agree with everything said above in terms of specs... do people shooters need more than 28-30 mp? No... but will a large number of them buy a bigger back?? yes. Despite what everyone complains about on here, the P45+ and H3DII-39 were easily the best selling backs for each company and I have worked on so many magazine fashion shoots with the P45 it's ridiculous.

So we all complain that they aren't listening to us... but it seems to me that in general they are. Lets consider the P65+. Based on what Phase has mentioned this answers most complaints.
Its full frame, and if this variable resolution thing pans out well it will be an extremely versatile back. It could do lower resolution at faster speeds and with higher iso if needed. If this can really stand up to what is indicated, instead of having different backs for different applications you could have one back for all applications from landscape to people.

What about the LCD screen? This has been raised to such a big issue (and rightly so) that it seems if any manufacturer made a good screen, they could run away with the market. It would down right negligent not implement it. Michael indicated rather directly that phase at least is very aware of customers need for a better LCD. It seems to me that if companies like Phase and Leaf and hasselblad can produce rather amazing products like they do, there must be a darn good reason why no one has managed to implement a good screen. To put screens in perspective, Leaf's is the largest in size, but the lowest in resolution. Phase and Hasselblad have the exact same resolution despite differences in physical size. Dont get me wrong, the screens suck and need to be replaced 2 years ago, but we are also complaining about limitations of a camera that has not been released yet and that we have very little actual spec on.

Filesize? Here's some perspective: H25 raw file: 42mb, P65+ IIQ-S raw file: about 40mb. The difference here is that when the H25 came out a 100gb hardrive was a big deal and alot of money... now we get 1T drives at reasonable prices. Yes files are bigger, but the growth of cheap storage continues to expand at much much faster rates.

How do we upgrade ISO? I don't know, but apparently Phase does and we will find out at some point. I think the biggest fallacy we make is assuming that all CCD's regardless of whether they were designed 6 years ago or 6 months ago operate with the same limitations. We assume that bigger pixel automatically equals better quality, DR, ISO, etc. but perhaps in practicality this is not the case? I don't know, I don't design CCDs. I can however look at what has been done before. P30 has 6.8 micron pixels, P21 has 9 micron pixels... given that they were developed about the same time and both use micro lenses do we assume that the P21 will lend a better image? Higher ISO? Because in reality the image quality and DR is pretty much the same for both Cameras. Also the P30+ has ISO 1600 and the P21+ only 800. Why should we not expect a brand new CCD that was designed at least 3 years later not to offer significant advancements... and if we would not get better real world performance from 9 micron pixel in a newer sensor then what would be the point in making a 28mp FF back if we can use some advanced binning on a 60mp to produce the same thing?

Price wise, i'm not sure that there is much we can hope for. Canon can sell a 21mp camera for 8K because they dont need to make any money on it. They make there money from the millions of rebels and point and shoots they sell.

Ultimately it comes down to this, were are forming opinions and arguing the positives and negatives on backs that no one has used, no one has seen, and indeed have not been manufactured yet. Its time for a deep breath and to look forward to Photokina.

Deleted...Redundant reply

I know this is a bit off-topic from the location Ad shooter with client entourage...

Architecture guys are one group stereotypically placed in the more, more, more MP camp, but the new 645 sensor size has significant problems for us as well. All of a sudden, that $5k 28HR lens has no image circle for movements, the 24 Digitar doesn't work at all. Now the widest lens with movements is a 35. Maybe the rumored 23 Rodenstock will have a big image circle?

The best thing I can see from the new 645 sensors is that it should lower the price of 36x48 sensors to a "reasonable" level.

Mr JDG:

No one would buy a P65+ and shoot it on Raw Small, and risk the jaggies that occur at ASA 200 and higher, from the compression. That's like buying a 5-series, but never getting it out of second gear. So let's clear that up quickly. So what is the file size of a P65 file in Raw Large, and how large is it once processed in 8bit RGB?

Why does Phase release this incomplete information then, knowing that the internet will be full of speculation, based on no facts, (since Phase does not disclose all of them)? I remember when my Apple 17 inch laptop was announced -- I read about it in the morning of the announcement, and picked up the phone and called my Apple dealer to order one. I asked him when they'd actually be in stock and ready to ship. He said, "Well, actually today". Announce a product, complete with details, and have it on the shelf, ready to sell and ship, THAT DAY. That is a business practice worth supporting. You guys wonder why there's so much misinformation? It's because Phase sets it up that way. (As do other MF companies). It does not have to be that way. You want informed customers -- present clear information.

And for the record, if Phase surprises us all and ships the P65 with a large killer LCD that can be trusted, I'll eat my words and be the first in line to buy one, at full retail. But what good is 60 megapixels if you're trying to light a portrait, on location, in the sunshine, and you're trying to achieve a good workable balance between the fill strobe and the Ambient, and trying to judge it off the LCD? This is why only people working with Techs will use these expensive, incomplete backs.

There is a spec on the LCD for the P65+: http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalb.../TechSpecs.aspx

Same old, same old. Perhaps they need to use that screen so you can run over the back with your car and put the back in the freezer.

I agree with the wait part , but don't think for a moment, they don't want you to buy today.

And the manufacturer's should be ready for this type of discourse.

After all they produce the pdfs and press releases to one up each other, so if you want the buzz, expect the blowback.

If they can live up to the buzz, then fine . . . they're golden.

If not, well we all know the answer to this.

JR

I kind of agree. I use histo 99% of the time for exposure - the screen is just to compose. However, my H3D22 screen really is not so hot compared to the one on my 5D. I can really tell whether things are sharp or not till I get to the computer. the 5D, no problem - can call it right there...

that said, I haven't seen the H3DII screen yet...but I'm already locked into my cam for now, so no upgrades coming thru. I dont need anymore than 22MPs - I'd rather have more glass and T/S adapter...

a great compromise would be a 4:3 ratio iPhone/Touch type device (with a bigger screen) that you could plug in, zoom in , then bust out some lo-rez JPGs to send off to respective parties, etc... no laptop necc.

Jim,

One of the famous "promises" from Phase One was the fabled WIFI device that would do just that. That was on their Road Map, so that their loyal customers could plan their purchasing decisions based on solid trustable information. Uh, have you seen one of these WIFI devices anywhere? Let's ask Mr JDG about that.

Also, "just about to ship" was the CaptureOne version 4 Pro. When was that? Maybe almost two years ago now?

Mr Russell is correct -- if you're going to publish a Road Map, then don't complain about the blowback when it doesn't come to fruition.

Interesting too that Phase is lingering, for some reason, to allow the Canon 1ds3 to successfully tether to CaptureOne. Wonder why that is? Maybe a (planned) bump in the road, to keep the mutiny from continuing, away from Phase and toward Canon? Ever try to tether with EOS Utility, a 1ds3, and try to use CaptureOne from a Hot Folder? It's not a pretty sight, and I'm sure Phase One is in no hurry to remedy that.

Anyone that is curious about the effect that employing a Digital Tech on Location, and the (negative) effect that it has on your shooting, try this:

1. Go to Home Depot.
2. Buy a wheelbarrow.
3. Fill it with rocks. Heavy rocks. About as heavy as a G5.
4. Tie a 16 foot string from your camera to the wheelbarrow.
5. Hire a guy (at about $1500 a day) to push the wheelbarrow around with you all day, on location.
6. (Optional, for effect): While at Home Depot, rent a really loud Honda generator and put it in the wheelbarrow, on top of the rock pile.
7. Take your camera, and your new "assistant", and go out on location, and do about ten shots, in ten different locations. Wherever you go, he goes with you. NEVER UNTIE THE STRING, except at lunch.
8. Come home. See how you feel.
9. Imagine that is now your professional digital life. You and your new buddy, and his cute little wheelbarrow.
10. Or, just buy a Nikon D3, and trust your LCD.

"trying to light a portrait, on location, in the sunshine, and you're trying to achieve a good workable balance between the fill strobe and the Ambient, and trying to judge it off the LCD?"

You use a meter like you should be doing anyway instead of eyeballing it. Remember the good ole days?

Not saying that we shouldn't have the best lcd screen period, not just as good as the current dslr offering. Everyone's biggest frustration, paying loads of money only to be topped by 25k less.

Maybe Canon or Nikon should just start making MF digital backs, they've certainly the $..

Instead of rehashing the same old complaints about the incompetence of manufacturers that cause you endless frustration, you could be learning how to work through your anger and frustration by using Photoshop. Really. Here's a link to illustrate... You Suck at Photoshop_lesson_1

Absolutely use a meter, but then all you have to show the AD is the flash analyze function on the Sekonic showing "75%", indicating that 75% of the light is from an ambient source.

I meter, get ratios etc, then fine tune tethered. I know many people don't do this but for me its ritualistic.

So, why are any of us talking about this? Because we just saw the largest maker of medium format backs introduce something new and a lot of us we're probably hoping for something different and the details more forthcoming.

In a way I should wipe my brow and go whew, I was just saved by having to spend another 20 grand, because with my upgraded sticker system I'm good for at least the next generations.


JR

I am not sure I get this. Do you happen to have a picture of this contraption? I am eager to get one myself.

As they say, Funny but True.

Ken

It warms my heart to know that I succeeded in pissing off at least one person. I'm not sure why you expect me to have an answer to WIFI? You're right they shouldn't have announced a product roadmap that they couldn't stick to. I don't know why it was delayed, or what is happening with it.

I'm not here to support any company, and I have no problem complaining about things, but honestly lets be reasonable people and wait till we have something solid to complain about.

Obviously Mark III tethered support is not going to be the biggest priority for Phase One.. I can imagine anyone would be surprised by that. Of course everyone will probably be just as mad when they do get C14 Pro and the Mark III is slow as hell thanks to that USB interface.

Shooting with a Hasselblad H3DII39 and importing into Phocus with large preview selected produces an imbedded jpeg that is 1200x900, you can then export this file almost instantaneously, it takes about 10 seconds to export 100 fast Jpegs at this size.

I'm not saying a light meter replaces something an AD can see , I'm just forever mystified by the 'no meter just look at the back and the histogram set' - I suppose it's fine for those that aren't critical and are not that particular about light, but for me it's tantamount. 1/8 of a stop makes all the beauty or ass in the world. Photography is getting dumbed down.

Techtalk, GFY with your nothing useful to say-ness. Your comment isn't even relevant.

Anthony,

Yes, I agree, using a meter is great and all, but let's be honest -- when you're doing front fill on a face, and your main light is from the rear, whether it's the sun or a Profoto head, there's nothing like seeing it on a Polaroid or on a good LCD. And this is only to talk about how you'd light the shot yourself; this is not even getting into the issue of showing the shot to the AD.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to take Polaroid away from us, then at least give us something comparable to work with, if you're doing complex lighting. If film is dead, then please let there be a suitable large LCD to show the client, without the hassle of being forced to hire a Tech for each and every job.

And for the record, I agree with you about the snide comment from Mr Hasselblad.

And to JDG, this is a workaround for tethering with the 1ds3:

1. Put a CF card in Slot 1.
2. Put an SD card in Slot 2.
3. Set the camera to "record separately".
4. Set the camera to "Playback only Slot 2".
5. Set the Slot 1, the CF slot, to record RAW.
6. Set the Slot 2, the SC card, to record JPG SMALL.
7. Open EOS Utility, and link it to DPP.
8. Hook up the USB cable to the Mac.

When you shoot now, only the tiny JPG will be sent to EOS Utility. The RAW file is not sent over the puny USB cable. Instead of waiting eight seconds for the RAW to transmit, the JPG will be sent in one second. Almost instantly. If you set up the software correctly, you can have a full screen window, and each new shot fills the Mac screen.

The only (and big) downside is: The CF cards still need to manually downloaded to the Mac, since they're not being transmitted. But you can, at least with this method, shoot very fast, and the client can stand right next to the MacBook Pro, or whatever, and see what's being shot, almost instantly. The other downside is that whenever a card gets full, and you open the CF door, and then reinsert a new card and format, the software takes about thirty seconds to "refind" the 1ds3 camera. You gotta do a little dance while this is happening, because the camera locks up and shows "Busy" on the top LCD.

I have nothing to add to the camera commentary, however, I was in WalMart today, buying film, and noticed that they're selling an 8 megapixel no-brand digital camera with a zoom lens for $47, and it includes a 2.5-inch TFT LCD. So I asked myself, how much can a big LCD cost the manufacturer? $2? $3? This was $47 for an entire camera...

JC

I um... like 20th the full frame 645 option.

Using a bare minimum 2400dpi optical scan for film equivalent I get about 22MP minimum. 3200DPI equivalent would be better, though, but that raises it to 39MP.(ouch)

But this would of course be equal to film - as in throw it away and forget about it resolution. I suspect most photographers would be thrilled with a full frame 22MP 645 model, even.

A 30mp fullframe 645 will still be extremely expensive. Its not the pixels that drives the cost, its the size of the silicon in there. It wouldn't be substantially cheaper than the P65+ (which apparently can decrease its resolution?)

Cost of a chip increases with the square of the area increased (along with some other multipliers due to extra masking complications in production).

Cost will go down.. slightly .. eventually. Unfortunately cost of production with regards to physical size of a chip are nowhere near as fast decreasing as other areas of digital computing.

So you might as well just buy a P65+.

thats great and all, but Phocus, while stunning, has the lame requirements of say Aperture 2 years ago - latest hardware, maxed out rams, etc, etc. wont run on a macbook, barely on a Pro - sh!t, I have to upgrade 2 towers w/ $400 of video cards and pop in some more ram just for it to run smooth in the studio...

the whole point is to not be tethered to a 17" computer all day...that can barely run the software

Not a rumor, but a fact that might interest you: Leica and Jenoptik (Sinar/Sinar backs) have signed a contract to work together more intensively on the development of new digital solutions. German link: http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Leica-und...tik-kooperieren

yeah, I guess we will have to just wait and see with this one, they are being very tight lipped in solms..I too would like to see this new r10 be a new format and feel they would satisfy a lot of folks who just don't need the extra megapixels. They are a company which knows what photographers care about..optics and dr..I think they could make an ideal location/advertising camera. With their limited funds, developing a new system would seem beyond their means.. but we can hope.

Everytime new product is introduced and the resulting response is not overwhelming positive, somebody always posts something like this, with a semi veiled comment mentioning frustration, ange, or complaint.

Actually what I read here is nothing even close to that. In fact if you read between the lines you will see a tight focus group giving opinions that most companies pay many thousands for.

I know some of the people here personally and they are busy photographers that own or have owned all forms of medium format backs. In the world of sales they would be classified as the target market.

Now once everythng is said and done, the new cameras are on the street, the results (if positive) I will bet that some of us mightl actually purchase one or more of these products, if it works as advertised and our needs are met.

In fact, that's the goal of all of this discusssion to work out what we need vs. what is possible.

Regardless I really don't see negative thought hear, I just see an honest opinion of what a lot of us would like to have in a camera.

Maybe in the world of camera making or brand loyalty that's not considered acceptable, but whether it is or isn't don't dismiss the op's analogy of medium format tethered and the cart of rocks, because on location the rocks would be eaiser to move around than a tech station and I doubt if the "rock assistant" would be two or three times the price of a photo assistant.

JR

P.S. Let's don't turn off the lights of this subject, just because at this point we agree to disagree.

I know some of the Phase people are they are enormously hard working and dedicated.

I am positive they want this to succeed and though some decisions I don't quite understand, I am sure they have every intention of giving us more today than we had yesterday.

I think it's important to understand that there is an different anticipation between the makers of a product than the end users. As makers they are trying to offer what they think will motivate us to buy, weighing every decision based on available technology, costs and time to market.

As users we have somewhat the same goals but must know the complete costs and useability vs. the actual real world benifits. Those costs don't stop at the back or the camera, but continue to storage, computer updates and most importantly time to preview, adjust, process and deliver.

We also must be 100% aware of what 'our" clients expect from us and not to beat a dead horse, few clients expect 300mb files though ALL clients do expect for us to capture some type of unique image and be sure that at the end of the day that goal is accomplished.

I think what this thread illustrates, especially in photograpy for commerce is the real world use vs. the lab world design are sometimes at odds.

The lcd really is at the heart of this. Meters, histograms and dynamic range can make for a more iintelligent process of getting the shot right (right comes in a lot of variations).

Regardless, nothing stirs, informs and pleasures a visual artist more than to see an exact represtantion of what will eventually get through post to print.

Nothing frustrates a visual artist more than using a preview system that is unwieldy and inhibits us from producing that unique image.

You do realize that such a wide ISO range with a similar true DR for each ISO stop is not possible with today's CCD's or publicly available CMOS sensors. You do loose DR in some way if you have to compromise this big.

Hugely oversimplified the main factor for a CCDs ISO rating is its full well capacity, which until now is mostly given by 'sensor area' * 'fill factor'. The DR is then given by the full well capacity divided by the noise floor. The noise floor is a rather constant parameter when the sensor design have settled on a principle mostly dependent on temperature/read out speed. Changing sensel active area or using a ND keeps the noise floor at the same level effectively reducing the DR. Binning is the only way to increase DR or sensitivity I know of which doesn't negatively affect performance. And some kind of binning will be available in the new monster chips if rumours are true. But binning 4 sensels make your fancy 60MP back a 15MP back. New fancy binning patterns could give us 20MP or 30MP but with relatively less performance gain.

To make one chip perform equal with a 1600 ISO rating chip and a 25 ISO rating, the CCD would have to have a analogue gain before the AD and a sensor with enough headroom to allow >6 stops (!) of analogue amplification before readout. To allow this for today's 70-71dB sensors, one would need to find 36dB of increased S/N ratio which is in practice totally impossible, and extremely hard in theory.

One way to do this is having 6 times larger sensor area than today's sensors, but that is kinda hard unless you deploy a Fuji sensor design with a dual readout mechanism with equally different noise floors, which is extremely hard to achieve in practice. Using one readout circuitry would kill DR for the small sensels. One could utilize a depth factor and increase well capacity that way, but as far as I know of this is not commercially available technology yet. Lowering the noise floor further is nearly impossible and the achievements in that field have been remarkable the latests years, so it will be easier to look somewhere else for refinements of performance.

Forget the ISO range and ask for two backs or two modules for one MFDB housing, one optimized for ISO 25-50 and one for ISO 1600-3200. Photons and the generated electron volts are physical entities which isn't subject to Moore's law. You need area to collect enough photons.
Be realistic in what you ask for and you might get it. Be totally ignorant of what's practicably achievable with current commercially available technology and you will be ignored by the MFDB manufacturers and sensor producers.

But of course quantum leaps in technology happen, but rarely on command, so we could get a new breed of sensor technology one day, but photons will be photons and f-stops a logarithmic scale - that will not change. As I see it going up in sensor format without increasing resolution is the fruitful way to proceed, as that is playing by the physical laws and not trying to break them all the time. Tolerances are already silly with 6micron sensels and less for smaller formats. So please give me a 6x6 sensor (56x56mm) with 30MP +/- for a Sinar or Leaf AFi slr and my P2 LF.

If I write something strange please keep in mind that I am on holiday leave, religously following the tour

Forza Arvesen and Hushovd!

Cost will go down with selling quantities as well....instead of 6000 per year worldwide ...60000 sold units per year would make a huge difference...in the final pricing of the sensor bought at the manufactures outlet store