I've been searching here and elsewhere but can't find the answer. What improvements are the P+ over the P backs?

Jonathan:


*Increased dynamic range
*increased sensitivity
*Extra stop of ISO
*Faster shooting
*Unlimited buffer with fast CF cards
*Brighter, higher rez LCD
*Live Preview on computer
*Extended long exposure (up to one hour)


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Steve, what is this "upgradable technology to come on 2009" for the P65+ that is supposed to give it better dynamic range and iso performance (say from 200-800) than the P45+? I currently shoot with a P45+ and was just wondering. Michael said he didn't have this new sensor technology on his shoot in antarctica. thanks Eleanor

The sensor itself by default from the Phase One P65+ has extended dynamic range compared to previous Phase One P+ digital backs with the Kodak sensor . The high ISO performaance will be enhanced from the binning capability via Sensor +, where (for now) 4 photosites are combined into 1 photosite - which is how you get 15MP. Combining the photosites should also lead to cleaner high ISO. I am looking forward to seeing the results from this. The Sensor + technology is the key ingredient on this product. As impressive as the resolution and the effective full frame 645 sensor is, the real key is our ability to program this sensor for enhancements down the road without you having to upgrade the entire back (and pay the resulting cost).

The inital batch of P65+'s that have shipped do not have the Sensor + technology, but that should be ready in February and they will be upgraded for free.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Thanks Steve. This is all well and good re: pixel binning, but if I want great high iso preformance it's very easy to carry my lightweight Canon 5D2 around and get 21+ megapixels. I honestly don't know what the attraction would be in 15 megapixel files from a 60+ megapixel sensor, especially given the upgrade price. I am more interested in good high iso (200-400) iso at high megapixel count. I am just back from an Antarctica shoot and while I used my 45+ the entire time, I was found wanting more noise free iso at 200 and 400 (wind, moving ship, bouncing zodiacs, etc etc). I always prefer the native iso of 50 but there were many instances where I really needed to use higher iso. Does Phase have comparison shots of this new Dalsa sensor iso preformance compared to say that of the P45+. Many thanks again, Eleanor (ps- my Phase back preformed flawlessly in antarctica by the way, in the wind, some rain, cold, etc).

Eleanor

There is no one product that does everything. But what we're attempting with the P65+ is to have a product that does a lot more than what we've come to expect from medium format. For now, it will do 15MP and cleaner, higher ISO. There's also the possibility of dual binning instead of quad binning and then we're at 30MP. I'd take a 30MP P65+ file over a DSLR file any day.

Getting clean high ISO at super resolution (50MP, 60MP, 70MP, etc) may not be possible with the current technology and for that reason, DSLR's will have a place, if that's the criteria. But for those who want high resolution with the flexibility of clean high ISO, we are trying to move closer to a product that gives you at least some of that ability. If you're shooting in the Antartic with a P45+, unless you also have a 5DMKII or D3 with you, high ISO (1600 or higher) is out anyway. But with the P65+ you at least have some ability to utilize that, albeit at lower resolutions. I feel even a 15MP file from a P65+ will be superior to a 24MP file from a DSLR, so from that standpoint, it does eliminate having to carry a DSLR for some situations. Would I like it to shoot clean ISO 1600 at 60.5 megapixels? I'd love it, but not possible right now.

Like I said at the top - no one product does everything. A 5DMKII or D3 won't give you the detail and resolution flexibility of a P65+, but they excel at their given resolution for high ISO. Again - it depends on your application and environment - but the P65+ is going to enable more flexibility for varying shooting situations than anything we've seen from medium format.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Steve, Dual Pixel binning at say iso 400...now that's an excellent prospect. Hope they're working on this! Eleanor

We're working on an awful lot of things...

I don't want to over-promise. But currently, this is what the P65+ can do:

*60.5 or 15 Megapixels
*ISO 50 - 1600
*60 frames per minute
*Resistant to color shifts with technical cameras
*Effective Full Frame 645

The beauty is that what it can do currently has the potential of being enhanced via firmware. And who knows what else we'll come up with? We haven't had anything like this before.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Is it possible to enhance DR, ISO range, recycling time and sensibility on older P30 and P45 backs via firmware upgrade?
Thank you.

I'm new here and I must say it's nice to have a manufacturer rep around. Try that on a Leica site.

I'm an amateur I'm thinking about getting back into MF because of my love of square format. Would you mind speculating as to whether a full frame 6x6 sensor is even being considered within a 5 year term?

I feel that if larger sensors are employed, they will not be square. All market data shows that rectangular sensors are preferred, typically by 2 to 1 margins. However, the 30% who argue for the square sensor are more passionate...


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Any examples or comparisons with P25+/P45+ or other brands?

Kumar

Sorry - no, they do not have Sensor + technology. Enhancing performance requires a new sensor controller, sensor architecture, etc, which means a new chassis for the sensor which means an entirley new digital back.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Specific to color casts with technical cameras? No, this is anecdotal from the experience of one of our users. I don't believe there are any posted comparisons to P25+/P45+ downloadable from our website yet, anyway. But any of our dealers could set up a real life test for you - far better situation anyway - and you can see how they compare.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One

I presume longer exposures will also be part of the upgrade path? Also, what are the plans for the lower pixel backs, will one of the previous size chips be dropped? I could imagine a P30 and P65, the higher pixel DSLRs are edging in on the P21 and I think that the P25 will become redundant as far as sales of new backs go.

Also, I am curious as to the reason MF backs can't handle high ISO as well as the smaller cameras. Is it a characteristic of the CCD VS CMOS technology, or some other factor.

thanks

I can promise you the answer to this question is NO.

That's just not the way medium format works and probably never will be. It's a shame because it makes sense that such an expensive item should be a workable 10 year system rather than an 18 month to 2 year electronic item.

Something happened to the camera business. I guess the guys that made lenses and bodies started hanging out with the guys that made boom boxes and plasma TV's and the term disposable started rubbing off on them.

Had medium format gone this route of continual and affordable upgrades to one's existing back, then the buy in would be an easier decision.

Especially since the bottom has fallen out on the prices of used medium format backs. If it was available to upgrade a P45+ with a $2,500 electronic change to offer higher iso, (even at reduced file size) makes a lot more sense than trading in a perfectly good back and taking a 10 to 15 grand hit.

We've heard this for a long time from each manufacturer that to get a better lcd, or a slightly cleaner iso it takes a complete new back. Maybe for $3,000 to $6,000 dslrs that's ok, given that the buy in is much lower and it's usually easy to sell a used dslr, even in today's business climate, but for $15k to 30k for digital back it's much harder to accept a 10 to 15 grand trade in hit for an incremental upgrade.

It would also be a lot easier to invest in newer medium format if the backs would go onto multiple platform cameras and not require $2,000 mount changes. One back for an H-1, an RZ and an Contax makes more sense that being locked into one single platform. The fact that there are truck loads of RZ's and V systems just sitting on shelfs for penny's on the original dollar makes you wonder why somebody has thought of making a multi platofrm digital back a mandatory design element.

As it stands today, I think Hasselblad has the right idea on upgrades which is just keep your old camera for a backup and buy the new one at a price that is way discounted from 18 months ago.

Steve makes some good points that the p65+ has the potential to offer more than was available prior in medium format and higher iso through pixel binning and sounds like a good idea, though at 15mp it seems more marketing news than actual real world use. After all what does a p45+, p30+ or P21+ go for today? When you add in those costs to a 5d2 you wind up with a backup, two systems, high iso, high megpixels and are probably way under the costs of a the p65+.


BTW: who names these backs . . . Ford? Why is a 39mpx back called a 45, a 31 called a 30 and a 10 called a 21?

Still with medium format we always seem to be talking about potential and that's the rub with medium format, waiting on the potential. Right now the p65+ is shipping but the features are still in the works. Medium format needs to address this business model of wait and see into a package that is ready to roll out the door, with all parts intact.

The dalsa to kodak film look thing is another one that puzzles me. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 14 months ago, Phase dealers were poo pooing the thought that a dalsa sensor is more film like. Today it's probably a mixture of repsonses.

I've owned both two Dalsa sensored backs, 3 Kodak sensor backs and they all can look like film under specific circumstances and they all can look very digital under different subject and lighting. I find more of a change in process converters or lenses than in sensors. I can say the same with cmos vs ccd, vs sony, canon and nikon. Different processing produces a different look, post production really is the key to making anything in the digital domain resemble film (even scanned film).

At this point I think if medium format is really going to differentiate itself from the higher end dslrs, the industry needs to take a giant leap, especially on the high end. Real in camera processing, much easier software, and not a slightly bigger 20% more resolution lcd but a big honking lcd that has extreme detail and an easy to use touch screen, (let's think of ipod touch here and not an ipod that has to run through a computer first).

I would mention stable and finished software, but why open that can of worms because every medium format company is still messing around with their software, except for Leaf which finally took lc10 through a 12 step program and moved it from town drunk to an almost upstanding citizen.

Though I shoot very little if anything square I might seriously consider a square Rolleiflex Hy6. Let's face it almost 645 whether it be a 1.04 crop a 1.24 crop or a 2.24 crop is still not that big in the world of previous film formats. A true 6x6 sensor would make great use of a camera that was designed for square and the available lenses would become useful. In fact when the Leaf and Sinar HY6 came out, I heard a dozen "well informed" rumors that a 6x6 sensor would be here any day. Now I guess that thought is over.

Regardless, if the sensors were really bigger then we as artists get to decide if the crop should be square, 4:3, 2:3 or even panoramic 16x9, without ever thinking about turning a camera over on it's side, rotating a back or flipping a switch.

Sure it would be expensive but if your going to drop serious coin, you might as well drop serious coin for something that is really big, has horsepower and is unique.

Well then, why don't you make a square sensor for every two rectangular sensors? I don't understand the mindset among MF manufacturers that everyone gets what the majority wants. I mean, if the world worked like this, MF wouldn't even exist.

There is a potentially huge, pent-up market for a square sensor larger than 36x36mm with more MP than 16. Think of all the old Hasselblad C and F cameras out there, and think of what proportion of those people will eventually want a DB for it. Give it big fat pixels to avoid lens resolution problems.

The CFV/CFV-II is all very well, but the price was too high for what you got, the crop factor is too dramatic (no decent wide), and the resolution relatively low, that I think it is fair to say that the potential in this market has never truly been tested. Who will be the first to come out with an affordable square-sensor DB with a small crop factor, around 30MP, capable of working without a cable on a 203FE? I have lost count of how many people have told me that the 203FE was the most perfect camera they have ever used. If, say, Phase One hooked up with a third-party service to update the sync signals required and whatever other changes the body needed, I would be in line.

Sinar backs use adapters so that one back can be used on several cameras. But the adapters are quite pricey - maybe not $2000 each, but at least you can change from your Contax one day to a Hassy V adapter or whatever for a view camera the next day then back to the Contax on the next job. Then if you upgrade your camera to a Hy6, for example, only a new adapter is needed. However this may cost nearly as much as a mount change with another brand, but at least it's not permanent, and you wouldn't also need new view camera adapters. I used my same Jenoptik back on 4 different cameras with this adapter method - Mamiya RZ, Fuji 680 (via Kapture group Hassy V adapter), Sinar P2 (again via Hassy V adapter on a sliding back) and now on a Contax. Admittedly the view cameras can often offer mounts to suit whatever camera body your back is designed for, but the convenience and flexibility of a adapter system is undeniable, even if a bit less clean looking.

Ben

PS Edited for clarity: Some adapters are not offered for newer Sinar backs, especially for discontinued cameras.

Kumar,

Here is a test we did at our Miami office comparing the P25+ and P45+. It was shot on a Cambo WDS with a Schneider 35mm XL digitar f/5.6. We did correct the files with an LCC (lens cast calibration).

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

Like Steve mentioned in one of his posts, please let us know if you would like to have a live demonstration or if there is any other specific tests you would like us to run.

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year

877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter

Chris,

Steve was talking about the P65+ being "Resistant to color shifts with technical cameras". If you could run some tests specifically for this?

Kumar

Kumar,

I will see what we can do to get a test for you ASAP.

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
chris@captureintegration.com
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year

877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter

Hi Chris,

I'd be most interesting in seeing those results too.

Thanks!

Steve I have a question regarding the color shifts with the backs. With my P25 I had definite color shifts on the sides and corners of my files with normal lenses when shooting lots of whites and highlights such as snow scenes, skys, white sands, etc. With the P45 this problem was better but not gone and with my current P45+ this issue is still there. I noticed this on some files shot in antarctica...one corner would be slightly magenta the other corner/side very slightly green. This is very subtle and in many cases you have to really look for it, but nevertheless present even with normal focal length lenses. What has Phase done with their P65+ to eliminate this color shift problem with regular normal non shift/tilt lenses? many thanks again, Eleanor

What's wrong with doing a LCC for the lens that exhibits the color shift? Seems that would be a quick process that would only need to be carried out once.

That's good when I work in Capture One, but I do a whole lot of my work in Lightroom and unfortunately LCC is not an option. Eleanor

Elanor,
Have you tried to use the "Easy Gray Profile" in Capture One Pro.
This profile neutralizes near neutral colors. In most cases, by using this profile, no LCC (lens cast calibration) is required when using large format movements.
Please see attached PDF for samples of it being used.

Best Regards,

Lance

Lance, interesting you should mention that. Yes I have used Flash easy gray in Capture One and that can work well depending on the image. However what it tends to do is neutralize any slight color tint, say in a sky that is slightly magenta/yellow for instance, when that was the original tint to the sky when it was photographed. So this is of limited use as it can take out not only lens cast but colors that are meant to be in the image in the first place. Also in many cases I prefer to use Lightroom which is of no help with Phase One lens casts. Eleanor

Keving Raber of Phase One brought a P65+ back on the Michael's Antarctica trip a couple of weeks ago. I was fortunate enough to compare it to my P45+ back, and made the equivalent of 40 x 60 inch prints. The difference in quality was amazing. The P45+ images were great, but the P65+ were stunning, and at this size looked like contact prints!

Expensive in this economy? Yes. But there's no question that it's an amazing upgrade!

Paul

Any idea if the differences would show at 11 by 14 inch print size?

I still have some magenta/green casting even when using LCC when I attempt to stitch with my P20. The left-hand frame is casted green, while the right-hand frame is casted magenta. LCC removes a lot of this, but not all of it. The problem is especially apparent with snow, where any cast is immediately apparent. Using digital lenses does not seem to help that much.

Hi Paul, if possible could you elaborate a bit more about comparisons to your P45+. I also have a 45+ and mostly shoot at base iso. Was in antarctica the same time you were on a National Geographic expedition and shot with the 45+ no higher then 100 iso but was wishing for a cleaner 400 iso. Did you try 200 -400 iso on the P65+? Thanks, Eleanor

I looked for you on the dock in Ushuaia, Eleanor. (Just know you from your great web site.)
I didn't do a scientific study, but I used both backs at ISO 200. Before I left I did some quick tests, and knew I wouldn't want to go above 200 with the P45+. At the same time, narrow depth of field was a much geater problem for me (except with the WA digitar lenses) than noise. 200 was the best compromise.

The real test for me was not on the computer, but in large prints. I don't make a living doing photography... I just love it. Having grown up with 35mm to 4x5, and everything in between, it's the final print that counts. For many images fine image quality is secondary to the emotion caught in the moment. For landscape and other types of photography when shooting film it's worth ggoing to 4x5 or larger, despite the trouble. I really wasn't ready to make the upgrade... until I looked at actual prints. I'd suggest making your own comparison.

Paul

Hi Paul, our ship, the Endeavor, left 3 days before the LL ship left. There was a larger National Geographic ship, the Explorer, that left around the time you all did, but I wasn't on that one. If you have any of your antarctic images on the web would love to have the link to see them. Wasn't that an awesome place to photograph the landscape!!? Eleanor

Yes that is the issue sometimes with using that profile, but in the right situation it works well.
So in this scenario did you try to use the profile for the general correction, then use the COLOR EDITOR to tweak the areas such as the sky where you want a slight tint?

Lance