Hello there.

I'm looking at a P20 to fit to my 6008AF, has anyone got any comments on the quality of this back? I know it's not a top spec back compared with the new range of big MP backs but will I get decent images from it? I'm looking for a way in to MF digital and this seems a cheap option, I like the idea of the square sensor too. Are there any other options for a square sensor? Am I better saving up more and going for a P20+? I don't want to find I'm disappointed with the P20 if I go for it.

Any comments or suggestions much appreciated.

Thanks!

Mat.

In case you are not aware, the P20 sensor is around 36x36mm which means that your viewfinder and lenses will be quite cropped. Here's a quick visual guide to the difference:



And if you crop to 4:3 you are left with only 12 MP.

Apart from those issues, the back is capable of very nice image quality at low ISOs.

There are no other square sensors that I know of.

Hi.

Yes, I was aware of that, I'd like a 6x6 sensor but even if there was one I doubt I could afford it!

Thanks.

Mat

Graham,

Can you rotate the Sinar you use or is it fixed in one orientation and you have to turn the body?

Cheers.

Mat.


Edited because I gave you an "e" at the end of your name! Sorry!

Hi Mat,

I also edited my post with some new comments, in case you missed them.
Yes, I can rotate the Sinar in a few seconds. This is really a necessary feature, especially if you want to use a WLF!

Hi Graham

Thanks for that, the camera came with a Sinar back adapter but I need to find out if it will fit any Sinar or if it is for a specific back. Do you know if there are different adapters needed for different model of back or are all the Sinar's mounted the same?

The P20 I have seen is a good price, I know I will be frustrated with the space in the WLF that I will not be using but I like the square format and would rarely crop down from that. I was worried that it is old technology as things move forward at such a pace.

Thanks for the help.

Mat.

I've had a quote for a new P20+, £7890 + VAT at 15%, £2095 of that price is the back adapter. That just doesn't seem to make sense at all, the premium for fitting the back to a Rollei is pretty high. Are mounts for all platforms that expensive?

Thanks.

Mat.

There are different adapters for different back families. For example, all eMotion backs use the same adapters. If you email me detailed photos of the adapter, I might be able to identify it for you. graham (a] foto-z . com



What was the price? Is it new? Is there a warranty? This forum will quickly let you know if it's a good deal

I assume you are talking about a Phase One 'conversion'? The Sinar adapters are generally a LOT less, although the Rollei 6000 adapter is the most expensive.

Hi,
I shoot with a p20 on a 6008 af. It's great! The phase workflow is going to be a big advantage over the Sinar. Unless you've got several cameras and want to switch back and forth, I don't see any plus to the Sinar. If you have specific questions about the p20 / 6008 ask away and I'll try to answer
Eric

Hi Eric.

I do have some questions if you don't mind?!

What is the integration like between the back and camera? Is it just a case of clipping the back on? Have you ever done any long exposures with the P20? Does the Phase 1 long exposure ability extend to the P20? Does the crop on the sensor bother you with the WLF? Can you get screens marked for the P20 coverage? How portable do you find the camera and back? I do a lot of traveling and would love to use it for remote location stuff, along with a DSLR as back up! How do you find the performance of the lenses when used with the P20? Are there any tips that really help with use?

I know that's a lot of questions! I am very interested in any info you may have.

Thanks a lot!

Mat.

Well, I have to disagree there. Now that Sinar uses DNG raw files, you can process the files in over 40 raw processor applications. See http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/supporters.html
I can't think of a more ubiquitous or advanced raw processor than Photoshop itself. Actually I have no idea why people would even want to use a proprietary raw processor like C1 for anything but tethering (and yes I used it for a few years and liked it but it can't compete with Photoshop and almost every file will end up in PS sooner or later anyway).



Well there are some pluses. The P20 runs at about 45 frames a minute, whereas the e54 is around 60. Also the e54 offers a larger rectangular sensor which is obviously very useful for most work. The Sinar comes with a standard 3yr warranty compared to 1yr for Phase (afaik), and the e54 has a solid state memory built in which means you often won't even need to use a CF card. It also has a liveview mode built in.

Graham,
Don't you have to first convert your two part Sinar files to DNG before you can put them into to other programs? That's what I mean about a less efficient work flow. Phase files drop right into a lot of programs like Lightroom. I've never shot tethered with Sinar so can't comment, except to say that I could not imagine it being easier than with the Capture One / Phase solution. About half of what I shoot with my Rollei is in studio and I prefer to shoot tethered. This is a huge advantage. I'll also say that the P20 can shoot ISO 800 and produce usable files (either with conversion to black and white, or by outputting to half size). The phase p20 has no noise at base ISO. I prefer the look of the phase file as well - much closer to what I want without work.

As far as Sinar having a larger square sensor - are you sure? What's the physical size of the sensor used?

Eric

Actually, no. When shooting tethered, the files are saved to hard disk as DNG. You can immediately open them in Lightroom or anything else without a conversion step.

When importing images from a CF card the same thing happens.



I wrote 'larger rectangular sensor, meaning that it is 48x36mm rather than 36x36mm.

Hi Mat,
Yes the p20 goes on the 6008AF just like a film back, and in fact its just easy to put on and off - no cables. You could even carry the film backs with you and go back and forth. As far as integration goes - very smooth but little EXIF data is recorded. The p20 is not going to give you a clean file longer than about 15 seconds exposure. All the stuff about phase backs and long exposure is true but only with the plus series backs. The phase backs that were sold as part of the digital bundle were p20 non plus versions so its not too likely to find a plus back already on a rollei mount. But if you order one, definitely go for a plus! I have several focusing screens - on one I used a felt tipped pen and marked the crop outside - so that it was translucent - and had another one made for me by Bill Maxwell. Both work fine. The camera with the p20 back is just as portable as with film. Really great - I take it hiking and on trips. The Rollei lenses are as you know excellent. With the p20 its really easy to inspect closely and pixel peep the files. You won't be disappointed.

Eric

i used to own the 6008/P20 combo...great files, bulletproof tether workflow, bulletproof function.....the back does not talk to the camera, (the iso has to be set on both for example....).....great solution.....amazing lenses....

BUT: a 5DII gives a better file much easier to handle, high iso,......at a 4:3, 2:3 ratio and the P20 cropped....pixel for pixel the P20 wins, but all in all....no comparison....

The p20 is 37x37mm. I guess if you want square then it doesn't matter. Crop is similar. Sinar makes a square back too right?

As far as importing images - you still have to do a 2 step process. First through the Sinar application to get DNG then into lightroom or whatever.

Not that I know of.



Not quite sure what you mean. As you shoot tethered, your images are saved to the hard disk in DNG format. You can continue to process them in Exposure, of course, or open them in any other app directly. The only 'extra work' is opening the second app, if you so choose, but that wait of a few seconds is more than offset by the ability to choose your raw processing environment. C1 doesn't offer a faster workflow than Exposure, just less flexibility. Does that make sense?

I run a P20 on a 'blad body. I was very concerned about the crop before purchase. Phase supply a mask to fit over the screen which is translucent so you do not see just the crop but the area surrounding it. As Leica M shooter this was familiar territory and I adapted quickly. In use I have not found the crop screen any problem. I did acquire a 40mm lens as I did miss a wide angle (widest previously a 50mm) but the 40mm Zeiss is such a good lens this was to my benefit as well. The freedom from not changing magazines every 12 shots was quite liberating, don't underestimate it if you have been a MF user. In use it's just like a magazine except with the 'blad a sync cord. Quality wise I love it. I am an amateur so I don't look for billboard enlargements and have not yet run out of resolution for what I want. The problems I have had have been camera shake, I like to think mirror , when hand held visible below 1/125th, it was there in film but not seen and the lack of quality at higher iso. I don't touch 400 asa unless it's essential but then I shot at 160 with film and didn't miss it, expectations change.

Thanks Eric, Graham and PSS!

Good info, it sounds like it has real quality as base ISO and with the lenses that I know have amazing quality will combine to make it a winner, obviously it's a cheap solution for me and not cutting edge but will do the job. I understand about the camera not talking to the back, something I can live with as I tend to make notes of how I shoot.

Thanks again for all the help, it's good to know there are solutions for everyone, one mans pride and joy isn't necessarily going to be anothers, different solutions for different people, it's all good!!

Cheers.

Mat

Thanks for your thoughts Chris, I was concerned about the wide side but I am used to it and stitch with a dslr when I want that sort of shot. I understand the 12 shot limit will be a nice thing to break! I'm hoping I can keep the attention I pay to an image when I only have 12!

I have always tended to stick to low ISO so I hope I won't be bothered to much by the backs ability, I have priced a new P20+ but far to expensive with the 6008 adapter, I can buy all sorts of other kit with that money.

Thanks again everyone for youtr input, I think I'll go for it.

Cheers!

Mat.

The Sinar eMotion 54LV is about 8000 Euro new in Europe, really a good deal, and the adapters are generally around 1000 Euro or less, in case you want to switch to another system later. Phase One charges about 3000 Euro for an adapter-change, and that is a one-time change until you want to do it again, and pay again... (one change is free with the 3-year warranty, I think).

On the other hand, the Phase P+ backs can do exposures up to an hour, whereas other backs only usually go to 32s or perhaps 1-2 minutes. Also, the Sinar and Leaf backs use Dalsa sensors, whereas the Phase and Hasselblad backs use Kodak sensors. Both are very good, but you might want to check out the results of both before deciding. Perhaps you see something to swing you one way or another.

To store the captures as 16bit TIF in the original camera profile. And not in one of the 4 ICC profiles Adobe graciously supports... and that are all completely useless for me. DNG is a proprietary format, too. With regard to long time safety TIF is the way to go.
Upside of DNG is certainly that you can pass the files to someone else for post.

DNG and TIFF (Tagged Image File Format, all data chunks are "tagged") are practically the same thing. DNG uses the same basic file structure, with a couple of extra and a couple of different tags. The file format itself is open, but it doesn't require the chunks of data to be open, so each company can choose to encode their data in a non-open way, which is typically what happens. If you rename a DNG to TIFF or vice versa, you could probably still get the same info out them. I have read the TIFF 6.0, TIFF/EP and DNG standards, and implemented a DNG reader, to read Leica M8 DNGs, and it is not that difficult until you get to the bits which are not open.

What needs to happen is not that we use TIFF instead of DNG, but for companies to open up their data storage formats. Currently only a very few companies are choosing to do this. The problem is not the file formats, but that the companies don't want to go open.

That's all great... maybe. But I find it somewhat boring to hack my files. The question was, why should someone use a proprietary RAW Software. Because it is the straight way to a 16bit TIF in an useful color space.

My point was that neither TIFF nor DNG is proprietary. Both are owned by Adobe, AFAIK, but both are open. The camera companies choose to stay closed.