New Phase One P65+ to be announced July 14th, 2008

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi folks,

Oddly enough, Michael Reichmann of "LuminousLandscape" beat Phase One to it on July 13th:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-announced.shtml

Bart

[Doug Kerr]

According th the Reichmann review of the new Phase One P65+ back, for only $2000.00 more ($41,990.00 altogether) you can get it on a Phase One 645 digital body (evidently a rebadged Mamiya 645AFDIII).

Best regards,

Doug

[Alain Briot]

Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr

According th the Reichmann review of the new Phase One P65+ back, for only $2000.00 more ($41,990.00 altogether) you can get it on a Phase One 645 digital body (evidently a rebadged Mamiya 645AFDIII).

Best regards,

Doug

A great deal I think. Plus, the full frame sensor format is fantastic news.

[Doug Kerr]

From the Phase One site (thanks to Bart van der Wolf for the link) regarding their newly-announced P65+ digital back:

"The P 65+ provides the largest live digital capture area available so far with coverage of 53.9mm x 40.4mm – enabling full viewfinder coverage thus no need for lens magnification. 'What you see is what you get.' " [Emphasis added.]

Do we have any idea what they mean by that? Perhaps it has to do with the "scope" of the viewfinder on a typical body on which this back might be used (perhaps 56 mm x 41.5 mm or such). But it's a curious way to talk about that.

Best regards,

Doug

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Alain,

Originally Posted by Alain Briot

Plus, the full frame sensor format is fantastic news.

Ah, yes, that's the 56 mm x 41.5 mm "full frame", I guess (not the 36 mm x 24 mm full frame nor the 48 mm x 36 mm full frame nor the 56 mm x 56 mm full frame nor the 10" x 8" full frame).

"But, sir, it is a whole truckload of firewood."

Just pulling your leg.

Best regards,

Doug

[Jack_Flesher]

Doug, as much as you've harped on the whole "full frame" issue, I would think you would be the first to applaud Phase for NOT calling it full frame... In fact it seems to me they purposely avoided using that term and instead get right to the actual sensor dimensions.

Granted, they then state it's the largest single-capture digital coverage to date, but then that is an accurate statement... So personally, I don't see any problem with their wording as it stands.

Cheers,

[Alain Briot]

Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher

Doug, as much as you've harped on the whole "full frame" issue, I would think you would be the first to applaud Phase for NOT calling it full frame... In fact it seems to me they purposely avoided using that term and instead get right to the actual sensor dimensions.

Granted, they then state it's the largest single-capture digital coverage to date, but then that is an accurate statement... So personally, I don't see any problem with their wording as it stands.

Cheers,

Good point. All that matters is that we have a 6x4.5 sensor (or 40.4 X 54.9 mm to be exact). Wide angles will be wider angles!

[Jack_Flesher]

Originally Posted by Alain Briot

Wide angles will be wider angles!

Amen to that! :)

[Alain Briot]

Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher

Amen to that! :)

It's been a frustrating aspect of Medium Format digital for me especially since I use a back on Hasselblad V cameras. I wish they made a 28mm for those but they don't.

[Jack_Flesher]

Originally Posted by Alain Briot

It's been a frustrating aspect of Medium Format digital for me especially since I use a back on Hasselblad V cameras. I wish they made a 28mm for those but they don't.

Understood -- and you are limited to the 40mm as your widest option, unless you change body (Superwide) or platform to something like an Alpa or Horseman, all of which are relatively expensive options not to mention bulky to carry/pack in the field.

Going off topic, but a FWIW: One thought is to do a simple 2 or 3-frame panned stitch. I have the Horseman and still use this option when I want a wider pano and don't feel like schlepping the Horseman outfit out to remote locations. I use a simple single sliding nodal plate in a panning top clamp which makes the entire capture process very fast, like a few seconds between frames tops. I then auto-stitch in CS3 and I've never had trouble with seams. Perhaps not as perfect or convenient as a wider lens, but a lot cheaper and usually more than adequate quality as it uses longer (usually also better) lenses and increases total file resolution :)

Cheers,

[Alain Briot]

Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher

Understood -- and you are limited to the 40mm as your widest option, unless you change body (Superwide) or platform to something like an Alpa or Horseman, all of which are relatively expensive options not to mention bulky to carry/pack in the field.

Going off topic, but a FWIW: One thought is to do a simple 2 or 3-frame panned stitch. I have the Horseman and still use this option when I want a wider pano and don't feel like schlepping the Horseman outfit out to remote locations. I use a simple single sliding nodal plate in a panning top clamp which makes the entire capture process very fast, like a few seconds between frames tops. I then auto-stitch in CS3 and I've never had trouble with seams. Perhaps not as perfect or convenient as a wider lens, but a lot cheaper and usually more than adequate quality as it uses longer (usually also better) lenses and increases total file resolution :)

Cheers,

I use the Superwide Hasselblad with the 38mm Biogon in addition to the regular Hasselblad 503. I also do stitching. I described my approach in this essay:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com...ead.php?t=5745

I have other examples on this forum, and was going to post new ones, but I was unable to reason Asher out of his requirement that I post 100% crops, which I have no interest in posting. My work is about color palette, color balance, stitched composition and NOT resolution at this time, but I can't get that through to Asher so I'm leaving this alone and participating to this forum as a member who is unable to post his work due to the "regulations."

So be it :-)

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Alain,

Originally Posted by Alain Briot

. . .t I was unable to reason Asher out of his requirement that I post 100% crops ** . . .

And suppose you don't?

** I assume you mean, "excerpts at original resolution". No crops, by definition, are "100%".

Best regards,

Doug

[leonardobarreto.com]

All those millions of pixels are welcomed, I just got a Nikon D300 and I'm amazed on how less than $2k can give in so many levels, so, yes we are moving and reaping the fruits of the digital revolution.

On the other side I think that I will keep my P 25 for a few generations and this are my reasons:

* Sensel size in a P 25 class back is 9 while this newer backs will have, what? 6 or 6.8 ? It is true that there will be an improvement of IQ via "other stuff", but it may well be that the improvement in IQ over the old P25 will be not spectacular as the pixel count is.

* I am paying the thing, so this is one factor for me, my business is slow because of my personal situation as a spouse of a diplomat. The back can produce nice clean gorgeous files of 63MB size, so, upgrade is not justify just yet for me in the economic perspective. (The D300, on the other side, for example, was a perfect investment)

* I don't need a back that would work differently than the P 25. I shoot tethered, so critical review doesn't have to be done on a LCD, and the back can be used in the field since it is very robust and works un-tethered. For fast paced work I may use the D300...

* The best improvements in Digital Back will come in the form of software, so we will continue to wait for Phase One CAPTURE 4

* I only need the back to work in 50 to 100 ISO (not that the new ones will offer a lot more...)

When I finish paying the back I may be in the market for a 28mm and camera like ALPA, Horeseman or CAMBO and maybe one for studio work...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Originally Posted by leonardobarreto.com

All those millions of pixels are welcomed, I just got a Nikon D300 and I'm amazed on how less than $2k can give in so many levels, so, yes we are moving and reaping the fruits of the digital revolution.

Yes, and a lot has to do with the quality of those pixels (and how easy they can be gottten), once one reaches a quantity that allows the output size that's required. The previsualized goal is still more important than the means, unless the means allow to achieve the goal more timely/cheaper/efficiently. That is part of Asher's request (not requirement) for 100% zoom (=actual size) crops. It will demonstrate the possibilities/restrictions of a chosen route, and it's very educational.

Bart

[leonardobarreto.com]

Bart, I think I understand the first part about the quality of the pixels. This is the same in all formats... and not finished yet, there is a point and shoot with 14MP (as a matter of facts, there is the Samsung L310W with 13.6MP, and NV100HD with 14.7 MP AND 3200 ASA !) so, two questions, a)what is the sensel size in this new Samsungs and how "good are the pixels"?

"The previsualized goal is still more important than the means, unless the means allow to achieve the goal more timely/cheaper/efficiently. "

This translated is: "the eye of the photographer matters but we could use new toys" or something like it... Take the case of the D300 compared to Fujifilm S2, I could previsualize the same with the S2, but the D300 gives me much more response and feedback... and we are not even talking about battery systems... so, yes, in this case the pixels are better, double and much more efficient, cheap and timely.

So, the 35mm format has matured a lot in the last five or six years and now the DX is reaching a point where the improvement will appear to be slower than that from the S2 to D300. For example: D300 is very fast in "motor drive", but it could be a bit faster... it just can't be infinitively faster since we photographers are only human...

... of course there was someone like me that said that humans could not drive faster-than-50mh-cars without fainting or something like that in the beginnings of automobile history...

Digital backs can mature a lot, but not so much in pixel quality -- or more pixels --

Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf

Yes, and a lot has to do with the quality of those pixels (and how easy they can be gottten), once one reaches a quantity that allows the output size that's required. The previsualized goal is still more important than the means, unless the means allow to achieve the goal more timely/cheaper/efficiently. That is part of Asher's request (not requirement) for 100% zoom (=actual size) crops. It will demonstrate the possibilities/restrictions of a chosen route, and it's very educational.

Bart