Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Phase One/ Mamiya special  (Read 6291 times)
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« on: November 30, 2006, 12:08:50 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.digitaltransitions.com/promo/q4_promo.htm

Hi
Just came across this from DP review. Not a bad price, the camera is worth about $3000.00 alone.
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2006, 04:01:14 AM »
ReplyReply

not bad at all.....the P20 is a 3 yr old system...how does it compare against the canon ds1mkII?
If equal the Phase one P20 is the way to go!
Logged
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2006, 04:39:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
not bad at all.....the P20 is a 3 yr old system...how does it compare against the canon ds1mkII?

You know how you look thru the viewfinder of most any camera, and there's that center area that's sometimes boxed in, and it indicates either the metering area, or the focusing area? Well, that's the basic effect of this camera, or any 645 camera with the p20 mounted on it -- except, in this case, that center area is indicating the actual chip/sensor/taking area.

Unless you're doing copywork or scientific work, where the camera was on a copystand all day, and all you wanted to do was record items over and over, like a catalogue, then I'd suggest this camera is worthless.

Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.

Yes, the Canon is CMOS, but in the end, it's a picture-making machine; very efficient, compared to this P20 approach, on any camera body.
Logged
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2006, 05:24:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You know how you look thru the viewfinder of most any camera, and there's that center area that's sometimes boxed in, and it indicates either the metering area, or the focusing area? Well, that's the basic effect of this camera, or any 645 camera with the p20 mounted on it -- except, in this case, that center area is indicating the actual chip/sensor/taking area.

Unless you're doing copywork or scientific work, where the camera was on a copystand all day, and all you wanted to do was record items over and over, like a catalogue, then I'd suggest this camera is worthless.

Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.

Yes, the Canon is CMOS, but in the end, it's a picture-making machine; very efficient, compared to this P20 approach, on any camera body.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm, seems a bit of a harsh judgement to me.

Of course there is the counter argument that the square crop viewfinder can be an advantage if you like to shoot with visibility outside of the actual capture area - think in terms of how you shoot with the framing lines with a RF camera and use the visibility of what's coming in/out of frame to help with composition. Also, if your preference is for square framing, coming from a 6x6 MF background for instance, then you'll feel very much at home with this arrangement.

Maybe I'm the odd one out here who actually PREFERS this type of arrangement? Heck, I have custom Katz Eyes screens on my D2X's with square composition lines to match the layout I have on my 645AFD II/645M so obviously there's no hope for me....

Anyway, here's [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-firstlook.shtml]Micheal's take on the P25/P20.[/url]

As regards day to day shooting & flexibility, I'd agree with the comparison of the Canon as a picture-making machine vs AFD II/back combo. (I shoot Nikon but the analogy is the same). Even my 'old' 645M produces beautful imagery with the Mamiya platform in 4k x 4k full resolution - it's just not as 'easy' to use as a general camera. The AFD II is pretty darn close though.

This seems like a decent deal to me! There's $4000 worth of camera/lens & Capture One in that package making the P20 basically a $5k digital back. Even used P25's, which are essentially identical but with a slightly larger sensor, still sell for in the $15k+ range on eBay.
Logged

Graham
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2006, 12:23:44 PM »
ReplyReply

mamiya and phase have partnered up and are offering 1000$ off any phase back if you buy it with a 645afdII....this goes for all phase backs....the pricing of the phase backs is very agressive right now...the P21 is a great deal and as much as i like the P20, i think the P21 is the better solution and a 645 afd can be had on ebay for very little...
the promo you are linking to really is just the base 6,990 for the P20 plus the 3,000 (minus 1000) for the mamiya...
regardless: much better file then canon, no comparison....
Logged

kendal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2006, 01:45:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


is this camera really THAT bad an useless?
Logged
ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2006, 01:56:13 PM »
ReplyReply

With respect to the cropped viewfinder it's the same thing as a Kodak DCS Pro Back on the Contax 645 that I once owned.  

I didn't get rid of it for the crop factor..that wasnt a big deal.  And I like shooting square as well.

Rather it didn't have the resolution I wanted for landscape work.  The P20 is a much better back than the Kodak WRT color fidelity, operational ease, servicibility, etc.
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2006, 02:03:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Considering the cropped viewfinder, lower resolution and problems this back creates for wide angles, I'd be more tempted by the ZD.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
tino tedaldi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2006, 02:44:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You know how you look thru the viewfinder of most any camera, and there's that center area that's sometimes boxed in, and it indicates either the metering area, or the focusing area? Well, that's the basic effect of this camera, or any 645 camera with the p20 mounted on it -- except, in this case, that center area is indicating the actual chip/sensor/taking area.

Unless you're doing copywork or scientific work, where the camera was on a copystand all day, and all you wanted to do was record items over and over, like a catalogue, then I'd suggest this camera is worthless.

Sometimes, you DO get what you pay for. There's a reason it's discounted heavily -- it's because they can't give them away. Pick one up for yourself -- you'll know in ten seconds.

Yes, the Canon is CMOS, but in the end, it's a picture-making machine; very efficient, compared to this P20 approach, on any camera body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
kendal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2006, 02:59:22 PM »
ReplyReply

for me it looks like a good price to enter the digital medium format world.
or not?
Logged
tino tedaldi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2006, 03:13:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oops
New to this site as a contributor

  What i wanted to say was this.  taking pictures with dslr is the best 'brain to image' experience I've ever had in a few years of taking pictures.However I do i have an issue, which is a bit irratating, and that is the viewfinder experience of a dslr.If you are doing 'environmantal' portraiture,for instance, it gets hard to see expresion in the viewfinder; so I am being tempted by medium format, not for the quality, but more for the viewfinder experience.Having said this,and by way of contradiction, i am finding a solution; namely using a dslr like a 5x4 and looking 'over' the lens. I'm getting a lot more hits in terms of expression from my subjects this way.

    Does medium format improve the viewfinder experience enough to make the jump?


  regards  tino   www.tinotedaldi.com
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2006, 03:40:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you using a full-frame like a 1Ds/5D or a cropped camera? The cropped cameras have smaller and dimmer viewfinders in general.
Logged

paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2006, 02:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oops
New to this site as a contributor

  What i wanted to say was this.  taking pictures with dslr is the best 'brain to image' experience I've ever had in a few years of taking pictures.However I do i have an issue, which is a bit irratating, and that is the viewfinder experience of a dslr.If you are doing 'environmantal' portraiture,for instance, it gets hard to see expresion in the viewfinder; so I am being tempted by medium format, not for the quality, but more for the viewfinder experience.Having said this,and by way of contradiction, i am finding a solution; namely using a dslr like a 5x4 and looking 'over' the lens. I'm getting a lot more hits in terms of expression from my subjects this way.

    Does medium format improve the viewfinder experience enough to make the jump?
  regards  tino   www.tinotedaldi.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i have exactly the same problem with seeing the smaller details with my 1dsmk2. ive got a h1/p25 now and its heaps easier to focus manually and see the details. but i miss my canon (i had to sell it to afford the MFD) - you just cant pick it up to take a snap. theres aways a bit of a procedure to follow. im missing a real wide as well.

as for the comments on the p20/afd, i know its traditional to have square format, but what pages/ ads/ billboards are square? sure if you bought it for art and square prints, but these cameras are really commerse machines (imho). if you crop a p20, you must be around the 11mp mark, and you must be only using 50% of the viewfinder area (comapred with 645), so many of the advantages of MFD are not there, except maybe 16 bit files.

paul
Logged

check my new website
http://www.paulrossjones.com
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2206


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2006, 02:02:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
for me it looks like a good price to enter the digital medium format world.
or not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you mostly deliver to your clients in a rectangle then a square crop camera is as mark says a bit useless

13MP and very restricted lenses and bad to compose and pricey compared to a 5d kit

If you are portrait/wedding shooter with an established  history/style of delivering square images it could be cool

If you own a pile of Mamiya lenses it could be a cool way to 'digitise' them

If you shoot with a view camera and have time to stitch (interior/still life) it can equal a bigger chip

I am of the opinion that the whole MF digital world is a place to steer clear of completely if budget is an issue

One should only get this overpriced kit if it gives EXACTLY what you have been seeking

I am also of the opinion that all of the gear is actually pretty cheap viewed as part of the cost of running a photography business my MF gear costs less then lots of my other costs - office space, secetary , Vito Van, digital backup and storage etc

So it can be the right thing but probably only for a small segment of people

It is most important to understsnd the quality/lense restrictions caused by the smaller chip before making this jump

Personally Id take a 5d and a pile of glass over this rig
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2006, 07:42:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One should only get this overpriced kit if it gives EXACTLY what you have been seeking

I am also of the opinion that all of the gear is actually pretty cheap viewed as part of the cost of running a photography business my MF gear costs less then lots of my other costs - office space, secetary , Vito Van, digital backup and storage etc

So it can be the right thing but probably only for a small segment of people

It is most important to understsnd the quality/lense restrictions caused by the smaller chip before making this jump

Personally Id take a 5d and a pile of glass over this rig

After shooting this P45 for a few weeks, my opinion is: If you're going to dive into the murky waters of medium format, get one of the giant backs. Don't mess around with the smaller ones, because the 1ds2 or even the 5D can keep up with them, for a fraction of the money.

In film days, you might have kept a 35, a Hasselblad, and maybe even a 4x5. I view the P45 like a 4x5 or even an 8x10, and I view the 1ds2 like a film Hasselblad, but the point is -- there is a huge gap in between the two cameras, and it seems a logical step.

With Canon being so good, and so affordable, why mess around with a P20? It does not make sense. Shoot them side by side -- trust me, the Canon will keep up. But the Canon will NOT keep up with a P45 or A75.

So, either step in DEEP, or don't step in at all. Otherwise, it's potentially wasted money, and lots of wasted time.
Logged
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2006, 08:03:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After shooting this P45 for a few weeks, my opinion is: If you're going to dive into the murky waters of medium format, get one of the giant backs. Don't mess around with the smaller ones, because the 1ds2 or even the 5D can keep up with them, for a fraction of the money.

In film days, you might have kept a 35, a Hasselblad, and maybe even a 4x5. I view the P45 like a 4x5 or even an 8x10, and I view the 1ds2 like a film Hasselblad, but the point is -- there is a huge gap in between the two cameras, and it seems a logical step.

With Canon being so good, and so affordable, why mess around with a P20? It does not make sense. Shoot them side by side -- trust me, the Canon will keep up. But the Canon will NOT keep up with a P45 or A75.

So, either step in DEEP, or don't step in at all. Otherwise, it's potentially wasted money, and lots of wasted time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm asking about this on another thread actually. If you were shooting for your book, which I guess is 11 * 14 and your using a P45 and your printing about full frame then you have to massively downsample the P45, with some quality loss, why would you want to do that rather than use say a P21 ( 18mp) which won't need much dowsampling and therefore won't degrade so much and should therefore look better?
Logged
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2006, 08:21:48 AM »
ReplyReply

It is some talk about downsample here and that it is degrading the image.

Has anyone seen this degrading ( examples ) or is it only a theory?

And is this downsampling in PS or is it as much degrading when

making a smaller image from RAW?

Willow
Logged

Willow Photography
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2006, 08:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is some talk about downsample here and that it is degrading the image.

Has anyone seen this degrading ( examples ) or is it only a theory?

And is this downsampling in PS or is it as much degrading when

making a smaller image from RAW?

Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It depends on the image, downsampling can introduce jaggies on certain images.
Logged
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2006, 08:47:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I understand the theory, but the question is:

has anyone seen it in a real life situation?

There is a lot of theory going around, but I

am only interested in what I can see in print.

Any examples of this degrading??

Willow
Logged

Willow Photography
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2006, 08:54:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I understand the theory, but the question is:

has anyone seen it in a real life situation?

There is a lot of theory going around, but I

am only interested in what I can see in print.

Any examples of this degrading??

Willow
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

no I can't give you an example, I don't keep these things on my hard drive, I have seen it though, it is very slight mind, given the choice though I'd rather not up rez or downrez. Still why the extra resolution if your just going to throw it away 95 percent of the time?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad