Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Phase Plus Backs, worth upgrade?  (Read 4489 times)
yodelyo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« on: August 27, 2007, 06:47:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I am thinking of buying a P21 for my contax, hopefully a refurb , demo, used. My other option is a P21+ but it looks like it will cost $5000 more and does not seem to be worth it:
-dynamic range is the same
-color rendition the same
-LCD preview still bad
-ISO gain of only one stop, actually just less noise but have yet to hear any actual reports on this.

anyone want to comment on this?
Logged
william
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2007, 07:18:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Below are my responses based on experiene with a P30 and then P30+.

Quote from: yodelyo,Aug 27 2007, 11:47 PM
-dynamic range is the same

Probably close, I never did any comprehensive tests.

-color rendition the same

Yeah, I guess, but I process the files from any camera to get a particular color "look" anyway.  For the record though, I found the color accuracy between the P30 and the P30+ to be roughly the same, meaning good.

-LCD preview still bad

LCD is MUCH better.  Why do you say it's still bad?

-ISO gain of only one stop, actually just less noise but have yet to hear any actual reports on this.

There is much less noise at higher ISOs. In my opinion, ISO 800 on the P30+ looked like ISO 400 on the regular P30, i.e., just on the right side of useable, depending on exposure.  ISO 400 on the Plus looked like ISO 200 on the regular P30, i.e., regularly useable.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2007, 07:18:48 PM by william » Logged
yodelyo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2007, 08:45:32 PM »
ReplyReply

LCD is MUCH better. Why do you say it's still bad?


thanks for your comprehensive reply, very useful.

I had heard that the new LCD is " a bit better " so it is good to hear that it is actually much better. Still, based on your reply I will go with the older version because the improvments do not merit the extra 5 Grand.
Logged
stevecoleccs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2007, 09:03:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I just received my 30+ last week. Here are my comments -

- Screen is Great! Like on a 1 DS MKll - twice as bright as the P30, clean & crisp
- shooting at 800 is like shooting at 400 on the old back
- shooting at 1600 will work if I have to use it with noise reduction tweaking
- shoots a little faster than the P30 - the speed is not twice as fast faster still
- color looks the same to me - I'm no scientist - Edmund you out there?
- shoots continuous on an 8 gig card - I have not tried more than 15 frames yet

Other than that I am wondering if 4.0 software will make any processing or noise
differences at a high iso

Bottom line - if you have the cash spent it - it's not like your spending 5K, more
like 2.5K because of the resale or trade in value on the new 30+

~ cole
Logged

erikhillard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2007, 09:19:18 PM »
ReplyReply

ISOs are improved.  Speed gain is negligible.
Logged


Erik Hillard

Running Pixels
http://www.runningpixels.net/
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2007, 09:35:34 PM »
ReplyReply

i am on the fence and so far haven't upgraded my P30...for one i still haven't seen anything worth 7000 (which is what it would cost me)....the screen and one stop don't justify the price for me.....read michael's review of the P45+ and he seems to find an extra stop in DR.....that would make it worthwile for me....but until LR supports + files i am in no hurry....

the + backs also have the phase live view solution.....after seeing the canon 1dmkIII live view, the phase looks like kinda like b&w TV versus color TV....so that would just make me sad....

if i would get a new back now i would probably get the +, just because.....unless you find a great refurb deal....if you shoot low iso and don't trust the screen regardless (i barely trust my macbook pro screen) then a refurb P back is the way to go......especially considering that you should be able to get a refurb P30 for similar money as a new P21+....

i agree with previous posters...color is subjective and i tweak it the way i like it...i am not sure what "true color" really is....i have never had any problems matching a fabric color...not even with the P20....there is so much that goes on after capture and after processing (in conversions and printing) that this is just not an issue for me....
Logged

Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2007, 11:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the LCD is cleaner and brighter, but honestly, it's still sadly lacking. You never could hold it up and show an AD that screen, if there was money on the table.

Thus, it requires tethering. So, in effect, the LCD is still pretty useless.

I found color in the plus backs to be identical, if not worse. In both P45+ and P30+. More green. Green is good, I guess, if you're a landscape guy, but green ain't good if you're a people guy.

Yes, better at high ASAs. Cleaner files.

The whole thing reminds me of when you get a new G5 -- you read the specs, and get excited, thinking it's going to blow the doors off the last G5, and then, you turn it on, and it's pretty much just like the last one you had. Same kinda thing applies with the Phase Plus series to me. I actually refused the P45+ and traded it for a P30+. And in the end, I use the P21+, which was going to be a back-up insurance policy. The P21+ is super fast, and with a IV card, never makes you wait. I end up rezzing down even the P21+ files most of the time, so I'm not in need of gigantic, pipe-clogging files, at least for commercial work. The P21+ is just fine.

I just don't want to lay my eyes on that LCD of the new Canon. When you get into a 3 inch LCD size, now you're getting serious. Why Phase can't make a usable LCD just makes me wonder. The whole Phase design seems long in the tooth, to me. Fine if you're a catalogue guy, tethered in one spot, to a Mac, but beyond that, I'm not sure...

Just one opinion. Everybody's style is different.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2007, 11:06:20 PM by Mark_Tucker » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3644



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2007, 03:41:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I found color in the plus backs to be identical, if not worse. In both P45+ and P30+. More green. Green is good, I guess, if you're a landscape guy, but green ain't good if you're a people guy.

Just one opinion. Everybody's style is different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mark, you could try my new profiles for your backs. I would like your opinion. Send me an email to (edmundronald at gmail dot com, not the forum email) , and I'll send you some profiles. I would appreciate if in exchange you send me some Raw files to help with the testing.


Edmund
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 03:51:22 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2007, 03:52:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One significant difference is that the old backs are more sensitive to IR. As a result they will have a tendency to go magenta in some situations, and this tendency is probably overcorrected a bit roughly in the original profiles.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If that green is the result of over-correction, then what Ronald is saying makes a lot of sense.  Mark, try and have Ronald make you a tipware profile and see if that helps.

Henry
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2007, 08:04:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If that green is the result of over-correction, then what Ronald is saying makes a lot of sense.  Mark, try and have Ronald make you a tipware profile and see if that helps.

Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey Mark remember when the client only had polaroids to look at...:+}
Boy people have sure got picky..:+}
Anyways have you tried or seen the Leaf systems. Their LCD are supposed to be really good and bright even in daylight outdoors.
I also believe the P45+ is just over kill unless your doing gallery prints 5'X7'.
Where I live I do mainly catalogue and Billboards and the 1DsMII has been just perfect.
Still have the itch to go MF, But not sure if it will be worth it.
Snook
Logged
RicAgu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2007, 11:00:04 AM »
ReplyReply

All backs suck in bright light outdoors.

I have not gone plus yet and seriously doubt I will.  The P25 at 100 and 200 is just fine.  The P45 up to 400 is useable.  The current software is rock solid.

Capture speeds match the recycle time of my strobe packs within a second, unless bi-tubing it.  When shooting daylight, tungsten & HMI it can be a bit slow.

I am seriously considering the AFI when it arrives glitch free.  I spoke with the Sinar rep the other day and he said the Sinar version of the Rollei will be shipping in September no later than October.  Leaf Capture now being rock stable and the centerfold issue resolved.  Leaf is finally a contender.

There are no better lenses than the schneider lenses.  Plus, I miss the waist level finder and/or a 45 degree prism.  If you have no need for Autofocus then the 50/2.8, 80/2.0, 90/4.0 macro and 180/2.8 are best lenses on the market bar none.  The 6008i was an amazing system and coupled with the Rollie X-Act was ahead of its time.

Well, there is my RANT for the day.  

BTW, anyone with a Phase One back should be using or trying Edmund's profiles.  They are amazing!
Logged
Randal32
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2007, 11:04:45 AM »
ReplyReply

screen is still terrible compared to dslrs.  in fact, it's terrible compared to my wife's canon elf 3 inch LCD.

The only time you can use the extra speed is when shooting to a card, not computer.  I cant shoot any faster to a computer than when I had to p30.

in my opinion.  MFDB's are in trouble now that the canon's got the s mark III.

with that said, at the end of the day, the phase back is 10X better than any canon, including the new 1Ds III ....

sorry to get off subject.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2007, 11:06:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey Mark remember when the client only had polaroids to look at...:+}
Boy people have sure got picky..:+}
Anyways have you tried or seen the Leaf systems. Their LCD are supposed to be really good and bright even in daylight outdoors.
I also believe the P45+ is just over kill unless your doing gallery prints 5'X7'.
Where I live I do mainly catalogue and Billboards and the 1DsMII has been just perfect.
Still have the itch to go MF, But not sure if it will be worth it.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What do you mean the Leaf screen is good in daylight outdoors? It really sucks outdoors. It is hardly visible enough to make alterations in the settings.  They should either put in a better screen or immediately supply some sort of hood to attach to the screen.

Indeed basically all MFDB screens are worthless outside. Last week I totally missed the fact my CF was out of sync with my camera (had it on x instead of m) and everything was magenta! So much for the usability of screens outside.

Even with all the glitches and quirks, I just love working with MFDB's. The reward is in the results.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 11:07:26 AM by Dustbak » Logged
erikhillard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2007, 02:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
in my opinion.  MFDB's are in trouble now that the canon's got the s mark III.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Not until Canon redesigns their lenses.  :-)


The only sample Mark III image I have seen was shot at f1.2 or something..  Sure hard to tell what the files really look like at that low of depth of field..
Logged


Erik Hillard

Running Pixels
http://www.runningpixels.net/
jeff_singer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2007, 05:06:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I was using the P25 for a few months and then moved to the P25+ when it became available.

To me, there is a huge improvement.  Primarily with noise.  Before I barely even wanted to shoot 200 ISO, now I am more than happy to shoot 400 and wouldn't even have a problem with 800.

As for the color, I would say the P25+ tops the P25, but its not a huge difference.

The LCD is SIGNIFICANTLY better one the P25+.  Now, its not a large LCD you find on even Prosumer cameras, but relative to the P25, the + has a much better LCD.

WRT file differences, I must say that I was shooting the P25 on a Hasselblad V system while I'm using the P25+ on a Contax 645.  So, its not quite apples to apples since I'm using different lenses.  But I doubt the file noise improvements have much to do with the lenses.

Jeff

Jeff Singer Photography Blog
Logged

jeff singer | photography
http://jeffsingerphotography.com/blog
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2007, 08:09:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If that green is the result of over-correction, then what Ronald is saying makes a lot of sense.

I find that most all of the canned profiles for PhaseOne are way too saturated for skin tones and faces. I normally choose a buried profile that they supply, called "Phase One No Color Correction", which is much calmer on faces, and then I salt to taste, and work from there.

Maybe it's the grey days and lack of sun in Denmark, but I find that most all their profiles are way too punchy and garish. It seems to be fine for landscape or product, but for people, not so good.

I'm actually amazed that ICC input profiles are not talked about more, because they can really change the way you'd judge a particular file, or back. NCC is much more gentle, and then you can use the Color Editor to create your own profile, or just start with NCC, and use the sliders from there.

It's just the way that I work; not necessarily the best way for anyone else.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2007, 08:18:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I find that most all of the canned profiles for PhaseOne are way too saturated for skin tones and faces. I normally choose a buried profile that they supply, called "Phase One No Color Correction", which is much calmer on faces, and then I salt to taste, and work from there.

Maybe it's the grey days and lack of sun in Denmark, but I find that most all their profiles are way too punchy and garish. It seems to be fine for landscape or product, but for people, not so good.

I'm actually amazed that ICC input profiles are not talked about more, because they can really change the way you'd judge a particular file, or back. NCC is much more gentle, and then you can use the Color Editor to create your own profile, or just start with NCC, and use the sliders from there.

It's just the way that I work; not necessarily the best way for anyone else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

another reason why i prefer LR....in C1 i just constantly tweak the colors and the extra interface just does not work that well....in LR i have more control over the colors PLUS the tones in one interface....they go hand in hand....i am not sure i like the whole profile idea at all....and i would be a prime canidate...i shoot the same lights in the same studio with the same back....but everybody looks different and everybodys skin is different and i move my lights....so profiles do not work for me at all....
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3644



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2007, 02:42:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I find that most all of the canned profiles for PhaseOne are way too saturated for skin tones and faces. I normally choose a buried profile that they supply, called "Phase One No Color Correction", which is much calmer on faces, and then I salt to taste, and work from there.

Maybe it's the grey days and lack of sun in Denmark, but I find that most all their profiles are way too punchy and garish. It seems to be fine for landscape or product, but for people, not so good.

I'm actually amazed that ICC input profiles are not talked about more, because they can really change the way you'd judge a particular file, or back. NCC is much more gentle, and then you can use the Color Editor to create your own profile, or just start with NCC, and use the sliders from there.

It's just the way that I work; not necessarily the best way for anyone else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mark,

 Doing as you describe will of course give your images a unique "signature" look. The fact that you and James have this superb color judgment is the reason I read your posts on RG and here with great interest.

My real problem with making profiles for third parties is that convention imposes altered skin tones. I look carefully at people in the street and they have often have some magenta in their faces but this is forbidden in pictures so I have to edit it out of the profiles. Pretty european girls often have pale peach-textured faces, but in pictures they're supposed to look sun-tanned so I need to have some skin-sat profiles. Chinese people tend to have yellowish skins, but this is supposed to turn miraculously into ghostlike white when the photographer has snapped them so I need some desat profiles ...

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2007, 07:49:04 AM »
ReplyReply

It has always amazed me that PhaseOne does not offer at least twenty to fifty different canned profiles. I could see the case for at least ten to twenty for skin tones alone.

Instead, you're given OutdoorDaylight, PortraitNatural, Flash, Tungsten, etc. Within skin tones and faces alone, there are many many issues to deal with, and in Phase's case, it's mostly with magenta reduction around the eyes, and the lips.

A new user of their product is forced to immediately learn The Color Editor, in order to get even close to acceptable results. That Phase ignores this, just amazes me. But maybe they sell mostly to product and architectural guys; I do not know. What I do know is -- out of the box, the Phase is not ready to shoot skin.

This is what keeps retouchers in business, (and what keeps most people flocking to Canon).

I use Phase, but I have absolutely no love for them. It could be a truly great product, but even with loads of continual quality feedback, they keep their head in the sand and trudge along at their lumbering pace. Very sad.
Logged
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2007, 09:38:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I use Phase, but I have absolutely no love for them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Would you mind if I use that as my signature?

Ken
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad