Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: full frame phase 1 P45?  (Read 2672 times)
stefan s
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: September 21, 2005, 07:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello, Can someone clear up for me what is meant by full frame in the phase one P45 digital back when the size of the chip is approximately 4.9 cm x 3.7, and yet my contax 645 negative is approximately 5.6 cm x 4.2cm.
Thanks for any replies
Stefan
Logged
dazzajl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2005, 08:30:36 AM »
ReplyReply

As far as I can tell, the term full frame when used by digi back compaines is little more than "near enough is good enough" marketing.

The fact that it's close-ish to 645 film size means that your lenses will fit  into the same wide, standard and tele range brackets that they do now. Rather than a wide lens becomming a standard etc as it would with the smaller chips.

Since I use my digi back on a 5x4 camera I guess it's going to be a while yet before I'm seriously asking the same question myself.  ::
Logged
stefan s
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2005, 08:37:55 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks dazzajl. Yes, I then read the luminous lanscapes review of the P45 back and understand that the crop factor is about 1.1 for the 645 lenses. I guess that this is certainly good enough considering that the quality of the files should be outstanding. What digi back do you have? I am seriously thinking of investing in the P45 since the P25 has has such great reviews. Any thoughts?
Thanks, Stefan
Logged
dazzajl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2005, 08:52:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What digi back do you have?

I've had the Leaf Valeo 11 for a while but I'm changing up to the 17 in a couple of weeks.

I did some very deep research at the time when I was buying but tend to try and avoid too much info on the latest versions once I've decided, as the market moves soooooo fast. It's all too easy to get caught up worrying that the next version offers twice as much as yours for about the same money.

I can certainly tell you that I've been more than happy with the 11, as have all the clients that I've supplied from it. My reason for moving up a little to the 17 is so I can make quite a substantial crop into the file and still output an A3 sized image at 300dpi.

I would strongly advise you to at least look at the option of a slightly smaller MP count as you might not need to go as far as the 45 to get the size and detail you need. Obviously this "changes" how your lenses will work but even if you need to spend on expanding your glassware it could be ALOT cheaper than dealing with the massive depreciation of the new model backs.
Logged
stefan s
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2005, 11:41:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I know, but if investing so much money, suddenly the $13 000 difference doesn't seem so much. It may sound strange but the difference between 2000 and 4000 seems more than the difference between 20 000 and 33 000. And so I feel as though I want to have as full frame as possible so that my contax wide angle stays wide, for example. I am a bit worried about the file size, but I'm hoping that I will be able to accommodate my PC parameters accordingly. But you may be right. I should possibly give more thought to how much difference it would make to have a few more millimetres of chip for the extra money, and save the money for other hardware. Thanks for your thoughts
Logged
dazzajl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2005, 12:57:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Dont forget that with sales of those values the reps are going to be VERY accomodating. Have each company bring along a few different backs for you to try on your Contax in the studio, on location or even both. Then you can wade through the results at your leisure and base your purchase on what system best meets your needs and maximises the return on your spend.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad