Phase One P25

[thsinar]

I agree with you: ways too much sharpening.

Thierry

Victor,
With all due respect, the artifacts showing up in your posted image are NOT a product of the glass, but of the processing. You can get that "crunchy" appearance using Lieca's best or Sigma's worst glass, so saying that Zeiss is better than Mamiya glass is sort of pointless here, when the issue is processing related. This image is oversharpened, be that from the first pass in C1, or the Genuine Fractals conversion. It exhibits very characteristic signs of multiple levels of too much USM. Sorry. I process over a 100K images a year, and this image suffers from too much sharpening at the least. Not going to argue with you about colors so much, as that is your personal taste in output, but whatever you did with sharpening, you overcooked it in this one. If your Zeiss glass is as good as you think it to be, you should be able to get by with way, way less sharpening than this and still have outstanding results. It is NOT the glass, but the processing here.

LJ

 

[schweikert]

Guy,

I love seeing your shots from San Juan. I was in Puerto Rico in the fall of 2006 and spent a week shooting for fun. I feel like I'm back there looking at your shots. I see your waterfall shot so I guess you headed in the direction of the rain forest. Did you get a chance to climb to the top of the rain forest? That was one of the most captivating experiencs I had there. San Juan is stunning as well with the colors, old and new spanish style exteriors.

I had tested a ZD back just as they became available in town last Sept or so. The early ones had some image quality issues that put me off. I know Mamiya fixed the problem and moved on but the speed of the back was just too slow. I wound up getting an Aptus 22 at Photoplus for Mamiya mount and haven't looked back. When you nail shots on a digital back, I don't know why, but there is an unexplainable zen feeling that surpasses the best 35mm digital systems.

Best of luck on your new P25+. I looked at a P25 at Capture Integration either end of '06 or in '07, can't remember. The files you are showing are so much superior at the higher ISO than what I saw then. I think the software side has made serious leaps in image quality. Props to Phase for that.

John

 

[PeterA]

FLAT .Come on man there is more punch than we can deal with. These look like Kodachrome 25. Victor I love ya but give up the Zeiss glass is God thing and Mamiya is crap. Do you honestly think I am dumb enough to shoot crappy glass. You know me i am a glass alcoholic. It does not get much better than this

that background bokeh is just beautiful!! :bugeyes:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks John and Peter . Yes just stepping it up a notch really does pay off so far. I just was a dummy and avoided it so long but MF is the answer and i loved my Leica's and they compare well but the detail and such is so nice.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Just wanted to add something . All of the Phase backs can take the Canon BP-915 batteries. I just bought two of them and they work just fine and there pretty cheap like 30 dollars each. Case in point my ZD battery from Mamiya cost 150 dollars but resourceful Jack found you can use a Minolta battery for 20 bucks. Just thought this would be helpful for the Phase owners and folks thinking that direction. I think Aptus you can find video camera batteries also. So look around but these work.

 

[fotografz]

Yes, the P25 I miss. it may not be the ISO but here is color depth I don't QUITE see in the P45+ (can add in post though!)

anyway, I also see a difference in the glass here. TO ME (do I always need to say that! ) the Contax glass just has more dimensionality. It sort of like thge difference Robert pointed out between the Nikon D3 images and the Leica.
Maybe its the micro contrast. who knows

but hey, Phase will change the mount for a nominal fee if you decide to change Guy!

Anyway, we are talking versions of great IQ. MF is
"sumfin differnret, yes?"

Regards
Victor

The Mamiya/Phase IQ looks way better than those shots Victor. Those weren't from a Contax were they? It looks flat as a pancake, the edging is horrible, and the DR looks like a point & shoot.

 

[fotografz]

The raw processing was

C1 to Tiff

Tiff to 8bit jpgs

yes, likely I did not take off the 34% sharpening in C1 but then to get to 950 I use genuine fractels

The crop has some halo
so what, not what I am talking about

On saturation, have you been to the ochre mine in Roussilon?

Hey, you like one glass, I like another, but don't jump to the conclusion that it is oversaturated and oversharpened. It suggests you see something better and think there is some trick involved! LOL

Now, lets focus on what I was talking about. Many of the images in this thread from I suppose mamiya glass look a bit flat. The image I selected from many, seems to have some extra dimensionality. It is similar to what Robert says he saw in the difference between Nikon and Leica glass.

Victor, if that is "something better" ... no thanks ... LOL!

It is a FLAT image. The people look cut out and pasted in ... then hand colored. My Nikon D300 can do better ... let alone the D3 you like to denigrate.

Sorry, I know what the Contax glass is capable of (even using a 16 meg back) ... and that isn't it.

Dimensionality has far more to do with the use of light than the subtile differences that one optic or another may provide.

IMO, Guy's torture tests do nothing more than help show how one can retrieve light that can escape smaller sensor cameras.

 

[fotografz]

We need Irakly to pop in here to show what a Contax 645 and Phase P25 22 meg back can do

 

[Guy Mancuso]

A lot. LOL

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well just found another lens to work with. I have a old Hassy 120mm F4 CF macro lens and with this Fotodiox adapter I bought on flea bay for 70 bucks it really looks nice. Shot most of these wide open except for the flag at F8. i can get pretty close with this and maybe good for the studio

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Looks like i can get very close to things

 

[Dale Allyn]

Guy, I like the bokeh of these shots more than some of the MF digital shots I've been seeing. The "blur" is very smooth in these, and doesn't show that crunchiness or jarring type of bokeh we sometimes see. Perhaps some of the other samples I've been looking at are suffering from jpeg compression issues, but these images have a beautiful texture to them.

I'm a Canon 85 f/1.2 or 135 f/2 type of guy and have been worried about some of the bokeh patterns I've been seeing.

Thanks for posting these.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I can get closer with this lens but it does have nice bokeh from what I m seeing. May have to press this into service more than i am thinking. Nice colors coming from it also

 

[Dale Allyn]

The colors do look good, Guy. Web comparisons of jpegs is never ideal, but it's fun to see all the samples being shared.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes the folks here on the MF forum have been awesome sharing all this stuff. i think we are all learning a lot about the different systems which to me is what we exactly want to see around here , be informed and make good decisions.