The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

upgrade from p30+ to p65+

joegl

Member
shooting p30 and p30+ for about 4 years now, i´m on my way to upgrade to the p65+.
I`m doing 99% of my work in the editorial business ( www.glaescher.de) and would love to have some more usable iso and a full frame sensor one my DF
But:
is there a visible difference between the micro lens sensor ( p30+) and the p65+ sensor in therms of color, moire and usable iso, and a significant difference on battery life and processor performance on my mac pro?

As I do understand the difference between the p65+ and the IQ 160 is only the screen, and a lot of euros, but no difference in image quality? is that right?


thanks for help

Joerg
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
On the difference between the P65+ and IQ 160 on a level of not calling it scientific I think the noise levels are slightly better on the IQ 160 but hell I'm not going to go prove it either. LOL

I shoot a lot of sensor plus and my IQ 160 are extremely clean. Now maybe someone has a better scientific reason for what I am seeing but the IQ 160 in my mind is about the best your gonna get with a sensor outside maybe the 180's.

Now on the P30 and P65 your talking two completely different sensors. Kodak and Dalsa and i have had both of these sensor and the P30+ is a very nice sensor but I like the more neutral files , DR, color and versatility of the Dalsa. I owned the P40 and 160 now for about 2 years now and had the P65 in my hands for a time all based on the same sensor and everything about it I just like much better than the Kodak. So yes you will see a difference between the P30 and P65 no question. In my mind overall i call the P65 a much cleaner back.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I used a P30+ before upgrading to a P45+ and saw no difference other than a slightly less crop. The change from the P45+ to the P65+ was huge. Like Guy said, there's 2-different sensors at play here and I personally feel that the newer Dalsa is much better for color and tones. Plus having the added benefit of a full-frame helps.

I agree with Guy - the P65 to me is a much cleaner back.

Don
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I should add here with many folks asking me which back to get within a budget my main answer is the P65+ or if they can deal with the crop the P40+. I really do have a thing for this sensor.
 

etrump

Well-known member
I'm going to echo Guy and Don. The P65+ has MUCH better color than the P30+.

If you were to downsize a P65+ to P30+ resolution I think you would find the noise much better as well.

If you can live with the 15MP of sensor+ then you'll have comparable noise to any of the newer DSLR sensors (D3/5dmkii) in the normal exposure times you would use for photo journalism. Longer exposures don't seem to do as well in higher ISO noise performance.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
There's still a heck of a lot of good to great deals on P65's out there from dealers who took them in as a trade-up to the IQ's. That's how I got mine...
 

JorisV

New member
My understanding is that the 800 ISO of the P40+ and P65+ without using Sensor+ is not so good as the 800 ISO of the P30+. Is that a correct statement?
 

John Black

Active member
The P30+ noise level at ISO 400 & 800 is very good and essentially on par with my Canon 1Ds Mark III. This is subjective, but I would say the P65+ noise is about 1-stop behind the P30+. In other words, ISO 200 on the P65+ looks about the same as ISO 400 on the P30+. I haven't used Sensor+ much, so no opinion about it yet other than the file looks VERY sharp.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Have nothing to contribute here Joerg, except to say that your work is great ... very imaginative, diverse and well executed. :thumbs:

-Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The P30+ noise level at ISO 400 & 800 is very good and essentially on par with my Canon 1Ds Mark III. This is subjective, but I would say the P65+ noise is about 1-stop behind the P30+. In other words, ISO 200 on the P65+ looks about the same as ISO 400 on the P30+. I haven't used Sensor+ much, so no opinion about it yet other than the file looks VERY sharp.
Sensor plus is good right to ISO 1600 I use it a lot. Full res. ISO 800 is good but ISO 400 is really good. I personally stay under 800 on full Rez. But you can use some noise programs that work good. The P30 is yes better at the higher ISO but remember its also half the resolution as well so we have to keep that in mind. In a way the 160 is actually better since you can down size it if needed. Now sensor plus maybe only 15 mpx but being MF it acts more like 20 as the files hold a ton of detail in them . ISO 800 is awesome with sensor plus. You need to get past 1600 grab a Can/Nik if your playing that high. I never get past 1600 myself.
 

John Black

Active member
I've been playing with Sensor+ ISO 400 and the files look very sharp - the downsizing reminds me of something akin to a P25 file in terms of acuity. I need to shoot 60 MP at ISO 400 and 800 and decide where the cut-over to Sensor+ should be. I'm guessing ISO 400 could go either way.

I'm in the fortunate position to still have the Canon 1Ds3, so if I find myself using Sensor+, then it makes more sense to use the Canon 1Ds3 which can go a lot further given that an F1.4 buys a couple stops as well. And if I'm shooting ISO 400 or 800, the odds are it's pretty crappy conditions (low light), so dSLR handling will be better.

The P30+ definitely deserves credit for its ISO 800 performance. ISO 1600 could be hit or miss and really depended on the subject matter content and the type of lighting. In terms of ISO performance, the Leica M9 and P30+ felt very, very similar in the ISO 400-1250 range.

If somebody from Phase could say for an absolute fact that the IQ160 was a 1/2 stop better in the ISO department, that would factor into my decision analysis. If the non-Sensor+ ISO 400 on the IQ160 looked as good as the P65+'s ISO 200 (non-Sensor+), I would be thoroughly impressed.

In 2012 I would really like to see Phase release some F2 lenses. DOF at F2 would be merciless, but still, having F2 and this current ISO performance means these digital backs can do so much more today than just 4 or 5 years ago. I'll probably pick-up a 80/1.9 just to goof around with.
 

paulrossjones

New member
I've shot a fair bit with a p30+, but now have a p65+. like people have mentioned, the p30+ is at least a stop more sensitive.
but the files on the p65+ looked at at 100 % seem quite a bit crisper than the p30+ files at 100 % imo, i guess the micro lenses soften the image a little.

the really big thing about the p65+ over a cropped chip sensor (i had a p40+ before my p65+) is that you can throw away the viewfinder crops and use the viewfinder in all it glory.

the sensor plus 15mp files are similar to my canon 5d (less iso tho), but is great when you are shooting two types of parts in a shot- i.e., shooting large file back grounds, but then need to shoot the smaller elements to comp into the big file.

but like all phase backs pre- touch screen, the screens are bloody useless. i would love a iq160, but reluctant to invest 10k+ for a screen- especially when i think medium format as we know it is on its last legs.

paul
 

etrump

Well-known member
Two things to remember about sensor+: first it is more like a bicubic downsize from 60mp to 15mp. Secondly you don't have an anti-aliasing filter. Noise levels aside, combine the two and you have close to two stops better detail than a 16mp DSLR. Compares favorably to the 21-24mp dSLRs.
 
Top