Phase P25 vs the Phase 65 Plus backs

[Guy Mancuso]

I shot two sample test shots and trying to get unpacked and caught up here but I did finally find the P65 shots. The P65 is not a production unit but it is a better unit than I tried two months ago. Thanks to Doug for bringing this along. Several folks really shot a lot of images with it and hopefully they will post them when they get a chance . Okay tech details same body and lens just switched backs . Mirror locked up at ISO 50 at 1/40 and F11 with the 80d. Take out ALL the variables like this. I did WB off the same piece of white snow and processed in C1 at there default levels except I have a very slight base sharpening on which was the same.

P25 than P65 and I will work on crops later

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Camera at same spot and you can see the extra FF of the P65. As noted before in previous tests there is a slight DR difference and a slight color difference. The P65 has a touch more DR and color is slightly different but of course that can be adjusted either way too

 

[Guy Mancuso]

This is tough because obviously there is a different magnification here and the P65 does not look as good but you need to actually down rez it to the P25 size to make any meaningful comparison but this just gives you a idea and I am NOT going into all that pixel peeping today. Either back is extremely good and my opinion is this either one get's it done in a big way. Yes the P65 does have more detail , not earth shattering but it is there. To me the P65 worth is it's speed and the sensor Plus technology going into it plus some other things Steve has brought up. yes if i had the money this back makes actually sense to me for those features and going forward those features will be very useful. I'm not here to sell you a P65 by any means and it certainly has it's merit but so does the money in my pocket also have merit. But if you need or want the biggest boat on the lake this is it. I only need to impress clients and my P25 plus does that all day long.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Now to be more fair of the P65 I down rezed it to the P25 plus size and redid the crop accordingly and as you can see has more detail

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Once again the P25 right next to it

 

[Guy Mancuso]

End of the day and bottom line the P65 Plus has some real meat to chew on.

 

[Howard Cubell]

To me the P65 worth is it's speed and the sensor Plus technology going into it plus some other things Steve has brought up. yes if i had the money this back makes actually sense to me for those features and going forward those features will be very useful. I'm not here to sell you a P65 by any means and it certainly has it's merit but so does the money in my pocket also have merit. But if you need or want the biggest boat on the lake this is it. I only need to impress clients and my P25 plus does that all day long.

Two questions I would ask myself, Guy, in evaluating the reasons you mention for upgrading from a P25 or P45 to a P65. First, how do the 15 mp high(er) ISO files at, say, 1600 ISO with the P65 compare with 24mp 1600 ISO files from a D3X? (How many D3X cameras can you buy for the cost of the P65 upgrade?) Second, the P65 sensor is upgradeable. Great. What are the future upgrades? When can you count on them being made?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Questions I do not have answers for yet. Sensor Plus is NOT installed on this pre-production unit so no word on high ISO . But i look at the second part of it like this a D3x is a completely new system I do not have so what is the cost of it plus the lenses to go with it and frankly a D3x is not a MF that performs at those standards. It maybe a great camera but it will not have anywhere the performance of a MF back and a MF will never be a 8 fps per second DSLR. 2 different animals and 2 two different systems. If one does not have a complete Nikon system which is not cheap either than in a sense having one system do two different tasks is a benefit. Frankly i would never buy a 35mm system to replace my MF system in the first place since it never would compare but as a supplemental system to it than sure I would own one and even thinking about buying one. My upgrade to the P65 is too large in costs for a 45 plus shooter it is obviously less costly. So for me in terms of real dollars maybe 2 separate systems although I still see some value in the P65 even with the cost to upgrade. As far as future upgrades i do not know personally and that remains to be seen but I don't see any upgrades from any sensor either for Hassy, Sinar or Leaf at least Phase says it can be done with this sensor, no one else can claim that with the current backs.

 

[jlm]

in my humble opinion, one has to reach to appreciate the differences. Wouldn't we be better served by a full format back, rather than a denser array of receptors on a cropped sensor? Speaking as a sq format aficiondo, how many of us would love to see that 40mm lens do its thing on a 6x6cm 9 micron sensor

 

[PeterA]

in my humble opinion, one has to reach to appreciate the differences. Wouldn't we be better served by a full format back, rather than a denser array of receptors on a cropped sensor? Speaking as a sq format aficiondo, how many of us would love to see that 40mm lens do its thing on a 6x6cm 9 micron sensor

Agree whole heartedly

 

[eleanorbrown]

About 9 micron sensors and their advantages. I owned a P25 and now own a P45+ and comparing the files I don't see the advantages of a 9 micron over my 6.8 micron sensor in my 45+. I assume 9 micron sensors are capable of better high iso output (more photons, etc), yet the high iso on my P25 files is no better than the high iso on my 45+ files (in my opinion). Enlighten me please as to the advantages. I'm considering working out an upgrade to a P65+ and that is down to 6 microns---way smaller than 9 microns. Many thanks! Eleanor

in my humble opinion, one has to reach to appreciate the differences. Wouldn't we be better served by a full format back, rather than a denser array of receptors on a cropped sensor? Speaking as a sq format aficiondo, how many of us would love to see that 40mm lens do its thing on a 6x6cm 9 micron sensor

 

[ddk]

Hi Guy,

Question for you, more than sharpness I'm interest in the DR of P65 vs you P25+. I'd really appreciate it if you could shoot a couple of extreme DR situations, like shooting outdoors from indoors or from inside a cave and maybe over expose some of the shots by 2-3 stops to see how these backs compare.

 

[gogopix]

ok, I'm gonna take heat for this!
:ROTFL:

.BUTTTTTTTT

neither crop at 100% looks sharp

The downres 65 shows how I see really using the extra MPs... no need for sharpening

but if I look at these at 100% and I look at the ones I posted, (the 64GB nonsense thread the latter seem sharper (will admit I used default sharpening in C1 v4)

is that the difference?

Victor

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Depends on your default settings Victor. Also look at rocks more than tree's . Wind was present. I have a very thin base of sharpening. The DR as we have seen in previous test Jack and i did is about the most 3/4 of a stop over the P25 plus and a 1/3 or so over the P45 Plus. What confuses people on the P25 is it has better local contrast over the 45 and 65 and a little less DR so it crunches slightly which gives the appearance of sharp. It's a great sensor but the end of the day the P45 and P65 resolve more detail. Trust me i would like to have a P45 but the P25 plus is no slouch at all. There NOT huge differences between the backs , it's there and it really comes to play when printing large sizes. Anyone of these three backs are extremely good in reality. Also the P65 Victor is not sized exactly down to the P25 plus there still is the extra FF room present. Folks need to look at the old thread we did because we moved the camera to match the cropping and such. Detail was not something I was really after here , wanted to see how well the color and DR are now that it has some improvements. What we need to see in the production units is noise levels and things like that we could not test in previous pre production units.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Guy
Well, I've looked at these and thought about it, and obviously the P65 is the better . . . in terms of both DR and detail.
It may not be quite as much better than one would imagine, but it's obviously better.

In which case, the same logic of buying the P25 over the Mamiya is irresistable - you are simply going to have to buy one (and quickly I'd say)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL i am just waiting to see what the Production unit with sensor plus looks like. I suspect that will be upgraded soon and we can learn more about it's capabilities and upgrade path. But yes the 65 is a sweet heart. It's got the detail no question

 

[jonoslack]

LOL i am just waiting to see what the Production unit with sensor plus looks like. I suspect that will be upgraded soon and we can learn more about it's capabilities and upgrade path. But yes the 65 is a sweet heart. It's got the detail no question

Just trying to be helpful :ROTFL:

 

[fotografz]

Guy, thanks for all your hard work in doing this. :thumbup: Sure it's fun .... but it's also work .... and sometimes thankless work at that.

I think this is an excellent demonstration that defines MF Digital ... making the initial step from 35mm Digital remains the biggest one :clap:... then all the others are incremental improvements. I also think the degree of those increments is dependant on what and how you are shooting.

I suspect that the prowess of a 60 meg capture will be revealed more obviously when shooting challenging subjects in the studio. For example, I know that many folks can't see a huge difference between my little 16 meg CFV back and my H3D-II/39 when I shoot some scenes around town or like the Dream Cruise car stuff I've posted in the past. However, same subjects shot by both cameras in the studio is an eye opener. :bugeyes: It's an even bigger eye popper when using a view camera with APO digitar optics.

Those that even remotely think that the high meg 35mm DSLR big dogs can run with this pack of Alpha Wolves needs to up the ante when making the comparisons. It's then that the 35mm digital pups reveal themselves as "sheep in wolves clothing." Trust me on this ... I've tried it with my Canon 1DsMKIII and now a Sony 12 bit, 25 megger with Zeiss optics :thumbdown: ... when I get my mits on a 14 bit Nikon D3X I'll try that also ... but I already know the answer. Baaa, Baaa, Baaalony.

My quest is still for a MF multishot ... which to date I've not seen beat by anything available. :thumbs: Obviously, not for applications such as your landscape examples Guy, strictly for controlled studio environments. Horses for courses.

 

[Howard Cubell]

Those that even remotely think that the high meg 35mm DSLR big dogs can run with this pack of Alpha Wolves needs to up the ante when making the comparisons. It's then that the 35mm digital pups reveal themselves as "sheep in wolves clothing." Trust me on this ... I've tried it with my Canon 1DsMKIII and now a Sony 12 bit, 25 megger with Zeiss optics :thumbdown: ... when I get my mits on a 14 bit Nikon D3X I'll try that also ... but I already know the answer. Baaa, Baaa, Baaalony.

My quest is still for a MF multishot ... which to date I've not seen beat by anything available. :thumbs: Obviously, not for applications such as your landscape examples Guy, strictly for controlled studio environments. Horses for courses.

I, at least ,was not suggesting that the the 60mp files from the P65 at base ISO would not offer real, tangible advantages in terms of resolution over a D3X. Phase has stated that the resolution advantages of the P65 over the P45 are relatively modest and not the "real" justification for upgrading. To Phase, the "real" benefits are the ability to shoot cleaner higher ISO files at 15mp, along with future, but yet to be identified, upgrades in the sensor. It is there where I feel the big fallacy lies. I have little doubt that a 15mp file from a P65 at 1600 ISO will fare poorly compared to a 24mp file from a D3X at 1600 ISO. I don't shoot at anything other base ISO and do not even own a DSLR, but if I wanted to shoot at high ISO (and I would presumably also want world class AF to go with it), I would get myself a D3X for the 1/3 the price of the upgrade from a P45 to a P65. (And get a gorgeous LCD thrown in as well.)

 

[eleanorbrown]

I don't understand this statement by Phase that the resolution of the 65+ over the 45+ is not a good reason for upgrading. To me the iso 1600 at 15 mg.pixels is a joke for me personally at this upgrade price point and is not even a consideration for a upgrade. I have a 45+ and find the increased resolution a very good reason to upgrade as I do landscape work with lots of very fine detail which can always benefit by very fine resolution. I'm also interested is the prospect of having less color cast in the P65+ files along with a slight increase in dynamic range. A clean iso 400 at 30 megapixels is definitely an attraction to me but not 15 at 1600iso. Just my personal opinions. Eleanor

I, at least ,was not suggesting that the the 60mp files from the P65 at base ISO would not offer real, tangible advantages in terms of resolution over a D3X. Phase has stated that the resolution advantages of the P65 over the P45 are relatively modest and not the "real" justification for upgrading. To Phase, the "real" benefits are the ability to shoot cleaner higher ISO files at 15mp, along with future, but yet to be identified, upgrades in the sensor. It is there where I feel the big fallacy lies. I have little doubt that a 15mp file from a P65 at 1600 ISO will fare poorly compared to a 24mp file from a D3X at 1600 ISO. I don't shoot at anything other base ISO and do not even own a DSLR, but if I wanted to shoot at high ISO (and I would presumably also want world class AF to go with it), I would get myself a D3X for the 1/3 the price of the upgrade from a P45 to a P65. (And get a gorgeous LCD thrown in as well.)