ISO differences Phase One P45+ vs P45 / firmware / screen resolution

[kristyansen]

Hi everybody

I am considering acquiring one of these two backs: P45+ or P45 for Hasselblad 500C for studio / portraits / fashion. While I will keep the ISO low, I understood reading online that the the latest P45+ firmware (5.1.2) allows a higher ISO flexibility. Is this also true with the latest P45 firmware (“just” 2.5)? Or, on the contrary, the P45 was not updated as recently as the P45+?

Another side question which I do not have the answer to: what exactly is the resolution and size of the screen of the P45 (non plus?) since I cannot find it anywhere exactly. People call it bad, but I lived quite well with the Leica M9’s screen size 2.5inch 230’000 pixels which is also not top.

Appreciate your answers in advance,
Cristian

 

[Hasslebad]

I have a P25 and I believe it has the same screen resolution as the P45. It’s display technology is from the mid-2000s and compared to screens even from the 2010s, it is poor. The histogram is useful. You can zoom in some when reviewing photos but it’s not good enough to determine if eyelashes are in focus. It also definitely washes out if you are outside in the sun. In the studio I use it tethered. I love the P series backs. My one has been super reliable and runs like it’s new.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi everybody

I am considering acquiring one of these two backs: P45+ or P45 for Hasselblad 500C for studio / portraits / fashion. While I will keep the ISO low, I understood reading online that the the latest P45+ firmware (5.1.2) allows a higher ISO flexibility. Is this also true with the latest P45 firmware (“just” 2.5)? Or, on the contrary, the P45 was not updated as recently as the P45+?

Another side question which I do not have the answer to: what exactly is the resolution and size of the screen of the P45 (non plus?) since I cannot find it anywhere exactly. People call it bad, but I lived quite well with the Leica M9’s screen size 2.5inch 230’000 pixels which is also not top.

Appreciate your answers in advance,
Cristian

There was marketing hype about the increase in ISO latitude when the P45+ was released, but in reality, the advantage was very modest (maybe a half stop-ish).

The LCD of the P+ series was more vibrant, but also more reflective than the P series LCD screens. As a result, one might prefer one or the other, depending on how one would use it. But in any event, it's a small screen and low resolution (I believe 230,000 ppi), and the preview image for zoomed in focus review was also low rez, which made confirming focus pretty challenging.

If your primary use is for in studio, then I presume you may be shooting tethered and using the larger display monitor of your computer. But if you are using the digital back LCD screen for anything (in studio), the P+ screen would be the better way to go. Also the P+ series had a rudimentary live view, while the P series did not.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul2660]

I also thought the P+ gave the the long exposures up to 1 hour which the P did not in fact the P was rather terrible on anything longer than 2 or so seconds. The P+ 45 was my first Phase back. Here are my thoughts.

At base ISO VERY clean. On my back much past ISO 400 was too noisy to use however there are many newer noise reduction tools that might help. I never took my back past ISO800. I have seen images from later P+45 backs that were cleaner.
The P45+ can do very clean long exposures up to 1 hour. However a dark frame of same exposure time is required. So battery life needs to be watched.
Many early P45+ backs would not get past 15 minutes due to some hardware issues. I had one of these and Phase did fix the issue after which I was able to reach 1 hour clean.
The LCD is very limited and takes a lot of battery especially if you zoom in a lot. However you can tether and get a much better idea. Only downside is the P45+ was FireWire old style plug so you need a laptop which will take that plug. 4 to 5 year old MacBook. No other option to tether.
C1 is best for raws. Color can be impressive. I am still surprised when I pull up raws from 2008 or 09.
Paul C

 

[kristyansen]

Thank you all for your answers! Very helpful and appreciated.
I will most likely not use very long exposures - maximum a few seconds if at all if I want to get really creative in the studio for portraits / fashion.
Regarding the old FireWire connection - yes, I will indeed have to come to terms to that and find a solution...

May I throw two additional points into the mix:
- while I do not need the high number of pixels, would a Phase One P65+ back perform better with the higher ISO values?
- also, considering the updated interface and possibly also technology, despite being still CCD sensors (which I love), would a Phase One IQ140 or IQ180 have better ISO performance than the P45(+)?

Thanks a lot,
Cristian

 

[anwarp]

I don’t know about the ISO performance, but the IQ backs will give you USB3 connectivity And a much better screen.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Thank you all for your answers! Very helpful and appreciated.
I will most likely not use very long exposures - maximum a few seconds if at all if I want to get really creative in the studio for portraits / fashion.
Regarding the old FireWire connection - yes, I will indeed have to come to terms to that and find a solution...

May I throw two additional points into the mix:
- while I do not need the high number of pixels, would a Phase One P65+ back perform better with the higher ISO values?
- also, considering the updated interface and possibly also technology, despite being still CCD sensors (which I love), would a Phase One IQ140 or IQ180 have better ISO performance than the P45(+)?

Thanks a lot,
Cristian

The IQ generation CCD models are a bit better, but not much (maybe 1/2 - 2/3 stop or so. So I wouldn't consider them better at high ISO, but a bit better at moderate ISO.

It wouldn't be the reason to move in that direction, but the USB 3, much better LCD, much better user interface could be (as well as further service/support).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[kristyansen]

Those are important advantages, of course. I can handle the FireWire connectivity somehow, and as what regards bad display and UI - I assume I will mostly work with tethering.

I just do not seem to find an IQ1xx back for Hasselblad V on the used market, so, if at all, the P45+ would be more interesting.

From the offers I am considering there is a P45+ around USD 3000 with some non original accessories (but I must add at least 15% import taxes and shipping costs to Europe) and I see a potential P45 (non plus) for USD 2000 with the original “suitcase” and accessories - quite local, so almost no additional cost. The same backs for Hasselblad H I can be found at half the price or even less. I could afford both, at the same time the price / quality should also be correct, and I would not want to exchange the back with another quite soon.

 

[FloatingLens]

- while I do not need the high number of pixels, would a Phase One P65+ back perform better with the higher ISO values?

I‘d reckon the P65+ produces good output at ISO200, but not considerably better than P45 or below.

 

[Hasslebad]

The P+ backs and IQ backs have sensor plus which will reduce your resolution by 4 but you can get to higher ISO. Everyone’s acceptance of image noise varies but I feel ISO 400 is pretty good with Sensor+ on. ISO800 is tolerable in my eyes.

 

[kristyansen]

Thank you all. Regarding support from Phase One, is this correct that at this moment in time the P+ series is still supported, but for the P series there is no repair being offered at all in case it is needed?

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Thank you all. Regarding support from Phase One, is this correct that at this moment in time the P+ series is still supported, but for the P series there is no repair being offered at all in case it is needed?

Correct


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[kristyansen]

I also thought the P+ gave the the long exposures up to 1 hour which the P did not in fact the P was rather terrible on anything longer than 2 or so seconds.
Paul C

I wanted to come back to this statement - if I chose the P (non plus) version, what do you recall was the issue with exposure longer than 2 seconds? If I want to use long exposures for some creative shorts I would like maybe 5 or even 10 seconds - especially considering that a very low ISO 50 is needed for this sensor.

 

[kristyansen]

Dear All, I would like to assess some P45 (non plus) RAW files at lower ISOs, 50, 100, 200 but my intensive Internet search in the past week was really unsuccessful.
Would anyone have some in their old drawer, which they could share? I am mostly interested in studio / portraits.

Grateful in advance if possible...