Phase One P25

[Graham Mitchell]

The price is $2500 if you have classic coverage on your back

Sorry that isn't clear to me which means others might be having problems too. Is there another level of warranty called 'classic' which you need to buy first, and then add another $2500 on top for the 'value added' warranty?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No the classic warranty is a normal 1 year warranty and if you want to do a mount swap than it seems 2500 is the price on that.

The Value added is a 3 year warranty you get some goodies and a free mount swap.

You buy either one at time of purchase. You get a choice on the warranty on what you feel is good for you.

I think outside all warranties when they are up if you want to do a mount swap the 3500 comes into play. But lance or Chris need to confirm all of this just to be sure my numbers are correct

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The price is $2500 if you have classic coverage on your back and if it is covered under the value added warranty it is done at no-charge once during the warranty period.
The Value Added Package at the time of purchase is $3000 additional, that gives you three year overnight swap-out, Pro version of CaptureOne , extra battery,2gb card, cables/lcc plate , swapout privileges and a new rolling case. Most opt for the peace of mind VA kit.
L
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-394-3196 cell | 305-534-5702 office
Capture Integration
My Blog
[email protected]

There you are I missed your comment. Thanks
I'm feeling poor so just getting the Classic but if you love me you can throw that in . ROTFLMAO

 

[robertwright]

Guy, one thing I appreciate about your torture tests is that they remind me so much of what I confront in assignments every day and have to deal with.

'back in the days of film I loved to shoot backlit, and it is murder on skintones, which is why I always loved the hassy glass which could hold contrast in nasty situations. Switching over to digital has been mostly about confronting the limits of what you can do in bad light, and mostly has been realizing that you need to fix it now more than ever. Film or analogue fails "gracefully" as they say, flare, backlight, muted tones, grain, all add to film capture. Digital is not so loving of these issues, so when I am on location I am constantly reminded of how different it is now.

I have resisted mf for a long time because as a location available light shooter it was not the solution, but I think now, and perhaps for while, there are solutions that would provide great results. Your example of the sun behind the tree and blown sky is exactly a worst case scenario, but one where in film I would not think twice.

thanks for the examples.:thumbup:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks Robert , yes i go after the crap as they say in a lot of these and the fact is your right we run into this stuff all the time and just seeing how you can pull yourself out of it is key in my book. I like the Ugly tests they give us the info we need and the nice part is when the light is great the images just jump. MF is a serious decision and not to be taken lightly, the problem is you look at these files on a 30 inch display and your heart just beats faster. You know how hard that is to not pay attention too. LOL Impossible

 

[LJL]

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

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

Regards
Victor

Victor,
I was not going to comment on this image, but I had another espresso, so here is what I am seeing.

For openers, not sure what processing you put this through, but it appears oversaturated. You may prefer/like the color, and that is fine, but this looks too saturated to my eyes. Second, it is also significantly oversharpened. This shows up in a couple of very pronounced ways. One is the obvious halo on the right side cliff above the gentlemen's head, and the other is a very pronounced "crunchy" look to the background in your original and crop. If this is what you consider having the ability to "cut you" with sharpness, my feeling is that one should not try to dial in added effect through this kind of over sharpening.

That "crunchy" appearance is something I have seen from expensive and cheap glass. They are artifacts created in processing (ACR is notorious for being able to do this to otherwise good files), and they result from various incompatible settings of aperture and the sensor on certain types of backgrounds, mostly fine leaves, pine needles and some other sharp, pointy vegetation that has high contrast and some specular highlights. Best cure is to dial back the sharpening a lot in this case, and also shoot with either a much wider aperture for better bokeh, or stop things down further, but not to the point where diffraction starts to set in.

I agree with Keith in his comment that this is NOT the best example of MF IQ. This may be a very sharp image with great colors, etc., but it really looks like you overcooked this one in post. Sorry if that sounds critical, but this one does hurt the eyes, and there are ways to avoid this. Just offering up my thoughts and comments.

LJ

P.S. forgot to add.....those "cruchy" artifacts are the product of processing and oversharpening a file that is already struggling with the aperture/sensor/dark shiny foliage issue.....at a particular distance. Had those tress been closer or further away, it may not have come up. It is hard to know exactly how some things react when shooting, but these sorts of conifer/juniper or whatever type trees can create problems....all made worse by not so good conversion algorithms and oversharpening.

 

[Jack]

Have to agree with you 110% LJ. And Victor, I just happen to know a great series of workshops to get you pointed in the right direction with your raw processing...

 

[Dale Allyn]

Regarding value added warranties: I sure wish that one could add it later as long as it was within the original 1 year warranty period. This would be similar to adding Applecare to a Mac. I know, I know, it might suck for Phase, but it would be nice to spend the additional 3K on the back after a few months of the original expense. One would be sure they've purchased the right back for their work, etc. before extending the warranty. Maybe the goodie kit would be better if purchased up front than if purchased later.

Obviously, this is the view of just one guy who is looking to move to MF in a non-pro capacity. The price of entry simply pinches some of us who do this stuff as an illness instead of a profession.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Dale trust me it was hard putting my signature on that wire transfer a hour ago and i still need to send more.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Found the warranty data and this maybe out of date

Classic 1-Year Warranty or Value-Added 3-Year Warranty?
Phase One offers two types of warranties on its digital backs. The Classic 1-Year Warranty provides parts/service coverage for 1 year. The Value-Added 3-Year Warranty extends this warranty an additional two years, and adds extra accessories, and a replacement-unit program.

Classic Warranty Kit
1-Year Repair Only International Warranty
Black Pelican Case
Capture One DB
Single-Bay battery charger
One 2500 mAh battery
Viewfinder masks (5 pcs)
4.5m Firewire Cable
DigiClean kit

Value Added Warranty Kit
3-Year Replacement Loaner International Warranty
3-Year Free Platform Swap Guarantee
Metallic Case
Capture One Pro
Dual-Bay battery charger
Two 2500 mAh batteries
Viewfinder masks (5 pcs)
4.5m Firewire Cable
DigiClean kit
SanDisk 2-gig Extreme IV CF card
SanDisk Firewire 800 card reader
Multiconnector sync cable
Multiconnector > Minijack adapter cable
Manual hard-copy
LCC calibration kit
5 pcs QP greycard
Microfiber cloth

 

[gogopix]

Have to agree with you 110% LJ. And Victor, I just happen to know a great series of workshops to get you pointed in the right direction with your raw processing...

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.

 

[JimCollum]

i think there's more of a problem in differences of aesthetics than with the glass in these cases.

What you consider flat, many consider as normal.. and what people consider is oversaturated in your images, is normal to you.

had the same problem with film though.. you put two people in the same room, one who shoots color negative, the other who shoots color transparency.. and you'll have major differences in opinions as to what is 'normal' color and contrast. (ie put a print by Chrisotpher Burkett next to one by Richard Misrach.. and you'll see the difference).

At least on my 75s, i have yet to be able to get the contrast and color you exhibit in your images without significant post processing.. the DR of the sensor is too wide.. giving more the contrast and color of color negative film. If i bump the black and white points of the curve.. then i end up compressing the images DR and can get those colors. this isn't an issue of glass... since i get the same results in using Zeiss, Mamiya or Rodenstock glass

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.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Or this type of saturation

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Here is a leica on the bottom. There so close in tone and saturation , i could not tell them apart

 

[Dale Allyn]

I think that Jim makes a good point regarding personal tastes differing. I'm one who likes a finished file that is clean and natural looking, without an uber-Velvia look. I've shot a lot of K-25 and K-64 which I liked, but what some folks love in digital is not what I like.

That being said, one image of mine which gets me more e-mail and requests than almost any other, is one which is very colorful and quite saturated to my eye. It even borders on "kind of embarrassing" to me. I know, I'm not talking MF, but I think the idea still applies.

Different strokes...

 

[gogopix]

i think there's more of a problem in differences of aesthetics than with the glass in these cases.

What you consider flat, many consider as normal.. and what people consider is oversaturated in your images, is normal to you.

had the same problem with film though.. you put two people in the same room, one who shoots color negative, the other who shoots color transparency.. and you'll have major differences in opinions as to what is 'normal' color and contrast. (ie put a print by Chrisotpher Burkett next to one by Richard Misrach.. and you'll see the difference).

At least on my 75s, i have yet to be able to get the contrast and color you exhibit in your images without significant post processing.. the DR of the sensor is too wide.. giving more the contrast and color of color negative film. If i bump the black and white points of the curve.. then i end up compressing the images DR and can get those colors. this isn't an issue of glass... since i get the same results in using Zeiss, Mamiya or Rodenstock glass

Jim
You are likely right
tastes vary

 

[LJL]

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,
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

 

[Jack]

Seriously Victor, LJ is right. It is fairly obvious by your image postings that you could use some help with proper processing technique... No offense is intended here and all is well and good if you prefer the "crunchy" look you show -- that's certainly your prerogative -- but it's not your glass that's delivering it. We are just trying to help you out and the hard fact is your images appear significantly over-sharpened on my monitor.

And just to be really clear, over-sharpened does not mean the same thing as "really sharp" and it's generally not a good thing to have visible in your images. To me, it actually implies the original may not be technically sharp and the processing (processor) is trying to over-compensate for a poor quality capture.

Cheers,

 

[thsinar]

For the information of all and to clarify "Warranty" issues with Sinar:

ALL Sinar products, being it Sinarbacks, cameras or accessories have a warranty of 3 years worldwide:

- a 2-year contractual warranty

- 1 year additional free warranty when registering the product in our "Owners Group" (= free of charge and done in 5 minutes)

Best regards,
Thierry

No the classic warranty is a normal 1 year warranty and if you want to do a mount swap than it seems 2500 is the price on that.

The Value added is a 3 year warranty you get some goodies and a free mount swap.

You buy either one at time of purchase. You get a choice on the warranty on what you feel is good for you.

I think outside all warranties when they are up if you want to do a mount swap the 3500 comes into play. But lance or Chris need to confirm all of this just to be sure my numbers are correct