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!

GFX vs Phase One P65?

andrewkeam

New member
Hello,
I have recently purchased a GFX 50S and 32-64mm zoom. I have played with it a bit and it seems like a great camera. Am coming from a film background, so still getting used to it.

I recently came across the work of Henrik Spohler and really love it and would like to photograph similar subject matter in my own work.

https://henrikspohler.de/en/series/in-between/

Was wondering what he used for these images and contacted him and he was kind enough to respond back, saying he " used a medium format Hasselblad with a Phase One back (P45+ and P65), no shift lenses used. My recommendation: Fuji GFX 50R. "

So was just wondering what the general consensus was in the group here? Does the GFX 50 sensor and Fuji lenses equal the much older ( but larger ) P65 sensor and I assume, Hasselbad H lenses?

Obviously, there is a lot more going on in his images than those two things alone but would be interested in everyones thoughts?

Thanks.. :)
 

drevil

Well-known member
Staff member
After all, the image is made by the photographer.

The lenses from Hasselblad H cameras are made by Fujifilm as well.


All else is a question of preferences i guess
 

darr

Well-known member
Does the GFX 50 sensor and Fuji lenses equal the much older ( but larger ) P65 sensor and I assume, Hasselbad H lenses?
“Equal” in terms of technology? No. The P65 is a CCD full frame sensor with a unique set of algorithms, whereas the Fuji has a 33x44 CMOS sensor with its own set of unique algorithms.

“Equal” in terms of possible artistic expression? Absolutely.

It always comes down to operative skills.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Yes, "equal" is the wrong word. You are comparing superb instruments from different decades. The modern one is (much) easier to use. The older one has its own look. (I have used siblings of both - IQ160 and GFX100). Despite my love of the old MF CCD sensors, I use the modern stuff now.

Matt

(+1 to what Darr said about artistic expression. In the coffee world, the saying is "your problem is on the handle side of the portafilter". In other words, it's the operator, not the equipment.)
 

anyone

Well-known member
I suppose it depends on what you want / need. If you are after a large sensor (for example because you use a legacy system), then the P65+ is a good choice. I use the same sensor in the IQ1 60 and am happy with the results on my Hasselblad V system.

If you build a completely new MF system, then I can see the appeal of a mirrorless body that gives access to a lot of legacy lenses in addition to very good new lenses. While I haven't used the Fuji myself, a lot of people here own it, and the image quality seems to be very good.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Personally, after using the P45+ (similar to the P65 in operations), I would never consider a P65, just for the issues around operation and daily use. If you want a 60MP CCD sensor then please consider paying up to the IQ160.

P65:

No Live view,
Terrible LCD, pretty much worthless for playback in the field,
Interface less than stellar (when compared to any modern CMOS camera or the IQ160)

Compared to the CMOS in the 50S or 50R,

Pretty much a base ISO camera, and there is really only 1 ISO everything else is a compromise unless you use the Phase One Pixel binning solution for higher ISO but at the cost of 3/4 of the overall resolution so on a 60MP sensor you are limited to 15MP.

Total lack of dynamic range compared to any modern CMOS camera also, very little push, so bracketing is a requirement

Limited to Capture One IMO for the only really good raw conversion Adobe does a terrible job on all Phase CCD files (and not much better on the CMOS ones)

Battery life very limited on the P65, no long exposures past around 1.5 seconds, (edit: I meant 1 minute not 1 second) maybe 3 for the max. (Thanks to Steve for the catch).

As previously mentioned the two are decades apart and the cost of the 50R new is about the cost of the P65 used and 10 years old, for me a very simple solution.

Tech camera use on the P65 would be pretty limited also, and very time consuming for the photographer, the 50R is only limited to the focal range it can take as I recall it can't take the super wides 23mm, 28mm, 32mm etc due to the flange focal distance. If you are wanting a CCD back for tech use, again please consider the IQ160 or for that matter the IQ250.

Paul C
 
Last edited:

docholliday

Well-known member
...

Tech camera use on the P65 would be pretty limited also, and very time consuming for the photographer, the 50R is only limited to the focal range it can take as I recall it can't take the super wides 23mm, 28mm, 32mm etc due to the flange focal distance. If you are wanting a CCD back for tech use, again please consider the IQ160 or for that matter the IQ250.

Paul C
As a note... the IQ250 is CMOS and has micro-lenses, so not the best solution for anything involving movements. Great back, just not for that purpose.
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
Since owning the GFX-50R I have realized it's better than any Phase One back I ever owned including the IQ140 and IQ180. Sure a bit less resolution than the IQ180 but a hands down winner regarding color and dynamic range.

Not to mention the nearly order of magnitude reduction in cost. I bought the GFX for $3500. I doubt there are many old P1 backs at that price.

I can't see how Phase will survive with Fuji as competition. (he says gleefully)
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
As Paul Caldwell points out, the issue is not so much image quality, but the ability to produce image quality reliably. In the case of Henrik Spohler, given the location-oriented nature of his work, which relies on being somewhere at a certain time and capturing the image in the way he wishes, a Fuji GFX will be a better facilitator of this equation than a P45+/P65+. The limited ISO, the limited ability to focus accurately with live view, the very limited ability to review in detail what you just captured on a reasonably detailed LCD screen. These are handicaps.

If you could shoot everything at ISO 50-100, and perhaps tagged along a laptop of some vintage to review in the field, sure, potentially great quality images could be produced.

Everyone is different, and today a long time client who likes shooting his Hasselblad V with an IQ160 contacted me for some help. At least he has a reasonable display to review with.

For accuracy sake, P65+ can perform a minute or more exposures. Much more than that, and it really does fall apart. But this is all academic, as they say, you have the Fuji already, you have a high quality, versatile solution to capturing your images.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Hello,
I have recently purchased a GFX 50S and 32-64mm zoom. I have played with it a bit and it seems like a great camera. Am coming from a film background, so still getting used to it.

I recently came across the work of Henrik Spohler and really love it and would like to photograph similar subject matter in my own work.

https://henrikspohler.de/en/series/in-between/

Was wondering what he used for these images and contacted him and he was kind enough to respond back, saying he " used a medium format Hasselblad with a Phase One back (P45+ and P65), no shift lenses used. My recommendation: Fuji GFX 50R. "

So was just wondering what the general consensus was in the group here? Does the GFX 50 sensor and Fuji lenses equal the much older ( but larger ) P65 sensor and I assume, Hasselbad H lenses?

Obviously, there is a lot more going on in his images than those two things alone but would be interested in everyones thoughts?

Thanks.. :)
I looked at the the work of Henrik Spohler, and I agree with you about his work. The aesthetic values in his images have the low contrast and subtle color palette of color negative films like Kodak Portra. It is the antithesis, IMO, of the basic look in the Fuji GFX files that you get in both LR and Capture One. That’s not to say that someone really skilled at color grading may not be able to get to the same point with GFX files as mr. Spohler does shooting with a P65, but you would be starting at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from where you want to go.
 

nameBrandon

Well-known member
Does your GFX have the classic chrome film simulation? I would try shooting that and overexposing a bit and adjusting to suit in post.. or try +1/3 EC.

I'm not sure moving to a DB is going to get you what you want, even looking at his work there's a consistent aesthetic to his images that is happening outside of the capture. I'm not sure how important the sensor is here to achieving that aesthetic.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
The key issue in producing the kind of imagery that you see on Mr. Spohler’s web page is the type of light you shoot in. The superior dynamic range of medium format systems with cmos sensors is very apparent if you shoot in harsh, contrasty light, but if you want the type of imagery that Mr. Spohler produces, you should be shooting in softer, lower contrast lighting conditions. A ccd back does absolutely great in those lighting conditions. On the other hand, if you don’t want your images to look like the kind of images that were shot at sunrise or sunset with Velvia, don’t shoot in those lighting conditions with the digital equivalent of Velvia. If you do, you will be shoveling **** against the tide.
 

andrewkeam

New member
Fantastic! Thanks so much to everyone who took the time to reply.

Will just have to get a bit better at knowing the system I have and the following step of post production.

Thanks again! :)
 

robmac

Well-known member
I love using our CCD back H5D, it's simplicity and the 'look' of CCD, but our GFX50S is a more efficient weapon - especially on location outside.

The LCD on the GFX is actually useful for more than checking the histogram and the ability to preview ambient via the VF in real time is fantastic. Also no mirror slap and much better ISO performance - as you'd expect from a far more modern unit.

One thing you can do to get a step closer to the works you admired is to use Hasselblad H lenses on the GFX. We use them a LOT and their fantastic.

The ability to use either the camera shutter or lens leaf shutter at the tap of a button is worth its weight in gold.

In a studio at 1/125 sync, use body shutter to save activations on the H lens shutter. Outside with flash, set to leaf shutter and ride the SS up and down to dial in the desired ambient up to 1/800 sync.
 
Top