PDA

View Full Version : P65+ test drive



lance_schad
2-Dec-2008, 21:36
Posted by mistake in the Digital Processing area:

I am out with Guy and Jack from getDPI.com putting the P65+ through it's paces in the Sierra's. What better way to test a pre-production back than with two current owners and workshop instructors.
Will post more images here and at http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4333 and http://www.captureintegration.com/category/lance/


Here are a few sample images:

vinny
3-Dec-2008, 00:49
While I don't consider this large format, I think a few folks here will find the results worthy of the same old arguments. I for one think the sample images look no different than those from my wife's 8mp point n shoot. Of course the resolution is there and the cropped samples show that. As usual, megapixels and the huge prints that could result are the selling points and all other aspects of quality are left out.

Edwin Beckenbach
3-Dec-2008, 02:25
I could so use one of those! Can I trade in my beat-up old $800 Sinar P for one?

Larry Menzin
3-Dec-2008, 05:28
The value proposition is a tough one. 30-40 grand is more dough than most of us could even consider. I'm still shooting with my 16MP P20.

With full-frame DSLR units going for $5-8k, and their high ISO performance as an added bonus, how many P65+ backs will be sold?

Frank Petronio
3-Dec-2008, 06:43
That's why they will remain big ticket items, sales are measured in the tens and hundreds on these.

Frank Petronio
3-Dec-2008, 11:39
For that matter, medium resolution backs -- 21-28 mp -- with an extended dynamic range -- would be a lot more attractive than a 21mp DSLR to those "in the know", especially when tied to a better optical system than the current Canon line.

Of course it would have to be priced in the same range as the top dslr body to be competitive. Perhaps the Leica system will fall inbetween Canon and Leaf/Phase/Hblad? I doubt it but it would do very well if it did.

bglick
3-Dec-2008, 12:02
> I question the pricing strategy....which appears to be based on film/lab savings over a 2 yr period rather then what they really are worth.

You may / may not be right about this. I too am curious if their pricing strategy is to get high volume pros, where cost is less of an issue considering the amount of shooting they do. The market will shake all this out though, as if the slightly less MP cameras are stealing the P65+ market share, then, this pricing philsosphy could be fatal in the end. I thought it was interesting how the market place is not crazy offer Nikons new x offering, 24MP, but at $8k....the point everyone makes is, Sony 25MP $3k and Canon 5DII is $3k.... time will tell if people will spend that much more for better weather seals... Canon will be in the same position for their 1ds4


> It takes 4x more pixels to jump up to a print 2x bigger.


This is a very valid point...and at 40MP, we knew technology would not enable them to get to 160MP.... I think part of the up-sales are from people who don't fully comprehend this gain in MP, at best represents 30 % added recorded resolution....

Gordon Moat
3-Dec-2008, 13:07
Hi Larry, it's a tough one for the guys that really have the high volume, they pretty much have no choice due to film/lab savings, time constraints. . . . . . . Those dslr are so convenient, for wedding shooters it is hard to go back to a medium format camera. As far as I am concerned they priced themselves out of the market. Relying on 1% of the pro market and 0% of the pro- sumer market seems foolish. Jumping up from a 39mp to a 60mp back is not really even a significant difference (especially for normal print sizes). It takes 4x more pixels to jump up to a print 2x bigger. Even our dslrs took a big leap from 10-25mp range. They are falling behind. There are segments of the market willing to buy, but won't, amateurs wanting to get more serious, but will not because photo equipment pricing is too restrictive (even for most pros).

The first part of your quote, relating to film and lab costs, is a non-issue for professionals with proper business plans. Film and lab costs are passed on to the clients, either directly or incorporated into the overall fees. Some even used that as items to mark-up and generate additional profits.

The latter part I quoted is where I agree with you. Already with the introduction of the Nikon D3X, many are wondering at the pricing (nearly same as Canon 1Ds Mark III) of top end gear. MFDBs sell in very low numbers, with a certain percentage going to the rental market. Some of us consider renting a much better option, though quite likely we already own the lenses we need to use.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Henry Ambrose
3-Dec-2008, 16:46
Snipped a good bit.....
The first part of your quote, relating to film and lab costs, is a non-issue for professionals with proper business plans. Film and lab costs are passed on to the clients, either directly or incorporated into the overall fees. Some even used that as items to mark-up and generate additional profits.
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Nahhhhh...

You don't have to spend this much money to get commercially acceptable results. In the end it really is about who gets to keep the money. And business plans have nothing to do with that fact - although a good business plan would take into account that spending huge wads of cash that didn't have to be spent is a bad idea. And no one in their right mind takes on this kind of expense just for fun - unless you're a trust-funder and just want to buy your way into a nice pose.

The comparison is no longer against film, lab and scanning costs - its against the other digital solutions that are out there. This back is a very, very expensive piece of gear that has capabilities that few people really "need" to get paid by their clients.

I'm with the other guys - I'd buy a great digital solution that gave results like 4x5 color negative but not at the prices they ask. I can bend a Canon system to do the job in the meantime. When the whole system (lenses camera, back) gets to maybe $15,000 lots of folks will step up and buy. In the interim I wish the makers of these outlandishly priced devices good luck.

walter23
3-Dec-2008, 17:59
I for one think the sample images look no different than those from my wife's 8mp point n shoot.

Part of the problem is that the sample images are pretty uninspiring, in terms of composition & subject, and taken with boring lighting. If you look beyond that you see a back with pretty impressive resolution! I'd take one, if it were free :)

But I agree, large format film is more economical for someone like me (an amateur) with a $1000 camera, Epson 750, and enough chemistry & film stored up to last me quite awhile. And the mid-range or even higher end DSLRs are the more obvious digital solution for many professionals and most amateurs.

Frank Petronio
3-Dec-2008, 18:29
"High Volume" and needing 65mp quality aren't really compatible. If I were doing serious catalog production, a good DSLR should be hitting the mark with plenty of resolution to spare. Catalogs simply don't have that high a production quality that you could distinguish which shots were done with 50 or 65mp back. And if you need a MFDB to hold "an extended dynamic range" you're probably going to get canned for screwing up the lighting, which would be a valid reason for firing you anyway.

Indeed there are very few practical print repro situations that need this, outside of fine art and bragging rights. Not many commercial jobs really needed 8x10 film either -- the only one I can think of was a single shot used as a wrap around printed label for dishware -- it was a 24" sq box so the image had to reproduce at 96" x 24" -- cropped 8x10 was the best solution. That was before wide-spread Photoshop. Nowadays you'd just stitch multiple shots. Hardly a "high volume" project.

Face it, 90% of this is bragging rights for most photographers. If I were in that kind of studio I'd make up some "66mp!" decals and paste them on my older MFDB and laugh all the way to the bank ;-)

bglick
3-Dec-2008, 21:07
> The comparison is no longer against film, lab and scanning costs - its against the other digital solutions that are out there.

Yep, thanks for stating the obvious.... you can not pass on cost that clients no longer find acceptable to pay for.... many of us can only "wish" business was that simple. Instead, you start passing on film/processing/scanning cost, with mark-ups, and risk loosing clients.....specially in todays competitive marketplace and budgets slashed in every dept.


> This back is a very, very expensive piece of gear that has capabilities that few people really "need" to get paid by their clients.

Great point Henry.... and today, more than ever, post processing skills cover a lot of shortcomings of any image capture system today.


> and soon a 50mp Canon in the works should cause further pricing pressure.

Can I ask - how sure you are Canon is working on a 50MP? Seems a bit impractical, unless they make a larger chip, such as Leica... I always wondered if Canon / Nikon would break the FF chip size. If canon used the 50d density in FF chip size, it would take them to 39MP... and the 50d is about the smallest pixels I would think Canon would ever put in their flagship DSLR... i question if they would eve go that small, as noise and higher ISO's are harder to achieve..


> forget cost plus markup, rather let the customer pay for it out his lab/film savings ($) over 2 yrs, and he still benefits by gaining time savings (labor).

I hear your frustration, but I am not completely sure this is the case... I think Phase One realizes all the Giants starting to climb the MP tree, threatening their position. It could simply be, the amortized R&D of each new back is high enough to justify these prices.... of course, if you are right, and P1 mis judges the market, it could be catastrophic for them.


> there is no excuse other then greed.

I am not trying to defend P1, I have no dog in this race...but you would be amazed how often people think a company is price gouging, yet if you look at the companies P&L, they rarely turn a profit. I am not suggesting that is the case here, cause I don't know. But don't think P1 is not fully aware of the points you raise. Every company is confronted with the lower price / higher volume scenario. In many cases, its a catastrophic move, because once the price goes down, it can not go back up, and if the volume never comes, they are doomed...


I do agree with your main issue.... its not just the high cost of this gear, but its the fact you must upgrade it every 2 years to stay at the top of your game...it seems all your revenues go to equipment upgrades. Hopefully that will slow down a bit now that the MP race has come close to an end...but next it will be DR, ISO gains, etc. etc. Then PC upgrades, software, printers, etc. etc... Considering the recession the worldwide economy is in, it should be interesting to see if sales continue at P1, Leaf, Sinar, etc.

Frank Petronio
3-Dec-2008, 22:18
It seems to me that the most you ever practically need to capture is 13 x 19 inches at 360 dpi, at least as your final art file. That covers almost every periodical, and given that such large periodicals are closing at a rate of several per week (magazinedeathwatch.com)... it all seems rather pointless for these digital camera manufacturers (all of them) to be constantly upgrading the file size so they can maintain having a $30K "top-of-line" digital back.

The manufacturer that provides better pixels, a wider dynamic range, higher ISO, faster shooting, better ergonomics, and most of all, better optics and a better workflow -- will be the one that wins. Not the one with the highest resolution back. Cripes we could have bought giant files sizes with Better Light Backs if that was the most important factor.

Is it no surprise that most of these MFDB companies are privately held and backed by wealthy, idealistic investors? I don't see any big companies like Kodak or Sony dabbling in this -- other than providing the large sensors (which are also made for other applications and clients.) I bet they're all doomed.

Frankly, with the economy headed the way it is, I expect developments to stagnate. The market for used backs will be good -- I've been seeing the ~21mp backs under $10K for a while now. I'd be curious to compare those with a $8K DSLR in real world tests.

Larry Menzin
4-Dec-2008, 06:17
Leaf is now owned by Kodak.

bglick
4-Dec-2008, 07:13
From the Canon link.... I think the application the 50MP APS sized chip is ideal, surveillance...... pixel sizes this small, I doubt will ever produce photo quality imagery, even at the prosumer level.... s/n ratio is always the limting factor here. Unfortunately this a limitation that will not be overcome in the near future.


> You won't be seeing one of these sensors in your fashioncam any time soon. Canon has built a 50 megapixel CMOS monstrosity, which is reportedly almost twice the resolution of its nearest competition, and is prepping it as a sort of large format surveillance camera for monitoring large, busy areas such as parking lots and theme parks, along with detailed work like factory part inspections. Despite the sensor's clear industrial-end aims, Canon has managed to build its prototype at 19 x 28mm in size, the same dimensions of the sensors in its DSLR cameras, so who knows where this tech could end up in the long run.


I agree with Frank.... More MP's come at too high of a price of image quality, unless chip size grows...... which i still doubt Canon or Nikon will pass full frame sizes. Leica had to separate themselves from Canon and Nikon, as they are could never play ball against such Giants. I think the 25MP range will be tough to beat as a standard.... at such a point, even a 50mp sensor will only gain you ~35% recorded resolution... the next breakthroughs possible with the CMOS sensors are much improved DR, improved ISO, work flow, etc.

Struan Gray
4-Dec-2008, 07:59
... s/n ratio is always the limting factor here. Unfortunately this a limitation that will not be overcome in the near future.

Except that dynamic range and s/n for a given pixel size is still largely determined by materials science and process control. It is quite possible that research in both areas will allow usable 50 MP and beyond sensors in a 35 mm full-frame format.

Even if the raw pixel count is superfluous, it won't hurt to have some headroom when it comes to aliasing, and getting round the lower chroma resolution brought on by the Bayer sensor. Scientific cameras routinely allow you to trade resolution for s/n by 'binning' sets of adjacent pixels, and I seem to remember at least one digital SLR lets you go to higher ISOs at reduced resolution using the same trick. And then there are the post-processing focus and aberration control techniques, which only become practicable with enough oversampling.

So I think there is a real driving force for higher pixel counts for the near future at least.

Gordon Moat
4-Dec-2008, 12:31
When you look at the pixel cell site size, especially the Canon 1Ds Mark III and Nikon D3X, you find another practical user limit. Obviously it is possible to get even smaller pixel physical dimensions, but then you cannot use those at apertures smaller than f8.0 without compromising the image quality severely. Even with the top of the line Canon and Nikon, we are now at f22.0 as a practical limit. Cram in more pixels, and even smaller cell site dimensions, and we drop to f16.0 or maybe even f11.0 as a usable functional limit while avoiding problems.

In past White Papers it was generally acknowledged that a 6µm to 8µm pixel size was about the minimum to avoid problems, and maintain the best fill factor. Larger meant greater sensitivity at the loss of real optical resolution capability, while smaller brought in ever greater noise issues, and smaller also got too near diffraction issues. While I think a tightly packed 5µm pixel size in any chip is possible, I think it really is a functional limit beyond which there is no gain in image quality.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

bglick
4-Dec-2008, 18:40
Struan great web site, great composures!!!

It's too bad the bulk of the photogrpahic world does not shoot extreme DOF shots...other than macro / studio work. As huge DOF is where LF / film still beats the pants off digital, as the higher the f stop, the less value you get from the huge MP count. Hence why LF / film will always be an amazing tool for landscape shooters...unless they are cityscape shooters (infinity focus)

Nathan Potter
4-Dec-2008, 20:32
Several above have pointed out the competing tradeoffs with smaller pixel size, noise issues, lens resolution and sensor size. One other area ripe for improvement is the use of noise reduction algorithms through complex signal processing. Such techniques have the propensity for pushing the pixel size down somewhat to a limit of lens resolving power capability or extending the dynamic range of a sensor. Complex signal processing chips (DSPs') are ever more available with massive capabilities and are a small part of the potential guts of the camera or digital back. I think we should look for improvements in both dynamic range and lower noise (higher EI) in the near future.

As always the US military and the new ever present Homeland Security people are pushing this very technology.

Nate Potter, Atlanta GA.

Struan Gray
5-Dec-2008, 14:47
Bill, thanks for the compliments.

I really just wanted to point out that there are ways of using a higher pixel count other than simply increasing the resolution.

Provided that image quality can be maintained, I am all for smaller cameras. As I see it the only real advantage of a large sensor area camera is that it makes manual setting of movements easier. A MF or full-frame 35 mm sensor needs much more precise setting of tilt angles and the spacing to the film plane than a 4x5 or 8x10 with the same field of view and DoF.

AutumnJazz
5-Dec-2008, 15:05
But if 6mp APS-C sized sensors look so much better than 12mp even-more-cropped sensors, what's the point?