P65+ test drive

[lance_schad]

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]

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]

I could so use one of those! Can I trade in my beat-up old $800 Sinar P for one?

[Larry Menzin]

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]

That's why they will remain big ticket items, sales are measured in the tens and hundreds on these.

[Frank Petronio]

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]

> 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]

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

[Henry Ambrose]

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

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]

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.