Post Kina thoughts

[leonardobarreto.com]

Photokina has been a bit disappointing to me and produced more questions than it answered existing ones.

First of all Mamiya did show a 22mp ZD back, but it was a sleeping beauty -- or like the candidate we all need, only his on a coma state-- displayed just to maintain our expectations sadistically alive.

Then Hasselblad produced the "first full size DSLR in MF" they have a sensor size 36mm x 48mm and the others have a 48mm x 36mm ! and the only wide angle solution for a digital back, which is also not true because there is the Horseman, Cambo and ALPA that accept digital backs and wide angle lenses -- plus PC correction --

So what is new with the H3 besides being more expensive than the H2? It is a closed architectural setup that uses only Hasselblad backs.

This is an interesting move because it may separate PhaseOne, the leading back manufacturer from the leading MF camera brand. All this after Contax and Bronica went the way of the CCCP, and Mamiya became the sleeping beauty.

So for photographers using or wanting to use MF they have solutions that not only cost typically $50,000 with lenses, but also have dead ends. For example, if you went Contax way, then Mamiya and finally decided to purchase the new H2 just to find out that the H2 -- a relatively new model -- will not work with the Hasselblad 28mm lens and that you need to upgrade to the H3 but that will not work on your P 45 PhaseOne back !

I personaly have the 645 AFD and and two backs: one holds Polaroids and the other 120 film.

I will wait a bit to see if all of this will bring me my 22mp-under-10k solution.

Interestingly, PhaseOne announced an entry level 16mp back under $10k

What I'm praying for is a PhaseOne/Mamiya merge and a strong move towards Canon territory on the south and Hasselblad on the north. But that would be too easy and sweet to be more than a dream..

 

[Paul Schefz]

the phase you are talking about is the P20 which will actually be 7990. list price and has much better files then a 1dsmkII or ZD...i am pretty sure leaf will have to adjust...
about your MF disapointment: what about the Hy6? a true 6x6, rotating backs, totally modular, open system...not much bigger then the mamiya 645, with tons of lenses available, even very inexpensive ones starting in 1974...

 

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

I personally don't see it as that bad.

If you are getting regularly clients and have a high end reputation then you can, if you wish sell your H2 at a loss and trade up.

No problem, just an expense. However, what clients? You travel and lot, do stock, don't need tilt shift? Already love Hasselblad?, Dont hold grudges?

H3 must be based on Hasselblad's marketing strategy and for photographers who just want a great system that is internally consistant, they'll buy the H3 if the end product equals or beats the competition. These buyers want comfort and excellence. The're very busy, earn a lot of money and Hasselblad knows them all.

High end Architectural, Landscape and Product and stock Photographers (who are lens driven) need

a)T/S
b)Wide angle with the best digital lenses
c)Backs that go with a supported MF body

These are already using the finest Digital Lenses on Ebony, Sinar, Horseman, Cambo and so forth with success! This will be a continued upward path for the future since it works.

The LF/specialty companies will make sure that all the adapters keep pace with the new backs and there will be a lot of partnering and cooperation. These niche companies will do very well. Those with the best machining and marketing will win the most market share.

The new Hy6 with either Sinar, Leaf Phase One Backs will likely work perfectly! This gives choices and the widest lens system available and dream choice of back according to photographer's preference!

Fashion/Beauty/High end portraits

a) also have Nikon/Canon
b) will go for reliable system, with enough money and no anger, H3, otherwise not buy or Hy6 in flavor that is decided by the back

Budget Minded

a) Buy H2 or new or used Jenoptic, Phase One units as they become available

b) The New 16 MP Phase One or what Leaf will offer to compete.

c) ZD

d) Pray for Pentax

e) Wait again


Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

p 20

P 20 is 37mm x 37mm 16MP, probably more suitable for fashion or portrait applications where life without wideangles is possible, and because of the square format any cropping will reduce the advantage of a large size sensor (or larger size).

I think that the P 20, even at $6k may have a hard time competing with Canon.

The Hy6 sounds interesting but is a maturing concept and may be a competitor to Hasselblad, but now it seams to be the 4/3 of MF, an utopia for the digital age, where the architecture is open for companies to contribute with lenses, backs and bodies.

The interesting thing is that Hasselblad announced a closed architecture simultaneously with the open one of Rollei...

 

[Asher Kelman]

The interesting thing is that Hasselblad announced a closed architecture simultaneously with the open one of Rollei...

....now, of Leica!

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/photokina/H3-concerns.shtml

Here is Michael Reichmann from the LL forum not very happy about the way Hasselblad is going with the "camera that uses one brand of film" he even implies that someone could even sue them... (he has H1+H2+P45= lots of money just made obsolete)

 

[Ray West]

diatribe mode

Hi,

I've just had a read through Mr. Reichman's blog. My thoughts are, 'so what does he want?' It is a digital, single lens reflex camera, afaik. hence a dslr. The fact is that traditionally sloppy usage has given it some other implied meaning, normally being applied to 35mm. Same, really, for terms like full frame, and so on.

Now, electronic development is taken place at a pretty fast rate. To get the very best, you need it _all_ tightly integrated. This means, that if Hassy are going to be the best, not only will you have this integrated system, but expect in three years time, maybe three months, to continue to get the best, you will have to buy another complete integrated system. Else you are going to be stuck with the qwerty keyboard, the Post office 3000 relay and other antique standards.

Now, if I develop a system, say I'm Hassy, and I want it t be the best, its going to cost a bob or two. I want to get as much back from my investment as possible. I am not going to reduce that chance by giving away details about lens motor protocol, whatever, so that other outfits, with minimum development costs can ride on my back. Also, if the others get it wrong, it rubs off on the quality of my product (cf apple and ibm/m$).

So, for all the old film guys - the digital ride has just started. Many will fall off/ have fallen off on the way. I'm sure his gear doesn't take worse photo's now that better gear is out there, thats a nubies concept of photography, so why is he behaving like a nube? Did he really believe that any manufacturer today can afford to put existing customer base above keeping ahead of the pack? Brand loyality has been one way for years.

On a smaller scale, but percentage wise it makes 'em a load of money, the canon remote cord connector is the same principle. Can't blame 'em for trying , tho'.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Asher Kelman]

The H3 pretty much removes landscape, architecture and prodcuct photographers who want the finest digital lenses for their Ebony, Horseman, Sinar, Arca, Linhoff, Plaubell and other digital platforms.

That is pretty straightforward and a growing market. People want to use a back on a MF body and on their T/S platform.

They also, As Michael points out so well more H2 users are for sure

1) miffed to the nth that the're H2 investment is devalued so much

2) angry that they can't choose their own back

3)feel they are being cheated and exploited.

Non H3 users, unless they could care less about history will turn their backs on H3 as the Hy6 comes to market and there's a huge amount of pressure from Leaf, Sinar and Phase one for the Rollie heir to succeed.

Michael's videoblog from photokina is written in his eclectic style, but he's still ahead of the pack! His video log is worth attention and it says it all

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/photokin...at-report.shtml

Asher Kelman

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Hi,

I've just had a read through Mr. Reichman's blog. My thoughts are, 'so what does he want?' It is a digital, single lens reflex camera, afaik. hence a dslr. The fact is that traditionally sloppy usage has given it some other implied meaning, normally being applied to 35mm. Same, really, for terms like full frame, and so on.

** It is a reflex and a DSLR, but the way they are announcing the wold's first DSLR is a bit ridiculous after the ZD --even if not sold in the USA-- is more of a DSLR, but this point, lets say, its taken. What about the other two.

1) "the world’s first 48mm full-frame DSLR camera system." (copy and past from dpreview.com's hasselblad Press Release, actually the title of it.

It is not true. The sensor is same size as all the others. So probably Mr. Reichman and many others want is not to see a company like Hasselblad claiming an obvious untrue statement.

2) "the H3D allows photographers for the first time ever to take wide angle shots on a 36 x 48mm sensor."

Not true

Now, electronic development is taken place at a pretty fast rate. To get the very best, you need it _all_ tightly integrated. This means, that if Hassy are going to be the best, not only will you have this integrated system, but expect in three years time, maybe three months, to continue to get the best, you will have to buy another complete integrated system. Else you are going to be stuck with the qwerty keyboard, the Post office 3000 relay and other antique standards.

Now, if I develop a system, say I'm Hassy, and I want it t be the best, its going to cost a bob or two. I want to get as much back from my investment as possible. I am not going to reduce that chance by giving away details about lens motor protocol, whatever, so that other outfits, with minimum development costs can ride on my back. Also, if the others get it wrong, it rubs off on the quality of my product (cf apple and ibm/m$).

** Yes, you can say that all Ford's will only run with a new "and improved" Fordgas and from now on will only be serviced there. The can do that - maybe someone could sue them somehow -- they are free to do that. The question is: will this enrich Ford, or will this be the end of it?


So, for all the old film guys - the digital ride has just started. Many will fall off/ have fallen off on the way. I'm sure his gear doesn't take worse photo's now that better gear is out there, thats a nubies concept of photography, so why is he behaving like a nube? Did he really believe that any manufacturer today can afford to put existing customer base above keeping ahead of the pack? Brand loyality has been one way for years.

** Some companies like Leica and Nikon are proud to be backward compatible to their origins, the Rollei is doing it in the digital era with the new system. Again, if Hasselblad wants kill the H1-H2 they are free to do it, but will you want to such brand?

On a smaller scale, but percentage wise it makes 'em a load of money, the canon remote cord connector is the same principle. Can't blame 'em for trying , tho'.

** I wonder if this will make 'em a load of money. It may be the end of Hasselblad as we know it. Of course all H's are really Fujifilm made. I saw an H1 in Yodobashi camera sotore, in Shinjuku japan that had the name plate Fujifilm instead of Hasselblad in the cameras forehead. People following the name in to an abyss may be seeing a mirage... or not.

Best wishes,
Same to you, leonardo

Ray

_________ ______________ ________________ ____________

 

[Ray West]

Hi Leonardo,

It is an era of change, I expect hassy has some sort of business plan. It may be a bad plan, I am not sure who can decide, even after the event. For all we know there may well be folk inside there on another co.'s payroll.

I feel there is little point in discussing how things are advertised, unless there is an agreed standard specification for whatever. e.g. if something on the camera sensor is 48mm, either the diagonal image area, or one sensor side measurement, whether active area or more, or whatever, then unless it is quoted to some international iso/whatever specification, all bets are off. The whole of business works like that. I'm not suggesting I like it like that, but it is the way it is. Tried buying an audio amplifier, even looked at battery capacities?

I do not understand the 'sue' concept. If hassy are holding a gun to your head, saying you must buy my gear, it may be so. But if they are only making false claims then in many parts of the world there are advertising standards to take care of that, but if all they are saying its 48mm full frame, then that is not wrong, providing where they are measuring _their_ full frame, it is 48mm. If you don't like the companies ethics, shop elsewhere, but most fair sized manufacturing companies are all more or less the same. Its the benefit of competion, the free market, etc.

If you want to take the car example further, in some countries, you have to have a driving test. In some countries it is impossible to run a car more than five years old. The USA, afaik, has vehicle age related import restrictions. Much of modern car stuff has to serviced by authorised agents with the correct gear. These days folk do not usually keep cars, for as many years as they did, say 20 years ago. Its not good for the business of the car makers. Now, who is it that owns rolls royce? even my beloved land rover.....

Best wishes,

Ray (Even If I could afford a hasselblad, I wouldn't want to buy one...)

 

[Paul Schefz]

I think that the P 20, even at $6k may have a hard time competing with Canon.

if you compare the canon 1DsmkII files to the P20 files you see what a major difference there is...i know, i own them both...there is no comparison...if oyu open the canon files in C1, the first thing you notice is the lack of sharpness and detail..that can be adjusted, then you notice the lack of natural color, that is much harder to adjust and never just right...and then you zoom in on hair behind ears or leafs on a tree that is in the shade....the canon shows digital mush, almost a digital pattern made up to conceal the lack of detail...then you compare the phase file and all of a sudden see that there is hair behind that ear, these are leafs after all! i know that people show jpegs on the web, pixelpeeping...if you shoot both side by side, no comparison...has nothing to do with resolution...a file from the P20 can be cropped down to 7mpix and will still make a better 11x14 print then a full size canon file, because no matter what you do, the canon simply has to make-up most of the shadow detail, the phase does not...
a friend of mine who is just getting into digital, just bought a 5D..loves it..he had a portrait job, the files had to be in europe 2 days later, retouched...normally he would have shot film...he rented a P30....tried the set-up the day before and compared the 5D to the P30...when the pics popped up, his assistant was really excited....the pics looked so similar, he thought he just saved 25000$ (he was thinking about getting a 5D as well)...until they looked a little closer and closer..he called me that night and told me that now he understood what i was talking about....he still loves his 5D, but for his serious portrait work and to get film quality, he needs a MF back...
i have read people's opinion in forum who had both as well, compared them and found their canon gave them great files, they went and sold their MF backs! whatever works for you and however you can get the shot you and your client is happy with! but please don't think you need a P45, becuase it is the onlything better then a canon...simply not true....every 16bit back blows every 12bit camera away...

 

[Paul Schefz]

Hi Leonardo,
Now, who is it that owns rolls royce? even my beloved land rover.....

rolls is owned by either volkswagen or BMW (one owns rolls, the other bentley) and i don't think either owns landrover...

 

[Ray West]

Hi Paul
Bentley- volkswagon, RR - BMW, Landrover - Ford, Jaguar - Ford, Rover - Plant sold to China, MG-Rover - owned by Nanjing - new plant in usa to be built, and so it goes

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Don Lashier]

Hi Paul
Bentley- volkswagon, RR - BMW, Landrover - Ford, Jaguar - Ford, Rover - Plant sold to China, MG-Rover - owned by Nanjing - new plant in usa to be built, and so it goes

Well, you still make good toasters - just bought a Dualit.

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

if you compare the canon 1DsmkII files to the P20 files you see what a major difference there is...i know, i own them both...there is no comparison...if oyu open the canon files in C1, the first thing you notice is the lack of sharpness and detail..that can be adjusted, then you notice the lack of natural color, that is much harder to adjust and never just right...and then you zoom in on hair behind ears or leafs on a tree that is in the shade....the canon shows digital mush, almost a digital pattern made up to conceal the lack of detail...then you compare the phase file and all of a sudden see that there is hair behind that ear, these are leafs after all! i know that people show jpegs on the web, pixelpeeping...if you shoot both side by side, no comparison...has nothing to do with resolution...a file from the P20 can be cropped down to 7mpix and will still make a better 11x14 print then a full size canon file, because no matter what you do, the canon simply has to make-up most of the shadow detail, the phase does not...
................................................ but please don't think you need a P45, becuase it is the onlything better then a canon...simply not true....every 16bit back blows every 12bit camera away...

This is so important if it's right. That truth would be earth shattering since anywhere in the $7000 range is in the means of many who do indeed bemoan limitations of 12 BIT files.

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Paul, I would prefer to have a P 20 over a Canon or D5, but the I would be more comfortable with a P 25 because of the size of the sensor and the rectangular format.

It is definitively a good thing to have a 6K PhaseOne back, so ti is a positive development.

Maybe at the end there will be many different backs for every application, like a 4x4, station wagon, sports car etc Some may choose speed, others wan to transport stuff. In my case IQ and more resolution at less price is the equation.

 

[Asher Kelman]

O.K.,

Let's imagine we go with the 6K back. What would we pay for a setup with one great portrait lens?

I can see doing that and then renting a better back when doing wide angles or largegroups.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

if you compare the canon 1DsmkII files to the P20 files you see what a major difference there is...i know, i own them both...there is no comparison...if oyu open the canon files in C1, the first thing you notice is the lack of sharpness and detail..that can be adjusted,

If my information is correct, the P20 doesn't have an AA-filter, but only an IR-filter on the sensor array. If that is the case, then you are probably seeing the difference between an AA-filtered image and an unfiltered one. Sure there is also some resolution difference, but that isn't really that significant (unless you use two-exposure mode for stationary subjects).

then you notice the lack of natural color, that is much harder to adjust and never just right...

That's a bit odd, because profiling should produce virtually identical results, and the cameras also have a larger gamut that can be fitted in an Adobe RGB colorspace anyway.

and then you zoom in on hair behind ears or leafs on a tree that is in the shade....the canon shows digital mush, almost a digital pattern made up to conceal the lack of detail...then you compare the phase file and all of a sudden see that there is hair behind that ear, these are leafs after all!

It's a bit hard to make out if you are referring to Dynamic Range only, in which case you are probably right that the larger sensels of the P20, combined with the higher quality ADC circuitry, can produce a higher dynamic range. If you are describing the mix of aliasing artifacts and dynamic range then it's hard to make out which is which. Maybe you can show us an crop example of the same scene. That might enlighten.

i know that people show jpegs on the web, pixelpeeping...if you shoot both side by side, no comparison...has nothing to do with resolution...a file from the P20 can be cropped down to 7mpix and will still make a better 11x14 print then a full size canon file, because no matter what you do, the canon simply has to make-up most of the shadow detail, the phase does not...

Again, you seem to be mixing resolution/artifacts with dynamic range, but it's hard to say untill you show us a comparison. As always, a picture tells more than a thousand words. I'm not doubting your word, but it is all we have.

a friend of mine who is just getting into digital, just bought a 5D..loves it..he had a portrait job, the files had to be in europe 2 days later, retouched...normally he would have shot film...he rented a P30....tried the set-up the day before and compared the 5D to the P30...when the pics popped up, his assistant was really excited....the pics looked so similar, he thought he just saved 25000$ (he was thinking about getting a 5D as well)...until they looked a little closer and closer..he called me that night and told me that now he understood what i was talking about....he still loves his 5D, but for his serious portrait work and to get film quality, he needs a MF back...

Again a bit confusing. Someone who is used to shooting film, (what size?) is pleased with the 5D and P30 look. Then he needs to do some pixel-peeping to see the difference (it doesn't sound like your friend compared prints). That's quite a different story from what you told earlier about the P20, although the 5D does use a milder AA-filter and has larger sensels for better Dynamic Range, but lacks a bit of real resolution compared to the 1Ds2.

i have read people's opinion in forum who had both as well, compared them and found their canon gave them great files, they went and sold their MF backs! whatever works for you and however you can get the shot you and your client is happy with!

There may have been other reasons, for preferring one over the other, in those cases, e.g. faster payback time (e.g. cheaper back-up unit), portability, versatility (sports photograpy in addition to studio work), etc., etc. . I wouldn't know.

but please don't think you need a P45, becuase it is the onlything better then a canon...simply not true....every 16bit back blows every 12bit camera away...

We all 'need' a P45 ! ;-)

Since you say you own both, why not show us an example that illustrates what made you arrive at that conclusion? Again, a picture tells ...

Bart

 

[Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)]

I visit this sub-forum only because, while I do own an older Hasselblad (A 500 ELM), I would like to someday upgrade to a MF digital camera. I currently use a 1DsMkII because it works better for me then film would and gives me more flexability then the digital backs I could afford (costs less too).

I am still happy that it is possible to get a 39MP digital back that works with my old Hasselblad, but I am definately not happy that Hasselblad has seen fit to go proprietary only solution with the H3D.

If I am paying that much money I want the best I can get and there are three parts to the Camera system (not counting Post-processing) Lens, Body and Back. To me one of the big pluses of a medium format system is being able to choose the best components for the system based on MY needs and being able to change them out as needed without replacing the whole system. I accept this as a limitation with 35mm format DSLR in that body and back are integrated as one, but even with 1DsMkII I can use Sigma or Tamron lenses if I choose (heck I can even use Zeiss with an adapter). However it sounds as if Hasselblad has made it so I can only use their parts, if I did not misunderstand this; then the appeal of a medium format system from Hasselblad has been lessened greatly to the point where I will strongly consider other options if I ever have the resources to go to digital MF.

In other words, I think it was an overall dumb business decision on Hasselblad's part.

Just my opinion,

 

[Paul Schefz]

bart...
you are right a picture says it all...
my point is that there are a lot of shooters out there who are more then happy with the great and wonderful 5D or 1DsmkII or 1Ds...(a little side note here) my friend with the 5D just shot a job with it on 3200 because i told him about the almost film like grain at that speed...as much as we liked it, we preferred the look of the 1DmkII (that i had before the 1DsmkII) when we compared 2 prints... at 10x12 the grain looked better on the 1DmkII, the 5D did not have enough to provide the effect!
i simply recommend to eevrybody to rent a MF back and compare the files to canon/nikon files...if there is no rental in your area...phase, leaf have full size raw files for download...it is easier compare the same scene, shoot the same scene with 2 cameras...but the difference is still there...i would not bother with full size jpegs, because the won't tell you the real story...web jepgs are totally useless...i am not asking you to take my word that MF backs are superiour, but please test it in your environment..the way you shoot...there was a guy on some other forum wanting to shoot runway with MF...of course you can do it, but why would you do that to yourself...the capture-rate, the AF speed..the handling...this is DSLR territory! but that does not mean it can't be done and he should not go for it if he thinks he can get the better shot..which is what this is about...everybody talking about P45s and 39mpix...people shoot ad campaigns with 10$ throwaway cameras ...i do not want to deal with 100mb raw files...i have 2TB storage and i am always running out...i have to deliver my files on hardrives, because DVDs are way too small...and i am shooting 16mpix....
btw: to tell the difference between a 1DsmkII 8x10 print and a P20 8x10 print is not easy (for most subject matters)...it becomes more obvious on 11x14 (also depending on subject)...the differnce between a P45 and a P20 on 11x14? none..the P20 is still full size non interpolated...a 16x20..differnt story....
if you can get the results you want and need with a canon or nikon...great for you! wonderful..if you are happy with the color it provides you..perfect! color is just about the least debateable subject...everybody sees it differntly, your pics are about how you see the world and how you want them to be seen...
for me the 12 bit files are always lacking..i never actually shoot with my canon anymore..the P20 goes up to 400 at full size...the grain in those files looks more like film grain then the 1DsMkII...
i am very happy with the P20...of course there is always a new thing out there: P30+...1frame/sec, up to 1600...hmmmm...although i think i would rather go with a larger chip...if the emotion25 would go up to 400 or even 800, that would be my ideal back....
funny thing is i never liked the square with film, had some square hassies, but always shot 645 with them...now i actually really like the square for my private shots...i crop less and less...

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

The impact of what was presented in MF at Photokina seams to be more important than in the "35mm" format, which was, the absence of the 1DsMk3 with the digital-back-killer 24mp @ 8fps (so said the rumors ), and the sequels of the Sigma and Fujifilm that presented not so good sample images. Except for the M8 that has a strong emotional value but limited practical impact, the field is about the same before and after Photokina.

Medium Format had one "no show", --like the Canon Mk3-- on the Mamiya team that should have had a working ZD back AND a USA ZD body (plus the announcement of a ZD/camara and back in 39mp flavor).

Besides that player continuing his siesta, there was the announcement of two radically different and new systems --the H3 is new and old--, one open, the other closed, so the field is different after Photokina than before.

The question is: how

For example, PhaseOne has more than 60% of the market share in backs. Hasselblad 60 to 80% in bodies/lenses. So the divorce of this two main players will create a tectonic fault and we may feel the quakes soon.

For example, the second hand market for backs -- something that interests me because I want a P25 used -- had some backs available from PhaseOne, but since the company has an upgrade program, photographers never dumped their backs. Now, if Hasselblad is correct in their strategy, they will begin to do so to buy the new "only" MF DSLR, ... or not?

I would like to see if there is any change already on the price of the H1-H2 system, are people going to du mp this now-obsolete orphan line of lenses, backs and bodies? certainly there are a few owners extremely discontent and have declare in no mood to purchasing one more lens from the brand. Will this be a time to buy, or a time to sell Hasselblad stock?

As I said, the interest I have is to see the price of backs go down, after all a used P25 is perfect for me. It has 22mp and puts it above Canon --for now-- in pixel count, plus the 16bits... it has a nice sensor size and works with wide lenses --not only because of sensor size, but also the way it is designed, as opposed to the P20 that is more of a tele-formulated-ccd---.

A P25 could be mounted on the AFD and on a Horseman for architecure, so, at least for me all that I need is there already, except for the price.

So, the question is

What does everyone here thinks is going to happen with the market share of

a) Hasselblad
a.1) goes up of course
a.2) goes down of course
a.3) don't care

b) Phase one
b.1) goes up of course
b.2) goes down of course
b.3) don't care

 

[Don Lashier]

Except for the M8 that has a strong emotional value but limited practical impact ...

Maybe little impact for folks that need resolution of MF, but there's a whole segment of photographers for whom this potentially has a big practical impact by bringing MF (16 bit) image quality to a small handheld camera with excellent glass available.

- DL

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Don,

Point taken. It will be interesting to see the impact -- or lack -- of the M8 on "35mm" format. I admit that I was not conscious of the 16bit capability of the new Leica. We would have to wait to see the images, after all this is a new and radically different sensor from Kodak, it can or can not fly. Optics is as good as the imaging device, --and the way it is processed -- so if Kodak did a good job then there will be an impact, if not ...

 

[Paul Schefz]

leonardo...there are always some P25 floating around...there were some refurbs when the P45 was announced (people trading in) and i am sure there will be more when the new plus backs start shipping...but the P25+ is still the 2nd most expensive phase back...the bigger the sensor the more expensive it is to make...so the 22mpix P25+ is 8000$ more then the 31mpix P30+...the P21 is s great sensor with almost the same coverage for a lot less money...you know about the P20...the difference between the P20 and the P25 is 15000$ and 1cm chipsize...it is exactly the same chip only 1cm shorter...with the difference in money you can buy the horseman with a 28mm digitar and get as wide as you want and buy a whole MF kit and trade up when you have more money...if you have clients that need top quality...why are you talking about money? the P45 is 30000$ which is about 200$ in film and lab cost per week for 3 years...4x5 quality should at least pay that much....
or buy the rollei6008/P20 kit and a X-ActII with a digitar lens...if you need the P25 extra quality for a job, rent or just stich 2 images together...no difference to the P25...

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Paul

Thank you for helping me on this, but the way I see it is
*P 20 has a square format, and if you want to publish or print and crop to 8x10 proportions you would en up with the exact size of a Canon. The back would give you better IQ because of the 16bits, but the effort of using MF would not be justified.
*P 20 is a back designed for fashion and formulated for fast captures and I think that for this it has a sensor that, even with a horseman and 28mm will not work so well in the corners. (I konow I read about this somewhere, I will try to find it later)

P21/P30 is 44x33mm, and yes, it sounds interesting

P30 6,8 micron pixel
P25 9 micron pixel

The datasheet of the P 30 has a note in the camera support: "Note: Wide angle and large format tilt and swing positions may produce a colorcast in the image"

So this is what I was talking about, in principle the best back for a non-fashion photographer would be the P 25 (or P 45 for one with more budget)

The idea is to find the most cost effective solution, so, I know that a smaller sensor is cheaper, but so is the 1DsMk2, of even a 5D, but if I want to go MF then I think that going full frame is the only true MF.

I saw some 1 year warranty for 14,500 I hope that with the announcement of the Hy6 and H3 there may be some more at even better price floating around, meanwhile I will continue to window shop

thanks

leonardo...there are always some P25 floating around...there were some refurbs when the P45 was announced (people trading in) and i am sure there will be more when the new plus backs start shipping...but the P25+ is still the 2nd most expensive phase back...the bigger the sensor the more expensive it is to make...so the 22mpix P25+ is 8000$ more then the 31mpix P30+...the P21 is s great sensor with almost the same coverage for a lot less money...you know about the P20...the difference between the P20 and the P25 is 15000$ and 1cm chipsize...it is exactly the same chip only 1cm shorter...with the difference in money you can buy the horseman with a 28mm digitar and get as wide as you want and buy a whole MF kit and trade up when you have more money...if you have clients that need top quality...why are you talking about money? the P45 is 30000$ which is about 200$ in film and lab cost per week for 3 years...4x5 quality should at least pay that much....
or buy the rollei6008/P20 kit and a X-ActII with a digitar lens...if you need the P25 extra quality for a job, rent or just stich 2 images together...no difference to the P25...
__________________

 

[Paul Schefz]

leonardo...you are right the P30 is not made for T/S..i think they even warn against it...the P25 is a great solution, because of the pixelsize and the resolution and it is a mature product (same chip as the H25!) that combined with the size of the chip intself will keep the price at a certain lavel for years...you have to make a business decision if this investment will bring you the return...for T/S i would look towards leaf or sinar anyway, the dalsa chip has no colorshift problems at all...the P25 still does (just like the P20) but C1 has a lensCC built in, which has to be calibrated for each lens...i have never done it, never used T/S....good luck...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Don,

Point taken. It will be interesting to see the impact -- or lack -- of the M8 on "35mm" format. I admit that I was not conscious of the 16bit capability of the new Leica. We would have to wait to see the images, after all this is a new and radically different sensor from Kodak, it can or can not fly. Optics is as good as the imaging device, --and the way it is processed -- so if Kodak did a good job then there will be an impact, if not ...

Two observations:
First, the Kodak KAF-10500 sensor apparently (according to their info) has a saturation level of 60,000 photons (electrons), and a read-noise of 15 electrons. Those are not uncommon values for such a sensor with 6.8 micron sensel pitch. For a theoretical 60000:15 Signal/Noise Ratio, or 4000:1 which is almost 12-bits, there is little benefit to be expected from 16-bit processing, other than perhaps a slightly more accurate quantification of noise. Personally I don't expect any miracle performance due to 16-bit processing, the sensels are too small to offer a challenging dynamic range.

In addition, the sensor (like almost all others) is photon shot noise limited for full exposures which further restricts the S/N ratio. That means that the sensor will in practice exhibit a maximal 245:1 S/N ratio, something a 12-bit ADC could already handle well enough.

Second, the images I saw before they were pulled (but after Google's cache already saved them) did (as expected) show signs of Moire, manifesting itself as false color artifacts.

Both limitations would IMHO limit the usability of the images. My prediction is that the camera may sell to existing Leica users, but not necessarily to those who seek ultimate image quality. It would take larger sensels to improve the dynamic range of the camera, but that would not do justice to the lens quality. It's a Catch 22 situation ...

Bart

 

[Don Lashier]

Two observations:
First, the Kodak KAF-10500 sensor apparently (according to their info) has a saturation level of 60,000 photons (electrons), and a read-noise of 15 electrons. Those are not uncommon values for such a sensor with 6.8 micron selsel pitch. For a theoretical 60000:15 Signal/Noise Ratio, or 4000:1 which is almost 12-bits, there is little benefit to be expected from 16-bit processing, other than perhaps a slightly more accurately quantification of noise.

Well, the specs on the KAF-10500 seem to be identical (actually a hair better) with specs on the KAF-39000 used in the P45. Are you saying that 16 bit capture is extraneous on the PhaseOne back also?

- DL

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well, the specs on the KAF-10500 seem to be identical with specs on the KAF-39000 used in the P45. Are you saying that 16 bit capture is extraneous on the PhaseOne back also?
- DL

Yes, on the P45 there aren't enough electrons per sensel to make it a dynamic range challenge, although it could help a tiny bit to better encode additional sources of noise (supporting electronics, temperature on long exposures) and under-exposure. Larger sensel areas are needed to have images benefit from available scene dynamic range and have more accurate quantification of noise.

The number of pixels on the other hand, will in this case allow to reduce some of the effects of aliasing artifacts because of lower output magnification needs.

In other words, it depends on the final use of the image. Large format output benefits from more sensels, and superior dynamic range requires larger sensels. Having both will be expensive, so choices will need to be made (unless cost is no objection).

Bart

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Your calculations look impressive to a mere photographer -- I have just learned the term "sensel", for example -- but I think that in Photo terms you mean to say that "don't know how they are producing 16bits from a sensor that seams to have unremarkable sensels".

I think that what we should do is wait to see this less-than-FF-Kodak 16bits sensor and the sample images when available and celebrate the achievement then. On the other side, if Kodak does this on a Leica body there is no reason Nikon and all could not be able/want to also have 16bit bodies... or Canon, being one much mentioned advantage of digital backs.