phase one p25 with nikon d3x

<p>Hi all i am new in forum :-)<br>

I have a nikon d3x and i am about purchasing a phase one p25 v mount back with 2200 exposures for 3000 euros.<br>

my question is that if it is and stupid thing as i have the nikon d3x with about the same amount of PX.<br>

I like the medium format field and DOF over the 35mm and i have the hasselblad 503 cw already.</p>

<p>Sorry about my english and thanks for you time</p>

 

<p>If you prefer working with the Hasselblad, and you can afford it, it's not a stupid thing at all. Quite sure the Phase One back will have different qualities from the Nikon; the amount of pixels is only part of the story.</p>

<p>thanks for the response:-)<br>

I m not very clear about the image quality diferences on thoose two systems.<br>

Some people says that the pixels on MF are diferent than thoose on 35mm.<br>

I shoot fashion and the way i work i dont need speed...so i need opinions :-)</p>

<p>Generally the larger the sensor the greater the image quality. That would be a full frame sensor. I do not think you are going to suffer image quality loss.</p>

<p>The only other consideration would be your glass. Since you already have the camera, I will only assume you have a decent selection of lenses.</p>

<p>It should be quite a step up.</p>

<p>So... do you think that it would be a nice thing to have the nikon d3x and phase one p25 together?<br>

my hasselblad 503 cw has the carl zeiss planar 80 2.8 CF .<br>

Im getting crazy...y dont now what to do...</p>

<p>A digital back is an excellent way to continue to use a V system that you already own in the digital era. It is especially appropriate if you shoot fashion or products. Not all pixels are equal. Although the D3x is an outstanding camera, medium format digital is different and in many ways better for controlled photography.</p>

<p>The P25 will have significantly more resolution than the Nikon, for two reasons. The D3x has an anti-aliasing filter, whereas the P25 does not. Secondly, larger pixels mean the lens doesn't have to work as hard to resolve an image*. The net effect is a 50% improvement in resolution compared to the same number of pixels in the smaller camera. Larger pixels are also quieter than those in the D3x, and the dynamic range is 16 bits/channel vs. 14 bits/channel for the Nikon. Both factors contribute to a smoother appearance and more open shadows.</p>

<p>One image that sold me on MF digital was that of a motorcycle - black and chrome. The texture of black leather is reproduced very well, along with the bright contrast of the metal. In other subjects, including portraits, MF renders gradients and textures much better than small format, whether film or digital. I don't have the original, but I couldn't resist taking a similar shot on the street.</p>

<p>* Net resolution is a product of the resolution of each component making the image. If the "errors" in edge contrast were gaussian (a good approximation), the net error is the root sum of squares. In short, if the absolute resolution of Hasselblad and Nikon lenses were about 200 lp/mm (also a good approximation), pixels of the P25 would yield about 40% better resolution.</p>

<p>Aliasing can be a problem with MF digital, due to the lack of a filter. Repetetive patterns, like bricks or fabric near the edge of resolution show Moire patterns, which can be very hard to remove in post.</p><div></div>

<p>You only have one Hasselblad lens. The D3X is a much easier system to use. The "look" of the Hasselblad and P25 may be different but I doubt significantly better. Sharpness of images will not be significantly better. Don't forget that the P25 is a "crop" sensor. It is approximately 36mm x 48mm and not 56mm x 56mm that your 503 with 120 film used to be. This is the part I am concerned about. The sensor is twice the size of the D3X sensor and has less pixels with only 22 MP. It seems to me that you can make same size prints at the same print resolution and get very similar results from both systems. </p>

<p>Your 80/2.8 with the P25 will give a similar view to a 105mm lens.</p>

<p>Depending on what Nikon lenses you have I might recommend putting the money into Nikon lenses instead.</p>

<p>Edward, my one concern in your post is regarding resolution of medium format lenses compared to 35mm lenses. I don't have all the lpm facts in front of me, but it has always been a known fact that the best 35mm lenses outresolve the best medium format lenses by a significant margin. In the days of film the single biggest advantage MF had was far less magnification of the negative/transparency to achieve the same size print from 35mm film. Since the grain of a 35mm film was the same as the grain of it's 120 format film counterpart, the medium format lens did not have to resolve as well as the 35mm lens to still achieve far superior results.</p>

<p>In this scenario, with different sensors, the D3X it is like using a fine grain Kodachrome 25 film, and the P25 is like using a large grain Ektachrome 100. By the time you enlarge them to the same size print they will be similar.</p>

<p>With respect to your motorcycle anecdote, what was the medium format sensor and what DSLR were you able to directly compare it to.</p>

<p>maybe i should wait another eternity and buy a p45+ or p40 + ....but the p25 back has a very good price with just 2500 exposures...(3000euros)...i would not want to loose the chance .<br>

Another thing i like about the p25 is thas the sensor measures 36x49 and for example the p40+ measures 33x44 with i realy do not understand why they call 33x44 MEDIUM FORMAT.it is not even double of a 35mm camera and has the same micron size as my nikon d3x.<br>

The price of a p40+ is about 16000euros just the back :-0 and the p45+ is about 22000 euros :-0000(</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are so few of these around on the used market I have no idea if that is a good price or not. If you know that it is a good price, and you can afford it, then you could purchase it, test/use it, and if you are not happy with it, then resell it for close to what you bought it for. Directly comparing it to your D3X is the only way to truly find out. Anyone who has taken the time, and money, to make this direct comparison is not likely on this site.</p>

<p>I absolutely concur, to me it will not be medium format until there are at least 56mm x 56mm sensors that can use medium format lenses the way they were meant to be used.</p>

<p>what do you think about 33x44mm size sensor? I d like to now why new MF sensor are smaller like p40+, p30+, h4d31 ,h4d40... It is better to have a smaller sensor? i thougt it was better to have a bigger sensor size</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like the medium format field and DOF over the 35mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean you like deeper DOF, and don't care about the 35mm system's ability to achieve much shallower DOF than a P25 back on a V system Blad? Because the oft-repeated statement that MF has shallower DOF than 35mm is just an urban myth.</p>

<p>Here's a little bit more mythology (or halucination).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D3x has an anti-aliasing filter, whereas the P25 does not. Secondly, larger pixels mean the lens doesn't have to work as hard to resolve an image*. The net effect is a 50% improvement in resolution compared to the same number of pixels in the smaller camera. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, there is nothing in optical physics or image processing to support that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Larger pixels are also quieter than those in the D3x, and the dynamic range is 16 bits/channel vs. 14 bits/channel for the Nikon. Both factors contribute to a smoother appearance and more open shadows.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Larger pixels <strong>with the same technology</strong> are superior to smaller ones. The sensors in current MF backs are so far behind the level of technology in a D3X sensor that if you actually measure the dynamic range instead of quoting urban myths, chicken entrail readings, or hallucinations, you will find that the D3X has the quieter pixels, smoother appearance, and more open shadows. And a 16 bit converter on a sensor noisy enough to mask the last 4 bits with noise is not a tactical advantage of any type.</p>

<p>Medium format sensor development has the same problems that DSLR sensor development had. Nikon has crop sensor and full frame sensor camera bodies. It took Nikon several years longer than Canon to develop a full frame sensor.</p>

<p>I don't follow medium format like I used to but I see since the spring that Phase One has had a pretty much full frame 645 camera with an almost 41mm x 54mm sensor available in 60 MP and 80 MP formats, so hopefully things are improving. Except I for one will never be able to afford one of these even used in the next 15 years!</p>

<p>I'll have to see what I can do with a stitched Canon 17 TS-E image at 36mm x 48mm on a full frame Canon body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>the P-25 is a great back for a lot of things, Someone mentioned the lack of anti aliasing filter, which is one reason for it's sharper images, but the P-25 is particularly prone to the moire problem mentioned before. I used to use one on a 503cw and you would not see it at all on some shoots especially product. But I had some lifestyle or portrait shoots where the moire on fabric was very difficult to deal with. sometimes in almost every shot with certain knit or denim materials. Despite the recommended fixes, very difficult and time consuming to fix. It caused me to upgrade to the p-45 as the higher resolution almost eliminates the problem. If you are shooting a lot of people or fabrics it might not be the best choice.</p>

<p>for me the easiest thing to do will be to buy a iq180 MF system but unfortunatly it is a matter of money. That is why i am asking about the p25 back.<br>

I like the perpective you get with it and change the camera wile working.</p>

<p>ok David papas that was a great response for me ,very helpfull, as i would not like to deal with thoose kind of things after spending money so i think i will wait for anotheR oportunty to upgrade to MF.<br>

Thanks so much :-)</p>

<p>I have a CFV-16 and a Nikon D3 and D2x. If you crop the square CFV-16 to a 2:3 aspect ratio, you are left with about 13 MP, compared to 12 MP in the Nikons. Consequently, the comparison is fairly straight forward on a pixel/pixel basis. I have a number of images in my Photo.net portfolio which compare resolution and dynamic range between the CFV and various Nikon sensors, MF and 35mm film.</p>

<p>Larger pixels offer greater resolution than the same number of pixels in a smaller dimension, given comparable performance of the lens. In a CFV-16, there are approximately 109 pixels/mm, which is the smallest detail you can resolve with this sensor. Assuming the lens has a resolution of 200 lp/mm, the image is further degraded by this limitation. An estimate of the net effect is the root-sum-square of the components.</p>

<p>(1/net)^2 = (1/109)^2 + (1/200)^2<br>

net = 96 pixels/mm, or 3551 pixels/image width (37 mm)<br>

The same computation for a D2x gives a value of 3191 pixels/image width.</p>

<p>You can't make a blanket statement that 35mm lenses are better than MF lenses. It is fair to say that 35mm lenses would have to be much better than medium format lenses to achieve the same performance. That is not to say that they are, in fact, uniformly better. Hasselblad lenses are all very good. Some 35mm lenses are very good, some are not, including some Nikon lenses. Having examined thousands of film images from both cameras, I'd say they're about the same in practice. What they are in the lab is not of immediate concern - I don't take pictures of newspapers and air force targets on microfilm.</p>

<p>Moire is not a problem if you choose or arrange your subject matter carefully. Fabric, in loose folds, is sufficiently random that Moire does not occur. If you stretch it flat, watch out! Fences, bricks and grain elevators (see my portfolio) can be a challenge. That doesn't happen with the Nikon (q.v., the same grain elevators). The anti-aliasing filter tends to disperse the unsharpened image of edges over 3-4 pixels, whereas the CFV is sharp to the nearest pixel under ideal conditions (good support and good focusing). Most of the resolution advantage is due to this effect.</p>

<p>Have fun parsing this post, Joseph. You make it so much fun to share my experience. Try adding something this time, not just knocking down.</p>

<i>"Because the oft-repeated statement that MF has shallower DOF than 35mm is just an urban myth."</i><br><br>Apart from DoF itself being an urban myth, is it?<br>DoF depends on magnification and f-stop. To create the same compostion on larger formats, magnification has to grow in proportion with the growth of the format. And with it, DoF automatically decreases.<br>The only thing that can counteract that is f-stop. So you would be able to open up your 35 mm format lens wider to get the same, shallower, DoF (still given the same composition on both formats.)<br>So where's the myth, Joseph?

And speaking of myth (urban or otherwise), here's a perfect example:<br><br><i>"but it has always been a known fact that the best 35mm lenses outresolve the best medium format lenses by a significant margin."</i><br><br>It's a myth Edward has addressed already, but i think it cannot be stressed enough that this indeed is pure fiction (created mainly by Leitz, as a marketing thing. Repeated - without questioning - ever since).

<p><em>"Because the oft-repeated statement that MF has shallower DOF than 35mm is just an urban myth."</em></p>

<p><em>So where's the myth, Joseph?</em></p>

<p>In practice FX excels in shallow DOF because there are many more options for fast lenses in the small formats than medium formats. For example lenses like 24/1.4, 200/2 and so on. I would be happy to see someone demonstrate similar or shallower depth of field (than those lenses give with FX) in any medium format digital system. Of course the angle of view has to be fixed for a valid comparison.</p>

Yes, of course the angle of view has to be fixed for comparisons.<br>The larger aperture of the faster 35 mm format lenses (or FX, if you so wish to call them) is balanced by the greater magnification in MF.<br><br>There may be a few exceptions, like an f/1.4 24 mm lens not having a 'DoF matched' MF counterpart. Are there many f/1.4 24 mm lenses? Any?<br>And then, "in practice": how many pictures do you suppose are shot with the lens wide open?<br><br>In short: it's not a myth. It's a general rule. And in practice there may be a few exceptions to the rule, for the lucky few who own superfast 35 mm format lenses.

<p>Pnet's own Bob Atkins' website has a reasonably mathematical explanation of DOF, and refers to a more rigorous analysis. In a nutshell, DOF is inversely proportional square root of the image size, given the same distance and field of view and same relative aperture.</p>

<p>Without the rigor, anyone who has used medium format along with a smaller format in the studio can attest to the relative ease with which you can throw the backdrop out of focus with the larger medium. Considering the high minimum ISO of many small format cameras, you have to fiddle with the lights to use f/4 or wider. Otherwise you faithfully capture every wrinkle and piece of lint on the muslin :-)</p>

<p><em> Are there many f/1.4 24 mm lenses? Any?</em><br /><em>And then, "in practice": how many pictures do you suppose are shot with the lens wide open?</em></p>

<p>Yes, both Canon and Nikon have 24/1.4's (I have one from Nikon). I shoot it quite frequently wide open. And the picture quality wide open is very good.</p>

<p><em>it's not a myth. It's a general rule.</em></p>

<p>The OP's 80/2.8 if mounted on a full frame 645 sensor is equivalent to a 51mm lens (typical 50/1.4's are actually a few mm longer). There are autofocus 50/1.4's in the Nikon system. For a half-body portrait subject let's set the focus distance to 2m. For the 80mm lens, on 645, the depth of field calculator gives us 0.15m depth of field at f/2.8. The D3X with a 50mm lens at f/1.4 gives a DOF of 0.13m. The circle of confusion was automatically adjusted by the calculator to 0.03mm and 0.045mm which is approximately correct. Very small difference in DOF but FX wins slightly (and there are faster 50mm lenses in existence if you use manual focus). For other systems than Nikon there are even f/1.0 and f/0.95 available. </p>

<p>Now, let's look at a 150mm f/4 lens which might be used for a head shot. That would correspond to the angle of view of a 96mm lens on the D3X. I have a 100mm f/2 ZF. MF rig: DOF at f/4 0.06m vs. FX rig DOF at f/2 0.05m. You can argue the difference is negligible here. </p>

<p>Let's look at wide angle. For a Hasselblad V system there exists a 40mm f/4 lens. That would correspond to 25-26mm lens. I have a 24/1.4 as closest match. DOFs wide open 0.93m (Hasselblad 645) and 0.59m (FX). Clear win for FX.</p>

<p>Finally, for a longer lens let's look at a 350/5.6 vs. a 200/2 for Nikon. DOF wide open MF 0.0137m vs. FX 0.0108m.</p>

<p>Anyway, these are with a full frame 645 sensor. For a 36x48mm sensor the lenses available are the same but the DOF will be <em>larger</em> for any given angle of view and aperture than when using a full-frame 645 sensor. For the H system Hasselblad has slightly faster lenses, e.g. 100/2.2. Let's look at that. That's 64mm on FX .. don't have a lens like that but I do have 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. 7.68cm DOF wide open (MF) vs. 4.5cm for FX(85/1.4) and 13.3cm FX(50/1.4). You can argue here that if you want that particular angle of view then you do have shallower depth of field on MF using that full frame 645mm sensor.</p>

<p>While I may have missed some lenses I think we can conclude that there is no clear-cut advantage to using MF digital to achieve shallow DOF vs. a D3X except in individual special cases. FX can achieve shallow DOF across a greater range of focal lengths though of course you have to pay real money to get it (but nothing like a MF digital camera with a full-frame sensor). Now, in the past it used to be that 35mm lenses were quite crappy wide open but things have come a long way since that time - the latest f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors are excellent and can be safely used wide open. Also, if you get to actually employ the V system lenses on a 6x6 sized sensor then the tide shifts a bit but I am unaware of anyone with that big a general-use (non-scanning) sensor.</p>

<p><em>anyone who has used medium format along with a smaller format in the studio can attest to the relative ease with which you can throw the backdrop out of focus with the larger medium. Considering the high minimum ISO of many small format cameras, you have to fiddle with the lights to use f/4 or wider.</em></p>

<p>Yes, there is a discrepancy with studio flashes made at a time when 8x10 film was normal to use in the studio, and the requirements of modern cameras. I've ran into that myself. Anyway, I calculated that with two Ranger Quadras and big softboxes you can actually shoot at f/1.4 at ISO 100 (which is the base ISO of OP's D3X) at the lowest flash energy setting. It has a greater range of adjustment than typical studio flashes but can take the same modifiers. That's a fairly faint blip and I guess any leak of existing light would create a problem. Alternatively you could use LEDs.</p>

<p>FX has the nice advantage that you can utilize any light - if it is bright enough that you can see anything at all in it, you can make a photograph using it. Okay, a fashion photographer will need controlled color spectrum of the light source. Let's see ... an iPad ;-)</p>

<p>http://fstoppers.com/jesse-rosten-uses-ipad-studio-lighting</p>

<p>(I like LCD monitors to light my office portraits after daylights have dimmed - try doing that with medium format.)</p>

<p>Anyway, I suspect a more typical situation for a fashion photographer would include enough DOF to show the details of the clothing so this discussion is probably academic. ;-)</p>

So there we have it: due to the increased magnification, larger formats have less DoF. You must compensate on smaller formats by using larger apertures if you want the same shallow DoF.<br>No myth in sight anywhere.<br><br>(Not, of course, until we begin to talk about how much DoF there is. ;-) )