Phase One P65+ 60 megapixel digital back doesn't know the meaning of the word "excess"

Well, don't you feel silly now, Hasselblad. That 50 megapixel monstrosity of yours got barely a week of being the new hotness before Phase One made you look silly with its new P65+ 60 megapixel digital back. The full frame, 645 medium format back can shoot at a blistering 1 FPS, uses a proprietary sensor built by Phase One and Dalsa, offers up variable resolution, and carries a $39,990 pricetag. Now if you'll excuse us, we need to go throw a few 8 megapixel junkers of ours into a wall.

[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]

[Jesse S @ Jul 14th 2008 9:01AM]

Is it actually full-frame? That is, 6x4.5? Or is it still a crop sensor?

If it actually is FF, and not just called that (Hassy calls theirs fullframe, but they're still cropped), then I believe they're the first.

And it's not excess. Some people need that many megapixels. Us consumers do not.

[Rick @ Jul 14th 2008 9:03AM]

full frame 645? Word. The 6x6 Sinar/rollei/leaf platform now makes alot of sense. Now to figure out who to hock my internal organs to.

[Pochi @ Jul 14th 2008 9:09AM]

"Some people need that many megapixels."

SIXTY?

[Jesse S @ Jul 14th 2008 9:12AM]

You obviously haven't heard of film, or studio photography.

[Colin Potter @ Jul 14th 2008 9:26AM]

show me a guy who needs that many pixels and I'll show you a fool who should stick to film

[E71 @ Jul 14th 2008 9:39AM]

60 megapixel porn FTW.

[thedesolate1 @ Jul 14th 2008 10:34AM]

Super ultra highdef pr0n you feel like u can stick your body in.

[Nick @ Jul 14th 2008 10:36AM]

60 doesn't sound excessive. At 300dpi (digital photo resolution), that gives you a 20x30 inch pic. You could easily get a crowd photo that big, and with this you would be able to see each person's face clearly.

[Temple @ Jul 14th 2008 11:52AM]

Its 'almost' full-frame 64; its a 1.06 crop sensor. 40.4 X 54.9mm sensor. (full frame would be 41.5 x 56 mm) So close enough.

This sensor is designed by Phase One/Dalsa, so its an exclusive design that won't be in other digital backs. Which isn't that bad, unless you're invested in the closed H3D system which won't be able to attach this back.

The P65 oddly enough will be able to attach to Hasselblad's H1/H2 system as well as Mamiya, Hy6, Contax, V-systems, and the new Mamiya 645 AFDIII (co-designed with Phase One).

Clearly this announcement was made to out-do the Hasselblad 50MP announcement last week. The full-frame will make a big difference being that it'll help on wider lenses (the 28mm MF lenses are around $4k).

[eric f. @ Jul 14th 2008 9:15AM]

Yes, it is full frame. you get "Full Viewfinder Coverage".

[HuGo @ Jul 14th 2008 9:37AM]

I reckon all the people who used to whine about the iPhone only having 2 megapixels should just strap this to the back of it...

[AC @ Jul 14th 2008 10:29AM]

i admire/loathe your ability to drag the iPhone into this post.

[HuGo @ Jul 14th 2008 10:40AM]

Well I 'admire/loathe your ability' to mock anybody who even as much as mentions fruit let alone Apple in any posts.

[Zal @ Jul 14th 2008 9:40AM]

The actual sensor dimensions are 54.9mm x 40.4mm, which is considered "close enough" to the actual film-sensitive surface in film 645 to be considered full-frame with no need for viewfinder masks. For example, Mamiya's film 645 actually measured 56mm x 41.5mm, so this new back is, for all intents and purposes, "full frame".

[Colin Potter @ Jul 14th 2008 9:47AM]

true... but at $5,000 for a great film SLR, I'd say thats a better way to go.

[Dillon @ Jul 14th 2008 9:44AM]

My father is a professional photographer, and he has the older 20 megapixel Hassleblad Phase 1 backing. With that, you can pretty much look right into the pores of someones face if you really feel like it. I don't know if this camera is really going to be that useful to professional photographers. Advertisements haven't really become large enough yet to need such high resolution. Maybe when gigantic billboards start appearing in space, but not for now ;).

[Electromodo @ Jul 14th 2008 10:49AM]

I agree and would add that human eye resolution is ~74 Megapixels, so this is very damn close.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

"...you can pretty much look right into the pores of someones face..." - I can do that with 5 megapixels and an optical zoom ;)))

[Dillon @ Jul 14th 2008 11:35AM]

I mean the pores of someones face who is like 30 meters away from you, without any optical zoom.

[OneLove @ Jul 14th 2008 9:48AM]

Baby got Back!

[DallasM @ Jul 14th 2008 9:50AM]

60 million Pixels, shoot that only shoots a 6 x 9 photo. 6 feet by 9 feet that is. I wonder if the optics are actually good enough to make that worth it. I doubt it.

[icepop4who @ Jul 14th 2008 9:52AM]

i wonder what the file size for all that 60MP goodness

[Colin Potter @ Jul 14th 2008 9:58AM]

about 90mb if you're shooting in raw12

[Mike @ Jul 14th 2008 9:59AM]

360MB for 16 bit files.

[Steve Sparkes @ Jul 14th 2008 9:55AM]

Film and a scanner will do this for a lot less

[Jay Evans @ Jul 14th 2008 10:18AM]

Wanta bet?

[Dustin @ Jul 14th 2008 10:18AM]

Perhaps, and that depends on the cost of the drum scanner you would use to get the quality demanded by professionals shooting medium- to large-format film.

Then you don't have the short turnaround time, instant feedback and flexibility some clients demand. Digital is not necessarily teaching an old dog new tricks - its almost a different art form that results in similar end products compared to film.

[robjennings @ Jul 14th 2008 2:11PM]

Maybe film and a scanner will do better, but you'll wait for the files. With this digital camera, you might have to wait a while to transfer the giant files in the studio, but you could still have the file same day. If a publisher or ad agency needs the files right away, a day can make a big difference.

Unfortunately, like any technology, these super high resolution digital cameras are just going to raise the bar for turnaround times. With film, everyone knew there was going to be a wait of a day or two. Now everyone expects to see a layout right after the photo shoot.

[nanobis @ Jul 14th 2008 9:58AM]

how long till this is ready for the iphone,

Fail.

[Benson @ Jul 14th 2008 2:01PM]

Wow, self-announcing failness. That's actually pretty cool.

[atomische @ Jul 14th 2008 10:03AM]

I suspect this won't blend.

[gad get @ Jul 14th 2008 10:44AM]

Let's find out. Anybody have some money lying around? Like, say, $40,000? Also, we'll need a real good blender...

[Colin Potter @ Jul 14th 2008 11:22AM]

i hear blend-tec makes one hell of a blender

[rita hainsworth @ Jul 14th 2008 10:46AM]

Damn, I just spent 39,000 on clothes...oh well next year.

[Chris Are @ Jul 14th 2008 11:56AM]

Priorities. I hope you learned your lesson.

[Adamwho @ Jul 14th 2008 3:28PM]

Was that 39,000 Yen?

[naz @ Jul 14th 2008 10:46AM]

Does it shoot video?

[Atenlaugh @ Jul 14th 2008 11:02AM]

Yes, at 1 frame per second.

[gad get @ Jul 14th 2008 11:13AM]

I see what you did there.

[Colin Potter @ Jul 14th 2008 11:34AM]

yup.... at 1 FPS

[LondonConsultant @ Jul 14th 2008 12:07PM]

I hope it has YouTube Capture Mode...

[bob @ Jul 14th 2008 11:59AM]

Sure it can take 60 mega pixel photos...but can it play Doom?

[ben @ Jul 14th 2008 5:09PM]

It cannot play Doom, but it can take pictures of people posting silly comments about Doom...

[Magallanes @ Jul 14th 2008 12:00PM]

This monstercamera is only too fool "pseudoartist" to mark a difference between a pro and a aficionado.

Even for a giant canvas. 8 megapixel is still enough for a photo quality picture, of course is not recommended for a audience near to a few inches, but of course you always can interpolate and use several other tricks.

Currently a 20megapixel camera is inexpensive, everything over it is just toss your money.

[micahmicah @ Jul 14th 2008 12:40PM]

I was thinking about this over the weekend, I bet this makes sense for a lot of large scale printing houses. People who print graphics for trade show booths and that kind of thing where the viewer does walk right up to the print on the wall. If a large format printing house had this they could take photos of art that could be reproduced quite large.

When you say "you could do it better with film" sure, you could shoot large format, process it, and then scan it, manually. Or you could tether this to your tower in your studio and it would come in instantly. I'm pretty sure this is something that photographers will rent instead of owning.

Do they say what kind of bodies these will fit? I obviously can't afford one, but love the idea of throwing this on to my 500c/m.

[Zach @ Jul 14th 2008 12:47PM]

The main problem I see is that in order for you to use all 60 MP, shots need to be SUPER crystal clear. So you bolt this thing to a 7 ton block of concrete, and take only pictures of buildings and such. Or you take pictures at 1/100,000,000 of a second. Think about it. If something moves just a super tiny bit, that still is a movement covering quite a few pixels. So you have to make sure things don't move while you take the shot.

By the way, all numbers are made up, because studies have shown that real numbers are no better than made up ones. All 29 studies showed this.

[Bill Cahill @ Jul 25th 2008 9:32PM]

Not sure where Zach was going, funny anyways.
60mp is very useful. I purchased the P45 the first month it was out, and I will eventually get the P65. Truth is, Advertising agencies are always asking for larger files, greater resolution. Photographers are always looking to get an edge and be able to offer better files. This is not a amateur back. All the people that say buy an film SLR and get a scanner are very disillusioned about how the commercial photography world works. This back is not for them. Film is great, if the budgets and time constraints allowed I would still shoot 4x5. However my clients would rather spend the $750 rental fee instead of $2000 on film and get the finished products days ahead of time. Even though this camera is $40,000, it is well worth it if you have the clients.

[Dan @ Jul 27th 2008 1:59PM]

Drool-worthy, for sure.
Not because of the megapels, but on account of the near-full 6*4.5 coverage. All of a sudden those longer lenses become very, very useful.
Selective focus and the reduced magnification of optical flaws are two of those things you can't fake, no matter how you try.
The added resolution is cake. (Delicious and moist, to be sure, but only one factor of the three-course meal.)

I agree that film is still a better place to start for most shooters (seeing that you could get into MF film—complete with darkroom equipment or a scanner—for less than a grand) but digital is a different medium. Like moving from B&W to color negs, or negs to slides, you'll get something different out of this format.

[Bengt Fredén @ Jul 28th 2008 7:08AM]

A 'full format' 40,5x55mm DALSA sensor is extremely interesting to me.
I am going to try it out on my Hasselblad V camera system, ASAP. Needless to say, this extreme resolution puts great demands on lenses, lens shades (referrably bellows matte boxes), and also on the photographic situation, flash vs. available light (really sturdy tripods and heads, mirror-up capability), movement, etc, etc.

But if you use say anyone of these excellent Carl Zeiss T* multi-coated lenses: the SWC/M Biogon 4,5/38mm superwide angle, the 3,5/100mm Planar, the 4/120 Makro-Planar or the superb 4/180 Sonnar (at near their best apertures, which in some cases are close to full!), I wouldn´t be surprised if you would get absolutely staggering results, as far as contrast and resolution are concerned. So much for German lens technology and know-how, which has been among the créme-de-la-créme for a century.

PhaseOne architecture also allows you to use their backs on avariety of systems, including the smaller LF cameras, for example Linhof, Cambo or Arca-Swiss 6x9, for corrective table-top or architechture photography.
Hasselblad makes a big deal out of the distorsion correction of their 39Mpxl 28mm wide angle, however, this possibility has been available in software Photoshop CS (and others) for years. With the new super-resolution backs, I think we will see an increasing number of software that corrects the inevitable optical errors of certain lenses, especially big retrofucus wideangle lenses. These are still much, much better, though, than for example the SLR zooms from Nikon or Canon, where it is almost impossible to get a straight horizon, no matter what you pay for the lens. Lens correction in a dedicated sopftware becomes a must, for certain tyes of images.

I consider this a great stride forward. It will be fun to try it on a Hasselblad SWC/M camera, which will get you an completely undistorted image, equivalent of a 24mm lens in 35mm.

Bengt F, photographer, Stockholm, Sweden