Digital medium format and tripods go together like burgers and fries. I rarely carry a tripod into the field, so digital medium format is an odd match for my shooting preferences. Both Phase One P25 and Mamiya ZD dSLR started at ISO 50, and both had extremely limited ISO performance. Ultimately the low starting ISO led to the sale of each. Despite those experiences having limited success, I still have a fond spot for digital medium format. Based on those experiences, I concluded if buying a digital back again, then it would need to start at ISO 100 and have good performance up to ISO 400-800.

Today those ISO wishes are quite realistic. The Leica S2 starts at ISO 160, and the Pentax 645D starts at ISO 200. Of the two, the Leica S2 interests me more, but the price is prohibitive. The Pentax 645D is one of the all-time digital medium format bargains, but the LCD review is slow (upwards of 5 seconds) and its RAW editor support is limited (no Phase One C1 support). Over the years I have used Leaf, Hasselblad and Phase One digital backs. Of the group, I like Phase One best because their back and software solution is tightly integrated, and C1 itself is one of the best RW editors available today.

The used market has some ISO 100 contenders as well, such as the Phase One P30+ or Hasselblad H3DII-31. Both kits can be found for under $10,000, I did just that. There is a somewhat philosophical trade-off though, these sensors are 44.2mm x 33.1mm. Whereas my dream back, the Phase One IQ160, is 53.9mm x 40.4mm. I would love to use an IQ160, but the price tag makes the Leica S2 look cheap. I chose value and utility, and someday when used Phase One IQ160’s are within budget, it may just happen. But for now it is a Phase One DF + Phase One 80mm F2.8 D + Phase One P30+. And all for the bargain price of less than $9000 (does not exclude the V-Grip, it was purchased separately). Some first impressions of the Phase One P30+ kit:

1. •It feels significantly heavier than the Canon 1Ds Mark III with a Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro-Planar ZE attached. But it really is not. What is different is the balance and having all the weight cantilevered off the grip.
   

2. •The DF body feels almost identical to Mamiya 645AFD II body. The older 645AFDII would drain the batteries if left in the camera over night. That issue appears resolved with the DF - yeah!!!
   

3. •The Phase One DF’s autofocus speed is similar to a Canon 85mm L on the 1Ds Mark III. The buzzy sound of the auto-focus motor makes it seem slower than it really is. Focus is decisive with no hunting.
   

4. •The rear 2.2 LCD screen on the Phase One P30+ is small. While the display is small, the actual image preview is pretty quick - maybe a second. And it has the big overlay histogram that I really like. Checking focus at 100% is do-able, just tedious with lots of button pushes.
   

1. •The Phase One P30+’s ISO performance is really good. ISO 400 looks as good (or maybe better) than ISO 100 did on the Phase One 25. ISO 800 and 1600 look to be on par with the Leica M9. Very happy about this.
   

2. •The per pixel acuity looks as good as the Phase One P25. The Phase One P30+ has micro lenses, so I was not sure if the acuity would be as crisp as the P25, but I think it is. The files seem sharper than the Leica M9.
   

In 2007 I had the very misguided expectation of the Phase One P25 kit being my only camera. Today I know much better. To fund the Phase kit, some Canon and Leica lenses will be sold as well as the back-up Leica M9. The single camera strategy has failed in the past and I will not repeat that mistake. Having a Canon 1Ds Mark III and Leica M9 is overkill, and my long term hope is to consolidate them into a Leica M10. If the Leica M10 has a better rear LCD and Live View (which implies a CMOS sensor), then a medium format and rangefinder pairing may be the future. But that is a long ways away, so we will see how this story unfolds.