IQ3100 Technical Camera tests, from Capture Integration

[Theodoros]

Fortunately, with the set I've acquired, that hasn't been my experience at all.  I don't have any great tech lenses left, but here is the 40mm CFe (left) compared to the Rodenstock 45mm Apo-Sironar Digital (right).  A7r2.




-CB

Thanks for the above Chris... It's been a while since one presented a comparison of an MF lens with respect to a lens dedicated for view/tech cameras... Could you please comment on which lens (on the particular scene) is more color neutral? The color presentation between the two lenses is obvious (with the Rodenstock looking cooler than the CFe...) but is it that the scene is cooler or is the Hasselblad lens more accurate?

Another thing that interests me... Do you have any experience how the CFe compares to the Contax Distagon 35mm f3.5 for sharpness, distortion and CAs present? (not necessarily on a view camera).

[gebseng]

Thanks for the great contribution, Anders!

* The Sony sensors holds up better sideways and up/down concerning crosstalk.

I don't quite get that: does the sensor hold up better sideways (=shifted) or up/down (=rise/fall)?

thanks,

geb

[Theodoros]

Thanks for the great contribution, Anders!

I don't quite get that: does the sensor hold up better sideways (=shifted) or up/down (=rise/fall)?

thanks,

geb

It shouldn't be different... (presumably that the pixels are square and the microlenses on them symmetrical to the entrance).

[vjbelle]

Fortunately, with the set I've acquired, that hasn't been my experience at all.
-CB

I wish my experiences more mirrored yours especially since I already owned a 60, 80, 120 and 180.  I had thought about purchasing a 40 until I saw the associated price tags.  It is regarded as a legendary V lens. My biggest disappointment was the 60mm which I found unusable - a shame!  The 120 was relatively decent at closer distances but I found very lacking at or near infinity.  Even the legendary 180mm was inferior, really inferior, when compared to my Schneider 180mm Digitar - which is one of the most outstanding lenses I own.  So, all in all a big disappointment for me.  Great that they work for you......

Victor

[torger]

Thanks for the great contribution, Anders!

I don't quite get that: does the sensor hold up better sideways (=shifted) or up/down (=rise/fall)?

If you have the sensor in landscape orientation and shift sideways (left/right) it holds up better than if you shift up/down (rise/fall).

[torger]

It shouldn't be different... (presumably that the pixels are square and the microlenses on them symmetrical to the entrance).

The reason that it's still different is that the wiring between pixels which is in front of the photodiode (it's not a BSI sensor) is as a side effect functioning as a light shield. If the pixels are wired together in horizontal rows rather than vertical columns you get a stronger light isolation between rows than between columns, and hence you get less crosstalk in that direction.

My description above is a bit simplified, I don't know exactly how the sensor physically looks in the electron microscope, but the point is that there's quite a lot more than photo diodes on the sensor, and the structure of that extra stuff is generally not symmetric and thus causes effects in how crosstalk flows when you increase the angle of incoming light past the designed maximum angular response.

Another interesting thing to know about this sensor is that like the IQ250 sensor the microlenses are offset to work better for center frames. It also makes shifted frames work a bit better (up to a certain limit) but the peak angular response performance is had for centered lenses.

Offset microlenses:


Didn't find any images for Sony sensors, but here's a ray simulation from Dalsa show how light hits wiring (the grey boxes):


The Dalsa blog post is an interesting read for understanding crosstalk the visual way:
http://blog.teledynedalsa.com/2012/05/the-angle-on-optical-acceptance/

[Theodoros]

I wish my experiences more mirrored yours especially since I already owned a 60, 80, 120 and 180.  I had thought about purchasing a 40 until I saw the associated price tags.  It is regarded as a legendary V lens. My biggest disappointment was the 60mm which I found unusable - a shame!  The 120 was relatively decent at closer distances but I found very lacking at or near infinity.  Even the legendary 180mm was inferior, really inferior, when compared to my Schneider 180mm Digitar - which is one of the most outstanding lenses I own.  So, all in all a big disappointment for me.  Great that they work for you......

Victor

What back is that experience with? ...I by no means question your findings, but I suspect highly (without being sure yet) that MF lenses will look much better with backs that have microlenses on the sensor, while "traditional" view camera lenses will look better on CCD backs without microlenses on and of fairly "big" pixel (larger  or near to 6μm...). I kind of developing a sense that the larger the distance of the lens last element to the sensor (focused to infinity), the more the lens will be "friendly" to small pixels with microlenses on...

[Theodoros]

The reason that it's still different is that the wiring between pixels which is in front of the photodiode (it's not a BSI sensor) is as a side effect functioning as a light shield. If the pixels are wired together in horizontal rows rather than vertical columns you get a stronger light isolation between rows than between columns, and hence you get less crosstalk in that direction.

My description above is a bit simplified, I don't know exactly how the sensor physically looks in the electron microscope, but the point is that there's quite a lot more than photo diodes on the sensor, and the structure of that extra stuff is generally not symmetric and thus causes effects in how crosstalk flows when you increase the angle of incoming light past the designed maximum angular response.

Another interesting thing to know about this sensor is that like the IQ250 sensor the microlenses are offset to work better for center frames. It also makes shifted frames work a bit better (up to a certain limit) but the peak angular response performance is had for centered lenses.

Offset microlenses:


Didn't find any images for Sony sensors, but here's a ray simulation from Dalsa show how light hits wiring (the grey boxes):


The Dalsa blog post is an interesting read for understanding crosstalk the visual way:
http://blog.teledynedalsa.com/2012/05/the-angle-on-optical-acceptance/

Hmmm... it makes sense Anders!

[vjbelle]

What back is that experience with? ...I by no means question your findings, but I suspect highly (without being sure yet) that MF lenses will look much better with backs that have microlenses on the sensor, while "traditional" view camera lenses will look better on CCD backs without microlenses on and of fairly "big" pixel (larger  or near to 6μm...). I kind of developing a sense that the larger the distance of the lens last element to the sensor (focused to infinity), the more the lens will be "friendly" to small pixels with microlenses on...

I haven't used the V lenses with any back that I own (Leaf/Credo 50, IQ 180).  At the time of my experimentation I was using those lenses with my A7r/A7rll.  It didn't take long to establish that those lenses just didn't have the same kind of resolving power that I was used to with Digitars on my Leaf/Phase backs.  I took numerous identical images with both systems which showed remarkable differences not just with resolution but also with other lens aberrations.  I now also have an Actus system where I could try the V lenses but it just seems to me like a waste of money to go through the exercise.  I have a fairly extensive arsenal of Digitar lenses (35XLmm, 60XLmm, 72mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm) some of which had to be tweaked by Schneider, which perform extraordinarily on both of my backs..... and looking forward to their performance on the 100MP which has been ordered.  The V lenses, in my opinion, are just not in the same league. 

Victor

[jng]

I wish my experiences more mirrored yours especially since I already owned a 60, 80, 120 and 180.  I had thought about purchasing a 40 until I saw the associated price tags.  It is regarded as a legendary V lens. My biggest disappointment was the 60mm which I found unusable - a shame!  The 120 was relatively decent at closer distances but I found very lacking at or near infinity.  Even the legendary 180mm was inferior, really inferior, when compared to my Schneider 180mm Digitar - which is one of the most outstanding lenses I own.  So, all in all a big disappointment for me.  Great that they work for you......

Victor

I haven't used the V lenses with any back that I own (Leaf/Credo 50, IQ 180).  At the time of my experimentation I was using those lenses with my A7r/A7rll.  It didn't take long to establish that those lenses just didn't have the same kind of resolving power that I was used to with Digitars on my Leaf/Phase backs.  I took numerous identical images with both systems which showed remarkable differences not just with resolution but also with other lens aberrations.  I now also have an Actus system where I could try the V lenses but it just seems to me like a waste of money to go through the exercise.  I have a fairly extensive arsenal of Digitar lenses (35XLmm, 60XLmm, 72mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm) some of which had to be tweaked by Schneider, which perform extraordinarily on both of my backs..... and looking forward to their performance on the 100MP which has been ordered.  The V lenses, in my opinion, are just not in the same league. 

Victor

As much as I'm enamoured by my old V lenses, I'm not too surprised (although a little surprised by your experience with the 180). The 40 IF and 100 are touted to be a cut above the others and indeed are the sharpest in my kit, as judged on my IQ160 (6 micron pixel pitch). I'm guessing that CB will find the 40 (non-IF) and other lenses to go soft in the corners on the IQ3 100 but the results of his upcoming tests will speak for themselves.

I have my eye on the Rodie 40HR for when I migrate to a tech cam, but this is still only a wish based on want and not need. Still, I'd be interested in seeing a direct comparison of this lens with the Zeiss 40/4 IF. One might be at the point of diminishing returns on the IQ160, at least in terms of resolution, but the 100 Mp sensor may have pushed that point out a bit further.

Apologies to all if I've played a role in dragging this thread off-topic...

- John

[Theodoros]

I haven't used the V lenses with any back that I own (Leaf/Credo 50, IQ 180).  At the time of my experimentation I was using those lenses with my A7r/A7rll.  It didn't take long to establish that those lenses just didn't have the same kind of resolving power that I was used to with Digitars on my Leaf/Phase backs.  I took numerous identical images with both systems which showed remarkable differences not just with resolution but also with other lens aberrations.  I now also have an Actus system where I could try the V lenses but it just seems to me like a waste of money to go through the exercise.  I have a fairly extensive arsenal of Digitar lenses (35XLmm, 60XLmm, 72mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm) some of which had to be tweaked by Schneider, which perform extraordinarily on both of my backs..... and looking forward to their performance on the 100MP which has been ordered.  The V lenses, in my opinion, are just not in the same league. 

Victor

Do you question the testing that Chris did and that he posts above then? ...can you post some examples of your findings with the IQ 180?

[vjbelle]

Do you question the testing that Chris did and that he posts above then? ...can you post some examples of your findings with the IQ 180?

No.....of course not.  His posts are for either an A7r or A7rll which is what I used for my testing of my V lenses.  I never shot the V lenses with either of my MFDB's...... as stated in my above post. 

Victor

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, it is the distance between the outlet pupil and the sensor that decides the beam angle. So, DSLR (Distagon) type of lenses that need to provide room for mirror have the outlet pupil at a higher distance than  symmetrical (Biogon type) lenses.

Best regards
Erik

What back is that experience with? ...I by no means question your findings, but I suspect highly (without being sure yet) that MF lenses will look much better with backs that have microlenses on the sensor, while "traditional" view camera lenses will look better on CCD backs without microlenses on and of fairly "big" pixel (larger  or near to 6μm...). I kind of developing a sense that the larger the distance of the lens last element to the sensor (focused to infinity), the more the lens will be "friendly" to small pixels with microlenses on...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am somewhat surprised that Chris gets so good results with his 40/4 CFE. My 40/4 CF is not that great, in my very limited testing on the A7rII. Could be that he has a very good sample and that I have not very good one.

The 60/3.5 seems to be a pleasant surprise on the A7rII, on the other hand.

I have been using those lenses on the Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ combo too, of course and findings were similar there. I have been trough a bunch of Hasselblad lenses, 150/4 (had two), 120/4 (had two), 180/4, 100/3,5, 80/2.8 (now sold), 60/3.5, 50/4 (now sold) and the 40/4. So I have seen quite a few samples.

It is entirely possible that the 40/4 yields very good results in practice, I was perfectly happy with it on the P45+. That said, I have seen quite a few bad corners in pixel peeping, but never in 16"x23" prints.

Best regards
Erik

No.....of course not.  His posts are for either an A7r or A7rll which is what I used for my testing of my V lenses.  I never shot the V lenses with either of my MFDB's...... as stated in my above post. 

Victor

[Theodoros]

No.....of course not.  His posts are for either an A7r or A7rll which is what I used for my testing of my V lenses.  I never shot the V lenses with either of my MFDB's...... as stated in my above post. 

Victor

Given that Chris testing was on the new P1 back and given that 1Q3-100 is the same pixel size, also has microlenses and (should be) of similar technology with the sensor used on the α7RII, the center of the image should exhibit similar results for different lenses with α7RII... don't you think? Can you please post some comparison with the tests you made with the α7RII then?

[JohnnyR]

Assuming the Rodenstock Digarons were designed with the Dalsa 6um technology in mind, which is not unlikely, their target seemed to have been to keep crosstalk below about 5% when within hard vignette (as seen in my heat maps, which should only be seen as an approximate relative crosstalk measurement, a filtered LCC shot is required for more exact absolute number). It's probably a reasonable limit.

In certain conditions you can do with very high crosstalk and still not get issues, a surface which is close to neutral in color and have little micro detail can handle high amounts. Higher micro contrast and colors more different than the color of the illuminating light will increase likelihood of issues. As it happens when you shoot the things that end up in the hot zones often have low contrast, low detail, low saturation, and you're fine.

After LCC was applied I did not see any visible problems in any of the CI shots related to crosstalk, but the hot zones were exactly in such parts of the image where it's unlikely to get issues.

It's quite rare to get into a situation with the opposite effect, where crosstalk effects is exaggerated. This makes it difficult for me to decide what level is okay to live with. Sure if I had the choice to get a 60MP CMOS which behaved more like the old Dalsa CCD rather than getting this 100MP it would be an easy choice, but now it's either go with CMOS which has these properties or get a CCD. Or sit with the CCD you already have and wait until the next generation CMOS comes along and hope things improve. We've not seen BSI yet at this size. Phase One is also good at giving you an upgrade offer you can't refuse , so it shall be interesting to see how many tech users that makes the move.

On the other hand, is there any chance that Rodenstock updates some of their lenses in recent years?

[Steve Hendrix]

I could not find on the CI web page if they used a CF on the 60xl. Does anyone know?

It looks like no.

Dave

Hi Dave -

No Center Filters were utilized so as to keep in the spirit of the testing.


Steve Hendrix

[dchew]

Thank you Steve.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi Dave -

No Center Filters were utilized so as to keep in the spirit of the testing.

Steve,

Does that also apply to the Rodenstock 32 and 40mm lenses?

Thanks and thanks for these very informative tests!

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Steve,

Thanks a lot for these test shots. This scene is very useful as it contains a lot of good detail, all over the image plane. Also it has high contrast so we can see how good shadow recovery works.

This is very good and useful stuff!

BTW, I really think Phase One pulled that rabbit out of that hat! Impressive back!

Best regards
Erik

Hi Dave -

No Center Filters were utilized so as to keep in the spirit of the testing.


Steve Hendrix