Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Iq3 100 and Technical camera  (Read 11537 times)

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2016, 03:21:25 pm »

I guess that can mean me, if so sad statement.  I don't see anything wrong with allowing a person wanting to use a tech camera have a full understanding of the optical issues that they will have to contend with.  They were pointed out during the 50MP chip rollout, and I made the decision to purchase, but due to the crop factor returned the back.  I am in line for this back, along with lots of other folks, however I am going into the purchase with both feet wet.  I would hope that you would want the same level of understanding before making such a purchase.  The are many positives to full frame CMOS, but the user of a tech camera does need to really demo this back or do a lot of research before making this back a purchase. 

Each technology here will have issues with a tech camera, CCD has it's own set of problems, CMOS fixes some of those but then creates others. 

And I will go on the record with saying that I am seeing the pretty much the exact same response as with the 50Mp chip, and after 3 years of general knowledge of this, I had hoped that a better solution for movements with wide lenses would be  developed.  But it does appear that for now that is not going to happen at least from Phase One.

I sure don't see that as complaining. 

Paul C

Not directed to you at all. You mostly talk about photo gear in the context of photography unlike others which get into the technical realm and stay there mostly. Would rather them work and talk with the manufacturers directly.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2016, 04:07:17 pm »

To be honest, I can't understand how anyone lives with "accepting" what the manufacturers really should be taking care of BEFORE they put a product out on the market...

I mean, why not shoot film and scan it? Film's cheap, especially when you consider the depreciation factor of the technology you're willing to spend huge amounts of capital on...
You won't have to worry about doing LCC's, color shifts due to moving a lens 5mm too far to the right or left, or all this hullabaloo mumbo jumbo hoops y'all seem to enjoy jumping through...

Perhaps I'm simply not seeing it, or choosing to not "see it", but I can output a 150+ "megapixel" file from a 4x5 piece of well-exposed film, without much effort whatsoever. No dynamic range bracketing needed with today's color negative films either. Portra and Ektar are amazing, especially when used with "technical" lenses designed for systems such as the ALPA.

My digital system, a Linhof Techno, Schneider Digitar lenses and a Hasselblad/Kodak 50MP back does need an LCC (there's no digital solution out there that wouldn't need it) but has zero of those other artifacts. So I'm pretty pleased. However there's no secret that my system is a dead end. If I want to improve anything in my system I must sacrifice something else.

So yes I've been thinking about film for the future, especially if digital degenerates into an electronics festival taking away the zen feel. But really, I prefer the "middle way" I have today.

While I guess you could say you can get 150MP from 4x5" if you look through the grain, if we count grain-free resolution it's not even 40MP, as demonstrated nicely in Tim Parkin's test: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
I don't really mind the graininess of film, but I wouldn't really see it as an upgrade from my current system in terms of image quality, and certainly a downgrade in handling. People tend to forget how much easier even the dumbest digital back is compared to film. So rather than shooting film my speciality could become to shoot with really old digital backs as long as there's life in them :)
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2016, 04:38:15 pm »

I wonder if it would be possible to put a couple of different scenarios together for the tech camera users of how to deal with the current set of choices out there. For example -

- say you want workable live view, then its CMOS,  which works well really with these lens groups, and moderately so with this other group (say super wides, or symmetrical lenses) ...
- or if those  other lenses are of import, then go this way....
- and if shifting is important within a modest range, then...
- unless  full range shifting (say 15-20mm on wide angle lenses) is key, then these are your choices....

There's some pretty good knowledge posting here, and getting some summary opinions would be real useful to those of us who struggle with all the different parts and pieces.

It's difficult to do as it's so much subjectivity involved. "Test for yourself" or let a dealer help you is the standard response. Unfortunately it's a bit of a science project to test these systems. I ended up with the legacy systems as it fits my needs and tastes best.

You can use the full Digaron lens range with the IQ3 100MP or a CFV-50c or what you choose. Residual issues aren't visible most of the time.

I'm more negative to this type of pushing-the-limits use than most others, as I 1) don't want to have to rely on super-advanced LCC algorithms for archival reasons 2) don't like to worry about occasional hard-to-predict quality issues jumping out at me and 3) why spend this amount of money on a system that is not designed to work together, it just feels wrong, I don't like it. 4) When there are fine symmetrical lenses I like to be able to use them, they're just so elegant. The 32HR is indeed very sharp, but is a monster.

So I'm stuck with the legacy systems. But if you have a whole set of different views on the issue you may be perfectly satisfied with the IQ3 100MP with movements, on the Digaron series.

As I see it something went wrong already with the introduction with Dalsa 6um, then the dismantling of "large format digital" genre started. It took a couple of years before folks started to see all the new artifacts, and eventually people got used to it and accepted it as normal. Just use less movements, just clean up in photoshop if required. With the Sony CMOSes we're now pushing the limit even further, but eventually people will see that as normal too.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 05:04:28 pm by torger »
Logged

Kumar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 754
    • http://www.bskumarphotography.com
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2016, 08:05:17 pm »

I'm perfectly happy with my Sinarback 54H which I use in one-shot mode, Betterlight Super 6K-2 and Acros 4x5 and rollfilm. I was just wondering about you poor souls who need to go through all this after having spent a boatload of cold cash!
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2016, 01:47:48 am »

It looks like Torger's reports may help me save a very large chunck of cash! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

ctz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2016, 02:39:45 am »

It looks like Torger's reports may help me save a very large chunck of cash! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

+1
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2016, 04:17:04 am »

It looks like Torger's reports may help me save a very large chunck of cash! ;)

Heh, my perspective is one of many though. It differs a lot between people in how big a problem those artifacts are considered to be.

It is a dry fact though that Sony sensors and and Rodenstock wide angle lenses are not designed to work together. There is no question about that. You can surely push it and you may find the results to be adequate.

To me the largest issue is that dry fact that they're not designed to work together, and the trend so far has been that it becomes worse, or at least not better, for each new generation. Why get into a digital back upgrade cycle when support for my camera system is not considered a factor? I rather then use a legacy system that while primitive it's actually designed to function together.

I don't really blame the manufacturers that it has become this way. While Phase One and Hasselblad et al surely can customize small things like pixel black masks, and minor filter adjustments they can't on their own make Sony change their pixel design. And Sony, they need to consider where the sales are in all manufacturers they sell to. We're not doing BSI or organic sensors yet at this size, so to make today's technology work well with tech wides you need to employ the old-school design, removing microlenses and adding light shields. That does not come for free. You reduce full well capacity (less DR), get worse high ISO and increase aliasing, and maybe you need to increase pixel size a little too and reduce resolution down to about 60 megapixels. While I would love such a tradeoff while waiting for the BSI and organic sensors, it's obvious that it wouldn't be a big seller in the big markets.

What you could complain about is that Phase One seems to pretend that this issue doesn't exist and push the problem out to dealers and users. If I had technical responsibility on Phase One I wouldn't sell the A series system with IQ3 100, even for center frames I don't think the back is up for the 23HR. But they do sell it, which I think hurts their credibility when it comes to taking image quality seriously, at least in my eyes. If you do take it seriously you shouldn't push it to the user to evaluate, you should use your in-house expert eyes and technical expertise and make the decision what's good and what's not. This time it seems like their desire to sell is stronger than their will to maintain the highest image quality standard, and for that I think they deserve some criticism. I think they will get away with it though as the problem is subtle, even undetectable with typical subjects (except possibly that blotchiness issue some talk about, I have not studied that myself) and tech cam users have always been more interested in corner pixel peep sharpness than in color response and tonality.

When Kodak was around there was the concept of making two types of sensors, one that was designed for working with those symmetrical lenses, and one to be used with mirror box cameras. This has been lost and I doubt that it's coming back. I do think that there's a high chance that angular response is coming back either with BSI and organic sensors (as you then get it "for free"), but it could be 6-10 years until it's available in MFD.

My intention is not to trash talk the IQ3 100MP with use with technical cameras, I just want my fellow users to know that there are issues and that you should approach it with care, just as I think users should know that the tech cam future is an uncertain one, meaning that if you're the type that like to upgrade and have the latest and greatest you may end up having to switch camera system sooner than you'd like. I don't think users were well-informed about what would happen with lens compatibility issues when upgrading from P45+ to P65+, and not from P65+ to IQ180 either. I think/hope this time around we're more well-prepared to make a long critical look before jumping on the upgrade.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 04:43:17 am by torger »
Logged

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2016, 06:17:24 am »

I wonder if it would be possible to put a couple of different scenarios together for the tech camera users of how to deal with the current set of choices out there. For example -

- say you want workable live view, then its CMOS,  which works well really with these lens groups, and moderately so with this other group (say super wides, or symmetrical lenses) ...
- or if those  other lenses are of import, then go this way....
- and if shifting is important within a modest range, then...
- unless  full range shifting (say 15-20mm on wide angle lenses) is key, then these are your choices....

There's some pretty good knowledge posting here, and getting some summary opinions would be real useful to those of us who struggle with all the different parts and pieces.

Thanks.

I will offer a slightly different position on all this than Torger, although I agree pretty entirely with everything he contributes. I see a distinction between 40mm and up vs 35mm and down. I will attempt to propose some criteria:
  • 40mm is the widest you need to shift/rise/fall, and you are satisfied with the 40hr vs the sk43 or 35.
  • Shift/rise/fall up to 15-18mm, 10-12mm on the 40hr.
  • The 32hr can be used, but for the most part on center

If you read the list above and it sounds terribly limiting, then the CMOS backs will be a challenge. The best current back being sold in that case may be the IQ360. If the above sounds like criteria within which you normally shoot, then perhaps you should start saving. :)

These limitations are not to be taken lightly; they could be quite limiting to some and of no issue to others. And of course some will say these are too conservative while others will say they are full of issues. That's where the "demo and try it yourself" response comes in.

I don't have the IQ160/260/360, but I do have the IQ180. I tested the 3100 and felt it had about the same limitations as the 180*. Although the actual color cast was very different between the two, the LCC process had about the same success correcting issues. There is a good percentage of technical camera users (maybe 50%?) who prefer the 60 mp series to the 80 mp because of the increased latitude for movements. I see that group as the one that will be cautious with CMOS. I have been thrilled with the results using the 180, so I represent the other half (?) who don't mind the limitations. Note that doesn't mean I will get in line for the 3100. I'm still on the fence.

Anders is in the conservative side of the 60mp group because of his sound preference for symmetrical lenses and his sensitivity to any and all aliasing issues. That is a perfectly legitimate and respectable concern.

Dave

*Tested with the 40hr, 60xl, 90hrsw, sk150
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 06:28:00 am by dchew »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2016, 06:21:17 am »

The thing is that live view was most awaited for use with tech cameras and that tech cameras are mostly useful since they allow movements. ;)

Without all this perfectly operationnal, the differentiator of the phaseone system vs a 4 times cheaper Pentax system gets less and less visible.

Cheers,
Bernard

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2016, 06:32:47 am »

The thing is that live view was most awaited for use with tech cameras and that tech cameras are mostly useful since they allow movements. ;)

Without all this perfectly operationnal, the differentiator of the phaseone system vs a 4 times cheaper Pentax system gets less and less visible.

Cheers,
Bernard

That is so true. Or perhaps an interesting offering from Hasselblad lurking in the wings that could be used with a nice manual 501...
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2016, 06:55:47 am »

Thanks for broadening the views Dave. I am indeed the "conservative" type, and there's other ways to see it which makes it so difficult to provide one recommendation that suits all.
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2016, 08:34:35 am »

torger,

Quote
While Phase One and Hasselblad et al surely can customize small things like pixel black masks, and minor filter adjustments they can't on their own make Sony change their pixel design.

Why not? If Leica can have a sensor fabricated to its specification by CMOSIS then why can't Phase One/Hasselblad et al. by Sony?
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2016, 10:21:40 am »

The thing is that live view was most awaited for use with tech cameras and that tech cameras are mostly useful since they allow movements. ;)

Without all this perfectly operationnal, the differentiator of the phaseone system vs a 4 times cheaper Pentax system gets less and less visible.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not entirely because even when used only on center the tech camera lenses are MUCH better than any Pentax lens. The difference is quite significant. Also tilt is available with a tech cam so even if you do not use shift (or very little) it is still more than you can do with a Pentax 645z specially with wide angle lenses. For working on a tripod the tech camera solutions are still the best when you want better optical quality.

It would be interesting to see the 100mp A-Camera test results before making any conclusions. 
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2016, 10:23:45 am »

torger,

Why not? If Leica can have a sensor fabricated to its specification by CMOSIS then why can't Phase One/Hasselblad et al. by Sony?

Volume maybe? Hassy and Phase work with much lower sales volumes than Leica.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2016, 10:24:15 am »

Why not? If Leica can have a sensor fabricated to its specification by CMOSIS then why can't Phase One/Hasselblad et al. by Sony?

It's indeed a good question, and I have just as little details as anyone else so it's about semi-educated guesses. I don't think Sony work as CMOSIS, but anyway even CMOSIS also have their set of pixel technologies and you can choose from that and package it at a custom size (within certain manufacturing limits), but if it comes to making a something entirely new then it's associated with very large development costs. It's best if you can make one pixel technology and reuse in many different packages.

It would be interesting to know why Kodak put so much effort into making such wide angular response, was it only for the large format lenses, or was there some other application too? I don't know. In any case whatever the reason was it doesn't seem like it's as important any longer when new sensors are made, at least not important enough to make trade-offs with other performance aspects.

And then it comes down to sales, how large is the wide angle tech cam niche, and within this niche how large is the group of "conservatives" that actually holds off buying due to compatibility issues? If the niche is small and the backs sell anyway to that niche why care? It would probably require an idealist that cares more about the traditional format as such than maximizing profit, and I'm not sure MFD has the luxury to think that way...
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2016, 10:39:29 am »

Hi,

To be correct, the Leica sensor was designed by CMOSIS, it is fabricated by STMicroelectronics.

Now, it is a good question if Phase or Hassy could make requirements for a Sony made sensor, that could be feasible, but both Hasselblad and Phase One are selling backs foremost for their own systems which are DSLRs.

With Leica, it was different as their M-series cameras operate with extreme beam angles. So they needed to have a sensor for supporting those lenses.

The CMOSIS/STM sensor is said to have some issues that need software fixes. Edmund has worked with some sample chips and says so.

Best regards
Erik

torger,

Why not? If Leica can have a sensor fabricated to its specification by CMOSIS then why can't Phase One/Hasselblad et al. by Sony?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2016, 12:03:50 pm »

What also has to be considered, is the law of diminishing returns.  Phase One, to their credit saw this chip coming over a year ago.  Did they push for a technical camera favorable design, or a chip with great DR and low noise.  No one will know but a few. 

Phase One has been slowly working up their lens lineup, with the 35LS, they have a winner as with most of the blue label glass.  These lenses can work with the new sensor, and work with the older CCD chips.  Phase has a good line up of glass and again to their credit, with the XF body and the vibration reduction setting they have done a very good job.  It's not VR in the lens, or on the chip, but something different, but it works and works well.  Schneider may have seen the writing on the wall, and tossed in their cards on tech lenses.  But they are still right in the mix as all the new glass from Phase One is designed in partnership with Schneider, albeit, made in Japan probably in the old Mamiya plant? Still Schneider is showing their abilities for sure with the lenses they are producing for Phase One.

If I was on the board at Phase One, I would be pretty happy right now.  The market I am going after is pretty limited anyway, and I can offer it a full range of products. 

There was a period of 3 years where Sony and Phase I am sure had a lot of conversations on the other side, the Tech Camera. 

But Phase and Sony had a lot less control on that piece.  You have a small spattering of companies making the equipment, Arca, Cambo, Alpa, Linholf and Rodenstock and Schneider.  Phase One can't control much if any of this, and when you consider the total number of digital backs sold (new or as upgrades) world wide, I can't see it being more than 20K if that.  More Nikon and Canon Pro DSLR's and now Sony cameras are sold in a month than this or maybe in a week.  Many photographers have moved to the Sony A7rII and adapters that allow the Canon shift lenses to work or solutions like the Universalis Arca or Cambo Aptus.  Both give the use of the tech glass in a very price affordable package, (but not much wide support).

I have to believe based on the results of the 100MP chip that Sony and Phase did the best they could within the technology available today.  And Phase One has done a lot of work on the LCC to go along with the camera.  Just look at any of the test shots on the market now, where movement was involved and you can judge for yourself just how much work is going on under the covers to get that amount of red cast out.

Will Rodenstock come out with a new lineup? Anyone's guess.  They probably make a lot more in the eye glasses market then camera glass.  It's all about the bottom line.  Copal is gone,  the supply will dry up soon.  The 32mm HR-w has already reached a point where the mass of glass in front of the copal is too much (very delicate and easy to mis align the shutter even Rodenstock has pointed this out). So will new glass be any lighter? I can't see that happening, but of course maybe e shutter will finally be out there. 

Others on the forum talk about creations of sensors like they are just something that can be made in a few weeks, from start to finish, without the factor of figuring out the recovery of that R&D in sales.  This market is very small and sadly getting smaller and the technology is surrounding it from all sides putting  a lot of pressure on the few companies that continue to product the products. 

Phase One, now really has 2 products, the 50MP and 100MP CMOS, sure there will be sales of the 80MP, 60MP 40MP CCD backs, but you have to wonder how many of them will be new and or  upgrades vs used/certified used sales.  Will Phase come out with a 75MP or 60MP CMOS designed for tech cameras? Hard to say when Canon and Sony are at 42MP and 50MP right now, and a lot of people already don't see any difference in the output from the cameras. 

The only possible mistake I have seen is where Phase One priced their 50MP back.  I believe that a more reasonable price point could have really lead to a market share growth for them. But they have their own ideas on where they want this back to go.  It would be interesting to see sales figures for IQ150 vs Hasselblad 50c, personally I don't believe the IQ150 had many sales, even Adobe was un aware of it until myself and a few other folks pushed for months to have it added to LR camera raw support.

It will be interesting to see what happens as the year rolls on.

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2016, 01:02:12 pm »

Paul,

Quote
Just look at any of the test shots on the market now, where movement was involved and you can judge for yourself just how much work is going on under the covers to get that amount of red cast out.

To the detriment of file quality?

Quote
This market is very small and sadly getting smaller...

If memory serves, according to Doug, Phase One sales have increased year on year.

Quote
Will Phase come out with a 75MP or 60MP CMOS designed for tech cameras?

I suspect that a 50MP full-frame CMOS sensor would be extremely popular with technical camera users, combining as it would good angular response from wide-angle lenses.

Quote
It will be interesting to see what happens as the year rolls on.

It will indeed.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #38 on: February 06, 2016, 01:32:32 pm »

Paul,

To the detriment of file quality?

If memory serves, according to Doug, Phase One sales have increased year on year.

I suspect that a 50MP full-frame CMOS sensor would be extremely popular with technical camera users, combining as it would good angular response from wide-angle lenses.

It will indeed.

I take the sales numbers with a grain of salt, until you see something in writing, which unfortunately I don't think will ever happen, (wonder why?), just asking.   Also, as far as I know there are 4 main dealers for Phase in the US, CI, DT and Bear imaging, maybe Samy's I haven't checked their site in a while.  There are 319 Million folks just in the US, and I can bet you over half of them have a camera (camera phones included as the vast majority of people don't understand the difference anymore).  The market is changing pretty fast and the perception of that a photograph is and what quality is has changed with it.

The issue of loss of quality, that's up to the user. 

There is still a ton, yes a ton, of stuff being done under the covers with a IQ260 file and a tech camera.  Microlens ripple, tiling, color cast are just a few of the issues.  Probably the last Phase One back that did not have this many issues and a tech camera was the P45+

When I used the IQ150, I did not see the quality fall off that some see, I saw a lot of good work done with a LCC that gave a very good file.  I just did not like the crop factor and still don't.   But you make a valid point, as something new is always around the corner for sure and a more favorable chip may still hit the market next year.

Take a look at the CI tech camera shots, they are on their website to download.  I don't see that big an issue with the 32HR-W shots, besides a focus/detail problem in the right corner and more than likely that is a lens issue (alignment).  Corrected out, the shots past muster for me. 


Paul C

Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Iq3 100 and Technical camera
« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2016, 02:32:34 pm »

Paul,

Quote
The issue of loss of quality, that's up to the user.

The issue of acceptability of loss of quality is up to the user - loss of quality resulting from required application of an LCC is not.

Quote
I don't see that big an issue with the 32HR-W shots... Corrected out, the shots past muster for me.

My criteria is more onerous: results from the 23HR must pass muster.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up