Long Exposures, Dark Frames and IQ260 vs P45+

[BobRoss]

Hi Luminous,

I'm seeking help and am confident you can deliver! I'm looking to get back into photography after a decent hiatus, previously worked with the 5D MkII many years ago but had always aspired to medium format. Landscape photographer with long exposure work ranging from 3-5 minutes and up to 10-20 minutes. Through my research these camera systems provide reliable long exposure capabilities:

     - Phase One IQ260
     - Phase One P45+
     - Pentax 645D

The Phase One P45+ has been touted as the king of long exposures and since the IQ260 is fairly new it's out of my immediate price range. The Pentax performs well with long exposures but I like the idea of expanding into technical cameras and film at a later date so having a streamline system is beneficial. I'm really impressed with the IQ260/P45+ but the Dark Frame deters me. Taking a 15 minute exposure and then having to wait around for another 15 minutes in fading light situations kind of puts me off. The H4D-50 doesn't require a Dark Frame but from what I've read can only reliably handle exposures of up to 4 minutes which would cut short some of my capabilities. Having said all that I'm more than happy to work with a Dark Frame if it comes down to it, just wondering if there are any other options available. There are of course the CMOS censors which from what I can tell don't require mandatory Dark Frames. However, these sensors aren't a favorable option due to their smaller sensor size and 14 bit color, if I was going to go for medium format I'd want that authentic medium format feel.

Now just to make sure I'm not missing anything are there any systems or backs that I've left out? Any recommendations or advice on medium format long exposure work appreciated.

At the moment my funds can allow for a kitted out D810 or a starter pack P45+. If I were to get the D810 I would be looking to upgrade to a IQ260 in a few years and keep the D810 as a back up. However, if I were to get the P45+ I wouldn't see myself needing to do that for quite some time. So my question is should I take the plunge with a P45+ or wait out for an IQ260?  IQ260 vs P45+ your experiences?

Thanks a lot!

[synn]

Why not the Hasselblad CFV 50c? Goes for a great price these days and does long exposure well.
Downside is that you will not have the option to use an autofocus SLR style body, if that matters.

[BobRoss]

Why not the Hasselblad CFV 50c? Goes for a great price these days and does long exposure well.
Downside is that you will not have the option to use an autofocus SLR style body, if that matters.

Thanks for your reply, synn. Yea like I mentioned I had been looking into all the CMOS sensors but feel as though if I was going to go for medium format I'd want that authentic medium format feel. My issues are not only that of smaller sensor size but less color depth and dimension, something CCD is renowned for. This perspective is of course coming from no experience though and only from research so if you wanted to better educate me I'm all ears

[voidshatter]

Landscape photographer with long exposure work ranging from 3-5 minutes and up to 10-20 minutes.

You will regret choosing any CCD for that purpose if you compare the end result against a Nikon D810. The dynamic range is simply too poor in 2016. I have had a long thread before.

Bracketing is not practical due to the mandatory darkframe of CCD. If you take off the ND filter to bracket, then you run into alignment issues.

Save your money to buy a camera with a modern Sony CMOS for that purpose, e.g. IQ250, Credo 50, IQ3 100MP, H6D-100 etc. Otherwise just stick with the Nikon D810 and forget about any CCD back.

[BobRoss]

I have had a long thread before.

Thanks a lot for the link, Yunli Song, some very interesting information!

[synn]

Thanks for your reply, synn. Yea like I mentioned I had been looking into all the CMOS sensors but feel as though if I was going to go for medium format I'd want that authentic medium format feel. My issues are not only that of smaller sensor size but less color depth and dimension, something CCD is renowned for. This perspective is of course coming from no experience though and only from research so if you wanted to better educate me I'm all ears

I shoot CCD MFD (Credo 40) and I love the color output for portraiture (Will not trade it for anything else), but I think the CMOS cameras should do fine for landscaping. I use mine for landscape work as well and in colder temparatures, 2 minute exposures are fine. Anything longer and you have to use the backs you mentioned (With the dark frame subtraction limitations you have noted) or go CMOS.


This is a 2 minute exposure with the credo.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-dom-in-luebeck-sandeep-murali.html


I have had no issues with the dynamic range of my CCD back because I work with filters and expose properly and my workflow does not involve pushing everything to 11 in post.

[Christoph B.]

You will regret choosing any CCD for that purpose if you compare the end result against a Nikon D810. The dynamic range is simply too poor in 2016. I have had a long thread before.

Bracketing is not practical due to the mandatory darkframe of CCD. If you take off the ND filter to bracket, then you run into alignment issues.

Save your money to buy a camera with a modern Sony CMOS for that purpose, e.g. IQ250, Credo 50, IQ3 100MP, H6D-100 etc. Otherwise just stick with the Nikon D810 and forget about any CCD back.

Sorry but that's just not true. The dynamic range is perfectly fine even in 2017 or 2018.

[voidshatter]

Sorry but that's just not true. The dynamic range is perfectly fine even in 2017 or 2018.

For long exposure when it's even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012, sorry it's far behind.

[BobRoss]

This is a 2 minute exposure with the credo.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-dom-in-luebeck-sandeep-murali.html

I have had no issues with the dynamic range of my CCD back because I work with filters and expose properly and my workflow does not involve pushing everything to 11 in post.

Indeed. Beautiful result, syyn! Did you also take this one with the credo?

[synn]

Indeed. Beautiful result, syyn! Did you also take this one with the credo?

Hi Bob,

Thank you very much and yes, that was with the Credo too. I think that was about 1.5 minutes, with an 8 stop ND filter.

p.s. You could try PMing Paul Caldwell, he has a lot of first hand experience with the P45+ and the IQ 260.

[Christoph B.]

For long exposure when it's even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012, sorry it's far behind.

I've seen some "even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012" photos that are amazing and gorgeous - just look at the work from some of the people here in this forum. Pretty weird, huh?

Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear cut as one would like them to be.

[siddphoto]

I've seen some "even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012" photos that are amazing and gorgeous - just look at the work from some of the people here in this forum. Pretty weird, huh?

Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear cut as one would like them to be.

This is not a valid argument. Nobody is doubting that P45+/CCD backs can make amazing pictures. Absolutely they can.

But this in also true that the in long exposure shadow detail area the CMOS backs leaves the CCD backs in the dust - just look at several comparisons. This is what is being mentioned.

Since the OP was specifically concerned about that shooting condition, this is a valid point to bring up.

[Christoph B.]

I was talking about the 260 which has a better DR and exposure shadow detail etc.

And yes, it is a valid argument. You don't need the latest of the greatest and the newest technology to take great pictures. If the OP was concerned about high ISO performance that's another matter. But for his purposes an IQ260 would do fine.

http://bulbexposures.com/home/2013/4/23/1-hour-exposure-with-the-phase-one-iq-260.html

[voidshatter]

I've seen some "even much worse than a Nikon D800E in 2012" photos that are amazing and gorgeous - just look at the work from some of the people here in this forum. Pretty weird, huh?

Sometimes the numbers aren't as clear cut as one would like them to be.

It doesn't change the fact that you could achieve better image quality with a D800E when it comes down to dynamic range for long exposure.

[BobRoss]

I have seen a few examples of IQ260 long exposures and it does seem to perform reliably. I do think pushing the limits of what it can achieve in DR and high ISO is out of my work flow but it's great to take into account all different perspectives and factors.

[Christoph B.]

It doesn't change the fact that you could achieve better image quality with a D800E when it comes down to dynamic range for long exposure.

And that doesn't change the face that it actually does not matter. Could you give me an example of a shot you were not able to take with a 260 because of its DR for long exposures?

[AreBee]

BobRoss,

I'm seeking help... I'm really impressed with the IQ260/P45+ but the Dark Frame deters me. Taking a 15 minute exposure and then having to wait around for another 15 minutes in fading light situations kind of puts me off.

Further to synn's mention of Paul Caldwell, Paul's 'screen name' is Paul2660, here at Luminous Landscape and at GetDPI.

With regard to the P45+, you may find this post by Paul to be of interest.

[BobRoss]

Further to synn's mention of Paul Caldwell, Paul's 'screen name' is Paul2660, here at Luminous Landscape and at GetDPI.

With regard to the P45+, you may find this post by Paul to be of interest.

Thanks for the reply, Rob.

[voidshatter]

And that doesn't change the face that it actually does not matter. Could you give me an example of a shot you were not able to take with a 260 because of its DR for long exposures?

I already gave the link containing so many examples, including side by side comparisons. Just scroll up and read the thread. The IQ260 got beaten hard by the D800E in terms of image quality when it comes down to dynamic range in long exposure.

If you don't care about image quality, then the same argument can be made that you could just shoot with an iPhone instead of a digital back.

[BobRoss]

I already gave the link. Just scroll up and read the thread. The IQ260 got beaten hard by the D800E in terms of image quality when it comes down to dynamic range in long exposure.

If you don't care about image quality, then the same argument can be made that you could just shoot with an iPhone instead of a digital back.

Thanks to your link it is clear that pushing the limits of the back has it's weaknesses, especially when compared to other systems. So, I think what C+B is mentioning is to not go outside of those limits.