IQ 380 Questions

[JoeKitchen]

So I know some on this forum will think I am nuts for even considering an IQ 380, but I may want to upgrade for a few different reasons. 

First, I don't like the look of CMOS, and the IQ3 100 did not change that.  Plus, I have looked over the high ISO files of the 3100 and I am not impressed.  They are better, but not nearly as much as people are making out.  Also, I think the Sensor+ files on the 360 & 380 for the same ISO range are better and would rather have cleaner shadows and more workable files then a high MP count.  (I am not a member of the f/64 club and only care about resolution so long as it is enough, which 20 is.) 

Also, since Phase One released the IQ3 100 so soon after the 380, I am sure there are, or will be, a decent amount of lightly used refurb 380s available. 

The couple of questions that concern me though are:

How good is the back for long exposures while not is LE mode?  If I was working at ISO 50, what is the limit to the length of exposure before noise from heat becomes an issue? 

Also, assuming I would be shooting with an Roddie HR 40mm, how much reasonable shift would I get before lens cast really starts to take effect?  (I felt the lens cast of the IQ3 100 gets bad fast.) 

P.S.
Can the focusing screen of the XF camera be replaced with a different one?  If so, do they make split prism screens for the XF? 

[BobDavid]

Joe, buy yourself an Olympus. Use if for a month. Then decide what you think. Clients don't give a crap about the difference between the look of a CMOS or a CCD sensor. Really.

If you really want to master lifestyle photography, throw away the cigars, the liquor, the dark bars, and go into the light. Walk around your subjects. Get a rapport going. Snap away and shoot a hundred frames. If you are able to come out of a shoot with a few good keepers, you're off to a good start. That's how you'll build a portfolio and acquire the skills to expand your range of services. ... Being a slave to equipment is a terrible road to take. You've got a terrific kit for shooting architecture. Use it until it falls apart.

An Oly OMD 1 goes for around $900. You can get wonderful bokeh from the 75mm  f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, and the 25mm f/1.8 primes. The Pro 12-40mm f/2.8 is a bargain. The 40-150mm f/2.8 is a beauty, and the 7-14mm f/2.8 is an excellent WA choice. The Oly focuses quick. The lenses retain resale value okay. There's always someone out there who will buy a used Oly body. In fact, you could probably buy a nice gently used OMD for $500. You'd be amazed by the quality one is able eke out of a MFT chip.

Lifestyle photographers don't use Arcas.

Edward Westin: "... you must give the public something they can’t get anywhere else, and you must cut down, keep down overhead..."

[JoeKitchen]

Bob, I appreciate the advice, and I do feel that for lifestyle I need to get ride of everything that could be a distraction (such as any products) and work with a camera that does not get in the way, like a tech camera does.  I also feel I need more bokeh then I can get on a tech camera. 

I would like to develop a portfolio of lifestyle images that incorporate my same style of lighting but more fluid then my architectural work.  My lighting is what I want to remain consistent throughout my portfolio, which is what is most important to me in my entire body of work. 

Your suggestions on a camera to use would make sense if I did not have a 5d Mark II; I can fool around with that in stead of buying another camera. 

However my interest in possibly upgrading to a 360/380 is not just because I am interested in expanding into lifestyle.  There are other reasons.  Namely I shoot a lot outside and I don't like working tethered outside; it is just too cumbersome.  Now the P45+ is great, but checking focus on the back is impossible.  The IQ2 and IQ3 interface would allow for a greater amount of control here.  Also, although my SK 35mm is a great lens, the need for using a center filter is becoming annoying since more and more clients want people in the images.  The CF requires longer exposures which makes it harder to freeze things.  I would like to use the Roddie 40mm, but that is a little less wide then my SK 35mm, but on a full frame MFB, the angle of view is pretty much the same.  Also, the lack of need for a CF would decrease the amount of multiple strobe bursts, shortening my overall final exposure and taking away (for the most part) my need for long exposures.  I still may need say 12 to 16 seconds to work with, which is why I asked about the real limit in length of exposure for the 380. 

Lens cast is also a very important factor to me. 

Considering that the Roddie 40mm has an unique distortion that can be removed in post, but only if you know the shift values, can you record this shift values in the metadata? 

[Paul2660]

Long exposures not in LE mode would be the same as the 280, I believe in the 45" to 1.5 minute range?  I don't remember the 280 spec. 

Color cast on the 40mm is not bad at all, up to about 15mm of shift, and around 18mm of rise.  Past 15mm of shift and the internal lens IC indicator shows up so it really become a non issue anyway,  16mm or so is the best before you hit the hard vignette and white bands created by the IC indicator.

Your long exposures will all also vary due to heat ambient.  Your best temp would be 69 degrees F or less even for 45 seconds.  If you are working indoors, with AC not an issue.

Paul C

[DrakeJ]

Sam Robinson is to me the embodiment of lifestyle photography. He shoots with a Phase One, but how he does it is beyond me. Phase has a vid on youtube, the man puts in the effort that's for sure. If it would have been me clearly I would use a 35mm for that kind of work.

Unless you are as fit as an iron man dude who does 24 hour ultra-runs for breakfast, of course.

But perhaps you are talking about a different kind of lifestyle photography?

[Christopher]

From a IQ180, IQ350 and 3100 user:

While noise if the 100 might not be too impressive ( I have to say compared to the CCDs I am)
The DR is a different story. At every ISO its a huge difference. Or I could say from ISO 400 on there isn't much DR left on the IQ180. Mind you I'm talking about FullRes. Never used sensor plus. ( if I did that I could use my Nikon even better)

Let's get to long exposures. Keep in mind I'm talking from a IQ180 perspective.

I have made great images with exposures up to 90 seconds. However, I do admit compared to the CMOS exposures they a crap. Dynamic range is bad and noise is high. With the IQ3100 I don't care if it's 50s it 5 minutes. It's always great.

I don't know if it helps but that's my user experience.




Christopher Hauser
ch@chauser.eu

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Christopher, as a former 180 and 380 user, I totally agree with your comments on the IQ3 100. Night and day!
Bill

[dchew]

Joe,
In regards to the 40hr, I used to have the 180 and just recently traded for the 3100. Several months ago I tested the 3100 directly vs. the 180 on all my lenses: 40hr, sk60xl, 90hrsw, sk150.

Once the LCC is applied there was no real difference between the two backs. The raw files had different color casts, but I wouldn't say one was worse than the other. In my opinion you can shift the 40hr about 12-15mm with either back and get very similar results. So if you did not like what you saw on the 3100, you might not be happy with the 380.

I don't shift the 40hr much. I do shift the 60xl quite a bit. No problems with either back up to 18mm (again, my opinion).

Dave

[voidshatter]

The long exposure performance of the IQ380 is just so out-dated in 2016. You would achieve significantly worse image quality with the IQ380 if you shoot long exposure side by side against a Nikon D800E and push shadow in post processing. The long exposure mode of the IQ380 is also prone to corner issues (hardware design flaw) - just the same issue as the IQ260 has. Other common CCD problems include "Dead View", tiling issues etc.

Yes I call CCD "dead" because no manufacturer will continue using CCD as their top-tier flagship product.

[douglevy]

Hi Joe,

Look at 2 of the best lifestyle photographers working today - nickonken.com and in my view, the BEST one - http://www.stephanierausser.com/ I think Nick shoots 5D3 and some Contax, but I know Stephanie shoots 1DX (maybe mark II now), and mostly primes at 1.2-2.8. I don't think the AF on any MF system is up to par for great lifestyle work in 2016, especially if you're going to go the CCD route.

Just my .02.

-Doug

[aztwang]

Hi Joe,

Look at 2 of the best lifestyle photographers working today - nickonken.com and in my view, the BEST one - http://www.stephanierausser.com/ I think Nick shoots 5D3 and some Contax, but I know Stephanie shoots 1DX (maybe mark II now), and mostly primes at 1.2-2.8. I don't think the AF on any MF system is up to par for great lifestyle work in 2016, especially if you're going to go the CCD route.

Just my .02.

-Doug

Doug,

I'm familiar with Stephanies work. I looked at both their pages and I am curious why you feel MF, say Phase One XF platform could not hang with say the 1DX unless it's fast action.

Cheers

Don

[douglevy]

Don - autofocus. Her work is all about motion and 1.4-2. I've never shot the XF, but I know my H5X would give me extremely poor results in those circumstances. A friend took her workshop a couple of years ago and she was shooting 1DX and said it wasn't unusual to shoot 10,000 frames in a day to get 20-30 killer shots. I'd bet the majority of her outtakes are OOF, even with the 1DX, with the MF I've experienced, it would be even worse.

[JoeKitchen]

Don - autofocus. Her work is all about motion and 1.4-2. I've never shot the XF, but I know my H5X would give me extremely poor results in those circumstances. A friend took her workshop a couple of years ago and she was shooting 1DX and said it wasn't unusual to shoot 10,000 frames in a day to get 20-30 killer shots. I'd bet the majority of her outtakes are OOF, even with the 1DX, with the MF I've experienced, it would be even worse.

Took a look at her work and, personally, just not my style.  I am very much into lighting and staging, creating an environment.  I realize relating to the model is important, which is why I put so much planning into a shoot.  When I show up, I can hand the plans to my assistant and run pretty smoothly the rest of the day. 

The idea of shotgunning off 10K frames sound absolutely maddening.  How long does the editing alone take?  Too crazy for me.   

Also, I just don't understand the notion that the camera is too heavy (although I will contest the auto-focus may be slow, which is why bright big view finders are great).  My Arca and tripod, together, weight about 24 lb, plus i have a backpack that also weighs about 20 lbs without the camera in it.  I often walk all day with that; my shoulders have grown strong enough and use to it, plus I'm a pretty active swimmer. 

[douglevy]

I think Russell is on the right track - she's def. not a spray and pray shooter (though she does have a full time editor I believe), it's more about options, expressions - she's not a gear head, the gear has to get out of the way to let her make the photos. To me (again, personal preference) she sets the bar for what is commercial lifestyle work in today's market.

[JoeKitchen]

BC,

Not sure if I am set in my style or just an optimist hoping that moving at an appropriate speed is still a possibility today. With architecture, it has become harder to keep it at 8 set-ups a day; many are expecting 15 even though the quality drops. 

Primarily I look at the "newer" backs as a way to upgrade my work flow from the P series, which hinders me for exteriors (to a degree).  I'd rather work with a tech camera with movements for architecture and the idea of carrying around an even bigger bellows camera with the Sony is not appealing to me, especially for exteriors.  The IQ260 seems best, which is what I might end up doing anyway, but it's fun to look around.     

Whether or not it is best to shoot lifestyle with that thing is yet to be scene, for me.  Thankfully my fiancee has an DF+ and will probably get the XF, since the DF+ sucks, so I can see then without footing any money. 

Anyway, I want my style to be about lighting, not necessarily about using big heavy cameras with static compositions, which is why I recognize using an hand held camera is best moving on. 

It's my lighting that takes time though, time for set up and planning, and, with this in mind, using a bigger camera does not really add anytime to the process.  Plus, I am looking to add lifestyle to my beverage work mainly as an add on.  I hate to be scene as a generalist and want to keep the lifestyle work specific to beverage, mainly. 

I really do not want to get get any lifestyle work outside of beverage and, maybe, product work. 

Maybe I am being too optimistic.

Or maybe not.  There's a lot of crap out there. 

[JoeKitchen]

It's not just volume, it's exceptional volume and that's the hard trick.

Anyway, we still use more than a camera and one light.



IMO

BC

Would that be volume you are expected to create or volume you are now competing with? 

I guess maybe both? 

The idea of shooting many setups in a day without putting all my focus into each just does not sit well.  Maybe I am delusional given the current state of the market. 

[Ken R]

Hi Joe:

First off. I have shot some portrait work on location (with and without lighting) with the Hasselblad H1 and IQ160 back untethered mostly at iso 200 in regular mode and also iso 400 in sensor plus mode. The back was fast enough but the H1 was a bit slow at times to AF but with prime lenses (specially the 80mm) it feels good in hand. The Sensor + mode is awesome and it has more resolution than the typical equivalent MP in other cameras. The 15mp in the IQ160 sensor plus mode has been enough for me for a lot of work but the 20mp in the 80mp cameras should be even better obviously. Regarding long exposures I can get really nice 10-15s exposures (even 20) at base iso no problem with my IQ160 even in warm weather. I would expect the IQ380 to be equal or even better. I own the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W lens and it is just breathtaking for architecture and landscapes. I used it on my RM3di for some Architecture work that involved talent in the frame and flash lighting and it worked great. No wide angle SLR lens compares. Its not even close.

I recently did a shoot in the studio that involved a few athletes and a simple light setup but a lot of movement (poses and action), very high volume shoot since the client uses the images to create animations for tV and web content. I had to use my Canon 5D3. No way I could have done all of that with any medium format camera. A lot of it yes, maybe, but I needed the speed and responsiveness of the DSLR so as not to miss any shots. That said C1pro along with Capture Pilot is a godsend when working supervised shoots. Love it.

I have not tried the XF though. Like I said, the IQ back is fast enough but the body has not been for me. I am sure the XF is better in that regard but how much? At the very least you should try one and see. I am still a fan of the optical viewfinder specially inside the studio with flash and outside in high contrast scenes but once EVFs get better I would not mind switching to a mirrorless set-up. The next gen of the Hassy X1D is going to be very tempting!

But Honestly I am at a point in my career where camera equipment choice is not that critical since there are a lot of great cameras out there, it needs to be reliable and the files be good enough to get the results I want. I am are much more concerned with what is in front of the camera (during production) and what I want to be there (pre-production) and the level of production support each particular client wants/needs. I like to have options (that is where medium format comes in) for some of my work but the bulk of it I do with a DSLR since I need speed / responsiveness (and fast lenses) even in very low light situations which are very common in the sets I photograph in.