Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Credo vs. IQ  (Read 8890 times)

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1129
Credo vs. IQ
« on: December 04, 2012, 08:45:27 AM »

Is there any noticeable difference between these two backs?  I am assuming you can push both just as far in post.

Also, is there a way to turn off the sharpening Phase backs do before the image is out of the back?
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2980
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2012, 10:10:06 AM »


I believe that one of the main differences is that Leaf has a totally different color profile for the back than Phase One.  I don't believe the raw files from a IQ160 and the credo 60 will handle exactly the same way.  Both backs use the same Dalsa chip but two different development teams worked up the cameras. Things may have come a bit closer with the Credo, I have not had the opportunity to shoot one.   Phase has more high end features like the Focus mask and horizon for leveling, and there are more.  One of the many sales people on this forum can innumerate the individual features better than I can.

On the raw being sharpened in the back, I don't believe that is the case.  The file you view in the LCD after the exposure is sharpened but the actual raw is not.  When you load the raw into Capture One, the file will pick up the default sharpening Capture One has setup for that particular back.  This is before you make any adjustments to the file.  This amounts vary by individual back and noise reduction is also preset.    Phase with the IQ does a VERY good job here and it's very easy to tell if your shot is in focus when viewed at 100%.

You can open the same file in LR for example which has a much lower initial sharpening amount and see the differences.  Raw by default should have nothing applied to it as I understand it. 

Paul
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 10:34:03 AM by Paul2660 »
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com

lance_schad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 261
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2012, 12:27:12 PM »

One feature that the IQ has that the Credo does not is Focus Mask.

I saw in a previous post that you are considering using a back on a technical camera.

This feature is quite useful in assisting you in determine where your focus is in the preview. How well it works does depend on subject matter , it likes lots of contrast. The threshold setting can be adjusted to optimize its use for different subject matters. I find the default setting of 40 works well.

You can zoom in to 100% on each system to check focus , but Focus Mask makes the job easier.

Lance

Don Libby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 767
  • Iron Creek Photography
    • Iron Creek Photography
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2012, 12:34:53 PM »

I use a tech cam well over 75% for my landscape work and recently upgraded from a P65+ to an IQ160.  The added benefit of the focus mask shouldn't be overlooked.  It's also nice now to just double tap the screen to go to 100% which helps when you're in a rush.

I came close to the Credo but in the end felt the IQ offered more of what I wanted/needed primarily the mask.

Don
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2012, 07:57:47 PM »

Focus mask is an after the shot focus checker. Not to be confused with focus peaking while focusing.

Focus mask while being after the fact it is still quite useful. It is very fast and you can swipe
through a bunch of photos very quickly. This is particularly helpful when working with focus stacking.
Due to the fact that focus stacking can't be automated with the Phase One cameras it is very handy
to review the focus stack after shooting it. You just swipe through the photos quickly and the overlaid
colors show almost like an animation. Very handy.

http://youtu.be/twVPTes3aMc

Focus peaking would be really nice on a MF back. It would be nice to have it in live view.
It's even missing on the D800..... :-\

Damn focus peaking even on some point and shoots. It really should be on all cameras where it is possible.
I can do focus peaking on the d800 with an HDMI monitor or the really nice Zacuto EVF finder... also a nifty waist level finder



But it costs $ 1,000
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3404
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2012, 08:15:23 PM »

Also, is there a way to turn off the sharpening Phase backs do before the image is out of the back?

Don't know what you're referring to here. The raw file is unsharpened (by definition - it is raw).

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2012, 08:49:17 PM »

Also, is there a way to turn off the sharpening Phase backs do before the image is out of the back?

The file saved by the back is RAW, as such it is not sharpened. What you may be seeing is the default sharpening
in the Raw converter. If I recall correctly by default the setting in Capture One (like many raw converters) applies some sharpening
but you can go into the setting and turn it down.

Now that said there may be some sharpening when the data is de-bayered by the RAW converter, so some converters may look less sharpened.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
    • Echophoto
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2012, 11:16:49 AM »

Hi,

My Sony Alpha 99 has focus peaking. It is not even close live view at actual pixels.

Best regards
Erik

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3404
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2012, 12:34:42 PM »

The file saved by the back is RAW, as such it is not sharpened. What you may be seeing is the default sharpening
in the Raw converter. If I recall correctly by default the setting in Capture One (like many raw converters) applies some sharpening
but you can go into the setting and turn it down.

Now that said there may be some sharpening when the data is de-bayered by the RAW converter, so some converters may look less sharpened.

The default raw sharpening in C1 can be adjusted per image, or you can use the dropdown arrow in the top right of the sharpening tool and "save as default" whatever setting you find best for your needs.

You can also use sharpening during viewing in C1 but disable sharpening entirely upon output. This is especially useful if you want to sharpen at later stages, but don't want to have to toggle sharpening on (for viewing and critical analysis at the raw stage) and off (for output to a TIFF for later sharpening).

And yes, the debayering in C1v7 is the best I've seen regarding detail extraction and recreation of the original scene from the imperfect data of the bayer sensor. But it is completely wrong to refer to this as "sharpening". Less sophisticated debayering algorithms will result in buddier/softer pixel level detail, worse diagonal lines, more artifacts, and otherwise less good detail, but this is not the result of "sharpening" but simply better math.

See for example:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/41739-capture-one-7-its-doubled-my-mpixels.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72361.0
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152207238975165.923078.126184805164&type=3

This increase is most evident with digital backs and super sharp lenses (i.e. if you used a crappy lens then better debayering won't make it any sharper).   

Gandalf

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2012, 03:56:45 PM »

As noted above, the backs are hugely different, but not in any ways you would read on a spec sheet. Given the choice I prefer the IQ back, but not sure whether it is worth the extra cash outlay. The IQ back give you focus mask, real buttons which can be nice, and a different UI which I think is a little easier and faster to navigate. Something about the Credo UI bothers me a little. I have not used the IQ and the Credo back to back, but when using the Credo I didn't find the 100% view to be slow or difficult.

It all comes down to money and features, and whether the way you use the backs justify the price difference.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1129
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2012, 04:08:52 PM »

Thanks all.  The focus mask sounds nice, but as said, it comes down to money sometimes.  The person I will be dealing with may be able to get me a nice discount on a Credo, so I just may have to deal without a focus mask.
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1293
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2012, 10:03:35 PM »

Thanks all.  The focus mask sounds nice, but as said, it comes down to money sometimes.  The person I will be dealing with may be able to get me a nice discount on a Credo, so I just may have to deal without a focus mask.


The focus mask is probably most effective as a method for gauging increases or decreases in depth of field, rather than actual areas of sharp focus.

There is still a different look to the Leaf Credo file compared to the Phase One IQ file from the same sensor product, which is most noticeable on skin tones. However, the difference is less than in prior generations.

There are also some differences in the interface on the Credo vs the IQ as well. And....yes, it costs less! That's a nice difference.

Also - you could consider a difference in camera platforms, should you decide you'd like to try a Rollieflex AFi camera system, which is only compatible with Leaf or Sinar digital backs.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1129
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 11:04:42 PM »


The focus mask is probably most effective as a method for gauging increases or decreases in depth of field, rather than actual areas of sharp focus.

There is still a different look to the Leaf Credo file compared to the Phase One IQ file from the same sensor product, which is most noticeable on skin tones. However, the difference is less than in prior generations.

There are also some differences in the interface on the Credo vs the IQ as well. And....yes, it costs less! That's a nice difference.

Also - you could consider a difference in camera platforms, should you decide you'd like to try a Rollieflex AFi camera system, which is only compatible with Leaf or Sinar digital backs.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

The availability of camera systems is also another factor.  Although I would be working off of a tech camera for virtually all of my professional work, I still would like to have the ability to use the back handheld for maybe client portraits and fooling around.  I like to shoot waist high when shooting people (so as to keep the perspectives in plane, I am a true AP); right now Rollei's Hy6 is the only camera with a true waist high view finder.  Yes I know the V system exists, but that is not designed for digital.  
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Brian Hirschfeld

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 847
    • Brian Hirschfeld Photography
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2012, 12:48:59 AM »

If you want to see some comparisons between the IQ180 / Credo 80 / P65+ http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2012/08/19/hands-on-experience-leaf-credo-80-with-full-resolution-sample-images/ you can make your own assessment as to the differences in image quality and the way that they process images differently. The Credo certainly does have some different profiles, but you have to decide on your own if you like these since there is nothing to say they are better or worse.

I will say, the Credo has some very nice menus, although they arn't a significant improvement over the IQ series user interface. Focus mask is a big feature left off. I do not shoot technical cameras, but I know, especially when I use MF glass like the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9N or the 300mm f/2.8 APO that the focus mask can be very helpful, and certainly even when shooting with AF lenses, its a useful quick check to make sure I am nailing focus....
Logged
www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2012, 09:11:13 AM »

Outside of focus mask the other biggest asset is the 100 percent zoom and that quick tap to get it is pretty invaluable I have found. On a tech cam the focus mask is extremely helpful in many ways. If you shoot as in the old days think of it as more a polaroid in that style of working. 2 or 3 images with a tech cam making your adjustments both for framing, composing and focus you walk away knowing you pretty much nailed it. Focus mask in my view is confirmation you got what you needed. To me that is pretty nice as usually you get a good feeling you nailed it before you pack up.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2980
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2012, 09:23:56 AM »

Does the Credo not have the double tap to 100% view?  that along with the ability to move around the image at 100% by simply moving your finger over the screen is huge deal for me.  I shoot 100% tech camera on a 160, but even if I was on a DF I would still want this.  I never trusted my DF on focus that much, and have not used the DF+ but it seems that Phase/Mamiya may have improved the focus. 

On focus mask, Steve comments on the DOF are dead one.  You can also get fooled by Focus mask as if you are shooting in a low contrast situation, many times it won't get enough feedback to read anything.  Early morning, late afternoon especially.  On a plus, in bright light shooting it's a great tool since here it's much much much harder to read anything off the LCD such as critical focus.  The Mask paints as green over areas and can be seen in any light.  I find myself leaving it on most of the time as it just give the user one extra bit of feedback.

My ideal solution, (don't ever think this will happen) is a focus peaking live view solution like on Sony.  I know many hate the A99 viewfinder EVF design, but I love it.  I carry an NEx-7 around with me in the field when carrying my 160 as I know there will a shot I won't be able to get either due to time or setup any other way.  Being able to dial in around the peaking for me is great. 

In my experience, I don't find the Viewfinder on the DF all the bright.  Sure it's large but I have never been able to get very critical focus when using it alone.  I carried around the view finder magnifier for along time.  This helped tremendously when trying to get critical focus with the DF or earlier Mamiya AFD bodies.   I am near sighted and thus prefer the use of any tools like peaking. 

Guy also hit it on the head in spades on the differences on the CMOS and CCD files.  The D800e seems to have this much worse for me than my Canon's with the stronger AA filters.  My biggest problem with the D800e is getting a file that has smooth transitions and not a "crunchy" look.  I am finding that Capture One right now seems to do a better job many times than LR on the 800 files.  But this is personal preference.   

I would have loved to see focus peaking on the D800 in some form.  :-)

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2012, 10:13:23 AM »

I'm wondering about the Credo and 100 percent zoom as well. How does that function work in practice. Be nice to know
Logged

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2012, 10:18:30 AM »

I'm wondering about the Credo and 100 percent zoom as well. How does that function work in practice. Be nice to know

Same as on the IQ and because the touch screen is larger than the display you can pan and zoom in/out without having your finger on the image

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3404
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2012, 10:24:37 AM »

Also on both Credo and IQ when you're at 100% and you either take a new picture or switch to a different already-captured image then the screen remains at 100% at the same point in the image until/unless you unzoom. As you go between the previous and next image the content either gets sharper or softer and even minute changes are easy to see.

Focus mask = nice to check the way that a change (focus/aperture/tilt/swing) makes to the overall focus plane throughout the image
100% review = nice to check the way that a change (focus/aperture/tilt/swing) makes to a specific section of the image

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: Credo vs. IQ
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2012, 10:45:03 AM »

Same as on the IQ and because the touch screen is larger than the display you can pan and zoom in/out without having your finger on the image

Thanks Yair good to know . I only had one in my hand for about 2 minutes but the Credo was nice for sure for the limited time i had it in Lances hands and with Doug playing security guard. ROTFLMAO
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up