that is the reason why they invented technical camera's ...for perspective ...
all we need now is a manufacturer that doesn't forget to test their chips for
side way adjustments...
the kodakchip is better for architecture , simple .
Great consideration is given to the design benefits/drawbacks of microlenses and pixel size at both Dalsa and Phase One as products are developed. The idea that Phase One doesn't "test for sideway adjustment" is just crazy wrong. Tech cameras are in fact a heavy design emphasis for Phase One and it's a heavy part of testing from development all the way past release.
So much so that the tech camera market is dominated
by Team Phase One with features like an onboard battery (P/P+/IQ), in-camera application of LCC (Aptus II), custom metadata entry (Aptus II), two axis level (IQ/Credo) including autocorrection in C1 for being off-kilter, no-wakeup required sync (P40/P65/IQ/Credo/Aptus-II), long exposure (P+ excluding 40/60), great 100% review (Aptus II, IQ, Credo), super fast interface for in-camera review (IQ/Credo), ability to review the last 10 images from the back when shooting tethered (IQ/Credo), Live View (with limitations, IQ/Credo).
What you're seeing here is what's thoroughly documented by myself and others on the forum, Phase One on their Knowledge Base, and discussed by any good Phase One dealer with a client that is using (or might consider in the future) these kinds of lenses/bodies/backs: 6 and 5.2 micron backs (P40/P65/IQ140/160/180/Credo) do better with the mild retrofocus design of Rodenstock's lenses. The P65+ works very well with the 43XL on up, and pretty well with the 35XL, and even does very well with the 28XL straight on, but will not sustain 12mm of shift. If you came to me when purchasing and told me that shifting 12mm on a 28XL and using the edge of the frame then I would not sell you a 65+. I would instead send you a sample image of a 32HR with 12mm of shift and explain your options:
- a back with a larger micron size (e.g. P45+)
- or a lens like the 32HR with less extreme angle of light (which provides better sharpness, great microcontrast, very little color cast, but comes at the price of added cost, weight, and distortion).
All that said, I think you are overstating the difference compared to your H4. The images you've posted look of comparable quality to the edge of the H4 frame. The IQ, being a larger sensor, allows you to see further towards the edge of the 28XL image circle where color cast becomes more severe. Likewise if you slapped an IQ140 on there you'd find that there was very little color cast at 12mm of shift, but only because you'd have effectively cropped out the potentially problematic area.