Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have shot MFD for some months now, but I also shoot full frame and APS-C.

I don't think there is an easy answer. Personally, I don't see any MFD magic, but I am not the kind of person who believes in magic, takes much to persuade me. Some observations:

1) I cannot see difference in resolution/MTF/edge contrast in A2 size prints which is my normal printing size. That is consistent with Bart's tool
2) The Zeiss lenses I have for the Hasselblad can match my zoom lenses on the Sony at least in some areas.
3) The P45+ with 6.8 microns samples at 72 lp/mm while the Sony Alpha 99 samples at 83 lp/mm, not a lot of difference, and I dont't feel there is a lot of difference at the pixel level.
4) The P45+ has more pixels, and that is noticable

So the P45+ wins on resolution and edge contrast.

Regarding DR I feel that Sony Alpha has the upper hand over the P45+. The IQ 250 has probably a very similar sensor to the Alpha 99, but it has a larger area so it obviously wins.

Colour rendition is difficult issue to discuss. I am quite satisfied with colour rendition of my P45+ now, but it took some work to get there with my favourite raw converter LR5.3. Capture One was better out of the box.

So my take on the P45+ is: nice camera but no magic. I am pretty sure the IQ 250 is very nice back. A larger Exmoor sensor has better image quality than an smaller Exmoor all other parameters being equal, but probably no magic. If you add DoF to the mix it will be even more complicated.

Here are some of my latest observations and images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up

My experience is obviously based on the P45+, but I am pretty sure that the IQ 250 is a (even) better back.

Best regards
Erik

Brian,

I look forward to your reporting on the new camera, merely to be informed about what high end tools are available and their functionality, even though I will never be in the market for MFDB.

BTW, what is so special about a MFDB pixel? Noise, DR, and color response can all be measured and what else are you evaluating? How does a MFDB pixel compare to that of your D4 and what differentiates them at the pixel level?

Bill

[jerome_m]

The IQ250 has 50MP, but this is not significantly greater than the 36 MP of the Nikon.

Actually, the difference between 50 and 36mp is quite noticeable.

[RichDesmond]

Hi Rich,

The tool is rather verbose about which assumptions are used for the different qualifications. The differences are significant enough to see the difference, of course assuming otherwise identical circumstances. For instance, the difference between "higher" and "very high" when viewed from 3 feet distance, is 60.68 x 45.48 inch output @ 136.5 PPI versus 34.67 x 25.99 inch output @ 238.9 PPI with identical visual resolution / quality from the same file, or 75% higher resolution / quality with the same output size.

I'm sorry, but defining the difference between high and very high with 4 significant digits just screams out that there are issues with the underlying assumptions.

When different cameras are being compared, then many other factors can become deciding factors. Skill in postprocessing different types of camera files is not unimportant for comparisons either, but the tool will neutralize the comparisons as far as resolution is concerned.

That's actually my point. The OP was making a value comparison based on resolution, but there is much more to the quality of a print than that. To base the maximum size of a high quality print out of each of the sensors based on resolution alone is just silly, IMO.

Fuzzy prints can be as bad as fuzzy concepts, depending on the intended use of the image.

"Quality" in the arts, even in photography, is a fuzzy concept. God help us if there ever comes a time when it isn't, it will mean that we are no longer human.

Or underestimated in their usefulness ...

I guess that's possible, but it's very much the minority case.

[RichDesmond]

Rich,

From your misuse of DPI (a printer term), I surmise that you are not a tech guru even though you may be a successful photographer. 

Best regards,

Bill

Sorry I grabbed the wrong acronym. I am a tech guru, but only in a limited field, which is most definitely not imaging.
The only photographic success I have is occasionally making a print I'm happy with. But that's enough for me.

[BernardLanguillier]

The IQ250 will at least have one remarkable value, it adds a great data point for pixel peepers between high end DSLRs and backs.

Of course it is not perfect since the D800's sensor is at least 2.5 years older technology, the sensor is not as large as that of the IQ260 of (roughly) equal resolution,... but it will be fun to read about!

Cheers,
Bernard

[JV]

The price is saying two things: image quality is going to be at the same level than CCD

As long as people keep marching to the beat of Phase One they are going to keep on charging their premium prices or even increase them more...

IMO it has very little to do with image quality, although Phase One undeniably delivers that.

This back costs about $5-10K too much compared to other Phase offerings, leave alone compared to the competition…

One can only hope that the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica come up with some very strong competition...

[BernardLanguillier]

As long as people keep marching to the beat of Phase One they are going to keep on charging their premium prices or even increase them more...

IMO it has very little to do with image quality, although Phase One undeniably delivers that.

This back costs about $5-10K too much compared to other Phase offerings, leave alone compared to the competition…

One can only hope that the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica come up with some very strong competition...

Nowadays, the main problem has become lenses. There is IMHO nothing in MF at Otus level, at least not among the Mamiya lenses line up, which leaves the technical camera lenses... and we don't know how well the CMOS will be working on those.

Cheers,
Bernard

[tho_mas]

Nowadays, the main problem has become lenses.

Exactly! In fact I am currently researching a 135 format wide angle lens (wider than 35mm) that is not soft at the edges and that does not show excessive field curvature and that does not show CAs on the A7R's sensor. Seems to be almost impossible to find a decent 28mm lens (except maybe the Schneider PC-TS Super-Angulon 4.5/28 ... ).
In the medium format world I have plenty of choices for a lens with the equivalent field of view with very good corner sharpness, no CAs and especially without disturbing field cuvature.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm sorry, but defining the difference between high and very high with 4 significant digits just screams out that there are issues with the underlying assumptions.

LOL  Rich, you seem to be a person who is hard to please. First the classification is not exact enough, then the explanation is too exact ...?

Cheers,
Bart

[BernardLanguillier]

Exactly! In fact I am currently researching a 135 format wide angle lens (wider than 35mm) that is not soft at the edges and that does not show excessive field curvature and that does not show CAs on the A7R's sensor. Seems to be almost impossible to find a decent 28mm lens (except maybe the Schneider PC-TS Super-Angulon 4.5/28 ... ).
In the medium format world I have plenty of choices for a lens with the equivalent field of view with very good corner sharpness, no CAs and especially without disturbing field cuvature.

Ah yes... I stitch with an Otus for wide things. That pretty much makes the best wides look like Ukrenian crap. I am yet to find cases in my applications where high quality corners are required and stitching not applicable.

When corners are not an issue I am yet to find something better than my 24mm f1.4 in terms of subject isolation/sharpness/look ratio on wide glass.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

It doesn't make much sense to solely compare the sensors.
If you buy, you buy into a system - with lenses.

Larger sensor real estate helps getting the SQF up in the end and it puts less stress on the lenses.
This has nothing to do with the sensors resolution difference.
You can get incredibly good images from 8x10" film with crap glass, just because size matters.
In the end you'll need to compare prints at different sizes.
And I guess you'll need to print very large to see a significant difference between the IQ250 and the D800.

Apart from technical quality you should like the rendering style of the system.
Theres a reason why people like Leica and Zeiss glass.
I loved the softness of my Mamiya Sekor glass when I had my old Mamiya Press - but technically it was glass shards compared to modern standards.

I'm sure for everyone already owning a 645D+ and lenses the IQ250 is an interesting back,
opening a lot of use cases normally covered by FF cameras.
If this back is really an economically good investment is a complex question
depending on the individual situation of the photographers,
not something which allows simple answers.

[tho_mas]

I am yet to find cases in my applications where high quality corners are required and stitching not applicable.

well, our needs are different, obviously. I do all kind of stitching, too... but sometimes it is simply not feasible.

When corners are not an issue I am yet to find something better than my 24mm f1.4.

for the Sony A7R there is the Zeiss ZA 2./24 with an A-Mount adapter. It's phenomenal in the center. It's also phenomenal at the edges. But "edges" really only applies to the foreground - the field curvature is so heavy it's completely useless for my needs. AFAIK it's the same with the Nikon 1.4/24mm.

[BernardLanguillier]

well, our needs are different, obviously. I do all kind of stitching, too... but sometimes it is simply not feasible.

I agree, but in most cases where stitching does't apply corner performance is of secundary importance.

Out of curiosity, what are the cases in your work where stitching doesn't apply but corner performance is critical?

Cheers,
Bernard

[tho_mas]

Out of curiosity, what are the cases in your work where stitching doesn't apply but corner performance is critical?

moving light

[RichDesmond]

LOL  Rich, you seem to be a person who is hard to please. First the classification is not exact enough, then the explanation is too exact ...?

Cheers,
Bart

Guess I wasn't clear in the first post.  I don't have an issue with the inexact classification, quite the contrary. I think that's inherent in the subject (print quality) It was in defining print quality solely in terms of resolution, and inside that, defining "very high quality" so exactly.

My other issue (I have lots of them is the underlying assumption in the OP that "value" is any sort of linear function. In virtually anything that last 10% of performance is very expensive to get.
The proper way to approach value is not via a linear function, but through the economic concept of marginal utility. Is the extra performance gained worth the extra cost? For a pro both sides of that equation are measured in the same units (money), so you can arrive at something close to an objective solution, but for an amateur where that utility takes the form of pleasure or happiness or...not so easy. In that case value is only known to that person, so any judgement by someone else on it is inherently based on incomplete data, and very likely wrong.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is that Bart's tool is a good utility to calculate necessary resolution for print sizes under given conditions. I have often found that an image file was just incredibly better, but there was very little difference in the resulting print. It is really about being good enough, once an image has details under the threshold of human vision further improvements will not be visible. This of course assumes high quality images.

Personally I would say I cannot see differences between 39 MP and 24 MP in A2-size prints but I am inclined I would see such differences in 70x100 cm prints. In a recent video with Michael Reichmann and Ctein, Ctein said that 4/3 was good enough for A2 and he could achieve similar results to Pentax 67 with his 4/3 camera. Ctein has been called the best printer in the world by Kodak, so I guess he knows a thing or two about image quality.

Best regards
Erik

Guess I wasn't clear in the first post.  I don't have an issue with the inexact classification, quite the contrary. I think that's inherent in the subject (print quality) It was in defining print quality solely in terms of resolution, and inside that, defining "very high quality" so exactly.

My other issue (I have lots of them is the underlying assumption in the OP that "value" is any sort of linear function. In virtually anything that last 10% of performance is very expensive to get.
The proper way to approach value is not via a linear function, but through the economic concept of marginal utility. Is the extra performance gained worth the extra cost? For a pro both sides of that equation are measured in the same units (money), so you can arrive at something close to an objective solution, but for an amateur where that utility takes the form of pleasure or happiness or...not so easy. In that case value is only known to that person, so any judgement by someone else on it is inherently based on incomplete data, and very likely wrong.

[Theodoros]

The price is saying two things: image quality is going to be at the same level than CCD; Phase One does not want to cannibalise its current customer base but is leaving the door open for someone else to substantially expand the current digital medium format market. This is potentially a big mistake.

Pier

I don't know how you've come to this conclusion… usually pricing is irrelevant to IQ, I guess that it would be wise if they would introduce that as a P50+ at a much lower price. but then they seem to never introduce a new product in a previous line nor they name higher their basic products. They are "smart" in P1… they know that most of their customers will never know the difference, so they've introduced it as IQ2 series… Question is what the demand will be shortly, when H5D-50c will be announced and even Pentax 645-50 at much better prices selling practically the same product… Never the less, I've seen people buying Volvo at much higher price than the same Ford Focus better specified… IQ2 looks like a luxury product to some… Not related to photography of course, but P1 is good in building an image…. as I said before, they know that most of the customers will never know (or care about) the difference.

[David Anderson]

I admit it, if I really needed one enough to justify the price, I would have one of the new medium format kits in a heartbeat.
This new back (early days I know  ) with real high ISO capability makes them even more desirable.
BUT
The 800e is just so awesome and cheap and light and easy to drag around - why bother with anything else ?
Ok, wide lenses could be improved some for 35mm DSLR's, but the stuff I get from my weightless and cheap 28 1.8 is not bad.  

Maybe if i win the lottery -  

[BernardLanguillier]

moving light

Hum... in extremely rare cases yes. But 99.9% of the time a 3 shot stitch with a 50mm can be shot in a few seconds, before even changing light has changed significantly.

Anyway, we all have different needs and naturally converge to what's best, no doubt.

Cheers,
Bernard

[tho_mas]

Hum... in extremely rare cases yes. But 99.9% of the time a 3 shot stitch with a 50mm can be shot in a few seconds, before even changing light has changed significantly.

For example this image:







Looks as it's easily stitchable, doesn't it?

But… very fast moving dark clouds (no rain, by the way… just some end of the world atmosphere).
The sun is behind the camera, I've shot this straight with the light. Actually this was a completely dark scene ... but now and then the clouds moved so that the sun lit the building (and foreground). But only for a very short moment.
No way to do stitching in such a scene …

So... even if we talk about 99.9% (I think we talk about somewhat more percent, but anyway...) ... for this 0.1% I want to have a choice. Otherwise the image wouldn't exist (not that it matters in general... but to me personally it matters a lot ...)

BTW... this image took me months to capture. I've visited the place several times but again and again something simply wasn't "right". Finally there was this weather and this light ...