Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e

[synn]

Some of my favorite quotes from Lord Kelvin:

    "To measure is to know."

    "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it."

    "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]

    "The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught."

I would say that physical measurements can tell quite a lot about the performance of imaging systems. However, the final arbiter must come from examination of large prints. The studies should be double blind so as to avoid subjective impressions, perhaps embellished by proponents of the two systems.

I do not have access to the IQ250 but perhaps others can perform such testing, but I am not holding my breath for such a study to appear anytime soon. Of course, the PhaseOne proponents will say that the IQ blows away the D800e just as they previously stated that MFDBs have an additional 5 stops DR over FF 35 mm.

Regards,

Bill

Do you have a portfolio I could measure?

[BernardLanguillier]

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 ...

Intersting image, I understand the challenge.

It doesn't seem very wide though, what focal length did you use?

Cheers,
Bernard

[torger]

Stitching might not work because you simply don't like to stitch. I stitched a lot with my DSLR but stopped with my tech cam. In many/most cases stitching would work, with a good head mad for stitching you can stitch fast and moving light is rarely a problem, but I simply like capturing it all in one shot. Therefore I also use grads instead of multishot HDR when needed and possible.

Tech cam shooting for me is much about the shooting experience, completing the image in the camera with shifts and all and press the shutter once. I guess I am a bit nostalgic, but I like to keep the computer work to a minimum. I know I could stitch and reproject to cancel out the need of wides and shifting, but I still prefer to do it in camera.

As I've bought most stuff second hand the cost of my complete system with tech cam, 33MP digital back and six lenses is say $20K and I find that fairly reasonable for the quality I get. Buying new from Phase One is jst too expensive, if that was the only option I'd still shoot DSLR and be happy with that. And probably stitch more.

I think camera and lenses are okay, expensive but not to a crazy level. Digital back pricing is what makes MF crazy. But those that have a healthy business can pay and obviously enough of them do, Phase One is free to charge anything the want. I do doubt that the backs have to be this expensive though, a major part of the price is there because they can.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I actually stitch more on MF than on DSLR, the main reason is that on DSLR I use zooms and can choose my crops while on the MF camera I have just a few primes. So I often stitch instead of going wider and cropping. As an example, if I need 100 mm and only have 120 and 80, I can use the 120 and get 41% more pixels or I can use the 80 and have 36% less pixels.

Another way to say it is that with the P45+ the 120mm/stitch will give me 56MP while the 80 mm/crop option will give me 24.9 MP. In which case I could use my Sony Alpha instead giving me 24MP. The example I mention is real world, I was shooting a relief in a church in the Dolomites and could neither move back or forth. I also wanted to use the 120 as it is well corrected for short distances.

The way I shoot I often cannot move back and forth, because i want to keep perspective and that changes by definition if one moves.

Best regards
Erik

Stitching might not work because you simply don't like to stitch. I stitched a lot with my DSLR but stopped with my tech cam. In many/most cases stitching would work, with a good head mad for stitching you can stitch fast and moving light is rarely a problem, but I simply like capturing it all in one shot. Therefore I also use grads instead of multishot HDR when needed and possible.

Tech cam shooting for me is much about the shooting experience, completing the image in the camera with shifts and all and press the shutter once. I guess I am a bit nostalgic, but I like to keep the computer work to a minimum. I know I could stitch and reproject to cancel out the need of wides and shifting, but I still prefer to do it in camera.

As I've bought most stuff second hand the cost of my complete system with tech cam, 33MP digital back and six lenses is say $20K and I find that fairly reasonable for the quality I get. Buying new from Phase One is jst too expensive, if that was the only option I'd still shoot DSLR and be happy with that. And probably stitch more.

I think camera and lenses are okay, expensive but not to a crazy level. Digital back pricing is what makes MF crazy. But those that have a healthy business can pay and obviously enough of them do, Phase One is free to charge anything the want. I do doubt that the backs have to be this expensive though, a major part of the price is there because they can.

[torger]

Yes, that is why have more lenses than most, six now and I need two more before my system is "complete" :-). In that respect I'm probably not a typical user. But I think as soon as stitching comes into the picture the value of a tech cam and mf in all sinks like a stone.

[torger]

Concerning this new cmos back it's a good starting point, but I don't think high iso shooting is a good mf application. Live view is the great advantage. Larger sensor size and good wide angle response is what needs to be added to make a really compelling offer in the longer term I think.

[MrSmith]

bit of an odd comparison really (d800/IQ250) if you were in the market for either i doubt you would consider them as options.
i'm more interested in cost v performance of Leica/Pentax/Phase/Hassleblad cameras all with the same Sony 50mp sensor, unless theres a 35mm camera with 45-50mpixels they wouldnt be in the running.

how about a Sony A7r canon 24-tse v d800 nikon 24mm-Pce plus samyang 24  cost/performance review? should be a meaningful test for all you landscape/architecture photographers to chew over.

[torger]

how about a Sony A7r canon 24-tse v d800 nikon 24mm-Pce plus samyang 24  cost/performance review? should be a meaningful test for all you landscape/architecture photographers to chew over.

these comparisons are already being made. Phase one shows in their campaign the camera being used in typical dslr applications, so a comparison is unavoidable. I would have liked to see the improvements in a tech cam workflow in the campaign but they have obviously not even cared to test; doug need to test himself to answer our questions. This constant ignorance concerning tech cam use surprises me a bit.

[tho_mas]

Intersting image, I understand the challenge.

It doesn't seem very wide though, what focal length did you use?

yes, correct. The lens is 120mm. I posted this with regard to the light situation. But there are similar situations when I shoot with wides.

[jduncan]

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

I agree:  that is the reason the little sensor is surprising.  When Hasselblad released the H5D they did two things:

1. They talk of how the camera is compatible with next generation sensors.
2. They release the 24mm lens that make me believe that they will continue with crop  (the call them digital)  sensors.  

A big sensor of the same resolution stress the lens far less than a little one, I know that making a little good lens is simpler until a point, but in general the stress on the lens is less.
Nikon, Sony  and Canon will come with sensors that will match or be close to the IQ250 resolution  (if they use the D7100 sensor size tech will lead to 54MP they can go to 45 if they want to be conservative). But what lens will be able to resolve that?

In the other hand just going  48 x 36 mm with D800 size technology will give a 72MP back that a modern lens will be able to resolve.
A  48x36mm sensor will also have the proper size for Hasselblad and Sinar MS backs.  

I hope that this first sensor is a step, that is, that new bigger sensors are coming. The fact that  Hasselblad will deploy the MS capability with the 50 is not promising (short term).

Best regards,

J. Duncan

[torger]

A 44x33 sensor with a more attractive pricing would make sense, for say event and wedding photography. So let's wait and see what pricing strategy Hasselblad chooses. I think phase one's pricing ie making it almost as expensive as the 60 mp full frame does not make sense, but as the premium brand they have more room to do as they want.

[MrSmith]

"but as the premium brand"

? Leica.
? Vanityblad lunatic

[torger]

"but as the premium brand"

? Leica.
? Vanityblad lunatic

Phase one has the most expensive digital backs (with a margin) with the latest technology. It's no doubt the premium brand among professionals for large sensor photography, otherwise their pricing strategy compared to the competition would be impossible. Vanityblad products is luxury goods for private individuals that want to show off, not professional photographers or serious amateurs.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the IQ 250 I neither like size (to small) nor the price tag (to large). Hard to make everyone satisfied ;-)

Best regards
Erik

A 44x33 sensor with a more attractive pricing would make sense, for say event and wedding photography. So let's wait and see what pricing strategy Hasselblad chooses. I think phase one's pricing ie making it almost as expensive as the 60 mp full frame does not make sense, but as the premium brand they have more room to do as they want.

[Theodoros]

A 44x33 sensor with a more attractive pricing would make sense, for say event and wedding photography. So let's wait and see what pricing strategy Hasselblad chooses. I think phase one's pricing ie making it almost as expensive as the 60 mp full frame does not make sense, but as the premium brand they have more room to do as they want.

Lets not forget Leaf… Part of the reason why P1 charges a premium on their backs is that Leafs have to be considerably cheaper… It's called "avoiding internal competition"...

[pedro39photo]

Great news DMF on CMOS with great iso and LV.

But 1.3x crop for me don´t qualify it as DMF sensor at least 1.1x. For me 44x33mm Its a oversize 35mm sensor on a 645 MF body.
For me Medium Format its 6x6.5 6x6 6x7
In 1.3x crop format the DOF its almost the same as a 35mm and a price difference so huge that don't have a real edge...

But great news phase, congratulations !
Pedro

[rainer_v]

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

you write what i just was thinking.
and there are more recent 35mm lens designs which are remarkable
and which dont find a real counterpart in mf: beside the new  zeiss 35/2,8 and the 55/1,8 fe lenses also the canon 17&24tse lenses. they are a hard  match for the rodenstock HR lenses. even and in some aspects they are better.
at all not a question of the size of a sensor, its the question of the relative size between lenses and sensors.
this size-believing is just a myth coming from the film days where large film meant less grain/resolution.

now  the lenses decide which systems will be the better one and they are far more important for the final output than some pixels more or less from the sensor, which finally so rarely are  needed. and btw. you can make amazing 150x200cm prints with 30 mp files, if the files are good quality ... and if the image content is it as well. none in any exhibition will complain about a miss of resolution ....

tho_mas:
try the voigtlander 20mm, the canon tse17 and 24, the zeiss 35mm fe on the sony and you might be surprised.
i havent seen any better wideangles in any format yet. doesnt matter the price point and i think i have tried or owned nearly all whats wide and expensive...

[Theodoros]

you write what i just was thinking.
and there are more recent 35mm lens designs which are remarkable
and which dont find a real counterpart in mf: beside the new  zeiss 35/2,8 and the 55/1,8 fe lenses also the canon 17&24tse lenses. they are a hard  match for the rodenstock HR lenses. even and in some aspects they are better.
at all not a question of the size of a sensor, its the question of the relative size between lenses and sensors.
this size-believing is just a myth coming from the film days where large film meant less grain/resolution.

now  the lenses decide which systems will be the better one and they are far more important for the final output than some pixels more or less from the sensor, which finally so rarely are  needed. and btw. you can make amazing 150x200cm prints with 30 mp files, if the files are good quality ... and if the image content is it as well. none in any exhibition will complain about a miss of resolution ....

+1...

[Graham Welland]

Lets not forget Leaf… Part of the reason why P1 charges a premium on their backs is that Leafs have to be considerably cheaper… It's called "avoiding internal competition"...

Bingo!

[BernardLanguillier]

you write what i just was thinking.
and there are more recent 35mm lens designs which are remarkable
and which dont find a real counterpart in mf: beside the new  zeiss 35/2,8 and the 55/1,8 fe lenses also the canon 17&24tse lenses. they are a hard  match for the rodenstock HR lenses. even and in some aspects they are better.
at all not a question of the size of a sensor, its the question of the relative size between lenses and sensor.

Yes. You can add to this list the Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 135mm f2.0,... for their technical qualities but what should worry MF more IMHO are lenses designed for their unique look like the nikon 58mm f1.4.

Look is the next frontier. Technical perfection is a lot cause, rendering will own that market within years.

Cheers,
Bernard