IQ250 vs H5D-50c

[johndk]

Hello.

Although I'm not such an active user here I usually use the info from the community to inform me in my gear choices. Until July of 2013 I was using a P45+ with H4x and was pretty happy. Then I bought the IQ260 for my H4x which wasn't cheap about €35k.

I'm seriously considering switching over to the IQ250 bug when I asked my distributor for a quote. They offered me €10k euro discount for the iq260 if I buy the IQ250. How is it possible that in 9 months it's lost €25k in value?


I'm thinking that I could sell the IQ260 for at least the €20k that hasselblad is selling the H5d-50c for and since I'm already heavily invested in hasselblad glass it makes sense.

I've not used the hasselblad digital backs in 8 years but I heard it works with Lightroom which would be fine since it's my DAM of choice.

Anyone have a comparison of the files from the 50c and the IQ250?

Thanks.

John
John@johndk.com

[Paul2660]

Currently there are no reasonable trade-in deals between the IQ260 and IQ250 being offered by Phase.  I also looked into the same sort of downgrade.   As you point out the effective book loss of a 9 month old product is way to severe.

Paul

[buckshot]

...I'm thinking that I could sell the IQ260 for at least the €20k...

Bear in mind that low shot count IQ2160s are appearing at dealers (with the classic warranty) for less than that. Last one I saw was £16k ~ €19.3k ~ US$26.6k (ex.VAT). For a private sale, your typical (VAT registered) buyer would be looking to pay significantly less ... it seems these things do depreciate faster than last year's laptop.

Jim

P.S. A €10k discount is low, but obviously knowing that these are being sold through dealers for €20k (used), means that the best discount you could hope for is going to be around the €15k mark. If you can, I would get a couple of other quotes - there seems to be a huge disparity between what certain dealers in the Phase One network are prepared to do to get your business, and what certain ones aren't. Some are great. Some are 'ok'. Some are just plain useless. If their first question is, 'Did you buy it from us?' then you're probably dealing with the latter.

[jerome_m]

Why would you want to exchange the IQ260 with an IQ250 which has a lower resolution and, most importantly, a smaller sensor so that you will crop all your wide angle lenses? You already have one of the best cameras on the planet, are you sure you need to change it?

[Ken R]

Why would you want to exchange the IQ260 with an IQ250 which has a lower resolution and, most importantly, a smaller sensor so that you will crop all your wide angle lenses? You already have one of the best cameras on the planet, are you sure you need to change it?

Thats what I was thinking. At base iso its hard to beat the IQ260. Specially with tech wide angles. The IQ250 does not work well with the widest wides and on top of that you NEED to use very widest angle lenses if you want even a moderate wide angle angle of view with the IQ250 due to the smaller sensor size. It is a significant difference.

[Paul2660]

Simple for me, was the fact that I use a tech camera.  I would greatly appreciate the live view of the 250, but more important, in about 65% of my shooting situations, I would benefit from a higher iso, 400 to 800 simple to allow for a faster shutter speed to stop blur of objects. 

10MP to me is not that great a loss, to gain the "real" live view and iso 1600 that I can use.  This is just one opinion, what I feel would work best for me.   

400 to 800, to 1600 at full rez full instead of sensor plus I should have said. 

400 on the 260 is a push at best at least on mine.  I did feel that the loaner 260 I briefly had while my 260 went back for a 2nd repair did a better job in holding color in the shadows at iso 400.  You can also see a bit of this in the shots of the merry go round that Doug took.  You have to ask him for the raw files, but for sure the 260 that DT has at iso 400 seems to hold a good bit of color in the shadows.  There is an increase in noise of course, however with Topaz denoise I have found that you can get a bit of the details back. 

The loss I would have taken on the 260 was too much, considering mine at the time was 7 months old.

Paul

[gazwas]

DELETED

[esox]

Maybe a good choice would be to wait for a full Frame CMOS digital back and keep your 260 in the mean time.

[Ken R]

Maybe a good choice would be to wait for a full Frame CMOS digital back and keep your 260 in the mean time.

I think its more probable that wider lenses will be made (they already are, the Canon 17mm and 24mm TSE-II) that cover the 44x33mm sensors than a larger CMOS sensor. There is a VERY good chance that the current 60 and 80mp CCD sensors are the largest digital sensors we will see for a long long time. Hope I am wrong.

[eronald]

Maybe a good choice would be to wait for a full Frame CMOS digital back and keep your 260 in the mean time.

Yes, I think we will see a CMOS full-frame within a couple of years. If it can be done economically in CCD the same goes for CMOS.

Edmund

[torger]

I think its more probable that wider lenses will be made (they already are, the Canon 17mm and 24mm TSE-II) that cover the 44x33mm sensors than a larger CMOS sensor. There is a VERY good chance that the current 60 and 80mp CCD sensors are the largest digital sensors we will see for a long long time. Hope I am wrong.

I think full-frame CMOS is coming soon(ish). If I remember correctly Phase One's CEO even said that in one of those cosy interviews. I wonder if it will be Sony that makes it, full-frame is probably a significantly smaller market. Both Hasselblad and Phase One could use it though.

Phase One and Hasselblad wants to provide it for sure, so if it it's possible it will happen.

If it's going to be tech camera friendly is less likely though. Neither Phase One or Hasselblad priorities tech camera performance. With the current stack height (7um or so) tech cameras wides require large pixels to avoid issues like heavy color cast and crosstalk like we see on the IQ250. If full-frame CMOS would be 60 megapixels it will perform similar to the current CCDs, but I don't think it's likely that full-frame will be only 60 megapixels, I think ~80 is more likely, and then it won't be much better than the IQ250 concerning tech camera wides.

[eronald]

I think full-frame CMOS is coming soon(ish). If I remember correctly Phase One's CEO even said that in one of those cosy interviews. I wonder if it will be Sony that makes it, full-frame is probably a significantly smaller market. Both Hasselblad and Phase One could use it though.

Phase One and Hasselblad wants to provide it for sure, so if it it's possible it will happen.

If it's going to be tech camera friendly is less likely though. Neither Phase One or Hasselblad priorities tech camera performance. With the current stack height (7um or so) tech cameras wides require large pixels to avoid issues like heavy color cast and crosstalk like we see on the IQ250. If full-frame CMOS would be 60 megapixels it will perform similar to the current CCDs, but I don't think it's likely that full-frame will be only 60 megapixels, I think ~80 is more likely, and then it won't be much better than the IQ250 concerning tech camera wides.

It's pretty obvious that Sinar will also release some sort of tech cam  solution based on the CMOSIS/Leica chip.

What would be most likely would be a scale up of existing chips with existing cells, from Sony and CMOSIS.

Edmund

[Joe Towner]

I don't believe anyone has shot with the H5D-50c and been able to keep the images.

[eronald]

I don't believe anyone has shot with the H5D-50c and been able to keep the images.

Who is in a hurry to pay to beta-test?


Edmund

[orc73]

Don't buy into Hasselblad backs for using Lightroom as your Raw Converter. It does work, the files are really poor though compared to Phocus converted files.
To add here would be, that all those IQ250 vs 50c or whatever P1 comparison should use Phocus Software and no LR. C1 is also much better then LR usually if it comes to raw conversion.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

For me it is essential that I can use raw conversion software of my own choice. If I need to use a specific converter to achieve good results that is enough to disqualify a system for me.

I own Capture One, paid for it actually, even if it is free for Phase backs, but it does not work for me. It is a good converter, for sure, but it is absolutely worthless for me.

Best regards
Erik

Don't buy into Hasselblad backs for using Lightroom as your Raw Converter. It does work, the files are really poor though compared to Phocus converted files.
To add here would be, that all those IQ250 vs 50c or whatever P1 comparison should use Phocus Software and no LR. C1 is also much better then LR usually if it comes to raw conversion.

[JV]

Hi,

For me it is essential that I can use raw conversion software of my own choice. If I need to use a specific converter to achieve good results that is enough to disqualify a system for me.

I own Capture One, paid for it actually, even if it is free for Phase backs, but it does not work for me. It is a good converter, for sure, but it is absolutely worthless for me.

Best regards
Erik

It makes a lot more sense though to choose a raw converter in function of the camera than a camera in function of the raw converter...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There is something called workflow, a camera that doesn't fit into my workflow does not work for me.

Another factor, I am pretty much into parametric workflow and want to be able to do most of the processing in the raw converter, I am not a Photoshop guy. I don't want fat TIFF files when I can have a small undemosaiced raw files and a set of processing instructions.

The third factor is that it is quite possible that your favourite vendor goes out of business. With Phase One it doesn't seem likely, right now. Phocus may be a different situation. It may be that  licences are eternal, but it won't help if they don't work with your latest and greatest OS.

That said, I see a single advantage of Capture One (7.2) over LR (5.5) and that is better suppression of colour aliasing artefacts. LR has a couple of advantages in it's bag, too, I would mention the DNG Profile Editor, the well documented DNG format the tone mapping features of Lightroom and may be a couple of others. Yes, I would like to have more control over tone mapping, like a few extra sliders.

Best regards
Erik

It makes a lot more sense though to choose a raw converter in function of the camera than a camera in function of the raw converter...