Phase One IQ250 at 3200 iso

[SecondFocus]

I had the opportunity to shoot the IQ250 at 3200 iso yesterday, during a roll out event by Samy's Camera. At least for me, at 3200, this would be entirely great for most of my needs when I would need to shoot at higher iso. This was shot without the lighting.

By the way, Samy's put on a great event. My Samy's pro rep, Bob Wilde, really works hard to put on these free programs. We had reps and gear there from Phase One, Profoto and Eizo. Plenty of food and I even won a door prize! Sadly not an IQ250 but a Samy's $150 gift car anyway lol.

Anyway, I have always been really impressed with MFD and this makes it much more all around useable for my work.

[Go Go]

Hi

Was any noise reduction applied to this image?

[SecondFocus]

No noise reduction applied. I just opened it in C1 tweaked the levels slightly and did an output at the smaller size you see here.

Hi

Was any noise reduction applied to this image?

[Doug Peterson]

If you "just opened" the file in C1 then the default noise reduction was being applied.

The default of 50 for noise reduction for [IQ250@ISO3200] is too high in Capture One 7 for my tastes. I prefer around  20-25. You can adjust noise reduction and then use the "Set as default" function to keep that value as the default for all future captures.

[SecondFocus]

Doug,

I was thinking if he was asking about some noise reduction software. And Thanks for the hint! I will try that.

If you "just opened" the file in C1 then the default noise reduction was being applied.

The default of 50 for noise reduction for [IQ250@ISO3200] is too high in Capture One 7 for my tastes. I prefer around  20-25. You can adjust noise reduction and then use the "Set as default" function to keep that value as the default for all future captures.

[jerome_m]

Even at web size, there is noticeable chroma noise in the darker parts of the picture.

[SecondFocus]

Too much pixel peeping for me lol

I am perfectly fine with it. Makes it very versatile.

Even at web size, there is noticeable chroma noise in the darker parts of the picture.

[eronald]

Too much pixel peeping for me lol

I am perfectly fine with it. Makes it very versatile.

To my eyes, this picture would indicate a gain of less than a stop over the P30+, but maybe in comparison it looks slightly dull. The advantage of the CCD backs is that you cannot blow the highlights at high ISO, because effectively you are underexposing by several stops.

I do believe you can look forward to strong improvements in the look and the NR when Phase improve their software - maybe another stop.

In any case I prefer decent reality rather to fantastic hype. Congrats on a flexible MF system!

Edmund

[studio347]

ha~ old schools who has seen the old 11 by 14 B&W contact prints... We will not easily impressed with the tone qualities of new technology...
I guess it's about the compromise. Hopefully, in less than 100 years, we can see the amazing tones again. With the strong military and science interest in optics, I think we can get there.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

To my eyes, this picture would indicate a gain of less than a stop over the P30+.
I believe there will be strong improvements when Phase improve their software - maybe another stop.

Hi Edmund,

Maybe. I'd first start with exposing at between ISO 800 and 1600, and underexpose at that setting instead of cranking up the ISO. It could potentially preserve the highlights better and not hurt the shadows. I have not seen any good analysis of Unity Gain for this sensor, and how much more a higher ISO might benefit the S/N ratio, if any. The smaller Sony sensors (A7R and D800) hit an optimum at ISO 800 to 1250, and with gradually deteriorating performance at higher settings.

Cheers,
Bart

[SecondFocus]

Well on a movie shoot, there will be no 11x14 BW contact print shooting. But I can say for sure that having a useable 3200iso is a big deal. Last year on a movie in Budapest, had I not upgraded my Canon bodies I would have been very lacking. As it was, I needed 6400 more than once and received great appreciation for pulling off photographs that would not have happened otherwise. Being able to take an MFD system on one that I have scheduled and have the availability of 3200 would be a huge advantage.

ha~ old schools who has seen the old 11 by 14 B&W contact prints... We will not easily impressed with the tone qualities of new technology...
I guess it's about the compromise. Hopefully, in less than 100 years, we can see the amazing tones again. With the strong military and science interest in optics, I think we can get there.

[studio347]

ha~ yes, I understand it's important. I'm just commenting on our obsession on the tones and sharpness...(I'm spending hours to get small increase of tones and sharpness for myself.) the old photographic tradition....mimicking human vision as clearly as possible. Also the fact that we are in an early stage of this digital photography.  I have no doubt on the importance of recent development.
I'm wondering, with a very light mind, in the future when a small_point and shoot camera can produce amazing 8 by 10 old chrome quality image at very high iso, whether people are still trying to get better image than that or people are discussing other stuffs. I'm not implying that the current discussion is not important.
I'm very obsessed with the small improvement of image quality and spend a lot of time and effort to get that small increase of quality about which usual people can't notice the differences. Sometimes, I like to imagine with a bit different perspective...

[eronald]

Hi Edmund,

Maybe. I'd first start with exposing at between ISO 800 and 1600, and underexpose at that setting instead of cranking up the ISO. It could potentially preserve the highlights better and not hurt the shadows. I have not seen any good analysis of Unity Gain for this sensor, and how much more a higher ISO might benefit the S/N ratio, if any. The smaller Sony sensors (A7R and D800) hit an optimum at ISO 800 to 1250, and with gradually deteriorating performance at higher settings.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,

 I defer to your fine-grained understanding of the technology and wouldn't contradict you My comment referred to the fact that the old Phase backs have a "native" ISO of well under 200 with all the amps cranked on, AFAIK, so that gives you 3 stops of additional headroom @1600, and in interior available light images one gains beautiful images of gradations of chromes, or self-luminous objects in the environment like lamps and neons if one takes advantage of this - effectively recovering extreme highlight detail in spite of (or in trade of) the shadow noise in the ambience of the image.

 Some other posters regret the sharpness of contact prints, and I regret the beautiful rendering of lit signs in night shots in MF transparencies, digital just mostly blows out the highlights unless you take extreme precautions.

Edmund

[jduncan]

Even at web size, there is noticeable chroma noise in the darker parts of the picture.

I frankly believe that Hi ISO performance from a digital back been receiving to munch emphasis  (due to vendors). The true is we are supposed to control the light.
If we can't, and is the only camera we have, then great we have high ISO. But if we buy or rent a 50 to  80 mega pixels single shoot camera we will need to control the lenses, the light technique etc  to get close to the image quality  potential.

This is not a critique to the poster, the image is most appreciated, and he was not in control of the hall conditions.
We need to get back to image quality at normal ISOs  and see if the camera is actually better.

Edmund points out one of my concerns(1): highlights.  This is a Sonny sensor we knew from the beginning that the cameras will handle the shadows in a wonderful way.


Best regards,
J. Duncan

1: In the sense of open question, not that I any data that suggest an issue.

[SecondFocus]

"The true is we are supposed to control the light."

Often not the case.

Much of the time I am shooting in places and circumstances where I do not even have the option of using a flashlight if I drop my eye glasses to find them. And that I why I wanted to see what would happen when I used the camera at 3200 with the poor lighting conditions.

I frankly believe that Hi ISO performance from a digital back been receiving to munch emphasis  (due to vendors). The true is we are supposed to control the light.
If we can't, and is the only camera we have, then great we have high ISO. But if we buy or rent a 50 to  80 mega pixels single shoot camera we will need to control the lenses, the light technique etc  to get close to the image quality  potential.

This is not a critique to the poster, the image is most appreciated, and he was not in control of the hall conditions.
We need to get back to image quality at normal ISOs  and see if the camera is actually better.

Edmund points out one of my concerns(1): highlights.  This is a Sonny sensor we knew from the beginning that the cameras will handle the shadows in a wonderful way.


Best regards,
J. Duncan

1: In the sense of open question, not that I any data that suggest an issue.

[eronald]

Hey, an informed buyer!

Edmund

"The true is we are supposed to control the light."

Often not the case.

Much of the time I am shooting in places and circumstances where I do not even have the option of using a flashlight if I drop my eye glasses to find them. And that I why I wanted to see what would happen when I used the camera at 3200 with the poor lighting conditions.

[Paul2660]

For me it's not to control light, but to control my surroundings, as in windy conditions, long shutter speeds can look terrible due to movement of trees etc.  The lower iso range of current MFD on a tech camera even at F8 many times requires a shutter speed of 1/250 or 1/125 to stop the movement and to get there, iso 400 is often required, especially if a CF is in use.   

Combine wind and low light/non sunny conditions and iso 400 to 800 becomes very desirable.  For me 3200 on a MFD has been a non isssue, but working with solid 400 to 800 non sensor plus would be a great asset.

Paul

[jduncan]

"The true is we are supposed to control the light."

Often not the case.

Much of the time I am shooting in places and circumstances where I do not even have the option of using a flashlight if I drop my eye glasses to find them. And that I why I wanted to see what would happen when I used the camera at 3200 with the poor lighting conditions.

I believe that you miss read me. What you say does not contradict my argument.   Some times you can't control the light, and if we don't have our  Nikon or Canon, having high iso is great. We know that we will not be hable to extract the kind of image quality that justify paying a fortune for the Camera (or rental), but it's the tool that we have. If most of the time we will be shooting a back at iso 3200 it makes no sense to invest in a MF system. The images may be good but not  50k dollars good.   It's not just ISO is focusing, fast lenses etc. If most of the time we can't control the environment it will be like buying a Ferrari to get early from work in Costa Rica. The infrastructure will make your Ferrari go as fast as a Toyota (and in the rush hour slower than a bicycle).

In fewer words:

1) It's is good to have hight ISO for the times when you really need it; And that times do come.
2) It's not an every day critical factor. Normally we will control light and some other factors to extract value from the investment.
3) If the Camera has far better ISO than the old backs mission done in that regard (No need for D4s performance).
4) Movements for the Architecture guys, and Low ISO color resolution contrast are the key values for most of the MF shooters.

The vendors need to understand that people were buying MF cameras with abismal high iso performance, but back then, low iso performance was day and night in favor of the MF system.  Do the h5d-50c or the IQ250 address that critical factor ? If so they should tell(1).

Best regards,
J. Duncan
------
  A larger sensor (48 x36mm by example) with D800 size photo sites could have help a lot, even if it sacrifice a little of high ISO performance.