Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Phil Indeblanc on December 09, 2015, 04:21:06 pm
-
So out of the different CMOS 50mpixel sensor adaptations, which is the least expensive and best suited for 4x5, AND hopefully use on a MF portable camera system, preferrably a Mamiya RZPro2? (Its what I have with all the glass. I might be better off getting a $1000 D version, but have a V adapter plate already). Your thoughts....
So far I see...
Pentax 645z, not so great for using on a 4x5 at a $4000-new6800 /14bit
Hass CF-50c new at $6500-new $9500 /16bit?
Leaf Credo 50 at $20,000 /14bit?
Phase One IQ250 at $? /16bit?
any others models I missed with this sensor? Thanks!
-
The Hass CF-50c is the simplest to use for you and the second cheapest.
-
Yes, that is the feeler I'm getting. I think its 16bit, and with my adapter on the RZ, or getting a RZproIID it maybe the best adapt for my situation.
I have heard some strong negatives on the Focus processign application. I wonder what other options the Hass files have?
-
Credo and IQ work on your RZ (or RZd should you decide to get one) with an adapter (HX701, supplied through the same dealers) that will also allow you to turn the back on the camera. Both are easy to use on a 4x5 and offer good live view (tethered or untethered), excellent LCD and USB3 connectivity if you wish to tether. And both obviously use Capture One if that is part of your current workflow.
HTH
Yair
-
Credo and IQ work on your RZ (or RZd should you decide to get one) with an adapter (HX701, supplied through the same dealers) that will also allow you to turn the back on the camera. Both are easy to use on a 4x5 and offer good live view (tethered or untethered), excellent LCD and USB3 connectivity if you wish to tether. And both obviously use Capture One if that is part of your current workflow.
HTH
Yair
I do use C1 in part of my workflow now as I have a tether only P1-h25 left in use. But its I can't imagine any other app thats as hard to adapt to, so its not an issue to switch.
Wouldn't a V mount Hass also work on the RZ? Maybe more likely on my non digital.?
The problem is that the Leaf and IQ solutions are at LEAST $10-15K in difference.
-
The problem is that the Leaf and IQ solutions are at LEAST $10-15K in difference.
Don't judge by the price list. Give us a call or email and we'll help close that gap.
-
Don't judge by the price list. Give us a call or email and we'll help close that gap.
If you think I can get a "redistributed" IQ250 for about $6500, have your phone and the espresso ready to go :-)
-
Hi,
All the CMOS 50 MP sensors are actually 14 bits. They all use the same Sony sensor and ADC conversion is on chip. Vendors can put those 14 bit of data into a 16 bit container.
It's like having a litre of good wine, you can pour it into a gallon size bottle, but you still have a litre of good wine. Now, you can top up that gallon bottle with water, but that will not give you a gallon of good wine. Well, unless…
Best regards
Erik
So out of the different CMOS 50mpixel sensor adaptations, which is the least expensive and best suited for 4x5, AND hopefully use on a MF portable camera system, preferrably a Mamiya RZPro2? (Its what I have with all the glass. I might be better off getting a $1000 D version, but have a V adapter plate already). Your thoughts....
So far I see...
Pentax 645z, not so great for using on a 4x5 at a $4000-new6800 /14bit
Hass CF-50c new at $6500-new $9500 /16bit?
Leaf Credo 50 at $20,000 /14bit?
Phase One IQ250 at $? /16bit?
any others models I missed with this sensor? Thanks!
-
If you think I can get a "redistributed" IQ250 for about $6500, have your phone and the espresso ready to go :-)
or an IQ150 or even a Credo 50. If there is one at that price, send me a PM!
-
or an IQ150 or even a Credo 50. If there is one at that price, send me a PM!
Yes, and it doesn't have to be $6500...A nice slow arm in arm dance around it would surely be considered :-)
-
Hi,
All the CMOS 50 MP sensors are actually 14 bits. They all use the same Sony sensor and ADC conversion is on chip. Vendors can put those 14 bit of data into a 16 bit container.
It's like having a litre of good wine, you can pour it into a gallon size bottle, but you still have a litre of good wine. Now, you can top up that gallon bottle with water, but that will not give you a gallon of good wine. Well, unless…
Best regards
Erik
I was afraid of that/14bit...Why did Sony do that?! Sure doesn't help further the distance in seperating it from something like the A7R2. enough about that...
Anyway, I think the IQ150 and 250 are pretty much the same apart from a halfstop in DR/? which I don't mind.
-
Anyway, I think the IQ150 and 250 are pretty much the same apart from a halfstop in DR/? which I don't mind.
Wifi is the only difference between the 150 & 250. The 250 launched first, with the 150 as a follow on for a cheaper pricepoint due to the removal of wifi.
Getting a CMOS from Phase for less than $10k isn't in their wheelhouse - you may be able to find a private, used 150, but that's really pushing it.
CFV-50c is the cheapest, readily available CMOS, and yes, there was a time when it was worth flying to Japan to get one. Not sure if that works for you.
-
The 14 vs 16 bits has been discussed countless times, it doesn't make any difference.
The standalone backs have real unique benefits, but 16 bits is very clearly not one of them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While Phocus is not as good as C1, there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, I found it easier to navigate and use than C1.
When I demoed a CFV-50c I very much liked it (I demoed it on a technical camera) and found the files went very well through Lightroom, even using the LCC / Scene Calibration plugin. Not sure how well LR dealt wtih crosstalk (I pushed the shifts quite hard, but was using a retrofocus lens).
What I did find a problem at the time–and high end some beta testers have indicated that this will be fixed, but not sure if the firmware is released yet–is that the 50c Live View refresed too slow to deal with the harsh light where I live. I couldn't have my tech cam lens wide open for critical focus as everything would blow out because the refresh was only about 11 frames per second (I'm approximating here) where as Phase/Leaf are/were doing close to 30fps. I had to stop down past f16 at least to get detail on the screen, and that's not of any use for critical focus. Again, some top name beta testers were in contact with me afterwards to say they were already testing the firmware update to improve this, but I don't know what's happened since as I ended up getting a used Credo 60 for a slightly better price than a new 50c. I've asked but no other users seem to have come across this problem, but I guess I did test under a typical, hot South Pacific blue sky.
Either way, had the 50c been the price it is now back then, I might have bought it instead of my Credo 60 save for the user interface with was not fun at all. Too slow and clunky, I much prefer the Credo touch screen and its resolution.
-
Hi,
Mostly because the pixels don't have more than 14 but of dynamic range. So there is no information useful information transfer in excess of 14 bits. The CCD backs just transfer 12-13 bits of information and the rest is noise. It is a simple marketing lie…
It has been discussed to death here on LuLa, over at GetDPI and other places.
Best regards
Erik
I was afraid of that/14bit...Why did Sony do that?! Sure doesn't help further the distance in seperating it from something like the A7R2. enough about that...
Anyway, I think the IQ150 and 250 are pretty much the same apart from a halfstop in DR/? which I don't mind.
-
THe DR difference between the IQ 150 and 250 should be zero. In other words they should be exactly the same.
Honestly though, if you're wanting to use an RZ and get a back in V mount, the CFV-50c is a no brainer for sure. Why pay double the money just to use C1 and for a slightly higher res screen?
EDIT: The UI is better on Phase / Leaf for certain, but in my experience owning (and loving) a Credo and testing the CFV-50c, and considering the price difference of the V mount CMOS backs you're looking at, I'd still go with the 50c. If you're talking about getting in from the ground up though and buying a purpose built digital MF tech camera AND back, it'd be hard not to go past some of the deals Linhof Studio (in the UK) have been offering on various camera options with the 50c, or the Credo 50 V mount and Actus promo some of the US dealers have been offering. The 50c is still cheaper though...
-
YES, I think with information overload I must have deleted the 14vs16bit washout. thanks for refresh!
I dropped the thought of the Pentax 645z as I cant deal with a couple things......1/125 flash sync(last place I read), the mounting to a 4x5 is not that ideal, the software and tether to deal with is another area that has had some issues.
I know I would be giving up a LOT of field advantage, and thats where the Pentax would be great, but that's not my main intention for a MF DB.
(BTW, I miss interpreted the Whitesheet info on the DR difference for IQ 250 vs 150, Sorry bout that)
Looks like a CFV-50c maybe the way to go for my needs.....Unless a deal falls on my head on a great Credo 50 or IQ150, 250 etc.
Maybe the new location is hiring for some part time work and I can work part of it off, ya Doug?
-
Few know it but the Phase One IIQ file format also for the CCD backs stores only 14 bits... that is the 2 last bits from the 16 bit signal from the CCD ADC has been thrown away all along. So much for 16 bits. Hasselblad stored real 16 bits in the format. But of course, it doesn't matter. The reason Phase One throws away the noise bits, and the Leaf MOS sometimes even reduced the range to 13 bits (for higher ISOs) is a pure engineering decision. Any educated engineer understands that storing pure noise is just a waste and makes the files bigger for no reason.
The reason Hassy stores all bits noise and all I guess they didn't think it made the files so much bigger so they didn't really care. And sure if you use 16 bit in marketing it's even more embarrassing if you don't even store the bits. But sure those making the camera design know their stuff and have known all along that 16 bit marketing is, well, a lie.
The reason it was used in the first place I think is because the salesmen wanted some easy ways to convince the customer of a superior product. A higher number is very powerful, it's easier to just talk about this number than to point out the carefully hand-tuned color profiles and noise reduction algorithms made specifically for the camera's properties. The noise reduction has had a very clear effect on the "apparent" dynamic range (the CCDs are a lot more noisy than they look in the native raw converters), but discussing the software's superior way of suppressing camera limitations is not the easiest way to convince a customer...
-
Why pay double the money just to use C1 and for a slightly higer res screen?
Capture One is one reason, and I think it actually is the tipping point in many cases. Phocus look ancient in comparison, and most(?) that use Hasselblad has a dual-software workflow, just a basic conversion in Phocus and then move to Photoshop. It's true that some do the same with Capture One (if you're a Photoshop wizard there's little reason to learn and get locked into yet another software).
Phase One has also been successful in appearing to be the "number one" prestige brand in MFD, simply put if you want the best [digital back], get Phase One. They have some minor advantages indeed, like better screen, but it's a lot of money for features similar to what you have in your $500 mobile phone, and do you really need them?
It depends on the type of customer you are. I would personally never pay double the money, I would certainly go for the CFV-50c if the V-mount is okay, and for the RZ and 4x5" it is. The CFV-50c will probably also be quite easy to sell on the second hand market when you want to upgrade or switch brands in the future, the V-mount backs are very popular among enthusiasts, and one with matching looks with the original V cameras even more so.
-
Indeed torger,
I use Sessions, I process and get out.
No layer brush edits, no fuss. Just the lens tools, sharpness, and main exposure, and all those on the main dev screen, and PROCESS. After that I can even deal with such a file in PS or LR.
I used to invest more and was almost going to use C1 as a catalog main program. But when they dropped the ball after I purchased Media Pro, I just didn't have the faith or the patients in using a exotic application.
If I have used it for 10+ years, have also been certed as a user yet its so forgetable, if you don't use it daily, its a slow start all the time. It just needs to conform to OS standards and then things would fall into place. ...
So its a love hate relation we have had since the change from 3.7x days. As long as the processing is on par for the Hass app, it should be fine for me.
Yes, I see 7 SOLD CFV-50c in the range of $6500, I can't see myself going too much more than that for a Credo or IQ.
(Heck I was considering the A7R2 at one point....but I think know the differences. :-)
-
YES, I think with information overload I must have deleted the 14vs16bit washout. thanks for refresh!
I dropped the thought of the Pentax 645z as I cant deal with a couple things......1/125 flash sync(last place I read), the mounting to a 4x5 is not that ideal, the software and tether to deal with is another area that has had some issues.
I know I would be giving up a LOT of field advantage, and thats where the Pentax would be great, but that's not my main intention for a MF DB.
(BTW, I miss interpreted the Whitesheet info on the DR difference for IQ 250 vs 150, Sorry bout that)
Looks like a CFV-50c maybe the way to go for my needs.....Unless a deal falls on my head on a great Credo 50 or IQ150, 250 etc.
Maybe the new location is hiring for some part time work and I can work part of it off, ya Doug?
Phil,
I'm obviously biased, but I can't imagine you making this choice without coming to our office and playing with a Credo 50V kit. The sales promo that includes the Actus makes for a great combo and a view camera one can reasonably work with. Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread (it's 6am here and I'm heading to airport) but I don't think you mentioned which "4x5" you'd be using and in general the legacy 4x5 systems are frustrating to use, especially at the wide end, when coupled with a high res back due to focus precision needed for the smaller focal lengths used with a digital back as compared to film, and are needlessly large and heavy (their extra size/weight present to support a film format MUCH larger than medium format digital). The Actus precision and size are a much better match, and could be easily converted for mirror less cameras of you decide to go that direction in the future.
Whether the system you pick is 5, 10, or 20k it is still a lot of money and warrants an afternoon playing with the options you're considering (ours and the others as well).
Now that we have a physical office location in LA it isn't much work to set up an appointment to do this. Numbers on a website pale to the usefulness of making images with each option. Plus I think you know how good a coffee Ken makes ;D
And yes, our LA office is hiring to expand the permanent staff there :).
-
Hi Doug,
I'm using a SinarP2.
I like the flow I have with it for tabletop. I prefer manual over all the electronic lenses and metering stuff.
Now I cock the shutter, wake the back and fire, refocus, repeat.(every few I get a static elec fire which I don't know where it comes from).
Even with these hinderences, I can't see myself going more in price and getting a kit, even if its $10K off the $25K price. Looking for a new DB was mainly to improve or minimize my macro work, and to hope in being able to take it on a portable system for some field work. It would be a major plus to rely on the DB screen for accurate focus, so that zooming would be important.
If down the line I see a 645 body to be of good use, great. But I have the RZ entire kit with just about every conceivable option. I have hardly used it.
I am not likely to get much in selling it($?), but putting it to use on the field maybe a bit heavy and bulky, but I don't see it being a problem for now, and I can use it in the studio for non-macro work.
I don't looking at making a purchase to unlock what can be possible. I am looking to make a purchase with the least hit to my wallet, with the maximum return. When I started, I sure did make those novice moves of getting a bunch of gear, which half I hardly ever use and could have easily rented.
Don't get me wrong, I would love a kit and all. I'm a techi. Yet its just not wise for me to put myself in that position. It has to be a tool with a direct purpose. If that makes much sense. But I will come to the office for more info on the 50 and pick up a job app!
-
[...] The reason Hassy stores all bits noise and all I guess they didn't think it made the files so much bigger so they didn't really care. And sure if you use 16 bit in marketing it's even more embarrassing if you don't even store the bits. But sure those making the camera design know their stuff and have known all along that 16 bit marketing is, well, a lie.
The reason it was used in the first place I think is because the salesmen wanted some easy ways to convince the customer of a superior product. [..]
The CCD-based cameras needed outboard A-D converters. The most common off-the-shelf converters were 16 bit converters.
Apparently marketing firms could not resist the temptation to tart up their materials with vague claims about delivering 16 bits while purposely neglecting to mention that at least 3 of those bits were completely useless.
-
Yes,
And photographers unfortunately swallowed that now everybody feels that image quality of MFD is superior due to those 16 bits.
A big sensor has some advantages, though, just not the ones usually claimed :-)
Best regards
Erik
The CCD-based cameras needed outboard A-D converters. The most common off-the-shelf converters were 16 bit converters.
Apparently marketing firms could not resist the temptation to tart up their materials with vague claims about delivering 16 bits while purposely neglecting to mention that at least 3 of those bits were completely useless.
-
Unless I missed it, also consider the physical size of the sensor relative to the image circle produced by your RZ.
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/credo.html
The Credo 60 and 80 are physically larger than the Credo 50 (53.9x40.4mm vs. 44x33mm). You will simply capture more of the image projected onto the film/sensor plane. This was a factor in my choice for a Credo 60 that I use between the RZ and 645 DF+.
-
Of the 50mp CMOS backs I would choose a used PhaseOne IQ150 if at all possible if I can't go up to the wifi Phase models. The screen, the software, the tethering, the interface, the reliability, the service and resale value. All superb among other things.
Close second would be the Credo 50. Basically close to the IQ150 in features.
Distant third would be the Hasselblad 50c. The Hassy is good but the mediocre screen is a hindrance when out in the field and I do not love the software but it is good. The V mount I do not love although it might work for you.
The Phase and Credo are more expensive but the Hasselblad is still $10k. Its not like its free and that is a lot of $ to have to settle with a back that you might not love and might not work great for you. (might as well use one of the top DSLRs)
I would at the very least talk to a dealer and check out the Phase and Leaf alternatives and talk about price. Its free and at the very least you get to check out some really cool gear.
-
By the way... I wonder why Hasselblad doesn't provide the CF-V (meaning a CF) for other mounts than Hassy too... Can't they see that if they do it, they will gain even more customers? Providing the back for Contax 645 mount, should be enough for the hundreds of (the better) wedding pros that use C645 cameras around the world, as to add an MFDB in their gear and abandon (having great LL ability) DSLR use altogether... Let alone all the rest of C645 (and other) camera users....
It's funny how slow they are in Hasselblad as to "catch" the pulse of the market... Especially when they are on top...
Common guys! ...bring the CF backs back! It costs you nothing (no research) as to do.... you are only loosing customers by not doing so! ...and don't forget the multishot versions of the back... right?
-
Phil... go for the CFV hands down... Other than the price you are a pro and you'll get access to the world's most accurate and easy calibration system for "dead-on" color... (improved further to the Sinar's one - same method but more informative card used) ...and on top you save a fortune!
-
So out of the different CMOS 50mpixel sensor adaptations, which is the least expensive and best suited for 4x5, AND hopefully use on a MF portable camera system, preferrably a Mamiya RZPro2? (Its what I have with all the glass. I might be better off getting a $1000 D version, but have a V adapter plate already). Your thoughts....
So far I see...
Pentax 645z, not so great for using on a 4x5 at a $4000-new6800 /14bit
Hass CF-50c new at $6500-new $9500 /16bit?
Leaf Credo 50 at $20,000 /14bit?
Phase One IQ250 at $? /16bit?
any others models I missed with this sensor? Thanks!
I recently spent time evaluating the Credo 50 and CFV-50c and would like to suggest you choose a back based on your budget and the features you need, not on image quality. From what others have said, and from my experience, the differences in image quality will be small and could be compensated for in editing. For me, the Credo 50 was the best choice because I do severe swings and tilts on a view camera with the digital back. The larger, higher resolution screen on the Credo 50 and the much quicker navigation with the touch screen to select focus points at 100% view and to evaluate sharpness at 100% view made the Credo 50 worth the extra money over the CFV-50c. If you don't typically tilt and swing with your view camera, the CFV-50c might be a better choice.
Also, if your view camera doesn't have a geared tilt, it will be well worth the investment in a view camera that does. I would find it very difficult to focus on my Arca 6x9 without the orbix geared tilt, with or without a live-view back.
Drew Harty