Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rogerxnz on March 20, 2018, 01:22:48 am
-
I photograph mainly landscapes with a Linhof Techno field view camera and Rodenstock wide-angle lenses (28, 40 and 60mm). I am now thinking of upgrading from an IQ180 CCD sensor unit to a PhaseOne 100MP CMOS sensor unit.
In 2016, there was a lot of discussion about CCD and CMOS sensors with most agreeing that CMOS sensors have many practical advantages, such as, better Liveview, higher ISO, and so on but there was still a place for CCD sensors. I also know that, with wide-angle shots on technical cameras, you should take a LCC shot to correct for colour casts regardless of which sensor you have.
My question is there now any reason not to move to a CMOS sensor unit for my setup and proposed use?
Roger
-
Hi,
This image:
(https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/medium.jpg)
The IMX411 sensor, 150 MP, back side illuminated (BSI), 4FPS...
The new sensor comes with smaller pixels, but it has BSI so there is no wiring over the photodiodes. That may help with angular sensivity a bit.
Probably quite a few improvements, but readout speed may be a challenge camera electronics.
Quite probably, the new technology will affect pricing on previous generation sensors.
Time frame? 2018 may mean tomorrow or 12/31, it can even slip a bit into 2019.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
I photograph mainly landscapes with a Linhof Techno field view camera and Rodenstock wide-angle lenses (28, 40 and 60mm). I am now thinking of upgrading from an IQ180 CCD sensor unit to a PhaseOne 100MP CMOS sensor unit.
In 2016, there was a lot of discussion about CCD and CMOS sensors with most agreeing that CMOS sensors have many practical advantages, such as, better Liveview, higher ISO, and so on but there was still a place for CCD sensors. I also know that, with wide-angle shots on technical cameras, you should take a LCC shot to correct for colour casts regardless of which sensor you have.
My question is there now any reason not to move to a CMOS sensor unit for my setup and proposed use?
Roger
-
Thank you, Erik
I am aware of the forthcoming 150MP unit. I am sure it will cost more than a 100MP CMOS unit and, so, out of my price range.
We can only guess at the 150MP price but I would expect it to cost at least 30% more than a 100MP unit.
Roger
-
Roger,
I switched from the IQ180 to the 3100 in 2016 and have never looked back. In my opinion, the 3100 is equal or better than the 180 in regards to lens cast and shift/rise fall capabilities (which is not as good as the P65+).
I use the following lenses: 35xl, 40hr, 60xl, 90hr-sw, sk150, Zeiss 250 SA. I have no experience with the 28mm. I suggest you try one and do a direct comparison between the two backs and see what you think.
Dave
-
Hi Roger,
My guess is that the 100 MP unit may be more affordable when the 150 MP arrives. But who knows.
Best regards
Erik
Thank you, Erik
I am aware of the forthcoming 150MP unit. I am sure it will cost more than a 100MP CMOS unit and, so, out of my price range.
We can only guess at the 150MP price but I would expect it to cost at least 30% more than a 100MP unit.
Roger
-
Note one thing that clouds my judgement is the LCC process was upgraded somewhere around the release of C1 10. I did direct comparison testing between the two backs with the 40hr and 60xl but did not have the 35xl at the time.
The fact that I went out and found a 35xl after switching to the 3100 should tell you something.
:)
Dave
-
The dynamic range profiles on both CCD vs CMOS used to be slightly different, CCDs were better at holding highlights better and CMOS had cleaner/more detailed shadows. In these modern times CMOS may have reached or exceeded the good highlight retention of CCD, and are much cleaner/detailed in the shadows and overall now. I only pick up my CCD when I want the look of the larger sensor (48x36mm vs the latest 44x33mm of mirrorless medium formats).
-
Highlight DR doesn’t exist at sensor level with CCDs and CMOS.
At camera level manufacturers can play with ISO and meter calibration (and raw converter smarts) to under-expose to give the illusion of a highlight recovery capability.
CMOS is vastly superior to CCD in terms of DR and modern SLRs from Nikon and Sony are clearly superior to CCD based backs. Only marketing and the unwillingness of some owners to acknowledge facts not aligned with the wallet side of their brain has maintained an urban myths about the supposed magic highlights properties of their CCD backs.
It doesn’t mean that these backs aren’t great, just that you can have more DR with cameras costing 10 times less.
Their color look advantages may be real though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Good info!
Cheers
Erik
Highlight DR doesn’t exist at sensor level with CCDs and CMOS.
At camera level manufacturers can play with ISO and meter calibration (and raw converter smarts) to under-expose to give the illusion of a highlight recovery capability.
CMOS is vastly superior to CCD in terms of DR and modern SLRs from Nikon and Sony are clearly superior to CCD based backs. Only marketing and the unwillingness of some owners to acknowledge facts not aligned with the wallet side of their brain has maintained an urban myths about the supposed magic highlights properties of their CCD backs.
It doesn’t mean that these backs aren’t great, just that you can have more DR with cameras costing 10 times less.
Their color look advantages may be real though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It doesn’t mean that these backs aren’t great, just that you can have more DR with cameras costing 10 times less.
Actually, the old H4D-50 I still use can be bought for less money than any recent offering with the same resolution. ;)
-
Hi,
And it also slightly larger format like 37x49 mm?
Best regards
Erik
Actually, the old H4D-50 I still use can be bought for less money than any recent offering with the same resolution. ;)
-
I have been using the p45+ for a month now and I'm totally in love with it, even with that horrible thing called phase one DF. Compared to the d800, what I have noticed is that although the d800 has more DR,I don't find it pleasing. If I raise the exposure 3 stops in Camera Raw it seems like the color shifts and gets very "thin"(different color behavior in the shadows? Is that possible?), on the p45+ I can do the same as long as I'm on iso 50 and the result is actually nice, I didn't expect this, I thought it would be worse than a canon mk iii, but when actually looking at the final result, only the p45+ looks good to me.
Another story is the whole DOF thing, but you don't really notice that in landscape.
-
Actually, the old H4D-50 I still use can be bought for less money than any recent offering with the same resolution. ;)
Indeed, there are some good bargains second hand... at 10~15 times less than the original price.
Those must be the worst ever price drops.
Think how BMW owners would react... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Do you use raw compression on the Nikon D800? Reason I ask that compressed files on the Sony A7RII I have used be brownish in the deepest darks, but that went away when Sony introduced their uncompressed file format.
Now days the A7rII delivers very nice files: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58984278
Best regards
Erik
I have been using the p45+ for a month now and I'm totally in love with it, even with that horrible thing called phase one DF. Compared to the d800, what I have noticed is that although the d800 has more DR,I don't find it pleasing. If I raise the exposure 3 stops in Camera Raw it seems like the color shifts and gets very "thin"(different color behavior in the shadows? Is that possible?), on the p45+ I can do the same as long as I'm on iso 50 and the result is actually nice, I didn't expect this, I thought it would be worse than a canon mk iii, but when actually looking at the final result, only the p45+ looks good to me.
Another story is the whole DOF thing, but you don't really notice that in landscape.
-
Indeed, there are some good bargains second hand... at 10~15 times less than the original price.
Those must be the worst ever price drops.
Think how BMW owners would react... ;)
My camera is about 8 years old. An 8 years old BMW is also going to be reduced in price...
-
My camera is about 8 years old. An 8 years old BMW is also going to be reduced in price...
My thoughts as well, a little checking shows H4d-50’s going for around 6-8k? original price was around 20,000 euros? 25k U.S?
A used 2010 BMW 535i appears to be going for around 8-12K? Prob new sticker price was north of 50k, maybe even more than 60k.
The Hasselblad seems to win this one to me ....
-
Hi Roger,
If you're shooting under powerful studio lights at low ISO a CCD is both gorgeous and relatively cost-efficient, but if you ever go outside and need longer exposure times and/or still at low ISO, then CMOS runs rings around it. I had several earlier Phase One CCD backs, and loved them, but circumstance forced me to choose, and putting emotion aside, the argument for CMOS was compelling.
I suggest you test one !
Best regards
-
My thoughts as well, a little checking shows H4d-50’s going for around 6-8k? original price was around 20,000 euros? 25k U.S?
I would think that the current price is around 4-5 K$ while the original one was above 35 K$ (Later lowered to 25 K$)?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hey Roger,
We are in a small minority but I have to say shooting with a Linhof Techno has helped me feel the satisfaction of 'making a photograph' verses taking one.
I had an IQ180 when I bought the Techno. It worked OK using the sliding back, bright GG and a magnifier. Moving to the IQ3 100 has been a major step forward. The Live View is great (using a Hoodman to view the preview screen in bright light), it handles wide lenses well and the Electronic shutter coupled with the wired release is super for landscape and architecture. The attached image captured through a 23 HR at Ft Myers recently. Capture 1 v11 processes the LCC's in a blink.
Using the Techno with wide lenses was a challenge until I created a focus 'puck' for each lens that sets the hyper-focal distance and aligns the center plane of the lens with the sensor plane. I'll share this in another post as the concept would work with any view camera including the Actus.
Once the 150 mpx back is announced, you should expect significant $ incentives.
Best Regards, Orley
-
Highlight DR doesn’t exist at sensor level with CCDs and CMOS.
Agreed! The is just dynamic range (with a rather ambiguous bottom end, deep in the shadows.) The idea of "highlight DR" and "shadow DR" is simply a split based on how much of the DR is above the midtone placement and how much is below, but of course photographers can move that placement around: see several thousand posts about "ETTR".
At camera level manufacturers can play with ISO and meter calibration (and raw converter smarts) to under-expose to give the illusion of a highlight recovery capability.
A very mysterious use of the word "underexpose": if camera A's light-metering recommends an exposure levels that blows highlights as soon as they are more than three stops above meter midtones whereas following camera B's metering blows highlights less often, some people still say that the camera B is underexposing, whereas I am tempted to suggest that camera A is prone to recommending overexposure! But that would also be wrong; with the variable gain of digital cameras, the idea of one true and correct level of exposure and gain is nonsense. It is in part driven by the DXO "SSat=ISO" error, in which an ISO 12232 standard guideline for minimum safe exposure index, as in a recommended maximum amount of exposure (SSat, a.k.a. "base ISO speed", placing metered mid-tones at about 12.5% of FWC, about three stops from the top) is misinterpreted as a mandated correct exposure level. Perhaps the misunderstanding is enhanced by the myth that the ISO "REI" standard opens the door to arbitrary choices of exposure level, wheres in fact it is simply there to allow for fancy "pattern light metering": in simple center-weighted metering modes, there is clear evidence that the metering on cameras is always close to ISO SOS (Standard Output Sensitivity) — otherwise OOC JPEGs of simple low contrast scenes would look too dark or too light. And that is anyway all about default JPEGs, with the 8-bit JPEG standard forcing an undesirably low amount of headroom between midtones and maximum level; only 2.5 stops.
Given that good modern ILCs having ten or more stops of photographically useful DR (and thirteen or more stops of total DR above the noise floor), and recalling all the agonizing in the early digital era about how digital cameras are vastly inferior to film in highlight handling, it mystifies me that people are still arguing that the one and only one correct way to use that DR is for the light metering system to recommend an exposure level that gives a bare three stops above metered midtone level and seven or more usable stops (ten or more total stops) below. More so at higher EO settings, when additional amplification to raise midtone raw level placement to that "-3" level does little or nothing to improve shadow noise.
And those old CCD MF backs were in fact very close to "ISO independent" as fas as shadow noise, because any variable gain came off-chip and too late, after almost all noise had entered the signal, and their ADC DR was often far better than in-photosite DR.
-
Thank you BJL. I am sure you meant to help but your amazing use of acronyms made that impossible for me. I understood about three of them.
However, do not add a dictionary for my sake as I am certain your message is way beyond my brain’s capabilities. Others who understand your message will probably know the acronyms!
Thank you anyway.
Roger
-
Hi, Orley
Thank you for your comments. Great sky shot! We have good skies in New Zealand because we have a very clear atmosphere. See my shot from my CCD sensor on an H2 with the 50mm lens. No edits or enhancements.
I am very interested on how you set the hyperlocal distance when the Techno does not have a distance scale (although I have fastened a ruler to the base board). would you please pm me with details or send a link to your post describing what you have done.
I seem to have worn out my sliding back. It is very hard to move the back. Have you experienced this?
Roger
Hey Roger,
We are in a small minority but I have to say shooting with a Linhof Techno has helped me feel the satisfaction of 'making a photograph' verses taking one.
I had an IQ180 when I bought the Techno. It worked OK using the sliding back, bright GG and a magnifier. Moving to the IQ3 100 has been a major step forward. The Live View is great (using a Hoodman to view the preview screen in bright light), it handles wide lenses well and the Electronic shutter coupled with the wired release is super for landscape and architecture. The attached image captured through a 23 HR at Ft Myers recently. Capture 1 v11 processes the LCC's in a blink.
Using the Techno with wide lenses was a challenge until I created a focus 'puck' for each lens that sets the hyper-focal distance and aligns the center plane of the lens with the sensor plane. I'll share this in another post as the concept would work with any view camera including the Actus.
Once the 150 mpx back is announced, you should expect significant $ incentives.
Best Regards, Orley
-
Hi,
I think you are both right.
But, what I see with my P45+ is that the entrire workflow is biased towards exposure long below ETTR.
- The histogram is very conservative and so are the blinkies.
- Capture One and the "Film Curve" are also quite a bit on the bright side.
So what looks good in C1 is often 1-2 stops underexposed in a tool like RawDigger.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed! The is just dynamic range (with a rather ambiguous bottom end, deep in the shadows.) The idea of "highlight DR" and "shadow DR" is simply a split based on how much of the DR is above the midtone placement and how much is below, but of course photographers can move that placement around: see several thousand posts about "ETTR". A very mysterious use of the word "underexpose": if camera A's light-metering recommends an exposure levels that blows highlights as soon as they are more than three stops above meter midtones whereas following camera B's metering blows highlights less often, some people still say that the camera B is underexposing, whereas I am tempted to suggest that camera A is prone to recommending overexposure! But that would also be wrong; with the variable gain of digital cameras, the idea of one true and correct level of exposure and gain is nonsense. It is in part driven by the DXO "SSat=ISO" error, in which an ISO 12232 standard guideline for minimum safe exposure index, as in a recommended maximum amount of exposure (SSat, a.k.a. "base ISO speed", placing metered mid-tones at about 12.5% of FWC, about three stops from the top) is misinterpreted as a mandated correct exposure level. Perhaps the misunderstanding is enhanced by the myth that the ISO "REI" standard opens the door to arbitrary choices of exposure level, wheres in fact it is simply there to allow for fancy "pattern light metering": in simple center-weighted metering modes, there is clear evidence that the metering on cameras is always close to ISO SOS (Standard Output Sensitivity) — otherwise OOC JPEGs of simple low contrast scenes would look too dark or too light. And that is anyway all about default JPEGs, with the 8-bit JPEG standard forcing an undesirably low amount of headroom between midtones and maximum level; only 2.5 stops.
Given that good modern ILCs having ten or more stops of photographically useful DR (and thirteen or more stops of total DR above the noise floor), and recalling all the agonizing in the early digital era about how digital cameras are vastly inferior to film in highlight handling, it mystifies me that people are still arguing that the one and only one correct way to use that DR is for the light metering system to recommend an exposure level that gives a bare three stops above metered midtone level and seven or more usable stops (ten or more total stops) below. More so at higher EO settings, when additional amplification to raise midtone raw level placement to that "-3" level does little or nothing to improve shadow noise.
And those old CCD MF backs were in fact very close to "ISO independent" as fas as shadow noise, because any variable gain came off-chip and too late, after almost all noise had entered the signal, and their ADC DR was often far better than in-photosite DR.
-
I would think that the current price is around 4-5 K$ while the original one was above 35 K$ (Later lowered to 25 K$)?
So similar then to the BMW? Not particularly worse.
$35 k seems high based on the press release price of 19,559 euros and the exchange rate at the time. Hard to believe it would have been over $30k. They seem to be going for around 6-8k on eBay, but not too many so maybe temporarily over priced. pretty similar track so far.
-
Hi Roger,
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding setting the Hyperfocal distance on a camera like the Techno which doesn't have a focus scale. (BTW, the Linhof focus stops could be used but for a limited number of lenses but they can move)
Anders Torger created a great App, Lumariver, that gives the hyperfocal focus point for specific lenses at various apertures. I used this tool to determine the focusing point.
Next, a target was set at the indicated distance. Camera was tethered to C1, live view on, critical focus on the target, then locked the focus at that point. Next a measurement was made from the back of the lens to the mounting plate where the digital back adapter contacts the camera. This was done with a digital caliper. A block of Delrin was machined to this dimension to provide a 'depth stop' or puck that provides a positive stopping point for the lens in relationship to the sensor.
The puck was then used to set the camera for a test in live view mode. Using a very accurate ( 1/10,000th of an inch accuary) depth gauge, a measurement was made of deviation between this starting point and the perfect hyperfocal point for that lens. Then the a new puck was made which is dead on.
In use, you can feel the lens bump up against the puck, you can feel the alignment of the lens, if it's swing or tilt is not 0'd- forgot to reset from last shoot. With wide angle lenses, having the lens aligned perfectly with the sensor plane is more critical than longer lenses. This overcomes the one fault the Techno has which is the pinch clamp of the front lens standard can allow misalignment.
Dropbox link to images of the 'puck' which might help understand the process. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v28374emsmar8iz/AAC80IAWryYUk-2DR1x0hzKYa?dl=0
BTW, I was pleased to see that this approach can be replicated to other TECHNO cameras. I met John Lytton from AZ at the PIGS gathering at Carmel in Feb. I told him about my project and offered to send him the puck I use for my 40 mm Rodie. He tried it and said it worked fine on his rig.
Your question about sliding back sticking has not been a problem for me. Until the IQ3, I used the short sliding back with ground glass. Now I use the Stitching back which is perfect. Very compact, little additional wind resistance, and gives the 17 mm shift each way from center for quick pano work.
Best Regards,
Orley
-
great images on focus puck on Dropbox. Very clear. Thanks for posting.
-
WOW, Orley!
The work and precision you have achieved is amazing!
I might try using the ruler on the bed of the Techno. I won't get the precision you have but I will get more DOF than I get by just focusing on an object.
Thanks, again
Roger
Hi Roger,
Thanks for your comments.
. . .
Your question about sliding back sticking has not been a problem for me. Until the IQ3, I used the short sliding back with ground glass. Now I use the Stitching back which is perfect. Very compact, little additional wind resistance, and gives the 17 mm shift each way from center for quick pano work.
Best Regards,
Orley