Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Doug Peterson on August 28, 2018, 06:59:46 am
-
The IQ4 series is here!
There are so many new features that we've launched a dedicated mini-site to parse it all: www.phaseoneIQ4.com (http://www.phaseoneIQ4.com)
Here is a very abbreviated summary:
The three IQ4 backs:
- Phase One IQ4 150mp
- Phase One IQ4 150mp Achromatic
- Phase One IQ4 100mp Trichromatic
All three use full-frame 645 sensors. Phase One is 100% focused on Full-Frame 645 solutions.
The IQ4 Platform Features
This is much more than an [IQ3 + 1].
- Infinity Platform (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/the-infinity-platform-decoding-marketing-speak/)
- Capture One Inside (http://phaseoneiq4.com/17-surprises-youll-find-in-phase-ones-new-digital-back/)
- Dual Next-Gen storage (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/camera-storage-card-technology-in-2018/): XQD and SD with future support for CFexpress
- USB-C and Ethernet tethering (http://phaseoneiq4.com/17-surprises-youll-find-in-phase-ones-new-digital-back/)
- Wireless Tethering (http://phaseoneiq4.com/17-surprises-youll-find-in-phase-ones-new-digital-back/) (actual raw file transfer)
- Live View Focus Peaking
- Live View Histogram
- Live View Exposure Simulation
- Improved Live View image quality
- In camera JPGs
- Pinch to Zoom
- Multi-finger gesture ready
- Brighter, Sharper, Faster LCD Previews
- Improved Dark-Frame workflow
IQ4 150mp and IQ4 150mp Achromatic Features
- Full-frame 645 BSI CMOS Sensor (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/bsi-sensors-demystified/)
- 15 stops of DR*
- ISO 50 to ISO 25,600*
- Faster Electronic Shutter (http://phaseoneiq4.com/a-detailed-look-at-electronic-shutter-technology/)
- Up to 3fps in ES mode; TBD speed on XF
- Much better tech camera compatibility re movements and cast
*Phase One is still working to squeeze the most out of this sensor. These specs, as is, are conservative and may be improved via Feature Update.
Other news
Price Drops: As you’d expect with the release of new products, the price for previous products has been reduced and more products are now available as CPO (certified pre-owned). With the release of the IQ4 150mp the IQ3 100mp is no longer the “king of the hill” but it’s still a *really* great camera, so this price-drop is very welcome.
Trade-Ins: There are a wide swath of upgrade options from Phase One and competitive cameras/backs.
If you're looking for a jumping off point for the many articles we have written, I'd suggest 17 Surprises You'll Find in the Phase One IQ4 (http://phaseoneiq4.com/17-surprises-youll-find-in-phase-ones-new-digital-back/).
I'll be right here in this thread all morning ready to answer your questions. Fire away! If I don't respond within a few minutes it's because I've fallen asleep at my keyboard.
-
Exciting times!
A few questions:
- any word on pricing?
- why no Trichromatic version with the 150mp sensor?
- any change to the XF body?
- any idea about the actual improvement for tech camera usage?
Thank you!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- any word on pricing?
Yes. All pricing will be public. We are putting the backs up on our eStore shortly.
- why no Trichromatic version with the 150mp sensor?
Phase One has stated pretty clearly that there will not be a "Trichromatic" version of the IQ4 150mp. They say the 150mp BSI sensor did not require the same CFA to achieve the same results.
I look forward to testing this claim via the same kind of direct comparison testing we did with the IQ3 Trichromatic vs IQ3 (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-trichromatic-part-2-results/). We will, of course, provide raw files from that testing as well as the ability to test the back yourself so you can make your own judgement.
- any change to the XF body?
Not at this time. With the launch of the IQ4 you can expect XF Feature Updates both for XF-specific features and for various IQ4/XF integration.
- any idea about the actual improvement for tech camera usage?
R+D says "greatly improved". More specific info than that will have to wait until we can do more extensive in-house testing here at DT. I'd expect that as soon as next week.
More information here: http://phaseoneiq4.com/11-reasons-tech-camera-users-will-love-the-iq4/
-
Got a good chuckle at the 'Capture One inside the back' and 'Infinity Platform' marketing BS, over my morning coffee. Thanks for that Doug. For such brilliant engineers, they really don't need such silly piffle.
Little interest in the 'new' XF, or having Capture One 'styles' in my back (I thought the whole thing about RAW was that, it's... RAW)
I am however interested in 150mp and BSI and faster ES, etc. So I'll be looking at trade in pricing from my dealer. Expecting a $25k/30k cost from IQ3-100, sadly.
-
Got a good chuckle[...] 'Infinity Platform' marketing BS, over my morning coffee. Thanks for that Doug. For such brilliant engineers, they really don't need such silly piffle.
Unquestionably market fluffery. You might enjoy our article Infinity Platform - Decoding Marketing Speak (http://phaseoneiq4.com/the-infinity-platform-decoding-marketing-speak/) which speaks to the very real advantages the very fluffy term is meant to encapsulate.
Little interest in the 'new' XF, or having Capture One 'styles' in my back (I thought the whole thing about RAW was that, it's... RAW)
Fair enough. Though I suspect you'll find better and more accurate sharpening, noise reduction, and color of the on-screen image welcome, as is faster provision of the on-screen preview and rapid response when scrolling around the image. These are all benefits of using the math engine from Capture One.
DT also has some "hacks" of this system in mind that might help advanced users. We'll see how those work out in the coming months.
-
So I'll be looking at trade in pricing from my dealer. Expecting a $25k/30k cost from IQ3-100, sadly.
Definitely contact your dealer.
For anyone in the US we have our full sales team fully caffeinated and ready to answer questions regarding trade-ins, upgrades, CPO stock of IQ3 etc etc. Just shoot us an email at info@digitaltransitions.com.
-
Great 3 min video with Lau, the head of R+D: http://phaseoneiq4.com/phase-one-xf-iq4-camera-system-with-lau-norgaard-iq4-150mp/
-
I have to wonder if any improvements in lens cast from the BSI is canceled out by a much smaller pixel. And why can't they get BSI in a 100 mp (which would probably work better).
I would be interested in seeing how the back handles my SK 35mm.
-
I have to wonder if any improvements in lens cast from the BSI is canceled out by a much smaller pixel.
R+D says the net effect of this sensor is that tech camera usage (lens cast, features, overall image quality) is "greatly improved". More specific info than that will have to wait until we can do more extensive in-house testing here at DT. I'd expect that as soon as next week.
More here: http://phaseoneiq4.com/11-reasons-tech-camera-users-will-love-the-iq4/
-
Great 3 min video with Lau, the head of R+D: http://phaseoneiq4.com/phase-one-xf-iq4-camera-system-with-lau-norgaard-iq4-150mp/
Doug, apologies for asking rather than wading through the text: Is there a new phase-contrast focus system all over the field, using built-in sensor features?
I need to write my nutshell summary for the IQ4
If you have any particular point you would like stressed ... please say so publicly, I will update my summary extensively for your products, of course, as they are a big part of the MF ecosystem . If there is something you wish to say off the record please PM :)
Edmund
-
I have to wonder if any improvements in lens cast from the BSI is canceled out by a much smaller pixel. And why can't they get BSI in a 100 mp (which would probably work better).
I would be interested in seeing how the back handles my SK 35mm.
The new 44x33 sensors from Sony are BSI.
-
R+D says the net effect of this sensor is that tech camera usage (lens cast, features, overall image quality) is "greatly improved". More specific info than that will have to wait until we can do more extensive in-house testing here at DT. I'd expect that as soon as next week.
More here: http://phaseoneiq4.com/11-reasons-tech-camera-users-will-love-the-iq4/
Well if you could test out a SK 35 or SK 28 that would be great. I would be very interested in seeing the results from those lenses.
-
Doug, apologies for asking rather than wading through the text: Is there a new phase-contrast focus system all over the field, using built-in sensor features?
I need to write my nutshell summary for the IQ4
No need for apologies, that's what I'm here for!
The 150mp sensor has the hardware required for phase-contrast focus, but no phase-contrast focus feature is in this announcement and it remains to be seen if the lens/body hardware would support it, and how well.
Do note the XF has a built-in focus-calibration system and a 1-million pixel AF sensor, so (with the mirror down) the autofocus speed and accuracy is quite good. Especially for XF bodies with the HAP 2 autofocus upgrade. We have an article about how Phase One prepared for 150mp (http://phaseoneiq4.com/how-phase-one-prepared-for-150mp/) that covers this and other salient points.
If you have any particular point you would like stressed ... please say so publicly
That's the challenging part of this launch. So many features that there isn't one particular point to stress! My personal favorite will be wireless tethering, since my own shooting often involves tethering with multiple models in the room and nobody likes cables.
-
The IQ4 series is here!
All three use full-frame 645 sensors. Phase One is 100% focused on Full-Frame 645 solutions.
Does that mean that there will be no more 33x44 offerings from Phase One?
-
Does that mean that there will be no more 33x44 offerings from Phase One?
Based on conversations with management and R+D I do not expect any future less-than-full-frame-645 backs from P1. They are gung-ho on full-frame-645. That said "forever is a long time" so "never say never".
Of course the IQ3 50mp, IQ2 50mp, IQ1 50mp, and IQ1 40mp remain available as Certified Pre-Owned, with price drops as a result of the IQ4 launch.
-
Doug
I am sure its on your list for testing. I would like to see a ISO sweep.
Thank you for your in depth articles.
Thanks Steven
-
I am sure its on your list for testing. I would like to see a ISO sweep.
Thank you for your in depth articles.
Thanks Steven
You're very welcome. Bit tired, but very excited. This is the kind of thing I live for :). #nerd
That will surely be part of the testing.
Right now Phase One is claiming max of ISO25,600 which is one stop more than the IQ3 100mp that preceded it. However, they note that they are still tweaking their sensor usage and image pipeline so it may go up from there.
Of course, the really tricky part is how to make a comparison to lower res cameras. For example, if an IQ4 raw is moderately noisy at a particular ISO then downsampling it to a "mere" 50 megapixel image for a "small" 27 inch wide 300ppi print would subsume a lot of that noise. As an existential question: if noise exists but is smaller than the dot of ink you print it with, is it really noise?
But anyway, we'll do raw file ISO sweeps and provide the raws and you can make up your own mind!
-
Thanks Doug
Currently ISO 400 is my max on the IQ3 100 that I have comfort in printing large prints. I suspect I might gain two stops with the new back for my conservative comfort level. We will see. This would be huge for someone that shoots in a forest with moving leaves and stitching in the forest would be way easier.
I will post my fav feature list as it interest me as a landscape only photographer latter in the day. Its still early on the west coast and I don’t drink coffee.
-
I suspect I might gain two stops with the new back for my conservative comfort level. We will see. This would be huge for someone that shoots in a forest with moving leaves and stitching in the forest would be way easier.
My best guess will be "one to two stops" rather than "two stops" so we're thinking more or less the same thing. Only hands on testing and printing will tell.
-
Even one stop would be huge for me. Years of shooting Velvia 50 in a forest with minutes of exposure with only 6 stops of DR are long gone. Thankfully.
-
Currently ISO 400 is my max on the IQ3 100 that I have comfort in printing large prints. I suspect I might gain two stops with the new back for my conservative comfort level. We will see. This would be huge for someone that shoots in a forest with moving leaves and stitching in the forest would be way easier.
Agree 100%. this is my #1, alongside more pixels.
I too find 400asa is the maximum, and that is only used if really needed. 200asa is dramatically better, so if there is the light/ no movement that is my default. (Funnily enough the step down to 100asa is less dramatic, imho)
If the IQ4 gets 200 results at 400, then I'll be very happy.
(you don't buy these backs to use them at 25/50Mp, so pixel binning has always been a non starter to me)
-
As an existential question: if noise exists but is smaller than the dot of ink you print it with, is it really noise?
In a way the noise on a small scale is positive - it acts as dither, allowing smooth transitions around edges.
Edmund
-
Something else I am wondering, is there any evidence that they are working on getting the BSI technology into a lower MP (but still full framed) sensor?
I realize there a lot of landscape (f/64 club) shooters out there and rich hobbyists buying these cameras that put a big emphasis on higher mega-pixel, for different reasons, but, for us commercial shooters, we really just don't care. (I mean no knock on landscape shooters.).
I have not had a serious conversation with any other commercial shooter about resolution in like 6 or 7 years, which is about when clients stopped asking us about the resolution of our files since all cameras gave them a file size that was usable for their needs. The 100 MP offering seemed overkill to me, and nearly every other commercial shooter I spoke to, even clients, and this 151 MP is just insane.
About a year ago I was shooting a penthouse in Manhattan and my assistant, who just started with me, asked if I can use the fact that I shoot with a high mega-pixel back as an additional selling point for my services. My response was, "no, nobody cares anymore about MP." My client was standing right next to me during this and he looked at my assistant and said, "yeah, nobody cares anymore."
At the end of day, most of us commercial shooters just want a camera that we can use in the style that is best suited for us with little obstacles in the way. I realize for landscape photographers, this may mean better ISO performance (taking downsizing into account) to allow for faster shutter speeds to freeze movement. For me though, this means shooting on a tech camera and not having to think about whether or not lens cast will be a issue with the amount of shift/tilt I am using. And I also don't want to be carrying around giant Rodenstock lenses that weigh up to 2 pounds, take up a lot more room then my symmetrical lenses, and have an unique mustache distortion meaning I need to record my shifts for each image.
-
Something else I am wondering, is there any evidence that they are working on getting the BSI technology into a lower MP (but still full framed) sensor?
No. I would not expect that now or in the future. It's not really how sensor development trends work.
That said, the IQ4 150mp shoots faster, reviews the image in back faster, and tethers faster than the IQ3 100mp, so in most real senses you'll experience an increase in working speed, not a decrease.
Capture One's proxy system and the growth in GPU speed also mean that handling 150mp raws is easier today than handling 22mp raws just a few years ago. We tested processing the IQ4 150mp raws in C1 on our new iMac Pro and full res 16-bit TIFFs came out at a rate around 1 per second. We'll do more formal testing on that soon.
So the philosophy, for better or worse, is you always capture these very high res raw files, and you are free to crop, not crop, process at full res, or process to some smaller format size. If storage size is a concern the IIQ-S raw format is ~80mb.
-
Phase's strategy seems more clear than ever....retreat to the highest end and not offer backs in the cropped sensor format. However, that's not really a strategy, as the market made the decision. Try selling an XF system with a 100mp cropped sensor for $35,000 when Fuji and Hasselblad are selling a GFX and X1D with the same sensor for less than $10,000. What isn't clear is whether Phase has abandoned all development efforts with the cropped sensor, including for a new mirrorless platform. I hope not, but I am not optimistic. I think Phase is terrified of spending the huge R&D dollars to develop a new system that would cannibalize the XF system and lenses and, more significantly, force it to compete on price and features with Fuji and Hasselblad. All in all, this a stunning sea change in the medium format landscape. Phase was the 800 lb. gorilla. Hasselblad was on life support and all but done with after the Stellar/Lunar debacle. Fuji didn't exist in this space. Now, we have two amazing new cameras, the X1D and the GFX, with amazing lenses, at amazingly low price points.
One interesting nugget is that the new IQ4 150 will NOT be available in an H mount. Only for the Phase XF. Thus, there is no longer a Phase One upgrade path for the owner of an H series camera and lenses. The circle of Phase One hypocrisy is now fully closed. Back in the day, Phase (and its partisans) screamed loudly about Hasselblad closing off the H system to third party (i.e., Phase One) backs. Now, you no longer can use a Phase IQ4 back on a Hasselblad H camera body; you can't use a Hasselblad back on an XF; and you can't use Capture One software with any medium format camera not made by Phase One. Since the rental houses have typically offered H bodies and lenses with Phase backs, I guess Phase has decided that most wouldn't upgrade to 150MP anyway, so they will try to force the few that might upgrade to switch over to the XF platform.
The new IQ4 150 is not "Trichromatic." Phase says it's not necessary with the new sensor. That's today. In 2 years, will we see a repeat of the Trichromatic update of the IQ100, after we were told that the color of that back was so exceptional?
-
Hi Doug
Can you explain exposure simulation and how it might be helpful with ND filters.
Thanks Steven
-
Can you explain exposure simulation and how it might be helpful with ND filters.
Live View can now be used in two modes. In the first, it behaves like today's IQ3 does, automatically compensating the live view brightness. In the second, "Exposure Simulation" the back uses the shutter speed set in the ES to simulate the brightness of the final capture based on how much light is currently making it to the sensor.
In Exposure Simulation, if you add ND filters you'd see right away the decrease in brightness and you'd need to compensate with the shutter speed setting.
Because of the improved quality of the live view, compared to the IQ3 100mp I expect you'll be able to use 1 to 2 stops more ND filtration before the live view slows down and gets noisy. Likely, even very strong ND filters for daytime-long-exposures will still result in a usable Live View (even if it's not as fast/clean as without the filter on). But only testing will tell.
In short, WYSIWYG!
Exposure Simulation will likely be most people's preference, unless they are shooting with strobe. When shooting with strobe the Exposure Simulation would be way dark, since the ambient modeling light during live view is not nearly as bright as the flash exposure at capture.
-
Congrats to Team Phase for keeping everyone in the dark during the run up - it's a lot more fun than dealing with leaks.
On first glance, I'm quite happy with the upgraded guts of the back. Faster storage interface (though I'm not sure about SD personally). I'm ok with not releasing a crop 100mp, in reality there isn't a good reason to do it when there will be plenty of 100mp CPO backs. Phase currently sells the crop 100mp 33x44 in their iXU line for industrial use - so they know the chip well enough, but don't want to muddy the waters with it.
-
Thanks Doug
-
Some first thoughts:
- on my current 100mp back, the challenge really is to achieve critical focus when the subject isn't dead centered. It sometimes works, sometimes not,...
- moving from 100 to 150mp will only deliver value for tripod use
-> I would rather have an EVF based camera staying at 100mp than a 150mp without an EVF, that is unless I would use the camera exclusively in live view mode.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think Phase is terrified of spending the huge R&D dollars to develop a new system.
I couldn't speak to any project, or lack thereof, to develop a small/compact camera. But here are some examples in recent years of P1 investing tons of R+D money into long-term projects:
- XF: they had to have a team working to improve/stabilize the DF/DF+ while also making a from-the-ground-up new camera
- C1v4: they had to keep a full software team working on updating Capture One 3 for several years worth of developing Capture One 4, which was a ground-up rewrite
- Schneider LS and LS Blue Ring line: they had already released a bevvy of Phase One D focal-plane lenses. Some of the LS versions were simply D lenses with a shutter, but many were ground-up new designs.
- iXG a ground-up redesign/reimagining of the DT RCam
- IQ1 a ground-up redesign of the P+
- IQ4 while it shares the "IQ" name prefix, it is as internally different from an IQ3 as the IQ1 was from the P65+
I think you could easily find forum posts from a month/year before each of these releases where people speculated if P1 was willing to invest long-term R+D money into brand new systems.
If had to rank the most compelling/unique company-attributes for P1, "investing in long-term R+D" would be second on my list, right after "ability to drink heartedly after hours".
Also, an IQ4 150mp on a small tech camera really isn't that large or heavy. It lacks autofocus of course, but that's not a major hinderance to many architectural/landscape/still-life/interior photographers, especially given the addition of better/faster live view with Live Focus Mask (focus peaking). An XF with one of the smaller lenses (e.g. 55/80/110) with a WLF is also pretty light (everything is relative of course).
All that said, I think the XF IQ will still be a big part of the lineup five or ten years from now. It's not a small/light system, but there are always compromises made (ergonomics, functionality, quality) required in going small, so whether or not they add a smaller/lighter system to the lineup (personally I hope they do) there will still be many use cases for an XF IQ or an IQ on a tech camera. This is, simply put, a camera where the only compromise is weight/size. In the past some (not many, but a meaningful niche) went for 4x5 or 8x10 over 645 or 6x7 or 6x17 even though they were meaningfully larger and heavier to carry. That is still the case today, and will still be the case tomorrow. To me the best possible case would be some big-brother little-brother pairing of an XF IQ with something smaller that could share as much as possible (lenses, accessories, interface, viewfinders, color response, even sensors somehow) and would allow you to pick form factor for a given job/shoot. When I'm shooting Terra Nudum (http://terranudum.com/) I don't mind the XF size/weight one bit. When I'm shooting a wedding (http://doug-peterson.com/) I still carry an XF but I'd be the first to say I wouldn't mind if it was half the weight!
-
Phase currently sells the crop 100mp 33x44 in their iXU line for industrial use - so they know the chip well enough, but don't want to muddy the waters with it.
Indeed. They've been shipping iX cameras with that sensor for a while. The main advantage there is that this smaller sensor can shoot FAST (many frames per second) and that's a big advantage for aerial mapping systems where it means you can fly the plane faster (or at lower altitude). The 150mp sensor will do ~3fps in ES mode, which seems more than fast enough for 99% of the use cases for commercial/fine-art medium format photography.
-
Live View can now be used in two modes. In the first, it behaves like today's IQ3 does, automatically compensating the live view brightness. In the second, "Exposure Simulation" the back uses the shutter speed set in the ES to simulate the brightness of the final capture based on how much light is currently making it to the sensor......
That's what makes my IQ3 Tr. already out via HDMI. There is only one error in the firmware. The lowest ISO value in the menu is ISO 50. However, the base value for the back is ISO 35.
I have a question for you.
The sensor of the IQ4 100 Tr. is the same as the one in the IQ3 100 Tr. (Sony IMX211 FI). This means the improved LiveView is at the back rather than the sensor. Or does the IQ4 have 100 Tr. a worse LiveView than the 150 MPix. Versions?
Greeting Gerd
-
Indeed. They've been shipping iX cameras with that sensor for a while. The main advantage there is that this smaller sensor can shoot FAST (many frames per second) and that's a big advantage for aerial mapping systems where it means you can fly the plane faster (or at lower altitude). The 150mp sensor will do ~3fps in ES mode, which seems more than fast enough for 99% of the use cases for commercial/fine-art medium format photography.
~3fps for how many shots - until it runs out of XQD storage? It'll be interesting to see how the HAP1/2 upgrade will play into this - does the higher mp sensor really need the advances in the AF? I still want to see how the HAP2 does with soccer.
I love the ethernet port - will the IQ4 do the multi-camera sync like the iX line?
-
~3fps for how many shots - until it runs out of XQD storage?
The XQD standard is very fast. We have an entire article about the choice of XQD on the IQ4 (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/camera-storage-card-technology-in-2018/). I can't confirm length-until-buffer, but my guess is it will be jaw dropping how fast you can shoot (in ES mode) without any buffer/lag either to card or tethered.
Do keep in mind the 3fps is for ES in 14-bit mode (no moving parts flopping around). When using the Leaf Shutter or Focal Plane Shutter the speed will be slower. Preliminary spec for normal shooting is 1.4 frames per second for focal plane shutter and 1.2 frames per second for leaf shutter (14 bit) and 0.7 frames per second 16-bit. It's possible those will change as they work on optimizing the timing of the sensor and mechanical bits.
It'll be interesting to see how the HAP1/2 upgrade will play into this - does the higher mp sensor really need the advances in the AF? I still want to see how the HAP2 does with soccer.
Soccer may be a challenge. I find the XF HAP2 autofocus to be quite fast, but sports is a world unto its own when it comes to AF requirements. That said, it's definitely worth the try and depends very much on your needs. For example, a pro sports shooter for a magazine/newspaper knows there may only be three or four total moments in the game that really matter (maybe as few as one) and he/she needs to get great images of every one of those. In contrast, a parent shooting their child might, realistically, only care if they get two stellar shots the entire season; they just want a keepsake of their kid at that age playing that game (rather than extensive documentation of each game).
I love the ethernet port - will the IQ4 do the multi-camera sync like the iX line?
The iX line uses a very sophisticated timing system for multi-camera sync since those systems must fire within microseconds of each other.
That feature is not on the IQ4 but I can think of a number of ways to get them to fire at *very* similar times. For example you could set multiple XF IQ4 backs to Profoto Trigger and use use one Profoto Air trigger to fire them all. Due to a variety of reasons the timing wouldn't be as close as the iX but it would be very close by most non-industrial standards.
What would be your use case?
-
only going with the largest sensor size makes sense, the question is how big is the difference in IQ between the new 33x44 100mpix sensor and the larger 150mpix sensor? throw in much better AF in a much smaller and lighter package for the 33x44 systems and the difference will be even smaller....
the IQ4 looks like a great back but i am not sure about what is in front of it....and now that is the only option....
at the end of the day sony spent most of the R&D that went into this....the sensor....and they are able to spread it around in a very wide net....
-
at the end of the day sony spent most of the R&D that went into this....the sensor....and they are able to spread it around in a very wide net....
I think this vastly underrates the amount of work that goes into a camera system.
An engine is a very important and very complex component in a car. But a car is far more than an engine.
-
I think this vastly underrates the amount of work that goes into a camera system.
An engine is a very important and very complex component in a car. But a car is far more than an engine.
I dont doubt that phase has put a lot into this and making sure to optimize what they do best, get the best result off the sensor and into C1 for highest quality processing.....and now it looks like phase is the only one left standing in the large (ish) sensor camera game....the problem is that now (unless you want a tech camera) you have to use the XF....and the available lenses....
this sensor along with the pipeline screams for a mirrorless solution and i seriously doubt phase has the resources to come up with a solution worthy of it
-
I couldn't speak to any project, or lack thereof, to develop a small/compact camera. But here are some examples in recent years of P1 investing tons of R+D money into long-term projects:
- XF: they had to have a team working to improve/stabilize the DF/DF+ while also making a from-the-ground-up new camera
- C1v4: they had to keep a full software team working on updating Capture One 3 for several years worth of developing Capture One 4, which was a ground-up rewrite
- Schneider LS and LS Blue Ring line: they had already released a bevvy of Phase One D focal-plane lenses. Some of the LS versions were simply D lenses with a shutter, but many were ground-up new designs.
- iXG a ground-up redesign/reimagining of the DT RCam
- IQ1 a ground-up redesign of the P+
- IQ4 while it shares the "IQ" name prefix, it is as internally different from an IQ3 as the IQ1 was from the P65+
I think you could easily find forum posts from a month/year before each of these releases where people speculated if P1 was willing to invest long-term R+D money into brand new systems.
If had to rank the most compelling/unique company-attributes for P1, "investing in long-term R+D" would be second on my list, right after "ability to drink heartedly after hours".
Also, an IQ4 150mp on a small tech camera really isn't that large or heavy. It lacks autofocus of course, but that's not a major hinderance to many architectural/landscape/still-life/interior photographers, especially given the addition of better/faster live view with Live Focus Mask (focus peaking). An XF with one of the smaller lenses (e.g. 55/80/110) with a WLF is also pretty light (everything is relative of course).
All that said, I think the XF IQ will still be a big part of the lineup five or ten years from now. It's not a small/light system, but there are always compromises made (ergonomics, functionality, quality) required in going small, so whether or not they add a smaller/lighter system to the lineup (personally I hope they do) there will still be many use cases for an XF IQ or an IQ on a tech camera. This is, simply put, a camera where the only compromise is weight/size. In the past some (not many, but a meaningful niche) went for 4x5 or 8x10 over 645 or 6x7 or 6x17 even though they were meaningfully larger and heavier to carry. That is still the case today, and will still be the case tomorrow. To me the best possible case would be some big-brother little-brother pairing of an XF IQ with something smaller that could share as much as possible (lenses, accessories, interface, viewfinders, color response, even sensors somehow) and would allow you to pick form factor for a given job/shoot. When I'm shooting Terra Nudum (http://terranudum.com/) I don't mind the XF size/weight one bit. When I'm shooting a wedding (http://doug-peterson.com/) I still carry an XF but I'd be the first to say I wouldn't mind if it was half the weight!
Doug, in all candor, R&D projects you cite are yesterday's news. Not very exciting today. The heavy lifting on the R&D front these days is not coming from Phase. It's coming from Sony. Whatever improvements there are in an IQ4 150 back compared to the IQ3 100 are primarily a function of Phase One leveraging off what Sony has done with the new sensor. Hopefully, there is lots going on behind the scenes to develop a new from the ground up mirrorless system. I mean that sincerely. I have a great deal of respect for Phase's sensibilities about camera design, user interface, and color. If Phase gets the form factor right this time, I think they are likely to produce an exceptional, "Eurocentric" alternative to the GFX, albeit at a somewhat higher price point.
-
Doug, in all candor, R&D projects you cite are yesterday's news. Not very exciting today.
Absolutely. You don't get to rest on your laurels and none of the older projects mean anything today (except the IQ4 of course).
I only point them out as evidence that Phase One has shown, a consistent willingness to invest long-term in R+D projects. The past is never a guarantee of the future, but it's often the best indication we get.
Again, I'm not hinting at anything. Just speculating with the rest of ya'll.
The heavy lifting on the R&D front these days is not coming from Phase. It's coming from Sony. Whatever improvements there are in an IQ4 150 back compared to the IQ3 100 are primarily a function of Phase One leveraging off what Sony has done with the new sensor.
All of these are entirely unrelated to the sensor:
- Infinity Platform
- Capture One Inside
- Dual Next-Gen storage: XQD and SD with future support for CFexpress
- USB-C and Ethernet tethering
- Wireless Tethering (actual raw file transfer)
- In camera JPGs
- Pinch to Zoom
- Multi-finger gesture ready
- Brighter, Sharper, Faster LCD Previews
- Improved Dark-Frame workflow
And this is just the launch feature set. Look at the XF and where it was at launch vs the features it has gained (for free) since launch. That's the plan with the IQ4.
-
All of these are entirely unrelated to the sensor:
- Infinity Platform
- Capture One Inside
- Dual Next-Gen storage: XQD and SD with future support for CFexpress
- USB-C and Ethernet tethering
- Wireless Tethering (actual raw file transfer)
- In camera JPGs
- Pinch to Zoom
- Multi-finger gesture ready
- Brighter, Sharper, Faster LCD Previews
- Improved Dark-Frame workflow
almost all of these features are standard on any midrange DSLR or mirrorless today, the ethernet connection is probably great for the right environment, the double slots for all media are definitely great.....of course those smaller cameras dont have to push that many pixels around....but...
-
So Capture One inside the back; will LCC be able to be performed in the back and applied to subsequent image captures, like in C1? If so, will wireless transfers to iPads have those corrections applied for preview in C1 Pilot?
-
So Capture One inside the back; will LCC be able to be performed in the back and applied to subsequent image captures, like in C1? If so, will wireless transfers to iPads have those corrections applied for preview in C1 Pilot?
Initially no. At launch the in-back processing will be limited to a preselected list of styles that does not include LCC.
But this is precisely the kind of feature that the Infinity Platforms hardware-umph and software modularity would allow them to do via Feature Update if they see that demand and feedback.
-
Phase's strategy seems more clear than ever....retreat to the highest end and not offer backs in the cropped sensor format. However, that's not really a strategy, as the market made the decision. Try selling an XF system with a 100mp cropped sensor for $35,000 when Fuji and Hasselblad are selling a GFX and X1D with the same sensor for less than $10,000. What isn't clear is whether Phase has abandoned all development efforts with the cropped sensor, including for a new mirrorless platform. I hope not, but I am not optimistic. I think Phase is terrified of spending the huge R&D dollars to develop a new system that would cannibalize the XF system and lenses and, more significantly, force it to compete on price and features with Fuji and Hasselblad. All in all, this a stunning sea change in the medium format landscape. Phase was the 800 lb. gorilla. Hasselblad was on life support and all but done with after the Stellar/Lunar debacle. Fuji didn't exist in this space. Now, we have two amazing new cameras, the X1D and the GFX, with amazing lenses, at amazingly low price points.
One interesting nugget is that the new IQ4 150 will NOT be available in an H mount. Only for the Phase XF. Thus, there is no longer a Phase One upgrade path for the owner of an H series camera and lenses. The circle of Phase One hypocrisy is now fully closed. Back in the day, Phase (and its partisans) screamed loudly about Hasselblad closing off the H system to third party (i.e., Phase One) backs. Now, you no longer can use a Phase IQ4 back on a Hasselblad H camera body; you can't use a Hasselblad back on an XF; and you can't use Capture One software with any medium format camera not made by Phase One. Since the rental houses have typically offered H bodies and lenses with Phase backs, I guess Phase has decided that most wouldn't upgrade to 150MP anyway, so they will try to force the few that might upgrade to switch over to the XF platform.
The new IQ4 150 is not "Trichromatic." Phase says it's not necessary with the new sensor. That's today. In 2 years, will we see a repeat of the Trichromatic update of the IQ100, after we were told that the color of that back was so exceptional?
Totally agree with this analysis.
Nevertheless, I still think a "full frame" MF mirrorless system could have a comercial chance. Curious if Hasselblad, Phase or Fuji, or maybe Sony will risk it (don't think Leica and Pentax are candidates). One major problem are the lenses. Schneider is already very slow with their lens development, making it difficult to imagine that they could partner the development of a entirely new lens family in a relatively short time frame. On the other hand, Phase One has to ask themselves whether they can stay at the top with a somewhat limited and partially antiquated lens line. The impressive quality of recent Hasselblad XCD and Fuji wide angle lenses shows clearly the potential of new lens designs with the short flange distance, only mirrorless systems can offer.
-
Initially no. At launch the in-back processing will be limited to a preselected list of styles that does not include LCC.
But this is precisely the kind of feature that the Infinity Platforms hardware-umph and software modularity would allow them to do via Feature Update if they see that demand and feedback.
the IQ4 can apply styles right in the back or am i wrong? same as fuji, sony,... with their looks or presets, correct?
i guess the jpeg comes with all the processing anyway at that point.
is capture pilot a direct connection to iPad with this? or does it still have to go through C1 on a computer?
the full size wireless raw transfer is good to have i guess but in reality nobody i know ever really uses it....i have tried to for years....wifi transfer is just too slow....150mpix files just make it worse....
but a good/smart preview/jpeg (with styles) directly to capture pilot iPad with some kind of rating system (back into the camera?) would be nice....as long as there is some kind of communication back and forth...hasselblad has it with focus mobile....
-
the IQ4 can apply styles right in the back or am i wrong? same as fuji, sony,... with their looks or presets, correct? i guess the jpeg comes with all the processing anyway at that point.
Other cameras: shoot RAW+JPG with a style selected and the JPG receives the style but the raw does not. Moreover the math to accomplish the style is not available in the raw processors most people use (C1/LR) so you have to approximate the look (e.g. eyeball the addition of saturation/contrast) to get the raw to look like the JPG looked like, which takes time and will never create a perfect match.
IQ4: Shoot raw or raw+jpg and both files receive the style. In the case of the raw it's a raw with a Capture One style attached to it (so you can, of course, remove any of those adjustments without loss of quality). Since the math and adjustment set are the same you'll see (within the limit of a camera screen vs Eizo) the same color, tones, and noise reduction/sharpening. Day 1 that will only be with specific preset styles loaded into the back, but the hope is to evolve this feature rapidly to allow the user to use their own styles or commercial styles like the DT Style Pack (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/dt-capture-one-style-pack/).
is capture pilot a direct connection to iPad with this? or does it still have to go through C1 on a computer?
The IQ4 can create its own Ad Hoc Wifi network or join an existing network. An iOS device running Capture Pilot can log directly into the IQ4. No computer required.
Note that this is Capture Pilot (wireless review/control) which is different than Wireless Tethering (direct raw, or JPG, transfer to computer). The IQ2 and IQ3 backs could do Capture Pilot (without computer) while the IQ4 can do both Capture Pilot and Wireless Tethering.
the full size wireless raw transfer is good to have i guess but in reality nobody i know ever really uses it....i have tried to for years....wifi transfer is just too slow....150mpix files just make it worse....
I encourage you to keep an open mind about the speed that P1 will accomplish with this. It will definitely not be as fast as USB-C but:
- This is not an optional add-on wifi accessory or a 3rd party wireless device. This is natively P1 from start to finish. Phase One controls the entire pipeline end-to-end and can optimize each step in the chain
- Capture One math is used in both places and the processor in the IQ4 is very fast so there are plenty of ways P1 could make some shortcuts (e.g. sending a preview generated by the on-board processor ahead of the raw for faster time-to-screen) to improve the user experience
- Phase One uses a different data path for their tethering than most (all?) other camera companies. It is compressed on the fly and sent directly from the working memory.
- Phase One owns great IP for raw file compression. The IIQ-S raw file size of the IQ4 150mp is ~80mb which is only ~35% larger than a Canon 5Ds R raw file.
- Phase One knows that a large percentage of their users tether and will buy more cameras if wireless tethering works well. For commodity camera makers tethering is only a very small percentage of their user base.
- For fastest possible performance you could shoot raw to card and JPG to computer. Again, both files are being created and managed by the same Capture One math in both back and computer, so the look will be the same. Also, the data path here is also direct from working memory to both places simultaneously rather than first going to card and then being queued to go via wireless.
but a good/smart preview/jpeg (with styles) directly to capture pilot iPad with some kind of rating system (back into the camera?) would be nice....as long as there is some kind of communication back and forth
Phase One has had this since the IQ2 in 2013. The IQ4 adds some hardware (that I don't think I can talk about) to make this experience even better.
The new thing is the ability to do full raw file transfer to Capture One on a Mac/PC.
-
The IQ4 can create its own Ad Hoc Wifi network or join an existing network. An iOS device running Capture Pilot can log directly into the IQ4. No computer required.
Note that this is Capture Pilot (wireless review/control) which is different than Wireless Tethering (direct raw, or JPG, transfer to computer). The IQ2 and IQ3 backs could do Capture Pilot (without computer) while the IQ4 can do both Capture Pilot and Wireless Tethering.
I encourage you to keep an open mind about the speed that P1 will accomplish with this. It will definitely not be as fast as USB-C but:
- This is not an optional add-on wifi accessory or a 3rd party wireless device. This is natively P1 from start to finish. Phase One controls the entire pipeline end-to-end and can optimize each step in the chain
- Capture One math is used in both places and the processor in the IQ4 is very fast so there are plenty of ways P1 could make some shortcuts (e.g. sending a preview generated by the on-board processor ahead of the raw for faster time-to-screen) to improve the user experience
- Phase One uses a different data path for their tethering than most (all?) other camera companies. It is compressed on the fly and sent directly from the working memory.
- Phase One owns great IP for raw file compression. The IIQ-S raw file size of the IQ4 150mp is ~80mb which is only ~35% larger than a Canon 5Ds R raw file.
- Phase One knows that a large percentage of their users tether and will buy more cameras if wireless tethering works well. For commodity camera makers tethering is only a very small percentage of their user base.
- For fastest possible performance you could shoot raw to card and JPG to computer. Again, both files are being created and managed by the same Capture One math in both back and computer, so the look will be the same. Also, the data path here is also direct from working memory to both places simultaneously rather than first going to card and then being queued to go via wireless.
Phase One has had this since the IQ2 in 2013. The IQ4 adds some hardware (that I don't think I can talk about) to make this experience even better.
The new thing is the ability to do full raw file transfer to Capture One on a Mac/PC.
Thank you!
-
Hi, any news about HDMI output? It would be great to have a higher resolution than the 1080 p30 of the IQ3100 and to be able to move the 100% magnification point away from the center if needed. I often use a Smallhd monitor with 1920p resolution for focusing.
Kind regards
Wolfgang.
-
Hi, any news about HDMI output? It would be great to have a higher resolution than the 1080 p30 of the IQ3100 and to be able to move the 100% magnification point away from the center if needed. I often use a Smallhd monitor with 1920p resolution for focusing.
HDMI Out is there. No internal video features at launch, but you could use an external monitor and/or external recorder if desired, on day one.
The hardware components and the processing power of the Infinity Platform would allow some pretty great video features via future feature update if there is enough demand. Maybe you could speak to what use-cases you have and what kinds of video features would be most important to you? As you know a ton of the work is in building the platform and adding features/interfaces on top of that is the (relatively) easy part, so feedback (especially from current/knowledgeable owners like you) on where to take this system in the near future is highly valuable.
I've heard R+D float the spec for hardware limits for video on the sensor and platform. It's much better than the IQ3. But I think they are still tweaking and testing, so for now I will refrain from providing a spec.
-
Interesting (though quite biased) read on suited lenses for 150MP (3.76 micron pixel size)
Lenses for 150MP (http://phaseoneiq4.com/lenses-for-150-megapixels/)
and
Preparation for 150MP (http://phaseoneiq4.com/how-phase-one-prepared-for-150mp/)
and this one
Shoot-Out (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/medium-format-lens-shoot-out/)
-
Hi,
Absolutely no 100 MP sensor with BSI. Sensor development is very expensive, the chance that Sony would develop a 100 MP sensor with BSI is nil. Two new sensors, 150 MP at 54x41 mm and 100 MP at 44x33 mm. MFD is a tiny market.
If you don't want 150 MP and need BSI, you can wait for the 100 MP 44x33 mm sensor. That would have a crop factor, but offer more movement and BSI is somewhat helpful in reducing pixel level vignetting and cross talk.
But, we don't know what Phase is planning on 44x33 mm. Time will show.
It is entirely possible that Phase One would go to another vendor and have them design a new sensor. Leica did with the S (type 007). I don't think it is probable, but time will show.
The shrinking of the pixels is not just a race for megapixels. For a given technology there is an optimum pixel size and that shrinks with narrower design rules. The 150 MP and 100 MP (44x33) sensor have the same pixel size, so Sony probably pretty much reuses the same pixel design for both. That saves a lot of design work.
Best regards
Erik
Something else I am wondering, is there any evidence that they are working on getting the BSI technology into a lower MP (but still full framed) sensor?
I realize there a lot of landscape (f/64 club) shooters out there and rich hobbyists buying these cameras that put a big emphasis on higher mega-pixel, for different reasons, but, for us commercial shooters, we really just don't care. (I mean no knock on landscape shooters.).
I have not had a serious conversation with any other commercial shooter about resolution in like 6 or 7 years, which is about when clients stopped asking us about the resolution of our files since all cameras gave them a file size that was usable for their needs. The 100 MP offering seemed overkill to me, and nearly every other commercial shooter I spoke to, even clients, and this 151 MP is just insane.
About a year ago I was shooting a penthouse in Manhattan and my assistant, who just started with me, asked if I can use the fact that I shoot with a high mega-pixel back as an additional selling point for my services. My response was, "no, nobody cares anymore about MP." My client was standing right next to me during this and he looked at my assistant and said, "yeah, nobody cares anymore."
At the end of day, most of us commercial shooters just want a camera that we can use in the style that is best suited for us with little obstacles in the way. I realize for landscape photographers, this may mean better ISO performance (taking downsizing into account) to allow for faster shutter speeds to freeze movement. For me though, this means shooting on a tech camera and not having to think about whether or not lens cast will be a issue with the amount of shift/tilt I am using. And I also don't want to be carrying around giant Rodenstock lenses that weigh up to 2 pounds, take up a lot more room then my symmetrical lenses, and have an unique mustache distortion meaning I need to record my shifts for each image.
-
I have to wonder if any improvements in lens cast from the BSI is canceled out by a much smaller pixel. And why can't they get BSI in a 100 mp (which would probably work better).
Although I have read Doug's responses to this, and looked at the interesting link he provides, I was somewhat surprised at how subdued his response was. I have long been fascinated with the fact that these backs, which cost more than some sports cars, don't cater to the professionals who use technical cameras. In raising that question in the past, I remember experts replying: "just wait; once BSI backs come out, the angular response problem will be solved." So when I read the announcement of the BSI backs, I expected threads such as this one to be more of a celebration among tech camera users. What am I missing? Thanks.
-
Although I have read Doug's responses to this, and looked at the interesting link he provides, I was somewhat surprised at how subdued his response was. I have long been fascinated with the fact that these backs, which cost more than some sports cars, don't cater to the professionals who use technical cameras. In raising that question in the past, I remember experts replying: "just wait; once BSI backs come out, the angular response problem will be solved." So when I read the announcement of the BSI backs, I expected threads such as this one to be more of a celebration among tech camera users. What am I missing? Thanks.
Take this as:
1) Phase One (corporate) has traditionally provided limited guidance on use with 3rd party hardware, differing to its dealer channel since we sell both P1 and Cambo/Arca/Schneider/Arca (and other dealers sell Alpa, Sinar, Linhof, etc).
2) We believe in testing hands-on before making strong statements.
All indications are that the BSI IQ4 150mp will provide significant improvements for tech camera users. But I'll believe it and describe it aggressively when I have a load of raw file testing to stand behind it.
-
All indications are that the BSI IQ4 150mp will provide significant improvements for tech camera users. But I'll believe it and describe it aggressively when I have a load of raw file testing to stand behind it.
Makes sense. Thanks.
-
The sensor of the IQ4 100 Tr. is the same as the one in the IQ3 100 Tr
Correct
This means the improved LiveView is at the back rather than the sensor. Or does the IQ4 have 100 Tr. a worse LiveView than the 150 MPix. Versions?
The IQ4 100mp Trichromatic will have meaningfully better live view image quality, speed, and response-rate than the IQ3 100mp Trichromatic. They use the same sensor but the processing power of the IQ4 allows better use of that sensors live view feed.
The IQ4 150mp will have modestly better live view image quality, speed, and response rate than the IQ4 100mp Trichromatic because the sensor itself does have a modestly higher data rate.
-
Thanks for the information Doug,
I had an external 7 "Field Monitor with PixelPeeking connected via HDMI, I was surprised how much better / faster the display was, the back is sometimes very sluggish and does not respond to touch, I hope that will be better with IQ4.
Do you know if the IQ4 Back has more resolution / pixels than the IQ3 Back? Unfortunately, I could not find any specs.
Greeting Gerd
-
I had an external 7 "Field Monitor with PixelPeeking connected via HDMI, I was surprised how much better / faster the display was, the back is sometimes very sluggish and does not respond to touch, I hope that will be better with IQ4.
Do you know if the IQ4 Back has more resolution / pixels than the IQ3 Back? Unfortunately, I could not find any specs.
The HDMI Out option from the IQ3 is also on the IQ4. I've heard R+D float the spec for hardware limits for the HDMI out. It's much better than the IQ3. But I think they are still tweaking and testing, and I don't know what the spec will be at launch, so for now I will refrain from providing a spec.
The LCD on the IQ4 is the same physical LCD on the IQ3. But the processing power and software stack are MUCH faster (10x more processing umph to draw on) and the math from Capture One is now being used for the internal processing, so the detail algorithms, sharpening, noise reduction, and color are all going to much more closely match what you see in Capture One.
The increased processing power should provide a MUCH smoother, faster, and more responsive experience during image review. Think original iPhone to iPhone X in terms of overall responsiveness; you probably don't remember how laggy the original iPhone was in the same way that the IQ1 felt pretty snappy when it was first released. Expectations increase over time and a ~6 second app-launch time to launch Maps on the original iPhone now feels super slow. We'll be testing the IQ4 review speed and responsiveness as soon as we get the beta unit; as with any beta the performance is likely still being tweaked, but should still give a generally useful indication/preview of the final shipping product. I expect very good results of that testing, but as they say: Trust but Verify!
-
I would also be curious to see an ISO sweep test where the files are reduced by 2/3s in resolution, so 151 MP to ~50 MP, and then compare noise at 100% afterwards. Maybe capture the images in a somewhat dark interior where a fair amount of shadow pushing is needed.
Probably best to do this on a tech camera as well, since the lens cast correction does add a bit of noise too.
At the end of the day, if I purchased a back with this much resolution, I would almost never actually deliver the full res files unless asked. So if after the reduction the difference is negligible, it would be a great plus for capturing people in spaces, especially with the use of a CF on the lens.
-
I'm unclear of something - the XF body is unchanged - is that right?
It's not called 'XF2' or anything, so..?
-
I'm unclear of something - the XF body is unchanged - is that right?
It's not called 'XF2' or anything, so..?
Yes it has not changed. It's new IQ4 Digital backs, not a change in the camera body.
-
I would also be curious to see an ISO sweep test where the files are reduced by 2/3s in resolution, so 151 MP to ~50 MP, and then compare noise at 100% afterwards. Maybe capture the images in a somewhat dark interior where a fair amount of shadow pushing is needed.
We will capture and share the raw files. You can upres/downres/noise-reduce/treat however suits to test for your needs.
A contrasty scene is definitely a must. ISO sweeps without dark shadow detail is pretty useless.
-
I’m slating out our tests now. Any specific requests other than iso sweeps, aperture sweeps, and tech cam lenses?
-
We will capture and share the raw files. You can upres/downres/noise-reduce/treat however suits to test for your needs.
A contrasty scene is definitely a must. ISO sweeps without dark shadow detail is pretty useless.
+1
If you test out the SK 35mm or Roddie 32mm, would you be able to shoot tests with and without the center filter. (I realize that you may not have the CFs, but if you do, that would be a great help.)
-
Direct tech lens comparison between the 100 and 150 back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Direct tech lens comparison between the 100 and 150 back.
Yes and direct ISO comparison between those two. 100/100, 200/200, 400/400 etc.
Thanks
-
Hi Doug,
Great job distributing and answering questions on the plethora of information that Phase One generated this week!
I'm interested in obtaining color value comparisons between the trichromatic back and the new 150 MP back, (straight out of the camera without profiling) using spectrometer measured values of a Colorchecker SG chart or similar. (This would be a useful metric for me as it relates to the capture of fine art.)
Thanks!
Rich Klahne
www.jetart.biz
-
Looks like BSI may make a difference, quite a bit. This from another site, but pretty telling.
For Technical cameras, this back will be significant.
Impressive just for the 23mm HR Rodenstock. More testing needed for sure.
-
I’m now anxious to test my 35 and 60 xl’s.
Dave
-
Looks like BSI may make a difference, quite a bit.
Yes, indeed. May give new a live to those Schneider Digitar lenses.
-
Yes, indeed. May give new a live to those Schneider Digitar lenses.
Do remember that some of the Schneiders also already struggled with sharpness with ~60mp backs. The 35XL for example was somewhat mushy at 10mm of shift.
I'm interested to see how the 60XL does. We will be testing as soon as we have a beta unit of the IQ4 150mp.
-
Doug, do you have a Schneider 43 APO Digitar to test by any chance? It doesn’t seem to get mentioned very often but I would be curious to see how it performed on the IQ4 150. Really looking forward to seeing how the 60 XL performs!
-
Doug, do you have a Schneider 43 APO Digitar to test by any chance? It doesn’t seem to get mentioned very often but I would be curious to see how it performed on the IQ4 150. Really looking forward to seeing how the 60 XL performs!
Yes. We have this lens and will include in testing.
-
Do remember that some of the Schneiders also already struggled with sharpness with ~60mp backs. The 35XL for example was somewhat mushy at 10mm of shift.
I'm interested to see how the 60XL does. We will be testing as soon as we have a beta unit of the IQ4 150mp.
At full res, I would be a little hesitant about the SK lenses. However, I just did a test with the scale set at 60%, giving you an approximately 53 MP PSD file. This looked pretty nice in PS, appeared to have better DoF and overall sharper appearance. This was with C1 doing no sharpening in the reduction too. (I have always found the reduction in C1 to be less then great when compared to PS bicubic sharper reduction.)
-
Do remember that some of the Schneiders also already struggled with sharpness with ~60mp backs. The 35XL for example was somewhat mushy at 10mm of shift.
I'm interested to see how the 60XL does. We will be testing as soon as we have a beta unit of the IQ4 150mp.
You are very right. The 35XL just isn't up to the task of 10mm shifts. I've gotten around that by only using some rise (hopefully not more than 8mm) and then panning to achieve the horizontal equivalent of shifting. That keeps everything sharp and the stitching is fairly straightforward. The 35XL is not the Rody 32 and never will be.
Victor
-
Do remember that some of the Schneiders also already struggled with sharpness with ~60mp backs. The 35XL for example was somewhat mushy at 10mm of shift.
Only have the 210mm f/5.6 Apo Digitar T Schneider.
-
Your 210mm Schneider should easily shift to 15mm if it's anything like my 180mm Digitar. However it has been my experience that with any lens I have ever tested including the revered Rody 90mm SW when you get into the area of 15mm there is always a price to pay with regards to sharpness. Pick your poison - sometimes panning is the much better solution.
Victor
-
Hi Doug,
I'd like to know what the 16 bit raw file size is for the IQ4 150 MP back and how quickly these raw files can be transferred to Capture One via wireless tethering. Can this wireless transfer be configured to occur automatically once a new raw file is available? Can an in camera capture be initiated via this wireless interface as well?
Thanks,
Rich
www.jetart.biz
-
I'd like to know what the 16 bit raw file size is for the IQ4 150 MP back and how quickly these raw files can be transferred to Capture One via wireless tethering. Can this wireless transfer be configured to occur automatically once a new raw file is available? Can an in camera capture be initiated via this wireless interface as well?
Depending on image content:
IIQ-L 16 Bit: 150-180 MB
IIQ-S: 80-120 MB
The wireless tethering is just like tethering by USB-C or Ethernet. You can control the camera, use live view, or capture from the computer. The image is transferred to the computer immediately after capture. Various methods will be used to get an image on screen as quickly as possible; since Phase One is in control of the entire pipeline (hardware, firmware, wireless connection, and Capture One) we expect it to be good. However: 1) the time-to-screen time is not yet set as they are still working on this part of the system and 2) it will not be as fast as USB-C or Ethernet.
We will have boring-but-useful videos showing the speed of shooting one or many frames as soon as the launch firmware is ready. Right now we're on prototype firmware which is not yet fine-tuned for performance.
-
Shouldn’t there also be a huge difference between Ethernet and USB? As The former tops out at around 100 and USB-C goes Newley up to 500 in speed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
@ Doug
I’m interested in a comparison between one of the trichromatic backs and the IQ4 150 when it comes to LCC behavior but I’m also interested in a comparison when it comes to Chromatic Aberration and purple fringing. It’s visible on the chimney to the left in the “Nyhavn Day” sample pic and I really despise it!
-
@ Doug
I’m interested in a comparison between one of the trichromatic backs and the IQ4 150 when it comes to LCC behavior but I’m also interested in a comparison when it comes to Chromatic Aberration and purple fringing. It’s visible on the chimney to the left in the “Nyhavn Day” sample pic and I really despise it!
The CA in that image does seem to be properly removed when you use [...] Analyze in the Lens Correction tool. But I agree some comparisons for this should go in our testing regiment when we have a ready-to-test back.
-
Looks like BSI may make a difference, quite a bit. This from another site, but pretty telling.
For Technical cameras, this back will be significant.
Impressive just for the 23mm HR Rodenstock. More testing needed for sure.
According to Doug, this test was run without the center filter on the 23HR, to me making the results even more dramatic since the main issue with the IQ4 150 seems to be more about density fall off and not color cast. With a center filter the the fall off will be greatly reduced.
-
According to Doug, this test was run without the center filter on the 23HR, to me making the results even more dramatic since the main issue with the IQ4 150 seems to be more about density fall off and not color cast. With a center filter the the fall off will be greatly reduced.
Agreed.
Though I'd want to test to make sure the center filters are of sufficient optical clarity as to not meaningfully reduce sharpness at 150mp. I have no reason to think they won't hold up, but I don't like to make assumptions.
Either way (with or without center filter) the increased utility of this lens on the IQ4 150mp vs IQ3 100mp seems marked based on this first test.
-
Can’t wait for some more testing. Higher ISO and 50 through 400 with some push.
Surprised the 23 was tested over the 32mm rodie. That lens has benefits with the CF also especially on shifts.
Paul C
-
Can’t wait for some more testing. Higher ISO and 50 through 400 with some push.
Surprised the 23 was tested over the 32mm rodie. That lens has benefits with the CF also especially on shifts.
Paul C
They did also test the 32mm but did so with no movements. I have no idea why they would show 'tech cam tests' with no movements.
Doug - can i ask you to test the 32mm and push it hard.
I often find myself in portrait mode with 15 -20mm of fall and 10-15 mm of shift.
You'll hit the disc but I'd really like to see how it's performing when pushed like this.
I don't believe I've seen tests like this for any lenses (ever). Usually they stay to conservative movements so it doesn't really show where the 'real' limits are.
In my mind. How this back performs will make or break the viability of tech systems with ever increasing pixel density vs the smaller format system....or the older cropped sensors.
Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk
-
We've posted a new article with a quick summary of the 32HR and 23HR test performed in Denmark. If you've already downloaded and examined those raw files the only new thing in this article is that we published the 23HR + 100mp Raw file (P1 only published the 150mp raw files) for direct comparison. If you didn't get a chance to look at those raws then our article (I hope) provides a succinct visual summary.
You can download all raws at the bottom of the article.
This is just the very start of the testing you should expect. This test was done in Denmark by Phase One itself and there is much that I would (and will be) doing differently in DT's testing in the US, such as including other backs, lenses, and movement combination. That said, it's a darn good start and the results are extremely promising.
Phase One IQ4 150mp vs 100mp 32HR and 23HR raw files (https://phaseoneiq4.com/phase-one-iq4-150mp-tech-camera-raw-files/)
-
They did also test the 32mm but did so with no movements. I have no idea why they would show 'tech cam tests' with no movements.
Doug - can i ask you to test the 32mm and push it hard.
I often find myself in portrait mode with 15 -20mm of fall and 10-15 mm of shift.
You'll hit the disc but I'd really like to see how it's performing when pushed like this.
Yes. Absolutely.
I don't believe I've seen tests like this for any lenses (ever).
I recall all of our previous tech camera tests including the hard disk, but our tests are typically pretty massive (many many GB of data) so you may have missed those files. If you live in the US, it's pretty effective to make an appointment to come to our office or screen share with one of our techs, who can walk you through the huge inventory of test files to see what you find important.
-
Yes. Absolutely.
I recall all of our previous tech camera tests including the hard disk, but our tests are typically pretty massive (many many GB of data) so you may have missed those files. If you live in the US, it's pretty effective to make an appointment to come to our office or screen share with one of our techs, who can walk you through the huge inventory of test files to see what you find important.
Thanks Doug. I must have missed those.
I'm in Canada...west coast so a while away from you guys.
I think the key is a rise/fall and a shift combo to really stretch the angles of the light hitting the sensor wells.
This new back is interesting but like so many others I was hoping (read dreaming wistfully) for a midway chip (50-100mps) for the tech cams and other commercial guys that don't need 100 or 150.
I'll be interested to see how these little pixels really do perform when pushed hard.
Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk
-
Does that mean that there will be no more 33x44 offerings from Phase One?
I’m guessing not. Cameras like the Fuji GFX 50s with its quality and price point, have pretty much shoved them out of that market, I would think.
Rand
-
We've posted a new article with a quick summary of the 32HR and 23HR test performed in Denmark. If you've already downloaded and examined those raw files the only new thing in this article is that we published the 23HR + 100mp Raw file (P1 only published the 150mp raw files) for direct comparison. If you didn't get a chance to look at those raws then our article (I hope) provides a succinct visual summary.
You can download all raws at the bottom of the article.
This is just the very start of the testing you should expect. This test was done in Denmark by Phase One itself and there is much that I would (and will be) doing differently in DT's testing in the US, such as including other backs, lenses, and movement combination. That said, it's a darn good start and the results are extremely promising.
Phase One IQ4 150mp vs 100mp 32HR and 23HR raw files (https://phaseoneiq4.com/phase-one-iq4-150mp-tech-camera-raw-files/)
Is it possible to also have 150MB Achromatic files if any?
-
I’m guessing not. Cameras like the Fuji GFX 50s with its quality and price point, have pretty much shoved them out of that market, I would think.
Rand
Their own pricing strategy and marketing has removed Phase from this market. Hassy are still there, making good money from the crop-sensor X1D.
Edmund
-
Hi Doug,
Are results of your shifting/color cast tests in already?
thanks,
geb
-
Are results of your shifting/color cast tests in already?
Unfortunately not yet. The pre-production units that we've used in NYC, LA, and Texas have not had tech-camera shooting enabled in firmware yet. They are still wrapping up the code for the improved dark-frame feature, so the firmware on the pre-production units only works on the XF.
We're still committed to doing our usual deep dive into this topic with the IQ4. We are expecting a new-and-improved pre-production unit with newer firmware in time for Photo Plus Expo here in NYC the week of October 23. Hopefully that unit will have all features enabled and allow us to shoot on a tech camera.
I'm highly optimistic based on the little testing we were able to do (mounting to a tech camera and using Live View to examine the color cast on the digital back LCD) but definitely want to run extensive testing using a production unit before I remove the caveats.
-
Meant to ask, has the Live View output via the HDMI port to an external monitor been improved over the less than stellar design of the IQ3? With the IQ3, the Live View can be sent to an external monitor, but you can only view the center of the frame and have no ability to move around the image.
With all the great high nit monitors out there in the 5.5 and 7.5 size, just wondering if P1 improved the Live View viewing via HDMI with the IQ4?
Paul C
-
Meant to ask, has the Live View output via the HDMI port to an external monitor been improved over the less than stellar design of the IQ3? With the IQ3, the Live View can be sent to an external monitor, but you can only view the center of the frame and have no ability to move around the image.
With all the great high nit monitors out there in the 5.5 and 7.5 size, just wondering if P1 improved the Live View viewing via HDMI with the IQ4?
Yes. Huge improvements to HDMI:
- can zoom to 100% or zoom to fit
- can place the 100% review anywhere in frame
- better overall video quality/smoothness
- optional live histogram
- optional live RAW histogram
- optional live RAW clipping indicator
- optional readout of the menu system (mostly useful for classes/instruction)
-
What is the resolution of the video output on HDMI? Is it configurable, or fixed?
-
Yes. Huge improvements to HDMI:
- can zoom to 100% or zoom to fit
- can place the 100% review anywhere in frame
- better overall video quality/smoothness
- optional live histogram
- optional live RAW histogram
- optional live RAW clipping indicator
- optional readout of the menu system (mostly useful for classes/instruction)
thanks Doug, have to reconsider things a bit.
Paul C
-
What is the resolution of the video output on HDMI? Is it configurable, or fixed?
As of last time I checked with R+D the final launch spec for the HDMI res and framerate was still TBD.
-
Thanks. I have both a small OLED monitor and EVF I use for video stuff that could be very useful if the HDMI output is decent.