Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: bjanes on January 24, 2014, 10:30:30 am
-
Phase One has finally managed to offer a CMOS sensor with the IQ250 and DXO (if they test the camera) will rank it first in their sensor database, above the D800e which has held the championship title since it became available.
The IQ250 has 50MP, but this is not significantly greater than the 36 MP of the Nikon. The IQ250 sensor at 33mm x 44 mm is less than medium format full frame but offers 1.68 times the sensor area of the 24mm x 36mm sensor of the D800e. From these dimensions, I calculate that the IQ sensor is 6124 x 8165 pixels, or 1.24 times the linear picture height of the D800e. The aspect ratio of the IQ250 would result in less wasted megapixels for a 16 x 24 inch print. If Sony obtains the same performance from the new sensor as with the D800e sensor, this should result in a gain of 0.75 f/stops. The engineering DR of the D800e is 13.4 EV and the predicted DR of the IQ250 would be just above 14 stops, consistent with the DR stated in the PhaseOne announcement.
The IQ250 will cost US $34,900 and the D800e lists for $2,997 at B&H. Does this increased performance warrant the 1160% cost differential between the two cameras? It will for some perfectionists with a large pocketbook, but probably not for most users.
Discussion is welcome.
Bill
-
Would be interesting to know what the sensor pricing is. Since Sony is selling to so many players maybe someone could get hold of some semi-public figure. My guess is that the cost of the sensor itself to the manufacturer is $2500-$3500 or so.
As I said in a different thread Phase One is not about providing good price/performance, it's about providing the best and then charge a lot for it for the customers that can afford it. If you want medium format CMOS there's actually no other alternative at this point, and Phase One has been good at being first with the latest, and also provide quite sweet upgrade deals with better pricing. So if you want to stay in the forefront of image quality, Phase One is the system to invest in. That's what they want you to think, and I think they do a quite good job in delivering.
-
Judging imaging technology by numbers will get one nowhere.
Why not shoot two pictures with each tool by yourself and reach your own conclusions?
-
Judging imaging technology by numbers will get one nowhere.
Why not shoot two pictures with each tool by yourself and reach your own conclusions?
Some of my favorite quotes (http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/#meas) from Lord Kelvin:
"To measure is to know."
"If you can not measure it, you can not improve it."
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]
"The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught."
I would say that physical measurements can tell quite a lot about the performance of imaging systems. However, the final arbiter must come from examination of large prints. The studies should be double blind so as to avoid subjective impressions, perhaps embellished by proponents of the two systems.
I do not have access to the IQ250 but perhaps others can perform such testing, but I am not holding my breath for such a study to appear anytime soon. Of course, the PhaseOne proponents will say that the IQ blows away the D800e just as they previously stated that MFDBs have an additional 5 stops DR over FF 35 mm.
Regards,
Bill
-
I would say that physical measurements can tell quite a lot about the performance of imaging systems. However, the final arbiter must come from examination of large prints.
Hi Bill,
I agree, and have therefore added the IQ250 to the pre-selectable sensors in my (DOF) Output Quality Planning Tool (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/dofplan/dofplan.html). The settings should probably also allow to already predict Hasselblad (not in multi-shot mode) and Pentax image quality.
I do not have access to the IQ250 but perhaps others can perform such testing, but I am not holding my breath for such a study to appear anytime soon. Of course, the PhaseOne proponents will say that the IQ blows away the D800e just as they previously stated that MFDBs have an additional 5 stops DR over FF 35 mm.
Not to mention 'CCD color' and 3-dimensional rendering by CCDs. This is going to be fun...
Cheers,
Bart
-
just as they previously stated that MFDBs have an additional 5 stops DR over FF 35 mm.
6 stops, 6 !!!
-
"To measure is to know."
To know what to measure is a good measure of what we know.
-
Some of my favorite quotes (http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/#meas) from Lord Kelvin:
"To measure is to know."
"If you can not measure it, you can not improve it."
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]...
As an engineer by trade, I am naturally drawn to measurement, precision and accuracy. And these things can tell us a lot. But...it is also true that not everything important is measurable, and not everything that's measurable is important...
-
Hi,
That is a relevant question to ask. In a way I have been asked the same question regarding why I keep my Hasselblad and my P45+ as I don't find it really superior to my Sony cameras? That is a good question and I don't have a good answer to it. It is about me liking the camera and I'm pretty sure I'd miss it.
Interesting enough after 6 months and something like 1500 frames I still don't know what I feel about it, it is still a learning experience. I would definitively not buy the Hassy again, but it is also inprobable I would sell.
I am quite impressed by the IQ250, based on paper form and what Doug says. There are a couple of reasons I am not going to buy it. The foremost reason is I really cannot afford it, the other one is the crop factor, but that may be less of a factor if there is an adequate spectrum of lenses.
Would I have something like 50-60 k$US to spend I would buy it, with a technical camera and 4-5 lenses. But, for me as for many of us money is a finite resource. So no IQ250 for me.
Best regards
Erik
Phase One has finally managed to offer a CMOS sensor with the IQ250 and DXO (if they test the camera) will rank it first in their sensor database, above the D800e which has held the championship title since it became available.
The IQ250 has 50MP, but this is not significantly greater than the 36 MP of the Nikon. The IQ250 sensor at 33mm x 44 mm is less than medium format full frame but offers 1.68 times the sensor area of the 24mm x 36mm sensor of the D800e. From these dimensions, I calculate that the IQ sensor is 6124 x 8165 pixels, or 1.24 times the linear picture height of the D800e. The aspect ratio of the IQ250 would result in less wasted megapixels for a 16 x 24 inch print. If Sony obtains the same performance from the new sensor as with the D800e sensor, this should result in a gain of 0.75 f/stops. The engineering DR of the D800e is 13.4 EV and the predicted DR of the IQ250 would be just above 14 stops, consistent with the DR stated in the PhaseOne announcement.
The IQ250 will cost US $34,900 and the D800e lists for $2,997 at B&H. Does this increased performance warrant the 1160% cost differential between the two cameras? It will for some perfectionists with a large pocketbook, but probably not for most users.
Discussion is welcome.
Bill
-
Hi Bill,
I agree, and have therefore added the IQ250 to the pre-selectable sensors in my (DOF) Output Quality Planning Tool (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/dofplan/dofplan.html). The settings should probably also allow to already predict Hasselblad (not in multi-shot mode) and Pentax image quality.
Not to mention 'CCD color' and 3-dimensional rendering by CCDs. This is going to be fun...
Cheers,
Bart
I used your tool to determine the maximal print size at very high quality for the IQ250 and my D800e. The IQ250 produces such a print at 11.38 x 8.529 inches, whereas I can get only 10.08 x 6.28 inches from my Nikon
Bill
-
I used your tool to determine the maximal print size at very high quality for the IQ250 and my D800e. The IQ250 produces such a print at 11.38 x 8.529 inches, whereas I can get only 10.08 x 6.28 inches from my Nikon
Hi Bill,
Yes, from a resolution point of view it's not a huge difference, but anything beyond 10% can still be considered significant. There is of course more to it than resolution alone, but that is harder to plan (other than buying another camera). Changing a lens and stitch if additional resolution needed, is easier than changing the Bayer CFA characteristics ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
In my opinion there is no comparison between medium format and a full-frame 35mm camera. The Nikon D800 is a beast of a camera. Initially I was against it but now see its merits simply from a resolution / cost ratio and as being a compact modern AF camera with a wide range of lenses and an extremely high MP count. However there is much more to medium format. Medium format, to me is as much about the physical size of the sensor (and of course the pixel's themselves) as it is about the megapixel count. I find that larger sensors produce images which are special and uniquely different from an aesthetic standpoint then those created with smaller-sensored cameras. When I shoot my Nikon D4 or my Leica's I'm expecting different things from the camera then when I am shooting with my IQ180.
Medium format is as much about the shooting experience as it is about the performance of the camera in my opinion. And I think this is backed up by the fact that if you look at the current medium format camera's on the merits of their performance (outside of the imaging sensor) they are vastly inferior to some of the most basic sub-FF DSLR's! People still shoot them and pay for them. Clearly there is a market. Most of this market is probably due to the performance of the sensor and the caché (and of course technical attributes but thats not my point). A 50mp medium format sensor is catering to a vastly different market then any 35mm DSLR. period. If the IQ250 is as versatile as it seems to be on paper, then it will open up new worlds of possibility for medium format photographers, who again, are vastly different then 35mm full-photographers. There is no market convergence and the PhaseOne IQ250 and Nikon D800 are not competing.
-
I used your tool to determine the maximal print size at very high quality for the IQ250 and my D800e. The IQ250 produces such a print at 11.38 x 8.529 inches, whereas I can get only 10.08 x 6.28 inches from my Nikon
Bill
I think you're making the classic mistake of taking source data (or assumptions) that have fairly low resolution (and I'm speaking here much more generally than sensor resolution) and then popping out some numbers at the end that imply much finer resolution than the source data supports.
In this case, exactly what is the definition of "very high quality" for these prints? What's the difference between "very high quality" and "high quality"? What assumptions go into that definition? Would the average person be able to detect the difference in a Nikon print vs. the IQ250 if they were printed the same size? If they could, is it the resolution, or something else?
DPI is a very small part of what makes up "very high quality" print, in my experience at least.
Going back to my earlier post, there's a third statement: Things that are easily measured are often over valued.
-
Test and measure to your heart's content. For me, what I use isn't key to my work or my success, though at times, it does help. The most important aspect to me is the end product--web, print or publication.
If one is happy with the results and is successful, the method and the tools to get there are irrelevant. Few ever cared the brush used by Rembrant or the etching press used by Picasso. It's the final artwork that counts!
-
Hi,
If you check Bart's description you see that normal quality corresponds to 20/20 vision. He gives pretty good descriptions of the parameters used and those parameters are normally accepted standards for human vision. Properties of human vision are quite well known.
Best regards
Erik
I think you're making the classic mistake of taking source data (or assumptions) that have fairly low resolution (and I'm speaking here much more generally than sensor resolution) and then popping out some numbers at the end that imply much finer resolution than the source data supports.
In this case, exactly what is the definition of "very high quality" for these prints? What's the difference between "very high quality" and "high quality"? What assumptions go into that definition? Would the average person be able to detect the difference in a Nikon print vs. the IQ250 if they were printed the same size? If they could, is it the resolution, or something else?
DPI is a very small part of what makes up "very high quality" print, in my experience at least.
Going back to my earlier post, there's a third statement: Things that are easily measured are often over valued.
-
In this case, exactly what is the definition of "very high quality" for these prints? What's the difference between "very high quality" and "high quality"? What assumptions go into that definition? Would the average person be able to detect the difference in a Nikon print vs. the IQ250 if they were printed the same size? If they could, is it the resolution, or something else?
Hi Rich,
The tool is rather verbose about which assumptions are used for the different qualifications. The differences are significant enough to see the difference, of course assuming otherwise identical circumstances. For instance, the difference between "higher" and "very high" when viewed from 3 feet distance, is 60.68 x 45.48 inch output @ 136.5 PPI versus 34.67 x 25.99 inch output @ 238.9 PPI with identical visual resolution / quality from the same file, or 75% higher resolution / quality with the same output size.
When different cameras are being compared, then many other factors can become deciding factors. Skill in postprocessing different types of camera files is not unimportant for comparisons either, but the tool will neutralize the comparisons as far as resolution is concerned. One down, several more to go.
DPI is a very small part of what makes up "very high quality" print, in my experience at least.
Fuzzy prints can be as bad as fuzzy concepts, depending on the intended use of the image.
Going back to my earlier post, there's a third statement: Things that are easily measured are often over valued.
Or underestimated in their usefulness ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
DPI is a very small part of what makes up "very high quality" print, in my experience at least.
Going back to my earlier post, there's a third statement: Things that are easily measured are often over valued.
Rich,
From your misuse of DPI (a printer term), I surmise that you are not a tech guru even though you may be a successful photographer. :)
Best regards,
Bill
-
Medium format, to me is as much about the physical size of the sensor (and of course the pixel's themselves) as it is about the megapixel count.
Brian,
I look forward to your reporting on the new camera, merely to be informed about what high end tools are available and their functionality, even though I will never be in the market for MFDB.
BTW, what is so special about a MFDB pixel? Noise, DR, and color response can all be measured and what else are you evaluating? How does a MFDB pixel compare to that of your D4 and what differentiates them at the pixel level?
Bill
-
BTW, what is so special about a MFDB pixel? Noise, DR, and color response can all be measured and what else are you evaluating? How does a MFDB pixel compare to that of your D4 and what differentiates them at the pixel level?
Hi Bill,
We'll wait for Brian's report after he has actually used it himself, but one of the benefits of a physically larger sensor array is due to the improved MTF and resolution caused by a larger magnification factor for the same field of view (with a required longer focal length). Lens quality differences may mitigate or increase the distinction though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The price is saying two things: image quality is going to be at the same level than CCD; Phase One does not want to cannibalise its current customer base but is leaving the door open for someone else to substantially expand the current digital medium format market. This is potentially a big mistake.
Pier
-
Hi,
I have shot MFD for some months now, but I also shoot full frame and APS-C.
I don't think there is an easy answer. Personally, I don't see any MFD magic, but I am not the kind of person who believes in magic, takes much to persuade me. Some observations:
1) I cannot see difference in resolution/MTF/edge contrast in A2 size prints which is my normal printing size. That is consistent with Bart's tool
2) The Zeiss lenses I have for the Hasselblad can match my zoom lenses on the Sony at least in some areas.
3) The P45+ with 6.8 microns samples at 72 lp/mm while the Sony Alpha 99 samples at 83 lp/mm, not a lot of difference, and I dont't feel there is a lot of difference at the pixel level.
4) The P45+ has more pixels, and that is noticable
So the P45+ wins on resolution and edge contrast.
Regarding DR I feel that Sony Alpha has the upper hand over the P45+. The IQ 250 has probably a very similar sensor to the Alpha 99, but it has a larger area so it obviously wins.
Colour rendition is difficult issue to discuss. I am quite satisfied with colour rendition of my P45+ now, but it took some work to get there with my favourite raw converter LR5.3. Capture One was better out of the box.
So my take on the P45+ is: nice camera but no magic. I am pretty sure the IQ 250 is very nice back. A larger Exmoor sensor has better image quality than an smaller Exmoor all other parameters being equal, but probably no magic. If you add DoF to the mix it will be even more complicated.
Here are some of my latest observations and images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up
My experience is obviously based on the P45+, but I am pretty sure that the IQ 250 is a (even) better back.
Best regards
Erik
Brian,
I look forward to your reporting on the new camera, merely to be informed about what high end tools are available and their functionality, even though I will never be in the market for MFDB.
BTW, what is so special about a MFDB pixel? Noise, DR, and color response can all be measured and what else are you evaluating? How does a MFDB pixel compare to that of your D4 and what differentiates them at the pixel level?
Bill
-
The IQ250 has 50MP, but this is not significantly greater than the 36 MP of the Nikon.
Actually, the difference between 50 and 36mp is quite noticeable.
-
Hi Rich,
The tool is rather verbose about which assumptions are used for the different qualifications. The differences are significant enough to see the difference, of course assuming otherwise identical circumstances. For instance, the difference between "higher" and "very high" when viewed from 3 feet distance, is 60.68 x 45.48 inch output @ 136.5 PPI versus 34.67 x 25.99 inch output @ 238.9 PPI with identical visual resolution / quality from the same file, or 75% higher resolution / quality with the same output size.
I'm sorry, but defining the difference between high and very high with 4 significant digits just screams out that there are issues with the underlying assumptions.
When different cameras are being compared, then many other factors can become deciding factors. Skill in postprocessing different types of camera files is not unimportant for comparisons either, but the tool will neutralize the comparisons as far as resolution is concerned.
That's actually my point. The OP was making a value comparison based on resolution, but there is much more to the quality of a print than that. To base the maximum size of a high quality print out of each of the sensors based on resolution alone is just silly, IMO.
Fuzzy prints can be as bad as fuzzy concepts, depending on the intended use of the image.
"Quality" in the arts, even in photography, is a fuzzy concept. God help us if there ever comes a time when it isn't, it will mean that we are no longer human.
Or underestimated in their usefulness ...
I guess that's possible, but it's very much the minority case. :)
-
Rich,
From your misuse of DPI (a printer term), I surmise that you are not a tech guru even though you may be a successful photographer. :)
Best regards,
Bill
Sorry I grabbed the wrong acronym. :) I am a tech guru, but only in a limited field, which is most definitely not imaging.
The only photographic success I have is occasionally making a print I'm happy with. But that's enough for me. :)
-
The IQ250 will at least have one remarkable value, it adds a great data point for pixel peepers between high end DSLRs and backs.
Of course it is not perfect since the D800's sensor is at least 2.5 years older technology, the sensor is not as large as that of the IQ260 of (roughly) equal resolution,... but it will be fun to read about! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The price is saying two things: image quality is going to be at the same level than CCD
As long as people keep marching to the beat of Phase One they are going to keep on charging their premium prices or even increase them more...
IMO it has very little to do with image quality, although Phase One undeniably delivers that.
This back costs about $5-10K too much compared to other Phase offerings, leave alone compared to the competition…
One can only hope that the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica come up with some very strong competition...
-
As long as people keep marching to the beat of Phase One they are going to keep on charging their premium prices or even increase them more...
IMO it has very little to do with image quality, although Phase One undeniably delivers that.
This back costs about $5-10K too much compared to other Phase offerings, leave alone compared to the competition…
One can only hope that the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica come up with some very strong competition...
Nowadays, the main problem has become lenses. There is IMHO nothing in MF at Otus level, at least not among the Mamiya lenses line up, which leaves the technical camera lenses... and we don't know how well the CMOS will be working on those.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nowadays, the main problem has become lenses.
Exactly! In fact I am currently researching a 135 format wide angle lens (wider than 35mm) that is not soft at the edges and that does not show excessive field curvature and that does not show CAs on the A7R's sensor. Seems to be almost impossible to find a decent 28mm lens (except maybe the Schneider PC-TS Super-Angulon 4.5/28 ... ).
In the medium format world I have plenty of choices for a lens with the equivalent field of view with very good corner sharpness, no CAs and especially without disturbing field cuvature.
-
I'm sorry, but defining the difference between high and very high with 4 significant digits just screams out that there are issues with the underlying assumptions.
LOL Rich, you seem to be a person who is hard to please. First the classification is not exact enough, then the explanation is too exact ...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Exactly! In fact I am currently researching a 135 format wide angle lens (wider than 35mm) that is not soft at the edges and that does not show excessive field curvature and that does not show CAs on the A7R's sensor. Seems to be almost impossible to find a decent 28mm lens (except maybe the Schneider PC-TS Super-Angulon 4.5/28 ... ).
In the medium format world I have plenty of choices for a lens with the equivalent field of view with very good corner sharpness, no CAs and especially without disturbing field cuvature.
Ah yes... I stitch with an Otus for wide things. That pretty much makes the best wides look like Ukrenian crap. I am yet to find cases in my applications where high quality corners are required and stitching not applicable. ;)
When corners are not an issue I am yet to find something better than my 24mm f1.4 in terms of subject isolation/sharpness/look ratio on wide glass.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It doesn't make much sense to solely compare the sensors.
If you buy, you buy into a system - with lenses.
Larger sensor real estate helps getting the SQF up in the end and it puts less stress on the lenses.
This has nothing to do with the sensors resolution difference.
You can get incredibly good images from 8x10" film with crap glass, just because size matters.
In the end you'll need to compare prints at different sizes.
And I guess you'll need to print very large to see a significant difference between the IQ250 and the D800.
Apart from technical quality you should like the rendering style of the system.
Theres a reason why people like Leica and Zeiss glass.
I loved the softness of my Mamiya Sekor glass when I had my old Mamiya Press - but technically it was glass shards compared to modern standards.
I'm sure for everyone already owning a 645D+ and lenses the IQ250 is an interesting back,
opening a lot of use cases normally covered by FF cameras.
If this back is really an economically good investment is a complex question
depending on the individual situation of the photographers,
not something which allows simple answers.
-
I am yet to find cases in my applications where high quality corners are required and stitching not applicable. ;)
well, our needs are different, obviously. I do all kind of stitching, too... but sometimes it is simply not feasible.
When corners are not an issue I am yet to find something better than my 24mm f1.4.
for the Sony A7R there is the Zeiss ZA 2./24 with an A-Mount adapter. It's phenomenal in the center. It's also phenomenal at the edges. But "edges" really only applies to the foreground - the field curvature is so heavy it's completely useless for my needs. AFAIK it's the same with the Nikon 1.4/24mm.
-
well, our needs are different, obviously. I do all kind of stitching, too... but sometimes it is simply not feasible.
I agree, but in most cases where stitching does't apply corner performance is of secundary importance.
Out of curiosity, what are the cases in your work where stitching doesn't apply but corner performance is critical?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Out of curiosity, what are the cases in your work where stitching doesn't apply but corner performance is critical?
moving light
-
LOL Rich, you seem to be a person who is hard to please. First the classification is not exact enough, then the explanation is too exact ...?
Cheers,
Bart
Guess I wasn't clear in the first post. :) I don't have an issue with the inexact classification, quite the contrary. I think that's inherent in the subject (print quality) It was in defining print quality solely in terms of resolution, and inside that, defining "very high quality" so exactly.
My other issue (I have lots of them :)) is the underlying assumption in the OP that "value" is any sort of linear function. In virtually anything that last 10% of performance is very expensive to get.
The proper way to approach value is not via a linear function, but through the economic concept of marginal utility. Is the extra performance gained worth the extra cost? For a pro both sides of that equation are measured in the same units (money), so you can arrive at something close to an objective solution, but for an amateur where that utility takes the form of pleasure or happiness or...not so easy. In that case value is only known to that person, so any judgement by someone else on it is inherently based on incomplete data, and very likely wrong.
-
Hi,
My take is that Bart's tool is a good utility to calculate necessary resolution for print sizes under given conditions. I have often found that an image file was just incredibly better, but there was very little difference in the resulting print. It is really about being good enough, once an image has details under the threshold of human vision further improvements will not be visible. This of course assumes high quality images.
Personally I would say I cannot see differences between 39 MP and 24 MP in A2-size prints but I am inclined I would see such differences in 70x100 cm prints. In a recent video with Michael Reichmann and Ctein, Ctein said that 4/3 was good enough for A2 and he could achieve similar results to Pentax 67 with his 4/3 camera. Ctein has been called the best printer in the world by Kodak, so I guess he knows a thing or two about image quality.
Best regards
Erik
Guess I wasn't clear in the first post. :) I don't have an issue with the inexact classification, quite the contrary. I think that's inherent in the subject (print quality) It was in defining print quality solely in terms of resolution, and inside that, defining "very high quality" so exactly.
My other issue (I have lots of them :)) is the underlying assumption in the OP that "value" is any sort of linear function. In virtually anything that last 10% of performance is very expensive to get.
The proper way to approach value is not via a linear function, but through the economic concept of marginal utility. Is the extra performance gained worth the extra cost? For a pro both sides of that equation are measured in the same units (money), so you can arrive at something close to an objective solution, but for an amateur where that utility takes the form of pleasure or happiness or...not so easy. In that case value is only known to that person, so any judgement by someone else on it is inherently based on incomplete data, and very likely wrong.
-
The price is saying two things: image quality is going to be at the same level than CCD; Phase One does not want to cannibalise its current customer base but is leaving the door open for someone else to substantially expand the current digital medium format market. This is potentially a big mistake.
Pier
I don't know how you've come to this conclusion… usually pricing is irrelevant to IQ, I guess that it would be wise if they would introduce that as a P50+ at a much lower price. but then they seem to never introduce a new product in a previous line nor they name higher their basic products. They are "smart" in P1… they know that most of their customers will never know the difference, so they've introduced it as IQ2 series… Question is what the demand will be shortly, when H5D-50c will be announced and even Pentax 645-50 at much better prices selling practically the same product… Never the less, I've seen people buying Volvo at much higher price than the same Ford Focus better specified… IQ2 looks like a luxury product to some… Not related to photography of course, but P1 is good in building an image…. as I said before, they know that most of the customers will never know (or care about) the difference.
-
I admit it, if I really needed one enough to justify the price, I would have one of the new medium format kits in a heartbeat.
This new back (early days I know ;)) with real high ISO capability makes them even more desirable.
BUT
The 800e is just so awesome and cheap and light and easy to drag around - why bother with anything else ?
Ok, wide lenses could be improved some for 35mm DSLR's, but the stuff I get from my weightless and cheap 28 1.8 is not bad. ;)
Maybe if i win the lottery - ;D
-
moving light
Hum... in extremely rare cases yes. But 99.9% of the time a 3 shot stitch with a 50mm can be shot in a few seconds, before even changing light has changed significantly.
Anyway, we all have different needs and naturally converge to what's best, no doubt.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hum... in extremely rare cases yes. But 99.9% of the time a 3 shot stitch with a 50mm can be shot in a few seconds, before even changing light has changed significantly.
For example this image:
(http://tw.p1.spacequadrat.de/3619.jpg)
Looks as it's easily stitchable, doesn't it?
But… very fast moving dark clouds (no rain, by the way… just some end of the world atmosphere).
The sun is behind the camera, I've shot this straight with the light. Actually this was a completely dark scene ... but now and then the clouds moved so that the sun lit the building (and foreground). But only for a very short moment.
No way to do stitching in such a scene …
So... even if we talk about 99.9% (I think we talk about somewhat more percent, but anyway...) ... for this 0.1% I want to have a choice. Otherwise the image wouldn't exist (not that it matters in general... but to me personally it matters a lot ...)
BTW... this image took me months to capture. I've visited the place several times but again and again something simply wasn't "right". Finally there was this weather and this light ...
-
Some of my favorite quotes (http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/#meas) from Lord Kelvin:
"To measure is to know."
"If you can not measure it, you can not improve it."
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]
"The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught."
I would say that physical measurements can tell quite a lot about the performance of imaging systems. However, the final arbiter must come from examination of large prints. The studies should be double blind so as to avoid subjective impressions, perhaps embellished by proponents of the two systems.
I do not have access to the IQ250 but perhaps others can perform such testing, but I am not holding my breath for such a study to appear anytime soon. Of course, the PhaseOne proponents will say that the IQ blows away the D800e just as they previously stated that MFDBs have an additional 5 stops DR over FF 35 mm.
Regards,
Bill
Do you have a portfolio I could measure?
-
For example this image:
(http://tw.p1.spacequadrat.de/3619.jpg)
Looks as it's easily stitchable, doesn't it?
But… very fast moving dark clouds (no rain, by the way… just some end of the world atmosphere).
The sun is behind the camera, I've shot this straight with the light. Actually this was a completely dark scene ... but now and then the clouds moved so that the sun lit the building (and foreground). But only for a very short moment.
No way to do stitching in such a scene …
So... even if we talk about 99.9% (I think we talk about somewhat more percent, but anyway...) ... for this 0.1% I want to have a choice. Otherwise the image wouldn't exist (not that it matters in general... but to me personally it matters a lot ...)
BTW... this image took me months to capture. I've visited the place several times but again and again something simply wasn't "right". Finally there was this weather and this light ...
Intersting image, I understand the challenge.
It doesn't seem very wide though, what focal length did you use?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Stitching might not work because you simply don't like to stitch. I stitched a lot with my DSLR but stopped with my tech cam. In many/most cases stitching would work, with a good head mad for stitching you can stitch fast and moving light is rarely a problem, but I simply like capturing it all in one shot. Therefore I also use grads instead of multishot HDR when needed and possible.
Tech cam shooting for me is much about the shooting experience, completing the image in the camera with shifts and all and press the shutter once. I guess I am a bit nostalgic, but I like to keep the computer work to a minimum. I know I could stitch and reproject to cancel out the need of wides and shifting, but I still prefer to do it in camera.
As I've bought most stuff second hand the cost of my complete system with tech cam, 33MP digital back and six lenses is say $20K and I find that fairly reasonable for the quality I get. Buying new from Phase One is jst too expensive, if that was the only option I'd still shoot DSLR and be happy with that. And probably stitch more.
I think camera and lenses are okay, expensive but not to a crazy level. Digital back pricing is what makes MF crazy. But those that have a healthy business can pay and obviously enough of them do, Phase One is free to charge anything the want. I do doubt that the backs have to be this expensive though, a major part of the price is there because they can.
-
Hi,
I actually stitch more on MF than on DSLR, the main reason is that on DSLR I use zooms and can choose my crops while on the MF camera I have just a few primes. So I often stitch instead of going wider and cropping. As an example, if I need 100 mm and only have 120 and 80, I can use the 120 and get 41% more pixels or I can use the 80 and have 36% less pixels.
Another way to say it is that with the P45+ the 120mm/stitch will give me 56MP while the 80 mm/crop option will give me 24.9 MP. In which case I could use my Sony Alpha instead giving me 24MP. The example I mention is real world, I was shooting a relief in a church in the Dolomites and could neither move back or forth. I also wanted to use the 120 as it is well corrected for short distances.
The way I shoot I often cannot move back and forth, because i want to keep perspective and that changes by definition if one moves.
Best regards
Erik
Stitching might not work because you simply don't like to stitch. I stitched a lot with my DSLR but stopped with my tech cam. In many/most cases stitching would work, with a good head mad for stitching you can stitch fast and moving light is rarely a problem, but I simply like capturing it all in one shot. Therefore I also use grads instead of multishot HDR when needed and possible.
Tech cam shooting for me is much about the shooting experience, completing the image in the camera with shifts and all and press the shutter once. I guess I am a bit nostalgic, but I like to keep the computer work to a minimum. I know I could stitch and reproject to cancel out the need of wides and shifting, but I still prefer to do it in camera.
As I've bought most stuff second hand the cost of my complete system with tech cam, 33MP digital back and six lenses is say $20K and I find that fairly reasonable for the quality I get. Buying new from Phase One is jst too expensive, if that was the only option I'd still shoot DSLR and be happy with that. And probably stitch more.
I think camera and lenses are okay, expensive but not to a crazy level. Digital back pricing is what makes MF crazy. But those that have a healthy business can pay and obviously enough of them do, Phase One is free to charge anything the want. I do doubt that the backs have to be this expensive though, a major part of the price is there because they can.
-
Yes, that is why have more lenses than most, six now and I need two more before my system is "complete" :-). In that respect I'm probably not a typical user. But I think as soon as stitching comes into the picture the value of a tech cam and mf in all sinks like a stone.
-
Concerning this new cmos back it's a good starting point, but I don't think high iso shooting is a good mf application. Live view is the great advantage. Larger sensor size and good wide angle response is what needs to be added to make a really compelling offer in the longer term I think.
-
bit of an odd comparison really (d800/IQ250) if you were in the market for either i doubt you would consider them as options.
i'm more interested in cost v performance of Leica/Pentax/Phase/Hassleblad cameras all with the same Sony 50mp sensor, unless theres a 35mm camera with 45-50mpixels they wouldnt be in the running.
how about a Sony A7r canon 24-tse v d800 nikon 24mm-Pce plus samyang 24 cost/performance review? should be a meaningful test for all you landscape/architecture photographers to chew over.
-
how about a Sony A7r canon 24-tse v d800 nikon 24mm-Pce plus samyang 24 cost/performance review? should be a meaningful test for all you landscape/architecture photographers to chew over.
these comparisons are already being made. Phase one shows in their campaign the camera being used in typical dslr applications, so a comparison is unavoidable. I would have liked to see the improvements in a tech cam workflow in the campaign but they have obviously not even cared to test; doug need to test himself to answer our questions. This constant ignorance concerning tech cam use surprises me a bit.
-
Intersting image, I understand the challenge.
It doesn't seem very wide though, what focal length did you use?
yes, correct. The lens is 120mm. I posted this with regard to the light situation. But there are similar situations when I shoot with wides.
-
Nowadays, the main problem has become lenses. There is IMHO nothing in MF at Otus level, at least not among the Mamiya lenses line up, which leaves the technical camera lenses... and we don't know how well the CMOS will be working on those.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree: that is the reason the little sensor is surprising. When Hasselblad released the H5D they did two things:
1. They talk of how the camera is compatible with next generation sensors.
2. They release the 24mm lens that make me believe that they will continue with crop (the call them digital) sensors.
A big sensor of the same resolution stress the lens far less than a little one, I know that making a little good lens is simpler until a point, but in general the stress on the lens is less.
Nikon, Sony and Canon will come with sensors that will match or be close to the IQ250 resolution (if they use the D7100 sensor size tech will lead to 54MP they can go to 45 if they want to be conservative). But what lens will be able to resolve that?
In the other hand just going 48 x 36 mm with D800 size technology will give a 72MP back that a modern lens will be able to resolve.
A 48x36mm sensor will also have the proper size for Hasselblad and Sinar MS backs.
I hope that this first sensor is a step, that is, that new bigger sensors are coming. The fact that Hasselblad will deploy the MS capability with the 50 is not promising (short term).
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
A 44x33 sensor with a more attractive pricing would make sense, for say event and wedding photography. So let's wait and see what pricing strategy Hasselblad chooses. I think phase one's pricing ie making it almost as expensive as the 60 mp full frame does not make sense, but as the premium brand they have more room to do as they want.
-
"but as the premium brand"
? Leica.
? Vanityblad lunatic
-
"but as the premium brand"
? Leica.
? Vanityblad lunatic
Phase one has the most expensive digital backs (with a margin) with the latest technology. It's no doubt the premium brand among professionals for large sensor photography, otherwise their pricing strategy compared to the competition would be impossible. Vanityblad products is luxury goods for private individuals that want to show off, not professional photographers or serious amateurs.
-
Hi,
On the IQ 250 I neither like size (to small) nor the price tag (to large). Hard to make everyone satisfied ;-)
Best regards
Erik
A 44x33 sensor with a more attractive pricing would make sense, for say event and wedding photography. So let's wait and see what pricing strategy Hasselblad chooses. I think phase one's pricing ie making it almost as expensive as the 60 mp full frame does not make sense, but as the premium brand they have more room to do as they want.
-
A 44x33 sensor with a more attractive pricing would make sense, for say event and wedding photography. So let's wait and see what pricing strategy Hasselblad chooses. I think phase one's pricing ie making it almost as expensive as the 60 mp full frame does not make sense, but as the premium brand they have more room to do as they want.
Lets not forget Leaf… Part of the reason why P1 charges a premium on their backs is that Leafs have to be considerably cheaper… It's called "avoiding internal competition"...
-
Great news DMF on CMOS with great iso and LV.
But 1.3x crop for me don´t qualify it as DMF sensor at least 1.1x. For me 44x33mm Its a oversize 35mm sensor on a 645 MF body.
For me Medium Format its 6x6.5 6x6 6x7
In 1.3x crop format the DOF its almost the same as a 35mm and a price difference so huge that don't have a real edge...
But great news phase, congratulations !
Pedro
-
Nowadays, the main problem has become lenses. There is IMHO nothing in MF at Otus level, at least not among the Mamiya lenses line up, which leaves the technical camera lenses... and we don't know how well the CMOS will be working on those.
Cheers,
Bernard
you write what i just was thinking.
and there are more recent 35mm lens designs which are remarkable
and which dont find a real counterpart in mf: beside the new zeiss 35/2,8 and the 55/1,8 fe lenses also the canon 17&24tse lenses. they are a hard match for the rodenstock HR lenses. even and in some aspects they are better.
at all not a question of the size of a sensor, its the question of the relative size between lenses and sensors.
this size-believing is just a myth coming from the film days where large film meant less grain/resolution.
now the lenses decide which systems will be the better one and they are far more important for the final output than some pixels more or less from the sensor, which finally so rarely are needed. and btw. you can make amazing 150x200cm prints with 30 mp files, if the files are good quality ... and if the image content is it as well. none in any exhibition will complain about a miss of resolution ....
tho_mas:
try the voigtlander 20mm, the canon tse17 and 24, the zeiss 35mm fe on the sony and you might be surprised.
i havent seen any better wideangles in any format yet. doesnt matter the price point and i think i have tried or owned nearly all whats wide and expensive...
-
you write what i just was thinking.
and there are more recent 35mm lens designs which are remarkable
and which dont find a real counterpart in mf: beside the new zeiss 35/2,8 and the 55/1,8 fe lenses also the canon 17&24tse lenses. they are a hard match for the rodenstock HR lenses. even and in some aspects they are better.
at all not a question of the size of a sensor, its the question of the relative size between lenses and sensors.
this size-believing is just a myth coming from the film days where large film meant less grain/resolution.
now the lenses decide which systems will be the better one and they are far more important for the final output than some pixels more or less from the sensor, which finally so rarely are needed. and btw. you can make amazing 150x200cm prints with 30 mp files, if the files are good quality ... and if the image content is it as well. none in any exhibition will complain about a miss of resolution ....
+1...
-
Lets not forget Leaf… Part of the reason why P1 charges a premium on their backs is that Leafs have to be considerably cheaper… It's called "avoiding internal competition"...
Bingo!
-
you write what i just was thinking.
and there are more recent 35mm lens designs which are remarkable
and which dont find a real counterpart in mf: beside the new zeiss 35/2,8 and the 55/1,8 fe lenses also the canon 17&24tse lenses. they are a hard match for the rodenstock HR lenses. even and in some aspects they are better.
at all not a question of the size of a sensor, its the question of the relative size between lenses and sensor.
Yes. You can add to this list the Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 135mm f2.0,... for their technical qualities but what should worry MF more IMHO are lenses designed for their unique look like the nikon 58mm f1.4.
Look is the next frontier. Technical perfection is a lot cause, rendering will own that market within years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
tho_mas:
try the voigtlander 20mm, the canon tse17 and 24, the zeiss 35mm fe on the sony and you might be surprised.
Hi Rainer!
Many thanks for the suggestions!
My FE 2.8/35 has been shipped this week. This lens is really great! A bit hard to focus for best performance at the edges due to field curvature, but I'll get used to it. The sharpness across the image plane is nothing short of stunning.
Of course I do have the TS-E 24 on my list. Then again at this focal lentgh I actually don't need shift movements... but of course I could use it without shift (and it sure doesn't hurt being able to use some shift movements when needed sometime). What I am looking for is a stellar 28mm lens without field curvature (doesn't have to be fast ... f3.5 would do). For me personally also a 35mm shift lens would be great (maybe the old Contax PC Distagon 2.8/35mm or a Zörk Adapter with a Mamiya 35mm lens... but I doubt these are up to the task on the A7R sensor).
-
Then I'll bet you've never seen Phase One P40+/IQ140 output compared to your favorite Canon/Nikon/Sony "full frame" I can't speak to the IQ250 specifically, but I can personally speak about the P40+.
Seeing is believing.
Great news DMF on CMOS with great iso and LV.
But 1.3x crop for me don´t qualify it as DMF sensor at least 1.1x. For me 44x33mm Its a oversize 35mm sensor on a 645 MF body.
For me Medium Format its 6x6.5 6x6 6x7
In 1.3x crop format the DOF its almost the same as a 35mm and a price difference so huge that don't have a real edge...
But great news phase, congratulations !
Pedro
-
Phase One has finally managed to offer a CMOS sensor with the IQ250 and DXO (if they test the camera) will rank it first in their sensor database, above the D800e which has held the championship title since it became available.
The IQ250 has 50MP, but this is not significantly greater than the 36 MP of the Nikon. The IQ250 sensor at 33mm x 44 mm is less than medium format full frame but offers 1.68 times the sensor area of the 24mm x 36mm sensor of the D800e. From these dimensions, I calculate that the IQ sensor is 6124 x 8165 pixels, or 1.24 times the linear picture height of the D800e. The aspect ratio of the IQ250 would result in less wasted megapixels for a 16 x 24 inch print. If Sony obtains the same performance from the new sensor as with the D800e sensor, this should result in a gain of 0.75 f/stops. The engineering DR of the D800e is 13.4 EV and the predicted DR of the IQ250 would be just above 14 stops, consistent with the DR stated in the PhaseOne announcement.
The IQ250 will cost US $34,900 and the D800e lists for $2,997 at B&H. Does this increased performance warrant the 1160% cost differential between the two cameras? It will for some perfectionists with a large pocketbook, but probably not for most users.
Discussion is welcome.
Bill
None of the Top End Medium Format Digital solutions are high value items. That is a given. They do offer something different for those who want it, demand it, need it. And, one can really configure a MF Digital System for one's needs / wants. One can combine a Phase1 back with many different camera bodies and lenses. That is a big plus. Is it cheap? Obviously not.
-
the great thing with the a7r is exactly this you say for the phase back as well. you can use all lenses with 35mm mount on it which ever existed. so i would compare IQ250 against the sony a7r not the nikon. the sony is the new game maker ...
and it looks they have big plans,- as u can see in the fact they deliver the sensors to nikon and now to phase as well.
their lens devellopements und er the zeiss brand show that this is a long term plan behind them,- and they have the money to do that if they want !
my d800e and my canons are to sell now. as many lenses which i bought twice just for not being usable on the nikon.
i still go on using my artec and my leaf back, but honestly said : its not the better file quality which is letting me to go on to use it. the mf quality is good, i`d say its on par with the sony. the files are larger but this doesnt give me real benefit, too many images are in my exhibitions with 30+ mp, it doesnt matter if a few one have 60+ mb and,- as i wrote- i often show images with 5x7 ft, or something like this and usually they look great with the smaller files as well, often there is simply no way to use mf for weight and handling,- and which sense it makes to mix wildly resolutions in the same works or exhibitions?
and my paying clients? they never asked me for larger files as i gave them. sometimes they wanted some different views or what ever,- but never larger files. not before and not now.
-
Hi Rainer!
Many thanks for the suggestions!
My FE 2.8/35 has been shipped this week. This lens is really great! A bit hard to focus for best performance at the edges due to field curvature, but I'll get used to it. The sharpness across the image plane is nothing short of stunning.
Of course I do have the TS-E 24 on my list. Then again at this focal lentgh I actually don't need shift movements... but of course I could use it without shift (and it sure doesn't hurt being able to use some shift movements when needed sometime). What I am looking for is a stellar 28mm lens without field curvature (doesn't have to be fast ... f3.5 would do). For me personally also a 35mm shift lens would be great (maybe the old Contax PC Distagon 2.8/35mm or a Zörk Adapter with a Mamiya 35mm lens... but I doubt these are up to the task on the A7R sensor).
the best "normal" (retrofocal) mf lens with 35mm length was the pentax 35mm fa - as far i know. it can be used with a zoerk adapter on 35mm cameras of all brands. and ... here we go back to mf - the 35mm (or 40mm) HR from rodenstock,- which is the best you can buy. although they show some distortion, they shouldnt but they do ...
the contax distorts too much, the mamiya isnt very good. better as the pentax is ( and you will kill me for this idea ) the 24tse with the new canon 1.4 extender. its sharp enough to moiree with f8 the 36mp sony sensor,- at least if you have a good sample of it. as all lenses there is a wide variation,- some are good, some are bad, some are stunning.
and without shift ... the zeiss 35 fe is my new favourite. i exchanged also my first sample of it, three corners have been great ( with f2,8 ), the second sample now has all 4 sharp. with f2,8.
-
+1 on the Pentax 35mm FA. Used one for years on my Canons with the Zork. I was always surprised that it was discontinued and not brought forward when the Pentax 645D was shipped.
Paul
-
you will kill me for this idea
:-)
I will not. You are one of the few guys I blindly trust when it comes to lens recommendations in this field of photography.
I wasn't aware you can mount the TS-E on an extender. 24mm x1.4 (plus shift movements) would be a perfect lens for my needs.
Thanks again!
-
+1 on the Pentax 35mm FA. Used one for years on my Canons with the Zork. I was always surprised that it was discontinued and not brought forward when the Pentax 645D was shipped.
Paul
Well, the FA wasn't discontinued, (they just changed the production process for a few years - different glass, as I heard) and it is still listed here: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/645/wide/smcpentax-fa645-35/
I had both, the "A" and the newer "FA" version and kept the manual "A" version, because it was sharper on my HCAM with less field curvature.
And by the way, the 35mm FA is a good lens, but also a bit tricky.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/35577-comprehensive-testing-results-observations-pentax-645-lenses-used-645d.html
I noticed the same, including the “blur zone".
-
the extender adds some (moderate) simple curved barrel dist to the lens. easy to correct that for 100%. because the lens shifts and not the extender one profile to correct that is enough, even if shifted. and the 24tse is one of the best corrected wides i ever used.
and this combo is even better (sharper, nearly no CA, better less distortion ) than the pentax 35mm fa, i own both and compared them.
-
the extender adds some (moderate) simple curved barrel dist to the lens. easy to correct that for 100%. because the lens shifts and not the extender one profile to correct that is enough, even if shifted.
I assume you use the Apla Lens Corrector Plugin to do so?
-
it can be corrected with a any tool. its simple barrel distortion without curved corners.
its very rare that i correct distortion. mostly i choose the lens and system which renders the motif in the way i like to see it later.
if i have to correct persp., than i use the alpa tool sometimes. but i correct more my rodenstock HR wides than the canons.
these don't need correction i.m.o., just with such described combination. of course nothings perfect,
but they have less than 1% dist. and its really hard to get it visible. whats interesting - btw. - is the distortion in the center of the frames.
compare a building as the one you have shown in this tread above, shoot it with a rodenstock wide and than with one of this canons.
really surprising HOW different cubes can look, but not for corner dist. , for the different form of rendering geometric forms in the middle of the frame.
you don't like stitching, but its not a bad way to get good shapes in architecture. clouds? i don't remember that i ever got a problem to bring them together that the final result looked homogenic.
-
it can be corrected with a any tool. its simple barrel distortion without curved corners.
Most lens correction tools do not feature lens correction with asymmetrical shift. since you've mentioned distortion correction with shifts I thought you may have a profile for the Apla Lens Corrector ... But I think it will be pretty easy to make one when the lens has a simple barrel distortion.
its very rare that i correct distortion.
I correct distortion mostly ... even with my Digitar 43XL which shows ver, very little distortion :-)
Interessting what you say about the rendering of geometric forms!
-
in the combination 24tse plus 1.4 extender its not the lens which has to be corrected. its the extender. and this doesnt shift.
-
in the combination 24tse plus 1.4 extender its not the lens which has to be corrected. its the extender. and this doesnt shift.
ah - okay, I've got it.
What I also take from this it makes flat stitching within the larger image circle nearly impossible ... unless you can correct the distortion of the extender really accurate. Is that correct?
-
good question and probably you are right.
but try it, i dont know.
the stitching algorythm in ps is really advanced and probably for 98% of the dist. you can correct the extender.
-
Well, the FA wasn't discontinued, (they just changed the production process for a few years - different glass, as I heard) and it is still listed here: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/645/wide/smcpentax-fa645-35/
I had both, the "A" and the newer "FA" version and kept the manual "A" version, because it was sharper on my HCAM with less field curvature.
And by the way, the 35mm FA is a good lens, but also a bit tricky.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/35577-comprehensive-testing-results-observations-pentax-645-lenses-used-645d.html
I noticed the same, including the “blur zone".
Thanks for the catch. Looks like you still get it in Japan. Doesn't look like its available in the US.
Paul
-
Markets and competition have a way of sorting this out.
Thus far, the markets have given the nod to Phase One.
As long as people keep marching to the beat of Phase One they are going to keep on charging their premium prices or even increase them more...
IMO it has very little to do with image quality, although Phase One undeniably delivers that.
This back costs about $5-10K too much compared to other Phase offerings, leave alone compared to the competition…
One can only hope that the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica come up with some very strong competition...
-
The price of the next Hassy and Phase 50MP Cmos its just stupid...
The only two DMF brands are killing this segment with hardcore p**n prices, 35.000$ / 45.000$ for a sistem with a few lens in today profissional photo market?
35.000$ for a tuned Mamiya 645 15years old body and a larger 35mm format sensor with 1.3 crop?Huh my good this medium are mad or what???
Don´t the people see that this p**n prices are reducing the users of this systems just to few top photographer and rich amateurs?
Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ Huh THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT
The biggest advantage of the Medium Format its the large viewfinder and the DOF, i was a Hassy H3D39II user, and sold it and bought a Mamiya ZD DSLR just because i love MF DOF and Viewfinder, not megapixeis.... stop the megapixeis war, p**n prices and think about bring new user again to the MF
In my country Portugal, in 2 or 3 years i saw great number of profissional photographers leaving DMF for the D800
Its sad, very sad...
-
without shift ... the zeiss 35 fe is my new favourite.
while I agree it is a great little lens I struggle a bit with the light falloff. In most reviews it's reported to be around 1.8 stops. But this is with in camera corrections applied. Without in camera correction it's around 2.8 stops wide open and still around 2 stops at f8 (reminds me on my Digitar 43XL...). In camera corrections affect CAs, distortion and light falloff. CA and distortion corrections are not applied to the RAW files (as well as any "picture style). But the light falloff corrections are applied to the RAW files! This is why you end up with 2 stops increase of "noise" in the corners... which is okay at ISO100 but gets more and more obvious as you go higher with the ISO setting.
Well it's still a great lens! My copy is not so great in the corners at f2.8. I would say it's "okay" at f2.8 in the corners... "sharp" at f4 ... and perfectly fine at f8. In the center (and midfield) I can't detect any meaningful difference between f2.8, f4 and f5.6. However, I have no desire to look out for a sample that might be better at open aperture since I don't need the very corners to be really sharp when shooting at f2,8. My copy is very, very well centered (which seems to be a problem with this lens according to internet reports...) and this is why I will keep it.
/small talk/
Talking about favorites...
Personally my new favorite without shift will most certainly be the FE 1.8/55 ZA. I've got it for a couple of days only and still have to use it more seriously... but it's simply stunning on the A7R! Not exactly a wide lens, though :-) (and while we're at it: my first copy was decentered, so I've exchanged it).
My all time favorite is probably the Contax Planar 2.0/80 ... due to its look.
My favorite lens with shift is the Digitar 43XL (on my 6.9 microns back... and certainly also on a 60MP back). Also due to its look and due to its enormous versatility (in the last years I've shot around 80% with this lens... with the 47XL respectively until the 43XL was available).
\small talk\
-
Yes. You can add to this list the Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 135mm f2.0,... for their technical qualities but what should worry MF more IMHO are lenses designed for their unique look like the nikon 58mm f1.4.
Look is the next frontier. Technical perfection is a lot cause, rendering will own that market within years.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1
-
I use a 58/1.4 and must admit I fall more in love with it every time I use it...
-
I use a 58/1.4 and must admit I fall more in love with it every time I use it...
So I hear from every single user of the lens.
I was a bit surprised to see a significant part of the advanced LL crowd focus on technical perfection "shortcomings" (although it is a very good lens technically also) when commenting on this lens while it was obviously designed with a very different goal in mind. Sigh. :o
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I agree. This lens, initially it had me scratching my head too. It appeared to be just soft but when using it and seeing what it delivers in how images appear... it is simply gorgeous. It is the example of the real world difference between clinical sharpness and 'lens drawing personality'.
Another really nice feature is that it is so heavily corrected for light sources it is stellar when photographing directly into light. Amazing what it does at f5.6 with a flash pointed directly at it. Not directly what it has been designed for but a very welcome side-effect.
-
i like to use an old olympus 50/1,4 mf lens in this way. it renders so geourgeous at 1,4, i dont have a lens in my bag which is even similar.
-
The price of the next Hassy and Phase 50MP Cmos its just stupid...
The only two DMF brands are killing this segment with hardcore p**n prices, 35.000$ / 45.000$ for a sistem with a few lens in today profissional photo market?
35.000$ for a tuned Mamiya 645 15years old body and a larger 35mm format sensor with 1.3 crop?Huh my good this medium are mad or what???
Don´t the people see that this p**n prices are reducing the users of this systems just to few top photographer and rich amateurs?
Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ Huh THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT
The biggest advantage of the Medium Format its the large viewfinder and the DOF, i was a Hassy H3D39II user, and sold it and bought a Mamiya ZD DSLR just because i love MF DOF and Viewfinder, not megapixeis.... stop the megapixeis war, p**n prices and think about bring new user again to the MF
In my country Portugal, in 2 or 3 years i saw great number of profissional photographers leaving DMF for the D800
Its sad, very sad...
they have given the entry level price point to the d800 and the up and coming d4x and whatever number canon will use for its large mp camera. these camera's, teamed up with the zeiss otus lenses and the zeiss 135mm apo lens will not allow hasselblad or phase one to compete. look at it this way d4x $8,000 3 otus lens $12,000 zeiss 135 apo lens $2,100= about $22,000. if nikon and canon, as rumors has been implying, release these cameras with high 40's to low 50's mp sensor i believe a vast majority of photographers contemplating moving up to a mfdb will have second thoughts about making the move. so pedro, like you i would like to see a low cost entry level mfdb, the chance of that happening is nil and none.
-
So I hear from every single user of the lens.
I was a bit surprised to see a significant part of the advanced LL crowd focus on technical perfection "shortcomings" (although it is a very good lens technically also) when commenting on this lens while it was obviously designed with a very different goal in mind. Sigh. :o
Cheers,
Bernard
The Canon 50L is also a lens that does not test well but in real world use it is superb. I find it just too sharp at times when used at f8 with strobes it is incredible. Obviously wide open and even at f2 it produces really nice out of focus areas and has a nice look.
-
The Canon 50L is also a lens that does not test well but in real world use it is superb. I find it just too sharp at times when used at f8 with strobes it is incredible. Obviously wide open and even at f2 it produces really nice out of focus areas and has a nice look.
Yes, I have seen very sweet images shot with that lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
David,
...if nikon and canon, as rumors has been implying, release these cameras with high 40's to low 50's mp sensor i believe a vast majority of photographers contemplating moving up to a mfdb will have second thoughts about making the move.
With the advent of the D800 I think any objective thinking photographer already has. The subsequent release of a higher MP camera, comparable in resolution to the IQ250 but at a fraction of the cost - and it will be a fraction of the cost at whatever level the manufacturer chooses to price it - will result in fewer making a move to MFD on grounds that for them the cost of entry simply cannot be justified, and may result in a haemorrhage of photographers in the opposite direction.
-
they have given the entry level price point to the d800 and the up and coming d4x and whatever number canon will use for its large mp camera. these camera's, teamed up with the zeiss otus lenses and the zeiss 135mm apo lens will not allow hasselblad or phase one to compete. look at it this way d4x $8,000 3 otus lens $12,000 zeiss 135 apo lens $2,100= about $22,000. if nikon and canon, as rumors has been implying, release these cameras with high 40's to low 50's mp sensor i believe a vast majority of photographers contemplating moving up to a mfdb will have second thoughts about making the move. so pedro, like you i would like to see a low cost entry level mfdb, the chance of that happening is nil and none.
You forget one thing… which is that: "The available resolution of D800/E has had a negative impact to its sales" not a positive one… There are a number of people that would prefer lower analysis, while the vast majority would prefer the "dual" version to be: D800E=36mp (as is) and D800=16mp (the current D4 sensor). In fact, Sony decided on the A7/A7R better than Nikon did, by providing different resolution cameras… The problem with this kind of thinking, is that you assume that possible customers of these cameras are buying them as an alternative to MF cameras… well, they are not!, only a few do and the volume is incosiderable to measure for DSLR makers..., what matters for them is total sales not how to satisfy some tenths (hundreds the most) of amateurs that are buying MF to maximise resolution as if this would matter to photographic quality… Besides, there are no such rumours… only posts of some lunatics in DPR that like to multiply sensor areas with respect to pixel size as if this is feasible… (which is not!).
-
You forget one thing… which is that: "The available resolution of D800/E has had a negative impact to its sales" not a positive one… There are a number of people that would prefer lower analysis, while the vast majority would prefer the "dual" version to be: D800E=36mp (as is) and D800=16mp (the current D4 sensor). In fact, Sony decided on the A7/A7R better than Nikon did, by providing different resolution cameras… The problem with this kind of thinking, is that you assume that possible customers of these cameras are buying them as an alternative to MF cameras… well, they are not!, only a few do and the volume is incosiderable to measure for DSLR makers..., what matters for them is total sales not how to satisfy some tenths (hundreds the most) of amateurs that are buying MF to maximise resolution as if this would matter to photographic quality… Besides, there are no such rumours… only posts of some lunatics in DPR that like to multiply sensor areas with respect to pixel size as if this is feasible… (which is not!).
Canon/Nikon can just put a lower resolution RAW mode that is still full frame as an option for those who want smaller files. Processors are fast enough to do that quickly nowadays. Phase One has that with the Sensor Plus mode in some of their backs and it is superb.
-
Canon has had a mRaw and sRaw (medium / small) format for some time already, which came as a side effect from the video features. I think it's a great feature and I use it from time to time when I do casual hand-held photography. As far as I know Nikon has not yet introduced anything similar.
-
T.Dascalos,
The problem with this kind of thinking, is that you assume that possible customers of these cameras are buying them as an alternative to MF cameras… well, they are not!, only a few do and the volume is incosiderable to measure for DSLR makers..., what matters for them is total sales not how to satisfy some tenths (hundreds the most) of amateurs that are buying MF to maximise resolution as if this would matter to photographic quality…
The important point is not that an increase in the number of photographers to Canon/Nikon would be insignificant (albeit welcome) to the latter in terms of sales - that much is obvious - but that the corresponding decrease in the number of photographers purchasing MFD would have a disproportionate adverse effect.
-
T.Dascalos,
The important point is not that an increase in the number of photographers to Canon/Nikon would be insignificant (albeit welcome) to the latter in terms of sales - that much is obvious - but that the corresponding decrease in the number of photographers purchasing MFD would have a disproportionate adverse effect.
The important point is that none of the people posting here except the dealers have any access to any sort of sales figures and are conjuring up whatever mental picture they see fit.
Why don't you people just give it a rest and shoot whatever you like shooting with whatever tool you like to shoot with?
-
Synn,
The important point is that none of the people posting here except the dealers have any access to any sort of sales figures and are conjuring up whatever mental picture they see fit. Why don't you people just give it a rest and shoot whatever you like shooting with whatever tool you like to shoot with?
I do shoot whatever I like, using whatever tool I like shooting it with. That is no reason to not engage in debate about aspects of photography that are of interest to me.
The fact that I do not have access to sales is irrelevant to the point I made in my previous post. It should be obvious that loss of sales to a small market will adversely affect it disproportionately compared to the same number of sales lost to a larger market. That products sold by MFD manufacturers are expensive relative to those sold by Canon/Nikon etc. only exacerbates the effect.
-
The important point is that none of the people posting here except the dealers have any access to any sort of sales figures and are conjuring up whatever mental picture they see fit.
Why don't you people just give it a rest and shoot whatever you like shooting with whatever tool you like to shoot with?
Actually, I was quite decently paid as a reviewer for personal computers and then photographic equipment for years. There's a bunch of people who are not dealers but for various reasons interested in industry trends, and knowledgable about various sectors.
Edmund
-
David,
With the advent of the D800 I think any objective thinking photographer already has. The subsequent release of a higher MP camera, comparable in resolution to the IQ250 but at a fraction of the cost - and it will be a fraction of the cost at whatever level the manufacturer chooses to price it - will result in fewer making a move to MFD on grounds that for them the cost of entry simply cannot be justified, and may result in a haemorrhage of photographers in the opposite direction.
Actually, in contradiction to the above, very old S/H 22mp MFDBs are sold at prices directly comparable to a brand new high resolution FF DSLR of today… Surely the people that buy them (and more that use them - even pros) know why they do so... and most of the times are experienced photographers too… MO is that the "megapixel war" is long over… but to some.
-
T.Dascalos,
Actually, in contradiction to the above...
No contradiction exists. My post related to the cost of new equipment. Yours does not.
-
Hi,
If you think the megapixel var is over, you may check this link:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
But clearly, if you prefer this:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Test3/PNGs/20140104-CF044491_sharpened_v3_cropped.png)
to this
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Test3/PNGs/20140104-_DSC5732_sharpened_v3_cropped_scaled.png)
I can see the megapixel war is over.
Best regards
Erik
Actually, in contradiction to the above, very old S/H 22mp MFDBs are sold at prices directly comparable to a brand new high resolution FF DSLR of today… Surely the people that buy them (and more that use them - even pros) know why they do so... and most of the times are experienced photographers too… MO is that the "megapixel war" is long over… but to some.
-
For me 50-60 megapixels would be quite suitable in terms of resolution. For the subjects I shoot the aliasing issue is manageable, but some AA filter would probably be preferable. In the long term it's better to have a strong AA filter and have some extra pixel count to compensate loss in resolution, to avoid false colors and fake detail. As I often say a much higher priority at this point from my point of view is to increase angular response drastically, and that may lead to that pixel count must be put on hold until there is a better solution to the pixel vignetting problem.
Better angular response and the possibilities in optical design that follows can actually continue to be one of the major things that separate MF from smaller formats.
-
Hi,
I would second the idea about AA-filtering.
What I have seen small pixels with AA-filtering work better than large pixels with AA-filtering, but I understand wide angle T&S capacity is important.
With 6.8 my pixels it seems that almost all aliasing can be eliminated by stopping down to f/16, but what I have seen f/11 doesn't really help.
Best regards
Erik
For me 50-60 megapixels would be quite suitable in terms of resolution. For the subjects I shoot the aliasing issue is manageable, but some AA filter would probably be preferable. In the long term it's better to have a strong AA filter and have some extra pixel count to compensate loss in resolution, to avoid false colors and fake detail. As I often say a much higher priority at this point from my point of view is to increase angular response drastically, and that may lead to that pixel count must be put on hold.
Better angular response and the possibilities in optical design that follows can actually continue to be one of the major things that separate MF from smaller formats.
-
I haven't yet noticed (objectionable) aliasing in photos I've taken with the A7r, but then again I usually spend my dollar bills too fast to photograph them. :D
Regarding earlier posts in this thread...I've been fond of "character" lenses ever since discovering the original Contax rangefinder cameras & their various lens options, particularly the 50/1.5. This led me to Nikon RF & the lovely original version of the 105/2.5. I'd throw the current Voigtländer 58/1.4 in the ring with the new Nikon too. In MF Pentax's 120/4 macro has a swirly Petzval-like OOF quality wide open.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
You ain't get an A7r for a 1$ bill, yet ;-)
The first image I have seen from the A7r were the standard image with the bottles at Imaging Resource. That image had objectionable aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
I haven't yet noticed (objectionable) aliasing in photos I've taken with the A7r, but then again I usually spend my dollar bills too fast to photograph them. :D
Regarding earlier posts in this thread...I've been fond of "character" lenses ever since discovering the original Contax rangefinder cameras & their various lens options, particularly the 50/1.5. This led me to Nikon RF & the lovely original version of the 105/2.5. I'd throw the current Voigtländer 58/1.4 in the ring with the new Nikon too. In MF Pentax's 120/4 macro has a swirly Petzval-like OOF quality wide open.
-Dave-
-
Test and measure to your heart's content. For me, what I use isn't key to my work or my success, though at times, it does help. The most important aspect to me is the end product--web, print or publication.
If one is happy with the results and is successful, the method and the tools to get there are irrelevant. Few ever cared the brush used by Rembrant or the etching press used by Picasso. It's the final artwork that counts!
Fair enough, but many of the most expensive paintings made in the modern era have particularly well-controlled color, as opposed to earlier eras, where strong draftsmanship was a minimum requirement. MF cameras produce stronger color rendition than 35mm cameras, so this (I think) is not the same as a brush to a painter. It is more like the difference between the use of encaustic paint and oil paint. Color was revolutionized in the nineteenth century because of new methods of manufacturing oil paint and this radically altered the palettes used by artists from that date on. Before that, the range of colors available was considerably limited in comparison. Collectors might not care what paint was used, but they do care if they like the color in the image.
AP