Phase One IQ3 100mp. Shipping now.

[JoeKitchen]

This back really is like the second coming.

Too bad it's too late.

Most photography has transitioned to motion content, and what is left is displayed on the web, or electronically on monitors at low ppi.

It's like T-Rex showed up after the meteor crash and it had nothing left to eat.

Last time I checked, video did not kill the radio star. 

I doubt motion is going to kill stills. 

[torger]

monitors at low ppi.

Hi PPI is coming. On mobiles and tables 400 ppi is not uncommon, and on monitors 200 ppi exists and it will surely become ~400ppi within some years. It doesn't make sense that pixels should be visible to the eye. We'll want the sharpness on screen be as good as in a high quality printed book.

If we want to be negative the biggest threat is that 135 is becoming too good. It's similar to when MFD took over large format film. The break point was 39 megapixels with P45+, many thought LF film was still better, but the 39 megapixels was close enough, more practical and fulfilled all reasonable printing needs. But I think MFD can exist as a niche, having the best stuff even if it's meaningless in any quality aspect still has some nice prestige too it.

[Martin Kristiansen]

It looks amazing. Wish I could afford it. Wish I could justify it.

As it is I'm retiring my 80MP Leaf back from commercial service. I seem to have become a catalogue photographer. I'm glad to be busy but never need the 80. I kind of regret buying it but it's paid for and I don't see selling it as worth the effort or the money I will get for it.

I wouldn't buy the new 100MP back at half the current price. Just doesn't make business sense for me. I'm sure there are photographers that need this kit and well done to them.

[Bo Dez]

Last time I checked, video did not kill the radio star. 

I doubt motion is going to kill stills.

Internet killed the video and radio star. Stills will always be here but not in the same capacity or context. It's not a case of "if", it's already here.

[torger]

Fortunate for the MFD business is that it's so small that it can survive on being an obscure niche, so it's in a way immune to the trends. At $44k a piece you don't need volume sales.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Is there anybody who downloaded the example files on the phase one website and opened them in photoshop? I really was absolutely not impressed by the image quality: sure, they are large, big and heavy but i really don't like the rendering on the airplane and lack of detail in all images except the one with the girl. It must be me but really, not impressed :-)

Hi Peter,

There are a few reasons for that, explanations but not excuses.
1. The denser sampling will gradually have more difficulty resolving detail due to residual lens aberrations. No lens is perfect, and this is part of what you see, more clearly/accurately (and enlarged!). It shows as a loss of micro-contrast at best, or blur if it gets worse (e.g. in corners or near the edge of the image circle).
2. Depending on the aperture, there will be a mix of defocus and diffraction. The plane of best focus is a rather thin zone. There are restoration tools available that can improve that in postprocessing.
3. Improper sharpening. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but people really need to wake up and start using better tools for Capture sharpening. There is also no real excuse for the halos that the images show around edges, only the explanation that the wrong method and settings were used.

There may also be an effect of the Raw converter that was used, I haven't checked the EXIF data of those files yet, but e.g. Capture One Pro is able to extract higher resolution from a Raw file than e.g. Lightroom/ACR. Additionally, if there are automatic lens corrections applied, then resolution can suffer. Resampling always loses some signal strength and usually adds some artifacts. The negative effects of resampling can be minimal if proper algorithms are used.

And finally there is a psychological effect when looking at such (much more) magniified detail on low resolution displays. This all assumes that shooting technique was optimal to begin with, because subject movement, and camera shake, will show.

Having said that, there can be better quality output than some of the examples shown, so take these samples as indicative, but not as an ultimate demonstration of what is possible.

Cheers,
Bart

[JoeKitchen]

Hi Peter,

There are a few reasons for that, explanations but not excuses.
1. The denser sampling will gradually have more difficulty resolving detail due to residual lens aberrations. No lens is perfect, and this is part of what you see, more clearly/accurately (and enlarged!). It shows as a loss of micro-contrast at best, or blur if it gets worse (e.g. in corners or near the edge of the image circle).
2. Depending on the aperture, there will be a mix of defocus and diffraction. The plane of best focus is a rather thin zone. There are restoration tools available that can improve that in postprocessing.
3. Improper sharpening. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but people really need to wake up and start using better tools for Capture sharpening. There is also no real excuse for the halos that the images show around edges, only the explanation that the wrong method and settings were used.

There may also be an effect of the Raw converter that was used, I haven't checked the EXIF data of those files yet, but e.g. Capture One Pro is able to extract higher resolution from a Raw file than e.g. Lightroom/ACR. Additionally, if there are automatic lens corrections applied, then resolution can suffer. Resampling always loses some signal strength and usually adds some artifacts. The negative effects of resampling can be minimal if proper algorithms are used.

And finally there is a psychological effect when looking at such (much more) magniified detail on low resolution displays. This all assumes that shooting technique was optimal to begin with, because subject movement, and camera shake, will show.

Having said that, there can be better quality output than some of the examples shown, so take these samples as indicative, but not as an ultimate demonstration of what is possible.

Cheers,
Bart

It seems to me that we are gaining more resolution at the expense of other (more) important aspects. 

Personally, I don't get it. 

I have been comparing the quality of the blacks from my P45+ files to my fiancées IQ260 files and feel that I may want a more modern solution, especially with my recent venture into still life and beverage (most of which are very dark images). 

However, this super high resolution backs just have so many problems associated with them. 

Sure, you get bigger files, but you have to worry about camera shake, lens cast, cross talk, micro lens shading, diffraction, circles of confusion that are not small enough, etc., etc. 

I feel like there is a large majority of not so educated shooters screaming "more resolution!" that drowns out the rest. 

Last time I checked, you only need 12 mega-pixels or so for a full spread.  100 mega-pixels sound great, but at what expense? 

[JoeKitchen]

Internet killed the video and radio star. Stills will always be here but not in the same capacity or context. It's not a case of "if", it's already here.

Nope, the Internet just gave both of them another way to perform.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I feel like there is a large majority of not so educated shooters screaming "more resolution!" that drowns out the rest.

Hi Joe,

Well, there's an opportunity for the software industry to help the less educated users in getting better results, and even the educated users can benefit from more intelligent and better quality tools. 

Last time I checked, you only need 12 mega-pixels or so for a full spread.  100 mega-pixels sound great, but at what expense?

There are many types of photography and some do benefit from these kinds of resolutions. Even when technique is lacking, more dense sampling can also help to get better modest size images.

Cheers,
Bart

[Peter Devos]

It seems to me that we are gaining more resolution at the expense of other (more) important aspects. 

Personally, I don't get it. 

I have been comparing the quality of the blacks from my P45+ files to my fiancées IQ260 files and feel that I may want a more modern solution, especially with my recent venture into still life and beverage (most of which are very dark images). 

However, this super high resolution backs just have so many problems associated with them. 

Sure, you get bigger files, but you have to worry about camera shake, lens cast, cross talk, micro lens shading, diffraction, circles of confusion that are not small enough, etc., etc. 

I feel like there is a large majority of not so educated shooters screaming "more resolution!" that drowns out the rest. 

Last time I checked, you only need 12 mega-pixels or so for a full spread.  100 mega-pixels sound great, but at what expense?

Exactly, it is a great camera but if i would not had upgraded my H3d-39 and my 1DSmk2 (maybe bought a crop canon for the high iso) until now i would have saved myself some dollas and still had been able to shoot all i shot with my newer fancier cameras at much lower investment cost :-)
Indeed, 12 to 20Mp seems to be enough for about all commercial use :-)
If i had only knew that some years ago :-)

[Doug Peterson]

....he may find that there is no safe conclusion that P1 was involved in the development of the sensor... As we all know, Hasselblad was first to implement the 50mp Sony Cmos sensor in production...

Phase One shipped its 50mp CMOS solution months before Hasselblad did.

Maybe you're mis-remembering because Hasselblad did a hurried announcement-of-an-announcement the day before Phase One did after they heard Phase One was about to announce theirs?

Phase One was first to ship the 50mp CMOS. First to ship 60mp. First (and still only) to ship 80mp. First to ship 100mp.

[Doug Peterson]

The 32HR is the one lens to test now though with this back, I'm extremely curious on the result. I have no idea how it will perform. I would not be surprised if it's a huge disappointment, but the opposite would not be surprising either. Someone's gotta test this soon! I can't wait 

We're on it. Just as soon as our demo units arrive! They are en route at the moment; we are tracking them eagerly!

[voidshatter]

Phase One shipped its 50mp CMOS solution months before Hasselblad did.

Maybe you're mis-remembering because Hasselblad did a hurried announcement-of-an-announcement the day before Phase One did after they heard Phase One was about to announce theirs?

Phase One was first to ship the 50mp CMOS. First to ship 60mp. First (and still only) to ship 80mp. First to ship 100mp.

Could you give an ETA of deliveries of the upgrades towards the IQ3 100MP? (not the demo, but the actual units sold to customers who pre-order now)

[JoeKitchen]

We're on it. Just as soon as our demo units arrive! They are en route at the moment; we are tracking them eagerly!

When you the test with the HR 32mm, can you also capture the same exact image with an IQ260 or IQ360. 

I am curious to know how the color saturation will differ with movements, considering the smaller pixels. 

[JoeKitchen]

Hi Joe,

Well, there's an opportunity for the software industry to help the less educated users in getting better results, and even the educated users can benefit from more intelligent and better quality tools. 

There are many types of photography and some do benefit from these kinds of resolutions. Even when technique is lacking, more dense sampling can also help to get better modest size images.

Cheers,
Bart

Maybe I should have said a majority of "non-commercial shooters," because any commercial shooter I talk to, regardless, never says, "man if only I could more than double my resolution."  At least not today with what we currently have. 

My P45+ produces a file big enough for any kind of commercial use.  The only problem I have with it as of late is that the deep blacks are not up to par with current sensors. 

Given the choice, I'd rather have a hassle free 40 or 50 mega-pixel full framed modern back then a 100 mega-pixel back with a host of additional issues due to smaller pixels. 

[Bo Dez]

Nope, the Internet just gave both of them another way to perform.   

and about 7 Billion others. 

Like it or not, the world has changed dramatically. Investing $50K in a camera that does not shoot 6 or 8K footage is not a wise venture, IMO. Unless you have the specific purpose that you are 100% sure will see out the value of the investment. Coming from a high end market in London I do not think that is wise unless you are a hire company.

An increasingly large chunk of high end stills advertising is now a lifted from RED and Alexa footage. This is for ease of production, cost efficiency, but also increasingly because of cross platform continuity and the diminished relevancy of stills. Vloggers and Youtubers are gaining more gravitas than the staple old school print media brands. Print budget is now channelled towards instagram and youtube vloggers/bloggers and other new media like iPhone apps.

What is left in any sort of capacity that someone can make a decent living from is editorial and if you think that these budgets allow or even need a $50K 100MP investment you are deluded or have a rich family.

[AlterEgo]

Yep, but IR filter is almost certainly different so the response is not exactly the same even if the CFA would be identical.

It should be noted that even if CFA is quite different normal low saturation colors will look sort of right anyway, to really see if there's a match you need to test high saturation colors.

All modern cameras today have quite similar CFAs. I've tested a fair bit of cameras and only my own Kodak based H4D-50 was substantially different within the "normal" range, as Kodak has built in quite some subjectivity into the CFAs itself, while all modern cameras are more designed to make objective realistic colors. Regardless you can still make hugely different results depending on profile design, just compare Leaf and Phase One color, despite the same sensor they have quite different color. Leaf ICC profiles can't be used with other cameras as Leaf has it's own processing pipeline with its own way to format their ICC profiles, nowadays builtin to Capture One. Otherwise you could switch between Phase One and Leaf color easily, but due to the different software handling of color you can't which is a good thing for Phase One so the products are more clearly differentiated.

P1 profile = "PhaseOneIQ3100MP-Flat Art Reproduction - Flash.icm" looks decent colorwise with A7R2 raws (rename it to smth like "SonyA7RM2-p1iq3100mp.icm" to use with A7R2) and linear curve in C1

[michael]

What needs to be kept in mind is that there are many different marketplaces for a 100MP camera beside commercial photographers. Some of these were mentioned in our preview article and include the military, industrial, aerial mapping, museum/conservation and scientific communities.

Let's also not forget China, which within the past few years has become a huge market for high-end medium format derived from all of the above. It's a market that is mostly invisible to us in the west, but is most assuredly no invisible to equipment makers.

And of course, not to be forgotten (because it is likely one of the largest constituencies), are wealthy amateurs. About five years ago I saw several estimates that seemed to agree that the total worldwide market for high-end digital backs was about 7,000 units. My guess is that it's not all that much different today. How the mix of markets breaks down is anyone's guess though.

I will say that when one runs high-end travel / photography workshops (the way we do) and sees the number of serious and often talented amateurs shooting with $40-$80K MF systems, I would not be surprised if as many as half the world market for high-end MF is to affluent individuals. These are the same people who buy top-end cars, boats and homes. People for whom purchasing a $50K camera system like the XF100MP requires little more thought then whether they should upgrade to this year's BMW 750, or wait another 6 months to see the latest models for 2017.

In any business, it's important to perceive the totality of a market, not just to see it through the filter of one's own needs, abilities and experience.

Michael

[JoeKitchen]

and about 7 Billion others. 

Like it or not, the world has changed dramatically. Investing $50K in a camera that does not shoot 6 or 8K footage is not a wise venture, IMO. Unless you have the specific purpose that you are 100% sure will see out the value of the investment. Coming from a high end market in London I do not think that is wise unless you are a hire company.

An increasingly large chunk of high end stills advertising is now a lifted from RED and Alexa footage. This is for ease of production, cost efficiency, but also increasingly because of cross platform continuity and the diminished relevancy of stills. Vloggers and Youtubers are gaining more gravitas than the staple old school print media brands. Print budget is now channelled towards instagram and youtube vloggers/bloggers and other new media like iPhone apps.

What is left in any sort of capacity that someone can make a decent living from is editorial and if you think that these budgets allow or even need a $50K 100MP investment you are deluded or have a rich family.

Insofar as your last statement about editorial work, yes I would agree.  That market is shot. 

But in my main market of architecture and interiors, it is very much revolves around stills.  Not sure how that will change, but who really knows. 

Your comments about the Internet and the world changing does not directly relate to the "death" of stills.  Yes, it gives more options for videos to be seen, but it also gives more options for stills to be seen. 

However, I do contest that I think about BC's comments a couple of months ago regarding motion many times, that at this moment those who can produce both are getting the higher paying work (from where he is positioned). 

However, I do wish there would be video capabilities (no sound would be fine) to this back to at least enable the production of cinemagraphs. 

[AreBee]

Theodoros,

If one carefully reads this statement (from P1's site),...

...he may find that there is no safe conclusion that P1 was involved in the development of the sensor...

My understanding is that Sony consulted Phase One and, at least in the case of the IQ250, other camera manufacturers during the development of its Medium Format CMOS sensors in order to make available to the marketplace a product with maximum appeal to sensor purchasers.