Phase One IQ3 100mp. Shipping now.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

For those that aren't quite following the math-oriented digging around of raw file offsets...

DT will have real-world dynamic range tests available later this week. That is, photos, showing the visual difference.

Hi Doug,

What I've seen sofar (one file, perfectly exposed at ISO 50), it looks impressively nice in Capture One Pro 9.0.2. At f/8 there was only a very little evidence of aliasing but hardly noticeable, and noise was very low (even without noise reduction).

The math is just to verify the 15 stops DR claim, which seems a bit high at this point into analysis. I'm also still in the process of finding out how the 14 or 16 bit mode settings affects all this.

Cheers,
Bart

[gavincato]

For those that aren't quite following the math-oriented digging around of raw file offsets...

DT will have real-world dynamic range tests available later this week. That is, photos, showing the visual difference.

That math stuff went way over my head! Looking forward to your examples.

Looks like a brilliant piece of gear for those who need it.

Shooting weddings I couldn't use a $50k body, but will look by enviously from the sidelines with my baby pentax Hopefully down the track though I'll get into a full frame MF of some sort.

[Ken R]

Now is the end of CCD, except for the poor people

I wonder how this new sensor will do with the tech lenses though, the smaller pixel pitch is worrying, but on the other hand if it's BSI maybe it's less bad than the IQ250 anyway. The larger sensor size will require larger shift amounts too though to avoid the feel of limited movement range.

Its not like all of the sudden the older backs have stopped working. The were used to produce amazing images then and now. This new sensor however is a monster. I am very eager to see results with tech camera lenses.

[torger]

If it is as it usually is, the "real world DR" is relying heavily on software noise reduction in the raw converter. That is you reduce noise and virtually improve DR at the cost of detail and color fidelity. A trick that's quite hard to detect for the layman, but it's still a trick.

If they state 15 stops of DR in the data sheets, like they currently do, I hope it's something substantial behind it so it's not the "16 bit color" all over again. To start with the file format must have changed slightly so the files actually contain 15 bits, as the old IIQ is just 14 bit expanded to 16. If it had changed I'm surprised that rawdigger could read the files at all, so I'm very skeptical about this number.

The the DR thanks to aggressive noise reduction may appear to be better than it is I find most likely though. You probably can't turn off the base noise reduction in C1, "turning off" noise reduction usually just means that you turn off a second layer of noise reduction. The base layer can be quite aggressive too.

[alatreille]

Its not like all of the sudden the older backs have stopped working. The were used to produce amazing images then and now. This new sensor however is a monster. I am very eager to see results with tech camera lenses.

Ditto to this

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[Doug Peterson]

That math stuff went way over my head! Looking forward to your examples.

Looks like a brilliant piece of gear for those who need it.

Shooting weddings I couldn't use a $50k body, but will look by enviously from the sidelines with my baby pentax Hopefully down the track though I'll get into a full frame MF of some sort.

One of the perks of the job is doing my wedding photography with Phase One gear (along with Fuji or Canon as a second camera).

Having the leaf shutter lenses is absolutely game-changing for what kind of light and lighting you can use at a wedding. That's a big deal because even our 10k systems feature a full line of leaf shutter lenses. If you'd ever like to arrange a test just let me know .

[torger]

Its not like all of the sudden the older backs have stopped working. The were used to produce amazing images then and now. This new sensor however is a monster. I am very eager to see results with tech camera lenses.

Yes there's a second hand market, I'm myself one of the poor people , I'm still on 50MP Kodak CCD.

What I mean is that I think we'll see a very quick reduction in new sales of the CCD backs, like the 44x33mm CCD sensors quickly lost its sexiness when the 44x33mm CMOS appeared. I don't think we'll hear much of the old "there's some special look to the CCD", as high end new products it won't survive for long. I would not be surprised if IQ4 will be CMOS only.

It might be controlled by price though at $44k there's plenty of room below, but soon Hasselblad and possibly Pentax will come with their offers which may make it difficult to sell CCDs as a low cost alternative.

[Doug Peterson]

If it is as it usually is, the "real world DR" is relying heavily on software noise reduction in the raw converter. That is you reduce noise and virtually improve DR at the cost of detail and color fidelity. A trick that's quite hard to detect for the layman, but it's still a trick.

If they state 15 stops of DR in the data sheets, like they currently do, I hope it's something substantial behind it so it's not the "16 bit color" all over again. To start with the file format must have changed slightly so the files actually contain 15 bits, as the old IIQ is just 14 bit expanded to 16. If it had changed I'm surprised that rawdigger could read the files at all, so I'm very skeptical about this number.

The the DR thanks to aggressive noise reduction may appear to be better than it is I find most likely though. You probably can't turn off the base noise reduction in C1, "turning off" noise reduction usually just means that you turn off a second layer of noise reduction. The base layer can be quite aggressive too.

I generally take zero stock in the absolute number any company/website/person assigns to dynamic range. They can be using whatever definition they choose.

Do they mean where you can see the line between a black patch and a darker patch in a ramp target? I don't shoot targets. I shoot people. Moreover I don't care if I can see the patch. I care about things like how much grain/noise is there when I pull up the shadows, and just as importantly what is the structure and aesthetic of that grain/noise (is it clumpy? finely distributed? colorful? monochromatic?). How accurate and natural is the color in those shadows?

Moreover I don't give two figs whether it's accomplished in hardware, firmware, software, or sorcery. So if the dark frame and secret sauce of Capture One is (as it has been in the past) part of the final result, I really don't care.

I care how the final image looks. That's it. That's why I say we'll have real world comparisons up later this week.

What I DO find interesting is Phase One claiming one stop MORE dynamic range than their previous highest. That's very promising given how very very good the previous highest was.

[torger]

What I DO find interesting is Phase One claiming one stop MORE dynamic range than their previous highest. That's very promising given how very very good the previous highest was.

Yes it's very interesting, but I do mind how it's achieved. I've analyzed hifi stuff both audio and photography quite extensively and I know how easy it is to fool oneself. If you stare at one property alone you miss something else, classical example noise reduction, if you stare at the grain you miss that details are smeared or colors are pastel like.

It's also very subject dependent, it may look good in one image, and worse in another... if you really want to know how a system performs you need both, you need the hard engineering facts and you need real life tests. If you only go for a week with unstructured laid back "real life tests" it may grow on you over the next year that the system isn't actually performing as you initially thought. Pairing "real life tests" with independent expert testing gives you (at least me) better confidence that the product really delivers as advertised.

Personally I think this DR thing is a way over the top exaggerated "need", but I understand as much that it makes sales just like megapixel number does. I do expect this new back to be excellent just like any other recent Sony sensor, but if it's actually better than the already excellent IQ250/645z/CFV-50c remains to be seen.

MFD is afterall much about "keeping the distance" from 135 gear, and today this is done with two hard numbers, megapixels and DR. 100 and 15 are two really good numbers for now

[voidshatter]

Now is the end of CCD, except for the poor people

I wonder how this new sensor will do with the tech lenses though, the smaller pixel pitch is worrying, but on the other hand if it's BSI maybe it's less bad than the IQ250 anyway. The larger sensor size will require larger shift amounts too though to avoid the feel of limited movement range.

If it's really BSI then there is a possibility that the discontinued Schneider 28mm XL might work with it with acceptable color cast! Not sure about astigmatism/curvature/smearing caused by sensor cover glass though.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Anders,

Would be interesting how Phase One defines DR. If they use the DxO print rating it is quite obvious that they reach 15EV, 100 MP downsampled to 8 MP. If they use DR at pixel level, 15 EV would be quiet a feat using a Sony 4.6 micron sensor.

Just to say, using the DxO print rating is quite OK, as long as it is clearly stated. Phase One could also state an SNR of 90 dB, that would be pretty clear and quite impressive.

Personally, I feel that Phase One has been talking a bit to much about 16 bit files, which makes a lot of damage to their credibility. But after all, when all the chips are down, it is image quality that matters and if Phase One delivers on that it is quite OK. And I am pretty sure they deliver.

Best regards
Erik

Yes it's very interesting, but I do mind how it's achieved. I've analyzed hifi stuff both audio and photography quite extensively and I know how easy it is to fool oneself. If you stare at one property alone you miss something else, classical example noise reduction, if you stare at the grain you miss that details are smeared or colors are pastel like.

It's also very subject dependent, it may look good in one image, and worse in another... if you really want to know how a system performs you need both, you need the hard engineering facts and you need real life tests. If you only go for a week with unstructured laid back "real life tests" it may grow on you over the next year that the system isn't actually performing as you initially thought. Pairing "real life tests" with independent expert testing gives you (at least me) better confidence that the product really delivers as advertised.

Personally I think this DR thing is a way over the top exaggerated "need", but I understand as much that it makes sales just like megapixel number does. I do expect this new back to be excellent just like any other recent Sony sensor, but if it's actually better than the already excellent IQ250/645z/CFV-50c remains to be seen.

MFD is afterall much about "keeping the distance" from 135 gear, and today this is done with two hard numbers, megapixels and DR. 100 and 15 are two really good numbers for now

[eronald]

I don't know about the complicated maths, but physics says that if the sensor has the same pixel quality as the smaller one then image S/N should be better for the same size print. In layman's terms, that translates to better practical DR, although engineering DR is a different thing.

So if Doug chooses to say that you get more back for your money, I would have no problem with that.

What I find interesting is how Phase prices climb higher and higher. Doug certainly hopes to get more money for his back.

Edmund

Yes it's very interesting, but I do mind how it's achieved. I've analyzed hifi stuff both audio and photography quite extensively and I know how easy it is to fool oneself. If you stare at one property alone you miss something else, classical example noise reduction, if you stare at the grain you miss that details are smeared or colors are pastel like.

It's also very subject dependent, it may look good in one image, and worse in another... if you really want to know how a system performs you need both, you need the hard engineering facts and you need real life tests. If you only go for a week with unstructured laid back "real life tests" it may grow on you over the next year that the system isn't actually performing as you initially thought. Pairing "real life tests" with independent expert testing gives you (at least me) better confidence that the product really delivers as advertised.

Personally I think this DR thing is a way over the top exaggerated "need", but I understand as much that it makes sales just like megapixel number does. I do expect this new back to be excellent just like any other recent Sony sensor, but if it's actually better than the already excellent IQ250/645z/CFV-50c remains to be seen.

MFD is afterall much about "keeping the distance" from 135 gear, and today this is done with two hard numbers, megapixels and DR. 100 and 15 are two really good numbers for now

[voidshatter]

I generally take zero stock in the absolute number any company/website/person assigns to dynamic range. They can be using whatever definition they choose.

Do they mean where you can see the line between a black patch and a darker patch in a ramp target? I don't shoot targets. I shoot people. Moreover I don't care if I can see the patch. I care about things like how much grain/noise is there when I pull up the shadows, and just as importantly what is the structure and aesthetic of that grain/noise (is it clumpy? finely distributed? colorful? monochromatic?). How accurate and natural is the color in those shadows?

Moreover I don't give two figs whether it's accomplished in hardware, firmware, software, or sorcery. So if the dark frame and secret sauce of Capture One is (as it has been in the past) part of the final result, I really don't care.

I care how the final image looks. That's it. That's why I say we'll have real world comparisons up later this week.

What I DO find interesting is Phase One claiming one stop MORE dynamic range than their previous highest. That's very promising given how very very good the previous highest was.

But it is essential to understand how to do a proper comparison of dynamic range. Preferably I would hope for the same headroom for highlight recovery, with some details in deep shadows to push. If ISO 50 is indeed an extended ISO just as what is with the IQ3 80MP, then you might end up over-exposing the IQ3 100 MP by a stop, leaving less highlight recoverability and cleaner shadows.

To make this precise, I would hope that two images have very similar level readings for highlight area (e.g. sky) in Raw Digger, e.g. both about 58000 out of 65535.

It would be interesting to include the CCD backs as well

[eronald]

Time to throw a cat in to keep the pigeons off the ground:  Is this the same CFA seen on the A7r2 ?

Edmund

But it is essential to understand how to do a proper comparison of dynamic range. Preferably I would hope for the same headroom for highlight recovery, with some details in deep shadows to push. If ISO 50 is indeed an extended ISO just as what is with the IQ3 80MP, then you might end up over-exposing the IQ3 100 MP by a stop, leaving less highlight recoverability and cleaner shadows.

[BernardLanguillier]

Things are finally getting interesting in the MF world! From a spec standpoint, this may be the first back that gets it really right. I am glad to see that the specs and timing are 100% aligned with my forecast.

The price point remains a bit of an issue though...

Cheers,
Bernard

[voidshatter]

Things are finally getting interesting in the MF world! From a spec standpoint, this may be the first back that gets it really right.

The price point remains a bit of an issue though...

Cheers,
Bernard

Maybe Hasselblad and Pentax will follow up quite soon

[torger]

Time to throw a cat in to keep the pigeons off the ground:  Is this the same CFA seen on the A7r2 ?

With my DCamProf color profiling work I've looked at a few Sony high end CMOS sensors and their CFAs are if not identical very highly similar. You can use a A7r2 profile on a Pentax 645z for example. I never made any real attempt to actually find out exactly how similar they are. I very much doubt that Sony make custom mixes for different manufacturers though so I think all products based on the sony sensor of a particular model have the same CFAs, but the IR filter response can differ of course.

[markymarkrb]

IMO, while this is welcome advancement, Phase One have put themselves into a corner for a competitor to emerge.  Sony has Phase One by the boot straps with sensor development as they have demonstrated they will sell the same sensor to anyone (Pentax rocked the 50MP implement for a lot cheaper) and if their contract allows them to use the sensor and SONY releases a mirrorless MF camera with interchangeable lenses, it will be tough times for Phase One. I personally don't ever want to own a camera with an optical viewfinder ever again as I think their are some incredible tools gained by mirrorless for landscape work and I enjoy the smaller size for traveling.   I really do think Sony could release an MF camera this year.  Will it be as fine tuned as a Phase One probably not but it will probably be incredible for the price advantage.  We all want incredible cameras with the best IQ but at $48K, there is an awful amount of room for Sony to step in and make a move.  Even if they came out with an 80MP CMOS mirrorless MF camera and charged $24K, it will take a lot of business from Phase One.  I am grateful I sold my IQ180 this last year and have been pleasantly surprised at how nice the photos from the A7RII with OTUS lenses are.  Some disadvantages but the Sony is so much more capable in multiple circumstances.  Still waiting for the day I get a digital 617 camera.  Your thoughts?

[Theodoros]

I wonder why P1 doesn't apply sensor + technology to their CMOS backs... Is there a technical reason for not doing so?

[BernardLanguillier]

I wonder why P1 doesn't apply sensor + technology to their CMOS backs... Is there a technical reason for not doing so?

No need to do so since high ISO on the Sony sensor is already very good?

Cheers,
Bernard