Jim Kasson's take on the IQ-3 100 MP back…

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Jim Kasson posted a small article discussing the release of the new 100 MP IQ back on his blog. It is worthwhile reading: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=12674

Jim's blog "The Last Word" has a long list of articles discussing the technical basics of photography, it is a great resource for those of us who want to learn about the technology of photography.

Another great resource is Jack Hogan's "Strolls with my dog" site.

Best regards
Erik

[bjanes]

Hi,

Jim Kasson posted a small article discussing the release of the new 100 MP IQ back on his blog. It is worthwhile reading: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=12674

Jim's blog "The Last Word" has a long list of articles discussing the technical basics of photography, it is a great resource for those of us who want to learn about the technology of photography.

Another great resource is Jack Hogan's "Strolls with my dog" site.

Best regards
Erik

I agree that those two sites are excellent sources of photographic information. Jim follows up his article on the new Phase/Sony sensor with a post stating that one likely would get the same results with the Sony A7RII using a 3 shot stitch.

Bill

[Ken R]

Hi,

Jim Kasson posted a small article discussing the release of the new 100 MP IQ back on his blog. It is worthwhile reading: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=12674

Jim's blog "The Last Word" has a long list of articles discussing the technical basics of photography, it is a great resource for those of us who want to learn about the technology of photography.

Another great resource is Jack Hogan's "Strolls with my dog" site.

Best regards
Erik

Take on the IQ3 100 back? He has never even seen it much less handled it or used it. Browsed the site and he does not seem to have used any IQ backs or medium format digital gear at all. Did I miss something?

[jsiva]

Take on the IQ3 100 back? He has never even seen it much less handled it or used it. Browsed the site and he does not seem to have used any IQ backs or medium format digital gear at all. Did I miss something?

Well, I guess that makes him as well qualified as most of the posters here.

[Manoli]

Did I miss something?

Yes, you did.

[torger]

I don't get this obsession with format size some seem to have. Digital has changed the equation fundamentally. Once you get to a certain size you get all photons you need, the size advantage that was there with film is simply not there with digital.

There is some advantage, the major one is that you can get more resolving power with less precision requirements in manufacturing.

I don't see much purpose of going even larger than the current 645 before you've maxed out what you can do resolving-wise, and we seem to have a fair bit to go there still.

Maybe tech cams would gain from an even larger format though, as precision (parallelism) there is most difficult due to the movements, but it's a too small market to make a product specifically for that as we've seen lately.

Sure it would be fun to be able to use legacy glass to its fullest potential, but the development cost and resulting end product cost for a thing that like five people would use is simply not worth it. 645 is already large enough, perhaps unnecessarily large even that. We'll see over the years how far 135 can get with the new glass designs.

[torger]

Take on the IQ3 100 back? He has never even seen it much less handled it or used it. Browsed the site and he does not seem to have used any IQ backs or medium format digital gear at all. Did I miss something?

I think you primarily missed that you don't need to use a product to be able to analyze its positioning, its feature set, it's pricing etc. Analysts in all areas do these things all the time, and a skilled analyst often have thoughtful things to say.

In fact, I'd say that a dry analysis based on just raw files can say much more than a pure sponsored hands-on blog post (where the blogger have their hands tied regarding criticism), we tend to see quite a lot of those too. Opinions of the type "it's much better", "miles of difference" means different things to different people so looking at a single raw file can tell me more of what to expect from a system than loose wordings from a person that's actually held the camera.

There's also a fact that there's many great photographers out there that are more or less clueless about hardware and have no real ability to present any sane argument why MFD is worth it or not to a particualr photographer, just as well as there's many mediocre photographers that can make great analysis of the hardware and explain to others pros and cons.

I'd say that "hands on use" describing how you like the camera handling with little technical details is mostly useless. How your hands fit the camera and how the buttons sit is so very personal you need to try it out yourself. What you can explain well in text and images is technical performance of a system. That's why I prefer in-depth techie analysis reviews with 100% pixel crops and feature listings rather than a bunch of nicely lit images and sponsored praise.

[Ken R]

I don't get this obsession with format size some seem to have. Digital has changed the equation fundamentally. Once you get to a certain size you get all photons you need, the size advantage that was there with film is simply not there with digital.

There is some advantage, the major one is that you can get more resolving power with less precision requirements in manufacturing.

I don't see much purpose of going even larger than the current 645 before you've maxed out what you can do resolving-wise, and we seem to have a fair bit to go there still.

Maybe tech cams would gain from an even larger format though, as precision (parallelism) there is most difficult due to the movements, but it's a too small market to make a product specifically for that as we've seen lately.

Sure it would be fun to be able to use legacy glass to its fullest potential, but the development cost and resulting end product cost for a thing that like five people would use is simply not worth it. 645 is already large enough, perhaps unnecessarily large even that. We'll see over the years how far 135 can get with the new glass designs.

You are not getting it. It is not all about technical prowess. There are subjective qualities, yes a lot can be explained using science. But that is not the point. The larger formats and the optics available or made for them do have a different look to them. In the film era I personally skipped the 645 format since it was a bit too close to 35mm, it was different and could produce higher quality results but not as different as the 6x7 I was using (Pentax). Some of the difference had to do with the shallower depth of field and the transition from the focal point to the oof areas. Others had to do with the decrease degree of enlargement given equal print sizes.

[Ken R]

I think you primarily missed that you don't need to use a product to be able to analyze its positioning, its feature set, it's pricing etc. Analysts in all areas do these things all the time, and a skilled analyst often have thoughtful things to say.

Yes. But what about the actual performance of the system not just the sensor. People just do not grab a sensor and make images using just the sensor. There are lot's of other things involved. 

Also, no one can tell anyone whether the gear in question is worth it for them. It is a very personal choice and decision.

Is it worth the money? There is not one answer. Its not like the 100MP back is junk. Obviously its per pixel quality is as good or very close to anything else available today. 

The fact of the matter is that there is no current alternatives to the 100MP IQ3 back. Different story with the 50mp Sony sensor. Will there be? Probably but not at the moment. And if you are worried about that then you probably should not be purchasing a $50k back in the first place. Photo gear make lousy financial instruments by themselves, outside the context of what they are made to be used for, photography.

Feature set, pricing? Alternatives? Anyone in the market for a back can look those up in 5-10 minutes.

[Kevin Raber]

Next week the Phase One team will be visiting the Indianapolis - Luminous-Landscape offices.  We’ll have the chance to sit down with them and learn more about the new Phase One XF 100mp Camera.  We’ll also be doing a Capture One 9 video tutorial update.

If there is something you are interested in as far as questions regrading the new camera or Capture One please send them to me by email or personal message.  We’ll gather them together and do our best to cover them during our discussion.  Please don’t post them as part of the topic or it may not get on the list.

[torger]

Yes. But what about the actual performance of the system not just the sensor. People just do not grab a sensor and make images using just the sensor.

I think the Sony cameras A7r and A7r-II is a good example of exactly that -- people that just grab a sensor and make images with it . The thing is if you have a slow pace style like in landscape you can use a pretty bad user interface camera and still live with it. The worst digital gear is still more convenient to use than an 8x10" camera.

Sony mirrorless cameras didn't become so hugely popular due to their great handling or build quality or focusing speed or whatever, it's only about the sensor, and well, that you can use other glass via adapters.

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

I think you missed a few things.

1) He has a Sony A7rII which has a Sony sensor with similar pixel size of the same generation, and he know development in sensors is not that fast.
2) He has a Hasselblad H2D39 (or something like that), he just decided not to upgrade to 50MP sensor but would be tempted by a 100 MP one
3) He used to be an imaging scientist and a researcher at Kodak and some other places. He is a long time photographer.

So, he knows a thing or two. He is actually quite enthusiastic about the new back.

No, we can assume that the Sony sensor in the Sony is virtually identical to the Sony sensor in the IQ3-100MP.

Let's assume that I put my Sony A7rII on my HCamMaster TS and mount my Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF lens (the best I have) and take three shots with camera vertical and -12, 0, 12 mm offset.

Now, would I replace the HCam Master TSII with a Hasselblad, mount the same lens, and mount the IQ3 100 MP back on the Hasselblad, I could shoot a 53.7 x 40.4 mm size image.

The image area would be 2169 mm^2 on the Hasselblad vs 2160 mm^2. Same lens, same area, almost exactly the same sensor -> very similar results.

Now, there is a lot of undisclosed data about that sensor. And Jim discusses these to a certain extent.
In that case I get a 36x60 mm image covering a similar surface as the IQ, 2160 mm^2 in both cases. Almost indentical sensor, same size image.

Best regards
Erik

Take on the IQ3 100 back? He has never even seen it much less handled it or used it. Browsed the site and he does not seem to have used any IQ backs or medium format digital gear at all. Did I miss something?

[bjanes]

Next week the Phase One team will be visiting the Indianapolis - Luminous-Landscape offices.  We’ll have the chance to sit down with them and learn more about the new Phase One XF 100mp Camera.  We’ll also be doing a Capture One 9 video tutorial update.

If there is something you are interested in as far as questions regrading the new camera or Capture One please send them to me by email or personal message.  We’ll gather them together and do our best to cover them during our discussion.  Please don’t post them as part of the topic or it may not get on the list.

Kevin,

I don't need and can't afford the qualities of the XF 100 mp camera, but like to keep up to date on current technology and what is available at the high end and how I can optimize the results with my current 135 equipment--e.g. stacking and highly corrected lenses.

I would be interested in the following:

Is the new sensor front side illuminated
Does it have PDAF with live view
Does it have variable conversion gain with ISO like the A7RII
Does Phase have exclusive rights to the sensor

Regards,

Bill

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think you primarily missed that you don't need to use a product to be able to analyze its positioning, its feature set, it's pricing etc. Analysts in all areas do these things all the time, and a skilled analyst often have thoughtful things to say.

Correct. It's like with a surgeon, he/she doesn't need his/her own appendix surgically removed before he can be relied to operate on someone with appendicitis. Knowledge can be acquired in many ways, empirical means are not always necessary to understand the issues involved. Experience may help in better understanding the practicalities, but is not mandatory for understanding the concept. Albert Einstein also didn't travel at the speed of light, but he had a pretty good grasp of the concept ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Jim Kasson]

Take on the IQ3 100 back? He has never even seen it much less handled it or used it. Browsed the site and he does not seem to have used any IQ backs or medium format digital gear at all. Did I miss something?

Actually, my posts were my take on the sensor, not the back. It's very attractive to me. I certainly didn't post with the idea that the posts would be discussed here. But, now that they are, and you've said the above, I feel I need to defend myself.

My current MF camera is a Hassy H2D-39 with about half a dozen lenses, plus a few V series APOs that seem to hold up on digital sensors. I have used several Hassy and Kodak MF backs in the past. I also use a Betterlight Super 6K a fair amount. If anything smaller than 4x5 is MF, then that qualifies, even though it's a scanning back.

Jim

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Take on the IQ3 100 back? He has never even seen it much less handled it or used it. Browsed the site and he does not seem to have used any IQ backs or medium format digital gear at all. Did I miss something?

If there ever was a post that should not be dignified with an answer, this was it.

[Ken R]

Yes,

I think you missed a few things.

1) He has a Sony A7rII which has a Sony sensor with similar pixel size of the same generation, and he know development in sensors is not that fast.
2) He has a Hasselblad H2D39 (or something like that), he just decided not to upgrade to 50MP sensor but would be tempted by a 100 MP one
3) He used to be an imaging scientist and a researcher at Kodak and some other places. He is a long time photographer.

So, he knows a thing or two. He is actually quite enthusiastic about the new back.

No, we can assume that the Sony sensor in the Sony is virtually identical to Sony sensor in the IQ3-100MP.

Let's assume that I put my Sony A7rII on my HCamMaster TS and mount my Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF lens (the best I have) and take three shots with camera vertical and -12, 0, 12 mm offset.

Now, would I replace the HCam Master TSII with a Hasselblad, mount the same lens, and mount the IQ3 100 MP back on the Hasselblad, I could shoot a 53.7 x 40.4 mm size image.

The image area would be 2169 mm^2 on the Hasselblad vs 2160 mm^2. Same lens, same area, almost exactly the same sensor -> very similar results.

Now, there is a lot of undisclosed data about that sensor. And Jim discusses these to a certain extent.
In that case I get a 36x60 mm image covering a similar surface as the IQ, 2160 mm^2 in both cases. Almost indentical sensor, same size image.

Best regards
Erik

Thx for the response.

Looking forward to reading more about the New Back. I am sure Kevin and Michael will clear up a few details about it soon. I am mainly interested in how it performs with tech lenses (with movements). Would be cool to know if the sensor is similar to the one in the A7RII as well but basically the practical application of it is more important to me but yes, if it is indeed the same sensor a lot of what is known from the A7RII can be applied to the 100mp sensor. It seems obvious that deep analysis of the raw files are only gonna reveal minor per pixel differences with the current 50 mp CMOS sensor. Certainly nothing mind blowing. It is more about the sheer number of pixels and the larger form factor of the sensor.

Regarding the surgeon analogy, well, surgeons do not become surgeons by just reading about procedures all their careers, they practice and perfect them.

Science and theory is essential in everything photographic on the gear side but nothing can substitute experience and practical applications. No dis-respect to Jim personally at all.

Guess I have gotten irritated and a bit tired of the discussions in this forum being heavily skewed towards science and theory (by a handful of prolific posters) rather than practice. My apologies.   

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for your response, much appreciated.

Both Jim and have grown up in engineering professions, I would think that it is a bit natural that if you work with applied science it is quite natural to apply the same thinking you do for living to your hobbies. I would also add that it sort of belongs to that science related thinking that you listen, do experiments and share your findings. The sharing part is very important and sharing ideas and have them tested is a fundamental part of science. Without science, we would not have film, lenses, cameras or digital sensors.

Consider Carl Zeiss, he was trained as an engineer when he established his microscope building business. Now, he felt that scientific experience was needed to make the lenses better, so he started cooperation with Ernst Abbe a well known optical scientist. Zeiss and Abbe found that they needed new sorts of glass for the lenses they wanted to design, so they employed Otto Schott, who founded a development centre for optical glass. Todays Zeiss glass and many lens design originate from those three gentlemen who were engineers and scientists.

Now, I am pretty sure that Jim Kasson regards himself to be a fine arts photographer and that applies also to some extent to me, too. But we are engineering people, so we do our fact finding and do our math. But, very clearly, photography is not my profession.

Anyways, I am genuinely thankful for your response. Wish you a happy and successful year 2016!

Best regards
Erik

Thx for the response.

Looking forward to reading more about the New Back. I am sure Kevin and Michael will clear up a few details about it soon. I am mainly interested in how it performs with tech lenses (with movements). Would be cool to know if the sensor is similar to the one in the A7RII as well but basically the practical application of it is more important to me but yes, if it is indeed the same sensor a lot of what is known from the A7RII can be applied to the 100mp sensor. It seems obvious that deep analysis of the raw files are only gonna reveal minor per pixel differences with the current 50 mp CMOS sensor. Certainly nothing mind blowing. It is more about the sheer number of pixels and the larger form factor of the sensor.

Regarding the surgeon analogy, well, surgeons do not become surgeons by just reading about procedures all their careers, they practice and perfect them.

Science and theory is essential in everything photographic on the gear side but nothing can substitute experience and practical applications. No dis-respect to Jim personally at all.

Guess I have gotten irritated and a bit tired of the discussions in this forum being heavily skewed towards science and theory (by a handful of prolific posters) rather than practice. My apologies.   

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Regarding the user interface, the Sony menu system is a mess. It is not a layout problem it is just that any item can be on any page. The good thing is that the camera has a pair of presets and the ability to have 12 quick choice options and a lot of programmable buttons. So, I actually almost never use the menu system and have little problems. But, do I need a seldom used option, it is very hard to find.

Now, Sony could sit down with and human interface designer for four hours and decide which menu item belongs to which menu/submenu and another half our to move around that stuff. Why don't they do it?

But, the menu system is something you learn to live with and it does not affect the images.

Best regards
Erik

I think the Sony cameras A7r and A7r-II is a good example of exactly that -- people that just grab a sensor and make images with it . The thing is if you have a slow pace style like in landscape you can use a pretty bad user interface camera and still live with it. The worst digital gear is still more convenient to use than an 8x10" camera.

Sony mirrorless cameras didn't become so hugely popular due to their great handling or build quality or focusing speed or whatever, it's only about the sensor, and well, that you can use other glass via adapters.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I used to have a Pentax 67, too. I was using it in parallel with my Minolta AF system and I generally liked it. Some observations:

The first images from the Pentax were disappointing, than I realised that I needed to take a different approach to DoF and stopping down. I essentially ended up ignoring DoF, focusing on subject and taking another subject if DoF was not workable.

The other interesting observation I made in France where I planned for two shoots, one at Mt. Saint Michael where I planned on using the Pentax and one Dinan (I think) where I planned to use 135. Unfortunately I didn't have an opportunity to resupply with 135 Velvia before going to Dinan. So I was shooting Pentax 67, 135 SLR style. Well, the images were 135 SLR style.

What I learned from that was that shooting style matters a lot. I normally shoot both 135 and MF (digital or not) pretty much the same way, but I also do spontaneous shooting and when I do it with a larger camera the results still look the same. Also, I have missed some nice pictures. On the Minolta I had had f/2.8 lenses and even f/1.4 plus autofocus. Were the Pentax 67 images better? Well, hand holding a Pentax 67 and shooting maximum aperture is not to make the best of 67 Velvia.

Best regards
Erik

You are not getting it. It is not all about technical prowess. There are subjective qualities, yes a lot can be explained using science. But that is not the point. The larger formats and the optics available or made for them do have a different look to them. In the film era I personally skipped the 645 format since it was a bit too close to 35mm, it was different and could produce higher quality results but not as different as the 6x7 I was using (Pentax). Some of the difference had to do with the shallower depth of field and the transition from the focal point to the oof areas. Others had to do with the decrease degree of enlargement given equal print sizes.