IQ180 vs IQ380?

[DrakeJ]

So now I've gone through demoing a variety of digital backs from both Hasselblad and Phase, and I've narrowed it down to three refurbished P1 backs:

- IQ160
- IQ180
- IQ260

I was leaning towards 180 since the demo of the 380 went well. ISO on location was acceptable, I found ISO 400 to be ok handheld, even though I would never venture up that high when I bring strobes along for the ride.

But I just realized, looking at the specs, that the base ISO for 180 is 35, and 380 is 50.

From what I understand, 160, 260 and 360 does not differ in noise, unless you use long exposures (not relevant for me), but a base ISO change in the 380 leads me to believe that 180 and 380 are two different animals when you up the ISO?

[Paul2660]

If you do a bit of research on this site and others, you will find that many feel that the "real" base ISO of the IQ180 is 50, not 35, 35 being a push down, and not really giving the best DR.  Same hold true on the 160/260 etc, as the true base on those backs is more like 100. 

Will it matter a lot, have have shot the 180/280 at 35 and 50 and the difference is nominal, so if you like the back I would not worry too much on it.  The CCD backs, are also different in that they are really only 2 real ISO ranges, 100, maybe 200, the rest is just meta data recorded to the file.  There has been plenty written about this issue also, and there are some very good posts, with examples.

The long exposure backs are a bit different as they do have different base ISO's when you are in the long exposure setup, the 260 is ISO 140 and the 380 I believe starts at 200. 

Paul C

[Joe Towner]

The IQ380 is a newer Dalsa 80mp CCD chip.  Some minor tweaks but the big one is long exposure that the IQ180/280 can't do.  The IQ180 and 280 are the same chip (wifi is the difference).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

ISO ratings are somewhat arbitrary. To begin with, there are different schemes for assigning ISO ratings, the one that seems to be applicable to RAW photography is Saturation based sensivity, Ssat: http://www.imatest.com/docs/sensitivity_ei/

DxO measures this and rates the IQ 180 at 28 ISO, between ISO 35 and ISO 100 setting: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-One/IQ180-Digital-Back---Measurements

Confusing? Yes!

DxO-mark did not publish any data for later Phase One models, unfortunately.

Best regards
Erik

So now I've gone through demoing a variety of digital backs from both Hasselblad and Phase, and I've narrowed it down to three refurbished P1 backs:

- IQ160
- IQ180
- IQ260

I was leaning towards 180 since the demo of the 380 went well. ISO on location was acceptable, I found ISO 400 to be ok handheld, even though I would never venture up that high when I bring strobes along for the ride.

But I just realized, looking at the specs, that the base ISO for 180 is 35, and 380 is 50.

From what I understand, 160, 260 and 360 does not differ in noise, unless you use long exposures (not relevant for me), but a base ISO change in the 380 leads me to believe that 180 and 380 are two different animals when you up the ISO?

[DrakeJ]

Ok, I've read the enormous ISO thread on the IQ180 and am a little bit wiser as to CCD ISO and its rating. I saw the result myself when i grossly overexposed the IQ380 during my weekend demo in ISO 400, and was baffled as to how I could retrieve every detail. So I am aware that the ISO is more of a marker in the RAW file.

But the question in the topic is how IQ380 differs from IQ180 when it comes to noise and DR. All the tests I've done has been on the IQ380, but the chip is new and the base ISO is different with support for long exposures.

The IQ160 and IQ260 went through the same change but I've read that DR and high ISO didn't visibly differ that much (if at all?).

[torger]

If you use ETTR etc and a third party raw converter looking at actual saturation is probably the right thing to do, and indeed those measured values can differ quite much from the manufacturer's claim.

However most use the bundled raw converter and bundled camera profiles and the sensitivity should be related to that. That is if a back is rated ISO50 it needs twice the shutter speed compared to an ISO100 back to produce an image with the same brightness in the default raw conversion. I have no idea though if Capture One's conversion is tuned to make the ISO ratings match.

I guess one could rephrase Joakim's question to "does the IQ180 require longer shutter speed than the IQ380 to make the image equally bright in the default conversion in Capture One, and if so how much longer?"

[voidshatter]

IQ380 is not worth the money. It's a 5-year old sensor and the long exposure mode still has the design flaw that excessive noise floods the four corners of the sensor. For the money of IQ380 I would say go for the IQ3100 straight away. CMOS just has so many advantages such like real LiveView, tiling-free, better dynamic range, being able to disable darkframe noise reduction, etc..

If you have to buy into "dead" CCD ancient technology then go for the IQ180 for best value.

[Paul2660]

Disable the dark frame on the CMOS, BTW, only works on a tech camera, as you can't put the CMOS backs in aerial mode on the XF. 

As to the chips, Yunli makes a good point, as Phase to my knowledge never published the sensor part numbers for the 260 and 380.  I have never really known if the CCD is the same part between the 160 and 260, however as an owner of both, I would still say my 160 had better cleaner files at base iso 50.  The 260 for me was a total wasted investment, I would have been much better to just keep my 160.  I expected cleaner files and useable ISO 400/800 in the LE mode, but found out that the LE mode really had no effect on normal exposure ranges, in fact if anything, it made them worse.

If you are looking at the IQ180, vs the 380 for noise floors, I feel that you can't really read charts and graphs, but try out the back.  No two 180 backs have the exact same response, I have seen very clean files from 180 backs, and other backs that did just an average job.  Will you see a huge difference between the 380 and 180, you really would have to demo both side by side and see (and if you like the results from that particular 180 buy it as the next one may not produce the same results).  The 180 is still a great back with an excellent proven record thousands of them in use in the field, where as the 380 was announced last June, and did not ship immediately I feel that the number of them in use is much less, especially since Phase One announced the 100MP back just 6 months later. 

Paul C

[DrakeJ]

Yunli, dead tech you say, I say "affordable" tech. I have no intention on getting a new IQ380.

Paul2660: What exactly do you mean by this: "No two 180 backs have the exact same response, I have seen very clean files from 180 backs, and other backs that did just an average job."

How can that be? There are no moveable parts in a sensor and if quality assurance does not suck I find it hard to believe different backs have such different behaviour? If you're right, I have no idea if Phase will allow me to try a refurbished back and then send it back if it wasn't to my liking... What you're saying is pretty troublesome

[DrakeJ]

I guess one could rephrase Joakim's question to "does the IQ180 require longer shutter speed than the IQ380 to make the image equally bright in the default conversion in Capture One, and if so how much longer?"

I guess you could say it like that. I downloaded a few raw files from digital transitions where they compare skin tones on 360, 380, 3100 and a Leaf 40 back, and the raw file from IQ380 had to be upped by third of a stop to achieve the same brightness/histogram as the other backs. So even the 380 is down a bit compared to the others. Another reason of course could be that their strobe was set to another power level...

[Paul2660]

Paul2660: What exactly do you mean by this: "No two 180 backs have the exact same response, I have seen very clean files from 180 backs, and other backs that did just an average job."

How can that be? There are no moveable parts in a sensor and if quality assurance does not suck I find it hard to believe different backs have such different behaviour? If you're right, I have no idea if Phase will allow me to try a refurbished back and then send it back if it wasn't to my liking... What you're saying is pretty troublesome

All I can tell you is that the Phase assembly process, may be a bit less computer aided design more one person assembles a individual back.  I base this on what I have been told over the years on the factory, never have been there.

However I have owned, P45+, IQ160, IQ260, and now 100.  When my P45+ was sent off for repair, the loaner back was much better in noise/DR then my P45+, so it's safe to assume that Phase One tweaked the back during the manufacturing run.  Phase did work with me on this issue.  I have also seen shots from Erik K's P45+ that are amazingly clean, and he uses LR, not C1.

My IQ160, was sent in for repair recalibration, the loaner 160 was so different in every way, I called my dealer and had my back sent back, as the repair was not that urgent and I did not want anything replaced.  I used Kevin Raber's assistance on this, when he still worked for Phase One. 

I had the same situation with a 260, in that it definitely had cleaner shadows than my 260, but not enough to ask for a replacement.

I have used Phase backs, since early 2008, and my experience is not unique as my dealer has also stated that there he has seen some variances, i.e. some backs are just cleaner than others.  CCD backs.  I can't explain why this would be, but again it's why I would never want to purchase such a product without a dealer, one that knows what you are looking for in the files.  Just my take, I know others will differ.  I am not a studio shooter, only landscape, all outdoors.  I will say that with Nikon, Canon or Fuji, I don't find this issue, in that one camera seems to take an image just like another and so on.  With CCD backs, each back as a unique calibration file, that is 100% critical to the image quality, as it effect tiling, noise and other critical parts of the shot.  Yes this file can be reworked and often is, but it's a fact, some Phase backs, just tile worse than others, especially the 180.  Plenty written on this also

If you purchase from a dealer, there is always a return process if you are not 100% satisfied on a refurb, at least that is the case with my dealer.  You need to make the decision within a reasonable timeframe.  I hope you are working with a dealer, one that understands your requirements 100%.  I can fully recommend Capture Integration, in Atlanta, if you are in the US. 

Paul C

[DrakeJ]

Thanks for the insight, Paul! Unfortunately I'm not in the US but I'll check with my dealer what the terms are for buying a refurbished back. I would hope refurbished means it's perfect from the get go, but it would be nice with some assurance...

Since you have shot with almost everything in the Phase lineup, how do you find the IQ160, IQ260 and IQ180 compares at, say, ISO 200/400? I'm still entertaining the possibility to go with a x60 back instead of a 180.

[torger]

I would guess that as a studio shooter using an SLR it is much less likely to be disturbed by CCD variations than you are as a landscape shooter using a tech cam in high contrast scenarios.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would think that there are significant variations between sensor samples. It is feasible to assume that the production process is refined trough the years.

So, Phase One gets a sensor from Kodak or Dalsa and they either accept it or reject it. In the P20/P25 time rejection rate was significant. If the sensor is accepted it goes to characterisation, that enables Phase One to fix issues with each individual sensor chip.

This video offers some insights: https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/luminous-landscape-video-journal-issue-14/interview-jesper-sandager/

The video is a bit dated, and I guess that Phase One is a larger operation now.

If you compare two backs, like the 260 and the 280, you should scale the images to same size. Else, the high MP sensor would be put at disadvantage, because you make closer scrutiny.

For good high ISO you would need to go CMOS, IMHO. The reason CMOS is getting better high ISO is lower readout noise and probably better efficiency in collecting photons (particles of light). The other part is having large capacity to store free electrons. I guess modern CMOS has some benefits in that area, too.

So, image quality wise the CMOS sensors are a win/win situtation, but prices are stiff. A second hand CCD sensor should be affordable on the other hand.

I am a bit skeptical about the whole MFD thing, but older MFD technology is quite affordable now, so it is good time to get involved with MFD. But, prices are dropping rapidly on old stuff.

As Paul has indicated, my P45+ seems to be a good one. I am quite happy with it.

Best regards
Erik

All I can tell you is that the Phase assembly process, may be a bit less computer aided design more one person assembles a individual back.  I base this on what I have been told over the years on the factory, never have been there.

However I have owned, P45+, IQ160, IQ260, and now 100.  When my P45+ was sent off for repair, the loaner back was much better in noise/DR then my P45+, so it's safe to assume that Phase One tweaked the back during the manufacturing run.  Phase did work with me on this issue.  I have also seen shots from Erik K's P45+ that are amazingly clean, and he uses LR, not C1.

My IQ160, was sent in for repair recalibration, the loaner 160 was so different in every way, I called my dealer and had my back sent back, as the repair was not that urgent and I did not want anything replaced.  I used Kevin Raber's assistance on this, when he still worked for Phase One. 

I had the same situation with a 260, in that it definitely had cleaner shadows than my 260, but not enough to ask for a replacement.

I have used Phase backs, since early 2008, and my experience is not unique as my dealer has also stated that there he has seen some variances, i.e. some backs are just cleaner than others.  CCD backs.  I can't explain why this would be, but again it's why I would never want to purchase such a product without a dealer, one that knows what you are looking for in the files.  Just my take, I know others will differ.  I am not a studio shooter, only landscape, all outdoors.  I will say that with Nikon, Canon or Fuji, I don't find this issue, in that one camera seems to take an image just like another and so on.  With CCD backs, each back as a unique calibration file, that is 100% critical to the image quality, as it effect tiling, noise and other critical parts of the shot.  Yes this file can be reworked and often is, but it's a fact, some Phase backs, just tile worse than others, especially the 180.  Plenty written on this also

If you purchase from a dealer, there is always a return process if you are not 100% satisfied on a refurb, at least that is the case with my dealer.  You need to make the decision within a reasonable timeframe.  I hope you are working with a dealer, one that understands your requirements 100%.  I can fully recommend Capture Integration, in Atlanta, if you are in the US. 

Paul C

[Paul2660]

Thanks for the insight, Paul! Unfortunately I'm not in the US but I'll check with my dealer what the terms are for buying a refurbished back. I would hope refurbished means it's perfect from the get go, but it would be nice with some assurance...

Since you have shot with almost everything in the Phase lineup, how do you find the IQ160, IQ260 and IQ180 compares at, say, ISO 200/400? I'm still entertaining the possibility to go with a x60 back instead of a 180.

For me High ISO and CCD doesn't really mix well.  Phase knew this also, as they created the sensor plus mode for most the modern IQ backs. 

As an outdoor shooter, I am totally dependent on ambient light, and with MF I tend to work in the F11 to F16 even with the threat of diffraction.  Fast lenses don't really work for me due to price and extremely limited DOF.  I need high ISO usually in two situations:

1.  Where I am shooting with considerable wind and I need to stop the motion of trees, leaves etc. as I personally don't prefer the blur it creates.
2.  Low light situation, where I have to still use a F stop of F11 or higher to keep my DOF, (I realize I can focus stack but that adds work)

What I have found with all Phase backs, that are CCD, is that @ ISO 400 and above in full resolution mode, you do start to sacrifice on both color (depth and saturation) and finer details, along with loss of the ability to push shadows.  In good light, you will still see a bit of loss in color saturation and the shadows tend to get very hard to push.  Finer details start to lose the crispness that you become accustom to.  If shooting in low light ISO 400 will suffer the most, as you start to see a lot of noise throughout the file and the shadows are in effect worthless. 

Switch to sensor plus, all of the above is no longer true.  To their credit Phase One does some amazing work with the CCD back in Sensor plus mode.  But I was always on the 60MP backs, most of the time, and dropping form 60 to 15mp was just a bit to hard to take, especially when there are plenty of 16MP DSLR cameras that can get very close to the same results.  (I realize many will disagree with this).  With a 80MP back, the 20MP sensor plus was always a bit more useable and I still feel the 80MP on sensor plus has the overall best results, even over the 60MP backs.  If Phase had not announced the 100 CMOS back, I would have moved to the 380 and have been done. 

A couple of other thoughts:

1.  Th 50MP Phase One backs, are excellent, and share the same DR (maybe better) than the new 100MP backs, they don't record in full 16bit mode, but are priced well.  There are many used IQ250 on the market, and the 150, new may work also.  However the 150 is stripped down quite a bit.  I would have moved 2 years ago, if the original upgrade from the 260 to 250 had been more realistic from Phase (at the time their price was more than the quote I received to move from my 260 to the 100MP).  The other factor to consider is the crop factor of the 50MP.  30%, so in studio, this may help.  In my locale, it won't same reasons I don't own a D500, @1.5crop.  Just too much image loss for me.  If I lived out in the western US, may not have been a big deal, in fact may have been a plus, but in Arkansas, I work in close and the 1:3 crop just pushed out too much image I was used to seeing. 

2.  The 260, I just can't see any reason to purchase.  I made a huge mistake on this upgrade.  I drank the kool aid, a bit too much.  Reasons, the normal in normal mode, the high ISO range of 400 to 800 was actually worse than my 160.  In LE (long exposure mode), no difference.  I hoped that Phase One would add a firmware fix that gave some relief to this and used some of the "magic" in the 260 chip/hardware, but nothing really was ever done.  The 260 was done at announce.  And sadly in LE mode true long exposures still really don't stand up at all to a CMOS chip.  Especially anything longer than 2 minutes.  Again, I base this on the (3) different 260's I have used.  Mine and 2 loaners while mine was in for work.  I also had more problems with my 260 than any other Phase back.   The worse issue was condensation on the inside of the LCD (which Phase One told me was "normal for this back"), got it fixed but it took some time.
The 260 is long gone, replaced by the 360, but they are the same guts, only the interface for the XF power sharing is different.  So my point is if you like the 60MP backs, looks to the Credo 60 (great back a bit different interface) or the IQ160 which is still the standard.  BTW it's the same chip that is in the P65+, so if you can live with the non IQ interface, the P65+ might be another solution.  As with all Phase backs, the tethering is excellent on the P65+, but only firewire.

Paul C