Has Phase One Abandoned the Technical/Architectural Shooter?

[Paul2660]

Dave, I believe there is an error in your post about the 40HR. Two shifts of 18mm plus the sensor size of 54 mm equal 90mm, not close to a hundred as you write. Furthermore, tests by the major US sellers of these backs and lenses conclude there is reduced image circle usability with the 80 and 100 MP backs. I'm not trying to get into an argument over this. I'm just saying that for stitching applications , the new backs are less flexible with wide angle lenses, which is a concern to me, and that extra pixels don't always make up for the loss of image circle when you are forced to go to a wider lens. I understand there are trade-offs with new technology, but for me, I don't see an upgrade path at this time from the 60MP sensors. It may not matter to many other people.

David Kaufman

It mattered to me, for sure, but everyone has their standards.  The press on the IQ100 has been very limited to early adopters, many of who were using a incorrect version of C1.  The CCD backs you reference really are not better, they may be equal, but not better.  As I have tried to point out, each has their own issues.  But the CMOS backs can work well and very well on tech cameras.  Strongly recommend working with a dealer, renting, etc and trying for yourself. 

Phase is partly to blame for this also, as they have not been very good on getting the positive message out, which surprises me especially with all the work they have done on the CMOS LCC.

But, one thing is for sure, a CCD back IQ260/160 whatever, will have the exact same limits on the HR-W 40mm, due to the internal IC indicator.  That is in the lens, Dave's image shows this very clearly. Depending your image, this may have adverse effects/non recoverable back to even 14mm, which is why I always stop at 15mm with the 40 HR-W. 

Paul C

[dchew]

David,
I was quoting the image circle, i.e. the diagonal, not the horizontal image size. SQRT ((53.7+36)^2 + (40.4)^2) = 98.38mm.

No problem with you disagreeing. If we all felt the same way about everything and saw everything the same way it would be a boring world. I'm not trying to say going to an 80 or 100 mp back has zero downsides. I'm sure there are lenses and situations where the 60mp back would be the better choice. I get that. I'm just quite convinced the 40hr is not one of those, and that is from my own personal testing. My whole point in posting was because the 40hr was specifically called out in your post and in Tony's. I don't think these limitations exist when referring to to the 40hr. In my opinion, this is one of those cases like when we were kids and the message gets whispered around the circle. By the time it comes back the story is quite different, and usually much worse than it really is.

Actually, the site where this photo was taken drops down about 8 feet right beyond where I had the camera set up. Believe it or not, I was glad I had the 3100 and not my 180 because I would not have trusted the LCC's ability to clean up an IQ180 image as well as the IQ3100. If I still had the 180 I would have wanted the camera back another foot or so. I would have needed some complicated ladder / scaffolding to reach the camera.

Dave

 

Dave, I believe there is an error in your post about the 40HR. Two shifts of 18mm plus the sensor size of 54 mm equal 90mm, not close to a hundred as you write. Furthermore, tests by the major US sellers of these backs and lenses conclude there is reduced image circle usability with the 80 and 100 MP backs. I'm not trying to get into an argument over this. I'm just saying that for stitching applications , the new backs are less flexible with wide angle lenses, which is a concern to me, and that extra pixels don't always make up for the loss of image circle when you are forced to go to a wider lens. I understand there are trade-offs with new technology, but for me, I don't see an upgrade path at this time from the 60MP sensors. It may not matter to many other people.

David Kaufman

[Joe Towner]

Evidently I missed an announcement.  The 40mp CCD had to die, has been dead, and really will have an amazing live in the used back market.  Thousands were made, and folks have been upgrading from them to the 50/60/80/100mp backs.  They won't die, and yes, until recently they were the entry back for both Phase and Hass.  50mp CMOS really has set itself up as the defacto starting point.  Sony is making lots of money off them, and making lots of them since Phase/Hass/Pentax are all using it.

The X1D tells us there will be more, higher resolution 33x44 chips, sooner than later.  With that info, to discontinue the 60mp CCD actually helps clear up pricing for folks - it makes the jump to the 100mp seem higher, but allows for a 75mp CMOS to slide in next year and be a middle ground with all the advantages of CMOS.

Hasselblad dropped their H5D-60 product, and my pre-coffee brain says that Dalsa most likely hasn't done a run of the 60mp chips in a while.  It sucks, but Intel doesn't make Pentium III processors any more either (at least for retail sales).  It's much better for Phase/Hass to be up front and say that yes, these cameras & backs work great, but we need to push forward.

I say this all with a touch of sadness as my first hit of MF was with an IQ260 on the World Tour.

-Joe

[TimoK]

Hi David,

I wonder if anybody ever tested a 40/60 MP back with shifts, versus a normal shot with a 100MP back, with software correction for perspective instead of lens shifts. Capture One since Version 9 has much improved resampling algorithms that maintain most resolution without introducing varying resampling blur. The added resolution from a 100 MP back also helps, and shooting with the center of the image circle also helps. There is also less need for drastic LCC corrections when shooting with a centered lens.

For extreme angles of view, stitching may be a better solution.

Maybe a new way of doing the same thing? Just a thought.

Cheers,
Bart

There is a small comparison between tech cam and software correction in this Getdpi thread both with 100mp back. IQ is quite similar.  I'm sure 40mp would be worse.

[JoeKitchen]

Sure, if this was one of Joe's white kitchens (ha - see what I did there?)

Dave

 

If you only knew Dave, how many times I've heard that same joke.   

[alatreille]

So, by my understanding, if they brought out at 50 or 60 CMOS that was full frame, due to it being 'less dense' it would work better on our tech cams?

Am I correct in this?

Given there were two full sized chips in the CCD range, is there any reason there couldn't be two full CMOS chips?

Other than us APs, would there be a market for a chip like this?

Do you think Phase has a Tech cam of any sort in their labs to test these things?

[dchew]

If you only knew Dave, how many times I've heard that same joke.   

I can only imagine. Probably about as many times as I get, "Huh. I thought you were Chinese" when people meet me.


Edit: Now that I think about it, maybe I should do food photography.
 

[JoeKitchen]

So, by my understanding, if they brought out at 50 or 60 CMOS that was full frame, due to it being 'less dense' it would work better on our tech cams?

Am I correct in this?

Given there were two full sized chips in the CCD range, is there any reason there couldn't be two full CMOS chips?

Other than us APs, would there be a market for a chip like this?

Do you think Phase has a Tech cam of any sort in their labs to test these things?

For the most part, that would be correct.  A lower MP sensor will handle lens cast better, however there are other aspects that effect this as well. 

For instance, the type of and curvature of the micro lenses used and how deep the pixels wells are, plus others.  These aspects change from manufacturer to manufacturer; for instance Kodak's chips have a great reputation for handling lens cast.  If you compare the 50 MP Hassy to the 60 MP Phases, both sets have the same pixel pitch, but the Hassy version (with a Kodak chip) still handles lens cast much better. 

In the short run, I can't see any development specifically planned to help out us APs, and I doubt Sony has created a 60 MP chip to sub into the 60 MP backs. 

However, with mirrorless cameras being the next wave, high acute angle response (essentially engineering talk for handling lens cast well) in newer chips will increase since lenses on mirrorless cameras can sit just as close to the sensor as in tech cameras. 

This may wind up bringing sensors once again back to the market that will work well with our tech cameras.  If this happens, I would say it is at least a couple of years out. 

[alatreille]

Thanks Joe,

Lucky I like using my 60 then...It's definitely got a number of years left in it!

;-)

[uaiomex]

As I could never have the money to get into DMF, I learned to love profusely my EOS-TSE system.
Still shooting with an EOS body while salivating each new Sony, but not yet. The GFX is immensely atractive but unless is below $5.5 K I don't think I'll jump. By the time the GFX is selling, Sony already announced and soon to sell another amazing FF camera.
Eduardo

I've been meaning to do a more in depth post about the state of camera platforms in relevance to architectural photography.  While I don't believe Phase One or any other manufacturers have intentionally abandoned the genre, I do feel like the natural evolution of the industry has left us arch shooters somewhat handicapped.

The backs over 60mp do indeed have less usable movement when shifting for composition.  I found the quality from my SK 35 so unusable when shifting over 10mm that I frequently dropped down to the DSLR and 24mm TS-e.  Also, 35mm is just not that wide when you're shooting architecture.

If you really consider the degree of shift available on any 35mm lens with a MFDB, and I'll be generous here...  Let's say you can get 12mm on an IQ 260 (the last  back I owned).  That represents about a 22% shift for a horizontal composition (54mm wide sensor).  On a 35mm sensor you can get 13mm shift from the 25mm TS-e (and I can get 15mm when mounting it on the Arca) that represents a 36% image shift.

So, by using the smaller system, I can compose images that would be impossible to obtain on MF.  Add to that the fact that the 24TS-e on a little sensor performs better at the edges than my 35mm SK did on the DB.

On top of that, there is the 17mm TS-e which will do things you could never dream of on MF.

All in all, I think the state of things has developed almost randomly.  MFDB as a capture platform is much more attractive now than it was for the 10 years I used it... just not for the way I compose architecture.  The little camera, though it certainly produces lesser quality files, is just a more capable platform for me.

I've shot the IQ3 100 and I love the image quality. I really wanted to try to find a way to make it work.  I just don't see it happening.

#frustratedarchshooter


The OP asks about architectural photography. Chris Barrett response nails the issues for professional architectural photographers.

The majority of us who earn our living in this field have moved on.

Paul

[andyptak]

Chris - I have an A7r and sometimes find the look a bit harsh compared to my P45+ and P25.

Shooting efficiency aside, do you ever miss the look of those big pixels?

[BAB]

It seems some manufactures may be looking to outside sources for the tech toys for these new backs. Seeing what Alpa is about to release? Maybe I'm wrong but now a days once the camera is released, the manufactures money and R&D likely goes solely towards the next generations of product. This leaves lots of further advancements, software upgrades and brand specific accessories to third party vendors.

Sony makes the chip, someones else probably makes the lenses, maybe the brand makes the body but for sure lots of development with third party software vendors to put this complicated chip and software together in a marketable package before its outdated is maybe the only way to survive in these times.

[Grischa Rueschendorf]

I think its important to test the equipment in your own work flow environment. I was considering upgrading my IQ260 to IQ3 100 and took (see attached screen shot) some test shots near the Phase One office in Hong Kong. All images are taken with the Rodenstock 32HR (no CF) with a vertical shift of 15 at f11, no work was done on them. Top row is the IQ100 with its respective LCC card, bottom row same shot with my IQ260 with its respective LCC.

My conclusion is that this back got less shift than the IQ260 and thats exactly the point of the original poster. The new back is IMO a trade off between remarkable quality and excellent life view versus limitations on movement.


Grischa

[Paul2660]

An excellent comparison. It would be nice to see how the IQ100 file and corresponding LCC processes out in C1 10. To see how much of the red cast remains after the LCC has been applied.

Paul Caldwell

[Chris Barrett]

Chris - I have an A7r and sometimes find the look a bit harsh compared to my P45+ and P25.

Shooting efficiency aside, do you ever miss the look of those big pixels?

Andy, while I did find the IQ3 100 to make nicer pictures than the Sony, big pixels really don't come into play.  Both sensors have very similar pixel pitch.  I've been doing a lot of wide stuff lately with the 11-24 and the 17 TS-e.  These are working remarkably well on the Arca/Sony combo and I just couldn't achieve the same field of view with the tech cam setup.

[andyptak]

Chris - maybe I have to change my processing habits for the Sony? Reduce sharpening, contrast etc. I used the word harsh before and that's the way I find it to be, compared to the more subtle renditions of the P45+

Any tips?

[Chris Barrett]

Hmm, in the camera I have the profile set to neutral.  Sharpening, contrast and saturation are all zeroed out.  In C1 Pro, I often do something like +12 Sat, +20HDR both shadow and hilight, +20 clarity.  I feel like the phase 1 files are more punchy and colorful, so I add saturation and clarity to the Sony files.  If you go through the front page of my website, the shots are mixed about half and half A7r / IQ260.  I don't think you'd pick any out as harsh.

IMO,
CB

[torger]

I've heard Capture One 10 has a greatly improved LCC algorithm for the IQ3100, reducing ripple and residual cast artifacts. Has anyone tested it first hand?

I'm most interested in if they manage to keep color fidelity and fine tonality in the corrected areas, which would require some sort of crosstalk cancellation. As a software developer I worked with that myself a few years ago but never got it to fully work. I imagine the extremely low noise Sony sensors would improve the odds to succeed though.

[Paul2660]

I've heard Capture One 10 has a greatly improved LCC algorithm for the IQ3100, reducing ripple and residual cast artifacts. Has anyone tested it first hand?

I'm most interested in if they manage to keep color fidelity and fine tonality in the corrected areas, which would require some sort of crosstalk cancellation. As a software developer I worked with that myself a few years ago but never got it to fully work. I imagine the extremely low noise Sony sensors would improve the odds to succeed though.

As someone who first noticed this with the IQ150 I am very familiar with the issue.  Phase One made significant improvement with C10 for the IQ100. The rippling is gone and color cast correction improved also.  The fix is enough to allow a shift across a solid blue sky at 12mm of shift with the 32mm and 15 mm of shift with the 40mm Rodenstocks.

Can it address problems seen by the OP or other architectural shooters?  Don't know. But for landscapes the fix is impressive.

Capture Integration showed some testing in their blog.

Paul Caldwell

[Doug Peterson]

I've heard Capture One 10 has a greatly improved LCC algorithm for the IQ3100, reducing ripple and residual cast artifacts. Has anyone tested it first hand?

I'm most interested in if they manage to keep color fidelity and fine tonality in the corrected areas, which would require some sort of crosstalk cancellation. As a software developer I worked with that myself a few years ago but never got it to fully work. I imagine the extremely low noise Sony sensors would improve the odds to succeed though.

Marked improvement. LCC generation itself is also much faster.

You can use our IQ3 100mp Raw File Download Catalog along with the free-for-use-with-phase-one-backs Capture One to test for yourself.

Combine this with the sensor based electronic shutter feature added recently and it's very clear this topic is misnamed. Phase One is doing far more for the tech camera market than any other maker.