Credo 60 live view, how good is it?

[free1000]

Specifically, can it be used more or less continuously, or does the camera get too hot?

Can it be used for accurate focus, or is it in reality mainly useful for composition?

How slow is it to navigate into 1:1 and in and out?
 

[Doug Peterson]

Specifically, can it be used more or less continuously, or does the camera get too hot?

Can it be used for accurate focus, or is it in reality mainly useful for composition?

How slow is it to navigate into 1:1 and in and out?

If you are planning on extensively live view a CCD back is very unlikely to be the best solution for your needs. I direct you to this thread where I've provided an extensive reply re the value (or not) of a CCD back depending on what you do.

But direct answers to your direct questions:
- it will get quite warm, but in most cases that is not a problem in and of itself
- it CAN be used for accurate focus, but the refresh rate is very slow (a couple frames per second) and the range of illumination in which it works at all is quite narrow (e.g. no direct daylight, no low light situations). Expect the process of focusing with CCD live view to be slow, arduous, annoying, and lightyears away from the experience of using good CMOS live view.
- very roughly 2-3 seconds to zoom and resolve 1:1 or zoom out depending on illumination

[Hank Keeton]

I've had a Credo-60 for about 2-years.

I stopped using the "live-view"...it's worthless.

I simply compose-focus-expose....reviewing my capture 1:1 for what I want. Then...correct (if necessary)...and repeat.

Sure...I log a few more "clicks" per final-image...but it's faster than waiting for true-focus from the "live-sensor."

Even using camera-movements, this sequence works rather nicely for me.

Good luck...and creative-shooting...!!

Cheers,

Hank

[free1000]

If you are planning on extensively live view a CCD back is very unlikely to be the best solution for your needs. I direct you to this thread where I've provided an extensive reply re the value (or not) of a CCD back depending on what you do.

But direct answers to your direct questions:
- it will get quite warm, but in most cases that is not a problem in and of itself
- it CAN be used for accurate focus, but the refresh rate is very slow (a couple frames per second) and the range of illumination in which it works at all is quite narrow (e.g. no direct daylight, no low light situations). Expect the process of focusing with CCD live view to be slow, arduous, annoying, and lightyears away from the experience of using good CMOS live view.
- very roughly 2-3 seconds to zoom and resolve 1:1 or zoom out depending on illumination

Thanks I thought this was the case, but had read some posts elsewhere that suggested that it along with the Phase IQ160 had a sensor that worked better than expected for a CCD for this purpose.  My skepticism seems right.

[free1000]

I've had a Credo-60 for about 2-years.

I stopped using the "live-view"...it's worthless.

I simply compose-focus-expose....reviewing my capture 1:1 for what I want. Then...correct (if necessary)...and repeat.

Sure...I log a few more "clicks" per final-image...but it's faster than waiting for true-focus from the "live-sensor."

Even using camera-movements, this sequence works rather nicely for me.

Good luck...and creative-shooting...!!

Cheers,

Hank

Thanks for that information Hank.

[free1000]

If you are planning on extensively live view a CCD back is very unlikely to be the best solution for your needs. I direct you to this thread where I've provided an extensive reply re the value (or not) of a CCD back depending on what you do.

But direct answers to your direct questions:
- it will get quite warm, but in most cases that is not a problem in and of itself
- it CAN be used for accurate focus, but the refresh rate is very slow (a couple frames per second) and the range of illumination in which it works at all is quite narrow (e.g. no direct daylight, no low light situations). Expect the process of focusing with CCD live view to be slow, arduous, annoying, and lightyears away from the experience of using good CMOS live view.
- very roughly 2-3 seconds to zoom and resolve 1:1 or zoom out depending on illumination

OK, so the Credo 50 and IQ250 are the CMOS backs.

[Doug Peterson]

Thanks I thought this was the case, but had read some posts elsewhere that suggested that it along with the Phase IQ160 had a sensor that worked better than expected for a CCD for this purpose.  My skepticism seems right.

It was/is a significant improvement over previous Phase CCD backs (the Credo is a Phase One back that followed Phase One's purchase of Leaf).

But that's a highly relative statement. Once you get used to CMOS live view, especially as implemented on recent Phase One backs, the differences between various generations of CCD live view seem pretty negligible. It's like the difference in speed between two generations of spinning hard drives once you've gotten used to a modern solid state drive speed.

[Doug Peterson]

OK, so the Credo 50 and IQ250 are the CMOS backs.

By quick hand count there are ten modern* CMOS models that have been produced by Phase One / Leaf.

The 50mp, 100mp, and 150mp models are all CMOS.

*Plus the Leaf CMOST from waaaaay back in the day that would not qualify as a "modern CMOS model"

[free1000]

By quick hand count there are ten modern* CMOS models that have been produced by Phase One / Leaf.

The 50mp, 100mp, and 150mp models are all CMOS.

*Plus the Leaf CMOST from waaaaay back in the day that would not qualify as a "modern CMOS model"

OK, quite a few. How would you characterise the 50mp backs? I guess we are talking IQ250,  IQ350, IQ450,  then there is the Credo 50 (just the one generation in h/w or are there more?)

Is the main difference in computing power, or did a lot of changes happen to the sensors over those generations?

Presumably there CCD remain better for some things (colour?) otherwise there would not have been more generations, and the sensors are FF rather than the 1.3 crop of the CMOS backs.

Yes, I remember the existence of the Cmost, that was some time ago.

[Paul2660]

To be honest, you should be able to to excellent color from any of the 50MP backs.  With C1 I feel you get the best color from Phase backs, but LR/ACR will also work.  LR/ACR has limited support however, as I don't believe LR/ACR ever developed support for the IQ150 (stupid as it's just a name change), but they do support the IQ250, not even sure on the IQ350.  With good post production, color from a CMOS back vs CCD back (60MP or 80MP) should be very close.  I realize there are those who will disagree, and that's fine with me.  I have used them all and color to me is fine with all. 

Problem is the 50MP MF chip is old and getting older by the day.  Fuji and Hasselblad did figure out a way to give you an electronic shutter option, which is a plus. 

With a modern CMOS 35mm, camera, Sony or Nikon you can get very close 42/45MP and to be honest, I don't think you will see any difference between them. Resolution is very close with good lenses.  You gain a lot of new features also. 

But if you want a 50MP MF camera, look at the GFX R (same sensor as all of the others/slightly different filter array) or used GFX50s, or purchase a new 907x and 50MP back, guess what, same old sensor.  There is only 1 50MP MF sensor CMOS out there and all of the various companies use it. All of these will be cheaper than a used back, still need a camera body, XF or older, and lens  GFX 50s and lens combo will be very reasonable,  907x/and it's back still has no price announcement but the Special version is 7500.00 US so I don't expect it to be more than that, still need a lens from Hasselblad (XCD lens for example).

Paul C

[Doug Peterson]

OK, quite a few. How would you characterise the 50mp backs? I guess we are talking IQ250,  IQ350, IQ450,  then there is the Credo 50 (just the one generation in h/w or are there more?)

Is the main difference in computing power, or did a lot of changes happen to the sensors over those generations?

Presumably there CCD remain better for some things (colour?) otherwise there would not have been more generations, and the sensors are FF rather than the 1.3 crop of the CMOS backs.

A full answer to all those questions would fill a few pages. I'd suggest working with your local dealer to evaluate the range of options available.

But to correct some of the above...
"Presumably there CCD remain better for some things" - the color is different between the CCD backs, 50mp CMOS, 100mp CMOS, 100mp CMOS with trichromatic array, and 150mp sensors. Which color is "best" is a decision best left to your own personal subjective evaluation. But if you're looking for my own feeling on the matter, in ascending order of color quality: 50mp CMOS, CCD backs, 100mp CMOS, and then 100mp CMOS with trichromatic array and 150mp CMOS effectively tied for best. But I'd also tell you we're talking about A, A+, and A++ color; put differently they are all have "great color" or better. Bear in mind that I'm using "Xmp sensor" as short hand for the many P1 backs that used these sensors as a camera's color is far more than it's sensor (i.e. other cameras that use the "same sensor" will not necessarily produce the same color).

Additional reading on this topic:
https://luminous-landscape.com/phase-one-trichromatic-part-1/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-phase-one-iq250-cmos-fully-realized/

"otherwise there would not have been more generations"
The release of CCD backs was very limited following the release of the first CMOS back. After the IQ250 (the first shipping modern CMOS back; Hassy jumped ahead with announcing one but was way delayed on delivering it) shipped the IQ360 and IQ380 were released but the 360 used the same 60mp sensor as the IQ160/IQ260 (released before the IQ250) and the IQ380 used a only-slightly-improved sensor than the IQ280. It's been all CMOS from then on out. The current generation (IQ4) is exclusively CMOS and I would not expect any further CCD backs to ever be produced.

"and the sensors are FF rather than the 1.3 crop of the CMOS backs" - the 50mp CMOS sensors are all 1.3 crop sensors, as is the 100mp CMOS sensor used in the Fuji GFX100. The IQ1 100mp, IQ3 100mp, IQ3 100mp Trichromatic, IQ3 100mp Achromatic, IQ4 100mp Trichromatic, IQ4 150mp Achromatic, and IQ4 150mp (color) are all full-frame-645 sensors.

[free1000]

Problem is the 50MP MF chip is old and getting older by the day.  Fuji and Hasselblad did figure out a way to give you an electronic shutter option, which is a plus. 

Paul C

When you say ‘old’ you mean old in the sense of old-tech, not that it would wear out right? 

I’m not worried about that so much, so long as it does the job.

I hadn’t really taken on board the new Hassleblad back and camera, that is very interesting.

My ideal product is a back because I have an existing tech cam and digitar lenses.  So the CVF II might suit me very well for not much more money than the second hand backs I’ve been looking at, thanks for the heads up on this.

[douglevy]

Actual owner experience here. I owned a Credo 40, 60 and now IQ3100. The Live View was more or less unusable on the Credos. GREAT backs. Loved the color and IQ I got at 50/100 ISO. In Jan. I upgraded to the 3100 and the live view is fantastic (I don't use it that much, but it's great). To me, the color on the Credos at base, while different, is similar to the 3100. With the leaf profiles in C1 I can get very, very similar color (though I'd say it's better, especially with the IIQL16-bit files.). I looked at files from a Credo 50 when I got the 60 and couldn't get the same color. I suspect it's a 14-bit vs. 16 bit thing (the 50mp backs are all 14-bit), but I don't know for sure if that's it.

-Doug

[Paul2660]

CCD backs are all 14 bit also. Last two bits are noise. Plenty of testing to show the actual useable bit stream from the CCD backs are 14bit. They are also basically a single ISO level back even through they offer different ISO settings.

3100 has the first true 16 bit output that I am aware of followed by the tricolormatic both P1 backs. 

Phase is now also willing to settle for 14bit with their frame averaging output.  At least for now.

I also agree that C1 profiles are the best for their backs and the 16 bit output from the 3100 has amazing range especially at base ISO.

Paul C

[Paul2660]

When you say ‘old’ you mean old in the sense of old-tech, not that it would wear out right? 

I’m not worried about that so much, so long as it does the job.

I hadn’t really taken on board the new Hassleblad back and camera, that is very interesting.

My ideal product is a back because I have an existing tech cam and digitar lenses.  So the CVF II might suit me very well for not much more money than the second hand backs I’ve been looking at, thanks for the heads up on this.

Yes chip is a bit dated. First used in 2014 with the IQ250.

Still can produce excellent images.

For a tech camera I would strongly consider CMOS as Live View is IMO very beneficial. For both determining best focus and scene setup.

Lots of options out there. But new Hasselblad solutions will give the best price performance and Hasselblad has a tilting LCD. Something I sure would love to have on a P1 back.

Paul C

[free1000]

Yes chip is a bit dated. First used in 2014 with the IQ250.

Still can produce excellent images.

For a tech camera I would strongly consider CMOS as Live View is IMO very beneficial. For both determining best focus and scene setup.

Lots of options out there. But new Hasselblad solutions will give the best price performance and Hasselblad has a tilting LCD. Something I sure would love to have on a P1 back.

Paul C

Yes, I haven't been keeping up with developments on MFDB as I don't have a lot of money to spend on gear these days so I was very pleasantly surprised to see what you'd highlighted.  I have shot a great deal on tech cam without live view and it is OK to fiddle around a bit but it will be great to speed that process up in composition.  I also have attempted shooting without live view on a Cambo sliding back on my Ebony camera and have a couple of Xenotar 2.8 MF lenses for that, you can get some great looks but I found the sliding back problematic and eventually it broke.

It's kind of amazing to see the options becoming available around the price point of the Fuji 50mp cameras, they really have changed the game.

The Hasselblad solution with the thin camera body is really elegant as well, it looks as though the DJI connection really paid off as those guys seem to have excellent design instincts. I'm a bit surprised there's not more noise about this camera as it more or less addresses a lot of wants people have expressed over the years. I guess if there is a focus on pure resolution it looks a bit uninteresting but the ease of use with the flip up screen is going to make it far more useful to work intuitively instead of having to think about handling all the time.