I have not yet read any of the previous posts as I was busy writing this post. Apologies if some have already addressed the points I make here.
This is a commentary on the recent article by Markus Zuber, published on Luminous Landscape. If you haven’t read it yet :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtmlMarkus Zuber’s article raises a number of issues, both technical and philosophical.
One of the challenges is raising these comparisons is the question of whether one is talking about one as a replacement for the other or simply using one as a benchmark to measure the other against. Markus doesn’t make his approach clear, but most times I have witnessed or participated in this discussion, the underlying implication is one of “Is X good enough to replace Y”.
I’d suggest that there is another approach that can add a different perspective to the discussion. Asking the question “What are the capabilities of X and what new opportunities/methods does is offer for image making”. One of the problems with the approach of comparing something new with the older thing you have been using is that it focuses your attention on an implied assumption that what you were doing was the “right way”. It’s sometimes helpful to ignore the tried and true and look for new possibilities. For me, the arrival of my IQ180 a few months back has been a revelation.
Live focus is a huge asset on the IQ series backs. It is particularly valuable when using longer lenses with tech cameras. I mostly use it when shooting interiors with ultra-wides and when using a close foreground element to lead the eye from in my landscapes. I do not understand why anyone would even attempt to use a groundglass to focus an ALPA if you are shooting on a MFDB. For one thing, the image is too small and the groundglass image too coarse to make meaningful judgements. Forget about seeing anything of value outside the centre of image with wider lenses. Even if you do manage to make meaningful focus settings on the groundglass, it is very hard to ensure that your sensor is in the same plane as your groundglass. With and ALPA, the shimming of backs gives you precision to the 100ths of a millimetre, one of this systems major strengths. You risk losing that precision using a GG to focus. As someone who once did more than 90% of his professional work on a view camera, I understand the comfort of relying on the method you have used with great success in the past. However, the precision required by tech cams and MFDB renders GG focusing obsolete. {Of course, if you are shooting film on your ALPA, the n a GG is valuable but not infallible}. Before I shot with my IQ180, I would guestimate or laser the distance, then rely on the accuracy of ALPA’s HPF rings to give me a strike rate on focus approaching 100% with both my P45+ and P65+. For me, the IQ back on my Alpa is the best workflow I have ever had on an tech cam, as far as focus is concerned. Lets not forget that GG focussing meand exposing your sensor to a lot more risk from impact damage and dust ingress….
Marks statement “ Knowing well that the AF does not really serve well at least with the 55” has me wondering if his generalization means I’ve missed out on some commonly known wisdom. I happen to own the 55, 80 and 110 Schneiders and they focus spot-on in AF. I have a few friends who have no focus problems with their 55’s in AF mode.
These tests clearly demonstrate what many have known for some time – that the “legendary” status of 8x10 as the image quality champion is just that – a legend. The need to shoot at f32 or smaller has always meant that diffraction significantly degrades image quality. Other problems common to large format sheet film such as the lack of film flatness (resulting in the film plane not being in the same place as your groundglass) further compound the problem. The tonality and creaminess often attributed to 8x10 are really a lack of true resolution masked by the fact that many 8x10 images were printed at relatively modest magnification. I make prints from my P65+, Aptus 12 and my IQ180 at sizes exceeding 1.5meters that a print from an 8x10 image simply cannot come close to matching for absolute resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness. The fact that I can achieve this extraordinary outcome with a package as small as an Alpa STC with an IQ180 and a couple of lenses of the extraordinary quality available from Rodenstock, Schneider, Alpa etc is the truly exciting thing about being a photographer in this day and age. The 8x10 is the champ argument simply does not stand up and has not for some time. Your test prove this yet again.
A word of caution about diffraction. MF tech cam lenses of recent design are optimised for use at much larger apertures than conventional wisdom suggests. This is compounded by pixel-level diffraction increasing as pixel sizes get smaller. My 23HR digaron for example, is noticeably softer at f16 than at f8 on my IQ180. The difference was not as obvious on my P65+ which has slightly larger pixels. However, this lens is so good, I am happy shooting at f5.6, provided I can focus accurately.
“The film could easily reveal more details, if they would be projected to it’s surface”. Actually, this is one of the Achilles heels of film, especially colour emulsions. Because film is made by layering several layers of emulsion, each sensitive to different wavelengths of light, on top of each other, light striking the top surface us progressively scattered or diffused as it penetrates the emulsion stack to reach the lower layers. As such, the image on the lower emulsion layer is more diffused (less resolution and contrast) than at the surface. The corrollory of this is that with digital sensors, there is a flat plane and therefore a lot to be gained by precise placement of focus. Hence Alpa’s shimming of backs is of even greater significance with digital backs. The sensor, if properly placed, can utilize the resolution delivered by the lens, where film could not maximize this.
“Film could easily reveal more details”. How? As you’ve already demonstrated, an IQ180 (and by logical extension, the Aptus12) on a tech cam such as an Alpa can outresolve 8x10 film. Add to this the fact that the IQ180 has not one but several more stops more dynamic range than film (The Kodak and Fuji tranny films I used to use had 6.3 stops range in normal E6 processing) as well.
IQ 180 files record and reveal much, much more detail than any colour or monochromatic film I have ever used.
“As we have seen with all Phase One backs, it is very important to get as much to the right as possible (I assume Markus means on the histogram). Underexposed images suffer from noise and bad colours”. Hmmm…. I’m curious, does this mean there is a manufacturer out there with a back for which this is not true?(I want one!!) I’ve owned or shot with backs from Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad, Kodak, Sinar, Canon and Nikon and this is true for all of them. It’s fair to say that all current MF backs are much more tolerant of exposure error than any colour emulsion made. Ever push-processed a colour film more than a stop? You get grainy shadows (read: Noise) and massive colour shifts. In fact not just linear colour shifts but significant colour crossovers. The IQ180 in particular, easily outperforms film in this regard, and all other backs with the possible exception of its stable-mate, the Aptus 12.
I own both, so I’m speaking from first-hand experience. I’m not sure what Markus’s point is in the context of a comparison between 8x10 film and the IQ180. Yes, if you underexpose significantly with this back, you get noise and colour shifts, but in my view, much less than if you underexposed film the same amount.
I fail to understand how the screen in the IQ displays an image from a 110mm lens any differently from a 28mm. It’s displaying the same proportion of both images at whatever percentage of magnification you’ve chosen. It’s value as a focus checking device seems to me to be identical whatever lens I attach.
On the subject of the IQ180’s performance as a B&W device, it is astounding. I shot a lot of large format monochrome in my film days and am well versed with advanced zone system and processing/printing techniques. I have also shot extensively with the Phase One Achromatic back. For panchromatic use (I have not tested IR or UV applications), the IQ180 is simply the best B&W device I have ever shot with. It has much more dynamic range than film, higher resolution than 8x10 film (as Markus has shown us) and with precise use of advanced post-processing techniques, capable of delivering a richness of tone and detail I’ve never seen before.
The kicker for me is that we now have a back which, combined with our camera of choice (I use mine on Alpa STC, Phase 645DF and Fuji GX680 platforms) is able to realistically deliver quality that exceeds 8x10 on a number of levels, is much more portable, user friendly and incredibly versatile. It has already altered the way I work in a number of ways and opened up imagemaking possibilities I had not imagined possible even a couple of years ago.
A big thank you to Markus for taking the time not only to run these tests, but also for taking the time to document and share it with us all.
With respect,
