Active pixel vs file size in iQ280

[alifatemi]

According to Phase One, iQ280 active pixel resolution is 80 megapixel compare to iQ260 with 60 active megapixels resolution, it means that it has about %33 more pixel resolution compare to iQ260 but why its file size is just %11 larger than iQ260;  10328 for iq280 and 8984 for iq260? I expected file size of iq280 to be 8984 x%33=12000 but its not. Why? It means that with iQ260 largest print size with 360PPI is 25" and for iq280 is 29" and not %33 larger, say 33"

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Resolution is per area but print sizes are linear. 80/60 = 1.33

sqrt(1.33) = 1.15

60 * 1.15 *1.15 = 79.3 (there is some rounding error here and there)

Regarding file size, I don't know, but I presume the file contains lot of non image data.

Best regards
Erik

According to Phase One, iQ280 active pixel resolution is 80 megapixel compare to iQ260 with 60 active megapixels resolution, it means that it has about %33 more pixel resolution compare to iQ260 but why its file size is just %11 larger than iQ260;  10328 for iq280 and 8984 for iq260? I expected file size of iq280 to be 8984 x%33=12000 but its not. Why? It means that with iQ260 largest print size with 360PPI is 25" and for iq280 is 29" and not %33 larger, say 33"

[gerald.d]

According to Phase One, iQ280 active pixel resolution is 80 megapixel compare to iQ260 with 60 active megapixels resolution, it means that it has about %33 more pixel resolution compare to iQ260 but why its file size is just %11 larger than iQ260;  10328 for iq280 and 8984 for iq260? I expected file size of iq280 to be 8984 x%33=12000 but its not. Why? It means that with iQ260 largest print size with 360PPI is 25" and for iq280 is 29" and not %33 larger, say 33"

The figures you're quoting are not the file sizes, they're the horizontal resolutions of the sensors, hence they match up exactly* with the explanation given by Erik.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

*Well - not quite exactly, because the IQ260 sensor is 2mm wider than the IQ280. I'm always forgetting that!

[alifatemi]

So the question is if extra $7000 for iQ280 compare to iQ260 worth it, considering absolute image quality btw the two?

[gerald.d]

So the question is if extra $7000 for iQ280 compare to iQ260 worth it, considering absolute image quality btw the two?

IQ280 vs IQ260 is a tough one.

Basically, you have to weigh up the benefits of the higher resolution on the IQ280, vs the long exposure capabilities of the IQ260.

Even if there wasn't a $7K difference in price, depending on what you're wanting to shoot, the IQ260 could be a better option. Quite a few people traded-in IQ180's for IQ260's (I very nearly did myself, but didn't feel the "deal" on offer from Phase One was a fair one).

Kind regards,

Gerald.

[alifatemi]

I don't think with kind of my photography style, I benefit long exposer of iq260 much but main reason for going to 280 is just having more resolution in large print, say, 44" or larger. I really don't know if it has perceivable better resolution and detail than 260?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I really don't know if it has perceivable better resolution and detail than 260?

Hi,

It's the difference between 30.85 x 23.11 inch versus 35.39 x 26.56 inch output with the same resolution. It's perceivable, but certainly not earth shattering.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ken R]

I don't think with kind of my photography style, I benefit long exposer of iq260 much but main reason for going to 280 is just having more resolution in large print, say, 44" or larger. I really don't know if it has perceivable better resolution and detail than 260?

Might be noticeable in very large prints. I would look more into the system resolution and performance with the lenses you intend to use. For wide angle work with a lot of movements I bet the IQ160/260 might have an edge since it would not require as heavy corrections for color shift and maybe even vignetting so the dynamic range is not used on that as much. With either you really need to use the best lenses to get the best out of the back. A dealer can help you out with samples and tests.

[satybhat]

Hi there,
I went through the same problem last month.
I had ALMOST convinced myself to get a Cambo WRS 5000 with a IQ260.

And then I visited a dealer here and had a prowl on his computer and man, the ISO35 (of IQ280) with good technique - the files just blew me away.

Two small observations that I would like to share from my experience so far (disclaimer: I have only seen a few prints and not made any of my own) :

1.   As mentioned above, ISO 35 with good technique, the IQ280 blows away anything that I have seen until now in my 3 months or so of contemplating MF photogear. Even 8x10. The detail is different, feels more real than the IQ260 on screen.

2.   The ISO 100 and 200 with good technique are quite comparable to ISO140 files of IQ260 for long exposures. I found that over the few hundreds of files that I saw of long-exposures done with the 280, this held true almost every time. Of course the sensor kind of caps out at 95 secs of exposure where it starts to show artefacts regardless of the ISO used, having said that, there is a wide choice available for exposure permutations below this time limit; I found that IQ260 files at ISO140 at a few minutes and a similar scene with ISO 200 at 95secs on the IQ280 were quite comparable with the sliders were tweaked, with little loss in dynamic range and noise levels.

On the other hand, I did notice a difference between ISO 35 and ISO 50 respectively of the two backs at short exposures. YMMV, but I suppose this would not make a great deal of difference either ways when it comes to printing even largish.

All in all, this suited me well. I don’t think I will ever need exposures longer than this considering the photography that I do.

So for the ISO35 available only on the IQ280, I decided for it.
Hope that helps.
thanks

[alifatemi]

Hi there,
I went through the same problem last month.
I had ALMOST convinced myself to get a Cambo WRS 5000 with a IQ260.

And then I visited a dealer here and had a prowl on his computer and man, the ISO35 (of IQ280) with good technique - the files just blew me away.

Two small observations that I would like to share from my experience so far (disclaimer: I have only seen a few prints and not made any of my own) :

1.   As mentioned above, ISO 35 with good technique, the IQ280 blows away anything that I have seen until now in my 3 months or so of contemplating MF photogear. Even 8x10. The detail is different, feels more real than the IQ260 on screen.

2.   The ISO 100 and 200 with good technique are quite comparable to ISO140 files of IQ260 for long exposures. I found that over the few hundreds of files that I saw of long-exposures done with the 280, this held true almost every time. Of course the sensor kind of caps out at 95 secs of exposure where it starts to show artefacts regardless of the ISO used, having said that, there is a wide choice available for exposure permutations below this time limit; I found that IQ260 files at ISO140 at a few minutes and a similar scene with ISO 200 at 95secs on the IQ280 were quite comparable with the sliders were tweaked, with little loss in dynamic range and noise levels.

On the other hand, I did notice a difference between ISO 35 and ISO 50 respectively of the two backs at short exposures. YMMV, but I suppose this would not make a great deal of difference either ways when it comes to printing even largish.

All in all, this suited me well. I don’t think I will ever need exposures longer than this considering the photography that I do.

So for the ISO35 available only on the IQ280, I decided for it.
Hope that helps.
thanks

Thanks a lot. According to your experience and a little larger file size( I print very large), it seems for me iQ280 is one to get! Just have you tried this back with its own Mamya body or Technical? Any different?

[MNG]

Hi Satybhat,

I'm still deciding to change over to the IQ260 or IQ280 but not 100% convinced? What style of photography do you mostly use the IQ280 for? and what type of lighting was used in the photos you viewed on your dealers computer? Bright sun light, flash or dusk shots and do you recall the f stops and exposure times?

As mentioned by others a few 180 owners have moved to the IQ260 and I assume most would benefit with the higher base 140iso when you double your exposures with a technical camera and shooting Lens Cast Calibration files. I have seen stunning results from a IQ180 at 35iso but that was with flash.

Regards
Michael