Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e

[tho_mas]

tho_mas:
try the voigtlander 20mm, the canon tse17 and 24, the zeiss 35mm fe on the sony and you might be surprised.

Hi Rainer!
Many thanks for the suggestions!
My FE 2.8/35 has been shipped this week. This lens is really great! A bit hard to focus for best performance at the edges due to field curvature, but I'll get used to it. The sharpness across the image plane is nothing short of stunning.
Of course I do have the TS-E 24 on my list. Then again at this focal lentgh I actually don't need shift movements... but of course I could use it without shift (and it sure doesn't hurt being able to use some shift movements when needed sometime). What I am looking for is a stellar 28mm lens without field curvature (doesn't have to be fast ... f3.5 would do). For me personally also a 35mm shift lens would be great (maybe the old Contax PC Distagon 2.8/35mm or a Zörk Adapter with a Mamiya 35mm lens... but I doubt these are up to the task on the A7R sensor).

[FMueller]

Then I'll bet you've never seen Phase One P40+/IQ140 output compared to your favorite Canon/Nikon/Sony "full frame" I can't speak to the IQ250 specifically, but I can personally speak about the P40+.

Seeing is believing.

Great news DMF on CMOS with great iso and LV.

But 1.3x crop for me don´t qualify it as DMF sensor at least 1.1x. For me 44x33mm Its a oversize 35mm sensor on a 645 MF body.
For me Medium Format its 6x6.5 6x6 6x7
In 1.3x crop format the DOF its almost the same as a 35mm and a price difference so huge that don't have a real edge...

But great news phase, congratulations !
Pedro

[Ken R]

Phase One has finally managed to offer a CMOS sensor with the IQ250 and DXO (if they test the camera) will rank it first in their sensor database, above the D800e which has held the championship title since it became available.

The IQ250 has 50MP, but this is not significantly greater than the 36 MP of the Nikon. The IQ250 sensor at 33mm x 44 mm is less than medium format full frame but offers 1.68 times the sensor area of the 24mm x 36mm sensor of the D800e. From these dimensions, I calculate that the IQ sensor is 6124 x 8165 pixels, or 1.24 times the linear picture height of the D800e. The aspect ratio of the IQ250 would result in less wasted megapixels for a 16 x 24 inch print. If Sony obtains the same performance from the new sensor as with the D800e sensor, this should result in a gain of 0.75 f/stops. The engineering DR of the D800e is 13.4 EV and the predicted DR of the IQ250 would be just above 14 stops, consistent with the DR stated in the PhaseOne announcement.

The IQ250 will cost US $34,900 and the D800e lists for $2,997 at B&H. Does this increased performance warrant the 1160% cost differential between the two cameras? It will for some perfectionists with a large pocketbook, but probably not for most users.

Discussion is welcome.

Bill

None of the Top End Medium Format Digital solutions are high value items. That is a given. They do offer something different for those who want it, demand it, need it. And, one can really configure a MF Digital System for one's needs / wants. One can combine a Phase1 back with many different camera bodies and lenses.  That is a big plus. Is it cheap? Obviously not.

[rainer_v]

the great thing with the a7r is exactly this you say for the phase back as well. you can use all lenses with 35mm mount on it which ever existed. so i would compare IQ250 against the sony a7r not the nikon. the sony is the new game maker ...
and it looks they have big plans,- as u can see in the fact they deliver the sensors to nikon and now to phase as well.
their lens devellopements und er the zeiss brand show that this is a long term plan behind them,- and they have the money to do that if they want !
my d800e and my canons are to sell now. as many lenses which i bought twice just for not being usable on the nikon.
i still go on using my artec and my leaf back, but honestly said : its not the better file quality which is letting me to go on to use it. the mf quality is good, i`d say its on par with the sony. the files are larger but this doesnt give me real benefit, too many images are in my exhibitions with 30+ mp, it doesnt matter if a few one have 60+ mb and,- as i wrote- i often show images with 5x7 ft, or something like this and usually they look great with the smaller files as well, often there is simply no way to use mf for weight and handling,- and which sense it makes to mix wildly resolutions in the same works or exhibitions?
and my paying clients? they never asked me for larger files as i gave them. sometimes they wanted some different views or what ever,- but never larger files. not before and not now.

[rainer_v]

Hi Rainer!
Many thanks for the suggestions!
My FE 2.8/35 has been shipped this week. This lens is really great! A bit hard to focus for best performance at the edges due to field curvature, but I'll get used to it. The sharpness across the image plane is nothing short of stunning.
Of course I do have the TS-E 24 on my list. Then again at this focal lentgh I actually don't need shift movements... but of course I could use it without shift (and it sure doesn't hurt being able to use some shift movements when needed sometime). What I am looking for is a stellar 28mm lens without field curvature (doesn't have to be fast ... f3.5 would do). For me personally also a 35mm shift lens would be great (maybe the old Contax PC Distagon 2.8/35mm or a Zörk Adapter with a Mamiya 35mm lens... but I doubt these are up to the task on the A7R sensor).

 the best "normal" (retrofocal) mf lens with  35mm length was the pentax 35mm fa - as far i know. it can be used with a zoerk adapter on 35mm cameras of all brands. and ... here we go back to mf - the 35mm (or 40mm) HR from rodenstock,- which is the best you can buy. although they show some distortion, they shouldnt but they do ...
the contax distorts too much, the mamiya isnt very good. better as the pentax is  ( and you will kill me for this idea ) the 24tse with the new canon 1.4 extender. its sharp enough to moiree with f8  the 36mp sony sensor,- at least if you have a good sample of it. as all lenses there is a wide variation,- some are good, some are bad, some are stunning.

and without shift ... the zeiss 35 fe is my new favourite. i exchanged also my first sample of it, three corners have been great ( with f2,8 ), the second sample now has all 4 sharp. with f2,8.

[Paul2660]

+1 on the Pentax 35mm FA.  Used one for years on my Canons with the Zork.  I was always surprised that it was discontinued and not brought forward when the Pentax 645D was shipped.

Paul

[tho_mas]

you will kill me for this idea

:-)
I will not. You are one of the few guys I blindly trust when it comes to lens recommendations in this field of photography.
I wasn't aware you can mount the TS-E on an extender. 24mm x1.4 (plus shift movements) would be a perfect lens for my needs.
Thanks again!

[Aphoto]

+1 on the Pentax 35mm FA.  Used one for years on my Canons with the Zork.  I was always surprised that it was discontinued and not brought forward when the Pentax 645D was shipped.

Paul

Well, the FA wasn't discontinued, (they just changed the production process for a few years - different glass, as I heard) and it is still listed here: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/645/wide/smcpentax-fa645-35/
I had both, the "A" and the newer "FA" version and kept the manual "A" version, because it was sharper on my HCAM with less field curvature.

And by the way, the 35mm FA is a good lens, but also a bit tricky.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/35577-comprehensive-testing-results-observations-pentax-645-lenses-used-645d.html
I noticed the same, including the “blur zone".  

[rainer_v]

the extender adds some (moderate) simple curved barrel dist to the lens. easy to correct that for 100%. because the lens shifts and not the extender one profile to correct that is enough, even if shifted. and the 24tse is one of the best corrected wides i ever used.
and this combo is even better (sharper, nearly no CA, better less distortion ) than the pentax 35mm fa, i own both and compared them.

[tho_mas]

the extender adds some (moderate) simple curved barrel dist to the lens. easy to correct that for 100%. because the lens shifts and not the extender one profile to correct that is enough, even if shifted.

I assume you use the Apla Lens Corrector Plugin to do so?

[rainer_v]

it can be corrected with a any tool. its simple barrel distortion without curved corners.

its very rare that i correct distortion. mostly i choose the lens and system which renders the motif in the way i like to see it later.
if i have to correct persp., than i use the alpa tool sometimes. but i correct more my rodenstock HR wides than the canons.
these don't need correction i.m.o., just with such described combination. of course nothings perfect,
but they have less than 1% dist. and its really hard to get it visible. whats interesting - btw. - is the distortion in the center of the frames.
compare a building as the one you have shown in this tread above, shoot it with a rodenstock wide and than with one of this canons.
really surprising HOW different cubes can look, but not for corner dist. , for the different form of rendering geometric forms in the middle of the frame.
you don't like stitching, but its not a bad way to get good shapes in architecture. clouds? i don't remember that i ever got a problem to bring them together that the final result looked homogenic.

[tho_mas]

it can be corrected with a any tool. its simple barrel distortion without curved corners.

Most lens correction tools do not feature lens correction with asymmetrical shift. since you've mentioned distortion correction with shifts I thought you may have a profile for the Apla Lens Corrector ... But I think it will be pretty easy to make one when the lens has a simple barrel distortion.

its very rare that i correct distortion.

I correct distortion mostly ... even with my Digitar 43XL which shows ver, very little distortion :-)

Interessting what you say about the rendering of geometric forms!

[rainer_v]

in the combination 24tse plus 1.4 extender its not the lens which has to be corrected. its the extender. and this doesnt shift.

[tho_mas]

in the combination 24tse plus 1.4 extender its not the lens which has to be corrected. its the extender. and this doesnt shift.

ah - okay, I've got it.
What I also take from this it makes flat stitching within the larger image circle nearly impossible ... unless you can correct the distortion of the extender really accurate. Is that correct?

[rainer_v]

good question and probably you are right.
but try it, i dont  know.
the  stitching algorythm in ps is really advanced and probably for 98% of the dist. you can correct the extender.

[Paul2660]

Well, the FA wasn't discontinued, (they just changed the production process for a few years - different glass, as I heard) and it is still listed here: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/645/wide/smcpentax-fa645-35/
I had both, the "A" and the newer "FA" version and kept the manual "A" version, because it was sharper on my HCAM with less field curvature.

And by the way, the 35mm FA is a good lens, but also a bit tricky.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/35577-comprehensive-testing-results-observations-pentax-645-lenses-used-645d.html
I noticed the same, including the “blur zone".  

Thanks for the catch.  Looks like you still get it in Japan.  Doesn't look like its available in the US.

Paul

[FMueller]

Markets and competition have a way of sorting this out.

Thus far, the markets have given the nod to Phase One.

As long as people keep marching to the beat of Phase One they are going to keep on charging their premium prices or even increase them more...

IMO it has very little to do with image quality, although Phase One undeniably delivers that.

This back costs about $5-10K too much compared to other Phase offerings, leave alone compared to the competition…

One can only hope that the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica come up with some very strong competition...

[pedro39photo]

The price of the next Hassy and Phase 50MP Cmos its just stupid...

The only two DMF brands are killing this segment with hardcore p**n prices, 35.000$ / 45.000$ for a sistem with a few lens in today profissional photo market?
35.000$ for a tuned Mamiya 645 15years old body and a larger 35mm format sensor with 1.3 crop?Huh my good this medium are mad or what???

Don´t the people see that this p**n prices are reducing the users of this systems just to few top photographer and rich amateurs?
Where is a enter level system DMF 28MP/33MP full frame for 5000/7000$ Huh THAT ITS WHAT BRINGS NEW USER TO THE MEDIUM FORMAT
The biggest advantage of the Medium Format its the large viewfinder and the DOF, i was a Hassy H3D39II user, and sold it and bought a Mamiya ZD DSLR just because i love MF DOF and Viewfinder, not megapixeis.... stop the megapixeis war, p**n prices and think about bring new user again to the MF

In my country Portugal, in 2 or 3 years i saw great number of profissional photographers leaving DMF for the D800

Its sad, very sad...

[tho_mas]

without shift ... the zeiss 35 fe is my new favourite.

while I agree it is a great little lens I struggle a bit with the light falloff. In most reviews it's reported to be around 1.8 stops. But this is with in camera corrections applied. Without in camera correction it's around 2.8 stops wide open and still around 2 stops at f8 (reminds me on my Digitar 43XL...). In camera corrections affect CAs, distortion and light falloff. CA and distortion corrections are not applied to the RAW files (as well as any "picture style). But the light falloff corrections are applied to the RAW files! This is why you end up with 2 stops increase of "noise" in the corners... which is okay at ISO100 but gets more and more obvious as you go higher with the ISO setting.
Well it's still a great lens! My copy is not so great in the corners at f2.8. I would say it's "okay" at f2.8 in the corners... "sharp" at f4 ... and perfectly fine at f8. In the center (and midfield) I can't detect any meaningful difference between f2.8, f4 and f5.6. However, I have no desire to look out for a sample that might be better at open aperture since I don't need the very corners to be really sharp when shooting at f2,8. My copy is very, very well centered (which seems to be a problem with this lens according to internet reports...) and this is why I will keep it.

/small talk/
Talking about favorites...
Personally my new favorite without shift will most certainly be the FE 1.8/55 ZA. I've got it for a couple of days only and still have to use it more seriously... but it's simply stunning on the A7R! Not exactly a wide lens, though :-) (and while we're at it: my first copy was decentered, so I've exchanged it).
My all time favorite is probably the Contax Planar 2.0/80 ... due to its look.
My favorite lens with shift is the Digitar 43XL (on my 6.9 microns back... and certainly also on a 60MP back). Also due to its look and due to its enormous versatility (in the last years I've shot around 80% with this lens... with the 47XL respectively until the 43XL was available).
\small talk\

[David Watson]

Yes. You can add to this list the Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 135mm f2.0,... for their technical qualities but what should worry MF more IMHO are lenses designed for their unique look like the nikon 58mm f1.4.

Look is the next frontier. Technical perfection is a lot cause, rendering will own that market within years.

Cheers,
Bernard

+1