Why are the tests of IQ250 against CCD-backs taking so long?

[synn]

Why do I have that suspicion, that if one uses C1P1 with IQ250 profiles for his D800 or other Sony sensor Dslr, will benefit a lot…?   

OK wow, excellent tip. Just tried this on some of my D800 files and the results were amazing.

[Paul2660]

When I develop od P45+ files, I often use one of the Leaf profiles as the images look better to me and need less work.  I know this not the way it's supposed to work but it does. 

Paul

[douglevy]

Doug - you're right obviously. But as a professional wedding shooter, without the sensor advantages (perceived or actual), if it comes down to 5x the price of a D4 for sharper lenses, better flash sync and a larger sensor (and slower af, way less af points, single card slot, slower buffer, etc. etc.) the other advantages of medium format quickly begin to shrink and the cost difference is exacerbated. I'd contend that it will be the price of the sensor and the DF+ shortcomings that will make the IQ250 a hard sell to those of us who should be its target market. Who uses high ISO more than anyone? Sports, wedding and journalistic shooters. We can all agree sports isn't the target, but if they could make a full system (IQ230 even) for $10k, every wedding photographer I know would want one. It just confuses as to who the target client is, because there are other features currently missing that someone who needs high ISO also needs to pair with that feature.

[gerald.d]

Doug - you're right obviously. But as a professional wedding shooter, without the sensor advantages (perceived or actual), if it comes down to 5x the price of a D4 for sharper lenses, better flash sync and a larger sensor (and slower af, way less af points, single card slot, slower buffer, etc. etc.) the other advantages of medium format quickly begin to shrink and the cost difference is exacerbated. I'd contend that it will be the price of the sensor and the DF+ shortcomings that will make the IQ250 a hard sell to those of us who should be its target market. Who uses high ISO more than anyone? Sports, wedding and journalistic shooters. We can all agree sports isn't the target, but if they could make a full system (IQ230 even) for $10k, every wedding photographer I know would want one. It just confuses as to who the target client is, because there are other features currently missing that someone who needs high ISO also needs to pair with that feature.

Why would every wedding photographer want one?

Would their clients be able to spot the benefits that MFDB brings? I very much doubt it.

So what would be the point?

Not being a wedding photographer personally, I can't help but be intrigued as to what the "sell" is to the soon-to-be betrothed when trying to convince them it makes sense to pay extra to be shot with MFDB?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Interesting piece of info. Thanks for sharing!

Best regards
Erik

OK wow, excellent tip. Just tried this on some of my D800 files and the results were amazing.

[BJL]

They are walking on a very narrow ridge here.

Once you admit that CMOS is just as good as CCD, you quickly reach a point where the only differentiation with the upcoming next gen high megapixel bodies from
Nikon (and - who knows - Canon) is resolution, but even that is unclear.

Not quite; at least not yet. It is becoming more and more clear that the difference in color handling between sensors for medium format cameras and those for smaller formats is primarily a difference in the designs of the color filter arrays, in turn dictated by different priorities: color accuracy, low light performance, handling weird light sources like fluorescent .... (I suppose it could also be related to sensor/pixel size and to differences in CFA design expertise between Kodak/Truesense and Dalsa on one side and Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. on the other.)  The idea that differences in how the electrons in a photo-site are processed (the only substantial difference between CCD and CMOS technology) effect color handling seems to be on its way out.

If it is just a matter of designing the CFA for more accurate, robust color, and Sony if has the ability to do that, then for now, the formats larger than 36x24mm will maintain that advantage, along with the resolution advantage. (Aside: many subjects are not amenable to stitching, so "greater one-shot resolution" is still a real advantage in many situations.)

But maybe Sony and Nikon (or Canon) will at some time decide to offer "high color accuracy priority" models in 36x24mm format, just as Nikon and others have started offering the option of no AA filter.  Then the case for choosing formats like 44x33mm and 54x40mm rather than 36x24mm would shrink a bit more. (My guess is that other factors will keep the "bigger than 36x24" sector alive, but that it will continue to shrink in size.)

[eronald]

So the owner won the pigs can fly bet.

It's a fairly standard strategy in luxury goods to create a mythology around the product. Customers are then not focused on the value of the item, they are looking at the value of the prestige. They buy into an association with the perceived quality, thinking it reflects on them. Maybe that works in the camera world, who knows.

CMOS has growing benefits so for medium format to pretend the current 135 sensors do not solve several problems for the pro would be "in denial". The DR of larger pixels on a bigger area sensor is the beef of the matter. You either need that extra light in one shot or you go 135.

Yes, there was a probably a bet involved

I think this CMOS vs CCD story is like the flat-panel vs. tube display story - initially you get a technical product of very different abilities, not really a replacement for what was there before. And then as the channel for the old tech closes down you have all those marketers trying to convince you that the new tech is "better".

I did a job in Venice once, and was loaned the use of a Mac setup and couple of big Sony monitors. I'd dumped an old i1 Display in my bag, and it was amazing, they profiled precisely, and matched my prints. I couldn't believe it - all my flat panels, including the Eizo CG210 were unable to get this degree of functionality.

Edmund

[douglevy]

Gerald, a number of reasons. Larger files means more cropping and printing options (for albums etc.), shallower dof of a larger sensor makes for gorgeous portraits, a larger viewfinder, faster flash sync, which is a huge issue when you're often stuck shooting in less than optimal light, having 50 ISO at 1/1600 flash sync would give me a lot more options to overpower daylight without having to use wonky high speed sync modes or lug my huge rangers around on a wedding day. And if they could give me better color (as Doug's article sorta touches on), if I can save 30 seconds of color correction per file, times 600-800 delivered files per wedding, times 30+ weddings a year, that's a HUGE time savings. My biggest time suck in post is color correcting, especially skin tones in mixed light, especially when my second shooter shoots Canon (a problem that wouldn't necessarily go away).

If Phase were to give me a dual slot, even 5fps 11 focus point camera, I'd seriously consider buying two and ditch my Nikons.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

Interesting piece of info. Thanks for sharing!

Best regards
Erik

LOL…  Erik will abandon LR for his A99…  I can see him using C1P1 for the Sony and LR for the P45+ any time now! 

[Theodoros]

Gerald, a number of reasons. Larger files means more cropping and printing options (for albums etc.), shallower dof of a larger sensor makes for gorgeous portraits, a larger viewfinder, faster flash sync, which is a huge issue when you're often stuck shooting in less than optimal light, having 50 ISO at 1/1600 flash sync would give me a lot more options to overpower daylight without having to use wonky high speed sync modes or lug my huge rangers around on a wedding day. And if they could give me better color (as Doug's article sorta touches on), if I can save 30 seconds of color correction per file, times 600-800 delivered files per wedding, times 30+ weddings a year, that's a HUGE time savings. My biggest time suck in post is color correcting, especially skin tones in mixed light, especially when my second shooter shoots Canon (a problem that wouldn't necessarily go away).

If Phase were to give me a dual slot, even 5fps 11 focus point camera, I'd seriously consider buying two and ditch my Nikons.

Shallower DOF than FF DSLR? …I'm afraid that with only two 80mm being at f2 (the Schneider and the Contax) and all other lenses of any focal length at f2.8 or more, this sounds as a joke… so does hi-iso noise (for the same AOV and DOF).

[douglevy]

The 100 Hasselblad, (then you're on a 1/800 sync system) would be an amazing wedding lens...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

No way, hell will freeze to ice before I abandon anything for C1.

But, Synn indicated that he got a large difference between Nikon D800 and his Aptus with his shooting. He seems to find that his Nikon D800 works better with the profiles that C1 produced for the IQ-250. T

I have tested C1 for something like a year and decided not to use it. In my experience it is inferior to LR in some areas that are important to me.

- Bad support for DNG
- I don't like highlight compression
- I don't like shadow expansion
- I am not happy with user interface
- I don't like noise reduction (smears out details)
- No support for DCP profiles
- Is purported to use ICC profiles but doesn't offer tools to create them
- The Image Quality Professor is a poor substitute for Erik Chan and Jeff Schewe who offer good advice on these forums

I found a couple of positives:

+ It produces less colour moiré than LR/ACR
+ It reduces fringing a bit better than LR/ACR

But I decided to stay with LR and use RawTherapee as alternate processor. RawTherapee is OpenSource which is a good thing and many good people are involved in the project.

Best regards
Erik

LOL…  Erik will abandon LR for his A99…  I can see him using C1P1 for the Sony and LR for the P45+ any time now! 

[Theodoros]

The 100 Hasselblad, (then you're on a 1/800 sync system) would be an amazing wedding lens...

Forgot about that… sorry! …but again, the fall off wide open is the worst around from all lenses I know… is it not? …and still are some f1.2 lenses around for 135 FF with similar AOV.

[eronald]

Forgot about that… sorry! …but again, the fall off wide open is the worst around from all lenses I know… is it not? …and still are f1.2 lenses for 135 FF around similar AOV.

Once you start using the Canon 85/1.2 wide open, you are in a different realm of photography - more like the cinematic look.

Edmund

[JV]

Forgot about that… sorry! …but again, the fall off wide open is the worst around from all lenses I know… is it not? …and still are f1.2 lenses for 135 FF around similar AOV.

There is also a Mamiya 80mm f1.9 I believe...

[Theodoros]

Once you start using the Canon 85/1.2 wide open, you are in a different realm of photography - more like the cinematic look.

Edmund

I've used Nikkor 135mm f2 D.C on some weddings… although its use was limited and I replaced it, I sometimes miss the bugger!

[Ken R]

Humm…

You guys doing this again  

[BJL]

Once you start using the Canon 85/1.2 wide open... more like the cinematic look.

Ironically, that "cinematic look" is usually achieved with a frame no wider than 24.9mm (as for Super 35mm), and lenses no faster than f/1.2, a combination that gives DOF comparable to what one gets with about f/1.8 in a 36mm wide format and what would require f/2.1 with the 44mm width of the IQ250's sensor.  The dramatic OOF effects we see in the cinema are greatly enhanced by the very large apparent (angular) image sizes that one can get there.

[synn]

The cinematic look has more to do with longer focal lengths than super large apertures.

[BJL]

The cinematic look has more to do with longer focal lengths than super large apertures.

Both are equally important: OOF effects (for subjects at the same distance when the images are compared at the same apparent size) are determined by the combination of focal length f and aperture ratio N by the simple combination f/N, which is the effective aperture diameter.  That is why I increased the f-stops in proportion to the increase of focal length needed to get the same angular FOV in a larger format.

I suppose the comparison you are making is "cinema look" vs "video look", since video has typically been done with smaller formats like 2/3" (at least, until recently). But I was comparing to still camera formats like 36x24mm, and compared to them, common cinema 35mm formats are smaller (22mm to 25mm wide compared to 36mm wide), so the focal lengths used in cinematic work are shorter than those used to get the same FOV in 35mm still cameras, which gives the cinema formats more DOF and less OOF effects at equal f-stop.