Trust me, you'd have to be drunk to deal with seeing me a la Monty...
You could just don a hastily made Bentley costume and fit right in
Guys, (note the 's') I'm taking my life in my hands here but honestly, I'm not trying to rain on the bonfire so please see this as a genuine question. In the 35 iso shots I see much more noise than I would have expected. In fact, in all the shots this applies. I am comparing this to my own shots taken on various Phase backs plus Hass 39/2. On all the backs (so this is NOT an anti Phase thing) I see less noise at around 100 iso than the 180 samples at 35.
I know these are web samples but I am used to allowing for that. And let me repeat/emphasise, I'm not interested in getting involved in a flame war, or pointless defences of latest toys, I'm upgrading my own gear constantly and all I'm interested in is accurate info. Does anyone else notice more noise, or is it me?
Why you so nervous , we do not have flame wars here. EVER. LOL
Actually good observation and let me explain what you are seeing and Jack did touch on this as well in one of his posts. Its actually quite simple
The ISO 35 setting on the 180 just like the ISO 50 setting on the P40 and P65 is the extended DR range of these backs . So in other words the lowest or base ISO has more DR than the higher ISO settings like ISO 100. Jack and I always shoot at the lowest setting when in the field to gain the highest DR range. This is actually normal on the Phase backs.
Now with that normally on the P40 and P60 that extended range is NOT like the extended DR on the Iq 180 sensor in reality we are seeing at least a 1/2 to full stop more DR on this new sensor. Jack and I are playing it safe without that type of testing to say a 1/2 more DR than our current P40 and P65.
Now this is huge and folks need to understand what actually happens here. WE are seeing in area's of the shadows that we have not seen before so its not so much noise although there most likely will be because we are seeing in area's that normally would clip and even on our backs these area's would clip. Jack and I both have said it to look normal on the IQ 180 we might be adding some black since the DR is so big it almost looks flat looking and far reaching in the shadow details than any other current back on the market. I would throw Hassy in here as well as others. Now on the Leaf back it might just be mirroring this as well since it has this new sensor. I'm taking a educated guess on the leaf since i have not tested it.
So in short the range is so great on DR we are simply seeing in area's that we dared not to go on anything else so the detail is so deep in the shadows it does not look normal but we are seeing so deep in hell here we are not used to seeing this.
Here is a good example i shot this at ISO 35 and i actually underexposed it but this shot is not clipping in the slightest and trust me on this on my P40 this would clip in the shadows no question. So in short I have NO true black which is so odd that we are not used to seeing this
Look into the depths of hell here and you can actually see the detail and actually i did comment on this when I posted it in this thread . I will repeat my comment after the image
This is pretty interesting. I was actually testing the 210 F4 lens here and I was at F4 wide open and was shot handheld and proved to me this was a good lens but more important I shot this at ISO 35 and was a stop underexposed and there is no true black in this frame not a thing that is clipped on the low side. I can see all the detail in all the shadow areas and no highlights clipped either. That is some serious DR folks. This would have clipped with anything else out there.
So the noise that you maybe seeing is actually more detail far beyond what we normally are used too, these areas now would be clipped with our current gear. So we have jumped into a new area of DR that we simply have not seen before.
Hope that helps explain it.
Now i will add here GetDPI is about data not brand wars and flame wars and trust me on this the forum is heavily moderated to prevent such silliness. Its simply not in the best interest to our members but good frank discussions are always welcome.
Here you go i took this up to 100 percent and made a 1200 x1200 crop of the bottom right area for you to see. Now in all honesty my P40+ would have clipped here but with this new sensor it is seeing really deep in the shadows. Noise yes i see a touch and this maybe the effect of this expanded range but it is also a area that normally we might not see. So really good on one hand and maybe a touch misleading on what we are used to seeing. So i can see your question as a very valid one for sure. FYI P40+ and P65+ are identical sensors so the results would be the same but the 180 is new and has more DR
This maybe the deepest area I can find in this image upper right doorway
Also, re the "noise" visible in the shadows of these images --- my guess is you are viewing on a laptop. The way a laptop backlights can boost shadows and why I mentioned cranking monitor brightness up. Also, I suspect gamut is an issue, more than the laptop display can handle properly. If you view the same images on a display designed for editing that is properly calibrated then you will not see the same noise signatures you see from the laptop display. I sort of did address the noise "wart" in the very first post...
Hi Guy (no "S" this time!), thanks for your incredibly detailed and thoughtful reply. And yes, Jack, you did mention noise in your first post and I seem to have missed that - sorry.
Your reply does sound credible, Guy, but I still have a concern; if we can see it on a monitor (profiled NEC PA271W by the way Jack) then I suspect it might show up in a large print. I think it would have to be very large, but then that's one of the reasons for getting such a big sensor. I guess I'll just have to do some tests and maybe that's what this is about for me - desperately trying NOT to get impressed. The new tech certainly has me interested.
(Not really nervous by the way, Guy; just trying to avoid being my often clumsy self and upsetting people needlessly.)
ISO 1600 S+ at native size: The noise is essentially not visible. It resembles what you'd see in a typical 35mm 4x6 print from ISO 100 print film. Seriously, that good.
ISO 1600 S+ at 4x enlargement: Here you do get a hint of noise in the smooth-toned areas. I would say it is reminiscent of the same 35mm ISO 100 print film enlarged to an 8x10 print -- again, impressively good.
ISO 3200 S+ at native size: Here you have visible, but subtle noise, some very small colored dotting visible in smooth-toned backgrounds. I would say this is reminiscent of 35mm ISO 400 print film at a 4x6 print size.
ISO 3200 S+ at 4x enlargement. Here we have more visible noise, larger colored dots slightly visible in some of the more textured areas. I would say this is probably stronger noise than the 35mm ISO 400 film at an 8x10 enlargement, but not nearly as much as say 35mm ISO 800 print film was at 4x6 if that makes sense.
So I reprocessed the ISO 3200 shot with NR boosted in C1 to 35/50. Here I printed another 4x enlargement and the result is back to about what 35mm ISO 100 (or maybe 200) print film showed at 8x10 enlargements --- IOW, VERY VERY clean...
Seriously folks, I am impressed. I will not hesitate to use 3200 S+ if I need it, and certainly will use 1600 S+ without hesitation even for relatively large prints.
Oh dear, this is getting dangerous!
Convinced myself that the IQ backs were all hype but reading Jack and Guy's reviews has get me thinking.........
Since getting my P65+ I've been wanting to shoot my Canon kit less and less and the type of work I now shoot is 99% interiors and product work.
This got me thinking today on a shoot...... do I still really need the Canon gear? Now the IQ180 shoots at 20MP in sensor+ mode its basically like the Canon. I don't ever use AF and always shoot with a tripod. I use an Arca M2 for as much as I can but the Canon does come in handy for the quick, simple or dirty factory jobs.
So my question to Guy and Jack (any anyone else with a point of view) do you feel an IQ180 attached to a DF in sensor+ can replace the Canon which means freeing the money for the P65+ to IQ180 upgrade?
I personally can't think of one job I've shot in the last 12 months, from product cut-outs to set build studio shots that couldn't be shot with a DF over the Canon.
What is your feeling having used the IQ/DF combo.
I did it before with just the DF and I shoot everything from PR to whatever and I'm going solo again and sell the Sonys off. No question you can get it done but more care is needed.
Here is my experience with Leaf Aptus-II 12, the same sensor as IQ180 (correct me if I am wrong), in studio test or highlight/shadow recovery:
Full review :
Last edited by AKElstudio; 16th May 2011 at 11:52.
Photigy: Advanced photography lessons for smart photographers
Thanks for doing the prints. That is really good news. I'm really looking forward to getting mine. New lens should arrive soon and hard drives have plenty of space (I think - ) too bad I only have a quad core
Yeah, I could say it but won't! Seriously, for what I shoot -- and now that my wallet is lighter than empty -- I can afford to be a little patient with my 3+ year old Mac Pro LOLOL! I will however be upgrading to the next gen as mine is getting long in the tooth for a computer. But on the upside, even though it's slower than the new stuff at least it still runs smoothly and reliably!
Should I understand this such that an IQ/Phase combo using sensor+ can be used hand held "more or less" like a 24mp DSLR/ Leica S2? I mean both image quality and handling wise?
Best way here to describe this the main factors working with MF cams is this . They really are the same weight and bulk as most Pro 35mm with a 24-70 lens on it. So once you get the shape or design style of the cam comfortable within yourself this will be equal. The stuff you can't cheat are the physics. Large sensor equals more visible movement. Larger mirror creates more vibration, larger sensor equals less DOF and maintaining higher shutter speeds to combat the first two. So in effect you need to maintain a good shutter speed but also at the same time a good aperture to maintain good DOF.
All the rest of the chatter out there that you can't shoot MF handheld is a bunch of crock. I do it all the time on jobs all the time.
The trick is maintaining a good shutter speed to get over the vibration of the mirror and a large sensor that shows bigger movements. But maintaining a 1/60 of a second is normal for me and even squeeze off 1/30 given all the right factors. Look at this thread with Sensor Plus in action. I was shooting all handheld until I got to the runway but even than I am shooting in low light with a 300mm lens on a monopod.
Folks this comes down to cheating the physics and YOUR abilities. Nothing more.
Read this http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13379
My advice here never listen to someone that says you can't do it here. You can do anything you want as long as you understand it and know how to work around it. Sure there are limits no question, you just need to get better as a shooter. That stuff takes time and anyone thinking they can pick up a MF and go to town is in for surprise right away. Its a different ballgame and you need to learn the ropes but it is so worth the effort and that is the key. Effort versus output. The more effort and work you put in the better the results. MF is work, this is not play time.
Still learning in using my DF with P65+. I'm using it mostly handheld when shooting people in small villages in Hainan. Having it with my Canon 1Ds III
and they seem to about the same size and same weight. Ofcourse with Canon I can use my 1.2 class when very low light.
Trying to move more and more to just DF's use.
I'm pleased with what I get using DF also just handheld. Also I've made some bigger prints with 9900 and still happy.
Some helping lenses here in Phase . The 150 2.8 is brilliant wide open, also the 80 LS at 2.8 or D. The 300 is also very good at 4.5
These lenses you can shoot very close to wide open if not wide open and maintain some speed when your light hits a critical low.
Well said Veri
So in a nutshell: I will offer a partial "YES." I think the IQ180's 20MP of binning can replace a high-end DSLR as respects overall image quality, and in most cases it will be superior due to superior color and usable DR. (Flamesuit on, but I do believe MF offers more "usable" DR than DSLR's, contrary to what the strict engineering definition of "DR" is.) However it can NOT replace the DSLR capture rate, AF speed or extremely high-ISO work -- IOW if you're a sports/action or ultra low-light photographer, the modern DSLR still reigns king IMHO.
Yes if your not pushing the high ISO, Frame rates or long glass needs than having a DSLR can be a moot point. My big reason for even having the Sony's is risk factors and security reasons. Plus just being lazy. LOL
Basically just don't want to take the Phase on a certain gig for theft and damage reasons, guess that is why you have insurance and loaded for bear on that one so really not a big issue . So basically the Sony is a throw away in a sense.
But if i move to a 160 it's gone. 15 mpx sensor plus is perfect for me.
One cool feature that never gets talked about is in the ISO selection you can go from a full res shot to a sensor plus shot in about 3 seconds . I have done this a couple times myself.
I was being generous. LOL
No need to be, even with my fat fingers the new back is intuitive, fast and easy to use. Seriously, you tap the ISO button, finger scroll to your desired regular or S+ ISO and tap it, you done. It's as easy and fast as opening an app on your iPhone.
Edit: I really don't mean to sound like a fanboy, but this new UI tech is a big and very real improvement for field shooters...
Gear slut? Moi??? Seriously, I am down to the Phase kit and a GH2 kit, and I may now sell off the GH2 kit!!!
Know the feeling bud i can just start packing my Sony's now. I need to have a MAJOR gear sale here.
This is probably a good place to reiterate a few considerations:
1) The new UI tech is great for field shooters, but may not be necessary -- or worth the cost delta -- for shooters that shoot mostly tethered in the studio.
2) The 80MP sensor does have some newer tech in it compared to the last generation 40 and 60, this may or may not be necessary for your type of shooting. Not sure yet if the Leaf 80MP sensor and the Phase 80MP sensors are identical -- they appear for now to be the same base chip with some different onboard processing capabilities.
3) While 80MP of direct digital capture has definitely upped the game and set a new standard for digital imaging, the last current generations of 40 through 60 MP Leaf, Hassy and Phase backs are still all delivering outstanding image quality.
4) Phase has made the upgrade path a lot more tolerable -- and hence the decision more difficult -- with their rather generous trade-in program; without it, I'd probably still be shooting a P45+
Thanks for all the feedback. This is really helpful, and I feel I am gaining more insight into my long term upgrade question. I have seen and handled the S2 and really liked it, but it seems I have to take a serious look at Phase.
Some good news I heard from dealers they are receiving customer backs today. Yahoo
Jack, Apart from the UI which is merely a UI. Could you please further detail the advancemend in image quality matters of the IQ180? E.g. color palette, finer gradation of colors, DR with shadow and highlight performance/recovery?
Since you had the P45+ before. How would you describe the quality of pictures has improved? I think at one point you mentioned the color accuracy has greatly improved. I often found that the color out of the P45+ required some adjustment especially when I use ND or polarizing filter.
I had a short time with the IQ180 and felt that the focus mask will help me tremendously with my Techno setup. I can probably buy the 645DF with it since the discount on the camera and 80mm lens is huge, but I may not use it much.
My theory and i could be all wet here since I am not the scientist type. But i have been shooting Phase from the 9 micron sensors down to the new 5.2 and at every step of the way going down to the IQ 180 in micron size i have noticed more DR in each back and along with smoother tonal graduation going across the color spectrum and seems to me just smoother files as we keep going down in microns. Also credit to Phase engineers for building great algorithms along the way for each back. Case in point when I first tested the P40+ back when i was not impressed with the color palette at all. My skies where too cyan. The second time I tested it was better but my P30+ looked better at the time. Finally when Dave from CI brought me the P40+ to our Oregon workshop Phase finally nailed the color palette and than I wanted to buy it and did.
So looking at these files from the IQ 180 it seems to me a nicer graduation of color across the board and smoother looking files and more accurate color. Now the detail is just flat out scary as well. So looks like Phase did a real nice job here and bumped it up a level. Now I still love the P65 and P40 files no question and getting one again but this does look very good. I need more time with the 180 as well and shoot some more with it to confirm more of my feeling about it. I do think as these are getting delivered in the next coming days we will see a lot of happy campers. Get you hard drives ready
I'm sitting here figuring out how to get another IQ 180 in my hands to test more. Damn thing is addicting for sure once you start working with the new tech.
Good questions, but the answers are a bit long:
Enter the P65+ and a lot of that went away, giving us closer to correct hues with standard conversion processing. I mainly used color editor for creative enhancements to color. With the P65+ we also gained in fine detail rendering, and then in what I'll call color and tonal "smoothness." It's hard to describe until you see it, but when you see it, you know it -- there were smoother transitions between colors and smoother tonal transitions within the same hue family. I mentioned in the main review that most of us just started saying the files were more "film-like" for lack of a better explanation. Also, virtually ever shooter agreed that the P65+ files *and* prints looked less "digital" than their predecessors.
With the IQ180 the color is another level improved, at least for outdoor shooting. It seems more accurate straight out of the gate, especially notable in subtle greens and blues. There is clearly more detail than the P65+ has -- which in itself is remarkable -- and we can question the need for it in all except the largest prints, but it does seem to move the tonal and hue smoothness up to the next level over what the (excellent) P65+ delivered. I have not printed a lot of my IQ180 files yet, so am reluctant to say too much more until I print more of the files. What I will say is my initial impression is another level up on smoother colors and tones in prints to the point of them appearing almost liquid. I can definitely see the difference in a P65+ print and an IQ180 print as respects color and tonal smoothness, but I have a difficult time quantifying it and want to do some more homework. It may be that the added resolution helps with this, I do not know -- but one thing for certain is you definitely gain significant crop capabilities with 80MP.
Finally, DR has stepped up incrementally with each back as well. I estimated 1/2 to 2/3rds stop usable gain between the P45+ and P65+, and now I'd give the IQ180 another 1/2 stop or so in the DR department. However, the IQ180 gets even more with the shadow recovery slider in C1 since the low tones hold together so well when pushed. I suspect this does have to do with the added resolution combined with improved technology in the new 80MP chip.
I do believe focus mask on the IQ backs will become the tech cam shooters immediate new best friend! Seriously, it works extremely well.I had a short time with the IQ180 and felt that the focus mask will help me tremendously with my Techno setup. I can probably buy the 645DF with it since the discount on the camera and 80mm lens is huge, but I may not use it much.
Re the DF body. I would get one and at least a basic lens or two. The reason goes back to my review comments re hand-holdability, especially in Sensor Plus ISO modes. As a tech shooter, you will not be disappointed, and moreover likely appreciate, the performance from all of the LS lenses. I own the 55, 80 and 110 and they all render beautifully.
Hope that helps,
PS: I am heading into Yosemite today to shoot. I will for sure be printing up some larger prints and will come back with more commentary on color and tone accuracy and smoothness.
How much is the color difference between the P45+ and the P65+ color do you think is simply the change from Kodak to Dalsa?