110 again at 5.6
110 again at 5.6
My 55mm again at F11
Just for kicks 100 percent crop. Now there is barely any capture sharpening here and a reminder native size on a IQ 160 is 29.95 x 22.44 at 300 DPI. Folks thats native for my printer to the letter. Epson 7900
I will process a few more later but pretty much all I got today. Here is a lonely cheap 210 lens at 5.6. This is a f4 lens that for the money hard to beat
Wagon wheel crop that I posted before 100 percent view 110mm lens at 5.6
Okay put your jaw back in place and go order one. LOL
So has Phase managed to squeeze any more out of the chip in the IQ160 over the P65+ or are they just the same.
Other than coverage, are you seeing any differences in the rendering of the IQ160 vs the P40+ or P65+ given that it's essentially the same sensor tech?
(oops - I see that Gareth & I must be on the same wavelength ...)
Last edited by GrahamWelland; 25th June 2011 at 14:57. Reason: Just saw that Gareth asked the same question!!
I, for one, like Roman numerals.
Like to say the DR looks better but I doubt it. I could check with the P65 which is still here. I'll do a side by side in the morning. Really hot here right now only fit for snakes 109 I think.
A 35mm D shot at F11 with sharpening on this one and I added lens corrections for this lens in C1 and also corner sharpness. With a little work you can make this lens dance.
Probably keep my 35D and not switch to the 28mm but the right to change my mind ( I like to make sure when it comes to my glass) . I would also like to run another test. But that is not really part of this thread.
Checking Focus mask here with a 110 at 5.6 very far left focus. I added a sharpening routine to this . Warning watch your eyes
and a 100 percent crop.
Okay I'm happy
BTW there is a downside to the IQ 160. I need more CF cards. LOL
About 212 images for a 16gb card.
Also I made a few suggestions on some issues earlier another is get a small CF card load Firmware 1.19 on it and stick it in your CF card wallet. Just in case in the field and there has been a report of reloading the firmware . Lets maybe play it safe here and have it on hand . Same for 180 shooters. Just some thoughts to think about. Good night all. I'm ordering another 16gb card now actually
here please use our B&H link above but you get a free 4gb card with this deal
SanDisk 16GB Extreme Pro CompactFlash Card
Includes Free: SanDisk 4GB Ultra CompactFlash ($19.95 Value)
B&H #SAEPCF16GB • MFR #SDCFXP-016G-A91 Free Shipping (USA)
I have quite a few Sandisk extreme (not pro). Do you think it makes a big difference in speed?
I'm going to try Lexar USB 3.0 reader. It seems like a huge speed gain on file transfer from the cards.
The UDMA class 6 I believe what they are is not supported yet in this firmware. Next firmware release we are told it will be. My best guess it will be faster for processors to write too. So I'm betting it will help with speeding things up. From talking to a tech friend at Phase he believes it will help in some areas. So right now it's a educated guess it will. Nice thing is even on computer it's faster to upload, so there are computer benefits.
first congratulations on your new IQ160 back! It is in the right hands!
The samples you posted are really stunning, color, sharpness, details (as one can tell from posted photos) etc.
I would be interested in what the price difference was (would have been) compared to the IQ180?
Life is an ever changing journey
35 looks good!
So glad you are happy with the decisions you made on all this. Since April at PODAS you've been openly sharing your thoughts, evaluations and decisions in various threads here. It's been quite fun to follow, and I for one have learned a lot along the way.
Thanks for sharing your story.
P.S. Now where is that tech camera? :-)
BTW I am testing a Schneider 28 on Thursday with a Cambo tech cam but I'm looking for a cambo/Mamiya plate if anyone would like to lend to me for the day. I'm shooting with Robb Williamson but he is setup for Contax. I'll pay shipping round trip
Like to see how the IQ 160 handles the 28 since it really is a no go on the 180 with movements
Went and shot the P65 Vs the IQ 160 and i am seeing no difference between the two backs in regards to IQ but in regards to usability its like night and day. LOL
The tech is cool folks but your paying for it.
Post some images later nothing special just some grab shots. Had to get home and walk the dogs or should i say they walked me. I have to walk them no later than about 6:30 am since it hits about 85 or so at that point. 5 am this morning 77 but noon we will be at 108 . Welcome to the world of huge temp swings here.
Another tip of the day . Getting to like this. LOL
I put all my lens caps from Schneider and Phase away and buy these cheap Promaster or Bower lens caps since they are easier to work with and more important if lost who cares.
Need to reload a few myself
CS77 77mm Pro Snap-On Lens Cap
1 $5.79 $5.79
CS72 72mm Pro Snap-On Lens Cap
1 $5.99 $5.99
CS58 58mm Pro Snap-On Lens Cap
i've been shooting my cambo with a blad H back, so you have to provide an external battery and I've been using the bigwave, but it could use more amp-hours. Just today I purchased the quantum Turbo 3 that has the ability to not only run your flash, but also a digital camera; even both at the same time Capture integration provided me an adapter from the back's firewire 800 to a mini plug, now i just need the quantum sd16 cable. I'm wondering if the turbo 3 could also power the IQ? it has power to burn
Last edited by jlm; 26th June 2011 at 15:39.
Guy - have you noticed any improvements over the P65+ at higher ISOs like 400 or 800?
I am running that test this week on noise. Both high res and Sensor plus. I have a gig in NY coming up where I shoot about 4k in sensor plus mode so want to know where my limits are.
35MM D lens again at F14 this time . Looking for diffraction. All corrections made including keystone
So let me get back to focus mask as I think there is a difference between the numbers of the 180 and the 160. Jack and I where chatting yesterday and it just is making more sense that instead of using 40 or 43 on the 180 i found the 53 on the 160 was about the same from memory as 43 on the 180.
If we sat here and did the math the 160 is 30 percent less pixels and also bigger pixels well 30 percent added to 40 is what 52. That plus the slight DR increase on the 160 is starting to all add up. Lets not forget diffraction as well since the 180 will diffract sooner than the 160 because of the smaller pixel pitch
Let me give you a example why too. This image here at 43 on the 160 the front bush was also showing in focus which clearly i was focused on the wall. Now understand yes I am dealing with a wide angle and a lot of DOF but my focus pattern was really taking about 30 percent of the frame at this 43 setting which in my mind is just to much and not pinpointing enough. As you see the two samples of what the focus mask is looking like and actually it is slightly more on the LCD than C1 but 53 seems like a better setting on the 160. So if you are getting a 160 than I think the 53 is a good starting point but obviously play around to what you like. But just thought I would throw this out there as there is a difference between the two backs in this area.
Obviously when Jack and I are together we will do a side by side of the same scene and see how this plays out
I will be moving this thread after I do the noise test into a more permanent home in the Digital Camera reviews area as more of a reference for folks.
I am still amazed how in AZ one of the brightest places on the planet I can still come up with images with no clipping on the shadow side. There is not a true black in this image and this is out of the can WB only.
Your exposition here is invaluable. It's inspiring that you'll go out in 100+ weather to get these shots ...
You have obviously scored big with your IQ160 decision. Given the opportunity, would you trade straight across for a 180?
Great question. I think my answer would believe it or not be no but than again try me. LOL
Okay two reasons speed of back plus other speed functions and honestly the 180 would just about fry my laptop although i could deal with it. Where I would have trouble is the high res. files with being in a hurry to batch many but reality is that is very rare . When I need to batch many files i am usually in Sensor Plus mode anyway. So I can get away with it.
The IQ 180 is a sweetheart but lets be honest here . It does have some issues with some wide angles and tech cams and also your diffraction limit shortened. These are physics we can't get around but I still think its a great back and yes i would not mind having one for sure. I wish the 7k ( list) I saved I had in my hand right now to get a tech cam and a lens but somehow I don't have that cash in hand. LOL
Right now to get a tech cam i need a gift from God but i'm trying. LOL
Guy, how noticeable is the increased colour and tonal quality of shots in taken in Sensor Plus mode on your IQ 160?
NOISE TEST FULL RESOLUTION ISO 50-800
Well i got this shot. I usually use my bathroom here for several reasons. First it is a controlled environment with TUNGSTEN lighting plus i added a modeling lamp from a Profoto D1. So why tungsten you ask?
Well tungsten is the worst color temp for noise and most of the situations that one shoots in is under tungsten lighting and high ISO's . I make it a habit actually a requirement to test under the worst crap you can run into. I want to know the worst case scenario so I know how to make smart adjustments in the field to handle things. Like to call this ugly testing and its really how one should test is the worst case otherwise you run into a mess out there you will have no idea how to handle it.
So lets get into the details. This first batch is FULL resolution shots . Now all I did here was shoot at F11 in AV mode and focused on the color checker card. Not worried about sharpness here but you will see how detail gets lost as the ISO goes up. Also everything you see here is at 100 percent which obviously is putting things under a huge microscope .
Also I have a very small amount of sharpening . Plus and here is a BIGGY to pay attention too the noise level is set at default here Luminance 15 and color 30. I DID NOT correct for noise YET YET YET. So you need to pay attention because I will correct some high ISO's for noise and in this series 400 and 800.
What you have here folks is out of the can. Let me try to get this all up before posting. I will let you know when I'm done about 15 minutes. Thanks
Also the crops are so small i made two of each set of ISO's. Pay special attention to under the color checker card the shadow area and also in the one with the corner of the mirror watch how it gets course the higher ISO. This are is not in focus per say so watch the ISO 50 shot first and compare the rest. At some point you may want to save the HIGH ISO shots to compare to the Corrected Noise High ISO shots.
Here we go
Full Image just for scale ISO 50
Okay ISO 50 crops
ISO 100 Crops
ISO 200 crops
ISO 400 crops. This is still very good
ISO 800 Crops
Okay remember the noise setting are at default here so Luminance 15 and Color 30 and Single Pixel 1
As i take them back into C1 i will bump the levels up on ISO 400 and 800 to
Luminance 25 and color 55 and single pixel to 70. That will be in the next post
Okay with the new changes to noise levels Luminance 25 and Color 55 plus single pixel at 70 things get better for ISO 400 and 800. Now I maybe slightly off in the numbers for best effects as I am going by my old P40+ numbers but as you will see some nice changes. So don't count 400 and 800out by any stretch
here we go.
Now lets keep perspective here these are huge crops on a very large file and in print you may see very little noise effects.
Sensor Plus is next but later tonight.
You can comment now. Thanks for waiting. I suggest you download the default and corrected ones and look at them side by side.
Now, maybe a testement to my 68 YO eyes, but the 100 looks better (more DR?) than the 50. MAYBE less noise, but no noise I can really see in either.
I have seen some rumbling about "PULL" ISOs not always a better file. I am also surprised how the noise does increase by 200. Thought it might have been a bit better....
Full Image ISO 800 with corrections. And yes I literally tossed everything aside. I will pay later for that one trust me