Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The flower from the IQ180 looks (should I say t?), much more alive. One more time I'm proven that there are reasons to dearly desire a camera with a big sensor.
Only the price!!!:cussing:
Eduardo
Amen.....:salute:Like many here, I have both A7R2 and Phase 1Q 80mp system (and canon 5DSR, and, and...)
Even with the best lenses (Otus) on A7R, it is nowhere near the resolution or color of the MF camera. For sure, it can do things that my Alpa/Phase system cannot - hi ISO, great on chip AF, etc - and if that is what you need for the job, then it's perfect! But if you are shooting slowly in regular daylight, then no question, the MF system is much better.
I love the A7R2, and it's amazing technological developments, but can it replace my MF system? No, it cannot. If you want large super sharp images, it still has to be MF.
I can contribute one more comparison file.
View attachment 94378
Enclosed links for the raw files and for my PS ACR adjustments.
FPS + IQ180 + TSE 17 @ f13
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Guangzhou/[email protected]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Guangzhou/[email protected]
Sony A7RII + TSE 17 @ f13
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Guangzhou/[email protected]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Guangzhou/[email protected]
Tests & comments appreciated,
Christoph
I'm not Chris but I also use the 17/24 TSE lenses with both the Sony A7r and Alpa FPS, although in my case with an IQ150.Hi,
Thanks for the images! I have downloaded them on my MacBook and did have a quick look. I would say that comparing Canon 17 TSE on the Sony and the IQ-180 favours the Sony, as it has smaller pixels. But, if you are shooting the TSE shifted it may be the perfectly valid comparison.
I have seen that you are using the Alpa FPS with the IQ-180. How do you focus that thing? Sorry for asking, I have tried to use my P45+ on a Hasselblad Flexbody and it has been a real hassle.
Best regards
Erik
Hi, many thanks for sharing the RAW files! I can see that for your shutter speed the A7R-II does have some advantage in terms of shadow recovery. By stitching the A7R-II surely yields more details than the IQ180. Why do you get a black circle in the IQ180 file? The 17mm TS-E should be able to cover the whole sensor.I mainly got the A7RII to accompany my FPS-IQ180 set-up either for evening or night architecture shots where the higher base ISO and the cleaner files at longer exposure times of the Sony is a clear advantage to the PhaseOne back and for longer focal lengths.
I think the colors can be tweaked in post to match quite well in both systems and the Sony has about 1 stop better shadow recovery.
Indeed many posts on the weight/size point overlook that, for many situations where it is the ultimate best quality that is required, the Sony advantage is minimal at best.Of course the size of the Sony + Metabones set-up is so nicely tiny, I was not longer used to carry around such a little camera.
(Ok if I add my full shift lens line TSE17, TSE24, Contax 35, HB 50FLE, HB 100, HB 180 w/ Mirex and a sturdy tripod with geared head ... the weight and volume advantage is rather little.)
If you're in a situation where you can stitch with the Sony, then you can also stitch with the IQ.By stitching the A7R-II surely yields more details than the IQ180.
The image circle of even the 17mm TS-E is not as large as the Phase Sensor..... therefore vignetting occurs. I don't understand the allure of using 35mm lenses with the FPS as there is, IMHO, nothing to be gained over current cameras. The resulting file size remains the same, or smaller, because of the constriction of the image circle. Usually, if not almost always, the dedicated camera body for the given lens (Nikon, Canon, etc) has more than surpassed the electronics in the FPS and would be easier to use. I do think that the examples show just how far and fast Sensor technology is moving on.Hi, many thanks for sharing the RAW files! I can see that for your shutter speed the A7R-II does have some advantage in terms of shadow recovery. By stitching the A7R-II surely yields more details than the IQ180. Why do you get a black circle in the IQ180 file? The 17mm TS-E should be able to cover the whole sensor.
Doesn't it depend on the lens being used - assuming we're talking about getting good results from shifting, rather than just being able to shift ?If you're in a situation where you can stitch with the Sony, then you can also stitch with the IQ.
The allure of using the 17mm TS-E on full frame MF with the FPS is that it gives you a field of view that is not possible with any other lens.The image circle of even the 17mm TS-E is not as large as the Phase Sensor..... therefore vignetting occurs. I don't understand the allure of using 35mm lenses with the FPS as there is, IMHO, nothing to be gained over current cameras. The resulting file size remains the same, or smaller, because of the constriction of the image circle. Usually, if not almost always, the dedicated camera body for the given lens (Nikon, Canon, etc) has more than surpassed the electronics in the FPS and would be easier to use. I do think that the examples show just how far and fast Sensor technology is moving on.
Victor
No. It is an irrelevant condition as you should be assuming equal angle of view. In both cases, you would go to a longer focal length lens for the shifted/stitched image which would perform better than a shorter one.Doesn't it depend on the lens being used - assuming we're talking about getting good results from shifting, rather than just being able to shift ?
The question is: does the new type of sensor used in the Sony behave as badly as the one in the IQ180 with large shifts where the angle of light hitting the sensor at the edge of the IC is acute ?
Since I've yet to hear anything about how it performs in such situations (and the BSI sensor design is predicted as behaving well with light striking it at an acute angle), I wouldn't reach that conclusion just yet.
There are two possible scenarios here.Doesn't it depend on the lens being used - assuming we're talking about getting good results from shifting, rather than just being able to shift ?
The question is: does the new type of sensor used in the Sony behave as badly as the one in the IQ180 with large shifts where the angle of light hitting the sensor at the edge of the IC is acute ?
Since I've yet to hear anything about how it performs in such situations (and the BSI sensor design is predicted as behaving well with light striking it at an acute angle), I wouldn't reach that conclusion just yet.
Strange - I have exactly this outfit too! FPS, IQ180, A7R, metabones, etc.I mainly got the A7RII to accompany my FPS-IQ180 set-up either for evening or night architecture shots where the higher base ISO and the cleaner files at longer exposure times of the Sony is a clear advantage to the PhaseOne back and for longer focal lengths.
I did not have much time yet for direct comparison of the two systems but what I see is, that it's incredible which quality can be achieved by a 135 format sensor camera and a good lens today. But the camera needs sharp lenses;-) 4.5 um pixel size is really tiny and too much sharpening in post can add some "pseudo-random" structure to the plain areas of the picture (maybe due to the not-lossless compression of the Sony raw).
Of course the size of the Sony + Metabones set-up is so nicely tiny, I was not longer used to carry around such a little camera.
View attachment 94398
Unless I am missing something the FOV on the IQ180 - after croping out the vignetting - will be approximately the same as the FOV on the Sony A7rll and the pixel dimensions are approximately the same. If the FPS is the 'only' system available then I see your point..... but if it were me I would mount that lens on an A7rll.The allure of using the 17mm TS-E on full frame MF with the FPS is that it gives you a field of view that is not possible with any other lens.
It's not a matter of subjective humble opinion, but one of objective fact.
And until the release of the 11-24, it gave you a field of view that was not possible on any other lens/sensor combination that has ever existed.
Exactly. The IQ180 combined with Rodenstock HR-W glass can produce a file that is just way above any 35mm or smaller format file. I have yet to see samples of the results when the A7RII is used with the HR-W's though.If you're in a situation where you can stitch with the Sony, then you can also stitch with the IQ.
It's simply not a valid argument.
This may be stretching the limits of that lens to the extreme. It doesn't matter how many pixels are in the final stitched image but rather the quality of those pixels. Even with my longest lens on my STC I limit shifting to 10mm. If I need more than than then I resort to panning which many times will give better results (Architectural images being the exception). I have found that shifting beyond certain limits results in very disappointing images. YMMV.Long exposures
TSE 17 vignetting with IQ180
W/o shift the TSE 17 image circle is "just" sufficient for the 54x40mm sensor, but my sample picture was with full 12mm shift on the long side, so you see what you get, still impressive IMO.
TSE 17 12mm shift left + 12mm shift right + stitch on IQ180
This gives a damn wide pano image with below 10mm 135 field of view and up to 12000 pixels width.
Gerald insists that CCD is good enough for that area (post here). On the other hand, my experience with CCD agrees with your statement here. Would you be able to share RAW files in this area (i.e. long exposure but not too long) to see the shadow recoverability, for a comparison between the 80MP Dalsa and the A7R-II?Long exposures
I mean and need only "long" exposures, not loooooong exposures like Void;-)
Example: At a late sunset, just before the sun light completely disappears, I typically shoot with the IQ at ISO 35 f11 8s. That's about the maximum exposure time acc. my experience (using ACR) without deterioration of the file quality.
At 20-60 seconds, the plain areas become to a certain extend grainy, the sharpness on pixel level is decreasing, more and more hot pixels show up, even with the dark exposure applied. (C1 handles this better than ACR)
With the Sony A7RII I tested 30s at ISO 100 (with NR = dark frame ON), still can lift the exposure or the shadows enormously and get a very good result. 30s ISO 100 is 4 stops difference EV to 8s ISO 35, so that's a usable advantage for my application.