Phase one body and back suggestion for products/portraits

[Allthink_]

Hello for all experts here
I want to ask your opinion
I'm considering to add medium format camera to my full frame cameras (20, 24,45mp)
While Fuji 50s and 100s seems to be a great option, I'm considering these two. The main object is studio photography- products and maybe portraits.
Phase One DF+ body and IQ 50 back
Phase One XF body with IQ 60 back
Even I hate their software support and how they deal with their C1 clients, still the hardware is a different thing, as well can be processed in Lightroom.
Their sensors are different(I know that) and hence asking overall opinion

 

[Paul Spinnler]

XF with 60

Lenses – blue ring, but silver is also ok if on a budget

120 Macro for product and headshots
80 or 55 for portraits (tighter / with a bit environment)

Done.

 

[Allthink_]

XF with 60

Lenses – blue ring, but silver is also ok if on a budget

120 Macro for product and headshots
80 or 55 for portraits (tighter / with a bit environment)

Done.

Thanks Paul
Why do you think IQ 60 will be better?
And what about Schneider Krueznach LS lenses?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I would get SK LS lenses as they are sharper than the old Mamiya lenses. There has been a certain resurgence in the demand for old Mamiya glass though, especially lenses like the 80 1.9 due to people wanting smoother skin and more aberrations to be reminiscent of the film era.

I personally would only take Mamiya glass in as another brush for artistic purposes in addition to a baseis of sharp SK LS lenses.

60 megapixels is better than 50, would be more focused on getting the newest gen IQ generation back, if there's a difference.

 

[Allthink_]

I would get SK LS lenses as they are sharper than the old Mamiya lenses. There has been a certain resurgence in the demand for old Mamiya glass though, especially lenses like the 80 1.9 due to people wanting smoother skin and more aberrations to be reminiscent of the film era.

I personally would only take Mamiya glass in as another brush for artistic purposes in addition to a baseis of sharp SK LS lenses.

60 megapixels is better than 50, would be more focused on getting the newest gen IQ generation back, if there's a difference.

You suggest IQ 60 because of bigger sensor size and 10 more mp?

What about CCD tech, do you think it's still good for my purposes?

BTW, what do you think of fuji 50s/100s as compared to the Phase one iq50/iq60?
thank you

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Skip CCD, fuji may be a better choice given price / performance.

Go for P1 if you want tech cam compatibility and / or larger chip.

 

[jng]

The main advantage of the 50 Mp IQ150 back is the CMOS sensor, which will handle low light situations and high(er) ISO better than the 60 Mp Dalsa CCD sensor in the IQ160. If you're shooting in the studio under controlled conditions, the advantages of the 50 Mp CMOS back would be less of a factor. In addition, the smaller 33x44 CMOS sensor may not give you the same medium format "look" compared to the larger 40x54 Dalsa sensor. All else being equal (which it never is), I always go for the larger sensor (or film) format.

The IQ160 renders colors and tones beautifully (this was my first MFDB). Paired with the XF (which is a vast improvement over the earlier DF and DF+ bodies), this should make a nice kit for your intended purposes.

Hope this helps.

John

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Ah – wasn't there a 60 CMOS or was there never?

 

[huyu]

Ah – wasn't there a 60 CMOS or was there never?

40-60-80MP are CCD
50-100-150MP are CMOS

 

[Alkibiades]

there was never a 60 mp cmos chip, the 60 mp is ccd from Dalsa and really old chip, not bad but no chance against 50MP Cmos if higher iso are needed, also the cmos have better DR, 14-15 against 12 of the CCD.
CCD is good when you want this special look ...
also no real live view on CCD chip, where any csmos P1 backs have a great live view.
phase one file are better than Fuji, but Fuji is a much easier to use, the AF is much better, if you need a fast and dynamic camera system so Fuji is not to beat.

 

[Ben730]

If you don't have to carry the camera around I would go for an IQ150 with XF and 120 AF Macro.
If you use flash, you don't need the LS version in the studio.
The live view of the CMOS sensor is very important for product shots, CCD can be a pain.
The Fujis with the new 110 T/S is also a great option. I prefer the live view of P1.
I never had problems with C1 support but I always went via P1 (digital back owner support).
If you have a P1 back I would also use C1 for the best performance,
Regards,

 

[Allthink_]

Skip CCD, fuji may be a better choice given price / performance.

Go for P1 if you want tech cam compatibility and / or larger chip.

You suggested IQ 60 , yes it's CCD. So you think that 60 is still a good option because Fuji as you suggested later have a cropped sensor.
I think Fuji and used P1 is almost same price now

 

[Allthink_]

The main advantage of the 50 Mp IQ150 back is the CMOS sensor, which will handle low light situations and high(er) ISO better than the 60 Mp Dalsa CCD sensor in the IQ160. If you're shooting in the studio under controlled conditions, the advantages of the 50 Mp CMOS back would be less of a factor. In addition, the smaller 33x44 CMOS sensor may not give you the same medium format "look" compared to the larger 40x54 Dalsa sensor. All else being equal (which it never is), I always go for the larger sensor (or film) format.

The IQ160 renders colors and tones beautifully (this was my first MFDB). Paired with the XF (which is a vast improvement over the earlier DF and DF+ bodies), this should make a nice kit for your intended purposes.

Hope this helps.

John

Thank you John
Yes, I don't intend to shoot outside, but in studio under controlled lighting. In that case as I understand IQ 60 with XF (not DF) will be a better option than IQ50 cropped smos sensor, right?

 

[Allthink_]

there was never a 60 mp cmos chip, the 60 mp is ccd from Dalsa and really old chip, not bad but no chance against 50MP Cmos if higher iso are needed, also the cmos have better DR, 14-15 against 12 of the CCD.
CCD is good when you want this special look ...
also no real live view on CCD chip, where any csmos P1 backs have a great live view.
phase one file are better than Fuji, but Fuji is a much easier to use, the AF is much better, if you need a fast and dynamic camera system so Fuji is not to beat.

Thanks. What do you mean that IQ 60 have no real live view? Is there or it isn't or it's slow?
So you suggest going for IQ 50 or Fuji rather than a bigger IQ 60?

 

[guphotography]

IQ 60, CCD has unique look under the right lighting condition, especially since you have full control of that.

CMOS is a general purpose sensor, capable of lot of things in most situations, but it lacks the look of CCD, to me, that's what makes medium format special.

Live view on CCD sensor is close to non existence, painfully slow, optical view finder will be your best friend.

 

[Allthink_]

If you don't have to carry the camera around I would go for an IQ150 with XF and 120 AF Macro.
If you use flash, you don't need the LS version in the studio.
The live view of the CMOS sensor is very important for product shots, CCD can be a pain.
The Fujis with the new 110 T/S is also a great option. I prefer the live view of P1.
I never had problems with C1 support but I always went via P1 (digital back owner support).
If you have a P1 back I would also use C1 for the best performance,
Regards,

Thank you Ben
I wish I could go for XT with 150 back and all Alpa lens lineup. Nothing else needed then...

I do have all tilt shifts for my architecture with Canon and Nikon, hence just thinking to add the DMF for my system. I do have an old Mamiya 645 but it doesn' take IQ, only up to P65 backs.

So you also think live view is problematic for products with IQ 60? checking critical focus etc...

(C1 support, not support but they don't even let small updates even in the first year. I bought in last december, i got till 16.2 v, and in november this year there was 16.3 update, and they refused to get it, even it's minor update and also 11 month passed, so I'm very angry on them. I bought the full version perpetual)
Currently I don't have Fuji nor Phase one or Hasselblad MF system, all of them are in consideration.
From one side, "cheap" fuji 100s with lenses is a good option, but cropped sensor, from another side, IQ60 with bigger sensor but low DR and bad ISO range, IQ50 good ISO but cropped sensor as well as old DF+ back. So pretty hard to choose, unless money is not object.

 

[ian_T]

Definitely go XF over DF body!

They are current technology and will last further into the future. Plus there are a ton of studio-friendly features (ie internal profoto trigger, balancing level, focus trim, and on and on and on).

 

[Allthink_]

IQ 60, CCD has unique look under the right lighting condition, especially since you have full control of that.

CMOS is a general purpose sensor, capable of lot of things in most situations, but it lacks the look of CCD, to me, that's what makes medium format special.

Live view on CCD sensor is close to non existence, painfully slow, optical view finder will be your best friend.

Thank you
Currently using only CMOS full frames.
So I agree, IQ60 will give me great look. What about old DF+ back, is it a good option even today? or better to search for XF body?
And how I solve slow live view on IQ 60 if I go that route?

 

[guphotography]

Thank you
Currently using only CMOS full frames.
So I agree, IQ60 will give me great look. What about old DF+ back, is it a good option even today? or better to search for XF body?
And how I solve slow live view on IQ 60 if I go that route?

Second daz7's suggestion, a view camera is definitely a better platform for products, in addition to p3, monolith is another great workhorse.

Portrait wise, if you solely intend to shoot in studio, then I think you may get away with older DF+ body, since you can manual focus, pre focus or shoot enough depth of field. If you do wish to have the ability to work on location, then XF would be a better option, as AF would be more in line with modern cameras.

Combining optical viewfinder and tethering, I'd imagine you can fine tune the composition and focus frame by frame until you are happy, that's where view camera comes in handy, allowing you to adjust various movements independently.

 

[Alkibiades]

Thanks. What do you mean that IQ 60 have no real live view? Is there or it isn't or it's slow?
So you suggest going for IQ 50 or Fuji rather than a bigger IQ 60?

no ccd back have a usefull live view, you could use a sliding back with good glass to check the focus and the composition- but if you want to use a technical camera.
this would be a real differance in product shots. When you want to use your camera outside, with available light, so ccd is also not the right back.
All depends on your way of working and what you are looking for. I use all tree back/cameras: CCD 80MP back, Fuji gfx100S and IQ250. I even use sometimes an old 39 MP h3D system, it have also a special look. They all have different advatages, maybe start with fuji- is cheap- and then try something else when it is nt yours.
XF-DF: you can use both backs on both cameras, I still use a DF, it is not special, but XF dont give me so muchmore than I would spend so much money.
2,8/110 mm LS schneideris a great and sharp lens for portrait, for strong bokeh 2,8/150 mm. I use them, white ring, at aperture 4-5,6 really good. thay have diffenet,more pleasing look, better bokeh than Fuji, but fuji 1,7-80 mm is in technical way a much modern and better lens, that can be used even wide open with crazy sharpness, but it is very clean, maybe too perfect.