Bryan Stephens
Workshop Member
They sort of did in the release of the X versions of their H series cameras. The H4x and H5x are compatible with the IQ backs in the correct mount.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
Which MF-Back or 5Drs - Studio & Landscape
- Thread starter gmfotografie
- Start date
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
In case you'd like to peruse some files and make comparisons:
Canon vs Phase vs Pentax Raw File Comparison
Canon vs Phase vs Pentax Raw File Comparison
It would be interesting though–and I believe that's what they've hinted–is if H made their backs in M mount.
Have a few mins to update so I thought I'd report back:
OK, got a couple months under our belt now with both Canon and Sony.
Initial thoughts:
Pros: -Canon more versatile and as expected, works best with 3rd party softwares like Helicon focus stacking and software that drives rotation platters, easier to hand over to previous canon shooters and they can be up and running without missing a beat. Resolution great, when needed, and equal (resolution-wise) to our IQ250 but with more lens options
-Sony versatile and smaller as expected, slightly better IQ but not really sure why just yet, looking into it, possibly just better DR and sensor tech
Cons: -Canon and Sony color and IQ not comparable to MFD (IQ250) in any way shape or form! We feel this may have to do with Canon L glass compared to best Schneider being no contest. We won't consider buying high priced Zeiss glass for Canon which may help there (because if we're gonna do that, why bother? Sony same issue except not as versatile with 3rd part softwares (not yet anyway)
Metabones adaptor for Sony a pia, limited native Sony lens choices as expected, but fair range when needed
Canon and Sony color way off mark (but much better than before)
, and can not be used in mixed groups ecomm shots (thats where we shoot some ecomm shots using one camera and some with a different camera but they all have to go on same page next to each other. When one system is used for all shots on a given page, no problem. And because Canon works with 3rd party softwares....winner=Canon
We don't like the small format cameras for art repro and textiles accuracy shots for reference (both have tendencies to over saturate and interpret colors weirdly causing too much pp to match or too much fiddle time in C1, but that may just be bias/experience
eval still ongoing....bottom-line: nobody in studio reaches for either of the small format beasts as 1st choice when setting up a shoot for a client. That honor still goes to MFD and specifically the IQ250
OK, got a couple months under our belt now with both Canon and Sony.
Initial thoughts:
Pros: -Canon more versatile and as expected, works best with 3rd party softwares like Helicon focus stacking and software that drives rotation platters, easier to hand over to previous canon shooters and they can be up and running without missing a beat. Resolution great, when needed, and equal (resolution-wise) to our IQ250 but with more lens options
-Sony versatile and smaller as expected, slightly better IQ but not really sure why just yet, looking into it, possibly just better DR and sensor tech
Cons: -Canon and Sony color and IQ not comparable to MFD (IQ250) in any way shape or form! We feel this may have to do with Canon L glass compared to best Schneider being no contest. We won't consider buying high priced Zeiss glass for Canon which may help there (because if we're gonna do that, why bother? Sony same issue except not as versatile with 3rd part softwares (not yet anyway)
Metabones adaptor for Sony a pia, limited native Sony lens choices as expected, but fair range when needed
Canon and Sony color way off mark (but much better than before)
, and can not be used in mixed groups ecomm shots (thats where we shoot some ecomm shots using one camera and some with a different camera but they all have to go on same page next to each other. When one system is used for all shots on a given page, no problem. And because Canon works with 3rd party softwares....winner=Canon
We don't like the small format cameras for art repro and textiles accuracy shots for reference (both have tendencies to over saturate and interpret colors weirdly causing too much pp to match or too much fiddle time in C1, but that may just be bias/experience
eval still ongoing....bottom-line: nobody in studio reaches for either of the small format beasts as 1st choice when setting up a shoot for a client. That honor still goes to MFD and specifically the IQ250
What software and profiles did you use? It's hard to talk about camera color and leaving out the profiles.
In the Kodak vs Dalsa days the hardware had quite large impact, Kodak subjectively saturated and Dalsa more neutral. But even in those days the look was mostly a parameter of the profile, just compare Hasselblad and Phase One. Today all sensor manufacturers strive for some sort of neutrality though and if you design profiles with the intention to look the same different cameras look more similar than one may think...
If you have a workflow when you make your own profiles I would expect that you have less issues with color differences between the cameras. For super-saturated colors there can still be some differences though.
I haven't worked specifically with profiling the IQ250, but when comparing a Canon to a Pentax 645z and A7r-II (which both has almost identical responses, except for IR-filter difference it seems) I found the Canon to be easier to work with. The Sony has a very sensitive blue channel, likely for achieving better high ISO, which makes it hard to control super-saturated blues. In tungsten light this is less of a problem though as blue content is then reduced.
In the Kodak vs Dalsa days the hardware had quite large impact, Kodak subjectively saturated and Dalsa more neutral. But even in those days the look was mostly a parameter of the profile, just compare Hasselblad and Phase One. Today all sensor manufacturers strive for some sort of neutrality though and if you design profiles with the intention to look the same different cameras look more similar than one may think...
If you have a workflow when you make your own profiles I would expect that you have less issues with color differences between the cameras. For super-saturated colors there can still be some differences though.
I haven't worked specifically with profiling the IQ250, but when comparing a Canon to a Pentax 645z and A7r-II (which both has almost identical responses, except for IR-filter difference it seems) I found the Canon to be easier to work with. The Sony has a very sensitive blue channel, likely for achieving better high ISO, which makes it hard to control super-saturated blues. In tungsten light this is less of a problem though as blue content is then reduced.
Last edited: