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!

Is the IQ180 the end for Schneider lenses ? compared to Rodenstock

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Woody,

Looks like a pretty conclusive test, at least with the 47 Schneider, and as you say does not bode well for the sub 6u sensors...

It appears that for tech cams, lenses with more retrofocus designs will be the order of the day as pixel wells get smaller.
 

gazwas

Active member
It appears that for tech cams, lenses with more retrofocus designs will be the order of the day as pixel wells get smaller.
That may be the case Jack but what I don't understand is why this sort of information is only now coming out considering the Leaf 12 has been our since Jan and I've not seen any mention of these problems on that platform.

Is it some processing Phase applies to it's files that makes the situation worse or do 100% of all Aptus 12 users never use them on a tech camera with movements?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Chris if i had the money I would and i turned down a good deal on a Arca too. I need my IQ 160 first though. I can't have my cake and eat it this time. Damn life sucks. LOL
 

cng

New member
Woody's results are as I speculated earlier in this thread. Interestingly, the IQ180 image shows the light tones as darker and the dark tones as lighter as compared to the P65 image (not to mention the loss of colour and density at the edges of the IC).

But the more interesting question to me is: If you don't push the IC's of the Schneiders, do you get a similar net effective useable IC as the Rodenstocks? So effectively the net result is similar IC's between the two brands, but with the trade-offs between more sensor cast, more fall-off, centre filters, less distortion, less cost, and smaller physical size with the Schneiders. One complicating factor is the Rodenstocks that have larger IC's than officially stated - or are they compromised by the smaller pixel pitch of the 80MP sensors too?

My quandary is that I've just invested in a Cambo WRS and a set of Schneiders for commercial architectural work and have an IQ180 on order. Swap lens brands or "downgrade" to an IQ160? Or maybe stick with the Schneiders and IQ180, and re-assess later? I also have plans to do some large exhibition prints and the 80MP would sure be nice to have. Decisions, decisions.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I would not cancel the IQ 180 if it was me but rework my lenses. But that is me

I also would test it in your shooting environment before selling any lens. Not sure i would panic here but get everything in hand do your LCC and your corrections and see YOUR results on those given shooting situations than evaluate from there. Sorry and this is in general running scared here is not the answer. Figure out what is going to work on how you shoot is.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
Woody's results are as I speculated earlier in this thread. Interestingly, the IQ180 image shows the light tones as darker and the dark tones as lighter as compared to the P65 image (not to mention the loss of colour and density at the edges of the IC).

But the more interesting question to me is: If you don't push the IC's of the Schneiders, do you get a similar net effective useable IC as the Rodenstocks? So effectively the net result is similar IC's between the two brands, but with the trade-offs between more sensor cast, more fall-off, centre filters, less distortion, less cost, and smaller physical size with the Schneiders. One complicating factor is the Rodenstocks that have larger IC's than officially stated - or are they compromised by the smaller pixel pitch of the 80MP sensors too?

My quandary is that I've just invested in a Cambo WRS and a set of Schneiders for commercial architectural work and have an IQ180 on order. Swap lens brands or "downgrade" to an IQ160? Or maybe stick with the Schneiders and IQ180, and re-assess later? I also have plans to do some large exhibition prints and the 80MP would sure be nice to have. Decisions, decisions.
You should let more people weigh in with actual results before changing course.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I would not cancel the IQ 180 if it was me but rework my lenses. But that is me

I also would test it in your shooting environment before selling any lens. Not sure i would panic here but get everything in hand do your LCC and your corrections and see YOUR results on those given shooting situations than evaluate from there. Sorry and this is in general running scared here is not the answer. Figure out what is going to work on how you shoot is.
I agree with Guy on the point that you really have to try it in your environment to figure it out.

I disagree on reworking the lenses but that's purely a matter of personal preference. I go for glass first and then figure out what to put behind it. That's why I'm a Leica user - there's a lot about the M9 that's a PITA but you can't argue with the glass.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
That may be the case Jack but what I don't understand is why this sort of information is only now coming out considering the Leaf 12 has been our since Jan and I've not seen any mention of these problems on that platform.

Is it some processing Phase applies to it's files that makes the situation worse or do 100% of all Aptus 12 users never use them on a tech camera with movements?

Excellent question(s), but I suspect it's that for whatever reason Aptus 12 shooters with tech cams simply didn't bother reporting it on any forums or maybe didn't even notice it. I think a lot of casual tech cam users do not impart massive shifts regularly.

Even with Phase, Michael Reichmann alluded to the fact he didn't notice it right away because he wasn't doing massive shifts with his tech camera and his usual LCC methodology was handling whatever did crop up. Keep in mind, Phase IQ shooters have only had the ability to use the IQ180 on a tech cam for a few weeks at most, and many for just a few days, so we are at the head of the curve on this. But it does seem odd the issue was not picked up or reported widely from early Aptus 12 users, because it is as much of an issue there as it is with the IQ180...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Just to add on the Prototypes that we all tested the ports for using tech cams was not serviceable so until final production at least outside of Phase itself what would work. So its all new here.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Has anyone tried using the Schneider "digital filter" plug in for Photoshop vs. LCC for the brightness drop off? Obviously the big issue here seems to be the color cast vs just brightness but I was wondering if there were any qualitative differences that might apply particularly with full frame sensors such as the P65+ and especially the IQ180/Aptus II 12.
 

cng

New member
I would not cancel the IQ 180 if it was me but rework my lenses. But that is me

I also would test it in your shooting environment before selling any lens. Not sure i would panic here but get everything in hand do your LCC and your corrections and see YOUR results on those given shooting situations than evaluate from there. Sorry and this is in general running scared here is not the answer. Figure out what is going to work on how you shoot is.
Absolutely agree that a panicked knee-jerk reaction is the worst possible thing to do. I like the Schneiders' ultra-low distortion, especially for my work. But the choice seems to be correcting the Rodenstocks' greater distortion in post, versus dealing with and correcting the Schneiders' greater cast in post.

My dealer did very a quick and dirty test using the 35mm XL and IQ180. To my eyes, I thought that the cast was fixable at the maximum officially stated shift (and no CF too, which didn't help). Maybe needs slightly more work in post to correct the loss of saturation and density at the edges than with previous sensors. But don't forget this is at the very edges. For those who are aiming to squeeze every last drop of IQ out of the entire IC, then your conclusions may be different.

I think the main problem is that everyone has been used to pushing their movements beyond the officially stated IC's, both for the Rodenstocks and Schneiders. I think we are going to have to play a bit more by the rules with these new sensors.

My gut reaction is wait and see, live with everything for 6 months, go out and shoot and enjoy my new gear.

EDIT: P.S. After months of decision angst, finally pulling the pin and investing in my dream tech camera and view camera set-ups together with latest and greatest DB, my new mantra is: Be cool and remember to breathe. :)

EDIT #2: Oh yeah, and have FUN.
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Honestly I think that is a good plan. See what works for you and not everyone pushes these shift to the limits either or beyond. Depends on what you do and shoot. Bottom line and this goes back to Dougs comment somewhere here to get the best results you will need a LCC to make those corrections. That is the world of tech cams. No free lunch, it's work time. LOL
 

cng

New member
Has anyone tried using the Schneider "digital filter" plug in for Photoshop vs. LCC for the brightness drop off? Obviously the big issue here seems to be the color cast vs just brightness but I was wondering if there were any qualitative differences that might apply particularly with full frame sensors such as the P65+ and especially the IQ180/Aptus II 12.
Graham, I obviously don't have my IQ yet, but after talking to a few people the consensus seems to be that you're better off correcting the fall-off in C1. The Schneider plugin just adds a detour to your workflow. There was also the opinion expressed by some that C1's correction was "better" and more sophisticated than Schneider's. Plus without a glass CF any software-based correction has to push the exposure in the edges quite a lot, potentially creating visible noise — especially with the greater fall-off seen with the new 80MP sensors.

I have the glass CF for my 35mm and am awaiting one for my 43mm (Schneider advised me Aug/Sept). Personally, I'll test Schneider's plugin but I'm planning to do as much as I can in C1.
 

cng

New member
Honestly I think that is a good plan. See what works for you and not everyone pushes these shift to the limits either or beyond. Depends on what you do and shoot. Bottom line and this goes back to Dougs comment somewhere here to get the best results you will need a LCC to make those corrections. That is the world of tech cams. No free lunch, it's work time. LOL
LCC all the way. Never understood anyone that thought differently (is that too blunt?).

No free lunch, it's work time. LOL
100%. And you know what? I'm EXCITED. :)
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
So lets turn next to Rodenstock and Schneider. I have only one reference point. Jeff Hirsch at Fotocare generously spent a morning with me on the subject. The one Rodenstock lens that he had in inventory (see may earlier note on dealer inventories) was the HR 32mm Digatar, which in terms of focal length matches up well with my Schneider 36 APO.

I've had the Schneider 36 for a reasonable amount of time so I know it well. Its resolution at the center just matches my 60 meg back and it has excellent local contrast giving it "bite" (remember contrast and resolution are a trade off). Its sweet spot just covers the 60 meg sensor - its image circle is substantially larger but resolution falls off so it is not really good for shifts or stitching. I use it on my Alpa TC, which matches with it perfectly.

Lance Shad and I put it on the Alpa Max with the IQ 180 - the back clearly oversamples the lens. There was no problem making LCCs centered and with small shifts. We wondered whether focus was off but this wide at f11 at 90 feet distance there's not much that can go wrong focus wise if you stick close to infinity. It's definately a keeper with the TC and a 60 meg back.

Here's a shot out of Digital Transition's window with the S 36 on the IQ 180 and 7mm of back rise and 5mm of shift, solely for the purpose of composing the image. As I said the rendering is lovely and there is no linear distortion, but the upper right (the center of the image circle) is just a little soft, and the lower left is, well, soft.



I'm using this on my blog as my daily photo.

So the question is if I switched to the 35 Rodenstock would I get to do shifts.

Jeff and I set it up in front of Fotocare with my 60 meg Hasselblad back. I took exposures at f11 and ISO 50 (the back's base ISO) along with LCC shots (which are called scene calibration shots in H-land). One of the things that we did was 17mm left shift and 17mm right shift with the back in portrait orientation setting up a stitch.

I'll post images below but at 60 megs its perfectly sharp and is sharp way out in the image circle - almost to the edges of the stitch that I described above. It has lower local contrast than the Schneider, which again should be expected because contrast and resolution trade off. It's issue is linear distortion, which in the confines of the centered 60 meg sensor is fairly benign and easily correctible barrel distortion. As you go out in the image circle this turns into totally wild mustache distortion - making this lens very hard to use if there are architectural subjects or other straight lines in the frame, or even if there are people or other objects with know shapes near the edges of the frame. These issues inhere, I believe, in very wide lenses of this design. So while the problem isn't resolution this lens has its own issue when used on a tech camera.

Center Crop:



Edge crop:



Amazing, isn't it.

But here's the bad nows. The whole stitched frame:



There's a lot of pavement in the image because we wanted to keep the camera orthagonal. There are a few dust motes - the back has come off of the camera a dozen times in the past day or two. Phocus handled the scene corrections without a hitch. Shifting the Hasselblad back horizontally whlle the back is in portrait orientation results in centerfolding, but it's subtle enough (depending on the amount of shift) that you don't notice it in a busy shot like this. I'll explore what it looks like in a later post.

So . . . the Rodenstock 32 is an outstanding candidate for shifts if you limit yourself to trees and rocks, but geometric distortion is an issue if you deal with straight lines. And the geometric distortion issue arrises on shifts; it's small and easily controlled when the back is centered.

The 32 is a tough focal length to design so kudos to Rodenstock for producing this - I would very much like to see how the 50 works out vs. my Schneider 48 - it ought to have much less distortion.

BTW all exposures in this series are at f11, more or less a little bit because the Copal shutter is unfriendly to half stops, and at the back's base ISO. As long as you're on a tripod and not stopping a basketball game why not.
 
Last edited:
Top