Doesn't the M9 use microlenses?
Doesn't the M9 use microlenses?
I don't know the answer, but I would gues Phase new exactly what could happen, they peraps only hoped it wouldn't be that bad ? Or they just said that one has to use different lenses with the IQ180. I don't think we will ever get a straight answer.
"Improvement of the sensor homogeneity for wide-angle lenses
There is an additional colour calibration for all wide-angle lenses, that minimizes chromatic deviations between image centre and image corner, especially in critical shooting situations."
"Yes, offset microlenses and the sensor is roughly 24 x 36 and 18 megapixels with a 6.8 pixel pitch."
Which is in part why the M9 doesn't present the same problems as an IQ180.
the Leica Flange Focal Distance is 27,8mm.
The short Schneiders 24 +28mm do have less than half/respectively 1/3 of that back lens clearance to the chip.
The 3 Rodenstock HR Digaron S which use retrofocus are: 24mm S has 16mm which is already significantly more, the 28mm S has 16,4mm and the 35mm has 24,3mm. Still not that much but obviously "to be handled".
It would be interesting though to which extent and angle the pixelsize and the angle with offset will run into the same problems as the schneiders if the Backs get even more resolution.
In comparison the Canon flange focal distance is 44mm, so there is plenty of reserve for theoretical pixel shrinking and resolution improvement.
Downsize: retrofocus does have a limitation in theoretical sharpness, but as can be seen with the newest TS lenses 17+24II are doing pretty well in going very close to that limit.
Greetings from Munich
Last edited by Stefan Steib; 24th June 2011 at 23:41.
A little OT but has anyone seen any images shot with the SK 28XL on a P65+ so we can get an idea of the colour casts and fall off in comparison to the IQ180?
As a tech camera only shooter (don't own any Phamiya stuff) I'm beginning to think the best upgrade from my P65+ is to not upgrade after seeing all this latest info. The only reason I went MFD was for camera movements and if this trend continues as inevitably MP will rise in MFD, it puts a nail in the coffin for future upgrades for me.
So unless the next gen of chips addresses this in some way or lens manufacturers release new lens designs without them all costing the same price as the massively expensive 32HR then I'll sit here and watch this one out.
sorry , but I cannot resist: This is why we have built the HCam-B1.
80 Mpix with no color Cast, no chromas and pretty good sharpness down to 17mm (125 degr.) with movements.
A Zillion lenses to be put on, and even less costly than the traditional solutions.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib www.hcam.de
One point of using a traditional pancake cam is that you get movements with each and every lens (assuming a sufficiently large IC) as movements are in the body. It seems to me that with the HCam you get movements if the lens you use offers movements. This, if I am right, reduces the selection of lenses considerably if you need movements.
I find this golf club analogy quite apt... YMMV.
"There is always heated debate around the clubhouse over which is better forged irons or cast irons. The real difference isn't as much in how the irons are made, however, as in how they are played. Forged irons are made with a less forgiving nature as a rule thanks to a relatively small sweet spot that requires good aim, steady swing, and controlled contact. The forged irons have long been considered an advanced iron for that reason.
Most golfers know deep down when their game is not up to a more difficult iron. The tendency to want to be better than their game proves they are, however, often tempts players to go for clubs that are beyond their abilities. Those are the times you will most often hear a club being maligned as less than what the manufacturers claim they are. In reality, manufacturers go to great lengths to describe the real qualities of their clubs and how they will work for each individual player.
The debate over which is best, forged or cast irons, may never end. What really matters is what is best for you and your game at any particular time that makes a club work or not. Make your decisions based on your own needs not on what others think is hot or superior and you will get the most out of your own game every time."
1 Member(s) liked this post
we actually have at least as many lenses with movements available as do exist for digital - quality usage on pancake cams.
There are now 3 Hartblei Zeiss lenses, 4 Canon TS lenses, 3 Nikon MicroPC´s, a 24mm Olympus Shift, a Mamiya 645 shift, then the Mirex solution for all Mamiya645 and all Hasselblad V lenses with full TS , all the Zoerkendorfer TS stuff(for various lenses) and last but not least our new Mamiya RB/RZ-to Mamiya 645 adapter for ALL RB/RZ lenses with full movements either with the TS Mirex, the Mamiya RZ TS adapter or our future HCam 35mm TS adapter.
This makes some.....hundreds of possible combinations from 17mm to Superteles.
I guess this is sufficient.
This is not a tit for tat golf club bar discussion about golf bats but a rather informative topic about what works and what doesn't with the latest IQ180 back in relation to equipment that people may be thinking of buying or already own.
A mistaken purchase at this level is usually as costly as the average golfers car, never mind golf clubs.
Gareth my IQ 160 will be here today and next week a friend has a 28 on a Cambo. If you like I will run a full test with it .
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
Gareth, the point I attempted to make (perhaps poorly) is that this system seems to require quite a bit of technical knowledge, e.g. which lenses are best suited for the back, the degree of shift that will yield acceptable casts, the limitations of the software to correct excessive casts, whether center filters should or should not be used, which mounting plate will provide the correct fit on the Alpa, etc. In short an in depth knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the back. Nothing wrong with that if the end user is up to the task, e.g. Jack, Guy, Seibel, Don, etc. The reference in my golf analogy to the golfer who wants to be better than his game applies to me... but I suspect I'm not alone in this regard. Sorry if the analogy missed the point I was trying to make.
Yes, some results with the 28XL on the IQ160 would be fabulous, thanks Guy. My gut feeling is you made the correct decision on the 160 and it seems to be the perfect tech/view camera back.
Just wish the live view questions would be answered by now (does it work) but we're still waiting on Phase for that one.
I don't think it is a matter of being extremely difficult once you know and understand the facts and work with the files. So few people have these lenses and then finding someone using the same lens with the same tech camera with the same back is even rarer. Like Gareth points out, the wrench thrown into the works is the IQ180 back. And to put number to his comment about these decisions being pricey, the 32HR in Alpa mount is coming in above $9700. At that price and with a limited market it is not really practical to try it out and sell if it doesn't suit your needs.
Personally, considering the buildup from Phase about the IQ backs on tech cameras, I really do think they should be more forthcoming (and very soon) with a white paper that goes through the lens performance (on the major Schneiders and Rhodenstocks) showing the LCCs straight on and with shifts/tilts/swings. I know Doug at CI is doing work on this and will post soon but again they don't have access to all of the lens that we are trying to evaluate.
Last edited by Terry; 24th June 2011 at 05:20.
However, in relation to the IQ180 its more about what does and doesn't work very well rather than ones ability, especially considering we have a choice between the equally amazing IQ160 (same as the P65+ chip) and IQ180.
Unless something changes or the IQ160's are different to the P65+, the IQ160 seems the choice full frame back for the tech shooter in the market for a new back IMO.
I remember when you went tech and got a little bit teased about it. I kind of scratched my head when you did but I do admire and respect those of you who have the energy and dedication to work through this stuff. The results certainly seem to warrant the effort. And I appreciate that the learning curve can be fun in and of itself. It used to be for me when i was shooting the Sinar back on multiple platforms. I guess I've gotten lazy in my old age. BTW, I had no idea that lenses were that expensive. Welcome to lala Leica land pricing
The H60 chip is the same as the IQ 160 and the P65 +. I expect that color casts will be a controllable issue on the IQ 160 but would like to see it tested.
I will repeat this because I think folks are making a bigger deal out of it than it is -- The P65+ still color casts to the point *I* needed an LCC for every frame anyway, zeroed or not. What is relevant is that because of the additional cast of the smaller pixel IQ180 back, you loose a bit more useable IC out of any given lens. However, I have found that the lenses I shot with were already falling off pretty significantly *resolution-wise* BEFORE they hit the wall on the 180's LCC/IC limit. So yes, *IF* you want the widest IC and DO NOT CARE ABOUT RESOLUTION, the 60MP back is a better choice -- and an older 22MP back is an even BETTER choice... Oh, but wait a minute Jack
Does anyone know the flange focal distance and rear element to focal distance of the 28XL as I'm trying to work out if I can use this lens on my Arca ML2. The 32HR-W seems the obvious choice but the price of that lens is very off putting.
Mantra 3: The price will be forgotten within 2 days of the purchase if it's a great lens. And the 32 is a great lens
"My take on this lens is if you shoot a P45 go for it but stay away with full frame sensors ."
anyone test it with a P45 ? P25 ? Aptus 22 ?
Actually, these findings on the IQ180 are not surprising.
I used to use a Schneider 24XL on a Leaf 65 with an Alpa without any problems. Going to the Phase P65+ back forced me to sell the 24XL, as the fall off and color casts were horrible, and go to the Rodenstock HR35.
Basically any backs with < 8 µm pixels needs a retrofocus WA for good edges. With backs getting into the 5 µm range, symmetric WA designs are no good.