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!

IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

2jbourret

New member
I am currently considering the upgrade from a P45+ to an IQ 160 or 180. My use is primarily landscape and fine art, for gallery printing 40 - 60"w. I'm mostly using a Cambo WDS for wides, and an AFD3 when using longer lenses (the Mamiya mf 150 3.5N and the 120 macro are favorites).

I've read quite a few threads here and on LL discussing some of the difficulties and issues with using the IQ 180, but I've seen no discussion of similar issues with the 160.

Can anyone (especially if you've used both the backs) comment on the usability of the 180 vs the 160? With all I've read, I find myself wondering if the 180 is worth all the trouble, and if the difference in image quality (detail resolution, tonal and color gradation, dynamic range, etc.) is that significant in large prints.

I use two SK wides, the 35XL and the 47XL. The lens most often cited when talking about problems with the IQ180 is the 35XL. While I prefer the T/S mount 47, especially when stitching, I do like the 35, and would want to be able to use rises and falls to some degree with that lens. I consider the Rodies just to large and heavy for my purposes.

Please, give me your feedback if you have thoughts on this.
Thanks
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The IQ 160 and 35XL work with a CF even better. Unless you want to sell that lens buy a 8000 dollar 32 mm than save the money both on back and lens and get a IQ 160. I'm bias though. LOL

Honestly I love the160 is does a great job has few tech cam issues and its enough for me. Don't get me wrong I really like the IQ 180 and it is the biggest bad *** back around. But the big part is getting a IQ
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I'm somewhat in the same boat. My primary landscape camera is a WRS with 35, 72, and 120 lens. The secondary setup is the DF with 80, 120, 150 and 300. I traded my P45+ for a P65+ last year and am tickled pink with it, except it doesn't have the bells and whistles an IQ back has. An IQ would make my life so much easier on the WRS.

My question of late is IQ160 or IQ180. As Guy so astutely pointed out the IQ180 is one bad*** back. However it also has too much baggage with it. In the end I really like the focal lengths I've been using and find I'm unwilling to change my wide lens.

Actually the plan is to make the switch sometime within the next 12-months and odds are it will be the IQ160. That is unless Phase can prove the 180 will work and play well with my 35; which so far it hasn't.

If I were to do it today I'd switch to the IQ160.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Ditto to Guy and Don's Comments.

I couldn't and still can't justify a 32mm Rodenstock at around 9.6K (lens and centerfilter) and the 23 is too wide for me and really can't shift anymore than the 28mm Rodenstock (about 5 to 7mm before you see the edge and it's a hard black edge of the image circle). The price point of the Schneiders was tough enough. Amazing glass however.

What is so striking to me is the increase in range with the 160 vs a P45+. I worked with the P45+ for almost 4 years and never could get my highlights undercontrol, never could really get a good sunset without extreme bracketing and always felt the shadows were strange (smudgy). The 160 and I am sure the P65+ (since they are the same backs) amazes me everytime I get it out. Yes the P45+ can go for an hour, and for a long time I didn't want to give that up, but looking back, I really prefer the look of the 160.

Best bet is try to find a dealer that can let you work with a 160 in your environment. Most will rent out a 160 (in my case I couldn't rent due to the way my insurance was setup :mad: so I had to travel to get a demo) That way you can shoot side by side and really get a feel for the advantages of the IQ back.

BTW, great work on your site.

Paul
 

jlm

Workshop Member
you may save enough moolah with the 160 to finance most of that next lens. (a good example of Dante's logic)
 

2jbourret

New member
Thanks, this is all helpful stuff. jlm, I like your logic. I think I've used that type of thinking once or twice myself!
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Thanks, this is all helpful stuff. jlm, I like your logic. I think I've used that type of thinking once or twice myself!

Many have been tempted toward the IQ180 after initially looking at the IQ160 because of the relatively small delta in price when trading in towards either of the two.

As noted by Paul, sometimes though it is not just a question of the small difference in price between the digital backs, but the potential change in optimal lenses and the price increase of those that also has to be taken into account.

I would just say that ultimately a 35mm Digitar can certainly be used with an IQ180, but you will indeed have less latitude than with an IQ160, and coming from a P45+, this may seem like an even harsher penalty.

I don't know that I value the extra 20MP of resolution as much as I would value the extra 5MP of resolution in Sensor Plus mode (20MP vs 15MP).


Steve Hendrix
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jamie:

Since you are looking at investing a boatload of funds anyway, you really owe it to YOURSELF to have a good dealer let you demo BOTH backs on a tech camera using the best glass. Then after YOU have seen and played with the files, make the decision for yourself -- if you don't see enough difference to justify the 180 for you, then you at least are certain you've made the proper choice for YOU. OTOH, if you do see a difference and like it, you'll have some thinking to do. But the reality is you owe it to yourself to see the files side by side before you decide.
 

anGy

Member
I had to choose between the IQ160 and 180 when I decided to upgrade from my P40.
I was tempted by the brand new sensor of the IQ180, the 20 mpix extra resolution (mostly the 5 extra mp in sensor+ mode) and the very acceptable extra cost.

After testing the IQ180 it was the wonderful color accuracy of this new sensor that made the difference. My P40+ was nice but sometimes not that easy to color balance (I suppose ditto for the P65/IQ160) when the IQ180 is just incredibly spot on.

I'm using a Cambo WRS + 35mm SK. Although not recommend I get very good results usually with up to 7mm fall and 5mm left/right shift in landscape orientation (with center filter). Corners get soft but overall result still is in a complete other class than the Mamiya 28mm for instance.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
:banghead:
I had to choose between the IQ160 and 180 when I decided to upgrade from my P40.
I was tempted by the brand new sensor of the IQ180, the 20 mpix extra resolution (mostly the 5 extra mp in sensor+ mode) and the very acceptable extra cost.

After testing the IQ180 it was the wonderful color accuracy of this new sensor that made the difference. My P40+ was nice but sometimes not that easy to color balance (I suppose ditto for the P65/IQ160) when the IQ180 is just incredibly spot on.

I'm using a Cambo WRS + 35mm SK. Although not recommend I get very good results usually with up to 7mm fall and 5mm left/right shift in landscape orientation (with center filter). Corners get soft but overall result still is in a complete other class than the Mamiya 28mm for instance.
. I totally agree. You can use the sk35 and get very acceptable results but you need to get used to the new reality of it on a 180 by doing some target practice!
 

2jbourret

New member
Thank you all, this is all very valuable info in making my decision. And although it really isn't practical for me to travel to demo the backs with my dealer, he has offered a solution that lets me see differences in the files with various back/lens/movement combinations.
 

alan_w_george

New member
I am currently considering the upgrade from a
I use two SK wides, the 35XL and the 47XL. The lens most often cited when talking about problems with the IQ180 is the 35XL. While I prefer the T/S mount 47, especially when stitching, I do like the 35, and would want to be able to use rises and falls to some degree with that lens. I consider the Rodies just to large and heavy for my purposes.

Please, give me your feedback if you have thoughts on this.
Thanks
I stitch a lot, mostly 2x2. I had a P65, cambo (SK 47, 72, & 90), which worked very well for me.

I was seduced:) and upgraded to IQ180, it really couldn't handle the 47. I'd estimate I lost 20 to 30% of the CI. So what I gained in pixels was more that lost in reduced movements. I now have the Rodie 55 and the SK 90. I am a happy camper, but the upgrade cost me more than I anticipated.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I've got the IQ 180. Works fine with the SK 72 and 120 (actually brilliantly), which I also have. You can fully exploit the the resolution difference between the 160 and 180 with these lenses.

The SK 47 also works fine, especially with a center filter. The LCC has some work to do on color shifts but it's modest and does not detract from the final image. I agree with Alan on the image circle point - with the IQ 180 the blue zone of death kicks in before you run out of resolution.

I owned the SK 35 - the color shifts (with the lens centered) take you to the edge of what can be corrected with LCCs (it works - I did it for a year - but just barely) with the center filter; without the center filter the LCCs begin to have issues if you are doing critical work - mostly ok but not always. I found that there was little flexibility to shift. After a year I got tired of fighting it and sold the SK 35 and bought an HR 32.

Bottom line - on the wide end HR lenses are the only real choice for the IQ 180.

I resisted this because I actually prefer SK lenses: more compact form factor, fewer $$, more "tubey" look (in audio terms). But the HR 32 and IQ 180 are a killer combination. The HR 32 has been justifiably praised by others here but what isn't often mentioned is it has very little linear distortion. BTW the extra f stop has actually proved to be useful - it preforms brilliantly wide open and it gives you a bit more flexibility to have out of focus portions of your image.

Jack and others who I respect have report that the IQ 180 has perhaps a stop more DR than the 160. This was a factor in my choice.

If you shoot wide a lot (as I do) and you get the IQ 180 you will end up switching to an HR lens. In other words a major financial commitment. You could spread it out as I did by buying the back now, limping along with the 35mm (as AnGy suggests it's really not so terrible) and buying the HR 32 down the line.
 

anGy

Member
I also see the SK 35 as a temporary solution (it's on sale by the way). It's quite unexpensive compared to the Rodies but the 32HR is clearly the target. Colors are really exceptional with the IQ180 and having to correct heavy color cast (with resulting color alterations) in the SK35 files does not make great sense.
The only doubt I have regarding the Rodie 32 is that it is supposed to have more distortion than the SK. The SK35 has very low distortion. So I only correct it with the Alpa tool for some architecture shots at the expense of a little sharpness loss. When sharpness is most important I don't correct the distortion.
If the HR32 shows more distortion, correction with the Alpa tool will more often be needed and (again maybe) more sharpness could be lost (at very critical pixel peeping level, but that's where we play with such equipment).
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I also see the SK 35 as a temporary solution (it's on sale by the way). It's quite unexpensive compared to the Rodies but the 32HR is clearly the target. Colors are really exceptional with the IQ180 and having to correct heavy color cast (with resulting color alterations) in the SK35 files does not make great sense.
The only doubt I have regarding the Rodie 32 is that it is supposed to have more distortion than the SK. The SK35 has very low distortion. So I only correct it with the Alpa tool for some architecture shots at the expense of a little sharpness loss. When sharpness is most important I don't correct the distortion.
If the HR32 shows more distortion, correction with the Alpa tool will more often be needed and (again maybe) more sharpness could be lost (at very critical pixel peeping level, but that's where we play with such equipment).
As noted above I was surprised at how little linear distortion the HR 32 has. The manufacturers' data sheets are available on the Alpa site. The SK 35 is nearly dead flat showing only -.6% or so at 30mm image radius. The equivalent number for the HR 32 is -1.6%. Both have mustache distortion but the upturn is outside of the centered image circle so the LR distortion tool does a very good job of correction but the SK is really too small to bother with, even in critical applications.

To see what this looks like take any image of a non-distorted grid and apply -1.6% distortion in LR.
 

2jbourret

New member
Given that my work is predominantly ARAT (another rock, another tree), the distortion of the Rodie is really not much of an issue for me. What is an issue with the HR 32 is 1) the cost, and 2) the weight, bulk, and suscesptibleness of the front element. That thing is just too big and scary to carry around!
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
Given that my work is predominantly ARAT (another rock, another tree), the distortion of the Rodie is really not much of an issue for me. What is an issue with the HR 32 is 1) the cost, and 2) the weight, bulk, and suscesptibleness of the front element. That thing is just too big and scary to carry around!
On the front element issue I use a step up ring as a lens shade so it's a little less out there.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I think that Jack's advice is very wise - try to get hold of the IQ180 & IQ160 and try them out. I'm sure that one of the sponsoring dealers here would be more than willing to accommodate that one way or another.

When I decided to upgrade from my P40+ to the IQ series I initially was going to go to the IQ140 but decided to break open the piggy bank and go further to either an IQ160 or 180 - both of which I could find a way to afford. However, I went with the 160 after careful consideration of the fact that I'd have had to pretty much replace all of my wide Schneider glass at considerable extra cost, LCC hassle, early teething problems and with movement limitations. Coupled with the extra costs that this would have entailed the difference in upgrade cost was SIGNIFICANT when compared to going to the safer and easier to live with IQ160. I'm not dependent upon this as a commercial tool but the day job means that I do only have a limited amount of time & patience to enjoy using my camera gear so the hassle factor was important to me personally.

Now for you the qualitative differences between the two systems may be much more important than some of the other considerations I mentioned. I fear you may just have to find a way to shoot them side by side to decide yourself. I'm sure an investment in Jack & Guy's time could help you with that since they do have both of these backs. :D
 
Last edited:

2jbourret

New member
I'm going to have the chance to evaluate files after the weekend, and I suppose I'll be making a decision after that. I now have a better understanding of the limitations I will face if I choose the 180, but without seeing files, I still don't have a feel for the qualitative differences. I suppose it does really come down, in the end, to seduction.
Thanks for all your input, everyone.
 
Top