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!

Return of the Warrior

I miss MF files... even the lower res ones.
"Even"...???, why? Do you see (or anybody else) any other difference than ...resolution to "lower res. MF files"??? :toocool: :wtf: ...I don't! IMO the difference of a multishot 16x image from my 528c against a single shot image from the P65+, is of 10x more than the difference from a P65+ against the 528c in single shot... (and I say the P65+ because it's the highest res. I've used.) ...But again, the least I ever consider as affecting the quality of an image from other aspects of photography, is ...resolution! :deadhorse: I've seen many claiming that their D800 beats their IQ180... well, my D800E doesn't! It's a great camera alright, especially if I develop its Raws with C-One ...and it does come closer to an MFDB than any other DSLR ever..., but the usable DR is less, the colors are no where near and the whole presentation lacks the impact or the neutrality of the 528c... Maybe it's their lenses to blame against my Contax 645 Zeiss glass..., :eek: or maybe it's a difference on perception of quality... (quite possible) yet, my (2005) Imacon still beats my (2012) D800E (at low Iso) although the "E" is nearer than ever before! :angel:
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
Well this afternoon I took the IQ180 on Cambo with Schneider 35XL and CF out for a tripod walk, with the D800E and Zeiss 21mm F2.8.

I set up the pod with the Cambo rig, decided on F8, made an LCC, took a series of bracketed and Live View focussed shots and then replicated the same scene on the D800 on the same tripod (two plates!) and came back to base. Choosing the two sharpest shots, one from each camera, I ventured into an attempt at a comparison. The two files are printing to 35" prints as I speak and I will have a look when I get back from dinner with friends...
 

anGy

Member
Tashley,
I've followed your gear story and evolution on this forum and on your blog (really pleasant to read by the way). As an IQ180, Cambo WRS, SK35, D800 owner I shared some issue and thought with you.

I did make the move from the SK35 to the Rodie 32 and 55 very recently and can again enjoy using the Cambo (sk35 was sold months ago).
Honestly I need to be convinced that this is supposed to be one of the ultimate wide angle top quality solution (in short: borders IQ do not seam great at all when stitching or under f13). Too early for me to draw any conclusions but a disappointment is not impossible :-(

Anyway just wanted to say that the best companion I've found so far for my IQ180 is a second hand, very affordable Epson 9880 printer. What an excitement to print 44" large and 60" long. The D800 can't compete at those large sizes.
Print large and expose the best shots on dibond was a key factor. Since the purchase of this printer I really feel I'm using the IQ back to its full potential.
I encourage you to consider printing large. It gives great impact to the shots and some unique sense to the use of that IQ back.
 
Tashley,
I've followed your gear story and evolution on this forum and on your blog (really pleasant to read by the way). As an IQ180, Cambo WRS, SK35, D800 owner I shared some issue and thought with you.

I did make the move from the SK35 to the Rodie 32 and 55 very recently and can again enjoy using the Cambo (sk35 was sold months ago).
Honestly I need to be convinced that this is supposed to be one of the ultimate wide angle top quality solution (in short: borders IQ do not seam great at all when stitching or under f13). Too early for me to draw any conclusions but a disappointment is not impossible :-(

Anyway just wanted to say that the best companion I've found so far for my IQ180 is a second hand, very affordable Epson 9880 printer. What an excitement to print 44" large and 60" long. The D800 can't compete at those large sizes.
Print large and expose the best shots on dibond was a key factor. Since the purchase of this printer I really feel I'm using the IQ back to its full potential.
I encourage you to consider printing large. It gives a unique impact to the shots and some unique sense to the use of that IQ back.
....9900 would allow another third of a stop of the amazing (usable) DR of MFDBs to be printed! :angel: Superb printer, I print on Hannemuhle Canvas Byzantine Icons that I shoot with my Imacon 528c in 16x microstep with it! :toocool: ...but I've printed huge prints done with other backs for other photographers on it, if it is accompanied with a great monitor (Eizo 242 in my case) and the system is well calibrated and linearized to correct profiles, it's hard to beat! :talk028:
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tashley,
I've followed your gear story and evolution on this forum and on your blog (really pleasant to read by the way). As an IQ180, Cambo WRS, SK35, D800 owner I shared some issue and thought with you.

I did make the move from the SK35 to the Rodie 32 and 55 very recently and can again enjoy using the Cambo (sk35 was sold months ago).
Honestly I need to be convinced that this is supposed to be one of the ultimate wide angle top quality solution (in short: borders IQ do not seam great at all when stitching or under f13). Too early for me to draw any conclusions but a disappointment is not impossible :-(

Anyway just wanted to say that the best companion I've found so far for my IQ180 is a second hand, very affordable Epson 9880 printer. What an excitement to print 44" large and 60" long. The D800 can't compete at those large sizes.
Print large and expose the best shots on dibond was a key factor. Since the purchase of this printer I really feel I'm using the IQ back to its full potential.
I encourage you to consider printing large. It gives great impact to the shots and some unique sense to the use of that IQ back.
Thanks anGy... here's my thoughts on that:

I have a 24" roll printer so in 35mm FF territory the largest print I can make is 24x36. It is also the case here in England that it is generally far easier to sell fine art prints at this size or smaller than it is in the 'super-sized' territory. Limited edition prints (say a run of 25) in that size, I can print myself. They sell for up to $2,500 approx and I would, if printing larger, quite certainly sell fewer. Now if I were to make the leap to the 'next level' of artistic success, say, for example, to the level of Nadav Kander, then I could sell 44 x 66 for prices of maybe $10,000. Beyond that there are the Burtysnky/Crewdson/Gursky crowd, selling from say $75,000 and waaay upwards, often for very much larger prints.

Unfortunately I am very much where I am, though. Were I to make it to the next level, prints on that scale would be a necessity. As it is, they would largely just not sell.

So leaving aside the possibility that I might jump up the rankings (not expecting that!) I am largely topped out at 36". In fact I have only once paid to have a truly vast print professionally made and mounted and it looks amazing but I haven't tried to sell any editions yet.

So in the 'up to 36" class, the interesting question becomes, 'does an IQ180 with a a good lens, well used, show significant advantage at that print size over a D800E?'

I kind of know the answer to this without going through the shoot/print/examine cycle (the answer is 'rarely if ever') but yesterday I shot a 'torture test' scene with both under pretty comparable conditions (see my post above for details) and then made prints of the two. And on very close examination, I declare the match a draw. Both files printed to 35.5 inches on Canson Platine with a Canon iPF6300 at maxed out quality settings...

This was an important exercise for me: if your intended output is print, that is how the images must be compared. Examining on screen can give you a very good idea but it never renders the two files 100% accurately when resized for comparison.

I have uploaded the two files here so anyone interested can do the same:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/CF001963.IIQ
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/_DSC9623.NEF
The LCC shot for the Phase file is:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/CF001961.IIQ

Comments worth making from my side:

* This is a torture test because the amount of fine distant detail will, in places utterly defeat even the IQ180 with Schneider 35XL. See the red patch of bare trees half way up and about 25% of the way in from the right.
* The Zeiss 21/D800 combo has a slightly wider FOV
* You could argue the toss over the fairest aperture to use. I used F8. It is what it is.
* The images are both the best of a series of focus bracketed shots. I was going for focus on the distant centre.
* Due to the bracketing and need to swap systems, the light has changed and that makes more difference in some areas of the prints than any system differences.
* Each print has some areas where one system looks very slightly better if you get your nose right up to it. But there is no winner in look, feel or level of detail either on centre or overall at the edges. Most differences would be wiped out by tiny changes to focus, 'shape' of scene, or sharpening and NR.
* Both files for my prints were developed in C1 but I then exported them to print from LR and before I did that, I gave them both -1/3rd stop because both were ETTR. I also left the IQ file with Phase defaults for sharpening and NR but I turned both those functions to zero for the Nikon file, and used my own formula in LR.

So I conclude that, in lieu of a much longer series of tests at a variety of distances and with differing subjects and conditions, for prints up to 36", there is for me, no advantage whatsoever in using this Phase setup over this Nikon setup.

I would add to that the irritation of the Centre Filter/LCC ritual, the fiddly mess of changing shutter speeds, apertures and focus on the Schneider/Cambo setup, and the particular annoyance of the Schneider having third-stop aperture settings but full stop shutter settings. This means that you risk having to redo your LCC if the light changes even by a third of a stop because you will have to change aperture, not shutter speed for all changes of less than a stop. And the Cambo was shot at 1/8th due to the LCC whereas the Nikon was shot at 1/50th, which I could have got away with by hand.

One positive for the IQ was that I could use LV to focus, and that was the most accurate shot: a combination of the CF and the late afternoon hazy light made this actually easier to use than the LV on the D800!

Now I know there are lots of other considerations. For example, I can't use more than 5mm movements with the Schneider because of colour shifts but the Nikkor 24mm PC-E is not alternative at that shift range, just not good enough.

But the fact remains that my needs for larger than 36" prints are vanishingly small and likely to remain so, and therefore the D800 is effectively, for most of my use-cases, capable of equivalent resolution, more convenience, better high ISO, etc etc. So I will indeed be making further efforts to sell the Phase gear but I won't be holding my breath!
 
Last edited:

gazwas

Active member
Interesting results Tim.

Looking at your files I can conclude two things.

1. The Nikon/Zeiss and Phase/Schneider files look equally as good as each other and the only obvious difference being resolution.

2. The Zeiss 21mm lens you used is not worth the money and gives very poor results away from the centre. Who actually makes good wide lenses for 35mm FF that are sharp across the frame?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Interesting results Tim.

Looking at your files I can conclude two things.

1. The Nikon/Zeiss and Phase/Schneider files look equally as good as each other and the only obvious difference being resolution.

2. The Zeiss 21mm lens you used is not worth the money and gives very poor results away from the centre. Who actually makes good wide lenses for 35mm FF that are sharp across the frame?
We violently agree on both counts: my review of the Zeiss said that it's good but in the final analysis a better lens is needed and I've spent a lot of time looking for a really good wide on the D800. The best bets I have so far are either the 28mm F1.8G if focussed correctly (i.e. taking into account its field curvature) or the Samyang 14mm F2.8 (if you don't mind the distortion). Otherwise, all the choices seem compromised in one way or another though of course there are some that I've read about and not tried...
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
1. Are you sure your Zeiss 21 works up to spec Tim?
2. Have you tried the Nikkor 17-35mm (zoom!!!) at the 21-28mm range at f5.6-8 in comparison to the Zeiss and allowing for its field curvature?
3. I would expect you to contribute (both you and "gazwas") to a thread I started http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/43942-mf-will-survive.html to the best of your thoughts... Thanks.
I reviewed this copy of the lens and said of it:
"I know from MTF charts that this lens has some sub-field weakness at mid-apertures and generally more sagital than tangential. I don't believe that my body has notable misalignments of mount or sensor (I have my reasons and I have about an 85% certainty of this) but I do suspect a very minor misalignment of an element or group in my copy of the lens. Not enough to fuss over, certainly not firmly diagnosed, but I have my suspicions... however, odd effects, when inconsistent, tend to be multi-factorial and can take a long time to track down."

I can't add more really - but Lloyd Chambers has also had subtly odd and inconsistent results with his and I think in fact from other reviews I've read that mine is within norms, though it might be possible after a lot of returning or repairing to get a slightly better one.

I don't have the 17-35 and I must say that with my experience of Nikon zooms I can't be bothered to get one, find that it doesn't work as expected, and then have the embarrassment of a return or the annoyance of a fruitless argument with Nikon 'service'!
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I look at files from the Canon 17 & 24mm TS-E lenses and weep.

If only Canon made a body that took full advantage of them...
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I'd literally go out and buy a D800E tomorrow if there was a lens of around 20mm that took advantage of the camera.

I'm even considering buying a 5D111 just to use the TS-E lenses. I'm that desperate.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
There's the 24mm Samyang perspective control coming up, I have a request in for a review copy so I'll let you know.

But let's take a step back here: the files I posted higher up this thread from D800/Zeiss 21 and IQ180/Schneider 35XL are, in a 36" print, impossible to choose between for detail and clarity. So unless you need to print larger than that or crop a fair bit, even teh compromised Zeiss 21mm F2.8 is pretty good!
 

KeithL

Well-known member
There's the 24mm Samyang perspective control coming up, I have a request in for a review copy so I'll let you know.

But let's take a step back here: the files I posted higher up this thread from D800/Zeiss 21 and IQ180/Schneider 35XL are, in a 36" print, impossible to choose between for detail and clarity. So unless you need to print larger than that or crop a fair bit, even teh compromised Zeiss 21mm F2.8 is pretty good!
Tim, thanks, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the Samyang but was hoping for a wider solution. If it does deliver - looks very much like the Nikon which doesn't fill me with confidence - I may buy the Samyang and the Zeiss.

There again I might even go with the 5D.

Sheesh, this stuff is never easy!
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
So after several months sojourn at my dealer, for sale, the IQ180 and Phase DF body return to base unsold.

I think the problem was that the dealer is unofficially constrained as to what price they can offer 'nearly new' gear at, so as not to p*ss off Phase.
Not sure I fully understand this bit. You were attempting to sell your back/camera through a dealer, yes? But the dealer wasn't prepared to sell it a price you'd have been happy to let it go for - is that what you're implying?

If you wanted rid of it, why not simply offer it directly at a price you'd have been happy to accept?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Not sure I fully understand this bit. You were attempting to sell your back/camera through a dealer, yes? But the dealer wasn't prepared to sell it a price you'd have been happy to let it go for - is that what you're implying?

If you wanted rid of it, why not simply offer it directly at a price you'd have been happy to accept?
Easy answer: every time I sell something on eBay that's worth more than a few hundred, I risk some arse trying to scam me. Famously an M8.2 that was clearly indicated as for sale to delivery address in UK only - and after the auction closed I get an email asking me to post it Nigeria with payment by Western Union... HIgh value items are more comforting sold through a dealer for those reasons and more comforting bought from a dealer because of warranties and so on.

I think this differs a bit in the US, where the GetDPI For Sale board and similar are effectively operating in a private community of people known to each other and with a level of trust on both sides. But there are far fewer opportunities to sell in this manner in Europe... sadly.

But I am open to offers!
 
Top