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!