Pramote, you are correct. No information smells like disinformation.
Pramote, you are correct. No information smells like disinformation.
3 Member(s) liked this post
It makes me wonder Tim!
1 Member(s) liked this post
+1 to what Pramote and Tim said.
Rosebud ...2 Member(s) liked this post
Am I right that live view would only work on a Phase camera with the mirror up?
If so, it would appear that live view would be most useful on tech cameras, the cameras that the new back is least likely to play well with.
You need mirror up for live view. With the current IQ you have to do it yourself (iirc from the 3-4 times I've ever used it on the DF) but the iq250 apparently triggers it automatically.
I am not a real maths type of guy - but I would have thought if Sony was going to build a 54Mp sensor for the new D4X - wouldn't it make sense that a MF sensor would be sort of same pixel size with bigger area - so therefore more than 50Mp?
Guess time will tell -
In my case, this is THE reason for LV, as it is the image as it is seen by the sensor, not an approximation based on what is on the mirror, eliminating issues that we often face like focus calibration, focus shift, DoF preview etc. If you're shooting IR, or anything off-spectrum, this becomes even more important.
Then, there is the great big elephant in the room, that everyone seems to be ignoring - the long awaited, designed from the ground up new camera body. Until we know more about this, it's all just speculation what other capabilities this back might have in conjunction with that new camera.
"In the end, it's all about the pictures"
I think the reasons are obvious Bryan.
Firstly, there is a large community of tech-cam users on this forum.
Secondly, it is perceived by a large number of that community that live-view would be of great benefit to them.
I'm not familiar with the P30+ at all - way before my time. Is it a complete no-no with tech cams then? Obviously everyone is aware of the limitations of some lenses even with some of the existing backs.
It would be very surprising though (to me at least) to hear that the IQ250 was a no-go for the wide (40/32/23) Rodenstocks, especially given the crop on the sensor.
Hopefully there will at least be one option for the IQ250 - use on the FPS with the Canon 24 and 17 TS-E's. The 17 on the crop sensor could be particularly useful.
I do find it interesting the clamor for a CMOS sensor. As someone who did landscapes and wildlife with a CMOS sensor in Olympus cameras, before making the jump to medium format, I always clamored for a CCD sensor in a DSLR. I loved the look that the Fuji S5 produced and had they produced a full frame S7 with another CCD sensor I probably would have gotten that instead of jumping to medium format. I loved that you could point it directly at the sun and not get the super harsh halos that CMOS sensors produce when pointed directly at the sun. I never used live view, and if that is the biggest reason for wanting a CMOS sensor, I guess you can count me out then, it just seems so low on the priority list for me. Given I was using the cameras from Olympus who brought live view function to DSLRs, i almost never used it. Its funny though, I remember debates back then, people were upset Olympus abandoned the Kodak CCD sensors to bring live view in.
To each their own though and i can definitely see the value some would want in Live View on a tech camera.
www.wryphotography.com2 Member(s) liked this post
modestly better performance than a D800 at both ISO1600 and ISO3200.
That quote does not help your sales pitch nor does the photograph at 1600 ISO. It's almost 400 ISO film like! Yes, there's a certain look to MFD, but using the D800 as a benchmark for ISO performance doesn't present a strong argument in favor of MFD.
How long are the "long exposures"? Why not post a pic at 6400 ISO, considering it's supposedly useable?
i think most of the remarks about the MF CMOS sensor performance ought to be directed at Sony. (good iso performance, 1.3 crop, poor wide angle performance on top of that)
what Phase has done is to implement what they could, and maybe they could have developed a few user aids a bit better (focus aids on the LCD?). Whether they made a wise market decision remains to be seen
1 Member(s) liked this post
Is the IQ250 sales pitch really high ISO? It's not going to be that great.
You might have forgot, but Sony Exmor sensor tech got it's reputation from two things, high mp count and very high DR on base ISO so you could push shadows to extreme levels. At high ISO there are better CMOS sensors, and unsurprisingly the journalist/action flagship DSLRs don't use Sony Exmor.
Other factors is the available lens lineup, the 135 systems have much wider aperture lenses letting in more light, and I doubt the auto-focus of the 645DF+ is very well suited for low light situations. From a professional perspective I'd think that the high ISO mode in the IQ250 would be used for casual shooting, if you really make work in low light frequently you'd get a 1DX or a D4 with appropriate wide aperture lenses.
That you actually can do casual shooting in low light can be valuable though, especially to amateurs. But commercial work? Seems to me to be the wrong tool.
It would be more sane to tone down that a CMOS is actually used, and just consider this to be an evolutionary IQ140 replacement. The big feature would be that you get a much better live view, slightly better DR, and by the way a high ISO mode for casual shooting in low light. I would find it to be very important that the IQ250 base ISO image quality is at least as good as IQ140 (which I think it can be, I think the secret in color rendition is in bayer/ir filters not CMOS vs CCD), or else many might consider it a step backwards.
If someone has missed it, PDN Online has a review up with some full-size test shots at various ISOs (unfortunately no raws, only jpegs with quite heavy noise reduction it seems): http://www.pdnonline.com/gear/Phase-...Fi-10189.shtml looking at those I've lowered my expectations of the ISO performance quite a bit, but we need raws to be able to make some proper evaluations.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Good God, those are some horrible examples! I certainly hope Phase aren't pinning their hopes on ISO performance judging by that lot and the image Doug posted earlierů
I agree with Torger. This really is a evolutionary back, and a good evolution at that. It's great that CMOS brings higher ISO and useable live view, but lets not pretend it's a replacement for a DSLR. I'm positive this is just the first step in a long line of improved products from Phase and Hasselblad, so here's to an interesting year leading upto Photokina!
'modestly better performance than a D800 at both ISO1600 and ISO3200.'
I haven't participated in discussions on here for a while. I guess I decided on all my kit and was happy to carry on running my business as is. But as a major supporter of a CMOS in a Medium format body I welcomed the news with both Joy and Disappointment.
You see, I love shooting Hasselblad, dammit I love it to bits. The colour, the rendering just everything about it is awesome except it's ISO performance.
But what we have here is nothing particularly special. I just require simple ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed. What we've been presented with is a 1.3x crop sensor which will be mass produced by Sony. I do not rate Sony sensors. They made the D800 one after all and look how bad that was.
A sensor which will very likely end up in a Nikon body at some point. Nikon are very much of a 'sell the farm' attitude to keep sales up at the moment so it seems reasonable in a year of two that one will appear.
So where does that leave us? A sensor that at ISO1600 isn't that amazing with claims of usable ISO6400 that I find difficult to accept. I also find the colour a little bit lacking too. Ideally I need to get my hands on the thing for a week to make my mind up properly.
I really want to believe in this camera.
Personally this opens up a whole world for Phase and Hassy wedding photographers (myself included) Studio work? I'll probably stick with the CCD in my H4D50 for the time being. (Which I still use for weddings).
Chris Giles Photography
Remember, I don't do sales. I'm a techie. Obviously I care about the presentation of the products that my company sells, but I also care very much about putting out good information. To my eye that ISO1600 file, with no noise reduction, is significantly ahead of any medium format file I've seen before. If you disagree I'd ask you to wait until I can post a raw file for you to play with and work up to your preferred aesthetic.
We'll have a variety of raw files, including ISO6400, ready to post when 7.2 is available publicly. Until then having the raws wouldn't do you much good! This isn't a massive conspiracy (likewise to the the crowd that seems to think not prematurely posting our conclusions on tech camera usage implies there must be a conspiracy to deny you information - relax, it's been 1 working day since the announcement, and we haven't even gotten our demo units yet; we just want to make sure we provide a complete and verified report rather than a mix of speculation and the manufacturer's internal testing; we're asking for a few days).
D800 as a benchmark for ISO comes directly from looking at our user base. Those who own a digital back have as their two most common "other" cameras a 5DIII and a D800. The vast majority of them have those cameras in case they need higher ISO performance than their digital back.
The relevant question is absolutely not "is this the best high ISO camera in the world?" but rather "can I continue to use my DB when the light starts to drop instead of carrying and switching to my dSLR kit?"
Those who need the absolute best ISO cameras in the world would pick something like the D4 over a D800 despite the resolution difference (perhaps even considering the lower resolution a benefit since many ultra-high-iso shooters are in genres like sports or PJ where they shoot very rapidly, don't need to print large, and need to edit and deliver quickly). They would never consider medium format for that because smaller format cameras will ALWAYS have the advantage on things like stabilization technology, ultra-fast glass, fast long zooms which go hand and hand with the genres that need ultra high ISO.
It's more an issue of "is ISO 1600 usable" than "can I shoot at ISO 256000".
Doug, may I ask what are changes coming in Capture One 7.2?
One area where high iso is useful with is when you don't have enough flash power to shoot at small apertures if you want DOF.
The images from Tim Kemple I think well illustrate where having both is very useful for creative lighting.
When mixing ambient, strobe, and motion (whether dance, sport, or handheld shooting) it's nice to have a shutter speed fast enough to stop the motion (if desired) while still picking up enough ambient to provide environmental light, while still syncing with strobe for.
If you went to a lower ISO in some of these shots you'd end up with a dragged shutter speed which would result in sharp-then-blur outline on the subject being hit by strobe (the sharp from the short flash duration, the blur afterward from the ambient light hitting the subject throughout a longer exposure).
You could do this with a Canon or Nikon with their "fast sync" settings, but those settings actually turn a Canon/Nikon flash into a continuous light source, and dramatically drop their effective output, meaning you'd need a whole lot of them (my guess is for this shot you'd need 16, but it's only a guess) rather than just a single strobe like you can do with true leaf-shutter based flash sync.
Tim Kemple - first day with the IQ250 | Phase One - YouTube - [representative shot at 3:49]
Again - I have no idea how relevant this kind of control of shutter speed, ambient, and strobe are for you. It's very possible you never have and never will need such a feature. But for those who can use it, there are very few other options.
"If you went to a lower ISO in some of these shots you'd end up with a dragged shutter speed which would result in sharp-then-blur outline on the subject being hit by strobe (the sharp from the short flash duration, the blur afterward from the ambient light hitting the subject throughout a longer exposure)."
this is another good reason,boosting ambient light while using the high flash sync to freeze action....
One more question: Does the DF allow rear sync with the leaf shutter lenses? I know it's possible with the focal plane shutter but am not sure about the LS lenses. In the example with slower shutter speeds you mentioned I'd change to rear sync in order not to have the motion trails ahead of the subject.
Last edited by MaxKi▀ler; 27th January 2014 at 14:45.
But some looks require both.
When I'm discussing backs with clients I often lead with the limitations. One does not want a significant amount of one's work to be limited by the equipment they use. So if a client is considering a back which cannot do a long exposure and they will be constantly banging up against that limit and having to find work arounds then I don't think that's a good system for them. If in several years of shooting they have only taken a handful of images that would be borderline then it's simply not an issue.
Not having to work around your equipment is very freeing. You can find a hack or workaround to most shooting scenarios. Even the one I described could be done with a Canon; it's just you might need 16 (or 32, or 64) flash units to create it, and you might need to shoot multiple plates to composite (e.g. to match the resolution the IQ250 gives in one frame). Or you might need to shoot the biker in one shot while tracking his motion (to greatly reduce blur) and shoot the environment separately. It's just nice when you don't have to do such tricks or hacks and your gear simply works with you to create your vision.
The IQ250, with it's combination of high and low ISO performance, high resolution, high flash sync speed, and compatibility with a broad variety of bodies and lenses, can do things easily that would be very very difficult with any other system.
Naturally there are other tools (e.g. a D4 with a fast 300mm lens) that could do some things easily that would be very very difficult with the IQ250 (like low light fast moving high frame rate sports).
Different tools for different needs - let us pray we never end up with one camera company or worse, one camera, that dominates the market so thoroughly we don't have such a gluttony of good tools!
color fidelity ?
Still I think the IQ250 is a step in the wrong direction. ISO performance is just, at least in my opinion, of minor importance with MF cameras...
i think what is being glossed over is that Phase is an autofocus SLR camera maker that takes a MF digital back. that type of primary usage directs the development of the back. compared to the tech camera user (a minority) live view has less importance, for example
I know this is wishful thinking but I'd really like to see larger sensors. I think 645 full frame (or nearly ff) is mandatory but a larger then 645 yet a bit smaller then 6x7 film sensor, preferably with 4x5 aspect ratio (like 60mm x 48mm), would be awesome. These sensors don't necessarily need to have such a high pixel density like the current backs.
Even if that's not possible to produce, a FF 645 sensor with a pixel density of 7,2 or 6,8 micron would be cool. I may be a heretic but I don't believe in high mp counts. I think a large sensor with relatively low mp count can produce files with such clarity that will in praxis enlarge equally well like sensors with a high mp count. As some have already mentioned before "there is something about these fat pixel backs" and I totally agree.
I have the impression that a lot of people who use an IQ180 (not here in this forum but photographers I know) shoot at apertures that limit the backs resolution due to diffraction. And another small pixel back with relatively small sensor surface is IMO not contributing to better image quality...
Seems to me this back is for the wedding,fashion photographer and it ends there. Which is great for that type of shooter. Landscape folks it's the 260 and equivalent. Which is fine as it is looking for that market to fill.
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
www.guymancusophotography.com2 Member(s) liked this post
If I was only shooting fabrics or art reproduction I'd do so with a different back/camera or past diffraction limit.
Diffraction limit is based on format not pixel pitch. With any given format, a high rez back will always have more higher frequency detail than a lower rez one regardless of diffraction. Diffraction impacts an image less than DoF. 100% monitor view is not a real world viewing condition, at least for anyone that is not a photographer.
However, business case for the current back manufacturers is a problem. Both Hasselblad and Phase One is limited to 645 by their own camera systems. They would never ever make a high-end back that cannot be run on their own cameras.
Sinar is the closest to be able to do something like that. They make backs, and they're not locked to a specific sensor size. But to make a field-usable back they need a new digital back platform (they have only tethered today) and that will require lots of development investment, meaning that they must be able to sell several hundreds of backs over a few years to make it go around if the price should be "buyable" (ie sub $40K).
Once they have a digital back platform providining it with various sensor sizes is probably less of a cost, assuming they can get sensors from the same manufacturer. Dalsa do make custom sizes by the way. I don't know what the cost of custom sizes is though, it may prove that it makes a business case impossible, say if a custom-size sensor would cost $15k alone or something (rather than $1-3k standard MF sizes cost).
If anything would go larger than FF I think 56x56mm in a joint DHW/Sinar project is the most likely to succeed. Commercial platform would be Hy6 and tech cams, and you'd provide V mount for legacy uses on V system (which could be quite popular I think, but probably not enough to support a commercial business case), using an interchangeable mount platform that Sinar has had before.
(I dream about the following: CMOS sensors with wide angular response and the return of the ~48x36mm format as an option to 54x41mm, all in a tech camera friendly format with good enough live view to replace sliding backs and renew the popularity of the view camera, and securing the large format lens design tradition)
http://www.hakusancreation.com1 Member(s) liked this post
It seems to me that the use case for the IQ250 is fashion, wedding and environmental portraiture. There will be other uses obviously, but it looks like this back is targeted at this market segment. Phase have done their research and this is the area they want to target first. Good for them. Its a big segment that could significantly increase their sales. I can totally understand how higher ISO capability and better live view will increase the creative possibilities with this camera. Most pro's I know have a MFD camera and a Canon or Nikon in the bag. This could eliminate the camera in the bag.
In my opinion this is a good step in the right direction. CMOS; the start of live view on a MF sensor; and higher ISO. Add that to the secret sauce in Capture One and Phase could have a great product on their hands. History tells us that a bigger sized sensor will come, but not as the first product onto the market.
Slightly off topic. People are complaining about the functionality of this back because it doesn't fit their own requirements. I don't understand this. If it isn't for you, don't buy it. If a car manufacturer brings out a saloon car and I want an estate, I don't complain about the saloon as if it should have been an estate. That's just crazy. I get that other people will want the saloon and the company is targeting a different market segment from me. To get back to photography as the example, the IQ180 / IQ280 is not for me but I don't see the need to complain about it. Its for a different target audience and that's fine.
3 Member(s) liked this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
I haven't read all of this thread, but it sounds like what is too common on the 'net: some product appears that we don't like, and we have to criticize it, whether we're in the market for something like it or not. I can see someone who's been waiting for a live view back to use on an LF or tech camera being disappointed, for their intended uses, but that doesn't make the back a failure.
Presumably the people at Phase have some familiarity with the market. Maybe they were smart. I sure don't know.
http://www.hakusancreation.com6 Member(s) liked this post
At last, we get some sanity in this discussion ...
Discussing a new exciting product is to me a form of entertainment, and I also get to learn the priorities and techniques of other photographers which I find interesting.
I will not buy this back as I use legacy stuff to keep down costs. If it had everything I wanted it could be an upgrade path in the future though. I follow new products with great interest as it's a view into the future for me which stay on older backs to keep down cost. I see new products and think, is there an upgrade path or not?
Somethings are expensive because they cost a lot to make. I guess there is no difference between a Ford Focus and a Bugatti Veyron: they will both get you to work and be able to reach the speed limit. Maybe the Bugatti has better cup holders, but it still a car. If you have the cash to buy a Bugatti and you want one, who cares that something cheaper will "do the job."
My "lack" of enthusiasm is more to do with being fortunate to have been able to use lots of great cameras and a realization that the grass is not actually greener on the other side of the fence and that putting time into shooting and my skill makes a greater impact than buying new products. Heresy? Probably, but there you have it.
http://www.hakusancreation.com2 Member(s) liked this post