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!
Phase One IQ250 - 11 things you need to know, and Q&A
- Thread starter dougpeterson
- Start date
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
It makes me wonder Tim!
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
+1 to what Pramote and Tim said.
stephengilbert
Active member
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.
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.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
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.
malmac
Member
Paul
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 -
Mal
That would be insane.
I would think this is the case with LV on any camera. The mirror has to be up, unless of course you have a mirrorless, in which case, there is no mirror to be up
This is not unique to Phase or a limitation of Phase. From what I understand, on the DF+, the IQ250 automatically flaps the mirror up. On the DF you have to manually use MUP, as is the case for LV with the current CCD Phase backs.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.
ondebanks
Member
What's insane about it, Gerald? Having to push an extra button/switch compared to a standard DSLR - one on the body and one on the DB? That's hardly a big deal.
Ray
What I meant was that it would be insane if the back didn't provide live view when connected to a tech-cam.
Perhaps I read the original comment too literally
The cost/benefit of 44x33 over 36x24 just got even harder to justify. For the extra real-estate, the camera/back combo is slower, less user friendly and costs 10x. Unlike previous CCD vs CMOS debates, the sensor tech is essentially the same Sony sensor in a larger format.
If/when we get a CMOS sensor with 24-30fps LV, 55x40 real-estate, fully usable on tech cams, good ISO to 6400, 60-80MP, lets talk
BTW, the back is available for sale on Monday, but Phase has not tested performance on a tech cam yet? How does this make any sense?
Why is everyone so miffed that there seems to have been little testing on tech cams? Phase already have SEVERAL backs that work superbly on tech cams. Tech cam users represent a TINY proportion of their customer base and even they, in many cases. also run reflex bodies as well as tech cams. Phase have a history of accepting that a particular back in their range may be unsuited to tech cams (P30+). Are you really surprised that the focus of initial development is on the primary platform of the vast majority of their customer base? Sure, backward compatibility is nice, but would we hold back the availability of 24fps LV on this back just because the DF can't flip it's mirror up on its own? Tough crowd.
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.
Patience, Grasshoppers….
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.
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.
wryphotography
New member
it seems pretty clear to me that this camera was not designed to be used for a technical camera. It also seems clear to me that this is not a landscape back, it seems targeted at people who need low light capabilities. As a landscape shooter myself, I love ISO 35, its so silky smooth that I often forget that my IQ180 will even go above it.
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.
johnnygoesdigital
New member
modestly better performance than a D800 at both ISO1600 and ISO3200.
dougpetrson
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?
dougpetrson
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
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
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-One-Unveils-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.
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-One-Unveils-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.
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 earlier…
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!
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!
Chris Giles
New member
'modestly better performance than a D800 at both ISO1600 and ISO3200.'
dougpeterson
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).
dougpeterson
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).
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Johhny,
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".
subrata1965
Member
Doug, may I ask what are changes coming in Capture One 7.2?