Phase One IQ250 Initial Tech Camera Test Results

[f8orbust]

The current IQ260 is more than adequate and a much better choice than the IQ250 for landscape photography, especially in sensor size and LCC.

I'm not necessarily going to disagree - especially wrt sensor size and LCC. But, and it's a big but, the ability to see, with great clarity, and in great detail, the real time effects of focus, tilt, swing, rise and fall is - I would say - the holy grail of a DB for landscape shooting. Until now we've had to make do with various mechanical 'workarounds' for the non-availability of true live view (TLV) in a situation which would really benefit from it - e.g. the A/S RM3d/i - engineered from the ground up to solve one principle problem - that of repeatedly focussing a view-camera lens accurately. It does this admirably - nothing else comes close to be honest. With TLV, the RM3d/i essentially becomes a solution looking for a problem.

As ever, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - and when I read the first few pieces of info about the IQ250 I was a little disappointed. However, having seen the CI LCCs for the R/S WAs I was pleasantly surprised. Disappointed in the performance of S/Ks symmetrical WAs naturally, since they are my lens of choice, but who knows what the next CMOS back from P1 will herald?

 

[Landscapelover]

I just try to give my point of view for someone who really owns the equipment and has used them at a regular basis.
Sometimes it is very dangerous to test a back/lens for a short period of time and write a review or make comments. Sometimes knowing nothing is better than knowing a little.
It took me a long long time for every cameras/DBs/lenses I've had to get to know them. I almost gave up the Rodie 23mm after several months. However, after I've got to know it, it turns out to be one of my most favorites.
My point is, for Rodie 23/28/40 with T/S, you DON'T need IQ250 to get sharp images for tech cam. With practice, it is very easy to get sharp images with the IQ180 or 260. I've had these lenses for years and it took me a long time to learn about them with the IQ (180)/260/P25+ I've had.
I've never said the CMOS sensor for tech cam has no future. It is just not yet in a prime time for landscape photography with this price (50 MP) and limitation especially when the Nikon D800e and Sony A7R (36 MP) are >10 times less expensive.
For the forum like this, it is good to have someone who has no conflict of interest expressing some negative about the product. It is good for new comers who want to learn the experience from real people who own the equipments. I was there before.

 

[f8orbust]

My point is, for Rodie 23/28/40 with T/S, you DON'T need IQ250 to get sharp images for tech cam.

Landscape shooters from the year dot have chosen to use view cameras because of the flexibilty they afford in manipulating the image plane projected by the lens and the plane upon which that image falls.

However, in the age of the sub-40mmx54mm sensor, observing the effect of tilt or swing / tilt and swing rapidly becomes non-trivial since, other than by using a groundglass, there has been - until the IQ250 - no way to observe the effects in real-time. We've been stuck with shoot-review-tweak or using tables or apps to 'dial in' fixed values. Neither ideal ways of working IMO.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I'm actually quite impressed at how well the Rodie 40 performed with the IQ250 although admittedly at the absolute mm shifts on each camera. To truly represent equivalence I thank that you need to match the FOV either by taking the 44x33 crop of the IQ260 image, or increasing the shift of the IQ250 which obviously rapidly wouldn't work out quite so well.

One of the things I had to do when when moving from the Aptus 65/P40+ to the IQ160/260 was reassessment of the view of my lenses and adjust appropriately. For example, the SK24 that I had was replaced with a Sk35 for a more equivalent wide angle. For someone with a Rodie 32 or 40 today the equivalent would either be a move to 28/32 and or greater shifts.

Anyway, it's definitely a good first indication of the tech capabilities and I'm sure we'll all be interested to see more empirical results. Like Pramote, I've found that you end up getting to know the characteristics of the lenses and what limitations exist (or can be worked around - such as propensity for red spots on the 23HR for example). The value for LV for normal focus with the wides isn't so great as perhaps with longer focal lengths/macro as it is pretty easy to nail this with wides, although accurate tilt adjustment visibility would be the big one for me personally. That said, LV critical focussing on all lenses would be GREAT!

Looking forward to seeing any tests with the Rodie 32/28/23 too. With the 44x33 sensor these start to become more important at the true wide end.

An encouraging start. I'm welded to my IQ260 so can only look on longingly at that Live View capability. One day perhaps it'll come to us in a larger format.

Btw, I was wondering how the Canon T/S faired on the Alpa FPS you had with the LV demo. For some people that is the future and live view on that system looks very interesting as an option.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Landscape shooters from the year dot have chosen to use view cameras because of the flexibilty they afford in manipulating the image plane projected by the lens and the plane upon which that image falls.

However, in the age of the sub-40mmx54mm sensor, observing the effect of tilt or swing / tilt and swing rapidly becomes non-trivial since, other than by using a groundglass, there has been - until the IQ250 - no way to observe the effects in real-time. We've been stuck with shoot-review-tweak or using tables or apps to 'dial in' fixed values. Neither ideal ways of working IMO.

I couldn't agree more. Focusing with the ground glass is tough with even 40x54mm compared to true large format. Also, the table/best reckoning approach for tilts really only works well for a level base but if you angle the camera body it's no longer so easy to do other than visually. Swings are all visual adjustment in my experience.

 

[Paul2660]

If you can live with a 1:3 crop factor on wides, it's no doubt the ideal solution. Especially if Live view works in low light without excessive noise artifacts like the Nikon implementation on the D800.

In my workflow I am most often at 28mm and or 40mm and need all of it. Even in stitching. The crop factor is too limiting for me.

The Rod 32 may be a great lens on this back, but it's cost is around 9.5K new and 7K to 6K used. Based on the fact that the Copal mount is very delicate and the lens is very heavy, it's not the best lens IMO to carry around in the woods. If you are on the 1:3 sensor I am assuming that a lens with a 70mm image circle may not do much for you, and you need to be at 90mm at least, which bring up either the 32mm or 40mm.

I have long considered the 32mm, but the price it just too extreme for me. If you are considering a tech camera which again is about a 6 to 7K up front investment, then add the cost of the 32mm Rod, you are talking a lot of cash up front. Where as the deals on a used IQ160 may be a much better overall solution as you can still use the Schneider wides as much as 8mm of horizontal movement.

As far as limited 4mm movements, I can't see a price justification for that, but that's just me. I want 15mm to 25mm of movement for my work. Rise and fall are not as important, but I do use them at times.

It's still a huge deal either way for Phase One and I am sure the start of things to come. Right now, there is not a Nikon lens I know of that can stand up to 10mm of shift (for sure the Nikkor 24 TS-E can't on the D800) at least the ones I tried did not. Sure Canon has some excellent TS-E lenses in the 17mm and 24mm, but they don't have the MP. Still sitting at 21MP.

What will be most interesting will be the CI or others who test the Alpa FPS on the Canon TSE lenses. Here I can see this solution really being a great winner.

Biggest issue as far as the acceptance is that general consensus is CMOS=CHEAP, Sony led this charge also, with the Nikon D800 Chip and then newer version of same chip in the A7r. However the fab process on this chip is a bit different and I would be interested in knowing what the ratio is of good vs bad chips. Sony so far has two players for this new 50MP chip, one is already shipping, the other will be in March. Both players combined shipments for the 2014 year will more than likely will not equal the sale for Sony on one month of 36MP chips.

Still need to see how the CMOS handles extreme shifts as the one thing the LCC won't show is increase in noise vs loss of color/sat and detail smearing.

Paul

 

[torger]

Landscape shooters from the year dot have chosen to use view cameras because of the flexibilty they afford in manipulating the image plane projected by the lens and the plane upon which that image falls.

However, in the age of the sub-40mmx54mm sensor, observing the effect of tilt or swing / tilt and swing rapidly becomes non-trivial since, other than by using a groundglass, there has been - until the IQ250 - no way to observe the effects in real-time. We've been stuck with shoot-review-tweak or using tables or apps to 'dial in' fixed values. Neither ideal ways of working IMO.

Wouldn't be that hard on ground glass, I use Linhof's new bright one with a 20x loupe and it does work. Looking in the edge of a 35mm SK in bad light becomes problematic though, but usually tables work well for the wides, extremely rare you need to do a tilt+swing combination in those cases at least for my shooting style. For longer lenses there's no issue except you really need to be concentrated to hit the focus peak. So I don't need live view myself, wide angular response is a more important feature to me. But using ground glass requires good eye sight, training, a bit of skill and confidence, so live view is surely a way to make view cameras more accessible to a broader audience again.

And even if I'm quite satisfied with the ground glass and don't find myself limited by it, it would reduce size weight and cost if I could drop the sliding back. And occassional frustration, which gg does have sometimes, that's why I like to have a back which at least have a working image review, which is rare among older backs.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly -

"It would be nice if it could do both but it does seem more a MF cam body back"

... but that reads to me as if you're pretty much writing the back off as realistic for tech csm use on the basis of the above test.

Unless I'm mistaken, what we are looking at here are effectively LCC shots, no?

Comparing with LCC shots from my Rodies on an IQ180, they don't look *that* bad. Certainly not bad enough to conclude that it couldn't perform well in many circumstances with a tech cam, which was the original fear prior to this test being shared.

So again - based on the evidence presented so far (which I am guessing all any/most of us have to rely on), what is it that I'm missing?

I'm looking at these thinking - "hey, you know what, there could actually be some real potential here."

You're looking at them thinking - "it would be nice if it worked on a tech cam, but..."

If I really had to put a number on it, I'd interpret from the above test that perhaps on the Rodie 40HR, you might lose 3-5mm of useful image circle radius on the 250 compared to the 260.

Clearly more testing will provide some answers, but based on the evidence from this test alone, there is good potential for tech cam use with the IQ250.

I guess more my point was the feature set lends itself more towards a DF type body. I don't want to dismiss the fact it could very well be a nice tech cam option. Higher ISO, Faster Frame rates , live view and crop sensors just leans more towards it and really that was my point. One thing a dealer actually Dave said to me awhile back was if there was a CMOS sensor that was a crop and at a good lower price he could fit better every wedding and fashion shooter in a much better solution. That I get and agree. But I don't want to dismiss the tech cam angle either.As long as the LCC corrections works out to almost the same as the CCD sensors today than there is no issue to use it in that setting. Maybe even better solution as a all around back. Options are great and I never dismiss other options.