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!
Notwithstanding the fact that I've been pretty impressed with many aspects of what I've seen so far of the 250, I do think it's worth highlighting the (sure, maybe it's obvious) point re the bolded bit (if it is to be taken verbatim).Torger, you're "discovering" an issue that has been previously discussed on this forum and is even mentioned in the test article I wrote that this thread is about: color fidelity suffers with large movements. This is not new - it was first meaningful with the Aptus II 12 about four years ago and came to broad prominence with the IQ180 when users noticed they could get color casts so severe you couldn't restore high fidelity color.
I'm not being defensive. We both agree that loss of color fidelity occurs at some point in the movement range and that it occurs earlier in the image circle than with a 260. I'm just saying I've thoroughly evaluated the images and I don't share your pessimism about how early it occurs.
This was designed to be a worst case scenario full of bright vivid colors which would show the real world impact of any loss of color fidelity. And to my eye they show that the 250, combined with Rodenstock lenses allow a good amount of movement before quality suffers. Less than the 260 for sure, but more than enough to make a 250 a compelling option to consider for a tech camera user. Obviously anyone considering such a system should do their own testing and look out for color fidelity (which is mentioned in my article) as well as light falloff, artifacts, and noise.
I was actually meaning to refer to final-subject position. If I wanted to be more generous to the 250 (and be more marketing oriented) I could talk about maximum allowed rise/fall, but as you point out this would be a bit disingenuous as the 250 has to be risen several mm before it's seeing what a 260 would see with no rise. But yes, someone interested in choosing between the two backs for tech cam use will definitely want to download the composite test files which clearly show how far each back can go into a specific area of the subject with a given lens and how much rise/shift that translates to.Notwithstanding the fact that I've been pretty impressed with many aspects of what I've seen so far of the 250, I do think it's worth highlighting the (sure, maybe it's obvious) point re the bolded bit (if it is to be taken verbatim).
If you're looking to shift to get the top of something in shot (very typical in architectural shots of course), there's a double whammy with the 250.
You need to shift more than the 260 because of the cropped sensor, and you can't shift as much as you can with the 260.
Short answer: as the wide angle lenses for the D800 and even the mirrorless A7r have stronger retrofocus designs than the Rodenstock wides you don't get issues with crosstalk even if the sensors have as narrow critical crosstalk angle as the IQ250 sensor (which they probably have).40mm? That's not even a 35mm frame.
Have you seen similar issues with other Sony sensors (D800, A7r)?
I can't get my head around this either. Surely changing WB to "fix" the issue that torger highlighted would just cause problems elsewhere in the frame?Not a big deal to change wb to match the colors in the the corners...
But how do the centers of these shots look, do they match in color also?
Nope?
Move on to the next one.