The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

[voidshatter]

Reasons I gave up the 32mm:

a) I do long exposure so center filter is a must. The center filter for the 32 is too large and causes a problem for my filter system. The 40 does not require a CF and the filter system is very mature.

b) The 32 is susceptible to mazing artifacts / demosaicing failure issues on the IQ250, which suggests that it may become obsolete like the Schneider 28XL when the next generation of fullframe digital backs move to the Sony CMOS sensor. The 32 may be a risky investment at this stage. On the other side, the 40 is a safer bet.

 

[Jamgolf]

b) The 32 is susceptible to mazing artifacts / demosaicing failure issues on the IQ250

Can you please elaborate?
I plead ignorance to knowing anything about "mazing artifacts" and "demosaicing failure issues".
Would be helpful to see an example if you can share .

Thanks

 

[jagsiva]

Can you please elaborate?
I plead ignorance to knowing anything about "mazing artifacts" and "demosaicing failure issues".
Would be helpful to see an example if you can share .

Thanks

If you are considering (as of what is available today) CMOS back, then investing in WA tech lenses is likely not the sharpest thing to do. I think some of the tests that Doug has done, even with the 32HR, show this. The 70mm IC lenses like the 28HR and 23HR appear to fair better than the 90mm IC lenses like the 32HR. As the focal length gets longer into the 40HR and up, things do get better. The SK43XL also looks like a non-starter.

I see this as a limitation of the current crop of CMOS sensors and not with the tech lenses themselves. However you do need to find a system that works for you.

This is thread is now getting into philosophy and religion. the OP has an IQ160. If the argument is future proofing, I would say this has to happen as much in the CMOS back technology vs. lens technology.

 

[voidshatter]

Can you please elaborate?
I plead ignorance to knowing anything about "mazing artifacts" and "demosaicing failure issues".
Would be helpful to see an example if you can share .

Thanks

Hi, mazing artifact is a demosaicing failure issue when there are excessive crosstalk issues going on, i.e. green channel leakage between pixel lightwells when a wide angle is shifted and the ray angle is too extreme for the sensor. In such case interior shots may suffer from mazing artifacts on high key textures. Please refer to below the test shots of the 32HR 35XL and 40HR on the IQ250, where the 32HR and the 35XL showed prominent susceptibility while the 40HR held strong:

Mr Anders Torger has detailed technical comments on that and his software can compensate with this regard. However I would still assume that the 40HR to be a safer bet as we don't know what would happen when we shift into the CMOS era in the near future.

 

[Paul2660]

One note on the shot from Voidshatter the lower circled spot on the 32mm is not mazing but a error in the stitching. Follow it across the image. The upper circled example does show what might be mazing but I really don't think it would show up on a print unless you used a loup.

You really can see the mazing in the 35XL example.

Edit,

I also did want to note, that as far as I know of the Digital Transitions testing, is the only testing that was done, and put out in detail, where you could pull down the files and see the raw images. I have never seen any formal comparison from Phase One, just action shots taken with the 250.

In this same testing, some other issues came out pretty quickly.

1. The IQ260 at 6 seconds had tons of stuck pixels, in the thousands. and that was at 6 seconds. These did not correct with the dark frame that would have been taken.
2. The difference in the DR in the shadows was 100% impressive for the 250, in that it was totally possible to pull up areas on shifts that were 85% dark, and see wood grain when the exposure was corrected
3. Many forget that in the main shots there were a series of metal bars that covered a row of the books, in the 260 and 180 shots these had so much aliasing (Christmas Tree light effect) to render this part of the image worthless, as it distracted terribly. The 250 had none of this.

My point being, I feel that based on the testing I saw from Guy on the Credo 50, that if you can live with 12mm of shifting and the 1:3 crop , the 250 is the better overall solution. I still want to max out shifts to even 18mm or 20mm which will really make it hard to correct with a 250, even though the sensor is cropped. The crop of 30% does have a big issue for me, it's 30% that's a lot. If you shoot wides which I do there are a lot of shots I couldn't just back up a few steps to take.

My opinion may have changed for the 250 after talking to another US dealer and realizing that there might be a more aggressive trade in for my 260, however before I would ever consider a move, I need to shoot the back and this just is not easy to do as rentals are not covered by my current insurance, so I need to somehow meet up with a dealer in person and shoot. Something I still hope to do later this year.

Paul

Paul

 

[voidshatter]

One note on the shot from Voidshatter the lower circled spot on the 32mm is not mazing but a error in the stitching. Follow it across the image. The upper circled example does show what might be mazing but I really don't think it would show up on a print unless you used a loup.

You really can see the mazing in the 35XL example.

Paul

The forum does not display my screenshot at the native resolution. Try to view it at 100% and you'll see the mazing artifact on the 32

 

[Dogs857]

I'm sorry but this is really starting to annoy me.

This thread had nothing to do with the 250, or any CMOS back for that matter. The OP is asking for advice on his IQ160. Void I know you love your CMOS sensor, but you are hijacking so many threads I am starting to wonder if you work for Sony.
I am sure there are many people on this forum who are more than happy with their current backs. I looked at the CMOS backs, especially after the Hassy release, but decided it wasn't for me because it doesn't play with my wide lenses. I probably won't ever buy a CMOS back for that reason. This decision doesn't make my current back and lenses obsolete, nor make me crazy or stupid.
If you want to spruik the CMOS sensor then start a new thread and go for your life, I am very happy for you that you found something that fits your photography so well. Just stop hijacking other threads that have nothing to do with the new sensors.

As for the OP, it seems to me that you want the 35mm but need a bit of a push. So here it is, the 35mm is an awesome lens, as are most tech lenses. Buy it, use it and never look back. You will save a bundle not getting the 32 and if you only use it rarely then you will never know the difference.

My two cents (Australian, so probably 1.6 cents US)

 

[voidshatter]

I'm sorry but this is really starting to annoy me.

This thread had nothing to do with the 250, or any CMOS back for that matter. The OP is asking for advice on his IQ160. Void I know you love your CMOS sensor, but you are hijacking so many threads I am starting to wonder if you work for Sony.
I am sure there are many people on this forum who are more than happy with their current backs. I looked at the CMOS backs, especially after the Hassy release, but decided it wasn't for me because it doesn't play with my wide lenses. I probably won't ever buy a CMOS back for that reason. This decision doesn't make my current back and lenses obsolete, nor make me crazy or stupid.
If you want to spruik the CMOS sensor then start a new thread and go for your life, I am very happy for you that you found something that fits your photography so well. Just stop hijacking other threads that have nothing to do with the new sensors.

As for the OP, it seems to me that you want the 35mm but need a bit of a push. So here it is, the 35mm is an awesome lens, as are most tech lenses. Buy it, use it and never look back. You will save a bundle not getting the 32 and if you only use it rarely then you will never know the difference.

My two cents (Australian, so probably 1.6 cents US)

Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to persuade the OP to buy CMOS. I'm just pointing out that when technology advances, if an existing gear is no longer compatible with the latest gear, then there is a risk that the existing gear will depreciate. History taught me something - see how the 28XL, ZM15, VM12 etc lost value over the development of new sensors. I know that the 32HR fits the OP's IQ160 well, and if the OP chooses to stick with the IQ160 then there is no way that the 32HR will stop working on the IQ160. I am just saying that if there is a fullframe 645 CMOS out in the near future and if the 32HR is not compatible with it then the 32HR may depreciate. What can be too wrong if you choose a product that could be more futureproof so that it could retain more residual value and more flexibility should you decide to sell it in the future? The OP started such a thread because obviously the 32HR is not a small investment for him. Of course if I didn't need to worry about money I would also just go for the 32HR and wouldn't care about any possible depreciation in the future. The money and choice are all yours, not mine. Add me to ignore list if you find my comments annoying :thumbup:

 

[torger]

Even if you do worry about money you don't need to worry that much. You can sell the IQ160 and 32HR to users like me that use MF gear one step below the highest end. Even if there will come new even more retrofocus lenses there will be a market for the old lenses, just like there is for Schneider Digitar today.

And additionally, I don't exclude the possibility that future CMOS sensors actually will have light shields or surface mounted photo diodes and then wide angle compatibility will again be as good as or even better than the Kodak CCDs. My current plan is to hold on to the Schneider Digitar lenses until that happen, and skip over Dalsa and current Sony CMOS... I'm happy with what the lenses can do, but not happy how they are treated with the most recent sensors. Although I can't deny the excellent sharpness of the Rodie wides, they're not designed the way I think a "large format" style lens should be, ie small simple light symmetrical and distortion free, so I hold on to the Digitars for as long as it's possible.

 

[voidshatter]

Even if you do worry about money you don't need to worry that much. You can sell the IQ160 and 32HR to users like me that use MF gear one step below the highest end. Even if there will come new even more retrofocus lenses there will be a market for the old lenses, just like there is for Schneider Digitar today.

And additionally, I don't exclude the possibility that future CMOS sensors actually will have light shields or surface mounted photo diodes and then wide angle compatibility will again be as good as or even better than the Kodak CCDs. My current plan is to hold on to the Schneider Digitar lenses until that happen, and skip over Dalsa and current Sony CMOS... I'm happy with what the lenses can do, but not happy how they are treated with the most recent sensors. Although I can't deny the excellent sharpness of the Rodie wides, they're not designed the way I think a "large format" style lens should be, ie small simple light symmetrical and distortion free, so I hold on to the Digitars for as long as it's possible.

The inductive price of an IQ260 could be around £20,000. Now a private trading price to sell it could be around £10,000 if one decides to bash it and make some direct comparisons against other products to reveal its weakness. That means £10,000 is instantly lost.

If you buy a 32HR (alpa mount) as new, with an HPF ring, a T-S adaptor and a CF, it costs about £8,000. However if it is incompatible with the future fullframe CMOS back, you would sell it for only around £4,000 (take the Schneider 28XL as reference when the Dalsa 80 MP back made it obsolete).

Even if you only buy second hand, you still lose a fair amount of money, unless everyone is as smart as you are to pick the Kodak CCD with the Schneider lenses. Who can guarantee that the pricing can be so stabilized?