But, anyway. if DR stays the same, then you are not actually getting more DR at ISO 100, you are just under exposing and reducing signal. So, ISO 35 is still better. There is no benefit to ISO 100 in terms of image quality.
Here is what I have learned.
If you want a pan, not stitch, the closer you are to 50mm or past, the easier the construction of the file will be. If you attempt a nodal pan with a 14mm lens, you will have ton's of problems, more so if the lens is in a horizontal position. Even if you are nodal, it still won't matter. Just take a 14mm lens and pan it across a scene, you can easily see how elements in the distance change perspective as you move. This is just part of it with a ultra wide.
You also have to be level if you want anywhere near a good solution. Being level it key.
With stitching, level is not required and with a tech camera, you are moving the back, thus no parallax. issues. Again not true with a Canon solution where the movement is within the lens. However you can counter most of this by moving the camera the same amount in the opposite direction, (Jack wrote a very nice article on just this process several years ago).
If I want to nodal stitch, I tend to move the camera in the vertical as the distortions are less and most tools will come up with a better solution.
NOTE, in outdoor landscape you can get away with a ton of errors, as no one know exactly how that one rock looked, or tree or mountain in the distance. With architecture, this is not true as lines within building have to line up and features also have to line up. This is where sticking is much easier to work with. and or use a 23mm Rodie with a bit of rise or fall or both to help with straightening out the shot. Here the Canon solution will work just as well, (at least in my experience, however the 17mm TS-E will not hold the corners as well and it has a bit of coma problems, (smear on the edges).
My pref. is always stitch, to 15mm past that and you may have too much color cast crosstalk issues to contend with that you won't recover it without a ton of work (Rodie 40mm IQ260), this mainly is with blue skies, with no clouds to help break up the blue. Nothing is harder to get right is a shift across a pure blue sky with no clouds, (at least from my experience). Here a nodal pan is much easier and if I can get a level solution I will always set up the 35mm Schneider and go that way or the 28mm Rodie, which ever I happen to have with me.
The 60mm XL is a dream shifting lens, up to 25mm of shift for me and it's also very very easy to get a nodal solution on since it's such a small lens.
ISO 35 is nothing better than ISO 100. If you use the same shutter speed and the same aperture, you do not get better image quality if you shoot at ISO 35, when compared against shooting at ISO 100.
On the other hand, ISO 100 would be better than anything above ISO 100.
Anything below ISO 100 is just extended ISO (marketing hype).
The point of ISO is a change in the S/N ratio. Why shoot them at the same exposure? Don't you want better S/N?ISO 35 is nothing better than ISO 100. If you use the same shutter speed and the same aperture, you do not get better image quality if you shoot at ISO 35, when compared against shooting at ISO 100.
Sure. And below ISO 100 is better too.On the other hand, ISO 100 would be better than anything above ISO 100.
No, it is not. Even if your assertion that DR does not change is true (DXO Marks shows something different), you are getting a better S/N ratio at ISO 35. You yourself point out noise in your evaluation of images. Shooting to minimize noise is a valid method. There is more to image quality than DR.Anything below ISO 100 is just extended ISO (marketing hype).
DR is bound by two things:
a) SNR in the shadow, and
b) highlight details.
At the same shutter speed and aperture between ISO 35 and ISO 100, you have the same SNR in the shadow, as well as the same amount of highlight details, hence the same DR, and also the same image quality.
At the same shutter speed and aperture between ISO 100 and ISO 200, you have (about) the same SNR in the shadow, but one stop difference of highlight details, hence less DR for ISO 200.
Sure, of course, you can shoot at ISO 35 and 40 seconds but I can also shoot at ISO 100 and 40 seconds and achieve the same image quality and DR as yours.
When I shoot at ISO 100 and 40 seconds, if you shoot at ISO 200 and 40 seconds, you have less highlight details as I have; if you shoot at ISO 200 and 20 seconds, although you have the same amount of highlight details as I have, you have less SNR in shadow, hence inferior image quality.
Pradeep: "Just wanted to hear from the folks here if they have any advice for me."
Be careful what you wish for.
3 Member(s) liked this post
Wayne Fox over a year ago showed a great test that also pretty much proved this. It was a post on this site but I can't find it anymore.
The exception to this is sensor plus where you do in effect increase the gain 4:1 by pixel binning. Totally different than increasing gain on a chip as is done with raising the ISO on CMOS.
I welcome any dealer to please chip in here with any facts that prove me wrong on this as I have been trying get a straight answer for years, is there really a such a thing as higher ISO than base on a CCD or is it just a metadata setting and no gain is being done on the chip.
As to the look of CCD vs CMOS this is a person by person decision as everyone will see it differently.
Voidshatter simply believes where the point there is no longer a loss in DR is the native ISO and there is no point in using another value for exposure. I am saying that signal can be a valid reason for using a lower ISO than the point Voidshatter believes to be the "base" ISO. In this case, ISO 35 on the IQ180. The ISO 35 will give greater signal and that has a positive effect on the image as you are increasing signal to noise--noise is not going to be changing, but your signal increases. From the positive responses I see from IQ180 users, it appears they see the benefits as well. ISO 35 in this case is more than a gimmick.
There are plenty of times I "overexpose" when I know I can increase quality at base ISO. There is no impact on DR, but there is an impact on image quality. I am sure I am not the only photographer that understands the benefits of more signal regardless of impact on DR.
A CCD (and Cmos) pixel is just like a bucket that will fill up with photons till the bucket is full. The full value is typically about 50-60 thousands photons for the sizes used in MF sensors (about 6 µm). With 16 bits, the ADC can count between 0 photon, 1 photon, 2 photons, ... till 65535 photons. So it can count all possible values.
Doubling the analog gain means that for each photon, we count 2. So the ADC will count: 0, 2, 4, ... 65534, when we have 0, 1, 2, 131068 photons. But we cannot get 131068 photons, the bucket never holds that many, so we lose some possible values.
Doubling (or quadrupling) the analog gain makes sense if we only have a 12 or 14 bits ADC. A 12-bits ADC can only count up to 4095 values, far less than the 50 thousands a pixel can hold. So, when we have lots of light and the well may fill up, we count the photons by groups of 16 and everything is fine. When we know that we may only get about 16 thousands photons, because it is darker, we may raise the analog gain and count them by groups of 4. If it is very dark and we get at most 3-4 thousands photons, we may want to count them one by one.
That is how it works when there is no noise (except the noise inherent to the discrete nature of photons), of course. But noise does not fundamentally change the model, it just adds a small random number of photons to each bucket (typically up to 10-20).
IMO you're both talking around each other on different topics. Void is apparently talking about the CCD being ISO-less. As in the native ISO of the IQ160/180 is ISO 100 (whether that meets ISO 100 spec is up for debate). And anyone using ISO35 is simply doing the ETTR. What you are saying is that you like exposing at ISO 35 because it is cleaner, i.e. ETTR.
So in actuality both of you are "right". My interpretation is:
Exposure ISO - Actual ISO - ETTR (stops)
35 - 100 - +1 2/3
50 - 100 - +1
100 - 100 - 0
So yes you can choose to shoot at any of these ISOs, but what you are doing is "ETTR" which is, from what I read, what you want. Now whether you shoot at ISO35, or ISO 100 with +1 2/3 exposure compensation and then use C1 to reduce exposure, the net effect would be the same (as I understand it)
Void on the other hand is all about shadow retrieval so he thinks folks who shoot at ISO35 or 50 (when the actual ISO is 100 and all you're doing is "ETTR") are fools. I personally feel that ETTR makes a modicum of sense if one can get the desired shot (no shake, etc) so I am fine shooting at fake ISO35/50 and not having to dial exposure back in software (if indeed that is required) but I am also fine shooting at ISO100 to get higher shutter speeds. Horses for courses.
That is all. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
The P45+ has two real ISO settings: 50 and 100. Anything above 100 is ISO-less (i.e. the same as 100).
The IQ280 is ISO-less between 35 and 100, but would really start to increase ISO sensitivity and clip highlight after 100.
So, the base ISO on something like a 5D3 is actually say, 400?
Base native ISO for 5D3 is 100. After 100 the actual sensitivity starts to increase.
Hello, 645z user here.
Chris Giles Photography
Can we please get back on topic. Your really off course here
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
www.guymancusophotography.com5 Member(s) liked this post
Firstly, with regards perspective, it doesn't matter how you go about capturing a "very wide" field of view - nodal or shift makes no difference whatsoever. It's how you choose to project the captured stitch that is important.
Secondly, you are always working with "spherical information" when taking photos. If you shift stitch, you're relying on the lens to "force" a rectilinear projection. if you nodal stitch, it's the output from the sitching software that determines the projection. There are of course a multitude of different projections that can be chosen - some of which are actually much more suited to extreme wide-angle shots than rectilinear.
(Determining the correct nodal point is a no-brainer if you choose to stitch that way, so that's a bit of a red herring.)
Much as I appreciate the education, all this is bringing the SNR of the thread way down for me.
The longer I ponder this issue, the more confusing it gets
The way I see it now, I have three options:
1. Go for the best image quality: Meaning, keep the IQ180, get a tech cam, Rodenstock or similar lenses and invest the time and energy to master the whole process. I cannot sell the 645DF+ body because then the system is useless for any 'casual' photography. Therefore added cost, probably another $10-15K. In my present position in life, I may be able to come up with the money but not the time.
2. Stay where I am, almost best IQ: Keep the IQ180 back and the 645DF+ body and lenses I currently own, work harder at getting the most out of it. Not the best solution for me philosophically but probably painless. Added cost: Nil, except for depreciation of present equipment, which applies equally to option 1.
3. Sell everything, move to a different MF system (I definitely want to stay with MF at present): My own reading suggests the best bang for the buck is the Pentax 645Z right now. Same sensor as the IQ250, better handling and better high ISO performance than the Phase system and at an incredible price. Added cost: nil, if I sell the Phase and buy this, may have quite a bit of money left over. Down side: IQ perhaps not quite as good (need to do more reading on this).
Thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Anybody here used both Phase and the Pentax? Is the quality that much different? At present the Pentax lens line up is much like the Sony E Mount, very few and expensive.
Option 4 -
Sell the DF and lenses.
Keep the IQ180
Buy a tech cam and a Rodie or two and never look back.
Buy a casual camera for your casual photography (one of those little Fuji things for example).
2 Member(s) liked this post
I can't give you more options but say what I'm doing.
645z and almost all the lenses for the ultra image quality.
Canon 5DSr for the ultra wide lenses for the 11-24mm range and Tilt Shift lenses.
All highly affordable. I still get my medium format look and competitive IQ but have the most flexible combined system around.
Lots of fun to be had there.
Chris Giles Photography1 Member(s) liked this post
But I see your point too. In order to get the best image possible (what constitutes that is another debate altogether), a tech camera and a Rodie is the way to go. And yet, as I said earlier, there are many situations where your combo simply does not work.
Is it too much to ask when you spend $50K on a camera system to do things the way you want it to?
1 Member(s) liked this post
Back to the topic, I would probably suggest the same as Chris: get two Sony sensors:
A7R / A7R-II / A9 and Canon TS-E for the wide angle (even the site owner is using this solution, how lame! come on, this is supposed to be a site to top-up faith for technical cameras!)
Pentax 645Z and *recently released* lenses such like the 28-45 super sharp.
These are a lot easier to use than a technical camera.
"Creativity takes courage." ~ Henri Matisse
Darlene Almeda, photoscapes.com1 Member(s) liked this post
Based on your intended usage (wildlife and landscapes) and thoughts you've expressed in the thread I would say a Pentax 645Z is a worthy option.
I used a Pentax 645D for about 1.5 years as my entry into the MF world. Very well built, weather sealed and a perfect layout of controls. I used a lot of Pentax and Hasselblad V lenses (with Fotodiox Pro adapter). I would recommend the following lenses based on experience:
- Pentax 90mm: Weather sealed and perhaps the only medium format lens with image stabilization. Superb image quality.
- Hasseblad V 40mm CFE IF
- Hasselblad V 250mm Superachromat
In my experience these three lenses have stellar image quality. There are certainly others that you might want to try.
By all accounts 645Z is an improvement over 645D which is very good to begin with - so you won't be disappointed if you decide to go this route.
IQ3 100 H • Cambo 1200 • Rodenstock 32HR 90HRSW
I went one step further. I have the A7R and bought the Nikon 14-24 f2.8, fitted a Nikon-Canon adapter to it and then a Canon-Sony adapter (metabones)on top of that and plugged it into the A7R. Great pictures of the northern lights in Iceland. I've used my Leica 50 Summilux on the A7R too, along with many of the Canon lenses, including the big 600 MkII. All work well, with limitations of sorts of course.
While everyone here waxes eloquent on the merits of the tech camera with the CCD backs (I do not deny the ultimate quality of such a combo), people do not accept the fact that it is a very limiting set up, perfect for when you have good light and ample time. If I had a super expensive digital back, I would also want it to be able to do night skies, cityscapes at night, pre-dawn landscapes. I would also occasionally want to be able to take pictures of my family without having to pose them while I fiddled with the focus/LCC etc.
And before people say I should use a 'casual camera' for family portraits, I would suggest that if you can take pictures of models with the IQ180, why not aspire for the same quality for your own family? Can't do that with a tech camera.
My thoughts on this last post:
1. Find a dealer, and work with them, especially if you are interested in a tech solution
2. Read Don's post, on tech cameras, in this forum. The tech solution is totally different than what you are doing now. And unless you move to a CMOS back at the same time, the workflow will be possibly more than you want to take on.
3. Don't forget, you own a 180. This is still the top end back from Phase and really anyone else.
4. Hopefully if you end up not deciding to keep the 180, you can work with a dealer that can help you move to another back/camera.
5. If you sell the 180 on the web, I would for sure be careful.
6. Sorry you are not closer to Arkansas, I would love to meet you and show you my setup, Arca and you could use your back and see the workflow and take the images back to consider. If you get down this way, look me up as I can easily take some time to show you the tech (Arca) solution. PM me if you need my contact info, but it's on my website also.
7. Consider the CI Lake Tahoe event in April. There will be a lot of tech gear there, and at least 1 or 2 CMOS backs.
8. As nice as the Pentax Z sounds, it's not for me, as there are no movements, and no service center in the US. At least for now. For some this not a big deal, but for me it is. Everyone handles the stress of a repair differently.
I wish you the best on the decision, but sitting on a IQ180 for now may be the best decision. Phase will be bring out new backs either this year or next. Your 180 will hold the best resale value of any Phase back out there IMO.
Before I dumped my IQ260 CCD back I asked myself the following questions:
Do I shoot portrait in studio? Hell no. CCD is best for this, but no I don't shoot these.
Do I shoot wildlife or wedding? No, and CCD would be not suitable for these.
Do I shoot landscape / cityscape? Yes. What do I shoot? The milky way, the sunset and the sunrise (backlight). Nothing else. Do I benefit from CCD? No. Do I get better image quality than a D800E? Hell no. For 3 stops of less DR, I get alignment issues for bracketing. I get tiling issues from the CCD. I get limitation from the darkframe NR. The very limited Live View also made me miss great moments. Forget about the milky way.
Do I shoot interior? Probably, but a Canon 17 TS-E or 11-24 should serve better.
Is there any good to keep the IQ260 collecting dust? A future trade-in is possible should there be a fullframe CMOS back, but I see it depreciating at a speed no slower than other digital backs. It would be more worthwhile to find something else that I can actually use while I wait for a possible fullframe CMOS back, and produce something better than the D800E for my use cases.
These pretty much concluded the inevitable fate of my IQ260 getting dumped. It was a hard decision. Sunk cost had been holding me back from making a rational decision because I had been prone to loss aversion and framing effects for months.
After all, you would have to look forward anyway. Determine your use cases. Find what's best for you and move on.
1 Member(s) liked this post
I don't know any tech cam users who "do not accept the fact that it is a very limiting setup". I sure find it a limiting setup. I also like it, but have other systems for other needs.
1 Member(s) liked this post
You seem desirous of the best image quality in every situation with a rather specialized $50K+ MFDB system. A jack of all trades and master of none is not the realm here. In other words, you can buy a $100K sports car but it still won't haul trash to the dump like a $20K beat up pickup truck.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the image quality potential is of your system if you have difficulty extracting that potential and you simply don't enjoy using it either.
I'd look towards something that you enjoy using----that makes you want to take the camera system out and use it. I'm just shaking my head at where this thread has gone with all its psuedo-academic (emphasis on pseudo) cerebral vomiting. If you're happy reading the DxO charts, stay at home read it online, sell all your cameras, save some $ and call it a day.
Maybe the easiest enjoyable combination is your A7r and a Pentax 645z. Maybe a cute little Alpa TC and your IQ180. I dunno. I do know that I'd want something that made me happy regardless of system or format.
I think if I were in your quandary and actually read all the psuedo-cerebral DxO-it-was-on-the-internet-so-must-be-better-than-taking-actual-photos comments, I would just buy a boat.
I am not inclined to go the dealer route for reasons mentioned before. They will only try to sell you what they carry (I don't blame them). I am also not happy with what I believe to be somewhat misleading representation of the upgrade pathway on initial purchase. But that's all history.
I am not into shifting and movements. I had the Canon 24TSE MkII and sold it a couple of years ago, did not use it enough to justify keeping it.
I really appreciate your offer. Perhaps when I have the time, a small tech camera and a digital back would be the order of the day. Until then it will have to be a more versatile solution.
Meh, this is such a weird thread, go and try some stuff and pick whatever you like, people can only comment on what suits themselves.
For what it's worth, within a month of owning a Leica S I had sold a D800, D800E, lots of zeiss glass and a RX1, for me the difference in handling and output has put the S a million miles from anything I have shot before, most importantly I just love walking around with it, shooting everything from candid family stuff to commercial work, it makes me want to use it. Does it do everything, nope, never had a camera that did, do I care, nope, it does what I want it to do perfectly, therefore it's the perfect solution for me and me alone, it may be for other people but I'm not much bothered about that.
Just try stuff, keeping a camera you don't use because you will lose money on it is daft, get on with it and buy something you will enjoy using, life's too short and it's photography not life and death! I will say that I have run 2 workshops recently with owners of the 645z, neither stood up to the conditions here, both lost the use of the top screen in low temperatures and both owners picked up the S and were blown away, does that mean they will change? I wouldn't have thought so, should they? Not if it doesn't suit them, is the Z for me? Not even a little bit, just looking through any viewfinder after the S is a disappointment. What I'm saying here is find something for you, try stuff, pick something that will fire your creativity, I honestly don't think there is a camera available today that won't produce great results if you point it at something that interests you. The 180 isn't working for you so get rid.
Just my opinion of course!
http://matrichardson.com/2 Member(s) liked this post
I cannot keep both the Pentax and the IQ180, that would be too much especially given I also need my Canon stuff for wildlife too.Maybe the easiest enjoyable combination is your A7r and a Pentax 645z. Maybe a cute little Alpa TC and your IQ180. I dunno.
Agree completely. I would also like a system that is being used frequently instead of only every couple of months under specific conditions.I do know that I'd want something that made me happy regardless of system or format.
2: You can keep your present camera, but you would have to use it differently or you would simply get more of the same. I don't know how you could do that, you would have to find out yourself. Maybe meeting other users with the same camera would help, you could see how they use their camera.
3: Any camera with the 50 mpix Sony sensor would have 30 mpix less than your present camera. That is the same difference than between a 40" and a 50" print.
3b: There are plenty of lenses for the Pentax. You can use older lenses.
3c: As to lenses and IQ, it depends a lot on your practice. All MF lenses are excellent if you use them at f/8-f/11. Do you do that or do you want to use limited depth of field? In the later case, there are indeed differences.
Voidshatter. I have owned and shot the P45+, IQ140, IQ180, and now the IQ260, with both Rodenstock and Schneider lenses on my Cambo. I have also owned and shot the D800, D800e and the D810 along with numerous Zeiss lenses and Nikon G lenses.
The images that I have obtained with both systems are very good in their own right, but there is no comparison between the images that I have captured with the IQ backs compared to those of the Nikon bodies when I print them in larger scale.
If you do not print large, then the Nikons are absolutely fine, but I like to print my images 36" or longer on the long side, so the extra detail I get from the IQ backs enables me to do just that, where when I have tried with the Nikon images they look good, but they are missing the extreme detail I achieve with my Tech cam.
However, do I think the difference in the price points is equal to the difference in the image quality? It is an objective question, but in my opinion, and for what I do with the cameras, no. I also prefer the workflow of using the tech cam as well. As I age, I am sure this will change.
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams