Should I or not?

[voidshatter]

Paul, I am not saying that noise reduction never degrades detail. I am saying that if one degrades detail on a 80 mpix back, one may still get enough detail to print big.

dxomark already normalize the standard deviation of noise by down-sampling the IQ180. It is nowhere as good as the Sony CMOS sensors when you push the ISO to anything above 200 on the IQ180. As I said, a side by side comparison is all you need.

 

[torger]

Stay on to the gear you have is generally a wise advice, but in this case I think it means continue using the Canon system and sell off the MFD gear, as its the Canon system that sees the use.

I have a Canon system too, I shoot with it perhaps 10 times a year, while I try to shoot with my MFD camera every week (enthusiast photographer so I shoot on spare time). I've thought about selling the Canon, but the cost is low keeping it so I keep it and enjoy it those 10 times a year. Another factor is that with the Canon I can shoot things which is impossible with the Linhof Techno, like sports.

If it was the other way around, I used my (relatively) high cost MFD gear only 10 times a year, I would sell it, but that's because it's a relatively large sum of money in it - from my perspective. If I would be a billionaire I wouldn't care, so that thing is personal too. It does seem like the cost of the MFD system disturbs you, and when you use it so little I would sell.

 

[stephengilbert]

So Void, do you think the Sony sensors are better than the IQ 180?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Paul2660]

Paul, I am not saying that noise reduction never degrades detail. I am saying that if one degrades detail on a 80 mpix back, one may still get enough detail to print big.

I see your point entirely, it's probably one of those issues that each person will have to evaluate. I was just amazed in my work, when I realized how much details were being lost because I had picked a shutter speed that did not allow enough light to certain parts of my files. This is also a huge limitation of a tech camera since you are limited in shutter speeds and can't get 1/2 or 1/3 increments, which do make a difference.

This was one reason I had had such high hopes on the Acra FS, as it promised 1/10 increments, but it came in at such a cost penalty, I have no moved forward on it. It's not as integrated as the Alpa FPS and costs in the range of 8K once you factor in all the lens tubes (6) for me.

Paul

 

[voidshatter]

So Void, do you think the Sony sensors are better than the IQ 180?

Is that what you're saying?

It depends on use case. If you stay at base ISO and stay away from very long exposure building up heat and noise and avoid pushing shadow too much, the IQ180 is still the king. However it has its limitations and you just need to figure out which gear is suitable for you.

I have just noticed that someone traded his IQ180 for an IQ150 without asking for additional cash. Everyone can have his own choice.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

So Void, do you think the Sony sensors are better than the IQ 180?

Is that what you're saying?

The real issue here is DXO does not take any account for the raw processor and C1 is tuned perfectly for there backs. Frankly DXO to me is just a slice of the puzzle but folks use it as gospel when doing comparisons. Not so much here as most understand what DXO does but more on the other forums its like I won't buy it because of the DXO. Its just a piece of the overall quality of the product, especially when there is a file involved that needs to be processed. Reality is there is so much to draw from a Phase file in C1 that to me the numbers are somewhat meaningless.

Testing under your own conditions and technique is only the way to see what you can draw and its hard to see what others are doing when showing there tests. You just don't know exactly what they are doing when it comes to raw processing which is a art in itself.

Now the question is are Phase sensors better than Sony. Its a loaded question indeed as Sony does some things better but so does Phase. It really depends on what and how you you are shooting.

 

[GrahamWelland]

My $0.02 to the OP: I agree with the other posts here about the state of DSLR platforms vs MF. There is incredible bang for buck there and performance is excellent.

I myself actually also mostly use a Sony A7r with Canon TS-E lenses for landscape travel when I don't want to cart around my MF gear. I just struggle with the 3:2 aspect ratio (especially 2:3 in portrait) but I know that's my hangup. You can build an amazingly capable system these days. I very seldom use my Phase One DSLR although that might change now that I have a CMOS back with decent LV.

For MF shooting then it's a deliberate choice to use my technical camera system. Nothing quite compares although the new mini-view camera systems like the Actus look very appealing. They are closer to the old view camera experience and flexibility that many of us remember and appreciate. Every time I shoot with my MFDB on my Alpa I'm reminded as to why I like this system and the results from it.

Regarding jumping ship - think about what you enjoy in terms of photography. If the IQ on DF doesn't excite you or is cumbersome compared to your other systems then I'd say at least try a small technical camera with the IQ180. That's the sweet spot for that camera I'd say. If that doesn't appeal and DSLR's are your gig then your shooting numbers are telling you something - time to move on and let it go.

 

[jerome_m]

I would probably have left that thread if Pradeep (the o.p.) had not said he uses an Epson 9900. It is a large format printer and the IQ180 is one of the few cameras on the market that can feed it the amount of pixels it needs (and even that is disputable).

Pradeep is dissatisfied with the handling of his camera. I can understand that, but he does not have much choice if he wants to print on the Epson 9900 and get the level of detail that the printer is capable of. Pradeep's aim is not to publish web-sized pictures on 500pix and get lots of likes, his aim is to get huge prints on the 9900. And if I have understood correctly, his objective is to do that with the least amount of fuss, the less weight to carry and the fastest setup time. He would also like to get decent results by poor light.

We have seen on that thread the strangest of advices, mostly involving the use of tech cams with different backs. Tech cams appear more fuss and slower setup time to me. With a different back, Pradeep will lose the ability to produce the most detailed pictures one can get short of 8x10" sheet film. I don't see how these advices are relevant.

My advice has been to keep the IQ180 and adapt his practice. Pradeep would then keep the ability to feed his 9900 with the amount of pixel that printer loves, at least by good light and on static subjects. By adapting his practice, he may find out how to carry less weight or how to still get pictures by poor light (in that case with slightly reduced quality, one can only do so much without photons).

 

[Shashin]

I would probably have left that thread if Pradeep (the o.p.) had not said he uses an Epson 9900. It is a large format printer and the IQ180 is one of the few cameras on the market that can feed it the amount of pixels it needs (and even that is disputable).

I make 44" wide prints of a lot image from cameras that are not MFD nor FF digital. Many cameras have "enough" pixels (actually, they all do, but that is a topic for another day). That is really not a reason to keep the IQ180. So, you are right, it is disputable.

 

[jerome_m]

I make 44" wide prints of a lot image from cameras that are not MFD nor FF digital. Many cameras have "enough" pixels (actually, they all do, but that is a topic for another day). That is really not a reason to keep the IQ180. So, you are right, it is disputable.

I meant: it is disputable that the IQ180 has enough pixels for the Epson 9900.

80 megapixels on a 44" x 58" is about 194 dpi, a bit low for a perfect print. The 9900 native resolution is 360 dpi, that would be 330 megapixels.

 

[Pradeep]

It should be quite clear that if you want to shoot animals moving fast with lots of action, a DSLR with a high frame rate is a better choice. Nobody can argue with that.

What I don't understand are your other examples. For example, you are complaining about poor high iso performance. While it is true that the IQ180 is not a low light marvel, wouldn't the use of noise reduction software mitigate the noise down to a tolerable level? I have a camera that is supposed to be even worse by low light (an H4D-50) and my experience is that the noise reduction in Phocus (Hasselblad software) works very well. It reduces sharpness, of course, but because the camera starts with more pixels than a D800/A7r, I may even get better results in prints nevertheless.

There was also your example that the camera was too slow to operate at sunset. I have no experience with Phase One, but it cannot be that much slower than my ancient Hasselblad, can it? I have taken pictures at sunset by just putting the camera on a tripod, pressing the mirror up button and then shooting. It was a matter of seconds and I did not need a dark frame. So could you elaborate a bit on how you actually shoot, maybe we could figure out something. Maybe you could also post a link to some pictures that we have an idea (although, considering the thread as a whole, I can understand your reluctance if your pictures do not look like Thomas Kinkade on acid).

Last but not least, I noticed that you said that you have a zoom. MF zooms are horribly heavy and bulky. Maybe you would enjoy your camera more if you just took one or two primes instead of the heavy zoom. I also use a relatively light tripod compared to some, this is another item on which you could save a bit of weight. MF have a very low vibration level because of their central shutter.

Jerome, I have the SK 80mm 2.8 LS (it came as part of the package when I bought it), the 45mm Phase f2.8, and a 75-150 Phase zoom. I have actually never used the zoom (just bought it a couple of months ago). I have used both the primes almost equally, perhaps the 45 a little more.

I know noise reduction works, but one should not need to use it on an image taken at ISO 200, especially when you have to apply some degree of sharpening to most images, no matter what the capture device.

I will give you an example of the need for speed. I was in New Mexico earlier this month, driving from Bosque to Alamogordo headed for the White Sands monument. It had snowed the previous day. As I came down the mountain pass on 380 I came upon this breathtaking scene, with the little village of Carrizozo in the valley below, the Capitan mountains in the background and the Nogel and Carrizozo peaks in the middle distance. The sun had broken through the clouds and lit up the peaks while the rest of the valley was in cloud shadow. There was snow on the ground and up the mountain slopes. I was so captivated that I immediately pulled off the road and shot off several frames and a pano with my 1DX and the 100-400 MkII (the lens I had on it at the moment). I was shooting at ISO 800 to allow enough shutter speed. Within minutes the sun had gone behind the clouds again and the whole scene had changed. I was standing on the side of the road (there was no shoulder) while wondering if I was going to be run over by a truck coming around the bend. Yes, stupid, I know, but sometimes you take stupid risks for a photo.

I wished that day that I had the Phase kit with me, but, there was no way I could have gotten those shots with MF, fussing about with a tripod and all. There was no way I could have predicted I would come upon such a scenic vista either.

There are many such stories and occasions when I've had little time and that's when something like MF would be difficult to use (esp if I had a tech camera to go with it).

OTOH, I have had great moments with the MF system, shooting from a moving rowboat in Benaras with sharp results (albeit at a slightly higher noise level). Done several shoots of NYC (takes over a minute and longer for a night exposure given darkframe subtraction). Fall colors in CT were beautiful, Bermuda, Iceland, all good experiences.

BUT, everything about MF needs, nay, demands deliberation, planning. Hard to do that in every situation.

 

[Geoff]

Deliberation - yes. Predictable - not necessarily.

Took the Techno on a trip to Europe, carrying it around in a backpack and traveling by car up in the Alps. Found a wonderful view overlooking a massive valley, and ended up hanging out over a cliff on some small rock, wind ripping, tripod being the only secure part of the puzzle, and making sure not to put a foot in the wrong place. Figured this is what it takes to get some great shots - and not one was of interest.

Afterwards, exhausted, then saw this view around a bend. What the heck, forget the frozen fingers, maybe, might as well try…. turns out it was the only one worth keeping. Go figure.

 

[Shashin]

I meant: it is disputable that the IQ180 has enough pixels for the Epson 9900.

80 megapixels on a 44" x 58" is about 194 dpi, a bit low for a perfect print. The 9900 native resolution is 360 dpi, that would be 330 megapixels.

The IQ180 has plenty of pixels for the perfect print. A dpi print value is always in context of print size; the larger the print, the lower the dpi needed.

 

[Shashin]

I just struggle with the 2:3 aspect ratio but I know that's my hangup.

You ain't so special. I have the same struggle with 3:2.

 

[jerome_m]

I know noise reduction works, but one should not need to use it on an image taken at ISO 200, especially when you have to apply some degree of sharpening to most images, no matter what the capture device.

Actually, other cameras also apply noise reduction at iso 200-400. It is just that they don't tell you. That is a little known fact, but if you use free software to look at files from Nikon, Canon or Sony cameras you will see the native noise that standard software like lightroom hides by default.

I wished that day that I had the Phase kit with me, but, there was no way I could have gotten those shots with MF, fussing about with a tripod and all. There was no way I could have predicted I would come upon such a scenic vista either.

I don't carry my MF with me all the time either, but there have been some situations where it was the only camera at hand and there was no time for a tripod and not enough light either, so I used the MF. The results were poor... compared to a MF on a tripod with lots of light, but not necessarily worse than what I would have got with a D800. OK, the D800 wins if it has a stabilised lens or under fluorescent lights (the Hasselblad is more sensitive to poor illuminants than most DSLRs). But what I meant is that the MF is just a camera: if you use it like any other camera, you will reduce its resolution, but not much below what other cameras do when printed at the same size.

OTOH, I have had great moments with the MF system, shooting from a moving rowboat in Benaras with sharp results (albeit at a slightly higher noise level). Done several shoots of NYC (takes over a minute and longer for a night exposure given darkframe subtraction). Fall colors in CT were beautiful, Bermuda, Iceland, all good experiences.

BUT, everything about MF needs, nay, demands deliberation, planning. Hard to do that in every situation.

True, but if you want to print big with stunning detail on your 9900, you will need deliberation and planning with any camera. And, frankly, I don't see where is the problem: simply leave the Nikon in the car for those days where you may come across the view of a lifetime and keep the IQ180 for the travels to Bermuda and Iceland.

But I suspect that the real problem is that you don't like photographing in a deliberate and planned manner. That is quite possible, there are plenty of people who don't relate to this way of taking pictures: street or news photographers for example. In that case, probably the best decision is to sell both the IQ180 and the printer and do less landscape and more wildlife and action. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you like it.

I actually prefer to take pictures in a planned and deliberate manner, but I also know people who much prefer a more impulsive way. It's good: if we were all taking pictures in the same way, the world would be very boring.

 

[jerome_m]

A dpi print value is always in context of print size; the larger the print, the lower the dpi needed.

I don't agree with this theory. Neither do the people who like to walk up a large print to have a look at the details.

 

[Shashin]

BUT, everything about MF needs, nay, demands deliberation, planning. Hard to do that in every situation.

I totally disagree with that (but in a supportive, kind way). I have use a lot of equipment that many photographers claim requires demanding and fussy handling. It is all a myth. You simply need to learn and develop the skill to use a piece of equipment. A Horseman SW612 is not your textbook street photography camera, but I use one for exactly that. I have use 4x5 cameras handheld.

Now, if you are not enjoying your camera, there are two possible scenarios. One is that life is short and there are just better cameras for you. We have all been there. The other is your perception of the camera is wrong and you need to spend some time with it to understand how you can get it to work for you. This just takes time and practice, which might lead back to scenario number one or you may find new possibilities in the IQ180.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I totally disagree with that (but in a supportive, kind way). I have use a lot of equipment that many photographers claim requires demanding and fussy handling. It is all a myth. You simply need to learn and develop the skill to use a piece of equipment. A Horseman SW612 is not your textbook street photography camera, but I use one for exactly that. I have use 4x5 cameras handheld.

Now, if you are not enjoying your camera, there are two possible scenarios. One is that life is short and there are just better cameras for you. We have all been there. The other is your perception of the camera is wrong and you need to spend some time with it to understand how you can get it to work for you. This just takes time and practice, which might lead back to scenario number one or you may find new possibilities in the IQ180.

Have to agree with your first sentence in particular. It really is a matter of experience and knowing exactly what you can pull off. Hell people shot sports with speed graphic 4x5 film for years. I shot them out of helicopters for a living. Sure a Hassy was easier on me but I got the same results. You really have to learn to be fast but more important accurate while your getting there. That's plan and simple experience as a shooter and time to learn your tools.

I just hired a photo crew for my daughters wedding. I'm so sickened by the poor inability of watching them at there inexperience as a shooter and worse pretending to be professional. The group shots they had no ****ing idea what they where doing. I had to actually jump in and set it up. I'm having a hard time writing there final payment because I know before I even get the take they failed 40 percent of the time. This is the inability to learn your gear and be efficient as a shooter. This all just takes time and a lot of it.

I have taught 25 workshops and the number one biggest thing I see is time on the participants part with learning there gear. It's not easy as its a hobby for them and they are not sweating it out everyday with there gear. It's just a patience thing to learn MF. I can unfold a tripod in less than 20 seconds on the ground ready to put camera on. That's just knowing what I'm doing. Not bragging here it's just a example of getting time under your belt

 

[Shashin]

I don't agree with this theory. Neither do the people who like to walk up a large print to have a look at the details.

Well, you actually do not have to agree with that, it is simply true. I know a lot of "people who like to walk up a large print to have a look at the details," and agree with me as well--but then those folks have a lot of experience with printing large.

BTW, a theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence. I am not sure why you would think such a well studied and experienced phenomenon would suddenly be not be true. My experience just reflects the theory. True, I have not printed at every size imaginable, but the largest print I did for an art museum was 10 feet by 12 feet and I can't imagine going larger would suddenly change that dynamic. Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion surround print size and persistent myths abound. The camera companies reenforced that by linking pixel dimensions to print size base on 300dpi, even though at least one knew it was not correct. But it sells cameras...

 

[Pradeep]

Actually, other cameras also apply noise reduction at iso 200-400. It is just that they don't tell you. That is a little known fact, but if you use free software to look at files from Nikon, Canon or Sony cameras you will see the native noise that standard software like lightroom hides by default.

Maybe true, but then in C1, all files should look the same at the same ISO which of course they don't.

But I suspect that the real problem is that you don't like photographing in a deliberate and planned manner. That is quite possible, there are plenty of people who don't relate to this way of taking pictures: street or news photographers for example. In that case, probably the best decision is to sell both the IQ180 and the printer and do less landscape and more wildlife and action. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you like it.

I actually prefer to take pictures in a planned and deliberate manner, but I also know people who much prefer a more impulsive way. It's good: if we were all taking pictures in the same way, the world would be very boring.

No, absolutely not. I have spent hours knee-deep in the snow simply waiting for the northern lights to appear, just to get a good photograph. I've waited for hours in the baking heat of Kenya/Tanzania while waiting to see if the Cheetah/lion/leopard would do something worth photographing. I've stood in subzero temps in New Mexico at 6 AM trying with freezing fingers to get the focus right on my A7R with a Canon 70-200 lens mounted on it. All of these require patience and perseverance. I CAN therefore do the same with my MF system, provided it can do the High ISO required for both northern lights or pre-dawn scenics. I have no problems with being deliberate or slow when needed.

I guess I need to use my MF much more than I have.