Should I or not?

[Uaiomex]

This discussion reminds me of those about the articulated screen.

Some people don't want it, some people don't care and some others really want it.
Isn't better to have it and not use it than needing it and not having it?

After all, an articulated screen in park position is as good and safe as a fixed one.

Eduardo

But from what Void said these are just trending on 500pix at the moment and a look many seem to like. I think the point is the information is there in the image and while you don't have to pull every highlight and lift every shadow to emulate this look its nice to havd the information than to not. After sll, isn't that why we all purchased MFD in the first place?

 

[Pradeep]

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.

One way around this would be, as some have suggested, to simply take just the MF on a trip and nothing else, and try to use that more often overall.

 

[Shashin]

One way around this would be, as some have suggested, to simply take just the MF on a trip and nothing else, and try to use that more often overall.

:thumbs:

 

[Chris Valites]

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

I must be one of the few guys my age in the world who likes 3:2 more than 35mm, but then again, I like square the most, so what do I know? :angel:

 

[Shashin]

I must be one of the few guys my age in the world who likes 3:2 more than 35mm, but then again, I like square the most, so what do I know? :angel:

??? Um, isn't 35mm 3:2? Or do you mean 4:3?

 

[voidshatter]

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.

Sorry I have to do this, until at least some people can see that the Sony IMX094 sensor has better dynamic range than the Dalsa 80 MP sensor. Below shows how Capture One v8.1 processes the RAW files of an IQ280 and a D800E:

The IQ250 is based on the same / similar Sony CMOS tech as of the D800E. Even Phase One admits that the IQ250 has more dynamic range.

Yes of course you can disagree with dxomark, but my real world tests (with Capture One as shown above), the Phase One's website and also the data from sensorgen.info, *ALL* agree with dxomark.

 

[voidshatter]

This discussion reminds me of those about the articulated screen.

Some people don't want it, some people don't care and some others really want it.
Isn't better to have it and not use it than needing it and not having it?

After all, an articulated screen in park position is as good and safe as a fixed one.

Eduardo

Speaking the truth against common sense could get you burnt alive. Frankly speaking it's essentially all about two things:

a) Fight for residual value of outdated gear against depreciation;

b) Fight for faith to continue using outdated gear.

If you heavily invested into some exotic gear only to find it surpassed by some new mid-range gear you would of course feel uncomfortable with buyer's remorse. You would then resort to justify your expensive purchase.

This has always been true for other areas, such like computer hardware. You can buy a $1000 highend graphics card, only to find it crushed by a $600 midrange graphics card one year later. Then the second-hand re-sales value of your $1000 graphics card depreciates down to less than $400. This is how technology evolves, especially for semiconductors.

The problem here is that most users here are still using the old CCD technology, and this is not the right place to repeatedly speak positive for the new CMOS technology. My posts are more welcome in forums with younger users who haven't heavily invested into CCD bakcs.

Even if I haven't started this, someone else will do. CMOS will eventually shine.

 

[Dogs857]

:banghead:

The headache has subsided a little so I will give it one more go.

Void by your rational everyone should only ever use the absolute latest technology. Anyone who doesn't immediately buy into the hype surrounding the latest 1% improvement is just stubbornly holding onto their "outdated" "obsolete" "surpassed" equipment because they are idiots and can't see the light.

Every test you show highlights the CMOS strengths, which we all agree on. Yes it can pull shadows better than a CCD, hallelujah.

Maybe I should also buy a new car every year as the new model has slightly better performance and another cup holder. Maybe I should upgrade my computer every year because Apple puts something shiny in there, or my phone, or my tv ,or my bread maker.

There is nothing wrong with speaking positively about the CMOS sensor and how much you admire it. Start a thread labelled "CMOS IS AWESOME" and then post away. If people ask questions in threads then you can link them to your thread and let them know all the information is there. People who want to learn about CMOS (and there are plenty) can go there and be informed.

What you are doing is trolling through this forum, and populating any thread that mentions CMOS with the same data over and over again. Then you come out with statements like your last one and wonder why you are not being well received.

Yes, I am heavily invested in exotic gear, namely a tech camera and SK glass. Therefore I wouldn't buy a current 50mp sensor right now as it would mean too much of a financial investment to use it. However just because there is a new sensor out doesn't make my current one a piece of crap.

Rant over, sorry Pradeep.

 

[jagsiva]

Sorry I have to do this, until at least some people can see that the Sony IMX094 sensor has better dynamic range than the Dalsa 80 MP sensor. Below shows how Capture One v8.1 processes the RAW files of an IQ280 and a D800E:

Let me save you some time and our beloved forum some valuable disk space by completely agreeing with you that, YES, the new Sony CMOS does have better DR than the Dalsa CCD 80MP sensor.

This was never the point. If you are going to push files 4 stops to show something great, then say that, but in the proper context. I have a whole crap load of cameras here with the Sony CMOS sensor, and I know what it is capable of as do most people around here. This does not mean that it is better at EVERYTHING than the CCD Dalsa sensor. For example, go expose the two frames you've compared above properly and see which one looks better.

I don't find myself underexposing by 4 stops very often.

Speaking the truth against common sense could get you burnt alive. Frankly speaking it's essentially all about two things:

a) Fight for residual value of outdated gear against depreciation;

b) Fight for faith to continue using outdated gear.

If you heavily invested into some exotic gear only to find it surpassed by some new mid-range gear you would of course feel uncomfortable with buyer's remorse. You would then resort to justify your expensive purchase.

This has always been true for other areas, such like computer hardware. You can buy a $1000 highend graphics card, only to find it crushed by a $600 midrange graphics card one year later. Then the second-hand re-sales value of your $1000 graphics card depreciates down to less than $400. This is how technology evolves, especially for semiconductors.

The problem here is that most users here are still using the old CCD technology, and this is not the right place to repeatedly speak positive for the new CMOS technology. My posts are more welcome in forums with younger users who haven't heavily invested into CCD bakcs.

Even if I haven't started this, someone else will do. CMOS will eventually shine.

This is offensive. You are arguing a case on a slippery slope, with examples that at best make sense in peripheral cases. I responded to your original post thinking that you were actually trying to provide a balanced perspective to the OP. That appears not to be the case. Good luck with the rest of the thread.

 

[voidshatter]

Most of all I was disappointed with the upgrade policy. When I bought it I was told that the path to the next model would be very easy and relatively inexpensive. When I called a few months ago to see if I could trade in the IQ180 for the IQ250 (figuring I could put the high ISO capabilities to good use and then upgrade to the new camera body when it came out), I was told it would cost me over 20,000 to buy the IQ250 even at trade-in because it was being traded for a 'less expensive model'. Which meant that my $30,000 IQ180 was now worth less than $10,000 in just over a year. Somehow that did not make sense.

Obviously the OP has some interest in the IQ250.

if there's a picture you can't take with the IQ180, then a IQ250 won't help you either.

I was objecting this statement as I know there can be reasons to choose the IQ250 instead of the IQ180.

Obviously many current IQ180 users are trying to top-up faith for the OP to continue using the IQ180. If my different opinions are worth a ban here then this place is not worth my posts.

Void by your rational everyone should only ever use the absolute latest technology. Anyone who doesn't immediately buy into the hype surrounding the latest 1% improvement is just stubbornly holding onto their "outdated" "obsolete" "surpassed" equipment because they are idiots and can't see the light.

1 stop of dynamic range improvement means 200% improvement (i.e. D800E/IQ250 vs IQ280, normalized by down-sampling, for short exposure shots)

3 stops of dynamic range improvement means 800% improvement (i.e. D800E/IQ250 vs IQ280, at pixel peeping level, for long exposure shots)

I have never said that your gear is crap. Indeed I envy that you have the light-weighted Schneider SK lenses with symmetric design (nicely flare resistant and virtually distortion free). The P45+ also performs better than the IQ260 in the long exposure territory (I just didn't publish the horrible test results of IQ260 in long exposure because that would harm it further). I totally agree that your gear can produce very decent images, perhaps even better than the IQ260+Roddie combo.

What could be wrong if I share different opinions for new users to see what's latest and what's available? You repeat the same sentences, I repeat the same figures. Let the audiences decide which one to choose. Why don't you start a thread saying CCD is awesome? Just because you have more people on your side doesn't mean CMOS is bad. I may leave this forum, but time will tell the residual values of the current digital backs.

 

[voidshatter]

I don't find myself underexposing by 4 stops very often.

FYI, Hans Kruse does it a lot. I agree that he uses bracketing and he could fix it when shadow noise is beyond control, but I also said that there are cases where alignment could be of a real problem for bracketing.

This is offensive. You are arguing a case on a slippery slope, with examples that at best make sense in peripheral cases. I responded to your original post thinking that you were actually trying to provide a balanced perspective to the OP. That appears not to be the case. Good luck with the rest of the thread.

I don't stop you from providing a balanced perspective to the OP. You are more than welcome to post comparisons between the IQ180 and the D800E/IQ250 Sony CMOS side by side. Same composition, same date and time. This is much better than talkings of the claimed superiority of one gear over the other.

 

[Ken_R]

You seem to contradict yourself. You mentioned that "many" do not like, countered by evidence that indeed these were liked by many, then you routed to judge at a higher level.

This reminds me about Emily Soto. Many other Vogue photographers overlooked her. But time told things. She eventually became popular, and the other oldskool photographers are just jealous of her success.

In the film era no one shot any landscape of the milky way with foreground in a single exposure. Now with the advancement of technology people start to shoot that kind of pictures, and those are indeed very popular pictures. Even iPhone use that kind of pictures as default wallpapers. If you ever observed the milky way with your human eye you would have known that those pictures are not "real" either. Can you do that easily with a CCD (i.e. single exposure with foreground)?

Technology is evolving, and rules are changing... Rangefinder became popular. SLR replaced rangefinder. Mirrorless might eventually replace DSLR. CMOS might eventually replace CCD.

True. But photographers choose the tool they want to do what they want how they want. Awesome that there are more, and more versatile, tools at our disposal now.

The HDR look is nice but it is not the be all end all of photography. In certain circles, like landscape photography it is indeed extremely popular.

But man, it is a bit disturbing that all of the images you posted look like they were made by the same photographer even though they were not.

Yes, the CCD backs can't do a lot of things as good as the new Sony sensors like you have illustrated in almost every thread you participate in but man does not mean they can't do a LOT of things amazingly well and be used to produce stunning and very successful images.

 

[jianghai]

Not my image.

 

[Dogs857]

This is a bit unfair.

Void has provided a lot of useful information in this forum for those looking at the new CMOS backs. Especially with regards to movements and technical cameras. I, and I am sure a lot of others, thank him for this as it saves us a lot of time and potential heartache.

My issue has always been the way he tends to dominate threads with the same information. As such I don't consider him a troll (even though I used the word trolling) but rather just a little inconsiderate in the language he uses and the repeated posts.

I think we would lose a valuable resource if Void left the forum, I just wish he would tone it down a bit when the discussion is not really about CMOS v CCD per say.

 

[fotografz]

Obviously the OP has some interest in the IQ250.

I was objecting this statement as I know there can be reasons to choose the IQ250 instead of the IQ180.

Obviously many current IQ180 users are trying to top-up faith for the OP to continue using the IQ180. If my different opinions are worth a ban here then this place is not worth my posts.


1 stop of dynamic range improvement means 200% improvement (i.e. D800E/IQ250 vs IQ280, normalized by down-sampling, for short exposure shots)

3 stops of dynamic range improvement means 800% improvement (i.e. D800E/IQ250 vs IQ280, at pixel peeping level, for long exposure shots)

I have never said that your gear is crap. Indeed I envy that you have the light-weighted Schneider SK lenses with symmetric design (nicely flare resistant and virtually distortion free). The P45+ also performs better than the IQ260 in the long exposure territory (I just didn't publish the horrible test results of IQ260 in long exposure because that would harm it further). I totally agree that your gear can produce very decent images, perhaps even better than the IQ260+Roddie combo.

What could be wrong if I share different opinions for new users to see what's latest and what's available? You repeat the same sentences, I repeat the same figures. Let the audiences decide which one to choose. Why don't you start a thread saying CCD is awesome? Just because you have more people on your side doesn't mean CMOS is bad. I may leave this forum, but time will tell the residual values of the current digital backs.

Void, I doubt that anyone interested in MFD is disappointed that the manufacturers are producing CMOS backs/cameras.

This has been a wish for some time now, and the makers are full-filling it thanks to Sony. It definitely breaths new life into the category, especially for those who do specific types of photography and enjoy working with a larger sensor. It also has a better chance of attracting smaller format users to MFD, since the functional aspects and attributes are more familiar.

Most MFD users are probably quite familiar with CMOS functional advantages due to use of, or familiarity with, high res 35mm type CMOS cameras ... again, thanks to Sony sensors.

So, I think your enthusiasm for the 50 meg MFD Sony CMOS offerings is warranted. However, that enthusiasm is continually used to discount or vilify some specialized choices that people made to accomplish specific work.

If the CMOS MFD offering(s) better solves the person's technical requirements or creative needs, then it is most certainly a viable consideration. If it doesn't, then it is a waste of money, and a waste of time worrying about it. In my specific case it brings nothing to the party for what and how I shoot. For others it may be a God sent.

As to residual value, I again state that the ONLY value in this exotic gear is in the using. A crop frame CMOS back for a 645 system may well become an exceedingly poor investment if the manufacturers offer a FF 645 CMOS back in the near future ... which is highly likely in order to combat the impending rash of 50 meg 35mm cameras that is on the horizon.

Personally, if I were buying a DB, I would NOT invest in a Crop Frame 50 meg one. Been there, done that with CCD backs and APSc in 35mm.

Now a 80 or 100 meg FF CMOS would catch my attention. Or, in my case a 60 or 70 meg CMOSIS in the Leica S system I now use. Since Leica chose to keep the new S(007) CMOS sensor meg count the same as the S2 and S(006), I will keep my S(006) CCD camera and put my money into more glass ... (recently adding the yummy S-100/2 :thumbs If my technical requirements or creative needs change in future, then I'm pleased that Leica will have the CMOS choice to consider.

- Marc

 

[gazwas]

I think this and serveal other recent posts by Void have been very interesting and informative. Very much in the essence of getdpi in they are from very informed oppinions of real users rather than that of dealers alone. Calling such a person a troll who FREELY provides such a wealth of information is both deeply offensive and childish and if anyone should be reined in are the 'troll callers' just because they don't agree with Voids opinion.

Sure Void is very vocal but rather than comments complaining about his participation, trolling, him being a headache or repetative, why not just go elsewhere to avoid your annoyance and let us others appreciate his posts. I don't think he has evey said an IQ180 is rubbish and current owners of CCD chipped backs stupid for using them. He has stated in the right conditions the IQ180 is still king of quality, however n the context of the OP has suggested the OP might want to try a CMOS chipped back/camera over their current CCD one so to enable continued enjoyment if MF photography.

 

[Paul2660]

Not my image.

Void ain't no troll. He is a very intelligent person who has taken a ton of time to post his findings. I find it sad that some people would such as being a troll.

Every person can make choices and the information he has provided will make it easier for someone to see the differences between the performance of a CCD chip and CMOS.

For most people, the purchase of a Phase One back should not be a decision taken lightly, it wasn't for me. I challenge anyone on this site to find 10% of the information he has shown on Phase One's site, it's not there we all know that. Sure the dealer community will let you rent a back and test it, (but for some of us that is not as easy as it sounds). I commend Leaf for letting Guy have the Credo 50 for his review as it was very enlightening for me as to the capabilities of the 50MP chip. I personally disagree with the opinion that Phase One shouldn't have to provide any information, it's up to the dealers. That's not how I see a leading company to handle this.

Many have stated, that there has been a ton of information on this already. In reality there really hasn't been a ton of information on this. Look at the timeline:

Jan/Feb of 2014 the 250 was announced
Soon after DT released some tests taken indoors in a library
LuLa published a white paper by DT expanding on the tech and why the Phase
was special
I don't know of really any other tests.

Soon word of mouth spread about crosstalk and just how terrible it was and within a week or so, it was just an automatic decision that the 250/150 could not be used in outdoor shooting situations with movements due to crosstalk. But no one every really published anything showing this that I am aware of, if so please point me there. Crosstalk effects all sensors, or at least most of them, I know it effects the 260, as I can see the effects on blue skies with extreme shifts.

I for one GREATLY appreciate the posts made by Void has made for several reasons. As far as I know his posts and Guy's testing of the Credo 50 are the first ones to show that the 50MP CMOS chips can work with movements past 10mm outdoors. The time he took to both shoot all of this and then work it up into a well written post is commendable.

It has for sure changed my opinion on if I could use a 250 in my outdoor work, with movements.

Again, I find the use of the term "troll" very offensive in this situation and extremely short sighted. This is a public forum about medium format cameras and he has provided nothing but facts, facts that he has backed up with images.

I see the information, I can read it, and make my decision where it matters in my next purchase.

Paul

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Void I don't really agree with your last post with a images that are not white balanced and one is green than saying the green is blown out. Also the D800e looks like mush and/or the luminance value is so high it lost all its detail. Problem is we are not sure of the processing and I do think we all agree the DR is higher in the CMOS chip . But I'm not going to sit here and argue these points it's just a circle of confusion that gets us nowhere. We all know CMOS will have better high ISO values as well, no one disputes that.

Now from a owner of 5 CCD backs. P25, P30, P40, P65 temporary, IQ 140 and IQ 160 and shot the IQ 180 many times, the real bottom line on CCD backs is really all about color depth and tonality. Having said that I tested and posted right here a big test on the Credo 50 and I really liked it a lot. My take away from it was highlights blew faster than I can remember than CCD but outside the higher ISO and DR abilities it still lacked to a small degree the color depth. Now this is not a scientific statement but a gut feeling as I did not do anything directly against a CCD but I will say its a great start for MF CMOS. Is it the be all, have to say no but it is damn close. Like Marc when the FF CMOS bigger chips hit the market it might be way to hard to resist. Now having said all that CMOS in MF is something we all been screaming for a long time since it brings us better live view , higher ISO values, and some better DR. Every MF shooter all agree with my last comments that's what CMOS can bring. Here is the rub as good as the IQ 180 is and it's very very good its a worthless piece of junk in a upgrade path. Phase shut those folks out from doing a lateral trade to the CMOS backs, so it leaves guys like the OP here scratching there head as the value keeps dropping, it maybe called a dinosaur at this point but it still performs to the upmost quality standards. Seriously as far as detail in a image nothing can touch it. But it does have other limitations that lends itself to lower ISO values and slightly less DR which frankly IMHO is such a overrated argument for DR. Anyone worth there salt can pull detail with good technique and raw process. Hell I have to add black to almost any Sony A7r image I take. Otherwise it looks to flat.

The real issue here with the OP and other IQ 180 users is there stuck with a older CCD back which still performs amazingly well but its depreciation is killing there mind set. Which I totally understand the value part even though they can use it till it dies. But I digress the real issue here is the OP and that's what we as a forum need to address is he is having a hard time with its use and getting great images from it. This is the real problem as its a expensive paper weight to him. That is not a good thing at all. Plus it's dropping value faster than ants eat a piece of bread. I totally understand his dilemma. Been here done that and lost money doing it. That's not fun anymore

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW I'm not crazy about the troll comments folks these are insults that need to be left off this forum. You all know how this forum runs and that don't fly well. As owner/moderator lets leave those at the door. You can always like anything else change the channel and ignore it.

Let's get back to the topic at hand because there are many folks in these kinds of situations that need some good advice.

 

[algrove]

I sold my P45+ that I loved, but when the upgrade path went price crazy I have now switched to the 645Z and could not be happier. It even works well with my Hasselblad V lenses with Fotodoix adapter which for me is a plus.

The Pentax 55/2.8 (44mm equiv) is super sharp and well sealed as is the Pentax 28-45 (22-35 equiv) and both work well for landscape. For portariure the 150/2.8 (120mm equiv) will be my next lens.