Should I or not?

[algrove]

Yes on the S2, but usually good prices in this medium mean old technology. If that's what one likes then go for old technology.

For myself I decided to make the CMOS jump and bought some weather sealed lenses to go with my new weather sealed system based on the 645Z.

 

[jlm]

Something not to overlook is the technical part of a tech camera
I find i use shifts for perspective control in most shots especially with wides, tilts less so but they are so useful

 

[vjbelle]

I was sure in the same position as the OP and worked with Dave at C1..... finally purchasing a Leaf Credo 50 and have never regretted it. I also have an IQ180 which I pondered what to do with. Of course I posed all of this to Dave and he offered me a cash buyout which I felt was fair but decided to keep the back because I was counseled that it would be worth more in trade than the cash offer. I don't use it much any more having been spoiled with the incredible live view of the Credo. I also haven't been bothered with the crop factor and have never had a time when I wished for FF but that is just me and wouldn't necessarily apply to others. My usual print size is at least 40 inches in the long direction and I have never been disappointed with the detail of 50MP vs 80MP..... and I'm a real finicky printer. Its just my 2 cents but may help the OP a little.

Victor

 

[fotografz]

I agree, except you can find used S2 for very good prices.
But I also would probably wait until we see how the new sensor in the S 007 will work.

It all depends on how much money one has to work with. A mint S2P for $7K+/- verses $25.4K for the up-coming S (007) leaves a LOT of money to get the S or CS lenses ... which is the reason to get any S in the first place.

The new CMOS S(007) still hasn't hit the streets, and if it's like most Leica new tech, it will take a year+ to sort out.

Even if the used S2 drops from $7K to $5K, (at which point, I'll buy a back-up), that's a $2K depreciation in approx. a year ... where a new S (007) will drop that much or more the minute you take it out of the box.

This chasing new new tech is what cost so darned much in MFD. It is an endless circle until you stop it yourself, and just work with what you have.

Now lenses are another matter altogether

- MARC

 

[Geoff]

I think the number one thing that many photographers (including those in Dante's Inferno) forget---- is the pure enjoyment of photography; the process and the magic that generates the excitement to participate as a photographer.

It doesn't matter if a camera or a sensor is "the best" if it doesn't give you the enjoyment in the process we call photography. And maybe some of that can be addressed by knowing/learning how to use equipment better. But the end result is the same: if the camera or process doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, you've lost a large part of that magic and excitement that made you want to participate as a photographer.

For myself, I purchased the Sony A7r (yes, a Sony branded sensor that Void keeps pushing. Is he a paid Sony representative? ) And guess what? I disliked it----a lot. Never mind this "wonderful sensor"---the camera lacked the magic in the process. I converted it to IR/full spectrum, and the magic came back. And yes, I've shot with the IQ250---and guess what? For me there was no magic! The point here is to shoot with whatever gives you the most enjoyment in the process---whether that is a Sony RX1 or a Phase MFDB.

If you want to exploit the weakness of a particular camera or sensor---you can do exactly that (as Void has done). But honestly, in the many years I have shot with MFDBs (645M, P30, P45+, P65+, IQ180----yes in the realm of the greatest of enablers ) I have rarely, if ever, run across a situation where I felt confined as a photographer or wishing, damn, I wish I had a MFDB with a CMOS sensor. I guess I'm used to working with the tools I have in any given situation and making it work. It's called photography and I enjoy the process.

And you can easily find some incredible work here---Dan Lindberg comes quickly to my mind, and even when he was using an older generation MFDB, you could hardly say his photography was constrained by the sensor. His talent and eye for composition simply sings. *wow* not a Sony sensor in sight!

The membership rolls here in Dante's Inferno places everyone in what I call "rarefied air." I think a fair bet is that the demographic is middle-aged or older, well-educated, and lives fairly comfortably compared to our counterparts confined to lesser-endowed Nikon and Canon brands :ROTFL: We're pretty damned lucky, with even older generation MFDBs holding their ground well against recent generation DSLRs. Presumably those that invested in MFDBs did so with a particular purpose in mind, and I know for me that enjoyment in the process continues to be a large part of why I use a MFDB.

I'm not particularly fond of the Phase DF---it works, and I know all the foibles to make it work well. And yes, a new Phase body is definitely on the way soon. I very much enjoy using the IQ180 on a Cambo, and think I enjoy it more each time I use it. I've recently adapted my lenses to use the xume system to allow me to use filters more easily, not because I need to, but because it's part of the process I enjoy.

Changing to a Sony CMOS sensor will not change that. If I bought an IQ150/250, it would be to use live view on a Cambo Actus (yes, John Milich's fault). But the interest is in the process, not the sensor.

So my advice is to ignore the Voidshatter inspired rants and raves over Sony CMOS sensored MFDBs. Ignore the calls for a new technical camera or a particular platform. Go back and find what inspires you to participate in this thing we call photography. If you enjoy the process and make beautiful imagery, everything else will fall into place. If that means leaving the MFDB world behind, do it. If it means buying a new CMOS MFDB, do it. Life is short, and in the scheme of things, photography is a rather small investment that can give a lot of enjoyment.

Or you can get a boat. :ROTFL:

ken

+1. There is something common in this thread: the MFDB experience is a bit unusual, has limits (what doesn't) and there are many things it doesn't do well. What it does well can't be replicated by other approaches, and it is for these reasons those of us who like it aren't inclined to give it up.

Its a bit like LF, 4x5 or 8x10. Nothing else does the trick, its hard as heck to do well, but very satisfying. After one has been shooting for many years (decades) the interest in the next fast shot wanes, with the more important issue being "is this shot worthwhile?". And its in that 1%, the pursuit of the best you can be, that MFDB can be a good friend.

There are other places to do one's work, and to grow: I can't imagine Cartier-Bresson shooting with MFDB, so its not for everyone. If, however, you have a hankering to grow into work that looks like the work (like Dan Lindberg and others) are doing, then it might just help pull you along.

 

[Pradeep]

After reading this and to speed things up and more important get to a level of accuracy that you can see easier, focus easier and know you nailed it than a CMOS sensor like the Credo 50 or IQ 250 maybe a better solution. You hit live view on the backs and the mirror locks up and your exactly on live view mode via like Nikon, a Canon and Sony. When I tested the Credo 50 on the DF I never even looked in the finder. Lol

It seriously made the process easier and you want to stick with the highest pixel count as possible than this maybe the answer.

Now crop factor vs FF a endless debate no question but having several crop factor backs and FF it really is just a lens thing. For the DF and the 28mm your actually better off cutting off the corners and you get I think like a 33mm framing. Still wide and worst case you can do a Pano. Now everything becomes longer obviously but there are many folks shooting crop backs and very pleased with them. I made these choices several times even went from a 160 to a 140 with and without a tech cam and it really was not as bad as I thought.

My whole reasoning here is you still stay in MF here without dropping down to 35 and you get the benefit of CMOS 35mm. Yes you will take a bath on the upgrade which I think sucks big time but you do gain a lot of functionality but more important for you it may just make your life and images a lot better. Again get one in your hands and try it first. Now I'm Going to say something I should not say , you went to a workshop where the premise is to buy not really to understand the system first, frankly they did you a disservice and yes I taught one of there workshops and they are fun but they are all about sales, not about teaching you how to really work with them. Plug here, our workshops are about teaching not buying. There is a difference. Honestly this maybe your best option and you gain functionality, speed, accuracy and a little easier to feel comfortable with. This is not a CCD vs CMOS debate far from it but one to help you and that's why you asked in the first place. I'm reading all your options and posts and that Guys conclusion, right or wrong but the way I see it.

Thank you Guy.

BTW, the workshop was simply a photo trip organized by a pro that I've gone with before. There was no indication that Phase One would be there with their trial kits and a sales person. I had read a little about the fabulous digital backs from Phase and found the idea quite appealing. Couple that with the intense enthusiasm shown by those who had bought the system previously, I was hooked. Again, the decision was all mine.

I don't want to be chasing a mirage forever. To me it appears that switching to the CMOS crop sensor (be it the Phase or Credo) is going to be equally complicated and expensive. It is not as if the IQ250 costs a few thousand only, even at trade-in, I will have to pay around $20K or so I am told. And then the FF CMOS comes along (or something else that is 'better') and I am lusting for an upgrade again.

Another option would be to simply ditch everything from Phase and switch to Leica S or Pentax 645Z, but I am not convinced that the quality is the same or even close. My own experience with Leica (M9 and M240) is that again there is more hype than substance. I don't mind the expense as long it buys me something worthwhile. That too is subjective, I know. But I no longer feel like buying a pair of Ferragamo shoes simply to show off the logo.

 

[Pradeep]

On my ancient H4D-50, I just point the AF zone at a feature with sufficient detail, press the AF button and the AF is set where I want. It rarely misses, even when checked afterwards on the computer. I can't imagine that Phase One would be that much worse. Maybe your camera needs to be calibrated?

Yes, it works, but only up to a point. Given the large sensor, for a full DOF, I found it better to use hyperfocal guides with manual focus.

I can't imagine that to be true. OK: maybe it is true, in which case you have all reasons to be furious, but you should definitely check.

Well... yes, but that would be a problem with any camera on a tripod. And I am sure that you do not take all your landscape near train tracks, so...

In C1 I have to manually pick that lens every time.

And no, the problem is not with any camera. I've shot from the same spot for years and on a weekend night you cannot get to the railing, there are so many photographers about. I have super sharp images from my Canon and Sony A7R even with the train thundering past (BTW, the bridge is at least 100 feet away).

Actually, this may be your best choice: get a 645z. You appear to have sufficient financial ease for this proposition to make sense: you get the Pentax as a second camera, try both in parallel, and sell the one you don't like in 6 months.

It's a thought.

 

[Pradeep]

So my advice is to ignore the Voidshatter inspired rants and raves over Sony CMOS sensored MFDBs. Ignore the calls for a new technical camera or a particular platform. Go back and find what inspires you to participate in this thing we call photography. If you enjoy the process and make beautiful imagery, everything else will fall into place. If that means leaving the MFDB world behind, do it. If it means buying a new CMOS MFDB, do it. Life is short, and in the scheme of things, photography is a rather small investment that can give a lot of enjoyment.

Or you can get a boat. :ROTFL:

ken

Been there, almost done that

I agree, it's all about the moment. Freezing fingers (or other more sensitive parts) or not, it is the excitement while the image is being made that does it for me.

In the end, it is also about the 'eye'. A great photo can be made with a toy camera. I bet Ritchie Blackmore would blow me away with a $100 guitar.

 

[jerome_m]

And no, the problem is not with any camera. I've shot from the same spot for years and on a weekend night you cannot get to the railing, there are so many photographers about. I have super sharp images from my Canon and Sony A7R even with the train thundering past (BTW, the bridge is at least 100 feet away).

If you took the images with the A7R at the same shutter speed and they are much sharper than the images from the Phase1 camera, there may be a problem with your tripod. Even if you have a fancy tripod, I have seen random vibration happen because of unbalanced heads or even poor design of the camera attachment. It may be worth trying another tripod/head to see if you have the same problems.

But maybe you wanted to say that the Sony was super sharp because you could use it at iso 1 zillion and get a fast shutter speed, I don't know...

 

[Paratom]

Thank you Guy.

...
Another option would be to simply ditch everything from Phase and switch to Leica S or Pentax 645Z, but I am not convinced that the quality is the same or even close. My own experience with Leica (M9 and M240) is that again there is more hype than substance. I don't mind the expense as long it buys me something worthwhile. That too is subjective, I know. But I no longer feel like buying a pair of Ferragamo shoes simply to show off the logo.

You could allways get a demo for a weekend and make your own opinion and see what works for you and what does not.

However, to me you sound a bit like you want the latest, greatest and biggest, otherwise you might have the feeling to not have maximized IQ.

Maybe it would be worth to analyze first what exactly does not work with your current gear/ find out the exact reason why you are not satisfied. Is it the phase body doesn't suit you in regards of handling? Does the back not deliver (in which particular regard and would an upgrade to another back change anything?), or are you just upset that the upgrade is so expensive? Or something else?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have similar considerations. My experience is shooting P45+ on Hasselbald V-series for 20 months. The other equipment I am shooting is Sony Alpha 99 and 77.

What I have found is that I have a resolution advantage with the P45+, 39 MP vs 24 MP. That advantage is very real.

The minus side is that I don't necessarily feel that the images are any better my normal print size which is A2 (16x23") . Going to A1 the resolution advantage is probably obvious, but I seldom print that large.

On my recent exhibit with pictures from alpine landscapes, not a single P45+ image made it to the wall. Part of that is that I don't carry dual gear to all places. On the other hand, would I show images from where i live I guess I would have hanged quite a few P45+ images. Here I just walk around and make just a few images, gives me peace of mind. I often shoot with the P45+ and I am quite happy with the result.

The way I see it, using the old style equipment is a bit of fun, but it may be that to much effort is going into making the pictures. They tend to be a bit boring. With DSLR my images are more lively.

So, what I feel is that I really enjoy shooting MFD, but it may be I am making better images with DSLR.

There is no gain in image quality with MFD. The resolution advantage is clearly there, but it may only be visible in large print.

For me it is easy, I have an MFD gear and I will continue using it. But my main, real world gear is still 135 digital, FF and APS-C.

Some P45+ pictures from today:

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This is an interesting point. I have been shooting with a P45+ on a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a 120/4 Macro Planar. I am quite religious about prereleasing the mirror.

What I found when I missed MLU in that series is that image without MLU was absolutely useless, although I was standing on a rock with an RRS 33 series tripod and an Arca Swiss D4 head.

Many great shots were made hand held with Hasselblads, but we live in a new era of pixel peeping, where systems easily are taken to the limit.

Best regards
Erik

One other point with a IQ 180 is your not doing it any favors by throwing good glass on it you really need to throw the best in class at it. With that DF back you need to pick up the mirror and take any vibration out if it to gain the best results. The IQ 180 requires the best technique you can muster.

 

[algrove]

I too when using a Hassy 503CW with P45+ for 3 years , where mirror lock-up was not used the images were useless.

 

[voidshatter]

The greatest thing I love the most about my 180 is the ability to capture in 35ISO.

Coming back to the topic, I have come to believe the IQ280 (or IQ180) is meant for a singular purpose: To make the cleanest possible images at ISO35 with planned, proper exposures.

With all due respect, I know you make great images out of the IQ180 and I know many people like it so much. I don't mean to start a flame here but I am a tech geek and I always try to dig the technical details so I hope you excuse my unpleasing talks.

I'm not a fan of the Dalsa CCD sensors so I see it the other way around. I regard this ISO 35 setting a "drawback" instead of an advantage, because anything below ISO 100 on the IQ180 is just extended ISO, and Phase One is not honest enough to comment that these are extended ISO as Canon or Nikon does. This ISO 35 is purely a marketing hype. You will not get better image if you shoot at ISO 35 than you shoot at ISO 100 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The real lowest native ISO setting on the IQ180 is indeed ISO 100. From ISO 100 and onward (above) on the IQ180 the actually measured ISO is significantly below the claimed ISO, making it a poor choice for scenes where light is dim and shutter speed is a constraint (e.g. the OP's situation). The only possible advantage of having a measured ISO well below the manufacturer claimed ISO is to increase the exposure time without blowing out highlight, but long exposure is not the strength of the IQ180 or any other Dalsa CCD sensors.

Below shows my tests at ISO 35 and ISO 100 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The shadow SNR stays the same. The highlight details are also the same.

If you look into dxomark then you would be able to find that the measured ISO only starts to increase when the manufacturer ISO is at ISO 100 or above.

Here is an illustration of native ISO and extended ISO. For the same aperture and shutter speed, you do not get different image quality if the measured ISO stays the same. You can even verify this with Raw Digger (check the same spot - do they share the same levels?). It doesn't matter how far the blue line deviates from the red line. Some cameras do not offer the orange line. Some cameras do not offer the green line. Some cameras get the blue line closer to the red line. These do not affect the fact that only the blue line is the native ISO range.

The IQ180 has four native ISO settings: 100, 200, 400 and 800 (or including 1600 and 3200 if you count sensor+). Shooting an IQ280 at ISO 35 is just like shooting a D810 at ISO 32, self-deception.

On the other hand, the Kodak CCD is different: the P45+ has two native ISO settings: 50 and 100. Shooting a P45+ at ISO 50 is as real as shooting a D810 at ISO 64. (i.e. you gain better image quality than you shoot at higher ISO)

ISO 35 setting (manufacturer ISO 35) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 29.
ISO 100 setting (manufacturer ISO 100) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 29.
ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 60.
ISO 400 setting (manufacturer ISO 400) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 400 but the measured ISO is 120.

ISO 140 setting (manufacturer ISO 140) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 89.
ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 89.
ISO 400 setting (manufacturer ISO 400) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 400 but the measured ISO is 178.
ISO 800 setting (manufacturer ISO 800) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 800 but the measured ISO is 360.

ISO 50 setting (manufacturer ISO 50) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 50 but the measured ISO is 48.
ISO 100 setting (manufacturer ISO 100) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 95.
ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 95.
ISO 400 setting (manufacturer ISO 400) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 95.

Yes, of course you get the cleanest image at ISO 35 on the IQ180 (as clean as ISO 100 on the IQ180, not cleaner), but it is not as clean as what you can get from a Sony CMOS sensor at ISO 100 or even ISO 64 (I've spent too many conversations on the dynamic range and shadow SNR comparison between the IQ280 and the D800E/IQ250 already).

 

[kdphotography]

So, how is that Fuji GX680?

 

[GrahamWelland]

As Stephen Stills said "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" ...

 

[jianghai]

I've read this thread keenly, with great interest, being in a similar situation as the OP, although I don't have his purchasing power. IMHO this discussion isn't really about IQ180 vs 250 vs 160, or DR or Dalsa vs Sony. So IMHO (again) those discussions are a definitely OT. Here's my 2c:

TL;DR in quotes

Medium format is slower, especially MFDSLR
There is simply no getting around it, the mirror for 645 is ~1.6x larger in linear dimensions than the 135 mirror. Mirror slap is massive, so working with MF is necessarily slower. When handheld, even at ≥1/focal length speeds I have the DF+ set for 0.5s MUP, just in case. Due to lack of R&D (smaller market, requiring higher margins) MFDSLRs apart from the 645z have primitive AF systems with mostly one AF point. Horrible, but one can work around it. There really isn't quite the "hop out of the car and snap a few shots" scenario here, especially when one considers the abysmal ISOs available for most MFDBs. Combined with the smaller DOF in a larger format, and the rarity of fast (>2.0) lenses available means that MF requires more light than 135.

None of this is new BTW, this always existed when film was the dominant medium. Larger formats = more light required, though with larger formats one could argue that the photographer could use higher ISO film and get away with it due to lower enlargement required (still true with digital BTW, though 135 digital has much better ISO performance than MF).

So to the OP, that part of life is unavoidable, one just has to adjust to it. If you would like I'll take that IQ180 off your hands for that 10k trade in amount

Tech cams are even slower
This has already been covered, but yes tech cams are less well integrated than SLRs. sync cables, LCCs, hyperfocal focusing (or ground glass) etc etc etc. May not be what you are looking for. What I personally would like is a m4/3, A7 or Fuji style mirrorless MF camera.

Why the Sony 44x33 sensor is not my answer
When I went chasing after the MFDB "dream", my objective was sensor size first, resolution second. I dislike using "full frame" to refer to the 54x40 sensors (actually by my calculation 1.1x crop from actual film size, hooray for marketing), which for someone who would prefer to shoot 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 is already medium format. Anyways that is the largest sensor size available. Here's why I think 44x33 isn't worthwhile IMO:

By my calculation 24x36 is ~1.25x crop factor from 44x33 (of course due to ratio differences that is necessarily an estimate) while it is ~1.55x crop from 54x40. This is equivalent to the difference between the Canon 1Dx to the 1D4 (1.3 crop) and to the APS-C cameras. Whether you see the differences between these formats is up to you but in my experience a 1.3 crop isn't particularly significant.

So basically you're paying for 1.5x (linear) penalty for size (mirror and shutter) and gaining only 1.25x in linear sensor size. IMHO that is not worthwhile and I would rather go for the D810, A7 or even the upcoming 5Dr - much smaller mirror & shutter translate to more usability, along with more R&D money that translates into better bodies. Sorry to the Sony evangelist(s) on the forum, I'd rather save a *large* stack of dough and go with 135 for that format. Marginal benefits do not outweigh the advantages IMO.

So while I still haven't come to a conclusion on my own uses for MFDB, I think that for the OP what I would suggest is try bringing just the DF+ and IQ180 into the field, and compliment it with an large sensor compact like the Panasonic LX100 for more casual shots. And definitely get a few more lenses. And if you are careful and creative, you can bring more than you think into the "field". I use a Domke F-5xc for my lenses when I'm out. It is a tiny bag, but holds the 35mm, 55mm LS, 80mm LS, 150/2.8D AND the 210mm (and appropriate additional dividers). Perhaps that may help with the dilemma of size?

Apologies for the long post, but hope that was helpful.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I think that when you consider crop factors with MFDB's and 35mm that you also consider the difference in sensor aspect ratio.

 

[voidshatter]

Why the Sony 44x33 sensor is not my answer
When I went chasing after the MFDB "dream", my objective was sensor size first, resolution second. I dislike using "full frame" to refer to the 54x40 sensors (actually by my calculation 1.1x crop from actual film size, hooray for marketing), which for someone who would prefer to shoot 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 is already medium format. Anyways that is the largest sensor size available. Here's why I think 44x33 isn't worthwhile IMO:

By my calculation 24x36 is ~1.25x crop factor from 44x33 (of course due to ratio differences that is necessarily an estimate) while it is ~1.55x crop from 54x40. This is equivalent to the difference between the Canon 1Dx to the 1D4 (1.3 crop) and to the APS-C cameras. Whether you see the differences between these formats is up to you but in my experience a 1.3 crop isn't particularly significant.

So basically you're paying for 1.5x (linear) penalty for size (mirror and shutter) and gaining only 1.25x in linear sensor size. IMHO that is not worthwhile and I would rather go for the D810, A7 or even the upcoming 5Dr - much smaller mirror & shutter translate to more usability, along with more R&D money that translates into better bodies. Sorry to the Sony evangelist(s) on the forum, I'd rather save a *large* stack of dough and go with 135 for that format. Marginal benefits do not outweigh the advantages IMO.

I fully understand your enthusiasm in sensor size. I've been there, done that.

By calculations,

54x40mm vs 44x33mm:

(54^2+40^2)^.5/(44^2+33^2)^.5
= 1.22

44x33mm vs 36x24mm:

(44^2+33^2)^.5/(36^2+24^2)^.5
= 1.27

54x40mm vs 44x33mm:

54*40/44/33
= 1.49

44x33mm vs 36x24mm:

44*33/36/24
= 1.68

In my opinion the improvement from 44x33mm towards 54x40mm is even more marginal when compared against the improvement from 36x24mm towards 44x33mm. For a dedicated long exposure user on a technical camera it's not worth it to pursuit the extra sensor size in the 54x40mm format at this stage at the cost of losing Live View and shadow SNR (3 stops of DR / with alignment issues for bracketing) and the flexibility to avoid darkframe NR.

I totally agree that you better off spend the money in the 35mm format systems for greater values. The problem is that you will never have the wide angle lenses with quality anywhere close to the Rodenstock / Schneider.

I am currently shooting with an IQ250 + 23HR combo. The angle of view is equivalent as a Canon 5DS + 17mm f/4 L TS-E.

Below is a sample image from Canon's official website taken by a 5DS and a 17mm f/4 L TS-E lens.

I do not have a direct side by side comparison yet, but what I can tell is that such corner sharpness is nowhere on par with a technical camera. It is widely known that the 17mm TS-E has softer corners than the 24mm TS-E, and Gerald has also confirmed that the 23HR has a sharper corner than the 24mm TS-E.

For long exposure photographers, filter system is also something that has to be considered carefully. For the 17mm TS-E the only reliable choice without light leakage issues is the huge monstrous 145mm Fotodiox filter system with very limited choices of filters, and there is no centerfilter to counter any vignetting caused by the ND filter. For the 23HR on the other hand, we have mature and reliable 100mm Lee filter systems, as well as 95mm ND filters from Singh-Ray to couple with the centerfilter to offset vignetting. If you ask any landscape photographer what they feel about trying to get appropriate filters for bulb lenses (such like the Canon 17mm TS-E) most of their answers would be "annoying".

When it all comes down to image quality, I know that for my dedicated long exposure shots the IQ260 cannot produce better images than a D800E / D5300 can (3 stops less DR, darkframe NR, tiling issue, no real Live View, alignment issue for bracketing etc), so that is regarded as sunk cost. Lesson learnt. Hit taken. Deceiving myself that "come on, it's the largest sensor" didn't work for long. I had to move to something that yields better image quality. After all, the most satisfying achievement is the pixel peeping enjoyment, rather than the EXIF data showing off that my size is bigger. To me at this stage the larger Dalsa CCD sensors are kinda similar as picking the film in 8x10 - older technology, less flexibility. You will know by yourself whether there is a bitter pill to swallow when you compare your images side by side against a D800E (e.g. shadow noise).

MFDB is not cheap. We all suffer from diminishing returns. It's the inferno after all. Phase One's upgrading policy would not let anyone to do a downgrade. You can only move from a lower pixel count towards a higher or equal pixel count. Any "downgrade / cross-grade" would incur a significant loss for the buyer. For new buyers I would say that at this stage indeed the 44x33mm CMOS back would be perhaps the safest choice as an upgrade path would always be open should there be another fullframe CMOS back announced in the near future. If you pick the 60 MP Dalsa or even the 80 MP Dalsa, there is a risk that you lose the choice to move to a fullframe CMOS sensor with lower pixel count (for technical camera compatibility) *if* there is such one.

 

[Dogs857]

For new buyers I would say that at this stage indeed the 44x33mm CMOS back would be perhaps the safest choice as an upgrade path would always be open should there be another fullframe CMOS back announced in the near future. If you pick the 60 MP Dalsa or even the 80 MP Dalsa, there is a risk that you lose the choice to move to a fullframe CMOS sensor with lower pixel count (for technical camera compatibility) *if* there is such one.

This is probably one of the truest statements I have seen in a while. Especially given the experience of people like the OP who have had issues trying to cross from the 180 to the 250