Patience please everyone. A broad range of good tests, preferably with raws shared rather than JPGs, are called for before conclusions are made.
Our first units arrive tomorrow morning. We have many tests to do, with tech cameras being just one (though one of the more important).
I'm with Jagsiva. If I can shift this as much as the 180, I'm going to wince.
I don't know whether to giggle or find my blanket.
davechewphotography.com1 Member(s) liked this post
Doug doesn't work for Phase One. He works for a dealer and hasn't gotten a back to test yet.
This is especially true of Phase One which is a dealer-oriented company. They delegate to us to do the kind of testing that matters to our market and clients, and to facilitate clients doing their own testing of their own specific needs. At the danger of sounding immodest I think we do a pretty darn good job of it!
I'll be quiet on the forums for a while as I focus on completing a wide swath of tests, most of which will be available, at no cost, from our website as raw files.
The new 32mm Rodie samples look a bin ominous, IMHO. Colour blotching and noise in the sky are both quite prominent on my (admittedly pooply calibrated) laptop. I'd be interested to see a detail rich "brick wall" test that might show up crosstalk issues. Not that I can afford this beast of a back anyway, quite happy with my Credo!
Can someone comments on the DR test in the LL forum that shows DR ís only 13 stops?
I cant wait for more test, how far is it from 1st gen IQ back.
Had a quick test with the new back side by side with my IQ260 today. I took some shot with my Alpa Max and Rodenstock 32mm, but I don't have time to do anything with the shot until probably tomorrow.
It depends on how you count DR too, if we look how DxOMark does it they check per pixel, and then normalized to 8 megapixel image. In the latter there's gain the larger surface you have. I think that when Phase One says 15 stops they don't mean per pixel (which would be extremely impressive), but some variant of this scaled down measure.
However at some point there'll be dual gain readouts or those non-linear filters (lots of patents for this exists since some time) and then lots of DR can be had. Remains to be seen if this sensor have some of this new technology or not. Most likely is that it's just an evolution of the current sensors, it's not likely that revolutionary tech would come in a big sensor first.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post1 Member(s) liked this post
It seems like the tech cam segment has been growing, probably due to the enthusiast market rather than the pro market. The A-series is a response to that, but conveniently enough it doesn't do any movements.
I also think it as simple as that Sony's technology is simply not geared for this type of lenses, or really not any current sensor technology. Limited angular response has always been a weakness and the requirements tech wides put on the sensor is simply on a different scale and what can be provided without a major redesign. So I think Phase One had the choice to either not get a CMOS full-frame sensor at all or ignore that it won't work that well with tech wides, except for center frames.
To make current sensor tech work with current tech wides I think pixel pitch need to be made larger, the microlenses preferably be removed or at least reduce their height/efficiency, and preferably light shields should be put there (which likely reduce light-sensitive area further). The result of that would be lower pixel count, lower DR and more aliasing. The wiser move to sell cameras is probably to do what's done now, max out image quality for the cameras that sell the most, ie the DF/XF systems.
I had hope for BSI to solve issues, but I think there may be a few years. I think the most realistic way forward for tech cameras is that Rodenstock makes a few new wide angle lenses, or we just learn to ignore the color fidelity / uniformity issues and/or shift less. We saw that with the IQ250 people are prepared to compromise quality and/or flexibility quite a lot to get the CMOS advantages. On the other hand the Dalsas aren't without issues either, and the extreme DR of the CMOS compensates somewhat. It's a slippery slope with gradual acceptance of more and more movement limitations and image quality issues. As long as there's nothing wrong with the sharpness (the 32HR - just wow), people seems to be willing to accept quite some limitations in other factors.
My own heart beats for the large format shooting style, where rich movements are an intergral part of image making. So of course I'm worried when I see that we start sliding on this slippery slope towards tech cam becoming equal to Phase One A-series, ie a very sharp center frame snapper.
Last edited by torger; 6th January 2016 at 01:03.
1 Member(s) liked this post
How is it then that Alpa had no difficulty releasing test images made with 3rd party components? - Alpa don't make the IQ3 back and they don't make the Rodie lenses! What's good enough as a business practice for Alpa is not good enough for Phase One?
2) Isn't it far more likely that Canon don't release gigs of raw files with Sigma lenses, because they want people to buy their Canon lenses rather than Sigma ones? But Phase One don't make tech cameras or tech-cam lenses, so that excuse doesn't arise.
3) If Phase One have genuinely done the tests, why don't they share the results with us? They would not have to release raw files to fill the information vacuum. They could just issue tech statements about what does or does not work, or within what limits.
Not being hard on you, Doug - the work you do is great - I just think they've sent you out front to defend their indefensible policy.
And second because the tech cam shooters are a tiny fraction of those using it on fixed bodies anyway.
So I also doubt there will be any new techcam lenses AT ALL. Schneider has closed their lens department on 31.December and Rodenstock is probably not sellling enough to devellop another round of new Retrofocus wideangles that will work better with such highres backs.
Why do you think Alpa is also pushing the FPS so hard and releasing adapters for all kind of NON-Tech lenses ?
Copal has ended support for the tech lens shutters and Cambo released a modified 24mm Samyang to get the actus into wide angle.
Wake up and see the truth: classic techcam is a dinosaur and the meteor has already striked.
Part of the problem is that stating the limits is hard. If you define the limits as when sensor crosstalk is triggered you probably have problems also in the center frames. However the visibility of the issues increases gradually, and the acceptance varies from person to person, just as "sharp enough" is highly subjective.
I do agree though that it seems like Phase One doesn't even try, there seems to be no connection at all Rodenstock-Phase One-Sony. Sony does their thing and Rodenstock has to adapt. Lenses are released with much larger intervals than sensors though and unfortunately the current crop of lenses did not foresee the direction sensors would take. Rodenstock Digaron wides now look like the Schneider Digitar wides when Dalsa came with their 6um technology.
I also think there is the problem that if Rodenstock would design lenses that matched Sony properties they would have to be so much retrofocus that the number of lens elements required to get the performance we've come to expect would just be insane. The 32HR today is not exactly a simple lens, and it would either be more complex than that or be less sharp. Rodenstock really can't "lower" themselves to the standards of XF SLR wides, especially since they can't rely on software lens corrections.
I think that the possibility to make lenses with low angle (thanks to larger pixel sizes of MFD and that the users accept LCC, vignetting and small largest aperture) is key to what has made tech cams reach their unique position as wide angle performers. This position is now threatened as this type of lens design may not be possible in the longer term.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post2 Member(s) liked this post
The tech companies should really have formed a consortium to protect their interests, but anyway of Linhof, Alpa, Arca and Cambo it seems like Linhof is at most risk with the current trend. They don't have an DSLR-compatible view camera, no focal plane shutter relies heavily on tech cam lenses. Alpa, Cambo and Arca has adapted to the trends well so far with the FPS, the DSLR-compatible view cameras and adapters to use other than tech cam lenses.
With my Digitar/Kodak-based system I feel like I'm shooting Contax, and I don't really have anything to upgrade to without sacrificing flexibility. I'm hoping for a 44x33mm wide angular response CMOS coming soon, but if the IQ3 100 does not show a step in the right direction concerning sensor technology (like the first indications are) then my hope is reduced.
Currently I'm so totally not interested in giving up large format shooting style that I see it more likely that I'll start shooting large format film after my current setup gives up than going back to mainstream cameras. If someone still makes sheet film by then that is...
I'm not sure Rodenstock is selling that bad, they've had virtual monopoly on new systems for a while and now gets real monopoly, and with a growing enthusiast market I think the tech cam sales grows. Phase One recently launched the A-series collaboration with Alpa, which indicates that they probably sell at least a bit. So I would not be surprised if Rodenstock actually do make a new set of wides, probably one or two would be enough.
1 Member(s) liked this post
on the advertisement side there is some hints:
P1 state it has achieved 15 stop of dynamic range, then they say also it's a true 16 bit output, but with 16 bit by math, the dynamic range is 16 stop not 15, so who stole the missing stop ?
Until now, there is no datasheet from SONY that says something clear about the sensor itself, for now it's a black box, and to determine the real DR is not an easy task.
Speculation about the technology SONY used on their other sensor models tell's us a more conservative 14 Bit on ADC converter block this can permit in the best case a DR of 14 stop, so assuming 12 to 13 stop in dynamic range could be a good measure of the performance of this device.
This is applying also on the 50Mp sensor, No Datasheet nor any information of the CFA construction / spectral response, the only advantage between the two chip is coming from the size of pixels 5,3 is slight better than 4,3 micron.
Have good Epiphany, Best regards, Domenico.
You are right about the readout noise, the CCD have a sort of construction assimilable to a well, the CMOS is working in (sample and add the signal) to a register... maybe this chip use a CDS scheme (correlated double sampling), anyway the aspect of the degradation of DR inside the chip is sure, and sure is the worser homogeneity that the CMOS is known for.
Returning to the pixel size of 4,6 microns, with the available technology a saturation level of circa 12000e- can be a good measure, that value sits well in 2^14 (16384) and again 14 BIT COME IN PLAY, that's the reason why I doubt the implementation of 16 BIT DAC is something useless, even with the larger pixel found in the 50MP chip 14 bit can be sufficient to the job.
1 Member(s) liked this post
In practice, this will actually amount to slightly more noise being visible compared to the 33x44 sensor, since we'll be seeing into shadows that would otherwise have been just pure black. I'm not entirely sure if that last stop can be really taken advantage of, but I guess it's always nice to have something than not.
I'm happy to share some 16 RAW with LCC, but not sure if how to set it up with a file sharing site. If someone is willing to put it up on a file sharing service, I'm happy to send the file to you from my google drive. PM me with your email.
They are all shot with Alpa Max with Rodenstock 32mm.
Rodenstock 32mm at F11, 10 degree drop, 2 shot stitch with LCC applied. The top corners are near the image circle. Full size file on the 4K screen is quite stunning. Still looking through the rest of the files.
www.flickr.com/yatlee1 Member(s) thanked for this post4 Member(s) liked this post
Here is a comparison shot. Again, I just try to see how the 2 backs (100MP on top, follow by IQ260) pictures look at near image circle with LLC applied.
Last edited by yatlee; 6th January 2016 at 05:42.
www.flickr.com/yatlee2 Member(s) thanked for this post4 Member(s) liked this post
Thanks for the images. In the comparison image it's clear that the IQ3 100 doesn't manage to hold color after LCC correction. The color is good close to the image circle center, but you can clearly see the incresing cast. This is almost 100% sure a crosstalk effect, that is not microlenses or something else.
The bad news with that is that it's extremely hard to correct in software. I tried to develop a crosstalk cancellation algorithm for some time when the IQ250 was new but never managed to get it stable, and obviously Phase One engineers hasn't suceeded either.
While I may be a perfectionist more than others when it comes to color (and less so when it comes to sharpness) I think the color cast looks so severe in these examples that I find it unlikely that anyone with the IQ260+32HR combo would upgrade the back to the IQ3.
By the way what was the shift settings in the second shot? Due to offset microlenses you can get a sudden performance drop after a certain shift amount, which could be seen with the IQ250. If we're lucky the performance improves a lot if you shift a bit less.
To really find shift limits you need to increase shift with small steps (say 3-5mm) until it falls apart. If you shift way past the limit it looks worse than it is due to the offset microlenses. The shift limit may also be different in portrait and landscape orientation due to how pixel wiring is oriented on the chip.
1 Member(s) liked this post
I see my bubble bursting
But will wait for more samples. LCC's behave quite erratically when you hit the hard limit of the lens. If anyone has the RAW files, a cropped (LCC and image file) application of LCC maybe helpful.
Just as I can't afford a Ferrari 458 but I do admire it, I simply can't afford to buy this IQ3-100. However as a photography enthusiast I really appreciate that it has been developed and that it exists. Kudos Phase One !
I have a feeling that when a comprehensive set of tests becomes available, with various Rodenstock tech-camera lenses, the results will knock the socks off most 'actual' users. Those who can afford the back will be (and are currently) ordering IQ3-100 in significant numbers. I predict Phase One will have a killer fiscal year.
Now, 32mm is a really special lens but shifting 12mm left/right even on a 60MP back it loses most of its magic, IMHO. While those shifted corners (on 60MP back) don't have color casts, they also do not have the wow-factor. For that wow-factor, I am learning to limit the shifts to 8-9mm. I predict if IQ3-100 can yeild clean 8mm shifts with 32HR, it will still be a killer combo and those who can afford will be buyers.
I really feel the release of a full-frame CMOS digital back is a rejoicing moment for all those who share the passion of photography.
Major props to Yat Lee for posting the 32HR examples.
IQ3 100 H • Cambo 1200 • Rodenstock 32HR 90HRSW
2 Member(s) liked this post
I think it's a slippery slope. For each new back we seem to accept further reductions in movement range. When does a tech cam stop being a tech cam?
I'm not really into maximizing resolving power at all costs. I want to have compositional flexibility too. I already thought the Dalsa 80MP had a bit too much issues on the rodie wides and the 60MP is a better choice.
The 32HR is a very wide lens with the 645 though, I'd say it's primarily a speciality lens for architecture shooters. For landscape I think 40mm/645 is a more reasonable widest angle. The 40HR is less retrofocus than the 32HR though so I'd expect similar issues.
On the 40mm I'd like to have 12mm shift for 645 fullframe as minimum to get about the same flexibility I have (and use) in my current system, but it wouldn't hurt with a little bit more. The IQ3 actually might be able to do 12mm on the 40HR... we'll see.
There does seem to be some diminishing returns with regards to movements but I don't need anywhere near as much as some. Even 12mm shift would be overkill for me as 10mm shifting left and right results in an almost perfect 16X9 image which is my goal for horizontal shifting. For vertical rise I agree that it may be beneficial to want slightly more than 10mm but what I have found is that only with my longer lenses (120mm and beyond) do I keep the kind of image quality I want when shifting beyond 10mm. Sometimes, for me, the results are better by rotating around the nodal. On my last trip to the Dolomites I would never use rise beyond 10mm.... if I needed more height for Architectural images I would just tilt the camera a little and correct in post. The small amount of perspective correction is very easily handled and I still maintain all of the detail I expect from the given lens. I never shot anything that needed wider than my Schneider 60mm XL. So, maybe this back is a good fit for me. I'll find out soon enough as my order is in.......
2 Member(s) liked this post
Even with limited shift capabilities on a tech cam it is more than you can have with all Medium Format SLR systems with the exception of the Hasselblad 1.5x HTS (that has a huge size/weight and $$ penalty). Also straight on the tech cam lenses are amazing and generally much better than SLR lenses. They are also smaller and more compact and easy to filter (most of them). Ok lets say some back / lens combinations do not allow almost any shift, you can always use tilt which is still quite useful in a lot of situations.
Also, a system like the ALPA FPS (can I call it a tech cam?) will allow you to get ultra wide angle coverage in medium format digital unavailable from the MF SLR systems (with the use of the Canon 17 and 24 TS-E II lenses).
So the Tech Cam has many possible advantages. Small size and weight is one that even without tilt and shift capabilities one can have if desired.
So yes, the reduced shiftability of the new sensors is a bummer and nudge people into overlooking tech cams but IMHO the tech cams still have their place.
But just in case it wouldn't hurt to stock up on some of the better tech cam lenses available now.
1 Member(s) liked this post
"I really feel the release of a full-frame CMOS digital back is a rejoicing moment for all those who share the passion of photography."
You drank the KoolAid
never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.
IQ3 100 H • Cambo 1200 • Rodenstock 32HR 90HRSW
1 Member(s) liked this post
After seeing some of the horrible posted images I thought I would at least test my Leaf/Credo 50 to the limits. I know.... its not the 100 but its a Sony sensor and probably the basis for the 100. I used my 35mm XL and added rise of 15mm...... that's 15mm folks on the this legendary love/hate lens. Please forgive any sensor dirt..... I think that Phase will have cast issues under control. I would never, ever shift my 35mm XL 15mm but this is just an example of cast with CMOS and the Phase fix.
Last edited by vjbelle; 6th January 2016 at 13:34.
As noted in a neighboring thread there's currently some issues with the LCC algorithm in Capture One (it's a nice tradition Phase One has ), so it's easy to get confusing results.
and: a tech cam lens will out-resolve a MF dSLR lens
I compared the Phase One -Schneider 55mm with the Roddy 60mm, and it was very easy to see how much better the tech lens was (everywhere but the very center, where it was more evenly matched). If you want to walk around doing landscapes with some normal wide (40-60mm) you are better off with a tech lens' resolving power than one designed for your DF/XF camera.
(I don't think its that Schneider/Phase make bad lenses, but that it's a function of strong retrofocus vs mild retrofocus)
the problem with the Whiteshot fix is that in these areas the green channel will be about 3-5 stops underexposed compared to the rest of the image.
thus it will become incredibly noisy. CMOS has some more reserves for this than CCD, but doing any decent printfile with this, will be very difficult for post.
Oh and as resolution in these outer areas of the greenchannel will suffer as well, the 100 Mpix of resolution on this area will probably be crippled to half of it (in the green channel). So much for the usability of real (Schneider) or short retrofocus (Rodenstock) wideangles.
It is simply not logical.
It's incredible how patient we tech cam users are, we force pieces together that obviously was not designed for eachother. Schneider Digitar wide on a Sony sensor is like putting truck tyres on a formula one car, indeed two high end things but not made for eachother at all. We rely heavily on the over-capacity of the incredible Sony sensor, over-capacity on DR to compensate the gross signal loss due to pixel shading, and over-capacity in tonality to compensate the gross loss in that due to crosstalk.
With the IQ3100 and Rodenstock lenses it looks better, very much better it seems. With voidshatter's recent tests I'm much more positive than before, but make no mistake we're doing the same thing here just to a lesser extent -- we rely on Sony's over-capacity in tonality and DR to compensate the fact that the Rodenstock lenses were not designed for this sensor type. Or we shoot center frames, and I think the A-series will be 100% fantastic with the IQ3100.
No blue skies today in this neck of the woods...... Even if there were some slight artifacts at 15mm I really do think that Phase has worked hard on casting issues and given the bleak forecast regarding LF lenses I think that this is all going to have to be handled on the software side. They've shown, to me, that they can with the 35XL...... I get the best of many worlds - low distortion, low casting, low weight. I compare this to the giant Rody 32mm and its tremendous out of pocket expense and I'm thankful I never succumbed to the urge to click the 'add to basket' button.
sort of a second tier question, but what about the other IQ3 models advertised, like the IQ3-50? are they in production or just drawing board?
IQ3-50 same sensor as IQ250 CMOS
IQ3-80 same sensor as IQ280 CCD (but now has long exposure similar to IQ260)
There is no IQ3-60 (correction - there is a 60, no IQ3-40).
The new back is the IQ3-100MP. So really an extension to the line. So IQ3 has 50/100MP CMOS backs and 80MP CCD back.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by jagsiva; 7th January 2016 at 08:58.