Phase One IQ3 100mp. Shipping now. Full frame CMOS. HDMI.

[Don Libby]

While the above images do look very good they are nevertheless being shown on a computer. In my opinion just about every type of sensor/camera will look good on a computer/monitor. The question is how they look when printed; in my case the sizes I normally print. How does this stand up to a 30x40, 40x50 and larger?

I've kept quiet about the new release basically because I don't care for CMOS sensors. I prefer CCD for many reasons, among them color and how the sensor renders my landscape.

That said, I'd love to see a 100 or larger megapixel CCD back. That comes out and I'd be selling my blood to get one.

Just my 2-cents worth. Carry on everyone....

 

[steve_cor]

While the above images do look very good they are nevertheless being shown on a computer. In my opinion just about every type of sensor/camera will look good on a computer/monitor. The question is how they look when printed; in my case the sizes I normally print. How does this stand up to a 30x40, 40x50 and larger?

I've kept quiet about the new release basically because I don't care for CMOS sensors. I prefer CCD for many reasons, among them color and how the sensor renders my landscape.

That said, I'd love to see a 100 or larger megapixel CCD back. That comes out and I'd be selling my blood to get one.

Just my 2-cents worth. Carry on everyone....

Don,
What Hulyss called a TEXAS Leica with a 6x9 sensor is a nickname for a Fuji GW690III film camera.



--Steve.

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

Well... tonight I was speaking about it with my mother, who is a fellow Leica and Sony A7 user. We came to the conclusion that marketing (and especially internet) destroyed partly the core meaning of photography. So yes, being able to share photos with everybody around the world via internet is super. For that no need to have this kind of MF camera. The thing is film stay, in 2016, extremely used even among pros or artists. Vogue continue to accept negatives or reversible slides (yes, in 2016) and enlarging a 6x9 negative is pretty cool for the eyes.

When you see all the digital photos of today you start to see the big picture behind it. Personally I'm done with the digital scam and 2016 will be a back to film because film rendering is unique and valuable. Film isn't expensive in the medium format territory. Film DR is unique and challenge even this 50k machine. Just Ektar 100 and your done. Give your slide to a specialist and he will enlarge it the size you want. Drum scan it and you'll have tremendous files. How much decades of science and professionalism have been spent in film development ? Those pros still exist and I prefer putting money in their hands instead on a computer and "webinars".

The whole digital system chain is deceiving to my eyes. And I just signed 37.

So yes, this camera will be bought to be rented. It will be bought by shops and "few" individuals, individuals which I doubt roam on any known forum. This is why such commercial posts are (for me) an oddity and I see that only in US forums...

Sorry for the rant But I feel pretty happy to go full in film (and I produce a lot). Before burning 50k $... I can freeze some photons on slide for a while.

PS: This coming from a guy who build 3D Virtual Reality gallery ...

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I think we are a little like drug addicts, waiting the latest pixel fix. And like addicts, we keep wanting higher doses to keep us happy.

i was happiest when using film cameras. Now I'm just a digital junkie.

 

[JeRuFo]

Well... tonight I was speaking about it with my mother, who is a fellow Leica and Sony A7 user. We came to the conclusion that marketing (and especially internet) destroyed partly the core meaning of photography. So yes, being able to share photos with everybody around the world via internet is super. For that no need to have this kind of MF camera. The thing is film stay, in 2016, extremely used even among pros or artists. Vogue continue to accept negatives or reversible slides (yes, in 2016) and enlarging a 6x9 negative is pretty cool for the eyes.

When you see all the digital photos of today you start to see the big picture behind it. Personally I'm done with the digital scam and 2016 will be a back to film because film rendering is unique and valuable. Film isn't expensive in the medium format territory. Film DR is unique and challenge even this 50k machine. Just Ektar 100 and your done. Give your slide to a specialist and he will enlarge it the size you want. Drum scan it and you'll have tremendous files. How much decades of science and professionalism have been spent in film development ? Those pros still exist and I prefer putting money in their hands instead on a computer and "webinars".

The whole digital system chain is deceiving to my eyes. And I just signed 37.

So yes, this camera will be bought to be rented. It will be bought by shops and "few" individuals, individuals which I doubt roam on any known forum. This is why such commercial posts are (for me) an oddity and I see that only in US forums...

Sorry for the rant But I feel pretty happy to go full in film (and I produce a lot). Before burning 50k $... I can freeze some photons on slide for a while.

PS: This coming from a guy who build 3D Virtual Reality gallery ...

While I agree with you on your sentiments about shooting film, I don't believe in snobbery based on which format or medium one shoots.
Digital absolutely has it's place, otherwise it wouldn't have been invented. Digital cameras have given millions of amateurs better photos than they ever got on film. I'm not sure putting good cameras in the hands of millions has produced a relatively larger number of great photographers, but it has definetely raised the technical quality of most photographs that are taken today.
Film is still here for people like us that like a nice big negative and all the subtleties that brings, but in my personal experience, most of the time the sheet of film I've put all this effort into isn't quite the masterpiece you might expect given all the trouble. It's only when things all line up that film gives that extra edge.

But, if I had the spare cash, I'd buy a high MP back and started my travels. An 8x10 would have to come along, but there are many situations where I would like to resort to digital. Bad weather comes to mind, high winds and rain are not areas where an LF camera works well (if at all.) Also when shooting in fast changing circumstances, like on a coastline, where digital does much better. Also, with LF, I can't do a full days hike and still be able to concentrate on photography. Those are just some uses for me as a landscape shooter. In studio there are a whole host of advantages too.
Digital MF is still growing and will outgrow film pretty quick, I believe. When resolution gets abundant, the focus will shift away from technical perfection more and more and give way to things like uniquely rendering lenses and specialty cameras etc. (6x9 is not that far off 6x4.5 that you can't use those on a MFDB.)

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

I think we are a little like drug addicts, waiting the latest pixel fix. And like addicts, we keep wanting higher doses to keep us happy.

I was happiest when using film cameras. Now I'm just a digital junkie.

The thing with junkies is that they are never satisfied. But if we know we are junkies then half the work is done on the path of redemption :angel:

While I agree with you on your sentiments about shooting film, I don't believe in snobbery based on which format or medium one shoots.
Digital absolutely has it's place, otherwise it wouldn't have been invented. Digital cameras have given millions of amateurs better photos than they ever got on film. I'm not sure putting good cameras in the hands of millions has produced a relatively larger number of great photographers, but it has definetely raised the technical quality of most photographs that are taken today.
Film is still here for people like us that like a nice big negative and all the subtleties that brings, but in my personal experience, most of the time the sheet of film I've put all this effort into isn't quite the masterpiece you might expect given all the trouble. It's only when things all line up that film gives that extra edge.

But, if I had the spare cash, I'd buy a high MP back and started my travels. An 8x10 would have to come along, but there are many situations where I would like to resort to digital. Bad weather comes to mind, high winds and rain are not areas where an LF camera works well (if at all.) Also when shooting in fast changing circumstances, like on a coastline, where digital does much better. Also, with LF, I can't do a full days hike and still be able to concentrate on photography. Those are just some uses for me as a landscape shooter. In studio there are a whole host of advantages too.
Digital MF is still growing and will outgrow film pretty quick, I believe. When resolution gets abundant, the focus will shift away from technical perfection more and more and give way to things like uniquely rendering lenses and speciality cameras etc. (6x9 is not that far off 6x4.5 that you can't use those on a MFDB.)

There is no snobbery ! The only snobbery is the digital industry who decided to milk consumers even more.

Did I spoke about file storage ? Nope :grin: Storing slides cost nothing but a shelf or a dry drawer. With high end digital you start to see that you need to buy more HDD. Also, analogue archival have something magic no ? We speak about wooden furnitures, cardboards, loupes, silence, mastering, PRINTS ??? smells... a computer is cold (or not^^), dead, fragile and extremely individual.

Why the fashion of today is to mimic film ? Why instagram is one if not the best digital photo vault out there ? Because of film mimic. Because film catch soul when digital catch datas. To understand that we need to be more sensitive or to return to sensitivity.

I still keep digital but for "Important" works now it will be film ... and wooden furnitures

 

[jagsiva]

I hope those samples start flowing soon, this thread is going déjà vu quickly!

 

[docmoore]

Film has a distinct look that appeals in many areas ...

I gave up using it when all of the decent labs in my area closed and those left started damaging my negatives - stains torn emulsions blobs of matter embedded in
the negative and enough dust that I would spend hours spotting the scans ... as they were not that much better at printing.

Digital does give one access and control over more of the process start to finish ... just have to find a sensor and post process you prefer.

I occasionally use VSCO Film 5 which has a series of Ektachrome 64 and Ektar 100 emulations which are very good.

After scanning some 3500 negatives with a Hasselblad Imacon 343 I would rather import sort post process and archive in multiple places.

100 MP at full 645 size sounds great ... I will take a full 6x7 24 MP chip ... CCD ... if only they would serve the market that desires big fat
pixels....

Too many damn little cameras these days IMHO ....

Rant over back to the topic...


Bob

 

[stephengilbert]

Rant over back to the topic...

The topic? I forget; what is the topic?

 

[docmoore]

Rant over back to the topic...

The topic? I forget; what is the topic?

You know .... sell a lot of stuff ... upgrade it every 18 months and keep the ball spinning.

But I do have a question ... what in hell is with the red bloom on night pictures with this sensor ...

Every stop sign or red light looks like a basketball aflame ...

Maybe a profile update is in order ...

Bob

 

[Stefan Steib]

This new Back is certainly a nice step forward for smaller images. But it is still too small !

Reason: following the Arguments of some people who are in the steady mantra of Printing as Huge as possible,
of course 100 Mpix are just a mere start, could probably be called beginners res.
A 60x120" pano print with 300 dpi res has 600 Mpix and results in a 1,81 Gig image, which should have a reasonable quality on a Canon imagePrograf iPF9400.

So I would suggest the Quality aware shooters shall stay in waiting position for approximately another 20 years and then we talk again.
But by then Printing technology will have improved also, so it will need at least 1200 dpi for a then available 200x400" printer.

..................

For all the others which are using what they have and what they can get, this new 100 Mpix back will be very nice.

Go out and shoot what you have, don´t sell your childrens kidneys and remember : it´s just Photography , not 3rd World War.

Have fun
Stefan

 

[Chris Barrett]

This new Back is certainly a nice step forward for smaller images. But it is still too small !

Agreed. While I am really intrigued with this new back, especially anxious to see the results of a 16bit pipeline... 100mb is much more than I need for my commercial work and less than I want for my personal work. For my art work, I'm currently shooting 4x10 color neg and drum scanning at 4k dpi. Why do I want to make such huge files? Because I can. I've just sold 3 prints from this new series at 40" wide and while I could have made decent prints off a digital back, I love the feel of the grain when it is just barely visible.

I'm not making any judgments. There are so many ways to make great images and Hell... I just may buy the new back anyway.

IMO,
CB

 

[Sharokin]

Agreed. While I am really intrigued with this new back, especially anxious to see the results of a 16bit pipeline... 100mb is much more than I need for my commercial work and less than I want for my personal work. For my art work, I'm currently shooting 4x10 color neg and drum scanning at 4k dpi. Why do I want to make such huge files? Because I can. I've just sold 3 prints from this new series at 40" wide and while I could have made decent prints off a digital back, I love the feel of the grain when it is just barely visible.

I'm not making any judgments. There are so many ways to make great images and Hell... I just may buy the new back anyway.

IMO,
CB

Can you shoot smaller raw? I believe I saw somewhere the new back does not come with sensor plus.

 

[jagsiva]

Doug, thanks gain for posting this info on a Sunday. I don't believe you have ever mislead anyone here that you are a dealer, and one of your interests is to promote and sell your gear...but getting this info out on your day off was still a very nice gesture.

Coming back to point...

I have been shooting with the IQ180/Aptus 12 on a tech cam since 2010. Assuming my skills, creativity or experience did not get in the way, I always felt that this kit delivered the best results for my style of landscape shots.

The new IQ3 100MP, so far on paper, looks to be the first camera I'd think about upgrading to. My list of improvements for the IQ180 were:

Better focussing - LV and screen size. Both appear to be addressed with CMOS LV and HDMI monitor out.
Keep with FF - again addressed with 54x40mm chip
Keep resolution at 80MP or higher - 100MP is as good as any number, although we'll wait and see the cost of 4.6 micron pixels.
Better high ISO performance - Again, on paper, blows away the IQ180
Better long-exposure - Spec looks good. Assuming no issues like on the IQ260, and some flexibility around dark frames, looks good.
No need for LCC - unfortunately this will likely be the same, hopefully not worse.

So the new back, on paper, addresses everything on my wish list, with the exception of the last item. I await tests and samples eagerly as most people here. WA colour cast would be a show stopper. It could, of course, be cheaper, but such is life. If I look at an IQ180/DF price 6 years ago, or IQ380/DF+ price last year, it is comparable to the new IQ3 100MP/XF price. Kinda like apple, price points stay about the same, but you get more. Sure looks like it's working for Phase. More importantly, there is innovation. Phase has had more going on in MFDB in the last 10 years, compared to everyone else put together. When you add in the capabilities of C1P and the investment in software R&D, it is refreshing and reassuring. I have my issues with Phase for sure, but one needs to be objective sometimes.

In the meantime, not sure why we are back to film vs. digital, Phase vs. Hasselblad, Lucas vs. Disney, etc. There is so much material written on this stuff already On a positive note, we only have 3 pages of whining, while LuLa has just passed 10!

 

[SrMphoto]

...By the time you earn enough to buy the kit, your body is too old to carry it around! ....

“Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” - Edward Weston

 

[Ken_R]

I downloaded one of the (iso 50) Raw files from the IQ3 100mp and wow. About as perfect and clean as I have seen. It is of an outdoor town scene in bad light. Dynamic Range (shadow recovery) is stunning. I removed all of the (lens, noise, you name it, everything off or at zero) corrections and just boosted up exposure and looked at the darker areas and detail just keeps showing up, clean. Color looks really nice, comparable to what I have seen from the 50MP Sony sensor but even smoother and cleaner. Stunning.

Looking forward to seeing more images made using this back.

All that rubbish and complaining about whether anyone can afford it, need it, want it, whether Phase is gonna survive, whether dealers and the marketing dpt. use cheap sales techniques, whether you can achieve the same using much cheaper gear etc. etc. just have nothing to do with how this back performs. That is just background noise. The back is amazing. The whole IQ series from the start has been impressive. (I own one, IQ160, and although it was expensive I never regretted buying it, still performs great).

Choosing gear is a very personal process and honestly it is getting tiring reading through all the complaints, rants and rubbish and technical stuff instead of more about how the gear works during photography which is the main purpose of such things. If you find serious faults using the gear in the discussion fine, post them in context of the photography but man, some threads here and specially in the other MF forum are getting ridiculous. Just helps to drive away the photographers and technicians who actual deal with Medium Format Digital gear.

 

[jlm]

SrM:

nailed it!

i have always considered Edward my mentor

 

[AlexLF]

Just want to add one thing - at the time the 35mm format had 12 mpix and MFD had 40 that was a really sexy difference for most people. Now, having canon with 50 mpix and sony with 42 (and I hope Nikon is getting something around that) it's not that delicious. Really, how many people use their 42-50 mpix fully? Having 42 in a camera do they really feel the need for more? I doubt it.

I'm personally trying to get Zeiss Otus lens. That lenses are really hot. So are photographs taken with them... But that's work in progress

 

[richardman]

... On a positive note, we only have 3 pages of whining, while LuLa has just passed 10!

Good that I don't have money to subscribe

I would buy this back immediately, but since I can barely afford Hassy shooting film, I can only dream :thumbup:

 

[fmueller]

“Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” - Edward Weston

Corollary: Nobody really cares how far you had to walk or not to get the shot.