IQ3100 tech cam test by Capture Integration

[dchew]

I think there maybe something wrong with the 120XL images. Anyone else seeing this?

I didn't download those cuz I didn't expect any issues. I will take a look. For some reason I am having difficulty white balancing th 380-60xl file. It keeps a bit of extra red in the file. If I click on the same spot vs the 3100 file, say the color checker, the results are like 167/160/160. The 3100 file goes dead neutral like it should.

 

[dchew]

I think there maybe something wrong with the 120XL images. Anyone else seeing this?

the 120MM Shift 18.eip file opens fine for me. It is dark and a bit front focused (ladder 2/3 from the bottom looks like the focus point).

But other than that it is fine.

Dave

Edit: Not front focused, but either not aligned or de-centered. The books on the left are sharp but not on the right. I don't have this lens so maybe it just isn't sharp on the edges? I doubt it...

Edit2: Downloaded the hero shot (120MM Hero.eip). Sharp in the center, not so much on either side. Weird; I would not have expected that from this lens. Again the ladder looks sharp so must be field curvature...?

 

[torger]

I think there maybe something wrong with the 120XL images. Anyone else seeing this?

Just for sanity check I measured the LCC for crosstalk (as I've done in with many others) and it's as expected 0% over the whole surface. The image itself though is suspiciously defocused on the right side, so much that I don't think it's a focusing issue but rather some problem with the lens used.

 

[dchew]

The image itself though is suspiciously defocused on the right side, so much that I don't think it's a focusing issue but rather some problem with the lens used.

Anders, see my second edit above. the front of the ladder looks sharp to me, and I assume that is several inches in front of the books. Would you agree that is field curvature?

Dave

 

[jagsiva]

I think this particular lens may be decentered, the right side is quite bad on the 18mm shot and a little less so on the hero shot.

I have a copy of this lens and it is sharp across the frame, even a 30mm shift looks letter than the 18 here.

 

[vjbelle]

Your observations are very correct..... that lens (for $5100) is decentered or worse just completely out of wack. I just purchased a new one in Copal 0 for my Actus and immediately sent it back to Schneider for alignment - which they are very good at. I don't have it back yet but it sure better be better than it was before I sent it in for adjustment - so far they have never disappointed me..... after all it cost me ($2100.00) delivered to my front door. Sure is a lot better then the Alpa premium but still a small chunk of money.

Victor

 

[vjbelle]

Anders, see my second edit above. the front of the ladder looks sharp to me, and I assume that is several inches in front of the books. Would you agree that is field curvature?

Dave

Dave.... you could be correct in that it 'could' be curvature. But, boy..... that would be a fair amount of curvature!! I don't have any lens in my 35mm or tech camera arsenal that would be that bad under the same circumstances. It would have been better to see an equal shift left and right and then, for sure, it could be established whether or not the lens has curvature or is out of alignment. A lens that is out of alignment also has something sharp somewhere..... just not where it should be.

Victor

 

[jagsiva]

My thoughts after staring at these for a few hours...I have all of these lenses and am quite familiar with their performance on an IQ180.

The colors are quite different between the CCD backs and the IQ3 100MP, but will wait until 9.0.3 is out. Shadow recovery is pretty awesome!

I did not use LCC, but used the lens profiles for the Rodie lenses and played with sharpness/light falloff.

23HR - Looks very good. Good enough that I'd want to compare between a CCD back with this lens to see if there is anything substantial.

32HR - So far this is my biggest disappointment. It is my favourite lens of all time and does not appear to fair too well with the new back. A shift of 10mm looks far worse than an 18mm on the 40HR. Will wait for 9.0.3 for final conclusions, but this could be a deal breaker.

40HR - simply beautiful, just awesome! Wish the 32HR could perform this well.

60XL - Hmmm....There are IQ280 samples to compare against so this was quite interesting. There is definitely some kind of purple/magenta cast going on in the IQ3/100. This is without LCC on both files. Sharpness/smearing in the extreme shifts looks about the same. If the LCC can clean up the colour issues, I think this lens will be just fine. As far as resolution, I'm not seeing any huge advantage for the 100MP back, noise and shadow detail are a different story.

90HR - Just awesome! Same feeling as 40HR. I am assuming this is the 90HRSW.

120XL - Samples look like the lens is decentered. This is an incredible lens, and something has to be off here. Also, assuming the is the 120XL ASPH.

Appreciate hearing about what others are seeing.

Also want to thank CI again, looking at the files again, I can appreciate all the work that went into this. Also would be curious at to which lenses used the CF (23,32,40,60).

 

[dchew]

Steve Hendrix posted over at Lula that no center filters were used in the tests.

Dave

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Keep in mind that this was sensor test and not a lens test. Yes, it seems that the 120XL underperforms compared to the others.

Anyway this was a very good demo of the capabilities of that sensor. Would someone give me 50k$, I would know how to spend it.

Best regards
Erik

My thoughts after staring at these for a few hours...I have all of these lenses and am quite familiar with their performance on an IQ180.

The colors are quite different between the CCD backs and the IQ3 100MP, but will wait until 9.0.3 is out. Shadow recovery is pretty awesome!

I did not use LCC, but used the lens profiles for the Rodie lenses and played with sharpness/light falloff.

23HR - Looks very good. Good enough that I'd want to compare between a CCD back with this lens to see if there is anything substantial.

32HR - So far this is my biggest disappointment. It is my favourite lens of all time and does not appear to fair too well with the new back. A shift of 10mm looks far worse than an 18mm on the 40HR. Will wait for 9.0.3 for final conclusions, but this could be a deal breaker.

40HR - simply beautiful, just awesome! Wish the 32HR could perform this well.

60XL - Hmmm....There are IQ280 samples to compare against so this was quite interesting. There is definitely some kind of purple/magenta cast going on in the IQ3/100. This is without LCC on both files. Sharpness/smearing in the extreme shifts looks about the same. If the LCC can clean up the colour issues, I think this lens will be just fine. As far as resolution, I'm not seeing any huge advantage for the 100MP back, noise and shadow detail are a different story.

90HR - Just awesome! Same feeling as 40HR. I am assuming this is the 90HRSW.

120XL - Samples look like the lens is decentered. This is an incredible lens, and something has to be off here. Also, assuming the is the 120XL ASPH.

Appreciate hearing about what others are seeing.

Also want to thank CI again, looking at the files again, I can appreciate all the work that went into this. Also would be curious at to which lenses used the CF (23,32,40,60).

 

[jagsiva]

Hi,

Keep in mind that this was sensor test and not a lens test. Yes, it seems that the 120XL underperforms compared to the others.

Anyway this was a very good demo of the capabilities of that sensor. Would someone give me 50k$, I would know how to spend it.

Best regards
Erik

Fair enough, but for me, the question to be answered is what level of performance/useability can the end-to-end system of lens, camera, back, and software deliver. Specifically, will replacing an IQ180 with an IQ3 100 in this "system" be worthwhile. I still don't know the answer, but lens performance and the impact of a particular sensor on lens performance is a key part of this I would think.

 

[vjbelle]

Specifically, will replacing an IQ180 with an IQ3 100 in this "system" be worthwhile. I still don't know the answer, but lens performance and the impact of a particular sensor on lens performance is a key part of this I would think.

I have the Leaf/Credo 50 and the IQ180 and the Leaf has transformed my shooting experience. The live view alone is worth the upgrade - but then, I use live view a lot. The overall color between the two sensors is slightly different...... there will always be those that won't accept anything different from their beloved CCD sensor and that is fine but I always felt that the CCD delivered a slightly too warm image for my tastes. I was always cooling down my images. The CMOS levels that out a little more so its a benefit for me. I was also able to shift my 35XL a full 15mm with the CMOS back..... I was limited to about 6mm on the CCD. My hopes are that the 100MP will give me a clean 8mm of movement..... if I get that I'm more than satisfied. All of my other lenses should be just fine. I worked out a deal with Dave at C1 that made sense to me. I was able to use my Leaf and recoup almost what I paid for it. So..... I'm into this at a price level that is far different than just upgrading from my IQ180.

Victor

 

[AreBee]

Victor,

Is there any advantage to retaining the IQ180 when you will soon own an IQ3 100MP?

 

[jagsiva]

I have the Leaf/Credo 50 and the IQ180 and the Leaf has transformed my shooting experience. The live view alone is worth the upgrade - but then, I use live view a lot. The overall color between the two sensors is slightly different...... there will always be those that won't accept anything different from their beloved CCD sensor and that is fine but I always felt that the CCD delivered a slightly too warm image for my tastes. I was always cooling down my images. The CMOS levels that out a little more so its a benefit for me. I was also able to shift my 35XL a full 15mm with the CMOS back..... I was limited to about 6mm on the CCD. My hopes are that the 100MP will give me a clean 8mm of movement..... if I get that I'm more than satisfied. All of my other lenses should be just fine. I worked out a deal with Dave at C1 that made sense to me. I was able to use my Leaf and recoup almost what I paid for it. So..... I'm into this at a price level that is far different than just upgrading from my IQ180.

Victor

Thanks Victor. I recall when you got the Credo 50 and were quite impressed by it, around the same time Guy was teasing us with his samples! The new back does look good, and LV, HDMI streaming, and DR/Noise performance will all make life so much easier. I'm "OK" with the cost as well. The big if for me is whether or not the output will be at or above the IQ180. The CI tests, with the exception of the 32HR are pointing that way. We will be able to confirm once 9.0.3 is out. One other area, is the saturation. As you say, the IQ CCD backs are a little warm. But I find the new back quite different from both the CCD backs and the 50MP CMOS backs. I had to crank up saturation quite a bit on the IQ280 samples to get the reds to match what what was in the 100MP samples. Again, we'll see with proper LCC application what these look like.

Again, the bottom line for me would be the end result. We all went down this crazy tech cam route for that, and convenience was secondary. So not sure that changes, sure the workflow would be nicer, but only if the files with tech lenses are as good or better.

 

[torger]

Phase One likes warm colors, their profiles are deliberately designed that way. If you make a custom profile it doesn't have to have the warm look if you don't want to.

Both the Dalsa and Sony sensor color responses are very neutral for "normal range" colors and can be made to look extremely similar if you desire. I haven't checked myself but I've heard that Hasselblad has a different approach than Phase One, they try to make their cameras look the same regardless of sensor, and that is achieved through profile design. While Phase One seems to deliberately make the backs look a little different so it's easier to differentiate the products.

The white balance presets on the camera has some effect too of course, while you can it's a bit of a mess mess to equalize those so what the manufacturer have decided those to be has an effect for us often using the camera fixed at daylight preset.

To take control over color you need to design your own profiles though which is not an easy task if you want to fine-tune them to the level of what Phase One does with their digital backs. If you don't you get what the manufacturer provides and then the color is what it is. But in principle it's much more tunable than it may seem.

I have myself changed my workflow to always use my own designed profiles. While there are sensor differences they're very much evened out. It takes some confidence to do it though, to imagine that you can design as good profile yourself as the "Image Quality Professor" locked in since decades somewhere in Phase One's basement. I'm not sure I make as good job in terms of the craft, but I do know I make a job that suits my taste better and it's really a lot about taste. It's not a single scale good-to-bad color, it's much about what look you prefer.

 

[vjbelle]

Victor,

Is there any advantage to retaining the IQ180 when you will soon own an IQ3 100MP?

Not for me...... the IQ180 has been a great back but once I got my hands on the Leaf/Credo 50 I knew I would be saying goodbye to the 180 as soon as a FF sensor came out. I've switched to full time use of my Actus which also has revolutionized the way I shoot. It really does require a CMOS back for focus as opposed to the other aids available with my Alpa. Pluses I enjoy about the Actus are the ability to shift and rise at the same time. Also I can tilt/swing any lens and...... with the longer rail I have eliminated the close focus constraints that are prevalent with the Alpa Helicals.

Victor