IQ3 100MP owners/users impressions

[GrahamWelland]

:OT: Surely we are talking two different things here. PPI is the input file (from my perspective) but DPI is what the printer lays down on the paper. They aren't the same thing.

I was always told to make it easier for the printer driver to interpolate input files to output DPI so hence the Epson, Canon, HP recommendations of multiples of 180 or 150ppi. For example, for my HP that would be 300 or 600ppi. For Epson thats 180, 360, 720ppi. etc etc.

I haven't done exhaustive testing but I've trusted in prior best practices for basic drivers and also PS interpolation vs the driver. As mentioned though, ImagePrint (and doubtless other dedicated RIP/drivers) did all of this internally for superb results.

 

[Paul2660]

Or even better by pass the printer driver with a RIP or LR.

I agree that for Epson the DPI should be 360 or 720. With the Epson driver the worst interpolation "nearest neighbor" is used. This is not optimal.

I base this on my printing and "The Digital Print"

Paul C

 

[Steve Hendrix]

300 dpi as a default printing spec has origins that go back decades, when there was very little, if any, professional output happening on desktop printers (inkjets, etc.). The continued use of 300dpi by manufacturers as a continuing default spec probably has more to do with producing a familiar number to work with than anything else. There's not really any way for camera or scanner manufacturers to know what output device might be utilized and which dpi would be the optimal one to set as a default. From that standpoint, 300 dpi just becomes a generic starting point, and anyone doing any serious printing should be consciously referencing the best dpi setting for their printer anyway, which typically means changing the default.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[algrove]

C1 printing suggests 360 or 720. I use 360 as 720 just seems very high, but what do I know.

 

[hcubell]

Doug,

It isn't all hype. Not at all. Though depending on its use and context, mere claims of megapixels can indeed be rather simplistic and not the entire story.

There is also a difference in the quality of those megapixels---where they originated from. And as you've found the IQ180 produces really great images in print. I get to see and print a lot of different images for photographers/artists using many different types of cameras, and there is definitely a difference in the quality of the megapixels, whether that be in resolution, color, or simply character of the file. And, of course, there are many other factors involved here that impact the quality of the file. But all things held constant, not all megapixels are created equally.

I simply love working with and printing medium format digital files. I didn't find much of a difference jumping from the P65+ to the IQ180---but the difference is much more noticeable coming from the IQ180 (80 megapixels) to the IQ3 100MP. And I'm sure it's not all about the change in megapixels. That being said, having that extra information in the file simply makes printing easier, particularly when setting files for 360dpi for Epson wide format printers. When you have a MFDB, it just makes printing easier!

Ken

I wonder why the difference between an 80MP file and a 100MP file would be that significant, at least in terms of resolution. On a percentage basis, the increase is pretty small. Of course, the 80 MP files are from a CCD back and the 100MP files are from a CMOS back, but I distinctly recall the makers of medium format digital backs insisting that what gave medium format digital its special advantage was the use of CCD sensors.

 

[rriley]

The areas that will cause a problem, (for me) is that as you scroll around, the refresh is a bit slow and it seems to get slower as the card fills up, might just be my back or mind. Where as on the S2, the refresh is 100% instantaneous or close to it.

Is it any better than the IQ250?, no I don't see being any different. In fact it may be a bit slower, especially when zooming around the screen at 100% view.

Paul C

The diminished speed on the 3/100 vs the 2/50 may be a function of the file size being twice as large, 3x vs the S.

 

[DougDolde]

I wonder why the difference between an 80MP file and a 100MP file would be that significant, at least in terms of resolution. On a percentage basis, the increase is pretty small. Of course, the 80 MP files are from a CCD back and the 100MP files are from a CMOS back, but I distinctly recall the makers of medium format digital backs insisting that what gave medium format digital its special advantage was the use of CCD sensors.

You gotta see something for your $26,000 + IQ180 trade ! Real or imagined

 

[vjbelle]

I wonder why the difference between an 80MP file and a 100MP file would be that significant, at least in terms of resolution. On a percentage basis, the increase is pretty small. Of course, the 80 MP files are from a CCD back and the 100MP files are from a CMOS back, but I distinctly recall the makers of medium format digital backs insisting that what gave medium format digital its special advantage was the use of CCD sensors.

From my perspective there is almost no difference between an 80MP and 100MP file. I regularly print out to 48 inches on the long side and visually there is no difference between test files. The benefits of the 100MP back are in other areas.

Victor

 

[vjbelle]

Tried out the electronic shutter with my Cambo Actus DB yesterday. It works great but there are some usability bugs (both me and camera).

I managed to get the dark frame correction out of sync producing a couple of very weird looking files. Since it doesn't require a new dark frame for a sequence of images at the same exposure I ended up having to power off to reset although I guess if I'd changed exposure it might also have fixed it.

The other observation was with ES and artifacts. I was shooting in low light a scenic outlook with tourists and traffic and so was looking for rolling shutter type artifacts. I had a couple of shots with white floating orbs of light that I assume were flashes captured by the electronic shutter scan. Quite weird ...

I also had weird files resulting from not closing the shutter for the dark frame and the fix was to power down and up again. In all the time I was in Italy on my last trip I used the ES exclusively and never saw any of the artifacts you experienced and hope I never do. I regard the ES as the single most important benefit of the 100MP back.

Victor

 

[tjv]

Could it simply be less noise brought out in PP due to CMOS combined with higher usable ISO (if there's wind, for example,) AND slight increase in resolution?

I wonder why the difference between an 80MP file and a 100MP file would be that significant, at least in terms of resolution. On a percentage basis, the increase is pretty small. Of course, the 80 MP files are from a CCD back and the 100MP files are from a CMOS back, but I distinctly recall the makers of medium format digital backs insisting that what gave medium format digital its special advantage was the use of CCD sensors.

 

[vjbelle]

Slightly off topic of your issue, but I regularly print 36x48 from my IQ180 files at about 209 dpi on my Z5200. And they look fantastic with almost a 3D look and super fine detail. And that's on canvas.

I don't believe the 300 dpi hype. I think it'a a creation of sellers of more megapixels.

Maybe 'super fine detail' is in the eye of the beholder. I've been doing this for longer than I'd like to admit but I don't consider printing at anything lower than 300PPI on my iPF 8400. I would never allow the driver to do any of the upsampling but instead would use one of the dedicated upsampling programs for that..... Now with 100MP upsampling, if needed, is so small that any software can do the job - including PS which I would hardly ever use.

Victor

 

[hcubell]

Could it simply be less noise brought out in PP due to CMOS combined with higher usable ISO (if there's wind, for example,) AND slight increase in resolution?

There is a current thread over at LuLa that also discusses the IQ180 v. the IQ3 100. There appears to be a strong consensus over there that the Phase 100 MP CMOS back provides a "significant" improvement in detail that is way beyond what one would expect from an 11% increase in resolution. This is at base ISO, and presumably with the same lenses. I find this surprising, but so do they. Quite frankly, if I were to shoot the same, lowish contrast landscape with the two backs at base ISO with the same lenses, l would have expected two large prints from the files to be essentially indistinguishable (assuming I can equalize the color rendition). I have NOT done this test myself, so I can't speak from experience at this point. I am now very interested in doing the test.
BTW, I am well aware of the advantages of the Sony CMOS sensors in dynamic range, high ISO performance, Live View, etc. I have been using a Sony A7R and A7RII for 3 years.

 

[f8orbust]

The test seems to be entirely based on RAWs from DPReview, with the IQ1-180 on a DF and the IQ3-100 on an XF (IIRC).

With this level of equipment I'd only trust 'comparison' images that are taken on exactly the same gear, with shimming for each DB so that you know you're getting the most out of the sensor. Something like an Alpa, for instance.

I think the 'differences' have more to do with the variables involved in the test than the simple 25% increase in resolution which, let's face it, is simply one extra pixel in the IQ3-100 for every four in the IQ1-180.

That said, for anyone who spends their time taking pictures of brick walls and test charts, this may be significant. For the rest of us, I doubt the resolution increase per se has much value.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I also had weird files resulting from not closing the shutter for the dark frame and the fix was to power down and up again. In all the time I was in Italy on my last trip I used the ES exclusively and never saw any of the artifacts you experienced and hope I never do. I regard the ES as the single most important benefit of the 100MP back.

Victor

Victor,

My ES experience so far has been great. The artifacts I saw were pretty strange and I think outliers (folks with p&s with flash - only in a couple of shots). I haven't experienced anything else yet.

Very impressed so far with this feature. All the spaghetti wiring and cable releases go away on the Cambo (or any other tech camera).

 

[dchew]

You gotta see something for your $26,000 + IQ180 trade ! Real or imagined

That is certainly possible Doug. In my case though, I didn't upgrade with any expectation of improvement in the files. Especially at base ISO. The convenience from Live View and ES far out weigh any improvements in detail.

I'm not one to do exhaustive tests so I will never really know, nor do I care that much. Not "dramatically" or "compelling", but better than expected, a bit surprising even.

One factor may be that many of us have had the IQ180/280 versions for a while (2011 for me). I may have been just so accustomed to the very nice 180 files that any improvement is "surprising".

Dave

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, that seems to be the case…

On the other hand some posters have suggested that the reference image for the IQ-180 may have been below par, regarding sharpness. It seems that DPReview improved their test images in the recent past.

That said, even the IQ-180 reference image is quite impressive.

Best regards
Erik

There is a current thread over at LuLa that also discusses the IQ180 v. the IQ3 100. There appears to be a strong consensus over there that the Phase 100 MP CMOS back provides a "significant" improvement in detail that is way beyond what one would expect from an 11% increase in resolution. This is at base ISO, and presumably with the same lenses. I find this surprising, but so do they. Quite frankly, if I were to shoot the same, lowish contrast landscape with the two backs at base ISO with the same lenses, l would have expected two large prints from the files to be essentially indistinguishable (assuming I can equalize the color rendition). I have NOT done this test myself, so I can't speak from experience at this point. I am now very interested in doing the test.
BTW, I am well aware of the advantages of the Sony CMOS sensors in dynamic range, high ISO performance, Live View, etc. I have been using a Sony A7R and A7RII for 3 years.

 

[vjbelle]

Hi,

Yes, that seems to be the case…

On the other hand some posters have suggested that the reference image for the IQ-180 may have been below par, regarding sharpness. It seems that DPReview improved their test images in the recent past.

That said, even the IQ-180 reference image is quite impressive.

Best regards
Erik

I just can't imagine that anyone would think that an IQ-180 because of its design is any less sharp than an IQ3100. It just aint so. But..... focus accuracy between the two backs can easily be a contributing factor for sharpness differences. The 3100 is worlds beyond the IQ-180 for ease of focus and gives the user immediate feedback via the LCD. When I had an IQ-180 I literally had to back into focus by taking test images and then viewing the LCD for the focus line. A little tweeking would usually get me into the window. However there is only ONE focus point and the 3100 lets me nail it in live view.

Victor

 

[Don Libby]

View attachment 122334

This is a test shot done in Socorro NM last week using a Phase One XF, Mamiya 28mm and the IQ1-100. f/4.5 10-seconds and ISO 6400. I also used the 35LS which gave even better results and have ordered a 45mm f/2.8 for an even faster lens.

As much as I loved my IQ180 I never could have gotten an image even close to this. I understand there's noise here, I just haven't taken the time to clean it up as it was just a test shot...

 

[aztwang]

View attachment 122334

This is a test shot done in Socorro NM last week using a Phase One XF, Mamiya 28mm and the IQ1-100. f/4.5 10-seconds and ISO 6400. I also used the 35LS which gave even better results and have ordered a 45mm f/2.8 for an even faster lens.

As much as I loved my IQ180 I never could have gotten an image even close to this. I understand there's noise here, I just haven't taken the time to clean it up as it was just a test shot...

Don, did you try longer exposures ie 20 seconds @ ISO3200 ? Wondering if your IQ is better @ 3200 after cleaning up in post.

Don McPhee

 

[Don Libby]

Don, did you try longer exposures ie 20 seconds @ ISO3200 ? Wondering if your IQ is better @ 3200 after cleaning up in post.

Don McPhee[/QUOT\\

Don, I got better results the following night using the 35LS at 1600 ISO with much less noise. I should have the 45 2.8 tomorrow and the sky looks good for a test Fri and Sat; I hope to be able to lower the ISO to 800 and keep the shutter at or below 10-seconds to stay away from trails.

neither night was set on a tracker so the limit I was willing to go was 10-seconds.

Don