IQ3 100MP owners/users impressions

[Jeffrey]

Graham, you, Don, and Ken know I'm no techie. I have an Epson 3880 for fooling around here at home in printing images from the new IQ back and the printer does a great job. I send out any images I want to have either larger or a bit better in quality. So, when you finish the instant noodles and use up your Amex points, we will be awaiting the news that you have purchased a new printer. Yippee!

 

[GrahamWelland]

So, when you finish the instant noodles and use up your Amex points, we will be awaiting the news that you have purchased a new printer. Yippee!

Well, a funny thing happened ... I pick up a (new to me) 44in Z3200PS brother for my 24in Z3200 tomorrow. So that 'problem' should be solved! There just remains the issue of getting it into the house and reorganizing my other printers.
:chug:

The good news about the IQ3 100mp for me though is that it has focused my mind on sliming down the rest of the camera herd; the new MFDB is just so versatile that I don't need the others any more.

 

[Don Libby]

I understand this thread was started for the IQ3-100 before the little brother IQ1-100 was announced. While I don't have the big brother I do nevertheless have it's little brother and find my methods of shooting changed. I just completed my first trip with the IQ1-100 and after shooting 6-day in the Socorro NM area I'm stunned. I've shot late at night and early in the morning capturing nightscapes and sunrises when I would normally couldn't do with my older IQ180. I shot birds in flight at Bosque del Apache NWR with my LS240 at high enough ISO to stop them in flight. My new method of reviewing my files is now setting C1 at 200% and the number of keepers are grown exponentially. The primary purpose of this back was to allow me to capture the night sky in ways my A7rII couldn't. To say I'm pleased is an understatement.

The Hassy and later the Fuji had originally caught my eye however after upgrading to 100-megapixels no more. Its more than a simple additional 20-megapixel addition; the sensor, higher ISO along with the live view is what really sells it for me.

Don

 

[aztwang]

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

Very good info. So you're saying that + 10 seconds trails start to be an issue? I've not shot allot of night sky before but it's on my list. Let me know how you like the 45 2.8. You must be really wanting additional speed to select the 45 over the stellar 35. Great stuff Don!!

 

[GrahamWelland]

As per Don, I've shot a couple of star trail sets with both IQ150 and IQ100 and the traditional guidelines for star points need refinement due to resolution. Heck even my A7RII required < 15s at 16mm to avoid visible stretching of star points. The 50 & 100mp backs just make it worse because you can resolve the star points more clearly and so they track at exposures shorter than the 500/600 rule.

With respect to the 100mp back cleaning up the camera herd, I expunged my Sony kit (other than RX1RII and RX100 IV) as I now can focus on a single system, plus it helped take some of the upgrade sting away.

I also cancelled my H1D order too. I'll wait on that one for feedback on real results and portability. The problem is that the IQ100 files are so good that it's hard to go back. Hard to explain without sounding like a fan boy who's drunk the Kool Aid but there is something special in the files.

 

[Don Libby]

Very good info. So you're saying that + 10 seconds trails start to be an issue? I've not shot allot of night sky before but it's on my list. Let me know how you like the 45 2.8. You must be really wanting additional speed to select the 45 over the stellar 35. Great stuff Don!!

While I got some very good 35mm files from the night shot (very pleased with them) at night I want a very fast lens so that I can use the lowest ISO possible and fastest shutter speed possible if I don't use a tracker. The tracker has a weight limit which only allows me the use of the 28 as the 35 is too heavy. The tracker allows for longer shutter speeds but can screw up nightscape for trees or other such stuff in the foreground. I have found that shooting at night can be more forgiving lens wise and after a quick down and dirty test of the 45 it'll work out just fine.

I'm used to shooting lenses as fast as f/.095 and as slow as f/1.2 so f/2.8 to 3.5 is my new sweet spot. I had also forgotten just how small the 45 is; this also might be a good walk around lens...

I had my A7rII and converted A7r with me and neither left the bag on this last trip. We have another trip end of the month to shoot night skies in Moab and Bluff and I plan to put the IQ1-100 to the test again.

Agree with Graham - not drinking the Kool-Aid either however there's something "special" about the files that you need to see to believe.

Don

 

[hcubell]

As per Don, I've shot a couple of star trail sets with both IQ150 and IQ100 and the traditional guidelines for star points need refinement due to resolution. Heck even my A7RII required < 15s at 16mm to avoid visible stretching of star points. The 50 & 100mp backs just make it worse because you can resolve the star points more clearly and so they track at exposures shorter than the 500/600 rule.

With respect to the 100mp back cleaning up the camera herd, I expunged my Sony kit (other than RX1RII and RX100 IV) as I now can focus on a single system, plus it helped take some of the upgrade sting away.

I also cancelled my H1D order too. I'll wait on that one for feedback on real results and portability. The problem is that the IQ100 files are so good that it's hard to go back. Hard to explain without sounding like a fan boy who's drunk the Kool Aid but there is something special in the files.

If it were just a matter of ultimate file quality, I agree, the choice between the X1D and the IQ100 would be clear. However, the choice is far more complicated when the issues of size, weight and weather proofing come into play. Some are willing to accept the large penalties in size, weight, and weather proofing of an XF System with huge Blue Ring lenses and hike with it wherever they may want to go in order to obtain that incremental improvement in file quality. 10 years ago, I was willing to do that. Now, I am not. I am not yet sure, but I am hopeful that the X1D will permit me to make prints of exceptional quality at sizes up to 30x40 that are very close to what I could achieve with an IQ100, AND I can hike with it for several miles without being miserable. The Goldilocks approach to camera system selection. Moreover, for the price of the upgrade from an IQ180 to an IQ100, I could keep the IQ 180 and have an X1D or Fuji GFX and three lenses. I could use the IQ180 for "close range" shooting in lower contrast light (which I prefer anyway), and use the X1D or the Fuji for hiking and/or more contrasty light.
Having said all of this, I do think it is best that I NOT demo the IQ100. It would likely be hazardous to my financial health. [G]

 

[Frederic]

...The problem is that the IQ100 files are so good that it's hard to go back. Hard to explain without sounding like a fan boy who's drunk the Kool Aid but there is something special in the files.

Graham,

Since you've used an IQ260 before, do you feel the IQ100 performs better in terms of colors/tonality ? IMHO the 260 exhibits quite a strong bias toward yellows, not seen in the IQx80 backs.
Also, do you think the new Leaf profiles designed for the IQ100 are any good (I remember you used to enjoy the Leaf/Aptus look... )

Thanks,
Frederic

 

[vjbelle]

If it were just a matter of ultimate file quality, I agree, the choice between the X1D and the IQ100 would be clear. However, the choice is far more complicated when the issues of size, weight and weather proofing come into play. Some are willing to accept the large penalties in size, weight, and weather proofing of an XF System with huge Blue Ring lenses and hike with it wherever they may want to go in order to obtain that incremental improvement in file quality. 10 years ago, I was willing to do that. Now, I am not. I am not yet sure, but I am hopeful that the X1D will permit me to make prints of exceptional quality at sizes up to 30x40 that are very close to what I could achieve with an IQ100, AND I can hike with it for several miles without being miserable. The Goldilocks approach to camera system selection. Moreover, for the price of the upgrade from an IQ180 to an IQ100, I could keep the IQ 180 and have an X1D or Fuji GFX and three lenses. I could use the IQ180 for "close range" shooting in lower contrast light (which I prefer anyway), and use the X1D or the Fuji for hiking and/or more contrasty light.
Having said all of this, I do think it is best that I NOT demo the IQ100. It would likely be hazardous to my financial health. [G]

I owned both the IQ180 and Leaf/Credo CMOS and was regularly able to print to 40 inches with the Leaf files. Those files were easy to work with and could easily withstand the upsampling. A lot of my images made with the Leaf were two shot stiches (10mm left and right) and then slightly cropped to 16 X 9. If I were to use something like the X1D I wouldn't hesitate to do the same thing but would have to rotate about 7.5 degrees left and right. Very simple to stitch and produces a file that I always printed to 48 inches on the long side. I'm sure you will be very pleased with the X1D.

Victor

 

[GrahamWelland]

Graham,

Since you've used an IQ260 before, do you feel the IQ100 performs better in terms of colors/tonality ? IMHO the 260 exhibits quite a strong bias toward yellows, not seen in the IQx80 backs.
Also, do you think the new Leaf profiles designed for the IQ100 are any good (I remember you used to enjoy the Leaf/Aptus look... )

Thanks,
Frederic

I definitely think that the tonality of the IQ100 is better than the IQ260, although that's to be expected I think with the extra resolution. As regards the colour, the default profiles do tend to yellower greens IMHO, kind of like comparing Canon greens to Nikon greens. The Leaf product profile for the IQ100 seems to be closer to traditional Leaf profiles in so far as there is a bluer hint to true natural greens which is certainly how I see the world. Also there's less punch in reds/oranges to my eye - something I noticed particularly in a late night shot of car brake light trails where the Phase One profile shows a consistent red/orange into the lights whilst the Leaf profile shows more subtle tones in the reds. I'll post an example when I get home.

So far I really like the Leaf profile for the IQ100. That said, I need to shoot a lot more and process more images ...

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Very good info. So you're saying that + 10 seconds trails start to be an issue? I've not shot allot of night sky before but it's on my list. Let me know how you like the 45 2.8. You must be really wanting additional speed to select the 45 over the stellar 35. Great stuff Don!!

For clarity, the 45mm Blue Line is an f/3.5 lens, the older Phase One/Mamiya 45mm D Lens was an f/2.8 (and a good lens, if not up to the standard of the 45mm Blue Line, which seems similar in performance to a slightly less wide 35 Blue Line).



Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Don Libby]

For clarity, the 45mm Blue Line is an f/3.5 lens, the older Phase One/Mamiya 45mm D Lens was an f/2.8 (and a good lens, if not up to the standard of the 45mm Blue Line, which seems similar in performance to a slightly less wide 35 Blue Line).



Steve Hendrix/CI

Thanks Steve, the primary purpose of my 45 f/2.8 is nightcap images where speed is king. I currently have 3-options for shooting dark skies; on tripod which limits the shutter speed, small iOptro SkyTracker with limited weight ability (28D or the 45) and very heavy 12" telescope that I can use any lens I wish with the XF mounted piggyback on a special ring adaptor. The SkyTracker allows me several minutes tracking while the telescope is good for as long as my batteries will last (I anticipate 1- 60-minute capture). There's easier ways of doing this but what fun would it be?

 

[Frederic]

I definitely think that the tonality of the IQ100 is better than the IQ260, although that's to be expected I think with the extra resolution. As regards the colour, the default profiles do tend to yellower greens IMHO, kind of like comparing Canon greens to Nikon greens. The Leaf product profile for the IQ100 seems to be closer to traditional Leaf profiles in so far as there is a bluer hint to true natural greens which is certainly how I see the world. Also there's less punch in reds/oranges to my eye - something I noticed particularly in a late night shot of car brake light trails where the Phase One profile shows a consistent red/orange into the lights whilst the Leaf profile shows more subtle tones in the reds. I'll post an example when I get home.

So far I really like the Leaf profile for the IQ100. That said, I need to shoot a lot more and process more images ...

Thanks a lot Graham, that IQ100 is getting increasingly dangerous to my wallet it seems...
I totally hear you on the bluer greens, a shade I've seen in some IQ100 pics posted here indeed, and which reminds me of a more portra-ish color palette.

Looking forward to you next pics !

 

[dchew]

I too seem to like the Leaf profile a little better, especially the point Graham brings up about reds. I changed the default in C1 to the Leaf profile and Linear Response. If nothing else it allows me to expose a bit brighter, and with Film Standard I was often reducing contrast, especially in the highlights. I'd rather add contrast than try to remove it.

Dave

 

[aztwang]

I definitely think that the tonality of the IQ100 is better than the IQ260, although that's to be expected I think with the extra resolution. As regards the colour, the default profiles do tend to yellower greens IMHO, kind of like comparing Canon greens to Nikon greens. The Leaf product profile for the IQ100 seems to be closer to traditional Leaf profiles in so far as there is a bluer hint to true natural greens which is certainly how I see the world. Also there's less punch in reds/oranges to my eye - something I noticed particularly in a late night shot of car brake light trails where the Phase One profile shows a consistent red/orange into the lights whilst the Leaf profile shows more subtle tones in the reds. I'll post an example when I get home.

So far I really like the Leaf profile for the IQ100. That said, I need to shoot a lot more and process more images ...

Is the Leaf profile only available to the IQ100?

 

[GrahamWelland]

I've only seen the Leaf specific profile for a Phase One back available for the IQ100 series in Capture One.

Many of us over the years have asked various Phase One / Leaf reps and dealers about getting the Leaf profiles for the other backs but the answer has always been that the image processing pipeline was different, or more likely, they just wanted to keep two different 'looks' and products - heck, you might buy both a Leaf back and a Phase One back (I guess that's just my cynical view ... ).

 

[Chipcarterdc]

Another vote here strongly in favor of the Leaf profile for the IQ-100, which I've just started using and find to be outstanding for portraits. Haven't tried it with landscape.

 

[Frederic]

Glad to hear, hope they will make more of them available now it's getting clear a Credo 100 is not to be expected... There used to be a lot of different - and useful - options within the Product and Portrait looks.
Count me in as a "Product 4" profile fan :grin:

 

[dnercesian]

I knew it would be inevitable, I traded in my IQ160 and IQ150 and went for the IQ3-100. It arrives tomorrow and I don't even know if I will be able to sleep tonight. I am way too excited. Aside from the joy of using it with my XF, the new features in conjunction with my WRS 5000 are a game changer for me. Totally genius. This is one very happy architectural photographer!

 

[aztwang]

Another vote here strongly in favor of the Leaf profile for the IQ-100, which I've just started using and find to be outstanding for portraits. Haven't tried it with landscape.

Would someone post a portrait style image processed with standard profile and then with Leaf profile PLEASE!