Don't shoot me... X1D compared to IQ180

[tashley]

Really, don't shoot me. This is not science, this was not a lab. This was done more in the spirit of idle curiosity and a bit of fun since I had both systems with me. I made best but not extreme efforts to make a level playing field.

Shooting method:

IQ 180 on Alpa TC with Rodenstock 40HR, no movements, LCC, F8 for lobster pots and F11 for seascape. Tripod. Focus using Disto and HPF ring.
X1D with 30mm, same F stops as above, handheld, lobster pots focussed with MF magnified, Seascape focussed using a guess at hyperfocal.

Processing:

IQ180 import in C1 10 and given lens corrections but no sharpening. Export to 16 bit tiff. Import to LR and given a touch of clarity and vibrance (+12 +10) and then exported to Photoshop for resize to same pixel width as the X1D files. Back to LR, sharpening of 60/0.7/70/20.

X1D import in Phocus and given lens corrections but no sharpening. Export to 16 bit tiff. Import to LR and given a touch of clarity and vibrance (+12 +10) and sharpening of 60/0.7/70/20.

Minor efforts to make exposure and WB ballpark.

My takeaway is as I suspected: the quality of the two after the IQ has been re-sized is so similar that though some parts of the frame look a tiny bit better, others look a tiny bit worse - all so much within the possibility of small differences in exposure and focus. Effectively for my purposes they are as useful as each other unless I want to print larger than about 46" long edge.

If I had to guess, I'd say that tonal gradations might be very slightly more subtle on the Phase back but nowhere near enough to matter to me or any print purchaser I will ever have. I'd also say that the IQ has a DR which is closer to that of the X1D than I thought: theoretically it is worse but I see no evidence of that.

Fields of view are slightly different as is DOF.

Don't shoot me. I make these claims for my own use and am happy to share but will not defend other than out of friendly interest! If it gets to be a less than fun discussion, I will just delete it, and make the gallery private! Also, I won't share the RAWS because I have clogged up my large file sharing space by doing so with too many other files.

These are the scenes and the gallery link is here

 

[jagsiva]

Tim, what lens was used on the Alpa?

 

[tashley]

Tim, what lens was used on the Alpa?

Sorry, silly of me not to say: Rodenstock 40HR... will amend original post!

 

[Iktinos]

Thanks for sharing. What is the lens on the ALPA + IQ-180 combination? oh sorry, I missed your previous reply.

 

[Iktinos]

Well... as you said, there isn't much into it for DR, but the Hasselblad lens is clearly sharper than the Roddie! I have to say, it doesn't come as a surprise to me... All MF lenses are of superb performance if closed to f8 or more... Part of the reason why I believe that MF mirrorless cameras are ideal for use with a view camera and combined with MF 6x4.5 or 6X6 or 6x7 lenses. One can then have one series of lenses too.

 

[tashley]

Well... as you said, there isn't much into it for DR, but the Hasselblad lens is clearly sharper than the Roddie! I have to say, it doesn't come as a surprise to me... All MF lenses are of superb performance if closed to f8 or more... Part of the reason why I believe that MF mirrorless cameras are ideal for use with a view camera and combined with MF 6x4.5 or 6X6 or 6x7 lenses. One can then have one series of lenses too.

I wouldn't be so sure of that... in the scene at distance, I mostly agree but in the lobster pot scene the Rodie has the edge in most of the scene. That might be a slight error in AF - the Disto and HPF setup is very accurate whereas the magnified AF system is prone to errors at such close range according to individual eyesight, viewing conditions, small body movements, and of course focus shift.

For me, however, the differences are not significant enough to matter. I could bottom them out with more testing but really all I need to know is that both systems give great results and that the X1D is a damn sight easier to use!

 

[voidshatter]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Roddie + IQ180 combo is sharper in the ideal (easy) shooting conditions, given that it has more native number of pixels!

However, dynamic range of a contrasty scene can be a different story, especially when the shutter speed is slow!

 

[algrove]

The Phase guys will shoot you for obvious reasons and even the X1D guys too just because you have so much nice gear. So watch your back when out and about.

 

[tashley]

The Phase guys will shoot you for obvious reasons and even the X1D guys too just because you have so much nice gear. So watch your back when out and about.

I need one of these: it has a built in wire skeleton to stop slashers....

http://www.pacsafe.com/camsafe-z25-anti-theft-camera-15-inch-laptop-backpack.html

 

[JoshMerwin]

The Phase guys will shoot you for obvious reasons and even the X1D guys too just because you have so much nice gear. So watch your back when out and about.

I will shoot you with my X1D!!!! :salute:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I've run similar tests and the reality is the CCD and CMOS sensor are really close. Credo 50 , IQ 160. Obviously CMOS has a better noise floor but the CCD seemed a little smoother in look. It's splitting hairs to be honest. But I'm not here to debate it either. Honestly that dog already had its fight and moved on. Tim stop being curious you may cause bowel movements here. ROTFLMAO

Seriously I'm tempted by both the Hassy and Fuji. I have no dog in that debate either, I'm just glad to see them come to market.

 

[DB5]

This is great to read! thanks for the news Tim! Personally I think it's something to celebrate rather than be negative about, although i can understand why those with IQ180's would be perhaps a little sensitive over it having invested so much money into their systems. I do sympathise on that level. That is the nature of technology and evolution though and if people don't buy those initial very expensive systems then there can be no smaller/cheaper evolutions like this.

Also I will add that there is likely a bigger difference on images that are shot wide open with faster lenses. This is where the difference in large sensors becomes more apparent.

I think the next leap in medium Format will come if and when we see a 6x7 sensor. There is quite a different look between 645 and 67 film.

 

[MGrayson]

Tim,

I have neither camera, nor any cameras by their respective manufacturers. So I ask out of complete curiosity - did you resize the X1D file to 80MP and compare? I remember tests (I was there. I didn't just read about it. Jack did them. ) resizing an IQ180 image to the size of a D810 (Otus? Sigma Art? Can't remember - good lens, though), and they were very similar. Going the other way was better than one would have expected, but no one would mistake one for the other.

BTW, "Nope, and I don't intend to." is a fine answer! :grin:

Best,

Matt

 

[tashley]

Tim,

I have neither camera, nor any cameras by their respective manufacturers. So I ask out of complete curiosity - did you resize the X1D file to 80MP and compare? I remember tests (I was there. I didn't just read about it. Jack did them. ) resizing an IQ180 image to the size of a D810 (Otus? Sigma Art? Can't remember - good lens, though), and they were very similar. Going the other way was better than one would have expected, but no one would mistake one for the other.

BTW, "Nope, and I don't intend to." is a fine answer! :grin:

Best,

Matt

Hi Matt,

I didn't though in the past and with different cameras I have tried it both ways. I took it as read that the comparison would not favour the X1D: there is clearly more detail in the IQ files because there are more pixels and a very fine lens. My aim was to see what the real difference would be in a 46" print (the largest I would likely ever want to sell) and to my satisfaction, there isn't enough of a difference to outstrip the forces majeures of DOF, precision of focus and other general matters relating to the capture process itself.

 

[MGrayson]

Tim,

I completely agree. I'm using the system that gives me (better than) good enough results while being a joy to use. MP is a part of that, but not a large part.

Best,

Matt

 

[Bryan Stephens]

Both systems look to be extremely close with regards to sharpness, and the color rendering is slightly different, but that could easily be corrected in post.

Overall, not all that much of a difference so for a first time buyer (with a very deep wallet) it would come down to system preference, at least from what I can see.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Both systems look to be extremely close with regards to sharpness, and the color rendering is slightly different, but that could easily be corrected in post.

To me looking at the micro detail in the lobster buckets, the IQ180 shot is much sharper and the detail much cleaner.

Would be interesting to see the other comparison ... uprez the X1D files to match the IQ. Of course, I only shoot to print large, so I'm interested in what happens when you get to 60-80" in length. I think the difference will be pretty apparent at those sizes.

But still I will admit it's pretty impressive for such a small lightweight camera.

I just hope the 75mp version of these two new cameras isn't too far in the future. That's when I'll take a serious look.

 

[dougpeterson]

To me looking at the micro detail in the lobster buckets, the IQ180 shot is much sharper and the detail much cleaner.

Would be interesting to see the other comparison ... uprez the X1D files to match the IQ. Of course, I only shoot to print large, so I'm interested in what happens when you get to 60-80" in length. I think the difference will be pretty apparent at those sizes.

It is the right of the person doing the comparison to decide what it is important and appropriate for their needs.

That said, I think downrez'ing an 80mp camera to 50mp in order to compare it to 50mp is a bit like comparing an v8 engine to a v6 engine by disabling two of its cylinders.

 

[jagsiva]

I do have an IQ180 and I don't believe this is an invalid comparison at all. The images are indeed close and the size/convenience of a mirrorless CMOS system is compelling. The price of a used IQ180 is also in the ballpark of a new X1D.

But I'm also not so sure there is much regret that technology/price ratio is catching up. This is a good thing. It also cannot be forgotten that that IQ 180 has served owners for 7 years now, and that's 7 years of shooting and images to show for the depreciation hit (and in mose cases income to show for it as well!). That is the name of the game.

 

[tashley]

It is the right of the person doing the comparison to decide what it is important and appropriate for their needs.

That said, I think downrez'ing an 80mp camera to 50mp in order to compare it to 50mp is a bit like comparing an v8 engine to a v6 engine by disabling two of its cylinders.

Kinda like using Sensor + mode?

:ROTFL: