P65+ -> IQ160\180\260 or Credo 60\80?

[Alex Matiash]

Hi all. I know that it was discussed many times, so I'm sorry for creating one more thread, but I have to.
I want to upgrade from P65+ to some IQ back to get more usability of the back itself and to be able to use XF instead of DF+ I currently use.
I shoot only landscapes, and only on SLR camera, mostly in not-very-warm conditions where P65+ is able to do up to a 10-15 s exposure without ruining image seriously. I do not need wireless capability, also I do not and will not shoot on tech cam.
My questions are:
1. Is there any real difference between IQ160 and 260 in normal exposure mode:
1.1 For short exposures (1/nn s)? I mean - better DR, better linearity (my P65+ and friend's P40+ both have pink highlights (not overexposures!) issue anywhere with except of C1, and I have few 280 samples where this issue is completely absent. Unfortunately I have found no IQ260 raws to download.)
1.2 For longer exposures, up to, say, 15-20 s?
2. Is LE mode of IQ260 really worth it, if I do not use exposures longer than 30 s at iso 50?
3. Is there any difference between IQ160 and IQ180 other than resolution? I mean - better color\dr\etc from 60 or 80 mp sensor.
4. Is the Clip warning feature of IQ2x0 backs really a game changer? I understand that it is much more precise than the usual Exposure warning, the question is if it is worth 1500-2000$ (difference between IQ160\260 for me)?
5. Can anybody comment the difference between IQ160\180 and Credo 60\80 apart of color in the C1? I mean - features, usability, etc. I know that there is no Sensor+ mode, but maybe anything else?

I do not have (real) P1 dealer in my country and it is REALLY hard for me to buy DB, I have to fly to another country. Also there are almost no sample raw files over the internet, I tried to gather everything I found, but, for example, for IQ180 I have only 3 much-less-than-ideal raws, and 0 raws from IQ160\260.

Ideally I'd stick with IQ160 or 180 (preferably the latter one) as they are affordable and widely available used at this time.

P.S. I hope Paul2660 will visit this thread. If so, Paul, I read your post on LL where you are regretting on switching from IQ160 to 260 some time ago, but now I'm unable to find it again and re-read. Could you please comment my questions?
P.P.S. If somebody can share his raws from IQ160\180\260\280 with me - I'd be very grateful.
P.P.P.S. CMOS and\or non-fullframe backs are not for me at all.

 

[bythewei]

If you are going ahead with a purchase, I have a Credo60 for sale

 

[Paul2660]

The output from the P65+ and IQ160 will be identical, same chip, just IQ interface.

The output from the 160 and 260, will also look pretty much the same, different chip possible, different algorithm for processing as the 260 has the long exposure mode

Is the LE mode on the 260 worth it, NO, it's not, it's nothing like the LE mode of the P45+, and really anything longer than 1 to 5 minutes will contain plenty of noise and color cast issues. I owned both the 160 and 260, and still regret the 14K I blew on the upgrade to the 260, total waste of money. It was implied to me that the results would be the same as what was possible on the P45+, and that is not the case. The best you can expect is 15 minutes and even that was still pretty full of noise. The P45+ would do 1 hour and produce an amazingly clean image, and it stayed at base ISO, the LE mode of the 260 bumped to ISO140 and I never found the images worth the trouble, and quickly moved away from the LE mode. I also assumed on my part (not P1's) that since newer technology had gone into the 260, the files should be cleaner, I found just the opposite to be true and in fact many times found more noise, then similar files from my 160. I had hoped that using the LE mode which shifts to ISO 140, that it would help improve the noise in regular exposures, and I did not find this to be the case. Bad assumption on my part.

Wifi on the 260 was touch and go, I only tried the adhoc wifi and it was slow and did not send the files over to the Capture pilot on iPhone or iPad very fast, and tended to do a lot of refreshing. However you could control the camera from the Capture Pilot and that was a nice feature. Still not available on the IQ4.

I would go with the 180, amazing back, great color and with sensor plus you still get a 20MP image that's very clean up to and above ISO 1200. The 180 will also work well with many tech camera lenses.

The Credo backs did have a different color look to them, and used a different profile in C1. Many preferred the color of the Credo backs, and at times I used the Credo profile with my 160/260 images.

LiveView on all the CCD backs, is pretty worthless in the field, as it blooms and constantly tries to adjust the exposure. I found it much more effective to use a Surface pro 1 tethered to C1 and the 260 and just review the capture to see if I had correct focus.

As a owner of both the 160 and 260, I can't see any reason other than the wifi adhoc and Capture Pilot. For sure not LE or cleaner output over the 160. You also might look for a 280 as it also had the wifi and adhoc allowing Capture Pilot inteface with a iOS device.

Paul C

 

[Alex Matiash]

The output from the P65+ and IQ160 will be identical, same chip, just IQ interface.

The output from the 160 and 260, will also look pretty much the same, different chip possible, different algorithm for processing as the 260 has the long exposure mode

Is the LE mode on the 260 worth it, NO, it's not, it's nothing like the LE mode of the P45+, and really anything longer than 1 to 5 minutes will contain plenty of noise and color cast issues. I owned both the 160 and 260, and still regret the 14K I blew on the upgrade to the 260, total waste of money. It was implied to me that the results would be the same as what was possible on the P45+, and that is not the case. The best you can expect is 15 minutes and even that was still pretty full of noise. The P45+ would do 1 hour and produce an amazingly clean image, and it stayed at base ISO, the LE mode of the 260 bumped to ISO140 and I never found the images worth the trouble, and quickly moved away from the LE mode. I also assumed on my part (not P1's) that since newer technology had gone into the 260, the files should be cleaner, I found just the opposite to be true and in fact many times found more noise, then similar files from my 160. I had hoped that using the LE mode which shifts to ISO 140, that it would help improve the noise in regular exposures, and I did not find this to be the case. Bad assumption on my part.

Wifi on the 260 was touch and go, I only tried the adhoc wifi and it was slow and did not send the files over to the Capture pilot on iPhone or iPad very fast, and tended to do a lot of refreshing. However you could control the camera from the Capture Pilot and that was a nice feature. Still not available on the IQ4.

I would go with the 180, amazing back, great color and with sensor plus you still get a 20MP image that's very clean up to and above ISO 1200. The 180 will also work well with many tech camera lenses.

Thank you very much, Paul! Seems that IQ180 is my choice.

The Credo backs did have a different color look to them, and used a different profile in C1. Many preferred the color of the Credo backs, and at times I used the Credo profile with my 160/260 images.

Interesting enough, it seems that only C1 treats Credo files in different manner than IQs based on the same chips (something like two stage color correction for all Leaf backs instead of just applying profile). 3rd party convertors show no difference when applied native\Credo profiles to the IQ files and vice versa. Also there is simple color matrix inside raws from both IQ and Credo, and they are the absolutely same for IQ180 and Credo 80 (and different for Credo 60, obviously).

As a owner of both the 160 and 260, I can't see any reason other than the wifi adhoc and Capture Pilot. For sure not LE or cleaner output over the 160. You also might look for a 280 as it also had the wifi and adhoc allowing Capture Pilot inteface with a iOS device.

Yes, but 280 is much more expensive and rare than 180, and I do not use iOS devices at all..


One more question - could you please comment Clip warning vs. Exposure warning?