Phase One IQ5 – Sony 247 MPX – 3:2 – will you get it?

[Paul Spinnler]

Hi Vieri

I understand and the 23 HR indeed is the main case where you truly loose sth on a one-shot basis if you're also into the 54:40 aspect ratio.

Unfortunately, I heard 250 MPX it is, and I also reached out to P1 underscoring the importance of aiming for 54x40 for the photographic user base, but my trusted source suggests its the 247 for now. I also hope for a larger chip, but it may not be that easy to do.

Alternatively to the 23 HR you could use the Nikkor 19 TSE which apparently is a more recent design and covers a full frame chip one-shot.

So by cropping into it you should be a tiny bit wider or very similar than with the 23 HR, but with 220 MPX.

Remains to be seen though, how good the lens performs on an IQ5.

 

[vieri]

Hi Vieri

I understand and the 23 HR indeed is the main case where you truly loose sth on a one-shot basis if you're also into the 54:40 aspect ratio.

Unfortunately, I heard 250 MPX it is, and I also reached out to P1 underscoring the importance of aiming for 54x40 for the photographic user base, but my trusted source suggests its the 247 for now. I also hope for a larger chip, but it may not be that easy to do.

Alternatively to the 23 HR you could use the Nikkor 19 TSE which apparently is a more recent design and covers a full frame chip one-shot.

So by cropping into it you should be a tiny bit wider or very similar than with the 23 HR, but with 220 MPX.

Remains to be seen though, how good the lens performs on an IQ5.

Hi Paul,

the Nikon 19mm TSE is a non-starter, the hassle of having electronic diaphragm and the impossibility to use 100mm filters with it make it a no go for me.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Maybe you also let them know about the importance of 54x40; I've let the key people know ... maybe it has an effect. On the other hand it may not be commerciable viable, who knows what Sony would ask for for a custom format.

From the questionnaire it looks like they lose a significant part of the user base due to 3:2 as they've been marketing their 54x40 aspect ratio since almost forever.

Worth having a talk about this with Sony. Wouldn't mind 275 MPX on a Sony BSI in achromatic

 

[cunim]

Paul, I just skim this thread but I have to say I am worried about the IQ5. Sure, we are going to be able to crop in while having comparable pixel numbers to an IQ4, but does it really work well? Smaller pixels are, in every way but theoretical resolution, a bad thing. Then there is the reduction of the cropped sensor area. The larger the sensor area the easier it is to apply nonparallel movements. It is already hard to do those movements with a full frame MF. - why I want a bigger sensor Even parallel movements will be tricky because those tiny perfect pixels will absolutely need heavy tripods and perfect camera alignment.

Maybe, for those who are really fond of 4:3, the IQ4 will be the sweet spot - or an IQ5 with whatever the most recent version of that chip is. I think that option came up earlier and I would go fot it if it had the other improvements discussed, That seems like a better tool for a tethered studio application. For the field, people may actually like a wider aspect ratio and the higher potential resolution might be irresistible. P1 must think so.

 

[Doppler9000]

Smaller pixels are, in every way but theoretical resolution, a bad thing.

There would be less aliasing and no additional noise on a picture height basis - in what ways are they bad?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Paul, I just skim this thread but I have to say I am worried about the IQ5. Sure, we are going to be able to crop in while having comparable pixel numbers to an IQ4, but does it really work well? Smaller pixels are, in every way but theoretical resolution, a bad thing. Then there is the reduction of the cropped sensor area. The larger the sensor area the easier it is to apply nonparallel movements. It is already hard to do those movements with a full frame MF. - why I want a bigger sensor Even parallel movements will be tricky because those tiny perfect pixels will absolutely need heavy tripods and perfect camera alignment.

Maybe, for those who are really fond of 4:3, the IQ4 will be the sweet spot - or an IQ5 with whatever the most recent version of that chip is. I think that option came up earlier and I would go fot it if it had the other improvements discussed, That seems like a better tool for a tethered studio application. For the field, people may actually like a wider aspect ratio and the higher potential resolution might be irresistible. P1 must think so.

P1 has no choice, Sony is offering that and they take it. Custom order is most likely too expensive.

Super sampling is positive if the signal-to-noise can be kept the same. You don't lose anything vs. a 150 res back in such a case. If anything, you are more flexible in post as you can process the bigger file and then reduce its size.

The focal length / crop problem is the main issue. Your one shot pics with same focal lengths will look different with 3:2 and this cannot be change.

Its also my wish for them to call up Sony and custom order 54x40, but it is unlikely, in my view.

 

[cunim]

There would be less aliasing and no additional noise, on a picture height basis - in what ways are they bad?

I would need to dig out a bunch of references to give a proper answer and that is work. I am out of touch will all this and would probably screw it up anyway,

Basically, visible aliasing is not a photographic limiting factor with 150 MP, while smaller sensor area and smaller circle of confusion can be. The gain in resolution from 250 MP is large if MTF is measured at the sensor itself. In a camera system (sensor, lens, mounting, atmosphere between you and the Tuscan hills etc.), the global MTF is the product of the MTFs of all of the components, plus any effects of external influences like vibration. My old brain boggles at this so I can't predict what the actual IQ5 performance gain (if any) will be. It will depend on what you are doing.

As to @Paul Spinnler 's point about SNR, I have a lot of respect for sensor manufacturers. If they can increase readout rate and reduce photon well size without increasing noise or reducing DR, that respect will grow. Of course, they could apply the same tricks to an updated 150 MP chip package. Sweet.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Hi

Again: the Digaron HR and late-gen SK lenses will resolve the new chip without problem. The only difference might be that you may have a bit lower contrast, but you can recover that in post easily.

And with the old Rodenstock Sironar-S glass it might be easier to create an organic look by overlaying a grain texture and have a beautiful texture to the image comprised of analoge grain sim and old-gen lens "softness", although the Sironar-S lenses especially after 100mm are really sharp anyhow.

I think the IQ5 will be fantastic for post-processing - except that it is 3:2

 

[bab]

Read the whole post some take aways every camera owner wants their camera to do more especially after they buy it. Marketing arms of camera manufacturers fight with the engineers constantly I would assume to offer the latest and greatest so products have a vast appeal.
I don’t think any company who has spun off a significant part of the organization and hasn't released new products or upgrades without rehashing older products is going to magically meet your needs in the near future!
we can all hope as a owner of that brands products that they pull something out of their hat. But realistically unless they have significantly increased the bottom line and have cash on hand even the greatest ideas will be left on the cutting room floor.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The IQ5 will exist because P1 will use the 247 MPX sensor in the industrial division. So that's the "luck" of the photo unit.

You are right in that any extra bells and whistles will be put under a business calculation microscope, checking Return on Investment.

I hope at least the EVF topic makes it and that we'll get more ports for concurrent X shutter and triggering on non P1 systems + new I/O and battery.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

There's so much shade on this thread, I'm amazed there is any illumination left to read it.

The first 12 years that digital backs were in our marketplace (1992 - 2004, roughly), there was not a single model with a 4/3 sensor ratio, everything was 3/2 (or a few 1:1).

The last 3/2 ratio digital back was the Leaf Aptus II 10, a 56mp version of the 60mp sensor found in the Phase One/Leaf models.

It is highly likely that in 2025, there will be a new state of the art digital back from Phase One (after 7 years with the amazing IQ4 150 as the flgsghip product). I am happy.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul Spinnler]

There's so much shade on this thread, I'm amazed there is any illumination left to read it.

The first 12 years that digital backs were in our marketplace (1992 - 2004, roughly), there was not a single model with a 4/3 sensor ratio, everything was 3/2 (or a few 1:1).

The last 3/2 ratio digital back was the Leaf Aptus II 10, a 56mp version of the 60mp sensor found in the Phase One/Leaf models.

It is highly likely that in 2025, there will be a new state of the art digital back from Phase One (after 7 years with the amazing IQ4 150 as the flgsghip product). I am happy.


Steve Hendrix/CI

C'mon Steve, you can say that there will be one

I have it from a VERY, VERY trusted source. In fact, as trusted as it gets.

I think in the end everyone will want it at one point - I just hope they implement some really important upgrades:

1) EVF
2) I/O -> WIFI 7, bluetooth, additional ports so one can attach an X shutter + external trigger on non phase systema
3) New battery system - I hate that battery drains so fast
4) Improved overall speed
5) DR if possible

Exciting times for IQ3/4 owners ahead!

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

There's so much shade on this thread, I'm amazed there is any illumination left to read it.

The first 12 years that digital backs were in our marketplace (1992 - 2004, roughly), there was not a single model with a 4/3 sensor ratio, everything was 3/2 (or a few 1:1).

The last 3/2 ratio digital back was the Leaf Aptus II 10, a 56mp version of the 60mp sensor found in the Phase One/Leaf models.

It is highly likely that in 2025, there will be a new state of the art digital back from Phase One (after 7 years with the amazing IQ4 150 as the flgsghip product). I am happy.


Steve Hendrix/CI

That's a good point, but looking at it the other way we've had 20 years, close to twice as long now with 4/3.

Read the whole post some take aways every camera owner wants their camera to do more especially after they buy it. Marketing arms of camera manufacturers fight with the engineers constantly I would assume to offer the latest and greatest so products have a vast appeal.
I don’t think any company who has spun off a significant part of the organization and hasn't released new products or upgrades without rehashing older products is going to magically meet your needs in the near future!
we can all hope as a owner of that brands products that they pull something out of their hat. But realistically unless they have significantly increased the bottom line and have cash on hand even the greatest ideas will be left on the cutting room floor.

I've got plenty of other products that I bought long before the IQ4-150 that are still getting software updates (both hardware and software products). I don't think it's asking for too much for Phase One to stand behind their 'infinity platform' promises and actually deliver some updates. I see it as part of the marketing campaign for future releases, it creates goodwill and confidence in the system — it's a win for the marketing team and the engineers. It's much cheaper than developing an entirely new product and helps with ongoing sales while new products are being developed. Maybe I'm naive but I would have thought that would be worked into ongoing operational costs along with support costs and marketing costs .

 

[tcdeveau]

That's a good point, but looking at it the other way we've had 20 years, close to twice as long now with 4/3.


I've got plenty of other products that I bought long before the IQ4-150 that are still getting software updates (both hardware and software products). I don't think it's asking for too much for Phase One to stand behind their 'infinity platform' promises and actually deliver some updates. I see it as part of the marketing campaign for future releases, it creates goodwill and confidence in the system — it's a win for the marketing team and the engineers. It's much cheaper than developing an entirely new product and helps with ongoing sales while new products are being developed. Maybe I'm naive but I would have thought that would be worked into ongoing operational costs along with support costs and marketing costs .

I'd also like for a continuation of the "infinity platform" mantra, things like in camera LCC application would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think P1 did themselves any favors long term with customers utilizing marketing language like that, at least they didn't with me. As you note, other manufacturers provide software/firmware updates over a period of years (many for free), and to me it's something to be expected from a manufacturer in 2024 and shouldn't be a selling point using marketing fluff. There's no competition in the 40x54mm world for Phase in a market that is already niche, so I'd be surprised if we see a whole lot of changes in functionality compared to the IQ4 with an IQ5 beyond putting the new sensor in it.

I'm definitely happy with the updates P1 and HB have provided over the years and don't want to seem ungrateful, but both have been a little slower than we all would like when it comes to firmware updates. I don't see that changing any time soon but would love to be proven wrong.

I'm looking forward to an IQ5 when it comes about, mainly because I miss my IQ4A and want IQ4 prices to come down in 2025 and onward haha, but new shiny toys are always fun even if they're made of unobtanium (at least unobtanium for me).

 

[SrMphoto]

1) EVF

Are we talking about a new camera back or also a new body (EVF)?

5) DR if possible

Unless the technology changes a lot with the new sensor (I do not think so), better DR for the same sensor size is not possible. On the other hand, do we need better DR than frame averaging already gives us?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Are we talking about a new camera back or also a new body (EVF)?


Unless the technology changes a lot with the new sensor (I do not think so), better DR for the same sensor size is not possible. On the other hand, do we need better DR than frame averaging already gives us?

Of course it is possible via dual gain readout - eg Alexa 35 which surpasses Kodak Color neg - Portra still beats the IQ4 by a great margin in the highlights.

There is no body in development; just a back and the “mirrorless” solution of P1 is to then have XC lenses.

The IQ5 gives them the opportunity to modify the I/O and outer design of the back to accommodate an EVF add on. Current gen WIFI which should allow seamless wireless live view + file transfer or they could add a wired or electric connector type connection as seen in the Leica M11 EVF.

 

[SrMphoto]

Of course it is possible via dual gain readout - eg Alexa 35 which surpasses Kodak Color neg - Portra still beats the IQ4 by a great margin in the highlights

You cannot compare the DR from video cameras with still cameras. DR has nothing to do with highlights, but only with a noise limit in shadows.

There is no body in development; just a back and the “mirrorless” solution of P1 is to then have XC lenses.

After thinking about it properly, you are right, we could have an EVF on the back only, not requiring a body.

 

[cunim]

You cannot compare the DR from video cameras with still cameras. DR has nothing to do with highlights, but only with a noise limit in shadows.

I agree that the two technologies are not very comparable. However, highlight response is a limiting factor on DR as well. With nonlinear sensors (film), we can't measure a proper SNR at either the upper or lower end because the sensor clips the noise distributions. The data look cleaner because the sensor is throwing out data during image formation. I would suggest that truncation of visible noise is what is behind much of the "look" that we love in film (my opinion, can't support with data).

As you point out, linear sensors have different noise properties and that lets us chase better DR with image processing and sensor design tricks. Sony has been pretty good with those. Maybe the new sensor will have some benefits at both ends of the scale? I have more faith that Sony will make meaningful changes to the next IQ camera (by supplying the sensor) than that P1 will.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

You cannot compare the DR from video cameras with still cameras. DR has nothing to do with highlights, but only with a noise limit in shadows.

So it makes no sense to ask for EVF, as it is always part of the body not the back.

Guys:

"You cannot compare the DR from video cameras with still cameras." In reality, the principles governing sensor technology in both are the same. Both types of cameras use image sensors (often CMOS or CCD) that capture light and convert it into electrical signals. The dynamic range of these sensors is determined by two key factors: Full-Well Capacity (max number of electrons a pixel can hold before saturation, affecting highlight detail) an noise floor (minimum detectable signal above the sensor's inherent noise, affecting shadow detail).

Dynamic range is essentially the ratio between the full-well capacity and the noise floor, representing the total range of light intensities the sensor can capture—from the darkest shadows to the brightest highlights. This ratio is often expressed logarithmically (in stops or decibels) to quantify how many times greater the maximum signal is compared to the minimum detectable signal. Therefore, advancements in video camera sensors, like those in the Arri Alexa 35 using dual gain readout, are directly relevant and comparable to still camera technology.

The Arri Alexa 35, utilizes a dual gain architecture to achieve a higher dynamic range as well as Leica's S3 which uses a proprietary sensor design including a dual readout circuitry to maximize dynamic range. The whole effort of Leica's S3 sensor development was focused on extending DR by adding two readout circuits for each pixel, which is why its DR is excellent despite not being a Sony BSI chip which is a different technology.

The IQ4 does not have a dual gain architecture, its just BSI (meaning it has a stacked circuitry) without dual readout at pixel level. Implementing two ADC circuits should or could? be possible, space permitting, and the IQ backs are large.

On the EVF: It would not be a problem for Phase One to come up with a solution akin to Leica's Visoflex series which are detachable electronic viewfinders and they could either add a wire connector from the back to it so you can mount it onto a hotshoe attached to the body the back is attached to. XC, XT, Alpa TC have a hotshoe option.

Alternatively you could even develop a slide-in port to mount the EVF onto the back itself.

In a worst case scenario we just get the IQ4 with minimal updated electronics and a new sensor.

Let's see.

 

[SrMphoto]

Guys:

"You cannot compare the DR from video cameras with still cameras." In reality, the principles governing sensor technology in both are the same. Both types of cameras use image sensors (often CMOS or CCD) that capture light and convert it into electrical signals. The dynamic range of these sensors is determined by two key factors: Full-Well Capacity (max number of electrons a pixel can hold before saturation, affecting highlight detail) an noise floor (minimum detectable signal above the sensor's inherent noise, affecting shadow detail).

There are many ways to measure DR, and you can compare numbers only if you do it in the same way.
Here is ARRI's document on dynamic range:

https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/295460/e10ff8a5b3abf26c33f8754379b57442/2022-09-28-arri-dynamic-range-whitepaper-data.pdf

The relevant chapter is titled Sensors vs Camera and shows the difference that cinematographers measure DR:
"Cinematographers are more interested in the dynamic range of a camera. Therefore, it’s sensible to
include the image processing of the camera. Most cameras process images into a log-like RGB encoding (ARRI uses the LogC3 and LogC4 curves)...
"
That is not how P2P or DxO measures DR.

Dynamic range is essentially the ratio between the full-well capacity and the noise floor, representing the total range of light intensities the sensor can capture—from the darkest shadows to the brightest highlights. This ratio is often expressed logarithmically (in stops or decibels) to quantify how many times greater the maximum signal is compared to the minimum detectable signal. Therefore, advancements in video camera sensors, like those in the Arri Alexa 35 using dual gain readout, are directly relevant and comparable to still camera technology.

The Arri Alexa 35, utilizes a dual gain architecture to achieve a higher dynamic range as well as Leica's S3 which uses a proprietary sensor design including a dual readout circuitry to maximize dynamic range. The whole effort of Leica's S3 sensor development was focused on extending DR by adding two readout circuits for each pixel, which is why its DR is excellent despite not being a Sony BSI chip which is a different technology.

Almost every modern camera has a BSI sensor with dual conversion gain. S3 and most other BSI cameras do not use two readout circuits per pixel but instead use Aptina technology, where the gain is switched at certain ISOs.
Arri and some Panasonic cameras (GH6) use dual output gain, which uses two outputs from the sensor. It does not work well for still photography.

Here is a relevant article:

What is dual gain and how does it work?

The Panasonic GH6's 'DR Boost' mode is based on an interesting sensor design, but it's not the same as the 'dual gain' chips we've become accustomed to. We look at the differences and why you use gain at all.

www.dpreview.com

Hope this clarifies the topic.

The IQ4 does not have a dual gain architecture, its just BSI (meaning it has a stacked circuitry) without dual readout at pixel level. Implementing two ADC circuits should or could? be possible, space permitting, and the IQ backs are large.

IQ4's sensor is not stacked. Stacked sensors are also BSI, but give up some DR for faster readout. Looking at P2P measurements, Phase One does some strange things. However, I believe that the most crucial data point for Phase One backs is the maximum DR, which is at the lowest native ISO and not influenced by dual gain implementations.

On the EVF: It would not be a problem for Phase One to come up with a solution akin to Leica's Visoflex series which are detachable electronic viewfinders and they could either add a wire connector from the back to it so you can mount it onto a hotshoe attached to the body the back is attached to. XC, XT, Alpa TC have a hotshoe option.

Alternatively you could even develop a slide-in port to mount the EVF onto the back itself.

In a worst case scenario we just get the IQ4 with minimal updated electronics and a new sensor.

Let's see.