The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Upgrading IQ1 40 to GFX 50s or X1D, question mark?

bmphoto

New member
Hey All,

So, as stated in the title. I currently own a really nice MF setup with a Mamiya 645DF+, Phase One IQ1 40, Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm f/2.8 LS, 120mm f/4 AF Macro. I'm somewhat interested in making a move to one or two of the mirrorless formats. With the given set up, would you make the move? For scope purposes, I do mainly studio work, but I do take my gear with me when I travel to and from the studio but would like to do some outside work too.


The question that I pose, is it worth selling the gear and going mirrorless? I really dig the look of CCD but the gear is rather cumbersome to move the it looks very compelling to downsizing for portability. Lastly, how big is the gap in form of quality and usefulness when it comes to the CCD and newer CMOS in these mirrorless cameras?

Thanks!
 

med

Active member
Hey All,

So, as stated in the title. I currently own a really nice MF setup with a Mamiya 645DF+, Phase One IQ1 40, Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm f/2.8 LS, 120mm f/4 AF Macro. I'm somewhat interested in making a move to one or two of the mirrorless formats. With the given set up, would you make the move? For scope purposes, I do mainly studio work, but I do take my gear with me when I travel to and from the studio but would like to do some outside work too.


The question that I pose, is it worth selling the gear and going mirrorless? I really dig the look of CCD but the gear is rather cumbersome to move the it looks very compelling to downsizing for portability. Lastly, how big is the gap in form of quality and usefulness when it comes to the CCD and newer CMOS in these mirrorless cameras?



Thanks!
I am comparing a much older CCD chip in the Aptus 22, but with my experimentation with a 50 MP CMOS chip is that it blows it away the older CCD chip terms of DR and usefulness (i.e. shooting at higher than 50 ISO!). I've been meaning to do some direct comparisons on my tech cam but haven't had the time.

I do love the CCD look with the appropriate scene (i.e. less DR required), but so far I'm thinking that the pros of the CMOS chip trump it in almost every way, especially when shooting handheld.

edit: I should mention that I am not using one of the mirrorless solutions, but comparing the chips on SLR bodies and my tech camera.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
One question I would have is how tied to Capture One workflow (tethering?) are you. Moving to another platform is a total PIA if you're a dedicated Capture One user.

If you are shooting in the studio then I'd suggest that of the two cameras you're considering the GFX-50s might be the better fit. Then of course there is the other option of going to the IQx50 which I found to be an outstanding digital back due to the CMOS features. I would recommend any DF+ user to seriously consider the XF too as an upgrade. That's a huge improvement from the DF+.

Full disclosure: I shoot the GFX-50s and IQ3100 / XF / Actus and IQ150 / IQ260 / IQ160 & P40 (same chip as your IQ140) before that.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Hey All,

So, as stated in the title. I currently own a really nice MF setup with a Mamiya 645DF+, Phase One IQ1 40, Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm f/2.8 LS, 120mm f/4 AF Macro. I'm somewhat interested in making a move to one or two of the mirrorless formats. With the given set up, would you make the move? For scope purposes, I do mainly studio work, but I do take my gear with me when I travel to and from the studio but would like to do some outside work too.


The question that I pose, is it worth selling the gear and going mirrorless? I really dig the look of CCD but the gear is rather cumbersome to move the it looks very compelling to downsizing for portability. Lastly, how big is the gap in form of quality and usefulness when it comes to the CCD and newer CMOS in these mirrorless cameras?

Thanks!
Could you be more specific about your workflow and what you photograph?

For me, I went from an H4D-40 => 645z => X1D. The quality is excellent, portability factor is a huge plus, and being able to shoot above ISO 100 (800, 1600, 3200 etc) when I need to means I don't have to be tethered to a tripod almost all the time (increasing the usefulness of the camera for my purposes). Plus with the mirrorless cams you get multiple AF points. The GFX even has face/eye AF (I think) which would come in handy if you do a lot of portraits. My only complaint about the mirrorless cams at the moment is lack of full native lens lineups, but that is coming in time, in addition to 100mp variants down the line.

That being said, I am a primarily a landscape shooter though, and never tether or use strobes. I also don't rely on Capture 1 for my workflow. I'd rent the GFX, X1D, or both and make sure they fit into your workflow. There's also a GFX facebook group that has a ton of information. If they don't fit into your workflow or if you can't adapt your workflow to fit the camera, then the decision to ditch the IQ140 may not make much sense, and it may make more sense to upgrade to an IQx50 (or even IQx60 or IQx80 if you dig the CCD look) as Graham mentioned above if you upgrade at all.
 

bmphoto

New member
Very good points. I've completely forgotten that Capture One doesn't support Hasselblad and FujiFilm. I do tether 99% of the time and I've changed my workflow to edit in Capture One more so than Lr/Ps.

That is something I will have to really consider.

Can you now edit Fuji & Hasselblad RAW files in v11?
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Very good points. I've completely forgotten that Capture One doesn't support Hasselblad and FujiFilm. I do tether 99% of the time and I've changed my workflow to edit in Capture One more so than Lr/Ps.

That is something I will have to really consider.

Can you now edit Fuji & Hasselblad RAW files in v11?
Yes and no. From what I understand you can edit the metadata of GFX files (at least) and trick C1 into opening them. i don't have any experience with this but there's info out there on how to do it. It seems Phase could pretty easily find and close this loophole if they wanted to so I wouldn't count on it. It'd probably work for X1D files too, but I just use Phocus/Lightroom.

BTW didn't see in my first reply that you're in Atlanta. I and at least another active forum member (dave.gt) are also in Atlanta. I'd be happy to meet up sometime to show you the ropes of the X1D. Professional Photo Resources also is a Fuji dealer and carries the GFX and may let you play around with it without renting. They did a GFX demo day at some point last month.
-Todd
 

jng

Well-known member
Although I love the tonality and color coming out of my IQ160, quite honestly I'm not sure this is a CCD vs CMOS thing and the CMOS sensors do offer advantages such as better live view, long exposure and high ISO capabilities. Since you seem to like your current setup, tether 99% of the time and use mostly C1 for editing, unless portability is a main driver you may wish to stay in the Phase One ecosystem. As Graham mentioned previously, you might consider a used IQx50 (cropped CMOS sensor, same as in X1D and GFX), or IQx60 and IQx80 if you're interested in moving up to a full frame sensor (size matters, IMHO). It seems that the value of these older generation IQ backs has plummeted recently, so there may be an opportunity to move up at a reasonable cost. Whether there's an XF in your future as well is up to you and Dante to decide! And since you are located in Atlanta, I suggest you give Steve Hendrix at Capture Integration a call and see what they might have that suits your needs/wants. Good luck!

John
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

You may consider what needs of yours mirrorless CMOS solves.

The way I see it, CMOS with good live view offers three key benefits:

  • Accurate magnified live view good enough for accurate focusing.
  • A healthy dose of extended DR.
  • Good high ISO capability.

If you are in serious needs in improved capabilities in any of those areas it would be a no brainer to go with CMOS mirrorless.

On the other hand, if you don't have urgent needs it may be better to wait. Both X1D and GFX are first generation based on sensors that have been around a few years. The sensors lack phase detection that is needed for fast and reliable focusing.

Why not just lean back and wait for the next generation with most bugs ironed out and hopefully fully functional PDAF (Phase Detecting AF) on a 100 MP sensor?

Regarding Capture One, the bets are that Phase One will not support competing MFD devices.

Best regards
Erik




Hey All,

So, as stated in the title. I currently own a really nice MF setup with a Mamiya 645DF+, Phase One IQ1 40, Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm f/2.8 LS, 120mm f/4 AF Macro. I'm somewhat interested in making a move to one or two of the mirrorless formats. With the given set up, would you make the move? For scope purposes, I do mainly studio work, but I do take my gear with me when I travel to and from the studio but would like to do some outside work too.


The question that I pose, is it worth selling the gear and going mirrorless? I really dig the look of CCD but the gear is rather cumbersome to move the it looks very compelling to downsizing for portability. Lastly, how big is the gap in form of quality and usefulness when it comes to the CCD and newer CMOS in these mirrorless cameras?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

med

Active member
Why not just lean back and wait for the next generation with most bugs ironed out and hopefully fully functional PDAF (Phase Detecting AF) on a 100 MP sensor?


Best regards
Erik


100% agree with this. Faster/better readout for improved EVF/Liveview experience (and perhaps even some fun large sensor video), on sensor PDAF, and bonus for a global e-shutter (likely a few generations away at least) are the things that I would want in an MF mirrorless solution before sinking serious $$$ into one.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hey All,

So, as stated in the title. I currently own a really nice MF setup with a Mamiya 645DF+, Phase One IQ1 40, Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm f/2.8 LS, 120mm f/4 AF Macro. I'm somewhat interested in making a move to one or two of the mirrorless formats. With the given set up, would you make the move? For scope purposes, I do mainly studio work, but I do take my gear with me when I travel to and from the studio but would like to do some outside work too.


The question that I pose, is it worth selling the gear and going mirrorless? I really dig the look of CCD but the gear is rather cumbersome to move the it looks very compelling to downsizing for portability. Lastly, how big is the gap in form of quality and usefulness when it comes to the CCD and newer CMOS in these mirrorless cameras?

Thanks!
I would rather just use what you own. When I read the title I wondered if this is upgrade or downgrade.
The x1d I see the point of small size. But the Fuji I dont get. I find it ugly.
I will continue using my S, sometimes I am intrigued by the small size of the x1d though.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
I would rather just use what you own. When I read the title I wondered if this is upgrade or downgrade.
The x1d I see the point of small size. But the Fuji I dont get. I find it ugly.
I will continue using my S, sometimes I am intrigued by the small size of the x1d though.
Outside a dedicated software solution (compared to Capture One or Phocus) the GFX (or the X1D) are both upgrades in usability and hardware. While the GFX, may not win any artistic styling awards, it is highly functional, ergonomic, and thoughtfully designed for the end user while being about the same size as a 5D.

I get that no one wants an “ugly camera” but then on the other hand when “Brand X” has technical shortcomings the argument is “a camera is just a tool.” Not trying to be argumentative but shouldn’t function and easing the process of getting the shot be the highest factor of a tool?
 
Last edited:

bmphoto

New member
Awesome feedback everybody! Thank you. I think I will hold on to the system I've got now and get more use out of it. I'm not running into any technical walls and since I'm in a really controlled lighting environment, high ISO is not quite a concern.

Thank you everybody, I think my GAS has been subdued. lol
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Very good points. I've completely forgotten that Capture One doesn't support Hasselblad and FujiFilm. I do tether 99% of the time and I've changed my workflow to edit in Capture One more so than Lr/Ps.

That is something I will have to really consider.

Can you now edit Fuji & Hasselblad RAW files in v11?
Your current workflow with C1 is more important than you may think---unless you're considering the Fuji or Hassy as "a complement" (new toy or whatever) in addition to your main workhorse camera system. I don't find the workaround solutions to get Fuji files into C1 to be satisfactory, and there is no guarantee that the hack workaround works in the future. Imho, this limits (at least in regards to the Fuji) its professional use. I have settled on using ACR and PS CC for my Fuji GFX. All other work with Phase goes to C1 Pro and PS CC, which I find to be much better in terms of both workflow and professional use.

One of the biggest upgrades you can make is moving from the DF+ to the Phase XF system, and then consider the move to a CMOS sensor for ease of workflow. If your wallet finger is not itching, apparently this forum's members have failed Dante. It does happen, albeit rarely. :ROTFL:

Soooooo, have you seen these Phase One recertified XF kits? See, https://captureintegration.com/limi...ail&utm_term=0_1093a4d752-756399bfce-25278253

Some good deals to be had, and maybe some finagling with your current kit. Buy a recertified Phase kit for work, sell your current kit to fund a, *ahem*, complementary medium format mirrorless camera ala Fuji or Hassy. :D

Ken
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

For me, both the X1D and the GFX makes a lot of sense.

CMOS with magnified live view allows for accurate focus. CCD depends pretty much on AF or focusing on ground glass. Comparing with my Hasselblad 555/ELD with the Hassy I need to decide which face I focus on while with the Sony A7rII I need to decide "which eyelash" to focus on. Quite a difference!

Both the X1D and the GFX offers lenses that are designed for the 44x33 mm format. They are more complex designs than what is usual for 54x40 mm. They have been developed for 100 MP, as Sony road maps were certainly known when initial development was made.

CCD has a significant disadvantage in readout noise. That is the reason that CCD backs usually don't go to high ISO. CMOS and CCD used the same basic photodiode design. The fundamental difference is readout, CMOS allowing a simplicity of design yielding a 4:1 advantage, or so. So you can push CMOS designs 2EV more, like offering 6400 ISO instead of 1600ISO. Canon has been lousy on base ISO DR, CMOS technology should not be judged on what Canon managed to achieve.

If you need resolution, 100MP on CMOS may be your best choice. But, in 1-2 years we will have 100 MP in CMOS on 44x33mm probably costing below 10k$US. So buying into 100 MP CMOS today, you may need to consider loss of value when 100MP CMOS arrives in 44x33.

In the same time frame, 150 MP CMOS in 54x40 mm will arrive. Are the present lenses good enough to match it? Possibly? yes! Probably? Perhaps not!

So, switching to 44x33 CMOS with new lenses may be a great option and probably pretty safe.

Hopefully you have the frequent use of "probably" in this posting. We can guesstimate but future will disclose but future has in it's bay.

Best regards
Erik

Outside a dedicated software solution (compared to Capture One or Phocus) the GFX (or the X1D) are both upgrades in usability and hardware. While the GFX, may not win any artistic styling awards, it is highly functional, ergonomic, and thoughtfully designed for the end user while being about the same size as a 5D.

I get that no one wants an “ugly camera” but then on the other hand when “Brand X” has technical shortcomings the argument is “a camera is just a tool.” Not trying to be argumentative but shouldn’t function and easing the process of getting the shot be the highest factor of a tool?
 

bmphoto

New member
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I got to hold the GFX at ImagingUSA just recently. While it's incredibly impressive, I'm convinced, I'm personally not ready for mirrorless. Something about an OVF feels better on my eyes.


I did have some feedback to give FujiFilm NA to send back to Japan.

Make a dang 63mm f/2.8 LS! Don't half-*** it with a hasselblad adapter.
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
My advice...get the Nikon D850. You'll save a lot of money and the raws process great in Capture One
 
Top