Is the IQ180 the end for Schneider lenses ? compared to Rodenstock

[jeffacme]

Guy, Don,

How many failures have you had with any CF card?

Believe me I used to buy only high end cards but started cautiously in with reputable commodity cards several years ago. Mainly for the increase in speed and size.

I use a color coded rolling system, 3 cards per camera, so the digital tech can backup and keep track of each camera and the sequence of cards. That way any issue which could happen to a single card is minimized. When card "A" is full for a particular camera we format card "D" and put card A aside images intact. I have enough cards to shoot for a solid week so at the end we have all images on the cards as shot and redundant computer backups.

That's my system and has worked well for me but to each his own.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

At least a dozen on many different systems. Like I said you have been lucky. LOL

 

[jeffacme]

Wow that's allot of card failures. All on high end cards?

Luck really has no bearing on it with the system I use at worst I would have to redo a half hour of shooting and would still be at the job to do so.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Little bit of both. Mostly a lot of frames but did throw a couple cards out and readers too which is strange. I know rare but it can happen.

 

[jeffacme]

Yes readers for sure but I have always been able to recover files that were still on the card. I am not saying do not buy expensive cards just that in my experience there is no added benefit.

 

[narikin]

42,000 exposures on P65+ ALL on two 32Gb PhotoFast cards, each costing $129.
No dropped shots, ever.

Yes it doesn't say 'Sandisk' on it, but they work perfectly + were much cheaper and faster than Sandisk when I bought them. ($129 vs $375 each) Sandisk have come down in price since then, but I'd get another Photofast, from experience.

See MR's review on LuLa:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/photofast.shtml
or Rob Galbraith's one:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10043-10255

 

[Optechs Digital]

Another way to look at it,

How many CF card manufacturers exist in the world compared to how many CF brands exist.....

P

 

[Don Libby]

I'm thinking could be a thread all by it self - a dicussion on cards pros and cons.

 

[Wayne Fox]

I'm thinking could be a thread all by it self - a dicussion on cards pros and cons.

Probably right. I'll throw my oddity in here. I'm not a very prolific shooter, shooting far fewer frames when out than many. I never use a CF card more than once. They are all labeled and locked away in a very save place (water proof containers locked in a fireproof safe located in a cement fruit room). I sort of treat them like negatives.

Since I really don't need speed, I'm always using cards a few generations old, usually 8gig in size, so they really aren't that expensive. The current sweet spot seems to be 8gig cards which can be found for $25-$30. I really don't want too many images on a single card ... sort of a putting all my eggs in one basket thing, so I prefer 4 or 8gig cards.

I know this won't work for many because they shoot way more frames than I do, and maybe I'm crazy, but I have every original raw file I've taken in the last two years in a very small space that could survive nearly any disaster. If I were still a wedding or portrait shooter (I've been retired for a few years), I wouldn't do this ... only for my personal landscape work.

My main rationalization for this is CF cards seem to be the most archival medium out there. If it formats successfully and stores data successfully, there isn't anything to wear out (like hard drives) or fade (like dye's on recordable DVD's). I have nothing to back this up, other than some research showing that the only thing that there is no reason a CF card sitting for years in a protected environment would degrade at all ... just nothing to degrade.

Of course, the IQ180 may force me to change my perspective as the files are bigger, meaning I may need more speed and space.

 

[jeffacme]

Wayne,

Your system is exactly what I suggest for friends and family who are shooting for their pleasure or as a hobby. I think it is a great approach as a failsafe backup.

Totally portable and as long as card readers exist you should have a working archive. I have seen dvd backups fail in as little as two years.

So it makes sense to me.

 

[cng]

My main rationalization for this is CF cards seem to be the most archival medium out there. If it formats successfully and stores data successfully, there isn't anything to wear out (like hard drives) or fade (like dye's on recordable DVD's). I have nothing to back this up, other than some research showing that the only thing that there is no reason a CF card sitting for years in a protected environment would degrade at all ... just nothing to degrade.

We're going WAY off-topic now, but are CF cards prone to data "evaporation", similar to hard drives that aren't fired up regularly?

 

[etrump]

if it's on a tech camera and is shorter than 70 I'm in favor of using an LCC even if you don't think you need to.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Even the digitar 72XL benefits from an LCC especially when using the full image circle. Not as much for color cast as for light falloff.

 

[Terry]

Even the digitar 72XL benefits from an LCC especially when using the full image circle. Not as much for color cast as for light falloff.

Ed - Have you shot anything with the 72 on the IQ back yet? Not sure if your comment is from P65+ or IQ180.

 

[Don Libby]

I decided a long time ago to shoot a LCC for each lens I have as cheap insurance and will continue to with the P65. But that me, a belt and suspenders type guy...

 

[Woody Campbell]

Let's get back to the basic theme of this thread, which I've been thinking about for some time now - and I've managed to do a few experiments (albeit poorly controlled experiments) in the past few days.

Many of the people following this thread are landscape shooters seeking to make perfect landscape images in the tradition of the "f64" school of large format photographers, making very large prints and expecting perfection edge to edge and corner to corner. From a technical standpoint the gear chosen has to deliver an A+; technical perfection is a key to the aesthetic; "acceptable" is not acceptable in this context.

Another basic question to understand is why does a digital shooter care about shifts? It's to avoid having to make major perspective changes in post (C1, LR or PS, take your choice): a perspective correction in post uprezes the too small end of the image. You can do this in small amounts but you loose your A+ quality if you do a major adjustment.

Thanks to Lance Shad at Digital Transitions here in NY I had a chance to try an IQ 180 on my Alpa Max with my own Alpa Schneider 36mm APO Switar and a 48mm Alpa Schneider APO Helvatar. (Where does Alpa get these names?) Lance also let me use a P65, and of course I have a lot of experience with my own 60 meg back, an H4d-60.

Separately my good friend Jeff Hirsch of Fotocare lent me a lot of his time and a Rodenstock HR Digaron-W 32mm lens, which I shot with my H4d on my Alpa Max.

A few other observations before I report on my experience. This is the bleeding edge. I recommend that anyone starting down this road try exact combination that you think that you want before you buy it. You're going to be your own engineer sorting out whatever difficulties there may be - you should understand them before plopping down $60k or so. Resales can be tricky - the market is not as deep as it is say for vintage Leica stuff. The "try before you by" thing is harder than it looks; the dealer who carries C1 is not the same guy as the dealer who carries Alpa; dealers don't carry inventories of this exotic stuff - Jeff just happened to have the 32.

To be continued.

 

[etrump]

Let's get back to the basic theme of this thread...

Another basic question to understand is why does a digital shooter care about shifts?

I recommend that anyone starting down this road try exact combination that you think that you want before you buy it.

To be continued.

Good points Woody. A few observations:

1. I use shifts to avoid digital manipulation for perspective, provide wider views, and having more detail for my panoramic images. All good reasons IMHO to invest in a tech camera.

2. In my case it has been a progression to the kit I am now. What worked well with the p45 had issues on the p65 so I upgraded (always at considerable cost and trade offs) trying to guess at where things are heading. The problem is that the backs are usually 2 years ahead of the glass.

Case in point, current hi-res glass is engineered for 6 micron pixel pitch which matches nicely with 60mp backs. Now we are at 5.2 on the iq180 so even with the best glass the extreme edges of the image circles exhibit a slight softening. The resolution of the back is so high the lens just can't resolve it all. It is evident in ALL of my tech glass SN72L, HR32 and HR23.

Don't get the wrong idea, it is still more detail than the p65 even without edge sharpening. It's like using 645 film glass with a digital back. Perfectly usable but not able to resolve 100% of what the back is capable of.

I won't start a rant but the iq180 features are addictive from the first session and the color absolutely lifelike.

 

[etrump]

Ed - Have you shot anything with the 72 on the IQ back yet? Not sure if your comment is from P65+ or IQ180.

My comments where from p65+ but I have since received my iq180 and it works fantastically with the 72. I don't see that the color cast is any worse than the p65 on this lens - almost non-existent.

Using 100% of the image circle you can detect slight softening at the extreme edges but you have to be looking for it. Any normal viewer would never see it even at 96" wide.

Trying to use 100% of the image circle is problematic anyway because the LCC code doesn't do a good job. The algorithm doesn't know to not try and balance the total black so it leaves artifacts out into the usable part of the image.

 

[jeffacme]

Back in the day when you entered a post secondary Photography program you learned on a view camera in most cases for at least a year.

If you were shooting advertising in the 80's and 90's high quality meant big film often 8x10 trans.

Is there anything more soul satisfying then being the master of your own capture plane?

With the combo of Arca 6x9 view, P65+, and KG slider with Hassy prism I felt finally the long trek in the digital wilderness was nearing it's end.

Shooting with a view or tech camera has always had it's challenges and quirks. Think back to spot meters and the zone system. The current process of LCC files is much simpler and more automated.

So in the tradition of Group f64 if you want technical excellence you have to work for it and that work has it's own rewards.

We are all fortunate to be shooting in a time of amazing technical advances in optics, capture technology, and software. AA and his Group f64 comrades would be green with envy at the tools we possess and the almost effortless quality they deliver.

I am hopeful that when my IQ 180 arrives it will close the circle and bring me back to my roots. Camera, lens, tripod, and CF cards?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes Starving Artist, not sure i want to go back that far.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[Woody Campbell]

So here come some results. First IQ 180 vs P65 on the Alpa with the 48mm Schneider - the backs were mounted on the Alpa in portrait orientation. I'm showing the LCC correction exposures first, because they give some idea of how hard the LCC function has to work:

First the IQ 180 with the lens shifted downward 17mm.

Now the P65 with the same downward 17mm shift:

Quite a difference, huh. The light fall off is normal for this type of lens in this part of its image circle. The color is not - its an artifact of the sensor. I suspect that we are up against the laws of physics here with the sensor grid acting as a diffraction grating. The difference moving from 6 microns to 5.2 is striking. (Note that it is the shift that is causing this - unshifted this lens performs fine with either back). Smaller shifts put you less far into the dark blue zone.

Here we've shifted the lens 17mm to the left

First the IQ 180:

Now the P65:

Less extreme (because we're not as far out in the image circle) but still a major difference. The P65 result is quite good, actually. Below is the actual image taken on the IQ 180 and P65 corrected with the LCC (for color not for light fall off). The P65 results are consistent with the results that I'm obtaining with my H4d-60.

First a screen shot of both the IQ 180 and P65 from LR:

In both cases C1 has LCC has been applied from the respective LCC shots above. I made minor tweaks to make the color balance of the outputs similar. The LLC corrections are most extreme at the far right. Note that the awning color (look at the portion in the shate} of red is less saturated (and not how I remember it) and contrast is lower on the IQ 180 image.

Here are 1:1 crops of the same pair:

Note that there is less low contrast detail in the IQ 180 image, giving a slightly plasticy feel. I'm sparing you further samples.

I didn't believe my eyes on this so I double and triple checked the settings.

My bottom line 80 megs vs. 60 megs as a tech cameral platform is I'm in a wait and see mode - I'd like to see others who are better at this than I am prove that the issues have been resolved, or at least to help me understand what the limits of these backs are. The results may be different for Rodenstock lenses - I hope that someone can explore this on the IQ 180. My next installment will compare a Rodenstock and a Schneider lens, at comparable focal length, on a 60 meg back.

Note that the issues in the post relate to shifts on a tech camera only. Lance also provided me with an opportunity to shoot the IQ 180 on the Phase camera, and we did non shifted setups on the tech camera, and all of the foregoing were outstanding.

The next installment will be schneider vs. rodenstock.