tashley
Subscriber Member
Hey Jack,
You don't happen to have a 35XL up your sleeve do you? If I were anywhere near you I'd send or bring mine over!
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!
Is the IQ180 the end for Schneider lenses ? compared to Rodenstock
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
You don't happen to have a 35XL up your sleeve do you? If I were anywhere near you I'd send or bring mine over!
Hi Tim,
Sorry, I do not. A friend had one, but sold it to get the 43 they loaned me for this test.
Also, I want to thank Rod Klukas with Arca Swiss for loaning me his personal RM3D to do this test with. I am about 3mm shy of pulling the trigger and going with a tech kit for myself, and have decided if I do make the move, it will definitely be with the Rm3Di -- a truly beautiful camera, clearly designed for shooters to work quickly and accurately! Thank you again for the loan Rod, you may not get it back!
For those interested, Rod has posted a video of the RM3D features here -- advise good net bandwidth for viewing though: http://vimeo.com/24366528
Sorry, I do not. A friend had one, but sold it to get the 43 they loaned me for this test.
Also, I want to thank Rod Klukas with Arca Swiss for loaning me his personal RM3D to do this test with. I am about 3mm shy of pulling the trigger and going with a tech kit for myself, and have decided if I do make the move, it will definitely be with the Rm3Di -- a truly beautiful camera, clearly designed for shooters to work quickly and accurately! Thank you again for the loan Rod, you may not get it back!
For those interested, Rod has posted a video of the RM3D features here -- advise good net bandwidth for viewing though: http://vimeo.com/24366528
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
A coda on the Rodenstock: I managed to install the Alpa Lens Corrector, a PS plugin. This was as slight challenge - the installation instructions say that it works with CS 3 and CS 4. What they mean by that is that it doesn't work with CS 5. I've seen this in at least one other case with a plug in that shows up in the "automate" submenu. So you're in luck if you have a legacy version of CS on your computer - I'm not sure what you do if you were a first time buyer of CS 5.
Anyway, it works and it works very well. It corrected the complex linear distortion of the Rodenstock just fine. It's fast and had no discernible impact on image quality. Of course the size and shape of objects near the edge of the frame are distorted in very wide shots (for the same reason the Greenland looks bigger than South America in a mercator projection of the earth) even though (or actually because) the lines are straight but that's not Rodenstock's fault - just a fact of life when you go really wide.
Here's a screen shot from LR showing after and before for the right hand frame in the pano that I posted previously:
The version on the left was my blog post for the day - it reflects a little extra work to smooth the light fall off and bring highlights into range which I didn't bother with on the distorted version.
The issue that I have with this lens (and maybe the other Rodenstocks) is that the images seem lifeless to me - probably because the designers have traded local contrast for sharpness.
Anyway, it works and it works very well. It corrected the complex linear distortion of the Rodenstock just fine. It's fast and had no discernible impact on image quality. Of course the size and shape of objects near the edge of the frame are distorted in very wide shots (for the same reason the Greenland looks bigger than South America in a mercator projection of the earth) even though (or actually because) the lines are straight but that's not Rodenstock's fault - just a fact of life when you go really wide.
Here's a screen shot from LR showing after and before for the right hand frame in the pano that I posted previously:
The version on the left was my blog post for the day - it reflects a little extra work to smooth the light fall off and bring highlights into range which I didn't bother with on the distorted version.
The issue that I have with this lens (and maybe the other Rodenstocks) is that the images seem lifeless to me - probably because the designers have traded local contrast for sharpness.
cunim
Well-known member
Woody, ALC does work on CS5/32, not on the 64 bit version.
Looking back through this thread I am really confused. The primary reason I ordered an IQ180 is to quickly check tech camera focus on a good display. That would really broaden my capabilities.
If I am using a tech camera, it is because I need both quality optics and movements. Now comes the gotcha. The 180 has limitations with movements and, no, it is not just with the Schneiders. Shift a 40HRW by 15mm and color cast correction and local color/contrast are often challenged (to my eyes) even with a 50MP back. The 90 will take 15mm but no more. If I go beyond this, skies for example, will often retain a cast - this after shooting an LCC for each moved shot. I am left with all sorts of painful post to do.
So I have set my own movement limits for the 50MP - 15mm on the 90HRW and 12mm on the 40. What I want from Phase is to know that I can get 75% of that with the IQ180. That is what I am still confused about. Is the IQ180 just a wonderful technology for DF shooters, or is it a real advance for tech camera users who can accept only a bit less shift than they had with the earlier CCDs?
Yes, I can clear all this up for myself but by then I will have taken delivery. Right now, I still have options.
I greatly appreciate all the information being posted here, but this is a fundamental performance issue. Given that Phase positions itself as the best back for tech cameras, I would like to them take some official position.
Peter
Looking back through this thread I am really confused. The primary reason I ordered an IQ180 is to quickly check tech camera focus on a good display. That would really broaden my capabilities.
If I am using a tech camera, it is because I need both quality optics and movements. Now comes the gotcha. The 180 has limitations with movements and, no, it is not just with the Schneiders. Shift a 40HRW by 15mm and color cast correction and local color/contrast are often challenged (to my eyes) even with a 50MP back. The 90 will take 15mm but no more. If I go beyond this, skies for example, will often retain a cast - this after shooting an LCC for each moved shot. I am left with all sorts of painful post to do.
So I have set my own movement limits for the 50MP - 15mm on the 90HRW and 12mm on the 40. What I want from Phase is to know that I can get 75% of that with the IQ180. That is what I am still confused about. Is the IQ180 just a wonderful technology for DF shooters, or is it a real advance for tech camera users who can accept only a bit less shift than they had with the earlier CCDs?
Yes, I can clear all this up for myself but by then I will have taken delivery. Right now, I still have options.
I greatly appreciate all the information being posted here, but this is a fundamental performance issue. Given that Phase positions itself as the best back for tech cameras, I would like to them take some official position.
Peter
tashley
Subscriber Member
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Peter - thanks - I didn't think of the 32 bit issue.
I share your confusion - maybe Doug's work will help us sort it out. He has a full range of tech camera lenses and Phase backs. I do hope that he does the IQ180 and 160 side-by-side.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I think Doug is doing that today actually from what I read.
Just a observation from everything I have read and seen I think the bottom line is your limits on movements will be reduced some and you will need proper LCC for everything you do to make those corrections. Basically your image circles have gone down in size and you just need to work within them more closely. You get outside the box it will get ugly.
Just a observation from everything I have read and seen I think the bottom line is your limits on movements will be reduced some and you will need proper LCC for everything you do to make those corrections. Basically your image circles have gone down in size and you just need to work within them more closely. You get outside the box it will get ugly.
I disagree, sorry. I must not have been clear enough in my earlier posts. To reiterate:
I estimated 17mm of shift before I saw image degradation at the corners with the 43 on my IQ180 -- this was from lens anomalies, and not sensor issues. I'm talking visiby soft corners at 20mm shift that looked like they'd be totally acceptable to me with 3mm less shift, or 17mm total shift. If you add a little for the diagonal on the frame for that rise, you get say 20mm on the IC radius. Now double that for the full IC diameter and you get 40mm. Add that to the IQ180's diagonal of 68mm to that and you get 40+68=108mm, or very close to the manufacturer stated 110mm of usable IC! IOW, I got virtually 100% of the usable IC of that lens! And to be clear, what I was seeing at the very corners at 20mm shift was resolution degradation, not LCC difficulties. In fact, LCC worked all the way to 25mm of shift, but the image was unusable in the edge zones, and again from lens anomalies, NOT sensor issues.
Howeverbutt!!! I was using C1's LCC controls, not somebody else's, and I was using the new "Analyze Technical Wide Angle" to render the LCC -- and that is a MUST for the IQ180 to get the best LCC.
Is that more clear now?
I estimated 17mm of shift before I saw image degradation at the corners with the 43 on my IQ180 -- this was from lens anomalies, and not sensor issues. I'm talking visiby soft corners at 20mm shift that looked like they'd be totally acceptable to me with 3mm less shift, or 17mm total shift. If you add a little for the diagonal on the frame for that rise, you get say 20mm on the IC radius. Now double that for the full IC diameter and you get 40mm. Add that to the IQ180's diagonal of 68mm to that and you get 40+68=108mm, or very close to the manufacturer stated 110mm of usable IC! IOW, I got virtually 100% of the usable IC of that lens! And to be clear, what I was seeing at the very corners at 20mm shift was resolution degradation, not LCC difficulties. In fact, LCC worked all the way to 25mm of shift, but the image was unusable in the edge zones, and again from lens anomalies, NOT sensor issues.
Howeverbutt!!! I was using C1's LCC controls, not somebody else's, and I was using the new "Analyze Technical Wide Angle" to render the LCC -- and that is a MUST for the IQ180 to get the best LCC.
Is that more clear now?
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Yep. And we will be able to answer that very soon. Directly for the 28XL, 35XL, 43XL, 60XL and 70HR which we have arranged to all be here at the same time for this exact kind of test (a few by the generous loan of our customers as we did not have all in stock). Our previous test was limited to the 35XL and had some flaws in the testing procedure (just as well it was a good learning experience for how to best test this).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Peter,
What 50MP back and what software are you using in the above reference to generate and correct your LCC's?
Christopher
Active member
Jack, am I right that you are talking about 17mm shift left or right ? Did you tried it up ? so that you can see how the LCC corrections handles the sky ? Here was the main problem for me. I could not get good sky back with 17mm shift. Not withe C1 6.2.1
Good catch, and sorry! I should have clarified: The Arca I was using only allows for 12.5mm shift R or L, but 25mm rise -- this was 17mm of RISE. So you are correct in that my estimation for total IC may be a little off --- let me do some simple trig and get right back with a more exact number for you. Okay, back, here you go:
the IQ180 frame is approximately 40mm x 54mm. If I add 17mm rise and fall to the horizontal frame, I get a 74mm x 54 mm frame. The diagonal of that rectangle would be ~ 91.5mm. So that is the USABLE IC of the 43 on the IQ180. 91.5 is approximately 83% of the stated 110mm IC.
HOWEVER! I was able to shift the full 25mm and correct it, and though the image degradation rendered not useful image data, LCC appeared to work fine as respected sensor anomalies. Image quality was so poor however, I do not want to say I'm 100% certain that LCC worked. So with that qualification, if you accept very soft and distorted corners, the new frame would be 90mm x 54mm with a diagonal of 105mm, or very near the full stated IC of the lens; 96% of it. I suspect that Schneider is using the full circle of illumination rather than usable IC for its 110mm spec, unless they consider 2 or 3 LPmm acceptable resolution for the extreme edges
.I did NOT see problems in the sky, but my skies were unfortunately gray. I did however shoot the Passport out in the trouble zone, and did not see significant desaturation at 12.5mm on the horizontal. 12.5mm shift on the horizontal gives a frame of 40mm x 79mm and would have put the color checker at about a 45mm radius or 90mm position on the 43's total IC. I would say given how much color remained, it is going to be a relatively trivial issue.
Thats an interesting observation Woody as I'm very much interested in the RS 90HRW to fill the hole in the (sort of) middle of my SK 43XL and SK 120N. I very much like "the look" of my SK glass so your suggesting the RS lenses are a little flatter in contrast so not a good match?
Terry
New member
How big is the image circle on the 90HR-W? On the SK90 it is 90mm. I like the lens on my P40+. I haven't gotten my new back yet but hopefully soon I can test out my 90 on it.
Re how Schneiders v Rodies render. I personally prefer Schneider's look, however I feel the Rodies are actually technically sharper in the center and show more local contrast than Schneiders -- but in a way that leaves them looking almost sterile for lack of a better word; like drinking water so pure it has no taste. So if my "sterile" = Woody's "lifeless" we are in agreement. However, I also would say this is a really, really subtle call based on my looking at many tens of thousands of different images from different lenses over the years. Moreover, I think a lot of life can be added during post using some artistic license and secret sauce editing
Christopher
Active member
Jack which arca ? The rm3d allows 15 as far as I know, or at least mine does.
The 90HRW has an IC of 125mm and also a longer FF distance so in theory should be better regarding fall off and LCC corrections with larger movements.
I was using an older RM3D non i and it allowed 12.5mm R and L shift only.
Christopher
Active member
I you sure about that ? From the specs: "In der Horizontalen lässt sie sich um 40mm und in der Vertikalen (siehe Abb.7) um 30mm mittels der seitlichen Drehknöpfe verschieben. "
in English it means as much as "30mm shift left/right and 40mm fall" which would mean yours should have 15mm as well ;-)
in English it means as much as "30mm shift left/right and 40mm fall" which would mean yours should have 15mm as well ;-)