Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

  1. #1
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I am currently considering the upgrade from a P45+ to an IQ 160 or 180. My use is primarily landscape and fine art, for gallery printing 40 - 60"w. I'm mostly using a Cambo WDS for wides, and an AFD3 when using longer lenses (the Mamiya mf 150 3.5N and the 120 macro are favorites).

    I've read quite a few threads here and on LL discussing some of the difficulties and issues with using the IQ 180, but I've seen no discussion of similar issues with the 160.

    Can anyone (especially if you've used both the backs) comment on the usability of the 180 vs the 160? With all I've read, I find myself wondering if the 180 is worth all the trouble, and if the difference in image quality (detail resolution, tonal and color gradation, dynamic range, etc.) is that significant in large prints.

    I use two SK wides, the 35XL and the 47XL. The lens most often cited when talking about problems with the IQ180 is the 35XL. While I prefer the T/S mount 47, especially when stitching, I do like the 35, and would want to be able to use rises and falls to some degree with that lens. I consider the Rodies just to large and heavy for my purposes.

    Please, give me your feedback if you have thoughts on this.
    Thanks

  2. #2
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    The IQ 160 and 35XL work with a CF even better. Unless you want to sell that lens buy a 8000 dollar 32 mm than save the money both on back and lens and get a IQ 160. I'm bias though. LOL

    Honestly I love the160 is does a great job has few tech cam issues and its enough for me. Don't get me wrong I really like the IQ 180 and it is the biggest bad *** back around. But the big part is getting a IQ
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I'm somewhat in the same boat. My primary landscape camera is a WRS with 35, 72, and 120 lens. The secondary setup is the DF with 80, 120, 150 and 300. I traded my P45+ for a P65+ last year and am tickled pink with it, except it doesn't have the bells and whistles an IQ back has. An IQ would make my life so much easier on the WRS.

    My question of late is IQ160 or IQ180. As Guy so astutely pointed out the IQ180 is one bad*** back. However it also has too much baggage with it. In the end I really like the focal lengths I've been using and find I'm unwilling to change my wide lens.

    Actually the plan is to make the switch sometime within the next 12-months and odds are it will be the IQ160. That is unless Phase can prove the 180 will work and play well with my 35; which so far it hasn't.

    If I were to do it today I'd switch to the IQ160.
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Ditto to Guy and Don's Comments.

    I couldn't and still can't justify a 32mm Rodenstock at around 9.6K (lens and centerfilter) and the 23 is too wide for me and really can't shift anymore than the 28mm Rodenstock (about 5 to 7mm before you see the edge and it's a hard black edge of the image circle). The price point of the Schneiders was tough enough. Amazing glass however.

    What is so striking to me is the increase in range with the 160 vs a P45+. I worked with the P45+ for almost 4 years and never could get my highlights undercontrol, never could really get a good sunset without extreme bracketing and always felt the shadows were strange (smudgy). The 160 and I am sure the P65+ (since they are the same backs) amazes me everytime I get it out. Yes the P45+ can go for an hour, and for a long time I didn't want to give that up, but looking back, I really prefer the look of the 160.

    Best bet is try to find a dealer that can let you work with a 160 in your environment. Most will rent out a 160 (in my case I couldn't rent due to the way my insurance was setup so I had to travel to get a demo) That way you can shoot side by side and really get a feel for the advantages of the IQ back.

    BTW, great work on your site.

    Paul

  5. #5
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    you may save enough moolah with the 160 to finance most of that next lens. (a good example of Dante's logic)

  6. #6
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Thanks, this is all helpful stuff. jlm, I like your logic. I think I've used that type of thinking once or twice myself!

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    And is a 15% increase in resolution worth a 33% increase in file size?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by 2jbourret View Post
    Thanks, this is all helpful stuff. jlm, I like your logic. I think I've used that type of thinking once or twice myself!

    Many have been tempted toward the IQ180 after initially looking at the IQ160 because of the relatively small delta in price when trading in towards either of the two.

    As noted by Paul, sometimes though it is not just a question of the small difference in price between the digital backs, but the potential change in optimal lenses and the price increase of those that also has to be taken into account.

    I would just say that ultimately a 35mm Digitar can certainly be used with an IQ180, but you will indeed have less latitude than with an IQ160, and coming from a P45+, this may seem like an even harsher penalty.

    I don't know that I value the extra 20MP of resolution as much as I would value the extra 5MP of resolution in Sensor Plus mode (20MP vs 15MP).


    Steve Hendrix
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller

  9. #9
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Jamie:

    Since you are looking at investing a boatload of funds anyway, you really owe it to YOURSELF to have a good dealer let you demo BOTH backs on a tech camera using the best glass. Then after YOU have seen and played with the files, make the decision for yourself -- if you don't see enough difference to justify the 180 for you, then you at least are certain you've made the proper choice for YOU. OTOH, if you do see a difference and like it, you'll have some thinking to do. But the reality is you owe it to yourself to see the files side by side before you decide.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Near Brussels, Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I had to choose between the IQ160 and 180 when I decided to upgrade from my P40.
    I was tempted by the brand new sensor of the IQ180, the 20 mpix extra resolution (mostly the 5 extra mp in sensor+ mode) and the very acceptable extra cost.

    After testing the IQ180 it was the wonderful color accuracy of this new sensor that made the difference. My P40+ was nice but sometimes not that easy to color balance (I suppose ditto for the P65/IQ160) when the IQ180 is just incredibly spot on.

    I'm using a Cambo WRS + 35mm SK. Although not recommend I get very good results usually with up to 7mm fall and 5mm left/right shift in landscape orientation (with center filter). Corners get soft but overall result still is in a complete other class than the Mamiya 28mm for instance.

  11. #11
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by anGy View Post
    I had to choose between the IQ160 and 180 when I decided to upgrade from my P40.
    I was tempted by the brand new sensor of the IQ180, the 20 mpix extra resolution (mostly the 5 extra mp in sensor+ mode) and the very acceptable extra cost.

    After testing the IQ180 it was the wonderful color accuracy of this new sensor that made the difference. My P40+ was nice but sometimes not that easy to color balance (I suppose ditto for the P65/IQ160) when the IQ180 is just incredibly spot on.

    I'm using a Cambo WRS + 35mm SK. Although not recommend I get very good results usually with up to 7mm fall and 5mm left/right shift in landscape orientation (with center filter). Corners get soft but overall result still is in a complete other class than the Mamiya 28mm for instance.
    . I totally agree. You can use the sk35 and get very acceptable results but you need to get used to the new reality of it on a 180 by doing some target practice!

  12. #12
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Thank you all, this is all very valuable info in making my decision. And although it really isn't practical for me to travel to demo the backs with my dealer, he has offered a solution that lets me see differences in the files with various back/lens/movement combinations.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by 2jbourret View Post
    I am currently considering the upgrade from a
    I use two SK wides, the 35XL and the 47XL. The lens most often cited when talking about problems with the IQ180 is the 35XL. While I prefer the T/S mount 47, especially when stitching, I do like the 35, and would want to be able to use rises and falls to some degree with that lens. I consider the Rodies just to large and heavy for my purposes.

    Please, give me your feedback if you have thoughts on this.
    Thanks
    I stitch a lot, mostly 2x2. I had a P65, cambo (SK 47, 72, & 90), which worked very well for me.

    I was seduced:) and upgraded to IQ180, it really couldn't handle the 47. I'd estimate I lost 20 to 30% of the CI. So what I gained in pixels was more that lost in reduced movements. I now have the Rodie 55 and the SK 90. I am a happy camper, but the upgrade cost me more than I anticipated.

  14. #14
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I've got the IQ 180. Works fine with the SK 72 and 120 (actually brilliantly), which I also have. You can fully exploit the the resolution difference between the 160 and 180 with these lenses.

    The SK 47 also works fine, especially with a center filter. The LCC has some work to do on color shifts but it's modest and does not detract from the final image. I agree with Alan on the image circle point - with the IQ 180 the blue zone of death kicks in before you run out of resolution.

    I owned the SK 35 - the color shifts (with the lens centered) take you to the edge of what can be corrected with LCCs (it works - I did it for a year - but just barely) with the center filter; without the center filter the LCCs begin to have issues if you are doing critical work - mostly ok but not always. I found that there was little flexibility to shift. After a year I got tired of fighting it and sold the SK 35 and bought an HR 32.

    Bottom line - on the wide end HR lenses are the only real choice for the IQ 180.

    I resisted this because I actually prefer SK lenses: more compact form factor, fewer $$, more "tubey" look (in audio terms). But the HR 32 and IQ 180 are a killer combination. The HR 32 has been justifiably praised by others here but what isn't often mentioned is it has very little linear distortion. BTW the extra f stop has actually proved to be useful - it preforms brilliantly wide open and it gives you a bit more flexibility to have out of focus portions of your image.

    Jack and others who I respect have report that the IQ 180 has perhaps a stop more DR than the 160. This was a factor in my choice.

    If you shoot wide a lot (as I do) and you get the IQ 180 you will end up switching to an HR lens. In other words a major financial commitment. You could spread it out as I did by buying the back now, limping along with the 35mm (as AnGy suggests it's really not so terrible) and buying the HR 32 down the line.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Near Brussels, Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I also see the SK 35 as a temporary solution (it's on sale by the way). It's quite unexpensive compared to the Rodies but the 32HR is clearly the target. Colors are really exceptional with the IQ180 and having to correct heavy color cast (with resulting color alterations) in the SK35 files does not make great sense.
    The only doubt I have regarding the Rodie 32 is that it is supposed to have more distortion than the SK. The SK35 has very low distortion. So I only correct it with the Alpa tool for some architecture shots at the expense of a little sharpness loss. When sharpness is most important I don't correct the distortion.
    If the HR32 shows more distortion, correction with the Alpa tool will more often be needed and (again maybe) more sharpness could be lost (at very critical pixel peeping level, but that's where we play with such equipment).

  16. #16
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by anGy View Post
    I also see the SK 35 as a temporary solution (it's on sale by the way). It's quite unexpensive compared to the Rodies but the 32HR is clearly the target. Colors are really exceptional with the IQ180 and having to correct heavy color cast (with resulting color alterations) in the SK35 files does not make great sense.
    The only doubt I have regarding the Rodie 32 is that it is supposed to have more distortion than the SK. The SK35 has very low distortion. So I only correct it with the Alpa tool for some architecture shots at the expense of a little sharpness loss. When sharpness is most important I don't correct the distortion.
    If the HR32 shows more distortion, correction with the Alpa tool will more often be needed and (again maybe) more sharpness could be lost (at very critical pixel peeping level, but that's where we play with such equipment).
    As noted above I was surprised at how little linear distortion the HR 32 has. The manufacturers' data sheets are available on the Alpa site. The SK 35 is nearly dead flat showing only -.6% or so at 30mm image radius. The equivalent number for the HR 32 is -1.6%. Both have mustache distortion but the upturn is outside of the centered image circle so the LR distortion tool does a very good job of correction but the SK is really too small to bother with, even in critical applications.

    To see what this looks like take any image of a non-distorted grid and apply -1.6% distortion in LR.

  17. #17
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Given that my work is predominantly ARAT (another rock, another tree), the distortion of the Rodie is really not much of an issue for me. What is an issue with the HR 32 is 1) the cost, and 2) the weight, bulk, and suscesptibleness of the front element. That thing is just too big and scary to carry around!
    Jamie

    http://jamesbourret.photoshelter.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by 2jbourret View Post
    Given that my work is predominantly ARAT (another rock, another tree), the distortion of the Rodie is really not much of an issue for me. What is an issue with the HR 32 is 1) the cost, and 2) the weight, bulk, and suscesptibleness of the front element. That thing is just too big and scary to carry around!
    On the front element issue I use a step up ring as a lens shade so it's a little less out there.

  19. #19
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I think that Jack's advice is very wise - try to get hold of the IQ180 & IQ160 and try them out. I'm sure that one of the sponsoring dealers here would be more than willing to accommodate that one way or another.

    When I decided to upgrade from my P40+ to the IQ series I initially was going to go to the IQ140 but decided to break open the piggy bank and go further to either an IQ160 or 180 - both of which I could find a way to afford. However, I went with the 160 after careful consideration of the fact that I'd have had to pretty much replace all of my wide Schneider glass at considerable extra cost, LCC hassle, early teething problems and with movement limitations. Coupled with the extra costs that this would have entailed the difference in upgrade cost was SIGNIFICANT when compared to going to the safer and easier to live with IQ160. I'm not dependent upon this as a commercial tool but the day job means that I do only have a limited amount of time & patience to enjoy using my camera gear so the hassle factor was important to me personally.

    Now for you the qualitative differences between the two systems may be much more important than some of the other considerations I mentioned. I fear you may just have to find a way to shoot them side by side to decide yourself. I'm sure an investment in Jack & Guy's time could help you with that since they do have both of these backs.
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 6th April 2012 at 15:59.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  20. #20
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    I'm going to have the chance to evaluate files after the weekend, and I suppose I'll be making a decision after that. I now have a better understanding of the limitations I will face if I choose the 180, but without seeing files, I still don't have a feel for the qualitative differences. I suppose it does really come down, in the end, to seduction.
    Thanks for all your input, everyone.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong / Asia
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by 2jbourret View Post
    I am currently considering the upgrade from a P45+ to an IQ 160 or 180. My use is primarily landscape and fine art, for gallery printing 40 - 60"w. I'm mostly using a Cambo WDS for wides, and an AFD3 when using longer lenses (the Mamiya mf 150 3.5N and the 120 macro are favorites).

    I've read quite a few threads here and on LL discussing some of the difficulties and issues with using the IQ 180, but I've seen no discussion of similar issues with the 160.

    Can anyone (especially if you've used both the backs) comment on the usability of the 180 vs the 160? With all I've read, I find myself wondering if the 180 is worth all the trouble, and if the difference in image quality (detail resolution, tonal and color gradation, dynamic range, etc.) is that significant in large prints.

    I use two SK wides, the 35XL and the 47XL. The lens most often cited when talking about problems with the IQ180 is the 35XL. While I prefer the T/S mount 47, especially when stitching, I do like the 35, and would want to be able to use rises and falls to some degree with that lens. I consider the Rodies just to large and heavy for my purposes.

    Please, give me your feedback if you have thoughts on this.
    Thanks
    I upgraded from 28MP Leaf Aptus 65 last year and looked at both the 56MP Leaf and files from P65+ and IQ 180, plus the 80MP Leaf. Pixels aside, per my own impression the 56MP Leaf would have been a mere incremental upgrade while there was a significant step up in image quality for me to go with the 80MP Leaf. The P65+ seemed midway between 56MP and 80MP Leaf in image quality. Apart from the iPhone interface there is no change in image quality between P+ series and IQ if I understand correct.

    I hope above helps, and I would also recommend you to have a look at the Leaf Aptus II 12. It has same sensor as IQ180 and an image quality very much same as IQ180 but a slight different implementation. The image quality is superb and better than IQ160. The back is also cheaper that IQ160 I believe, but mind you is not any a budget back! I can say that I am very pleased with Leaf and having a very close and careful look can be very worthwhile for you. The IQ interface looks nice, but for the premium in price I decided for me no way it made sense. Of course for my Leaf files I use Capture One which works superbly. You may wish to ask yourself the same, unless you have the money to easily spend on this level.

    Best regards,
    Anders
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Thanks Anders. I have decided that the IQ interface is well worth it to me, since I shoot at least 85% of the time with the Cambo, and I want the convenience of the display for checking focus. That alone is almost worth the price of admission to me.

  23. #23
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    After carefully considering everything that was said here (thank you) and doing my own testing on raw images from the 160 and 180 provided by Steve Hendrix, I made my decision in favor of the 180. In the process, I've come up with image circle diagrams that seem to describe the usable shifts for the Schneider 35xl and 47xl, and by extension, sever other lenses with similar image circles. I'll refine these after doing more testing with once I receive the back, but they seem to come close to describing what is possible with each of the lenses.

    I'd be curious to see if these correspond with what others here have found.

    Cheers,

  24. #24
    Member 2jbourret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ketchum, Idaho
    Posts
    144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Better, I think:
    Jamie

    http://jamesbourret.photoshelter.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ 180 pros and cons (vs. IQ160)

    Quote Originally Posted by 2jbourret View Post
    I'd be curious to see if these correspond with what others here have found.
    Jamie,
    I have the 43xl but not the other two. For the 43 I would say your diagrams are pretty close, maybe a bit too conservative. 12 and 15mm are good limits for unforgiving subjects; you might often get away with a few mm more, assuming you use the center filters.

    Dave

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •