Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 61 of 61

Thread: IQ260 vs IQ280

  1. #51
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    Quote Originally Posted by jvora View Post
    Thanks Graham - Good for quick composition check - How long for the entire image is download so one can check focus, etc - Is this even possible ?
    As soon as the image is shown on the iOS device you can double tap and it will jump to 100% and load just that section of the image at full res.

    This is MUCH faster than any competitive method I've seen, all of which either send the entire image at full res before making the 100% view available, or send a low res version which can't be zoomed in one.

    Depending on which device (full sized iPad, mini, with or without retina) it's 3-5 seconds for the 100% view of a particular area to render.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  2. #52
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    What Doug said. Pretty consistent performance when it's connected.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    122
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    I must say in my work flow I'd rather have the option to have the digital back generate a JPEG that gets transmitted and stays on the iPad.
    This would save a lot of battery power where the wifi feature is needed the most : in the field.
    IMHO I must say the stability is still an issue. I would not want to leave the iPad in my clients hands and trust that it all works flawlessly.
    Something that cannot be said for C1 impeccable tethering or canon WFTE transmitting to the iPad via shuttersnitch app which works flawlessly
    Doug do you think this could be implemented via firmware update or is this not in the cards to have the digital back generate a JPEG that could ( optionally) be transmitted to the iPad where it resides?
    I traded my 180 for the 260 mostly of this feature but I think while Its really usefull it's not stable enough for prime time i.e. clients hands.
    In my experience too much zooming done or fast back and forth scrolling can send the app into a freeze .
    Anyway I was wondering what others experienced using this otherwise great feature
    Grischa

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    As soon as the image is shown on the iOS device you can double tap and it will jump to 100% and load just that section of the image at full res.

    This is MUCH faster than any competitive method I've seen, all of which either send the entire image at full res before making the 100% view available, or send a low res version which can't be zoomed in one.

    Depending on which device (full sized iPad, mini, with or without retina) it's 3-5 seconds for the 100% view of a particular area to render.

  4. #54
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    Quote Originally Posted by rupho View Post
    I must say in my work flow I'd rather have the option to have the digital back generate a JPEG that gets transmitted and stays on the iPad.
    This would save a lot of battery power where the wifi feature is needed the most : in the field.
    +1 on that! Also the order that it delivers the images when it connects should be configurable. It's a pain having to scroll through or ahead of images being rendered from the first image on your CF card.

    IMHO I must say the stability is still an issue. I would not want to leave the iPad in my clients hands and trust that it all works flawlessly.
    Something that cannot be said for C1 impeccable tethering or canon WFTE transmitting to the iPad via shuttersnitch app which works flawlessly
    Doug do you think this could be implemented via firmware update or is this not in the cards to have the digital back generate a JPEG that could ( optionally) be transmitted to the iPad where it resides?
    I traded my 180 for the 260 mostly of this feature but I think while Its really usefull it's not stable enough for prime time i.e. clients hands.
    In my experience too much zooming done or fast back and forth scrolling can send the app into a freeze .
    Anyway I was wondering what others experienced using this otherwise great feature
    Grischa
    My experience is that it's still a beta product.

    It's better than it was when I first tested it with Doug & DT in Washington (it didn't connect in adhoc mode at all, all day). However, it's inherently unstable and I have the same issue as you describe. After a while (minutes), if you've zoomed in/out and pulled across images for some time the app will lock up and/or disconnect. Sometimes you just need to close capture pilot on the ipad, sometimes you have to reboot the back, sometimes the back just says screw it and locks itself up and you have to drop the battery out. Sometimes it'll lock up and act like it wants to take pics but doesn't save them (normally a low battery issue).

    I had to statically set up capture pilot with my back for adhoc mode. When it's running somewhere away from other wifi activity it seems to be fine (subject to the random issues above). If you are in areas with lots of wifi activity then it may not connect at all. Sometimes in these situations it will connect to an iPhone but not an iPad, and once the iPhone and IQ260 are connected on wifi you can then connect the iPad and Capture Pilot to the back. Kill the iPhone and the iPad / back disconnect.

    So I repeat, it's still a beta test level at least as far as adhoc wifi is concerned.

    Now don't get me wrong, it IS impressive when it's working. With a DF+ body it's also pretty neat having a remote iPad camera controller too. It's still not as good as my Camranger outfit for my Nikons and I think that's written by two guys in a garage somewhere.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    I strongly believe that if some more resource was put behind the wifi and Capture Pilot situation, Phase might come away with a truly flagship product. As Graham points out, the main issue currently is either getting connected or staying connected as once connected the image data flows very well. I also would like to see the thumbnails load from the most currently shot image to last, instead of the way they are loaded now. It's just the opposite of the way the back displays images.

    I had mentioned to Phase One about have the images just stay on the ipad allowing the user to browse them at will, then reconnect and delete etc. Not sure if the current wifi technology will allow this since you would be transmitting a lot of data to the ipad unlike how it works now, basically smaller packets of data, (either groups of thumbnails, or portions of the image to view at 100%).

    Right now for me the inability for the Capture Pilot app to fully use the resolution of the retina iPads is a very limiting issue. The images are close but not quite there on the retina when viewed at 100%, even with respect retina turned on.

    Hopefully some resources from within Phase One can be put on this or some resources can be contracted for. Look at what the Magic Lantern folks can pull out of a Canon camera, it's truly amazing.

    I guess time will tell.

    Paul Caldwell

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    I would add - one of the deciding factors for me was that I knew I was going to shoot outdoors allot with the DF (apart from a tech) and I wanted the sensor+ files at 20 meg. You get cleaner files say on a sensor+ iso 400 than a full file at iso 400.
    Phil

    i will go for the IQ260... more universal !

    for 400iso hand held... i will be pleased to see a comparison betwen IQ280 sensor + mode 20meg pics VS D800 down res to 20meg ! any link ?

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    I have an IQ260, very useful when I needed the long exposure and when I use wide angle schneider lenses. However I'm finding myself wanting 80mp occasionally. I had a shoot a few weeks ago where the picture will eventually be printed on an outdoor billboard. I got lazy with a few shots and those ended up being the ones the client wanted. So I was forced to crop off corners. I really wish I had that extra room.

    But that's an extreme example and I doubt many would need prints that big. Having said that, if you got an IQ180, call me

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    Doug, Garham and All :

    Thanks for the details on WiFi speeds, 100% views and related info - Good to know about this - Yes, a jpeg option could mitigate some of the issues - Consistent connection of course is critical - Hope it does get resolved with a firmware update.


    Thanks all.

    Jai
    Jai Vora jaivora.com +91 982-136-0044

  9. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    SO went to our local dealer today and shot some long exposure shots on IQ280. Must say, At various exposures that range from 10s, 15s, 20s, 22s, 30s, 35s, 45s, 60s, 90s, 95s, I saw ZERO noise on iso 35, f11, lenses 32 HR and 35 XL (some LCC on the later, nil on the former ) AND, also ,found the ISO 35 files quite different and preferable to ISO 50.
    quite impressed.
    back to my original conundrum
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    Hello Saty :

    Besides the above post where you mention siding towards the IQ280, did I read somewhere in one of your other posts that you have now decided on the IQ280 and not the IQ260 ?

    If yes, what was it in the the 280 that was missing in the 260 files/images ( besides resolution ) ? - I would be interested to learn your reasoning.


    Thanks,

    Jai
    Jai Vora jaivora.com +91 982-136-0044

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ260 vs IQ280

    Quote Originally Posted by jvora View Post
    Hello Saty :

    Besides the above post where you mention siding towards the IQ280, did I read somewhere in one of your other posts that you have now decided on the IQ280 and not the IQ260 ?

    If yes, what was it in the the 280 that was missing in the 260 files/images ( besides resolution ) ? - I would be interested to learn your reasoning.
    Hi Jai,
    The first half of the first post on this thread should portray my thought processes at the time.

    I have already pulled the trigger on the IQ280, with good comfort in the fact that I have actually never exposed longer than 2 minutes with the D800e.
    The only drawback was astrophotography if I ever wanted to get into, but for that I have the M9 (nothing matches the 24-Lux) and D800e still.
    Hope that helps.
    Saty

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
  •