IQ260 vs IQ280

[torger]

I think 90 sec exposures are way too long for high quality results in the IQ160

Unless you shoot in a cold climate, haven't tested the IQ160 but on the backs I've tested I've noted huuuuge differences when shooting in freezing temperatures. Therefore I think it's a bit sad that the manufacturers have hard-limited the exposure time.

 

[jlm]

or 80-60 = 20 extra, and 20 is 33%of 60. you are adding 1/3 more pixels

 

[dougpeterson]

Unless you shoot in a cold climate, haven't tested the IQ160 but on the backs I've tested I've noted huuuuge differences when shooting in freezing temperatures. Therefore I think it's a bit sad that the manufacturers have hard-limited the exposure time.

Note that phase one does not hard-limit the back. I'd its frigid outside you can push the back longer-than-spec.

(Note for everyone else - torger uses a Leaf Aptus back which does use a hard stop when it reaches it's longest exposure spec)

 

[satybhat]

I would have thought the difference in resolution would be 25% ?? 60/80 x 100 =75% ?


I believe the correct equation is 80÷60=1.333,√1.333=1.15 so the difference is 15% extra resolution for the IQ280,

Rob

This has to be the best place on the net for some amazing information... F#*&, I'm truly blown away by how much I have learnt in the last week.
Doug / Guy and co. I wish you guys were based here in Oz, or the AUD was stronger than USD !!!

So pardon my inexperience with large MP files and pardon my rehashing the topic, am I right in assuming that somewhere at 10-15secs, the IQ260 will start pulling ahead of the 280, all else being equal ?

Also, at what print sizes would you see the 80MP back pulling ahead of the 60MP back for the same image ? Would it show in gallery sized prints of 40x60 inches ?( doing a charitable exhibition of 3 prints in January ) ?

 

[Dogs857]

Also, at what print sizes would you see the 80MP back pulling ahead of the 60MP back for the same image ? Would it show in gallery sized prints of 40x60 inches ?( doing a charitable exhibition of 3 prints in January ) ?

That depends on a number of factors.
1. Are you printing these yourself or are you having a lab do it for you??
2. What program are you using to process and resize your images??
3. Do you have your workflow set up to create large prints??

You can print 40x60 from most modern DSLR's. I have done so from a D3x so there is no reason you can't get great prints from either the 180 or 260. So long as your technique is down and your processing and enlarging are done correctly then you will get great results.

 

[satybhat]

Workflow, I'm not sure, Jeff.
So, 1 and 3: I was thinking of third-partying this one to one or two labs in Melbourne... colour factory is one such. Gives me an idea about how the chaps do it as well. ( I have zero printing experience for now ). The one thing I am confident of is finding compositions (which is where I keep investing my energy ).
2. I was thinking of a combination of C1, PS6 and Genuine fractals. Although any pointers to the workflow (books or threads) or software suggestions are welcome.

I do understand that the scenes will dictate perceived resolution, however, for the same scene / settings / exposure parameters, at what print sizes would you see the 80MP back pulling ahead of the 60MP back for the same image ?

 

[dougpeterson]

Satybhat: that will depend on what you consider "significant".

I suggest you simply take an 80mp raw file and downsample it to 60mp upon processing. Then print both. This isn't the exact same as capturing at native 60 vs native 80, but it will give you a pretty good idea.

If you have a dealer where you can do a 60mp and 80mp comparison with relevant lens/subject/aperture/technique to your workflow then all the better. Or you can use a dealer's in-house test files comparing 60mp and 80mp captures of the same scene (I guess I can't speak for other dealers, but we have created and maintain an archive of such comparisons) - though there is no guarantee the lens/aperture/subject/technique will be relevant to your proposed use.

 

[jvora]

Hello Paul & Others :

For a IQ 260 or 280, how long does it take for the images to appear on an iPad under a WiFi set up ?


Thanks,

Jai

 

[GrahamWelland]

With the IQ260 it takes maybe 1-2 seconds for an image to transfer across. Remember it's a rendering scaled to the iPad and not the full 60/80mp image.

 

[jvora]

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 ?


Thanks,

Jai

 

[dougpeterson]

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.

 

[GrahamWelland]

What Doug said. Pretty consistent performance when it's connected.

 

[rupho]

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

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.

 

[GrahamWelland]

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. :wtf:

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. :facesmack:

 

[Paul2660]

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

 

[archivue]

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 ?

 

[mmbma]

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

 

[jvora]

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

 

[satybhat]

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 :banghead:

 

[jvora]

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