Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

  1. #1
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    I'm looking to upgrade my back to IQ160/260 however I'm looking for experiences with two of my lenses SK35XL and SK47XL. I'm using a Cambo WRS.

    I do a lot of stitching and with my Aptus II 7 (33mp) I can make quite significant shits with both lenses. I regulary do four image stitch with the 47XL, 15mm rise/fall - 15mm left/right with no or limited issues.
    The 35XL I often use 10mm left/right, sometimes with some rise/fall as well.

    So bottom line I'm looking for hands on experience with the IQ160/260 - SK35XL/47XL.

    Thanks
    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    The 35XL will go to about 8mm of shift on the 160 before you have too much image loss due to detail smearing and extreme loss of color saturation. It's a great lens on the 160 on center, but not a great shifting lens.

    If you like to shift and are moving to the 160, I would consider either the Rodenstock 32mm (don't own but have used) or the Rodenstock 40mm which can actually get about 18mm of shift on the 160 but you will catch a bit of hard vignetting due to the disc or what ever it is that Rodenstock puts inside their lenses. Without it you could easily get to 20mm abet with a slight amount of image loss.

    Can't speak to the 47mm as I have never used it.

    Paul Caldwell

  3. #3
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    I have both on my Alpa. The description of the 35xl is spot on. Personally I'm also very happy with the 47mm even though in theory it's an older generation lens but mine is more than sharp enough for anything I've ever shot!

    With the IQ160/260 I prefer to use a centre filter on both to make LCCs easier.

    The image circle of the 35mm gives you about 8mm of usable shift as Paul mentioned. The 47mm has an enormous image circle and I can go to 18mm with mine.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

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

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Graham,

    On you 47, do you see a lot of saturation fall off or detail smearing with shifts to 18mm? I have the 43mm and it just can't quite get there on the 160/260. It can get to 15mm most of the time. I use the CF on the 43 and 35. It's a must have on the 35mm and if you shift the 43mm.

    When I was able to use a 180 briefly, I was disappointed with the 43mm as it would barely get to 10mm on the 180. After that the loss of details was pretty harsh.

    Paul

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

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    I have it with me at the moment in Death Valley so I can give it a test. In my experience it's been fine particularly since it has a 123mm (stopped down) vs 110mm image circle compared to the 43mm.

    I know that the 43mm is better optimized for digital but I think we're talking razor sharp vs samurai sword sharp here. Ditto the new Rodies too btw.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  6. #6
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Thanks guys,

    I'm on my way to test the 260 with the two lenses, now if it would just stop raining...

    I did a short test last week and shifting the 47XL 15 rise/fall - 15 left/right introduces some lines corresponding to the tiles of the sensor.

    I'll report back..

    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  7. #7
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Did you shoot LCCs for the shifted 47XL test? Also did you use a centre filter with it?
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    My 43SK will usually show centerfold lines on shifts, however so far the corresponding LCC will correct for them. When I briefly used it on a 180, I pretty much had centerfold lines on every shot. Just not a good combination.

    On the 160/260, with shifts you may also see some magenta banding. On a horizontal shot these will show up as vertical bands about 1/8" in size. I was using my 43mm in a low light shift and in the shifts these bands really showed up. I had not noticed these before, and checked with DT/Doug. They are normal on shifts especially in low light. It's amazing just how much correction the LCC can correct for. After seeing these on my 260, I went back to look at a few frames with the 160 and there were there also. I had missed them before and the LCC had totally corrected for them.

    Graham, I forgot the 47mm had the larger IC of 123mm. I may sell my 43mm and upgrade to the 47 in the future since it seems a bit more shift friendly.

    Paul Caldwell

  9. #9
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Yes, I always shoot and apply LCC and I use center filter on both the 35Xl and 47XL.

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Did you shoot LCCs for the shifted 47XL test? Also did you use a centre filter with it?
    Peter
    My website

  10. #10
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Paul, The magenta banding is no problem, LCC takes care of that.
    It is the lines in the image or some of the tiles of the sensor that shows a slightly different color or is slightly lighter that is the problem.
    The image below is a 100% crop that shows it. Is is quite subtle on the grey sky, but on a blue sky it would have been very visible.



    Even though Phase or Leaf won't admit it, my experience is that no two sensors are the same and some are way better than others. My first Aptus II 7 was absolutely horrible in regards to centerfold lines, I got a replacement which was way way better.

    I know some photographers that got to test several backs before purchase and could pick the best of them.

    With the growing market for tech cams I wish Phase/Leaf would test their backs and label the best of them "certified for Tech Cam use". Even if they charged a lot more for those backs I believe they would sell. I would buy one..

    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    I have an IQ260 and use the SK35xl and SK43xl. Before the upgrade I had a P65+ which is the same sensor as the IQ160. There has been a change of sensor so the 160 and 260 do not behave the same anymore as far as fall off and magenta cast. I agree with all the info given previously. With the change of the sensor you get a few mm lens shift between the 160 and 260. It renders the 35xl pretty unusable. In my experience you can get at most 8mm of shift only in certain shoot conditions. You get to much smearing but also the color lost and magenta color shift that you have to retouch in post. This starts setting in around 6-7mm of shift, again depending on your situation and colors of your subject. The SK43 still performs fine with CF but to the max of 15mm shift. Past that you get the same conditions as described with the SK35. I love the look of these lenses and in particular the 43. Sorry I have no experience with the 47XL.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Today I have taken a bunch of test shots with the IQ260 and also a IQ160. I just gone briefly through them and it looks like the 160 is much worse than the 260.
    Still have to go thoroughly through the shots, apply LCC etc.

    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Often my LCC's when shot even on center show the centerfolding lines, more often this happens on shift, but every once and a while the center shots will show it. With both my SK35 and SK43, the 43 is bit worse on this than the 35.

    I believe that Schneiders are more prone to this than a Rodenstock on the 60MP+ backs from Phase. I found my 35 and 43 were about the same between my 160 and 260 in both magenta cast and light fall off.

    However when it happens, my LCC will correct it on center shots, every once and a while I get a "keeper centerfold" and have to pull it out in post. These only will show on a file where you have a lighter solid part of the image like sky. If you convert them to B&W it can get really really ugly. I was amazed when I had a IQ180 for a few weeks just how bad it was on the SK43. Enough that I realized I would stay in the 60MP size back for now.

    Others have gotten this so bad that their backs had to be re-calibrated. I know this is possible on the Phase IQ's with a dealer in many cases over the phone.

    This is why demos are so important as you just don't know till you shoot it on your back. I agree both are amazing lenses and with tilt on the 35mm you can really get in close.

    Paul

  14. #14
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Even though Phase or Leaf won't admit it, my experience is that no two sensors are the same and some are way better than others. My first Aptus II 7 was absolutely horrible in regards to centerfold lines, I got a replacement which was way way better.
    I don't understand this comment. Please direct me to any post, comment, or advisory from Phase or Leaf that says every sensor is identical.

    Obviously no two sensors are identical. That's why they are calibrated and tested.

    Let's be very clear: The warranty includes [performance up to spec] in a variety of metrics. If you are getting any photographically meaningful centerfold on any Phase back with any supported lens it is a matter of warranty to have the situation addressed. Meaning whatever is required to make sure you have a back which is [performing up to spec] is free. Hence your Aptus II 7 was replaced when found not to do so.

    In the case of the 35XL and 43XL these are not officially supported lenses for a 60mp back, though as broad experience/comments show they can still be a very useful tool - provided you are making the decision knowing the pros/cons vs the alternatives (namely the 32HR/35HR/40HR/50HR).

    Work with a good dealer that knows and cares about tech cameras, has hands on real-world experience with the variety of lens/back/processing combinations and who keeps in touch with their customer base, and TRY the systems that seem best suited (or in the very very least ask for real world sample files from their database of sample images). It is *literally* their job to make sure you're purchasing the right product for your needs, and their job to make sure any questions/concerns/problems you experience are properly addressed.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  15. #15
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    O yes, and it's only relevant to look at the final files (with LCC applied, and appropriate/representative stylistic adjustments made). Seeing an issue in an image from a tech camera before LCC is not meaningful - LCC is a required and integral part of the creation of the final image for any remotely-wide lens on a tech camera.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  16. #16
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    With the growing market for tech cams I wish Phase/Leaf would test their backs and label the best of them "certified for Tech Cam use".
    I mean this quite adamantly.

    EVERY back P1 sells is "certified for Tech Cam use".

    Any meaningful issue found with a compatible lens is a matter of warranty, and will be rectified. You can see our (technically unofficial, but very comprehensive) overview of tech camera lens compatibility here:
    Tech Camera Overview
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  17. #17
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    I don't understand this comment. Please direct me to any post, comment, or advisory from Phase or Leaf that says every sensor is identical.
    I have it straight from Phase One support that they don't calibrate the sensors individually which doesn't make a hell of a lot sense to me.

    And let me correct my comment; what I meant to say was that there's "good" sensors that show no or very little centerfold or the like and there's "bad" sensors that are a nightmare in that regard. I'm sure that if you ask Phase on the record they would deny that.

    I totally agree with the rest of your post, my Aptus was replaced by the dealer, not Leaf/Mac Group. Phase support basically just told me to go buy Rodenstocks instead of acknowledging the problem.


    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  18. #18
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Of course...

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    O yes, and it's only relevant to look at the final files (with LCC applied, and appropriate/representative stylistic adjustments made). Seeing an issue in an image from a tech camera before LCC is not meaningful - LCC is a required and integral part of the creation of the final image for any remotely-wide lens on a tech camera.
    Peter
    My website

  19. #19
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Doug,

    I'm surprised the 43XL isn't considered a supported lens. I was lent an IQ160 and 43XL the very first time I used a tech camera, and it was a great combination - still the (technically) best images I've ever shot. Sure, an LCC was necessary, but I would never shoot a tech camera without one.

    Best,

    Matt

    (You know, it's possible that I'm confused and it was the 47XL... but I don't think so...)

  20. #20
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Oh and just for the record, I'm not on some Leaf/Phase bashing cruise, I love working with their products.

    I know your Tech Camera Overview and Tech Camera Visualizer Tool and find it very helpful. Actually I think you should make an Tech Camera Visualizer Tool iPhone app and sell it. I for one would buy it!

    It's great that "EVERY back P1 sells is "certified for Tech Cam use"." I just find some more certified than other

    Peter
    Last edited by Pemihan; 18th December 2013 at 09:50.
    Peter
    My website

  21. #21
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    I'm surprised the 43XL isn't considered a supported lens. I was lent an IQ160 and 43XL the very first time I used a tech camera, and it was a great combination - still the (technically) best images I've ever shot. Sure, an LCC was necessary, but I would never shoot a tech camera without one.
    43XL is listed as "limited" in compatibility with a 60mp sensor.

    Meaning it is a great option to consider (and weigh against the alternatives), but will, at some point in it's range of movement (in my experience around 12mm, but depends on your criterium and subject matter) experience issues (e.g. loss of saturation in corrected colors).

    The overview is meant to flag potential issues for further discussion or testing/evaluation. We would not want someone to get a 43XL and IQ260 and expect they can shift all the way to the final bit of the image circle with perfect results. So we want to flag this "limited" compatibility so we can have more detailed conversations about what happens around what range of movement, and what the pros/cons of the alternatives.

    If, for instance, someone was shooting unshifted street photography with a Travel Camera (Alpa TC, Cambo RC, Arca Factum etc) and wanted a light, sharp lens then I'd recommend a 43XL over a 40HR with little hesitation.

    We just want an informed citizenry.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    I would agree with Doug on suitability to task for these lenses too. There's a difference between needing absolute linearity to the edges at large shifts for say architecture and accepting some fall off if shooting art (when you may end up adding vignette in post anyway).

    I'm not shooting brick walls so considerations about compatibility with an IQ160/260 are different to perhaps phase one's support statements.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  23. #23
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Doug, if I may ask you, how much shift for a four image stitch do you feel should be possible without issues with the 47XL on a IQ260.

    Thanks
    Peter
    Last edited by Pemihan; 18th December 2013 at 13:17.
    Peter
    My website

  24. #24
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Dough, if I may ask you, how much shift for a four image stitch do you feel should be possible without issues with the 47XL on a IQ260.
    There is no one answer to that question.

    Depends on the aperture you use, whether you use the center filter, what your subject matter and final use is, whether you're applying any tilt/swing at the same time, and whether occasional retouching/manual-post work would be an annoyance or a show-stopper. Final guidance based on those can vary by as much as 5mm (a BIG difference for most people).

    My approach to that question is instead to send sample files from our catalog, provide in person evaluation, towards-purchase rentals, or otherwise approach the question more holistically. When the above is impractical or impossible I would then (but only then) resort to guidance based on my personal experience and the experience of our relevant customers. I suggest you do such examination with your dealer as well.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  25. #25
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Doug, I understand that there is a lot of variables in play. But I can say that even with a four image stitch with the 47XL (10mm rise/fall 10mm left/right) I'm having issues that LCC doesn't fix. That is with center filter, f11 and no tilt.

    My problem is that there's no dealer in my part of the world with any tech cam experience that comes even close to the experience the two biggest US dealers have.
    Alas I'm left with seeking information from the valuable members of this great forum and doing some testing on my own.
    I would much prefer to buy the back in the US and have a dealer with extensive knowledge in tech cam use having my back, but since I would have to partially lease the back unfortunately that's not an option.

    If I decide to upgrade to the IQ260 I might be inclined to get the Rodie 40HR as my main wide and later get the SK60XL or the Rodie 70HR. I already have the SK120 Aspheric so that would make a nice three lens kit for me.

    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Doug, I understand that there is a lot of variables in play. But I can say that even with a four image stitch with the 47XL (10mm rise/fall 10mm left/right) I'm having issues that LCC doesn't fix. That is with center filter, f11 and no tilt.

    My problem is that there's no dealer in my part of the world with any tech cam experience that comes even close to the experience the two biggest US dealers have.
    Alas I'm left with seeking information from the valuable members of this great forum and doing some testing on my own.
    I would much prefer to buy the back in the US and have a dealer with extensive knowledge in tech cam use having my back, but since I would have to partially lease the back unfortunately that's not an option.

    If I decide to upgrade to the IQ260 I might be inclined to get the Rodie 40HR as my main wide and later get the SK60XL or the Rodie 70HR. I already have the SK120 Aspheric so that would make a nice three lens kit for me.

    Peter
    Hi, I have the IQ160 and have the 40mm HR and the 70mm HR. Both are excellent and can be shifted to the edge of the circle no problem. Image quality is excellent almost to the very edge. With the 40 I have regularly shifted to the max 15mm on the RM3Di and with the 70 up to 20mm rise with great results.

    The 40 requires an LLC all the time but the corrections are not extreme so the files look very nice. No center filter required.

    They Rodenstock HR-W's are boring lenses…meaning worry free, you just use them and shoot. The image quality will be excellent even with tilt. Just do not stop them down too much though, they are designed to be used at about f8 max or so. They are great even wide open.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Senior Member stngoldberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    newport, RI
    Posts
    807
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    Hi, I have the IQ160 and have the 40mm HR and the 70mm HR. Both are excellent and can be shifted to the edge of the circle no problem. Image quality is excellent almost to the very edge. With the 40 I have regularly shifted to the max 15mm on the RM3Di and with the 70 up to 20mm rise with great results.

    The 40 requires an LLC all the time but the corrections are not extreme so the files look very nice. No center filter required.

    They Rodenstock HR-W's are boring lenses…meaning worry free, you just use them and shoot. The image quality will be excellent even with tilt. Just do not stop them down too much though, they are designed to be used at about f8 max or so. They are great even wide open.
    Exactly my experience, but I use a h5d50 with my Arca rm3d
    Stanley

  28. #28
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Opinions on SK35XL and SK47XL on IQ160/260

    Good to know the HR's are just fine on the 160/260.

    I looked some more at my test pics and the demo 260 I tested had issues with the 35XL straight on... Hmmm...

    Peter
    Peter
    My website

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
  •