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!
PaulActually I feel it's very telling that the 45 to 54Mp Nikon D4x is closer to reality than I realized. Times they are a changin
Paul
That would be insane.Am I right that live view would only work on a Phase camera with the mirror up?
I would think this is the case with LV on any camera. The mirror has to be up, unless of course you have a mirrorless, in which case, there is no mirror to be up This is not unique to Phase or a limitation of Phase. From what I understand, on the DF+, the IQ250 automatically flaps the mirror up. On the DF you have to manually use MUP, as is the case for LV with the current CCD Phase backs.That would be insane.
What's insane about it, Gerald? Having to push an extra button/switch compared to a standard DSLR - one on the body and one on the DB? That's hardly a big deal.That would be insane.
What I meant was that it would be insane if the back didn't provide live view when connected to a tech-cam.What's insane about it, Gerald? Having to push an extra button/switch compared to a standard DSLR - one on the body and one on the DB? That's hardly a big deal.
Ray
The cost/benefit of 44x33 over 36x24 just got even harder to justify. For the extra real-estate, the camera/back combo is slower, less user friendly and costs 10x. Unlike previous CCD vs CMOS debates, the sensor tech is essentially the same Sony sensor in a larger format.
If/when we get a CMOS sensor with 24-30fps LV, 55x40 real-estate, fully usable on tech cams, good ISO to 6400, 60-80MP, lets talk
BTW, the back is available for sale on Monday, but Phase has not tested performance on a tech cam yet? How does this make any sense?
Why is everyone so miffed that there seems to have been little testing on tech cams? Phase already have SEVERAL backs that work superbly on tech cams. Tech cam users represent a TINY proportion of their customer base and even they, in many cases. also run reflex bodies as well as tech cams. Phase have a history of accepting that a particular back in their range may be unsuited to tech cams (P30+). Are you really surprised that the focus of initial development is on the primary platform of the vast majority of their customer base? Sure, backward compatibility is nice, but would we hold back the availability of 24fps LV on this back just because the DF can't flip it's mirror up on its own? Tough crowd.Am I right that live view would only work on a Phase camera with the mirror up?
If so, it would appear that live view would be most useful on tech cameras, the cameras that the new back is least likely to play well with.
it seems pretty clear to me that this camera was not designed to be used for a technical camera. It also seems clear to me that this is not a landscape back, it seems targeted at people who need low light capabilities. As a landscape shooter myself, I love ISO 35, its so silky smooth that I often forget that my IQ180 will even go above it.To me, as an exclusive landscape photographer, ISO of 35 is all I need. From time to time, I may use slightly higher ISO. Only on occasion, I may use the Nikon D800E for ISO over 200.
If this IQ 250 cannot be used with a Tech Cam, it is too expensive compared to the D800E or Sony A7R. I probably will wait for DX4, but do I need one? My lenses can't even keep up with 36mp.
It is kind of funny there is no information about the tech cam when the back is almost available. Phase One has had this sensor for many months. I have a hard time believing they don't know whether there is a limitation of the back with the tech cam.
My pictures still look (awesome) the same with my P25+!
Pramote
Is the IQ250 sales pitch really high ISO? It's not going to be that great.
You might have forgot, but Sony Exmor sensor tech got it's reputation from two things, high mp count and very high DR on base ISO so you could push shadows to extreme levels. At high ISO there are better CMOS sensors, and unsurprisingly the journalist/action flagship DSLRs don't use Sony Exmor.
Other factors is the available lens lineup, the 135 systems have much wider aperture lenses letting in more light, and I doubt the auto-focus of the 645DF+ is very well suited for low light situations. From a professional perspective I'd think that the high ISO mode in the IQ250 would be used for casual shooting, if you really make work in low light frequently you'd get a 1DX or a D4 with appropriate wide aperture lenses.
That you actually can do casual shooting in low light can be valuable though, especially to amateurs. But commercial work? Seems to me to be the wrong tool.
It would be more sane to tone down that a CMOS is actually used, and just consider this to be an evolutionary IQ140 replacement. The big feature would be that you get a much better live view, slightly better DR, and by the way a high ISO mode for casual shooting in low light. I would find it to be very important that the IQ250 base ISO image quality is at least as good as IQ140 (which I think it can be, I think the secret in color rendition is in bayer/ir filters not CMOS vs CCD), or else many might consider it a step backwards.
If someone has missed it, PDN Online has a review up with some full-size test shots at various ISOs (unfortunately no raws, only jpegs with quite heavy noise reduction it seems): Phase One Unveils First Medium-Format Camera With CMOS Sensor: Hands-On Test looking at those I've lowered my expectations of the ISO performance quite a bit, but we need raws to be able to make some proper evaluations.
Johhny,modestly better performance than a D800 at both ISO1600 and ISO3200.
dougpetrson
That quote does not help your sales pitch nor does the photograph at 1600 ISO. It's almost 400 ISO film like! Yes, there's a certain look to MFD, but using the D800 as a benchmark for ISO performance doesn't present a strong argument in favor of MFD.
How long are the "long exposures"? Why not post a pic at 6400 ISO, considering it's supposedly useable?