Phase One IQ250 Initial Tech Camera Test Results

[anthonyfesta]

Hey everyone!

I have been a long time reader and now first time poster. First, a little background on me so we can get to know each other: I have spent the last 10 years working in the photo industry in varying support roles as photo assistant, digital technician, Digital Capture Manager for a large fashion studio as well as for a boutique capture outfit and also done some digital consulting for start up e-commerce studios. I spent the lion share of those 10 years in NYC but recently had an opportunity to join the wonderful team at Capture Integration and jumped at the chance. I have now relocated to Atlanta to continue to provide top notch support for those in our industry by heading up the Tech Support and Rental teams.

One of the more exciting things about this new role is getting the IQ250 in our hands first. We had some time to play with it yesterday and have this post to share right now about our initial findings with the IQ250 and tech cameras. Click the link and take a look at what we have found so far:

Capture Integration Exclusive: IQ250 on Tech Cameras

Stay tuned, as we have much more to come!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Congrats on your new role at CI.

Don't ask those guys who I am they will just bullshit ya. LOL

 

[dougpeterson]

Thanks for posting. And welcome to the forum.

 

[anthonyfesta]

Thanks for posting. And welcome to the forum.

Congrats on your new role at CI.

Don't ask those guys who I am they will just bullshit ya. LOL

Thanks for the welcome gentleman, I appreciate it!

 

[Don Libby]

Welsome aboard and thanks for the information, very interesting.

Don

 

[anthonyfesta]

Welsome aboard and thanks for the information, very interesting.

Don

Thanks Don, can't wait to share the rest of what we have found.

 

[Marlyn]

Thanks for the testing !.

I'm sure you thought of this, as others have already mentioned it in other threads.

But I think everyone would really like to know the results of (IMO) the 'Gold Standard' in wide Technical lenses. The Rodenstock HR 32mm

Any idea when you might get to that one ?

Regards

Mark.

 

[etrump]

Very interesting article, thanks for posting.

I would be interested in seeing the comparison to the 280 as it has a similar pixel pitch. I'm guessing the falloff would be similar crop withstanding.

More important would be after LCC correction. If it cleans up with an LCC then it would be useable with a tech cam.

 

[tjv]

Thanks for posting. Very interesting stuff!

As etrump suggested, I'd love to see another set of comparisons, each after performing an LCC.

Admittedly, I can't afford a new DMF back at the moment but I love reading about this stuff – I have been slowly assembling a digital platform (Linhof Techno) so I can swap to a 100% digital workflow in the near future. I had / have high hopes for this new generation of backs and it'll be a hard task beating my current object of desire, the IQ260.

Bring on the next post!

 

[weinlamm]

More important would be after LCC correction. If it cleans up with an LCC then it would be useable with a tech cam.

Yes. You showed without correction. But is a correction possible, or better, what would be the result of the correction? I'm very excited about...

 

[torger]

For landscape applications I think 24mm-equivalent is the widest one would need for normal imagery, at least if you prefer a more classic strict look and thus avoid extreme perspectives. Indoor architecture would need wider on a regular basis I guess.

For a 44x33mm sensor that would mean 30.5mm, so the Rodenstock Digaron-W 32mm or Rodenstock Digaron-S 28mm comes closest. I consider the Digaron-W 32mm with its 90mm image circle to be a bit overkill for that sensor size, so it would not be a well-balanced system, but if it works it's good to know. If the 28mm works that would be a saner match for that sensor size I think, but then it would have to work to the edge of the 70mm image circle.

If the 28 or 32 does work with this sensor you could build a really attractive landscape photography tech cam system, and I'd suggest to look deep into doing it with a Linhof Techno when you have that live view, you won't be needing a sliding back. If the Rodenstock 40mm will be the shortest that can do reasonable shifts, then I would think it's not wide enough.

(My own preference is distortion free symmetrical lenses with few lens elements as far as possible so it would not be a tech camera for me, ie I rather use the less user-friendly way of ground glass focusing to be able to use the lenses I like, but I know I'm a minority, and I think retrofocus Rodies with live view would be a real killer.)

 

[torger]

More important would be after LCC correction. If it cleans up with an LCC then it would be useable with a tech cam.

It's may not be so easy. Color cast and vignetting is due to dynamic range loss, ie you get closer to the noise floor. LCC correction raises that, ie you could see it as a non-uniform increase in ISO. If you lose say 4 stops on the green channel on the side LCC will push that 4 stops, ie effectively going from ISO100 to ISO800 in that part of the image, with increased noise and reduced color accuracy as side effect.

When is the increased noise and reduced quality of the color rendition unacceptable? It will be a matter of taste, and subject-dependent. You could have all those 14 stops of DR in the center, but say only 8 stops on the side if the color cast / vignetting is extreme.

I would estimate that ~3 stop signal loss on the worst channel most would consider acceptable, but no more.

 

[f8orbust]

I have to say that what I've seen of live view and WA lens performance on a v1 CMOS DB has been pretty impressive. Sadly, not with S/K WAs, but the R/Ss look decent. My new dream kit (or, at least, one of them!) would be a Techno + 23/28/40 + IQ250.

 

[Landscapelover]

I have to say that what I've seen of live view and WA lens performance on a v1 CMOS DB has been pretty impressive. Sadly, not with S/K WAs, but the R/Ss look decent. My new dream kit (or, at least, one of them!) would be a Techno + 23/28/40 + IQ250.

I've had these 3 lenses on tech cam. I've just wanted to point out that these 3 lenses do not need critical focusing. They always make sharp images with f/11 on an IQ260.

The current IQ260 is more than adequate and a much better choice than the IQ250 for landscape photography, especially in sensor size and LCC.

I cannot comment about the Techno as I've never use it.

I think the IQ250 is a good option to use with MF DSLR for fashion etc. and longer-ranged lenses with tech cam which need critical focusing. The argument is that with tele range, the MF DSLR such as DF , Hasselblad and Leica S are fantastic too and the need for tech cam with tele range is not much different from MF DSLR.

Thanks
Pramote

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It would be nice if it could do both but it does seem more a MF cam body back. Which I think Phase needs in there arsenal of backs. Like to try it

Just need a damn good body to go with it. Lose the damn shutter

 

[gerald.d]

I'm not getting some of the negativity here to be honest.

The performance with the Rodie 40HR looks pretty good to me? 5mm rise/shift is basically going just beyond the corners of a FF sensor.

It would be nice to be able to review the full files to be sure, but I'm not seeing a huge amount of difference in the parts of the sensor furthest away from the center of the image circle between the IQ260 and IQ250. Certainly not enough to write it off.

What's not to like about the images posted? What am I not seeing?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well like to see the corrections with the LCC to confirm no lingering color casts. This would help knowing the limits of the shift for each lens. Also if any smearing and noise exist.

 

[Landscapelover]

Although I am not a professional photographer, with my average photographer eyes, the LCC is pretty obvious. I used to have P30+ and I can see how likely it will be.
Not to like...too expensive for landscape photography compared to Nikon D800E and Sony A7R. If it's cheap I will buy it!
I will wait for future generations but absolutely not NOW.

 

[gerald.d]

Maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly -

"It would be nice if it could do both but it does seem more a MF cam body back"

... but that reads to me as if you're pretty much writing the back off as realistic for tech csm use on the basis of the above test.

Unless I'm mistaken, what we are looking at here are effectively LCC shots, no?

Comparing with LCC shots from my Rodies on an IQ180, they don't look *that* bad. Certainly not bad enough to conclude that it couldn't perform well in many circumstances with a tech cam, which was the original fear prior to this test being shared.

So again - based on the evidence presented so far (which I am guessing all any/most of us have to rely on), what is it that I'm missing?

I'm looking at these thinking - "hey, you know what, there could actually be some real potential here."

You're looking at them thinking - "it would be nice if it worked on a tech cam, but..."

If I really had to put a number on it, I'd interpret from the above test that perhaps on the Rodie 40HR, you might lose 3-5mm of useful image circle radius on the 250 compared to the 260.

Clearly more testing will provide some answers, but based on the evidence from this test alone, there is good potential for tech cam use with the IQ250.

 

[kdphotography]

I agree with gerald.

I think many being too quick to dismiss the IQ250 from any tech cam use based simply on the premise of the IQ250 sensor having micro lenses. Quite frankly, from what I see of the LCC shots from the IQ250, I'm impressed and I bet that with small movements images will clean up nicely with LCC processing.

I used to play around with "small movements" with the P30, and lens/color cast really wasn't a problem---but that was with a Mamiya/Phase body. And in much the similar vein, I think the limitation (or best results) for those wanting to use the IQ250 on a tech camera platform will be had with the Rodenstock lenses. Is the IQ250 the best choice for a technical camera? Probably not. But for someone seeking flexibility in a system where they primarily use the Phase DF+ body, the IQ250 might be an ideal choice.

I just don't understand the initial onslaught of seemingly negative reception for the IQ250. For those of us who already have MFDBs, the IQ250 probably isn't targeted towards us directly. And thank god too---I'm happy with my IQ180, saw no need to trade in for the IQ280, and easily skipped the IQ250 too. One can never be too careful when treading here in Dante's realm. I think too many people expected/wanted a "do-it-all" MFDB/camera system and frankly that's the last thing I would want. Flexible, yes. Workarounds, yes. Jack of all trades? No. You'll never please everyone if that's the goal.

I'm hoping to try the IQ250 myself when Capture Integration comes to Carmel next month. And I'll place early bets now that the IQ250 will be an ideal first MFDB (Stephen Gilbert reminded the proper term is "gateway drug") --- a first digital back for photographer's who have not yet entered Date's Inferno. It really looks like an ideal MFDB for a working professional studio/portrait/wedding photographer waiting for a flexible system that allows him/her to do more with it professionally, and rely less on maintaining a second DSLR camera system ala Nikon/Canon. And being able to shoot landscapes on the weekends with a technical camera (being limited to smaller movements) being a nice plus.

ken