The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Which direction to go.. IQ250 v IQ260

Zerimar

Member
Hello everyone,

I've been a member here for a while now and was looking into upgrading my digital back. I currently have a P45+ with a H2. I use a 100 f2.2, 120 f4 macro, and 50-110 zoom.

I was offered the same price on either an IQ250 or IQ260 H mount upgrade.

I shoot a lot of studio work. This mainly is portraits/headshots, as well as the occasional beauty/fashion shoot. I also do a lot of fine art landscape work that long exposures are a common part of. Samples of my work are on my site for reference.

The P45+ has been my go to back for years. It does an outstanding job in studio and with long exposures, but has several shortcomings. The screen is the largest concern, as I am unable to check focus and exposure accurately when on location and not shooting tethered. This concern means I usually do not shoot the medium format kit when shooting a location fashion shoot, because I fear the reliability of being able to quickly check to make sure everything is working well. It's also an aging back, eats batteries like no other, and is just starting to feel 'old'

Both the 250 and 260 cover the problems I had with the 45+. It's the question of which back would be overall better to use.

So far as my understanding goes with the 250 v 260 is that one is 1.3x crop, 50mp CMOS with high iso usage, and the other is full frame, 60mp CCD without the same high iso usage (similar to my current back)

On paper the 260 looks like a better deal (given I can save some more money with both at the same price) also being a full frame chip, and overall amazing features. I don't like the idea of switching from a 1.1x crop to a smaller chip. However, I know in real world shooting situations it all depends on the shooter, etc.

Which back performs better for long exposures? That's a key feature of upgrading to one of these over an IQ160. I like that I can get clean long exposures at ISO 50-100 with the P45+.

Is it true the IQ250 is only 14 bits, while the IQ260 is still 16 bits?

Asides from wider lenses being wider and having a shallower depth of field, is having the full frame chip really that significantly different when shooting with MF cameras?

Any input would be grateful.

On a side note, I've noticed some people considered the IQ250 an upgrade from the 260. So for those of you who have either one, what made you chose that one over the other, and now that both are out, do you stand by the one you currently have?
 

ondebanks

Member
Which back performs better for long exposures? That's a key feature of upgrading to one of these over an IQ160. I like that I can get clean long exposures at ISO 50-100 with the P45+.
Both will be very good but the IQ250 will be the better of the two in this regard. Sony CMOS trumps Dalsa CCD in their dark current specs, by a large margin. Phase One's engineering of the CCD integration narrows this gap, but cannot close it. See also Hasselblad's maximum exposure time specs, using the same two sensors: H5D60 [Dalsa CCD] - 32 seconds; H5D50c [Sony CMOS] - 12 minutes.

Is it true the IQ250 is only 14 bits, while the IQ260 is still 16 bits?
That doesn't matter. The IQ260 does not have 16 bits of information to record anyway; 14 bits would be appropriate for both backs.

Ray
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
If you can live with the 1.3 crop, I would say the 250 is a better investment.

A few things to consider:

1. 14 vs 16 bit, this is one of the great misconceptions of MFD, and I guess Phase One/dealers still use it. There has been a lot written about this by folks who have more knowledge about chips than I can ever hope to have, net the last 2 bits on the CCD are mostly noise and not really that beneficial to the overall image. Just do a search on this and you can find white paper/articles that will explain it better. So IMO here they are really equal. It may record 16 bits but as the last 2 bits get thrown out, you are still at 14 bits.

2. Long exposures, the 260 can get there albeit, with limits. 1 hour at temps equal to or less than 69 degree F, low humidity. The 250 can get there at any iso range (I would doubt that anything longer than 10 min at iso 800 will be worth very much), so you will be limited to the lower iso range for 30 min to 1 hour. Both still have the dark frame mandatory, (which is surprising on the 250 as other CMOS backs allow this to be a user decision).

3. High iso, well, the 250 has this hands down, as the 260 really doesn't have a true gain as we think of it with CMOS. Yes you can set it to higher iso's but it's just not the same thing as setting a CMOS back to say iso 400. This is another great misconception, that Phase One seems to like to continue with. You can read a lot more on this here:

IQ260 Usable ISOs?

I asked then and ask now, for Phase One or any of the dealers that read all of these posts, to answer this question, so far, no one has stepped up to it.

CCD's really don't work the same as CMOS with traditional iso settings and again there has been much written about this on both this site and Lula.

4. Value, if you are buying this camera for your business, then I believe the 250 will carry a longer residual value. Once Phase One comes out with a full frame CMOS back, the need/want/desire/value of all the current CCD backs will drop fast. I feel this is true more for the 60MP than 80, since the 80MP backs have a 20MP sensor plus mode that can produce an excellent image. So if your main investment was for higher resolution you can still stitch 20MP images and come out with an excellent end result.

5. The 260 has been out now for over 12 months, so far, there has not been one firmware upgrade to it for higher iso image quality improvements. It's starting to look like the 260 will stay at it's current level which is unfortunate. The P65 and P45 both had several firmware updates, that improved the overall image quality at higher iso ranges, at least up to 400. On the 250, Phase One has Sony as a partner, and Sony has already proven, that they fully understand CMOS and getting the best possible image from it.

6. If you ever plan on working with a tech camera, then the 250 might not be a good choice. There have been no other examples besides the very first ones that came out with the announcement of the 250. However it seems that due to the microlenses, on the 250, shifting or rise fall can create problems with the files. The 250 works very well with the Alpa FPS however and there are several posts by Gerald on this forum showing his work, which is excellent.

I have a lot of experience with the 260, on a tech camera and DF body, feel free to PM me with any other questions.

Paul
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
So far as my understanding goes with the 250 v 260 is that one is 1.3x crop, 50mp CMOS with high iso usage, and the other is full frame, 60mp CCD without the same high iso usage (similar to my current back)
I've used the IQ260 (and before it the IQ160 and P65+) at ISO1600 in sensor+ mode extensively at weddings and for portraits and fashion. It's "only" 15mp but the file does as well as a 5DIII for real-world detail assuming you want a 4:3 crop, with the better color/tonality/lens-quality/sync/etc of medium format. It's at least worth considering if that is a route to mid and mid-high ISOs on medium format that you're willing to look at. If not, then the IQ250 will win by a wide margin over the IQ260 at anything above ISO200 and by ISO800 there is no comparison at all.

Which back performs better for long exposures? That's a key feature of upgrading to one of these over an IQ160. I like that I can get clean long exposures at ISO 50-100 with the P45+.
They both perform quite well. But the IQ250 edges out the IQ260 if you're looking for a difference between the two.

Is it true the IQ250 is only 14 bits, while the IQ260 is still 16 bits?

My suggestion would be to worry less about technical specifications and more about actual results. At base ISO the IQ250 has the best ability to render bright and dark tones while maintaining photographically pleasant detail, smooth tonality, and accurate color. The IQ260 is no slouch in this regard, so to some extent we're talking about which high-end race car goes 2mph faster. Both backs will handle the vast majority of naturally occurring scenes including the traditionally problematic rear-rim-light portrait-into-the-sun look (not that you'll get detail in the sun of course, only that it will handle the roll off gracefully) and the traditionally problematic deep shadow, bright sky landscape image.

I'd be glad to send you some raw files from my own shooting as well as from customers who have provided us sample files to illustrate performance in specific situations.


Asides from wider lenses being wider and having a shallower depth of field, is having the full frame chip really that significantly different when shooting with MF cameras? [/QUOTE]

That depends more on you than on the camera. Some people aren't bothered by a crop in the viewfinder. For *some* (minority) of shooters it's even a benefit as you can see a bit outside the active crop without having to move the camera around. Others hate any crop at all, even when it's the fairly minor 1.1 crop of your current P45+. So I guess the question to ask is how much you care about the 1.1 crop and assume that it will be in proportion to that.

Better yet, get your hands on both and see what you think in practice. Nothing can replace hands on experience.

----

Other thoughts:
- IQ250 live view is a joy for tough focusing situations when shooting from a tripod.
- IQ250 battery life is better.
- IQ260 handles tech camera wide angles better than the IQ250.
- Shallow DOF on a full frame 60mp is really something. Lenses like the 150mm D f/2.8 or Hassy 100/2.2 with a FF645 sensor has a very strong visual effect (you may love or hate it but it's quite distinctive). You can still get quite shallow with a 1.3 crop sensor, but not that extreme-shallow look. On the other hand the extreme look is often impractical if you actually want to show meaningful areas of detail (since it shows nothing but a thin sliver of DOF) and many of our beauty shooters end up shooting at f/8 or even higher or on a beauty shot even when they are looking for what most people would call a "shallow DOF" shot.
- You're almost surely going to love the improvement to native color response you get going to a Dalsa sensor, especially for people
- IQ250 is faster, both in absolute frame rate and in speed-to-screen when shooting tethered. Then again coming from a FW400 P45+ either back will impress you on speed.
 

f8orbust

Active member
@OP: When you say 'long exposure' just how long do you mean?

If you typically shoot < 2 minutes then, honestly, I wonder if you could get away with an IQ180 and keep the P45+ for the times when you do really long exposures. IQ180s can be had privately for ~$17k, which is a lot less I would imagine than the upgrade path from the P45+ to the IQ250/260. That way you have the best of all worlds - super IQ and resolution of the 180, long exposure capability of the P45+, a few $k saved in your back pocket and 2 x DBs as trade-ins + saved $ if and when the day comes you want to move to a full-frame CMOS (2015? 2016?)

Jim
 

torger

Active member
That doesn't matter. The IQ260 does not have 16 bits of information to record anyway; 14 bits would be appropriate for both backs.
The IIQ file format also records only 14 bits, so even if the IQ260 has 16 bit A/D converters, the 2 last noisy bits are not recorded to the file, a wise engineering decision as it's just noise that would bloat the file. If one likes to look at those two extra bits of noise one should get a Hasselblad camera, as far as I know their format stores the full 16 bits coming out from the A/D converters.

The IIQ 14 bits are expanded to 16 bits during loading (so calibration curves etc are applied in 16 bit space), but the actual stored data is still just 14 bits for those backs claimed to be 16 bit. If I were Phase One I'd remove 16 bit from the marketing material a long time ago. Claims that are easily verifiable lies does not improve the credibility. Potential customers start to think "what more is not true?".
 

torger

Active member
If you ever would think about going tech camera with wider lenses, IQ260 or IQ160 has a clear advantage. IQ250 don't work well with wide angle tech lenses.

The 260 has also the advantage of larger sensor and not being compared to H5D-50c and 645Z.

I think the 260 provides much more of a "real" medium format experience through its larger sensor and tech cam compatibility, so for me the choice would be simple, IQ260 for sure.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
- Shallow DOF on a full frame 60mp is really something. Lenses like the 150mm D f/2.8 or Hassy 100/2.2 with a FF645 sensor has a very strong visual effect (you may love or hate it but it's quite distinctive). You can still get quite shallow with a 1.3 crop sensor, but not that extreme-shallow look. On the other hand the extreme look is often impractical if you actually want to show meaningful areas of detail (since it shows nothing but a thin sliver of DOF) and many of our beauty shooters end up shooting at f/8 or even higher or on a beauty shot even when they are looking for what most people would call a "shallow DOF" shot.
At a given focal length and f-number, the smaller sensor will have a narrower DoF. Which is Rick's situation.

At a given angle of view and f-number, then the larger sensor has a narrower DoF. You will note the focal length will need to change. But Rick has his lenses.

It might be good to look at crop factors. From 6x45, the crop factors are: IQ260, 1.04; P45+, 1.13; and IQ250, 1.27. But Rick does not shoot 6x4.5. So the crop factor from the P45+ to the IQ260 is 0.91 and to the IQ250 is 1.12. These are not great differences no matter how you slice it. And Rick could figure out what a 44x33mm sensor is like by simply cropping some images he has now.
 

Zerimar

Member
Interesting news about the bit depth. As far as long exposures go, I'd sometimes push the p45+ as far as 10-15 minutes (I did a 3 hour one once for fun)

The idea of the iq180 is tempting given their used prices. I could sell my p45+ if I didn't keep it and have the 180. I've heard that back has tiling issues with skies though.

It appears I have 4 options:
1. Keep the P45+ (and most likely purchase a profoto 8a or two with my current 25% edu discount on profoto gear)
2. Keep/sell the P45+ and get an IQ180
3. Trade in the P45+ with around $20k for an IQ250
4. Trade in the P45+ with around $20k for an IQ260

I'm somewhat hesitant about the 250 because they most likely will inevitably release a full frame version of it. The debate on the frame size is interesting, especially with Will's above statement comparing both to my 1.1x crop sensor. I however do admit that I am not exactly keen on the idea of spending $20,000 to move to a smaller sensor than I currently have.
 

flyrcairplanes

New member
At a given focal length and f-number, the smaller sensor will have a narrower DoF. Which is Rick's situation.

At a given angle of view and f-number, then the larger sensor has a narrower DoF. You will note the focal length will need to change.
Always something to learn. Just when I think I understand a concept something like this gets posted. Why would same focal length and f-number a smaller sensor have less DOF?
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Interesting news about the bit depth. As far as long exposures go, I'd sometimes push the p45+ as far as 10-15 minutes (I did a 3 hour one once for fun)

The idea of the iq180 is tempting given their used prices. I could sell my p45+ if I didn't keep it and have the 180. I've heard that back has tiling issues with skies though.

It appears I have 4 options:
1. Keep the P45+ (and most likely purchase a profoto 8a or two with my current 25% edu discount on profoto gear)
2. Keep/sell the P45+ and get an IQ180
3. Trade in the P45+ with around $20k for an IQ250
4. Trade in the P45+ with around $20k for an IQ260

I'm somewhat hesitant about the 250 because they most likely will inevitably release a full frame version of it. The debate on the frame size is interesting, especially with Will's above statement comparing both to my 1.1x crop sensor. I however do admit that I am not exactly keen on the idea of spending $20,000 to move to a smaller sensor than I currently have.
I am curious, was the dealer upgrade cost from a P45+ to a IQ250 20k? If so that is an impressive offer.

Paul
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Always something to learn. Just when I think I understand a concept something like this gets posted. Why would same focal length and f-number a smaller sensor have less DOF?
Because the permissible circle of confusion, which DoF is based, is dependent on format size. The smaller the format, the smaller the permissible CoC which changes the DoF. And that is proportional to the crop factor.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Notably Will (Shashin) prefers the traditional definition of DoF.

Nowadays many photographers instead care about the range over which the image is sharp when viewed at 100% of native-resolution on screen. This is, as I'm sure Shashin would be fast to point out, not "DoF" as has been traditionally defined. But 9 out of 10 people who ask me about a camera's "depth of field" (their words) mean this range (sharp at 100%) and not the range that would be indicated by the traditional definition of DoF.

It's not much different than talking about the length of a trip by [strides] vs [meters]. One metric is relative (i.e. a shorter person must take more strides for the same trip) and the other is absolute.

Consider comparing a [200mp FF645 sensor] and a [6mp FF645] sensor with a given lens/aperture.
- Traditional DoF definition which Shashin uses: same DoF
- Range over which the image will be sharp when viewed at 100%: much shallower with the 200mp sensor

Shashin, if I've mischaracterized anything here please feel free to add/correct.

The point is, if you mean to evaluate the range over which everything is sharp at 100% on-screen, and you want a system that can go super-shallow in DOF then you want a larger sensor. But in practice both of these backs can go so shallow with a 100/2.2 or 150/2.8 or 80/1.9 that this is only a consideration if you want *really* shallow DOF.
 

flyrcairplanes

New member
I am curious, was the dealer upgrade cost from a P45+ to a IQ250 20k? If so that is an impressive offer.

Paul
Especially since the upgrade price from the 160 isn't that much less. I was thinking about switching but with the upgrade price/decreased sensor size combination it wasn't worth it to me. I do love my 160 but would like the ISO increase. I was thinking I could keep my 160 and buy the pentax system for less. Best of both worlds. However, when Phase offers a full medium format CMOS I am probably screwed because that will be hard to say no too.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
You would be very surprised at what I was offered to trade a 260 for a 250. Let's just say I should have kept my P 45+

All points back to what Phase One now believes the "real value" of a modern at the time 8 month old CCD full frame back to be worth.

Paul
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Notably Will (Shashin) prefers the traditional definition of DoF.

Nowadays many photographers instead define DoF as the range over which the image is equally sharp when viewed at 100% of native-resolution on screen. This is, as I'm sure Shashin would be fast to point out, not "DoF" as has been traditionally defined.
Doug, I will also point out that that is not the definition of DoF, traditional or otherwise. DoF is a perceptual characteristic based on the actual viewing of an image. 100% monitor view is not an actual viewing condition with much meaning, unless you think someone would look at 44x33 inch print from a 40MP sensor from 10 inches away to make an overall determination of DoF. Heck, I need reading glasses to see anything 10 inches away. This distance only gets closer with an increase of pixels by your definition. And most people hang picture on a wall and view them at really long viewing distances, even in exhibition (leaning in does not change the illusion). And that is the point. How are people going to view the image? That determines DoF.

Science and its concepts are not based on opinion and popularity, although the media would have you believe otherwise. In fact, if you really dig into how DoF works and what viewing distances mean, you will find that the illusion of photography is really robust and these concepts can give more control over your presentation. The 100% monitor idea gives no flexibility.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
In my experience the overwhelming majority of photographers use one that is very different than yours it's worth, so I'm just saying it's worth clarifying what is being assumed in your statements.

Can we at least agree on the following:
Shashin is using a fixed [print size + viewing distance] to compare the way focus/sharpness will behave on each system. This is a very valid, and time-honored way of making such a comparison. The results will, however, differ from a comparison made at 100% on screen.
 

Zerimar

Member
You would be very surprised at what I was offered to trade a 260 for a 250. Let's just say I should have kept my P 45+

All points back to what Phase One now believes the "real value" of a modern at the time 8 month old CCD full frame back to be worth.

Paul
I am still in college, so they decided to be nice and give a bit of an EDU discount on top of the P45+ trade in special. The offer is really quite tempting. It's interesting how the IQ260 costs $2000 more than the IQ250 yet you have to trade in a lot of money with it for the 'cheaper' back haha. It's like driving a car off the lot. You lose so much right off the bat.
 

jagsiva

Active member
Best to try both in your intended use. Personally, for landscapes, I'd go for the 260 both for the bigger sensor (wider FOV) and CCD look.

To be controversial, why not a 260 and an A7R?
 
Top