Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: iq250/iq260 residual value

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    iq250/iq260 residual value

    Hi, I got a good trade offer on a digital back from my dealer.
    Both iq250 and Iq260 come with the same upgrade price
    I'm a landscape photographer.
    Both DBs have some limitations.
    Having a full frame sensor is a huge advantage but a bad performance at high iso is a big disadvantage.
    I'm having a hard time to choose.
    85% of shots I will probably be taking at a base ISO, but it would be great not to have limitations when it comes to windy conditions or shooting Aurora lights at night. There's always an option to have a second camera (D810) for extra 15% of situations, but you have to have an extra set of glass as well.
    Which DB do you think will have a better residual value lets say in 3 years?
    Regards,
    Evgueni
    Last edited by strok; 14th November 2014 at 06:10.

  2. #2
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    I'd do a shoot with each of those backs and decide which one suits you better.

    Residual value is worth considering but not nearly as important as "when you're using it" value.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  3. #3
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Even as a landscape shooter you will always run into wind and having a higher ISO back will be helpful.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    I've been going through the same dilemma and decided to lean towards the 250 more for the 14 stops of range and high ISO ability. Plus the battery life is much better among a few other things.

    I think that it will be nice to have the medium format be usable for all of my landscape work, because it was lacking for night images which I am quite partial to.
    Rick Rose
    www.RickrPhoto.com
    HasselPhase

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Hi Doug,
    I've tested both, and non of two gives me 100% of what I want.
    My perfect back will be an IQ250 (full frame).

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerimar View Post
    I've been going through the same dilemma and decided to lean towards the 250 more for the 14 stops of range and high ISO ability. Plus the battery life is much better among a few other things.

    I think that it will be nice to have the medium format be usable for all of my landscape work, because it was lacking for night images which I am quite partial to.
    Rick, Do you find a crop factor as an issue for your work?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    I would look at lenses/bodies etc. first then decide on the back. if you're going to use a tech cam and wides for landscape, the 260 would be my choice.

    Live view would be sweet, but you can work around it. You cannot work around not having a high-quality WA lens.

    But as Doug says, I would go out and shoot both with the lenses you intend on using, and look at the files. A dealer close to you is even better than Live View

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by strok View Post
    Hi Doug,
    I've tested both, and non of two gives me 100% of what I want.
    My perfect back will be an IQ250 (full frame).
    I think you answered your own question - stick to what you've got if neither fulfil your requirements and stick the money in the bank until the right one is released.

    The release of next Phase full frame CMOS back will kill the value of the IQ250 IMO

    The last round of upgrade offers from Phase were bases around P back users but were very poor if you had a newer generation back. MFD backs loose excruciating amounts of money used so residual value is low and not worth worrying too much about. MFD is a case of keep it and enjoy it or suffer burnt fingers.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    No, I don't have a tech camera.
    My Glass: SK28, SK55, SK80, PO150 (ordering 40-80, will sell 80,55)
    I'm not a wide angle shooter but sometimes you really need it.
    The Iq250 kinda killing the purpose of having the SK28mm.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    PS
    was very impressed by IQ260 at base ISO (not in long exposure mode) @20sec -30sec performance. Day and night compare to p65+
    http://www.megapixel.org
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    No two ways about it - IMHO - in 3+ years the IQ250 will have the greater residual value.

    What that will be I've no real idea, but looking at the used market today you can see that 180s struggle to make >$17k (privately) used (new ~ $45k, i.e. >60% depreciation) so that gives you an idea of the sort of hit you might take should you not stay on P1s upgrade path and decide to sell the back yourself.

    The IQ260 is a fantastic bit of kit - would love to own one - but in 3 years time, when CMOS MFDBs have been around for a few years, and full-frame CMOS is probably available, who will want the 260? The advantages that CMOS backs bring are huge - clean high ISO, true live view, long exposure, low power consumption (longer battery life), video etc. And that's now, imagine what they'll be capable of in 3 years time. In comparison, CCD development is s-l-o-w - it simply doesn't benefit from all the innovation on the back of smaller format systems development (that all use CMOS). I can imagine an enthusiast landscape photographer shooting on a tech cam still interested in a CCD back in 3 years time, particularly if CMOS MF sensors still don't shift well, but for how much? Hasselblad's (CMOS) CFV-50c is available today for <$9k, what will that (or it's full-frame equivalent) be available for in 3 years time? That could be what you're up against.

    If you play the numbers game, it's painful whatever way you cut it. Doug's advice is the best, think of the value of the back today in terms of the pleasure it brings and, if you're a working pro, the money it makes.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by strok View Post
    Rick, Do you find a crop factor as an issue for your work?
    No.

    This is because of setups like the RRS Multi row panorama kit, you can stitch to get wider shots (except with long exposures) quite easily, and also greatly increase the resolution. Thus limiting the need of UWA lenses. This solution is not ideal to most, but it provides wider angle coverage on the crop back.

    The higher ISO is the major selling point for me. I shoot a lot of fashion work here in Los Angeles and find myself using my 35mm kit more often than the P45+ because of a few factors:

    The screen on my current back is terrible. Tethering is not always a possibility, and I feel that the screen on the back is not sure enough to review the images that I am shooting for a client. I don't like that risk.

    The ISO limitation. When the light starts to fade, or you're in less than ideal conditions, After ISO 200 you are out of luck. I personally don't think ISO 400 on a P45+ is usable for client work.

    I love long exposures. The 260 has to be pushed to ISO 160 and is not as good at long exposures as the P45+/IQ250

    This is all subjective and based on the user, but for my work personally the IQ250 would be better. I say this because I would be able to use the camera for more of my jobs than I currently have (it only comes out when in studio and tethered) plus I gain the ability to shoot long exposures and night shots quite well.
    Rick Rose
    www.RickrPhoto.com
    HasselPhase

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    70% of my shots are PANO shots, but sometimes you have no choice and you need an UWA lens. Probably the IQ250 is the best option for me but what upsets me the most, that by getting an IQ250 I don't feel like buying a real MF sensor. 44mm not much bigger then 35mm, I'm buying a bottom of the line (first available in line-up) sensor for a price of 20 of 35mm, and one of the competitions sells the same sensor under 8k (including complete camera)
    Lets say if the price of IQ250 would be around 15k it would be an easy decision.
    http://www.megapixel.org
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Thank you for feedback. End up ordering the iq250...

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    A little late to the discussion here, but from the cheap seats (i.e. not my money) the choice is easy. I don't think the subject matter is the question, I think the camera is the question. If the main camera is a tech cam that will be used with tilts and shifts, go IQ260. If the main camera is a SLR (DF, DF+, H4x, etc.), go IQ250 unless you really dislike the crop (I really dislike the crop). The IQ250 on a DF+ feels like a real camera, nothing like the older, slower CCD backs on a DF. Now, if you feel like the cropped sensors lose something compared with full 645, or if you are using the same back on SLR and tech cam, that's where the decision gets trickier.

    In time, I think we will look at the IQ260 and IQ250 much as we now look back at the P25 and P30 (maybe P40 is a better example). One is unquestionably the more advanced back, but the other has something intangible that keeps it relevant.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Bill, I really really dislike a crop.
    http://www.megapixel.org
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    I went with the IQ140. It was a lot cheaper than the 160, let me use smaller lenses, and made perfect sense.

    I hate the crop, and wish I'd been more extravagant.

    --Matt

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    If not for the "crop" I would have ordered a 250 on day one, and taken a loss on my 260, with the trade in price I received at the time from my dealer/Phase One. I was attempting to trade in a 8 month old 260. Result was a huge loss, but that's another discussion, or maybe not based on the original post title.

    Lets, see. I had a back that listed for 39K, or actually 41 K as I remember, and the amount to to upgrade to a 250, with a new 5 year value add 21K. I believe the 250 was @35K or so at the time, may have been 34K.

    You asked about residual value, there is a good example of a less than 1 year old back and worth less than half price. At least in a "trade-in" offering.

    The 250 has everything I need for my style of shooting, but the crop is just too much for me as I work in close. If I was out west, I might still have done it.

    Looking back, it's probably best I did not jump to the 250 after I recovered from the "upgrade" trade-in loss price. I shoot a tech camera 100% of the time, and there are some issues with the 250 and movements. May not be as bad as first thought, but still color cast (mainly red in a blue sky) seems hard to totally correct.

    Everyone is looking for the "next" thing, i.e. full frame CMOS, but if the price point-trade in stays in the same range as what I was given back in March of this year, it will still be a battle to get there.

    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    I currently have the IQ140, and I've not regretted I got this. I can use the excellent SK 24XL on my Alpa TC and it's plenty wide for me. I do not know how this lens performs on the IQ250/150/Credo50, but I would hope it would be ok, obviously with no movements, but I can live with that. If you stitch, there is absolutely no difference between an IQ160 sensor compared to the IQ140. I stitch very well with the SK35XL with my STC, but I realize I would need a RK 40 or so if I upgrade to the IQ250/150. Of course if you really need 80Mpix you need to go with that kind of back, but 40-50MPix is fine for me. This phobia about a "cropped" sensor I just don't get, unless you're using a DF camera with a cropped viewfinder, but for an Alpa/Arca/Cambo I really do not see the problem. You get the sweet spot of all the lenses with the 44x33 sensor.

    Cheers, -Peter
    Alpa TC STC | IQ140 | 24XL 35XL 120N-ASPH
    www.peterlomdahl.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    If you you stitch with a full frame back you will have more image area than a cropped sensor. I thought at first I could use the 250 and a cropped sensor to get approximately the same amount of image by stitching greater amounts like 25mm instead of 15mm.

    Looking at this post it's clear that the full frame back still can capture more overall parts of the scene when compared to a cropped sensor which is shifted a greater amount.

    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...0hr-iq250.html

    In this post rise was used instead of shift but it shows the same result. Both with a 23mm amd 40mm

    Also this test shows that on extreme movements past 15mm with the 250 sensor you get color cast that cannot totally be removed. Notice the blue sky on
    the 25mm rise shots.

    I believe in a standard 3 part stitch of 15mm L , C and 15mm R the full frame sensor will capture a larger overall image with the camera back vertical or horizontal.

    Paul

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Lets, see. I had a back that listed for 39K, or actually 41 K as I remember, and the amount to to upgrade to a 250, with a new 5 year value add 21K. I believe the 250 was @35K or so at the time, may have been 34K.
    Paul, have I read that correctly - the trade-in offered was your 260 plus $21k for the 250 with VAW. i.e. given the 250 listed at $35k, your 260 was effectively valued at $14k ????

    Wow, those numbers are absolutely brutal. Even today used IQ260s with VAW are advertised for ~32k, so $14k seems painfully low.

    Jim

  22. #22
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    Paul, have I read that correctly - the trade-in offered was your 260 plus $21k for the 250 with VAW. i.e. given the 250 listed at $35k, your 260 was effectively valued at … $14k ????

    Wow, those numbers are absolutely brutal. Even today used IQ260s with VAW are advertised for ~32k, so $14k seems painfully low.

    Jim

    It's no secret the aggressive/good upgrade offers are made to change 1-3 generations. Going from an IQ260 to an IQ250 isn't considered an "upgrade" in the parlance/tradition of trade ins - it's a cross grade. Cross grade pricing is not usually very advantageous.

    Paul will find some great upgrade offers in the future - I'm quite sure.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    If not for the "crop" I would have ordered a 250 on day one, and taken a loss on my 260, with the trade in price I received at the time from my dealer/Phase One. I was attempting to trade in a 8 month old 260. Result was a huge loss, but that's another discussion, or maybe not based on the original post title.

    Lets, see. I had a back that listed for 39K, or actually 41 K as I remember, and the amount to to upgrade to a 250, with a new 5 year value add 21K. I believe the 250 was @35K or so at the time, may have been 34K.

    Paul
    Paul, ironically, i think it costs less to upgrade a P65+ than to upgrade your IQ260 to an IQ250. But it all seems to depend on which backs are being pushed. With LV now working on the CFV50, why not just spend 15K outright and get that if you need CMOS...still cheaper than losing your IQ260 + 21K

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    My point on the crop..
    My mostly used lens was 55mm LS, now to get the same frame i will have to take a picture at 40mm (40-mm).
    At 40mm i will have to deal with a small distribution which i didn't have at 55mm.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    Paul, have I read that correctly - the trade-in offered was your 260 plus $21k for the 250 with VAW. i.e. given the 250 listed at $35k, your 260 was effectively valued at $14k ????

    Wow, those numbers are absolutely brutal. Even today used IQ260s with VAW are advertised for ~32k, so $14k seems painfully low.

    Jim
    Hi Jim.

    Yes that was the deal. I still have all the emails from the dealer. I was to say, a bit shocked at the number. Many on this form do not seem concerned about book value and residuals. I do, they are real numbers and have an effect on a business tax return. Not to mention the investment loss I would have taken along with a huge book loss.

    Paul

  26. #26
    Member fmueller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Only 8 months with your 260? I think your original dealer should be a bit more accommodating. I understand they need to make a living, I really do, but surely there has to be an innovative way of handling a high value customer, e.g. at least a consignment type arrangement on your 260 where you could at least get a high percentage of its fair market value.

    A problem could be that current P+ ---> IQ trade incentives are hurting you through the end of the year.



    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Hi Jim.

    Yes that was the deal. I still have all the emails from the dealer. I was to say, a bit shocked at the number. Many on this form do not seem concerned about book value and residuals. I do, they are real numbers and have an effect on a business tax return. Not to mention the investment loss I would have taken along with a huge book loss.

    Paul

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Many on this form do not seem concerned about book value and residuals...
    I'm not one of them - always believed I'd rather have money in the bank than tied up in a piece of gear that depreciates quicker than last year's laptop. Unfortunately in the MF digital era there seems to be the assumption that every working pro is shooting covers for Vogue, car campaigns for Audi or architecture for Foster & Partners - i.e. they're able to quickly recoup the initial outlay. If only that were so. Amongst all its wonderfulness, the cost of the DB has been its single worst aspect. At least there's a semblance of sanity with the CFV-50c pricing. Would be nice if HB brought their H version in line as well; P1 too with the IQ150 (BTW, what's that all about?)

    BTW: Thanks for posting some real figures - when it comes to trade-ins it all seems so very cloak-and-dagger - have always thought it kind of odd why this is, and why people are so reticent to say what exactly they were offered / ended up paying. Human nature perhaps, but transparency in matters like this only benefits other in a similar situation. Now, if only there was a 'Kelley Blue Book' for digital backs ... that said, being offered $14k for your 260 is pretty fly - maybe the salesman (or saleswoman) you dealt with previously sold used cars...

    Last edited by f8orbust; 22nd November 2014 at 14:47.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Paul, the 60MP Dalsa sensor produces a stunning file and works amazingly well with tech wides and lots of shifting. Why did you want to change? Looking at your work you are getting good use of it. Very nice images.

    I for one love working with my IQ160.

    Regarding the crop I really like the angle of view with the 40mm HR and the IQ160 and with a smaller sensor I would loose quite a bit of it and with the 80mm on the Hasselblad I get also a nice angle of view for full length portraits and retain shallow dof at f2.8. With a smaller sensor I loose some of that since I would have to move further back to maintain equal composition.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Member fmueller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    My general observation is that a dealer is expecting to pay half of what they think they can resell an item. Carrying costs, risk, and the need to make a living all factor into that number. I think a preowned IQ 260 is probably in the high 20's low 30's as fair market value through a dealer. A dealer will also generally add at least a 1 year warranty.

    I'll bet an IQ 260 priced at $25k would be rapidly snapped up here on GetDpi (no, I'm not in the market.... . ) and he would be at least $11k ahead of a dealer trade in.






    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    I'm not one of them - always believed I'd rather have money in the bank than tied up in a piece of gear that depreciates quicker than last year's laptop. Unfortunately in the MF digital era there seems to be the assumption that every working pro is shooting covers for Vogue, car campaigns for Audi or architecture for Foster & Partners - i.e. they're able to quickly recoup the initial outlay. If only that were so. Amongst all its wonderfulness, the cost of the DB has been its single worst aspect. At least there's a semblance of sanity with the CFV-50c pricing. Would be nice if HB brought their H version in line as well; P1 too with the IQ150 (BTW, what's that all about?)

    BTW: Thanks for posting some real figures - when it comes to trade-ins it all seems so very cloak-and-dagger - have always thought it kind of odd why this is, and why people are so reticent to say what exactly they were offered / ended up paying. Human nature perhaps, but transparency in matters like this only benefits other in a similar situation. Now, if only there was a 'Kelley Blue Book' for digital backs ... that said, being offered $14k for your 260 is pretty fly - maybe the salesman (or saleswoman) you dealt with previously sold used cars...


  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by fmueller View Post
    My general observation is that a dealer is expecting to pay half of what they think they can resell an item...
    Well, if you're selling things like books and bananas, the first rule of retail is double your money - not sure it applies to $40k cameras however. Whatever, I still think $14k is low.

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    In general, I would say the days of 'snapping up' high-ticket items like DBs are on the wane ... if indeed, they were ever here - these things are just too damn pricey to be 'snapped up' like a packet of cookies on 'special' in Safeway.

    The scene has changed so much even in the last couple of years - e.g. right now, I can find a used IQ180 through a dealer, with a CW, for $20.5k ... but privately, people are still asking the same or more in most cases. And then they're surprised when the 'bargain' isn't 'snapped up'.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    Going from an IQ260 to an IQ250 isn't considered an "upgrade" in the parlance/tradition of trade ins - it's a cross grade...
    Yes, that whole 'cross-grade' thing wasn't exactly P1's finest hour was it? Lots of smoke-and-mirrors as to what they exactly meant by 'upgrade' - e.g. even though the IQ180 is claimed to have 12.5 f-stops of DR, and the IQ280 13 f-stops (source: P1 website), plus WiFi etc., it wasn't considered an upgrade moving from the former to the latter. Hmmm, it looked like an upgrade from where I was sitting:

    Upgrade (verb): Raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components.

    However, P1 - in their wisdom - decided to define upgrade in terms of 'how many pixels there are'. Oh dear.

    That said, the 'cross-grade' fiasco wasn't as bad as the 'investment protection policy' snafu - which only applied to purchasers of a DB from new (i.e. not P1's loyal upgraders). Oh dear, again.

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    Yes, that whole 'cross-grade' thing wasn't exactly P1's finest hour was it? Lots of smoke-and-mirrors as to what they exactly meant by 'upgrade' - e.g. even though the IQ180 is claimed to have 12.5 f-stops of DR, and the IQ280 13 f-stops (source: P1 website), plus WiFi etc., it wasn't considered an upgrade moving from the former to the latter. Hmmm, it looked like an upgrade from where I was sitting:

    Upgrade (verb): Raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components.

    However, P1 - in their wisdom - decided to define upgrade in terms of 'how many pixels there are'. Oh dear.

    That said, the 'cross-grade' fiasco wasn't as bad as the 'investment protection policy' snafu - which only applied to purchasers of a DB from new (i.e. not P1's loyal upgraders). Oh dear, again.
    Part of my issue was the same thought. I am not a Phase One hater, indeed I always lead with Phase One in my work, the investment alone warrants that.

    However I found both Phase One and my dealer lacking both in understanding, business acumen, and communication.

    Net, I saw it this way. I was giving up 10MP pixels, and 30 % of a sensor view. If anything if was a "downgrade" not a cross grade.

    I am old and tired of games, I just don't work well with them. I have a career in technical sales, that was 29 years long. I have been lucky to parallel that with a photographic career for the last 15 years and now full time.

    In my career in sales, I have worked on enough deals to know that you can make pretty much anything happen, if you want to. However, if you are willing to walk away over a price, then so be it. But I sure feel I did a better job in communicating with both my customer and company I was working for, and I felt that I was a advocate for my customer. Add value was important even in a price war. I did not come away from my transaction on the 260/250 with any feelings like that.

    I will tell you this, I don't drink the Kool Aid, never have, and I tend to call a spade a spade. Phase One for whatever reason did not want to work with me on a trade in. It's like they never thought anyone might want to move to the first CMOS back in history from a CCD back that was much more limiting in it's overall photographic ability. I contacted my dealer as soon as the 250 was announced and worked to try and make a deal for over 45 days.

    After the price I received from my dealer and realized it was financially impossible to justify, I went back and asked for a reason and was told "you need to contact Phase One directly". I did not see any need for that, and let the whole thing drop.

    Did it leave me with a warm fuzzy for Phase One, NO, Did it make me feel a warm and fuzzy for my Dealer, NO. Plain and simple. Phase One could have made it happen if they wanted to and for a much more reasonable and realistic price point. There are plenty of other testimonials on this forum where folks are quite happy with Phase One and their dealer so I am most likely just an acceptation, or I just had a different set of expectations based on my sales background.

    When I saw about 6 months ago, that Phase One was still offering over 20K on a used P45+ to IQ250 (it was mentioned in a post on this forum) I was again shocked!. It might have been as much as 24K, which was the trade in received for my P45+ in late 2011 when I upgraded to the 160. This was still being offered almost 2 years later.

    Just one opinion of a one Phase One user since March of 2008.

    Paul

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    Paul, the 60MP Dalsa sensor produces a stunning file and works amazingly well with tech wides and lots of shifting. Why did you want to change? Looking at your work you are getting good use of it. Very nice images.

    I for one love working with my IQ160.

    Regarding the crop I really like the angle of view with the 40mm HR and the IQ160 and with a smaller sensor I would loose quite a bit of it and with the 80mm on the Hasselblad I get also a nice angle of view for full length portraits and retain shallow dof at f2.8. With a smaller sensor I loose some of that since I would have to move further back to maintain equal composition.
    Ken:

    First and foremost, thanks for the compliments.

    I wanted to give a good answer so I have added a series of images in an attempt to show the issue for me.

    In my work I often find myself in mixed lighting, especially in the winter/fall time. In the first image, you can see the a shot I was working as a full 15mm L, C, and 15mm Right shift with the IQ260 and 40mm Rod. I know it's possible to just do the 15mm R and L, but many times I find I like to shoot the center as it's the best part of the lens and also has less color cast issue/LCC recovery issue.

    In Image 1, you can see a classic shot, where 1/2 of the image is in bright light, with a pure blue sky, (which in this shot is polarized), and the right half of the shot is in total shade. This is problematic for any CCD back, albeit that the 160/260 can handle it a bit better since they have better highlight recovery IMO. Still I have to make a series of exposures, in this case I shot at 1/8th of a second and 1/2 of a second. I realize that these seem very close in speed, only 1 stop missing, but in reality it's huge. In the other images I have posted it's very clear that the difference just 2 stops the amount of light I was able to recover on the far right is significant. However the 1/2 speed shot did blow out the left side of the image so to get where I need to be, I will have to work up both and then blend. Looking closely on the files I attached you can see the increase in noise in the 1/8th of a second exposure. The color and saturation are close enough not to really matter, but the noise is considerable.

    With modern Sony CMOS, I have shot this type of shot 1000's of times, and I know I could have easily pulled up the right side 2.75 stops and still had both great color and details. Just can't be done with CCD. CCD loves light, and on a bright day, it can't be beaten.

    The other reason I invested in the 260, was I felt that the chip design was significantly different than the 160, (YES I DID DRINK THE KOOL AID ON ON THIS ONE), and that Phase One would continue to work on image quality, releasing firmware that would enable better results in situations like this one, but they haven't and are not going to. I also bet on the come (stupid) that the LE (Long exposure) mode would give me better recovery at the base setting of iso 140, and that is far from the truth, in fact most time it's much worse. On the first series of shots I took from this spot, I worked the images at iso 140 as there was a bit of a breeze and I wanted to get to 1/30 with the CL-PL on. The results were terrible, looking like iso 800, the worse quality I have gotten from the 260. It could have been a heat issue, but the day was cool and the back was not hot. I was shooting tethered, and had C1 setup to push the shadows on all images and I caught this noise and was able to drop back to iso 50 and came away with a series I could use. However if there had been significant wind that afternoon, I would have been done as I could not have gotten to a fast enough shutter speed unless I moved to sensor plus.

    Seeing what I can get from the D800 and now D810 CMOS, I can only image what the 50Mp chip would do in a scene like this.

    I hope the images are large enough to show the issues I am referring to.

    Paul

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Hi Paul, thx for posting a great explanation.

    I tested the D800E alongside the Pentax 645D (before I sold it) and before I purchased the IQ160. The Nikon does have amazing shadow recovery but the IQ160 is not far off (very close) and to my eyes the IQ160 rendered the highlights better. Smoother roll off and better color in the highlights. Probably a combination of the sensor/electronics and the software (CaptureOne).

    Maybe the D810 and/or the IQ250 are a bit better in that regard I don't know.

    From my experience with the different cameras I concluded that with the IQ160 I had to treat exposure a bit more like color neg film and with the Nikon I had to protect the highlights aggressively like with color slide film and rely on the great shadow recovery potential to get the image to where I want it. The 645D had less "headroom" at both ends and did not rendered the highlights smoothly. The shadows were good but not great (better than any Canon for sure though).

    The sample you posted plays right into the hands of the IQ250 and the D810 but the result you got with the IQ260 looks very very good.

    Regarding the upgrade or "crossgrade" from one back to another it comes down to business policy. I mean. You got the IQ260 new from a dealer right? So PhaseOne made good money and the dealer made good money on that sale. Now, It would be cool if the dealer buys it back at a slightly (say 15%) lower price than what they can sell it used. The dealer then makes a profit, again, from the same back when they sell it to another customer (used). I don't think PhaseOne makes money from that transaction. Now, PhaseOne has the IQ250's new. Im sure they want to sell as many as they can at full price new, so both the dealer and phase can make money from that sale. However, in good faith, they should be able to give a good discount on the IQ250 to you, an existing customer.

    So a good deal example for you would be: (Price of New IQ250 - 15% discount) - (Used Market price of IQ260 - 15%). Given today's prices that equals about $8k-9k + your IQ260 for a new IQ250. For the IQ150 should be about $5k less. However it is a matter of PhaseOne willing to give a discount on a new back. The dealer can only do so much.

    Given that I have no clue about specific profit margins and business arrangements with the Dealers and PhaseOne the numbers above could or could not be possible.

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    545
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: iq250/iq260 residual value

    Same thing here.
    About every other format up from 1" sort of doubles in size. FF more than doubles in size APS-C and it costs only twice as much.
    44X33 is barely 1.6X the size of FF and it costs from 4X to 10X as much. Too little gain for too much money. That's why I am not buying the 645Z and now we have 36mp (soon more mp's) FF bodies and amazingly new super sharp glass.

    Because of this, I've said many times two things:
    1) "Digital medium format starts at 48X36"
    2) "Full-frame is the holy grail of digital photography"*
    *so far

    Regards
    Eduardo

    Quote Originally Posted by strok View Post
    70% of my shots are PANO shots, but sometimes you have no choice and you need an UWA lens. Probably the IQ250 is the best option for me but what upsets me the most, that by getting an IQ250 I don't feel like buying a real MF sensor. 44mm not much bigger then 35mm, I'm buying a bottom of the line (first available in line-up) sensor for a price of 20 of 35mm, and one of the competitions sells the same sensor under 8k (including complete camera)
    Lets say if the price of IQ250 would be around 15k it would be an easy decision.
    Last edited by Uaiomex; 25th November 2014 at 10:58.

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
  •