Just pulled the trigger..

[kdphotography]

It's the kind of paper that you use when acquiring 500+ hp camera bags... :ROTFL:

 

[torger]

I've seen various tests of IQ260 long exposures, and in some circumstances the old P45+ can actually outperform it in terms of noise buildup over time, but in all circumstances an IQ150 will be less noisy. The IQ260 results does rely quite heavily on noise reduction in software. So yes, the king of long exposure is probably one of the Sony based backs/cameras. Long exposure performance is relatively little tested out there so it's hard to find information of how a system performs without getting one and testing for yourself.

What matters in the end is what results you can get on your final print though, and I'm sure I could live even with an IQ260...

 

[Don Libby]

Then again there's still plenty of folks that don't require extra long exposure times but do demand full frame sensors and as much resolution as possible. To them anything else is just a door stopper.....

 

[GrahamWelland]

Looking forward to seeing how well the IQ150/Credo 50 does with long exposures and also overall. I've been waiting in the wings and thinking about biting the CMOS bullet as an option.

I don't see myself swapping the IQ260, just adding another option for the DF+ and potentially an FPS in the future to complement the Alpa.

 

[voidshatter]

Then again there's still plenty of folks that don't require extra long exposure times but do demand full frame sensors and as much resolution as possible. To them anything else is just a door stopper.....

Again, the IQ280/IQ180/Credo80 would fit such purpose, not the IQ260.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Again, the IQ280/IQ180/Credo80 would fit such purpose, not the IQ260.

Hey, are you calling our IQ260's ugly?? I may have to ask you to step outside for a 'chat' ... :argue: (Just kidding)

I would agree though that if you were buying new today and wanted long exposure support and don't necessarily want 'full frame' (I hate that term), then the CMOS offerings available now provide arguably better alternatives.

 

[stephengilbert]

"Hey, are you calling our IQ260's ugly?"

It isn't that the backs are ugly, but that their owners are stupid.

Pay attention Graham.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I have a thick skin ... (and I know what Voidshatter is saying and why btw)

 

[kdphotography]

...I don't see myself swapping the IQ260, just adding another option for the DF+ and potentially an FPS in the future to complement the Alpa.

Spoken as a true gentleman, with the eloquence of an enabler of the highest caliber and most honored standing in Dante's forum.

We all salute you, Graham.

:ROTFL:

Can't wait for show and tell in Lake Tahoe, aka the Enabler's Convention with Don & Ken.

ken

 

[Don Libby]

Just how many backs does Graham now own????

 

[yaya]

Just how many backs does Graham now own????

N+1

 

[miska]

I think an IQ250 would be a very nice viewfinder (with its live view, for scenes with a tricky to setup tilt) for an IQ280

 

[voidshatter]

Indeed. I used to take actual long exposures with the IQ260. We even did IQ260 long exposure testing to show how good they were.

Personally I thought the results, at 8 minutes, under non-ideal lighting, with difficult dark subject matter with lots of detail, were pretty darn good.

But now that I've heard it's crap for long exposures, we'd better just keep those backs in our safe.

With all due respect, would you mind sharing RAW files of a side by side comparison between the P45+ and the IQ260 for long exposure? (preferably at 8 minutes or longer)

My claim is based on comparison, not adhoc results. I would say if you publish the P45+ RAW files as well as the IQ260 RAW files, we will be able to see that the P45+ actually did better than this.

 

[kdphotography]

Just how many backs does Graham now own????

That's just bad etiquette in Dante's Forum. It's like asking a woman her age. Unless she offers, it's better not to ask.

Now about the size of Graham's 500+hp camera bag..... :ROTFL:

 

[kdphotography]

With all due respect, would you mind sharing RAW files of a side by side comparison between the P45+ and the IQ260 for long exposure? (preferably at 8 minutes or longer)

My claim is based on comparison, not adhoc results. I would say if you publish the P45+ RAW files as well as the IQ260 RAW files, we will be able to see that the P45+ actually did better than this.

Could you also post photos of the backs of the P45+ and the IQ260 MFDBs? I would say if you publish photos of the rear LCD screens and interface, we will be able to see that the IQ260 actually did better, uh, P45+screen---nevermind.

Everything has trade-offs/compromises, and at this level I'd take the IQ260 for the interface alone (yes, I've owned the P45+---Don, you'll notice that I'm offering that information :ROTFL. Not much of a compromise in this case other than the large investment of cash for an IQ series interface. Maybe if Phase could allow upgrades to swap out the P+ series FW port for a USB3 interface, add Surface Pro tethering, and it would get interesting. New lifeblood for old P/P+ series MFDBs...

Oh, wow. Huge overt digression. Congratulations on your new IQ150 Rick!

 

[Paul2660]

I thought Graham would be getting a 50c since he has all the lenses and stuff?

Paul

 

[kdphotography]

Graham can get whatever back he wants, and in any mount.

He still has all the lenses and stuff. :ROTFL:

 

[dougpeterson]

With all due respect, would you mind sharing RAW files of a side by side comparison between the P45+ and the IQ260 for long exposure? (preferably at 8 minutes or longer)

My claim is based on comparison, not adhoc results. I would say if you publish the P45+ RAW files as well as the IQ260 RAW files, we will be able to see that the P45+ actually did better than this.

We (Digital Transitions) maintain and continually update a large raw catalog (>100gb) which we open to our clients making such evaluations. This includes a variety of P45+ to IQ260 comparisons. Moreover we provide access to whatever digital back system someone would like to make tests or comparisons for.

 

[Paul2660]

With all due respect, would you mind sharing RAW files of a side by side comparison between the P45+ and the IQ260 for long exposure? (preferably at 8 minutes or longer)

My claim is based on comparison, not adhoc results. I would say if you publish the P45+ RAW files as well as the IQ260 RAW files, we will be able to see that the P45+ actually did better than this.

First and foremost, congratulations to Rick, Enjoy the back!!

In all fairness to Doug and other dealers, I think that there is more going on.

I owned a P45+, from March 2008 till I traded it in for a IQ160 in Nov 2011. My P45+ was an early unit. Many don't remember, but when the P45+ first shipped, it would not do 1 hour exposures. Yes they were promised, but just like the USB3 on the IQ backs, Phase said it was going to come later with firmware. The best you could get was around 15 minutes.

It did come and it was a firmware update. However a certain number of P45+ backs had a different controller card and it was possible that the firmware could "brick the back". Phase was clear about this. The point being that the initial P45+ backs could not get to 1 hour, even close. Changes were being made behind the scenes, to improve the quality of the P45+.

My P45+ was pretty much an iso 50 max 100 back. It tended to blow out highlights unless you made a point to expose for them and then the shadows were a mess, blocky with less details. So for most work, I bracketed, easy enough with the DF body as no LCC is needed.

I have seen shots from other P45+ backs, all raw files, that amaze me, when I consider my P45+. Much better shadow recovery, and even less noise. Several shots I have seen at iso 200 from a P45+ were excellent. So no doubt either Kodak continued to tweak the P45+ chip and or Phase One continued to tweak the firmware/controller, I figure it's a bit of both. Net, in this case, it was better to purchase at the end of the product life cycle.

I have shot my 260 up to 15 minutes and was not impressed at iso140. I have not taken it much farther out. In the testing that DT did back in Feb of 2014, the shots at 6 seconds, ( I believe that is correct) on the 260 looked terrible, as they contained a ton of stuck pixels and noise. This surprised me as I thought that was the point of the dark frame. Unlike the P45+, I not seen any shots from a 260, at IQ140, that really show much promise, say 10 minutes or longer. I had hoped that Phase would continue to tweak the 260 as they had the P45+, but that has not happened and I feel it's fair to say, that any further image quality improvements to the 260 are moot. That's too bad.

Now with the 50MP chip, there is no doubt that this chip can go to 1 hour with very clean exposures, it's been shown already on many websites and by several users here. I don't think that is as much Phase One, as Sony and Exmour chip, it's just that good for this type of photography. I believe both Pentax and Hasselblad both allow the photographer to turn on the dark frame, something Phase does not. (at least that was case last time I checked).

I don't think that the 260 can come close to the 250/150 at 1 hour. Based on my work, I feel that P45+ might actually come closer, if the conditions allow it. But this is based on my 260, if Dalsa and or Phase One or both continued to tweak hardware on this camera, the results may be better. However the need for that is less, since now there is a 50MP CMOS chip, back in the day of the P45+, that was it and Phase had to run a lot longer with the Kodak chip.

But, the 260 offers a lot more of what I need in the field most of the time, than MY P45+ did, so for me it was a good move. I had long ago decided that for my night work, 35mm DSLR's make better sense.


Paul

 

[voidshatter]

We (Digital Transitions) maintain and continually update a large raw catalog (>100gb) which we open to our clients making such evaluations. This includes a variety of P45+ to IQ260 comparisons. Moreover we provide access to whatever digital back system someone would like to make tests or comparisons for.

Would you mind sharing a link to download please? These have to be under the same condition, same time and location, same composition, same amount of highlight details.