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!

Should I or not?

Paul2660

Well-known member
One other thing to remember is your IQ180 has sensor plus and still gives you an really good 20MP image, in fact excellent image.

One thing I have learned in my chase, is that the need for "large" prints is not that great in my area, and the folks making the decisions most of the time, can't tell a shot from a 6MP or 80MP camera. I also realize that this may be totally different for others.

The 260 only give 15MP in sensor plus, but it has saved me quite a few times in situations where I just could not get by at base iso or base +1.

Looking back, on my photography needs, the 180 would have been a much more worth while upgrade for me. I got a bit drunk in the the Phase Kool Aid about the 260 and did not really do my homework. My fault, no one else.

There will always be a good market for the 180, at least for the next few years, it's a very powerful tool.

Paul
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I would be curious to see some RAW files for a comparison between a Dalsa CCD and a Sony CMOS, for the same model, same time, same location, same light. What would happen when you calibrate them? It would be good to know the core post-processing procedures affecting the skin tone (i.e. excluding DB or texture, tone & color separation etc) for the claimed superior camera so that we can see whether it is possible for both cameras to achieve the same skin tone that makes 99% people hard to distinguish. Below are images shot with 7 different cameras.

Rather than arguing this back and forth, which is becoming an endless tech-verses-taste debate, I'll try to share my own past experience between two different cameras using the same Sony CMOS sensor.

I was shooting weddings with a Nikon D3X and the best Nikon glass of that time. The out-of-camera rendering was quite flat, but did have a good level of DR because of it. Weddings also present a huge range of lighting challenges, so custom profiles are hard to package in post ... and weddings are a time crush to shoot ... so fussing with too many camera refinements while shooting is difficult at best. In short, the D3X attributes for others were actually a negative for me because the labor intense post time was killing me.

Enter the Sony A900 using the same 24 meg Sony sensor, but with their own take on the output. While it didn't perform as well as the D3X at higher ISOs, and you had to keep your eye on the histogram in high contrast lighting, the majority of the wedding images were extremely close to my expectations right out of the camera. It literally cut my post time in half.

Of the 7 weak looking shots you posted ... the first looks easiest to fix in post. However, my intention when shooting a portrait is to enhance the image creatively ... not fix its short-comings. IMO, you have to show a well shot portrait that uses the strengths of any given camera and avoids its weakness. If the strengths get you to the vision you have then it is a winner regardless whether it is the CCD, CMOS or whatever may come next.

To date, the only Sony sensor I have liked the out-put from has been the A900 with it now primitive sensor. I have the A99 and A7R and like the results from neither one all that much.

- Marc
 

f8orbust

Active member
@ the OP: Do you love the MF workflow? Do you print big, and I mean BIG? Do you crop a lot? Do you need to regularly solve technical problems (converging verticals etc.)?

If the answer to any of those is 'yes' then MF has a place, if not I would look elsewhere, the quality available from smaller formats is pretty darn amazing nowadays (N.B. I haven’t listed IQ since that’s a can of worms and hugely subjective).

Sadly, you’ve discovered the P1 ‘gotchya’ when you try to get off the system. The pricing is designed in order to keep users on an upgrade path (i.e. make it painful to leave the party). Once you decide to step away, you will find out what the true market value is for an IQ180. Currently that’s $16k, i.e. an instant $22k+ depreciation on the new price.

Older tech to newer tech is classed as an upgrade in pretty much any other walk of life, so why P1 have decided that, for them, it isn’t … is poor. If they’re always going to define an upgrade in terms of MPs (i.e. lower to higher) then there will naturally come a point when that no longer works. In fact, that may well be here with so many different model of DB floating around, each with its own MP count.

I wonder what they will do then - use your weight, height, eye color, shoe size … or some other completely arbitrary variable to define whether or not you get the special upgrade 'deal' ?

Finally, $10k trade-in for your 180 against a 250 ... which then goes on the dealer's shelf with a $26k price tag. Hmm.

Jim
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
the iq180, when used to its full potential, could be the last MF digital back you'll need in your lifetime. Don't focus on the newest and latest gear, least of all in medium format. IQ180 delivers some of the best commercial and professional work in the world... if there's a picture you can't take with the IQ180, then a IQ250 won't help you either.

If you want High iso, buy a canon 5ds on the side and save some money.
In world where everything stood perfectly still I might agree with you, but that's not the case. There are a lot of situations where the base iso of the 180 can't get the job done, in a outdoor landscape situation as you can't get a fast enough shutter speed and there is no such thing as high iso on any of the CCD backs.

Paul
Agree with Paul here. There are plenty of instances where an IQ180 just can't deliver what's necessary.

Weird thing is, I don't seem to enjoy those circumstances as much. It's almost as if (for me at least), if the IQ180 can't get the shot, then the shot isn't worth getting :D

Basically, I couldn't agree more with everything up to your ellipsis, and nearly agree with everything after it.

I actually think the IQ180 on the (non-dealer) second hand market right now is the bargain of the decade. Sure, it will depreciate further, but I'd recommend it in a heartbeat to anyone who could afford it.

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 

gazwas

Active member
To the OP, if I was in your situation I would get rid of the not so good int he DF and Phase lenses and buy one of the new mini view cameras from either Arca or Cambo with a Rodenstock 40mm lens that can be used with a Canon or Sony 50Mpix camera and also your Phase back and see how that plays out. Selling the Phase back will involve loosing an exuberant amount of money, especially as you purchased new so options to enable keeping it would be my priority.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
unfortunately, the actus requires live view, so beware using an IQ. doable, but there is no way to focus by number.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
There's a fork in the road here. If you really don't like the MF qualities and keep comparing it to the DSLRs and the other smaller, lighter, faster, more flexible and good cameras, then I'd get out of the MF setup and not look back.

If, on the other hand, you still find there is an allure, or an interest, then perhaps that needs some nurturing and time. I've had gear that is beyond my capabilities and its taken time to grow into it. That's a combination of learning technique, patience, changing shooting styles, and even subject matter.

One might ask if its worth it? For each, there is a different path, but for me, its very much worthwhile. So good gear is that which allows and encourages growth. There's a struggle, its not always pleasant, but it can be rewarding.
 

Pradeep

Member
One other thing to remember is your IQ180 has sensor plus and still gives you an really good 20MP image, in fact excellent image.

One thing I have learned in my chase, is that the need for "large" prints is not that great in my area, and the folks making the decisions most of the time, can't tell a shot from a 6MP or 80MP camera. I also realize that this may be totally different for others.

The 260 only give 15MP in sensor plus, but it has saved me quite a few times in situations where I just could not get by at base iso or base +1.

Looking back, on my photography needs, the 180 would have been a much more worth while upgrade for me. I got a bit drunk in the the Phase Kool Aid about the 260 and did not really do my homework. My fault, no one else.

There will always be a good market for the 180, at least for the next few years, it's a very powerful tool.

Paul
Paul, thank you. Your advice is sincere and it shows.

I did not mean for this to turn into a contest between various sensors. Everyone has their own idea of art and we may not agree with it but we cannot deny the other's opinion or be patronizing. At least that's how I feel about it.
 

Pradeep

Member
@ the OP: Do you love the MF workflow? Do you print big, and I mean BIG? Do you crop a lot? Do you need to regularly solve technical problems (converging verticals etc.)?

If the answer to any of those is 'yes' then MF has a place, if not I would look elsewhere, the quality available from smaller formats is pretty darn amazing nowadays (N.B. I haven’t listed IQ since that’s a can of worms and hugely subjective).

Sadly, you’ve discovered the P1 ‘gotchya’ when you try to get off the system. The pricing is designed in order to keep users on an upgrade path (i.e. make it painful to leave the party). Once you decide to step away, you will find out what the true market value is for an IQ180. Currently that’s $16k, i.e. an instant $22k+ depreciation on the new price.

Older tech to newer tech is classed as an upgrade in pretty much any other walk of life, so why P1 have decided that, for them, it isn’t … is poor. If they’re always going to define an upgrade in terms of MPs (i.e. lower to higher) then there will naturally come a point when that no longer works. In fact, that may well be here with so many different model of DB floating around, each with its own MP count.

I wonder what they will do then - use your weight, height, eye color, shoe size … or some other completely arbitrary variable to define whether or not you get the special upgrade 'deal' ?

Finally, $10k trade-in for your 180 against a 250 ... which then goes on the dealer's shelf with a $26k price tag. Hmm.

Jim
Jim, the answer to your questions is YES, but with caveats, I found the MF images more challenging in correcting distortion.

Perhaps I should have gone with an MF system that wouldn't lock me into a specific upgrade path, because that is what is upsetting me. I completely understand the concept of residual value, but this is ridiculous especially when the sales pitch originally was completely the opposite.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
there are a few reports of satisfactory live view using an IQ; not quite the same thing as CMOS live view, but as i said, essential for any back and probably do-able with the IQ
 

Pradeep

Member
There's a fork in the road here. If you really don't like the MF qualities and keep comparing it to the DSLRs and the other smaller, lighter, faster, more flexible and good cameras, then I'd get out of the MF setup and not look back.

If, on the other hand, you still find there is an allure, or an interest, then perhaps that needs some nurturing and time. I've had gear that is beyond my capabilities and its taken time to grow into it. That's a combination of learning technique, patience, changing shooting styles, and even subject matter.

One might ask if its worth it? For each, there is a different path, but for me, its very much worthwhile. So good gear is that which allows and encourages growth. There's a struggle, its not always pleasant, but it can be rewarding.

Geoff, my goal is to get the best image possible with the tools I have. That is subjective, I know, and prone to so many variables. I am quite willing to persist with MF. My concern is that in the near future the competition (within the MF world itself perhaps) may become equally capable but at a much lower price and then I am left holding a very expensive system. Which is why the doubts begin to arise, should I bail out while I can still get a reasonable value for my gear?
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I thought the IQ180 did liveview ok according to my Phase dealer?
It will definitely do live view and actually does it pretty darn well. You just have to use a strong ND in front of the camera. Since I started using the Schneider Vario ND I am using Live quite often on my 260. Sure it not as fast as with a CMOS sensor but all the issues I was experiencing (blooming and hanging on zooming) are gone.

The image is a bit grainy but you can still get focus.

Paul
 

jerome_m

Member
Having used it now for over a year, I am still blown away by how good a well exposed, low ISO image is and how well it prints on my Epson 9900. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by significant limitations on how much I can use it.
The important point here is that you own an Epson 9900. Any camera capable of driving that large a printer to its full potential will have the same limitations as the IQ180. Maybe that is the problem.
 

Pradeep

Member
The important point here is that you own an Epson 9900. Any camera capable of driving that large a printer to its full potential will have the same limitations as the IQ180. Maybe that is the problem.
I don't agree with that. I've printed quite large beginning with my first DSLR, the Canon D60 in 2002 (13X19 on the Canon S5000) and subsequent cameras, right up to a 44 X 72 from the 1DX on the big Epson. If you look at them from a reasonable distance they look great.

I also did a 36X48 Manhattan skyline image from the IQ180 that hangs in my office. You can put your nose up to it and still see incredibly sharp detail. That is what I meant by 'immersive' in my first post. So the Phase system is quite capable of getting very large prints out of it.

For example, you said it is not a wildlife camera and at the same time that Andy Biggs uses it for wildlife. If you look at Andy Biggs wildlife pictures, you will notice that they are not "classical" wildlife pictures. Andy Biggs can't take "classical" wildlife pictures with an IQ180 either, but what he does instead is more interesting.
Jerome, I agree, I too am more of a 'animal in the habitat' photographer now than the 'animal in the frame' kind that I used to be. I sold my 600 f4 MkII just a couple of months ago because I wanted to get out of the 'nostril-hair' image mode. FWIW, I love Nick Brandt's work even more and he for sure does not use DSLRs. BTW, Andy Biggs still takes his regular Nikon kit with him, and all his MF images are taken in good light.

I shot a scene of a leopard going for a waterbuck in South Africa last fall, around dusk with very little ambient light. ISO 5000 on my 1DX at 11 fps to get the leopard gripping the waterbuck by the neck, among other frames. There is no way I could do that with MF. So while I cannot do many t hings with MF, I CAN do everything with a DSLR, albeit not with the same quality as MF.

Having said that, if the MF system was capable of even going up to a decent 800 ISO, it would make a huge difference.
 

Sharokin

New member
You seem to contradict yourself. You mentioned that "many" do not like, countered by evidence that indeed these were liked by many, then you routed to judge at a higher level.

This reminds me about Emily Soto. Many other Vogue photographers overlooked her. But time told things. She eventually became popular, and the other oldskool photographers are just jealous of her success.

In the film era no one shot any landscape of the milky way with foreground in a single exposure. Now with the advancement of technology people start to shoot that kind of pictures, and those are indeed very popular pictures. Even iPhone use that kind of pictures as default wallpapers. If you ever observed the milky way with your human eye you would have known that those pictures are not "real" either. Can you do that easily with a CCD (i.e. single exposure with foreground)?

Technology is evolving, and rules are changing... Rangefinder became popular. SLR replaced rangefinder. Mirrorless might eventually replace DSLR. CMOS might eventually replace CCD.
The same Emily Soto who shoots with cropped Canon cameras?
Just imagine how far Emily could gone if Void was around to consult her on proper gear.
 

jerome_m

Member
I don't agree with that. I've printed quite large beginning with my first DSLR, the Canon D60 in 2002 (13X19 on the Canon S5000) and subsequent cameras, right up to a 44 X 72 from the 1DX on the big Epson. If you look at them from a reasonable distance they look great.

I also did a 36X48 Manhattan skyline image from the IQ180 that hangs in my office. You can put your nose up to it and still see incredibly sharp detail. That is what I meant by 'immersive' in my first post. So the Phase system is quite capable of getting very large prints out of it.
That is what I meant by "to its full potential": with the IQ180 you can put your nose to the print. You can print big from any camera if you never look at the print from very close, but then you don't need a printer as good as the 9900.

If you want to print big at the amount of resolution that the 9900 is capable of, you will struggle with the photographic process. That in turns means that the equipment will weight a lot, won't allow quick shooting from the hip, will need lots of photons, etc... Whatever the camera system, you will have the same problems.
 
I have no empirical evidence but I have read that the human eye is capable of 20stops DR.

Rob
Around 7 stops static and 20 stops dynamic. The relatively low static DR of our eyes is why TV manufacturers typically try to achieve maximum contrast ratio through deep black levels rather than blinding white levels, as our eyes can't adjust to both at once. Otherwise, since our eyes work like scanners, they always update and paint in the proper exposure for the thing we're looking at, hundreds of times per second.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Yes, I am thinking of abandoning hope.

Exciting though my brief journey into the MF world has been, it has been very unproductive. ...
Has anybody been in a similar situation. Are others thinking of jumping ship?

It is not just about the money (who am I kidding!), it is the whole experience I guess that has been 'difficult'. In my quest for the ultimate in image quality I may have indeed bitten off more than I can chew. I guess it is buyer's remorse a year later, I don't know.

Just wanted to hear from the folks here if they have any advice for me.

Thanks.
Hi there,
my opinion is the following:
-Rather use the MF for the areas where it is strong and use another system for things which dont suit MF well, instead to try to use MF for everything and get frustrated.
-I feel most digital backs and MF digital cameras (even older models) still produce a different (and better) IQ than high resolution DSLRs.
In this regard I dont believe one needs the latest and greatest DB
-for me cameras like the Leica S or Pentax645Z seems a very good compromise, allready the MF IQ look, but pretty flexible and fast to use.

If you feel MF "unproductive" and if you dont get wowed when looking at your MF images compared to your Canon images - I would sell the MF-back.
However when I look at MF images or if I compare images I get from my Leica S vs Sony A7II or 5dIII (which I sold some weeks ago)...I feel its worth to use MF.
At least for landscapes and subjects which are not too fast I do enjoy shooting MF and the slower pace (if I am allowed to call the Leica S medium format).

I recently bought a used Alpa and an older digital back more for the reason of the slower pace shooting process and not so much for the better IQ over other photographic solutions.

If you are talking about the number of images you took with the Canon...what do you want to do with so many images???

In the end you need to know if MF gives you more satisfaction. If it doesnt give you more satisfaction (either during shooting or in regards of IQ) its too much money.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes, I am thinking of abandoning hope.

Exciting though my brief journey into the MF world has been, it has been very unproductive. In the last year and a half since I bought the IQ180 I've only shot about 1000 images compared to around 50,000 with my Canon gear in the same period. There are many reasons, perhaps the inability to shoot at ISO over 200 (even at that I feel there is too much noise), very old camera to go with it, lack of live view, need for a tripod most of the time, etc. I did spend a lot of time trying to get the most out of it but it has not been easy. I realized before I bought it that there would be challenges but I did not realize it would be that difficult. My fault, yes.

Most of all I was disappointed with the upgrade policy. When I bought it I was told that the path to the next model would be very easy and relatively inexpensive. When I called a few months ago to see if I could trade in the IQ180 for the IQ250 (figuring I could put the high ISO capabilities to good use and then upgrade to the new camera body when it came out), I was told it would cost me over 20,000 to buy the IQ250 even at trade-in because it was being traded for a 'less expensive model'. Which meant that my $30,000 IQ180 was now worth less than $10,000 in just over a year. Somehow that did not make sense.

So I soldiered on, hoping I would be able to get more use out of my present system. Even tried out the 250mm SK LS prime, bought another lens (75-150). Paid $750 for repair of the shutter release mechanism on the camera body.

Sadly, I have still not been able to use it despite having traveled to South Africa and having done local tours in the US. The gear cannot replace DSLRs (at least not right now) and to carry both systems into the field is just too much.

Which brings me to the present. Given my experience with the Sony A7R, the news of the Canon 5DS/R and my existing multiple Canon bodies, is it worth it for me to hang on the MF system or should I cut my losses and sell it all?

I am primarily a landscape and wildlife photographer, do not make a living from it and do not do portraits or studio work - other than family pictures now and then. While the results from the MF are stunning and the large prints I've made truly 'immersive' as they say, I am not sure that is enough to carry on with the system. I am not going to be able to get into the esoteric world of tech cameras at all, so further 'improvement' in my images is very unlikely.

I am not sure if I should wait for a CMOS version of the IQ180 - what if the trade-in is equally expensive? The new camera body rumored to come out in April will be no less than $5000 if that. Granted the lenses are great and would hold value for me, but that's about it.

Has anybody been in a similar situation. Are others thinking of jumping ship?

It is not just about the money (who am I kidding!), it is the whole experience I guess that has been 'difficult'. In my quest for the ultimate in image quality I may have indeed bitten off more than I can chew. I guess it is buyer's remorse a year later, I don't know.

Just wanted to hear from the folks here if they have any advice for me.

Thanks.
I have not read this whole thread just your first post here but my immediate gut reaction is if its difficult to shoot and you spend more time screwing around with it than making great images than what's the point. It's not for everyone but it is for ultimate quality in images. I love MF but I'm a very experienced shooter that can deal with just about any obstacles . Many people have difficult times with it as it is a different way of shooting. Now having said that have you given it enough chance to grow on you as these things take a lot of time to understand and more importantly control to your taste and needs. Now if you need the money than you need the money been there and done that but if you like the quality than maybe get some training via a workshop or hire a instructor to help. Not a sales pitch but I have been hired by numerous people to get them over the edge. Maybe that's something you could look into in your area or attend a workshop and get help. I regret selling my kit believe me but my issue was a immediate need for cash and health debt for my wife but I would love to be still in the game. Just something to think about. Hate seeing people walking away from it as it is fun but if your not having fun as a hobbyist than what's the point. That's what hobby's are for.
 
Top