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?

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Btw phase one upgrade path with the new CMOS sensors leaves a lot to be desired with folks trying to go from CCD backs over to the new CMOS . It was better back in the day going up the CCD path. Like p30 to p40 to p65 than to IQ 180. Guess things have changed
 

Pradeep

Member
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.
Ah, I see where you are going with this.

I am not looking for a quick fix. In fact I want to be able to print big and sharp. The print in my office hangs in a hallway where people actually pass by from 3 ft away and it is incredibly sharp. What I am looking for is a camera system that provides the resolution and quality with the least hassle.

Price is not a major issue, if it was, I would never have the equipment I've bought and still own. Still, it is stupid to invest in a product that costs three times what the competition does unless it makes life easier in some other ways. There is also the law of diminishing returns.

If the IQ180 delivers the best picture, so be it. Just want to know what other options I may have, now or in the near future.

Which is why I am in this discussion.
 

jerome_m

Member
Ah, I see where you are going with this.

I am not looking for a quick fix. In fact I want to be able to print big and sharp. The print in my office hangs in a hallway where people actually pass by from 3 ft away and it is incredibly sharp. What I am looking for is a camera system that provides the resolution and quality with the least hassle.
You have it.

Really: if you want that kind of resolution and quality, you can't do without the hassle. You'll have about the same level of hassle with other solutions, whatever they are:
-8x10 film: major hassle (need I explain? :facesmack:)
-D810 on a pano head: same weight (pano head) and computer work
-future Canon 50 mpix: we don't know for sure, but I don't expect 50 mpix out of the 150g 40mm lens or at iso 800 and you'll need a massive tripod
-etc...
 

Pradeep

Member
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.

Love the last sentence Guy. Sums it up.

Thankfully, no, money is not the main issue. It is just frustrating dealing with the archaic camera body and then the lack of what I see as 'support' from the company especially when they sold it to me as an 'easy to upgrade' product. In that sense money does become an issue. It is after all not a cheap item by any measure.
 

Pradeep

Member
You have it.

Really: if you want that kind of resolution and quality, you can't do without the hassle. You'll have about the same level of hassle with other solutions, whatever they are:....................
Got it. Can't make this omelette without breaking some really large eggs!

It's just that often there is very little time to get a good shot (clouds moving, sun coming in and out, quick change of light at sunrise or sunset etc) and if the ISO is really low, it adds to the shooting time in low light, then you double it for the dark frame subtraction. I don't know how some people (JagSiva for example) can get it done before anybody else, even if you plan for it and show up before sunrise. A digital back capable of native ISO of say 200 with ability to go to 1200 would be a very welcome product, IMO. And then the exposure time is so limited with the IQ180, forget about getting the milky way with it.
 

jerome_m

Member
It's just that often there is very little time to get a good shot (clouds moving, sun coming in and out, quick change of light at sunrise or sunset etc) and if the ISO is really low, it adds to the shooting time in low light, then you double it for the dark frame subtraction. I don't know how some people (JagSiva for example) can get it done before anybody else, even if you plan for it and show up before sunrise.

Well... What you need is not a new camera, then. What you need is a workshop with JagSiva. ;)
 
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.
Emily Soto shoots with cropped Canon. The OP is interested in a cropped Phase One. Fullframe is not a must-have for everyone.

Of course oldskool photographers can judge the taste and criticize Emily Soto's pictures, so what? Would she really care? People can like bokeh. People can like HDR. People can like milky way. It's good to break rules and get new stuff. Why does everyone have to follow the oldskool photographers? Why spoil the fun of challenging something new, something that others haven't done before?
 
Last edited:
Got it. Can't make this omelette without breaking some really large eggs!

It's just that often there is very little time to get a good shot (clouds moving, sun coming in and out, quick change of light at sunrise or sunset etc) and if the ISO is really low, it adds to the shooting time in low light, then you double it for the dark frame subtraction. I don't know how some people (JagSiva for example) can get it done before anybody else, even if you plan for it and show up before sunrise. A digital back capable of native ISO of say 200 with ability to go to 1200 would be a very welcome product, IMO. And then the exposure time is so limited with the IQ180, forget about getting the milky way with it.
This is the main reason why I switched from the SWA to the STC, and from the IQ260 to the IQ250. I wanted something faster. Now I can frame my picture within like 15 seconds on a tripod (including shift for perspective control) and get the shot when needed in urgent situation. Sometimes the sun and cloud just don't wait for your composition! I had just too many times with the slower and pain-to-use IQ260 LiveView and the slower shifting SWA wasting too much time and missing the best light and cloud. The darkframe NR of a CCD sensor was also a big deal to miss the best light in real situations. Yes I agree that setting up the tripod and framing the picture well before the best light comes would be the best outcome, but I can't resist to have the flexibility to change my composition whenever I need to. Consider a high tide coming in and you only have a small window to get your picture done with your tripod in the water - sometimes it's just good to have the option to be quick and flexible!

If you are after the ultimate image quality at all cost then the IQ180 doesn't mean to be a bad choice - it's just a tool that has to be used in the right condition for the right usage. A while ago I did a picture of Oxford University under the winter Milky Way v2. The foreground was captured by IQ260 + 23HR with ND for long exposure. The milky way was captured by D800E + 24mm f1.4G with multi-sampling (temporal noise reduction) via PixInsight and rectilinear stitching via PTGui. The IQ260 had its limitation of very poor dynamic range in long exposure mode so I had to shoot multiple times to work-around that (alignment issue was a pain). The Phase One and Alpa combo also lacks fast lens or high ISO capabilities so I used Nikon for the milky way part. I dumped tons of effort in that picture just to try to make it astronomically correct while I could get as much effective resolution as I could. Technically the image quality is currently better than most (if for large print purposes) but I would assume it to get surpassed by other future gear / means soon. However I enjoyed the procedure of getting it done, because it's just hobby after all. If you don't enjoy the procedure then it definitely is not something for you. The gear I used depreciated significantly. The image quality will fall behind eventually. But the memory of enjoyment throughout the procedure is invaluable.

If you still have passion with the IQ180 then continue to make the best out of it for what it is best for; otherwise sell it and move on. I also found Phase One's cross-grade pricing ridiculous. If it weren't for that I could find a good deal to switch from the IQ260 to the IQ250 I would have sold everything. Currently the IQ180 sells privately for about $14-$16k if I remember correctly about the threads on this forum. Even if there is going to be a trade-in program for a future fullframe CMOS back I woudn't expect it to be cheap either.
 
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
Thanks for the detailed long description! It would still be great if RAW files can be offered to study this, especially a comparison for the Dalsa CCD sensors to show superiority in skin tone.
 

Dogs857

New member
I love the large sensor and wish it came with a better camera and did not limit me to an ISO of 50 for best quality.

Perhaps there is something like that out there................ or will appear soon.
Firstly you haven't ruffled any feathers. Other people do that just fine :)

I have read back through the important parts of this thread and can see you are really in a bind. It's a big investment MFD, a huge investment actually. There is a lot of hype around Phase 1 and not a lot of fact. I personally don't think there is a huge difference any more, it's there but it's not obviously there. Most punters couldn't tell the difference.

Have you given any thought to selling your P1 gear and buying a Pentx 645Z?? It is by all accounts an excellent system (Shashin of Ed Hurst would be the blokes to ask). For what you could get for your current gear you easily get into that. It gives you the high ISO capability, you still have a large sensor (compared to 35mm) and access to legacy lenses that work exceptionally well for a fraction of the cost. I'm sure I saw a thread on that recently??

Either way if you are not enjoying your photography with your current set up it may be best to offload it. I doubt a new camera will solve your issues. Photography is a personal thing. I love tech cameras, others find them a pain to use. Sure you will take a bath selling, but you are losing even more money by not using it.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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.
+1. My like button doesn't work, but I agree very much.

If you don't see the image merits of MFD, then it just isn't worth it. If you do see it, then nothing less will personally satisfy.

There is something to be said about continuity of shooting with a specific set-up over time and really learning it until it becomes second nature. That applies to shooting and how to work with you images afterwards IMO.

While I have a A7R and some pretty nice lenses for it, I've increasingly been taking my Leica S in place of it ... basically the opposite of what most folks would do. I'm not after a ton of shots, just one or two that I really like. When I come upon those opportunities, I want the image qualities that please me most. I do not want to wish I had shot the image with the S and its wonderful lenses.

- Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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?
Honestly, the value in any of this stuff is in the using of it. If one took any of this to a finance person, they'd reject it as a poor use of your hard earned money.

If you stick with something and really learn how to make the most of it, amazing things can happen. Conversely, if you jump from one Lilly Pad to the next, you are in a constant state of renewed familiarity and retraining.

The anxiety over technical obsolescence with attendant fears of losing value has little to do with making photographs with the tool at hand.

IMO, stop reading about these incremental gains that are hyped to the high heavens, and spend the time with the wonderful kit you already own ... mastering the tool, thinking about ideas, developing your own style, then making images. Much more rewarding ...

- Marc
 

Pradeep

Member
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.
Thank you, that is a very reasonable post.

Yes, I always knew that MF could not do everything and I need to stick to using it (and using it more and and more) to do the stuff it excels at. I am completely in agreement with the superior quality of its output too.

I've done four wildlife trips since I bought the MF and all of these involved animals and birds with lot of action (horses running in the water and so on). Each trip was at least a week long, one being two weeks. It is not unreasonable to take 50,000 images in all that time, esp when you want to capture an event like 20 horses running towards you. The 1DX has a high frame rate and you fire away. Granted this is not the best way to photograph something but that's what you do in action photography, since there may be just one frame among the 200 that is perfect. Same for birds blasting off or in flight.

I have also taken the MF on landscape trips in the same time period, like to Iceland for example. Obviously a much slower pace and therefore far fewer frames.
 

jerome_m

Member
It should be quite clear that if you want to shoot animals moving fast with lots of action, a DSLR with a high frame rate is a better choice. Nobody can argue with that.

What I don't understand are your other examples. For example, you are complaining about poor high iso performance. While it is true that the IQ180 is not a low light marvel, wouldn't the use of noise reduction software mitigate the noise down to a tolerable level? I have a camera that is supposed to be even worse by low light (an H4D-50) and my experience is that the noise reduction in Phocus (Hasselblad software) works very well. It reduces sharpness, of course, but because the camera starts with more pixels than a D800/A7r, I may even get better results in prints nevertheless.

There was also your example that the camera was too slow to operate at sunset. I have no experience with Phase One, but it cannot be that much slower than my ancient Hasselblad, can it? I have taken pictures at sunset by just putting the camera on a tripod, pressing the mirror up button and then shooting. It was a matter of seconds and I did not need a dark frame. So could you elaborate a bit on how you actually shoot, maybe we could figure out something. Maybe you could also post a link to some pictures that we have an idea (although, considering the thread as a whole, I can understand your reluctance if your pictures do not look like Thomas Kinkade on acid).

Last but not least, I noticed that you said that you have a zoom. MF zooms are horribly heavy and bulky. Maybe you would enjoy your camera more if you just took one or two primes instead of the heavy zoom. I also use a relatively light tripod compared to some, this is another item on which you could save a bit of weight. MF have a very low vibration level because of their central shutter.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
What I don't understand are your other examples. For example, you are complaining about poor high iso performance. While it is true that the IQ180 is not a low light marvel, wouldn't the use of noise reduction software mitigate the noise down to a tolerable level? I have a camera that is supposed to be even worse by low light (an H4D-50) and my experience is that the noise reduction in Phocus (Hasselblad software) works very well. It reduces sharpness, of course, but because the camera starts with more pixels than a D800/A7r, I may even get better results in prints nevertheless.
In my work, I would have to say, no, that noise reduction can't help that much on the CCD cameras, mainly because in low light they can't really get the data in the first place, and instead you see a lot of mushy details. This is true at base iso, to some degree, but if you push the iso at all, say 200 or 400, those areas in shade will just not have much details. You also start to see color issues mainly loss of saturation at iso 200 and by 400 you have color issues and loss of finer details, the chip just doesn't work well when at that setting. You will still see the detail loss even in bright light and to some degree color loss. All noise reduction does is blur it more and add even more mush to the areas in question. Also note, that Phase One's default noise reduction tends to be a bit too much even at iso 50 and you can see it effecting finer details, I almost always turn it way back.

If you instead bracket, so that you have good exposure times to cover those areas in shadow then the CCD can do an excellent job. And if you are on a DF or DF+ bracketing is very easy albeit last time I check the exposure allowed between brackets was only 1 stop and you could only do 3 brackets, neither of which is enough most times.

The exception to this is is use of sensor plus, which does a great job on these parts of images. And on the 180 @ 20MP for SPlus you have still got a lot of image to work with and in most cases can make a perfect print unless you looking for something in the 40 x 60 range.

I have worked with MFD since early 2008 and as I look back on images I used to be proud of I have realized that my technique was to pretty much take these areas down to pure black, and for me now, I don't like that look as there were details there.

I have seen daily the effect that shutter time can make on a CCD image as the more light the better. Here is a screen shot from C1 of a iso50 IQ260 image, the image on the left is 1/4 of a sec, the one on the right is 1 sec. Look at the grasses behind the dogwood tree leaves, (red) and on the 1/4 sec image it's basically mush (shadows were pushed) and on the 1 second image there is much more detail, plenty to allow this part of the image to become useable. Both images have the same amount of shadow push, it's just that the 1 sec to me has a lot more details. One of the strong points of shooting a MFD back is for high resolution and capture of details, at least I am. If I have just left off at 1/4 sec I would have left a lot of those details on the table. These crops are from the right edge of a 15mm shift from a 40mm Rodie. So again, movements, mean less available light to start with which automatically puts a CCD at a disadvantage as they prefer light and not push.

It's simply a situation where one needs to evaluate based on their shooting style and needs. For me, I should have done more homework on the IQ260, before I purchased it.

Paul
 

jerome_m

Member
Paul, I am not saying that noise reduction never degrades detail. I am saying that if one degrades detail on a 80 mpix back, one may still get enough detail to print big.
 
Top