Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    I might have the opportunity to upgrade my IQ160 to a IQ260 for a very reasonable price and would like to pick the brains of those of you that have done the same upgrade. Iím primarily using my tech cam with Rodenstock 40HR, SK60XL and SK120 Aspheric.

    My main reasons to think about doing this is the long exposure capabilities. I often find myself in the 60 seconds range with the 160, so alone for this it might be worth it. For shorter exposures, 15-45 seconds, are the files from the 260 much cleaner?

    Regarding issues like tiling, did you feel the 260 behaved better?

    Wifi is not a deal breaker for me, I donít think I will use it much if at all.

    I know the 250 might be even better, but I like my 40HR on the full frame sensor and donít want to go down in sensor size.

    I have read a lot of the technical stuff, but would like to hear from those of you that have done the same.

    Thanks
    Peter
    My website

  2. #2
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Peter...With your style of photography, why not IQ180 (or stick with IQ160 and wait for full frame CMOS)? The price of IQ180 is very attractive nowadays.
    Unless you do lots of long exposure, IQ260 will not add much to IQ160. I like my IQ260 for long exposure. IQ250 is not an option as it's not a full frame.
    I've never owned IQ160 but owned both IQ180 and 260. For 30-45 sec exposure, IQ of 180 is no different from 260.
    Your pictures are already awesome, why in rush. Wait for a bigger upgrade, full frame CMOS?

    Pramote
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    As above, IQ160 to IQ260 is a waste of money and offers nothing special to justify the expence IMO. Long exposure files I've seen from the IQ260 were not that great, just good for a Dalsa chipped back and if LE is what you really need P45+ or CMOS are much better.

    I'd wait for FF CMOS and see how it performs with your tech lenses before rushing to upgrade now.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    I did the IQ160 to IQ260 upgrade and didn't regret it at all because I also wanted the ability to shoot longer exposures than the IQ160 was able to manage. Even 30s on the IQ160 would result in files that I would have to process significantly or render as monochrome files due to the numerous hot pixels. The IQ260 was a significant improvement over the IQ160 in every respect with the new sensor.

    Wifi? Meh. Watch for the wifi cover on the top of the back as they have a tendancy to lift slightly when warm (I didn't bother getting mine fixed with better adhesive but if you're concerned about water tightness I would ask if it's been fixed).

    Very very long exposures beyond 10-15 minutes certainly weren't perfect and no doubt the P45+ was better but being able to do it at all with a full frame sensor was really the most important aspect of this back for me. It is true that the IQ150/250 is significantly better but not if the sensor size is important to you which I believe it is. (I have more flexibility in this respect although I do miss the extra real estate at times but its early days).

    I did suffer from some centrefolding with my back so I'd be sure to watch for that and get the back test & calibrated.

    With hindsight, I'd have probably kept my IQ160 and bought a P45+ for use in those few occasions where I wanted to shoot longer than 30s. At the time when I upgraded the cost was about the same.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thanks Pramote,

    Yes IQ180 have crossed my mind too, just not sure how it will work for my style of shooting. I shift a lot 10-12mm left right for 16/9 panos with my 40HR.

    I'm not in any rush at all to upgrade, I just might have the opportunity to buy a 260 for about the same as I could sell my 160 for, basically making it a free upgrade..

    But yes a full frame tech cam friendly CMOS would be awesome, but I' sure that will be in quite a different price range.

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by Landscapelover View Post
    Peter...With your style of photography, why not IQ180 (or stick with IQ160 and wait for full frame CMOS)? The price of IQ180 is very attractive nowadays.
    Unless you do lots of long exposure, IQ260 will not add much to IQ160. I like my IQ260 for long exposure. IQ250 is not an option as it's not a full frame.
    I've never owned IQ160 but owned both IQ180 and 260. For 30-45 sec exposure, IQ of 180 is no different from 260.
    Your pictures are already awesome, why in rush. Wait for a bigger upgrade, full frame CMOS?

    Pramote
    Last edited by Pemihan; 3rd April 2015 at 23:20.
    Peter
    My website

  6. #6
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Gazwas, thanks for your input.
    Yes I would love a full frame CMOS that works with tech wides..

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    As above, IQ160 to IQ260 is a waste of money and offers nothing special to justify the expence IMO. Long exposure files I've seen from the IQ260 were not that great, just good for a Dalsa chipped back and if LE is what you really need P45+ or CMOS are much better.

    I'd wait for FF CMOS and see how it performs with your tech lenses before rushing to upgrade now.
    Peter
    My website

  7. #7
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thanks Graham,

    So you're saying that you did see an improvement with the 260 even on shorter exposures in the 30-60 second range? Was that with LEM on at ISO 140 or at base ISO 50?

    I really don't care about the wifi, don't think I would use it at all. I know about the cover on top and will for sure check that if I move forward with this. The back was in for a repair in July 2014, so they might have fixed it at that point.

    Yes the sensor size is important to me, so the 150/250 is out.

    As I mainly do B&W tiling is my main issue with the Dalsa CCD backs. The first 160 I got was horrible in this regard so it was returned and I then got to test a number of backs and handpick the best of the bunch, but nevertheless I still see the issue on and off.

    The CMOS sensor in the 150/250 only have one readout channel and thus no tiling. Hoping the same will be the case once a full frame CMOS is released and that it will work beautiful with tech wides :-)

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    I did the IQ160 to IQ260 upgrade and didn't regret it at all because I also wanted the ability to shoot longer exposures than the IQ160 was able to manage. Even 30s on the IQ160 would result in files that I would have to process significantly or render as monochrome files due to the numerous hot pixels. The IQ260 was a significant improvement over the IQ160 in every respect with the new sensor.

    Wifi? Meh. Watch for the wifi cover on the top of the back as they have a tendancy to lift slightly when warm (I didn't bother getting mine fixed with better adhesive but if you're concerned about water tightness I would ask if it's been fixed).

    Very very long exposures beyond 10-15 minutes certainly weren't perfect and no doubt the P45+ was better but being able to do it at all with a full frame sensor was really the most important aspect of this back for me. It is true that the IQ150/250 is significantly better but not if the sensor size is important to you which I believe it is. (I have more flexibility in this respect although I do miss the extra real estate at times but its early days).

    I did suffer from some centrefolding with my back so I'd be sure to watch for that and get the back test & calibrated.

    With hindsight, I'd have probably kept my IQ160 and bought a P45+ for use in those few occasions where I wanted to shoot longer than 30s. At the time when I upgraded the cost was about the same.
    Peter
    My website

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Pemihan,

    I love your images too. And I think you are getting some good advice from the owners that have upgraded, downgraded, even moved sideways.

    I know that a 30 sec exposure on IQ160 in warm climates such as Florida is much different than 30 sec in Denver. The ability to shoot with a 10 stop ND filter with water ect warrants the IQ260.

    But I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is to use the tech camera with Live view from CMOS. Sure, all we have is 50 MP CMOS now, but we all hope to see that change in the future. And the ability to get great Live View for composing as well as focusing, may be worth the wait. Not to mention you get that long exposure capability from the CMOS, so a lot of benefits.

    The side move from IQ160-IQ260 is pretty cost effective right now when dealing with Pre Owned backs. That will change when you go from IQ160 to a future back. So the big question will be how much. We do not know that answer right now.

    You already own the best lenses you can buy. So they will work great with either back. Keep making beautiful images.




    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    I might have the opportunity to upgrade my IQ160 to a IQ260 for a very reasonable price and would like to pick the brains of those of you that have done the same upgrade. Iím primarily using my tech cam with Rodenstock 40HR, SK60XL and SK120 Aspheric.

    My main reasons to think about doing this is the long exposure capabilities. I often find myself in the 60 seconds range with the 160, so alone for this it might be worth it. For shorter exposures, 15-45 seconds, are the files from the 260 much cleaner?

    Regarding issues like tiling, did you feel the 260 behaved better?

    Wifi is not a deal breaker for me, I donít think I will use it much if at all.

    I know the 250 might be even better, but I like my 40HR on the full frame sensor and donít want to go down in sensor size.

    I have read a lot of the technical stuff, but would like to hear from those of you that have done the same.

    Thanks
    Chris Snipes 813-335-2473 Cell
    National Account Manager
    https://captureintegration.com [email protected]
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    I looked at the IQ180 > IQ280 a couple of years ago and decided it was not worth it at all, approx 16K for WIFI. I ended up keeping the IQ180 and purchasing an IQ260 Achromatic which I ended up returning for other reasons, but not relevant to this post.

    The IQ160 >IQ260 is a little different as it does give you a new sensor, with the main difference being long-exposures. If this is important to you, there really aren't too many options on FF.

    Waiting 12 months maybe the best if that works for you:
    1. We will have the second generation of CMOS backs and most likely have a FF offering
    2. I would think Dalsa has to have a horse in the CMOS race, right now it has been all Sony. it would be nice to see some competition and diversity, and while the new Sony sensor is great in many ways, the pros/cons vs. CCD on a tech cam are a mixed bag
    3. Phase upgrade practices in the past have always favoured skipping a generation, i.e. P+backs to IQ2xx backs made far more sense than from IQ1xx backs to IQ2xx back financially.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Once you've had the IQ180, it's hard to step backward. It's such a great back with the highest quality for big print (not only pixel peeping).
    I traded the IQ180 to 260 for 2 years but missed it enough to buy it back when the price was right. The one I bought had ~500 shutter counts.
    Same as you, I love B & W, therefore, color cast is not a problem with IQ180. You've had more room to work with.
    The 180 is like a last-model Mercedes-Benz, it will run for a long long time with much less money. I've used my 1st-generation SUV for 16 years! I believe in buying the best you can afford for everything. Bad habit !!! But at least I don't have to blame the equipments but myself My Rodie 23mm/40mm and SK 60mm XL still hold the value quite well compared to the Nikon D800E.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Pramote, do you feel that issues like tiling and microlens ripples are worse on the 180 compared to the 260? Especially when converting to B&W?

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by Landscapelover View Post
    Once you've had the IQ180, it's hard to step backward. It's such a great back with the highest quality for big print (not only pixel peeping).
    I traded the IQ180 to 260 for 2 years but missed it enough to buy it back when the price was right.
    Same as you, I love B & W, therefore, color cast is not a problem with IQ180. You've had more room to work with.
    Peter
    My website

  12. #12
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thanks Chris!

    I might end up just keeping my 160 and see what the future brings. I do love it and only thought of upgrading as I might be able to do it basically for free.

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by Digitalcameraman View Post
    Pemihan,

    I love your images too. And I think you are getting some good advice from the owners that have upgraded, downgraded, even moved sideways.

    I know that a 30 sec exposure on IQ160 in warm climates such as Florida is much different than 30 sec in Denver. The ability to shoot with a 10 stop ND filter with water ect warrants the IQ260.

    But I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is to use the tech camera with Live view from CMOS. Sure, all we have is 50 MP CMOS now, but we all hope to see that change in the future. And the ability to get great Live View for composing as well as focusing, may be worth the wait. Not to mention you get that long exposure capability from the CMOS, so a lot of benefits.

    The side move from IQ160-IQ260 is pretty cost effective right now when dealing with Pre Owned backs. That will change when you go from IQ160 to a future back. So the big question will be how much. We do not know that answer right now.

    You already own the best lenses you can buy. So they will work great with either back. Keep making beautiful images.
    Peter
    My website

  13. #13
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thanks jagsiva, food for thought.
    Would be really nice to know what the next generation of CMOS backs will be capaple of and how they will work with tech wides..

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    I looked at the IQ180 > IQ280 a couple of years ago and decided it was not worth it at all, approx 16K for WIFI. I ended up keeping the IQ180 and purchasing an IQ260 Achromatic which I ended up returning for other reasons, but not relevant to this post.

    The IQ160 >IQ260 is a little different as it does give you a new sensor, with the main difference being long-exposures. If this is important to you, there really aren't too many options on FF.

    Waiting 12 months maybe the best if that works for you:
    1. We will have the second generation of CMOS backs and most likely have a FF offering
    2. I would think Dalsa has to have a horse in the CMOS race, right now it has been all Sony. it would be nice to see some competition and diversity, and while the new Sony sensor is great in many ways, the pros/cons vs. CCD on a tech cam are a mixed bag
    3. Phase upgrade practices in the past have always favoured skipping a generation, i.e. P+backs to IQ2xx backs made far more sense than from IQ1xx backs to IQ2xx back financially.
    Peter
    My website

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Thanks jagsiva, food for thought.
    Would be really nice to know what the next generation of CMOS backs will be capaple of and how they will work with tech wides..

    Peter
    That's for sure a good question. And will the next chip be a Sony, Dalsa or XYZ company.

    Questions I have on future:

    1. If the CMOS goes full frame, and stays at 50 to 60MP, then as I see it should be OK with current tech lenses. The 50MP current is pitch of 5.3, and seems to be OK with tech lenses up to a certain point. The current 60MP CCD is 6.0 microns and does have a very good range of movements. The 80MP is 5.2, and everyone knows the limitations. So, if a 60MP full frame CMOS comes out and has 6.0 micron pitch, I can't see it working any worse than the current 50MP @ 5.3 micron pitch, possibly better. But if Phase goes to 80 or ever 100MP for the next CMOS, then the pitch will become even smaller, 4.x? and I can't see that working well with a lot of movements, unless something is added to the chip, like the design philosophy of the CMOSIS chip by Lecia. Current retrofocus designs by Rodenstock seem to be at their limit at least on the wide side. Schneider has stated they are getitng out all together of the market of the digital lenses.

    2. The next gen comes out at 80 to 100MP in CMOS, what will the price delta be?

    3. If the chip is not Sony, the DR will be an unknown until tested. Sony has proven it's excellent DR, both with their 35mm sensors and the 50MP medium format chip in use right now.

    It will be interesting to see it all play out and when.

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

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    We are pretty close to limits on diffraction and hardware tolerances in the current 80MP backs already.

    I would hope improvements going forward could come in:

    1. Larger sensors, towards proper 645 or even 6x6
    2. Better noise/DR
    3. Multi-shot
    4. Some newer version of Bayer that doesn't hurt color resolution
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Pramote, do you feel that issues like tiling and microlens ripples are worse on the 180 compared to the 260? Especially when converting to B&W?

    Peter
    Peter,

    I've used the Rodie 40mm HR and SK 60mm XL with tilt most of the time and experienced no problem with B&W conversion.
    The 180 is very good for the Rodie 23mm and 28mm. It's like point-and-shoot.
    I still think the 180 will give me top IQ in B&W in years to come especially with the 44" print.
    If you're happy with the 160, stick with it. If you can upgrade to 260 for free. Why not? It's no brainer. You'll get long exposure for free! The 260 actually is not as bad as some people make it sounded. The 44" print still comes out pretty good. I am still very happy with it. I think it's still an exceptional back unless you make a living by shooting stars or shooting to the sun. In general, shadow still looks pretty good with good technique.
    The hype of IQ250 will disappear in no time, same as the IQ260. Technology is moving too fast. You can't upgrade all the time. I'll better invest in lenses.
    Lately, I've been shooting with the Linhof Technorama 617s more and more. It makes me exciting in photography again. I start to be tired of stitching and all kind of technical jargons. Shooting with it remind me of simplicity and enjoyment which brought me to photography from the beginning.

    Happy shooting.
    Best regards,

    Pramote
    Last edited by Landscapelover; 4th April 2015 at 09:38.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    I would agree with Pramote regarding the upgraded sensor - worth it if there is little cost if only because of the long exposure capabilities as it is far superior to the IQ160 in this respect.

    Be aware of some of the workflow implications of long exposure mode though. If you're normally shooting at ISO50 and expose for more than 10s the back has a nag screen telling you to use long exposure mode and ISO140. You can't disable this. I understand the intention of it to get you to change modes for the best image quality but if you are deliberately creatively shooting a particular duration such as for cloud movement etc with an ND then changing ISO then requires changing filter strength/aperture etc.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    We all see things differently for sure. I see no way the shadow recovery of the 260 comes close to the 250. Even at base ISO. Pull the shadows and the overall loss of details is most noticeable. Not any difference in LEM either trust me I had really hoped that LEM at ISO 140 would be special I did not find that to be the case. If shot in bright to normal light or used with a longer exposure time and the 260 does an excellent job. Need 1/125 (on a tech camera) or faster shutter speed and again unless you are in good light the details are just not there.Take it to ISO 200 and any shadow recovery is pretty lack of details the CCD Nust did not get enough light. Believe me I wish it wasn't this way but it's a characteristic of CCD.

    This is my perspective after 3 years with either 160 or 260 all on a tech camera. Using a DSLR body may may a difference since you have so much more control of shutter speeds i.e. 1/3 and 1/2 stops and a much more accurate speed on full stops. Not 1/90th when set to 1/60th or 1/350th when set to 1/250th as I tend to see on all my copals.

    Obviously others opinions will differ.

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

  19. #19
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Pramote, thanks good to know that at least your IQ180 isn't showing tiling with your tech lenses.

    I looked the Linhof Technorama 617s up. Wow that's quite a camera, I can understand why you enjoy using it :-)

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by Landscapelover View Post
    Peter,

    I've used the Rodie 40mm HR and SK 60mm XL with tilt most of the time and experienced no problem with B&W conversion.
    The 180 is very good for the Rodie 23mm and 28mm. It's like point-and-shoot.
    I still think the 180 will give me top IQ in B&W in years to come especially with the 44" print.
    If you're happy with the 160, stick with it. If you can upgrade to 260 for free. Why not? It's no brainer. You'll get long exposure for free! The 260 actually is not as bad as some people make it sounded. The 44" print still comes out pretty good. I am still very happy with it. I think it's still an exceptional back unless you make a living by shooting stars or shooting to the sun. In general, shadow still looks pretty good with good technique.
    The hype of IQ250 will disappear in no time, same as the IQ260. Technology is moving too fast. You can't upgrade all the time. I'll better invest in lenses.
    Lately, I've been shooting with the Linhof Technorama 617s more and more. It makes me exciting in photography again. I start to be tired of stitching and all kind of technical jargons. Shooting with it remind me of simplicity and enjoyment which brought me to photography from the beginning.

    Happy shooting.
    Best regards,

    Pramote
    Peter
    My website

  20. #20
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thanks Graham, maybe a dumb question but I suppose the original exposure continue regardless of the nag screen?

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    I would agree with Pramote regarding the upgraded sensor - worth it if there is little cost if only because of the long exposure capabilities as it is far superior to the IQ160 in this respect.

    Be aware of some of the workflow implications of long exposure mode though. If you're normally shooting at ISO50 and expose for more than 10s the back has a nag screen telling you to use long exposure mode and ISO140. You can't disable this. I understand the intention of it to get you to change modes for the best image quality but if you are deliberately creatively shooting a particular duration such as for cloud movement etc with an ND then changing ISO then requires changing filter strength/aperture etc.
    Peter
    My website

  21. #21
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Paul, just to be sure - what you are referring to is when you have underexposed shadows you want to pull right?
    When making a normal say 60 second exposure at twilight with no need for shadow pull it's another matter?

    Peter


    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    We all see things differently for sure. I see no way the shadow recovery of the 260 comes close to the 250. Even at base ISO. Pull the shadows and the overall loss of details is most noticeable. Not any difference in LEM either trust me I had really hoped that LEM at ISO 140 would be special I did not find that to be the case. If shot in bright to normal light or used with a longer exposure time and the 260 does an excellent job. Need 1/125 (on a tech camera) or faster shutter speed and again unless you are in good light the details are just not there.Take it to ISO 200 and any shadow recovery is pretty lack of details the CCD Nust did not get enough light. Believe me I wish it wasn't this way but it's a characteristic of CCD.

    This is my perspective after 3 years with either 160 or 260 all on a tech camera. Using a DSLR body may may a difference since you have so much more control of shutter speeds i.e. 1/3 and 1/2 stops and a much more accurate speed on full stops. Not 1/90th when set to 1/60th or 1/350th when set to 1/250th as I tend to see on all my copals.

    Obviously others opinions will differ.

    Paul
    Peter
    My website

  22. #22
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Thanks Graham, maybe a dumb question but I suppose the original exposure continue regardless of the nag screen?

    Peter
    Yes, it still continues. The problem is only if you are using the back to display the seconds timer because you lose it to the nag screen and the only way to dismiss it is to press ok which obviously you aren't going to do. It wouldn't be such a pain in the *** if it auto dismissed after a couple of seconds.

    With respect to iq260 shadows vs iq250/150 shadows in long exposure - Paul is correct that it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. However, that knife isn't blunt by any means ... But it does get spanked by CMOS.

    (Sorry I was adamant about not getting pulled into a CMOS love fest ... )
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    I've had no doubt the CMOS is better than the CCD for long exposure. However, everything comes with the price.
    At least to me, it's not well worth it to jump at the early stage of CMOS revolution in MFDB. It's still not a full frame. For landscape photography, at least to me, this is a reflag especially when I've invested in very expensive wide angle lenses and won't be able to maximize their capacity with less than full frame. I've strongly believe the best is yet to come for MFDB-CMOS. In the mean time, I've had to learn how to live in the shadow of CCD
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    All good arguments here but just from a resale or upgrade position and leaving CMOS out of the equation for a moment. If there is no cost or very low cost going 160 to 260 than I would jump all over it for the simple reason its a newer back. It will have better upgrade opportunist and resale will be much stronger at least in the newer back area. Just this alone is a no brainer if no real money is involved. If upgrading later to say FF CMOS chip the 260 will have more value than the 160. Or at least easier to resell.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thank you guys. Makes sense to make the change also just for the resale/upgrade position.
    Now I just need to decide whether I should jump on the 260 or go for Pradeep's 180 instead
    Peter
    My website

  26. #26
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Peter...Just a thought. I've been following your photography and really admired your passion and dedication to B&W photography. You're the closest to me at GetDPI for the love of B&W. You haven't had much interest in long exposure, as far as I've observed.
    To me, it's no brainer to go with the IQ180 (unless you've had an upgrade to the 260 for free). Why do you need an upgrade for the IQ180 when the quality of the images is equal to 8x10 B&W? The IQ180 guarantees the top quality of 44" prints. I don't need bigger prints! I can reassure you the shadow from the IQ180 for the B&W 44"-print is very fine.
    When I get older with numerous responsibilities (family, academia, practices etc.), I've learnt to live like there is no tomorrow. It works somewhat and makes me feel happier. If I died today, my kids will certainly finish their colleges and collect the life insurance The price of IQ180 has fallen far enough.
    People has forgotten making good pictures is more of dedication and creativity rather than pixel size. Lots of people were disappointed that their expectations were not met. I was the early acquirer of the IQ180 and cannot thank Phase One and Chris Snipes enough! This is the best thing for my photography although it comes with a hugh price
    To be honest, I don't need the CMOS for my B&W photography unless I've got a great deal for an upgrade from my IQ260. I've learnt how to be patient.
    Last edited by Landscapelover; 6th April 2015 at 08:12.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    If it were me, with all things being equal financially, and didn't need longer than 2 minutes exposure, I'd be all over an IQ180 vs IQ260 just for the image quality and tonality of the 80mp sensor.

    Another $0.02.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Well the pot just got stirred now, my own damn fault I guess

    Pramote, do you by any chance have any files with the 180 and Rodenstock 40HR you could share via Dropbox or similar (RAWs) straight on and with about 10mm left/right shift?
    Would really like to test how it behaves with my processing style..

    Peter
    Last edited by Pemihan; 7th April 2015 at 03:38.
    Peter
    My website

  29. #29
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    In a nutshell:

    IQ260: if you really need longer exposure capabilities. Resale potential.
    IQ180: top image quality and tonality. IQ180 allows for shooting at ISO35. Slightly larger file with Sensor+

  30. #30
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Well the pot just got stirred now, my own damn fault I guess

    Pramote, do you by any have any files with the 180 and Rodenstock 40HR you could share via Dropbox (RAWs) straight on and with about 10mm left/right shift?
    Would really like to test how it behaves with my processing style..

    Peter
    The time frame did not match as I traded the IQ180 to IQ260 and then just bought the 180 back several months ago. I bought the 40mm HR when I've had the IQ260 and haven't used that much with the IQ180. I can certainly take new ones for you this weekend or even earlier. I haven't used Drop Box for a long time too.
    I know Ken has been using IQ180 and 40HR for a very long time. I think he can provide you files right away.

  31. #31
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    No worries Pramote..

    Keeeeen?

    I sent Don a PM as well as he have the same combo..

    Quote Originally Posted by Landscapelover View Post
    The time frame did not match as I traded the IQ180 to IQ260 and then just bought the 180 back several months ago. I bought the 40mm HR when I've had the IQ260 and haven't used that much with the IQ180. I can certainly take new ones for you this weekend or even earlier. I haven't used Drop Box for a long time too.
    I know Ken has been using IQ180 and 40HR for a very long time. I think he can provide you files right away.
    Peter
    My website

  32. #32
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    From memory the 180 over my 160. More DR and the tonality of the 180 was much smoother in the transition areas. Obviously it has shift issues with certain lenses as we know but if your running all Rodies than not a issue. It's a great back for sure. Also buying from a forum member is always nice for our community here at GetDPI but you still have to consider trade value down the line but if IQ is the end goal the 180 has it in spades.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Having said all that I adored my 160 and wish I still had it actually I just flat out miss MF but no funds to do that anymore. Things have not settled down here at the household we are still fighting the health issues.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  34. #34
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Let me see what I can dig up Peter. I'll drop you a PM shortly.

    ken

  35. #35
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Guy, I have 40HR, SK60XL, SK120 Aspheric and SK150.

    I too love the 160, the only reason I began thinking upgrades was the possibility to move to the 260 basically for free. Then the upgrade bug and Pradeep's 180 came along.

    I'm sorry to hear you still have health issues in the household, all by best wishes to your wife and your self!

    Peter



    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    From memory the 180 over my 160. More DR and the tonality of the 180 was much smoother in the transition areas. Obviously it has shift issues with certain lenses as we know but if your running all Rodies than not a issue. It's a great back for sure. Also buying from a forum member is always nice for our community here at GetDPI but you still have to consider trade value down the line but if IQ is the end goal the 180 has it in spades.
    Peter
    My website

  36. #36
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IO160 to IQ260 thoughts?

    Thanks Ken!

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    Let me see what I can dig up Peter. I'll drop you a PM shortly.

    ken
    Peter
    My website

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
  •