Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 116

Thread: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    So the quick story behind this is that I got my A7R2 and now thinking that it's possible I could replace my IQ180 if there wasn't that much drop-off in the IQ of the final prints.

    I'm planning on taking some real shots and doing real prints, but this was a quick monitor viewing up-res comparison to see what it spits out.

    The exact same shot was taken with an IQ180 and 80mm LS lens, and an A7R2 with the 55mm 1.8. The IQ180 was at F11, and the A7R2 at F8. All of the necessary focus and stabilization methods were followed to ensure optimum sharpness.

    Here's the original full comp:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OG JPEG.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	716.2 KB 
ID:	94235

    Here's the A7R2 100% crop, RAW conversion in C1, no processing.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	A7R2 100% OG.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	787.0 KB 
ID:	94237

    Here's the A7R2 100% crop, UP-Res'd in PS to match the IQ180 size, Un-Sharp Mask at 100%.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	A7R2 UP 100%.jpg 
Views:	142 
Size:	820.6 KB 
ID:	94238

    Here's the IQ180 100% crop, Raw conversion in C1, no processing.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IQ180 100%.jpg 
Views:	157 
Size:	224.4 KB 
ID:	94236


    As expected, the microcontrast from the IQ180 is clearly evident, the A7R2 just can't compete. Right away you can see so much texture in the rose that are simply non-existent in the A7R2. However, at more than 2x the sensor size, and 2x the MP, for the overall IQ of the subject and important details, I think it's very close. In the end my main concern is prints, also up-res'ing vs lower DPI is a whole other story, but I think the differences should be even less evident on print.

    But I've already started thinking, well if I can up-res the A7R2, imagine how much I can up-res the IQ180 then.

    So I'd like to hear your guys thoughts, it's not the best method of testing but it was the simplest to get a quick idea. Maybe you guys have comments on how I can make more accurate assessments with other quick steps in the process?
    Thanks 4 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I think the phase image shows so many more shades of pink. The Sony image looks artificial and dead compared to the IQ image.
    I have not been 100% happy with color from my a7II as well, specially skin tones dont look 100% like I would like them to look.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I don't see any more shades of pink in the IQ180 image. I made a quick color analysis of the images and the IQ180 contains 84724 unique shades and the A7RII contains 88844. Still I can agree that the IQ180 rose looks more refined in terms of highlight rolloff and to some extents in the midtones too.

    I think this is however much due to that the subject is at the of resolving limit of the texture of the artificial leaves. With the IQ180 you see the texture, with the A7RII the texture is gone. The visibility of the texture makes the IQ180 look superior. I think if you had shot a smooth object where there would not so evident texture difference you wouldn't see much difference in tones. If the film curve is different the one with smoother rolloff can look more refined, but that is of course easily fixed.

    When it comes to color I've worked the past six months quite extensively with my new camera profiling project DCamProf (DCamProf) and even more clearly now than before I'd say color sits 90% in the profile and only 10% in the hardware. Phase One has put more effort into the IQ180 profile for sure, and especially aim at satisfying the taste of MFD users so I would expect the color to be more refined. It's not impossible to make and tune your own profile though to satisfy your own taste, and it's not guaranteed that it's the same as the Phase One designers. The A7RII sensor is extremely capable in terms of color separation so if you just know what you want to achieve in terms of color you should be able to get there.

    The big advantage of the IQ180 is the extra resolution, and if you like the result of the bundled color profiles you have it there ready to use.

    The difference in resolution is exaggerated in this test when looking it at roughly 100ppi (screen) on a subject where we see texture in one image and not the other. If you print small enough to achieve 200ppi with the A7RII the resolution advantage will be less evident.

    If I did this evaluation myself I would mostly consider my print sizes and what I would lose in nosing quality for those. I would not worry much about the color, but that is because I'm quite confident that I can get my color where I want it and I don't use bundled profiles at all as I prefer to be in control over color (one reason being that it becomes simpler to move between systems while keeping the same color).

    Personally I couldn't afford an IQ180, I'm using a 50 megapixel H4D-50 mounted on a Linhof Techno with Schneider Digitar lenses. The A7RII exceeds my aging sensor in many aspects, but I wanted the "large format experience" with lens movements etc, without having to mess with film, and I've got exactly that which I'm pleased with. If I had shot with the MF-DSLR rather than a tech cam and only use it for the image quality I would have stepped back to 135 about now.
    I'd probably choose the Canon 5Ds though, not as good as the A7RII in terms of dynamic range, but the ergonomics is better and I'm used to Canon. There are some unique aspects to the MF-DSLR shooting experience though, the larger viewfinder, the native 4:3 aspect ratio, leaf shutters so if those are important to you it should also be considered in the evaluation. To some those are "killer features", for me they aren't that important. Sure I prefer 4:3 over 3:2, but it's not really worth that many thousands of dollars. I've played a bit with my H4D-50 body and it's indeed well-designed and nice and all but as soon as I'm going hand-held to do something serious I use my Canon, and for tripod-mounted work I use my Linhof. Every user is different though.
    Last edited by torger; 17th August 2015 at 01:25.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    If you don't like skintones, an interesting experiment is to shoot some side by side shots compare A/B and then analyze why you like the skintones on one camera or the other.

    Maybe it's the hue? Then you can color correct, RGB curves is a classic method that still works well. Maybe it's the hue separation, if you prefer a smoother look, then compress the gamut there. Maybe the skin looks more brilliant, then it could be the highlight rolloff, then adjust the contrast curve, or scale lightness in some range of the gamut. Does the shadow range look dull or grayish? Try adding some more saturation there. Spend some serious time on it. I'm quite confident that what you will end up with as the ultimate skintones will not be exactly as the bundled profile as tastes differ.

    It doesn't help us to assume that color is an property mostly bound to the camera hardware. That is what manufacturers want us to believe as it's an excellent way of locking in customers. Leaf looks way different from Phase even when using the same sensors, and that is all about profile design. I have only had one Hasselblad so I don't know for sure, but I've heard Hassy has the approach to make their cameras look the same, regardless of sensor, which many pros appreciate as you can switch to a secondary camera in the middle of a shoot and still maintain the look, regardless if the sensor is a Sony, Kodak och Dalsa.

    Hardware does have an effect though, color responses differ between sensors. What it means in practice is that while you can make a camera look virtually identical to another for a specific light (like studio flash), the looks will separate some when you shoot under a different light. The ability to separate color does differ a bit too, but all modern sensors do a good job for normal saturated colors, while there may be a significant dropoff in precision in ultra-saturated colors.

    I find it highly unlikely though that the IQ180 Dalsa sensor would be superior than the A7RII concerning color in terms of hardware, but I find it very likely that more work has been put into the IQ180 profiles. And as we see in the first posted images the ability to resolve texture can make colors appear more refined.

    I guess what I try to say is that if you find colors lacking there is a very good chance you can improve on that, but if you find important advantages bound to the resolving power then the A7RII won't be able to compete.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    The printed image is a great leveler in many respects, so if I was doing such a comparison I would print the images at my usual size and then compare from a non-photographer viewing distance (i.e. not 1 inch). My guess is that most people, from a sensible viewing distance, wouldn't see much, if any, difference.

    I used to say that if you print really big and/or make large crops and/or need more movements than a 35mm T/S lens will provide and/or love the workflow then MF still has a role. But since you can now get the last two by attaching a 35mm mirrorless camera to an Actus or Universalis, the list is reduced to: print really big or make large crops.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    to f8's comment about tech cams:

    what is the widest angle lens that will work with the Actus/A7R combo? i can get a 23mm using a MFDback, but in that case the sensor is very close to the standard. you have to figure in the minimum standard-to-standard thickness and the back standard to camera flange distance, and then consider the sensor is 14mm or so into the body of the A7
    Last edited by jlm; 17th August 2015 at 08:06.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    As far as I understand this case is about the DF system, not a tech cam. But in any case, considering the wide angle options is indeed important as it's there you find the largest quality differences and also differences in flexibility (movements etc).

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    My thoughts exactly.

    From a standard 300 dpi print that's 30-40", even needing to up-res the A7R2 files maybe 150-200% as I have done above, I'm sure there's not going to be any real discernible difference.

    My concern is going to be when I want to print upwards of 60", where a significant up-res and 200 dpi output or so is used, then the quality differences will be magnified. But then for that there's always the stitching option.

    Shooting tech cams for wide angles is a different subject though.

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    The printed image is a great leveler in many respects, so if I was doing such a comparison I would print the images at my usual size and then compare from a non-photographer viewing distance (i.e. not 1 inch). My guess is that most people, from a sensible viewing distance, wouldn't see much, if any, difference.

    I used to say that if you print really big and/or make large crops and/or need more movements than a 35mm T/S lens will provide and/or love the workflow then MF still has a role. But since you can now get the last two by attaching a 35mm mirrorless camera to an Actus or Universalis, the list is reduced to: print really big or make large crops.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    what is the widest angle lens that will work with the Actus/A7R combo...
    Once Cambo release their EF adapter (ACB-CA), my understanding is that you'll have access to all the high quality, large IC WA glass (see the threads by Stefan Steib), like the amazing 11-24, 17, 24 etc.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Can you post DR sample? Maybe push shadow and highlight recovery.

    Thanks

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    If you don't like skintones, an interesting experiment is to shoot some side by side shots compare A/B and then analyze why you like the skintones on one camera or the other.

    Maybe it's the hue? Then you can color correct, RGB curves is a classic method that still works well. Maybe it's the hue separation, if you prefer a smoother look, then compress the gamut there. Maybe the skin looks more brilliant, then it could be the highlight rolloff, then adjust the contrast curve, or scale lightness in some range of the gamut. Does the shadow range look dull or grayish? Try adding some more saturation there. Spend some serious time on it. I'm quite confident that what you will end up with as the ultimate skintones will not be exactly as the bundled profile as tastes differ.

    It doesn't help us to assume that color is an property mostly bound to the camera hardware. That is what manufacturers want us to believe as it's an excellent way of locking in customers. Leaf looks way different from Phase even when using the same sensors, and that is all about profile design. I have only had one Hasselblad so I don't know for sure, but I've heard Hassy has the approach to make their cameras look the same, regardless of sensor, which many pros appreciate as you can switch to a secondary camera in the middle of a shoot and still maintain the look, regardless if the sensor is a Sony, Kodak och Dalsa.

    Hardware does have an effect though, color responses differ between sensors. What it means in practice is that while you can make a camera look virtually identical to another for a specific light (like studio flash), the looks will separate some when you shoot under a different light. The ability to separate color does differ a bit too, but all modern sensors do a good job for normal saturated colors, while there may be a significant dropoff in precision in ultra-saturated colors.

    I find it highly unlikely though that the IQ180 Dalsa sensor would be superior than the A7RII concerning color in terms of hardware, but I find it very likely that more work has been put into the IQ180 profiles. And as we see in the first posted images the ability to resolve texture can make colors appear more refined.

    I guess what I try to say is that if you find colors lacking there is a very good chance you can improve on that, but if you find important advantages bound to the resolving power then the A7RII won't be able to compete.
    Thank you for the tips.
    My only experience with custom tone curves was with a color checker passport and not leading to any really universal profile.
    If there are cameras out there where I can get the color and look I like just with the standard profiles of c1 or lr and without having to do much post processing, than thats the way I prefer. Maybe I should spent more time at the computer but I prefer the time with the camera and therefore its an important factor for me.
    Regarding the comparison image posted here...maybe there are not more shades of pink, but to me it looks like there are more, and it looks more alive. just my impression from looking at it.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    If you look at color fidelity, there is simply no contest. Detail -- micro-contrast -- is clearly lacking in the uprez A7 file too, but it is subtle enough that I doubt it would bother most in a print. But the color tonality advantage of the IQ is very apparent and realtively huge...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Color fidelity (and then I assume you don't mean colorimetric accuracy) and color tonality are qualities that are hard to pinpoint. The differences that may appear as tonality in the examples I think are related to the increased resolution.

    Making two examples where both cameras are sampled down would make it easier to compare that particular aspect. And of course make the test blind, which you should do also when comparing prints. We are all biased, even if we try to be neutral knowing which is which will affect our judgment.

    Small differences in exposure and contrast curve can have effects too. If we look for tonality a lower contrast curve with softer highlight and shadow rolloff will have an advantage, while a higher contrast curve can make an overall better impression giving more "punch", depending on subject.

    I assume that the IQ180 have a number of more choices concerning both profiles and curves than the A7R2 in Capture One. If you don't want to mess around with trying to improve the defaults, which indeed is not an easy task, the looks you get there is what you get. But then keep in mind that you're mostly comparing profiles and curves rather than hardware. Actually, I believe that the Capture One software and the profile designer at Phase One is more important to the medium format color reproduction reputation than the hardware itself.

    Personally I think it's possible to improve on the color reproduction Capture One offers, also for the IQ180. C1's color pipeline is not modern, it's filled with legacy from the 1990s most notable the RGB tone curve look with all its color shifts is built into the model. One can see how the C1 bundled profiles are partly compensated for that, but it isn't as bad as it could be as the curve is applied on the desaturated "raw data" before the ICC rather than after. Anyway, in order to apply different curves to the same profile (which really isn't a good approach as color appearance and contrast is tightly coupled) the profile color is tuned to not produce too bad colors with either linear response or the film curves, which of course compromises fidelity for both. That they do it like this is that it builds on film legacy, the idea that some color distortion bound to the curve is good as that was how film photographers were used to seeing the world.

    I think it's better to design a profile with one fixed curve and only for that curve. Unfortunately profile design tools available to consumers today are mostly useless if you want to do something else than reproduction photography, which of course is great for the camera manufacturers. I have my own tool of course, but it's not really for everyone and it's still in development.

    So in the end one will still have to treat the camera as the whole system with software, and the results you can get from that. If we don't have the power to change things it doesn't really matter if the "color fidelity" sits in the hardware or the software. As someone that has worked closely with the software for quite some time I believe that most sits in the software, and that there isn't really that much special about the MFD hardware. It's a big sensor with lots of pixels with great optics ahead of it which gives you lots of detail, which indeed can be a winning aspect.
    Last edited by torger; 18th August 2015 at 04:23.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    IMO, the Sony looks bad in comparison. The two files are not even close and I would not be happy at this size, nor would my clients. I would imagine the IQ180 down sampled to the a7r would still look better too.

    I've endlessly toyed with dumping my medium format and focusing the funds on other gear, usually when I listened to marketing hype of new cameras, or the idea of something more simple, or just new. But then I get a job that needs 3m prints and I forget about it. Even with high res 35mm bodies on offer, the only thing that gets closer is file size. I don't find the IQ very comparable all. In my quick testing of the a7r II, all things relative, i've found the output a bit disappointing. Flat and plasticky looking.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  15. #15
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    If you look at color fidelity, there is simply no contest. Detail -- micro-contrast -- is clearly lacking in the uprez A7 file too, but it is subtle enough that I doubt it would bother most in a print. But the color tonality advantage of the IQ is very apparent and realtively huge...
    Like you Jack I see the differences immediately and I'm prepared to pay for them. However, they are pretty subtle and probably completely lost on the majority of owners of a print and for us the difference is 10x the cost. Is it worth the extra? Only the shooter can answer that. It's pretty scarily close though.

    love my IQ150 and all the other sonys that I own, also my Nikon DF, but I still expect that I'll pick up an IQ180 or Credo at some point.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  16. #16
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    The difference in detail is not subtle at all!

    While I've no doubt that the IQ180 also has advantages in color and tonality, I don't think those can be judged adequately from these samples. Ie, the Sony RAW could be processed to look much closer to what we're seeing in this processed IQ180 crop, and there is no such thing as "no processing" in C1. Sticking with the default processing just embraces the tone curve and color choices chosen as default by C1.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Compelling subject matter is compelling....
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I admit I did just a basic Photoshop resize to the dimensions of the IQ180, and then unsharp mask to 100% and that was it. Actually I also bumped up the saturation on the A7R2 file to match the color intensity of the IQ180. The colors on the original raw output of the A7R2 were duller.

    I'm going to try and do more fine detailing to see if I can get the A7R2 file a little closer.

    Does anyone care to have the RAW file and give it a go themselves?


    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    The difference in detail is not subtle at all!

    While I've no doubt that the IQ180 also has advantages in color and tonality, I don't think those can be judged adequately from these samples. Ie, the Sony RAW could be processed to look much closer to what we're seeing in this processed IQ180 crop, and there is no such thing as "no processing" in C1. Sticking with the default processing just embraces the tone curve and color choices chosen as default by C1.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,033
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I have both an IQ180 and a Leaf Credo 50..... and also an 800e and had an A7r. I almost always print to 40 inches in one direction and many times to 48. A 36/42mp file simply will not compete with even a 50mp file..... especially a 50mp file from the Credo 50. I've also found that 50mp is the real sweet spot for file size vs print size when printing out to 40 inches. Even on screen I can't see much difference between 50mp and 80mp. Sure, there's a difference but its extremely difficult to see in the final print - if at all. Another issue is the quality of the lenses for each platform. There aren't many lenses - if any - that can compete with the Rody or Schneider Digitar's. The lens quality plus the quality/size of the sensor really widens the gap between the two platforms.

    Victor
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Do keep in mind that the A7 doesn't achieve it's small size without losses, and I'm not just talking about compressed Raw. If you use the A7 in certain shooting modes, the camera will automatically default to 12-bit color depth, losing 2 stops of dynamic range in the process. Specifically - silent shutter, long exposure/bulb and continuous shooting.

    Compact mirrorless cameras are definitely the future, but for now I like to stick with the stuff that just works™, which means it can be as chunky and optical as it wants as if it means consistent performance in all circumstances.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  21. #21
    Member fmueller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    My comparison is between a Credo 60, tech cam, rodenstock 40 and 70 as compared to an A7r2, Loxia 50, Voigtlander 35 1.2 v2.

    The Sony can be easily carried and used handheld and has significant low light capability and image quality is quite good.

    When I have the time, inclination and opportunity to plant a tripod, the Credo 60 wins by a large margin but at significantly greater cost.

    And with all that I recognize the two kits serve vastly different purposes to this amateur enthusiast.

  22. #22
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Re color fidelity:

    Not withstanding the approximate 0.25 stop more exposure to the IQ image, the lighter green leaves in the Sony image lean toward brown while the IQ light green remains in the greens; the pinks in the rose show far more range in the IQ image than they do in the Sony. Finally there is obvious superiority in the rendering of the "whites" of the small flowers, pot and background bricks and mortar. What I'm seeing isn't due to resolution, it's due to the sensor's ability to handle color and DR. Now which is more accurate color, tough to say without a color checker in the image, but I will bet the cost of an A7rII on the IQ180
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Miami - New York
    Posts
    122
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I'd like to see the comparison with different lenses. There seems to be a huge difference in micro contrast but wonder if he had tried some other optics, like a Leica R or M, Zeiss etc. I have a set of Leica R's and am used to seeing wonderful textures that are not very evident in the first shot. Maybe it's the sensor, maybe it's the lenses...

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I would really love to see DR comparison,
    it will be great if someone can show side by side.

    Thanks

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I highly doubt it's the lenses.

    On the A7R2 I used the 55 1.8, I don't think there's anything adapted from Leica or any other brand that will outresolve that lens to make any difference.

    And for the IQ180 I used the 80 LS to match the same distance/perspective/compression as much as possible. So it's arguable that I could've gotten even better results from the IQ180 had I used the 150 2.8.


    I just picked up a Mamiya 120mm Macro with manual aperture control. So I'm going to re-do the test with that same lens on both bodies to see if I get any different results.


    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterSteve View Post
    I'd like to see the comparison with different lenses. There seems to be a huge difference in micro contrast but wonder if he had tried some other optics, like a Leica R or M, Zeiss etc. I have a set of Leica R's and am used to seeing wonderful textures that are not very evident in the first shot. Maybe it's the sensor, maybe it's the lenses...

    I don't think there's much to compare here. The CMOS sensor in the A7R, D810, etc... had better dynamic range than the IQ180's CCD sensor. The IQ180 of course has cleaner images at base ISO, but the A7R2 should be at minimum maybe 1 stop or so better in DR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Santoso View Post
    I would really love to see DR comparison,
    it will be great if someone can show side by side.

    Thanks
    Last edited by rhern213; 18th August 2015 at 10:43.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Re color fidelity:

    Not withstanding the approximate 0.25 stop more exposure to the IQ image, the lighter green leaves in the Sony image lean toward brown while the IQ light green remains in the greens; the pinks in the rose show far more range in the IQ image than they do in the Sony. Finally there is obvious superiority in the rendering of the "whites" of the small flowers, pot and background bricks and mortar. What I'm seeing isn't due to resolution, it's due to the sensor's ability to handle color and DR. Now which is more accurate color, tough to say without a color checker in the image, but I will bet the cost of an A7rII on the IQ180
    We're probably not going to agree about the hardware vs profile issue, so I'll leave that.

    I've seen over and over again that when images are scaled down, to remove the resolution advantage, and then blind tested things that were "easy" to see before suddenly becomes very hard. I've seen Sony sensor's go from plasticky to fantastic just by ending up in an IQ250. I've seen the P45+ go from fantastic to mediocre, just by showing how far behind it is in DR. There's a lot of bias in this world. I'm not immune myself either though, as I don't think there is a hardware difference I'm biased towards not seeing any of course. My standpoint is clear enough so I shall not elaborate further.

    One thing could be stated for sure though -- Capture One's profiles are not about color accuracy at all. This is not a defect, it's just a design choice. They provide canned looks. And even if they would have chosen accuracy, it can only exist with a linear curve (as you use in reproduction). As soon as a curve is applied subjective design is necessary, as color appearance and contrast are tightly coupled. That cameras make so different looks is only partly due to sensor color filters and lenses, it's very much a profile design choice. Just see how different a Credo 50 and IQ250 looks, despite using the exact same sensor.
    Last edited by torger; 18th August 2015 at 11:47.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Hi,

    My take is really that once we upsize an image we are loosing image quality. More pixels can be a real advantage, once they are needed. So I don't think a 40 MP device will be able to replace an 80 MP, ever. That is if those pixels are needed. My experience is with DSLRs from 6-24 MP and 39 MP MFDB. What I can see is that something like 12 MP is good enough for A2-size prints. That is what I normally make. At that size (around 16 x 23"), I don't see any benefits from 39 MP MFDB, going larger I would say that the pixel resolution is pretty obvious.

    Regarding colour I would say it is 90% colour profiles and 10% sensor technology. Initially I felt that Adobe/Sony colours were much more accurate (measured as DeltaE) than Capture One with P45+, but I have later found Capture One has a quite aggressive "film curve" as default. Using linear profile Capture One is quite accurate (in DeltaE terms).

    Colour reproduction is much to taste, I would say that Adobe colours are a bit conservative while Capture One is more intensive. One thing I noticed is that C1 can push some very real colours (like blue) wide outside Adobe RGB. You of course don't see it on a screen as colour reproduction is clipped to either sRGB or Adobe RGB.

    Best regards
    Erik

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Uprezing does not change image quality. It simply smooths any pixelation that might be apparent in a large print at short viewing distances. Just as there is no detailed added by adding pixels, there is also none taken away.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Are you saying Sony has better DR? Have you push/pull IQ file before? It will be nice to show samples.

    Thanks

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Santoso View Post
    Are you saying Sony has better DR? Have you push/pull IQ file before? It will be nice to show samples.
    That particular exercise have been done to death. Yes the Sony CMOS have had better DR than the Dalsa CCDs since the days of Nikon D800. I have an old example showing IQ180 vs D800, it's not my pictures though so I can't share, but it shouldn't be that hard to find surfing around a bit on this forum and/or LuLa.

    One thing that makes it a bit difficult to compare is that C1 applies noise reduction even when noise reduction is disabled. A trained eye can detect noise reduction and their negative effects though (smearing, brownish pastel-looking colors). Users in general seems to be blind to that though which has caused many to believe that MF cameras has much better DR than they actually have. Hasselblad's Phocus does the same, my relatively noisy Kodak sensor looks really clean in Phocus, but I do see the adverse effects from noise reduction.

    If you want to see "the truth" you can open up files in say RawTherapee which doesn't have noise reduction on unless you specify it.

    That said the IQ180 has very good DR. My H4D-50 has a Kodak sensor which is at least a stop behind and I do well with that, but I do use grad filters from time to time, in a really complicated situation I may bracket and merge. It depends on your shooting style and subjects how dependent you are on the DR aspect. I happen to like soft light which does make it easier on the camera.

    I certainly don't think the small DR difference between the IQ180 and a Sony A7RII would be a selling point in any case. If you're into long exposure though, then it's a different story.

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Sorry for the off-topicness coming in this message, it is about color fidelity though, and I thought I'd share some of my recent findings of the internals of C1 which some of you might be interested in; I've been working with my profiling project (which does both DNG and ICC profiles) and some of my users want to use it in C1 so I had to dig into it whether I like it or not

    I've been quite critical against C1 for using a simple RGB curve as their tone curve, and letting you change curves without changing profiles. As an S-curve RGB curve adds loads of saturation and shifts hues it's not exactly what you would think would be used in a high end raw converter. C1, like most established raw converters, was created in the 1990s though when computers were a lot less powerful than today so using simple algorithms like RGB curves was natural and this legacy is still in.

    However, C1 designers have known what they're doing, the RGB curves found in the film curves are never a pronounced S, and will thus only cause small hue shifts. However such curves does not provide that much contrast either, in particular the shadow range becomes light and the overall look a bit dull. This has been solved by adding an additional fixed contrast curve in the ICC profile lookup table (LUT). By having it in the lookup table they can have used any type of curve algorithm processed offline, my guess (without analyzing in detail) is that they've used some sort of luminance curve to avoid hue shifts. This split approach to contrast makes the profile work better across several film curves.

    However, it does of course also mean that if you apply "Linear Response" you still have the residual S-curve that the ICC applies, so it's not by any means an accurate colorimetric mode. The change of curve is still not totally immune to hue shifts either, and one can assume that the ICC profiles are optimized to look the best with the default curve.

    I've mostly worked with P45+ as the test camera though, so I can't say if all C1 profiles work this way, but I'd guess so.

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    145
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Thanks for putting things in perspective, torger. Very interesting and useful indeed!

    best,

    geb

  33. #33
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    You do know that you can tweak C1's profiles in their advanced color editor and save them as camera-based pre-set ICC's?

    I did this with my P65+ and IQ180 for studio flash to obtain near perfect color. It was not a feature of C1 in the days I owned the P45+, so I did not use it then.

    Overall, I have found C1's base "flash" ICC profiles to be extremely accurate as re studio color, though admittedly not always perfect. But they also note that flash CT is not consistent enough and why they allow the tweaking in advanced CE.

    You can call up any Phase ICC profile inside C1 -- in fact they should be auto loaded inside your system -- so you could delve into the LUT to see if the newer cam ICC's are Luminance-curved...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  34. #34
    Senior Member PSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    145

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Uprezing does not change image quality. It simply smooths any pixelation that might be apparent in a large print at short viewing distances. Just as there is no detailed added by adding pixels, there is also none taken away.
    Not taken away but perhaps diluted?
    ALPA (MAX, STC, TC) | CAMBO (Actus DB2, WRS-AE) | CONTAX | HASSELBLAD | LEICA | DB (CFV-16, CFV-39, IQ180, IQ360, IQ3100, P45+) | Lens (Canon, Fujinon, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Rodenstock, Schneider, Zeiss)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by PSon View Post
    Not taken away but perhaps diluted?
    Perhaps you can explain...

  36. #36
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Hi,

    Think about one bottle of wine. You need two bottles of wine, so you either buy another bottle (stitch three images), or you add a bottle of water, mix, and pour up in two bottles...

    When do dilute the wine it keeps it's ingredients, but it is not the same as another bottle.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Perhaps you can explain...

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Munich/Guangzhou
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I can contribute one more comparison file.

    Name:  m-DSC00051.jpg
Views: 2422
Size:  337.6 KB

    Enclosed links for the raw files and for my PS ACR adjustments.

    FPS + IQ180 + TSE 17 @ f13
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.IIQ
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.xmp

    Sony A7RII + TSE 17 @ f13
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.ARW
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.xmp

    Tests & comments appreciated,

    Christoph
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    Think about one bottle of wine. You need two bottles of wine, so you either buy another bottle (stitch three images), or you add a bottle of water, mix, and pour up in two bottles...

    When do dilute the wine it keeps it's ingredients, but it is not the same as another bottle.

    Best regards
    Erik
    The analogy has a flaw. The volume does NOT change. Think of a cubic meter. It has 2 million pink molecules and 1 million green molecules. However, you sampling device (eye/viewing distance) is too fine and so does not always sample 2:1 pink to green molecules (pixelation). You add more pink and green at a ratio of 2:1. The color of the gas does not change. The pressure, the file size, does, but the appearance remains the same and the sampling is smoothed so you collect the 2:1 ratio of gases (pixelations is eliminated).

    Naturally, we do not need to make analogies. It is easy to describe what is happening with the image. This is why the wine dilution model does not work--you are not adding blank pixels (water), but pixels that are related to the wine. Averaging is not dilution.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    431
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Like many here, I have both A7R2 and Phase 1Q 80mp system (and canon 5DSR, and, and...)

    Even with the best lenses (Otus) on A7R, it is nowhere near the resolution or color of the MF camera. For sure, it can do things that my Alpa/Phase system cannot - hi ISO, great on chip AF, etc - and if that is what you need for the job, then it's perfect! But if you are shooting slowly in regular daylight, then no question, the MF system is much better.

    I love the A7R2, and it's amazing technological developments, but can it replace my MF system? No, it cannot. If you want large super sharp images, it still has to be MF.
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    I can contribute one more comparison file ... tests & comments appreciated ... Christoph
    Thanks for posting the RAWs - it just goes to confirm that 2015 is a great time to be a photographer.

    As I see it, there are 3 winners: 1) The IQ180, on resolution; 2) It's pretty much a tie on color, but given that the A7RII costs 10% of an IQ180, I'll give it to the A7RII, and 3) The Canon TSE17 - what a nice lens.

    Jim
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    The flower from the IQ180 looks (should I say t?), much more alive. One more time I'm proven that there are reasons to dearly desire a camera with a big sensor.
    Only the price!!!
    Eduardo

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    If only it had been a real rose, it would've been truly alive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uaiomex View Post
    The flower from the IQ180 looks (should I say t?), much more alive. One more time I'm proven that there are reasons to dearly desire a camera with a big sensor.
    Only the price!!!
    Eduardo

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,033
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by narikin View Post
    Like many here, I have both A7R2 and Phase 1Q 80mp system (and canon 5DSR, and, and...)

    Even with the best lenses (Otus) on A7R, it is nowhere near the resolution or color of the MF camera. For sure, it can do things that my Alpa/Phase system cannot - hi ISO, great on chip AF, etc - and if that is what you need for the job, then it's perfect! But if you are shooting slowly in regular daylight, then no question, the MF system is much better.

    I love the A7R2, and it's amazing technological developments, but can it replace my MF system? No, it cannot. If you want large super sharp images, it still has to be MF.
    Amen.....

    Victor
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Munich/Guangzhou
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    I mainly got the A7RII to accompany my FPS-IQ180 set-up either for evening or night architecture shots where the higher base ISO and the cleaner files at longer exposure times of the Sony is a clear advantage to the PhaseOne back and for longer focal lengths.

    I did not have much time yet for direct comparison of the two systems but what I see is, that it's incredible which quality can be achieved by a 135 format sensor camera and a good lens today. But the camera needs sharp lenses;-) 4.5 um pixel size is really tiny and too much sharpening in post can add some "pseudo-random" structure to the plain areas of the picture (maybe due to the not-lossless compression of the Sony raw).

    Of course the size of the Sony + Metabones set-up is so nicely tiny, I was not longer used to carry around such a little camera.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Metabones-IV-09.jpg 
Views:	91 
Size:	539.4 KB 
ID:	94398

    (Ok if I add my full shift lens line TSE17, TSE24, Contax 35, HB 50FLE, HB 100, HB 180 w/ Mirex and a sturdy tripod with geared head ... the weight and volume advantage is rather little.)

    The real lifeview of the Sony CMOS is great, no question, but I am used to work with the IQ to frame by estimation, focus by estimation, exposure by estimation, do a test shot at open lens aperture, re-frame, re-shoot, zoom in to 100%, re-focus and re-shoot, then the view will stay at 100% and immediately show me the corrected sharpness, zoom out, set new aperture and exposure time, which can be set together/invers with the FPS, a cool feature and do the final shot, so no big problem wiht that as long as one is not under pressure to get a particular situation or light.

    Btw, the Sony for view at 100% in play mode gives a not perfectly sharp image with a lot of artifacts, so bit difficult to determine the sharpness, I think the jpg engine of the Sony is just not great (display already set to better quality).

    I modified a Benro L-Plate a bit to screw it directly with two screws to the Metabones. This works very well with the TSE lenses, the combination camera/ Metabones/ Sony sits better in the center of gravity compared to a mount at the camera.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Metabones-IV-03.jpg 
Views:	140 
Size:	422.0 KB 
ID:	94399Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Metabones-IV-06.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	412.1 KB 
ID:	94400Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Metabones-IV-08.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	390.4 KB 
ID:	94401

    What I noticed is that I got used to the 1.33 : 1 format of the IQ and I really like it (in landscape and in portrait orientation) for architecture photography, using the 1.5 : 1 format of the Sony I always think ... hmm here not wide/high enough. You see with the sample picture from Guangzhou that with the IQ and same lens that there is the option for a wider crop with the IQ which is pretty cool.

    Name:  m-CF003960-17.jpg
Views: 2266
Size:  433.5 KB

    I think the colors can be tweaked in post to match quite well in both systems and the Sony has about 1 stop better shadow recovery.

  45. #45
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Hi,

    Thanks for the images! I have downloaded them on my MacBook and did have a quick look. I would say that comparing Canon 17 TSE on the Sony and the IQ-180 favours the Sony, as it has smaller pixels. But, if you are shooting the TSE shifted it may be the perfectly valid comparison.

    I have seen that you are using the Alpa FPS with the IQ-180. How do you focus that thing? Sorry for asking, I have tried to use my P45+ on a Hasselblad Flexbody and it has been a real hassle.



    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    I can contribute one more comparison file.

    Name:  m-DSC00051.jpg
Views: 2422
Size:  337.6 KB

    Enclosed links for the raw files and for my PS ACR adjustments.

    FPS + IQ180 + TSE 17 @ f13
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.IIQ
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.xmp

    Sony A7RII + TSE 17 @ f13
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.ARW
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...SE17%40f13.xmp

    Tests & comments appreciated,

    Christoph

  46. #46
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    Thanks for the images! I have downloaded them on my MacBook and did have a quick look. I would say that comparing Canon 17 TSE on the Sony and the IQ-180 favours the Sony, as it has smaller pixels. But, if you are shooting the TSE shifted it may be the perfectly valid comparison.

    I have seen that you are using the Alpa FPS with the IQ-180. How do you focus that thing? Sorry for asking, I have tried to use my P45+ on a Hasselblad Flexbody and it has been a real hassle.



    Best regards
    Erik
    I'm not Chris but I also use the 17/24 TSE lenses with both the Sony A7r and Alpa FPS, although in my case with an IQ150.

    How do you focus the 17 TSE with the FPS? It's really pretty simple with live view, even with a CCD IQ back. The FPS will open up the shutter for focusing. However, it's almost a moot point with the 17TSE in particular because it has such enormous hyperfocal range anyway. You can pretty much just zone focus it.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    I mainly got the A7RII to accompany my FPS-IQ180 set-up either for evening or night architecture shots where the higher base ISO and the cleaner files at longer exposure times of the Sony is a clear advantage to the PhaseOne back and for longer focal lengths.

    I think the colors can be tweaked in post to match quite well in both systems and the Sony has about 1 stop better shadow recovery.
    Hi, many thanks for sharing the RAW files! I can see that for your shutter speed the A7R-II does have some advantage in terms of shadow recovery. By stitching the A7R-II surely yields more details than the IQ180. Why do you get a black circle in the IQ180 file? The 17mm TS-E should be able to cover the whole sensor.

    However, for long exposure shots, the A7R-II may not be a good choice.

    For long exposure shots:

    A7R-II performs even worse than Canon 5DSR
    A7R-II heats up quickly during long exposure
    A7R-II darkframe comparison (RAW files) against 5DSR and other Sony sensors
    A Chinese review of A7R-II doing poorly in long exposure

    Base ISO or high ISO, the A7R-II is not suitable for long exposure. You might even get better image quality with your IQ180 in the 10s-120s territory.

    Based on the comparison between A7 and A7-II, i.e. no degradation due to 5-axis IS, it is probably true that BSI sensors are not suitable for long exposure. If it's true then it's such a shame that the Rodenstock and Schneider wide lenses cannot be resurrected by a perfect CMOS digital back based on BSI...

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    123
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by chrismuc View Post
    Of course the size of the Sony + Metabones set-up is so nicely tiny, I was not longer used to carry around such a little camera.

    (Ok if I add my full shift lens line TSE17, TSE24, Contax 35, HB 50FLE, HB 100, HB 180 w/ Mirex and a sturdy tripod with geared head ... the weight and volume advantage is rather little.)
    Indeed many posts on the weight/size point overlook that, for many situations where it is the ultimate best quality that is required, the Sony advantage is minimal at best.

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    By stitching the A7R-II surely yields more details than the IQ180.
    If you're in a situation where you can stitch with the Sony, then you can also stitch with the IQ.

    It's simply not a valid argument.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,033
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180 vs Up-Res A7R2

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    Hi, many thanks for sharing the RAW files! I can see that for your shutter speed the A7R-II does have some advantage in terms of shadow recovery. By stitching the A7R-II surely yields more details than the IQ180. Why do you get a black circle in the IQ180 file? The 17mm TS-E should be able to cover the whole sensor.
    The image circle of even the 17mm TS-E is not as large as the Phase Sensor..... therefore vignetting occurs. I don't understand the allure of using 35mm lenses with the FPS as there is, IMHO, nothing to be gained over current cameras. The resulting file size remains the same, or smaller, because of the constriction of the image circle. Usually, if not almost always, the dedicated camera body for the given lens (Nikon, Canon, etc) has more than surpassed the electronics in the FPS and would be easier to use. I do think that the examples show just how far and fast Sensor technology is moving on.

    Victor
    Last edited by vjbelle; 22nd August 2015 at 07:08.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •