Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

IQ3100 tech cam test by Capture Integration

P

Paul2660

Well-known member
Impressive to me. Needing 9.0.3 however to get anything from the files, i.e. LCC.

But a ton of files to look at per each lens.

Paul C
 
T

tjv

Active member
Looking forward to hearing how the 60xl tests compare between backs, particularly the IQ360.
 
Jamgolf

Jamgolf

Member
Now that is what I call a test !
Thanks to CI for testing and making these files freely available so everyone can form an opinion themselves.
If CI could indicate the apertures and the focus points used for each lens, that would be even better.

I downloaded the extreme shift+fall case files for each lens and most look really good to me. If I could afford an IQ3-100, I'd be buying one now.
Based on what I see, personally I'd be buying 32HR, 40HR, 60XL and 90HR lenses. Rest are not bad but not wowing me too much.
Surprizingly 120XL extreme corner look the weakest to me, given that it has such a large image circle and is a 120mm (tele) lens.
Conversely 90HR extreme corners look the best to me.

Thanks again !
 
J

Jeffery Salter

Member
Thanks CI. Much appreciate your thorough and real world testing of the new IQ3-100. Looking forward to the Capture One 9.0.3 update to fully explore the Raws.

The blog post is honest and from the heart. Photographers at all levels want to capture great images. Often that requires forgetting about the camera once it's set and believing that when you press the shutter the image that caught your eye will be rendered on film or digital like you wanted it to be.

Your passion and tenacity in giving us the data to see for ourselves what the technology is capable of doing is reassuring.

Choosing to have a career in photography or even taking advantage of a long weekend to catch a flight or pack up the car to drive, in search of a landscape spot you would like explore is not easy. Having confidence in your camera kit won't make the hike any shorter or the slope a bit more gentler, but will give you a wonderful smile when you know "you got the shot"
 
GrahamWelland

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I personally very much appreciate the involvement and sharing of knowledge from our dealer friends, be it CI, DT, Rod Klukas with Arca or Stephan with HCAM and his Hartblei offerings, Yair with Leaf, plus also Sunchai for his innovative work. (Apologies if I've missed others from the vendors - I for one appreciate you being here)
 
T

tjv

Active member
Any chance someone would care to comment on the performance difference between backs with the 60xl? Hanging out to know as I can't get on my computer for another day! Don't leave me hanging!
 
Pemihan

Pemihan

Well-known member
Kudos to CI for doing the test and making the RAW's available for everyone to download. I look forward to play with them.

I would really like to see the same test shot outdoors with a blue sky as issues like tiling and micro lens ripples etc. are predominantly visible in the sky.
 
T

tjv

Active member
I'm downloading files now.
One thing I wonder though is if this sensor performs better on lateral shifts than rise and fall when the back is in landscape orientation, just as the older 50mpx Sony sensor does. I noticed when I tested the 50c that it there was a drastic difference in performace depending on the orientation of the back. This test might be less of a stress test than I originally though, although it'll be interesting to compare the performance relative to the other backs. I understand the time constraints at play, but it would have been good to see more comparison shots made with the different backs using more lenses.
Looking forward to seeing them for myself and am preparing the tissues for fear my eyes will start bleeding when I open C1.
 
Last edited:
T

torger

Active member
tjv said:
I'm downloading files now.
One thing I wonder though is if this sensor performs better on lateral shifts than rise and fall when the back is in landscape orientation, just as the older 50mpx Sony sensor does. I noticed when I tested the 50c that it there was a drastic difference in performace depending on the orientation of the back. This test might be less of a stress test than I originally though, although it'll be interesting to compare the performance relative to the other backs. I understand the time constraints at play, but it would have been good to see more comparison shots made with the different backs using more lenses.
Looking forward to seeing them for myself and am preparing the tissues for fear my eyes will start bleeding when I open C1.
Click to expand...
I've posted some analysis over at Lula.

The IQ3100 sensor has the exact same behavior as the IQ250 in terms of crosstalk pattern, so it's better at lateral shifts in landscape orientation just as before. As I don't have any side by side testing in same light condition I can't say for sure if the IQ3100 has less crosstalk than the IQ250, but comparing with Doug's library test it seems like they are on a similar level. In any case the IQ260 is much more robust (except possibly for the tiling issue).

You will make good images, but once you leave center frames it's about shoehorning a sensor into a use case it was not designed for. One have to make a very difficult almost painful judgment, how much will you compromise tonality and/or shift range in exchange for the delightful CMOS feature set? The CMOS feature set is just so much better than CCD so I think many will push themselves to making compromises they otherwise wouldn't do.

A problem with the CI test files is that they are underexposed so they become very noisy, and the shooting location is not good concerning evaluating color and detail, that is it's harder to spot issues. Doug's library test which he made for the IQ250 was much easier to draw conclusions from.

As noted above, plain sky shots are valuable too for testing.
 
T

torger

Active member
In lack of clear sky you can try put an LCC shot through some extreme processing. I find a horizontal tile line, and some sort of vertical ripple but the 4.5 stop underexposed LCC shot with an additional 4 stop of vignetting is taxing even for Sony, a less noise image would be more easily analyzed.

When I put the same extreme processing settings on an IQ260 shot the tiles are very obvious. I find it highly unlikely that the IQ3100 tile line would be problematic in any normal photography, it's very very weak.

The vertical ripple is more worrying though, could be causing issues in a nice plain sky shot. It's something the LCC algorithm will need to be turbo-charged for probably. Maybe has already been done in C1 9.0.3?
 
GrahamWelland

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
To a certain degree I'm pleased to see the shadow recovery images as it matches my approach to shooting with the IQ150. TBH the dynamic range of that sensor is pretty unbelievable anyways and if the IQ3 100 is the same or better then it is truly the solution that I think most people have been looking for.

I took a look at all of the files. Looking forward to C1 Pro 9.03 so that I can try out the LCCs properly.

A high key image converted to B&W and stretched in post processing to check for tiling would be a useful test example.
 
Dave Gallagher

Dave Gallagher

Active member
First let me say hello to everyone here. At one time in life I was a very active member when I had more free time. With a growing business, you are forced to do less of what you love and more management, accounting, expansion strategies, etc. Add to this, 3 teenagers and a wife who says she isn't "high maintenance" but we all know better....... : )

Since Steve has not commented on these images and we have a trade show (Imaging USA) beginning today in Atlanta, I thought that I should step in and explain a few things.

1) We decided to shoot a location with extreme contrast. We wanted daylight and continuous internal light. We wanted to show an image that was not perfect, as most of our shooting situations are not as controlled as the tests that I have seen from multiple sources. This location gave us the severe situation where I would really need to lean on the Dynamic Range of the camera capturing it.

2) We pushed the system and captured outside of the image circle on many of the shift and fall images. These images are NOT the perfect shooting scenario. I would not push it this far if I wanted to create the most perfect image for reproduction. But this is what we wanted to do. You get "perfect" images form the manufacturer. You get images from other sources that you really can't make judgements due to tight control of any result where they system might fail. These images show you what is under the hood. These images show you what this system can and can't do.

3) The one area I would have changed in hindsight: As the sun dropped in the day, we did not adjust the exposure accordingly. Some of the later shots are under-exposed more than I would have preferred. We will change this on the next test.

I am not a scientist nor claim to be. I don't claim to be the "smartest man in the room" nor want anyone to think that. CI is a straight and honest company trying to give our customers the most unbiased knowledge and information that you can get in the marketplace. With that said, have fun with the images. I do not agree that you can't make proper deductions from this test. In fact, I think that you can get more real world info from this test instead.

And let me finish with my appreciation of this forum, its members, and our esteemed moderators. My lack of posts do not represent how I feel about this incredible source of information and group of individuals.

Dave Gallagher
CEO, Capture Integration
 
V

voidshatter

Member
GrahamWelland said:
To a certain degree I'm pleased to see the shadow recovery images as it matches my approach to shooting with the IQ150. TBH the dynamic range of that sensor is pretty unbelievable anyways and if the IQ3 100 is the same or better then it is truly the solution that I think most people have been looking for.
Click to expand...
Dave Gallagher said:
1) We decided to shoot a location with extreme contrast. We wanted daylight and continuous internal light. We wanted to show an image that was not perfect, as most of our shooting situations are not as controlled as the tests that I have seen from multiple sources. This location gave us the severe situation where I would really need to lean on the Dynamic Range of the camera capturing it.
Click to expand...
I believe shadow recovery (dynamic range) is one of the selling point of this Sony CMOS sensor. A really great sensor! (And thanks to CI and Dave for the tests as well as sharing the RAW files!)

I assume that this was shot at the same aperture right?

Edit: by more fine calculations, in your tests the IQ3100 was 0.58 stops brighter than the IQ280 (where you used the same shutter speed), and in my tests the IQ3100 was 0.41 stops darker than the IQ380 (where I doubled the shutter speed of the IQ3100). Considering the changing light conditions I think these are within reasonable margin.

As a side note, I also noticed some additional degree of chromatic aberration on the IQ3100 (same as observed in my tests). Perhaps this can be fixed by a future Capture One.

56.JPG
 
Last edited:
J

jagsiva

Active member
Thanks again CI. Any comparisons of the two CCD backs with 32HR or 40HR?

Just need to wait now for 9.0.3!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top