IQ3 100mp - some thoughts.

[satybhat]

Howdy from down under… Some Melbournians here… would love to catch up sometime.

Not sure if the back really merits a thread of its own; personally, I think it is more of an evolution than a revolution.
My first thoughts were: how would it compare, ie. IQ3100 vs IQ280 / 380? - my primary interest being tech cameras.

Over the last few hours, I’ve been playing with the tech cam files so kindly provided by Doug et al. Man, gotta praise you guys over the level of customer engagement you’ve created here. Folks down under could learn a thing or two….just saying.

I was pleasantly surprised that the files from IQ3 100 quite closely match with the IQ280, albeit with minor adjustments. One might ask, why bother. Well, I thought since I have been a long term fan of the CCD sensors (tonality, render, microcontrast, 3d-look-whatever-that-is) this might be a good opportunity to actually do some real world comparison.. (before making the move :too cool: ). Fact is that I recently sold my IQ280 last year to fund other things and have been groaning in pain ever since. Now that I happen to be in a position to move in again, just thought how the backs would compare.. it happens that at base iso, they are quite comparable actually.

Any real world experiences with the new 100MP here?

Some test shots at high ISOs. All at iso 6400 .. Oh my !!!!

Thanks,

 

[dougpeterson]

Over the last few hours, I’ve been playing with the tech cam files so kindly provided by Doug et al. Man, gotta praise you guys over the level of customer engagement you’ve created here.

You're very welcome. It's a great pleasure to our testing and reports used across the world. I only lived in Australia for three months, but it was a country that worked its way into my heart forever.

Congratulations on your new system. It's a beast!

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Well, I've just completed 1,000 exposures with my IQ3 100 (All in Australia as it happens - my back arrived the day before I left for Sydney so I took the risk of taking untried gear with me. No regrets at all - though I guess I should say no worries!)

A few observations. Although there is theoretically not much resolution difference between my former IQ 380, the IQ 100 seems to give finer detail. Probably subjective because I haven't tested side-by-side as my 380 was traded in.

High ISO is remarkable. Because I do a lot of hand-held shooting (birds, kangaroos!) I've been using ISO 400-1600 quite freely and the results are hard to distinguish from lower ISOs.

Batteries last much longer - because it's CMOS I guess.

Anyway, not great art (I'll post some serious stuff when I get home) but here's an idea of the resolution. First is the full frame, ISO 400, f6.3, SK 120 Macro. Second is 100% crop.

 

[Paul2660]

Hello Bill,

thanks for the posts.

I was curious, what are your feelings on the DOF with the new 100MP? Do you find it a lot shallower than with your 380 or 180? Also have you used the 100MP with lenses at F11 or higher? If so do you find an increase in diffraction issues?

Paul C

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Paul, I haven't noticed any difference in DOF, nor diffraction, but I haven't been looking yet! This is because I'm travelling with a MacBook and don't want to judge too much until I get home to a properly calibrated "big" screen. If I judge by the focus aid on the 100 back then there is no appreciable difference.

I'll take a look when I can compare some IQ 100 shots with previous 380 shots, but I doubt I'll find any significant difference.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[kimyeesan]

Hello Bill,

thanks for the posts.

I was curious, what are your feelings on the DOF with the new 100MP? Do you find it a lot shallower than with your 380 or 180? Also have you used the 100MP with lenses at F11 or higher? If so do you find an increase in diffraction issues?

Paul C

Why would it be different? The sensor size is the same as the IQ380 or 280......

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Keeping in mind I cannot do direct comparisons, given that I've traded the 380, I'd say that subjectively I can find no material difference in either diffraction issues or resolution - though I think I can discern a tad more resolution in the 100. (As one should, of course.)

I find most of my lenses (SK35, 55, 80 and 120) work best at f5.6 - f8, with a very tiny degradation at f11. Even so, I tend to shoot at f11 most of the time for my subjects because my need for DOF exceeds my concern with slight diffraction errors. F16, however, definitely shows the effects of diffraction and I use it only when I have to.

My 28 mm Mamiya is really only good at f11. The SK 240 I almost always use wide open; I've not looked at smaller apertures so can't comment.

On balance, I think you'll find that whatever your lens does on the 380 will be duplicated on the 100. I'll be very interested to hear if other users agree.