IQ3 100 VS IQ 180 test comparison

[Dan Santoso]

Hello All,

I had my XF/3100 a few days ago. Before I buy, one of the question I asked was how difference is it from 180. I attended the 3100 launch and my experience was the red saturation was higher than 180. But DT skin tone samples show that they are very similar. So here i am doing my own test.

Today I borrowed my friend df/180 and did a simple test against 3100.

Both was in tripod with timer and MUP. 3100 with 80mm LS Blue ring, DF with 80mm LS. Focus on center point of the frame. 3100: IIQ S, 180: IIQ L








RAW files @ https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bgav4785mp4po5f/AAA_SkCMJe6XMZrs3vYucTxaa?dl=0 (still uploading)

The result: I find both back somehow similar. 3100 has more saturation in red. The yellow/green trees in the test looks more pleasant in the 180 than 3100. Also I dont find the 3100 have big advantage in dynamic range over 180, looks almost similar. The 3100 suppose to be 2.5 stops better than 180. Anyone else can comment on DR?

Hope to see your feedback here.


Thanks,
Dan

 

[Christopher]

Did not have much time to look at the raw files. However, one question come to mind. WHY? Would you ever want to shoot the IQ3100 at IIQs?

I'm asking as I had both an IQ180 and 350 and there was a huge difference in dynamic range. ( as it was between the d800 and the IQ180)

 

[dougpeterson]

How are you measuring dynamic range? The default curve of each will only use part of the dynamic range captured - otherwise the *default* look in c1 of both would be unflatteringly flat.

Quality of shadows and highlights *with* adjustments is where you should see a difference.

For *best* results the iq3 100mp should be used at iso50 using the clipping warning to set exposure (an option on the iq3 which is different than the standard exposure warning tools of other cameras) and using IIQ-L 16 bit format. Obviously you can get very *good* results without following any of those three options - this is just for those that want to push image quality to the absolute max.

 

[Dan Santoso]

Halo,

First of all I forgot to use the 16 bit mode. Is it a big difference that actually you can see visual differences?

Doug I judge DR based on the shadow details because it usually the hardest to fix is PS. In this article about Leica ccd vs cmos:

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

you can see the shadow in cmos is lighter, so It helps me to differentiate from the CCD counterpart. Those shots are without any manipulation and you and see difference from the shadow alone.

In case of my test, I don't see the DR difference based on the photos only. I can see the difference based on the red saturation.
Why do we need to push and pull in order to get 15 DR, coming from ccd to cmos? The capture should have the information without editing. You said we can get it without the methods, but my test says otherwise.

 

[Christopher]

Just a quick example. If you have a bright light source in your image. Or the sun near it with some clouds. You can expose for the bright object. This will result in the rest being under exposed. Then you can pull back information to the shadows with capture one. Here the IQ3100 or D800 is vastly superior to the IQ180.

Hope this explains it a little.

 

[Dan Santoso]

Yes thanks. I understand how to expose to right and i agree you can pull/push greater information in 3100 than 180.

I just expect 2.5 stop better DR to be visually visible without the pull n push method.

 

[mjr]

Morning

I'll admit to not really understanding your test but then I don't have to, if you are happy with it then that's all that matters, a few comments though..

When I had the Leica S 006 and 007 shooting side by side, on normal scenes, at base ISO they looked very similar but I noticed the histogram on the 006 was usually full and on the 007 it would be nowhere near clipping on either end which meant I had loads more room, I have no idea if the same is true on the 180/3100 combination, I found that I could do much more with the 007 but that wasn't necessarily a benefit, if the "look" I wanted from an image was perfectly doable on the ccd sensor then having the ability to push further with the cmos made no difference to me, I really don't like shadows opened up massively but that is a personal thing.

The cmos difference for me came with higher iso/lower light, where I was perfectly happy with base iso and ccd, still am with the IQ260 I have now but as light drops, the cmos really stretched its legs and I found it much easier to get the look I want with the cmos.

For me, the only way to test 2 cameras against each other is to shoot and process a scene how I want it to look and then see which performs better, opening at default settings in C1 tells me very little if that default setting doesn't give me the image I want, but we are all different. If I had access to a 3100 and was testing against the IQ260 I have then I'd shoot a variety of scenes at different light levels, not expecting much difference at base but expecting to see more difference as light drops, then I'd work out if the increased ability at lower light was an actual benefit and if not, then relax and have a beer with the cash I'd saved! There are obvious differences to the 3100 over the 180 like ability to use live view if that matters to you, it doesn't to me but to some it does, the ability to shoot hand held at ISO800 and have decent results where with the 180 it might need a tripod and lower ISO, could be a big benefit to some. I know with the S that I got a huge amount of shots with the cmos 007 that wouldn't have been possible with the ccd 006 but it didn't change the fact that as base iso the 006 is/was superb.

Anyway, like I said, it's your test so nobody else has to get it.

Have a good day.

Mat

 

[etrump]

I don't use tests such as yours to test the capability of the back so cannot comment on that specificially.

I can tell you switching from IQ180 to IQ3100 for me was a huge gain in terms of real world dynamic range, color quality and ISO capabilities. (Already have nearly 12,000 exposures in 6 countries with the 3100). Shots I would have had to blend I am not, I find it holds the detail and color of the highlights to a substantial degree. Quality of shadows is also much better so bringing them up a stop or two is still very clean.

If the back doesn't show totally blown highlights the detail and color is there even when exposed over 255 in one channel. (Some C1 magic involved as well I suppose). I used to set my highlight warning to 248 on the 180 but have switched it to 254 on the 3100. Not much but it makes a huge difference in real-world shooting. Scenes with extreme light range that I could have never handled with one exposure on the 180 are amazingly captured with the IQ3100. Never had that with the IQ180 and used it for more than 5 years (over 300,000 exposures).

I find I am doing much less to the images to get what I consider optimal image in terms of color, IQ, and clarity.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for sharing!

For me, it would be very hard to draw any conclusions from these. What I would normally do would be is to check exposure to see how far off it is from ETTR using RawDigger and than look at the darks for noise. I this case RawDigger cannot open the IIQs file from the IQ3100. I can export the file as DNG from Capture One, but I don't know if that image is still raw than. The exported DNG from the IQ3100 is 0.5 step below ETTR.

I think that you have a bit of smog when shooting, so sky is washed out?

The darks are just something like 9EV below saturation, so the it is not very demanding for DR.

The IQ3100 seems to be more saturated using default settings in C1, but I don't pretend to be an experienced C1 user.

Best regards
Erik

Hello All,

I had my XF/3100 a few days ago. Before I buy, one of the question I asked was how difference is it from 180. I attended the 3100 launch and my experience was the red saturation was higher than 180. But DT skin tone samples show that they are very similar. So here i am doing my own test.

Today I borrowed my friend df/180 and did a simple test against 3100.

Both was in tripod with timer and MUP. 3100 with 80mm LS Blue ring, DF with 80mm LS. Focus on center point of the frame. 3100: IIQ S, 180: IIQ L








RAW files @ https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bgav4785mp4po5f/AAA_SkCMJe6XMZrs3vYucTxaa?dl=0 (still uploading)

The result: I find both back somehow similar. 3100 has more saturation in red. The yellow/green trees in the test looks more pleasant in the 180 than 3100. Also I dont find the 3100 have big advantage in dynamic range over 180, looks almost similar. The 3100 suppose to be 2.5 stops better than 180. Anyone else can comment on DR?

Hope to see your feedback here.


Thanks,
Dan

 

[Dan Santoso]

Thanks all for the feedback. I agree that 3100 will perform much better while i have the chance to do real shoot and have challenging lighting situation. I still have much to learn as I only do a test so far.

I just expect that it will show out of the box without any adjustment. With 15 stop of dynamic range, the shadow should be lighter and the highlight less blown out. The tonal area from 0 to 255 should be more compress to give wider DR, so I want to see it in the image directly. Our eyes for example have like 20 DR so we see the details and highlight the camera can't see and capture.

In the next few year when MDF'S DR increase to 18 stop for example, do we expect the shots to have similar DR from IQ 3 100 out of the box? The newer camera now blown away the camera from ages ago, better sharpness, gradation, color tonality, 3D, clarity, micro contrast and many more, and you can see the improvement out of the box. 180 was introduced 2011, and out of the box it shows similar DR to the 3100, 5 year later. The most improvements IQ wise, i can see straight visually from the 3100 are the high iso and details.

i am not a camera engineer and I don't know how it works but is it wrong to expect better DR straight from the capture without any adjustment. Why the 2.5 stop advantage needs to be adjusted before it will show. Why 180 and 3100 behave very similar? Is it because the lighting was not very challenging? will i have different result in more contrast scenario? Was my test wrong? if yes please tell me how to do a correct one.

Phase one: Hey try this IQ3 100 it has 15 stops of DR, the best in the market.

Me: Oh really wow thats a big improvement over my old 180, let me try.......wait it looks similar to my 180, what happen?

Phase one: No it has 2.5 stop better DR, you just need to shoot over expose and no need to worry about blown highlight, very easy to recover. You can also push the shadow much better, in the end after some adjustment it will be 15 stop of DR. You can't do this with the 180.

Me: okay........

Just my 2 cent.

Dan

 

[mjr]

Dan

I think you need a more challenging scene to test against, it looks like the dynamic range of the scenes you shot were handled well enough by the 180 so the 3100 is not likely to show more DR if the scene itself doesn't have it. The differences will be seen if you shoot something that falls outside of the 180's capabilities, something with brighter lights and deeper darks. I also think you need to be shooting the 3100 at its maximum capabilities, 16bit, full size raw etc.

Mat

 

[Oren Grad]

I just expect that it will show out of the box without any adjustment....The tonal area from 0 to 255 should be more compress to give wider DR, so I want to see it in the image directly.

To follow up on what Doug said, there's no such thing as "out of the box without any adjustment" so far as the back itself is concerned. You never "see the image directly". The file - the data captured by the sensor - is necessarily always processed in some way to enable you to view it. In this case you're viewing the file through the settings of your raw converter, so what you're judging is the settings in your raw converter, not the inherent capability of the back.

 

[torger]

The improvement is there. Many independent tech heads have analyzed the files, so the DR is there, assuming you enable 16 bit mode.

The DR is expanded by digging further into the shadows, so if you instead want more highlight headroom you need to under-expose and push the exposure in post. Then it will show, but keep in mind that the IQ180 is not exactly bad.

A good print/screen can still only show relatively few stops of dynamic range. We apply an S-curve contrast (the "film curve") to simulate higher dynamic range and get a pleasing look. If this is the only thing you do, which for good reasons is the default when you open an image in a raw converter, an old-school "noisy" CCD and have enough range to make an image with very high technical quality.

The new levels of dynamic range we see today require post-processing with grad filters, dodge-and-burn or highlight/shadow compression (HDR style) to show.

The IQ3100 allows you to shoot a landscape with a bright sky without a grad filter, just underexpose to not blow the highlights, and apply a virtual grad-filter in post. With my old-school CCD I still use a real grad filter in these situations, I don't mind much though it's quite fun to use. Personally I think the race for DR is much exaggerated, but it depends on shooting style how useful it is to you of course.

 

[dougpeterson]

In the next few year when MDF'S DR increase to 18 stop for example, do we expect the shots to have similar [rendering] from IQ 3 100 out of the box?

Correct. I would expect the default rendering would be the same.

In both cases the *default* processing will purposefully use only some of the range captured. Otherwise the default rendering of the raw file with 18 stops of image would be extremely flat in a way that most photographers would find visually unappealing.

You may be happier changing the default of [Base Characteristics -> Curve] to [Linear] so that C1 is not adding contrast to the image.

As you go from cameras with very low dynamic ranges to cameras with moderate dynamic range it is desirable to see that dynamic range manifest in the default rendering. As you go to a camera with very high dynamic range it is no longer desirable to have that extra dynamic range shown in the default rendering (as the image would become visually very flat). Instead that extra dynamic range is held in reserve, used when you push/pull, grad filter, highlight/shadow recover, or local dodge and burn.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I mostly agree with what Torger says and this is, unfortunately, another case of that…

I had a similar experience when going from Sony A900 to Sony A99. The A99 has a significant advantage in DR but it took me 4-6 months to find a case that demonstrated it in real world and that was duping a Velvia slide.

Almost any camera CCD or CMOS have ample DR for most things we do. Lens flare is also a factor, lenses have significant flare that may limit luminance range at the sensor to say 9-11 EV.

Shoot a scene like this, exposing for the windows and lifting the darks, this will challenge dynamic range.

Best regards
Erik

The improvement is there. Many independent tech heads have analyzed the files, so the DR is there, assuming you enable 16 bit mode.

The DR is expanded by digging further into the shadows, so if you instead want more highlight headroom you need to under-expose and push the exposure in post. Then it will show, but keep in mind that the IQ180 is not exactly bad.

A good print/screen can still only show relatively few stops of dynamic range. We apply an S-curve contrast (the "film curve") to simulate higher dynamic range and get a pleasing look. If this is the only thing you do, which for good reasons is the default when you open an image in a raw converter, an old-school "noisy" CCD and have enough range to make an image with very high technical quality.

The new levels of dynamic range we see today require post-processing with grad filters, dodge-and-burn or highlight/shadow compression (HDR style) to show.

The IQ3100 allows you to shoot a landscape with a bright sky without a grad filter, just underexpose to not blow the highlights, and apply a virtual grad-filter in post. With my old-school CCD I still use a real grad filter in these situations, I don't mind much though it's quite fun to use. Personally I think the race for DR is much exaggerated, but it depends on shooting style how useful it is to you of course.

 

[Dan Santoso]

Thanks Doug. Your explanation nails it

Correct. I would expect the default rendering would be the same.

In both cases the *default* processing will purposefully use only some of the range captured. Otherwise the default rendering of the raw file with 18 stops of image would be extremely flat in a way that most photographers would find visually unappealing.

You may be happier changing the default of [Base Characteristics -> Curve] to [Linear] so that C1 is not adding contrast to the image.

As you go from cameras with very low dynamic ranges to cameras with moderate dynamic range it is desirable to see that dynamic range manifest in the default rendering. As you go to a camera with very high dynamic range it is no longer desirable to have that extra dynamic range shown in the default rendering (as the image would become visually very flat). Instead that extra dynamic range is held in reserve, used when you push/pull, grad filter, highlight/shadow recover, or local dodge and burn.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Dan,

The sample below demonstrates that the IQ3100 has an advantage in noise in dark areas. The images were developed in C1 with exposure pushed 1.6 EV and noise reduction set to zero. Check out the area around the "Taxi" sign.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Doug. Your explanation nails it

 

[torger]

It can be noted that even with noise reduction set to zero there's a substantial noise reduction active. Hasselblad's Phocus does the same, noise reduction can't be turned off completely. I don't know about Lightroom. In RawTherapee you can view a file truly without noise reduction if one wants to see the "truth", should be said though that demosaicing algorithm and even camera profile can affect how apparent noise becomes.

When used to how noise reduction algorithms look it's quite easy to see that the taxi sign has been chroma noise reduced. Personally I prefer to keep the noise in as I think the "digital pastel look" from noise reduction is worse than some chroma noise, especially at normal viewing distances, but to do that one have to use a third-party raw converter and I know my dislike of noise reduction is not that common.

The noise-reduction-that-can't-be-turned-off has been very effective at making people think that the CCDs are less noisy than they actually are, and thus over-estimating their dynamic range. The dark shadows one look at for testing are typically black-ish and thus one does not really detect that you see dull dead pastel colors from noise reduction in that range.

To really make a full evaluation of dynamic range one should evaluate the color performance in the shadows too. I haven't done that myself but I suspect that even the IQ3 100MP would be a bit hurt by this as the dynamic range gain is not so much from increased full well capacity (as far as I know, I may be wrong...), but from reduced sensor read noise. If you don't capture much photons colors will suffer. In the future we will see non-linear sensors that allows higher exposure without clipping highlights and I think that will be a real revolution in dynamic range, as we then also will have well-exposed shadows.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Anders,

Good info as usual. Very good point on DR and high ISO capability coming mostly from lowering readout noise. On the other hand I also think there is some increase in FWC (Full Well Capacity) going on.

I would say that all sensors can give great DR if properly used.

There is a lot of hype around MFD sensors. It will be interesting how MFD vendors will handle mainstream CMOS technology. Will they underexpose in order of protecting highlights, giving up on a lot of SNR capability in the midtones? Or, will they opt for ETTR, maximising SNR ration and allowing for shadow recovery?

I have noted that they have 16-bit colour. Is that colour still around in 15 bit processing by Photoshop?

Interesting times to live in…

Best regards
Erik

It can be noted that even with noise reduction set to zero there's a substantial noise reduction active. Hasselblad's Phocus does the same, noise reduction can't be turned off completely. I don't know about Lightroom. In RawTherapee you can view a file truly without noise reduction if one wants to see the "truth", should be said though that demosaicing algorithm and even camera profile can affect how apparent noise becomes.

When used to how noise reduction algorithms look it's quite easy to see that the taxi sign has been chroma noise reduced. Personally I prefer to keep the noise in as I think the "digital pastel look" from noise reduction is worse than some chroma noise, especially at normal viewing distances, but to do that one have to use a third-party raw converter and I know my dislike of noise reduction is not that common.

The noise-reduction-that-can't-be-turned-off has been very effective at making people think that the CCDs are less noisy than they actually are, and thus over-estimating their dynamic range. The dark shadows one look at for testing are typically black-ish and thus one does not really detect that you see dull dead pastel colors from noise reduction in that range.

To really make a full evaluation of dynamic range one should evaluate the color performance in the shadows too. I haven't done that myself but I suspect that even the IQ3 100MP would be a bit hurt by this as the dynamic range gain is not so much from increased full well capacity (as far as I know, I may be wrong...), but from reduced sensor read noise. If you don't capture much photons colors will suffer. In the future we will see non-linear sensors that allows higher exposure without clipping highlights and I think that will be a real revolution in dynamic range, as we then also will have well-exposed shadows.

 

[voidshatter]

Hello All,
Also I dont find the 3100 have big advantage in dynamic range over 180, looks almost similar. The 3100 suppose to be 2.5 stops better than 180. Anyone else can comment on DR?

These are the dynamic range I measured:

You could see a huge difference when you do long exposure. You may find my thread here.