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!

IQ3 100MP owners/users impressions

Chipcarterdc

New member
Nothing new of substance to add except to say to Dave Chew:

Two IQ100 owners from northeast Ohio, woohoo! I'm from Cleveland (although I now live in Pittsburgh).

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.... :)
 

Jamgolf

Member
Plus I've been consumed by a winning team (Go Cavs!). :grin: :chug:
Congrats on the new back. It sounds like you are satisfied and looks like you are putting it to good use.
More importantly congrats to NE Ohio on first victory in half a century :)
 

Jamgolf

Member
Those of you using the IQ3-100 on a technical camera, what are your observations vis-à-vis shifts with your tech lenses.
Any concerns or disappointments?
Can you please list the maximum acceptable shift (in your judgement) for each of your lenses?
 
Last edited:
Those of you using the IQ3-100 on a technical camera, what are your observations vis-à-vis shifts with your tech lenses.
Any concerns or disappointments?
Can you please list the maximum accptable shift (in your judgement) for each of your lenses?
I had a thread about detailed testing results: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...cast-mazing-artifact-tiling-issue-dr-etc.html

To sum up in short:

The most concern and worst case stress test is mazing artifact when shooting under narrow band light source conditions (e.g. white wall indoors) and the sensor is shifted in the direction along its shorter edge.

23HR: 5mm up to be mazing-free (but this lens isn't supposed to be shifted on a fullframe sensor)

40HR: 15mm up to be mazing-free

75XL: to be tested, but I don't expect any problem with this lens.
 

dchew

Well-known member
In general, for my purposes the acceptable shift is the same as my IQ180. I tested them both together a few months ago before I traded in the 180.

40hr: 12-15mm. Note I very rarely shift the 40hr but I did test it.

60xl: 18mm. The shot above was 18mm.* I am very pleased with how the back handles this lens. The LCC seems to correct all cast with no desaturation. Note I use the center filter. Larger shifts might be possible but I would have to buy another camera to find out. :loco:

90hrsw: >18 mm. May not require an LCC for some shots.

Sk150: > 18mm. LCC for snow only.

Dave

*It is cropped slightly, but only for "artistic" reasons. The sky was very even out to the edge.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Thanks for the contributions so far.
I am curious about IQ3-100's live view. By all accounts its much better than the CCD backs but is it good enough to judge critical focus without tethering to surface pro or to an hdmi monitor? Or do owners still carry a Surface Pro?
Also, does relying on live view exclusively mean that you now need to carry 10 extra batteries?
Used my new back for the first time on a shoot a couple of days ago. Took my arca swiss system. As one who was pretty adept at using Live View focusing on the IQ180 and 380, I think focusing on the back works fine, but it is dependent on your eyes. Mine are pretty good for a 62 year old, but I always carry a strong pair of cheap reading glasses and and it's pretty helpful being able to get really close to the screen when focusing. Live View focusing on this back is a real game changer for me. I also like having the useable option of ISO's more than 35, after testing I feel up to 200 won't be an issue at all, 400 is still good and even 800 might be useable depending on the scene.

Live View focusing on this back is quick and accurate, I don't think the batteries will be an issue because you aren't in live view for long. ON the tech camera I also use live view for composition, and I also have WiFi turned on. In the two hours I was shooting I used the equivalent of about 1 battery worth of power. Granted I'm not a prolific shooter, but on the image below I was waiting for about 45 minutes capturing various frames to try and get enough data to stack and get rid of the people coming down the ladder. So the back and wifi were on for all of that time.

Regarding the surface pro, I think with this back there are better alternatives. In my case I used capture pilot on my iPhone 6s+. Screen plenty big enough, easy to zoom into 100% and focus the camera. I also like that even though the camera was about 18" off the ground, I was standing next to it composing and focusing. Since I was in the middle of a stream it was nice not to have to kneel down in the water to see the back.


Arca Swiss rm3di, Rodenstock 40mm lens, 4 seconds at f/11.5, iso 50
 

Jamgolf

Member
Thanks everyone for some fantastic feedback so far. Lets keep it coming.

In the past couple of weeks I have been reading IQ3-100 user feedback in blogs, forums, reviews - even some direct communication with owners. It is very interesting to observe that not a single user has overly emphasized the resolution-gain going from 60/80 to 100 megapixels. Detail/resolution gain is noticeable but my point is that no one has emphasized it as the main benefit.

I'll try to summarize the feedback so far...
++ Every single owner has said live-view is a game changer for achieving critical focus
++ Ability to shoot up to ISO 400 without much thought is a game changer

Other positives…
+Much improved dynamic range
+Smoother color transitions and better color out of the box
+Significantly improved wifi
+Decent amounts of shift/rise/fall are possible after LCC corrections in C1
+Long exposures
+Better print quality
+Detail/resolution

Not very positive(s)…
~dark frame disabling
~Shadow noise not as stellar as some had hoped

Negatives...
-none (well may be price)

New/unusual workflow improvement possibilities...
+SmallHD with sidefinder view via HDMI out sounds intriguing (no reflections in bright/daylight)
+iPhone 6S+ via wifi as a vaible alternative to Surface Pro
 
Last edited:
Not very positive(s)…
~dark frame disabling
~Shadow noise not as stellar as some had hoped

Negatives...
-none (well may be price)
Hi, I think you have perhaps misunderstood (or have been misled by) some previous posts.

Indeed being able to disable darkframe NR on the IQ3 100MP is an advantage. This is because you don't get severely degraded image quality as if you disable darkframe NR on a CCD digital back.

Shadow noise is also a great improvement over the CCD as this is the key fact of greatly improved dynamic range.

Regarding price, yes this is perhaps one of the most deal-breaking negatives - Pentax may well use the same sensor for a much cheaper camera body ruining the pride of Phase One and Hasselblad. Another disadvantage may be the size and weight when you compare it against a Hasselblad X1D (but maybe the oversized design of the IQ3 100MP digital back keeps the sensor cool for long exposure).
 

Jamgolf

Member
Hi, I think you have perhaps misunderstood (or have been misled by) some previous posts.
Indeed being able to disable darkframe NR on the IQ3 100MP is an advantage.
You are right, being able to disable darkframe is an advantage.
I was trying to document Paul's concern but it's poor choice of words on my part.
What I should have said is "inability to disable dark frame when using XF" instead of saying "dark frame disabling".

Regarding shadow noise, I put it in neutral zone because I've read some comments where user/owner perhaps had much higher expectations and in relation to their lofty expectations the shadow noise was not as good as they had hoped. That might differ from your opinion, but I just did not want to put it under "positives" just because its not unanimously positive so I put it under "not so positive(s)".

Since I have no opinion on the matter myself, my intention is to simply consolidate the user feedback to a concise readable form.
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
Dark Frame, can be only disable via Aerial mode, which only works on a Aerial camera or tech camera, thus for DF, DF+, or XF users, this is a considerable concern. NET, all other brands allow the USER to make the decision to turn this on or off. It's also safe to assume that other companies trust that the user in knowledgeable to understand:

a. what this is
b. that you might not get a clean a frame as with it on, however the user is willing to make that decision

Noise at higher ISO's.

It could be better, at least to my eyes. I had hoped to see ISO 400 and 800 at least on par with the most current DSLR offering from Nikon or mirrorless from Sony. I see 400 as improved greatly and very useable, 800, not so sure.

However both of these ISO's do show vast improvement of the equivalent CCD, from the IQ260 or IQ380, as one would expect, but I don't see them on par with other modern CMOS chips of smaller size (again surprising to me). The one area that does stand out as a positive for me is the ability of said ISO's to hold much better color range and saturation, which the CCD backs never could do.

Very pleased however that the highlights at 100 and 200 (ISO) have quite a bit of leverage.

Paul C
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Dark Frame, can be only disable via Aerial mode, which only works on a Aerial camera or tech camera, thus for DF, DF+, or XF users, this is a considerable concern. NET, all other brands allow the USER to make the decision to turn this on or off. It's also safe to assume that other companies trust that the user in knowledgeable to understand:

a. what this is
b. that you might not get a clean a frame as with it on, however the user is willing to make that decision

Noise at higher ISO's.

It could be better, at least to my eyes. I had hoped to see ISO 400 and 800 at least on par with the most current DSLR offering from Nikon or mirrorless from Sony. I see 400 as improved greatly and very useable, 800, not so sure.

However both of these ISO's do show vast improvement of the equivalent CCD, from the IQ260 or IQ380, as one would expect, but I don't see them on par with other modern CMOS chips of smaller size (again surprising to me). The one area that does stand out as a positive for me is the ability of said ISO's to hold much better color range and saturation, which the CCD backs never could do.

Very pleased however that the highlights at 100 and 200 (ISO) have quite a bit of leverage.

Paul C
Re noise at higher ISOs. I recognize we all have our own standards as to what is acceptable. I find ISO 800 eminently usable for what I do, and ISO 1600 is entirely acceptable when I have to go there.

When I first got the IQ3 100 I did a series of shots at all ISOs and then printed them to 36 inches wide (my most often "sold" print size). Using my Canon IPF printer, I could discern virtually no difference IN PRINT between ISO 400 and 800, and even 1600 was not at all a problem.

Of course, I'm talking only of noise and not DR, which is less at high ISOs. Just my 2C worth.
 

Jamgolf

Member
I've used my IQ3-100 for a couple of months now, on a couple of road trips under varying lighting conditions, and here is my real world feedback and my answers to my own original questions:

Has it affected your photography? If it has, how so?
Yes it has - quite positively. My keeper rate has gone up considerably. My confidence in being able to pull off certain shots has increased. I am also venturing into the types of photographs which I previously considered somewhat futile, since I know this digital back is far more capable.

In what areas (important to you) does it improve upon your prior digital back?
IQ3-100's far better low-light/high-ISO performance has opened up many many more photographic opportunities. Being able to use faster shutter speeds in windy conditions, or longer exposures at night have really changed my approach and results I'm getting are exceeding my expectations.
I have also stopped carrying my Surface Pro with me, since I consider the excellent live view to be sufficient. I still like to use the Surface Pro, just that it is far more convenient to not have to carry it, therefore I use it mainly at home when I am experimenting/learning.

Has the upgrade been worth while for your photography?
Absolutely. I was very nervous about this, but I am absolutely satisfied with the decision.

Anything else you've learned or have come to appreciate/dislike about the back?
I think the files are just extremely malleable. I have been surprised by the amount of pushing around I can do and the degree to which the files hold up. This has probably been the biggest surprise for me. I also have been quite positively surprised by the battery life. My 32HR has been my go-to lens and I am quite happy with the 10mm rise/fall/shifts that I do for almost every single shot. LCC cleans up the files beautifully and this has been a really pleasant outcome for me.

I basically concur with what everyone else said already, but wanted to share my thoughts as well for future prospective buyers.
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
Odds are that there must be some considerable variances between IQ100's.

I personally don't see much improvement in DR over my CCD at base ISO, sorry, I wish I could say I did. I expected much more shadow recovery, then what I am seeing. Net 1 stop Max and many times not even 1 stop. This is at 50 and 100 (as they are pretty much the same from what I have read).

Was expecting to see more recovery like the Nikon D810 has, 2.5 stops at 64 ISO, fully useable. Not the case with my back, however as others are reporting that it can be done, I will assume that once I again, I more than likely purchased a bit early on the curve?

What I do see is that when exposed correctly, higher iso in the 200 to 800 range is very useable. By exposed correctly, I just mean not much push if anything slightly overexposed. This gives a very useable image. But push a 200 to 800 shot, can't be done way too much noise.

The CCD backs I have used even in good light still showed considerable saturation loss and some details lost in the 200 to 800 range. Unless sensor plus was in use.

I basically expose to the left with this back, as my back seems to recover highlights much forgivingly than pushing up shadows.

There is good comparison on LuLa by Wayne Fox showing a push from ISO 50, and the details,color, saturation that he still has, I can't get there with mine, as I have mightly tried. So odds are some fine tuning has been done since the first back.

Paul C
 

Jamgolf

Member
Tuning/tweaking of the backs after initial release could possibly be a factor, however I wonder if it could be to that significant degree.
It could also be a matter of 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder' i.e. what looks great to one person might feel lacking to another.
I am after all not a pro, so my thoughts/opinions/enthusiasm should be consumed with a grain of salt :)

To me, the highlight recovery seems very smooth and natural (improved) and the file does not look blotchy or posterized. Shadow recovery is a bit of a learning-process. I had a photo a couple of days ago where I recovered the words PRADA out of complete and pitch black darkness. But there have been other times when I thought I'd be able to do some shadow recovery, which I did, but then did not quite like the final outcome.

Maybe some of the characteristics can/will be improved via firmware updates or Capture One updates.
 
Last edited:

Christopher

Active member
I can do an addition test soon, but from my experience the IQ3100 has a LOT more DR compared to my IQ180. I don't want to say that the Iq180 has no shadow recovery, however, compared to the IQ3100 it really feels that way.

Paul when did you get your back ? I got mine in March.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I can do an addition test soon, but from my experience the IQ3100 has a LOT more DR compared to my IQ180. I don't want to say that the Iq180 has no shadow recovery, however, compared to the IQ3100 it really feels that way.

Paul when did you get your back ? I got mine in March.
Hi Chris.

I received it in Mid to late April.

Paul C
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Paul...... you did pique my interest with your post. I underexposed a 200 iso file by 3.5 stops and although there was some noise it was easily a very usable file. I have a habit of exposing slightly to the left as I hate anything blown out so I'm used to pusheing slightly. I certainly wouldn't be in the habit of pushing any file 3.5 stops..... my usual push is under 1 stop. If I were to use higher iso's then I would be much more careful with exposure. The highest iso I usually use is 400 and then sparingly. I usually always shoot at 100. Love the back, love my Actus, love my Schneider lenses..... life is good - all 14.5 lbs of it.

Victor
 

algrove

Well-known member
Personally I find the files extremely flexile when working in C1. One can push the sliders all over the place without a problem. As I am just getting used to C1, I find using it not as difficult as I thought it might be. Sure I go over the PS6 from time to time, but images taken with my old Pentax 645Z from same locations are inferior to these files as they should be considering the expenditure. But then again I have easily had this much tied up in Leica M bodies and glass with 1/4 the resolution to work with, not to mention way less DR.

Glad I made the switch, however getting used to 5 lenses plus XF+100 in a back pack is the main problem I am having, but at over 70 I just keep on trekking and never look back. I am having fun again and my keepers seem to be plentiful.
 

Jeffrey

Active member
To say it simply, it is a game changer in so many great ways.

Earlier this year Graham and I were shooting at Silo City in Buffalo, NY (USA) in difficult light conditions and at times in hazardous areas. The live view for focusing is fantastic. The menu on the back is simple and to me rather intuitive. I was shooting in T mode on my Cambo WRS 5000 with many exposures in the 14-45 seconds range. The back performed marvelously. Having the time of exposure displayed on the back was so darn helpful as I adjusted the exposure time either up or down in capturing the "keeper" image. Using a hand held light meter for this shoot was impossible. I was shooting at ISO 100 because nothing was moving in what I was shooting, so increasing the exposure time enabled me to avoid any issues that might have arisen had I increased the ISO. I felt the battery duration was excellent. The people at the professional post processing house that does my post work were amazed at the detail captured in all of my images. These guys see everything, mostly from big name pro photographers. I'm an amateur.

I have yet to encounter a situation where the back didn't meet or far exceed my expectations. I cannot say enough good things about the back.
 
Top