Don't shoot me... X1D compared to IQ180

[tashley]

To me looking at the micro detail in the lobster buckets, the IQ180 shot is much sharper and the detail much cleaner.

Would be interesting to see the other comparison ... uprez the X1D files to match the IQ. Of course, I only shoot to print large, so I'm interested in what happens when you get to 60-80" in length. I think the difference will be pretty apparent at those sizes.

But still I will admit it's pretty impressive for such a small lightweight camera.

I just hope the 75mp version of these two new cameras isn't too far in the future. That's when I'll take a serious look.

You are absolutely right about the lobster buckets. Since performing this comparison I have had a nagging feeling that the Hassy file, though holding up very well for practical uses, doesn't look quite as clean and detailed as files from that camera and lens generally do. I looked back at the parameters of the shot and shutter speed is unlikely to have been a problem because it was shot at 1/400th. But I do notice an odd thing which is that the Disto used to set the focus for the Alpa/Rodie was at 2.72 metres whereas the EXIF for the Hassy shot says that subject distance was set at 1.389 metres. Now, this is clearly not true because a cursory examination of the file shows that it was focussed in approximately the same place as the IQ file though the plane of focus does seem further back. So I am tempted to think that the X1D's estimation of subject distance isn't accurate BUT just to be sure, I am going to run the test again using a close-range target and some focus bracketing because actually, I think the Hassy can do better.

EDIT: no need to run the test again - please see the post below this one...

 

[tashley]

Do shoot me...

OK... I screwed up.

Pursuant to the posts right above this one I went back to my process and discovered that I had uploaded the wrong lobster pot file for the Hassy.

I put this down to the facts that a) I am a dolt and b) Lightroom keeps on losing the ability to show side panels and file overlay info. I keep restarting it and switching modules but they keep randomly disappearing (on all four of my Macs) - apparently it is a known 'thing'.

For whatever reason, the wrong file got put online. To confuse matters more, my initial post comments were derived from looking at the correct file. Later I switched machines and merely downloaded my own JPEGS from the link here rather than looking at the originals, so later in the thread when I draw more attention to the differences between the Hassy and the Phase in the lobster pot frames, I was looking at the same files as the rest of you - which means the wrong file for the Hassy.

In the 'wrong' file, focus is slightly too far back.

In the 'right' file, focus is more closely aligned with where it is in the IQ file.

I have now replaced the file so that the 'right one' is online. When you compare it to the Phase file there is no significant difference. Both files look absolutely excellent and while there are minor differences in places, neither is for any real purpose 'better.'

Having replaced the file, the links in the original post will now lead to the files I intended to show. You might need to shift-reload the page to clear the image cache in your browser.

I post links to the right files here again, with a huge 'mea culpa'. SO SORRY!

Hassy File.
Phase File.

 

[Thorkil]

Re: Do shoot me...

OK... I screwed up.

Pursuant to the posts right above this one I went back to my process and discovered that I had uploaded the wrong lobster pot file for the Hassy.

I put this down to the facts that a) I am a dolt and b) Lightroom keeps on losing the ability to show side panels and file overlay info. I keep restarting it and switching modules but they keep randomly disappearing (on all four of my Macs) - apparently it is a known 'thing'.

For whatever reason, the wrong file got put online. To confuse matters more, my initial post comments were derived from looking at the correct file. Later I switched machines and merely downloaded my own JPEGS from the link here rather than looking at the originals, so later in the thread when I draw more attention to the differences between the Hassy and the Phase in the lobster pot frames, I was looking at the same files as the rest of you - which means the wrong file for the Hassy.

In the 'wrong' file, focus is slightly too far back.

In the 'right' file, focus is more closely aligned with where it is in the IQ file.

I have now replaced the file so that the 'right one' is online. When you compare it to the Phase file there is no significant difference. Both files look absolutely excellent and while there are minor differences in places, neither is for any real purpose 'better.'

Having replaced the file, the links in the original post will now lead to the files I intended to show. You might need to shift-reload the page to clear the image cache in your browser.

I post links to the right files here again, with a huge 'mea culpa'. SO SORRY!

Hassy File.
Phase File.

...its not easy to be a human being...but very interesting!...keep on Tim! :thumbs:
Thorkil
(Ps. now they seems equal..with a tiny notch to Phase)
(Pss. the more you look though, the more it seems that phase got a short horsehead lead in sharpness and clarity)

 

[DB5]

The fact it is downsizing and supersampling the IQ180 makes the test mostly moot for me. I appreciate the results none the less though and understand that if it revolves around your own maximum print size then it's a very useful test that could save you a lot of money in future.

Uprez the X1D to the 180 and compare and then it gets more interesting for me.

 

[voidshatter]

It also cannot be forgotten that that IQ 180 has served owners for 7 years now, and that's 7 years of shooting and images to show for the depreciation hit (and in mose cases income to show for it as well!).

I thought the IQ180 was announced in Jan 2011, while the Aptus-II 12 was announced in Sep 2010.

While the IQ180 might have been dethroned of dynamic range in 2012 by a Nikon D800, it had remained as the king of megapixels until 2016, which I do think is quite impressive.

 

[jagsiva]

I thought the IQ180 was announced in Jan 2011, while the Aptus-II 12 was announced in Sep 2010.

While the IQ180 might have been dethroned of dynamic range in 2012 by a Nikon D800, it had remained as the king of megapixels until 2016, which I do think is quite impressive.

thanks for the timeline. I had an Aptus II 12 and upgraded to an IQ180. So seven years with the 80MP CCD chip.

 

[narikin]

Yes interesting comparison, and of course you can shoot at ISO 200 very well with the CMOS backs, but the IQ180 falls apart at that speed. It's pretty dodgy at 100 even, to be fair. so that's a 2 stop difference.

couple of minor points:

f11 will have the lenses starting to degrade. I appreciate you wanted the DOF, but if you are comparing lens sharpness, then you need to shoot at f8, period. And look to the corners. Even an old film lens will look ok in the center - its where the edges are in Image Quality that matters here. Plus... (sorry) the Roddie 40 has a much larger image circle (for shift/stitch) so it can work with an STC or Max or other Tech Cams for a larger file and/or corrected perspective. If the lens is the equal of the Hassy, which has no spare IC, then, it's clearly the superior optic.

Small q: why did you export to LR to add Clarity - you know these tools are in Capture One, right?

Personally - can't wait for Phase One's response to the X1 and Fuji. Make no mistake a competitor is coming from them, hopefully with the next generation sensor including AF points on-chip. (Maybe based on the Alpa FPS/Silex solution, talking to LS lenses?)

 

[tashley]

Yes interesting comparison, and of course you can shoot at ISO 200 very well with the CMOS backs, but the IQ180 falls apart at that speed. It's pretty dodgy at 100 even, to be fair. so that's a 2 stop difference.

couple of minor points:

f11 will have the lenses starting to degrade. I appreciate you wanted the DOF, but if you are comparing lens sharpness, then you need to shoot at f8, period. And look to the corners. Even an old film lens will look ok in the center - its where the edges are in Image Quality that matters here. Plus... (sorry) the Roddie 40 has a much larger image circle (for shift/stitch) so it can work with an STC or Max or other Tech Cams for a larger file and/or corrected perspective. If the lens is the equal of the Hassy, which has no spare IC, then, it's clearly the superior optic.

Small q: why did you export to LR to add Clarity - you know these tools are in Capture One, right?

Personally - can't wait for Phase One's response to the X1 and Fuji. Make no mistake a competitor is coming from them, hopefully with the next generation sensor including AF points on-chip. (Maybe based on the Alpa FPS/Silex solution?)

Ahh, but I am not shooting to see which system is 'best' according to some external tick list: I'm shooting according to whether there is any substantive difference for my use-case - and then sharing the result.... my use case is to choose between the IQ / Alpa / Rodie on a tripod at base ISO versus X1D handheld at whatever ISO is required to get a safe shutter speed in good daylight at my required aperture - and with willingness to accept a minor degradation from diffraction in exchange for the DOF I require on both systems. That's the test I did.

Re: Capture One, my current workflow is to export X1D files from Phocus with lens corrections and no NR or sharpening, as 16bit TIFF and in Prophoto (better gamut for B&W conversion if needed) and to make all further corrections in LR. SO to match the treatment given to both systems, and take into account my personal dislike of C1, I did effectively the same thing to the IQ file. One can argue the rationale of that as much as one likes but it is, rightly or wrongly, the way I tend to work. I'm pretty well aware of what C1 can do and I do agree that as a RAW developer it is extremely good, I just don't like it and so I choose to make as many post-raw conversion edits as I can in LR. LR is also my main catalogue, and very useful it is too!

 

[Anders_HK]

Shimming vs. Focus Error ??

It appears clearly that the IQ180 on an Alpa is the better in this test. This begs the following questions to clarify:

(1) Was the IQ180 shimmed to the Alpa to achieve optimum sharpness?

(2) Has a focus error been verified for the Hasselblad X1D, e.g. using Lens Align?

Thus, it could simply be that shim adjustment (IQ180) versus focus error (X1D) could significantly contribute to the difference between the two.

Appreciate if this can be clarified, and if possible the focus error of the X1D could be confirmed using lens align or similar product to measure it. :salute:

Thank you!

 

[tashley]

Re: Shimming vs. Focus Error ??

It appears clearly that the IQ180 on an Alpa is the better in this test. This begs the following questions to clarify:

(1) Was the IQ180 shimmed to the Alpa to achieve optimum sharpness?

(2) Has a focus error been verified for the Hasselblad X1D, e.g. using Lens Align?

Thus, it could simply be that shim adjustment (IQ180) versus focus error (X1D) could significantly contribute to the difference between the two.

Appreciate if this can be clarified, and if possible the focus error of the X1D could be confirmed using lens align or similar product to measure it. :salute:

Thank you!

The Alpa/Phase setup is shimmed, the X1D doesn't imho have a focus error: the lens tends to have slight forward focus shift on stopping down at close range but there's more than enough DOF to deal with that amount of shift.

I'm not sure I agree that the X1D shot has any focus error anyway. Both lenses are shot at close range here in a scene that has considerable depth. Are you sure you have looked at the correct files? See post #22 above for why you might (my fault) have compared the wrong ones.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Re: Shimming vs. Focus Error ??

Hi Tim,

Diglloyd has reported on some issues with focusing accuracy on the X1D recently.

In the optimal case, I would expect a high MP camera give better results than a medium MP camera even when scaled down to identical dimension. The high MP camera will draw a better image and sharpen better even when scaled down. You could say that scaling down throws away resolution, noise and artefacts, but it keeps MTF.

Important to state, downscaling will induce artefacts of it's own, but downscaling is done on the demosaiced image so any aliasing will be more like monochromatic and therefore less visible.

But, all this may matter really little, unless you print really large and look really close…

Best regards
Erik

The Alpa/Phase setup is shimmed, the X1D doesn't imho have a focus error: the lens tends to have slight forward focus shift on stopping down at close range but there's more than enough DOF to deal with that amount of shift.

I'm not sure I agree that the X1D shot has any focus error anyway. Both lenses are shot at close range here in a scene that has considerable depth. Are you sure you have looked at the correct files? See post #22 above for why you might (my fault) have compared the wrong ones.

 

[tashley]

Re: Shimming vs. Focus Error ??

Hi Tim,

Diglloyd has reported on some issues with focusing accuracy on the X1D recently.

In the optimal case, I would expect a high MP camera give better results than a medium MP camera even when scaled down to identical dimension. The high MP camera will draw a better image and sharpen better even when scaled down. You could say that scaling down throws away resolution, noise and artefacts, but it keeps MTF.

Important to state, downscaling will induce artefacts of it's own, but downscaling is done on the demosaiced image so any aliasing will be more like monochromatic and therefore less visible.

But, all this may matter really little, unless you print really large and look really close…

Best regards
Erik

Lloyd's findings have so far been mostly about the 90mm lens. I have emailed him in some detail to explain how I have not been able to replicate his experience despite some fairly serious efforts.

 

[jduncan]

It is the right of the person doing the comparison to decide what it is important and appropriate for their needs.

That said, I think downrez'ing an 80mp camera to 50mp in order to compare it to 50mp is a bit like comparing an v8 engine to a v6 engine by disabling two of its cylinders.

You are right, the only compensation is that it produces a more sharper image, and also that it's at base ISO. CMOS starts to flight vs CCD a litter up.
In any case, the proper comparison, for me, is the 100mpixel CMOS or both cameras at native.
These machines are so different, including weather sealing that are very difficult to compare and be "just" whatever that means.

So thanks to the poster for other data point.

Best regards,

 

[Anders_HK]

Re: Shimming vs. Focus Error ??

The Alpa/Phase setup is shimmed, the X1D doesn't imho have a focus error: the lens tends to have slight forward focus shift on stopping down at close range but there's more than enough DOF to deal with that amount of shift.

I'm not sure I agree that the X1D shot has any focus error anyway. Both lenses are shot at close range here in a scene that has considerable depth. Are you sure you have looked at the correct files? See post #22 above for why you might (my fault) have compared the wrong ones.

Yup and yes, I looked at the later images.

Well, if the lens consistently tends to slight forward focus, depending by how much, this per my view could indicate a slight focus error that could result in a less sharp image than if the camera focused more precisely. More so, if the slight forward focus would differ at other distances... this could indicate that the camera was in need of adjustment to achieve the intended sharp image (irrespective if you compensate by increased DOF).

Well noted that the Alpa/Phase One has been shimmed. That would leave the question if focus adjustment on the X1D was similarly optimised?

Would advise that the only way to find out is a tool such as Lens Align, because it allows focus on a surface perfectly perpendicular to the camera/lens, and allows to capture the front/back focus on a scale/ruler. Otherwise, I would argue that one cannot be sure precisely what the sensor in camera focus upon. Thus that any front/back focus could result in a softening of the image, irrespective of you applying DOF to attempt to compensate.

Would very much appreciate any clarification. Thanks very much!