about to buy a iQ 180, advice needed

[jng]

I was under the impression most v-system lenses struggle past 60mp, so you may want to do some research on the lenses you plan to use and the IQ180. You also mentioned fat pixel backs, and AFAIK the IQ180 isn’t considered a fat pixel back although someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

Agreed, not all of the Zeiss lenses hold up on these small pixel backs. In my experience the V system lenses that work well at 60 Mp are the 40 IF/CFE, 100, 180 and 250 Superachromat. I imagine that all of these lenses will hold up at 80 and 100 Mp, but achieving accurate focus becomes even more of a challenge. With all that said, I have a nice 30" print hanging in my office taken with a 350 CF - definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed, so resolution isn't everything...

John

 

[GrahamWelland]

John, I agree but perfection vs 'look' are often overlooked, especially when the image hit paper vs on screen. IMHO.

There's a lot to love about the look of many lenses, horribly flawed as they may be. However, I think we're all into art here not technical forensic photography so "flaws" or perhaps "character" are what we love.

I shoot 35mm Leica gear as my non MF stuff so I have to justify this stuff :ROTFL:

 

[jng]

John, I agree but perfection vs 'look' are often overlooked, especially when the image hit paper vs on screen. IMHO.

There's a lot to love about the look of many lenses, horribly flawed as they may be. However, I think we're all into art here not technical forensic photography so "flaws" or perhaps "character" are what we love.

I shoot 35mm Leica gear as my non MF stuff so I have to justify this stuff :ROTFL:

Graham,

Agreed 100%. However I just didn't like the look of the Biogon on the IQ160. OTOH I just about fell out of my chair the first time I opened a file shot with my 40 HR. It wasn't just about the resolution but also the colors and tonality that just made me weak in the knees. And my other V system lenses have that je ne sais quoi thing going on. All IMHO of course.

John

 

[GrahamWelland]

Or so I thought and hauled off and bought a more "modern" SWC/M to use with my IQ160. The sad reality, at least for me, was that the venerable Biogon just didn't play so well with the full format sensor, so I sold the SWC/M when I picked up a 40 IF/CFE to use on my 501CM. And now I've moved on to the Rodie 40HR on a Cambo. Will this ever end? (don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question) :banghead:

John

You said two words, 40HR and technical camera. You're doomed to the depths of Dante. Sorry, but it's true. :thumbs:

Personally, the 40HR/70HR combo is AWESOME on any camera with movements and I don't care whether that's Alpa, Cambo, Arca, Sinar, Linhof or add your own system. I'm sorry but once you go here you're basically done because everything else looks to be a compromise on every level other than cost, convenience, software support, ability to shoot anywhere/anytime etc etc ... :ROTFL:

That said, I LOVE my technical camera beyond belief because of the joy of shooting. If all you want is results then pick up a D750 and Nikon new spec TS lenses and a few longer lenses where needed. However, this is a chalk & cheese conversation and I suspect that neither side will understand the other. :facesmack:

 

[jng]

Graham,

My goose has long been cooked - I have both the 40HR and 70HR, till death do us part. They render amazingly on the 60 Mp back, something I keep reminding myself of as I hear the IQ3100 calling my name.

Sorry to have dragged this thread so far off topic...

John

You said two words, 40HR and technical camera. You're doomed to the depths of Dante. Sorry, but it's true. :thumbs:

Personally, the 40HR/70HR combo is AWESOME on any camera with movements and I don't care whether that's Alpa, Cambo, Arca, Sinar, Linhof or add your own system. I'm sorry but once you go here you're basically done because everything else looks to be a compromise on every level other than cost, convenience, software support, ability to shoot anywhere/anytime etc etc ... :ROTFL:

That said, I LOVE my technical camera beyond belief because of the joy of shooting. If all you want is results then pick up a D750 and Nikon new spec TS lenses and a few longer lenses where needed. However, this is a chalk & cheese conversation and I suspect that neither side will understand the other. :facesmack:

 

[GrahamWelland]

Graham,

My goose has long been cooked - I have both the 40HR and 70HR, till death do us part. They render amazingly on the 60 Mp back, something I keep reminding myself of as I hear the IQ3100 calling my name.

Sorry to have dragged this thread so far off topic...

John

Sorry John, you're done hook line and sinker. :ROTFL:

 

[jng]

Sorry John, you're done hook line and sinker. :ROTFL:

 

[schuster]

Graham's comments are spot-on and show the perspective you might consider with all serious equipment decisions, i.e., start with the end product.

ISO doesn't matter if you control the lighting such as in studio work. Otherwise IMHO, for critically sharp landscapes, 80mp and 50-100 ISO is fine for minimally cropped images printed to 30 inches or so. However, it won't cut it if there's not enough light for higher shutter speeds to freeze moving water and fluttering leaves (if that's what you want) or for hand-holding without image stabilization.

I have no experience with the IQ-180, but a lot of experience with the IQ-160 and Hasselblad 503CW and ArcBody. The back fits perfectly with the 503, but I had a machinist do some minor milling on the ArcBody.

My experience with V lenses and IQ-160: Decades ago (pre-digital) the CF150 was my go-to lens for when a model's face or hands were primary in the shot. It was not technically my sharpest lens, but images held up beautifully in full page magazine print. It performed equally well with my first digital back, the Imacon 16mp. But for some reason, it is surprisingly sharp with the IQ-160. Maybe it's the CaptureOne software. The Superachromat CFi 250 was wonderful on film and continues to be with the IQ-160. Ditto for the Tele-Superachromat CFA 350. The ArcBody's 35 and 45mm Apo-Grandagons and 75mm Grandagon are spectacular.

Retired from studio photography I make fine art and landscape prints up to five feet wide (stitched) with an Epson 7900 and they're sharp as a tack from "old" V system equipment.

 

[elrafo]

I love the photos I took with my (2006 used) CFV16, still way better than my 5D landscape shots, but I don't want to go CFV anymore.
Last July I had an error 9022 message on it, sent the back to Hassleblad for service and it took them 7 months to finally send me a 5000$ quote for repair. Seriously !!

Took them 7 months to send me a quote, and this is the price of a used CFV39...
I told them thank you very much, send me back the thing, and I will use it as decoration props in my living room. I really regret this as it looked awesome on the body and was a perfect tool for my needs.

I have have found a P45+ for 3,000 Euros in Paris, and it fits with a next trip for me,
I might go with it as your points on the iQ180 + old CM cameras really make sense. I won't buy a new SWC
I for sure don't need a 80 MP and maybe the full frame sensor isn't the best solution for older lenses.
Also I love the 4x4ccd format, hope I can shoot square also with the P45.

 

[med]

.... And now I've moved on to the Rodie 40HR on a Cambo. Will this ever end? (don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question) :banghead:

John

...Agreed 100%. However I just didn't like the look of the Biogon on the IQ160. OTOH I just about fell out of my chair the first time I opened a file shot with my 40 HR. It wasn't just about the resolution but also the colors and tonality that just made me weak in the knees...

You said two words, 40HR and technical camera. You're doomed to the depths of Dante. Sorry, but it's true. :thumbs:

Personally, the 40HR/70HR combo is AWESOME on any camera with movements and I don't care whether that's Alpa, Cambo, Arca, Sinar, Linhof or add your own system. I'm sorry but once you go here you're basically done because everything else looks to be a compromise on every level other than cost, convenience, software support, ability to shoot anywhere/anytime etc etc ... :ROTFL:...

...My goose has long been cooked - I have both the 40HR and 70HR, till death do us part. They render amazingly on the 60 Mp back, something I keep reminding myself of as I hear the IQ3100 calling my name.
...

I came here looking to read a discussion about the pros of the IQ180, and I'm leaving ready to hit "buy it now" on a 40HR, 70HR, and an IQ260 to "complement" my 43XL, 60XL, and IQ250, all three of which I love.... Sometimes I wish I'd never found this forum! For some reason this movie moment springs to mind.

 

[dougpeterson]

I love the photos I took with my (2006 used) CFV16, still way better than my 5D landscape shots, but I don't want to go CFV anymore. Last July I had an error 9022 message on it, sent the back to Hassleblad for service and it took them 7 months to finally send me a 5000$ quote for repair. Seriously !!

Took them 7 months to send me a quote, and this is the price of a used CFV39

I am about to get an iQ180 Phase one V Mount, for a fair 10,000 Canadian Dollars.
Actuations are 55,000. I need your opinion, is this OK or too many for a used digital back ?
the motherboard was replaced one year ago owner said to me,

I may not have all the information, so please excuse me if I misjudge where you are in your process and what research you have already done. But from what I can see you're about to make the most common mistake I see first time MFDB buyers make.

FIRST they find a "deal" (a back they think is "cheap" or a "good price"), and THEN they evaluate whether that back is a good fit for their needs.

This is a highly problematic for many reasons, but the largest is that you don't know what you don't know.

Instead I strongly suggest you FIRST evaluate which back(s) would be a good fit for your needs and THEN look for a good deal. A "good deal" should include a variety of factors other than hard cost, including the condition of the back, your confidence in that condition, any training or support that comes with the back, whether you're able to try the back in the real-world before committing to the purchase, and warranty (if any), accessories (both whether they are included and whether they are in new condition or used condition). Notably, for example, the support network matters. We (DT / P1) would *never* accept the kind of repair timeline that you experienced; we have legally-binding support contracts which forbid it. What did the dealer from whom you purchased your CFV have to say about the 7-month repair timeline??

A thorough examination of what back is right for you is something that, if you were a client, would take several hours of conversation and evaluation, but here are some quick points of feedback on why the IQ180 is almost certainly NOT the best fit for you:
- Very few V-mount lenses will get the most out of the 80mp sensor
- You said you don't care about large print size*
- You want long exposures (the IQ180 does not have good long exposure characteristics)
- You say you want "big fat pixels" (the IQ180 has among the smallest pixels available)**
- Focusing 80mp through a Hassy 500 viewfinder is challenging

If you were my client we'd be discussing whether an IQ150, IQ250, or IQ260 was the best fit. Or whether a tech camera or XF (with adapter for your 500 series lenses) was a better fit than the Hassy 500 or SWC. A tech camera shares some in common with a 500 or SWC in so far as the physical experience of shooting it is more mechanical, methodical, and slow than modern "gadget" electronic cameras, and the XF offers numerous features and capabilities that would be useful for long-exposure photography. Either tech camera or XF would also open the possibility of an IQ 100mp or IQ3 100mp depending on how flexible your budget is.

FIRST figure out what you should be buying, and then go looking for it. Going at it backwards is the single most consistent cause of buyer's remorse I see among our customers. Whether from this point you work with a good dealer in person or remotely (which, in my heavily biased opinion, is the way to go) or whether you simply back up and do more internet research on the basics, that is your choice. Of course it is your money and your choice, but I think you should really consider whether you are really ready to make a purchase; I think you should spend time on more and better research to make a more informed choice.

Ultimately a "good deal" is more than price.

*Notably, during consultations I always want to evaluate such statements further by showing actual prints of different sizes from different backs; many people have never had the ability to make a large print which was detailed and dimensional so don't know what they are missing.

**I would also want to evaluate this statement further by showing images from backs with different pixel sizes. In my opinion (it's just an opinion, but I base it on an enormous amount of experience) the idea of "fat pixels" is highly over rated, and likely what you mean is that you want a back with great dimensional rendering, smooth tonality, and beautiful color.

 

[elrafo]

Thanks Doug,

this is exaclty why I am coming to this forum and already changed my mind based on all these opininons and advices, after reading, I think the P45+ will be a better fit for me and a less expensive option.

I said, I really loved my CFV-16 but after checking with Hasselblad, the price to fix it was as expensive as getting a used Phase one back, I want to know what would be my best options. don't want to own a CFV anymore, too pricy to get fixed.

The landscapes I shot with my 500CM +80mm planar + CFV16 in Norway were the best landscape shots I ever made, and I am sure the P45 would be great as this too

I may not have all the information, so please excuse me if I misjudge where you are in your process and what research you have already done. But from what I can see you're about to make the most common mistake I see first time MFDB buyers make.

FIRST they find a "deal" (a back they think is "cheap" or a "good price"), and THEN they evaluate whether that back is a good fit for their needs.

This is a highly problematic for many reasons, but the largest is that you don't know what you don't know.

Instead I strongly suggest you FIRST evaluate which back(s) would be a good fit for your needs and THEN look for a good deal. A "good deal" should include a variety of factors other than hard cost, including the condition of the back, your confidence in that condition, any training or support that comes with the back, whether you're able to try the back in the real-world before committing to the purchase, and warranty (if any), accessories (both whether they are included and whether they are in new condition or used condition). Notably, for example, the support network matters. We (DT / P1) would *never* accept the kind of repair timeline that you experienced; we have legally-binding support contracts which forbid it. What did the dealer from whom you purchased your CFV have to say about the 7-month repair timeline??

A thorough examination of what back is right for you is something that, if you were a client, would take several hours of conversation and evaluation, but here are some quick points of feedback on why the IQ180 is almost certainly NOT the best fit for you:
- Very few V-mount lenses will get the most out of the 80mp sensor
- You said you don't care about large print size*
- You want long exposures (the IQ180 does not have good long exposure characteristics)
- You say you want "big fat pixels" (the IQ180 has among the smallest pixels available)**
- Focusing 80mp through a Hassy 500 viewfinder is challenging

If you were my client we'd be discussing whether an IQ150, IQ250, or IQ260 was the best fit. Or whether a tech camera or XF (with adapter for your 500 series lenses) was a better fit than the Hassy 500 or SWC. A tech camera shares some in common with a 500 or SWC in so far as the physical experience of shooting it is more mechanical, methodical, and slow than modern "gadget" electronic cameras, and the XF offers numerous features and capabilities that would be useful for long-exposure photography. Either tech camera or XF would also open the possibility of an IQ 100mp or IQ3 100mp depending on how flexible your budget is.

FIRST figure out what you should be buying, and then go looking for it. Going at it backwards is the single most consistent cause of buyer's remorse I see among our customers. Whether from this point you work with a good dealer in person or remotely (which, in my heavily biased opinion, is the way to go) or whether you simply back up and do more internet research on the basics, that is your choice. Of course it is your money and your choice, but I think you should really consider whether you are really ready to make a purchase; I think you should spend time on more and better research to make a more informed choice.

Ultimately a "good deal" is more than price.

*Notably, during consultations I always want to evaluate such statements further by showing actual prints of different sizes from different backs; many people have never had the ability to make a large print which was detailed and dimensional so don't know what they are missing.

**I would also want to evaluate this statement further by showing images from backs with different pixel sizes. In my opinion (it's just an opinion, but I base it on an enormous amount of experience) the idea of "fat pixels" is highly over rated, and likely what you mean is that you want a back with great dimensional rendering, smooth tonality, and beautiful color.

 

[dougpeterson]

this is exaclty why I am coming to this forum and already changed my mind based on all these opinions and advices, after reading, I think the P45+ will be a better fit for me and a less expensive option.

Have you worked with a P45+? Checking focus on the LCD of the P+ is nearly impossible. We still sell P+ used digital backs (inventory changes nearly daily), but we generally like the buyer to play with the LCD before committing to the purchase. The image quality is wonderful, and the reliability and simplicity are excellent, but the LCD is, at best, mediocre (and could also be accurately described in far more negative terms). Typically our P+ buyers are shooting to a large monitor in a tethered studio environment and barely looking at the LCD.

That's NOT to say you can't use it in the field. For many years it was used very heavily by field users, and heck for decades before that you couldn't check the focus on your images until hours or days later (i.e. shooting film). But on the other hand, almost all our field P+ users have since switched to systems with better LCDs (e.g. an IQ260).

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have a P45+ on Hassy V and echo what Doug says.

On the other hand, it is a good back for the Hassy V-system and many lenses deliver good image quality.

In all honesty, my P45+ sees little use, as I find that working with zooms on 42 MP 24x36 mm is beneficial to the kind of work I am doing.

Some of the V-series lenses are great and some are not so great.

Here you have some samples with the lenses I have used with the P45+:

Planar 100/3.5: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Planar_100_35/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Planar_100_35/Brewery/

Distagon 40/4CF:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon40/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Distagon_40/

Distagon 50/4CF:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon_50/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Distagon_50/

Planar 80/2.8CFE:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Planar80/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Planar_80/

Planar 120/4CF (Macro lens):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/MacroPlanar_120/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Macro_Planar_120/

Sonnar 180/4 CFi:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Sonnar_180/

I also had the Sonnar 150/4CF but I felt that the focal length was not so good for me.

In the end, I ended up with Distagon 40/4CF, Distagon 60/3.5 CF, Planar 100/3.5CF, Planar 120/4CF, Sonnar 180/CFi.

I feel all those lenses can make good images. The Distagon 40/4CF is the by far weakest lens.

Regarding focusing the Hasselblad V, I would say that it is hard to achieve critical focus. I use a Zeiss 3X monocular, as recommended by Joseph Holmes, here: https://www.josephholmes.com/news/2009/4/9/getting-top-quality-from-medium-format

So, my take is that Doug is right. But some of us folks like to shoot old stuff the old way, and the P45+ is perfectly good for that.

If you want best of class medium format, you could consider the Fuji GFX. It has a smaller crop than the P45+ and it can use Hasselblad V lenses with adapters.

Personally, I switched to Sony A7rII with a bunch of Canon lenses. But, I still have the Hasselblad 555/ELD and P45+ combo, and I enjoy shooting with it. But, I wouldn't regard it to be a professional system and the main stumbling block is sync cords.

Best regards
Erik

Have you worked with a P45+? Checking focus on the LCD of the P+ is nearly impossible. We still sell P+ used digital backs (inventory changes nearly daily), but we generally like the buyer to play with the LCD before committing to the purchase. The image quality is wonderful, and the reliability and simplicity are excellent, but the LCD is, at best, mediocre (and could also be accurately described in far more negative terms). Typically our P+ buyers are shooting to a large monitor in a tethered studio environment and barely looking at the LCD.

That's NOT to say you can't use it in the field. For many years it was used very heavily by field users, and heck for decades before that you couldn't check the focus on your images until hours or days later (i.e. shooting film). But on the other hand, almost all our field P+ users have since switched to systems with better LCDs (e.g. an IQ260).

 

[elrafo]

Thanks a lot guys ! very useful .

FYI, my LCD on the CFV16 was totally useless and I mainly shot landscapes at f16 so not much an issue for focussing range, I can check the numbers on the lens.
but it is more tricky for the portraits indeed

Hi,

I have a P45+ on Hassy V and echo what Doug says.

On the other hand, it is a good back for the Hassy V-system and many lenses deliver good image quality.

In all honesty, my P45+ sees little use, as I find that working with zooms on 42 MP 24x36 mm is beneficial to the kind of work I am doing.

Some of the V-series lenses are great and some are not so great.

Here you have some samples with the lenses I have used with the P45+:

Planar 100/3.5: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/Planar_100_35/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Planar_100_35/Brewery/

Distagon 40/4CF:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon40/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Distagon_40/

Distagon 50/4CF:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon_50/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Distagon_50/

Planar 80/2.8CFE:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Planar80/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Planar_80/

Planar 120/4CF (Macro lens):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/MacroPlanar_120/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Macro_Planar_120/

Sonnar 180/4 CFi:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Sonnar_180/

I also had the Sonnar 150/4CF but I felt that the focal length was not so good for me.

In the end, I ended up with Distagon 40/4CF, Distagon 60/3.5 CF, Planar 100/3.5CF, Planar 120/4CF, Sonnar 180/CFi.

I feel all those lenses can make good images. The Distagon 40/4CF is the by far weakest lens.

Regarding focusing the Hasselblad V, I would say that it is hard to achieve critical focus. I use a Zeiss 3X monocular, as recommended by Joseph Holmes, here: https://www.josephholmes.com/news/2009/4/9/getting-top-quality-from-medium-format

So, my take is that Doug is right. But some of us folks like to shoot old stuff the old way, and the P45+ is perfectly good for that.

If you want best of class medium format, you could consider the Fuji GFX. It has a smaller crop than the P45+ and it can use Hasselblad V lenses with adapters.

Personally, I switched to Sony A7rII with a bunch of Canon lenses. But, I still have the Hasselblad 555/ELD and P45+ combo, and I enjoy shooting with it. But, I wouldn't regard it to be a professional system and the main stumbling block is sync cords.

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would not trust the markings on the lens for any time longer than a nanosecond.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks a lot guys ! very useful .

FYI, my LCD on the CFV16 was totally useless and I mainly shot landscapes at f16 so not much an issue for focussing range, I can check the numbers on the lens.
but it is more tricky for the portraits indeed

 

[Wayne Fox]

The only thing I can tell you is I sold my IQ180 and bought a Nikon D850. Great value, great camera, no regrets
.

OK. We get it Doug. Why do you persist in throwing this on to everyone’s questions without even addressing the actual question that the OP asked? No one disputes the Nikon is a great camera, but there’s more to MF than the sensor tech.

Why are you still hanging out in this forum. If you have no more interest in MF, quit trolling these threads.

 

[voidshatter]

hope the iQ is good with long exposures, I heard the P45+ could do 1h pose,

The IQ180 has a milestone sensor and can produce stunning images under the right conditions (mostly studio shots and short exposure landscapes).

You will regret picking the IQ180 for long exposure once you compare it against a $900 Nikon D800E. My propaganda against CCD usually consists poor dynamic range and tiling issue under long exposure. With CCD you don't get real Live-View, and to prevent the image from getting destroyed by noise you need to bear with darkframe NR, which means tremendous inconvenience for some field shots.

Keep in mind that the IQ3 100MP (Sony IMX211) also has red shadow cast when shotting without darkframe NR. However, if shot with darkframe NR (as default), the IQ3 100MP produces significantly better image quality (dynamic range) than any CCD sensor does. You should avoid any CCD for long exposure (including the IQ260 which is advertised for long exposure). The only exception is the P45+ with a Kodak CCD sensor, but nevertheless the dynamic range is no match against a Sony CMOS, and you also lose the flexibility to shoot without darkframe NR.

Currently the 50MP 44x33 CMOS sensors such like the X1D, GFX, IQ250 etc (Sony IMX161 sensor) are the best for long exposure if you have to shoot with medium format and would like to avoid darkframe NR. However these are cropped sensors which would require wider lenses.

I would say it's currently not a very good time to make a purchase into digital medium format as Sony's new sensors (IMX411 and IMX461) are due to be released soon. If you can hold off until then, all current gear may be subject to a certain level of depreciation and it would be a good time to pull the trigger.

 

[stephengilbert]

A refreshing new perspective, Void. It reminds me of something I've read before, but I can't recall where.

 

[elrafo]

If anyone had a CFV50c to sell I might be interested also, avoiding the cable between lens and back is a nice option when shooting outdoor. thanks!