Phase One IQ4 series. Much more than resolution.

[jduncan]

Phase One has stated pretty clearly that there will not be a "Trichromatic" version of the IQ4 150mp. They say the 150mp BSI sensor did not require the same CFA to achieve the same results.

I look forward to testing this claim via the same kind of direct comparison testing we did with the IQ3 Trichromatic vs IQ3. We will, of course, provide raw files from that testing as well as the ability to test the back yourself so you can make your own judgement.

Hi,
I see the Trichromatic more as fix to an P1 filter issue (or an oportunity to improve as the filters were not bad) than a new concept. There is no reason why the new filter set (RGB) will have the same limitations than old backs had.
I am positive that the colors will be fantastic.

Best regards,

 

[dougpeterson]

Anyway, back to the story proper: just jumped through the hoops to download the sample raws and the C1 update needed to read them... now my P800 is starting to churn out a monochrome conversion of the Nyhavn scene at 12x16.3", 720ppi.

Purely for entertainment, as I can't remotely afford one. But I'm curious just the same...

I mean while you're entertaining yourself you should wait for the IQ4 150mp Achromatic raw samples to become publicly shareable. That adds another level of tonal smoothness and pixel-level detail for monochrome prints .

And keep in mind that the release of the IQ4 means IQ1/2/3 CPO backs have dropped in price. Sorry, can't help myself .

By the way, you sure you downloaded the 150mp Raw? An IQ1 100mp back has 11,600 pixels on the long side for a 16.1" print at 720ppi. The IQ4 150mp has 16,204 pixels on the long side for a 22.5" print at 720ppi.

 

[Oren Grad]

I mean while you're entertaining yourself you should wait for the IQ4 150mp Achromatic raw samples to become publicly shareable. That adds another level of tonal smoothness and pixel-level detail for monochrome prints .

I do look forward to any Achromatic samples.

And keep in mind that the release of the IQ4 means IQ1/2/3 CPO backs have dropped in price. Sorry, can't help myself .

Nice try. Afraid that relative to my budget, though, $20K might as well be $50K. Someday...

By the way, you sure you downloaded the 150mp Raw? An IQ1 100mp back has 11,600 pixels on the long side for a 16.1" print at 720ppi. The IQ4 150mp has 16,204 pixels on the long side for a 22.5" print at 720ppi.

Yes, I verified the pixel dimensions. I downsized it a bit as the largest paper I have handy at the moment is 13x19".

 

[jduncan]

So it kinda sorta is just megapixels (for most people) and some marketing sprinkled on top of some incremental upgraded things.

I'm surprised not to see an EVF Finder at this point too.

I disagree,

Having two slots (like the Hasselblad) modern interfaces (USB-C like HB, ethernet ), Modern Cards (XQD Like Nikon, HB is using CFast like Canon) and faster operation
are significant updates.
It's true that there is nothing revolutionary, most of the changes are related to stuff Hasselblad already has. Even so the bunch of stuff that P1 is known for and better than HB still there too.
If the camera is much faster and precise in terms of AF that will be revolutionary for MF.

Best regards,

 

[Don Libby]

What is the typical file size?Thinking at it must be huge. So shortly after upgrading then you'll need to upgrade the system you process on. Memory and disk space while cheaper than it was years ago will still cost extra. Then the MB and the ability to read the new card.

 

[Oren Grad]

What is the typical file size?

FWIW, after unzipping the download package the two sample 150MP raw files that Phase One has made available are roughly 150MB and 200MB, respectively, with the substantial difference in file size reflecting a large difference in the extent of fine detail between the two pictures.

 

[dougpeterson]

What is the typical file size?Thinking at it must be huge. So shortly after upgrading then you'll need to upgrade the system you process on. Memory and disk space while cheaper than it was years ago will still cost extra. Then the MB and the ability to read the new card.

~155 MB for IIQ-L 16 bit
~80 MB for IIQ-S

Scene content and ISO (which increases noise and decreases ability to compress) being the main drivers of the "~"

 

[Oren Grad]

From the Nyhavn sample file. You might think that somebody promoting a $50K camera would go to the trouble of cleaning the sensor cover glass, or at least cloning out the grunge before posting the file. (Yes, it's easily visible in prints.)

 

[Abstraction]

From the Nyhavn sample file. You might think that somebody promoting a $50K camera would go to the trouble of cleaning the sensor cover glass, or at least cloning out the grunge before posting the file. (Yes, it's easily visible in prints.)

It's a new feature

 

[dougpeterson]

It's a new feature

:toocool:

 

[dchew]

It's a new feature

Believe me, there is nothing "new" about this feature.
:banghead:

Dave

 

[tcdeveau]

From the Nyhavn sample file. You might think that somebody promoting a $50K camera would go to the trouble of cleaning the sensor cover glass, or at least cloning out the grunge before posting the file. (Yes, it's easily visible in prints.)

Some of the images on the IQ3 100 Achromatic product page (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-...Q3/XF-IQ3-100MP-Achromatic-Camera-System.aspx) also have sensor spots on them, there's one in particular in the gallery section of a building. There used to be a couple other images on that page with spots too but they took them down.

 

[dougpeterson]

Responding here to a PM I received...

The IQ4 will allow (among many other combinations of storage options) writing raws to both cards at the same time.

 

[Wayne Fox]

What is the typical file size?Thinking at it must be huge. So shortly after upgrading then you'll need to upgrade the system you process on. Memory and disk space while cheaper than it was years ago will still cost extra. Then the MB and the ability to read the new card.

I’m always upgrading the processing hardware regardless of the camera I’m using anyway. I already have a pretty good setup that manages IQ3 100 files with no real issues at all, and have been dealing with 20-40000 pixels stitched files for years anyway. So I can get the same thing with a few less shots, but ultimately the final file will still be in the same range.

I’ve always felt that to get really great results the lens should be the limiting factor in resolution, not the sensor. so if it’s “soft” it’s because that’s the best the lens could do, not because I didn’t have enough pixels to capture the detail. So I’ll be upgrading, (also hoping the BSI will be an improvement with my tech kit).

But to be honest, I’ll also buy the GFX 2 as soon as it comes out, and at that point the resolution and quality vs size and weight will sway me to use it in place of the Phase system far more often than my current GFX. The big body and glass of the phase are pretty challenging for landscape, and I’m sure I can get what I want out of a 100mp GFX most of the time. I was hoping for a Phase mirrorless, but no problem if they don’t want or can’t go there.

 

[vieri]

Hello Doug,

thank you for your post and for all the info on you website. I used to use Phase backs back in the day (P65+) with a tech camera, and eventually gave up in favour of more ergonomic / practical / fast solutions, both in and out of the field, even with less resolution. The IQ3 picked my attention again, and the new IQ4 definitely more so. I have some questions for you:

- Will there be an Alpa A-Series IQ4?
- Will there be pre-loaded LCC profiles (FLC) for Rodenstock lenses in the IQ4?

About lenses, I saw your article and noticed that neither the 23mm nor the 35mm are among the lenses recommended for the 150 Mp back, while the 70mm is still up there. Can you confirm that:

- The 23mm Rodenstock (Alpagon in Alpa flavour) is not resolving 150 Mp?
- The 35mm Rodenstock (Alpar in Alpa flavour) is not resolving 150 Mp?

About using Tech cams in harsh / hostile environments and weather conditions, since I often work in deserts, extremely cold / hot environments, sand / salt rich environments, and so on:

- How weather-sealed is the IQ4?
- How weather-resistant is the A-Series Alpa + PhaseOne IQ3 / IQ4 back + lenses combination?

Thank you very much in advance, best regards

Vieri

 

[dougpeterson]

Hello Doug,

thank you for your post and for all the info on you website. I used to use Phase backs back in the day (P65+) with a tech camera, and eventually gave up in favour of more ergonomic / practical / fast solutions, both in and out of the field, even with less resolution. The IQ3 picked my attention again, and the new IQ4 definitely more so. I have some questions for you:

- Will there be an Alpa A-Series IQ4?
- Will there be pre-loaded LCC profiles (FLC) for Rodenstock lenses in the IQ4?

About lenses, I saw your article and noticed that neither the 23mm nor the 35mm are among the lenses recommended for the 150 Mp back, while the 70mm is still up there. Can you confirm that:

- The 23mm Rodenstock (Alpagon in Alpa flavour) is not resolving 150 Mp?
- The 35mm Rodenstock (Alpar in Alpa flavour) is not resolving 150 Mp?

About using Tech cams in harsh / hostile environments and weather conditions, since I often work in deserts, extremely cold / hot environments, sand / salt rich environments, and so on:

- How weather-sealed is the IQ4?
- How weather-resistant is the A-Series Alpa + PhaseOne IQ3 / IQ4 back + lenses combination?

Thank you very much in advance, best regards

Vieri

Answering from phone so excuse brevity...

They are not weather sealed as a formal spec, but they are well made. I personally have used them many times in light rain, but anything more than that would make me nervous. In more than a decade I’ve never had a client damage a back from rain; though I suspect that’s partly because the backs are well made and partly because people don’t take them into monsoons. The rest of the environments you name are not a problem beyond the obvious need to clean the gear after use. We have many users who mostly or only shoot in such harsh conditions. There are videos of backs baking in an oven alongside a cake (still worked) and freezing in dry ice (still worked) next to a rubber ball that became solid.

The omission of the 23HR and 35HR are neither positive or negative indications. There are several tech camera lenses that I don’t feel I have enough data to predict performance due to minimal personal experience with those lenses at 100mp. We hope to have a bevy of tests, at 150, in the coming weeks. If at all possible, both of those lenses will be part of that.

Generally, my feeling is the IQ4 represents a “turning point” for tech cameras. The improvement in image quality and usability should be quite significant. But I also don’t want to inappropriately raise expectations until I’ve had the chance to do my own extensive hands on testing.

 

[hcubell]

Answering from phone so excuse brevity...

They are not weather sealed as a formal spec, but they are well made. I personally have used them many times in light rain, but anything more than that would make me nervous. In more than a decade I’ve never had a client damage a back from rain; though I suspect that’s partly because the backs are well made and partly because people don’t take them into monsoons. The rest of the environments you name are not a problem beyond the obvious need to clean the gear after use. We have many users who mostly or only shoot in such harsh conditions. There are videos of backs baking in an oven alongside a cake (still worked) and freezing in dry ice (still worked) next to a rubber ball that became solid.

/QUOTE]

Here’s a data point for you. I took my H2 and Phase IQ 180 to the Highlands in Iceland two years ago. Not unusually, the weather conditions were crappy. Wind and rain. I actually tried to protect my camera while shooting by using a plastic protective cover, but on Day 2 of shooting, the IQ 180 failed and wouldn’t start up during my entire time in Iceland. The other photographers with me shot with Fuji, Canon and Nikon cameras, their cameras regularly got soaked during the week, and they never had a problem. Never again. I would think a tech camera with a Phase back would be a potential disaster in wind driven rain or salty seawater splashing around.
If weather sealing isn’t a formal spec, I would assume it’s not weather sealed. Phase knows well how to emphasize the positives.

 

[dougpeterson]

Indeed, as I said in my post, light rain would not bother me but anything more than that would make me nervous.

Wind, sand, hot, cold, humid, dry = not really a problem. Moderate or heavy rain = potentially a problem.

Also, don’t drop it into several feet of salt water. We had a client do that once; predictable results.

If I was shooting in moderate or heavy rain I’d rather be using a canon, Nikon, or other pro fully-sealed body (actually, I’d rather be inside with a whiskey in hand, but that’s a different matter). In any other condition I’d rather have a Phase.

Notably the IQ180 predates the addition of integrated in-place-by-default port covers. These do not provide full weather sealing but do help quite a bit.

 

[vieri]

Answering from phone so excuse brevity...

They are not weather sealed as a formal spec, but they are well made. I personally have used them many times in light rain, but anything more than that would make me nervous. In more than a decade I’ve never had a client damage a back from rain; though I suspect that’s partly because the backs are well made and partly because people don’t take them into monsoons. The rest of the environments you name are not a problem beyond the obvious need to clean the gear after use. We have many users who mostly or only shoot in such harsh conditions. There are videos of backs baking in an oven alongside a cake (still worked) and freezing in dry ice (still worked) next to a rubber ball that became solid.

The omission of the 23HR and 35HR are neither positive or negative indications. There are several tech camera lenses that I don’t feel I have enough data to predict performance due to minimal personal experience with those lenses at 100mp. We hope to have a bevy of tests, at 150, in the coming weeks. If at all possible, both of those lenses will be part of that.

Generally, my feeling is the IQ4 represents a “turning point” for tech cameras. The improvement in image quality and usability should be quite significant. But I also don’t want to inappropriately raise expectations until I’ve had the chance to do my own extensive hands on testing.

Thank you very much for this Doug!

How about my Alpa questions? Any news on that?

- Will there be an Alpa A-Series IQ4?
- Will there be pre-loaded LCC profiles (FLC) for Rodenstock lenses in the IQ4?

Thanks again! Best regards,

Vieri

 

[vieri]

Indeed, as I said in my post, light rain would not bother me but anything more than that would make me nervous.

Wind, sand, hot, cold, humid, dry = not really a problem. Moderate or heavy rain = potentially a problem.

Also, don’t drop it into several feet of salt water. We had a client do that once; predictable results.

If I was shooting in moderate or heavy rain I’d rather be using a canon, Nikon, or other pro fully-sealed body (actually, I’d rather be inside with a whiskey in hand, but that’s a different matter). In any other condition I’d rather have a Phase.

Notably the IQ180 predates the addition of integrated in-place-by-default port covers. These do not provide full weather sealing but do help quite a bit.

Agree with you. See, with my Leica SLs I am totally relaxed no matter what the weather throws at me: it's part of the job, been there done that, being splashed by a rogue wave (totally soaked me and the camera / lens), wind knocked camera down in a few feet of fresh snow, again no problems at all, and so on. I guess that moving to a Phase + Tech camera I'd have to be much more careful

Best regards,

Vieri