Thoughts on Schnedier 35XL vs Rodenstock 40HR on iq4 150.

[vjbelle]

Yep.... everybody wins at this stage. These are great times for photographers!!:thumbup:

I want to see the next iteration in the smaller cameras - probably in the 60MP area. I am going to want something smaller to compliment the 100s or my 3100/Actus and I want FF.

Cheers......

Victor

 

[dchew]

I entered a feature request case for wide SK lens profiles. Feel free to pile on!

Yes, my feeble attempt at a petition.


Dave

 

[onasj]

I suspect that the GFX 100 will be a superb camera, but one non-trivial aspect of the IQ4 that Fuji won’t be able to match is sensor size, which is at least part of why we are MF fans and in this forum.

35 mm “full frame” = 864 sq. mm of sensor area
Fuji GFX = 1441 sq. mm of sensor area (1.67x the size of 35 mm)
Phase One IQ4 = 2136 sq. mm of sensor area (1.48x the size of GFX)

I’m well aware that a great 35 mm sensor can come close in some respects to MF (see my mega shootout post in this forum), but there’s still a significant sensor size difference that for some applications and photographers will matter.

Greg..... I am referring to the complete delivery system. The 100s will be far superior to anything a 4150 could do and will offer it in a menu system that will allow the user far more flexibility. The closest you will be able to get is to attach the 4150 to an antiquated XF and now you have much more than quadrupled the cost!! Couple that with a state of the art EVF and a complete package that will be lighter and smaller and it's a winner. Fuji learned a lot about what users wanted with the 50s - the 100s will be a killer camera.

As I always have, I applaud all early adopters of the 4150 and wish them all well.

Cheers.....

Victor

 

[drunkenspyder]

Yep.... everybody wins at this stage. These are great times for photographers!!:thumbup:

I want to see the next iteration in the smaller cameras - probably in the 60MP area. I am going to want something smaller to compliment the 100s or my 3100/Actus and I want FF.

Cheers......

Victor

Agreed on this wholeheartedly Victor. I am watching Hassy with bated breath. I love the interface, the elegance, the compactness, etc., but will be ready to give uo if they don't release something that raises the bar.

 

[vjbelle]

I suspect that the GFX 100 will be a superb camera, but one non-trivial aspect of the IQ4 that Fuji won’t be able to match is sensor size, which is at least part of why we are MF fans and in this forum.

I hope you aren't trying to say that 44/33 isn't medium format...... It's medium format!..... I really dislike all of these labels as the real distinguishing sizes are better defined but if you want to hold on to that small distinguishing factor then so be it.

I’m well aware that a great 35 mm sensor can come close in some respects to MF (see my mega shootout post in this forum), but there’s still a significant sensor size difference that for some applications and photographers will matter.

It's not so much sensor size that's important as it is pixel dimensions. The 100s will have the same pixel pitch and format dimensions as the 4150 and all of the sensor capabilities. The only difference is the amount of pixels produced - not the quality of the pixels produced. There will be some slight difference in DOF which is easily overcome with the faster lenses available for the 44/33 platform.

Anyway.... I want you to have all the fun:thumbs: in the world with you 4150 and if you use it professionally I hope it brings you oodles of more money. For me, so far, its a waste of money.

Never say never.... I could sucom tomorrow but the way I feel now it's a no go. My 3100 is just fine!:thumbup:

Happy shooting and best......

Victor

 

[dougpeterson]

Never say never.... I could sucom tomorrow but the way I feel now it's a no go. My 3100 is just fine!:thumbup:

To which I would only have one reply... have you played with one?

Many things are easy to resist or dismiss until you experience them first hand.

The first taste is free :toocool:

 

[vjbelle]

I was out for my mile walk this morning (31 degrees) and had to make a slight genteel lower extremity adjustment..... that's the closest I've been to playing:ROTFL:

Sooner or later I will 'Play' with a 4150.......

Victor

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

It depends on where I look. The bottles in the shift image definitely look better on the 40hr, as does the image overall [35 left / 40 right].

But the blue fabric in the far corner is a bit better on the 35 [35 left / 40 right]:

On the rise/fall image, there is something odd going on with the 40hr. As Doug pointed out, could simply be field curvature. Given the image shift was down (either lens fall or back rise), this should not be anywhere near the edge of the image circle [35 left / 40 right]:

Regardless, they are both great lenses. Todd has my 40hr right now, but I compared them two years ago when I got the 35xl, and it was splitting hairs. I just shot another test of my 35xl, and it is good as ever, at least on the IQ3100...

Dave

35xl@f/13:

Hi Dave

Do you still have the 35XL and the IQ3100, I realise this post was quite some time ago. I was under the impression that the combination is no good and the lens cast is too severe for it to be useful but I'd love to see it for myself if you happen to have any examples. I got the 35xl and a Credo 60 and they work very well together. I don't even use the CF since it makes a lot off my exposures much longer than they could be and there were more problems with flare. I tested both on and off and found LCC fixes it fine. I went with the Credo 60 specifically because I wanted the 35XL — regardless of the small differences in sharpness here and there I can see the distortion on those 40hr shots and that is exactly why I went with the 35xl as an architecture/interior photographer. I really like the files from the Credo but of course live view is a real challenge. It will most likely be a few more years before the IQ4150 is in my price range but the 100MP backs are heading there much quicker.

Thanks

 

[dchew]

Reginald,
I have one image that highlights the color cast. It is against snow so any uncorrected color shows pretty well. However, since it was a sunrise the snow is not neutral white everywhere. I don't remember any movements in this image. Movements > 5 - 10mm might be a challenge.

Here is the raw image:

Here is the raw LCC:

And here is the finished image:

Here is another image shifted 18mm L/R, which is more than I would ever do for anything serious. The ceiling gets a little strange, but the lighting was not consistent either so not the best test for judging:

I don't have the raw files with me, but I could send you links over the weekend if you want them. I might be able to dig up some other samples too. I don't still have the combination because I replaced the 3100 with the 4150.

Dave

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

thanks Dave, some RAW files would be great when you get the time. That mountain shot has come up pretty well, probably the top left is the most telling but then in the processed version it's tough to say what is cast/vignetting and what is just natural cloud/lighting stuff happening in the sky. The eye goes to the pop of light on the mountain top in any case.

The weird stuff in the ceiling looks like it would be pretty straight forward to retouch either way. I know I've taken shots like that (for serious work) that I knew I were outside of the limitations of the equipment but then when a client wants a certain thing sometimes you just have to make the best compromise (camera/optics are all about compromising on one thing or another) — and spend a lot of time in photoshop later on …

Thanks

 

[dchew]

Ok, I'm in Chicago until tomorrow but should be able to grab them Friday and upload them. I will add a link here either Friday or Saturday.

Dave

 

[shfoto]

Hi Dave

Do you still have the 35XL and the IQ3100, I realise this post was quite some time ago. I was under the impression that the combination is no good and the lens cast is too severe for it to be useful but I'd love to see it for myself if you happen to have any examples. I got the 35xl and a Credo 60 and they work very well together. I don't even use the CF since it makes a lot off my exposures much longer than they could be and there were more problems with flare. I tested both on and off and found LCC fixes it fine. I went with the Credo 60 specifically because I wanted the 35XL — regardless of the small differences in sharpness here and there I can see the distortion on those 40hr shots and that is exactly why I went with the 35xl as an architecture/interior photographer. I really like the files from the Credo but of course live view is a real challenge. It will most likely be a few more years before the IQ4150 is in my price range but the 100MP backs are heading there much quicker.

Thanks

Hi Reginald

About a year ago I had the opportunity to compare a Leaf Credo 50 and a IQ1 100 using a SK 35 XL. Below you will find two examples with and without LCC applied. I believe the Q1 100 and IQ3 100 share the same sensor. So image quality should be similar. I did not use a CF.

Best - Stephan

Test1a: IQ1 100 | SK 35 XL | 7 mm rise | LCC


Test1b: IQ1 100 | SK 35 XL | 7 mm rise | no LCC


Test2a: IQ1 100 | SK35 XL | 3 mm rise | LCC


Test2b: IQ1 100 | SK35 XL | 3 mm rise | no LCC

 

[guphotography]

thanks Dave, some RAW files would be great when you get the time. That mountain shot has come up pretty well, probably the top left is the most telling but then in the processed version it's tough to say what is cast/vignetting and what is just natural cloud/lighting stuff happening in the sky. The eye goes to the pop of light on the mountain top in any case.

The weird stuff in the ceiling looks like it would be pretty straight forward to retouch either way. I know I've taken shots like that (for serious work) that I knew I were outside of the limitations of the equipment but then when a client wants a certain thing sometimes you just have to make the best compromise (camera/optics are all about compromising on one thing or another) — and spend a lot of time in photoshop later on …

Thanks

Hi Reginald,

I work with the 35xl on IQ1 100mp back. Below are my experiences so far, hope you find it useful.

Lcc can handle most situations with moderate movements, I have shot with it for over a year without any problems. CF is recommended if you need extreme movements, otherwise lcc cannot help you with light off correction, such as 15mm to 20mm shift, in combination of rise/fall.

35xl does leave occasional colour residuals for exterior work, depending on the sky texture and colour, but all retouchable in the post.

I did acquire 40hr about 6 months ago, with all the hypes and praises, I wanted to see if it is really that much better than 35xl. And I hated the distortion correction, so time consuming in the post and still leaves curved edges, worse if you need occasional stitching.

If upgrade to iq4 150 becomes viable, I'm sure the 35xl would be even better.

Cheers
Gu

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

Hi Reginald

About a year ago I had the opportunity to compare a Leaf Credo 50 and a IQ1 100 using a SK 35 XL. Below you will find two examples with and without LCC applied. I believe the Q1 100 and IQ3 100 share the same sensor. So image quality should be similar. I did not use a CF.

Best - Stephan

Test1a: IQ1 100 | SK 35 XL | 7 mm rise | LCC
View attachment 194473

Test1b: IQ1 100 | SK 35 XL | 7 mm rise | no LCC
View attachment 194474

Test2a: IQ1 100 | SK35 XL | 3 mm rise | LCC
View attachment 194472

Test2b: IQ1 100 | SK35 XL | 3 mm rise | no LCC
View attachment 194471

Hi Stephen

Thank you for the reply, sorry I didn't get a notification so never saw it. To be honest it doesn't look a lot worse than the results I get with the Credo 60 (OK maybe it is, but it has cleaned up remarkably well on that bridge shot: I think the IQ1 100 et al. have better DR to deal with those problems that the Credo wouldn't cope with — if that makes sense. My experience tends to be that what is a compromise for tech camera users is still in a different league than what can be accomplished on 135, GFX etc. (with the adapted Canon lenses).

I wouldn't mind seeing the original files if that was something you are prepared to do.

 

[vjbelle]

I have owned the 35XL since I started with Phase backs - going all the way back to a P25. The only back where there were almost no limitations for movements was with the P25. After that shifting/rise became limited with the most limitations with the 3100. Any of the backs from the 3100 to now, my current 4150, can handle shifting/rise to around 10mm. After that smearing starts to appear at the edges - this is shooting at f11. My feeling is that 7 to 8mm of shift/rise is doable with the CMOS backs - not double movements. The 4150 eliminates the need for an LCC on most occasions.

I have stayed away from the Rody wides because of the extreme distortion. The 35XL is not only very sharp but has ZERO distortion. An amazing lens albeit with some limitations.

As usual YMMV.....

Victor B.

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

Ok, I'm in Chicago until tomorrow but should be able to grab them Friday and upload them. I will add a link here either Friday or Saturday.

Dave

That sounds great. Actually while I'm at it I just saw another post you did some time back with a comparison between the Rodenstock and SK 90mm lenses and was going to respond to that since the dropbox files are no longer up. I'm looking for a 90 and have been thinking about the SK version vs the various Rodenstock 90mm options. I was most likely looking at the older Apo-Sironar-Digital which I believe holds up very well, but maybe the SK handles flare better as well as being much more compact: any way that's a bit off topic.

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

I have owned the 35XL since I started with Phase backs - going all the way back to a P25. The only back where there were almost no limitations for movements was with the P25. After that shifting/rise became limited with the most limitations with the 3100. Any of the backs from the 3100 to now, my current 4150, can handle shifting/rise to around 10mm. After that smearing starts to appear at the edges - this is shooting at f11. My feeling is that 7 to 8mm of shift/rise is doable with the CMOS backs - not double movements. The 4150 eliminates the need for an LCC on most occasions.

I have stayed away from the Rody wides because of the extreme distortion. The 35XL is not only very sharp but has ZERO distortion. An amazing lens albeit with some limitations.

As usual YMMV.....

Victor B.

definitely agree re. the distortion factor. It makes shooting architecture/interior much more difficult with distortion, even just for making sure verticals/horizontals are lined up when composing. I also have the 28 HR where it is an issue (though don't use it much, too wide for me generally) and coming from previous setups with Canon shift lenses the 35XL is a dream

 

[Reginald Fluggelding]

Hi Reginald,

I work with the 35xl on IQ1 100mp back. Below are my experiences so far, hope you find it useful.

Lcc can handle most situations with moderate movements, I have shot with it for over a year without any problems. CF is recommended if you need extreme movements, otherwise lcc cannot help you with light off correction, such as 15mm to 20mm shift, in combination of rise/fall.

35xl does leave occasional colour residuals for exterior work, depending on the sky texture and colour, but all retouchable in the post.

I did acquire 40hr about 6 months ago, with all the hypes and praises, I wanted to see if it is really that much better than 35xl. And I hated the distortion correction, so time consuming in the post and still leaves curved edges, worse if you need occasional stitching.

If upgrade to iq4 150 becomes viable, I'm sure the 35xl would be even better.

Cheers
Gu

Hi Gu,

I'm getting mixed up here late on a Friday night about what I've replied to or not so hopefully I didn't do this one already. Totally agree about distortion correction. It works but a pain, and have to be quite methodical about recording movements which is easy to miss on a shoot (just like I miss the odd LCC). Having straight lines at the edges just helps from the get go.

Thanks for the info, yes very useful. Good to know. I tend to avoid shifting too much anyway (apart from stitching) since it can easily start to look contrived. Sometimes I think I've shifted a lot and then look at the scale and see I haven't even got to 10 mm.

I really need to play with some IQ 100 files to see what they can do. I feel I can get away with a lot with the Credo files and the 35XL, especially when it's just sky or ceiling in the trouble areas (and when the final full/print size photo effect is the goal rather than the pixel peeping). Crappy live view aside I suspect the IQ1 100 has better shadows, more DR and of course I'd be able to shoot above 100 ISO. I know with my GFX files vs the Credo that I prefer the Credo files even though it sucks in the shadows compared to the GFX: so I just bracket for insurance if I might need some more shadow details.

Checked your work by the way, nice stuff . Is that mostly on the IQ1 100?

 

[guphotography]

Hi Gu,

I'm getting mixed up here late on a Friday night about what I've replied to or not so hopefully I didn't do this one already. Totally agree about distortion correction. It works but a pain, and have to be quite methodical about recording movements which is easy to miss on a shoot (just like I miss the odd LCC). Having straight lines at the edges just helps from the get go.

Thanks for the info, yes very useful. Good to know. I tend to avoid shifting too much anyway (apart from stitching) since it can easily start to look contrived. Sometimes I think I've shifted a lot and then look at the scale and see I haven't even got to 10 mm.

I really need to play with some IQ 100 files to see what they can do. I feel I can get away with a lot with the Credo files and the 35XL, especially when it's just sky or ceiling in the trouble areas (and when the final full/print size photo effect is the goal rather than the pixel peeping). Crappy live view aside I suspect the IQ1 100 has better shadows, more DR and of course I'd be able to shoot above 100 ISO. I know with my GFX files vs the Credo that I prefer the Credo files even though it sucks in the shadows compared to the GFX: so I just bracket for insurance if I might need some more shadow details.

Checked your work by the way, nice stuff . Is that mostly on the IQ1 100?

Hi Reginald,

Dan is selling his IQ1 100mp in H fit on the forum and eBay.

The latest 9 projects on my site were shot with IQ1 100mp, the rest were a mix of IQ2 50mp, Fuji 50R and Sony A7R III.

If you DM me your email address, I can share some 35xl raw files for you to play with.

Cheers
Gu

 

[dchew]

That sounds great. Actually while I'm at it I just saw another post you did some time back with a comparison between the Rodenstock and SK 90mm lenses and was going to respond to that since the dropbox files are no longer up. I'm looking for a 90 and have been thinking about the SK version vs the various Rodenstock 90mm options. I was most likely looking at the older Apo-Sironar-Digital which I believe holds up very well, but maybe the SK handles flare better as well as being much more compact: any way that's a bit off topic.

A few posts above I said I would post up some images. It is not that I forgot, but I embarrassingly could not find them. I have the tiffs the created the stitch above, but I don't have the raw files. At the time, I guess I thought I was just doing a simple test and must have jettisoned the raw files. Sorry about that. I cannot recreate something similar because I no longer have the IQ3100.

I do still have the Rodi 90hrsw vs sk90 apo-digitar files, so I will get those back up over the weekend and pm you a link.

Dave