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!

IQ4150 - Best Back Ever?

Craig Stocks

Well-known member
Is it just me or is the new IQ4150 the best back Phase One has ever produced? Now that I've had a chance to put it through it's paces in a variety of settings I'm finding that the files that come out are the best I've ever worked with. Color and tones seem to just fall into place with a minimum of fuss and adjustment. As we've all said before the firmware still needs a LOT of work, but in my experience the files are superb.
 

Attachments

dave.gt

Well-known member
Is it just me or is the new IQ4150 the best back Phase One has ever produced? Now that I've had a chance to put it through it's paces in a variety of settings I'm finding that the files that come out are the best I've ever worked with. Color and tones seem to just fall into place with a minimum of fuss and adjustment. As we've all said before the firmware still needs a LOT of work, but in my experience the files are superb.
Beautiful rendering. Could this be the "sweet spot"?:)
 

Gerd

Active member
I have only had IQ4 for two days but so far I am not so excited. I did some test shots with the XF, a Cambo WRS and different lenses and I just swapped the backs between IQ4150 and IQ3100Tr. Everything else remained unchanged. IQ3 Trichromatic is much better in terms of colors. With the IQ4150, the white balance is always extremely wrong. Even with gray card (ColorChecker), the results are not right, it needs some rework. IQ4150 shows more CA's on the same lens as IQ3100Tr. (that is probably due to the better CFA design of the Trichromatic). Firmware / Software is up to date.

I test and watch it and try to find a solution.

Greeting Gerd
 

Phase V

Member
I have only had IQ4 for two days but so far I am not so excited. I did some test shots with the XF, a Cambo WRS and different lenses and I just swapped the backs between IQ4150 and IQ3100Tr. Everything else remained unchanged. IQ3 Trichromatic is much better in terms of colors. With the IQ4150, the white balance is always extremely wrong. Even with gray card (ColorChecker), the results are not right, it needs some rework. IQ4150 shows more CA's on the same lens as IQ3100Tr. (that is probably due to the better CFA design of the Trichromatic). Firmware / Software is up to date.

I test and watch it and try to find a solution.

Greeting Gerd
That´s why they WILL present us a IQ4 150 Trichromatic one year ahead.:D
 

drunkenspyder

Well-known member
Is it just me or is the new IQ4150 the best back Phase One has ever produced? Now that I've had a chance to put it through it's paces in a variety of settings I'm finding that the files that come out are the best I've ever worked with. Color and tones seem to just fall into place with a minimum of fuss and adjustment. As we've all said before the firmware still needs a LOT of work, but in my experience the files are superb.
Lovely image Craig. Love the tones. And I agree. While I get what Gerd is saying, and I agree that WB seems erratic on the new back [though, in candor, I tend to leave mine set at AWB and get a lot of oddities on all my cameras esp. when shooting at dawn and dusk], overall, the color is just amazing. I don't have the deep Phase experience that many here have, but I have images from two Trichros, one Achro, and now the IQ4.150 in my catalogs and sessions. I enjoy the IQ on all of them, but the IQ4 is consistently better. Yes, the firmware needs to be brought to functionality and reliability parity with the Trichro, and then beyond, but for now, I still get grins when I start downloading the images.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I agree very nice image.

As to the best back from Phase One1, I really can't agree. I feel the image quality, DR, shadow recovery, high recovery etc, is pretty much identical to the IQ3. At first I thought the IQ4 at 50 ISO and the extra quality 16 bit raw was giving me a bit more shadow recovery, but I now it seems about the same tested it again this morning. Actually by 200 ISO, shadow push in low light is very limited for me. And by 400, pretty much too much noise. For the first time I do see issues with Rolling shutter in high quality 16 bit and normal 16 bit, not as common in 14 bit. I used the ES on the IQ3 almost 100% of the time, and really never saw movement induced rolling shutter issues, however I am seeing them in trees branches, and grasses, at times.

I can't figure out why the chip with BIS gives to much life to tech camera glass, but seems not to give much in overall shadow recovery with the XF and various Blue ring lenses, 35mm, 40-80 etc.

On the flip, you can easily use the Schneider 35mm XL with CF and no LCC is really needed as long as you don't shift any. This lens being symmetrical is just wonderful for stitched panos. The difference between the IQ3 and the 35XL and IQ4 is really amazing. And you can take the center filter off and still get a good image. This morning with the CF I shot all morning and never needed a LCC.

Firmware is really behind on where it should be. And new issues seem to keep coming up at least for me.

I have issues with image playback (images have a line through them, and 1/2 of image is too dark when zoomed to 100%
Auto Live View seems to pulse brightness settings making it hard to use
Power share seems not to work like it did on the IQ3, this morning I had a blinking red back battery after 15 minutes of use and the battery in the XF was still full. Should not work that way.
HDMI, on an external monitor has been improved so that you can now move around the Live View, but it's cumbersome to get to and you can't use HDMI for image playback, which to me is big deal. Pretty standard on any modern camera.

Having better overall luck with tech camera with this back over XF.

Paul C
 

stevenfr

Active member
I have found the WB to be excellent compared to the IQ3 100. I was in Northern Japan in January with a friend that had the IQ3 100 and just about all of his images of snow had a blue cast compared to what I was getting with the IQ4 150. He ended up stealing my WB settings for some of the images. I did do some slight tweaks for images that were at dusk and dawn.
 

Gerd

Active member
Power sharing is not really working. The back without battery is powered by the XF, but the back never reaches the status ready without its own battery. If the XF does not have a battery, the back will show Ready status, but you will not be able to take pictures (all the triggers are blocked). If LiveView is activated in this state, the XF turns off.

As far as I've tested - means power sharing only that I can replace the batteries during operation - when no recording is running or LivieView is on.

I also tried the Schneider 35mm XL today and was pleasantly surprised.

Greeting Gerd
 

drunkenspyder

Well-known member
Power sharing is not really working. The back without battery is powered by the XF, but the back never reaches the status ready without its own battery. If the XF does not have a battery, the back will show Ready status, but you will not be able to take pictures (all the triggers are blocked). If LiveView is activated in this state, the XF turns off.

As far as I've tested - means power sharing only that I can replace the batteries during operation - when no recording is running or LivieView is on.

I also tried the Schneider 35mm XL today and was pleasantly surprised.

Greeting Gerd
That's been my experience as well. Seems that so far there is power backup while swapping batteries. It's an improvement, but it's not actual power sharing.
 

Orley

New member
Is it just me or is the new IQ4150 the best back Phase One has ever produced? Now that I've had a chance to put it through it's paces in a variety of settings I'm finding that the files that come out are the best I've ever worked with. Color and tones seem to just fall into place with a minimum of fuss and adjustment. As we've all said before the firmware still needs a LOT of work, but in my experience the files are superb.
Craig, I agree. Image Quality is superb, compared to all past P1 backs, 25+, 45+, IQ 180, IQ 280, IQ 3100. It is a joy to use. Love the new interface, fast USB-C tethering and the way it behaves with both the XF and Tech Cam, but the biggest pay off is Image Quality.
 

Jeffrey

Active member
I'm happy with my IQ4-150 Achromatic back attached to a Cambo WRS-5000 and Rodie lenses. I think the back takes advantage of everything the lenses can offer. When you see an image it looks great. Then you crop in on one tiny aspect of the image and realize there are many more images inside the original image. The back continues to impress me.
 

onasj

Active member
I'm happy with my IQ4-150 Achromatic back attached to a Cambo WRS-5000 and Rodie lenses. I think the back takes advantage of everything the lenses can offer. When you see an image it looks great. Then you crop in on one tiny aspect of the image and realize there are many more images inside the original image. The back continues to impress me.
I'm interested in the IQ4 achromatic and would love to see side-by-side files of the same scene taken with the IQ4 vs. IQ4 achromatic. In the event that you happen to have access to both backs, it would be a great service to the community if you could post a link to files from each! The extent to which the achromatic is better than the IQ4 converted to b/w in post would be especially interesting. I would at least expect a hefty luminance noise advantage favoring the achromatic.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
I'm interested in the IQ4 achromatic and would love to see side-by-side files of the same scene taken with the IQ4 vs. IQ4 achromatic. In the event that you happen to have access to both backs, it would be a great service to the community if you could post a link to files from each! The extent to which the achromatic is better than the IQ4 converted to b/w in post would be especially interesting. I would at least expect a hefty luminance noise advantage favoring the achromatic.
+1

Would also just love to see some IQ4 150 Achro images in general
 

Gerd

Active member
I'm interested in the IQ4 achromatic and would love to see side-by-side files of the same scene taken with the IQ4 vs. IQ4 achromatic. In the event that you happen to have access to both backs, it would be a great service to the community if you could post a link to files from each! The extent to which the achromatic is better than the IQ4 converted to b/w in post would be especially interesting. I would at least expect a hefty luminance noise advantage favoring the achromatic.
For IQ3100Tr. vs IQ3100Achro. I have a few comparison shots. Virtually just swapped the sensor and XF / lens remained unchanged. The lens had the IQ3100Achro. a B + W 486 filter - otherwise no sharp photos would have been possible. I can gladly show you something.

My IQ4 Achromatic update has been ordered, but not there yet. I do not know exactly when it comes and I can take pictures.

The IQ3 Achromatic had a sharp edge over the IQ3100Tr. Feels 25% better. But I never tried to measure. The IQ3 Achromatic also has a rush advantage.

The most important question: Are converted color pictures better or worse than BW pictures from the Achromat? I could not always answer the question unequivocally for me - that would be a longer discussion that also has a lot to do with personal perception.

Greeting Gerd
 

etrump

Well-known member
I'm feeling the same way Craig. The IQ, noise and color response is substantially improved over the IQ3100 IMHO. The thing just makes it easy to get incredible results.

The interface is going to be nice but a lot of functionality is just not there yet. Understandable considering the totally new architecture but still frustrating.

Even with the firmware issues, I'd still keep it over the 3100.

Is it just me or is the new IQ4150 the best back Phase One has ever produced? Now that I've had a chance to put it through it's paces in a variety of settings I'm finding that the files that come out are the best I've ever worked with. Color and tones seem to just fall into place with a minimum of fuss and adjustment. As we've all said before the firmware still needs a LOT of work, but in my experience the files are superb.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Damn it - I'm here with a finger in each ear ...

#IgnoreThisThread Because it'll cost me a new car! Damn.
 
Last edited:

Boinger

Active member
Damn it - I'm here with a finger in each ear ...

#IgnoreThisThread BecauseIt'll cost me a new car! Damn.
Honestly I am amazed at the quality and the highlight recovery helps my work so much its not even funny. Less time finicking around strobes.

I was shooting a h6d-100c prior to this.
 
Top