IQ4 (12-pin) Tech Camera Cables, In Stock

[dougpeterson]

Our initial shipment sold out quickly, but we have another batch in stock now.

12-Pin Multi Connector to Lens Sync (Phase One IQ4)
12-Pin Multi Connector to Mini Jack Adaptor Cable (Phase One IQ4)

 

[narikin]

These have been included free as part of the kit, with every Phase back I've bought (4 prior to this) so why not with the IQ4?

Understood they weren't ready before, but they really should be an included accessory.

 

[f8orbust]

Since the cable is an essential part of the kit, that was - for whatever reason - 'missing' at the time of release - I just assumed P1 would hand them out for gratis to bona fide purchasers.

It's kinda like buying a $40k car with a missing door handle, and then being told the handle's ready, but you've got to pay $100 for it.

You do wonder sometimes.

 

[dougpeterson]

Since the cable is an essential part of the kit, that was - for whatever reason - 'missing' at the time of release - I just assumed P1 would hand them out for gratis to bona fide purchasers.

It's kinda like buying a $40k car with a missing door handle, and then being told the handle's ready, but you've got to pay $100 for it.

You do wonder sometimes.

That’s a conversation to have with your dealer. It’s literally their job to make your purchase smooth, and your use of the gear as enjoyable and effective as possible.

For those shooting tech cameras hand held or using tech cameras with strobe this is an essential cable. At DT, we have gone to great efforts (custom-made cables, free cables, writing up workarounds when the firmware didn’t officially support it) to make sure our clients who are in that group were not unpleasantly surprised.

I too think P1 should have included the cable as part of the kit. But they did not, and I don’t take that as excuse for taking proper care of our clients. It’s not my job to defend Phase One; it is my job to take care of our clients who use Phase One gear.

 

[f8orbust]

That’s a conversation to have with your dealer.

I think that's a conversation for P1 dealers to have with P1.

 

[dougpeterson]

I think that's a conversation for P1 dealers to have with P1.

It's a conversation we've had with P1 several times. In case it's not clear, I think Phase One's decision to stop including a tech-cam cable is bullshit. However, that's my problem to deal with, not yours.

DT is glad to make sure our clients are happy despite P1's policy. It's our job, and we do it gladly.

 

[f8orbust]

So basically, there was a meeting at P1 that went something like this:

Accountant: We've decided not to supply this cable as standard anymore.

Engineer: That's an essential piece of kit for many users.

Accountant: Yes, I know.

Engineer: How much does it cost us ?

Accountant: About $20.

Engineer: Hmm, doesn't sound like much of a saving.

Accountant: It isn't.

Engineer: So, not really a good idea then ?

Accountant: No, unless ...

(In unison): ... we sell it to them for $100 instead !

*sounds of backs being slapped and corks being popped*

Like I said, you do wonder.

 

[Paul2660]

The only irony I see is that they included the cable with older backs, all of which (CMOS) had terrible issues with color shift even on center and terrible on shifts, to the point that the backs were not really useable on a tech camera due to amount of lifting the LCC had to do. Never had a Trichromatic back, so can't speak to it.

P1 with the IQ4 has a back that IMO produces amazing images with even the 35XL, a lens that for years was not really a player with either the 50MP or 100MP backs. But you got the cable.

You can shoot on center with the 35 XL and not see hardly any color cast, just a bit in the very top. You can even shoot without the CF and get a totally useable image.

P1 published 1 series images I know showing the IQ4 and tech camera use, (the castle shot). DT and CI both did a lot of work to show the differences, but until you rent a 4, and compare it to the results from the IQ3, you really can't appreciate the changes.

The single 5 dollar cable being included might have allowed more positive support from photographers out there. As the rolling shutter issue on the ES for the IQ4 does to me appear to be more prevalent an issue, thus the need for a copal shutter use at certain times, even with all the issues such shutters have.

Paul C

 

[dougpeterson]

As the rolling shutter issue on the ES for the IQ4 does to me appear to be more prevalent an issue, thus the need for a copal shutter use at certain times

I don't dispute the later point (that there is need for a physical shutter at certain times such as fast-moving-subjects-large-in-the-frame and flash-with-ambient-light) but I'm confused by your statement about the "the rolling shutter issue on the ES for the IQ4 does to me appear to be more prevalent an issue".

The "rolling shutter issue" is still there since it is, of course, a rolling shutter. But the ES on the IQ4 is roughly twice as fast so is LESS of a prevalent issue, not more. Maybe you're just using the IQ4 on a tech camera more often with ES than used your IQ3 on a tech camera or some other effectively-placebo reason you'd notice it more?

 

[Paul2660]

My issues with the rolling shutter, show up mainly in landscapes, where I am seeing more issues with moving trees, branches, etc. With over 2 years of use on the IQ3 almost all of it ES, I never saw this problem. However I have seen it quite a few times with the IQ4, in 16 bit mode, if you back off to 14 bit, the issue is not as noticeable.

I still prefer the ES, and love the flexibility it offers. I quit using tech cameras with the IQ3 due to the poor performance of color cast. The IQ4 offers a totally different solution.

Paul

 

[dougpeterson]

My issues with the rolling shutter, show up mainly in landscapes, where I am seeing more issues with moving trees, branches, etc. With over 2 years of use on the IQ3 almost all of it ES, I never saw this problem. However I have seen it quite a few times with the IQ4, in 16 bit mode, if you back off to 14 bit, the issue is not as noticeable.

I still prefer the ES, and love the flexibility it offers. I quit using tech cameras with the IQ3 due to the poor performance of color cast. The IQ4 offers a totally different solution.

I trust your knowledgeable and honest reporting of your experience. I'm just having a hard time integrating that experience with the technical facts.

The IQ4 is higher in resolution than the IQ3, so any given leaf will take up a slightly higher number of pixels, but only 22% more pixels. The sweep speed (the speed of the rolling shutter) is twice as fast at the same setting (comparing 16-bit to 16-bit).

Some possible (or at least plausible) explanations could be:
- You shoot 16-bit rather than 14-bit more often with the IQ4 than the IQ3
- You've shot in, on average, windier conditions
- You're scrutinizing the files more closely
- You're shooting with, on average, longer length lenses
- You're composing more "tightly" on moving subject matter with the IQ4 than the IQ3
- You're having an extraordinarily stretch of bad luck

I'm very confident (from the specs, the science, and my testing) that an IQ4 will have fewer "rolling shutter issues" than the IQ3, in the same scene with the same lens and the same bit setting. But, for example, an IQ4 in 16 bit in windy conditions will produce more such issues than an IQ3 in 14 bit in still conditions.

 

[narikin]

Indeed, if you want to minimize rolling shutter, then don't shoot IIQ16L, and certainly not 16EX. You're just extending the scan time a lot this way, for very very minimal improvement in DR. (and if you're shooting anything above 100iso, like 200, it's pointless to go above 14bit, as the DR isn't there anymore)

The scan time is quicker in IQ4, but as Phase still can't get it together to put a 'ready' beep into the firmware, in the shambles that has been the IQ4 release, then you wouldn't easily know it.

 

[Paul2660]

I trust your knowledgeable and honest reporting of your experience. I'm just having a hard time integrating that experience with the technical facts.

The IQ4 is higher in resolution than the IQ3, so any given leaf will take up a slightly higher number of pixels, but only 22% more pixels. The sweep speed (the speed of the rolling shutter) is twice as fast at the same setting (comparing 16-bit to 16-bit).

Some possible (or at least plausible) explanations could be:
- You shoot 16-bit rather than 14-bit more often with the IQ4 than the IQ3
- You've shot in, on average, windier conditions
- You're scrutinizing the files more closely
- You're shooting with, on average, longer length lenses
- You're composing more "tightly" on moving subject matter with the IQ4 than the IQ3
- You're having an extraordinarily stretch of bad luck

I'm very confident (from the specs, the science, and my testing) that an IQ4 will have fewer "rolling shutter issues" than the IQ3, in the same scene with the same lens and the same bit setting. But, for example, an IQ4 in 16 bit in windy conditions will produce more such issues than an IQ3 in 14 bit in still conditions.

Whatever the problem is it’s worth it for me as the difference in tech IQ is really amazing. And it might be the file size as the files can hold a lot of details and even less room for slight errors.

Paul C