Thanks for the clarification, Steve. From my notes from a recent inquiry I had $2899 for t/s mount but would be happy to be wrong about this!
John
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!
Technical Camera Help Please!
- Thread starter Greg Haag
- Start date
John
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
From our article here: https://phaseoneiq4.com/11-reasons-tech-camera-users-will-love-the-iq4/
I'm very surprised to hear you say you find the lens cast reduction only "a little better" - can you explain a bit more?
- Much less color cast / falloff
- Improved live view
- No need for manual dark frames
- Frame averaging for almost zero noise
- Increased Resolution
- Faster ES
- Focus Mask in live view
- Live Raw histogram in live view
- Faster image navigation during review
You have both; do you not find the above to be very useful? The first four are what I've found personally to be "staggering" in impact of my own tech camera shooting. They equal much less hassle and a much smoother shooting workflow in my experience.
Notably there are two current disadvantages of the IQ4 vs IQ3 on a tech camera: longer boot times and no zero-latency triggering for copal shutter sync.
Last edited:
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
I would just temper this slightly by saying the color cast is greatly reduced. The amount of reduction is such that most people with most lenses with most movements will not find the color cast warrants an LCC.
In the case of extreme lenses (e.g. 28XL) or extreme movement (e.g. beyond the stated image circle) or extreme use case (e.g. scientific color analysis or art reproduction) or an extremely picker user, an LCC may still be needed.
kdphotography
Well-known member
Felix is a known seller and GetDPI family member. The IQ3 is an excellent value.
Another option-----check in with Phase One dealer's on possible trade-ins on the IQ3 for the IQ4 150. Buy the IQ3----and trade in for the IQ4 can save a substantial amount of money.
Both IQ3 and IQ4 are awesome MFDBs----you really can't go wrong.
If you haven't tried the various technical cameras, I would definitely try Alpa, Arca, and Cambo to see which suits you best. I prefer the Cambo WRS 1600. The HR40 t/s remains my main lens.
ken
Another option-----check in with Phase One dealer's on possible trade-ins on the IQ3 for the IQ4 150. Buy the IQ3----and trade in for the IQ4 can save a substantial amount of money.
Both IQ3 and IQ4 are awesome MFDBs----you really can't go wrong.
If you haven't tried the various technical cameras, I would definitely try Alpa, Arca, and Cambo to see which suits you best. I prefer the Cambo WRS 1600. The HR40 t/s remains my main lens.
ken
Greg Haag
Well-known member
Thank you Ken, Felix and I are talking Saturday! I have heard so many good things about the Cambo WRS 1600.
Thanks again,
Greg
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
BFD
Active member
Perhaps my "little bit better" was understated and should have been "better".
Of course, it's a 150MP back so the resolution is increased.
The other points are welcome additions but certainly not staggering, in my opinion. With those nice additions came along a lot of baggage that has been made most users feel like beta testers. No Ad Hoc WiFi which now requires a separate router to use live view with an iPad, the ridiculous boot up time—really the whole C1 inside the back is useless to most people. I don't doubt that the back and it's software will be sorted out in the years to come but right now the nose slaps heavily outweigh the attaboys. So, no, I don't find most of the new features to be very useful. I use all my equipment in both personal and commercial environments and so far the IQ4 mostly is on set for a backup.
For your budget I'd recommend IQ3, Arca Swiss Rm3di with rotating back, L60 head for tripod and a Lee hood with adaptors for your lenses.
Lenses: All of the Rode HR's are excellent as well as some of the Schneiders. The problem with lenses is that they are low volume and therefore very expensive.
Used clean is the way to go if you have patience.
The Rode32Hr (Blue ring) is amazing (and equally pricey). The 40mmHR Rode (Blue ring) is far smaller, lighter and a superb lens that is much less expensive...I'd therefore start with that for a wide. If you want to super wide I know of a 23mm Rode that is mint and nicely priced in an Arca mount.
The Rode 70HR (Blue ring) is a great standard length lens. 90mm Rode (Blue or Magenta ring) is the EXACT same lens and is 1/3 the cost of the 90mm HR
but has quality nearly as good in my opinion. 120mmSchneider ASP if you can find one is amazing.
Robert
Lenses: All of the Rode HR's are excellent as well as some of the Schneiders. The problem with lenses is that they are low volume and therefore very expensive.
Used clean is the way to go if you have patience.
The Rode32Hr (Blue ring) is amazing (and equally pricey). The 40mmHR Rode (Blue ring) is far smaller, lighter and a superb lens that is much less expensive...I'd therefore start with that for a wide. If you want to super wide I know of a 23mm Rode that is mint and nicely priced in an Arca mount.
The Rode 70HR (Blue ring) is a great standard length lens. 90mm Rode (Blue or Magenta ring) is the EXACT same lens and is 1/3 the cost of the 90mm HR
but has quality nearly as good in my opinion. 120mmSchneider ASP if you can find one is amazing.
Robert
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
And I probably should have used a word other than "staggering" which sounds marketing-ish anyway. I still think "significant" or even "very significant" is warranted, based on broadly sourced feedback from our clients. But of course, as you point out P1 still has some items on their to do list for the new platform (ad hoc wireless, zero latency), which, if they effect your needs/use are also significant. How significant any of these given pro or con is will depend on ones needs/wants/workflow.
There is no question that IQ4 150 (cost as no object) is the best DB for Tech cameras ever. Having personally moved from an IQ180 to the IQ4 I can attest it was a chasmic jump with many positive gains. That said on a budget the IQ3 100 is a great back at a fabulous price point, and you need to buy a camera and lenses...lenses will kick your budget so choose wisely.
Robert
BFD
Active member
Agreed. Your input is always valued and appreciated.
Greg Haag
Well-known member
Paul,
Thank you so much for sharing your insight on the IQ4, it certainly appears to be an impressive back! Until recently, I have shot within the Hasselblad H system for the past 10 or so years (H2, H4, H6), but never with a technical camera so this is a big change in shooting style for me. On one hand I love some of the features you mentioned on the IQ4, on the other hand the IQ3100 seems to be a lower risk way to enter until I am certain I can make the jump to a technical camera. Any insights you might have with this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again,
Greg
BFD
Active member
I used to use the H system but was forced to switch to the XF when the IQ4 came out. I was very reluctant and not looking forward to the switch. Now I love the XF and wish I had switched earlier. The camera is great to use and I actually use many of the gadget type features that it has built-in which is something I'm not usually akin to. The camera and lenses are really good.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
If the choice is between getting the XF vs a better lens (32HR or 90HRSW for example), then I'd go with the lens. However, whilst I often joke about the XF being built like a boat anchor, it is a very flexible and high performing body for an IQ back. You'll obviously need to consider what lenses you'd want for the XF too and that can be potentially another money pit.
I'm glad that I have an XF along with my Actus DB2 but I typically use the tech camera 99% of the time. If all else fails, with the XF you'll have a great piece of weight training gear! :ROTFL:
Greg Haag
Well-known member
Graham, thank you for insight! If I were going to have 3 lenses on my radar for the technical camera, which 3 would you recommend. My primary use is landscape and exterior commercial architecture.
Thanks,
Greg
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I don't use my cameras for any commercial reasons and pretty much just landscape use so my choices might not be ideal for a working pro's needs but here's my story:
For the technical camera I went with a pretty standard set up second time around for my Actus - 40HR, 70HR and SK 120. With my Alpa I had 32HR, 90HR and SK150 which was also a very useful combination (It was stolen). In the past I also had the 23HR but TBH that was nice to have but I didn't use it much as it was a tricky lens to deal with (reflections/flare/LCC etc).
The reality (for me at least) is that the two most used lenses by far were the 32/90 or 40/70 with the longer 120mm+ lenses only being rarely used, although obviously when you need them, you need them unless you want to crop. With a tech cam having movements gives you a lot of flexibility when using just a couple of lenses so if you want to go really wide it's easy to stitch without needing to go to the widest lens extremes (like the 23HR).
For the technical camera I went with a pretty standard set up second time around for my Actus - 40HR, 70HR and SK 120. With my Alpa I had 32HR, 90HR and SK150 which was also a very useful combination (It was stolen). In the past I also had the 23HR but TBH that was nice to have but I didn't use it much as it was a tricky lens to deal with (reflections/flare/LCC etc).
The reality (for me at least) is that the two most used lenses by far were the 32/90 or 40/70 with the longer 120mm+ lenses only being rarely used, although obviously when you need them, you need them unless you want to crop. With a tech cam having movements gives you a lot of flexibility when using just a couple of lenses so if you want to go really wide it's easy to stitch without needing to go to the widest lens extremes (like the 23HR).
dchew
Well-known member
Greg,
The four best lenses out there for technical cameras are the 32hr, 90hrsw, sk120 asph and the new 138hr-float. But, those three Rodenstock lenses add up to well North of $30k, maybe even $40k and you need to be in someone's will to get your hands on a sk120 asph. A tier below that, but still excellent are a mixture of Schneider (sk) and Rodenstock (hr):
sk28xl, sk35xl, 40hr, sk43xl, sk60xl, 50hr*, 70hr, sk72, sk90/100 (either one), sk120N, sk150, 180hr. There are probably a few I missed there, and some on this list may be slightly better than others, especially farther out in the image circle.
To some extent, the back/lens decision is interdependent if you want the most flexibility. If you need these for architecture, you would lean toward the Schneider lenses on the wide end because they have less distortion. Rodenstocks have a bit of mustache distortion which can be difficult to remove, although not impossible. The problem with Schneider lenses on the wide end is their shift amount is limited by lens color cast on anything but the IQ4 150. If you go for the IQ3 100 (which frankly I think is your best path), you really should use center filters on sk lenses wider than the sk72.
As others have stated, the general rule is Rodenstocks are heavier, have more distortion but have larger usable image circles. There are exceptions, like the sk60 and sk120 asph.
Dave
*Never owned the 50hr, but it may sneak into the top tier group. I hear it is quite good.
The four best lenses out there for technical cameras are the 32hr, 90hrsw, sk120 asph and the new 138hr-float. But, those three Rodenstock lenses add up to well North of $30k, maybe even $40k and you need to be in someone's will to get your hands on a sk120 asph. A tier below that, but still excellent are a mixture of Schneider (sk) and Rodenstock (hr):
sk28xl, sk35xl, 40hr, sk43xl, sk60xl, 50hr*, 70hr, sk72, sk90/100 (either one), sk120N, sk150, 180hr. There are probably a few I missed there, and some on this list may be slightly better than others, especially farther out in the image circle.
To some extent, the back/lens decision is interdependent if you want the most flexibility. If you need these for architecture, you would lean toward the Schneider lenses on the wide end because they have less distortion. Rodenstocks have a bit of mustache distortion which can be difficult to remove, although not impossible. The problem with Schneider lenses on the wide end is their shift amount is limited by lens color cast on anything but the IQ4 150. If you go for the IQ3 100 (which frankly I think is your best path), you really should use center filters on sk lenses wider than the sk72.
As others have stated, the general rule is Rodenstocks are heavier, have more distortion but have larger usable image circles. There are exceptions, like the sk60 and sk120 asph.
Dave
*Never owned the 50hr, but it may sneak into the top tier group. I hear it is quite good.
dchew
Well-known member
Here is a recent thread on the 35xl:
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...-schneider-35mm-apo-digitar-xl-60mpx-ccd.html
And one on the sk90, with a comparison to the 90hrsw:
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/47808-90mm-4-5-apo-digitar.html
Dave
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...-schneider-35mm-apo-digitar-xl-60mpx-ccd.html
And one on the sk90, with a comparison to the 90hrsw:
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/47808-90mm-4-5-apo-digitar.html
Dave