Early adopters of the IQ4150 may, like me, feel that the back simply wasn't ready to be launched. The list of major snags was long, and the usability of the back was completely unacceptable. The firmware updates have corrected a few issues, and introduced new ones, suggesting a basic lack of testing. All this was (and still is) enough for me to feel close to losing confidence in Phase One. I don't know whether the change in ownership was a factor, but the launch had a feeling of 'it is happening even though we aren't anywhere near ready', and the firmware update issues don't exactly inspire confidence.
However, if we give Phase One the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that this is new technology which may come with a few (too many:angry
'initial blips', how do some of the new features stack up? My very simple and unscientific take is that the combination of creative control and frame averaging could be an exceptionally useful technological advance for usability in the field, and completely transform how some photographers are able to work.
The very dark test image below was made using frame averaging (I can't recall the precise settings I'm afraid), taking care to expose to protect the highlights. As you can see, the lower part of the image is almost black, and had it appeared like this on the back, the ability to review the image would have been severely limited. However, using creative control and a custom style (mainly aggressive shadow lifting), the image on the back appeared similar to the brighter test image at the bottom of this post. The usable dynamic range when frame averaging approximately 5 or more images is exceptional allowing ridiculous shadow recovery (and the colours seem to retain their integrity). Used in combination with creative control, the possibilities contained within the RAW file can be revealed on the back, giving important feedback e.g. to assess composition etc. So, yes, I do think it is possible to do away with ND filters, and what a joy it is being able to expose for the highlights, yet see the deepest shadows!
For frame averaging, I have found tree/branch/plant movements to appear natural, quite similar to how they would appear in a normal 1 second plus exposure. I have not tested photographing moving water yet.
However, if we give Phase One the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that this is new technology which may come with a few (too many:angry
'initial blips', how do some of the new features stack up? My very simple and unscientific take is that the combination of creative control and frame averaging could be an exceptionally useful technological advance for usability in the field, and completely transform how some photographers are able to work.The very dark test image below was made using frame averaging (I can't recall the precise settings I'm afraid), taking care to expose to protect the highlights. As you can see, the lower part of the image is almost black, and had it appeared like this on the back, the ability to review the image would have been severely limited. However, using creative control and a custom style (mainly aggressive shadow lifting), the image on the back appeared similar to the brighter test image at the bottom of this post. The usable dynamic range when frame averaging approximately 5 or more images is exceptional allowing ridiculous shadow recovery (and the colours seem to retain their integrity). Used in combination with creative control, the possibilities contained within the RAW file can be revealed on the back, giving important feedback e.g. to assess composition etc. So, yes, I do think it is possible to do away with ND filters, and what a joy it is being able to expose for the highlights, yet see the deepest shadows!
For frame averaging, I have found tree/branch/plant movements to appear natural, quite similar to how they would appear in a normal 1 second plus exposure. I have not tested photographing moving water yet.
