Question for owners who've upgraded from IQ3-100 to IQ4-150

[Jamgolf]

I wanted to get feedback from owners who have upgraded from IQ3-100 to IQ4-100. Specifically:

1. Is the resolution improvement evident in a large (50 inch plus) print? (compared to IQ3-100)
2. Is the image quality better (tonality, color, highlight recovery, shadow recovery etc.) and is that evident in a large print? (compared to IQ3-100)
3. Is there any aspect of image quality that has blown you away or surprised you in a positive way? (compared to IQ3-100)
4. Are you happy with your decision to upgrade?

Thank you very much for your candid input.

Cheers!

[BFD]

I wanted to get feedback from owners who have upgraded from IQ3-100 to IQ4-100. Specifically:

1. Is the resolution improvement evident in a large (50 inch plus) print? (compared to IQ3-100)
2. Is the image quality better (tonality, color, highlight recovery, shadow recovery etc.) and is that evident in a large print? (compared to IQ3-100)
3. Is there any aspect of image quality that has blown you away or surprised you in a positive way? (compared to IQ3-100)
4. Are you happy with your decision to upgrade?

Thank you very much for your candid input.

Cheers!

1. It's a higher resolution sensor by 50MP, so, yes, resolution is better.
2. Image quality is the same to me. Maybe a pixel peeper will disagree with graphs and charts and stuff but...
3. Not really. Handles some of the tech lenses better though.
4. I'm actually forced to because I shoot all advertising work and once the agencies know there is a XXXMP back out there, many of them will mandate files are XXXMP. I never had a problem with the IQ3 and still use it especially on the tech camera because when I stitch (which we do a lot), I end up with a 200 or 300 MP file anyway. The IQ4 is still in beta testing for all of us so really if you don't need the extra MP, I don't see a reason to upgrade.

[Craig Stocks]

1. It's a higher resolution sensor by 50MP, so, yes, resolution is better.
2. Image quality is the same to me. Maybe a pixel peeper will disagree with graphs and charts and stuff but...
3. Not really. Handles some of the tech lenses better though.
4. I'm actually forced to because I shoot all advertising work and once the agencies know there is a XXXMP back out there, many of them will mandate files are XXXMP. I never had a problem with the IQ3 and still use it especially on the tech camera because when I stitch (which we do a lot), I end up with a 200 or 300 MP file anyway. The IQ4 is still in beta testing for all of us so really if you don't need the extra MP, I don't see a reason to upgrade.

I agree with everything except for me the IQ4 150 files are just a little nicer to work with. I feel like the DR is just a little better and the colors are better at default settings. You could probably find differences in prints if you look for them but I doubt if you’d notice any differences in real life.

I don’t think I’ve ever looked at a print from a prior back (P65+, IQ260 or IQ3100) and wished it had been done with a newer back, but then I only print the best images. It’s possible that I have some images that didn’t make the cut might have been great with better technology, but I think that would be rare.

[vjbelle]

Colors are definitely nicer/more accurate. The files have finally become more natural to me and don't have that heavy warm look which I didn't like on all of my previous DB. No LCCs..... a really big deal. No more mandatory black frame which is great for workflow. Much nicer UI on the LCD.... at least for me. Live histogram which is very nice and zone exposure capability for image evaluation. I don't print beyond 48 inches but I doubt there is a meaningful difference between 100mp and 150mp at that size.

Victor

[Jamgolf]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, gentlemen.

Based on feedback so far, it sounds like the merits of IQ4 (over IQ3) are stacked more toward workflow side of things e.g. LCC, dark frame, live histogram, focus peaking etc. with incremental improvements on the image artifact side of things, such as improved color accuracy, dynamic range and resolution, since since IQ3 is already very good in those areas.

[Craig Stocks]

Not mentioned yet but I really enjoy tethering over ethernet. You can tether directly to the ethernet port on your computer or add a power over ethernet injector to power everything while tethered. My current setup has my computer in an adjacent room to the studio using prewired ethernet cabling and an unmanaged switch with PoE in the studio.

[dougpeterson]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, gentlemen.

Based on feedback so far, it sounds like the merits of IQ4 (over IQ3) are stacked more toward workflow side of things e.g. LCC, dark frame, live histogram, focus peaking etc. with incremental improvements on the image artifact side of things, such as improved color accuracy, dynamic range and resolution, since since IQ3 is already very good in those areas.

I think that’s generally right depending on your point of view and how much value you place on improvements to image quality attributes that were already excellent. Dynamic range on the IQ4 is better but it was already *very* good on the IQ3. Resolution is higher but it was already high. Color is excellent-er (not actually a word but you take my point) but it was already excellent. In short, the image quality is better across the board, but in the usual "one generation" kind of better.

Two notable exceptions where image quality is improved far more than the usual "one generation" kind of improvement:
- Frame Averaging: in contrasty scenes where Automated Frame Averaging is viable. In such case she the improvement to dynamic range is very significant.
- Lens Cast: when using a tech camera the amount of color cast and light fall is hugely reduced; while an LCC can remediate that for the IQ3, but at a cost (mostly notable when on the outer edges of recovery).

Of course workflow improvements should not be ignored even if you are focused on image quality. Workflow is the path by which you arrive at an image with desired focus, framing, and exposure. The faster and better the workflow of a camera the more time and mental energy you can spend on the image itself, which is, of course, what really matters in the end.

As always, the best option is to try the IQ4 next to your IQ3 to see how you feel personally. We (DT) are always glad to help arrange such testing; please let us know if we can help.

[Boinger]

Not mentioned yet but I really enjoy tethering over ethernet. You can tether directly to the ethernet port on your computer or add a power over ethernet injector to power everything while tethered. My current setup has my computer in an adjacent room to the studio using prewired ethernet cabling and an unmanaged switch with PoE in the studio.

Could you tell me if this is faster than USB-c or similar?

I have yet to try it but it would make things much simpler in terms of wiring.

[BFD]

Could you tell me if this is faster than USB-c or similar?

I have yet to try it but it would make things much simpler in terms of wiring.

Slightly slower but very buggy in unpredictable manners (dropped connections, getting reconnected). Can be a deal breaker in a professional environment.

[RLB]

I wanted to get feedback from owners who have upgraded from IQ3-100 to IQ4-100. Specifically:

1. Is the resolution improvement evident in a large (50 inch plus) print? (compared to IQ3-100)
2. Is the image quality better (tonality, color, highlight recovery, shadow recovery etc.) and is that evident in a large print? (compared to IQ3-100)
3. Is there any aspect of image quality that has blown you away or surprised you in a positive way? (compared to IQ3-100)
4. Are you happy with your decision to upgrade?

Thank you very much for your candid input.

Cheers!

We upgraded from the IQ180, so I'll give that perspective for current CCD owners:

1. If one is making a large print, 150mp over 80mp is absolutely noticeable. Keep in mind lens choice and great workflow are also ESSENTIAL to extracting all the IQ4 has to offer
Today we made a 50" x 100" print from two capture stitch using an IQ4 and 32mm Rode. It's absolutely incredible. We made larger prints from single captures on the IQ4 (highly cropped images) to show that even when using only 20% of the frame and making 60" x 60" prints its still incredible.

2) See #1

3) The IQ180 is a great back if you can always shoot at 50 iso, use LLC religiously, use a system other than live view for focusing that is effective, etc., etc. From a working efficeiny standpoint and especially one of Tech camera use, the IQ4 is vastly better

4). Yes, and will be mucho happier once we have a few more FW updates.


Robert

[RLB]

Slightly slower but very buggy in unpredictable manners (dropped connections, getting reconnected). Can be a deal breaker in a professional environment.

We're using Ethernet with POE and its rock solid for us. Not quite as fast as USB3c, but still quite fast.


Robert

[Craig Stocks]

Slightly slower but very buggy in unpredictable manners (dropped connections, getting reconnected). Can be a deal breaker in a professional environment.

I haven’t had problems once I figured out to use an unmanaged switch with POE. It only disconnects if the back powers down from sitting idle in which case I simply reconnect. For some unknown reason it won’t connect over my router network without the switch. (I’m using a Netgear GS305P) Make sure all devices are gigabit capable.

[BFD]

I haven’t had problems once I figured out to us an unmanaged switch with POE. It only disconnects if the back power down from sitting idle in which case I simply reconnect. For some unknown reason it won’t connect over my router network without the switch. (I’m using a Netgear GS305P) Make sure all devices are gigabit capable.

Which also makes me wonder with "state of the art equipment", why didn't phase put 10Gb ethernet in there? Theoretically, ethernet tethering would be 10x faster than it currently is.

[buildbot]

Which also makes me wonder with "state of the art equipment", why didn't phase put 10Gb ethernet in there? Theoretically, ethernet tethering would be 10x faster than it currently is.

I believe the lowest wattage 10Gb part is still about 6w from aquantia, without PoE, which is a significant chunk of the thermal budget in a passively cooled device.

I’m just guessing that’s the reason, it could be size as well, or that very few people have 10Gb nics still vs everyone with a modern Mac has USB-C

[dougpeterson]

Phase One actually uses 10G ethernet on their industrial camera line. But 10G ethernet takes a lot of space, heat, and power and the IQ4 needs room for things their industrial cameras do not (like a screen, UI, and on-board storage).

Three methods of tethering the IQ4:
- USB-C is fastest and is really very fast (especially considering it's sending 150mp or 37.5mp raw files), but has cable length limitations (not because of P1, but because of the nature of USB-C)
- Ethernet (on the IQ4) is about as fast as USB3 was on the IQ3, but both provides lots of power (provided you're using a POE), and allows very very long cables.
- Wireless: will always be slowest of the three, but requires no cables. At this point it's not really worth mentioning other than as an to-date-under-fulfilled promise of the platform that I still expect to get much better. Currently it can't generate it's own ad hoc network and it can't do a good JPG-to-computer-immediately-via-wireless-RAW-to-card-and-also-computer-as-time-allows workflow that could make wireless-tethering more useful.

If you are seeing any instability with ethernet tethering at all you should troubleshoot with your dealer. It should be incredibly stable. I say this from both theory (it was brought over to the IQ4 from the industrial line where multi-camera systems should hundreds of thousands of images in a row in harsh environments and a single tethering issue incredibly costly) and practice (a large number of our high-volume clients using it every work day, some for nearly a year now) as well as our own in-house testing.

However, like any networking (which is what ethernet tethering of an IQ4 is) the equipment in between (cables, router/modem) and network settings are critical to a fast-as-possible and totally-stable experience. That's where you'd want to work with your dealer to troubleshoot (along with the low, but non zero chance that your unit has a funked up ethernet port; it's the least likely cause of issues here in my experience, but of course must be considered).

There are a few remaining limitations/issues with the IQ4 as of today (notably: no ad hoc wireless review/control as with the IQ3; P1 is swinging for the fences to do something really good, and it's taking much longer than anyone would want). But ethernet tethering stability is not one of them.

[Jacob Buchowski]

I wanted to get feedback from owners who have upgraded from IQ3-100 to IQ4-100. Specifically:

1. Is the resolution improvement evident in a large (50 inch plus) print? (compared to IQ3-100)
2. Is the image quality better (tonality, color, highlight recovery, shadow recovery etc.) and is that evident in a large print? (compared to IQ3-100)
3. Is there any aspect of image quality that has blown you away or surprised you in a positive way? (compared to IQ3-100)
4. Are you happy with your decision to upgrade?

Thank you very much for your candid input.

Cheers!

Here are my thoughts:

1) I have a 24 inch printer at home and so far all of my IQ4150 images have been printed at that size. Not sure that I can see the difference between print quality at that size.
2) The tonality and color accuracy seem improved and the files are easier to work with. Dynamic range also is slightly better when shooting normally and slightly better yet when using frame averaging.
3) Frame averaging has the potential to be very useful, but it's a work in progress for me (I'm still learning through trial and error what settings work best for different applications). One thing I have learned is that even very slight overexposure leads to strange artifacts (looks similar to chromatic aberration, but different). After using the new interface for more than a few hours, I have found that I like it better and it makes the IQ3 interface seem a bit antiquated.
4) I am, but my bank account is less so.

Jacob

[buildbot]

Phase One actually uses 10G ethernet on their industrial camera line. But 10G ethernet takes a lot of space, heat, and power and the IQ4 needs room for things their industrial cameras do not (like a screen, UI, and on-board storage).

Three methods of tethering the IQ4:
- USB-C is fastest and is really very fast (especially considering it's sending 150mp or 37.5mp raw files), but has cable length limitations (not because of P1, but because of the nature of USB-C)
- Ethernet (on the IQ4) is about as fast as USB3 was on the IQ3, but both provides lots of power (provided you're using a POE), and allows very very long cables.
- Wireless: will always be slowest of the three, but requires no cables. At this point it's not really worth mentioning other than as an to-date-under-fulfilled promise of the platform that I still expect to get much better. Currently it can't generate it's own ad hoc network and it can't do a good JPG-to-computer-immediately-via-wireless-RAW-to-card-and-also-computer-as-time-allows workflow that could make wireless-tethering more useful.

If you are seeing any instability with ethernet tethering at all you should troubleshoot with your dealer. It should be incredibly stable. I say this from both theory (it was brought over to the IQ4 from the industrial line where multi-camera systems should hundreds of thousands of images in a row in harsh environments and a single tethering issue incredibly costly) and practice (a large number of our high-volume clients using it every work day, some for nearly a year now) as well as our own in-house testing.

However, like any networking (which is what ethernet tethering of an IQ4 is) the equipment in between (cables, router/modem) and network settings are critical to a fast-as-possible and totally-stable experience. That's where you'd want to work with your dealer to troubleshoot (along with the low, but non zero chance that your unit has a funked up ethernet port; it's the least likely cause of issues here in my experience, but of course must be considered).

There are a few remaining limitations/issues with the IQ4 as of today (notably: no ad hoc wireless review/control as with the IQ3; P1 is swinging for the fences to do something really good, and it's taking much longer than anyone would want). But ethernet tethering stability is not one of them.

Just to add to your excellent explanation, cable quality is essential to PoE stability. I've deployed a lot of PoE network gear, and a bad cable will cause very strange things to happen.

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I agree with pretty much everything already said. The improvements are subtle but definite.
One improvement that really stands out, though, is high ISO performance. This is clearly better than the IQ3-100. I do a lot of "snatch" shots when light is changing or an animal moving and I don't have time to set up a tripod, so I do a fair amount of hand-held work. ISO 1600 is to all intents and purposes noise-free and in print it's hard to see noise even at 6400. You pay a small penalty with DR at those ISOs but for me, they're a godsend.

[RLB]

Just to add to your excellent explanation, cable quality is essential to PoE stability. I've deployed a lot of PoE network gear, and a bad cable will cause very strange things to happen.

Agreed which is why I chose CAT7 cables, a bit bulkier but I never have cable issues. Amazon has them in all lengths at good prices and high quality.


Robert

[Wayne Fox]

1. Is the resolution improvement evident in a large (50 inch plus) print? (compared to IQ3-100)
2. Is the image quality better (tonality, color, highlight recovery, shadow recovery etc.) and is that evident in a large print? (compared to IQ3-100)
3. Is there any aspect of image quality that has blown you away or surprised you in a positive way? (compared to IQ3-100)
4. Are you happy with your decision to upgrade?

1. 50” isn’t really large enough to see significant difference even on close examination. Even the IQ180 managed a superb 50” print. However, the resolution does allow significant cropping when necessary, and if a lens doesn’t have the reach you need, knowing you can use just 60% of the pixels and still make a large print is helpful. At 80” or 90” there is improved visual resolution and less artifacts.

2. Yes. Definitely better tonality, and shadow recovery. Especially if you frame average, which is pretty amazing when you can use it. The BSI sensor and lack of lens cast is significant on wide lenses and especially if you shoot tech. I had quit using my 28mm on my tech because by the time you corrected for all the lens cast, the color saturation at the edges was affected. Almost don’t even need an LCC with the 4-150.

3. I would put frame averaging in this category with high dynamic scenes. I’m still shocked when I pull shadows 4 or 5 stops and have no noise.

4. Absolutely. But then I’ve been a bleeding edge gear guy since I bought a Kodak DCS 560. I will admit with the IQ4 150 I may have finally scratched that itch to the point the next upgrade won’t really have anything to entice me. Despite Phase totally dropping the ball with the firmware and treating existing customers poorly by ignoring what’s wrong with the back and getting it fixed instead putting all resources into this new camera, I’m getting some great images with it.

[Craig Stocks]

I will admit with the IQ4 150 I may have finally scratched that itch to the point the next upgrade won’t really have anything to entice me.

I’ve said that too, but then I said the same thing with the IQ3100.

[RLB]

I’ve said that too, but then I said the same thing with the IQ3100.

Dante is waiting for both of you...resistance is futile.

[Abstraction]

I agree with pretty much everything already said. The improvements are subtle but definite.
I do a lot of "snatch" shots

And all this time, I thought you were a landscape shooter!

[dchew]

My thoughts mirror Wayne’s. Most of my big prints are two-shot panos, so it has to be > 6-7 feet for me to start seeing the benefits. More for others to notice. The upgrade is more compelling for technical camera users because of the workflow improvements with LCCs and dark frames. The upgrade is marginal for XF shooters, at least until everything gets fixed and/or implemented.

That’s one reason I think the XT’s target is not so much existing technical camera shooters, but XF owners without tech cameras. Especially those who haven’t upgraded their back. Want a smaller, lighter option? Get the XT. Oh, but if you want the workflow improvements you need to upgrade your back too.

Dave

[Mexecutioner]

Dante is waiting for both of you...resistance is futile.

I picked up my IQ4150 yesterday and I am already concerned about this.

[Jamgolf]

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it.
After weighing the merits of IQ4 over IQ3 versus the cost, I feel I can't justify this upgrade for my usage.
As some tribal elders here say, it pays off to skip one generation. So, at this time I feel waiting 2-3 years for IQ5 is the prudent approach for me.

A small moral victory against Dante'

[Pemihan]

Any experiences going from IQ3100 Trichromatic to IQ4150?

[Dante Alighieri]

A small moral victory against Dante'

Pure nonsense. You still have most favored status with an IQ3 in the Inferno.

Dante