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!

Which DB has worse color shift - Leaf Credo 40 or Phase One IQ3 50?

gebseng

Member
Hi everyone,

I've been working with a Leaf Credo 40 (44x33mm CCD Sensor) on a Linhof Techno and a SK 5.6/28 XL (a non retrofocus wide angle lens) for the last five years. The uncorrected color shift is severe, but I manage pretty well with LCC shots in C1. With shifts over 15mm, blue skies or green grass will get a bit greyish near the edges, but i can easily fix that with a Linear Gradient Mask and the Advanced Color Editor in C1.

Do you have experience with the Phase One IQ3 50 (or IQ1 50, or IQ2 50, which presumably use the same first generation Sony non-BSI 44x33mm 50MP sensor) regarding color shift? Is it better or worse than the CCD sensor on the Credo 40?

thanks for your input,

geb
 

tjv

Active member
My understanding is that the 50mpx CMOS sensor is worse for colour shift and especially crosstalk, but obviously comes with other advantages like useable live view (something I'd appreciated on my Techno) and better DR.

I use the same generation sensor in a Credo 60 and have looked hard at side-grading to a CMOS crop chip, but apart from the things mentioned above I'm not sure if there is any advantage to such a swap, only disadvantages for my own way of working and existing lens set. Might be different for you thought if you have a lens set tailored to the smaller chip already.

Out of interest, are you using the 28mm XL with a helical focusing mount in the Techno? I tried the 35mm XL in a recessed lens board (not the most recessed, but 12mm?) and it was a difficult proposition with standards so close together and the bag bellows compressed.
 

Ben730

Active member
The IQ350 can‘t manage the SK28 XL.
Even with no shift the LCC is Problematik.
I used a P40+ (Dalsa-CCD) with the SK28XL and was very happy.
The 50 MP CMOS backs are a huge step up but
you have to buy the Rodies.
I now have an IQ 150 with Rodi 23, 32, 55....it’s GREAT!
But my SK47 T/S is limited.
Regards,
Ben
 

gebseng

Member
Out of interest, are you using the 28mm XL with a helical focusing mount in the Techno? I tried the 35mm XL in a recessed lens board (not the most recessed, but 12mm?) and it was a difficult proposition with standards so close together and the bag bellows compressed.
Thanks tjv! I use the 28 in a recessed lensboard and the wide angle bellow, I have no problems focusing on infinity and shifting 20mm.
However, I couldn’t use the stitching back, as that would add a couple of mm.
 

gebseng

Member
The IQ350 can‘t manage the SK28 XL.
Even with no shift the LCC is Problematik.
I used a P40+ (Dalsa-CCD) with the SK28XL and was very happy.
The 50 MP CMOS backs are a huge step up but
you have to buy the Rodies.
I now have an IQ 150 with Rodi 23, 32, 55....it’s GREAT!
But my SK47 T/S is limited.
Regards,
Ben
Thanks Ben! I also had a Dalsa chip back before (Leaf Aptus 75), and I still remember it fondly for having almost no crosstalk with the SKs. The rodies are way too expensive for me, plus they can only shift 10mm AFAIK. I guess I have to wait until the IQ4 150 becomes affordable in a couple of years...
 

Ben730

Active member
With the R23 I have 10, If I “draw“new corners up to 15 mm shift up. That’s enough with a 23 mm. The wideangle distortion is also a limit, in my opinion.
The 32 gives easy 15 mm of shift, the 55 more....
You are right to wait for better prices... 2 weaks ago, somebody sold an IQ3100 with XF and bluering 80 mm for $15 000 here in Switzerland. Prices are dropping, but it will take several years until the IQ4150 is affordable....and I prefere 33x44 mm sensors.
Be patient and wait also for used lenses.
Regards.
Ben
 

Ben730

Active member
Thanks Ben! I also had a Dalsa chip back before (Leaf Aptus 75), and I still remember it fondly for having almost no crosstalk with the SKs. The rodies are way too expensive for me, plus they can only shift 10mm AFAIK. I guess I have to wait until the IQ4 150 becomes affordable in a couple of years...
As far as I know is your Credo 40 the same Dalsa CCD sensor as the one in the P40+ and IQ140....
Regards,
Ben
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
It’s too bad someone hasn’t released a back yet with the 33x44mm 100mp BSI sensor of the GFX100
 

gebseng

Member
It’s too bad someone hasn’t released a back yet with the 33x44mm 100mp BSI sensor of the GFX100
Exactly. It would be so great if we could use the Fuji GFX100 on a tech camera, if only the sensor wasn't hidden so deep down in the body...
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
f you want to use the 28XL you really need to switch to the IQ4 150mp. It’s the only back that will really show off that lens. Extremely low color cast on that sensor even with that lens. It will also make the 28XL effectively wider in angle of view since the sensor is significantly larger than your Credo 40, and even cropped to the same angle of view will still provide twice the resolution.

All other options higher res than the Credo 40 will be the same (60mp) or worse (50,80,100).
 

Ben730

Active member
50 MP is by far enough for my clients and me, even with cropping.
I'm dreaming of a 33 x 44 mm, 50/100 MP BSI back.
More MP are only filling up HD space and slowing down the workflow.
I also don't see an advantage in larger sensors.
That's why I think my IQ150 will be my last Phase One back...
Regards,
Ben
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
It will be interesting to see if the 60MP chip in the latest Sony AR7 camera carries forward the same features the BSI 150MP chip has in the IQ4, namely loss of almost all color cast on shifts and remarkably less noise on shifts/light fall off. The Sony should easily fit on the Universalis or Cambo Aptus cameras and work with the tech glass. Or a M line camera.

The Sensor on the GFX is not mounted very deep in the camera i.e. it's mirrorless thus no mirror box, issue with use on a camera like the Univeralis or Cambo is the grip and fact that the camera has the battery compartment below the camera like with a Canon Pro body, however the Canon body will work on the various view camera bodies, by Arca and maybe on Cambo.

Paul C
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
50 MP is by far enough for my clients and me, even with cropping.
I'm dreaming of a 33 x 44 mm, 50/100 MP BSI back.
More MP are only filling up HD space and slowing down the workflow.
I also don't see an advantage in larger sensors.
That's why I think my IQ150 will be my last Phase One back...
Regards,
Ben
Of the dozen or so reasons I might suggest an IQ4 to someone, the number of pixels is probably in the second half of that list.

In my opinion, focusing on pixel count is a bit outdated. I'd suggest focusing on overall image quality and what (if any) features/functionality/specifications would help you solve problems and focus on the task at hand.

In the case of the OP, even in the reduced-resolution (37mp) mode the IQ4 150mp would:
- much better DR
- much better high ISO
- much better long exposures
- better color
- allow a significantly increased area of the image circle to be used
- provide hugely better live view
- provide significantly improved in-camera review of
- provide frame-averaging for long exposures
- provide faster tethering without adapters to modern laptops
- provide faster download to computer (including transfer without bringing a card reader)

And more to the point of the OP's original question, the IQ4 would essentially eliminate the color cast issue from his workflow. It's likely he would not need to do LCC captures anymore, and if he did he could use a library approach rather than have to capture them in the field, and regardless would see an image in the field much much closer to the final result than with the Credo 40 allowing a cleaner vision with which to fulfill his artist and technical desires.

If I wasn't trying to wrap up this post in time to watch Sunday football I'm pretty sure there are another half dozen headline reasons the IQ4 would be helpful, that are unrelated to pixel count.

Regarding your wish... The IQ4 is a 33x44 100mp BSI back... with an extra bit of resolution and sensor size around it. If you really want to, you could crop every image down to the 33x44/100mp equivalent; though I suspect you'd quickly find that a larger sensor is nice for any number of reasons. Moreover, I suspect, if you take a look at your storage that you're spending much less of your total storage on raw files than you think. A single 3-layer 16-bit PSD (assuming compatibility mode) requires the same amount of storage as ~20 raw files of the same resolution. So having the raw files being 30% larger, and cropping, isn't really going to change your net storage needs that much. Re "slowing down the workflow" – browsing/adjusting/focus-checking 150mp raw files is nearly identical in speed to 100mp raw files, since you are working on a proxy of the raw in both cases.
 

gebseng

Member
The Sensor on the GFX is not mounted very deep in the camera i.e. it's mirrorless thus no mirror box, issue with use on a camera like the Univeralis or Cambo is the grip and fact that the camera has the battery compartment below the camera like with a Canon Pro body, however the Canon body will work on the various view camera bodies, by Arca and maybe on Cambo.

Paul C
Yes, but AFAIK the only wide angle lens that can be used on a tech camera with the GFX is the 24mm Cambo/Samyang lens, which is not so bad but has lots of curvature, an anathema to using it for architecture.
 

gebseng

Member
Of the dozen or so reasons I might suggest an IQ4 to someone, the number of pixels is probably in the second half of that list.

In my opinion, focusing on pixel count is a bit outdated. I'd suggest focusing on overall image quality and what (if any) features/functionality/specifications would help you solve problems and focus on the task at hand.

In the case of the OP, even in the reduced-resolution (37mp) mode the IQ4 150mp would:
- much better DR
- much better high ISO
- much better long exposures
- better color
- allow a significantly increased area of the image circle to be used
- provide hugely better live view
- provide significantly improved in-camera review of
- provide frame-averaging for long exposures
- provide faster tethering without adapters to modern laptops
- provide faster download to computer (including transfer without bringing a card reader)

And more to the point of the OP's original question, the IQ4 would essentially eliminate the color cast issue from his workflow. It's likely he would not need to do LCC captures anymore, and if he did he could use a library approach rather than have to capture them in the field, and regardless would see an image in the field much much closer to the final result than with the Credo 40 allowing a cleaner vision with which to fulfill his artist and technical desires.

If I wasn't trying to wrap up this post in time to watch Sunday football I'm pretty sure there are another half dozen headline reasons the IQ4 would be helpful, that are unrelated to pixel count.

Regarding your wish... The IQ4 is a 33x44 100mp BSI back... with an extra bit of resolution and sensor size around it. If you really want to, you could crop every image down to the 33x44/100mp equivalent; though I suspect you'd quickly find that a larger sensor is nice for any number of reasons. Moreover, I suspect, if you take a look at your storage that you're spending much less of your total storage on raw files than you think. A single 3-layer 16-bit PSD (assuming compatibility mode) requires the same amount of storage as ~20 raw files of the same resolution. So having the raw files being 30% larger, and cropping, isn't really going to change your net storage needs that much. Re "slowing down the workflow" – browsing/adjusting/focus-checking 150mp raw files is nearly identical in speed to 100mp raw files, since you are working on a proxy of the raw in both cases.
I know that the IQ4 150 would solve all our problems. At around € 35.000,- (maybe 30.000,- if I trade in the Credo 40) it's just not affordable for most architectural photographers. Also, my impression when browsing ebay etc. is that older IQ backs have to be sold for ridiculously low prices (e.g. around 5.000,- for an IQ3 50).

My impression is also that these back are not really more reliable than other cameras. My 5yr old Leaf Credo has something like funghus growing on the sensor side of the protective glass. The dealer says that, unlike older DBs, the protective glass can not be removed for cleaning and P1 has to swap the entire sensor/glass unit. (check this thread for details: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132458.0 )

Since this summer, the Credo 40 also starts to show heavy vertical (sic!) banding in exposures over 15 seconds, let's see how that develops...
 

Ben730

Active member
..... The IQ4 is a 33x44 100mp BSI back... with an extra bit of resolution and sensor size around it. If you really want to, you could crop every image down to the 33x44/100mp equivalent; though I suspect you'd quickly find that a larger sensor is nice for any number of reasons. Moreover, I suspect, if you take a look at your storage that you're spending much less of your total storage on raw files than you think. A single 3-layer 16-bit PSD (assuming compatibility mode) requires the same amount of storage as ~20 raw files of the same resolution. So having the raw files being 30% larger, and cropping, isn't really going to change your net storage needs that much. Re "slowing down the workflow" – browsing/adjusting/focus-checking 150mp raw files is nearly identical in speed to 100mp raw files, since you are working on a proxy of the raw in both cases.
..and a castle is a small studio apartment with a bit of extra space around it??? :ROTFL:
The problem is the budget.
I'm sure a 33 x 44 BSI sensor back would be significantly cheaper than an IQ4150.
Because neither I nor my clients need the extra space and the extra resolution around, and because my budget is limited,
I'm hoping for a 33 x 44 mm BSI solution.
 

tjv

Active member
Ordinarily I’d say “wait for the next Hasselblad X back” as that system is looking great for your / our needs, but I’m feeling grumpy after Hasselblad have essentially reduced my 2 5-year-old flextight scanners - which they were still selling new last tear - to paperweights by killing all software support so they can’t be used on OSX 10.15. An emotional statement, but Hasselblad are dead to me and will need to work exceptionally, exceptially hard for me to buy their products again. They could start by incorporating Flextight support in Phocus.

In short... maybe the next Hasselblad X back will suit you and be priced well? Otherwise, how about a used 60mpx CCD back and crop when needed?

..and a castle is a small studio apartment with a bit of extra space around it??? :ROTFL:
The problem is the budget.
I'm sure a 33 x 44 BSI sensor back would be significantly cheaper than an IQ4150.
Because neither I nor my clients need the extra space and the extra resolution around, and because my budget is limited,
I'm hoping for a 33 x 44 mm BSI solution.
 

gebseng

Member
The Sensor on the GFX is not mounted very deep in the camera i.e. it's mirrorless thus no mirror box, issue with use on a camera like the Univeralis or Cambo is the grip and fact that the camera has the battery compartment below the camera like with a Canon Pro body.

Paul C
The G mount flange distance is 27mm. The Cambo Actus GFX seems to get the GFX 100 body quite close. If there was a way to move the sensor/IBIS/glass unit up 25mm or so, that would be a perfect DB for wide angle, and extremely low cost...
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
The G mount flange distance is 27mm. The Cambo Actus GFX seems to get the GFX 100 body quite close. If there was a way to move the sensor/IBIS/glass unit up 25mm or so, that would be a perfect DB for wide angle, and extremely low cost...
The widest non-retrofocus lens I can use with my GFX 50R as the "back" is 60mm. The 55mm symmetrical lens I tried had strong lens cast with almost any amount of shift. On top of that, even if I'd been willing to deal with the lens cast problem, the rear end of the lens was inside the cavity of the camera. The 26.7mm flange distance of the GFX is not friendly to wides.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Hopefully Fuji will someday create a shift lens. All of their lenses I have used are very well made and have great optics on the 50S and 100.

But there is not anything on their long term line up of future lenses.

I have sent them a few emails asking for a shift lens, and others with a Fuji MF body should also as eventually they might develop one.

Odds are not an ultra wide however.

The other lens to consider would be the Nikon 19mm on a fotodiox adapter. You need to fix the aperture in advance on a Nikon body, but it works. I have used it on the 50R.

Paul C
 
Top