Maximum "Rise" with 33x44 CMOS back and HR Digaron 40mm?

I found this old article but was unable to expand most of the images...

https://www.linhofstudio.com/knowledgebank/rodenstock-hr-digaron-40mm/

So it looks like it is possible right?

I have a 40HR and a 33x44mm 50mp CMOS back (CFVII 50c).

I could probably do a test shot series this afternoon and post a link to the files if you want to play around and take a peek?

I’m hoping someone puts out a 33x44mm 100mp BSI back sometime. I’ve posted several times before there’s definitely a market for tech/view cam users that want the BSI benefit but either don’t need 150mp, dont have the $$ for an IQ4 150, or both.

P1 already uses the Sony IMX461 33x44mm 100mp BSI sensor in at least one of the aerial/industrial products, I imagine they could put it into an IQ4 chassis without too much effort (assuming they wanted to step out of their “40x54mm only” ivory tower).

Also hoping HB will pick it up at some point. The next logical progression of both the X1DII and CFVII would be to go 100mp BSI, like the GFX100.

Im frustrated HB has not jumped on the BSI train yet. A theory I tell myself: since current HB product pricing has benefitted from the falling cost of components over time (the IMX161 33x44mp sensor in the X1DII and CFVII are now over 6.5 yrs old), HB may be waiting and letting P1/Fuji absorb the R&D cost/early manufacturing costs of the current MF BSI sensors. They seem to have gone to more a volume pricing model With their X line, whereas P1’s current model seems to prioritize margins over volume.

Im hoping over time the cost of the newer IMX461 33x44mm 100mp BSI sensors from Sony should come down, and allow other manufacturers to come out with products around the current cost of the GFX100 or less. Id guess a 33x44mm 100mp BSI back from P1 or HB would probably be $15k plus today but less in the future.

Here’s to hoping, but given the current state of the world and camera industry it might be just a dream. On the plus side, the more time that passes without a tech cam friendly 33x44mm 100mp BSI back, the cheaper the IQ4 150 gets.

I would love a 100MP BSI back from Phase One but I'm not holding my breath. I think it much more likely that Hasselblad releases a CFV 100c or similar as they don't seem to care much about the "H" platform anymore, and they seem to have done some work to make the CFV platform share components with the X platform. I would think that co-developing an X2d and a CFV100c would be a no brainer for them.

A Hasselblad CFV 100c would be very, very tempting to me but I would seriously miss using Capture One Pro for tech camera usage. Watching the 907x thread keenly though, as the X1D/907x/CFVII/V-system combinations looks like they may be a better fit for me than either the Fuji GFX (tried and didn't fit with me) or the Phase XF system (have and love, but there are certainly shortcomings). Moot point for now until someone actually releases a 100MP BSI back...

As for the original question, I have a 33x44 back (Phase IQ250) and recently acquired a Digaron 40 HR. I haven't actually taken note of the maximum rise amount in mm (17-20mm seems about right), but in my testing I would say that with an LCC the lens is useable right out to the edge of the image circle. There is definitely falloff and colour cast visible with anything over ~5mm of shift or rise, but it cleans up nicely with an LCC IMHO.

This is in contrast to my Schenider 43 XL that has a larger image circle, but the colour cast at ~15mm of shift is not fully correctable with LCC and there is some desaturation of colours.

A few weeks ago I shot some tests of 40 HR vs 43 XL on my IQ250 and the IQ4-150 and would be happy to share the files with anyone who wishes to see them. They are of a generic building scene in an urban environment. Portrait orientation with about 15-17mm of rise, shifted -15mm and +15mm to maximize effective field of view.

med said:

I would love a 100MP BSI back from Phase One but I'm not holding my breath. I think it much more likely that Hasselblad releases a CFV 100c or similar as they don't seem to care much about the "H" platform anymore, and they seem to have done some work to make the CFV platform share components with the X platform. I would think that co-developing an X2d and a CFV100c would be a no brainer for them.

A Hasselblad CFV 100c would be very, very tempting to me but I would seriously miss using Capture One Pro for tech camera usage. Watching the 907x thread keenly though, as the X1D/907x/CFVII/V-system combinations looks like they may be a better fit for me than either the Fuji GFX (tried and didn't fit with me) or the Phase XF system (have and love, but there are certainly shortcomings). Moot point for now until someone actually releases a 100MP BSI back...

As for the original question, I have a 33x44 back (Phase IQ250) and recently acquired a Digaron 40 HR. I haven't actually taken note of the maximum rise amount in mm (17-20mm seems about right), but in my testing I would say that with an LCC the lens is useable right out to the edge of the image circle. There is definitely falloff and colour cast visible with anything over ~5mm of shift or rise, but it cleans up nicely with an LCC IMHO.

This is in contrast to my Schenider 43 XL that has a larger image circle, but the colour cast at ~15mm of shift is not fully correctable with LCC and there is some desaturation of colours.

A few weeks ago I shot some tests of 40 HR vs 43 XL on my IQ250 and the IQ4-150 and would be happy to share the files with anyone who wishes to see them. They are of a generic building scene in an urban environment. Portrait orientation with about 15-17mm of rise, shifted -15mm and +15mm to maximize effective field of view.

Click to expand...

I would love to see those comparison files if you're willing to share. Especially useful would be full resolution files.

rdeloe said:

I would love to see those comparison files if you're willing to share. Especially useful would be full resolution files.

Click to expand...

I'm compiling some notes about them and will put the RAW files up on Google Drive in a bit. Happy to share the link with anyone who asks.

As I look at them again, however, in different light, I am seeing a slight magenta cast towards the edge of the image circle (~15mm rise) that I did not see before. Definitely much better than the 43, but still better.

Visualizer for noting amount of movement per lens:
https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/support/lens-visualizer-tools/

Raws from BSI Tech Cam Testing: https://phaseoneiq4.com/dts-iq4-tech-camera-testing/

Raws from non-BSI Tech Cam Testing: https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/phase-one-iq250-tech-cam-testing/

You should not assume the results will be identical between Hassy and P1 when they used the same sensor. The LCC tool in Capture One and the exposure review system in the P1 system are very powerful to getting the most out of a non-BSI sensor on a tech camera. However, in general they will be reasonably similar, so serve as a reasonable stand in for other testing when you can't find the exact test combination you want on a Hassy.

Notably, shooting with a Full Frame 645 sensor and cropping to the top 33x44 of the frame gives the same result as a 33x44 with rise; that is to say that you don't get "more movement" with a smaller sensor, so much as a smaller sensor requires more movement to get to the same relative part of the subject.

For what it's worth, re people's desire for a new 33x44 Phase One back: I don't personally disagree but I think there is effectively zero chance of this. Phase One has bet big on the advantages of a full-frame 645 sensor, and now only sells, promotes, and plans for full-frame 645 sensors (at least in the division that sells cameras to photographers; as others noted the industrial division still uses some 33x44 sensors).

tcdeveau said:

... the more time that passes .... the cheaper the IQ4 150 gets.

Click to expand...

Especially, if and when there will be a IQ5 not having any of the IQ4 issues.

dougpeterson said:

Notably, shooting with a Full Frame 645 sensor and cropping to the top 33x44 of the frame gives the same result as a 33x44 with rise; that is to say that you don't get "more movement" with a smaller sensor, so much as a smaller sensor requires more movement to get to the same relative part of the subject.

For what it's worth, re people's desire for a new 33x44 Phase One back: I don't personally disagree but I think there is effectively zero chance of this. Phase One has bet big on the advantages of a full-frame 645 sensor, and now only sells, promotes, and plans for full-frame 645 sensors (at least in the division that sells cameras to photographers; as others noted the industrial division still uses some 33x44 sensors).

Click to expand...

Thanks Doug. What you mentioned above regarding sensor size is well noted. I would certainly rather have a full frame 645 sensor all things considered. My desire for a 33x44 100MP BSI is more to do with cost than any other factor... even with the aggressive new trade in pricing that Phase has released for the IQ4-150 the cost is well north of what a hypothetical 33x44 100MP back from Hasselblad would cost. Even if Phase were to release a 33x44mm IQ4-100 (agreed that it is a long, long shot) it is unlikely to be attainable by me.

Thanks so much to everyone for their responses, very helpful indeed!

Doug, the Visualiser tool was extremely helpful..

The IQ4 150 looks amazing when being compared to older backs.. At first I thought that the IQ3 100mp was on the left and the IQ4 150mp was on the right and I am thinking, they look the same...:facesmack: Then I realised (as per the description) that it was shifted left/right.. Massive difference!

Yes, I would also love the larger IQ4 150 but it is simply way too much for me at the moment..

Are the movements of the IQ4 150 generally considered large enough for most? Based on your Visualiser Tool, with the 32mm HR, you can shift roughly 15mm in landscape orientation (37.5% of the sensor) and 13mm in portrait orientation (24% of the sensor).

With a 33 x 44mm sensor, I would be getting a 45% shift of the sensor in landscape orientation and a 36% shift in portrait orientation..

This is closer to the range of movements I have been able to get in the past with Canon TS-E lenses on a full frame (24mm x 36mm sensor).

Does this seem right?


Like you said, you could always crop the larger IQ4 150 and get the same result.


What is the multiplication factor of the IQ4 150 to get roughly the full frame 35mm equivalent? With my Fuji GFX 50S it is roughly 0.79.

Thanks!

wallpaperviking said:

Are the movements of the IQ4 150 generally considered large enough for most? Based on your Visualiser Tool, with the 32mm HR, you can shift roughly 15mm in landscape orientation (37.5% of the sensor) and 13mm in portrait orientation (24% of the sensor).

Click to expand...

The IQ4 150 puts all the onus of movement limits on the lens. Is it enough? No way! I want every lens to have a tack sharp 150mm image circle.
In most cases, a 100mm usable image circle is my minimum, while 120mm is "nice to have."

With a 33 x 44mm sensor, I would be getting a 45% shift of the sensor in landscape orientation and a 36% shift in portrait orientation..

This is closer to the range of movements I have been able to get in the past with Canon TS-E lenses on a full frame (24mm x 36mm sensor).

Does this seem right?

Click to expand...

Yes, but as Doug points out, I don't really understand the "percent shift" as a relevant measurement now that you can get the same sensor technology in 36x24, 44x33 and 54x40. If you think about the lens as the main tool choice, the sensor is just floating around capturing as much or as little of the image circle you want. I prefer to pay attention to angle of view and "usable" image circle size. "Usable" being the individual photographer's limit to acceptable quality.

What is the multiplication factor of the IQ4 150 to get roughly the full frame 35mm equivalent? With my Fuji GFX 50S it is roughly 0.79.

Click to expand...

As near as I can figure out, the real sensor size of the IQ4 150 is 53.40mm x 40.05mm. If you ignore the difference in 4x3 vs 3x2 and just use the diagonal, the multiplication factor is just under 0.65 (0.648). Slightly less than 2/3. The 32hr is 20.7mm eq. Note you have to be a little careful with wide angles because not all lenses are actually the focal length their name reflects. The sk35 is 36.4mm, 40hr is 42mm, the 50hr is 52mm.

Dave

dchew said:

The IQ4 150 puts all the onus of movement limits on the lens.

Click to expand...

The market for lenses for use on a technical camera with a IQ4 back is probably too small to see a new line of lenses but I wonder what could now be designed in view that LCC is no more the issue it was with front-illuminated CMOS sensors.

Instead of the huge Rodenstock 32mm f/4 HR Digaron-W something more alike the tiny Schneider 35mm f/5.6 Apo-Digitar XL?

TheDude said:

Instead of the huge Rodenstock 32mm f/4 HR Digaron-W something more alike the tiny Schneider 35mm f/5.6 Apo-Digitar XL?

Click to expand...

Yeah. I often wonder what if Schneider hadn't given up when they did? Funny you mention the 35mm; I switched to that lens a few years ago. It isn't in the same league as the 32hr, but certainly punches above its weight. Especially without the CF.

I suppose there is no reason why Rodenstock couldn't come out with a symmetrical design. 37mm would be perfect, and right in between the 32hr and 40hr (which is really 42mm). f/5.6, 120mm IC; I'd pick that up in a flash.

Dave

dchew said:

Yeah. I often wonder what if Schneider hadn't given up when they did? Funny you mention the 35mm; I switched to that lens a few years ago. It isn't in the same league as the 32hr, but certainly punches above its weight. Especially without the CF.

Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean about without a CF? Is this because the 4150 cleans it up so well you don't need the CF and the light loss at the edges? For the older backs, folks seemed to say the CF was needed.

Thanks!

Geoff said:

Can you explain what you mean about without a CF? Is this because the 4150 cleans it up so well you don't need the CF and the light loss at the edges? For the older backs, folks seemed to say the CF was needed.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I just mean it is so small when used w/o the CF. I do not think the CF is necessary with the 4150, but I do still shoot an LCC. I suggest one or the other: using the CF and (maybe) not needing an LCC, or not using the CF and shooting the LCC. I prefer shooting the LCC because 1) the CF is big compared to the lens and 2) you get more complete correction from the LCC vs the CF (color & dust). There are probably situations where you can get away without doing either, but I have not gone that far.

Dave

dchew said:

I just mean it is so small when used w/o the CF. I do not think the CF is necessary with the 4150, but I do still shoot an LCC. I suggest one or the other: using the CF and (maybe) not needing an LCC, or not using the CF and shooting the LCC. I prefer shooting the LCC because 1) the CF is big compared to the lens and 2) you get more complete correction from the LCC vs the CF (color & dust). There are probably situations where you can get away without doing either, but I have not gone that far.

Dave

Click to expand...

Makes sense. Do you think this applies mostly for the 4150 or other backs too with the 35XL? I shoot with Credo 60, and have been ok in a few simple shots without CF, and using LCC, but haven't shot a lot with this lens.

Geoff said:

Makes sense. Do you think this applies mostly for the 4150 or other backs too with the 35XL? I shoot with Credo 60, and have been ok in a few simple shots without CF, and using LCC, but haven't shot a lot with this lens.

Click to expand...

Doug and I did a direct comparison between the 3100 and 4150 with the 35xl. World of difference. With the 3100 I used both the CF and LCC. No experience with the 60, but I used to have the IQ180, and it was worse than the 60. I'm guessing the 60 is roughly similar in LCC "repairability" to the 3100. The color cast is probably different, and if anything the 60 might be a bit better than the 3100. I'm going off second-hand memory; someone else may have had direct experience.

With the 3100 there was a limit of 6-12mm of shift - I suppose I am drifting off topic... Sorry wallpaperviking!

Dave

This may or may not be relevant, but in my experience the files from the Rodie 40HR was much cleaner on the IQ160 than the IQ3100. LCC could almost be skipped (but definitely helped) on the IQ160 unshifted but is more or less essential on the IQ3100. Not sure whether this would translate to the symmetrical SK35 (and others of similar design).

John