Hi, I did a quick comparison between the Nikon D800E the Phase One IQ160 and the 645D.
I rented the D800E to shoot it with my then new 645D (now sold) and recently shot with my new to me IQ160.
This test is by no means remotely scientific. I did it just to get a feel for the cameras under similar conditions. Here are the setups:
1-Nikon D800E w/ 24mm PC-E @ f8, iso 100, NEF 14bit, processed using lightroom 4.4, did some clarity, sharpening and color correction/luminance adjustments.
2-Phase One IQ160 on Arca Rm3Di w/ Rodenstock 40mm HR lens @ f8, iso 50, processed using C1 Pro 7, did some color correction (not much) /luminance adjustments, no clarity or sharpening added!
3-645D w/ SMC A 35mm @ f11, iso 100, processed using lightroom 4.4, did some clarity, sharpening and color correction/luminance adjustments.
Needless to say the Phase One wiped the floor silly with the Nikon, as it should. It handily beat the 645D by quite a bit too. I know that the Pentax wide angles are not the best but this was the best 35mm i got from 2 I purchased and was very sharp. I know the 24mm PC-E is not Nikon's best lens at the borders and edges that is why I did not use that area of the image for comparison if so then it would have been more embarrassing for the Nikon. F8 was the best performing aperture on that lens on that body and resolution at away from the extreme borders and edges is quite good comparable to the best lenses I used (zeiss 15mm, 14-24mm) on that body. Diffraction starts to affect the Nikon at f11. With the Pentax it was f16. f11 was the sweet spot on the Pentax. I used a gitzo 3 series tripod weighted down. (there are slight differences in angular coverage and composition with each lens and body combination but it was close enough for my purposes).
Had I taken into account the image quality near the borders and edges the difference was huge. The Rodenstock lens is just about the best wide angle lens I have ever used. Its just about perfect edge to edge. It is impressive.
I wish I could upload and display the Tiff files here. Its the best way to show how impressive the IQ160 file is. Honestly I was a bit nervous when I first got the IQ160 because I (like a lot of folks) had read some articles stating that the Nikon D800E was close, that there was not a huge difference, that the "inconveniences" of working with a tech camera and digital back setup were not worth the effort and a bunch other "arguments". If that had been the case I would have been the first to admit it even after spending a huge chunk of money. Let me tell you. The performance difference is real and its huge and I have not gotten into the fact that the Phase One files are EXTREMELY manipulable without a reduction in quality. Its quite amazing. The color and detail in some scenes that I have photographed have just wowed me when opening the files. Seeing stuff that was there that the camera saw and I did not. It is stunning. Also, I was surprised how much of a joy was to work with the Arca setup. It fits nicely all mounted, ready to go, in my LowePro stealth reporter 300 shoulder bag with space left over for misc. stuff. Also, the battery lasted me a whole shooting day and then some even though I used live view quite a few times.
Anyway, that said. You can see that the 645D has a slight edge on the Nikon. Mostly because of the focal length difference. But it was close. The Pentax was cleaner in some areas though. The 645D was also a surprise on how easy it was to work with. It is a great dslr in it's own right.
Hi!, yea I have to tweak the default processing setting for the Phase Files. I did something wrong in regards to the color settings of the iq160 image posted during processing. I just wanted to see the resolution differences so I posted quickly.
The 645D is a great camera. I wish I could have kept it for the commercial photography that I do. I could not afford to keep both. For landscape the Arca/IQ setup just whips it though. Its incredible. Doesn't mean the 645D is bad for landscape. But its close enough to the D800E that it is harder to justify the price although I preferred to work with the Pentax than the Nikon for some reason. It seemed intuitive to use. Very well designed camera.
Since the IQ160 costs something like $35,000, and the Pentax costs something like $8,000, and the Nikon costs something like $3,000, surely it's no shock that the IQ produces significantly better images than the other two. Otherwise Phase One would have pulled off one of the world's all-time great scams.
I don't mean to demean your posts, it was interesting to see the images and compare them and I appreciate your posting them. I just think the results as between the IQ and the others was sort of a foregone conclusion.
It seems to me that if you are not beginning to see diffraction effects until F11 on the D800E, then the lens is clearly not resolving as much as the sensor is capable of. When I owned that camera, diffaction robbing softness started to become noticeable beyond F 5.6. Even with my older Sony a900 24MP FF, diffraction was noticeable beyond F8 with good glass. The 100% view showing the D800E sort of confirms this. Of course, I'm sure the Phase would still wipe the floor but, resolution wise, it would be closer if the full capability of the sensor was used.
The Nikon performed best at f5.6~f8 with all three lenses tested in regards to best sharpness found (in one part of the frame). Naturally neither the Pentax nor the Nikon lenses (or the Zeiss) perform consistently edge to edge like the rodenstock. Image sharpness varies across the frame. You might find that if you test for center sharpness that yes, some Nikon/lens combinations are sharpest at f4-f5.6, but that is only at the center. At f8 generally the max sharpness spreads across the frame to a place much close closer to the borders. At f11 ,in some lenses, edge to edge sharpness is the most uniform it can get even though it comes at a cost of slightly less ultimate center sharpness. Even so, it is never perfectly uniform. Image quality across the frame/print is whats important. I mean, what good is too have great sharpness in one point in the center only to loose more and more the closer you get to the border. (on a landscape image). I am sure that is acceptable in some situations but in others it isn't.
Yes, the results might have been obvious. But one can never take anything for granted. You just never know until you use it. The price/performance relationship is not linear. Both the Nikon and the Pentax could benefit from better glass obviously. But one can only make do with what is available.
Sneaky -- Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Looking forward to more shots from the Phase One. Does Nikon have any quality lens "normal" that could come at all close to the Rodenstock for comparisons? Zeiss, maybe?
Gunzorro wrote:
Sneaky -- Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Looking forward to more shots from the Phase One. Does Nikon have any quality lens "normal" that could come at all close to the Rodenstock for comparisons? Zeiss, maybe?
I also used the new Zeiss 15mm lens, which isn't a cheap lens by any means!, and while it was good and the most consistently sharp lens edge to edge that I used on the Nikon it is not as amazing as the Rodenstock. Then again, what is?
Sneakyracer wrote:
The Nikon performed best at f5.6~f8 with all three lenses tested in regards to best sharpness found (in one part of the frame). Naturally neither the Pentax nor the Nikon lenses (or the Zeiss) perform consistently edge to edge like the rodenstock. Image sharpness varies across the frame. You might find that if you test for center sharpness that yes, some Nikon/lens combinations are sharpest at f4-f5.6, but that is only at the center. At f8 generally the max sharpness spreads across the frame to a place much close closer to the borders. At f11 ,in some lenses, edge to edge sharpness is the most uniform it can get even though it comes at a cost of slightly less ultimate center sharpness. Even so, it is never perfectly uniform. Image quality across the frame/print is whats important. I mean, what good is too have great sharpness in one point in the center only to loose more and more the closer you get to the border. (on a landscape image). I am sure that is acceptable in some situations but in others it isn't. ...Show more →
Yes, you are right about across the frame sharpness, at least with most lenses currently available for the Nikon. Really great glass will be the sharpest at F4 but, particularly with wides, F8 is required for best corner to corner sharpness (except for perhaps a very few lenses where 5.6 is outstanding into the corners, such as on the inexpensive Samyang/ Rokinion 35 1.4). Those lenses which require F11 for best corner sharpness though tend to give up a little resolution overall in my experience. Of course, none of that considers the real world requirements for dof which quite often might be F8/11 on FF 35.
+1 for Rodenstock. Some of the best glass I have ever used.
Mescalamba wrote:
You could post a bigger samples.
Results about as expected considering price. I think there are better lens for Nikkor system, but it simply cant match sensor size of others.
MFDBs have future, only some ppl dont like to hear that. After all, bigger was always better in photography and it doesnt seem to change.
Yes. There are also two very big issues that the technical medium format systems solve. One, the lenses. The optics are just better designed and built since they are simpler mainly due to: Two, the focusing mechanism. In the Arca Swiss the focusing is on the body. Not the lens. Its also a very precise helical focusing mechanism. That means that once you calibrate it for your lens and back its set and one can get great repeatability and consistency.
Also the lack of a mirror box allows more flexibility in lens designs, specially wide angles.The rodenstock wide angle's are quasi retrofocus designs that reduce color cast issues when shifting manily by being able to have the lens a bit further from the sensor and reduces light angles a bit compared to traditional wide angle designs. That makes them usable even with the 80mp backs.
Thanks for posting this. I'm curious why you chose PP for the Nikon in LR and Phase One in Capture One 7 since Capture One can read Nikon files. I understand why not the Pentax as no support in C1.
Enjoyed your comments and images. Hope to see more. I was lucky enough to recently see a demo on the IQ260 both on the 645DF+ and the Arca Rm3Di though it was indoor shooting of a motorcycle with 4+ minute exposures and light painting effects.
I'm sure the Phase is better but these comparison shots are shot at different times of the day and lighting is different. Also pretty sure ZF 21 would outperform your PC24.
1- Different focal length between the D800E and the 160/645D. Why?
2- Different light conditions between each of the D800E - IQ160 - 645D, according to the shadow of the Sizzler (small sign), the difference is not few minutes to change camera but an hour or so! Why?
3- Different atmos conditions with flying flags v still flags.
4- Different atmos conditions with no clouds for the D800E and cloudy for the 160/645.
5- Different converters used. Why?
Don't you think that the result will be bias under such very different conditions?
I would still expect to see a better rendition with the IQ160/Rodenstock and the accompanying DR, but don't you think that a test as posted represent an "understandability" challenge?....unless I am missing something?
1- Different focal length between the D800E and the 160/645D. Why?
....
A full frame 645 medium format sensor and a full frame DSLR sensor are different formats. A 40mm is "close" to a about a 25mm lens in 35mm sensor-speak.
The problem with all the online and google-speak tests that are available is that there will always be some sort of variation and an inherent impossibility to compare a camera like the D800 and a MFDB, simply because they are different formats. I've seen comparison images of the D800 made to the IQ180 using a Schneider xl35mm, when those of us that use the IQ180 know that this lens is not up to par to be used with an 80MP sensor. It's misleading. They are different tools and formats. All you can really say is, wow, these are really good cameras. I want 'em both!
A large part of the attraction to using a technical camera is the ability to use movements, combined with the finest lenses, e.g., Rodenstock HR40 t/s. This is something that you simply can't compare with a DSLR.
It puts the photographer back into the equation, and really makes photography enjoyable imho.
Surprised by this informal personal test? Not at all. Actually going out and photographing with a medium format digital camera/back beats reading about it on google every time. It's amazing what really happens when you use a camera in the field!
But indeed, it's just another tool in the shed. And I don't think I know any MFDB users that don't also own a high-end DSLR as well.
Yea convenience of dSLR or mirrorless is nice thing to have too. MFDBs are not exactly pocketable.
It reminds me bit m4/3 (and mirrorless) users standing against dSLR and trying to "beat them" without realizing, that there is enough room for everyone. And that its actually handy to have more than just one camera.
OK, not scientific at all, but the results are there and glad you like it. Did you expect otherwise though ;-)
What ISO can you shoot with it? How large do you print to see the difference? How portable and flexible is it? That is how it works for many potential users...you do see a lot of the types that take photographic tours of rich newbies buying this kind of camera system.
All round usability and versatility is far more important to 98% of users - I was shocked to hear the Leica S PR shill talk about total market of 6000 units a year. It is the very definition of 'boutique'.
If you gave Sony/Nikon a target RRP of $10,000 for a high Mp FF sensor camera what do you think would be the result? There is an edge right now but the next gen? The new CZ lenses will dispense with corner problems, very likely.
People will pay a squillion for Leica gear. FF sensors are updated every four years, there is a commercial reason for that too. Ferraris get caught in traffic jams, and are not much fun anywhere outside a race track or a Top Gear fantasy land TV program.
Rodenstock are not without their QC issues, they were one of the big four in LF film and make nice digital lenses but Joseph Holmes had some well-publicised problems a few years back. A quote:
'I take that as approximately a one-in-four chance of getting a good superwide, view-camera-type, German lens when you order one. And for every lens that gets rejected by one photographer, if the thing isn't made right by Schneider or Linos/Rodenstock or one of the other vendors who assemble elements to shutters (possibly including Linhof, Sinar, Horseman, and Cambo), it then just serves to reduce the chances of getting a good one for the other photographers to almost zero. And these things aren't exactly in great supply to begin with.
The sorry thing is that other kinds of super wide lenses which might be useful with this format are generally worse. The 35 mm Hasselblad HC f/3.5 lens (built by Fuji) is a real lemon, as mentioned above. One of those was Don Wood's Hasselblad HC 35 lens, which is so blurry around the edges that we both regard it as useless -- it's simply impossible to get a sharp picture, even if you stop down to f/22.'
Mescalamba, it is just the opposite to m4/3 in FF - only sky (oh, and ~6000 buyers a year) above, and almost no one to buy the expensive to design/develop/QA product.
