c._sharon Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>From the Luminous Landscape web site</p> <blockquote> <p >After now using a P65+ for a couple of years there's no question that it exceeds 4X5" film in resolution, dynamic range and colour fidelity. So, what about the 80 Megapixel IQ180? Should it have been called the IQ8X10? Is an 80 Megapixel 500 Megabyte file able to equal 8X10" film?</p> <p >I don't know. My seat-of-the-pants guess would be – yes. So, here's my challenge. If there's anyone out there that is still shooting 8X10" film, drum scanned or printed in the chemical darkroom, and who would like to do a side-by-side shoot out, <a href="mailto:mreichmann@rogers.com">please let me know</a>, and when the IQ180 is shipping in May let's get together and find out.</p> </blockquote> <p > </p> <p >Any users of 8x10 films here willing to take up LL on its challenge?</p> <p > <br> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>I shot with an IQ180 system the other day. And I also have long experience with shooting 8x10 film.</p> <p>it is true: with good lenses on the camera the iQ180's ability to resolve ultra-fine , real world detail that at meets or possibly exceeds the ability to do the same with 8x10 film. And that is with the IQ180 set to ISO 400 and comparing it to ISO 100 8x10 film. <br> Want to know the really sad thing about the IQ180? Once you see what it can do you are not going to be happy with 20-25mp resolution if ultra-fine subject detail resolution is one of your grails. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>Ellis, I don't have the in's anymore to find out the price of this back. Have you heard? I'm guessing if the old P65 was $33k, the iQ180 must be even more astronomical. I can't begin to make that money pay off for commercial work in my region. Did you see it used on a Hasselblad H system? I haven't played with the new Mamiya stuff, but if you were a Hasselblad guy, owning V systems, and renting H systems now and again, would you stick with Hasselblad?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>$44,000 but if you have a P65+ to trade in they will give you 65% off. Good trade in deals for lots of older MF digital backs too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <p>It could have all the pixels in the world but I would rather look at a picture from a talented photographer shooting a Leica M3. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 <p>Why so many words? "Look at a picture from a talented photographer" is quite enough.......</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjscharp Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Of course, with a IQ180 you can't do platinum contact prints... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What's interesting is I have a friend who shoots portraits on the street with a Burke and James 8x10 and an Aero Ektar lens. His work is definitely not about resolution... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Did you see it used on a Hasselblad H system?</p> </blockquote> <p>On a PhaseOne camera.</p> <blockquote> <p>I haven't played with the new Mamiya stuff, but if you were a Hasselblad guy, owning V systems, and renting H systems now and again, would you stick with Hasselblad?</p> </blockquote> <p>That is a hard call. The Hasselblad H systems are very good as you know. From what was discussed the IQ backs , like other Phase One backs, can be used on Hasselblad V series cameras as well as view cameras.</p> <blockquote> <p>Of course, with a IQ180 you can't do platinum contact prints...</p> </blockquote> <p>Output to film and you can. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Output to film and you can.</p> </blockquote> <p>There is an easier way!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The real challenge is coming up with the 44 grand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The real challenge is coming up with the 44 grand.</p> </blockquote> <p> Why? How could somebody not have 44 grand. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 <p>It used to be I could afford expensive equipment, and then expense it out over my work, but these prices are just out there in space. Maybe if I was in LA or NYC with a ton of work, but not so much where I live. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 <p>Sensible thoughts Michael. If the equipment cannot pay for itself and more then do not buy it. Being a hobbyist I have no use for a thing like that. I just give photos away if somebody wants one. I made a bunch of prints the other day for somebody who lost their loved one. I scanned it from a picture that they had on a piece of printing paper. I was suprised at how nice it came out actually.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maris_rusis Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 <p>I suppose that all picture making methods that can lay down detail finer than the eye can see may be contrived to look the same. An 8x10 gelatin-silver photograph exposed in contact with a sharp negative has delivered this quality for more than a hundred years. I routinely and without exceptional thought or effort turn out "infinitely" sharp 8x10 contacts for about $5 all up, film, paper, and chemicals included. <br /> <br /> That some mark-making machine can print sharp pictures from fancy electronic files is mildly interesting but ultimately irrelevant to me. What I really want to look at (and make) are those pictures which have a particular special relationship to subject matter. It's the relationship that comes out of the fact that the pictures are made from light sensitive materials and the light that exposed them came directly from the subject matter.</p> <p>Digital technology doesn't deliver this unique quality no matter how closely it may resemble it. Different is not the same.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c._sharon Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 <p>I hope LL is able to conduct the shootout. I am curious about the result and looking forward to it. I would be surprised if the MFDB does better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I emailed Michael for the challenge but I will be just using a 400 dollar MF camera. Same format he compared to a 10 megapixel DSLR. Waiting for his response on how to meet and looking forward to it. It will be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c._sharon Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>Mauro: That's great. I hope you can participate. Now I am really looking forward to it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I hope he doesn't back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>Mauro,</p> <p>Pretty much everybody but you agrees that 135 format digital is in the same league as MF film. So what challenge exactly do you think you are posing?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Scott, your assumption is incorrect. And not everybody is confused like you. Many people believe that up to a certain print size (11x14 or 16x20) the advantage of MF's higher detail does not make a big difference on print. Not a single photographer I know would questions that MF film captures more detail than a 35mm DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>Let's hope Michael takes the challenge so we can all evaluate how a $44K 80MP back performs against roll film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>That is not the challenge he set, why should he consider your lesser challenge?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>You have a point as this may contradict his previous findings. </p> <p>He and I are exchanging emails now. I will let you know how it goes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 <p>Remember that 6x7 film is a whopping 80% larger than the IQ180. </p> <p>When used say on an RZ67 you will be discarding that much from the information the lens projects onto the film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now