Previous news story    Next news story

Phase One unveils IQ280, IQ260 and IQ260 Achromatic digital backs

By dpreview staff on Mar 4, 2013 at 17:52 GMT

Phase One has unveiled the Wi-Fi enabled IQ260, IQ260 Achromatic and IQ280 medium format digital camera backs. The 60MP IQ260 and IQ260 Achromatic feature maximum shutter speeds of 1/10,000th of a second. The IQ260 Achromatic is a black-and-white version, with no color and IR filter. The cameras' wireless capabilities allow users to remotely capture and view images from iOS devices. All three backs feature 3.2" multi-touch rear screens with 1.15m dot resolution, and built-in accelerometers. They will be available from June 2013 at suggested retail prices starting from €29,990 /$39,990.


Press Release:

Phase One Announces IQ2 Series Digital Camera Backs Pushes Image Quality Beyond Megapixels

COPENHAGEN, March 4, 2013: — Phase One, the world’s leader in open-platform, medium format camera systems and solutions, today announced the Phase One IQ2 series: three new full-frame 645 format digital camera backs with high-speed wireless connectivity and 13 f-stops of dynamic range, plus new options to meet specific photographic goals. Building on the IQ digital back platform, the first choice of many of the world’s leading photographers, the technical advances in the Phase One IQ280, IQ260 and IQ260 Achromatic go beyond delivering ultra-high megapixel resolution to introduce greater mobility and workflow flexibility for professional photographers.

“Instead of trying to make our wireless connection a replacement for a wired file transfer, as others have done, our solution focuses on helping get the right image capture -- whether that means perfecting composition or focus, or simply easing the challenges of capturing a hard-to-reach image from a remote location,” said Jan H. Christiansen, marketing director, Phase One.  

All IQ2 camera backs feature full-frame 645 format sensors designed collaboratively by Phase One and Teledyne Dalsa to deliver the world’s best image quality. In addition, Phase One IQ2 camera backs deliver a full 13 f-stops of dynamic range, which combined with meticulous calibration and careful hardware and software optimization ensures that the image quality is matched by no other camera.

The 80 megapixel IQ280 puts Wi-Fi in a new perspective, enabling remote image capture and viewing of huge 80 megapixel images on an iPad running Phase One’s Capture Pilot App. It represents the pinnacle of image quality. With an ISO as low as 35, no other camera or digital back can get better silk-like images.  

The 60 megapixel IQ260 offers unparalleled capture versatility, with exposure ranges from 1/10000s to one hour with virtually noise-free images. The 60 megapixel sensor at the heart of the IQ260 is a unique 645 format full-frame device found only in this digital back. It offers the widest exposure range opportunities on the market coupled with phenomenal image quality. And both the IQ280 and IQ260 capture raw images at 16-bit color depth per channel, enabling reproduction of scenes with ultra-smooth transitions.

The Phase One IQ260 Achromatic is a dedicated image capture device designed to deliver the highest-quality pure black and white images. It fully shares the IQ2 series’ “unplugged” assets. At the core of this system is a 60-megapixel sensor with no color filter array mounted, which means that no interpolation is necessary. Each and every pixel of the sensor is focused purely on capturing the finest details of an image. This digital back comes with no mounted IR cut-off filter, and the IQ260 Achromatic is capable of capturing image in three light spectrums: infrared, visible and ultraviolet -- permitting photographers to experiment with a wide range of their choice of filters to create unique images for artistic and scientific purposes.

Capture Made Easy
All IQ2 backs include built-in accelerometers, whose input helps align images perfectly at the moment of capture. An intuitive virtual horizon offers a precise visual indication of an image’s roll and pitch; that data is automatically stored with the images and can be automatically corrected in Capture One software after import.

Rugged Build
IQ2 digital backs combine functional design with rugged build quality. Built of 100 percent aircraft grade aluminum, all electronic connectors and ports are protected with automatic retracting hatches or rubber covers to ensure that they work continuously even in the toughest shooting environments.

Capture One 7 Software
Capture One 7 is built on the world's best raw processing engine and is included with all IQ2 backs, providing highly responsive precision tools to capture, organize, view, edit, share and print images for an efficient workflow and superior image quality results. 

Availability and Pricing

The Phase One IQ2 series camera backs are expected to be available in June 2013; they may be ordered now through Phase One professional photography partners worldwide: www.phaseone.com/partners For a complete list of all the new Phase One IQ digital back features, including supported camera bodies, please see www.phaseone.com/iq2

Prices start at 29990 EUR / 39990 USD. Attractive upgrade offers are available for all existing Phase One photographers. For a demo of these new products, please sign up here: www.phaseone.com/demo

Comments

Total comments: 96
RichRMA
By RichRMA (2 months ago)

I don't know. A 3 x 3 x 3 inch box of electronics that costs as much as an entire personal luxury car? Why?

1 upvote
Clint009
By Clint009 (9 months ago)

Bye bye Hasselblad. Lets go with Digital Camera Back with 80 MPix for Mamiya645.

0 upvotes
Volare
By Volare (11 months ago)

part 2....Imagine the step up using the IQ280 with a technical cameral like an Alpa. the picture quality would even be better. Rather than enlarge on-screen, the real test may be to look at the image quality not only on a large format printer, but also on a Litho Press.i have done both and the MF backs just simply seem to be far superior. A pro photographer friend of mine has the Nikon 800 (not e) and also has one of the older 21mp Leaf Backs. He prints on an Epson 7900 and categorically states there is no comparison in large prints. the older MF Back files are simply way superior, he says – Interesting!!

0 upvotes
Volare
By Volare (11 months ago)

Part 1....I have the Phase One p65+ as well as a Canon 5d3.....i am no techno expert – far from it, however, i do know what i see and when comparing the two files!! the 35mm digital format is simply not there when it comes to detail in LANDSCAPE images. I have the Epson 9900 and when i try and compare the same scene shot with both cameras blown up to 2 metres in width, the 35mm dies a death..!! i understand the Nikon 800e is a step up from the Canon in terms of pixels, however, from the reviews i have seen its not by a whole lot in terms of image quality. So, i acknowledge the Nikon 800e is superior in image quality to the Canon 5d3. Surely the IQ280, which i have yet to see is a step up from the P65+!! My comparisons have been done using a Hasselblad DSLR coupled with the Phase One p65+.

0 upvotes
Alegre
By Alegre (Apr 23, 2013)

I have the 80 mp back and am upgrading to the new 80 mp back. I can't wait!

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (Mar 18, 2013)

The question is not if lenses designed for use on MF cameras are better; they are designed to cover a larger image circle. Whether the sensor outperforms the lens or vise versa has to be measured scientifically.

Look here for an in depth discussion about the subject:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Mar 13, 2013)

Color depth and DR are easy. Take D800E, take a sequence of a few shots from a good tripod with mirror locked at base ISO (basically how the MF backs are used; and a few shots on D800E will still take less time than a single shot from those backs), stack them and you have as much DR, color depth and as little noise as you want.
Resolution is a different matter. For still subjects you can take many shots with tele lenses and combine them, just 2 shots in portrait orientation with D800 will have more resolution then the 60 mpix backs. For living moving subjects it will not work, although using 2 D800 (still so much cheaper) fired remotely at the same time might.

The bottleneck might be lenses though. Very few lenses can come close to resolving more than 20 mpix on D800. Are MF lenses any better?

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (11 months ago)

"Are MF lenses any better?" Medium format lenses are much better.. the HC120m mk2 can resolve 120MP...

0 upvotes
DougPeterson
By DougPeterson (Mar 13, 2013)

We now have sample long exposure files from the IQ260 here:
http://www.digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq260-long-exposure-sample

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Looks like there's a spam/scam post here - hope they remove it. Anyway, good discussion for the most part; So long as you realize that the medium format gear and the DSLR's (even the high end stuff) exist in two very different realms.
If you're looking for a medium format camera body with the type of "athleticism" of say a Nikon D3x or a Canon 1Dx you'll be disappointed. None of what's out there is going to be as fast or even reliable as that kind of gear. This is professional equipment.

0 upvotes
spatz
By spatz (Mar 6, 2013)

Is there a chart for quantum efficiency across the spectrum? The IQ620 sounds like it would be a great camera for astro imaging with filters. Maybe they should make a cooled version?

0 upvotes
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (Mar 6, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0SljqdzCNQ you can just cool it yourself (lol)

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Mar 5, 2013)

Pre-ordered!

5 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Mar 5, 2013)

Which mag do you publish at? Haven't seen anything of yours lately around here, but I'd love to.

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Mar 5, 2013)

People, youre not getting it.
my boss charges anywhere from 5k$ to 25$ for high end celebrity shoots, industrial stuff and big name ads. 40K is made in a month easily. Very often when publicists call to make a deal THEY WILL ASK what gear is going to be used, a nikon D800 is not the right answer. Its wrong i know, but this people are paying through the nose for a job, they have the right to be demanding.
Likewise, i can justify what I buy in dslr and m4/3s with what i make in weddings, but a 20mp point and shoot is not the right tool for me either

8 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Mar 5, 2013)

Just checked the pictures at Phase One's site. Stunning. But are they that much better than the pictures of a high-end DSLR to deserve the price hike?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 5, 2013)

Yes, they are better, at least at base ISO. But it's not about how a web sized image looks. These high end MF cameras and back are for professional studio photographers, and are meant for publication quality images often printed extremely large.

But even the much less expensive, but superb Pentax 645D images do look better than a high end DSLR. The D800E closed the gap, but there is still an major advantage with these cameras, at least at lower ISO values. Most of them are not designed to shoot high ISO settings like a FF DSLR.

But yes, these new Phase One digital backs, like the new 80 mp model, is going to be sick.

5 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Mar 5, 2013)

D800 and D600 are very close if you shoot <100 ISO. No serious camera really performs well at high ISO.Those shoots are of archival quality or "artsy"...

Where Nikon FX and Canon shine is lens quality and choice and usability. Many medium format lenses just suck/are single trick ponies, none can really take advantage of 80mb chips.

That you get to see great pictures taken with MF is because some of the users are really great artists with a sound educational background and long experience. They do aswell with a Nikon, Canon.

0 upvotes
Ubilam
By Ubilam (Mar 5, 2013)

Isn't the real test something like duplicating art like paintings for re-print? Everybody is being brainwashed that more mega-pixels is always better these days. In my studio, I've used entry level and better DSLR's to capture artwork for reprint big. Its about knowing your gear and pushing it versus the hi-end expensive status stuff that a monkey could use. I could put $40K to better work than a digital back.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Mar 5, 2013)

This sensor is 3 times a full frame 35mm Nikon-Canon, no way you can match the results with a Dsrl, and the images you see are not just about the photographer artistry. If you understand the difference between a crop sensor and a full frame then you know what I am talking about. I shoot with a 1Ds MK III, a 5D MK III and a Pentax 645D. The Canons do not get even close and the Pentax is not even a full frame 645. If you think a 35mm is a match for medium format then you really do not know what you are talking about, they are toys by comparison.

3 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 5, 2013)

Diminishing returns. D800e is very close to the older IQ180 back, the new one might be slightly better in DR, but still behind the Nikon. For somebody the slight difference might be worth $40000, for 99% of the professionals even, not.

High ISO performance in mostly inconsequential in this comparison, as MF cameras are not meant to be used handheld at night games.

The photographers who need these know it, and buy them. Commentators here are mostly clueless dreamers.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (Mar 5, 2013)

I agree on the diminishing returns, the MF is not 10 times better than the D800, but the difference is still substantial. Since these are cameras to deliver business the MF is a must for certain type of photography. The D800 would not cut. You need the proper tools for the proper jobs.

1 upvote
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Mar 5, 2013)

Right now I'm looking at some wonderful images at international magazines like GQ, Interview, The Face, Car... etc. I see stunning images, no doubt. But I see A4 size prints. I see behind them, some high end DSLR, high end lenses, super studio organization and most of all some really artful concept and charismatic post production. There's nothing in the world in Phase One's web site to convince me that those pictures could have only been achieved with a MF camera. Sorry. No believe...

1 upvote
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (Mar 5, 2013)

Have you ever gone to the mall and seen a 20-foot by 30-foot photo printed on the outside of a new store under construction? Ever wondered how those photos are that big, yet that crisp? People don't buy these 80mp backs to print 8x10s, they buy these 80mp backs because the photos out of them are so crisp and perfectly gradiated at 16 bits that you can upsize them to 10 times the size and lose absolutely zero quality while doing so. My assistant uses the D800 and I agree, it's a good camera when you downsample or print at 11x17" or so. Comparable to my 39mp phase back from 2007. But if you try to upsample a D800 photo even just to 80mp, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about — and exactly why people pay the extra cash for these MF backs.
And the fact that I (and many, many other pros) are still buying and using a back from 2007 (P45+) really speaks to what a solid investment these things are. Try to find a five-year-old used Phase back for less than $10,000. You'd be lucky.

3 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Mar 6, 2013)

this sensor is 3 times the size the one on the D800, that means that the difference between a micro 4/3 and the D800 is not dissimilar to the D800 and this monster. The optical advantage is huge!
A full frame 645! What a dream!

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 6, 2013)

Billboards are typically printed at 10 or 15 dpi, 20 at most. D800 file makes a poster 12-15 m high...

The advantage is not huge. It is small.

1 upvote
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (Mar 6, 2013)

Petka, billboards are viewed from the road, they only need to be 15-75dpi. I'm not talking about billboards, I'm talking about ground-level store-wraps and the like (think the giant posters in the Apple store displays), printed at 75-200 dpi. That's where these things really blow everything else out of the water. Go up close and look at a couple next time you're at the mall, they're nowhere near billboard quality — nor D800 quality.

0 upvotes
Ed_arizona
By Ed_arizona (Mar 4, 2013)

Do you get one of these free if you buy the New 4 MILLION dollar Lamborghini that was in the news today? YES $4,000,000.00

0 upvotes
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (Mar 6, 2013)

Doubt it, but you can be sure that every one of Lamborghini's official promotional photos of that car was captured with one of these cameras.

1 upvote
Tommot1965
By Tommot1965 (Mar 4, 2013)

its a lot of money for a amateur I agree..but for a pro..I dont think so..most tradesmen would have a work car worth that much..and even more in tools of trade ...my brother has one table saw worth $10000..so taken in context of a person working on these high paid very cool fashion shoots $40,000 is par for the course

4 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Mar 4, 2013)

Most tradesmen make more money than the average photographer.

3 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Mar 5, 2013)

not the ones who can rightfully afford a camera like this. They can probably write it off with only a few shoots. Not to mention that some of them do not even require to own one, the company they work for will buy. It is cheaper than some fancy photocopying machines.

1 upvote
nathantw
By nathantw (Mar 4, 2013)

Love to have one. Too bad abou the prices.

0 upvotes
ML_Digital_nYc
By ML_Digital_nYc (Mar 4, 2013)

I CANNOT wait for fashion and beauty guys to start handing me 80 mpix images to retouch for magazines ads! And copying over their entire shoots for assets, sigh!

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (Mar 10, 2013)

ML. No one should be sending you the camera's RAW (MOS in this case) files anyway. The higher resolution files shouldn't be any harder or easier to retouch so long as your computer is up to the task. Photographers should send you "processed" images from their CaptureOne or Lightroom applications. The JPEG's shouldn't be any larger than about 50 MB on average (43"X32" @240). Yes, I said JPEG's, not TIFF's. There is no difference until you get to the repro stage - end of discussion on that one.

0 upvotes
Bob Tullis
By Bob Tullis (Mar 4, 2013)

Does either have a dedicated AEB button, and can it AF on my kids under TV light?

[g]

5 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Mar 5, 2013)

80 mp to shoot your kids watching tv?

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Mar 6, 2013)

Give it a few years and that will be common. No good reason for it, but it will be possible and then it will be normal. It will be nice for cropping.

0 upvotes
ragmanjin
By ragmanjin (Mar 6, 2013)

The camera bodies have AEB, not the backs, and yes the newest bodies can indeed focus under incredibly dim conditions, but a bit of know-how and a handful of paper towels can make your "kids watching TV" photos look a lot better: http://motionblurdaily.com/2013/01/15/pennys-arcade/

0 upvotes
Photog74
By Photog74 (Mar 4, 2013)

Wonder how the Phase One IQ260 Achromatic compares to scanned 120 format Adox CMS 20.

1 upvote
tarkovsky
By tarkovsky (Mar 5, 2013)

Have you seen this ?:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml

Not the same film, but it is 8x10....

1 upvote
Photog74
By Photog74 (Mar 6, 2013)

Thanks for your reply tarkovsky. Yes, I happen to have seen that comparison but those scans were done at a laughably low resolution.

0 upvotes
tarkovsky
By tarkovsky (Mar 10, 2013)

I dont know the equipment and yes 745 dpi seems low. But I took the "Higher scan resolution would not have brought in more details" statement seriously.

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Well there's a challenge for sure! A lot would depend on the quality of the scanner and the skill of the operator. As much as I love film and can appreciate it as an artist's medium rather than a commercial product, this may be the KO punch. It's still too pricey for the average consumer or budding artist though.

0 upvotes
tarkovsky
By tarkovsky (Mar 12, 2013)

Just did a job where the shots were taken with a iq180. They had to be cropped and resized. It is really amazing how much you can up-res because of the pixel sharpness. End result was 3 meters wide @150 dpi.

0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (Mar 4, 2013)

This is a case where size really does matter. It's not so much about the megapixel count as it is about the size and type (CCD not CMOS in this case).
Yes, there's nothing like shooting with high end FX camera form either Canon or Nikon for shear flexibility and ease of use. However, If you've ever used a large format camera such as a 4X5, you will appreciate the quantum leap in detail and tonality rendering that these backs can offer.

6 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Mar 5, 2013)

True, but these days almost no one ever gets to see these files on their monitor or in a print worthy of the detail.
The images made with these tools are more often than not, destined for the web or at best a double page spread in a magazine.

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Mar 5, 2013)

I'd like to show you the difference between images from my 1Ds MKIII and my Pentax 645D on my Sumsung Galaxy phone, I bet anyone would pick the difference. The difference shows big time at virtually any resolution. More natural gradients, depth of field, natural perspective angles...

1 upvote
mgrum
By mgrum (Mar 5, 2013)

@armandino I'd like that too, convert a bunch of 1Ds3 photos and some 645D photos, resize them to 1,280 x 720 and post them here.

I'm especially interested in the "natural perspective angles" the cropped medium format 645D system offers.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Mar 6, 2013)

There are selected shots where the depth of field would give it away, but scaled to a 3mp jpeg the other differences evaporate? Sorry, these are not magic images. There are good reasons these devices are only used for the very limited fields that demand them.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Mar 6, 2013)

I posted the difference with the 5D MK iii in the following thread, I happened to shoot the two but not the 1Ds. A direct comparison was not in mind at the time of the shoot, so you can only compare qualitatively as the settings are not identical
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50983902

0 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Mar 4, 2013)

"The cameras' wireless capabilities allow users to remotely capture and view images from iOS devices" No Android or PC?

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Mar 4, 2013)

iOS devices are an overwhelming favorite within their target clientele. They also have a much smaller number of models with well-know hardware differences, and all iPads have relatively good quality screens. So the product can be much better optimized to iOS devices.

In any case, if you need the capability you just go buy an iPad. If you still prefer Android for your everyday/home use, then fine.

5 upvotes
christiangrunercom
By christiangrunercom (Mar 4, 2013)

You can always shot tethered from Capture One with a PC or Mac.

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Mar 4, 2013)

androids are for amateurs, PCs for gamers - not Phase One's target markets... LOL

1 upvote
Ionian
By Ionian (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh great, an isheep. You're not Phase One's market either...isheep like you aren't creative enough to use cameras like these. Now go along and conform with the rest of your little isheep at the Apple store... Baaaaaa!

2 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Mar 4, 2013)

That is like eye-wateringly expensive.

Sensors are priced exponentially based on area though due to the odds of defects increasing w/sensor area, so hopefully an FX sized equivalent would only cost $2K or so. Personally I would still rather have a bare-bones FX cam w/the form factor of an old SLR but a legacy mount for <$1000.

0 upvotes
Surefoot
By Surefoot (Mar 4, 2013)

If you dont understand the price, then you dont need it. Other people do, and for them the price is right. And for them an FX system is clearly not enough for their needs.

10 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Mar 4, 2013)

What is the FX size?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 4, 2013)

This kind of equipment belongs in the most demanding studios. It can't be measured against your regular DSLR, full-frame or otherwise. You don't want to take an MF camera on your vacations...

0 upvotes
jeerzz
By jeerzz (Mar 4, 2013)

if you talk about the price, you cant really afford to buy it.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Mar 5, 2013)

FX is Nikonspeak for Full Frame (what used to be known as 35mm or 24x36mm).

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Mar 4, 2013)

costs almost nothing
extremely inexpensive
better - utter nonsense

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Mar 4, 2013)

Well lets see if they have can beat the D800. It would be nice to see MF above FF again. If not then whats the point.

I hope the MF makers have stepped up their game! I would hate to see MF ghost.

0 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (Mar 4, 2013)

How did the D800 beat MF? Yes the D800 and D800E are on the top of DXO but those tests cover a very wide range of photography. MF cameras are intended for resolution critical deliberate shooting - landscape and studio work almost exclusively. I love my D800 but I carry no delusions that it will rival a well lit studio shot on an IQ180.

20 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (Mar 4, 2013)

Love to have one. Too bad about the prices.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 4, 2013)

I will buy this instead of D800 if the price is the same. No question about it.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (Mar 5, 2013)

I 'd buy a Pentax 645D over a D800 even if it costs three times as much! (as a matter of fact I did eh eh, just I paid only twice as much). Never mind this monster sensor. The D800 is a match for medium format in terms resolution, and ahead in terms of flexibility and dynamic range. But if you think you can match a medium format in terms of deliverables you got it wrong. They are not in the same league, period.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 4, 2013)

Super, except the price.

0 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Mar 4, 2013)

Minimum shutter speed?

"Achromatic feature minimum shutter speeds of 1/10,000th of a second. "

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Mar 4, 2013)

Considering where these cameras are used (low ISO, in fact their sensor ISOs are very low), I wonder what is the benefit of having such low minimum shutter speed.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 4, 2013)

It has a shutter speed of 1 hour available as well. Most consumer cameras don't go past 30 seconds without using some kind of attachment, and many of those will enforce long shutter speed noise reduction (not sure what this one does).

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 4, 2013)

Sorry, should have read maximum shutter speed (or minimum exposure time).

3 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Mar 4, 2013)

@viking these dont have shutter speeds they are backs. they attach to cameras and those cameras most likely need a attachment to go beyond 30 seconds just like any othe camera

0 upvotes
TruePoindexter
By TruePoindexter (Mar 4, 2013)

They support that minimum speed. As someone else pointed out the camera must also be capable of that minimum speed. As for why this exists - industrial/scientific uses immediately come to mind. Any situation where you must photograph something extremely bright but also must maintain optimum clarity (e.g. avoid ND filters and diffraction).

3 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Mar 4, 2013)

Thanks for changing :)

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 4, 2013)

An MF system or a brand new yacht: you choose.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Mar 4, 2013)

You have cheap taste in yachts.

21 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 4, 2013)

What part of «system» did you find so hard to understand? Add a body and lenses to the backs' price and you'll be surprised...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
mikiev
By mikiev (Mar 4, 2013)

So you are thinking that someone in the market for a digital back this expensive wouldn't *already* have a 654-based camera, tripod & lenses?

I'm not.

I'm thinking the only people interested in these backs are the people who have already invested in a "system".

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 4, 2013)

Mikiev, you're so clever.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Mar 4, 2013)

Manuel....even if you had to buy the lenses...say you spent 100k.....that's still a pretty cheap 'yacht'....even on the used market. Just sayin'.

Not to mention the fact that no one paying $4ok for this back is making a decision to buy it instead of their 'yacht'. This is clearly aimed at pros who can pay for the gear...not your average Mom and Pop soccer parents. Clearly you are not in the target market (nor am I :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Mar 4, 2013)

Actually, many of these are sold to rental houses, whose customers aren't exclusively filthy rich people.

2 upvotes
DougPeterson
By DougPeterson (Mar 4, 2013)

About half our customers have no medium format camera when they come to us. The other half are upgrading within the system.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Mar 4, 2013)

An 80mp Phase with a bevy of lenses and premium bron color strobes doesn't equate to the cost of a cheap Cessna 162 (about $160k)... let alone a little e'lcheapo yacht starting around $400k. ;)

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (Mar 5, 2013)

I'd buy this baby and make the serious money you need with it to get a worthy yacht :-))))))

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 4, 2013)

Ah! Its because they are B&W they are called a-chromatic, i.e. without color. Its a kind of joke. Hmmm .. I hope the real product is more serious :)

Actually, this increases the want to have factor. Ehhhhh ... but I think its hard to convince my wife that I want one B&W, one in color and some lenses and a body.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DougPeterson
By DougPeterson (Mar 4, 2013)

Achromatic is meant to also reference the fact it goes beyond the color spectrum. It's sensitive to UV and IR light as well.

http://www.digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq260-and-iq280-what-you-need-to-know

6 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (Mar 4, 2013)

As any other sensor, thats why they all have IR filter...

1 upvote
DougPeterson
By DougPeterson (Mar 4, 2013)

That's what I'm saying: the Achromatic does NOT have an IR block filter. You can use it for IR photography, UV photography, or standard visible black and white photography.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 4, 2013)

Ehhhhhh ,,,,, in what way are they achromatic?

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mattwd
By Mattwd (Mar 4, 2013)

I know, reading is hard.

9 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 4, 2013)

Now ... you be nice :P

I was so narrow mindedly thinking about achromatic lenses, that I did not get it.

0 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Mar 4, 2013)

They called it that because the price is $10,000 higher than the regular version, causing the color to drain from your face.

26 upvotes
xtoph
By xtoph (Mar 4, 2013)

Roland, you're thinking of 'apochromatic' not achromatic.

1 upvote
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 5, 2013)

No, "achromatic" is also a lens term; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens

Early photographic lenses didn't need to worry about it too much, since the film/plate was really only sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum. Orthochromatic and panchromatic films required lenses with better colour correction. True apochromaticity (absolutely no lateral *or* longitudinal chromatic aberration) is *very* hard to achieve; most "APO" lenses (outside of reprographics) are only "close enough", and are probably better described as very, very good achromats.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 96