09/23/14 Using Stacking for better Night Photography results
I have found that working at night in Arkansas can bring out some amazing photographic opportunities, like the photograph below.
Since early in 2008 I have been fascinated by one facet of night photography—the creation of star trail photographs. Capturing the motion of the earth over a period of time and blending the light of the distant stars into different lines of varying brightness is my mission. My first attempts consisted of just leaving the shutter open over a period of time and varying it from 30 minutes to 1 and half hours. My initial thoughts were that the best conditions for shooting the stars would be nights with little or no moonlight. The results in my location (Arkansas), were a bit disappointing since the ambient light from nearby towns and even a single home would give the sky a yellow/orange color. If I tried to change this yellow sky color in post processing it also influenced the color of the star trails making them red/yellow.
In this image, you can see an example of how light pollution can totally turn the night sky yellow/amber and the non-sky parts of the image have no details. Attempting to pull up the foreground produces a noisy and non-detailed image.
Things changed for me quite by accident as one night I was out when there was a half moon. The results from this short 20 minute exposure with moonlight moved things in a totally different direction for me. Instead of the yellow/orange sky, I now had a beautiful blue hue, with pure white star trails. Even more impressive was just how much the surrounding landscape had been illuminated. Now instead of a dark silhouette I could now see most of the details of the landscape. The colors all had a naturally strong saturated look and I was hooked. However after a few months of shooting in this mode, I noticed that as my single exposures approached 40 minutes the trails started to become faint to a point where only the strongest stars continued to show trails.
This is a 45 minute single exposure from a Phase One P45+. There is a good balance however only the strongest stars are showing through. There is considerable wind blur on the trees along the bluff.
If I tried to pull the exposure of the sky down, I lost many of the faint trails. I tried a few different solutions with filters, but nothing seemed to really give me the sky that I was looking for, one with a nice deep blue hue and filled with star trails. Then I read about some photographers that were stacking their exposures and I became very interested in what my results might be from night exposure stacking.
This is a 1 hour exposure taken in approximately 2 minutes stacked exposures. Notice the vastly greater number of star trails and the lack of motion blur.
The idea of stacking comes from photographers working with time lapse capture. The idea is simple enough, instead of one long single exposure, take a series of short exposures and then blend them together in Photoshop. By using Photoshop I found that you can create a smart object from all the stacked exposures and then run a series of blending modes on the smart object that capture only the movement of the stars in the night sky, creating the trails. Each night the period of time of each exposure will vary and it takes a few attempts to get just the right time for the best segment. Ideally I can find an exposure/aperture combination that shows bright stars but also allows for illumination of my landscape features. Since most exposures will be longer than 30 seconds, you need an intervalometer. With the intervalometer, set the interval to 1 and then set the total time of each single exposure. Then set the camera to continuous mode and for blub exposure. For example, if your exposure time for each segment is 2 minutes and 30 seconds, for a 2 hour exposure you will take 52 individual images to stack together later.
Stacking has several advantages over a single long exposure:
1. You have more interesting subject matter overall
- Since you now have the ability to see the landscape subjects that are illuminated by the moonlight, you have a much more interesting photograph. The illumination provided by the moon can be quite eerie at times and offers a unique look to the final photograph.
2. The ability to handle wind motion:
- During single long exposures, more than likely you will have some wind. The wind over a period of 2 hours can totally blur your trees to the point that it will actually ruin the photograph.
- Stacking allows you to find the best single exposure of the foreground and layer it back to the final image.
3. Hundreds of distant stars are brought into view:
- With night photography, you will get more distant stars the wider you can open the aperture so ideally you would try to work with aperture ranges of F2.0 to F4. Any wider and you will start to run into DOF issues with most lenses. Stacking allows you to work with these wider apertures. In contrast, working at F2.8 to F4 with a single long exposure of 1 hour most likely will cause the sky and stars to be overexposed.
4. Much more flexible workflow:
- Since you are stacking you will have many different images to work with in your landscape portion of the image. You may want to pick several and blend them together to take the best parts of each. You also may want to experiment with light painting on one segment. If it doesn’t work out, you don’t have to use that part of the stack, however if you light paint on a single long exposure and make a mistake, then you have ruined the entire sequence.
This is a 35 minute single exposure where no moonlight illumination was used. The combined light painting still really did not begin to pull out the details of the tress along the bank and the light painting only provides a 1 dimensional form of illumination.
5. Better control over plane trails:
- I have yet to work a night where planes did not fly over. If you are stacking, you can take out the plane trails before you run the blending modes to combine the images. Plane trails will always be some form of a straight line and will contrast sharply with the curved star trails in the night sky of your image.
6. Noise of a single long exposure vs stacking multiple exposures:
- Over the time of a single long exposure you can expect your camera to generate quite a bit of heat and thus get excessive noise and stuck pixels. If you stack, the shorter exposure times will contain less noise and fewer stuck pixels. This can make a big difference in the final image.
My current camera selections are the Nikon D800E with the 14-24 F2.8 lens and the Canon 6D with the 16-35 F2.8 lens. Both of these cameras allow you to turn off the long exposure noise reduction, which is critical. If you leave it on, then you will have a mandatory dark frame between each segment, which creates gapping. For both of these cameras, I use the accessory grips with extra batteries so I can get the longest operating times from each camera. I use a wired intervalometer with each camera to control the exposures. My goal for night photography is to maximize my sky view so I tend to work with focal length ranges of 14mm to 20mm. For the night exposures, I set the white balance to around 4330K.
For this night work, I like to shoot raw files as I feel you have more control over the file in post processing than with a jpg. I will then take 5 or 6 images from a series and work them up in both Lightroom and Capture 1 to see which software seems to handle the series better. On a 2 hour series, you will have to make some minor adjustments to the images to help balance out the sky illumination, since the motion of the moon will change the color of the night sky over time.
Once all the images are worked up, I will export them as 8 bit tiffs. I have found that the 8 bit quality is more than enough for the images I am creating. I will load the files into Photoshop layers from Photoshop Bridge, then select all the layers and create a smart object. This process may take a while with 52 tiffs especially with a series of 36MP images. Once the smart object is created, I recommend to save it, in a large document format with a .psb extension as odds are the file will be larger than 2GB in size. Then you can run the stack modes on the smart object.
This is a screen shot from Photoshop. All the individual images have been loaded into Photoshop as layers and the stack is now ready to be turned into a smart object.
The stack blending modes are now part of Adobe CC and CS6. If you have an earlier version of Photoshop you will need to download them from the Dr. Brown website (www.Adobe.com). I like to run the Maximum and Mean modes and save the results. Maximum gives you the greatest amount of light to the stars but may be a bit too much, so by running the mean mode, you can layer the two and blend back to a good balance of the sky and stars. The mean stacking mode will also contain less noise.
Once the smart object has been created, you are ready to run the various blending modes on it. In this screen shot, I am about to run the “Maximum” blending mode.
Once the stacking work is done you have finished the lion’s share of the process. All that is left to work on is the landscape (non-sky) portion of your photograph. During a 2 hour stacking set, the moon will move across your scene. Most often you will find that the moonlight movement has illuminated different portions of your shot. One technique I use is to take parts from several images to get the best overall result. An example of this, is when you start the moonlight will only be on the right side of your scene. Towards the end of the series, the moon will have moved higher in the sky and is casting light on the subject matter on the left of your scene which earlier was only in shadow. You will also want to hunt through the images to find the ones with the least amount of motion blur on trees or bushes.
Stacking does introduce faint gaps between each exposure. After you have run the blending modes and combined the files, you can see the faint gaps created between the exposures. If you happened to stop the camera to check a file or move a flare buster to a new position, you will have an even longer gap. These gaps do detract from the star trails as they break up the continuous flow of light you are attempting to capture.
In this crop taken from the sky after the blending modes have been run, the small gaps between the segments can be seen along with larger gaps created by my stopping the process briefly to check the exposure balance.
I have found that the easiest way to remove the gaps, is by using software called “Star Tracer”. Star Tracer is a stand-alone Windows based software. There currently is not a MAC version. Star Tracer uses some pretty advanced algorithms to move the image forwards and backwards to adjust the existing trails over the gaps, thus closing them. I feel that closing that gaps makes for a much more appealing final image. Star Tracer comes with a nice help section and is pretty straight forward to use. The most critical data is making sure the FOV (Field of View) of your lens has been inputted correctly into Star Tracer before you run it.
In this crop, of the same image after I have run Star Tracer you can clearly see how the various gaps have been closed, giving the final image a much more pleasing look.
The end result will have an amazing amount of detail for a photograph taken during the black of night and I feel much more pleasing to the eye. With stacking you can create images that will appear as if they were taken in daylight, in fact many people will try to tell you that the final images are combinations of daytime and nighttime exposures. Of course that is not true and all they have to do is go out and try it. One of most fascinating aspects of this process to me is just how light is available when the correct exposure/aperture sequence is determined. There is more work involved, but the final image that can be produced is more than worth the effort.
09/19/14 Phase One Photokina 2014–Summary of Announcements
As the big show starts to wind down, I though it would be good write about what Phase One considered to be significant announcements during the Photokina Photo Expo, current being held in Germany.
- Phase One Corporation
You can list out the major announcements here:
- The new IQ150
- Capture 1 version 8
- Enhanced trade in for P65+ backs (an additional 6K)
- Phase One & Alpa Strategic Alliance
- Major Change in the Value Add Warranty for IQ2 Digital Backs Value add only now, no classic 1 year.
What was not announced was a new medium format camera body, one to replace the aging Phase One DF+. Many photographers felt that Phase One would at least talk about the progress on this. The DF+ body is a good solid body, but at a list price of approximately 5K, it’s a bit overpriced for the feature set that it contains. From reading between the lines, I feel that the new camera body is something that will made by Sony and when it does come out, will be revolutionary. Many are looking for mirror-less, but I don’t see that, but possibly the first Medium Format body with an EVF would be something to talk about. But for now that’s all speculation. Lets look at what was announced.
1. The New IQ150
Not too much to talk about here, expect it appears that Phase One is a bit concerned about the Pentax 645z and Hasselblad 50c. Both of these solutions list for much less than the Phase One IQ250 (at around 34K US). The new IQ150 is the same chip, same case as the IQ250, but no WiFi. It appears to have all the other features like focus mask, built in level, high end LCD touch, etc. However looking on the Phase One site, it’s really hard to tell. The IQ150 ships with a 1 year warranty, that also appears to be non value add and the IQ150 lists for $29.990, lets say 30K. So all Phase One did, is take off WiFi, lower the price by 4 K, but if you purchase the IQ150 and add the 4K value add, (which is what the cost has been in the past), you are right back to the base price of the IWQ250. It’s also not clear if you can purchase a value add warranty for the IQ150. You would have to talk to your dealer on that. It will also be interesting to see how the new “lower” priced model has any effect of the Hasselblad 50c or Pentax 645z cameras, both of which are less expensive.
2. Capture One Vr 8.
Everything good here. Phase One has taken an already excellent software to a new level. They added a lot of new features and re-worked the processing engine. If you are a current user of Capture One Vr7, the upgrade is still 99.00. If you are new to Capture One, you can opt for a monthly subscription service or wait until Phase One sees the need to sell the base licenses for $150.00 as they recently did for Vr7. Hope if you recently purchased Vr7 you are able to get a grace period to move to vr8 as it’s a much better software. The advances that Phase One made to the Local Adjustment layers alone to me are worth the cost to upgrade. You can still download the software for a 60 day trial. I believe there is also a pro version if you want to just use the software with a Phase One Digital back, which in the past has been free. Capture One Digital Back, not Pro. Pro allows you work with other camera platforms like Nikon, Canon, and Sony.
3. Enhanced trade in for P65+ upgrades to IQ280
If you are looking for a upgrade, this is great deal. Currently it appears that the trade in is 21K for a used P65+, and now you can add an extra 6K to that, so 27K. That is a great offer if you are looking to upgrade. This would bring the cost of the IQ280 to about 25K or so. You would still have to add in the cost of the Value Add Warranty. Phase One is now claiming that the value add warranty is cheaper than before. so that is also a good thing. In the past I have been quoted between 4.5K and 4K for various Value Add Warranties from Phase One, back dependent.
4. Phase One and Alpa Strategic Alliance
From 50 thousand feet, Phase One has decided to partner with Alpa Camera. Alpa, based in Switzerland, is one of 3 major players in the technical camera (pancake) market. It’s safe to assume that soon there will be a Phase One branded tech camera made by Alpa on the market. Not sure yet what this means for the rest of the tech world, namely Cambo and Arca, but this move by Phase One may have them looking to partner with Hasselblad. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future. I do hope that any improvements to the LCC processing that Phase One develops with Alpa can be passed down to users of non Alpa tech cameras, like myself.
5. Major Change in the Value Add Warranty for IQ2 back.
From what I have been able to pick up from the dealer community in the US, if you purchase a IQ2 back, (250,260 260 achromatic, 280), the value add warranty is now included in the purchase price. THIS IS BIG DEAL, as before a value add warranty was always an additional purchase feature, in the range of 4 to 5K. The value add warranty includes the use of a loaner back while your back in for repair. The photographer is still responsible to pay for the shipping of their back to Phase One.
If you purchase a IQ140, 150, 160 or 180, the 1 year classic warranty is still included with the purchase price. I assume that you can purchase a 5 year value add if you prefer. However if you are looking at either an upgrade from an older back or purchase of a new IQ back, the purchase of the IQ2 should be a better alternative. Kudo’s to Phase One for changing this policy.
Arca FP (Focal Plane Shutter) Facts and costs overall a bit disappointing
Yesterday, I was very excited by Arca’s announcement of the new FP (Focal Plane Shutter). I knew that this device was in the works well over 10 months but had been asked to keep all mention of it off the web. Arca is a small company based in France, with basically no website, so getting information about current and future products can be very difficult. The FP was the one single item that Arca was working on that really had my excitement and interest. The main reason being:
- It was going to “fit” into the current r cameras rm3di or rm3dl in a modular fashion
- All existing lenses with R mounts would work
- Price point was going to be around $1,800.00 for the shutter and all electronics needed to run it.
- Focal plane shutter would allow shutter settings of 1/3, 1/2 and 1/10 of a stop.
With the actual announcement, unfortunately, a few of these previous statements did not come true.
The FP is a real item, and it will be a modular attachment to the current R series cameras, see my previous post for more information. Here is a picture of the FP
- New Arca Swiss Focal Plane Shutter for R series Cameras
Knowing the Arca does excellent design and that they make very good products in regards to quality, I have no doubt that this FPS will work as designed. However it also seems that there will a limit as to how wide a lens can be used with it. There are some pretty important issues to consider.
I. The lenses that can be used will need a new modified lens tube installed. The lens tube is the first ring of the R mount, and you can clearly see it in this photo.
- Rodenstock 28mm HR in Arca R mount
The first ring, closest to the lens, with the name Sironar Digital HR on it, is the lens tube that will have to be modified. Modified is not a good word as basically you will replace it with a new one. The lens will have to be measured, the measurements sent to Arca, and they will make a new ring. I guess in the future with Arca, if you were to purchase a new lens, they might ship both rings. OK, now lets add up the cost. The rings are $495.00 each. So if you are going to work with say 5 lenses, you will need to spend an additional $2,500.00 just to be able to use the new shutter. I find this the most unappealing part of the deal, as Arca should consider giving a credit for the current ring, however I guess it makes sense to keep the old ring, to revert back to if the FP has a failure. Plus you need to either drive your lens to an Arca representative or ship them and to ship and insure 10K of glass, I figure that will add about $250.00 to the cost.
II. The shutter is going to be controlled via a wifi attached controller.
The dEx controller. I have to assume that this is not “part” of the shutter so it’s safe to say add another $1,200.00 to the total cost. Plus it’s wifi controlled. This is a new technology to implement, so I hope it’s well thought out. If the wifi connection fails or disconnects in the field, it appears you will not be able to fire the shutter. This means you would have to removed the shutter from the R camera and the new modified lens tube, then reinstall the original lens tube.
Looks like the cost of the FP will also be a bit more than I had anticipated. Here is an estimated breakout of the cost for using the shutter with 5 lenses. This is based on pricing that was released late on the 18th of September 2014. Pricing is much higher than I expected. This easily approaches the cost of the Alpa FPS. So competitive advantage based on pricing appears to have possibly gone out the window. I was also hoping that the lens tube replacement would stay at $350.00, not $490.00. More information needs to be out on that soon.
- Cost of Shutter…………………………………………………………$2,940.00
- Cost of 5 lens tubes………………………………………………$2,500.00
- Cost of mpu for shutter……………………………………….$1,400.00
- Cost of wireless controller for shutter………….$1,200.00
- Total cost for FP shutter……………………………………..$8,040.00
One other thought, as it appears that the dEx controller will be making a wifi connection, but to what? I can’t see the controller depending on a digital back’s wifi (mainly because right now so few of them have it). So what is the wifi all about. Do you wifi to the controller with say a iPhone, to make the settings i.e. change shutter speed (that would be about all you could change on a shutter)? If so, again, I have to wonder about that, as it makes you very dependent on the battery life of your phone and the battery life of the dEx. To me it would be so much more efficient to have a hard connection to a device that can set the shutter. It would become serendipitous to carry both lens tubes on any trip so if the shutter fails or can’t make a connection, you could re-install the old lens tube, pull out the shutter and shoot with the copol shutter already in the lens. This would of course only apply to lenses that already had the copol shutter installed. I wonder if Arca will still sell new lenses with copols.
Even with the extra costs, I believe overall this is a good investment long term for a R camera user, and once a Phase One back comes out with Live View that is full frame and works with movements with minimal crosstalk effects (which create color saturation loss on shifts), the photographer in the field will have quite a system.
07/08/13 Power Management and WiFi issues on Surface Pro 3–A way to get a more consistent Wifi Connection
With their release of the new Surface Pro 3, Microsoft has definitely created a winner. This new form factor with a larger LCD, and thinner form factor will be turning a lot of heads. However there seems to be one glitch, WiFi drops. I have had my Surface Pro 3 now for about 2 weeks and during the first week, I was driven crazy with the WiFi, constantly dropping, reacquiring and dropping the connection. It happened enough that I was considering returning the unit, thinking that the WiFi on the system was defective. I also own the Surface Pro 2 and the WiFi on it has been rock solid from day 1. When I checked the WiFi driver for the Surface Pro 3 (S-Pro3) I noticed it was also the Marvell driver, so it’s safe to assume it’s pretty much the same WiFi that is on the Surface Pro 2 (S-Pro2). Net, I didn’t think it was a driver issue.
Microsoft did release a large driver/firmware update on 06/14/14, and my unit was running the 05/27/14 driver/firmware. I went ahead and upgraded that, but it did not really seem to make a difference. Then I learned about Hyper-V
One thing that is different about the S-Pro3 is how Microsoft implemented the Power Management. When you go to Power Management options you will no longer find the “power saver” and “high performance” options. Instead all you will find is the “balanced” option. You also don’t have as many options to fine tune the power management. With the current setup, Microsoft has tried to create a power plan for when the S-Pro3 is running on battery that gives maximum life to the batter, and in doing so, they created a plan that does not give a constant enough power supply to the WiFi, so it momentarily drops thus losing the connection. You can read more about this new power plan design here, Microsoft available power plans.
The key is getting your S-Pro3 to allow all three of the power plans, and do to that, you have to enable Hyper-V.
Power management screen for Surface Pro 3
In this screen shot, you can see I have now enabled all 3 of the power options, which are normally available for all laptop devices. With this done, you can now customize the power options for all 3 plans, especially how much power is given to the WiFi card.
To enable Hyper-V, first go to the main screen of the control panel and select “Programs and Features”, once you have done this you should have a screen that looks like this:
Programs and features Surface Pro 3 main screen
Notice up on the left corner there is a area titled: “Turn Windows features on or off”. Click on this, and you will get this screen:
Enabling Hyper-V for Surface Pro 3
On your S-Pro3, Hyper-V should be “unchecked”. To enable it, place a check in the box. You will get a few screens showing that you have enabled Hyper-V, and the S-Pro3 will need to reboot once you enable Hyper-V. Once the S-Pro3 has rebooted, you can find two new entries on the main programs screen of Windows 8.1 as shown in the screen shot below.
Main Screen Window 8.1 showing Hyper-V enabled
Notice there is now an entry for “Hyper V Management Tools and underneath it two items are listed.
Now to fix the issue with the WiFi power, just go back to the main screen of Control Panel and select “Power Options”
Power Options for Surface Pro 3
Once you select this, you now will see all three power options available, 1. Power saver, 2. Balanced, 3. High Performance.
Power Option for Surface Pro3 main screen
Select any of the 3 options by clicking on “Change Plan Settings” to the right of the power option. This will allow you to bring up the screen where you can alter the plan’s settings which should look like this:
Detail on Suface Pro 3 Power options
Click on “change advanced power settings: and you will see this screen:
Details on Surface Pro 3 power options
Once you have the smaller screen open, line down until you find the “Wireless Adapter Settings” option, open it and here you now have various options for the amount of power that the WiFi adapter will get, I changed mine to “Maximum Performance”.
Once you do this, your WiFi will no longer drop the connection and the experience of the Surface Pro 3 will be much more enjoyable.
In Summary:
It’s quite clear Microsoft played some games here to attempt to reach the 9 hour battery life claims on the Surface Pro 3. It’s also clear to me that this laptop/tablet did not get tested fully and was rushed to the market, a sign of the times. I believe that Microsoft will attempt a software fix to existing Surface Pro 3 units but more than likely over time they will change out both hardware, firmware and software to tweak this issue. This is unfortunate for the early adopters like myself, since we will never be able to reach the maximum potential of the machine. I understand that hardware and software tweaks will happen in the life of a laptop, but this is a bit overboard to me.
Currently, with Hyper-V enabled, the battery life of my Surface Pro 3 is just about the same as on the Surface Pro 2, around 4 hours of normal use with the screen at 1/2 of total brightness. The Surface Pro 3 has an adaptive brightness feature, that when enabled will not allow the screen to be on Maximum brightness on battery no matter where the screen slider is. Again you have to go back to the Hyper-V settings box and turn the Adaptive brightness OFF.
The fact that Microsoft officially claims that the “only power option for the Surface Pro 3 is the balanced option” is true if you run your machine with Hyper-V off. From what I can tell Hyper-V is unique to Windows 8.1, as I cannot find any such setting under Windows 7 64 bit. With the older Surface Pro 2 you had all three options available, but with HYPER-V OFF. NOTE I WROTE OFF. So something has changed in the layout of the Surface Pro 3.
I have heard rumors that a major update to the power management will happen sometime in the July 15th time frame. I am not sure what this entails, more than likely it might take away the ability to turn on Hyper-V knowing how Microsoft works, so I will pass on that update for a while.
By turning on Hyper-V I have found that the Surface Pro 3 runs much more reliably especially with WiFi connections. It’s pretty clear to me that the “9 hour” battery life is just another marketing ploy and you should not make a purchase decision based on that.
02/12/2014 The First Testing of the IQ250 on a tech camera–Most impressive results in fact it’s game changer
As posted on this site and many others, Phase One, about 2 weeks ago, announced the IQ250, the worlds first CMOS digital Medium format back. The announcement also stunned quite a few folks out there when it was discovered that Sony was the chip being used, not a Dalsa. Dalsa has been the main chip company that Phase One has used since the announcement of the P65+ about 4 years ago. I saw the announcement and also noticed the mention of Sony and I had a suspision that the results when posted from the various dealers out there, would be pretty revealing. I have used the Sony 36MP chip in the Nikon D800 since May of 2014 and believe me I saw the light early. Enough that I sold pretty much all my Canon Digital gear save for 1 6D which I use for night photography.
Digital Transitions, my Phase One dealer based out of NY, just released a huge test where they shot the IQ250 with a very good selection of current Tech camera lenses. This was an indoor shoot in the Morgan Library in NYC so the subject matter was a bit different for me, but the results from the tests are very impressive. I just finished downloading and comparing the IQ250 and IQ260 shots taken with the Rodenstock 32mm. To be honest, after shooting the D800 for so long and seeing what it can do with 1 frame at base iso 100 in regards to total range, I was pretty sure what I would find. However I did try my hardest to make the 260 images come close with all the tricks in Capture One that I have learned over the years, and the net is, you can’t!
You can download and read more about the testing that Digital Transitions did here: DT Tech Camera tests IQ250 and other MF backs.
In my landscape work, I tend to focus on shifting 3 images to create a short panorama. So for me, the rise and fall results were not that important, but if you interested DT (Digital Transitions) did post these as well. I took the 3 shifted images from the IQ250 and IQ260 on the 32mm Rodenstock. I don’t own this lens, but have the 28mm Rod and 40mm Rod. The shifting characteristics of the 32mm and 40mm Rodenstocks are pretty close. After completing work on the images in Capture One, I went ahead and combined the IQ260 stitches into one image, them went back to the IQ250 images to compare certain parts of the files to see how the 2 cameras reacted. In the four images I have in the article, I will explain the areas that stand out the most to me.
Left corner comparison of IQ250 and IQ260 Morgan Library
NOTE web conversions really don’t do these files justice, if you are interested in my results, please visit the DT website and pull these files down to get the full effect. Capture One is free for all digital back users you can pull the latest version which is 7.2 from the Phase One Website.
IQ 250 is on the right in this comparison. In this image you see a part of a large panel that runs vertically in the left most portion of each test. At first when I looked at the panel with the IQ260 shots, I thought it was made from wood, however when I looked at the IQ250 shot, I realized that this panel was in fact covered by fabric and the IQ250 actually showed the detail of the fabric. If you look to the right edge you can see that this panel is part of hinged setup and is covered which red (appears to be red) fabric. The iq260 shot is too noisy to really tell very much. The only thing that really translates between the two are the two scratches that show up. The IQ260 was shot at a base iso 50 for 6 seconds and you will see that even at that ideal setting the darker parts of the image are pretty much pure noise and not worth recovering. It should be be noted here that the shifts were made without a Center filter on the Rodenstock 32mm. The center filter would have helped to balance out the IQ260 shift exposure an possibly bring out less noise giving a better final result, but it would have also benefited the IQ250 also, so it would have been even cleaner!!
Also noticed the amount of aliasing form the Metal X bars over the front of the book cases. You can clearly see red, blue, banding on these parts of the IQ260 file. The IQ250 is clean from aliasing and I have to assume it’s an advantage of the smaller pixel pitch of 5.3 microns over the large 6.0 micron pitch of the IQ260.
You can notice that the books definitely are different colors, and I could only guess at the correct WB in this room. The IQ250 seemed to want to go more to a red favored tint and I had warmed up the IQ260 image in Capture One. WB is selective and is something that can easily be adjusted once the correct value is known.
Comparison No 2 of IQ250 and IQ260 in moderate light
What is most striking here is the depth of the details the IQ250 pulled out of the balcony railing supports. IQ250 is on the right. Zooming in you can make out the details on the base of the railing support much more clearly on the IQ250 shot, also notice the wood grain and patina on the edge of the balcony. (I am not sure if this wood or metal, I am assuming metal since the finish matches the railing and railing supports). There is a red hue to the IQ250 shot and that was also in the IQ260 shot, but I took it out with a local adjustment in Capture One.
Other areas of interest are the 2 rows of beaded material on the outer face of the balcony. You can see the individual details of each bead much clearly with the IQ250 shot. But most telling is the detail underneath the balcony. Zooming into 100% you can see all the grain of the material on the bottom and the details are still very clear.
On this shot what caught my eye over and over was just how much of the notching around the based of the railing support standout as well as the head of the two bolts holding the plate in place.
Comparison No 3 IQ250 and IQ260 back center of center image
In this comparison the IQ250 is on the right. This is a crop taken from the back center of the center frame of the three stitches. This image should have the best exposure opportunity from both cameras as not shifting was done. Quickly, notice the curved portion of the balcony, again the material’s patina is just so much more clear on the IQ250, where as with the IQ260 it’s pretty featureless. But what really stands out is the the very back underneath the balcony. They are watching you!!. Yes there is a small camera mounted next to the white box on the right. This camera did not catch my eye on the IQ260 shot, but when looking at the IQ250 image I saw it immediately. Notice here again the amount of details under the bottom of the balcony, again you can clearly make out the lighter material of the light shades and black piece on the middle balcony support. You can also make out the grain in the material of this same piece of material. The base of the railings also look much much better to me. Yes the IQ250 is still showing a red tint, but again that is because I saw no need to take it out since I was looking for DR range improvement. WB/color casts on this image are very hard to know without a true grey card shot to assist in WB.
Comparison No 4 IQ250 and IQ260 lower right corner
In this comparison the IQ250 image is on the right. This is a crop from the lower right corner. You can see two things quite clearly here, the base of a glass box stand and the back wood wall. Here again the shifted IQ260 has suffered quite a bit, not as bad as on the full left shift, but still the details just fall apart. The two things that are most telling are the insert of darker material on the box and wood grain of the outer section of the box. Working up the IQ250 image you can make out grain in the wood with no problem but on the IQ260 shot you are losing the wood grain by the time you add enough noise reduction to get the image workable.
Here you can also see a lot of stuck pixels in the IQ260 image. In looking at all of the test shots from the IQ260 stuck pixels show up in any of the more underexposed parts of the files. This was very surprising to me as I would have expected the mandatory dark frame to handle this. The dark frame is taken immediately after the regular exposure. In my experience with CCD cameras and long exposure, I owned for about 3 years a Phase One P45+. This camera was also rated to 1 hour exposures and I did use it for quite a few. I can state that I never saw this many uncorrected stuck pixels in a 45 minute exposure as I am seeing in a 6 second exposure with the IQ260. As the owner of a IQ260 I find this alarming. You can remove some more of the stuck pixels by using the “single pixel noise” reduction slider to 100% in Capture One, but normally this is not needed unless a dark frame was not taken immediately after the long exposure. With a Nikon D800 which I regular use for up to 5 minute exposures for stacking in my night photography actions, you will see some stuck pixels, but no where as many as seen in the IQ260 shot. With the Nikon I am not using long exposure noise reduction in camera since it would not allow me to operate the camera for a corresponding amount of time, in this case 5 minutes. However using Capture One in post processing I can always get a clean file by using the single pixel noise reduction slider. In the case of the IQ260, a dark frame was taken as you have no options with Phase One, so the vast majority of the stuck pixels should have been removed.
The back wall however is even more telling Here you can see the details in the engraving of the back wall much better on the IQ250 shot and the base board is full of rich details. The crop I took also shows the floor clearly has more details in both the tile around the fireplace and the actual wood floor. The IQ250 file is so clean it almost looks like I needed to add a bit of grain, as the bottom of the stand is very smooth, but that may be how it is in real life also.
Conclusions from these side by side tests:
- The CCD chip of the IQ260 was pressed harder than it could deliver on this test series of exposures and the results show both excessive noise (especially on shifts) and any area of the image not being stuck by artificial illumination.
- The 6 second exposure of the IQ260 contains a lot of stuck pixels, mainly blue, that were not removed by the dark frame exposure that would have followed the exposure on the back. The IQ250 is clean of all stuck pixels with the Capture One defaults of noise reduction loaded. I had to increase the “single pixel noise reduction” slider to 100% on the IQ260 image and it still did not get all of the stuck pixels out.
- Clearly the IQ250 image has much more room in the shadows. This is shown over and over by looking at pieces and parts of this test. The IQ260 in the darkest parts of the image (mainly the left shift) became too noisy to really use in a print larger than say 13 x 19. The IQ250 has a much cleaner transition between the light and dark parts of the image allowing things like patina and wood grain to stand out much more clearly
- The IQ260 suffered from very harsh aliasing, mainly on the metal X bars that cover the books. I was able to remove the worst of it with a local adjustment layer in Capture One on the IQ260, but on the IQ250 there is really none to start with.
- Yes the 1:3 crop factor size is important. Just from looking at the sides of the completed stitches you can see that the IQ260 pulled in about 3 more feet of image on both sides. This image is also pretty badly distorted by the time the IQ260 makes the extreme shift (as would be expect on a ultra wide shift). As the owner of a full frame digital back, I am a huge fan of the full frame size chips as I tend to work in close in Arkansas landscape shooting and the crop factor will make a composition/framing consideration.
As the owner of a IQ260, I was impressed by these results. I already knew the Live View worked and it even works well in low light as test by Alpa and now DT. I had hoped with my investment in a IQ260 that Phase One could somehow work magjc on the the CCD one more time since the IQ260 had a totally new chip. However based on these tests at iso 50 and some I have seen at iso 140 (the being of the long exposure noise for the IQ260, I am not seeing any improvements between the IQ160 and IQ260. I was hoping that the IQ260 would allow for a useable image at iso 400 in the long exposure mode so I would not have to drop down to sensor plus, but so far I have not see that result in my work. The shadows when pushed on a IQ260 pretty much appear to have about the same amount of range as my IQ160 had.
Seeing these results from the IQ250 and knowing just how good the Sony 36MP chip is in the D800, I have to make a decision to stay with the IQ260 or attempt a downgrade to IQ250. I don’t see Sony coming out with another full frame medium format chip anytime this year or early next year. They seem to be working on a 54MP chip for the 35mm camera world as they have announced it and are planning to bring it to the market in 2015. This leaves Dalsa who is Phase One’s main chip supplier, and boy I hope they are looking at these results. If any company is going to bring a full sized CMOS chip to market in 2014 or early 2015, I figure it will Dalsa. But they are also unproven in this space, only have CCDs. Sony has been working on the Exmor processor and their high dynamic range CMOS chips since around 2012 now have a fab process setup so that they can replicate this technology across many fronts.
01/29/14 Why I didn’t purchase a Sony A7r
Sony A7r viewed from the front showing full sized sensor
When Sony Announced the A7r I was very impressed. In the past Sony has produced some very impressive camera solutions and I was almost moved enough by the A99 DSLR to purchase one. However my local dealer, Bedford Photo in Little Rock Arkansas, pointed me toward the fact that Sony was working on a full frame Nex style camera. A camera that was going to revolutionize the market. It was enough to make me wait a bit.
It’s now been about 4 months since the initial roll out of the A7 family of cameras. Sony ended up producing the A7r without a low pass filter at 36MP and the A7 with a low pass filter at 24MP. Both cameras are mirrorless and were put into a very compact mostly all metal body. I was in line at Bedford’s when they had their Sony day in late December 2013 and was able to work with an A7r. My reaction was different as I did not purchase one. Instead I backed off to evaluate the entire A7r solution and after giving it some consideration, I found for me it did not make much sense. Here are the main reasons:
- Sony FE lens support current and future
- Concerns of current Sony Alpha (A) lens support for the A7r
- Nikon lens support issues on the A7r
- No on Chip image stabilization on the A7r
- Concerns with non-Sony lens adapters
- Sony history of 1 and done firmware updates
- Weight of body with larger lenses
- Lack of intelligent remote or intervalometer
Let me give a bit more detail behind each of these.
Sony FE lens support current and future:
With the new Nex A7r, Sony also announced a new line of Full Frame lenses, the FE lineup. Currently there are 4 lenses announced with more to come.
- Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-F5.6
- Sony FE 35mm F2.8 (Zeiss optics)
- Sony FE 24-70 F2.8 (Zeiss optics)
- Sony FE 55 F1.8 (Zeiss optics)
This is a start but only one of these four lenses has OSS (image stabilization). With a 36MP sensor in such a slim body, there are going to be situations where vibration may cause some overall sharpness issues. I used the Sony Nex-7 for over 2 years with many of the older E lenses before moving to the Fuji X cameras. The E mount lenses are mainly plastic bodies and on the Nex-7 they were not the best solution. Fine for video work, but detailed sharp landscape images, I was not impressed. It seems that Sony is moving up in overall quality with their newer FE glass, but however these lenses will only work in full mode on a Sony A7 family camera body. They won’t work on a Alpha body even though they are full frame. I also don’t see much movement in the ultra wide solution for this camera. In the field for my work, I most often lead off with a 14mm lens and so far I have not seen anything from Sony showing a platform with a 14mm in the native FE mount.
Concerns of current Sony Alpha (A) lens support for the A7r
With my Sony Nex-7 I used the Sony LA-EA2 adapter which allowed me to have the ability to mount standard Sony Alpha lenses. This adapter had the translucent mirror technology that Sony uses in the A99. Of course Sony puts OSS on the sensor on their DSLR bodies which is a great idea. So all of the Alpha lenses I used would not have any OSS (image stabilization). The AF with the Sony LA-EA2 adapter was good, a bit slow but most times accurate. The adapter added a lot of mass to the Nex-7 but with the Alpha 16-80mm lenses it was a good solution. When I demoed the A7r I used this same adapter and the Sony Alpha 16-80mm lens. I found that with AF on, almost all of the shots were just a bit out of focus, but when I switched to manual focus and peaking I was able to produce some very sharp images. AF is important in my work and many times I would prefer to lead with AF instead of a manual focusing option. My medium format solution is a Arca rm3di which is always manual focus so I when I work with cameras like the Sony A7r, I want a rock solid AF solution.
Sony also announced a new Alpha lens adapter when they brought the A7r to market, the LAE4. I was not able to try this adapter to see if it produced more consistent results with AF.
Nikon lens support issues on the A7r
I should have listed this closer to the top. With Nikon lenses, there is no current adapter that allows for AF or VR. This is a huge deal for me since most Nikon lenses really aren’t designed with precision manual focus in mind. This is especially true with the new G lenses. It’s possible the the manual focus rings are just not that well calibrated and just a tiny amount of movement can make a major change. Since Sony did not put any stabilization on the A7 cameras sensor, you will need to rely on the stabilization in the lens. Several of Sony’s new FE lenses will have OSS (Sony lens stabilization), however all the Nikon lenses I have with VR, the VR and AF will not work. This is only true with Nikon lenses, as Metabones makes an adapter for Canon that allows the use of both IS and AF on the Canon lenses. If I was still heavily invested in Canon lenses, the Sony A7r would make perfect sense especially since Canon has yet to announce any new full frame DSLR with any more than 21MP.
A view of the Sony A7r showing the tiltable LCD screen
No on Chip image stabilization on the A7r
Many users of the A7r are reports issues with vibration from the focal plane shutter on the A7r. It appears that the A7 has a different shutter design that does not cause this problem. However depending on the lens and selected shutter speed, the A7r can impart a slight blurring that may or may be able to be recovered in post. This oversight should have been expected with such a high megapixel count sensor in such a lightweight body. Some photographers are bothered by this worse than others, depending on the equipment they are using and shutter speed ranges selected. It’s a bit of a disappointment since Sony has such a good implementation of the sensor based image stabilization on their pro DSLR bodies, like the A99. I don’t see this being fixed via a firmware update.
Concerns with non-Sony lens adapters
Currently there any many different brands of adapters on the market to allow the use of non-Sony lenses on the A7 family of cameras. These range from exotic Lecia lenses to more common Canon and Nikon. The problem with many of these adapters is that they don’t seem to maintain the correct tolerances so that within a brand two of the same adapters may not reach the same degree of focus accuracy. Also it seems that some of the adapters can create either reflection issues or contrast issues when shift lenses are used. These issues may be worked out over time, but currently it poses just another problem that may or may not be correctable in post processing. For example the Metabones adapter for Canon lenses has shown definite problems contrast shifts when any of the Canon TS-E lenses are used, especially the excellent 17mm and 24mm TS-E2 lenses. Some people are fixing this by gluing a non reflective material inside the adapters, which is not an easy task due to the interior layout of the Metabones adapter.
Sony history of 1 and done firmware updates
Sony has a history of not releasing any major firmware updates to a camera once it ships, similar to how Nikon operates. This implies to me a pretty closed system and is unlike Fuji, Canon or Phase One. An example of this is the Sony Nex-7 which was shipped in early 2012. This camera had a huge issue for most shooter, myself included, where the video button was just too easy to engage while shooting stills. It took Sony at least 9 months to release a firmware to allow the user to change the button from always on. Sony seems not to release firmware updates that have any effect on image quality. The Nex-7 was a great camera in the ISO range of 100 to 400, however after than the amount of noise that developed became destructive to the image and by ISO 1600, the files were so noisy to make them only equivalent to 16MP images. I had hoped that Sony would add some firmware enhancements that would allow for some improvements on the higher ISO ranges for the Nex-7, but it never happened. Canon and Fuji both have had several major firmware enhancements to several of their camera lines that allowed for major improvements in image quality. I like to see a company continue to develop a camera’s capabilities after the initial announcement, and this is not a practice of Sony.
Weight of body with larger lenses
The body of the Sony A7r is so light that most modern 35mm lenses seem to unbalance it. If you are only using a older prime lens this might not pose much of a problem, but try placing the Nikon 14-24 on the A7r!. The weight of the lens totally outweighs the camera’s small mass and it makes it pretty much impossible to just shoot by holding the camera. So both hands are occupied in holding the lens/camera and you really don’t have a free hand to switch a setting once you are lined up for a shot. If you are using the camera/lens combination on a tripod, then most definitively the lens will need a tripod mount (which none of the current FE lenses do) or the lens adapter (like a Metabones or Novoflex) will also need a tripod foot. The lens mount flange on the Sony A7r cannot handle the sheer mass of many of the lenses you might want to use and long term you will either bend the flange or pull it out of alignment. Either way the fix will be out of warranty and depending on how the mount flange is installed may or may not require an entirely new A7r body.
Lack of intelligent intervalometer for A7r
As with all Sony DSLR’s and Nex cameras, there is no intervalometer for this camera. Sony once again is depending on a app called Timelaspe that will run on the iOS or Android OS. This tool limits you to the power left on your phone and since it requires the phone to be on for an extended period of time, it will drain the phone’s battery. The timelaspe app is designed to give the user the ability to create the actual video on the camera so for the night photographic use I would need it’s not a tool I could use. I much would prefer to use a cabled intervalometer that will let me set the time of the necessary exposure and the interval needed, removing all of this from the camera. I have also not found any built in timelaspe tool that will let you take a shot longer than 30 seconds since they all are dependent on the camera’s built in set shutter speed of 30 seconds. This is the longest shutter speed that most cameras will allow. Sony once again has used their proprietary port for a wired remote so that none of the third party intervalometers will work. This limits tremendously the use of the camera in night photographic applications and even limits it in the more traditional timelaspe applications. Personally I don’t want to be tied to my iPhone for any type of intervalometer use. The amount of heat that may build up in the Sony A7r may preclude it from night photographic operations anyway.
The Sony A7r is a great concept and for many photographers, it’s a great way to reach the 36MP threshold, especially a Canon shooter. In my situation, I already have the Nikon D800 and find it’s mass/weight are a benefit in keeping everything in sharp focus. I love the idea of a EVF that allows 100% magnification at the viewfinder level like Sony has along with the excellent focus peaking that Sony has had for several generations of DSLRs and Nex series cameras. However the inability to use my current lineup of Nikon lenses (with AF and VR) is a huge issue for me. This is a first round release for Sony and no doubt they will follow up with a more refined product either later this year or early 2015. I can also hope that Nikon improved their Nikon1 lineup of mirror-less camera to include either the Sony 24MP or 36MP sensors as then I should be able to use all of my excellent Nikkor lenses to their best capabilities.
01/23/14 Drobo does care–A revisit to my original complaints with support for my Drobo 5D
-
- Drobo offers an excellent packaging solution to their products
-
- The Unit arrives in a totally protected package
Recently, I wrote a article about the issues I had with Drobo Corp. in regards to the trouble that occurred when I attempted to upgrade the firmware on my Drobo 5D.
Not long after I wrote that article I was contacted directly by Drobo by a phone call. They had read my article and were concerned that my support experience had resulted the way it had. The phone conversation was with the Vice President of Drobo’s Service and End User Support. During the call I went back over my previous case and the problems I incurred trying to get my original 5D to run the latest firmware and still connect via USB3. One of the points I made was that I had been surprised to come away with such a negative impression since previously all of my support issues with Drobo products had been very positive.
What I took away from this call was that Drobo does care about the end user. As a company, Drobo is focused on supplying a high level of quality for their hardware/software and support of these products. The V.P. of service agreed that my previous experience with Drobo’s support process was not the impression that the company wanted to impart.
The fact that Drobo’s V.P. of Service reached out to me was most impressive. I did not expect this and because of it, I realized that my most recent impression of the Drobo Company and their support process was incorrect and with his guidance should give this process a 2nd chance. From our conversation I we put a plan in place that we both agreed should get me to a final resolution that was better than the first. Based on our conversations, here is what Drobo agreed to do for my problem:
- Ship a new 5D off the line to replace my 2nd refurbished unit
- Assign a new support case and give me the support from a dedicated 3rd level engineer who would follow the case until resolution
- Provide phone numbers so that I could talk with the tech when I felt it was required
- Pre-test the new 5D before it shipped to make sure it operated to specs.
The end result was that I received a replacement unit and a set of (2) 2 TB drives that Drobo had pre-tested. The new unit arrived with the latest version of the 5D firmware, 3.0.9 and it installed clean on my production win7 64 machine. I was able to move my (5) drives over to the new 5D and the array came up clean. All the data was immediately accessible with no errors that I could determine. The throughput of the USB3 connection was as I expected with no slow downs and there were no USB3 mass storage device driver errors in device manager (indicated by yellow exclamation points). During the boot up process of the new 5D, I did see the “USB device not recognized” screen but this is only temporary with the box going away after about 5 seconds. The new unit boots up and is assigned a drive letter by the win OS like it should. It is very possible that my Asus P8P67 main board and it’s corresponding NEC/Renesas USB3 drivers have a slight issue with the Drobo boot process, however the key factor is that the 5D comes up clean and operates correctly.
I came away from this experience with a totally different opinion of Drobo and their products. Drobo is a company that does care about the end user. It’s also clear that they are concerned about situations like mine, enough so that they were willing to reach out to me directly. It’s clear to me now that one of their company goals is to produce an environment that allows the end user have the best experience with their products.
I also came away with a few thoughts about my operation that may have helped in this situation:
- When my problem first happened during the upgrade of the 5D’s firmware I had not registered my 5D with Drobo. They are very clear about needing to have this done and it was a oversight on my side for not getting it done when I first received the product. By registering your device, you are letting Drobo know that this serial number is now in use so they can can track it.
- I did a firmware upgrade without having my 5D fully backed up. Normally I will have a backup of a Drobo in use. It may not be 100% current but will be within 90%. In this case my backup was only about 25% of the 5D before I attempted the firmware update. Having a full backup is very important, as it can reduce the stress of trying to get your unit back on-line or operating with the most.
- I should have pushed harder to ask to speak to a representative. I made several attempts of this in my online case, however I never reached out to Drobo from outside the confines of my on-line case.
Overall I feel the 5D is still an excellent value when compared to other raid solutions (for a win7 platform). I was trying to figure out where to go next as I really did not want to dedicate a new PC just for a raid array. The Drobo 5D still offers a great overall solution for a raid device for a end user like myself.
Drobo is aware of the fact that some customers may have run into situations like my previous one and they are working to add support solutions that will give the best possible answers. They have re-done the support website and it’s now much easier to navigate to your open cases. Most cases will have an initial response within 12 hours or less. I also feel it’s safe to say that the Drobo Company is very concerned about their support for the 5D as it’s one of their best selling products. The company is making some internal changes with the support process to make sure that a 5D support case does not get sidelined as mine did back in September.
01/08/14 Problems with Drobo 5D after upgrading past Firmware 3.0.7
This information was originally posted to my blog back in October of 2013. However I am still receiving emails from other users who have run into this same problem with both Win7 64 bit and now Win8 64 bit and USB 3 connectivity. I would strongly recommend you do not upgrade your Drobo 5D unless there is some other pertinent reason for the need. I don’t feel that Drobo has a good grip on this issue based on my month long open call with them. Once again, it should be noted, Drobo no longer offers free tech support for any of the Drobo consumer lines, after the first 90 days of purchase. After that you will be required to purchase a 1 year contract from them for around $179.00. U.S. This gives you the right open a ticket and email back and forth, but not “talk” to a human. Based my my 25 years of experience in the tech field, I feel this angle is wrong. In my case, one simple phone call with a tech or “engineer” as they are called would have easily solved this issue. Remember my 1st replacement unit was defective with the power switch. Something that anyone who has used these products for any period of time would know. Instead my tech or “engineer” implied that I was “stupid” and did not understand the basics of how the 5D operated. Interestingly enough after a huge amount of my time wasted on emails, the same tech or “engineer” was astonished to see that “yes it does appear that your current replacement Drobo 5D chassis has a power supply issue”. What was even more interesting was that when the 2nd unit arrived, it worked just like the 1st unit I had purchased (which failed after the firmware upgrade past 3.0.7). Personally, I do have a problem when I company takes the position that (A) Your time is not important to us, and (B) We know more about the unit’s basic function than you even though you have operated it daily for almost 8 months.
Drobo used to have excellent support, dedicated tech’s who followed up with your issue. This was all provided with the base 1 year warranty. Now it’s 90 day’s and after that pay up. Also remember that the price of the Drobo 5D is around 800.00 U.S. well actually that is a bit misleading, as you do need support so the price is really $979.00.
Drobo had a great idea, not sure if the original company founders were bought out (more than likely the case) or if something else happened. But my future raid solutions will all be based on a raid card (LSI for example) and a simple PC board/tower case. This will actually cost out cheaper than the current price point of the Drobo 5D with necessary support.
FOR NOW I WOULD NOT UPGRADE TO THE LATEST FIRMWARE ON THE DROBO 5D IF YOURS IS WORKING OK WITH A WIN7 64 BIT MACHINE AND USB3. Once you upgrade, there is no longer a way to downgrade. Drobo used to offer this option with their older superior support on the old 4 bay models, but now they are only looking forward. For a single owned shop like myself that puts a large dependency on a raid 5 or raid 1 setup for primary backup this product is no longer a valid consideration.
Update on 10/12/13
What I thought was a fix, turned out to be a dead end as the replacement Drobo would not work correctly on my production PC. It would boot up, and briefly showed all the correct lights, but as soon as windows gave the new hardware tone, the Drobo rebooted and started this process over and over, never coming on line. I was able to bring up a new disk pac with the replacement drobo, (2) 200GB drives. This worked correctly, but for some reason, my (5) 2 TB drives would not work. I also received a windows error about “A USB device attached to this computer cannot be recognized”. This error comes up with either Drobo, mine or the replacement.
I went back to my original Drobo 5D with my hard drives and booted it up. It came up fine, still getting the USB device error, but still it comes up and is recognized by windows and assigned a drive letter.
As of Friday, Drobo is sending me yet another replacement 5D now stating that the original replacement was defective!!. Something I believe I tried to tell them after I first tried to use it. As of today, I still have not SPOKEN to anyone at Drobo, from a tech to supervisor and it’s quite apparent now based on the information I have inputted to the case, that Drobo is not interested in talking to me. I am sorry to see that this is the way that Drobo has gone and I have for sure purchased my last piece of equipment from them. I love their website showing all the “happy” users, well, that is pure fiction.
Update on 10/05/13
After working through two more days, and getting a better feel for the tech support with Drobo, I finally was able to fix this issue. The problem stemmed from the fact that both of my PC’s (with Asus boards) were running very back level USB3 drivers. On one PC drivers dated back to 2010 and the other 2011. I am planning to write up a bit more about this, but I did want to state, that DROBO DID RESOLVE THIS MATTER AND MY 5D IS NOW RUNNING ON BOTH MY PRODUCTION AND TEST PC’S WITH NO PROBLEMS. I am willing to take some of the blame for this entire debacle, however Drobo could have made this so much easier with just one phone call explaining the issues with the USB3 drivers. I will also note that Drobo was helpful in providing an updated driver for both of my Asus mainboards, something that Asus was not able to do since they quit updating the P8P67 mainboard over 1 year ago. Net, to this story, things have changed at Drobo. In the old days, you could talk to a person, and that person gave you an extension and you could call them back until the problem was resolved. Now you are going to work on-line, (the way of the world) and no doubt there will be some misinterpretations of instructions. However I have to state that my initial extreme disappointment with the Drobo support group has now been lessened and in the future I will know how to proceed with them.
Update 10/02/13
Amazingly since I started this problem after trying to upgrade my Drobo 5D firmware, I still have not been able to talk to a “supervisor” within the Drobo tech support organization. Yesterday I received a “replacement” unit, which was dirty, smelled burnt and was scratched on the faceplate. This was the unit that was supposed to work correctly with USB 3, however when I brought it up on my PC, it had the same issue: The Drobo comes up, is seen by Win 7, Win 7 makes the tone for adding a new device, immediately after that the Drobo drops back to standby and on a detailed inspection the USB mass storage driver has failed. ON THIS REPLACEMENT UNIT I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE UNIT TO EVER COME BACK UP EVEN BY RELOADING THE USB MASS STORAGE DRIVER.
Based on my 20 years experience in the PC market, where I worked for IBM for close to 30 years, I am amazed by this response, especially from a company like Drobo that just a years ago had excellent customer service. If you can’t get through to a supervisor especially after having an open call for over 60 hours and the unit is still not working, then THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS IN YOUR COMPANY. Sadly this seems to be the trend in business today and I hate to see Drobo go this route. They have obviously spent a ton of money on marketing, just look at their current website. However I WOULD STRONGLY warn anyone or any company not to make a large investment for data protection with Drobo products. Their lack of ability to communicate, reach out to a customer who has a Drobo that was working perfectly before attempting a Drobo firmware update, and lack of management follow up is pretty telling.
As long as you bring up the 5D in a USB 2 environment it still works fine, however this totally defeats the over $800.00 dollar cost of the chassis in that you are dropping back to a USB2 transfer speed and you can get a 1st Gen Chassis for that. Sure they are no longer sold by Drobo, but there are plenty of them around. However now that I think about it, that might not be a good idea either since the support for an existing product is pretty much terrible, I can’t imagine what it would be like for older 4 bay.
I understand I running a Asus mainboard, but the USB3 drivers with most board companies are pretty much the same as long as the board is a Intel board.
From here it’s back to chassis and LSI cards, with drives for me.
This is my earlier post when the problem first started.
IF YOU ARE RUNNING A DROBO 5D, ATTACHED TO A WINDOWS 7 PROFESSIONAL 64 BIT MACHINE VIA USB3, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU DO YOU NOT UPDATE THE FIRMWARE OF THE DROBO 5D TO 3.0.8 UNTIL YOU CHECK ON THE DATE OF YOUR INSTALLED USB3 DRIVERS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE RUNNING A NEC OR RENESEAS USB3 CHIPSET.
I have been using Drobo products for storage/backup now for almost 4 years. For most of those years I used the original 4 bay 1st Gen Drobo that connected via USB 2. This device has been stable for most of this time, and had worked as a external raid 5 enclose would be expected i.e. notifying me when a drive was close to failing or failed and allowing me to replace said drive with no data loss. My only issue with the 1st generation Drobo was the fact that is slow for reads/writes mainly due to the fact that it’s only connection was USB2.
When the Drobo 5D, 5 bay product was announced I did not immediately move to purchase one. I felt (and now still do) that the price point of close to $850.00 was too high for my budget. However early in 2013, I was totally out of space on my 1st generation Drobo so I purchased the Drobo 5D. I installed the 5D on my main windows 7 64 bit machine, utilizing the USB 3 interface. I used all 5 drive bays and filled them with 2TB drives. Since I made the installation of the 5D, I had had no problems, until this past Friday night, when I made the FATAL mistake of allowing the Drobo dashboard to download and install the latest firmware for the 5D. Normally my thought process on firmware updates are “don’t update to them unless you see a specific need fixed”, however on this night I went ahead and allowed the Drobo dashboard to upgrade both the firmware on the Drobo 5D and Drobo Dashboard.
From here, things went downhill fast. The firmware update on the hardware failed. This pinged my memory back to when I tried this on my Drobo 4 bay, and I remembered that I had had the same issue with it. On the installation failure the Drobo 5D rebooted and then attempted to come back up. It went through the entire reboot, and then just as I received the tone of a new device being added to Windows, the Drobo 5D went into standby. I attempted one more hard restart and the same thing happened. From here I called Drobo customer support, and again I was in for a rude awakening. One thing I forgot, was my old 4 bay never worked correctly on firmware updates from the Drobo dashboard software, instead I had to always do a manual firmware update.
In the past I all of my tech support calls with Drobo support have been positive. They have been prompt, informed about the product, and have been able to provide a fix, either software or hardware. On this call in I was told that I had not “registered” my Drobo 5D, even though I had placed a tech support call with Drobo when I received the unit and I could see both the call record and serial number of the 5D in “my support” portion of the Drobo website. The tech I spoke to was polite, but would not proceed until I registered the product. I went ahead with the registration and then found out that Drobo no longer provides “free” tech support after the 1st 90 days of ownership. After this, you have to purchase a 1 year support contract for $162.00. This surprised me, but at this point, I didn’t care, as I needed to get to the data on this Drobo 5D. Most was backed up offline, but not in a local backup. NOTE TO DROBO, for the price of over $800.00 for a empty raid enclosure, I believe you should be able to continue to provide tech support for no charge for at least the 1st year of warranty. However Drobo has taken the sad path of most companies, if you need help, prepare to pay. This needs to be spelled out a bit better up front.
After paying the 1 year contract, not much else improved, except that I figured out on my own that my 5D was still OK, and somehow the firmware update had created an error on the Windows 7 mass storage USB device driver. After taking to Drobo tech support, it became quite clear that the firmware update had not taken and I had to download the firmware and do a manual update. This did not fix the problem and the 5D still came up and went into standby. A NOTE TO DROBO, you need to post a bit more information on this upgrade as when I spoke to a 3rd tech later on Saturday, I was informed that this is a known problem after you upgrade the firmware on the 5D to 3.0.8. This is terrible customer service, period. If you are using a raid enclosure, you are using it mainly to protect your data and provide a level of security, NET, if I had not followed the prompts on the screen, my Drobo 5D would be working fine. The 3rd tech I spoke to on Saturday also told me that there currently was not a fix for this issue and blamed it on the Windows 7 mass storage driver. Really? Did Windows suddenly change this driver? I checked as far as I could and the date on my system for the USB Mass storage driver showed no change, in fact it’s the same date as when the OS was loaded.
Here is where things are currently:
- If you are running Windows 7 64 bit and have a Drobo 5D, using USB 3 connections, then if you update to the latest firmware of 3.0.8 for the Drobo 5D, you have a very good chance of getting this same issue. I am running an Asus XXXXXX board, with a Intel i7 processor. This is no way I know to get this driver/firmware screwup fixed. Net each time from now on, when you attach the Drobo 5D, it will come up normally, then go into standby. I tried a full system restore back to the date before I did this firmware update, the system restore was successful, however the problem was still there. Based on this it’s a fair conclusion that a full image restore of the OS (Win7 64 bit) would not fix this problem as the issue is with the Drobo firmware 3.0.8 and the stock Windows 7 64 bit Mass storage driver for USB. The only way I can think to fix the issue is to back off the firmware to a previous version than 3.0.8 on the Drobo 5D.
- You can fix the problem and continue to use the Drobo 5D by either unplugging the USB 3 cable from the PC or back of the Drobo 5D, while leaving the power on the Drobo 5D. Windows 7 will then see it correctly and add the drive letter for the Drobo. You can also go to control panel==device manager and locate the USB mass storage device driver that has failed. It will have the dreaded yellow ! next to it. Select this component and go through the process to reload the driver using the 2nd option. This will get the drive back online, and the Drobo will come out of standby and Windows will assign a letter to it and you can operate as normal.
- You can also plug the Drbo 5D in to a USB 2 port and it will work fine. This was one answer I received from Drobo tech support. This makes no sense as you have now brought your 5D back to the speed of the older 4 bay models.
Overall I still have a ticket open with Drobo tech support and if I get some form of resolution, I will post the results here. Currently I can only get my 5D to operate at the correct level, by unplugging the USB 3 cable, or reloading the Windows 7 mass storage driver.
06/15/13 Phase One Back failures using Silver vs Black batteries
Silver vs Black Phase One 7.2 volt Lithium Ion Batteries
As many Phase One users may know the main battery used in most modern Phase One Digital backs, is based on a Canon Video camera battery. In fact in the older Phase One cameras which had the battery external to the back, like the P45+, P65+ etc. you could use Canon’s AC adapter/battery setup on Phase One cameras which gave you a much longer life in the field. This all ended however when Phase One decided to place the batteries inside the case as in the newer IQ series of backs.
One issue I have had with all Phase One batteries, is that they don’t’ tend to last very long in the field. The older batteries were 2600 millamp hours and in most cases with a IQ160 I would get about 2 hours or less in the field. When Phase One announced the IQ backs, they also increased the millamp rating on their batteries to 2900. In a nutshell millamps tells you how long a battery will last at charge i.e. 2600 will last a shorter period of time than 2900. However as I also moved to a tech camera setup with my IQ 160, I found that my battery use increased considerably. Since the IQ backs don’t really have a very good live view I tend to do a considerable amount of checking after a series of shots. In the past 6 months, I have found that some of this review is no longer necessary as I have gotten much more confident with my tech camera and focus. The ultimate solution is still a better live view but as long as Phase uses CCD technology, I have been told this will not happen.
So what do you do when you know you will be in the field all day or maybe two or three days? You carry a bunch of batteries. About the time I was introduced to the Phase One IQ series of digital backs, I also discovered that there was a much cheaper battery alternative. Capture Integration, based out of Atlanta sells a silver battery which looks and feels just like the black Phase One branded cells. They are all 2600 millamp but at 1/2 the price. My thoughts were to just purchase more of the silver cells and then carry them on trips. They don’t weight that much and charged up with the same Phase One charger. In fact I designed a battery sleeve that I could carry over my shoulder, based on a hunters belt. The Phase One batteries will fit into the same size as a 12 gauge shotgun shell!
At first, I really noticed no differences and pretty much stopped using my older Phase One LI batteries. Lithium cells in theory should not have a “battery life” issue but I noticed that my batteries that dated back to 2008 and 2009 where definitely getting shorter run times. There is no way to “re-condition” a lithium cell like you can with Ni-Mh cells. However in early 2013 I started to notice some strange issues with the Silver batteries, on my IQ160.
- The first silver battery I installed, did not power the back up. I double checked that it had locked and it did. This battery had come straight from the Phase charger, and showed 100%, one of the silver batteries. I went back and pulled the 2nd silver battery from the charger, which also showed 100%
- The 2nd fully charged silver battery did power up the back. All seemed fine so I continued to shoot. However after each shot, I noticed that the battery indicator would drop from full, to 1/2, to the lowest indicator while the back was writing the file. As soon as the file was finished writing the battery indicator would return to 100%.
- When I attempted to zoom to 100%, the zoom went to over 200% and locked. I could not go back down to normal view with a double tap. I had to power off and power back on. This series of errors happen several times, then I noticed on the right side, where the histogram should be there was nothing even though I could double tap the histogram to view it at 100% and then it showed up. Also both focus mask and the highlight warning would not engage when tapped.
Silver vs Black Phase One 7.2 volt batteries no 2
Out of curiosity I went back to the silver cells and worked with them in the IQ160. I had two of them that had been in my pack which had been sitting in the sun. The batteries were at 100% full charge, and when I placed one of them in the IQ160, I noticed that it was not fully engaging the brackets that hold the battery in place. When a new battery is placed in the IQ160 back (or older P series backs) the back always powers up. What happened when I placed the silver battery inside was that the back powered up, briefly then the screen went blank and the back powered off. I double checked that the battery was still locked into place and it was. However even locked in place you could still move the battery around and as I did this the back powered back on again. It seems that over time the outer casing material of the silver batteries, may expand, and contract and as it contracts it slightly deforms the shape of the battery enough that the slot where the battery fits on the IQ160 does not hold the battery firmly. I have also had several silver batteries that did not want to come out of the back after they were used. I first noticed this about 6 months ago, on silver batteries I had been using for about 8 months. This behavior implies that as the silver battery is used it gets hot (normal for a LI battery during discharge) but the silver case is also expanding and contracting causing deformations. Over time these deformations can cause the silver batteries to either:
- Stick inside the IQ back, and become very hard to remove
- Not fit snug enough in the case and allow movement which will either not give the correct voltage to the back and cause errors.
With the older P series backs where the battery is external to the back, this issue is moot since the battery is held in place by a hard metal sleeve and it can’t slide around.
I have not noticed any cracks in the silver batteries, but as a safety measure, I have stopped using them. I would not have any issues using them on a older P series back however like P45+. It’s also my understand that Capture Integration (Phase Dealer in Atlanta) no longer recommends using these silver batteries on a IQ back. However I never received a warning or notice from them about the possible issues of continued usage.
These are the results of one person’s usage of a IQ160 and the silver batteries that are sold to replace the standard black Phase One cells. If you have using these silver batteries and are experiencing any of these issues, before you send your IQ off to Phase One, try working only with the black Phase One batteries and see if your problems persist.
01/04/14 Some issues for IQ260 and IQ280 owners on the Wifi top cover
This only applies to photographers that purchased a IQ260 (possibly IQ280) early in the product life. I would say back to about July to October of 2013.
One of the features of the IQ2 backs is the built in Wifi capabilities. When you first get the back, you will notice that the top has a rather large plastic rectangular piece. You can clearly see this in the photo below:
Top of IQ260 showing the WiFi plate cover
With the older IQ140, 160 and 180, this part of the back was solid and there was no plastic top. However with the placement of the WiFi Card on the top, Phase had to apparently cut the top open to allow for signal strength. As you can see from the next picture that there was probably no way to place this card on the bottom of the back and it’s appears to be too large to go down the side.
Breakout of the IQ2 line of digital backs
So instead of the hard shell across the top you now have a ridge plastic piece that fits into the rounded cut out. This piece should be flush to the top and not have any raised edges.
I had noticed a post on the Luminous Landscape forum where someone had tried out a used IQ260 and noticed that the top piece was raised and it was possible to feel a gap between the edge of the frame of the back and this cover. It’s interesting to note that since I purchased my back in March of 2013 and took delivery in mid August of 2013, I have had it out in the field at least 20 times now. I have used it on hot days and cold ones and only in passing had noticed this plastic top on the back. However until I read the the post, I had never really checked to see if my plate was fitting flush to the top.
Curious I checked my back and noticed immediately that from the back where the LCD is, the entire right side of my top plate had indeed raised up a considerable amount. You can see the difference between the right and left sides in these two photos.
-
- Left side my my IQ260 showing edge of WiFi cover
-
- Right side of my IQ260 showing top of cover and gapping
I attempted to push the plate back down, but in a minute or two the plate had pushed back up to the same position. The top plate had raised up enough that I could easily catch it with my fingernail and feel it trying to pull up. The plate was loose and what concerned me more was the fact that it might now somehow have compromised the integrity of the seals for the back. I have more to show on this in a different post, as I had been getting some fogging on the inside of my LCD for sometime now.
With a simple push you can get the top plate to go back down, but as mentioned before it’s not going to stay there. I don’t know exactly how long my back had been doing this and this surprises me as I am usually pretty quick to see such things. If I had been using a Phase One DF+ body with the back, I could easily have missed this since the viewfinder of the DF+ comes right over the top of the back, but with the Arca rm3di that I use the back sits out at a 90 degree angle to the camera and nothing covers this piece.
Close up of right side of top plate with pressure
As you can see in this shot, with simple pressure you can get the plate to go back to the original position but of course you can’t keep pressure on it and I was a bit worried that pressure might not be the best idea since you might be pushing down on the wifi card also. From the pictures of the card on the Phase One website it appears that the wifi controller card is directly below the plate. The other issue is that the plate is surrounded by the hard metal of the back so if anything does push on this part of the back, the plate will give in long before the back frame does. NET: Don’t drop this back on it’s top. I have a few ideas for mine since I am always in the field and protection is important.
I have one other concern that I have not heard back from my dealer or Phase One yet. What is the amount of weather sealing that this plate is given? I am a outdoor photographer, not indoor and my older P45+ or IQ160 was pretty much bombproof. I had 2 close calls with my P45+ and neither time did have any damage. If anything the 160 was even stronger than the P45+, the only areas that really need protection being the LCD and the sensor. Working outdoors, it’s always possible for a errant drop of moisture to hit the top of the back. In fact it’s more possible than not. Have you ever worked in the woods directly after a rain? Drops are constantly coming down and they are going to hit the flat top of this back really quickly. The older IQ160 does not have an issue here since there is no opening, just the metal frame. Now you have a huge opening almost all the way around the top of the back and the opening has a small gap (even when the plate is where it should be). Water will always seek and find the weakest part of a seal and it will also get down into the gap no matter what you do. I can only hope that there is very tight (well mine was not very tight) weather seal on this plate. This would be one way to fix it, but it’s rather ugly and I am hoping to hear back from Phase One that the correctly mounted plate can handle a few drops of water.
One possible way to weather seal the top of the IQ260
This whole issue caused me to email my Digital Transitions (DT )Rep, who quickly put me in contact with one of the dedicated technical support staff with DT. Scott, one of the techs at DT, took my information and opened a case with Phase One. About the same time I found another forum post where Phase One had responded to another user informing them that the first round of backs released to the field (mine was one of them) had a different method of attaching the WiFi plate and if you saw gaping, the back needed to go back to Phase One to have the plate replaced with the newer style or method of gluing it down in place.
NOTE: If you are considering purchase of a Phase One back, I strongly recommend you work with a dealer like DT. They can sell used or new and have a direct line to Phase One. As a end user, it is very hard to reach Phase One in Denmark. They have no phone support. They do have a location in Mellville NY, but it’s more of a marketing support arm and I don’t believe that any repairs like the ones I needed will be done in the U.S. If you purchase a back over the web and it has a Value add warranty, then that warranty will be supported by dealer, however you will need to develop a relationship with that dealer. If you purchase a used back with no warranty, then you just spent a lot of money and you may end up with no recourse at all. Save a bit up front and pay a lot in the rear. The dealer can get through to Phase One much faster and they can also contact Phase One in Denmark. The only way I know to reach Phase One in a situation like this is open a trouble ticket with Phase One via the main Phase One website. You will get a response but it will take a while and you will not get any phone calls. I prefer a phone call in situation like this.
I purchased a Value Add warranty with my upgraded IQ260 so Phase One has sent me a loaner back, in this case a IQ280. I did check the top plate on the replacement back and it’s definitely more secure than my back was. I will update this post when my back returns and when I hear back about the weather seals on the plate when it’s mounted correctly.
Hopefully this is just a slight hiccup with my IQ260. So far I have only had this issue and fogging inside the screen and I am wondering if the fact that the seal for this plate being loose had allowed some moisture inside? I had DT also add this issue to my case.
From the Blog
- 02/16/25 New Article on Hasselblad (4) shot Multi Shot with X2D February 19, 2025
- 02/10/25 New Article on Color–Hasselblad X2D Phocus vs Lightroom February 10, 2025
- 02/01/25 Article on Focus Bracketing, with Hasselblad X2D and 21mm XCD lens February 4, 2025
- 01/26/2025 New article on Phocus and Lightroom color on X2D files January 26, 2025
- Hasselblad HNNR noise reduction, workflow? January 25, 2025
- Hasselblad HNNR Noise Reduction, more details January 17, 2025
