Advise on technical camera + lens

[beano_z]

Okay, wanted to chip in on this thread as I've been through many of the same questions myself in the past two years or so.

First of all, from my experience printing and posting photographs, CCD long exposures are just fine if you handle them right and use the right gear. I used a P45+ before with satisfying results (read: got much better results than anything I've ever gotten on a 135 camera) and I remember seeing tests showing the IQ260 to be much better in regards of noise and colour.

Secondly, the difference between a shot form a DB + Tech cam + Rodenstock / Schneider lens is so prominent that almost everyone can see a difference, without even having to "pixel peep", I've experienced this from talking to clients, colleagues, friends and print shop owners, no competition here, they're just not in the same league. After you've looked at those tech cam lenses and go back look at a Canon lens you'll just wonder how it was possible that that piece of plastic would have ever made a sharp image. Let's not even start about dynamic range, colour and the flexibility in PP.

Anyway, before I shut up, I'll post a comparison of two shots under similar conditions, one was made with the Rodenstock HR Alpagon on the IQ3 100MP back and the other on the Canon TS-E 24 I and 5D mark II, maybe the compression makes the differences less obvious, but at the time both the client and my colleagues strongly prefer the DB image over the other. Note that I've tried my personal best to make both images look as close as possible.

 

[jotloob]

. . . . . . . . . I actually fear the day that a camera system is introduced that removes the necessity of human thought or input in the creation of a photographic image. (This, of course, is not to be confused with the acquisition of new camera equipment) Damn, that was actually sincere and sounds good too---I might have to keep that one as a serious bio quote. :ROTFL:

ken

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I have come across that thought many times before . Good to know , that I am not the only one .

 

[voidshatter]

Lastly, for the lens, I went with the Rodenstock 32mm HR. Can't go wrong with this lens, as long as it fits in the budget.

It's worth to note that the Rodenstock 32mm HR has a filter thread of 86mm which could be a pain for ordinary filter holders. Lee's officially largest wide angle adaptor ring is only up to 82mm, and you'd need to find third party solutions.

Even if a 86mm wide angle adaptor ring can be obtained, keep in mind that without a center filter the lens would vignette seriously with a 10-stop ND filter or stronger. A center filter is essential to offset the vignetting, however the center filter of the Rodenstock 32mm HR is too large for ordinary filter systems, i.e. it has a front thread of 105mm.

Thus I would advise against the Rodenstock 32mm HR lens for long exposure purposes.

First of all, from my experience printing and posting photographs, CCD long exposures are just fine if you handle them right and use the right gear. I used a P45+ before with satisfying results (read: got much better results than anything I've ever gotten on a 135 camera) and I remember seeing tests showing the IQ260 to be much better in regards of noise and colour.

To validate the claim, it would be helpful if you could post a side-by-side comparison at pixel-peeping level, just like I did there (in which I show that the IQ260 CCD is drastically worse than the Nikon D800E with a Sony CMOS sensor).

 

[beano_z]

It's worth to note that the Rodenstock 32mm HR has a filter thread of 86mm which could be a pain for ordinary filter holders. Lee's officially largest wide angle adaptor ring is only up to 82mm, and you'd need to find third party solutions.

Even if a 86mm wide angle adaptor ring can be obtained, keep in mind that without a center filter the lens would vignette seriously with a 10-stop ND filter or stronger. A center filter is essential to offset the vignetting, however the center filter of the Rodenstock 32mm HR is too large for ordinary filter systems, i.e. it has a front thread of 105mm.

Thus I would advise against the Rodenstock 32mm HR lens for long exposure purposes.



To validate the claim, it would be helpful if you could post a side-by-side comparison at pixel-peeping level, just like I did there (in which I show that the IQ260 CCD is drastically worse than the Nikon D800E with a Sony CMOS sensor).

Let me share my experience with the 32 as well while we're on this subject. I'm using the it with the center filter and a 105mm 10-stop ND, getting a bit smaller image circle as expected but for what I do, more than enough flexibity. As for GND's just hold it by hand in front of the lens if exposure is short, otherwise maybe use some blutac or something similar, but as I'd like to wait for the natural light to balance out my exposure, my use of GND is limited, but I'm guessing a 150mm x 170mm rectangular filter holder could easily cover that lens and a 105mm adapter should be available somewhere.

As for the comparison, if I remember correctly it was someone at capture integration who posted the comparison between the P45+ and the IQ260, but I failed to find the link. No experience with the D800 but I doubt Nikon makes any lenses in the same league as the Rodestock offerings...just my $0.02, not starting a debate on pixel peeping as I'm not that technical.

 

[TimG]

FYI - Linhof and studio do a 105mm filter ring for their XL filter holder that works with the Lee 150 filter system, so that should fit the centre-filter for the 32 Rodenstock

Or if you have a steady hand you can do what I did, and just use a dremel multi-tool to cut out the hole from a spare one so that it just slides nicely over the top - I did this for my old Super-Angulon XL and it worked perfectly for 7 years,

Thus I would advise against the Rodenstock 32mm HR lens for long exposure purposes.

 

[voidshatter]

... but as I'd like to wait for the natural light to balance out my exposure, my use of GND is limited ...

As for the comparison, if I remember correctly it was someone at capture integration who posted the comparison between the P45+ and the IQ260, but I failed to find the link. No experience with the D800 but I doubt Nikon makes any lenses in the same league as the Rodestock offerings...just my $0.02, not starting a debate on pixel peeping as I'm not that technical.

I agree that the Nikon lenses are nowhere optically close to the Rodenstock HR standard. However, when it comes down to a contrasty scene (long exposure), the significantly lower signal-to-noise ratio of the CCD in the shadow would totally ruin the resolution of the Rodenstock HR lenses, resulting in much less details than those with a Sony CMOS sensor in smaller formats (e.g. Nikon D800E, IQ250 etc).

I agree that if you only shoot scenes with low contrast then the limited dynamic range of the CCD sensors shoudn't be a problem while the Rodenstock HR lenses can outperform the 35mm format systems.

Let me share my experience with the 32 as well while we're on this subject. I'm using the it with the center filter and a 105mm 10-stop ND, getting a bit smaller image circle as expected but for what I do, more than enough flexibity. As for GND's just hold it by hand in front of the lens if exposure is short, otherwise maybe use some blutac or something similar, ... , but I'm guessing a 150mm x 170mm rectangular filter holder could easily cover that lens and a 105mm adapter should be available somewhere.

FYI - Linhof and studio do a 105mm filter ring for their XL filter holder that works with the Lee 150 filter system, so that should fit the centre-filter for the 32 Rodenstock

Or if you have a steady hand you can do what I did, and just use a dremel multi-tool to cut out the hole from a spare one so that it just slides nicely over the top - I did this for my old Super-Angulon XL and it worked perfectly for 7 years,

The 150mm filter system is a different system from the 100mm filter system. I would rather not carry two systems for my whole set of lenses for a single trip (Rodenstock 32mm HR is the only outlier among all those HR technical camera lenses. Even Rodenstock 23mm HR can use 100mm filter system). The 150mm filter system is also not easy to carry around (the size is bulky and doesn't fit into ordinary camera bags). That's the same reason why I don't like the Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 11-24 etc but instead prefer the 16-35mm counterparts.

holding a GND by hand could work for some people, but definitely not for me because I usually do multiple consecutive frames of long exposures throughout a sunrise/sunset and I don't have that stamina to hold it.

 

[TimG]

The 150mm filter system is a different system from the 100mm filter system. I would rather not carry two systems for my whole set of lenses for a single trip

Why not? all you do it stand outside camera shops and take pictures of walls

 

[voidshatter]

Why not? all you do it stand outside camera shops and take pictures of walls

After using the 150mm filter system for a couple of times you'll know why. Even for taking pictures of walls outside camera shops, it's a pain to carry that bulky 150mm filter system around (in addition to the 100mm filter system), not to mention how inconvenient it can be for hiking.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Tim,

Sorry to hear you just pictures of walls… But, walls can be very inspiring, of course…

Some of Void's images are here: https://500px.com/voidshatter

Best regards
Erik

Why not? all you do it stand outside camera shops and take pictures of walls

 

[Bryan Stephens]

After using the 150mm filter system for a couple of times you'll know why. Even for taking pictures of walls outside camera shops, it's a pain to carry that bulky 150mm filter system around (in addition to the 100mm filter system), not to mention how inconvenient it can be for hiking.

I disagree with the notion that the 150mm filter system is inconvenient for hiking. That is the only filter system that I currently use on my XF body and my IQ380 and I love it.

I used to have the 100mm system, but I no longer need it. The only real difference is the price between the two, which is to me worth it.

 

[Bryan Stephens]

I agree that the Nikon lenses are nowhere optically close to the Rodenstock HR standard. However, when it comes down to a contrasty scene (long exposure), the significantly lower signal-to-noise ratio of the CCD in the shadow would totally ruin the resolution of the Rodenstock HR lenses, resulting in much less details than those with a Sony CMOS sensor in smaller formats (e.g. Nikon D800E, IQ250 etc).

I agree that if you only shoot scenes with low contrast then the limited dynamic range of the CCD sensors shoudn't be a problem while the Rodenstock HR lenses can outperform the 35mm format systems.





The 150mm filter system is a different system from the 100mm filter system. I would rather not carry two systems for my whole set of lenses for a single trip (Rodenstock 32mm HR is the only outlier among all those HR technical camera lenses. Even Rodenstock 23mm HR can use 100mm filter system). The 150mm filter system is also not easy to carry around (the size is bulky and doesn't fit into ordinary camera bags). That's the same reason why I don't like the Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 11-24 etc but instead prefer the 16-35mm counterparts.

holding a GND by hand could work for some people, but definitely not for me because I usually do multiple consecutive frames of long exposures throughout a sunrise/sunset and I don't have that stamina to hold it.

The 100mm system and 150 mm system are not as different as you are making it seem. Also, if you are carrying a MF system or a Tech cam, you need a larger bag to begin with, so the size of the filter system is of little consequence.

 

[voidshatter]

The 100mm system and 150 mm system are not as different as you are making it seem. Also, if you are carrying a MF system or a Tech cam, you need a larger bag to begin with, so the size of the filter system is of little consequence.

I only carry a small technical camera (without a huge lens like the 32mm HR which is the only huge lens out of the HR product line). You could see the size difference between an Alpa 12 STC and an XF+ system here.

I also only carry a small camera bag which is strictly suitable as a hand luggage for most international flights because I never trust the luggage drop-off services with brutal handling.

I have used the Fotodiox 145 filter system for the Canon 17mm TS-E before and I know how huge and inconvenient it is. Then I gifted it to my friend after I decided that it's not for me, and my friend has never used it again after he brought it outdoors once. Using a Lee 150 filter system for the remaining set of the lenses (e.g. the longer ones like 50mm HR, 70mm HR etc) is just crazy. Not sure how the 150 filter system adapts for lenses with filter threads smaller than 72mm but even if you manage to find solutions I just don't think it's neat and balanced.

 

[Bryan Stephens]

Well as anyone who has seen me on a workshop knows, my camera bag is anything but small, as I have the largest possible backpack style bag that is allowed to be carried onboard an aircraft. When I used to carry my tech kit (which I have sold, but may end up getting back into), I carried my Cambo AE, and I had the IQ260, a Rodenstock 40, Rodenstock 70 and a Schneider 120. I also had 6 batteries, the charger and my filters in this bag, plus I would also remove my cube from the tripod and carry this in the bag when I was flying.

Now, with my XF, I have the camera and my IQ380 back, and my 35LS the 80LS plus the filters and the cube (I still have a little room in the bag for one more lens that I am considering).

I will agree that the bag is a bit heavy (thankful that they don't weigh the bag as long as it fits in the overhead), but since I am slightly larger than most, it is less of an issue for me to carry it.

With regards to the filter system, I like the fact that it is able to be used on any of the lenses that I have had in my kit, with the use of adapters or step up / step down rings. As far as it being balanced, I really don't care about the looks as long as the functionality is still there. My cameras main job is to allow me to produce the best images that I am able to. The aesthetics are not at all important to me. I prefer to carry a couple of adapter rings, which are small and light, and one filter kit which covers all of my needs. I guess it is just a matter of personal taste.

On another note, How do you like the Canon 17 TSE. I never shot that lens, but had the 24 TSE and it was probably my favorite DSLR lens for landscape.

 

[voidshatter]

Well it seems like the size restrictions of hand luggage there are not so harsh, or perhaps I need to further optimize the room in my small bag, but I really couldn't find more room for the 150x170mm filters (which is about 70% larger than the 100x150mm filters in size).

In addition to size concerns, I like using Singh-Ray's Daryl Benson Reverse Graduated Filters for sunset and sunrise. My guess is that the transition area of the 150x170mm filters is larger than that of the 100x150mm filters. This could have an impact on lenses of longer focal lengths as the effect of the strip is impaired if the transition area is too large for the longer lenses. But I'll need to verify this with a side by side comparison.

As for the 17mm TSE lens, I think it's one of a kind for the 35mm format cameras. Corner sharpness could be subject to sample variation and it seems several attempts would be necessary to find a good copy. Field curvature could be a problem for corner sharpness, which requires stopping the lens down to f/16, which at the same time causes diffraction for loss of resolution. I bet you have already seen at least some of these tests but I'd paste again:

Marc Aurel did comparisons against other tilt shift lenses there.

Gerald did a comparison between the 24mm TSE against the Rodenstock 23mm HR there.

I also did a comparison between the 17mm TSE against the Rodenstock 23mm HR here.

I preferred the Lee 100 filter system for the 17mm TSE lens (with some sacrifice to the room of shift), but later gave it up because I just didn't like the bulb front element which is exposed to greater danger of getting scratched when compared against the ordinary lenses. The Rodenstock 23mm HR on a 44x33 mini-MF sensor provides roughly the same wide angle of view for single exposure as that of the 17mm TSE on a 35mm format sensor, with some color cast and less room for shift. The 17mm TSE is definitely easier to use if not for the filter systems I didn't like.

 

[Bryan Stephens]

The main reason I never went with the 17mm TSE was because of how the lens protruded from the barrel

Instead, for super wide angle, I opted for the 16 - 35, but oddly enough I found a larger percentage of the images I shot were at the focal range of between 22 and 27 mm, so I ended up selling it since I felt the 24 TSE was my go to lens in that focal length to begin with, which I used on both my Canon 5 dsr and my Sony A7rii with excellent results.