dchew
Well-known member
In early 2011 there was a convergence of situations that brought me to MF and the technical camera: A relatively new EPSON 7900 that was exposing the limitations of my Canon system, Phase One’s IQ announcement, Mark Dubovoy over at Lula was waxing on about some new Alpa camera called the “STC”, and our company gave out windfall bonuses. The icing on the cake was finding a wonderful forum called “GetDPI.” Notice my join date is 2 Feb 2011; no coincidence there.
I rented a Cambo DS, 55mm Digitar, and P65+. Then an Arca and Sinar. Ultimately I bought the Alpa STC site unseen (Dodd was not an Alpa dealer then). I’m rough on equipment (maybe not a rough as Graham ), and felt Alpa’s design had fewer parts, tabs and controls that would catch and get damaged or lost. Went to PODAS April 2011 with a camera but no digital back. Kevin Raber saw me coming 2000 miles away and the rest is, well, you know.
I think the term technical camera is probably the most misleading description in photography. There just isn’t a whole lot of “technical” there. As Don points out in his Don-CAD drawing above, it’s just a flange that maybe can slide and/or tilt. We even call an Alpa TC a technical camera; how ridiculous is that??
What I like most about technical cameras is the workflow in the field. Others have hinted at this above and I’ve said this in other threads: Ever since I picked up that Cambo DS for the first time it felt to me like the ball and chain was cut. No viewfinder, no light meter, no auto focus - just the freedom to think and do. To be honest though, I’m lazy. This tool forces me to not cut corners, and that is why I believe my photography is better when using a technical camera. It is definitely not for everyone. Most people think all the DSLR features are liberating; I don’t. Ironically the one thing I loved about my Canon 5DII was its live view; it was like ground glass for 35mm.
Initially I wasn’t doing much stitching; never been much of a blender in PS. There is something magical to me about a single capture, an “event” if you will. I do stitch quite a bit more now; more on that later…
I started with the sk43 and 100hr, and then added the 70hr and sk150. Like Don, my lens choice has been a bit of a journey. I sold the 43 and bought the 40hr when Alpa released their 17mm TS adapter and 17SB lenses. Now I have 40hr, sk60xl, 90hrsw, sk150. So between Rodi and Schneider I am an equal opportunity spender.
I stitch quite a bit now for three reasons: First, I like the pano format, especially around that 2.25:1 ratio. That is exactly what results from a 18mm horizontal shift – 40x90mm. Second, it makes lenses more versatile. I can backpack with the 60/90 combo and have essentially a 29-58mm kit in 35mm-format terms. Third, the stitched image is well over 100mp.
This all brings me to the ground glass. I recently started using it more, and in fact the camera is packed with the GG mounted. GG is still the only way in the field to see how a stitched image will look. I don’t focus with it; I just use it for framing. To this day I shake my head in how perfect the STC is for me. It has almost all the features I want and nothing I don’t. Since all my lenses now have short barrel mounts, the 17mm TS adapter is permanently mounted on the STC. That means the body essentially has built-in tilt or swing. I do occasionally wish I could have rise fall AND stitch capability. But I am not willing to give up the compact design of the STC to get it.
There are a few things that bug me about the workflow: I wish sensors worked in a way that didn’t need a shutter to open and close; just tell the back how long you want it to “record” the photons. That would eliminate the connections and sync cords. As mentioned above I do miss live view with a real-time focus confirmation. But, due to the HPF ring accuracy it is only an issue when tilting. I wish the lenses were better sealed from the environment. I wish I had a razor sharp, 150-300mm f/4 zoom that weighed under 500gms! I wish my eyes could see the HPF ring numbers and GG the way they did when I was 20.
I do still get a big kick out of people coming up to me and asking what the heck that thing is. :thumbs:
Dave
I rented a Cambo DS, 55mm Digitar, and P65+. Then an Arca and Sinar. Ultimately I bought the Alpa STC site unseen (Dodd was not an Alpa dealer then). I’m rough on equipment (maybe not a rough as Graham ), and felt Alpa’s design had fewer parts, tabs and controls that would catch and get damaged or lost. Went to PODAS April 2011 with a camera but no digital back. Kevin Raber saw me coming 2000 miles away and the rest is, well, you know.
I think the term technical camera is probably the most misleading description in photography. There just isn’t a whole lot of “technical” there. As Don points out in his Don-CAD drawing above, it’s just a flange that maybe can slide and/or tilt. We even call an Alpa TC a technical camera; how ridiculous is that??
What I like most about technical cameras is the workflow in the field. Others have hinted at this above and I’ve said this in other threads: Ever since I picked up that Cambo DS for the first time it felt to me like the ball and chain was cut. No viewfinder, no light meter, no auto focus - just the freedom to think and do. To be honest though, I’m lazy. This tool forces me to not cut corners, and that is why I believe my photography is better when using a technical camera. It is definitely not for everyone. Most people think all the DSLR features are liberating; I don’t. Ironically the one thing I loved about my Canon 5DII was its live view; it was like ground glass for 35mm.
Initially I wasn’t doing much stitching; never been much of a blender in PS. There is something magical to me about a single capture, an “event” if you will. I do stitch quite a bit more now; more on that later…
I started with the sk43 and 100hr, and then added the 70hr and sk150. Like Don, my lens choice has been a bit of a journey. I sold the 43 and bought the 40hr when Alpa released their 17mm TS adapter and 17SB lenses. Now I have 40hr, sk60xl, 90hrsw, sk150. So between Rodi and Schneider I am an equal opportunity spender.
I stitch quite a bit now for three reasons: First, I like the pano format, especially around that 2.25:1 ratio. That is exactly what results from a 18mm horizontal shift – 40x90mm. Second, it makes lenses more versatile. I can backpack with the 60/90 combo and have essentially a 29-58mm kit in 35mm-format terms. Third, the stitched image is well over 100mp.
This all brings me to the ground glass. I recently started using it more, and in fact the camera is packed with the GG mounted. GG is still the only way in the field to see how a stitched image will look. I don’t focus with it; I just use it for framing. To this day I shake my head in how perfect the STC is for me. It has almost all the features I want and nothing I don’t. Since all my lenses now have short barrel mounts, the 17mm TS adapter is permanently mounted on the STC. That means the body essentially has built-in tilt or swing. I do occasionally wish I could have rise fall AND stitch capability. But I am not willing to give up the compact design of the STC to get it.
There are a few things that bug me about the workflow: I wish sensors worked in a way that didn’t need a shutter to open and close; just tell the back how long you want it to “record” the photons. That would eliminate the connections and sync cords. As mentioned above I do miss live view with a real-time focus confirmation. But, due to the HPF ring accuracy it is only an issue when tilting. I wish the lenses were better sealed from the environment. I wish I had a razor sharp, 150-300mm f/4 zoom that weighed under 500gms! I wish my eyes could see the HPF ring numbers and GG the way they did when I was 20.
I do still get a big kick out of people coming up to me and asking what the heck that thing is. :thumbs:
Dave