Please advise the esteemed forum members which technical camera system I should invest in for landscape photography

[Paul Spinnler]

The Pano is mainly useful if you use the 70HR (up to 25mm ish), 90 HR, 120 SK, and 138 HR lenses (I own a Pano). 120 is very difficult to find and 90 and 138 are heavier than most normal lenses. It becomes a totally different setup than with an STC.

Pano basically in my mind is 90 HR and or 138 HR and a heavier tripod to keep it stable and it is as a result a heavier backpack and more logistics to change position once setup.

There is no "in landscape photography"; photography is what you make out of it and you can also crop one shots with a TC to be panoramic format. Its not about the gear or how expensive it is. There are landscape photographers who are unsuccesful and boring with 100k of gear and then you'll have commercially very successful people shooting 35mm digital. So in the end its what makes you happy and is a tool that you like using.

Many landscape photographers will be even happy with a TC and two compact SK lenses or an STC and say a 40 HR with tilt which covers a lot of ground.

You can nowadays also easily uprez and use noise and sharpening techniques to create almost any print size you'd want.

Julian Calverley since more than a decade shoots STC with 40 HR SB with tilt spacer ... which I think is is an ideal combo for landscape photography as the 40 HR is wide, but not too wide in one shot, can be stitched on the STC 18mm left and right and you'll have a resulting file that's huge and printable to any format almost.

 

[ThdeDude]

I'm still not sure which technical camera system I should buy. It's not easy for me.

Not easy for everyone!

I personally have two systems, a Linhof Techno with rotatable stitching slide and five lenses, and a Silvestri Flexicam with a reversible live view adapter and three lightweight lenses. But truth to be told, I really need something more in the middle.

 

[dchew]

Hi George,
Keep in mind these answers are so personal and depend on the photographs you like to take.

The small ALPA 12 STC with +-18mm shift has the charm of being very compact. However, the ALPA 12 Plus with +-20mm has only 2mm more, advantageous in both directions at the same time. But due to the limited image circle of the lenses, it is not possible to shift in the vertical and horizontal directions at the same time with the maximum value of 20mm. So you have to decide in favour of one direction?

A little story: In one week I am headed to Patagonia for 2-1/2 weeks of photography. Yesterday I packed both the 12+ and the STC. Then I pulled out the STC to take just the 12+. Then I swapped them to take just the STC. Now I have them both staring at me on the table and I'm not sure what I'm going to do!! Here is the core of my dilemma: Because I have reasonable gaps between my lenses, I never do multiple-row stitching. I stitch for two reasons:

1. Make a panorama: I can do this very quickly with either the STC or the 12+. 18 (or 20) mm right, then 18/20 left. I always shift the maximum in the field because I can always crop later and I don't lose anything by shifting 20mm. You never know when Sasquatch will appear in the corner of your pano; you don't want to miss him! I only take two images because there is plenty of overlap to seamlessly blend them in PS. Personally, I don't like super-wide panoramas. Once they get above 2.5:1, I just find them too long. The viewer has to stand back too far to take in the whole scene, and I feel it loses some of the "I'm there with you" effect. That's not necessarily true, it is just a personal preference. So my panos end up in the range of 2.0:1 - 2.4:1. That correlates to an uncropped image that requires shifting 13mm - 20mm.
2. Shifting in the short sensor dimension and stitching them together to increase the angle of view of a lens. In this case, I take three images because two has very little overlap for stitching. If I'm making a shot in the landscape position, I mount the back in portrait, and take 1. 18/20mm right, 2. center, 3. 18/20mm left.

What the 12+ (or Pano) allows me to do that the STC cannot is to apply rise/fall when making these panos. In order to frame the horizon, I need to angle the STC up or down when making a horizontal pano. That is really the only thing I can't do in the field with the STC that I can do with the 12+.

• In my case, I don't shoot wide panos. The widest lens I use for panos is the 60mm. That means I'm relatively far away from the subject so tilting the camera doesn't change the perspective much.
• Shifting 20mm in the landscape position is a 102mm image circle. In my opinion, the only lens I own that can shift much more than that without getting too soft in the corners is the 138mm. So even with the 12+, I would be uncomfortable doing much rise/fall AND stitching anyway. With the 60mm I might get away with a few mm of rise/fall plus 20mm shift L/R. Note I no longer have the 90 hr-sw. If I did, I might feel differently about this.
• There was a case recently when I was taking a close-field image of some trees and rocks where it would have been nice to have the 12+. I shot it with the STC, but it took a long time to get everything lined up the way I wanted because I could not fine tune framing with a combination of shift and rise/fall. See the use case below (this thread is really hurting for some images).
• The 12+ is larger enough that requires a different packing arrangement. I won't be backpacking so I don't care too much about the weight. I only care about the ease of use in the field. the STC is more elegant in that regard.

So that's my dilemma. I have both and still can't decide! Hopefully this story helps you make your decision.

On the opposite side, the ALPA 12 Pano, for example, is significantly larger than the 12 STC and therefore also enables larger panoramas, e.g. with the Rodenstock 90mm lens (33mm/29mm). At the same time, the 12 Pano can also shift +-10mm. The Pano is significantly larger than the 12 STC, but in my opinion not significantly larger than the 12 Plus. In addition, the handles are better integrated into the camera than in the 12 Plus.

I have been jonesing for the Pano! It does open up a ton of options for that use case. For me, it won't allow that 3-image stitch in portrait (#2 above) because rise/fall is limited to 10mm. That may not matter to you. I suggest you think of a few examples of panorama ratios, shifting amounts and how much rise fall you would have available still within the image circles. If you need an IC calculator for various shift / rise combinations, pm me and I will send you one in Excel. Here is a snip from my IC info. Again, sharpness is a personal thing so everyone will have their limits. Blanks mean I have no definitive info.

Another question would be whether I should go with a combination of 40mm and 70mm when using a 12 STC or with 40mm and 90mm when using a 12 Pano.

I think those are very good starting points. This being the forum where we love to spend other people's money, I think you should get all three! With the Pano, you might think about the 50hr instead of the 40hr. Just depends on the angle of view you prefer. Personally, I would choose the 50/90 combo for both.

Dave

 

[ThdeDude]

I'll have to think about everything again.

I would recommend to assess your needs/wants in view of the intended photography, and then make an assessment as to the maximum the kit can weigh. Then only consider cameras and lenses that meet this weight limit. (Another benefit of keeping an eye on weight is that expense and weight of camera gear very roughly correlate with each other.)

For example, my Linhof kit is 22Ib while my Flexicam kit is 8Ib (plus 4Ib tripod). Can easily carry the former but can hike only with the later.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The 90 SW is the other lens which is ok on the Pano. If you are really discriminating the Pano is made for the 90SW, 120 ASPH and 138 HR if you do 35mm left right.

 

[ThdeDude]

... In one week I am headed to Patagonia for 2-1/2 weeks of photography. ...

Lucky you!

 

[MGrayson]

In one week I am headed to Patagonia for 2-1/2 weeks of photography.

On the slim chance that you haven't been there before, bring the heaviest tripod you can carry. It is so windy that many trees have branches only on one side.

And to prove that I'm not joking....

 

[ThdeDude]

... panoramas. Once they get above 2.5:1, I just find them too long. The viewer has to stand back too far to take in the whole scene, and I feel it loses some of the "I'm there with you" effect. ... my panos end up in the range of 2.0:1 - 2.4:1.

Interesting observation. Personally, I think that there are images that work best as square and there are images that work best in the 2.4:1 cinematic standard, but don't think I have yet seen a image in a wider aspect ratio that worked for me. [Of course, I am way off-topic here again!]

 

[dchew]

Interesting observation. Personally, I think that there are images that work best as square and there are images that work best in the 2.4:1 cinematic standard, but don't think I have yet seen a image in a wider aspect ratio that worked for me. [Of course, I am way off-topic here again!]

I completely agree, and I'm not so sure you are off topic. These are really important points to consider when looking at these specific camera variations.

In my case, I often wonder if it is the tail wagging the dog: Do I like the camera because it can easily produce my preferred pano ratios, or do I like these pano ratios because the camera can easily produce them? Perhaps "The Hammer Shapes the Hand."

Dave

 

[ThdeDude]

I completely agree ...

In my case, I often wonder if it is the tail wagging the dog: Do I like the camera because it can easily produce my preferred pano ratios, or do I like these pano ratios because the camera can easily produce them? Perhaps "The Hammer Shapes the Hand."

Dave

And just to prove how wrong one can be, I just send a pano image to the printer that goes far beyond the 2.4:1 ratio and were I believe the ends enhance the image. (Ends may get slightly cropped in the print.)

I know that the center figure is not perfectly centered and that there also other technical issues. Was taken handheld using a iPhone.

 

[ThdeDude]

And to prove that I'm not joking....

We take your word that this is not photoshop.

 

[dchew]

And just to prove how wrong one can be, I just send a pano image to the printer that goes far beyond the 2.4:1 ratio and were I believe the ends enhance the image. (Ends may get slightly cropped in the print.)

I know that the center figure is not perfectly centered and that there also other technical issues. Was taken handheld using a iPhone.

View attachment 211771

As I was typing that previous post, I thought there is a push/pull between selecting a tool that fits with one's "photographic / artistic style" vs one that stifles experimentation and growth.

Dave

 

[MGrayson]

We take your word that this is not photoshop.

Google "helsingfors argentina" and one of the images under bookings.com will show those trees close up. I was disappointed that Google Maps Street View didn't get close enough to the front of the property, and everything I could see from the road looked normal. You had me worried that I'd imagined it. The camera was a Canon 5D, and such ancient technology is unreliable!

 

[ThdeDude]

As I was typing that previous post, I thought there is a push/pull between selecting a tool that fits with one's "photographic / artistic style" vs one that stifles experimentation and growth.

I like your phase "The Hammer Shapes the Hand" There is certainly some truth. Once you have a hammer you feel comfortable using, constant usage will shape the hand (what is called "muscle memory").

 

[AreBee]

... for me the question remains whether I should buy a 12 STC or a 12 Pano.

The Pano is distinct from other technical camera bodies—ALPA's or others—in that stitching is its raison d'être, not simply to increase resolution, but to maximise it through the use of longer focal length lenses.

Do you currently want for resolution with your H6D-100c and X2D-100c? If not, why are you considering a Pano? If yes, again why are you considering a Pano, given an IQ4 150 returns 50% more resolution than what you currently enjoy? If 150MP is insufficient, what value meets your requirements, and can it be achieved by a less specialist body?

 

[Steve Hendrix]

The Pano is distinct from other technical camera bodies—ALPA's or others—in that stitching is its raison d'être, not simply to increase resolution, but to maximise it through the use of longer focal length lenses.

Do you currently want for resolution with your H6D-100c and X2D-100c? If not, why are you considering a Pano? If yes, again why are you considering a Pano, given an IQ4 150 returns 50% more resolution than what you currently enjoy? If 150MP is insufficient, what value meets your requirements, and can it be achieved by a less specialist body?

I would add that the Pano has numerous other applications beside increasing resolution, one of them being that shooting with the exemplary longer lenses like the 90 HR-W and 138 HR-SW on the Pano allows you to shift and stitch those lenses to such a degree that they can replace shorter lenses with a very different and less distorted look than those short lenses.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[AreBee]

I would add that the Pano has numerous other applications beside increasing resolution, one of them being that shooting with the exemplary longer lenses like the 90 HR-W and 138 HR-SW on the Pano allows you to shift and stitch those lenses to such a degree that they can replace shorter lenses with a very different and less distorted look than those short lenses.

The Pano is intended for use with lenses that possess an image circle of sufficient size and quality for the body's ±35mm shift range to utilise. Few lenses qualify, and those that do are of longer focal length. By inspection, these will tend to maximise resolution of the stitched image. To use the Pano with lenses that possess other than an image circle of sufficient size and quality, which is to say the majority, is overkill.

Short or long focal length; they're all rectilinear lenses. Rectilinear distortion in an image captured with a short focal length lens will also be returned in the same, albeit stitched, image captured using a longer focal length lens. If by "... less distorted look..." you refer to shooting from farther by virtue of using a longer focal length lens, that is not a like-for-like comparison, changing as it does perspective and hence composition.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

The Pano is intended for use with lenses that possess an image circle of sufficient size and quality for the body's ±35mm shift range to utilise. Few lenses qualify, and those that do are of longer focal length. By inspection, these will tend to maximise resolution of the stitched image. To use the Pano with lenses that possess other than an image circle of sufficient size and quality, which is to say the majority, is overkill.

Short or long focal length; they're all rectilinear lenses. Rectilinear distortion in an image captured with a short focal length lens will also be returned in the same, albeit stitched, image captured using a longer focal length lens. If by "... less distorted look..." you refer to shooting from farther by virtue of using a longer focal length lens, that is not a like-for-like comparison, changing as it does perspective and hence composition.

You are correct.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul Spinnler]

BTW - Pano can also be used in portrait mode .... allows you to capture the Burj Khalifa with a 90mm, for example ...

 

[MGrayson]

Short or long focal length; they're all rectilinear lenses. Rectilinear distortion in an image captured with a short focal length lens will also be returned in the same, albeit stitched, image captured using a longer focal length lens. If by "... less distorted look..." you refer to shooting from farther by virtue of using a longer focal length lens, that is not a like-for-like comparison, changing as it does perspective and hence composition.

Thank you for saying this. I was going to jump in in my role as "Math Nanny", but am glad that someone else made that point.