J
jessehe
Guest
What's the best camera configure for P65+?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
clearly a view camera / tech camera with Rodenstock HR or Schneider Digitar lensesI mean, how to best play its high-resolution
I agree! The talk about the Cube and the large Gitzo tripods is a bit overdone here on the forum (above all as there are better tripods than the Gitzos...). Too, the beauty of the Cube is its sophisticated usablity... not the rigidity. Of course it's rigid... but so are other tripod heads as well. Especially with a small tech camera you won't have vibration issues even if you use much simpler gear.OK, (yes I've had my coffee this morning .....I'm going to get in my 2 cents here and it differs a bit. I have a P65+ and use an H2 camera system and (important here) LEAF shutter lenses (no camera vibration from a focal plane shutter). Think Phase is now making leaf shutter lenses too). I use a 2540 gitzo carbon fiber tripod with a RRS 40 medium sized ball head (if the weather is really windy I have an RRS 55 head which is rock solid for challenging conditions). I have never had any stability issues. My most used H lenses are the50mm, 80mm, 100mm and occasionally the 210mm. (I also have the H35mm but the 50 is sharper)...... I don't go longer than 210mm.
I have never needed more tripod or head than what I mentioned and my images are razor sharp, provided my technique is acceptable (mirror lock up, solid ground, etc. (or as sharp as the lenses I use are capable of). I also recommend CI as a dealer)......Eleanor
I've been shooting a p65+ on a PhaseOne DF for about a year now. I moved from a Hasselblad shooting a p45+. I wanted the back in integrate better with the body, and with the new firmware the DF/p65+ has taken this to a new level, including setting the camera from the nice large LCD on the back. I love the setup and the quality.You need to factor in the image quality of the P65 which is huge. Ken and Jack have been "getting by" using their Phase camera and lenses (I'm snickering here) rather well. However if it were I, I would use a technical camera with either Schneider or Rodenstock lenses.
it is... beyond doubt! but it's not the only tool to do what you call "high end shooting". it would be a poor world if there would be only one solution to solve certain problems...I also believe using the cube for high end shooting is a dream ...
In a studio environment where you can shoot a technical camera tethered, I think the marginal improvements in resolution over an Mamiya DF or H2 are possible to achieve in real world terms. However, in the field, where you cannot, as a practical matter, shoot tethered, the tech camera advantages become illusory for the simple reason that you cannot achieve precise focus. As anyone who has used a P65 can testify, the difference between precise focus and "guesstimate" focus using hyperfocal distance focusing is very significant. In order to extract the maximum resolution out of the P65, you really need to be able to focus bracket and merge the slices in something like Helicon Focus. (Shooting a brick wall at fixed distance is not a real world shooting experinece.) You simply can't precisely focus with a tech camera shooting untethered. Just like I cannot effectively compose with a tech camera using a lens on the wide or tele side. It's like a drive-by shooting experience similar to the experience of shooting with a point and shoot without a viewfinder where you "compose" on the LCD screen, and the landscape images I have seen taken with tech cameras look that way. Perhaps there are some people who really do "see" in the way a true wide angle or tele lens "sees", but I personally need to "see" the way the lens "sees" by looking through the lens.I've been shooting a p65+ on a PhaseOne DF for about a year now. I moved from a Hasselblad shooting a p45+. I wanted the back in integrate better with the body, and with the new firmware the DF/p65+ has taken this to a new level, including setting the camera from the nice large LCD on the back. I love the setup and the quality.
However, I just took delivery of an Alpa 12max along with the Schneider Apo-Digitar 35 and 47mm XL lenses, and a rodenstock Digaron HR W 70mm. (a couple more lenses on the way).
I was blown away by the difference in sharpness using this vs. the PhaseOne Camera. I haven't shot any side by sides, but the detail and crispness of images in the first couple of shoots is apparent, and imho, not insignificant.
Not cheap, and certainly a paradigm shift when shooting (although I actually enjoyed the deliberate and thoughtful effort it took to work with the technical camera).
very true! Except: shooting at infinity. Or shooting the Arca Swiss Rm3d...In a studio environment where you can shoot a technical camera tethered, I think the marginal improvements in resolution over an Mamiya DF or H2 are possible to achieve in real world terms. However, in the field, where you cannot, as a practical matter, shoot tethered, the tech camera advantages become illusory for the simple reason that you cannot achieve precise focus.
Sure, but isn't it quite limiting to only shoot photographs where you can focus at infinity? As for the use of a ground glass, I just don't think it is a real world solution to use in the field under adverse weather conditions where you are dealing with swirling sand, dust, snow and rain. Is it even possible to achieve accurate focus on a gg for a mfdb.very true! Except: shooting at infinity. Or shooting the Arca Swiss Rm3d...
Or shooting close distances that you can focus on the groundglass (as long as the GG is aligned accuratley... and as long as there is enough light and contrast in the motif...).
I share the same feelings. I once bought a Sharps 45-110 for something like $4,500 and started to complain that I had to spend $200 for a sturdy case till I wised up..Some say it's overhyped, but I can't imaging spending tens of thousands of dollars on capture equipment, and then worry about saving a few hundred dollars on the device meant to hold it steady and make it functional.
You know of course I don't want to hear this! Here I've gone and said I really don't need/want the P65 and I have to hear this!I was blown away by the difference in sharpness using this vs. the PhaseOne Camera. I haven't shot any side by sides, but the detail and crispness of images in the first couple of shoots is apparent, and imho, not insignificant.
I think it depends a bit... I do use the ground glass ... but mostly just for composition. And that works quite good for me. I also use a laser distometer and learnt how to adjust the lens (on one lens I have also glued additional distance markers). I literally always shoot at f11 and f16 with the tech camera. I have no iusse focussing closer distances on the ground glass (but, of course, the wider the distance the harder the focussing on the GG). Finally you can always make some focus bracketing (which is a real PITA when stitching)...Sure, but isn't it quite limiting to only shoot photographs where you can focus at infinity? As for the use of a ground glass, I just don't think it is a real world solution to use in the field under adverse weather conditions where you are dealing with swirling sand, dust, snow and rain. Is it even possible to achieve accurate focus on a gg for a mfdb.
Think about it this way. Have you ever seen a 4x5 or 8x10 shooter who walks up to a scene, mounts his camera on a tripod, loads the film and exposes the film, without ever composing and focusing on the ground glass?
Of course, you are assuming in a field shoot there is a specific area of the image that needs to be "precise". While this may be true of some types of images, in my brief experience (I'll admit being a noob) using hyperfocal distance or the ground glass worked out quite well. It's not like you can focus that critically with a Mamiya DF either ... I would refer you to Joseph Holmes article about that (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html) And if you really need large depth of field, focus bracketing is the way to go.In a studio environment where you can shoot a technical camera tethered, I think the marginal improvements in resolution over an Mamiya DF or H2 are possible to achieve in real world terms. However, in the field, where you cannot, as a practical matter, shoot tethered, the tech camera advantages become illusory for the simple reason that you cannot achieve precise focus. As anyone who has used a P65 can testify, the difference between precise focus and "guesstimate" focus using hyperfocal distance focusing is very significant. In order to extract the maximum resolution out of the P65, you really need to be able to focus bracket and merge the slices in something like Helicon Focus. (Shooting a brick wall at fixed distance is not a real world shooting experinece.) You simply can't precisely focus with a tech camera shooting untethered. Just like I cannot effectively compose with a tech camera using a lens on the wide or tele side. It's like a drive-by shooting experience similar to the experience of shooting with a point and shoot without a viewfinder where you "compose" on the LCD screen, and the landscape images I have seen taken with tech cameras look that way. Perhaps there are some people who really do "see" in the way a true wide angle or tele lens "sees", but I personally need to "see" the way the lens "sees" by looking through the lens.