The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Is the IQ180 the end for Schneider lenses ? compared to Rodenstock

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I you sure about that ? From the specs: "In der Horizontalen lässt sie sich um 40mm und in der Vertikalen (siehe Abb.7) um 30mm mittels der seitlichen Drehknöpfe verschieben. "

in English it means as much as "30mm shift left/right and 40mm fall" which would mean yours should have 15mm as well ;-)
My error. On the one I have, it has a "0", then three hash marks, then a "10", then one more hash mark beyond "10" in each direction. I assumed each hash mark is 2.5mm since they are equally spaced between the "0" and "10", so adding on 2.5mm for the last one, I got to 12.5mm. I now see that I can shift past those last marks if I push the screws all the way to the stops. It is a borrowed camera so I never forced any of the movements when I shot with it, hence I never went past the last hash mark which is at 12.5mm and just assumed that was the limit -- sorry.

Bottom line is I am getting one of these jewels -- the newer RM3Di -- for myself, and I will be happy to push it to the limits for testing when I get mine. I remain comfortable that LCC will handle the extra 2.5mm of shift, since it handled 25mm of rise.

Any way we want to slice it, I am comfortable stating that worst case on the 43 is you'll get at minimum 80% of the full IC on it with the IQ180 using the Tech-Wide LCC in C1. And in cases where corners are not critical, we'll probably get comfortably more.

And I *may* get my hands on a 40 HR-W later this week to test, and if so I will add that data to this thread.
 

cunim

Well-known member
Peter,

What 50MP back and what software are you using in the above reference to generate and correct your LCC's?
Jack, I am using the H3D50 and Phocus. I have not done this type of thing on C1 but I look forward to trying it.

Just to clarify, I am sensitive to how LCCs work - have participated in developing some in my time. LCCs always impact other image parameters, as you show for noise. I find a loss of sensitivity (the ability to see subtle transitions) in the bright areas (seen as a glare/patchy effect) and a loss of color contrast to be just as bothersome as cast. Others may not care as much about these things.

To me, it is sky that is the key problem. I shoot airplanes so I tend to have plenty of it. To test, I would use a clean ground/sky image with cloudy sky at 90%, and move 15mm laterally in each direction. My experience is that the success of color cast correction is partially dependent on the brightness of the LCC image so it would be useful to try a couple of LCC images at 50% and 75%.

It will be great to see CI's test images.

Peter
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Peter,

I have no experience with how software outside of C1 deals with LCC's, so cannot speak to them. In C1, it is recommended that your LCC histogram be nicely centered. Using Capture Integration's LCC plate (here: http://www.captureintegration.com/?s=lcc) over the lens, the usual correction is a 2-stop slower shutter speed so as to keep aperture constant. However, in some extreme lighting cases it may be only one stop or even the same exposure that generates a centered LCC histogram, so you need to watch that.

I have one frame I shot with lots of cloudy sky in it, about 12mm of rise. The base exposure is good, and the LCC is perfect. When applied however, the patches of blue seem to remain properly saturated and of excellent color, while areas of white clouds become visibly brighter, almost blowing. My take on that is the lens' native falloff is acting as sort of a SND filter holding back the bright sky during our primary exposure and rendering a very safe original histogram; then when the LCC removes that falloff, we get too bright. So my recommended fix is shoot with a center filter, or at least shoot like you would if you had a CF on, meaning under-expose by 1 - 2 additional stops (depending on amount of rise and lens in use) to fully protect the highlights in the falloff zone. Only personal experimentation can tell you what the proper amounts are for that. Additionally, my intuition is that using a CF plus the LCC will make less work for the LCC and help limit the amount of final corrections needed. I can add that in C1 you can comfortably push an IQ180 file exposure around by 2 stops or more without significant degradation! Not sure about how other programs handle that, but that is my experience with C1. Finally, on the LCC you can dial the falloff correction from 100% down to 0% (or up to 120%), so in effect can utilize some (or all) of that original lens falloff to save skies; as an aside, I found that dialing back to 67% was quite pleasing on most of the 43 shots I took.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
Jack, I am using the H3D50 and Phocus. I have not done this type of thing on C1 but I look forward to trying it.

Just to clarify, I am sensitive to how LCCs work - have participated in developing some in my time. LCCs always impact other image parameters, as you show for noise. I find a loss of sensitivity (the ability to see subtle transitions) in the bright areas (seen as a glare/patchy effect) and a loss of color contrast to be just as bothersome as cast. Others may not care as much about these things.. . . .


Peter

We're making Doug's life too interesting but in his testing it would be great if the "blue death" zones of the shifts should include some low contrast high light value areas of details, and some test for color saturation.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
Re how Schneiders v Rodies render. I personally prefer Schneider's look, however I feel the Rodies are actually technically sharper in the center and show more local contrast than Schneiders -- but in a way that leaves them looking almost sterile for lack of a better word; like drinking water so pure it has no taste. So if my "sterile" = Woody's "lifeless" we are in agreement. However, I also would say this is a really, really subtle call based on my looking at many tens of thousands of different images from different lenses over the years. Moreover, I think a lot of life can be added during post using some artistic license and secret sauce editing ;)

We're seeing the same thing but Jack is describing it better. I could also call it "bloodless".
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Update: It appears I will NOT be getting the 40 HR-W to test. Sorry folks. I would sure like to rent one in Arca mount ASAP if anybody knows where I might find one.

:(
 

Terry

New member
Arrrgh. I was really hoping to see how the 40HR behaved before taking delivery of the 43mm. The test would have settled a lot of minds.
 

gazwas

Active member
We're seeing the same thing but Jack is describing it better. I could also call it "bloodless".
So is it something that can be adjusted in post - adding contrast, or is adding contrast globally not the same as a higher contrast capture?

The lower RS contrast must have some advantages like more detail in shadows or does it not work that way?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It is a really tough characteristic to describe. The Rodie is just extremely neutral in everything it does. It is sharp, has balanced micro and macro contrast, very low distortions, neutral color and gradual falloff. All of those things when more present in varying degrees can add the non-specific impression of "depth" or "roundness" or "character" to the image.

For me it's like drinking a great wine that is also so perfectly balanced in all traits you cannot tell where it's from. :eek:
 

gazwas

Active member
Thanks Jack, I think I know where you're coming from. Not as straight forward as it all seems this debate as when you scratch below the surface there is more to lens choice than just this LC issue. Think I might have to try before I buy just to see for myself.

The sharp bit sounds good but the sterility, not so much.
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Yes, that's why Leica M shooters have 3 (or more!) 50mm's: one's the go-to-lens, one for Mojo, and another for that - well why not have a third it fits in my pocket - depending on subject matter and light conditions.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Jack, I think I know where you're coming from. Not as straight forward as it all seems this debate as when you scratch below the surface there is more to lens choice than just this LC issue. Think I might have to try before I buy just to see for myself.

The sharp bit sounds good but the sterility, not so much.
I should have added you can manufacture some of the "Mojo" as Guy called it in post, but the net is that probably requires a lot of work on each image to keep them all the same "flavor"-- and it would require Photoshop ... But on the other hand, I say again I am talking pretty subtle traits and one person may see them differently than another. The upside is they both appear to be state-of-the-art excellent, so there's probably not a wrong choice.
 

EsbenHR

Member
So my recommended fix is shoot with a center filter, or at least shoot like you would if you had a CF on, meaning under-expose by 1 - 2 additional stops (depending on amount of rise and lens in use) to fully protect the highlights in the falloff zone. Only personal experimentation can tell you what the proper amounts are for that.
As long as the exposure itself is not blown out, it is better to dial the exposure down in software. When you correct for exposure by combining an LCC, global and local settings and vignetting, the quality is only affected by the combined effect.

Example: if the LCC corrects for 2 stops in the corner but you apply -2 stops of vignetting, then the corner is not changed at all.


Additionally, my intuition is that using a CF plus the LCC will make less work for the LCC and help limit the amount of final corrections needed.
This is correct.
 

gogopix

Subscriber
I should have added you can manufacture some of the "Mojo" as Guy called it in post, but the net is that probably requires a lot of work on each image to keep them all the same "flavor" ... But again, I am talking pretty subtle traits and one person may see them differently than another.
Jack,

Good work! I could lend you a 35mm schneider but for the alpa. I would send the alpa as well, but it has one of those, what you call 'legacy' mounts:D (Contax!)
If you have an alpa or can get a Phase mount, I can overnight it to you
Victor
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
As long as the exposure itself is not blown out, it is better to dial the exposure down in software. When you correct for exposure by combining an LCC, global and local settings and vignetting, the quality is only affected by the combined effect.
Esben,

Thank you for weighing in on this. On reflection it of course makes sense to adjust a proper exposure back in the software rather than the capture!
 

JSK Rangefinder

New member
i was offered (ALPA) hard to resist combo 24XL 35XL 47XL for a very good price.. but to use them with IQ 180 I'm not sure now should I go for it or just wait.. mind you I've been waiting over a year now :)

for some reason, seller doesn't want to split them up..
 

Paul David

Member
i was offered (ALPA) hard to resist combo 24XL 35XL 47XL for a very good price.. but to use them with IQ 180 I'm not sure now should I go for it or just wait.. mind you I've been waiting over a year now :)

for some reason, seller doesn't want to split them up..
Alpa is wonderful. The 24XL will not cover the IQ 180 (nor my current P65+ soon to become an IQ 180). So subtract what you think you can sell the 24 for and if it's still a good deal go for it.

Paul
 
Top