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!

Tech cameras and IQ.

R

rpb

Guest
Hi everyone,

I am one of those photographers that visit Dante (rent MF) when needed, but are yet to dive in. I currently rent a phase system p40, p45+ etc with the phase slr. I shoot mainly automotive (studio and location), architecture and landscape. I have been reading this and other forums for quite a while and know the pros and cons of a tech camera, movements, IQ, slowing down of the process etc, etc. Does any body know and direct me to a direct comparison (IQ) between a tech camera setup and a MF DSLR setup. Is it a hugh jump in quality, I would love to see the same images taken with the best of both to see the difference.

Cheers,

Rikki.
www.rikkipaul.net
 

archivue

Active member
it's not a question of quality only... but movements...
there's a lot of shots that can't be done without it...
 
R

rpb

Guest
I understand that it is not a question of just IQ, and that there are many other benefits of having a tech camera, but I am very interested in the IQ difference. Alot of photographers seem to be choosing something like the alpa TC, where they do not have the added benefit of movements etc over a DSLR. I suppose my question is, when it comes down to IQ is it a hugh step forward or is it striving for the best you can achieve, or both?
 

vonalpen

Active member
Hi Rikki
Even using the best lenses and perfect technique, the improvement in image quality from my Phase One 645 DF to my ALPA (SWA and TC) - using the same back - is not a huge step!
For convenience and in difficult shooting situations (rain / snow / where speed matters) I'm very happy with my P45+ on the DF (since 2007).
The lenses on the ALPA offer (as mentioned) other advantages, like shifting , stitching and tilt (not with wideangles though).
If you shoot with flash, the new Schneider lenses for the DF are fantastic, you can sync at 1/1600!
Generally speaking the best (digitally optimized) lenses for the technical cameras (Schneider and Rodenstock) do deliver even higher resolution than the Phase One (Mamiya) lenses.
I'm very happy with my 2,8/80mm AF D, 2,8/150mm AF D and 4,5/300mm APO.
The wideangles though ... I've sold all I ever tried with the DF as the ALPA is clearly better!
I used 35mm AF (very disappointing), 45mm AF D (ok) and 28mm AF D (corners very soft).
The Rodenstock Digaron 35mm and 60mm on the ALPA are outstanding (as are my 100mm Digaron and 180mm APO-Digitar).

I actually ordered the new IQ180 after three test days. The image circle on the 35mm Digaron will not offer much possibilities any more.
And of course lens cast is very pronounced (see threads...).
But shooting wideangles on a technical camera, you will always have to correct the lens cast in post with Capture One, which works really well.

To summarize, I shoot with a combination of both, but for the wideangles, I clearly favor the technical camera.

The slowing down of the whole process reminds me of shooting with 4"x5", not a bad thing considering image content!

Hope that helps.

Jost von Allmen
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It's not a *huge* step given two straight on shots compared directly. Most of the recent tech lenses designed for full frame are a notch better than the comparable MF lenses, but then the current mill of MF lenses are already excellent. What makes it so valuable is you can impart a little bit of movement for a more perfect composition and still maintain that optical excellence.

Tech cams in general require you to work slower and force you to review your compositions more critically. If you do that with an MF DSLR and lens, you're going to generate excellent images too. What it really boils down to is eeking that extra few percent of ultimate IQ out of your images.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Tech cams in general require you to work slower and force you to review your compositions more critically. If you do that with an MF DSLR and lens, you're going to generate excellent images too. What it really boils down to is eeking that extra few percent of ultimate IQ out of your images.
As a DF shooter who is trying hard to love his Alpa, the slower part still has me frustrated. I find myself passing up "possible" shots while hiking because it means I might not get to where I'm trying to get to if I stop. I'm kind of an "exploring" type of photographer, generally with camera on tripod over shoulder and I just set out on a road or trail and see what I can find. As you mentioned the alpa is a much more deliberate process ... just not fitting my style real well.

I'm tending to take the Alpa when I know the location and have a pretty good idea what I'm wanting to shoot, otherwise the DF. If I could have only one system, it would be the DF. In fact, I'm counting on the new IQ180 live view to make my life more pleasant with the Alpa or I may settle for the DF and sell the Alpa setup.
 

cs750

Member
Ok folks, we get that it is not a "huge" step up in the image quality and that the step up in image quality is a small percentage....and we get that there is more involved and time consumed with the technical camera...and that some tilt/shift images cannot be obtained with the DF....but where both cameras can do justice to a scene...what is your sense of the percentage difference? 1%? 5%? 8%? What is your sense of "not huge" or "small percentage"? Hey, if it were easy to find out....there were be no need to ask.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
..but where both cameras can do justice to a scene...what is your sense of the percentage difference? 1%? 5%? 8%? What is your sense of "not huge" or "small percentage"? Hey, if it were easy to find out....there were be no need to ask.
I am going out on a thin limb here to even attempt to quantify it for you but here goes:

It will vary.

Seriously it will, depending on the scene and focal length. Lenses longer than 80mm and no movements, IMHO you do not gain much, call it 5%. Lenses shorter than 50 you gain a lot, movements or not, call it 10% without movements and maybe 20% with. Lenses in the in-between focals fall, well, in-between.

However!!! You need to nail everything with the tech cam in order to obtain the gains, and that is much easier said than done! It's really easy to make mistakes with the tech cam. And yes, the new IQ UI will make those easier to spot at the time of capture, but it still isn't fool-proof -- you need to develop a dedicated routine and follow it every time or you will screw up.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Using a tech camera can be excruciating slow at times however the payoff is big.

My main shooting partner and wife uses a Canon 1DsIII and owns a tripod yet rarely uses it. We can be at the same place, see the same thing and she's just about finished before I've taken the first image. Yet the image quality is different and better in most cases with the WRS - if I do my part.

Shooting landscape with a tech camera isn't for everyone. It's a very slow and deliberate process. The primary support for a tech camera is the tripod. Setting the tripod up can be a slow process. There's even more slow going once the camera is locked into the tripod. You must figure the focus (most landscapes I shoot is at or near infinity) then there's the f/stop (I shoot f/8 most of the time) then the shutter speed. There isn't a single automatic phase on the entire image capture, no auto focus, no program or aperture priority. Once you have everything set you still need to remember to remove the lens shade and cock the shutter.

The step I left out is the lens selection. All the lenses that I know of for any tech camera are primes, there's no such thing as a zoom lens. The 3-lens I use are 35, 72, and 120mm.

If working a tech camera is so damn slow then why do I use it? Not so simple an answer. I used a 35mm for my landscape work many years before progressing to medium format. Once I moved to medium format it took less than 18 months to move to a tech camera. The lenses being used today in a tech camera are still superior to any lens out there (the "standard" medium format lenses while getting better will in my opinion will never bridge the gap).

I shoot landscape and attempt to make a living doing so. I also shoot and print large images (30x40, 30x60 etc). Many of my images are a direct result of multiple images merged into one.

Shooting multiple images with a dslr type camera requires a huge amount of luck in finding the nodal point of the lens being used. I for one could get close however no matter how much I tried I never succeeded. I invested in the best that Really Right Stuff had to offer and used it for both by Canon and later Mamiya. The typical end result (and this is a direct result of taking even more time setting up than what I do now) is what I call a bow-tie or butterfly effect. Your images are merged and you have a higher end right and left than in the middle and you end up losing a lot of the image to a crop that works. Not so with a tech camera as the camera and lens is static while the capture point (e.g. digital back) moves around the rear of the lens; what is normally referred to as "flat-stitching".

So the two major reasons I shoot with a tech camera are the lenses and the ability to flat stitch. I've been using a tech camera for several years now and would never think of moving backwards.

As slow as the process is, once you get used to the setup it does speed up some - but will never be as fast as someone standing besides you with a dslr. If you need the speed then a tech camera isn't for you. I've found myself enjoying the slow somewhat leisurely setup as often times I see somthing else in reviewing what caught my eye in the first place.

Sorry if this is a tad too long an asnwer.


Don
 
R

rpb

Guest
Thank you everyone for your response. Very much appreciated.
Just what I needed, real experience in the field.
The slow process is what I already do most of the time anyway so I don't think that will be a problem, time to start testing for myself.

Thanks again.
Rikki.
www.rikkipaul.net
 

cs750

Member
Jack, Wayne, Don and all who responded and posted to this thread...THANKS! The effort to quantify the difference is most helpful because it gives some of us a sense of of the terms "not a huge difference" etc. I am hopeful of moving into a technical camera, and appreciate it's challenges; this thread has been quite helpful. I think I remember Jack saying he was expecting to take deliverY on an Rm3di and hope he can give us more insight into his experience with it. I have read a lot of the posts on Cambo WRS, Alpa STC & others and hope to revisit those posts before I get some hands on "exposure" at my dealer. I hope we get lots of posts from the technical camera folks on their experiences with the IQ180. 160, & 140. It is great to be a part of GetDpi. Thanks to all who contribute so much. Charles
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
My pleasure Charles -- I am (patiently) awaiting arrival of an RM3Di, hopefully this week. I have used loaners a time or two and really like the way the Arca is set up. I will be giving a more in depth review on it in the upcoming weeks, so stay tuned!
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
. . . you need to develop a dedicated routine and follow it every time or you will screw up.
Ditto this and even following the routine it is still very easy to screw up.

Two other factors that contribute to the slowing down of the process, at least for me. First is bracketing, both exposure AND focus. Often I will focus bracket quite a bit because I am unsure about the distance (an IQ screen might help with this). So, not only do I make several exposures in the field focus bracketing but then I also need to sort through those when selecting images. On top of that I sometimes bracket for the exposure as well so I can end up with many images of the same scene. And in dialing in the exposure, if I change the f-stop I should shoot an LCC for each.

Second is note-taking. I keep a log for each shot because I cannot remember everything, especially movements (was that 3mm rise or 4mm rise) and I often need that info for processing.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Ditto this and even following the routine it is still very easy to screw up.

Two other factors that contribute to the slowing down of the process, at least for me. First is bracketing, both exposure AND focus. Often I will focus bracket quite a bit because I am unsure about the distance (an IQ screen might help with this). So, not only do I make several exposures in the field focus bracketing but then I also need to sort through those when selecting images. On top of that I sometimes bracket for the exposure as well so I can end up with many images of the same scene. And in dialing in the exposure, if I change the f-stop I should shoot an LCC for each.

Second is note-taking. I keep a log for each shot because I cannot remember everything, especially movements (was that 3mm rise or 4mm rise) and I often need that info for processing.
Ditto the problem with remembering what you did ... haven't resorted to notes yet. Seems Phase could help with this by allowing metadata to be entered in the back ... lens choices, f/stops, etc.

Other than infinity, I find focusing in general extremely challenging with the tech camera, although I have yet to get my HPF rings and laser which might help. Also hoping the IQ180 will make it easer to focus.

I find exposure bracketing pretty simple with the tech camera, nothing other than clicking the shutter speed dial. Only problem is having to actually touch the camera ... rarely do images align perfectly. Not a big deal, software takes care of that pretty easily.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I've solved one of my biggest problems, remembering which lens was used for which shot now that I have the P65. The IQ backs and the P65 (not certain if the P40 has this) allows for rating directly from the back - 1 to 5 stars. I have 3-lenes so I now use 1 to 3 stars which show up immediately when I open C1Pro.

Bracketing is a must just as shooting that LCC is.

I still carry a small tape recorder for the notes.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Bracketing is a must just as shooting that LCC is.
Guys, FWIW:

With the limited shooting I did testing the 43 over the IQ180 on Rod's RM3D, I did NOT bracket once for exposure or focus. Instead, I relied totally on the IQ's histo, focus mask and 100% review quality.

FWIW,
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I never did direct comparison but did not miss anything in IQ with both systems.

Using tilt with my Artec I found kind of hard to judge with the loupe on the screen. Shift I used all the time.

I find it also a different approach, one system more planned/carefully composed image with the tech camera, often stopped down vs the more spontanious image with a SLR.

I enoyed both. However I found the more spontanious and faster approach of a SLR (now the S2) to have a huge advantage: you can quickly react on the light/Sun, and its easier to include "living subjects" in the image.

On the other side you choose your subject more carefully and you frame more carefully with the Tech camera.
 
Top