No love for Linhof Techno?

[tjv]

Hi all,
Just wondering why there is never much conversation around the Linhof Techno? It seems Arca and Apla are the current favorites with DB users, but what makes them so much more appealing compared to the Techno? Is it size, focusing or mechanical accuracy, or what?
T oke:

 

[archivue]

in my point of view : with wide angle lenses 45, 35, 28, 23... it's impossible to focus properly on the ground glass !

So, for me the techno wasn't an option !

 

[Christopher]

As I said somewhere else. As long as we don't have real live view the camera is a no go for me. It works great in combination with a laptop. Otherwise a Arca, Alpa, cambo or Sinar is the better choice.

In addition I think the Arca m line two is by far the better bellow camera. It isn't much larger or heavier, but far more solid.

 

[yatlee]

Well. I may be the exception. With kapture group sliding back (Maxwell GG), I've no problem focusing. It works fine even with my Rodenstock 40HR. IQ should further enhance the usability.

 

[wentbackward]

Having seens Yat's setup and prints first hand, the results speak for themselves. The techno is a fine system.

I love it's versatility. With properly setup infinity stops and making up a focusing scale (as you would not any view camera), focusing is not more or less problematic than any other technical camera.

The conversations might be more in favour of the alpa/arca as many more people come up from medium format than down from large format. My feeling is once we all get over our fetish for absolute sharpness everywhere, the techno will gain its true legs, it's a more creative platform.

Rear swing and tilt would make it sweeter.

 

[dick]

The Techno would not be an option for me as it does not have a full range of movements both ends... but what (apart from the Sinar P3) has?

 

[tjv]

Interesting. Live view seems all the more important with a camera like this it seems. It also seems in terms of focus accuracy, the nods are in favor of the Arca, followed closely by the Alpa with high precision focusing rings. Is this true?

 

[wentbackward]

Is that bait to start another heated discussion about alpa vs arca? ... practically speaking there is not much difference between focusing the Alpa or Arca. The most significant difference is probably how infinity focusing is handled and your preference about it.

 

[tjv]

No, not wanting a debate, just trying to understand the limits of each approach. I personally love composing and focusing on gg with 4x5" field cameras but have never had the opportunity to do it with a digital back. I love the idea of all of these systems but never hear people talking about the merits of the Techno.

 

[narikin]

IIRC Techno has no cross/rise movements on back = no stitching with the lens staying in same position. Deal breaker.

 

[greygrad]

No, it does have rise and fall built in on the back (20mm each way), so the lens can stay fixed. Left/right shift on the back is provided by the sliding back - again with the lens fixed in place.

If you don't want to use the sliding back then left/right shift on the front standard is an option - but this is the situation where the lens would move (but of course, with a macro rail you could move the lens left 10mm, and then the camera right 10mm [using the rail] and the lens has effectively stayed in the same place, and only the back has 'moved').

 

[f8orbust]

Have alook at this thread over at LuLa where Sean Conboy chips in. He's a long time user of the Techno - has nothing but good things to say about it. One of the other posts mentions that Joe Cornish uses the camera extensively. If you're aware of him, and have seen his work, you'll know there is no higher recommendation for the camera than this. Interestingly, both these photographers were one time large-format users stepping down to MF, rather than 35mm users stepping up.

 

[archivue]

focussing with a 40hr on the techno is ok... but a rodenstock sironar digital 35,45 or a schneider 35 xl is nearly impossible...

 

[f8orbust]

Of course, you always have the option of mounting your wide angles in helicals on the Technika lensboards, just as back in the LF days, and focussing them that way. At about $400 a pop it's a lot less to do so than the $1000s that Alpa, Arca and Cambo will charge. Then you have the best of all worlds.

That said, I never really focus a wide angle [for landscape shooting]. Just set up the infinity stop on the Techno to the hyperfocal distance for the best performing aperture for the lens/back combination and there you go. Introduce a degree of tilt and you're pretty much guaranteed front/back sharpness with the 23/28/35.

Finally, the Acute groundglass for the Techno is a beauty. IMO better than the Alpa, Arca or Maxwell offerings. Makes using the groundglass for composition (external viewfinders aren't for me) and focussing a real pleasure, both physically and aesthetically.

 

[Shashin]

No experience with the Techno, but we use a Linhof C679 in our studio with a Phase back. It is a really nice camera and we have not had any focusing issue. I am sure the Techno would also be a great camera.

The only problem we have with our Linhof is with the US distributer, HP Marketing. Whether I am just unlucky, I don't know, but I have never had so many problems with a company as I have had with that distributer. If you are outside the US, I can say a Linhof would be a great choice.

 

[Jack]

No, not wanting a debate, just trying to understand the limits of each approach. I personally love composing and focusing on gg with 4x5" field cameras but have never had the opportunity to do it with a digital back. I love the idea of all of these systems but never hear people talking about the merits of the Techno.

So I think there are a couple of issues, almost all to do with focus and usability. First note the Techno is a bellows focus camera. Where focusing on a 4x5GG is relatively easy with a normal lens, the difficulty goes up exponentially as you go to shorter lenses, and goes up exponentially again as you go to smaller formats. Even 6x9cm was difficult, so 4.5x6cm is even more so; add short focal lenses to that and it gets near impossible. So until recently there were two options: shoot with a technical camera that has marked focal distances for the lens in use, or shoot with any bellows type cam and be tethered to a computer so you could review the images at 100% to confirm focus. Obviously the former is better suited to field use while the latter is fine in the studio.

This has possibly changed somewhat with the introduction of the IQ backs with high-resolution rear displays and tap to 100% view, but most of the adopters of the IQ backs already have invested in some form of technical camera with helical focus. Those that use bellows cams in the studio will probably continue to use what they already have, and most also own a tech cam anyway. So I suspect the only reason the Techno sees a limited audience, is because the potential user base is a small subset of an already small base.

 

[Shashin]

Every SLR/TLR uses a ground glass as well, including DSLRs. I do not find focusing a particular format that uses a ground glass from 35mm to 8x10 any harder. Nor have I found focal length a factor in focus at least in terms of not finding focus. Especially with view/technical camera types where you focus wide open and then stop down to shoot.

Now with rack and pinion focusing that Linhof uses (and this is true for helicoids with the same pitch), if you move the lens a distance of x, the amount of defocusing will be same for a given aperture regardless of focal length. Focal length is simply not an issue.

Now, I always use a loupe with a ground glass (SLR/TLR viewfinders have their own magnification), so I don't know if folks having trouble focusing digital backs are not using one. The quality of the ground glass is also important, but I have found it has not hindered me from finding focus.

Now, this is my experience. I find it strange that others are having problems.

 

[Jack]

35mm cams have magnification, and their short lenses are retrofocal designs so the corners do not go dark. Ask anybody that has tried to focus say a 47 or 58mm lens on a 4x5 groundglass, and they'll tell it's a lot tougher than focusing a normal 150.

 

[f8orbust]

The only problem we have with our Linhof is with the US distributer, HP Marketing. Whether I am just unlucky, I don't know, but I have never had so many problems with a company as I have had with that distributer. If you are outside the US, I can say a Linhof would be a great choice.

+1

...which is why I would recommend Linhof & Studio in the UK. Paula is excellent to deal with and very knowledgeable. Plus, the gear is a fair bit cheaper in the UK than the US (e.g. the Techno body with standard bellows is about $2k cheaper).

N.B. I have no affiliation with L&S, other than being a long time satisfied customer.

 

[archivue]

Every SLR/TLR uses a ground glass as well, including DSLRs. I do not find focusing a particular format that uses a ground glass from 35mm to 8x10 any harder. Nor have I found focal length a factor in focus at least in terms of not finding focus. Especially with view/technical camera types where you focus wide open and then stop down to shoot.

you should try to focus a 35XL on the techno at 8 meters several times without a lot of light...