S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
Oohhh... I love how we "big camera" folk are staging an insurrection in this thread.
(ok, truthfully, I'm just jealous I don't own an alpa)
(ok, truthfully, I'm just jealous I don't own an alpa)
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!
The meaning of "technical camera" has become very loose (if it has any meaning at all now). In fact, a technical camera was considered a flat-bed metal view camera like the ones made by Linhof and Wista and was even carried over to some monorail cameras. The Fuji is much more of a technical camera than an Alpa TC (which is not a technical camera by definition), which has its roots in ultra-wide cameras like the Hasselblad SWC, Brooks Veriwide, or Horseman SW612 (the one without the shifts). Actually, the Fuji falls under the classic definition of a technical camera (the RZ67 does not, sorry Shelby).
Oh, look what I've started. I still want an alpa, regardless of how you label it.
Shelby
Here is what I did in these images:"I use the tilt and swing as well as the shift.
shift is great for those portraits from below the eye line. Gives the image a less distorted look without the head being a little smaller and the shoulders heavier.
Here are a couple of examples:"
Dear FredBGG,
May I ask, what did you do to first image example? (looks great by the way)
Shift up or down? how?
thanks
jeff
IF phase could achieve full motion live view it would be great to shoot fashion and portrait with a mini tech view camera.
I have already made one with two front ends or a Fuji GX 680.
No... our sensors are piddly little sub 645 sized...Honestly I'm not so sure the word MF would even be correct. That was for film so really what are we now large sensor. Well than the question is how large is large. Hmmmm
I actually just recently met the owner/developer of this system and saw it in action. It is real!No... our sensors are piddly little sub 645 sized...
This is the real thing:
8x10 digital sensor
Jeff asked me this in a PM, but I thought I would answer here
as it is relevant to technical cameras...
Here is what I did in these images:
Here I just shifted the lens up so as to compensate for the camera pointing up towards the model. It made the proportion of the shoulders and head more natural.
The head is made a wee bit larger and less "distant" giving the image a bit more of the look of a shorter focal length despite being shot with a 250mm.
In this image I shifted the lens up. but also used tilted the lens down just a little and swing (horizontal tilt) slightly to the right.
The shift was to compensate for the lowish angle. The tilt and swing was for put the focus just where I wanted it. On the eyes (both)
and down the neck to the texture on the dress.... but the real magic is Dawn's beauty.....
No... our sensors are piddly little sub 645 sized...
This is the real thing:
8x10 digital sensor
Here is what I did in these images:
Here I just shifted the lens up so as to compensate for the camera pointing up towards the model. It made the proportion of the shoulders and head more natural.
The head is made a wee bit larger and less "distant" giving the image a bit more of the look of a shorter focal length despite being shot with a 250mm.
In this image I shifted the lens up. but also used tilted the lens down just a little and swing (horizontal tilt) slightly to the right.
The shift was to compensate for the lowish angle. The tilt and swing was for put the focus just where I wanted it. On the eyes (both)
and down the neck to the texture on the dress.... but the real magic is Dawn's beauty.....
You can see how it could pay for itself in film costs alone eventually for someone like this. One set up, as many proofs as you need and then shoot the money shot and hopefully extract a premium for it being on traditional media. :thumbup:that 8" x 10" back is 10 mp resolution, close to an M8; must be giant sensor cells and it cost as much as a small house to develop. As far as i can tell it is for previewing and a direct digital substitute for previewing with 8x10 polaroid, then the final shot would be 8x10 film.
Yes it produces a 10MP file which he uses as an onscreen polaroid then shoots the final film. The image quality on screen is nice, he also has it color managed to match Velvia.that 8" x 10" back is 10 mp resolution, close to an M8; must be giant sensor cells and it cost as much as a small house to develop. As far as i can tell it is for previewing and a direct digital substitute for previewing with 8x10 polaroid, then the final shot would be 8x10 film.