Hi all -
I've been skirting around this question for a long time now, and trying to pick up hints as to what the answer is, but I still don't know.
It's proving impossible for me to get demos of either of these systems. Surely someone must have done this before? I've read everything I can find on both options, but have not seen any objective comparison tests.
Some claim that the 23HR on an Alpa gives you the utmost quality available, others that the 24TS-E on the HCam is just as good, if not better.
Back is an IQ180.
It's important that I'm able to shoot something similar to this image with the kit:
500px / Photo "Burj Khalifa" by Gerald Donovan
That was taken with the 17 TS-E on a 5D Mk II with around 5 or 6mm of shift. I don't necessarily need to be quite as wide as that, but what is important is that I can shift to keep everything straight, and the top of the Burj Khalifa is of course very high, so I need to drop the horizon down quite a bit to get it in shot.
I know for a fact that it's doable on the 24mm TS-E on the 5D with almost maximum shift.
Given 23/24mm on MF equates to around 15mm on MF, I'm assuming that it's within the capability of either option that I'm considering, but suspect it might be very close on the Alpa. IIRC, a 14mm on a 5D will not get the whole Burj in shot without pitching the camera up a bit.
At list prices, the Rodie/Alpa option costs $17,000, whilst the Canon/HCam option costs under $10,500. And yes. price is important, because if it wasn't a factor, I'd simply buy both and be done with it.
(Camera wise, I'm including the remote with the HCam; and handgrip, back adapter, sync release, sync cord, HPF ring and viewfinder with the STC).
HCam is attractive because it can also be used with the 17TS-E and 8-15 zoom. In fact, I could get the HCam and all three lenses and still come in at more than $2,500 under the cost of the Alpa with just the 23HR.
There's no question that the HCam in the longer run is clearly the more flexible option, and opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities.
Is this at the cost of ultimate image quality, or not?
Can someone demonstrate to me empirically that the 23HR/STC will produce a better quality image?
Over time, it's entirely possible that I might end up buying both systems, but right now, I only have the funds for one.
Sorry. One other question.
According to Alpa, the 23HR will only shift 2mm on a FF sensor; whilst the 32HR will rise 13mm in portrait orientation. What does that mean with regards the shift-able image area of the two lenses? I'm not quite sure how to work this out, but how do the image circles of the 32HR and 23HR compare? 23HR is 70mm, 32mm is 90-95. What does that mean for the total angular field of view?