Cutting to the chase. 23HR/STC, or 24TS-E/HCam?

[gerald.d]

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.

BUT

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.

Kind regards,


Gerald.

PS.

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?

 

[Paul2660]

One thing to consider on the HR 23 is the hard disc that Rodenstock places inside the lens to let you visually see the edge of the image circle. I have been told this disc is in all Rodenstocks. I can confirm it's in the 28mm. With the 23mm on a full frame Phase sensor, you should start to see the edges of the disc at around 5mm of horizontal shift. However you may see what is called the penumbra of the image circle sooner. The penumbra creates a lighter band that parallels the edge of the image circle. On my 28mm Rodenstock this effect starts to show at around 5mm of shift. If you have a solid object like blue sky it's very hard to correct for. This limits my shifting the 28mm to only 5mm in many conditions and that to me is not worth it. I have also seen the same effect in the 35mm HR Rodenstock. Depending on your subject, you may have issues with the penumbra, but once you hit the edge of the disk, all bets are off. The image is not recoverable and the disc IMO ruins a good bit of the image forwards by the way it casts a shadow.
With a Phase sensor you may get a bit more rise/fall before this issue shows. This is due to the layout of the pixels. To me for the price point the Rodenstock 23, 28 35 are really not the best solution for shifting due to the:
1. Smallish image circle
2. Hard disk built in
3. Issue with the Penumbra on certain subject.
I have been told the 32 has the same disc, but it's larger circle of 90mm allows for more shifting. But at the price point and size etc, just can't justify that one.

On the Ts-E I have not tried it (Canon?) but it an interesting idea. I have seen some of the material on the H-cam and I have a newer TS-E Canon which has some very good optics. But what looks good on 20Mp may not be as good on the Phase 180.

Paul

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Roadies on a FF sensor such as the 180 . This is Rise and fall which you get a little more than shift
23HR you get 3mm clean
28 HR you get 7mm clean
32 HR I'm pretty sure is 13mm clean

Paul , myself and Bob that I know offhand have the Roadie 28mm.

You may get more shifting and rise/fall out of the 24 shift lenses from Canon/Nikon but your comparing a Rodie to Canon/Nikon lens that's like showing up at a gun fight with a pocket knife in your hand. I'm teasing but it is true. I'm not the biggest fan of those shift lenses in the 24mm lens. The longer ones are very very good like the 45,85,90 from each brand.

 

[gerald.d]

Thanks Paul.

The limitation in shifting the 23 is clearly a factor I need to consider carefully, particularly given there is one specific shot that I'd want to be able to capture that sounds like it would be right on the edge of the capability of the lens.

This leads me back to my PS question - how close does the 32HR's full image circle field of view (taking into account the ability to shift the sensor around it) come to the image circle field of view of the 23HR given how constrained the 23HR is when it comes to shifting?

32HR is listed as having 16mm of rise/fall, and 13 shift on a 54x40 sensor.

If I've got my head around this correctly, you could shift and stitch and create a panorama equivalent to a 86x66 sensor. Diagonal field of view multiple would be 1.61 over the actual sensor size, which gives you the equivalent FoV of a 20mm lens.

23HR is listed as only having 2mm of rise and fall. Effective sensor size if you shift/stitch a pano would be equivalent to 58x44 . Diagonal FoV multiple would be 1.08 over the actual sensor size, which gives you the equivalent FoV of a 21mm lens.

So basically, if you are able to stitch, you're actually much better off with the 32HR.

Does this make sense? Have I got my numbers right on this?

 

[gerald.d]

Roadies on a FF sensor such as the 180 . This is Rise and fall which you get a little more than shift
23HR you get 3mm clean
28 HR you get 7mm clean
32 HR I'm pretty sure is 13mm clean

Paul , myself and Bob that I know offhand have the Roadie 28mm.

Thanks Guy - I know you have done a huge amount of research into some of these lens options in the past, and am very grateful for it.

You may get more shifting and rise/fall out of the 24 shift lenses from Canon/Nikon but your comparing a Rodie to Canon/Nikon lens that's like showing up at a gun fight with a pocket knife in your hand. I'm teasing but it is true. I'm not the biggest fan of those shift lenses in the 24mm lens. The longer ones are very very good like the 45,85,90 from each brand.

This is exactly what I want proven though. There are people who have said the exact opposite, and whilst I of course very much respect everyone's views, I'm not prepared to drop $17K on this without empirical proof.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

/edit

Here's LuLa's review of the HCam. The comments on the Canon 24 are what I'm referring to.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hartblei-cam.shtml

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The Canon 24 is considered the best of the two. On your other comment about the 32 many folks feel that is a great option for getting wide and has a lot of shifting ability. It's a popular choice for sure , not exactly cheap but none of these are either. I shot it for a couple days and it's a great lens for sure. Myself if It was me I would stay the tech cam route. Just seems like a clean way to go. But I can see the Hi cam as a viable option as well.

What comes to mind here is your 180 and the 5.4 micron sensor really puts demands on having excellent glass in front of it. Now I say this and you need to realize I really am a lens whore. So I tend to lean in the best I can get my hands on direction, so not everyone thinks like this.

 

[gerald.d]

Oh I can definitely relate to the lens whore comment

After-all, there's no point in spending $30K on a back if you're not prepared to put the best glass in front of it, but what I have learned over the last few months is that the most expensive option doesn't necessarily deliver the highest quality, and I believe the pricing of some of this tech glass is actually driven far more by supply and demand than it is by quality.

Put simply, I remain to be convinced as to what the best glass is.

It seems astonishing to me that seemingly no-one has ever actually done the comparison. I could answer the question myself if I could just have 15 minutes with both sets of kit.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Personal viewpoint not shared by all by any means but here is my theory you spend a fortune on these backs to get the best IQ you can get your hands on. The thing is I want to get the absolute life blood from it and get all I can get out of it for my money. So I lean in the best glass I can get my hands on direction. That's me though. I just bought a Nikon D800 and a very good lens is the 70-200 but what did I buy a 200mm F2 lens . A good example of throwing the best I can at it. Is it smart , who knows but I won't complain either. Lol

Okay need to do yard work before it hits 110. Check in later but you do have a tough choice here so take your time on it.

 

[gerald.d]

Of course, what would be really cool would be if someone were to bring out an adapter for the Alpa 12 that included a Mamiya 645 shutter, Canon EF mount and electronic aperture control. Then you could have the best of all worlds.

I'm sure such a thing would be physically possible.

 

[Paul2660]

One other thought, the physical CF.

Rodenstock makes a physical CF for all three of these lenses, 23 and 28 share the same filter, which takes you from 72mm to 95mm. The 32mm physical CF goes from 86mm to 105m.

After shooting the 28mm (and 35mm HR) I feel that to get the best from these lenses you need the physical CF. The 28mm adjusts the light by 2.5x and makes a much more even frame. Yes, you can just use your LCC to correct, but in most cases I tried, all at iso50, there was considerable noise still in the shadows that took away from the overall shot.

This adds another 1K to the overall cost, and it is something that you need to really plan for.

One of these days I am going to try to rent a 32 in area mount, they are hard to find for rent in area R. The 32mm is probably the best solution for a wide shooter currently. If you want the FOV of a 28mm (maybe 23mm) you can shift for that since you should be able to get at least 12mm of shift on the 32mm before you hit the penumbra of the circle.
Issues for me with the 32 are:

1. Cost (just too much and more than likely not to get any better anytime soon as it's about an 11K solution with camera mount and physical CF
2. Fragile. It's a heavy lens, and most of the mass is in front of the Copal. This causes problems long term some of which have been pointed out on this site. Rodenstock has released a notice stating that they don't think the 32mm should be carried around mounted to camera on a tripod due to the fact that you can possibly cause the lens/shutter to shift over time since all the weight is on the front. Also they are very clear about being careful about placing your rig down on the ground to avoid hard shocks.

From my use, I have found the 28mm Rodenstock F 5.6 to be possibly the sharpest wide lens I have ever used on any camera or platform. It's also amazingly sharp at F5.6 and holds this all the to around F11. After using the Mamiya 28 for years it's great to be able to have such optics. The ability to add just a bit of tilt allows me to have the ability to get from infinity to about 5 feet all sharp, which I love. My only complaints on the 28mm are the fact that Rodenstock handicaps you with the disc (Guy's pointed this out in his review) and the fact that on the Phase 160, you get a pretty harsh green cast. This cast is easily corrected with the LCC. I can't imagine the Canon TS-E getting this type of result, but I would need the H-cam to try that.

So in a perfect world the 32mm is probably it. But I had to weight in the costs and just couldn't make the justification on the 32mm.

Paul

 

[Justalex]

Hi Gerald

In response to Guy's comment about the 45 and 90 being better than the 24, I hope he's talking about the old 24 TSE. The 24mm MkII is far and away a better lens than the 45 (and 24mm MkI). You can find reviews/comparisons online. I expect Canon are working on a 45 MkII but unit they do I would be reluctant to use it.

Having tested the 17, 24 and 45mm TSE against the Cambo with 28mm Super Digitar recently, 35mm beats MF in ease of use and vignetting. MF wins on outright sharpness and CA. I shot the same image on Canon and Cambo using a 28mm and P65+ back and it's the Canon image I ended up supplying to the client because there was too much colour shift and noise on the edge of the MF image, even using an LCC.

It must be said however that my clients aren't pixel peepers and so value speed over absolute quality. I however am the opposite.

I bracket all my shots and in this respect 35mm is far more convenient. I shoot architecture and interiors for a living and find that when trying to get more than 12 images in a day, an MF back on tech camera can take too long.

At the moment I can't bring myself to spend money on either and am hoping in vain for true wide angle shifting lenses for my Hasselblad so that I can have MF quality, no vignetting, CA correction and still be able to compose the image through the lens.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes the older one. On the p65 and 28 you need to use the new LCC correction tool in C1 to clean and it's only been a couple months since we had that so yes before I can see why you had those issues. The new tool does solve it, I forget the name but I think it's technical wide anaylize tool.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

One other thought, the physical CF.

Rodenstock makes a physical CF for all three of these lenses, 23 and 28 share the same filter, which takes you from 72mm to 95mm. The 32mm physical CF goes from 86mm to 105m.

After shooting the 28mm (and 35mm HR) I feel that to get the best from these lenses you need the physical CF. The 28mm adjusts the light by 2.5x and makes a much more even frame. Yes, you can just use your LCC to correct, but in most cases I tried, all at iso50, there was considerable noise still in the shadows that took away from the overall shot.

This adds another 1K to the overall cost, and it is something that you need to really plan for.

One of these days I am going to try to rent a 32 in area mount, they are hard to find for rent in area R. The 32mm is probably the best solution for a wide shooter currently. If you want the FOV of a 28mm (maybe 23mm) you can shift for that since you should be able to get at least 12mm of shift on the 32mm before you hit the penumbra of the circle.
Issues for me with the 32 are:

1. Cost (just too much and more than likely not to get any better anytime soon as it's about an 11K solution with camera mount and physical CF
2. Fragile. It's a heavy lens, and most of the mass is in front of the Copal. This causes problems long term some of which have been pointed out on this site. Rodenstock has released a notice stating that they don't think the 32mm should be carried around mounted to camera on a tripod due to the fact that you can possibly cause the lens/shutter to shift over time since all the weight is on the front. Also they are very clear about being careful about placing your rig down on the ground to avoid hard shocks.

From my use, I have found the 28mm Rodenstock F 5.6 to be possibly the sharpest wide lens I have ever used on any camera or platform. It's also amazingly sharp at F5.6 and holds this all the to around F11. After using the Mamiya 28 for years it's great to be able to have such optics. The ability to add just a bit of tilt allows me to have the ability to get from infinity to about 5 feet all sharp, which I love. My only complaints on the 28mm are the fact that Rodenstock handicaps you with the disc (Guy's pointed this out in his review) and the fact that on the Phase 160, you get a pretty harsh green cast. This cast is easily corrected with the LCC. I can't imagine the Canon TS-E getting this type of result, but I would need the H-cam to try that.

So in a perfect world the 32mm is probably it. But I had to weight in the costs and just couldn't make the justification on the 32mm.

Paul

Agree on all points.

 

[gerald.d]

Thanks for all the considered comments folks, much appreciated.

Paul - you raise some very good points regarding the 32HR, but I am beginning to think that were I to go down the Alpa route, it would in fact be a more versatile lens than the 23. Particularly if I've got this bit right:

32HR is listed as having 16mm of rise/fall, and 13 shift on a 54x40 sensor.

If I've got my head around this correctly, you could shift and stitch and create a panorama equivalent to a 86x66 sensor. Diagonal field of view multiple would be 1.61 over the actual sensor size, which gives you the equivalent FoV of a 20mm lens.

23HR is listed as only having 2mm of rise and fall. Effective sensor size if you shift/stitch a pano would be equivalent to 58x44 . Diagonal FoV multiple would be 1.08 over the actual sensor size, which gives you the equivalent FoV of a 21mm lens.

So basically, if you are able to stitch, you're actually much better off with the 32HR.

Does this make sense? Have I got my numbers right on this?

Can anyone confirm the logic in that - that if you're prepared to shift and stitch, you actually will get a wider FoV (equivalent to a 13mm lens on 35mm) with the 32HR than with the 23HR. If my calcs are correct, it would end up as a 200MP file.

/edit

Ahh. Wait. Thinking about it, you wouldn't be able to have max rise and max shift at the same time, would you. Hmm. Still an interesting option though.

 

[Paul2660]

One other point, with either the 28, 23, or 32, I would consider either Arca or Cambo first over Alpa. Not to get into a brand war. I looked at them all. I wanted to be able to tilt with wides, and Cambo and Arca both offer this. As far as I know Alpa has made a statement of direction to allow this, but for now I don't think you can.

I have the Arca, Guy the Cambo, each has areas where they excel over the other, but both offer tilting and swing on all of these lenses at least the 28 and 32. I can't remember if Cambo offers the T/S mount on the 23. I know with Arca by camera design you can have either Tilt or Swing active, just not both at the same time on all 3.

Paul

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No TS on the 23, but yes roadie 28 and 32

 

[Jack]

HCam makes a base model without sliding back that is less expensive -- and all you need for the IQ180. I will add that the newest 24 TS-E is extraordinary, and I will say both are very close. One fairly impressive advantage to the HCam solution, is you then also have the 17 as an option for UBER wide.

THe 32 HR Is also an extraordinary lens, but when shifted to match the 23 capture angle, edge resolution has fallen off enough there is not really any gain for the extra capture work and pixel processing involved.

IOW I would get the 23HR over the 32 if the 23 covers what you need, or I'd get the HCam if you envisioned ever needing or wanting a 17 option in addition to the 23/24 option. Finally, the Arca RM3D will give you full tilt capability with the 23HR if that is how you decide to go.

 

[torger]

Is there any full-size sample of the Rodenstock 23mm at IQ180 out there for us to see?

Here's one of the TS-E 24mm and 17mm on H-Cam IQ180, scaled to 70% unfortunately. Not sure if Stefan has posted these images on this forum, this is to a message in the Lula forum, hope it is ok:

Canon 24 ts on Hcam vs tecnical cameras with real LF lenses?

Wide angle lenses are hard to make, so all those lenses have some quality issues.

When I started with MF tech digital I was naive and had interpreted all talk of how fantastic Rodenstock/Schneiders are that the wides were so good you would not be able to differ a corner crop from a center crop even after shifting on an IQ180. Well, that's not really the case. Since that I nowadays always want to see a 100% picture so I know here to put my expectations. We all have different interpretations of what "fantastic image quality" means.

The TS-E 24mm clearly show image quality issues in the above example. Say if the Rodenstock 23mm shows less, but only a little bit less, is it still worth it? It's a personal decision.

 

[rupho]

I got both the 23 and the 32 HR
What has been posted earlier sounds right in my experience
On the long side the 32 got 16 mm and the 23 HR 3-4 mm of shift (full frame sensor ) in other words though I have not done the math but in practical terms the 32 HR stitched can yield a very similar FoV than the 23HR. A CF will help with noise issues, but and this seems to Not been addressed is the image you posted which is a twilight exterior
I can tell you from my own experience that stitching the 32 HR especially in a delicate fast changing light situation is not as straight forward as doing the same on the Canon 17 or 24TSEs which I use frequently as well.
I cannot explain the reason for it but my take is that the lower portion of the image in a stitched scenario ( architectural vertical rise like the one you posted) has less color cast on the LCC file as compared to the upper part of the image where the LCC got to do more work thus ending up with different hues
I have had countless headache getting them to match perfectly especially in twilight
That was the reason I got the 23HR
Though I must say the 32 HR is much more loved , firstly because I think the 23 is too wide ( though it saved my butt on many occasions) but I love the shift capabilities on the IQ180
so in short it got much more use than the 23 HR
I cannot comment on the Hcam , but the 17 TSE is a really good performer and gives you more shift than the 23HR . Having said this though the 17 TSE got 10 mm of shift I would never go that far since it's really stretching reality to an unacceptable limit IMHO
Not sure if this helped but this is my experience with architecture and interiors on those lenses.
Re STC and shift: keep in mind that the camera needs to be rotated by 90 degrees in order to shift . Not a biggie but I would have loved it to see the STC being built as a rise and fall camera rather than a shift camera .
All folks i know with an STC use it mostly for rise and fall and not left and right shift .
One more thing if you consider going the Alpa route I would wait a little while maybe until Photokina with your purchase when the updated TS mounts for wide angle lenses will be coming .
Grischa

Thanks for all the considered comments folks, much appreciated.

Paul - you raise some very good points regarding the 32HR, but I am beginning to think that were I to go down the Alpa route, it would in fact be a more versatile lens than the 23. Particularly if I've got this bit right:



Can anyone confirm the logic in that - that if you're prepared to shift and stitch, you actually will get a wider FoV (equivalent to a 13mm lens on 35mm) with the 32HR than with the 23HR. If my calcs are correct, it would end up as a 200MP file.

/edit

Ahh. Wait. Thinking about it, you wouldn't be able to have max rise and max shift at the same time, would you. Hmm. Still an interesting option though.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Gerald

I would love to make this comparison, my problem is that I will not get the equipment from the makers or dealers to do it. So maybe a german user of this (Rodie/Alpa or Cambo ) may help out ?

I think it is pretty clear that the center sharpness of the Rodenstock will be better (Question is : how much ?). As also mentioned, the HCam/Canon combo does not need any Whiteshot,LCC nor significant vignetting control.
This in my opinion compensates a lot of quality on the DR side on the outer areas of the images shot by the HCam. It makes the Images more uniform and easier to work with. We have about 2 stops (3,5 versus 5,6) brighter images to focus with and we do not need a centerfilter (another 1-1,5 stops darker). So even inside of buildings or when it´s a bit darker we can focus optically and exactly.

and finally with the now modified rear sides of the 17+24 TSE lenses we have real 3 +3mm Movements on the 17mm and 6+8mm on the 24mm.
The longer focal lenghts with a Mirex and a 50mm Hasselblad Distagon had 12+14mm without vignetting (!!!), the longer 100 mm SPlanar does have the same 12+14mm (this is barrel/Adapter vignetting limited by the hole/size of the Mirex adapter), so with larger adapter openings we could probably shift wider.

I know a comparison would be really helpful, so I can only invite the competition to offer a meeting where we can do this maybe under control of some neutral people who can take a look. Or maybe a Magazine has interest in this and wants to organize it. I´ll be there !

regards
Stefan