Architecture/Interior Design - Tech or that camera!

[MGrayson]

A helpful fact about distance markings - they're spaced as a constant / distance along the focus ring. So if your last two markings are 5m and infinity, then 10m is exactly half way between those marks, 20m is 1/4 of the way from the infinity mark, etc.

Having said that, if I weren't using a back with focus mask, I'd want a disto and the HPF ring or Arca's focus helical.

--Matt

 

[Richard Osbourne]

1- Apart from personal experience and enjoyment of working with a tool you like, what would you choose if you were in my shoes!?

It's a very sad day when you must neglect the personal experience and enjoyment of working with a tool you like. Life is short; you should always try to find ways to work with the tools you like.

If I have two possible assistants and both of them can carry the same weight, handle lighting adjustments equally fast/efficiently, and both show up on time, but one annoys the crap out of me while the other one makes my day more enjoyable, I will gladly pay a little more for the one that makes things more enjoyable. Why would it be different with cameras?

2- Do you think the quality of DSLR system like D800E and some wide or tilt and shift lenses would be excellent enough for today's market even if the IQ of those lenses are inferior to their LF brothers!?

I've yet to see any lens that can come close to the quality of the Schneider/Rodenstock wide angle lenses. The bonus of having movements with all of them (but the 24XL) is huge for interiors/architecture. MANY areas of photography do not benefit much from lenses with sharper edges, less chromatic aberration, less distortion, and native movements; take for instance portraiture where sharp lens-corners usually won't improve the image, and may even hurt it. But in architecture/interiors the quality of your lens is first, second, and third on my list of items to worry about regarding technical quality of the image. A 100mp dSLR with 100 stops of dynamic range would still be trounced by a DM22 with a Schneider lens because of the glass; you simply cannot underestimate how important the glass is.

IMO LCC is annoying. But that's it: annoying. With a DM22 you can store the LCC in the back itself and work off a finite number of presets; or you can grab an LCC shot after each good capture (when you've changed aperture/position/lenses).

Focusing for these applications can be really dead simple; find (by practical testing, not chart or calculation) the hyperfocal for your system at f/16 (which will be sharp on a DM22), and then find the closest point you are sharp (write it on the inside of the lens cap in case you forget) and then leave it there forever more and don't place anything closer than your acceptable near point.

I think you really have to address these points seriously:
- will the long exposure really hinder you? Look through your images of the last year or two and find the longest exposure and translate it into f/8 at ISO50 (which is the highest I'd recommend for long exposures). If you regularly push past 8-15 seconds, and looking at those shots you couldn't have done them differently without great business or personal compromise - then this is a deal killer.
- will the overall working speed being a bit slower prohibit you from doing what you need to do business wise? Tech cameras, once you're used to them, can be quite fast. However, they will never be as fast as a D800 (which you can even pump ISO and shoot handheld when really rushing).

IMO the greatest temptation in business is the race to the bottom. The best move I ever made in my wedding photography was to double my prices. "Good enough" is the start of that race in my opinion. Pick the equipment, marketing, rates, and customer approach of where you want to be, not where you feel yourself being dragged down into. But then again I'm young and naive and I make no claim that wedding photography is akin to any other kind of photography, nor do I do it as my only income, nor have I ever tried to do it in a smaller secondary market (Miami and NYC have treated me quite well for wedding clients).

Well said Doug. That's the only time, in all the discussions about focusing tech cams, that I've seen someone mention the method of focusing I've found to work - just do a bit of experimentation to find the maximum DOF and keep it there! No need for ground glass etc.

Having done architectural and interior photography using natural light only with DSLR's previously and now with a Cambo Wide DS and P45+, I'm very happy at the stunning difference in quality on two counts: 1 the dimensional accuracy, sharpness and DOF of the Schneider 24XL and 35XL lenses; 2 the much more accurate colours and dynamic range of the Phase back.

I've actually found the Cambo much faster to work with and exposures up to 15 seconds no problem. There are centre filters on both lenses so 2 stops extra exposure required for every shot but I usually just use one lens - the 24 - and crop down rather than change lenses, extra LCC shots etc. Most architects and interior designers are more than happy with 20+Mpixel shots and I've never been asked for more resolution.

 

[Richard Osbourne]

I should add that I was using a Canon 1DsIII and 5DII with 24 TS-E II. Yes, there is a convenience for composition - live view is wonderful - and the short exposure times are easier, but the Cambo is so much more 'disciplined' and obviously designed for architecture. Even without a viewfinder, I find composing natural and quick with only a little shooting and recomposing required most times.

On the Canons, I found myself using a polariser all the time just to try to get more colour in the images - so there was the 'no centre filter' advantage gone.

The 24 TS-E is without doubt a remarkable lens. It's flare resistance alone makes it worth the price. But the Schneider lenses are in another league for dimensional accuracy. Even when using software lens correction, it doesn't match the Schneiders.

I was using it to stitch 3 vertical shots to make a 42MPixel 4:3 aspect ratio image with an equivalent FOV of a 16mm lens. I worked ok but used at full shift the edges did fall apart unfortunately. And 42 Canon Mpixels are still a long way from Schneider/Phase 39Mpixels. And I was genuinely very surprised about that, though the lack of AA filter accounts for some of it obviously.

Capture One 7 I think makes the case for the MFD solution even more attractive - the highlight recovery tool (in conjunction with the wider dynamic range) will mean those blown windows can be rescued.

One other solution that I have looked at is a D800e with 14-24 lens. Certainly that lens is damned good (for 35mm) and the resolution / cropping possibilities may make up for lack of shift on the lens.

 

[torger]

If you go for the Canon option don't forget though that Canon's base ISO is still not that great (shadow noise!), it is worse than your DM22 for sure. If you do a lot of shadow pushing in post-processing it can be a problem. You can shoot HDR to work-around in difficult situations of course, but then you lose workflow speed. Being careful to expose to the right to make use of every stop in the camera is very important with the Canon.

The shift and tilt gears on the TS-E lenses work alright, but it's far from the feel of a real tech camera controls.

Anyway, I sure would like to see yet another tech cam user, but if you're on a budget and do it for normal commercial work I think it will be hard to rationally come to the conclusion that a MF tech cam is the better choice for the use case you've presented.

Arca-Swiss RM3Di or an Alpa with Rodenstock Digarons and an IQ160 would blow the Canon away of course, but it is a major investment to make and typical customers don't need that quality.

When we instead compare the DM22 + Cambo + Schneider Digitar 35XL with a Canon system, the tech cam will still give you an edge, better colors and dynamic range from the sensor, distortion-free lens (corner sharpness after shift I don't dare to say is better though, neither are perfect and I haven't seen an A/B test), but the image quality advantage will be small (unless you are an MFDB CCD connoisseur ) and you need to put it in relation to the practical issues with the long shutter speeds and lack of live view, plus what I assume the higher price, although the 5DMk3 plus a TS-E 24II is not cheap either.

Oh, 22 megapixels without AA filter can be an issue concerning moire when shooting architecture. But I guess you are familiar with that already. Higher megapixel digital backs usually has less issues. I've noted a difference between 22 and 33 even, but I think it is managable. It's probably worse with fabrics than with architecture.

If you stitch indoors, note that TS-E shifting will move the lens element rather than the sensor which may lead to parallax issues, although there are some custom lens mounts for that if you need to work around it.

Here you have an example of the TS-E 24II + 1.4X III extender combination used in a professional setting (goto 02:00 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5HkrjQkanSw

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

Yes, as long as you don't go for TS-lenses or favour a do it yourself approach. As Guy wrote earlier: you can't fit it a HPF ring to TS lenses unless you are as brave as jlm (there are pictures of his mod somewhere in this forum).

A note on the Arca way of focusing: I had a RM3d briefly and wasn't happy - I ended with an Alpa Max. For my jobs (exhibition design/interior and architecture) I don't see an advantage in their body-based helical. It is different if you do a lot of close range photography or if you use longer focal lengths. Having to lookup a value on the lens table is, IMHO, much more painful than doing an LCC.

BTW: There is one thing which is really great with the Alpa: Stitching is very fast as you can disengage the gearing and slide the back to the other position (you can have marks on the internal rail, so you feel 0mm and, e.g. -10mm, +10mm). But, looking at the investment, I'd say a Cambo (with Alpa HPF rings) is a very attractive solution.

Chris

Thank you so much Chris for giving me your personal experience, appreciate it

A helpful fact about distance markings - they're spaced as a constant / distance along the focus ring. So if your last two markings are 5m and infinity, then 10m is exactly half way between those marks, 20m is 1/4 of the way from the infinity mark, etc.

Having said that, if I weren't using a back with focus mask, I'd want a disto and the HPF ring or Arca's focus helical.

--Matt

Matt, thank you Considering what other fellow photographers have told me, for architecture and interiors getting the focus right is not really that simple like shooting landscape which most folks set it at infinity! And where precision and critical focus for wide lenses required, Alpa HPF ring or Arca focus helical is the way to go!

Well said Doug. That's the only time, in all the discussions about focusing tech cams, that I've seen someone mention the method of focusing I've found to work - just do a bit of experimentation to find the maximum DOF and keep it there! No need for ground glass etc.

Thank you Richard for very informative reply I understand that method but let's imagine we are done with focusing and now we need movements! How do you guys check your movements without using ground glass? Eyeball? Shoot/check/shoot again? And also how do you compose? Again eyeballing or shoot/check method if using a back without focus mask and live view like DM22?

Most architects and interior designers are more than happy with 20+Mpixel shots and I've never been asked for more resolution.

That's good to know

One other solution that I have looked at is a D800e with 14-24 lens. Certainly that lens is damned good (for 35mm) and the resolution / cropping possibilities may make up for lack of shift on the lens.

That is what I am considering as well but with a Zeiss 18mm lens until a quality 24mm PC-E is being introduced for Nikon!

I know it is quite impossible to predict how much movement is required for a specific situation but if we need like 10mm rise and instead use the 18mm lens on 36x42 sensor, can anyone tell me what the view angle would be? Would it be like a 24mm lens after doing perspective correction in PS?

If you go for the Canon option don't forget though that Canon's base ISO is still not that great (shadow noise!), it is worse than your DM22 for sure. If you do a lot of shadow pushing in post-processing it can be a problem. You can shoot HDR to work-around in difficult situations of course, but then you lose workflow speed. Being careful to expose to the right to make use of every stop in the camera is very important with the Canon.

I would not push a single image that far for sure! Three shots with 2 stops over and under the normal exposure, then using layers in photoshop to recover some specific shadows and highlights so definitely not HDR or tone-mapping!

Anyway, I sure would like to see yet another tech cam user, but if you're on a budget and do it for normal commercial work I think it will be hard to rationally come to the conclusion that a MF tech cam is the better choice for the use case you've presented.

If I had a P45+ back, I would jump in straight away! The limitation of my back for this type of work plus all the hassle of working with a tech cam hinders me!

Arca-Swiss RM3Di or an Alpa with Rodenstock Digarons and an IQ160 would blow the Canon away of course, but it is a major investment to make and typical customers don't need that quality.

When we instead compare the DM22 + Cambo + Schneider Digitar 35XL with a Canon system, the tech cam will still give you an edge, better colors and dynamic range from the sensor, distortion-free lens (corner sharpness after shift I don't dare to say is better though, neither are perfect and I haven't seen an A/B test), but the image quality advantage will be small (unless you are an MFDB CCD connoisseur ) and you need to put it in relation to the practical issues with the long shutter speeds and lack of live view, plus what I assume the higher price, although the 5DMk3 plus a TS-E 24II is not cheap either.

1+

That's the point! I wish I could see a fair comparison in real situation between a DM22 back on a tech camera plus 35XL and Canon 5D MK III plus 24mm TS-E II. For my portrait work, I would never ever doubt that the DM22 back produce better files but not sure about it when used on a tech cam along that lens shooting available light!

If you stitch indoors, note that TS-E shifting will move the lens element rather than the sensor which may lead to parallax issues, although there are some custom lens mounts for that if you need to work around it.

Here you have an example of the TS-E 24II + 1.4X III extender combination used in a professional setting (goto 02:00 min):
Intercontinental Exterior Shoot - YouTube

Thanks for the tip and the link

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

I am coming to this conclusion that maybe the easiest way to work with a tech camera is shooting tethered! Regardless of the system, many architectural photographers shoot tethered so that make it easy to compose and zoom in at 100% to get the focus right and confirm the shift movements!

If that would be "the proper way" of shooting, then I need to find a way to fight against the exposure limitation of DM22 :deadhorse:

 

[archivue]

shooting tethered is not an option for me... light change too quickly...!

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

shooting tethered is not an option for me... light change too quickly...!

I hear you loud! Each system has it's own limitations and compromises! Overall, it seems Canon is a better option! Still doing more research

 

[Geoff]

Another way to look at it is a "curve of excellence". As you get more particular some solutions are better than others, although each approach has its limitations. Thr trick is to find the solution that gives you (the photog) the best results within your own approach and needs.

For most people and most situations, Canikon systems are not only just fine, they are a very good answer. In a few situations, and for a lesser number of people, MFDB gives better results and the images are that much stronger. How much and for whom is a matter of debate, and on these pages, often intensely so.

You can get very close to MFDB results with more flexible and less expensive systems, so "overall" many consider that a better approach. However, there is a joy and a delight with MFDB files that is hard to quantify and not achieved readily (if at all) in the Canikon world. The choice is personal, not just technical.

 

[Antonio Chagin]

This post is very interesting but difficult to approach.

I could say that there is not one valid formula for working architecture, it all depends on factors like the kind of clients that you are dealing with and the kind of budgets they can handle.

If you are working with small to medium budget clients, they would want you to make as many final images as possible in one day and they usually do not need big files as the use is provably magazines, web, and medium size prints that a 22 or 24mpx camera can handle very well. In this case you need speed, live view, Tilt shift lenses and a good Canon or Nikon solution.

If your expecting high budgets type of clients, you would need a Technical MFD solution tethered to a computer.

This would be a slower, less final images in a day and provably extending the shooting to several days for a known location.

Most of my work in done in Venezuela where Architects only destine small budget to photography sessions. I usually extend location shooting to 2 days to be able to secure down and dusk shots and the rest of the spaces they need to photograph.

ACH

 

[fotom]

One other solution that I have looked at is a D800e with 14-24 lens. Certainly that lens is damned good (for 35mm) and the resolution / cropping possibilities may make up for lack of shift on the lens.

I used a D800 with a 14-24/2,8. The lens is great, but used at 14mmm you have to correct that much in PS or a different software that you lose the 14mm again and fall back to 16, maybe 17 when you look at the corrected files.

CA is an additional issue with the 14-24. You find it very prominent in the corners and some in the center as well at 14-17mm.

The best lense for work like that (if preferred to do it with the D800) is the newer Zeiss 15mm. But with it there is no AF. LiveView is not very helpful in low light situations for focussing even if you can blow up the lv picture very good but all the nice pixels shows nothing really useful any more if it is dark at the focussing point.

There is a nice comparison here about the UWW for the Nikon.

 

[aeaemd]

The d800E low light performance is not impressive. You have to use the LENR. Nikon glass is Not by any means impressive when you compare to the Rodi. I have the 800 and 800E as well *** multiple digital backs. It is very unfair to compare medium format systems to D800.
If you want low light DSLR, D4 is the camera for you. For long exposure, 45+ is the best back.

Amr

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

Another way to look at it is a "curve of excellence". As you get more particular some solutions are better than others, although each approach has its limitations. Thr trick is to find the solution that gives you (the photog) the best results within your own approach and needs.

For most people and most situations, Canikon systems are not only just fine, they are a very good answer. In a few situations, and for a lesser number of people, MFDB gives better results and the images are that much stronger. How much and for whom is a matter of debate, and on these pages, often intensely so.

You can get very close to MFDB results with more flexible and less expensive systems, so "overall" many consider that a better approach. However, there is a joy and a delight with MFDB files that is hard to quantify and not achieved readily (if at all) in the Canikon world. The choice is personal, not just technical.

Geoff, I am well aware of the difference between a DSLR and MFDB (especially the real deal, 6x7 MF). I never ever go back to 35mm to shoot portrait, fashion as I am in love with tone and depth of filed that even my Dm22 back produce, no doubt about it! However, since it has so limitations for long exposure, that makes my life hard!

The d800E low light performance is not impressive. You have to use the LENR. Nikon glass is Not by any means impressive when you compare to the Rodi. I have the 800 and 800E as well *** multiple digital backs. It is very unfair to compare medium format systems to D800.
If you want low light DSLR, D4 is the camera for you. For long exposure, 45+ is the best back.

Amr

Amr, IMO that is why Canon seems a better system for this type of work at the moment!

What if there was a 22mp, Dalsa sensor with exposure time around an hour and base ISO25 :salute:

 

[fotom]

What if there was a 22mp, Dalsa sensor with exposure time around an hour and base ISO25 :salute:

Well, it was sold out very fast I guess...

 

[Pics2]

The best lense for work like that (if preferred to do it with the D800) is the newer Zeiss 15mm. But with it there is no AF. LiveView is not very helpful in low light situations for focussing even if you can blow up the lv picture very good but all the nice pixels shows nothing really useful any more if it is dark at the focussing point.

But there is focus confirmation with Zeiss lens, which helps a lot. If it's too dark, of course, it would struggle, but Nikon's autofocus lens would struggle, too.

 

[gazwas]

I really don't think the choice really boils down to focus issues with a tech or 35mm camera. With arcitecture focus doesn't change that much IMO. Heck, I've got an Arca ML2 that I've used to great effect for interior architecture and once focused it never changes for the rest of the shoot, I just repositioned the camera for the next shot. And while its a bit low tech, you can cut or have made blocks of a specific size that you place between the function carriers corresponding to set focus distances, thus never having to remove the back from the camera to focus.

IMO, the big deciding factor are:

1. Speed of operation when you're on a tight budget or with limited time on site.
2. Exposure limitations of the digital back vs 35mm
3. Extra expence of MFD over 35mm be that the lenses you use to the tripod you put it all on.
4. Will your clients care and book you more because of the kit you use.

 

[fotom]

But there is focus confirmation with Zeiss lens, which helps a lot. If it's too dark, of course, it would struggle, but Nikon's autofocus lens would struggle, too.

Yes, you are right on that. The focus indication helps a lot.

But I do not have any idea if that will work with LV as well? Never tried that.

To be honest: There is a great discussion in several German forums about D800 and the need of Medium Format since the D800 came on the market.

One reason I sold my D800 was the Autofocus. I could not see anything in that viewfinder to set the focus manual on my own. And AF in general is NOT very good at the D800 in combination with any lens I tried... and believe me, I tried a lot. With my D3x I had less pixels (who cares?) but a slightly better AF. Still, if it was dark, I couldn´t set the focus manual. I don´t remember if the D3x had LV? If, I never used it.

The AF on my MF is way better. And if that does not work for some reasons I can use that huge viewfinder or simply put the HVM on top...

Besides that, if you take pictures in architecture you might have enough light and enough time. What shall run away when taking pictures for an expensive job?

Those who want the best results will give you as much time as you need to get best results. Those who want to get fast food and pay fast food will get what they pay for. Fast food.

 

[PeterA]

Just a hint - if you are serious about architectural shooting - I'd look at a Sinar artec - before commiting to any other camera system.

Good Luck.

 

[Flynnyfalcon]

It's pretty late, and haven't read through all the posts, so apologies if I'm doubling up.

I shoot architecture, also in Melbourne. I use a WRS 1200 P45+, 24/35/47 or Canon kit w/TSE's depending on clients. I prefer the IQ of the medium format but the convenience of the Canon and their brilliant TSE's is undeniable.

I'll always push clients to use the Cambo as results tend to be better, not only in IQ, shadow detail, colour, sharpness etc, but also in framing. The medium format pace of shooting, while a detrimental aspect, forces you into the zone of constructive visualisation far more than 35mm. I'm always more impressed with my images through the Cambo system over the Canon.

Just an extra note, the MF tech lenses are brilliant. Comparing to 35mm lens is an exercise in futility. Such quality may or may not be noticed by your client though. You will see a BIG difference though.

One issue I'm finding in regarding to my Cambo setup though is at the wide end. If I'm really wanting to push things, stitching the 35mm or the 24mm can be limiting. The very expensive 23mm Rodenstock would be a good option. In such situations a 17mm TSE stitched can be very handy.

If it's an option, go with both setups, a full Cambo setup, along with a Canon and only selected lenses ie 17mm/24mm TSE's to keep cost as low as possible...

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

It's pretty late, and haven't read through all the posts, so apologies if I'm doubling up.

I shoot architecture, also in Melbourne. I use a WRS 1200 P45+, 24/35/47 or Canon kit w/TSE's depending on clients. I prefer the IQ of the medium format but the convenience of the Canon and their brilliant TSE's is undeniable.

I'll always push clients to use the Cambo as results tend to be better, not only in IQ, shadow detail, colour, sharpness etc, but also in framing. The medium format pace of shooting, while a detrimental aspect, forces you into the zone of constructive visualisation far more than 35mm. I'm always more impressed with my images through the Cambo system over the Canon.

Just an extra note, the MF tech lenses are brilliant. Comparing to 35mm lens is an exercise in futility. Such quality may or may not be noticed by your client though. You will see a BIG difference though.

One issue I'm finding in regarding to my Cambo setup though is at the wide end. If I'm really wanting to push things, stitching the 35mm or the 24mm can be limiting. The very expensive 23mm Rodenstock would be a good option. In such situations a 17mm TSE stitched can be very handy.

If it's an option, go with both setups, a full Cambo setup, along with a Canon and only selected lenses ie 17mm/24mm TSE's to keep cost as low as possible...

Thanks mate for the sharing your experience, appreciate it. In my situation, I think it would be easier on my pocket to start with a DSLR setup and if need arises, just hire a tech system for a while! Again, have not decided yet but if I had a back like yours, decision making would be much easier for me!