Just thinking of a volte face

[MaxKißler]

Thanks Max, I tried the Silvestri a few years back and even with a p45+ things weren't great. I think it might be tough, thinking of the 0.01mm shims Alpa use, to compete if you are offering a sliding back system for an 80mp sensor. :-(

Well, I'd take the sliding adapter because I only own a puny 22mp sensor. You however got a back that is live video capable, so why don't you use it in the field? I imagine it's a hassle with the variable ND filter, but better than all other options in my opinion.

 

[ondebanks]

For instance the Cambo dances.

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Just excellent. Well done! I love the concept and the choreography...such as the cable release, advancing and retreating like a snake.

BTW, I have to ask...what's all this about people wanting to sell their IQ180s already? Seems like they only came out yesterday.

Ray

 

[PeterA]

I haven't yet managed to sell my IQ180, no doubt in the foolish hope of getting a reasonable price for it. Gone are my Phase Mammy DF body and lenses, gone is my Cambo wide RS and Schneider 35XL.

But I find myself with an interest in the Alpa STC and maybe one of the shorter Digarons... maybe the 32 or the 40. Trouble is, they look big enough to compromise the nice small form factor of the camera. And I have totally lost track of what lenses these days need LCC on the IQ180.

I have been thinking of getting the HPF ring and Leica disco, too.

Anyone with experience of any of the above have an opinion? I'd be very grateful.

A real dilema. On the one hand you would rather not have your IQ back but on the other you don't wish to give it away either. Your response to seek to increase its utility is a nice solution to the dilema.

Here is the thing - if you limit the cost of your shift to an Alpa by focusing on what the 80 back can do well - rather than what it can't do so well..you will be delighted....

Which will inevitably make you think...is a 60 better than an 80?....

The only back I have been interested in buying into since I stopped upping the megapixel count ( wanting the reduced pixel sizes but hating the results I got - shooting the lenses I liked for the subject matter I am interested in) with 33 and 49 megapixel backs is the recently announced IQ260.

A photographer with your eye for excellence and ambitious standards ( thanks for the links to the LF photographer - WOW) - well I don't see you swallowing the bitter pill of compromise - for too long anyway.

This is my way of agreeing with a few of the posters above - it is a journey you are happy to pay the price of admission to travel - your aims define your requirements/needs. I think you will enjoy any Alpa - if matched to the right lens choice for the right workflow - for your existing back.

All the best
Pete

 

[Ken_R]

I haven't yet managed to sell my IQ180, no doubt in the foolish hope of getting a reasonable price for it. Gone are my Phase Mammy DF body and lenses, gone is my Cambo wide RS and Schneider 35XL.

But I find myself with an interest in the Alpa STC and maybe one of the shorter Digarons... maybe the 32 or the 40. Trouble is, they look big enough to compromise the nice small form factor of the camera. And I have totally lost track of what lenses these days need LCC on the IQ180.

I have been thinking of getting the HPF ring and Leica disco, too.

Anyone with experience of any of the above have an opinion? I'd be very grateful.

Why did you get the IQ180? Why do you want to sell it?

I mean, the difference in selling price and what you paid is just camera rental. :thumbup: I would just use it and have fun with it.

Regarding lenses I chose the 40 HR. For me best combination of lenses are the 23HR, 40HR and the 70 or 90. The 40 seems like the best wide angle for movements and shifting. Still requires LCC im sure but its not extreme.

Can't wait to get mine along with the rm3di and the iq160

(thx to Digital Transitions for helping me make the choice, made the process easier and reassuring)

 

[gazwas]

Why did you get the IQ180? Why do you want to sell it?

I mean, the difference in selling price and what you paid is just camera rental. :thumbup: I would just use it and have fun with it.

Regarding lenses I chose the 40 HR. For me best combination of lenses are the 23HR, 40HR and the 70 or 90. The 40 seems like the best wide angle for movements and shifting. Still requires LCC im sure but its not extreme.

Can't wait to get mine along with the rm3di and the iq160

(thx to Digital Transitions for helping me make the choice, made the process easier and reassuring)

I think Tim like most IQ180 users upgraded from the P65+ which was the natural progression rather than a side step to the IQ160. Much of the problems with lens cast only came about after the camera got into the hands of tech camera users but up until then, most assumed it would perform like the Dalsa 60Mpix chip (P65+ and IQ160) - it doesn't.

Both wide lenses you list (especially the 23HR) need LCC to get the most from them. The 23HR has next to no movements on the full frame 645 CCD's so while both are great lenses, they are still (to some) a PITA.

 

[Shashin]

Just an idea:

Digital Holga for the rich only - Crave - Cameras - CNET Asia

 

[Ken_R]

I can totally accept no movements on the 23HR. I mean, its a 15mm lens! (35mm Full Frame equiv.) And from what I have seen its the best extreme wide angle lens ever made (when combined with a 80/60mp back). I also can tolerate having to use a center filter and LCC's on that lens.

For me it would be my go to lens for Architecture Interiors and sometimes for exteriors. Its a touch to wide for landscapes but thats where the 40 HR steps in.

 

[f8orbust]

I personally think the 40HR is a touch too long for landscape. The 35XL 'feels' exactly the right focal length - just avoiding pulling in the edges too much. I'd be really disappointed if S/K has discontinued it - I think the bad press it got because of movements on the IQ180 was ... unfortunate. It is still a terrific lens. Since lens design is always about compromise, if you want a small, light, low distortion wide-angle lens then it will (almost always at this price point) be a symmetrical design - so it's going to be (physically) close to the sensor. If you don't, then sure, retrofocus designs bring a lot to the table, but they're not everyone's cup of tea (or coffee).

 

[tashley]

Why do you want to sell the back? Why did you get it in the first place?

I though long and hard before deciding to purchase a MFDB system (Arca rm3di and 40mm HR). I make decent money with my Canon gear (advertising/commercial) and the MFDB is for several projects and to maybe use it for my architecture photography (which I do a bit and sometimes nets me about $5-6k a month for a few days work). I will still use the Canon's for most of my work. The MFD system is just an additional tool for me.

That said, financially speaking, the MFDB systems are not a good value at all. Its no secret that to get that bit extra quality one has to pay a LOT more. But if you know what you want and are a dedicated photographer the systems do offer something unique that might help you achieve your goals. In my case I wanted to make very large prints and sell them in a gallery exhibition. I already have a working relationship with a local art promoter with publishing and international experience and we are in the process of setting everything up.
The theme and look and feel of the project has been agreed and I just have to go out and produce the images and prints.

For the type of images I intend on producing I mostly use the Canon 24mm TSE II on a Canon full frame DSLR. I love setting up on a tripod and composing the image using the rise and fall of the lens and sometimes tilt to achieve the focus desired. For camera movements in the field the "pancake" tech cameras are still the best option IMHO. The Arca offered integrated tilt and seemed like the most versatile and cleanest design out there in a light and compact package.

I chose the 40mm HR for the focal length and the fact that its the best wide angle for the larger backs if you want to do quite a bit of movements. Even though I got it to use it on an IQ160 it works great on the IQ180 (ever seen Rodney Lough Jr's prints? I think he uses an Arca with a 40mm HR) and should work well with future backs. The 40mm HR is also not a huge lens. The 32mm is. I might also get the 23mm HR and the 70mm or 90mm later. Those would be my lens choices.

The guys at Digital Transitions NYC helped me a LOT in deciding what to get. I just think its insane to purchase such expensive systems without a knowledgable dealer to help out with the purchase, service and support. They have a great tool for pre-visializing lenses: https://www.digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-visualizers

[I am expecting the whole back/camera/lens system soon so I have not had a chance to use it yet]

You have the IQ180 with you, why not at least have some fun with it! I would just make the best of it and try not to think of the financial depreciation hit if you sell it. Think of that money as camera rental. (IQ180 rigs are rented out at about $1600 a week or more!)

I bought it as Gareth says as the last in a long upgrade path, tempted by the new interface, pixel count, live view etc. And of course it is a very very fine back: but I had not anticipated (and I was not alone on this) the much more notable LCC needs. Honestly, after the C1 upgrade that once lost my LCCs, I have never been happy with this process. I need, years hence, to know that the LCC profile I created for a shot is still immediately available. I know that there are workflow methods that can 'belt and brace' this but it feels like a step too far for me personally, whatever the gains.

So I guess having learned from the good folk in this thread that there are no wides that don't need LCCs, I should either give up and get back to trying to sell, or ask a slightly different question:

"what is the widest lens if any (even if it is, say, 90mm or more) that doesn't need an LCC on the IQ180?"

I will not be switching to a 260 or 280 because the prices are daft and will frankly for my purposes be good money after not so good. I no longer buy the fiction that purchasers of this sort of gear have their investment protected. Not that there's any reason they should feel a right to that, but it is a myth that is put about to some degree.

However I do have one suggestion that is simple and which gets rid of this problem altogether: there would be a firmware tweak that does the following:


[*] User identifies to back that tech cam is being used with lens that needs LCC

[*] After exposure back asks you to identify the lens from a list you have already set up

[*] Having done so, back asks for shooting parameters (largely: aperture, shift, tilt) which can be entered from tab-able lists.

[*] For each subsequent shot back asks whether these parameters are unchanged.

[*] Photographer then has some additional metadata that identifies what 'library' LCC (s)he needs to use or at worst to shoot.

Easy. Admittedly the second order issues of WB and focus distance also impact the LCC but if we assume that most wide shots are focussed at somewhere between 5m and infinity and that the shooter has done a proper WB, then we should have gotten most of the way to solving a problem which, frankly, has really p****d people off.

What I would say to anyone in line for any future upgrades is, 'don't do what I did' - don't place an order months in advance, take the back sight unseen when it arrives and then not return it immediately when it turns out that there is some radically unexpected innovations such as your favourite lens being made effectively redundant. I do not want to go off on rant here at all, I chalk all this to experience - but the fact is that we all pitch up at our dealers. hand over our old backs and then find that the new one has an issue we had no reason to anticipate and that by the time we have discovered it, our old back has disappeared into the channel.

 

[tashley]

Just an idea:

Digital Holga for the rich only - Crave - Cameras - CNET Asia

How very cool. I could certainly get into that with an IQ180...

 

[tashley]

A real dilema. On the one hand you would rather not have your IQ back but on the other you don't wish to give it away either. Your response to seek to increase its utility is a nice solution to the dilema.

Here is the thing - if you limit the cost of your shift to an Alpa by focusing on what the 80 back can do well - rather than what it can't do so well..you will be delighted....

Which will inevitably make you think...is a 60 better than an 80?....

The only back I have been interested in buying into since I stopped upping the megapixel count ( wanting the reduced pixel sizes but hating the results I got - shooting the lenses I liked for the subject matter I am interested in) with 33 and 49 megapixel backs is the recently announced IQ260.

A photographer with your eye for excellence and ambitious standards ( thanks for the links to the LF photographer - WOW) - well I don't see you swallowing the bitter pill of compromise - for too long anyway.

This is my way of agreeing with a few of the posters above - it is a journey you are happy to pay the price of admission to travel - your aims define your requirements/needs. I think you will enjoy any Alpa - if matched to the right lens choice for the right workflow - for your existing back.

All the best
Pete

Thanks Peter! Also, I have to say, I have lusted after an Alpa for a while: the Cambo was really good value and did its job perfectly well, but it never quite felt precise in its gears or zero stop position, and it was easy to move accidentally...

 

[torger]

Configuring the back to ask for lens/aperture/shift/tilt settings from a preset list is an interesting idea, quite useful too I think. Not sure I would use it, but it could be optional. And as said really easy to implement. I would be surprised if it happened though, I don't think the manufacturers are that willing to cater such specialised interests.

 

[kdphotography]

The Rodenstock HR40 t/s is a fantastic lens, imho. I use it with the Cambo WRS and IQ180. It's a great match. I find that the use of LCC is not absolutely necessary (to answer Tim's question) except when using larger movements, but I do take an LCC and apply it in C1 Pro 7 for every image that I work with. It's an easy and seamless part of my workflow and really doesn't require much thought or effort at all.

But if you're wanting to cut corners, skipping something so easy as doing an LCC, I think it starts to limit the ability of the system from its full creative and quality of image potential. Imho, absent some sort of artistic license, it defeats the purpose of using a technical camera and a MFDB, which presumably is chosen to take advantage of the best lenses, camera, movements, format, image quality and high resolution.

More automated to make it easier for some perhaps? Not necessary for me. It's just part of the photographic process that I enjoy. Probably one of the most overlooked considerations in this era of so many photographic choices, is to simply buy/use a camera system that gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling and that you enjoy as a photographer.

ken

 

[cunim]

Tim, are you are being too hard on yourself? If I understand correctly, you want to keep LCCs for each image. Why bother? After all, the back is applying all sorts of internal corrections to equalize the CCD segments, and the debayering processes are doing god knows what that changes from time to time and between raw converters. You can't save a "pre-raw" image that leaves out those proprietary processes so there is no such thing as an "original". Perhaps you could just save the lcc-corrected image, toss the LCCs, and be done with it.

 

[tashley]

Tim, are you are being too hard on yourself? If I understand correctly, you want to keep LCCs for each image. Why bother? After all, the back is applying all sorts of internal corrections to equalize the CCD segments, and the debayering processes are doing god knows what that changes from time to time and between raw converters. You can't save a "pre-raw" image that leaves out those proprietary processes so there is no such thing as an "original". Perhaps you could just save the lcc-corrected image, toss the LCCs, and be done with it.

I could do - there's always the feeling that future software improvements might give a better result if re-applying the original LCC though - and the huge file size of a tiff. I think I remember that when packing as EIP, the original LCC file has to remain in the library. That takes less space than saving as a TIFF. But as I have noted above there was one C1 upgrade that lost all my LCC profiles and I then no longer knew which of the LCC frames I had shot and saved applied to which actual image. That quite seriously p***d me off and was the beginning of the end for me with all this. I never really sorted it out and as a consequence I had a number of files that I was never sure were correctly corrected!

 

[narikin]

Yes, I had a related wobble when I thought "why am I bothering with all this hassle with LCCs, distance meters, technical cameras, inflated prices for lenses & accessories, when I can just use a 55mm Schneider lens on my 645DF, and see the image the right way around and bang in focus"

Then I compared the equivalent tech wide angle lenses with the 55mm Schneider LS, and it was such a HUGE difference, like night and day, that I re-dedicated myself to techs.

These systems are still a royal pain to use, and sometimes I suspect that photographers (including moi) like to feel they 'earned' their image by fiddling with Tech setup, tripods, LCCs, focus laser finders, tilts, tethering, etc, for hours, rather than the free-floating...click... 'I'm done' attitude - a psychological condition in other words- but then, the results are just so damn amazing when you do nail it, that I have to doubt my own skepticism.

 

[danlindberg]

Pick up an Alpa TC and a HR40. To find the joy again, forget movements, forget LCC's. Have a mindset to black & white photography and use this light, tiny (beautiful) setup either as carefully composing on a sturdy tripod or use it as the ultimate over-your-shoulder camera. The only thing you need is a precise spirit level on top and shoot from the hip. You get a long long way with f5.6/8 • 1/125 • iso100 and hyper focal distance.
I am quite certain this would put a smile or two on your face again! You can always make it more complex later.....

 

[narikin]

With you there already on that!

though my preferred lens is a 60mm f4.0 Digaron-S

 

[dougpeterson]

The 28 was introduced as recent as 2010, seems unlikely to me that they would discontinue it now.

We've heard the same thing. 28/35 being discontinued in favor of future lens designs coming later this year or next.

I've not spoken to Schneider directly about this yet, so you can still call it a rumor.

 

[torger]

We've heard the same thing. 28/35 being discontinued in favor of future lens designs coming later this year or next.

I've not spoken to Schneider directly about this yet, so you can still call it a rumor.

Sounds exciting! Future lens designs tend to mean more retrofocus, more glass, more distortion, more cost. I hope they manage to keep some of the simplicity so we don't get Rodenstock copies. A 35mm with 90mm image circle and less field curvature than the current would be very welcome though, I might even pay with some distortion for that.