I am Confused (again)

[alajuela]

I am a little confused.

The premise is this - I have an Acra Swiss View Camera (is really cool), the reason for getting it was - to be able use older lenses and have a "freedom" and challenge to mount whatever stuck my fancy, both to learn and discover.

Now here comes the confusion, I have a 180 back, (please jump in anywhere and comment)

1) I know from my Cambo going wide due to the steep angle of the pixels, you need retro focus lenses. ie Rodenstock, this has been a real issue for people having Schneiders and wanting to upgrade their back.

2) There have been some real interesting threads here on the Fat Pixel such as the P40, P40+ P45 P45+ (which are almost full frame) I must say, the shots taken have real nice look to them. That they gather light really nicely, not so demanding on lenses, as 60 and 80 megapixel backs

So...

Would I be better off, getting a second hand P45+ to work on this project? Older lenses (bottom feeding on Ebay) with a more forgiving back? If I am misguided I surely appreciate any and all comments.

Thanks

Phil

PS I have just begun and enjoy the experience, so far shot nothing but a mannequin head and table set up, went out once and shot some at infinity, was cool, but I need to work at this. Then hopefully get something worth printing and sharing.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Philip

I guess something to consider is how important is technical perfection to you and just how wide do you want to shoot? The issues with the IQ180 and wide angle lenses is one of correction vs abilities of the lenses to provide you with their characteristic 'look' or personality. If you want perfect colour out to the edges of your widest images then you are going to struggle without retrofocus lenses at the wide end. However, if you like a vignette then the excellent correction that Capture One can apply with LCCs even with extreme casts may be just fine for you. Perfection can be boring.

Get the glass you want and try it. I certainly wouldn't rush in to changing backs before at least seeing whether the workflow and capabilities of the superb back and your candidate glass work for you. I know plenty of people who seldom even bother with LCCs because they like the character of the images and the unique artistic rendering.

 

[goesbang]

Firstly, I would probably not consider the P40+ back a "fat pixel" unit. It's pixels are 6micron, the same as the P65+ and IQ160 and 260. The p45+ is on the border at 6.8. Your back and mine, at 5.2microns exhibit the highest extent of lens cast, and as such are really fussy about what glass you use.
As Graham intimates, you can use any lens you want, provided you can live with the results. For me, when I moved from my P65+ to the Aptus 12 and IQ180, the quality loss from LCC correction de-saturating the areas with extreme casts was not acceptable. Many others don't even notice the issue, yet it screams at me. Only you can decide for yourself. My feeling is that I bought the 80Mp backs for quality, so why compromise the optics? I sold my SK's for Rodie's and have never looked back.
Ultimately, it boils down to your own expectations , standards and , of course, budget.

 

[alajuela]

Philip

I guess something to consider is how important is technical perfection to you and just how wide do you want to shoot? The issues with the IQ180 and wide angle lenses is one of correction vs abilities of the lenses to provide you with their characteristic 'look' or personality. If you want perfect colour out to the edges of your widest images then you are going to struggle without retrofocus lenses at the wide end. However, if you like a vignette then the excellent correction that Capture One can apply with LCCs even with extreme casts may be just fine for you. Perfetion can be boring.

Get the glass you want and try it. I certainly wouldn't rush in to changing backs before at least seeing whether the workflow and capabilities of the superb back and your candidate glass work for you. I know plenty of people who seldom even bother with LCCs because they like the character of the images and the unique artistic rendering.

Thanks Graham,
I am working with the 180, also have no intention of changing other than upgrading for the preordered 280. ( I love my tech and lenses, - is another world) . I just wonder if maybe it is too demanding for this, that I am asking too much - pushing too far and missing the goal. - possible I am wrong. The P45 would be for this project
It is pretty neat, so far - I am discovering the obvious that all the LF guys already know. What is impressive is how helpful people have been.
I agree that perfection can have a sterile look, with is fascinating for bordering on the soulless. - Now I am after an ephemeral, ethereal, look but real, sorta like a Maxfield Parrish, Norman Rockwell , crossed with Dorothea Lange.
Thanks
Phil

 

[alajuela]

Firstly, I would probably not consider the P40+ back a "fat pixel" unit. It's pixels are 6micron, the same as the P65+ and IQ160 and 260. The p45+ is on the border at 6.8. Your back and mine, at 5.2microns exhibit the highest extent of lens cast, and as such are really fussy about what glass you use.
As Graham intimates, you can use any lens you want, provided you can live with the results. For me, when I moved from my P65+ to the Aptus 12 and IQ180, the quality loss from LCC correction de-saturating the areas with extreme casts was not acceptable. Many others don't even notice the issue, yet it screams at me. Only you can decide for yourself. My feeling is that I bought the 80Mp backs for quality, so why compromise the optics? I sold my SK's for Rodie's and have never looked back.
Ultimately, it boils down to your own expectations , standards and , of course, budget.

Thanks Siebel

In checking I agree the 40 is out - if anything the 45 due to crop size and pixel size is the candidate..
The comments you mention are the things running through my mind, trying correlate the extreme demands from the 180 (which again I have to say - is amazingly great and as they say - you will have to pry it out of my dead hands) and the older lenses.
So far I have found some of the real old ones (like 1890s to 1930, to be more interesting than the ones in the 60, 70, 80 etc. (Have yet to try the Ronars). There is an advantage though the Arca is a 6X9 and allot of these lens are made for 8 X 10 and larger, that seems to be their selling point. There fore I will be playing in the Sweet Spot +/- even stitching - I am appreciating the non coated ones, seems soft yet look good. I guess what I need to find out is the 180 bring out "too many" imperfections and spoils a look. -- That what was going though my mind.

Thanks

Phil

 

[dchew]

I think it is important to separate two issues here: Steep angle LCC issues vs. older lenses and a more forgiving back.

Some larger pixel backs would help with the first, but not with the second. The IQ180 will make the older, presumably less-sharp lenses your obvious constraint to sharpness. But an older, larger pixel back won't make that any better. Just not so obvious a constraint because you can't blow it up so much.

Some might bring up pixels pitch vs. nyquist limits, etc. and argue a smaller pixel might result in a less sharp image. Zzzzzzzzzz... I challenge anyone to demonstrate that in a print.

So I would worry about the first issue, but not at all about the second. Like Siebel, I swapped my wide SK for a Rodi (43xl for the 40hr in my case). But frankly that wasn't so much because of LCC issues. It was so I could take advantage of Alpa's new 17mm TS adapter.

Dave

 

[alajuela]

I think it is important to separate two issues here: Steep angle LCC issues vs. older lenses and a more forgiving back.

Some larger pixel backs would help with the first, but not with the second. The IQ180 will make the older, presumably less-sharp lenses your obvious constraint to sharpness. But an older, larger pixel back won't make that any better. Just not so obvious a constraint because you can't blow it up so much.

Some might bring up pixels pitch vs. nyquist limits, etc. and argue a smaller pixel might result in a less sharp image. Zzzzzzzzzz... I challenge anyone to demonstrate that in a print.

So I would worry about the first issue, but not at all about the second. Like Siebel, I swapped my wide SK for a Rodi (43xl for the 40hr in my case). But frankly that wasn't so much because of LCC issues. It was so I could take advantage of Alpa's new 17mm TS adapter.

Dave

Thank you Thank you Thank you Dave

This is what I was trying to find out. -

To break it out as you did,

1. The LCC issue, that is not what was my concern. I can mention that on my tech I have all rodi lenses - sharpe as a tack - actually shaper than a tack. I use LCC only when I have movements.

2. The second issue, is what I was confused about, - no question than almost any digital back will out resolve 100 year old lenses, The concern was if the 180 would really do "too good" of a job and than would I be better off on this exercise with a fat pixel P45+?

I will tell you - so far I am am having fun and learning shooting in the apt with the 180. It just kept nagging at me - if I would not get "better" results with a less demanding back.

Thanks again.

I hope to have results soon.

Phil

 

[Ken_R]

You also have the option of getting the IQ260 for your IQ180 or get Rodenstock lenses.

I have the IQ160 with rodenstock HR lenses and they are superb but I have seen some very nice images from people using the schneider lenses with this back also.

Once you use an IQ back I don't think you will be happy with a lesser back.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Phil

If anything you'll see more of the character of your lenses with the iq180 than the p45+ if only because of the better colour and tonality of the bigger back. Whilst the older fat pixel backs will be more 'forgiving' I think you'll find that relates to apparent sharpness, not colour or tone. Downrez your iq180 files to P45+ resolution and print and I don't think you'll see any difference in favour of the p45+

 

[Bob]

The IQ180 may have the effect of sampling older lenses ar a frequency that might actually show you what they are doing. As the sampling frequency is reduced, apparent sharpness (at the pixel level) may appear to improve, but that is a sampling artifact and not a "real" increase in resolution.
I have a feeling that what you get with older lenses is a lower degree of aberration correction which is often just what you need to get that "look". (please no Leica flames as it applies to all older lenses including those)

I did an experiment with some older 4x5 lenses on an IQ180 back and was disappointed by a different issue.
That is a lens such as the cooke portrait, which is one of my favorites of all time, lost much of its character when used with a back smaller than 4x5. Most lenses to some degree are "better" in the center than the edges, but it is those edges that help some of the older lenses develop their character.
-bob

 

[GrahamWelland]

I agree - what Bob says ... If what you're looking at is the entire lens rendering on LF then it'll be different and restricted to the character of the center of the lens's rendering capabilities.

 

[alajuela]

You also have the option of getting the IQ260 for your IQ180 or get Rodenstock lenses.

I have the IQ160 with rodenstock HR lenses and they are superb but I have seen some very nice images from people using the schneider lenses with this back also.

Once you use an IQ back I don't think you will be happy with a lesser back.

Hi Ken

I have Rodenstocks, I use with the tech, 28, 40, 70 and also the new Schneider 120 - which I would also recommend. I am amazed every time I use it.
This is a different issue - This is something that has been nagging at me, - as I explained above.
I am out in outer space so to speak, living in Shanghai, and I read getDPI and learn from the people, I am thankful to all the people - yourself included - who have taken the time to answer me.
This is becoming clear ,and I believe I was mistaken in my assumption, for this I thank everybody.

Phil

 

[alajuela]

Phil

If anything you'll see more of the character of your lenses with the iq180 than the p45+ if only because of the better colour and tonality of the bigger back. Whilst the older fat pixel backs will be more 'forgiving' I think you'll find that relates to apparent sharpness, not colour or tone. Downrez your iq180 files to P45+ resolution and print and I don't think you'll see any difference in favour of the p45+

Thanks a million Graham, this is making sense to me now, and thinking down your road, I see the light.
I did print something this morning - just to see. I post them here.
Phil

 

[alajuela]

The IQ180 may have the effect of sampling older lenses ar a frequency that might actually show you what they are doing. As the sampling frequency is reduced, apparent sharpness (at the pixel level) may appear to improve, but that is a sampling artifact and not a "real" increase in resolution.
I have a feeling that what you get with older lenses is a lower degree of aberration correction which is often just what you need to get that "look". (please no Leica flames as it applies to all older lenses including those)

I did an experiment with some older 4x5 lenses on an IQ180 back and was disappointed by a different issue.
That is a lens such as the cooke portrait, which is one of my favorites of all time, lost much of its character when used with a back smaller than 4x5. Most lenses to some degree are "better" in the center than the edges, but it is those edges that help some of the older lenses develop their character.
-bob

I agree - what Bob says ... If what you're looking at is the entire lens rendering on LF then it'll be different and restricted to the character of the center of the lens's rendering capabilities.

I am now thinking - and I looking at this the way everybody has explained, I see the logic. On the issue, of the edges - falling off, I like this effect of the older lenses. I figure as I progress, either I have one or two options, move further back or stictch on the back standard. I am feeling a little better about this now.

Like anything I do, the idea is great, jump in and then try and swim.

Thanks so much. I will post something which might give an idea as to what I see as the first step in a hopefully long and creative journey

I just hope that you guys don't just shake your heads and give up on me

Phil

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Post processing can also be effective to get a certain look your after as well. Obviously this will depend on what your after as well as far as the look. Most lenses that have that let's call it eerie look are usually lenses shot wide open or close to it and most lens aberrations come into play. Another way to say that is it is they are not technically good at those apertures. For example many of the Leica R lenses in the Summilux style of being 1.4 lenses designed by Mandler are not technically correct wide open but stopped down technically they are. You may find some older lenses that are longer in focal length that of older design that may work with a look for a tech cam. I tried a old Rodie 90 grandagon once that was really nice but it still was sharp as hell at F8 so it will be limited on what you find. Problem here as I see it most lenses for tech cams are designed to be very good technically. If your really after a old style look than you may turn to a 645 body or even a RZ body and use some of the older lenses from our film days. Technically many of them are not on the same level as the tech cam lenses and have more aberrations. It's the aberrations that your kind of after here. Not saying you can get it from the technically correct lenses its just harder to get that eerie look. Im assuming this is what your after here

 

[Landscapelover]

Hi Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong about your question.
I 've had an Arca F 6x9 and 4x5 and IQ180 although I've just switched to the IQ260 for the advantage of the long exposure but I will certainly miss the IQ180.
I used the IQ180 with old lenses on the Arca F 6x9 but the result was very disappointing especially with wide angle lenses which I've used the most. I've never tried the Linhof Techno though. Using the P45+ with the 4x5, the result was OK.
Using the IQ 180 with the tech camera and HR lens series is a different story. LCC is not as bad as people complained. Like taking allergy medication, when you get used to it, it would not bother you at all.
Although I am just an amateur, please feel free to email me any time. I've been trying almost every MF digital including with 4x5. Errors and mistakes are my specialties but I've learnt a lot.

Best regards,
Pramote

I am a little confused.

The premise is this - I have an Acra Swiss View Camera (is really cool), the reason for getting it was - to be able use older lenses and have a "freedom" and challenge to mount whatever stuck my fancy, both to learn and discover.

Now here comes the confusion, I have a 180 back, (please jump in anywhere and comment)

1) I know from my Cambo going wide due to the steep angle of the pixels, you need retro focus lenses. ie Rodenstock, this has been a real issue for people having Schneiders and wanting to upgrade their back.

2) There have been some real interesting threads here on the Fat Pixel such as the P40, P40+ P45 P45+ (which are almost full frame) I must say, the shots taken have real nice look to them. That they gather light really nicely, not so demanding on lenses, as 60 and 80 megapixel backs

So...

Would I be better off, getting a second hand P45+ to work on this project? Older lenses (bottom feeding on Ebay) with a more forgiving back? If I am misguided I surely appreciate any and all comments.

Thanks

Phil

PS I have just begun and enjoy the experience, so far shot nothing but a mannequin head and table set up, went out once and shot some at infinity, was cool, but I need to work at this. Then hopefully get something worth printing and sharing.

 

[alajuela]

OK guys and gals, I been working on this, and went out and bought a mannequin head - remember school? For some reason my wife will not sit still for 3 hours at night ???
Set up the head on the dinning room table, and used one LED light panel for constant light. Still the exposures were about .5 to 2 seconds.

All that was done to these - defaults in C1 (BW also) did some dust spotting - then into PS for further spotting and saving, then Printed them 15.5 inches on the short side. I was encouraged.

Thanks

Phil

This is with the Arca Swiss Monolith, and IQ180 and I attached a copy of the lens.

 

[alajuela]

Hi Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong about your question.
I 've had an Arca F 6x9 and 4x5 and IQ180 although I've just switched to the IQ260 for the advantage of the long exposure but I will certainly miss the IQ180.
I used the IQ180 with old lenses on the Arca F 6x9 but the result was very disappointing especially with wide angle lenses which I've used the most. I've never tried the Linhof Techno though. Using the P45+ with the 4x5, the result was OK.
Using the IQ 180 with the tech camera and HR lens series is a different story. LCC is not as bad as people complained. Like taking allergy medication, when you get used to it, it would not bother you at all.
Although I am just an amateur, please feel free to email me any time. I've been trying almost every MF digital including with 4x5. Errors and mistakes are my specialties but I've learnt a lot.

Best regards,
Pramote

Hi Pramote

Please correct me if I'm wrong about your question.

You are correct - I think the guys have helped me get over the issue of getting a second back for this - although - the P45 does have the long exposure which is nice to have - as it appears you agree, getting 260

I 've had an Arca F 6x9 and 4x5 and IQ180 although I've just switched to the IQ260 for the advantage of the long exposure but I will certainly miss the IQ180.

I have the 280 on order and looking forward to it, I love my 180 also. You still have the Arcas?

I used the IQ180 with old lenses on the Arca F 6x9 but the result was very disappointing especially with wide angle lenses which I've used the most. I've never tried the Linhof Techno though. Using the P45+ with the 4x5, the result was OK.

It funny I sorta was looking the Linhof 679 - I still think its cool. But I got a great deal on the Monolith (I am not a backpacker anyway) - I really like it and think the Arca is great.


Using the IQ 180 with the tech camera and HR lens series is a different story. LCC is not as bad as people complained. Like taking allergy medication, when you get used to it, it would not bother you at all.

I totally agree, I think I did not explain this clearly in the beginning -- Tech is wonderful, I could not ask for more. This is different

Although I am just an amateur, please feel free to email me any time. I've been trying almost every MF digital including with 4x5. Errors and mistakes are my specialties but I've learnt a lot.

Thanks so much I will take you up on this, I am the same, I work about 1 1/2 shifts being in China doing trading and do my Photography to stay sane, I been shooting since college way back in the 70s and - love it. -- This is what I will do for the rest of my life.

Best regards,
Pramote

 

[alajuela]

Post processing can also be effective to get a certain look your after as well. Obviously this will depend on what your after as well as far as the look. Most lenses that have that let's call it eerie look are usually lenses shot wide open or close to it and most lens aberrations come into play. Another way to say that is it is they are not technically good at those apertures. For example many of the Leica R lenses in the Summilux style of being 1.4 lenses designed by Mandler are not technically correct wide open but stopped down technically they are. You may find some older lenses that are longer in focal length that of older design that may work with a look for a tech cam. I tried a old Rodie 90 grandagon once that was really nice but it still was sharp as hell at F8 so it will be limited on what you find. Problem here as I see it most lenses for tech cams are designed to be very good technically. If your really after a old style look than you may turn to a 645 body or even a RZ body and use some of the older lenses from our film days. Technically many of them are not on the same level as the tech cam lenses and have more aberrations. It's the aberrations that your kind of after here. Not saying you can get it from the technically correct lenses its just harder to get that eerie look. Im assuming this is what your after here

Hi Guy

I didn't want to do this in post, There is a certain look to older photos, I wanted this to be my inspiration, I want to see it from the capture as my starting point Then go from there.

Its funny, but I am starting to think,about skipping the lens that were multi coated. In general my style of shooting is more open than stopped down, unless there is a compelling reason to stop down, I get bored of the endless conversation about bokeh - to me it is the fall off I like - that why what sold me on MF the 3D effect. I think that's what makes a lens interesting .

Here at Get DPI I think it is Ben Rubenstien - who is shooting BW with old lenses, I like the look, I mentioned previously and I was serious, I what an ethereal, ephemeral look - but a mix of Maxfield Parrish, Norman Rockwell, and I need Dorothea Lange in the mix for reality. What comes out I hope will be mine. That is the goal of this project, I should learn something along the way.

You are correct in thinking its the aberrations - I want. I want to see, - I am amazed by the quality of work posted here - I surely appreciate it, I am very rarely satisfied with my own prints. I wake up in the middle of night and think I should change something I did years ago. I am in awe of the discussions people have on printing.

Anyway that's it.

Thanks Guy - great site.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Phillip if that is the look your after than yes lenses without multi- coating and lens aberrations is what your after. The problem is the Roadie tech lenses are not it, the are the best in its class. Technically just about perfect and even designed for wide open apertures. The Schneiders are designed for about F 8 and the Roadies about F 5.6. Changing backs won't help you here either a p45 with a Roadie is still going to be sharp as heck. I think for the ease of use than look at the 645 lenses from Mamiya they have some older glass like the 80 1.9 that maybe just what your looking for. Contax also has some that have a great look. The nice thing is they are not very expensive and you can pick a used AFD body pretty cheap as well.

I think this maybe a good discussion amongst our members as there are plenty of folks that been down this path. The issue is tech cams where designed and mostly used for high end resolution type work. Maybe better said they are the sharpest highest resolution systems on the market. Your kind of asking it to dumming it down per say. Maybe it can be done with some older lenses that work on the tech cams, I just not have tried doing this so at a little loss to give advice on it. But I do think this is a great discussion and encourage everyone to weigh in.