A down to the line decision

[tashley]

Chris, they don't make a sliding back for that do they? I tried the Silvestri today and though I will give it one more look it seemed a little imprecise to me but it's sliding back is really useful and I can't really imagine using a back without one unless only for infinity focussed landscapes or tethered interiors.

Best

Tim

 

[dougpeterson]

Chris, they don't make a sliding back for that do they? Tim

There is a ground glass accessory for the CWRS but it's more useful for composition than focusing. The ground glass image is much smaller than a 4x5 ground glass and the required accuracy (due to the high resolution of a P45+) is higher than on a 4x5. You should try it yourself to see what you think, but in my book it's useful for fine composition, and for rough focusing. In other words I wouldn't use it for a very shallow depth of field image focused on a specific near-ground subject.

I tried the Silvestri today and though I will give it one more look it seemed a little imprecise to me.
Best
Tim

It sure won't feel rock solid and micro-precise like a Sinar P3 would, but then again it's a small fraction of the weight, size, and cost. For what it is I think it is acceptably precise and it offers features (wide lens compatibility, plate or bellows operation, tilt/shift/rise that are very unique in the surprisingly large world of digital-specific tech cameras at a very competitive price. It's worth a second look to see if you can produce the images you desire out of the equipment.

I can't really imagine using a back without (a sliding back) unless only for infinity focussed landscapes or tethered interiors.

Best

Tim

Those would be the two uses for which we would recommend a CWRS. The dealer tests your specific Lens/Back combination to document they hyperfocal focus information for f/8, f/11, and f/16 and then you shoot based on that chart the vast majority of the time. It's not the most flexible workflow in the world, but it is unquestionably the highest image quality one can currently acheive short of 8x10 drum scanned film or a scanning back (the workflow of which is on par with 8x10 film for difficulty and limitations).

It sounds pretty limiting but those two uses cover the vast majority of all landscape and interior work most photographer do, and for the rest you can slap the back onto your Phase/Mamiya/Hassy/Contax/Rollei body and use TTL composition/focus.

Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer | Personal Portfolio

 

[jklotz]

I've been shooting a Cambo WDS w/ a P25 for a few years now. I do mostly architecture and interiors with it. I battled with many of the same questions being kicked around here before I got it. I'll throw out a few ideas, take them for what they are worth:

1) I shoot an LCC after every shot. I've got a 35, 47 and 72. The 35 and 47 seem to need it - Can't see any cast whatsoever with the 72 (but I take one anyway). I like how, when scrolling through the frames on the laptop, it divides the series of shots. It's so not a big deal - just keep the card in my pocket, open up 2 stops, shoot it and I'm done. I tried keeping a library, but am far to absent minded to keep track of how much shift I did for every shot. Again, it's no big deal, takes all of 15 seconds (with decent light anyway...).

2) I tried the hartblie on my contax 645. I tried the Canon t/s. There is just no comparison, the Schniders and Rhodenstocks blow them away.

3) The Wds is really quick to use. Pull it out, level it up, connect the cables, zone focus and take the shot. Look at it on the screen for focus, shift, etc, correct, take the next shot (rinse, lather, repeat) until I'm done. Afterwards, take an LCC, pack up and go home.

4) I bought the stupid expensive view finder, and use it occasionally, although after I got used to it, I find I use it less and less.

5) It's certianly no heavier than my 5D w/ Battery pack, cable release, L lens, bubble lens, etc. Actually, it is considerably lighter if you throw a few lenses into the mix. (in my case, I travel with my camera, so the pelican case adds a lot of weight, but if I was shooting a DSLR, I'd probably be doing the same thing).

6) I've only had one or two times where I really missed having swings and tilts. It would be nice, but I've managed to build a nice body of work without them.

7) I haven't missed the acrobatics of setting up a view camera then trying to carry it from room to room (interiors) once! Not to even mention the physical area needed around it - sometimes I have to shoot where I don't have that much space.

Well, that's off the top of my head. If I think of anything else I'll post it later. BTW - one thing I really liked about the Arca RMd3 was the ability to take a "plate" camera, add rails and a back standard and have a view camera. Don't know how easy it would be in practice, but it sure looked cool when I saw it at PhotoExpo.

James

 

[tashley]

<snip>

It sounds pretty limiting but those two uses cover the vast majority of all landscape and interior work most photographer do, and for the rest you can slap the back onto your Phase/Mamiya/Hassy/Contax/Rollei body and use TTL composition/focus.

Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer | Personal Portfolio

Thank you Doug - that's about the depth of info that makes me finally feel I know what's going on here! It also explains by and large why people like Cambo and Horseman make shift but not tilt cameras: you can't accurately focus even with a loupe on the small glass screens so you have to use hyperfocal and that means that your tilt focus technique is out the window unless you can shoot tethered - which you can't do for landscape because the sensor blows outside.

Man is this a business opportunity for someone. I suggest something *%$@ obvious: a sliding back where you slide between a phase one sensor and a really crappy CCD sensor with 10x mag live view for focus and a hokey LCD screen on the rear.

You heard it here first, I officially claim and copyright this idea.

Tim Ashley
London
20th Jan 2009

 

[ddk]

Thank you Doug - that's about the depth of info that makes me finally feel I know what's going on here! It also explains by and large why people like Cambo and Horseman make shift but not tilt cameras: you can't accurately focus even with a loupe on the small glass screens so you have to use hyperfocal and that means that your tilt focus technique is out the window unless you can shoot tethered - which you can't do for landscape because the sensor blows outside.

Man is this a business opportunity for someone. I suggest something *%$@ obvious: a sliding back where you slide between a phase one sensor and a really crappy CCD sensor with 10x mag live view for focus and a hokey LCD screen on the rear.

You heard it here first, I officially claim and copyright this idea.

Tim Ashley
London
20th Jan 2009

If you don't mind traveling yet with another battery, ps and charger then you're better off with a highend pocket pc and live view, what do you need the sliding back for?

PS. You're going to need to need a high quality LCD for focusing, you're not going to accomplish anything with a crappy one. Take a look at a Sigma DP1 and you'll see what I mean about crappy displays.

 

[tashley]

If you don't mind traveling yet with another battery, ps and charger then you're better off with a highend pocket pc and live view, what do you need the sliding back for?

PS. You're going to need to need a high quality LCD for focusing, you're not going to accomplish anything with a crappy one. Take a look at a Sigma DP1 and you'll see what I mean about crappy displays.

I can focus incredibly accurately on a Panny G1 in magnified live view
mode. These things can run forever on one charge when not driving a shutter and they could be designed to run off AAs or a battery that charges in your phase charger or whatever. And live view on a phase? C'mon! have you ever tried it in daylight? It simply blows every pixel!

 

[jklotz]

\ I suggest something *%$@ obvious: a sliding back where you slide between a phase one sensor and a really crappy CCD sensor with 10x mag live view for focus and a hokey LCD screen on the rear.

Funny you should bring this up - I tend to shoot tethered to a laptop, which I've gotten used to. but i've often wondered why my mega buck digital back has such a crummy little screen? I mean, come on guys, my $600 pani G1 has an amazing LCD screen. I'd have gladly paid an additional $600 for a decent screen with my digi back

 

[shakeshuck]

you can't accurately focus even with a loupe on the small glass screens so you have to use hyperfocal and that means that your tilt focus technique is out the window

I keep reading about focus trouble with view cameras and MFDBs, but I don't understand it. Bear in mind that haven't actually tried it yet but why should a view camera be so much more difficult than, say, a Hy6 with WLF? Surely the screens are virtually the same?

Am I missing something obvious?

 

[tashley]

I keep reading about focus trouble with view cameras and MFDBs, but I don't understand it. Bear in mind that haven't actually tried it yet but why should a view camera be so much more difficult than, say, a Hy6 with WLF? Surely the screens are virtually the same?

Am I missing something obvious?

It might be easier for some than others but my Phamiya has very good AF and also a lens-based distance scale which allows hyperfocal focus based on tables or experience. It also has a very bright viewfinder with a screen that I find reasonably easy to focus when protected by DOF to some degree.

On a view cam, especially with tilts, you are trying to achieve very precise focus in at least two different parts of the frame on a very dim small screen and unless you use a black-cloth it's tough. On a 4 x 5 field cam it's do-able (you usually shoot pretty heavily stopped down anyway) but on a MF setup you have to be very very precise or you blow it.

I can focus a rangefinder in a darkish room on someone's nosehairs... but a MF tech cam screen makes me feel inadequate...

 

[carstenw]

I suppose this is the reason of existence for the Sinar arTec camera. It has the sliding adapter with a loupe, as well as tilt, and the required accuracy. Of course, it'll drain your retirement fund.

 

[jlm]

view camera problems:
the sliding back is by nature imperfect as it is subject to positioning errors compared to the imaging back, so tethered operation is best
the actual image on the ground glass is pretty small; makes the 4 x 5 seem like an 8 x 10 by comparison, and it is located within a fairly small chamber, making the use of a loupe difficult.

what would be excellent would be a digital back with the focusing aids of the G1: live view, tiltable screen, maginifcation. worth just about any reasonable price

 

[fotografz]

I think you are in for a very pleasant surprise. The older 40mm lens from Hasselblad does not have the needed resolution at the edges .... but the newer 40IF does! I believe Kornelius at Zeiss measured over 100 lp/mm at the edges (and over 200 lp/mm in the center).

Also, the PC-Mutar is a rather different beast. It is not like telephoto converters where the lens elements are fixed in that case. The PC-Mutar has a movable lens element that sweeps across the shifting area, which more effectively magnifies the lens without degradation.

All I can say is that even with the PC-Mutar, this thing is razor sharp from corner to corner with the 40IF. I am not the only one here who has this equipment, so maybe you can get independent assessment from Marc.

Yep, I have one of the PC Mutars. I primarily use it on a Hasselblad 503CW with a 16 meg CFV-II digital back. Generally I shoot it using the 40 IF and shift to three positions: far left, center, far right ... then merge in PhotoShop CS3. Because the CFV is a square, I end up with a regular rectangle for the finished piece, but at a much higher resolution. The only awkward thing is the need to place the Hassey oriented on it's side since the PC Mutar shifts up and down. I did however use it on a Mamiya 645/Aptus 75 which was much easier to use in portrait orientation.

 

[Clawery]

Thanks Rob! I have to say that our relationship has come under some strain through no fault (I hope) on either side but today he was really very helpful and accommodating in helping come up with an action plan. The refund option was gratefully received but I do want to bust a gut to spend the cash with him!

Tim

Tim,

I wanted to see what the outcome was. Were you able to get everything resolved?

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
[email protected]
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year

877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter | Read Our Latest Newsletter

 

[tashley]

Hi Chris, and thank you for staying interested in what is a long but instructive process.

Today I spent a second long-ish session at my dealer taking the Silvestri out on the street. Yesterday's, and today's first, batches of shots were all over the place: bad focus, weird focus, no plane of focus that a sane man could see etc...

So we switched from a 4x to a 10x loupe for focus and suddenly everything centre frame was good. Right of frame was misty, left of frame was foggy and I was not 100% convinced by infinity focus.

We used a Schneider 38 XL which my dealer made a call to Silvestri UK to check compatibility on and was assured, though the Silvestri PDF does not list it.

As it happens this lens snags on the bellows at certain not large movements. These snag points 'feel' like detents, and can mislead as to when certain movement knurls are at centre. Particularly, shift feels positive and measured, tilt a bit less so, and swing has no real feeling of centre. This makes it hard to know what is user error and what is machine error. In any event, I find the following provisional and highly biased to two-shoot (maybe thirty frame?) results:

1) I love the Silvestri. It is light, feels and looks nice, has a sliding back and has a sort of kitchen gadget techno appeal
2) I can't make it take good pictures with the Schneider 38 XL and I don't know if that's because the lens isn't recommended, the camera can't deliver the fine tolerances required, or the operator was a klutz.

My provisional opinion is: with a small-ish digital sensor, exactitude really counts and a bellows outfit is unlikely to cut it unless very, very expensively engineered. A camera with shift only can keep the lens and the sensor parallel and then be good or bad at various things but that parallel alignment is vital; and I think at this price point I would never feel sure in knowing whether it was the man or the machine that had screwed up.

To get a full T/S camera with the engineering tolerances to get it right will probably cost a lot more than the Silvestri. I wish/hope I were/am wrong and that this was a bad or incompatible lens are whatever, I soooo want to use the Silvestri, but no clean focus is no clean focus and after a coupla hours I gave up and admitted that I don't have the time and space to analyse which variable is producing the problem.

So I think I will try the Cambo RS and foresake tilt and swing (I suspect that they are sirens rather than beauties in this contest) in favour of accurate shift.

I had many recommendations from kind forum members and have one observation: manufacturers' websites are s h one t. Try finding price, size, weight, availability info on the Arca Swiss RM3D for example. I mean, I might want to pay pathetic sterling for one of these beasties but they make unicorns look like they have agents. The directors should IMO be fired...

Enough rant. All I want is a body/lens setup that moves for the landscape and matches or excels the sensor and it is harder to find than it should be...

t

ps having used the 10 x loupe for focussing I do think you can consistently focus this sensor size on a tech cam screen. It's not easy but it can be done well. I also think that on this particular camera the alignment of the sliding screen and the sensor was close enough to achieve critical central focus at F8 and 11 and distances of 3 to ten metres. I was less convinced by infinity focus. I do think that getting Scheimpflug right on a screen this size is so challenging as to be almost pointless.

What did not work for me here, with all the above caveats, was the edges and corners - and this is what I seek to improve over the retrofocus alternatives....

 

[parsnip_lee]

I too have a down to the line decision, sorry dont mean to hijack this thread. I have the option to buy a demo Cambo Wide DS camera with the 35mm lens at a considerable discount. My dilema however lies with the Wide RS. As an architectural photographer I do a lot of stitching of images and a compelled by the fact that on the RS only the rear standard moves. My question is, is this enough of an improvement to warrant paying an additional 2k for the RS over the DS?

The size and weight of the camera arent overly important to me and in fact the knobs on the DS seem much more user friendly, though I havent actually played with an RS.

Thanks!

 

[Don Libby]

I worked with Chris in making the move to a technical camera last year. My first thought which was partially due to economics was the Cambo WDS as Phase was offering a heck of a deal for a WDS, lens and digital back. I choose the RS even though it cost considerably more for several reasons chiefly among them was the fact that the RS has been designed for digital capture as well as the movements are all in the rear. A side note here about the movements; their geared movements which allow for a more precise ability of stitching.

There was very little fumbling around learning the camera which was what I had expected. My biggest fear was lack of critical focus which turn out not to be that big a deal after all. The two biggest stumbling blocks in my conversion to working my technical camera was to remember to remove the lens cap if I had moved my position (I always cover my lens when I’m moving) and to make sure I’ve cocked the shutter, other than that there’s been no problems.

I choose not to order the viewfinder opting first to see how well I could get along without it and so far to my surprise I’ve done well.

I have always enjoyed a slow easy going method while photographing landscapes and find that working with a technical camera that is just the case as well.

The RS is well built, offers everything I need and I believe is well worth the money.

Here’s a caveat to all that I’ve said – I am by trade a landscape shooter and as such shoot very little if any architectural.

Hope this helps

don

 

[lance_schad]

I too have a down to the line decision, sorry dont mean to hijack this thread. I have the option to buy a demo Cambo Wide DS camera with the 35mm lens at a considerable discount. My dilema however lies with the Wide RS. As an architectural photographer I do a lot of stitching of images and a compelled by the fact that on the RS only the rear standard moves. My question is, is this enough of an improvement to warrant paying an additional 2k for the RS over the DS?

The size and weight of the camera arent overly important to me and in fact the knobs on the DS seem much more user friendly, though I havent actually played with an RS.

Thanks!

Sean,

I think you may have the models mixed up. The DS has rise/fall on the front by moving the lens, and shift on the rear by moving the digital back/film backs.

The RS has all of the movements on the rear , and as Don mentions it was designed from the ground up as a digital compatible device and does not support film backs.

They are both well made, but my preference is the more compact RS.

Lance

 

[tashley]

Just an update: I've asked my dealer to price up a Cambo RS setup but have a new mad dream of getting started on building an Alpa system starting with a TC and a Max - the prefect travel kit? Boy does that gear look sexy!

ps people seem to think the Horseman SWDII isn't great - I've heard that the movements aren't as precise as those on the CamboRS. Does anyone have any direct comparison experience?

t

 

[shakeshuck]

I had many recommendations from kind forum members and have one observation: manufacturers' websites are s h one t. Try finding price, size, weight, availability info on the Arca Swiss RM3D for example. I mean, I might want to pay pathetic sterling for one of these beasties but they make unicorns look like they have agents. The directors should IMO be fired...

Thanks for posting your experiences, I'm nowhere near a dealer and can't easily try these things myself.

I'm also considering a Cambo (DS) but am irritated that the lens mount means they can't be used elsewhere (unless anyone knows otherwise).

The Arca seems favourite but b****y expensive, and as you say we have no idea if or when one will appear.

A rough guide to the Arca prices can be found here:

http://www.galerie-photo.net/index1.html
(Use the Arca-Swiss (R) link)


Graham.

 

[Paratom]

Just an update: I've asked my dealer to price up a Cambo RS setup but have a new mad dream of getting started on building an Alpa system starting with a TC and a Max - the prefect travel kit? Boy does that gear look sexy!

ps people seem to think the Horseman SWDII isn't great - I've heard that the movements aren't as precise as those on the CamboRS. Does anyone have any direct comparison experience?

t

The great thing with the Alpa are IMO, besides the precision, the different body options.

Did you by any chance think about the D3x with the new 24pce? A little less IQ from the sensor but a great lens with all movements included-tilt, shift etc, with life view, all in a compact package, and if you want you could even increase the ISO up to 1600 in case you need it....I know-this is the MF-forum