The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

jordan.j

New member
Hi everyone, I mostly photograph landscapes and architecture, and after lurking in this forum for a while, I decide to register a forum account and ask your ideas about joining this club.

I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.

However I have some concerns moving into such an expensive system:

a) The only option for 645 fullframe digital is CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260), not CMOS (e.g. IQ250 and IQ150). It means for pictures that must be done in a single exposure (when stitching is not viable), I will always get narrower angle of view with a CMOS back.

b) The dynamic range of CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260) is noticeably inferior than that of the SONY CMOS sensors (e.g. D800E and IQ250), especially for long exposures of seconds to minutes. This could be an issue if I attempt to photograph sunrise and sunset (by shooting directly into the sun) should I choose to go with the CCD routine, since there are always complicated scenes where a Graduated ND filter do not fit.

c) I don't think there is a bright future for CCD. SONY is the game changer now. Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax and Leaf all use SONY CMOS. Even Leica S has moved to their own CMOS. This could be an issue for the current Rodenstock lenses. If I have done my research correctly, the Schneider wide angles (e.g. 28XL) are KODAK-friendly (e.g. P45+) and the Rodenstock wide angles (e.g. 28HR) are DALSA-friendly (e.g. IQ260). I think the SONY sensors will eventually "kill" the current Rodenstock wide angles, just like how the DALSA sensors "killed" the Schneider wide angles.

d) I am interested in the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm, but that means I will have to stick with the IQ260 or IQ280, since there are crosstalk issues with the IQ250. Even if a 645 fullframe CMOS sensor is announced next year, I will still be unable to upgrade to CMOS, unless I dump the current Rodenstock lenses. SAR rumors have confirmed that a new SONY sensor (36x24mm size) of 46-54mp will be announced in 3 months. Eventually there will be a smaller CMOS sensor "killing" the IQ260 and IQ280, just like how the D800E "killed" the 33mp digital backs. I am not sure for how many years could the IQ260 and IQ280 hold their advantages.

e) Should Rodenstock announce a yellow-banded wide angle lens that is CMOS-friendly, my bet is that the (super retrofocus design) lens will be heavier and bigger and more expensive, and there will be no guarantee that it will work correctly with the microlens offset of the SONY sensor (c.f. IQ250, A7R) when shifted to the extreme. If an era of 645 fullframe CMOS and yellow-banded CMOS-friendly Rodenstock wide angles comes, how much can I sell the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm for by then? What is the current second-hand price for the discontinued 28XL?

f) The Canon 17mm TS-E and the Canon 24mm TS-E are great, but still not as excellent as the Rodenstock HR lenses. I am not convinced to invest expensive digital backs for the Canon TS-E lenses, since I am not fascinated with the distortion control and corner sharpness. Should I have to choose the Canon lenses I might opt for a SONY A7R instead of an IQ250 via ALPA FPS. Also it is a pain to get appropriate filters for the 17mm TS-E (look at the size of the Fotodiox filters!).

Any advise would be appreciated!
 

torger

Active member
I would not worry about the dynamic range. How many stops do you push your shadows? The D800/IQ250 is indeed a little cleaner than a IQ260 but it's not exactly a huge difference. You can bracket and merge when needed too.

Anyway, I think it's a very narrow case when a D800 DR would be enough and IQ260 DR would be inadequate. In other words, if you need to bracket with your IQ260 you would most likely want to bracket with your D800 too.

Graduated NDs are more usable than most think too (a perfect fit is not necessary), but that's another (long) story.

Your point c) is not entirely unlikely. What could happen is than Schneider or Rodenstock introduce a stronger retrofocus wide angle range to fit Sony CMOS sensors, and then you'll see lots of Rodenstock HRs on the second hand market, just as you saw lots of SK35's on the second hand market a while ago. But this may not be a huge problem, the value of SK35's did not exactly drop as a stone, as their are other users that run on legacy systems and want to buy those lenses. That is, there will be lots of people interesting in buying those Rodenstock HRs to run on CCD backs. Not everyone uses the latest.

Don't worry about price drops of lenses with new introduced technologies. Your digital back will drop a lot more :). A 35XL and 28XL still has good value on the second hand market. It's not like everyone has stopped using Kodak just because there's Sony CMOS there.

But what also could happen is that before we see new stronger retrofocus tech lens lines we see new CMOS sensor with wide angle response. Back illumination sensors exist in the smaller formats already and might move up in size soon. Let's hope for that.

I would avoid the IQ280 too if you like large shifts, it has some noticable crosstalk issues. IQ260 is much more stable with the Rodenstock HRs over the whole image circle, and you get long exposures too.

Concerning high res 135 systems, say a 50 megapixel 24x36mm sensor, that will happen sooner or later, but shiftable lenses that can resolve that will not happen anytime soon. Sure there are Otus lenses, but you can't shift them. With a tech cam you can shift and tilt all focal lengths, especially if you go with something flexible concerning movements like Linhof Techno or Arca-Swiss Universalis.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Hi everyone, I mostly photograph landscapes and architecture, and after lurking in this forum for a while, I decide to register a forum account and ask your ideas about joining this club.
Welcome aboard. Stick around after you get whatever you get so you can share your experience with others!


I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.
The 32HR and 40HR are even more impressive. Though to some extent this is like arguing about whether a Bugatti Veyron or Hennessey Venom GT is faster - I'd be glad to own either.


a) The only option for 645 fullframe digital is CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260), not CMOS (e.g. IQ250 and IQ150). It means for pictures that must be done in a single exposure (when stitching is not viable), I will always get narrower angle of view with a CMOS back.
Correct. Evaluate the widest absolute AOV you need (or more practically the widest you'd need for 99% of your shots) and don't buy a system if it can't handle that AOV (even if you don't get the lens that would allow it until after your initial purchase).


b) The dynamic range of CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260) is noticeably inferior than that of the SONY CMOS sensors (e.g. D800E and IQ250), especially for long exposures of seconds to minutes. This could be an issue if I attempt to photograph sunrise and sunset (by shooting directly into the sun) should I choose to go with the CCD routine, since there are always complicated scenes where a Graduated ND filter do not fit.
IQ260 long exposure is very very good. Have you seen raw files from it? If not shoot me an email and I'll be glad to provide. The IQ250/150/Credo50 also provide great long exposure. Which has better long exposure is really not as important as whether they do well enough for your needs. Again - kind of like arguing over the last few mph of two very very fast cars.

c) I don't think there is a bright future for CCD. SONY is the game changer now. Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax and Leaf all use SONY CMOS. Even Leica S has moved to their own CMOS.
I suspect we'll still see more CCD backs, but it's only a good guess. Either way, the only relevant question is what's the best option for you today.

This could be an issue for the current Rodenstock lenses. If I have done my research correctly, the Schneider wide angles (e.g. 28XL) are KODAK-friendly (e.g. P45+) and the Rodenstock wide angles (e.g. 28HR) are DALSA-friendly (e.g. IQ260). I think the SONY sensors will eventually "kill" the current Rodenstock wide angles, just like how the DALSA sensors "killed" the Schneider wide angles.
Again - what's relevant is what will work today. Don't buy a system predicated on what lenses may be released for it in the future. An IQ260 and 32HR/60XL/90HR-SW/120ASPH is an amazing kit and will be no matter what does or does not change 5 years from now.

d) I am interested in the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm, but that means I will have to stick with the IQ260 or IQ280, since there are crosstalk issues with the IQ250.
That's probably true. Though it depends on your range of movement required. Feel free to contact me for raw files.

Even if a 645 fullframe CMOS sensor is announced next year.
It took several years for CCD to make each jump from tiny to 35mm to 1.3 crop to full frame 645. I don't think you should be expecting such a jump in CMOS on a short term basis.

SAR rumors have confirmed that a new SONY sensor (36x24mm size) of 46-54mp will be announced in 3 months.
Feel free to wait, but shoving more pixels through glass you find not up-to-snuff isn't going to improve the situation.

Eventually there will be a smaller CMOS sensor "killing" the IQ260 and IQ280, just like how the D800E "killed" the 33mp digital backs. I am not sure for how many years could the IQ260 and IQ280 hold their advantages.
We still have many customers using 22mp and 31mp and 33mp backs. They aren't sold as new anymore but we still sell many refurbished and pre-owned backs in this range. If you buy a kit that does what you need it to do, and does it very well, then you don't feel a huge tug when something else comes along.

e) Should Rodenstock announce a yellow-banded wide angle lens that is CMOS-friendly, my bet is that the (super retrofocus design) lens will be heavier and bigger and more expensive, and there will be no guarantee that it will work correctly with the microlens offset of the SONY sensor (c.f. IQ250, A7R) when shifted to the extreme. If an era of 645 fullframe CMOS and yellow-banded CMOS-friendly Rodenstock wide angles comes, how much can I sell the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm for by then? What is the current second-hand price for the discontinued 28XL?
I'd worry less about what the resale value of a specific lens will be, and focus more on finding a kit that you won't want to resell because it does what you want it to do.

f) The Canon 17mm TS-E and the Canon 24mm TS-E are great, but still not as excellent as the Rodenstock HR lenses. I am not convinced to invest expensive digital backs for the Canon TS-E lenses, since I am not fascinated with the distortion control and corner sharpness. Should I have to choose the Canon lenses I might opt for a SONY A7R instead of an IQ250 via ALPA FPS. Also it is a pain to get appropriate filters for the 17mm TS-E (look at the size of the Fotodiox filters!).
There is also now the Arca FP.

But once you've shot with a Rodenstock wide angle it's really hard to shoot anything else.


Any advise would be appreciated!
- Work with a knowledgeable dealer.
- Test drive whatever you're considering. A good dealer can help facilitate this in a number of different ways including a rental which counts toward purchase.
- Consider the entire chain (lens/body/back/features/limitations/software/support/warranty)
- Don't limit yourself 100% to evaluating the technicals. At the end of the day life should be enjoyable, so pick a camera that you'll enjoy using (and which, of course, does what you need it to do technically). If you like the menu system of a camera, or the sound of the shutter, or the knob/action for rise and fall, or the feel of the handle it impacts the way you shoot with it. These are secondary to how well the camera does its job, but they aren't irrelevant. That's my two cents anyway.
- Buy what will work today.
 

torger

Active member
Concerning recommendations I'd say that if you worry about losing money on the lenses you should probably not buy MF gear, at least not new.

If a $50k system loses only 25% in value you lose $12.5k. You need to lose more than 100% on a typical 135 setup for that.

Concerning performance I think you would be most pleased with a system with IQ260 + Alpa + Rodenstock HR, and even if new technologies are introduced you will be able to sell this with much of the value retained, but due to the very large total cost of such a system you even a small percentage in loss will mean many dollars.

An A7r + adapters + Canon TS-Es won't be as sharp and high resolution, even with a future sensor of 50 megapixels, the limit is in the optics. But in absolute terms that system will still produce very good prints and be a lot cheaper.

Make your choice :).
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I have both a a7R and an IQ160. As good as the 7r is, hands down the IQ on either my DF or WRS is my favorite.

I'd also suggest looking at the IQ1 series as they are every bit as good as the 2 and we've discovered you can tether with the USB3 very nicely.
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.

b) The dynamic range of CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260) is noticeably inferior than that of the SONY CMOS sensors (e.g. D800E and IQ250), especially for long exposures of seconds to minutes. This could be an issue if I attempt to photograph sunrise and sunset (by shooting directly into the sun) should I choose to go with the CCD routine, since there are always complicated scenes where a Graduated ND filter do not fit.
!
Hi Jordan

I own shoot with both the D800e as well as the IQ260 with the HR40 and HR70 lenses, and am happy with the images that each system creates, as there are different uses for each.

The IQ260 images are better suited for landscape, especially if you intend larger prints as the higher pixel count and the larger sensor size do translate into better images. The IQ backs generate true 16bit data files where the Nikon does not, so that is a difference.

With regards to the DR between the two, this also depends on the subject matter, as I have compared both and they are both extremely superb.

On a side note, if you are looking for corner sharpness, you should take a look at the Zeiss 15mm is a very good option and the corners are sharper. That being said, if you want extremely sharp corners and like the HR lenses, then you are looking at a tech cam, which is an entirely different workflow altogether.
 

Ken_R

New member
Jordan I have a lot of info I can share. PM me for more details. I have tested and used a bunch of cameras and lens combinations and can sum it up like this:

When you see a well crafted image from a 60 or 80MP (Dalsa CCD) Back (PhaseOne / Leaf) using the Rodenstock HR lenses, at 100% on screen, your jaw will drop. The sharpness edge to edge, the clarity and color depth are just stunning and IMHO unmatched by any digital camera / lens combination available today.

Yes, the new 50mp sony CMOS sensor is much more flexible in that it can handle long exposures AND high iso but it does not offer more resolution than the 60/80mp CCD backs.

The 60mp backs do allow the most amount of shift/rise/fall while mantaining the highest image quality but the 80mp backs are close in that regard and the less the shift the more edge the 80mp backs will have.
 

torger

Active member
Another advice I'd like to give is to not only think about image quality, but also think about how you want to create images.

I'm a landscape photographer.

Some may want to shoot landscapes fast and quick often hand-held to capture fleeing moments. A Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z would be my go-to choices for that style.

Others are more old-school and like Ansel Adams style, large format, carefully chosing tripod position, adjusting the composition with shifting, focal plane with tilting and swinging, and shoot. Few images, time-consuming to shoot one but very rewarding.

The large format style fits my personality and creative goal best, therefore I chose a Linhof Techno and a longe range of tech lenses. Thanks to the view camera design I get movements including tilt and swing for all focal lengths, which I appreciate.

The quality you get out of a Sony A7r + Canon TS-Es are surely good enough for my purposes, but there are so few focal lengths to choose from, and the fiddly controls of the TS-Es are not as satisfying as operating the self-locking gears of the tech camera.

I think that if you only chose system based on image quality, and not on workflow and creative possibilities, there will be a constant stress and worry when the latest new gear arrives, trying "to keep up". Keeping up in the MF game is extremely expensive, in the 135 game not as expensive but more frequent upgrades so it can be stressful.
 

jordan.j

New member
Graduated NDs are more usable than most think too (a perfect fit is not necessary), but that's another (long) story.
Thanks for the reply! I understand that I can take an LCC shot with the Grad ND, but I would still get noise in local areas where the Grad ND hurts the foreground. This is still less than ideal.

the value of SK35's did not exactly drop as a stone,

...

A 35XL and 28XL still has good value on the second hand market.
Would you mind sharing the actual trading prices of the 28XL when the DALSA CCD became popular? Do you still remember the inductive price of the 28XL? I would be interested to know how much has depreciated. The 23HR and the 40HR were both introduced in 2008 and they are 6 years old now. Buying these only to find them out-of-date within a year or two might not justify the performance.

Keeping up in the MF game is extremely expensive, in the 135 game not as expensive but more frequent upgrades so it can be stressful.
I just have a feeling that I am at the worst break points of technology breakthroughs. There was one from the KODAK to the DALSA, and now it is another one from DALSA to SONY. It's just like that I worry about buying an iPhone 5S right before the announcement of iPhone 6 plus.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I'm a landscape photographer.

Some may want to shoot landscapes fast and quick often hand-held to capture fleeing moments. A Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z would be my go-to choices for that style.
Funny, I take my time with my Pentax 645D. I used a Horseman SW612 for street photography. Working carefully is not a camera type.
 

jordan.j

New member
Welcome aboard. Stick around after you get whatever you get so you can share your experience with others!
Thanks Doug! Your work of comparison between the IQ2 series backs are extremely helpful! Actually it was your work which drew my attention to the sharpness of the world of Rodenstock HR lenses! You are the guilty one :D

The 32HR and 40HR are even more impressive. Though to some extent this is like arguing about whether a Bugatti Veyron or Hennessey Venom GT is faster - I'd be glad to own either.
The 23HR is a must buy for me as I want one lens for widest angle of view (with medium-format-grade corner sharpness). The center filter for the 32HR is 105mm in diameter if I'm correct - do you have any filter holder recommendations for this? If I choose the 23HR and the 40HR (both with center filters), do I just need a Lee push-on holder and a Lee 100-90 Donut Spacer to get all my Lee 100 filters to work? If my aim is to do long exposure shots during daytime, would you have any other IRND filters to recommend?

Again - what's relevant is what will work today. Don't buy a system predicated on what lenses may be released for it in the future. An IQ260 and 32HR/60XL/90HR-SW/120ASPH is an amazing kit and will be no matter what does or does not change 5 years from now.

I'd worry less about what the resale value of a specific lens will be, and focus more on finding a kit that you won't want to resell because it does what you want it to do.
It's just that I have a feeling like buying an iPhone 5S right before the announcement of iPhone 6 plus. I might be wrong but I have a bad feeling on this, given that the Rodenstock lenses such like the 23HR and the 40HR are already 6 years old and they seem to be at the breakpoints when the design needs to be refreshed to keep up with the most current digital technology (in this case, the SONY CMOS like the IQ250, IQ250, Credo 50 etc).

- Don't limit yourself 100% to evaluating the technicals. At the end of the day life should be enjoyable, so pick a camera that you'll enjoy using (and which, of course, does what you need it to do technically). If you like the menu system of a camera, or the sound of the shutter, or the knob/action for rise and fall, or the feel of the handle it impacts the way you shoot with it. These are secondary to how well the camera does its job, but they aren't irrelevant. That's my two cents anyway.
For this bit I agree - that's why a Leica camera made in Germany or an Alpa camera made in Switzerland makes me *feel* excited. It isn't logical or objective but it helps building up the emotions of creating pictures!
 

jordan.j

New member
On a side note, if you are looking for corner sharpness, you should take a look at the Zeiss 15mm is a very good option and the corners are sharper.
Thanks! I have tried the Zeiss 15mm but the corners looked even softer than that of the Nikon 14-24mm. If I go for the 23HR I don't even need to worry about filter solutions. (The Nikon 14-24mm needs a gigantic Fotodiox, and the Zeiss 15mm needs a hood modification.)
 

jordan.j

New member
No, all Phase backs create 14-bit files, just like Nikon. This is an unfortunately piece of marketing that Phase should really correct.
Are you sure about this? I think I used to see an analysis of the RAW files of the IQ260 somewhere before, and the range of levels is 0-65535 (16-bit) instead of the 0-16383 (14-bit, like the Nikon NEF). Do you mean that the Phase One digital backs actually samples with 14-bit DAC then does some interpolation to 16-bit when writing data into RAW files?
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Skip past the bit depth thing - it's a rabbit hole. Look at actual pictures made by each camera, very preferably in raw format, and see what you think of the color and tonality, especially when you start to push the file around.

The 40HR could be 80 years old and I wouldn't give a hoot - it's a stellar lens by any measure or comparison. We measure things in the digital age by recency too often. Well made digital products aren't class leading for 50 years like they were in the analog days, but they don't automatically expire every 2 years like we can be led to believe. An H25 from 2003 still outperforms a Canon 5D3 in the cases where it's useful (the H25 had no CF card, was tether-only, had no live view or LCD, could only really be used at ISO50 or ISO100, and was limited to around 50-60 seconds of exposure length).

Evaluate how well things perform in real world tests relevant to your use, not how long they've been on the market.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Just to mention Canon's 17 and 24 mm T&S lenses have large image circles and they are said to even work on full frame CCDs (like the IQ-180). These lenses have long exit pupil distances.

Those lenses can be used on Hartblei HCam and also on the Alpa FPS.

From the samples I have seen (published by Alpha), the Rodies are sharper in the corner on the IQ-250 than the Canons. So no free lunch…

Might be worth checking out, anyway.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks! I have tried the Zeiss 15mm but the corners looked even softer than that of the Nikon 14-24mm. If I go for the 23HR I don't even need to worry about filter solutions. (The Nikon 14-24mm needs a gigantic Fotodiox, and the Zeiss 15mm needs a hood modification.)
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Here are a few more thoughts:

Welcome to the forum.

1. I shoot the D800e and D810, and use the 14-24. You should be able to get very sharp corners from F7.1 to F14. I can actually get excellent results from F3.5 up. You have want to have the 14-24 adjusted by Nikon. It should be doing better than that. I find mine superior to most of the primes out there in the same range, including the Zeiss 18 (which I also own) and the Zeiss 21mm (which I have rented several times), in the the 14-24 just has a better hyperfocal distance.

2. CCD vs CMOS and DR, well there has been a ton written on that for sure. If you are after movements, it seems that the CMOS 50MP chips is not that good a player, and it's a 1.3 crop. Don't forget that. Your 23mm Rodenstock will be an effective 30mm lens, and the 40mm will be a 52mm.

3. I personally don't see much difference in color from my CCD IQ160/260 camera and D800/D810. I can get where I want to go with either.

4. The range of a single shot from the D810/D800e at base iso is greater than that of a 60MP or 80MP dalsa. You can push the shadows a somewhat, much better than a P45+, but still not the same as DSLR (modern). I find that the Dalsa's 60MP are forgiving on highlights, which is helpful. The high iso on a Dalsa 60MP is about 200 max and many times that is a push and won't hold up in shadows. You can pretty much forget 400 and above if you want a full resolution print, if you down sample you can get more. The CCD backs are best at base iso (50/60MP or 35/80MP). If you take them higher than 200, you really start to gain noise in shadows and also your finer details start to go away. This is not true with the CMOS 50MP, as it seems to do very well up to 3200 iso and is excellent at 400 to 800 which is where I would love to have it with my 60MP CCD. The 60MP and 80MP CCD Phase One backs offer sensor plus. The results are impressive with this, IMO it's better to take the lower resolution at iso 400 and up than downsample full res. The 20MP sensor plus output from the IQ180 and IQ80 is excellent and still plenty to get the job done. For me 15MP from the 60MP chips is a stretch.

5. The image circle on the 23mm is only 70mm, so you will get only about 5mm of shift. The 40mm HR-W is 90mm and can easily get 15mm and 18mm in a push.

6. Single biggest issue with the tech camera for me is the LCC process. It's cumbersome, takes a while and HAS to be taken. This also limits you to C1 for processing out the files (at least from raw). I have tried the LR implementation and did not find it effective. C1 does understand this and does a excellent job. Take a few minutes and read up on the LCC process if you have not already.

7. There are many brands of tech cameras. Currently none will interchange it's lenses with another, so once you go with one, you are pretty much committed.

8. Take a class, here at getdpi, or another location to get your hands on the various cameras out there. Most dealers sell more than one brand and can setup a demo for you. If you have the time and are close the DEMO is very important. It's the best way to get your hands on different cameras and use the same back, so you can see for yourself which you find the best. You are coming from a D800 where you have Live View, AF, automation (you don't have to wind the shutter after each shot), and it will be a bit of a shock, at least it was for me.

9. I only moved to a tech camera for the wides. I did not like the results I was getting from the 35mm, 45mm, and especially the 28mm. I prefer movements, and medium format by nature has less DOF, so I like to add tilt where I can. As many have already pointed out, the tech wides are stunning and give amazing results. But the workflow is tedious at best. The main thing that is missing is a Live View that works outdoors on CCD backs, and it's not coming. The live view on the CMOS 50MP is impressive and gets the job done but as I mentioned earlier it has some other issues with tech cameras.


Paul
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Thanks for the reply! I understand that I can take an LCC shot with the Grad ND, but I would still get noise in local areas where the Grad ND hurts the foreground. This is still less than ideal.
That's not how you shoot an LCC btw. The LCC is shot without the grad ND since the whole point is to correct the base characteristics of the lens/sensor and that is applied to the image. If you shoot it with the GND on, then guess what? Capture One will try to correct and remove the effect of the GND too :)


The 23HR and the 40HR were both introduced in 2008 and they are 6 years old now. Buying these only to find them out-of-date within a year or two might not justify the performance.
I have both of these lenses. Now it's possible that Rodenstock will come out with even more uber expensive newer versions with extra/better corrections but they are both pretty phenomenal as-is today. I certainly wouldn't mind the 23HR having a much better resistance to red center spot that's for sure.
 

jordan.j

New member
That's not how you shoot an LCC btw. The LCC is shot without the grad ND since the whole point is to correct the base characteristics of the lens/sensor and that is applied to the image. If you shoot it with the GND on, then guess what? Capture One will try to correct and remove the effect of the GND too :)
Are you aware that some GND has color cast (e.g. Lee has a blue cast and Singh-Ray has a red cast)? Also it is not always possible to find a perfect fit of the GND - you may cut off some foreground. This transition area could be extremely difficult to eliminate in post processing if you take the LCC shot without the GND.

If you take the LCC shot with the GND, then in Capture One you only need to reduce contrast, reduce exposure, recover highlight and shadow, so that you could get a flattend file ready to be processed in Photoshop, without having to worry about any transition areas of the GND to deal with. This is the correct (and convenient) way to get color consistency and fidelity. I agree that if you take the LCC shot without the GND you could still deal with the transition area in post processing but that for me is too time consuming and almost impossible to restore perfect uniformity.

I have both of these lenses. Now it's possible that Rodenstock will come out with even more uber expensive newer versions with extra/better corrections but they are both pretty phenomenal as-is today. I certainly wouldn't mind the 23HR having a much better resistance to red center spot that's for sure.
That is what I worry about most - if they announce something new, it's an instant loss of $$$ :(
 

f8orbust

Active member
Ah - you beat me to the 'Post Quick Reply' button.

Indeed, there's actually some merit to shooting the LCC with the grad in place - it allows you to be much more imprecise with the placement of the transition, whilst getting all the benefit of the grad being there re: preventing the highlights from blowing out. You can then finesse the effect in post.
 
Top