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!

Deciding between Alpa TC, STC or Cambo 1250

Paul2660

Well-known member
A few more thoughts on the 32 HR-W. I have considered this lens since early 2012, but each time I have come close to buying one, I have passed. No doubt optically it's one excellent lens, but here are my issues that always come back.

1. Cost, net to me 8.5 to 9K with the CF. I would want the CF and it's 1K alone. For the same price you are looking at a 40mm Rod and 60XL Schneider or very close.

2. The CF goes from 86mm to 105mm. At 105mm, you will not find very many slim filters even a CL-PL. I use both ND and CL-PL in my workflow in and around water. You can mount 1 86mm to the front of the lens, but 2 stacked will vignette.

3. Hood use, I like the Lee wide angle hood, used with the Lee wide angle rings, sadly Lee does not make a 86mm wide angle only standard ring. The 86mm standard ring on the front of the 32mm will instantly vignette a pure circle. So a hood solution is much more unique and dedicated to just that lens.

4. Weight, Guy already mentioned this. It's heavy. It's also delicate with a Copol 0 shutter as so much mass is in front of the shutter. There have been several issues where the lens came out of alignment with the shutter over time. Also, Rodenstock mentions that they don't recommend carrying the lens mounted to camera on a tripod when moving, as just in the process of setting the rig down, it's possible to damage the lens. (this is on their website).

5. The disc that Rodenstock places inside the lens (to show you the edge of the image circle) will cause a hard vignette at around 16 to 17mm of shift. This is a total waste of lens as this lens would easily make a 20mm shift on a full frame sensor. You can still shift to 20mm, but you will cropping a good bit of the top and bottom due to the disc. BTW, this true with all Rodenstock lenses that I am aware of, HR, HR-W and HR-SW. You have a great 90mm image circle on the 32, but just can't take full advantage of it on a full frame sensor.

I have been able to shoot with the 32mm in an Arca mount 2 times over the years, and totally love the results. I did an epic 8 hour drive to demo a used one, but choose not to make the purchase. I have tried to figure out a solution for filters and or a hood or both, but never have found one or come across one. Both times the lens did not have the CF and on full 15mm shift, there was a good bit on noise, the center frame was fine. Just means you need to bracket possibly on a shift as you are using a CCD back.

One other thought, as you will be on a 60MP, the 35 XL is another solution. It's just the opposite to the 32mm. I know it mounts to Cambo, not sure on how it mounts to Alpa and if the mount allows for shifting. You will be able to get around 8mm of shift with the 35XL on a 60MP full frame back. You will need the CF for all shots and that will take 2.5 stops of light away. Where as on the 32mm on center, you should easily be able to shoot with no CF.

Paul
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The 35XL will go to 8mm or so on an Alpa mount with a 60mp sensor. It is essential to use the center filter with it though and the downside of that lens on a 60mp back is that you will start to get both vignette and colour casts as you shift. Whilst these correct pretty well, I did tend to notice that there was some saturation loss in the LCC process. It's not horrible at all but isn't ideal. This was part of my reasoning to go to the 40HRW which I can shift up to 15, even 18mm with the IQ260 and still be usable without the dreaded hard ring coming in to play. The other consideration is that there is no tilt option with the 35XL on an Alpa mount as the lens mounts so close to the sensor.

If you don't need extreme shifts or tilts, the 35XL is a nice lens and especially with a cropped sensor. The Rodenstocks do tend to surpass its capabilities but not without significant extra cost.
 

Jamgolf

Member
Paul

Those are some really important and a valueable points you've raised. Thank you !
Since I have not actually seen a 32mm, perhaps I am not grasping the magnitude of its size and weight and combined effect.

The CF issue is also something that I did not really contemplate. I have that requirement currently with my Horseman 617 and its 72mm and 90mm Schneider lenses. Giving up a couple of stops is not fun. This I should have considered in regards to 32mm, but really did not think about it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Finding 105mm filters is no fun. I dealt with similar issues on a Zeiss/Hasselblad 40mm CFE IF. It was hard/expensive to find good filters.

All very good points. I thank you for bringing these up. They must be considered.

So 32mm might be optically superior in an ideal world, but is certainly not superior in practicality.

-Jawad
 

Jamgolf

Member
Graham

One of my main criteria is ability to tilt and if 35XL is not able to do that then I have to rule it out, unfortunately.

Thanks for the suggestion. That 40mm starting to look good again :)

-Jawad
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Thanks for your comments and advice Guy - much appreciated.

I am relying on forum's collective wisdom and experience to guide me "pick wisely" - I am floored by the good will and honest advice and feedback here.
This is an awesome forum. Truely.

-Jawad
Well that's the GetDPI way and your hearing from some of our great members here. Not sure anyone mentioned this but try and decide your final lens count as this gaps differently for a 3 or 4 lens kit. I went in the end with 3 , 28,60,90 but you will see some folks go 23,40,70,120 or put the the 32 in place of the 40.

The 40 is pretty much a standard focal length too regardless of size of sensor. If I had to guess I would say out of 3 than 2 would have the 40 and 1 would have the 32.

Really depends on your shooting subject too.
 

narikin

New member
I agree Don - there is not much of point in shooting a tech camera handheld.
I am certainly not planning to make a habbit of using it handheld.

Its just somewhat of an option. I've seen with Dan Lindberg's work that clearly demonstrates it can be done. So just keeping a possibility open.

Otherwise I am in agreement with your sentiment. A DF or M9.
Wow, I shoot my TC and FPS hand held all the time.
A tripod is simply not possible for what I do.

Just to point out, whats's good for one persons needs is not the same for others.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
The first lens I bought with the WRS was a 35XL which I continued to use with a P45+, P65 and later a IQ160. I liked the lens however I knew at some point I'd upgrade to a IQ180 (which is coming later this week) and knew the 35 just wasn't suited so switched over last year to the 40HR feeling the loss of focal length not that huge a deal and besides if I wanted/needed wider I always had the movements of either the lens or the WRS. It's been reported that the 40HR is very forgiving and has since turned into my most used lens. The 32 while looking sexy has a little too much baggage with it for me so I'll be sticking with the 40. Just my 2cents...

don
 

narikin

New member
Remember you can stitch with an STC, so that 40mm lens (or 60mm) will easily become the wider lens you maybe wanted. 2 lenses for the price of 1!

You say you don't stitch, but I bet you do when you get the lens and gear - its so easy, and nearly doubles your file size. Flip the back vertically and do a left + right, et voila! Just remember to shoot the LCC's.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Some of my favorite tech cam captures were not only hand held, they were not in the least sharp. I still love their rendering:
IQ140/35XL 1/8 second


And with Sensor+, because it was dark out... Yes, an A7s would have been better. (The bride and groom are looking at the polaroids he took with his Graflex!)


--Matt
 

jagsiva

Active member
Jawad,

I got a note from CI a couple of days ago with open box specials on an RM3Di and Rodie 40HR!!!!

Prices looked pretty great, if you're leaning the Arca way, you may want to give Dave a call.
 

Jamgolf

Member
Jawad,

I got a note from CI a couple of days ago with open box specials on an RM3Di and Rodie 40HR!!!!

Prices looked pretty great, if you're leaning the Arca way, you may want to give Dave a call.
Oh that's great.
Thanks for letting me know!
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I know the OP was asking mostly about the choice of tech camera, but seems the discussion has evolved to lens choices as well. As one who tried tech with an Alpa, gave up and went back to the DF, and now fully committed and happy with tech, my lens line up has evolved and finally I’m pretty content.

I went with arca this time, and do like the focusing system of the arca, especially when doing focus stacking, as well as the built in tilt which I do use when possible. I also like the amount of built in shift and use that frequently when stitching.

But the reason I’m happier has little to do with the camera, and is more about overcoming the concept of focusing, which is very different with tech than what I’ve used for the last 30 years. I’m now comfortable with hyperfocal distances which I measure myself and create my own charts, and also very comfortable with LiveView focusing which I do using a variable ND filter and rarely have problems getting sharp focus relatively quickly.

i’ve evolved with a few lens choices first on the Alpa with mostly schneider glass which was challenging. I use an IQ180, so this time I’ve stayed with mostly Rodenstock glass.

I tend to stitch nearly everything. I started with the 40, 70 and 150 rodenstock. I added the 23 for times I couldn’t stitch but decided it was too wide so I sold it and bought the 28mm with center filter which I like and performs very well, especially compared to the 28mm Phase on the DF. The 40 and 70 I often do long panos rotating the camera, but also do stitches with shift. I really like what I get from the 40, very sharp, not too bad Lens cast (often images without LCC correction look just fine), 70 is really good as well and has even less lens cast. Which lens I use is determined by vertical coverage - I rarely do a 2 row rotating stitch. The 150 was for more reach and also mainly for stitched panoramas. it’s definitely the weak lens in the line up, can’t shoot past f/11, and even that shows some issues with diffraction.

I felt I had some holes, too often I had to crop the 70mm tighter when doing a pano, and there was just too big a jump from 70 to 150. So I just added the 90 HRW and I think it will be my most used lens when I can shift/stitch as it is very sharp and I can shift the full amount of the camera and stay with within the image circle, with very little issues with lens cast (12/12mm shift, 20/30mm rise and fall - not quite sure about the 30 yet as I just tested it, but looks like it will work). Very sweet. I just sold the 150 rodenstock and am replacing it with the 120 schneider (I think it just shipped), and also added the 180 rodenstock for more reach. This will almost always be used stitched.

So current lens setup is 28/40/70/90 Rodenstock, 120 schneider, and 180 Rodenstock. I don’t carry all the glass all the time when hiking, (for the subway hike I only had the 28 and the 40), unless I have my sherpa son-in-law with me.


40mm 2 shot stitch, I didn’t have time to do this right so I just rotated the camera which was horizontal a little to get the composition. There was some flare on this I needed to fix, but also had a 3 stop GND which contributed to that


70mm, 9 shot stitch (rotated), back was vertical. No flare issues.


40mm, back is horizontal, 2 shot stitch with full shift (12mm left, 12 mm right)


Rodenstock 40mm, 9 shot focus stack
 

Nutcracker

New member
Rodenstock HR 32 and hood - is not a problem.
Lee have a doughnut (or donut if new-worlders prefer) 90-100 mm which grips the outside of the lens firmly. Works well with Lee Wide hood system and screw clamp.
 
I actually have some different thoughts.

a) The CMOS technology will certainly replace the CCD sooner or later (I smell sooner, as Phase One has cancelled their Investment Protection Plan in Sep 2014).

b) The only current MFDB CMOS is the Sony sensor in 44 x 33mm in size, which is a crop sensor.

c) I cannot resist the advantages of the Sony CMOS sensor so I decided to give up my IQ260 and go crop with the CMOS. It has been a difficult call for me but I like shooting directly against the sun.

c1) The Sony CMOS sensor is just a lot better in terms of shadow recoverability, especially for multi-minute long exposure shots.

c2) You don't need the dark frame NR on that either.

c3) You also get 21st century Live View.

c4) You can also avoid the tiling issues of the larger CCD sensors (e.g. IQ260, IQ280).

c5) The D810 could handle the high contrast scenes a lot better even with inferior glass compared against an IQ260/IQ280 when you do pixel peeping into the shadows, while the shadows of the larger CCD sensors are filled with noise. The 44 x 33mm Sony CMOS sensor is currently the only option to match up against the D810 in terms of high dynamic range shots. If you bracket, it is virtually impossible to align two shots perfectly with subpixel dithering even if you use the most stable tripod and head - you cock the Copal 0 shutter with vibration between shots and you lose lens sharpness when you blend bracketing shots with luminosity masks in the transition areas. This may not be an issue if you do conventional landscape shots but when you encounter tree leaves in the wind, or when you do cityscape shots it would take you extreme effort to make things right for pixel peeping.

d) I understand that people like larger sensors - I do as well. You may look down upon the IQ250 now, but eventually there could be a fullframe 645 CMOS sensor in the future. At a certain point you would be forced to switch to a CMOS sensor instead of a CCD sensor. Therefore you will need to consider lens compatibility. This will affect the residual value of your lenses and also your upgrade path. You can not just walk away with lenses and hope that the lenses will all last decades (technically). The lenses may be fully functional over years but they will become obsolete when the sensor technology advances. Just look into the Schneider XL wide angle lenses, and also the Zeiss ZM 15mm f2.8 Leica-M mount lens. These are not compatible with the Sony CMOS sensors due to the microlens design and depth of lightwells! Also look into the Leica rangefinder wide angles. These perform very poorly on Sony CMOS sensors as well due to excessive field curvature and loss of MTF in the corners due to the thickness of the glass.

e) The Digaron-W wide angles (i.e. 32HR and 40HR) are not very CMOS-friendly (e.g. IQ250). You get crosstalk issues and lose color fidelity and saturation when you shift to the extreme. For this you could refer to Doug's tests. You may not need a CMOS sensor now, but you will have a CMOS sensor in the future sooner or later, and the performance of these Digaron-W will degrade should you switch to CMOS.

f) According to my tests the Digaron-S wide angles (e.g. 23HR, 28HR and 35HR) are more CMOS-friendly on the IQ250. Even though they have smaller image circles, the crosstalk issue is less severe and you also get room to shift on the IQ250. These Digaron-S lenses will continue to serve you well in the future if you switch to a fullframe 645 CMOS sensor, but the Digaron-W lenses may not (we don't know about that yet but if, say the IQ390, is empowered by a fullframe Sony CMOS sensor then expect similar characteristics on the current IQ250 when shifted to the extreme - you lose usable image circles!).

g) Ever since Sony has entered the consumer sensors market they always dump their latest technology into smaller sensors first just to get started. For example, the dynamic range of the D7000 beat that of the D3X. 2 years later, the D7000 evolved into the D800 and the dynamic range of the D800 beat that of the IQ180. 2 years later the D800 evolved into the IQ250 and became the king of dynamic range. Now in 2-3 months expect Canon and Sony to launch 50 MP sensors in 35mm format. If these are evolved from the technology of the D7100 sensor or similar, then expect these to outperform the IQ250 as well, in terms of SNR. People in the MFDB club will not care about the smaller sensors, but eventually the price of the MFDB will crash. This is also something you should consider when you have not sunk your money yet. Remember that the smaller sensors will evolve faster and during a tick-tock cycle the smaller sensors may have their good days, and we are in the digital era.
 
I also itched to opt for the 32HR lens when I use an IQ260 CCD. However the main issue with it is that the center filter is too huge and there is no easy filter solution for that. If you shoot without a center filter then you get noisy corners since the CCD has noticeably less dynamic range than the CMOS sensors (even less than a Pentax K5-IIs APSC if you do long exposure shots)! Yes you may well use a CMOS digital back and overcome the vignetting without the center filter but again as mentioned above, the 32HR may not be CMOS-friendly or future proof enough. We don't know about that yet.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Rodenstock HR 32 and hood - is not a problem.
Lee have a doughnut (or donut if new-worlders prefer) 90-100 mm which grips the outside of the lens firmly. Works well with Lee Wide hood system and screw clamp.
Nutcracker:

Is this the Lee adapter you are referring to? Are you using the Rodenstock CF with the 32?

This is good to know as I have this adapter to use on my 28mm with the CF, as the outer diameter is around 100mm and this adapter fits on it. I forgot you can mount the hood to the front side.

LEE Filters 100mm Push-On Filter Holder FK100 B&H Photo Video


Thanks
Paul
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I actually have some different thoughts.

a) The CMOS technology will certainly replace the CCD sooner or later (I smell sooner, as Phase One has cancelled their Investment Protection Plan in Sep 2014).

b) The only current MFDB CMOS is the Sony sensor in 44 x 33mm in size, which is a crop sensor.

c) I cannot resist the advantages of the Sony CMOS sensor so I decided to give up my IQ260 and go crop with the CMOS. It has been a difficult call for me but I like shooting directly against the sun.

c1) The Sony CMOS sensor is just a lot better in terms of shadow recoverability, especially for multi-minute long exposure shots.

c2) You don't need the dark frame NR on that either.

c3) You also get 21st century Live View.

c4) You can also avoid the tiling issues of the larger CCD sensors (e.g. IQ260, IQ280).

c5) The D810 could handle the high contrast scenes a lot better even with inferior glass compared against an IQ260/IQ280 when you do pixel peeping into the shadows, while the shadows of the larger CCD sensors are filled with noise. The 44 x 33mm Sony CMOS sensor is currently the only option to match up against the D810 in terms of high dynamic range shots. If you bracket, it is virtually impossible to align two shots perfectly with subpixel dithering even if you use the most stable tripod and head - you cock the Copal 0 shutter with vibration between shots and you lose lens sharpness when you blend bracketing shots with luminosity masks in the transition areas. This may not be an issue if you do conventional landscape shots but when you encounter tree leaves in the wind, or when you do cityscape shots it would take you extreme effort to make things right for pixel peeping.

d) I understand that people like larger sensors - I do as well. You may look down upon the IQ250 now, but eventually there could be a fullframe 645 CMOS sensor in the future. At a certain point you would be forced to switch to a CMOS sensor instead of a CCD sensor. Therefore you will need to consider lens compatibility. This will affect the residual value of your lenses and also your upgrade path. You can not just walk away with lenses and hope that the lenses will all last decades (technically). The lenses may be fully functional over years but they will become obsolete when the sensor technology advances. Just look into the Schneider XL wide angle lenses, and also the Zeiss ZM 15mm f2.8 Leica-M mount lens. These are not compatible with the Sony CMOS sensors due to the microlens design and depth of lightwells! Also look into the Leica rangefinder wide angles. These perform very poorly on Sony CMOS sensors as well due to excessive field curvature and loss of MTF in the corners due to the thickness of the glass.

e) The Digaron-W wide angles (i.e. 32HR and 40HR) are not very CMOS-friendly (e.g. IQ250). You get crosstalk issues and lose color fidelity and saturation when you shift to the extreme. For this you could refer to Doug's tests. You may not need a CMOS sensor now, but you will have a CMOS sensor in the future sooner or later, and the performance of these Digaron-W will degrade should you switch to CMOS.

f) According to my tests the Digaron-S wide angles (e.g. 23HR, 28HR and 35HR) are more CMOS-friendly on the IQ250. Even though they have smaller image circles, the crosstalk issue is less severe and you also get room to shift on the IQ250. These Digaron-S lenses will continue to serve you well in the future if you switch to a fullframe 645 CMOS sensor, but the Digaron-W lenses may not (we don't know about that yet but if, say the IQ390, is empowered by a fullframe Sony CMOS sensor then expect similar characteristics on the current IQ250 when shifted to the extreme - you lose usable image circles!).

g) Ever since Sony has entered the consumer sensors market they always dump their latest technology into smaller sensors first just to get started. For example, the dynamic range of the D7000 beat that of the D3X. 2 years later, the D7000 evolved into the D800 and the dynamic range of the D800 beat that of the IQ180. 2 years later the D800 evolved into the IQ250 and became the king of dynamic range. Now in 2-3 months expect Canon and Sony to launch 50 MP sensors in 35mm format. If these are evolved from the technology of the D7100 sensor or similar, then expect these to outperform the IQ250 as well, in terms of SNR. People in the MFDB club will not care about the smaller sensors, but eventually the price of the MFDB will crash. This is also something you should consider when you have not sunk your money yet. Remember that the smaller sensors will evolve faster and during a tick-tock cycle the smaller sensors may have their good days, and we are in the digital era.

Your tests were very much appreciated. You can only imagine how good those HR' lenses would do, if the internal disk (marking the edge of the IC) was not in there.

The shadow recovery on the 50MP chip is amazing, I am not sure it's much better than a D810 at 32 iso, but the differences are pretty small. CCD loves light, and in great light, the CCD chip does wonderful stuff. One aspect I did not realize until I started tethering, is just how important the tethered relationship is, as you can setup C1 to push shadows in a custom workspace so when you look at your shifted shots, you can tell if you need to make exposure adjustments. Where as with a 250, it could all be done with the one shot.

It is true that the 40mm and 32mm Rodenstock seem to have more crosstalk issues on the 250 sized sensor.

I am hoping that when Sony/Phase One come out with the next chip and it's full frame, that Sony finds a way around this, with a newer pixel well design. Otherwise, you make an excellent point on the residual value on those two HR-W optics. I can't believe Phase would make a full frame CMOS that did not behave better on the current tech glass, but only Phase and a few outside the box know.

For sure it seems it won't be around till 2016.

Paul
 

Jamgolf

Member
Thanks for your comments Wayne. Beautiful images.
Looks like your are putting your 40mm to really good use.

You mentioned 'overcoming the concept of focusing' - so how did you do that? What was your approach the first time around that led to eventual sale of the technical equipment. Were you too fixated on focusing the first time? What made you decide to learn and trust the hyperfocal method?

-Jawad
 

Jamgolf

Member
voidshatter:

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comments.

I owned D800 for a while. It has great dynamic range so I am familiar with its tonal response. I used it with Zeiss 21mm, 35mm Distagons. With Leica-R converted to Nikon-F mount Summicron-R 50 (my all time favorite never to be sold lens), Summilux-R 35mm, APO Telyt-R 180mm and some other super high quality glass. As good as its resolution and dynamic range are, its colors are just not to my liking.

I "loved" the colors of Leica M9. I also really liked the very similar Pentax 645D colors and beautiful image quality. I almost had to do no post processing with M9 and 645D files. Both are CCD. D800 files on the other hand I had to spend some time to get them close to my liking - and even then they did not feel really right.

So it seems I prefer the CCD over CMOS and would not even think about a IQ250 for a second. I would rather keep my Pentax 645D with Hasselblad Zeiss 40mm CFE IF and the 250mm Superachromat.

The other thing is that would not upgrade from a 44x33 sensor to another such sized sensor. For me part of the allure is the mystery of the large sensor and that would be my upgrade or else I would stick to my prior gear.

While I know very little about technical cameras and the full frame digital backs. I suppose for me part of the enjoyment is the discovery and the process even if it eventually leads to moving back to a Leica M9 ( I hope not).

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Much appreciated.
Its great to have options.

Regards
-Jawad
 
Last edited:
Top