(I apologize for the long post, sitting in my room at the MGM Grand a little bored, vegas really isn’t my kind of town.)
Read through this thread and was going to quote things I agreed or disagreed with, but decided just to add my “history” and how I ended up shooting tech for most of what I do.
I shot medium format film since I began my career as a portrait wedding photographer in 1975. My first foray into serious digital was the Kodak 560 shortly after it was introduced. I later moved to a Canon 1ds, which was a big step up, but still pretty weak for what I was after because my interest had moved away from people photography to landscape photography. So I moved to the Kodak DCS back, soon followed by the p25, p45, p45+, p65, p65+ and finally to the IQ180 which I still use.
The point of all of this is about how deeply entrenched I was in the medium format workflow and shooting style. My first try with a tech camera was a alpa 12max with the Rodie 28, 40 and 70 and a couple of other lenses (don’t remember which). I was using the p65+ at the time. It was a disaster - I just couldn’t get my head around the workflow, focusing and composition challenges. Sold all of that and moved back to the DF where I was pretty happy, other than how heavy everything was and sharpness issues with some of the glass.
A couple of years ago I attended a Rodney Lough workshop in Yosemite. I had met him at his Vegas gallery and seen his work in person on several occasions and the quality was impressive. He had moved to a digital back and tech combination because he could no longer buy Astia 8x10 film and didn’t like the rendering of other chrome films. During that workshop I watched him use an Arca Swiss rL3di, (he uses only 3 lenses, the 40, 70, and 180 rodenstock). He stitches almost all of his digital work, if he has to get it in one frame he will still try to use 8x10 from his diminishing supply of Astia in his freezer.
I decided to try tech again. Because of the workshop and also equally because of Jack and other discussions of the arca on this forum I decided to try Arca ... mainly for the tilt and focusing helical. Lenses were 40 and 70 hr-w and 150. I added the Kapture Group sliding back and release system as well. I also setup to shoot panos using a Manfrotto pano rotater and a sliding assembly to get the correct nodal points centered.
All of this showed up as I was headed to Eastern Washington (palouse). I put it all together for the first time as I setup to shoot and ended up with a very nice image (well I thinks it’s nice, you can see it
here if you want. 9 shot stitch.
What kept me going was how light the pack was. Compared to the DF system (which now included 28, 45, 55, 75-150 and 240 lenses) significantly easier to pack around. I calibrated all lenses, created my own focusing charts which included depth of field distances for various f stops and then put them into my iPhone. I tried focusing with the ground glass and really couldn’t do it well, so the ground glass was relegated to composition, and focusing was done with hyperfocal distances based on my tested settings. Since nearly everything included infinity it worked pretty well. As I became more comfortable with the workflow I found I began to work faster (although still slower than with the DF). I was still a little frustrated with focusing for anything other than infinity so I found myself using lots of focus stacking, which is easy to shoot on the arca, but doing so as part of a stitch makes it complicated and adds serious workflow time in post,
What really changed everything for me was the addition of the variND filter and live view focusing and composition. I found I could focus quickly enough I didn’t bother with the charts any more, I found I could actually manage to use tilt effectively and quickly for depth of field when it was possible. Late last year I gave up on the sliding back and switched to the RotaMount (not to be confused with the RotaSlide). I no longer have a ground glass in the camera bag. I really like the RotaMount because I don’t ever have to take the back off the camera except when packing everything up.
I tried the 23, decided it was too wide and finicky and switched to the 28 with center filter and really like this lens if I can’t stitch the 40. I’ve also added th 90mm Rodenstock which is really sharp and has a big image circle, 120 Schneider (also very sharp), and have the 180 Rodenstock on the way (sold the 150). If hiking in, I usually only take 3 or 4 of the lenses, depending on what I’m shooting.
I still occasionally use the DF system, mainly when I want a little more reach, the 240 really is a nice lens. Sometimes I know there will be a ton of possible compositions and I will need to work quickly, so I may opt for the DF.
So that is my journey, I’m very content with my current system and the quality of what I get. I also have a full Nikon d800 setup with zeiss 35, 50, and 100 lens, which is spectacular, and a Sony a7r as well but I enjoy the deliberate nature of the tech workflow now, and love the results I get.
What would I do “different” - I guess my story already sort of relates that. I have nothing against the Alpa and based on what I now know and my current abilities would probably be just as happy, since it was more about me than the system.
There are two things I don’t like about the Arca. One has been mentioned by another poster ... the lack of indents for 0 on the shifts. Fortunately the tilt control does have one so it’s easy to make sure it’s set right. The other is the way the lens mounts in the camera, it’s a little bit of a pain to make sure it’s aligned and on tight and correct, and it’s easy to get just a tiny bit of grit in the grooves which are a little hard to clean out.
It’s been a long journey, and to paraphrase Steve Jobs, sometimes “the journey is part of the reward”.