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!

Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

I'm pretty allergic to ultra-wide shots with trees angled strongly inwards or outwards, which to me is a typical "DSLR perspective".
Agreed. I also like trees to look straight. Furthermore, there are cases where the shutter speed is slow and focus stacking proves do be problematic in the wind.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Yes, straight trees, tend to look better, however now that is a simple fix in post, with either LR or C1's perspective controls. I realize you might lose some of the original composition due to the correction.

Wind and stacking, one reason for a good clean iso 400 or even 200, as many times stoping the wind at iso 50 can't be done at least with a tech camera. (limited accurate shutter speeds and CF's which can be problematic with 1.5x to 2.5x effective shutter speeds drops).

Paul C
 
Yes, straight trees, tend to look better, however now that is a simple fix in post, with either LR or C1's perspective controls. I realize you might lose some of the original composition due to the correction.
I do agree that LR, PS or C1 offer a quick fix for that, but when you do perspective control in post-processing you would lose tons of pixels - essentially turning expensive Rodenstocks into cheapo APSC lenses. :LOL: You would also lose angle of view, defeating the purpose of wide angle lens :grin: This is no problem for small prints but can be seen in large prints.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I do agree that LR, PS or C1 offer a quick fix for that, but when you do perspective control in post-processing you would lose tones of pixels - essentially turning expensive Rodenstocks into cheapo APSC lenses. :LOL: You would also lose angle of view, defeating the purpose of wide angle lens :grin: This is no problem for small prints but can be seen in large prints.

Fully agree, that's why I still lug around a tech camera when I can as movements work best for me. However I also feel that a tilting LCD on a back would help here as it would allow you to frame the shot with possibly less of the perspective issues, i.e. waist level. Which is with the tech camera/tethering, with a geared head is such a great advantage as you can make those fine leveling adjustments either with the camera rise/fall or the head. The real need is of course Live View (CMOS) at least for me. And on the XF, the waist level finder will also help.

Paul C
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
. Well yes superb lens quality but with the new Phase One 35mm and 40-80mm (which I have) who needs tech lenses ? OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?.
I use a tech cam specifically for landscape shooting and can say that tilt, swing and shift are all very valuable in my shooting. I also owned the DF+ and the LS lenses (as these were a bit sharper for my work) and none of them were as tack sharp as my 40HR, or 70HR. I have owned and shot the P45+, IQ140, IQ180, IQ260 and IQ250 and my tech set up was always superior in image quality no matter which back I used. That being said. I do feel that the gap may close somewhat as the CMOS sensors continue to improve and the lens quality for the DSLR bodies improves as well.
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
If I was to start out from scratch now, I too would start with the HR 32 regardless of sensor size. After that it would be a couple of sleepless nights deciding between either SK 60 + SK 120 or go even more simplistic and just choose the HR 90 and call it a day. Probably the latter.

For me personally I have always had a quite easy time to adapt to a new focal length and I am also happy with large gaps between focal lengths - I have learned to 'see' scenes with what I have in the bag over my shoulder. I guess in some respects I am lucky that I feel this way because both weight and investment can be well controlled! As it is right now, I have 5 tech lenses in the safe but my photography wouldn't be different or hampared if I cut that to two. In this particular regard I do believe I am somewhat different to most here.....:cool:
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?
Now, that would be a complete nightmare if you took away movements for my landscape photography. I use and need movements in 3 out of 4 of my landscapes.
 

torger

Active member
For me personally I have always had a quite easy time to adapt to a new focal length and I am also happy with large gaps between focal lengths - I have learned to 'see' scenes with what I have in the bag over my shoulder.
I'm a bit to the opposite, although I guess I could get used to fewer focal lengths. Today I have (all SK) 35, 47, 60, 72, 90, 120 and 180. I wouldn't mind having the 150 and 210 either, but my camera bag is full :eek:. The total spending of all those lenses is similar to a single new Rodie 32, as I got most of them second hand and the simpler symmetrical designs are cheaper.

I will have to give up this type of flexibility sooner or later though, the reason I can have this many lenses when I'm out hiking is that SK lenses are very small and light on the Linhof Technika boards. The Digarons, even the Digaron-S range are often twice the weight and size. With my 50MP 49x37mm CCD and this line of fine SK lenses I've reached a dead end, I can only go backwards from here in terms of flexibility which feels a bit sad.

While resolution and noise can be improved it requires switching to heavier larger lenses, so I need to drop some focal lengths, and most likely I need to drop the feasible movement range as well.

I have a Canon system with a TS-E 24 II laying around too, I've been very impressed with the resolution and shift range you can get from a 5Ds and a TS-E 24 II. If Canon ever updates their 45 and 90mm to version II and I find a sane shiftable 35mm that could very well be the upgrade path when my current Linhof/Hassy/SK system starts feeling old, because if lenses in my next tech system is going to be just as heavy and few and give me less movement range I think I will have more fun creating "large format style" images using the Canon -- if those new lenses appear. Today I'm not pleased with the current range of longer tilt-shiftable focal lengths in that system.

My dream scenario is still a new generation CMOS backs that can actually handle the SK symmetric lenses, because I don't feel the lenses are inadequate (they make large prints!), it's the back which is going to start feel old first.

I don't really like the convergence we're seeing, that lenses and flexibility is narrowing down to be the same between systems. If it's only going to be resolution that differs slightly, I don't think MFD will be for me any longer... but it's too early to say. I wait curiously to see what the future holds, and meanwhile I'm happy with my nowadays considered old-school Linhof Techno setup with sliding back and CCD :eek:

To be honest I could probably shoot with this setup in 10 - 15 years more before there's trouble with software and digital back repairs. It's the gear junkie in me that starts fantasize about new hardware despite that my current setup serves my shooting style perfectly well and will most likely continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

A CMOS live view certainly wouldn't hurt though... ;)
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
If I was to start out from scratch now, I too would start with the HR 32 regardless of sensor size. After that it would be a couple of sleepless nights deciding between either SK 60:
I agree about the HR 32. I shot one on a workshop and loved it, but since I already owned the HR 40t/s (which I also loved) I could not justify giving up the remaining fingers on my left hand to pay for that lens. The HR 40 already cost me the first 2 fingers. :D

The SK 60 was another lens that I did shoot and I also found that lens to be stellar, but again, I already owned the HR 70t/s so it was too close to what I already had in the bag to justify such an expenditure on a new lens that was not much different than what I already covered in my kit.
 
I agree about the HR 32. I shot one on a workshop and loved it, but since I already owned the HR 40t/s (which I also loved) I could not justify giving up the remaining fingers on my left hand to pay for that lens. The HR 40 already cost me the first 2 fingers. :D

The SK 60 was another lens that I did shoot and I also found that lens to be stellar, but again, I already owned the HR 70t/s so it was too close to what I already had in the bag to justify such an expenditure on a new lens that was not much different than what I already covered in my kit.
The 32HR is of course the most favored lens for technical camera users :grin: The only reason I give it up is because for long exposure shots ND 3.0 would cause severe vignetting, and to mitigate vignetting a center filter is required, but the center filter of 32HR is too huge for ordinary ND grad.

A side note, as in my previous tests, the 32HR has slightly less usable image circle than the 40HR does on a 44x33mm Sony IMX161 CMOS (e.g. IQ250) due to mazing artifacts. If a new fullframe CMOS will be based on the same Sony IMX161 technology then the 32HR may retain less value. Instead, the 40HR may be a safer bet for now :)
 

torger

Active member
I like the 24, 35 and 50 135-equivalent field of views, and then some longer on top of that. I think the fields of views has a certain "signature", some looks too stretched, some too compressed, for example I've never really become friend with 40mm 135-equivalent, it's some sort of inbetween FOV that rarely works for my style. I do use it from time to time anyway though, then usually quite flat perspectives. I don't use the 24-FOV very often actually, if I can make the picture with 35 and shift it's often a more pleasing image.

On the longer end when perspective is compressed I don't think the specific focal length really matters, then it's just about reach and framing, but in the wide to normal range I do think the specific FoV does matter, so I would very carefully consider what field of view I get just as much as actual lens performance.

With the 44x33mm sensor size it's 1.375 factor (comparing to 32x24 that is 135 in 4:3 format) so that would be 33, 48 and 68mm. The Digaron-W 32, Digaron-W 50 and Digaron-W 70 then perhaps?

Personally I'd probably pick the Digaron-S 35 as the wide, as the 32 is just too expensive for me, plus I certainly don't like its size. Only 70mm IC on the Digaron-S can be a bit limiting at times, but for landscape I think it's acceptable, the perspective gets very "stretchy" with large shifts anyway at that FoV so it's good to keep shifts quite small.

I'm not sure if anyone's tested the Digaron-S 35mm for mazing/crosstalk on the IQx50 that would be a thing to look into before getting it, to make sure the full 70mm IC is actually usable.
 
I like the 24, 35 and 50 135-equivalent field of views, and then some longer on top of that. I think the fields of views has a certain "signature", some looks too stretched, some too compressed, for example I've never really become friend with 40mm 135-equivalent, it's some sort of inbetween FOV that rarely works for my style. I do use it from time to time anyway though, then usually quite flat perspectives. I don't use the 24-FOV very often actually, if I can make the picture with 35 and shift it's often a more pleasing image.

On the longer end when perspective is compressed I don't think the specific focal length really matters, then it's just about reach and framing, but in the wide to normal range I do think the specific FoV does matter, so I would very carefully consider what field of view I get just as much as actual lens performance.

With the 44x33mm sensor size it's 1.375 factor (comparing to 32x24 that is 135 in 4:3 format) so that would be 33, 48 and 68mm. The Digaron-W 32, Digaron-W 50 and Digaron-W 70 then perhaps?

Personally I'd probably pick the Digaron-S 35 as the wide, as the 32 is just too expensive for me, plus I certainly don't like its size. Only 70mm IC on the Digaron-S can be a bit limiting at times, but for landscape I think it's acceptable, the perspective gets very "stretchy" with large shifts anyway at that FoV so it's good to keep shifts quite small.
The Digaron-S 35mm HR is indeed a very nice choice for the 44x33mm IMX161 CMOS sensor. If I remember correctly the color cast issue is very minor when compared against its Digaron-W siblings. I almost got that lens as I really like the look of the front element (it's huge!), but when I tried to order one Alpa did not have it in stock so I ended up with the 40HR instead.
 

MILESF

Member
If I was to start out from scratch now, I too would start with the HR 32 regardless of sensor size. After that it would be a couple of sleepless nights deciding between either SK 60 + SK 120 or go even more simplistic and just choose the HR 90 and call it a day. Probably the latter.

For me personally I have always had a quite easy time to adapt to a new focal length and I am also happy with large gaps between focal lengths - I have learned to 'see' scenes with what I have in the bag over my shoulder. I guess in some respects I am lucky that I feel this way because both weight and investment can be well controlled! As it is right now, I have 5 tech lenses in the safe but my photography wouldn't be different or hampared if I cut that to two. In this particular regard I do believe I am somewhat different to most here.....:cool:
Not for the first time Dan's words and images have made me think and crystallize something that has been gradually coming into focus in my mind. Two purchases have proved pivotal for me. The first was acquiring a technical camera and the second was buying the Sony RX-1r. Why ? It was realising that a view finder is not necessary and that you can size up a scene in your head and quickly learn what lens will work; that manual focus is fine; that I can normally work out shutter speed and aperture in no more than 2 frames; that movements create wonderful creative options. In fact I begin to think that looking through a viewfinder crops the bigger picture that, unhindered, my eyes might see more opportunities in; to understand that a fixed 35mm lens makes me think more about composition and where to put my feet. And realising that we still miss images even with massive bags of tricks on our backs.

I'm sure it's been said many times before but my eyes are my best viewfinder and my feet are my best tripod (though of course three into two don't go) and I begin to wonder how much all the technology simply confuses things.

I went to a conference in October where Julian Calverley did one of many wonderful presentations that day. He is well known commercial photographer here in the UK but has developed his personal portfolio in a way that has enabled him to bring some of his personal style into his commissioned commercial work. His talk was around his book of i-Phone only images and his wonderful landscapes where he uses an Alpa and a 40mm lens (plus IQ180) only. Images that I can only dream about making myself.

The logical next step then is to travel with just a couple of lenses (HR32 and HR90 perhaps) plus Sony RX1R when I go to Japan for two weeks in January. As I think it through there's a little voice in my head saying 'Well the 60mm doesn't take much space or weight' and then 'Nor does the 120mm' and 'Maybe a dslr might be more flexible'. Perhaps the time has come to simplify. It doesn't mean selling everything else but rather getting out of the habit of taking days to work out how much I can stuff into my airline carry-on allowance to cover every possible eventuality and instead to travel light and see how much I can make the most of what I find in front of me.

To keep myself honest perhaps I'll post the final gear list here before I go and some images when I get back.
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm in agreement with Miles & Dan that with technical cameras having a small selection of lenses actually helps. I tend to see either wide, mid or long when it comes to scenes and so have decided to build around those views. I tend to keep a single lens on the body and not swap around close ranges of focal length anyway.

So far it's looking like 32HR and 70 HR will be the kit for now with a longer lens to follow.

Funnily enough my constant travel companion is my RX1R too.
 

torger

Active member
The way to make images is very personal, there's no "right" way to do it. The way I work is that I choose where to stand and where to look, the I pick focal length to "crop" the view to place the corners where I want them. With tightly spaced focal lengths I can get very close my desired framing and often enough not having to crop the image in post-processing, the one-shot-perfect feeling I find particularly pleasing. That's one key reason I like the 4:3 format of the MFD so much more than 3:2 format of 135, as most my compositions is generally suited for 4:3 or even 5:4.

The recent image below for example:

90mm.jpg

is shot with a SK90 with tilt. To get the reflection where I wanted required me to put the camera at an exact position, I couldn't move backwards or forwards to make the corners of the frame fit another focal length, 90 was (almost) spot on (yes I do crop when needed, I'm not a no-cropping-fundamentalist :) ). Although I could have shot it with my 72 and then crop, shooting at 90 and getting to the final composition directly in the shot is more pleasing to me.

It's often romanticized how limitations in your gear, such as having only one or two lenses, or a slow camera, or even shooting film, makes you focus on your work better and make better images. I think it's much truth in that, but what works is personal. I think the slowed down shooting process, that it really takes a few minutes minimum to make a shot (you can't shoot the Linhof Techno hand-held), does help me to focus on the good images. However I don't think that reducing the number of focal lengths would help me and my shooting style in any way, to me the only difference would be that I would get a bit less pleasing shooting experience as I would have to rely more on post-processing cropping, and cropping would lower resolution of my images of course. Reducing the number of focal lengths is to me a question about economy and how much weight I can carry, not an artistic choice. I do understand that it can be for others, it doesn't work that way for me though.

Here's another one:

120mm.jpg

This was shot with the SK120. I had to stand at that position to get the geometric elements align the way I wanted, and I had to have the corners there to get the composition where I wanted. Ideal focal length would have been 150mm, but I just had a 120 and a 180. What I do then is that I shoot anyway and I crop, and cry a bit as the resolution is reduced :scry:

That's my personal relation to lenses... I'm sure the lens manufacturers would love more photographers think like me on this part ;)
 
If You using IQx50 not IQx80, Rodie HR lenses are overkill. If you not planing to upgrade your back. bather way buy Apo Sironar lenses, they will give you same image quality, and much chipper .
But in case of using apo sironar lenses on IQx80 will never get same resultes as Rodi HR.
Sironar wide angles (e.g. 35mm) does not work well with CMOS. CMOS demands retro, not symmetric design. By the way, IQx80 has about the same pixel density as the IQx50.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
If I've learnt only one thing after years of photography and GAS it's that you should only buy the best lenses (and tripods/heads). Cameras/backs come and go but the best glass lasts a long long time and rewards you whenever you use it.

i did consider getting the sironars actually as I had a few great deals on the older lenses but in the end it would be false economy as undoubtedly at some point I'll get a 80mp or whatever comes next, perhaps even an achromatic back.
 
Top