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!

Live view on a technical camera - possible?

torger

Active member
If CMOS sensors apparently don't work well with tech cam movements, what are the alternatives?

I'm asking as someone very interested in tech cams given (i) i have a background in large format film (now sold, but I REALLY miss movements much more than I thought), and (ii) I can see a clear difference in MFD files compared to 35mm FF (the latter is what I currently use), hence why I'm on this medium format part of the site!

Please correct me if my arm-chair analysis is wrong, but it seems the choices are:

(i) CMOS is limited to small movements before running into probs - but has benefits of both LV and with CMOS now being the latest & highest MP backs. An Alpa STC has a maximum movement of approx 20mm, but is there a rule of thumb for a newbie that suggests how much tech cam movement is practically possible with CMOS backs?

(ii) more extensive movements from CCD backs, but no LV and typically older / lower MP. I guess the same question again - is there a rule of thumb for max movements here with CCDs?

(iii) a film back such as the dedicated Alpa roll back. Given the size of 6x7 or 6x9 film, it seems one would need to really use an older Alpa analogue lens (which have very large 160-200mm ICs) to get the full 20mm front rise that is possible with cameras like the Alpa STC. I never saw any probs at all with large format film and extensive movements, but is there any reason why a film back (combined with full use of 20mm movement on a tech cam) would run into any probs??

Why not just go back to large format film, you ask? Well, 120 film is much easier to use (no dust, loading issues, easier to mail for processing, 350mb drum scans render aesthetically nice 40"-50" prints off Acros / Ektar) + I'm attracted to the potential flexibility that a tech cam might offer (ability to use both digital backs and film), + some tech cams look almost handholdable for "casual shooting" but also offer very precise movements for "thoughtful" shooting (all in one package) ...... so there appear to be lots of reasons for why a tech cam might suit me. But the question about the amount of Movements that is realistic / practical (and in what form ... CMOS, CCS, film) is something I'd like advice on. Many thanks!!
No general guidelines regarding max movements can be given unfortunately. All sensors have color cast, which is corrected by the obligatory LCC. To the very least color cast is created through that the sensor color filters change response slightly when light comes in at an angle, so there is currently no sensor technology and never was one that could be free from color cast. However this simple color cast is quite mild and is 100% reversible with LCC.

Kodak micro-lens free sensors like in the P45+ and Hasselblad H4D-50 etc were the last "issue-free" sensors (that is only predictable fully cancellable color cast). With the Dalsa 6um CCDs (P65+ etc) lightshields disappeared and microlenses were introduced. This required wide angle lenses to be a little retrofocus, and Rodenstock Digarons were designed for this. However there was some miscalculation so there still are issues with microlens ripple, but Capture One is very good at cancelling that out in post. The Dalsa 6um CCDs can still be used on fully symmetric lenses (and some do) like the SK28 and SK35 but then you get issues with significant crosstalk when you start shifting. Crosstalk is mainly shown as desaturation of colors (as the color channels are mixed) and possibly demosaicing failures (mazing).

With the 80MP Dalsa the problems increased further, and yet more with the Sony CMOS. The problem is however that the crosstalk effects are situation dependent. If you have close-to-neutral colors in your scene you don't get much problems despite large amounts of crosstalk. Simply put, there aren't that many situations you get problems in practice. Few notices a reduction in tonality performance.

As there really aren't any options people have learnt to accept using sensors that are not matched with the lenses. The argument goes if you don't really see the performance reduction after proper post-processing why care? I personally care quite a lot because I'm very much against the principle of pushing the sensor out of spec with the lens and getting potentially unpredictable behavior, but others care a lot less and you can't really say that my view is more valid than any other. There are those using the CMOS with Schneider Digitar wides although it's deemed almost impossible. As the CMOS have extremely good DR and tonality it can indeed make up for quite a lot of loss. So a general recommendation cannot be had.

Anyway, Kodak CCDs without microlenses: except for controlled color cast no issues on any Schneider Digitar or Rodenstock Digaron wides. Oh well, you do get pixel vignetting (but no crosstalk) on the SK28 which cuts some of the dynamic range even if center filter is used. Nothing too critical though.

Dalsa 6um CCDs: with a LCC algorithm that can handle microlens ripple (like C1) there are generally no issues on any Rodenstock Digaron lens, shift to the limit if you want. You might get faint tiling with extreme contrast processing, but it's fixable. Schneider wides which are symmetric trigger some issues, even the long SK60XL if you go to the limit of the image circle.

Dalsa 80MP CCD: some issues also on the Rodenstock Digarons but only for large shifts.

CMOS 44x33 and 54x41: similar issues for both, more issues than the 80MP but also more DR which can mask some of the issues. Very much up to personal taste how much shifting you can accept.

Film handles movements extremely well, the cast and crosstalk issues doesn't exist with film as it's built entirely differently. (Or maybe there's is some cast, at least theoretically, but I have never heard of anyone having any problems in practice). Tjv in this forum has shot a lot of film on his Linhof Techno before going digital with a Credo 60 back, and I'm sure there are others. I have myself no experience with film on my tech cam (also a Linhof Techno).

Note that for long lenses all sensors work well.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I keep hearing how terrible CMOS backs are with movements but somehow the images I take and look at don't seem to agree. Maybe my system failed to get the memo. I can shoot with my Rodie 32HR and will use 10-15mm of rise / shift if required and I'm not unhappy with the LCC fix in C1. That said, I suspect I'm a heretic because, shock, horror, I'll even shoot stopped down to f/16 or more if required too. :bugeyes:

That said, I'm not shooting flat field resolution charts, examining every image in raw digger or pixel peeping right in to the limits of the corners or edges of the frame. Heck, I typically add vignette / grain after the fact and just print.
 

torger

Active member
They aren't terrible, they're just not really that predictable. I'm not using Capture One and put value in the raw files not depending on some super-tuned LCC algorithm available in a software today but maybe not tomorrow. So I have more concerns than just the end result you get in C1 today.

I'd probably be quite happy result-wise with a CMOS back on my Techno if I ran C1, just switch out the SK35 to a Digaron-S 35 it would work out quite okay, but from my perspective it's not worth it. For me it's the wrong set of compromises.

I'd rather sell off all my tech gear and go back to shoot landscapes with my Canon which I started with, and now there's the 5Ds so resolution is enough for me. Or maybe do something exotic like shooting A7r-II with Hassy V lenses on an Arca-Swiss Universalis. The main problem I have with the 135 is mainly the lack of tilt-shift lenses, I would very much want a TS-E 35mm, but there is no such thing, using an 135 mirrorless on an Universalis with retrofocus MF lenses can get you around that I suppose. In any case I rather compromise sharpness a little than compromise crosstalk/tonality or producing raw files that become dependent on very special LCC algorithms.

I have no problems with others making other decisions based on other tradeoffs of course.

As I don't see any particular magic in MFD gear based on the sensor size or color profiles (I make my own anyway), and I think the performance of the high end 135 cameras is very good I don't have any strong reason to be in medium format just because it's medium format. What makes me stay in is the shooting experience and perhaps oddly enough because my system is very practical the way I use it.
 
Last edited:

chiek

New member
7" hdmi monitor live view.
Includes commlite AF module,
so it is the 1st AF technical camera.:p
 

AreBee

Member
torger,

The main problem I have with the 135 is mainly the lack of tilt-shift lenses, I would very much want a TS-E 35mm, but there is no such thing...
This is pretty close. Stefan Steib can no doubt tell you more, and Lloyd Chambers reviewed the full 40mm/80mm/120mm set, but it is my understanding that performance is excellent when stopped down.

Edit: Here is the review by Lloyd Chambers.
 
Last edited:

tjv

Active member
I don't mind using the GG at all with my Linhof and Credo 60, but I'm something of a masochist I guess. I've never missed focus using the sliding back, even with widest aperture, although it's a struggle in low light. Live view would certainly be better though, although my experience demoing CMOS backs with live view suggeted to me that viewing an LCD screen to focus fundimentally changed the way I felt connected to what was in front of the camera (I.e. it made me feel disconnected compared to the GG, which is more of an intimate experience). I guess I like antiquated and tactile things.
 
Last edited:

kdphotography

Well-known member
It's all just about having options and tools---that suits your own personal needs.

At the recent CI in Carmel, we got to try the SmallHD hdmi monitors using the new IQ3 100MP cmos MFDB---comparing both the 7" and the 5" monitors, along with the Sidefinder. I give the nod to the SmallHD 501 5" monitor with the Sidefinder option, mainly for portability and the ability to avoid potential screen glare issues. I haven't had the chance to tether with the Surface Pro (to compare live view), but if the goal is simply composition and focus, the HDMI monitor is a winner. The focus assist tool on the SmallHD is a great help. The SmallHD offers several tools that are easily selected. The 501 monitor with Sidefinder pack easily and I can see this finding a permanent spot in my bag over the larger and heavier Surface Pro option. HDMI makes all the difference here.

I'm pleased to report that the lessons on clamping with the Surface Pro also apply to the SmallHD monitor/Sidefinder. As pictured here, I'm using a two foot micro HDMI to HDMI cable (gets rid of the Phase adapter), Manfrotto Nano clamp, Giottos mini 1304 ballhead, AS compatible low profile top clamp, with a AS plate attached to the Sidefinder. This setup is easily attached to the tripod leg and allows easy adjustment of the eyepiece for viewing. Manual focus with a tech cam doesn't get easier than this! :thumbup: Coming soon from B&H is a short coiled (12" to 24") right angle micro HDMI to HDMI cord and a retractable micro HDMI to HMDI cord---I think these will pack easier yet.

ken2016-03-01 21.04.12.jpg
 

torger

Active member
torger,



This is pretty close. Stefan Steib can no doubt tell you more, and Lloyd Chambers reviewed the full 40mm/80mm/120mm set, but it is my understanding that performance is excellent when stopped down.

Edit: Here is the review by Lloyd Chambers.
Thanks. It's indeed interesting but it also highlights an issue of weight, the 40mm is 1400 grams. Weight is also an issue with MFD SLRs, and it is becoming an issue with tech cams through over-the-top lens designs like the 32HR. The system I have today is probably the lowest weight you can get with that flexibility and performance.

I think the loss of symmetrical lenses is a really big one and a let-down by the MF manufacturers. Those designs allowed for very high performance in a compact light-weight and simple package and in the digital world they were unique to medium format. Now they've been forced out from the market through copying sensor design from the smaller formats, and in the process some of the MFD uniqueness is being lost.

The legacy market will live many years from now though so those that have the niche interest like I have can still get the systems they want, fortunately. The temptation from live view and state-of-the-art resolution, DR, ISO and long exposure is not a small one though. It's all about choosing which tradeoff that suits you the best.
 
Last edited:

epforever

Member
If CMOS sensors apparently don't work well with tech cam movements, what are the alternatives?

I'm asking as someone very interested in tech cams given (i) i have a background in large format film (now sold, but I REALLY miss movements much more than I thought), and (ii) I can see a clear difference in MFD files compared to 35mm FF (the latter is what I currently use), hence why I'm on this medium format part of the site!

Please correct me if my arm-chair analysis is wrong, but it seems the choices are:

(i) CMOS is limited to small movements before running into probs - but has benefits of both LV and with CMOS now being the latest & highest MP backs. An Alpa STC has a maximum movement of approx 20mm, but is there a rule of thumb for a newbie that suggests how much tech cam movement is practically possible with CMOS backs?

(ii) more extensive movements from CCD backs, but no LV and typically older / lower MP. I guess the same question again - is there a rule of thumb for max movements here with CCDs?

(iii) a film back such as the dedicated Alpa roll back. Given the size of 6x7 or 6x9 film, it seems one would need to really use an older Alpa analogue lens (which have very large 160-200mm ICs) to get the full 20mm front rise that is possible with cameras like the Alpa STC. I never saw any probs at all with large format film and extensive movements, but is there any reason why a film back (combined with full use of 20mm movement on a tech cam) would run into any probs??

Why not just go back to large format film, you ask? Well, 120 film is much easier to use (no dust, loading issues, easier to mail for processing, 350mb drum scans render aesthetically nice 40"-50" prints off Acros / Ektar) + I'm attracted to the potential flexibility that a tech cam might offer (ability to use both digital backs and film), + some tech cams look almost handholdable for "casual shooting" but also offer very precise movements for "thoughtful" shooting (all in one package) ...... so there appear to be lots of reasons for why a tech cam might suit me. But the question about the amount of Movements that is realistic / practical (and in what form ... CMOS, CCS, film) is something I'd like advice on. Many thanks!!

Jon -- good questions. Here's my perspective:

If CMOS doesn't work well with tech cam and movements, the alternative is CCD (if you don't need good high-ISO performance). On an Alpa with HPF rings, extremely fine focus is available without live view. You use a distometer (e.g., Leica Disto D5) to find the exact focal distance, then dial it in on the lens. Frankly, this is just as fast locking the lens open, starting up live view and dialing in focus. I use an H5D-50 back on an Alpa SWA, with a Schneider 35mm Digitar and Alpa's "Apo Alpar" 55mm f/4.5 (same as the Rodenstock 55mm apo-sironar digital lens), and the results are great. No crosstalk, mazing, etc. 50MP is plenty of resolution. Movements are limited only by the lens's image circle, not the sensor itself. The files are so deep and robust, I've upsized them to make 108" prints at 175 ppi (18,900 pixels on the long end).

Regarding film, there are tech-camera lenses with larger image circles for film use. The above 55mm lens has a 125mm image circle, which allows plenty of shift, even on film. In 35mm terms, it's equal to a 28mm on 6x7 film and a 24mm on 6x9 film. I carry both film backs with me. Films are so good now, I find MF film to be a viable alternative to LF. I've printed a drum-scanned Hasselblad color neg at 40" x 40", and it holds up beautifully when viewed close up.

The Alpa SWA is a joy for handholding. It and similar cameras (e.g., Alpa STC, Arca Swiss RM3Di) are just about the only way to have handheld medium format with shift. And to swap between digital and film.

Hope that helps.

ethan
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
It depends on what you call long exposures.

P45+ is a CCD sensor MFDB and is good for up to an hour.

IQ180 is good for about a minute or so. The reality is probably that few really need long exposure capability all the time. It's just those few times.....

Different backs have different capabilities----CCD or CMOS.

IQ3 has longer exposure capabilities----haven't tested or had the opportunity to see if the specs match actual use.

ken
 

epforever

Member
Is it safe to say that one can't do long exposures on CCD backs?
Yes, that's a limitation. The Hasselblad H4D-50 and H5D-50 allow up to 128 sec. The H3D-39 and H3DII-39 allow up to 64 sec. The P45+, as mentioned, is well-known for its long-exposure capability.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
What do think of this idea on a REALLY tight budget:

Canon DSLR (already owned) + Mamiya bellows (it has movements) + Mamiya MF lenses = mini view camera with infinity focus. The whole things should run under $500 with a lens and adapters.
 

torger

Active member
Long exposure capability differs very much between different backs. With my old-school Dalsa in the Aptus 75 max exposure was 32 seconds and it lost about 2 stops of DR at that max time. With my H4D-50 it's 128 seconds with about 1 stop DR lost at those 128 seconds, no dark-frame needed (that is no need to wait twice the time to make the next shot).

The 32 seconds on the Aptus felt limiting at times, but not too bad. The 128 seconds is enough for me, it's just too dark for the ground glass if I would need to shoot longer. However if you're into using 10 stop filters or shoot night skies or such, that is strive for long exposures you'd want something more of course. The P45+ is a good option there. Of what I've seen the old P45+ actually has less issues with long exposure noise than the newer IQ260/IQ360.

The need of dark frame or no possibility to turn it off can be a pain concerning convenience although it helps reducing noise. If I remember correctly you can't turn it off for the P45+ so for one hour long exposure you need to wait one more hour for the exposure to complete. So make sure you have batteries to cover those two hours :). Hasselblad has taken a different approach and doesn't have it it all, which I actually prefer. It costs a bit in noise but it's not too bad and I love the convenience not having to wait for that dark frame exposure.

The noise aspect is often forgotten in evaluations as its not mentioned in the specs. All digital cameras (unlike film) get more noise in the image when exposing for a long time and it can be significant, so do look into that when evaluating.

The Sony-based CMOS backs are capable of long exposures of course if you should go down that path. As far as I know they're better than any of the CCD backs, but I'm not 100% sure when it comes to the P45+ which is impressive. Others have investigated this in more detail.
 

torger

Active member
What do think of this idea on a REALLY tight budget:

Canon DSLR (already owned) + Mamiya bellows (it has movements) + Mamiya MF lenses = mini view camera with infinity focus. The whole things should run under $500 with a lens and adapters.
DSLR or a Sony mirrorless plus a view camera has sky-rocketed in popularity much thanks to the Cambo Actus and the Arca-Swiss Universalis, plus the new high res 135 bodies of course. Very cost efficient solutions. Wide angle is usually a problem, that's why there's E-mount adapters to take the popular Canon TS-E:s, and Cambo has made their own Cambo Actar 24mm for the Actus, not as good as the TS-E 24II but not too bad either.

With the Mamiya bellows I guess you're limited to longer lenses only. If your shooting style doesn't require wide angles you should be alright and as far as I know lens quality is certainly adequate. You won't get the sharpness of say a P65+ with Rodenstock Digarons but it won't be bad.

I assume that the Mamiya bellows is designed for closeup / table top photography. In such situations parallelism is not an issue. However if you want to focus at infinity for a landscape scene parallelism can become an issue, that is if the bellows does not have really high quality zero dents there's a risk that you may end up with shots that are slightly fuzzy on one side.

So it depends on what you want to shoot. It's probably not a great system for landscape due to lack of wides and possible issues with parallelism, but should be great for product photography and similar scenarios.
 

torger

Active member
I use an H5D-50 back on an Alpa SWA
A question, how fast shutter speeds can you do with the Copal shutters with your H5D-50? Does it accept the full 1/500 without sync issues?

An advantage with the Hassy Kodak-based backs compared to Phase One's is that you don't need a wakeup trigger, but it seems to come at the cost that sync errors (with resulting magenta cast issues) can occur for the fastest shutter speeds. My H4D-50 can do down to 1/125 on the Copal without issues, but at 1/250 and 1/500 it can fail. (Note: this is only a problem with Copal mechanical sync, no issues when shooting on the Hassy body of course.)

To me it's not a problem as I'm always shooting at relative small apertures and thus get longer shutter speeds, and would I need shorter due to extreme bright conditions I could always use an ND filter. However if you shoot hand-held wide open it could be. I know of at least one Alpa user that shot hand-held wide open (f/4 on digarons) and had severe sync issues at 1/500 with a Hasselblad back he tried, I forgot which model it was though.
 
M

mjr

Guest
On long exposures, it depends greatly on ambient temperatures, my Leica S 006 with a ccd sensor produced amazing 2 min exposures with filters, my 007 with cmos sensor only went to 1 minute but also did it at ISO200 which I actually found limiting with filter work but again very clean. My IQ260 does very clean 1 hour exposures but I have only used it in very low ambient temps so not sure yet what the results will be like when it gets warmer, I have read a few posts stating it's not very good but maybe I am lucky as it's cold here. For night work capturing aurora and things like that then hands down a cmos sensor is better, 6 seconds at ISO800 with a Leica S and the files are cleaner than any other camera I have used, it all depends on what you want to shoot.

Mat
 

torger

Active member
Good point. Ambient temperature does make a difference, possibly huge one. My statements previously are based on room temperature. I have noticed that there are improvements when shooting in cold conditions (which we enjoy in Sweden quite large time of the year :) ), but I have never quantified them as I don't really have any specific interest in long exposure myself and is satisfied also with the room temperature performance of my back.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
DSLR or a Sony mirrorless plus a view camera has sky-rocketed in popularity much thanks to the Cambo Actus and the Arca-Swiss Universalis, plus the new high res 135 bodies of course. Very cost efficient solutions. Wide angle is usually a problem, that's why there's E-mount adapters to take the popular Canon TS-E:s, and Cambo has made their own Cambo Actar 24mm for the Actus, not as good as the TS-E 24II but not too bad either.

With the Mamiya bellows I guess you're limited to longer lenses only. If your shooting style doesn't require wide angles you should be alright and as far as I know lens quality is certainly adequate. You won't get the sharpness of say a P65+ with Rodenstock Digarons but it won't be bad.

I assume that the Mamiya bellows is designed for closeup / table top photography. In such situations parallelism is not an issue. However if you want to focus at infinity for a landscape scene parallelism can become an issue, that is if the bellows does not have really high quality zero dents there's a risk that you may end up with shots that are slightly fuzzy on one side.

So it depends on what you want to shoot. It's probably not a great system for landscape due to lack of wides and possible issues with parallelism, but should be great for product photography and similar scenarios.
Those are good points. I didn't think about them.

I originally started this thread with the idea in mind that I would need a med format back to mount on a technical or a view camera that would provide me with the types of movements that would expand the possibilities. As I started looking into what's available out there, I'm beginning to think that I'm not too sure about the need for a med format back or even a technical camera.

Are there any compelling reasons to shoot with a med format back provided you're fine with the 40-50mp resolution that modern 35mm digitals provide? What exactly does one gain with a med format back?
 
Top