Ultimate Landscape Kit using the IQ3

[glenerrolrd]

Here are the key assumptions :

1. Cost isn t a factor the IQ3 by itself means that you either have sufficient resources or a legitimate business reason (or both) to buy into this level system . By definition almost everything is less expensive and probably good enough for the intended application .....so its not about best value .

2. Landscape/Seascape would be the primary application ...assume you are going from one PODAS workshop to another equally terrific location . You would be using the system extensively and the process itself is important .

It seems today Phase has two distinct offerings ...the XF system using the Schneider AF lenses and the “A” Alpha system with the matched Rodenstocks .

Its obvious that if studio applications were important that the XF system clearly has greater versatility ...but for a dedicated landscape kit ...which would you choose and why ? This is not a completely hypothetical discussion as a buying decision maybe in play .

Up front I own up to not knowing much about landscape photography ..my primary interests being street and sports .

 

[Christopher]

For me if I go hiking and stuff I always would take the XF with 3 lenses. (DF was the old one.)

From the car I wouldn't mind the arcs Swiss, but if I'm on the move for quite a lot of time the XF is just a faster and with a CMOS can make amazing handheld images.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Corrected Df to Xf .

 

[Jon Warwick]

It seems today Phase has two distinct offerings ...the XF system using the Schneider AF lenses and the “A” Alpha system with the matched Rodenstocks .

.... and i think one possibly sees both in use here for taking images of the most gorgeous landscape (looks like around Mt Everest if i'm not mistaken).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1MCfzVp8WA

It is one of the most beautifully filmed and inspiring photo equipment videos that i've ever seen, but i'm a sucker for huge mountain vistas. The Alpa / Phase combo looks really compact.

 

[kdphotography]

I do like the XF body, but for landscapes, I'd much rather use the Cambo with IQ3 100MP. This is, as you say, about the process and for me that means the enjoyment of photography. Just need a lens or two. Enjoy the movements. HDMI and Small HD sidefinder makes focusing simple. Technical camera for me! :thumbup:

ken

 

[mjr]

I agree with Ken, the XF is a great camera but if I was going to invest in the 100 for landscapes then it would be on a tech camera, I had a Alpa STC before and now have a Cambo with 3 Rodenstocks, fits nicely in my F-stop Loka and i can walk all day with it, the option of movements in a relatively compact package is just brilliant and image quality is very high. It's the camera I would take everywhere.

Mat

 

[AreBee]

Roger,

...for a dedicated landscape kit ...which would you choose...

Neither.

...why ?

1. I would not use a back on an SLR - for me the technical camera shooting experience would be more pleasurable, and;

2. I would not use an IQ3 100MP - for me its performance is unacceptable when used in conjunction with ultrawide lenses.

...I own up to not knowing much about landscape photography...

Is it your personal philosophy to normally 'jump in at the deep end'?

 

[dchew]

I (of course!) agree the technical camera is the better landscape kit, but I don't consider the "A" series to be the preferred camera. The Alpa TC is great if you only want one lens, but I find it too limited to be called the "ultimate" landscape kit. The STC, Cambo or Arca are better suited IMO. If you want to carry lots of lenses, Torger's approach with the Linhof might be the way to go.

Dave

 

[GrahamWelland]

When shooting just landscapes it would be the Cambo Actus DB+ for me with my small 3 rodenstock lens outfit. The IQ3 with live view, the full range of movements and the contemplative nature of using a mini view camera works for me. You can be very efficient but I find that I need to have the time to set up/tear down the rig between locations.

I don't have experience of the Arca tech camera but certainly I've owned and/or used the Alpa TC/STC/Max and Cambo WRS systems and they also provide a great shooting platform, again principally due to the opportunity to shoot with a tactile simple outfit with movements. If I were replacing my lost Alpa directly (STC) I'd probably have gone back to using an Alpa MAX with tilt/swing adapter and the short barrel fit rodenstocks. A very able and relatively compact solution without the bellows of my Actus DB+. Personally, the TC/A series is too limiting unless it's a single super wide like the 23mm.

For convenience however, I am quite enamored by my XF and the latest Schneider lenses such as the new 35LS. If I'm shooting on a trip either with a friend or with a group of others then I'll reach for the XF. The OP mentioned a PODAS, well that's exactly the type of scenario where I'd rather use the XF but would have to sacrifice movements and the luxury to sit around waiting hours for the right light with my tech system dialed in and ready.

Which back with no budget constraints? That's easy as in IQ3 100. The CMOS backs with great live view have been a game changer for me and I personally don't run into the 'problems' that others seem to worry so much about with technical lenses. (I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I haven't run into them). I do have some budget realism so I make do with the IQx50 for now.

 

[kdphotography]

... I do have some budget realism so I make do with the IQx50 for now.

Read in the right context---we are in Dante's world here.

Btw, I'm shopping for a new 4-wheel drive camera bag myself....:ROTFL:

ken

 

[Speedgraphic]

IQ100 and an Apla or................ 13,480 sheets of Velvia 100 4x5 and a Chamonix 45N2 FTW!

 

[Jack]

Me only, and I respect that others opinions may vary:

Money no object, XF, 28LS, 40-80LS, 75-150LS, 120LS and 240LS, but obviously I would not carry all of them all the time and probably limit myself to 3 depending on actual subject and leave the others in the car bag as needed. (I would also own the 55LS for casual walk-around street lens and the 110LS for portraiture, but they are not necessary for dedicated landscape per the OP's question.) And I'd definitely own a Tech Cam, prolly the Cambo with TS lenses in 32HR, 60 SK and 120SK. (In reality, when I did do MF landscape, my Tech cam and 3 lenses saw 90% of my total MF landscape use -- FWIW...)

My .02 only...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If I did it again given the new body and new lenses. I would not go the tech cam route. Even though I loved it got amazing images from it. I felt sometimes a bit to limiting in shooting style. You tend to go eye height , you tend to stop down and it's a little slow sometimes. I like to lay down sometimes to shoot and like the option to be more wide open and I'm a fast shooter. But again this was when I shot CCD sensors without live view. Today with CMOS it would be easier with a tech cam. Other reason I would use this for almost everything so I need the mobility of a DSLR style. Tell you what give me the 70 k and I'll let you know what I buy. Lol

 

[Jack]

But Guy,

The tech cams and TS lenses are just so fun to use and so purrrrrrrfect in use and rendering!

:ROTFL:

 

[Wayne Fox]

For me if I go hiking and stuff I always would take the XF with 3 lenses. (DF was the old one.)

From the car I wouldn't mind the arcs Swiss, but if I'm on the move for quite a lot of time the XF is just a faster and with a CMOS can make amazing handheld images.

I’m sort of opposite, if hiking I tend to go with my Arca system ... it’s quite a bit lighter. I have the 28/40/70/90/180 rodenstock and a 120 schneider. If hiking I usually take only 4 of the lenses, the 120 schneider (because it’s so small and light) always the 40, either the 70 or the 90, and either the 28 or the 180.

Also I tend to stitch pano’s a lot, and prefer the tech system for that.

If I need to work quickly or if there are a lots of opportunities then I go with the XF, I use the 28, 40-80, 75-150, and the 240. I tend to avoid hiking much with this system, even dropping out the 240 it’s heavier than my tech system.

I will admit since getting the XF, and the new 40-80 the Phase system is very enjoyable to use.

I’m guessing when my IQ3 100 comes in, it may influence me one way or the other. Live view focusing on the Arca will make that much more appealing, but I’ll have to see how bad the issues others have mentioned when using tech glass on this back are.

 

[DougDolde]

I had my fill of tech cameras. Major issues for me is inaccurate framing, hassle of shooting LCC file, no autofocus.

Currently have the XF body, IQ180, 28mm, 40-80mm, 110mm and 150mm. So much better than a tech cam for me anyway. Downside is bulk and weight.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Thanks for all the feedback . Whenever I set out to take on a new challenge ....I like to understand the very best possible result. I can always cut back on my objective if the cost in time or money seems too great or if I know I am just not cut out for it . I am definitely in the group that gets in over my head and tries not to “sink”.

Consulting with experts is the fastest way I know to accelerate learning ..so I much appreciate the candid responses this thread received . Interesting that the advantages /disadvantages of alternatives..once understood and weighted to an individuals priorities ....come down to just a few things .

No one mentioned a real preference for the View vs DSLR based on image quality (provided by the lenses)....both seeming to exceed most requirements with room to spare .

The real differences seem to center on the “shooting process” with distinct favorites in both camps . The DSLR looks to be easier to master and to use ..greater versatility in applications etc . Those that favor the view camera are equally pleased by the mastering of skills necessary to get good results .

 

[Jack]

Roger,

To be sure, excellent -- nay, superior -- quality images will be obtained with either system. For me, the larger benefit of the tech cam for landscape specific photography, was that like the view camera with film, it slowed me down to where I spent 3x the time perfecting the composition -- and then often 10x the time waiting for the sweetest light -- before moving to the next. A side benefit was having rise and shift to perfect composition without moving the camera, and then that teeny skosh of tilt to extend usable DoF from foreground to infinity *at the lens optimal taking aperture* often gives the final image that special something extra character the fixed-lens system cannot. Like Wayne indicated, the tech system is convenient and lightweight; and then it always amazed me the number of unique compositions I could make with just 3 lenses. These are the reasons that for landscape specific imaging, I would choose a tech cam over the XF.

However, all that said were I buying an IQ3 today, I would buy the XF and at least 3 or 4 lenses along with the tech cam and 3 lenses. I realize this advice is probably not exactly what you wanted to hear

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Many years ago I was a 4 by 5 shooter and used tilt extensively in landscapes to get DOF. But now I find the XF more than satisfactory. While I have lenses from 28 to 240 mm, my backpack for hiking just has the SK35, the SK55, the SK80 and the SK 120. When I need the equivalent of tilt, I'll use Helicon - if the subject permits multiple exposures.

I'm very pleased with the XF's new multiple focus mode, though I use the Hyperfocal mode more often, especially with the SK35 which seems to have more DOF than it should!

 

[Paul2660]

Many years ago I was a 4 by 5 shooter and used tilt extensively in landscapes to get DOF. But now I find the XF more than satisfactory. While I have lenses from 28 to 240 mm, my backpack for hiking just has the SK35, the SK55, the SK80 and the SK 120. When I need the equivalent of tilt, I'll use Helicon - if the subject permits multiple exposures.

I'm very pleased with the DF's new multiple focus mode, though I use the Hyperlocal mode more often, especially with the SK35 which seems to have more DOF than it should!

Hi Bill,

I read this and smiled as that is my same setup. I was using the 40HR, 60XL and 90HR, and found those three lenses met my needs in the field, or I guess I forced them to. But when I was shooting the Df and the AFDIII, prior, I used the older 35mmAF most of the time, so I moved to the 35LS, and then with help from Capture Integration source a 55LS used (which is a dream lens in regards to sharpness) and I had the 80LS so that is my main carry. I still have Jack's old 210AF (another tack sharp lens) and when I need reach I carry that also as it's not heavy or bulky. Just which the hood would still stay locked down when not in use.

I also agree with Jack's tech comments, but the LCC process is what really pushed me back to the XF for now. Just nice to have the ability to work without the LCC, but I do miss the short pano possibilities that shift gave me. I still do nodal pans when the scene allows it and the pano software on the market now is amazing.

The XF is a game changer, but I did hope for more AF points (I know I am an exception to that need it seems), but on a tripod, and shooting focus recompose won't work as you can't ever get the shot re-aligned. At least I can't.

Paul C