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!

Advise on technical camera + lens

giulioz

Member
Hello,

I would like to acquire a technical camera set-up for architecture. I am considering a second hand IQ260 back. It has about 30.000 clicks, is it a lot for this kind of back? The next step would be to get the camera and the lens. For the lens I would like something in the 24/26mm range equivalent on 35mm (Rodenstock?). For the camera I am looking at Cambo as I would like the possibility to shift on both axis. I looked at Cambo web-site but I am not sure which would be the best option in term of price/portability. Also, what else do I need to be ready to shoot? Of course I have a tripod + head, so I guess I would need a plate for the camera. I am into long exposures so I will use ND filters on the lens.

Thank you for your advice, Giulio
 
Last edited:

Jamgolf

Member
1. 30K clicks is not too high for a digital back.

2. Rodenstock 40HR would be equivalent to ~26mm in 135 format terms. Schneider 35mm would be equivalent to ~23mm in 135 format and would also be distortion free, which might be important to you for architecture.

3. Out of the Cambo lineup, I think Cambo WRS 1200 is the best in terms of price/size/function.

4. You would need a Kapture Group One Shot Cable to trigger the back.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The 35mm Rodenstock has a 70mm image circle which will limit you to about 5mm of movement.


I would consider the 35mm Schneider or 40mm Rodenstock as they have 90mm image circles.

Paul C
 
I am into long exposures so I will use ND filters on the lens.
For architecture I don't see the urgent need of long exposures, but if you plan to do dedicated long exposures with ND filters then I wouldn't recommend CCD digital backs.

a) CCD has significantly less dynamic range for long exposure when compared against CMOS: link

b) CCD has tiling issues: link

c) CCD doesn't have real Live View function so you'll need to work around it (and even though you can use a variable ND filter it still struggles with scenes of high contrast): link

d) CCD has corner issues for long exposure (including IQ260, IQ380 etc): link

e) You can't disable darkframe noise reduction on a CCD digital back without great impact of image quality. This time consuming mechanism is a deal-breaker for landscape shots. However, you can disable darkframe noise reduction on a CMOS digital back without obvious impact of image quality.

If you pick any CCD back for long exposure, it is highly likely that you would regret it after you compare it against a Nikon D810 or even a Nikon D3300. I strongly recommend you try it first before you buy it!
 

giulioz

Member
For architecture I don't see the urgent need of long exposures, but if you plan to do dedicated long exposures with ND filters then I wouldn't recommend CCD digital backs.

a) CCD has significantly less dynamic range for long exposure when compared against CMOS: link

b) CCD has tiling issues: link

c) CCD doesn't have real Live View function so you'll need to work around it (and even though you can use a variable ND filter it still struggles with scenes of high contrast): link

d) CCD has corner issues for long exposure (including IQ260, IQ380 etc): link

Thanks, I do fine art, not architcture int eh strict sense.

e) You can't disable darkframe noise reduction on a CCD digital back without great impact of image quality. This time consuming mechanism is a deal-breaker for landscape shots. However, you can disable darkframe noise reduction on a CMOS digital back without obvious impact of image quality.

If you pick any CCD back for long exposure, it is highly likely that you would regret it after you compare it against a Nikon D810 or even a Nikon D3300. I strongly recommend you try it first before you buy it!
Thanks, I do fine art, not architecture in the strict sense. I am currently running a project on the former socialist monuments in former Yugoslavia, you can see some of my work here Giulio Zanni Photograpy | Spomenici

I tried a friend's IQ260 and I find the long exposures verey very good. I have no experience of the D810 but I had a D800 and it was quite bad for long exposure. The original Sony A7R, despite having the same sensor, was much better. Corners are not really crucial for me as I tend to apply vignetting in post. What do you mean by not real live view?
 
Last edited:

kdphotography

Well-known member
If you are aware of the advantages and disadvantages, or rather better said, the capabilities and limitations of your equipment, you can make it work. If you expect your equipment to do everything for you, then perhaps photography isn't the best hobby or choice of vocation. Or if you think you should be able to take a thin file and push it to its extremes yet retain museum quality print characteristics merely because you spent a lot of money on your equipment, you're going to be disappointed. I think you'll do fine.

I enjoy working with the Cambo WRS, which I think worked great with the IQ180. I actually fear the day that a camera system is introduced that removes the necessity of human thought or input in the creation of a photographic image. (This, of course, is not to be confused with the acquisition of new camera equipment:D) Damn, that was actually sincere and sounds good too---I might have to keep that one as a serious bio quote. :ROTFL:

ken
 

giulioz

Member
If you are aware of the advantages and disadvantages, or rather better said, the capabilities and limitations of your equipment, you can make it work. If you expect your equipment to do everything for you, then perhaps photography isn't the best hobby or choice of vocation. Or if you think you should be able to take a thin file and push it to its extremes yet retain museum quality print characteristics merely because you spent a lot of money on your equipment, you're going to be disappointed. I think you'll do fine.
Sorry but I don't need lessons on this, I am into photography for 40 years and won several international awards...I just need feedback on the IQ260 and suitable camera + lens
 

Jamgolf

Member
Sorry but I don't need lessons on this, I am into photography for 40 years and won several international awards...I just need feedback on the IQ260 and suitable camera + lens
Hi giulioz

I am positive that Ken's intent got lost in translation/words.
For what its worth I assure you his response was not intended as a "lesson" or lecture at all :)
Ken is actually one of the best people here to ask for candid advice regarding equipment.

Cheers!
 

giulioz

Member
Hi giulioz

I am positive that Ken's intent got lost in translation/words.
For what its worth I assure you his response was not intended as a "lesson" or lecture at all :)
Ken is actually one of the best people here to ask for candid advice regarding equipment.

Cheers!
Thank you, no problem at all, I am sure it's a misunderstanding :thumbup:
 

giulioz

Member
Many thanks for all your feedback so far. However, since is quite a bit of money, beside larger movements and 10 mpx more, what would I get more than let's say a Canon 5DsR + 24 T/S?
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Many thanks for all your feedback so far. However, since is quite a bit of money, beside larger movements and 10 mpx more, what would I get more than let's say a Canon 5DsR + 24 T/S?
The Canon 24 TS-E II, whilst a fine lens on 35mm DSLR's, simply does not compare well with a Rodenstock HR.

Even on an IQ180 with a pixel pitch of 5.2 microns, it will totally fall apart at the edges and corners of the image circle (which is where you will be shifting to on the Canon).

On a 5DsR with a pixel pitch of 4.1 microns, it would be wasted - you're just throwing that increased resolution away because once you start shifting the lens, it simply does not have the resolving power the sensor demands of it.

I shot with the Canon 24 TS-E for a long time and thought I was happy with it (this was on 5D Mk II). Then I shot with a Rodenstock on a MF back and tech-cam and was blown away. It's in a totally different league.

The only advise I can give you is this -

If you do decide to go down the Canon route, never, ever look at a file from a MFDB, tech-cam and Rodenstock HR lens.

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 

dchew

Well-known member
I don't know what IQ260's are going for, but if the cost is insurmountable an alternative is one of the cameras from Cambo or Arca that accept mirrorless cameras as well as digital backs, then use the Rodenstock lens(es)

Dave
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
If you do decide to go down the Canon route, never, ever look at a file from a MFDB, tech-cam and Rodenstock HR lens.
+1 on this. Until you've used technical camera wide angle lenses you really don't realize just how good these lenses can be. The sensor is less of an issue these days and I wouldn't hesitate to use something like a Sony A7RII on an Actus again with tech camera lenses.

I use the Canon 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E II on my Alpa FPS on an IQ150 and would agree with Gerald that TBH it's rather like bringing a knife along to a gun fight when you compare them to a Rodenstock 23HR or 32HR, heck, or any of my tech camera lenses.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I've just sold my IQ260 as I have a big project coming up that requires a lot of video work and as a business I need to own kit that gives me the best options to earn money, having gone back to a 35mm system for stills I am pretty depressed!

There are obviously situations where cmos based cameras will give you a much better chance of getting a shot, low light, handheld stuff for example but if you work in a way that makes the most of the ccd backs, like I tend to, then there is very little in my opinion that comes close to the 260 for image quality. For the type of work you are doing I think you'd be very happy with the files you get, I had it on a Cambo with Rodenstock glass and it was incredible, I used it also on the XF and for studio work using strobes it is brilliant.

I used a friends 5ds recently whilst teaching in Iceland and it's a nice camera, I was tempted to buy one but I have just bought another D810 instead purely from the quality of the files, the Nikon is better for me, the Canon 17mm t/s would have been the only thing that would tempt me to Canon but I just didn't like the files enough.

Looking at your work, that long exposure, heavy black and white work is something I really like, the 260 would handle this easily in my opinion. Try and get some time with one if you can and see how it works for you.

Good luck!

Mat
 

giulioz

Member
Many thanks for your feedback. As far as the lens is concerned, I would go for a Schneider Digitar 35mm. Would the lens still hold its own compared to a current Rodenstock?
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
SK35 Digitar works fine with IQ260 although IMHO the CF filter is mandatory for this back, especially if you want to use movements. The LCCs look pretty ugly but they clean up fine in C1 (although that's also why I recommend the centre filter as mandatory as they can end up looking like a nasty coloured bruise).
 

giulioz

Member
SK35 Digitar works fine with IQ260 although IMHO the CF filter is mandatory for this back, especially if you want to use movements. The LCCs look pretty ugly but they clean up fine in C1 (although that's also why I recommend the centre filter as mandatory as they can end up looking like a nasty coloured bruise).
Thanks, would I have problems by stacking the center filter with ND filters?
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
With ND you'll want to stack. So long as you avoid stray light you should be ok. Remember also that you'll be losing a couple of stops with the centre filter too but it will significantly even out the exposure and make LCCs much easier.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I have never used this lens but obviously it's worth experimenting, your style may actually suit the 35 without a centre filter, purely because you are working in b&w and you tend to produce stylised work, the optical design could be a real benefit. All good fun!

Mat
 
Top