Advise on technical camera + lens

[GrahamWelland]

I'd agree with Mat if B&W is your goal and reduced colour saturation/extra noise in the corners isn't likely to be an issue for you. Definitely try it without a filter first and avoid unnecessary expense. Also, you may find it a little harder these days to get the CF filter anyways since Schneider are out of the market. Best to shop around first to determine availability.

 

[Hausen]

Not meaning to hijack this thread but I shoot in a very similar way to Giulio, but my LE normally involves water & clouds living on an island in the South Pacific. My dilemma is very similar and have been looking a whether a Tech Camera + MFDB would be a better for LE than the new offerings from MF Hasselblad or Fuji? The overheating rumours of the Hassy worry me. I currently use the A7rII + Loxias and noise is sometimes an issue. My workflow I think suits the Tech Camera (Used to have an Arcbody + all lenses) because I often am out an only shoot 4-5 shots when out and use a tripod 100% of the time. I am leaning towards an Arca Swiss RM3di. CMOS with Live view would be essential for me though. Is a lot of money and would welcome any thoughts.

 

[stngoldberg]

I use my H5D50 on my technical camera in Florida and have never had an overheating issue.
After careful examination, I chose the rm3di based on its simplicity and its ability to utilize rise and fall as well as swing and tilt.
I have owned the camera for five years without any issues at all
Stanley

 

[giulioz]

Not meaning to hijack this thread but I shoot in a very similar way to Giulio, but my LE normally involves water & clouds living on an island in the South Pacific. My dilemma is very similar and have been looking a whether a Tech Camera + MFDB would be a better for LE than the new offerings from MF Hasselblad or Fuji? The overheating rumours of the Hassy worry me. I currently use the A7rII + Loxias and noise is sometimes an issue. My workflow I think suits the Tech Camera (Used to have an Arcbody + all lenses) because I often am out an only shoot 4-5 shots when out and use a tripod 100% of the time. I am leaning towards an Arca Swiss RM3di. CMOS with Live view would be essential for me though. Is a lot of money and would welcome any thoughts.

I need shift, and possibly tilt. The X1D and the Fuji don't foresee for the moment tilt/shift lenses. I had enough about using adapters on small cameras. I want a body that uses dedicated lenses. If for you tilt/shift is not crucial I would stick with the A7r or look into the X1D or the upcoming Fuji. I had the original A7r which was excellent for long exposures, unlikely the A7rII. I was using a Canon TS-E 24 II via adapter. I moved to Hasselblad H5D-40 but it was too bulky and I didn't like very much the interface. I am currently shooting with a Leica Monochrom with an old Leica R 28 PC but it has no long exposure capabilities.

 

[voidshatter]

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.

Really??? You think the IQ260 (as a CCD) is very good at long exposure, when you compare it against a D800 (which has a Sony CMOS sensor)? That is definitely interesting! Could you post a side by side comparison as I did there (for the same scene under the same condition)? I found the IQ260 to be much more noisy (and at the same time the IQ260 spends double the time for long exposure due to darkframe noise reduction, which causes the photographer to miss opportunities): link

What do you mean by not real live view?

If you have tried the IQ260 then you should know that the Live View function is indeed Dead View... The framerate is extremely low, and it doesn't handle high contrast scenes or low light scenes at all.

For example, if you shoot outdoors in a sunny day, the sky would be blown out in its Dead View, and you see nothing when you install a 10-stop ND filter. You get no such problems if you pick a CMOS digital back (e.g. the 100MP 54x40 Sony CMOS or the 50 MP 44x33 Sony CMOS).

Seriously, buying into CCD for long exposure is a wrong move, and I can bet that any filter's pals would regret it, but it's your money.

 

[Hausen]

I need shift, and possibly tilt. The X1D and the Fuji don't foresee for the moment tilt/shift lenses. I had enough about using adapters on small cameras. I want a body that uses dedicated lenses. If for you tilt/shift is not crucial I would stick with the A7r or look into the X1D or the upcoming Fuji. I had the original A7r which was excellent for long exposures, unlikely the A7rII. I was using a Canon TS-E 24 II via adapter. I moved to Hasselblad H5D-40 but it was too bulky and I didn't like very much the interface. I am currently shooting with a Leica Monochrom with an old Leica R 28 PC but it has no long exposure capabilities.

I am the same I really would like at least shift, I shoot a lot on a very low tripod and shift is superb. I had and used all three of the Canon TSE lenses on my Sony A7rII but preferred the Zeiss look of the Loxias so exited the Canons. Funny I had the Monochrom with a Leica R 28 PC before the Sony A7rII. Loved the look but the Monochrom was really hard to use I thought for longer exposures. This is why I am tempted by the RM3di.

 

[cly]

I am leaning towards an Arca Swiss RM3di. CMOS with Live view would be essential for me though. Is a lot of money and would welcome any thoughts.

I'd definitely do a side by side comparison of the Arca way of focusing and the traditional way when using live view: The super fine focus ring of the RM3d(i) makes live view focusing much harder, IMHO (it's great if you use a disto in combination with the Arca tables). If money is an issue, I'd go for a Cambo WRS 1200.

Chris

 

[Hausen]

I'd definitely do a side by side comparison of the Arca way of focusing and the traditional way when using live view: The super fine focus ring of the RM3d(i) makes live view focusing much harder, IMHO (it's great if you use a disto in combination with the Arca tables). If money is an issue, I'd go for a Cambo WRS 1200.

Chris

Thanks for that, money isn't the issue but my wife, who is Swiss and fiscally responsible, is generally the issue I liked the simplicity of the Cambo WRS 1200 you mention. Looks to be compact as well. The money is in the back though really.

 

[giulioz]

The deal on the IQ260 did not materialised. I have now spotted a very good deal on a s/h CVF-50c. I know is a crop sensor but it has the bonus of real live view. I also understand that it has the same sensor of the IQ250, are there any miningful differences betwee the two? I also read that it can be problematic with movements. Would the Rodenstock 28 work well on this back? Do they need a center filter? I assume from what I have read through the threads that the 40 would work better but it might not be wide enough for my needs.

Thanks you, Giulio

 

[archivue]

CVF-50c = you will have to use Phocus instead of Capture One... :banghead:

 

[voidshatter]

I also understand that it has the same sensor of the IQ250, are there any miningful differences betwee the two? I also read that it can be problematic with movements. Would the Rodenstock 28 work well on this back? Do they need a center filter? I assume from what I have read through the threads that the 40 would work better but it might not be wide enough for my needs.

I have never tested the 28 on the CMOS sensors but I would assume it to be very similar as the 23. Over one year ago I did some tests for 23/32/40/70/90. All these lenses seemed to handle well with the CMOS sensor. Keep in mind that Capture One's LCC algorithm has been improved over time and now desaturation has been addressed better than what it used to be. The 40 is definitely a good pick for the CMOS sensors but it's not wide enough - I use it to cover the gap between my 23 and 75.

Regarding center filter: it's definitely necessary if you don't want severe vignetting for long exposure (click to see my previous tests). Personally I regard vignetting as a kind of optics flaw and should be avoided while shooting if possible, because one could always have the choice to add vignetting in post-processing without loss of image quality (signal-to-noise ratio) but not vice versa.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Concerning that question, keep in mind that the TSE offers a lot of shift, 12 mm and that is 1/3 - 1/2 of the frame. So 12 mm really correspond to 20 mm shift on 40 mm lens on full frame 645.

An interesting option is to use a Canon 11-24/4 zoom on a A7rII using either a T&S adapter or a Cambo Actus. The latter has a aperture selection with a special adapter plate.

The posters claiming that Rodenstock HR lenses on MFD outperform 24x36 mm are of course right. My sample of the 24/3.5 TSEII is the weakest of my 24 mm alternatives, Canon 16-35/4L, Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA and Canon 24/3.5TSE LII, but there are better samples than mine.

With shift you need to stop down the 24/3.5 TSE LII to f/11 - f/13. Shifted corners will not be sharp.

The advantage of the Sony A7rII route is that it can work with almost any lens, as the camera has a focal plane shutter and many lenses offer generous amount of shift. LCC and center filter are not needed and live view is very good for composition, magnified live view is great for accurate focus and peaking helps with finding optimal tilt.

Chris Barret switched from Phase One IQ260 to 24x36 mm, check this thread for some explanations: ...and I'm out.

The Canon 5DsR is of course great, but it doesn't offer the kind of flexibility the Sony has, because it has a mirror box.

All that said, a technical camera with great lenses and an MFD back will always outperform lesser systems in image quality, except in a few specific situation. But workflow is a bit more complicated, with some probability.

CMOS backs give good live view. Great for composition and magnified live view is probably best way to focus. LCC exposurs are needed with CMOS, too.

With CCD you need some decent way of focusing. Calibrated helicals like Alpa or Arca or a sliding back.

This may be a good intro: Review: Linhof Techno

Samples:

Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on Sony A7rII : https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/Canon-24-TSE-LII/

Canon 16-35/4L on HCam Master TS II/Sony A7rII, Canon 16-35/4 pre stopped down to f/11: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/16-354l-and-Master-TS/

All images above are available in different sizes, up to full size. Some are stitched.

Best regards
Erik

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?

 

[giulioz]

Hi,

Concerning that question, keep in mind that the TSE offers a lot of shift, 12 mm and that is 1/3 - 1/2 of the frame. So 12 mm really correspond to 20 mm shift on 40 mm lens on full frame 645.

An interesting option is to use a Canon 11-24/4 zoom on a A7rII using either a T&S adapter or a Cambo Actus. The latter has a aperture selection with a special adapter plate.

The posters claiming that Rodenstock HR lenses on MFD outperform 24x36 mm are of course right. My sample of the 24/3.5 TSEII is the weakest of my 24 mm alternatives, Canon 16-35/4L, Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA and Canon 24/3.5TSE LII, but there are better samples than mine.

With shift you need to stop down the 24/3.5 TSE LII to f/11 - f/13. Shifted corners will not be sharp.

The advantage of the Sony A7rII route is that it can work with almost any lens, as the camera has a focal plane shutter and many lenses offer generous amount of shift. LCC and center filter are not needed and live view is very good for composition, magnified live view is great for accurate focus and peaking helps with finding optimal tilt.

Chris Barret switched from Phase One IQ260 to 24x36 mm, check this thread for some explanations: ...and I'm out.

The Canon 5DsR is of course great, but it doesn't offer the kind of flexibility the Sony has, because it has a mirror box.

All that said, a technical camera with great lenses and an MFD back will always outperform lesser systems in image quality, except in a few specific situation. But workflow is a bit more complicated, with some probability.

CMOS backs give good live view. Great for composition and magnified live view is probably best way to focus. LCC exposurs are needed with CMOS, too.

With CCD you need some decent way of focusing. Calibrated helicals like Alpa or Arca or a sliding back.

This may be a good intro: Review: Linhof Techno

Samples:

Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on Sony A7rII : https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/Canon-24-TSE-LII/

Canon 16-35/4L on HCam Master TS II/Sony A7rII, Canon 16-35/4 pre stopped down to f/11: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/16-354l-and-Master-TS/

All images above are available in different sizes, up to full size. Some are stitched.

Best regards
Erik

Thank you. I went through the Sony A7r + adapters, while the files were excellent I got tired of working with adapters, it was bulky and unbalanced, it requested plates for lenses and camera etc. I would rather go for a body with dedicated lenses. What I need for my workflow are long exposures capabilities + the capability to shift at about 24mm. Maybe beside the Nikon D810 (which however does not offer a good 24 t/s shift option), all the other high mpx DSLR offerings fall short for long exposures. Both the 5Ds and the A7rII are problematic for long exposures.

 

[voidshatter]

Maybe beside the Nikon D810 (which however does not offer a good 24 t/s shift option),

Have you looked into the MTF chart of the Nikon 19mm tilt shift lens? It looks much better than that of the Canon 17mm TS-E.

I would assume it to be easier to make filter holders for the Nikon 19mm than the Canon 17mm.

 

[giulioz]

Have you looked into the MTF chart of the Nikon 19mm tilt shift lens? It looks much better than that of the Canon 17mm TS-E.

I would assume it to be easier to make filter holders for the Nikon 19mm than the Canon 17mm.

It looks nice but is a bit too wide for me. I would rather stay around 24mm as my prime lens and then with the Nikon 19 there is the question of filters that needs to be solved.

 

[Hausen]

Won't Lee just develop a adaptor like they did for the Canon 17mm for the Nikon 19mm? I used my Canon 17mm on my A7rII with Lee adaptor Big Stopper and Little Stopper for 16 stops @ 4mins as my go to long exposure kit for awhile. I just preferred the Zeiss Loxia look so ditched the Canons. That is the reason I am tempted by a Tech cam so I can at least get shift capabilities again.

 

[Abstraction]

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.

Has anyone tried shooting a Canon 5DSR on a tech camera with a Rodenstock lens and compared the results to a med format back on the same setup? If the results are comparable, that could be the way to go.

 

[Paul2660]

Has anyone tried shooting a Canon 5DSR on a tech camera with a Rodenstock lens and compared the results to a med format back on the same setup? If the results are comparable, that could be the way to go.

Probably not. The mirror box of the 5Dsr will limit you to 90mm or longer glass.

Paul C

 

[Abstraction]

Probably not. The mirror box of the 5Dsr will limit you to 90mm or longer glass.

Paul C

What lenses do they use with the Cambo X2 Pro camera? Are they limited to 90mm and longer?

 

[dnercesian]

I have tried and really enjoyed a lot of Medium Format solutions in a relatively short period of time, starting with the Pentax 645Z and the Leica S007 which were both lovely but did not end up fitting all of my needs as I do make a living shooting architecture. From there I moved to Phase One and have tried out multiple backs, starting with the P25+ and the P65+, but eventually buying an IQ150 as well as an IQ160 which I fell into for a great deal.

First off, I loved all of those backs for different reasons, but work demands practicality, or it will beat you down on a day to day basis, which is not fun. For that reason, the IQ150 became my weapon of choice as the live view was really key to easily achieving fine focus as well as composition on a technical camera. The bonus was that the CMOS sensor performed better on long exposures and had enormous dynamic range. The only nagging issue for me was that I preferred the way the larger sensor of the IQ160 played with my focal lengths, as I needed a somewhat wider solution.

Fast forward not long at all and i just received my IQ3100 the other day. From running through it in that time, I am in photographer heaven. Also, moving up to the features of the IQ3 backs, and in particular the IQ3100 is something that is really a game changer for me workflow wise. Anyhow, I am not going to get so much into that as I know it is not practical to tell you to go that far, at least for now.

Put aside the little extra pleasures of the IQ3, the focal length/sensor size relationship, the resolution, and unbelievably the even more dynamic range of the IQ3100. Look at the IQ150 if you can. You are still getting excellent resolution, tremendous dynamic range, great ISO flexibility, and very importantly, a live view that is very useful because it actually works! You will thank yourself for this in no time.

With regards to the other gear, I think the WRS 1200 is a good choice, and one with which you will find a decent bargain on. I opted for the WRS 5000 because I realized that with day in/day out usage, the larger knobs and the counterweighted back would be features I would appreciate. After some use, I am glad I went that way. If it fits into the budget, then I say go for it.

Lastly, for the lens, I went with the Rodenstock 32mm HR. Can't go wrong with this lens, as long as it fits in the budget.