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!

Looking for some advice! (tech cam advice)

TimG

Member
You also get more room of shift of the 44x33 sensors for the 90-100mm image circle lenses! Likewise, you also lose value for not being able to fully cover the 90-110mm image circle with the 54x40 sensors!
Yeah I see your point there, ideally I should really try a 23mm on an IQ250, and a 32mm on an IQ260.. One of the things that's putting me off the 23mm is I've read a lot about it suffering from very bad flare, and I'm not sure the overall image quality is as good as the 32mm but I'd probably need to do a side-by-side comparison myself to know for sure,

It almost sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other :D
 

cly

Member
Last edited:

tjv

Active member
With my Techno I use the long sliding back, which is very good and accurate but a little big to pack. I wanted to buy the short sliding back, but ran out of money and bought the long one second hand from Paula instead.

With regards to focusing and adjusting of movments, I never need to use live view to check – in my opinion it's too poor for that purpose anyway. I simply use the Linhof Studio 12x loupe on the GG, dial in the settings and framing I want, then shoot. I check the focus etc on the image review at 100% (NOT live view) and change if necessary, but to be honest almost never need to adjust / fine tune from there.

And I agree with regards to your thoughts on the computer game graphics shadow pushing that some seem to love so much. It looks silly to me. If you don't need higher ISO or descent live view, then CCD is still a great option. My Credo does ok on longer exposures upto 30 seconds, too, and I often push it past that, but in ambient temperatures over 20 degrees celcius you need to be careful it doesn't get too warm, which exacerbates the noise.

The other thing I'd say is that centre filters on some lenses if you're employing big movements will be your friend. They'll help with noise after LCC, not to mention light fall off.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Tim -

Speaking as someone who has shot with the Alpa Max on Phase One P45+ Achromatic, IQ180, IQ250, IQ280 and IQ3 100, and with the Rodenstock 23HR, 32HR, 40HR, 50HR, 70HR and 90HR, the best advice I can give you is this...

Ignore all the words. Ignore all the people trying to validate their own purchase decisions by convincing someone else to buy what they did because of what works for them.

Look at Dan Lindberg's images. Look at what he creates with what he has.

That is all.

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 

TimG

Member
With my Techno I use the long sliding back, which is very good and accurate but a little big to pack. I wanted to buy the short sliding back, but ran out of money and bought the long one second hand from Paula instead.
Quick question regarding the techno sliding back - can you use it for stitching panoramics? as I'm liking the sound of being able to compose on the groundglass (I love working upside down as I got so used to it with 5x4) then just sliding the back into place to take the shot without having to use LV at all,
 

tjv

Active member
Quick question regarding the techno sliding back - can you use it for stitching panoramics? as I'm liking the sound of being able to compose on the groundglass (I love working upside down as I got so used to it with 5x4) then just sliding the back into place to take the shot without having to use LV at all,
Yes, stitching is possible with two set points, being +/-17mm left or right, plus obviously with extra rise / fall of the back and / or rise of the lens.

If you haven't already, read Anders Torger's review of the Techno, which I think is pretty much on the money:

Review: Linhof Techno

I ended up getting the Techno because I wanted to shoot film (and scan with my Imacon and Hasselblad scanners,) until such time I could afford a digital back. It was important to me to maintain my film workflow (as with my 4x5" Technika,) and the Techno seemed the best option at the time – and was more flixible with movements, all be it with 6x7/9 film – but was also substantially cheaper than the Alpa alternative. Buying now, already with a digital back, it's a tough call what I might do. To be honest I'm cost sensitive, so would probably do the same again. If buying on pure gear lust however, I'd go the Alpa...

Ignore all the words. Ignore all the people trying to validate their own purchase decisions by convincing someone else to buy what they did because of what works for them.
Nobody here is trying to push opionions on people (save the usual boring assertions from old Voidshatter), just sharing experiences with equipment mentioned by the OP. My Linhof Techno is not perfect – some of my reservations for specific use cases I've outlined above, plus others are also mentioned in Anders's excellent review. No system is perfect and one thing is for certain: it's a bloody expensive game to take part in. Better people share openly when someone asks than to hold back. In any event, Tim lives near one of the best dealers of this gear in the world. I think he's well covered for advise.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I had the Alpa 12max with an IQ180, tried to like it but failed. Sold it all. Then I attended a Rodney Lough workshop and watched him work with both an 8x10 camera and an Arca Swiss rL3d. So I bought a used rm3di, and a few lenses, and since then have taken many images I really like. I started with a Kapture Group Sliding adaptor with ground glass, and tried to use a loupe for focus, gave up on that. Still used it for composition, but then started experimenting with Live View.

Cmos backs certainly make life much easier, but there are many of us that have taken some pretty nice images using a CCD back on a tech camera for years. There are several workflow options (search this forum and you'll find all kinds of information about focusing and composing tech cameras).

While Live View is weak, it is far more usable than others imply, I've got dozens of images all composed and focused with Live View. You can search the forum about using a Variable ND filter to control the light getting to the sensor to stop blooming even on bright days. Shortly after I started using the variND, I eliminated all ground glass and shot for the last couple of years using only LiveView for composition and focusing.

Granted it's terrible compared to using a cmos back. I have the 3 100, and to me the wifi combined with cmos LiveView and the tech camera is an entire new world, I use both an iPhone 7+, or a iPad Pro via Wifi to compose and focus (I rarely even look at the image on the back anymore). With the new Electronic shutter many images I trigger from the remote device.

But LiveView on a CCD back is certainly useable.

As far as the camera, I prefer the arca because it has 5 degrees of tilt in the body so I can tilt any lens without an adaptor. It has good shifts as well in both directions. However, I'm not more successful because of the Arca vs Alpa, what changed was being a little more patient, learning the workflow and getting the LiveView to be usable. But I do think having the tilt in the camera can be helpful and a better solution than an adaptor. I've used tilt on my 28mm many times, I think 32mm is the widest lens you can use tilt on with an Alpa.

An example, this is a 4 shot stitch taken with a Rodenstock 70mm, and using tilt for full depth of field. Sharp from nearest plant to the mountains in the background. While late afternoon, it's a bright day and I setup the tilt and focus in less than a minute.



 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
To Wayne's point, Live View with CMOS is a game changer but the world wasn't disasterous by any means with CCD, with or without live (fuzzy) view.

With a technical camera the ability to dial in a focus distance really pretty much nails it, particularly if you are shooting wide at f/8 or f/11. Tilt it is true is a little trickier but after many frustrating tilt sessions I ended up finding that going by the numbers ended up pretty much nailing it every time. I would shoot/review 7 or 8 images and fuss over the LCD images but when I reviewed them in C1 they would ALL be good. With wides in particular a little tilt goes a long way.

With respect to the Alpa tilt, yes 32HR is the widest and unless you're shooting down in the weeds that only requires < 1 degree of tilt! With the 28/23 lenses you're pretty much in the territory of tilt being unnecessary anyway.

Having tilt on all lenses though is a nice option.
 

TimG

Member
So I imagine that compared to 5x4 the movements on a digital technical camera are much smaller? (due to the much smaller image circle) For example on my 5x4 with a 90mm Nikkor SW, I'd be using between 3 and 6 degrees of front tilt to achieve scheimpflug, I assume with digital I'd be talking 1-2 degrees of tilt max, with a short lens like a 32 ?
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Correct - at normal tripod height then focal length/30 is a good starting point. Normally under 1 degree with the 32mm.

Check out Torger's Lumariver DOF/tilt app: Lumariver
 
And I agree with regards to your thoughts on the computer game graphics shadow pushing that some seem to love so much. It looks silly to me. If you don't need higher ISO or descent live view, then CCD is still a great option.
Interesting. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but even a CCD user like you did make a post like this (click to open). To me, the second picture you posted (with shadow push) looks more natural and is more close to what I see with my human eye, but I understand that it's possible that different people can have different dynamic ranges with their eyes. Maybe silhouette like the first picture you posted there looks more close to what some people see with their human eyes, but it's definitely not considered to be natural by me.

Tim -

Speaking as someone who has shot with the Alpa Max on Phase One P45+ Achromatic, IQ180, IQ250, IQ280 and IQ3 100, and with the Rodenstock 23HR, 32HR, 40HR, 50HR, 70HR and 90HR, the best advice I can give you is this...

Ignore all the words. Ignore all the people trying to validate their own purchase decisions by convincing someone else to buy what they did because of what works for them.

Look at Dan Lindberg's images. Look at what he creates with what he has.

That is all.

Gerald.
This time I don't think you are making an objective statement. I can't believe that someone who has owned so many exotic gears speaks like this. Here we are talking about gear choices, not photography levels. I have no doubt that Dan Lindberg makes stunning images, but I assume you are talking about webpage sized small pictures where one cannot even distinguish between M43 and 645. If you don't have access to any of his images for a side-by-side comparison between gears under the same condition at pixel-peeping level, then it's difficult to validate his gear choice. For example, for image XXX, I need to see a comparison between gear Y and gear Z at pixel level to justify the purchase of Y, not the photography content. Are you sure that in some cases (e.g. a high contrast scene) an IQ260 exceeds the image quality of that of a Nikon D810? You did contribute to this community with informative comparisons before!
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Void has a very good point. Web size images throw away something like 99.5% of the resolution and would normally be in sRGB, unless properly tagged and that tagging is maintained on the platform used.

Web size images tell a lot about the artist but nothing about the camera used.

Jeff Schewe illustrates it by comparing in Image Sharpening, second edition, page 30

  • iPhone A4s
  • Fuji Fine Pix A820
  • Canon Digital Rebel Xti
  • Canon EOS-1Ds III
  • Phase One P65+ back

Here the images are indistinguishable. Admittedly the images in print are very small. Initially, the images are probably quite different, but with proper processing they get pretty close.

On the other, with the P65+ you can print larger 28"x37.4", while the iPhone 4s is limited to 4"x5.3".

In all probability the P65+ has a great advantage in DR at both the image and pixel level and in noise. Quite possibly, the P65+ may have better colour rendition. But all that is masked with proper processing and the small image size.

That is the reason that I feel that web size images are totally useless for technical comparisons. They tell a lot about the photographer and nothing about the gear.

Best regards
Erik

This time I don't think you are making an objective statement. I can't believe that someone who has owned so many exotic gears speaks like this. Here we are talking about gear choices, not photography levels. I have no doubt that Dan Lindberg makes stunning images, but I assume you are talking about webpage sized small pictures where one cannot even distinguish between M43 and 645. If you don't have access to any of his images for a side-by-side comparison between gears under the same condition at pixel-peeping level, then it's difficult to validate his gear choice. For example, for image XXX, I need to see a comparison between gear Y and gear Z at pixel level to justify the purchase of Y, not the photography content. Are you sure that in some cases (e.g. a high contrast scene) an IQ260 exceeds the image quality of that of a Nikon D810? You did contribute to this community with informative comparisons before!
 
Last edited:

gerald.d

Well-known member
This time I don't think you are making an objective statement. I can't believe that someone who has owned so many exotic gears speaks like this. Here we are talking about gear choices, not photography levels. I have no doubt that Dan Lindberg makes stunning images, but I assume you are talking about webpage sized small pictures where one cannot even distinguish between M43 and 645. If you don't have access to any of his images for a side-by-side comparison between gears under the same condition at pixel-peeping level, then it's difficult to validate his gear choice. For example, for image XXX, I need to see a comparison between gear Y and gear Z at pixel level to justify the purchase of Y, not the photography content. Are you sure that in some cases (e.g. a high contrast scene) an IQ260 exceeds the image quality of that of a Nikon D810? You did contribute to this community with informative comparisons before!
I don't have to validate his gear choice. He's done that already for himself.

He's a working, professional photographer at the absolute top of the game with paying clients who produces stunning images.

As for your last comment? Yes - you're absolutely correct. I used to.

I wonder if you can work out the reason why I don't anymore?
 

TimG

Member
Well, this is pretty disappointing.

The discussion started out very well - and I thank most people for their helpful comments on advising me around some of the differences between different technical camera systems - after all, what's why I started the thread, I was more interested in talking about the different camera systems, lenses, etc - than digital backs.

Unfortunately, the discussion has been reduced to the rather childish and unhelpful position of "If you're not using the very latest most expensive CMOS sensor - you're wasting your time and money" and should give up immediately.

I can imagine if this was a forum for exotic cars - it's as though someone has gone out and bought a Bugatti Veyron and because it's the fastest by 10mph or so - everyone with a Ferrari or Lamborghini should now take their cars to a scrapyard, give up driving and take the bus.. That's what it sounds like reading some of the posts about CCD and CMOS based backs..

I see many people taking absolutely stunning images with CCD based backs on tech cameras, 99% of whom seem totally happy and at peace with the world... I come in here and I see people taking pictures of walls and charts, endlessly frustrated by something - I don't really understand.

It seems as though there are two different hobbies;

1 - Photography
2 - Collecting expensive gear.

Thanks for all your help guys, but that's all from me for now :)
 
I don't have to validate his gear choice. He's done that already for himself.

He's a working, professional photographer at the absolute top of the game with paying clients who produces stunning images.
He has only validated that his gear can produce satisfactory results. He cannot justify that his gear is the optimal choice within budget unless comparisons against other gears can be made under the same condition at pixel-peeping level.
 
Unfortunately, the discussion has been reduced to the rather childish and unhelpful position of "If you're not using the very latest most expensive CMOS sensor - you're wasting your time and money" and should give up immediately.

I can imagine if this was a forum for exotic cars - it's as though someone has gone out and bought a Bugatti Veyron and because it's the fastest by 10mph or so - everyone with a Ferrari or Lamborghini should now take their cars to a scrapyard, give up driving and take the bus.. That's what it sounds like reading some of the posts about CCD and CMOS based backs..
Well it's your money! There's nothing wrong (and not childish) to buy into the old technology, forget about performance comparison, and enjoy photography!

By the way, 2 stops of dynamic range advantage means 400% improvement - not something comparable like 10mph you mention there. Don't forget that before the Nikon D800 came out with a Sony CMOS sensor, Phase One used to advertise their IQ180 CCD for dynamic range for marketing purposes.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I see many people taking absolutely stunning images with CCD based backs on tech cameras, 99% of whom seem totally happy and at peace with the world... I come in here and I see people taking pictures of walls and charts, endlessly frustrated by something - I don't really understand.
This is the key point Tim.

There ARE plenty of people here who own, or have owned in the past, the CCD backs and been extremely happy with them and been able to create stunning images and who have happily shared them with the community here. Last time I checked, digital MF photography didn't start in 2014 with the release of the IQ250.

Sadly there is one person here - just one - who seems to think the entire community are only interested in 30 minute exposures pointing directly at the sun with 20 stops of ND filters slapped on, exposed to not blow-out the sun, and then lift the shadows by 10 stops to create something that will get likes on 500px.

And that same individual throws out insults directly or indirectly at anyone who considers that a CCD back might be absolutely fine for their own work.

It is incredibly detrimental to the forum, and quite frankly, it's time something was done about it.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
Gerald, I am humbled by your kind words. Especially since you yourself produce absolutely amazing cityscapes of which I admire.

I definitely would not mind working with a 100mp cmos, but investment is beyond capability. And truth is, even if this new tech is better in most (maybe all) regards, I 'do' get excellent results as is with the Credo 60. My standard size prints are 1,4 x 1 metres and I get so much appreciation from just about everyone how they look in technical terms (artistic value aside). Even this size they are extremely sharp, have great quality of depth and pleasing tonality.

If I could, I would buy the new cmos (not the cropped sensor though!) but the important factor is that I do not feel I am missing anything when standing in the middle of the gallery and browse the artworks on the walls. They are really technically superb (printing inhouse on 44" iPF 8400).

It's all about budget. Ofcourse the latest tech wins in the spec sheet (and real life) but truth is, as has been said, a P65+ can blow your mind if you know where to point it!!!
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Tim,

Sorry for getting carried away…

I had/have a three year tenure with MFD, got myself a P45+ back and a Hasselblad V-system. At that time I really wanted to find out about MFD, but I wanted an economically feasible system. Hasselblad V stuff is available dirt cheap, mostly.

Just to say, I am mostly a 24x36mm shooter, but I am mostly shooting tripod. My plan was to start with the Hasselblad and than go on to the HCam B1. That is a slim technical camera that uses a motorised sliding back and can use a lot of different lenses and can offer T&S with adapters. In a sense, it was a forerunner for the Alpa FPS.

On the 24x36mm side, I always regarding live view and magnified LV for focusing to be essential. I still strongly feel that live view is the best solution to many problems.

Focusing on the ground glass isn't easy. On the Hassy/P45+ combo I have 9X magnification (PM5 viewfinder with a Zeiss 3X monocular) and I can still miss really bad.

The P45+ can deliver very good image quality, with the proper glass in front.

Hasselblad has a nice solution called Flexbody that replaces the camera body with a bellows and the viewfinder with a ground glass adapter. It worked fine in my living room but it was horrible in the field.

My solution was really to switch to the A7rII, it has proper live view and it can use almost any lens. I use it with a Canon 16-35/4L lens that easily outperforms the three Distagons (wide angles) I have owned. The best lenses I have for the Hassy are the Planar 100/3.5 and Sonnar 180/4, both a bit legendary lenses and those lenses keep up with my best lenses for the A7rII.

As i said, the P45+ can deliver great image quality, when paired with a good lens. In high DR situations it lags behind a bit, but I seldom have issues with DR.

For my shooting, I would not say gear matters a lot. Good enough is good enough. A week ago we hang 35" by 118" print shot on my Sony Alpha 900 (at 24 MP), ,but that image is stitched, this week are going to hung a 35" x 157" image shot in Yellowstone using the same camera. What I have in front of the camera matter more than the sensor or the lens. These are the images chosen for that decoration: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/

So, my take is:

  • Go with the gear that you can afford
  • Gear matters less than subject and execution
  • Proper focusing is not easy and gear can help. Personally I feel that magnified live view is the best solution.
  • CCD backs work fine, if properly used.
  • CMOS has real advantages in live view, DR and long exposures.
  • It is a bit questionable if low end digital backs offer real world advantages over high res 24x36mm
  • Full frame CMOS is extremely expensive
  • If you can live without excellent live view and good high ISO performance, an older high end CCD back may be an excellent choice.

This is what I am using now: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/56810-hcam-master-tsii-sony-a7rii.html

What I use mostly today is:
  • Shifted wide angle: Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on the Sony A7rII using a Metabones adapter.
  • Shifted ultra wide: Canon 16-35/4L with HCam Master TS II
  • Tilted moderate wide angle to telephoto: Either the Contax 28-85/3.3-4 or the Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 with the HCam Master TSII, I am extremely happy with that solution.

My P45+ usage has declined from say 3000 exposures per year to 250 exposures or so this year. There is a bit of 'latest gear is must fun syndrome' to that, but also a lot of real world concerns like transportability and flexibility. I guess that I will never, ever be an advocate of larger formats…

Best regards
Erik



Well, this is pretty disappointing.

The discussion started out very well - and I thank most people for their helpful comments on advising me around some of the differences between different technical camera systems - after all, what's why I started the thread, I was more interested in talking about the different camera systems, lenses, etc - than digital backs.

Unfortunately, the discussion has been reduced to the rather childish and unhelpful position of "If you're not using the very latest most expensive CMOS sensor - you're wasting your time and money" and should give up immediately.

I can imagine if this was a forum for exotic cars - it's as though someone has gone out and bought a Bugatti Veyron and because it's the fastest by 10mph or so - everyone with a Ferrari or Lamborghini should now take their cars to a scrapyard, give up driving and take the bus.. That's what it sounds like reading some of the posts about CCD and CMOS based backs..

I see many people taking absolutely stunning images with CCD based backs on tech cameras, 99% of whom seem totally happy and at peace with the world... I come in here and I see people taking pictures of walls and charts, endlessly frustrated by something - I don't really understand.

It seems as though there are two different hobbies;

1 - Photography
2 - Collecting expensive gear.

Thanks for all your help guys, but that's all from me for now :)
 
Top