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!

I'm going MFB with a Tech View for Landscape

fotografz

Well-known member
You are refering to the Apo Sironar Digital 2.8/28? This is the non HR version. And these lenses have much bigger image circles. The HR lenses have smaller image circles (though more as stated in the specs).
AFAIK it depends on the distinct lens - there are certainly Non-HR Rodenstock that perform very, very well even with the 6.8micron chip, especially longer lenses. The 35mm (non HR) I tested was very good at the center and actually for almost the entire image format of the P45. But with a few mm shift it was getting poor at the edges (very poor). Maybe it was a bad copy, too (but actually I don't think so as center was good).
Beside the fact that one or another non HR lens might be very well for your 39MP back from the specs there are the Digitars and the HRs for these highres chips. And the Digitars have bigger image circles as the HRs.
(The HRs were formerly named "Apo Sironar Digital HR" and now are named "HR Digaron-S" and "HR Digaron-W" - see: http://www.linos.com/pages/index.php?id=1933#c11391 ).

edit: found the specs of the non-HR and HR - unfortunately in German:

source: http://www.linos.com/pages/mediabase/original/d_Rodenstock_Digitalobj__3-26__8222.pdf
Thanks tons for that info. I've been absorbed with 35mm DSLR stuff so much I haven't been tracking developments in view camera lenses. I'm going to look into the 40mm HR Digaron-W. The 28 I have will do for now since I use it wide open with severe tilts for creative effect and only care that the subject center is crisp ... which it seems to do. I don't do much landscape work (if any) ... more environmental portrait stuff with some tilts, and studio product work which is why the 90 and 120 macro are so important.

Thanks again for taking the time with an update and the links.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yea need to get back to your roots Marc. LOL
Yeah Guy, truer than you may think. I think it's because commercial studio view camera work dropped off so badly this past 6 -8 months for me. Weddings are the only thing keeping me afloat ... which is more DSLR and M8 territory.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea I know the corporate world is taking no interest in outside vending. Although I am starting to hear from these clients again but it's been 4 or 5 months since they breathed a word on work. Finally there is hole in the tupperware lid. LOL
 

jlm

Workshop Member
curious about the relationship of sensor size...my 35 is not the HR and the back has 9 micron sensors
 

thomas

New member
curious about the relationship of sensor size...my 35 is not the HR and the back has 9 micron sensors
so you have exactly the right lens for your back!
The more you use movements the higher the resolution of the lenses should be. If you use a lot of large movements maybe you should try a Digitar. The 47XL is not so expensive and it is a very beautyful lens (though has to be stopped down to f11 or f16 ... f8 is good without movements).
 

mtomalty

New member
" dump my FF 35mm A900 setup in favor of a tech view camera for attempting to master landscape work. "

Steven,

It goes without saying that you've received excellent advice from some
very knowledgeable people here but the quote above from your original post
struck a chord with me.

Of course, you don't need to justify squat to anyone but, in light of your quote,
I'm curious as to how you feel changing formats will better help you in
your attempt to master landscape photography?

You have a perfectly capable system that offers significant versatility
much of which you will lose by going the Tech camera route.

You trade off a modest amount of sharpness, at the wide end, with a
35mm system but if you stick with a 22 mp back you don't gain a
significant amount from an enlargement potential as compared to your
current camera.

As someone who is on a learning curve to mastering one aspect of photography (apologies if I am reading between the lines, inaccurately)
I think you might be doing your learning process a disservice by moving
to a more restrictive platform.

Anyway, just an alternate viewpoint on your original post.

Best,
Mark

www.marktomalty.com
 

carstenw

Active member
You trade off a modest amount of sharpness, at the wide end, with a
35mm system but if you stick with a 22 mp back you don't gain a
significant amount from an enlargement potential as compared to your
current camera.
I agree; I was stuck for a while deciding between a Sony A900 and a 22MP back. In the end, I found a back, but I would never trade it for the A900, nor the reverse, had I bought the Sony. If you already have the Sony, keep it, make the most of it, and wait for the price of the 39MP backs to come down before buying. At least then you will have much more resolution, instead of slightly less (albeit with better per-pixel sharpness). But keep both; they don't have the same strengths.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
You trade off a modest amount of sharpness, at the wide end, with a
35mm system but if you stick with a 22 mp back you don't gain a
significant amount from an enlargement potential as compared to your
current camera.
The point that better gear doesn't make you take better pictures (just more print/post flexibility and image quality on the good images you do take) is perfectly valid. You're also of course right that the versatility of the A900 is higher, but Steven is really interested in Landscape.

The image quality difference between a Phase One P25 and an Sony A900 is much more significant than the similar "marked resolution" of the systems would indicate. This can be attested to by the several A900 owners who were at the workshop that were able to freely work with both Phase and Sony systems.

Those same people can attest to Steven's penchant for "crackling" sharp images corner-to-corner as well as the other measures of IQ like shadow color accuracy, tonal smoothness, 3D effect, and dynamic range.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
 

thomas

New member
sharp images corner-to-corner as well as the other measures of IQ like shadow color accuracy, tonal smoothness, 3D effect, and dynamic range.
A few days ago I looked through the entire "fun pictures" thread of the A900 and that of the MFDB forum here. Do it by yourself... not to eye up the images and to do pixel peeping, just take the impression "over all". Great images in both the threads. But totally different look - either way which genre, either way who's the photographer.
 

mtomalty

New member
The image quality difference between a Phase One P25 and an Sony A900 is much more significant than the similar "marked resolution" of the systems would indicate. This can be attested to by the several A900 owners who were at the workshop that were able to freely work with both Phase and Sony systems.

Those same people can attest to Steven's penchant for "crackling" sharp images corner-to-corner as well as the other measures of IQ like shadow color accuracy, tonal smoothness, 3D effect, and dynamic range.



All very true, Doug, but not my point.



Best,
Mark


www.marktomalty.com
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Besides the IQ itself the process of taking the image (composing, exposure etc) can make a huge difference IMO.
For example I have a Nikon DSLR and a 24PCE lens, but have not used it in the same way as I have used my lately aquired tech camera (ArTec).
I now even think it might be a good thing that the ArTec is not really handholdable, so I am forced to use a tripod.
And the fact that there is no exposure meter forces me to really work with/look at the histogramm. (with the Nikon I know auto works pretty good so I often just shoot and shoot)
with the loupe I look more intensive on the groundglass than I would in my DSLR finder.
And if I have to use the tripod anyways I also would/will use shift etc more often (even in cases where I think it would be ok without but just a little better with shift).
This is probably very personal, of course you also can use a dslr manual on a tripod etc etc, in my case there is often not enough self-discipline to do so.
Of course its an expensive way to compensate for missing self discipline.
But today, in times of cellphone-photography, in the time of everything to be faster and faster it feels good to do something where you need to take time, and where you try to get the very best result and not just quick quick.
The other thing is fun. I just enjoy the simplicity of a tech camera, I enjoy the mechanics.
And you allways know-if you do a good job than the result will be of very high quality.

Thats just my opinion as a tech camera newby - but on the other side I agree that I would not want to give up a DSLR which I really need for other subjects.
 
Top