The end of tolerances reached ?

[Thierry]

I am not getting the message of this thread here a 100%, and won't make any particular comment, especially not argue on the claim that the precision of Alpa cameras (which one?) is doubtful and over-emphasized by the company manufacturing it. There are enough users out there that are happy with its precision, the way it is built and the resulting images, as are others using other camera brands. Fair enough and no point to argue here, it's each his own way of thinking and belief.

However, and with all due respect, I wish to correct an error and wrong information given in your post, Shashin:

"... a company that makes their cameras too short--you always shim away from the lens plane with an Alpa ..."

This is not true: there are about as many configurations (camera-lens with its particular DB) where it needs to take away shims from the factory standard pre-shimming coming with each adapter than to add some.

Best regards
Thierry

 

[Shashin]

I am not getting the message of this thread here a 100%, and won't make any particular comment, especially not argue on the claim that the precision of Alpa cameras (which one?) is doubtful and over-emphasized by the company manufacturing it. There are enough users out there that are happy with its precision, the way it is built and the resulting images, as are others using other camera brands. Fair enough and no point to argue here, it's each his own way of thinking and belief.

However, and with all due respect, I wish to correct an error and wrong information given in your post, Shashin:

"... a company that makes their cameras too short--you always shim away from the lens plane with an Alpa ..."

This is not true: there are about as many configurations (camera-lens with its particular DB) where it needs to take away shims from the factory standard pre-shimming coming with each adapter than to add some.

Best regards
Thierry

Thierry, my apologies. I have heard so many owner say the camera needs to be shimmed, I assumed they were always added shims. I did not realize shims were installed from the beginning.

 

[Thierry]

No harm done, Shashin.
Yes, there are some shims in the adapter plate from factory, so that the back can be shimmed in both directions:

Alpa's Shimming Process

Best
Thierry

Thierry, my apologies. I have heard so many owner say the camera needs to be shimmed, I assumed they were always added shims. I did not realize shims were installed from the beginning.

 

[Shashin]

Shashin,

You mention that tolerances are a factor of depth of focus. Being that depth of field is measured in macroscopic units and depth of focus is measured in microscopic units. It's my understanding that depth of focus increases with longer focal lengths or closer subject distance while depth of field decreases. I'm new to this, so bear with me. Thanks for the inputs.

Depth of field is an object space attribute (in front of the camera) and changes with focal length.

Depth of focus is an image space attribute (between the lens and sensor) and is related to the aperture (f-number). You can think of an aperture as the angular size of the light cone coming from the lens as you look from the image plane. At focus, the tip of this cone intersects the image plane. If you move the image plane, the image will continue to appear sharp as long as the diameter of the cone section is equal to or greater than the permissible circle of confusion. The smaller the aperture, the farther you can move. The amount you can move the image plane and still have an acceptably sharp image is depth of focus.

Depth of field and depth of focus are related, but when object distance is the same, two different focal length lenses will have different size entrance pupils at a given aperture. So the angular size of an entrance pupil varies with focal length. (the f-number is a ratio of focal length to pupil, not object distance to pupil, so its angular size is preserved in image space.)

There is a number that works the same way in object space and that is numeric aperture (this is not the same as an f-number). That is the angular size of the entrance pupil of the lens from the object. When the numeric aperture is constant (for a given cycle of confusion), then the depth of field is the same as the light cone from the object has the same angle--a 100mm lens at 2m and f/4 will have the same numeric aperture as a 200mm at 4m and f/4 resulting in identical depth of field for a given format (circle of confusion changes with format).

Photographers generally talk in terms of depth of focus and so you have terms like "back focus." Camera designers are interested in camera tolerances and depth of focus is more meaningful as they want to know how tight things have to be. (There really is no such thing as "back focus," rather what you wanted in focus is not.)

 

[Godfrey]

In the spirit of friendly and diplomatic discussion, I'd have to somewhat disagree with the above.

Depending on what photographic business you are in, and for how long, it is conceivable to spend copious amounts of money on gear ... given the price of pro gear, including lighting and all ancillary stuff involved with professional digital capture. Plus, the "business" of photography is often infected with personal desires that are not exactly conducive to a pure profit motivation ... Guy being the poster child for this concept :ROTFL: (and to be fair, I admit to it myself, since I don't need a lot of this stuff to do what I do, but I want it). So, it most certainly is not a waste of money if you enjoy it and it brings some personal pleasure while making a living. For example, I chose to get a Leica S2 kit in lieu of a new fancy car, and instead just put new brakes on my almost 7 year old Volvo SUV. It's just personal, not business

In addition, well run photographic businesses factor in the cost. For all my "growth years" in MFD, I charged a digital capture fee for each job (as did all the photographers I hired when working as an Art Director). Factored in over a two year cycle, and including the tax write offs, in effect, I never personally paid for any of my professional equipment ... the clients did. Now that I am semi-retired, it is a different story and I am more aware of the cost to me personally, which hasn't made me a lot more prudent, just a lot more aware

I'd also offer a counter point to the notion that "... after a certain point the equipment is one of the least important parts of producing compelling photographs." This is a variation on the well worn chestnut that "it is the person behind the camera, not the camera." ... which no one in their right mind would disagree with. However, if you look at it from the perspective of someone who has mastered their craft and is branching out into new areas or different applications of their talents ... sometimes better gear can make a difference and can be conducive to growth, if for no other reason than it's exciting to master a new piece of more demanding gear, and make it do what you creatively envision.

Will it improve the end product? Again, that depends on the creative intent and skill of the user. There are more aspects to larger capture like 40, 60 or 80 meg MFD than just for large prints. I personally see a difference even with prints up to 17" X 22" ... if others do not, that is not my concern ... my only concern is what I see since it is my work, not theirs.

BTW, I disagree with the article regarding prints no matter how well it can be documented logically or mathematically. In most every case, prints look better than their screen version ... and prints from my larger format cameras look better than those from the smaller format cameras ... speaking strictly about the aesthetics of the print itself, not the content, which is the part that the person behind the camera is solely in charge of contributing.

-Marc

I never intend anything other than friendly discussion.

But despite your protest, a photography business is still a business. I got into the photography business out of my love of photography, I work in photography despite a rather poor return on investment because I enjoy the work and the challenge of it. But if I cannot pay the rent or feed myself on it's profits, I won't be in the business very long. That is unless it's not really a business, it's a hobby that I have other sources of funding to pay for. I'm sure Guy or any other sensible, successful business person has to agree with that.

I've bought and sold my way through tens if not hundreds of thousands of photo dollars over the 40+ years I've been doing photography. I never accounted that as a lump of expenditures to be proud of, just the costs of doing what I love. If you're calling yourself a pro and NOT accounting for your expenditures against your income and profitability, you're not running a business. Many pros do not .. They are not businessmen, they are wage earners who have a job with some organization that pays them to make photographs. Those pros generally fight for every piece of equipment paid for by their employers, and rarely get to use the ultimate equipment as it is simply unnecessary to most of their true working needs..

 

[Mike M]

One more example:
Kodak has recently launched a new interline chip with 29 MPix. Now this is certainly not a sensor which is capable of Fashion Photography, but - it does not need a shutter !

Hi Stefan

Thanks a lot for the example! That is exactly the kind innovation that could possibly take another sequence out of the formerly mechanical process. You and the folks at Get DPI are far more up-to-date on the already existing new tech than I am...so it's great for me to come in here and find out about it

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Shashin,

Thanks for that, nicely written. Depth of focus is more about the symmetry or lateral movement as it relates to the image plane.

 

[goesbang]

The very concept of the "end of tolerances reached" is ridiculous. I remember reading as a child, an article headlined " The human body is incapable of running 100m in less than 10s" or some such tripe. Tell that to Usain Bolt and his competitors! The mistake that most people who make such predictions make is that they fail to acknowledge that the many variables that make an outcome will simultaneously stop evolving. My favourite giggle is the assertion that "DSLR's are improving so fast that they will soon be just a good as MFDB's". This might well be true if Phase, Leaf, Hassy, Leica et al decide tomorrow that R&D is a waste of their time and money. Place your bets now on how likely this is to happen......
It is important to not underestimate how much pressure the there is on the top shooters and the MF manufacturers to keep innovating. For me, the minute something becomes the "in" look, it is time for me to be doing something else. There are many more shooters running this line of thinking, and most of them run below the radar. Having access to new innovations can often drive new image styles. I know that the practices I currently use are a direct result of the availability of the current gen of ultra-res backs and a lot of the images I currently produce were impossible with, for example, my P25 back. Whenever I get my hands on a new piece of kit, I ask myself, "what creative oportunities does this give me that I didn't have before?". Almost invariably, this leads to new techniques that change the flavour of my work. Having been shooting with the Aptus 12 and IQ180 for a few months now, I am already evolving my style to exploit the capabilities of these backs and at the same time, continuing the dialogue with Phase, Alpa etc, about what it might be nice to have on the next gen of kit. What is also exciting is to watch the technology pioneered in each new gen of gear flow down through a given manufacturers range. There is a lot of amazing talent amongst the shooters who don't yet have access to the bleeding edge gear and they do a lot to evolve the craft of photography.
Who knows where the next breakthroughs in tech will come? Perhaps shutterless cameras, 80000 ISO CCD's, some entirely new sensor technology we never imagined. Maybe it willl be some amazing new lens or shutter tech. Whatever it is, you can rest assured that we are nowhere near the end of tolerances.

 

[darr]

Well said Bryan!

 

[Stefan Steib]

Siebel

maybe a misunderstanding on your side and a titel that supposes people will add a second half sentence to this (by themselves) - so the full sentence should maybe read:
The end of tolerances reached with actual gear and manufacturing technology ?
I also think this will evolve - but not with the current concepts. let me sum up:

wideangles without retrofocus for 60+ Mpixel are - OUT !

adapters which need to be made with tolerances of below 10 Microns are - OUT !

complicated usage with external gear (Laserpointers?) and setup of sharpnesspoints by calculations and guesstimations are - OUT !

viewfinders need to become electronic - Live view is - IN !

Improved usability and fast workflows with integration of Digital Photography into todays communicative peripherals is - IN !

technical devellopment for future concepts and usage of todays electronics (as already shown in Smartphones and other consumer devices) for cameras is - IN !

Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib HCam.de

 

[Stefan Steib]

Could have edited my previous post but decided to put this separate to make it stand out - THESIS:

A Camera that is still able to shoot film will never be a perfect digital Camera.

Think about it- I believe this is the central point. Everything else logically derives from this.

And - of course I know that even our HCam-B1 can still use film (at least in Theory)

Regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de

 

[Thierry]

Hi Stefan,

And while writing this, there are thousands of photographers out taking perfect images with their cameras. So it will be as well in the future.



Am still not getting the whole "picture" and meaning of such a discussion.

Bryan has summed it up wonderfully: there will always be right cameras/optics/accessories using the latest technologies and producing the best possible images. So it was in the past, so it is currently, and so it shall be in the future.

Best regards
Thierry

Could have edited my previous post but decided to put this separate to make it stand out - THESIS:

A Camera that is still able to shoot film will never be a perfect digital Camera.

Think about it- I believe this is the central point. Everything else logically derives from this.

And - of course I know that even our HCam-B1 can still use film (at least in Theory)

Regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de

 

[Stefan Steib]

Hi Thierry

well, seems to be not quite. See color casts, see focusing problems and see Alpas own attempts to get there somehow (iPhone Holder and Viewfinder Plus app).

But there needs to be a clear cut. The actual concepts do stop here.
The problems may be handled for now with 80 Mpix. But what next ?
If you want to make resolution larger, get electronic finders and plug the devices "into the soon to be everwhere cloud" there needs to be a radical change.

The Japanese have understood, take a look at their concept cameras.
My criticism goes to the actual professional "Highend camp"- where are your ideas , where are your visions ? What is the most wishful items your customers want and how can we deliver ?

I don´t hear that ! And Thierry - as nice Alpas idea of precision is, this idea is some years old. Does it solve todays problems ? Maybe - but I don´t think this also will work for tomorrows escalations of the forementioned
complications. There is a limit where even Swiss cannot pass.

So: where is the consequence and vision of Alpa to Digital evolution ?
But not only Alpa, what does Hasselblad say, what is the statement of Phase/Leaf about this ? How will Rodenstock and Schneider position themselves for these tasks ?
A new electronic shutter ? (20 years available by Sinar and Horseman)
Lenses with a little bit better Optics ? (does this really change something ? No !)
Develop technology which already exists in the consumer market with 5 -10 years delay ?

15-20 ago the digital photography evolution was driven by Leaf, Dicomed, Megavison, Imacon.

Today the news come from Japan or China. Is it professional to use outdated technology with the sole advantage of higher resolution ?
(Slower, complicated, Non connected ......)
Phase has done some steps in the right direction, with levelling a better display and the attempt for a better live view.
But why no CMOS ? How much easier and more efficient would be a camera that actually shows you whats captured with 100 % or even more Zoom, if you want even at darkness or with any extreme lens attached ?

No Thierry -the Pro´s are sleeping, what Siebel demands he certainly does, but I´m sure he also makes a lot of his money now with 35mm bodies - not because of quality or better sharpness. Read what he wrote - it´s exactly on point:

>>It is important to not underestimate how much pressure there is on the top shooters and the MF manufacturers to keep innovating. For me, the minute something becomes the "in" look, it is time for me to be doing something else. There are many more shooters running this line of thinking, and most of them run below the radar. Having access to new innovations can often drive new image styles.<<

Innovation does not mean keep the old stuff as long as possible, even if it hurts.

Regards

Stefan

 

[goesbang]

Schneider Kreuznach has copied our TS lensconcept (with our help - but without paying for it....).
Rodenstock has silently switched to Retrofocus without speaking openly about it (which would really help!). The classic gear makers in the Viewcamera market still seem to hope this will somehow go away or be solved by a miracle.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib - HCam.de

Stefan,

These are some pretty sweeping statements you make without so much as a fragment of substantiation. What help exactly did you provide Schneider, was it your present company or your last one (the one that ended in a messy, slanderous divorce, if I recall correctly), what contractual obligations did Schneider undertake to pay for and what evidence is there of it. If you want to put this stuff out in public, you better be prepared to substantiate it.

There was nothing "silent" about Rodenstock choosing to go retrofocus with their designs. One of the first things I was informed of by my Rodenstock dealer when these lenses first appeared was the fact that they had chosen to depart from the traditional symmetric designs. I have since had many conversations about this both with dealers and directly with Rodenstock themselves. They've certainly never been silent about it to me, nor to any of the many top pros I associate with - and let's admit it, we are their primary customers. I also have had very explicit disclosure about this from my tech cam manufacturer of choice, Alpa. Just because they did not take out full page ads in every photo mag worldwide does not make it "silent". Frankly, as a pro user of backs with sensors that struggle with lenscast when using wide symmetrical lenses, I'm damned grateful they did go retrofocus, and further, they informed me of the fact, as well as of the downside of their decision. This has allowed me to make informed decisions about my lens choices.

It seems to me that having taken it upon yourself to make these sweeping statements in a public forum, you now have some explaining to do.

We are all ears....

 

[David K]

I think most of us would agree with Roger's prediction that future improvements will not come from more critical manufacturing tolerances but rather from some form of technological advance. And while I do believe that such technology will be developed...I think it's the weak link in the super-high megapixel backs right now. Which simply means that the tech guys need to catch up with the hardware guys. I can envision a camera system with a single lens capturing an image that can be post processed into whatever the photographer wants it to look like. And it's got an Apple logo on it

 

[goesbang]

Hi Thierry


No Thierry -the Pro´s are sleeping, what Siebel demands he certainly does, but I´m sure he also makes a lot of his money now with 35mm bodies - not because of quality or better sharpness. Read what he wrote - it´s exactly on point:



Regards

Stefan

Thank you, but I am wide awake. Furthermore, as I have stated many times before on this forum and LuLa, I make over 90% of my pictures, both professional and personal, with one or onother of my MFDB's. My personal carry-everywhere camera is in fact and ALPA STC, usually with an IQ180 on it. My approach has always been to use what I consider the best currently available for the type of work I do. In the last 2 years, my Nikon has been used on only 2 shoots, and on those shoots for less than 5% of the images.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Hello Bryan

I can openly explain what Schneider did, they got our construction drawings after signing an NDA with us, a prototyping contract and a volume contract proposal for a 90mm TS lens. After working on this for about 1 year Schneider stopped the project, broke the contract, did not fully pay the already delivered prototypes and stayed silent for a bit over 2 years. Now after they knew we did not have worldwide patents (we told them in the course of our talks)after the first NDA disclosure period had run out, they presented their improved versions of the Hartblei Superrotator Concept with the included clamps .On Photokina I asked them to get into talks, they agreed but then again for 4 months nothing happend. we got a letter by their lawyers that Schneider does not see any reason to speak to us about getting to a solution which will be a compromise for the both of us ( and I have not asked for a lot of money or similar, just that they openly honour the amount of work that they have taken from our development).
You can call this what you want, it´s up to you. (BTW I have all the contracts and emails and Drawings- I can proof everything!)

About the Calibr8 Colormanagement Company_ you err I was not involved in this, these were my former partners, who also where in Partnership with Sinar/Mr. Fessler ( actually the now Sinar company was a namechange from Calibr8 AG in Switzerland ). And I´m very happy I got as far away from these guys as far as I could. I don´t think this does interest someone here, but I also have everything in written and to be proofed form if needed.

But Bryan - what does this have to do with the facts and Questions that I have asked - could it be, you are personally connected to these people ?
I thought you are a photographer who is interested in Innovation ?
I did not personally tackle you, so why are you trying to do this with me ?

Greetings from Munich

Stefan Steib HCam.de

 

[goesbang]

Hi Thierry


Innovation does not mean keep the old stuff as long as possible, even if it hurts.

Regards

Stefan

Que?
I hardly think the MF manufacturers have been standing still. I've been shooting MF since 1986 and MF digital since 1995 and have witnessed phenomenal innovation and advancement in that time from all the major players including some that are no longer with us.

I understand that you are impatient for more advances and faster. We all are, to some extent. I can only surmise from your rant that you seem to think the world of DSLR and MFDB manufacturing are part of the same market. They patently are not, and never have been. The business environment is different, the development cost structure is different as are the funding and sales models, user profiles and expectations differ immensely as do the revenue streams.

I respect your right to hold these views, but please share with us how things can actually be different, given the market realities. I am genuinely interested.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Well Bryan-the following statements are not from me- you may guess who said this (about Phase One- translated from german by me):

....Journalism-, Portrait- and Marriagephotographers.... are better off using other systems.....

Hasselblad, Leica and Phase One should cooperate to win new users for Mediumformat because the number of users is smaller than we would wish.....

We are looking for makers of CMOS sensors, CCD´s Sensors seem to be hitting their limits,we would not have a problem to realize such a solution together with other manufacturers.......if medium format wants to survive, all thinkable cooperations are necessary !

Now guess who said this ?
Henrik Hakonsson - Phase One - taken from his Interview in german magazine Profifoto 4/2010.

So What happened ? Did Phase not get a CMOS ?
There is a lot more on this Interview (one of the most aspiring and important documents I have read during the last years !).

But interesting that writing these ideas here under my name is getting these responses ?

Bryan - the shrinking is happening, the Market is moving, you would certainly not call someone a bad photographer because he uses a canon or nikon body. Or would you ?

regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de

 

[goesbang]

Hello Bryan

I can openly explain what Schneider did, they got our construction drawings after signing an NDA with us, a prototyping contract and a volume contract proposal for a 90mm TS lens. After working on this for about 1 year Schneider stopped the project, broke the contract, did not fully pay the already delivered prototypes and stayed silent for a bit over 2 years. Now after they knew we did not have worldwide patents (we told them in the course of our talks)after the first NDA disclosure period had run out, they presented their improved versions of the Hartblei Superrotator Concept with the included clamps .On Photokina I asked them to get into talks, they agreed but then again for 4 months nothing happend. we got a letter by their lawyers that Schneider does not see any reason to speak to us about getting to a solution which will be a compromise for the both of us ( and I have not asked for a lot of money or similar, just that they openly honour the amount of work that they have taken from our development).
You can call this what you want, it´s up to you. (BTW I have all the contracts and emails and Drawings- I can proof everything!)

About the Calibr8 Colormanagement Company_ you err I was not involved in this, these were my former partners, who also where in Partnership with Sinar/Mr. Fessler ( actually the now Sinar company was a namechange from Calibr8 AG in Switzerland ). And I´m very happy I got as far away from these guys as far as I could. I don´t think this does interest someone here, but I also have everything in written and to be proofed form if needed.

But Bryan - what does this have to do with the facts and Questions that I have asked - could it be, you are personally connected to these people ?
I thought you are a photographer who is interested in Innovation ?
I did not personally tackle you, so why are you trying to do this with me ?

Greetings from Munich

Stefan Steib HCam.de

Hmm, it seems you have had a tough lesson in the legal practice of commercial confidentiality. I'm genuinely sorry you feel you got burnt. This is why it is so important to stay on top of your patent protection, IP rights and keep NDA's current. I'd not be surprised if Schneider have a different perspective on the situation but thanks nonethless for the clarification.

I am very pleased for you that you are no longer in business with people you do not agree with. This is a good thing and I wish you well. All of us photographers are interested in anyone who is bringing innovation to the table. Good luck.

I'm sorry you feel I am "doing this with me". I do think it does the industry no service to have dirty linen aired in public, and you, Sir, have come dangerously close to doing this. I would have called you on it no matter whether I had ties to the company or individual you named or even if I did not. You have now provided what you consider the justification for your comments, and that, as far as I am concerned, is that.

I am, as you point out, a photographer very serious about innovation and I watch with some interest, the products you are bringing to market. As an architectural photographer, this would be natural, don't you think? As a pro photographer who has been one of the many "unpaid beta testers" that manufacturers rely on, I have many friends among the staff and owners of the companies whose names we all know in the world of MFDB. However, for the record, I know nobody at Schneider and the 2 people I know at Rodenstock I met for the one and only time at a trade show in Dubai a few months ago. My interest is in clearly understanding what you are saying

Once again, I wish you well with your business.

Kind regards,