Worried about lack of tilt... Phase One XT vs. Arca RM3dii

[Dante Alighieri]

Good to see you here, Doug.

--Dante

 

[MGaillard]

Wow. Thanks to all! I am so happy to have joined to ask this question. This has been incredibly helpful!

 

[MGaillard]

The effects of diffraction are overstated. I have no problem using f/16 or f/22 on my 33x44 sensor. And when compared with film where making unsharp masks was a huge undertaking, using sharpening with digital files gives so much control. And cognitively speaking, viewers are more attracted to sharpness than resolution. And even with my 40MP camera, a 40" print can't really show all the detail in the file.

Long story short, I agree that simply stopping down works well for digital images. Just because you can see the effects of diffraction when making comparisons to other images at 100% monitor view, does not mean diffraction is significant.

This is interesting. I always just followed the advice of others, but I should do some tests. Perhaps it's just not that big of a difference. Having a bit smaller aperture might just negate any need for tilt on certain images.

 

[MGaillard]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe all the Rodenstock lenses for the XT camera come in a TS configuration, if you are willing to pay the extra cost.

Yeah, but they need a cable... and losing cables is part of the motivation of having the XT in the first place.

 

[MGaillard]

The XT body encoding (rise/fall/shift in the metadata) does not work for TS panels or any other lens panel connected using the cable rather than native XT lens panel pins and the blue shutter release no longer works.

So on the XT you can have tilt/swing or you can have body encoding and built-in shutter release, but you can't have both (at least, as it stands today).

I'm not passing judgement on which of those is more valuable – that is up to any given user and may well vary based on the lens focal length (e.g. some users may find tilt more valuable on longer lenses where DOF is a more frequent challenge; others may disagree).

Thanks, Doug. I'll be swinging by at some point soon to try this out.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

That’s very helpful, Bill. Thank you. I, too, never use an aperture smaller than f11 (and almost always at between 8 and 11) for fear of negating the precision I sought in the first place. I use a Rodenstock 70... what do you use?

I do make prints up to 63 on the short dimension, so perhaps it would start to be noticeable. But maybe not.It sounds as though it might not.

All in all, a positive and enthusiastic review for the XT? Any cautionary tales or specific advice?

Thanks for your time!

I have the 32 and 70, waiting for the "promised" tele which I hope will be 140 mm or thereabouts. The 32 is the sharpest lens for resolving small detail that I have ever used. The 70 is better than the 80 mm BR (not the Mk 2) on my XF. If image quality is the most important factor, then the XT is my choice, though I would not give up my XF. Attached is a pano I've posted before. On my screen at 100% I can count the yellow leaves on the white birch tree in the the furthest background.

 

[MGaillard]

Great, thanks Bill. I'm very happy with my tech camera, and even enjoy the cable release as a relic of my decade of 8x10 work... I definitely love the tactility of it. But there are so benefits to the XT that might overshadow my sentimentality. Going to try them side by side for a day and see.

Much appreciated!

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Just to prove my point in my previous post - here's the tree at 120%. 32 mm lens at F5.6. Shows beautifully on my 48 inch pano.

 

[Christopher]

If you have any specific question Arca Swiss I’m pretty sure I can help. I have the full system with Rm3di, Rm2d, factum, Rodenstock 32/40/50/70/90 ( some with copal, some with the new aperture only mount.)

have been shooting since a P65 with it and now currently using a IQ4150.

I love the system and would buy it again! don’t get me wrong, if price isn’t a factor, the XT is quite nice as well, but if price is a factor, just make the calculations.

If you need the X shutter for freezing movement or flash, it’s different story. But I shoot 99,9% with the electronic shutter.

 

[vieri]

If you have any specific question Arca Swiss I’m pretty sure I can help. I have the full system with Rm3di, Rm2d, factum, Rodenstock 32/40/50/70/90 ( some with copal, some with the new aperture only mount.)

have been shooting since a P65 with it and now currently using a IQ4150.

I love the system and would buy it again! don’t get me wrong, if price isn’t a factor, the XT is quite nice as well, but if price is a factor, just make the calculations.

If you need the X shutter for freezing movement or flash, it’s different story. But I shoot 99,9% with the electronic shutter.

Hello Christopher,

if you don't mind the question, it would be great to hear about the differences that you see in image quality between the 32mm and 40mm, and between the 40mm and 50mm - if any. Thank you in advance!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[MGaillard]

Just to prove my point in my previous post - here's the tree at 120%. 32 mm lens at F5.6. Shows beautifully on my 48 inch pano.

View attachment 183017

Yeah, it's incredible!

 

[MGaillard]

Just to prove my point in my previous post - here's the tree at 120%. 32 mm lens at F5.6. Shows beautifully on my 48 inch pano.

View attachment 183017

Yeah, it's incredible.

If you have any specific question Arca Swiss I’m pretty sure I can help. I have the full system with Rm3di, Rm2d, factum, Rodenstock 32/40/50/70/90 ( some with copal, some with the new aperture only mount.)

have been shooting since a P65 with it and now currently using a IQ4150.

I love the system and would buy it again! don’t get me wrong, if price isn’t a factor, the XT is quite nice as well, but if price is a factor, just make the calculations.

If you need the X shutter for freezing movement or flash, it’s different story. But I shoot 99,9% with the electronic shutter.

That's really interesting. I often am shooting outside in somewhat windy conditions and don't think the electronic shutter would be appropriate. That certainly would make it easier though. I'm assuming you're shooting architecture mostly?

I'm going to test the XT next week beside my Arca. I'm starting to think there are better ways to spend my money right now. We'll see.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Yeah, it's incredible.


That's really interesting. I often am shooting outside in somewhat windy conditions and don't think the electronic shutter would be appropriate. That certainly would make it easier though. I'm assuming you're shooting architecture mostly?

I'm going to test the XT next week beside my Arca. I'm starting to think there are better ways to spend my money right now. We'll see.

You have to take into account the size of what is being blown by the wind. In the case of small leaves, they are only going to take up a fraction of the overall image, and so that line or lines is going to be a tiny portion of the overall readout time for the scan. So, let's say 8% of the roughly .6 second readout time. And in that very small amount of time, for many smaller subjects that are moving there is not enough time to produce a rolling shutter effect.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[RLB]

As a long time user of the RM3di/Factum I'm very happy with what it can achieve and the versatility and integration of the Arca system. I tested the XT when it came out, and its a great camera, but for me I needed to question what I was gaining or loosing moving to the XT vs the Arca. I also own an XF with a range of lenses, so if I need to work quickly that may be the go to camera. For a Tech camera, the XT can work very quickly, but for my shooting style this was not significant advantage, for some it may be. With the Arca I can use the ES in the body or copal in the lens (with the sync cord), and with the XT one also has both options a CF leaf shutter (with higher speed options and far more robust) or the ES. So both shutter options work on both cameras within their own limitations. I find myself using the ES 90% of the time for my work, and if I need a higher speed mechanical shutter and auto focus I'd suggest using the XF. The biggest challenge I saw for switching to the XT was cost of the lenses with the CF shutter, its a great system, I personally didn't see the cost/benefit ratio working for me at this time. YMMV.

 

[Christopher]

No problem. The 32 is amazing. The only drawback is it’s distortion, however, there aren’t many other options and you can deal with it post, misting the time.

The 40 vs 50 is close. Inprefer the 50 as it has less distortion and I prefer 50mm to 40mm.
In terms of of the rest they are pretty equal.

In Addition, I have Schneider 43. it’s a very nice Lens, super small and as Sharp as the 40 and 50. it suffers a little more from color cast and a type of „centerfold“. Still a great lens and small and light!!!

Hello Christopher,

if you don't mind the question, it would be great to hear about the differences that you see in image quality between the 32mm and 40mm, and between the 40mm and 50mm - if any. Thank you in advance!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Christopher]

I shoot landscape 90% of the time. And so I have lots of wind. I honestly have never had an image were I thought the electronic shutter is a problem. I have shot many windy conditions and never had a problem. Even water works.

In the end my Problem isn’t the XT, even though I don’t get why movements were so limited..., I have it with the cost of changing. Especially thinking in a few years there will be a global shutter and the X shutter just added weight.

Don’t gerne wrong the XT is a great kit and works very well, however, fort the cost of switching from my Arca System to the XT system inward able to retrofit the 32 and 40 to aperture only mount, and buy the full Fuji GFX system, with nearly all lenses. The problem for me is price when switching. It’s insane. I have to make money with my gear so I can’t spent it just for fun.

That's really interesting. I often am shooting outside in somewhat windy conditions and don't think the electronic shutter would be appropriate. That certainly would make it easier though. I'm assuming you're shooting architecture mostly?

I'm going to test the XT next week beside my Arca. I'm starting to think there are better ways to spend my money right now. We'll see.

 

[Paul2660]

+1.
Very well said Christopher.

Paul C

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Great input from everybody. If I had already owned a tech camera, I doubt I'd have switched to the XT, simply on financial grounds. My photography would not have been any better for a large amount of extra money spent.

The only other comment I'll make about the XT is that I find myself taking many more vertical orientation shots because it is so easy to rotate the camera. In fact I'll often take the shot I've intended, and then rotate and take another - sort of exploring the scene with minimum effort. Or maybe I'm just lazy. (Yes, says my wife.)

 

[Shashin]

Or maybe I'm just lazy. (Yes, says my wife.)

I prefer "thoughtful" and "energy efficient," but "lazy" does carry the spirit of the thing...

 

[vieri]

No problem. The 32 is amazing. The only drawback is it’s distortion, however, there aren’t many other options and you can deal with it post, misting the time.

The 40 vs 50 is close. Inprefer the 50 as it has less distortion and I prefer 50mm to 40mm.
In terms of of the rest they are pretty equal.

In Addition, I have Schneider 43. it’s a very nice Lens, super small and as Sharp as the 40 and 50. it suffers a little more from color cast and a type of „centerfold“. Still a great lens and small and light!!!

Thank you Christopher, much appreciated

Best regards,

Vieri