XCD 21mm for architecture instead of tech cam

[usm]

Who is using the XCD 21 mm lens instead of tech cams wird rise and fall?

Beside the joy of using a tech cam what’s the real deal with perspective correction after the shot (If it’s not too much)? I prefer to compose the image with live view with straight lines. But with the CFVII50C it is hard to find a right lens. The maximum shift is around 15mm with the wide lenses (except the HR 32), this could be done with a XCD 21 an some crop. Well, losing some pixels but who needs them every time. And the 21mm is easy indoors, wide enough and no stitching, for example, with a 35 HR or 35 XL.

I am asking my self: Do I really need shift or do I just like it?

 

[tcdeveau]

Can you rent a 21mm XCD and try it out?

I have one but haven’t used it much for architecture. Obviously you have to crop and lose pixels if you want keystone correction, which isn’t insignificant (you may lose ~30% give or take depending on circumstances), but it’s simpler to deal with then a tech cam (and cheaper than a 32 HR).

Pandemic aside, another reason I sold my 907x/CFVII is that I felt it didn’t provide enough benefit with a tech cam over the X1D and XCD lenses for my uses...so my tech cam setup sits around unused until I find a back that I feel is a better fit.

 

[MGrayson]

I did the test (and the mathematics). A Canon 24 TS-E will do slightly better than an 21mm X1D at 8mm shift, as the foreground of the Hassy image will get severely narrowed by perspective correction. Through the viewfinder, of course, the vertical lines will seem to be converging as they go up, but that means fewer of them make it to the bottom of the image. Be very sure that the verticals you want survive until low enough in the frame where you intend to crop. Does that make sense?

Here is an OOC image and the final corrected - it should give you an idea of what works. In this case, the bottom edge is a bit below the walkers' shoes. Extend that line to the edge and then converge upwards with the other "vertical" lines. That will be the contents of your final image. Ok, I cropped the yellow signs on the lower right. They would have been partially in the corrected image.

Untitled by Matthew Grayson, on Flickr

Untitled by Matthew Grayson, on Flickr

 

[SrMphoto]

I wish Hasselblad would implement Leica's Perspective Correction where we can see in Live View the frame of the corrected image. That would simplify the framing.

 

[foveon]

shoot portrait orientation and hold camera without tilting

 

[tcdeveau]

I wish Hasselblad would implement Leica's Perspective Correction where we can see in Live View the frame of the corrected image. That would simplify the framing.

I keep forgetting about this, I need to give it a try with my M10M

 

[chrismuc]

shoot portrait orientation and hold camera without tilting

... and use the GFX100, then you still have 50 MP left

 

[MGrayson]

And a Laowa 17mm GFX mount lens. The 15mm TS they make isn't sharp enough.

If Hassy had a 24mm in their lineup, I might have stayed with the system. If Leica made a 21mm for the S, I'd have a real problem, because carrying both the 24 and 21 would be a real pain

 

[Shashin]

Who is using the XCD 21 mm lens instead of tech cams wird rise and fall?

Beside the joy of using a tech cam what’s the real deal with perspective correction after the shot (If it’s not too much)? I prefer to compose the image with live view with straight lines. But with the CFVII50C it is hard to find a right lens. The maximum shift is around 15mm with the wide lenses (except the HR 32), this could be done with a XCD 21 an some crop. Well, losing some pixels but who needs them every time. And the 21mm is easy indoors, wide enough and no stitching, for example, with a 35 HR or 35 XL.

I am asking my self: Do I really need shift or do I just like it?

What is the maximium you can point a camera up with a normal fixed lens that will give you a natural looking image using software? I would then compare whether a tech camera has an advantage over a normal camera. At some point, lines just converge too much to be corrected with software.

Maximum shift is not a very good metric as it does not say whether more shift is actually needed or practical. Except for test images or simply specification, can you show some images where you felt the limitation?

BTW, you can also combine techniques.

 

[SrMphoto]

And a Laowa 17mm GFX mount lens. The 15mm TS they make isn't sharp enough.

If Hassy had a 24mm in their lineup, I might have stayed with the system. If Leica made a 21mm for the S, I'd have a real problem, because carrying both the 24 and 21 would be a real pain

There is Hasselblad HCD24 and also XCD21.

 

[MGrayson]

There is Hasselblad HCD24 and also XCD21.

Ok, I'll grant you that. I expected the HCD24 to be heavier, but it's 2/3 the weight of the Leica S24, and the adapter tube is pretty simple. I greatly dislike lens adapters on anything other than a purely manual lens. They flake out at the wrong times. Software updates make them incompatible, etc...

 

[vjbelle]

This really is a 'pick your poison' exercise. Software manipulation vs. shifting = they both have obvious disadvantages. The wide Rody lenses have tons of distortion which has to be corrected. The wide Schneider lenses fall apart when shifted much beyond 8mm (35XL). As mentioned software manipulation tosses out pixels unless PS is used. I always use Transform instead of raw correction for verticals as pixels are not tossed as readily and I have a lot of control over the outcome. If I use skew for verticals I always follow with a slight stretch of verticals as they are always flattened a little.

As also mentioned a combination of some shift and some software manipulation is maybe the best option. I always keep my shifting to 10mm (I'm very conservative) and if I need more I will tilt the camera and finish with software. The overall result is the best I've seen so far.

Victor B.

 

[Hausen]

I am working through this exercise myself at present. I have the XCD21, the Laowa 15 shift, Mamiya 50 shift, Pentax 75 shift and there is a Alpa 12 Max + 23 Roddie + 35XL available at my camera shop. While I would love the Alpa my architecture is always long exposure and I can't imagine the either of those wides working well with 15 stop ND filters so I think it is the Canon 24TSE for me. If there is a lot of room in front of the subject I probably will lean on the XCD21 though and manipulate.

 

[SrMphoto]

Ok, I'll grant you that. I expected the HCD24 to be heavier, but it's 2/3 the weight of the Leica S24, and the adapter tube is pretty simple. I greatly dislike lens adapters on anything other than a purely manual lens. They flake out at the wrong times. Software updates make them incompatible, etc...

I share your opinion about adapters unless they are from the manufacturers themselves (e.g., Hasselblad's XV or XH, Nikon's FTZ).

 

[Geoff]

This is an interesting discussion, with lots of personal preferences involved. Have been fiddling with the Schneider 43mm with lots of shifting vs. the 35mmXL, and less shifting. Works well enough on older Credo 60 sensor.
Also consider M10M and 21 SEM as another (handheld) answer, albeit w cropping.

 

[MGrayson]

This is an interesting discussion, with lots of personal preferences involved. Have been fiddling with the Schneider 43mm with lots of shifting vs. the 35mmXL, and less shifting. Works well enough on older Credo 60 sensor.
Also consider M10M and 21 SEM as another (handheld) answer, albeit w cropping.

I have a definite soft spot for the SK43 on a 60MP CCD back. Borrowed it for my first getDPI photo workshop. Amazing color (with LCC) and resolution. Sadly, I bought a crop sensor back and so used the 35XL for the same FoV. I much preferred the 43.

 

[chrismuc]

I would say, compared to other solutions, all current Canon TSE lenses adapted to a 4433 camera are the most suitable solution with their large image circles, easy adaptation, allowing 8-12 mm shift with good to very good corner sharpness.

 

[diggles]

I am asking my self: Do I really need shift or do I just like it?

I have been asking myself the same thing lately. Photographing with a tech cam and lenses is rewarding, but I'm not sure my current customers are aware of any difference compared to when I was shooting with a Canon 1DX Mark II and the TS-E lenses.

In the last couple of weeks I have been testing out the 23mm and 32-64 on the GFX100s vs the 23HR, 32HR, and 50HR on the CFV II 50c for residential interior photography. So far, I'm finding that the Fuji works great and either I don't need to tilt the camera up or if I do it is only slightly. Using a zoom for interior photography is also a huge convenience. There are other conveniences the GFX provides as well–no lcc, easier to focus, quicker to set up, lenses come with hoods, easier to use with lighting equipment, etc. I'm having a hard time finding an argument for using the tech cam for these types of shoots.

I haven't had the opportunity to try both set ups in a commercial architecture setting yet. With bigger and taller spaces shift may be more necessary.

With all that being said, am I ready to ditch the tech cam set up? Nope. I like using it too much. It took a lot of research to figure out what camera and lenses to get. It took a lot of practice to figure out a proper workflow. When everything comes together, it feels like an achievement. Also, I'm hoping that someday in the near future Hasselblad will come out with a back that uses the same sensor as the GFX100s.

 

[usm]

The wide Rody lenses have tons of distortion which has to be corrected. The wide Schneider lenses fall apart when shifted much beyond 8mm (35XL).

I am still looking for an example shot from the HR 35 lens on a 3344 sensor (CFVii50c) or a comparison with the 35 XL. A shot of a 3-4 story house would be great .
What are you meaning by „fall apart when shifted much...“?

I always keep my shifting to 10mm (I'm very conservative) and if I need more I will tilt the camera and finish with software. The overall result is the best I've seen so far.

Are you using a 33x44 Sensor or a bigger one? 10mm shift is less than 1/3 of the frame. I would say, at least a half frame in landscape orientation should be possible. I had a 24x36 Leica M with a 28mm PC lens and 50% of my shots were made with 10mm shift. Which is a little less than the half frame.

This is an interesting discussion, with lots of personal preferences involved. Have been fiddling with the Schneider 43mm with lots of shifting vs. the 35mmXL, and less shifting. Works well enough on older Credo 60 sensor.
Also consider M10M and 21 SEM as another (handheld) answer, albeit w cropping.

I also had a 21 SEM, a really great lens for interior. I sold it because tried to reduce my lenses. I tried a 35 XL but I still have problems when shifted more than 15mm. Also I found a bug in the Phocus Software, regarding some obscure patterns. I will have the chance next week to try a Schneider 43mm.
What I am really interested in, are HR 35 shots.

I would say, compared to other solutions, all current Canon TSE lenses adapted to a 4433 camera are the most suitable solution with their large image circles, easy adaptation, allowing 8-12 mm shift with good to very good corner sharpness.

How are you adapting these lenses to a 907x?

 

[vjbelle]

I am still looking for an example shot from the HR 35 lens on a 3344 sensor (CFVii50c) or a comparison with the 35 XL. A shot of a 3-4 story house would be great .
What are you meaning by „fall apart when shifted much...“?



Are you using a 33x44 Sensor or a bigger one? 10mm shift is less than 1/3 of the frame. I would say, at least a half frame in landscape orientation should be possible. I had a 24x36 Leica M with a 28mm PC lens and 50% of my shots were made with 10mm shift. Which is a little less than the half frame.

The 35XL starts to smear when shifted beyond 7mm on a 40X54 Sensor. On a 33X44 sensor maybe 10mm. Only the older sensor DB can be used with the 35XL which also means a fair amount of CC which has to be corrected. I actually prefer to pan with that lens and correct for any anomalies in post. The strong plus of '0' distortion is a good reason to shoot with that lens.

My 10mm of shifting was for 40X54 sensor. The 33X44 sensor is very able to handle 15 - 17mm of shifting with great edge sharpness - depending on lens. I use that amount of shifting when I want to increase the FOV of a given lens.

Victor B.