Arca Swiss Pico, GFX, and 35BR

[diggles]

Thought I’d share some quick notes on the 35BR…

I had a chance to test the 35BR on the PICO with the GFX set to 35mm crop mode. The 35 lens falls nicely between the Arca 24 and 50, but once shifted, distortion becomes very noticeable. Correcting it requires Capture One and recording shift values so they can be entered in the Lens Corrections → Movements tab.

For reference, I'm attaching uncorrected and corrected files to this post: PICO, GFX (35mm crop), 35BR. Shift was 6mm right and 12mm up—basically right to the edge of the ~70mm image circle. If you stack them in a PSD and toggle visibility, the difference is easy to see.



C1’s lens corrections don’t address distortion outside that ~70mm circle, which makes sense since the lens was designed to cover 54×40 without shifts.

What threw me off was how C1 interprets movement values when the camera is in vertical orientation:

• Horizontal orientation
  +x = left
  -x = right
  +y = up
  -y = down

• Vertical orientation (rotated 90° CCW)
  +x = down
  -x = up
  +y = left
  -y = right

Here are some additional corrected images from this setup. If anyone wants to see full res files, just send me a message and I’ll be happy to share.

 

[Vivseries1]

Warren, I have really enjoyed your reports over the years about the various systems you have used. They have helped me greatly with my selection of equipment. As many of us are often looking for lighter options, I have been interested in the AS Pico. If you get a chance at some point, it would be great if you could post something more generally about your experience with the Pico.

 

[diggles]

Warren, I have really enjoyed your reports over the years about the various systems you have used. They have helped me greatly with my selection of equipment. As many of us are often looking for lighter options, I have been interested in the AS Pico. If you get a chance at some point, it would be great if you could post something more generally about your experience with the Pico.

After six months with the Pico and coming from the Cambo Actus, WRS1600, and Arca Swiss Rm3di, the build quality and rigidity are exceptional. It combines the versatility of the Cambo Actus (independent tilt/swing for every lens) with the precision of a 'pancake' tech cam.

A big positive for me is the availability of lens boards. This eliminates the need to send lenses out for proprietary mounting, saving considerable cost and wait times. A couple limitations to point out: wide lens options are constrained with mirrorless bodies - you're essentially limited to the Arca 24. This is nothing new though, limited wide angle options is par for the course for all tech cam/mirrorless combinations. It also takes up more room in my backpack compared to the WRS1600 or Rm3di.

The Pico is deeply satisfying to use, though impractical as my sole system because I frequently need strobes. I primarily use the Pico with the Hasselblad CFV 100C for landscape photography and other personal projects. I will use it on an assignment if the deliberate pace adds value and I can work with available light only.

Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any particular aspects.

 

[stevev]

Warren, do you have any photos of the Pico with the 35 and GFX attached?

What makes it more enjoyable to use, compared to the Actus?

Thanks,
Steve.

 

[accwai]

[...] Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any particular aspects.

Wondering if you could share your experience on the ARCA 24 and 50, especially the former...

 

[diggles]

Warren, do you have any photos of the Pico with the 35 and GFX attached?

What makes it more enjoyable to use, compared to the Actus?

Thanks,
Steve.

I started with the Actus as my first technical camera, and the basic user experience is quite similar to the Pico when it comes to shift, tilt, and swing operations. However, the key difference I've found is that the Pico's adjustments are much more solid and precise. When I zero out the settings, I have complete confidence that the standards are truly parallel - which can make a significant difference for stitching work.

The precise alignment of the standards was actually my biggest concern when considering the Pico. But after doing side-by-side tests with the Pico and Rm3di, the results completely alleviated that concern.

 

[diggles]

Wondering if you could share your experience on the ARCA 24 and 50, especially the former...

Originally, I wasn't considering the Arca 24 and 50 lenses, but when I was selling my Rm3di an opportunity came up to work out a trade so I ended up with both of them.

The image quality of both lenses matches the Canon versions I have. If you've used the Canon 24 TS-E II, then you'll know what to expect. If you're interested in seeing some high res images with the Arca 24, send me a message and I'd be happy to share.

The way Arca converted the Canon versions to their proprietary mount is excellent. Having the option to use them with the GFX on a tech camera is awesome, and I really like Arca's solution of separating the mount from the aperture control module - especially since you can use the same module for different lens brands.

My plan was to try the Arca 24, 35BR, and 50 with the GFX for architecture work, but ultimately decided against this direction. A big factor was that even though I used Capture One for tethering, I prefer Adobe Camera Raw for processing. To fix the distortion from the 35BR, I would have had to record my shift values and use Capture One for processing.

I already had the Apo Digitar 35XL, which unfortunately doesn't work with the GFX, and had it listed for sale. But then I started thinking - why would I sell what's arguably the best 35mm lens available for a tech camera? Even though it doesn't work with the Pico + GFX, it does work with the Pico + CFV 100C, and no distortion means no Capture One. Since I already had the other focal lengths, I decided to go in that direction for my exterior kit.

I ended up selling the Arca 24 and my current lineup for exteriors is Nikkor 19 (w/custom adapter via SK Grimes), Apo Digitar 35XL, Arca 50, Apo Digitar 72, and Apo Digitar 100.

 

[vieri]

...

I ended up selling the Arca 24 and my current lineup for exteriors is Nikkor 19 (w/custom adapter via SK Grimes), Apo Digitar 35XL, Arca 50, Apo Digitar 72, and Apo Digitar 100.

Hello Warren,

that looks like an amazing setup! Would you care to expand a bit more about the Nikkor 19mm? Specifically, on how to adapt / use it / results in terms of sharpness, distortion, aberrations?

I know it's a lot to ask, but given the scarcity of information about these contraptions that we love so much, anything you'd be willing to share would be extremely appreciated - thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[diggles]

Hello Warren,

that looks like an amazing setup! Would you care to expand a bit more about the Nikkor 19mm? Specifically, on how to adapt / use it / results in terms of sharpness, distortion, aberrations?

I know it's a lot to ask, but given the scarcity of information about these contraptions that we love so much, anything you'd be willing to share would be extremely appreciated - thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Vieri

Hey Vieri,

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've had family visiting for the last few days and am just getting a chance to sit down at the computer for a bit.

After talking with SK Grimes, we decided to use the Nikon PK-11 8mm Auto Extension Ring Tube with the Pico 10mm Recessed Copal #0 board to ensure infinity focus can be reached. SK Grimes removed the camera-side mount from the extension tube before attaching it directly to the Pico board.

One thing I hadn’t considered is that when the extension ring is mounted to the Pico, it rotates—and when the lens is attached, it rotates as well. In other words, the lens doesn’t line up in its standard orientation once it’s mounted with this adapter. If I had sent both my lens and the Pico to SK Grimes, they could have aligned everything perfectly.

Even if I had anticipated this alignment issue, I probably wouldn’t have wanted to send my equipment out for a month or more. Fortunately, since I use the Pico for adjustments and keep the lens controls zeroed out, the rotation doesn’t really affect my setup.

Another thing with this combo is that I need to use a key or similar tool to press the lens release button. As a prototype this adapter works well, but I may ask SK Grimes to build a more refined version of it in the future.

Unfortunately I do not have any detailed tests or landscape photography examples, but I'll attach a couple that were made with it.

This image is from a recent interiors shoot and the barrel distortion is apparent, this is before correction… I don't remember how much I shifted exactly, but it wasn't more than 3-5mm. This was not made with the CFV 100C, but the GFX 100ii.


This one was made with the adapter and the CFV 100C. The details seem a bit sharper than the above.


If you are interested in seeing the raw files so you can evaluate sharpness and CA send me a pm, I'd be happy to share.

Hope this helps!
Warren

 

[accwai]

[...] I ended up selling the Arca 24 and my current lineup for exteriors is Nikkor 19 (w/custom adapter via SK Grimes), Apo Digitar 35XL, Arca 50, Apo Digitar 72, and Apo Digitar 100.

35mm is like 1.85 times 19mm which is a huge gap... I have TS-E 17 and 24 and the difference already significant enough. So what's the reason for bypassing the 24 and go directly from 19 to 35?

[...]After talking with SK Grimes, we decided to use the Nikon PK-11 8mm Auto Extension Ring Tube with the Pico 10mm Recessed Copal #0 board to ensure infinity focus can be reached. SK Grimes removed the camera-side mount from the extension tube before attaching it directly to the Pico board.

In my mind the mechanical is the easy part. In Ken Rockwell's Nikon 19 PC-E review, there is an "Of course any use on medium format will depend on your ability to adapt it mechanically, and will not work with the electronic diaphragm; you'll always be shooting at f/4." And the Cambo WRE-2019 is carrying its own control unit around all the time. Or did SK Grimes build some custom electronics for you?

One thing I hadn’t considered is that when the extension ring is mounted to the Pico, it rotates—and when the lens is attached, it rotates as well. In other words, the lens doesn’t line up in its standard orientation once it’s mounted with this adapter. If I had sent both my lens and the Pico to SK Grimes, they could have aligned everything perfectly.

Even if I had anticipated this alignment issue, I probably wouldn’t have wanted to send my equipment out for a month or more. Fortunately, since I use the Pico for adjustments and keep the lens controls zeroed out, the rotation doesn’t really affect my setup.

Speaking of rotating, don't the Pico ARCA lenses also rotate? Interesting the Arca Swiss decided to remove the TS-E shift movement but not the tilt... With Canon EF lensplate on an F or M body, pretty much the only use of the tilt is fine tune the swing on the F-Universalis which doesn't have geared swing. Pico has geared swing so even that isn't needed.

The whole concept of those Pico ARCA lenses is rather odd to be honest. Pico has electronic contacts built into the front frame and the control unit sits at the back. The Pico Mamiya 645 lensplate links into this system and provides a Mamiya mount in front. But for some reason, Canon TS-E lenses are remounted to go directly into the Pico front frame. Why can't the Canon EF mount be done as a lensplate just like on the other Arca Swiss series?

[...] This image is from a recent interiors shoot and the barrel distortion is apparent, this is before correction… I don't remember how much I shifted exactly, but it wasn't more than 3-5mm. This was not made with the CFV 100C, but the GFX 100ii.
View attachment 223209

The Nikon 19 PC-E is sometimes regarded as having better optical performance than the Canon 17 TS-E. The TS-E doesn't show rectilinear distortion to the point of distracting. But rectilinear distortion can be corrected in post while the distortion of the head on the left is wideangle geometry, not a lens defect. And the extreme wide angle depth differentiation makes the head and its distortion so much more obvious. The whole situation is a thankless job to start with...

And speaking of thankless, the scene is so deep that it's difficult to provide impression of sharpness across the whole frame. Harold Merklinger's depth of field theory is that maximizing sharpness of the far part should is more important. But The Exit sign might fall part if focus is dead on at the white board. I suspose focus stacking might be needed, depending on the job requirement. Tough. Wow...

 

[diggles]

35mm is like 1.85 times 19mm which is a huge gap... I have TS-E 17 and 24 and the difference already significant enough. So what's the reason for bypassing the 24 and go directly from 19 to 35?

It is a large gap. My plan is to use the 35XL as my primary exterior lens when I need to capture the whole building. The 19 will be for those times when I don't have much room to back up from the building. Recently, I used the 24 for a building exterior and I had to shift more than I like with it. I wasn't happy with how the lens handled it. I would rather use the 19 and crop if it is too wide.

In my mind the mechanical is the easy part. In Ken Rockwell's Nikon 19 PC-E review, there is an "Of course any use on medium format will depend on your ability to adapt it mechanically, and will not work with the electronic diaphragm; you'll always be shooting at f/4." And the Cambo WRE-2019 is carrying its own control unit around all the time. Or did SK Grimes build some custom electronics for you?

I also use the 19 on my GFX with a Fringer adapter. It is possible keep your aperture setting when you remove the lens, e.g. f/11, which is what I do.

Speaking of rotating, don't the Pico ARCA lenses also rotate? Interesting the Arca Swiss decided to remove the TS-E shift movement but not the tilt... With Canon EF lensplate on an F or M body, pretty much the only use of the tilt is fine tune the swing on the F-Universalis which doesn't have geared swing. Pico has geared swing so even that isn't needed.

The whole concept of those Pico ARCA lenses is rather odd to be honest. Pico has electronic contacts built into the front frame and the control unit sits at the back. The Pico Mamiya 645 lensplate links into this system and provides a Mamiya mount in front. But for some reason, Canon TS-E lenses are remounted to go directly into the Pico front frame. Why can't the Canon EF mount be done as a lensplate just like on the other Arca Swiss series?

The rotation I am speaking of is when you lock the lens into a mount. So the lens rotates to lock in the Nikon mount and the Pico board rotates when it is locked into the front frame. The lens was kept intact so I can still use it on the GFX. The FFD of the Nikon is a bit longer than the Canon EF. It is probably still possible to do with the Canon lenses, however it would require a more customized recessed Pico mount. The Canon EF bayonet would need to be integrated directly into the board instead of using an extension tube design like I did with the Nikon. The shortest Canon extension tube I could find is 12mm, which is 4mm longer than the Nikon tube I used. This, in addition to an extra 2.5 FFD would make it very close. I had about 6mm of extension to get infinity focus with the Nikon.

My thoughts are that Arca wanted to develop a complete system, which I believe they did rather well.

The Nikon 19 PC-E is sometimes regarded as having better optical performance than the Canon 17 TS-E. The TS-E doesn't show rectilinear distortion to the point of distracting. But rectilinear distortion can be corrected in post while the distortion of the head on the left is wideangle geometry, not a lens defect. And the extreme wide angle depth differentiation makes the head and its distortion so much more obvious. The whole situation is a thankless job to start with...

And speaking of thankless, the scene is so deep that it's difficult to provide impression of sharpness across the whole frame. Harold Merklinger's depth of field theory is that maximizing sharpness of the far part should is more important. But The Exit sign might fall part if focus is dead on at the white board. I suspose focus stacking might be needed, depending on the job requirement. Tough. Wow...

These are all reasons why I don't like using lenses as wide as the 19, but sometimes that is what your client wants. Generally, to get the most depth of field as possible, I'll focus on a spot that is about 1/3 into the scene and half way from the center to the edge. The floor right in front of the camera is a bit out of focus, but the white board and gentleman at the podium is acceptable. In the finished image I fixed the barrel distortion and removed distractions like the exit sign and other random items. Also, final file delivery is either 4500px or 6000px on the long side, which helps a lot in terms of sharpness. Clients don't want 11648 x 8736 images, they have no need for it and that file size is difficult for them to work with and store.

 

[Vivseries1]

Warren your responses as always are very helpful. There have been some photos on this forum showing the Pico with moderate length lens such as the Digitar 72mm where the focusing rail is extended.

For example: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?attachments/img_4020-jpg.215508/

Because the Pico does not sit on a tripod mount that can be moved like the Universalis, it seems that the camera cannot be centered over the tripod head. It looks unbalanced but this apparently has not been an issue for those who use it. Do you share that view?

 

[diggles]

Warren your responses as always are very helpful. There have been some photos on this forum showing the Pico with moderate length lens such as the Digitar 72mm where the focusing rail is extended.

For example: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?attachments/img_4020-jpg.215508/

Because the Pico does not sit on a tripod mount that can be moved like the Universalis, it seems that the camera cannot be centered over the tripod head. It looks unbalanced but this apparently has not been an issue for those who use it. Do you share that view?

Thank you for saying so, I really appreciate it. That looks like a lot of extension for the 72—are you sure that’s the 72L? I haven’t found the Pico to be unbalanced at all.

I’m including a few pictures of how I’m using the Pico with the 40HR, 72L, 120ASPH, and 180HR.

Since I came from the Rm3di, I’m still using the r-mounts I had for the 40 and 72.



For the 120 and 180, I’m using the same DIY adapters I had set up for the Rm3di, shown here: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/diy-projects.75664/post-903855



I do it this way for two reasons:

• The Pico fits nicely in my backpack with the 100mm rail; the longer rail would take up too much space.
• Except for the 180, I hardly need to move the focus rail when switching between lenses.

 

[rdeloe]

Thank you for saying so, I really appreciate it. That looks like a lot of extension for the 72—are you sure that’s the 72L? I haven’t found the Pico to be unbalanced at all.

I’m including a few pictures of how I’m using the Pico with the 40HR, 72L, 120ASPH, and 180HR.

Since I came from the Rm3di, I’m still using the r-mounts I had for the 40 and 72.

View attachment 223370 View attachment 223371

For the 120 and 180, I’m using the same DIY adapters I had set up for the Rm3di, shown here: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/diy-projects.75664/post-903855

View attachment 223372 View attachment 223373

I do it this way for two reasons:

• The Pico fits nicely in my backpack with the 100mm rail; the longer rail would take up too much space.
• Except for the 180, I hardly need to move the focus rail when switching between lenses.

Great demonstration Warren! Thanks.

It's such a shame that they couldn't design the Pico to accommodate the S-K APO-Digitar 35/5.6 using mirrorless backs. Oh well. Sometimes you just can't get there from here.

 

[Vivseries1]

Thanks again, those pictures really help. So if one does not use the r-mount, there will be a bit more back extension than with your setup, but not like the photo I linked to. I thought he said it was a 72mm but maybe it was not?

 

[accwai]

It is a large gap. My plan is to use the 35XL as my primary exterior lens when I need to capture the whole building. The 19 will be for those times when I don't have much room to back up from the building. Recently, I used the 24 for a building exterior and I had to shift more than I like with it. I wasn't happy with how the lens handled it. I would rather use the 19 and crop if it is too wide.

Image circle sizes floating on the 'net of the Nikon 19 PC-E and Canon 24 TS-E are almost the same. So you're basically getting around the lack of angular coverage on the TS-E by scaling the whole optical systen down and throwing away pixels at the backend. Wow...

I also use the 19 on my GFX with a Fringer adapter. It is possible keep your aperture setting when you remove the lens, e.g. f/11, which is what I do.

Are you then carrying a spare GFX body to set aperture on a Nikon 19 PC-E for a Pico with Hasselblad digital back right?

In my case, Canon is scouting system and Fuji GFX is strictly a view camera capturing device. Therefore I move the TS-Es between the two systems quite a bit. Closing down a TS-E lens using a Canon body and transferring it somewhere else might take a lot of doing though, so I would imagine using mechanical Canon EF lens plate on Arca Swiss cameras could be rather cumbersome. And the Arca Swiss EF controller does allow focusing at full aperture. Problem though is the short end TS-Es seem to be quite a bit sharper in the middle than towards the edge wide open. So using the outside to adjust swing/tilt when wide open always has a degree of guesswork. The 24mm is the one that starts exhibiting this kind of behavior. This is the most significant weakness of the 24 to me...

 

[accwai]

Thanks again, those pictures really help. So if one does not use the r-mount, there will be a bit more back extension than with your setup, but not like the photo I linked to. I thought he said it was a 72mm but maybe it was not?

FWIW, the scale on the track of a Universalis shows 51mm between the from and back legs when combo of 65/5.6 Super-Angulon and GFX without Rotafoot was focused at 20ft away. If the 72L is a symmetical design, your picture doesn't look all that far-fetched... As for the being unbalanced, it probably shouldn't be a big deal unless your tripod head is seriously weak. The whole rail on the Univsersalis above was moved back so the lens was sitting right on top of the top plate on an old Arca Swiss B (very original B, no iteration number at the end, no option of any kind on the top plate). One needs to be a little careful when making small nudges but the setup was controllable. And on something like a C1, you won't feel a thing at all. A C1 can nudge by fraction of degree in all three axis an 8x10 F, even pointing downwards. So a digital mini view camera is like almost nothing

 

[diggles]

Thanks again, those pictures really help. So if one does not use the r-mount, there will be a bit more back extension than with your setup, but not like the photo I linked to. I thought he said it was a 72mm but maybe it was not?

Yeah, basically the thickness of the r-mount.

 

[diggles]

Are you then carrying a spare GFX body to set aperture on a Nikon 19 PC-E for a Pico with Hasselblad digital back right?

When photographing architecture I always have the GFX with me anyway. Even so, I set the aperture to f/11 and leave it there.

Currently, I'm looking at working with SK Grimes to create a manual Canon lens adapter for the Pico. If we can get it to work then I'll likely use the 17 and 24 Canon TS-E lenses instead of the Nikon. Even though the Nikon is optically superior, using one system has it's benefits.

 

[vjbelle]

Great demonstration Warren! Thanks.

It's such a shame that they couldn't design the Pico to accommodate the S-K APO-Digitar 35/5.6 using mirrorless backs. Oh well. Sometimes you just can't get there from here.

I don't think this is a Pico issue but more a camera to lens FFD needed issue. I don't believe the Schneider 35XL ( if that is the lens you are referring to ) could ever be used with a mirrorless camera unless the sensor was almost flush with the camera opening.

Please correct me if you are referring to a different lens....

Victor B.