Cambo introduces a new technical camera: the Cambo WRC-490/491

[Paul Spinnler]

Given my long relationship with the Cambo company it would surprise me if they didn't offer to change the DB mount for a reasonable price. Alpa charges just shy of $1500.00 for a DB adapter - to me an outrageous amount of money. I would think that Cambo would be more reasonable than that for a mount change.

Victor B.

You can find them used for half and on top it is modular. Their back adapters come with shim kits which allow you to calibrate the digital back you have to perfect sharpness at infinity. So their back adapters can be taken apart and have multiple fastening points for calibration, in the case of the IQ4 even the bottom clamp to hold the back in place can be calibrated to be perfect.

This is important for different digital backs with varying tolerances as the lenses are calibrated for general use.

Its rather nice to know that when you hit infinity stop with each back the sharpness is perfect.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Ok looked it up:

WRS-1600:

Size	180 x 160mm (WxH) incl. handgrips and tripod mount
Weight	0.92 Kgs (Excl. lens)
Horizontal shift	40 mm (20mm left/ 20mm right)
Vertical shift	(20mm/ 20mm)

WRS-490:

Size	156 x 134mm (WxH) incl. handgrips,tripod mount and interface
Weight	0.97 Kg (Excl. lens)

I mean, it WEIGHS MORE and is 2.4cm less wide, so 1.2 each side and 2.6cm less high.

That, unfortunately, in my view, makes the WRS-1600 more interesting. Why give up the ability to rise and stitch in pano for minimally more width + less weight.

You don't need a rotating back adapter if you can rotate the body quickly and have 20mm in all directions ... because what you do is you rotate the camera instead of the back itself because in terms of shift ways XY are fully symmetric in all directions. This makes the 1600 the most flexibile option, at lighter weight.

They should have built a more compact unishift - this is not well though out, IMHO, in terms of were they landed.

This typically happens when an engineer overplans a product and doesn't think from the practical end user side, lol.

Then you get a heavier unishift than their already fully rotating XY shift.

 

[mristuccia]

Ok looked it up:

WRS-1600:

Size	180 x 160mm (WxH) incl. handgrips and tripod mount
Weight	0.92 Kgs (Excl. lens)
Horizontal shift	40 mm (20mm left/ 20mm right)
Vertical shift	(20mm/ 20mm)

WRS-490:

Size	156 x 134mm (WxH) incl. handgrips,tripod mount and interface
Weight	0.97 Kg (Excl. lens)

I mean, it WEIGHS MORE and is 2.4cm less wide, so 1.2 each side and 2.6cm less high.

That, unfortunately, in my view, makes the WRS-1600 more interesting. Why give up the ability to rise and stitch in pano for minimally more width + less weight.

You don't need a rotating back adapter if you can rotate the body quickly and have 20mm in all directions ... because what you do is you rotate the camera instead of the back itself because in terms of shift ways XY are fully symmetric in all directions. This makes the 1600 the most flexibile option, at lighter weight.

Not so simple. I've posted a comparison table a bit further up in this thread where I've highlighted the devil's details in the specs of the 1600, the 490/91 and the 400.

For example, the 490 weights 0.97 Kg but it has the interface included while the 1600 weights 0.92 Kg but without interface...

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Not so simple. I've posted a comparison table a bit further up in this thread where I've highlighted the devil's details in the specs of the 1600, the 490/91 and the 400.

For example, the 490 weights 0.97 Kg but it has the interface included while the 1600 weights 0.92 Kg but without interface...

Alrighty, so they're parity. The interface weighs what 50g?

Question shifted around, if I may say so: Why buy this same weight system which is 1.2cm less wide on both side, as main benefit, compared to an omnidirectional 1600?

 

[mristuccia]

Already, so they're parity. The interface weighs what 50g?

Who knows, no weights in the interfaces' specs on the official site.

The 400 weights 0.5 Kg but without the handgrip and the tripod mount (curiously, no mention about whether the interface is included or not).
I guess that when all of them are equally equipped the weights will be very similar.

As I've already said in that post, it's more a matter of size than weight.
I'll stick with my WRS-1600...

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The 400 does make sense as a compact alternative. 0.4kg adds up during an outing.

XT is 700g btw, and I find it borderline for handholding, the fixed tripod mount is a bit annoying adn the fact that one can only attach a neckstrap on the side handle which is very awkward.

 

[mristuccia]

Just weighted my WRS-1600 which includes the wooden handgrip, the tripod mount and the Hasselblad V interface. It totals to 1065g.
So, the interface alone should weight 1065 - 920 = 145g

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Alright so we are talking a 100g difference, which is not much and it should feel almost the same weight wise. You get in back adapter rotation for the price of modularity and 1.2cm less width on each side and a bit more than 2cm less height. So notable, but not by much.

The question is if this makes sense if you already own a 1600?

 

[jng]

The WRC-490/491 makes sense if one doesn't typically use simultaneous X-Y shift and is looking to minimize bulk (vs weight). I've considered picking up the original WRC-400 as a lighter and less bulky kit for travel, but am loathe to give up the ability to shift simultaneously along both axes so never acted on it. That said, the rotating back of the new model is a nice trick. I wonder whether Cambo/Phase One has this in mind for an updated XT. If so, this would allow tilt in both portrait and landscape orientation (not possible with their native single-axis tilt mechanism). An XT verson 2 with extended shift might also be desirable for some, but would inevitably add both weight and bulk (there's no free lunch here). For now I will stick with my trusty WRS-1250. It does what I need it to do and I don't mind rotating the back manually as needed.

John

 

[vjbelle]

You can find them used for half and on top it is modular. Their back adapters come with shim kits which allow you to calibrate the digital back you have to perfect sharpness at infinity. So their back adapters can be taken apart and have multiple fastening points for calibration, in the case of the IQ4 even the bottom clamp to hold the back in place can be calibrated to be perfect.

This is important for different digital backs with varying tolerances as the lenses are calibrated for general use.

Its rather nice to know that when you hit infinity stop with each back the sharpness is perfect.

The modularity issue is a given and has no bearing on my post. I still own Alpa and have for many years and always shimmed my backs so that they would focus 'Beyond' infinity. That was done to offset the issue of Alpa lenses 'Not' having the infinity stop adjusted equally on all lenses - at least that has been my experience. On top of that if ownership included a 150mm lens the helical stop was fixed and not adjustable so that lens became the benchmark for shimming. Much easier to just shim so that all lenses focused beyond infinity and be done with it.

Victor B.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The WRC-490/491 makes sense if one doesn't typically use simultaneous X-Y shift and is looking to minimize bulk (vs weight). I've considered picking up the original WRC-400 as a lighter and less bulky kit for travel, but am loathe to give up the ability to shift simultaneously along both axes so never acted on it. That said, the rotating back of the new model is a nice trick. I wonder whether Cambo/Phase One has this in mind for an updated XT. If so, this would allow tilt in both portrait and landscape orientation (not possible with their native single-axis tilt mechanism). An XT verson 2 with extended shift might also be desirable for some, but would inevitably add both weight and bulk (there's no free lunch here). For now I will stick with my trusty WRS-1250. It does what I need it to do and I don't mind rotating the back manually as needed.

John

I hope, really hope they do a WRS-1600 as XT XL, if it ever sees the light of the day, but not a 1KG unishift.

That won't sell, that's not why I got all those fancy X shutter lenses, I would only be interested in a larger XT with shift in all directions.

On this one, I feel they missed the mark with the compactness / weight trade-off, unfortunately.

 

[Lexa]

Maybe the answer stand in the different of meaning between WRS and WRC.

 

[Alkibiades]

As a wrs-1600 user I welcome new cameras for the wrs system very much.
Especially in times when the technical cameras seems to be outdated for many.
But indeed there is a question why the same funcion twice? and why only for one system?
Nobody knows who will make new backs in the future, will phase one stay in buissness? ,will hasselblad follow with the 907 system?
So if you choose one system now, you cant change in the future... a very bad idea.
So its nothing for me, but I am very happy to see something new from cambo...
Maybe will will see a new camera with rotating back from Alpa also?
maybe I am wrong, but Alpa is till now the only one that have no rotating back options till now ( Arca, cambo, linhof have...).

 

[Rod S.]

As a wrs-1600 user I welcome new cameras for the wrs system very much.
Especially in times when the technical cameras seems to be outdated for many.
But indeed there is a question why the same funcion twice? and why only for one system?
Nobody knows who will make new backs in the future, will phase one stay in buissness? ,will hasselblad follow with the 907 system?
So if you choose one system now, you cant change in the future... a very bad idea.
So its nothing for me, but I am very happy to see something new from cambo...
Maybe will will see a new camera with rotating back from Alpa also?
maybe I am wrong, but Alpa is till now the only one that have no rotating back options till now ( Arca, cambo, linhof have...).

I read the new WRC 490/491 as Cambo responding to the enthusiasm many users express for the ability of the WRS 1600 to rotate the digital back from landscape to portrait without removing it.

The dual alternative versions of 490 or 491 are presumably due to a constraint imposed by the back rotation mechanism.

The WRC 400 remains in the line-up, so users wanting a single axis device and who don't want to be locked into only HB or Phase One still have an alternative.

 

[mristuccia]

Since we’re gradually replacing copal shutters with aperture units, I would applaud an X/Y Cambo WRS camera equipped with an electrical or mechanical focal plane shutter, along with a wider range of adapters for various lens brands. There are instances where an ES cannot be used, such as when flash lighting or photography with artificial light is required.

 

[Bill_Evans]

I've always been surprise the that WRC-400 got so little "love". For its size and weight it is super capable.

 

[anyone]

I've always been surprise the that WRC-400 got so little "love". For its size and weight it is super capable.

I finally found one and it is on its way to me. Very curious indeed!

 

[dchew]

Maybe will will see a new camera with rotating back from Alpa also?
maybe I am wrong, but Alpa is till now the only one that have no rotating back options till now ( Arca, cambo, linhof have...).

I’m the odd man out here. Alpa has a square mount, so the back can be oriented however you want. I don’t have the same concerns around reorienting the back in the field that many others do. Changing lenses is pretty close to the same thing from a sensor exposure standpoint, and in some ways it’s worse; I can reorient the back much faster than I can change lenses.
A rotating back is a feature I don’t really want because of the complexity it adds. If Alpa developed a new camera with that feature, I wouldn’t buy it.
Dave

 

[mristuccia]

I may be the unlucky one, but every time I detach my back from the camera, I find new dust spots in the subsequent images taken.
Even when I change the lens, the sensor is exposed and gets dust.
Therefore, I'm really happy that I can rotate my WRS-1600 and be ready in portrait mode without removing the back.

 

[doccdiamond]

A rotational interface is prone to less precision in parallellism - like any additional interface and a moving one even more. On the other hand removing the back just for rotation can add dust as mentioned. With ALPA's you can screw on a second Arca-like interface at the side to mount the camera in a 90° angle without removing the back itself (but you have to take it of the tripod...).