I know there are a number of view camera threads here but I am considering a Cambo WRS 1600 w/ Rodenstock 40 combo for landscapes and wondered what advantages/disadvantages there would be versus using my X2D II with 20-35 or 35-100 zoom lens. I'd also be interested in knowing what your favorite lens on a Cambo WRS would be and why. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated in helping me to decide if I go down this view camera path or not. I have read through the technical camera pictures thread and am amazed at the quality and types of photos people have taken with various tech cameras.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Cambo WRS 1600 vs X2D II for Landscapes
- Thread starter isteveb
- Start date
It depends on your shooting style and what you want to achieve:
(a) The first question you need to ask yourself: do you want to use lens movements or not? If the answer is no, there are diminishing returns in terms of image quality. Tech cameras offer very good performance, but so does the Hasselblad X2D II from what I read.
(b) Next would be to ask yourself: do you want to shoot slow, considerate, and on a tripod? If the answer is yes, the tech camera can be a good choice. if the answer is no, the Hasselblad will be the better choice. You can of course use also the X2D II slow, considerate, and on a tripod. But you cannot use the tech cam without
(c) Third in my list is weather sealing: do you shoot in bad weather conditions? Then the X2D II most likely will be the better option.
That said, using a technical camera is a very satisfying experience, mainly due to the level of control you get with lens movements. If you want to stick to one camera system, there are also interesting new choices such as the Arca Swiss Pico around, that let you use a X2DII with tech cam lenses (except wide angle).
(a) The first question you need to ask yourself: do you want to use lens movements or not? If the answer is no, there are diminishing returns in terms of image quality. Tech cameras offer very good performance, but so does the Hasselblad X2D II from what I read.
(b) Next would be to ask yourself: do you want to shoot slow, considerate, and on a tripod? If the answer is yes, the tech camera can be a good choice. if the answer is no, the Hasselblad will be the better choice. You can of course use also the X2D II slow, considerate, and on a tripod. But you cannot use the tech cam without
(c) Third in my list is weather sealing: do you shoot in bad weather conditions? Then the X2D II most likely will be the better option.
That said, using a technical camera is a very satisfying experience, mainly due to the level of control you get with lens movements. If you want to stick to one camera system, there are also interesting new choices such as the Arca Swiss Pico around, that let you use a X2DII with tech cam lenses (except wide angle).
I have the 907X 100c digital back that I was thinking of using on the Cambo 1600. My objective is to limit the kit size (under certain circumstances) and using the movements the Cambo provides shooting on a tripod. Do you have a preference on what lens(s) you might suggest for starting out on the Cambo?
rdeloe
Well-known member
Do you have a preference for what focal lengths you use? That's a crucial question. If you keep track, what is your preferred field of view across all the film formats and digital sensor sizes you've used?
I'd also encourage you to be clear about the problem you're solving using a technical camera. It's a fundamentally different approach to photography compared to a mirrorless camera with a pair of zoom lenses. The Cambo technical camera you're asking about solves problems for architectural photographers who need rise/fall and shift. If you also need tilt and swing, you need special lens plates for every lens. If tilt and swing are central to the photographic problems you want to solve, you would be better off with a rail and bellows technical camera.
I was considering a used Rodenstock 4.0/40 HR Digaron-W lens (T/S version) for maximum versatility in that focal length. I like the 40 mm look that I have seen in many of the posted landscape shots I have seen. I also like the 32mm but that is much wider to my eye. I'd also like to do some architectural stuff as well. I am not a professional so this is just a serious hobby for me. I have the resources to do it but I want to keep things pretty simple and I enjoy a slower paced photo work. I also have a Cambo Actus MV that I use for studio type macro work but it is much too large to take on a hike or into the backwoods.
How would you rate the Rodenstock lenses optically against the Hasselblad lenses?
How would you rate the Rodenstock lenses optically against the Hasselblad lenses?
I personally shoot with Schneider Digitar lenses. When you compare focal lengths, also consider sensor size. While I liked 43mm quite a lot on the larger sensor, on 44x33 it is quite a bit longer. But if you like 40mm on your sensor size, I think one cannot go wrong with the 40mm Rodenstock. The 43mm Schneider is smaller and more lightweight, but difficult to source. Both lenses might need LCC shot and an additional post processing step to remove PDAF banding. The 43xl needs it for sure (personal experience).
Greg Haag
Well-known member
I currently shoot with both systems, IQ4, Cambo 1600, Rodenstock 32, 90 & 180. The X2D II 25, 55, 90 and 135. I think the choice here, is such a personal one. If I had to give up one system, it would definitely be the Hasselblad system for me. I prefer the way the technical camera forces me to slow down, I use shift all the time. I don’t know that I have ever had another lens that’s as sharp as the Rodenstock 32 mm. For more generalized shooting, especially if people are involved, for me, the Hasselblad system would be hands-down my choice.
I have the X2DII with the 35-100mm and several other lenses, as well as the CFV-100c, the Rodenstock 40mm HR and an Arca-Swiss Factum tech camera. The 40mm HR is pretty amazing, and I enjoy using a tech camera for certain things like architecture and some landscapes. The lens seems slightly but noticeably superior to using my other XCD lenses, although I just received the 35-100mm so I can’t comment on it yet. However I have a feeling I will be using the 35-100mm a lot, and if I had to choose between that and the 40mm, I would probably go with the zoom for it’s versatility and AF capabilities for how I shoot most often. But I am glad I also have the tech cam system for its unique attributes and capabilities- being able to shift for architecture or for making large panos is really nice. The Arca Swiss system has built in tilt but tbh I don’t use it often. Just my two cents.
Greg,
I am fortunate that I do not need to give up one system over another. In your opinion, what are the advantages of the Cambo over the X2D II for landscape. Architectural shots make a lot of sense with the adjustment possible with a tech camera but landscape seems like a more narrow distinction. Would using a tech camera like the Cambo and rodie lens give me any distinct advantages in achieving results like you get (love your pics by the way!) What do you like about the 32mm over the 40mm Rodie?
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Depends on how much time you have to shoot and your workflow preferences. Quality-wise tech cam is amazing and enormously flexible, ie from a gazillion digital backs to film - you can do a lot. But then again if you're busy and just want to shoot on a walk or short trip while still being present with the family ... maybe the X2D is the more convenient choice, which is ultimately key if that's the only way you find the time to make photos.
People also love the contemplative aspect of "making" a photo vs. the "easy taking" of a photo (zoom with X2D and IBIS and AF turned on).
For a working pro, I imagine a mirrorless with a performing zoom is a lot faster.
Lastly, some people love C1 and with Hassy you lose access to it.
People also love the contemplative aspect of "making" a photo vs. the "easy taking" of a photo (zoom with X2D and IBIS and AF turned on).
For a working pro, I imagine a mirrorless with a performing zoom is a lot faster.
Lastly, some people love C1 and with Hassy you lose access to it.
I do most of my trips solo so no family to spend time with. it's my "walkabout" time. I have my X2D for faster style shooting. I want to take pics that are large, highly detailed, sharp, and can be stitched. I will be using a Hassy 907X for my digital back. I thought the Cambo WRS 1600 would be lighter and easier to pack with one or two lenses (mostly one though). I know Greg Haag (above in the thread) uses his Rodie 32mm a lot. I like the look although it is a bit wider. I also really like the 40mm.
My lack of understanding of the advantages of these tools over more conventional cameras like the Hassy x2D. shows. I have used my Cambo Actus MV inside and seen and used some amazing creative options but for outside (on the road) I see so many pics from people using the pancake style view cameras that I am very intrigued about how and why they are used over traditional cameras by so many on the forum.
My lack of understanding of the advantages of these tools over more conventional cameras like the Hassy x2D. shows. I have used my Cambo Actus MV inside and seen and used some amazing creative options but for outside (on the road) I see so many pics from people using the pancake style view cameras that I am very intrigued about how and why they are used over traditional cameras by so many on the forum.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Well a Cambo system with a V back is like an X2D with easy stitching ability and access to a vast array of technical camera glass which are argubaly sharper or as sharp as any system optics out there.
Rodies have mostly image circles of 90mm, which in the case of the 40 HR means brilliant definition to the outermost edges in single shot with modest shift or the ability to flat stitch within the image circle of the lens of multiple V back exposures.
If you haved the time, enjoy the creative process of composition and want highly detailed imagery a pancake camera might be a great alternative to the X2D.
Don't forget to look at all the camera systems out there, Arca and Alpa also make very fine tech cams. Each manufacturer has its pro's and con's - Arca has the cheapest lens mounting costs associated with it and is well integrated with film, Alpa has a broader range of system bodies ranging from the compact TC to the expansive Pano.
Rodies have mostly image circles of 90mm, which in the case of the 40 HR means brilliant definition to the outermost edges in single shot with modest shift or the ability to flat stitch within the image circle of the lens of multiple V back exposures.
If you haved the time, enjoy the creative process of composition and want highly detailed imagery a pancake camera might be a great alternative to the X2D.
Don't forget to look at all the camera systems out there, Arca and Alpa also make very fine tech cams. Each manufacturer has its pro's and con's - Arca has the cheapest lens mounting costs associated with it and is well integrated with film, Alpa has a broader range of system bodies ranging from the compact TC to the expansive Pano.
Greg is using an IQ4 150 with a larger sensor (54x40) vs the CFV100c (44x33). Your field of view will be different. But if you own already the X2D, you most likely know what 40mm would look like, since the 45 is just slightly longer.
mristuccia
Well-known member
Regarding the WRS-1600, which I own and use with my CFV-100c and Schneider-Kreuznach lenses, I'd like to highlight that it is one of the few Cambo models which allow for 20mm back fall and 20mm rise. Most of the other models, including the lower models in the line, allow for 25mm back fall and 15mm rise. In the very few cases you'd need to shift a lot, that may represent a disadvantage when doing architecture photography, but could be an advantage for landscape photography.
On the positive side, the ability to rotate the camera from horizontal to vertical position without detaching the back/interface is something that I appreciate a lot.
As for the technical lenses, you have fundamentally two choices:
So, the "technical way" is really contemplative, slow, and sometimes cumbersome. Which I like a lot, personally.
On the positive side, the ability to rotate the camera from horizontal to vertical position without detaching the back/interface is something that I appreciate a lot.
As for the technical lenses, you have fundamentally two choices:
- Rodenstock: better in terms of workflow but the wide angles suffer from some distortion, which you'd need to correct in post-production. Since C1 is not an option for Hasselblad files, you'll need to use an old PS plugin made by ALPA which only works with some trickery. Distortion is a problem only with architecture photography though.
RS lenses are generally sharper than the SK ones (see below) at the edges.
- Schneider-Kreuznach: wide angles are rectilinear, distortion is so low that you won't need to correct it. On the other side, they need center filters due to the huge light falloff on the peripheral areas. Due to vignetting recovery on such areas, the quality suffers a bit (more noise). Since SK is not on the market anymore, you'll need to buy second-hand.
So, the "technical way" is really contemplative, slow, and sometimes cumbersome. Which I like a lot, personally.
Last edited:
Greg Haag
Well-known member
First of all, thank you for the kind words. Regarding the 32, when I was building my kit, that was the top recommendation from a few people I knew for the wide end. Regarding the 40, if I had it to do over I might choose that for weight and it's a fantastic lens as far as I know. You might search Kenya's images, I believe kenya28 If I am not mistaken, he shot some incredible images with the Rodenstock 40. Regarding the technical camera, I rarely use the tilt but I use the shift all the time. Usually for 2 image pans, but here is an example of 6 image (3 top/3 bottom). In reality, much of what I do could be done with either but some things the technical camera does a better job. I think in the end for me, it is really driven by the fact that I get so much pleasure out of shooting with the technical camera.
Good Luck!
As mentioned above, the Rodenstock 40HR is a fantastic lens if this is the focal length/field of view you are looking for. As also noted by others, shooting with the X2D is a very different experience than working with a tech cam (I use both, the latter a Cambo 1250). Like @Greg Haag, I often shift to create flat-stitched pano's with the tech cam. I also appreciate the ability to use tilt to bring foreground elements into focus together with more distant objects. So, for tripod-based landscape/cityscape shoots I prefer my Cambo over the X2D, but I'm not always in a situation where bringing along the bulkier (and fussier) tech cam kit is practical. YMMV, of course.
Here are two examples of flat-stitched images made with the Rodie 40HR. The first was shot on the 40x54mm IQ3 100 sensor, made from two images shifted +/- 10mm:
Here's a vertical stitch of three images shot in landscape orientation (+10mm through -15mm) with ~1° of tilt on the 40x53.4mm IQ4 150 sensor:
You should have plenty of room to shift the 40HR to your heart's content with the CFV100C's smaller 33x44mm sensor. Hope this helps!
John
Here are two examples of flat-stitched images made with the Rodie 40HR. The first was shot on the 40x54mm IQ3 100 sensor, made from two images shifted +/- 10mm:
Here's a vertical stitch of three images shot in landscape orientation (+10mm through -15mm) with ~1° of tilt on the 40x53.4mm IQ4 150 sensor:
You should have plenty of room to shift the 40HR to your heart's content with the CFV100C's smaller 33x44mm sensor. Hope this helps!
John
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Yes, tilt, stitching, and fantastic wides with large ICs are the reasons to go tech cam vs. closed system oprics.
The 40 HR gives you perfect sharpness across a large chip:
Bottom right corner on a 54x40mm chip at F8. No system lens is that good, and there's room to shift... the 43 XL is also as fantastic ... the micro contrast of Rodie glass is difficult to beat ...
Center of a 100 MPX image at 100%.
I personally think the 40 HR / 43 XL will be the most flexible optics for the upcoming next-gen chips as they will resolve them and a 28mm equivalent on a full frame chip is the the best basis for cropping into medium wide to normal perspectives. On top, both the Rodie and SK 40s are rather compact.
The 40 HR gives you perfect sharpness across a large chip:
Bottom right corner on a 54x40mm chip at F8. No system lens is that good, and there's room to shift... the 43 XL is also as fantastic ... the micro contrast of Rodie glass is difficult to beat ...
Center of a 100 MPX image at 100%.
I personally think the 40 HR / 43 XL will be the most flexible optics for the upcoming next-gen chips as they will resolve them and a 28mm equivalent on a full frame chip is the the best basis for cropping into medium wide to normal perspectives. On top, both the Rodie and SK 40s are rather compact.
Last edited:
Hi isteveb.
Your key question is: In your opinion, what are the advantages of the Cambo WRS 1600 over the X2D II for landscape?
Your key question is a good one indeed.
My answer is:
A pancake-style technical camera such as the Cambo WRS 1600 allows you to keep the sensor plane vertical and thus maintain the 'natural appearance' of the subject, whether the subject is architecture or landscape. With landscape images, trees remain vertical, while the angles and slopes of cliffs and mountains remain true. Framing downwards or upwards is achieved using vertical rise or fall. Framing left or right is achieved using a combination of swing and lateral shift. This advantage is fundamental to landscape images containing any subject feature closer than infinity.
In contrast, when you use a rigid-body camera such as the Hasselblad X2D II to shoot landscape subjects at close to middle distances, you are usually forced to point the lens upwards or downwards, which tilts the sensor, which imposes unnatural distortions on the subjects. Trees converge or diverge or tilt, and cliffs and mountains become less steep.
A rigid body camera and its fixed lens is good for shooting people, portraits and 'general scenics' with longer lenses at greater distances, or for photojournalism, where you don't care about subject verticals and angles becoming distorted. For both landscape and architecture, where you do care, technical cameras are far better.
There are several other advantages to pancake-style technical cameras, but the above is the main one that springs to mind.
From all you have said in your comments above, you will enjoy using the Cambo WRS 1600. A Rodenstock 40mm lens is an excellent choice for a first lens.
Your key question is: In your opinion, what are the advantages of the Cambo WRS 1600 over the X2D II for landscape?
Your key question is a good one indeed.
My answer is:
A pancake-style technical camera such as the Cambo WRS 1600 allows you to keep the sensor plane vertical and thus maintain the 'natural appearance' of the subject, whether the subject is architecture or landscape. With landscape images, trees remain vertical, while the angles and slopes of cliffs and mountains remain true. Framing downwards or upwards is achieved using vertical rise or fall. Framing left or right is achieved using a combination of swing and lateral shift. This advantage is fundamental to landscape images containing any subject feature closer than infinity.
In contrast, when you use a rigid-body camera such as the Hasselblad X2D II to shoot landscape subjects at close to middle distances, you are usually forced to point the lens upwards or downwards, which tilts the sensor, which imposes unnatural distortions on the subjects. Trees converge or diverge or tilt, and cliffs and mountains become less steep.
A rigid body camera and its fixed lens is good for shooting people, portraits and 'general scenics' with longer lenses at greater distances, or for photojournalism, where you don't care about subject verticals and angles becoming distorted. For both landscape and architecture, where you do care, technical cameras are far better.
There are several other advantages to pancake-style technical cameras, but the above is the main one that springs to mind.
From all you have said in your comments above, you will enjoy using the Cambo WRS 1600. A Rodenstock 40mm lens is an excellent choice for a first lens.
Last edited: