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!

Hard to decide the right tech cam setup... still fighting

Paul2660

Well-known member
Actually the 32mm and 40mm Rodenstocks with a 90mm IC can shift well past 12mm. The 32 can make 15 to 16mm and the 40mm depending on the lens can get to 20mm. I have both and usually shift well beyond 12mm. The 23mm and 28mm (only the 23mm is offered in X shutter) only have a 70mm IC and are limited to much less shift. The only true shift limitation for the 32mm and 40mm are the IC indicators placed inside the lenses by Rodenstock. These create a hard vignetting when you hit them. Note you won’t see them or even begin to see them at 12mm of shift.
Phase One made some interesting decisions or compromises on the XT IMO limited shift and no tilt being two of them. These should be considered along with the advantages of the unique design of the CT.

Paul C
 

vieri

Well-known member
Actually the 32mm and 40mm Rodenstocks with a 90mm IC can shift well past 12mm. The 32 can make 15 to 16mm and the 40mm depending on the lens can get to 20mm. I have both and usually shift well beyond 12mm. The 23mm and 28mm (only the 23mm is offered in X shutter) only have a 70mm IC and are limited to much less shift. The only true shift limitation for the 32mm and 40mm are the IC indicators placed inside the lenses by Rodenstock. These create a hard vignetting when you hit them. Note you won’t see them or even begin to see them at 12mm of shift.
Phase One made some interesting decisions or compromises on the XT IMO limited shift and no tilt being two of them. These should be considered along with the advantages of the unique design of the CT.

Paul C
Hello Paul,

Rodenstock lenses with a 90mm image circle available for the XT are just the 32mm and 50mm (40mm is not available, at this time at least). They offer 13/16mm (Rodenstock data, confirmed by my experience), which is something I wouldn't exactly call that "well past" 12mm: you do get a (small) advantage in rise/fall (4mm), and pretty much equal shift capabilities since having 13mm horizontal shift is not really giving you much of an advantage over 12mm :) As you mentioned, you won't see any shift limitation with 12mm of shift, and most notably you won't see any limitation even if you shift on both directions 12mm at the same time, which is great for multi-row image stitching.

Phase One decided to compromise on the amount of shift, compared i.e. to the Cambo 1600 the XT is clearly based off; but, in exchange for that 4mm limitation, you get a much smaller & lighter camera (plus the full digital integration, of course), which makes sense for the kind of users they were designing it for (landscapers mostly). As always, camera choice is a matter of compromises; it's up to everyone of us to decide what is more important for our kind of shooting, and what is not. Personally, for landscape, I value size / weight over 4mm of extra rise/fall, no question about that, so I got the XT. Others might have different requirements and, therefore, get a different camera for their work.

Best regards,

Vieri
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Hi Vieri:

I realize that the Rodenstock publishted Limit on the 32mm is 13mm of shift, and based on my copy of that lens, I would agree that much past 13mm, the amount of distortion (due to the retro focus design) makes the image quality questionable, however I have used other 32mm Rodenstock, on Cambo cameras, where a full 18mm of shift was available with very small amounts of the same distortion. My copy is obviously, not as good as others. Rodenstock puts the IC indicator inside each lens, which is designed to show the photograph they have reached the end of the IC. At 12mm of shift on the 32mm, you don't see the IC, at 15mm of shift you don't either, you start to see it around 17mm of shift and then only barely.

I guess my point is Phase One had the opportunity to take information from Cambo, Arca and Alpa, and in the past they have partnered with Alpa, and now Cambo. To add 3mm of shift IMO would really not make the body either much heavier, or bulky, but it's done now and unless P1 comes out with a XT X or something, with more shift, which I doubt will happen, XT users are at 12mm. For me it's huge limitation for I prefer max shift for short panorama work which makes the final stitch much easier vs moving the camera. 3mm of total shift is not that much to some for me, it does. I wish Arca was like Cambo in that Cambo offers 20mm of shift without having to rotate the body.

As you get past 70mm, you really IMO see a lack of range, as lenses like the 90mm HR-SW can reach possibly 25mm of shift for sure 20mm and the 138 Rodenstock from what I have read about the same.

It's really a matter personal preferences, and ability to pay up. as I realize that if a photography is willing to pay around 12-14K, they can now get a 32mm Rodenstock with X shutter and the Cambo T/S mount. Probably the best way to go but for an extreme cost. For me the entire proposition is way past reality, due to the cost factor anyway.

Paul C
 
  • Like
Reactions: med

Ray Harrison

Active member
Hello Paul,

Rodenstock lenses with a 90mm image circle available for the XT are just the 32mm and 50mm (40mm is not available, at this time at least). They offer 13/16mm (Rodenstock data, confirmed by my experience), which is something I wouldn't exactly call that "well past" 12mm: you do get a (small) advantage in rise/fall (4mm), and pretty much equal shift capabilities since having 13mm horizontal shift is not really giving you much of an advantage over 12mm :) As you mentioned, you won't see any shift limitation with 12mm of shift, and most notably you won't see any limitation even if you shift on both directions 12mm at the same time, which is great for multi-row image stitching.

Phase One decided to compromise on the amount of shift, compared i.e. to the Cambo 1600 the XT is clearly based off; but, in exchange for that 4mm limitation, you get a much smaller & lighter camera (plus the full digital integration, of course), which makes sense for the kind of users they were designing it for (landscapers mostly). As always, camera choice is a matter of compromises; it's up to everyone of us to decide what is more important for our kind of shooting, and what is not. Personally, for landscape, I value size / weight over 4mm of extra rise/fall, no question about that, so I got the XT. Others might have different requirements and, therefore, get a different camera for their work.

Best regards,

Vieri
I think the gist is: There are a number of quality options depending on what you value. For example, I value the flexibility of something like a Cambo/Alpa/Arca/etc more than the weight benefits and shift metadata of the XT. It's all good :) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: med

vieri

Well-known member
I think the gist is: There are a number of quality options depending on what you value. For example, I value the flexibility of something like a Cambo/Alpa/Arca/etc more than the weight benefits and shift metadata of the XT. It's all good :) .
Hello Ray

that is indeed what I meant :) We live in great times, so many amazing options to choose from!

Best regards,

Vieri
 
Top