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!

  • We are experiencing some technical problems. We apologize for any interuptions. Our team is aware of the problem and will let you know when it gets resolved.

Live view on a technical camera - possible?

Abstraction

Active member
Is it possible to engage live view on any of the currently available digital backs when using a technical camera or any other, non-dedicated digital camera like RB67 or RZ67? If so, what types of connections, if any, would be required to get that? Alternatively, I assume it would be possible to to tether a back on the digital camera. Am I right to assume so?

Thanks
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Live view with any Phase One IQ or Leaf Credo will work with any tech camera with a Mamiya/Phase Mount plate, including the RZ at least with the HX70x - I have this myself but only use at home with my RZ Pro IID.

For V mount there is the CFV 50C which will fit any tech camera with a V mount adapter and you can also get those for the RB and I believe also RZ. Btw, to a certain degree the V mount is probably the most versatile if you want to use older medium format gear such Bronica, Fuji etc etc - lots more fitting options for V mount out there.

Typically mounting a MFDB on a tech camera (or older MF SLR) will require a sync cable to trigger the back from the shutter. For Phase One backs you can either shoot in zero latency mode with a simple sync cable, or you'll need a double sync trigger (to wake back & then trigger exposure). For Leaf & Hasselblad the simple sync cables are sufficient. The dumb MF body adapters require external sync. The HX701 I have for the RZ ProIID doesn't require any sync cables at all.

If you want to go tethered then earlier generation backs will also support live view although to be honest you'll have to decide what level of detail and capabilities you want. If you are shooting well lit still life vs tech cam in the field then your options and tolerance for the performance of a tethered back or CCD vs CMOS live view will be different.
 

Abstraction

Active member
Live view with any Phase One IQ or Leaf Credo will work with any tech camera with a Mamiya/Phase Mount plate, including the RZ at least with the HX70x - I have this myself but only use at home with my RZ Pro IID.

For V mount there is the CFV 50C which will fit any tech camera with a V mount adapter and you can also get those for the RB and I believe also RZ.

If you want to go tethered then earlier generation backs will also support live view although to be honest you'll have to decide what level of detail and capabilities you want. If you are shooting well lit still life vs tech cam in the field then your options and tolerance for the performance of a tethered back or CCD vs CMOS live view will be different.
I was thinking in terms of a field camera. Something where I could use the live view to focus and compose. It would also be helpful if there is a way to attach an external 7" monitor or something to that effect, which would be light and compact enough.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The only back that can drive an HDMI external monitor today is the IQ3 100. I can't speak to the Hasselblad capabilities tethered but you can certainly use a laptop in the field like a Surface Pro or Mac Book Pro with Phase One IQ backs via USB3 or FW. FW options are also available on the older backs.

The biggest problem I've had in the field though has been glare on the attached laptop. I personally found it best to shoot tethered / review for critical focus & comp but for actual composition the built in live view on the back works well enough. With CMOS backs (my IQ150) I don't shoot tethered in the field any more as I can gauge focus on the LCD. I'd like a bigger screen to look at but that's not an option connected to HDMI unless using the IQ3 100. You can do it wirelessly (quite well actually) to an iPad if you have a IQ2/3 back via C1 Pilot ... so long as you can get them to connect and stay connected (which is why I went to the IQ150 vs IQ250 last time - wifi was terrible)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Btw if you want the best bang for buck in terms of a field/mini view cam with live view, I personally think that the Cambo Actus DB with a CFV50c is outstanding value and you can put pretty much any large or medium format technical lenses (Rodie / Schneider etc) with a shutter on them.
 

Abstraction

Active member
Btw if you want the best bang for buck in terms of a field/mini view cam with live view, I personally think that the Cambo Actus DB with a CFV50c is outstanding value and you can put pretty much any large or medium format technical lenses (Rodie / Schneider etc) with a shutter on them.
Is that a full 645 sensor or a smaller form factor? Can it do long exposures (a few minutes in moderately warm weather?)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The sensor is 44x33mm so 1.3x crop vs 'full frame' which of course really is a misnomer since even the non-crop sensor isn't exactly the same size as a film 645 frame. You just need to pick your lenses to give you the required FOV.

Long exposure - yes. The CMOS sensors arguably do better in this respect than CCD.
 

PhiloFarmer

Member
If anyone tells you that a CCD sensor can also deliver "Live-View"...send them a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge!

That's pure hookum....

Under stable-indoor-controled light...well...maybe a wee bit of use on a tech cam. But nothing to get worked-up about, that's for sure.

Outdoors......it's a full-on laugh....unless you think focusing with a ND-12 filter works for you!!

I just bought a Credo-60...and I'm still laughing at myself thinking I was going to do the impossible!

Cheers,

Hank
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Hank,

I'm not sure that I'd agree with your doomsday depiction of live view with CCD for composition. Stopping down or using a variable ND helps to be able to tame the light but I would certainly agree that it isn't simple or easy.

CMOS changed the game for me. Focus with CMOS was easy. Composition stopped down on a CCD was fine but I would agree that accurate focus was a challenge (and I'm being charitable). Others however seemed to be able to overcome the limitation I, and it sounds like you, ran into.
 
Last edited:

Abstraction

Active member
The sensor is 44x33mm so 1.3x crop vs 'full frame' which of course really is a misnomer since even the non-crop sensor isn't exactly the same size as a film 645 frame. You just need to pick your lenses to give you the required FOV.

Long exposure - yes. The CMOS sensors arguably do better in this respect than CCD.
I think that for maximum flexibility, I'd prefer to go with the non-crop / CMOS sensor. Is it safe to say that all Phase One backs with 60mp and up use a non-crop sensor and their IQ 2x line and higher use CMOS?

What about Hasselblad backs or other manufacturers? Is there anything out there at this moment that would meet the criteria without breaking the bank (assuming around $10k?)
 

torger

New member
I think that for maximum flexibility, I'd prefer to go with the non-crop / CMOS sensor. Is it safe to say that all Phase One backs with 60mp and up use a non-crop sensor and their IQ 2x line and higher use CMOS?

What about Hasselblad backs or other manufacturers? Is there anything out there at this moment that would meet the criteria without breaking the bank (assuming around $10k?)
There is currently only one full-frame CMOS back, Phase One IQ3 100MP. Hasselblad has announced via their CEO that they will make a full-frame CMOS too, but "they are in no hurry", which probably means that they have some work in their dated back platform to do before it can handle 100MP well. I'd expect an announcement during this year, but it could be next year too, I don't know. Leaf will almost certainly come out with a 100MP CMOS back too at some point in time, maybe before Hasselblad, maybe after.

None of these will be remotely close to $10k. Hasselblad has shown some moves towards lower prices, but $10k for a full-frame CMOS I'm almost 100% sure that will not happen in near time, it would be a totally revolutionary change in pricing. The best bet for a low price is if Hasselblad makes a full-frame CFV V-mount back, but it's not certain they will make that. The lowest price I would dare to guess for such a product should it appear would be say $17k.

It's also a safe bet that IQ3 100MP will also after the release of the competing products be the most expensive way to get full-frame CMOS. Phase One is good at being first with the latest, but it comes at a price.

And of course, also be aware of wide angle limitations if you're going to use these CMOS backs on a technical camera. It's somewhat of a mine field so a well-informed and experienced dealer and try-before-buy is strongly recommended.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Full frame CMOS for $10k ... Dream on. Come back in 5 or 6 years maybe, probably more. As for Torger's $17k - I wouldn't take that bet.

I seriously question the need to be 'full frame' if you are shooting with a technical camera. I see little benefit beyond bragging rights because there are lenses that will provide the wider focal length to give you what you want up to a limit of 23mm on Rodie or if you want wider you can do what I did and go to the Alpa FPS and 17 Canon TSE. If that's not wide enough well you might want to reconsider the format you are using.
 

torger

New member
Full frame CMOS for $10k ... Dream on. Come back in 5 or 6 years maybe, probably more. As for Torger's $17k - I wouldn't take that bet.

I seriously question the need to be 'full frame' if you are shooting with a technical camera. I see little benefit beyond bragging rights because there are lenses that will provide the wider focal length to give you what you want up to a limit of 23mm on Rodie or if you want wider you can do what I did and go to the Alpa FPS and 17 Canon TSE. If that's not wide enough well you might want to reconsider the format you are using.
I wouldn't take my own bet either. I think $10k is totally unrealistic today, but if a CFV-100 comes out and cost $17k I wouldn't be that surprised, but I would indeed be a fair bit surprised :). It seems Hasselblad may be serious about lowering prices, but their current price list is like chaos, with things like H5D-50c with lens costing much less than H5D-50c without lens so it's hard to know where they're going. Their pre-owned prices have become really attractive too, so I think something is happening there. They have their high manufacturing cost and low volumes though so they can't make things truly mass-market cheap.

Phase One has shown no signs whatsoever to change their pricing model and I don't think they need to, they sell on being first with the latest stuff, and also have a bit of a technical lead. The competition needs to shape up before they would be forced to reconsider their pricing.

I too seriously question the need for full-frame on a tech cam. As I like wide range of movements I feel more freedom using a 44x33mm on a 90mm image circle than 54x41mm. I personally think the old 49x37mm size is the sweet spot for the 90mm IC, but it's a dead format. With the current choices I actually prefer the 44x33mm size, but as the traditionalist I am the movement limitations on the Schneider's still makes CMOS a no-go for me so far.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Gents

Please excuse my complete ignorance with regards to shifting but I don't get it! If the image circle is the image circle, then what difference does the size of the sensor make? If you can shift a crop sensor further in millimeters, why does that change anything over a larger sensor? Lets say I shift my back 20mm, see the edge of the image circle and crop back in to what is acceptable, why would it be better or worse to shift a smaller sensor further to get the same view? I am happy to accept I have no idea what i'm talking about as I don't have access to a crop sensor to test the differences, I can't help feeling though that the limitation is the image circle not the sensor size? In extremes, if I take 9 shots at full movements, rise/fall/shift with any sensor until I am hitting the edge of acceptable image quality, won't the field of view be the same?

Sorry for stupid question number 119!

Mat
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Mat,

It's not a stupid question - you are quite right that in terms of coverage the lens image circle is the limiter. For a given lens you'd have to shift more with a smaller sensor for the same image compared to a larger sensor. But that's all.

You are implicitly agreeing with Torger and my point that you don't need a 'full frame' sensor with a technical camera with movements.

As real world example though, when I shot with my IQ260 I found the Rodie 40HR to be my perfect technical camera lens in terms of single shot FOV. When I went to the IQ150 with the smaller sensor I found that it was cropped and for the same image I'd have to shift and merge multiple shots. I ended up moving to the 32HR to give me that same single image FOV.
 

Geoff

Member
Gents

Please excuse my complete ignorance with regards to shifting but I don't get it! If the image circle is the image circle, then what difference does the size of the sensor make? If you can shift a crop sensor further in millimeters, why does that change anything over a larger sensor? Lets say I shift my back 20mm, see the edge of the image circle and crop back in to what is acceptable, why would it be better or worse to shift a smaller sensor further to get the same view? I am happy to accept I have no idea what i'm talking about as I don't have access to a crop sensor to test the differences, I can't help feeling though that the limitation is the image circle not the sensor size? In extremes, if I take 9 shots at full movements, rise/fall/shift with any sensor until I am hitting the edge of acceptable image quality, won't the field of view be the same?

Sorry for stupid question number 119!

Mat
Yes, you are right. If you take a small sensor and work within the image circle, and stitch a number of images together, you can approximate the results of a larger sensor. Say for example you have a sensor 2cm square. If you put four images together, its the same as having a 4cm square sensor. A few cautions tho:

- has to be back movements, not lens movements, as that will change the point of view
- requires precision and time to take multiple shots vs. 1
- there needs to be some overlaps (for the matching) so perhaps your 2cm stitch yields a 3-3.5 cm sq image
- hassle in processing. Its not just the stitching that's an issue, but corrections need to be done either before on all 4 images or after.

There is more benefit from the larger pixels in terms of flexibility, and by many folks, quality. Several reasons other than stitching for this - of which pixel count is only one. That said, you can work by stitching, and many of us with MFDB actually stitch our images to approximate even bigger sensors which are either not available or not affordable.

The general thinking is a carryover from large format days, that a larger the recording surface (film, sensor, etc.) provides a better result. Less stress on the lenses, higher quality, more latitude, etc. However, progress in smaller sensors in recent years has put a big dent in that thinking, but it still has some relevance. Also smaller sensors (with smaller pixels) are less forgiving of off-axis light - see Torger's many posts on this issue.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I guess my point is that I have read on many occasions people stating that having a smaller sensor is allowing them to have larger movements when that to me makes absolutely no sense when the limitation is the image circle, unless of course you are flat stitching, I am just trying to get my head around Anders preference for a certain sensor size, I guess it is only that sensors ability to deal with shift rather than the fact that it can shift further.

I made the very conscious decision to go with an IQ260 in order to get maximum view on single images and with the 32mm it's excellent, I also have absolutely no problem with shifting and stitching the files together and would have no issue with a smaller sensor if that was all I had access to, I agree with you both that a crop sensor isn't a handicap if you are stitching anyway, as long as it's design allows it to shift nicely.

Thanks for confirming what I was struggling with!

Mat
 

Paul2660

Active member
The whole issue of the cropped sensor at least to me, is 30% less area. It's also why I don't use an APS-C camera in the field, and when I do I stitch. 50MP is fine for me but the 30% loss in focal length was not. If I was living in the west and shooting the wide open spaces, I would feel just the opposite. The responses from the 50 and 100MP chips on wides appear to be about the same so.

I tried the 50MP chip, loved the files, the LiveView, and the high ISO. But I found that I needed to move 12 feet back to get the same image framed the way I wanted. In my locations, moving back 12 feet many times can't be done. So I stayed with the IQ260.

I have the 40HR-W and as Graham states, moving to 32mm HR-W might have resolved this, but I wanted to stay with the compact size and weight of the 40mm, and at the time I had the 28 HR.

Working with the rm3di, you are limited to only 15mm of shift anyway so I really could not shift the 50MP enough to make up for the loss I felt I had in image size. Sure you can rotate the rm3di and use rise fall as shift, but the IC indicator in the 40mm shows up past 16mm anyway, so the lens itself is the limiting factor to me.

Paul C
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I have taken so much to my Leaf 50 CMOS that I have tried every trick I can to maximize file size and fov (if needed). I have numerous lenses so its kind of rare for me to have to give up a shot using this back. One of my usual schemes is to take two quick portrait images shifted about 10-12mm left right. That will give that lens the same 4X3 FOV as if shooting on a FF sensor and also produce the same pixel density. Two very quick shots and the stitch is very simple.

Victor
 
Top