Last I checked, Camera West had an anniversary edition WRS camera for a great priceLast night I was searching online for the CFV 100C that is rumored to be on the way![]()
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!
Last I checked, Camera West had an anniversary edition WRS camera for a great priceLast night I was searching online for the CFV 100C that is rumored to be on the way![]()
What drew you away from the IQ4 / SK / Rodie combo? Is Fuji faster to setup and less hassle?If I make 15-20 different interior shots that means it's been a 10-12 hour day. No matter which camera system.
And just when you thought you were out, they pulled you back in!Last night I was searching online for the CFV 100C that is rumored to be on the way![]()
In terms of shooting workflow, my experience is that shooting with the Cambo WRS, IQ4 and compact SK lenses is far quicker and slicker than with my Fuji GRX 50R and Canon TS-E 24mm Mk2.On the workflow topic.
Diggle's recent exit is the key example of that and for me it's clear that if you just want to go in, and shoot that building or interior hassle-free - then Fuji TS is faster and more convenient.
Essentially: GFX 100 II, TS lens, backpack, go. Go to location, shoot hundreds of shots, maybe even handeld, go home, ingest, keystone correct with metadata, preset process to folder and send zip to client. 1 hour post production, done, invoice. I get it. Setting up an Arca, do LCC shots, slowly move from spot to spot. It's probably 25% as efficient as Fuji TS architectural photography.
I mean I get it. Long gone are the times where you could invoice the fact that you use a Phase back (or 4x5 film for that matter!). Its about volume and getting the job done.
BUT – there's this enjoyment of the tech cam process, the wider range of lens options, ultimately the ability to stitch 4x4 with 150 megapixels, etc.
Fuji TS is the new Canon TSE and the middle zone practitioners - those who tasted MFD to get quality a notch above Canon TSE but are not forcibly enamored with highest quality possible or extensive post workflows may just settle for Fuji.
The part of the current fine art, enthusiast crowd that's already on IQ4, etc., IMHO will still be after the tech cam process, I believe.
I bet CI ordered half a million or more worth of GFX II stock on day one of the announcement. Cambo / Alpa? On request.
So I wonder what's the allure of the new TS lenses vs. a fully fledged IQ4 / Hassy tech cam combo ... I am not so clear on it. Besides outlay / depreciation considerations (although SK lenses retain or appreciate in value; its primarily the digital back).In terms of shooting workflow, my experience is that shooting with the Cambo WRS, IQ4 and compact SK lenses is far quicker and slicker than with my Fuji GRX 50R and Canon TS-E 24mm Mk2.
I used my GFX 50R and TS-E 24mm II (pre-set to f/11) recently for a low-budget job of just-completed apartment interiors. The client wanted the shots in a hurry for his online brochure and was perfectly happy with the small jpeg files from the GFX. However, the shooting experience for me felt clumsy and slower compared to the Cambo WRS and IQ4. I missed the small square size and no-fumble simplicity of the WRS, the adjacent two-axis bubble levels, the fast and secure lens lock, the much smaller lenses together with the lens protection bars that serve as handles. Most of all, I missed the XY double geared shift and the roller shift knobs that are well-placed and rotate easily under my thumb. In addition, focusing at 100% on the IQ4 was easier than on my GFX 50R because, unlike the IQ4, the 50R’s magnified focus patch would not move under my finger.
Post-production might be faster with the GFX (I lack the experience in post to say) but IMO the on-site shooting experience is far better with the WRS-IQ4-SK lens kit.
With available light, the IQ4 is a joy to use, no doubt. There are many times I need to sync with flash though and I prefer using the GFX for this. Mainly because it is rare for me to have an assistant and I like using a remote to trigger the camera as I move the strobe around the room. If I was using the Copal shutter then I'd have to go back to the camera to reset the shutter between every shot. The XT does solve this though…In terms of shooting workflow, my experience is that shooting with the Cambo WRS, IQ4 and compact SK lenses is far quicker and slicker than with my Fuji GRX 50R and Canon TS-E 24mm Mk2.
I used my GFX 50R and TS-E 24mm II (pre-set to f/11) recently for a low-budget job of just-completed apartment interiors. The client wanted the shots in a hurry for his online brochure and was perfectly happy with the small jpeg files from the GFX. However, the shooting experience for me felt clumsy and slower compared to the Cambo WRS and IQ4. I missed the small square size and no-fumble simplicity of the WRS, the adjacent two-axis bubble levels, the fast and secure lens lock, the much smaller lenses together with the lens protection bars that serve as handles. Most of all, I missed the XY double geared shift and the roller shift knobs that are well-placed and rotate easily under my thumb. In addition, focusing at 100% on the IQ4 was easier than on my GFX 50R because, unlike the IQ4, the 50R’s magnified focus patch would not move under my finger.
Post-production might be faster with the GFX (I lack the experience in post to say) but IMO the on-site shooting experience is far better with the WRS-IQ4-SK lens kit.
Magic Eight, Fab Four?I would say that's "magic 8" as SK72L, 150N, 180T and 210T are no less exceptional.
Ohh yes, got the 60XL and 120 Aspheric new back in the day just before SK shut down the production. Still kicking myself that I didn't get a 43XL as well and am regulary looking for one. I had the 35XL but sold it for Rodie 40HR but would really like an all SK setup. Maybe I'll get a 35XL again in the meantime. Since I exclusively use an Achromatic back color cast is not an issue.Any other 60 XL fans here?
My guess: big pixels.OK, honest question time.There's a lot of love in this thread for the 60mm XL, but when I looked at the MTF charts published by Schneider, I was astonished by what I'm seeing. How is it possible that a lens that people think is this amazing has a chart that looks like this? In this infinity series, the sagittal (radial) lines are good at f/11, but the tangential lines are crashing. Within the area covered by my unshifted GFX sensor, I'd expect excellent image quality, but shifting would take me into a zone of increasing and dramatic softness according to Schneider's data.
MTF charts are obviously not telling the whole story, given how enthusiastic owners of the lens are. Can anyone square this circle for me?
View attachment 208336
You are absolutely right, Rob. I constantly go back to this MTF and question the same thing. I think there are a few things going on here:OK, honest question time.There's a lot of love in this thread for the 60mm XL, but when I looked at the MTF charts published by Schneider, I was astonished by what I'm seeing. How is it possible that a lens that people think is this amazing has a chart that looks like this? In this infinity series, the sagittal (radial) lines are good at f/11, but the tangential lines are crashing. Within the area covered by my unshifted GFX sensor, I'd expect excellent image quality, but shifting would take me into a zone of increasing and dramatic softness according to Schneider's data.
MTF charts are obviously not telling the whole story, given how enthusiastic owners of the lens are. Can anyone square this circle for me?
View attachment 208336
Agree with Dave - note that the x-axis on Schneider's MTF graphs are expressed as % of image circle radius whereas Rodenstock's are expressed in millimeters. Lab measurements aside, in practice the lens does quite well when shifted when stopped down a bit, albeit with a bit of light falloff and CA which are both correctable in post (I generally aim for f/11; shifting 20mm @ f/5.6 is just asking for unhappiness outside of my usual shooting parameters).You are absolutely right, Rob. I constantly go back to this MTF and question the same thing. I think there are a few things going on here:
I've compared this to the Rodi 50hr, which at a quick glance looks much better. But when you adjust for the image circle, they come out more on par with each other. I also think, but am not sure, that a symmetrical design like these Schneiders will have some astigmatism by choice in order to eliminate distortion.
- The image circle is 120mm. That is probably wider than most people see. The most I usually reach out to is 100mm.
- These are 20, 40, 60 l/mm, which is tighter than what we are used to these days where the max is usually 40mm.
Dave
The decline towards zero of the tangential 60 lp/mm MTF curve is quite gradual.Thanks for the thoughts on that 60 XL folks. It remains a mystery to my. I've used lots of Schneider-Kreuznach lenses and have found their MTF data to be quite reliable relative to actual performance. It is good to know that this lens is much better than the data would suggest.