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!

New camera from Arca Swiss: the Pico

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
The design of the Pico looks like the front standard is fixedand is where the camera would mount to a tripod, so focus moves the entire rail together with the rear standard while the front standard stays fixed. (Its the first monorail camera I've seen where the rail moves when focusing.) The means for infinity focus on a very wide lens, the rail will stick out a bit. Whether it will creep in frame I don't know.
That's a really good idea. Make two rigid AF (that does not stand for autofocus) pieces and one fore-aft control. I am not a mechanical engineer, but it seems like a good way to lower weight and increase rigidity - perhaps at the cost of some flexibility (joke unintended). It's probably been done before - maybe Linhof?
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
So essentially a more rigid dgital only mini bellows camera - you give up film compatibility and get a slightly different looking, more rigid system - and you also lose stitch ability beyond 20mm left right.
 
Last edited:

vjbelle

Well-known member
So essentially a more rigid dgital only mini bellows camera - you give up film compatibility and get a slightly different looking, more rigid system - and you also lose stitch ability beyond 20mm left right.
Perfect for me. I need no film capabilities and have only once used shift more than 20mm and that was rise. If it is as rigid as hyped I will be a happy camper.

Victor B.
 
Last edited:

rdeloe

Well-known member
Given the conversation we've had about the design of the Pico and the value and importance of movements, specifically swing, I thought I'd add a quick commentary based on yesterday's field work.

For this project, I need a set of images that together provide a portrait of a tiny lake and surrounding landscape that is significant for the partner organization I'm working with. In yesterday's field day, I focused on the geology and terrestrial vegetation in the near shore area. This involved a lot of "close-in" work to create small vignettes of details.

This is the result of the first cull -- straight from the camera with no modifications. There are 13 images in this group (the ones I liked best for the 13 scenes I photographed).
  • Three used no movements beyond a small amount of rise/fall and shift to finalize the composition.
  • Three needed only forward tilt plus a bit of shift.
  • Two needed only reverse tilt and a bit of shift.
  • Two needed both swing plus forward tilt plus a bit of shift.
  • Two needed both swing plus reverse tilt plus a bit of shift.
  • One used only swing and a bit of shift.
Contact sheet.jpg

This is a classic case for swing only. The version on the left is no swing, with the point of focus set fairly close so that the nearest part of the walkway is in focus. On the right, I used swing to get the whole walkway. For small web display, both are fine.

Walkway full.jpg

However, zoomed in to 50%, the left side is out of focus in the un-swung version. Even f/16 was not enough depth of field to get the whole walkway. The one on the right, with swing, gets the whole walkway nicely in focus. I didn't need f/16 to get the entire walkway, but f/16 made the wedge of acceptable focus large enough for the background beyond the walkway to look sensible to the viewer.

Which one you prefer is an aesthetic rather than technical judgment. It was important to me that viewers could see the whole walkway in a large print, and only swing (or a lot of focus stacking) would allow for that. The light was changing rapidly, and the wind was blowing, so focus stacking was not a good option -- and certainly would have been a lot more work than applying a bit of swing and making one exposure.



This is an example where I needed both swing and tilt to get what I wanted. My vision for this image was the foreground would be in good focus up to and including the birch log, but beyond the birch log could be out of focus. I liked the light when I set up, so made a quick exposure with no movements (left) that I hoped would get the foreground and the birch log in the zone of acceptable sharpness. The f/13 version got me much of the way there, but I could already tell on the camera screen that I wasn't getting the entire birch log. The version on the right uses tilt and a very small amount of swing that reorients the plane of focus to include the entire birch log.

Birch full.jpg

Again, as a small web image, the one on the left is fine. In fact, the light is more interesting to me than the one on the right. But I did want the whole birch log and the entire foreground to be in focus, and it's not in the version that has no movements. Importantly, an intermediate version I made that used tilt only still didn't get the whole birch log in focus because of the shape of the land and the angle of the log. Swing plus tilt got the job done, and balanced the amount of background blur at left and right. Maybe this wouldn't have mattered to you, but it mattered to me!

Birch at left 66%.jpg

A last comment on this group of images is that they show how in complex, "close in" scenes like the ones I photographed yesterday, closing down the aperture on its own is not enough. Even with tilt and swing, I had to use to use small apertures in most of the images I ended up choosing to get everything that I wanted within the zone of acceptable focus where it needed to be. I was happy to trade off the small amount of detail I lost to diffraction by using small apertures against having blurry areas in parts of the image I wanted to be in focus.

Apertures.jpg

So long story short, a camera like the Pico (and my F-Universalis and any digital view camera that provides tilt, swing, rise/fall and shift) provides movements that people like me need all the time. Yesterday's session and the frequency with which I combined tilt, swing and shift/rise/fall was entirely commonplace for me.

Also important to note is that I don't need swing and tilt on just one lens that I carry for that purpose. I used swing and/or tilt with every lens I carried and used yesterday except the 35mm; I use it all the time with that lens too, but the one scene where I needed that focal length did not require movements behind some small shifts for composition.

As always, it's horses for courses. Every time I use my F-Universalis, I appreciate how it gives me what I need. If the Pico does that as well for users, it will be a nice addition to the Arca-Swiss family.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

RodK

Active member
I think the pico has a very specific use case but the weight and size come with limitations. In particular, the inability to mount 110 mm boards means this body is out for me. However, there may be an upside in the pico lens control unit. What if that control unit + 110 mm board lens holder could work with a universalis or M2? I expect that is the plan. Combine that with a rear mount that accepts the latest GFX bodies (supposedly available) and you have something that will let you use Arca's small and full size view cameras in a very broad variety of configurations. Tell your dealer you want it. That might encourage AS to actually move forward with applying the control unit to more bodies.
The control unit will be adding other lenses and will be compatible with M2 for instance. The one down side for Mirrorless users on cameras with 110 boards is the grips of the Mirrorless camera bodies often conflict with the front frame much sooner than on the Pico, when using short lenses.

Rod
 

RodK

Active member
Not sure of the value proposition for existing pancake tech cam users, especially if you own Rodie / SK glass already and a digitel back. In addition to a bigger form factor, you don't get access to SK / Rodie wide-angles if you don't use a back in which case you can just get an R or Alpa.

The traditional benefit of a view camera is that you can use "cheaper" lenses, e.g. adapt copal LF stuff, etc. and here this is perfected in terms of precision at the cost of loss of film compatibility.

IMHO the main benefit is if you want to use a Leica M or L camera as a digital back, but the bummer is that you can't use wide anlges from SK / Rodie. That’s most likely why they introduced their own line of modified TS lenses as essentially Rosenstock glass is limited for anything below 50mm which is a normal focal length on 35mm and a medium wide on crop MF.

So digital back it is ... I guess. In which case it makes sense to keep the existing camera setup.

And the GFX? Well it has irs own killer TS lenses now, so that negates a bit the need to TS via an intermediate setup.

There's one nifty thing though - the P1 Macro can now be tilted ... that's cool, I guess.

So for whom is this the perfect solution? Mainly for entrants with a mirrorless camera and no cash for a digital back I think - which might be a large market as the entry price for digi backs is still a hindrance for many intrigued by shifting wide angle lens systems.
It might be noted that the issue with short focal lengths, below 50mm, and mirrorless camera bodies, is not an Arca-Swiss issue, but the fundamental lens design with large format lenses having large rear groups, coupled with the FFD of mirrorless body depth.
No one can get around this. But I think many miss the plus of a view camera approach verses a TS lens, which is that perspective does not change, when rise.fall, or lateral shift is applied. Also you have more freedom for these movements when using the rear and having separate movement mechanisms.
TS lenses are quite useful, but not as convenient as a camera such as Pico, M2, etc.
Rod
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
I think the Pico with the new 24 TSE for it with a Leica M or SL3 is a great combo; also I think there is pleasure in having a highly precise camera in hand. The F metric is great, but for stitching it can get inaccurate if you don't pay attention.

Its just a pity that the Rodie 40 / SK 43 XL didn't make the cut for mirrorless bodies.
 

RodK

Active member
Had the same thought at the hands-on and tried it. We got a hard vignette at extreme movements of the Pico at f11. To me it looked like a mechanical vignette, but it was impossible to tell for sure. BTW: the image shows the 2,8/110 BR.
Blue ring lenses are designed to cover the IQ4 (54x40) sensors with a bit more coverage to fully utilize the sweet spot of the projected image. As such, they are best used with GFX, Hasselblad 907x/CFV II, or other 44x33 sensors, and full frame mirrorless cameras. These will yield the most movement possibilities.

Rod
 

RodK

Active member
I totally get that Paul. There's a reason tech cameras exist: loads of people need what they do, and not what a view camera does.

If the Pico weighed 750 grams, my order would be in already. Every bit of weight I can save extends my ability to do my work longer. Alas, you don't get the stability to hold long, heavy lenses like the 138mm with a camera that weighs 750 grams.

The market will determine if Arca-Swiss made good choices. I hope they're successful, because the more people who adopt digital view cameras and technical cameras, the longer we'll all be able to use them.
The design of the front tilt on the Pico will handle the 138mm with no issues. The beefiness of the front Standard Base and the stiffness of the front gearing of the tilt mechanism should have no issues holding the 138mm.
Rod
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Granted I have just one copy, but I'm not thrilled with the Canon 24 TS-E. I used it on the GFX 100 and a Laowa 17mm perspective corrected yielded a better image than the shifted Canon 24. The tops of buildings - not even the corners - were notably soft. I also wonder about the Actus 19mm lens - has anyone examined it critically?

Disclaimer: I have enough trouble getting out of the house with an X2D and one lens. I'm not looking for anything heavier!

Matt
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
Granted I have just one copy, but I'm not thrilled with the Canon 24 TS-E. I used it on the GFX 100 and a Laowa 17mm perspective corrected yielded a better image than the shifted Canon 24. The tops of buildings - not even the corners - were notably soft. I also wonder about the Actus 19mm lens - has anyone examined it critically?

Disclaimer: I have enough trouble getting out of the house with an X2D and one lens. I'm not looking for anything heavier!

Matt
The Actus-19 is the Nikon tilt-shift lens, but (presumably) minus the close focus correction functionality.
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
It might be noted that the issue with short focal lengths, below 50mm, and mirrorless camera bodies, is not an Arca-Swiss issue, but the fundamental lens design with large format lenses having large rear groups, coupled with the FFD of mirrorless body depth.
No one can get around this. But I think many miss the plus of a view camera approach verses a TS lens, which is that perspective does not change, when rise.fall, or lateral shift is applied. Also you have more freedom for these movements when using the rear and having separate movement mechanisms.
TS lenses are quite useful, but not as convenient as a camera such as Pico, M2, etc.
Rod
Friendly amendment... The S-K APO-Digitar 35/5.6 works great on an F-Universalis with GFX if one can live with 8mm of shift. The 47mm APO-Digitar also works (with 8mm of shift) but I couldn't get the copy I tried to the point of usability.

If you put a tilt-shift lens in a collar and shift the camera body rather than the lens, perspective will not change. Many people prefer to do it that way, although the collar can be a bit bulky.
 

JeffK

Well-known member
Blue ring lenses are designed to cover the IQ4 (54x40) sensors with a bit more coverage to fully utilize the sweet spot of the projected image. As such, they are best used with GFX, Hasselblad 907x/CFV II, or other 44x33 sensors, and full frame mirrorless cameras. These will yield the most movement possibilities.

Rod
would that mean I could use a 35mm SR/BR lens with a Mirrorless body on the Pico ie: M11?
 

4x5Australian

Well-known member
Given the conversation we've had about the design of the Pico and the value and importance of movements, specifically swing, I thought I'd add a quick commentary based on yesterday's field work.
Rob, that's a very clear demonstration of the usefulness of swing for imaging three-dimensional subject material in tight situations. Thank you.

Rod
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
would that mean I could use a 35mm SR/BR lens with a Mirrorless body on the Pico ie: M11?
35 and 45 BR should work, although with the negative that you will have to deal with manually correcting distortion as you are not shooting the lenses on an XF
 

marc aurel

Active member
It might be noted that the issue with short focal lengths, below 50mm, and mirrorless camera bodies, is not an Arca-Swiss issue, but the fundamental lens design with large format lenses having large rear groups, coupled with the FFD of mirrorless body depth.
No one can get around this. But I think many miss the plus of a view camera approach verses a TS lens, which is that perspective does not change, when rise.fall, or lateral shift is applied. Also you have more freedom for these movements when using the rear and having separate movement mechanisms.
TS lenses are quite useful, but not as convenient as a camera such as Pico, M2, etc.
Rod
I think you should be fair and mention that the GF 30mm TS has a lens collar and can be used in the same way. Lens does not move, the camera does. But if you need shift that is not just in one direction I admit it is a bit more complicated than with a view camera with independent xy movements.
 
Top