Old vs new.

[TimG]

I've been out of the game for a few years, mostly due to work and other stuff - last I was shooting a Cambo WRS 5000, mostly with a Rodie 32 for landscapes.

Looking at the new systems we have things like the X2D and the GFX 100S II, and I'm particularly interested in the 30mm T/S lens they make for the GFX.

How do these new MF bodies and lenses stack up against the traditional Rodenstock glass? any experiences or comparisons?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

@Alkibiades has some first-hand views on glass to share, I think, and some other photographers here have tried the Fuji road and came back due to the tech cam tactile experience and the vast choice of glass that exists for a system like the Arca R, for example.

The benefit of tech cam glass from Rodenstock is still modularity and flexibility as you are not bound to one camera maker and have an enormous amount of optics to choose from; and if the highest resolution is your goal, you cannot beat stitching within the image circle of 90mm IC+ Rodie glass with Phase backs.

For quick and dirty architectural photography the Fuji combo is of course sufficient for many, but my understanding is that it can get a bit awkward if you want to do stitching and of course you are forever stuck with Fuji, ie cannot for example use a Hasselblad back which affords you film like colour science, etc. and for some the IQ of Phase in combination with C1 post-processing is still a must.

Optically speaking the TS 30 is excellent, but given Rodenstock glass has come down in price a bit its actually not thaat much cheaper and you trade-in flexibility as said.

So in a way, not that much has changed - Rodenstock and SK are still the measure of all things, but you now have good high quality options for enclosed system approaches like the Fuji TS 30 combo.

The 32 HR is still fantastic for landscape, so to say and with the IQ5 250 around the corner all tech cam lenses will get a beautiful lifespan usability bump!

With the X2D you are stuck with native non shift glass options, I understand, or, adapted to a tech cam, c. 50mm and longer focal lengths - so better buy the new back from them, although you cannot use C1 and there are issues with the back due to the PDAF array on wide-angles which requires post-processing for removal.

Because of that, many actually skip Hasselblad backs for classic tech cam use.

 

[rdeloe]

You can see for yourself how the Fuji GF 30mm T-S compares to the Rodenstock 32mm HR Digaron-W. Forum member Warren Diggles put up a nice post with full resolution sample files. There's also a file for the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 XL-102 in that post.

Fuji GF 30mm Tilt Shift and Rodenstock 32mm HR Digaron-W Lens Comparison - Diggles Photography

See how Fuji GF 30mm TS and Rodenstock 32mm HR lenses compare in this simple review. Includes access to full size digital files.

www.digglesphotography.com

 

[TimG]

You can see for yourself how the Fuji GF 30mm T-S compares to the Rodenstock 32mm HR Digaron-W. Forum member Warren Diggles put up a nice post with full resolution sample files. There's also a file for the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 XL-102 in that post.

Fuji GF 30mm Tilt Shift and Rodenstock 32mm HR Digaron-W Lens Comparison - Diggles Photography

See how Fuji GF 30mm TS and Rodenstock 32mm HR lenses compare in this simple review. Includes access to full size digital files.

www.digglesphotography.com

This is amazing, thanks! The Fuji does look slightly better than the Rodie in that test in terms of sharpness and detail..

My problem is I'm a bit torn,

I shot 5x4 for over 10 years before moving to the WRS and I really love movements, especially with larger sensors I find the front tilt so useful for getting the correct depth of field.

The biggest problem I have is weight, I'm an active landscape photographer - I'll hike 10-20 miles in a day, but the Cambo WRS with two lenses was just too much, too heavy.

So I'm quite attracted to some of the new MF offerings, especially the X2D - only problem is it has no movements. Then I see new systems like the P1 Xt - which looks a lot lighter..

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The light bodies are:

Alpa STC, Arca Factum, XT. All have movements.

The XT is limited to 12mm though, which has been considered a design flaw which means any longer lens than 50mm will not be able to be used to its full potential on that body.

The STC and Factum are extremely compact, but I find the fact that you cannot have detented movements and that is all controlled by resistance on the Factum not ideal (I own XT, Factum and Alpa).

To save weight you could get the Alpa SAM 90mm (weighs nothing) and skip the 32mm and go for the 40 HR.

 

[rdeloe]

This is amazing, thanks! The Fuji does look slightly better than the Rodie in that test in terms of sharpness and detail..

My problem is I'm a bit torn,

I shot 5x4 for over 10 years before moving to the WRS and I really love movements, especially with larger sensors I find the front tilt so useful for getting the correct depth of field.

The biggest problem I have is weight, I'm an active landscape photographer - I'll hike 10-20 miles in a day, but the Cambo WRS with two lenses was just too much, too heavy.

So I'm quite attracted to some of the new MF offerings, especially the X2D - only problem is it has no movements. Then I see new systems like the P1 Xt - which looks a lot lighter..

It sounds like you and I have the same use case Tim. I humped my 4x5 gear around on my back for many years, in rough terrain. When I gave up 4x5 I thought I had to give up view camera movements. Long story short I went through a bunch of solutions (tilt-shift adapters, Toyo VX23D digital view camera, self made digital view camera, and now Arca-Swiss F-Universalis).

My current setup gives me digital view camera movements on a GFX 100S. My "carry all the time" setup has 35mm, 50mm, 65mm, 100mm and 150mm lenses. I can go as wide as 28mm if necessary, and as long as 210mm.

F-Universalis review: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Arca-Swiss-F-Universalis-Review
Lens lineup article: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Lenses

I would love for this outfit to be lighter, but I use tilt and swing a lot (probably in 40% of my images).

 

[TimG]

It sounds like you and I have the same use case Tim. I humped my 4x5 gear around on my back for many years, in rough terrain. When I gave up 4x5 I thought I had to give up view camera movements. Long story short I went through a bunch of solutions (tilt-shift adapters, Toyo VX23D digital view camera, self made digital view camera, and now Arca-Swiss F-Universalis).

My current setup gives me digital view camera movements on a GFX 100S. My "carry all the time" setup has 35mm, 50mm, 65mm, 100mm and 150mm lenses. I can go as wide as 28mm if necessary, and as long as 210mm.

F-Universalis review: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Arca-Swiss-F-Universalis-Review
Lens lineup article: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Lenses

I would love for this outfit to be lighter, but I use tilt and swing a lot (probably in 40% of my images).

Hey,

Interesting, thanks for that, and yes - when I was shooting 5x4 I had a Linhof technikardan with a bunch of lenses, the weight of the whole system was about 30-40lb by the time it was on my back, it was a nightmare - even being strong a fit, it really can make life miserable... The WRS5000 wasn't much lighter.

Quite liking the look of the small Alpa STC or a P1 XT, paired with a 40mm Rodie, the weight of that system looks a lot less and I'm already fully familiar with how the system works, although - the XT connecting directly to the IQ4 via the body, removing the need for any shutter sync cables is a nice touch.

 

[cunim]

You mention weight. That - and ergonomics - are what actually separate the cropped MF cameras from classic tech cameras.

In my view, the GFX is a compulsive's alternative to a full frame Leica, not to an IQ4. I simply can't handle the weight and bits and pieces of a tech camera setup in the field any more, so I take the GFX and give up movements (the Fuji TS lenses are too porky). I get lovely optics and sensor, better IQ than Leica (modern look), with a camera that has IBIS, a great EVF, etc.

However, the GFX does not compete for image quality and flexibility with the IQ4 and Rodenstock. Fortunately, photography is you not the camera, so ultimate image quality may not be the critical thing. If it is, stay with tech cameras. I need all the help I can get so I would love to try a Pico with a 40, 90 (don't have this one) and 138 HR as a field kit. Might dump the GFX for that but I have enough trouble carrying the Fuji, so maybe not.

 

[diggles]

I use two main setups: the GFX with various lenses and the Arca-Swiss RM3di with its own set of lenses. Generally, the GFX is my go-to for work and sometimes for landscapes, while the RM3di is for landscape photography and sometimes for work.

The RM3di setup is quite compact. I can fit the camera, lenses (HBLD100C, 24XL, 35XL, 50HR, 70HR, 100N, 120Asph, 150N, 200mm Nikkor), filters, and other accessories into my Shimoda V2 35L pack. I don’t use the standard R-mounts for most lenses, which helps save a lot of space. With the RM3di, I can also take advantage of the built-in tilt feature across all lenses.

When I'm traveling, on longer hikes, or going camping overnight, I tend to pare down the lens selection to my most used focal lengths—usually the 35XL, 50HR, 70HR, 120Asph, and 200mm Nikkor.

While I haven't weighed the systems side by side, the tech cam setup feels less cumbersome than carrying the GFX100II with its zooms—the 20-25mm, 32-64mm, and 100-200mm lenses—which, of course, don’t offer the same movements. To get movements by adding the 30mm TS and the 110mm TS also adds significant weight to the GFX system.

For me, the tech cam is ideal for when I want to do slower, tripod-based photography, while the GFX is more suited when I want to do handheld, walk-around shooting, and tripod work. If possible, I like to bring both setups along on photography trips to cover different kinds of shooting scenarios.

 

[Adammork]

So I'm quite attracted to some of the new MF offerings, especially the X2D - only problem is it has no movements. Then I see new systems like the P1 Xt - which looks a lot lighter..

This is amazing, thanks! The Fuji does look slightly better than the Rodie in that test in terms of sharpness and detail..

My problem is I'm a bit torn,

I shot 5x4 for over 10 years before moving to the WRS and I really love movements, especially with larger sensors I find the front tilt so useful for getting the correct depth of field.

The biggest problem I have is weight, I'm an active landscape photographer - I'll hike 10-20 miles in a day, but the Cambo WRS with two lenses was just too much, too heavy.

So I'm quite attracted to some of the new MF offerings, especially the X2D - only problem is it has no movements. Then I see new systems like the P1 Xt - which looks a lot lighter..

I have used both lenses a lot and I can confirm that the Fuji 30ts outperforms the Rodie32 in both sharpness and detail, even full open, amazing lens! But quite huge…

I think I have used all the wide angles for tech cams from Rodenstock and Schneider in that focal area and the Fuji is overall the strongest performer, if 15mm of shift is enough.

The ”new” line of Canon ts 50, 90 and 135mm works very well on the Hasselblad - I have used them a lot on the X1D and now on the GFX 100II

The 50 with almost no vingeting at full shit - the 90 a little bit at full shift and the 135 starts at around 8mm of shifts.

They are almost as good as the Fuji in terms of sharpness and detail but only with 12mm of shifts compared to the 15mm on the Fuji, but in size smaller as well.

Good copy’s of the canon 24 and 17mm ts also works well with a bit of vignettimg at full shift with the 24mm a bit more on the 17mm, but that is also extreme an extreme wide when shiftet full.

You have to learn where to focus in the frame with the 17mm to get a sharp images in the full images circle - but it’s absolutely possible.

A big plus with the Canons, there is no practical distortion! there is on the Fuji 30mm that need to be corrected in CO, but it can read the shift amount from the file like PO XT. The distortion on the Rodie 32 is stronger than the Fuji.

The colours of Hasselblad X is, to my eyes, the most beautiful in digital capture - I have no experience with Leica or Sony - but almost with everything else including Phase One both ccd and cmos versions. But that is a personal subjective opinion.

The reason for using the Fuji today, is the 30mm ts and the lack of a cable release for the X2D

 

[thedigitalbean]

@adamwork what adapter are you using for the Canon lenses on the Hasselblad? There are many with no aperture control but ones with the electronics for aperture control seem scant.

 

[Adammork]

@adamwork what adapter are you using for the Canon lenses on the Hasselblad? There are many with no aperture control but ones with the electronics for aperture control seem scant.

I ended up using a Techart tcx 1 - it worked well - before that the Cambo was the only one with aperture control - it worked, but not the most elegant solution and as far as I remember with no metadata in the file as with the Techart.

But that said the Fringer for the GFX is in a different league.

 

[diggles]

Hey,

Interesting, thanks for that, and yes - when I was shooting 5x4 I had a Linhof technikardan with a bunch of lenses, the weight of the whole system was about 30-40lb by the time it was on my back, it was a nightmare - even being strong a fit, it really can make life miserable... The WRS5000 wasn't much lighter.

Quite liking the look of the small Alpa STC or a P1 XT, paired with a 40mm Rodie, the weight of that system looks a lot less and I'm already fully familiar with how the system works, although - the XT connecting directly to the IQ4 via the body, removing the need for any shutter sync cables is a nice touch.

If weight is a concern, the WRS1600 is worth considering. At about 0.92kg, it’s lighter than the WRS5000 (1.2kg), though not as light as the STC. That said, the WRS1600 offers 20mm of shift in both X and Y directions, compared to the STC’s single-direction shift.

The 40HR has a stellar reputation for landscapes and will perform brilliantly with any camera system you choose. While the XT’s 12mm shift might feel slightly limiting, it’s still highly functional for many landscape applications. The XT’s shutter sync is a nice feature, though it may not be essential for landscape work—especially since the electronic shutter works beautifully and eliminates the need for cables. If you’re planning to use it for other applications, the shutter sync could become an important consideration.

 

[vjbelle]

You mention weight. That - and ergonomics - are what actually separate the cropped MF cameras from classic tech cameras.

In my view, the GFX is a compulsive's alternative to a full frame Leica, not to an IQ4. I simply can't handle the weight and bits and pieces of a tech camera setup in the field any more, so I take the GFX and give up movements (the Fuji TS lenses are too porky). I get lovely optics and sensor, better IQ than Leica (modern look), with a camera that has IBIS, a great EVF, etc.

However, the GFX does not compete for image quality and flexibility with the IQ4 and Rodenstock. Fortunately, photography is you not the camera, so ultimate image quality may not be the critical thing. If it is, stay with tech cameras. I need all the help I can get so I would love to try a Pico with a 40, 90 (don't have this one) and 138 HR as a field kit. Might dump the GFX for that but I have enough trouble carrying the Fuji, so maybe not.

The Pico isn't just lighter but smaller. The weight combined with the size makes a huge difference between it and any other setup I have used. Along with the size advantage is the build quality that keeps everything tight. I have all of the lenses you mentioned and use them all in the field. The Pico has been one of my better purchases in the past numerous years. Don't know where you would ever be able to just try one unless your dealer happens to have one in stock that you can play with. I have found, though, that living with the camera for a while really allows it to show off its pluses/advantages.

Best.....

Victor B.

 

[Alkibiades]

If you already have Roddy 32 hr and the cambo so there is no need in term of image quality to change to 30 TS and fuji.
the only one thing would be the style of working. If you prefer slow and very precise work with tripod so stay with 32hr and cambo.
Fuji and 30 TS allows faster work, even without tripod. I take the Fuji with the 30 TS without tripod and can work in very high quality even at not perfect light situations. the combination of the optical performance of the 30 TS with Fuji image stabilisation allows me a work that no other system can do.
Yes sometimes I use a tripod afcourse, slow work is afcourse possible with Fuji also. together with Canon 24 II and 50 mm it is a great kit.
I would wish the new Fuji shift lenses: 24 and 50 or something similar. Canon lenses are very good, especially the 50 mm, but the new Fuji is simply a new standart.
A work with a classic technical camera is simply different. But for some kind of work only this combination can give you the best results.
Sometimes bigger movements are needed: 32 HR allows you 20 mm on 33x44 chip, this is 5 more than Fuji. this is much, very much.
Also when you need to stich: no other solution allows you what a technical camera can do. In that precision, fast and easy way.
So when I use now a cambo WRS1600 or my old 1000 ( has 25 mm rise!) I take mostly 23hr, 32HR, 50 HR , 90 HR sometimes also schneider 43, 60mm, i can achieve the highest optical image quality in all rages, without the limitations of the Canon lenses.
When i compare the real life results shooted with fuji 30 TS and Rodenstock 32 hr with Hasselblad100c ( same 100 MP sensor) I cant find any qualitative difference.
There is no a difference in contrast, sharpness, details or whatever. simply nothing.
I tested this 3 lenses 30 TS, 35 HR, 32 HR and would say that 30 TS and 35 HR are minimal sharper than the 32 HR, but this is a more scientific comparison than a real life.
you will see this microscopical theoretical difference never on you work. 30 TS and 35 hr have smaller image circle, so its is clear that you are sharper than a similar lens with bigger image circle. So i promise you nobody on this planet will see any difference in shots that I made with 32 hr and 30 TS.
I like both lenses, both are the best lenses in in their areas.
The question is not what of both is better, but what camera kit, what way of working do you prefer. With both lenses you will achieve best results.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The flexibility of the tech cam workflow is hard to beat. On R you can essentially mount almost any Copal 0 lens below 210mm and you have the joy of huge shift ways.

The Fuji is more like a production machine, but less emotion. Price wise, at 4k for the TS, you are not far from a 40 HR on the used market which retails around 4-5.5k, depending on mount (from R to Alpa).

Size-wise, an STC, Factum with a 40 HR is very compact.

 

[lookbook]

Looking at the new systems we have things like the X2D and the GFX 100S II, and I'm particularly interested in the 30mm T/S lens they make for the GFX.
How do these new MF bodies and lenses stack up against the traditional Rodenstock glass? any experiences or comparisons?

.. the new systems not only seem to be equivalent - they are even superior!

 

[drevil]

.. the new systems not only seem to be equivalent - they are even superior!

that is very subjective, i for one left the GFX system again as something felt very wrong, ultimately i think it has to do with BSI sensors, or Sony sensors in general that, i dont like

hence i went back to a IQ180 back as for highest quality

 

[lookbook]

that is very subjective, i for one left the GFX system again as something felt very wrong, ultimately i think it has to do with BSI sensors, or Sony sensors in general that, i dont like
hence i went back to a IQ180 back as for highest quality

... I think @diggles' test is more objective than subjective?!
I think the reasons for your change are subjective. If I had to explain it briefly, I would compare it to two sports car fans racing.
The loser says - I've never liked your engine - besides, my car feels faster!

 

[TimG]

.. the new systems not only seem to be equivalent - they are even superior!

Yeah I get that the newer systems have some advantages, that Fuji 30mm T/S does look really really good, I've just never touched Fuji before so it's new territory - what do you make of the colour rendering of the Fuji? Some people go on about Hasselblad colour science being the best, do you think there's anything in that - or is it a bunch of nonsense?

I'm actually heading down to a camera shop tomorrow to try out an X2D and a GFX 100S II, so i'll have a better idea - I do like the X2D - I just also really really want movements.