Please advise the esteemed forum members which technical camera system I should invest in for landscape photography

[georgecleansman]

I am an old Hasselblad amateur photographer and have the medium format cameras H6D-100c and X2D-100c.

I went to a wonderful photography workshop in Northern Norway with two photographers I really appreciate, Joe Cornish from the UK and Trym Ivar Bergsmo from Norway. This workshop sparked my interest in medium format photography with technical cameras for landscape photography. I like to compose a landscape shot in peace and quiet. At the same time, I also like a certain comfort and an integrated solution without constant colour cast correction exposures und several connection cables. I also like driving my BMW with an automatic gearbox and not a manual gearbox.

But which camera system suits me as a landscape photographer who doesn't need extreme adjustments like in product photography? I therefore find the Phase One XT to be a very good integrated solution, even if the shift displacement of +/- 12mm is not very large. And an IQ4 150 is not exactly cheap. I also hear that there will be an IQ5 200 with a new Phase One XT with bigger adjustments larger than 12mm next year. The new X-shutter lenses with tilt functionality maybe are a good solution.

But there are of course other marvellous cameras such as Linhof, Alpa, Arca and Cambo, which can be combined with Phase One and Hasselblad backs. Is frame averaging and double exposure from Phase One absolute necessary for a landscape photographer? Do I need this? I don't know. With the new Hasselblad CFV-100c and the smaller sensor of 33x44mm you have more shift with a same Rodenstock lens due to the smaller sensor size. For me it seems a little bit complicate.

I would be very pleased to hear some advice and opinions from you. Thank you very much!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Sounds like you are an XT candidate if you have a preference for convenience (no cables / shift metadata) and money is no object.

So it comes down to the budget because the XT solution is the most costly out there.

Given that the IQ5 is expected (and I think it'll come with 200 megapixels next year), but not guaranteed, you might fare well in getting a pre-owned IQ4 for 22-25k USD and then trade it in for the IQ5 with most likely the same credit value when it comes out. Larger shift is nice, but also not quintessential for a landscape photographer although for Panos its useful to increase resolution.

Buying a new IQ4 right now ... – wouldn't do it.

If you can live with cables I'd suggest to give Alpa a good look as it has two camera bodies which are amazing for landscape (I also own an XT):

1) TC – basically the most compact body out there besides the XC
2) Pano – a landscape lover's dream with 35mm left right shift

I personally don't mind the cables for X shutter lenses, but preferences may vary.

With Rodenstock glass you won't have too much issues with LCC. There's a very faint magenta colour cast, but most people just never even bother correcting it.

Shift metadata is not that important for landscape photography because you don't need to distortion correct straight line patterns most of the time.

Advantage of Alpa would be cheaper and more flexible than XT, with fantastic build quality.

You can also go Cambo and or Arca which would be the even cheaper options, but without such special bodies like the TC or Pano.

Lastly: I think its not about NEED – fantastic, high grossing gallery landscape photography has been done with a P65+ already ten years ago; its more about a WANT

 

[anyone]

No cables: any tech camera out there used with the electronic shutter.

Which one to choose is mainly a personal preference. You like the best machining and are ready to pay extra for it? Then Alpa (from reports, I don’t have personal experience). A widespread system with high quality that gets the job done: Cambo. You often tilt? Maybe Arca is for you, as tilt is integrated in the RM3di body. You like to use longer lenses? Linhof Techno.

There are of course more variables to the choice, and if you could tell what is important for you we can try to help you finding the right system. It’s for many of us also a discovery journey. I would guess quite a few members here (including myself) owned/ own multiple systems. In my case it’s the Cambo WRS and Linhof Techno. While I don’t find it ideal to have two systems, they are both unique in what they can do.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The Arca is often mentioned for price / performance as you basically can mount lenses yourself if you have enough rings - just screwing in front and rear elements – and on top the tilt mechanism is built in.

I have the Arca primarily for film use. I don't like with it that the securing mechanism feels a bit flimsy at times and screwing in lenses and securing a digital back sometimes feels a bit stressful with it ... for film use its magnificent as you can take any R lens and mount it onto an F metric. For pure digital prefer Cambo, Alpa, XT (which is Cambo).

 

[rdeloe]

You mention landscape photography specifically. If you had said that architecture was your main interest, I would have recommended the pancake-style technical cameras that people have mentioned because you get the most reliable shift. However, for landscape, I think you'll use swing and tilt a lot. Most of what I do can be described as 'landscape', and I use combinations of tilt and swing on most images, with shift in various directions primarily for correction of composition. The camera I'm using is an Arca-Swiss F-Universalis. You can use it with mirrorless bodies like the Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X systems, and with digital backs (all kinds). https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Arca-Swiss-F-Universalis-Review

 

[P. Chong]

I agree with the posters here. The Phase One XT is the most fuss free solution. No cables. And the advantage that it has positional awareness of the movements and captures this on the EXIF. I wrote a short comparison with the Alpa here. But the XT is very expensive. So for me, I prefer the Alpa. I am not bothered by the cable. And my pick would be either the STC or Plus. Or the Max that Paul has for sale in the Sales Corner. These bodies offer movements. The TC does not. I have not tried the new Pano, but it looks like a great solution if you shoot panoramics.

Also agree that if you need swing and tilts, do take a look at the bellows style view cameras. Pancake tech cameras do offer some limited swing or tilt, but a view camera is way more flexible.

For the digital back, the IQ4 150 is probably your best option. Though you can begin by using your H6D 100c back with your new body and lens. The other option is the new Hasselblad CFV 100C, with its somewhat smaller sensor.

Frame averaging is a godsend for landscape. You can dispense with carrying filters…mostly. Frame Averaging does not take care of situations where you need graduated filters. But is a great replacement for ND filters to lengthen exposures, it is a wonderful tool. The additional benefit is even lower noise. I find Double Exposure to be less important for my own workflow. But your mileage, of course may vary. As you went for the Cornish workshop, you would have tried both. What do you think when you used these features, both which are unique to Phase One, and thus come with a heavy price tag.

 

[anyone]

You mention landscape photography specifically. If you had said that architecture was your main interest, I would have recommended the pancake-style technical cameras that people have mentioned because you get the most reliable shift. However, for landscape, I think you'll use swing and tilt a lot. Most of what I do can be described as 'landscape', and I use combinations of tilt and swing on most images, with shift in various directions primarily for correction of composition. The camera I'm using is an Arca-Swiss F-Universalis. You can use it with mirrorless bodies like the Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X systems, and with digital backs (all kinds). https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Arca-Swiss-F-Universalis-Review

The downside of having more movement possibilities is the need to keep everything aligned when you don't want to use it. At least with the Linhof Techno this needs careful checking before the shot. Ask me how I found out ...

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I also moved away from stitching with the F metric due to imprecise alignment vs. pancake style cams. The most precise in my experience is the Alpa as it uses an internal bearing based, fixed frame rail system within which the back assembly is moved vs. the lens assembly. This means the back assembly shifts WITHIN a fixed frame while the front part stays fixed to the very sturdy frame with 0, but I mean 0 room for spiel. Only over a long time of ownership, if the body received a hit say, the system can lose 0.1%ish planarity which you can let Alpa check at the factory. I fully replaced the inner bearing system to have a 100% planar camera, for example.

That's why the likes of Andreas Gursky also like Alpa – the precision when stitching with a 90 HR is very high.

The Arca and Cambo style cams use two plates which shift against each other and which sit on top of each other, ie they are not fixed within a fixed outer frame. That makes the bodies slightly more compact – but you cannot beat the precision of a fixed frame with a rail system on both sides.

Its the little things which distinguish the systems ... another special aspect to this is the speed at which you can shift within a rail based shifting system as you can "unlock" the back assembly to move freely on the rails and quickly move back and forth and even have fixed detents while the Cambo Arca style cams need manual knob turning to shift the plates against each other. On the XT its ok, but on the Arca it gets really tedious in the field to stitch and turn the knob a gazillion times until you shifted your 15-30mm ... as said, the little things.

 

[MGrayson]

Everyone will tell you their preferences, but each system has its fans. The only way you can tell which one you will like is for YOU to try them. That may be difficult, but it's worth doing before such a huge expenditure. If you really can't try them, then just accept that they are all extremely good at what they do, and we're talking small differences. Of course, if you're doing product photography, you'll want a bellows system. If you're doing landscape or architecture, anything from any maker will do. My choice between Arca-Swiss, Alpa, and Cambo was completely based on my comfort with the controls. But my comfort should have no relevance for you. I can't pick up a Sony without wanting to throw it out the window. Others love them. I love the feel of the Leica S, but hate the Leica SL. It's all personal.

If you have a trusted dealer who supports one or more systems, I encourage you to pick from theirs. (For me, that's Capture Integration, but again, it's your call.)

Good luck!

 

[baudolino]

I am very happy with the XT. The simplicity, robustness, speed of setup and break-down, no cables. Helpful dealer locally. Easy to take out from a backpack and throw it back in. As for the limitations of shift - afaik, not all XT lenses have sufficient image circle to benefit from more shift. I have the 32 and the 70 tilt and do not plan to purchase any other XT lens, as the system would become unmanageable for my typical modus operandi (camera in a Wotancraft Pilot backpack, Gitzo 3541LS tripod carried in hand, 10-15 km hikes). With the 32mm lens, I rarely encounter situations where more shift would help. When I do, I use the maximum allowed by the camera and then simply tilt the camera as needed and correct the resulting residual keystone distortion in Capture One (need to allow a bit of breathing space around the subject when taking the image, of course). I haven't used the tilt option on the 70 much so far. Partly because of my choice of subjects, partly because the effect is not easy to judge without connecting an iPad to the back with a patch cable and confirming the right degree of tilt in LV via Cascable (this works well but is of course another degree of complication). The only feature that I sometimes (albeit rarely) find limiting is that the tilt lenses can only be tilted in the horizontal orientation, the tilt becomes swing when turned to vertical (where it is not as useful as in horizontal). But then I can always shoot 4x5 film with my monorail view camera which offers movements galore. I considered the Alpas before buying the XT but found it a bit difficult to orientate myself in the various models they offer, was discouraged by the size/form factor and the need to use a cable. Yes the XT is expensive but one can always sell some other equipment to justify the purchase, no?

 

[ThdeDude]

... Given that the IQ5 is expected (and I think it'll come with 200 megapixels next year), but not guaranteed, you might fare well in getting a pre-owned IQ4 for 22-25k USD and then trade it in for the IQ5 with most likely the same credit value when it comes out.

Not wanting to change the focus of the thread, how certain can we be that there will be a IQ5! Certain enough for a purchase recommendation?

But otherwise, I agree with your recommendation considering a pre-owned IQ4. If there will be a IQ5 a well-bought IQ4 might have the trade-in-value for which it was bought.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Nothing is 100% certain. But P1 has been investing again in the XT product line (and therefore the photo arm) and there are further products to come this year and this all would not make too much sense if there wasn't a perspective for a potential bigger new product to come down the line. Besides a new sensor, there's also scope for more I/O, SoC improvements in an IQ5 if Sony doesn't deliver or supply chains stay tricky.

I am also consistently receiving new ads in my mailbox for XC so I wouldn't be surprised if there's also a different focal length XC at one point this year or a universal XC. It looks like the business has a growth target internally and they are trying their best with the new XT launches, XC and potential variants and hopefully sth bigger at one point, supply chain permitting.

 

[ThdeDude]

Nothing is 100% certain. ... Besides a new sensor, there's also scope for more I/O, SoC improvements in an IQ5 if Sony doesn't deliver or supply chains stay tricky.
... they are trying their best with the new XT launches, XC and potential variants ...

I wouldn't be surprised if a future IQ5 will offer a choice between the old 150MP sensor and any new sensor.

 

[ThdeDude]

... interest in medium format photography with technical cameras .... like a certain comfort and an integrated solution without constant colour cast correction exposures und several connection cables. ...

Right now, this basically boils down to IQ4-150 or CFV-100c as digital back. Anything older needs either color cast correction, cables (since no electronic shutter), or both. Although getting long in the tooth, the IQ4-150 still the gold standard, however the CFV-100c is attractively priced even when purchased new.

Would you be OK using Copal shutter for aperture control, and for exposure/aperture control where electronic shutter would not work (rolling shutter)?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I personally invested in X shutters for Alpa and the XT, but maintain a copal only system in Arca R for film purposes. The X shutter is amazing, besides aperture control while tethering on location for example you have the benefit to use the cameras hand held (Alpa TC or XT) and of course flash sync. If you want to do aerial photography with tech cam lenses there's also no alternative to the x shutter.

Copal is ok for tripod based scenic or architectural (film) photography; for fine art purposes shooting portra or HP5 can be still very interesting to get a unique look. Here Arca is ideal as you can mount copal lenses on the R or F metric and switch with digital with the rotaslide.

The system I currently use most is the TC with the 40 HR X shutter. Its amazing such a small package... Nothing is smaller than a small aluminium frame with a lens attached in front of it. I even use it without grip so its ultra compact and a lot more flexible than the XC as you can swap lenses.

 

[georgecleansman]

I'm still not sure which technical camera system I should buy. It's not easy for me.

In my opinion, the IQ4 150 is currently the best back. I don't think a possible IQ5 will get a new sensor. Otherwise Sony would report on its roadmap in good time. It may be that Phase One wants to sell a new feature with a new IQ5, which they don't want to deliver for free to the IQ4 with a new firmware. This is pure speculation.

Nobody knows whether there will be a new Phase One XT with more than 12mm shift. The XT would then lose its slim design. But I have the impression that in terms of the quality of a technical camera, the top is not marked by Phase One XT (Cambo), but that ALPA is in first place. ALPA is a tank.

So at the moment, IQ4 and ALPA seem to me to be the right combination.

As far as lenses are concerned, I don't know whether it would still make sense to buy X-Shutter lenses that can be connected to the IQ4 via a cable if you buy an ALPA. Or whether the aperture mount lenses are sufficient. In my opinion, Copal shutter lenses were not designed for 150 MP, and you can no longer buy them new.

I'll have to think about everything again.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The shutter has nothing to do with the resolution. Plenty of Rosenstock HR or even non HR lenses work great with the IQ4 and came out in Copal more than 10 years ago.

You need X shutter only for specialist applications or if you want to 100% avoid ES related artifacts. Often times AU is enough.

 

[dchew]

I'm still not sure which technical camera system I should buy. It's not easy for me.

In my opinion, the IQ4 150 is currently the best back. I don't think a possible IQ5 will get a new sensor. Otherwise Sony would report on its roadmap in good time. It may be that Phase One wants to sell a new feature with a new IQ5, which they don't want to deliver for free to the IQ4 with a new firmware. This is pure speculation.

Nobody knows whether there will be a new Phase One XT with more than 12mm shift. The XT would then lose its slim design. But I have the impression that in terms of the quality of a technical camera, the top is not marked by Phase One XT (Cambo), but that ALPA is in first place. ALPA is a tank.

So at the moment, IQ4 and ALPA seem to me to be the right combination.

As far as lenses are concerned, I don't know whether it would still make sense to buy X-Shutter lenses that can be connected to the IQ4 via a cable if you buy an ALPA. Or whether the aperture mount lenses are sufficient. In my opinion, Copal shutter lenses were not designed for 150 MP, and you can no longer buy them new.

I'll have to think about everything again.

I've refrained from posting because I have my preferences and don't want to push those. However, if you are leaning towards Alpa, I can give you a lot of support. I bought an STC in 2010 and still use it almost all the time. I also have a TC and 12+. I've never felt the need for X-Shutters in landscape photography but I don't know what I don't know. Paul mentions ES-related artifacts; while they are certainly real, I've never run into a single noticeable case since I started using ES in 2016 on the IQ3100. I don't shoot race cars or people with technical cameras, and I don't shoot the technical camera hand-held.

Unless, like me, you really value the smaller STC packaging, I think the 12+ is the all-around best option in Alpa's lineup. The STC moves in any dimension, but it only moves one dimension at a time. You can do 18mm shift or rise/fall, but you cannot do shift and rise fall together. The 12+ will go + 20mm shift and rise/fall in a nice small package, including all the necessary mounting accessories. There are not very many lenses that will handle more movements than that, so something that moves + 30mm or more does not seem that useful to me. Again, in the context of landscape photography. Same with tilt. If you are tilting more than 5 degrees, the DoF wedge gets so narrow it becomes pretty useless for most landscape applications.

I would hesitate buying the grips though. Not only are they expensive, they wrap around the side of the 12+ making it considerably larger. I suggest getting it without grips and see how you like it; you can always add them later. Always, always, always buy short-barrel (SB) lenses. Well, unless you are buying a 35xl or 43xl where it is not an option. Any lens with a SB mount can be tilted. LB lenses cannot. Alpa's achilles heel is the fact that you cannot tilt Schneider lenses wider than 60mm. So the 24, 28, 35, 43 and 47 cannot tilt. But these lenses are becoming harder and harder to get anyway, with the possible exception of the 35xl. All Rodenstock lenses can have SB mounts along with any Schneider 60mm or greater. In the grand scheme it is not that big of a limitation, at least for me. But I don't shoot that wide very often.

I also suggest getting one tilt-swing (TS) adapter in 17mm, then adding other 17mm (non-tilt) adapters as needed. In my opinion, that is the most flexible way to build your Alpa kit. For example, I have the 35xl, 43xl, 60xl, sk100 and Rodenstock 138. I carry (3) 17mm adapters, one of which is a TS adapter. I basically leave the TS adapter on the front of the camera and use the additional two 17mm adapters as needed for each lens. I add these additional adapters to the back of the camera to balance the rig and avoid any mechanical vignetting. 60xl uses just the one TS on the front, 100mm two, and 138mm all three. When using the 35 or 43, I remove the TS adapter on the front of the camera.

So much for not pushing my preferences

Here is the 12+ ready to go into my backpack. Under 8" in both dimensions including the mounting foot.

Dave

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I don't 100% agree on the 12+ as being the first Alpa to get; it was never clear to me why it was constructed the way it was. Same amount of movements on all sides is not as flexible as asymmetric movements. If you have the same amount of movements everywhere, why do you create a symmetric body in the first place.

I do like the 12+ and might get it one day, but the systemic overlap between the Max and 12+ models is high.

The Max has 18 left and right and 25 rise so it allows you to exploit more of the IC of lenses including and above the 70 HR. For architecture and stitching it allows you to create larger stitches. The Max is also constructed symmetrically meaning you can flip it over left and right with dove tail adapters and effectively get 25mm left and right with it if you need it on top of having a 25mm rise architectural photography camera.

The 18mm left and right are not random. In vertical position this is exactly the amount of shift left and rigjt you can do to have 4mm overlap in between the shots to create a nice two shot pano very quickly with enough overlap within Photoshop to merge the images. With 20mm left right there's no overlap and you cannot merge the images, so in a way it doesn't make too much sense except if you do three shots. I am saying 25mm left and right with a stop at 18mm would have been ideal as you can either then do 2 shot or 3 shot panos.

I think as first camera the Max is more flexible and it would have been smart if the 12+ would have at least asymmetric rise (e.g. 15/25) as you often don't need fall or if you need fall not that much.

60 XL, 70 HR, 90 HR, 138 HR all have larger ICs that you can exploit beyond 20mm of shift.

These are small things, but I do appreciate 25mm rise instead of 20mm ...

The benefit of 12+ to me is the compactness, the symmetric look if you so will, the nice dual grips which make it feel different from the Max and the buffer inside on all sides.

You cannot go wrong with either, but I am more of a fan of asymmetric movement designs as thes provide more flexibility.

On the ES – it really is mainly a problem if you are moving (handheld, aerial), not when the camera is stationary; there are exceptions - like fast moving objects (a person jumping in the air or a soocer ball flying through the air, a car zipping by) in stationary. For most typical tech cam uses uses on a tripod (landscape, fine art documentary) its ok!

Then there's flash sync (studio, macro). If you are on a tripod mostly AU and Copal are enough for the most scenarios except action sports.

I also wish the Pano was 5/20 rise instead of 10/10. You rarely need fall, at least I don't need it often.

And of course, I love the completeness of the system – ie to have sth like a Pano and sth like a TC on both extremes of the body spectrum. You cannot build a more compact camera than a TC – that's a big plus for me as with age I don't want to always carry a big system with me including a tripod.

 

[georgecleansman]

Hello Dave,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanations. I completely agree with your recommendations regarding the use of short barrel lenses and the +-5° tilt-swing adapter. Also the use of additional adapters for mounting behind the camera to maximise the shift possibilities and thus avoid vignetting.

The small ALPA 12 STC with +-18mm shift has the charm of being very compact. However, the ALPA 12 Plus with +-20mm has only 2mm more, advantageous in both directions at the same time. But due to the limited image circle of the lenses, it is not possible to shift in the vertical and horizontal directions at the same time with the maximum value of 20mm. So you have to decide in favour of one direction?

On the opposite side, the ALPA 12 Pano, for example, is significantly larger than the 12 STC and therefore also enables larger panoramas, e.g. with the Rodenstock 90mm lens (33mm/29mm). At the same time, the 12 Pano can also shift +-10mm. The Pano is significantly larger than the 12 STC, but in my opinion not significantly larger than the 12 Plus. In addition, the handles are better integrated into the camera than in the 12 Plus.

What I cannot judge is whether horizontal and vertical shift is often used simultaneously in landscape photography. This would rule out the use of an STC in this case.

So for me the question remains whether I should buy a 12 STC or a 12 Pano.

Another question would be whether I should go with a combination of 40mm and 70mm when using a 12 STC or with 40mm and 90mm when using a 12 Pano.

Many questions