Rodenstock HR Digaron - S 180 image circle

[Steve Hendrix]

Regarding Greg's 180 HR-S captures, I think I have mis-remembered my experience. Our 180 HR-S is out on an evaluation rental, wil be back this week, and I'll take another look. It should do at least 20mm horizontal, but I expect the successful addition of vertical shift is less than I recall. And Greg's horizontal shift looks right, there's barely any visibly detectable vignetting. It's just adding the vertical that brings into place the restriction. Sorry for that confusion, if I contributed any.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Greg Haag]

Steve, no confusion at all, I appreciate your input!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

It looks like from Greg's picture that you can shift 20mm fully in portrait mode at least, ie with no vertical shift. Would be interesting to see how the resolution holds up on the edges ...

 

[Greg Haag]

Paul, when I get to the office tomorrow I will try to shoot something to give you an idea on sharpness. Maybe a brick wall that was mentioned earlier.

 

[Greg Haag]

Paul, I had limited options on what to shoot this morning, but hope this helps. Also, I apologize for the color cast on the wall, there was a red truck that was just out of the right side of the frame. I also have added a horizontal pan from the images, which is really the only way I have ever shot the 180 (sometimes with back rotated to vertical with similar results). One is w/o LCC and the other is with LCC applied. Hopefully my explanations are clear.



100 Percent Zoom


Horizontal Pan from Lightroom with no LCC applied


Horizontal Pan from Lightroom with LCC applied

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Thanks Greg!!!

This will be useful for many in the future. It seems like one could use ist 20 / 20 left right when not shifting upwards; from a more critical standpoint probably 17.5 left / right is the sweet spot as there is a quality fall-off, but not that bad ... no?

 

[ThdeDude]

Greg,

Thanks too.

I am contemplating trying out B&W 6x7" roll film on my Techno. According to to Rodenstock's spec sheet, the Digaron-Ws cover 6x7" but for the 180mm Digaron-S the spec sheet only states a 80mm coverage, which is less than the required 87mm for 6x7". But looking at your images, it seems that I shouldn't have a problem covering 6x7" with the 180mm.

Extend of possible shifting & tilting is another story but since film has a lower resolution, I should have a few more "mm" to play with.

MN

 

[Paul Spinnler]

One additional consideration - the Alpa STC and Alpa Max have 18mm travel left / right – this would be in the sweet spot of the 180-S without a lot of sharpness fall-off.

The 18mm are not random: on a 54x40 sensor, in portrait position, you can shit left / right to the extremes and then you will be able to still stitch the image in Photoshop with 4mm overlap between the shots as the total travel distance for the sensor area is 36mm on a 40mm available full sensor width.

If you have 20mm in portrait position and you do left / right you have no overlap for a quick two-part portrait stitch.

The 50 and 180 could be a nice landscape kit with an STC. Add to that an Alpa viewfinder and a compact carbon tripod ...

 

[dchew]

So… I’m getting conflicting reports from several reliable sources. Some saying they can shift 20mm in two dimensions simultaneously with no visual limit to the IC. Others matching Greg’s images above. At tthis point, the only known difference between the two is the T/S mount. I find that difficult to believe, but I don't own a Cambo other than my Actus so I can't really investigate that mount. I am waiting on some more definitive testing and will report back if I learn anything more.

Dave

 

[Don M]

Just to pile on. My back extension measures 48 mm, the mount has a copal shutter and no T/S. I see no visual limit to IC with Cambo 1600 and 20mm shift + 20 mm fall. (f11 infinity focus) Any chance that some mounts have a longer barrel and shorter back extension?? Cambo website says 20 + 20 is possible https://www.cambo.com/en/wide-rs-series/wrs-digital-lenspanels/wtsa-180l-tilt-swing/



Don Mohr

 

[Greg Haag]

So… I’m getting conflicting reports from several reliable sources. Some saying they can shift 20mm in two dimensions simultaneously with no visual limit to the IC. Others matching Greg’s images above. At tthis point, the only known difference between the two is the T/S mount. I find that difficult to believe, but I don't own a Cambo other than my Actus so I can't really investigate that mount. I am waiting on some more definitive testing and will report back if I learn anything more.

Dave

I have been having that same conversation with Steve at CI, they have a non-TS and can shift the full 20mm. I would love to hear from someone else with TS on this. Is there anything in my setup that could be causing this?

 

[Steve Hendrix]

It is confirmed that the full 20mm + 20mm shift is possible with the non Tilt/Swing edition of the 180 HR-S. The tilt/swing version may produce a slightly lesser result. Why this would be is unknown at this point in time, but we'll be discussing this with Cambo in the AM.

But to be clear - the non Tilt/Swing version gives you the full monty 20mm east/west + 20mm north/south (and Mr. Spinnler, the corners look great).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Greg Haag]

It is confirmed that the full 20mm + 20mm shift is possible with the non Tilt/Swing edition of the 180 HR-S. The tilt/swing version may produce a slightly lesser result. Why this would be is unknown at this point in time, but we'll be discussing this with Cambo in the AM.

But to be clear - the non Tilt/Swing version gives you the full monty 20mm east/west + 20mm north/south (and Mr. Spinnler, the corners look great).


Steve Hendrix/CI

Thanks Steve, anxious to hear what Combo has to say!

 

[4x5Australian]

So… I’m getting conflicting reports from several reliable sources. Some saying they can shift 20mm in two dimensions simultaneously with no visual limit to the IC. Others matching Greg’s images above. At tthis point, the only known difference between the two is the T/S mount. I find that difficult to believe, but I don't own a Cambo other than my Actus so I can't really investigate that mount. I am waiting on some more definitive testing and will report back if I learn anything more.

Dave

A second variation in the various mounts is the type of helical focuser used. Cambo has described in its Instagram posts (see the screen snips, attached) that it changed from a Schneider helical focuser with 25mm of travel to a new Cambo-made focuser. The internal dimensions may well have changed.

The image cutoff is likely caused by the sensor seeing the inside of the mount and front extension. It seems to me that the internal diameters of the various T/S vs non-T/S mount designs and helicoid configurations are likely involved.

 

[cuida1991]

So can anyone please use a machine with a larger shift ability to see what's the actual image circle of this underrated lens? Really curious.

 

[4x5Australian]

And a third variation is that Greg's 180 is mounted on a new Rodenstock Aperture Only unit. Don M's 180 is mounted on a Copal 0.

Not that it should matter.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I started to type that I wasn't sure the Aperture Mount vs Copal would make a difference, but as it happens, our demo unit is in a copal shutter. I'm still doubtful that the Aperture Mount restricts the image circle, but we'll add that to the discussion tomorrow.

Only thing larger than a WRS 1600 that we have is a WRS 5000, which expands to 22.5mm horizontal and 25mm/15mm vertical. Only thing bigger for Cambo would be an Ultima Actus XL view camera, which ... wait, we do have that. It'll go 40mm - 50mm. But would have to throw that on there tomorrow. For now, know that the 22.5mm + 25mm from the WRS 5000 produces the attached view (just the slightest soft vignette).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[cuida1991]

So it seems its image circle is around 130mm ish?

 

[dchew]

So it seems its image circle is around 130mm ish?

Yes. Steve's test is 133.8 mm.

Dave

 

[diggles]

A second variation in the various mounts is the type of helical focuser used. Cambo has described in its Instagram posts (see the screen snips, attached) that it changed from a Schneider helical focuser with 25mm of travel to a new Cambo-made focuser. The internal dimensions may well have changed.

The image cutoff is likely caused by the sensor seeing the inside of the mount and front extension. It seems to me that the internal diameters of the various T/S vs non-T/S mount designs and helicoid configurations are likely involved.

View attachment 198560View attachment 198561View attachment 198562

It looks like the base of the T/S and Standard mounts are different. The base of the standard mount includes a spacer that is wider than the barrel. The t/s mount does not have the spacer. This could explain the difference in usable image circle.