Shift solution for X2D?

[peterm1]

I was hoping the CVF 100C would have IBIS, in which case I would have likely switched from my X2D, and bought a tech cam and wide Rodenstock lens (40mm or wider) for a nice shift option when shooting architecture and urban and coastal landscapes (I do this as a serious hobby - not for paying clients).

After experimenting with my X2D by turning image stabilization on and off with different lenses and light levels, it reconfirmed to me what a difference IBIS makes, and that I should keep the X2D since I do a lot of my shooting handheld.

That leaves me thinking again about shift options for the X2D (tilt is nice to have but not necessarily a must-have for me).

1: I have the Techart adapter for Canon lenses, but: 1) I was not happy with the quality of the files when I tried the X2D with the 17mm or 24mm TS-E lenses (smearing and lack of sharpness except in the center), and 2) the adapter stopped working after updating but my X2D and adapter, so I think they need to come out with new firmware (I'm not the only one who had this issue). The Canon 50mm TS-E is excellent and I know it would perform better than the 24mm or 17mm, but I'd like something a bit wider, especially for architecture.

2. There's an Actus XCD set up with 19mm (very expensive) and 20mm (less expensive) options, but I have never seen any reports about how these perform across the frame. Does anyone have any experience with these on the X2D? The 19mm is so expensive that at that point I'd get the CVF 100 and a tech cam.

3. I am really impressed by what I am seeing from the Fujifilm 30mm T/S and a Fuji GFX body, but: 1) I'd rather not buy into a different system and I prefer the files from the X2D; and 2) I understand there may not be any 30mm T/S lenses available for a while, except for rental.

4. I could buy the CFV 100 in addition to my X2D, but I'd have to sell off some lenses. Alternatively I could get the CFV 50, but I don't want to deal with the color shifts and if I am going to invest in a tech cam I'd like to do it with a 100mp BSI sensor.

Any suggestions? Am I missing anything?

Thanks!

Peter

 

[Paul Spinnler]

CFV100c in addition, as you seem to be discerning quality wise. Would sell lenses to get that one new back plus a Rodie 40. You won’t regret it down the line.

An adapted X2D will always be a compromise in the sense that you need to get a more wieldy bellows type camera to have access to TSE and potentially SK Blue Ring wide angles with the Pico and on top might be limited in adapting SK or Rodie glass if it is wide angle due to the protruding handgrip.

IMHO better get a proper tech cam and strap a CFV onto it and get a top Rodie lens.

40 HR is the way to go IMHO!

 

[peterm1]

Thank you Paul - that's the direction I was leaning in, and I think you are right. Have a good weekend.

 

[rdeloe]

There are tilt-shift adapters for various film medium format systems to Hasselblad X. I'm seeing options for Hasselblad V, Pentax 67, Pentax 645, Mamiya 645, and Pentacon Six.

 

[peterm1]

There are tilt-shift adapters for various film medium format systems to Hasselblad X. I'm seeing options for Hasselblad V, Pentax 67, Pentax 645, Mamiya 645, and Pentacon Six.

Thank you - I haven’t seen reports of stellar performance from wider lenses from these systems shifted on the X2D, but if anyone is aware of them, I’d love to see them.

 

[rdeloe]

What's "wider" for you Peter? I'm using the Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5 and that's as wide as it gets and as good as it gets (on a GFX with a tilt-shift adapter for medium format lenses). I don't see why you would get different results with an X2D but I have no personal experience with that camera so don't rely on my opinion.

Wider than 35mm is a dead zone in lenses that would fit on any of those adapters. Pentax made a 645 zoom that went as wide as 33mm, but it doesn't have a great reputation.

As always, it's a function of what you want and need, and what gives you the most enjoyment in your hobby. I personally don't like working with tilt-shift adapters, and much prefer the digital view camera approach. However, I did a lot of work with tilt-shift adapters. Depending on your needs, they get the job done. If you love wide angles of view, then 35mm simply may not be enough.

I've been using the old Pentax-A 35mm for years because it's small, light and really good. I can shift it 12.5mm in portrait on GFX when I need a wider angle of view. On my F-Universalis, it works well with tilt and shift. Look at the yellow spot on top of the hydro pylon.



Not bad for a several decades old 645 lens. As a side note, I'm going to say that by the time the helicopter pilot can read that sign, I think it might be too late.

 

[UlbabrabB]

Another option is to use a hc lens with the xh or xh 0.8 adapter and the hts 1.5 shift adapter:

I have that whole rig: the results are very good but is cumbersome, heavy and you can go as wide as an equivalent of a 28mm using an hcd 24mm. And pretty expensive anyway of you have to acquire all the parts and lenses (I was missing just the hts adapter and found it for half of the current used market value so I gave it a shot)

 

[peterm1]

Another option is to use a hc lens with the xh or xh 0.8 adapter and the hts 1.5 shift adapter:

I have that whole rig: the results are very good but is cumbersome, heavy and you can go as wide as an equivalent of a 28mm using an hcd 24mm. And pretty expensive anyway of you have to acquire all the parts and lenses (I was missing just the hts adapter and found it for half of the current used market value so I gave it a shot)

Thanks - I forgot to mention that option in my original post. I had seen that video and considered that setup, but as you say it’s cumbersome on expensive, especially with the 24mm. At that point I think I’d spring for the CFV 100c and tech cam solution… would love to see some of your shots from that setup though! Mathphotographer seemed to get some nice results with it. Thanks again.

 

[doccdiamond]

Thank you Paul - that's the direction I was leaning in, and I think you are right. Have a good weekend.

The Rodie 40mm is awesome - could not start better in the Tech Cam world

 

[peterm1]

I used to have the 23mm, 32mm, 70mm and 180mm Rodie lenses - really bummed I sold my tech cam system and now am thinking of rebuilding it slowly again!

 

[Jon Warwick]

The Rodie 40mm is awesome - could not start better in the Tech Cam world

Can anyone opine on what the rendering is like of lenses such as the Rodenstock 40mm? I’m used to the looks of various Leica lenses - eg, SL APO primes that I sometimes thought were too sharp (probably too high acutance for my taste), whereas I like M and S lenses due to recording a ton of detail but in a gentler and more cinematic way. I also have a GFX with GF63 and 55mm lenses, but sometimes struggle with the rendering there (for my taste, they produce an overly sharpened look). Is it possible to say where the Rodie lenses sit in this arena?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Rodie glass is special. It is very sharp, but in an analogue way and the optics are not perfect with slight vignetting and gradual loss of performance as you shift a lot.

I had an SL and still have most APO SL lenses and they are in comparison clinically, bitingly sharp and as a result lack soul.

The Rodie look has a slight natural blur from the outset, reminiscent of analogue, but then all the sharpness is there for you to sharpen in post. It's like a raw file in terms of the detail. Its fantastic stuff.

Here's Rodie 70 w/o sharpen on IQ4:



You can get this out of it easily:



Its a canvas to start from.

Rodie HR are some of the best optics ever made. The whole range is remarkable in terms of resolution and image circle.

Bokeh wise not soo great like Leica. In general, and also because they don't have fast apertures.

Rodie ist the best for fine art, documentary, architecture with large printing needs.

The Rodenstock look is very specific and I equate it with fine art quality.

The other behemoth is Leica S – its optics are also unmatched but in the CINEMATIC way. The OOF and microcontrast are out of this world. They are APO SL with all the analogue goodies not removed. Extreme bokeh, slight degration towards the edges with vignetting, etc.

I have shot some of the S lenses in a makeshift manner with the IQ4 and holding them in front of the sensor and the microcontrast of the S24, S30, S35 seemingly blows away / or equates Rodie glass with the difference of faster apertures and Leicaesque, creamy and fluffy bokeh clouds when moving into OOF. Rodie HR is not that smooth.

You get Rodie glass because you want to capture a breathtaking landscape in 250 megapixels triple stiched panoramas, for example.

 

[MGrayson]

PSA: While I am the first person to praise the "less crunchy" look of older glass, I also want to highlight the tremendous effect that the default processing parameters of the RAW converter have on how we perceive a lens's rendering.

In other words, apply less sharpening, and possibly even some negative clarity, before rejecting a lens as too clinical.

Having said that, my own experience with both the SK and HR lenses is that their rendering is beautifully neutral. There is great flexibility, as demonstrated above, to get whatever look you want from them. (My experience was all with Phase One CCD backs, processed in C1, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.)

Matt

 

[rdeloe]

The default amount for sharpening in Lightroom is 40. Many people think that's too high and prefer to start with 25. Turning off all sharpening on a RAW file is instructive.

 

[Adammork]

The Rodenstock 40 is a fantastic lens, one my favourites - but for architecture, lens correction is mandatory, as it have a complex distortion like all the Rodenstock wide angles - the Alpa plugin for photoshop will take care of it, but can be cumbersome to use in a workflow.

All the Canon ts do not need any distortion correction at all - they are straight.

The Canon ts 50, 90 and 135 will all work really good on your Hasselblad - they will start showing a bit of vigneting when shifted full - very little for the 50 a bit more for the 90 and 135mm - but all very sharp and it seems they have low sample variation.

The sample variation is unfortunately lager between 24 and 17mm but if you find some good samples they can also work really well.

The 17mm is a bit tricky to focus when used on medium format. If focused in the centre part of the image circle, the edges will suffer. But if you move your focus point away from the centre it improves a lot. When I first started to use a 17mm on a X1D I found it almost unusable - after I changed the way of focusing, it works fine.

I have a good handpicked sample of the Canon 24ts and I would be dishonest if I told that my Rodenstock 23mm performed overall better, it only does in the centre, with a lot of distortion on top.