Technical Cameras: Questions

[tcdeveau]

The migration cost issue concerns me. I bought into the A-S system ten or so years ago and have not regretted the choice. It seems to me however that the marginal costs of moving to, for iinstance, the XT platform and changing out the Copal shutter far outweigh the marginal benefits that would accrue from making the change. Perhaps the cmaera makers think there is a whole new market out there and, if so, good luck to them. However I wonder if there is a small but comitted user base among the technical camera community who see know realistic forward path other than gradual obselesence ?

Out of curiosity, what realistic path forward would you like to see? Genuinely asking. I'm in the same camp as I'm invested in Alpa, and the costs of migrating to the XT for me also far outweigh the benefits. Right now, as long as back manufacturers keep making backs with electronic shutters, and as long as existing manufacturers keep making adapters for those backs, the only thing I want to see personally is for the manufacturers of the backs to allow for entry of movements in the metadata....and all that would require is a firmware update.

Hopefully P1 realizes that the people asking for that feature aren't going to plop down the cash for the XT anyway.

Automatically applying the LCC frame in the back in the field before you start offloading to the computer would also be nice. With they whole "Capture One inside" thing on the IQ4, that was something I was expecting with the IQ4/XT, but my understanding is the IQ4 won't do that (XT or not).

I'd also like to see a 100mp 33x44mp back, and for SK to get back in the game....the latter is probably off the table though.

As far as questions for tech cam manufacturers, I'm curious where they see the field going. There hasn't been a whole lot happening in that space. (XT aside) I don't mean that in a negative way. I've only really paid attention to Alpa - who gave us the Pano and 12 Plus recently - and then theres the $13k+ 138 rodie from Rodenstock - curious as to "what's next", or if they think the field has gone about as far as it's going to on their end.

 

[Boinger]

I think the tech camera is going the way of the dodo personally. Which is sad because I quite enjoy the workflow and the process. On the plus side there is little to no maintenaance required on existing equipment and the simplicity of the equipment means it will be around for quite some time.

Most new photographers these days don't even understand movements / perspective correction (even digital).

So the tools such as tech cameras will go quite unappreciated. I use one in my studio every day for product photography. I would hate to focus stack 100 different products (multiple pictures each product) don't even get me started on focus stacking glitches and issues. Combine that with strobes and no thanks. I will take a view cam with some tilt / swing and do everything in one shot. Yet everytime I talk about what I do I am always asked why not focus stack? It's always the go to solution I am presented when talking to people.

 

[MILESF]

Out of curiosity, what realistic path forward would you like to see? Genuinely asking. I'm in the same camp as I'm invested in Alpa, and the costs of migrating to the XT for me also far outweigh the benefits. Right now, as long as back manufacturers keep making backs with electronic shutters, and as long as existing manufacturers keep making adapters for those backs, the only thing I want to see personally is for the manufacturers of the backs to allow for entry of movements in the metadata....and all that would require is a firmware update.

Hopefully P1 realizes that the people asking for that feature aren't going to plop down the cash for the XT anyway.

Automatically applying the LCC frame in the back in the field before you start offloading to the computer would also be nice. With they whole "Capture One inside" thing on the IQ4, that was something I was expecting with the IQ4/XT, but my understanding is the IQ4 won't do that (XT or not).

I'd also like to see a 100mp 33x44mp back, and for SK to get back in the game....the latter is probably off the table though.

As far as questions for tech cam manufacturers, I'm curious where they see the field going. There hasn't been a whole lot happening in that space. (XT aside) I don't mean that in a negative way. I've only really paid attention to Alpa - who gave us the Pano and 12 Plus recently - and then theres the $13k+ 138 rodie from Rodenstock - curious as to "what's next", or if they think the field has gone about as far as it's going to on their end.

I am not sure there is a more realistic forward path or at least I can’t see it. Most manufacturers aim to carry their customers forward over multiple upgrade cycles. P1 has done this well up to now - at least for me. I started with a DF and P65 ten years ago and now have XF and IQ3. I cannot see a realistic forward path beyond my Arca with 3 x Rodenstock lenses and 2 x Schroder lenses but I am very fortunate to have both options

I would love to see a way forward but equally the Arca has given me a different, slower, more contemplative kind of photography. Not being able to travel for the last year has also meant less opportunity and therefore a greater reluctance to spend.

Maybe there way ahead is simply a gentle slide into obsolescence. I would love someone to follow what Phase have done and show a brighter future but perhaps it requires too much R&D for any of the existing technical camera makers or any possible new entrants.

 

[dchew]

I don't know if I agree with all this obsolescence talk. One of the reasons I like the technical camera is that it doesn't become obsolete near as quickly as other cameras. Sure the back will become obsolete, but the camera and lenses will last a while. Technically (pun intended), I've been using the same camera for the last ten years. What DSLR or mirrorless camera user can say that? What part of a technical camera would become obsolete? I suppose lenses could get marginally better, but like Miles points out above, at what cost? The 138float is indeed a fantastic lens but from a viewer's standpoint it isn't that much better than my sk150 until the image circle gets beyond 100mm.

I get that from a GAS point of view the back will become obsolete, but I am getting to a point where I don't really need anything else in regard to image quality. I suppose this is when Dante strikes me down with a nasty bolt of lightning. I'll calm him with this thought: my next purchase will be an Alpa STC to back up the one I have after I wear it out.

Dave

 

[Shashin]

I remember when the Nikon D800 made medium-format digital obsolete...

 

[Geoff]

I don't know if I agree with all this obsolescence talk. One of the reasons I like the technical camera is that it doesn't become obsolete near as quickly as other cameras. Sure the back will become obsolete, but the camera and lenses will last a while. Technically (pun intended), I've been using the same camera for the last ten years. What DSLR or mirrorless camera user can say that? What part of a technical camera would become obsolete? I suppose lenses could get marginally better, but like Miles points out above, at what cost? The 138float is indeed a fantastic lens but from a viewer's standpoint it isn't that much better than my sk150 until the image circle gets beyond 100mm.

I get that from a GAS point of view the back will become obsolete, but I am getting to a point where I don't really need anything else in regard to image quality. I suppose this is when Dante strikes me down with a nasty bolt of lightning. I'll calm him with this thought: my next purchase will be an Alpa STC to back up the one I have after I wear it out.

Dave

Agree with this. A tech camera, a decent back, 3-4 lenses... not much else is needed. GAS is retired.

 

[med]

I don't know if I agree with all this obsolescence talk. One of the reasons I like the technical camera is that it doesn't become obsolete near as quickly as other cameras. Sure the back will become obsolete, but the camera and lenses will last a while. Technically (pun intended), I've been using the same camera for the last ten years. What DSLR or mirrorless camera user can say that? What part of a technical camera would become obsolete? I suppose lenses could get marginally better, but like Miles points out above, at what cost? The 138float is indeed a fantastic lens but from a viewer's standpoint it isn't that much better than my sk150 until the image circle gets beyond 100mm.

I get that from a GAS point of view the back will become obsolete, but I am getting to a point where I don't really need anything else in regard to image quality. I suppose this is when Dante strikes me down with a nasty bolt of lightning. I'll calm him with this thought: my next purchase will be an Alpa STC to back up the one I have after I wear it out.

Dave

The only thing that the IQ4-150 is missing that I believe will give me more GAS in the future is a global electronic shutter. This would truly make any mechanical shutter irrelevant and obsolete; only an iris would be required, even when there are moving subjects and flash is required.

 

[Boinger]

I don't know if I agree with all this obsolescence talk. One of the reasons I like the technical camera is that it doesn't become obsolete near as quickly as other cameras. Sure the back will become obsolete, but the camera and lenses will last a while. Technically (pun intended), I've been using the same camera for the last ten years. What DSLR or mirrorless camera user can say that? What part of a technical camera would become obsolete? I suppose lenses could get marginally better, but like Miles points out above, at what cost? The 138float is indeed a fantastic lens but from a viewer's standpoint it isn't that much better than my sk150 until the image circle gets beyond 100mm.

I get that from a GAS point of view the back will become obsolete, but I am getting to a point where I don't really need anything else in regard to image quality. I suppose this is when Dante strikes me down with a nasty bolt of lightning. I'll calm him with this thought: my next purchase will be an Alpa STC to back up the one I have after I wear it out.

Dave

I don't mean literally the cameras will stop working. I mean the tech / view camera style of photography will go away as the market shrinks, and as such manufacturers will stop making new ones / development on that side.

 

[vieri]

I don't know if I agree with all this obsolescence talk. One of the reasons I like the technical camera is that it doesn't become obsolete near as quickly as other cameras. Sure the back will become obsolete, but the camera and lenses will last a while. Technically (pun intended), I've been using the same camera for the last ten years. What DSLR or mirrorless camera user can say that? What part of a technical camera would become obsolete? I suppose lenses could get marginally better, but like Miles points out above, at what cost? The 138float is indeed a fantastic lens but from a viewer's standpoint it isn't that much better than my sk150 until the image circle gets beyond 100mm.

I get that from a GAS point of view the back will become obsolete, but I am getting to a point where I don't really need anything else in regard to image quality. I suppose this is when Dante strikes me down with a nasty bolt of lightning. I'll calm him with this thought: my next purchase will be an Alpa STC to back up the one I have after I wear it out.

Dave

Hello Dave,

thank you for this - your words totally resonate with a big part of my decision to go for a tech camera again. When I pulled the trigger, I actually thought for a second "this could very well be the last camera I ever buy"; of course, I know that in the end this might not be the case - there will probably be something that will make me consider an update (i.e., global shutter?, or just GAS). Looking at this backwards, I could definitely say that if someone told me that there weren't going to be any updates ever for my gear, but at the same time that it would continue to perform indefinitely with no problems whatsoever, I would be perfectly content sticking with it for the rest of my life. I don't think that image-quality wise I would feel wanting

More seriously speaking, while definitely a sizeable investment, when I pulled the trigger part of my rationale has been that yes, it was a lot of money; but, I would skip a lot of update cycles as well versus going with a different camera, which would help offload part of that expense in the next years.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[bab]

I don't mean literally the cameras will stop working. I mean the tech / view camera style of photography will go away as the market shrinks, and as such manufacturers will stop making new ones / development on that side.

Shrinking due to years of the few Tech cameras companies ability to successfully market their products. (Great engineers but not Marketing Geniuses) In the past using trade shows and distributors to pass the word and sell the products with poor illustrations and videos on the internet making it easy to understand how to put a system together and what results one can achieve from that... other than using degrees and mm to explain it.

Stuck in the Ground Glass and Engraved Marking Scale days. Agreed with having digital readouts for movements and a way to preciously zero those.

gotta go now chat later I have lots of questions

 

[doccdiamond]

Fully support Dave looking for a high resolution symmetric wide angle design For 35-40mm. For certain applications the distortion of the fantastic Roadies in 32 and 40mm is less favorable. Beside that a second supplier like SK is always good. Today’s single sourcing opportunity is not in favor of the customer ...

 

[stngoldberg]

I own an Arca rm3di with 5 lenses and a IQ3-100 PS back, while I also own the Sony 7riv and six wonderfil Sony GM lenses, I almost always choose my technical camera when I am photographing anything other than sports or birds in flight. The images I can compose with my technical camera and the amazing Rodenstock and Schneider lenses cannot be duplicated with any other camera system in my opinion
The technical cameras may become obsolete because they are expensive and require a modicum of experience and intelligence to use, but all that is irrelevant to me as the quality of the images I am getting now is all I care about
stanley

 

[vieri]

...
The technical cameras may become obsolete because they are expensive and require a modicum of experience and intelligence to use, but all that is irrelevant to me as the quality of the images I am getting now is all I care about
stanley

Perfectly put. Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Abstraction]

The Chinese manufacturers are beginning to dip their toes into the technical camera market with such products as Swebo TC18, which may be a bit crude, but an interesting product, at a fraction of a price of more established technical cameras. What are your plans (if any) to lower the price of entry into the tech camera field to expand the tech camera market?

 

[RodK]

In regard to future design features, that probably gets a bit specific to brand. I'm an Alpa perspective, but I will try to keep it somewhat generic:

1. When the camera is in the bag, we debate between assembled vs disassembled. One of the disadvantages of breaking down the system is covering the back. The DB comes with a good cover for the sensor, but if you use that, you expose the camera's adapter plate and pins to other things in the bag. If we instead keep the camera's adapter plate attached to the DB, there is no real air-tight/dust tight cap to use. My sensor gets so dirty using Alpa's plastic cap. It would be nice to have a better dust-tight cap for the adapter-mounted DB. Or, a way to cover the exposed pins on the adapter so we can use Phase One's cover on the back, and protect the adapter. I'd prefer the former because keeping the adapter mounted to the back offers some depth protection when mounting the back. It is also easier on most systems to mount the adapter plate to the camera vs DB to the adapter plate. Gloves, rain, wind, etc.
2. Mentioned above but I will repeat it here: A built-in, mechanical way to black out the light path in the aperture mount. Using the lens cap is fine if there is nothing mounted to the front of the lens, but filters and/or lens hoods make that cumbersome. Remember those simple viewfinder shutters on high-end film SLR's like Nikon/Canon used to have? Dark slide? ...?
3. For Phase One: manually enter movement info? Tilt info? Don't act like you haven't heard this request before...
4. A new symmetrical-designed lens in the ~35-40mm range with an excellent 100mm IC. Similar to the SK35xl, but with better resolving power throughout the 100mm IC.
5. Maybe this is too Alpa specific, but a "double short-barrel" option for longer lenses. Similar to what was done with the 138 float @ 51mm SB. That would open up better carrying options for 180mm and longer. 2x34 or even 3x34.
6. A new longer lens option in the 200-300mm range. There are legacy solutions for this like the Zeiss 250 and 350 superachromats, but they are hard to come by and we have to hang that all off the front of the camera. See #5 above.
7. A reliable, robust way to zero out tilt and swing settings / adapters. We are long past the sloppy, sometimes not all that accurate zero detent. In fact, if the detent is just a little off it can make things more difficult.

Dave

Dave,

Arca-Swiss does offer a cap for any of our adapter plates.
Rod

 

[med]

Dave,

Arca-Swiss does offer a cap for any of our adapter plates.
Rod

Hi Rod,

What is the part number for this cap? That's a step in the right direction but there is still the issue of dust entering the body... I have asked my dealer and was told that Arca will not sell a blank 110mm lens board to use as a "body cap".

Thanks,

Matt