Dante Alighieri
Member
Good to see you here, Doug.
--Dante
--Dante
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
This is interesting. I always just followed the advice of others, but I should do some tests. Perhaps it's just not that big of a difference. Having a bit smaller aperture might just negate any need for tilt on certain images.The effects of diffraction are overstated. I have no problem using f/16 or f/22 on my 33x44 sensor. And when compared with film where making unsharp masks was a huge undertaking, using sharpening with digital files gives so much control. And cognitively speaking, viewers are more attracted to sharpness than resolution. And even with my 40MP camera, a 40" print can't really show all the detail in the file.
Long story short, I agree that simply stopping down works well for digital images. Just because you can see the effects of diffraction when making comparisons to other images at 100% monitor view, does not mean diffraction is significant.
Yeah, but they need a cable... and losing cables is part of the motivation of having the XT in the first place.Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe all the Rodenstock lenses for the XT camera come in a TS configuration, if you are willing to pay the extra cost.
Thanks, Doug. I'll be swinging by at some point soon to try this out.The XT body encoding (rise/fall/shift in the metadata) does not work for TS panels or any other lens panel connected using the cable rather than native XT lens panel pins and the blue shutter release no longer works.
So on the XT you can have tilt/swing or you can have body encoding and built-in shutter release, but you can't have both (at least, as it stands today).
I'm not passing judgement on which of those is more valuable – that is up to any given user and may well vary based on the lens focal length (e.g. some users may find tilt more valuable on longer lenses where DOF is a more frequent challenge; others may disagree).
I have the 32 and 70, waiting for the "promised" tele which I hope will be 140 mm or thereabouts. The 32 is the sharpest lens for resolving small detail that I have ever used. The 70 is better than the 80 mm BR (not the Mk 2) on my XF. If image quality is the most important factor, then the XT is my choice, though I would not give up my XF. Attached is a pano I've posted before. On my screen at 100% I can count the yellow leaves on the white birch tree in the the furthest background.That’s very helpful, Bill. Thank you. I, too, never use an aperture smaller than f11 (and almost always at between 8 and 11) for fear of negating the precision I sought in the first place. I use a Rodenstock 70... what do you use?
I do make prints up to 63 on the short dimension, so perhaps it would start to be noticeable. But maybe not.It sounds as though it might not.
All in all, a positive and enthusiastic review for the XT? Any cautionary tales or specific advice?
Thanks for your time!
Hello Christopher,If you have any specific question Arca Swiss I’m pretty sure I can help. I have the full system with Rm3di, Rm2d, factum, Rodenstock 32/40/50/70/90 ( some with copal, some with the new aperture only mount.)
have been shooting since a P65 with it and now currently using a IQ4150.
I love the system and would buy it again! don’t get me wrong, if price isn’t a factor, the XT is quite nice as well, but if price is a factor, just make the calculations.
If you need the X shutter for freezing movement or flash, it’s different story. But I shoot 99,9% with the electronic shutter.
Yeah, it's incredible!Just to prove my point in my previous post - here's the tree at 120%. 32 mm lens at F5.6. Shows beautifully on my 48 inch pano.
View attachment 183017
Yeah, it's incredible.Just to prove my point in my previous post - here's the tree at 120%. 32 mm lens at F5.6. Shows beautifully on my 48 inch pano.
View attachment 183017
That's really interesting. I often am shooting outside in somewhat windy conditions and don't think the electronic shutter would be appropriate. That certainly would make it easier though. I'm assuming you're shooting architecture mostly?If you have any specific question Arca Swiss I’m pretty sure I can help. I have the full system with Rm3di, Rm2d, factum, Rodenstock 32/40/50/70/90 ( some with copal, some with the new aperture only mount.)
have been shooting since a P65 with it and now currently using a IQ4150.
I love the system and would buy it again! don’t get me wrong, if price isn’t a factor, the XT is quite nice as well, but if price is a factor, just make the calculations.
If you need the X shutter for freezing movement or flash, it’s different story. But I shoot 99,9% with the electronic shutter.
Yeah, it's incredible.
That's really interesting. I often am shooting outside in somewhat windy conditions and don't think the electronic shutter would be appropriate. That certainly would make it easier though. I'm assuming you're shooting architecture mostly?
I'm going to test the XT next week beside my Arca. I'm starting to think there are better ways to spend my money right now. We'll see.
Hello Christopher,
if you don't mind the question, it would be great to hear about the differences that you see in image quality between the 32mm and 40mm, and between the 40mm and 50mm - if any. Thank you in advance!
Best regards,
Vieri
That's really interesting. I often am shooting outside in somewhat windy conditions and don't think the electronic shutter would be appropriate. That certainly would make it easier though. I'm assuming you're shooting architecture mostly?
I'm going to test the XT next week beside my Arca. I'm starting to think there are better ways to spend my money right now. We'll see.
I prefer "thoughtful" and "energy efficient," but "lazy" does carry the spirit of the thing...Or maybe I'm just lazy. (Yes, says my wife.)
Thank you Christopher, much appreciatedNo problem. The 32 is amazing. The only drawback is it’s distortion, however, there aren’t many other options and you can deal with it post, misting the time.
The 40 vs 50 is close. Inprefer the 50 as it has less distortion and I prefer 50mm to 40mm.
In terms of of the rest they are pretty equal.
In Addition, I have Schneider 43. it’s a very nice Lens, super small and as Sharp as the 40 and 50. it suffers a little more from color cast and a type of „centerfold“. Still a great lens and small and light!!!