Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 103

Thread: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Nice camera rig - and I am looking forward to the Alpa announcements as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by jotloob View Post
    Here my ALPA12SWA + SCHNEIDER SUPERANGULON XL 5,6/72mm + HASSELBLAD CFV-39 . The camera has the current built in "wake up" solution .
    A little release button in the left grip (for left handers only ?) which can not be seen here .
    Works fine for hand held . A bit tricky , when working from a tripod .
    Therefore I use the HASSELBLAD release cord H (3043370) when using a tripod . I am curious , what the new "wake up" will be .

    Attachment 35282

    I am leaving for Switzerland in about an hour for a couple of days . Unfortunately not ALPA-land . But they would not tell me anything about their PHOTOKINA new products anyway .
    Understandable .

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    With the advent of Live View and decent screens on MFDB's in the future, will anyone mourn these convoluted and necessarily over engineered solutions?
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    With the advent of Live View and decent screens on MFDB's in the future, will anyone mourn these convoluted and necessarily over engineered solutions?
    Hi Ben,

    When someone makes a digiback which sends a wifi live view to an Ipad so that I can get an image large enough to easily see Sheinflug in action (in the field) - that will be bliss.

    In the meantime we have to make do with third rate ground glass inadequate loupes and a lot of experienced based guessing - even gettiing something in focus in a 200% pixle peeping world is too hard ...

    I guess thats why most landscapes made with digital cameras are dead boring because they all rely to much on 'content' depicted from a repetitive boring perspective, using the same lenses in the same way, with over worked filter effects and post shot manipulations - that makes my eyes wince.:sleep006:

    Pete

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    With the advent of Live View and decent screens on MFDB's in the future, will anyone mourn these convoluted and necessarily over engineered solutions?
    Not sure the cameras are overenginered. Actually they are all quite "simple" (though of course highly precise and beautifully made cameras).
    A higer resolution on the focus ring (i.e. with much more indications) is also not what I would call overengineered.
    Even if LiveView is on the horizon for MFDB… it is not available today. But I want to shoot today…
    Too, even if I'd buy a MFDB with LiveView I still would like to use my old school DB on the same camera platform.

  5. #55
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    In case some aren't aware of it, Kapture Group make a OneShot cable release that wakes up a Phase back and fires the shutter with a single push of the button. http://www.kapturegroup.com/phase/phase.html#4x4one_a It's a big improvement, particularly for hand held photos; no more error messages when you don't press the shutter fast enough after waking the back.

    I assume the ALPA solution will be somewhat similar, though I hope it will allow for easy mounting on the camera body.

  6. #56
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    David, thanks for sharing your research and thoughts on these technical cameras. Very helpful to those of us who are less familiar with them.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Some folks have asked that I update my original table with more details, so here it is. I hope this helps people who are looking into technical cameras.
    Last edited by David Klepacki; 30th June 2013 at 21:29.

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    I've stayed out of this till now however I thought I'd offer a few comments.

    As most of you know I've been shooting landscape with a Cambo WRS1000 and P45+ for almost 2-years now. The WRS1000 is the body Cambo designed strictly for digital backs thus it's lightweight and offers a small footprint. The WRS offers geared movements which to date have not failed me. These same movements also offer the ability of flat stitching that is simple to use. I've attempted to use a groundglass with the camera and found it just not to my liking for several reasons, among them the hassle factor of removing the back then adding the groundglass then doing the reverse to replace the back. The groundglass works as advertized when I used it, however I ended up not using it as much as I thought I would. It took me close to 18-months before I finally got a viewfinder and while I use it now I'm glad I waited.

    I had to replace my P30+ back for a P45+ when I made the move to the Cambo and I'm glad I did. I also tried Capture Integration's 2-shot shutter system before going with a Kapture Group Oneshot cable system.

    I've found the WRS to be easy and intuitive to use with virtually no learning curve. My biggest fear when I started was the ability to achieve critical focus however I found my largest problems were remembering to remove the lens cap and cock the shutter.

    I bought in the thought process that I would need all types of measurement devices to achieve focus thus I went out and got laser finders and other "stuff". The only remaining item I continue to keep in my bag and use occasionally is a Fotoman rangefinder.

    I could, and maybe one day will have one or more of my lens retrofitted to the new swing/tilt lenspanel; I haven't found a huge need for swing/tilt in my photography however others could. Likewise while at first I thought I would have liked the idea of a sliding back I came to the understanding that I simple don't need it. I like the small size the WRS offers and adding a sliding back would defeat that purpose.

    This said, I will admit to having lust in my heart over the looks of the Alpa, come on who wouldn't like the wood handles!

    What I don't like is this EVF. Reminds me of a similar setup where a rifleman uses a computer and software for ballistics information (Horus Vision). Anything complicated can and will go belly up when you least expect it. I also remember watching a video on the EVF after it was first introduced and thought then that it complicated what should be simple. It also added things that could (at least in my case) be lost somewhere out in the middle of no and where and then you're screwed.

    Guess I just like the simple life.

    As always just my 2¢ worth and valued at much less.

    Don

    I reread what I wrote and want to make it clear that I'm not slamming the system, it's just not for me. Then again we are very fortunate that we have the choices we do as it would be very boring to live in a one size fits all world.

    I also want to add my thanks to David for his chart as it would have simplified my life when I started down this road.
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  9. #59
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    David - just a note that there is no Kapture Group sliding back adapter option for the Alpa.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    I will admit to having lust in my heart over the looks of the Alpa, come on who wouldn't like the wood handles!
    me. If I would use the Max I would use it without the grips (as for me the Max is a tripod camera anyway). And if I'd use them I'd certainly take the back ones.

    What I don't like is this EVF. Reminds me of a similar setup where a rifleman uses a computer and software for ballistics information (Horus Vision). Anything complicated can and will go belly up when you least expect it. I also remember watching a video on the EVF after it was first introduced and thought then that it complicated what should be simple.
    As a simple finder it is not complicated... it's just a finder as any other finder (though the view is much, much better than with the Alpa or Cambo finder; it's brighter and less distorted).
    Only if you use those DOF barrels and all that tables it get's a bit complicated (at least a bit confusing at first).

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    253
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by David Klepacki View Post
    Some folks have asked that I update my original table with more details, so here it is.
    a few comments, in case there will be another refinement:

    - dedicated leveling aid: there are also spirit levels on the rm3d.

    - it might make sense to add the rl3d to your table:
    you get either tilt or swing (but still not both) - this is a better solution than mounting the rm3d sideways.
    shift: V: 40/10, H: 20/20
    weight: 1.500
    so far, i haven't been able to find the proper dimensions. i had a look at one next to an rm3d and i thought, it's not that much larger. but when i look at pictures in the web it looks quite a bite larger.

    - something else - no idea if this is of any relevance: somewhere i have read that in certain circumstances the limited 'aperture' of a traditional camera body might result in vignetting. if this is true the design of the arca, i.e., the huge helical mount, was another plus. perhaps someone more knowable would like to comment.

    --chris

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    and you can use 6x9 ground glass and binocular viewer with the RM3D...

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    David - just a note that there is no Kapture Group sliding back adapter option for the Alpa.
    I have been doing some of the product photography for Kapture Group. I happen to know that there is a sliding back in the engineering phase right now that is targeted for the Alpa system. So yes, technically you are correct about not having any sliding back for the Alpa at this time. I put it in the table in anticipation of this sliding back to help people look into such an option if the Alpa system appeals to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cly View Post
    - dedicated leveling aid: there are also spirit levels on the rm3d.

    - it might make sense to add the rl3d to your table:
    you get either tilt or swing (but still not both) - this is a better solution than mounting the rm3d sideways.
    shift: V: 40/10, H: 20/20
    weight: 1.500
    Thanks Chris.

    Yes, there is a small circular spirit level on the RM3D, but the new Arca-Swiss E-module better differentiates their available technology.

    Also, your are correct in that the RL3D should be added to the table. Indeed, it has all the features of the RM3D and more. If we were shooting with a larger format (e.g., 4x5), then this would have been our camera of choice.

  14. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    I was just told by KG that their Alpa back won't be available until next year, so it is not something that you can really count on at the moment - and it may not be able to work with all wide angle lenses - hopefully they will be able to work the kinks out and it will work with all lenses, but how long a wait? How many "ticks" for the other cameras are just in the "engineering phase" right now that should be added to the list?

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by cly View Post
    a few comments, in case there will be another refinement:

    - dedicated leveling aid: there are also spirit levels on the rm3d.

    - it might make sense to add the rl3d to your table:
    Chris, thanks. I added the spirit level to the rm3d box. I could not get my hands on a RL3D, so I will add it when I can get actually get measurements of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Ernst View Post
    I was just told by KG that their Alpa back won't be available until next year, so it is not something that you can really count on at the moment - and it may not be able to work with all wide angle lenses - hopefully they will be able to work the kinks out and it will work with all lenses, but how long a wait? How many "ticks" for the other cameras are just in the "engineering phase" right now that should be added to the list?
    Fair enough. I have removed that entry form the table. Everything in the table is now up to date and accurate. Latest version attached below.
    Last edited by David Klepacki; 30th June 2013 at 21:29.

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Not certain I understand the comment "mechanical head" in the "Dedicated Leveling Aid" for the Cambo WRS1000 as I have spirit levels on the top and sides of mine.
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  17. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    I really appreciate the wealth of information on this thread. Huge thanks for David for sharing his research and willingness to update following feedback from other owners.

    Having used a Linhof Techno for a week over the summer with the Linhof sliding back, I was unaware of the other the camera options which provide tilt which was a welcome eye-opener. For Landscape, this movement and rise/fall is of most use. Availability of the majority of them on David's list in the UK seems to be scarce, like I'm struggling to identify some of the importers!

    I am slightly confused about the effectiveness of Laser rangefinders to focus and then how to determine the correct amount of tilt and aperture to ensure the Plane of focus renders things sharp which are supposed to be. I can see how it would work for an outdoor architectural shot, but keeping interior sharp with a high foreground object is similar to many Landscape scenarios with a low viewpoint and foreground rock or log to lock the composition and where use of movements scores over non-tech cameras where it would be Helicon Focus to the rescue again! Whilst this compositional description might sound clicheed, it is something which recurs in many scenic shots and is relevant when doing intricate studies instead of the vista. The latter is exacerbated by the fact that often a longer lens is used for these study shots. These issues do concern me before spending heavily once again.

    With the Techno, I found it significantly harder to use movements to control focus confidently than my 4x5 camera, even using a 10x Schneider aspherical loupe. This was especially so at the edges of the frame. The Acute screen was like turning the headlights on, great for rise/fall and shift, but too small/tight for accurate application of tilt. It's a wonderful camera and piece of engineering, more practice would have made me a more competent driver. This thread has alerted me to other possibilities.

    The Arca-Swiss EVF looks tremendous piece of engineering (happy to include the camera itself), but I struggle to see how easy it would be to use on a windy beach or cliff-top and then to decide how much tilt etc to dial in.

    If anyone can shed light by providing their solutions to these concerns and thus allay my worries, then I'd love to learn from you.

  18. #68
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Baxter

    For tilts you are pretty resigned to direct focusing using the ground glass or tethered.

    In theory you could certainly calculate the required tilt amount using Scheimpflug principles, basic trigonometry, effective DoF tables and laser distancing on near/far objects that you wanted in the plane of focus. However, I think at that point you'd be dealing with spurious accuracy (assuming that you can dial in a calculated number like 6.344degrees and the required focus distance for example).

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by David Klepacki View Post
    Fair enough. I have removed that entry form the table. Everything in the table is now up to date and accurate. Latest version attached below.
    No... You should also check the Box 6x9+Bino for the RM3D !

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras


  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    Not certain I understand the comment "mechanical head" in the "Dedicated Leveling Aid" for the Cambo WRS1000 as I have spirit levels on the top and sides of mine.
    Don, thomas had provided some feedback as to some of the unique features of these cameras that should be mentioned, so I added this column. Cambo provides a dedicated leveling head specifically for their WRS camera:

    http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_p...Item21632.html

    Of course, there are many third-party leveling aids available for use with any of these cameras, but I wanted to identify anything specific that the camera manufacturer has to offer.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    No... You should also check the Box 6x9+Bino for the RM3D !
    First, I am the first to admit that the Arca-Swiss binocular viewfinder provides the best optical viewing experience of any technical camera. With this finder, you can easily see into the corners of the ultra wide lenses. However, this effort of evaluating technical cameras contains a very basic assumption of being relatively compact and portable. While the Arca-Swiss "bino" may be a technically correct viewing solution from an engineering perspective, its size and bulk are counter-philosophical to the design of the Rm3d (and Rl3d).

    Arca-Swiss is a very innovative company with a strong reputation of technical achievement (e.g., orbix, misura designs, F-line, M-line, R-line, and even their tripod heads such as the B, P, Z heads and C1 cube). So, I am sure they can come up with a 6x9 monocular reflex viewfinder that is articulated, magnified, has diopter adjustments, compact (foldable?) and consistent with the lean design of the Rm3d and Rl3d.

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    i still using their Binocular because my glasses fit in it... i must admit that i find it cumbersome.
    the think is, that my compositions are much bette with the bino... i've plan to adapt the silvestri monocular on it... but i'm not shure it will works !



  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    i still using their Binocular because my glasses fit in it... i must admit that i find it cumbersome.
    the think is, that my compositions are much bette with the bino... i've plan to adapt the silvestri monocular on it... but i'm not shure it will works !
    Well, I have heard that there is a monocular in the works from Arca-Swiss, but I do not know anything about it, nor when it would be available.

  25. #75
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Baxter,

    May your bank manager forgive me...

    Alpa - Company website www.alpa.ch
    UK Dealer - Linhof Studio (www.linhofstudio.com)

    Arca - No company website - they say that their components can be combined is so many ways that it is best to talk to someone!
    UK Dealer - Robert White have some stock and can probably order anything (www.robertwhite.co.uk). I tend to look at a German company called the Arca Shop, which has a more comprehensive stock (www.arca-shop.de)

    Cambo - Company website www.cambo.com
    UK Dealers - Calumet (www.calumetphoto.com) or Teamwork (www.teamworkphoto.com)

    Horseman - Company website www.komamura.co.jp
    UK Dealers - Calumet, Robert White

    Linhof - Company website www.linhof.de
    UK Dealer - Linhof Studio

    Silvestri - Company website www.silvestricamera.com
    UK Dealer - Teamwork

    Sinar - Company website www.sinar.ch
    UK Dealer - Image 2 Output (www.image2output.com)
    Last edited by jbaxendell; 13th September 2010 at 21:47. Reason: Wrong spelling of Image 2 Output

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Great links, thanks!

    Ok, so let me get this straight...

    Ex VAT, the RM3D is 3950 Euro, the external viewfinder is 950 Euro, the M adaptor plate is 535 Euro, and do you need to buy a lens board for every lens as well? And am I right in thinking the lenses are a lot cheaper than those used on the Alpa due to them not needing heliacal focusing rings? On first look the Arca system looks a lot cheaper?

    As for Arca not having a web site, it's absolutely stupid in this day and age. The Alpa web site is very clear with information regarding how to build a system. I'm sure a good web site would encourage gear lust in a totally new market for them.

  27. #77
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Arca like making cameras and are less keen on making websites. Apparently they have one that is close to being ready but they keep getting distracted by more interesting things.

    The helical part of the lens mount is on the camera and is used by all lenses. The lens has to be mounted in a kind of tube that attaches to the helical. You should take a look at the video review on Luminous Landscape to see what I mean [and then come straight back here and be faithful to Jack and Guy].

    My conclusion was that the lenses were a lot cheaper, especially when compared to Alpa. You can also buy a plate for the F and M line cameras that lets you attach lenses that are in the tube mount. Chris Barrett has posted about this feature on this forum.
    Last edited by jbaxendell; 13th September 2010 at 22:33. Reason: Can't spell

  28. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by jbaxendell View Post
    ...
    just thought to add Gottschalt to your list. It's a little one-man company in Germany making very fine cameras: http://gottschalt.de/de/kameras.html

  29. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by David Klepacki View Post
    Don, thomas had provided some feedback as to some of the unique features of these cameras that should be mentioned, so I added this column.
    however Don is right :-) ... of course, the WRS body is equipped with several spirit levels (2 on the top, 1 on the side, 1 on the bottom... resp. the new models have 2 on the bottom so that you can level the camera above head level). The leveling base is an additional (optional) piece.

  30. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...c.shtmlhttp://

    After reading Thomas mention of the "small German maker" - I remembered an article I had read on LL ( above)

    The link above may be of interest to those hunting for a tech camera with movements and some background to the artec.

    Also the artec pictured in the article is now improved by better locking system for tilt - a response to pretty much the only criticism made when it was released.

    perfection for me would also include the mount to tripod over the center of the camera body - and an accessory mount for nodal point shooting - something for sure one can make up oneself with off the shelf parts from RRS or Novaflex etc - but I ask myself how much nicer if Sinar had ticked the only missing box for landscape shooters with their own system including pre-marked nodal points for the sliders?


    apologies for the pic - I spend a lot of time getting to know the equipment I choose - before I buy - if I don't love it enough to make a romantic shot - foggedaboudit! -

  31. #81
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Gorgeous shot Peter. The conversion is just perfect for the subject. Did you take this with the M9 and a lux?

  32. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    Gorgeous shot Peter. The conversion is just perfect for the subject. Did you take this with the M9 and a lux?
    Hi David no this on was with the M8 and a pre aspherical lux - made before I got my hands on an M9 and the new 50 lux. next shot will be though..
    Last edited by PeterA; 14th September 2010 at 04:43.

  33. #83
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    however Don is right :-) ... of course, the WRS body is equipped with several spirit levels (2 on the top, 1 on the side, 1 on the bottom... resp. the new models have 2 on the bottom so that you can level the camera above head level). The leveling base is an additional (optional) piece.
    Thanks Thomas, I had the Cube long before Cambo introduced their head and was/am so pleased I never gave it a thought. On the other hand if I didn't already have the Cube I might consider it (Dave G. had one with him earlier this year im Carmel).


    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  34. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    i've just received a mail from arca... there's a new RM3Di... an update !

    And a new smaller one called RM2D...

    New monoballFix and a new small 3D head... they didn't find the time for the website ;-)

  35. #85
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    So how exactly does the RM3D*i* differ from the current model?
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  36. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    Thanks Thomas, I had the Cube long before Cambo introduced their head and was/am so pleased I never gave it a thought. On the other hand if I didn't already have the Cube I might consider it (Dave G. had one with him earlier this year im Carmel).
    sure thing! If you already have a Cube you don't need the leveling base. It's also not as flexible as the Cube, of course.
    But it's a nice accessory that adds to the concept of a small and lightweight tech camera. With the leveling base mounted on the WRS body... you actually only need a decent tripod and off you go.
    Just bought a Cambo camera plate so that I can use the WRS and my Contax on the level head (as I really love geared leveling with the 3 screws). Works like charm.
    But honestly, the WRS now feels a bit castrated... so I think I will order a second leveling base for the Contax (my other leveling bases or not bad but the Cambo is so much better that it's somehow hard to use anything else).

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    Great links, thanks!

    Ok, so let me get this straight...

    Ex VAT, the RM3D is 3950 Euro, the external viewfinder is 950 Euro, the M adaptor plate is 535 Euro, and do you need to buy a lens board for every lens as well? And am I right in thinking the lenses are a lot cheaper than those used on the Alpa due to them not needing heliacal focusing rings? On first look the Arca system looks a lot cheaper?
    You do not buy a lens board for every lens with the Rm3d. Every lens purchased for the R-line is mounted in their R-bayonet, and comes with a removable spacing tube for use with the optional sliding back.

    Yes, the Arc-Swiss R-line is less expensive than the Alpa. The lenses are less expensive since they do not require any helical fosucing rings. The camera bodies are also less expensive, especially if you add in the cost of adding tilt to an Alpa camera. However, there is no wide angle tilt solution for the Alpa system that would retain infinity focus, only macro. The lens movements on the Arca-Swiss R-line are built into the camera body.

  38. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    So how exactly does the RM3D*i* differ from the current model?

    we don't know so fare... i suspect tilt in both axes... will see...

  39. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    So how exactly does the RM3D*i* differ from the current model?

    we don't know so fare... i suspect tilt in both axes... will see...
    That would be great! But, I suspect it may be a version with built-in electronics, unlike the current RM3D where the E-module is optional and attaches to the side of the body. The RM3Di would make for a smaller footprint without any external cabling for those people that always want to use the electronic focusing and leveling.

    I do know that the RM2D is a smaller version, where the lens movements are eliminated. This would be a much more compact and less expensive camera for those who do not want or need lens movements, and would compete directly with the Alpa Max camera. Again, the advantage of the RM2D would be the ability to focus accurately without using ground glass or being tethered, due to the Arca-Swiss in-body helicoid.

    I guess we will see at Photokina!

  40. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Thanks very much for all of the links and info. I know Robert White well and live dangerously close to them (though I couldn't see them listing the RM3D) and Paula from Linhof & Studio. The others I'll look at. All slightly academic for me at the moment given I've just bought the 645DF and then my car needed replacing.....

  41. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    So the RM2D won't have shift movements, like the Alpa TC?

  42. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    So the RM2D won't have shift movements, like the Alpa TC?
    No, my understanding is that the RM2D will not have any lens tilt, but will still have rear shift, like the Alpa Max, but I could be mistaken as I have not actually seen one. I guess Arca-Swiss will reserve the "no tilt and no shift" version for a RM1D model, if they decide to compete with the Alpa TC camera.

  43. #93
    Senior Member GMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Great thread and many thanks for all the useful information.

    I think that if ever I were to enter this world, it would be for landscape (and many be reportage) and would I'd like to keep it simple.

    One question I have is whether one can do stitching without rear (horizontal) movements? I do stitching now with a M9 either handhold, on a tripod, or using Noda Ninja. I assume that handhold stitching or stitching on a normal tripod would work equally well with a tech camera and, as long as there are no foreground objects, should also not pose a problem.

    Another question would be is whether someone can point me to a site that shows (or allows to calculate) the 35mm equivalent of the focal length of the various lenses, which I think depends on the sensor size of the back).

    Again, many thanks for the wealth of information in this thread.

    Georg

  44. #94
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by GMB View Post
    Great thread and many thanks for all the useful information.

    I think that if ever I were to enter this world, it would be for landscape (and many be reportage) and would I'd like to keep it simple.

    One question I have is whether one can do stitching without rear (horizontal) movements? I do stitching now with a M9 either handhold, on a tripod, or using Noda Ninja. I assume that handhold stitching or stitching on a normal tripod would work equally well with a tech camera and, as long as there are no foreground objects, should also not pose a problem.

    Another question would be is whether someone can point me to a site that shows (or allows to calculate) the 35mm equivalent of the focal length of the various lenses, which I think depends on the sensor size of the back).

    Again, many thanks for the wealth of information in this thread.

    Georg
    A nice spreadsheet is available at the Capture Integration site at http://www.captureintegration.com/20...nt-calculator/

    As for stitching I will leave that to another post.
    -bob

  45. #95
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    One can always stitch with the camera on a tripod and even hand held by just taking multiple images and swinging the camera around.
    There are better ways.
    In order to improve things the first way is to place the camera on a tripod and pan with the center of rotation being the optical center of the lens. This prevents the relative motion of foreground and background objects in the captures. For this, usually, the camera is offset by using a rail or "nodal plate" that moves the center of rotation from the center of the panning head and relocates the camera so that the optical center of the lens sits over this point.
    An even better way is to keep the lens absolutely fixed in position; thus the shifts on the rear standard.
    -bob

  46. #96
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    One advantage to just panning for stitches is that you are always using the sweet spot of the lens - when you "flat stitch" with a tech or view camera as Bob noted you end up using the weaker parts of the image circle too around the edges of your image.

    Other than for scenes with foreground objects I think the software is so good these days that having to mess with the nodal point stuff is not really necessary, at least with wilderness images. I've got a lots of eight-foot wide prints made from 6-8 frames by just panning the camera (sans nodal plate) that look very nice, and the view is a lot wider than I could ever get with a tech camera and flat stitching.

  47. #97
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    I'd much rather flat stitch than move the entire camera as you tend to get much more of a finished image. I've also never experienced any problems with the Schneider lens I use on my WRS. Then again I do landscape and "wildness".
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  48. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Ernst View Post
    One advantage to just panning for stitches is that you are always using the sweet spot of the lens - when you "flat stitch" with a tech or view camera as Bob noted you end up using the weaker parts of the image circle too around the edges of your image.
    true.
    On the other hand you have to capture some more images to cover the same final undistorted image plane as with a simple 4way flat stitch on a tech camera.
    Using a 40MP back on a tech camera with flat stitching you easily end up with a file at around 80-110MPx (and more). Even if you blow up such a file further (200% or so) the edges are still very good in a 300dpi print.

  49. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    You can easily get a much wider view via panning than flat stitching any day - with flat stitching you are limited to the image circle, which for some wide lenses isn't much. Plus you have to deal with that LCC stuff all the time, so you really end up with a lot of files for just a single view (only one LCC required for a panned stitch, and only if using a wide lens). My images often push 200mpx and seem to look OK this way.

  50. #100
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: A Comparison of Technical Cameras

    One of the first new products I found , just in time for the PHOTOKINA .
    ACADALUS CPS h1 . An other "must have" for all users of a technical camera (any brand) .
    Weight is only 3,5 kilo at $5500 .
    http://www.acadalus.com
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •