A Comparison of Technical Cameras

[David K]

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

 

[PeterA]

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..

 

[Don Libby]

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

 

[archivue]

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 ;-)

 

[Jack]

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

 

[thomas]

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).

 

[David Klepacki]

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.

 

[archivue]

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...

 

[David Klepacki]

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!

 

[baxter]

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.....

 

[tjv]

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

 

[David Klepacki]

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.

 

[GMB]

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

 

[Bob]

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/2009/02/03/focal-length-equivalent-calculator/

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

 

[Bob]

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

 

[Tim Ernst]

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.

 

[Don Libby]

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".

 

[thomas]

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.

 

[Tim Ernst]

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.

 

[jotloob]

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