D
ddk
Guest
So you find the Rollei better made than the Arca Swiss? Could you elaborate a bit?Son:
Right now I'd the two exceptions I'd consider are the Rollei Xact and the Linhof 679.
Cheers,
david
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!
So you find the Rollei better made than the Arca Swiss? Could you elaborate a bit?Son:
Right now I'd the two exceptions I'd consider are the Rollei Xact and the Linhof 679.
Cheers,
Not saying either is better made, just more rigid. Understand I used to shoot an Arca Swiss 4x5, the newest 141x141 F-Metric with micro-orbix, and I loved it! HOWEVER, because of the added movements, it is not as rigid between the standards as the two above, nor is focus as easily locked without moving the standard slightly as you lock it... For those two reasons I would choose theXact or Linhof 679 (NOT the Technikardan!) over the A/S, but understand both are also heavier and don't fold up as compactly as the A/S, so there is a trade-off...So you find the Rollei better made than the Arca Swiss? Could you elaborate a bit?
david
Thanks Jack, I get it now.because of the added movements, it is not as rigid between the standards as the two above, nor is focus as easily locked without moving the standard slightly as you lock it...
Jack,Good question David, some of us have been shooting larger formats for a while and forget some of the basic concepts.
The simple answer is rigidity, alignment and parallelism of the standards. As you go down in format size, the focal length of lenses required to generate a given FoV (Field of View) also get shorter. As focal lengths get shorter, the amount of lens movement to achieve (or maintain) focus gets reduced.
So by way of example, let's say a 180mm lens on 4x5 film has an allowable focus error of +/- 0.5mm to retain a "crisp" appearing image. On MF digital, we would use an 80mm lens to render the same FoV, but the shorter lens maybe only allows for a focus error of +/- 0.2mm. As one can imagine, if the lens cannot be held to within the tighter tolerance, then you won't get a sharp image across the field. Thus the more rigid and precise the camera is to begin with, the better the final result.
So rigidity and parallelism are why for the most part, not many MF digital shooters are embracing the current selection of view cameras -- with a few exceptions, none are really precise or rigid enough to render optimal output with an MF back.
Cheers,
JackNot saying either is better made, just more rigid. Understand I used to shoot an Arca Swiss 4x5, the newest 141x141 F-Metric with micro-orbix, and I loved it! HOWEVER, because of the added movements, it is not as rigid between the standards as the two above, nor is focus as easily locked without moving the standard slightly as you lock it... For those two reasons I would choose theXact or Linhof 679 (NOT the Technikardan!) over the A/S, but understand both are also heavier and don't fold up as compactly as the A/S, so there is a trade-off...
Cheers,
My real life example came when I got my 35mm digitar. When set at infinity the lens focused out about 50 feet from the camera. The horizon in a big landscape shot was definitely soft. The lens mount was off by 1/10th of a mm. If I remember correctly, this was shooting at f11.Jack,
Whilst what you say is correct, I doubt its relevancy in actual photographic conditions. Any subject usually has points in front and behind the focal point; it is highly unlikely that your image will run perfectly parallel to the DB plane (one exception to this is of course looking at a building head-on during architectural photography), but this is only relevant if the back IS perfectly aligned with the building, and adding tilt or swing negates the argument.
Exactly!My real life example came when I got my 35mm digitar. When set at infinity the lens focused out about 50 feet from the camera. The horizon in a big landscape shot was definitely soft. The lens mount was off by 1/10th of a mm. If I remember correctly, this was shooting at f11.
I think the big challenge for the new Sinar is to have the tilt mechanism stay perfectly accurate for at least several years of use and for it to be very easy to get the tilt back to zero without having to carefully check the entire frame.
I am glad to hear you think it will not be a problem Rainer.yes i know that and it was one of the major points on the feature list that swing and tilt ONLY can be built in the system, if there is a simple system to set it 100% accurate to zero, without that there is any need to check focus.
this will not be a problem.:salute:
I may be extremely lucky, but I have found the focus confirm on my Mamiya AFD2 body with both the ZD back and my P45+ back to be spot on -- at least a lot closer than I could ever get by eye. I am hoping my new AFD3 body is as goodWith regard to digital focus confirmation, my experience has been that it's not yet precise enough (especially at close distances) to resolve this difficulty.
LOLOLOL!!! I hear you on that loud and clear. All I was saying was I have it so good now I'm reluctant to change anything, even within the existing system!Jack, I am NOT going down this road again
Rainer:yes i know that and it was one of the major points on the feature list that swing and tilt ONLY can be built in the system, if there is a simple system to set it 100% accurate to zero, without that there is any need to check focus.
this will not be a problem.:salute:
Rainer:
On a side note... I have always been a huge fan of camera movements, used them all the time on large formats. However, a friend and fellow photographer who also used to exclusively shoot 4x5, and who recently came to a high resolution MF back, has started to use digital focus blending instead and claims he prefers it to tilt and swing. I was skeptical, but I've seen the images and am pretty impressed. The main advantage I see is he is not restricted to a tilted plane of sharp focus as we are with tilts, but rather he can select the components or regions from foreground and background he wants in focus at the blend... He will generally compile 3 to 7 frames of the same subject just altering focus point between them to gather his set of images for the later blend...
I have not gone there myself yet, but intend to try it on my next major outing so I can determine if it is a viable option for me. I am curious to hear if anybody else here has tried it?
Cheers,