Ultimate Landscape kit

[KeithL]

"The Ultimate Landscape Kit?"

Paint.

Cameras don't even come close.

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Some would say an 8x10 film camera still rules that roost.

If you want to go digital, an 80 megapixel back, some Rodenstock and Schneider lenses, and the view camera body of your choice would be the best available solution.

 

[Anders_HK]

If you want to go digital, an 80 megapixel back, some Rodenstock and Schneider lenses, and the view camera body of your choice would be the best available solution.

Theoretical yes, but with digital requiring much stricter positioning of sensor than film (read 10x), it requires micro drive adjustments and a possible more tedious adjustment for each shot. The issue is also to see the adjustments well since a 645 sensor is much smaller than film size... Can be possible, but a tech camera such as Alpa, Arca or Cambo will enable lens perfect parallel to sensor plane (if camera is adjusted) and accurate adjustment of focus using a helical, assuming system is shimmed (or fudge factors such as Alpa). An Alpa can be shimmed to 0.01mm accuracy, it seems merely difficult to place the plane of focus to same preciseness with a viewcamera.

The ultimate is perhaps in future... a 100MP digital back for insert into 4x5 frame of a viewcamera???

 

[Professional]

The ultimate kit is when you get the shot out of any gear you use, i still feel happy to look at my best Scotland shots taken by 5D/1D2n, and feel more happy to see my NZ shots taken by 1Ds3, i will be happy to have shots taken by any of my Canon DSLR or MF, i am worry if i bought 100mp with tech camera now then i will think to get something else more or better, this will lead me to endless story.

 

[GrahamWelland]

... but a tech camera such as Alpa, Arca or Cambo will enable lens perfect parallel to sensor plane (if camera is adjusted) and accurate adjustment of focus using a helical, assuming system is shimmed (or fudge factors such as Alpa). An Alpa can be shimmed to 0.01mm accuracy, it seems merely difficult to place the plane of focus to same preciseness with a viewcamera.

Are you sure that you mean Alpa regarding 'fudge factors'? I wouldn't necessarily refer to it as such myself but I think you meant Arca here - i.e. independent lens adjustment offsets. With the Alpa you basically adjust to the back via shims which is anything but a 'fudge factor'.

 

[Jack]

Arca RM3D simply because it has built in tilts. The new breed of MF tech cameras from Arca, Alpa, Cambo, Horesman, Linhof and Sinar (I left Silvestri off on purpose) are significantly more precise than ANY view cam platform, and I include Arca's own F-line and Sinar's P lines. Moreover, they are a lot lighter, more compact and easier to use with an MF back.

So for me, the "ideal" kit would be an Arca RM3D, IQ180 (100% review for focus confirm at time of capture) and for lenses I'd start with a Schneider 43, 72 and 120. And I would not argue against another person's choice of Alpa cam and Rodenstock lenses at all...

 

[Don Libby]

Sandy and were talking about the "ultimate landscape kit" over breakfast this morning and her idea (and I kinda like it too) is "good hiking boots, plenty of water, and someone to carry all the gear". I ask if I could pick my own intern and she told me no....

 

[jlm]

my choice:

cambo wrs: has two shift axes
schneider 43, rode 70, schneider 120, all with T/S bases
currently with the H39 back

most of what i have been doing is focused from 30' to inf, but i also want the ability to do table top and flat art repro, the occasional portrait, etc

 

[yaya]

The ultimate kit is when you get the shot out of any gear you use

Exactly!

 

[dick]

The ultimate kit is when you get the shot out of any gear you use,

The ultimate kit is light and quick to set up and allows you to get "any" shot without compromise... this, to my mind, means getting it right in camera, and not having to crop off a third of the pixels you paid for, or distorting in post.

No such kit exists, and I may have to compromise by using a 4 * 5 or larger film lenses when I need more movement than can be accommodated by my Apo-digitars, but at least I have the camera and lenses for when I need a half or third meter image circle!

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Theoretical yes, but with digital requiring much stricter positioning of sensor than film...

Not an issue any more with 'live view'

 

[Anders_HK]

Not an issue any more with 'live view'

Hi Graham,

Tolerances (sensor location, lens movements) for digital remain as big issue to adjust for digital with live view as without live view, simply since the sensor will more or less need be adjusted to within 0.02mm tolerance for optimum sharpness. That is a number I was told by Schneider as a tolerance to depth of focus for digitar lenses. In comparison film flatness seems to be referred to within 0.2mm tolerance, thus 10x more accuracy required.

What live view on a back can help with is to see "what you see is what you get", but I will assume that at the high resolution of 60-80MP sensors it can benefit to use teathered for the larger display thus to see even better. It will however be interesting to hear how well the focus mask on new IQ backs will work in practice in regards to tolerances for adjustment of lens movements. Nevertheless it will require fine adjustments using micro adjustments, e.g Linhof, Arca. The Linhof Techno seem interesting for that use.

Regards
Anders

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Hi Graham,

Tolerances (sensor location, lens movements) for digital remain as big issue to adjust for digital with live view as without live view, simply since the sensor will more or less need be adjusted to within 0.02mm tolerance for optimum sharpness. That is a number I was told by Schneider as a tolerance to depth of focus for digitar lenses. In comparison film flatness seems to be referred to within 0.2mm tolerance, thus 10x more accuracy required.

What live view on a back can help with is to see "what you see is what you get", but I will assume that at the high resolution of 60-80MP sensors it can benefit to use teathered for the larger display thus to see even better. It will however be interesting to hear how well the focus mask on new IQ backs will work in practice in regards to tolerances for adjustment of lens movements. Nevertheless it will require fine adjustments using micro adjustments, e.g Linhof, Arca. The Linhof Techno seem interesting for that use.

Regards
Anders

Not sure I understand your point. If "what you see is what you get" and what you see in live view is the focus you want, then you're already there.

 

[dick]

Hi Graham,

Tolerances (sensor location, lens movements) for digital remain as big issue to adjust for digital with live view as without live view, simply since the sensor will more or less need be adjusted to within 0.02mm tolerance for optimum sharpness.
Anders

I think that the focus tolerances are only that tight for short lenses - this would be an argument for using a specialist WA camera for short lenses.

 

[gazwas]

Tolerances (sensor location, lens movements) for digital remain as big issue to adjust for digital with live view as without live view, simply since the sensor will more or less need be adjusted to within 0.02mm tolerance for optimum sharpness. That is a number I was told by Schneider as a tolerance to depth of focus for digitar lenses. In comparison film flatness seems to be referred to within 0.2mm tolerance, thus 10x more accuracy required.

While I'm sure the info you got fro SK is very accurate I'd take the advise with a pinch of salt. Remember, what we photographers consider to be acceptably sharp and what a lens design/engineer considers sharp are probably also within a tolerance of its own.

Not sure I understand your point. If "what you see is what you get" and what you see in live view is the focus you want, then you're already there.

I don't think live view on a tech camera will be as accurate as people think, especially if were talking fractions of millimetres as Anders above. The live view back just takes the place of the GG and a perfectly calibrated GG can still be slightly out. The problem lies with the fact that LF lenses are usually f5.6 or f4 at best and at those apertures, depth of field starts to effect the point of critical focus. You would still need to check the focus in the captured image either tethered or on an Phase IQ screen to be 100% accurate.

But like I said above, lens designer critical focus and us photographers acceptable focus are probably two different things.

 

[Anders_HK]

Not sure I understand your point. If "what you see is what you get" and what you see in live view is the focus you want, then you're already there.

The point is two-fold:
1) With live view we need to be able to critically determine when we have adjusted lens movements and focus for OPTIMUM accurate focus plane or not
a. small display on back makes more difficult to view focus
b. focus mask (we have no info on the focus precision that IQ backs will provide).
2) Suffice accurate micro adjustment mechanisms on camera are still necessary, thus a viewcamera without such will be difficult and not well suited, or tedious at best.

I think that the focus tolerances are only that tight for short lenses - this would be an argument for using a specialist WA camera for short lenses.

The focus travel will be smaller for wide lenses yes. I gather that this may be why my own design and custom made sliding adapter works for lenses 72mm and longer on a 28MP back. Another reason can also be that on a groundglass subjects tend to be small for focusing with shorter lenses. My adapter is for sale here if someone is interested ... http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23733
It features a very large Maxwell groundglass and is made to higher quality than the cheap Chinese made adapters on Ebay.
I find focusing with it on my wooden Shen Hao TFC45-IIB to be no issue but find that the lens movments are a bit tedious since camera do not have micro adjustments. On a camera with more precision it should work better of course.

While I'm sure the info you got fro SK is very accurate I'd take the advise with a pinch of salt. Remember, what we photographers consider to be acceptably sharp and what a lens design/engineer considers sharp are probably also within a tolerance of its own.

Well, when there is a factor of 10x in film/sensor flatness of difference between digital and film it seems they have a very valid point. + why does Alpa provide shims to thickness of 0.01mm? That makes perhaps the question reduced to what we prefer, absolute optimum sharpness or lens movements?

 

[gazwas]

+ why does Alpa provide shims to thickness of 0.01mm? That makes perhaps the question reduced to what we prefer, absolute optimum sharpness or lens movements?

But AFAIK the shims are to get your lens and back calibrated to some reference point (infinity) and nothing to do with focus. I very much doubt you could focus an Apla helical mount lens to an accuracy of 0.02mm. The only camera possibly able to focus to that accuracy would be one of the Arca R cameras.

Just think your being a little too technical about this and reading too much into the Apla marketing machine.

 

[vjbelle]

But AFAIK the shims are to get your lens and back calibrated to some reference point (infinity) and nothing to do with focus. I very much doubt you could focus an Apla helical mount lens to an accuracy of 0.02mm. The only camera possibly able to focus to that accuracy would be one of the Arca R cameras.

Just think your being a little too technical about this and reading too much into the Apla marketing machine.

Very true! Why, though, would you need to focus any more accurately than 0.02mm? All of the Tech lenses are meant to be shot at f8 or f11 which induces enough dof to compensate for any slight mis-focus at that level....

Victor

 

[cng]

But AFAIK the shims are to get your lens and back calibrated to some reference point (infinity) and nothing to do with focus. I very much doubt you could focus an Apla helical mount lens to an accuracy of 0.02mm. The only camera possibly able to focus to that accuracy would be one of the Arca R cameras.

Just think your being a little too technical about this and reading too much into the Apla marketing machine.

The bottom line is that there is error in any system, even one as well-marketed as Alpa's. Although I am sure Alpa (rightly or wrongly) will argue that their system has the LEAST error of it's competitors. :toocool:

Alpa's own website acknowledges that their lenses have a tolerance of +/-0.02mm. In an old post I argued that we should perhaps accept as inevitable an "averaging" of error across system components (assuming that they are all within tolerance and not defective). If you take Alpa as an example, you could foreseeably optimise a DB with shims for a lens that is +0.02mm (within tolerance). But if you own a second lens that is -0.02mm (also within tolerance), then your DB will be out by 0.04mm when used with this second lens. Consider that Alpa argues that +/-0.01mm is sufficient to make a visible difference.

For the record, I think Alpa, Cambo, Arca, Sinar, Linhof et al all make beautiful gear but we should accept any marketing with a healthy dose of scepticism. The aura built-up around Alpa reminds me a lot of Leica. In fact, their marketing strategies almost mirror each other:
1. Positioning as a luxury brand (not product) to professionals and non-professionals alike.
2. Disparage your competitors and anyone who chooses to use their "lesser" products.
3. State loudly the brand's (not product's) technical excellence.
4. Repeat.

 

[Geoff]

Is the C1 focus mask flawless? Surely its a great help, but shouldn't someone check "how good is it?" - and what level of precision it has - on a camera and back.