Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Not sure i could deal with that distortion on the Rodie. Like to at least use something like this with interiors this wide. The 36 Schneider and a TC is got me looking for banks to use my new ski mask on. LOL
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
Is the IQ180 the end for Schneider lenses ? compared to Rodenstock
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
+1 on stay cool and have fun. I started this discussion by saying that most of us who are interested in tech cameras are interested in A+ IQ. In my view there isn't a path to get to A+ at the dark blue edge because you will always be trying to replace information that was just lost.Absolutely agree that a panicked knee-jerk reaction is the worst possible thing to do. I like the Schneiders' ultra-low distortion, especially for my work. But the choice seems to be correcting the Rodenstocks' greater distortion in post, versus dealing with and correcting the Schneiders' greater cast in post.
My dealer did very a quick and dirty test using the 35mm XL and IQ180. To my eyes, I thought that the cast was fixable at the maximum officially stated shift (and no CF too, which didn't help). Maybe needs slightly more work in post to correct the loss of saturation and density at the edges than with previous sensors. But don't forget this is at the very edges. For those who are aiming to squeeze every last drop of IQ out of the entire IC, then your conclusions may be different.
I think the main problem is that everyone has been used to pushing their movements beyond the officially stated IC's, both for the Rodenstocks and Schneiders. I think we are going to have to play a bit more by the rules with these new sensors.
My gut reaction is wait and see, live with everything for 6 months, go out and shoot and enjoy my new gear.
EDIT: P.S. After months of decision angst, finally pulling the pin and investing in my dream tech camera and view camera set-ups together with latest and greatest DB, my new mantra is: Be cool and remember to breathe.
EDIT #2: Oh yeah, and have FUN.
Most of us are dealing with cameras with max movements in the range of 12 - 17 mm. A lot of lenses shut us down before we get there because of image circle/resolution/linear distortion issues. As you extend movements with with an 80 meg back my work to date convinces me that at some point color accuracy, saturation and low contrast resolution become issues. The question for each lens is where does this effect become significant enough to knock you out of A+ image quality.
Last edited:
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Nice test images Woody and thanks for taking the time to do them.
The distortion of the rodenstock wides was one reason why I went 43XL over 40HRW. Looking at your results, even in despite of the restriction in movements I'm still thinking if you shoot architecture etc then this choice might still hold if upgrading to the 180.
The distortion of the rodenstock wides was one reason why I went 43XL over 40HRW. Looking at your results, even in despite of the restriction in movements I'm still thinking if you shoot architecture etc then this choice might still hold if upgrading to the 180.
Christopher
Active member
i'm not so sure. In my eyes the 43 is unusable with the 43mm if you need some type of movement, which you often need shooting architecture. The 40 has pretty much the same distortion that the 32mm has. However for both lenses the magic is called ALPA Lens Corrector. ;-)
And as it looks there is no real alternative to the 32, if you need something wide with movements with the IQ180. I don't want to see how the 28 schneider looks. Probably a disaster when it comes to lens cast. and on the res side what I heard there isn't much room for movements.
And as it looks there is no real alternative to the 32, if you need something wide with movements with the IQ180. I don't want to see how the 28 schneider looks. Probably a disaster when it comes to lens cast. and on the res side what I heard there isn't much room for movements.
Terry
New member
Christopher - did you feel limited in any way with the 43mm on the P65+? Also, considering you had both the 43 and 40 how did you chose which on to use when you were shooting?
Still trying to get my head around what I'm going to do with either lens or backs. At least I wasn't top of the list and get a few extra weeks of people testing out the gear.
Still trying to get my head around what I'm going to do with either lens or backs. At least I wasn't top of the list and get a few extra weeks of people testing out the gear.
Christopher
Active member
my 40 is a lot older. My 43 is more or less new. 3 months old in a new like condition. Only used for some quick testing. I wanted it to use as hiking panoramic lens. big image circle and it's really small. However, I don't think I will be doing that anymore or at least not if I stick with the IQ180 and don't get the IQ160.
It works a lot better on the P65. A LOT.
It works a lot better on the P65. A LOT.
Don Libby
Well-known member
I've been following this closely or so I thought but have a couple questions.
Which camera has been used? Cambo, Alpa, what? Not that it should matter either way just interested.
The other questions is how well did C1 6.1.2 do in correcting the LCC when using " Technical Wideangle"?
Which camera has been used? Cambo, Alpa, what? Not that it should matter either way just interested.
The other questions is how well did C1 6.1.2 do in correcting the LCC when using " Technical Wideangle"?
tashley
Subscriber Member
This is pretty much where I am - either that or get out altogether, which I'd rather not do. Trouble is, it looks like the market for Schneider glass second hand might be about to take a hit so even if one did want to carry around those larger Roddys and deal with their worse distortion characteristics, one might find the hit financially to be rather an 'ouch' on top of the upgrade costs to IQ180. Given the slowness of materialisation of my 180 I might investigate the cost of doing a 160 instead, and regarding it as in many ways a better back than the 180, which would really just be for DF shooters and pixel count fanatics. Grrrr.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Maybe I'll get my IQ 160 faster. LOL
Okay that just is not nice.
Okay that just is not nice.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Oh how annoying for you! I have been half hoping to get the call saying my back is ready to collect and half hoping it is delayed until there's more information available!
Doug at Capture Integration has run the tests the results of which I need to know (Schneider 35XL on IQ180) but there has been an outbreak of ill-health in his office (poor them) and so posting the results will be delayed.
Hope it works out well for you Terry!
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Wish I got my notice. You know how painful this place will be me waiting for the IQ 160 and here I have NO CLUE when they are shipping. I'm going to drive you folks nuts.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Made me feel better for about a second. LOL
stephengilbert
Active member
"Looks like I'll get a chance to test it out again on my WRS in a couple weeks in Page." Will Ken be charging the same rate for use of the 180 as for the P65?
Don Libby
Well-known member
:ROTFL::ROTFL:
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Hmmm . . . I didn't realize that it corrects for distortion. I'll apply it to the Rodie images and see what happens.
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Don -
Alpa but it should not make a difference.
I only used C1 v 6.2 and I used "analyze (technical wideangle) . . ." to make all LCCs. That's one of the settings that I double checked.
Regards,
Woody