Tech cameras and IQ.

[GrahamWelland]

But it would be nice if they used the same numbering setup between the software and back. This way knowing let's say on location with back that 43 felt like a good number for example to use with a certain lens or scene when back at computer you could see by going up or down from that number how critical you where. Phase you listening hear. Also would be easier on user. My request was mentioned to Doug and maybe send this up the food chain.

I think myself the lower the number for folks would be easier to remember so let's change C1.

Unless there is a specific reason for the certain numbers and what it correlates to. I have no idea in C1

Just a thought

Guy,

Why not embed the focus mask value used in the EXIF data for the raw image and have C1 Pro sync with it on an image by image basis? That's the way the DSLR's handle in camera settings with their raw converters. For example, in the Nikon world I could set up a particular tone curve for processing RAWs for rendering the histogram/jpg image and download it in to the camera. When loading RAW images back from the camera Nikon Capture NX2 would take that tone curve information and use it to render on the computer with the same settings, which obviously you could change.

I agree that the better approach would be to just make C1 Pro and the IQ backs match each other in terms of algorithm and settings. Have a legacy support mode for those who like the focus mask operation of C1 as it is today but otherwise move on ...

 

[jotloob]

Keith,

You are quite correct that there are two sides this one. I'm definitely in the camp where the deliberate shooting style required by a tech camera is a big element of my joy in using it and by extension contributes to the quality of images I capture (well, I like to think so anyway). The same was true with large format film.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that shooting with a MF DSLR is a lot easier, faster, more versatile, or more efficient for a wider range of shooting situations.

Since I shoot for pleasure, the journey is sometimes more important than the destination, so to speak.

That is exactly what I feel as well . Sometimes I get lost with my camera and the object and I forget all around myself , forget about the time and just feel happy . Pleasure . Yes . :thumbs:

 

[KeithL]

That is exactly what I feel as well . Sometimes I get lost with my camera and the object and I forget all around myself , forget about the time and just feel happy . Pleasure . Yes . :thumbs:

Jürgen, that's weird, you were actually one of those I was thinking of who so obviously enjoy the process of using a tech camera!

 

[hcubell]

Keith,

You are quite correct that there are two sides this one. I'm definitely in the camp where the deliberate shooting style required by a tech camera is a big element of my joy in using it and by extension contributes to the quality of images I capture (well, I like to think so anyway). The same was true with large format film.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that shooting with a MF DSLR is a lot easier, faster, more versatile, or more efficient for a wider range of shooting situations.

Since I shoot for pleasure, the journey is sometimes more important than the destination, so to speak.

I don't use a MF DSLR because it is faster, easier, more versatile or more efficient than a tech camera. I use a MF DSLR because I believe that I can make better images with it than with a tech camera, and while the process of taking photographs is important, to me, the end goal is always to try to make a compelling image. I don't need a tech camera to slow down. I always shoot in a very deliberate fashion, using a tripod with the mirror locked up and at the lowest ISO. However, part of shooting in a deliberate fashion includes the careful composition of the photograph in the viewfinder. I need to see whether I am making effective use of the "canvas", including only those elements that contribute positively to the image and excluding all other elements. I need to see how the lens is changing the perspective of the elements in the scene. I can't imagine sacrificing a real viewfinder in order to obtain an extra 5% or so in IQ. I have a point-and-shoot digital camera without a viewfinder. I hold it up in front of me and "compose" on the LCD with Live View. I hate it. A tech camera does not even give you Live View.
I also believe that the extra IQ with a tech camera is theoretical. In practice, unless you are shooting brick walls hyperfocally or with a laser, I think you can produce sharper images with a viewfinder and good autofocus. In many cases, you really need Helicon Focus, and a MF DSLR is much more effective for making focus slices.
I used to have a Horseman SW 612 with a 55mm Rodenstock LF lens. It is basically a wide format tech camera that uses a medium format film back. No viewfinder; just a non-optical sighting device that sat on top of the camera. I probably put 60 rolls of 120 Velvia through it. Whenever I got a roll of film back, I would marvel at the IQ of the transparencies on a lightbox. What sharpness! However, the images sucked as photographs. I just had no idea at the time I was shooting what the film was capturing. I also disliked the wide format combined with the relatively wide angle lens. It captured everything and nothing at the same time.
I fully accept your opinion as to what works best for you. I see it differently for me.

 

[Terry]

I don't use a MF DSLR because it is faster, easier, more versatile or more efficient than a tech camera. I use a MF DSLR because I believe that I can make better images with it than with a tech camera, and while the process of taking photographs is important, to me, the end goal is always to try to make a compelling image. I don't need a tech camera to slow down. I always shoot in a very deliberate fashion, using a tripod with the mirror locked up and at the lowest ISO. However, part of shooting in a deliberate fashion includes the careful composition of the photograph in the viewfinder. I need to see whether I am making effective use of the "canvas", including only those elements that contribute positively to the image and excluding all other elements. I need to see how the lens is changing the perspective of the elements in the scene. I can't imagine sacrificing a real viewfinder in order to obtain an extra 5% or so in IQ. I have a point-and-shoot digital camera without a viewfinder. I hold it up in front of me and "compose" on the LCD with Live View. I hate it. A tech camera does not even give you Live View.
I also believe that the extra IQ with a tech camera is theoretical. In practice, unless you are shooting brick walls hyperfocally or with a laser, I think you can produce sharper images with a viewfinder and good autofocus. In many cases, you really need Helicon Focus, and a MF DSLR is much more effective for making focus slices.
I used to have a Horseman SW 612 with a 55mm Rodenstock LF lens. It is basically a wide format tech camera that uses a medium format film back. No viewfinder; just a non-optical sighting device that sat on top of the camera. I probably put 60 rolls of 120 Velvia through it. Whenever I got a roll of film back, I would marvel at the IQ of the transparencies on a lightbox. What sharpness! However, the images sucked as photographs. I just had no idea at the time I was shooting what the film was capturing. I also disliked the wide format combined with the relatively wide angle lens. It captured everything and nothing at the same time.
I fully accept your opinion as to what works best for you. I see it differently for me.

Precisely why both exist and freedom of choice is a good thing!

 

[Don Libby]

Precisely why both exist and freedom of choice is a good thing!

:thumbs:

 

[GrahamWelland]

I also believe that the extra IQ with a tech camera is theoretical. In practice, unless you are shooting brick walls hyperfocally or with a laser, I think you can produce sharper images with a viewfinder and good autofocus. In many cases, you really need Helicon Focus, and a MF DSLR is much more effective for making focus slices.

I know what you mean about the quality differences being minor. I think it's a fair point so long as you're fully in control of the shooting process and that means for me that AF is far from my list of desirable features - at least when it comes to the Phase One/Mamiya systems. I'm still a heretic and outcast as far as the Phase One camera fan club is concerned because I personally think that their AF stinks. I overwhelmingly shoot manually because I've yet to experience 'good autofocus' on that platform. Certainly at or around 100+ ft I can't rely on it to nail focus which I can do by eye manually.

Ditto for the focus stacking. I find this MUCH easier with a manual lens on my Alpa since I can simply work the distance scale by hand. Other than measuring or focusing on the initial point of interest everything else in producing a focus stack is simply a mechanical shift in focus which I can easily replicate accurately on the helicoid of a tech camera lens. I'm surprised that you find it easier with AF as that's a trick I need to learn.

I fully accept your opinion as to what works best for you. I see it differently for me.

As Terry mentioned, that's why we don't all drive the same cars, wear the same clothes, take the same holidays etc etc. Choice is definitely a good thing. :thumbs:

As much as I enjoy shooting with the Alpa and the results I get from it, I also shoot the DF system as my primary DSLR outfit (and a Nikon system for low light/travel). I wouldn't want to be stuck with just one or the other for all of those good reasons I think we all cite for DSLR benefits. I'm happy to consider this all a case of 'horses for courses'.

 

[Shashin]

I used to have a Horseman SW 612 with a 55mm Rodenstock LF lens. It is basically a wide format tech camera that uses a medium format film back. No viewfinder; just a non-optical sighting device that sat on top of the camera. I probably put 60 rolls of 120 Velvia through it. Whenever I got a roll of film back, I would marvel at the IQ of the transparencies on a lightbox. What sharpness! However, the images sucked as photographs. I just had no idea at the time I was shooting what the film was capturing. I also disliked the wide format combined with the relatively wide angle lens. It captured everything and nothing at the same time.
I fully accept your opinion as to what works best for you. I see it differently for me.

I had an SW612 with a 55mm. One of my favorite cameras. I used it for documentary work, mostly handheld. It was a fast and accurate camera to work with. The viewfinder was great--bright and really quite accurate. And like you said, very high-quality images. And since the film had a consistent response, it was really easy to visualize the results. I did some of my best work with it.

But like you said, different strokes for different folks. That is one problem about talking about camera gear, it is simply subjective bias. Statements are only true for the individual making them.

 

[rga]

...However, part of shooting in a deliberate fashion includes the careful composition of the photograph in the viewfinder. I need to see whether I am making effective use of the "canvas", including only those elements that contribute positively to the image and excluding all other elements. I need to see how the lens is changing the perspective of the elements in the scene. I can't imagine sacrificing a real viewfinder in order to obtain an extra 5% or so in IQ. I have a point-and-shoot digital camera without a viewfinder. I hold it up in front of me and "compose" on the LCD with Live View. I hate it. A tech camera does not even give you Live View.
...

I use ground glass as my viewfinder. Always have even with my Hassleblad (I used a Flexbody) and LFs. So a TC can have a "viewfinder". Once you've calibrated everything, it can be extremely accurate.

Additionally, I'm not concerned anymore (I certainly used to be) about having the image perfectly composed in my viewfinder (whether GG or other). I see the composition I want, but I tend to add a bit all around and crop afterwards if needed. Many times I've found that I've missed something in the viewfinder (a piece of brightness by the edge, a part of a branch, etc.) that if I had more room on the side I could fix it. Or the balance of the composition improves a bit because the viewfinder cut a part off that may have improved the image. But just to be clear, I do compose very carefully; now I just have more if I've missed something (which has often happened despite my best efforts). Nothing wrong with having a margin of error IMO.

Now especially with 39MP to play with, cropping poses no real problem with getting a decent huge print. Having the extra real estate is a benefit to me.

One final item, with a TC, as has been mentioned, you can shift (and on some shift AND rise/fall) without the lens moving. If you do that with a DSLR, your stitch will always need cropping. With a TC, it's all aligned. MUCH more real estate...

Just my way of shooting and opinion,
Bob

 

[stephengilbert]

"TC" = tech camera, yes? My first reaction on seeing the reference was that the TC (i.e., ALPA TC) doesn't shift. Duh.

 

[rga]

Yes, TC = Tech Camera. Sorry about that...
Bob

 

[hcubell]

Precisely why both exist and freedom of choice is a good thing!

That we knew. The original poster asked for opinions on the pros and cons of tech cameras v. MF DSLRs. He had only heard from those who love tech cameras. I was offering up the alternative view.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Actually no ones view is ever wrong here either. It has benefits and it has downsides. Totally get the different reactions we all have towards them. maybe why so damn confusing sometimes to decide. I know this has been on my brain for about 3 years. Nice thing I get to use them often and see what they can do and not do. I'm just in this 3 year circling pattern on it. Been playing with the Arca RM3DI and Cambo WRS the last couple days and they both have good points and not so good points. Than there is Alpa so besides to jump in or not than its which one as well. LOL

I think this discussion would never have a ending either. LOL Which is great really , love hearing folks views.

 

[jlm]

having shot Nikon, olympus, my path led to 2-1/4 once i saw the image in the ground glass, then to 4x5 for even more of that luscious view plus all the movements. It was all about the view, not to mention image quality

MFD and a tech camera can offer the controls and the IQ, but compromise the view completely. I started with the Rollei X-act 2, GG adapter, then Horseman, used shifts, GG adapter, and the optical viewfinder, but swapping back for GG adapter was a pain, plus the 36 x 38mm image was too tiny, losing the lucsiousness, and the telescopic viewfinder was not so hot. Tried a magnifier, but the GG grain was an issue. went to the H-blad, nice viewfinder, not quite GG though, no movements, too many features for my style, etc.

Now using the Cambo WRS,with shift both ways; lenses have tilt and swing and I have developed my own accurate I-phone holder to work as a viewfinder, so I can really PRE-view and frame the shot.
When the IQ back shows up, the just-shot preview will be primarily used to confirm focus and exposure, confirm application of tilt, shift

 

[Shashin]

I have used both technical cameras and SLR type MF systems--unfortunately, the sensors are very different and can not really show a one-to-one comparison (P25+ and Pentax 645D). I would say there is not a big difference in IQ. The way the camera works and what it can do is a far greater influence over the quality of the resulting image. I would base a choice over camera type by the way I work or the features I need rather then some perceived difference in IQ.

 

[cs750]

Re: Tech cameras, IQ, & Travel Tripods: I have learned a lot from the Tech camera threads, and hope to be pullinng the trigger soon on a Tech camera for my IQ180. Meanwhile, I wonder what tripods are being used by those who have Tech cameras? It seems to me that someone traveling with a Tech camera kit may not require as much tripod "muscle" as other medium format setups. What do those of you who use Tech cameras & travel by plane use for a tripod? My current GT3541LS is a beast at 3.8lbs and with the Cube (which I may use with a tech camera) there seems to be no good way to transport the tripod in limited space. How are the folks who use Tech cameras a lot dealing with tripod/travel?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think a 2 series Gitzo is just fine for these tech cams. I also have the big 3 series and it is overkill. I would probably still use my Z1 ballhead. But the 2 series in my mind has plenty of muscle and easier to pack.

 

[Terry]

I have 2 different tripods that I use:
Gitzo Traveller with P0 head
Gitzo 2 series with a cube

The traveller works just fine in terms of weight but it isn't my first choice for windy conditions and if I will need height. When driving around I almost always opt for the 2 series but have both in the car. I will take the traveler on planes when keeping the kit light and the 2 series when going on a dedicated photo trip or workshop.

There is probably a really good solution between the two.

 

[Jack]

I use a long 3541L and the Giant 5 series when working from the car, and a 1541 series for travel. The 1541 is fine, but I do not normally extend the last legs set with MF -- though I have and find no loss of sharpness. I did fabricate a hook under the platform to hang my bag from which I believe adds to total system stability.

I am tall at 6'-6" (198cm), and never found a 2 series that made solid travel sense for me. The 1541 is few inches longer than the 2541 fully extended without the center column, and yet is enough smaller collapsed it will fit easily in a 22" roller. The 15 series is rated to around 18 pounds, and the 25 series about 26 pounds --- not a huge difference given my tech cam weighs like 6 max with all the goodies and heavy HR-W lens on it.

What's weird about the weight ratings too, is that seems to apply only for stuff ABOVE the platform -- hanging my bag below the platform definitely adds stability and the tripod suffers no ill effects when I do that.

 

[kdphotography]

I just picked up a Really Right Stuff TVC-24 tripod. These new RRS tripods are really well-thought out and engineered. This is going to be my "lightweight small travel tripod" option---when I don't feel like lugging my Gitzo 5541LS around!

For bigger applications the TVC-3 series has Gitzo 5 series specs but substantially lighter.

The RRS tripod is easily a "Gitzo alternative" but also has that Gitzo price.

ken