Tech Cams: Why I like tilt

[Guy Mancuso]

Also and I have been doing this for years is use metal lens hoods that I get on e-bay and screw them into my lenses. And they also sell wide angle ones as well. I actually don't use any that come with my lenses since like Lonna said plastic ones usually break. So I use metal ones and also many times without caps . Makes for much faster lens changing. I started this with Leica lenses and carried this on to my MF kit.

My bet these may work well with tech lenses.

 

[Woody Campbell]

I'm actually feeling a little insecure on the focus stacking issue.

I've gone back and review the files that I stacked to get the above image. They are all beautifully sharp (where they are in focus) so the issue I'm having is not camera technique. In actual fact images of real landscape require extensive manual editing in of masks in Helicon Focus. There was no wind that I could discern in Central Park yesterday but the trees moved between images (actually quite a bit) and the clouds were moving quickly.

With full sized IQ180 tiff exports (these guys are monsters) the editing in HF slows down to less than a crawl. I tried downsampling (to 22 megs) on export from C1, and editing worked fine, but of course this isn't a viable solution.

I've tried the other OSX compatible focus stacking packages (including compbinezp, photoacute and the useless feature in CS5) and none of them come close to HF - they are essentially useless in a landscape context.

The source of my insecurity is that we are dealing with a single vendor who has an unknown (to me) commitment to support Helicon Focus for likes of us.

Of course no such issues with tilts.

 

[Jack]

Also and I have been doing this for years is use metal lens hoods that I get on e-bay and screw them into my lenses. And they also sell wide angle ones as well. I actually don't use any that come with my lenses since like Lonna said plastic ones usually break. So I use metal ones and also many times without caps . Makes for much faster lens changing. I started this with Leica lenses and carried this on to my MF kit.

My bet these may work well with tech lenses.

The real issue with tech or view cams is with shifts -- you don't need to worry about that on a fixed lens camera. With shift however, you alter the relative position of the IC and light-path off axis, and so the hood position needs to change to suit that. So regular hoods simply are not a good choice as they cannot optimally adjust to more ideally block the light falling on the lens/sensor.

 

[Jack]

I'm actually feeling a little insecure on the focus stacking issue.

I've gone back and review the files that I stacked to get the above image. They are all beautifully sharp (where they are in focus) so the issue I'm having is not camera technique. In actual fact images of real landscape require extensive manual editing in of masks in Helicon Focus. There was no wind that I could discern in Central Park yesterday but the trees moved between images (actually quite a bit) and the clouds were moving quickly.

With full sized IQ180 tiff exports (these guys are monsters) the editing in HF slows down to less than a crawl. I tried downsampling (to 22 megs) on export from C1, and editing worked fine, but of course this isn't a viable solution.

I've tried the other OSX compatible focus stacking packages (including compbinezp, photoacute and the useless feature in CS5) and none of them come close to HF - they are essentially useless in a landscape context.

The source of my insecurity is that we are dealing with a single vendor who has an unknown (to me) commitment to support Helicon Focus for likes of us.

Of course no such issues with tilts.

Welcome to my "ah ha" moment of why I wanted tilts... As much as I like Helicon and as good of a product as it is, you simply cannot keep everything in a typical landscape image stationary enough to make it all come together. It works great on *some* static subjects if there is not a lot of distance between near and far. It works fine for a large landscape print *IF* you're willing to spend the time (and a lot of it) critically editing the blend masks. The other issue you will ultimately face is when moving from very close to infinity focus even on static subjects, you are actually changing the subject magnifications enough that even solid stationary objects can ghost, still requiring significant editing time on the blend masks...

So let me repeat it again: having tilts and swings available on ALL of your tech lenses is a very (VERY) nice option for altering PoF for landscape and architectural shooters!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If they are wide enough they could cover that. I'm taking the cheapest idea here and for 9 bucks might be worth a try especially the longer lenses with a wide enough angle hood. To me these bellows shades are big and a pain to deal with along with you have to pack them in a bag. Which is as big as the body cams almost. The wide angle lenses are tough since usually nothing can really shade them well without getting in the way. Just thinking before dropping 600-800 on one this might be worth the effort to see how they do.

 

[jotloob]

The real issue with tech or view cams is with shifts -- you don't need to worry about that on a fixed lens camera. With shift however, you alter the relative position of the IC and light-path off axis, and so the hood position needs to change to suit that. So regular hoods simply are not a good choice as they cannot optimally adjust to more ideally block the light falling on the lens/sensor.

Jack

This is exactly the reason , why I believe , that the ARCA 6x9 hood is too small in width . Not in length .
I still doubt , that this hood is sufficient enough to be used with the DIGARON-W 4/40 lens when shifted , say about 10-12 mm . Don't forget , the image angle of that lens is 94 degrees .

 

[Jack]

If they are wide enough they could cover that. I'm taking the cheapest idea here and for 9 bucks might be worth a try especially the longer lenses with a wide enough angle hood. To me these bellows shades are big and a pain to deal with along with you have to pack them in a bag. Which is as big as the body cams almost. The wide angle lenses are tough since usually nothing can really shade them well without getting in the way. Just thinking before dropping 600-800 on one this might be worth the effort to see how they do.

If they are that wide, meaning wide enough to shade regardless of the amount of shift, they are going to be useless when the lens is zeroed ...

 

[Jack]

Jack

This is exactly the reason , why I believe , that the ARCA 6x9 hood is too small in width . Not in length .
I still doubt , that this hood is sufficient enough to be used with the DIGARON-W 4/40 lens when shifted , say about 10-12 mm . Don't forget , the image angle of that lens is 94 degrees .

You may be right. I will be testing it this weekend and will report back. Keep in mind the front end articulates on the scissor rails and can move up and down and swing a little side to side as well as move in and out -- and generally we only need to shade from one or two adjacent of the 4 quadrants...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I see your point and don't disagree but if the shade is long enough it still will work on some lenses . Wides are a bitch no matter what you use, hard to get the lens shade out there far enough to cut light.

 

[Jack]

Wides are a bitch no matter what you use, hard to get the lens shade out there far enough to cut light.

Wides are tougher, but become a lot easier IF you use a shade that moves -- which is the point.

 

[jotloob]

I see your point and don't disagree but if the shade is long enough it still will work on some lenses . Wides are a bitch no matter what you use, hard to get the lens shade out there far enough to cut light.

Yes Guy .
Wides are a bitch .
Therefore the recommended action to shade with a cap or hat will also be useless , because you will see the cap or the hat on the image .:ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I know and most times these alternates work pretty well. There are always the other 10 percent or more of the time they don't. That part I totally get.

 

[cs750]

I am finding the Rodenstock 40 very difficult to shade by using my hand; either the hand is in part of the image or does not adequately prevent flare. I have not tried my hat yet, but I hope a good solution is forthcoming. I am working on a couple of ideas and will let you know if anything turns out to be promising. Charles

 

[Christopher]

Jack, You are correct the 32, fits. HOWEVER, if you get the lens and shift you will get the center-filter. Attach it to the lens and it won't fit anymore.

I have both here and first I used both. Mainly the larger one for the 32, however, in recent times I started to use only the larger one with ALL lenses.

 

[gazwas]

So let me repeat it again: having tilts and swings available on ALL of your tech lenses is a very (VERY) nice option for altering PoF for landscape and architectural shooters!

I think for architectural shooters and for shots like Woody's above, tilts are less useful when you often have lots of tall vertical objects in the foreground. The tilt in the image plane results in areas of these foreground objects out of focus and focus stacking is the only option IMO.

Shifts are a different matter though! :thumbup:

 

[jotloob]

I have both here and first I used both. Mainly the larger one for the 32, however, in recent times I started to use only the larger one with ALL lenses.

So , which one is the bigger one ? ? ?
There is the 111006 (110 x 141) and the 111008 (171 x 171) both with rods

 

[Jack]

I think for architectural shooters and for shots like Woody's above, tilts are less useful when you often have lots of tall vertical objects in the foreground. The tilt in the image plane results in areas of these foreground objects out of focus and focus stacking is the only option IMO.

Shifts are a different matter though! :thumbup:

agreed, when the area cannot be covered by a plane and needs a lot of 3D to keep everything in focus. I meant mostly swing for architecture when you want the receding SIDES of buildings to remain on the PoF...

 

[Wayne Fox]

I know several shooters here have gone 100% tech for their MF kit, while others avoid tech altogether because of the speed limitations. Clearly tech is not a good choice for somebody who has a short attention span or likes to do grab-and-go shooting.

Not sure how to take that ....

I'm not sure it's about attention span or grab and go ... it's about maximizing the opportunities. I rarely have the time to scout a location. Often I get one chance to shoot a place, and most of those places are not a static icon where a single shot is all I'm after but some dynamic location with all kinds of possibilities. Sometimes I'm just heading down a trail I've never been on before. With the tech camera, because of the time constraints I find myself bypassing compositions because perhaps there's something better around the corner and if I stop I'll run out of light.

I don't think the tech camera improves on my ability to see and capture compositions at all (other than limiting them). What it brings to the table is really about the quality of the files ... in my case I've decided the DF quality is really good and makes the mechanics of shooting secondary to me. If I were an old LF shooter I'd probably feel different, but I come from the world of hasselblad's and RB/RZ67's, manual mode, and that's exactly how I shoot my DF.

If the Tech camera had live view as good as the 5dMark2, I think I'd be singing a different tune mainly because of what I see you doing with tilt (guessing if I get back into it it won't be with an Alpa because I see tilt as being more important that shift). I work with my 5DMark2 and live view frequently and always confirm focus with the the live view on that camera. But I gave the IQ180 live view a go a couple of times ...it just doesn't work well enough to intrigue me. So time for a few more Schneider lenses and getting the best I can out of the DF.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I don't agree with Jacks comment on that either to be honest. I shoot the DF for many reasons and one is I can compose precisely what I want. I rarely and mean rarely ever crop in post. The viewfinder is my palette and shooting somewhat blind has kept me away from tech cams and I also agree just more shooting opportunities I have with the DSLR style. Not to mention I like a bag full of glass and use everyone of them from wide to long. To me tech cam is a limitation just like the M8 is. I need a cam that can do almost everything. No question they have there place and would like to have one but it will NEVER replace a DSLR style for me.
I want a tech cam but for very specific reasons or maybe better said certain shooting.

 

[Jack]

Guy and Wayne:

I still shoot the DF too! You took only part of what I wrote and it lost all context! You left off the last part of that paragraph: "But for those willing to expend the time and effort to use it, it will pay dividends in the form of a more technically perfect image -- the cost is you'll have fewer unique compositions at the end of the day." If you re-read the entire post, I think you'll see I was not implying a DSLR is an inferior system or method at all, rather my point was that tech requires a slower, more thoughtful and methodical pace. Do you both disagree with that final statement? If you do, then yes we do disagree totally. (Granted, I could have probably used a better phrase than "short attention span;" like "in a hurry" or "on a very short time schedule." I guess I should not respond to posts when I cannot give it my full attention -- excuse me -- am in a hurry myself. )

My entire original post:

It was the same for me when I transitioned from film MF to LF cameras. The process is slower and requires process methodology to achieve successful results. And the process methodology takes time. Time and process is why I continue to carry and use both the tech camera and the DF camera kits...

I know several shooters here have gone 100% tech for their MF kit, while others avoid tech altogether because of the speed limitations. Clearly tech is not a good choice for somebody who has a short attention span or likes to do grab-and-go shooting. But for those willing to expend the time and effort to use it, it will pay dividends in the form of a more technically perfect image -- the cost is you'll have fewer unique compositions at the end of the day.

For me, it's a "what mood am in" sort of thing. I do like the deliberate, thoughtful approach tech brings to the field, and I find an inner peace in working that way. However, when time is short -- like when I'm traveling with the family -- the DF is clearly the better option. If I could only have one, it would be the DF, but I count myself fortunate I now have both options at my disposal