Tech Cams: Why I like tilt

[Guy Mancuso]

It's fine no worries just that a tech cam really not sure would give a technically perfect image that a DF style would not give you. I just think what you said was not what you meant that's all. Hey I get this all the time myself.

 

[Jack]

just that a tech cam really not sure would give a technically perfect image that a DF style would not give you.

FTR, I absolutely do believe that a tech cam can in many -- not all, but many -- circumstances give you a technically better image than the DF. If it didn't, there would be zero reason to go through the added bother of using one. So it appears perhaps we do disagree on that point...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think in some areas yes I agree. But I don't think technically as a shooter per say. But yes the tech cam can do things the DSLR style can't do and I agree the tech lenses are technically more perfectly optimized or provide better image quality. My worry here in these discussions when we talk tech cams is folks start forgetting about the art when they shoot and think solely on this tech stuff. That can be very dangerous as we know and it's something when we teach want people to put aside and pay attention to what's in front of them than what they are holding. I get nervous about paying to much attention in the field to the tech and not get a image.

 

[PeterA]

I dont get the "shooting blind" comment - admittedly the fresnel glass and loupe is not as bright as a typical viewfinder on an SLR in 35mm or MF camera - but it has its advantages as well.

What an SLR cant give you is what real tech cameras are designed for - and that is control over the plane of focus via movements. This control works for landscape , architecture and portrait work. I am pretty new to movements and I am experimenting with what can be achieved with tilt and swing -shift is the least of the advatanges of a tech camera.

If a photographer has no need for control over plane of focus and perspective correction in camera - then they dont need a tech camera - but once you start to see the added control over image, depth of field, perspective - it is hard to go back to snap shot mode for stuff that is important to you.

If the backs coud delvier a real live view or wireless projection onto an IPAD to prvide for a clearer idea of what is happenning - all the better - but really it doesn;'t take much experimentaiton to get the idea of how much tilt or shift to use for what purpose with which lens.

- anyway that is what I am diggin about the artec and the Rodenstocks.

I am deciding on what lens I shoudl buy for portrait work - teh comibination of tilt and a sharp les opens up so many creative possibilities for portrait work.

 

[Bob]

I think in some areas yes I agree. But I don't think technically as a shooter per say. But yes the tech cam can do things the DSLR style can't do and I agree the tech lenses are technically more perfectly optimized or provide better image quality. My worry here in these discussions when we talk tech cams is folks start forgetting about the art when they shoot and think solely on this tech stuff. That can be very dangerous as we know and it's something when we teach want people to put aside and pay attention to what's in front of them than what they are holding. I get nervous about paying to much attention in the field to the tech and not get a image.

That is the whole point about getting into the art.
The tech camera encourages a deep look into the image which is needed to decide what to do with it. The DF which I prefer for model work is quicker and helps with those sorts of images where deep thought is not only unnecessary but often discouraged. Sometimes like the guy who shot the triple play yesterday, you gotta shoot not think. Tech cameras are just not well suited for that. On the other hand when you have the time to seek and obtain the BEST image, then tech is the way to go.
-bob

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The shooting blind comment . Glad you brought it up. Peter how many years have you had your eye right to the finder to compose and taught yourself working within the frame. This is primarily what many of us are used too without taking you eye away to see what is in front of you. Now tech cams you lose that closeness to the finder. It's working in a different way . Your seeing not only what you are shooting but everything else around it. There truly is no way to see exactly what you are capturing unless your on a ground glass which many folks do not use with a tech cam in the field. Either your shooting tethered and shoot make adjustments to your shot or your out in the filed with some kind of rangefinder tool to see your framing which really none of them are perfectly accurate. So your kind of shooting blind and making adjustments and corrections. Viewfinder shooting be it ground glass or viewfinder you make adjusts in real time as you shoot. Rise fall and such, not to mention focusing which we all know is real time with finder or ground glass. Without them your basically again shooting blind to know if your in focus. So the shooting blind comment is more in regards to not being definitively sure of accuracy with composition,shifting,tilting and focus unless you truly are seeing it live via ground glass or viewfinder. Now live view is here this will certainly help be definitively more accurate since you can see it live and fine tune before you take the shot with visually confirmation.

 

[Jack]

If a photographer has no need for control over plane of focus and perspective correction in camera - then they dont need a tech camera - but once you start to see the added control over image, depth of field, perspective - it is hard to go back to snap shot mode for stuff that is important to you.

That is the whole point about getting into the art.
The tech camera encourages a deep look into the image which is needed to decide what to do with it.
~
when you have the ti{m}e to seek and obtain the BEST image, then tech is the way to go.
-bob

:thumbs:

 

[Wayne Fox]

(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 that's what rubbed me the wrong way ... just sort of implies some inferiority ... short attention span is a pretty negative connotation and shoot and go is awfully close to "spray and pray" which is a term we sometimes use to describe many of the newer digital photographers that are out shooting weddings for a couple of hundred bucks and deliver DVD's with several thousand images on it. but I shouldn't have let it bug me ... I know you well enough that you didn't mean it in a derogatory way, just trying to express the difference in shooting styles. I did read the rest of it and agree ... if your good with a tech camera and there are many on this forum who are amazing with them, it certainly offers a step up in the quality of the captures.

I'd love to take the time to master the tech because the tilt is truly amazing and I"m not very good at focus stacking yet , but every time I take it I am disappointed in having to skip things that I think would be really nice shots. I hope the next generation of DB's have a more advanced LiveView that makes the tech camera a little speedier ... I'll be giving it a try again.

 

[Thierry]

Guy,

While I agree with you that one should not pay too much attention to the technic, it is nevertheless a must to perfectly know this technic to be able to put it aside and forget about it. One should be exactly aware of the possibilities a camera is giving us (or not). It is (the technic) and shoulb be a tool allowing to extend the creative possibilities, not a barrier to slow it down.

As Jack mentioned it already, using a SLR cam style or Tech cam style to produce images are 2 different ways to get an image. While both systems produce quality images, they are both 2 different tools, with different possibilities, requiring different skills as well as a much different approach to produce the image. Both camera types are however asking for skills, an artitstic one as well as a technical one.

What I want to say, is that in some situations it simply needs a tech cam with movements (shift, tilt, swing) and certain other possibilities to get the image as one wants it. And in this case one betters know perfectly the technic, otherwise one limits oneself creatively.

Best
Thierry

My worry here in these discussions when we talk tech cams is folks start forgetting about the art when they shoot and think solely on this tech stuff. That can be very dangerous as we know and it's something when we teach want people to put aside and pay attention to what's in front of them than what they are holding. I get nervous about paying to much attention in the field to the tech and not get a image.

 

[ptomsu]

Actually I am doing the following - when I need the benefits of SLR / DSLR I simply use this tool, if I need the benefits of a tech cam I use the tech cam. No matter which vendor etc etc.

Never had any issues doing so and never had any issues commanding from those tools what I wanted.

What I like? Hmmm... finally a stunning photograph and tall the rest is tools. So nothing specifically to like about on either solutions - these are just tools.

 

[gazwas]

My slant on all this is if a job needs the unique qualities of a SLR type camera I reach for a Canon or Nikon and everything else is tech camera. I personally feel in my type of work the MF DSLR's have too many compromises and MF's increase in IQ doesn't outweigh its failings.

IMO is order to get the best out of a MF SLR camera, especially with the newer chips you have to take your time and think about what you are doing. If you don't its often very difficult to distinguish MF from the best 35mm. If that's the case I say you may as well go the whole hog and use a tech camera.

So that is where I am at the moment..... 35mm DSLR's and MF tech camera. I've just missed all the Phase/Hasselblad stuff in the middle.

 

[danlindberg]

In the film days I worked with Linhof SuperTechnica and later Fuji GX 680 III. The slow, thoughtful, preparations for each frame suited me perfectly.

When I jumped on the train for digital it was a Canon setup, but from day 1 I honestly did not feel very inspirational about the workflow or feel of the plastic body (gone through all 1Ds bodies). However, often have I thought about "the grand ol' days" with the Linhof and Fuji.

Now, being completely new to mediumformat digital and choosing exclusively the tech route, I am getting back to my roots. This is a good thing. No, it's a great thing. In fact it's the best ever To me, slowing down and studying a scene, looking for alternatives, setting up the camera exactly how I want it and then finally pull the trigger is a an amazing feeling. I feel I am more of the true author of the result.

Hence, no images will be of coincidence, all images will be carefully planned. I know some will argue that it takes away spontaneity, but that is not who I am. I do not mind missing 10 great images because I was not ready, as long as I get the 1, that will last me my lifetime.

Tech for me is king.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Garett. Can't tell ya how many times I thought about this and taking the MF to a tech cam only and use the 35 for everything else. It actually makes a lot of sense and rolling this around for like 2 years now in my head. Than I get a email yesterday Guy can you shoot a Falcon 900 with people in some of the shots than we need some ad shots. I'm right back at my MF DSLR and can't get away from it. This is just one example of this and I could probably do it with the tech and the 35 but in many cases like this I'm still better shooting everything with the MF DSLR . But seriously I have tossed this around so much and been wanting to do this , I just keep hitting the road block on it.

 

[PeterA]

.... So the shooting blind comment is more in regards to not being definitively sure of accuracy with composition,shifting,tilting and focus unless you truly are seeing it live via ground glass or viewfinder. Now live view is here this will certainly help be definitively more accurate since you can see it live and fine tune before you take the shot with visually confirmation.

Well I guess we all know the ld saying horses for courses...a bright viewfinder for movement less shots is a wonderful thing. However I use wides on my Alpa and now my Sinar artec - the Rodenstock 23mm for example, is usually glued on F11 -for its sweet spot ..a little bit of tilt combined with its huge DOF and you can pretty much set teh lens just shy of infinity- ( a habit of mine) and everythign is in focus all the time - only peopel who are new or really dont shoot with cameras with movement or lenses liek LF wides dont understand how deep Hyperfocal distances - which means focus for me is pretty much irrelevant on the artec or even on an Alpa with the 35digitar.

So then we get to composition..the upside down image on a fresnel is a great boon to composition because it forces the mind to think about the lines and elements and positioning of them all - in a much more abstract way..a different way of seeing..and dare I say thinking

As for longer lenses- well I am deciding between a 70 and a 90 Rodenstock for portrait work - the fresnel focusing in good light with lenses stopped down provides all the focus accuracy I need.. the Sinar back comes with 16X magnification capability so getting sharp focus is not a big deal really or maybe I am lucky?

In house on live view well the camera with movement is even easier..

I can list all the stuff I wouldnt use a tech camera for..and thats where SLR types or rangefinders come in..

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Peter I'm not going to get back into this big discussion on this simply because it's not getting understood clearly. But the point here is I teach photography and been on many workshops. I teach with the art of seeing as first and foremost the most important element to photography. Everything else is secondary to this, the issue as I see it is the art is getting left behind in favor of the gear on how important that is in the field and in these forums. I want people to learn photography as a visual art it's as simple as that. I refuse to leave my legacy behind as a tool to use but a visual art to learn.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter I'm not going to get back into this big discussion on this simply because it's not getting understood clearly. But the point here is I teach photography and been on many workshops. I teach with the art of seeing as first and foremost the most important element to photography. Everything else is secondary to this, the issue as I see it is the art is getting left behind in favor of the gear on how important that is in the field and in these forums. I want people to learn photography as a visual art it's as simple as that. I refuse to leave my legacy behind as a tool to use but a visual art to learn.

++1

 

[Thierry]

Exactly, well said.

Thierry

Actually I am doing the following - when I need the benefits of SLR / DSLR I simply use this tool, if I need the benefits of a tech cam I use the tech cam. No matter which vendor etc etc.

Never had any issues doing so and never had any issues commanding from those tools what I wanted.

What I like? Hmmm... finally a stunning photograph and tall the rest is tools. So nothing specifically to like about on either solutions - these are just tools.

 

[PeterA]

Oh well oneday I might aspire to know something about photography and making a decent photograph - Guy..one day..

 

[cunim]

Re: Tech Cams: Why I like tilt - off topic

Than I get a email yesterday Guy can you shoot a Falcon 900 with people in some of the shots than we need some ad shots. I'm right back at my MF DSLR and can't get away from it. This is just one example of this and I could probably do it with the tech and the 35 but in many cases like this I'm still better shooting everything with the MF DSLR . But seriously I have tossed this around so much and been wanting to do this , I just keep hitting the road block on it.

Guy, given what I have seen of your work (mostly fashion and landscape) I would be interested in seeing what you do with the Falcon. Please post some pics in the "planes trains etc" thread. Actually, I think it would be great to start a thread asking people to post what they would not normally shoot. Fine art/archtecture, landscape/car, fashion/car - that sort of thing. Might generate some fresh views.

 

[gazwas]

I teach with the art of seeing as first and foremost the most important element to photography.

Excellent point Guy and one which should be the grounding of every new/up and coming photographer. Picture first, camera last!

In most situations I have the shot I want visualised in my head and the lighting positioned before I've even got the camera out of the bag and pointed at the scene.