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!

Tech Cams: the choices, which one and why ?

stephengilbert

Active member
Maybe the way to deal with the feature matrix is to approach the subject from the feature side rather than the brand side: which cameras offer tilt, which offer front rise and fall, which offer rear rise or shift.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Okay, my initial input. When buying tech, we are usually buying it to solve a specific problem. Generally speaking the features that help solve problems are -- and please free to add to the list.

First let me add some background data: The ends of the camera with movements are referred to as "standards." In view camera parlance it was for the frames between the bellows. The rear standard holds the sensor, the front standard holds the lens, the bellows connects them and at the same time allowing movement on the standards while keeping the space between them light-tight. Camera movements can be on either standard or both in varying degrees. Tech cameras generally replace the bellows with a rigid frame for more accurate parallelism between the front and rear standard than a view camera can manage. Because of this, it is a more difficult manufacturing process to get full movements at both ends, so other compromises need to be made. This is why certain "hybrid" cameras are available, being half tech body and half bellows camera; the goal being to gain and maintain advantages of both platforms. Hence the issue regarding which features -- the more there are, then generally speaking the higher the cost to build and buy. Note that which standard the movements are on *IS* critical for solving specific issues.

Main features:

1) Superior glass available, usually better on resolution and/or distortion than DSLR glass.

2) Superior precision in alignment between sensor and lens.

3) Shift and rise movements. Very helpful in composing while maintaining visually correct 3D to 2D geometric projection onto the sensor. If these movements are at the lens standard, perspective is altered when making the movements. If it is on the rear or sensor standard, then the movements maintain original perspective. The latter is useful if one plans to shift-stitch for higher resolution.

4) Tilt and Swing movements. The only way to alter the PoF (Plane of Focus) off the perpendicular to the sensor. This allows for extending DoF beyond what is possible from just stopping down the aperture. If on the rear standard, they impart geometric distortion in the 3D to 2D projection, but this can be used to visually adjust aspects to an image to make them more appealing, like decrease the effects of an angling away wall or sides of a box on a product.

5) Other aspects to consider are build-quality, cost, breadth and depth of available accessories, manufacturer and dealer support, and overall product availability. Some of us are going to be more willing to give in on some of these than others, so in the end the end they do become valid points to consider.

~~~

To be clear, I have owned and a used a plethora of view and technical cameras. They all had features I liked and they all were missing features I would have liked. A few had features I liked but were poorly implemented, while others had features I had limited need of yet were superbly implemented. And the reality is I could generate images with all of them that were superior to similar images I could generate with a DSLR. Another reality is the net improvement in my PRINT-level output detail and technical superiority was relatively minor; IOW if I had not known what I could have done or had a side-by-side to compare using a bit of rise - shift - tilt - swing, I would probably not have cared very much. So my honest view is that going with tech adds the last tiny level of technical improvement and not any quantum level of performance or creativity enhancement. So don't expect miracles when buying into it, as it still requires a talented operator to generate superior results. Moreover, tech cams require methodical process to use well and as such are infinitely easier to totally screw up with compared to an MF DSLR, so the down-sides to their use are often more severe and more plentiful than the gain-sides. So, with all that said,

~~~

My ideal camera would have all movements at both ends and be in the rigid design of a bellows-less tech camera. This camera does not exist, so I needed to make some compromises. First I wanted rigidity and repeatable zero for all movements. I also wanted relatively compact and hand-holdable. This let out most any camera with a bellows between the standards as they simply are not as rigid as a solid body, nor as compact. Next I wanted shifts and rise at the rear so I could do perspective correct flat stitching. This let out cameras with only one or the other of those movements on the front standards. Next I wanted tilt and swing up front for altering PoF, and I wanted the movements available for my shortest lenses. This limited my choices significantly, primarily because I had already eliminated bellows cameras for rigidity, and having a bellows is the easiest (and cheapest) way to achieve these front tilt and swing movements.

After the above conditions I was left with two systems to contemplate. The Sinar would have been in the running, except it has a permanently attached sliding back which leaves it impractical as a "compact" or even hand-held choice. (More on sliding backs in a minute.) Alpa was out because it's only tilt option is an adapter that is only good for 80mm and longer lenses, and I wanted to be able to have tilt on my wides. This left the Cambo WDS and the Arca RM3d. The Arca only has tilt or swing, not both at the same time. The Cambo with a lens mounted in the TS mount has both, but only down to a certain 35mm lens. (Note I even wrote a review here showing why both are beneficial: http://forums.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13238) This latter point was not too disturbing, as with hyper-wides like the 23 I am lusting after, tilt becomes less necessary --- but nonetheless it was a half-tic against the Cambo. This left the Arca, but I cannot have tilt and swing at the same time, which was a full tic against it. In reality, I only ever need tilt and swing together very rarely, but when it is needed it's defintiely convenient to have. So I went back and looked at Cambo. One little nit I had with the Cambo when I tested it was the overall build quality and implementation of the TS mount. It works, but the zero indent for the lens swings and tilts is not very positive, and I noticed it had maybe a 1/4 degree of "slop" in the stop. While a quarter degree doesn't sound like much, it can definitely throw off PoF, especially in wider lenses used at longer focusing distances. Since I am primarily a landscape shooter, this added another half-tic off the Cambo. By contrast, the Arca's tilt zero detent is very positive and precise, and the adjustment has more granularity as well, allowing for very precise settings. In the end, the Arca's added level of precision won out over the Cambo's T&S feature, but the reality is I could easily make either system work for me. Note that the above is about ME and for MY USES. Your needs and uses may vary, so I advise everybody to investigate all of the available systems and make your own decisions carefully and based on the features available that help achieve your goals and desires.

~~~

A note on cost. All of these systems are priced at a point where a healthy investment is going to be required. So my advice is to pony up to buy the system you really want the first time around. If you find a bargain price on an outfit, it is usually a less popular brand, or has a field of older glass packaged with it as an "not separable" kit -- and a lot of the first and second generation "digital" lenses do not have adequate coverage or performance to work with many of the last three generations of digital back technology. I would also advise build your kit slowly. Buy the body that best suits your needs, and then add the minimal few lenses you have to have to make the kit work as finances allow. Most of us will be supplementing an existing DSLR platform, so other focal options remain. Finally, selling off less popular brands and older glass can be difficult -- and here difficult almost always means you will take a bath financially getting out of it, so be careful how and what you buy. Even if you think you are buying the best, be prepared to sell at half what you paid for it, regardless of how good you think your original buy was; the market for digital MF tech is growing, but is still very small and the laws of supply and demand are definitely at work. Moreover, because of the entry costs, MF digital tech leans toward the wealthier shooters. And wealthier shooters have the ability to buy new, and usually will unless the used is exactly what they want and priced at too good to pass up. This pit can be deep, and you want to enter without slipping!

~~~

A note on sliding backs: Alpa claims they cannot be manufactured to tight enough tolerances to be reliable for their cameras. At first this sounded like marketing speak to me, but then I did some thinking and some math. A sliding mechanism definitely needs tolerance between the sliding pieces in order to move. Over the length a slide has to move for MF, I assumed this be on the order of .002 inches or about 50 microns. It could be less, say .001" or 25u. I can confirm that a shift in focus of 10u VISIBLY moves the focus point on my 40mm HR if it is focused at distance like hundred or so meters. Granted, aperture DoF will accommodate much of this, but the reality is, the lack of precision creates a visible shortfall. Whether it is practically significant or not, I will leave up to you to decide. Personally, I see it a marginal "benefit to loss" tradeoff, meaning it probably helps as often as it hinders. However the reality for me is my back has a good enough 100% review (and a focus mask tool and even a marginal but good enough live view) to confirm in the field my focus point is where I want it, and so a sliding back becomes less necessary, again for ME. Ultimately this is a decision you need to make for your chosen combo of camera and back.
 

micek

Member
I started off with an Alpa XY simply because it came in a bundle with a second hand Aptus 22 for a very good price; I then got an Alpa TC because it came "attached" to a SK 24mm lens I bought second hand as well. I quickly sold the TC because it was just too small and uncomfortable to hold for me, and got an Alpa SWA when a good bargain cropped up. I still have the XY, but my main camera as an architectural photographer is the SWA. What I like about it is the fact that it meets 95% of the needs posed by architectural subjects, i.e. vertical shift, in a very compact and light package. If I were a landscape photographer I'd probably look for tilt as feature, but I am not.
The focusing issue, at least with my Aptus, is a non-issue. In interiors I basically focus my SK 35mm lens at 3 metres and shoot at f11.3, and in exterior shots I focus at 5 metres, again at f11.3. With longer lenses I might make use of a hasselblad viewfinder, or if I am feeling lazy I just check focus on the back's screen until I get it right, usually one or two shots. The SWA is basically a light point and shoot camera with rise and, as I said, in my field that is essentially what you need.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I kind of was going that direction Steve to be honest and was hoping someone will follow me with the focusing side and other feature sets.

But anyway I made a big omission and sorry I totally spaced it but I forgot the Sinar Airtec in my big three it should be the big four. The Airtec does have T/S and I will l look it up and see how it functions.

This is totally my fault and sorry folks . Have to admit I have a harder time using the IPad when I really need to write something that takes more thought. I really need a keyboard in hand in some of my answers.

I agree with others we need to stick to feature sets and not brand bias. Just really screws up threads and the data needed for people. With tech cams I have absolutely no bias thoughts I could have bought any of the 4 brands and would have been happy. For me there is a certain need I have and it really comes down to the glass and all 4 use the same glass per say.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I started off with an Alpa XY simply because it came in a bundle with a second hand Aptus 22 for a very good price; I then got an Alpa TC because it came "attached" to a SK 24mm lens I bought second hand as well. I quickly sold the TC because it was just too small and uncomfortable to hold for me, and got an Alpa SWA when a good bargain cropped up. I still have the XY, but my main camera as an architectural photographer is the SWA. What I like about it is the fact that it meets 95% of the needs posed by architectural subjects, i.e. vertical shift, in a very compact and light package. If I were a landscape photographer I'd probably look for tilt as feature, but I am not.
The focusing issue, at least with my Aptus, is a non-issue. In interiors I basically focus my SK 35mm lens at 3 metres and shoot at f11.3, and in exterior shots I focus at metres, again at f11.3. With longer lenses I might make use of a hasselblad viewfinder, or if I am feeling lazy I just check focus on the back's screen until I get it right, usually one or two shots. The SWA is
basically a light point and shoot camera with rise and, as I said, in my field that is essentially what you need.

Have to say if I did not go Cambo WRS the SWA was right in there in the hunt as my second choice. Honestly I could not find one used. But it does fit my needs and always
loved this tech cam. My other choice was the Arca Rm2D. I'm after something small mostly because when I work I need both systems the DF and the tech cam so everything needs to be a combination and not a separate system for each. So I have certain things I am looking for in these systems and that is what folks need to be thinking about. How are you going to use them and in what situations.
 

gazwas

Active member
Therefore everybody can know and understand that I am in some ways biased.
Thierry, please don't take my post as a criticism but as a pointer to the OP. The information you provide on these forums is indeed very informative and much appreciated but my point to the OP is, as a very enthusiastic supporter of your brand and probably one of the few tech camera manufacturers regularly posting on the forums its easy to be "seduced" by the warm glow of your posts.

Alpa make very good cameras and are very good at marketing and seducing prospective owners with their sales pitch of being the most accurate tech cameras made...... Arca, Cambo etc, etc are not so good at this. This however, doesn't make them any less of a system to buy into and why good old fashioned try before you buy with an experienced and knowledgable dealer should be the most important factor rather than brand X or Y.

Heck, we don't even know what Tareq is planning to shoot with this camera and what features he wants.
 

rupho

New member
Great and very useful thread for potential buyers
There are many factors that should influence a buying preference apart from the obvious : pricing , camera features , dealer support it worth looking at what the camera or better his / her needs are.
I am primarily using tech for interior exterior and cityscapes.
I don't have an immideate need for tilt and swing but I do need a quick set up since I often assemble , disassemble and reassemble my gear up to 15 - 20 times on a given shoot.
To make a long story short I choose an Alpa Max as my main camera mainly for simplicity and versatility.

1: simplicity: set up excluding tripod takes no longer than 2 minutes . I am talking Max mounting on tripod , remove lens cover , mount lens, mount back , connect cable and release shutter.
2 minutes that's it. A big selling point for me.

2: versatility: Alpa arguably got the most choices when it comes to cameras and accessories . If you are comapring the XY with something like the TC and all the other options in-between . It's very attractive . In fact I was getting so weak so shortly after my Max purchase I got an STC ad a walk around and travel solution. Maybe one day I break down and even get a TC.
All those a valid solutions in the field depending on what your needs are.
Are great plus IMHO when it comes to looking into long term investment options when it comes to gear.

So these were my most compelling reasons for the type of work I am in and my style of working

Now let's look at the realities of making a purchase:
As already pointed out network and dealer support are crucial making those buying decisions sound and lasting.

I am based in china and therefore have less access to professional dealer support than you folks in the US or Europe but i must say this in all honesty that i had amazing support from Alpa connected people: that goes from the Beijing dealership to the actual Capaul family ( the owners of Alpa) not to mention Thierry in his professional capacity.

That for me was crucial. No offense to any advocate of the marvelous Arca system but as somebody put it ( in this very forum I recall) " I don't want to do business with a company that does not even have a web presence "
Interestingly there are many folks here regardless of " convictions" from all 3 camera camps that quote tech specs of lenses or using lens correction tools from Alpas site . That per se got nothing to do with a manufactures or brands superiority but simply put shows a dedication to information and support system that I do not find with any other brand and IMO is so crucial to the end user .
Again this is not meant as an offense at all. I have used large format equipment from Linhof Arca Sinar and Toyo and certainly have a sweet spot for Arca but i am running a business and need a reliable support system
Arca does not have this at least in the part of the world so I am happy to spend my money with those who realize that.
Just my 2 c
Grischa
 

archivue

Active member
"2: versatility: Alpa arguably got the most choices when it comes to cameras and accessories . "

except no sliding back + no possibility to use tilt on short lenses + no way to share lenses with a rail camera...

it's really a question of personal needs !

For me the sliding back was important, for others it's not !

Admin note: It would be far more helpful to state 1) what you use and 2) why you chose it, rather than only stating why you didn't choose brand X.
 
Last edited:

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed there are a lot of options from a lot of vendors which may lead to what I call "Toxic Option Syndrome"; the inability to make a decision for fear of making the sub-optimal one.

Since the beginning of my digital back "era" I have owned a Horseman
a Cambo WRS-1000,
and now an Arca Rm3di
And I guess it may not end there as my opportunity for gear acquisition continues. Sometimes for me I sell gear if it sees a long period of lack of use, and then what gets me back in again is some particular challenge or perhaps some new feature, in the most current case it was the fine pitched helical focusing rings.

Yes some cameras have capabilities that others lack, some offer more or less options, but they have all worked well for me with varying degree of adaptation on my part; they each dictate a style of working.

At the end of the day I guess there is a factor related to how the camera "feels" to you and how it delivers the goods. What really is needed I think is something on the order of one-week rentals or loaners since it takes about that amount of time to get a feel for each one. What I am doing instead is buying them one after the other.:loco: which is not necessarily the best approach.
At least for the moment I am happy with what I bought which was to some degree informed by the IQ series of backs and the "June" firmware release capabilities (looks at calendar and shrugs).
-bob
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
In the end, after 2 months of research, I bought an Alpa SWA. It has 25mm rise and rise is what I use 85% of the time when I need movements. The other 15% I need fall and then the SWA can do this too.
I was choosing between the newer STC and the SWA, but I actually thought the SWA feels somewhat less bulky (I might be alone in this respect) but that has to do that the SWA is lower and the STC more square/higher. Anyway, the STC is set up in its native setting for stitching and I do not do stitching and the additional mm rise with the SWA (and that I prefer the looks) sealed the deal!
Now with a couple of weeks working daily with it, I am feeling I went the right way! I really enjoy it!
Yes, I would love to have tilt/swing on all lenses, in fact, it is the only thing that made me think long and hard before choosing.
But, it does exactly what I want it to do and as a tool it is a great inspiration.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
"Admin note: It would be far more helpful to state 1) what you use and 2) why you chose it, rather than only stating why you didn't choose brand X."


i've done it allready, on a previous thread... i've post the link 8 hours before...
the previous thread was called :
"why did i choose the Arca RM3D over the others technical cameras... a friend asks..."
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28277&highlight=rm3d
thank you, just trying to keep the thread from going negative against any system --
 

cly

Member
For a few weeks I had an Arca RM3di - in the end I decided to sell it, get a Max, and get my lenses converted to Alpa mount. Before ordering I had tested a Cambo WRS, an Arca RM3d, and an Alpa Max. The testing was done with months between which, in retrospect, was a problem. (I guess, for most of us it is impossible to get three cameras at the same time and test them side by side.)

I don't want to rehearse why I initially (and, from my point of view, erroneously) went for the RM3di but I want to give a short summary of what makes the Alpa Max the better tool for my needs (architecture, interior, industry):

Versatility of the body:
- Mount it on your tripod in any orientation (I don't think this is of major importance to landscape photography)
- Switch back and front, i.e., mount the lens at the back's place and vice versa (important for certain lenses/movements, e.g., the Schneider 28mm)
- Attach whatever you want: Threads on each side of the body make it very easy to attach something like a flare buster and alike constructions, to attach/move a viewfinder to the side etc. Quite important!

Lens mount:
- Mount the lens upside-down or rotated, so you can see the focus scale: This is extremely helpful if the camera is above eye level.

Fast stitching:
- I totally underestimated what a great feature it is to be able to do very fast left-right-movements. (If you want to, you can have additional klicks in the rail. Default is middle/zero - you could also have klicks at 10mm left, 10mm right). I'd prefer if left/right movements could be geared as well but this is less important than the aforementioned speed.

Zero-(klick)position for movements:
- It's helpful if you can feel that the back is in zero position. With the Arca I had time and again the problem that I had left the zero-position without intending to to so. It's a user problem but a klick is helpful (the Cambo has clicks as well).

HPF:
- Initially, I thought using the Arca lens tables isn't a big issue but if you have to work fast, it's much more convenient not having to use a table and transfer a number to the 'neutral' Arca helicoid. (Still, for close range, using a table makes sense - Alpa provides tables as well.)

More detailed movement scales:
- If you want to use the Alpa lens corrector, you got to take notes of your movements. With the Max you get a scale with 1mm/tic, with the RM3di 2.5mm/tic.


To add a more 'subjective' feature:

Craftmanship:
- A camera is a tool, but I do enjoy using a fine tool. The Alpa clearly has it's limitations (such as, e.g., restricted movements with the Schneider 28mm, a minor issue which you can work around, no tilt or swing for lenses shorter than 80mm, or no sliding back) but for my needs it's a wonderful tool, something which makes me happy when using it. This may be stupid but the Max 'feels' right :)

Chris
 
Last edited:

alan_w_george

New member
This calculus was about the same as mine and I went with Cambo as well. My main driver was stitching so having all shifts in the same place (the back) was nice for the Cambo. Plus the cost was definitely a factor as well.

I must admit that of the lens, camera, and back the camera is the least interesting to me. As long as it gets the job done, I'm happy. The lens and back are doing the real work.

I looked extensively at the Alpa and Cambo systems before choosing the Cambo WRS. Here is why I went with the Cambo:

Vertical and Horizontal shifts:
WRS – can do both at the same time up to 20mm - very easy movement
Alpa - only with the Alpa Max - 25mm x 18mm

Size
WRS - 155mm x 165mm 1.2 g
Max - 177mm x 206 1.2 g
Draw it on a piece of paper. The Max is about the size of a dinner plate, the WRS is about the size of a desert plate.

Price for body:
WRS - $2,800 new
Max - $5,500+ new

Price for mount
WRS - $500
Alpa - $1,200

Price for lenses
Alpa almost 1 1/2 times the price for the same lens.

Shim/adjustment:
WRS - Easy - has four adjustable screws in the back of the mount (takes about 3-5 min to shim)
Max – multiple shim options

Tilt/Shift
WRS - several lens from 35mm to 90mm
Alpa - 90mm and above

The Alpa is beautiful camera and a fine product. But, for me the Cambo fits the bill.
 

JonMo

New member
There are some very well thought out responses on this thread.
For myself, my first "pancake" type tech cam was the Cambo WDS. I picked this one for only one reason, not features (allot of tech cams are similar), not brand recognition but simply because I found one on sale.
I guess I was trying to be "frugal" if this can apply to this kind of purchase.
I ended up with my current Cambo WRS, again because I found one at a good price, and the advantage of fitting the Lens Boards I already owned.
I have certainly never had any regrets for my purchases; even though they did not involve months of agonizing over specs or "which one is perfect" or "If I don't end up with the bestest camera I will never be at my full potential".
Each system has its own character, none are truly less than the other.
I do use mine as one of those ridiculously expensive "point and shoots" and don't seem to suffer.
It's all good. :)
 

jlm

Workshop Member
comparing the cost of the arca and the cambo, with respect to tilts and swings, and mounts:

cambo: you have to pay extra for the lenses, but you can get them with T&S. And they come with a helical focus mount
Arca: you have one axis of T (or S) with the body, and the body does cost more, comparatively. You also have no need for a helical focus mount for each lens (another reason the body is more $), but you do need a special bayonet base for the lens.

My dealer told me the break even point in cost was with three T/S cambo lenses with helical focus mounts, you are spending as much as the arca with three lenses and bayonet bases. (With the Arca, you will have only one axis of either tilt or swing)


A small addition to Jack's descriptions of movements: shifts on the back are not used to correct perspective; leveling the back does that. The rear is shifted, usually down, so you can capture more vertically without pointing the camera upward. Or sideways, again just to move around in the image circle. I think shifts on the front would also only move the image circle around, and not affect perspective.


last bit: I have been tinkering around with my cambo T/S mechanism and can report that any perceived "slop" is illusory. The moving parts drop quite securely into detents at the zero positions. The knobs have a bit of backlash, but not the parts that matter.
 
Last edited:
Top