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 ?

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It would probably depend on which of the thousand hair-splitting definitions and categorizing you chose to adopt.
SNIP
In my view, and to keep definitions simple, we can say that a technical camera is a camera with movements, possibly on both standards - a view camera. Limited versions of technical cameras are the so-called wide-angle cameras (i.e. Cambo DS), the Techno is a more developed version, so is the M-2 as I can see from web info, to end up with the classic studio view cameras (i.e. Linhof 679 and similar).
First off, I have no real issue with any of the assorted definitions, and agree that any camera with movements is a technical, but then so is any camera in a box designed to withstand 1,000 degree heat, or an old finderless Leica MX designed specifically for microscopy. So I do think it is perhaps a valid discussion to have a set of definitions that distinguishes the current crop of tech cameras.

They used to distinguish "Press" from traditional "View" cameras by whatever means of external focusing aid they had, whether it be a cammed rangefinder or a simple distance scale, yet they both allowed for movements and had bellows extension bed focus mechanisms.

I would propose a similar convention to make distinctions in digital tech cameras, since each basic format has operational and technical advantages and disadvantages. How about if you need to directly view a ground-glass to focus it, it should fall into one main group; if you don't need a GG -- meaning it has a direct scale on the bed or some form of helical -- it should fall into another. For example, I'd call an Arca M-Line 2 a "view" camera even though there are marks on the rails that would allow me to repeat various distances with a given lens once I had them, but I'd call an Arca RM camera with built-in helical a "tech" camera because I can get a direct focus distance for any lens without ever mounting a GG. Similarly, I would refer to a Linhof Techno and Silvestri Bi-Cams view cameras, and the Alpa series and Cambo W's as tech cams. We can perhaps choose a better word than "tech", since indeed they are all technical to a certain degree. What do you think?
 

nyesimmons

New member
Hate to be late to a dying thread -

Despite some anxiety about the Arca RM3Di after demo-ing with the Cambo I made the leap. The overriding considerations were reproducibility / precision of focus point and tilt capbilitities. The Arca focus mount subdivides the helical like no other making precise selection of a focal point possible. This allows maximizing DOF via hyperfocal calculations / tables as well as expanding that with tilts.

Sttich capability was important for me - easier with the sliding back that also keeps the digital back on the camera for maximum protection, but are manageable without one. I have no experience withthe Alpa but have found the tilts necessary for near / far comps even with the 35mm Schneider to avoid helicon stacking, so being limtied to 80mm or longer was a non starter. Both offered that option.

The Cambo - I came so close to pulling the trigger - but looking at the helical - if you needed to set - says 27 feet focus point for needed dof - how could you? not subdivided enough to do so. so hyperfocal is from infinity to the near hyeprfocal limit instead of infinity to 1/2 ths distance FROM the hyperfocal point. Depends on the type of scenes you shoot, and the flexibiity you require.

For a field photographer doing landscape always on a tripod the ARca was the one that made the most sense - the deeper i get into it the happier i am that was the choice I made.

On a recent shoot i found I missed focus and had to go back to redo a preset - shooting test images tethered turned up using different setting than expected - shooting at a falling away receeding plan apparently changed the Scheimpflug enough to screw up the 1st shoot. The geometry can get complicated. When tilted your "cone" of sharp focus is like a flashlite beam pointed away form the camera - how wide a beam is influenced by many facotrs - its another story - suffice to say the "beam" wasnt pointed down quite enough Whew -- Can't hook up the laptop everytime - saving nickles for the IQ 160 - hope the screen is as good as it is said to be.

Feel free to PM if this ramble is too confusing.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The Cambo - I came so close to pulling the trigger - but looking at the helical - if you needed to set - says 27 feet focus point for needed dof - how could you? not subdivided enough to do so. so hyperfocal is from infinity to the near hyeprfocal limit instead of infinity to 1/2 ths distance FROM the hyperfocal point. Depends on the type of scenes you shoot, and the flexibiity you require.
Congratulations on the new rig!

Regarding the focusing accuracy I note that some folks are using the Alpa high precision focusing rings on their Cambo mount lenses. With wides in particular it certainly is tough to accurately set the focus to a fixed point up close unless it's one of the preset distances on the lens. The HPF rings help with this, particularly if you're focus stacking.

However you look at it and regardless of camera system choice, we're blessed with a nice assortment of excellent alternatives at the moment.

As regards the IQ focus mask for setting the lens, it works pretty well although so far I've found that it is somewhat scene dependent (it relies on local contrast) but definitely still a quantum leap over what we've had before without tethering.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I need to add an addendum. I have been receiving a few emails and PM's specifically asking about my choice between the Cambo WRS and Arca RM3Di as somebody having shot with both, but that isn't a dealer selling either. Here is my answer as simply as I can state it:

They are both great systems, and at present the only two I would consider because of tilt movements on wider lenses. Note I have never owned the Cambo, only tested a demo model. I also demoed the RM3D first, and do now own it. The net final differences for me are:

* Cambo: Has Swings and Tilts, and is more readily available than the Arca. However, tilt and swing are limited to lenses 35mm and LONGER, so not an option for the 23, 24 or 28, and someday I expect to own something in the 23 to 28 range. Cambo does NOT have a sliding back option for a convenient Ground Glass focus and sensor swap, so if you have a back without focus confirmation you need to do the remove GG and mount DB for every image, definitely less convenient.

* Arca is perhaps a little more refined mechanically, but the differences are not worth arguing about -- both are excellent quality. Arca allows tilt or swing, not both, but allows it for any lens mounted. Arca also has an elegant sliding back option, though it will not work with the 23 or 24, not sure on the 28's. I know it will work for 32 and up. Arca has a little more total rise and fall, but a little less side shift than the Cambo in normal form. However you can swap the Arca around to get the rise/fall movements to be shift, gaining more total shift than the Cambo while still allowing tilt or swing, making it somewhat more flexible.

* Price. Cambo base cost is less, especially for lenses not in tilt/shift mounts. However, at least at present, by the time you get two or three lenses in Cambo T/S lensmounts, the cost equals or exceeds the Arca with the same lenses.

* For me. I had used Arca view cameras or years and was very familiar with them, and the RM's movement controls are similarly employed. Only very rarely do I need tilt and shift together, and I preferred the Arca control layout and implementation over the Cambo. Other thing is Arca makes a small view camera called the M-Line 2. The RM lenses can be mounted directly to it via an adapter. Not sure I'll ever need it, but I like the option of using my existing lenses in their existing mounts on a view camera if ever needed.

* But I'll repeat that Arcas are in short supply and I waited several months to complete a three lens kit. With Cambo you can probably have everything in a few weeks. Arca has stepped production up, so this situation will hopefully change in the near future...

** A sidebar note regarding the Sinar ArTech. I have never demoed one, but it is another choice that allows tilt and swing. My issues with it were simply the permanently attached sliding back adds pretty significantly to overall size, and it is a feature I do not need with the focus confirmation technology in my particular back. However I mention it because I feel it is a valid choice for those wanting a tech cam with tilts, and the sliding back is a welcome feature if your back has no reliable focus confirmation options.

Hope that clarifies my opinions!
 

jlm

Workshop Member
small detail: I believe the arca tilts from the base, whereas the Cambo tilts on the lens centerline
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
small detail: I believe the arca tilts from the base, whereas the Cambo tilts on the lens centerline
John,

To clarify, the Arca tilts and swings are on the lens centerline too. The mechanism tilts the entire helical assembly through it's center. Swings are accomplished by rotating the helical standard 90 degrees in the frame, so swings are centerline as well.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
* Cambo: Has Swings and Tilts, and is more readily available than the Arca. However, tilt and swing are limited to lenses 35mm and LONGER, so not an option for the 23, 24 or 28, and someday I expect to own something in the 23 to 28 range. Cambo does NOT have a sliding back option for a convenient Ground Glass focus and sensor swap, so if you have a back without focus confirmation you need to do the remove GG and mount DB for every image, definitely less convenient.

Actually on my Cambo price guide they do have TS in both the SK 28 , Rodie 32,SK 35 as well. Than just about every lens up in Rodie or SK
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
To further clarify I am looking at Euro pricing and the difference between a TS and Non TS for the same lens is 900 to 1200 Euros depending on lens from what I can make of this. Certainly check with a dealer to get a more refined price.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Hmm, No love for the Sinar arTec??
What gives? I love mine, yeah they are over priced but if you can find a used one like I did, I think it's a very nice system and has tilt on the body not the lenses which makes things very simple to use or swing by rotating the front mount, very easy to do.
Personally I like having the option to use a ground glass for accurate composistion and focusing with a Rodenstock view finder, and if you use any of the Leaf rotating sensor backs, you have the best of both worlds. You never have to remove the DB for orientation change. Lens selection is good on the wide side, I which they offered something longer than a 135mm, yet overall I really enjoy the system.

Steven
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Dodd Camera
http://www.doddcamera.com/
Yes I admit Sinar in the USA is a challenge, but I purchased 2 lenses from Dodd and they gave me a pretty good deal on two lenses.
I paid about 7k total for both the Sinaron Digital 5.6/70 CEF and the Sinaron Digital 5.6/135 CEF about in line with Arca. I already had the Sinaron Digital HR 4.0/35 CEF which came with my arTec.
So they for sure can order arTecs. In the USA, everything Sinar comres from Bron Imaging.



Steven is there a dealer in the US that actually sells them.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
** A sidebar note regarding the Sinar ArTech. I have never demoed one, but it is another choice that allows tilt and swing. My issues with it were simply the permanently attached sliding back adds pretty significantly to overall size, and it is a feature I do not need with the focus confirmation technology in my particular back. However I mention it because I feel it is a valid choice for those wanting a tech cam with tilts, and the sliding back is a welcome feature if your back has no reliable focus confirmation options.

There is no doubt that the artec has a larger footprint than other choices. The larger size delivers a sliding back and as pointed above the ability to focus via glass before sliding the back over to make the shot. On a tripod the difference in size I would suggest is irrelevant.

What I like about the artec

It is beautifully engineered and provides all the movements one could ask for.
You can order the camera in V, HC, Phase, Sinar/Leaf afi/hy6 mounts and you can have the mount changed if you need to by sending it back
It comes with a selection of excellent accessories from Sinar for those who like hiot rodding their gear

What I dont like

It IS more expensive ( perhaps unecessarily so) but the CHF/US exchange rate is punishing
Sinar only mounts Rodenstock glass ( apparently they do ensure that the mounted examples of teh Rodenstock - rebadged as Sinar CFV are good examples ) - but you pay more
The camera was designed so that it isn't nodal point centered over the tripod mount - so you need to use two sliding brackets ( RRS) to achieve nodal point panorama shooting - I dont do this so no biggie for me

What may be frustrating about Sinar and the US buyer - and irrelevant for non US buyers Clearly judging from comments - their distribution system in the US hasn't done them any favours.

So it is hardly surprising that the forum(s) in the US dont have much to say about the artec or in fact Sinar in general - which is why non US photographers sometimes scratch their head when discussions like this about technical cameras make little or no mention about what is probably the best tripod mounted system out there.

After all if you can't test someting or try something and support is non existant or difficult...well it is for all intents and purposes a non existant 'choice'.

Finally - I dont understand the whole issue of 'checking focus' most backs I own or have use allow for zooming in after a shot to check ( for field use) - in fact I rarely use the glass to focus anyway as I am shooting at f11 with the 23mm and F8-F11 for the 70mm lenses on my artec and for landscape work most focussing distances are closer to infinity than not - tilt and aperture looks after th eplane of focus for teh typical near and far - another rock another tree type shot ( ARAT)

Pete
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Jack, Missed your ** asterisk. I agree once you have a sliding back it does add to the size, but for me I still find it quit compact and very well built. The slide works very well as does the integrated viewfinder. A real pleasure to work with.
Even though after reading yours and many other reviews of the new IQ back with the much improved display, just to name one of many enhancements, I hear it is still hard to see in sunlight yet I may be wrong, either way I do love the articulating screen on the Leaf Aptus II AFI back. To bad the whole AFI thing never really caught on.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
I would agree with everything Pete has to say about the arTec 100%
Since I am an amateur who does not make a dollar from photography, I just do it because I happen to love photography, technology, and can appreciate great quality when I see it.
Unfortunately most of the time I can't afford it but when I stumbled on to the arTec I purchased I felt it was a really good deal and a quality product I couldn't resist, had to sell all my gear to raise the funds, and so far I have no regrets, except maybe selling my M9. Oh well hopefully there will be another M9/M10 in the future for me. IMHO the Leica is hard to beat.
 
Top