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!

Best format for architecture

J

Justalex

Guest
Hi all. Long time viewer first time poster.

I've been shooting interiors with a H3DII 22 for the last 5 years. It has performed well with the right balance of speed and IQ.

I'm now shooting more architecture and looking for something wider than the blad 28mm with movements.

I've tried the Cambo with 28mm super digitar on a P45+. Incredible quality but much slower than the blad or 35mm. LCCs are also a pain as well as the increased noise at the edge of frame

I've also played with the Canon and TSE lens. 17mm TSE is wider than the 28mm super digitar and doesn't require LCCs. Very user friendly but with too much CA and not sharp enough.

MF dslr - user friendly but not wide enough
35mm dslr - very wide and user friendly but not sharp enough
Tech camera - incredible IQ but too slow and surprisingly not as wide as Canons 17mm TSE.

Anyone have a solution?
 
Is it for business or hobby?

I know personally one of the local photographer Steve Whittake. He is one of the Director of ASMP.

In film days, he was using 4x5, and now he is using Canon 1Ds MK III and 3 TS lenses.

According to him, MFDB gives better IQ, but his clients are not willing to pay extra for better IQ. Usage of his photographs are for magazines, corporate brochures and 24x30 prints.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
And the wonderful thing about Canon's TS lenses is the independent axes... I really disliked the Nikon approach to this.

If I were in this market these days, I'd be using whichever Canon body gave you the best Live View interface; IMHO, only Live View at 100% gives you the focussing accuracy you need for getting tilt right. I used Nikon's 24 TS with the axes aligned for my interior work, on a D3 and/or D700, as well as the 14–24/2.8. Clients liked the results (and like the reference to Steve W., above) my work only appeared in architect's portfolios, web site, and brochures, and the results held up well. I would think one of the latest Canon bodies plus their TS lenses would be an excellent start.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Is it for business or hobby?

I know personally one of the local photographer Steve Whittake. He is one of the Director of ASMP.

In film days, he was using 4x5, and now he is using Canon 1Ds MK III and 3 TS lenses.

According to him, MFDB gives better IQ, but his clients are not willing to pay extra for better IQ. Usage of his photographs are for magazines, corporate brochures and 24x30 prints.

Sorry thats a cop out. Its not always about what the client is willing to pay for but about you as the shooter want to give your client that makes you more valuable than anyone else to that client.

Sorry that really is not a good approach. You don't want to shoot it or invest in it than that is fine but I don't buy the client is not willing to pay for it, mine don't either. I have clients for over 20 years. Its about providing the absolute best you can provide , time , talent and image above all else. This is about me and what I want to deliver.
 
Sorry thats a cop out. Its not always about what the client is willing to pay for but about you as the shooter want to give your client that makes you more valuable than anyone else to that client.

Sorry that really is not a good approach. You don't want to shoot it or invest in it than that is fine but I don't buy the client is not willing to pay for it, mine don't either. I have clients for over 20 years. Its about providing the absolute best you can provide , time , talent and image above all else. This is about me and what I want to deliver.
LOL! Sure, then go for IQ180! Why did you go back to IQ140?
 
S

ssanacore

Guest
I've been shooting architecture for many years as a profession and usually shoot with a Canon 1Ds Mk3 or 5dMk 2 with the new Canon 17mm and 24mm shift lenses. I have found those lenses to be superb. My 17mm TSE is on par with my Leica 19 at some f-stops.

I have also used a P65 Cambo MF tech camera on come jobs and found it very simple with outstanding quality. I almost always shoot tethered when shooting architecture, so I found the Phase-cambo tech camera just as quick as my Canon to set up and shoot. LCC's were a bit of pain until it became a habit.

Maybe you have a defective 17mm TSE? But nothing beats a MF tech camera for quality that I have seen.
 
S

ssanacore

Guest
Sorry thats a cop out. Its not always about what the client is willing to pay for but about you as the shooter want to give your client that makes you more valuable than anyone else to that client.

Sorry that really is not a good approach. You don't want to shoot it or invest in it than that is fine but I don't buy the client is not willing to pay for it, mine don't either. I have clients for over 20 years. Its about providing the absolute best you can provide , time , talent and image above all else. This is about me and what I want to deliver.
LOL! Sure, then go for IQ180! Why did you go back to IQ140?
I agree 100% with you Guy. I was thinking the same thing when I read that. If we would only use what some clients were willing to pay for, we would probably eventually be using our iPhones :)

I base my gear on what provides the best solution for the shoot and what I can be proud of, not who pays for what.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
LOL! Sure, then go for IQ180! Why did you go back to IQ140?
Sorry that is a terrible come back response. I won't diginify that with a answer either. I already answered this and not going to repeat myself. But I will say this. You bought a 160 but seem to hate being a owner. Sell it if it is not what you want. I really don't understand why people just keep knocking down the format. It's a tool if it don't work for you you get another tool. I never bitch about gear. If it don't work for me I sell it or if I need something more important I'll sell one for the other. I got ice in my veins on this. Buy what works forget what don't.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
BTW I only say this as a logical comment and not meant to be snide in anyway. I buy by deductive logic if it makes sense to my needs I buy if it dont I'll find something else that does.
 
Guy, it is nothing to do with the format or my IQ160.

In my post, my first line was "Is it for business or hobby?"

My second point was Steve Whittak also admitted that MFDB gives better IQ for architecture photography. However it didn't make business sense for him to invest him into MFDB. That was his personal business decision. He didn't ask me to write it here, but I thought I will just share it here.

Now you have started giving advice whether that is good approach or bad approach, which was not required, though I understand you are entitled for your opinion. You could have simply say what you do, period!

Steve Whittak is also very well respected in the business community, client like Boeing under his belt, organizing photographer to fight for copyright acts in the Congress and teaches aspiring photographers how to do business. His suggestions can't be ignored as well.

Thanks,

Subrata
 
Last edited by a moderator:

danlindberg

Well-known member
Tech camera - incredible IQ but too slow and surprisingly not as wide as Canons 17mm TSE.

Anyone have a solution?
True that it is a slower workprocess, but the results are worth the effort. When I need wider than a straight shot with the 28 super-digitar, I make a two image vertical flatstitch - 14mm left & right to produce a veeery wide interior with a standard aspect ratio. Since I work with the small 22mp Aptus ii 5, there is little to no issues with colourcasts even with this much shift.

To me everything boils down to final IQ, if that means slow working - so be it.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm totally fine with the business or personal decision to buy or not. I do the same but to word it like my clients won't pay for it like you did is simply a cop out statement. Buying 3 d4 Profoto systems is not a good business decision for me as well, those comments I totally respect it's ones where it's a cop out comment that gets on my neves and is just wrong to have that attitude. This is not about clients always but it is about you as the photographer and how or what you want to give your clients and what tool you think maybe best for that client. Not that they can't pay for it and I'm sure Steve given what I just said would agree. We all have to make the best dollar for dollar ROI on our investments as Pros and I get that totally but weather a client pays for it or not is just bad thinking. End of day we are our own clients and I do this for me first and foremost.


To best answer the question at hand a tech cam would be my first choice and a very good reason I have one myself. It is what I would want to shoot. Regardless of anything else to me it is the best tool for the job.
 
I'm totally fine with the business or personal decision to buy or not. I do the same but to word it like my clients won't pay for it like you did is simply a cop out statement. Buying 3 d4 Profoto systems is not a good business decision for me as well, those comments I totally respect it's ones where it's a cop out comment that gets on my neves and is just wrong to have that attitude. This is not about clients always but it is about you as the photographer and how or what you want to give your clients and what tool you think maybe best for that client. Not that they can't pay for it and I'm sure Steve given what I just said would agree. We all have to make the best dollar for dollar ROI on our investments as Pros and I get that totally but weather a client pays for it or not is just bad thinking. End of day we are our own clients and I do this for me first and foremost.

To best answer the question at hand a tech cam would be my first choice and a very good reason I have one myself. It is what I would want to shoot. Regardless of anything else to me it is the best tool for the job.
I'm sure Pros can decide what is best for their "business", and not for their personal pleasure only. Also many time artistic quality overwrites technical quality.

In Landscape photography, I admire two contemporary photographers:

Charles Crammer who uses IQ180 & Phase One DF (no technical camera).

Michael Frye uses Canon 1Ds MK II (unless he has upgraded it since I met him last), and just two lenses, probably 17-40 L & 70-200 L.

They both sell their prints through Ansel Adam Gallery. People buy their prints because not what camera they use, but for their artistic vision.

Similarly for a Wedding Photographer / Portrait Photographer, it will not make much sense to invest in MFDB if their client is buying only 8"x10" and not large wall portraits.

I truly believe that clients deserves the quality that they are willing to pay for. I'm also aware of how corporate America is taking advantages of individual photographers. Photographers need not to do the charity to help the camera manufacturers.

When you are buying for business, you need to be rational, and pay attentions to your revenue, expense and profit, as your living depends on that. Just what you personally do is not necessarily be the best business practice. When you buy for pure personal pleasure, it's a different game.

This has nothing to do with whether I love or hate my IQ160.

How to run the business being taught in PPA & ASMP. Let's continue to discuss in GetDPI what's technically best.

I'm glad finally we are close with little disagreement.
 
Last edited:

malmac

Member
What about Iq180 on a Hart Blui camera using a TSE17mm lens -

Hartblei Home

High image quality
Extremely wide field of view
Tilt / shift movements
No need for LCC

Looks like it is ticking a fair few of the boxes.

mal

I dont own one but sure have thought of buying one of these camera bodies to run with my IQ180.

Mal
 

downstairs

New member
An EBONY SW45, It's compact and set square, which saves a lot of time.
I use a A SUPER-SYMMAR XL 110 most of the time.
Otherwise,
A 60mm Macro Nikkor on a Nikon (yes, yes), a professional stitching program, and a lightweight QT head. The longer lens give you as much detail as LF. You can sort the perspective out in the stitch. Example here.
 

AndyPtak

Member
I've been shooting hotels and resorts for almost 30 years, first with film and Nikon and then with a full frame digital Sony a900 and Zeiss glass.

Nobody complained about image quality and the fact that I had to correct perspective in post was never even mentioned. Everyone was happy, except me. Now I shoot with a Fuji GX680III and a Cambo RS, both with a P45+ back, using the Sony occasionally.

Now I'm happy and I don't get paid a penny more, but that was never the point. I knew I could do better and so I did.
 

dick

New member
Sorry thats a cop out. Its not always about what the client is willing to pay for but about you as the shooter want to give your client that makes you more valuable than anyone else to that client.

Sorry that really is not a good approach. You don't want to shoot it or invest in it than that is fine but I don't buy the client is not willing to pay for it, mine don't either. I have clients for over 20 years. Its about providing the absolute best you can provide , time , talent and image above all else. This is about me and what I want to deliver.
There are many good photographers here, professional and amateur, but elsewhere I often think that amateurs work up to a standard, and pros work down to a price... or use whatever kit and technique will quickly and cost-effectively get the job done.

My theory about coming out of retirement doing Medium Format Digital View camera photography is that to make any headway I will need to take pictures that could not be taken with a DSLR or point-and-shoot, and/or produce pictures that will look good printed big.
 

downstairs

New member
There are many good photographers here, professional and amateur, but elsewhere I often think that amateurs work up to a standard, and pros work down to a price... or use whatever kit and technique will quickly and cost-effectively get the job done.

My theory about coming out of retirement doing Medium Format Digital View camera photography is that to make any headway I will need to take pictures that could not be taken with a DSLR or point-and-shoot, and/or produce pictures that will look good printed big.
I'm on my way into retirement after many years of large format practice. My theory is that if it doesn't look good on DSLR, i won't look any better on 8x10. Both formats need structure, light and the hint of an idea but many of the tangible assets of large format can be mendaciously simulated with a DSLR.
Shooting large format leaves you with the knowledge that you have done the right thing by working within the limitations of the historical medium. It's an intangible asset, but it sells.
 
Top