Architecture/Interior Design - Tech or that camera!

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'm confused, it doesn't sound like you have begun to solve your shutter issue? Surely however incredible a tech camera system is, if you can't get your exposure then it's all academic?

 

[chrismuc]

The Contax 645 35f3.5 Distagon performs excellent as a 35mm shift lens and IMO better than any other lens in that focal range.

Enclosed a 10.000+ pixel pano and a corner crop at f11 on a 5D2 with full horizontal 16mm shift from the Mirex. You can not get such shift movement by any other lens and you won't get this corner sharpness either.

The second pair of pics shows the result of that lens at f11 on a Hartblei HCam with 80MP back with +/- 16mm shift (2-pic pano = 16.000+ pixel wide) and a crop of the right edge. You see that the image circle even allows some shift movement on a high resolution 54x40mm sensor and that the image has sufficient sharpness quite within the reach of the image circle. And the image stays quite free of color cast within the usable image circle.

Btw the linear distortion of the lens can be corrected very well using the Alpa lens corrector plugin for PS.

 

[fotografz]

I do not shoot much architectural work. However, I am friends with some long time pros that do high end work for pricey interior designers, and architectural firms. A few also teach at the Art School here.

Interesting bunch.

I've seen them work, mostly with tech cameras. I'll tell you, they are amazing to watch. I think they could set up and adjust these cameras with a blindfold on. As dedicated architectural shooters they can look at a scene and effortlessly set the camera to get what they creatively want ... Something Doug sort of hinted at in one of his posts above.

Many really know lighting, and when shooting daytime interiors use low ISOs and the leaf shutter high sync speed to balance out broad bright ambient window light without NDing the windows.

Funny how all the great Architectural photography got done before all these fab new tools were available. I guess they just knew what they were doing.

In fact, these current shooters I know make it look deceptively easy. Obviously it is because they know their tools inside-out ... proving once again, that there is no better tool to realize a vision than practice and experience.

Sorry, but it seems these days the question that most arises in so many fields of photography is "I want to do high-end, high-pay photography, shooting (fill in type of photography), but I want it to be immediate, effortless, and inexpensive".

You have a nice DB (love those big real estate, fat pixel backs!), rent a tech camera and W/A lens for a month with the option to buy, and ... practice until it is second nature. Invest the time, before investing the money.

-Marc

 

[MarkoRepse]

You have a nice DB (love those big real estate, fat pixel backs!), rent a tech camera and W/A lens for a month with the option to buy, and ... practice until it is second nature. Invest the time, before investing the money.

-Marc

This +1

I also don't shoot architecture. But still in my view the solution is obvious. You already have a DB. You love the RZ so will probably find tech cameras great. So unless you want one, why bother with DSLRs at all? Two systems to support and two systems to upgrade. You will be fighting with limitations in either way. Go with the option that will make you happy, as happy will make good pictures and not some technical advantage that might be useful once a year.

 

[gazwas]

Funny how all the great Architectural photography got done before all these fab new tools were available. I guess they just knew what they were doing.

Marc, I don't think you are addressing the question. Of course we can all get to know our tools much better but the question is should the OP invest in system A or B and why, what are the pitfall of each.

Referencing the days of film is of no significance because in all the years we shot film, not once did I walk about clicking here there and everywhere on a job thinking I knew my kit inside out, we shot polaroids. Polaroids are just like checking the screen on a digital back today. IMO in some ways film was easier to deal with than digital as it had more DR and highlight retention was much, much better.

Not to shatter the illusion but when shooting interiors with a tech camera, unless it is something out of the ordinary, camera set up wise is mostly always the same. You set up most of your shots with a focus point you know will give the desired depth of focus and it stays set for the whole shoot - no need to change it. You dial in the amount of rise/fall for the look you're after and leave it set or it will be very similar for every shot. You pick a time of the day where the light is at its most constant brightness and you set your exposure for the window or internal fixed lighting and that stays the same for the rest of the shoot. The only thing that does change IMO is the artificial lighting you bring. You position your tungsten, strobes, Kinoflo's or LED panels etc to light the area as required for each shot.

The camera setup side of it is easy IMO, its just if you can get the shots better with A or B camera system and that might be down yo you having to test each.

 

[gazwas]

You already have a DB. You love the RZ so will probably find tech cameras great. So unless you want one, why bother with DSLRs at all?

Because if the OP shoots without lighting, wants a SK35XL for big movements he will need a centre filter. Centre filter adds 3 stops ND to each capture and if to avoid field curvature (a must for architecture) of the Schneider wides that means shooting at f11-f16. Long exposures need to be shot at base ISO, f16 at ISO50 with a 3 stop centre filter and you might as well use the iPhone.....

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The work is really in the lighting. I did 3 high end houses with a Mamiiya AFD and a Mamiya 28mm on a P25 . There stunning but I used lighting and you have to make the camera level and move it vertically to get the composition you want. The tech cam solves that with rise and fall. One shot had 20 foot ceiling guess where the camera height was about 8ft. I have them here see if I can find it. Here all with a P25+ back a AFD III body and a mamiya 28mm lens. All at different camera heights to stay level with the scene. I wish I had the tech cam as it is so much easier to use rise and fall. Plus if you want to be higher or lower and recompose rise and fall is the answer. Here I am cheating as maybe the first shot I did not want to be as high on it but the only way to do that with a fixed lens is actually raise the cam. All these shots have lighting gear in them . Probably 5 lights total

 

[gerald.d]

Chris - can you provide a bit more detail on the Contax 35? I'm a bit confused by the image that appears to show an image circle that doesn't cover the sensor.

Reason for asking is that I'm looking for a shift lens at that focal length for my HCam and IQ180.

Thanks,

Gerald.

 

[torger]

Thank you for this comprehensive information As far as I know, max shift on Canon 24mm lens is 12mm but max movement on Digital 35XL is 20mm on 36x48 sensor! So you mean the usable movements without introducing severe vignetting and corner softness would be around 15mm or even less?

The Digitar 35 XL on 22 megapixel 36x48mm vs Canon TS-E 24mm on 24x36mm 21 megapixel would indeed be an interesting test. I cannot say which one which would win the corner sharpness test. My guess is that the Schneider will win for small shifts but that the Canon may win for large.

This thread may be of interest to you:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/mediu...36800-schneider-35-xl-corner-performance.html

The problem is that Schneider is less than conservative concerning image circles, so you see a clear sharpness falloff within the claimed circle. If you are a really picky user you'd probably find that you don't want to shift more than ~10mm on the 35XL, which corresponds to ~7 mm on the 135 format. 22 megapixel will be more forgiving though, especially if stepping up to f/16. And as always, people's expectations differ, what one person may consider perfectly okay corners may disappoint someone else (that maybe expected that corners would be indistinguishable from the center as often seen in longer lenses), therefore you can hear many different things about the 35XL.

One thing to note is that the Schneider has 0 distortion, which you can't have with retrofocus designs like the Canon (or indeed Rodenstocks). I think that has some value, although you of course can digitally correct these days.

I don't think vignetting will be a problem with a center filter attached, but rather corner softness. For the low pixel count backs the color casts are relatively mild, but many of the modern backs require retrofocus designs to be able to shift any reasonable amount (I think that trend is unfortunate).

With pancake camera I mean Alpa, Arca-Swiss RM3Di the Cambos, that is flat cameras with helicon focus that you can set at a specific distance rather than having to focus on the ground glass (as I do with my Linhof Techno which is a view camera). To really make use of that you should use a laser distance meter like a Leica Disto D5 and have high precision focusing rings so you can set exact distance. This is very useful when you need to focus on something flat like a wall. A view camera indoor with wide angles is a bit tough to focus, but some of us manage anyway . Some pancake camera lenses do not have those tightly spaced high precision markings on the focusing rings and then you don't get to enjoy the focus placement precision, which I think is the major feature of that camera type.

In normal daylight you will have sub-second exposures at f/16 with the 35XL. Say if we compare the ISO25(?) DM22 at f/16 with 35XL centerfilter to a ISO100 5DMk2 f/11 TS-E24, I would guess we have about 4-5 stop difference. So when it comes to lower light situations there may be a significant issue. When the DM22 is up at 32 seconds the Canon makes the same exposure in 1-2 seconds.

I have not actually been able to test the 35XL myself, just looked at a whole lot of user opinions and some test pictures. For my Aptus 75 I consider it to be "good enough" and it is on my "to buy"-list, but I will limit shifts to ~10mm which is alright for my shooting style anyway. If I was to use it for indoor shooting with a ISO25 back I would be a bit worried about maybe needing to shift more than 10mm quite often and having trouble with hitting the 30 second limit. So if you have the ability to test before buy certainly do. At the very least you should look at some test images.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The 35 XL is a excellent lens and I found very sharp to the corners , it works especially well with the older backs like the 9 micron and 7.8 micron backs. I have had a lot of success with it even on my IQ 160 and IQ 140. Maybe the tech cam bargain lens in wide angle. I sold it when I got like the 28mm Rodie but at the time i wish I still had it. I recommend the center filter for it just to even things out nicely to make it easier for correction.

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

Many really know lighting, and when shooting daytime interiors use low ISOs and the leaf shutter high sync speed to balance out broad bright ambient window light without NDing the windows.

Marc, thanks for sharing your opinion As far as I know, using strobes to illuminate interiors are not very common here in Australia when shooting architecture or interiors where the emphasize is on the work of the interior designer or architecture including all artificial lighting used in the building! Although I think if one use strobes for interiors, some clients may not disagree! Not sure though!!!

You have a nice DB (love those big real estate, fat pixel backs!), rent a tech camera and W/A lens for a month with the option to buy, and ... practice until it is second nature. Invest the time, before investing the money.

-Marc

I love my back for portrait work specially when I used it with strobes! However, I need to find out how practical it is to shoot at base ISO25 with max 30s exposure if I don't want to use strobe for interiors or shoot exteriors at dusk!

This +1
I also don't shoot architecture. But still in my view the solution is obvious. You already have a DB. You love the RZ so will probably find tech cameras great. So unless you want one, why bother with DSLRs at all? Two systems to support and two systems to upgrade. You will be fighting with limitations in either way. Go with the option that will make you happy, as happy will make good pictures and not some technical advantage that might be useful once a year.

Thank you so much Marko for giving me your opinion as well Yes, I love the RZ and honestly like to work on old school cameras for the fact that it makes me happy! However, I have to confess that shooting RZ with a digital back is not as enjoyable as film! The main beauty of such camera is that big viewfinder and the sense of making your photo on something special! Since I have put the crop mask on the RZ, it gives me a different feeling and when I get rid of it to shoot film, I smile

Because if the OP shoots without lighting, wants a SK35XL for big movements he will need a centre filter. Centre filter adds 3 stops ND to each capture and if to avoid field curvature (a must for architecture) of the Schneider wides that means shooting at f11-f16. Long exposures need to be shot at base ISO, f16 at ISO50 with a 3 stop centre filter and you might as well use the iPhone.....

+++++++
You couldn't have said it better! That's one of my big difficulties!

Guys, I think it would be better to share some images with you so that you get a better idea of the look I am after! Here are some images by an Australian architecture photographer, Shannon McGrath. She shoots with Canon 1Ds MK III and the latest Canon tilt shift lenses!

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

The Digitar 35 XL on 22 megapixel 36x48mm vs Canon TS-E 24mm on 24x36mm 21 megapixel would indeed be an interesting test. I cannot say which one which would win the corner sharpness test. My guess is that the Schneider will win for small shifts but that the Canon may win for large.

This thread may be of interest to you:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/mediu...36800-schneider-35-xl-corner-performance.html

The problem is that Schneider is less than conservative concerning image circles, so you see a clear sharpness falloff within the claimed circle. If you are a really picky user you'd probably find that you don't want to shift more than ~10mm on the 35XL, which corresponds to ~7 mm on the 135 format. 22 megapixel will be more forgiving though, especially if stepping up to f/16. And as always, people's expectations differ, what one person may consider perfectly okay corners may disappoint someone else (that maybe expected that corners would be indistinguishable from the center as often seen in longer lenses), therefore you can hear many different things about the 35XL.

One thing to note is that the Schneider has 0 distortion, which you can't have with retrofocus designs like the Canon (or indeed Rodenstocks). I think that has some value, although you of course can digitally correct these days.

I don't think vignetting will be a problem with a center filter attached, but rather corner softness. For the low pixel count backs the color casts are relatively mild, but many of the modern backs require retrofocus designs to be able to shift any reasonable amount (I think that trend is unfortunate).

With pancake camera I mean Alpa, Arca-Swiss RM3Di the Cambos, that is flat cameras with helicon focus that you can set at a specific distance rather than having to focus on the ground glass (as I do with my Linhof Techno which is a view camera). To really make use of that you should use a laser distance meter like a Leica Disto D5 and have high precision focusing rings so you can set exact distance. This is very useful when you need to focus on something flat like a wall. A view camera indoor with wide angles is a bit tough to focus, but some of us manage anyway . Some pancake camera lenses do not have those tightly spaced high precision markings on the focusing rings and then you don't get to enjoy the focus placement precision, which I think is the major feature of that camera type.

In normal daylight you will have sub-second exposures at f/16 with the 35XL. Say if we compare the ISO25(?) DM22 at f/16 with 35XL centerfilter to a ISO100 5DMk2 f/11 TS-E24, I would guess we have about 4-5 stop difference. So when it comes to lower light situations there may be a significant issue. When the DM22 is up at 32 seconds the Canon makes the same exposure in 1-2 seconds.

I have not actually been able to test the 35XL myself, just looked at a whole lot of user opinions and some test pictures. For my Aptus 75 I consider it to be "good enough" and it is on my "to buy"-list, but I will limit shifts to ~10mm which is alright for my shooting style anyway. If I was to use it for indoor shooting with a ISO25 back I would be a bit worried about maybe needing to shift more than 10mm quite often and having trouble with hitting the 30 second limit. So if you have the ability to test before buy certainly do. At the very least you should look at some test images.

Wow, thanks for all this valuable information! Really helped me to understand some technical points! An eye opener!

I would love to have the chance to test it for some days however, I believe I have to pay like $300 per day to hire the setup although my local dealer be generous enough to let me try it for few days!!!

Maybe the tech cam bargain lens in wide angle.

Guy, my local dealer has a second hand 35XL and that made me think about tech cam route although I know it would be the beginning of the disaster lol

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW you can use the Alpa HPF on any Cambo lens that Alpa sells except on the T/S lenses since there is not enough room because of the mount. Our dear friend here on the forums John Milich (spelling Guy) has been known to customize these rings on the T/S lenses though and it's pretty cool.

 

[dougpeterson]

I really don't understand any disappointment with the 35XL. It is a truly fantastic lens.

Yes the image circle is a few mm optimistic (all schneiders are).

But no distortion, very very low CA, great sharpness, small, and light.

Also to say that you see CA with a 47XL... Either your lens is whacked out of alignment or you are VERY picky. Compared to any SLR lens I've ever used a 47XL has *nearly* no CA. Yes I suppose it's not technically "zero" but only in the sense that no lens has "zero" CA. It is a very clean, very sharp image.

These lenses look great with backs many times the resolution of the OP's back; at 22mp they are running with the wind at their backs.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think the one factor here is you have the back already so this does keep you within a good spending budget. A tech cam and a 35 XL is about 5 k and your in the door. You could also cheat like I did above grab a DF body and a Mamiya 28 no movements though but it's workable again maybe 6 or 7 k. Problem with Canon right now is no 35 mpx body which will probably change. But again to get in a setup around the same money , so yes it's a tough call. Myself I would make use of the back I had on hand. That's me though.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I really don't understand any disappointment with the 35XL. It is a truly fantastic lens.

Yes the image circle is a few mm optimistic (all schneiders are).

But no distortion, very very low CA, great sharpness, small, and light.

Also to say that you see CA with a 47XL... Either your lens is whacked out of alignment or you are VERY picky. Compared to any SLR lens I've ever used a 47XL has *nearly* no CA. Yes I suppose it's not technically "zero" but only in the sense that no lens has "zero" CA. It is a very clean, very sharp image.

These lenses look great with backs many times the resolution of the OP's back; at 22mp they are running with the wind at their backs.

I agree . Damn lens is really sharp

 

[MaxKißler]

... Thank you so much Marko for giving me your opinion as well Yes, I love the RZ and honestly like to work on old school cameras for the fact that it makes me happy! However, I have to confess that shooting RZ with a digital back is not as enjoyable as film! The main beauty of such camera is that big viewfinder and the sense of making your photo on something special! Since I have put the crop mask on the RZ, it gives me a different feeling and when I get rid of it to shoot film, I smile ...

Hey Aryan, don't mean to hijack your thread but it was Marko who suggested to use a cheap Kaiser 4x loupe on the RZ67 as a finder. I modified mine and it works great! You'll love using your RZ digitally with this. It doesn't necessarily have to look as bad as mine if you use black or navyblue tape. Unfortunately I didn't have some at that moment... :facesmack:

Do you still have your 645 gear? I'd suggest you get the 50mm Shift. You could do two or four shots stitched, depending on how large your FOV should be and see whether that works for you. You'd gain large files from your DB, focussing wouldn't be an issue aswell and you can still get a tech cam later.

Regards

 

[torger]

To show an example of what I mean with visible CA on the 47XL:

this is 100% crop midframe on a 22 megapixel (9 um) back (it's a foggy scene if you wonder why the contrast is low ). You can see the pole is a bit red on the right side and blue on the left. Quite easily corrected by the raw converter, but CA correction often kills a bit color in small details so I prefer not using it (I can do local corrections for fine art prints).

I e not a huge amount, so you may call me overly picky , but if someone claims zero CA then I expect it to be invisible even at 100% check on screen without digital lens corrections. I'd expect the more modern and more expensive 43XL perform better.

I'm very pleased with my 47 though, while it has some CA it does not degenerate quickly, my point is that one should not expect perfect from these lenses.

Here is a 100% crop from the same lens shift 20mm, i e right at the edge of the 90mm image circle (well they do claim 113mm on the 47...)

Interestingly enough not any more CA there, looks like even less, but there is some clear sharpness loss (I admit that the object in the picture is not ideal to evaluate sharpness though, easier to see the difference when one has the whole picture). This is for a 33 megapixel back though, 7.2um pixels. To my knowledge the 47XL handles large shifts considerably better than the 35XL, and it should as it claims 113mm IC while the 35 claims 90mm.

 

[dougpeterson]

Well, I'll easily agree with you cannot expect perfect from any lens.

The Phase 150D and the Schneider 60XL are as close as I'd say I've come to seeing perfection in a lens, but even these are not "perfect" - just as good as money can buy.

 

[MGrayson]

My only disappointment with the 35XL is that it requires a center filter if you want more than a little movement, and that makes the whole setup a few stops slower. With its image circle, you get the coverage of a 21mm lens on a FF Canon or Nikon. And you get all the crispness of a Zeiss 21 with none of the distortion.

Unbeatable for the price.

--Matt