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!

Arca Rm3di

David Klepacki

New member
Since you are calculating lens tilt angle and focus distance based on the reference plane (horizontal ground or table top, for example), why do you need the user input of Near and Far Object distances? The lens tilt angle with a reference plane can be calculated with two variables; the hinge point distance (camera height in your case, either from the ground or from the table top) and the lens focal length. And also, the focus distance can be calculated with two variables; the lens tilt angle and the hinge point distance.
The reference plane need not always be the ground. In fact, the distance from the lens to the hinge line (J) is often below ground level. The problem is that this distance, J, is an unknown variable that is basically determined by the desired DOF that the photographer wishes to have. In other words, you do not know J without first knowing where you want your DOF to be located (by DOF, I mean relative to the sharp plane of focus, which is tilted in this case). If you choose to guess at J, then you are also guessing at where your DOF will be too (i.e., from the equations you show, how else would you know exactly what J should be without knowing your tilt angle?). Since I am not interested in guessing, I simply take J out of the equation and use what the photographer wants, namely DOF and its location.
 

torger

Active member
Oh well... don't you think pancake camera users, as buyers of quite expensive gear, have done their homework and selected the equipment that suits their needs best too?
Sure. My intention is not to question any person's choices, but rather present my thinking to give those that have not made their choice yet something to think about. It might result in some slight "gear bashing" :), but that's not the same as questioning the people that has chosen to use it. A photographer is not the gear he/she is using.

The Techno is one of the most bashed systems out there by the way, just by being a view camera attempting digital, and what I do here is to present the reasons why a digital view camera indeed can work for a photographer, assuming certain conditions and values which I have described. There's a lot of FUD coming from the pancake camera camp concerning various aspects of precision which disqualifies view camera use, and I'm just trying to balance it out a bit ;)
 

JGR

New member
Might as well design a new camera from scratch, we clearly know better than the current crop of manufactures, when I say we, I mean you lot ofc ;-)
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Sure. My intention is not to question any person's choices, but rather present my thinking to give those that have not made their choice yet something to think about. It might result in some slight "gear bashing" :), but that's not the same as questioning the people that has chosen to use it. A photographer is not the gear he/she is using.

The Techno is one of the most bashed systems out there by the way, just by being a view camera attempting digital, and what I do here is to present the reasons why a digital view camera indeed can work for a photographer, assuming certain conditions and values which I have described. There's a lot of FUD coming from the pancake camera camp concerning various aspects of precision which disqualifies view camera use, and I'm just trying to balance it out a bit ;)
Anders has put himself out on a limb here, but its not without good reason. There are two main approaches to use of digital and movements - the pancake camera and the view camera. The pancakes have their virtues, but they also have their limitations, as do new ranges of view cameras, now smaller and more precise for use with digital backs.

The differences between these two camera types are well understood, but not often discussed: the users are quite different. If you need major movements, a view camera setup is better. If you need some movements, but want a more rigid and defined setup, then the pancakes are a better choice.

Into this fray enters the Techno, something in-between. Not without its own issues, it is not something that takes the best of both worlds and results in a magical solution that does everything better. Rather, it assumes the use patterns of the view camera world, with some limits imposed based on Linhof's understanding of how the camera will be typically used. If you like to use view cameras, its a pretty simple transition to using a Techno. Its a digitally-oriented, small field camera, made in low volume, and simple to use. While some pancakes can be configured to provide more extensive movements, the basic Techno generally has more movements overall, although not as much as a full view camera.

It is part of a well-established Linhof tradition of tailoring solutions to a particular type of user, something Linhof has done for years with some of their less-well known cameras. They have a willingness to make small production runs, and the ergonomics of the Techno are fairly straightforward and well-considered. Their cameras (lest anyone forget) have been around for many years - these are not amateurs, but rather seasoned folks who know a bit about how to make cameras and their use.

As a "tweener", the Techno raises a very important question about how much precision is needed for digital work. Its rigid enough to provide the necessary parallelism, so this question is more limited to focusing. Some may question the use of conventional lens boards and whether the lenses are sufficiently well located, but for the moment, lets put that aside and just address the focusing issue.

Anders point is that the "precision argument" may be useful and required for some uses, but not necessarily for all. For example, shooting landscapes at f11 provides enough focal range and does not require a precise focus point to be identified. He also suggests that focusing on the GG is possible with higher magnification lupes, and as a final resort, field use of 100% review.

In general, he has been advocating use of digitally-based view cameras for creative work, and the goal of "good enough" instead of "absolute". This should be understood in the way in which it is offered - not as a compromise or diminution of standards, but rather as a plea for a more measured response. Surely we all recognize there are times when the pursuit of the image is more important than the exact focus point. In this era of pixel peeping and super-precision, I find myself in agreement with him. As a Techno owner, I find the camera encourages trying different things - and that is something to be cherished.
 

f8orbust

Active member
The Techno is one of the most bashed systems out there by the way...
I've often wondered why this is - it seems completely unwarranted IMO. Sadly, the digital aspect of Linhof's business is hardly represented on any forum - in North America, Arca, Alpa and Cambo dominate, in terms of owners who post here and dealers who sell these brands, and heavily defend, support and promote them. Thus, when someone starts slinging mud, there's no one (such as Bob Salomon on APUG) to respond - and so myth inevitably flirts with fact. I suspect that most of those that do criticise compact view cameras have never used one - they just don't like the concept and need constant reassurance what they own is 'the best / most precise / most advanced' for some odd reason. Or maybe they have, but with a technique more suited to a large format camera (e.g. 4x loupe), and so they failed to grasp the required methodology. There are plenty of great photographers out there using the Techno, and just as many happily working away with the Arca Swiss ML-2 (a similar concept to the Techno) … with little negative to say. It's just a shame they don't post on forums such as this and so help to counter the unwarranted negativity that seems to exist in the minds of a few. Is the Techno or the ML-2 the 'easiest' cameras to work with straight out of the box - probably not, especially if what you look forward to is measuring distance with a disto, looking it up on a little chart and setting it on a lens - but the truth is there are many situations you encounter that will not be solved by an iphone app or a look-up table. What happens if your iphone breaks, disto batteries run flat or you lose the table of distances? You will need skill and experience to get the most out of the Techno (as with any camera come to that), but if you are prepared to put in the time and effort, you will be rewarded - superb results without the clutter of iphones, tables of distances, disto's, sonic or optical eClouds, rangefinders etc. I sincerely believe that the fewer gadgets between you and the subject of your photograph, particularly in landscape photography which naturally requires a degree of contemplation and reflection, the fewer distractions there will be to thinking about what you are doing in artistic terms, which almost invariably results in a stronger image.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
A brief apology to those who wonder how we got from an Arca Swiss thread to a discussion of the Techno. Both are fine pieces of gear - just very different in how they get you from here to there.
 

Jae_Moon

Member
This discussion is very interesting, I looked to see if I could change the title to reflect the points being discussed but couldn't find a way.

The current Tech Camera users and 'soon to be' need many more detailed technical discussion concerning the use of camera, away from 'brand' based discussion. Focusing is a Tech Camera issue not ALPA's or Linhof's, Tilting properly is a Tech Camera issue not A-S's or Cambo's.

I posted my penny's worth of opinion to share the challenges I faced and the solutions I found so it could be an input to anyone who are considering to buy one, not to promote or to bash any specific camera. There are enough members who have financial interest to promote one gear over other, which is perfectly OK as long as it is done in open. Doug Peterson and Steve Hendrix are fine examples and I really appreciate their posts.

I have/had Hasselblad 500, H2, Leica M6, Canon 1Ds, Canon 5D2, A-S F-Metric Compact 6x9, and Rm3di. In my case, I sold 1Ds to get into MFDB and got myself H2, H2 with P45 was a mistake just because it was too heavy to carry around with few lenses, Leica M6 was past its time since I decided to go digital, A-S F-Metric 6x9 was a mistake just because it was beyond my patience to work for me even with my built-in Asian Calmness :D. Rm3di worked ok from the beginning but took a while until I develop the programs for me to feel good about my workflow and the results. Rm3di is not a perfect camera by any measure, and I listed 4 of my main complaints in previous post.

Many will make great images with the cameras I considered mistakes and others will not be happy with a Rm3di. Torger (Ander?) is happy with his Techno since he knows how to use it and it met his expectation, I am happy with Rm3di for the same reasons, I have tools to use it properly and it met my expectation.

The cliché of 'Ansel didn't do this, Weston wouldn't do that' doesn't do anyone any good, first of all, we don't know what they will do if they were here now; second, we are not Ansel or Weston, they didn't but we need any help we can get; and third, we all are in the pursuit of the image whether we talk about focusing, dynamic range, diffraction, etc. in this or other threads.

Would anyone mind if I start a new thread, titled 'Talking Technical on Tech Camera' ?

Jae M
 
Last edited:

f8orbust

Active member
The cliché of 'Ansel didn't do this, Weston wouldn't do that' doesn't do anyone any good...
It doesn't necessarily do anyone any harm either - "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it" (Ansel Adams)
 
The software part is a smartphone app (iphone/ipod or Android device) that calculates optimal tilt angle and focus setting for a desired distance or DOF. A sample screen shot is attached below (btw, minus one is used to represent infinity distance).

If enough people are seriously interested, we can make it available commercially.
david, is the software already available commercially?
would like to purchase it... :toocool:

btw - will it calculate the focus distance you have to dial in on the helical?
 

David Klepacki

New member
david, is the software already available commercially?
would like to purchase it... :toocool:

btw - will it calculate the focus distance you have to dial in on the helical?
It will be available in the app store soon for iphone/ipod.

Yes, it calculates the focus distance, showing both the number and color band to dial in. It is designed to be both fast as well as accurate to use in the field.
 

julienlanoo

New member
Great tought, to fix the Disto this way..

What the Ipad app, realy nice, but actually guys all you need to make it yourself ( better than for instance the "tilt" calculator app) is:

- Excel ( or openoffice in my case),
- A freshening up of your Pythagoras rule
- A freshening up of your Sinus , Cosinus and Tanhens rule.
- 4 x A4 papers to make a drawing, and to work out your algebra.
- A schoolbook one got at photography school about tilting sheimpflug .

- A spreadsheet where you first put all you can know
- same spreadsheet all your calculations of hengepoint, and Plane of sharpfocus angles ( watch out, you first have to make your calculations in radians and then transform them with the spreadsheet into degrees)

- a Iphone spreadsheet editor like: Sheet2,

load your fresh spreadsheet into your iphone via Sheet2, and just use it...

Perfect :)
 
Top