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.