Arca Rm3di

[JGR]

As I research into which camera system to purchase, some doors close while others open. It's clear that I need to do more reading...

Which brings me to the RM3Di, are there any users on this forum?

I would like to hear your views and experiences using this system.

I like to get in close and use foreground interest in my landscape images which made me realize I am going to need a camera with tilt, unless I focus blend which is quite simple but time consuming so I'm not wishing to go down that path.

The two cameras I'm seriously considering are the Linhof Techno and more recently, the Arca RM3Di.

I'm aware of some of the downsides to the Techno but know very little about the RM3Di. Could you please share your experiences using this camera, I would highly appreciate it.

 

[torger]

I guess you've seen this intro video? Very informative on how the system is used: An introduction to Arca Swiss R cameras by Rod Klukas on Vimeo

I also like this Luminous Landscape review video http://vimeo.com/5304769 (note that the reviewers are both dedicated ALPA users)

I have not used the RM3Di, but while waiting for responses from real users I can present some aspects "good to think about" concerning what the camera is capable of.

* tilt is built-in to the body which is a great cost saver compared to Cambo and Alpa.
* tilt is only +/- 5 degrees. For longer lenses/close work (shooting flowers etc) this can be a limitation, but for typical landscape grand scenes its not
* tilt cannot be made diagonally, only forward/backward or left/right, typically not limiting for grand landscape scenes though, as it is almost always about small tilts forward.
* compared to the Techno or other view camera the lens mount cost is high, if you want many lenses the lens cost gets higher.
* if you like to carry around long lenses it can get a bit bulky
* if you want to make pano stitches I prefer a sliding back with click-stops (Techno) rather than gear-turning on the back (RM3Di) as it can be a bit slow
* while the primary operation of the camera is with a viewfinder and thus approximate framing, some do use ground glass for framing, and the rotaslide sliding back can be used if you want to (I've got conflicting info if it's compatible with infinity focusing or not though, I think it is but needs double-check).

I'm a Techno user myself and of course hope that you would choose that instead ;-). Concerning pancake cameras RM3Di would have been the number one alternative though, due to the integrated tilt and high precision focusing, and possibility to extend the system to include an MF-two view camera for greater movement flexibility if would need it.

Movement comparison:
RM3Di: Back Vertical Rise/Fall 30/20mm, Back Lateral Shift +/- 15mm. Tilt +/-5 degrees. Camera can be mounted on the side or upside down to change vertical shift and tilt direction.

Techno: back vertical shift +/-20mm, front rise +20mm, Back lateral shift fixed click-stop on sliding back only -17/0/+17mm, Front lateral shift +/-10mm. Tilt +/-10 degress, Swing +/-10 degrees.

The Techno advantages are best shown if you use many focal lengths including longer ones and often use tilt, and if you would use the ground glass regardless of camera. If you work mostly/only with wides, dislike the ground glass then RM3Di is best. If you shoot at f/8 or f/5.6 often you will love the focusing precision of the RM3Di, if you shoot at f/11 my experience is that the ground glass focusing precision is adequate, but I need a 20x loupe to be satisfied (most only use 6x - 10x)

 

[yatlee]

I use techno with my IQ180 and before that I had the P45+. Focusing using ground glass that came with my sliding back with P45+ was never an issue. But on a 80MP back, I almost always double check focus using live view. Before I got comfortable with the live view, I had more than once wanted to go with the Arca RM3Di. However, the sliding back stitching and the composing using the ground glass are so smooth and quick, I've abandoned the idea. Techno is low tech in comparing to the e-module cloud, but coming from 4x5 view camera, I felt at home after a short period of time.

I think at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself which workflow you like to work with.

 

[JGR]

Wow!

Thank you, Torger.

This is the type of response I was looking for. I have made enquiries with a few dealers about both cameras with regards to pricing, lenses, etc and must admit, probably to your disappointment p) that I am swaying in the direction of the RM3Di.

I am awaiting an email from a dealer at the moment and will make my final decision soon. Either way (Techno or RM3Di) I'm really looking forward to getting out there with the new setup.

I have done so much reading over the last week that I now feel confident with my final choices, that said... I would really love to hear from other people before taking the plunge

I'm going to watch the LL review you linked, many thanks!

 

[JGR]

Yat,

Thanks for your view, I must say I am a little intimidated by the idea of using the ground glass to focus as I'm going to be using (most likely) a phase one P45+ back and assume the LCD on that back is not good enough to assess critical focus after the image is captured.

Am I right in thinking the RM3Di takes away those fears as you can effectively shim the back with the helical focus and note down the adjustments required for the cam/back combination?

 

[torger]

I guess you've seen my lengthy Linhof Techno review Review: Linhof Techno . I'd like to update it now when a new ground glass has arrived, but I have not bought it myself yet. It won't change focusing precision though, just make framing of wide angles simpler, possibly tilt-refinement (when you look at the sides of the glass) may be better. An eye-opener for me was that using a 20x loupe gave me significant precision advantage compared to the typical recommendations, but as it is an element of skill your mileage will vary. Despite the advantage I think I'm pretty alone using this high magnification. Before assuming that gg focusing is not precise enough I think one should have tried a high magnification loupe.

A typical way to use the RM3Di focusing is to have a Lecia Disto D5 (laser distance meter) and a hyperfocal table, for all distances closer than hyperfocal use the D5 to measure and set the distance on the helical focus, the rest hyperfocal or infinity. When you tilt I think most use only tables with RM3Di, i e set forward tilt so the hinge line is at the ground, and then set hyperfocal distance from table to get the typical upper half DoF wedge.

If you want more fine-tuned tilts you're back to looking at the ground glass, or having a very granular table or tilt dof app, using the disto to take out angles etc; maybe an RM3Di user could explain their tilt workflow. I'd be interested in knowing the details too.

As long as you can calculate/measure the focus setting you need for the RM3Di you can precisely set it, so yes it takes away some of the insecurity feel you can get with GG focusing.

I was also choosing between the Techno and the RM3Di. The reason the Techno is better suited for me is that 1) better economy on the lenses as I want many of them, 2) I like to also have longer lenses and then it is less bulk. 3) I don't really like the viewfinder concept so I would be using ground glass anyway. I also appreciate that the Techno provides flexible tilt/swing, I like to have that in the arsenal, but to be truthful I rarely use it. If I'd shoot more flowers and stuff like that I'd use it more, but I don't do that very often. 90% of the time the tilt is forward and in the 1-2 degrees.

The ground glass I find more as an interesting challenge than being frustrating, and now I think it's quite nice to be in the exclusive "view camera user group" ;-). I see it from the bright side -- using the ground glass is a part of the low-tech fun using a technical camera . However, when digital backs have as good live view as DSLRs I'll surely ditch the sliding back and focus directly on the back. I think that's a few years away though, especially for me that use older generation backs for better economy.

I'd say though that the RM3Di is a safer buy for sure if you have to buy without testing. It's more user-friendly, and focusing precision can not disappoint. The ground glass makes the Techno require some eyesight capability and focusing skill, and it also requires from the photographer to have a bit relaxed relation to focus placement precision, ie even with the best skill you cannot achieve same precision you can with a RM3Di and a laser distance meter. I'd say that for practical landscape image making the GG focus placement precision skilfully made does not jeopardise image quality (i e it will not be better with an RM3Di), but not all you ask will give you that answer. So it's personal. With the RM3Di noone will tell you that focusing precision will disappoint. Some may think it is a bit overkill though, there's a lot of turning on that helical focusing ring.

 

[yatlee]

Actually, I never really felt the need to check focus on my P45+ using the ground glass. I was 95%+ confident in focusing with GG even with tilt and shift involved and I was only using a 4-6X loupe.

Yes, RM3Di will essentially like a manual focus with a DSLR, I believe the RM3Di helical can be adjusted unlike the requirement of shimming on an Alpa. I doubt you need to do much adjustment out of the box assuming your P45+ is calibrated properly. However, I have not used one to confirm this.

 

[f8orbust]

Having used both cameras it's a difficult decision. Bottom line, they're both tremendous bits of kit.

What I would say is try them both if you can - viewfinder composition on the RM3D/i (if you don't use the ground glass) is not everyone's cup of tea, especially if you're a landscape shooter using graduated filters. Then it becomes a shoot-check-adjust filter-shoot-check-adjust filter routine. With a G/G (on the Techno or RM3D/i) you can see exactly the effect of the filter and any tilts/swings you've got. A couple of architectural photographers I've met use the RM3D - they focus with the distance scales provided, compose on the ground glass and check everything by tethering. The rationale being why spend megabucks on a set up and then 'approximately' compose through a viewfinder. Personally, I hate all viewfinders. Folks say they speed up shooting - but to be honest, why even consider an RM3D/i or Techno if speed is an issue. Stick with a DSLR.

What else? Dealer support. With the Techno, in the UK you have Paula at Linhof and Studio behind you to answer any questions you have or from which to source any bits and pieces you need. Linhof are a speedy company in my experience, and the range of accessories available for the Techno (any Technika fitting on the front and anything that fits the M679 on the rear) is huge. Robert White used to carry all the A/S large format gear, but those days have pretty much gone, even though they can still source it. Digital SLRs and 4/3 are where they are at these days. That leaves you with Peartree or Teamwork in London - they both list A/S gear. Remember, A/S is not a speedy company to deal with in general - if you break something be prepared to wait on any repair or replacement if your dealer doesn't have one in stock (unlikely).

If you see yourself using a variety of lenses, or wanting to shoot, say, still life or macro as well as landscape, without having to buy additional bits and pieces of kit then the Techno is hands down the clear winner. If you need simultaneous swing and tilt, then again the Techno has the advantage. By combining rear rise/fall with front rise/fall you can actually reach +/- 20mm/40mm with the Techno. Equally, by combining front shift with rear shift, you can reach +/- 27mm. That's more than the RL3D, let alone the RM3D/i. The proprietary mounts of A/S are expensive, even though they don't need a helical, probably adding $1200 per lens to the cost. Whilst there are a fair few RM3D/i users out there, selling a used lens isn't as straightforward as sticking your Canon 35/2.8 on eBay, so once you invest in glass be prepared to stick with it. In comparison, lensboards for the Techno are inexpensive, and if you want to experiment with pinholes or old petzval lenses, it's easily done.

Shimming on the RM3D/i simply involves A/S figuring out how much they need to adjust the focussing mechanism on the camera so that the numbers they print for focussing match with your back. This requires that you send your DB/RM3D/i to them, and of course if you change DB then it needs recalibrating. Better to figure this out yourself in terms of an 'offset' and adjust focus accordingly (i.e. reprint their focus cards with your offset included).

Finally, have one eye on the future. CMOS MFDBs are probably less than two years away - then the issue of this or that focussing system goes straight out of the window. Imagine Live View with Live Focus Mask - er, yes please.

Jim

 

[dougpeterson]

Shimming on the RM3D/i simply involves A/S figuring out how much they need to adjust the focussing mechanism on the camera so that the numbers they print for focussing match with your back. This requires that you send your DB/RM3D/i to them, and of course if you change DB then it needs recalibrating. Better to figure this out yourself in terms of an 'offset' and adjust focus accordingly (i.e. reprint their focus cards with your offset included).

Almost all of our Arca Swiss customers have done this calibration themselves, or had us as a dealer do it for them. I only know of one user who has sent their entire system to Arca for calibration which strikes me as entirely unnecessary. It takes <20 min the first time you do it and <10 min there after.

You can either print new cards or simply remember to add your offset any time you look at the card. The later strategy is especially nice when dealing with IR or UV photography since you can determine a fixed spectral focus shift and apply it without the need for separate focusing.

It's one of those things that sounds potentially complicated when you are first exposed to it, and then becomes very natural and fast when you've done it a few times.

 

[Geoff]

Torger's comments are right on. A few other things: the A/S gear is very sensible, and lovely piece of kit, but add up the weight of the whole system, and its not necessarily light. The Techno, surprisingly, is quite small and with simple lenses, rather light weight. I find it more easily carried about in a pack than MFDB gear with its larger and heavier lenses.

If you shoot f11-16, and more landscape than closeup, focusing issues really do go away. Use of the Techno is quite simple and old-school, an update of the traditional view camera. The movement selection is quite broad - the only issue being that front shift is limited. So horiz. stitching is best done with a stitching back, which gives great compositional flexibility and allows a 55 mm lens to work (in 2-3 shots) more like a 35. Vertical rise and fall is generous (+/- 20mm) on the back. All rather clever.

 

[stngoldberg]

I am a huge fan of the Rm3di.
Focusing is stupid simple. I did not have to send my DB out for calibration with my technical camera. The rotations on the helical focusing rings are color coded to the settings (per distance-I use the Leica DS-5) on the card supplied (for each individual lens) by Arca. Arca has recently updated the numbers on the card and they are dead on accurate.
In a few days I will receive the E Module which I am led to believe will eliminate the need for the card.
Because the tilt is in the body, every lens is a tilt shift. I have five lenses-32 rodie-43 Schneider-72 Schneider-120 Schneider-and the 210 Schneider.
Using (per Doug Peterson) a rule of thumb---- 1 degree of tilt for every 32 degrees of focal length, I find that focus stacking is almost never necessary'
The viewfinder on the Arca is relatively useless which is the case (I am led to believe) on all technical cameras. I rely on my LCD to check my composition.
The Arca Rm3di allows sufficient shift and rise and fall to maximize the use of any of the lenses that I am using.
The exciting part of the Technical camera to me is the detail provided by the Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. Of course my photography friends think that I am ridiculously anal and perhaps they are correct

Stanley

 

[mike6272]

I am a huge fan of the Rm3di.
Focusing is stupid simple. I did not have to send my DB out for calibration with my technical camera. The rotations on the helical focusing rings are color coded to the settings (per distance-I use the Leica DS-5) on the card supplied (for each individual lens) by Arca. Arca has recently updated the numbers on the card and they are dead on accurate.
In a few days I will receive the E Module which I am led to believe will eliminate the need for the card.
Because the tilt is in the body, every lens is a tilt shift. I have five lenses-32 rodie-43 Schneider-72 Schneider-120 Schneider-and the 210 Schneider.
Using (per Doug Peterson) a rule of thumb---- 1 degree of tilt for every 32 degrees of focal length, I find that focus stacking is almost never necessary'
The viewfinder on the Arca is relatively useless which is the case (I am led to believe) on all technical cameras. I rely on my LCD to check my composition.
The Arca Rm3di allows sufficient shift and rise and fall to maximize the use of any of the lenses that I am using.
The exciting part of the Technical camera to me is the detail provided by the Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. Of course my photography friends think that I am ridiculously anal and perhaps they are correct

Stanley

Stanley:

What do you mean by "1 degree of tilt for every 32 degrees of focal length"? It sounds interesting and new to me. Would you please tell me more about it? Thanks!

Michael

 

[f8orbust]

Would love to see a picture of the RM3D/i with the 210mm - must look like a tank barrel

 

[Jack]

I've had mine for about 18 months. It is exceptionally precise and works great; that precision comes at the expense of being a little slower to focus. I also have used the Cambo system, and like it too; and while faster in many respects, the lesser level of precision renders it a bit more "Zen" to the focus and set movements. I can make a great argument in favor of either, and would own both if lensmounts were compatible (seriously, I would!)

 

[jagsiva]

I have the RM3Di and Factum. Love both for the precision and the idiot-proof focusing. I recently got some goodies including the eModule Cloud and Factum grip, all of which make using the whole kit an even better experience. The ability to mix and match components is also a bonus.

On the downside, these guys are a bunch of techies, so don't expect and fluffy service, marketing collateral, manuals etc.

If you are willing to wait for the various bits to trickle in, then you will get a high-quality system that works first time out of the box, is very precise, and will likely be something you keep for a very long time.

 

[torger]

"1 degree of tilt for every 32 degrees of focal length", I assume it's "for every 32mm of focal length".

That is 1 degree for the 32mm, 1.3 for the 43mm, 2.3 for the 72mm, 3.8 for the 120mm and so on. This rule of thumb seems to be that if the camera is mounted at eye level over the ground, the hinge distance will be approximately down to the ground level (~1.8 meters), and if you then set the focus distance on hyperfocal you'll have a DoF wedge whose far edge goes horizontally out.

Have I understood the process correctly?

While it is a bit approximate way to work, it will give good results in many typical landscape scenarios. But what do you do if the camera is mounted at a different height or the ground is sloping, and/or there's some tree so it's better to aim the focal plane a bit higher or lower? I guess you fallback to the ground glass then, or just skip tilting and do focus stacking or let some parts be out of focus?

With the Techno my typical tilt workflow is as follows: I use a table to set a scheimpflug/hinge distance as starting point after estimating the distance I need. On a wide angle it's hard to look at the edges on the GG (you need to tilt the loupe, which is not possible with my 20x, but I have a 10x I can do that with) which you typically need to do if you want to verify that tilt brings foreground into focus, I rarely do that. I use my table that is made in 0.5 degree steps for all my focal lengths (one could have a DoF app in the phone too, but I prefer a printed table on a card), I set a tilt from that sometimes in-between settenings (ie not always an even 0.5 degree step) and then I set the direction on the focal plane by aiming at the vertical center of the tallest feature (which means that often focus setting is closer than hyperfocal distance). Shoot, and verify at key points that all is sharp with 100% view on the back. With longer focal lengths and larger tilts I verify also the tilt on the ground glass. It shall be interesting to test Linhof's new bright ground glass and see how much better at edge looking it is. The required f-stop I also use a table to find out, by looking at DoF height at infinity and estimating from that. In difficult corner cases it's nice to verify using 100% view on the back.

For longer lenses it is quite typical that one have to make some fine-tuned compromise, ie not everything can be perfectly in focus, and in that case it's nice to look at the ground glass also for fine-tuning tilt. For closeup work the GG for tilt/swing setting is a necessity of course.

As I've understood it, a view camera user typically puts more value into tilt/swing than a pancake camera user does. It depends on the shooting style how much you will appreciate the feature.

 

[torger]

A year ago I thought CMOS backs was far far away, possibly never coming. Now it seems that CMOS backs actually is showing on the horizon, so maybe we have one within 2 years. With a digital back with a DSLR-like live-view I think the the ultra-precise focusing mount of the RM3Di will lose some of its attraction, and many will prefer a faster mount like on the Cambo and just use live view for focusing instead. The view camera will also be attractive to a much wide audience with a liveview-capable back as you don't need to use the ground glass or sliding back in that case.

If one plans to have the system for many years it may be worthwhile to have this in mind.

On the other hand, when setting hyperfocal distance (when you don't focus at a specific object) it's nice to have a high precision helicon mount.

 

[torger]

Oh, one more thing; when focusing on ground glass or a future liveview, one uses a rocking motion to find the peak focus. For this to work well the focusing must not be too finely threaded, i e if you need to turn a long way to bring the object significantly out of focus it will be harder to rock-and-peak.

I have not tested the RM3Di, so one of the first things I would test is if it is feasible to focus on the GG without using the distance scale. If it's really finely threaded I would suspect that it's not really feasible, and then it the camera won't be that useful for liveview focusing when that eventually becomes available. For me that would be a big minus if I intended to keep the camera for a long time. Of course you can always use the "e-module Cloud" to focus optically, but it would be a bit boring having to use such an accessory if having a working liveview on the back.

Jack who has used both Cambo and RM3Di maybe can comment on this?

 

[Frederic]

I'm not sure the very precise helical of the arca will be an issue with LV, quite the contrary actually.
When manually focussing lenses on the D800 in live view, I keep dreaming of a much longer, finer focus ring.

 

[torger]

In another thread on this forum I found that the RM3Di has 7 um movement for 1 degree turn, for all lenses. (As depth of focus is constant regardless of focal length we don't need to take focal length into account here.)

The Techno rail has 42 um movement for 1 degree turn.

The Alpa has 27.8 um for Schneider lenses and 33.3 um for Rodenstock lenses, and Cambo something similar as the HPF rings are compatible as far as I know.

I don't know what a typical D800 lens has, but it seems ALPA has 270 degrees of turning range, and a DSLR autofocus lens often has something like 90-120 degrees of turning, assuming similar near limit the travel would be 100 um per degree.

My own take on the ideal threading for precise manual focusing via live view is ~20-30um per degree (i e I'd prefer a bit finer threading than the Techno has, but not much), i e the Alpa is spot on, the Techno a bit high, DSLR auto lenses very high, and the RM3Di is, well, very finely threaded indeed.

As tech cam lenses is f/5.6 or f/4 at best the peaking is quite soft (compared to a f/1.4 DSLR lens for example), so I think one should not have too finely threaded to make it user-friendly. But I cannot say anything about ground glass focusing experience on the RM3Di as I haven't had the opportunity to try focus with it.

The tilt has "normal" sensitivity as far as I know, but it also seems like when tilt is involved the default way to work is to use approximate methods, i e set a tilt from a table and set hyperfocal distance and that's it. If you want some other type of tilt so you'd want to have a typical tilt-focusing workflow on the ground-glass (or future liveview) I would suspect that the normal-threaded tilt and very fine focus will feel a bit awkward. If I had an RM3Di I would probably make my own tilt table which also takes alternate focal plane directions into account, so I can aim it in other directions than the hyperfocal way (ie far edge straight out), I haven't heard of any RM3Di user having such tables, but maybe there are?

If you think flexible tilt will be an important feature for your shooting style it may be worthwhile to think this over a bit more. The Cambo tilt lens mount allows for diagonal tilts (ie tilt+swing in view camera terms as the Techno) as does some DSLR tilt-shift lenses (eg Canon's version II TS-E lenses), but the RM3Di does not.