Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 110

Thread: Just thinking of a volte face

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Just thinking of a volte face

    I haven't yet managed to sell my IQ180, no doubt in the foolish hope of getting a reasonable price for it. Gone are my Phase Mammy DF body and lenses, gone is my Cambo wide RS and Schneider 35XL.

    But I find myself with an interest in the Alpa STC and maybe one of the shorter Digarons... maybe the 32 or the 40. Trouble is, they look big enough to compromise the nice small form factor of the camera. And I have totally lost track of what lenses these days need LCC on the IQ180.

    I have been thinking of getting the HPF ring and Leica disco, too.

    Anyone with experience of any of the above have an opinion? I'd be very grateful.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Tim, IMO nothing on the 80pix chip is a walk in the park and most lenses, even longer ones (SK120 needed LCC on 60Mpix chips) need LCC for critical colour.

    I honestly think go the whole hog or without carful LCC calibrations for every capture you'll be disappointed. Failing that, I'd cut my losses and just get shut before the market changes again, (late 2013/2014 Canon big gun?) chalk it down to experience and forget about it.

    I'm in the same boat with my lowly P65+. At the price I'm advertising mine for (that nobody wants to pay) I'm facing loosing a lot and £14K is just way too expensive to cross grade to IQ260 for nice features but very little IQ difference. However, I'm not ready to give up my beautiful Arca R just yet.

    Tough call.......

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Thanks for the straight talk Gareth. If only Nikon made a decent wide TS lens - but I guess Canon do, and that time is a comin'.... I just have seen some amazing really large work by others recently and have a bit of a hankering to go that way again.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    I haven't touched my AF or Mamiya lenses (I have many of the old MF lenses from the 50 shift up to the 300/2.8) since getting my Alpas and Rodenstocks.

    My advice is, if you can spare the cash, just do it.

    Not sure what price you're looking for for the 180, but I reckon these days you'll be lucky to get $20K. I paid $27.5K for mine just over a year ago and don't regret it one bit. This stuff isn't an investment, no sense in treating it as such.

    Get out there and put it to work
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    +1

    If Canon had hinted at a high Mpix body couples with the fab TES lenses I might not have got back into MFD after a four year break with the 1Ds3 but we are still waiting.

    I do agree though if done properly a MFD file smokes the 35mm files every day of the week and I'd don't care who says different. It's possible it has nothing to do with the chip and could be all down to the lenses and cameras available (Arca/Cambo/Alpa, SK/RS) for MFD backs but the difference is very much there IMO. But as I said to do it properly you have to tick all the right boxes when taking the picture (composition/exposure/LCC/focus etc) to feel the magic and that involves commitment your end Tim.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member malmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Tim

    I bought the IQ180 realising that the back would depreciate quickly - so figured as long as it keeps working I will keep using it - the files are not shabby afterall.

    Yes being a Canon shooter, I look forward to a 30+MP sensor which I can use as my high res work camera. I expect the IQ180 would then see less service in some ways however it still has the larger sensor, the narrower DOF and just beautiful colour when one avoids the magenta cast issues.

    Lots of different approaches - by different folk - I guess what is right is what works for you.

    MY IQ180 is going on a holiday to Scotland next month so may be it might just take a nice pic or even two.


    Cheers


    Mal

  7. #7
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Yup, I never expected the IQ to be an investment (other than as capex) - at least not like Leica lenses are an investment! But for now it's a double or quits type situation: I either take a bigger hit than anyone could have imagined 18 months ago, or I give in to the siren song.

    Frankly, pretty much everything I ever did, with extremely few exceptions, on the DF body kit I can do with the D800E (and a whole lot more besides). But for sheer size of output, like Kander, Burtynsky, or my new favourite Olaf Otto Becker (see the Broken Line series then tab to Ilulissat Icefjord 5 if you want to see sheer perfection!) there is only one option (other than the 8x10 film camera he uses - I am NOT going there!) and given that I already own half of it, the other half has to be a temptation...
    Last edited by tashley; 5th May 2013 at 14:55.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Near Brussels, Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Told you, printing large is the way to go to enjoy its IQ again ;-)
    The 32mm definitively needs LCC shots each time. But I can live without for the 55mm Rodie apo-sironar if no stitched. This is the bargain lens everybody says it is (cheap, compact, huge IC) but I've found resolution in the borders quite disappointing under f13 (even not stitched) with an IQ180. Don't know if the current 55mm HR (not cheap but not the most expensive neither) performs better all around its IC (?).

  9. #9
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Just thinking out loud here but if I had the money to burn, I'd most likely get myself a Silvestri Flexicam. I think the design is just gorgeous and I like the fact that it has built in tilts and swings. Silvestri also makes a sliding adapter for it which I'd prefer to use. Since you're having an IQ180 a normal adapter plate might work better for you. Regarding lenses, I'd only get the one focal length I prefer to use.

    Good luck in coming to a decision. It's a dilemma either way....

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Thanks Max, I tried the Silvestri a few years back and even with a p45+ things weren't great. I think it might be tough, thinking of the 0.01mm shims Alpa use, to compete if you are offering a sliding back system for an 80mp sensor. :-(

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Tim,

    Heard from a good source last week that Schneider has discontinued the 35XL and 28XL. I can't remember if the 24 Digitar was on the list. Can only mean that they have a new design coming. Sorry, all I know, you may want to look into it, but if true, and the new designs stay in the same ball-park size wise, you could have the small kit you're looking for

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Tim,

    Heard from a good source last week that Schneider has discontinued the 35XL and 28XL. I can't remember if the 24 Digitar was on the list. Can only mean that they have a new design coming. Sorry, all I know, you may want to look into it, but if true, and the new designs stay in the same ball-park size wise, you could have the small kit you're looking for
    I've heard rumblings like this about Schneider lenses in the past hoping for new design Digitars but they've always turned out to be Phase/Schneider LS glass.

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Hmmmm.... I'd like a nice small 35 but I am guessing that the ray angle problem would mitigate in favour of being larger, even if it is an f5.6...

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I haven't yet managed to sell my IQ180, no doubt in the foolish hope of getting a reasonable price for it. Gone are my Phase Mammy DF body and lenses, gone is my Cambo wide RS and Schneider 35XL.

    But I find myself with an interest in the Alpa STC and maybe one of the shorter Digarons... maybe the 32 or the 40. Trouble is, they look big enough to compromise the nice small form factor of the camera. And I have totally lost track of what lenses these days need LCC on the IQ180.

    I have been thinking of getting the HPF ring and Leica disco, too.

    Anyone with experience of any of the above have an opinion? I'd be very grateful.
    Why do you want to sell the back? Why did you get it in the first place?

    I though long and hard before deciding to purchase a MFDB system (Arca rm3di and 40mm HR). I make decent money with my Canon gear (advertising/commercial) and the MFDB is for several projects and to maybe use it for my architecture photography (which I do a bit and sometimes nets me about $5-6k a month for a few days work). I will still use the Canon's for most of my work. The MFD system is just an additional tool for me.

    That said, financially speaking, the MFDB systems are not a good value at all. Its no secret that to get that bit extra quality one has to pay a LOT more. But if you know what you want and are a dedicated photographer the systems do offer something unique that might help you achieve your goals. In my case I wanted to make very large prints and sell them in a gallery exhibition. I already have a working relationship with a local art promoter with publishing and international experience and we are in the process of setting everything up.
    The theme and look and feel of the project has been agreed and I just have to go out and produce the images and prints.

    For the type of images I intend on producing I mostly use the Canon 24mm TSE II on a Canon full frame DSLR. I love setting up on a tripod and composing the image using the rise and fall of the lens and sometimes tilt to achieve the focus desired. For camera movements in the field the "pancake" tech cameras are still the best option IMHO. The Arca offered integrated tilt and seemed like the most versatile and cleanest design out there in a light and compact package.

    I chose the 40mm HR for the focal length and the fact that its the best wide angle for the larger backs if you want to do quite a bit of movements. Even though I got it to use it on an IQ160 it works great on the IQ180 (ever seen Rodney Lough Jr's prints? I think he uses an Arca with a 40mm HR) and should work well with future backs. The 40mm HR is also not a huge lens. The 32mm is. I might also get the 23mm HR and the 70mm or 90mm later. Those would be my lens choices.

    The guys at Digital Transitions NYC helped me a LOT in deciding what to get. I just think its insane to purchase such expensive systems without a knowledgable dealer to help out with the purchase, service and support. They have a great tool for pre-visializing lenses: https://www.digitaltransitions.com/p...ra-visualizers

    [I am expecting the whole back/camera/lens system soon so I have not had a chance to use it yet]

    You have the IQ180 with you, why not at least have some fun with it! I would just make the best of it and try not to think of the financial depreciation hit if you sell it. Think of that money as camera rental. (IQ180 rigs are rented out at about $1600 a week or more!)

  15. #15
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Hmmmm.... I'd like a nice small 35 but I am guessing that the ray angle problem would mitigate in favour of being larger, even if it is an f5.6...
    35XL is a great lens for the IQ180 with no shift. Sharp, pretty, small, light, and affordable (relatively speaking of course). Requires an LCC but without shift that is a minor hassle to provide via a default import style in C1.

    But if you want to, for instance, shift it 15mm then you'd be barking up the wrong tree.

    Make sure to consider an Arca Factum and Cambo TC alongside an STC. They each have unique advantages (and disadvantages). For instance the Cambo dances.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  16. #16
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    35XL is a great lens for the IQ180 with no shift. Sharp, pretty, small, light, and affordable (relatively speaking of course). Requires an LCC but without shift that is a minor hassle to provide via a default import style in C1.

    But if you want to, for instance, shift it 15mm then you'd be barking up the wrong tree.

    Make sure to consider an Arca Factum and Cambo TC alongside an STC. They each have unique advantages (and disadvantages). For instance the Cambo dances.

    Doug, part of the kit I have already sold was a cambo wide rs and a 35 XL with CF.

    The 35xl was IMHO just about ok unshifted with LCC. Trouble is, a while back during one C1 upgrade cycle, all my historic library of LCCs and the shots they were made for became separated and the resulting mess put me off LCCs. Now I do appreciate that there are workflow solutions to that but if you believe, as I do, that best practice requires an LCC shot for each particular scene, and if that has workflow implications you can't easily live with, and if you have a sneaky feeling that LCC corrections are stretching a file further than is healthy (and that's how I feel about 35xl shots even unshifted) then it has to be worth asking if there are lenses that make life easier.

    A while back I shot the same scene on a d800e with Zeiss 21mm f2.8 and the IQ 180 with 35XL. The resulting prints at 36" each had their strengths and weakness but neither was clearly better. I know for a fact that the IQ180 can do better than that, but I think, personally, that the 35XL doesn't help it get there.... So one of the Rodenstocks looks like a better idea though of course they are bigger and pricier. I do like the look of the small cambo and Arca models though, and if I can defined the right lens I will certainly end up with either the STC or one of them so thank you for the tip!

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Is cross-grading to a IQ260 possible? Or downgrading to an IQ160. Color cast issues are considerably less with those. You'll always need to do LCC shots though, so if you hate it there's a problem. As tech cameras are all-mechanical and don't provide exif data with lens/tilt/shift/aperture settings having a library of pre-made LCC shots is not really feasible. You could do it if you are sure to write down your settings, but then taking the actual LCC shot is probably quicker, and you get dust spot removal too.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Heard from a good source last week that Schneider has discontinued the 35XL and 28XL.
    The 28 was introduced as recent as 2010, seems unlikely to me that they would discontinue it now, especially with the new IQ260 coming (less color cast issues), which I think will be the new king-of-the-hill concerning tech cameras.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I know for a fact that the IQ180 can do better than that, but I think, personally, that the 35XL doesn't help it get there.... So one of the Rodenstocks looks like a better idea though of course they are bigger and pricier.
    The RS 40 and 32 both need LCC unshifted on a P65+ so you can bet they'll be more fussy on a IQ180.

    I honestly don't think there is wide tech lens available that is the no nonsense lens you're hoping for and you'll need to step up in focal length to something like a SK60XL before you'll start to get the simpler workflow you're after.

    Lens colour cast, illumination fall off and constant LCC calibrations is the way of the world in wide angle tech camera capture..... a necessary evil IMO.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    Lens colour cast, illumination fall off and constant LCC calibrations is the way of the world in wide angle tech camera capture..... a necessary evil IMO.
    Personally I don't find taking LCC shots that messy, and as it fixes dust spots too I'm quite glad that there's something that forces me to make them

    If we get electronic shutters on our tech cameras and an electrical interface to provide tilt/shift/aperture into EXIF data we could have auto-match LCC in the back. Maybe that will happen in the future.

    I think it's important to remind oneself that the fact that tech camera workflow allows the use of LCC, heavy vignetting, center filters, small largest aperture makes it possible to design lenses that have attractive properties in terms of sharpness and distortion which is unattainable if we would start to design lenses the (MF-)DSLR way with heavy retrofocus and very large aperture. I think the soul of the tech cameras would partly lost if we would be forced into the same type of lens designs as seen on the other camera systems.

    I'm very glad that Phase One's newest sensor, the one in IQ260, actually take a step back to less color cast compared to the IQ180 sensor, so we can continue to enjoy some of the great tech camera lens designs.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Thanks Max, I tried the Silvestri a few years back and even with a p45+ things weren't great. I think it might be tough, thinking of the 0.01mm shims Alpa use, to compete if you are offering a sliding back system for an 80mp sensor. :-(
    Well, I'd take the sliding adapter because I only own a puny 22mp sensor. You however got a back that is live video capable, so why don't you use it in the field? I imagine it's a hassle with the variable ND filter, but better than all other options in my opinion.

  22. #22
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    For instance the Cambo dances.
    Excellent, excellent, excellent. Just excellent. Well done! I love the concept and the choreography...such as the cable release, advancing and retreating like a snake.

    BTW, I have to ask...what's all this about people wanting to sell their IQ180s already? Seems like they only came out yesterday.

    Ray
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I haven't yet managed to sell my IQ180, no doubt in the foolish hope of getting a reasonable price for it. Gone are my Phase Mammy DF body and lenses, gone is my Cambo wide RS and Schneider 35XL.

    But I find myself with an interest in the Alpa STC and maybe one of the shorter Digarons... maybe the 32 or the 40. Trouble is, they look big enough to compromise the nice small form factor of the camera. And I have totally lost track of what lenses these days need LCC on the IQ180.

    I have been thinking of getting the HPF ring and Leica disco, too.

    Anyone with experience of any of the above have an opinion? I'd be very grateful.
    A real dilema. On the one hand you would rather not have your IQ back but on the other you don't wish to give it away either. Your response to seek to increase its utility is a nice solution to the dilema.

    Here is the thing - if you limit the cost of your shift to an Alpa by focusing on what the 80 back can do well - rather than what it can't do so well..you will be delighted....

    Which will inevitably make you think...is a 60 better than an 80?....

    The only back I have been interested in buying into since I stopped upping the megapixel count ( wanting the reduced pixel sizes but hating the results I got - shooting the lenses I liked for the subject matter I am interested in) with 33 and 49 megapixel backs is the recently announced IQ260.

    A photographer with your eye for excellence and ambitious standards ( thanks for the links to the LF photographer - WOW) - well I don't see you swallowing the bitter pill of compromise - for too long anyway.

    This is my way of agreeing with a few of the posters above - it is a journey you are happy to pay the price of admission to travel - your aims define your requirements/needs. I think you will enjoy any Alpa - if matched to the right lens choice for the right workflow - for your existing back.

    All the best
    Pete

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Arrow Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I haven't yet managed to sell my IQ180, no doubt in the foolish hope of getting a reasonable price for it. Gone are my Phase Mammy DF body and lenses, gone is my Cambo wide RS and Schneider 35XL.

    But I find myself with an interest in the Alpa STC and maybe one of the shorter Digarons... maybe the 32 or the 40. Trouble is, they look big enough to compromise the nice small form factor of the camera. And I have totally lost track of what lenses these days need LCC on the IQ180.

    I have been thinking of getting the HPF ring and Leica disco, too.

    Anyone with experience of any of the above have an opinion? I'd be very grateful.
    Why did you get the IQ180? Why do you want to sell it?

    I mean, the difference in selling price and what you paid is just camera rental. I would just use it and have fun with it.

    Regarding lenses I chose the 40 HR. For me best combination of lenses are the 23HR, 40HR and the 70 or 90. The 40 seems like the best wide angle for movements and shifting. Still requires LCC im sure but its not extreme.

    Can't wait to get mine along with the rm3di and the iq160

    (thx to Digital Transitions for helping me make the choice, made the process easier and reassuring)

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    Why did you get the IQ180? Why do you want to sell it?

    I mean, the difference in selling price and what you paid is just camera rental. I would just use it and have fun with it.

    Regarding lenses I chose the 40 HR. For me best combination of lenses are the 23HR, 40HR and the 70 or 90. The 40 seems like the best wide angle for movements and shifting. Still requires LCC im sure but its not extreme.

    Can't wait to get mine along with the rm3di and the iq160

    (thx to Digital Transitions for helping me make the choice, made the process easier and reassuring)
    I think Tim like most IQ180 users upgraded from the P65+ which was the natural progression rather than a side step to the IQ160. Much of the problems with lens cast only came about after the camera got into the hands of tech camera users but up until then, most assumed it would perform like the Dalsa 60Mpix chip (P65+ and IQ160) - it doesn't.

    Both wide lenses you list (especially the 23HR) need LCC to get the most from them. The 23HR has next to no movements on the full frame 645 CCD's so while both are great lenses, they are still (to some) a PITA.

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face


  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    I can totally accept no movements on the 23HR. I mean, its a 15mm lens! (35mm Full Frame equiv.) And from what I have seen its the best extreme wide angle lens ever made (when combined with a 80/60mp back). I also can tolerate having to use a center filter and LCC's on that lens.

    For me it would be my go to lens for Architecture Interiors and sometimes for exteriors. Its a touch to wide for landscapes but thats where the 40 HR steps in.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    I personally think the 40HR is a touch too long for landscape. The 35XL 'feels' exactly the right focal length - just avoiding pulling in the edges too much. I'd be really disappointed if S/K has discontinued it - I think the bad press it got because of movements on the IQ180 was ... unfortunate. It is still a terrific lens. Since lens design is always about compromise, if you want a small, light, low distortion wide-angle lens then it will (almost always at this price point) be a symmetrical design - so it's going to be (physically) close to the sensor. If you don't, then sure, retrofocus designs bring a lot to the table, but they're not everyone's cup of tea (or coffee).
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    Why do you want to sell the back? Why did you get it in the first place?

    I though long and hard before deciding to purchase a MFDB system (Arca rm3di and 40mm HR). I make decent money with my Canon gear (advertising/commercial) and the MFDB is for several projects and to maybe use it for my architecture photography (which I do a bit and sometimes nets me about $5-6k a month for a few days work). I will still use the Canon's for most of my work. The MFD system is just an additional tool for me.

    That said, financially speaking, the MFDB systems are not a good value at all. Its no secret that to get that bit extra quality one has to pay a LOT more. But if you know what you want and are a dedicated photographer the systems do offer something unique that might help you achieve your goals. In my case I wanted to make very large prints and sell them in a gallery exhibition. I already have a working relationship with a local art promoter with publishing and international experience and we are in the process of setting everything up.
    The theme and look and feel of the project has been agreed and I just have to go out and produce the images and prints.

    For the type of images I intend on producing I mostly use the Canon 24mm TSE II on a Canon full frame DSLR. I love setting up on a tripod and composing the image using the rise and fall of the lens and sometimes tilt to achieve the focus desired. For camera movements in the field the "pancake" tech cameras are still the best option IMHO. The Arca offered integrated tilt and seemed like the most versatile and cleanest design out there in a light and compact package.

    I chose the 40mm HR for the focal length and the fact that its the best wide angle for the larger backs if you want to do quite a bit of movements. Even though I got it to use it on an IQ160 it works great on the IQ180 (ever seen Rodney Lough Jr's prints? I think he uses an Arca with a 40mm HR) and should work well with future backs. The 40mm HR is also not a huge lens. The 32mm is. I might also get the 23mm HR and the 70mm or 90mm later. Those would be my lens choices.

    The guys at Digital Transitions NYC helped me a LOT in deciding what to get. I just think its insane to purchase such expensive systems without a knowledgable dealer to help out with the purchase, service and support. They have a great tool for pre-visializing lenses: https://www.digitaltransitions.com/p...ra-visualizers

    [I am expecting the whole back/camera/lens system soon so I have not had a chance to use it yet]

    You have the IQ180 with you, why not at least have some fun with it! I would just make the best of it and try not to think of the financial depreciation hit if you sell it. Think of that money as camera rental. (IQ180 rigs are rented out at about $1600 a week or more!)

    I bought it as Gareth says as the last in a long upgrade path, tempted by the new interface, pixel count, live view etc. And of course it is a very very fine back: but I had not anticipated (and I was not alone on this) the much more notable LCC needs. Honestly, after the C1 upgrade that once lost my LCCs, I have never been happy with this process. I need, years hence, to know that the LCC profile I created for a shot is still immediately available. I know that there are workflow methods that can 'belt and brace' this but it feels like a step too far for me personally, whatever the gains.

    So I guess having learned from the good folk in this thread that there are no wides that don't need LCCs, I should either give up and get back to trying to sell, or ask a slightly different question:

    "what is the widest lens if any (even if it is, say, 90mm or more) that doesn't need an LCC on the IQ180?"

    I will not be switching to a 260 or 280 because the prices are daft and will frankly for my purposes be good money after not so good. I no longer buy the fiction that purchasers of this sort of gear have their investment protected. Not that there's any reason they should feel a right to that, but it is a myth that is put about to some degree.

    However I do have one suggestion that is simple and which gets rid of this problem altogether: there would be a firmware tweak that does the following:

    [*] User identifies to back that tech cam is being used with lens that needs LCC
    [*] After exposure back asks you to identify the lens from a list you have already set up
    [*] Having done so, back asks for shooting parameters (largely: aperture, shift, tilt) which can be entered from tab-able lists.
    [*] For each subsequent shot back asks whether these parameters are unchanged.
    [*] Photographer then has some additional metadata that identifies what 'library' LCC (s)he needs to use or at worst to shoot.

    Easy. Admittedly the second order issues of WB and focus distance also impact the LCC but if we assume that most wide shots are focussed at somewhere between 5m and infinity and that the shooter has done a proper WB, then we should have gotten most of the way to solving a problem which, frankly, has really p****d people off.

    What I would say to anyone in line for any future upgrades is, 'don't do what I did' - don't place an order months in advance, take the back sight unseen when it arrives and then not return it immediately when it turns out that there is some radically unexpected innovations such as your favourite lens being made effectively redundant. I do not want to go off on rant here at all, I chalk all this to experience - but the fact is that we all pitch up at our dealers. hand over our old backs and then find that the new one has an issue we had no reason to anticipate and that by the time we have discovered it, our old back has disappeared into the channel.

  30. #30
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    How very cool. I could certainly get into that with an IQ180...
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    A real dilema. On the one hand you would rather not have your IQ back but on the other you don't wish to give it away either. Your response to seek to increase its utility is a nice solution to the dilema.

    Here is the thing - if you limit the cost of your shift to an Alpa by focusing on what the 80 back can do well - rather than what it can't do so well..you will be delighted....

    Which will inevitably make you think...is a 60 better than an 80?....

    The only back I have been interested in buying into since I stopped upping the megapixel count ( wanting the reduced pixel sizes but hating the results I got - shooting the lenses I liked for the subject matter I am interested in) with 33 and 49 megapixel backs is the recently announced IQ260.

    A photographer with your eye for excellence and ambitious standards ( thanks for the links to the LF photographer - WOW) - well I don't see you swallowing the bitter pill of compromise - for too long anyway.

    This is my way of agreeing with a few of the posters above - it is a journey you are happy to pay the price of admission to travel - your aims define your requirements/needs. I think you will enjoy any Alpa - if matched to the right lens choice for the right workflow - for your existing back.

    All the best
    Pete
    Thanks Peter! Also, I have to say, I have lusted after an Alpa for a while: the Cambo was really good value and did its job perfectly well, but it never quite felt precise in its gears or zero stop position, and it was easy to move accidentally...

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Configuring the back to ask for lens/aperture/shift/tilt settings from a preset list is an interesting idea, quite useful too I think. Not sure I would use it, but it could be optional. And as said really easy to implement. I would be surprised if it happened though, I don't think the manufacturers are that willing to cater such specialised interests.

  33. #33
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    The Rodenstock HR40 t/s is a fantastic lens, imho. I use it with the Cambo WRS and IQ180. It's a great match. I find that the use of LCC is not absolutely necessary (to answer Tim's question) except when using larger movements, but I do take an LCC and apply it in C1 Pro 7 for every image that I work with. It's an easy and seamless part of my workflow and really doesn't require much thought or effort at all.

    But if you're wanting to cut corners, skipping something so easy as doing an LCC, I think it starts to limit the ability of the system from its full creative and quality of image potential. Imho, absent some sort of artistic license, it defeats the purpose of using a technical camera and a MFDB, which presumably is chosen to take advantage of the best lenses, camera, movements, format, image quality and high resolution.

    More automated to make it easier for some perhaps? Not necessary for me. It's just part of the photographic process that I enjoy. Probably one of the most overlooked considerations in this era of so many photographic choices, is to simply buy/use a camera system that gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling and that you enjoy as a photographer.

    ken

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Tim, are you are being too hard on yourself? If I understand correctly, you want to keep LCCs for each image. Why bother? After all, the back is applying all sorts of internal corrections to equalize the CCD segments, and the debayering processes are doing god knows what that changes from time to time and between raw converters. You can't save a "pre-raw" image that leaves out those proprietary processes so there is no such thing as an "original". Perhaps you could just save the lcc-corrected image, toss the LCCs, and be done with it.

  35. #35
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    Tim, are you are being too hard on yourself? If I understand correctly, you want to keep LCCs for each image. Why bother? After all, the back is applying all sorts of internal corrections to equalize the CCD segments, and the debayering processes are doing god knows what that changes from time to time and between raw converters. You can't save a "pre-raw" image that leaves out those proprietary processes so there is no such thing as an "original". Perhaps you could just save the lcc-corrected image, toss the LCCs, and be done with it.
    I could do - there's always the feeling that future software improvements might give a better result if re-applying the original LCC though - and the huge file size of a tiff. I think I remember that when packing as EIP, the original LCC file has to remain in the library. That takes less space than saving as a TIFF. But as I have noted above there was one C1 upgrade that lost all my LCC profiles and I then no longer knew which of the LCC frames I had shot and saved applied to which actual image. That quite seriously p***d me off and was the beginning of the end for me with all this. I never really sorted it out and as a consequence I had a number of files that I was never sure were correctly corrected!

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    431
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Yes, I had a related wobble when I thought "why am I bothering with all this hassle with LCCs, distance meters, technical cameras, inflated prices for lenses & accessories, when I can just use a 55mm Schneider lens on my 645DF, and see the image the right way around and bang in focus"

    Then I compared the equivalent tech wide angle lenses with the 55mm Schneider LS, and it was such a HUGE difference, like night and day, that I re-dedicated myself to techs.

    These systems are still a royal pain to use, and sometimes I suspect that photographers (including moi) like to feel they 'earned' their image by fiddling with Tech setup, tripods, LCCs, focus laser finders, tilts, tethering, etc, for hours, rather than the free-floating...click... 'I'm done' attitude - a psychological condition in other words- but then, the results are just so damn amazing when you do nail it, that I have to doubt my own skepticism.

  37. #37
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Pick up an Alpa TC and a HR40. To find the joy again, forget movements, forget LCC's. Have a mindset to black & white photography and use this light, tiny (beautiful) setup either as carefully composing on a sturdy tripod or use it as the ultimate over-your-shoulder camera. The only thing you need is a precise spirit level on top and shoot from the hip. You get a long long way with f5.6/8 • 1/125 • iso100 and hyper focal distance.
    I am quite certain this would put a smile or two on your face again! You can always make it more complex later.....
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    431
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    With you there already on that!

    though my preferred lens is a 60mm f4.0 Digaron-S

    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The 28 was introduced as recent as 2010, seems unlikely to me that they would discontinue it now.
    We've heard the same thing. 28/35 being discontinued in favor of future lens designs coming later this year or next.

    I've not spoken to Schneider directly about this yet, so you can still call it a rumor.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    We've heard the same thing. 28/35 being discontinued in favor of future lens designs coming later this year or next.

    I've not spoken to Schneider directly about this yet, so you can still call it a rumor.
    Sounds exciting! Future lens designs tend to mean more retrofocus, more glass, more distortion, more cost. I hope they manage to keep some of the simplicity so we don't get Rodenstock copies. A 35mm with 90mm image circle and less field curvature than the current would be very welcome though, I might even pay with some distortion for that.

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    We've heard the same thing. 28/35 being discontinued in favor of future lens designs coming later this year or next.
    Maybe we'll loose two and gain one and something like a 31mm (SK like weird numbers)?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    A 35mm with 90mm image circle and less field curvature than the current would be very welcome
    That sounds like a retrofocus design.

    I've been tempted by the RS28mm so many times but put off by the cost and lack of any movements so a lens in the 30's from Schneider would be excellent and straight on my shopping list. If the 43XL, 60XL and new 120ASPH are anything to go by, it will be amazing!

  42. #42
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Those using the Rodenstock hr40 with the iq180, do you need a CF?

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I could do - there's always the feeling that future software improvements might give a better result if re-applying the original LCC though - and the huge file size of a tiff. I think I remember that when packing as EIP, the original LCC file has to remain in the library. That takes less space than saving as a TIFF. But as I have noted above there was one C1 upgrade that lost all my LCC profiles and I then no longer knew which of the LCC frames I had shot and saved applied to which actual image. That quite seriously p***d me off and was the beginning of the end for me with all this. I never really sorted it out and as a consequence I had a number of files that I was never sure were correctly corrected!
    Good points. You are making me think I should reconsider my current workflow and save the LCCs. However, I mistrust my ability to keep all this organized and am not too bothered by file size. I have something like 15TB on NAS and that was pretty cheap and easy to implement. Data quantity is not a big problem in going to TIF.

    However, your comment about improvements in LCC algorithms gives me pause. I used to work with some fairly elaborate corrections in scientific imaging - where we didn't keep discrete correction images - and that experience leads me to doubt saved LCCs will get much better with new C1 versions. This is because of how we acquire the LCCs. There are a lot more uncontrolled variables in photography than in scientific imaging and the LCC files reflect that. It is those LCC files that are the problem, not the correction processes.

    We are bothered by very subtle cast and intensity induced artifacts. As an example of the latter consider the CCD segment differences that come up as an issue every now and then. The corrective algorithms appear to already do a pretty good job - if the correction matrix is optimal. However, if local CCD offset changes a bit (intensity) or if the FOV color balance changes a bit (cast) the correction matrix becomes less than optimal and the corrected image happily shows us where our LCC acquisition process was less than perfect.

    OK, earth to cunim. It appears that many are keeping both the LCCs and the images. Should I adopt this? I think if C1 introduces workflow optimization that automates pairing LCCs with their target files (something like the long exposure dark correction) I should keep them. Otherwise, managing discrete LCCs is too inconvenient for the work that I do. Tim is clearly more disciplined and less lazy than I.
    Last edited by cunim; 9th May 2013 at 10:32.

  44. #44
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Those using the Rodenstock hr40 with the iq180, do you need a CF?
    There is no center filter on the HR40.

    ken

  45. #45
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    Good points. You are making me think I should reconsider my current workflow and save the LCCs. However, I mistrust my ability to keep all this organized and am not too bothered by file size. I have something like 15TB on NAS and that was pretty cheap and easy to implement. Data quantity is not a big problem in going to TIF.
    For me it's not so much about the file size but the rendering speed in Lightroom - at least until (and if) Apple introduces a new Mac Pro because the one I have is groaning!

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    However, your comment about improvements in LCC algorithms gives me pause. I used to work with some fairly elaborate corrections in scientific imaging - where we didn't keep discrete correction images - and that experience leads me to doubt saved LCCs will get much better with new C1 versions. This is because of how we acquire the LCCs. There are a lot more uncontrolled variables in photography than in scientific imaging and the LCC files reflect that. It is those LCC files that are the problem, not the correction processes.
    I'm not sufficiently expert and might just be falling for the marketing blurb but it does seem that Phase introduces new and better processing (Technical lenses with movements for example) though it had never occurred to me (stupidly) that the LCC capture would have to be contemporary. However, even so I like to keep the LCC just in case - in case I applied the wrong one and need to try a nearby one in the sequence! However disciplined I try to be, it is easy to lose track when having to change movements and apertures in the field

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post

    OK, earth to cunim. It appears that many are keeping both the LCCs and the images. Should I adopt this? I think if C1 introduces workflow optimization that automates pairing LCCs with their target files (something like the long exposure dark correction) I should keep them. Otherwise, managing discrete LCCs is too inconvenient for the work that I do. Tim is clearly more disciplined and less lazy than I.
    I am theoretically quite disciplined and diligent but not being very smart, I come unstuck quite often! To err is human - and that's my problem with the LCC process. I don't have perfect colour vision, so I really have to try to get my technique right...

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    I don't think any lens needs a optical CF as its all correctable in software. However, the larger movements you make the more stress it puts on the ability of the software to make corrections without adverse side effects. I have the SK43XL on my Arca/P65+ and that doesn't require a CF per-say but IMO its a much, much better lens with it.

    A point that gets seldom mentionef and may be a non issue for you but in my experience when originally testing the RS40HR and SK43XL is the difference in flare handeling. My tests showed with the RS40HR it was essential to use a lens hood, (I suppose due to its more complex design) and was a total pig unshaded for flare. Not the usual coloured streaks but funny splodges across the frame that totally killed the contrast.

    So, when considering the larger Rodies for a small compact setup you also need to factor in the additional size of a good lens hood (Lee WA hood) or compendium shade.

    As a side note regarding LCC, I'm not so sure the latest LCC correction tool in C1 is such a massive step forward. Sure it pretty much eliminates all but the most severe banding on WA lenses but I feel the new correction formula over corrects for fall off and instead of compensating for colour shifts it just desaturates them killing all colours equally. Anyone else noticed this?

  47. #47
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    Tim, are you are being too hard on yourself? If I understand correctly, you want to keep LCCs for each image. Why bother? After all, the back is applying all sorts of internal corrections to equalize the CCD segments, and the debayering processes are doing god knows what that changes from time to time and between raw converters. You can't save a "pre-raw" image that leaves out those proprietary processes so there is no such thing as an "original". Perhaps you could just save the lcc-corrected image, toss the LCCs, and be done with it.
    I think it is important to distinguish between calibrations inherent to the sensor, and those which arise from the particular optical configuration ahead of the sensor. In the first category you have the CCD segments equalization you referred to...basically offsets subtraction and gain map division. Dark frame subtraction is another example. In the second category you have the lens cast and LCC issue. To me, a file is still 'raw' and 'original' if it has only had the first category of corrections applied in-camera...it is as raw as you can get from that camera anyway; not pure raw like Canon but tweaked raw like Nikon. Obviously de-Bayering comes later and its output is no longer raw.

    I too work in scientific imaging, and the policy or philosophy is to separately keep every individual frame or exposure which is read off the camera, both data and calibration frames.

    Not that I'd be entirely opposed to keeping only the LCC-corrected versions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely LCC correction happens before de-Bayering and the result can be saved in original Bayer format? In that case, there is still the freedom to do whatever raw processing you please, and later re-processing, on the LCC-corrected file. And because each LCC is unique to that setup at that time, because of dust etc., it's not like you can later make a 'better' LCC and apply it to the original raw file.

    Ray

  48. #48
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    I don't think any lens needs a optical CF as its all correctable in software. However, the larger movements you make the more stress it puts on the ability of the software to make corrections without adverse side effects. I have the SK43XL on my Arca/P65+ and that doesn't require a CF per-say but IMO its a much, much better lens with it.

    A point that gets seldom mentionef and may be a non issue for you but in my experience when originally testing the RS40HR and SK43XL is the difference in flare handeling. My tests showed with the RS40HR it was essential to use a lens hood, (I suppose due to its more complex design) and was a total pig unshaded for flare. Not the usual coloured streaks but funny splodges across the frame that totally killed the contrast.

    So, when considering the larger Rodies for a small compact setup you also need to factor in the additional size of a good lens hood (Lee WA hood) or compendium shade.

    As a side note regarding LCC, I'm not so sure the latest LCC correction tool in C1 is such a massive step forward. Sure it pretty much eliminates all but the most severe banding on WA lenses but I feel the new correction formula over corrects for fall off and instead of compensating for colour shifts it just desaturates them killing all colours equally. Anyone else noticed this?
    Hi

    I have the the Rodi 28, 40, and 70 on a Cambo AE RS. IQ 180

    My experience has been

    On the 70 T/S, I generally put a rubber collapsible hood from Hama and no issues. No CF - Have to be careful with movements with the Hama

    On the 40 T/S (by far my favorite at the moment) - The Hama does not work, it vignettes, I use the Cambo Compendium, especially if the sun is between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, not time wise, but clock wise. Shoting into the sun ie, Sunrise or Sunset, I use only reverse grads, or ND grads. -- No Flare at all -- BTW I hate flare -- not a flare fan No CF -- I do use movements.

    On the 28 , Do use the Rodi CF, Will use the Compendium or ND Grads occasionally. Will sometimes take off the CF due to frustration of losing 2.5 stops and being down to 1/15 sec, With no movements (other than maybe 2 - 5 degrees rise / fall, I have not had a big problem).

    My biggest issue has been keeping track of movements, exposures etc, Now I make my notes using the time stamp, as the back records this, I am going to make my self a little chart with boxes to keep track.

    Thanks

    Phil

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    On the 40 T/S (by far my favorite at the moment) - The Hama does not work, it vignettes, I use the Cambo Compendium, especially if the sun is between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, not time wise, but clock wise. Shoting into the sun ie, Sunrise or Sunset, I use only reverse grads, or ND grads. -- No Flare at all -- BTW I hate flare -- not a flare fan No CF -- I do use movements.
    I agree, correctly shaded (Cambo Compendium) its a none issue but if you are after a compact set up on an Alpa TC, adding a compendium kind off defeats the objective of the TC IMO.

    Like I said, this might not be an issue for Tim but a point worth considering for a light weight (hand held?) travel camera.

  50. #50
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Just thinking of a volte face

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    I agree, correctly shaded (Cambo Compendium) its a none issue but if you are after a compact set up on an Alpa TC, adding a compendium kind off defeats the objective of the TC IMO.

    Like I said, this might not be an issue for Tim but a point worth considering for a light weight (hand held?) travel camera.

    I agree Gareth with the compendium get sorta large, I would be interested in how other people hand hold the tech cameras, I have not had much luck, maybe with the smaller ones and securing a hand strap, might work. Interested in others experiences.

    Best

    Phil

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •