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!

Technical Camera Tech Spec Summary

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Wait a second. A valuable forum member posts an informative link.

Instead of a warm welcome, he gets fire for that in an ad hominem way.

The discussion becomes personal, acid and insulting. With many chiming in.

One other member threatens to never post again as a result.

...

Is this some kind of kindergarten here? I just went through the thread and cannot understand why such a huge discussion can develop out of a spec table.

Everyone knows that Doug is biased, it says it in his signature!

Everybody calm down, I just find this discussion over camera spec sheets way out of proportion. There are more important things in life!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Just looked at the charts , it actually looks pretty good. Now not to say it maybe missing something in Alpa since I don't know the system well enough. But in regards to the 28XL and I did a long review with it and the Roadie 28. Now this was with the IQ160 and at the time C1 was not the latest and greatest version and I did buy the 28Xl which I loved the form factor and the look of the lens BUT I was noticing some magenta cast in the upper right side even after a LCC and even after shooting with no movements it was faintly there. I finally asked Dave for a return of the SK 28 for the Roadie 28 and that all cleared up. So I can see why Doug say no on the 180. Although I never tested it with the 180 its a safe assumption it be a issue. Now again this was with a older version of C1 so and we all know they keep getting the LCC correction better in each version. Today it maybe a different story I don't know.

Maybe no as Doug states is correct or maybe the word with restrictions possibly would be better . Hard to say since I tested it myself I might just say no as well. Given its a chart that leaves out a lengthy description like I just mentioned or similar than I guess it makes sense. Now I agree any of the bodies this should make no difference the body is really only a go between the most important parts to the lens and back.

I'm not going to defend Doug's work here on this chart but like anything else in any review or spec its all up to us to use data as a piece of a puzzle and not a absolute. Maybe that should be said in some fashion. I'm not here to tell anyone what write as I see it as pretty valuable regardless. The shift thing with Alpa clearly states with adapter. It's up to us buyers to look that up. I know he made changes as some of the requests came in and I can't remover what they all are but looking at the piece today it looks pretty good. Now that's my opinion and YMMV as always.

I take a approach to any review or data sharing as a piece of the puzzle and its up to me to figure out if it fits my needs or not. Than if in doubt I will ask questions on this very forum. Obviously with over 18k posts I have a lot of questions in there. Lol

Anyway I see it as a good effort on his part regardless of how bias he maybe, heck he could have authored it without Alpa in there to begin with, than the sparks would fly. I suggest update Doug and see if he will make those changes but its his piece and his info that he puts out. Honestly I don't change my product reviews to make someone feel better only if I am wrong will I update something. And we count on forum members to help us along the way. At least that's the way I see life. No one has to agree with that either.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Just looked at the charts , it actually looks pretty good. Now not to say it maybe missing something in Alpa since I don't know the system well enough. But in regards to the 28XL and I did a long review with it and the Roadie 28. Now this was with the IQ160 and at the time C1 was not the latest and greatest version and I did buy the 28Xl which I loved the form factor and the look of the lens BUT I was noticing some magenta cast in the upper right side even after a LCC and even after shooting with no movements it was faintly there. I finally asked Dave for a return of the SK 28 for the Roadie 28 and that all cleared up. So I can see why Doug say no on the 180. Although I never tested it with the 180 its a safe assumption it be a issue. Now again this was with a older version of C1 so and we all know they keep getting the LCC correction better in each version. Today it maybe a different story I don't know.

Maybe no as Doug states is correct or maybe the word with restrictions possibly would be better . Hard to say since I tested it myself I might just say no as well. Given its a chart that leaves out a lengthy description like I just mentioned or similar than I guess it makes sense. Now I agree any of the bodies this should make no difference the body is really only a go between the most important parts to the lens and back.
Guy are you trying to make sense of this post:
I do not know why he has "No" for the 28 lens with Alpa as I have one and it works well with my Max.
If so I had clarified in the next post:
That's under the heading "TS Available" meaning Tilt-Swing available. The 28HR is not available in a short-barrel tilt-swing compatible mount from Alpa.
You're absolutely right that the body has no impact on whether a given back+lens combination works well regarding acceptable lens cast. In other words the 28XL produces poor results (even without movement) on an IQ180 regardless of what body is between the 28XL and IQ180. With the current version of Capture One (which has a better LCC routine than when you were testing) it works acceptably with an IQ160 and other 6 micron backs, but only within a limited range of movements.

In fact I considered listed it as "very limited" but decided that simplicity trumped the additional information, and to cover the nuances of how much movement I felt each lens/back combo allowed to longer/more-detailed conversations client-by-client.

To further clarify Darr's original post the 28HR (which I believe is the 28 Darr is referring to) is a great lens whether on an Alpa, Arca, or Cambo (or any other body). The table simply specifies that one cannot purchase a 28HR in an Alpa short-barrel mount, which means it cannot be used with the Alpa tilt-swing adapter. If you want a 28HR lens and consider tilt to be an important feature for your needs then good alternatives (as neatly laid out by the chart) include going with a 32HR short barrel on an Alpa or the 28HR with a Cambo or Arca which do allow tilt with that specific lens. Other options (e.g. Technica) are out there but are not covered in the chart.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes I was. Thanks for updating me as I was a little baffled by Darrs post and I figured since I tested it under a older version of C1 that maybe better with newer version and It seems by your post better but not cleared up entirely. Okay that all makes sense.

I know this is a lot of work since its about 4 sensor sizes between systems. Be nice to know the movement limits of each lens on each sensor. I know that is like 6 months worth of work to test all that out . Im not volunteering either. ROTFLMAO
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Guy are you trying to make sense of this post:


If so I had clarified in the next post:


You're absolutely right that the body has no impact on whether a given back+lens combination works well regarding acceptable lens cast. In other words the 28XL produces poor results (even without movement) on an IQ180 regardless of what body is between the 28XL and IQ180. With the current version of Capture One (which has a better LCC routine than when you were testing) it works acceptably with an IQ160 and other 6 micron backs, but only within a limited range of movements.

In fact I considered listed it as "very limited" but decided that simplicity trumped the additional information, and to cover the nuances of how much movement I felt each lens/back combo allowed to longer/more-detailed conversations client-by-client.

To further clarify Darr's original post the 28HR (which I believe is the 28 Darr is referring to) is a great lens whether on an Alpa, Arca, or Cambo (or any other body). The table simply specifies that one cannot purchase a 28HR in an Alpa short-barrel mount, which means it cannot be used with the Alpa tilt-swing adapter. If you want a 28HR lens and consider tilt to be an important feature for your needs then good alternatives (as neatly laid out by the chart) include going with a 32HR short barrel on an Alpa or the 28HR with a Cambo or Arca which do allow tilt with that specific lens. Other options (e.g. Technica) are out there but are not covered in the chart.
Yea I think I remember when buying the 28mm for my Cambo the SK no tilt option but the Roadie 28mm did have the tilt option. I did not buy the TS in the 28mm since I felt I may not need it on such a wide angle. My DOF would probably be good enough with it. I really like the 28mm and I wish the SK worked out as I liked the look of it.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Just a quick correction for you mate.
The 120mm Schneider is listed on your site with a 110mm image circle. Schneider list is with a 120mm circle. Also their list for the filter thread is 46mm not 40.5mm.
Thanks!

There are three (modern) Schneider 120mm lenses:
- Macro
- N
- ASPH

The ASPH is the newest and is meant as a replacement for both the N and the Macro.

I originally only had the N on the chart. It's specs were correct (110mm IC, 40.5mm thread).

I've kept the N on the chart and added the ASPH which is starting to ship (we've received one, another poster here on the forum has received one). I've left some fields as "?" until I have a chance to look up the rest of the specs.

The ASPH lens has a 150mm image circle and 46mm thread size (Schneider's typo on their website implied the image circle was smaller, but 150mm IC is for-sure the correct specification of this lens) though I do not know which systems will show what amount of mechanical vignetting which would lower it's effective image circle size. For sure Arca will be able to use the full image circle size without mechanical vignette.

See also this recent thread.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
Two points:

The Alpa SWA is listed as having rise on the rear only. In fact, the SWA has rise on the front only.

You seem to consider rear only movements a feature, while many might consider it important to have rise on the front. The Alpa Max has rise and fall on the front, and shift on the rear (with all movements on the rear if you choose to use their shift adapter).
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
The Alpa SWA is listed as having rise on the rear only. In fact, the SWA has rise on the front only.

You seem to consider rear only movements a feature, while many might consider it important to have rise on the front.
I do consider rear-only movement a feature. On the SWA you can swap the lens and back and thereby allow rear-only movement. This comes from my experience with clients who either purchased or looked at both the DS and the RS, one major difference of which is that the DS has rise on on the front (and would require an additional adapter to keep the lens stationary during a rise/fall) while the RS is natively rear-only for both rise/fall and shift. Something to think about though.

To help clarify this I've added the word "capable" after "rear only" indicating that the specification only indicates whether it is possible to use the body with rear-only movement (whether natively, with separate adapter, or by swapping front/back panels). This (I think) also helps illuminate the spec as a feature and not a limitation. Hopefully this clarifies rather than obfuscates what I'm trying to explain.

Perhaps I could add a column for "front only", as you're right that some users will prefer the back to stay stationary and have the lens rise/fall (as with the SWA, Max, and Cambo Wide DS). But I would say that from my experience with clients that, with the advent/main-streaming of digital stitching, front-rise is a minority use-case and doesn't fall under "overview".

Or perhaps it should say "Rear-Only Method" and list "native", "via swap", and "adapter" to provide more detail? That seems to be getting overly complicated for the overview-level of detail. Though it seems to be a salient detail for someone who considers rear-only movement a priority for their needs.

What do you think?
 

PeterL

Member
The filter thread indications for the Alpa Schneider lenses are also not correct, they are all 67mm except the 35XL (72mm) and 28XL (89mm). These are the current offerings of Schneider lenses from Alpa under the name Apo-Helvetar and Apo-Switar(35mm). The stock Schneider lenses are no longer available in Alpa mount, except for maybe the 90N and 100N.

Cheers, -Peter
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
The filter thread indications for the Alpa Schneider lenses are also not correct, they are all 67mm except the 35XL (72mm) and 28XL (89mm). These are the current offerings of Schneider lenses from Alpa under the name Apo-Helvetar and Apo-Switar(35mm). The stock Schneider lenses are no longer available in Alpa mount, except for maybe the 90N and 100N.
Indeed I had that on my list to figure out how to address since the lens listing is for the lenses that come out of Schneider and Rodenstocks factory. For instance the weight and size are without the lens panel/mount that Cambo/Arca/Alpa put on.

Likewise the "special editions" of the Cambo RS Anniversary Edition varied (cosmetically) from the standard issue. Though since that's not a current product I'm inclined to leave that detail out of the overview.

Separate columns for Thread Size Native and Thread Size Alpa-Badged might be the right approach, or an asterisk on the column that clarifies that Alpa's rebadges have different thread sizes. Will look at that tomorrow.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Thanks!

There are three (modern) Schneider 120mm lenses:
- Macro
- N
- ASPH

The ASPH is the newest and is meant as a replacement for both the N and the Macro.

.
How does this lens replace the Macro version? The closest focusing distance is 1.16M. The only way that I see it could be used for Macro would be with extensions.

Victor
 

f8orbust

Active member
I wouldn't have thought it does (but the 120 'M' is missing from the S/K website?). With genuine macro lenses image circles get bigger the closer you focus, whilst with non-macro versions they get bigger the further away you focus. e.g. 120 'M' has an IC of 80mm @ f11 @ 1:4, 90mm @ f11 @ 1:2 and 110mm @ f5.6 @ 1:1 (because of diffraction it shouldn't be used @f11 @ 1:1). The 120 'Asph' has a maximum IC of 153mm when focussed ... at infinity. One lens can't do everything, although I'm willing to bet the 120 'Asph' is ok close-up - though just how close you can get I'm not sure.
 

rupho

New member
I can confirm this, on the Alpa Max with full frame sensor I only hit the lens limits in vertical orientation at around 22or 23 mm or rise. You could easily do a 9 stitch shot with this lens and it's sharp as sharp can be.
Though I received this lens last year already. I double checked it's definitely the Asph. Version not N and certainly not M.
Grischa

Thanks!

There are three (modern) Schneider 120mm lenses:
- Macro
- N
- ASPH

The ASPH is the newest and is meant as a replacement for both the N and the Macro.

I originally only had the N on the chart. It's specs were correct (110mm IC, 40.5mm thread).

I've kept the N on the chart and added the ASPH which is starting to ship (we've received one, another poster here on the forum has received one). I've left some fields as "?" until I have a chance to look up the rest of the specs.

The ASPH lens has a 150mm image circle and 46mm thread size (Schneider's typo on their website implied the image circle was smaller, but 150mm IC is for-sure the correct specification of this lens) though I do not know which systems will show what amount of mechanical vignetting which would lower it's effective image circle size. For sure Arca will be able to use the full image circle size without mechanical vignette.

See also this recent thread.
 

f8orbust

Active member
I only hit the lens limits in vertical orientation at around 22or 23 mm or rise...
Since the IC is 153mm, with a full-frame sensor (e.g. 40mm x 54mm) in vertical orientation, it should take about 46mm of rise or fall to hit the edge of the IC ... is it mechanical vignetting from the Alpa mount that you're seeing at 23mm?
 

stephengilbert

Active member
Vignetting caused by the construction of the lens mount. A long, relatively narrow mount or barrel can cause vignetting just as a too narrow lens hood can.
 

Dogs857

New member
Vignetting caused by the construction of the lens mount. A long, relatively narrow mount or barrel can cause vignetting just as a too narrow lens hood can.
This is how I understood it as well, cheers.

The frame of the body is interfering with the lens . Basically blocking the lens angle of view.
Ok that makes sense. I am not used to moving backs but I can see how this could happen. Thank you.
 

narikin

New member
I was reading this thread on my mobile phone, while traveling. I wondered what all the fuss was about, but it was quite entertaining on a long wait at the airport.

finally I got to see the table in question, when I reached a real 'puter. I must admit a few light bulbs went on when I saw the description of these cameras capabilities reduced to a simple tabular form.

I don't think these cameras lend themselves well to such simplistic summations. The fact that Alpa Max's left- right shift is given as +/-18mm =36mm, vs 40mm on the Cambo, is notionally correct, but of course you can reverse the camera, and you'll have 25+18 =43mm shift possible. Which is a greater range... How do you put that ability in a table?

I have no idea if the Cambo or Arca's have this reversible front/back, up/down ability, but the table does give wrong info, when you can switch it all about (no 'accessories' involved Doug!) and have a bigger range, should you need it, in whatever direction.

There was for example a bit of flattery for the Arca system and tilt on any lens, which is indeed praiseworthy. Cambo and Alpa are lumped together as needing special lens mounts TS mount on the Cambo lens, and a TS adapter on the Alpa SB lenses. It might be worth pointing out that owning just *one TS adapter allows you to tilt any lens (virtually) you own in SB, so you only need one of those for all your optics, an improvement on the Cambo answer.

The description of the lenses needing special SB mounts (Alpa) or TS mounts (Cambo) also while true is a little off in tone, as anyone investing in a new system would simply order their lenses SB (no extra cost) and they have it. However with Cambo, it's at an extra cost above normal mount, (I think?).

These are details that jumped to my attention. I like Doug And feel his contributions are good addition here. But see why someone might get a bit heated at such broad brush tabulation that flatters one brand over another, especially when the tabulator sells that one and not the other.

I'm positive Doug means well, but it needs updating and footnoting to not be misleading. The idea after all is to allow people to make a good informed decision. Isn't it ?!
 
Last edited:
Top