Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60

Thread: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Hi everyone, I mostly photograph landscapes and architecture, and after lurking in this forum for a while, I decide to register a forum account and ask your ideas about joining this club.

    I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.

    However I have some concerns moving into such an expensive system:

    a) The only option for 645 fullframe digital is CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260), not CMOS (e.g. IQ250 and IQ150). It means for pictures that must be done in a single exposure (when stitching is not viable), I will always get narrower angle of view with a CMOS back.

    b) The dynamic range of CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260) is noticeably inferior than that of the SONY CMOS sensors (e.g. D800E and IQ250), especially for long exposures of seconds to minutes. This could be an issue if I attempt to photograph sunrise and sunset (by shooting directly into the sun) should I choose to go with the CCD routine, since there are always complicated scenes where a Graduated ND filter do not fit.

    c) I don't think there is a bright future for CCD. SONY is the game changer now. Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax and Leaf all use SONY CMOS. Even Leica S has moved to their own CMOS. This could be an issue for the current Rodenstock lenses. If I have done my research correctly, the Schneider wide angles (e.g. 28XL) are KODAK-friendly (e.g. P45+) and the Rodenstock wide angles (e.g. 28HR) are DALSA-friendly (e.g. IQ260). I think the SONY sensors will eventually "kill" the current Rodenstock wide angles, just like how the DALSA sensors "killed" the Schneider wide angles.

    d) I am interested in the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm, but that means I will have to stick with the IQ260 or IQ280, since there are crosstalk issues with the IQ250. Even if a 645 fullframe CMOS sensor is announced next year, I will still be unable to upgrade to CMOS, unless I dump the current Rodenstock lenses. SAR rumors have confirmed that a new SONY sensor (36x24mm size) of 46-54mp will be announced in 3 months. Eventually there will be a smaller CMOS sensor "killing" the IQ260 and IQ280, just like how the D800E "killed" the 33mp digital backs. I am not sure for how many years could the IQ260 and IQ280 hold their advantages.

    e) Should Rodenstock announce a yellow-banded wide angle lens that is CMOS-friendly, my bet is that the (super retrofocus design) lens will be heavier and bigger and more expensive, and there will be no guarantee that it will work correctly with the microlens offset of the SONY sensor (c.f. IQ250, A7R) when shifted to the extreme. If an era of 645 fullframe CMOS and yellow-banded CMOS-friendly Rodenstock wide angles comes, how much can I sell the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm for by then? What is the current second-hand price for the discontinued 28XL?

    f) The Canon 17mm TS-E and the Canon 24mm TS-E are great, but still not as excellent as the Rodenstock HR lenses. I am not convinced to invest expensive digital backs for the Canon TS-E lenses, since I am not fascinated with the distortion control and corner sharpness. Should I have to choose the Canon lenses I might opt for a SONY A7R instead of an IQ250 via ALPA FPS. Also it is a pain to get appropriate filters for the 17mm TS-E (look at the size of the Fotodiox filters!).

    Any advise would be appreciated!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    I would not worry about the dynamic range. How many stops do you push your shadows? The D800/IQ250 is indeed a little cleaner than a IQ260 but it's not exactly a huge difference. You can bracket and merge when needed too.

    Anyway, I think it's a very narrow case when a D800 DR would be enough and IQ260 DR would be inadequate. In other words, if you need to bracket with your IQ260 you would most likely want to bracket with your D800 too.

    Graduated NDs are more usable than most think too (a perfect fit is not necessary), but that's another (long) story.

    Your point c) is not entirely unlikely. What could happen is than Schneider or Rodenstock introduce a stronger retrofocus wide angle range to fit Sony CMOS sensors, and then you'll see lots of Rodenstock HRs on the second hand market, just as you saw lots of SK35's on the second hand market a while ago. But this may not be a huge problem, the value of SK35's did not exactly drop as a stone, as their are other users that run on legacy systems and want to buy those lenses. That is, there will be lots of people interesting in buying those Rodenstock HRs to run on CCD backs. Not everyone uses the latest.

    Don't worry about price drops of lenses with new introduced technologies. Your digital back will drop a lot more :-). A 35XL and 28XL still has good value on the second hand market. It's not like everyone has stopped using Kodak just because there's Sony CMOS there.

    But what also could happen is that before we see new stronger retrofocus tech lens lines we see new CMOS sensor with wide angle response. Back illumination sensors exist in the smaller formats already and might move up in size soon. Let's hope for that.

    I would avoid the IQ280 too if you like large shifts, it has some noticable crosstalk issues. IQ260 is much more stable with the Rodenstock HRs over the whole image circle, and you get long exposures too.

    Concerning high res 135 systems, say a 50 megapixel 24x36mm sensor, that will happen sooner or later, but shiftable lenses that can resolve that will not happen anytime soon. Sure there are Otus lenses, but you can't shift them. With a tech cam you can shift and tilt all focal lengths, especially if you go with something flexible concerning movements like Linhof Techno or Arca-Swiss Universalis.

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

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Hi everyone, I mostly photograph landscapes and architecture, and after lurking in this forum for a while, I decide to register a forum account and ask your ideas about joining this club.
    Welcome aboard. Stick around after you get whatever you get so you can share your experience with others!


    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.
    The 32HR and 40HR are even more impressive. Though to some extent this is like arguing about whether a Bugatti Veyron or Hennessey Venom GT is faster - I'd be glad to own either.


    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    a) The only option for 645 fullframe digital is CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260), not CMOS (e.g. IQ250 and IQ150). It means for pictures that must be done in a single exposure (when stitching is not viable), I will always get narrower angle of view with a CMOS back.
    Correct. Evaluate the widest absolute AOV you need (or more practically the widest you'd need for 99% of your shots) and don't buy a system if it can't handle that AOV (even if you don't get the lens that would allow it until after your initial purchase).


    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    b) The dynamic range of CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260) is noticeably inferior than that of the SONY CMOS sensors (e.g. D800E and IQ250), especially for long exposures of seconds to minutes. This could be an issue if I attempt to photograph sunrise and sunset (by shooting directly into the sun) should I choose to go with the CCD routine, since there are always complicated scenes where a Graduated ND filter do not fit.
    IQ260 long exposure is very very good. Have you seen raw files from it? If not shoot me an email and I'll be glad to provide. The IQ250/150/Credo50 also provide great long exposure. Which has better long exposure is really not as important as whether they do well enough for your needs. Again - kind of like arguing over the last few mph of two very very fast cars.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    c) I don't think there is a bright future for CCD. SONY is the game changer now. Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax and Leaf all use SONY CMOS. Even Leica S has moved to their own CMOS.
    I suspect we'll still see more CCD backs, but it's only a good guess. Either way, the only relevant question is what's the best option for you today.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    This could be an issue for the current Rodenstock lenses. If I have done my research correctly, the Schneider wide angles (e.g. 28XL) are KODAK-friendly (e.g. P45+) and the Rodenstock wide angles (e.g. 28HR) are DALSA-friendly (e.g. IQ260). I think the SONY sensors will eventually "kill" the current Rodenstock wide angles, just like how the DALSA sensors "killed" the Schneider wide angles.
    Again - what's relevant is what will work today. Don't buy a system predicated on what lenses may be released for it in the future. An IQ260 and 32HR/60XL/90HR-SW/120ASPH is an amazing kit and will be no matter what does or does not change 5 years from now.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    d) I am interested in the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm, but that means I will have to stick with the IQ260 or IQ280, since there are crosstalk issues with the IQ250.
    That's probably true. Though it depends on your range of movement required. Feel free to contact me for raw files.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Even if a 645 fullframe CMOS sensor is announced next year.
    It took several years for CCD to make each jump from tiny to 35mm to 1.3 crop to full frame 645. I don't think you should be expecting such a jump in CMOS on a short term basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    SAR rumors have confirmed that a new SONY sensor (36x24mm size) of 46-54mp will be announced in 3 months.
    Feel free to wait, but shoving more pixels through glass you find not up-to-snuff isn't going to improve the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Eventually there will be a smaller CMOS sensor "killing" the IQ260 and IQ280, just like how the D800E "killed" the 33mp digital backs. I am not sure for how many years could the IQ260 and IQ280 hold their advantages.
    We still have many customers using 22mp and 31mp and 33mp backs. They aren't sold as new anymore but we still sell many refurbished and pre-owned backs in this range. If you buy a kit that does what you need it to do, and does it very well, then you don't feel a huge tug when something else comes along.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    e) Should Rodenstock announce a yellow-banded wide angle lens that is CMOS-friendly, my bet is that the (super retrofocus design) lens will be heavier and bigger and more expensive, and there will be no guarantee that it will work correctly with the microlens offset of the SONY sensor (c.f. IQ250, A7R) when shifted to the extreme. If an era of 645 fullframe CMOS and yellow-banded CMOS-friendly Rodenstock wide angles comes, how much can I sell the Rodenstock 23mm and 40mm for by then? What is the current second-hand price for the discontinued 28XL?
    I'd worry less about what the resale value of a specific lens will be, and focus more on finding a kit that you won't want to resell because it does what you want it to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    f) The Canon 17mm TS-E and the Canon 24mm TS-E are great, but still not as excellent as the Rodenstock HR lenses. I am not convinced to invest expensive digital backs for the Canon TS-E lenses, since I am not fascinated with the distortion control and corner sharpness. Should I have to choose the Canon lenses I might opt for a SONY A7R instead of an IQ250 via ALPA FPS. Also it is a pain to get appropriate filters for the 17mm TS-E (look at the size of the Fotodiox filters!).
    There is also now the Arca FP.

    But once you've shot with a Rodenstock wide angle it's really hard to shoot anything else.


    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Any advise would be appreciated!
    - Work with a knowledgeable dealer.
    - Test drive whatever you're considering. A good dealer can help facilitate this in a number of different ways including a rental which counts toward purchase.
    - Consider the entire chain (lens/body/back/features/limitations/software/support/warranty)
    - Don't limit yourself 100% to evaluating the technicals. At the end of the day life should be enjoyable, so pick a camera that you'll enjoy using (and which, of course, does what you need it to do technically). If you like the menu system of a camera, or the sound of the shutter, or the knob/action for rise and fall, or the feel of the handle it impacts the way you shoot with it. These are secondary to how well the camera does its job, but they aren't irrelevant. That's my two cents anyway.
    - Buy what will work today.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Concerning recommendations I'd say that if you worry about losing money on the lenses you should probably not buy MF gear, at least not new.

    If a $50k system loses only 25% in value you lose $12.5k. You need to lose more than 100% on a typical 135 setup for that.

    Concerning performance I think you would be most pleased with a system with IQ260 + Alpa + Rodenstock HR, and even if new technologies are introduced you will be able to sell this with much of the value retained, but due to the very large total cost of such a system you even a small percentage in loss will mean many dollars.

    An A7r + adapters + Canon TS-Es won't be as sharp and high resolution, even with a future sensor of 50 megapixels, the limit is in the optics. But in absolute terms that system will still produce very good prints and be a lot cheaper.

    Make your choice :-).

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    I have both a a7R and an IQ160. As good as the 7r is, hands down the IQ on either my DF or WRS is my favorite.

    I'd also suggest looking at the IQ1 series as they are every bit as good as the 2 and we've discovered you can tether with the USB3 very nicely.
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  6. #6
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.

    b) The dynamic range of CCD (e.g. IQ280 and IQ260) is noticeably inferior than that of the SONY CMOS sensors (e.g. D800E and IQ250), especially for long exposures of seconds to minutes. This could be an issue if I attempt to photograph sunrise and sunset (by shooting directly into the sun) should I choose to go with the CCD routine, since there are always complicated scenes where a Graduated ND filter do not fit.
    !
    Hi Jordan

    I own shoot with both the D800e as well as the IQ260 with the HR40 and HR70 lenses, and am happy with the images that each system creates, as there are different uses for each.

    The IQ260 images are better suited for landscape, especially if you intend larger prints as the higher pixel count and the larger sensor size do translate into better images. The IQ backs generate true 16bit data files where the Nikon does not, so that is a difference.

    With regards to the DR between the two, this also depends on the subject matter, as I have compared both and they are both extremely superb.

    On a side note, if you are looking for corner sharpness, you should take a look at the Zeiss 15mm is a very good option and the corners are sharper. That being said, if you want extremely sharp corners and like the HR lenses, then you are looking at a tech cam, which is an entirely different workflow altogether.
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Jordan I have a lot of info I can share. PM me for more details. I have tested and used a bunch of cameras and lens combinations and can sum it up like this:

    When you see a well crafted image from a 60 or 80MP (Dalsa CCD) Back (PhaseOne / Leaf) using the Rodenstock HR lenses, at 100% on screen, your jaw will drop. The sharpness edge to edge, the clarity and color depth are just stunning and IMHO unmatched by any digital camera / lens combination available today.

    Yes, the new 50mp sony CMOS sensor is much more flexible in that it can handle long exposures AND high iso but it does not offer more resolution than the 60/80mp CCD backs.

    The 60mp backs do allow the most amount of shift/rise/fall while mantaining the highest image quality but the 80mp backs are close in that regard and the less the shift the more edge the 80mp backs will have.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Another advice I'd like to give is to not only think about image quality, but also think about how you want to create images.

    I'm a landscape photographer.

    Some may want to shoot landscapes fast and quick often hand-held to capture fleeing moments. A Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z would be my go-to choices for that style.

    Others are more old-school and like Ansel Adams style, large format, carefully chosing tripod position, adjusting the composition with shifting, focal plane with tilting and swinging, and shoot. Few images, time-consuming to shoot one but very rewarding.

    The large format style fits my personality and creative goal best, therefore I chose a Linhof Techno and a longe range of tech lenses. Thanks to the view camera design I get movements including tilt and swing for all focal lengths, which I appreciate.

    The quality you get out of a Sony A7r + Canon TS-Es are surely good enough for my purposes, but there are so few focal lengths to choose from, and the fiddly controls of the TS-Es are not as satisfying as operating the self-locking gears of the tech camera.

    I think that if you only chose system based on image quality, and not on workflow and creative possibilities, there will be a constant stress and worry when the latest new gear arrives, trying "to keep up". Keeping up in the MF game is extremely expensive, in the 135 game not as expensive but more frequent upgrades so it can be stressful.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Graduated NDs are more usable than most think too (a perfect fit is not necessary), but that's another (long) story.
    Thanks for the reply! I understand that I can take an LCC shot with the Grad ND, but I would still get noise in local areas where the Grad ND hurts the foreground. This is still less than ideal.

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    the value of SK35's did not exactly drop as a stone,

    ...

    A 35XL and 28XL still has good value on the second hand market.
    Would you mind sharing the actual trading prices of the 28XL when the DALSA CCD became popular? Do you still remember the inductive price of the 28XL? I would be interested to know how much has depreciated. The 23HR and the 40HR were both introduced in 2008 and they are 6 years old now. Buying these only to find them out-of-date within a year or two might not justify the performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Keeping up in the MF game is extremely expensive, in the 135 game not as expensive but more frequent upgrades so it can be stressful.
    I just have a feeling that I am at the worst break points of technology breakthroughs. There was one from the KODAK to the DALSA, and now it is another one from DALSA to SONY. It's just like that I worry about buying an iPhone 5S right before the announcement of iPhone 6 plus.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Stephens View Post
    The IQ backs generate true 16bit data files where the Nikon does not, so that is a difference.
    No, all Phase backs create 14-bit files, just like Nikon. This is an unfortunately piece of marketing that Phase should really correct.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I'm a landscape photographer.

    Some may want to shoot landscapes fast and quick often hand-held to capture fleeing moments. A Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z would be my go-to choices for that style.
    Funny, I take my time with my Pentax 645D. I used a Horseman SW612 for street photography. Working carefully is not a camera type.

  12. #12
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    Welcome aboard. Stick around after you get whatever you get so you can share your experience with others!
    Thanks Doug! Your work of comparison between the IQ2 series backs are extremely helpful! Actually it was your work which drew my attention to the sharpness of the world of Rodenstock HR lenses! You are the guilty one

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post

    The 32HR and 40HR are even more impressive. Though to some extent this is like arguing about whether a Bugatti Veyron or Hennessey Venom GT is faster - I'd be glad to own either.
    The 23HR is a must buy for me as I want one lens for widest angle of view (with medium-format-grade corner sharpness). The center filter for the 32HR is 105mm in diameter if I'm correct - do you have any filter holder recommendations for this? If I choose the 23HR and the 40HR (both with center filters), do I just need a Lee push-on holder and a Lee 100-90 Donut Spacer to get all my Lee 100 filters to work? If my aim is to do long exposure shots during daytime, would you have any other IRND filters to recommend?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post

    Again - what's relevant is what will work today. Don't buy a system predicated on what lenses may be released for it in the future. An IQ260 and 32HR/60XL/90HR-SW/120ASPH is an amazing kit and will be no matter what does or does not change 5 years from now.

    I'd worry less about what the resale value of a specific lens will be, and focus more on finding a kit that you won't want to resell because it does what you want it to do.
    It's just that I have a feeling like buying an iPhone 5S right before the announcement of iPhone 6 plus. I might be wrong but I have a bad feeling on this, given that the Rodenstock lenses such like the 23HR and the 40HR are already 6 years old and they seem to be at the breakpoints when the design needs to be refreshed to keep up with the most current digital technology (in this case, the SONY CMOS like the IQ250, IQ250, Credo 50 etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post

    - Don't limit yourself 100% to evaluating the technicals. At the end of the day life should be enjoyable, so pick a camera that you'll enjoy using (and which, of course, does what you need it to do technically). If you like the menu system of a camera, or the sound of the shutter, or the knob/action for rise and fall, or the feel of the handle it impacts the way you shoot with it. These are secondary to how well the camera does its job, but they aren't irrelevant. That's my two cents anyway.
    For this bit I agree - that's why a Leica camera made in Germany or an Alpa camera made in Switzerland makes me *feel* excited. It isn't logical or objective but it helps building up the emotions of creating pictures!

  13. #13
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Stephens View Post
    On a side note, if you are looking for corner sharpness, you should take a look at the Zeiss 15mm is a very good option and the corners are sharper.
    Thanks! I have tried the Zeiss 15mm but the corners looked even softer than that of the Nikon 14-24mm. If I go for the 23HR I don't even need to worry about filter solutions. (The Nikon 14-24mm needs a gigantic Fotodiox, and the Zeiss 15mm needs a hood modification.)

  14. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    No, all Phase backs create 14-bit files, just like Nikon. This is an unfortunately piece of marketing that Phase should really correct.
    Are you sure about this? I think I used to see an analysis of the RAW files of the IQ260 somewhere before, and the range of levels is 0-65535 (16-bit) instead of the 0-16383 (14-bit, like the Nikon NEF). Do you mean that the Phase One digital backs actually samples with 14-bit DAC then does some interpolation to 16-bit when writing data into RAW files?

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

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Skip past the bit depth thing - it's a rabbit hole. Look at actual pictures made by each camera, very preferably in raw format, and see what you think of the color and tonality, especially when you start to push the file around.

    The 40HR could be 80 years old and I wouldn't give a hoot - it's a stellar lens by any measure or comparison. We measure things in the digital age by recency too often. Well made digital products aren't class leading for 50 years like they were in the analog days, but they don't automatically expire every 2 years like we can be led to believe. An H25 from 2003 still outperforms a Canon 5D3 in the cases where it's useful (the H25 had no CF card, was tether-only, had no live view or LCD, could only really be used at ISO50 or ISO100, and was limited to around 50-60 seconds of exposure length).

    Evaluate how well things perform in real world tests relevant to your use, not how long they've been on the market.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Hi,

    Just to mention Canon's 17 and 24 mm T&S lenses have large image circles and they are said to even work on full frame CCDs (like the IQ-180). These lenses have long exit pupil distances.

    Those lenses can be used on Hartblei HCam and also on the Alpa FPS.

    From the samples I have seen (published by Alpha), the Rodies are sharper in the corner on the IQ-250 than the Canons. So no free lunch…

    Might be worth checking out, anyway.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Thanks! I have tried the Zeiss 15mm but the corners looked even softer than that of the Nikon 14-24mm. If I go for the 23HR I don't even need to worry about filter solutions. (The Nikon 14-24mm needs a gigantic Fotodiox, and the Zeiss 15mm needs a hood modification.)

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Here are a few more thoughts:

    Welcome to the forum.

    1. I shoot the D800e and D810, and use the 14-24. You should be able to get very sharp corners from F7.1 to F14. I can actually get excellent results from F3.5 up. You have want to have the 14-24 adjusted by Nikon. It should be doing better than that. I find mine superior to most of the primes out there in the same range, including the Zeiss 18 (which I also own) and the Zeiss 21mm (which I have rented several times), in the the 14-24 just has a better hyperfocal distance.

    2. CCD vs CMOS and DR, well there has been a ton written on that for sure. If you are after movements, it seems that the CMOS 50MP chips is not that good a player, and it's a 1.3 crop. Don't forget that. Your 23mm Rodenstock will be an effective 30mm lens, and the 40mm will be a 52mm.

    3. I personally don't see much difference in color from my CCD IQ160/260 camera and D800/D810. I can get where I want to go with either.

    4. The range of a single shot from the D810/D800e at base iso is greater than that of a 60MP or 80MP dalsa. You can push the shadows a somewhat, much better than a P45+, but still not the same as DSLR (modern). I find that the Dalsa's 60MP are forgiving on highlights, which is helpful. The high iso on a Dalsa 60MP is about 200 max and many times that is a push and won't hold up in shadows. You can pretty much forget 400 and above if you want a full resolution print, if you down sample you can get more. The CCD backs are best at base iso (50/60MP or 35/80MP). If you take them higher than 200, you really start to gain noise in shadows and also your finer details start to go away. This is not true with the CMOS 50MP, as it seems to do very well up to 3200 iso and is excellent at 400 to 800 which is where I would love to have it with my 60MP CCD. The 60MP and 80MP CCD Phase One backs offer sensor plus. The results are impressive with this, IMO it's better to take the lower resolution at iso 400 and up than downsample full res. The 20MP sensor plus output from the IQ180 and IQ80 is excellent and still plenty to get the job done. For me 15MP from the 60MP chips is a stretch.

    5. The image circle on the 23mm is only 70mm, so you will get only about 5mm of shift. The 40mm HR-W is 90mm and can easily get 15mm and 18mm in a push.

    6. Single biggest issue with the tech camera for me is the LCC process. It's cumbersome, takes a while and HAS to be taken. This also limits you to C1 for processing out the files (at least from raw). I have tried the LR implementation and did not find it effective. C1 does understand this and does a excellent job. Take a few minutes and read up on the LCC process if you have not already.

    7. There are many brands of tech cameras. Currently none will interchange it's lenses with another, so once you go with one, you are pretty much committed.

    8. Take a class, here at getdpi, or another location to get your hands on the various cameras out there. Most dealers sell more than one brand and can setup a demo for you. If you have the time and are close the DEMO is very important. It's the best way to get your hands on different cameras and use the same back, so you can see for yourself which you find the best. You are coming from a D800 where you have Live View, AF, automation (you don't have to wind the shutter after each shot), and it will be a bit of a shock, at least it was for me.

    9. I only moved to a tech camera for the wides. I did not like the results I was getting from the 35mm, 45mm, and especially the 28mm. I prefer movements, and medium format by nature has less DOF, so I like to add tilt where I can. As many have already pointed out, the tech wides are stunning and give amazing results. But the workflow is tedious at best. The main thing that is missing is a Live View that works outdoors on CCD backs, and it's not coming. The live view on the CMOS 50MP is impressive and gets the job done but as I mentioned earlier it has some other issues with tech cameras.


    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Thanks for the reply! I understand that I can take an LCC shot with the Grad ND, but I would still get noise in local areas where the Grad ND hurts the foreground. This is still less than ideal.
    That's not how you shoot an LCC btw. The LCC is shot without the grad ND since the whole point is to correct the base characteristics of the lens/sensor and that is applied to the image. If you shoot it with the GND on, then guess what? Capture One will try to correct and remove the effect of the GND too


    The 23HR and the 40HR were both introduced in 2008 and they are 6 years old now. Buying these only to find them out-of-date within a year or two might not justify the performance.
    I have both of these lenses. Now it's possible that Rodenstock will come out with even more uber expensive newer versions with extra/better corrections but they are both pretty phenomenal as-is today. I certainly wouldn't mind the 23HR having a much better resistance to red center spot that's for sure.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    That's not how you shoot an LCC btw. The LCC is shot without the grad ND since the whole point is to correct the base characteristics of the lens/sensor and that is applied to the image. If you shoot it with the GND on, then guess what? Capture One will try to correct and remove the effect of the GND too
    Are you aware that some GND has color cast (e.g. Lee has a blue cast and Singh-Ray has a red cast)? Also it is not always possible to find a perfect fit of the GND - you may cut off some foreground. This transition area could be extremely difficult to eliminate in post processing if you take the LCC shot without the GND.

    If you take the LCC shot with the GND, then in Capture One you only need to reduce contrast, reduce exposure, recover highlight and shadow, so that you could get a flattend file ready to be processed in Photoshop, without having to worry about any transition areas of the GND to deal with. This is the correct (and convenient) way to get color consistency and fidelity. I agree that if you take the LCC shot without the GND you could still deal with the transition area in post processing but that for me is too time consuming and almost impossible to restore perfect uniformity.

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    I have both of these lenses. Now it's possible that Rodenstock will come out with even more uber expensive newer versions with extra/better corrections but they are both pretty phenomenal as-is today. I certainly wouldn't mind the 23HR having a much better resistance to red center spot that's for sure.
    That is what I worry about most - if they announce something new, it's an instant loss of $$$

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Ah - you beat me to the 'Post Quick Reply' button.

    Indeed, there's actually some merit to shooting the LCC with the grad in place - it allows you to be much more imprecise with the placement of the transition, whilst getting all the benefit of the grad being there re: preventing the highlights from blowing out. You can then finesse the effect in post.

  21. #21
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    That is what I worry about most - if they announce something new, it's an instant loss of $$$
    I own three Rodie HR lenses and I am not too concerned about the newer better lenses as the increment would be so minimal it would take an extreme examination to see where the image quality or sharpness would be improved. BTW the image quality of all three of the lenses I own is beyond amazing.

    If they were to announce new lenses, then the older lenses would be a "steal"
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Are you sure about this? I think I used to see an analysis of the RAW files of the IQ260 somewhere before, and the range of levels is 0-65535 (16-bit) instead of the 0-16383 (14-bit, like the Nikon NEF). Do you mean that the Phase One digital backs actually samples with 14-bit DAC then does some interpolation to 16-bit when writing data into RAW files?
    Just look at DxO Mark measurements. Sticking a 16-bit A/D converter in a camera does not make the sensor actually record 16-bits of information. I shoot with "16-bit" Phase p25+ back and scientific cameras. Basically, there are no 16-bit cameras on the market.

    Chalk 16-bit claims up to marketing. It is a pity the dealers don't come clean, although my Phase dealer did when I questioned it.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Just look at DxO Mark measurements. Sticking a 16-bit A/D converter in a camera does not make the sensor actually record 16-bits of information. I shoot with "16-bit" Phase p25+ back and scientific cameras. Basically, there are no 16-bit cameras on the market.

    Chalk 16-bit claims up to marketing. It is a pity the dealers don't come clean, although my Phase dealer did when I questioned it.
    Where did you see evidence of 16-bit being marketing?

    I have just checked with Raw Digger and confirmed that there are 65536 (2^16) levels for my IQ260 IIQ file. Do you mean these are fake values with holes and gaps?


  24. #24
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Hi,

    The story is that CCD readout is noisy. It is reasonable to assume that a CCD cell can hold about 60000 electrons and readout noise may be 12-16 electrons.

    So you take 60000 and divide by say 12 and that gives you a signal to noise ratio of 5000. 5000 is 2^12.29 so you need 12.29 bits to represent the signal. Now, bits don't come in parts, so 13 bit would be needed to represent signal.

    The rest is simply noise.

    One of the interesting points is that the IQ-250, which has a modern CMOS sensor is said to have a DR of 14EV by Phase One. 14EV DR corresponds to exactly 14 bits, and the IQ-250 is a 14 bit back. The IQ-280 is said to have a DR of 13 stops, but uses 16 bits to represent 13 bits worth of data.

    Check this page, and look at "image quality": IQ2 series digital backs | Specifications

    With the CCD backs they talk about 16-bit opticolor and 13 F-stops, with the IQ-250 just 14 F-stops. And the F-stops are essentially the same as bits.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    Where did you see evidence of 16-bit being marketing?

    I have just checked with Raw Digger and confirmed that there are 65536 (2^16) levels for my IQ260 IIQ file. Do you mean these are fake values with holes and gaps?


  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    Where did you see evidence of 16-bit being marketing?

    I have just checked with Raw Digger and confirmed that there are 65536 (2^16) levels for my IQ260 IIQ file. Do you mean these are fake values with holes and gaps?

    What are in those registers? Are they empty? Because if this was a 16-bit camera, it should be leaving the 14-bit competition in the dust, rather than just keeping up with them:

    Nikon D800E versus Phase One IQ180 Digital Back versus Pentax 645D - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

    Yes, you can put a 16-bit A/D converter in a camera. But if you are not actually getting 16-bits of information, what is the point? If you think Phase and Hasselblad engineers don't knows this, then they are just bad at math and are wasting money (and probably should not be doing this work). Personally, I think it is a marketing choice. Numbers sell.

    Don't get me wrong. Phase backs are great. Buy them. Use them. But I would not buy them based on a claim of 16-bit. Just like I would not drink Bud based on the promise it would make me handsome and irresistible to women. (Actually, even if it did, it would be too high a price to pay--I like beer.)

  26. #26
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Just like I would not drink Bud based on the promise it would make me handsome and irresistible to women. (Actually, even if it did, it would be too high a price to pay--I like beer.)
    Is that what my problem is???
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Like I said several posts ago - it's a rabbit hole and will side track any useful conversation.

    Focus on evaluating final image quality in real world situations which closely mirror your own (or better yet do your own actual tests). A dealer can help with raws, tests, demos or rentals to facilitate this. Phase One raws produce great color across a surprising variety of lighting scenarios and take a lot of post-processing abuse before showing deleterious artifacts - the nuances of analogue-digital converters (i.e. that not all X bit converters are equally well suited to a particular set of goals, the impact of a dark cal process on the requirements for the analogue path, the shortcomings of dXo's methodology in evaluating the complete-chain etc) will be of interest to some engineers, but will not help you find a camera that works well for your needs.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    I have just checked with Raw Digger and confirmed that there are 65536 (2^16) levels for my IQ260 IIQ file. Do you mean these are fake values with holes and gaps?
    I worked with the IIQ format as a programmer so I know the format quite well. During decoding of the format the samples are expanded from 14 to 16 bit, so yes the 16 bit values are "fake". The "holes and gaps" are sort of filled in with a black level offset, but it will not produce real values anyway (as those black levels is not one per pixel). One of the few MF formats that actually store true 16 bit values is the Hasselblad format. If I remember correctly the Leaf .mos format store 14 bit values.

    This does not matter though, as the last few bits are pure noise. The reason IIQ format doesn't store the last 2 bits is of course because it would not matter, it's just noise. So it's a good engineering decision.

    That is, the pixels are sampled with a 16 bit ADC, but as the last few bits is only noise these are thrown away inside the digital back before stored in the raw file, so the raw converter never gets to see these values.

    In other words, it's true that 16 bit ADCs are being used, but it's false those values are stored in full in the raw file, and you should not worry about that as the bits that are thrown away are pure noise.

    So "16 bit color" is just a false marketing message. However, the MF CCD way of "high signal + high noise" vs the 135 CMOS of "low signal + low noise" may lead to a difference in look, CCD being more "film-like" and CMOS more "artificial", at least a number of years ago so if you're nice you could say that "16 bit color" was used as a tag to point out that difference. Today it's not so simple though, some CMOS sensors have both higher signal (higher full well capacity) and lower noise than the larger pixels in CCDs due to more effective pixels.

    That said the IQ260 has great dynamic range, not the best you can get in a camera currently, but not far from it. It would be silly to pick a different camera because IQ260 would have "too poor dynamic range". An exception to this might be if you specialize in long exposures. Unfortunately there's not much data around how backs and cameras perform in long exposures, all become more noisy that's all I know. I have no idea if say a D810 will be less noisy in a 10 minute exposure than an IQ260 (it would be interesting to know though).
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Thanks for the reply! I understand that I can take an LCC shot with the Grad ND, but I would still get noise in local areas where the Grad ND hurts the foreground. This is still less than ideal.



    Would you mind sharing the actual trading prices of the 28XL when the DALSA CCD became popular? Do you still remember the inductive price of the 28XL? I would be interested to know how much has depreciated. The 23HR and the 40HR were both introduced in 2008 and they are 6 years old now. Buying these only to find them out-of-date within a year or two might not justify the performance.



    I just have a feeling that I am at the worst break points of technology breakthroughs. There was one from the KODAK to the DALSA, and now it is another one from DALSA to SONY. It's just like that I worry about buying an iPhone 5S right before the announcement of iPhone 6 plus.
    Yes with grad ND you will get noise in local areas. In architecture subjects this can quite often be a problem (as the local area is often a building) and then bracketing/HDR merge would be more suitable, but in landscape I find that those local areas is often narrow trees and such which is not hurt as much by noise. Additionally, it will depend on your post-processing techniques, I usually keep a virtual grad as a part of the tonemapping (generally a bit weaker than the one used in the shot though) as I think it yields a more natural look. If you have a back-lit scene it's good to keep some of the back-lit feel, meaning that the tree sticking up will be quite dark which makes noise much less visible, otherwise you'll get a "grunge HDR" look which does not look particularly natural. That's my view anyway. Your mileage may vary

    The 28XL can still be bought new for about $4.7k, and it still makes sense for Kodak sensors (like the Hasselblad H5D-50) or large pixel dalsa sensors like my own Aptus 75. Searching for sales prices I find more "want to buy" than actual sales. The 28XL is a bit special case, as it was released at a time the 6um Dalsa was already popular so not many were bought. Some were still bought, and note that some do use them on 6um Dalsa, it works okay if you don't shift much, and the only other alternative the Rodenstock Digaron-S 28 has a hard limit on 70mm image circle. I'd guess that there are more users on suitable backs interested in this lens than there have been sold new (which WTB indicates) so the deprication from new price would be about the same as any other lens. The most recent sales price I found was from march 2013 and then it was sold for about 70% of the purchase price, ie a typical sales price for any lens in good condition.

    For a lens to totally lose value it must be so old that there are no users left shooting with backs compatible with the lens, and there's still a number of years before that will happen.

    If you want to stay yourself on the latest and greatest you may need to upgrade in a few years yes, but you will be able to sell your lenses to a good price. I don't think it's too likely that we'll see a new tech lens line soon. One problem is the central shutter mount. To make lenses more retrofocus than today the lenses will be even more complex and heavy than the Rodenstock 32mm, which already today is at the limit what a Copal 0 shutter can handle. New lens designs would require a different type of shutter than Copal 0, and I don't think the current Copal 0 compatible electronic shutter is any better. A much wider shutter thread is required than today to support heavier lenses. I still hope for that we'll see wide-angle compatible CMOS sensors before we see a new tech lens line. While MF-SLR lenses are designed with some residual chromatic abberations etc that is corrected in the raw converter (=simpler optical designs possible), tech lenses are designed to work well without lens corrections. Thanks to not having to be much retrofocus (or completely symmetrical) the complexity can be kept low and performance high, but the more retrofocus you need the more complex the optical design must be to work well without lens corrections. The Rodenstock 32 might then end up looking as a quite simple, light and cheap lens in comparison. That would not be a great development of tech cameras I think.

    It's true that lots of things is happening right now, the future of tech cameras is very fuzzy, it's not easy to predict what direction it will go. Due to the high performance of current systems the second hand value will be pretty good, in terms of percent, but things like digital back will lose many dollars anyway due to the high purchase price.

    As you're shooting a D800E today you don't necessarily need to buy a IQ260 and Rodenstock lenses to get an improvement. You could go for some lower end. If that DR metric is very important to you then it will be more difficult to use older CCDs though... The P65+ should still be rather good in terms of DR though, all 6um Dalsa-based digital backs are pretty good in terms of DR. Kodaks and larger pixel sensors is one step behind in terms of DR. I don't think it's a big issue, but it will depend on shooting and post-processing style of course.

    For me personally the current dream system is a H5D-50 digital back and a complete Schneider Digitar lens line on a Linhof Techno. It's not the "best" considering all metrics, but it suits my creative style the best, and it also fits my "engineering values" how a tech cam should be. I don't believe that lenses should be as heavy and complex as possible with utmost sharpness as only metric. I think symmetrical simple designs is the right way to go for "large format style" creativity (that I can actually hike with the gear and have many lenses without breaking my back is important to me too), and the Kodak 50 megapixel sensor is the best at handling that currently, it also has a nice balanced size for the 90mm image circles.

    For a different user there's a different dream system, the choice of tech camera system is very personal. In a way, that's part of the fun. You'll end up with a very personal camera.
    Last edited by torger; 23rd September 2014 at 01:47.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    It's just that I have a feeling like buying an iPhone 5S right before the announcement of iPhone 6 plus. I might be wrong but I have a bad feeling on this, given that the Rodenstock lenses such like the 23HR and the 40HR are already 6 years old and they seem to be at the breakpoints when the design needs to be refreshed to keep up with the most current digital technology (in this case, the SONY CMOS like the IQ250, IQ250, Credo 50 etc).
    I don't believe this is a valid comparison when it comes to lenses. On electronics, absolutely, there is an initial depreciation in the fist 2 years of 40-50%. This is primarily driven by the the technology improvements, and customer see the additional value in the new technology.

    Glass, on the other hand, I feel is different. Glass like the Rodie HR, 2nd gen SK-XL, Leica S, and most M, and even the OTUS are being developed at the edge of "physics". I am not sure there will be a "needle moving" advancement in optical science that will make these lenses drop in value.

    Now, there are lenses with lots of electronics, and high-quality glass like the Canon big whites, that do drop in price when a new generation is introduced, but this again is for the most part driven by electronics technology - IS, weight, etc.

    The lenses we are talking about here are the absolute best in design and materials with very high-quality, but simple designs. Take the 32HR for example. It is likely the best lens I have ever used for landscapes. If I decide next week, I want an electronic shutter, I can do that. If I want to go to a view camera, I can swap a board and do that. If I want to use an FP on Alpa or Arca, I can do that too. If CMOS sensors come out in FF (or whatever we are calling 645FF these days), pigs fly, and Phase comes out with a magnesium mirror less body with an EVF, I'm sure a mount could easily be adapted to use this very lens. As for the lens itself, I doubt very much there will be something better in the current context of lens physics.

    I have way too many lenses for way too many systems. I would count the Rodie 23/32/40/90SWHR, SK60XL/120ASPH, Coastal Optics 60, and likely the two new OTUS lenses as ones that will outlive several bodies and systems.

    Having said this, there is a new and alternate wave of high-quality "system-output" with brilliant output IQ. By this, I mean a tightly integrated chain of lens, sensor, firmware, black-box RAW processing, and post-capture RAW processing. The files out of the Sony A7R with 55.18FE are in this category. Again, there is a lot of black-magic cooking going on here even before I touch the RAW file, do I care, no. But it is a different way of skinning the cat. Take a Leica 50LUX and put on the same camera, and the results are quite different.

    I do see more of this happening going forward.
    Last edited by jagsiva; 23rd September 2014 at 08:18.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    431
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    If Rodenstock were bringing out new Tech Cam lenses in the next year, they would have announced them at Photokina. They did not. It's clearly not on the horizon.

    They also made the error of redesigning lenses around a particular sensor generation many years ago, with the Digaron-S lenses for less than FF CCD sensors: fabulous lenses, fast, and super sharp, but then guess what - tilt/shift tech cams arrived, plus new FF sensors came out. I very much doubt they will repeat that error of redesigning everything just for this generation of Sony CMOS, with all its crosstalk problems - in other words: sensor technology will evolve before the lenses.

    A last point is that when they did release the new 90HRSW (Yellow band) it was double the price of the old 90HR (blue band). The old lenses have retained a LOT of their original purchase value, as the new ones are much more expensive. I sold my used blue one for 90% of what I paid for it. The market for MF digital lenses of the HRSW caliber is very small, expectations and quality demand is high. The same reason why an Otus is 4x the price of a regular 'premium quality' lens. I don't think an Otus redesign will happen for 10 years at least. Likewise for new generation Roddy HR's.

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

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    The greatest factor of uncertainity I think is if we will see a return of wide angular response sensors or not. The problem is that technical wide angle photography is unique in requiring this feature, as far as I know, and it's not likely a niche photography need will drive sensor features.

    I would not be surprised if the full-frame 54x41mm CMOS when it eventually comes will be say 120 megapixels and have even more narrow angular response -- as high pixel count sells (but smaller pixels tend to have more crosstalk issues than larger) and it does not matter for mirrorbox cameras and indeed not even mirrorless designs which in the 135 world still have quite long flange distance.

    In really small sensors like in mobile phones there's a need to enlarge photo diode area so there are things like back-illumination putting the photodiode at the surface and make it larger. However, I don't think there's the same gain in larger sensors, just put a microlens there and you gather all the light you need anyway. So it's not guaranteed that the small sensor tech will find it's way to MF-sized sensors.

    If the trend of narrower angular response sensor continues, then the current tech wide angle lenses will live as long as the current CCD backs lives, say 10 years from now.

    I don't have enough knowledge in sensor design and sensor markets to know how likely or not it is to see a return of wide angular response. It would be interesting to talk to a Sony or Dalsa engineer about that. I'd like to see a 60 megapixel 6um full-frame CMOS with light-shields, that would be a good start (ie you block the low angle light instead of letting it pass to the next pixel and become crosstalk, it's not as good as capturing it in the right pixel but with high DR CMOS losing a stop or two at the edge would be no disaster) and can probably be made with current technology, if just someone other than Kodak from 2008 thinks that light-shields is a good idea to have in an MF sensor.

    As far as I understand and can interpret the cross-section there is no particular light-blocking structures between the pixels in the Sony CMOS sensor, some is caught on the wiring, but no targeted attempt to reduce crosstalk is there, unlike in Kodak sensors that has light-shields. Why? My guess is that it was simply considered unnecessary as none of the typical photo applications need them. Wide angle tech photography is a tiny niche, so tiny that Sony sensor engineers might not even know about its requirements.

    Anyway, ever since photography became digital it's no longer possible to plan your system 10-20 years ahead. Noone knows which turns technology will take.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    It's interesting to research the whole Crosstalk issue. It's actually been around as a term much longer than I realized. There are a lot of white papers from various Cell phone companies, that realized this issue a while ago, and they were concerned about it on center obviously. These companies, use the term "crosstalk" in reference to the issues that Torger has referred to. So I believe the term has been around at least in the the development teams for a while.

    CMOSIS, I believe is the chip in Lecia, seems to have quite a bit of info out there. They appear to be using a different designed micro lens, one that is to help keep the light rays from having such an angular error and stay straighter.

    Lot's of known facts about crosstalk, and interesting to read.

    Paul

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    In very small sensors where pixels sizes are like 1um, ie mobile phones, you can get crosstalk from diffraction effects, ie even if the light comes straight at the pixel it can scatter around and leak into the next. With these very tiny pixel sizes the relative height also becomes high, a cross-section of the pixel looks like a deep deep well with the photodiode at the bottom. Compared to this type of sensors the Sony MF CMOS has a wide angular response. In other words, the literature on sensor crosstalk is in many cases dealing with solutions to increase an angular response from 7 degrees to 15 degrees in mobile phone sensors, but what symmetrical tech wides need is ideally 120 degrees, but "only" 80 degrees will probably be enough.

    Anyway here's a comparison between the cross-section of a KAF-39000 pixel (Kodak 39 megapixel sensor, used in P45+) which is similar in design to the newer KAF-51000 50 megapixel sensor, and then a cross-section of the Sony sensor used in a D800, similar design to the Sony MF sensor. In the Kodak sensor you can see how flat the pixel is, it's wider than it's high and it also have light shields. With the Sony sensor the pixel is higher than it's wide, and there's no dedicated light shields. Sure there's wiring to block some light, but only in one direction (that there's open space in the other direction is not seen from this angle).

    CMOS sensors require more components on the chip itself, so I guess it's harder to make CMOS pixels low in height, ie it's easier to design a CCD chip with wide angular response than a CMOS chip. While CMOS brings us live view, it may also break the wide angle designs we love. But say if you enlarge the pixel to 6um, use the most recent technology with the flattest wiring and add some light shields, maybe you could compete with the old Kodak CCDs. We'll see...

  35. #35
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The greatest factor of uncertainity I think is if we will see a return of wide angular response sensors or not. The problem is that technical wide angle photography is unique in requiring this feature, as far as I know, and it's not likely a niche photography need will drive sensor features.

    I would not be surprised if the full-frame 54x41mm CMOS when it eventually comes will be say 120 megapixels and have even more narrow angular response -- as high pixel count sells (but smaller pixels tend to have more crosstalk issues than larger) and it does not matter for mirrorbox cameras and indeed not even mirrorless designs which in the 135 world still have quite long flange distance.

    In really small sensors like in mobile phones there's a need to enlarge photo diode area so there are things like back-illumination putting the photodiode at the surface and make it larger. However, I don't think there's the same gain in larger sensors, just put a microlens there and you gather all the light you need anyway. So it's not guaranteed that the small sensor tech will find it's way to MF-sized sensors.

    If the trend of narrower angular response sensor continues, then the current tech wide angle lenses will live as long as the current CCD backs lives, say 10 years from now.

    I don't have enough knowledge in sensor design and sensor markets to know how likely or not it is to see a return of wide angular response. It would be interesting to talk to a Sony or Dalsa engineer about that. I'd like to see a 60 megapixel 6um full-frame CMOS with light-shields, that would be a good start (ie you block the low angle light instead of letting it pass to the next pixel and become crosstalk, it's not as good as capturing it in the right pixel but with high DR CMOS losing a stop or two at the edge would be no disaster) and can probably be made with current technology, if just someone other than Kodak from 2008 thinks that light-shields is a good idea to have in an MF sensor.

    As far as I understand and can interpret the cross-section there is no particular light-blocking structures between the pixels in the Sony CMOS sensor, some is caught on the wiring, but no targeted attempt to reduce crosstalk is there, unlike in Kodak sensors that has light-shields. Why? My guess is that it was simply considered unnecessary as none of the typical photo applications need them. Wide angle tech photography is a tiny niche, so tiny that Sony sensor engineers might not even know about its requirements.

    Anyway, ever since photography became digital it's no longer possible to plan your system 10-20 years ahead. Noone knows which turns technology will take.
    I don't think the back-illuminated CMOS or the curved sensor would come to the medium format digital in the near future.

    But I have a simple question:

    Why can't Rodenstock or Schneider just design a lens like the Canon 17mm TS-E?

    Is it now a safer bet to go for the Canon 17mm TS-E + ALPA FPS + Credo 50 / IQ150 Route and wait for the 645 fullframe SONY CMOS?

  36. #36
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Hi,

    Some questions arise:

    1) Is there a market for a Canon 17 TS-E like lens from Schneider & Rodenstock?
    2) Is that market large enough to generate satisfying return on investment?
    3) Can the lens be made at reasonable cost?
    4) Does Schneider or Rodenstock have the capabiity to produce that lens?

    Regarding future versions of the Sony sensor little is known. It is not even known what market impact the present sensor has. Much of the initial marketing emphasis was on high ISO performance, and it may be that the camera is mainly oriented towards the MDSLR market.

    Will the actors migrate to CMOS or stay with CCD? Will other CMOS vendors emerge? Will larger CMOS sensors be developed? Will other CMOS-vendors technologies be compatible with Sony's technology?

    I guess that we may see some move to CMOS sensors being compatible with larger beam angles, as this may be beneficial in building smaller cameras.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    But I have a simple question:

    Why can't Rodenstock or Schneider just design a lens like the Canon 17mm TS-E?

    Is it now a safer bet to go for the Canon 17mm TS-E + ALPA FPS + Credo 50 / IQ150 Route and wait for the 645 fullframe SONY CMOS?

  37. #37
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Hi Anders,

    Thanks for explaining the issue. Your description is dead on.

    I strongly feel that the 16-bit depth is quite a bit of desinformation, and it quite often shows up even in well written articles as an advantage of MFDBs.

    It is a pity that so much marketing is focusing on myths, instead of discussing the real benefits of MFD, whatever that may be. Giving some bad information reduces the credibility of all information.

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I worked with the IIQ format as a programmer so I know the format quite well. During decoding of the format the samples are expanded from 14 to 16 bit, so yes the 16 bit values are "fake". The "holes and gaps" are sort of filled in with a black level offset, but it will not produce real values anyway (as those black levels is not one per pixel). One of the few MF formats that actually store true 16 bit values is the Hasselblad format. If I remember correctly the Leaf .mos format store 14 bit values.

    This does not matter though, as the last few bits are pure noise. The reason IIQ format doesn't store the last 2 bits is of course because it would not matter, it's just noise. So it's a good engineering decision.

    That is, the pixels are sampled with a 16 bit ADC, but as the last few bits is only noise these are thrown away inside the digital back before stored in the raw file, so the raw converter never gets to see these values.

    In other words, it's true that 16 bit ADCs are being used, but it's false those values are stored in full in the raw file, and you should not worry about that as the bits that are thrown away are pure noise.

    So "16 bit color" is just a false marketing message. However, the MF CCD way of "high signal + high noise" vs the 135 CMOS of "low signal + low noise" may lead to a difference in look, CCD being more "film-like" and CMOS more "artificial", at least a number of years ago so if you're nice you could say that "16 bit color" was used as a tag to point out that difference. Today it's not so simple though, some CMOS sensors have both higher signal (higher full well capacity) and lower noise than the larger pixels in CCDs due to more effective pixels.

    That said the IQ260 has great dynamic range, not the best you can get in a camera currently, but not far from it. It would be silly to pick a different camera because IQ260 would have "too poor dynamic range". An exception to this might be if you specialize in long exposures. Unfortunately there's not much data around how backs and cameras perform in long exposures, all become more noisy that's all I know. I have no idea if say a D810 will be less noisy in a 10 minute exposure than an IQ260 (it would be interesting to know though).

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    But I have a simple question:

    Why can't Rodenstock or Schneider just design a lens like the Canon 17mm TS-E?

    Is it now a safer bet to go for the Canon 17mm TS-E + ALPA FPS + Credo 50 / IQ150 Route and wait for the 645 fullframe SONY CMOS?
    The Canon TS-Es are designed to deliver no steeper angle than 20 degrees at the image circle edge (which actually is a little bit too much for the A7r, but fine for the Credo 50), the Rodenstock Digarons about 35 degrees (my estimate from the data sheets, have not been able to verify it as I don't own any of the wides), and Schneider being symmetrical have the same angle towards the sensor as the field of view, meaning up to almost 60 degrees for the 28XL (to get down to/below 35 degrees with Schneider you must up to the 72mm focal length).

    Anyway I think both Rodenstock and Schneider could design such a lens if they wanted to. Maybe not exactly like the Canon (Canon have some unique manufacturing techniques), but the concept of a heavy retrofocus lens. I'm no optical design expert but with today's computer-aided methods I don't think it's that hard to do, what makes optical design difficult is to choose appropriate tradeoffs in the design, to balance conflicting goals.

    If you would want to make a lens as sharp as the current Rodenstock Digarons (note: Canon TS-E II lenses while good is not as sharp as the Digarons), but change the angle from 35 to 20 degrees, you would get the problem that you need even more glass elements, and still the barrell distortion may increase, and to counteract that you would need even more glass. You would end up with a lens heavier than 1kg, and a normal Copal shutter would not be able to support that so you would either need to use an oversized Copal (with slower shutter speed etc) or make some new shutter.

    Normal wide angle lenses that cannot be shifted has the advantage that you can apply lens corrections in the raw converter, and most modern lenses are designed for that. If you turn off lens corrections the Hasselblad H and Phase One 645DF wides will show quite some chromatic abberations, ie they have made simpler optical designs and correct them in the raw converter. Tilt/shift lenses don't have that luxury, they need to perform without lens corrections, and users expect them to perform better than the corrected MF-DSLR lenses.

    The ability to do that has been based on the optical design formula tradeoff that you don't need large aperture and you can have steep angle towards the sensor. Making the lenses more and more retrofocus take away some of that, and the only way around that is to make an extremely complex design, which of course would mean a very expensive lens, and a very heavy lens, and making it unfeasible to use the traditional shutters.

    So it's just way better to get a CMOS that can handle steeper angle... if I were Schneider or Rodenstock I would sit tight for a while and hope that it will happen.

    A comparison example: the retrofocus Rodenstock Digaron-W 32 has 14 lens elements and weights 800 grams, the symmetrical Schneider Digitar 35 has 8 lens elements and weighs 240 grams. A new 32 with more retrofocus would have even more lens elements and weigh even more (and cost more) than the current Digaron-W. Already the 32 has problems with loading the Copal shutter too much so it's very delicate, more than one have got their lens bent at the shutter just by setting down the tripod a bit too hard.

    Zeiss Otus series is another example of what happens when you take the optical design to an extreme, the 55mm lens weighs 970 grams and has 12 lens elements which is a lot for a 55mm lens and its small format image circle. I'm very curious how a 24mm wide angle in the Otus series would be designed...

    Keep in mind that 17mm and even 24mm on a 44x33mm sensor will be extremely wide angle. Some indeed like to shoot with ultra-wides, and in architecture you may have no other choice in some situations, but I think for landscape photography you get nicer perspectives if you don't go wider than "24mm 135 FOV", ie about 31mm for a 44x33mm sensor and 38 for full-frame 645, with shift available you can go a bit narrower still ie Digaron-W 32 for the 44x33 and Digaron-W 40 for the full-frame 645. For the 48x36/49x37mm sensor size 35mm is quite nice, and indeed that's my widest lens currently.

    As things look today, Alpa is probably the best tech brand to go for when it comes to adapting to future changes in lens/sensor combinations. Arca-Swiss is also pretty strong (the Photokina 2014 product releases showed that they can do electronics too), while Cambo lags and Linhof even more so, as they don't have the same ability to make electronics, at least not yet. I have still have no problem with using Linhof "old school" design, as I like that type of design and if tech cams will change direction into a boring oversized A7r type of design I will most likely drop out of tech cams when it's no longer possible to continue the traditional way. That dark scenario would still mean that I have 10 years of Linhof shooting ahead, only when my Copal shutters fails and I can't have them repaired or replaced and my digital back fails and I can't get it repaired or replaced with a something compatible with symmetrical lens design that journey will end.
    Last edited by torger; 24th September 2014 at 00:36.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Normal wide angle lenses that cannot be shifted has the advantage that you can apply lens corrections in the raw converter, and most modern lenses are designed for that.
    Actually, the Hasselblad converter (Phocus) will apply corrections even when the lenses are shifted using the HTS system. For this to work, the tilt and shift values are stored in the exifs.


    If you turn off lens corrections the Hasselblad H and Phase One 645DF wides will show quite some chromatic aberrations, ie they have made simpler optical designs and correct them in the raw converter.
    Not as much as one would think for the H lenses, chromatic aberrations are actually very small. What Phocus mostly corrects is distortion, which is not low enough for reproduction work without digital correction.
    Last edited by jerome_m; 24th September 2014 at 01:36.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jordan.j View Post
    Hi everyone, I mostly photograph landscapes and architecture, and after lurking in this forum for a while, I decide to register a forum account and ask your ideas about joining this club.

    I have been shooting with a Nikon D800E. I am not satisfied with the corner sharpness and the chromatic aberration of the Nikon 14-24mm lens. When I saw the pictures taken by the Rodenstock 23mm and 35mm lens I was astonished by the corner sharpness. As a fanatic pixel peeper of wide angles I am now deeply fascinated by the HR lenses.
    As somebody else noted, you should have your zoom checked. Corner sharpness is not perfect on the 14-24 but chromatic aberration is relatively low. You may also want to test the 16-35 VR.

    An alternative would be a H5D-50 with a HCD 28 and HC 50-II lens. These two lenses are real gems. The camera can also bracket automatically, which would solve dynamic range problems.

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Actually, the Hasselblad converter (Phocus) will apply corrections even when the lenses are shifted using the HTS system. For this to work, the tilt and **** values are stored in the exifs.




    Not as much as one would think for the H lenses, chromatic aberrations are actually very small. What Phocus mostly corrects is distortion, which is not low enough for reproduction work without digital correction.
    Thanks for that info, I based my own observations on a 645DF 28mm wide angle where corner chromatic abberation is pretty large, but cleans up very well with lens corrections. I've also heard an interview with a Hasselblad designer that they have as strategy to correct some abberations in software rather than making overly complex optical designs, but I never looked into how big those abberations actually are.

    In any case I would expect abberations be much larger on the widest angles, on longer lenses simple designs will perform well.

    The HTS system is interesting, haven't seen any actual results of it but I've assumed that it's not that competitive with tech cam results as it's based on a teleconverter. The widest lens would be 1.5x24mm = 36mm, wide enough for me, it would be interesting to see how that performs with lens corrections and all. Could be difficult to focus it seems, as it becomes f/7.5 with the HTS on.

    Edit: found a user-contributed review here at GetDPI:
    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...hts-1-5-a.html
    the summary unsurprisingly being that HTS is not the answer to the pixel peeper.
    Last edited by torger; 24th September 2014 at 01:46.

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    In any case I would expect abberations be much larger on the widest angles, on longer lenses simple designs will perform well.
    I checked on the HCD28, chromatic aberrations stays quite small.

    The HTS system is interesting, haven't seen any actual results of it but I've assumed that it's not that competitive with tech cam results as it's based on a teleconverter.
    The main limitation for landscape or architecture work is that the relative orientation of shift and tilt is fixed. The teleconverter is quite well corrected, actually.

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Edit: found a user-contributed review here at GetDPI:
    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...hts-1-5-a.html
    the summary unsurprisingly being that HTS is not the answer to the pixel peeper.
    Clic HERE.


  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Center sharpness is not the criticism with the Hasselblad HTS, it's sharpness in corners after shifting. In that metric it's difficult to compete with the Rodenstock Digarons. It's of course subjective how important that is, tech users is usually pretty manic about it

    If one already has a Hasselblad system and like the handling adding an HTS can be a good idea, but another scenario could be that you only have longer lenses for your 'blad and have to choose between adding Hasselblad wides + HTS or buy a wide angle tech camera to cover your wide angle work. If sharpness is really important to you, I think most would prefer the latter. I would not say that choosing the HTS would be a bad choice, it depends on your shooting style and how much you like to pixel peep.

    If you happen to have any of the blads with 50 megapixel CCDs you have great tech wide compatibility and can use the lower cost Schneider Digitar with fine results, even the SK28. The SK35 is not super-sharp in corners when shifted large amounts (the Digarons are better) but I would still expect it to be sharper than the HCD 24 + HTS. The first costs about ~$3k on a lens board, and the second combo costs ~$12k.

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Center sharpness is not the criticism with the Hasselblad HTS, it's sharpness in corners after shifting.
    Possibly. If you intend to do shifted panoramas, the HTS is not the best tool. But then, neither is a technical cam. The ultimate pixel peeper uses this.

    The first costs about ~$3k on a lens board, and the second combo costs ~$12k.
    You are omitting the price of the technical cam.

    Besides, this discussion is not what the o.p. asked. The o.p. wanted something with better corner sharpness than the Nikon 14-24 for landscape. Either a tech cam or the HCD 28 will do (or, I suppose, the Phase One equivalent lens).

  46. #46
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    I have shot both the Phase 28 on my DF+ and the Rodie 40HR on my Tech and the corner sharpness on the 40HR is better, to what magnitude, I really cannot say.
    In saying that, the ultimate deciding factor will be how large of a print you will finally wish to produce as obviously the larger the image, the more sharpness you are going to want.

    I have made 24x36 prints and I have been extremely satisfied by the IQ of my Rodie 40.
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Stephens View Post
    I have shot both the Phase 28 on my DF+ and the Rodie 40HR on my Tech and the corner sharpness on the 40HR is better.
    It would be surprising if the corner sharpness of a 40mm lens were not better than the corner sharpness of a 28mm lens.

  48. #48
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    It would be surprising if the corner sharpness of a 40mm lens were not better than the corner sharpness of a 28mm lens.
    It would mean that I need to get to the eye doctor to get my eyes checked.....
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    You probably misread my sentence. I meant: it is not surprising that the 40mm is better than the 28mm. The wider a lens, the more difficult it is to correct.

  50. #50
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Worth moving into a tech camera system for wide angles at this stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    You probably misread my sentence. I meant: it is not surprising that the 40mm is better than the 28mm. The wider a lens, the more difficult it is to correct.
    Whoops...misread it.
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams

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
  •