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!
JimWithout investing too deeply, I would look at the TC + S/K 35mm for use with a Credo 60.
Why Alpa? The system is huge, and with the FPS and the new focus-stacking system there’s something for just about every imaginable scenario. You can deal with Alpa directly (including sales) which is nice - and they reply quickly - as well as through a number of dealers. Pricey, no doubt - but there’s just something about an Alpa. Oh, and they have a good website.
The S/K 35mm is a really nice lens. Lost popularity because of the 80MP sensor design, but it behaves well enough with the Credo 60 and that includes some shifting ability. Small, sharp, light, contrasty and distortion-free. Pricewise you should be able to pick one up for a fraction of the cost new. Forget about people asking $3k, $4k, $5k for this lens used - they’re on the Koolade. The last few sold on GetDPI (months ago) went for the low $2k range, so today I’d expect to pay $2k or less for a nice example. There are a couple on eBay right now struggling to get through the $1k barrier.
So, TC + S/K 35mm + adapter plate = $6k. If you can get the TC and adapter plate used, the kit would probably be under $5k.
Jim
No 35 option? How is the 35XL on a 33MP 36x48mm back with the Dalsa sensor, for example?Well that's the GetDPI way and your hearing from some of our great members here. Not sure anyone mentioned this but try and decide your final lens count as this gaps differently for a 3 or 4 lens kit. I went in the end with 3 , 28,60,90 but you will see some folks go 23,40,70,120 or put the the 32 in place of the 40.
The 40 is pretty much a standard focal length too regardless of size of sensor. If I had to guess I would say out of 3 than 2 would have the 40 and 1 would have the 32.
Really depends on your shooting subject too.
I know the CMOS d800 is supposed to beat the 180, but I just don't see it. I shoot both of them (zeiss glass on the nikon) and they're both really good with dynamic range. Some serious pixel peeping might show a difference, but I don't think I could see it in prints.Don, a keeper for sure. Also looks like I can live with the DR of my CCD 180 for a while
Amen to that!One of the great pleasures also from shooting tech systems is the first day when you go out and fire up the MFDB, tech body and take your first shot with your new Schneider or Rodie wide and then open up the image in Capture One and zoom in. "Holy c@@p" is a very common first statement when you see what these things can really do.
Wayne I agree with you when both cameras are at base ISO. But do you feel the same when shooting the 180 at 200? To me the CMOS offers a lot more flexibility for landscape shooting. Low light, or wind or both. Optically the 180 with a tech lens is an excellent solution especially wides.I know the CMOS d800 is supposed to beat the 180, but I just don't see it. I shoot both of them (zeiss glass on the nikon) and they're both really good with dynamic range. Some serious pixel peeping might show a difference, but I don't think I could see it in prints.
You will see significant difference in the long exposure territory. The D800E can bash the IQ260 and the IQ280 hard if you shoot directly into the sun and do long exposure of over 2 minutes.I know the CMOS d800 is supposed to beat the 180, but I just don't see it. I shoot both of them (zeiss glass on the nikon) and they're both really good with dynamic range. Some serious pixel peeping might show a difference, but I don't think I could see it in prints.
Agreed. I shoot the D800/D800E/A7R as well, and another difference for me is that I can do a lot more with the IQ180 file in C1P before it starts falling apart, when compared to the files from my other cameras.I know the CMOS d800 is supposed to beat the 180, but I just don't see it. I shoot both of them (zeiss glass on the nikon) and they're both really good with dynamic range. Some serious pixel peeping might show a difference, but I don't think I could see it in prints.
I agree, but these are the situations when I would shoot the Nikon or Sony A7R, and who knows perhaps a FF CMOS MFDB down the road. However, there are several occasions when I'd rather shoot the IQ180. Horses for courses as they say...You will see significant difference in the long exposure territory. The D800E can bash the IQ260 and the IQ280 hard if you shoot directly into the sun and do long exposure of over 2 minutes.
I was a bit off - a quick search of GetDPI and here's a sale from last year: TC + S/K 35mm + adapter plate ... all for $4200 (TC @ 1200, SK 35 @ 2400 and plate @ 600). :thumbup:I'm not saying that you can't but I'll be mighty impressed if you do ... :watch:
Agreed. There are times when you don't see the need to use an LCC, and then once you realize it, weeks, months or even years later, you are kicking yourself, as the color imbalance is *all* you can see.I see quite a bit of color cast on my 40mm rod even on center, and find I do need an LCC more often than not. If sky is involved, for sure.
Paul