The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A7r + Canon TS vs Alp STC

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Okay, I'm different, and also a 4x5 film user, but if you want that contemplative experience without the insane cost and planned obsolescence of MFD. Get a DP merril and the foveon sensor:)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Okay, I'm different, and also a 4x5 film user, but if you want that contemplative experience without the insane cost and planned obsolescence of MFD. Get a DP merril and the foveon sensor:)
Well ... since you mention it - heck, I even use a Zone VI spot meter: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/613476-post2.html

There are several tech camera users who also have the Sigmas as a small alternative/complement. I use them with a Hoodman Loupe almost like a view camera but I really wish that it had movements. :facesmack:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Are people really cross-shopping an A7R and a tech cam? I could see an IQ250 CMOS vs. IQ260 CCD.

There differences are there and law of diminishing returns holds extremely true. But I just don't think someone goes out thinking of dropping 8K and walks out with 60-80K worth of kit.

I use both, but under totally different contexts.
I sometimes try to think not in certain categories but out of the box.
I know that the images from my Leica S look different than those from the M than those from the A7II. However it has a lot to do with transition from sharp to unsharp, color as well for some part. Assuming the A7r has smoother color transition than the A7II and sharper pixels, and also assuming that in landscapes one often shoots with deep DOF (so bokeh and sharpness transition is not really pronounced) - I wondered if there is that much of a difference (Even though I think I do expect that a difference is visible).

And since using the A7r with TS would mean to 1)place camera on tripod and level, adjust focus and T/S if needed, mirror up and then expose it seemed that the process of taking the image might not be that different to using a tech camera, with the one difference to have a good lifeview on the display of the Sony.
On the other side the A7 are so (over)loaded with buttons and functions and the camera + adapter + TS looks far from balanced
but the alpa looks so technically beautiful - how much would that influence the shooting experience.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Yeah, I don't mean to diss MFD, there's something to be said for that format. The Alpa can also take a film adapter, but the foveon's are that good...seriously.
 

torger

Active member
Thank you for the interesting link and your experience. The Techno looks really like closest to a field camera. I am not sure yet if I would prefer an Alpa style camera for the smaller size and distance scale or a Techno-style camera, specially I would not want more than 2 max. 3 lenses.
Maybe I should try to look at a Techno and to handle it to get a feeling about the size and ease of use.
A view camera is more of an advantage the more lenses you got, both concerning economy and size/weight. With only two lenses it's probably not an advantage in either cost or weight. I got seven Digitar lenses myself, and I use all lenses, I work with different framings and perspectives and find it more pleasing to create in camera than to crop a lot in post. I think the total cost of all those lenses was less than a single Rodie 32 for alpa, but then I only bought the 60XL new. I think the system I have today is the most cost effective MFD tech system you can get, and with a 50 megapixel back I'm certainly not far behind the best image quality you can get in MFD.

The simpler Alpa cameras are quite limited in movements, while a field view camera will give you full movement range including tilt and swing for all lenses.

I think a danger of the simpler pancake cameras with only one-two lenses is that you end up with something that's not really that different from an A7r, the only difference being resolution. And then you get stuck in the resolution race, you feel an urge to upgrade to "keep the distance" from 135 cameras.

While there are examples of people using both A7r and say a 39 megapixel MFD basic pancake system simultaneously, most have very high end MFD systems to separate them enough.

An advantage with the view camera I think it's so different, that's why I like to call it "large format" style. I have a DSLR system too, but I don't shoot landscapes with it, I shoot action and people. The view camera takes me into a different mindset, one I like to have when making landscape pictures.

I know all this is very fuzzy and emotional, but if you only want MFD for performance and not for the handling, and you're also interested in keeping costs down, then MFD is bad news. You'll then be forever hunted by better and better performing 135 systems, forcing you to do frequent and very costly upgrades. If you instead consider the absolute performance and like the handling of the system you can stay one step below the highest end and gain from that it's relatively easy to get such gear second hand.
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
I wondered about user experience between a A7r with a 24mm TS lens (or additionally 17mm later) on a tripod vs an Alpa STC (or other tech cam) combined with an older back (Hasselblad 39 MP) and equivalent lens.
I bought the A7r to use with my old stables of FDn lenses. A family cam and not intended for any commercial use. Since I also have a few Hassy V lenses I was interested in trying out these with the Sony. I did get the Mirex tilt/shift to have a go with my (much loved) Cfe 40/4 IF for more serious landscapes. Yes, it works. Result is nice and files up for printing quite big. However, the feeling in the workflow is definitely not my cup of tea. The menu system is driving me nuts. It still takes me minutes to find where the heck I format the card...I get overwhelmed with buttons and menus high and low. Being a traditional photog this 'modern' (I'm sure most modern dslr's are the same) takes away my inspiration and the feeling I am not in control. Only God knows if the boxes I want to be ticked in fact are ticked!
I bought the A7r when it was released and I have less then 500 exposures on it - that alone should tell you how happy I am using it! (not really)
But obviously I have to admit that a body + a tse24 + adaptor is about the same money as a single good second hand tech lens alone.

Having my flagship back in service has forced me to dust of my trusty 22mp fat pixel back that has not seen use for a long time. This sensor is, I'm not sure, but I think 10 year old technology? It is a fixed iso25 (already at iso50 noise is terrible), it can only expose for a few seconds before noise is introduced, DR is terrible in comparison to the Sony. So it is quite limiting and since I like shooting longish exposures with ND it is far from ideal.
However, as with everything I own, I work out what the strengths are and seek scenes and light that enhance this strengths. I can honestly say that the depth, the 3D feel, is incredible and colours at capture are natural and very filmlike.
You must be careful to get the correct exposure even in ideal situations, there is no margin for pushing anything, better if scene admits, bracket and blend in post.

Tomorrow I am going up a mountain on a dirttrack with my 4x4. Bringing as little as possible because it is not unusual that I find something in the distance, a shooting point where I cannot drive so a light bag is a good bag. Do you think I am debating if I am taking the A7r + 40/4 IF or The TC + 72 L + Aptus? No, the A7r has not even crossed my mind. Not for a second.

For me it is a world apart in feel and I thrive in the workflow. It inspires, it even challange me in its shortcomings. I compose without a view finder even with movements, I guess exposure, I often guess distance (if not closeup).

I know my point of view is very personal and not shared by everyone, but since this is not your primary system, I would without hesitation get an STC, a lens of preference and an older back. Its all about the process!
 

Dogs857

New member
I had the tech camera, had to sell and go back to DSLR.

I bought a D810, good glass and all the rest. But there was something missing. Sure the files were lovely, but it all felt a bit too clinical to me. I could push the shadows, my live view was amazing and sped everything up, my RRS pano rig got the job done nicely, but it all lacked soul for want of a better word.

So I sold it all for a P45+ and a Cambo. Now I set up my shot using the ground glass, I think far more about my framing and composition and I take my sweet time. My camera doesn't meter for me, my focusing is getting better, and my photography is better because I am enjoying shooting again.

There is no sane reasoning for this. My Nikon kit would have been the envy of most photographers. But after shooting with a tech camera I was hooked, and would not go back again. Sure the back is old and "only" has 12-13 odd stops of DR, but the files are all I need and the experience can't be matched.
 
I had the tech camera, had to sell and go back to DSLR.

I bought a D810, good glass and all the rest. But there was something missing. Sure the files were lovely, but it all felt a bit too clinical to me. I could push the shadows, my live view was amazing and sped everything up, my RRS pano rig got the job done nicely, but it all lacked soul for want of a better word.

So I sold it all for a P45+ and a Cambo. Now I set up my shot using the ground glass, I think far more about my framing and composition and I take my sweet time. My camera doesn't meter for me, my focusing is getting better, and my photography is better because I am enjoying shooting again.

There is no sane reasoning for this. My Nikon kit would have been the envy of most photographers. But after shooting with a tech camera I was hooked, and would not go back again. Sure the back is old and "only" has 12-13 odd stops of DR, but the files are all I need and the experience can't be matched.
It would be interesting to see some RAW files for side by side comparison between the D810 and the P45+ :thumbs:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
....
I know all this is very fuzzy and emotional, but if you only want MFD for performance and not for the handling, and you're also interested in keeping costs down, then MFD is bad news. You'll then be forever hunted by better and better performing 135 systems, forcing you to do frequent and very costly upgrades. If you instead consider the absolute performance and like the handling of the system you can stay one step below the highest end and gain from that it's relatively easy to get such gear second hand.
It is more the opposit: I would want the Tech Cam more for the handling. I have some experience with 22 and 33 MP older backs and also with the S2 36MP sensor and I really believe that on a tech cam where I would mostly use a tripod anyways (so I can shoot at base iso) a older 39MP back should be more than enough. Also the new high end backs ... I cant justify for my hobby use. They just loose value to fast to much. If live view was working very good, this would be a reason, but just IQ I am sure an older bakc would suit me well. (At the moment I have an offer for a CF-39 + Alpa STC+ 36mm all ready to use for an attractive price) I am not ready to spend 20 or 30 k just for a back alone, and I know from my Leica S I dont need more MP.
 
Last edited:

Dogs857

New member
It would be interesting to see some RAW files for side by side comparison between the D810 and the P45+ :thumbs:
I would love to mate but I no longer own the D810. I had to sell the lot to get back into MF.:rolleyes:

So far I have no complaints from the P45+ and my post wasn't about whether it is better than the D810 or not, more about how I enjoy tech camera shooting so much more. It really does make me a lot happier and gets me out shooting more.

It's not something rational, and something that can't be measured and compared. It's far more personal than that.
 
I would love to mate but I no longer own the D810. I had to sell the lot to get back into MF.:rolleyes:

So far I have no complaints from the P45+ and my post wasn't about whether it is better than the D810 or not, more about how I enjoy tech camera shooting so much more. It really does make me a lot happier and gets me out shooting more.

It's not something rational, and something that can't be measured and compared. It's far more personal than that.
I was happy with my IQ260 until I did a side by side comparison between the IQ260 and the D800E. I could no longer top-up faith to keep using the IQ260 when it is clearly inferior in many aspects, including the most important part - the image quality for long exposure, at pixel peeping level. The purpose was defeated.

Sometimes it's better not to know the truth. The one telling the truth against common sense may get burnt alive.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Gee - if you can get the STC, lens and a back for $10k, go for it. Wonderful deal.

I just came back from a trip to Hawaii, taking a Sony RX1 and a MF setup (Leaf 33mp back). The RX1 sensor is similar, but probably not exactly the same as the A7 setup. There is no doubt for many situations, the RX1 is just lovely - and does wonderfully in poor light, high light, ease of use and many other features. The RX1 makes great big screen images.

However, for art shots of landscape, true keepers, the MF setup is working at another level. When you get it right, the MFDB allows for super prints. Mind you, not all of them work - there are many that are just not there. It demands good technique.

Why are they better? I don't know - maybe its using a tripod, getting up early and bringing more concentration with the heavier, cumbersome gear. Or perhaps its looking through a GG that slows you down, makes you think. Maybe its the lens, although the Zeiss on the RX1 is pretty darn good. Or maybe its that back, with extra care in its design, probably more cooling, CCD, and shooting at lower ISO. Maybe its C1 (not LR) for processing, but I doubt that its one. Maybe its all this together. Some time back, there was a test comparing a new Canon TS lens against a wide angle tech camera, and it was pretty amazing - the Canon did really well. So my guess is its not just the lens, but the larger setup, the whole workflow.

There is a difference - small detail and texture is alive in the MFDB setup and it never ceases to amaze every-once in a while when you get it right.
 
Last edited:

torger

Active member
I recently upgraded from 33 to 50 megapixels. I still have both backs and I'd like to do some more field testing (it's a bad time of year for me, don't get out shooting very often now) but 99.9% sure I will keep the new and sell the old.

The truth is however that resolution-wise the upgrade is pretty small. You don't experience a resolution upgrade as 50/33=67% more resolution, but rather how much extra you get on the side which is 25%. What I get though is a bit less aliasing at f/16, better quality at "long" exposure (it does well up to 128 sec), even better wide angle compatibility (although the 33 Dalsa is perfectly okay in that regard).

I like to shoot "intimate landscapes" and really it's hard to say that you get more detail... to me resolution on the sensor is more about less artifacts so you can make huge prints without any digital artifacts showing.

I shall confess though that there is a little bit of 4x5" jealousy in the picture too, while most consider 33 to be a little bit low compared to 4x5", 50 is past the breakpoint considering "grain-free" resolution, and that kind of feels better when I have a shooting style which is similar to what you would do with a 4x5" camera. In the future I'd like to have like 200-400 megapixels to really outresolve the optical system so there's no trace whatsoever of digital artifacts in the image, but that's about image smoothness more than resolving power.

Recently I saw Jimmy Nelson's great exhibition "Before They Pass Away", there's an excellent web site too BEFORE THEY PASS AWAY

That was to me an example where resolving power does count, he has shot detailed group portraits and printed them very large, presented in a way so you can walk up close and look at each separate face. He shot it using 4x5", and although the images do look great it wouldn't hurt if they were shot on 8x10", you do see the limits of the resolving power in the huge exhibition prints.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thank you for all the further thoughts and experiences.
I have decided to get the used STC and CF-39 since it gives me the opportunity to experience it myself. And in case I would not like it (which is not my plan) I should be able to not have lost too much money. By the way this was Euro not $ but I still think I got a fair price.

I might also have the opportunity to go to a Linhof workshop in April for large format photography so maybe I will have a chance their to also handle a Techno.

Special thanks to Torger for the Link to "BEFORE THEY PASS AWAY" - Wow, impressive and wonderful images.

I will report back when I have taken the first image with the equipment.
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
. . . . .
I have decided to get the used STC and CF-39 since it gives me the opportunity to experience it myself. And in case I would not like it (which is not my plan) I should be able to not have lost too much money. By the way this was Euro not $ but I still think I got a fair price.
. . . . . .

Welcome to the ALPA-LAND in Dante's nirvana . You have arrived .:salute:
 

jagsiva

Active member
Thank you for all the further thoughts and experiences.
I have decided to get the used STC and CF-39 since it gives me the opportunity to experience it myself. And in case I would not like it (which is not my plan) I should be able to not have lost too much money. By the way this was Euro not $ but I still think I got a fair price.

I might also have the opportunity to go to a Linhof workshop in April for large format photography so maybe I will have a chance their to also handle a Techno.

Special thanks to Torger for the Link to "BEFORE THEY PASS AWAY" - Wow, impressive and wonderful images.

I will report back when I have taken the first image with the equipment.
Great choice. On my last trip, I took my D800E and the tech cam. Pulled the D800E out once. As many have said here, while the IQ is better with the tech cam, the bigger factor for me is the mindset. Agreed it is all in my head, but if it makes my output better, that is enough for me.

I am also finding that lots of locations we go to have been photographed thousands of times. I want to be different, offer a different perspective, a different look to the scene. I find the tech cam affords me this.
 
Top