Should I or not?

[GrahamWelland]

Having shot the 17TS-E on the FPS and the 23HR on my Alpa I can attest to the fact that the corner distortions are absolute quantum leaps apart. The 23HR by comparison seems like a rectilinear corrected lens vs a fisheye in the corners.

 

[Paratom]

Do you guys really use 23mm tilted or shifted a lot when doing landscapes? Isn't this more for indoor and architecture?
For my taste FF 21mm FOV is quite wide already for landscape use, and the 24 Super Elmar on the S or the 21/3.4 on the M or the Zeiss21/2.8 do fine IMO in regards of corner performance.
I am not talking against Tech Cams (and as some here know I recently bought an Alpa TCS) but I think we can not say that there were no sufficient wide angle lenses for "non-tech" cameras.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It's really a point and shoot lens. You only get 2 or 3mm of movement which is not much and you can only use tilt via a tech cam with the body as for like Cambo mount you can't get it in tilt.

Nice lens but also flares really bad if your not careful.

The canon 17mm TSE you can 12mm with shifting and you can tilt.

To me the 17 is more versatile

 

[voidshatter]

Do you guys really use 23mm tilted or shifted a lot when doing landscapes? Isn't this more for indoor and architecture?

It's really a point and shoot lens. You only get 2 or 3mm of movement which is not much and you can only use tilt via a tech cam with the body as for like Cambo mount you can't get it in tilt.

Nice lens but also flares really bad if your not careful.

The canon 17mm TSE you can 12mm with shifting and you can tilt.

To me the 17 is more versatile

In landscape orientation for the digital back, the 23HR on the crop sensor IQ250 can shift at least 12mm before hitting the edge of the image circle. Desaturation-wise 9mm shift is totally usable in most cases. For mazing-free shots 6mm shift is safe.

For landscape shots I also like the shift capability for perspective control to prevent the trees from leaning. 6mm shift of the 23HR on the IQ250 gets the skyline to the golden ratio place in your frame. Nice and perfect.

Flare is bad when sun or light source is above the lens right out of the image circle. I usually shoot directly against the sun so I have little flare issues.

You get tilt and swing capability with the 23HR only if you choose Arca. Alpa or Cambo can't do that. This function is important if you don't focus bracket but want some sharp foreground close.

If you stitch, then both the 23HR and the 32HR gives about 14mm equivalent in 35mm format, while the 17 TS-E gives 11mm equivalent in 35mm format. Parallax could be a problem with the 17 TS-E when you stitch interior with some close foreground.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I was speaking for FF backs like the IQ260. I shot a whole workshop with just this one lens. It was kind of fun.

 

[voidshatter]

I was speaking for FF backs like the IQ260. I shot a whole workshop with just this one lens. It was kind of fun.

I purchased the 23HR right after I saw your comparison between the 28HR and the 28SK. I guess it was that you added some "magic" to make these tech lenses look beautiful. Coincidence I could imagine that one day this forum would be raided by wives of photographers :ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Heck you buy these lenses at these big pricing and they start thinking bigger diamonds. Lol

Fair warning these Rodie's are not exactly considered cheap to buy but they are outstanding.

 

[gazwas]

Having shot the 17TS-E on the FPS and the 23HR on my Alpa I can attest to the fact that the corner distortions are absolute quantum leaps apart.

And so is the price!

RS 23HR £3950 GBP
Canon 17TS-E £1400 GBP

I don't know how any photographer could say a bad word againt the Canon 17TS-E as its a wonderful piece of glass by any standards, RS 23HR included.

 

[Landscapelover]

I've been waiting for a long time until my patience has run out!
Are you kidding me the IQ180 is not good enough to make landscape photography?
The IQ180 + tech cam and lenses can give you the best pictures you can imagine. Even the IQ180+DF+Phase One/Mamiya lenses can give you enough IQ that you can print as big as you want to. Dynamic range is more than I want especially if you use graduated neutral density, bracketing and your brain.
If you want to shoot night photography, get another Nikon D800/810 with one lens. No camera is perfect. CMOS or non-CMOS, I've had them all. I can't see the difference in image quality. I like to look at the print more than the monitor. You don't need to shoot to the sun to get good pictures! I won't buy CMOS camera because of this reason. If your main work is fashion/fast shooting or night photography, CMOS may suit you. But for landscape photography, you don't need it although you may want it.
Galen Rowell made pictures with his old Nikons. Michael Kenna uses his old Hasselblad film cameras to make pictures. Some pictures are not even sharp. Dynamic range, sharpness, CMOS etc. are not everything in photography. Many people may forget about these.
Please go out shooting and show me your images! I want to see more images in GetDPI forums than hearing complaints and excuses.

Best regards,

Pramote

 

[voidshatter]

And so is the price!

RS 23HR £3950 GBP
Canon 17TS-E £1400 GBP

I don't know how any photographer could say a bad word againt the Canon 17TS-E as its a wonderful piece of glass by any standards, RS 23HR included.

I can live with the corner sharpness of the 17 TS-E if I do focus bracketing to offset the field curvature in the corner, but the size of the ND filter is a little bit difficult for me to justify for long trips

 

[voidshatter]

Dynamic range is more than I want especially if you use graduated neutral density, bracketing and your brain.

Hi, ND grad or bracketing didn't work for me. It was discussed here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...-backs/53612-df-cmos-iq-backs.html#post627476

If you want to shoot night photography, get another Nikon D800/810 with one lens.

True, but that greatly increases the package weight for long trips. If you don't shoot long exposure (which is not the strong point of the IQ180 anyway) then most of the time a flat (rectilinear) stitching wouldn't cause troubles, and in this case stitching with the IQ150 you get the same / similar number of pixels as if you stitch with an IQ180.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You can use a 4x4 ND with the lee filter system but you limited to about 5 or 6 mm of shift before you start to vignette. It's not a total solution but if your mostly just doing rise and fall than its acceptable. Given its 17mm you not doing a bunch of stitching anyway. This is a wide lens. The nice part is they have a special filter ring for the 17 and the foundation kit. Now if you have the 24mm TSE you just need a 82 wide angle ring and the 4x4 filters you can go maximum stitch with no issues

 

[voidshatter]

You can use a 4x4 ND with the lee filter system but you limited to about 5 or 6 mm of shift before you start to vignette. It's not a total solution but if your mostly just doing rise and fall than its acceptable. Given its 17mm you not doing a bunch of stitching anyway. This is a wide lens. The nice part is they have a special filter ring for the 17 and the foundation kit. Now if you have the 24mm TSE you just need a 82 wide angle ring and the 4x4 filters you can go maximum stitch with no issues

Tried that Lee filter system on the 17 TS-E before, on 5D3, IQ250 and IQ260. I could only do 4mm rise on the 5D3 without vignetting.

Below shows that the Lee (Big Stopper in this case) is not usable when the 17 TS-E is mounted on a crop sensor IQ250, so I had to give it up. Light leakage was also an issue.

 

[Pradeep]

I'm not a fan of the Dalsa CCD sensors so I see it the other way around. I regard this ISO 35 setting a "drawback" instead of an advantage, because anything below ISO 100 on the IQ180 is just extended ISO, and Phase One is not honest enough to comment that these are extended ISO as Canon or Nikon does. This ISO 35 is purely a marketing hype. You will not get better image if you shoot at ISO 35 than you shoot at ISO 100 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The real lowest native ISO setting on the IQ180 is indeed ISO 100. From ISO 100 and onward (above) on the IQ180 the actually measured ISO is significantly below the claimed ISO, making it a poor choice for scenes where light is dim and shutter speed is a constraint (e.g. the OP's situation). The only possible advantage of having a measured ISO well below the manufacturer claimed ISO is to increase the exposure time without blowing out highlight, but long exposure is not the strength of the IQ180 or any other Dalsa CCD sensors.

Below shows my tests at ISO 35 and ISO 100 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The shadow SNR stays the same. The highlight details are also the same.

Thank you Void, that was really an eye-opener.

Are you saying that there is NO advantage in setting the IQ180 at ISO below 100? Is the noise any different (I know you mentioned SNR and therefore I assume it is)? So if the correct exposure time at ISO 35 is 40 seconds (as measured by the histogram on the back), you mean I could set it to ISO 100 at say 15 seconds and still have the same exposure and noise levels? That would make a huge difference right there.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Interesting on the A7r it can do about 6. Did you use there adapter filter ring. Agree not a total solution for sure but for me it was enough since I used it more for rise and fall than stitching.

Here is that ring.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008397-REG/lee_filters_fhcar17tse_adapter_ring_for_canon.html

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thank you Void, that was really an eye-opener.

Are you saying that there is NO advantage in setting the IQ180 at ISO below 100? Is the noise any different (I know you mentioned SNR and therefore I assume it is)? So if the correct exposure time at ISO 35 is 40 seconds (as measured by the histogram on the back), you mean I could set it to ISO 100 at say 15 seconds and still have the same exposure and noise levels? That would make a huge difference right there.

Even if there was a difference it be very minimal . I never tested the two ISOs against each other but ISO 100 works great on the 180. After ISO 100 though all bets are off

 

[Landscapelover]

I want to express I didn't aim at anyone. I want to express your analysis about CMOS is the best I've ever read and I really appreciate and enjoy it. I've had both Pextax 645Z and IQ180 and I see your point. However, I've also had some disagreement.

Hi, ND grad or bracketing didn't work for me. It was discussed here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...-backs/53612-df-cmos-iq-backs.html#post627476


True, but that greatly increases the package weight for long trips. If you don't shoot long exposure (which is not the strong point of the IQ180 anyway) then most of the time a flat (rectilinear) stitching wouldn't cause troubles, and in this case stitching with the IQ150 you get the same / similar number of pixels as if you stitch with an IQ180.

Bracketing and GND always worked for me and have been working for decades.

Cambo+Rodie 40mm+(Rodie 90mm)+Nikon D810 (or lighter Sony A7R) +24mm+70-200mm f/4 do not weigh much at all for long hike. They will cover almost any landscape photography, night and day although I usually don't pack the Nikon except if I want to take night photography. In this case another Rodie 23mm is still very light.

And the 80mp is significantly larger than 50mp.

 

[voidshatter]

Thank you Void, that was really an eye-opener.

Are you saying that there is NO advantage in setting the IQ180 at ISO below 100? Is the noise any different (I know you mentioned SNR and therefore I assume it is)? So if the correct exposure time at ISO 35 is 40 seconds (as measured by the histogram on the back), you mean I could set it to ISO 100 at say 15 seconds and still have the same exposure and noise levels? That would make a huge difference right there.

The histogram cannot be trusted. It was described here.

ISO 35 and 40 seconds would give you much cleaner shadow than ISO 100 and 15 seconds, but ISO 100 and 15 seconds would give you 1.5 stops more highlight details.

ISO 35 and 40 seconds would give you the same image quality as ISO 100 and 40 seconds. You will see that the histogram and highlight warnings in the playback inside the camera warn you that you've blown out more highlights, but that warning is not accurate. The highlight details are still there when you do post-processing or check by Raw Digger.

ISO 35 is just one thing to suggest the photographer to do ETTR. It's essentially the same thing as ISO 32 in Nikon D810.

 

[gazwas]

Are you kidding me the IQ180 is not good enough to make landscape photography?
The IQ180 + tech cam and lenses can give you the best pictures you can imagine. Even the IQ180+DF+Phase One/Mamiya lenses can give you enough IQ that you can print as big as you want to.

I think you've missed the point of all this discussion as its never been in dispute what an IQ180 is capable of and this possibly is why at some points this topid has got a little heated as peopld are looking at this far to personally.

The OP doesn't like using his IQ180 and finds if far to limiting for his capture needs and quality expectations compared to their Canon equipment.

 

[voidshatter]

Interesting on the A7r it can do about 6. Did you use there adapter filter ring. Agree not a total solution for sure but for me it was enough since I used it more for rise and fall than stitching.

Here is that ring.

LEE Filters Adapter Ring for Canon 17mm TS-E Lens AR17TSE B&H

Yes it's this ring. I sold it after I tried it. :S