Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

  1. #1
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    So having been liberated of my Alpa and lenses but luckily still in possession of my IQ150 and Cambo Actus I'm rebuilding the outfit and thought I'd ask about lens options.

    Right now I've bought a replacement Rodenstock 32HR as the base lens and now need to flesh out the other lenses. So far I'm looking at:

    Rodie 32HR
    Rodie 70HR
    SK 120

    other options would be the:

    Rodie 32HR
    SK 60XL
    Rodie 90HRSW
    SK 150

    Other thoughts or feedback? I'm inclined to go with the smaller outfit but I don't have first hand experience with the Rodie 70HR although I have owned/shot the SK 72L for a while but not with my CMOS back.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Time to build your Christmas tree!

    Name:  96.JPG
Views: 1154
Size:  44.7 KB

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post

    Other thoughts or feedback? I'm inclined to go with the smaller outfit but I don't have first hand experience with the Rodie 70HR although I have owned/shot the SK 72L for a while but not with my CMOS back.
    I have shot both the 70HR and the 72XL (actually 75XL for the Alpa version) with the CMOS back. Both work fine but personally I prefer the 75XL for better portability. The chromatic aberration also seems to be better controlled on the 75XL.

    When heavily shifted you would need to shoot LCC for the 70HR, and the sample I tested didn't perform very well for me probably due to slightly off-centered alignment. Though I have never heavily shifted the 75XL as I use it on an Alpa 12 STC and the maximum shift allowed is just 18mm.

    The 90HRSW is a monster but the size and weight is also monstrous. Given that both 70HR and 75XL can do just fine, I did not opt for that monstrous 90HRSW.

  4. #4
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    My dealer is recommending the Rodie 70 over the Schneider due to the retro focus (well, and Schneider long term support). I did look at the older discussions of 72L vs 70 HR.

    The 90 HRSW does appeal due to the pure performance but with the crop sensor it does cause problems with the intermediate focal lengths.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Graham..... are you rebuilding the Alpa outfit or building around the Cambo? I am building around my Cambo for numerous reasons. Firstly the same lanese are available at considerable savings but the most important gain with the Cambo is Yaw free tilt and swing...... worlds better than the Alpa.

    Victor

  6. #6
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    I went 32,60,90, about the same fov i had used and liked with the iq160 and 43,70, 120
    If the size of the 32 is no problem nevermind the 90
    Might want to check how close you can focus with the 120 bearing in mind the slide limitations (may not be an issue) special treat is no extension needed with the actus, unlike the cambo wrs
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    My dealer is recommending the Rodie 70 over the Schneider due to the retro focus (well, and Schneider long term support). I did look at the older discussions of 72L vs 70 HR.

    The 90 HRSW does appeal due to the pure performance but with the crop sensor it does cause problems with the intermediate focal lengths.
    Talking about retro focus, I'm not quite sure about this. My test results on CMOS back shows that the 70HR may have more color cast when shifted. Also as the others mentioned in the old thread, the 70HR may be a tad soft when wide open.

    Below shows LCC files for two lenses on the same IQ250 back. I use the "Pick White Balance" tool on the center of the unshifted LCC file, and adjust exposure to the middle, then copy and paste the adjustments to other LCC files of the same lens. I hope this shows a fair comparison of color cast.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	99.JPG 
Views:	44 
Size:	142.6 KB 
ID:	114602
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    32HR - I think this is a no brainer for wides especially on CMOS or 80MP backs. You had this lens before, I'm sure you know how great it s.

    60XL - I went with this over the 70HR given the smaller size, larger IC (120mm) and better focal length match to the 32HR ( I later added the 40HR as well because I am a gear slut, but was able to convince myself that the 40HR provided a portable alternative to the 32HR)

    90HRSW - large IC compared to the 90HRW, and better performance. Some have also complained about flare with the HRW. The HRSW is the best performing lens I have used on any platform and with the 32HR makes a great 2 lens kit. Downsides are that it is large, but if you're used to the 32HR, it's not a problem. It also requires a back/barrel extension. The cost is substantial vs. the older 90HRW, but you only live once

    120SK ASPH - This a pretty sweet lens. The IC is huge at 150mm, it is very sharp and it is tiny. By tech lens measures it is also quite affordable. It does need a rather long barrel/back extension, but Alpa's newer helical with what looks like great markings looks very nice. I have the Arca version.

    Longer - I don't currently have anything longer than 120mm, but waiting for either a next gen SK or Rodie. The current Rodies don't offer very large IC's. I'm hoping that SK come out with a 150 or 180 along ASPH similar to the 120, but based on forum ramblings, this may not be likely anytime soon.

    Good luck, exciting times!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    On the IQ150, I was able to shift the 60XL quite a bit, to the almost to the max on the rm3di when rotated, which allows 30mm and 20mm shifts. The 60 held up to 25mm with the CF. There of course will be color cast but C1 seems to do a good job with it. The 60XL is light but also seem best suited for apertures in the F11 to F16 range. Hopefully Schneider will continue to service their lenses for some time into the future.

    I have never used the 70 HR-W, but it's safe to assume it has the same IC edge indicator built in. With a IC of 100mm you still should get quite a lot of movement on the IQ150. No CF is needed either, so you won't loose any shutter speed, (not as much as issue with the IQ150 as can always use a higher iso). Not sure if the 70mm has the same ghosting problems of the 90mm HR, and the potential flare problems of the 40mm?

    The 120mm Asph, wonderful, great small lens with a huge amount of movement. On the Arca I need the back extension, but I am assuming on the Aptus, no need for this. You also have a surprised close focus distance, even though this is not the macro version of the lens.

    Paul C

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    62
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    I have the Rodi 40mm and 70 mm and love them both, using them on my Cambo WRS5000 with a Phase One IQ380 back. I'm far from qualified or knowledgeable on the technical variations of the various lenses. I just know what works for me, and works well at that.

  11. #11
    New Member Stephan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    I started working with a tech camera because I wanted to achieve the closest possible verisimilitude to the scene in front of me, or at the least, as I imagine the scene should appear in its printed form.

    For me there is a certain satisfaction in knowing I did an image justice. That I've seen it, not just well, but given that there is this vast ocean of zombie-like casual snapping spreading to nearly every corner of the visible world, that I've recorded an image with finality, singularity. I don't enjoy thinking, well.. I guess it could have been a little nicer here or there. No! I want to capture THE image.

    There's a lot more to image making than lenses, and I wish you could, but you can't make every picture with just one lens. All this to say, that when ink hit's paper, there's only one lens that gives me this kind of satisfaction, it's the 90HRSW.

    Best of luck putting the new kit together,

    -Stephan
    Stephan
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    I have the 70mm HR-W and it works great with my IQ160 (on the RM3Di) at the full 15mm L/R shift + about 5-6mm of rise/fall. Have not tried any more. Will do more tests but overall the LCC did not look too extreme. Pretty well behaved lens, no nonsense.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Graham,

    I have the 32HR, SK60XL, 90HRSW, SK120 and they are all lovely to use. I also have the Rodenstock 23mm but that is quite a specialist item and would be the one I would probably not re-buy.

    I'm not sure if A-S is an option for you but they made me a front spacer for the 120mm so that I can share the 90mm rear spacer between both the 90mm and 120mm lenses and this saves a good amount of space in the bag and a little weight. A-S said they wouldn't want to do this for the SK150mm.

    I did also have some issue with focussing the 90mm at f5.6 which was solved by a minor adjustment (turning two small screws) in the RM3d Factum body and it then to allows the helical to go past zero to minus 1 where the focus at f5.6 is fine. From f8 upwards the offset is same across all the lenses (+0.5 or +1).

    Tilting the 90mm can give a lovely combination of foreground in focus and keeping distant elements a good size.

    If I had to cut the number of lenses to save weight on a particular shoot I would probably drop the 120mm first, then the 60mm. If I could only take one lens it would probably be a choice between the 32mm or the 60mm depending on the location. I can get a good wide angle from using lateral shift (plus tilt) on the Factum/60mm provided the scene is still. Otherwise it would be the 32mm with less leeway for tilt and shift.

    The Sony RX1-R has been my backup for bad weather and places (eg slippery rocks) where I don't want to risk the technical camera, lenses and back. It's good to see people on the Sony forum talking about the RX1-R ii giving images with an almost medium format feel to them.
    Miles Flint
    http://www.milesflint.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  14. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Grahm:

    I have the rodie 50 and 90 and I have used the 32. Talk to CI about the 50. I find it to be great lens. Everything that needs to be said about the 90 and the sk120 has been said.

    Maybe 32, 50, 90 and either the 120 or 170?

    Curtiss
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

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

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    So having been liberated of my Alpa and lenses but luckily still in possession of my IQ150 and Cambo Actus I'm rebuilding the outfit and thought I'd ask about lens options
    Since you have a clean slate, have you backed out to the wider view and considered whether you want to switch from Alpa to Cambo or Arca?

    We'd be glad to help you make a comparison to an Arca R or Cambo Wide.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  16. #16
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    This time I'm leveraging the Cambo Actus DB+ as my base system for tech camera vs a proprietary system with helicoids / mounts etc and the associated extra expense. With CMOS live view I've been very happy with the Cambo and in fact was using my Alpa mounted lenses on it more than I was on the Alpa bodies.

    I had the Rodie 90 HRW and 40 HR (and SK 150) when I shot with my IQ260 and found those focal lengths worked well. When I got the IQ150 I changed the Rodie 40 to the 32 which was a better focal length with the cropped sensor, although the spacing from 32 to 90 was a little far at times and I was contemplating the 60XL as the intermediate lens. I was thinking that the 70 & 120 might fill the range with the 44x33 sensor better this time around.

    It certainly would be good to be able to plan around a full size CMOS 80mp sensor - that would without a doubt be the 32/60/90 system.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  17. #17
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    This time I'm leveraging the Cambo Actus DB+ as my base system for tech camera vs a proprietary system with helicoids / mounts etc and the associated extra expense. With CMOS live view I've been very happy with the Cambo and in fact was using my Alpa mounted lenses on it more than I was on the Alpa bodies.
    As you'll recall Arca builds their helicoid into the body, which means their R-mount lenses (which can be used on a Universalis or on a Cambo with adapter) are lighter and smaller than the proprietary Alpa mounted lenses. Add to this their engineer-not-fashion business gestalt and the markup to buy an R-mount lens rather than a naked lens is quite reasonable when compared to Alpa.

    If going with just or mostly the Actus I think it's even more important to avoid any Schneider lenses on the wide and normal range as their symmetrical designs lead to a harder time focusing on a bellows style camera (regardless of the precision of that system).
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Why not forget tech cam and buy the XF plus new 35mm to start. Excuse me if you already have one, But it's quite IQ180 friendly as well

    I have to admit to prejudice, I don't like tech cams.

    I can see the virtues, light weight for hiking, hmm trying to think of another. Well yes superb lens quality but with the new Phase One 35mm and 40-80mm (which I have) who needs tech lenses ? OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?

    I can also see the vices. no autofocus, no exact framing without serious effort, LCC capture a PITA

    Anyway just my two cents.

  19. #19
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    Why not forget tech cam and buy the XF plus new 35mm to start. Excuse me if you already have one, But it's quite IQ180 friendly as well

    I have to admit to prejudice, I don't like tech cams.

    I can see the virtues, light weight for hiking, hmm trying to think of another. Well yes superb lens quality but with the new Phase One 35mm and 40-80mm (which I have) who needs tech lenses ? OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?

    I can also see the vices. no autofocus, no exact framing without serious effort, LCC capture a PITA

    Anyway just my two cents.
    Unfortunately technical cameras and DSLRs are like chalk & cheese. I don't have the XF but I do have a pretty complete DF+ system from 28mm through to 240mm. The new body does appeal but the problem for me personally is the lack of lenses with movements. The system as far as I am concerned doesn't have any in the focal lengths I want.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?
    I do

    Let's not forget tilt/swing too, which may actually be a key feature to make use of all those megapixels, unless you're into focus stacking.

    But sure it depends on your photographic style. If you're used to shifting and tilting it's hard to be without though, render trees upright, make front anchors sharp etc. There are tilt-shift lenses for DSLRs, but it's basically only the Canon TS-E 24 and 17mm that are any good, concerning lens quality and flexibility in tilt/shift settings.

    Here's one shot, made with the SK47mm with lots of shift down (or actually back shifted up):

    Name:  shift.jpg
Views: 955
Size:  640.5 KB

    Sure I could have pointed the camera down instead of shifting, but having the camera (almost) level makes the perspective both stricter and more dramatic at the same time, at least I think so. Camera movements is an integral part of my landscape photography style, and it's not something I'd like to give up.

    I'm pretty allergic to ultra-wide shots with trees angled strongly inwards or outwards, which to me is a typical "DSLR perspective".
    Last edited by torger; 30th November 2015 at 00:18.
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post

    I'm pretty allergic to ultra-wide shots with trees angled strongly inwards or outwards, which to me is a typical "DSLR perspective".
    Agreed. I also like trees to look straight. Furthermore, there are cases where the shutter speed is slow and focus stacking proves do be problematic in the wind.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Yes, straight trees, tend to look better, however now that is a simple fix in post, with either LR or C1's perspective controls. I realize you might lose some of the original composition due to the correction.

    Wind and stacking, one reason for a good clean iso 400 or even 200, as many times stoping the wind at iso 50 can't be done at least with a tech camera. (limited accurate shutter speeds and CF's which can be problematic with 1.5x to 2.5x effective shutter speeds drops).

    Paul C
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

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

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Yes, straight trees, tend to look better, however now that is a simple fix in post, with either LR or C1's perspective controls. I realize you might lose some of the original composition due to the correction.
    I do agree that LR, PS or C1 offer a quick fix for that, but when you do perspective control in post-processing you would lose tons of pixels - essentially turning expensive Rodenstocks into cheapo APSC lenses. You would also lose angle of view, defeating the purpose of wide angle lens This is no problem for small prints but can be seen in large prints.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    I do agree that LR, PS or C1 offer a quick fix for that, but when you do perspective control in post-processing you would lose tones of pixels - essentially turning expensive Rodenstocks into cheapo APSC lenses. You would also lose angle of view, defeating the purpose of wide angle lens This is no problem for small prints but can be seen in large prints.

    Fully agree, that's why I still lug around a tech camera when I can as movements work best for me. However I also feel that a tilting LCD on a back would help here as it would allow you to frame the shot with possibly less of the perspective issues, i.e. waist level. Which is with the tech camera/tethering, with a geared head is such a great advantage as you can make those fine leveling adjustments either with the camera rise/fall or the head. The real need is of course Live View (CMOS) at least for me. And on the XF, the waist level finder will also help.

    Paul C

  25. #25
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    . Well yes superb lens quality but with the new Phase One 35mm and 40-80mm (which I have) who needs tech lenses ? OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?.
    I use a tech cam specifically for landscape shooting and can say that tilt, swing and shift are all very valuable in my shooting. I also owned the DF+ and the LS lenses (as these were a bit sharper for my work) and none of them were as tack sharp as my 40HR, or 70HR. I have owned and shot the P45+, IQ140, IQ180, IQ260 and IQ250 and my tech set up was always superior in image quality no matter which back I used. That being said. I do feel that the gap may close somewhat as the CMOS sensors continue to improve and the lens quality for the DSLR bodies improves as well.
    Bryan

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

  26. #26
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    If I was to start out from scratch now, I too would start with the HR 32 regardless of sensor size. After that it would be a couple of sleepless nights deciding between either SK 60 + SK 120 or go even more simplistic and just choose the HR 90 and call it a day. Probably the latter.

    For me personally I have always had a quite easy time to adapt to a new focal length and I am also happy with large gaps between focal lengths - I have learned to 'see' scenes with what I have in the bag over my shoulder. I guess in some respects I am lucky that I feel this way because both weight and investment can be well controlled! As it is right now, I have 5 tech lenses in the safe but my photography wouldn't be different or hampared if I cut that to two. In this particular regard I do believe I am somewhat different to most here.....
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    OK you are able to shift which could be valuable for an architectural photog but for landscape who needs it?
    Now, that would be a complete nightmare if you took away movements for my landscape photography. I use and need movements in 3 out of 4 of my landscapes.
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

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

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by danlindberg View Post
    For me personally I have always had a quite easy time to adapt to a new focal length and I am also happy with large gaps between focal lengths - I have learned to 'see' scenes with what I have in the bag over my shoulder.
    I'm a bit to the opposite, although I guess I could get used to fewer focal lengths. Today I have (all SK) 35, 47, 60, 72, 90, 120 and 180. I wouldn't mind having the 150 and 210 either, but my camera bag is full . The total spending of all those lenses is similar to a single new Rodie 32, as I got most of them second hand and the simpler symmetrical designs are cheaper.

    I will have to give up this type of flexibility sooner or later though, the reason I can have this many lenses when I'm out hiking is that SK lenses are very small and light on the Linhof Technika boards. The Digarons, even the Digaron-S range are often twice the weight and size. With my 50MP 49x37mm CCD and this line of fine SK lenses I've reached a dead end, I can only go backwards from here in terms of flexibility which feels a bit sad.

    While resolution and noise can be improved it requires switching to heavier larger lenses, so I need to drop some focal lengths, and most likely I need to drop the feasible movement range as well.

    I have a Canon system with a TS-E 24 II laying around too, I've been very impressed with the resolution and shift range you can get from a 5Ds and a TS-E 24 II. If Canon ever updates their 45 and 90mm to version II and I find a sane shiftable 35mm that could very well be the upgrade path when my current Linhof/Hassy/SK system starts feeling old, because if lenses in my next tech system is going to be just as heavy and few and give me less movement range I think I will have more fun creating "large format style" images using the Canon -- if those new lenses appear. Today I'm not pleased with the current range of longer tilt-shiftable focal lengths in that system.

    My dream scenario is still a new generation CMOS backs that can actually handle the SK symmetric lenses, because I don't feel the lenses are inadequate (they make large prints!), it's the back which is going to start feel old first.

    I don't really like the convergence we're seeing, that lenses and flexibility is narrowing down to be the same between systems. If it's only going to be resolution that differs slightly, I don't think MFD will be for me any longer... but it's too early to say. I wait curiously to see what the future holds, and meanwhile I'm happy with my nowadays considered old-school Linhof Techno setup with sliding back and CCD

    To be honest I could probably shoot with this setup in 10 - 15 years more before there's trouble with software and digital back repairs. It's the gear junkie in me that starts fantasize about new hardware despite that my current setup serves my shooting style perfectly well and will most likely continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

    A CMOS live view certainly wouldn't hurt though...

  29. #29
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by danlindberg View Post
    If I was to start out from scratch now, I too would start with the HR 32 regardless of sensor size. After that it would be a couple of sleepless nights deciding between either SK 60:
    I agree about the HR 32. I shot one on a workshop and loved it, but since I already owned the HR 40t/s (which I also loved) I could not justify giving up the remaining fingers on my left hand to pay for that lens. The HR 40 already cost me the first 2 fingers.

    The SK 60 was another lens that I did shoot and I also found that lens to be stellar, but again, I already owned the HR 70t/s so it was too close to what I already had in the bag to justify such an expenditure on a new lens that was not much different than what I already covered in my kit.
    Bryan

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

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Stephens View Post
    I agree about the HR 32. I shot one on a workshop and loved it, but since I already owned the HR 40t/s (which I also loved) I could not justify giving up the remaining fingers on my left hand to pay for that lens. The HR 40 already cost me the first 2 fingers.

    The SK 60 was another lens that I did shoot and I also found that lens to be stellar, but again, I already owned the HR 70t/s so it was too close to what I already had in the bag to justify such an expenditure on a new lens that was not much different than what I already covered in my kit.
    The 32HR is of course the most favored lens for technical camera users The only reason I give it up is because for long exposure shots ND 3.0 would cause severe vignetting, and to mitigate vignetting a center filter is required, but the center filter of 32HR is too huge for ordinary ND grad.

    A side note, as in my previous tests, the 32HR has slightly less usable image circle than the 40HR does on a 44x33mm Sony IMX161 CMOS (e.g. IQ250) due to mazing artifacts. If a new fullframe CMOS will be based on the same Sony IMX161 technology then the 32HR may retain less value. Instead, the 40HR may be a safer bet for now

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    I like the 24, 35 and 50 135-equivalent field of views, and then some longer on top of that. I think the fields of views has a certain "signature", some looks too stretched, some too compressed, for example I've never really become friend with 40mm 135-equivalent, it's some sort of inbetween FOV that rarely works for my style. I do use it from time to time anyway though, then usually quite flat perspectives. I don't use the 24-FOV very often actually, if I can make the picture with 35 and shift it's often a more pleasing image.

    On the longer end when perspective is compressed I don't think the specific focal length really matters, then it's just about reach and framing, but in the wide to normal range I do think the specific FoV does matter, so I would very carefully consider what field of view I get just as much as actual lens performance.

    With the 44x33mm sensor size it's 1.375 factor (comparing to 32x24 that is 135 in 4:3 format) so that would be 33, 48 and 68mm. The Digaron-W 32, Digaron-W 50 and Digaron-W 70 then perhaps?

    Personally I'd probably pick the Digaron-S 35 as the wide, as the 32 is just too expensive for me, plus I certainly don't like its size. Only 70mm IC on the Digaron-S can be a bit limiting at times, but for landscape I think it's acceptable, the perspective gets very "stretchy" with large shifts anyway at that FoV so it's good to keep shifts quite small.

    I'm not sure if anyone's tested the Digaron-S 35mm for mazing/crosstalk on the IQx50 that would be a thing to look into before getting it, to make sure the full 70mm IC is actually usable.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I like the 24, 35 and 50 135-equivalent field of views, and then some longer on top of that. I think the fields of views has a certain "signature", some looks too stretched, some too compressed, for example I've never really become friend with 40mm 135-equivalent, it's some sort of inbetween FOV that rarely works for my style. I do use it from time to time anyway though, then usually quite flat perspectives. I don't use the 24-FOV very often actually, if I can make the picture with 35 and shift it's often a more pleasing image.

    On the longer end when perspective is compressed I don't think the specific focal length really matters, then it's just about reach and framing, but in the wide to normal range I do think the specific FoV does matter, so I would very carefully consider what field of view I get just as much as actual lens performance.

    With the 44x33mm sensor size it's 1.375 factor (comparing to 32x24 that is 135 in 4:3 format) so that would be 33, 48 and 68mm. The Digaron-W 32, Digaron-W 50 and Digaron-W 70 then perhaps?

    Personally I'd probably pick the Digaron-S 35 as the wide, as the 32 is just too expensive for me, plus I certainly don't like its size. Only 70mm IC on the Digaron-S can be a bit limiting at times, but for landscape I think it's acceptable, the perspective gets very "stretchy" with large shifts anyway at that FoV so it's good to keep shifts quite small.
    The Digaron-S 35mm HR is indeed a very nice choice for the 44x33mm IMX161 CMOS sensor. If I remember correctly the color cast issue is very minor when compared against its Digaron-W siblings. I almost got that lens as I really like the look of the front element (it's huge!), but when I tried to order one Alpa did not have it in stock so I ended up with the 40HR instead.

  33. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by danlindberg View Post
    If I was to start out from scratch now, I too would start with the HR 32 regardless of sensor size. After that it would be a couple of sleepless nights deciding between either SK 60 + SK 120 or go even more simplistic and just choose the HR 90 and call it a day. Probably the latter.

    For me personally I have always had a quite easy time to adapt to a new focal length and I am also happy with large gaps between focal lengths - I have learned to 'see' scenes with what I have in the bag over my shoulder. I guess in some respects I am lucky that I feel this way because both weight and investment can be well controlled! As it is right now, I have 5 tech lenses in the safe but my photography wouldn't be different or hampared if I cut that to two. In this particular regard I do believe I am somewhat different to most here.....
    Not for the first time Dan's words and images have made me think and crystallize something that has been gradually coming into focus in my mind. Two purchases have proved pivotal for me. The first was acquiring a technical camera and the second was buying the Sony RX-1r. Why ? It was realising that a view finder is not necessary and that you can size up a scene in your head and quickly learn what lens will work; that manual focus is fine; that I can normally work out shutter speed and aperture in no more than 2 frames; that movements create wonderful creative options. In fact I begin to think that looking through a viewfinder crops the bigger picture that, unhindered, my eyes might see more opportunities in; to understand that a fixed 35mm lens makes me think more about composition and where to put my feet. And realising that we still miss images even with massive bags of tricks on our backs.

    I'm sure it's been said many times before but my eyes are my best viewfinder and my feet are my best tripod (though of course three into two don't go) and I begin to wonder how much all the technology simply confuses things.

    I went to a conference in October where Julian Calverley did one of many wonderful presentations that day. He is well known commercial photographer here in the UK but has developed his personal portfolio in a way that has enabled him to bring some of his personal style into his commissioned commercial work. His talk was around his book of i-Phone only images and his wonderful landscapes where he uses an Alpa and a 40mm lens (plus IQ180) only. Images that I can only dream about making myself.

    The logical next step then is to travel with just a couple of lenses (HR32 and HR90 perhaps) plus Sony RX1R when I go to Japan for two weeks in January. As I think it through there's a little voice in my head saying 'Well the 60mm doesn't take much space or weight' and then 'Nor does the 120mm' and 'Maybe a dslr might be more flexible'. Perhaps the time has come to simplify. It doesn't mean selling everything else but rather getting out of the habit of taking days to work out how much I can stuff into my airline carry-on allowance to cover every possible eventuality and instead to travel light and see how much I can make the most of what I find in front of me.

    To keep myself honest perhaps I'll post the final gear list here before I go and some images when I get back.
    Last edited by MILESF; 2nd December 2015 at 11:54.
    Miles Flint
    http://www.milesflint.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    I'm in agreement with Miles & Dan that with technical cameras having a small selection of lenses actually helps. I tend to see either wide, mid or long when it comes to scenes and so have decided to build around those views. I tend to keep a single lens on the body and not swap around close ranges of focal length anyway.

    So far it's looking like 32HR and 70 HR will be the kit for now with a longer lens to follow.

    Funnily enough my constant travel companion is my RX1R too.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    The way to make images is very personal, there's no "right" way to do it. The way I work is that I choose where to stand and where to look, the I pick focal length to "crop" the view to place the corners where I want them. With tightly spaced focal lengths I can get very close my desired framing and often enough not having to crop the image in post-processing, the one-shot-perfect feeling I find particularly pleasing. That's one key reason I like the 4:3 format of the MFD so much more than 3:2 format of 135, as most my compositions is generally suited for 4:3 or even 5:4.

    The recent image below for example:

    Name:  90mm.jpg
Views: 730
Size:  311.4 KB

    is shot with a SK90 with tilt. To get the reflection where I wanted required me to put the camera at an exact position, I couldn't move backwards or forwards to make the corners of the frame fit another focal length, 90 was (almost) spot on (yes I do crop when needed, I'm not a no-cropping-fundamentalist ). Although I could have shot it with my 72 and then crop, shooting at 90 and getting to the final composition directly in the shot is more pleasing to me.

    It's often romanticized how limitations in your gear, such as having only one or two lenses, or a slow camera, or even shooting film, makes you focus on your work better and make better images. I think it's much truth in that, but what works is personal. I think the slowed down shooting process, that it really takes a few minutes minimum to make a shot (you can't shoot the Linhof Techno hand-held), does help me to focus on the good images. However I don't think that reducing the number of focal lengths would help me and my shooting style in any way, to me the only difference would be that I would get a bit less pleasing shooting experience as I would have to rely more on post-processing cropping, and cropping would lower resolution of my images of course. Reducing the number of focal lengths is to me a question about economy and how much weight I can carry, not an artistic choice. I do understand that it can be for others, it doesn't work that way for me though.

    Here's another one:

    Name:  120mm.jpg
Views: 694
Size:  197.3 KB

    This was shot with the SK120. I had to stand at that position to get the geometric elements align the way I wanted, and I had to have the corners there to get the composition where I wanted. Ideal focal length would have been 150mm, but I just had a 120 and a 180. What I do then is that I shoot anyway and I crop, and cry a bit as the resolution is reduced

    That's my personal relation to lenses... I'm sure the lens manufacturers would love more photographers think like me on this part

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by armaniphoto View Post
    If You using IQx50 not IQx80, Rodie HR lenses are overkill. If you not planing to upgrade your back. bather way buy Apo Sironar lenses, they will give you same image quality, and much chipper .
    But in case of using apo sironar lenses on IQx80 will never get same resultes as Rodi HR.
    Sironar wide angles (e.g. 35mm) does not work well with CMOS. CMOS demands retro, not symmetric design. By the way, IQx80 has about the same pixel density as the IQx50.

  37. #37
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    If I've learnt only one thing after years of photography and GAS it's that you should only buy the best lenses (and tripods/heads). Cameras/backs come and go but the best glass lasts a long long time and rewards you whenever you use it.

    i did consider getting the sironars actually as I had a few great deals on the older lenses but in the end it would be false economy as undoubtedly at some point I'll get a 80mp or whatever comes next, perhaps even an achromatic back.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    If I've learnt only one thing after years of photography and GAS it's that you should only buy the best lenses (and tripods/heads). .
    ...and bags

  39. #39
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    ...and bags
    Indeed!!

    F-stop is my brand of choice.
    The other 'camera bag' : http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/...ge_942546.jpeg
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 23rd December 2015 at 09:31.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Indeed!!

    F-stop is my brand of choice.
    The other 'camera bag' : http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/...ge_942546.jpeg
    Yup, I have more camera bags than my wife has purses, proud to admit it.

  41. #41
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    That one is a bit tough to carry on though...
    Bryan

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

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    If I've learnt only one thing after years of photography and GAS it's that you should only buy the best lenses (and tripods/heads). Cameras/backs come and go but the best glass lasts a long long time and rewards you whenever you use it.
    Words of Wisdom

  43. #43
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tech System Built around IQx50 / CMOS back

    Hi,

    Pretty much my way of shooting, too. I sort of look for a subject and than for a vantage point. I want features in landscape into a match, or getting around obstacles. Each vantage point gives a perspective, that is specific to that vantage point. Moving around changes that perspective. This walking around I often do without even removing the camera from the backpack.

    Once vantage point is established I set up the tripod and select the lens. With 24x36 I mostly shoot zooms, so finding the right lens is easy.

    On MFD I did pretty well with five lenses, like 40, 50, 80, 120 and 180. Now I shoot 40, 60, 100, 120 and 180 for some practical reasons. Often, when a lens is not wide enough I stitch, a technique I call uncropping.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The way to make images is very personal, there's no "right" way to do it. The way I work is that I choose where to stand and where to look, the I pick focal length to "crop" the view to place the corners where I want them. With tightly spaced focal lengths I can get very close my desired framing and often enough not having to crop the image in post-processing, the one-shot-perfect feeling I find particularly pleasing. That's one key reason I like the 4:3 format of the MFD so much more than 3:2 format of 135, as most my compositions is generally suited for 4:3 or even 5:4.

    The recent image below for example:

    Name:  90mm.jpg
Views: 730
Size:  311.4 KB

    is shot with a SK90 with tilt. To get the reflection where I wanted required me to put the camera at an exact position, I couldn't move backwards or forwards to make the corners of the frame fit another focal length, 90 was (almost) spot on (yes I do crop when needed, I'm not a no-cropping-fundamentalist ). Although I could have shot it with my 72 and then crop, shooting at 90 and getting to the final composition directly in the shot is more pleasing to me.

    It's often romanticized how limitations in your gear, such as having only one or two lenses, or a slow camera, or even shooting film, makes you focus on your work better and make better images. I think it's much truth in that, but what works is personal. I think the slowed down shooting process, that it really takes a few minutes minimum to make a shot (you can't shoot the Linhof Techno hand-held), does help me to focus on the good images. However I don't think that reducing the number of focal lengths would help me and my shooting style in any way, to me the only difference would be that I would get a bit less pleasing shooting experience as I would have to rely more on post-processing cropping, and cropping would lower resolution of my images of course. Reducing the number of focal lengths is to me a question about economy and how much weight I can carry, not an artistic choice. I do understand that it can be for others, it doesn't work that way for me though.

    Here's another one:

    Name:  120mm.jpg
Views: 694
Size:  197.3 KB

    This was shot with the SK120. I had to stand at that position to get the geometric elements align the way I wanted, and I had to have the corners there to get the composition where I wanted. Ideal focal length would have been 150mm, but I just had a 120 and a 180. What I do then is that I shoot anyway and I crop, and cry a bit as the resolution is reduced

    That's my personal relation to lenses... I'm sure the lens manufacturers would love more photographers think like me on this part
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 27th December 2015 at 02:16.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •