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!

Live view on a technical camera - possible?

torger

Active member
I guess my point is that I have read on many occasions people stating that having a smaller sensor is allowing them to have larger movements when that to me makes absolutely no sense when the limitation is the image circle, unless of course you are flat stitching, I am just trying to get my head around Anders preference for a certain sensor size, I guess it is only that sensors ability to deal with shift rather than the fact that it can shift further.
It's about the compositional aspect of the shooting experience. I never stitch, it's not a pleasing shooting experience to me. I'm all about one-shot images. Oh well, I usually make more than one shot (one to make sure, and then one more to make sure even more, and maybe the wind was blowing, one more, and didn't the light change to the better? One more), but the final image is one picked out of the set. That's how I personally like images to be made.

Anyway, when I compose with a given field of view I want to have a certain movement range and not worry about limitations. 70mm IC with a 54x41mm sensor I think is not a pleasing range to work with, too soon you hit the IC limit, no fun. I think 90mm IC is okay, especially on the wider angles, but I like more. By reducing the sensor size slightly, to 49x37mm, I feel more freedom. Reducing even further to 44x33 is overkill on 90mm image circles, but then the 70mm IC Rodenstocks start having okay range (23/28/35mm).

I think my preference is hard to understand if you assume that you use the same lenses. That is say a we have a Rodenstock 32mm and we use either a large or a smaller sensor, but I don't see it like that. First choose sensor size, then choose lenses to match so you get the field of views you want in one shot. I'd use a Schneider Digitar 28 instead of the Rodenstock 32 for a 44x33 (unfortunately that is a no-go today due to color cast issues, but if sensor tech was there... today it would be the Rodenstock 28mm and then only with the Dalsa, I don't think Sony's CMOS is good enough with it).

Of course if you already have the lenses then you will want to use the sensor that gives you the most suitable field of views for your current lens set. On the other hand you generally only need to get another wide if you step down in sensor size. If you shoot architecture you may not be able to, as there's always seems to not be enough wide angle in that case, but I as a landscape photographer has that luxury as I don't need the widest of the wide.

If we look at tilt-shift lenses for Canon the 24mm has 67mm image circle, translating that to 54x41mm would be a 40mm with 110mm image circle, but the 40mm Rodenstock is only 90mm so you get a little bit less flexibility there. I started tilt-shift with the Canon and I come to appreciate having that large movement range. It felt odd when moving to technical cameras that the movement flexibility is often actually less than on my DSLR, so I carefully chose a system where I wouldn't feel like I was downgrading flexibility and compositional enjoyment.

However if it's all about the end result and we don't really care about shooting experience, having the largest possible sensor covering as much as possible of the lens image circle is the most practical of course. You can always crop.
 
Last edited:
M

mjr

Guest
I understand it's your personal preference Anders, it's not a criticism, it's just trying to understand why there would be a difference, I'm still not sure I get what you are saying but that certainly doesn't matter! For any given lens and its image circle, having more or less movements due to the size of the sensor is what I struggle with, the field of view that the lens projects is always the same regardless of sensor, even more so if you aren't stitching. So, if you like being able to move x amount with a certain sensor, you might be able to physically move less with a bigger sensor but you are still hitting the edge of the image circle at the same point in the scene aren't you?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, I have never felt that sensor size is a limitation unless always shooting single images and then the crop factor giving you less field of view than you need, as Paul mentions, using the Leica S I didn't for one second feel any limitation due to the smaller sensor size.

It's all good fun!

Mat
 
M

mjr

Guest
However if it's all about the end result and we don't really care about shooting experience, having the largest possible sensor covering as much as possible of the lens image circle is the most practical of course. You can always crop.
I'm not sure that having the largest possible sensor and/or cropping means that you care any less about the process Anders, that's an odd thing to say! I don't consider your process to be any "purer" than anyone else's at all, everyone is able to work in whatever way they like. I think the end result is vital for me but I don't believe an image is better if it hasn't been cropped or due to the sensor size, it doesn't matter to me personally.

Mat
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Full frame CMOS for $10k ... Dream on. Come back in 5 or 6 years maybe, probably more. As for Torger's $17k - I wouldn't take that bet.

I seriously question the need to be 'full frame' if you are shooting with a technical camera. I see little benefit beyond bragging rights because there are lenses that will provide the wider focal length to give you what you want up to a limit of 23mm on Rodie or if you want wider you can do what I did and go to the Alpa FPS and 17 Canon TSE. If that's not wide enough well you might want to reconsider the format you are using.
I should have clarified a few things.

a) I didn't realize that IQ3 100mp was the only full frame CMOS back on the market. I thought the IQ2x series was also CMOS and I figured I could get something used for around $10k

b) I agree that a full frame back doesn't make sense on a technical camera, but if I were to get a back, I wouldn't use it exclusively on a tech camera. Hence, my thoughts regarding the flexibility and wanting to get a full frame back in order to ensure no crop factor on a non-tech camera.

BTW, how are you able to use the Canon TSE lens on a tech camera and maintain infinity focus? Additionally, what's the point of using a TSE lens on a tech camera given that you already have movements in the bellows?
 

torger

Active member
I'm not saying my preference is better or means that I care more about the image. I'm just explaining my way, which is one approach to use technical cameras. I might come across as defensive about it but its more about my frustration that I see that this way is soon history when it comes to digital gear. The new IQ3 100MP is a major step in this direction and even the tech cam dealers start talk about using keystone correction and cropping as alternative to movements.

Snapping a street photo that grabs the moment and aligns in composition without the need of cropping has a special satisfaction to it. It doesn't matter to the audience which only sees the result, but to me as a photographer it does. I'm no street photographer, but I have the same feel for landscape photography, the more ready the image is out-of-camera the more satisfying it is to me. Hence no stitching, and hence many focal lengths so I don't need to crop much, and indeed the 4:3 format is optimal to my taste, 3:2 is too panoramic for me. In the film days there were quite many "no-crop-purists" out there, cropping was considered cheating. I suppose they're all dead now, and I have never shared their view. I crop to get the ideal composition, but I really do prefer to have a camera system that increases the chance of making those "hole in ones" that the perfect image out-of-camera is to me.

(90mm IC on 54x41mm is not particularly limiting, I can live with that, certainly on a 32HR, and the IQ260 is an ideal companion to get the maximum out of that particular lens. I would probably build my system around a 44x33mm size though if I eventually have to drop my 49x37mm I have now, and I would not get the 32HR as it's just taking up too much space in the camera bag)
 

torger

Active member
I should have clarified a few things.

a) I didn't realize that IQ3 100mp was the only full frame CMOS back on the market. I thought the IQ2x series was also CMOS and I figured I could get something used for around $10k

b) I agree that a full frame back doesn't make sense on a technical camera, but if I were to get a back, I wouldn't use it exclusively on a tech camera. Hence, my thoughts regarding the flexibility and wanting to get a full frame back in order to ensure no crop factor on a non-tech camera.

BTW, how are you able to use the Canon TSE lens on a tech camera and maintain infinity focus? Additionally, what's the point of using a TSE lens on a tech camera given that you already have movements in the bellows?
Indeed the crop sensors can be a bit boring on classic cameras 6x6-6x9, even the fullframe 645 is a bit smallish compared to the original film formats, so yes would I use it on both I would certainly prefer a larger sensor.

Regarding the TSEs, infinity focus is no problem on tech cameras, it's a bit messy that the lens have electronic aperture control and no shutter though. However, some tech cam manufacturers have shutter units and Canon adapters to control the lens. The point of using a TSE lens is that you can get very wide shots. With the TS-E 17 and a fullframe 645 you get an ultra-wide shot which you can't get with any of the tech lenses or other MF lenses. Today many use tech cameras together with a A7r body too and then you of course want shorter focal lengths, although the natural way to use the TSE on A7r is with a metabones adapter (but you may already have an Actus or Universalis).

It's true that the TSE movements in the barrel is redundant when you have it in the body, but it's not for the barrel controls those lenses are used, it's because it's medium format coverage in a 17 and 24 mm lenses to very attractive prices and quite good performance.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Also for the OP, I don't use the Canon 17 & 24 TSE lenses on a technical camera with built in movements or even focus rail, I use them on either my Alpa FPS with Canon interface or on my Sony A7R II with a metabones adapter. In either case, the lens does the focusing and also provides the movements. The bodies provide the shutter and lens aperture control and the sensor is either my iq150 on the Alpa or the sensor in the A7r II.

You can only use the canon lenses on a technical camera platform that has its own focal plane shutter which eliminates all traditional tech cameras unless they have a dslr or mirror less body attached, or they are like the Alpa FPS or mythical Arca equivalent (I've never seen one in the wild).
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Indeed the crop sensors can be a bit boring on classic cameras 6x6-6x9, even the fullframe 645 is a bit smallish compared to the original film formats, so yes would I use it on both I would certainly prefer a larger sensor.

Regarding the TSEs, infinity focus is no problem on tech cameras, it's a bit messy that the lens have electronic aperture control and no shutter though. However, some tech cam manufacturers have shutter units and Canon adapters to control the lens. The point of using a TSE lens is that you can get very wide shots. With the TS-E 17 and a fullframe 645 you get an ultra-wide shot which you can't get with any of the tech lenses or other MF lenses. Today many use tech cameras together with a A7r body too and then you of course want shorter focal lengths, although the natural way to use the TSE on A7r is with a metabones adapter (but you may already have an Actus or Universalis).

It's true that the TSE movements in the barrel is redundant when you have it in the body, but it's not for the barrel controls those lenses are used, it's because it's medium format coverage in a 17 and 24 mm lenses to very attractive prices and quite good performance.
How do you achieve infinity focus? The Canon flange distance is only 44mm. Do you use optical correction to extend the flange focusing distance?

Is the image circle big enough to cover a med format back and still allow movements?
 

Pelorus

Member
This may give you some idea of how Alpa goes about it.


How do you achieve infinity focus? The Canon flange distance is only 44mm. Do you use optical correction to extend the flange focusing distance?

Is the image circle big enough to cover a med format back and still allow movements?
 

torger

Active member
Digital tech cameras are mirrorless, they have the shortest flange distance of all. They're more compact than the old school view cameras. Flange distance is often shorter than a small format mirrorless which adds bulk through the mount.

They have always needed short flange distance in order to support symmetric wides, designs that doesn't exist in the smaller formats. The TSE lenses are retrofocus and have longer flange distance than a SK28 despite shorter focal length
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Digital tech cameras are mirrorless, they have the shortest flange distance of all. They're more compact than the old school view cameras. Flange distance is often shorter than a small format mirrorless which adds bulk through the mount.

They have always needed short flange distance in order to support symmetric wides, designs that doesn't exist in the smaller formats. The TSE lenses are retrofocus and have longer flange distance than a SK28 despite shorter focal length
Thank you! That's a good explanation.

So, now that got me thinking about whether there's a need for a digital back at all or if I can simply mount a full frame digital camera like 5DSr and get a similar result? That would be a MUCH cheaper solution.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
For medium format the rear element of lenses like the SK and Rodie wides (23, 24, 28, 32, 35) almost touch the sensor. Even with the FPS these lenses can't be mounted as there is no room for the focal plane shutter. With the TSE and other lenses the retro focus designs keeps the rear element far away from the sensor (because of an sleep mirror box / flange distance) and they can be used.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Thank you! That's a good explanation.

So, now that got me thinking about whether there's a need for a digital back at all or if I can simply mount a full frame digital camera like 5DSr and get a similar result? That would be a MUCH cheaper solution.
No, you want to use a mirrorless camera like an A7x or Fuji, Olympus etc. Mount them on a Cambo Actus and you can use almost any lens with tilt/shift movements. An Actus DB/DB+ with a cfv50c or iqx50 (or iq3100) gives you the MF solution with live view. With a 35mm dslr you have no room to mount wide angle lenses (in fact the tech wides would extend into the mirror box). For longer focal lengths these solutions have been available for many years.

Of course you could just go full circle and just use a 5dsr and the canon TSE lenses natively :facesmack:
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
No, you want to use a mirrorless camera like an A7x or Fuji, Olympus etc. Mount them on a Cambo Actus and you can use almost any lens with tilt/shift movements. An Actus DB/DB+ with a cfv50c or iqx50 (or iq3100) gives you the MF solution with live view. With a 35mm dslr you have no room to mount wide angle lenses (in fact the tech wides would extend into the mirror box). For longer focal lengths these solutions have been available for many years.

Of course you could just go full circle and just use a 5dsr and the canon TSE lenses natively :facesmack:
Yeah, that would be by far the cheapest solution :D I wonder if the tech camera or a view camera, for that matter would provide greater range of movements. Why did you decide to go the tech camera/mid format back route rather than 35mm with native TSE lenses?
 

torger

Active member
Yeah, that would be by far the cheapest solution :D I wonder if the tech camera or a view camera, for that matter would provide greater range of movements. Why did you decide to go the tech camera/mid format back route rather than 35mm with native TSE lenses?
Most do it because 1) higher resolution on the digital backs and arguably better color/processing, and 2) higher resolving power on the Rodenstock Digaron lenses. You get better image quality. You also have more focal lengths to choose from, although the TS-E 17mm is a unique FoV+shift range combination that really can't be matched in medium format. But it's not only about wide angles, personally my widest angles are the least used lenses.

Then there are lots of emotional reasons too, it's fun using something different. I've already described mine a bit which is about enjoyment of a traditional camera with movements, virtually the same as the classic large format cameras, you just get the convenience by capturing directly on digital rather than having to process film and scan.

While live view theoretically should lead to a huge revival of the view camera design, and it also has, but the big seller seems to be Cambo Actus or Arca-Swiss Universalis with A7r bodies attached to them, there's been the problem that for each new sensor generation the compatibility with the symmetrical and weak retrofocus lenses in the tech cam range has been worse. Schneider has given up and is ceasing manufacturing of their Digitar range which was the only truly symmetrical range. Rodenstock lenses work quite fine but push the new CMOS sensor clearly past their spec so it's about how much cast issues we can accept. So today I think the whole tech cam market is in a state of flux, it's not entirely clear where it will go in the future.
 
M

mjr

Guest
We all like different things from the process and the final result which means that options are good! When I look at what I use, I understand that more than anything it's my personal desire to shoot with the equipment I choose and if it's right for me then that is all that matters. I use a 32mm, 50mm and 90mm on a Cambo with the IQ260, image quality is superb for what it does but it is absolutely not a system for everything, it's just the system I want to use. I am one of those that has little interest in live view, it can be a help for sure but not having it does not restrict the shots I can take, for me anyway that's the case, if modern cmos backs don't allow the freedom of movement that I can get from my ccd back then I would not feel that live view would make up for any failings in the final image.

For me, being able to shift the back within the image circle is preferable to shifting the lens on a 35mm system but that is personal, I also find that the quality from the Rodenstock lenses is pretty spectacular, but I also understand fully that superb image quality means nothing if you aren't pointing the camera at things that inspire you and then, the equipment you use matters less if you are producing stunning images, obviously that's just my opinion. In an ideal world we'd all be pointing incredible equipment that we enjoy using at stunning scenery, inspirational people or incredible objects, producing images that amaze and astound, wouldn't that be nice!

Mat
 

torger

Active member
I am one of those that has little interest in live view, it can be a help for sure but not having it does not restrict the shots I can take, for me anyway that's the case, if modern cmos backs don't allow the freedom of movement that I can get from my ccd back then I would not feel that live view would make up for any failings in the final image.
The same for me. I do quite well with the ground glass and a 20x loupe. I'm not as fast as I would be with a modern live view, but as the workflow is inherently slow and my subject interest does not require me to react that fast I'm fine. While a modern live view would make it easier in tough conditions the largest gain for me would be that I would not need to carry the extra weight of the sliding back. So I'm all for live view, but today it costs to much in compatibility issues, especially since I'm a fan of the symmetrical digitars. There are those that think it's okay though, vjbelle is using the Credo 50 with SK35mm with movements, which should in theory be impossible :).

However I think we that think "it's okay without live view" is a way too small group to have any commercial significance, so the CCD days are definitely counted. I think there will be a gap for a number of years when there's no new CCD products around and there's only CMOS backs with weak compatibility with the tech wides. Those years will be transforming for the tech cam market, I don't know exactly how though. Just like there are people shooting film on large format today, I think there will be a sub-culture of people shooting legacy CCD backs on legacy tech lenses and I'm likely to be one of them (well, I'm already there :) ).
 
If CMOS sensors apparently don't work well with tech cam movements, what are the alternatives?

I'm asking as someone very interested in tech cams given (i) i have a background in large format film (now sold, but I REALLY miss movements much more than I thought), and (ii) I can see a clear difference in MFD files compared to 35mm FF (the latter is what I currently use), hence why I'm on this medium format part of the site!

Please correct me if my arm-chair analysis is wrong, but it seems the choices are:

(i) CMOS is limited to small movements before running into probs - but has benefits of both LV and with CMOS now being the latest & highest MP backs. An Alpa STC has a maximum movement of approx 20mm, but is there a rule of thumb for a newbie that suggests how much tech cam movement is practically possible with CMOS backs?

(ii) more extensive movements from CCD backs, but no LV and typically older / lower MP. I guess the same question again - is there a rule of thumb for max movements here with CCDs?

(iii) a film back such as the dedicated Alpa roll back. Given the size of 6x7 or 6x9 film, it seems one would need to really use an older Alpa analogue lens (which have very large 160-200mm ICs) to get the full 20mm front rise that is possible with cameras like the Alpa STC. I never saw any probs at all with large format film and extensive movements, but is there any reason why a film back (combined with full use of 20mm movement on a tech cam) would run into any probs??

Why not just go back to large format film, you ask? Well, 120 film is much easier to use (no dust, loading issues, easier to mail for processing, 350mb drum scans render aesthetically nice 40"-50" prints off Acros / Ektar) + I'm attracted to the potential flexibility that a tech cam might offer (ability to use both digital backs and film), + some tech cams look almost handholdable for "casual shooting" but also offer very precise movements for "thoughtful" shooting (all in one package) ...... so there appear to be lots of reasons for why a tech cam might suit me. But the question about the amount of Movements that is realistic / practical (and in what form ... CMOS, CCS, film) is something I'd like advice on. Many thanks!!
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
I think the choices were much more clear cut during the film days. A bigger piece of film = better image quality. Things don't seem to be so cut and dry anymore. It's not enough to say that more pixels alone = better image quality or a bigger sensor necessarily means better image quality. Plus, the cost of going beyond full frame becomes astronomical very quickly.
 
Top