Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 107

Thread: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

  1. #1
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Is it possible to engage live view on any of the currently available digital backs when using a technical camera or any other, non-dedicated digital camera like RB67 or RZ67? If so, what types of connections, if any, would be required to get that? Alternatively, I assume it would be possible to to tether a back on the digital camera. Am I right to assume so?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Live view with any Phase One IQ or Leaf Credo will work with any tech camera with a Mamiya/Phase Mount plate, including the RZ at least with the HX70x - I have this myself but only use at home with my RZ Pro IID.

    For V mount there is the CFV 50C which will fit any tech camera with a V mount adapter and you can also get those for the RB and I believe also RZ. Btw, to a certain degree the V mount is probably the most versatile if you want to use older medium format gear such Bronica, Fuji etc etc - lots more fitting options for V mount out there.

    Typically mounting a MFDB on a tech camera (or older MF SLR) will require a sync cable to trigger the back from the shutter. For Phase One backs you can either shoot in zero latency mode with a simple sync cable, or you'll need a double sync trigger (to wake back & then trigger exposure). For Leaf & Hasselblad the simple sync cables are sufficient. The dumb MF body adapters require external sync. The HX701 I have for the RZ ProIID doesn't require any sync cables at all.

    If you want to go tethered then earlier generation backs will also support live view although to be honest you'll have to decide what level of detail and capabilities you want. If you are shooting well lit still life vs tech cam in the field then your options and tolerance for the performance of a tethered back or CCD vs CMOS live view will be different.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Live view with any Phase One IQ or Leaf Credo will work with any tech camera with a Mamiya/Phase Mount plate, including the RZ at least with the HX70x - I have this myself but only use at home with my RZ Pro IID.

    For V mount there is the CFV 50C which will fit any tech camera with a V mount adapter and you can also get those for the RB and I believe also RZ.

    If you want to go tethered then earlier generation backs will also support live view although to be honest you'll have to decide what level of detail and capabilities you want. If you are shooting well lit still life vs tech cam in the field then your options and tolerance for the performance of a tethered back or CCD vs CMOS live view will be different.
    I was thinking in terms of a field camera. Something where I could use the live view to focus and compose. It would also be helpful if there is a way to attach an external 7" monitor or something to that effect, which would be light and compact enough.

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

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    The only back that can drive an HDMI external monitor today is the IQ3 100. I can't speak to the Hasselblad capabilities tethered but you can certainly use a laptop in the field like a Surface Pro or Mac Book Pro with Phase One IQ backs via USB3 or FW. FW options are also available on the older backs.

    The biggest problem I've had in the field though has been glare on the attached laptop. I personally found it best to shoot tethered / review for critical focus & comp but for actual composition the built in live view on the back works well enough. With CMOS backs (my IQ150) I don't shoot tethered in the field any more as I can gauge focus on the LCD. I'd like a bigger screen to look at but that's not an option connected to HDMI unless using the IQ3 100. You can do it wirelessly (quite well actually) to an iPad if you have a IQ2/3 back via C1 Pilot ... so long as you can get them to connect and stay connected (which is why I went to the IQ150 vs IQ250 last time - wifi was terrible)
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  5. #5
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Thank you! That was quite helpful.

  6. #6
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Btw if you want the best bang for buck in terms of a field/mini view cam with live view, I personally think that the Cambo Actus DB with a CFV50c is outstanding value and you can put pretty much any large or medium format technical lenses (Rodie / Schneider etc) with a shutter on them.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Btw if you want the best bang for buck in terms of a field/mini view cam with live view, I personally think that the Cambo Actus DB with a CFV50c is outstanding value and you can put pretty much any large or medium format technical lenses (Rodie / Schneider etc) with a shutter on them.
    Is that a full 645 sensor or a smaller form factor? Can it do long exposures (a few minutes in moderately warm weather?)

  8. #8
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    The sensor is 44x33mm so 1.3x crop vs 'full frame' which of course really is a misnomer since even the non-crop sensor isn't exactly the same size as a film 645 frame. You just need to pick your lenses to give you the required FOV.

    Long exposure - yes. The CMOS sensors arguably do better in this respect than CCD.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  9. #9
    New Member PhiloFarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    If anyone tells you that a CCD sensor can also deliver "Live-View"...send them a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge!

    That's pure hookum....

    Under stable-indoor-controled light...well...maybe a wee bit of use on a tech cam. But nothing to get worked-up about, that's for sure.

    Outdoors......it's a full-on laugh....unless you think focusing with a ND-12 filter works for you!!

    I just bought a Credo-60...and I'm still laughing at myself thinking I was going to do the impossible!

    Cheers,

    Hank

  10. #10
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Hank,

    I'm not sure that I'd agree with your doomsday depiction of live view with CCD for composition. Stopping down or using a variable ND helps to be able to tame the light but I would certainly agree that it isn't simple or easy.

    CMOS changed the game for me. Focus with CMOS was easy. Composition stopped down on a CCD was fine but I would agree that accurate focus was a challenge (and I'm being charitable). Others however seemed to be able to overcome the limitation I, and it sounds like you, ran into.
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 29th February 2016 at 04:59.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  11. #11
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    The sensor is 44x33mm so 1.3x crop vs 'full frame' which of course really is a misnomer since even the non-crop sensor isn't exactly the same size as a film 645 frame. You just need to pick your lenses to give you the required FOV.

    Long exposure - yes. The CMOS sensors arguably do better in this respect than CCD.
    I think that for maximum flexibility, I'd prefer to go with the non-crop / CMOS sensor. Is it safe to say that all Phase One backs with 60mp and up use a non-crop sensor and their IQ 2x line and higher use CMOS?

    What about Hasselblad backs or other manufacturers? Is there anything out there at this moment that would meet the criteria without breaking the bank (assuming around $10k?)

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    I think that for maximum flexibility, I'd prefer to go with the non-crop / CMOS sensor. Is it safe to say that all Phase One backs with 60mp and up use a non-crop sensor and their IQ 2x line and higher use CMOS?

    What about Hasselblad backs or other manufacturers? Is there anything out there at this moment that would meet the criteria without breaking the bank (assuming around $10k?)
    There is currently only one full-frame CMOS back, Phase One IQ3 100MP. Hasselblad has announced via their CEO that they will make a full-frame CMOS too, but "they are in no hurry", which probably means that they have some work in their dated back platform to do before it can handle 100MP well. I'd expect an announcement during this year, but it could be next year too, I don't know. Leaf will almost certainly come out with a 100MP CMOS back too at some point in time, maybe before Hasselblad, maybe after.

    None of these will be remotely close to $10k. Hasselblad has shown some moves towards lower prices, but $10k for a full-frame CMOS I'm almost 100% sure that will not happen in near time, it would be a totally revolutionary change in pricing. The best bet for a low price is if Hasselblad makes a full-frame CFV V-mount back, but it's not certain they will make that. The lowest price I would dare to guess for such a product should it appear would be say $17k.

    It's also a safe bet that IQ3 100MP will also after the release of the competing products be the most expensive way to get full-frame CMOS. Phase One is good at being first with the latest, but it comes at a price.

    And of course, also be aware of wide angle limitations if you're going to use these CMOS backs on a technical camera. It's somewhat of a mine field so a well-informed and experienced dealer and try-before-buy is strongly recommended.

  13. #13
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    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 wouldn't take my own bet either. I think $10k is totally unrealistic today, but if a CFV-100 comes out and cost $17k I wouldn't be that surprised, but I would indeed be a fair bit surprised . It seems Hasselblad may be serious about lowering prices, but their current price list is like chaos, with things like H5D-50c with lens costing much less than H5D-50c without lens so it's hard to know where they're going. Their pre-owned prices have become really attractive too, so I think something is happening there. They have their high manufacturing cost and low volumes though so they can't make things truly mass-market cheap.

    Phase One has shown no signs whatsoever to change their pricing model and I don't think they need to, they sell on being first with the latest stuff, and also have a bit of a technical lead. The competition needs to shape up before they would be forced to reconsider their pricing.

    I too seriously question the need for full-frame on a tech cam. As I like wide range of movements I feel more freedom using a 44x33mm on a 90mm image circle than 54x41mm. I personally think the old 49x37mm size is the sweet spot for the 90mm IC, but it's a dead format. With the current choices I actually prefer the 44x33mm size, but as the traditionalist I am the movement limitations on the Schneider's still makes CMOS a no-go for me so far.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Gents

    Please excuse my complete ignorance with regards to shifting but I don't get it! If the image circle is the image circle, then what difference does the size of the sensor make? If you can shift a crop sensor further in millimeters, why does that change anything over a larger sensor? Lets say I shift my back 20mm, see the edge of the image circle and crop back in to what is acceptable, why would it be better or worse to shift a smaller sensor further to get the same view? I am happy to accept I have no idea what i'm talking about as I don't have access to a crop sensor to test the differences, I can't help feeling though that the limitation is the image circle not the sensor size? In extremes, if I take 9 shots at full movements, rise/fall/shift with any sensor until I am hitting the edge of acceptable image quality, won't the field of view be the same?

    Sorry for stupid question number 119!

    Mat

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

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Mat,

    It's not a stupid question - you are quite right that in terms of coverage the lens image circle is the limiter. For a given lens you'd have to shift more with a smaller sensor for the same image compared to a larger sensor. But that's all.

    You are implicitly agreeing with Torger and my point that you don't need a 'full frame' sensor with a technical camera with movements.

    As real world example though, when I shot with my IQ260 I found the Rodie 40HR to be my perfect technical camera lens in terms of single shot FOV. When I went to the IQ150 with the smaller sensor I found that it was cropped and for the same image I'd have to shift and merge multiple shots. I ended up moving to the 32HR to give me that same single image FOV.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Gents

    Please excuse my complete ignorance with regards to shifting but I don't get it! If the image circle is the image circle, then what difference does the size of the sensor make? If you can shift a crop sensor further in millimeters, why does that change anything over a larger sensor? Lets say I shift my back 20mm, see the edge of the image circle and crop back in to what is acceptable, why would it be better or worse to shift a smaller sensor further to get the same view? I am happy to accept I have no idea what i'm talking about as I don't have access to a crop sensor to test the differences, I can't help feeling though that the limitation is the image circle not the sensor size? In extremes, if I take 9 shots at full movements, rise/fall/shift with any sensor until I am hitting the edge of acceptable image quality, won't the field of view be the same?

    Sorry for stupid question number 119!

    Mat
    Yes, you are right. If you take a small sensor and work within the image circle, and stitch a number of images together, you can approximate the results of a larger sensor. Say for example you have a sensor 2cm square. If you put four images together, its the same as having a 4cm square sensor. A few cautions tho:

    - has to be back movements, not lens movements, as that will change the point of view
    - requires precision and time to take multiple shots vs. 1
    - there needs to be some overlaps (for the matching) so perhaps your 2cm stitch yields a 3-3.5 cm sq image
    - hassle in processing. Its not just the stitching that's an issue, but corrections need to be done either before on all 4 images or after.

    There is more benefit from the larger pixels in terms of flexibility, and by many folks, quality. Several reasons other than stitching for this - of which pixel count is only one. That said, you can work by stitching, and many of us with MFDB actually stitch our images to approximate even bigger sensors which are either not available or not affordable.

    The general thinking is a carryover from large format days, that a larger the recording surface (film, sensor, etc.) provides a better result. Less stress on the lenses, higher quality, more latitude, etc. However, progress in smaller sensors in recent years has put a big dent in that thinking, but it still has some relevance. Also smaller sensors (with smaller pixels) are less forgiving of off-axis light - see Torger's many posts on this issue.
    www.gigi-photos.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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.

    I made the very conscious decision to go with an IQ260 in order to get maximum view on single images and with the 32mm it's excellent, I also have absolutely no problem with shifting and stitching the files together and would have no issue with a smaller sensor if that was all I had access to, I agree with you both that a crop sensor isn't a handicap if you are stitching anyway, as long as it's design allows it to shift nicely.

    Thanks for confirming what I was struggling with!

    Mat

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    The whole issue of the cropped sensor at least to me, is 30% less area. It's also why I don't use an APS-C camera in the field, and when I do I stitch. 50MP is fine for me but the 30% loss in focal length was not. If I was living in the west and shooting the wide open spaces, I would feel just the opposite. The responses from the 50 and 100MP chips on wides appear to be about the same so.

    I tried the 50MP chip, loved the files, the LiveView, and the high ISO. But I found that I needed to move 12 feet back to get the same image framed the way I wanted. In my locations, moving back 12 feet many times can't be done. So I stayed with the IQ260.

    I have the 40HR-W and as Graham states, moving to 32mm HR-W might have resolved this, but I wanted to stay with the compact size and weight of the 40mm, and at the time I had the 28 HR.

    Working with the rm3di, you are limited to only 15mm of shift anyway so I really could not shift the 50MP enough to make up for the loss I felt I had in image size. Sure you can rotate the rm3di and use rise fall as shift, but the IC indicator in the 40mm shows up past 16mm anyway, so the lens itself is the limiting factor to me.

    Paul C

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    I have taken so much to my Leaf 50 CMOS that I have tried every trick I can to maximize file size and fov (if needed). I have numerous lenses so its kind of rare for me to have to give up a shot using this back. One of my usual schemes is to take two quick portrait images shifted about 10-12mm left right. That will give that lens the same 4X3 FOV as if shooting on a FF sensor and also produce the same pixel density. Two very quick shots and the stitch is very simple.

    Victor

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    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 by torger; 29th February 2016 at 07:04.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post

    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

  24. #24
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    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?

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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)

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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).
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  28. #28
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    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?

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    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?

  30. #30
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelorus View Post
    This may give you some idea of how Alpa goes about it.
    Wow! Simply incredible! The whole camera/adapter assembly must be less than 44 mm (less than 2") thick. Can that be right?

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

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  32. #32
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    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.

  33. #33
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

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

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    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
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

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

  35. #35
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    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
    Yeah, that would be by far the cheapest solution 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?

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Yeah, that would be by far the cheapest solution 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.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    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 ).

  39. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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!!

  40. #40
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    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.

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Warwick View Post
    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!!
    No general guidelines regarding max movements can be given unfortunately. All sensors have color cast, which is corrected by the obligatory LCC. To the very least color cast is created through that the sensor color filters change response slightly when light comes in at an angle, so there is currently no sensor technology and never was one that could be free from color cast. However this simple color cast is quite mild and is 100% reversible with LCC.

    Kodak micro-lens free sensors like in the P45+ and Hasselblad H4D-50 etc were the last "issue-free" sensors (that is only predictable fully cancellable color cast). With the Dalsa 6um CCDs (P65+ etc) lightshields disappeared and microlenses were introduced. This required wide angle lenses to be a little retrofocus, and Rodenstock Digarons were designed for this. However there was some miscalculation so there still are issues with microlens ripple, but Capture One is very good at cancelling that out in post. The Dalsa 6um CCDs can still be used on fully symmetric lenses (and some do) like the SK28 and SK35 but then you get issues with significant crosstalk when you start shifting. Crosstalk is mainly shown as desaturation of colors (as the color channels are mixed) and possibly demosaicing failures (mazing).

    With the 80MP Dalsa the problems increased further, and yet more with the Sony CMOS. The problem is however that the crosstalk effects are situation dependent. If you have close-to-neutral colors in your scene you don't get much problems despite large amounts of crosstalk. Simply put, there aren't that many situations you get problems in practice. Few notices a reduction in tonality performance.

    As there really aren't any options people have learnt to accept using sensors that are not matched with the lenses. The argument goes if you don't really see the performance reduction after proper post-processing why care? I personally care quite a lot because I'm very much against the principle of pushing the sensor out of spec with the lens and getting potentially unpredictable behavior, but others care a lot less and you can't really say that my view is more valid than any other. There are those using the CMOS with Schneider Digitar wides although it's deemed almost impossible. As the CMOS have extremely good DR and tonality it can indeed make up for quite a lot of loss. So a general recommendation cannot be had.

    Anyway, Kodak CCDs without microlenses: except for controlled color cast no issues on any Schneider Digitar or Rodenstock Digaron wides. Oh well, you do get pixel vignetting (but no crosstalk) on the SK28 which cuts some of the dynamic range even if center filter is used. Nothing too critical though.

    Dalsa 6um CCDs: with a LCC algorithm that can handle microlens ripple (like C1) there are generally no issues on any Rodenstock Digaron lens, shift to the limit if you want. You might get faint tiling with extreme contrast processing, but it's fixable. Schneider wides which are symmetric trigger some issues, even the long SK60XL if you go to the limit of the image circle.

    Dalsa 80MP CCD: some issues also on the Rodenstock Digarons but only for large shifts.

    CMOS 44x33 and 54x41: similar issues for both, more issues than the 80MP but also more DR which can mask some of the issues. Very much up to personal taste how much shifting you can accept.

    Film handles movements extremely well, the cast and crosstalk issues doesn't exist with film as it's built entirely differently. (Or maybe there's is some cast, at least theoretically, but I have never heard of anyone having any problems in practice). Tjv in this forum has shot a lot of film on his Linhof Techno before going digital with a Credo 60 back, and I'm sure there are others. I have myself no experience with film on my tech cam (also a Linhof Techno).

    Note that for long lenses all sensors work well.

  42. #42
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    I keep hearing how terrible CMOS backs are with movements but somehow the images I take and look at don't seem to agree. Maybe my system failed to get the memo. I can shoot with my Rodie 32HR and will use 10-15mm of rise / shift if required and I'm not unhappy with the LCC fix in C1. That said, I suspect I'm a heretic because, shock, horror, I'll even shoot stopped down to f/16 or more if required too.

    That said, I'm not shooting flat field resolution charts, examining every image in raw digger or pixel peeping right in to the limits of the corners or edges of the frame. Heck, I typically add vignette / grain after the fact and just print.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    They aren't terrible, they're just not really that predictable. I'm not using Capture One and put value in the raw files not depending on some super-tuned LCC algorithm available in a software today but maybe not tomorrow. So I have more concerns than just the end result you get in C1 today.

    I'd probably be quite happy result-wise with a CMOS back on my Techno if I ran C1, just switch out the SK35 to a Digaron-S 35 it would work out quite okay, but from my perspective it's not worth it. For me it's the wrong set of compromises.

    I'd rather sell off all my tech gear and go back to shoot landscapes with my Canon which I started with, and now there's the 5Ds so resolution is enough for me. Or maybe do something exotic like shooting A7r-II with Hassy V lenses on an Arca-Swiss Universalis. The main problem I have with the 135 is mainly the lack of tilt-shift lenses, I would very much want a TS-E 35mm, but there is no such thing, using an 135 mirrorless on an Universalis with retrofocus MF lenses can get you around that I suppose. In any case I rather compromise sharpness a little than compromise crosstalk/tonality or producing raw files that become dependent on very special LCC algorithms.

    I have no problems with others making other decisions based on other tradeoffs of course.

    As I don't see any particular magic in MFD gear based on the sensor size or color profiles (I make my own anyway), and I think the performance of the high end 135 cameras is very good I don't have any strong reason to be in medium format just because it's medium format. What makes me stay in is the shooting experience and perhaps oddly enough because my system is very practical the way I use it.
    Last edited by torger; 1st March 2016 at 06:28.

  44. #44
    Member chiek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    7" hdmi monitor live view.
    Includes commlite AF module,
    so it is the 1st AF technical camera.
    chiek imaging
    http://chiek.co.kr
    Sinar P2, Hasselblad CFV-50c and Sony a7R, canon systems
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    torger,

    The main problem I have with the 135 is mainly the lack of tilt-shift lenses, I would very much want a TS-E 35mm, but there is no such thing...
    This is pretty close. Stefan Steib can no doubt tell you more, and Lloyd Chambers reviewed the full 40mm/80mm/120mm set, but it is my understanding that performance is excellent when stopped down.

    Edit: Here is the review by Lloyd Chambers.
    Last edited by AreBee; 1st March 2016 at 14:25.

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    I don't mind using the GG at all with my Linhof and Credo 60, but I'm something of a masochist I guess. I've never missed focus using the sliding back, even with widest aperture, although it's a struggle in low light. Live view would certainly be better though, although my experience demoing CMOS backs with live view suggeted to me that viewing an LCD screen to focus fundimentally changed the way I felt connected to what was in front of the camera (I.e. it made me feel disconnected compared to the GG, which is more of an intimate experience). I guess I like antiquated and tactile things.
    Last edited by tjv; 2nd March 2016 at 00:50.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #47
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    It's all just about having options and tools---that suits your own personal needs.

    At the recent CI in Carmel, we got to try the SmallHD hdmi monitors using the new IQ3 100MP cmos MFDB---comparing both the 7" and the 5" monitors, along with the Sidefinder. I give the nod to the SmallHD 501 5" monitor with the Sidefinder option, mainly for portability and the ability to avoid potential screen glare issues. I haven't had the chance to tether with the Surface Pro (to compare live view), but if the goal is simply composition and focus, the HDMI monitor is a winner. The focus assist tool on the SmallHD is a great help. The SmallHD offers several tools that are easily selected. The 501 monitor with Sidefinder pack easily and I can see this finding a permanent spot in my bag over the larger and heavier Surface Pro option. HDMI makes all the difference here.

    I'm pleased to report that the lessons on clamping with the Surface Pro also apply to the SmallHD monitor/Sidefinder. As pictured here, I'm using a two foot micro HDMI to HDMI cable (gets rid of the Phase adapter), Manfrotto Nano clamp, Giottos mini 1304 ballhead, AS compatible low profile top clamp, with a AS plate attached to the Sidefinder. This setup is easily attached to the tripod leg and allows easy adjustment of the eyepiece for viewing. Manual focus with a tech cam doesn't get easier than this! Coming soon from B&H is a short coiled (12" to 24") right angle micro HDMI to HDMI cord and a retractable micro HDMI to HMDI cord---I think these will pack easier yet.

    kenClick image for larger version. 

Name:	2016-03-01 21.04.12.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	181.7 KB 
ID:	116897

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by AreBee View Post
    torger,



    This is pretty close. Stefan Steib can no doubt tell you more, and Lloyd Chambers reviewed the full 40mm/80mm/120mm set, but it is my understanding that performance is excellent when stopped down.

    Edit: Here is the review by Lloyd Chambers.
    Thanks. It's indeed interesting but it also highlights an issue of weight, the 40mm is 1400 grams. Weight is also an issue with MFD SLRs, and it is becoming an issue with tech cams through over-the-top lens designs like the 32HR. The system I have today is probably the lowest weight you can get with that flexibility and performance.

    I think the loss of symmetrical lenses is a really big one and a let-down by the MF manufacturers. Those designs allowed for very high performance in a compact light-weight and simple package and in the digital world they were unique to medium format. Now they've been forced out from the market through copying sensor design from the smaller formats, and in the process some of the MFD uniqueness is being lost.

    The legacy market will live many years from now though so those that have the niche interest like I have can still get the systems they want, fortunately. The temptation from live view and state-of-the-art resolution, DR, ISO and long exposure is not a small one though. It's all about choosing which tradeoff that suits you the best.
    Last edited by torger; 2nd March 2016 at 01:42.

  49. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Thanks. It's indeed interesting but it also highlights an issue of weight, the 40mm is 1400 grams. Weight is also an issue with MFD SLRs,

    I had the 120mm digitar for my techcam, and it was such a little lens, let's look the same version for slr: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/gear-fs-...f5-6-lens.html
    Impressive

  50. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    96
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Live view on a technical camera - possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Warwick View Post
    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!!

    Jon -- good questions. Here's my perspective:

    If CMOS doesn't work well with tech cam and movements, the alternative is CCD (if you don't need good high-ISO performance). On an Alpa with HPF rings, extremely fine focus is available without live view. You use a distometer (e.g., Leica Disto D5) to find the exact focal distance, then dial it in on the lens. Frankly, this is just as fast locking the lens open, starting up live view and dialing in focus. I use an H5D-50 back on an Alpa SWA, with a Schneider 35mm Digitar and Alpa's "Apo Alpar" 55mm f/4.5 (same as the Rodenstock 55mm apo-sironar digital lens), and the results are great. No crosstalk, mazing, etc. 50MP is plenty of resolution. Movements are limited only by the lens's image circle, not the sensor itself. The files are so deep and robust, I've upsized them to make 108" prints at 175 ppi (18,900 pixels on the long end).

    Regarding film, there are tech-camera lenses with larger image circles for film use. The above 55mm lens has a 125mm image circle, which allows plenty of shift, even on film. In 35mm terms, it's equal to a 28mm on 6x7 film and a 24mm on 6x9 film. I carry both film backs with me. Films are so good now, I find MF film to be a viable alternative to LF. I've printed a drum-scanned Hasselblad color neg at 40" x 40", and it holds up beautifully when viewed close up.

    The Alpa SWA is a joy for handholding. It and similar cameras (e.g., Alpa STC, Arca Swiss RM3Di) are just about the only way to have handheld medium format with shift. And to swap between digital and film.

    Hope that helps.

    ethan
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

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