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!

Technical camera obsolete? (keystone correction vs. shift)

Don Libby

Well-known member
This just reinforces the notion of using the proper tool for the application. If you need rise/fall tilt/shift and no such lens is available for your camera (XF & 35LS) then you need to either suck it up and try to accomplish what you want/need in post or better yet use the more appropriate tool which would be a tech camera.

I used the same tech camera (a Cambo WRS) for a little over 8-years augmenting with a DF then XF. I sold the Cambo as I found I really had no need for the movements my Rodenstock gave me in a landscape application. I sold the tech camera and brought into the XF lock stock and barrel using the 35LS as my widest and have not regretted. Again this is doing what I do and I caution it may not work for others.

I also have used the DF/XF in shooting wildlife using the 240LS both as a stand alone and with the 2x. Again it works well for what I was doing.

If I wanted or needed movements I'd use a tech camera - just common sense.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

The question the OP raises is a good one. There is a trend to pixel designs that don't work well large beam angles. The wide angle designs having small beam angles ten to be large.

Personally, I feel that keystone correction in post is OK, but it is also a bit tricky. Expect missing low corners.

I also feel there are no good alternatives to Scheimpflug. The stacking option in the XF may be a good thing, but traditional stacking is not always successful.

It may be possible to design reasonably small wide angles with decent beam angles: Loxia 2.8/21 | ZEISS International . That is not MFD, but I would guess an MFD version would be pretty small. But, Zeiss is pretty much out of MFD now…

The lens mentioned above is a Distagon type device, that is retrofocus, but is still not very large.

A couple of Canon ultra wide zooms, like the 11-24/4 and the 16-35 work well on HCam Master TS and give generous amount of shift and tilt and work well with 44x33 mm Sony sensors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDCCoXop0oY&ab_channel=ChieJoongkeun

Best regards
Erik
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
You aren't comparing a camera with shift to a non shift camera though are you? You are comparing post shot processing between one type of lens and another...
Yes that is what he did ...

"Left: Schneider 35mm LS blue ring (35LS) shooting upwards with keystone correction in post processing;
Right: Rodenstock 40mm HR-W blue ring (40HR) shifted 12mm with LCC correction in post processing.”

so he corrected the 35mm LS in post processing, but used shift to get a correct image with the tech camera.

I think his point was to compare whether using post processing can alleviate the need for making corrections via shifts.

To me the results are what I would expect, and the choice would be based on the quality needs of the photographer and the client. I think if I were an architectural photographer I would stick with the tech.

Many landscape photographers don’t really correct things like this too often, because the result isn’t obvious or even visually disturbing. An example is horse shoe bend. To shoot that the camera has to be tilted down dramatically. If using maximum shift you can’t correct for it, you still have to tilt the camera down quite a bit. But the resulting images normally look great.

Personally I still use the tech camera more than the XF, for a couple of reasons. Mainly because it’s lighter and easier to hike with. Also because I tend to use shift for stitching quite often.

I don’t believe he intended the title to be controversial, and I didn’t really read that into it.
 
Is MF Digital + Alpa better that Canon or Sony a7 with Canon TS-E lenses? Is the Alpa worth the extra money? That's probably different for every photographer.
For making a living, no. For satisfaction as a gear faggotry, yes! Even the crop factor 44x33 50mp back defeats the Canon 50mp 5DSR.

Below shows a comparison between the 5DSR+17TSE vs IQ250+23HR. Note that the Alpa wins the corner sharpness, but desaturation happens for heavily shifted images.

DSC_6070_stacked.jpg

DSC_6080_stacked.jpg

DSC_6087_stacked.jpg

17TSE_vs_23HR_1.JPG

17TSE_vs_23HR_2.JPG

17TSE_vs_23HR_3.JPG

17TSE_vs_23HR_4.JPG
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
@OP - great post - no idea why some folks jumped on you - this is a useful test that no one else has done (AFAIK) and that no dealer is going to do publicly (for obvious reasons).

'Obsolete' is a bit harsh right now, since as someone pointed out there's still a thing called film (though most folks getting into that are shooting LF or ULF). But, in terms of 'digital' it's not far off the mark; a couple more generations of (almost) unshiftable DBs, compounded by a couple more generations of mirrorless MF, compounded by S/K (and R/S?) stepping aside ... yes, I can see the appeal (and thus availability) of this type of camera declining significantly.

Interesting that Linhof & Studio in the UK have decided to sell the X1D...

Jim

Jim, what is the obvious reason a dealer wouldn't share results from such a test? I've already shot some comparative images with the same lens combination and shared them with clients. I found the results extremely close. I think the development of the SK 35LS certainly presents an option for users to consider not using a tech camera that didn't exist at the same level previously.

Does the development of medium format wide lenses that rival Rodenstock quality pose a threat to technical camera makers? I think it is a factor for them to take into account. I've certainly seen some clients move away from their technical camera and adopt a fixed movement/post process workflow - with the SK 35LS inspiring that direction.

Personally, I value technical cameras for more than just having the option of extremely high quality wide lenses, and correcting perspective. I find technical cameras a superior framing device over medium format cameras, I prefer arranging the capture at the time you're in front of the subject, and yes, there is something about not using an SLR camera that produces a different experience and sometimes a different result.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Something else to consider is that if you are going to apply the keystone corrections in post production is that you really really need to think ahead about shooting wider.

I have both the 35LS and the 32HR and whilst the 35LS is awesome enough that I bought one, I'm often shooting with my 28D and correcting in post to achieve what I would normally shoot with the 32HR. The results obviously don't match although as others have mentioned, technical perfection can be overrated in a real print.

I don't see myself giving up movements with my Cambo / Alpa FPS anytime soon but I really do appreciate the outstanding quality of the 35LS. If Phase One can release wider lenses with the same edge to edge capabilities of the 35LS I can see myself buying into more LS lenses for my XF.
 
Those are both great lenses no doubt. I have the 35LS and it's fantastic. To your question, "Technical camera obsolete?" With a tech camera you can make photographs that are not possible with anything else. Shifting independently on the x and y axis you can create shapes that are not possible with a regular camera even with a TS lens.

I.e. There's a light pole in front of a building so you move the camera to one side then add a shift to keep building parallel then add a rise to get top of building. End result, no light pole. Even moving a TS lens on a diagonal is pain to get the same composition. (I'm an architecture shooter so it may be more important to me than others.)
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Weldon,

I see your point. I absolotely think that a camera with full movements is much more flexible than a T&S lens or a T&S-adapter.

Best regards
Erik

Those are both great lenses no doubt. I have the 35LS and it's fantastic. To your question, "Technical camera obsolete?" With a tech camera you can make photographs that are not possible with anything else. Shifting independently on the x and y axis you can create shapes that are not possible with a regular camera even with a TS lens.

I.e. There's a light pole in front of a building so you move the camera to one side then add a shift to keep building parallel then add a rise to get top of building. End result, no light pole. Even moving a TS lens on a diagonal is pain to get the same composition. (I'm an architecture shooter so it may be more important to me than others.)
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Those are both great lenses no doubt. I have the 35LS and it's fantastic. To your question, "Technical camera obsolete?" With a tech camera you can make photographs that are not possible with anything else. Shifting independently on the x and y axis you can create shapes that are not possible with a regular camera even with a TS lens.

I.e. There's a light pole in front of a building so you move the camera to one side then add a shift to keep building parallel then add a rise to get top of building. End result, no light pole. Even moving a TS lens on a diagonal is pain to get the same composition. (I'm an architecture shooter so it may be more important to me than others.)
You sure have nailed it! I can't imagine shooting without having access to movements. Its the main reason I don't own an XF.

Victor
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Technical cameras are about movements (rise, fall, shift, tilts, swings), and a host of other personal reasons, including image quality, size, weight, and photographic enjoyment. Far from obsolete and much more drama than necessary. The sky is far from falling, imho. It is simply about choices. And what a great time to have choices in medium format digital.

I've always like the Phase 35mm D focal length and years ago pined for a much better quality 35mm lens, and of the opinion that even if it were extremely expensive, would be worthwhile for many photographers, and probably sway many away from entering the technical camera arena. Now that the SK LS 35mm is actually here, I'm sorta surprised that I find myself struggling to find justification to buy the lens. The 40-80mm that I have is excellent on the XF and I love the HR40 on the Cambo. The XF is great for most all my work, but far too heavy to take for landscapes imo, and the Cambo wins every time. Again, it's great to have choices!

ken
 

ZndrsonMPD

New member
Just to echo a few of the other posters- Clearly the OP's testing shows the Rodie 40 to be superior in that specific scenario- though the gap is certainly closing. However- Technical camera use goes beyond just image quality. For me personally, tech cam use is half about the process, and half about image quality. I love the light weight of the technical camera, the vast versatility it grants me with tilt/swing lenses, stitching, and its time consuming approach. I find myself more "in the zone" using a technical camera because of its complete lack of automation. Its my responsibility to get it right, not the camera's. And when everything works together and I do my job right- I'll have the best image quality I could ever hope for.

What it all boils down to is: there aren't too many images that can really ONLY be made with a technical camera- corner sharpness aside. Does that make technical cameras obsolete? I don't think so. The SK35 LS is certainly an amazing lens, and perhaps it will persuade potential tech cam buyers to stick with the DSLR style XF over adding a technical camera combo to their kit. But for those that want extreme versatility, light(er) weight kit, rear stitching, and appreciates a zen approach to image making, Technical Cameras are still very relevant.
 

Jamgolf

Member
I find myself more "in the zone" using a technical camera because of its complete lack of automation. Its my responsibility to get it right, not the camera's.
...
But for those that want extreme versatility, light(er) weight kit, rear stitching, and appreciates a zen approach to image making, Technical Cameras are still very relevant.
Very well said.
Welcome to the forum :)
 

dchew

Well-known member
If all of us tech camera users sat in a room with a beer and you asked us if we use it because 1) we have to to get a specific result, or 2) it is because we want to, there would be a lot more hands up for the second reason.

I can see them becoming obsolete for specific image-necessity reasons, but all the other reasons will be around. I actually see the X1D being more of a "threat" because of its size.

Dave
 

MrSmith

Member
A still life perspective: Even if the lenses were perfect and the sensor 300mp it still wouldn't replace a camera with movements. The problem with keystone correction and shooting still life is it changes the shape and relationship between different parts of an object in a different way to pure camera movements plus parts of the background are lost. You may not notice these things with some landscapes but you do with product.

All the time there are high quality lenses available and sensors in boxes there will be a need for the bendy bit in between.

I guess it's not quite so important for scenic landscape.
 

torger

Active member
A still life perspective: Even if the lenses were perfect and the sensor 300mp it still wouldn't replace a camera with movements. The problem with keystone correction and shooting still life is it changes the shape and relationship between different parts of an object in a different way to pure camera movements plus parts of the background are lost. You may not notice these things with some landscapes but you do with product.
Perspective (shift) can be replicated to 100%, all information is there. I think you need more advanced software than a simple keystone correction though, like "DxO viewpoint". Haven't tried these softwares personally, but from a scientific standpoint the only thing that matters is where you have placed the camera (lens) and that it's wide enough to capture all you need. It's camera placement that decides which object that is in front of another. Rectalinear, fisheye, shifted up or down etc can be reprojected to 100% in software. If there actually is software that does it 100% correct I'm not sure, but as said DxO viewpoint would be a good place to start looking.

Actually I think one can do it with open-source software Hugin too when I think about it, but it's quite messy to work with.

Tilt cannot be replicated though, but you can focus stack.

In the future it would be possible to make a tech camera which has a single fixed ultra-wide lens and a super-high resolution sensor, and then you could do all shifts and crops virtually in the back.

For tech cams to survive in the longer term, I think there needs to be a large enough interest to shoot in a more traditional way, like using film. Leica M is still alive and kicking despite range finder camera is hopelessly "obsolete", just because some people like that traditional way of shooting and Leica finds it worthwhile to maintain. In the same way I think tech cams can survive into the future, but I think it will require some interest from manufacturers too, as the user interest will, even if large enough, be so small so you can make more money doing other types of camera gear.

I'm very disappointed on Schneider that pulled out from both large format film and digital tech cams. Their company is surely large enough to be able to carry those lens lines for traditional/cultural purposes even if they weren't making any money to speak of from it.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
In the future it would be possible to make a tech camera which has a single fixed ultra-wide lens and a super-high resolution sensor, and then you could do all shifts and crops virtually in the back.
Some would argue that this is a justification for a 100mp MFDB. You have so much native resolution that you can afford to crop as needed. Why bother cropping in the back? Just provide a preview function perhaps in live view in order to visualize what you are after, then save the 'crop' as metadata and let you then either use or override it later in the raw converter.
 

MrSmith

Member
"Perspective (shift) can be replicated to 100%, all information is there”

i’m talking about instances where you place the lens where you want it. for example when shooting bottles there is a particular viewpoint usually 3/4 of the way up where you hide the camera in the label and have a particular shape to the bottom of the bottle with a slight curve (or not dependent on focal length) then shift the back to fit the bottle in your frame. i find placing the lens where you want it then tilting the camera to get it in frame means that correcting the perspective changes the shape of the bottle and you lose some of your background.

if the object has 3d shape and form the relationship between parts of the object changes as you move the lens. lets take a teddy bear or doll for example, as you move the lens around the feet and hands spatial relationship changes. a lens with good coverage means you can freely move your viewpoint to where you want it with the ideal perspective and then shift to fill your frame with the subject. stretching a shot in photoshop always seems to look wrong especially if the object is a complex shape.

I’m sure there is some optical/physics explanation behind it that is beyond me but thats what i have found when shooting tabletop still life with and without movements. movements always win and make the workflow easier.

i may be totally wrong on the optical theory but for me it’s all about the workflow, ease of use and quality of output. that means a cambo actus and digitars. as for stacking/swing/tilt i usually often end up doing all 3 to get the results i need.
 

torger

Active member
I need to be humble on the perspective stuff as I haven't worked that much with software perspective control, but in terms of how rays enter the lens pupil only lens placement matters, not how it projects on the sensor, so it should be possible to get the perspective exactly the same.

However, I would not be surprised if perhaps noone has yet made such software, so maybe it's not possible to do today with the current software packages.
 

torger

Active member
Some would argue that this is a justification for a 100mp MFDB. You have so much native resolution that you can afford to crop as needed. Why bother cropping in the back? Just provide a preview function perhaps in live view in order to visualize what you are after, then save the 'crop' as metadata and let you then either use or override it later in the raw converter.
Yes indeed, it would be best if the back would only visualize a certain crop and shift, and store it in the EXIF data, but you could retrieve the original uncropped/unmapped file in the raw conversion if desired.

When working with crop/keystone today one problem is that it's more difficult to visualize the end result, and one can make mistakes in the framing etc. With perspective support in the back the workflow in the field would become much easier.
 

Pradeep

Member
If all of us tech camera users sat in a room with a beer and you asked us if we use it because 1) we have to to get a specific result, or 2) it is because we want to, there would be a lot more hands up for the second reason.

I can see them becoming obsolete for specific image-necessity reasons, but all the other reasons will be around. I actually see the X1D being more of a "threat" because of its size.

Dave
Probably true, Dave. However, I still see a lot of purists hanging on to tech cams for very specific kind of images where you could process in post, but the end result may not be to their own satisfaction.

Most of what we do (what I do certainly) is to reach and surpass my own standards and as I have progressed in my own journey into photography I've found that the goalposts have shifted each time I thought I had reached where I wanted to be. I am in many ways my own worst critic (aren't we all) and I am constantly trying to do better. Of course this means developing a better eye for composition, color, contrast, subject matter and all that. It also means that having the best equipment helps.

So for those looking for perfection in their images be it still life, particular landscapes or architecture, I expect tech cameras will continue to be a part of their gear.
 
Top