CAMBO WRS 1600 or Alpa STC or any other suggestions?

[daf]

Any owner input?

Why do you who own the Cambo WRS 1600 over any other options?

I don't have a wrs 1600, but had a wds, then wrs 1200, end up with the wrc400.

All three brands (arca alpa cambo) offer the same kind of familly products, so first choose if you want both horizontal+vertical shift at the same time or if you can live with just one option at time. Then do you need tilt?
This should help you to define what system you need.
Then focusing system: Well speaking for myself, i've tried the Arca rm3di but i didn't like the focusing system, too slow for me. This was without a liveview DB, but i guess it might be even more difficult to focus using liveview due to very long focus rotation (this is just an expectation).
I really like the hpf ring on standart helicoidal, perfect mixte between precision and speed of use, this also allow zone focusing and i would probably still use it even with a liveview DB.
Then choosing between Alpa and Cambo: being honest i think both offer the same quality and finish, but Alpa is so much more sexy!!!
I went with Cambo because price was a concern, but if it were not, for sure i would have gone for an Alpa.

 

[algrove]

So if I mainly want (besides the mobile factor that all tech cam systems seem to offer) tilt for DOF and the occasional stitch, usually left and right in portrait mode with the XF, which system offers plenty of DOF tilt with say a 40 HR lens?

Sorry for the rudimentary questions, but I have never used one and do not know of anyone who has one that is living near me.

 

[GrahamWelland]

When looking at comparisons of systems in terms of weight and cost you need to be sure that you include the same product capabilities. For example, if you want tilt in addition to shift/rise then you must add extra components for Alpa (tilt adapter) and more expensive lenses (Cambo WRS tilt mount lenses), and similarly if you want both rise AND shift together then certain bodies cannot accommodate it (Alpa STC - you need to go to a Max), etc etc.

I've owned and used Alpa Max & STC and loved the system but it comes at a price, literally. However, you do get a beautifully engineered system.

I've used both Cambo WRS and ARCA systems and both work just as well (although personally I didn't enjoy the ARCA flow and low lens gearing). ARCA gives you all movements in the body (tilt, rise, shift). Cambo WRS only the shift/rise and tilt lenses are needed if you want that. Build quality is also excellent with these too.

Like Victor, my weapon of choice is the Cambo Actus DB which is a bellows system but very very versatile with all movements including not just tilt but also swing - something the others cannot do. (Ok, theoretically with the alpa with longer SB34 lenses and 2x 17mm tilt adapters you could). I was surprised by the weight comparisons earlier in the thread - again, I think that you need to compare apples to apples since 1200g is for everything plus only a lens plate and a light bellows is needed vs lens helicoids or tilt adapters etc with some of the others.

Per Doug, arrange to go try some of these systems because you'll never know unless you try them. And if you like beautiful engineering ... enjoy your new Alpa!! :ROTFL:

 

[Jamgolf]

Any owner input?
Why do you who own the Cambo WRS 1600 over any other options?

I choose to own Cambo 1600 for the following reasons (to list a few):

1. In my view the main point of a technical camera is movements and Cambo offers ALL movements simultaneously i.e. a rise/fall AND left/right shift AND a tilt AND swing all at the same time if/when needed. I want this ability.
2. Very convenient way of changing from landscape to portrait orientation.
3. 5mm indentations for rise/fall/shift - very helpful in low light or even when my eyes are focussed elsewhere.
4. Relatively compact size and simple design.
5. Availability of adapters that allow options such as the following:

• 350 Superachromat via Hasselblad V adapter
  
  
• Leica-R 180/2.8 APO via WRE-CA adapter
  
  

I think with CCD backs Cambo's only weakness, when compared to Arca and Alpa is critical focussing (with long lenses). Alpa has its HPF rings and Arca has the helical that help with focusing. However, with CMOS backs and their usable live view, that weakness no longer exists.

I have no experience with Actus, but if Graham and Victor think its a worthy option, then I'd say give it very serious consideration, because they know what they are talking about (and I completely trust their opinions).

The best thing to do is to find (or create) an opportunity to use these technical cameras in person. At the beginning I was convinced Arca was the right tool for me. Then I visited Steve Hendrix at CI office in Atlanta and got a chance to handle Arca, Alpa as well as Cambo. I ruled out Arca and got a Cambo 1200 over Alpa for cost reasons, but I think I got lucky there because if I have to decide again today (with 2+ years of hind sight) I'd pick Cambo 1600 without hesitation, even if Alpa was cheaper (for the reasons listed above).

Hope this helps.
Cheers!

 

[Jamgolf]

So if I mainly want ... tilt for DOF ... which system offers plenty of DOF tilt with say a 40 HR lens?

All systems would offer an equal amount of DOF via tilt for the same lens, shot with an equal amout of
(a) lens tilt
(b) camera tilt
(c) aperture
(d) tripod height

If (or when) you get a techcam, please also get Anders Torger's helpful app (Lumariver) - it will assist you in getting optimal results.

 

[Pemihan]

Like Victor, my weapon of choice is the Cambo Actus DB which is a bellows system but very very versatile with all movements including not just tilt but also swing - something the others cannot do. (Ok, theoretically with the alpa with longer SB34 lenses and 2x 17mm tilt adapters you could).

Actually Cambo's T/S lens mounts do both Tilt and Swing and also at the same time if needed

I went for the Cambo System because I wanted the ability to do both rise/fall and shift left/right at the same time. The WRS bodies all have that capability with no extra adapters needed. And if you get the lenses in T/S mounts you have it all in a fairly small and light package.
I have the WRS-1250 and before that a WRS-1000 but should I buy today I would go for the WRS-1600.

Peter

 

[daf]

I think with CCD backs Cambo's only weakness, when compared to Arca and Alpa is critical focussing (with long lenses). Alpa has its HPF rings and Arca has the helical that help with focusing. !

It is possible to mount an ALPA HPF ring on any system with standart helicoide Cambo, silvestri, horsman etc... both my 35and 72 have their Alpa HPF ring but not the 120, because Alpa doesn't make one, so i had to made my own, i've just put a sticker with most used setting and precise mesurement .... works perfectly.

Coming back to the OP request for a light and convenient setup...if i were in your position, i would go for camera:
- Cambo wrc400 or wrs(any model)
- Alpa stc
Lenses: schneider digitars are really smaller than Rod , people using digitar on 100mpx could help you here to understand their limitation (low movement on wide extrem coçor cast, f11,etc...) depending on your focal selection.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Actually Cambo's T/S lens mounts do both Tilt and Swing and also at the same time if needed

...

Peter

I stand corrected - thank you Peter.

You still need to pay extra for the T/S mount lenses but still cheaper than Alpa's relatively long only solutions and no Arca equivalent.

 

[Abstraction]

What are the disadvantages of going with Actus DB?

 

[PSon]

What are the disadvantages of going with Actus DB?

Primarily you cannot handheld and focus with CCD no live view digital back.

 

[dchew]

What are the disadvantages of going with Actus DB?

It's an interesting question. As PSon pointed out, the whole technical camera design excelled at getting accurate focus when the only other option was focusing on a ground glass. Reasonable for 4x5 and larger but more difficult to do (acquired talent?) at formats like 645 and smaller.

I don't think it is a coincidence that, in concert with CMOS live view, most of the current development is around Actus-type systems, especially the great designs coming out of Cambo right now. Certainly applications where a traditional pancake technical camera excels is much less now than it was in the CCD days. It is a bit like asking the question, "what are the disadvantages of a mirrorless system vs a DSLR?" There are of course some, but the situations where a DSLR excels vs mirrorless are becoming less and less. It may very well be that 5 years from now the pancake design will be gone from the market.

There are some advantages to a pancake technical camera in certain situations, and in my opinion Algrove's target is one of them. I can fit a three-lens STC kit in an F-Stop small pro ICU (7x11.5x8 inches) at under 9 pounds all-in (except for the tripod obviously). That's everything including the bag. I bet that also applies to the Factum and the WRS-400, and maybe the 1600 too.

Dave

 

[algrove]

Thank you all.

Now I am getting good comment for narrowing down my selection. Jamgolf's images make me kick myself for selling my nice V lenses and all my 28 R lenses.

Anyone tried to adapt S-K BR lenses on that Cambo setup? Of course that would defeat my small and light wants, but just curious if it has possibilities.

Also assume those of you who have not commented directly, but "liked" certain posts use a tech cam and agree with the entire post.

Wow if I can go from 40 lbs down to say 10 lbs in my f-stop bag, I just might make it to 80 years old and still be able to "hike for photography". Is there anything else.

 

[Jamgolf]

It is possible to mount an ALPA HPF ring on any system with standart helicoide Cambo, silvestri, horsman etc... both my 35and 72 have their Alpa HPF ring but not the 120, because Alpa doesn't make one, so i had to made my own, i've just put a sticker with most used setting and precise mesurement .... works perfectly.

I think Alpa HPF rings can be mounted on Cambo normal lens panels but not the T/S panels, I don't think there is enough space.
Like yourself, I also apply a thin strip of painters tape and mark preset positions e.g. 100ft, 150ft etc. - quite convenient.

 

[vjbelle]

I wouldn't fret too much about the Hassy lenses. I own a bunch of V lenses and wouldn't use them on my Cambo. I found them lacking even on a 7RII. But then I am a tad picky.:shocked: I've always wondered how the WRS handles tilt and or swing. Getting back to parallel is critical especially with swing. Even being off a smidgen can cause a left or right edge to show focus issues. I own two front standards for the Cambo DB and check parallelism between the front and rear standards with two Starrett machinists levels that are extremely accurate. It doesn't matter to me if the 'zero' point doesn't exactly match engraved numbers for the front standard but rather that I can repeatedly get back to that point without using the levels. I have found it fairly easy but don't travel without my levels - just for reference. I don't know how this would be accomplished on the WRS. The Alpa is a different design in that it has to be re-oriented to swing either left or right/fore or aft and always adjusts back to 'zero' adjustment. I found it a PITA to use but it was easy to get back to parallel. The other advantage I have started to appreciate is that the Cambo DB is almost yaw free when using lenses in Copal 0 mount. This is far from true with either Alpa or Cambo WRS. Its a lot easier to apply movements since the image doesn't change position as readily.

As for weight, I have posted this before but with my choice of three lenses, the entire camera and my 3100 and other odds and ends comes to less than 11lbs. That includes my Flipside 300 which is the perfect bag for this setup. Its a very capable and light system and if you ever run into any kind of issue with the Cambo they will bend over backwards to make it right. Cambo is a very customer oriented company.

Victor

 

[Iktinos]

Any camera that tilts a lens by its mount or further away outside the groups of lens optics, yaws badly and thus creates high distortions in the final image. The smaller the tilt radius is, the highest the distortions.

 

[dougpeterson]

Any camera that tilts a lens by its mount or further away outside the groups of lens optics, yaws badly and thus creates high distortions in the final image. The smaller the tilt radius is, the highest the distortions.

This is not correct. Method of tilt does not effect distortion.

Relative position of the lens to the sensor is the only factor in the final image. Method of accomplishing that position is entirely irrelevant.

Different methods for accomplishing tilt can influence workflow, and therefore are a consideration for purchase, but final image quality is not one of them.

 

[dchew]

As for weight, I have posted this before but with my choice of three lenses, the entire camera and my 3100 and other odds and ends comes to less than 11lbs. That includes my Flipside 300 which is the perfect bag for this setup. Its a very capable and light system and if you ever run into any kind of issue with the Cambo they will bend over backwards to make it right. Cambo is a very customer oriented company.

Victor

Victor and I have an unwritten, never-ending challenge for the lightest kit.
:thumbup:

Dave

 

[Iktinos]

This is not correct. Method of tilt does not effect distortion.

Relative position of the lens to the sensor is the only factor in the final image. Method of accomplishing that position is entirely irrelevant.

If a lens is tilted (or swing) by other than its entrance pupil, the image projected to the image area will be of "egg" shape, not an ellipsis as it should be. An ellipsis is not distortion as the lens "sees" an ellipsis and then projects a proportional elliptical shape, but an "eggy" shape is distortion.

Ideally, the entrance pupil of a lens should be constant and be the center of an (imaginary) "ball" that the image area is a section off and additionally, the section's center (either an ellipsis or a circle) should have the axis passing from the ball's center and its own center, being exactly perpedicullar to it.

In other words, for yaw free and distortionless (the two are not the same) to exist, the center of the image area if pre-focused, it should stay focused even if tilts or swings are applied.

In (more) other words, if one cuts a ball by a section that is not perpendicular to the ball's center, he will get an "eggy" shape section, not a circle.

 

[dougpeterson]

If a lens is tilted (or swing) by other than its entrance pupil, the image projected to the image area will be of "egg" shape, not an ellipsis as it should be.[...]

Ideally, the entrance pupil of a lens should be constant and be the center of an (imaginary) "ball" that the image area is a section off and additionally, the section's center (either an ellipsis or a circle) should have the axis passing from the ball's center and its own center, being exactly perpedicullar (sic) to it.

This is not correct. Position of the lens relative to the sensor is the only thing that effects the image circle projected. The manner in which the lens gets to a specific position has no impact.

 

[algrove]

Victor and I have an unwritten, never-ending challenge for the lightest kit.
:thumbup:

Dave

Guess I'll have to use an old Leica M case to compete with you guys.:grin: