The new Sinar Econtrol with Phase One Backs?

[pinktank]

Hello all, I was wondering if anybody had information or experience with using the new sinar econtrol (doesn't need the external interface box) in getting it to sync, wake up signal and all, with phase one backs. It would be a great addition to those of us using technical cameras with long exposures and stitching. I know of the Alpa Silex but the sinar is half the price with a simpler interface, hotshoe, app control and better mounting options at tripod level.

https://sinar.swiss/products/lenses/sinaron-digital-en-us/sinaron-digital-en-us-2/

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Hello all, I was wondering if anybody had information or experience with using the new sinar econtrol (doesn't need the external interface box) in getting it to sync, wake up signal and all, with phase one backs. It would be a great addition to those of us using technical cameras with long exposures and stitching. I know of the Alpa Silex but the sinar is half the price with a simpler interface, hotshoe, app control and better mounting options at tripod level.

https://sinar.swiss/products/lenses/sinaron-digital-en-us/sinaron-digital-en-us-2/

We sell both Sinar and Alpa products and we have clients who are using both solutions and with Phase One digital backs. There are distinct differences. They do share the ability to wake up Phase One backs. They do provide electronic control over lenses outfitted in eShutter 125 and eShutter 250. They each have some additional functionality (extended bracketing, self-timer, etc.).

I think it is fair to say that if all one is after is to use eShutter lenses and have some modest functionality along with that, then the Sinar solution works well. And if one is studio bound, you can save nearly $1,000 by using the Sinar "Box" eShutter Controller instead of the portable unit.

Where the Alpa Silex extends is with more advanced functionality, some of the functions are similar, but can be extended further, or have some nuances that allow for some differing workflows. The Silex also is a platform for numerous other type of lenses, when combined with Alpa cameras and the appropriate lensboards, or Phase One digital backs with Electronic Shutter capability (similar to FPS).

It's nice to have a hot shoe on the Sinar unit. The Silex does have quarter inch sockets on bottom and side, so there are ample routes for tripod mounting.


Differences in price are below with List pricing for each. The portable Sinar is not quite half the price, but certainly less. I think the 2 products complement each other well, depending on someone's budget and functional needs.

$1,742 - Sinar "Box" eShutter Control Unit
$2,710 - Sinar "Portable" eControl Unit

$3,660 - Alpa Silex I (not compatible with eShutter lenses)
$4,250 - Alpa Silex II is $4,250.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[pinktank]

We sell both Sinar and Alpa products and we have clients who are using both solutions and with Phase One digital backs. There are distinct differences. They do share the ability to wake up Phase One backs. They do provide electronic control over lenses outfitted in eShutter 125 and eShutter 250. They each have some additional functionality (extended bracketing, self-timer, etc.).

Steve Hendrix/CI

Hello Steve, Thank you for the extended note I really appreciate it, and I'm sure others will find informative in differentiating the two products.

I do agree that Silex is exciting with the Alpa electronic lens modules. For my current use: eshutter 250 on a Cambo (I also have an Alpa MaX) cam with iq150 and potentially on the 8x10. the Sinar is the more convenient choice with the limited user interface being more convenient within this application. The eshutter would basically allow us to have consistent long exposures for stitching without having to touch the lens or move to the lens side of the camera, which we sometimes do not have access to.

Do you mind If I ask some detail questions?

1) Would you mind trying / did you try the econtrol sync port with the new 12pin sync cable to test the wake up function with zero delay disabled on the IQ4 150MP?

2) Since you sell Cambo also, is there a rosette mounting solution for Silex that you have found to fit the Cambo 1600 holes on the handle side?

3)Similarly, is there a tripod mounting plate mount like that of the sinar that would work for the Silex? Perhaps some sort of rod clamp that would put it on the tripod leg instead of the camera? I'm sure I can get a contraption of magic clamps and arms to work, I was thinking of something with a slimmer profiler, like a rosette straight on a collar. I see that wooden camera has a clamp, and there are some things meant for video rods that may or may not work.

 

[dougpeterson]

The eshutter would basically allow us to have consistent long exposures for stitching without having to touch the lens or move to the lens side of the camera, which we sometimes do not have access to.

If this is your main goal then I would not suggest any electronic shutter system. Go for a simple diaphragm only mount and use the sensor-based ES.

 

[pinktank]

If this is your main goal then I would not suggest any electronic shutter system. Go for a simple diaphragm only mount and use the sensor-based ES.

Hey Doug, that's what we currently use but it requires accessing the lens with longer exposures for black references, also ran into some noise banding with long exposures that only happens in some shots. I need a solution that doesn't require interacting with the front of the camera. I'm helping an artist remotely on this one so I couldn't extensively test when the noise banding is happening.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Hello Steve, Thank you for the extended note I really appreciate it, and I'm sure others will find informative in differentiating the two products.

I do agree that Silex is exciting with the Alpa electronic lens modules. For my current use: eshutter 250 on a Cambo (I also have an Alpa MaX) cam with iq150 and potentially on the 8x10. the Sinar is the more convenient choice with the limited user interface being more convenient within this application. The eshutter would basically allow us to have consistent long exposures for stitching without having to touch the lens or move to the lens side of the camera, which we sometimes do not have access to.

Do you mind If I ask some detail questions?

1) Would you mind trying / did you try the econtrol sync port with the new 12pin sync cable to test the wake up function with zero delay disabled on the IQ4 150MP?

2) Since you sell Cambo also, is there a rosette mounting solution for Silex that you have found to fit the Cambo 1600 holes on the handle side?

3)Similarly, is there a tripod mounting plate mount like that of the sinar that would work for the Silex? Perhaps some sort of rod clamp that would put it on the tripod leg instead of the camera? I'm sure I can get a contraption of magic clamps and arms to work, I was thinking of something with a slimmer profiler, like a rosette straight on a collar. I see that wooden camera has a clamp, and there are some things meant for video rods that may or may not work.

I do have a client who is using IQ4 150 with the Sinar "Box" eController, and it does perform the wake up. However, he had to adjust the timing from 100ms to 500ms.

I'm sure there are ways to wrangle methods for mounting the Sinar eController. I have a client who is using the Alpa Silex II with an Arca Swiss F metric and assorted Arri and other adapters. I have to admit, the mounting aspect is not my strong suit, but I'll pass along anything I find helpful.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[pinktank]

I do have a client who is using IQ4 150 with the Sinar "Box" eController, and it does perform the wake up. However, he had to adjust the timing from 100ms to 500ms.

I'm sure there are ways to wrangle methods for mounting the Sinar eController. I have a client who is using the Alpa Silex II with an Arca Swiss F metric and assorted Arri and other adapters. I have to admit, the mounting aspect is not my strong suit, but I'll pass along anything I find helpful.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Thanks once again. Let me know if you know or get anyone new that uses the sinar non-box econtroller with the phase one, In the box version the pc sync is out of the RJ breakout so I didn't want to assume that it works the same.

 

[dougpeterson]

Hey Doug, that's what we currently use but it requires accessing the lens with longer exposures for black references, also ran into some noise banding with long exposures that only happens in some shots. I need a solution that doesn't require interacting with the front of the camera. I'm helping an artist remotely on this one so I couldn't extensively test when the noise banding is happening.

The IQ4 eliminates the need for manually captured black references when using the sensor-based shutter. Given that, do you still need the lens-based electronic shutter?

 

[pinktank]

The IQ4 eliminates the need for manually captured black references when using the sensor-based shutter. Given that, do you still need the lens-based electronic shutter?

At the enlargements this artist makes (72"x92") with shutter speeds typically over 4-8 seconds, there was a noticeable difference in noise with noise reduction turned nearly off to preserve details in enlargement. Their reference is drum scanned 8x10 positive film so the bar is a bit high.

Also, there is the issue of the banding in noise that I assumed had to do with scanning the sensor in a la e-shutter, but I don't have tests for that.

 

[dougpeterson]

At the enlargements this artist makes (72"x92") with shutter speeds typically over 4-8 seconds, there was a noticeable difference in noise with noise reduction turned nearly off to preserve details in enlargement. Their reference is drum scanned 8x10 positive film so the bar is a bit high.

Also, there is the issue of the banding in noise that I assumed had to do with scanning the sensor in a la e-shutter, but I don't have tests for that.

I think that should be re-investigated with their dealer as it does not comport with any of our (fairly extensive) testing. Perhaps they can retest this once the next firmware update for the IQ4 is released.

 

[pinktank]

I think that should be re-investigated with their dealer as it does not comport with any of our (fairly extensive) testing. Perhaps they can retest this once the next firmware update for the IQ4 is released.

I suppose it's good to know that it doesn't conform. Their dealer (they're abroad where there isn't as much demand for the 150) doesn't have another 150 to test against but I'll do some testing and talk with Phase One when I see them in June.

Here's the banding in extreme corrections that I'm talking about (with quite radical LCC based uniform lighting correction at maximum shift, the area is nearly pitch black without adjustments.) This is 50% magnification. I was hoping that a non scanning capture with the sensor in the dark while not shooting would yield less noise for extreme situations such as this.

 

[dougpeterson]

I suppose it's good to know that it doesn't conform. Their dealer (they're abroad where there isn't as much demand for the 150) doesn't have another 150 to test against but I'll do some testing and talk with Phase One when I see them in June.

Here's the banding in extreme corrections that I'm talking about (with quite radical LCC based uniform lighting correction at maximum shift, the area is nearly pitch black without adjustments.) This is 50% magnification. I was hoping that a non scanning capture with the sensor in the dark while not shooting would yield less noise for extreme situations such as this.

No such banding exists in our IQ4 tests, including long exposures using the Electronic Shutter. But if you’re combining a long exposure with moving into an area of the image circle that is effectively black and then effectively pushing up the exposure several stops in post then various ugliness is not unexpected. This back can take more punishment (ie produces a more flexible and pliable raw file) than any I’ve worked with, but every camera has its limits.