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!

Help me choose a digital back for a tech cam

EdintheClouds

New member
Hi, first post here, though I’ve been lurking for a while.

So, I’m after some advice re purchasing a used digital back for a tech cam, Cambo WRS 1200 with Rodenstock Sinaron digital 55mm, f4.5.

I’ve used 5x4 cameras, and also use a Fuji GFX50r, but have never used a tech cam with a dB before.

A few notes about how I’ll be shooting:
99.9% of my shooting will be outdoors using daylight.
I will be using shifts (maximum of 25mm rear fall) so minimal colour casts would be appreciated. I’ll also be stitching 2/3 images on occasion.
Re focusing, I don’t have any strong preference between ground glass vs focus peaking on LCD, so CMOS or CCD.
I won’t be using any lenses wider than my current 55mm Rodenstock, and I’m happy with the effective focal length of the 55mm regardless of whether the sensor size is 33x44 or 40x54 (effective focal lengths of circa 44mm and 35mm respectively).
50mp is enough for the size I’m printing at the moment, but more would be appreciated.

Digital backs are uncharted territory for me at the moment and I know there’s probably a whole load of things I haven’t even considered yet.

Any advice to help me avoid making an expensive mistake would be very much appreciated.

Cheers! 👍🏼
Ed.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Hi, first post here, though I’ve been lurking for a while.

So, I’m after some advice re purchasing a used digital back for a tech cam, Cambo WRS 1200 with Rodenstock Sinaron digital 55mm, f4.5.

I’ve used 5x4 cameras, and also use a Fuji GFX50r, but have never used a tech cam with a dB before.

A few notes about how I’ll be shooting:
99.9% of my shooting will be outdoors using daylight.
I will be using shifts (maximum of 25mm rear fall) so minimal colour casts would be appreciated. I’ll also be stitching 2/3 images on occasion.
Re focusing, I don’t have any strong preference between ground glass vs focus peaking on LCD, so CMOS or CCD.
I won’t be using any lenses wider than my current 55mm Rodenstock, and I’m happy with the effective focal length of the 55mm regardless of whether the sensor size is 33x44 or 40x54 (effective focal lengths of circa 44mm and 35mm respectively).
50mp is enough for the size I’m printing at the moment, but more would be appreciated.

Digital backs are uncharted territory for me at the moment and I know there’s probably a whole load of things I haven’t even considered yet.

Any advice to help me avoid making an expensive mistake would be very much appreciated.

Cheers! ����
Ed.
First, before any advice, let me welcome you both to this forum community, and to the world of DB+Tech Cam. Technical cameras, in addition to being a big part of my job, are a big hobby and personal interest for me.

Now onto advice... We could (and hopefully will) fill many pages with the various pros, cons, capabilities, limitations, and quality of various backs. But you don't mention the single most important factor in making this choice: budget. That should both be "immediate budget" and "longterm budget"

For example, if you have the budget for it the Phase One IQ4 150mp is, without any question, the best possible digital back for a tech camera (it's resolution is probably the 4th or 5th reason for this by the way; it's not really about the pixel count, though it is a benefit).

"long term budget" also matters here because if you expect that you will build a system over many years you may make different choices than if you intend the initial purchase to be your final say. For example the new Phase One XT, and the X-Shutter system that is replacing Copal shutters are both IQ4-only and the XT is largely inter-compatible with the Cambo system.

But if that's not in the budget then all of that is irrelevant to you. Something can be "worth every penny" and still a poor fit, because you don't have that many pennies to spend on it.

As you say, it's easy to make expensive mistakes when entering an entirely new world of equipment. For example you say "Re focusing, I don’t have any strong preference between ground glass vs focus peaking on LCD, so CMOS or CCD." but it's unclear on what information or experience this assertion is based. Have you previously used a CCD back and ground glass to focus a tech camera in the situations that you shoot in? Have you been able to compare and contrast that experience with CMOS focusing? I'm not saying I'm sure you won't be okay with it; quite the contrary – you may really enjoy it – for some users there is a certain "zen" to using either ground glass or non-visual focusing (e.g. the Arca Swiss helical-preset method of focus). But for some users it's like rolling heavy luggage uphill after a long trip: possible but painful. It also depends a lot on which tech camera you will be getting; some are better suited to ground glass or non-visual focusing than others, and one system may mesh with any given user more than another.

That, and a dozen other choices is why I'd strongly suggest that, in addition to seeking advice from the community here, you engage with a knowledgable dealer. Sometimes those new to the market will expect that if they are buying used they are limited to buying from another user, but we (Digital Transitions) are deeply involved in the pre-owned, used, and refurbished markets for back and are very deeply knowledgable about tech cameras. We keep some of our older generation equipment listed here and some of our more recent generation equipment listed here. But we rarely have all our current inventory listed at any given time (that's especially true for our inventory of used tech camera equipment, almost none of which is listed online), and we almost always have units that we are expecting in on a short timeline (e.g. a company is upgrading their studio camera at the start of a new quarter, and we know the make/model/shot-count/condition of their current back, but don't yet technically have it in our inventory). So it's always best to reach out to us by phone or email.
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Thanks Doug, appreciated.

Budget: up to circa UK£7.5k for a used back, so not iq4 territory.

Focusing: I’ve used ground glass screens extensively in the past on 6x7 and 5x4, but not had the opportunity to use a gg on a digital tech cam yet. The nearest dealer is over 150 miles away, so not convenient to drop in for a demo. Whether CCD or CMOS I would of course insist on using and making sure I’m happy with the focusing method before use. Non-visual focusing is out of the question for me though.

Let me know if there’s other vital info I’ve overlooked.

Many thanks.
 

epforever

Member
I know you said that non-visual focusing is out for you, but are you aware of Alpa's HPF rings? They have extremely detailed distance markings; coupled with a distometer like the Leica Disto D5, they make for very accurate focusing. They can be used on Cambo lenses, if I'm not mistaken (you can research online). That's how I focus my Alpa lenses (with CCD back), and it's much easier, faster and more accurate than gg focusing.

If you end up going that route, I'm happy to answer questions about dialing them in for perfect accuracy.

ethan
 

alistairsimmons

Well-known member
Doug has very well addressed the considerations needed for choosing a digital back/technical camera system, and DT would be an excellent source for the advice and testing required to get you to the suitable conclusion.

If you are UK based (which I’m assuming based on your budget) then feel free to reach out for any such advice and testing. We (Teamwork) are the partner for Phase One on this side of the pond, alongside Cambo on the technical camera side of things.

I share the passion for these systems - outside of spending my working life facilitating them for others - and would be more than happy to chat through the various benefits/drawbacks of the different options, and demonstrate in the flesh, the practical use to you.
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Thanks Ethan, I had no idea such things existed. I’ll go and educate myself about the Alpa system.

I know you said that non-visual focusing is out for you, but are you aware of Alpa's HPF rings? They have extremely detailed distance markings; coupled with a distometer like the Leica Disto D5, they make for very accurate focusing. They can be used on Cambo lenses, if I'm not mistaken (you can research online). That's how I focus my Alpa lenses (with CCD back), and it's much easier, faster and more accurate than gg focusing.

If you end up going that route, I'm happy to answer questions about dialing them in for perfect accuracy.

ethan
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Hi Al, correct, UK based, but Yorkshire is a long way from London. I’ll be down that way sometime in February and will stop by. I have your used gear page bookmarked.

If you are UK based (which I’m assuming based on your budget) then feel free to reach out for any such advice and testing. We (Teamwork) are the partner for Phase One on this side of the pond, alongside Cambo on the technical camera side of things.

I share the passion for these systems - outside of spending my working life facilitating them for others - and would be more than happy to chat through the various benefits/drawbacks of the different options, and demonstrate in the flesh, the practical use to you.
 

Pelorus

Member
Plus one for Ethan's comment below. If you had told me before I purchased that I'd feel comfortable with that mode I would have not believed you. Now, having moved to a CMOS back with great live view, I still use the measure and set method. I works perfectly.

As for backs, I started with a CCD back (for sale on the forums at the moment) and happily used that for several years, then when the opportunity arose I moved to a CMOS back - I had some lower light goals that suggested a CMOS back.

Without a grand budget, for me, it has always been about finding a path forward that allows me to take photographs. I now use both an Alpa and a Fuji 50R. They fulfil different purposes but for ultimate image quality the tech cam is always it - even with a 33MP back.

Have fun!!

I know you said that non-visual focusing is out for you, but are you aware of Alpa's HPF rings? They have extremely detailed distance markings; coupled with a distometer like the Leica Disto D5, they make for very accurate focusing. They can be used on Cambo lenses, if I'm not mistaken (you can research online). That's how I focus my Alpa lenses (with CCD back), and it's much easier, faster and more accurate than gg focusing.

If you end up going that route, I'm happy to answer questions about dialing them in for perfect accuracy.

ethan
 

David Kaufman

New member
Ed,
I have an Arca Swiss M-Line2 and seven lenses one of which is the Rodenstock 55mm, which has a very large image circle of 125mm. The problem with the lens is that as you approach the edge of the image circle resolution becomes quite smeary.
I have used two backs, a P40+ (similar to IQ1 40MP) for about seven years and an IQ1 60MP for the past four years. Both are excellent for stitching with the 55mm lens up to 30mm in any direction or more, with the caveat that image quality near the edge of the circle begins to fall off significantly. The 40MP backs (in 33 x 44 form factor) will keep you farther away from the edge of the lens circle closer to the sweet spot of the lens and therefore yield somewhat sharper results overall (meaning you approach the image circle edge less frequently). However, all things being equal your 55 mm lens will give you a narrower reproduction of the field of view with this back than with the IQ1 60MP back, which has a larger sensor (54mm x 40mm) and therefore records more of the image circle. The IQ1 60MP is still available as a refurbished back, is fairly modestly priced, possibly within your budget, and works very well with the 55mm Rodenstock, as do the 40MP backs, which are even less expensive. Both backs require LCCs when doing extensive stitching, but the LCCs clean up the files nicely except right at the edge of the image circle.
I shoot a lot of images of architecture, stitching widely. The 40MP backs are somewhat easier to use for wide stitching than the IQ1 60MP (not the 260 which does not stitch as well on technical cameras) but both will work well within their respective parameters.
Good Luck.
David Kaufman
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Thanks Ethan, I had no idea such things existed. I’ll go and educate myself about the Alpa system.
Indeed, and the Arca Swiss focus system is several times more precise than the Alpa HPF Rings (that can be used with Alpa or Cambo). In addition there are other non-visual ways to focus such as laser distometers, visual distance finders, hyperfocal and pseudo-hyperfocal presets, iterative-focusmask-after-capture and more.

I'm not saying non-visual focusing will definitely work for you. I'm just saying that you should start your search with few assumptions about what you need and what tools will meet those needs. You should try non-visual focusing (with an expert on the topic) at least once before you dismiss it as an option.

If non-visual focusing works for you it will save you the cost of a ground glass or sliding ground glass and put you in a different workflow.

Al (Teamwork) is a good guy and knowledgable. You'll be in good hands if you give him your time and trust.
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Thanks David, that’s good to keep in mind. I’d guessed that I wouldn’t be able to add 25mm rear fall, 20mm l/r shift, keep away from the edges of the image circle and get good results, particularly with a larger sensor. It’s rare I’d ever feel the need to do that anyway and am happy to live within those “limitations”.

Why doesn’t the IQ260 work as well for stitching as some other backs?

Ed,
I have an Arca Swiss M-Line2 and seven lenses one of which is the Rodenstock 55mm, which has a very large image circle of 125mm. The problem with the lens is that as you approach the edge of the image circle resolution becomes quite smeary.
I have used two backs, a P40+ (similar to IQ1 40MP) for about seven years and an IQ1 60MP for the past four years. Both are excellent for stitching with the 55mm lens up to 30mm in any direction or more, with the caveat that image quality near the edge of the circle begins to fall off significantly. The 40MP backs (in 33 x 44 form factor) will keep you farther away from the edge of the lens circle closer to the sweet spot of the lens and therefore yield somewhat sharper results overall (meaning you approach the image circle edge less frequently). However, all things being equal your 55 mm lens will give you a narrower reproduction of the field of view with this back than with the IQ1 60MP back, which has a larger sensor (54mm x 40mm) and therefore records more of the image circle. The IQ1 60MP is still available as a refurbished back, is fairly modestly priced, possibly within your budget, and works very well with the 55mm Rodenstock, as do the 40MP backs, which are even less expensive. Both backs require LCCs when doing extensive stitching, but the LCCs clean up the files nicely except right at the edge of the image circle.
I shoot a lot of images of architecture, stitching widely. The 40MP backs are somewhat easier to use for wide stitching than the IQ1 60MP (not the 260 which does not stitch as well on technical cameras) but both will work well within their respective parameters.
Good Luck.
David Kaufman
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Thanks again Doug, I’ve parked my assumptions re non-visual focusing.

I think probably the accuracy of the Arca focusing system over and above the Alpa upfront rings would be wasted on me, most things I need in focus are 5m to 50m from camera and I tend to work mostly at f11, so I’m never going to have a need for accurate shallow dof that a tabletop product photographer would have.

In the past I’ve used hyperfocal focusing extensively with great results on an old Pentax 67, which I enjoyed a lot, so accurate hyperfocal scales would be a big plus. The Pentax was such fun to use that I didn’t think of it as non-visual focusing, which sounds the opposite of fun! :)

Indeed, and the Arca Swiss focus system is several times more precise than the Alpa HPF Rings (that can be used with Alpa or Cambo). In addition there are other non-visual ways to focus such as laser distometers, visual distance finders, hyperfocal and pseudo-hyperfocal presets, iterative-focusmask-after-capture and more.

I'm not saying non-visual focusing will definitely work for you. I'm just saying that you should start your search with few assumptions about what you need and what tools will meet those needs. You should try non-visual focusing (with an expert on the topic) at least once before you dismiss it as an option.

If non-visual focusing works for you it will save you the cost of a ground glass or sliding ground glass and put you in a different workflow.

Al (Teamwork) is a good guy and knowledgable. You'll be in good hands if you give him your time and trust.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Just to add to this.... seems like there are a few thresholds you might wish to consider:

- CCD vs. CMOS
- crop vs. "full frame" sensor
- age of the back - do you care? Pros and cons to this.
- how the system fits/feels to you
- impact of any decision on systems, w commitment to their lens mounts (assuming you rule out the Techno, which uses easy lens boards.
- what software you may use (Hassy backs can't use C1)
- level of risk you wish (if you get it wrong, how easy to get out).

There is plenty of discussion on the forum about most of these, but perhaps its helpful to see it all at once. Many of us shuffled through a few versions and different combinations of this until we found something that we're each comfortable with. The answers are, not surprisingly, a rather personal fit.
 

alistairsimmons

Well-known member
Hi Al, correct, UK based, but Yorkshire is a long way from London. I’ll be down that way sometime in February and will stop by. I have your used gear page bookmarked.
I’m quite often in the north (originally from Skipton, so relish any opportunity to get back), so I can let you next time I’m that way, and we can meet up and chat further if you wish. Email in my signature if you want to have more of a conversation.

A
 

David Kaufman

New member
Thanks David, that’s good to keep in mind. I’d guessed that I wouldn’t be able to add 25mm rear fall, 20mm l/r shift, keep away from the edges of the image circle and get good results, particularly with a larger sensor. It’s rare I’d ever feel the need to do that anyway and am happy to live within those “limitations”.

Why doesn’t the IQ260 work as well for stitching as some other backs?
Hi Ed,
The 260 and the larger sensors, the 80 and the 100, don't play as nicely with wide angle lenses especially. (The 55mm is not quite wide angle and I am not sure how it plays with other sensors and there is no data published online about it because it was part of an earlier line of Rodenstock lenses.) The higher megapixel backs are quite restricted as to stitching ability because the colour diffraction as you shift is much greater with those backs and wide angle lenses than with the 60 or 40 megapixel backs, and doesn't correct very well even with LCCs. The exception is the newest IQ4 150 back which plays very nicely with wide angle lenses, better than any other back in fact, but it is super expensive. As for the 40 and 60 MP backs, both can be shifted more than 30 mm each way horizontally and the image raised at the same time 15 mm and the image will only be reaching the image circle of the 55mm lens in the upper left and right corners. So if you are shooting a scene with some sky, either landscape, or over architecture, you can shift extensively and use fall or rise both at the same time. The 60MP back, the IQ1 60, has the larger sensor and records more of the image circle so you have a more wide angle result from the 55mm lens.
Until the IQ4 150 came along, the 40 and 60 MP IQ1 CCD backs were still the best solution for architecture with significant camera movements. For work on a tripod, the IQ1 at 50 ISO gives stellar results even up to 30 or 45 seconds exposure. ISO 100 is a bit less noise friendly but useable.
I focus my Arca Swiss MLine 2 through the ground glass with a 10x loupe, but focus accuracy is fairly easy to assess from the IQ1 60MP LCD screen. Best way to use the screen is with a 3 inch LCD viewer of the type used for videography with DSLRs, which blocks exterior light and magnifies the screen. So I carry both a loupe for the groundglass and a Hoodman viewer for the screen, It's slow photography but great.
Best,
David Kaufman
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Ed - is there any reason why you are not considering using a GFX on a view camera and only looking at digital backs?

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 

tjv

Active member
As far as I'm aware the IQ 160 / Credo 60 and IQ 260 have exactly the same response to wides on a technical camera. The IQ 260 is based on the same architecture, is it not?

I use a Credo 60 on a Linhof Techno and love it (I've sent my kit off for servicing to solve a a focus shift problem, but it's given me flawless service for 7 years until now.) I also use a RS 55mm APO-SD as my primary lens and can confirm the above – it's an excellent lens with quite visible sharpness falloff past around 20mm shift. I routinely drop the back by 12mm AND shift left / right 17mm to make panoramic stitches. Pretty good BUT IMO you MUST use a CF for that much shift otherwise the noise increase after LCC to correct the quite extreme falloff is very damaging to image detail. My RS 70mm HR-W is MUCH better in this regard and doesn't require the CF, but is obviously a tighter FOV.

I'm one of the people who would hate to 'guess' composition and tweak after taking a photo or series of photos (with a CCD back that has awful live-view,) and much prefer the GG focusing of the Techno in this instance – even if focusing is a bit more difficult in some situations with the GG. To be honest though, I've done a lot of tests and with the bright Linhof GG I practically never miss focus, even when using f5.6-8. Like you however, I'm 99% at f11 at middle distances, so no issue either way.

To be honest, if I were in your position and wetting my feet now, I'd think seriously about waiting for the new Hasselblad V digital back and pairing it with a Cambo Actus. I love my Techno – mostly for idiosyncratic reasons plus I like using it to shoot film – and like it, the Actus uses cheaper lens boards that'll save you money on the helical mounts needed for the WRS / Alpa / Arca Rm3 systems. The live view of the CMOS makes the Techno / Actus quite attractive for people allergic to the GG experience.

I'd also highly recommend Linhof & Studio UK as an amazing source for not only Linhof, but also Alpa, Cambo, Silvestri and Hasselblad digital equipment. I've had what I can only describe as amazing service and support from Linhof & Studio, even though I live all the way across the world in the South Pacific.

Good luck!
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Cheers Al, I’ll drop you a line when I have more of an idea of what I’m aiming at. Expect it to take a couple of months.

I’m quite often in the north (originally from Skipton, so relish any opportunity to get back), so I can let you next time I’m that way, and we can meet up and chat further if you wish. Email in my signature if you want to have more of a conversation.

A
 

EdintheClouds

New member
Thanks y’all for your contributions and questions, very helpful.

So, at the moment I’m leaning towards CMOS over CCD, primarily as it provides another focusing aid and easy composing method, thus the need for gg would go, and I get to compose the image the right way up. :) I do find composing on a gg “distances” me from the scene a bit, makes the scene almost abstract, and I think I compose better images like that. Will give it more thought.

I did some research into the Actus: the form factor of the system doesn’t lend itself to how I use it. I often walk 6 - 10 miles in a day carrying kit, and though the Actus is pretty small and light the WRS1200 works better for me for this kind of use. I read in a few places that the focal length I’ll be using the Actus doesn’t offer much movement due to the sensor being burried quite deeply inside the camera body, the Hasselblad X1D seems better in this respect. Plus the WRS gives me more assurance that the front/back standards are parallel. Plus I got a really good deal on the Cambo WRS1200, it’s just the right tool for the intended use.

As I seem to be leaning more towards CMOS that pushes the larger sensor backs out of the picture.

So, the shortlist at the moment seems to be:
IQ1/2/3 50
Upcoming Hasselblad CFVII 50c

Is there any reason/s why any of the IQ1, 2, or 3 50 should be either ruled out or given particular preference?
The Hasselblad looks like it could be a winner, but nobody knows yet, and it might take HB another year+ to get the firmware up to potential. We’ll see.

Software wise I’m happy to use C1 or Phocus, I really only use the raw converter for white balance and fine tuning exposure if necessary, everything else happens in Photoshop.

Are there any advantages to the CCD backs like IQ1/2 60 which I’ve overlooked and should reconsider?

Thanks for your help everyone, this is all very much appreciated. :)
 
Top