Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Sandy and I arrived in Sedona this afternoon for a shoot we had planed and the second phase of the comparison between the WDS and WRS-1000.

    One of the questions that was asked was if you could shoot either camera handheld and I've got a partial answer. The answer is partial as I've only shot handheld with the WDS this afternoon and I have proof. The answer is yes. I believe but have no proof as yet that you can shoot handheld with the WRS-1000 however I also feel that in this case size does or will matter and it'll be easier with the WDS.

    Sandy took this while I was taking



    this ...



    I decided to do a 3-shot 2 row (6 images total) pano showing the individual rows then the finished image.

    Top row:


    Bottom row:


    Finished image:


    I had meant to do the same with the WRS-1000 however I screwed up and only shot one row of 3.



    I'll reshoot tomorrow showing the separate rows then finial image with the WRS-1000.

    Something I've noticed that really shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone is the image quality coming from these two bodies. But then again it really isn't the body rather the excellent lens and digital back; the only thing that changes between the images is the camera body. My opinion is that with the proper lens and digital back it won't matter which body you decide on as either way you'll get great images. The deciding factor is workflow. I still don't like the fact I have to move in front of the camera to change movements as that simply doesn't fit my workflow and for that it's a deal breaker. The other area I'm totally against is no real easy method of switching the orientation of the back; Cambo really did it right with the WRS-1000.

    Just a note here: I've modified the way I address the 1000, in the past I used RS-1000 while after looking at the Cambo site I should have been using WRS-1000.

    While I'm making notes: The panorama images are "as is" directly from CS4 with no other post processing and no cropping, the white area around the boarder is what CS4 shows upon completion of stitching. I did cheat a little and shot a custom white balance before shooting the images.

    More to come.

    Don


    It'd be nice to try Guy's new P40 on either camera!
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Took the WRS out this morning and reshot the test from yesterday so that we can be on a firmed footing. Total of 6 images 3-images per row 2 rows. Using CS4 I merged each row individually to show the finished image, then using all 6-images as I normally would (same process as I did yesterday) I merged the images again using CS4.

    Top:



    Bottom:



    Merged:



    Conclusion: I've attempted to test/compare the WDS and WRS using the same landscape and same setup. I had thought before doing this that I would see a substantial difference in the images anytime I used a raise or fall as the lens on the WDS moves around the digital back and the lens on the WRS is static with the back making all the movements. There might be a difference however it is so small as to render the difference meaningless.

    Handholding:


    I used the WRS to take 2 images handheld and found that it can be done.




    More thoughts:

    The WDS is larger and is easier to take a handheld image. Points there. The WDS had the handgrip on the left with no provision of placing the shutter release on the right. Points off.

    The WRS-1000 is smaller and each time I took an image I felt I was moving the camera. Points off. The WRS-1000 has two handgrips along with the provision of placing the shutter release either left or right. Points there.

    Bottom line is both the WDS and WRS are great camera bodies. There are two items that are against the WDS for me; the need to be in front of the camera for movements, and the way you'd have to go about in changing the orientation of the back.

    The WDS is larger and heavier that the WRS and I'll attempt to get some detail on the differences once we get home. I want to thank Dave Gallager & Chris Lawery of Capture Integration for the loan of the WDS; I couldn't ask for a better and more supportive company (but then we know how good they are).

    Sitting here resting up and waiting till sunset for the beautiful colors to really shine.


    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  3. #3
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Thanks for the excellent report Don! Based on your efforts, I've decided that for me, the WRS is the body I'd get -- which is awesome because it saves me from having to do a similar field comparison!

    .
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  4. #4
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    The WRS rocks.
    I just need more lenses.
    -bob

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Thanks for the excellent report Don! Based on your efforts, I've decided that for me, the WRS is the body I'd get -- which is awesome because it saves me from having to do a similar field comparison!

    .
    You're very welcome Jack! The original idea of this exercise was to educate myself in the differences and hopefully be able to answer question better after actually using both bodies.

    I have to say that if I had brought the WDS before the WRS had been released I would have been happy; however after the WRS came out and I had tested it I'd be selling the WDS in a heart beat as the WRS just fits me better.

    To answer the question of which someone should buy is easy (I think). If you shoot a combination film and digital then go for the WDS. If you don't often find yourself standing or sitting on the edge of a 500' cliff then the WDS is okay. I think I could come up with a suitable work-around for the back orientation so that's so-so other than I just don't like the idea of moving the camera anymore than what I have to.

    I'll get some weights and dimensions when I get home later this week.

    I hope I've answered all the question - barring the weight and dimension issue.

    Don

    I'm also very glad I don't have to do this full-time!
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    The WRS rocks.
    I just need more lenses.
    -bob
    I'm with you Bob although I think I'll stop (for now) at the 4 I have.

    Don
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  7. #7
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Bad design to have even numbers , to be in perfect design element you should have 5. Tell Sandy i think you need to be in 5 so you are in with the design vogue crowd.

    So Don as you can see what great lengths i have gone to justify my gear slutness. And that is not even a word
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Bad design to have even numbers , to be in perfect design element you should have 5. Tell Sandy i think you need to be in 5 so you are in with the design vogue crowd.

    So Don as you can see what great lengths i have gone to justify my gear slutness. And that is not even a word
    Okay since the body doesn't cound as 1 the you're totally correct and Sandy says yes by all means get another lens.....


    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    note that :"The other area I'm totally against is no real easy method of switching the orientation of the back; Cambo really did it right with the WRS-1000." isn't really relevant for Hasselblad V mount backs, because you can attach them in two orientations !

    i'd like to see a field report between RS1000, Arca RM3D, Sinar Artech, Alpa XY...

    No sliding back and ground glass composition option with RS1000 isn't it ?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Comparing the WDS to the WRS-1000 PART II

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    No sliding back and ground glass composition option with RS1000 isn't it ?
    no sliding back.
    but groundglass: http://www.cambo.com/Html/Images/WDS-619-02.jpg
    So you mount the groundglass frame, compose, remove the groundglass frame, mount the back...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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