My thoughts on T/S for techical cameras

[carstenw]

Hehe, bingo. That'll be the day though. Heck of a price.

Go test drive a Bugatti Veyron and write here about it, please.

 

[Don Libby]

If I buy a hard drive from any dealer I regularly visit, I can return ir for an immediate replacement or refund if defective.

Yes, I can go test drive a Canon 600mm f4 IS lens right now at my local dealer that is less than a 15 minute drive for me.

I can even go test drive a Tessla in less than 20 minutes. The Vanquish I'd love to own is more like a one hour drive away, and I can drive virtually any Ferrari I might consider if I take a one-hour flight.

So yeah, I'd expect to be able to demo or "test drive" ANY camera I was seriously thinking about buying...

Wait a minute - do you mean you can actually fit in a Ferrari! I guess it helps only being 6'-6"! :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[thomas]

I really thought I "needed" a viewfinder and sliding back to do "proper" photography - ended up not needing either.
...
once I do a spot check on the LCD I'll know I either have it or need to add another image for additional movement (I don't move the camera rather I add whatever additional amount of movements I feel is necessary and correct in post).

Sliding back is the other item that was on my original must have list. Sure it looks good but does it "fit my workflow need"? The answer quickly came up no. Let's face it there simply isn't a decent groundglass available for MF.

Don, sorry, honestly... you walk through the landscape place your camera anywhere, imagine a rough picture of what you will get, take a shot and check it on the LCD (on the LCD of the P45+ notabene). Afterwards you crop what you like.
That's nice and that's doable but it's certainly not what I'd call composition.
Do you know the ammount of shift in millimeters and what it means to sharpness fall off by estimation? No, not if you don't use the groundglass where you can see the movements in millimeters. The sliding back and groundglass are not only to focus, these are great tools for compostion. I fight for millimeters... i.e. move the tripod a meter forward... another half meter forward... another 20cm forward... all the time checking lateral and vertical movements.
It's okay that you don't compose with the camera but instead with the computer... but that's not a well balanced reason to discard tools like finders, groundglasses, sliding backs (and if you would work with groundglass for composition - rather than focussing - you would understand the value of a sliding back).
Again, it's okay that you don't need these tools or don't want these tools. But there is a certain justification for each of these tools - no doubt!

 

[thomas]

At the time I was relegated to working off my small laptop so to make the file more manageable I cropped off the sides...

so you cropped the most interessting part
still looks blury so i I would have cut the edges as well probably...

 

[carstenw]

Okay, I take back disingenuous and maybe give you unrealistic instead. In every category you care to mention there are items that a dealer doesn't stock, because they are special. Not only expensive items. I mean, you don't take hard drives out for a test drive either, right? And where can you test-drive a Canon 600mm f/4? And there are cars you can't test drive, at the top end. The arTec is no different. Don't expect to find one at your dealers. On the other hand, Tom was able to ask Sinar directly for a test drive, and IIRC got one shipped to him for a few days. I don't know what Arca does.

Jack,

Reading over this again, what I am writing is beginning to drift from the point I originally made, which was specifically addressing an earlier post of yours where you stated that a dealer should have an item in stock for you to consider not to be vapourware. In the case of specialty items, they may well not be in stock all the time, but I agree with you: a dealer should be able to arrange a full demo. In the case of the Sinar arTec, Sinar will arrange it directly, for people in certain places in Europe at least.

 

[Don Libby]

Don, sorry, honestly... you walk through the landscape place your camera anywhere, imagine a rough picture of what you will get, take a shot and check it on the LCD (on the LCD of the P45+ notabene). Afterwards you crop what you like.
That's nice and that's doable but it's certainly not what I'd call composition.
Do you know the ammount of shift in millimeters and what it means to sharpness fall off by estimation? No, not if you don't use the groundglass where you can see the movements in millimeters. The sliding back and groundglass are not only to focus, these are great tools for compostion. I fight for millimeters... i.e. move the tripod a meter forward... another half meter forward... another 20cm forward... all the time checking lateral and vertical movements.
It's okay that you don't compose with the camera but instead with the computer... but that's not a well balanced reason to discard tools like finders, groundglasses, sliding backs (and if you would work with groundglass for composition - rather than focussing - you would understand the value of a sliding back).
Again, it's okay that you don't need these tools or don't want these tools. But there is a certain justification for each of these tools - no doubt!

It's slightly more complicated that what you said in the first couple sentences.

While I don't always use the full frame of an image I never did even when I was shooting 35mm. I feel that just because the sensor captured a full frame it doesn't necessarily mean I have to use it as I'm a firm believer of an image within an image. If you held my feet to the fire I'd say that I crop less than 35% of a single image capture.

My normal landscape subject is vast stretches where I need movements to capture all I want to take in. Once I have the images stitched together I then evaluate it to see if it is pleasing by itself or in need of cropping (too much sky too much foreground etc.)

Regarding knowing the amount of sharpness fall off per amount of movements - I know by the time I go out what the particular lens is capable of producing at a given f/stop and amount of movement so there's little guesswork involved. I am also beginning to use the groundglass more and more when setting the shot up as I normally use filters and in doing do I also look at what the effects of movements/filters will be before taking the capture. What I don't attempt to do is critical focus as I've found I normally don't need it in my work (shooting 99.99% infinity) and I've had no problems prior to getting the groundglass. This all may change if I decide to move to the P65 however for me right now it works.

I take my time setting up for the shot by looking at the best placement for the tripod often times moving more than once before the image is taken. You may think differently and that's fine by me however I use my camera and knowledge of what it can do for me in composition not a computer. I learned early on that you can't rely on a computer or a piece of software to make a crappy image look better. You had better have a good image first otherwise all you have is crap. Here I believe we are in agreement.

In speaking from my experience I addressed what I've learned regarding finders, groundglass and sliding backs. The point I was hoping to get across and apparently failed is to not jump in with both feet thinking that all these tools will make a person a better photographer. There are very valid points for the usage of all these tools however I've found either through workarounds of experience I didn't need all of them for what I do. Now if I did something else besides landscape say architectural or product work then I'd be all over them.

I'm very comfortable with my workflow to the point I know for my applications I don't need a viewfinder.

I've used a sliding back once and that was on the Ultima and liked it. Would I use it if somehow it became available for a WRS? I can't really answer that. Part of me says yes as it would be easier to use the groundglass and I might use it more often.

Speaking of groundglass - I have one. Still new to me so I haven't gotten a lot of use out of it but what little I've used it I like it. However it's a PIA. Is it the panacea of all things wrong? Hell no. The major reason I got the groundglass was I need it to work with filters and I had a little extra cash so I figured why not. Am I happy I have it? Yes. The biggest problem I have is the additional steps involved in using it. I hope that Cambo will answer my prayers and come up with a cover to fit the adapter so that the back and adapter can be removed as one instead of separately.

So there it is. I certainly hope this clears up any misconception I may have given regarding cropping and tools.

Cheers!

 

[Don Libby]

My fingers hurt from all the typing. Okay one finger of each hand

 

[thomas]

Regarding knowing the amount of sharpness fall off per amount of movements - I know by the time I go out what the particular lens is capable of producing at a given f/stop and amount of movement so there's little guesswork involved.

I didn't refer to the sharpness fall off of a certain lens in general but the movements with regard to the composition. If you want to have a certain motif within a certain sharpness you can only see it on the GG. When I do stitching I capture a wider range as well but I know that I am going to cut the image at the point of, say, +/-15mm shift so that I am sure that the respective part of the motif is really sharp.
I don't think that you can guess the frame in millimeters... without GG you can't even know the accurate center point of the image (note: photography has something to do with central perspective).

 

[jlm]

from what i have seen by Don, whatever method he is using is producing some outstanding images. He certainly doesn't need a lecture on the methods of composition.

 

[thomas]

from what i have seen by Don, whatever method he is using is producing some outstanding images. He certainly doesn't need a lecture on the methods of composition.

Be that is may. If it makes sense to him that's okay - no objection here.
There are different purposes and there are different approaches.
Reading some advices or suggestions here and a valuation of certain features, asseccories or capabilities of certain cameras I think the point of view is a bit restricted if you reduce everything to the needs of a certain style of landscape photography. And if every valuation is based on the experince with one camera.
Naturally we always tend to judge about gear with regard to the things we shoot (me included, of course). But that does not necessarily mean that other purposes are non existant.
Too, my impression is that a huge part of assessments here is very much based on the particular gear that is used and on its brand. I shoot Cambo and Phase stuff as well. A lot. And I like it. A lot!
Nevertheless I see the limitations of my gear and think about the approaches of the products other manufacturers offer. That doesn't mean that I swap my gear next week. But it may mean that I talk e.g. to Cambo to let them know what I miss.
Maybe I see it a bit too critcal as Don actually talks about his needs. On the other hand e.g. a sentence like this: "Let's face it there simply isn't a decent groundglass available for MF." is simply not true. Look at the arTec. Take a Fresnel. Or order a GG with split screen (but you'll need fast lenses then).
Or use the GG for composition only and not for foccussing. Then again I can focus (within some limitations) on my GG (without split).

 

[Paratom]

The Artec and 75LV I could test for free for an weekend. Then they had the promotion where you could sell it and give it back in between 2 weeks if you dont like it.
The Artec - as far as I know Carsten- is not available until September-one reason for me to take the demo-Artec-which has been mint anyways.