Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: zas on March 09, 2011, 12:57:42 pm
-
I apologize for my English, I'm Italian and I live in Spain.
I'll buy a 12 STC Alpa and I have serious doubts with the lens.
There are two options the Rodenstock HR-W 4.0/32 mm Digaron very expensive and heavy, or the Schneider Apo-Digitar 5.6/35 mm XL cheaper and lighter.
The seller tells me that Schneider has a spherical focus, low quality at the edges and openings below f8, also need the center filter, the Rodenstok not have these problems.
I have a Leaf Aptus 10 and I do panorama, interior design and architecture.
Someone can clear my doubts.
Thanks.
Zas.
www.andreasavini.com (http://www.andreasavini.com)
-
I think if you want to shift a lot at f8 you will need a Centerfilter with both lenses. If you want to use it f11-f16 the Rodenstock might work quite well without any centerfilter. I have the 32 and love it. However, there is one important point! You have to handle it with extrem care. So it certainly is not a lens for handholding or walking around.
In the End I would say that if you only want one lens, I would go with the Schneider 35 or even look at the Schneider 43 (Or Rodenstock HR40W)
-
In the End I would say that if you only want one lens, I would go with the Schneider 35 or even look at the Schneider 43 (Or Rodenstock HR40W)
I'm about to purchase either the Rodenstock 40HR-W or Schneider 43XL and this applies to wider lenses but has anyone come across the issue below detailed in the Phase KB article with Schneider lenses?
(http://support.phaseone.com/KBFiles//1221/1/Image3.jpg)
A link to the full article below.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/search/article.aspx?articleid=1221&languageid=1 (http://www.phaseone.com/en/search/article.aspx?articleid=1221&languageid=1)
The Schneider would be a great choice because of the very low distortion and very large image circle but if it suffers from the above problems with movements then the Rodenstock is the only option. Has anyone with the 43XL or wider experienced the above with full frame chips and non retrofocus lenses?
-
I just purchased an Alpa STC and the 43XL. I chose this over the 40HR because of size & weight. Should arrive next week, so I guess I will find out...
Dave
-
The Schneider would be a great choice because of the very low distortion and very large image circle but if it suffers from the above problems with movements then the Rodenstock is the only option. Has anyone with the 43XL or wider experienced the above with full frame chips and non retrofocus lenses?
I use the 43XL in conjunction with a P45 - no problems at all (quite the contrary). P45 is not full frame, though.
-
I use the 43XL in conjunction with a P45 - no problems at all (quite the contrary). P45 is not full frame, though.
Sorry I miss quoted the article as its a microlens issue and not just full frame chips. Apparently the P45 has no microlenses so does not have his issue but the P40, P65 and all the new IQ backs do use microlenses. I'm sure there are a few p40/65 shooters in here who use wide Schneiders without problems but would love to hear from the horses mouth, especially when using movements.
-
the P40, P65 and all the new IQ backs do use microlenses.
no. Said backs are all tech camera friendly ...
-
no. Said backs are all tech camera friendly ...
Yep, I understand they are tech camera friendly but its something to do with how the light hits the microlenses in the chip at a very acute angle with none retrofocus lenses on the Dalsa chipped Phase/Leaf cameras.
-
Thank you very much everyone for your comments. Very interesting article that suggests Gazwas, especially for Phase One. Thanks also to Christopher, I will investigate the 43 Schneider, Rodenstock HR40W, my question is if the angle is valid for interior closed. Is curios, see the website of Alpa, most photographers use Shneider ...
Thank you very much to everyone again.
Zas
-
Thank you very much everyone for your comments. Very interesting article that suggests Gazwas, especially for Phase One. Thanks also to Christopher, I will investigate the 43 Schneider, Rodenstock HR40W, my question is if the angle is valid for interior closed. Is curios, see the website of Alpa, most photographers use Shneider ...
Thank you very much to everyone again.
Zas
Zas, not sure about your Aptus 10 but as most manufacturers share the same chips the issue is not just a Phase problem. It might be worth some more investigation to see if your Aptus 10 has microlenses that might be effected by wide Schneiders. Hopefully someone with a newer Dalsa camera and 43XL will read this and comment.
-
Gazwas.
I think Leaf does not use microlenses. Only a very old model rode Kodak sensors. The use of microlenses is directly related to the CCD sensor that mounts the backup.
Leaf bet from the beginning by Dalsa sensors (like my Aptus II 10) that do not use microlenses. Currently, all manufacturers of backups, except for Hasselblad and some FHASA-One, using Dalsa sensors.
It has been shown to give more image quality and are better. You can use technical camera without problem.
Hopefully someone has experience with these wide lenses
-
Gazwas.
I think Leaf does not use microlenses. Only a very old model rode Kodak sensors. The use of microlenses is directly related to the CCD sensor that mounts the backup.
Leaf bet from the beginning by Dalsa sensors (like my Aptus II 10) that do not use microlenses. Currently, all manufacturers of backups, except for Hasselblad and some FHASA-One, using Dalsa sensors.
It has been shown to give more image quality and are better. You can use technical camera without problem.
Hopefully someone has experience with these wide lenses
That was what I thought untill i read the article linked above which states the latest Dalsa sensors used in the P40,65 and so others that share this chip (Hassleblad and Leaf?) have microlenses hence my query about the above issue.
-
For what it's worth, I use a 32mm Rodenstock HR with a P40+ back on an Arca Swiss M-Line Two view camera and am quite happy with the results. I use the lens often to make a two-stitch larger file and often shift 15mm or more with good results. The 32mm lens has two issues: Complex and relatively high distortion, which is a problem for architecture, but it can be corrected using Alpa's lens correction software. The second issue is that quality falloff towards the edge of the image circle is a little bit higher and more rapid than other HR lenses. The Rodenstock 40HR is a somewhat better lens and holds the highest quality of image over more of the image circle. But if you need 32mm wide angle, as I did, there is little choice. Phase One does not recommend the Schneider 35mm for its Dalsa backs (although I believe the Leaf representative on this forum uses the 35mm with Leaf backs and is happy with the results). Of course, 32mm is also ten percent wider than 35mm. But the 32mm lens is heavy and large and has a large front curved element which is vulnerable, so it has to be used with a lot of care.
-
I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far.
If you compose with that sort of shift, take the back off the camera and look at how close the back of the lens is to the sensor and how "bent" the light has to be... it's miraculous to me that I even get an image. I don't typically apply that much movement in a composition so it hasn't been much of an issue... still disconcerting, tho.
-
For what it's worth, I use a 32mm Rodenstock HR with a P40+ back on an Arca Swiss M-Line Two view camera and am quite happy with the results. I use the lens often to make a two-stitch larger file and often shift 15mm or more with good results. The 32mm lens has two issues: Complex and relatively high distortion, which is a problem for architecture, but it can be corrected using Alpa's lens correction software. The second issue is that quality falloff towards the edge of the image circle is a little bit higher and more rapid than other HR lenses. The Rodenstock 40HR is a somewhat better lens and holds the highest quality of image over more of the image circle. But if you need 32mm wide angle, as I did, there is little choice. Phase One does not recommend the Schneider 35mm for its Dalsa backs (although I believe the Leaf representative on this forum uses the 35mm with Leaf backs and is happy with the results). Of course, 32mm is also ten percent wider than 35mm. But the 32mm lens is heavy and large and has a large front curved element which is vulnerable, so it has to be used with a lot of care.
I'm close to pulling the trigger on the same camera/lens and will be comparing the M2 and the Rmd3i soon. Dave Gallagher recommends the 32mm highly but has not mentioned the distortion problem and I do shoot a fair amount of architecture. How have you found the M2 in terms of using the ground glass for composition and focus? Thanks, Jim
-
I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far.
If you compose with that sort of shift, take the back off the camera and look at how close the back of the lens is to the sensor and how "bent" the light has to be... it's miraculous to me that I even get an image. I don't typically apply that much movement in a composition so it hasn't been much of an issue... still disconcerting, tho.
Seems like a pattern developing here as I'm waiting delivery of my M-Line 2 but Arca are having problems with bellows production as their manufacturer has gone bump. It takes a full day to make one set of leather bellows and ironing out the problems with a new supplier I suppose is adding to the delay.
Well, back on topic. Interesting replies. I think I'll go ahead with the Schneider 43XL as I tested both briefly last week and while the Rodenstocks have a bigger flange to focal plane distance the fact the rear lens element protrudes further into the camera makes the rear lens to sensor distance pretty similar. Like you said Chris, looking how close the lens element gets to the sensor its amazing any light gets to the edge of the chip.
Chris, do you use your Schneider on a recessed lens panel with your M-Line?
-
I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far.
If you compose with that sort of shift, take the back off the camera and look at how close the back of the lens is to the sensor and how "bent" the light has to be... it's miraculous to me that I even get an image. I don't typically apply that much movement in a composition so it hasn't been much of an issue... still disconcerting, tho.
CB, how much is shifting too far?? and on what focal length??
I'm on the fence of ordering an iQ180 to replace my trusted Aptus 75, but this do vories me a lot, I like the Schneiders for their low distortion, and I shift a lot....! So your input here will be much appreciated - there are a some devigeating opinions/information on this topic, and so far to my knowledge, no one have tested the iQ180 on a tech camera - and I'm living in the hometown of Phase One ;-)
Thanks in advance,
Adam
-
Adam,
The 35's I wouldn't shift more than 10mm on my P65+. The 43 can do about 15mm. My Rodenstock 55mm can cover the full range of movements on the M2 with only a little softness at the edges... awesome lens. Longer than that and it's not an issue at all.
I don't own a 28mm and given how good the Canon 17mm is, I may never.
-
Thank you all for your help, I now think that 43 of Schneider may be a good option compared to the most extreme objects such as R 32, or 35 S. If I need stronger angles I can do stitching.
-
Adam,
The 35's I wouldn't shift more than 10mm on my P65+. The 43 can do about 15mm. My Rodenstock 55mm can cover the full range of movements on the M2 with only a little softness at the edges... awesome lens. Longer than that and it's not an issue at all.
I don't own a 28mm and given how good the Canon 17mm is, I may never.
Thanks! this is really not good news - I have read about an other AP that never go beyond 8mm of shift with the 35mm due to the risk of banding in the files from the P65+
I really do hope that his is not the case for the iQ180 but I'm afraid there is a risk, due to the microlenses, I hope that I'm wrong.... if not, then Phase have designed a wonderful back for us architectural photographers, with most of the features that we have wanted/hoped for years, But with one major drawback, or deal-breaker imo, you can only shift a small amount with the really wide lenses :(
so is the old P45+ and Aptus 75 still the best censors for AP in regards of long exposure and ability to use the full image circle on wides - please Phase/Leaf put those old sensors in the new form factor - I know this would never happen, and I would like to have a large sensor with enough mpx to minimize moire - but I would also like to use the full image circle on my Schneiders.
...and given how good the canon 17mm AND 24mm is - the iQ180 needs to give me full shift on wides one way or an other, imo
/adam
-
To Jim,
I am very happy with the M-Line Two. I use the groundglass for focusing all the time in conjunction with printed depth of field tables I carry (but most of the time with wide angle lenses you are shooting beyond hyperfocal distances, even with a very small circle of confusion, one suitable for giant enlargements). I use a Hoodman 3x LCD viewer which gets me very close to focus and then an 8x Nikon loupe which gets me exactly where I want to be. The ground glass is very accurate but the gearing for movement even at 20 to 1 should be finer. It takes very tiny adjustments with a 32mm lens to move from infinity to one metre. Nevertheless I never have out of focus images. Sometimes infinity is not really in focus when I want it to be but that is probably an error on my part on where I choose to focus when shooting buildings within a few hundred feet or close. Of course, I remove the groundglass to mount the back, and one must be careful.
To Chris and others, even though the back element of the 32mm lens is close to the ground glass, it's the internal design that counts. The actual flange to focal distance is 69mm just about the same as for the 40HR lens. The 32mm lens give nearly the quality of the 40HR lens (which is a fantastic lens) and improves a lot with a bit of sharpening. The only problem is that it falls off slightly faster near the image circle. But still you are working with a 90mm image circle which is very good for a 32mm lens. I also use the Schneider 47mm lens which has a much bigger image circle but has many more issues about two-thirds of the way out. In contrast, the HR lenses, both 40 and 32 retain most of their quality until you come within 10mm of the image circle, the 32mm being a little poorer than the 40HR, which is really a great lens. Both lenses have "moustache shaped" distortion, about double the amount in the 32mm compared to the 40mmHR, but the Alpa lens correction software is really good. I am regularly creating 80megapixel images from two stitched Phase 40+ images, always shifted up (for building rise) and always shifted left and right between 14 and 22mm, and both HR lenses perform admirably. If image circle intrudes on extreme shifts, one can always point the camera up and do a perspective correction in software.
-
I also use the Schneider 47mm lens which has a much bigger image circle but has many more issues about two-thirds of the way out.
What sort of issues do you encounter with the schneider?
-
Heavy colour cast and some loss of resolution about two thirds of the way out in the image cirle. It's only very significant if you are regularly using large shifts as I do (20mm for a two or three image stitched photo using a Phase 40+back) and could be signifcant with a full format back (Phase or Hasselblad or Leaf 60 or 80 Megapixel) with more moderate shifting. The colour cast is fairly easy to correct with software; the impact of loss of resolution depends on the image.
-
Now I'm getting worried. Does this banding occur when using these wide lenses on a shift that most AP's would use to photograph a building? I own a P45 and Phase 1 is going to give me double what it's worth as a trade in for the IQ180 but if I'm going to run into problems like this it might not be worth it. Perhaps Doug Peterson can shed some light on this situation? On another thread I'm told that the 32mm Rodenstock exhibits mustache distortion, that doesn't thrill me either, anyone else have that problem? At least I'm told I will be able to focus and compose thru the Arca M2 ground glass, that's a relief!! Jim
-
Jim,
I wasn't trying to alarm you! On technical and view cameras, with wide angle lenses, colour casts occur because of the varying angle at which light strikes the pixel wells, and all manufacturers have software solutions involving shooting a second image through a piece of translucent plastic to create a custom profile which is combined with the image in Raw processing to eliminate the colour casts. The solution works fairly well, although is not perfect and may still require a bit of fine tuning on the final image. I mentioned the 47mm Schneider as a lens that has particularly strong colour casts because of its design, but they are mostly correctable as well. All lenses have distortions. The 32mm Rodenstock, whcih is a very good lens, has a high degree of distortion because of its design but this is also correctable through software. None of these problems are so serious as to dissuade one from using this equipment; simply more work is required to create the finsihed image. Using a MFB on a view camera or technical camera is not the same as shooting with a medium format camera or DSLR. It's slower and has its own set of issues, but the results are incomparable for architecture and other work requiring high quality and image manipulation.
-
Jim,
I wasn't trying to alarm you! On technical and view cameras, with wide angle lenses, colour casts occur because of the varying angle at which light strikes the pixel wells, and all manufacturers have software solutions involving shooting a second image through a piece of translucent plastic to create a custom profile which is combined with the image in Raw processing to eliminate the colour casts. The solution works fairly well, although is not perfect and may still require a bit of fine tuning on the final image. I mentioned the 47mm Schneider as a lens that has particularly strong colour casts because of its design, but they are mostly correctable as well. All lenses have distortions. The 32mm Rodenstock, whcih is a very good lens, has a high degree of distortion because of its design but this is also correctable through software. None of these problems are so serious as to dissuade one from using this equipment; simply more work is required to create the finsihed image. Using a MFB on a view camera or technical camera is not the same as shooting with a medium format camera or DSLR. It's slower and has its own set of issues, but the results are incomparable for architecture and other work requiring high quality and image manipulation.
The color casts don't really bother me, I've done the correction many times when I used to shoot a H25 on my 4x5. The mustache distortion is more troubling and I'm not familiar with the Alpa software, doesn't C1 have a correction for this? Also, you mentioned that you focus then put the back on the camera, why don't you use a sliding back? Perhaps next week I'll journey to Atlanta to test both Arca's and figure this out. Thanks, Jim
-
The color casts don't really bother me, I've done the correction many times when I used to shoot a H25 on my 4x5. The mustache distortion is more troubling and I'm not familiar with the Alpa software, doesn't C1 have a correction for this? Also, you mentioned that you focus then put the back on the camera, why don't you use a sliding back? Perhaps next week I'll journey to Atlanta to test both Arca's and figure this out. Thanks, Jim
I would say the light fall off and the distortion are a trade off with using view/tech cameras with movements but there are solutions to correct most if not all of those issues. The more worrying issue for me is the one I linked to in the above Phase KB articles. If the lenses, be them Rodenstock or Schneider create the vertical lines because of the microlenses in the the latest sensors with movements normally associated with AP then these obviously can't be removed by software.
-
Well I can't speak for the Schneider glass, I have never seen anything like it from Rodenstock. No matter if I shift a little or all the way to the end of the image circle. Which might come from the different lens design, which gives more space between lens back and sensor.
-
Now I'm getting worried. Does this banding occur when using these wide lenses on a shift that most AP's would use to photograph a building? I own a P45 and Phase 1 is going to give me double what it's worth as a trade in for the IQ180 but if I'm going to run into problems like this it might not be worth it.
that's my worries to - Phase have a really decent trade in for my A75, but as it seems now, nobody will have the chance to test the iQ180 on a technical camera before you have to sign up for the deal before 31.03.2010
I can only too easily remember the pain when I got my first Aptus 75 and it shows heavy centerfold.
It took 24 month before I had a back with no obvious centerfold. Leaf was helpful and in good faith on this problem, but it took a lot of testing and wasted time before we found a good sensor. Leaf Capture could correct the centerfold in most cases but not all, and you had to turn the light fall of adjustment up to 100% leaving the the file quite flat.
Well I can't speak for the Schneider glass, I have never seen anything like it from Rodenstock.
I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far.
It was the same thing thing with the centerfold issue, some saw it, some did not.... it varied a lot from back to back.
So that's why I'm a bit scared about sensor problems with wide angels and shift - and 10mm of shift on a 35mm is not a lot in my world....
I do hope that phase enable some of the demo iQ180 for technical cameras, before I have to make a decision about the trade in, that are indeed very tempting, but on top also means two new mac pro's for the studio as well....
I know that there will be workarounds like, don't shift more than 8-10 millimeters and then correct in post - but, when I use my Alpa's I simply love to compose the image, apply the necessary amount of shift so I get that precise view of what I want to show of the building - no cropping, no perspective correction, no correction for CA, no distortion correction, (except for the 23mm Rodenstock, and I would like not to make that list any longer) in the post production
I like to choose the right light, make the final composition in the camera, make the exposer, move on to the next the image - the feeling of creating a beautiful images with a beautiful tool, I like that, a lot!
From a business point of view, then I should leave my Alpa's at home and only bring the Canon with the new 17+24mm shift's - they are good! and I can make 20-50% more images per day, which is not an unimportant feature in todays economically climate, but I miss the feeling of creating an images with the Canon, with them I'm just operating a camera taking a photograph - with the Alpa's I'm creating one. I know it's all in my head ;)
So Phase; because the iQ180 is really so close in many fields - please tell me that I can shift the full image circle without any banding or centerfold or other abnormalities, and you get my money - a lot of them....
/adam
-
I think if you want to shift a lot at f8 you will need a Centerfilter with both lenses. If you want to use it f11-f16 the Rodenstock might work quite well without any centerfilter. I have the 32 and love it. However, there is one important point! You have to handle it with extrem care. So it certainly is not a lens for handholding or walking around.
In the End I would say that if you only want one lens, I would go with the Schneider 35 or even look at the Schneider 43 (Or Rodenstock HR40W)
Why? Is it fragile???
-
Also notable is that the aforementioned lines haven't always shown up. I think the effect is somewhat dependent upon the contrast of the scene. Despite all this, I have good faith in the Schneider 35 and use it frequently. Here is a stitched image from the P65+ I did a couple weeks ago. I shifted the back of the Rm3d fully in both directions (15mm each way). I cropped the final image to suit my composition. One of the issues I ran into was that towards the edge of the image circle this lens exhibits more vignetting than the LCC can correct... so yeah a CenterFilter is advisable.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/RnG_Retouched/content/bin/images/large/_3132171237.jpg)
-
Also notable is that the aforementioned lines haven't always shown up. I think the effect is somewhat dependent upon the contrast of the scene. Despite all this, I have good faith in the Schneider 35 and use it frequently. Here is a stitched image from the P65+ I did a couple weeks ago. I shifted the back of the Rm3d fully in both directions (15mm each way). I cropped the final image to suit my composition. One of the issues I ran into was that towards the edge of the image circle this lens exhibits more vignetting than the LCC can correct... so yeah a CenterFilter is advisable.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/RnG_Retouched/content/bin/images/large/_3132171237.jpg)
.... but you can be sure that lines shows when you have "the perfect" light ;)
The center filter on the 35mm starts vignetting when shifted 17mm on the "small" sensor A75, and this is the a hard type of "mechanical"? vignetting - I simply don't use it any more, but Leaf Capture have always been good to deal with vignetting.
/adam
-
Also notable is that the aforementioned lines haven't always shown up. I think the effect is somewhat dependent upon the contrast of the scene. Despite all this, I have good faith in the Schneider 35 and use it frequently. Here is a stitched image from the P65+ I did a couple weeks ago. I shifted the back of the Rm3d fully in both directions (15mm each way). I cropped the final image to suit my composition. One of the issues I ran into was that towards the edge of the image circle this lens exhibits more vignetting than the LCC can correct... so yeah a CenterFilter is advisable.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/RnG_Retouched/content/bin/images/large/_3132171237.jpg)
Chris, Have you ever experienced the banding (lines)? Jim
-
Yes, on the Schneider and Rodenstock 35mm's. But not consistently.... weird. I've seen it maybe two or three times and switched to the Canon to get the shot. Not very reassuring, but it's been rare enough for me that I remain comfortable with my systems. I shoot 80% of my work with the 43mm and I never have this issue with that focal length. If the Rodenstock 32 is retrofocus (and the lens has a greater distance from the sensor) I would definitely think about going that route.
-
The 1st One is a Schneider 43mm shot on a Linhof Techno (on a tripod) with 10mm rise, Aptus-II 12 @ f8
The 2nd One is a Rodenstock 40mm shot on an ALPA STC (handheld sideways) with 8mm rise, AFi-II 12 @ f8
The 3rd One is a Schneider 35mm shot on a Cambo WRS (handheld) with 11mm rise, Aptus-II 12R @ f8 1/3
-
Yair,
thank's for the images, could you please also share some files that shows shift's outside the 8-11mm range where you use the full image circle of the 35mm Schneider, black corners are ok!
And if it's not to much to ask for, and it could be this time of the year ;) please be a shoot that includes a clear blue sky, in strong light, a bit like the images shown in the start of this thread from phase one's KB.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Adam
-
Yair,
thank's for the images, could you please also share some files that shows shift's outside the 8-11mm range where you use the full image circle of the 35mm Schneider, black corners are ok!
And if it's not to much to ask for, and it could be this time of the year ;) please be a shoot that includes a clear blue sky, in strong light, a bit like the images shown in the start of this thread from phase one's KB.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Adam
Hi Adam, I'll be in Utrecht (Holland) Sun-Tue and the weather there usually is as dim as here in London but I'll have the WRS with me so hopefully I'll be able to get something from it:-)
yair
-
Thanks Yair! Acording to WeatherPro you could be lucky on tuesday - no pressure ;)
-
And the Schneider 43XL with a good dose of movement if you get chance Yair as the 43 is a newer design than the 35 and it would be good to know how it performs with 80mp. ;D
-
And the Schneider 43XL with a good dose of movement if you get chance Yair as the 43 is a newer design than the 35 and it would be good to know how it performs with 80mp. ;D
From Michael's roof terrace; Arca-Swiss Rm2D, Schneider 43mm at f8 1/3, full 15mm Right+Left shift and stitched. Slightly cropped and vignette added in post
-
Yair has become our jet-setting lens tester-by-request. Thank you! Perhaps there's a business model in there somewhere?? Or perhaps this goes under the "other duties as assigned" phrase in your Leaf job description...
Can you bring me back a beer from Holland too?
Dave
-
Yair has become our jet-setting lens tester-by-request. Thank you! Perhaps there's a business model in there somewhere?? Or perhaps this goes under the "other duties as assigned" phrase in your Leaf job description...
Can you bring me back a beer from Holland too?
Dave
I guess I'm just lucky to have access to all these cameras and lenses, but I'll give you the details of Leaf's CFO if you promise to throw a good word in ;)
Since you've asked for some beer...
1st shot: Heineken brewery on the far left, you can see the trucks waiting to be loaded (35mm at f8 2/3, bit of down shift)
2nd shot: the front of the building: 35mm at f8 1/3 with 10mm rise, vignette added in C1
3rd shot: the Houten hotel in Houten, Holland: 35mm at f8 1/3, 20mm rise (cropped the black corners out). I think that 16-17mm is the maximum shift I'd feel comfortable with as sharpness drops beyond that..
Sorry for the lack of Blue sky...this was Holland afterall ;)
-
Thanks a lot Yair!
is it possible to get the hands on the mos file of that last image with 20mm rise?
in a strange way I get more and more tempted towards the A12, better the devil you know....
It' s a workflow thing, I like the gain/lcc process in Leaf Capture, it's really fast and it leaves you with a raw file that you can use where you like it - that's what I call an open system ;) from my point of view, only using the back on a technical camera applying gain/lcc to all the files that I shoot, then a Phase One back is a really closed platform in terms of post production - you only have one raw developer available, C1....
And here is my problem, C1 is unfortunately not a personal favorite. It can extract more details out of the file than Lightroom, no question - but I dislike the way it's doing it - green foliage still have this "drawing by numbers" look and fine details in trees can be straight out ugly if you are not careful, the same goes for the fine details in the materials in the buildings I portraits, it's a bit to easy to get a very detailed but too "digital" look IMO.
I find that Lightroom do not give you all the details that are in the file, but what it gives you is more pleasing to my eyes - it sounds as a cliche, but it's more "film-like" and LR is a speed demon compared to C1.....
As Cooter also mentioned, Raw Developer is also a good choice in terms of the rendering it can deliver, but that said, LR's workflow is hard to beat...
So my question Yair, is the A12 as good integrated in Lightroom as my A75?
Thanks,
Adam
-
I guess I'm just lucky to have access to all these cameras and lenses, but I'll give you the details of Leaf's CFO if you promise to throw a good word in ;)
Great test shots Yair.
Your a credit to this forum taking your personal time out to do these tests! ;D
Looking at image 3 with 20mm rise on the 35mm lens there is no hint of the wierd lines reported in the Phase KB article.
-
Looking at image 3 with 20mm rise on the 35mm lens there is no hint of the wierd lines reported in the Phase KB article.
Yes, your right, but it's hard to judge from the resolution posted here, so it could be nice to see the mos file - but again, I'm confident that this file is free of banding since it's posted here.....
....and yes it's really to Yair's credit that he takes his time and our money - sorry could not ressist ;)
again, thanks for the effort! I hope Leaf treats you well.
/adam
-
Thanks guys,
I agree with Adam about the workflow; at the moment, specifically for the architecture market, Leaf Capture's and the Aptus's ability to handle colour cast and falloff corrections and the fact you (or your client) can archive and/ or use the files in LR/ ACR after the correction are huge selling points
Yair
-
Hi Yair. I just looked at your shots again in better viewing conditions and it looks like on second glance that the image 3 with 20mm rise does show some unusual banding in the top portion of the sky. Its hard to see on the size of files you posted but there is some funny texture on my monitor. Could you check and see if there is anything in the original files.
-
Hi Yair. I just looked at your shots again in better viewing conditions and it looks like on second glance that the image 3 with 20mm rise does show some unusual banding in the top portion of the sky. Its hard to see on the size of files you posted but there is some funny texture on my monitor. Could you check and see if there is anything in the original files.
When you apply lens calibration to remove colour casts and falloff it often introduces some noise towards the edges of the lens which may appear as "funny texture" sometimes, depending on the subject matter. Note that I did not apply any noise reduction and left the sharpening at my usual settings.
The banding mentioned in the KB article will normally be handled and removed by the lens calibration (right now in Leaf Capture and will be improved in C1). At the moment this is one of the trade-offs of using symmetrical, non-retrofocal lenses as wide as the 35mm Digitar. A center filter may or may not help there. I can try without a filter next time but as I suggested 20mm seems to me a little over the top for this lens
Yair
-
Yair;
One question, I'm assuming from the context of these posts that you are shooting with the Aptus II-12,
is that correct? If that is the case, the Schneider is covering awfully well, IMHO--beyond what it was probably
designed for if the truth were known.
Bill
-
Yair;
One question, I'm assuming from the context of these posts that you are shooting with the Aptus II-12,
is that correct? If that is the case, the Schneider is covering awfully well, IMHO--beyond what it was probably
designed for if the truth were known.
Bill
You are right Bill,
1. This is all Aptus-II 12
2. The stated IC of the 35mm is 90mm so a 20mm shift is about 9mm too far with the size of the 80mm sensor
cheers
yair
-
Hi Yair,
How often do you notice this banding effect on the Schneider 35mmXL with the 80MPx back?
Is it only when you shift more than 15mm?
Would you recommend the 35mmXL lens or not with the Aptus2-12 back or buy only Rodenstock lenses?
Thanks
Michael