Technical Cameras

[Mike Sellers]

"But, diffraction sets a limit on the optical system at least when we need to stop down. A way to get around that is increasing the size of the sensor and using techniques to extend stop at non diffracted apertures, like using "Scheimpflug" and stacking. Technical cameras with tilts and proper workflow come to mind…"
ErikKaffehr

If tech cameras are producing the highest results of all cameras what would be some recommendations? Alpa? Wouldn`t the Hasselblad with the t/s adapter put it in this category of the tech camera?
Mike

[Ken R]

"But, diffraction sets a limit on the optical system at least when we need to stop down. A way to get around that is increasing the size of the sensor and using techniques to extend stop at non diffracted apertures, like using "Scheimpflug" and stacking. Technical cameras with tilts and proper workflow come to mind…"
ErikKaffehr

If tech cameras are producing the highest results of all cameras what would be some recommendations? Alpa? Wouldn`t the Hasselblad with the t/s adapter put it in this category of the tech camera?
Mike

Once you work with a Tech Camera you will find the Hasselblad T/S adapter system too clunky/large. Tech cameras are quite simple. The only real downside is having to take an LCC exposure after making changes in movements and having to deal with wake/up cable and a manual shutter. That is about it. The medium format SLRs and lenses (with the exception of maybe the Leica S) are huge and heavy beasts. There are many small/compact and light tech camera options that offer stunning image quality potential. For working using back and lens movements they just can't be beat.

[kers]

...producing the highest results of all cameras...

Depends totally on the subject of your photographs and what you mean with highest quality.
Stitching can produce images beyond the  theoretical optical quality of one image.

For portraits a lens with a beautiful bokeh may be the best choice; for fast moving subjects as sport you would like to have some autofocus system camera.
etc, etc

[Wayne Fox]

"But, diffraction sets a limit on the optical system at least when we need to stop down. A way to get around that is increasing the size of the sensor and using techniques to extend stop at non diffracted apertures, like using "Scheimpflug" and stacking. Technical cameras with tilts and proper workflow come to mind…"
ErikKaffehr

If tech cameras are producing the highest results of all cameras what would be some recommendations? Alpa? Wouldn`t the Hasselblad with the t/s adapter put it in this category of the tech camera?
Mike

Lenses for tech cameras are a major contributor to their quality.  Tilting doesn’t always work for depth of field. works fine for basically flat subjects, but once something in the foreground is “tall”, (tree,  bush, tall flower), tilt doesn’t work.

but when you can use tilt, it’s great.  Shoot at f/8 and get everything sharp.  As far as tilt, I believe Alpa offers it with an adaptor, and that doesn’t work with all lenses.   I think Cambo tilts are built into the lens board so not sure how well that works.  Some Cambo shooters frequent the forum, maybe they can help. I use an arca swiss rm3di, and tilt +/- 5 degree tilt is built into the body.

But don’t overlook shift.  I use shift far more than I use tilt, in fact I use shift most of the time.  Shifting in landscape photography keeps trees from tipping together, keeps mountains in perspective with the foreground.  For short panos, using shift yields seamless final results, and for rotational panos the camera can remain level while adjusting the captured area up or down with shift, achieving better final results.

[BernardLanguillier]

Don't forget to factor in the price of the lenses, the good ones from Rodenstock are expensive, being very small series items.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/745068-USA/Rodenstock_150137_32_mm_f_4_HR.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/930525-REG/rodenstock_150139_90mm_f_5_6_hr_digaron_w_sw.html

Cheers,
Bernard

[Wayne Fox]

Don't forget to factor in the price of the lenses, the good ones from Rodenstock are expensive, being very small series items.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/745068-USA/Rodenstock_150137_32_mm_f_4_HR.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/930525-REG/rodenstock_150139_90mm_f_5_6_hr_digaron_w_sw.html

Cheers,
Bernard

yep, they're a little pricey.  And those prices don't reflect the actual price, because the lens has to be mounted and calibrated by the camera maker (unless you buy the lens from them) which adds about 1-2k or so to the cost of the lenses.

But end results are pretty sweet.  A lot of tech shooters are using a sony a7rII which allows more budget for glass.  personally I'm loving my new IQ380.

[BernardLanguillier]

yep, they're a little pricey.  And those prices don't reflect the actual price, because the lens has to be mounted and calibrated by the camera maker (unless you buy the lens from them) which adds about 1-2k or so to the cost of the lenses.

But end results are pretty sweet.  A lot of tech shooters are using a sony a7rII which allows more budget for glass.  personally I'm loving my new IQ380.

Wayne,

There are many lovely images on your site, congratulations!

What technical camera are you currently working with if I may ask?

Cheers,
Bernard

[torger]

Tech cameras are hard to recommend as there's so much differences in taste.

There's also this thing with CMOS backs. Live view is truly a revolution making view cameras much easier to use, but the current CMOS backs also have great limitations in compatibilty with wide angle lenses - it may be okay for your use case, or maybe not. Hopefully the new IQ3 100 is changing that but we don't know that yet.

Anyway, I think the typical user wants Alpa, the one that wants lots of flexibility both in and out of studio wants Arca-Swiss, and view camera fans that wants to work in the filed should really take a look at the Linhof Techno, an underappriciated camera which I think is much due to poor represenation in the US.

The "pancake cameras" like Alpa is that they can be focused via a precise distance scale, while view cameras generally need ground glass or live view. I'd say perhaps only Linhof has a decent ground glass but even then it requires skill and good eyes, so the typical user wouldn't want to use a view camera with a CCD back. With pancake cameras you don't need live view as much as you can preset a distance (some use a laser distance meter).

If you only get a tech cam for optimal sharpness you need to only use the best most recent lenses. Some of them are very expensive, while some actually are quite decently priced.

I recommend against a tech cam if pixel peeping is your only purpose, it's really underusing the system's potential, and since the other formats keep improving you'll feel hunted all the time and forced into costly upgrade cycles. Best use of a tech cam is if you're actually interested in camera movements and the slow pace "zen" workflow (which can become really frustrating if you're not into it...)

[andyptak]

Torger - your last sentence hits the nail right on the head.

I have a Tech Cam and thousands of dollars worth of lenses for it and I find every excuse I can not to use it and use a simpler system whenever possible.

Of course, sometimes there's just nothing else that can compare with it.

[James Clark]

Torger - your last sentence hits the nail right on the head.

I have a Tech Cam and thousands of dollars worth of lenses for it and I find every excuse I can not to use it and use a simpler system whenever possible.

Of course, sometimes there's just nothing else that can compare with it.

This is how I feel as well, but I keep it because in the right place at the right time, it's *perfect*.  I'd say my ratio of use is something like  95% DLSR/CSC and 5% tech if I had to guess.

[Martin Kristiansen]

To each his own. I enjoy using my Cambo Ultima.  When shooting landscape it's all I use. I have 4 Schneider Apo Digitar lenses. The whole rig with tripod weighs 24kg. I walk many km with it on my back. No live view. I compose and focus and calculate movements on a ground glass. Very rarely get it wrong.

Bought my first view camera a Linhoff Super Technica when I was 18. I like working on a ground glass. I don't give a dam about convenience. I like the slow pace of working with a view camera. And it's not as slow as you would think. I rarely miss the light but when I do so what. I enjoy the experience and put it down to experience.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from shooting on a view camera. But it's not for everyone.

[Endeavour]

Hi Martin
Are you using a 'regular' ground glass or a brighter replacement/Fresnel one? And do you totally 'free eyeball' your focusing or do you perhaps use a Loupe?

Sorry for the hijack, I am just getting to grips with my new viewcamera which will be 99% landscape, but I found testing indoors quite tricky to focus

[torger]

I also use ground glass only for my 50 megapixel CCD back.

I've found that if you have the finest grained ground glass and a strong loupe you can shoot at f/11 with accurate focusing. If you have a bit worse ground glass you may need to shoot at f/16 to make the DoF cover up focusing errors. At f/8 focusing errors starts becoming evident, but I'm sure there's a few superhumans out there that can nail that too.

f/11 is a good aperture for tech cam lenses, and actually I shoot f/16 most of the time as I prefer the softer pixel-peep look for enlargement (which can still be sharpened well) and the extra DoF.

I use Linhof's bright ground glass with builtin fresnel, that makes a relevant brightness difference on wides. With really dim wides like the SK35 my technique is to aim at the focus point and focus in the center, and then compose the image. With longer focal lengths I usually coarsely focus without loupe, then compose with movement, and then finally refine focus using a loupe.

I recently tried Maxwell Optics ground glass on a Kapture Group back, and it was indeed bright, but the grain too coarse for reliable f/11 focusing, it's an f/16 glass I'd say.

Part of what makes tech lenses challenging to focus is that they're often f/5.6 wide open, that is the shortest DoF is still pretty long so it's harder to focus peak than an f/2 lens, and this difference is the same if you're using live view of course. It's not a big problem, but one should now that there are challenges. If you can't deal with them use a pancake camera with high precision focusing ring. The drawback with that is mainly the (much) more costly lens mounts, and if you like me have many lenses there's a lot more to carry.

My rig with Linhof Techno and seven digitar lenses weighs about 13kg complete with tripod. When I hike over a few days with full camping gear in addition I carry more than 25kg. So far I like that sporting challenge, but with age I will probably change my priorities... :-)

My Linhof Techno review looks into the challenge/performance of ground glass focusing and more:
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/linhof-techno-review.html

[Martin Kristiansen]

I am using the ground glass that shipped with the Kapturegroup sliding back. Not sure about its specs. I used it with the 33MP leaf for three years then upgraded to the 80. Not sure how long I have had that back. About 4 years I think. Usually shoot around F11. Agree with the comments Torger makes n that regard.

I do use a loupe. Always have done. I use one attached to a bag bellows thing that is fastened to the sliding back. I use a dark cloth to evaluate the image after exposure. Well actually it's a light cloth. Gets hot in Places like Namibia and I find a piece of Beige velvet a bit cooler. I prefer to guess exposure. I grew up shooting FP4 and FP3 without a lightmeter and I got pretty good at guessing exposures. Now it's not so important as I just reshoot if it's wrong but it's fun to try get it right by eye. I also evaluate sharpness after the shot.

[Endeavour]

Thank you very much for those thoughts. Half of them are very useful (the other 1/2 not so much as I am shooting 4x5 film )

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I wouldn't be so single minded about technical cameras. If we think depth of field vs. diffraction there are two solutions, one is using Scheimpflug the other is stacking. Neither works all the time.

For me, a technical camera is about movements, precision and flexibility.

Some time ago, when I was buying my used P45+ my idea was to buy a Hartblei HCam B1.On that I would be able to use Hasselblad V lenses with some tilt and shift but also Canon's 17/4 and 24/3.5 TS lenses. But I could not afford and that time, so I bought the not so great 40/4 CFE and a Hasselblad Flexbody. The Flexbody is a great piece of engineering, and works sort of very well under studio conditions but it turned into a PITA shooting in the field.

Now, I have a Sony and use it with a HCam Master TSII, that is a small adapater with 11 degrees of tilt and +/-15 mm shift that can be used with any lens you can adapt to a Canon mount. I use it with my Hasselblad V-series lenses and my Canon 16-35/4L zoom. This is a small device, just weighting about 0.5kg (1 lb)
with a Novoflex Canon to Hasselblad V adapter. Live view and peaking on the A7rII makes finding best plane of focus easy.

The kit I carry is something like 800€ and 200€ for the Novoflex adapter. It is not like a view camera with geared adjustments but it gives T&S capability to a lot of lenses at a very reasonable cost. But, it is live view that makes it usable in the field.

Now, the Hasselblad Flexbody would be quite reasonable for field view using a back having live view, but present CMOS backs used to be crop frame. The new 100 MP sensor from Phase One would be very attractive, could I afford it, but I would say it is an enabling technology for technical cameras.

Here is a series of posting I started on the HCam Master TS: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=105584.0

Best regards
Erik

"But, diffraction sets a limit on the optical system at least when we need to stop down. A way to get around that is increasing the size of the sensor and using techniques to extend stop at non diffracted apertures, like using "Scheimpflug" and stacking. Technical cameras with tilts and proper workflow come to mind…"
ErikKaffehr

If tech cameras are producing the highest results of all cameras what would be some recommendations? Alpa? Wouldn`t the Hasselblad with the t/s adapter put it in this category of the tech camera?
Mike

[Wayne Fox]

Wayne,
What technical camera are you currently working with if I may ask?

I have an arca Swiss rm3di.  I have 28mm, 40mm, 70mm, 90mm and 180mm rodenstock lenses, and a 120mm Schneider lens.  I rarely carry more than 3 of them on any shoot that requires any hiking.

I tried an alpa system a few years ago, and it was a disaster - but that's not a criticism for the system, extremely well made. It was about me getting comfortable with it.  With no background in view cameras, moving to the tech camera wasn't what I thought it would be.  I decided to try tech cameras again after taking a Rodney Lough workshop.  Much of what I do is adapted from  his techniques for shooting his Arca system (he still shoots a fair amount of 8x10 film as well).

Many of my images are rotational panos, the 40 70 and 90 are the most commonly used.  I use shift to keep the camera level, and use a pano rotator to set the degrees of rotation to allow me to work pretty quickly. I overlap about 75%, mainly because it allows more precise alignment with less curved edges at top and bottom, with the added benefit I can drop any shot that has some technical problem from the group and still have the scene covered.

I have 3 great systems, a Sony a7rII with good glass (still getting it setup), the phase one XF, and the Tech.  My ratio is about 85% tech, 10% Phase One, and then a little bit with dSLR (formally Nikon d800, now the sony).  the choice is based on the shoot ... occasionally I like to just explore and want to work quickly, but most of the time I have a preconceived composition/idea and I will use the tech camera.

Composition is by eye for panos (I visualize the area I want to get in the image, capture beyond that and finalize composition after stitching)  For single shot captures I compose with live view.  I also do all focusing with LiveView, in fact I sold my Kapture Group sliding back, and went with a direct mount rotating adaptor on the camera.  No ground glass for me any more.

I just got the 380, so I'm hopeful the new IQ3 100 will work decent with tech system. Hopefully it manages shifts better than the 50mp one does. I've managed pretty well with Live View with a couple of tricks I've stumbled on, but cmos/live view would be a big deal.

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks a lot Wayne, much appreciated.

I have read quite a bit about the Rm3Di recently and it appears to be a neat system.

I am a bit concerned by the limited 5 degrees tilt since I often dialed more than this on my 4x5 when I was trying to keep the rear standard vertical. Do you apply tilt also? If you do, have you foind 5 degrees to help reduce the stopping down in a meaningful way?

This tilt limitation is the main reason why the Actus is appealing. It seems that the Alpa XY can go up to 10 degrees for lenses 50mm and longer, but the camera is pretty heavy/bulky for field use.

I guess that focussing at f5.6 with live view, then stopping down is the best way to focus, right? I happen to own a Leica 510 laser meter, but I would think that live view renders it pretty much non needed for focusing. Is the 1720 degrees focusing system not too slow to adjust in the field?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ken R]

Thanks a lot Wayne, much appreciated.

I have read quite a bit about the Rm3Di recently and it appears to be a neat system.

I am a bit concerned by the limited 5 degrees tilt since I often dialed more than this on my 4x5 when I was trying to keep the rear standard vertical. Do you apply tilt also? If you do, have you foind 5 degrees to help reduce the stopping down in a meaningful way?

This tilt limitation is the main reason why the Actus is appealing. It seems that the Alpa XY can go up to 10 degrees for lenses 50mm and longer, but the camera is pretty heavy/bulky for field use.

I guess that focussing at f5.6 with live view, then stopping down is the best way to focus, right? I happen to own a Leica 510 laser meter, but I would think that live view renders it pretty much non needed for focusing. Is the 1720 degrees focusing system not too slow to adjust in the field?

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi, I also own the RM3Di and love it. I mostly use it with the 40mm HR-W and sometimes with the 70mm HR-W. I have actually travelled with just the 40mm. Amazing lens. Even in extreme near-far compositions with the foreground a foot from the lens about the most tilt I have used is about 1.5º. I do own a disto and use it on occasion but most times it is not needed with the 40 and I just estimate focus distance by eye. Even at f8 there is a large amount of depth of field at mid focus distances. Focus mask and the awesome screen on my IQ160 give me the reassurance I need. I use the Arca optical viewfinder on occasion handheld to roughly compose an image before taking the camera rig out otherwise I a lot of times estimate by eye and use the IQ160 live view to fine tune the comp. (ND filter is needed to get it to work decently, it is a rudimentary live view but works for me). The focus precision on the Arca body is awesome to have. Yes one needs to use the included chart translating the numbers to focal distances in feet but dialing each lens at infinity is quite easy and once done you note the offset and use it every time after that with the numbers in the chart. Takes a bit of practice but it is extremely precise. Each time you change a mount or component you can recheck it to make sure but even when I added the rotamount (highly recommended!) it did not change that much.

In short, no need to send the Arca body for calibration unless something is really misaligned from the factory. Many lenses can be easily adapted due to the mount being very very simple since the focus and tilt are on the body.   

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi, I also own the RM3Di and love it. I mostly use it with the 40mm HR-W and sometimes with the 70mm HR-W. I have actually travelled with just the 40mm. Amazing lens. Even in extreme near-far compositions with the foreground a foot from the lens about the most tilt I have used is about 1.5º. I do own a disto and use it on occasion but most times it is not needed with the 40 and I just estimate focus distance by eye. Even at f8 there is a large amount of depth of field at mid focus distances. Focus mask and the awesome screen on my IQ160 give me the reassurance I need. I use the Arca optical viewfinder on occasion handheld to roughly compose an image before taking the camera rig out otherwise I a lot of times estimate by eye and use the IQ160 live view to fine tune the comp. (ND filter is needed to get it to work decently, it is a rudimentary live view but works for me). The focus precision on the Arca body is awesome to have. Yes one needs to use the included chart translating the numbers to focal distances in feet but dialing each lens at infinity is quite easy and once done you note the offset and use it every time after that with the numbers in the chart. Takes a bit of practice but it is extremely precise. Each time you change a mount or component you can recheck it to make sure but even when I added the rotamount (highly recommended!) it did not change that much.

In short, no need to send the Arca body for calibration unless something is really misaligned from the factory. Many lenses can be easily adapted due to the mount being very very simple since the focus and tilt are on the body.

Thanks Ken!

Cheers,
Bernard