Sinar Hy6 Update

[bradleygibson]

A few weeks ago I put out a feeler to see if there would be interest in swapping my Hy6 body + e75LV back for a Phase AFD III and P45+.  I had a number of creative and compelling alternative swap/trade offers.

My thinking behind the move, as I told the folks who had contacted me was just a business decision.  My goal was to get access to some long, fast tele glass (and higher shutter speeds) to be able to do more medium-format wildlife work.  Yes, I'm well aware that MF is not the "ideal" platform for wildlife work, but I believe it would work well for me, and would help me to deliver unique and compelling results.

But in the end, after spending some time test driving a Phase AFD III body, I found that I did prefer the ergonomics of the Hy6.  I definitely preferred the feel of the Rollei glass to the feel of the Mamiya glass.  But in all fairness, the Mamiya 80/2.8 D is a killer optic--and that's worth something.  I was unimpressed by the 28mm and left somewhere in between (more to the favorable side) with all the other lenses.

I have also found that the P45+ (I used to own one) has superior low-ISO performance in terms of noise.  Again, this is fully subjective.  But when I test drove all the Dalsa-based solutions out there -- the Leaf Aptus, the Sinar eMotion and the Phase P65+, I found that all of them had that similar low-ISO noise fingerprint.  From the one test shot I've seen of the Leaf AFi II-10, it also has the same behavior.  So since I intend to upgrade to 50+ megapixels sometime next year, all my potential solutions are basically on the same playing field, and there is no longer that advantage with the Phase lineup.

With the Sinar eMotion 75, I find the extra step of converting .IA/.BR/.WR files to .DNG to be time-consuming.  But unless someone is asleep at the wheel, the Sinar-branded AFi-II 10 won't do this (or if it does, I'll be looking at the Leaf version).  So regardless, the inconvenient time-consuming extra workflow step (which is, for me, the Sinar Hy6/e75 system's weakest point) becomes a temporary issue--it goes away once I upgrade to the AFi II-10/"eMotion 96" (if Sinar keeps to their naming convention for the re-branded AFi-II 10).

It adds up to yet another reminder for me that there is no perfect camera system out there--the one that does it all, perfectly (at least for me).  But the one I have is working very well for me, and try as I might, I can't find any clearly better alternatives.  All in all, it means I'm happy to be staying put.

With that said, if anyone has any crazy ideas on how I might get a Zeiss 300/2.8 TPP with the 1.7x TC to work on the Sinar Hy6 please PM me!  (I understand about the mount flange distance issue with Hasselblad V and Rollei 6x6, as well as the fact that there's no central shutter in the 300/2.8/focal plane shutter in the Hy6, but that's what I mean when I say 'crazy' ideas...   Creative thinking welcome!!)

Thanks to the community for the incredible support as I worked my way through this.  It was wonderful to write and talk with so many folks from around the world.

Best regards,
Brad

[Graham Mitchell]

With the Sinar eMotion 75, I find the extra step of converting .IA/.BR/.WR files to .DNG to be time-consuming.

Not sure I understand the problem. Are you using the older Captureshop or Exposure? With Exposure there is no extra step.

[bradleygibson]

Not sure I understand the problem. Are you using the older Captureshop or Exposure? With Exposure there is no extra step.

I use Lightroom and/or Photoshop.  Exposure is the extra step.

[Guy Mancuso]

Interesting you mention the Mamiya 28mm and there is nothing to compare it against in a normal retro focus lens except the Hassy 28mm and Rollie does not make anything close to that focal length. I have the 28mm and my copy is quite good except for some very far corner area's it produces great files even when I tested the P65 Plus last week. There is a trick for it right now until C1 gives us the corner sharpness tool for it and what you do is copy the 35mm lens corner sharpness and make a preset for it . Than when you have shots with a 28mm you apply that preset, works very well actually. Again this is also a case when using the wrong software for the files . Lightroom and ACR completely suck for Phase files and c1 has corrections in the software for the 28mm for distortion, vignetting, CA, purple fringing. The one thing missing is corner sharpness and hoping the next version of C1 will have that but let's remember there are only 2 OEM's making a 28mm also.

To see some more 28mm images and thoughts with the P65 Plus look here http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4333

But let me add the next choice for a 28mm is the wonderful Rodenstock 28HR at 7 k plus you need a tech camera to use it. So if you need a 28mm than you have 3 choices and Sinar and Leaf system are not one of them. They simply do not make them.

I think staying put is fine if that fills your needs and right now not sure i would switch given the economy. BTW i would not use the P65 Plus as a comparison to any other back right now as a final test it still is a work in progress. Yes it does have better detail and better DR than the P45 and P25 but the firmware is not finished yet either it still is a pre- production back. This was as of last week which I had it for three days. Great back no question but i want to see final production unit also.

[Graham Mitchell]

I use Lightroom and/or Photoshop.  Exposure is the extra step.

Ok, now I understand your point. You mean the stage of importing files from the CF card. If you shoot tethered with Exposure then the files are saved as DNG on the fly, so there's no extra step. The new eSprit 65 back saves files as DNG in the back itself and I hope future models will follow this lead.

[bradleygibson]

Guy,

It's just a personal statement about how satisfied I am with what it produces.  Compared to the uncorrected Hasselblad 28, I'm quite willing to believe it is superior (by all accounts it is, but I've not tested the Hassy 28 personally).

And it's true that Rollei has nothing close to 28.

My point wasn't that Rollei's (non-existent) 28 was better than Mamiya's 28.  Nor was it that Mamiya's 28 is a great lens because it is generally regarded as better than the Hassy 28.   It was that the 28 was not a lens I'd switch systems for.  I was not satisfied with what it delivered on the P65+ nor was I satisfied with it on the less-but-still-very-demanding P45+.  The widest lens that I really liked on the Mamiya was the 45/2.8.

There is one additional choice to the three you outline above--and that's to not use one.

As another example, I was disappointed in the Rollei 50/2.8 AFD's performance as well (too many abberations toward the edge of the frame, even stopped down);  So I still carry a Super-Angulon 40/3.5 and a Curtagon 60/3.5 into the mountains when I go.  Unfortunately this means more weight, slower speed, no AF--all disadvantages, but like the Mamiya 28, the Rollei 50 didn't do it for me.  Does this make the Mamiya 28 or the Rollei 50 "bad"??  I don't really even know what that question means; and if I did I'd suspect the answer would be subjective anyway.

I agree with you 100% on the non-retrofocus lenses.  They're a great option but represent a big leap in that a view or technical camera is needed to go with them.  For my work stitching is often a viable alternative.  It has the added benefit of yielding even higher resolution images.

And lastly, I have a friend who has been experimenting with defishing--I'll let him speak for himself, but the preliminary results he has shared with me have been pretty amazing--I'd never have expected the kind of quality I'm seeing in the results he's getting.

Not trying to rain on anybody's parade, just sharing my honest (and obviously subjective) experiences.  I hope folks won't read too much into my willingness to call out the products I don't like any more than they will my calling out products I do like.  My postings are shared as food for thought.

Also agreed that the P65+'s image quality is a step up in detail from the P45+.  But I do prefer the look of the P45+ in areas of smooth tonality, like sky and in deep shadows.  Given how consistent this look is across all the Dalsa offerings, I expect to see similar characteristics in the release version of the P65+.

To me, this does not take away from the P65+ as a good product; tradeoffs always have to be made, and I do think Phase has made the right ones here.  To me, it simply says that the P65+ and the AFi II-10 are less differentiated on image quality than their predecessors were.  

Both are killer products.  As their image quality improves and becomes less of a differentiator, decision factors simply come down to other benefits (speed, usability, price, availability, service, reliability, and so on.)

-Brad

[bradleygibson]

Ok, now I understand your point. You mean the stage of importing files from the CF card. If you shoot tethered with Exposure hen the files are saved as DNG on the fly, so there's no extra step. The new eSprit 65 back saves files as DNG in the back itself and I hope future models will follow this lead.

Yes, that is exactly the problem--I seem to be too lazy to haul a computer system with me out into the wilderness and fire it up whenever I want to shoot.

And yes, I do hope future models follow this lead--I can say with certainty that my next back won't have this issue!    

Take care,
-Brad

[bradleygibson]

Even though it might be horribly slow, I'm wondering about the Rollei Apo-Tele Tessar 500/8.  Does anyone have any experience with one?  At this point, I'm mostly looking for people's experience, but if you've seen one of these in the wild that might be available for sale, please let me know.

Thanks, all,
Brad

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy,

It's just a personal statement about how satisfied I am with what it produces.  Compared to the uncorrected Hasselblad 28, I'm quite willing to believe it is superior (by all accounts it is, but I've not tested the Hassy 28 personally).

And it's true that Rollei has nothing close to 28.

My point wasn't that Rollei's (non-existent) 28 was better than Mamiya's 28.  Nor was it that Mamiya's 28 is a great lens because it is generally regarded as better than the Hassy 28.   It was that the 28 was not a lens I'd switch systems for.  I was not satisfied with what it delivered on the P65+ nor was I satisfied with it on the less-but-still-very-demanding P45+.  The widest lens that I really liked on the Mamiya was the 45/2.8.

There is one additional choice to the three you outline above--and that's to not use one.

As another example, I was disappointed in the Rollei 50/2.8 AFD's performance as well (too many abberations toward the edge of the frame, even stopped down);  So I still carry a Super-Angulon 40/3.5 and a Curtagon 60/3.5 into the mountains when I go.  Unfortunately this means more weight, slower speed, no AF--all disadvantages, but like the Mamiya 28, the Rollei 50 didn't do it for me.  Does this make the Mamiya 28 or the Rollei 50 "bad"??  I don't really even know what that question means; and if I did I'd suspect the answer would be subjective anyway.

I agree with you 100% on the non-retrofocus lenses.  They're a great option but represent a big leap in that a view or technical camera is needed to go with them.  For my work stitching is often a viable alternative.  It has the added benefit of yielding even higher resolution images.

And lastly, I have a friend who has been experimenting with defishing--I'll let him speak for himself, but the preliminary results he has shared with me have been pretty amazing--I'd never have expected the kind of quality I'm seeing in the results he's getting.

Not trying to rain on anybody's parade, just sharing my honest (and obviously subjective) experiences.  I hope folks won't read too much into my willingness to call out the products I don't like any more than they will my calling out products I do like.  My postings are shared as food for thought.

Also agreed that the P65+'s image quality is a step up in detail from the P45+.  But I do prefer the look of the P45+ in areas of smooth tonality, like sky and in deep shadows.  Given how consistent this look is across all the Dalsa offerings, I expect to see similar characteristics in the release version of the P65+.

To me, this does not take away from the P65+ as a good product; tradeoffs always have to be made, and I do think Phase has made the right ones here.  To me, it simply says that the P65+ and the AFi II-10 are less differentiated on image quality than their predecessors were.  

Both are killer products.  As their image quality improves and becomes less of a differentiator, decision factors simply come down to other benefits (speed, usability, price, availability, service, reliability, and so on.)

-Brad

Good points Brad and agree on many of them. Problem is as anything else you need a 28mm or something like that wide than you start scrambling around trying to find a answer and that answer starts at around 4200 up and stitching is a nice option but also limited too. It's tough out here sometimes tiring to find the best solutions and than add the economy to this you wonder who's doors may fold next week , next month or whatever and selling anything right now is not that easy on top of all that. BTW not much can rain on my parade i understand all of this with folks decisions to do different things and such.  There a lot of products even in MF that i would not buy and do not like at all. Horses for courses

[David Klepacki]

But let me add the next choice for a 28mm is the wonderful Rodenstock 28HR at 7 k plus you need a tech camera to use it. So if you need a 28mm than you have 3 choices and Sinar and Leaf system are not one of them. They simply do not make them.

Just a technical correction.... Sinar does offer the Rodenstock 28HR lens on their focal plane shutter camera, the Sinar m.  Sinar added a custom helicoid focus mount for it,  and it also integrates well with their Live View system.   The Sinar m camera is the only camera that can convert from SLR to rangefinder, so that these excellent wides can be used.

[EricWHiss]

Hey Brad,
Thanks for posting your updates on this. I too hope that the in camera DNG will be useful and a big time saver.  Certainly the samples I have seen look good too.  

Just a bit of info on the lenses - the AF 50mm f/2.8  lens weighs in at around 1500 grams without the ridiculously large and heavy hood (the hood is probably another 500grams or at least it feels like it) and the 40mm f/3.5 and 60mm f/3.5 curtagon together are actually only 1520grams together - and their hoods are very light in comparison.  So just kidding around here but the truth is you'd save weight by carrying both the 40 and 60 instead of the 50.  Probably bulk too because that 50mm hood is just crazy!    

Guy, I might be wrong but I think I've seen it posted here that one can't compare lens lengths straight across with the 645 format and a 6x6.  While its true that Rollei has no 28mm, the 35mm coming out soon should cover the same FOV.   The Rollei 35mm lens will have been designed with the use of film in mind in addition to MFDB's so its likely to have less native distortion and other aberrations  than lenses designed for use in conjunction with DAC's.  

And as Brad mentioned in the mean time one can use the 30mm fisheye and correct the images.  I'm experimenting with this now using the Lens Fix plugin - I'm not sure I have the final set of parameters but its looking pretty good now.  Here's the sample shot of my dinning room that I sent Brad - one of my first shots with the fisheye as a test. Still a bit wiggly on the outsider perimeter but I'm experimenting with the secondary corrections now and think I'll get it better.

[bradleygibson]

Hey Eric,

Interesting points on the lenses...  I hadn't weighed them.  Then my only issue would be the bulk of two lenses as opposed to the weight, since they seem to equal out.  The 50 didn't seem that huge to me, but I didn't weigh it or check those specs.

Good point about the hoods--it's actually one of my few sore points with the Rollei lens lineup--the hoods are way-overpriced, too heavy, generic (ie. multiple-focal-length) and non-reversible!!  They seem like a bit of an afterthought to me.

Even though I'm a huge hood fan in general, I'm sad to say I don't use mine at all with the Rollei lenses.  I have no space to carry them if they can't reverse over the lens.  And they should be as aggressive as possible--I have to believe that the same hood used for the 110 and the 180 could be more effective on the 180 if it were built specifically for the 180.

If they were built out of plastic or carbon-fiber then they'd be lightweight too...

Anyway, not to hijack my own thread--good points about the total weight including hoods.

Take care,
-Brad

[thsinar]

Why so?

There are actually 2 Sinar choices, one when a MF and one when a view camera is needed:

The wonderful Rodenstock 28mm HR is available for the MF Sinar m camera, which cannot only use the Zeiss/Sinaron Digital AF Distagon 4.0/40, the Zeiss/Sinaron Digital AF Planar 2.8/80, the Zeiss/Sinaron Digital AF Macro-Planar 4/120 and the Zeiss/Sinaron Digital AF Sonnar 4.0/180, BUT as well all the Hasselblad V system lenses.

As well, this 28mm Rodenstock HR is avalaible for the Sinar arTec.

In addition to that, the new Rodenstock 23mm HR is going to ship in December, giving another short lens alternative.

So if you need a 28mm than you have 3 choices and Sinar (and Leaf) system are not one of them. They simply do not make them.

No, you don't: see above.

Best regards,
Thierry

But let me add the next choice for a 28mm is the wonderful Rodenstock 28HR at 7 k plus you need a tech camera to use it.

[thsinar]

hi Eric,

would you mind to share a little more details on this and how it works?

Thanks,
Thierry

And as Brad mentioned in the mean time one can use the 30mm fisheye and correct the images.  I'm experimenting with this now using the Lens Fix plugin ....

[EricWHiss]

hi Eric,

would you mind to share a little more details on this and how it works?

Thanks,
Thierry

Hi Thierry,
Sure, I'd be happy to explain how I am doing it but I'm relatively new to this and there are probably tons of ways to do it.     I'm using a photoshop plug-in that is essentially a GUI front end for Helmut Dersch's Pano Tools.  I bought this from  http://www.kekus.com/    The plug-in I have is the PTMac which has several different functions but the Lens Fix is the one I'm using for this - I do not know if the LensFix CI stand alone product works the same or not.  A library of corrections exists for a number of lens and camera combinations but nothing for my combination which is the Rollei 6008/P20.   The plugin has a lot of features including the ability to handle each color channel separately to treat any aberrations that might occur but I haven't really seen any so far with the 30mm lens, but I am mostly looking at just getting the lines straight for now.  There are three variables to manipulate but the primary one ( does the majority of the work and its pretty easy to just move the slider and get close, then there are 2 other values to adjust (A and C) that effect the corners and edges more than the center and can be used to fine tune.       The values that I am using currently are  A) .048,  -.185, C) -.047  and I let the program calculate D for me.  I'm pretty sure that the A and C values need more tweaking because there's a bit of wiggle left in the corners but I want to shoot a grid or something to make this calibration work easier.   The documentation on the Kekus site is pretty minimal - if someone knows a really efficient way to calibrate these values I'd love to hear it.

Anyhow I am just converting my RAW file as normal then bringing it into photoshop as a 16bit Tiff and then running the plugin. The plugin takes about 3 seconds on my Mac G5 quad and it would seem that this could be made into an action or even a droplet without any trouble.

I have also tried the program that EPd recommended (Fisheye Hemi from Image Trends) in an other thread on Wide options for the Hy6 here somewhere and it seemed to work well without any effort but did not give me straight lines everywhere, but I have not found out how to adjust the parameters yet so perhaps it would be just as good or better than the Lens Fix?  Auto Pano seems to have some fisheye corrections too but I haven't tried this yet.

Hope this helps,
Eric

[rainer_v]

Hey Brad,
Thanks for posting your updates on this. I too hope that the in camera DNG will be useful and a big time saver.  Certainly the samples I have seen look good too.  

Just a bit of info on the lenses - the AF 50mm f/2.8  lens weighs in at around 1500 grams without the ridiculously large and heavy hood (the hood is probably another 500grams or at least it feels like it) and the 40mm f/3.5 and 60mm f/3.5 curtagon together are actually only 1520grams together - and their hoods are very light in comparison.  So just kidding around here but the truth is you'd save weight by carrying both the 40 and 60 instead of the 50.  Probably bulk too because that 50mm hood is just crazy!    

Guy, I might be wrong but I think I've seen it posted here that one can't compare lens lengths straight across with the 645 format and a 6x6.  While its true that Rollei has no 28mm, the 35mm coming out soon should cover the same FOV.   The Rollei 35mm lens will have been designed with the use of film in mind in addition to MFDB's so its likely to have less native distortion and other aberrations  than lenses designed for use in conjunction with DAC's.  

And as Brad mentioned in the mean time one can use the 30mm fisheye and correct the images.  I'm experimenting with this now using the Lens Fix plugin - I'm not sure I have the final set of parameters but its looking pretty good now.  Here's the sample shot of my dinning room that I sent Brad - one of my first shots with the fisheye as a test. Still a bit wiggly on the outsider perimeter but I'm experimenting with the secondary corrections now and think I'll get it better.

how large you can print this defished images eric?

[thsinar]

Thanks Eric,

This is plenty enough details and it helps certainly. Seems pretty forward and easy. It would be great to see your "grid" sample when you are done with it.

Thanks a lot,
Thierry

Hi Thierry,
Sure, I'd be happy to explain how I am doing

Hope this helps,
Eric

[EricWHiss]

Hey Eric,

Interesting points on the lenses...  I hadn't weighed them.  Then my only issue would be the bulk of two lenses as opposed to the weight, since they seem to equal out.  The 50 didn't seem that huge to me, but I didn't weigh it or check those specs.

Good point about the hoods--it's actually one of my few sore points with the Rollei lens lineup--the hoods are way-overpriced, too heavy, generic (ie. multiple-focal-length) and non-reversible!!  They seem like a bit of an afterthought to me.

Even though I'm a huge hood fan in general, I'm sad to say I don't use mine at all with the Rollei lenses.  I have no space to carry them if they can't reverse over the lens.  And they should be as aggressive as possible--I have to believe that the same hood used for the 110 and the 180 could be more effective on the 180 if it were built specifically for the 180.

If they were built out of plastic or carbon-fiber then they'd be lightweight too...

Anyway, not to hijack my own thread--good points about the total weight including hoods.

Take care,
-Brad

Brad,
That's interesting about the hoods - and while I agree some of the Rollei hoods like the 110/2 or 55mm PCS hood are cumbersome, there are lots of other options.  Actually I'm a fan of the way Leica does their built in retractable hoods.    I use a Heliopan collapsable rubber hood for my 95mm lenses and this folds up nicely when not in use. Sometimes I just take one hood and use it for 60, 80 and 150tx, but  I have the Rollei Bay Vi matte box which also is light and folds up and that fits most of the others that I'm likely to carry when traveling such as the 60, 80, 120, 150's        I've also seen modified hasselblad matte boxes to accept all of the Rollei lenses - the user just changed out a piece in the front to mate with the bay 104 or bay VI mounts, and a special on for the 40mm SA.  I'm certain I've seen those parts made at SK grimes so they may have the CAD files already.    I think the matte boxes are excellent because then you can carry just one set of filters and use them for all lenses plus the square filters are cheaper and easy to adjust.  Even if you change lenses you can keep the same filter stack and just transfer the matte box from one lens to the other.   When I don't bring my hood at all I usually regret it, but have done okay just using my hand or flag, but then that's hard to do without a tripod which I loathe or hanging off the side of a rock face like you might be doing.
Eric

[EricWHiss]

how large you can print this defished images eric?

Hi Rainer,

I just got the fisheye last week and haven't printed anything with it yet, but can let you know when I do get around to it.  The Lens Fix corrections seem to not take away too much from the fine detail, so I would expect to be able to print nearly the same size as with a normal lens, but again I haven't played with it enough to know for sure. My primary concern at the moment is getting the last part of the corners straight.  Do you have any experience with this software or calibration?

Eric

[rainer_v]

Hi Rainer,

I just got the fisheye last week and haven't printed anything with it yet, but can let you know when I do get around to it.  The Lens Fix corrections seem to not take away too much from the fine detail, so I would expect to be able to print nearly the same size as with a normal lens, but again I haven't played with it enough to know for sure. My primary concern at the moment is getting the last part of the corners straight.  Do you have any experience with this software or calibration?

Eric

no i have nothing i still remember,-  i playd around with a nikon 16mm fish some years ago and was amazed too how good defishing can work.
whats interesting is that the proportions of objects closed to the image edges are better conserved than with " normal " wideangles, or at least they look better because they dont stretch . maybe you culd post a corner 100% crop before and after defishing,would like to see it .