which is best: view camera vs ts-e lens vs 17mm + photoshop

[CBarrett]

I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410

Same here, Kirk.  While the 410 is not as sweet as the Cube, it is dirt cheap and has a geared pan, which I use constantly for fine tuning oblique shots.  Btw, I have never seen a head's built in level that agreed with the cameras bubble levels.

-C

[adammork]

Same here, Kirk.  While the 410 is not as sweet as the Cube, it is dirt cheap and has a geared pan, which I use constantly for fine tuning oblique shots.  Btw, I have never seen a head's built in level that agreed with the cameras bubble levels.

-C

my Alpa's and Cube have a common understanding of verticals and horizontals...... In a way ironic because my beloved Arca's could never agree between them self - and here I'm talking front standard vs. rear standard - a contstant fight....  

[CBarrett]

In a way ironic because my beloved Arca's could never agree between them self - and here I'm talking front standard vs. rear standard - a contstant fight....  

Heh...the M Line 2 is my fourth Arca and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the levels to be accurate.  : )

Johannes, I have been scouring the net forever trying to find the perfect level.  Where can I get that one?!!!!!

[adammork]

Heh...the M Line 2 is my fourth Arca and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the levels to be accurate.  : )

So that's the trick.... I only had 3  

[asf]

I had 3 Arca's also (all F line metric), the levels never agreed with each other much less the cube. Somehow the Alpa and the cube do agree.

I also have a closet shelf filled with acrylic levels like the one Joe posted, used to carry them at all times. But no matter how good they were it really mattered exactly where on the camera you checked the level. It's really hard to find a fully flat surface on most cameras. Also for checking fore-aft tilt it also matters where and how you put the pressure on the level (esp with the more sensitive levels).

Now I've tested my Alpa and it was perfect from the beginning. The 3 cheap (relatively) shoe levels I use on the Canon are also perfect - but it seems in that regard I'm lucky.

The 410 is all the head anyone will ever need for arch/interior photography. That said I switched to the cube as soon as it was announced and still consider it money well spent. For me. I would never recommend it to someone.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Quick Update, I just got my newly bought used 24mm TS-E MKI lens today. My first impression is "WOW" I never knew 11mm of shift can make so much difference on a 24mm. Really, I find the lens to be very practical and I don't think I am going to run out of shift very often. That being said there was one thing that surprised me, which is the extent of vignetting. Shifting beyond 6mm creates some serious vignetting, which leaves me wondering how are people countering this problem? Given this is a very old design I bet the new MKII lens was designed with a solution for this problem in mind. I guess using the MKI on a 22mm camera is very advantageous because the crop factor would isolate the vignetting and 11mm relative to 22mm offer much greater shift.

[JonRoemer]

Quick Update, I just got my newly bought used 24mm TS-E MKI lens today. My first impression is "WOW" I never knew 11mm of shift can make so much difference on a 24mm. Really, I find the lens to be very practical and I don't think I am going to run out of shift very often. That being said there was one thing that surprised me, which is the extent of vignetting. Shifting beyond 6mm creates some serious vignetting, which leads me wondering how are people countering this problem? Given this is a very old design I bet the new MKII lens was designed with a solution for this problem in mind. I guess using the MKI on a 22mm camera is very advantageous because the crop factor would isolate the vignetting and 11mm relative to 22mm offer much greater shift.

The old lens, 24 tse Mark I, can shift the full 11mm but is not recommended to be shifted fully if you want optimal quality.  If you look on the shift scale on the lens you'll see that the outer 4mm of shift are marked in red.  That's Canon's way of saying - hey, don't beyond 7mm.

The new lens, the Mark II, has more shift and doesn't suffer from the vignetting, etc.

24 Mark I vs. 24 Mark II

To work with the old lens, I'd keep the shifting to 7mm.  You can then use Ptlens to correct for the lens barreling and the CA. You can also use Photshop's lens filter to correct for the CA but you'll want to make another layer to run it on.  If you have shift a lot it's possible that correcting for CA will correct it one part of the frame but introduce it another.  Working on another layer will allow you to correct it where needed.  

The new lens doesn't have these issues so it saves you these post-production steps.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

The old lens, 24 tse Mark I, can shift the full 11mm but is not recommended to be shifted fully if you want optimal quality.  If you look on the shift scale on the lens you'll see that the outer 4mm of shift are marked in red.  That's Canon's way of saying - hey, don't beyond 7mm.

The new lens, the Mark II, has more shift and doesn't suffer from the vignetting, etc.

24 Mark I vs. 24 Mark II

To work with the old lens, I'd keep the shifting to 7mm.  You can then use Ptlens to correct for the lens barreling and the CA. You can also use Photshop's lens filter to correct for the CA but you'll want to make another layer to run it on.  If you have shift a lot it's possible that correcting for CA will correct it one part of the frame but introduce it another.  Working on another layer will allow you to correct it where needed.  

The new lens doesn't have these issues so it saves you these post-production steps.

Thanks, very useful feedback and link.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410

does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?

[CBarrett]

does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?

I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

-C

[JonRoemer]

I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

An RRS L bracket should be included in the box with every camera regardless of format.  Once you start working with one you won't want to work any other way.

Site | Blog

[Dick Roadnight]

I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

-C

This, with a pistol-grip ¿and a balance rail? would solve the vertical grip problem on the Hasselblad.

[Kirk Gittings]

does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?

i t works great for a DSLR vertically for AP and landscape. I'm not quite sure what "slow-movement vertical portrait photography" is?

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced.  I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket for my 645 and am really pleased with it.

-C

that looks very convenient on the tripod, but doesn't the L-bracket make a 35mm camera awkward to handhold?

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

i t works great for a DSLR vertically for AP and landscape. I'm not quite sure what "slow-movement vertical portrait photography" is?

its just portrait photography in vertical orientation shooting a none moving subject (barely moving). I guess if it works nicely for AP and landscape it should work fine for that type of portrait photography.

[drew]

'Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus.'
How about shooting several frames from exactly the same position with the focus pulled between each shot and then combining them in PS using layer masks and a soft edged brush? That works doesn't it?

[JeffKohn]

'Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus.'
How about shooting several frames from exactly the same position with the focus pulled between each shot and then combining them in PS using layer masks and a soft edged brush? That works doesn't it?

In theory. There are even programs to automate the "focus stacking" process. But there are a few problems. The biggest one is that most modern lenses "breathe", which means that the actual focal length (and hence FOV) changes as the focus distance changes.

Some folks claim to get very good results with this approach. I guess it depends on the types of scenes you shoot. My experience is that it doesn't work so well, as you will often get artifacts from the blending process. It also can dramatically increase the number of exposures you have to take (especially if you're already bracketing for dynamic range).

[Kirk Gittings]

I have had pretty good results from focus stacking with architecture and architectural models (and models in architecture...see below). It works best when there are zones of like focus, such as foreground, mid ground and background without something like a large tree in the foreground piercing the zones of focus. Like a view camera tilt, It also works well when there is single plane that needs to be brought in focus.

Example, shot for an upcoming show, three frames, camera horizontal, with a Canon 45 T/S, top of diverging beams, cross beams and model. The top two frames were shot first and then on the third many positions for the model were tried over the course of say an hour. The light changed a little but the stack still worked after tweaking the exposure on the model frame. IME, I couldn't have done better with a view camera.

[attachment=18255:Convergence__2009.jpg]

[MarcusNewey]

that looks very convenient on the tripod, but doesn't the L-bracket make a 35mm camera awkward to handhold?

No not really, I only ever take mine off when I'm going as light as possible with a small prime, but really you hardly notice it day to day, and once you've shot with one  you'll never want to go back to flipping a head over 90 deg to shoot portrait. Well worth the investment [you'll need to have a bunch of 'arca-swiss' style clamp plates too to replace / add to your original heads QR's]

Also...I've been a happy ball head user for a while, just got a manfotto 410, it bugs me that the camera isn't aligned with the center of rotation [panning].
I've found a nice work around using a macro adjustment plate and turning the head 90deg, which can actually put the nodal point of the lens directly over the center of the panning point. But I think it adds too much flex, and the bubble level is obscured.

[JeffKohn]

I have had pretty good results from focus stacking with architecture and architectural models (and models in architecture...see below). It works best when there are zones of like focus, such as foreground, mid ground and background without something like a large tree in the foreground piercing the zones of focus. Like a view camera tilt, It also works well when there is single plane that needs to be brought in focus.

I can certainly believe focus stacking yields good results in some situations, and it's something I'd like to experiment more with in the future.  I'd prefer to use a tilt to get the DOF where I want it in-camera, though.

As you say the biggest problem is when you have overlapping objects at different focus distances, in which case my experience has been that Helicon gives you edge halos. Then again lens/camera tilts are no good for that situation, either.