Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Phase 645 vs. tech camera  (Read 4172 times)

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« on: September 04, 2011, 11:45:30 am »

I am trying to get feedback or a review of a 28mm Phase One lens on the 645 body vs. a 28mm on a Cambo or Alpa body using a P65+ back. I have been told the tech cameras and a Schneider or Rodenstock lens is much sharper or better corrected than using the 645 camera with their lenses. Since my background was shooting 4x5 in the days of film, (with a collection of Schneider and Rodenstock lenses), I am quite aware of the virtues of symmetrical optics. But the reviews on LL of the Phase 28mm and 45mm lenses are excellent, with no reference to a comparison to corresponding tech lenses. Would love to hear from people who have used both. My needs are primarily for Architectural and Landscape work.

Thanks.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2011, 12:55:27 am »

You may want to check out the MF forum over at getDPI.com.  It's full of tech shooters and there are threads about every lens out there, both tech as well as Phase/Mamiya.  I judge the 28mm phamiya as decent but certainly soft in the corners, there are several tech alternatives which are most likely sharper.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2011, 01:36:06 am »

Hi,

You may find the following pages interesting:

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html

Best regards
Erik


I am trying to get feedback or a review of a 28mm Phase One lens on the 645 body vs. a 28mm on a Cambo or Alpa body using a P65+ back. I have been told the tech cameras and a Schneider or Rodenstock lens is much sharper or better corrected than using the 645 camera with their lenses. Since my background was shooting 4x5 in the days of film, (with a collection of Schneider and Rodenstock lenses), I am quite aware of the virtues of symmetrical optics. But the reviews on LL of the Phase 28mm and 45mm lenses are excellent, with no reference to a comparison to corresponding tech lenses. Would love to hear from people who have used both. My needs are primarily for Architectural and Landscape work.

Thanks.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2011, 08:56:09 am »

I am trying to get feedback or a review of a 28mm Phase One lens on the 645 body vs. a 28mm on a Cambo or Alpa body using a P65+ back. I have been told the tech cameras and a Schneider or Rodenstock lens is much sharper or better corrected than using the 645 camera with their lenses. Since my background was shooting 4x5 in the days of film, (with a collection of Schneider and Rodenstock lenses), I am quite aware of the virtues of symmetrical optics. But the reviews on LL of the Phase 28mm and 45mm lenses are excellent, with no reference to a comparison to corresponding tech lenses. Would love to hear from people who have used both. My needs are primarily for Architectural and Landscape work.

This is one of the best examples of how relative reviews are.

One does not compare a lens from Canon's consumer (non-L) line-up to a Zeiss Cine lens for videography. If you did, the review of every single Canon consumer lens would be "awful". Instead you compare them mostly to each other or to off-brands at similar price points.

All medium format super-wide angles that I've ever tested are at best "ok" lenses when compared to portrait length lenses of the same system. This includes Hasselblad, Contax, Mamiya 67, Mamiya 645, and Phase. The widest lens of each system is not even close to as sharp/contrasty/well-rendered at the corners.

It's pretty simple physics. Lens designers want to have freedom placing the center point of the lens wherever will give them the best overall result. Usually this means the same distance from the lens as the focal length. But you can't put a 28mm from the sensor of a 645 body because that's where the mirror sits. Instead they have to place the lens at least as far away as the lens mount and then use a very strongly retrofocus designs to accomplish their needed focal length. Some retrofocus lenses are quite impressive (in fact several of the Rodenstock HR series are retrofocus designs), but in general retrofocus (especially strongly retrofocus) designs are not good for lens quality.

So as you state in your post the real question is "what are you comparing it to".

e.g. An Rodenstock 32HR will beat the snot out of a Phase One 28mm D lens (or any other medium format ultra-wide) for resolution, lack of chromatic aberration, and contrast.

However, a Phase One 28mm D offers through the lens composition, autofocus, auto exposure, and auto aperture. It does not require an LCC and can be added to a 645 kit as a single lens (rather than adding another body, viewfinder, cable, plate, and then a lens).

But if all your asking is about is pure image quality then there is no comparison. Go with a tech camera wide.

In fact this that people go with tech cameras: really great wide angle lens quality. (well that and perspective control, and the tactile/mechanical feeling of working with it, and flat image-circle stitching).  ;D

http://www.captureintegration.com/tech-cameras/digital-view-camera/

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 08:58:38 am by dougpetersonci »
Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2011, 10:19:46 am »


Thanks Doug, that's what I thought too. It's kind of a shame that in reviewing the Phase One cameras and lenses, they don't talk about that in comparison to tech cameras. I would think anyone considering a 645 digital system for landscape work would be very interested in that comparison, (especially here on LL). Maybe Michael just assumes anyone who is in the market for a tech camera already knows that.

Thanks for the clarification.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2011, 10:22:02 am »

Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2011, 12:37:14 am »

Thanks Doug, that's what I thought too. It's kind of a shame that in reviewing the Phase One cameras and lenses, they don't talk about that in comparison to tech cameras. I would think anyone considering a 645 digital system for landscape work would be very interested in that comparison, (especially here on LL). Maybe Michael just assumes anyone who is in the market for a tech camera already knows that.

Thanks for the clarification.
well, there are tons of discussion about it out there.  Tech cameras recently seemed to have become much more popular, but using one can be very challenging and not for everyone, especially someone who has never used any type of camera like them.  Myself, I've shot hasselblad, RZ67, Bronica, and Mamiya, canon, nikon ... but never anything that wasn't a SLR.  The tech camera, despite it's potential for quality just wasn't fun and really didn't fit the way I like to shoot. I've got a nice Alpa 12max system about to go on sale ...
Logged

Brent McCombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
    • http://www.alterego.zenfolio.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2011, 07:47:50 pm »

I suspect strongly that a new Phase LS 28mm will be announced shortly.
Logged

Brent McCombs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
    • http://www.alterego.zenfolio.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2011, 07:49:24 pm »

Also, I should add that the tech camera's advantage of shimming the back will in almost all situations provide a sharper image, vis-a-vis the 645DF, and if you're exclusively shooting landscape and or architectural images, the tech cam is almost certainly the best choice.
Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2011, 10:57:14 pm »

well, there are tons of discussion about it out there.  Tech cameras recently seemed to have become much more popular, but using one can be very challenging and not for everyone, especially someone who has never used any type of camera like them.  Myself, I've shot hasselblad, RZ67, Bronica, and Mamiya, canon, nikon ... but never anything that wasn't a SLR.  The tech camera, despite it's potential for quality just wasn't fun and really didn't fit the way I like to shoot. I've got a nice Alpa 12max system about to go on sale ...

Well I'm going to do a demo later this week and make some comparisons. Since I made my living with 4x5 view cameras for a good 15 years, it's nothing new to use a slow, large, heavy, complex, and difficult system. I just never expected to be doing it again after so many years - suddenly it's 1980. It all depends on the quality I see vs. the trouble it takes. I've been looking at all the links others have recommended and it's been very informative, but I still don't see much in direct comparisons between a Phase DSLR vs Hasse DSLR vs Tech Camera - with the same focal length wide lens and equal digital backs. Has anyone done a good comparison? Although less pixels, I wonder how the Leica S2 would compete in this comparison...
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2011, 03:06:45 am »

I suspect strongly that a new Phase LS 28mm will be announced shortly.

So this would be a new Schneider designed lens?  I love my 28 now, but I'd really love a LS that was a little sharper in the corners

tell me your not teasing :)
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2011, 03:13:45 am »

Well I'm going to do a demo later this week and make some comparisons. Since I made my living with 4x5 view cameras for a good 15 years, it's nothing new to use a slow, large, heavy, complex, and difficult system. I just never expected to be doing it again after so many years - suddenly it's 1980. It all depends on the quality I see vs. the trouble it takes. I've been looking at all the links others have recommended and it's been very informative, but I still don't see much in direct comparisons between a Phase DSLR vs Hasse DSLR vs Tech Camera - with the same focal length wide lens and equal digital backs. Has anyone done a good comparison? Although less pixels, I wonder how the Leica S2 would compete in this comparison...

Well, while I didn't do much with 4x5 I do own one and messed with them a little bit, and I will say my experience in the tech world was not the same.  I was hoping for a great experience seeing a beautiful image projected upside down on a ground glass, but alas the tech camera is no 4x5.  The image is small, the lenses are pretty much 5.6 so it's also very dim.

Then I waited thinking LiveView would be the saving grace (and it would if it worked really well).  Unfortunately it's not there yet either. 

So it's not the same, yet in your situation with lots of experience behind a 4x5 you experience will be much different than mine.  I would recommend you look over at getDPI.com because there are several discussions about tech cameras (the MF form there has almost become a tech camera forum lately with many of the long time shooters moving to them), especially comparing brands and features (tilt/ no tilt, build quality, etc.)  Also lots of discussions of various lenses and the challenges with lens cast and need of LCC's etc.

Personally I think someday live view will be much better implemented and I'll give tech cameras another try.
Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2011, 07:18:52 am »

I'm currently trying to get a WRS and IQ180 working together and find it is unreliable so far
I'm using a Kapture Group one shot cable which might be part of the trouble, but I'm with Wayne a SLR is straight forward and reliable
I think one would be just as happy with the DF camera and Schneider LS lenses, unfortunately the Rodenstock 70HR is really sharp and the colors are wonderful so I'll keep trying
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2011, 09:31:07 am »

Quote
Personally I think someday live view will be much better implemented and I'll give tech cameras another try.

Wayne,

Can you elaborate on your findings on live view/tech camera use?   I had hoped in the future to move towards the IQ160
mainly for live view on a tech camera. 

Thanks
Paul Caldwell
http://www.photosofarkansas.com
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2011, 10:55:47 am »

Well, while I didn't do much with 4x5 I do own one and messed with them a little bit, and I will say my experience in the tech world was not the same.  I was hoping for a great experience seeing a beautiful image projected upside down on a ground glass, but alas the tech camera is no 4x5.  The image is small, the lenses are pretty much 5.6 so it's also very dim.

Then I waited thinking LiveView would be the saving grace (and it would if it worked really well).  Unfortunately it's not there yet either. 

So it's not the same, yet in your situation with lots of experience behind a 4x5 you experience will be much different than mine.  I would recommend you look over at getDPI.com because there are several discussions about tech cameras (the MF form there has almost become a tech camera forum lately with many of the long time shooters moving to them), especially comparing brands and features (tilt/ no tilt, build quality, etc.)  Also lots of discussions of various lenses and the challenges with lens cast and need of LCC's etc.

Personally I think someday live view will be much better implemented and I'll give tech cameras another try.

Well I too was very disappointed when I discovered that live view for the CCD based backs was a far cry from live view on my Canons. But my goal is un-compromised image quality for my architectural work and landscapes. A 645 DSLR is certainly easy to shoot with vs. a tech camera and I'm looking forward to testing and comparing them myself later this week.

I'm sure I am not going to enjoy using the tech camera, but if the image quality is as good as everyone says it is, then the reward is worth the pain. But, the way Phase and Hasse advertise and price their packages, when you buy a digital back you get the body and lens thrown in. So if i do wind up deciding on a tech camera package, I'll probably also have a 645 DSLR and lens or two along with it for times when it's the best tool for the job.

Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Re: Phase 645 vs. tech camera
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2011, 11:36:15 am »

Well I'm going to do a demo later this week and make some comparisons.

When you do, make sure you use Hassy's Phocus software for their back and lenses and make sure you use C1 for Phase's back and lenses. This is especially true of the 28's, as both companies provide proprietary corrections and cropping after the fact --- so you'll want to also compare actual capture size and FoV after processing. One more thing -- the Phase and Hassy 28's are huge chunks of glass relatively speaking...

Re direct comparisons of 28 SK digitar to Phase and Hassy, I do not know of any single place where all three have been compared directly at the same time. However, as Wayne indicated, there is information available on these lenses and backs independently, and it should be easy to draw conclusions if you do a little more research.

In every case I've seen for lenses wider than 80, the newest tech lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider are clearly superior than either Hassy or Phase primes. (Not so with older generation digital, tech or even older LF lenses, so be forewarned.) And still, Hassy's 50 and Phase's 55LS lens are both excellent.  On 80mm and longer lenses, both Hassy and Phase primes are stellar, but the best tech lenses still outperform them, though in most cases the net difference is marginal and you need to compare side-by-side at 100% in the corners to see it.  At the end of the day, what you do get with tech is stellar wides and camera movements, and for most of us is the real reasons we use tech.  On the contrary, we give up SLR viewing, composing, automation and shooting convenience.  Because of this, my widest (and worst) Phase lens is the 35; it is a significantly poorer performer than my Rodenstock 40mm HR-W on my tech cam, yet it is certainly convenient and I've made stellar large prints using it.  
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 11:50:34 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
Pages: [1]   Go Up