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

[JonRoemer]

Post deleted.

[uaiomex]

I agree with Jeff Koon. The 17 will excel in tight interiors. The 24 is more suitable for exteriors. If you already own any MFDB then investing in Rodenstock or Schneider is a whole lot better. But in my case and in several thousands more cases around the globe the new glass from Canon is heavenly. If I could justify a digital medium format, no doubt I'd go for it. But my clients can't afford it and I'm sure they will be delighted with the Canon results. On counterpoint, too bad for me that Canon is coming with this fantastic glass because my DMF piggy bank is not getting any fatter. As someone said here before, Hasselblad and PhaseOne worst enemies are Canon and Nikon. Let's hope they don't become their nemesis.
Eduardo

The 17mm looks like a nice piece of glass, but I feel that the investment is not worth it.  First of all this lens is approaching the price of MF lenses, and Schneider and Rodenstock are not going to let Canon or Nikon ever reach them in quality (a specialist will always out preform a generalist).  Would it not be better just to make the investment into a MF system and get the equivalent lenses?  

Second, 17 mm lenses on a full framed DSLR have a pretty big stretch factor, and as you get towards the edge of the image circle, this is only going to get worse.  You can get the same view with little stretching by just stitching on a 24 (or 35 in MF).  Now mind you do not get the same amount of flexibility with stitching on a t/s lens as opposed to a view camera, but I still feel that it is to pricey for the limited amount of time it would be used.  

I right now have a 12 to 24 mm zoom and insofar as professional use, I have only ever used it once because of the stretch factor, and I know I could have gotten that shot with stitching, but it was not necessary.  Now some of you are probably saying, it saved you time having that lens.  Maybe 5 minutes, but when you put 1 to 4 hours into a single interior, an extra 5 minutes is really no time at all.  

Last, I have to agree with Jeff Kohn in that some photographers just get things to get them, even if the investment is not worth it and do not think it through.  If you really need this lens for your work, get it.   Remember though that Weston took almost all of his images with the same lens he bought for $15 in a junk store and his work is studied by many.  

I would rather just save, wait, and make an investment into a MF system when the time is right.

[CBarrett]

I'm just amused that there is all this debate on DSLR vs MFDB on a forum that by title confines itself to MFDB.  We're such dorks... we take our gear and our practices so personally.

Now on to more important matters... I want to get myself a dirtbike.... 2 stroke or 4 stroke?

-Chris <--- has been drinking

[JeffKohn]

I'm just amused that there is all this debate on DSLR vs MFDB on a forum that by title confines itself to MFDB.  We're such dorks... we take our gear and our practices so personally.

Well, it's likely that there are more people in this subforum than others, who can really give a more balanced view of the pros/cons of each system due to having used both. And that's doubly true given the original poster's interest in architecture and interiors, as there are a lot of knowledgeable pros from that genre who hang out here (yourself included).

I don't shoot DMF and probably won't anytime soon, but I hang out here because there's a lot of great discussions about photography, especially more advanced topics (just look at a few of the recent architecture photography threads).

[CBarrett]

Well, it's likely that there are more people in this subforum than others, who can really give a more balanced view of the pros/cons of each system due to having used both. And that's doubly true given the original poster's interest in architecture and interiors, as there are a lot of knowledgeable pros from that genre who hang out here (yourself included).

I don't shoot DMF and probably won't anytime soon, but I hang out here because there's a lot of great discussions about photography, especially more advanced topics (just look at a few of the recent architecture photography threads).

Oh, don't mind me, Jeff.  I was just being snarky.

[haefnerphoto]

(This is being resubmitted to the thread I originally intended it to be)

For each of the four images I posted earlier the 17mm T/S allowed me to make a better image.  In each case backing up was not an option, either walls, trees or water would have come into play (and not beneficially).  The images were successful enough, not great, but worked for my purposes (and the client's).  Here's another image shot Saturday with the 17 that I'm very happy with.  I've printed it to 18" across and it looks great but we know that these files will go even larger!  I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose).  I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made a lot of sense.  Jim

[attachment=17981:Cranbroo...m_stairs.jpg]

[asf]

The 17mm looks like a nice piece of glass, but I feel that the investment is not worth it.  First of all this lens is approaching the price of MF lenses, and Schneider and Rodenstock are not going to let Canon or Nikon ever reach them in quality (a specialist will always out preform a generalist).  Would it not be better just to make the investment into a MF system and get the equivalent lenses?

The equiv MFDB lens is the rodenstock 23HR @ $6500 for an unmounted version.

For the same $ one can buy the 17 tse, 24 tse II, 45 tse and 1.4x and still have change left to put toward a 5d2.

Then the roughly equiv lens to the 24 tse II is the rod 28 HR, which will set you back nearly $5400 for an unmounted one.

So I wouldn't say they're approaching the price of MF lenses.


I have both the Canon and Rodenstock lenses we're talking about here, as well as the rest of the systems to go with the lenses (Alpa and Canon).
MF is better, but unless you can really afford it it's not worth 3-4x the cost for a basic system.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm just amused that there is all this debate on DSLR vs MFDB on a forum that by title confines itself to MFDB.  We're such dorks... we take our gear and our practices so personally.

Now on to more important matters... I want to get myself a dirtbike.... 2 stroke or 4 stroke?

-Chris <--- has been drinking

LOL!  4 strokes are where it is at now.  You are from Chicago...you need to take a drive to Redbud this spring   The pro motocross is awsome.

http://redbudmx.com/

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

omg what happened here; left for a day and the thread nearly doubled in size!

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

(This is being resubmitted to the thread I originally intended it to be)

For each of the four images I posted earlier the 17mm T/S allowed me to make a better image.  In each case backing up was not an option, either walls, trees or water would have come into play (and not beneficially).  The images were successful enough, not great, but worked for my purposes (and the client's).  Here's another image shot Saturday with the 17 that I'm very happy with.  I've printed it to 18" across and it looks great but we know that these files will go even larger!  I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose).  I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made a lot of sense.  Jim

[attachment=17981:Cranbroo...m_stairs.jpg]

I am note sure I understand that part. I made it in bold for your reference. Are you saying your 17mm can be shifted in both horizontal and vertical at the same time just like a view camera?

[JoeKitchen]

Okay, the stretch factor.  When using a lens that is as wide as a 17 mm lens, you end up with stretching of objects on the edge of the image circle to make up for the wide view of the lens and this only gets worse as you increase the angle your are viewing the subject at.  So if you are taking a shot of a subject which has no depth dead on with the camera parallel to the image plan (like the front of a house or building where you are not looking into the architecture) you are fine and you will receive an accurate description of what the subject looks like.  But as soon as you start to turn the camera and look at the subject on an angle, the edges of the image will start to be stretched.  For instance you could take an image of a house and have it look three times longer than it really is.  I have examples of this and will try to post them tomorrow; I am too tired to find them right now.  I will also try tp post an explanation of why this happens in terms of lens engineering, but am much too tire to post that.  

Insofar as prices are concerned, when I wrote the post I was thinking of the cost of the new 24mm II compared to the 35 mm Schneider, 2000 vs 3500, only 75% more.  Schneider lenses are the lenses I most look at and it just so happens that they are symmetrical focus lenses which are cheeper to make than retro focal lenses.  Also, 17 mm on a DSLR is somewhere between a 23 and 28 mm on a MF system, so comparing the 17 to the Rod 23mm is not really a fare comparison.

I would also like to add that I also fell in love with photography when I was introduced to large format and 4x5 work and would not be a pro if I did not get into working in that type of style, so I may have a bias when it comes to this topic.

[asf]

Ok, this has been covered many times, so I won't go into it (there's a thread on it, about perspective and stitching and wide angle lenses) but lenses (rectilinear) have no power to stretch as you describe. It's a function of perspective. If you stitch 2 24mm shots to get the same angle the 17 gives you the "stretch" will be the same as long as you don't change camera position.

Maybe Bernard L can repost the test shots he did showing this.

My experience proves the same. You may not want to believe it, people love to hold on to the idea a "wide angle" lens "stretches" or "distorts" at the corners, and the great thing about stitching is using "longer" lenses to avoid that distortion, but try it and see. I can even do it on my Alpa with my Schneider 35xl and get the exact framing in 3 or 4 frames I'd get with my 28HR, only a larger files. But the corners wouldn't be any more or less "stretched".

Also, according to Alpa's calculations and my testing the 17 on 35ff dslr format is equiv to a 23-24 in 36x48 mfdb format. I attached a screenshot, you can download the Alpa calculator for free, but if you disagree test it and see. I'll agree the 35 and 24 are closer than the 28 and the 24. But 75% more isn't nothing, it's roughly half the cost of a 5d2 body, or a 45tse plus 1.4x, plus the all the added costs of MFDB.


Btw, I've been shooting LF professionally for 20 years (almost exclusively until a few years ago), the Alpa allowed me to switch to digital, and 35 digital (for what I do) has only been acceptable to me since this spring when I got the 24 tse II, followed shortly by the 17, used in combination with the 5d2.

[JeffKohn]

asf it's true that a rectilinear wide-angle lens and a stitch of multiple shots with a longer lens will have the same perspective or 'stretching' if you use a rectilinear projection in the pano software. But with pano stitching you have other projection options that don't 'stretch' as much as you get away from the center/vanishing point. Personally I don't much care for rectilinear projections beyond about 90-100 degrees, regardless of whether it's from a single image or a stitch. Even at 90 degrees I'll usually pick something other than a rectilinear projection when stitching, precisely because I don't like what happens to objects away from the center.

[asf]

Thanks for the clarification Jeff

Yes, there's lots of variables possible when it comes to stitching. As far as I'm aware stitching arch and interiors is usually done with rectilinear projection (always for me as I use Alpa shift adapter, stitching by shifting a tse lens or on the artec is basically the same thing). There may be instances where other forms of projection would be more pleasing. I'll try to test that out.

[Carsten W]

Thanks for the clarification Jeff

Yes, there's lots of variables possible when it comes to stitching. As far as I'm aware stitching arch and interiors is usually done with rectilinear projection (always for me as I use Alpa shift adapter, stitching by shifting a tse lens or on the artec is basically the same thing). There may be instances where other forms of projection would be more pleasing. I'll try to test that out.

While agreeing in general about the principle of the angle and the shooting location, there are different tradeoffs lens makers can make in the corners of superwides. For example, allowing a little barrel distortion can make the image look more relaxed in the corners, but of course is no good for stitching.

I recall reading about some of these tradeoffs at one point in one of my theory books, but don't recall where right now (my memory is really going).

One thing I do remember is that a strictly accurate superwide lens will often look artificial and stretched if you don't stand at the equivalent point when viewing the print. In other words, using a super-wide, and then standing far back will make the corners look stretched. You need to stand closer, so that the angle of viewing equals the angle of the capture.

[JeffKohn]

Thanks for the clarification Jeff

Yes, there's lots of variables possible when it comes to stitching. As far as I'm aware stitching arch and interiors is usually done with rectilinear projection (always for me as I use Alpa shift adapter, stitching by shifting a tse lens or on the artec is basically the same thing). There may be instances where other forms of projection would be more pleasing. I'll try to test that out.

It's true that rectilinear stitching may often be needed for architecture to keep straight lines actually straight. If you only have to worry about keeping verticals straight (and horizontals that pass through the center/vanishing point) then a cylindrical projection can give a very pleasing result. Additionally, a good stitcher like PTGui will give you some control over the projection parameters such as horizontal and/or vertical compression.  For landscapes, I most often use PTGui's Vedutismo projection, which gives very natural looking results IMHO. I haven't tested to see how well it would work for architecture though.

[JoeKitchen]

From reading the recent post, it appears like we have come to the conclusion about how and when optics with wide views will stretch the image and give inaccurate renderings.  Lets get back to the point of price; I feel what I said earlier is still right, you would be better off putting the money into a MF system then getting these lenses.  Lets look at two options for a system.

For about $8500 you can get a:
Canon 1D, 21 mp recording at 14 bits per channel, 10.5 stop range
the new Canon 24 ts

For around $16,000 you can get a:
Alpa 12max
Schneider 35mm
Leaf Aptus II 5, 22 mp recoding at 16 bits per channel, 12 stop range (and unlike Phase One's entry level backs, this one still has a large sensor)

Now as far as I see it, aside from saving you 8000, the DSLR system offers you a lighter camera easier to transport, automatic settings, and the ability to use very long lenses.  Aside from the last one (and the saving of 8k does sound good), the other two I do not care about.  You could also make the claim that it would be easier to find someone to look at your canon if need be.  

The MF system over the DSLR offers greater optical resolution, a much larger range and color gamut (remember bit and stop growth grows exponentially) giving you more freedom in PS and more lush transitions, the ability to shift on both axes, sturdier construction, levels on the camera, etc.  Also, when the sensor becomes obsolete, you do not have to replace the whole body, only the back.  Last, the pixels on this back are larger in size then on the Canon, decreasing the chance of getting apo-chromatic aberrations (it is Schneider glass though so you would not have to worry about it anyway).  Although you do increase you chances of getting morie by going with an entry level back, but that would not be any different then the Canon.  

You could even lower that price by about 2500 and get a Cambo Wide DS.  

Now 8000 more is a large sum, but if you are spending 8500 anyway, why not just put out the extra to get a system better equipped to shooting the subject?

[Kirk Gittings]

Only problem with your comparison is that a Canon 1D offers no real advantages over a 5D11 for shooting architecture. So the competitive price for the Canon alternative would actually be 4900.00 not 8500.00.

[JoeKitchen]

Only problem with your comparison is that a Canon 1D offers no real advantages over a 5D11 for shooting architecture. So the competitive price for the Canon alternative would actually be 4900.00 not 8500.00.

Good point.  That does make the DSLR more attractive, although I still would go with the other system.

[rainer_v]

Good point.  That does make the DSLR more attractive, although I still would go with the other system.

the first point is that the aptus 22 works with 14 bits too. the two additional bits are EMPTY/ kind of noise floor.

and second is  that you will have to go wider if you want to work seriously in architecture photography. so count in the 28 or 23Hr as well, and if you do that you already get an entire system with the canon with a 17/24/45/90 1,4 extender and 100-400 L is lens. all together will cost app: $ 10.000,--

and if going with the XY most likely you will have to buy some canon or nikon equipment  too ( backup and at least long lenses ) . i dont know people who dotn own an additional 35mm digital aside their mf setup.

but all this does not say it does not make sense to go with mf systems AND a canon/nikon,-
but certainly i wouldnt advise that to anybody who wants to start to come in architecture photograhy or who is studying photography. and less to lease all the stuff ...