Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Theodoros on October 30, 2015, 11:46:35 am
-
I had a conversation with a friend lately that happens to be a dealer and I have a long term relation with, who specializes in equipment for pros or passionate photographers who are on the demand for high end equipment and the conversation ended up relating more on the view camera market and the recent developments on it...
He ended up that pros either stick up with their (sometimes very) old equipment, that there is a continuous drop in demand for the later 10 years, that the market has come in a position where there is hardly any demand and that this year there is a boost in demand from both the enthusiast and the professional market towards the mini view cameras that appeared lately (mainly the Cambo Actus) which customers order in combination with FF mirrorless (almost entirely with Sony A7 series camera) as to either replace their older (but much more expensive) equipment, or enter the view camera world.
The customers seem to claim that the system helps them to be more creative, while there is very little (if any) they miss from using a view camera + mfdb combination in IQ... They seem to praise the LV ability more than anything and even abandon tethered captures for the rear screen flexibility, but also praise the maneuverability and the time consumption to perform a task...
It also seems that the demand for the same camera + MFDB combination is only a very small fraction of the demand as the customers find the cost difference not to be justified and that the ones that insist of using their older equipment, are mainly the ones that own multishot backs for their work (although they are also attracted to the "mini view camera" solution) and want to retain the multishot ability but can't overcome the poor LV that their MFDBs offer...
The lenses that the customers seem to use are mainly Mamyia RZ & Hasselblad V, but also old enlarger lenses able to project wide image circles as well as Canon or Nikon as to use the respective "perspective correction" (some call them "architectural") lenses on the mini view camera, which offer wider image circle and some of them are able to cover the wider AOV that MF lenses can't.... There is also demand from people that own (from the past) MF lenses that use motors for their aperture control (such as Rollei or Contax 645 or Blad H) who are trying to find a solution as to use them on a mini view camera...
We ended with a conversation concluding the following in agreement:
1. That the view camera market as we know it should completely change during the following years with more makers (Sinar, Linhoff ...etc) entering the "mini" view camera market,
2. That there should be more major makers (Canon, Nikon) moving into the FF mirrorless camera market,
3. That there should be interfaces developed as to control the aperture of the MF lenses that have electronic control, as well as to control the MF lenses that have electronic leaf shutters (Rollei, Bronica, Fuji GX680 etc), but focal plane shutters for the rear standard of these "mini" cameras too, as to attract users that would insist to retain their older MFDBs (and will allow multishot operation of the MS backs),
4. That the MFDB market should shrink further as another (major) application that was dominated by MFDB use is now under serious attack from cameras with smaller image area sensors, but without the technical disadvantage that the mirror box introduces,
5. That the view camera dedicated lens market should shrink considerably as MF lenses seem to be perfect of the job (and with good quality) at a fraction of the cost, especially if one considers the availability on the S/H market of (now) abandoned systems,
6. That there should be FF mirrorless cameras with multishot ability soon in the market as to provide an alternative to "true color" MFDB users.
Interesting subject.... What are your thoughts?
-
Aaaah... forgot to mention another (very important for future imaging) aspect of use that we discussed... View cameras being used for cinema... There seems to be a good (and steadily increasing) number of creative cinematographers that adapt the cameras they use (them being mirrorless) on the back a view camera and use movements for creative video... Here is an example with Actus + Blackmagic, but Sony A7 seems to be (again) the most popular implementation (at least up to now)... https://cambouk.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/cambo-actus-and-blackmagic-compact-cinema-camera/
I believe that Leica had all the O/P & the above in mind when announcing the SL (the recently announced Leica SL has the wider mount - 4mm more diameter than the Sony A7 - and thus seems ideal to be integrated with a view camera)... but I'm sure there are more applications to come... There seems that FF mirrorless + view camera combination has a lot of applications that are related with imaging that may prove revolutionary (as far as solutions are concerned) in the future... and all that with a significant reduction in costs while "enthusiast" & "professional" equipment (even for cinema) seems to be closing the cost gap and creativity seems to have more opportunities to be promoted...
-
Interesting topic. I would say that your dealer is right; many are going for the smaller FF and smaller tech camera setups. (I can tell you that before all of this, the idea of having to lug around a camera with bellows was too much, which is why I only considered the plate tech cameras.)
Now, due to the "grip" you can not hook a Sony to a plate camera, so bellows is the name of the game again and those smaller bellows cameras look nice. However, I was told by another avid pro that the smaller bellows camera are not as robust and that he can notice twisting/tilting on live view as he adjusts shift. So, I feel having a more robust (and larger and heavier) bellows camera is important just because digital is so much more sensitive to the standards being out of plane. But a Sony A7rII on a M Line 2 seems like a nice setup.
I like the idea of having movements for video. That sounds pretty awesome.
With that being said though, I have been starting to explore table top and still life photography and I am finding it to be difficult to get the background as out of focus as I would like to. I am mainly using my Rodenstock 90mm with my P45+, but feel that the 135mm or 180mm would be better for many of my images, just due to shorter depth of field. (Hopefully soon I will have a 135mm.) Going to a 35mm system, is going to shorten your focal length for the same angle of view and increase your depth of field. So, I guess it really depends on what you need to do.
-
Interesting topic. I would say that your dealer is right; many are going for the smaller FF and smaller tech camera setups. (I can tell you that before all of this, the idea of having to lug around a camera with bellows was too much, which is why I only considered the plate tech cameras.)
One however must take into account that cameras with bellows have a greater range of movements to the extend that the limits of a project may be not satisfied by a plate tech camera... and of course "mini" view cameras have solved the portability factor (up to a limit) ...not to mention the cost.
Now, due to the "grip" you can not hook a Sony to a plate camera, so bellows is the name of the game again and those smaller bellows cameras look nice. However, I was told by another avid pro that the smaller bellows camera are not as robust and that he can notice twisting/tilting on live view as he adjusts shift. So, I feel having a more robust (and larger and heavier) bellows camera is important just because digital is so much more sensitive to the standards being out of plane. But a Sony A7rII on a M Line 2 seems like a nice setup.
+1... However, quality of build and sturdiness are not related to the design... one would expect to improve with time as systems develop.
With that being said though, I have been starting to explore table top and still life photography and I am finding it to be difficult to get the background as out of focus as I would like to. I am mainly using my Rodenstock 90mm with my P45+, but feel that the 135mm or 180mm would be better for many of my images, just due to shorter depth of field. (Hopefully soon I will have a 135mm.) Going to a 35mm system, is going to shorten your focal length for the same angle of view and increase your depth of field. So, I guess it really depends on what you need to do.
A longer lens always helps (for the same distance to the subject), but I believe that any DOF is possible with the right lens image circle vs. image area combination... :) (exactly the limit with non bellows cameras as well as with limited movement cameras) accuracy (and good mechanical gearing) are very important for one to experiment with the Scheimpflug theory as to implement it as fast as possible...
Tanks for posting this, Theodoros.
-
Something that I just do not think about being a photographer is adjusting focus. I often pick my focus and then just setup the shot. However, recently I was doing some video and needed to have a second person adjust my focus as I panned and moved the camera within the scene.
I have to think this would be very difficult to impossible on a view camera.
-
I have to think this would be very difficult to impossible on a view camera.
Or much easier... no? Yet again, the use of a view camera is not necessarily a better option.... One may use it or not according to his needs. It's good to have the option though rather than it not being available at all...
-
I've used tilt/shifts on the Red for composing architectural master shots. These aren't generally the kinds of scenes you pull focus on. You could, however, pull focus if using slr lenses on the view camera (versus copal lenses). I would probably try to use my wireless ff to keep everything as smooth as possible.
I don't expect that we'll see development for all of the electronic mf lenses out there. I just don't think the market will support a ROI. The guy from Cambo that I spoke to at Photo+ said that they would only be doing the Canon mount. Martin from Arca said that they would be open to exploring different possibilities if the demand were there. I'd love an electronic mount for Leica S2 glass, but I can't imagine anyone other than myself buying it. Martin agreed.
Hell, I'm just happy that the Canon mount is coming and otherwise, I'm very happy with my CFi/e set.
CB
-
I frequently use the Actus with my Olympus cameras. The main problem is that the widest lens that I am able to use with the kit is a WA 40mm Schneider Componon S. So, the effective focal length is equivalent to 80mm on a FF 35mm camera. For a brief while I had a second-hand Sony A7 that I used with the Actus. I didn't like the A7, so I sold it.
I use enlarger lenses exclusively. I've designed a universal lens shade to cut out glare. I bought most of the lenses on eBay.
My major beef with the Actus is the detente for the swing movement is sloppy. I am careful to check focus on the left and the right side of the frame to ensure accurate focus along the y-axis. This can be a bit cumbersome when stitching. I contacted Cambo just this week to tell them about the detente issue. They said the slop is deliberate and it shouldn't compromise focus. HAH! I am not the only photographer whose called them on that.
Still, I really enjoy using the Actus. I love using front tilt to get deep depth-of-field on tele lenses at f/8. I just picked up a small Manfrotto gear head for around $200 (money well spent). I do not recommend the Actus for MFD.
-
I've used tilt/shifts on the Red for composing architectural master shots. These aren't generally the kinds of scenes you pull focus on. You could, however, pull focus if using slr lenses on the view camera (versus copal lenses). I would probably try to use my wireless ff to keep everything as smooth as possible.
I don't expect that we'll see development for all of the electronic mf lenses out there. I just don't think the market will support a ROI. The guy from Cambo that I spoke to at Photo+ said that they would only be doing the Canon mount. Martin from Arca said that they would be open to exploring different possibilities if the demand were there. I'd love an electronic mount for Leica S2 glass, but I can't imagine anyone other than myself buying it. Martin agreed.
Hell, I'm just happy that the Canon mount is coming and otherwise, I'm very happy with my CFi/e set.
CB
Hi Chris... I suspect (highly) that Sinar will be releasing an electronic aperture control for Leica S lenses which (automatically) would mean that Blad H & Contax 645 lenses will also be usable (via the H & C adapters)... It doesn't make sense if they don't, since they (the Leica group) introduced the Leica SL and announced an "S" adapter for the SL and this means that they have the interface ready... It would be like them refusing to sell more equipment (both Sinar & Leica), since the SL seems perfect (it has 4mm wider mount than the Sony A) for use instead of an MFDB on a view camera, but it is also specified very highly for video. ;)
In addition it should be expected for Sinar to soon enter the "mini" view camera market since it is the only part of view camera market that there is demand on... I think then that the other makers will have to react with making the same interface adaptable to their cameras, or by introducing alternative interfaces, or (most possible) doing both... I think we have a long way to go on the matter since the view cameras are the only sector of imaging that still has ..."archaic" interface communication which affects directly its marketing results... Lets not forget that Sinar & Rollei pioneered on the matter (although at a financial penalty that costed them their independance or even survival) and that Alpa lately introduced communication interfaces with movements for their 12 FPS... I don't expect it to end here... Even if a maker says "it's not in our plans" I think they'll be forced by the marketing needs to change their (current) position on the matter... (fingers crossed). :)
-
Bob, really appreciate your honest and frank feedback regarding the Actus. I wish Arca users would also give some feedback regarding mechanical detente accuracy's especially for swing which is very important.
Victor
-
Sinar could have made a similar thing since long time, making a cambo like camera with a canon or nikon mount on the back and an adapter with their sinar m mount lenses, which are not worse than the leica s counterparts. But as Chris said, 4 or 5 people would have bought that .... or less.
There will not be many architecture photographers who have a leica s or sinar m system with lenses resting at home, and if - these will already have the best available shift equipment as well.
-
I had a conversation with a friend lately that happens to be a dealer and I have a long term relation with, who specializes in equipment for pros or passionate photographers who are on the demand for high end equipment and the conversation ended up relating more on the view camera market and the recent developments on it...
He ended up that pros either stick up with their (sometimes very) old equipment, that there is a continuous drop in demand for the later 10 years, that the market has come in a position where there is hardly any demand
I always find it interesting to hear about other markets. Here in the US the NYC and LA market for Phase One gears has been increasing year-over-year for both the pro and enthusiast market since 2008. Phase One's public financial statements show increasing revenue and healthy profit during that period. Is he a dealer for Phase One or for Hassy and Sinar (or all three)?
What geographic market are you in again? How is the health of the economy in general there?
-
Sinar could have made a similar thing since long time, making a cambo like camera with a canon or nikon mount on the back and an adapter with their sinar m mount lenses, which are not worse than the leica s counterparts. But as Chris said, 4 or 5 people would have bought that .... or less.
There will not be many architecture photographers who have a leica s or sinar m system with lenses resting at home, and if - these will already have the best available shift equipment as well.
As you said, there would be only a handful of photographers (maybe) interested... I believe that the major reason for the success that "mini" view cameras have, is that one can use the lenses he already owns or (if he doesn't) purchase very cheap alternatives with high quality performance... With Sinar m lenses and mirror-box cameras on the rear standard, one would end up with poor performance (due to the mirror box) and still with expensive lenses...
But, lets imagine something real... (say) a pro that is (still) using an H1 or H2 and a 22mp or 33/39mp MFDB on it (there are plenty)... Wouldn't it be great for him if he adds an Actus, get an FF mirrorless and use the H-lenses he already uses on it? Compare that with the investment needed to set up a "real" view camera system, adapt his MFDB on it and buy new lenses that can cope with the system... and then compare the result difference (if it worth the investment) then the flexibility of use and then time required to perform a certain task... I guess it then is easy to guess the winner and explain the recent marketing reaction that the mini view cameras have...
-
After a long field test today of a Linhof Techno with Rodenstock and Schneider Lenses, Cambo with Rodenstock lenses, IQ Back, Phase with Schneider lenses and also the new SK Bluering lens (35mm) and the Canon 5Dsr with many different lenses, I cannot sea DMF business shrink. The Canon is not coming near a proper DMF + Schneider Bluering lens or Rodie. All the big guns are using DMF, even if it is just used as a symbol. A Sony A7rII setup needs 4-6 batteries at least, during a shooting...just carrying those chargers and find power supply is a joke on set...the A7r is just not made for professional use. It is a great cam, but for real work it isn't working in the field imho...also charging proper money and standing there with such a cam, every AD has is just not what puts a good image on the photographer. This maybe works in still life. And many of the new creative cool league who used to shoot analogue for a long time, switched to DMF in the mean time. CMOS sensors helping a lot too and the Pentax system. Every camera brand is pushing towards bigger sensors and there are more FF 35mm sensors cams ever (Sony 4 Models, Canon 5 Models, Nikon 6 models?, Leica 4 Models, Pentax coming up, Fuji coming up, Olympus missing the boat?, many FF mirrorles cams coming up) and than everyone says the trend is away from bigger sensors? This is not how I am experiencing it. So many photogs in my city are using DMF, 3-4 years before I knew everyone personally. Now so many have them, people I never heart of are shooting with DMF. I am waiting for 2 month on the XF upgrade as PhaseOne didn't expect such a huge demand. Doesn't sounds like a shrinking market.
-
This is not how I am experiencing it. So many photogs in my city are using DMF, 3-4 years before I knew everyone personally. Now I so many have them, people I never heart of are shooting with DMF. I am waiting for 2 month on the XF upgrade as PhaseOne didn't expect such a huge demand. Doesn't sounds like a shrinking market.
What city are you in?
I'm genuinely interested by the drastically different views I hear. I'm very knowledgable about the state of medium format digital in the NYC and LA markets and to some extent the rest of the US market, but very little about the rest of the world.
-
I think on the forums the buzz around tech cams has died off a bit during the last year. It's more and more about the mirrorless Sonys. Forum buzz is not an accurate view of the whole market though. I don't really know what's happening.
I think it will all reduce to a very tiny speciality money-no-object market, and I think I myself will probably not shoot MFD tech in 5-10 years, most likely be back to Canon with whatever tilt-shifts they have then.
A CMOS back that can do my soon-to-be-discontinued Schneider Digitars is probably the only thing that can make me continue past those 5-10 years, but it's one of those less-than-ten people products.
I see convergence, MFD and 135 will look more alike in features. Popular replacement of copal shutter is not an e-shutter, but a focal plane shutter. Flange distance will increase, more similar lens designs. Supersharp 135 lenses like Otus will have a good market and more will come. With the increase in similarity in image quality, lens lines and movement capabilities the attraction to MFD for me will decrease. I want something more than just more pixels (if I even get that).
For now I'm very happy with my Techno 50MP CCD and Schneider Digitar lens line, but I don't see an attractive upgrade path unless that compatible CMOS back arrives...
-
I think on the forums the buzz around tech cams has died off a bit during the last year. It's more and more about the mirrorless Sonys. Forum buzz is not an accurate view of the whole market though. I don't really know what's happening.
I think it will all reduce to a very tiny speciality money-no-object market, and I think I myself will probably not shoot MFD tech in 5-10 years, most likely be back to Canon with whatever tilt-shifts they have then.
A CMOS back that can do my soon-to-be-discontinued Schneider Digitars is probably the only thing that can make me continue past those 5-10 years, but it's one of those less-than-ten people products.
I see convergence, MFD and 135 will look more alike in features. Popular replacement of copal shutter is not an e-shutter, but a focal plane shutter. Flange distance will increase, more similar lens designs. Supersharp 135 lenses like Otus will have a good market and more will come. With the increase in similarity in image quality, lens lines and movement capabilities the attraction to MFD for me will decrease. I want something more than just more pixels (if I even get that).
35mm Tilts for proper architecture work is not working imho. An Otus lens is as expensive as a DMF lens, but without auto focus. A canon 5Dsr will be old after 3 years, a IQ150 will be fine for 5-8 years and will sell for proper money after this. I used a refurbished P45+ for 4 years and lost 4000€ of investment, after I went for an upgrade. Made more money on charging equipment cost to client than I could have for a Canon cam. This has been a smart investment although it was huge at the beginning.
The big question is who your clients are. But the expensive stuff is the 24/7 upgrades on 35mm camera gear. A 3 year old Canon L lens is not usable at the newest Canon cam. Serious tilt is not really usable on the newest Canon cam. Every system has its fit and in the analogue time people had LF, MF, 35mm...now people just focus on 35mm, but in fact all systems have their point..some analogue cams got used till they fell apart and where even tuck taped. These days people got the feeling a p45+ cannot do the job. Although there have been done awesome work with it over a decade. The most expensive part in all that is, if you replace stuff to early. If you look at the Sony A7, you could have spent 12k in the last 3 years or so (at least it feels like that).
-
After a long field test today of a Linhof Techno with Rodenstock and Schneider Lenses, Cambo with Rodenstock lenses, IQ Back, Phase with Schneider lenses and also the new SK Bluering lens (35mm) and the Canon 5Dsr with many different lenses, I cannot sea DMF business shrink. The Canon is not coming near a proper DMF + Schneider Bluering lens or Rodie. All the big guns are using DMF, even if it is just used as a symbol. A Sony A7rII setup needs 4-6 batteries at least, during a shooting...just carrying those chargers and find power supply is a joke on set...the A7r is just not made for professional use. It is a great cam, but for real work it isn't working in the field imho...also charging proper money and standing there with such a cam, every AD has is just not what puts a good image on the photographer. This maybe works in still life. And many of the new creative cool league who used to shoot analogue for a long time, switched to DMF in the mean time. CMOS sensors helping a lot too and the Pentax system. Every camera brand is pushing towards bigger sensors and there are more FF 35mm sensors cams ever (Sony 4 Models, Canon 5 Models, Nikon 6 models?, Leica 4 Models, Pentax coming up, Fuji coming up, Olympus missing the boat?, many FF mirrorles cams coming up) and than everyone says the trend is away from bigger sensors? This is not how I am experiencing it. So many photogs in my city are using DMF, 3-4 years before I knew everyone personally. Now so many have them, people I never heart of are shooting with DMF. I am waiting for 2 month on the XF upgrade as PhaseOne didn't expect such a huge demand. Doesn't sounds like a shrinking market.
I really fail to understand your post Franzi... Do you deny that mini view camera + FF mirrorless are dominating the view camera market (even among pros) currently? ...As I said in the O/P, there are still plenty of pros that use MFDB + view camera combinations, but the current sales of traditional view camera equipment is only a handful in comparison... mostly it is existing stuff for many years that people have invested a lot in it and wouldn't (of course) abandone it for inferior equipment (let alone the financial loss)...
The question here is different... It is whether the value difference justifies the cost difference, whether skills can overcome the difference in performance and whether one can work faster, untethered and still keep up to the task... The estimation that "MFDB market should shrink further", doesn't implement a suggestion that Sonys are better than MFDBs... (I have two MFDBs myself - both with multishot ability - as to implement such nonsense), it is rather a natural estimation that one would do because -as it is mentioned in the O/P- "another aspect of photography that MFDBs where dominant on, is now under invasion from FF mirrorless cameras"... nothing more, nothing less of an estimation based on facts that is.
-
I really fail to understand your post Franzi... Do you deny that mini view camera + FF mirrorless are dominating the view camera market (even among pros) currently? ...
"another aspect of photography that MFDBs where dominant on, is now under invasion from FF mirrorless cameras"... nothing more, nothing less of an estimation based on facts that is.
Maybe I am lost in translation and misunderstood the original post. Not denying, just posting my experience. Have to admit, I don't have a big understanding of the still life and food photography market. Just know one still lifer who used 35mm since the beginning because DMF was a pain without proper live view and depth of field was his enemy anyway. For stuff like that 35mm FF works well I would say. All I wanted to say is that the DMF market is growing imho.
-
Maybe I am lost in translation and misunderstood the original post. Not denying, just posting my experience. Have to admit, I don't have a big understanding of the still life and food photography market. Just know one still lifer who used 35mm since the beginning because DMF was a pain without proper live view and depth of field was his enemy anyway. For stuff like that 35mm FF works well I would say. All I wanted to say is that the DMF market is growing imho.
I would wish that it would, but since there is no reports on the matter posted from the makers, it makes me very suspicious for the opposite... :) Maybe MF DSLRs (Leica 007 & Pentax Z) are doing well at the moment (again an estimation based on the price and own experience out of wedding pros I know that found an opportunity to add digital next to their Contax 645 using the same glass on Leica S 007), but even if they do, wouldn't that share "cut" more out of MFDB + camera combinations? Personally I strongly protest against "closed systems" (a reason why I never used Phamyia or Blad platforms) and additionally, I think that the major maker's decision (P1 of course) to close the system with the XF will seriously damage their sales and the MFDB market in total... but that's a different conversation...
-
Found this... http://petapixel.com/2015/04/21/more-murmurings-of-a-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-by-nikon/ and that... http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-2016-sony-90mm-tops-dxo-charts-daily-roundup/ on web...
It is "just rumors" alright, but I find it impossible for the recent FF mirrorless-mania not to have affected the "big boys"... The advantages (like some discussed here) that these types of cameras provide easy access to photographers are hard to overlook...
Personally, I couldn't live without looking through an OVF, since I believe that the visualization fundamental can't be satisfied by an EVF when the photographer is "active" and hand holds the camera... But for cases where the study of the scene (and hence the visualization of it) is performed by directly viewing at it without the need of looking through a VF and then VF is used only for framing, I think mirrorless is irreplaceable...
-
I would wish that it would, but since there is no reports on the matter posted from the makers, it makes me very suspicious for the opposite...
Phase One's financials are public record (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-1/) and show revenue and profit increasing year-over-year since 2008.
I asked earlier in this thread about where you are from and whether your friend/dealer's portfolio includes Phase One backs. I'm genuinely curious as, from your reports, things are very different than they are in the US.
-
Phase One's financials are public record (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstilling-af-optiske-instrumenter-og-fotografisk-udstyr/13477705-1/) and show revenue and profit increasing year-over-year since 2008.
I asked earlier in this thread about where you are from and whether your friend/dealer's portfolio includes Phase One backs. I'm genuinely curious as, from your reports, things are very different than they are in the US.
Hi Doug, Yair knows where I come from and knows my friend (P.A are the initials) he used to be the Leaf importer and now does deal P1 stuff also (along with other hi end stuff -Hasselblad & Leica group too- he deals) through the importer of the group... Please ask Yair privately on details and names, since I don't want to provide these info in public... Thanks...
As for sales, I didn't ask for financial reports (as these depend on many different factors) but on actual number of new (only) units sold... I think that P1 figures of (new) units that should be the largest among MF market would give us a good idea of the current total volume of MF market and how it is affected (or not) by the smaller format progress... :)
-
I would wish that it would, but since there is no reports on the matter posted from the makers, it makes me very suspicious for the opposite... :) Maybe MF DSLRs (Leica 007 & Pentax Z) are doing well at the moment (again an estimation based on the price and own experience out of wedding pros I know that found an opportunity to add digital next to their Contax 645 using the same glass on Leica S 007), but even if they do, wouldn't that share "cut" more out of MFDB + camera combinations? Personally I strongly protest against "closed systems" (a reason why I never used Phamyia or Blad platforms) and additionally, I think that the major maker's decision (P1 of course) to close the system with the XF will seriously damage their sales and the MFDB market in total... but that's a different conversation...
My local pro dealer confirms that the Pentax is selling well in France.
An interesting and maybe related MF datapoint is that there are few "cheap" MF used kits available here from the usual suspects, if you browse the web. In Germany and the uk it is very different, eg. look at procentre.co.uk and fotopartner.de
I do agree with Theodoros that we should be seeing some view camera innovation/hybrids. Maybe when Leica has digested Sinar?
Edmund
-
I would wish for this thread to avoid the "usual" conversations about company interests... it is not the aim of the discussion by no means... This is a conversation purely on how photographers will be able to have access to more tasks and develop their skills as to help photography advance from the (usual) company interest trap (IMO) that has fallen in, during the past recent years... your help will be highly appreciated... thanks!
EDIT: My opinion is that what advances photography is amazing images, not better lenses, nor cameras with higher spec, neither higher resolution!
From this point of view, I have a feeling that images became worst with tech advancement for the later 12 years (which is equipment that trolls laugh about).
This thread, I created because there is evidence of new photographic "tooling" present that can give (again IMO) opportunities to more talents to do things that they wouldn't have access before and also for experienced photographers (or cinematographers) to use in conditions that they couldn't before and how easy one can integrate these tools in his work with a minimum cost... nothing more, nothing less.
-
Theo,
There are too many images already. The problem for the art establishment is not finding new artists, it is locking out the many to anoint the few.
Edmund
I would wish for this thread to avoid the "usual" conversations about company interests... it is not the aim of the discussion by no means... This is a conversation purely on how photographers will be able to have access to more tasks and develop their skills as to help photography advance from the (usual) company interest trap (IMO) that has fallen in, during the past recent years... your help will be highly appreciated... thanks!
EDIT: My opinion is that what advances photography is amazing images, not better lenses, nor cameras with higher spec, neither higher resolution!
From this point of view, I have a feeling that images became worst with tech advancement for the later 12 years (which is equipment that trolls laugh about).
This thread, I created because there is evidence of new photographic "tooling" present that can give (again IMO) opportunities to more talents to do things that they wouldn't have access before and also for experienced photographers (or cinematographers) to use in conditions that they couldn't before and how easy one can integrate these tools in his work with a minimum cost... nothing more, nothing less.
-
EDIT: My opinion is that what advances photography is amazing images, not better lenses, nor cameras with higher spec, neither higher resolution!
From this point of view, I have a feeling that images became worst with tech advancement for the later 12 years (which is equipment that trolls laugh about).
This thread, I created because there is evidence of new photographic "tooling" present that can give (again IMO) opportunities to more talents to do things that they wouldn't have access before and also for experienced photographers (or cinematographers) to use in conditions that they couldn't before and how easy one can integrate these tools in his work with a minimum cost... nothing more, nothing less.
This is a fact, that there is more and better and more affordable equipment available to a wider audience. But this doesn't say anything about the fact, that the trend is towards bigger sensors in 35mm and towards DMF too. You cannot deny that before it was cropped sensors and since 2-3 years it is all about FF and now even in mirrorless. Many said the Nikon will kill dem DMF, now they say Canon or Sony, but in my personal view neither is right. It is the other way around. DMF is more affordable than ever. This also counts for tech camera users. Buy a used back and put it onto a Sinar, Linhof, Arca and you wil have a great product and lenses will be cheap for DMF back (compared to phase or hasselblad lenses). People always want to hear you can buy the best for no money, but the canon won't outperform a DMF, neither will the Sony. Will you be able to do proper stuff and better stuff than with a 10 year old 5D, of course. But the best will still be DMF and there is no way around it atm. A DMF system has its place as has a FF35mm with a tech cam, but it won't kill it. I think the niche is so small for the tech/35mm cam market and the tech/DMF market that this won't influence the sales much. I think the biggest sales in DMF is for fashion, landscape, commercial stuff. Wedding slightly coming more important with cheaper solutions. For still life it is neither 35mm for years already or 35mm combined with a bigger tech cam. Now there are more options with smaller tech cams and those will adapt towards these system if they need that. But this won't effect the sales of DMF in bigger quantities.
-
And talking about film business. I wanna see what will come out of a Leica S DMF produced video...this is more interesting I think...
-
Theo,
There are too many images already. The problem for the art establishment is not finding new artists, it is locking out the many to anoint the few.
Edmund
I'm sure that many talents, didn't have access to proper equipment up until recently, as to develop their skills... MO refers to all imaging, both photography and motion...
-
The slow update rate/need of MFD vs 135 I think is better fitting the period 2005-2010 than 2010-2015 and I think it will even out even more in the coming 5 year period.
One reason 135 users update often is because it's cheap to do so and technical development has been fast. You can't compare percentage value drop of a system that cost 1/5th to 1/10th of MFD.
MFD upgrade need hasn't been that strong as well, there hasn't been much technical development, but it seems to gain speed now with CMOS and new bodies, and indeed Pentax as a new player. Now I think I see that MFD users update faster, to keep the distance from the 135 crowd at least. It's easy to see in the second hand market how the prices of MFD backs suddenly drop like a stone when the megapixel count or dynamic range drop below what you get in 135, despite that the backs shoot nice quality still in an absolute sense. Most people want to lead the race.
The 50MP Kodak CCD I use in a Hassy H4D-50 will be near-impossible to sell with any retained value as the market has decided that it's too noisy with today's standards. I knew that though when I bought it and already then I got it at a fraction of the original price because it had lost its sexiness to the majority of users.
Still among pro users I don't think economical factors have been the reason to move to 135. Sure in countries where salaries are lower etc there is such a need, but say in Sweden where I live if your business can't handle the cost of MFD then it surely can't pay your salary either. When people have switched it seems to be mostly about convenience. Why have a clunky MFD system when a 135 does the job?
I've seen the highest end architecture photographers here in Sweden start working with 135 since the D800 days. Workflow speed, convenience and adequate quality was the reasons. Not economy. In the case I'm thinking about the photographer still had a MFD system on the shelf if a client would need it but it didn't see much use.
With my Techno I shoot manually, focus on ground glass, need LCC shots. My Canon with TS-E is much faster to work with. So I understand why some people make that choice.
MFD is becoming more convenient with CMOS now though, but tech segment and CMOS is still a bit messy due to the wide angle compatibility issues. We still have no exif data connection with movements, and electronic shutters to replace the discontinued copals are super-expensive and ill-suited for field use. Schneider has silently left tech lens manufacturing leaving Rodenstock alone, and despite their retrofocus design the CMOS compatibility is not exactly great. So the segment does not look super-healthy to me if we look into the future. But things can change.
-
There is a risk that people just stop shooting view cameras and solve it with perspective correction, new shooting styles, focus stacking etc. Sometimes there's a shift, things get worse in some aspects due to strong improvements in other areas.
One such example is telephony. Mobile phones are much less reliable and in general worse sound quality than fixed phones where. But we got mobile, and that big advantage made us relax the demands on reliability and sound quality.
That is I'm not sure view cameras with as flexible movements we have today will exist at all in the future. With the pancake cameras we've already seen a reduction in movement flexibility.
-
This is a fact, that there is more and better and more affordable equipment available to a wider audience. But this doesn't say anything about the fact, that the trend is towards bigger sensors in 35mm and towards DMF too. You cannot deny that before it was cropped sensors and since 2-3 years it is all about FF and now even in mirrorless. Many said the Nikon will kill dem DMF, now they say Canon or Sony, but in my personal view neither is right. It is the other way around. DMF is more affordable than ever. This also counts for tech camera users. Buy a used back and put it onto a Sinar, Linhof, Arca and you wil have a great product and lenses will be cheap for DMF back (compared to phase or hasselblad lenses). People always want to hear you can buy the best for no money, but the canon won't outperform a DMF, neither will the Sony. Will you be able to do proper stuff and better stuff than with a 10 year old 5D, of course. But the best will still be DMF and there is no way around it atm. A DMF system has its place as has a FF35mm with a tech cam, but it won't kill it. I think the niche is so small for the tech/35mm cam market and the tech/DMF market that this won't influence the sales much. I think the biggest sales in DMF is for fashion, landscape, commercial stuff. Wedding slightly coming more important with cheaper solutions. For still life it is neither 35mm for years already or 35mm combined with a bigger tech cam. Now there are more options with smaller tech cams and those will adapt towards these system if they need that. But this won't effect the sales of DMF in bigger quantities.
But it is still marketing what you are talking about... What you are saying is mostly own preference and as I understand it, it creates a marketing impression based on other photographer choices that are similar to yours...
I have to agree with you that I also prefer MF than FF "look", but MO is also that there isn't any real advancement for IQ among CCD backs and the later welcome feature that I've find interesting, is the FF MFDB size sensors and P1's "exposure +" technology which increases sensitivity by 2 stops... but this was back to 2008... So what I'm saying is that owners of older backs have little reason to upgrade, while at the same time DSLR sensor technology has been advanced at a higher pace, thus causing further convergence... So my estimation is based on the natural conclusion that if convergence is enough so that skills can overcome the difference and the photographer can (using these skills) achieve the result he aims for, then he may as well use the minimum of equipment required for that task... It's natural for this to happen, ...no?
OTOH with motion, things look very promising with larger sensors... but with motion imaging, FF camera size sensors are already big! The Leica S you mention is a very good example..., it explodes its best motion performance by only using a part of the area of its sensor that is equal to the one of a FF camera... I guess then, one may use the new SL (for the same purpose - motion) that uses that part of the Leica S sensor and is specified even higher for Video. Look at the Sony 33x44 for instance, the sensor is specified to use its full image area for 8K (cinema - 8192 rows needed) motion (I believe that Sony has done that in purpose since they are among the leaders of equipment providers with long tradition) and the MF makers that are using the sensor ignored almost totally this capability...
But you see, the Cinema world is different, there a "closed system" that requires dedicated lenses and software is condemned by definition to death... exactly another reason why I believe that there is a bright feature for FF mirrorless... they offer more "openness" (access to lenses and software) more than any other maker, MFDB or mirrorbox DSLR...
-
I'm sure that many talents, didn't have access to proper equipment up until recently, as to develop their skills... MO refers to all imaging, both photography and motion...
Theo,
I agree that there is a lot of interesting stuff that could be done by creating a modern view camera. In fact, if you take something like a Hassy 50C back ($10K) and put it on an existing view camera one can probably preview most of the effects, and create motion with timelapse. Modernising the view camera is a really interesting topic.
As for the argument that more equipment is necessary to develop talent BWAHAHAHA. Even an equipment freak like myself will laugh himself to the floor over that argument.
Edmund
-
As for the argument that more equipment is necessary to develop talent BWAHAHAHA. Even an equipment freak like myself will laugh himself to the floor over that argument.
Edmund
Back on 2007, I sold my P2 and lenses and bought a Fuji GX-680 with 5 lenses and even pocketed the money difference... reason? I needed to invest another 20k on the P2 for new lenses and electronic shutters as to make it compatible to work with an Imcon 528c back in multishot mode... With the Fuji GX-680 which costed a part of the money I earned from selling the P2 gear, I only needed a cable which a kind Hasselblad technician in Denmark has send me for free... OK, the comparison of the mechanical accuracy required with the Fuji as compared to the P2 is totally unfair... but what do I care having in the mean time developed the required experience from using the Sinar for so many years? I hardly spend more time to set up the Fuji than if I was using the Sinar...
Now here is the good one... I later on sold the (fantastic - still in my hurt) 528c which I got for even money than selling my first back (the Emotion 22), for about double the price than it was valued when It came in my possession... because, in the mean time, people realized what the back could do and they are rare in the market... With the money (+a Leica R8 body which I had left from the 90s), I got a CF-39MS and have spend another 1400 Euro to get a Sinarback 54H FW as to retain the 528c's image quality & improve on color calibration process and another 265 euro for the adapter for Contax 645 and the cables needed for both the Sinar & the Contax (I have the Fuji adapted for Contax mount backs)... The biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig surprise came when I tested the Fuji + 54H combination... LV works great with it, its quality is far better than the Imacon 528c and one can even use the Zinar LC shutter on the Fuji & thus have LV that competes with the best LV offered by Cmos sensors out there by any standard... and this is 20years old camera we are talking about and 11 years old back, but with full interface compatibility and all the movements one may need for the sensor size of the back & even a horizontal/vertical rotateable back... Now when I see a flashy 40K worth single shot back & view camera combination, ...there goes the "BWAHAHAHA"... and if one compares the IQ for stills, there goes twice as much "BWAHAHAHA".... ;D
-
Now when I see a flashy 40K worth single shot back & view camera combination, ...there goes the "BWAHAHAHA"... and if one compares the IQ for stills, there goes twice as much "BWAHAHAHA".... ;D
Indeed. And every day I see old tethered H25 and Imacon digibacks going for almost nothing on ebay, which are fantastic for tethered work, even if of course they are nowhere like an MS solution.
I learned photography with ... a Kodak Vest Pocket, and then plate view cameras. I was living in a US-sponsored dictatorship, and that's what I had available. And next to me I have a Super Ikonta loaded with a fresh roll of HP5 - a camera which I could only have dreamed of as a kid which I got for ... free from the local dealer.
Edmund
-
Mirrorless has had some effect on Tech/MFDB sales. We at Arca-Swiss have already addressed this movement for some users, by producing our Universalis series of 6x9 cameras. In this series, you have a body available to mount medium format backs or DSLR/Mirrorless, or even 4x5.
You can purchase the camera in any of the formats and then get a format change kit to jump to one of the other formats. The 110x110 bayonet R lens board allows the lenses from an R line Technical camera to just be bayoneted onto the Universalis, or any of our 6x9 size cameras.
Our bayonet system for mounting the bellows to the cameras allows use with 32mm or 35mm LF style lenses with movement. In addition at Photoplus, we announced the new Canon aperture control board, which will allow a user to mount the Canon 24mm and even 17mm TS lenses on the Universalis, for example, and control the aperture. The Universalis has geared rise/fall and lateral shift movements in the back and MicroOrbix geared tilt, along with dynamic swing, in the front. The front also has geared rise/fall.
The readout is an LED on the front of the board, with buttons to change the aperture and open the aperture fully to focus, then close to the selected shooting iris. This board with its rear movements, allows the image to be corrected and or composed without compromising the perspective or point of view. The 24mm Canon, especially , can also be used with some of the MFDB backs, more or less, depending on sensor size.
Our bellows system also drops mechanical vignetting to an absolute minimum.
Universalis Camera is very light and up to the precision required of digital image making.
Doug at Digital Transitions, Has more info on it. Chris sent a pic from the show.
-
Mirrorless has had some effect on Tech/MFDB sales. We at Arca-Swiss have already addressed this movement for some users, by producing our Universalis series of 6x9 cameras. In this series, you have a body available to mount medium format backs or DSLR/Mirrorless, or even 4x5.
You can purchase the camera in any of the formats and then get a format change kit to jump to one of the other formats. The 110x110 bayonet R lens board allows the lenses from an R line Technical camera to just be bayoneted onto the Universalis, or any of our 6x9 size cameras.
Our bayonet system for mounting the bellows to the cameras allows use with 32mm or 35mm LF style lenses with movement. In addition at Photoplus, we announced the new Canon aperture control board, which will allow a user to mount the Canon 24mm and even 17mm TS lenses on the Universalis, for example, and control the aperture. The Universalis has geared rise/fall and lateral shift movements in the back and MicroOrbix geared tilt, along with dynamic swing, in the front. The front also has geared rise/fall.
The readout is an LED on the front of the board, with buttons to change the aperture and open the aperture fully to focus, then close to the selected shooting iris. This board with its rear movements, allows the image to be corrected and or composed without compromising the perspective or point of view. The 24mm Canon, especially , can also be used with some of the MFDB backs, more or less, depending on sensor size.
Our bellows system also drops mechanical vignetting to an absolute minimum.
Universalis Camera is very light and up to the precision required of digital image making.
Doug at Digital Transitions, Has more info on it. Chris sent a pic from the show.
Thanks for confirming my marketing estimation Rod.... The Universallis option looks very promising, but isn't the associated equipment announced on Photokina '14 late? Could you please inform us on when the equipment will be released (especially the focal plane shutter) and on what is the status for MF lenses to be used on the front standard? Also, is there any research in progress for MF lens mounts with electronic aperture control?
I ask this because unless if the focal plane shutter is released, people that use MF backs with multishot ability, won't be able to use them and then, people that use both MF and FF mirrorless cameras need to use their existing series of lenses as to both keep the cost down , as well as (most important) to keep the magnitude of the equipment they use down to a minimum... Let's not forget that there are FF mirrorless with multishot ability expected from the camera makers and the customers can then use their MF lenses on a mini size view camera, but some MF users of existing MF multishot backs, wouldn't mind cropping some of the image area if they can use their MF lenses...
For example... It would be a real blessing for me if I was able to use my Contax 645 lenses on a Universallis either with a mirrorless, or with a (future) multishot mirrorless, but it would be even better if I could use my Sinarback 54H and Blad CF-39MS back with the same lenses and just crop a bit when framing... That way, I could only carry my Contax 645 in a bag, add a DSLR body with the adapter for my C645 lenses (already have that) & a Universallis and then avoid the extra bulk and weight to carry the Fuji GX-680 too as with only 3-5 MF lenses of the C645 I wll be able to have lenses for all the DSLR, the Contax, but the Universalis too...
-
It would be very interesting to see the future of view cameras. A couple of months ago the Sinar newsletter mentioned a new camera coming soon...
Hopefully they will have an open platform this time. I like the Sinaron lenses, and some things you really can not (easily) do without a tech camera.
The Sinar P3 have had an electronic interface for years. But not even their own electronic shutter use the integrated connectors.
From what I understand the copal shutters are now out of production, so a better electronic shutter that does not need a bunch of cables and extra boxes would be great.. as in a Sony or Canon mount. Or even better, have the Leaf back control everything.. That would make a great reason for an upgrade :)
-
It would be very interesting to see the future of view cameras. A couple of months ago the Sinar newsletter mentioned a new camera coming soon...
Hopefully they will have an open platform this time.
Ι'm aware too about this newsletter... It seems that it will be a "mini" view camera much like the Universallis & Actus size... However, I don't expect it to use an open interface... IMO it will be based on the SL to S lenses interface and will allow for C645 and Hasselblad H lenses to be used on the front standard via the Leica C & H adapters... I would expect the same interface to be applicable to P3 as well, while there should be a new focal plane shutter (without the M frame this time) as to enable multishot operation with the multishot backs... Of course all view cameras are "open platform" up to an extend, but I don't expect Sinar (or Leica) to develop interface compatible with other makers other than via adapters that will make them compatible with Leica interface.
-
Ι'm aware too about this newsletter... It seems that it will be a "mini" view camera much like the Universallis & Actus size... However, I don't expect it to use an open interface... IMO it will be based on the SL to S lenses interface and will allow for C645 and Hasselblad H lenses to be used on the front standard via the Leica C & H adapters... I would expect the same interface to be applicable to P3 as well, while there should be a new focal plane shutter (without the M frame this time) as to enable multishot operation with the multishot backs... Of course all view cameras are "open platform" up to an extend, but I don't expect Sinar (or Leica) to develop interface compatible with other makers other than via adapters that will make them compatible with Leica interface.
Very interesting prognosis. I expect a smaller view camera too. Although I do not understand where the new electronic shutter is positioned, if you are right. For now, my CMV and CAB lenses work ok with my Sinar - M shatter but I was approached with the suggestion to send the CAB and CMV lenses and make them future proof with the new Sinar e-shutter. CAB lenses disappeared from the Sinar web site and they are no longer supported, with the demise of the Sinar -M.
I wonder why would Sinar need to introduce a new focal plane shutter? If you are right and the new shutter/digiback will be the new SL.??
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Very interesting prognosis. I expect a smaller view camera too. Although I do not understand where the new electronic shutter is positioned, if you are right. For now, my CMV and CAB lenses work ok with my Sinar - M shatter but I was approached with the suggestion to send the CAB and CMV lenses and make them future proof with the new Sinar e-shutter. CAB lenses disappeared from the Sinar web site and they are no longer supported, with the demise of the Sinar -M.
I wonder why would Sinar need to introduce a new focal plane shutter? If you are right and the new shutter/digiback will be the new SL.??
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Hi Yevgeny,
I believe you also had some info directly from Sinar people that there are new products under development... no? The new focal plane shutter is needed for when one uses an MFDB (a multishot one too) with a Lens without leaf shutter on... (Such as Mamiya RZ, Hasselblad F or other MF, or Sinar lenses without shutter, or even a lens that has (mechanical) leaf shutter but there is no interface to activate it)...
-
Hi Yevgeny,
I believe you also had some info directly from Sinar people that there are new products under development... no? The new focal plane shutter is needed for when one uses an MFDB (a multishot one too) with a Lens without leaf shutter on... (Such as Mamiya RZ, Hasselblad F or other MF, or Sinar lenses without shutter, or even a lens that has (mechanical) leaf shutter but there is no interface to activate it)...
Hi Theodoros,
Thanks. I see the point now. Maybe you are right. Time will tell.
Yevgeny
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Thanks for confirming my marketing estimation Rod.... The Universallis option looks very promising, but isn't the associated equipment announced on Photokina '14 late? Could you please inform us on when the equipment will be released (especially the focal plane shutter) and on what is the status for MF lenses to be used on the front standard? Also, is there any research in progress for MF lens mounts with electronic aperture control?
I ask this because unless if the focal plane shutter is released, people that use MF backs with multishot ability, won't be able to use them and then, people that use both MF and FF mirrorless cameras need to use their existing series of lenses as to both keep the cost down , as well as (most important) to keep the magnitude of the equipment they use down to a minimum... Let's not forget that there are FF mirrorless with multishot ability expected from the camera makers and the customers can then use their MF lenses on a mini size view camera, but some MF users of existing MF multishot backs, wouldn't mind cropping some of the image area if they can use their MF lenses...
For example... It would be a real blessing for me if I was able to use my Contax 645 lenses on a Universallis either with a mirrorless, or with a (future) multishot mirrorless, but it would be even better if I could use my Sinarback 54H and Blad CF-39MS back with the same lenses and just crop a bit when framing... That way, I could only carry my Contax 645 in a bag, add a DSLR body with the adapter for my C645 lenses (already have that) & a Universallis and then avoid the extra bulk and weight to carry the Fuji GX-680 too as with only 3-5 MF lenses of the C645 I wll be able to have lenses for all the DSLR, the Contax, but the Universalis too...
As I said above the Canon electronic board should ship in December, or mid January at the latest. The Focal plane Shutter and Dex control should also come out at the same time. We are in discussions on a Contax 645 lens board similar to the Canon type.
Please contact me if the Contax mount would be interesting to anyone out there. The more interest we see the more inclined Arca-Swiss will be to do it.
The Universalis has been shipping in all three versions. DSLR very popular as well as medium format size.
We do have a Hassleblad V board available now. Hasselblad lens must have an aperture lever or button to open and stop down the aperture manually.
Hope this clears up.
Be well,
Rod
-
Contax 45-90 on a view camera? Hmm. I'd be into that for sure.
-
An electronic Contax 645 mount is very interesting.
Yevgeny
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
People always compare the devaluation of MF backs with 135 bodies. It's true that 10 year old backs are still holding their value quite well, but how much was a p25 when new? 25000$?
A few days ago I sold my Sony A7r as I had upgraded to the mark 2. Initially I was quite pissed as I got only some 900€ for it, but then I looked, exactly 2 years ago I paid 1800€ for it. I must have billed more than 100 days digital fees for it. Now I am feeling a bit bad for not giving the camera away for free.
-
Heh, that's how I looked at my digital backs. My P65+ paid for itself in a year through capture fees. The next 4 years it was a profit center. Devaluation isn't really a big deal to me.
-
As I said above the Canon electronic board should ship in December, or mid January at the latest. The Focal plane Shutter and Dex control should also come out at the same time. We are in discussions on a Contax 645 lens board similar to the Canon type.
Please contact me if the Contax mount would be interesting to anyone out there. The more interest we see the more inclined Arca-Swiss will be to do it.
The Universalis has been shipping in all three versions. DSLR very popular as well as medium format size.
We do have a Hassleblad V board available now. Hasselblad lens must have an aperture lever or button to open and stop down the aperture manually.
Hope this clears up.
Be well,
Rod
Yeah, go ahead and make the Contax adapter Rod, it seems that everybody loves them, Leica does, Nikon & Canon (and now Sony) love them too via electronic adapters, the lenses seem to have enough image circle to even cope well with cropped (33x44) MFDB sensors, they go down to 35mm and have proved so reliable over the years that the world is full of them... Since it's as easy as Canon to imply the interface, go ahead!
-
Contax 45-90 on a view camera? Hmm. I'd be into that for sure.
That one seems to have huge image circle... doesn't it? ;)
-
Rod,
Can the Hasselblad V boards fire the leaf shutter or do these need to be used in conjunction with a focal plane shutter?
Thanks.
John
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
About the Contax 645 lenses image circle (just to end this).... There was a very interesting discussion on Get DPI where the lenses where tested on an ALPA 12 FPS with MFDB using a pre-production ALPA shift/tilt adapter which ALPA will be releasing by the end of the year with full communication interface... http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/53400-image-circle-contax-645-lens.html . Those that are interested should find it very useful....
-
Rod,
Can the Hasselblad V boards fire the leaf shutter or do these need to be used in conjunction with a focal plane shutter?
Thanks.
John
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The 'Blad boards are just a lens mount, no shutter actuation. I'm using it with mirrorless, which it's well suited for. You'd def need a FPS for a digi back.
-
I should think that the most useful interface that a maker of view cameras may provide, should be that of the Leica S mount since it is the one that is specified with the minimum mount to light sensitive surface (among MF) distance than them all... Then one could use all the rest of the adapters that are made for the S (with interface communication or not) to mount the vast majority of MF lenses on to the same view camera without having to change the lens mount at all...
That said, there are more great lenses of the past that are currently not supported by any other mount via an adapter and that could provide marvelous solution for use on a view camera, ...some of them at a cost of a T-shirt or a pair of jeans.
Can't stop thinking that there can be a full communication interface adapter for all Rollei 6xxx/HY-6, Bronica ETRSi, SQAi & GS-1 for the "S" mount that could enable both the aperture and the leaf shutter of these lenses... Some of these lenses (like the GS-1 ones for instance), should be able I suspect to cope with even the largest MF digital sensors and I haven't heard anyone complain about the quality of the later series of Zenzanon glass, not to mention the Schneiders of the Rollei...
I believe that the view camera market has a lot of potential if the makers take in mind the following:
1. The systems must be user friendly for beginners to enter the market,
2. The systems must be as compatible as possible with equipment that the photographer already owns and must integrate well with it,
3. The systems must offer an easy to predetermine upgrade path to higher level photography.
The recent success of "mini" view cameras is I believe a proof on to the above fundamentals since the coming of mirrorless cameras provided many of them that where abscent up to now, if lens interface communication and access to affordable lenses is assisted by the makers, I think that there can be a healthy modern market basis that will lead to market growth of the whole view camera section of the market... It should help the MF market makers too, especially if they "open" their systems, make the communication interfaces as less complicated as possible and work with view camera makers as to help them integrate their products...
I also believe that the "red dot" family is in advantage at the moment if compared to other makers and that is because they have ready a communication interface for (MF) lenses that can serve most of the existing lenses, they introduced the SL that seems to be the ideal mirrorless to use on the rear standard of a view camera using the same communication interface of the S mount and (of course) they have full control over Sinar who has both the technology & the experience as well as being a pioneer for interface implementations...
-
I remember seeing a comparison between mamiya rz and bronica gs lenses, the mamiyas turned out to be sharper.
-
I remember seeing a comparison between mamiya rz and bronica gs lenses, the mamiyas turned out to be sharper.
The RZ lenses are among the best ever for MF use, but that doesn't mean that Zenzanons are worthless, the later series of all PE (for the ETRSi), PS (for the SQAi) are also very capable performers, OTOH, the RB lenses are not up to RZ quality and the Zenzanons, one can have for peanuts...
-
I frequently use the Actus with my Olympus cameras. The main problem is that the widest lens that I am able to use with the kit is a WA 40mm Schneider Componon S. So, the effective focal length is equivalent to 80mm on a FF 35mm camera. For a brief while I had a second-hand Sony A7 that I used with the Actus. I didn't like the A7, so I sold it.
I use enlarger lenses exclusively. I've designed a universal lens shade to cut out glare. I bought most of the lenses on eBay.
My major beef with the Actus is the detente for the swing movement is sloppy. I am careful to check focus on the left and the right side of the frame to ensure accurate focus along the y-axis. This can be a bit cumbersome when stitching. I contacted Cambo just this week to tell them about the detente issue. They said the slop is deliberate and it shouldn't compromise focus. HAH! I am not the only photographer whose called them on that.
Still, I really enjoy using the Actus. I love using front tilt to get deep depth-of-field on tele lenses at f/8. I just picked up a small Manfrotto gear head for around $200 (money well spent). I do not recommend the Actus for MFD.
There are certainly different types of detent stops, even within Cambo products. The detent for a Cambo WRS horizontal geared shift is a specific click. But the detent for the swing on the Actus as you point out is less specific feeling (but this is also the same with the tilt/swing knobs of the Cambo lenspanels for the WRS cameras). Sinar view cameras employ a similar detent feel, less precise feeling.
With the Actus, you can test the swing detent by placing your hand against the back of the front standard, and as you swing, you can feel the standard pushing against your hand. Generally there should be a small area in the center (zeroed) position of the swing where you can "wiggle" the swing knob but that no swing movement can be felt by your hand. And this should be very close to zeroed out, if not precisely zeroed out. If you find that even a small amount of wiggle produces some swing movement that you can feel with your hand, or that the zeroed position rests with the standard pushed out on one side, then this could be a matter for adjustment. I recommend performing that test, and if you feel the wiggled position for zero detent doesn't reflect a zero detent value, contact your dealer (as Bob has been in contact with us).
Bob, I'm curious why you state you don't recommend the Actus for MFD?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I think this is a really interesting discussion - very relevant to my own circumstances.
I suspect the point raised that many pros are still using old view camera equipment and not upgrading may have something to do with the current state of play - despite a great deal of technical sophistication in several key areas the field still does not seem to have given birth to a practical, fully mature system. This is certainly the case with me: I've tried a few MFDB/tech camera set-ups and have been impressed, but not to such an extent that I am prepared to pay the shocking price, as I'm not a full-time pro. So I'm still using a Linhof Technikardan S23 with roll film and a Nikon 9000 ED scanner. It's hardly cutting edge, but I know how to use it all, and within its limits (which are not actually that bad at all) the system gives good results.
The new small-format tech cams are definitely interesting (Universalis is very appealing), but there are a few things I'd like to see before I commit to laying out that kind of money (and MFDB prices are still pretty frightening):
I'd want to be convinced of a good back format fitting with a range of proper view-camera type lenses. The actual format size is immaterial, whether it's MFDB or FF - the point is the performance to price ratio. I do appreciate the use of existing MF lenses with small format cameras, but I'd want the full view camera lens experience - including the wide angle of incidence against the sensor. The new A7rII type sensor may help here, but I have not seen it very well tested in this regard yet.
CMOS with compact live view (not tethering) is very interesting indeed - I think this is a huge step towards maturity of the products. Still only a few options, but we are definitely getting close, and the future looks good.
The loss of Copal-type shutters for view camera lenses is a worry (I do like leaf shutters, although I can work with focal plane types if necessary). So far all the electronic alternatives seem to need a chunky great control box on a wire - fine in the studio, but I work exclusively in the field. A new solution is required.
The need to shoot LCC exposures is a real deal-breaker for me. I can't see anything suiting my purposes until a digital view camera arrives which records the back-lens relationship electronically in the exposure data for compensation using the raw developer software (which may need to be proprietary). That will, I suspect, be even more expensive than current top-end MFDB solutions, but it's got to be the way forward. It will have to be frighteningly accurate for small formats, so maybe this is where MFDBs will continue to score?
Until something which meets these concerns comes along I, and I suspect a fair few others, will carry on as we are with our obsolete kit, as, in truth, it has actually not yet been rendered obsolete at all. I'm just hoping there will continue to be a good range of films available in the mean time...
-
I think this is a really interesting discussion - very relevant to my own circumstances.
I suspect the point raised that many pros are still using old view camera equipment and not upgrading may have something to do with the current state of play - despite a great deal of technical sophistication in several key areas the field still does not seem to have given birth to a practical, fully mature system. This is certainly the case with me: I've tried a few MFDB/tech camera set-ups and have been impressed, but not to such an extent that I am prepared to pay the shocking price, as I'm not a full-time pro. So I'm still using a Linhof Technikardan S23 with roll film and a Nikon 9000 ED scanner. It's hardly cutting edge, but I know how to use it all, and within its limits (which are not actually that bad at all) the system gives good results.
The new small-format tech cams are definitely interesting (Universalis is very appealing), but there are a few things I'd like to see before I commit to laying out that kind of money (and MFDB prices are still pretty frightening):
I'd want to be convinced of a good back format fitting with a range of proper view-camera type lenses. The actual format size is immaterial, whether it's MFDB or FF - the point is the performance to price ratio. I do appreciate the use of existing MF lenses with small format cameras, but I'd want the full view camera lens experience - including the wide angle of incidence against the sensor. The new A7rII type sensor may help here, but I have not seen it very well tested in this regard yet.
CMOS with compact live view (not tethering) is very interesting indeed - I think this is a huge step towards maturity of the products. Still only a few options, but we are definitely getting close, and the future looks good.
The loss of Copal-type shutters for view camera lenses is a worry (I do like leaf shutters, although I can work with focal plane types if necessary). So far all the electronic alternatives seem to need a chunky great control box on a wire - fine in the studio, but I work exclusively in the field. A new solution is required.
The need to shoot LCC exposures is a real deal-breaker for me. I can't see anything suiting my purposes until a digital view camera arrives which records the back-lens relationship electronically in the exposure data for compensation using the raw developer software (which may need to be proprietary). That will, I suspect, be even more expensive than current top-end MFDB solutions, but it's got to be the way forward. It will have to be frighteningly accurate for small formats, so maybe this is where MFDBs will continue to score?
Until something which meets these concerns comes along I, and I suspect a fair few others, will carry on as we are with our obsolete kit, as, in truth, it has actually not yet been rendered obsolete at all. I'm just hoping there will continue to be a good range of films available in the mean time...
Agree with everything... however, 9000ED is among the best scanners ever made, but... have you tried instead shooting the film with a multishot MFDB in true color using a great macro lens? ...that's why I'm now selling my 9000ED...
My second concern is this...
"The need to shoot LCC exposures is a real deal-breaker for me. I can't see anything suiting my purposes until a digital view camera arrives which records the back-lens relationship electronically in the exposure data for compensation using the raw developer software (which may need to be proprietary). That will, I suspect, be even more expensive than current top-end MFDB solutions, but it's got to be the way forward. It will have to be frighteningly accurate for small formats, so maybe this is where MFDBs will continue to score?"
How come and you concluded having communication interface will be more expensive than "current top-end MFDB solutions"? ...it's only a (very cheap for the maker) cable needed to have the mount on the front standard communicate with the camera (or MFDB) on the rear standard...
Clearly, for view cameras to still have "archaic" lens to light sensitive area communication, responsible to blame is the poor LV of MFDBs... since this have changed, all of it will change! ;)
-
Agree. LCCs are a pain. I do not see this changing in the future with back/lens movements. Without movements the PhaseOne A series obviously provides a great solution.
Right now the best hope is for someone (Hasselblad, Leica or Phase or even Pentax!) to release a T&S Wide Angle lens. It needs to be wider than 35mm to be of great use, say 30mm. Also a high quality ultra wide (14 or 15mm 35mm Equivalent) is basically essential for Architecture. That too is missing from the MFD systems. The best hope for that is the Leica S system since their short focal flange distance makes the design of such a lens easier.
-
Agree. LCCs are a pain. I do not see this changing in the future with back/lens movements. Without movements the PhaseOne A series obviously provides a great solution.
Right now the best hope is for someone (Hasselblad, Leica or Phase or even Pentax!) to release a T&S Wide Angle lens. It needs to be wider than 35mm to be of great use, say 30mm. Also a high quality ultra wide (14 or 15mm 35mm Equivalent) is basically essential for Architecture. That too is missing from the MFD systems. The best hope for that is the Leica S system since their short focal flange distance makes the design of such a lens easier.
Agree with ...half of it! ...a T&S lens would provide a wider image circle, but if Hassy would ever have bothered to provide a wider lens for the V-system, (something that the users demanded for ages and they ignored them ending up stopping the production), it being a 6x6 modern lens and with a 90mm diameter image circle, it should be enough to do the job...
I disagree for the need of UWA for architecture though... stitching can solve the problem easy.
-
There are certainly different types of detent stops, even within Cambo products. The detent for a Cambo WRS horizontal geared shift is a specific click. But the detent for the swing on the Actus as you point out is less specific feeling (but this is also the same with the tilt/swing knobs of the Cambo lenspanels for the WRS cameras). Sinar view cameras employ a similar detent feel, less precise feeling.
With the Actus, you can test the swing detent by placing your hand against the back of the front standard, and as you swing, you can feel the standard pushing against your hand. Generally there should be a small area in the center (zeroed) position of the swing where you can "wiggle" the swing knob but that no swing movement can be felt by your hand. And this should be very close to zeroed out, if not precisely zeroed out. If you find that even a small amount of wiggle produces some swing movement that you can feel with your hand, or that the zeroed position rests with the standard pushed out on one side, then this could be a matter for adjustment. I recommend performing that test, and if you feel the wiggled position for zero detent doesn't reflect a zero detent value, contact your dealer (as Bob has been in contact with us).
Bob, I'm curious why you state you don't recommend the Actus for MFD?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Hi Steve, thank you for your help with the "swing" issue. I am impressed with Cambo's and CI's attentiveness and willingness to support their customers.
The reason I did not recommend the Actus for MFD was due to my concern about the swing detente issue. For the time being, I will maintain a neutral stance. Once the front block on my Actus is replaced, I will reevaluate. For now, I will keep an open mind and differ judgment.
-
Agree with everything... however, 9000ED is among the best scanners ever made, but... have you tried instead shooting the film with a multishot MFDB in true color using a great macro lens? ...that's why I'm now selling my 9000ED...
My second concern is this...
"The need to shoot LCC exposures is a real deal-breaker for me. I can't see anything suiting my purposes until a digital view camera arrives which records the back-lens relationship electronically in the exposure data for compensation using the raw developer software (which may need to be proprietary). That will, I suspect, be even more expensive than current top-end MFDB solutions, but it's got to be the way forward. It will have to be frighteningly accurate for small formats, so maybe this is where MFDBs will continue to score?"
How come and you concluded having communication interface will be more expensive than "current top-end MFDB solutions"? ...it's only a (very cheap for the maker) cable needed to have the mount on the front standard communicate with the camera (or MFDB) on the rear standard...
Clearly, for view cameras to still have "archaic" lens to light sensitive area communication, responsible to blame is the poor LV of MFDBs... since this have changed, all of it will change! ;)
Multishot MFDB macro film copying is very good I'm sure, but if I was going to buy and MFDB I think I'd rather use it for the original capture, not just for scanning film.
The reason I think logging the relationship between the lens and back will be expensive is because it is necessary to register the degree of shift and tilt etc., which (I think) implies the use of sensors in the camera. I'm not sure how sensitive these may need to be - perhaps the nearest mm is good enough - but the smaller the sensor the more precise the measurements must be, and precision in such matters is usually expensive.
-
Multishot MFDB macro film copying is very good I'm sure, but if I was going to buy and MFDB I think I'd rather use it for the original capture, not just for scanning film.
Of course one buys an MFDB as to use it, the reason I mention the use of a multishot one as to digitize film, is because other than being much faster and of significantly better quality than the best of scanners (not only 9000ED, but Imacon/Hasselblad and pro drum scanners too...) not to mention the flexibility one gains when post processing, for one to purchase a Sinarback 54H now days is also cheaper than even the 9000ED...
The reason I think logging the relationship between the lens and back will be expensive is because it is necessary to register the degree of shift and tilt etc., which (I think) implies the use of sensors in the camera. I'm not sure how sensitive these may need to be - perhaps the nearest mm is good enough - but the smaller the sensor the more precise the measurements must be, and precision in such matters is usually expensive.
Why is it necessary? Current T/S equipment doesn't record such data, but even if some people insist of having them, Data like that could be recorded if the camera body makers design plug-ins for the dedicated tethered software of the camera or MFDB that one would use on the technical camera... They could even automate the plug-in as to provide suggestions for the movements needed with respect to different size image sensors and lenses by using the required data that the photographer would apply just before the capture and then record the data by the time the photographer fires the tethered shot...
-
I am one of those (MF) users, and always looking for an excuse to upgrade my H25 P1 that I can only tether with. But table top work has diminished, and I can not see myself ever going with a new MF.
I would be in the market for a used 40mp or maybe Multishot. I also use manual lenses and never seen the need for auto lenses for tabletop. It makes little sense to me and adds complications that are unnecessary. I do have to do plenty stacking in my work so the P2 is perfect for that.
If a mini system doesn't allow for the rear standard to move for focus than I see no point. That is why the RZ and Fuji or HAss have no place in most table top studios that need such flexibility. With smaller FF sensors maybe the DOF has lots of help and with price it is why I was seriously considering the A7R2 with a mount to the back of a Sinar. But time and time again the one I have does perfectly fine. I've made images that are on 100+feet billboards. Yes, its a slow process compared to current things, but I don't think its very wise to be spending over $5k for anything in a limited application system, when that type of use itself gets such limited use.
Unless you need to do such purchases for the art director?..but then are you getting hired for the work you can produce or pretend to play the part? Perhaps its both? Maybe thats the prob, I'm not doing the marketing I need? There was a Phase One event in downtown a few weeks ago, the entire event was to show new photographers in the market how you need to use MF to separate yourself from others. This for 90% of photography is really meaningless, but if the people hiring photographers are uneducated, what can one do?
But these days, which art director is looking for the premo gear, vs the lowest bid? Maybe I need to change my surrounding?! Pre 2008 my table top work is in hundreds of top magazines over years, now I'm starting to look more for local style work in portraits and events as brands sending product has died for the most part/in-house... :-/ WTF?! Marketing consultants tell me I should be teaching and doing online blogs and online subscription videos. Others tell me you have to go for the local event and portrait market as they are always looking in the immediate surrounding.
I have always worked independent, maybe I need to shop for a rep or work for an agency?
Maybe my situation is isolated? But the demand for quality imagery has also gone down with the lower frequency of brands paying for magazine ads. Maybe I should go back to school to learn something else. I have a creative mind with good mechanics, but not a brain with patients for learning php sql and the like?! LOL....Well...sorry for the rant, but it ties directly at what your original post is, and I am an example of the direction you are talking about.
Maybe with a change in career one can afford a new MF system :-)
-
Maybe my situation is isolated?
No... your case is not isolated... actually I feel it's exactly spot on with the topic here... Most pros don't use the much more expensive (and flashy) equipment that amateurs use but they prefer to stick with long term solutions and there is a good reason for that...
However, P2 was also what I replaced for the Fuji... and did that because I needed a fortune as to use my, at the days, Imacon 528c back in multishot mode as I needed to replace all my lenses and shutters with electronic ones... I didn't sell it because I couldn't afford the investment needed... I sold it strictly because I believe that spending all that money on equipment is pointless and can't replace one's creativity. That's exactly what is the subject here... Selling the P2 system financed the system I now use instead and even pocketed the difference....
There is another statement of yours I would like to comment on, this being focusing with the rear standard... I would agree with you 100% with that if it was a "traditional" view camera, but with the Fuji, one has the ability to set up the equipment for framing and fairly accurate focusing using the TTL OVF... this leaves very little to be done when activating LV and thus there is no chance whatsoever to affect the capture.
-
Thanks for the feedback Theodoros,
After I hesitantly posted that, I was thinking of how the learning curve has become so tight in even the hardest areas of photography that its surely harder for the MF market to even be considered when upgrading.
As far as rear vs front. The reason you don't want to move the front is because the shape of the lens will alter the captured image when moved. Its not the focusing that is the problem, but the movement. The rear doesn't change the view, just the placement of focus. the front will change the view and cause issues when you do something like 7, or more so on high number frames in a overlayed image.
I have an RZPro2 with just about every accessory that goes with it including the T/Shift and lens, and that amount in Tilt is marginal difference on a MF close up macro imagery., SO the case with all that gear sits in a closet. Maybe I should be selling that? I have some Leica R glass that is tack sharp and I wont part with, as I expect to use it with something like an A7R2, or a 50DRS, if I can go to mini, I would like the portability, it would help expand my niche a bit easier. But I use the newer LF lenses on the P2, and I tried a 5D2 on it, with no success. There is just too much material between the lens and sensor. Its funny how about 8 years ago you could have easily picked up a Cambo mini or a number of other specialty mini systems for around $500 or less...Now they are back up in the past couple years at least.
-
As far as rear vs front. The reason you don't want to move the front is because the shape of the lens will alter the captured image when moved. Its not the focusing that is the problem, but the movement. The rear doesn't change the view, just the placement of focus. the front will change the view and cause issues when you do something like 7, or more so on high number frames in a overlayed image.
I have an RZPro2.....
But that's what I'm saying Phil... With the Fuji (or the RZ with T/S lens on it) that are focusing using the front standard, one can pre-focus using the OVF when setting up & framing the scene, then LV is only used as to nail focus and the lens is barely moved at all as to alter the scene... That is unless the photographer is completely blind as to pre-focus using the OVF and still miss THE focus by quite a margin... But, usually, there should be no issue on the matter...
-
OK, so you have focus on 1 shot, then how do you focus the next frame in the stack of images you need to take? You can't be touch clicking each one when you have 20 or 100 products to do. It should be measurable and in some cases 3 to 5mm increments, depending on subjects and how close you are. Perhaps with 80Mp sensor, you can get away with not getting so close and keeping the DOF deeper, but then your image is as good as a less mpixel sensor? Maybe I'm not following...
It might be because I have not had a MFdB with LV.
-
OK, so you have focus on 1 shot, then how do you focus the next frame in the stack of images you need to take?
I might not be following this correctly, as I have not had a MFdB with LV.
But... why take stack images?
-
To have a front to back focus. Its a standard in product. Another reason smaller sensors are attractive as the DOF is increased when the sensor is smaller.
-
To have a front to back focus. Its a standard in product. Another reason smaller sensors are attractive as the DOF is increased when the sensor is smaller.
Why not use Scheimpflug principal? ...isn't that a major aspect why we buy technical cameras for? ...you have more uniformity on the image too than focus stacking... Don't know, but I hate the looks of focus stitching... I would only use it if a DSLR with no T/S lens would be the only thing that would be in my possession...
EDIT: Using some "lens correction" filter in an architectural shot even if a technical camera has been used as to make it perfect, that, I don't mind at all... In fact I believe all technical camera users do some extra "digital work" when post processing as to correct minor issues... but focus stitching I do hate the looks of it!
-
To have a front to back focus. Its a standard in product. Another reason smaller sensors are attractive as the DOF is increased when the sensor is smaller.
That's a reason for me to go larger: smaller DoF, selective (yet very sharp) focus with creamy bokeh.. with smaller formats the only thing you can do it open the aperture and introduce an overall soft image with a still comparatively harsh background.
But for product photography a relatively small sensor size is quite usable - however I think tilt/shift photography is a better solution and that's much easier accomplished with medium and large format cameras.
-
The Scheimpflug/TiltShift principal is great for many aspects of photography, even many product work. But with macro product work its mostly little to no use.
If you want to fill your frame with a small 1.5" to 4" product T/S is only going to get you so far, in particular with your 9-12degree amount on a Fuji or other fixed system, they are of little to no use.
This is the kind of material a couple consultants are encouraging me to teach and create online video subscribed sessions/content with :-)
-
The Scheimpflug/TiltShift principal is great for many aspects of photography, even many product work. But with macro product work its mostly little to no use.
If you want to fill your frame with a small 1.5" to 4" product T/S is only going to get you so far, in particular with your 9-12degree amount on a Fuji or other fixed system, they are of little to no use.
OK... but even in extreme situations like the one you describe, where the product other than being small has also to be be "fat"... if one is to use focus stacking anyway, why not use a DSLR with an IF lens? (like the Nikkor 105VR for example) ...and even a TC on it? I mean if one ends up to have to apply focus stitching, why use a view camera at all? ...only to have the rear focusing ability? ...isn't having IF the same?
-
Unless you shoot a coin flat, any other 3d subject will be "fat". A sphere would have the same issue. Not enough DOF in 1 frame.
IF lens will distort. The Canon 180 Macro is pretty flat, but still distorts. Elements in the glass change when changing focus. Besides you shouldn't be doing this type of work with a AA filter camera.
-
IF lens will distort. The Canon 180 Macro is pretty flat, but still distorts. Elements in the glass change when changing focus.
Do they? :o ...obviously not my kind of studio photography as to have noticed! (I mainly do art reproduction, but some architectural too - again mainly ancient cities or places, or byzantine interior and exterior architecture), but have done enough of studio (other than tiny objects) too.... ;) I guess there is always an expert on other photographic territories... Thanks for the conversation.
-
Obsolutely, when you have DOF of 3mm or less (when maxing out the subject to fit frame) there will be a significant amount of shift from your front focus to your back focus. ... everything will matter.
Art repro the lighting is key to get texture that I am not an expert on, but DOF is certainly a non issue. For architecture/scale of, the T/S will do wonders.
pleasure
-
Obsolutely, when you have DOF of 3mm or less (when maxing out the subject to fit frame) there will be a significant amount of shift from your front focus to your back focus. ... everything will matter.
Art repro the lighting is key to get texture that I am not an expert on, but DOF is certainly a non issue. For architecture/scale of, the T/S will do wonders.
pleasurer
More of a cafe conversation, but imagine one having to shoot a masterpiece wall painting of hagiography in a 9th century tiny (say 17m^2 area) monastery that has been painted on the curved roof and has to turn that to a flat print for production... All that with the gas generator (there is no electricity on those for protection reasons) running outside and the need for the 2m^2 to be shot in 16x multishot mode with the GX680 in angle on the tripod (with shifts and tilts of course) and the mirror slapping of the GX-680 for the series of 16x shots in the equation... Can it be done? (LOL...) ...but of course it can! (more LOL...)
-
That sounds like an extreme to challenge any pro, only the prepared & expereinced can make that worthwhile :-)
No mirror up on the Fuji? Perhaps not in Multishot/?
-
That sounds like an extreme to challenge any pro, only the prepared & expereinced can make that worthwhile :-)
No mirror up on the Fuji? Perhaps not in Multishot/?
No... you can lock the mirror up on the Fuji for single shot, but you can't for multishot because its electronically locked and it returns back after the first capture... The other Q-camber is that you can't use Bulb either as to lock the mirror up, because the 54H records automatically "black level reference" (taking into account the temperature of the sensor) just after the first shot (and thus it will fail if the camera is in bulb)...
But you can avoid mirror vibrance if you work with damping materials on the "up" position of the mirror and then give time between the sequence captures as for the mirror return energy to settle... and you can additionally use a 40 year old Fatif tripod of course... ::)
-
Ya, another reason the RZ rests.
haha...I used to have a Fatif I think Italian studio pod. For tripod I have an old Slik and it is a beast with a froto large geared head on it. Only thing I would prefer are lock latches vs roller tightening and loosening to extend legs.
-
Ya, another reason the RZ rests.
haha...I used to have a Fatif I think Italian studio pod. For tripod I have an old Slik and it is a beast with a froto large geared head on it. Only thing I would prefer are lock latches vs roller tightening and loosening to extend legs.
Maybe you can exchange the RZ for a Fuji and pocket the difference... ;D
EDIT: Speaking on tripods, I believe that the phrase: "they don't make it like that anymore", applies to tripods more than anything else... :-X
-
:-)
there is little difference between the 2 for me. I think the tilt on the Fuji is slightly less than the RZ 75 with t/S adpater. The Fuji if I rem is about 9 and the RZ about 12degrees.
What is nice about the Fuji is the lens plate adaptation. Now if there was a tripod mount on the lens portion so when you adjust focus just the back moves back and forth, you might have something there. In fact the custom camera maker here (So sorry I forget his name) does such mods to systems and sells them.
-
The tilt on the Fuji is +/- 12 degs Phill... No need for T/S lens. Shift is 15mm +/- (30mm total) and so is horizontal side moves, swing is 15 degs... (can be very useful for "fat" tiny industrial depending on framing if combined with some tilt)... :)
EDIT: Also... RZ glass is great, but Fuji GX-680 glass is visibly sharper, it will even compare with 35mm top glass for 35mm area resolution... honest!
-
I can easily agree on all, as I dont rem the specs and usage, but I would caution on the expectaion of results on fat/tiny :-). Been there done that.
-
To me, there would be some progress if the amount of cables and connections were reduced to a minimum.
At the moment I use a digital back, Rollei Control S and Rollei shutters on Schneiders and Rodenstocks with a view camera.
For tethered use I need:
-Cable from Rollei lens shutter to Rollei ControlS
-Din Cable from Rollei ControlS to digital back.
-Cable from Rollei ControlS to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply.
-Another cable from Rollei ControlS to flash input of digital back.
-One more cable from digital back to flash output.
-Firewire cable from digital back to FireWire repeater.
-Firewire repeater to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply
-Apple Adaptor cable from repeater to Thunderbolt port.
This is absolutely ridiculous, bonkers! Bad design. You should be able to have just three cables max, one for tethering to computer, one for flash output (flash trigger) and one for electronic shutter lens to digital back connection.
Furthermore, every back should have a built in wireless flash trigger (iike pocket wizzard have built in some flash units)
Also, it's not beyond the possible to build lenses that communicate with the back wirelessly, although you would need some small battery power to trigger the piezo actuator inside the lens.
All sensors should rotate, so you could shoot at any angle you rotated the sensor, not just 0 degrees or 90 degrees, but any other angles you wished. Leaf had something like that, but I believe not anymore.
Modern view cameras should all be motorised so that the focussing, focus bracketing, etc is all done from software, as well as calculating angles of front and rear standards to apply the Scheimflug principle.
Edward
-
To me, there would be some progress if the amount of cables and connections were reduced to a minimum.
At the moment I use a digital back, Rollei Control S and Rollei shutters on Schneiders and Rodenstocks with a view camera.
For tethered use I need:
-Cable from Rollei lens shutter to Rollei ControlS
-Din Cable from Rollei ControlS to digital back.
-Cable from Rollei ControlS to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply.
-Another cable from Rollei ControlS to flash input of digital back.
-One more cable from digital back to flash output.
-Firewire cable from digital back to FireWire repeater.
-Firewire repeater to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply
-Apple Adaptor cable from repeater to Thunderbolt port.
This is absolutely ridiculous, bonkers! Bad design. You should be able to have just three cables max, one for tethering to computer, one for flash output (flash trigger) and one for electronic shutter lens to digital back connection.
Furthermore, every back should have a built in wireless flash trigger (iike pocket wizzard have built in some flash units)
Also, it's not beyond the possible to build lenses that communicate with the back wirelessly, although you would need some small battery power to trigger the piezo actuator inside the lens.
All sensors should rotate, so you could shoot at any angle you rotated the sensor, not just 0 degrees or 90 degrees, but any other angles you wished. Leaf had something like that, but I believe not anymore.
Modern view cameras should all be motorised so that the focussing, focus bracketing, etc is all done from software, as well as calculating angles of front and rear standards to apply the Scheimflug principle.
Edward
+1 ...LOL... ;D With a Fuji GX 680 you only need two cables... one can use a transmitter on the hot shoe for flash... ;)
The only thing I disagree with, is for movements & focusing to be motorized... IMO it would be like the photographer using the "program" mode on a DSLR... It should rise costs dramatically too... Having (at no cost) suggestions from a plug in to the MFDB makers software, where the photographer would be able to enter the lens data combined to the view camera specs, should be sufficient...
-
Ha...
Another thing I dig about the Sony on the view camera. Profoto Air Remote sits on the Hotshoe. USB from camera to laptop. Done.
-
I will explain what I mean by motorised. Instead of, or rather, on top of, focussing by hand, it is very handy to focus (the rear standard, I should point out) by software, as you can then focus very accurately from the software without touching the camera.
Once you focus, you can then calculate (or ask the software to calculate) the necessary number of shots for focus bracketing and proceed to move the rear standard automatically in a sequence and shoot in equal intervals.
This is focus stacking but on a view camera,. i.e. moving the rear standard, as it has been previously discussed, which is of paramount importance in macro photography, also explained. This has nothing to do with Program exposure, it's just a facility to avoid human error, and to avoid touching the camera whilst you bracket at such close macro distances. It's a bit of a niche thing, and only important to a certain field of photography, therefore it is unlikely to be implemented on a view camera
I had to make such motorised view camera adaptation myself, including the software because you can't really buy it ready-made for the purpose, although Sinar are beginning to introduce it with their copy cameras, but it doesn't go far enough.
Having some engineering and electronics knowledge, I could market adapter kits myself, but I don't think the market is big enough to warrant such effort, you would need a substantial number of orders to make some decent money and photographers, generally, don't like to spend that much, they usually stick to their old routine, despite the inconvenience.
Edward
-
Chris,
I have both the Sony A7r and the Nikon d810 and much as I like them (well, the Nikon at least) on testing them alongside my Leaf back with the same 120 Schneider Digitar lens on all of them, I couldn't get as good results as the Leaf, close, yes, very close, and for many people more than good enough, but this is an old Leaf65 back and even then it couldn't be surpassed. I expect the Credo 50 or the equivalent Phase One will be even more difficult for the DSLR's to match.
Maybe the A7IIr has bridged the gap in terms of image. I don't care for ridiculous tests pushing the image 4 stops, or shooting at high ISO to test noise versus the meagre 50 ISO of the camera back. I am studio bound and happy to shoot at 50 ISO and get the exposure bang on, or within a third.
Believe me, it I knew and could see by myself that the DSLR's were better/equal and more practical for my needs, I would not hesitate to use them, to avoid the hassle of using digital backs.
I am waiting for a new Nikon model with the latest Sony sensor…with everything working as it should…
Edward
-
"...I couldn't get as good results as the Leaf, close, yes, very close, and for many people more than good enough..."
Edward
Add to this the purchase cost difference (for new) and there you are Ed..., there you are! Let's not forget that sensors will develop further and this means that the MF to FF gap will shrink further... IMO, by the time the first mirrorless will offer "true color" multishot ability, there will be a "game over" for MFDBs and view camera combinations... All pros will go for the "true color" mirrorless and never look back... that will be the time where I will be also selling the GX-680 with Sinarback 54H system combination... Who cares for 5% more quality if customers can't appreciate it (or pay for it) and one feels that skills can "hide" the difference on equipment? ...who? ;)
-
Edward,
I agree. My IQ 260 did produce nicer files than the Sony. I just found that the increased workflow efficiency of the mirrorless (with its exceptional live view) would keep me more competitive than a 5% difference in the raw files. Also, being able to work confidently at higher ISOs has made my productions more streamlined. I'm doing a bit less lighting these days and moving a little faster. Purely a business decision.
CB
-
Q.E.D......
-
Edward,
I agree. My IQ 260 did produce nicer files than the Sony. I just found that the increased workflow efficiency of the mirrorless (with its exceptional live view) would keep me more competitive than a 5% difference in the raw files. Also, being able to work confidently at higher ISOs has made my productions more streamlined. I'm doing a bit less lighting these days and moving a little faster. Purely a business decision.
CB
Absolutely...If you're not doing this, loss of business is something most pro photographers cannot afford...But , hehe, sometimes you have to have both tools, one to feed the mouth, and the other to feed the perfectionist or artistic soul.
There are rail systems that are SW controlled and automated. I looked into them before, and unless I was doing multiple hundreds, I think the cost isn't morth it. It also does have its own limitations and a way one must work. The SInar back's wheel makes the mm increments pretty easy to do.
I wish they made a remote triggering back. Its a crime that I'm triggering exposure due to static electricity every time I miss grounding myself and touch the manual trigger wire.
For manual lens on Sinar, I have to wake the back then trigger the shutter. SO its a 2 step process(and Firewire with repeater tether). Pretty simple.
I too expose pretty much exact at native iso. But paying over $150 to 300 for a "1 shot" cable that will trigger the back with the problems of static touch is just ridiculous. This is a PhaseOne problem (besides a static charge issue).
I agree with your list E Edwards...but I didn't know the Rollie had so many wires :-/
-
I will explain what I mean by motorised. Instead of, or rather, on top of, focussing by hand, it is very handy to focus (the rear standard, I should point out) by software, as you can then focus very accurately from the software without touching the camera.
Once you focus, you can then calculate (or ask the software to calculate) the necessary number of shots for focus bracketing and proceed to move the rear standard automatically in a sequence and shoot in equal intervals.
This is focus stacking but on a view camera,. i.e. moving the rear standard, as it has been previously discussed, which is of paramount importance in macro photography, also explained. This has nothing to do with Program exposure, it's just a facility to avoid human error, and to avoid touching the camera whilst you bracket at such close macro distances. It's a bit of a niche thing, and only important to a certain field of photography, therefore it is unlikely to be implemented on a view camera
I had to make such motorised view camera adaptation myself, including the software because you can't really buy it ready-made for the purpose, although Sinar are beginning to introduce it with their copy cameras, but it doesn't go far enough.
Having some engineering and electronics knowledge, I could market adapter kits myself, but I don't think the market is big enough to warrant such effort, you would need a substantial number of orders to make some decent money and photographers, generally, don't like to spend that much, they usually stick to their old routine, despite the inconvenience.
Edward
There exists something like this. PM "gerald.d" over at GetDPI.
-
I completely see your points, and agree.
However, there are specialised jobs where you want the ultimate quality and that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference, probably not to the client, as most would not be able to see it, but what about yourself?
I don't know about you, but after so many years working as a photographer, I still feel mortified to shoot with a DSLR knowing that I also have a digital back that will give me that little bit of extra quality.
It is borderline, I know, and I am sure there are many who feel like me.
In a way I am considering the opposite direction. I am thinking a Leaf Credo50, being CMOS will allow me to go a little higher in ISO with no noise degradation, much better Live View and still keep all my expensive lenses with Rollei shutters. Using an adapted (motorised) Aptus maybe. I will also need less powerful flash lights, by at least two stops, so my Broncolors can recycle faster, so my focus stacking can be done much faster, needing less interval…
On the other hand, why do I need to trim a few seconds? Why do I need to change something that works perfectly already? This is mad. It's so easy to fall in this relentless trap of acquiring more and more gear when what we have is perfectly good for the job….
So I've just realised that I fall into the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Edward
-
...But , hehe, sometimes you have to have both tools, one to feed the mouth, and the other to feed the perfectionist or artistic soul...
LOL... ;D Agree, it all depends on the price one can get... if it is too low to sell, it always ends to the above excuse... ...LOL... ;D
-
There exists something like this. PM "gerald.d" over at GetDPI.
Thanks Synn,
I am not aware of a stacking system that moves the rear standard, I doubt you can have a universal system, that's why I had to make my own, adapting a Sinar P2. I've had it going for close to 10 years. Naturally it adds a couple more cables to the system :)
Edward
-
....
However, there are specialised jobs where you want the ultimate quality and that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference, probably not to the client, as most would not be able to see it, but what about yourself?
I don't know about you, but after so many years working as a photographer, I still feel mortified to shoot with a DSLR knowing that I also have a digital back that will give me that little bit of extra quality.
It is borderline, I know, and I am sure there are many who feel like me.
.....
On the other hand, why do I need to trim a few seconds? Why do I need to change something that works perfectly already? This is mad. It's so easy to fall in this relentless trap of acquiring more and more gear when what we have is perfectly good for the job….
So I've just realised that I fall into the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Edward
+1 :-)
-
...that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference, probably not to the client, as most would not be able to see it, but what about yourself?
Edward
5 or 10 per cent difference, is only ...5 or up to 10 per cent... it can't be "lot of difference" since it's either 5 or up to ten... In other words, the sentence "...that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference...", doesn't make sense fundamentally in logic science... :)
-
5 or 10 per cent difference, is only ...5 or up to 10 per cent... it can't be "lot of difference" since it's either 5 or up to ten... In other words, the sentence "...that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference...", doesn't make sense fundamentally in logic science... :)
Tell that to an athlete, or a racing driver….
And to a photographer, it's the difference between blissful contentment or a sinking feeling of knowing you could've done better:)
-
Tell that to an athlete, or a racing driver….
And to a photographer, it's the difference between blissful contentment or a sinking feeling of knowing you could've done better:)
Sensors are not athletes... sensors are tools for "athletes" (if one considers the photographer instead of an athlete)... This means that 5 or 10 per cent difference is factor as to judge the tool's performace, not the photographer's outcome... :)
-
The 5 to 10% the client likely doesn't see, but the sensor and the combo of the photographer knowing how to massage the files goes a bit further than just sensor measure.
And as he said, you would know the difference. If we all measure by anothers performance we are surely short changing our abilities.
But if we push ourselves to make better files, more inventive imagey, and look at the results in the body of others works that have as much passion, as a form of consideration, we can always find ourselves striving to do "better".
-
The 5 to 10% the client likely doesn't see, but the sensor and the combo of the photographer knowing how to massage the files goes a bit further than just sensor measure.
And as he said, you would know the difference. If we all measure by anothers performance we are surely short changing our abilities.
But if we push ourselves to make better files, more inventive imagey, and look at the results in the body of others works that have as much passion, as a form of consideration, we can always find ourselves striving to do "better".
Phil, every single artist cares about his tools, Musicians about their instruments, painters about their brushes, even authors care about their pens... But none depends on it... ;)
-
Phil, every single artist cares about his tools, Musicians about their instruments, painters about their brushes, even authors care about their pens... But none depends on it... ;)
I can totally agree with what your saying. I can also disagree just as easily:-)
I don't know if I cant agree with that in the intention of use in the photo world. In the science of things not so much as long as the spec is performing at the level needed. For example a 11mpixel camera is not going to do so well for a 24x36" print. Each tool has a limitation on how it can be used. Depending on the job, the tool's usefulness will depend on its performance.
-
I kind of lost you here.... Just before there was a discussion of tools having 5% difference for the same task and now you are talking on tool limitations and the need of different tools for different tasks...
-
I kind of lost you here.... Just before there was a discussion of tools having 5% difference for the same task and now you are talking on tool limitations and the need of different tools for different tasks...
Ya, I might have gone out of the apples to apples situation...as we were getting broader and broader in the discussion.
With some things being equal, that 5-10% applies, but there are exceptions to things you know, and I place macrotabletop to be one of those exceptions.
-
.....I place macrotabletop to be one of those exceptions.
Is it Actus + mirrorless what you would recommend for the job then?
-
If you're doing seriously fine tabletop work, I wouldn't go with an Actus. Either the Arca Mf2 or a Sinar P3 maybe with mirrorless.
-
I don't have apples to apples image comparison of mirrorless and would not be able to recommend it. Its not file size and its not ISO, so I'd have to do a side by side.
-
I don't have apples to apples image comparison of mirrorless and would not be able to recommend it. Its not file size and its not ISO, so I'd have to do a side by side.
$2K for the actus and then another 3 for mirrorless. I'd have to rent it first. I almost did a few months ago, but they didn't have everything I needed to do adapt and do the test. Perhaps thats changed.
I haven't bought one, as what I have does just fine if not, better than what the sony can do. Slower, yes, but the costs of buying isn't outweighed with the amount of work coming in and demanding on these tools.
-
I've been using Sinar P2's for 30 years, with 5x4 and 10x8 film, then later with a Linhoff sliding adaptor and a multishot Imacon 4040, then Leaf backs, and the Sinar has always been OK by me. Kind of a bit heavy, but they sit on studio stands so who cares.
I have the small Arca 6x9, whatever it's called, but I used it once and decided I preferred to stick to my habitual Sinar, the Arca is still intact in the boxes, a candidate for motor adaptation at some stage, when I find the time. The Arca bellows, you have to smell the quality leather once, and you are converted for life. But I am used to the asymmetrical axis of rotation of the Sinar standards, which I find is the quickest way to apply the Scheimflug principle. You need the smaller standards to make it work better for the small format of digital backs. So I recommend the P3, heavy as it is, but so sturdy.
But really, it's whatever works for you, it's just a tool after all.
For lenses and macro, I have both the Schneider Digitar 120 and the equivalent Rodenstock 120. I tried them side by side once or twice and I ended up using the Rodenstock, I don't remember why, because the Rodenstock is actually a little cheaper and I wanted the Schneider to be better, I think the Rodenstock has a slightly wide circle of coverage, and I think it was about a third faster using the same shutter and aperture, but either lens is superb. In terms of sharpness/definition, I can't choose between them. I also have the 150 and 180, but none are as sharp as the 120.
I am intrigued by the Actus DB, I may get one to tinker, it's so dinky:)
Edward
-
I've been using Sinar P2's for 30 years, with 5x4 and 10x8 film, then later with a Linhoff sliding adaptor and a multishot Imacon 4040, then Leaf backs, and the Sinar has always been OK by me. Kind of a bit heavy, but they sit on studio stands so who cares.
I have the small Arca 6x9, whatever it's called, but I used it once and decided I preferred to stick to my habitual Sinar, the Arca is still intact in the boxes, a candidate for motor adaptation at some stage, when I find the time. The Arca bellows, you have to smell the quality leather once, and you are converted for life. But I am used to the asymmetrical axis of rotation of the Sinar standards, which I find is the quickest way to apply the Scheimflug principle. You need the smaller standards to make it work better for the small format of digital backs. So I recommend the P3, heavy as it is, but so sturdy.
But really, it's whatever works for you, it's just a tool after all.
For lenses and macro, I have both the Schneider Digitar 120 and the equivalent Rodenstock 120. I tried them side by side once or twice and I ended up using the Rodenstock, I don't remember why, because the Rodenstock is actually a little cheaper and I wanted the Schneider to be better, I think the Rodenstock has a slightly wide circle of coverage, and I think it was about a third faster using the same shutter and aperture, but either lens is superb. In terms of sharpness/definition, I can't choose between them. I also have the 150 and 180, but none are as sharp as the 120.
I am intrigued by the Actus DB, I may get one to tinker, it's so dinky:)
Edward
IMO, If I am to use my MFDBs on a "mini" view camera currently, I would prefer the Universalis to the Actus. Not only because it looks better suited to larger light sensitive areas, but because of the focal plane shutter too... If one is to use an MFDB, he may as well use a multishot one...
But then again, I really detest changing equipment often, as with film I'm really keen to long term relations... So for the moment I've decided to stick with the GX-680 & 54H combination and see how things with mirrorless & lens interfaces develop as I expect that there will be massive developments coming in the following months....
I'm sure that "true color" multishot mirrorless will appear soon and that there will be front standard mounts introduced that will allow more lenses to be integrated with view cameras as to allow both the aperture and the leaf shutter to be functional... I don't want to make a choice with one maker and the find that another (or a new introduction) should have been my choice and I am a fanatic of using the minimum possible of equipment as to perform the widest possible tasks...
-
If one is to use an MFDB, he may as well use a multishot one...
I am not sure multishot backs are practical for commercial use, unless it's flat artwork.
Until you can shot the 4 multishot images in one pop at, say, 60th sec. it is always going to be very niche, for static subjects.
I remember using my Imacon multishot and having to bracket focus, it took at least 16 shots (often more) which is fine if you are not too busy and you just do a handful of shots a day, but in a busier environment, it's just not good use of your time.
Edward
-
I am not sure multishot backs are practical for commercial use, unless it's flat artwork.
Until you can shot the 4 multishot images in one pop at, say, 60th sec. it is always going to be very niche, for static subjects.
I remember using my Imacon multishot and having to bracket focus, it took at least 16 shots (often more) which is fine if you are not too busy and you just do a handful of shots a day, but in a busier environment, it's just not good use of your time.
Edward
There could be another way to look at it, if one uses a 16x multishot sequence for the same subject, he ends up with tremendous resolution, yet with no artifacts and great color & DR and thus may avoid focus stitching altogether by shooting further away and then crop down to the frame needed... Surely shooting a multishot sequence is much faster than focus sticking and the extra DR can prove a life savior in some cases... (say jewels for instance). OTOH, if one uses a multishot MFDB, he can always use it as single shot one if he judges that focus sticking is the way to go for a particular task... Never the less, good LV is the most crucial factor for productivity and as I remember with the 528c I used to have, LV isn't Imacon's strong point... It is among the strong points of the Sinarback 54H though...
-
I was referring to a 4 shot multishot, shooting 4 stack focus shots. 4x4=16
Any small advantage of a multishot soon disappears if you have to pull back. And you would have to pull back so much to achieve the same end result (i.e. full image in focus) that your multishot subject would be tiny, with a lot of wasted area to crop, i.e. worse image, and valuable wasted time shooting multishot exposures:)
Been there, done that.
Sorry, but I'm afraid you can't defy the laws of physics.
Multishot, as I said, would be more feasible the minute you can shoot it all three primaries in one go, one example being three incredibly fast exposures, though I can't imagine this working with fast flash, as the short flash duration would have to be shared…and the Foveon idea hasn't materialised with larger formats, has it?
Still, never say no to the advances in technology.
-
Multishot will not substitute for stacks. they are unrelated.
Multishot is mostly if not all resolution related. If you need a bigger file the sure way to do that is get a larger resolution back, not get involved in multishot.
Now if we can get Foveon to make or license a higher mpixel cam/db or something, even a multishot, I would be interested.
Was it Pentax or Oly who recently announced a multishot camera around the time the A7r2 released? it boasted 40+mp I think.
Another factor in this niche is the photon size. Some less resolution backs have much cleaner files with more lenses than the very small photon /higher resolution DB's. Even with sharper lenses there is always the optimal combo. I too love the 120, but I dont know how far the 180 falls from it, as I love that one even more for the distance it gives me.
-
Multishot will not substitute for stacks. they are unrelated.
Multishot is mostly if not all resolution related. If you need a bigger file the sure way to do that is get a larger resolution back, not get involved in multishot.
Now if we can get Foveon to make or license a higher mpixel cam/db or something, even a multishot, I would be interested.
Was it Pentax or Oly who recently announced a multishot camera around the time the A7r2 released? it boasted 40+mp I think.
Another factor in this niche is the photon size. Some less resolution backs have much cleaner files with more lenses than the very small photon /higher resolution DB's. Even with sharper lenses there is always the optimal combo. I too love the 120, but I dont know how far the 180 falls from it, as I love that one even more for the distance it gives me.
Of course part of high quality has to do with "fat" pixels... It's not only that small pixels don't cope well with movements it's also that fat pixels (if shot in multishot mode) are completely free of artifacts... A 22mp multishot back, if shot at 16x mode, it still takes each shot with photons hitting 9μm size pixels... Lets not additionally forget the smaller aperture one can use without diffraction...
In reality it is like if one multiplies the light sensitive area by four since he shoots 88mps of 9μm size for each one of them and further more each one being an RGB true color one with real 15 stops of DR available and no interpolation involved. Furthermore they are quite "easy" with lenses given that the lenses are used for 9μm pixels...
I insist that the major issue (and thus the success of the mirrorless instead of MFDBs) is with LV... If one has a multishot MFDB with great tethered LV mode, he'll work faster, avoid focus stitching in most circumstances and even cope perfectly well with gold or silver of jewellery, or of ancient coins, or with pieces of broken ancient ceramics... I've also been there... ;)
-
"avoid focusstitching"....
coins sure, not other jewels. I'm still here over 10 years :-)
-
"avoid focusstitching"....
coins sure, not other jewels. I'm still here over 10 years :-)
Let me put it otherwise... (since my comment was: "avoid focus stitching in most circumstances"). An 88mp shot out of a back in multishot mode (with the appropriate tilting), if focus is nailed dead accurate (the LV requirement), can be cropped down to a 20mp area out of the same file, that will include the larger dimension of the subject up to 90% of the frame left and it can replace any file that needs 5 shots (with tilting) to be focus stuck... At the same time, the same shot will have visibly better DR for shiny items, more uniformity, more accurate color and better (artifact free) pixels as to up-sample the file up to the size of whatever dimensions a 72ppi print of the cropped would come up too...
-
maybe from 80 to 20 as long as your lens was far back enough for physics to do its part.
-
maybe from 80 to 20 as long as your lens was far back enough for physics to do its part.
Exactly Phil! What I find the optimum way to work in such cases as to have great image quality combined with maximum workflow efficiency, Is to group the items for size, start with the larger ones using a moderate focal length lens on the Fuji as to frame so that the object's larger dimension is about 1/3rd the length of the total frame (either horizontally or vertically - whichever is larger with respect to the size), calibrate using the "passport" and then make the shot at 88mp "true color" 16x mode... Then I export the capture, continue with the rest of the items by changing lens to longer focal length whenever the size of the object requires so and at the end, after all items are done, I crop all of them at 22mp size retaining 4:3 ratio which is 1/4th of the original frame or half the size of the sides...
-
Would be nice to see a result from such a process.