Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Abdulrahman Aljabri on October 15, 2009, 12:25:38 pm
-
I am getting into professional interior and architectural photography and would like to plan ahead with equipment investment. View cameras with digital backs are the best for such photography. They offer the most control over perspective, but are very expensive and bulky to work with.
Since I use the 5D MKII I have two other alternatives. Get the 24mm TS-E or use my current 17-40mm lens @ 17mm and crop by 50% to obtain 24mm view. The TS-E rout seems better as I do not have to sacrifice almost half of my picture resolution to achieve the desired look. That being said, do TS-E lenses give enough control to achieve similar results to lens perspective corrections in photoshop?
In the example below I shot the first picture at 24mm. The second picture was shot at 17mm, adjusted with lens correction filter by 20 degrees vertically and -40 degrees horizontally, and cropped to about 50% of original size:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2466/4014630110_d27ff9dd6e.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4014630120_635c5183ce.jpg)
If such degree figures in photoshop correspond to actual lens shift degrees then obviously TS-E lenses cannot achieve anything like photoshop as they are limited to 8 degrees if I am not mistaken. That makes me wonder how many degrees of shift do view cameras offer?
I would really appreciate hearing all of your thoughts on this as this topic might not have a "definite" answer. So it always great to learn how more experinced photographers approache this issue.
Thanks in advance!
-
If such degree figures in photoshop correspond to actual lens shift degrees then obviously TS-E lenses cannot achieve anything like photoshop as they are limited to 8 degrees if I am not mistaken. That makes me wonder how many degrees of shift do view cameras offer?
You only need shift to keep the verticals parallel, and shift is not measured in degrees - but mm, or inches.
If you point the camera horizontal, and the bottom of the subject is level with the lens, the shift you will need will be half the width or height of the sensor.
Tilt angle is asin(f/J), where f is the focal length, and J is the distance from the lens, parallel to the sensor, to the plane of sharpest focus. (see Merklinger's "Focusing the view Camera").
So, in an extreme example, if the arm of the sofa in the foreground gave you a value of J=1000 mm, and you were using a 150mm lens, you would need 8.6 degrees of tilt... I do not think any of the modern compact medium-format view cameras give you anything like that much tilt, but with shorter lenses and bigger Js, you would need less tilt, and with a 50mm lens you would need 2.8 degrees.
-
There is a fair amount on my blog related to this issue. I make my living largely shooting architecture with a 5DII and t/s lenses. In my experience soley relying on PS for perspective correction is very limiting too, and gets you into trouble with odd artifacts at times and weird distortion once you get close to stretching the image around half the width of the frame. T/S lenses will cover your needs most of the time or a combination of shift and vertical flat stitching. Or sometimes even with that I have to let the vertical lines converge somewhat and do some PS correction too. All in all after shooting architecture for thirty years with a 4x5, I don't find a DSLR and T/S lenses limiting. Indeed I find them liberating.
-
I have a Linhof M679cs and a P65+, but I use the Canon T&S lenses more often. Here's the main reasons,
1. For interiors you're often really pushed for space, not in terms of "wide-angle" space, but in terms of "where's the photographer supposed to stand" space! A DSLR is just more compact and manouvrable, especially compared to a technical camera fitted with a sliding back.
2. Instead of complex interior lighting set-ups I'll often just use HDR, and managing the multiple layer files from a DSLR is quicker and easier than from a digital back.
3. The architectural photography I do is unlikely to grace the pages of Architectural Review, it's bread and butter commercial work for developers, hotels, and building materials suppliers. In this context there's not much reason to use the Linhof/P65+, the quality from a DSLR is more than adequate for four colour offset printing, and the movements available from the Canon T&S range are adequate for 99% of the challenges you'll face. That's not being cavalier with quality, it's just being realistic.
4. This may be heresy for many, but in my view the marriage of digital backs and technical cameras isn't that harmonious. There's certainly no cheap option, because the mechanical precision that digital backs require doesn't come cheap. But even with the best cameras you'll struggle to get sufficient focusing accuracy from the ground glasses currently available, and you certainly won't get that focusing accuracy with the viewing devices available for sliding backs. Consequently you often have to fit and remove the digital back for each shot and sooner or later you'll drop the back on a concrete floor. So better have your insurance up to date!
5. In the crowded European cities where I work you can bet that at least half the exteriors will need extensive retouching to remove parked cars, street signs, etc. In practise that means moving the camera to get a clean view and then patching in a section to cover up obstructions. It's a lot easier to move a DSLR than a technical camera, and it's quicker to complete the retouching on smaller DSLR files.
-
I have a Linhof M679cs and a P65+, but I use the Canon T&S lenses more often. Here's the main reasons,
1. For interiors you're often really pushed for space, not in terms of "wide-angle" space, but in terms of "where's the photographer supposed to stand" space! A DSLR is just more compact and manouvrable, especially compared to a technical camera fitted with a sliding back.
2. Instead of complex interior lighting set-ups I'll often just use HDR, and managing the multiple layer files from a DSLR is quicker and easier than from a digital back.
3. The architectural photography I do is unlikely to grace the pages of Architectural Review, it's bread and butter commercial work for developers, hotels, and building materials suppliers. In this context there's not much reason to use the Linhof/P65+, the quality from a DSLR is more than adequate for four colour offset printing, and the movements available from the Canon T&S range are adequate for 99% of the challenges you'll face. That's not being cavalier with quality, it's just being realistic.
4. This may be heresy for many, but in my view the marriage of digital backs and technical cameras isn't that harmonious. There's certainly no cheap option, because the mechanical precision that digital backs require doesn't come cheap. But even with the best cameras you'll struggle to get sufficient focusing accuracy from the ground glasses currently available, and you certainly won't get that focusing accuracy with the viewing devices available for sliding backs. Consequently you often have to fit and remove the digital back for each shot and sooner or later you'll drop the back on a concrete floor. So better have your insurance up to date!
5. In the crowded European cities where I work you can bet that at least half the exteriors will need extensive retouching to remove parked cars, street signs, etc. In practise that means moving the camera to get a clean view and then patching in a section to cover up obstructions. It's a lot easier to move a DSLR than a technical camera, and it's quicker to complete the retouching on smaller DSLR files.
if i had a p65, i would have bought an arca RM3D or an artech or a cambo wide DS...
-
I am getting into professional interior and architectural photography and would like to plan ahead with equipment investment. View cameras with digital backs are the best for such photography. They offer the most control over perspective, but are very expensive and bulky to work with.
Since I use the 5D MKII I have two other alternatives. Get the 24mm TS-E or use my current 17-40mm lens @ 17mm and crop by 50% to obtain 24mm view. The TS-E rout seems better as I do not have to sacrifice almost half of my picture resolution to achieve the desired look. That being said, do TS-E lenses give enough control to achieve similar results to lens perspective corrections in photoshop?
In the example below I shot the first picture at 24mm. The second picture was shot at 17mm, adjusted with lens correction filter by 20 degrees vertically and -40 degrees horizontally, and cropped to about 50% of original size:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2466/4014630110_d27ff9dd6e.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4014630120_635c5183ce.jpg)
If such degree figures in photoshop correspond to actual lens shift degrees then obviously TS-E lenses cannot achieve anything like photoshop as they are limited to 8 degrees if I am not mistaken. That makes me wonder how many degrees of shift do view cameras offer?
I would really appreciate hearing all of your thoughts on this as this topic might not have a "definite" answer. So it always great to learn how more experinced photographers approache this issue.
Thanks in advance!
Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus. And, while PS can correct perspective to some extent (e.g., converging verticals), the result is lost resolution and potential loss of image quality.
-
Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus. And, while PS can correct perspective to some extent (e.g., converging verticals), the result is lost resolution and potential loss of image quality.
I have been shooting architecture for over 20 years and can count on one hand, the amount of times I tilted the lens board or rear standard with a view camera. 99.99% of the time all you do is rise and fall of the front standard. With my Canon and shift lenses tilting is only used for special effects to reduce depth of field and is unnecessary for increasing it. I have thought long and hard about moving into a MF back for my landscape work, not for architectural interiors. I think the new canon shift lenses do the job very well.
-
I have been shooting architecture for over 20 years and can count on one hand, the amount of times I tilted the lens board or rear standard with a view camera. 99.99% of the time all you do is rise and fall of the front standard.
...so you very rarely shoot pictures like those above, with a foreground?
-
I have been shooting arch for over 10 years, with 8x10, 4x5, roll film, MFDB and dSLR, and I can also say I've used tilts less than a handful of times. Once or twice it was good to have shooting details on 4x5. With MFDB I have yet to encounter a need for them. I have the ts-e lenses and would be happier if they were just s-e lenses (although the extra tilt lock on the 17 and new 24 is a welcome addition).
-
I have been shooting arch for over 10 years, with 8x10, 4x5, roll film, MFDB and dSLR, and I can also say I've used tilts less than a handful of times. Once or twice it was good to have shooting details on 4x5. With MFDB I have yet to encounter a need for them. I have the ts-e lenses and would be happier if they were just s-e lenses (although the extra tilt lock on the 17 and new 24 is a welcome addition).
Buildings tend to be straight up and down, minimising the need for tilt in the vertical plane, but I would have thought that yaw might have been handy quite regularly.
...by comparison I would think/hope that landscape photographers would use tilt a great deal more.
-
Thanks for posting this. I had to read your reply several time, but I think I got most of what your saying.
You only need shift to keep the verticals parallel, and shift is not measured in degrees - but mm, or inches.
right thing, shift in mm and tilt in degrees
If you point the camera horizontal, and the bottom of the subject is level with the lens, the shift you will need will be half the width or height of the sensor.
What do you mean by that, especially the bold part? I get that shooting with the lens level to the ground and the frame starting from the bottom of the object (ex: building) you need half the width or height to achieve straight lines?
Tilt angle is asin(f/J), where f is the focal length, and J is the distance from the lens, parallel to the sensor, to the plane of sharpest focus. (see Merklinger's "Focusing the view Camera").
So, in an extreme example, if the arm of the sofa in the foreground gave you a value of J=1000 mm, and you were using a 150mm lens, you would need 8.6 degrees of tilt... I do not think any of the modern compact medium-format view cameras give you anything like that much tilt, but with shorter lenses and bigger Js, you would need less tilt, and with a 50mm lens you would need 2.8 degrees.
asin? I am dividing f/j (150/1000) and getting .15
Canon TS-E lense provide 11mm shift and 8 degrees tilt, should they not be sufficient for the example above?
-
There is a fair amount on my blog related to this issue. I make my living largely shooting architecture with a 5DII and t/s lenses. In my experience soley relying on PS for perspective correction is very limiting too, and gets you into trouble with odd artifacts at times and weird distortion once you get close to stretching the image around half the width of the frame. T/S lenses will cover your needs most of the time or a combination of shift and vertical flat stitching. Or sometimes even with that I have to let the vertical lines converge somewhat and do some PS correction too. All in all after shooting architecture for thirty years with a 4x5, I don't find a DSLR and T/S lenses limiting. Indeed I find them liberating.
That's exactly what I was hoping to hear, I just ordered a used 24mm TS-E and I am looking forward to using it, because as you said shooting wide and cropping introduces problems.
The blog is awesome I am reading it as we speak
and many thanks for all the other members replys I will be reading them in detail as time permits
-
For about 20 years I worked with film(6x9-8x10) for architects. Now I am using a Canon 5D MII and a Sinar Artec with an Emotion Back. The Canon is for simple architecture, bread and butter....
For more interesting architecture I am using the Sinar. Since I am using it, my pictures are becoming better in my opinion. The Canon files are technical perfect, but the pictures I am making with the ArTec are really better.
This is only my personal opinion, but I have seen a lot of German photographers changing to DSLR and loosing quality. Some of them are using MFDB and their style didn`t change so much...
Also there are still some architectural photographers still using film, and their results are really wonderful.
Michael Heinrich
-
1. For interiors you're often really pushed for space, not in terms of "wide-angle" space, but in terms of "where's the photographer supposed to stand" space! A DSLR is just more compact and manouvrable, especially compared to a technical camera fitted with a sliding back.
what you say makes perfect sense and I can attest to that from personal experience.
2. Instead of complex interior lighting set-ups I'll often just use HDR, and managing the multiple layer files from a DSLR is quicker and easier than from a digital back.
that's one thing I want to avoid as much as possible: HDR. In fact, I am looking very hard for sources to learn complex interior lighting. From my perspective well placed lighting setups create very unique results. In some instances however, HDR is the only rout.
3. The architectural photography I do is unlikely to grace the pages of Architectural Review, it's bread and butter commercial work for developers, hotels, and building materials suppliers. In this context there's not much reason to use the Linhof/P65+, the quality from a DSLR is more than adequate for four colour offset printing, and the movements available from the Canon T&S range are adequate for 99% of the challenges you'll face. That's not being cavalier with quality, it's just being realistic.
yup 21mp is sufficient for most commercial work
-
For about 20 years I worked with film(6x9-8x10) for architects. Now I am using a Canon 5D MII and a Sinar Artec with an Emotion Back. The Canon is for simple architecture, bread and butter....
For more interesting architecture I am using the Sinar. Since I am using it, my pictures are becoming better in my opinion. The Canon files are technical perfect, but the pictures I am making with the ArTec are really better.
This is only my personal opinion, but I have seen a lot of German photographers changing to DSLR and loosing quality. Some of them are using MFDB and their style didn`t change so much...
Also there are still some architectural photographers still using film, and their results are really wonderful.
Michael Heinrich
what do you mean by more interesting, and how are your pictures becoming better? Could this have something to do with the slower process of view cameras versus 35mm cameras which are faster and easier to setup?
-
what do you mean by more interesting, and how are your pictures becoming better? Could this have something to do with the slower process of view cameras versus 35mm cameras which are faster and easier to setup?
I can say without much fear to be wrong, that "more interesting" has to be understood as projects/contracts with higher budgets and more time to realize the project involved (the necessary time to deliver the best possible), giving the possibility to the photographer to plan and organize better, to spend more time to study the subject and to eventually deliver MORE than what has been asked for by the customer.
That's e.g the way Rainer is working, and I thing Michael as well. And in this case they will make use of the view camera and its unique features.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
what do you mean by more interesting, and how are your pictures becoming better? Could this have something to do with the slower process of view cameras versus 35mm cameras which are faster and easier to setup?
What I explained is my experience. I am working as a teacher for architectural students and I often tried to find out why I am really working better with this kind of equipment. Before digital I also worked better with my Technika 5x7" than with a Hasselblad SWC. Doesn`t matter wether I needed to shift or not. That some photographers have lost their own language with their change from 4x5 to DSLR is not only my opinion.
Michael
-
What I explained is my experience. I am working as a teacher for architectural students and I often tried to find out why I am really working better with this kind of equipment. Before digital I also worked better with my Technika 5x7" than with a Hasselblad SWC. Doesn`t matter wether I needed to shift or not. That some photographers have lost their own language with their change from 4x5 to DSLR is not only my opinion.
Michael
I think I have to agree totally. I am shooting with a DSLR with ts lenses and find it to be very limiting. I learned off of a film view camera and as soon as I can justify financing a digital view camera, I am going to get one. I still shoot with the DSLR like I am shooting with a view camera, slow and careful and thinking about every thing, but I still find it to be too limiting when it comes to the shifts.
I am also finding that I am one a member of a decreasing group of photographers who bother gelling there lights. I keep about a dozen different kinds of gels on me and it is hard today to find one who even just has daylight balance gels on him.
-
I think I have to agree totally. I am shooting with a DSLR with ts lenses and find it to be very limiting. I learned off of a film view camera and as soon as I can justify financing a digital view camera, I am going to get one. I still shoot with the DSLR like I am shooting with a view camera, slow and careful and thinking about every thing, but I still find it to be too limiting when it comes to the shifts.
How many mm of shift does a view camera give you? 11mm on a 24mm horizontal frame is almost a half frame shift. I know its not as relatively large of an effect when in vertical view.
I am also finding that I am one a member of a decreasing group of photographers who bother gelling there lights. I keep about a dozen different kinds of gels on me and it is hard today to find one who even just has daylight balance gels on him.
I can't work without gels, how do such photographers color correct their pictures, correct each part of the picture separately?
-
I am getting into professional interior and architectural photography and would like to plan ahead with equipment investment. View cameras with digital backs are the best for such photography. They offer the most control over perspective, but are very expensive and bulky to work with.
Since I use the 5D MKII I have two other alternatives. Get the 24mm TS-E or use my current 17-40mm lens @ 17mm and crop by 50% to obtain 24mm view. The TS-E rout seems better as I do not have to sacrifice almost half of my picture resolution to achieve the desired look. That being said, do TS-E lenses give enough control to achieve similar results to lens perspective corrections in photoshop?
In the example below I shot the first picture at 24mm. The second picture was shot at 17mm, adjusted with lens correction filter by 20 degrees vertically and -40 degrees horizontally, and cropped to about 50% of original size:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2466/4014630110_d27ff9dd6e.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4014630120_635c5183ce.jpg)
If such degree figures in photoshop correspond to actual lens shift degrees then obviously TS-E lenses cannot achieve anything like photoshop as they are limited to 8 degrees if I am not mistaken. That makes me wonder how many degrees of shift do view cameras offer?
I would really appreciate hearing all of your thoughts on this as this topic might not have a "definite" answer. So it always great to learn how more experinced photographers approache this issue.
Thanks in advance!
Do not consider the 17 - 40 mm as a lens for Architectural photography, it has distortion bordering on a special effect. Not my area but I often think Photoshop corrected images often leave things looking a bit odd, I would think the least you need is both the 17 and 24 mm Tilt shift lens if a bigger format is out of the question for now, to provide professional looking images,
Kevin.
-
How many mm of shift does a view camera give you? 11mm on a 24mm horizontal frame is almost a half frame shift. I know its not as relatively large of an effect when in vertical view.
I can't work without gels, how do such photographers color correct their pictures, correct each part of the picture separately?
The amount of shift in a view camera depends on the lens and the camera itself. Most digital view cameras will give you 25 mm up, 15 mm down, and 20 mm left or right, like the Alpa 12 max (my choice). But some, like the Alpa 12XY, will give much more but they are larger and bulkier.
Alpa will also mount the lenses on their boards 4mm offset in one direction (if you want) giving 8mm of additional shift.
Now most lenses do not offer this much movement though. For instance, the Schneider 35 digitar has an image circle that is 90mm in diameter which means as long as the sensor stays in that circle you are fine, but as soon as you move out of it you get dark/black conners on that side. This gives you about 18 mm (I think) of lateral shift with a p45+x back. Usually the wider the lens, the smaller the circle. The Rodenstock 23 HR only has a image circle of 74 mm giving you only 4/5 mm of shift (this lens in like a 15 mm on a full frame DSLR), whereas the 70 HR has a 110 mm circle. Schneider is releasing a new 28 mm lens with a 90 mm circle this winter which is amazing, although the thing is huge, at least 5 inches in diameter. Image circles also increase in size as the lens is stopped down but with digital sensors, due to how they record the light, you can only stop down so far till the quality starts to decrease.
Resolution decreases as you get closer to the edge of the image circle so something else you need to look at on these lenses is the line-pair resolution. There some lenses with huge circles, but the line-pair res at the edge is around 40/50 per mm. For the modern backs though you need around 90 lines per mm.
The thing I like about view cameras verses t-s lenses is that you can shift on both axis at the same time. Also, the optical sharpness of these lenses is amazing.
When it comes to working with gels, I am finding a lot of photographers around my age (I am 27) are just digitally correcting the light and getting results that are "good enough." I am highly critical of my work and often loose sleep for something wrong in an image that is so small that no one but me notices. But I guess it is good to be more critical then your clients.
-
I can't work without gels, how do such photographers color correct their pictures, correct each part of the picture separately?
I have a case full of gels that I have not used in years. With digital I find it more interesting to work with mixed light-as by playing with the white balance I can judge whether the mix works or doesn't, but also "cleaning up the color" or adjusting the mix sometimes with either strobe or halogen fill.
-
What I explained is my experience. I am working as a teacher for architectural students and I often tried to find out why I am really working better with this kind of equipment. Before digital I also worked better with my Technika 5x7" than with a Hasselblad SWC. Doesn`t matter wether I needed to shift or not. That some photographers have lost their own language with their change from 4x5 to DSLR is not only my opinion.
Michael
I too teach architectural photography at the university level. View cameras and DSLRs are just tools which do not control the photographers aesthetic unless one allows it to. IME it is worthwhile to teach DSLR use with a view camera work ethic, always using tripods, leveling the camera etc. forcing students to slow down and think about the space and slow down. Even with a DSLR, architectural photography can become a contemplative experience just as it was with a view camera.
-
As a long time view camera user I have to agree with Kirk here. dSLR's can be great tools for arch photography.
-
As a long time view camera user I have to agree with Kirk here. dSLR's can be great tools for arch photography.
I agree with the fact that you can not let the type of camera dictate how you work and DSLRs can be a good resource for architectural photography, only I wish that they did away with the tilt and made shift shift lens.
-
Very thorough and informative feedback, thanks for posting.
The thing I like about view cameras verses t-s lenses is that you can shift on both axis at the same time. Also, the optical sharpness of these lenses is amazing.
What is the advantage of horizontal shift? The main advantage of vertical shift is keeping the camera level with the ground while covering something above or below the camera as if tilting. Horizontally, there is no tilting just rotation, so how does shift in this orientation work?
-
I have a case full of gels that I have not used in years. With digital I find it more interesting to work with mixed light-as by playing with the white balance I can judge whether the mix works or doesn't, but also "cleaning up the color" or adjusting the mix sometimes with either strobe or halogen fill.
To be specific I think tint gives me more trouble than white balance. Green and magenta stand out in such a way that I find a gel the only way to fix the problem. With white balance (blue and yellow) I see more room for mixing.
-
What is the advantage of horizontal shift? The main advantage of vertical shift is keeping the camera level with the ground while covering something above or below the camera as if tilting. Horizontally, there is no tilting just rotation, so how does shift in this orientation work?
T/S lenses will shift either vertically (called rise and fall on a view camera) or horizontally and any combination in between. I use the horizontal shifts primarily for flat stitching, but sometimes at say 10:00 and 2:00 when I need some rise with the shift on a stitch. It works extremely well. I find few practical limitations with DSLR T/S lenses vs. a view camera.
-
I too teach architectural photography at the university level. View cameras and DSLRs are just tools which do not control the photographers aesthetic unless one allows it to. IME it is worthwhile to teach DSLR use with a view camera work ethic, always using tripods, leveling the camera etc. forcing students to slow down and think about the space and slow down. Even with a DSLR, architectural photography can become a contemplative experience just as it was with a view camera.
I never said that MFDB are better than DSLR. Its only my personal experience that for my work MF is better and even when I tried to explain it to students I was not really able to find a scientific reasons. The best way to improve architectural photography in my opinion is to learn more about architecture. I wrote a book for students and there is about 90% relation between architecture and photography and only the other 10% about techniques.
In my opinion this is the correct relation.
Michael Heinrich
-
I never said that MFDB are better than DSLR. Its only my personal experience that for my work MF is better and even when I tried to explain it to students I was not really able to find a scientific reasons. The best way to improve architectural photography in my opinion is to learn more about architecture. I wrote a book for students and there is about 90% relation between architecture and photography and only the other 10% about techniques.
In my opinion this is the correct relation.
Michael Heinrich
i.m.o. good architecture photography has much to do with an understanding of the relation object and room, means perspective and image composition.
therefor real estate photography often has not much to do with architecture photography as i understand it, cause the motifs often are overloaded with chairs, plants, toys, people. the intent in this is to create atmosphere, not to show space or architecture, at least not construction aspects of it.
nowadays, with the existence of the new 17 and 24tse lenses from canon, it might be possible to use these lenses in a similar way than shift cameras as the alpas, artecs, cambos and s on ... but before architecture wide angle photography with 35m lenses was a very abstract way to get good images.
one had to stitch with 645 lenses and shift adapters or to correct electronically in ps. i.m.o. all ( except the olymus 24 ) the older shift lenses from schneider/canon/nikon in the wide end have been simply unusable for distortion and for sharpness decrease if shifted, so this was either a very complicate and abstract way to get good shots, or a way which implicated very lo quality. i personaly have made some of my best shots with 35m cameras, but i had experience to see and visualize motifs even without camera, this way to work i learned in the 4x5 film days. i would suggest this to everyone who wants to start in arcitecture photography, work with 4x5" to get a feel for the speed of shooting, which should be a very lo one if the desire is to get great shots.
i would not say that the budgets are higher with mf, because no one cares usually with wich camera the shots are done, people care about the results.
my workflow is faster and more intuitive with the artec and the emotion back together with exposure and lightroom, than with the canon,
thats why i prefer to work with mf.
but still about 50% of my shots are taken with the canon, either because i want to shoot details with very long lenses or i use the canon as "problem resolver"
if i dont go wide enough with the rodenstock 23mm.
-
MFDB
Got tired of reasding that abrevation not knowing what it stands for. Did a little search and few clicks later I stumblled into this thread which discuss the same topic and has Kirk contributing too!
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/for...6309&page=2 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26309&page=2)
-
Very thorough and informative feedback, thanks for posting.
What is the advantage of horizontal shift? The main advantage of vertical shift is keeping the camera level with the ground while covering something above or below the camera as if tilting. Horizontally, there is no tilting just rotation, so how does shift in this orientation work?
Just like shifting vertically keeps the vertical lines of the building from converging, horizontal shifting does the same thing but for the same thing for those lines. Now 60 % of the time I am fine with the horizontal lines converging, but if I the angle I am looking at a building or space is only a little off from a direct view, I often want to correct the horizontal perspective as well.
-
I have to agree with Reiner in that if you want to get into the medium, you should spend some time working with a 4x5 view camera using film. It really makes you think about what you are doing. Also, its takes away some of the luxuries of digital like being able to see what your picture looks like right there and the ability to correct things in the photo separately in PS. When shooting with film, you really have to be comfortable with your camera and lighting, especially when working with positives and the only way to get that is to work slow and careful.
You should be able to get a cheap army surplus 4x5 with a decent lens and a film holder; I see them all over the place. If you decide to go this route, it might be good to get some film balanced to daylight and some balanced to tungsten as well; I don't think it is advisable to go out and get a color light meter and a set of correction filters for an exercise in view cameras.
-
Just like shifting vertically keeps the vertical lines of the building from converging, horizontal shifting does the same thing but for the same thing for those lines. Now 60 % of the time I am fine with the horizontal lines converging, but if I the angle I am looking at a building or space is only a little off from a direct view, I often want to correct the horizontal perspective as well.
So basically if I stand facing a wall and rotate the camera to the left side of the wall, the lines will converge at the left side because they are further away from the lens. Got to try correcting this one day with photoshop.
You should be able to get a cheap army surplus 4x5 with a decent lens and a film holder; I see them all over the place. If you decide to go this route, it might be good to get some film balanced to daylight and some balanced to tungsten as well; I don't think it is advisable to go out and get a color light meter and a set of correction filters for an exercise in view cameras.
well if I was still in Chicago I would probably do that, but since I moved to the Arabic World getting such a camera is would be a luxury, and getting films process would be next to impossible.
-
I never said that MFDB are better than DSLR. Its only my personal experience that for my work MF is better and even when I tried to explain it to students I was not really able to find a scientific reasons. The best way to improve architectural photography in my opinion is to learn more about architecture. I wrote a book for students and there is about 90% relation between architecture and photography and only the other 10% about techniques.
In my opinion this is the correct relation.
Michael Heinrich
Michael, Nor did I say you said that?? I basically agree with you about the value of architectural knowledge....from a different point of view though. The classes I have taught at The University of New Mexico and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (about 20 years combined) were/are jointly offered by the photography and architecture departments. Usually about 2/3 of my students are from architecture departments. The architecture students (usually 3rd or 4th year or graduate students) of course have a rich background in architecture. My best and most successful students have come from architecture, perhaps because of their knowledge, but I believe because knowledge leads to motivation ie their passion for architecture becomes the driving force. Photo students, even in art schools, tend to look at AP as a lucrative, interesting, challenging, perhaps easy, way of making a living, which is far different from being passionate about architecture and wanting to learn how to illustrate it. Unfortunately in a one semester class there is so much technique to teach that (far more than one can get to in one semester, hence many repeat my class) that it consumes my efforts. So at SAIC we designed a class that is team taught with myself and Tim Wittman, an architectural historian. The combination works very well.
I stumblled into this thread which discuss the same topic and has Kirk contributing too!
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/for...6309&page=2 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/for...6309&page=2)
Abdul
Abdul, that site, The Large Format Photography Forum,I am a moderator there and it is a great resource with nearly 500,000 posts and there is much more on that site related to architectural photography which you can access through searches. But IME this site attracts the most knowledgeable practicing professional architectural photographers.
-
Hi, Abdul... I have been away and could not find any wireless internet coverage.
If you point the camera horizontal, and the bottom of the subject is level with the lens, the shift you will need will be half the width or height of the sensor.
What do you mean by that, especially the bold part? I get that shooting with the lens level to the ground and the frame starting from the bottom of the object (e.g. building) you need half the width or height to achieve straight lines?
Keeping he sensor parallel to the subject keeps the verticals vertical, shift just gets the subject's image on the sensor.
The more offset you have, the more shift you need to keep the subject image on the sensor, in the simple example, the whole subject (e.g. building) is above the horizontal, and the whole image is below the horizontal, so you shift by half the sensor size.
Tilt angle is asin(f/J), where f is the focal length, and J is the distance from the lens, parallel to the sensor, to the plane of sharpest focus. (see Merklinger's "Focusing the view Camera").
So, in an extreme example, if the arm of the sofa in the foreground gave you a value of J=1000 mm, and you were using a 150mm lens, you would need 8.6 degrees of tilt... I do not think any of the modern compact medium-format view cameras give you anything like that much tilt, but with shorter lenses and bigger Js, you would need less tilt, and with a 50mm lens you would need 2.8 degrees.
asin? I am dividing f/j (150/1000) and getting .15
asin or arcsin or is the trigonometrical ratio that is the inverse of sine, so arcsin .15 is the angle whose sine is .15, which give 8.6 degrees.
Canon TS-E lense provide 11mm shift and 8 degrees tilt, should they not be sufficient for the example above?
Using a 17mm lens on a 24 * 36mm sensor...
2* 17 = 34, so you would almost be able to accommodate the first example vertical, and easily do it horizontal.
In the second example f=17mm J=1000mm arcsin(f/J)= 0.97 degrees.
With larger formats and longer lenses (and narrower depth-of-field) you need much more tilt.
-
Thanks everybody for the help. I found a very nice book that answers so many basic question about architectural photography and I recommend it for anyone new and interested in this topic. Its only weakness is a very short section on interiors.
I have the book reviewed on Amazon: Architectural Photography: Composition, Capture, and Digital Image Processing (http://www.amazon.com/Architectural-Photography-Composition-Capture-Processing/dp/1933952431/ref=cm_cr-mr-title)
-
edited
-
Interesting, Kirk. I gave a lecture at the University of Madison and the event was coordinated by both the Architecture and Photography departments. Also, last year I gave a talk at SAIC to Cindy Coleman's Architecture class. When I work with architects, they almost always carry cameras and seem to understand the vision more so than clients from any other genre. Recently I've been thinking about going back to school and I think I'm going to take some architecture classes.
Format debate. I would advise anyone starting out as an architectural shooter to buy the Canon with T/S lenses. That said, my view camera will always be my first choice. I always shoot tethered and on tripod. Given that, dslrs actually slow me down. With the way you have to rotate the lens to implement shift and rise together, I find composing very frustrating. I can't even imagine trying to stitch images when shifted diagonally so.
Lighting.. Rainer is more of an Architectural Photographer, while I am honestly more of an Interiors Photographer. I think this is where you see so much division in opinion. When I'm shooting buildings or large public spaces, I'm just as likely to use little or no lighting. For interiors though, my client's product is as much materials and finishes as it is the geometry of the architecture. If I tried to rely upon ambient light to accurately describe the textures of fabrics and reflective qualities of many materials, the results would be unacceptable for the high end designers I work for. In the end, I think it's kind of silly for us to argue the validity of our own specific approaches when our work and our clientele are so varied.
And now pancakes, bacon and coffee!
-
Why I choose Medium Format Digital over DSLR:
Emotional reasons:
I fell in love with photography after I began using a large format camera (4x5 & 8x10).
I never liked the proportion of 35mm, too panoramic for most of my work.
I hate looking through a small viewfinder all day, I prefer to see the shot with 2 eyes (Hence the term View Camera, seen with 2 eyes)
Working with a slower (however not bigger in the case of the Alpa SWA) camera will improve anyones work. More time spent with each shot will make it a better shot.
Technical reasons:
35mm lenses (all SLR, MF too) have too much distortion, yes it can be corrected but it adds time and aggravation.
CA/Purple fringing on the lenses, yes correctable but another step.
Again for me wanting to crop the 2:3 aspect to 4:5 or 4:3 takes away resolution.
HUGE ISSUE:, no lateral shift in combination with vertical shift, yes you can shift T/S or PC lenses in a similar way but its not the same control
Image quality and sharpness of the P45+ with Schneider Lenses (+ one Rodnestock 23HR which does need distortion correction sometimes but is easy with Alpas new software.)
When needing something wider than 24 you'd need to do perspective correction. Now the 17TS is available which sounds great but was not available when I made my decisions. I cannot see spending the time or effort on site to correct perspective in order to fine tune whats in frame or out or to show it to the client.
These are just my reasons since the original poster was asking about why one system over the other I thought I'd share my experiences. No judging here. I do have a 5D system with PC and TS lenses that I use as back-up or second system for doing two shots at once, but I'd rather use the Leica M8 if I didn't need the perspective control. Better lenses.
Everyones workflow is different and whats important to them is also different. If you never worked with 4x5, switching to MFD might seem very awkward if you're not used to the pre-visualization process required for view camera work. "Seeing" the image often comes first in your mind and then is translated by choosing the right camera height and lens.
-
Jeffrey -
"I hate looking through a small viewfinder all day, I prefer to see the shot with 2 eyes (Hence the term View Camera, seen with 2 eyes)"
Live view on the Canon (5d2) lcd is excellent, and you can tether live view with Canon software.
"HUGE ISSUE:, no lateral shift in combination with vertical shift, yes you can shift T/S or PC lenses in a similar way but its not the same control"
Since you mentioned the SWA (of course about size, but you did include it and you do use it), that is rise/fall only, or shift only if you reverse it, so no combo possible. While I agree the combo possible on dslr pc lenses is limiting in comparison, the more I use it the more I learn to work within its limitations, and it's a rare situation that I need more than the canon offers.
"Working with a slower (however not bigger in the case of the Alpa SWA) camera will improve anyones work. More time spent with each shot will make it a better shot."
One can shoot any camera slowly, but one cannot shoot any camera quickly.
"CA/Purple fringing on the lenses, yes correctable but another step." "When needing something wider than 24 you'd need to do perspective correction. Now the 17TS is available which sounds great but was not available when I made my decisions. I cannot see spending the time or effort on site to correct perspective in order to fine tune whats in frame or out or to show it to the client."
The new 17 and 24 are game changers. If you haven't used them you should at least try and then judge. No fringing, no distortion. The 23 Rodenstock has massive distortion compared to the 17tse. Also the screen on the Canon is good enough to show the client. Canon does need to make a 32/35 tse, 65/70tse, and update the 45.
I use the Alpa Max/MFDB too and it creates the best files. The Schneider and Rodenstock lenses are superior, no doubt. But more and more my reasons for using the "bigger" system are purely emotional. I like the way the Alpa works, and I like the results. It's satisfying. I cannot say the same about the Canon, it doesn't have the feeling, and at first I hated it. But it works in most situations flawlessly.
I chose the Alpa before the 17 and new 24 were announced, before the 5d2 was announced even. I saw it and pulled out the credit card before it even crossed the counter at the shop. At the time there was no question how to go from 4x5 to digital. Now there is, and, no regrets, but I don't think I'd spend money the same way.
-
Why I choose Medium Format Digital over DSLR:
Emotional reasons:
I fell in love with photography after I began using a large format camera (4x5 & 8x10).
I never liked the proportion of 35mm, too panoramic for most of my work.
I hate looking through a small viewfinder all day, I prefer to see the shot with 2 eyes (Hence the term View Camera, seen with 2 eyes)
Working with a slower (however not bigger in the case of the Alpa SWA) camera will improve anyones work. More time spent with each shot will make it a better shot.
Technical reasons:
35mm lenses (all SLR, MF too) have too much distortion, yes it can be corrected but it adds time and aggravation.
CA/Purple fringing on the lenses, yes correctable but another step.
Again for me wanting to crop the 2:3 aspect to 4:5 or 4:3 takes away resolution.
HUGE ISSUE:, no lateral shift in combination with vertical shift, yes you can shift T/S or PC lenses in a similar way but its not the same control
Image quality and sharpness of the P45+ with Schneider Lenses (+ one Rodnestock 23HR which does need distortion correction sometimes but is easy with Alpas new software.)
When needing something wider than 24 you'd need to do perspective correction. Now the 17TS is available which sounds great but was not available when I made my decisions. I cannot see spending the time or effort on site to correct perspective in order to fine tune whats in frame or out or to show it to the client.
These are just my reasons since the original poster was asking about why one system over the other I thought I'd share my experiences. No judging here. I do have a 5D system with PC and TS lenses that I use as back-up or second system for doing two shots at once, but I'd rather use the Leica M8 if I didn't need the perspective control. Better lenses.
Everyones workflow is different and whats important to them is also different. If you never worked with 4x5, switching to MFD might seem very awkward if you're not used to the pre-visualization process required for view camera work. "Seeing" the image often comes first in your mind and then is translated by choosing the right camera height and lens.
I must say at first I really missed the view camarea experience. I really loved the big camera, the large groundglass and the movements. If I had to guess I would say that at least 80% of my work was 4x5 and 35mm 1%. Even the blad had a special feeling. The process was deliberate, the medium unforgiving. (I shot reversal 95% of the time). The wonder and sometimes downright terror of wating to see the results at the lab is missed, along with the time spent talking to my fellow photogs while waiting. I don't miss a box full of cc filters, polaroid that was worthless for checking focus ( except for the negs from P/N film) and clients who took the film with the promise to fix the few things we just could not fix in camera but then failed ot do so.
The Betterlight scan back was an eyeopener in the world of digital but mostly worthless for my work. The P20 was pretty cool too, but there was no wide which killed it as well.
Then the 1Ds arrived and it changed the whole ballgame. Sure I miss the old, but damn, the new has opened so many possibilities that just were not possible before. (or not without a lot of expense or trouble) Truth be told I'm guessing I spend more time per image with a dslr than before with a view camera. So much that sometime I need to call enough, we are changing things just for the sake of change, its not making the image better!
It's a mind set, not the equipment....
-
The new 17 and 24 are game changers. If you haven't used them you should at least try and then judge. No fringing, no distortion.
You must have a really good copy of that 17, or some others have really bad ones. Here is one person's experience:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834707/2#7777728 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834707/2#7777728)
Summary: significant CA, significant distortion, to the point where he now uses an adapted Nikon 14-24G and a 24 TS-E II.
-
is this what you mean - "the TSE 17+1.4 TC produces quite a noticable amount of CA and distortion" ?
If so then, yes, in my testing the addition of the 1.4x produces unacceptable results. But that may have been the 1.4x I tested as RainerV on this forum finds the results of that combination more than acceptable. And there's a thread on get dpi forums with that exact combination comparing it to the new 24 tse II and it stands up very well. So I'm inclined to think the 1.4x is the culprit.
The arch forums at ASMP have only positive reviews of the 17tse. Stores can't get enough of them.
So I don't think it's just mine that's a good copy.
Have you tried the lens or have any direct experience of a bad copy? Canon has many dogs and their QC is often suspect, but this is one lens almost without exception people are enamoured with.
-
Have you tried the lens or have any direct experience of a bad copy? Canon has many dogs and their QC is often suspect, but this is one lens almost without exception people are enamoured with.
No, I haven't tried it, but I have read both glowing and negative opinions on it, so I guess there is some QC at fault, perhaps less than some previous Canons, like the old 24 TS-E (which I have tried, and which wasn't super-sharp and had CA).
-
You must have a really good copy of that 17, or some others have really bad ones. Here is one person's experience:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834707/2#7777728 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834707/2#7777728)
Summary: significant CA, significant distortion, to the point where he now uses an adapted Nikon 14-24G and a 24 TS-E II.
He writes about the 17tse together with the 1,4 extender. The extender itself creates some distortion as well as some ca ( although both easy correctable because it does not shift and is therefor symmetrical.
The 17tse shows à bit ca ( about two points correction on the Red-Green scale in LR).
distortion is very good,.
Same behavor than the 24tseII reg. CA. These two new lenses are both stunning .
-
He writes about the 17tse together with the 1,4 extender. The extender itself creates some distortion as well as some ca ( although both easy correctable because it does not shift and is therefor symmetrical.
The 17tse shows à bit ca ( about two points correction on the Red-Green scale in LR).
distortion is very good,.
Same behavor than the 24tseII reg. CA. These two new lenses are both stunning .
It seems I grabbed the wrong link. Still, it sounds like he sold the lens again and kept just the 14-24G and 24 TS-E II, so I guess he wasn't even happy with the 17 TS-E by itself. I have seen another couple of people who weren't that happy, but probably twice that number who were happy, so 2 out of 3 ain't bad?
-
It seems I grabbed the wrong link. Still, it sounds like he sold the lens again and kept just the 14-24G and 24 TS-E II, so I guess he wasn't even happy with the 17 TS-E by itself. I have seen another couple of people who weren't that happy, but probably twice that number who were happy, so 2 out of 3 ain't bad?
because you`ve put my nose in fred miranda i went in, after many years not having been there.
i found 9 reviews of the 17tse and 11 reviews of the 24tse.
100% of this 20 reviewers said the lenses are: very sharp, very good optically, very small amount of CA, little distortion.
the critics was about too huge front elements, too price, no filters on the 17 and some details like that ( anyway price isnt a detail but we here in the beautyfull 16bit mf world are really used to pay much worser amounts of money ).
funny how you can write what you are writing. maybe you should test them yourself ?
-
Same old story!
You have to test these lenses for yourself.
Currently I'm happy with my D3x and the Nikon PC-e lenses.
Apart from the easy to fix barrel distortion,the 14-24 is also very useful.
However,when Canon launches their 1DsMk4,I will certainly have a look at the 17 TSE and the 24 TSE II.
Hopefully by then,there will be a 35 TSE and a 45 TSE II and a 90 TSE II
Maybe Nikon by then will have a 17 PC-e ?
Happy shooting,
Best,
Willem.
-
because you`ve put my nose in fred miranda i went in, after many years not having been there.
i found 9 reviews of the 17tse and 11 reviews of the 24tse.
100% of this 20 reviewers said the lenses are: very sharp, very good optically, very small amount of CA, little distortion.
the critics was about too huge front elements, too price, no filters on the 17 and some details like that ( anyway price isnt a detail but we here in the beautyfull 16bit mf world are really used to pay much worser amounts of money ).
funny how you can write what you are writing. maybe you should test them yourself ?
Was just about to write something similar, to ask for links to negative reviews as I haven't seen any (not that I was looking). Yes, people complain about not being able to use filters and the dangerous front element, but these aren't complaints about the lens' performance optically.
I find the 17 needs 1-2pts green shift correction in LR sometimes. In DPP there's no CA.
-
because you`ve put my nose in fred miranda i went in, after many years not having been there.
i found 9 reviews of the 17tse and 11 reviews of the 24tse.
100% of this 20 reviewers said the lenses are: very sharp, very good optically, very small amount of CA, little distortion.
the critics was about too huge front elements, too price, no filters on the 17 and some details like that ( anyway price isnt a detail but we here in the beautyfull 16bit mf world are really used to pay much worser amounts of money ).
funny how you can write what you are writing. maybe you should test them yourself ?
Well... I could do so, but in doing so, I would only get one copy and so I would not have a statistically valid sample, whether positive or negative. I read only the Alternative forum on FM, so I don't know what people in the Canon forum there are saying. I don't own Canon equipment any more, just Leica M and Contax 645/Sinar MFDB (and a couple of old Hasselblads).
-
Well... I could do so, but in doing so, I would only get one copy and so I would not have a statistically valid sample, whether positive or negative. I read only the Alternative forum on FM, so I don't know what people in the Canon forum there are saying. I don't own Canon equipment any more, just Leica M and Contax 645/Sinar MFDB (and a couple of old Hasselblads).
Then how about pointing to a test of a bad copy? Or something where someone complains of poor performance?
You say 1 of 3 reviews you've read are unsatisfied users, I'd like to see this as I haven't seen any bad reviews or complaints. Not being able to use a filter isn't an example of a bad copy.
-
I picked up a 17mm TS about 10 days ago and shot this project last week. Immediately, it became my favorite lens! Before the 17, I would use my 28mm Mamiya more often than not with a P45. I also bought a 5DMk2 and am equally impressed with it. Attached are some of the images taken of this new building project, they've all been retouched but I think you'll get an idea of what the lens is capable of. Jim
[attachment=17962:AM2_002_...just_dc4.jpg]
[attachment=17963:AM2_024_...just_dc5.jpg]
[attachment=17964:AM2_040_...just_dc7.jpg]
[attachment=17965:PM1_088_dc4.jpg]
-
Well, perhaps you just got as lucky as everyone else and got a good copy ........
Sarcasm aside, it's hard not to be impressed with this lens.
-
I may sound heretic but first and second pic have MF quality (webwise) Wow! A dozen wow's! Definetely it's my next lens.
Eduardo
[quote name='haefnerphoto' date='Nov 15 2009, 09:50 PM' post='325135']
I picked up a 17mm TS about 10 days ago and shot this project last week. Immediately, it became my favorite lens! Before the 17, I would use my 28mm Mamiya more often than not with a P45. I also bought a 5DMk2 and am equally impressed with it. Attached are some of the images taken of this new building project, they've all been retouched but I think you'll get an idea of what the lens is capable of. Jim
-
No doubt the 17 TS-E is an impressive piece of glass. Call me crazy but I just don't see much appeal to a 17mm FOV on full-frame, unless shooting tight interiors. Backing up will almost always give you a more pleasing and natural looking perspective, especialling for things like architecture where the 100+ degree FOV's will create a distorted and even misleading impression of the building's proportions.
Granted, sometimes backing up is not an option, but I get the impression some photographers are using these really wide FOV's just because they can. (There are a lot of truly awful pictures taken with the Nikon 14-24m to back this up. IMHO).
Personally I'd much rather have something in the 30-32mm range to slot in-between the 24mm and 45mm options. On the wide end 20mm is about is wide as I would want to go.
-
I picked up a 17mm TS about 10 days ago and shot this project last week. Immediately, it became my favorite lens! Before the 17, I would use my 28mm Mamiya more often than not with a P45. I also bought a 5DMk2 and am equally impressed with it. Attached are some of the images taken of this new building project, they've all been retouched but I think you'll get an idea of what the lens is capable of. Jim
I've been shooting with the 17 tse since early August and it's a stunning lens. One needs to be careful using it as things can get wacky pretty quickly if you are too much off angle. The lens has a wonderful 3D quality to it, even more so than the new 24 tse II. In the right conditions (e.g. you can't back up, there's nothing in the foreground getting too distorted, etc.) it works wonders.
Images #1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 in this gallery (http://www.jonroemer.com/#/ARCHITECTURE/Commercial/1) were shot with it. #1 is a composite of three horiz. frames shot with the 17 tse.
Every image in this gallery (http://www.jonroemer.com/#/ARCHITECTURE/Butler%20College/1) except #3 was shot with it.
The three images in this blog post (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2009/11/whats-it-take-to-fill-a-space-and-make-it-your-own/) were also shot with it. You can see in the first image that the desk is getting too stretched out but in the last image there's enough other detail that it doesn't matter.
To me the 24mm tse II is the real workhorse on architecture jobs. It gets the most use. If an image can be shot with the 45 tse then great but more often than not it's the 24. When that doesn't work the 17 is perfect and a welcome change from having to use the 16-35 II @ 19mm or the 14mm II.
-
Then how about pointing to a test of a bad copy? Or something where someone complains of poor performance?
You say 1 of 3 reviews you've read are unsatisfied users, I'd like to see this as I haven't seen any bad reviews or complaints. Not being able to use a filter isn't an example of a bad copy.
I'll try to find some of the posts again, but please understand that 1) since my personal observations are worth exactly zero to anyone with an opinion of their own, and 2) it is really dull to re-read threads trying to find posts that you read casually a few days or weeks previously, I may not find them again. If I do, I will post links here, promised. Maybe the few posts that I have seen on the matter really weren't statistically accurate, it is quite possible, I just don't know. It just struck me from the posts I have seen so far that while many are raving and happy, a few are not, and sold it again.
One thing about this lens that I find interesting, and which must have Nikon throwing a hissy fit, is that just when Nikon released a bunch of T/S lenses to match or exceed Canon's stable at the time, Canon responded with a dramatically updated lens (24 TS-E II) and a game changer (17 TS-E). People who would have switched to Nikon are now staying with Canon again. Quite a coup.
-
The 17mm looks like a nice piece of glass, but I feel that the investment is not worth it. First of all this lens is approaching the price of MF lenses, and Schneider and Rodenstock are not going to let Canon or Nikon ever reach them in quality (a specialist will always out preform a generalist). Would it not be better just to make the investment into a MF system and get the equivalent lenses?
Second, 17 mm lenses on a full framed DSLR have a pretty big stretch factor, and as you get towards the edge of the image circle, this is only going to get worse. You can get the same view with little stretching by just stitching on a 24 (or 35 in MF). Now mind you do not get the same amount of flexibility with stitching on a t/s lens as opposed to a view camera, but I still feel that it is to pricey for the limited amount of time it would be used.
I right now have a 12 to 24 mm zoom and insofar as professional use, I have only ever used it once because of the stretch factor, and I know I could have gotten that shot with stitching, but it was not necessary. Now some of you are probably saying, it saved you time having that lens. Maybe 5 minutes, but when you put 1 to 4 hours into a single interior, an extra 5 minutes is really no time at all.
Last, I have to agree with Jeff Kohn in that some photographers just get things to get them, even if the investment is not worth it and do not think it through. If you really need this lens for your work, get it. Remember though that Weston took almost all of his images with the same lens he bought for $15 in a junk store and his work is studied by many.
I would rather just save, wait, and make an investment into a MF system when the time is right.
-
Second, 17 mm lenses on a full framed DSLR have a pretty big stretch factor, and as you get towards the edge of the image circle, this is only going to get worse. You can get the same view with little stretching by just stitching on a 24 (or 35 in MF). Now mind you do not get the same amount of flexibility with stitching on a t/s lens as opposed to a view camera, but I still feel that it is to pricey for the limited amount of time it would be used.
Please explain your concept of "stretch factor" and how stitching a 24 will eliminate this.
-
Post deleted.
-
I agree with Jeff Koon. The 17 will excel in tight interiors. The 24 is more suitable for exteriors. If you already own any MFDB then investing in Rodenstock or Schneider is a whole lot better. But in my case and in several thousands more cases around the globe the new glass from Canon is heavenly. If I could justify a digital medium format, no doubt I'd go for it. But my clients can't afford it and I'm sure they will be delighted with the Canon results. On counterpoint, too bad for me that Canon is coming with this fantastic glass because my DMF piggy bank is not getting any fatter. As someone said here before, Hasselblad and PhaseOne worst enemies are Canon and Nikon. Let's hope they don't become their nemesis.
Eduardo
The 17mm looks like a nice piece of glass, but I feel that the investment is not worth it. First of all this lens is approaching the price of MF lenses, and Schneider and Rodenstock are not going to let Canon or Nikon ever reach them in quality (a specialist will always out preform a generalist). Would it not be better just to make the investment into a MF system and get the equivalent lenses?
Second, 17 mm lenses on a full framed DSLR have a pretty big stretch factor, and as you get towards the edge of the image circle, this is only going to get worse. You can get the same view with little stretching by just stitching on a 24 (or 35 in MF). Now mind you do not get the same amount of flexibility with stitching on a t/s lens as opposed to a view camera, but I still feel that it is to pricey for the limited amount of time it would be used.
I right now have a 12 to 24 mm zoom and insofar as professional use, I have only ever used it once because of the stretch factor, and I know I could have gotten that shot with stitching, but it was not necessary. Now some of you are probably saying, it saved you time having that lens. Maybe 5 minutes, but when you put 1 to 4 hours into a single interior, an extra 5 minutes is really no time at all.
Last, I have to agree with Jeff Kohn in that some photographers just get things to get them, even if the investment is not worth it and do not think it through. If you really need this lens for your work, get it. Remember though that Weston took almost all of his images with the same lens he bought for $15 in a junk store and his work is studied by many.
I would rather just save, wait, and make an investment into a MF system when the time is right.
-
I'm just amused that there is all this debate on DSLR vs MFDB on a forum that by title confines itself to MFDB. We're such dorks... we take our gear and our practices so personally.
Now on to more important matters... I want to get myself a dirtbike.... 2 stroke or 4 stroke?
-Chris <--- has been drinking
-
I'm just amused that there is all this debate on DSLR vs MFDB on a forum that by title confines itself to MFDB. We're such dorks... we take our gear and our practices so personally.
Well, it's likely that there are more people in this subforum than others, who can really give a more balanced view of the pros/cons of each system due to having used both. And that's doubly true given the original poster's interest in architecture and interiors, as there are a lot of knowledgeable pros from that genre who hang out here (yourself included).
I don't shoot DMF and probably won't anytime soon, but I hang out here because there's a lot of great discussions about photography, especially more advanced topics (just look at a few of the recent architecture photography threads).
-
Well, it's likely that there are more people in this subforum than others, who can really give a more balanced view of the pros/cons of each system due to having used both. And that's doubly true given the original poster's interest in architecture and interiors, as there are a lot of knowledgeable pros from that genre who hang out here (yourself included).
I don't shoot DMF and probably won't anytime soon, but I hang out here because there's a lot of great discussions about photography, especially more advanced topics (just look at a few of the recent architecture photography threads).
Oh, don't mind me, Jeff. I was just being snarky.
-
(This is being resubmitted to the thread I originally intended it to be)
For each of the four images I posted earlier the 17mm T/S allowed me to make a better image. In each case backing up was not an option, either walls, trees or water would have come into play (and not beneficially). The images were successful enough, not great, but worked for my purposes (and the client's). Here's another image shot Saturday with the 17 that I'm very happy with. I've printed it to 18" across and it looks great but we know that these files will go even larger! I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose). I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made a lot of sense. Jim
[attachment=17981:Cranbroo...m_stairs.jpg]
-
The 17mm looks like a nice piece of glass, but I feel that the investment is not worth it. First of all this lens is approaching the price of MF lenses, and Schneider and Rodenstock are not going to let Canon or Nikon ever reach them in quality (a specialist will always out preform a generalist). Would it not be better just to make the investment into a MF system and get the equivalent lenses?
The equiv MFDB lens is the rodenstock 23HR @ $6500 for an unmounted version.
For the same $ one can buy the 17 tse, 24 tse II, 45 tse and 1.4x and still have change left to put toward a 5d2.
Then the roughly equiv lens to the 24 tse II is the rod 28 HR, which will set you back nearly $5400 for an unmounted one.
So I wouldn't say they're approaching the price of MF lenses.
I have both the Canon and Rodenstock lenses we're talking about here, as well as the rest of the systems to go with the lenses (Alpa and Canon).
MF is better, but unless you can really afford it it's not worth 3-4x the cost for a basic system.
-
I'm just amused that there is all this debate on DSLR vs MFDB on a forum that by title confines itself to MFDB. We're such dorks... we take our gear and our practices so personally.
Now on to more important matters... I want to get myself a dirtbike.... 2 stroke or 4 stroke?
-Chris <--- has been drinking
LOL! 4 strokes are where it is at now. You are from Chicago...you need to take a drive to Redbud this spring The pro motocross is awsome.
http://redbudmx.com/ (http://redbudmx.com/)
-
omg what happened here; left for a day and the thread nearly doubled in size!
-
(This is being resubmitted to the thread I originally intended it to be)
For each of the four images I posted earlier the 17mm T/S allowed me to make a better image. In each case backing up was not an option, either walls, trees or water would have come into play (and not beneficially). The images were successful enough, not great, but worked for my purposes (and the client's). Here's another image shot Saturday with the 17 that I'm very happy with. I've printed it to 18" across and it looks great but we know that these files will go even larger! I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose). I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made a lot of sense. Jim
[attachment=17981:Cranbroo...m_stairs.jpg]
I am note sure I understand that part. I made it in bold for your reference. Are you saying your 17mm can be shifted in both horizontal and vertical at the same time just like a view camera?
-
Okay, the stretch factor. When using a lens that is as wide as a 17 mm lens, you end up with stretching of objects on the edge of the image circle to make up for the wide view of the lens and this only gets worse as you increase the angle your are viewing the subject at. So if you are taking a shot of a subject which has no depth dead on with the camera parallel to the image plan (like the front of a house or building where you are not looking into the architecture) you are fine and you will receive an accurate description of what the subject looks like. But as soon as you start to turn the camera and look at the subject on an angle, the edges of the image will start to be stretched. For instance you could take an image of a house and have it look three times longer than it really is. I have examples of this and will try to post them tomorrow; I am too tired to find them right now. I will also try tp post an explanation of why this happens in terms of lens engineering, but am much too tire to post that.
Insofar as prices are concerned, when I wrote the post I was thinking of the cost of the new 24mm II compared to the 35 mm Schneider, 2000 vs 3500, only 75% more. Schneider lenses are the lenses I most look at and it just so happens that they are symmetrical focus lenses which are cheeper to make than retro focal lenses. Also, 17 mm on a DSLR is somewhere between a 23 and 28 mm on a MF system, so comparing the 17 to the Rod 23mm is not really a fare comparison.
I would also like to add that I also fell in love with photography when I was introduced to large format and 4x5 work and would not be a pro if I did not get into working in that type of style, so I may have a bias when it comes to this topic.
-
Ok, this has been covered many times, so I won't go into it (there's a thread on it, about perspective and stitching and wide angle lenses) but lenses (rectilinear) have no power to stretch as you describe. It's a function of perspective. If you stitch 2 24mm shots to get the same angle the 17 gives you the "stretch" will be the same as long as you don't change camera position.
Maybe Bernard L can repost the test shots he did showing this.
My experience proves the same. You may not want to believe it, people love to hold on to the idea a "wide angle" lens "stretches" or "distorts" at the corners, and the great thing about stitching is using "longer" lenses to avoid that distortion, but try it and see. I can even do it on my Alpa with my Schneider 35xl and get the exact framing in 3 or 4 frames I'd get with my 28HR, only a larger files. But the corners wouldn't be any more or less "stretched".
Also, according to Alpa's calculations and my testing the 17 on 35ff dslr format is equiv to a 23-24 in 36x48 mfdb format. I attached a screenshot, you can download the Alpa calculator for free, but if you disagree test it and see. I'll agree the 35 and 24 are closer than the 28 and the 24. But 75% more isn't nothing, it's roughly half the cost of a 5d2 body, or a 45tse plus 1.4x, plus the all the added costs of MFDB.
Btw, I've been shooting LF professionally for 20 years (almost exclusively until a few years ago), the Alpa allowed me to switch to digital, and 35 digital (for what I do) has only been acceptable to me since this spring when I got the 24 tse II, followed shortly by the 17, used in combination with the 5d2.
-
asf it's true that a rectilinear wide-angle lens and a stitch of multiple shots with a longer lens will have the same perspective or 'stretching' if you use a rectilinear projection in the pano software. But with pano stitching you have other projection options that don't 'stretch' as much as you get away from the center/vanishing point. Personally I don't much care for rectilinear projections beyond about 90-100 degrees, regardless of whether it's from a single image or a stitch. Even at 90 degrees I'll usually pick something other than a rectilinear projection when stitching, precisely because I don't like what happens to objects away from the center.
-
Thanks for the clarification Jeff
Yes, there's lots of variables possible when it comes to stitching. As far as I'm aware stitching arch and interiors is usually done with rectilinear projection (always for me as I use Alpa shift adapter, stitching by shifting a tse lens or on the artec is basically the same thing). There may be instances where other forms of projection would be more pleasing. I'll try to test that out.
-
Thanks for the clarification Jeff
Yes, there's lots of variables possible when it comes to stitching. As far as I'm aware stitching arch and interiors is usually done with rectilinear projection (always for me as I use Alpa shift adapter, stitching by shifting a tse lens or on the artec is basically the same thing). There may be instances where other forms of projection would be more pleasing. I'll try to test that out.
While agreeing in general about the principle of the angle and the shooting location, there are different tradeoffs lens makers can make in the corners of superwides. For example, allowing a little barrel distortion can make the image look more relaxed in the corners, but of course is no good for stitching.
I recall reading about some of these tradeoffs at one point in one of my theory books, but don't recall where right now (my memory is really going).
One thing I do remember is that a strictly accurate superwide lens will often look artificial and stretched if you don't stand at the equivalent point when viewing the print. In other words, using a super-wide, and then standing far back will make the corners look stretched. You need to stand closer, so that the angle of viewing equals the angle of the capture.
-
Thanks for the clarification Jeff
Yes, there's lots of variables possible when it comes to stitching. As far as I'm aware stitching arch and interiors is usually done with rectilinear projection (always for me as I use Alpa shift adapter, stitching by shifting a tse lens or on the artec is basically the same thing). There may be instances where other forms of projection would be more pleasing. I'll try to test that out.
It's true that rectilinear stitching may often be needed for architecture to keep straight lines actually straight. If you only have to worry about keeping verticals straight (and horizontals that pass through the center/vanishing point) then a cylindrical projection can give a very pleasing result. Additionally, a good stitcher like PTGui will give you some control over the projection parameters such as horizontal and/or vertical compression. For landscapes, I most often use PTGui's Vedutismo projection, which gives very natural looking results IMHO. I haven't tested to see how well it would work for architecture though.
-
From reading the recent post, it appears like we have come to the conclusion about how and when optics with wide views will stretch the image and give inaccurate renderings. Lets get back to the point of price; I feel what I said earlier is still right, you would be better off putting the money into a MF system then getting these lenses. Lets look at two options for a system.
For about $8500 you can get a:
Canon 1D, 21 mp recording at 14 bits per channel, 10.5 stop range
the new Canon 24 ts
For around $16,000 you can get a:
Alpa 12max
Schneider 35mm
Leaf Aptus II 5, 22 mp recoding at 16 bits per channel, 12 stop range (and unlike Phase One's entry level backs, this one still has a large sensor)
Now as far as I see it, aside from saving you 8000, the DSLR system offers you a lighter camera easier to transport, automatic settings, and the ability to use very long lenses. Aside from the last one (and the saving of 8k does sound good), the other two I do not care about. You could also make the claim that it would be easier to find someone to look at your canon if need be.
The MF system over the DSLR offers greater optical resolution, a much larger range and color gamut (remember bit and stop growth grows exponentially) giving you more freedom in PS and more lush transitions, the ability to shift on both axes, sturdier construction, levels on the camera, etc. Also, when the sensor becomes obsolete, you do not have to replace the whole body, only the back. Last, the pixels on this back are larger in size then on the Canon, decreasing the chance of getting apo-chromatic aberrations (it is Schneider glass though so you would not have to worry about it anyway). Although you do increase you chances of getting morie by going with an entry level back, but that would not be any different then the Canon.
You could even lower that price by about 2500 and get a Cambo Wide DS.
Now 8000 more is a large sum, but if you are spending 8500 anyway, why not just put out the extra to get a system better equipped to shooting the subject?
-
Only problem with your comparison is that a Canon 1D offers no real advantages over a 5D11 for shooting architecture. So the competitive price for the Canon alternative would actually be 4900.00 not 8500.00.
-
Only problem with your comparison is that a Canon 1D offers no real advantages over a 5D11 for shooting architecture. So the competitive price for the Canon alternative would actually be 4900.00 not 8500.00.
Good point. That does make the DSLR more attractive, although I still would go with the other system.
-
Good point. That does make the DSLR more attractive, although I still would go with the other system.
the first point is that the aptus 22 works with 14 bits too. the two additional bits are EMPTY/ kind of noise floor.
and second is that you will have to go wider if you want to work seriously in architecture photography. so count in the 28 or 23Hr as well, and if you do that you already get an entire system with the canon with a 17/24/45/90 1,4 extender and 100-400 L is lens. all together will cost app: $ 10.000,--
and if going with the XY most likely you will have to buy some canon or nikon equipment too ( backup and at least long lenses ) . i dont know people who dotn own an additional 35mm digital aside their mf setup.
but all this does not say it does not make sense to go with mf systems AND a canon/nikon,-
but certainly i wouldnt advise that to anybody who wants to start to come in architecture photograhy or who is studying photography. and less to lease all the stuff ...
-
Kirk and Rainer beat me to it, but there is no reason for the 1ds3, the 5d2 is actually preferable. 14bit vs 16bit is another fallacy that won't die.
And if you go Alpa (I use the Max) there are many expensive accs you will need, compounding the price difference. The adapter for the digital back alone is $1100, add in a dongle for $1300, stitch adapter for $350, a minimum of a 2nd lens for another $3500. I have 4 lenses for my Alpa system, it's not really enough.
Have you used these systems? If you want to get an MFDB you should go right ahead, but unless money is not a concern for you it's better to know what you're getting into before dropping a minimum of $20k on a basic one lens Alpa/Leaf setup as opposed to less than half that for a 4 lens Canon setup. Or recommending others do the same.
I started using the 5d2 as backup/long lens/above 100asa addition to the Alpa/Leaf and have come to realize just how good and versatile it is.
Also: The levels on the Alpa are fantastic, but the shoe level I use on the Canon works perfectly well. The larger pixels on my Leaf back are a nightmare of moire in some situations, Canon has smaller pixels and an AA filter and no moire (I don't understand how you can say the Canon is just as susceptible).You have half a point about shifting on both axes, but it's only more convenient on the Alpa, I can and do shift in both axes on the Canon.
-
Lets look at two options for a system.
For about $8500 you can get a:
Canon 1D, 21 mp recording at 14 bits per channel, 10.5 stop range
the new Canon 24 ts
For around $16,000 you can get a:
Alpa 12max
Schneider 35mm
Leaf Aptus II 5, 22 mp recoding at 16 bits per channel, 12 stop range (and unlike Phase One's entry level backs, this one still has a large sensor)
Rainer and ASF beat me to it....
I had written (but ran out mid-post):
Neither of those setups is a "system." Both of those setups are kits in my view. The difference being that what you listed above is fine if you are doing work for yourself and only have yourself to please. But neither cuts it if you are doing professional work and have clients to answer to.
As asf pointed out yesterday, the true cost differential is a minimum 3-4x more for a digital medium format based system as compared to a dslr system.
--
What you do is up to you but for people reading the thread having a true sense of costs, trade-offs, and other issues is preferable.
-
Kirk and Rainer beat me to it, but there is no reason for the 1ds3, the 5d2 is actually preferable. 14bit vs 16bit is another fallacy that won't die.
And if you go Alpa (I use the Max) there are many expensive accs you will need, compounding the price difference. The adapter for the digital back alone is $1100, add in a dongle for $1300, stitch adapter for $350, a minimum of a 2nd lens for another $3500. I have 4 lenses for my Alpa system, it's not really enough.
Have you used these systems? If you want to get an MFDB you should go right ahead, but unless money is not a concern for you it's better to know what you're getting into before dropping a minimum of $20k on a basic one lens Alpa/Leaf setup as opposed to less than half that for a 4 lens Canon setup. Or recommending others do the same.
I started using the 5d2 as backup/long lens/above 100asa addition to the Alpa/Leaf and have come to realize just how good and versatile it is.
exactly the same hapens to me at this moment.
although my beginning in digital was with 35mm too ( with kodak slr and canon 1ds ), at a time where the 24xl already did not exist and so no real wide angle for mf. at that time i mixed digital 35mm with 4x5" film work. than came a long break, using mf nearly exclusive except for details and super wide shots, but now the 35mm thing again looks very attractive, and for the first time as stand alone system too.
.
-
For about $8500 you can get a:
Canon 1D, 21 mp recording at 14 bits per channel, 10.5 stop range
the new Canon 24 ts
For around $16,000 you can get a:
Alpa 12max
Schneider 35mm
Leaf Aptus II 5, 22 mp recoding at 16 bits per channel, 12 stop range (and unlike Phase One's entry level backs, this one still has a large sensor)
Isn't that Leaf back using the same sensor that was in the entry-level Mamiya from a couple years back? That wasn't exactly a highly-regarded sensor. Not only is it not a true 16-bit sensor, but it's far less versatile than today's DSLR's with regard to ISO range, frame rate, not to mention the lack of live-view. Some might consider the lack of AA filter an advantage, but not me. A 22mp 36x48mm sensor is not only going to have issues with moire but also edge aliasing and color aliasing. Even the D3x seems like a bargain in comparison, all things considered.
-
Sorry, this is another rumor like 14bit vs 16bit that won't die.
The Aptus 22 is nothing like the Zd
There was a thread about that recently too
-
Sorry, this is another rumor like 14bit vs 16bit that won't die.
The Aptus 22 is nothing like the Zd
There was a thread about that recently too
14 and 16 are the same? This is the first time that I have heard this. Would not 14 bit have 16,384 level and 16 have 65,536? I am sorry, but I am a math man and get side tracked looking at the numbers sometimes.
Now I do have a Canon system and that is how I am shooting right now and I have used a MF system on occasion, and money is a concern, and I am not looking to get just one lens (I through that out there as an example). I kind of miss spoke before with where I was. Now It just happens that the Canon system annoys me, not so much the tech, but the camera itself. I learned photography off of a view camera but when I went into professional photography two years ago I did not have the capital to purchase a MF system, film did make any sense to continue to use (and I so wish I had access to a darkroom), and then the economy dropped out. I would get along with it much better if they have spirit levels in the camera; getting the camera level and completely vertical drives me nuts. Never thought of getting a shoe level; get that at Home Depot? Now as the economy is starting to recover, the amount of work I am getting is picking up and MF systems are looking with in range, especially considering the lower end leaf back. For one just starting to come into the medium, the canon and ts lenses are the best alternative, but for me, I feel that it would be better to put the capital in a MF system instead of the new generation of ts lenses. I have never had an issue with morie in MF with my limited use, so it seems I am wrong there. Will have to look into that more.
Also, concerning the 17 ts, I feel that it is too wide and I never work that wide. There are many photographers who are much more experienced then I and much more popular that do not go that wide either. I just do not like working with the large angle of view for the problems you run into with stretching and limited use. I do not think that investment is worth it for me. Now when going to MF, I do anticipate getting a 28 mmn but not a 23 for the same reason.
P.S., I really need to stop posting to this topic; it appears to pi**ing a lot a people off.
-
14 and 16 are the same? This is the first time that I have heard this. Would not 14 bit have 16,384 level and 16 have 65,536? I am sorry, but I am a math man and get side tracked looking at the numbers sometimes.
Now I do have a Canon system and that is how I am shooting right now and I have used a MF system on occasion, and money is a concern, and I am not looking to get just one lens (I through that out there as an example). I kind of miss spoke before with where I was. Now It just happens that the Canon system annoys me, not so much the tech, but the camera itself. I learned photography off of a view camera but when I went into professional photography two years ago I did not have the capital to purchase a MF system, film did make any sense to continue to use (and I so wish I had access to a darkroom), and then the economy dropped out. I would get along with it much better if they have spirit levels in the camera; getting the camera level and completely vertical drives me nuts. Never thought of getting a shoe level; get that at Home Depot? Now as the economy is starting to recover, the amount of work I am getting is picking up and MF systems are looking with in range, especially considering the lower end leaf back. For one just starting to come into the medium, the canon and ts lenses are the best alternative, but for me, I feel that it would be better to put the capital in a MF system instead of the new generation of ts lenses. I have never had an issue with morie in MF with my limited use, so it seems I am wrong there. Will have to look into that more.
Also, concerning the 17 ts, I feel that it is too wide and I never work that wide. There are many photographers who are much more experienced then I and much more popular that do not go that wide either. I just do not like working with the large angle of view for the problems you run into with stretching and limited use. I do not think that investment is worth it for me. Now when going to MF, I do anticipate getting a 28 mmn but not a 23 for the same reason.
Joe, I wouldn't trust those hot shoe mount bubble levels... there's so much slop in the mount and who's to say the hotshoe is perpendicular to the sensor anyway? I carry a small "torpedo" level and just place that across the front of the lens, whether dslr or 645 to get plumb, for level I count on grid focus screens.
-C
-
Level:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1123..._Flash_Hot.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112360-REG/Hama_HA_5411_2_Axis_Flash_Hot.html)
I have 3 of these and use with 2 Canons. No slop and they are aligned with the sensors.
As for 14bit and 16bit, your numbers are right, unless those last 2 levels are empty, which is the case here.
Math exists in its own universe. Ours isn't so perfect. We have salesmen and advertising, and the internet which loves to perpetuate rumors and false info.
You don't have to take my word for it - ask some of the scientists here (Panopeeper where are you?), or ThierryH who was the Sinar rep for a long time, or Rainer who developed the ArTec and the sinar software workflow (with Brumbaer), or call Rick Adshead at Leaf, or do you own research ...
Sounds like you want to go MFDB. Good choice, do it. Go Alpa and Leaf. I have them and they are the best. But right now if I had to give up one system I wouldn't think twice.
-
Joe, I wouldn't trust those hot shoe mount bubble levels... there's so much slop in the mount and who's to say the hotshoe is perpendicular to the sensor anyway? I carry a small "torpedo" level and just place that across the front of the lens, whether dslr or 645 to get plumb, for level I count on grid focus screens.
-C
I AGREE-the shoe is not square. I carry the bubble level in the shoe but use it by holding it against the viewing screen (with some black masking tape on the side which contacts the view screen to avoid scratches). There are a couple of advantages here. One-the viewing screen has proven to me to be parallel to the sensor (at least on the 5D and 5DII). Two-the bubble level is small, cheap and conveniently carried in the shoe. And three and most important, when shooting at twilight, the image on the screen provides enough illumination to read the bubble.
-
Sorry, this is another rumor like 14bit vs 16bit that won't die.
The Aptus 22 is nothing like the Zd
There was a thread about that recently too
I'm not sure what thread you're referring to, got a link? Some of the supporting electronics may be different (I never said the backs were the same, just the sensor). But it was my understanding that Kodak stopped making a 22mp sensor quite a while ago, only Dalsa still had one so it pretty much had to be the same as the sensor in the Mamiya (I may have it backwards on who stopped making their 22mp part and who didn't, I can't remember). At the very least, the sensor design is a generation or two old.
Now I'm not saying the Leaf Aptus II 5 is junk but I am questioning just how much better than the D3x or 1Ds3/5DII it really is, especially considering all the compromises that come with these backs as far as ergonomics and versatility. At base ISO, the image quality may be better if you can live with the artifacts that comes with not having an AA sensor with such large photosites.
I am glad to see more DB's breaking the 10K barrier though. Maybe eventually we'll have a semi-affordable back with good pixel density and live-view.
-
I'm not sure what's more amazing about those hot-shoe bubble levels: that companies like Hama have the nerve to charge over $30 for them, or that photographers actually pay over $30 for them. Talk about the most over-priced photographic accessory that doesn't have 'Leica' in the brand name. A while back there was a link on another site to a place where you could order those same levels for 4 or 5 bucks (sorry, I don't have the link anymore or know if they're still available). But like others mentioned, I found them not to be 100% reliable.
That said there are other ways of getting the camera level without having to upgrade to a view camera. Some Nikon DSLR's have a leveling function built in that is pretty accurate. And lots of ballhead and quick-release clamps have bubble levels in them.
-
I don't think I have ever paid more than like 8 bucks for a bubble level and if you use them the way I suggest they work fine (that is not relying on the level foot and camera shoe).
-
If you want a higher tech solution than the bubble level (not necessary IMO KISS) see this short discussion on the ZigView from my blog:
Assignment Notes-leveling the camera (http://kirkgittingsphotography.blogspot.com/2009/02/assignment-notes-leveling-camera.html)
-
If you want a higher tech solution than the bubble level (not necessary IMO KISS) see this short discussion on the ZigView from my blog:
Assignment Notes-leveling the camera (http://kirkgittingsphotography.blogspot.com/2009/02/assignment-notes-leveling-camera.html)
Yeah it seems kinda overkill; the calibration is nice, but having yet another device to worry about batteries for is not.
Now if there were a device that could be used to help get the camera parallel to a subject that might be something to consider, as that can often be more difficult than getting the camera level.
-
The larger pixels on my Leaf back are a nightmare of moire in some situations, Canon has smaller pixels and an AA filter and no moire (I don't understand how you can say the Canon is just as susceptible).You have half a point about shifting on both axes, but it's only more convenient on the Alpa, I can and do shift in both axes on the Canon.
If Moire is a concern, you may consider Hasselblad see my post (# 32) on:
Moire & Phocus (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29023&hl=moire+phocus)
-
If you want a higher tech solution than the bubble level (not necessary IMO KISS) see this short discussion on the ZigView from my blog:
Assignment Notes-leveling the camera (http://kirkgittingsphotography.blogspot.com/2009/02/assignment-notes-leveling-camera.html)
For accurate fast leveling I really like mine Multiflex head (http://www.tripodballhead.com/2009/02/photo-clam-multiflex-geared-head_23.html)which seems to be a clone of the much more expensive Arca Swiss C1 Cube.
More expensive but very fine to use.
-
That's what I use.
The Multiflex is excellent.
http://www.photoclam.com/ (http://www.photoclam.com/)
About $950 USD
N.B My Rolex is real!
-
Thanks all for the level suggestions, and I will not pay that much for a level Kirk. Those levels supplied by camera shops are more over priced then the old lens board, a piece of metal with a hole drilled in it. And I would love to see the math and fractals on how they work the empty bit space on MF backs; any sites that explains that in detail. Not that I do not believe you, just as a person who studied math in college, I would be interested in seeing the fractals.
Also, I did research the Aptus II 5 more and it appears that it does use a sensor at least one generation old. I looked at a couple of test images Leaf has on there website and it appears to have good image quality in the are that are in focus, but when you get into the areas out of focus, some noise starts to appear; I do not have leaf software and ran it through Adobe Raw. With that said, I still prefer the view camera, not because of the tech, but because of the camera itself.
-
That's what I use.
The Multiflex is excellent.
http://www.photoclam.com/ (http://www.photoclam.com/)
About $950 USD
N.B My Rolex is real!
I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410 (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=210257265&listingid=34324762)
-
Thanks all for the level suggestions, and I will not pay that much for a level Kirk. Those levels supplied by camera shops are more over priced then the old lens board, a piece of metal with a hole drilled in it.
When you get your Alpa you can have a nice discussion with them about how overpriced the back adapters are, and why their mounted lenses are more expensive than anyone else's. Or with Leaf about the price of the dongle, the batteries, the charger, their FW cables and sync cords ... Or with parent company Phase about their Value Added packages ...
-
I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410 (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=210257265&listingid=34324762)
Same here, Kirk. While the 410 is not as sweet as the Cube, it is dirt cheap and has a geared pan, which I use constantly for fine tuning oblique shots. Btw, I have never seen a head's built in level that agreed with the cameras bubble levels.
-C
-
Same here, Kirk. While the 410 is not as sweet as the Cube, it is dirt cheap and has a geared pan, which I use constantly for fine tuning oblique shots. Btw, I have never seen a head's built in level that agreed with the cameras bubble levels.
-C
my Alpa's and Cube have a common understanding of verticals and horizontals...... In a way ironic because my beloved Arca's could never agree between them self - and here I'm talking front standard vs. rear standard - a contstant fight....
-
In a way ironic because my beloved Arca's could never agree between them self - and here I'm talking front standard vs. rear standard - a contstant fight....
Heh...the M Line 2 is my fourth Arca and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the levels to be accurate. : )
Johannes, I have been scouring the net forever trying to find the perfect level. Where can I get that one?!!!!!
-
Heh...the M Line 2 is my fourth Arca and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the levels to be accurate. : )
So that's the trick.... I only had 3
-
I had 3 Arca's also (all F line metric), the levels never agreed with each other much less the cube. Somehow the Alpa and the cube do agree.
I also have a closet shelf filled with acrylic levels like the one Joe posted, used to carry them at all times. But no matter how good they were it really mattered exactly where on the camera you checked the level. It's really hard to find a fully flat surface on most cameras. Also for checking fore-aft tilt it also matters where and how you put the pressure on the level (esp with the more sensitive levels).
Now I've tested my Alpa and it was perfect from the beginning. The 3 cheap (relatively) shoe levels I use on the Canon are also perfect - but it seems in that regard I'm lucky.
The 410 is all the head anyone will ever need for arch/interior photography. That said I switched to the cube as soon as it was announced and still consider it money well spent. For me. I would never recommend it to someone.
-
Quick Update, I just got my newly bought used 24mm TS-E MKI lens today. My first impression is "WOW" I never knew 11mm of shift can make so much difference on a 24mm. Really, I find the lens to be very practical and I don't think I am going to run out of shift very often. That being said there was one thing that surprised me, which is the extent of vignetting. Shifting beyond 6mm creates some serious vignetting, which leaves me wondering how are people countering this problem? Given this is a very old design I bet the new MKII lens was designed with a solution for this problem in mind. I guess using the MKI on a 22mm camera is very advantageous because the crop factor would isolate the vignetting and 11mm relative to 22mm offer much greater shift.
-
Quick Update, I just got my newly bought used 24mm TS-E MKI lens today. My first impression is "WOW" I never knew 11mm of shift can make so much difference on a 24mm. Really, I find the lens to be very practical and I don't think I am going to run out of shift very often. That being said there was one thing that surprised me, which is the extent of vignetting. Shifting beyond 6mm creates some serious vignetting, which leads me wondering how are people countering this problem? Given this is a very old design I bet the new MKII lens was designed with a solution for this problem in mind. I guess using the MKI on a 22mm camera is very advantageous because the crop factor would isolate the vignetting and 11mm relative to 22mm offer much greater shift.
The old lens, 24 tse Mark I, can shift the full 11mm but is not recommended to be shifted fully if you want optimal quality. If you look on the shift scale on the lens you'll see that the outer 4mm of shift are marked in red. That's Canon's way of saying - hey, don't beyond 7mm.
The new lens, the Mark II, has more shift and doesn't suffer from the vignetting, etc.
24 Mark I vs. 24 Mark II (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2009/09/canons-ts-e-24mm-f3-5l-ii-lens/)
To work with the old lens, I'd keep the shifting to 7mm. You can then use Ptlens to correct for the lens barreling and the CA. You can also use Photshop's lens filter to correct for the CA but you'll want to make another layer to run it on. If you have shift a lot it's possible that correcting for CA will correct it one part of the frame but introduce it another. Working on another layer will allow you to correct it where needed.
The new lens doesn't have these issues so it saves you these post-production steps.
-
The old lens, 24 tse Mark I, can shift the full 11mm but is not recommended to be shifted fully if you want optimal quality. If you look on the shift scale on the lens you'll see that the outer 4mm of shift are marked in red. That's Canon's way of saying - hey, don't beyond 7mm.
The new lens, the Mark II, has more shift and doesn't suffer from the vignetting, etc.
24 Mark I vs. 24 Mark II (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2009/09/canons-ts-e-24mm-f3-5l-ii-lens/)
To work with the old lens, I'd keep the shifting to 7mm. You can then use Ptlens to correct for the lens barreling and the CA. You can also use Photshop's lens filter to correct for the CA but you'll want to make another layer to run it on. If you have shift a lot it's possible that correcting for CA will correct it one part of the frame but introduce it another. Working on another layer will allow you to correct it where needed.
The new lens doesn't have these issues so it saves you these post-production steps.
Thanks, very useful feedback and link.
-
I've used a Bogen 410 geared head for years. Does everything I need and handles my 4x5 too=but costs just $219. 410 (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=210257265&listingid=34324762)
does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?
-
does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced. I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket (http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html) for my 645 and am really pleased with it.
-C
-
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced. I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket (http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html) for my 645 and am really pleased with it.
An RRS L bracket should be included in the box with every camera regardless of format. Once you start working with one you won't want to work any other way.
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced. I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket (http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html) for my 645 and am really pleased with it.
-C
This, with a pistol-grip ¿and a balance rail? would solve the vertical grip problem on the Hasselblad.
-
does the 410 work well in vertical mode? do you think it would work for slow-movement vertical portrait photography?
i t works great for a DSLR vertically for AP and landscape. I'm not quite sure what "slow-movement vertical portrait photography" is?
-
I think most heads will perform poorly when rotated over 90 degrees, since they become so unbalanced. I got a Really Right Stuff L Bracket (http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html) for my 645 and am really pleased with it.
-C
that looks very convenient on the tripod, but doesn't the L-bracket make a 35mm camera awkward to handhold?
-
i t works great for a DSLR vertically for AP and landscape. I'm not quite sure what "slow-movement vertical portrait photography" is?
its just portrait photography in vertical orientation shooting a none moving subject (barely moving). I guess if it works nicely for AP and landscape it should work fine for that type of portrait photography.
-
'Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus.'
How about shooting several frames from exactly the same position with the focus pulled between each shot and then combining them in PS using layer masks and a soft edged brush? That works doesn't it?
-
'Keep in mind that PS cannot replicate the main effect of a tilt, which is to change the angle of the plane of focus so that near and far things can both be in focus.'
How about shooting several frames from exactly the same position with the focus pulled between each shot and then combining them in PS using layer masks and a soft edged brush? That works doesn't it?
In theory. There are even programs to automate the "focus stacking" process. But there are a few problems. The biggest one is that most modern lenses "breathe", which means that the actual focal length (and hence FOV) changes as the focus distance changes.
Some folks claim to get very good results with this approach. I guess it depends on the types of scenes you shoot. My experience is that it doesn't work so well, as you will often get artifacts from the blending process. It also can dramatically increase the number of exposures you have to take (especially if you're already bracketing for dynamic range).
-
I have had pretty good results from focus stacking with architecture and architectural models (and models in architecture...see below). It works best when there are zones of like focus, such as foreground, mid ground and background without something like a large tree in the foreground piercing the zones of focus. Like a view camera tilt, It also works well when there is single plane that needs to be brought in focus.
Example, shot for an upcoming show, three frames, camera horizontal, with a Canon 45 T/S, top of diverging beams, cross beams and model. The top two frames were shot first and then on the third many positions for the model were tried over the course of say an hour. The light changed a little but the stack still worked after tweaking the exposure on the model frame. IME, I couldn't have done better with a view camera.
[attachment=18255:Convergence__2009.jpg]
-
that looks very convenient on the tripod, but doesn't the L-bracket make a 35mm camera awkward to handhold?
No not really, I only ever take mine off when I'm going as light as possible with a small prime, but really you hardly notice it day to day, and once you've shot with one you'll never want to go back to flipping a head over 90 deg to shoot portrait. Well worth the investment [you'll need to have a bunch of 'arca-swiss' style clamp plates too to replace / add to your original heads QR's]
Also...I've been a happy ball head user for a while, just got a manfotto 410, it bugs me that the camera isn't aligned with the center of rotation [panning].
I've found a nice work around using a macro adjustment plate and turning the head 90deg, which can actually put the nodal point of the lens directly over the center of the panning point. But I think it adds too much flex, and the bubble level is obscured.
-
I have had pretty good results from focus stacking with architecture and architectural models (and models in architecture...see below). It works best when there are zones of like focus, such as foreground, mid ground and background without something like a large tree in the foreground piercing the zones of focus. Like a view camera tilt, It also works well when there is single plane that needs to be brought in focus.
I can certainly believe focus stacking yields good results in some situations, and it's something I'd like to experiment more with in the future. I'd prefer to use a tilt to get the DOF where I want it in-camera, though.
As you say the biggest problem is when you have overlapping objects at different focus distances, in which case my experience has been that Helicon gives you edge halos. Then again lens/camera tilts are no good for that situation, either.
-
I can certainly believe focus stacking yields good results in some situations, and it's something I'd like to experiment more with in the future. I'd prefer to use a tilt to get the DOF where I want it in-camera, though.
As you say the biggest problem is when you have overlapping objects at different focus distances, in which case my experience has been that Helicon gives you edge halos. Then again lens/camera tilts are no good for that situation, either.
I couldn't use tilt in the example. The tilt was in the wrong orientation and unusable. Hopefully they will correct that with the 45 and 90 t/s in the future? Sorry, I didn't make this clear. This is not a clear example actually of focus stacking, but merge/focus stacking. In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images. So this is a 3 image merge/focus stack, shift up-focus on the near beams, shift neutral-focus on the cross beams, shift down-focus on the model.
-
I couldn't use tilt in the example. The tilt was in the wrong orientation and unusable. Hopefully they will correct that with the 45 and 90 t/s in the future? Sorry, I didn't make this clear. This is not a clear example actually of focus stacking, but merge/focus stacking. In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images. So this is a 3 image merge/focus stack, shift up-focus on the near beams, shift neutral-focus on the cross beams, shift down-focus on the model.
You could use the camera up-side down.
You get a plane of sharpest focus... and you get a wedge of acceptable focus, so perhaps this shot could have been taken in one shot... or two.
-
You could use the camera up-side down.
It would still be in the wrong orientation. I needed it on axis with the rise/fall.
You get a plane of sharpest focus... and you get a wedge of acceptable focus, so perhaps this shot could have been taken in one shot... or two.
As I said.....In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images.
because I am printing this fairly large.
-
I couldn't use tilt in the example. The tilt was in the wrong orientation and unusable. Hopefully they will correct that with the 45 and 90 t/s in the future? Sorry, I didn't make this clear. This is not a clear example actually of focus stacking, but merge/focus stacking. In this case I wanted the increased file size of three merged images. So this is a 3 image merge/focus stack, shift up-focus on the near beams, shift neutral-focus on the cross beams, shift down-focus on the model.
Understood. My comment on preferring tilt was more about the general case. With tilt I can know at the time of shooting that I've got things sharp where I need them (since I can check with LiveView). If tilt won't work, other alternatives have to be considered.
-
It would still be in the wrong orientation. I needed it on axis with the rise/fall.
If you are talking about the old Canon 24 T/S, you can take the lens apart and put it back together so that the tilt and shift are along the same axis. I would guess that this is also possible with the new ones, but I don't know.
-
If you are talking about the old Canon 24 T/S, you can take the lens apart and put it back together so that the tilt and shift are along the same axis. I would guess that this is also possible with the new ones, but I don't know.
As I said I was using the 45 t/s. Of course you can dismantle it and rotate it, but I am reluctant to do this in the field and it generally seems to always be in the wrong position for what you need. The new 17 and 24 solve this by the addition of a rotating mechanism, but there is no new 45 t/s as yet.
-
As I said I was using the 45 t/s. Of course you can dismantle it and rotate it, but I am reluctant to do this in the field and it generally seems to always be in the wrong position for what you need. The new 17 and 24 solve this by the addition of a rotating mechanism, but there is no new 45 t/s as yet.
Sorry, I thought I saw that you used the old 24. I knew I shouldn't have posted when ill.
-
Yesterday I tested a Canon 5DII with the 17ts and a SINAR ARTEC with the 23mm from Rodenstock and the Emotion 75LV.
Here are the results:
[attachment=18342:test1.jpg]
[attachment=18343:test2.jpg]
[attachment=18344:test3.jpg]
on the small images you can`t see all details, but the Emotion Back is clear better.
But only printing bigger than DIN A3 (11,4x16,5 inch) you can see the difference, and there is no book larger than this size...
By the way, I was quicker with the SINAR, leveling is easier.....
Michael
-
Yesterday I tested a Canon 5DII with the 17ts and a SINAR ARTEC with the 23mm from Rodenstock and the Emotion 75LV.
Here are the results:
[attachment=18342:test1.jpg]
[attachment=18343:test2.jpg]
[attachment=18344:test3.jpg]
on the small images you can`t see all details, but the Emotion Back is clear better.
But only printing bigger than DIN A3 (11,4x16,5 inch) you can see the difference, and there is no book larger than this size...
By the way, I was quicker with the SINAR, leveling is easier.....
Michael
Yes the difference is obvious on the 100% crops, though, the Sinar is much sharper. What sensor are you suing with your Sinar?
What is the distortion on the Sinar's full resolution picture top edge?
-
Just added this new thread after allot of testing with the 24ts-e. The early excitement over the mechanical glory of the lens was replaced with disappointment over the poor optical quality. I am not sure if this is typical 24tse performance but if it is then the 24tse MKI sucks!!
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39788 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39788)
-
Yesterday I tested a Canon 5DII with the 17ts and a SINAR ARTEC with the 23mm from Rodenstock and the Emotion 75LV.
Here are the results:
[attachment=18342:test1.jpg]
[attachment=18343:test2.jpg]
[attachment=18344:test3.jpg]
on the small images you can`t see all details, but the Emotion Back is clear better.
But only printing bigger than DIN A3 (11,4x16,5 inch) you can see the difference, and there is no book larger than this size...
By the way, I was quicker with the SINAR, leveling is easier.....
Michael
Michael:
at which aperture did you shot with the 17TSE? to become really sharp at the limits of its image circle i stop down to f13 or 16 and check also the focus at the live view with 10x mag. looks as my lens performs better, maybe one more time some visible sample variation? although unacceptable at that price point i wouldnt be surprised ....
did you print out larger too, means did u print at A2 and saw a visible difference to the e75 ?
i just used the 17 for an assignment and printed a A1 size which came out perfect, but i havent compared 1 by 1 with the e75.
thanks for the test. very interesting.
-
at which aperture did you shot with the 17TSE? to become really sharp at the limits of its image circle i stop down to f13 or 16 and check also the focus at the live view with 10x mag.
I've found this as well. The 17 tse shifted really needs f16 to hold the focus on the outer edge (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog_photos/17tse_fullshiftlrg.jpg). Live View is an essential part of the process when focusing the 17 tse accurately.
When working outside having a loupe will aid in using Live View. Not so much to magnify the image but to block stray light. The Hoodman Hoodloupe (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/573167-REG/Hoodman_H_LPP3_HoodLoupe_Professional_LCD_Screen.html) works if you need to buy one.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
I've found this as well. The 17 tse shifted really needs f16 to hold the focus on the outer edge (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog_photos/17tse_fullshiftlrg.jpg). Live View is an essential part of the process when focusing the 17 tse accurately.
When working outside having a loupe will aid in using Live View. Not so much to magnify the image but to block stray light. The Hoodman Hoodloupe (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/573167-REG/Hoodman_H_LPP3_HoodLoupe_Professional_LCD_Screen.html) works if you need to buy one.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
but there is no doubt that the 23/28/35 HR lenses are the sharpest i saw ever at the wide end. and they can be used even without stopping them down. only week point is that they show a bit of distortion, but in practice i never came to a point where i couldnt use them perfect. eXposure with the ( ex brumbaer ) architecture workflow is imo the best in the medium market as well together with the artec, so i vore too for this system if optimum quality is desired and costs dont count in. on the other hand the canon comes pretty close in practice, can be used under much more difficult circumstances and i love the weight and convenience of the shooting with it. will make a comparation too, although i really hate this kind of work and pixel peeping.
-
but there is no doubt that the 23/28/35 HR lenses....
Rainer - I meant my reply for Michael (MHFA) and really just to back up what you were saying.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
, although i really hate this kind of work and pixel peeping.
thats what I said, whereever your images are printed, the Canon will do the job.
On the other side, some years ago it was the same discussion with film sizes. 6x9cm was enough. But when I had really interesting projects, I used 13x18cm.
Michael
-
erased