Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: satybhat on March 12, 2013, 01:46:46 am
-
Hi All,
First of all, let me thank you all for the amazing information on the forums and on my previous question. I hope this question would be of as much interest and help to everyone else as it would be to me.
On my decision to plunge to MF, this is what I have distilled to. Over this year, I will be trying (renting) the P1 (160 / 180 ) back on a cambo tech cam.
Then next year, I plan to buy the IQ 260 ( for long exposures ) and "a" technical camera that suits me. Now my issue is this: I can only afford one or at the most two weeks of renting the gig to avoid digging into the gear money too much, and I plan to do landscapes only, no products, no portraiture.
Could someone advise me on their experiences as to why they chose their particular technical camera and how they have fared ?
eg: Dan Lindberg swears by the Alpa (citing precision / tolerance, etc), David Ward talks about the Linhof Technikardan, someone else about cambos...
thus, totally confusing me in my quest to reign the landscape world !!! ;)
Apologies if I am wasting my time, but I have gone over the previous forum posts, tried search queries such as "vs", etc, and am yet to come to a conclusion.... (my wife thought that I was employed by Lu-La !!! I spent so much time on the forums ;D
So please.... for landscapes and panoramas: which technical camera and why ?
Thanks,
saty
-
I'd choose Arca-Swiss RM3Di of the pancake cameras. Why? It has tilt builtin to the body and it has high precision focusing ring, and it is a little bit cheaper(?) than Alpa. Cambo is even cheaper but seems to lack high precision focusing rings (can be added afterwards on most lenses, but problem on tilt lenses(?)).
The advantage of pancake cameras is that it is compact if you like wide angles and that you don't need to focus on the ground glass, and can do so with very high precision so you can shoot at large apertures and still hit focus. The disadvantage is that lenses cost much (helical focus mount is expensive) and are bulky if they are long, and movements can be a bit limited, especially concerning tilt/swing.
If you like to carry many lenses (5+), including long lenses, like to use tilt (=you often want to look at the ground glass even with a pancake camera), and intend to shoot at f/11 as largest aperture most of the time I'd look into Linhof Techno, which is what I use myself. You get a lighter, cheaper system with more movements. The disadvantage is that you need to focus on the ground glass which has limited precision, but works well if you don't shoot at too large apertures (=too short DoFs). The IQ260 will be an excellent choice of back.
Tech cam users often like to do panoramas by stitching inside the lens image circle. With the Techno you do this by using the sliding back which has fixed side positions, with a Kapture Group sliding back you can get more stitch flexibility compared to Linhof's own. With the pancake cameras you do this by turning gears for back shift. I don't like the geared way for stitching landscapes -- it's too slow! Presets on a sliding back is better. However, I personally (most often) prefer cylindrical projection for landscape panoramas and stitch using a panorama head rather than stitching inside the image circle, i e turning the camera with click-stop pano head.
You might find my review of Linhof Techno useful (it also discusses other tech cam types): http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/linhof-techno-review.html
And remember, no camera is perfect, although there will be some that try to convince you that their camera is :)
-
I have no doubt that you would be pleased with any of the tech cameras. I've worked with the Alpa, Cambo and Arca and they're all quite good. My preference is the Arca for the built in tilt and high resolution focusing. I also own an Arca view camera and can swap lenses back and forth (awesome).
My review here... (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=1350)
Also, I'd suggest renting a back only when you are very close to purchasing. Many dealers will apply at least a percentage of your rental as a credit towards your purchase.
Good hunting!
CB
-
Unless you already have an extensive background using medium format digital or a MFDB, I'd suggest that you spend some time with others immersing yourself with technical cameras and the different MFDBs. TO be honest, they are all pretty darn good at image making, and the subjective personal factor is really what you need to draw out when selecting a particular MFDB and a camera platform.
Look for a medium format digital workshop and join in. These are great opportunities to try equipment and learn what works best for you. Phase One offers their PODAS trips; Jack Flesher and Guy Mancuso offer workshops at GetDPI.com, Capture Integration was just in Carmel, etc. And they are a lot of fun.
ken :)
-
Torger, Ken and Chris,
Many thanks. +1 on the suggestion of trying out close to purchasing. Will bear that in mind.
Ken: unfortunately, I am in Australia, so workshops are a bit difficult to come by. Will look out for PODAS when it happens here.
Chris: great review, although I am not sure of the availability and service of arca in Melbourne.
One question: this shimming business: is it much of a hype ? for tolerances that small, does heat and cold (considering coefficients of thermal expansions) not throw off the adjustment ?
When people talk about the preciseness of alpa and arca swiss, does that mean (with a pinch of salt) that cambo is not precise enough ?
There was a reference to a post earlier citing the pros and cons of the systems available, but I cant find it anywhere ???
-
Agree fully with suggestions for PODAS local to you (quite frequent I think).
When I began to consider medium format seriously, I did the Ireland PODAS 2011, fell hook line and sinker for MF, and Phase system. The Scotland PODAS 2012 confirmed new addiction. Lots of Tech cameras at PODAS workshops in addition to Phase bodies: great opportunities to see how all systems function with experienced and new enthusiasts alike. Have just succumbed to variation on Tech camera, ALPA FPS and testing on my Nikkor PCE 85, looks good so far but conditions not suitable yet to check shimming.
-
allright. thanks, will definitely look at PODAS locally. perhaps will be another one this year, unsure of that. may actually be better than renting the gear to try.
is there any great difference in the lenses that are available on the systems ? are these lenses interchangeable over various platforms, as long as you stick to one manufacturer ?
thanks
-
If you are a landscape shooter, then a tech cam + MFDB back is the best there is. While I like the convenience of an SLR like the DF, the lenses from SK and Rodie (especially the newer ones like the SK60XL/Rodie 32HR/90HR) are in a totally different league from anything I have shot including Leica and the P1 SK/LS line.
It sounds like you have already made this choice, so great. The IQ260 will be a great all rounder for landscape use on a tech cam from the specs and the sample files I have seen so far. The IQ160 is again the best all rounder given lens cast issues with the 180. So again, I think you are on the right track here.
When it come to tech cams, you've got the 3 major players with pancakes and some hybrids like the Arca ML2 and Techo (as discussed above by Torger, do look at his review, it is quite extensive and useful, not just on the techno, but on using MFDB on a tech cam in general). Chris B., also has some great info on his blog on both the Arca Rm3di and ML2.
I do primarily landscapes and went with the RM3Di. I use an IQ180 and have am IQ260 Achro on order that I just cannot wait to get my hands on.
The reason went with the RM3Di are as follows:
1. The company and Martin are all about engineering precision - not marketing, market share etc. This has its downfalls like no website, unknown lead-times on orders, some stuff like eModule (and cloud) that have been outstanding for 2-3 years etc. BUT, at the end of the day, when they release something it works as promised. It is all about form follows function.
2. In keeping with the above, it is a system that is open and modular -- you can use your adapter plate on a Monolith 6x9 or ML2. Same thing with any other accessories like the Rotaslide or Rotamount. You can even use the RM3Di as the front standard on the Monolith, F-line etc. The new Factum, carries on with this thinking. The RotaSlide is a marvel of engineering precision, technical execution, and creativity. I can assure you that claims that a sliding back cannot be made to the tolerance levels needed by modern MFDBs is BS.
3. The focussing system - Although the IQ180 has LV, it is not what you'd call close to what you'd find in a CMOS DSLR. I needed an idiot proof system for focussing, and the Arca system gets me this. Shimming does make a difference. with the Arca, it is simply an offset on the focussing index. I think you can get infinity accurate in all three manufacturers, but with the Arca, I can ensure that I have it calibrated so I have the maximum DoF from infinity in. Not sure if I am being clear on this, I can elaborate if needed. I shoot in some strange places, often just pulling my kayak up on a rock in the middle of nowhere, and don't usually have the time to check and recheck focus. The Arca system for me, is as idiot proof as it comes.
4. While the eModule/cloud was not available when purchased my RM, it is now slowly trickling in. I demoed a production version a couple of weeks ago, and again for me, it is a game changer in terms of controlling DoF and close focussing with large apertures. One thing you will find with the hi-res MFDB's and the near lenses, especially Rodies, is that optimal performance is in the f7-9 range. So this is important for me.
5. Why not Alpa - I think they make great high-quality gear. But I wanted Tilt in a more integrated way, so the RM made more sense. I did think long about Alpa given the multiple body options, but once the Arca Factum was announced, I had the option of a lightweight or a full featured setup. The lack of a sliding back was also a downer for me. On focussing, the HPF rings get you closer, but again, I find the precision of the Arca mount to be better. When it comes to look and feel, I think Alpa has the edge. The various options for shutter releases are also better integrated. On the other hand, all the bits and add ons for T/S, stitching etc. could be clumsy.
6. Cambo - just never connected with it. Cambo is a little cheaper and likely more in use, so you are likely to find better availability of used lenses and bodies.
Good luck with your purchase, and strongly recommend finding a good dealer for whatever option you choose. This is at best a cottage industry and dealers and their relationship with the manufactures make all the difference.
Cheers.
-
One question: this shimming business: is it much of a hype ? for tolerances that small, does heat and cold (considering coefficients of thermal expansions) not throw off the adjustment ?
When people talk about the preciseness of alpa and arca swiss, does that mean (with a pinch of salt) that cambo is not precise enough ?
There was a reference to a post earlier citing the pros and cons of the systems available, but I cant find it anywhere ???
My take on the shimming business (which only Alpa does as far as I know) is that it is more hype than providing much value in practical photography. What it is good for is to maximize sharpness at infinity when you focus at infinity and use largish apertures. However, if you just focus at a little bit closer than infinity and use typical landscape apertures you get a nice sharp infinity, possibly the sharpest point is a bit closer but likely you'll have something useful for the picture there too (i e focusing at infinity is not necessarily the best), and after sharpening step it will be extremely hard if not impossible to differ from the perfectly infinity-focused image.
What the shimming compensates for is sensor alignment errors in the digital back (which generally is shimmed internally in the factory by the way), not alignment errors in the Alpa system, i e if you change the lens and the other lens has different alignment than the first there will still be an error. I don't know how common it is that the modern backs in the IQ-series are poorly aligned, I think it would be a scandal if $40K back don't deliver the precision so I find it unlikely, but I don't know.
The precision is a very strong component of Alpa's marketing, they want you to feel insecure about precision so you will want the best and then Alpa attempts to be that manufacturer. I have see no independent tests though to actually test the precision of the different manufacturers (which is a very difficult test to do, as you need to take sample variation into account, i e test many cameras) so we cannot know how good Alpa is compared to say Arca-Swiss. And we don't know how common it is with significant sensor alignment errors in the digital backs.
What Cambo is lacking is high precision focusing rings out of the box, but I've heard that Alpa rings can be used for many of the lenses, but not on the tilt-lenses (?, please correct me if I'm wrong). Alpa has HPF rings but you need to buy that extra. With RM3Di high precision focusing is there out of the box for all lenses.
If you focus manually with a view camera like Linhof Techno using a ground glass the mean focusing error according to my own formal tests is about 60um (0.06mm) on the rail. I'd be surprised if shimming errors is not much smaller than that. I feel the GG focusing precision is adequate for real picture making, and the advantages of the view camera outweighed the pancake camera alternatives for me. On the other hand, if I did have a pancake camera with a high precision focusing ring I'd like to be able to trust it 100%.
The type of camera you choose may affect your shooting style a bit. I only very rarely do focus stacking with my Techno (it's possible to do but not that practical), I always strive to capture everything in one shot, tilt/swing to make the best compromise. I don't shoot with larger apertures than f/11, DoF simply gets too short, therefore I would not want more resolution than IQ260 (6 um pixels) if I had to pay extra for it. I have a pragmatic approach to focusing precision, if it's good enough for the DoF I work with it's good enough, I don't need perfect, and then the GG is adequate (but you need a high magnification loupe!). I often use tilt where HPF rings don't help much (you can use presets though for typical focusing scenarios). With a pancake camera with high precision focusing you open up for shooting with larger apertures and still place DoF precisely and do focus stacking to further maximize sharpness etc. It's personal what you prefer.
-
What the shimming compensates for is sensor alignment errors in the digital back (which generally is shimmed internally in the factory by the way), not alignment errors in the Alpa system, i e if you change the lens and the other lens has different alignment than the first there will still be an error. I don't know how common it is that the modern backs in the IQ-series are poorly aligned, I think it would be a scandal if $40K back don't deliver the precision so I find it unlikely, but I don't know.
The precision is a very strong component of Alpa's marketing, they want you to feel insecure about precision so you will want the best and then Alpa attempts to be that manufacturer. I have see no independent tests though to actually test the precision of the different manufacturers (which is a very difficult test to do, as you need to take sample variation into account, i e test many cameras) so we cannot know how good Alpa is compared to say Arca-Swiss. And we don't know how common it is with significant sensor alignment errors in the digital backs.
Just because Cambo and Arca don't use the word "precise" as many times in their marketing does not mean they adhere to looser standards.
Both Cambo and Arca maintain their own manufacturing and do all lens and body testing/calibration in-house.
Anyone who has used any modern product from any one of these three manufacturers (or in Arca's case, any product ever) knows that all three produce incredibly well made, high precision, systems. All three produce, if anything, over-engineered needlessly-precise machines (though it does leave you with a great feeling when using them).
All three provide a high-precision method to accounting for any variation from one digital back to the next. I think that issue is mildly over-blown, as it's pretty rare for me to see any significant variation in that regard. However, it absolutely is possible, and all three systems allow you to account for it. In Cambo's case it is an adjustment to the helical, in Arca's it is a numerical offset to their focus scale, and in Alpa's system it is a physical shim(s).
The focus system on the Arca deserves a special shout out. By incorporating a very large focus bayonet into the chassis itself Arca is able to provide a level of focus precision that is absolutely unachievable otherwise. There is a strong argument to be made that for many (most?) applications it is far greater accuracy than is needed and the standard helical mounts provided by Cambo/Alpa are perfectly fine. But for sure, with the Arca, you will never find yourself wishing that you were able to make a smaller tweak, or have a more precise way to re-establish a focus preset.
Cambo deserves a special shout out for providing a system which, for many configurations, offers the lowest cost of entry while maintaining very high quality standards and a very good list of capabilities (tilt/swing from 28HR and up, simultaneous tilt and swing, good range of movement even on their smallest body, light weight and small pack size).
Honestly a big part (maybe most) of selecting a tech camera is to determine which one "feels right" to you. One of the main joys of using a tech camera (in my opinion) is that it's a highly tactile, very direct, very traditional style of shooting. There are big knobs and nice feeling handles, and a lot of manual manipulation (e.g. recocking the shutter, prodding the aperture to your desired setting). So I advise that it's not arbitrary/silly to make your decision partly on which system makes that process the most enjoyable to you - there is no universal answer to that. When people come to our office or Remote Demo Center and see the Arca has it's rise/fall and shift knobs close together on the bottom corner, and Cambo has it's on the top corner, about equal numbers think the "Arca's placement is the only one that makes sense" and "Cambo's placement is the only one that makes sense". There are a dozen "little things" like that which draw one customer to one platform, and another to a different platform.
Just don't believe anyone who tells you Alpa is the only company with precision. That's a case purely of marketing and "if you say it often enough it must be true".
-
When you compare different cameras, do look at what movements they can do and how. Pancake cameras are a bit limited concerning movements, and have made different tradeoffs.
While Arca-Swiss RM3Di has builtin tilt, it is only +/- 5 degrees, and you cannot tilt diagonally (i e not combine tilt and swing). Alpa uses tilt adapters as far as I know and thus you cannot tilt with the widest angle lenses(?, somebody correct me if wrong) and you cannot tilt/swing at the same time, Cambo offers tilt lens panels (more expensive than the normal panels) to some popular focal lengths where you can combine tilt/swing (5 degrees), not for the Schneider 28 and 35mm though (too short flange distance to fit the tilt mechanics) so you need to use the substantially more expensive Rodenstock 32mm or the small image circle Rodenstock 28/35 in that range, which you may want to do anyway but it's good to be aware of these types of limitations in the system before buying in.
-
Hi,
I think that the shimming feature may be overclaimed. The pixel pitch on the IQ 180 is 5.17 microns. I would expect the effect of defocus be visible at a CoC of the same size as the pixel pitch, say 5 microns. With f/5.6 that would correpond to 28 microns. Tolerance for phase backs is said to be 12 microns, so the back should be OK, camera and lens tolerances come to that. Shimming to 10 microns may be to narrow to detect.
I have seen videos claiming loss of resolution for 10 micron shimming change, I am a bit skeptical.
Best regards
Erik
Just because Cambo and Arca don't use the word "precise" as many times in their marketing does not mean they adhere to looser standards.
Both Cambo and Arca maintain their own manufacturing and do all lens and body testing/calibration in-house.
Anyone who has used any modern product from any one of these three manufacturers (or in Arca's case, any product ever) knows that all three produce incredibly well made, high precision, systems. All three produce, if anything, over-engineered needlessly-precise machines (though it does leave you with a great feeling when using them).
All three provide a high-precision method to accounting for any variation from one digital back to the next. I think that issue is mildly over-blown, as it's pretty rare for me to see any significant variation in that regard. However, it absolutely is possible, and all three systems allow you to account for it. In Cambo's case it is an adjustment to the helical, in Arca's it is a numerical offset to their focus scale, and in Alpa's system it is a physical shim(s).
The focus system on the Arca deserves a special shout out. By incorporating a very large focus bayonet into the chassis itself Arca is able to provide a level of focus precision that is absolutely unachievable otherwise. There is a strong argument to be made that for many (most?) applications it is far greater accuracy than is needed and the standard helical mounts provided by Cambo/Alpa are perfectly fine. But for sure, with the Arca, you will never find yourself wishing that you were able to make a smaller tweak, or have a more precise way to re-establish a focus preset.
Cambo deserves a special shout out for providing a system which, for many configurations, offers the lowest cost of entry while maintaining very high quality standards and a very good list of capabilities (tilt/swing from 28HR and up, simultaneous tilt and swing, good range of movement even on their smallest body, light weight and small pack size).
Honestly a big part (maybe most) of selecting a tech camera is to determine which one "feels right" to you. One of the main joys of using a tech camera (in my opinion) is that it's a highly tactile, very direct, very traditional style of shooting. There are big knobs and nice feeling handles, and a lot of manual manipulation (e.g. recocking the shutter, prodding the aperture to your desired setting). So I advise that it's not arbitrary/silly to make your decision partly on which system makes that process the most enjoyable to you - there is no universal answer to that. When people come to our office or Remote Demo Center and see the Arca has it's rise/fall and shift knobs close together on the bottom corner, and Cambo has it's on the top corner, about equal numbers think the "Arca's placement is the only one that makes sense" and "Cambo's placement is the only one that makes sense". There are a dozen "little things" like that which draw one customer to one platform, and another to a different platform.
Just don't believe anyone who tells you Alpa is the only company with precision. That's a case purely of marketing and "if you say it often enough it must be true".
-
wise gentlemen,
points duly noted.
Doug, thanks for your very thoughtful comments, I do appreciate the time you spend helping out here ...and Torger, BRILLIANT review of the techno and TCs in general. Eric, I'm with you on the maths of micron-peeping.
in this regard then, what would you recommend for panos ? cylindrical projection or fixed base- shift panos ? is the IQ better on using click stop pano heads as opposed to stitching within the image circle ?
Jsiva, you mention: " I think you can get infinity accurate in all three manufacturers, but with the Arca, I can ensure that I have it calibrated so I have the maximum DoF from infinity in. Not sure if I am being clear on this, I can elaborate if needed. I shoot in some strange places, often just pulling my kayak up on a rock in the middle of nowhere, and don't usually have the time to check and recheck focus. The Arca system for me, is as idiot proof as it comes."
Not quite sure I understand that. Does this calibration hold true for all lenses ? shooting from a kayak ? i'm sure you mean handheld ? Would love to see these pics !!
Panos: As i understand, the SK 60 is quite good for panos, handling 3-stitch panos quite well. I don;t envisage doing panos more than that. with that in mind, if you need a tilt for the individual pano component images, does the choice of body matter ? Or am I better off using pano-heads for cylindrical panos ?
Mind you, it seems arca-swiss availability in Australia / Melbourne is pretty bleak. any pointers here ?
Ta,
saty
-
....
What Cambo is lacking is high precision focusing rings out of the box, but I've heard that Alpa rings can be used for many of the lenses, but not on the tilt-lenses (?, please correct me if I'm wrong).....
You can use the HPF rings on lenses for Cambo no problem. If there is any difficulty, it is with the lenses with t/s panel. There is a workaround thanks to John Milich: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/40262-alpa-hpf-ring-cambo-lens.html
ken
-
Tilt and swing on Arca and Cambo are both +5 and -5, as mentioned Cambo's TS mount offers both at the same time, Arca only one. I have yet to find a place where I need both, but I also don't find myself looking for it.
Cambo's knobs for adjustment are behind the lens and up near the mounting plate front. They are IMO smallish and hard to get to both physically and visually. With a shutter release and various cables in there I felt it was just one more thing to move out of the way.
Cambo's most common camera the RS is 20mm L and R shift and 25mm and 15mm Rise and fall. Arca's rm3di is 15mm L and R horizontal shift and 30 and 20 Rise and fall. I often will rotate the camera 90 degrees and turn the rise and fall into horizontal shift of 30 and 20mm. There are not too many wides out there that will hold up to 20mm of horizontal shift on a 60mp and up back. The 32mm and 40mm Rodenstock's come to mind. The 43mm Schneider will do about 18mm max and the 60mm Schneider will actually do 25mm all of this on a 60mp back.
By the time you add the $1200.00 cost of a Cambo TS mount to any of the lenses it's offered in, I think the cost of Arca and Cambo are very close if not even.
You won't find any discounts by a dealer in the U.S. but I have seen several Cambo systems for sale, most recently a AE one for very good pricing. You will see Arca for sale but just not as often.
I also feel that Cambo is more innovative with their new products, i.e. more focused on what is needed. I give examples the Hood from last year, a overall much better design than the square compendium from Arca. Their new Groundglass and loupe (see the getdpi site for a full review by Don Libby). It's the small things like this that can help out. However both companies sometimes seem to be working from a different playbook IMO. I sometimes wonder who they are talking too as far as ideas for new designs, i.e. outdoor shooters or indoor studio shooters.
I am not sure if you are in the U.S. or not, but by far the best U.S. Source for info is Rod Klukas in AZ, You can find his website easily. Rod is the US rep for Arca.
Cambo has a website,which shows all the product lines and it a great place to start for info on the various lenses. Alpa also has a website, but I find the Cambo site easier to navigate. As far as I know Arca still chooses to remain in the dark ages without any form of e-commerce or website. Remember, between Alpa, Cambo, and Arca, they are all using the same lenses, but each has it's own proprietary mounting system. You can interchange the lenses, so once you pick the brand you are in there for the long haul. You can remove the mounts but it's expensive.
All three are great products and each has their own following. Like has been mentioned already, best way is to demo, pick a dealer and then work with them. Most dealers will sell multiple brands. Once you have the basics, you can start looking for used lenses as many of them pop up on the for sale forums.
Paul Caldwell
-
Cambo's knobs for adjustment are behind the lens and up near the mounting plate front. They are IMO smallish and hard to get to both physically and visually.
The newer Cambo RS1250 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/cambo-new-bodies) and Cambo RS5000 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/cambo-new-bodies) both have larger knobs than the previous generation RS-1000.
-
Just because Cambo and Arca don't use the word "precise" as many times in their marketing does not mean they adhere to looser standards.
Both Cambo and Arca maintain their own manufacturing and do all lens and body testing/calibration in-house.
And your point is?
Could you perhaps expand on this and explain what benefits in-house manufacturing brings? Surely if something is made to the correct specification, it doesn't really matter who does the actual machining?
Just don't believe anyone who tells you Alpa is the only company with precision. That's a case purely of marketing and "if you say it often enough it must be true".
Ironically enough, the most common instance I've seen of someone saying "if you say it often enough it must be true", is you making claims that there are people out there claiming that "Alpa is the only company with precision".
Can you provide any basis for your assertion that this claim is actually being made on a frequent basis?
Or should we just file these type of comments under "marketing"?
-
My suggestion to do cylindrical panos in landscape scenes (or rather use a panohead calibrate for nodal point and shoot and stitch the way you would with a DSLR) even when you have a tech camera is "controversial". The tradition to stitch within the image circle is very strong, I'd guess 90% of tech cam users would stitch that way, because that's how you always have done it.
Stitching existed before panorama software like autopano giga had become as good it is today, when stitching is automatic and you can choose projection etc, so I think the case of stitching by turning the camera is stronger today than before, so I think it's definitely worth considering. If your panorama is (ultra)wide angle I also think that cylindrical projection looks more natural for most landscape scenes as you avoid extreme stretching on the sides which rectilinear projection leads to.
You could prefer stitch inside the image circle just because you like that photographic process better, i e you sample what a lens at a fixed position see and renders, while the turning-camera-method may feel more computerized and artificial.
Quality-wise the cylindrical camera-turning pano will likely be better as you won't be using the edges of the image circle, but you'll probably get adequate stitching performance inside image circle with the 60mm anyway. Simple tilting can be done with camera-turning pano (as the tilt axis is perpendicular to the turn axis).
Multirow-stitching and exact nodal-point calibrated (as you can do with a DSLR) is a bit more cumbersome to do with a technical camera due to the form factor, so simple one-row stitches (with the sensor in portrait position to maximize resolution) is the way to go.
*Maybe* the lack of AA filter has an effect on the choice of method. Sharp, aliased images don't stretch as well as a softer image, i e jaggies on the pixel peep level can become worse. When stitching inside the image circle the stretching of pixels is kept to a minimum (theoretically zero), while the camera-turning method will lead to more stretching.
-
Can you provide any basis for your assertion that this claim is actually being made on a frequent basis?
I thought about this, and I cannot really say how my own view of Alpa as the company promoting "being best on precision" in an almost snobbish fashion has come into place. It has grown on me over time and possibly it comes more from users, dealers, articles/reviews read here on Lula and elsewhere than Alpa themselves. Maybe it's unfair.
-
As with the MF bodies and lenses,
all the Tech Cams are great in their one way. Some offer all movements, some invented different ways to use tilts, some have sliding backs, others the precision focussing rings. Others feel inspired by the color of the wood handle. I never met a pro that told me he wouldn't like his Cambo, Arca, Silvestri, Linhof (insert your brand here) and that he would regret his choice.
To the 3 brands already mentioned, you can surely add Silvestri (The Bicam is a shift only body that can be modified to use tilt, I use one) and Sinar (The Artec has a sliding back, the IanTec hasn't) too. Linhof has their own system too. Some brand may not be available in your region, I would go with
a camera you can test near you.
I haven't met someone (RL or in forums) who uses an Sinar Iantec. And if there's no Sinar dealer on the several MF forums, you might not have heard of it. Does this make it a bad cam...probably not. But if there is no Sinar dealer in my country or closer than a 3 hours drive away, I would probably choose another system.
Tom
-
I thought about this, and I cannot really say how my own view of Alpa as the company promoting "being best on precision" in an almost snobbish fashion has come into place. It has grown on me over time and possibly it comes more from users, dealers, articles/reviews read here on Lula and elsewhere than Alpa themselves. Maybe it's unfair.
Clearly people's perceptions of a company and its products can be gained from all sorts of different sources - as you quite rightly point out.
But I hardly think end-user's views of kit can be labeled as "marketing", so we can scratch that one off the list straight away.
Reviews here? As an owner of an FPS (and user of one several months preceding the official launch), and prior to that an HCam, frankly I found the comments made regarding the HCam in the review posted here of the FPS downright disgraceful, and was the first to raise an objection to them.
But again - that review, along with any others, are not marketing by Alpa.
Dealers? I rather think dealers of tech-cams other than Alpa are FAR more involved on both this forum and GetDPI. So it's kind of hard to see where that one's coming from.
Most importantly though, if you look at the Alpa website (and I spend far too much time than is healthy lusting over gear on there), I don't actually EVER recall reading anything where they claim that they are the only ones making precise tech-cams. I certainly don't ever recall seeing anything where they compare their own products with those of competitors either.
Do they talk about precision? Yup. But then, they sell precision equipment. It would be rather odd if they didn't highlight the fact, no?
So, to me at least, it is rather puzzling as to what the basis is for Doug's allegation that the marketing of Alpa includes claims of being "the only company with precision".
-
Please re read my post. Nowhere did I say Alpa's marketing is the source of this myth. The myth is out there nevertheless, as demonstrated by the question of the OP.
Alpa makes precision gear.
So do Arca and Cambo.
For that matter so does Sinar, though distribution in the us is "strained" to say the least.
There are many reasons to pick one of these over another. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. I'm just saying I don't think manufacturing precision/tolerance is one of those reasons. They are all excellent in that regard.
-
I have put together a table with all three of the main brands of Tech Cameras in similar configurations to help people see how closely priced the systems are. For the bodies I choose ones that had similar amounts of movements. Please note that Cambo has the RS-12xx series which is priced less than the RS-5000, but is missing some movements, and features.
Each system has a different way of achieving certain functions like adding tilt or swing.
The Arca allows it on all lenses since the Tilt or Swing is achieved via its lens panel, the Cambo requires a special helical mount that allows both Tilt/Swing on certain lenses, and ALPA uses an adapter with specific lenses as well to achieve Tilt or Swing.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68162974/temp/lns/comparison_techcam.jpg)
Lance (lns@digitaltransitions.com)
-
So, to me at least, it is rather puzzling as to what the basis is for Doug's allegation that the marketing of Alpa includes claims of being "the only company with precision".
I think that claim was originally coming from me actually, so it's more fair to blame me :).
-
Torger I agree on your method and will always try to lead with a nodal or near nodal pan. However this requires that the camera be level (at least for me especially with wides) thus being able to get a short pano with shifting to me a great benefit as I an now point the camera up or down. Plus, I can add tilt to the equation and that adds even more DOF depending on my shot.
I carry the nodal bar made by RRS in the field, it's pretty easy to find close to nodal with the Schneider 35 and 43, but the 28mm is not as easy. It's also pretty worthless on horizontal shifts since you hit the out mark (placed in the lens by Rodenstock to my understanding) at 7mm which give you a hard vignette. (It's do bad as the lens would easily make 10mm maybe even 12mm as I have shift it that far but the hard vignette pretty much ruins anything with sky).
Each solution has it's place depending on location and setup. I always try to lead with a nodal pan if condition allow it.
One other feature the Acra and Cambo Alpa all offer is the ability to take 9 images, Center top and bottom rows. Here Cambo has an edge with it's 20mm of horizontal shift. Arca has the edge on height and fall 30mm and 20mm. With the 43mm and 60mm I will often take 9 if condition allow it. Center, 15mm L 15mm R, Top 25mm Top 25mm with 15mm L Horizontal shift, Top 25mm with 15mm of R Horizontal shift. Bottom 20mm Center, Bottom 20mm with 15mm of L shift and Bottom 20mm with 15mm of R shift. The only issue is doing this in order and remembering to take all the LCC's :) End result is an amazing image and a lot of work, but it stitches very easily since only the back was moved in the entire process.
Paul Caldwell
-
Please re read my post. Nowhere did I say Alpa's marketing is the source of this myth. The myth is out there nevertheless, as demonstrated by the question of the OP.
Alpa makes precision gear.
So do Arca and Cambo.
For that matter so does Sinar, though distribution in the us is "strained" to say the least.
There are many reasons to pick one of these over another. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. I'm just saying I don't think manufacturing precision/tolerance is one of those reasons. They are all excellent in that regard.
No need to re-read it. Here it is again:
Just don't believe anyone who tells you Alpa is the only company with precision. That's a case purely of marketing and "if you say it often enough it must be true".
So who is doing the marketing then Doug?
You admit it's not Alpa themselves.
Around these parts, it's certainly not the dealers.
And you can't for one moment accuse owners of "marketing".
So who is it?
Who are these people who are claiming that "Alpa is the only company with precision."?
Where, and how often, is it being said - to such an extent that you felt it necessary to warn people not to believe those saying it?
Regarding the other point you made, it would still be interesting for you to share your thoughts as to what the benefits of in-house manufacturing and testing/calibration are. The matter seemed to be so important that you felt it necessary to emphasise it.
/edit
And "the myth is out there nevertheless, as demonstrated by the question of the OP"?
Really?
This is the only mention in the original post regarding Alpa:
Dan Lindberg swears by the Alpa (citing precision / tolerance, etc)
That's it? You're saying that statement demonstrates that there is a "myth" out there?
-
I have put together a table with all three of the main brands of Tech Cameras in similar configurations to help people see how closely priced the systems are.
Lenses like the 32 HR evens it out a bit, as it is a very expensive lens. If you few very expensive lenses the systems are brought closer together, if you need many inexpensive lenses they can be brought farther apart. At least if you include a view camera in the equation.
To my Techno I have a Schneider Apo-Digitar 35, 47, 72, 90, 120 and plan to get 150, 180 and 210 (maybe not all three, 180 to start with). All these lenses are relatively inexpensive, and lens mount is about $100 per lens and I have 10 degree tilt and swing for all those as it is builtin into the body. The Techno body with sliding back and the new bright ground glass is actually more expensive than an Arca-Swiss RM3Di, but when you add lenses to the equation it's different, as lens mount cost is about $1000 per lens - for the 180mm that requires a longer tube it is $1300, so with 6 lenses that would be $6-7K in lens mount cost instead of ~$800.
-
Hey Gerald, relax :)
We would need to make a poll among lots of photographers about perception of the Alpa brand to truly find out. I still believe in such a poll we would find that many think that Alpa stands for precision more than others, and that Alpa users and/or Alpa company considers their products to be a little bit better quality than others, and that some may find that position to be a bit snobbish. I'm quite sure I've seen the marketing slogan "It's simple at the top" coming directly from Alpa, but I don't remember and cannot give references to all the small bits and pieces that have contributed to my perception of the brand over time.
-
Gerald, I think much of the marketing or precision-speak comes from owners themselves. And that's not a bad thing. Who better to talk about your products than actual users? And c'mon---you can't look anybody straight in the face and deny the emotional (albeit subjective) appeal of an Alpa. Hell, I shoot with a Cambo and I still feel drawn to the Alpa. It's just that pretty. At breakfast following CI in Carmel, Graham Welland brought along his Alpa TC with a 23HR which he let me hold. He very astutely seated himself at the table, best positioned to block any potential quick exit that I could possibly make out the door... ;D
ken
-
Hey Gerald, relax :)
We would need to make a poll among lots of photographers about perception of the Alpa brand to truly find out. I still believe in such a poll we would find that many think that Alpa stands for precision more than others, and that Alpa users and/or Alpa company considers their products to be a little bit better quality than others, and that some may find that position to be a bit snobbish. I'm quite sure I've seen the marketing slogan "It's simple at the top" coming directly from Alpa, but I don't remember and cannot give references to all the small bits and pieces that have contributed to my perception of the brand over time.
I'm totally chilled, no worries there :)
Yes - their old slogan was indeed "it's simple at the top". Didn't really fit well once the FPS was introduced though, so they've changed it.
Do they believe they produce the best cameras? Yes - I think it's fair to say they believe that. Do they set out to achieve the highest possible precision they can? Absolutely - regardless of the fact that it's actually Seitz that make the stuff (like that has ANY relevance whatsoever).
But the accusation being made was that it was marketing that was responsible for a perception that they were the only company with precision, and that it's somehow being repeated so often that people should be wary of it.
In the sales game, that's commonly known as "FUD".
-
Gerald, I think much of the marketing or precision-speak comes from owners themselves. And that's not a bad thing. Who better to talk about your products than actual users? And c'mon---you can't look anybody straight in the face and deny the emotional (albeit subjective) appeal of an Alpa. Hell, I shoot with a Cambo and I still feel drawn to the Alpa. It's just that pretty. At breakfast following CI in Carmel, Graham Welland brought along his Alpa TC with a 23HR which he let me hold. He very astutely seated himself at the table, best positioned to block any potential quick exit that I could possibly make out the door... ;D
ken
Indeed, but again - users talking about their own kit is NOT the same as deliberate marketing by the brand or dealers themselves. But - and this is the bigger but - even granting that, where is the evidence for those users claiming that Alpa is the ONLY manufacturer with precision equipment? I simply have not witnessed that being said over and over again in around 18 months of trawling both this forum and GetDPI.
The one thing about Alpa that you can say, is that they - and it would appear, their dealers - seem to be pretty relaxed to just sit back and let the kit sell itself off the back of what customers say/feel about it.
Which I think speaks volumes.
-
Asking which technical camera is better is much like asking which is better, Ford or Dodge. While they both will get you there, in the end it's what best suites your specific desires and how it fits in your hands. Doesn't matter whether it's an Alpa, Arca, Cambo, Linhof or any of the others as it only matters what best works for you.
As a landscape photographer I'm somewhat experienced in using a tech cam for landscape and specifically panoramas. I decided to switch to a tech camera specifically for the ability to perform fast, flat panoramas which give me much more file information that what I was getting previously. I bought my first and only tech camera in the fall of 2008 and still use today. I've upgraded the handles and just recently bought a new lens after using the ones I've had for almost 5-years. While I've managed to hold on to my body and lenses I have upgraded my digital back several times going from a P45+ to a P65+ and currently an IQ160. Long term I see me still having the tech camera several years down the road with maybe a lens change along the way as well as another digital back upgrade.
If you've noticed anything about photographers it's the fact we don't normally keep hold of equipment for very long. The next "new shiny" thing comes along and we jump ship to get it. Keeping a camera body for close to 5-years is much like looking at it in dog years (5 human years equals about 33 years). Bottom line if if it didn't work for me it would have been left behind long ago.
While I use a tech camera for close to 95% of my landscape work I also use other cameras to fit the situation. I thought at first I'd be able to "get-by" using it 100% and shortly after I got it I sold all my Mamiya/Phase 645 lenses and body. I kept that up for close to 18 months before adding a Leica M9 which I kept for close to 18-months before selling that and adding a Phase DF and a couple lenses to augment the tech camera. Others camera systems come and go however I've held fast to my tech camera the entire time.
These's plenty of good information and great suggestions here for you; all based on personal experience either using the actual system or in selling them.
So in the end which tech camera have I held on to for so long? I did my research in 2008 and at that time the Cambo system looked to be the best suited for me. Cambo had just recently introduced the new WRS which is smaller and (slightly) lighter-weight than their WDS. The WRS was also designed for the digital shooter in mind whereas the WDS can use either film or digital. The movements (vertical and horizontal) are located on the rear of the body which makes it much easier when you're perched on the edge of several hundred feet cliff and you really don't want to walk in front of the body to make a movement change.
Most of the camera manufactures now have added movements to their lens (tilt/shift). Some offers the ability on their body for all lenses while Cambo offers it specific to the lens itself (you can also retrofit an older lens).
Focusing on any tech camera can be a real PIA and I believe each manufacture offers at least one solution which they say is better than all the rest (again that Ford vs. Dodge thing). In the end I feel it's up to the end user to see for themselves what makes sense and works best.
Their was a car commercial a couple years ago where the spokeswoman asks "when you turn your car on does it return the favor". I've always like that question and can still today answer yes for my WRS.
Using a tech camera can be slow tedious work. Like Doug said, "...it's a highly tactile, very direct, very traditional style of shooting." I've found the slow, direct way of using my tech camera has resulted in better landscape images. It makes you think. You not only need to think of what it is you're attempting to capture but how. A tech camera is totally manual, manual focus, manual f/stop, manual shutter.
Still speaking about focusing - Cambo has revised their groundglass/loupe system from the piece of crap (my terms only) to a system that makes my WRS as close to a manual, medium format digital mirror less system as possible.
Again, you ask the question and you'll receive a hundred different answers. It's hard to do however you might need to travel a little in order to save yourself grief and money in the end. Look for dealers that offer tech cameras. If possible attend a workshop where tech cameras will be used and if possible attend a PODAS.
Sorry for the long winded response. Best of luck
Don
-
Hi,
I'm not the right man to discuss shift-panos vs. rotational panos, as I have only done rotational ones.
I would put it this way:
1) Shift panos depend very much on the lens. It's just to merge 2-3 shifted mages. With a perfect lens it would be easy, with a real world lens it may be more problematic.
2) Rotational panos are very flexible and the programs are very good. Rotational panos use only a part of the image. Extreme wide angles may be problematic. Fisheye lenses may be useful.
Best regards
Erik
Eric, I'm with you on the maths of micron-peeping.
in this regard then, what would you recommend for panos ? cylindrical projection or fixed base- shift panos ? is the IQ better on using click stop pano heads as opposed to stitching within the image circle ?
-
Indeed, but again - users talking about their own kit is NOT the same as deliberate marketing by the brand or dealers themselves. But - and this is the bigger but - even granting that, where is the evidence for those users claiming that Alpa is the ONLY manufacturer with precision equipment? I simply have not witnessed that being said over and over again in around 18 months of trawling both this forum and GetDPI.
The one thing about Alpa that you can say, is that they - and it would appear, their dealers - seem to be pretty relaxed to just sit back and let the kit sell itself off the back of what customers say/feel about it.
Which I think speaks volumes.
I think the reputation Alpa has attained as the king of precision is due to their products and their emphasis in their marketing.
http://www.alpa.ch/en/home.html
The seed is planted, the product feels precise, it performs precisely, users will believe it is precise. Precision is referred to more in reference to Alpa because if you look at the competition, they barely mention precision at all (and in one case don't even have a website, so no opportunity to mention it). Alpa has excellent marketing that is more sophisticated than their competition.
Having handled Alpa cameras and sold many, many Cambo and Arca systems, my opinion is that these products are all at a similar level when it comes to "precision".
I also firmly believe that 3 separate users, each with a Cambo, Alpa, and Arca Swiss product can obtain nearly identical results. However, the path toward getting there is different with each one, and that makes up the essence of the critical factors that buyers base their decision on. As a result, forget the marketing, you need to handle the products, or minimally speak with someone (hopefully more than 1 someone) who is intimately familiar with all 3 (or 4 if you consider Sinar) and holds as little bias as possible.
By the way, I should state that Capture Integration is now a Sinar dealer for the USA. We sell their view camera systems, including their eShutters with iPhone control, their single and multi-shot capable digital backs, and their technical cameras, the Sinar Artec and Sinar Lantec.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It feels precise, it performs precisely, ... Doesn't that mean it is precise?
I usually avoid these kind of discussions, but I'm starting to feel defensive. People who sell Arca and Cambo products are in my view a little too often talking about ALPA. I'd suggest that someone interested in buying one of these cameras look at all of them. Obviously someone who sells one or another will "talk up" his offerings. Unfortunately (or maybe not) the only people speaking up for ALPA are their users. Take that for what it's worth.
-
The con of tech cameras is the threads about them can get quite long.
The pros are the movements and optics.
The other cons are the workflow is slower, lens cast is a larger problem, but solvable.
Having used a large number of camera types, it really comes down to whether you enjoy it. Rent one and try. At the start, the model is not going to be that important as the process is going to be fairly consistent.
As far as this precision thing among brands, it is completely irrelevant. All these cameras are going to get great results. Personally, the Apla marketing is a turn off as they are talking advantage of their customer's fears. Tech cameras are not difficult to manufacture.
-
2) Rotational panos are very flexible and the programs are very good. Rotational panos use only a part of the image. Extreme wide angles may be problematic. Fisheye lenses may be useful.
Extreme wide is not a problem with rotational panos. Recent pano software like PTGui offer the possibility to control the lateral compression factor of flat projections which in fact makes it possible to go wider than with a single lens while keeping natural looking images.
The example below is about 100 megapixels, it was shot handheld with a 85mm f1.4 lens on a D800 and is made up of 6 vertical frames. The pano work tool less than 1 minute with PTgui.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8244/8553477694_9085f8c6d5_o.jpg)
The next example is make up of 2 columns of 5 frames, also shot handheld. Autopano pro didn't require any manual intervention to straighten the pano and get the verticals right. Again, less than 30 sec manual operation here. This one must correspond to a 22-24mm wide single frame shot.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8233/8553477900_a98210c267_o.jpg)
I personnally do not see any value of sliding panos compared to cylindrical. The theoretical concern about lowering of pixel quality as a result of interpolations is an order of magnitude less than the negative impact of lenses imperfections in the corners.
I find the operation of cylindrical pano heads to be also faster and it does not limit you to the image circle of a lens.
You should obviously ignore the fact that I use a DSLR to capture these images, the same applies to compact tech cameras, although it may be less easy to use them handheld.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It feels precise, it performs precisely, ... Doesn't that mean it is precise?
I usually avoid these kind of discussions, but I'm starting to feel defensive. People who sell Arca and Cambo products are in my view a little too often talking about ALPA. I'd suggest that someone interested in buying one of these cameras look at all of them. Obviously someone who sells one or another will "talk up" his offerings. Unfortunately (or maybe not) the only people speaking up for ALPA are their users. Take that for what it's worth.
I'm sorry if by saying the product performs precisely, that one would take that to mean it is not precise.
The only "people" on this forum I'm aware of who are active that sell Arca and Cambo are Doug and myself. I won't speak for Doug, but this is the first mention I've made of Alpa on this thread, and I can't recall really saying much about Alpa at any time in the past.
I thought my statement was complimentary of Alpa's marketing and "talked up" (in your words) the ability of all three products rather equally. If my statement was taken in some other way, then perhaps you are indeed becoming defensive, though I don't see how it was the result of any effort on my part.
Good gosh, now I'm defensive! :D
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
When shooting panos with a 12-24 zoom at 12 mm I noticed that Autopano Pro missed obvious control points. In ultra wide images corner points are stretched out and that distortion made Autopano Pro missed obvious control points and used dubious ones instead (like moving clouds). Other than that I agree with Bernard.
Best regards
Erik
Extreme wide is not a problem with rotational panos.
-
I think the reputation Alpa has attained as the king of precision is due to their products and their emphasis in their marketing.
http://www.alpa.ch/en/home.html
The seed is planted, the product feels precise, it performs precisely, users will believe it is precise. Precision is referred to more in reference to Alpa because if you look at the competition, they barely mention precision at all (and in one case don't even have a website, so no opportunity to mention it). Alpa has excellent marketing that is more sophisticated than their competition.
Having handled Alpa cameras and sold many, many Cambo and Arca systems, my opinion is that these products are all at a similar level when it comes to "precision".
I also firmly believe that 3 separate users, each with a Cambo, Alpa, and Arca Swiss product can obtain nearly identical results. However, the path toward getting there is different with each one, and that makes up the essence of the critical factors that buyers base their decision on. As a result, forget the marketing, you need to handle the products, or minimally speak with someone (hopefully more than 1 someone) who is intimately familiar with all 3 (or 4 if you consider Sinar) and holds as little bias as possible.
By the way, I should state that Capture Integration is now a Sinar dealer for the USA. We sell their view camera systems, including their eShutters with iPhone control, their single and multi-shot capable digital backs, and their technical cameras, the Sinar Artec and Sinar Lantec.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve -
Spot on.
Just one observation that I would make about any perceived or actual level of precision with Alpa kit -
They've just recently made available the Hasselblad V mount adapter for the FPS. If you want to use a V mount lens with the FPS, there are 5 separate objects between the lens and the back.
The only thing that can be used to adjust flange distance is the shimming of the back adapter.
Now, I can't comment on the performance of this set-up, but I can only imagine they're fairly confident regarding the precision with which those 5 objects have been manufactured, and the way they integrate.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
I would agree with comments here about ALL of the technical cameras being precision systems. At the end of the day they are simple frameworks that hold the sensor and lens in the right place with various combinations of shift or tilts.
Sure Alpa make a big deal about the shimming process for precise alignment of the sensor with the camera and I can definitely state that every back that I've owned and mounted to my Alpa has needed a different shim setting, be it a Leaf Aptus, P40+, two different P25+s and my IQ160. The difference was plainly visible in images. How much of a difference does it make at focus points other than infinity? Well, not much, but what it does mean is that when I dial in 6in, 5ft or 10ft or 100ft based on a laser measurement, that's what it is. DoF will cover some of that but what I can rely on is that infinity is always sharp. Arca can do the same thing in the field with their offset adjustment factor - no difference, just an alternative means of achieving the same goal. Cambo - I believe that there are ways to achieve it too, although not per back with the same camera if you have multiple backs (that I'm aware of anyway). It is a fair point to say that the correct alignment of sensor and lenses does rely on all lenses being identically aligned accurately. Alpa do this, as I'm sure that all other vendors do too but there can be some variation in real lenses until they are all adjusted together (just like you'll find with Leica etc).
I chose Alpa because it fits my shooting needs and I like the ergonomics and aesthetics. I simply enjoy using it. I would be the first to say though that it isn't perfect, just as I would assert that neither are the Cambo or Arca 'perfect' either. They all have their own foibles that you can only really appreciate if you try them. Personally, I think that the Alpa is the weakest of the trio for tilts due to the lack of nodal tilts on lenses - I've shot with the Cambo and I personally found it easier to use with tilts (others may disagree). I haven't shot with the Arca but I've ridden along with plenty of Arca shooters and they like using that system. The Alpa and Cambo rely on real world distances scribed on a traditional helicoid focus ring - Arca take a different approach that may or may not appeal. It didn't for me but it seems to be just as effective.
What I would reiterate is that you really need to follow the advice given here by multiple posters which is to try them for a while and see what works for you. You may fall in lust with the Alpa fit, finish & feel or you may prefer the ergonomics and fit & finish of the Cambo/Arca but you certainly won't know that by just reading these threads.
If I didn't already have my two Alpas, I'd happily shoot with either the Cambo or Arca all things being equal. Is there any difference in the quality of images shot with an Alpa, Arca or Cambo? No. The difference is only in how much you enjoy using each of them and how efficient and effective you find them in real use. The glass is the same. The backs you use are the same.
-
Hi,
Sorry for asking, but: If you had five different backs and all needed shimming does it not mean that four of the five were outside tolerance? My impression is that Phase One tolerances are 12 microns, that is 0.0012 mm, so if all your Phase backs were within tolerance you would only need to shim on one.
What you write seems to be consistent with Joseph Holmes writing here: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
Another question is, how much shimming is needed to make a visible difference and at which aperture? Some authors say 0.01 mm but that does not make sense to me.
Another question. Lenses may also vary. How does Alpa adjust precision focusing scale to lens sample, do they engrave them individually or they use lenses of exactly the same focal length?
Best regards
Erik
I would agree with comments here about ALL of the technical cameras being precision systems. At the end of the day they are simple frameworks that hold the sensor and lens in the right place with various combinations of shift or tilts.
-
Question to Anders Torger,
In your article you indicate that 20x loupe is needed for exact focusing on ground glass. That makes sense to me. Does that say that ground glass with viewfinder loupe magnifying 4X is not accurate enough for correct focusing?
I feel that issue was not really addressed in the discussion so far.
Best regards
Erik
-
Just one crazy question... if it is indeed key to postion the backs relative to the lens mount with such a degree of accuracy... what are the odds that a sliding back mechanism is repeatible enough not to generate any loss of quality?
The answer is probably "close to zero".
In my view this is another reason why cylindrical stitching makes more sense, you don't affect the lens/sensor relative position when you rotate the camera on a pano head.
By the way, when I interviewed the Pentax 645D product manager a few years back, he had mentioned the accurary of sensor positioning relative to lens mount as the main reason why they had decided to go with an integrated camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
That is said to be the reason that the Hartblei HCam has a motorized slider (not that I know how it helps).
What Bernard says make a lot of sense, but on the other hand it is possible to build things to a very high precision.
This reminds me of a story:
In the cold war Finland was neutral and was forced to buy defense equipment from both Soviet and the west. So I met this AAA (Anti Air Artillery) guy, he said that they used to have guns from Oerlikon in Switzerland and guns from Soviet. The Oerlikons were very well made and Soviet stuff also worked in the winter.
Best regards
Erik
Just one crazy question... if it is indeed key to postion the backs relative to the lens mount with such a degree of accuracy... what are the odds that a sliding back mechanism is repeatible enough not to generate any loss of quality?
The answer is probably "close to zero".
In my view this is another reason why cylindrical stitching makes more sense, you don't affect the lens/sensor relative position when you rotate the camera on a pano head.
By the way, when I interviewed the Pentax 645D product manager a few years back, he had mentioned the accurary of sensor positioning relative to lens mount as the main reason why they had decided to go with an integrated camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Sorry for asking, but: If you had five different backs and all needed shimming does it not mean that four of the five were outside tolerance? My impression is that Phase One tolerances are 12 microns, that is 0.0012 mm, so if all your Phase backs were within tolerance you would only need to shim on one.
What you write seems to be consistent with Joseph Holmes writing here: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
Another question is, how much shimming is needed to make a visible difference and at which aperture? Some authors say 0.01 mm but that does not make sense to me.
Another question. Lenses may also vary. How does Alpa adjust precision focusing scale to lens sample, do they engrave them individually or they use lenses of exactly the same focal length?
Best regards
Erik
Erik
I don't follow your logic that the backs were out of spec at all. I don't recall the exact amounts but the adjustments were all very minor in each case and I have two back adapters with their own shims set now for my current P25+ & IQ160. Just watch this if you want to see this shim process in reality:
http://media.luminous-landscape.com/video/misc/Alpa-Phase_Shim-1.3.mov
I believe that you would follow a similar process with an Arca to determine the offset factor for your back with the reference lens.
Regarding the lens marking, it's based on the angle of rotation of the focus ring on the helicoid. So long as infinity is known then the rest should fall in to the right place (within the tolerance of the helicoid obviously). That applies also to the HPF rings.
-
Hi,
Sorry for asking, but: If you had five different backs and all needed shimming does it not mean that four of the five were outside tolerance? My impression is that Phase One tolerances are 12 microns, that is 0.0012 mm, so if all your Phase backs were within tolerance you would only need to shim on one.
What you write seems to be consistent with Joseph Holmes writing here: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
IIRC, Stefan Steib has reported several times of Phase One backs not even coming close to the claimed tolerances.
Another question is, how much shimming is needed to make a visible difference and at which aperture? Some authors say 0.01 mm but that does not make sense to me.
Another question. Lenses may also vary. How does Alpa adjust precision focusing scale to lens sample, do they engrave them individually or they use lenses of exactly the same focal length?
Best regards
Erik
The Alpa HPF is totally independent of the lens. It is supplied to the end-user who installs it him/herself.
Here's their YouTube video showing how it is installed - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwD1_z9F98
Regards,
Gerald.
-
Question to Anders Torger,
In your article you indicate that 20x loupe is needed for exact focusing on ground glass. That makes sense to me. Does that say that ground glass with viewfinder loupe magnifying 4X is not accurate enough for correct focusing?
I feel that issue was not really addressed in the discussion so far.
What is "accurate enough" is a matter of taste.
This means that some will want Alpa shimming och Arca offset factor with their backs to get a perfect match with the precise distance scale, I'd probably calibrate the system too if I had one. The problem I have and what makes *me* defensive is when either directly or in-between the lines people say that this precision Alpa and Arca offers is *required* to make sharp images, i e that view camera and ground glass focusing is hopelessly obsolete and my Linhof Techno would be utterly useless for any serious image making. I don't agree with that, and I think the view camera has a number of strong points.
You could shim the back adapter for the sliding back if you want to, but to detect a focus shift with the ground glass which resolves about 18 megapixels the shift would have to be rather large to be detected. There's also a limit to how precise eye-hand can position the lens on the rail, which is getting within 60 um or so. So yes, the view camera although precisely manufactured and precise gears and everything the design does not allow for the same focus placement precision as Alpa or Arca RM3Di does. Is this a problem? Is it worth sacrificing the flexibility of the view camera and spending all that money on lens mounts to get the ultra-precise focus placement? I came to the conclusion "no", and I have not regretted it. But you have to be aware of the limits and adapt to it, and I can sometimes feel that there's coming a bit of FUD from the pancake camp, that all of a sudden ultra-precise focus placement has become critical to deep DoF image making.
I'm quite demanding myself though, that's why I'm using a stronger loupe than is normally sold for ground glass cameras, and I achieve higher focusing precision with that. With a 4x loupe (which is what Linhof themselves sells) the focusing precision is so poor that I'm not satisfied myself. My point is that if you give the ground glass a chance and actually try to make the best out of it, it would work for many more users than the general perception seems to be.
But as said, "accurate enough" is a matter of taste, there are for example Cambo users that focus on ground glass (rather than distance scale) with low magnification loupes and is happy with that. There is an element of skill/eyesight too, some may have very good eyes and can place precisely with a lower magnification loupe than I can. Arca recently announced an optical focusing system for their RM3Di, of course less precise than the laser distance meter method, so there are users out there that can live with "unprecise" focusing.
-
Just one crazy question... if it is indeed key to postion the backs relative to the lens mount with such a degree of accuracy... what are the odds that a sliding back mechanism is repeatible enough not to generate any loss of quality?
The need of that type of accuracy is over-appreciated with deep DoF image making, so don't worry. My point I'm trying to make is not that Alpa etc is *lying* about being best on precision, perhaps they are the best, the tools are indeed precise, what I mean is that there's FUD in the air indicating that those extreme amounts of precision is required to make sharp images, while I'd rather say that it's a nice to have feature that you get to pay a very large amount of money for.
-
IIRC, Stefan Steib has reported several times of Phase One backs not even coming close to the claimed tolerances.
Why isn't users upset about this? $30K-$40K for a back and they don't care to shim it properly? I'd call it an insult to the users!
-
Joe Cornish comments on focusing precision with the IQ180 on the Linhof Techno:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/03/iq180-first-three-months-impressions/#comment-3813
I cite:
In response to your question about focussing experience, the reading I had done on this topic before acquiring the IQ included the Joseph Holmes report, describing the use of a special Zeiss magnifier and the Luminous Landscape advice to use Alpas, and shim them etc. I almost lost the will to live. Actually, that is unfair, but it was all very off-putting. So I was quite surprised that, during the big camera test, my focussing efforts on the Techno proved no less accurate than they had previously been with the P45+ doing the image capture. In other words, on the captured image it is perfectly straightforward to see the zone of sharp focus, where it drops off and so on, and in most of my experiences so far it has coincided with where I thought I had focussed on. I do appreciate that any inaccuracies in the position of the focus plane can have a serious impact on image quality. I can only conclude that my Techno and sliding back (Linhof) is currently correctly zeroed and within all the necessary tolerances. I am extremely careful in focus implementation, but the last three months have taught me to feel confident that what I see on the ground glass is what I get in the file. Which is all that could be asked for really. Is 10x enough magnification? Clearly it is for me.
-
Graham, Eric, Barnard, Doug, Torger, Ken, Geoff and all others who chipped in,
Some great information here.... amazing how simple discussions can change the state of your mind.
Will be hunting for some local photo-outings and expeditions centering on MF... not sure there are many in Australia.
Met a guy called Ken Duncan the other day, has a good website, nice guy, but people have said he's a bit commercial.
on cameras, I've now added Linhof Techno to the list. Arca is quite severely limited in terms of availability, so is looking like it will be out.
So For now, it will be Alpa / Cambo / Linhof for a 3 lens kit, back, camera and bag.
Thanks for all the information, I feel better prepared and more in touch with the subject.
But yes, will have to handle a few machines before deciding.
Saty :-\
-
Hi,
Stefan is a serious guy, he is the person behind Hartblei HCams.
My impression is that Stefan feels that Phase One stuff are quite OK regarding accuracy but he is less impressed with some of the alternatives.
If it is correct that Phase One factory tolerance is 12 microns than all phase backs out from factory should be consistent and would need no extra shimming or adjustment. The information on this seems to be contradictory. One of the posters had I think five backs and all needed different shimming.
We need to keep in mind that 12 microns is +-, so we can have a back at -12 microns and another one at +12 microns. Both would be within tolerance but the difference would be 24 microns or 0.024 mm. If we assume that largest aperture used on MF would be f/4, the resulting CoC would be 0.006mm corresponding to the pixel pitch on an IQ180, I'm pretty sure that would be visible, at least on test targets, stopping down to f/8 would reduce the CoC to 0.003 micron and that would not cause image quality reduction.
Best regards
Erik
Why isn't users upset about this? $30K-$40K for a back and they don't care to shim it properly? I'd call it an insult to the users!
-
I'm no machining expert but isn't +/-12 microns quite a sloppy standard for the things we're talking about here? I've seen somewhere that at least some digital backs has internal shims, i e you can adjust the sensor position with shimming, and standard shim tape can be as thin as 5 microns, so I think it should be possible to get within +/- 5 um with relatively minor effort. I mean this is very expensive electronics so I think one should be able to demand that precision is *better* than standard products.
If I'm correctly informed the smallest step with Alpa shimming is 10 microns.
There are other sources of error though. It is beyond me why backs are not fastened with screws to the adapter plate. I got H-mount on my back and it does not exactly feel 100% tight, I haven't dared to analyze it yet but I would not be surprised if there's some +/- 10 microns in sloppy play of the fastening mechanism. Probably it's good enough, but as you never remove the back from the adapter plate I'd rather want it screwed in place. I've also been surprised of how poor quality some €500 adapter plates can be, the plate is probably very precisely machined but not seldom the attachment mechanism (H-mount, V-mount etc) which is screwed onto the plate made with a lesser standard. In one case I had to file down the screws because they were too long!
Adapter plate fastening into the tech camera is often of dove-tail type with pressure on it and has therefore probably less of a precision issue. I've noted though that typical high precision surface points in a camera are naked metal, but adapter plates are generally all black. I wonder if coloring the metal affects the thickness?
Hi,
Stefan is a serious guy, he is the person behind Hartblei HCams.
My impression is that Stefan feels that Phase One stuff are quite OK regarding accuracy but he is less impressed with some of the alternatives.
If it is correct that Phase One factory tolerance is 12 microns than all phase backs out from factory should be consistent and would need no extra shimming or adjustment. The information on this seems to be contradictory. One of the posters had I think five backs and all needed different shimming.
We need to keep in mind that 12 microns is +-, so we can have a back at -12 microns and another one at +12 microns. Both would be within tolerance but the difference would be 24 microns or 0.024 mm. If we assume that largest aperture used on MF would be f/4, the resulting CoC would be 0.006mm corresponding to the pixel pitch on an IQ180, I'm pretty sure that would be visible, at least on test targets, stopping down to f/8 would reduce the CoC to 0.003 micron and that would not cause image quality reduction.
-
Good points. If you wiggle the digital back on the adapter plates (especially stitching backs), there is a lot of little movement points. Also saw a Mamiya back on a Cambo with a fair amount of wiggle room. That said, it seems that the digital back takes a set on the stitching backs and seems to work well. Again, like others, shooting at f11 or f16, this hasn't seemed to matter - corner to corner are sharp. But if one were to shoot close up and wide open, these things might well add up.
The black coating is anodizing on the alum, typically chosen because of its negligible impact on alum dimensioning (architectural use). If we are in the realm of microns... perhaps it might matter.
One could see it another way: if there is really a need for super-precise focusing, then one should look for the most direct mech'l connection of lens to the back, with the fewest number of pieces and variables.
However, once the back is aligned and spaced correctly on the camera, then for most work DOF is your friend, and takes care of most other issues, much as it did in the days of film.
-
So I've read and re-read the post and it looks like I will be going with Cambo WRS.
Few points:
Ken: brilliant sense of humour. I wish I could write like that.
Don: Thanks for the informative and thoughtful insight into the selection process.
Torger: great review and thanks for the guidance.
Again, all others and everyone, thanks for the insight.
I see nothing wrong in holding and voicing our opinions and nothing wrong with marketing.
Some people jumped at the suggestion that Alpa shouts "precision". In general, a few dealers I spoke to have confirmed this: somehow, people think that Alpa is precise, although thats only because no one else blows their trumpet. I think everyone should. A good friend once said: If you don't blow your trumpet, others will use it as a spitoon ( he likely borrowed it from somewhere ).
It will be another 3 months until I garner enough dough to jump the ship to MF. Currently will be selling all my Leica stuff to harness the funds. Will try and post some first attempts soon.
Great forum, great website. Keep it up (literally).
Saty
-
As I was mentioned here several times, some clarifications:
1.: Everbody should read Joseph Holmes article, it is very informative ! There is another one from Roger Cicala - very VERY interesting thoughts and informations:
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
2.: While arguing, the accuracy of Phase and Leaf Backs are certainly on par with Hasselblad, I really don´t know if the "calibrated approach of the paired
H Bodies and Backs does really do an advantage.
3.: The problem is these Hook mechanisms, they simply wear out ! The construction of these was originally done for film accuracy and although this is now long
gone and over, NONE of the makers have the guts to introduce a new digitally improved mounting (Maybe even ISO standardized- hey guys sit down and talk !!!)
mount that will a) keep a more simple but enduring lock and tight fit and b) is compatible between all camera systems.
4.: A system with several tolerances on several planes adds these faults. trying to eliminate them with another measurement is contraproductive.
This is a paradigm from system analysis - the systemical noise cannot be reduced by inducing more noise !
5.:The only way to beat that mechanical "noise" added, is to use an independent control mechanism: Life View or an electronic viewfinder taking the actual chip based infos.
Greetings from Germany
Stefan