Tech Camera vs. XF

[msgaillard]

Hi everyone,

I recently purchased the IQ4 and the XF system, and am, for the most part, thrilled. It took a long time for me to make the move from analog and my beloved 8x10 Ebony (which I have used exclusively for quite some time), but I finally decided to do it with this new back.

Upon the recommendations of many I decided on the XF even though I was always inclined to go with a tech camera. There are certainly a lot of efficiencies that are available in the XF system that I wouldn't have with a tech camera, but, the fact that I need to approximate what the frame will be after keystone corrections is proving to be far from ideal. I'd much prefer to see the full frame before capture, and I hate seeing lines that aren't parallel. It drives me nuts.

Aside from that, I keep losing sleep over the notion that the tech lenses are even more precise than the blue ring schneider lenses. Are they both so good that the distinction is negligible? That's what most seem to say, however, I print my images at tremendous scale (up to 10 feet at times), so imperfections are amplified. I'm used to drum scanning 8x10 negatives.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these topics, or any other thoughts you might have regarding distinctions between the XF system and tech cameras, specifically the ALPA STC or the Arca RL3di.

Thanks to all for your time.

[vjbelle]

I think you will find that most of the tech lenses as compared to Blue Ring lenses are somewhat comparable.  I say somewhat because with the tech lenses you will obviously shift which will have an affect on the image quality when viewed at 100% pixels.  But for print needs I have found all of this somewhat negligible depending on the amount of shift.  This also takes into account that all lenses are in alignment.  It also depends how much rise you need for keystone correction.  As you know there is always a trade off the further out the lens is shifted.  I would also consider something other than the two systems you are contemplating and suggest the Actus as something to consider.  The final cost factor would be substantial less than either Alpa or Arca as all lenses would be in standard Copal 0 rather than proprietary mounts. 

Victor

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi everyone,

I recently purchased the IQ4 and the XF system, and am, for the most part, thrilled. It took a long time for me to make the move from analog and my beloved 8x10 Ebony (which I have used exclusively for quite some time), but I finally decided to do it with this new back.

Upon the recommendations of many I decided on the XF even though I was always inclined to go with a tech camera. There are certainly a lot of efficiencies that are available in the XF system that I wouldn't have with a tech camera, but, the fact that I need to approximate what the frame will be after keystone corrections is proving to be far from ideal. I'd much prefer to see the full frame before capture, and I hate seeing lines that aren't parallel. It drives me nuts.

Aside from that, I keep losing sleep over the notion that the tech lenses are even more precise than the blue ring schneider lenses. Are they both so good that the distinction is negligible? That's what most seem to say, however, I print my images at tremendous scale (up to 10 feet at times), so imperfections are amplified. I'm used to drum scanning 8x10 negatives.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these topics, or any other thoughts you might have regarding distinctions between the XF system and tech cameras, specifically the ALPA STC or the Arca RL3di.

Thanks to all for your time.

Michael -

When it comes to tech cameras, I am just very bullish. And it is as much for the in front of my eyes complete control of the camera and framing position as much as it is for the perspective control. I know that when I see the shot, I am often not finished, but once I see the shot, I don't want to have to change the shot, if there is something about the framing or something in the frame that I want to change. And an X/Y shift camera uniquely allows for that, as I'm sure you know.     

That's an advantage of the X/Y based RM3LD, as well as being able to shoot 4x5 film. The Alpa STC is also a consideration, but to it is an X or Y movement camera, the X/Y options for Alpa are the 12 Max and the 12 Plus. You would also consider the Cambo WRS 1200, WRS 1600, and WRS 5000 models. All the above are X/Y camera systems.

For comparison with the Schneider Blue Ring lenses, I think the very best of those ( 35/3.5, 120/4, 150/2.8 ) rival the Rodenstock lenses in terms of resolving power, but there are certainly differences in rendering, color, etc. And those may be subjective decisions. But from a resolution standpoint, you couldn't make that case 3-4 years ago before these better lenses were introduced. At that point, tech camera meant best lenses by a good margin and the camera control. For me, even with the improvement in the lenses for the Phase One system, the control I experience with a technical camera is unbeatable.

As Victor mentions, a small, portable view camera like the Cambo Actus can also be a consideration, providing for additional movements, and more flexibility, cost savings, but more complexity in the shooting process as well (locking positions, making sure front and rear frames are parallel, etc.)


Steve Hendrix/CI

[dchew]

Michael,
I’ve been using the STC for the last 9 years, and agree with your preferences to see the image and maintain a preferred perspective in the field (which Steve supported). As usual, Victor brings up good points about the tradoff using the outer reaches of the image circle.

Unless you are very weight and space conscious (as I am) you might look a at the Alpa 12 Plus that Steve mentioned vs the STC. Coming from a view camera, I’m guessing you will value the ability to shift and rise/fall at the same time. The STC can do either, but not both at the same time.

Dave

[narikin]

Tech user and XF owner here.

Tech lenses are for sure better on anything XF 80mm and below, even for straight shooting. Then, of course, capable of movements.

AFAIK, it's simply the nature of the design - the XF has that huge mirror box, so the lens needs to be deep retrofocal (Distagon type) to thrown the image across that gap. Tech cameras need not this, and can design the lens according to whatever gives best results* (Biogon type)

Of course, once the lens gets longer focal lengths, there is no need for such design trickery - they bridge the gap naturally.
I was recently forced to use the XF 80mm lens against my usual tech lens, and it was a clear step worse, simply straight shooting, no movements.

*interestingly, due to off center lens casts, they started to design Tech lenses slightly retrofocal, to make the light come in more perpendicular, and minimize casts. The current Rodenstock Digaron -W's 40 and 50mm are like this. - lightly retrofocus.  Now with BSI IQ4, it is moot if they needed to do this, but they won't redesign yet again, I'm sure.  (and of course for very wide tech lenses, 23/28 etc, always needed to be retrofocal to clear the body and allow XY movements)

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

they started to design Tech lenses slightly retrofocal, to make the light come in more perpendicular, and minimize casts.

How does this interact with tilts and swings?

[Jeffrey Lubeck]

Michael,

I shoot both Tech Cambo 5000 (Rodenstock or Schneider 32, 60, 90, 120) and XF (Blue Ring 35, 55, 110, 120MACRO, 150, 240).  I have moved through the chain of upgrades on the IQ from the IQ1 80 to the IQ4 151.

For context: my principle works are landscapes taken in the high elevation of the Western U.S. and we print/fame (for sale in my gallery) up to 180 inches.  Most works are bought in the 40-120 inch range during a given year.

Many of the people posting in response have provided good advise, clearly know of what they speak, and are much more qualified than I.

So I will speak from more of a simplistic bottom line perspective.

I agree with Steve and he is exceptionally well versed on the topic. While the gap has narrowed materially the past few years, the money shot still seems to be had with the Tech camera - at least for me.

I have had the IQ4 151 for a month.  I have been learning and testing the IQ4 150 against the IQ3 100 starting with the XF and its lenses.  Today, I moved to the same kind of AB compare with the Cambo 5000. 

With the device specific cables not available I shot using the Electronic Shutter.  I was prepared to be somewhat disappointed. The experience was quite the opposite.  Granted it was only used in three different shooting locations, but the quality of the resolution, color fidelity, and depth reminded my why a Tech camera needs to remain in my arsenal.

[Two23]

How does this interact with tilts and swings?

I am going to take a guess that the image circle would be smaller?


Kent in SD

[Geods]

I used to shoot B&W landscapes with up to an 8x10-inch camera. I often carried and used both compact travel lenses, Like Cooke's triple convertible and exotics like Schneider's 210XL. Four years ago, I completed a five month motorcycle photography trip. Because of the mode of transportation I was restricted from carrying the 8x10 and even 4x5 due to the logistics of it all, especially so with so much of the trip being off-road, living from a tent, in both low and high heat as well as in all sorts of precipitation. While I occasionally shoot with a digital Hasselblad, I have found, through the necessities of that trip, that I can accomplish so much more in terms of quality with either a FF or micro-4/3 camera, conventional lenses and a pano-head. I haven't shot with my TS lenses nor Hasselblad HTS since that trip.

First, stitching isn't just for panorama work, it can easily be used for images of any aspect ratio. Depth of field isn't a problem as focus stacking, which is a rarely necessary is always available. While I do miss some of the fun associated with using a view camera, I find that my framing is superior when done back at the computer, unencumbered by a poverty of resolution and lens focal lengths, image circle, etc., for a particular scene and location. Also, sometimes the outdoor environment is harsh and not fitting for artistic thought. If a scene is captured at high resolution, it can be perspective controlled with software and cropped ideally for that specific image, not being restricted to the aspect ratio of the film/sensor, its size, and the focal lengths available at the time the imaging was accomplished. Also, by traveling lighter, I can photograph more, with less fatigue, and achieve better results.

On a recent Iceland trip, I used and Olympus EM-1 with 12-100 travel zoom (my backup camera) and achieved results superior to what could be had with a single shot DMF camera.  That camera often came out when the wind was too high for a tripod and its dual image stabilization allowed for better stitching than with FF.

[Gigi]

I used to shoot B&W landscapes with up to an 8x10-inch camera. I often carried and used both compact travel lenses, Like Cooke's triple convertible and exotics like Schneider's 210XL. Four years ago, I completed a five month motorcycle photography trip. Because of the mode of transportation I was restricted from carrying the 8x10 and even 4x5 due to the logistics of it all, especially so with so much of the trip being off-road, living from a tent, in both low and high heat as well as in all sorts of precipitation. While I occasionally shoot with a digital Hasselblad, I have found, through the necessities of that trip, that I can accomplish so much more in terms of quality with either a FF or micro-4/3 camera, conventional lenses and a pano-head. I haven't shot with my TS lenses nor Hasselblad HTS since that trip.

First, stitching isn't just for panorama work, it can easily be used for images of any aspect ratio. Depth of field isn't a problem as focus stacking, which is a rarely necessary is always available. While I do miss some of the fun associated with using a view camera, I find that my framing is superior when done back at the computer, unencumbered by a poverty of resolution and lens focal lengths, image circle, etc., for a particular scene and location. Also, sometimes the outdoor environment is harsh and not fitting for artistic thought. If a scene is captured at high resolution, it can be perspective controlled with software and cropped ideally for that specific image, not being restricted to the aspect ratio of the film/sensor, its size, and the focal lengths available at the time the imaging was accomplished. Also, by traveling lighter, I can photograph more, with less fatigue, and achieve better results.

On a recent Iceland trip, I used and Olympus EM-1 with 12-100 travel zoom (my backup camera) and achieved results superior to what could be had with a single shot DMF camera.  That camera often came out when the wind was too high for a tripod and its dual image stabilization allowed for better stitching than with FF.

This seems more about a change in approach. Glad you have found something else that works, but a small sensor isn't competing with 8x10 negs.

[Geods]

A small sensor camera can blow 8x10 away...The original 133MP image was taken with a full frame camera, stitched, and perspective controlled in Photoshop. It can easily be printed over 100-inches wide.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, stitching can easily outdo 8x10. We’ve know that and done that for more than 10 years...

I am looking at a 8 years old 2m wide print from a 300mp D3x + Zeiss 100mm stitch that is vastly superior in terms of detail to anything I have seen from 8x10.

Cheers,
Bernard