Cambo TS for RS/ DS

[clawery]

Cambo will be releasing a new Tilt/ Swing adapter soon and I wanted to get some initial images of the prototype out for everyone to see. Pricing as well as date of availability will be following soon.

Attached are some images of the new Tilt/Swing Lensboard for Cambo Wide DS / RS / Compact.

The part is not yet anodised, so it looks a bit odd, so don’t mind about that.

The upper knob drives the Tilt (over 5 degrees forward and backwards both)
The sideplaced knob drives the Swing (over 5 degrees leftward and rightwards both)

A unique feature is the ability to use both movements simulteanously in any combination,
wihout need to rotate or remount an adapter.
The pivoting axles are both really close to lens, thus avoiding the image to drift out of the center when tilting, compared to some other systems.
Also, in comparison with the Hasselblad HTS system, our solution does NOT add any optical elements, degrading the image, and it does not effect the actual focal length…

The mechanism has a certain thickness, so that it allows the 47XL Digitar to be operated.
It will also host the Schneider 58,60,72,80,90,100,120 and 150.
But also available for Rodenstock 28HR,35HR,40HR,45,55,70HR,90HR.

Each of these lenspanels will be an optional Tilt-Swing version, apart from the original non TS version.

Technically it is way more precise to incorporate the mechanism as one unit with the lens, which also allows for optimised alignment.
Also this construction allows for the minimal thickness to allow for relatively shorter focal lengths.

Cambo will also offer to retrofit existing lenspanels into T/S version.



Chris Lawery(e-mail Me)
__________________
Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 404.234.5195
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[attachment=14655:WideTS_01.jpg]
[attachment=14656:WideTS_04m.jpg]

[etrump]

The mechanism has a certain thickness, so that it allows the 47XL Digitar to be operated.
It will also host the Schneider 58,60,72,80,90,100,120 and 150.
But also available for Rodenstock 28HR,35HR,40HR,45,55,70HR,90HR.

Very interesting.  Too bad it doesn't work on the 35XL, m favorite lens.  Sounds like you will need one for each lens, is that correct?

[clawery]

Very interesting.  Too bad it doesn't work on the 35XL, m favorite lens.  Sounds like you will need one for each lens, is that correct?

I believe that is correct, but hope to have all the details soon.  I wish it would work on the 35mm... that is a very sweet lens!


Chris Lawery(e-mail Me)
__________________
Sales Manager, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 404.234.5195
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[schaubild]

I keep wondering why you would need tilt on such short lenses?

And it makes me nervous being forced to remount a perfectly adjusted lens...  

[michele]

Well, the Silvestri's Bicam has tilt movments... it can work with the 35, and it doesn't need a special mount for each lens, just a baionett and you have a very good tool... Oh, and it costs less then cambo...

[Jack Flesher]

Well, the Silvestri's Bicam has tilt movments... it can work with the 35, and it doesn't need a special mount for each lens, just a baionett and you have a very good tool... Oh, and it costs less then cambo...

I have never seen the Silvestri in person, but a user I know thought it was so poorly made he returned it...

As for limited lens compatibility, that is pretty common due to IC limitations.  Anyway, I would be very happy to have a 47 set up that way with everything else in normal mounts...

[chrisg77]

Great! Glad to see Cambo is adding useful parts to the system. Makes me glad I bought the RS (in addition to that it works quite well now).

Speaking of parts, this is the first time I've seen the leveling base with accessory mount as well.

Is anyone out there using the accessory mount and what are you attaching to the "spigot mount for adding useful accessories" as Cambo calls it?
Love to hear others uses (compendium/shade, etc?) if anyone has this yet.

[jonstewart]

Well, the Silvestri's Bicam has tilt movments... it can work with the 35, and it doesn't need a special mount for each lens, just a baionett and you have a very good tool... Oh, and it costs less then cambo...

Sorry Michele,
Incorrect, I think. The bicam can mount the 35xl only in helical for rear shift (+/- 17mm), with stitching back, and rise fall (+/-17mm) built into the body This is also true for the wider lenses, and the 38SA I use. It [35xl] does not work on the bellows, which permits the tilt and swing. A 47 is about the widest you can (comfortably) use on the bellows, but I think the new Rodie 40 might work as well. Each lens requires a suitable bayonet mount, although you probably could share some between lenses if you were desperate - they're not that expensive!

I'm fairly shocked that Cambo decided on a solution that you require per lens! They already have rather high mounting costs, a fact that put me off buying one in the first place, hence the Bicam.

@Jack - I returned a Flexicam, since it wasn't designed to be used with a 35 to allow stitching. I've found the design and engineering of the Bicam to be very, very good. OK, it's not an Alpa (or likewise), but doesn't have that pricetag either  !

Hope this helps - and yes, I would recommend the Bicam as a cheap(-er) and flexible solution.

[etrump]

I keep wondering why you would need tilt on such short lenses?

And it makes me nervous being forced to remount a perfectly adjusted lens...  

DOF of course.

[schaubild]

DOF of course.

A very simple statement.

With a quite aggressive CoC of 0.035 the hyperfocal distance for a 35mm lens at f11 is 3.25m (on a 36x48 sensor). This will give you sharpness from 1.6m to infinity.

If the camera is put on a tripod at 1.6m height, the 35mm lens covers the ground from 3.1m distance from the camera, which means everything that is seen on the ground to infinity is sharp.

So my question is still valid: I keep wondering why you would need tilt on such short lenses?

[rainer_v]

A very simple statement.

With a quite aggressive CoC of 0.035 the hyperfocal distance for a 35mm lens at f11 is 3.25m (on a 36x48 sensor). This will give you sharpness from 1.6m to infinity.

If the camera is put on a tripod at 1.6m height, the 35mm lens covers the ground from 3.1m distance from the camera, which means everything that is seen on the ground to infinity is sharp.

So my question is still valid: I keep wondering why you would need tilt on such short lenses?

sometimes you want or you need to open the f more, e.g. in dark environments.
sometimes you even have closer objects,
sometimes you want to do the opposite, you can create interesting unsharpness with tilting.
i wouldnt say its a must but it makes sense if you have it. more nowadays where you can use the lcd for sharpness checking, if your back allows 100% view.

[schaubild]

sometimes you want or you need to open the f more, e.g. in dark environments.
sometimes you even have closer objects,
sometimes you want to do the opposite, you can create interesting unsharpness with tilting.
i wouldnt say its a must but it makes sense if you have it. more nowadays where you can use the lcd for sharpness checking, if your back allows 100% view.

You didn't get the point. Tilt is not a bad thing.

But due to their great sharpness range and the very great sensibility to focus plane misalignments it's just not making real sense with short focal lengths.
You're right that one needs a monitor not only for checking the sharpness but also for all the interesting effects you get when doing close range photography with extreme wideangles (curvature of field, distortion).

[tho_mas]

With a quite aggressive CoC of 0.035 the hyperfocal distance for a 35mm lens at f11 is 3.25m (on a 36x48 sensor). This will give you sharpness from 1.6m to infinity.

I am interessted in this particular topic as I do NOT use hyperfocal distance at all with digital. I don't have a 35mm LF lens but the Digitar 47XL. When I set the lens to infinity (and f11) infinity is tack sharp and I have a certain DOF. When I set focus back to, say, 10meters... infinity is soft. Though this is by far inside hyperfocal distance by defintion).
Maximum I set back focus is like shown in the image. When I set the lens to any closer distance than that infinity gets soft (well, not soft but if you are very critical regarding sharpness you already see a loss of sharpness - and no, the lens is not misaligned, quite the contrary).

[attachment=14779:foucs.jpg]

[schaubild]

I am interessted in this particular topic as I do NOT use hyperfocal distance at all with digital. I don't have a 35mm LF lens but the Digitar 47XL. When I set the lens to infinity (and f11) infinity is tack sharp and I have a certain DOF. When I set focus back to, say, 10meters... infinity is soft. Though this is by far inside hyperfocal distance by defintion).
Maximum I set back focus is like shown in the image. When I set the lens to any closer distance than that infinity gets soft (well, not soft but if you are very critical regarding sharpness you already see a loss of sharpness - and no, the lens is not misaligned, quite the contrary).

[attachment=14779:foucs.jpg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

This subject has already been discussed numerous times.

[michele]

Sorry Michele,
Incorrect, I think. The bicam can mount the 35xl only in helical for rear shift (+/- 17mm), with stitching back, and rise fall (+/-17mm) built into the body This is also true for the wider lenses, and the 38SA I use. It [35xl] does not work on the bellows, which permits the tilt and swing. A 47 is about the widest you can (comfortably) use on the bellows, but I think the new Rodie 40 might work as well. Each lens requires a suitable bayonet mount, although you probably could share some between lenses if you were desperate - they're not that expensive!

I'm fairly shocked that Cambo decided on a solution that you require per lens! They already have rather high mounting costs, a fact that put me off buying one in the first place, hence the Bicam.

@Jack - I returned a Flexicam, since it wasn't designed to be used with a 35 to allow stitching. I've found the design and engineering of the Bicam to be very, very good. OK, it's not an Alpa (or likewise), but doesn't have that pricetag either  !

Hope this helps - and yes, I would recommend the Bicam as a cheap(-er) and flexible solution.

ooooooops!!  didn't know that!

[etrump]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

This subject has already been discussed numerous times.

His question has merit.  The link you sent gives him nothing related to understanding his issues.  

Thomas, I would suggest you create a topic of your own for this.

[tho_mas]

Thomas, I would suggest you create a topic of your own for this.

maybe... but I know how my lenses perform at wide, middle and close distances. So nothing to solve for me personally.
It's only just that even with wide angles (if e.g. the 47XL count's as "wide") some tilt for extended DOF might be useful in some situations.
Though I agree with "schaubild" about the critical alignement. Am curious if the Cambo tilt/swing mount will be geared so that the zero setting is locked.

[bdp]

I am interessted in this particular topic as I do NOT use hyperfocal distance at all with digital. I don't have a 35mm LF lens but the Digitar 47XL. When I set the lens to infinity (and f11) infinity is tack sharp and I have a certain DOF. When I set focus back to, say, 10meters... infinity is soft. Though this is by far inside hyperfocal distance by defintion).
Maximum I set back focus is like shown in the image. When I set the lens to any closer distance than that infinity gets soft (well, not soft but if you are very critical regarding sharpness you already see a loss of sharpness - and no, the lens is not misaligned, quite the contrary).

[attachment=14779:foucs.jpg]

I have also discovered this phenomenon with digital. I set my 45mm Contax lens to f11 and set the focus to the hyperfocal distance but noticed during processing that the image was soft at infinity. I assumed my Contax lens was made for film, and maybe a digital sensor needs different focus markings on the lens for the hyperfocal distance.

This is from Wikipedia: "The hyperfocal distance is entirely dependent upon what level of sharpness is considered to be acceptable. The criterion for the desired acceptable sharpness is specified through the circle of confusion (COC) diameter limit. This criterion is the largest acceptable spot size diameter that an infinitesimal point is allowed to spread out to on the imaging medium (film, digital sensor, etc.)."

So I suppose that the 'acceptable level of sharpness' is more sensitive with digital capture compared to film. We can pixel peep with digital and we don't have film grain to help give the illusion of sharpness.

Ben

PS Held a Cambo today at the Sydney PMA trade show - very nice! Compact, light, nice thumbwheel controls on the back.

[tho_mas]

PS Held a Cambo today at the Sydney PMA trade show - very nice! Compact, light, nice thumbwheel controls on the back.

Did you see the TS insert? Do you know if the zero setting is geared?
Thanks!

[bdp]

Did you see the TS insert? Do you know if the zero setting is geared?
Thanks!

No they didn't have one at the stand. They just told me of it's existence.

Ben