Which View cameras and digital backs?

[Satyajit]

I specialise in automotive photography.
50% indoor and 50% outdoor.
Based in India. Printing workflow not the best.

I used to shoot with canon FF for a few years (due to costs ofcourse). Realised I had maxed out the possibilities. Over the past two years moved to MF(leaf aptus 6ii). Loved the medium and produced what I believe is my best two years of work.

Having trained in large format early on I had always itched to shoot on a view camera.
Now having hard earned the means to do so, I have decided to move into view camera(23) and a new MF full frame back.
Been looking around (options for try and buy are non-existent here).
First on offer was cambo 23 with phase one IQ160 with schnieder lenses. Maybe a wrs1000 when I shoot using a motion rig or just an MF body just for that purpose.
Was very interested in the sinar system(f3, 86hf and lenses).
If I am to make my decision on the premise that my industry standards are not good enough, then even the 35 ff would do.
But I want to invest in this firstly to full fill my interest in large format photography and secondly to offer the fruits of large format photography to my automotive clients(which may appear only subtle to them now)
Obviously at the this level, the choice is going to be between ms and one shot.
I know I can't use ms for outdoors on most occassions. But I am really tempted to see really stunning outputs.
I would like suggestions and insights that would help me make up my mind.
Looking forward to it..... Thanks in advance.....

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I believe that multi-shoot and micro step is the pursuit of perfection and you can loose your mind going down that path. I would suggest a Linhof Techno or a Sinar P3 because they are built-for-digital, although other companies like Horseman, Arca and I'm sure I'm forgetting some others at the moment.

I'm not really sure why you want to use a view camera, plate cameras (Alpa 12 bodies, Arca RM3Di, Cambo among some others) seem to be all the range and very much capable and certainly easier to use then full-on bellows view cameras. But hey, to each his own.

I'm currently reviewing the Hartblei Hcam which is really nice if you need wide angles, especially if you have canon tilt-shift lenses because the camera comes with a Canon mount, worth a look if you go the plate-camera route instead of view.

[Satyajit]

Thanks Brian,

I intend to use a bit of movement on the rear standard to create or eliminate distortion on the vehicles.
This I presume is not possible on plate cameras.

[mediumcool]

I intend to use a bit of movement on the rear standard to create or eliminate distortion on the vehicles.
This I presume is not possible on plate cameras.

The real deal with *technical* cameras to minimise distortion (rather than create it) is to zero the back to vertical (that is, the whole camera), and make front movements from there, which may be shift only, or shift and tilt, depending on camera/lens configuration. Another way of negating the need for tilt is to use focus bracketing, AKA stacking.

[Satyajit]

The real deal with *technical* cameras to minimise distortion (rather than create it) is to zero the back to vertical (that is, the whole camera), and make front movements from there, which may be shift only, or shift and tilt, depending on camera/lens configuration. Another way of negating the need for tilt is to use focus bracketing, AKA stacking.

Agreed in most circumstances. With the automobile we are creating a certain character look that sometimes does not happen due to the distance between the front of the car being closer to the camera than the rear (in a front of car facing camera setup). Here the back of the car will appear smaller than the front (obviously). Some times this does not communicate the perceived look of the car and it helps to manipulate that size a little bit. It may sound unconventional, but it works, as I have done earlier on film.

[mediumcool]

Agreed in most circumstances. With the automobile we are creating a certain character look that sometimes does not happen due to the distance between the front of the car being closer to the camera than the rear (in a front of car facing camera setup). Here the back of the car will appear smaller than the front (obviously). Some times this does not communicate the perceived look of the car and it helps to manipulate that size a little bit. It may sound unconventional, but it works, as I have done earlier on film.

I understand what you’re saying, and it reminds me of a relatively unknown fact[oid] about perspective, which involves the reproduction size of an image in, say, a newspaper, and the viewing distance. It all relates back to the original shot and its parameters. Generally speaking, longer lenses reproduce the perspective more accurately once the image is printed, and viewed. But geometric accuracy is not always desired. 

[TH_Alpa]

Dear Satyajit,

This is possible with the Alpa cameras, by mounting the T/S adapter on the rear plane.

The Alpa Max or XY would be a good choice for the type of work you intend to use the camera for:

Alpa 12 Max

or

Alpa 12 XY

Best regards
Thierry

Thanks Brian,

I intend to use a bit of movement on the rear standard to create or eliminate distortion on the vehicles.
This I presume is not possible on plate cameras.

[Satyajit]

Dear Satyajit,

This is possible with the Alpa cameras, by mounting the T/S adapter on the rear plane.

The Alpa Max or XY would be a good choice for the type of work you intend to use the camera for:

Alpa 12 Max

or

Alpa 12 XY

Best regards
Thierry

Thanks.
Looking at the demo the tilt and shift adaptor seems to be compatible with only lenses 80mm and above. There's also an offset of the lens mount. Wouldn't this be a limitation? Especially since I have worked on the 4x5 format.

[TH_Alpa]

Dear Satyajit,

Currently the tilt/swing is limited for lenses from 80mm and longer, but I have informed recently about the new Alpa Tilt Capacity with Wide Lenses, here:

Alpa Tilt Capacity with Wide Lenses

Read my Post #12

This new tilt & swing possibility will be available within the 1st semester 2012.

Concerning the offset: he current T/S Adapter is to be used with short barrel lenses, cf. here:

Alpa 0-6° (12°) tilt/swing adapter

Best regards
Thierry

Thanks.
Looking at the demo the tilt and shift adaptor seems to be compatible with only lenses 80mm and above. There's also an offset of the lens mount. Wouldn't this be a limitation? Especially since I have worked on the 4x5 format.

[haefnerphoto]

Satyajit, I had similar aspirations a year ago and bought the Arca M2.  It is a beautifully built camera and has the movements you're looking for.  I found it almost impossible to focus with wide lenses though and returned it for the RM3di which I use for my architecture work not my automotive work.  I do know of other car photographers using tech cameras but they are not concerned with the ability to alter the perspective of the vehicle so much as to produce an image with stunning resolution (sharpness).  For my automotive work I use the Mamiya 645 camera and a P45 and P45+.  While the lenses are not as sharp as the tech camera lenses they are certainly adequate.  I used to shoot a lot of 8x10 and would pull up the back of the car by swinging the back, it's a nuance that no one will appreciate today.  I wouldn't worry about it myself.  Because of the time constraints we work with these days on car projects the view/tech camera might slow you down too much.  I'm very happy with the Mamiya/P45 combo I use and recommend it highly.  You can buy two P45 backs for less than the cost of a new IQ160 (I think, perhaps it's close, I bought a used back for $12,000 this last year).  Jim

[Satyajit]

Satyajit, I had similar aspirations a year ago and bought the Arca M2.  It is a beautifully built camera and has the movements you're looking for.  I found it almost impossible to focus with wide lenses though and returned it for the RM3di which I use for my architecture work not my automotive work.  I do know of other car photographers using tech cameras but they are not concerned with the ability to alter the perspective of the vehicle so much as to produce an image with stunning resolution (sharpness).  For my automotive work I use the Mamiya 645 camera and a P45 and P45+.  While the lenses are not as sharp as the tech camera lenses they are certainly adequate.  I used to shoot a lot of 8x10 and would pull up the back of the car by swinging the back, it's a nuance that no one will appreciate today.  I wouldn't worry about it myself.  Because of the time constraints we work with these days on car projects the view/tech camera might slow you down too much.  I'm very happy with the Mamiya/P45 combo I use and recommend it highly.  You can buy two P45 backs for less than the cost of a new IQ160 (I think, perhaps it's close, I bought a used back for $12,000 this last year).  Jim

Thanks Jim,
Its true about the lack of time we are pushed into. And in our part of the world nothing much is appreciated. But if I think that way then I could do with a ff 35mm as I have done earlier.
I am willing to throw in some time and attitude and enjoy the slow purposefulness of shooting with a View Camera.
You may be right of the rear standard swing, but I seem to have a hangover and seem to want everything I had on my 4x5. Hopefully over the next few days I would be able to address it more objectively.
The Arca M2 really wets my appetite. SHouldn't focus be easier to achieve with the new Phase One IQ backs that have live view?
The other thing I have heard is that the Arca metals begin to rust in tropical climates(where I live).I have had a friend whose Ball Head Jammed up when he moved from Canada to India. Has there been any more such reports?

[haefnerphoto]

Thanks Jim,
Its true about the lack of time we are pushed into. And in our part of the world nothing much is appreciated. But if I think that way then I could do with a ff 35mm as I have done earlier.
I am willing to throw in some time and attitude and enjoy the slow purposefulness of shooting with a View Camera.
You may be right of the rear standard swing, but I seem to have a hangover and seem to want everything I had on my 4x5. Hopefully over the next few days I would be able to address it more objectively.
The Arca M2 really wets my appetite. SHouldn't focus be easier to achieve with the new Phase One IQ backs that have live view?
The other thing I have heard is that the Arca metals begin to rust in tropical climates(where I live).I have had a friend whose Ball Head Jammed up when he moved from Canada to India. Has there been any more such reports?

I'm not sure how well the live view works on those backs, maybe it will make a difference, with wide lenses I found it impossible to focus using a lupe.  It's my understanding that it's not as good as the 5Dmk2, which works well.  I have no idea about the metals but I wouldn't think Arca is any different from other manufacturers.  Jim

[cng]

If you're truly looking for a digital-capable LF camera, then also consider the Linhof M679cs.  Contact Paula at Linhof Studio in the UK — she is extremely knowledgeable with all things Linhof.  I own one, with my shortest lens being the 60mm Apo-Digitar.  Yair Shahar ("yaya" on this forum) has posted examples of car and product photographers using the M679 — it was either this forum or on getDPI, I can't remember which.

Other tech cameras with tilt/swing to consider are the Cambo Wide RS with TS lenses or the Arca Rm series.  I own the Cambo but have no experience with the TS lenses.  Short lenses work much better on tech cameras than a rail-based view camera.  The getDPI MF forum has a range of Cambo, Arca and Alpa owners, so you might want to post your question there too.

[fotometria gr]

Thanks Jim,
Its true about the lack of time we are pushed into. And in our part of the world nothing much is appreciated. But if I think that way then I could do with a ff 35mm as I have done earlier.
I am willing to throw in some time and attitude and enjoy the slow purposefulness of shooting with a View Camera.
You may be right of the rear standard swing, but I seem to have a hangover and seem to want everything I had on my 4x5. Hopefully over the next few days I would be able to address it more objectively.
The Arca M2 really wets my appetite. SHouldn't focus be easier to achieve with the new Phase One IQ backs that have live view?
The other thing I have heard is that the Arca metals begin to rust in tropical climates(where I live).I have had a friend whose Ball Head Jammed up when he moved from Canada to India. Has there been any more such reports?

I think the Sinar P2 that I have listed for sale here on Lula, may do the lot for you, The system can be expanded to P3, P-DSLR for Canon or Nikon, 8X10, stitching 4 images to cover the whole 4x5 area, multishot and microstep with the proper back and electronic shutter! Not that the Cambo Ultima cannot do the above, ....but I have listed the Sinar. By the way the multishot 4x and microstep 16x image quality you can hve when you shoot stills with an inexpensive 22mpx 7years old back..., Is way better than any shingle shot image and perhaps it will be so for the next couple of decades..., just imagine if you stitch 4 such images on a 4x5! Its a pitty that it can only be true on stills... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[Satyajit]

I have finally decided on the Phase One IQ180. MS backs are great but the logistics of getting stable electricity and good lights in India is way too much to handle.

Also by doing a few hours of test on my old 45, I have come to realize that a view cam with full rear standard movements may not be required. And as Jim pointed out may actually cause more head aches.

The set of movements I do need would be a full range on the front standard and rise/fall shift combination on the rear. The disappointing aspect for me is that very few cameras seem to offer this combination. Listed below a few personal contraints I find in each of the listed cameras. I hope some one can suggest how I could  over come these through either accessories or mounting methods.

Linhof Techno : No shift on the rear standard.

Arca swiss RM3D  : No Swing on the front standard (does the RL3d have this feature?)

Alpa : Lenses below the FL of 80m cant be used on the tilt/swing adaptor.

The horseman VCC Pro DB seems to be the only camera that has all the features I require and falls into the light weight category.
Could someone let me know how Horseman figures in the service part? as I have heard rumours that the company is in a transition period.

[TH_Alpa]

Alpa : Lenses below the FL of 80m cant be used on the tilt/swing adaptor.

Satyajit,

Please refer to my post 8: there will be the possibility to tilt/swing with short focal lenses soon.

Thierry

[Satyajit]

Thanks Thierry.
Does this mean that I can confidently consider buying the Alpa within the next month?
If so. Pls let me know who the dealer is in India. Or do I need to make a trip some where
To make the purchase?

[yaya]

Satyajit perhaps for all these movements a Cambo WDS is the ticket for you, with T/S lens mounts

[Satyajit]

Satyajit perhaps for all these movements a Cambo WDS is the ticket for you, with T/S lens mounts

Thanks. You are right. Will seriously look into it right away.

[john milich]

i use the cambo wrs with SK43 and 120 and Rod70 all in T/S mounts.  the back has +/-15-20mm rise shift both ways.  I also use a IQ160 and find the focus mask, where you shoot and check what is in focus, then adjust for the next shot.  other than operating tethered, this is the best way for me.  some have tried live view, i have not, but it is there.  previously, i used the Xact wtih a digital back and ground glass adapter.  had all the movements but you could simply not see what was happening on the tiny GG. the beauty of the 4x5 ground glass focusing is not part of the digital back approach, sadly.  I think the Phase IQ backs are very useful for tech cameras, probably would have made the Xact a keeper.   shooting tethered offers the use of a large monitor and also focusmask via capture one.

what one really wants is a large, at least 4x5, live view image.  with the IQ, you get a pretty good, but small and dead, image