Recent Posts

Wow thanks for all the insight. Yes I am new to photography and I just want to show the images I am taking in the best way possible. I am not too concerned at this moment of them being stolen but it is a point well taken. I will do more testing and trying out. Posting to facebook and tumblr and a little on flickr at this point. Looking to eventually get into a business frame of mind so learning how to present best quality. Thank you all for the considered answers really appreciate it!!

Here's a couple from a recent trip to Escalante.

One from directly below the Crack-in-the-Wall showing Coyote Gulch.

The other from a Willow Gulch.

enjoy.

 No, that is skillful and appropriate HDR. In fact, I would not have guessed HDR if you had not mentioned it.

This is great to see. Thanks for doing this. Will you be adding to your lens list? Maybe the Apo Sironars (good value), and also the just previous version of the Rodie 90 HRW.

You're welcome. We don't have plans at the moment to cover legacy lenses in this chart. But it's not out of the question for the future. Thanks for the suggestion! Lenses like the 90HR-W are indeed a good value, especially for lower res backs.

[requires less exposure]

Exposure is measured in lux seconds and is independent of the ISO. ISO (film speed on see Wikipedia) does affect our exposure decisions, since it describes how the sensor responds to exposure in terms of saturation.

That same page goes on to say:

An appropriate exposure for a photograph is determined by the sensitivity of the medium used. For photographic film, sensitivity is referred to as film speed and is measured on a scale published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Faster film, that is, film with a higher ISO rating, requires less exposure to make a good image

Again, maybe semantics, but the sentence above seems to link ISO and exposure together. Or as I said earlier, how can one expose properly, even within the ballpark without taking ISO into account?

[Lens Quality]

Isn't the party over for technical cameras in this digital age?  I enjoyed using them long ago, and would like to think there may be some life left in the old gal in spite of my empirical conclusions to the contrary.  But honestly I have no recent firsthad experience, and am ready to be corrected.

Download the JPG of the IQ180 with a 32HR at the link below. Open it, compare it to any wide angle for a Canon or Nikon or Phase or Hassy body and then tell me if you think the party is over.
http://www.digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/28mm-32mm-test

Our tech camera sales are up year over year for the last three years. The live view, 100% review, focus mask, and now wireless review of the newer generation of Phase/Leaf backs have made them a more practical/enjoyable/fool-proof solution than with past backs.

If you're in NYC at any point you're also welcome to come play with a modern incarnation of tech cameras to get more hands on experience from which to judge.

Tech cameras are used by various kinds of photographers for various reasons:
Lens Quality: (likely to hold true as long as Nikon/Canon/Hassy/Phase SLR bodies have a mirror box - see about wide angle lens design constraints)
Movements: on (nearly) all lenses
Traditional/tactile physical interface: large knobs, mechanical dials and a very direct connection to the imaging process (personal preference of course)
Flash sync speed
Lighter/smaller when compared to an SLR (obviously only applies to the small body/lens combos like the RC400+35XL)

It's not a solution right for everyone. In fact it's surely one of the more narrowly applicable tools out there. That's one of the reasons I love them; they are designed to excel at a narrow range of applications (landscape, architecture, interior, street) rather than do pretty well at everything.

What backs are you considering?

The table is based on extensive personal, professional, and consultative experience with Leaf Aptus II, Credo, Phase One IQ, and IQ260 backs. Results for other brands/models are likely to be very similar when comparing non-micro-lensed backs of similar pixel size, but you'd want to consult with experts in those other systems or do your own testing to be sure.

We have seen examples here of digital back fails from rather modest lens twiddling

Indeed, a 28XL and IQ180 for instance show problems even with no movement. Hence that lens/back combo is listed as a "no" for compatibility.

But this is an issue of very specific combinations. If you use a bad combination of lens and back (namely Schneider wide angles with an 5.2 micron back) you will get very poor results. All other combinations work extremely well. That's one of the main goals of this chart is to show which combinations are not recommended, and which combinations will be movement-limited compared to their stated image circles.

, and there is this in the article which I sense may be a little understated...

DB Compatibility: Smaller pixel sizes (in microns) cannot accept light from strong angles. The IQ180 with 5.2 micron pixels, for instance, does not work well with the Schneider 28XL or 35XL. "Limited" means you cannot use the entire image circle - when doing large shifts/rise/tilt/swing/stitching you may encounter severe color cast. When using a combination marked "limited" it is very important to use a center filter wherever practical.

I don't see what's understated. We've clearly listed the lens/back combos which are limited or incompatible. If you feel one of the lens/back combos is not correctly listed please say so here or email me and I'll be glad to reconsider. But I think this is a very fair breakdown (based on many dozen hours of my own testing, and working with many tech camera customers over several years).

If anything I think this listing is overly conservative in that it lists the 35XL as "no" for compatibility with an IQ180 when you can use it with movements up to around 10mm. But I figured it was better be conservative in the chart and have a conversation on a client-by-client basis about what expectations/priorities/needs they have. A street shooter using an Cambo RC400 with no need for movements for instance would be better off (in my opinion) with the smaller, lighter, less expensive 35XL than the Rodenstock 32HR (in contrast an architectural shooter would likely be better off with a 32HR budget allowing).

Thanks Scott. I was just experimenting with the camera's HDR feature since I've never used it before. I'm actually quite please with the result. It does make sense to a bracketed set of images in RAW and combine them in PS or Photomatix, but most times introducing the human element to HDR images just screws things up. At least in my case, I just want to tweek everything and before I know it the processed image just looks weird. I think the in-camera HDR works best for me

Lovely, Roman.

But why shoot in-camera HDR when you can shoot three or more RAWs and have control over the outcome in processing? Just curious.

Buy something like one of these - http://www.lifesystems.co.uk/products/mosquito-nets/head-net.html - and be prepared to wear it a lot

The OP's image is fine. The yellow car is bloody awful

Slow connections make it untenable.

How so?