Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Arca-Swiss Rm3D arrived  (Read 20428 times)
yaya
Guest
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2008, 03:36:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Sinar is 10.6" wide when looking through the ground glass, but with the digital back slid into place, it is about 15" wide, much wider than the other two cameras.  If you're shooting a small interior space, trying to get the camera in a doorway, or right up next to something, it's a bit wide.

Sinar ArTec:  10.6"  wide,   7.5" tall,    2.75" thick.
Alpa MAX:   7" wide,         8" tall,       1.25" thick.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rm3d:

7" tall
6.5" wide
1.5" thick inc. focusing drum

Regarding side shifts, one can use the Rotaslide which provides unlimited shift, I guess (I still have to check about the widest lens usable with the Rotaslide.)

To be clear, my intention for posting this was not to trumpet up any of these cameras...I just felt that being one of the first to use the new Rm3d I'd share it with this forum.

We have most if not all the MF and LF cameras in our demo/ test arsenal and have no affiliation to any of them.

Yair
« Last Edit: July 27, 2008, 03:47:40 PM by yaya » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2008, 07:00:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Appreciate that you guys love your Alpa and Sinar products...  But the tilt adapter for the Alpa is currently vaporware or at the very least not shipping for maybe another 4 to 6 months, and the Sinar isn't shipping yet either and when it does it will only be offered in Sinar mount.  So for those of us that want a rigid, compact, non-view-camera-based solution that has tilt NOW, the Silvestri Flexicam and the Arca Rm3D appear to be the only options...  

The 10mm shift is not a serious concern for me as that is about the limit of good behavior for the 35 HR anyway.  Plus, for pano stitches, I have started doing more nodal pans as they are quicker to acquire and merge almost as well as a perfect shift capture.  The fact I can add the Rotaslide, at least for longer lenses, AND can add the bellows adapter for long or close, opens up some additional flexibility on the Rm3D.  I have owned Arca products in the past and have always been extremely impressed with the quality, so I am basically in a get-it-now mode on this camera

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 27, 2008, 07:03:15 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1128


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2008, 08:06:44 PM »
ReplyReply

i am working the last weeks with my artec prototype and the handling and precision of the camera is amazing,- it should be a convincing product, so it looks at the moment for me. i hope there will be samples of the artec at the distributors of sinar  available that everybody can try it out.
i.m.o. the handling and the possibilities make the artec at this moment  to the only camera of its kind in the market, meanwhile the others ( cambo, arca, horseman ) do what is, unfortunately, the most common habbit in the industry of our days: they only look to the competitors and copy a successfull concept. this was created by alpa. the copies try to cut something of the cake which is eaten by alpa, with cheaper prices or with this or that little feature adition,- but i.m.o. there is nothing innovative and i would not think twice which camera i would buy of this 4 cameras ....
i was several times very closed to buy an alpa because i love how they are made and also i like  their system thought. i didnt do it because i never was convinced of the viewfinder concept, so i had asked mr gottschalt 2,5 years ago to make a custom made sliding back for me together with a rotatable back. resulting from my working experience in shooting architecture with digital and many discussion with other architecture shooters, i could convince later sinar that the only way to catch the architecture market ( which still is to a large percentage on 4x5 film )  is to offer a camera which does not make the compromises of the viewfinder concept in terms of the handling / workflow. for me, and this is not just my personal vision, viewfinder work is too unprecise for architecture work and i dont like it therefor for precise image compositions ,- the offered alternative to use a groundglas and to exchange it for the back is creating too much stress and hassle on location work for me.
in general i allways thought that its not very tempting to step up from 4x5" film work to a digital system ( after spending 30.000 - 50.000 bucks ) if this new system does has a significant lower level of possibilities to compose your image than you had with you 4x5" groundglas.
for me working with viewfinders was and is a compromise, therefor nearly no one did this in 4x5" times, except some for image pre- compostions.
so the only way to go for me in digital architecture photography is using an accurate made sliding back, with a bright groundglas and a good loupe to see the entire image exactly in the way as it will appear in the shot. but as i said, everyone should try the camera out ...

in the final version of the artec it will also be possible to mount a viewfinder ( or another accessory ) on top of the artec, if someone wants this.  it seems to make sense for the marketing that sinar will offer the chance to use a viewfinder with the artec ( although it was not me who was behind this feature ).  lets see if someone really will use this possibility after starting to work some days with the camera and its sliding back.

in any case i dont feel the mission to start an ideologic pro - or contra - viewfinder discussion, so probably i will stay out of it in case there should appear 100 treads about it in LL.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2008, 08:46:25 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
ARCA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2008, 05:21:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v,Jul 28 2008, 01:06 AM
i am working the last weeks with my artec prototype and the handling and precision of the camera is amazing,- it should be a convincing product, so it looks at the moment for me. i hope there will be samples of the artec at the distributors of sinar  available that everybody can try it out.
i.m.o. the handling and the possibilities make the artec at this moment  to the only camera of its kind in the market, meanwhile the others ( cambo, arca, horseman ) do what is, unfortunately, the most common habbit in the industry of our days: they only look to the competitors and copy a successfull concept. this was created by alpa. the copies try to cut something of the cake which is eaten by alpa, with cheaper prices or with this or that little feature adition,- but i.m.o. there is nothing innovative and i would not think twice which camera i would buy of this 4 cameras ....


Dear Rainer

So what are the innovative possibilities of the artec compared to an ARCA-SWISS Rm3D ?


Martin
ARCA-SWISS International
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1128


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2008, 05:37:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dear Rainer

So what are the innovative possibilities of the artec compared to an ARCA-SWISS Rm3D ?
Martin
ARCA-SWISS International
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hi martin,
 i dont want to sound arrogant here,- innovative is  that a working photographer has made it,-  which leads i.m.o. to another feature set as if it is made by engineers,- these might have photographic background but rarely they stand behind a camera weeks and months and years.
i think most cameras would look and feel different, if this would become more habit in todays industry..

technically the artec is built around a sliding back as its base.
the back IS the camera, its not an accessory. the viewfinder is one.
then there are many details, as the shift/ rise / fall ways ( how many  millimteres ), the 360% turn around base, the fixed 0% setting of the tilts, the rotateable tilt as well as the back,
short the whole set of features and how it was designed.


in any case i  am looking forward to hold a rm3d in my hands too, as soon this will be possible-
when it was announced first time ( wasnt it in early 2007 ? ) it was looking
tempting to me and i was interested in one so i phoned you one time about its availability,  over one year ago.....
« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 06:54:55 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
bryanyc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2008, 08:11:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to toss this in: the Alpa max has vertical shift on the front, horizontal on the rear.  But through a tripod mounting plate that attaches to the front standard, the lens is able to be kept stationary.

I am a long time Arca LF user, and I have seen the new camera at the NY Photoplus show.  The viewfinder is particularly nice, zooming I think.  The camera I am less sure about for various reasons.   Another thing that has always puzzled me (that is being polite) is how Arca has until this time has not been able to create a web site.  Their distribution is also thin.

Soon we will have some better comparison available between the new cameras:  The sinar arctech, the Alpa Max, the Cambo RS and this Arca Swiss (and the Silvestri).  There may actually be a choice of good view cameras for MF digital!

btw Rainer, I can envision a day soon when a small attached display will be available that will make the sliding back less necessary than today.   Not as nice as composing on 4x5 ground glass but perhaps nicer than  6x4.5 ground glass.
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1128


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2008, 08:23:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
btw Rainer, I can envision a day soon when a small attached display will be available that will make the sliding back less necessary than today.   Not as nice as composing on 4x5 ground glass but perhaps nicer than  6x4.5 ground glass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i dont belive in this as a fast available possibility, seeing how slow good displays became available or still arent,- or how this need is ignored completely ( p65 ).  
even if a bright, sharp live view on lcd will be available ( in how many  years ? ) , for my taste careful groundglas composing will remain more intuitive.
but this we will see if this things will exist,- and i need to work now, not with "maybe" features  in 2, 3 or 4 years.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 10:25:37 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
MHFA
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2008, 01:18:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Some years ago I tried to convince ALPA to make a sliding back. Now I tested the SINAR and i am very happy with it. Competition is good for the photographers. My favourite brand of Film based Kameras was Linhof. They are selling so much film based cameras to China that there is no really digital product.
The ALPA is a wonderful camera, but for architecture the tilt and the sliding back is necessary IMO. In the moment you can only use SINAR and LEAF Backs, but there will be adapters, if not from SINAR, then from other ones.
The Arca looks quite nice, but I think it is a too complicated concept. ARCA announced this camera with a sliding back and a digital distance meter over two years ago. Last year a photographer from here wanted to buy one, it will come next month, was the answer, every month, a whole year long...
Hope with the Artec will not happen the same, for me it is the first architectural digital camera which is not more limited than my film based cameras.(if the 23mm comes)

Michael
Logged
TorbenEskerod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2008, 02:44:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The ALPA is a wonderful camera, but for architecture the tilt and the sliding back is necessary IMO.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Michael, Rainer

It is getting interesting here, I complement you Rainer for getting Sinar to build your dream camera - BRAVO.

But, this works for your workflow, for me as a fellow Architectural photographer I have a different workflow.

For me a sliding back and tilt would be 2 features I absolutely would NOT have in a camera for Architecture.

1. The sliding back looks too clumsy for my taste, and I have no use for it at all. I also use ground glass to compose my images, but I would rather take my back on and off - this ensures me that no dust have sneaked in to the censor, to give me hours extra work in PP.

If you shoot tethered (a lot of Architectural Photographers explore this option for their workflow) then the sliding back is also not useful.

2. If you ever tried to chim an ALPA you will notice that 1/100 yes 1/100 of an mm difference will change your focus by 1 meter on a 35XL lens. I would be very worried by adding tilt to a high precision camera. The same goes for the precision of a sliding adapter.

The Arca looks cool, and I like the lens feature. But tilt - no thanks. It also has limited movements for stitching.

For me the real competition is between the Alpa Max and the Cambo RS

Cheers

Torben
Logged
Jeffreytotaro
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2008, 04:51:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I second everything Torben said!
Tilt for the shorter lenses is of no use and will cause more trouble than it's worth for sure.  I occasionally use Canons 24 T/S and I find that a slight inadvertent tilt throws everything off.

I have an Alpa 12 MAX and a Cambo Wide RS now.  See my review of the RS here on LL.  I'm still getting to know the Alpa, but WOW!  I have used a Wide DS for 2.5 years with great results.  Never wanted tilt.
Logged

Jeffrey Totaro
http://www.jeffreytotaro.com
IQ260 Alpa MAX & SWA
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1128


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2008, 05:03:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael, Rainer

It is getting interesting here, I complement you Rainer for getting Sinar to build your dream camera - BRAVO.

But, this works for your workflow, for me as a fellow Architectural photographer I have a different workflow.

For me a sliding back and tilt would be 2 features I absolutely would NOT have in a camera for Architecture.

1. The sliding back looks too clumsy for my taste, and I have no use for it at all. I also use ground glass to compose my images, but I would rather take my back on and off - this ensures me that no dust have sneaked in to the censor, to give me hours extra work in PP.

If you shoot tethered (a lot of Architectural Photographers explore this option for their workflow) then the sliding back is also not useful.

2. If you ever tried to chim an ALPA you will notice that 1/100 yes 1/100 of an mm difference will change your focus by 1 meter on a 35XL lens. I would be very worried by adding tilt to a high precision camera. The same goes for the precision of a sliding adapter.

The Arca looks cool, and I like the lens feature. But tilt - no thanks. It also has limited movements for stitching.

For me the real competition is between the Alpa Max and the Cambo RS

Cheers

Torben
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


hi torben,
nice to see you here in LL again ...
thanks for the flowers, yes its nice to have the camera now, especially because its made beautyfull and precise. i like good and precise handcraft work.



about the decision between the cameras i see the things little bit wider:
if someone will change today from 4x5" to mf his decision will be in my opinion between two concepts:
the sinar concept which is sliding back based and 4x5" oriented ( in terms of working style ) and
the alpa concept, which is viewfinder based and comes out from the older alpa 12 series, often used in the film days for travel and landscape photography.
because the alpa is longer in the market and successfull there are several players who ( more or less good ) "copy" this concept, so in the viewfinder based systems you have more choices than just the alpa..... as the cambo, arca, horseman and others.

lets see how people who change now from 4x5" to digital  will see the cameras and the workflow which is implicated by them.

about your points:
the artec is not clumsy.  you should see the camera to see how small it is.
what you write about dust is exactly one of my argument against removing the back:
you have to control it before every shot if dust settled in, after you have removed the sensor.
yes, its done fast,- but you have to check before EVERY shot ...? ... i dont like this if it has not to be.
although there is no wrong or right in such workflow decision, the artec is a joy to work with. at first because it works so simple and smooth. no worrys about where to put the sensor, how to cover it, if there might appeared new dust on the next shot, no thought about  not touching the groundglass necessary with the fingers ... and so on.

i work now since app. 3 weeks with the  artec and the dust behavior is amazing.
if the sensor is clean i can work SEVERAL days without any spot of dust on it.
i never had a camera which is similar dust-free.

do you think you would say the same, if you wouldn't work now for longer time successful with your system? i still cant see the logic why it should be better to remove for every shot the sensor and mount the groundglass on the camera, if this is not necessary.
i think its uncomfortable to deal with the removed back, to lay it down careful, to cover it, to check for dust before mounting it again, to take care that it is mounted well .,..... similar act than with the groundglass .... its complicate. if it has not to be, why should one want this hazle, if he doesnt already has his system and got acostumbrated to it in many shots.

about tolerances:
the alpa is very nice made and i love good handcraft work. but so is the sinar.
its a joy to touch it and everything feels smooth and 100% precise.
both companies have a lot of experience how to make cameras, you feel that.
dont worry about 1/100 tolerances. the sinar  and the alpa are both absolute on top in this.

its fun to have tilt after some years of working with the gottschalt without one.
i enjoy it a lot ...
and there are absolute no sharpness problems with the artec if it is put to its zero position.
its not more, not less usefull or useless as it was in 4x5" cameras.
the mechanism is made from the beginning with the knowledge that it just should be done if it is 100% secure and easy to reset, -  you will see.
useless its only for alpa and cambo users, because they cannot use it .... ( lol )

i dont expect that a lot of alpa users will change now their systems fast.
its really expensive and the alpas are very nice cameras.
( i personally do not have a similar feel if touching the cambos, i saw a prototype of the rs in the US and i cant say it impressed me ).
further i dont advice to noone to change things ( esp. in the digital world )  after they work good.  but how will decide people who come from 4x5" film? there are a lot who still have been waiting for the "right" system to come.
beside myself   , this is the main "target" group i saw for the artec.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 05:30:42 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2008, 05:30:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the sinar concept which is sliding back based and 4x5" oriented ( in terms of working style ) and
the alpa concept, which is viewfinder based and comes out from the older alpa 12 series, often used in the film days for travel and landscape photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Rainer

You know that I'm going to say this  

BUT, for me the Alpa concept is NOT viewfinder based but ground glass based - and it's not that different from my 4x5" workflow, here I also took my reflex viewer off, due to weight and precision of the film plane, before inserting the readyload holder, and when using rollfilmholders on the 4x5" there was absolutely no difference from my workflow today.

 
adam
Logged

Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2008, 05:56:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Commendations for the polite discussion of these two different viewpoints. Both seem valid enough. Thanks for enlightening us.

Geoff
Logged

Geoff
bryanyc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2008, 08:38:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Already we have the ability to preview the image on laptops: tablets will be here sooner than many suspect, and this will be the new laptop preview on location.  It will never be a good as a 4x5 or 8x10 ground glass view: but then again the 6x4.5 is also a teeny screen.  

The alpa will have a tilting adaptor for 80mm lenses and longer starting this Fall in conjunction with "short barrel" mounted lenses, but not for wide angles (which is probably smart and ok).  Alpa does seem to make their deadlines (at least they did with the production of the Max) and the build quality is there.  But this thread is about the Arca, and how well it works.  A major factor is how accurate it is with wide angles and the tilt mechanism (this applies to the arctech as well).  Personally, I like the assurance of a fixed mount with these super wides as the tolerances are just unforgiving: and we have to think about over time if those tolerances will remain.  I too have the tilt shift canons: the first thing I would do with a new 24 shift is tape down the tilt mechanism side of the lens with gaffers tape top and bottom.  It is too easy to knock it slightly off in the camera bag and you don't see this in the viewfinder.  As I said I have held the Arca and was not totally impressed.  Maybe it is silly but the acrylic handgrips bugged me.  And the lens mount: I wasn't sure about either.  But perhaps it would be fine.

One  of the major advantages of the Alpa's is that it is not just one camera:  you can swap your lenses onto one of 4 basic bodies (ok 5 if you differentiate between the sw and the swa) and have a very hand holdable camera, actually the smallest MF camera outfit possible, with the Travel Compact (TC).  For those who go on expeditions of various sorts this is a great benefit.

I am interested in seeing and trying the sinar arctech- it may be a great solution to shooting architecture and interiors.  But somehow I am not interested in the sliding back thing: and it is part of the camera body, non removable as far as I see.   I have become used to composing almost just by sight, and then framing up with a viewfinder, as I did with the fuji 6x9's.  But I am not shooting interiors for magazines much anymore, which I did with the pentax 6x7, where it is useful to have ground glass viewing.  But that job now falls to the camera bodies we now have like the hy6 and the mamiya and it seems like they will have at least one shift lens available for each when it is all said and done- though the quality of those shift lenses is still in question.
Logged
Prakash Patel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2008, 02:37:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael, Rainer

It is getting interesting here, I complement you Rainer for getting Sinar to build your dream camera - BRAVO.

But, this works for your workflow, for me as a fellow Architectural photographer I have a different workflow.

For me a sliding back and tilt would be 2 features I absolutely would NOT have in a camera for Architecture.

1. The sliding back looks too clumsy for my taste, and I have no use for it at all. I also use ground glass to compose my images, but I would rather take my back on and off - this ensures me that no dust have sneaked in to the censor, to give me hours extra work in PP.

If you shoot tethered (a lot of Architectural Photographers explore this option for their workflow) then the sliding back is also not useful.

2. If you ever tried to chim an ALPA you will notice that 1/100 yes 1/100 of an mm difference will change your focus by 1 meter on a 35XL lens. I would be very worried by adding tilt to a high precision camera. The same goes for the precision of a sliding adapter.

The Arca looks cool, and I like the lens feature. But tilt - no thanks. It also has limited movements for stitching.

For me the real competition is between the Alpa Max and the Cambo RS

Cheers

Torben
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Torben

You are right it is getting interesting with the different offerings for the optical bench side of image making.

It is amazing how easily we can adapt to a specific camera features (or lack of)  and/or workflows predicated by specific backs or personal approaches/ preferences.

I like to work both with a groundglass and a viewfinder:  in some situations it  is
appropriate  to rough out the shot with a viewfinder and fine tune via ground glass,
LCD, or a tethered laptop.

But if the light or events in the picture are moving quickly or unpredictably, I would like to
be able to respond appropriately without the camera imposing specific limitations:
tripod or handheld, viewfinder or groundglass (sliding or fixed), tethered or untethered.

As of yet, I have not had the option in my primary camera system to have tilt/swing functions
nor a sliding back solution and its great to see Sinar and Arca offering these.........provided they lock in to a zero position

Like you, I would be concerned about the tolerances and precision particularly with extreme
wide angle like the 24xl ( the focus tolerance is higher the the 35xl..........to move the focus from 11 meters to infinity the helical focusing mount moves between 1/300mm to 1/500mm).
As well as the wear and tear on the sliding back components.......... But, I am also confident the Sinar has this under control, particularly since Rainer has used a similar camera for several years and has hands on experience...


Its one thing to know the engineering constraints/tolerances and market them as features and quite another to actually use the camera and have actual empirical knowledge...........in this scenario sometimes there is a dialog between the photographer and the manufacturer and better product may evolve

I may simply have adapted to not having a tilt/swing function and so currently it may not  be a  part of my visual vocabulary..........but if it is competently manufactured and available, why would I not want this feature?  

The innovative design concept that Arca is introducing (body focus and tilt) clearly is complex
to manufacture to these sorts of tolerances required by the ultra wides. It is a neat concept to have a pancake camera with body focus mechanism that also works lens standard on a Arca monorail.

It is also interesting the see the CamboDS make an evolutionary leap to the lean,mean, hand holdable  CamboRS as well as the Alpa XY being refined to the MAX.

The reality is that we will need back up technical camera...........so the "family" offerings by
Cambo, Alpa, and Arca (soon I hope) as well as Sinar (arTec "mini" - without sliding back)
are welcome. It would great to have a full featured slidingback camera as well as small robust technical camera...........of course the same manufacturer has to offer this range to utilize the lenses efficiently.

Hey, why don't the camera guys get together with the back guys and offer a  camera back up solution complete with  digital backs that are left over from the upgrades?

Some of these new offerings and options may actually change the way we shoot and execute
post production.

If you are in the market for a technical camera, this is a pretty good time as the features
of the various camera systems are actually more responsive than restrictive
« Last Edit: July 30, 2008, 12:08:13 PM by Prakash Patel » Logged

Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2008, 07:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I must admit being surprised that I'm not seeing a lot of "landscape" photographers chiming in with comments on this topic.

I shoot landscape and hope it meets the criteria of being called "fine art".

Standing in the middle of a fast flowing stream, perched on an algae covered slippery rock trying to be sure my tripod is stable (which holds my P45+ back) is not a time I want to be changing digital backs and ground glass to get a crisp focus of the scene in front of me.  As you can see from the index image currently on my web site (Glen at High Shoal), one slip of either the tripod or myself, and the H2/P45+ I was using at the time would have become a paper weight.  (http://www.shadowsdancing.com)

By time I got out of that stream, I was damn glad I was shooting on an H2/P45+ rather than any camera that was available in the market at that time that required exchanging the camera back.

Now, I come from years of 4x5 film work and scanning on my own Howtek HiResolve 8000 line scanner, which I also had developed software to control on the SGI platform.  

Yes, I've had falls in situations like the above when shooting film BUT all that was lost was the film in the sheet holder and an hour on the shore drying off the 4x5 and lens, and both could have been replaced for a fraction of the cost of today's digital back or even an Alpa body (I always keep one hand on the tripod leg so if it starts to fall, I go with it and brake its fall with my body.  I know, not real smart but it works.)   :-)

So, going back to when the P45 was introduced and I realized that I could get near 4x5 film/8K scanned image quality from it, I abandoned my 4x5.  

However I was unable to find a camera/digital back solution at that time that gave me everything I had in my 4x5, particularly lens tilt for DOF, and did not require removing a digital back in the middle of a stream, or on the edge of a cliff, or perched on the limb of a tree X feet above the ground, etc. to focus.  Thus I "compromised" on the H2 and P45+ combo.  Then I was disgusted with Hasselblad when they closed their system to Phase and others and just recently I sold that gear.

So, as of today I'm sitting here without a camera and back to the issue/s I've been trying to find gear to resolve for the last 2 years!  

That said, I must admit to having an interest in the Sinar ArTec with the following reservations:

1.  I want lens tilt!  But I constantly hear from fellow photographers that no one has made an ArTec or Alpa type with a back that is going to be ROCK SOLID STABLE when lens tilt is introduced into the engineering equation shooting with a wide angle lens.  Being that I've worked with digital sensors from the Eikonics days - pre Kodak purchase of them - I tend to feel this is more than likely correct, particularly with wide lenses.  Will the ArTec prove me wrong???

2.  The cost of entry on these specialized cameras is adding to the already outrageous cost of a full hi-res digital back.  

Few of us in the landscape realm can begin to generate the revenue stream needed to deal with the initial investment in gear let alone the depreciation!  Thus, we must keep our day job.

3.  Closed system for lenses/digital backs is a true turnoff - allows for obscene price mark ups on lenses/back "that must be adapted" to the specialized camera system and blocks us out of digital back improvements/price reductions made by competitive firms.

4.  No way that I'm going to swap a digital back and GG in the vast majority of situations I shoot in.  Here ArTec may have met this requirement, but I doubt it will be "cost effective" for the fine art fool like myself.  And again I'm locked into a closed system for digital backs, etc.

Now, someone is sure to say go back to film and scanning.  Yes, I've thought of that but I'm not done with seeking a more cost effective solution to the problem that does not entail the drawbacks of film/scanning.  

Frankly a MF and MFDB with Helicon focus is adequate, but by no means ideal - just ask that limb on the tree to hold still while I shoot multiple frames for Helicon Focus.  Then add to this multiple frames of each image that will be stitched together after being worked in Helicon Focus for a pano shot!

In closing, I still find no open architecture, "cost effective" solution that is offering an adequate range of lens tilt with a bullet proof focus technique that does not put a digital back in harm's way when shooting landscapes in the "wild".  (As to a sliding back for stitching images, I find using the RRS solution to be excellent for my landscape work - as seen in the 6 frame index page image currently on my web site.)

OK, I feel better now having vented my frustration on this issue.  

If I've missed the camera that does meet the above criteria - PLEASE enlighten me!

Jack
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 08:10:31 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2008, 08:12:28 AM »
ReplyReply

A Silvestri Flexicam with sliding adapter? Unfortunately I have not yet heard of anyone actually using it.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2008, 08:36:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If I've missed the camera that does meet the above criteria - PLEASE enlighten me![{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe you ask Wolfgang Gottschalt to built one for you.
High precision: I think so, yes.
Cost effective: for a unique camera? ... well, ask him ;-)
[a href=\"http://www.gottschalt.de/de/kameras.html]http://www.gottschalt.de/de/kameras.html[/url]
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 08:38:32 AM by tho_mas » Logged
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2008, 11:12:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A Silvestri Flexicam with sliding adapter? Unfortunately I have not yet heard of anyone actually using it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23800]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=23800[/url]
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 11:13:25 AM by BJNY » Logged

Guillermo
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2008, 12:23:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A Silvestri Flexicam with sliding adapter? Unfortunately I have not yet heard of anyone actually using it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doesn't work with lenses under about 50+mm focal length, since the back element of the lens interferes with the bellows. Bicam is a much better investment, for a Silvestri.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad