Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Arca Swiss M Line Two  (Read 21539 times)
archivue
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2009, 03:56:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
How much shift can you get with this setup? Also, are you using the 50 f/4 CF or CFi? Does this lens use screw-on filters?



My understanding is that the 28mm Digitar is actually the same basic lens design as the 28mm PC Super-Angulon. I've used that lens on my Nikons and it's far from excellent, especially once you shift. It's most definitely not worth $2K, I think I would still use my 24mm PC-E for wider shots.
The 50 CF non Fle isn't as sharp as the others

The 50 CF Fle is a good lens but i went with the Cfi version because i prefer the sync plug...

They all use filters with hassy bayonnet
you can find all the infos there :
Hasselblad V lenses

Considering the 28... the PC super angulon is even better than the digitar, because being the same design, the digitar lack the floating element !


I can't see why you wants to carry an M line 2 in the field for DSLR use...

It's much easier to use a mirex or a zork... it looks like that the best combo is zork with Pentax 645 AF lenses !

Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2009, 09:47:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can't see why you wants to carry an M line 2 in the field for DSLR use...

It's much easier to use a mirex or a zork... it looks like that the best combo is zork with Pentax 645 AF lenses !
A view camera has more flexibility in movements, plus rear shift is more convenient for stitching.
Logged

michaelbiondo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2009, 09:49:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, I am using the 50 mm CF (uses b60 filters), with that lens I can get a 9 frame stitch. Center+ 10 mm up and center + 10 mm down x 3 across, with the 28 mm, still  a 9 frame stitch but I can only get 5 mm before I lose coverage. I do not know about any design similarities to the 28 PC, but I do find the 28 to be very sharp all the way to the edges, just funky with lots of distortion on the edges that I have to correct in PS, very expensive? yes, but I needed it for a specific job (very small interior space) and could not find another option. I bought the cambo set-up  last year used from another LL, forum user. It is a great camera but The Arca was not available then so now I am saving up...


Quote from: JeffKohn
Interesting Michael, it's good to hear from somebody who has used these lenses in the manner I'm considering. Doesn't the Ultima 35 have the same list price as the M-Line 2? I did look into the Ultima 35 until I saw that the bare camera weighed 11lbs, not something I want to be hauling around in the field.

How much shift can you get with this setup? Also, are you using the 50 f/4 CF or CFi? Does this lens use screw-on filters?

My understanding is that the 28mm Digitar is actually the same basic lens design as the 28mm PC Super-Angulon. I've used that lens on my Nikons and it's far from excellent, especially once you shift. It's most definitely not worth $2K, I think I would still use my 24mm PC-E for wider shots.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2009, 02:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the additional info, Michael. Very useful. 3x3 stitch sounds promising, that should allow covering a pretty substantial FOV.

Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2009, 11:27:11 AM »
ReplyReply

FYI for those interested, I've gotten confirmation from Arca-Swiss about the Hasselblad lens adapter:

Quote
Yes we have done first test and are now producing Hasselblad Lens board adapters, I guess they are
available within 2 weeks.  Price will be around 200$.

Best regards

Marc Customer Support
Logged

cunim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2009, 01:42:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Something I have not been able to extract from the discussion - which focal lengths you can actually tilt.

Comparing the Alpa, we have a limit of 80mm and up for use with tilt.  That is a physical property of how the lens and back distances are set.  I lust after a tiltable HR Digaron-W 40 or 50.

What I don't understand is whether any adaptations on the M2 would allow me to tilt the shorter lenses while retaining my focus range.  Any advice?

Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 01, 2009, 03:24:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cunim
Something I have not been able to extract from the discussion - which focal lengths you can actually tilt.

Comparing the Alpa, we have a limit of 80mm and up for use with tilt.  That is a physical property of how the lens and back distances are set.  I lust after a tiltable HR Digaron-W 40 or 50.

What I don't understand is whether any adaptations on the M2 would allow me to tilt the shorter lenses while retaining my focus range.  Any advice?
Unfortunately, the Rodenstock HR-W 40mm and 50mm cannot be used with the M-Line 2 DSLR. Although they are retro-focus designs, the deeply recessed rear elements mean there is not enough rear clearance to use with a DSLR.  It's too bad, these would be very useful lenses if they were compatible especially given the large image circle.

The Rodenstock HR-W 70mm will mount and focus, but doesn't have room for movements according to Christopher.

The Schneider APO-Digitar 72mm has an extra 10mm or so of rear clearance compared to the HR-W 70mm, so it should allow tilts; but I have not gotten confirmation of this from anybody who has actually tried that combo, so at this point it's speculation although I believe it should be possible.

The Hasselblad lenses are SLR designs and should have plenty of clearance to allow tilts, since they're designed for a flange focal distance of 74.9mm.
Logged

cunim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2009, 08:18:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Unfortunately, the Rodenstock HR-W 40mm and 50mm cannot be used with the M-Line 2 DSLR. Although they are retro-focus designs, the deeply recessed rear elements mean there is not enough rear clearance to use with a DSLR.  It's too bad, these would be very useful lenses if they were compatible especially given the large image circle.

The Rodenstock HR-W 70mm will mount and focus, but doesn't have room for movements according to Christopher.

The Schneider APO-Digitar 72mm has an extra 10mm or so of rear clearance compared to the HR-W 70mm, so it should allow tilts; but I have not gotten confirmation of this from anybody who has actually tried that combo, so at this point it's speculation although I believe it should be possible.

The Hasselblad lenses are SLR designs and should have plenty of clearance to allow tilts, since they're designed for a flange focal distance of 74.9mm.


Thank you Jeff.  I understand, though I am not thinking of the DSLR version of the M2.  I want to do this a simply as possible, ideally copying someone's existing and proven implementation.  Christopher's setup looks good but we do different things.  I only need tilt and shift - not swings - so a tech camera would be fine above 80mm and I am about to pull that trigger.  

The M2 offers an alternative (to the tech) as a reasonably portable view camera.  It would be worth extra complexity if the M2 could extend the range of focal lengths that are tiltable.

You point out that, from an earlier post, it appears that the M2 will let me use Hasselblad lenses / shutters via a new adapter, though I suppose they must be mounted in the Arca boards.   Trouble is that I use a 67mm diagonal back.   The Hassi lens circles are pretty small from what I can see, and the glass is not necessarily optimal for high res digital backs.  Guess the V option makes most sense if you have a library of V lenses and can experiment. Otherwise, I would be buying Rodenstock or Schneider in the hope they will work.

Back to the tech camera vs M2.  I know what Alpa does, and that is some of what I want.  The M2 might do more of what I want but that "might" word is difficult to deal with.

Aaargh.  So many variables.  Starting to boggle.
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2009, 08:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cunim
Thank you Jeff.  I understand, though I am not thinking of the DSLR version of the M2.  I want to do this a simply as possible, ideally copying someone's existing and proven implementation.  Christopher's setup looks good but we do different things.  I only need tilt and shift - not swings - so a tech camera would be fine above 80mm and I am about to pull that trigger.  

The M2 offers an alternative (to the tech) as a reasonably portable view camera.  It would be worth extra complexity if the M2 could extend the range of focal lengths that are tiltable.

You point out that, from an earlier post, it appears that the M2 will let me use Hasselblad lenses / shutters via a new adapter, though I suppose they must be mounted in the Arca boards.   Trouble is that I use a 67mm diagonal back.   The Hassi lens circles are pretty small from what I can see, and the glass is not necessarily optimal for high res digital backs.  Guess the V option makes most sense if you have a library of V lenses and can experiment. Otherwise, I would be buying Rodenstock or Schneider in the hope they will work.

Back to the tech camera vs M2.  I know what Alpa does, and that is some of what I want.  The M2 might do more of what I want but that "might" word is difficult to deal with.

Aaargh.  So many variables.  Starting to boggle.

Cunim,  If you're capturing with a digi back and not a DSLR, I'm not sure why you would consider the adapted-lens route.  I actually doubt that the forthcoming adapter will have a mechanism to actuate the leaf shutters, but expect that it is to be used solely with dslrs and will depend upon their focal plane shutters (I could be wrong).  But moreover, why would you consider that route over Rodenstock/Schneider glass?  When using the lenses that were built for these cameras, you have tilt available all the way down to 35mm and possibly wider (not to mention greater shift capability).

Also, if you are considering a tech camera and favor long lenses (in the 80mm+ range) make sure you look at the helical mounts of those lenses on tech cameras.  They look to me to be far less portable than a comparable view camera system.

As with any substantial purchase, investigate as much as humanly possible.  If I can offer any further info, don't hesitate to ask.

-CB
Logged
cunim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2009, 09:33:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Cunim,  If you're capturing with a digi back and not a DSLR, I'm not sure why you would consider the adapted-lens route.  I actually doubt that the forthcoming adapter will have a mechanism to actuate the leaf shutters, but expect that it is to be used solely with dslrs and will depend upon their focal plane shutters (I could be wrong).  But moreover, why would you consider that route over Rodenstock/Schneider glass?  When using the lenses that were built for these cameras, you have tilt available all the way down to 35mm and possibly wider (not to mention greater shift capability).

Also, if you are considering a tech camera and favor long lenses (in the 80mm+ range) make sure you look at the helical mounts of those lenses on tech cameras.  They look to me to be far less portable than a comparable view camera system.

As with any substantial purchase, investigate as much as humanly possible.  If I can offer any further info, don't hesitate to ask.

-CB

Thanks, Chris.  Yes, further info.  Please.  Don't know anyone with an Alpa or Arca in this area (Niagara).

Using the Dalsa 60MP sensor in either the P1 or H implementation.  

Fond of shorter lenses for the movement system.  Think I would use long ones on a DSLR or MF back.  

Need to shift, though about 30% each side will be fine given the size of my subjects on the detector.

Make lots of use of 16-24 mm range on a FF DSLR.  Think I would like to tilt down to about a 40mm FF645, though that is something I have yet to establish.  I have planar surfaces that go from 2m to 15m away.  Will use Helicon when necessary, but not a fan.  

Suppose I could put a T/S24 on my Canon to experiment but the imaging characteristics are so different and doesn't answer the fundamental question.

Simple.  Can I tilt a 40 mm Schneider or Rodenstock on the M2 without either physical or optical interference?  Of course, I need to keep the ability to focus at distance.  If this is doable, the view camera is a better choice for me.  I have no idea why it would be doable with the view vs the tech but hope springs eternal.
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2009, 09:54:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cunim
Simple.  Can I tilt a 40 mm Schneider or Rodenstock on the M2 without either physical or optical interference?  Of course, I need to keep the ability to focus at distance.  If this is doable, the view camera is a better choice for me.  I have no idea why it would be doable with the view vs the tech but hope springs eternal.


I don't have much experience with the tech cameras, so not sure what their limitations are as far as which ones can tilt and what lenses they can tilt.  I know this, though.  I was out shooting a building earlier today with the M2.  I had my Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digi 45mm on with 15mm of rise and 5mm shift.  The top of the building was soft and I was able to tilt to bring it into focus.  The right corner was still a little soft and a slight swing fixed that.

I was easily able to tilt far more than I needed with the Arca.  On a later shot, I also used tilt with the 35mm.  The Apo-Sironar Digi 35mm is really a sub par lens, but even on the P65+ I was able to achieve sharpness across the field with careful focusing and just a little tilt.

The first shot, where I used rise, shift, tilt AND swing displaced any notions I might of ever had about switching to dslr.  Not that I'm biased or anything ; )
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 09:54:37 PM by CBarrett » Logged
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2009, 08:40:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
The top of the building was soft and I was able to tilt to bring it into focus.  The right corner was still a little soft and a slight swing fixed that.

this sounds to my ear like the two standards are not 100% parallel - this is one the biggest difference between the view camera and the flat tech cameras and the main reason why I switched system. I simply had to much trouble getting a even focused image with the 24/35 mm on the view camera.

/adam
Logged

archivue
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2009, 09:07:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: adammork
this sounds to my ear like the two standards are not 100% parallel - this is one the biggest difference between the view camera and the flat tech cameras and the main reason why I switched system. I simply had to much trouble getting a even focused image with the 24/35 mm on the view camera.

/adam


that's where the trouble start... the retro focus 40 must be the larger lens that you can use with a view camera without the need of a computer to be 100% shure about sharpness !
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #53 on: December 02, 2009, 09:27:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: adammork
this sounds to my ear like the two standards are not 100% parallel - this is one the biggest difference between the view camera and the flat tech cameras and the main reason why I switched system. I simply had to much trouble getting a even focused image with the 24/35 mm on the view camera.

/adam


Actually, it's pretty common to have use this sort of tilt/swing when using substantial movements with architecture (or anything else).  Having standards 100% parallel will cause you to miss focus, since as you approach the perimeter of the image circle the focal plane develops some curvature.  Also, the top edge of the building is substantially farther from the lens than the base, so scheimpflug is employed to pull that in, even then, the right corner was yet further away, hence the swing.  Have you noticed that all the tech cameras are adding tilts to their systems (which is hilarious considering they were designed to overcome the issue of lenses being out of parallel)?

Schneider and Rodenstock both state that since smaller apertures are no longer a valid solution to solve depth of field problems as they used to be for film (due to diffraction) that tilts and swings should be employed to overcome focus issues.

I think I need to reconstruct this problem/solution and then borrow a Cambo to setup alongside to verify my argument.

Of course, I admit to being a blind follower of the view camera cult on frequent occasion.  If I'm wrong, it's a lovely excuse to buy an Rm3d!

-CB


Also, as much as I complain about this Apo-S Digi 35mm... when I remove the back and see just what I'm demanding from the optics, I'm amazed I have any image at all.  So Thank You Rodenstock, and Schneider too, for making really excellent glass all these years!

« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 10:10:39 AM by CBarrett » Logged
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 02, 2009, 10:14:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I have yet to encounter a situation shooting a building with a 35 or wider where I needed tilt or swing, and the consensus among my colleagues who use view cameras with MFDB is they have yet to use a view camera that can easily properly focus a 35 or wider lens (because of the standards not being parallel).

That 35 rodenstock you have is notorious for field curvature and focus shift issues. If you bought it from Rod I'm surprised - when I tried to buy one 3+ years ago he told me straight out it was a dog.
The HR doesn't have those issues.
Logged
archivue
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2009, 01:41:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: asf
That 35 rodenstock you have is notorious for field curvature and focus shift issues. If you bought it from Rod I'm surprised - when I tried to buy one 3+ years ago he told me straight out it was a dog.
The HR doesn't have those issues.

"as you approach the perimeter of the image circle the focal plane develops some curvature."

it depends on lenses... and that 35 have focus shift problem as well... that was the reason for me to go with the schneider 35 xl along with my  45, 55, 90 and 120M rodenstock

an other reason was that there's more space betwen the end of the rear element and the MFDB with the 35 XL...

The 35xl have a sort of curvature also but no focus shift, and at F9 - F11 being // is the goal.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 01:42:58 PM by archivue » Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2009, 02:28:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Very usefull info here Chris!

Can you comment on one aspect which i am wondering about.
Compared to using a plate camers (cambo wrs/Artec etc..) I would think its difficult use the Arca for stitching, on a regular plate camera you have a larger focusing screen within which you can shift the digital back around, so you can see your framed image on the groundglass, with the Arca the digital back is fixed in its position on the rear standard so tho shift for stitching you move the whole rear standard rather than just the back within the standards frame.
So you cant ever see the full image you plan on stitching, only what the back is capturing.

Is this correct?

Thanks,
Aaron
Logged
archivue
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2009, 04:22:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaron
Is this correct?

on the arca, the groundglass is 6x9cm...
For stitching with an arca view camera you have two solutions :

Using a stiching back (arca rotaslide or Kapture Group), then you don't move the back frame

or Using the back frame (same as cambo in a way...)


Using a stitching back is indeed the best solution.
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2009, 06:39:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I am such a geek!  I took the M2 out to the garage, clamped the rail firmly to the bed of my jointer and pulled out my dial indicator (with magnetic base).  I zeroed out the indicator with the rear standard in its center detent.  I then shifted completely from one side to the other and then ran the same test with full rise and fall.

The lateral shift showed a variation of .004" across 70mm.  Rise and fall showed less than .001" variation.  I don't own a stitching back, but just sliding my Kapture Group back and forth showed a variation of .003".  I've used the Rotaslide and Phase One's stitching back and neither felt like they were tight enough to best 4 thou.

Just how precise does this stuff need to be anyway?

Now I want an Alpa 12 Max to test!

Thank God I have some shoots coming up!  See what happens when I have too much time...

-C
Logged
Carsten W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622



WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2009, 03:43:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Just how precise does this stuff need to be anyway?

Didn't Joseph Holmes include something in his two articles:

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

I must confess that in spite of intending to, I never got around to reading through both, so my apologies if the information you are looking for isn't there. I only use a 22MP back which works well with my Contax 645 and Contax lenses. My Hasselblad-to-Contax adapter is out though, but I have ordered a Novoflex replacement. I don't use T/S cameras.
Logged

Carsten W - Recent Photos
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad