Review: Linhof Techno

[torger]

I've finally completed a review of the Linhof Techno digital field view camera:

http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/linhof-techno-review.html

It doubles as an introduction to technical cameras in general, so for experienced users there is a bit more information in there than needed. I hope someone finds it useful and/or entertaining. It also contains a focus precision test, as ground glass focusing is something many worry about in the digital era.

(seems like my poor provider's web server has a bit trouble in delivering pictures sometimes so if some picture seems broken just reload it)

[Geoffreyg]

Wonderful. Of particular interest is the "user experience" which is captured here very well. One of the best reviews of this kind of gear. 

[Dick Roadnight]

I believe that the Sinar P3 can be used with lenses as short as 35mm, and, even with the 47XL, with stitching you can get 100 degrees of field of view.

I think you failed to mention that "proper" view cameras give a full range of yaw-free movements on each standard?

[yaya]

I believe that the Sinar P3 can be used with lenses as short as 35mm, and, even with the 47XL, with stitching you can get 100 degrees of field of view.

I think you failed to mention that "proper" view cameras give a full range of yaw-free movements on each standard?

The Techno is a lightweight field camera

The P3 is a heavyweight studio camera and is a pain with WA lenses

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Wow, that's an excellent review. Thanks for sharing!

[gerald.d]

Just started reading this. Very much looking forward to it.

But...

Generally less limited in movements than view cameras.

More limited, I think you mean

[torger]

I believe that the Sinar P3 can be used with lenses as short as 35mm, and, even with the 47XL, with stitching you can get 100 degrees of field of view.

I think you failed to mention that "proper" view cameras give a full range of yaw-free movements on each standard?

Thanks for the feedback. I do mention it but the article is of course rather long and the statements are embedded in there somewhere :-)

This: "I suggest using the shorter macro lenses rather than the longer which makes tilt/swings less limiting, but you won't get as good macro capability as a studio-based view camera which has large tilts and swings on both front and back standard." and this: "This means that modern technical cameras are often more limited concerning movements than yesterday's 4x5" cameras. Only the studio view cameras have kept the full flexibility, at the cost of not being able to use ultra-wides efficiently, and being large and heavy."

I could better describe what the exact limits on the wides are however but it is hard for me to find. There's one thing to be able to put in a triple-recessed board with a 23mm there, another to be able to perform movements in that configuration. I did not find that to be too important though, because the Linhof Techno's use case is out in the field and the greatest competitor is really the pancake cameras from Alpa, Arca-Swiss and Cambo.

[torger]

Just started reading this. Very much looking forward to it.

But...

More limited, I think you mean

Don't you know less is more?   

Thanks, fixed it.

[torger]

So, the rumour was true. Linhof just released a new ground glass for the Techno. I guess this means I must redo all my tedious focusing experiments :-)


New Groundglasses for System Linhof M679 und Linhof Techno

The new Groundglasses are extreme fine and allows easier composition and focusing even with extremely short focal lengths.
These Groundglasses replace the no longer available Acute groundglass.

Technical details
Code 021850-S Groundglass scoring 49x37 mm
Code 021851-S Groundglass scoring 53,9x40,4 mm
Code 021852-S Groundglass scoring 56x36 mm

[ChristopherBarrett]

Nice write-up, Anders!  Just so ya know, I compose exclusively on the groundglass of my Rm3d and don't even own Arca's viewfinder.  I find the whole viewfinder idea ridiculous.  My digi back and Arca system were a $60k investment.  Why would anyone spend that kind of money to make photographs of only approximate composition?

CB

[torger]

Nice write-up, Anders!  Just so ya know, I compose exclusively on the groundglass of my Rm3d and don't even own Arca's viewfinder.  I find the whole viewfinder idea ridiculous.  My digi back and Arca system were a $60k investment.  Why would anyone spend that kind of money to make photographs of only approximate composition?

CB

Thanks! I changed the wording a bit to more clearly say that people do use ground glass on those systems too :-), I still don't think it is that common though.

I have been sitting around waiting for Linhof to launch this new ground glass mentioned above and had the wrong scoring size meanwhile so I have worked a bit approximate and making final adjustments if any when seeing the LCD result, I think it worked quite well. With a faster newer back it probably works even better. So I don't think those that don't use the ground glass makes approximate compositions in the end, but may start with that.

[chrisschmidphoto]

Very informative review, thanks! I'm using a Linhof Techno with the IQ180 for landscape photography and I am very happy with it. The new ground glass in frame is at least 4 stops brighter than the old one and makes using the camera with wa lenses a breeze. You will need a loupe with a square opening in order to get into the corners of the recessed ground glass though. Linhof Studio UK offers a Silvestri 12x loupe, which works fine for me.

Best regards,
Chris

CHRISTOPHER SCHMID PHOTOGRAPHY
www.chrisschmidphoto.ch

[greygrad]

Is it 4 stops brighter than the old standard ground glass or the acute one?

If it's that much brighter than the acute one then wow ... swore I wouldn't buy another ground glass ... but might just have to.

[chrisschmidphoto]

I'd say its at least 4 stops brighter than the old standard ground glass/fresnel combination.

[siebel]

Nice write-up, Anders!  Just so ya know, I compose exclusively on the groundglass of my Rm3d and don't even own Arca's viewfinder.  I find the whole viewfinder idea ridiculous.  My digi back and Arca system were a $60k investment.  Why would anyone spend that kind of money to make photographs of only approximate composition?

CB

Interesting. I don't have a viewfinder for my Alpa STC either. Like you, I find I need far more precision for most of my work. On the fly, I shoot a frame and compose on the screen of the IQ back (this is most of my industrial work which is fast and furious) or wherever possible, I tether, giving me the best viewfinder of all - my 15in Retina screen. In situations where I am shooting handheld from a moving platform, such as when suspended from cranes on construction sites, I simply hold the camera up and view directly over the top, much as I do a shotgun. With practice, I find I am about as accurate as with the viewfinder, and much faster.