New camera from Arca Swiss: the Pico

[vjbelle]

I can't speak to the needs of anyone else but I also have a Sony 7RM5 and the dedicated Rotafoot for it and have used it with my M-Two but have found no advantage over using my Fuji 100 II. I initially thought that I would gain some slight advantage with the slighter shallower flange depth of the Sony but the Rotafoot negates all of that by making the adapter longer ( don't know why ) so that wide lens limitation remains the same as the Fuji.

To me the best of all worlds still remains my CFV-100C along with my Fuji 100 II. I get the gorgeous color of the Hassy plus the use of any lens available for bellows and the Fuji fills in all of the gaps (flash, etc) except for wide for which I can used dedicated Fuji lenses.

Victor B.

 

[Chris Barrett]

Victor, I can use the A7r3 on the Rotafoot with Canon glass (just barely). The A7cr looks to have the smallest grip, so that may be my next body. Problem is, my inner child wants the GFX 100 II. Maybe I'll get both, play for a while then sell off whatever doesn't work.

John, thanks... I always turn to GetDPI when I want to hear from people who have tried every likely possibility out there.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The reality is that the XT is a great solution - but its not commercially viable nowadays for most profesisonal photographers. Nobody is going to pay you 500 bucks more because you write medium format system on the invoice.

It has flash sync, Sony BSI and the XT lenses cover 23 to 90 (138 is not native XT).

I mean we live in the era where all companies cut marketing budget because they think AI can do it anyhow. So in that environment go ahead and spend a ton of money on an XT system ... for most doesnt make sense. Too much risk, especially when the next best is a lot more affordable.

I have a friend who's a fashion photographer in Paris and he said jobs available have significantly dropped over the last two years because of brand assessing the need for 3rd party photography services. ... Not good for high end camera system sales.

 

[vjbelle]

My experiences with the Fuji 100 II are all positive. When I owned a 60XL I was able to shift easily 18mm LR in Portrait position and get an effective FOV of a 36mm lens. I just recently purchased a Rody 50mm and the use of the Fuji is extremely limited with no movements. I can use the older style bellows connector and have enough clearance to shift as much as I would like but that adapter is very cumbersome compared to the elegant Rotafoot. My Sony offers no advantage. So I am relegated to using my Schneider 72mm as the widest shiftable lens and if I choose I can shift that lens 18mm LR portrait position and end up with a FOV of a 43mm lens (3X2 format). No distortion with edge to edge sharpness. None of this meets your needs but thought I would pass along my experiences.

I think you would have a lot of fun with a 100 II.

Victor B.

 

[rdeloe]

My experiences with the Fuji 100 II are all positive. When I owned a 60XL I was able to shift easily 18mm LR in Portrait position and get an effective FOV of a 36mm lens. I just recently purchased a Rody 50mm and the use of the Fuji is extremely limited with no movements. I can use the older style bellows connector and have enough clearance to shift as much as I would like but that adapter is very cumbersome compared to the elegant Rotafoot. My Sony offers no advantage. So I am relegated to using my Schneider 72mm as the widest shiftable lens and if I choose I can shift that lens 18mm LR portrait position and end up with a FOV of a 43mm lens (3X2 format). No distortion with edge to edge sharpness. None of this meets your needs but thought I would pass along my experiences.

I think you would have a lot of fun with a 100 II.

Victor B.

How do you feel about the port positions on the GFX 100 II? That seems to be driving people who use L-brackets in portrait orientation around the bend because the port for shutter release cables is now on the left side.

That's a real shame about the Rodenstock 50mm. You're confirming what my spreadsheet tells me (that the rear is just inside the Rotafoot). I'm happy enough with my Mamiya G 50mm, which is not shift-limited, but the results you and Warren are showing with the Rody 50mm and the CFV 100C do look spectacular.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

My experiences with the Fuji 100 II are all positive. When I owned a 60XL I was able to shift easily 18mm LR in Portrait position and get an effective FOV of a 36mm lens. I just recently purchased a Rody 50mm and the use of the Fuji is extremely limited with no movements. I can use the older style bellows connector and have enough clearance to shift as much as I would like but that adapter is very cumbersome compared to the elegant Rotafoot. My Sony offers no advantage. So I am relegated to using my Schneider 72mm as the widest shiftable lens and if I choose I can shift that lens 18mm LR portrait position and end up with a FOV of a 43mm lens (3X2 format). No distortion with edge to edge sharpness. None of this meets your needs but thought I would pass along my experiences.

I think you would have a lot of fun with a 100 II.

Victor B.

Sorry, why with a shorter FFD, could you shift more with a 60XL than with the 50 HR?

Is this because of space dimensions?

 

[vjbelle]

It isn't just FFD but the combination of 'IT' and the protrusion of the rear lens element. I cannot shift at all with the Rody 50mm when using the Rotafoot. I can shift to my hearts content if I use the older bellows connector ( A real Pita ). The 60XL 'Just' cleared the Rotafoot but that's all I needed. I could shift 18mm LR in portrait position with that lens.

Victor B.

 

[vjbelle]

How do you feel about the port positions on the GFX 100 II? That seems to be driving people who use L-brackets in portrait orientation around the bend because the port for shutter release cables is now on the left side.

That's a real shame about the Rodenstock 50mm. You're confirming what my spreadsheet tells me (that the rear is just inside the Rotafoot). I'm happy enough with my Mamiya G 50mm, which is not shift-limited, but the results you and Warren are showing with the Rody 50mm and the CFV 100C do look spectacular.

Rob..... the 50mm Rody is just spectacular! I had the Rody 40mm purchased, packed and ready to ship when I cancelled all because I was paranoid about the CFV-100C banding. In retrospect the 40mm may have been the perfect compromise for me but the 50mm is so outstanding that I have stopped second guessing the purchase. So it goes 35XL, Rody Trio ( 50mm, 90mm, 138mm). As we all know now the banding issue is almost moot because it is so easy to fix.

Victor B.

 

[vjbelle]

How do you feel about the port positions on the GFX 100 II? That seems to be driving people who use L-brackets in portrait orientation around the bend because the port for shutter release cables is now on the left side.

My 100 II is 98% of the time on my M-Two attached to the Rotafoot which rotates so I don't utilize a full L Bracked - just a bottom plate. I have never used a cable release as most of my shooting utilizes the 2 sec delay feature. The only time I would need a cable release would be for Bulb and that situation hasn't come up yet.

Victor B.

 

[rdeloe]

My 100 II is 98% of the time on my M-Two attached to the Rotafoot which rotates so I don't utilize a full L Bracked - just a bottom plate. I have never used a cable release as most of my shooting utilizes the 2 sec delay feature. The only time I would need a cable release would be for Bulb and that situation hasn't come up yet.

Victor B.

That's what I figured. The concern does seem to be limited to people who use cable releases with L-brackets and are shooting in portrait.

It was a strange decision by Fuji. L-brackets are not exactly unusual devices...

 

[diggles]

To me the best of all worlds still remains my CFV-100C along with my Fuji 100 II. I get the gorgeous color of the Hassy plus the use of any lens available for bellows and the Fuji fills in all of the gaps (flash, etc) except for wide for which I can used dedicated Fuji lenses.

I completely agree that the Fuji 100 II and CFV-100C combo is the best of both worlds. The Fuji is my main camera for work, particularly for architecture/interiors, headshots, and general marketing photography. The GFX system gives you access to Canon TS lenses, Nikkor TS lenses, Fuji TS lenses, and other excellent GF lenses. The CFV-100C is my go-to for personal assignments and projects I do for fun. While the Fuji is quite capable and could handle all my needs, I genuinely enjoy the technical camera experience.

Problem is, my inner child wants the GFX 100 II. Maybe I'll get both, play for a while then sell off whatever doesn't work.

The crop settings on the GFX are incredibly useful for architectural photography, essentially doubling your focal length options. For instance, a typical three-lens setup with a full-frame sensor camera gives you 17mm, 24mm, and 50mm. On the GFX, these same lenses offer 13.5mm, 17mm, 19mm, 24mm, 40mm, and 50mm. Adding the superb GF 30mm TS lens to your kit provides a nice range of focal lengths.

Personally, the TS lenses I use are the Laowa 20mm, Fuji GF 30mm, Canon 50mm, Canon 90mm, and Fuji GF 110mm TS lenses with the GFX 100 II. This setup gives me a versatile range of options for various shooting scenarios, tethering with C1 is a breeze, and I can use a radio slave to trigger my strobes.

 

[Adammork]

That's what I figured. The concern does seem to be limited to people who use cable releases with L-brackets and are shooting in portrait.

It was a strange decision by Fuji. L-brackets are not exactly unusual devices...

The placement of the cable release on the 100II is annoying - but on the Smallrig L-bracket you can shift the vertical part out making room for the cable and, important, it have a small bracket that hooks onto the strap eyelet on top of the camera and secured with a small bolt.
That little bracket makes all the difference in terms of stability of the setup - it work.

 

[foster_jb]

Victor, I can use the A7r3 on the Rotafoot with Canon glass (just barely). The A7cr looks to have the smallest grip, so that may be my next body. Problem is, my inner child wants the GFX 100 II. Maybe I'll get both, play for a while then sell off whatever doesn't work.

John, thanks... I always turn to GetDPI when I want to hear from people who have tried every likely possibility out there.

Hi Chris. I use the A7R2 on something similar to the M2. The A7CR has even less of a grip than that, so movements won't be an issue. If you want even more space, then don't use the Rotafoot (even though it's convenient for switching from portrait to horizontal). There is a thin bayonet piece that can be used instead.

Best,
John

 

[Chris Barrett]

Running a bit OT, but brand new GFX 100 II vs the A7r4. So very similar. Perhaps the limiting factor is my 24 TS-e II? So if the Fuji only really excels with their 30mm TS, then I have to question using it on the Pico with Canon glass. More explorations to come. I'm off to Columbus, IN for the weekend to attend the AP Almanac summit and will take the Fuji along to put through its paces.

 

[cunim]

Running a bit OT, but brand new GFX 100 II vs the A7r4. So very similar. Perhaps the limiting factor is my 24 TS-e II? So if the Fuji only really excels with their 30mm TS, then I have to question using it on the Pico with Canon glass. More explorations to come. I'm off to Columbus, IN for the weekend to attend the AP Almanac summit and will take the Fuji along to put through its paces.

Very hard to tell from this type of comparison. What do you see at 100%? Resolving power in an optical chain is the product of the modulation transfers of each component in that chain. Therefore, we need to look at fine detail (above about 1500 lp cycles) to actually see anything significant. Not possible with compressed images.

All I am saying is that the GF/GFX pairing will perform much better than the A7Rxx/Canon or GF/Canon pairings, but only with fine details. That is what I see when pixel peeping with my A7rII vs GFX100 II (informal comparisons). They are both great, until I get into the microcontrast and details. Then the Fuji pulls ahead. The IQ4 + Rodenstock does even better. The differences are there between all these systems, but I would have trouble seeing them in a web image. I guess they matter - or not - depending on what you are trying to achieve.

 

[Doppler9000]

Very hard to tell from this type of comparison. What do you see at 100%? Resolving power in an optical chain is the product of the modulation transfers of each component in that chain. Therefore, we need to look at fine detail (above about 1500 lp cycles) to actually see anything significant. Not possible with compressed images.

Given that the sensor architecture is essentially the same for the GFX 100 and the A7RV, 100% should look about the same.

 

[Chris Barrett]

That's what I'm seeing (minus a small diff in color science). And I get that it's not going to make any real difference with web viewing. I have a new toy, though, and it's always interesting to compare. Will the investment make any difference at all in what my clients are seeing in the final product? Probably not.

 

[cunim]

Given that the sensor architecture is essentially the same for the GFX 100 and the A7RV, 100% should look about the same.

Yep. You can include the IQ4 in that group of similar sensors. Full frame, micro MF and full frame MF give you the same basic performance, just over larger areas with larger chips. To my eye, the lenses are where it's at. For example, I enjoy using a 90 summicron asph (M mount) on the GFX. Over most of the image, pretty comparable to a native Fujinon. 'Course, the Fujinon will render the corners much better, but I do like the images I get with the Leica. Dare I say that modern Rodenstocks are better (looking at you 138HR) - but that is just to my pixel peeping eyes. I know lots of us have made that comparison and concluded the lens difference is absent or irrelevant.

The strength of the pico is as a convenient tool with which to play these comparison games. Practical?

 

[diggles]

The Pico's rigid body is a big step up from the Actus, making it a great system for many applications. However, it still has the same issues with wide lens choices when using mirrorless camera bodies. While a digital back opens up the system to wide lenses, the flash sync with a digital back isn't as user-friendly as with a camera body that has a mechanical shutter, making it a hassle for interior shots unless you’re not using flash. This is why I don’t see it as an ideal option for architectural and interior photographers.

 

[vjbelle]

For sure the Pico like all bellows cameras will be limited with respect to mirrorless and wide lenses. But hey..... that shouldn't stop you from getting one! Just think of all the new unique ways you'll come up with for interior lighting with the CFV-100C and the Pico!! And, of course, it will become your light weight buddy out in the field.

Add to Cart.....

Victor B.