The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Old vs new.

diggles

Well-known member
I have a similar setup but I haven't really found a backpack that suits me. You may not have any photos of your backpack, packed, to share
[/QUOTE]

Here is a picture of my daypack with all the lenses inside (Shimoda 35)…
shimoda-35L-techcamkit.jpg

  1. APO Digitar 100n and 120asph are in separate pouches and fit on top of each other
  2. Digaron 70HR in a 60XL R-Mount that I already had
  3. Digitar 150n
  4. Nikkor 200
  5. Rear spacer that is used with 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  6. Front spacers and Hasselblad V adapter for 100n, 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  7. Digaron 50HR (in the standard R-Mount)
  8. CFV 100C
  9. APO Digitar 24XL and 35XL in pouches and stacked on top of each other
  10. This row includes USB cable for transferring images from back to computer, Kase magnetic polarizer/nd filters and step up rings
  11. Rm3di fits in laptop sleeve (before zippering the lid I make sure the Rm3di is not putting pressure on anything inside, the Shimoda spacers are rigid enough to keep anything from getting smashed)
The diy mounts are setup as described here:

There is also room for a water bladder, jacket, gloves, and other random accessories in the top and back pockets.

I like that everything is in the pack so I can grab it at a moments notice and know that I didn't forget anything. Usually, I only use 2-3 lenses in an outing, but I don't know ahead of time which ones those will be.
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
Dedicated photography packs like Warren's lovely Shimodo are one option. Another direction is to get a general purpose pack and load it with inserts. My current every day hauler is an Ortlieb Atrack 45 litre. It's basically a dry bag with a really good harness. It's waterproof, not just water resistant. If you're in a sinking boat, you can empty out your camera gear, zip it up and use it as a personal life raft. It opens from the rear. I have had to set it down in marshes, and did so with confidence because it is waterproof. If there's a downside, it's the distinct lack of storage. You get two web mesh pockets on the outside, four thin sleeves with zippers on the inside, and lots of connection points on the outside. I use the inner sleeves for light stuff, and carry a small bag for things like batteries and spare cards.

I use this pack and inserts to carry an Arca-Swiss F-Universalis, GFX 100S body and five lenses plus bits and bobs. The F-Universalis packs ready to shoot in a Tenba insert. I use a small insert to carry all five lenses and the camera body. Bits and pieces go in the inner pouches.
Pack setup.jpg
 

TimG

Member
I had a go on an X2D today at a shop, really liked it - felt like a solid system,

Currently debating whether I should just go with the X2D, then just get on with it, or whether I should invest in a small tech cam like an STC..

Decisions decisions.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Dedicated photography packs like Warren's lovely Shimodo are one option. Another direction is to get a general purpose pack and load it with inserts. My current every day hauler is an Ortlieb Atrack 45 litre. It's basically a dry bag with a really good harness. It's waterproof, not just water resistant. If you're in a sinking boat, you can empty out your camera gear, zip it up and use it as a personal life raft.
I thought it was so that your family can inherit your undamaged camera equipment. :cool:

Matt
 
Thank you so much for the pictures and detailed description. I was hoping you'd find a way to pack the camera with the back and at least a short lens mounted.
Regardless, it looks very neat.

Here is a picture of my daypack with all the lenses inside (Shimoda 35)…
View attachment 217889

  1. APO Digitar 100n and 120asph are in separate pouches and fit on top of each other
  2. Digaron 70HR in a 60XL R-Mount that I already had
  3. Digitar 150n
  4. Nikkor 200
  5. Rear spacer that is used with 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  6. Front spacers and Hasselblad V adapter for 100n, 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  7. Digaron 50HR (in the standard R-Mount)
  8. CFV 100C
  9. APO Digitar 24XL and 35XL in pouches and stacked on top of each other
  10. This row includes USB cable for transferring images from back to computer, Kase magnetic polarizer/nd filters and step up rings
  11. Rm3di fits in laptop sleeve (before zippering the lid I make sure the Rm3di is not putting pressure on anything inside, the Shimoda spacers are rigid enough to keep anything from getting smashed)
The diy mounts are setup as described here:

There is also room for a water bladder, jacket, gloves, and other random accessories in the top and back pockets.

I like that everything is in the pack so I can grab it at a moments notice and know that I didn't forget anything. Usually, I only use 2-3 lenses in an outing, but I don't know ahead of time which ones those will be.
[/QUOTE]
 

jng

Well-known member
Thank you so much for the pictures and detailed description. I was hoping you'd find a way to pack the camera with the back and at least a short lens mounted.
Regardless, it looks very neat.



Here is a picture of my daypack with all the lenses inside (Shimoda 35)…
View attachment 217889

  1. APO Digitar 100n and 120asph are in separate pouches and fit on top of each other
  2. Digaron 70HR in a 60XL R-Mount that I already had
  3. Digitar 150n
  4. Nikkor 200
  5. Rear spacer that is used with 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  6. Front spacers and Hasselblad V adapter for 100n, 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  7. Digaron 50HR (in the standard R-Mount)
  8. CFV 100C
  9. APO Digitar 24XL and 35XL in pouches and stacked on top of each other
  10. This row includes USB cable for transferring images from back to computer, Kase magnetic polarizer/nd filters and step up rings
  11. Rm3di fits in laptop sleeve (before zippering the lid I make sure the Rm3di is not putting pressure on anything inside, the Shimoda spacers are rigid enough to keep anything from getting smashed)
The diy mounts are setup as described here:

There is also room for a water bladder, jacket, gloves, and other random accessories in the top and back pockets.

I like that everything is in the pack so I can grab it at a moments notice and know that I didn't forget anything. Usually, I only use 2-3 lenses in an outing, but I don't know ahead of time which ones those will be.
[/QUOTE]
LOL, what Warren @diggles neglected to mention is (1) the weight of his pack fully loaded and (2) that he's as strong as a moose. My back hurts just looking at this, although I do admire the efficiency of the layout.

John
 

diggles

Well-known member
LOL, what Warren @diggles neglected to mention is (1) the weight of his pack fully loaded and (2) that he's as strong as a moose. My back hurts just looking at this, although I do admire the efficiency of the layout.

John
[/QUOTE]
Lol! It's really not that bad.
 

diggles

Well-known member
Thank you so much for the pictures and detailed description. I was hoping you'd find a way to pack the camera with the back and at least a short lens mounted.
Regardless, it looks very neat.



Here is a picture of my daypack with all the lenses inside (Shimoda 35)…
View attachment 217889

  1. APO Digitar 100n and 120asph are in separate pouches and fit on top of each other
  2. Digaron 70HR in a 60XL R-Mount that I already had
  3. Digitar 150n
  4. Nikkor 200
  5. Rear spacer that is used with 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  6. Front spacers and Hasselblad V adapter for 100n, 120asph, 150n, and 200-M
  7. Digaron 50HR (in the standard R-Mount)
  8. CFV 100C
  9. APO Digitar 24XL and 35XL in pouches and stacked on top of each other
  10. This row includes USB cable for transferring images from back to computer, Kase magnetic polarizer/nd filters and step up rings
  11. Rm3di fits in laptop sleeve (before zippering the lid I make sure the Rm3di is not putting pressure on anything inside, the Shimoda spacers are rigid enough to keep anything from getting smashed)
The diy mounts are setup as described here:

There is also room for a water bladder, jacket, gloves, and other random accessories in the top and back pockets.

I like that everything is in the pack so I can grab it at a moments notice and know that I didn't forget anything. Usually, I only use 2-3 lenses in an outing, but I don't know ahead of time which ones those will be.
[/QUOTE]

when I had th wrs1600 I was able to stand it up with the back and a lens mounted. It was a different bag though. Unfortunately, the Rm3di is too tall for that.
 

anyone

Well-known member
I use an Fstop ICU Pro Small to pack the WRS 1200 + 60XL mounted. As many others, I use this ICU in a regular hiking backpack.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Warning! Do not pack the 35XL with CF attached (Cambo mount, btw). I destroyed my copy that way. The CF extends beyond the protection bars and the lever arm of the CF is significant. Base plate and shutter assembly bent. Repaired for $900 and two trips to Europe, but it was never as good as when new.
 
Last edited:

TimG

Member
Anyone here tried an Arca Factum ? Really loving the size and weight of it - has built in front tilt too, just would like to hear from someone who has one..
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
I have one, people look into this for its lower price, but the Arca system is haptically flimsy and you need to buy the handgrip to really hold the Factum well - plus a L bracket to switch orienations which makes it more unwieldy. I personally find haptics key for the long-term use of a system. Fully loaded up, the Factum is not thaat small anymore.

Over time, especially the backadapter can have a bit of play vs. the main body - happened to me over time with all R bodies.

Pro:
+ lower cost vs. rest, lower cost, hot-swappable mounts
+ Rotaslide, relatively low cost film accessories
Negative:
- Flimsy build, tricky in use when screwing in lenses or attaching back extenders + back; requires extra care and is less secure compared to other systems in the way the lenses and backs clip in; most people who don't like stuff about the R complain about how you mount lenses and how backs are secured in place;
- Anodization prone to scratches - ie not as high end
- Resistance based shift mechanism - can loosen or stiffen over time and not ideal for precise movements - I much prefer Cambo with a knob or Alpa with a rail

Tech cam on a budget - go Arca; with Cambo and Alpa the build will be better
 
Last edited:

diggles

Well-known member
Anyone here tried an Arca Factum ? Really loving the size and weight of it - has built in front tilt too, just would like to hear from someone who has one..
I have the Factum as well. What I like is the smaller size and non geared movements. Since the back slides from side to side it is much quicker to make panoramas. However, it only does movements in X or Y direction, not both simultaneously. For me, X+Y movements win out so I primarily use the Rm3di.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
@TimG: There's another not much often talked about advantage of the STC - you can combine it with the BalPro from Novoflex to make a bellows camera - just for those who always complain of the costs of Alpagon lenses:

1733221090284.jpeg

I personally dig the anodized black and gold look so together with the gazillion adapters for the Balpro and the Alpa Novoflex adapter at the back you essentially have a best of both worlds approach. Open architecture super solid pancake + ability to go "cheap" with Nikkors etc. on a balpro outfit.

I think you can actually do with this outfit 26mm left right (correct me if its 13 left right, but then you can slap a Max or Plus onto the backside) + 18mm up and down or cumulative even more left right depending on how you orient the STC.

We haven't even yet touched upon the fact that you can add the 105, FPS, etc.

I saw this on their IG and figured it fits well into the discussion as sometimes its not easy to understand what's possible.

This combo elevates the Alpa system on a whole new level, IMHO.

TS balpro also has Swing and you should be able to add tilt adapters in between too for longer lenses ... and even back tilt if you add the tilt adapter to the back.

Lastly, there are Fuji and Hasselblad adapters which should work for lenses longer than 50mm and I know of no pancake tech cam which can actually do back tilt which comes in handy in architectural photography to control elongated proportions.

In terms of options - TC, Pano, Plus – adapting a Summilux R 80 1.4 onto an FPS onto an IQ4 etc. - aperture controlling Canon and Hasselblad glass, etc. the open architecture of the Alpa system is unmatched IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Balpro allows you to mount Copal 0, but also add Mamiya RZ lenses to the front, which are basically free if you look at current market prices. Given the depth of the mirror box you can on top of the Balpro TS add the Alpa TS adapters to add 5 degrees of tilt per piece.

So you could take the fantastic 50 ULD, their Macros or even the tele options and have uber sharp lenses which will allow significant shift as they're made for 6x7 and have larger ICs than the target IC.

The 50 ULD should be a good alternative to a Rodie 50 to be honest, especially stopped down to F11.

ACTUALLY YOU CAN ALSO MOUNT RODENSTOCK BARE LENSES onto the Copal 0 mount of the bal pro ... and if you want to mount shorter FFD bare lenses you could have SK grimes drill you a recessed copal 0 adapter for the balpro TS for a few bucks ... just need to do some distance measurement.

I am sure you could via recess mount quite a few lenses, the BalPro opening is not that much smaller than a fully fledge R mount hole, ie it should easily fit Digarons including AU and Copal and mechanically speaking its very easy to do a BalPro adapter.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
The "colour rendering" thing is overdone. Hasselblad has done a nice job of creating a standard output from RAW files developed in Phocus that a lot of people really like. I like it too. It's not more "real" or "natural" than other profiles, but it's very pleasing and feels right to many people. However, you need to use Phocus to get that look as Hasselblad intended. That is a bridge too far for me. I have brought Hasselblad RAW files into Lightroom and can tried to get close to how they look in Phocus. I can get very close without a lot of work. Many people just use Lightroom and go with whatever looks good to them.

Fuji takes a different approach. There is no "Fuji Natural Colour System" that mirrors Hasselblad. Fuji's thing is the in-camera JPEG engine that creates JPEG files a lot of people like. I wouldn't use a GFX camera to make JPEGs, so I shoot RAW. LR and C1 both offer simulations of Fuji's colour profiles. And then there are countless other ones out there you can use from Adobe and third party camera profile developers. Of course you can also use these on Hasselblad files in LR.
I would be very interested in seeing the differences in Phocus V LR rendering of colour that you reference above. Try as I might I have not been able to see any differences.
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
I would be very interested in seeing the differences in Phocus V LR rendering of colour that you reference above. Try as I might I have not been able to see any differences.
Try it with this file: http://cdn.hasselblad.com/samples/xcd-lenses/x1d-xcd45-03.3FR

I imported that file into Phocus and exported as a full resolution TIFF with Adobe 1998. I then imported the 3FR file into Lightroom, left the "Camera Standard" profile on, and exported as a full resolution TIFF with Adobe 1998. This first image is a 100% side-by-side view of both TIFF files imported into Photoshop. The Phocus TIFF is on the left, and the LR TIFF on the right.

To my eye, the two versions look very different. There's a lot more magenta in the LR version with Camera Standard profile than in the TIFF exported from Phocus. Is this better or worse? That's a personal choice. Is the Phocus version more "natural", or more "correct"? That's impossible to know.

Comparison 1.jpg

Importantly, it's not difficult to get closer to the Phocus version in Lightroom. In this next pair, I switched to Adobe Color and adjusted the red channel a bit in Camera Calibration. They're not perfectly matched, but it's closer.

Comparison 2.jpg
 

peterm1

Active member
Try it with this file: http://cdn.hasselblad.com/samples/xcd-lenses/x1d-xcd45-03.3FR

I imported that file into Phocus and exported as a full resolution TIFF with Adobe 1998. I then imported the 3FR file into Lightroom, left the "Camera Standard" profile on, and exported as a full resolution TIFF with Adobe 1998. This first image is a 100% side-by-side view of both TIFF files imported into Photoshop. The Phocus TIFF is on the left, and the LR TIFF on the right.

To my eye, the two versions look very different. There's a lot more magenta in the LR version with Camera Standard profile than in the TIFF exported from Phocus. Is this better or worse? That's a personal choice. Is the Phocus version more "natural", or more "correct"? That's impossible to know.

View attachment 218098

Importantly, it's not difficult to get closer to the Phocus version in Lightroom. In this next pair, I switched to Adobe Color and adjusted the red channel a bit in Camera Calibration. They're not perfectly matched, but it's closer.

View attachment 218097
I read somewhere that Phocus may be worse at maintaining highlights than LR, and it looks like it might be the case from your samples (looking at the highlights in the rocks), but it's hard to tell. What do you think?
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
I read somewhere that Phocus may be worse at maintaining highlights than LR, and it looks like it might be the case from your samples (looking at the highlights in the rocks), but it's hard to tell. What do you think?
I can't really comment on that because I started Phocus for around the third time ever to make these comparison images! I honestly don't know what it can or cannot do well.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
@rdeloe - thanks for your posted examples - whilst I 'see' the differences in your posted tiffs- my comparisons are made splitting my monitor into two and comparing LR to Phocus rendering side by side san tiff exports and such interfventions. Still, I have to say that I am surprised by the differences in colour rendering in the firts two shots- these are way way different not only in colour but also in contrast. I must say - this level of difference I have not experienced in my workflow -or typical casual shooting/ In studio my experience is Phocus is a better choice.

Still, as you say in PP everythign is able to be corrected for any taste or use case - tbh the only reason I prefer LR over anyhting else is its inbuilt Library functionality - that and it also plays well with Leica and Hasselbald files - in my experience.
 
Top