John_McMaster
Active member
Still really needs an IQ4 to get the most out of it....
john
john
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!
So, who is buying a Alpa these days?
- Thread starter Phase V
- Start date
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Yes, a digital back has always been the prerequisite for a tech cam. The IQ260, IQ3100 and CFV100 with post-processing are viable alternatives.
We are talking about high-end niche photography, that's right.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
That's ok – the pro's and con's of each brand have been discussed since a decade here, so its normal to have camps. If the packing size is your biggest problem the Plus would be more compact, etc. but some people are just better off with a Cambo camera so it is moot to discuss.
The main benefit I see with Cambo is that they have integrated CNC capabilities and as such can create helicals and mount any legacy lens – which is an advantage. For certain glass, e.g. vintage SK, you need to either spend a lot of money or resort to non-genuine copy mounts from China or via Alvandi / SK Grimes, so its a bid unfortunate that Seitz won't do individual mount runs if the batch is too small.
As said, instead of saying who buys brand X today, one could also ask:
Who buys tech cameras these days.
That, to me, is the more interesting question as it touches on the broader problem that the younger generation is not so familiar with tech cams in the first place and the related problem of the high barriers to entry in terms of new Rodenstock glass prices coupled with an inability to refinance the gear easily with paid work.
Couldn’t agree more. I hope for a Max Mark III or Pano Mark II some day. Since the STC is so close to your wish of a TC with some rise, I think a TC with 5MM or so built-in solid rise (unchangeable) could be an option.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
They actually created a specific 5mm rise mounted lens back in the day … for the TC! I would need to search the archives, but I think it could be the 48 Helvetar. Not sure (ie 47 XL).
Believe me, I mentioned the 10mm rise limit on the Pano many times to them …
To your point about asymmetry, one could just flip around for fall/shift. Both on a lens like this or a body. Alpas tend to be symmetrical where it matters. (Never understood the Plus being perfectly symmetrical in shift…what’s the point of being able to flip it around if there’s no reason to?)
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The problem was lack of willingness to do sth which would have risked cannibalizing the other portfolio camera bodies, I think.
The head of design back then, Andre Oldani, a former private banker who was hired by the ageing Capaul/Webers and then made partner later on had no real feel for what is needed or rather a hubris if I dare say so to think that just making another camera for the camera's sake without enough differentiation would be enough given Alpa's strong brand.
That "product hubris" stemmed from the golden years as described earlier, where the Alpa just flew of the shelves, especially in China under the booming economy of the period up until Covid; this was an era where Alpa had a very good local sales head who pushed the Alpa extremely well, managing meetups locally in Shanghai, HK etc. and so there was this feeling that anything would sell a bit.
There were times where at Photokina fairs where they took the liberty to say to prospective customers that the camera is not for them etc. when the question of say price came up.
So in that state of mind and with an overly technical focus on perfection they wandered off into cinema gear etc. although a bit more humbly listening to what customers want would have possibly created a different Plus where the whole point seems to be symmetry for symmetry's sake which is a bit a wasted opportunity IMHO.
As you rightly mention it is a hallmark of their design to be symmetric, so asymmetric rise and fall would have provided additional optionality for no loss, as well with the Pano where 5 down, 15 up would have been more flexibile without changing the dimensions.
So its a bit stubborness borne out of prior success that led to not differentiating enough there - coupled maybe with the fear of cannibalizing the Max.
I would contend that a Plus with 25 rise may have cannibalized the Max, yes, but then again the Max has been around for so long, it wouldn't have been a real issue IMHO.
So given I have a Max, I am not so sure what the benefit of the Plus could be except the 2mm left and right. On top, the Plus cannot use roll film backs.
The grips of the plus are nice though.
The Pano is already roughly twice the price of the Max, so any fears they had of cannibalizing we’re unfounded. It should simply be a matter of a product that has a good, better, best option.
They look good and allow the body to be very slightly slimmer, and the single short screw is very elegant, but I prefer the Max/Pano style grips. Weight is more centered so the camera feels lighter in hand. The Plus grips are so large I have trouble justifying them and can’t fit it in my case. I like to have two grips as I keep the 17 t/s adapter attached to the body and the grips protect it when laid face down.
For me it’s packability, though without the aforementioned grips. The extra 2mm is somewhat annulled by the safety stops, as you have to push past them and lock into place for a full stitch. I end up just leaving it unlocked and stopping around 18mm. If I find a mkII Max or they come out with a revision, I might sell my Plus for these reasons. Plus is lighter though, and I appreciate all the connection points…
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
That’s a good point re packability; to be fair, I always tried it with both grips so this indeed may be the main benefit of it.
doccdiamond
Active member
Horses for courses - for my personal useage the ALPA Plus is the perfect match of portability, flexibility and design. I like the symmetrical design and barely come to the limits regarding the shift capabilities. As I do a lot of work in industrial coverage, I like as well the +-20mm. Of course an asymmetric design would give the possibility of turning around the system for downward shift but in practice with sometimes limited time-slots in front of machines/industrial scenarios it is at least for me not practical workflow.
In addition I use an ALPA TC for max portability and max stiffness. I had once an assignment at a corn mill - the whole building vibrates - and I did anything possible to avoid vibrations inside the camera system (plus decoupling the camera as good as possible from the ground). Therefore I used the TC to avoid any movements/vibrations in the bearings/screw drives of the shift mechanism. This is the beauty of the ALPA system - it is a SYSTEM where you can combine many components for every shooting to get optimum results. It comes with a certain price but as Paul said - a lifetime invest.
For me personally a longtime hurdle was the back, not the pricing of the ALPA and the glas. That is even worse now with only one player using large sensor sizes...
Doing workshops or one to ones is a good opportunity to show the next generation the creative advantages of technical cameras, no matter which brand. Pricing of Backs and the lack of the availability of new mechanical shutters are really a drawback...
In addition I use an ALPA TC for max portability and max stiffness. I had once an assignment at a corn mill - the whole building vibrates - and I did anything possible to avoid vibrations inside the camera system (plus decoupling the camera as good as possible from the ground). Therefore I used the TC to avoid any movements/vibrations in the bearings/screw drives of the shift mechanism. This is the beauty of the ALPA system - it is a SYSTEM where you can combine many components for every shooting to get optimum results. It comes with a certain price but as Paul said - a lifetime invest.
For me personally a longtime hurdle was the back, not the pricing of the ALPA and the glas. That is even worse now with only one player using large sensor sizes...
Doing workshops or one to ones is a good opportunity to show the next generation the creative advantages of technical cameras, no matter which brand. Pricing of Backs and the lack of the availability of new mechanical shutters are really a drawback...
rdeloe
Well-known member
This is such an important point.
We often lose sight of the fact that most people don't know what they don't know. The benefits of using technical cameras are not obvious to most people, so you have to "show rather than tell". One-on-one is the best way for that.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Alpa for this reason I understand aims to expand the workshops, some good stuff in the pipeline I heard!
I would like to have a studio people could visit and toy with an 8x10 with a ground glass (or, light not permitting, my beat up XY with an old db with live view) just to see camera movements in action.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
I realize that there's a lot of social media around 4x5, less so 8x10; and a lot around MF analog photography of course and that also partly drives demand and the resurgence of analog. Due to the high price of digital backs and lenses it seems there's almost no youtube content on tech camera stuff.
And if there is, it often fails because the reviewer then goes on to compare it to a 35mm offering or so. Like the petapixel review of the XC where the hosts in the end basically said they'd never buy it because it costs so much. And because it creates clicks, outside of MFD reviewers will of course directly quote a rounded up retail number for drama, although in practice you can get gear cheaper (e.g. mentioning an XF + 120 BR + IQ4 cost 80k). That's not helpful.
This petapixel XC review debacle was foreseeable and it the tricky part is to make content about this stuff without talking about the price immediately, which can be offputting for an outsider.
I think also art schools should be an area where this equipment is thought, but that would require I guess a huge effort from the manufacturers.
And if there is, it often fails because the reviewer then goes on to compare it to a 35mm offering or so. Like the petapixel review of the XC where the hosts in the end basically said they'd never buy it because it costs so much. And because it creates clicks, outside of MFD reviewers will of course directly quote a rounded up retail number for drama, although in practice you can get gear cheaper (e.g. mentioning an XF + 120 BR + IQ4 cost 80k). That's not helpful.
This petapixel XC review debacle was foreseeable and it the tricky part is to make content about this stuff without talking about the price immediately, which can be offputting for an outsider.
I think also art schools should be an area where this equipment is thought, but that would require I guess a huge effort from the manufacturers.
rdeloe
Well-known member
Seeing movement in action is the key I believe. It takes people a while to realize that a technical camera can be a solution for photographic problems they have. But first they have to accept they have a problem. That's a tough bar to get over given that the vast majority of photographs are made without movements.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
That's why initially tech cams were the ideal transition for old-school pro's from their analog LF cameras to digital while digital natives today grow up with Leica Qs, Canon 5Ds and Nikon Zs -> its a totally different population and to educate them on the finer details of technical photography gear is not easy, especially given the lack of availability of this gear.
Ie, the classic person posting here in 2010 would have been a pro who a few years prior transitioned from their Hasselblad V or Linhof studio camera to a P30/P45 camera.
They'd be aware of movements of technical cameras as in their prior practice they'd use LF gear all the time.
So I think education if a big hurdle.
The Alpa CEO told me that literally a lot of people FALL IN LOVE with the gear the moment they experience it in a workshop.
So its a multitude of factors: a distribution and marketing problem to reach new customers coupled with high barriers to entry on the cost side.
Ie, the classic person posting here in 2010 would have been a pro who a few years prior transitioned from their Hasselblad V or Linhof studio camera to a P30/P45 camera.
They'd be aware of movements of technical cameras as in their prior practice they'd use LF gear all the time.
So I think education if a big hurdle.
The Alpa CEO told me that literally a lot of people FALL IN LOVE with the gear the moment they experience it in a workshop.
So its a multitude of factors: a distribution and marketing problem to reach new customers coupled with high barriers to entry on the cost side.
What you write, Paul, rings true. Unfortunately, none of the tech camera manufacturers make any valid effort on the (online) education front nowadays. Arca Swiss still don't have a website. Linhof would be nowhere on YouTube without a few very basic videos from the Linhof Studio in the UK. Phase One is all about snazzy short marketing videos that don't demonstrate anything useful. The Alpa website is so confusing that I gave up after about an hour because I could not grasp the practical differences between the various models on offer (I went on and bought an XT and I don't regret it, but that's another story). The young Italian "punk" camera makers (Stenopeika, Gibellini) are barely present in the online media space and their content tends to be in Italian only, with subtitles if you are lucky.
When I really wanted to get into the "what and how" of camera movements etc., I had to sift through decade-old posts on the large format forum before I discovered the really good Linhof brochure from 1973 that describes concisely all that one needs to know. The Jack Dykinga book from the 1990s also offered some useful insights. Sadly, pretty much all the Youtube content nowadays is about "converging verticals and how to fix them" - tedious explanation of the basics, and sometimes confusing (i.e. movements explained but not shown on the ground glass or digiback screen as they are being applied). The more sophisticated topics are really hard to find (e.g. the issues of using wide angle lenses on tech cameras). It is all detective work to find the right content - when you do, it is usually some decades-old low res videos by well meaning amateur users that help to some extent but leave a lot of questions unanswered. Then one ends up learning by mistakes. Buying equipment, experimenting, finding that half the purchases were not all that useful. Selling at a loss.
I am not surprised that the market is not really there. And it would be so easy nowadays to make a few good videos using the following general format: (a) show and discuss the scene and its specifics / restrictions, (b) explain how a tech camera can capture the scene, better than the usual fixed camera, (c) show the camera controls being applied, while looking at the ground glass or the video feed from the digital back, (d) debate what is happening with perspective, depth of field etc. while showing the same on the screen. James Kerwin's YouTube videos go in the right direction, but he is a TS lens user on a Canon R5, not a tech camera user. A real cherry on the cake would be someone knowledgeable explaining not just what "tilt", "swing" and "rise" mean, but also offering some practical guidance relating, for example, to the aesthetics of the whole thing (like that it is often better to use a longer lens and keep some distance from a building than try to cram it in with a wide lens from a short distance, with aggressive movements applied). All this knowledge used to be there but you don't find it on Instagram or Youtube nowadays easily. You can get there on your own by studying century-old images by Albert Renger-Patzsch (for example) but that requires quite some effort and thought. From a certain point of view, this is not a bad thing. But the camera makers and dealers could make it all much easier.
When I really wanted to get into the "what and how" of camera movements etc., I had to sift through decade-old posts on the large format forum before I discovered the really good Linhof brochure from 1973 that describes concisely all that one needs to know. The Jack Dykinga book from the 1990s also offered some useful insights. Sadly, pretty much all the Youtube content nowadays is about "converging verticals and how to fix them" - tedious explanation of the basics, and sometimes confusing (i.e. movements explained but not shown on the ground glass or digiback screen as they are being applied). The more sophisticated topics are really hard to find (e.g. the issues of using wide angle lenses on tech cameras). It is all detective work to find the right content - when you do, it is usually some decades-old low res videos by well meaning amateur users that help to some extent but leave a lot of questions unanswered. Then one ends up learning by mistakes. Buying equipment, experimenting, finding that half the purchases were not all that useful. Selling at a loss.
I am not surprised that the market is not really there. And it would be so easy nowadays to make a few good videos using the following general format: (a) show and discuss the scene and its specifics / restrictions, (b) explain how a tech camera can capture the scene, better than the usual fixed camera, (c) show the camera controls being applied, while looking at the ground glass or the video feed from the digital back, (d) debate what is happening with perspective, depth of field etc. while showing the same on the screen. James Kerwin's YouTube videos go in the right direction, but he is a TS lens user on a Canon R5, not a tech camera user. A real cherry on the cake would be someone knowledgeable explaining not just what "tilt", "swing" and "rise" mean, but also offering some practical guidance relating, for example, to the aesthetics of the whole thing (like that it is often better to use a longer lens and keep some distance from a building than try to cram it in with a wide lens from a short distance, with aggressive movements applied). All this knowledge used to be there but you don't find it on Instagram or Youtube nowadays easily. You can get there on your own by studying century-old images by Albert Renger-Patzsch (for example) but that requires quite some effort and thought. From a certain point of view, this is not a bad thing. But the camera makers and dealers could make it all much easier.
Last edited:
You are absolutely right. At the moment I'm working on a project that would be almost impossible without a view camera.
For these flush plate pictures I need 39 mm shift right, 34 mm shift down and approx. 4 degrees swing.
Lens: Rodie 120 mm macro, Schneider Electronic-Shutter
Cambo Ultima with IQ3 100
Anyone who wants to do this job with their Canikon will be amazed.
Unfortunately, newcomers also pay far too little attention to the light. They only discuss resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc.
I need 10 light sources and a mirror for these shots.
Each lamp with its special light shaper, fiberglass tubes, softboxes, Plexi discs, gobo spots, Fresnel spots, mirrors...
It often looks easier than it is...
For these flush plate pictures I need 39 mm shift right, 34 mm shift down and approx. 4 degrees swing.
Lens: Rodie 120 mm macro, Schneider Electronic-Shutter
Cambo Ultima with IQ3 100
Anyone who wants to do this job with their Canikon will be amazed.
Unfortunately, newcomers also pay far too little attention to the light. They only discuss resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc.
I need 10 light sources and a mirror for these shots.
Each lamp with its special light shaper, fiberglass tubes, softboxes, Plexi discs, gobo spots, Fresnel spots, mirrors...
It often looks easier than it is...