What's the point of Alpa and other Wide Angle type cameras?

[Cletus]

I know this sounds like a silly question (and maybe it is) but I've been looking at some of the nicer Alpa cameras lately (not that I'm about to dunk $15K on a camera body that's really not much more than a fancy plate with a lens and back mount). I'm just curious about what cameras of this type are all about and what makes them so special, other than their fine names, high quality and astronomical cost.

I guess I'm specifically talking about cameras like the Alpa SWA, XY, etc.. I might have the models wrong, but the concept seems pretty much the same. The camera body is really not much more than a fancy, $7,000 mounting plate with a $4,000 lens mounted on one side and a $25,000 digital back mounted on the other side.

My question(s) is: What is the reason for having rise/fall and side/side shift and no other movements? The Alpas and some other uber high dollar cameras like the Cambo Wide, Silvestri and some others where you can mount either a 4x5 or 6x9 or 6x7 or a digital back and have provision for some rise and fall and maybe left and right shift and that's it. Wouldn't you need to have some tilt and/or swing to make this a worthwhile architectural or otherwise perspective correcting camera? What about lenses longer than 47mm? I know some of the Alpas can mount up to 180mm lenses, but I sure can't see how you can focus something that long on a flat panel with no bellows of any kind.

Can some millionaire architechtural photographer who might can afford to actually own one of these maybe fill me in on the benefits of the modern WA camera?

[redshift]

I know my Fotoman isn't high end like you are discussing but I can comment on the "idea". I had a 65mm Grandagon so bought a 45SP set up for it but didn't have really high expectations. I've done some landscape photography and a little architecture. The ease of use and end results are far better than I expected. One of my most dramatic landscapes has come from this kit. Overall I'm happy with the purchase. It's a 4x5 point and shoot capable of excellent results. I use it with a monopod whenever there is a chance there might be a photo op but it's not the driving factor behind my activity at that moment.

With all that being said I would not spend more than $1500 on a similar setup for any reason.

[Bob Salomon]

In our experience most of the Alpa cameras selling from our dealers today are being used in very high end digital. Since high end digital requires more precise control then film they opt for the Alpa when indirect movements are not required.
The lenses used on these cameras are supplied in helical focusing mounts. Rodenstock alone offers 23 different helical focusing mounts for their lenses from 23 to 150mm in either Copal 0 or Rodenstock eShutters. Since the Rodenstock digital 180mm as well as the analog 180mm are in a 1 shutter Rodenstock does not make a helicoid for these lenses or for any lenses longer then 180mm.

[Otto Seaman]

I suspect there is no such thing as a wealthy architectural photographer unless they started with a lot of money made in some other business. The few that I know are extremely competent business people who shoot with Canon tilt-shift lenses and drive Subarus or Explorers ~ they make a decent but not extravagant living. Most architects, even famous ones, are extremely cheap and difficult clients (although building products is a good market). Seems to me the only people who can afford the full medium format digital back cameras are wealthy hobbyists and elite fine-art photographers. The commercial photographers who own them only can justify them if they are ridiculous LA-NY fashion or advertising stars OR, more likely, consigned to endless drudgery doing still life product photos for the rest of eternity or death.

You probably don't need much tilt or swing to hold focus with 24mm lenses on a medium format back, but the vertical and horizontal rise/shift movements would be extremely valuable to any photographer. You can also "focus stack" by combining exposures made at various focus points, giving you unlimited depth of field - this negates the need for tilt/swing. And adding tilt swing would require a very fine geared movement - which would probably add another $10K to an Alpa price tag.

Still I wonder why they are so expensive as well? - they appear to be very simple, well made mounting plates with movements... not really cameras at all. The technology is all with the lenses, helical mounts, and the digital backs.

I'm surprised a competent competitor doesn't come out with something as good as an Alpa/Cambo/Arca for a fraction of the price. The Alpas seem especially expensive, just barely under the point where you could do some drawings and have your local machine shop make one from scratch for you!

This is kind of fun to watch: http://techcamera.tumblr.com

[Bob Salomon]

You probably don't need much tilt or swing to hold focus with 24mm lenses on a medium format back, but the vertical and horizontal rise/shift movements would be extremely valuable to any photographer. You can also "focus stack" by combining exposures made at various focus points, giving you unlimited depth of field - this negates the need for tilt/swing. And adding tilt swing would require a very fine geared movement - which would probably add another $10K to an Alpa price tag.

Still I wonder why they are so expensive as well? - they appear to be very simple, well made mounting plates with movements... not really cameras at all. The technology is all with the lenses, helical mounts, and the digital backs.

I'm surprised a competent competitor doesn't come out with something as good as an Alpa/Cambo/Arca for a fraction of the price. The Alpas seem especially expensive, just barely under the point where you could do some drawings and have your local machine shop make one from scratch for you!

This is kind of fun to watch: http://techcamera.tumblr.com

Like what Sylvestri makes?

[Leigh]

The purpose is to separate users from their money.

- Leigh

[DrTang]

I suspect there is no such thing as a wealthy architectural photographer



Oh.. i know of a few

they get flown all over the world to shoot high end hotels and office buildings


they are doing just fine...just fine

[Otto Seaman]

I used to fly all over the world for work. It was still work.

[Oren Grad]

My question(s) is: What is the reason for having rise/fall and side/side shift and no other movements? The Alpas and some other uber high dollar cameras like the Cambo Wide, Silvestri and some others where you can mount either a 4x5 or 6x9 or 6x7 or a digital back and have provision for some rise and fall and maybe left and right shift and that's it. Wouldn't you need to have some tilt and/or swing to make this a worthwhile architectural or otherwise perspective correcting camera? What about lenses longer than 47mm? I know some of the Alpas can mount up to 180mm lenses, but I sure can't see how you can focus something that long on a flat panel with no bellows of any kind.

The general point of these cameras is to maximize precision for digital applications, where you really, really need it, with the combination of very short focal lengths, very high-resolving sensors, and generally demands for very high degrees of enlargement of the captures. The Alpa really came into its own when medium format digital backs were widely adopted; before that, for roll film applications, where the degree of precision in the body and mounting components was arguably beyond what was useful given the slop in the film holders, you were mostly buying bragging rights re the craftsmanship.

There are plenty of applications where parallel movements are enough and you don't need swing/tilt. In such cases, it's just as well to avoid the added mechanical and operational complexity and cost. Bear in mind that swings and tilts are very tricky to use with the short focal lengths needed for wide angle views on MF digital backs, and the demands on mechanical precision become even greater. Recently some T/S mount solutions have appeared from the technical camera vendors, but they do pile more cost on to what are already very expensive devices.

PS: I rarely use swings or tilts even with my LF film cameras, though I use lots of front rise/fall. I tend to photograph subjects where twisting the plane of focus doesn't do a whole lot of good and often will make things worse - scenes where there are things sticking up in all sorts of places and there isn't a clean, unobstructed foreground or sideways plane to tilt against. If I were photographing with a medium format digital back, I could easily see the utility of a technical camera with parallel movements but not the added complexity and alignment issues of swings/tilts.

[Miguel Curbelo]

I shoot architecture with a (second hand) Alpa SWA and a digital back. 80% of my shots are taken with a 35mm SK lens. The outfit barely weighs a kilo, and its use could not be simpler: interiors, lens set at 3 metres, f11.3; exteriors, 5 metres, f11.3.

[Cletus]

So what does the rise/fall and L/R shift actually do for you? I can probably imagine using some rise as an architectural photog, though I have no idea what sort of coverage the typical standard lens should have. What do you get, like, 10mms of rise with a 35mm lens?

I can also understand the high precision 'coupling' between the lens and sensor - thanks Oren - but I'm still stumped as to why parallel movements are so useful on cameras like this.

[Otto Seaman]

Parallel movements are used to keep perspective straight, so your subjects aren't keystone shaped. Architecture especially needs this but I'll use rise/fall for portraiture too.

You've never used rise, fall, shift? Do you just point the camera up or down, off level? It might not matter for some landscapes but for almost anything else....

[TheToadMen]

The purpose to me would be having a "point and shoot" camera for 4x5". The rise and fall is nice when shooting building at close range or a landscape/scenery you normaley couldn't reach: hanging out a window, a lantern post blocking the viw, ...
Instead of tilting the camera to get the view - or the whole building - you shift the lens sidewards or upwards, keeping the camera itself in the correct vertical and horizontal position. Thus avoiding curved lines or buildings getting smaller on the top.

Imagine you're standing in front of a church or a castle and you want to include the tower in your image. To do so you would have to point the camera upwards to get all in the view. The other option would be to get higher so you could point the camera less upward. You'll get the same effect by "raising the lens" i.e. Shifting the lens. You'll keep vertical lines straight instead of bending into a fanishing point.

For a more professional explenation, see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt–shift_photography
and
http://cow.mooh.org/projects/tiltshift/howdoesitwork.html

An other thing is Depth of Field. It can also be affected by shifting a lens, as explained in these links.

BTW the above mentioned Fotoman and cameras alike are expensive enough for me ;)

[Cletus]

Thanks Otto - and everyone. I'm thinking at this point I've adequately belabored the subject! I guess I just have to accept that there are no magical properties imbued in an Alpa and that movements are movements, regardless of what sort of capture medium you have stuck on the rear end of the light-tight box.

Thanks again for your answers and comments and for enlightening me on some stuff that I guess I already knew when it gets right down to it. :)

[Kirk Gittings]

Wouldn't you need to have some tilt and/or swing to make this a worthwhile architectural or otherwise perspective correcting camera?

Not really. I have made my living shooting architecture full time since 1978 and extremely rarely use tilt or swing-I could easily work with a camera without these movements. Why? because architectural planes are complex and in using tilt or swing you get some advantage on one plane but screw up another. Hence it oftentimes causes as many issues as it solves. What do I use? Rise or fall 99% of the time and oh yeah large Depth of Field.

[DennisD]

...architectural planes are complex and in using tilt or swing you get some advantage on one plane but screw up another. Hence it oftentimes causes as many issues as it solves.

Very true. Also, as Kirk mentions, 99 percent rise and fall - imperative for architectural work.

A few years back I had the opportunity to use one of the fancy architectural cameras (Sinar's Ar-Tec, a really beautiful & precise piece of work ! ). That camera does have swings & tilts (plus equipped w/digital back.)

While focusing a single plane with rise and fall or shift movements is relatively easy, I found when making T & S adjustments, focusing was both difficult and tedious due to the small viewing screen. Given the viewing screen on the digital back slider is under 3x4", there's hardly enough room to move a loupe around the screen, not to mention trying to focus without one ! (I did not care for the magnifying viewer either.) Despite working with a marvelous ice of equipment, i'm sorry to say, the experience did not match up to my enjoyment of using a fine 4x5 view camera.

In short, it seems to me that the importance or need for tilt and shift adjustments on a wide angle camera of this type is not of primary importance for the average photographer. if the photographer understands and knows how to effectively manage f stops and depth of field, he or she can make marvelous photos with the simplest of the wide angle cameras. There are many excellent examples on the forum of images made with wide angle 4x5 cameras, e.g. See the work of Nana Sousa Dias. That should be convincing enough !