How are the new line of architectural cameras going to influence your work?

[Miguel Curbelo]

I shoot exposure brackets on almost every set-up and very often 3 shot stitches for coverage. My jobs end up being as much post production time in PS as time on location. I could cut that by at least half if I had a set of lenses that covered. At $40,000 it means all the money would go to the camera makers. Not spending it means I do more work. Which I guess is how the world is set up - I do more work, I get more money. If anyone here can figure out a way around that please tell me.

Digital back + dedicated architectural camera outfits are indeed expensive, certainly so in a context where DSLR output is regarded as acceptable, but to put things into perspective: 22 meg backs are currently cheaper (both refurbished and new) than a Canon 1DSIII body, and second hand MF lenses are not necessarily much more expensive than top DSLR glass. I paid a total of $20,000 for my back + body + 3 lenses outfit.
MF also offers advantages that are worth considering: with MF lenses barrel distorsions are a non-issue and post processing in general is less time consuming given the combination of superior image quality + in camera corrections, and the image quality alone of a MF back opens up opportunities for other projects for which a DSLR would be inadequate (assuming, obviously, that you choose not to work with film).
Anecdotically, in some cases MF can work faster than a DSLR: recently I was hired to photograph the reforms undertaken in a local hotel; the images were to be used in the hotel website and I thought I'd do the job with my DSLR. Soon I discovered I could take certain shots with my digital back that provided me, once cropped, with two or three -occasionally even four- images that were good enough for the use intended.
I'm sorry, I digress.
Essentially, DSLRs can do the work, and they are cheaper, but MF outfits are not necessarily in a different galaxy pricewise and they offer better image quality for less postprocessing work.

[Don Dudenbostel]

MF digital is getting cheaper for sure. Calumet is selling the Hasselblad H3DII without a lens but with the 31mp back for $15,999. Big drop from a couple of months ago. The mamyia digital with 22mp back but no lens is $9,999 all new equipment. Used is now down in the range of a new 1DsIII. One thing about the MF is the lack of easy TS lenses. DSLR 35 format have the advantage of a very wide array of superb glass too.

[archivue]

The Leica S2 will have a shift lens... best of both worlds for a big amount of cash !

[Don Dudenbostel]

No one knows how the S2 will perform. So far IMO Leica has struck out on digital. Don't get me wrong, I've been a dedicated Leica shooter for 40 years but they aren't even in the running in the digital world. We'll see how the S2 pans out. Even if the S2 is a great camera i don't think I would invest in a system from a company on the edge of financial ruins. Hasselblad has a TS adapter but it's awkward and expensive.

For my applications the FF DSLR's with TS lenses work fine for general all around work. Too many great lenses for so many applications with great flexibility for 90% of my work. The other 10% is done with film. I really think digital is a fantastic thing for commercial photography. Consider the ability to handle mixed lighting with much more ease then ever before. No reciprocity and superb high ISO performance. Extremely fast lenses and a range of focal lengths unlike any other system. 35 DSLR's aren't the solution for everything but the come closer to a universal camera than anything I've used in 42 years.

[archivue]

come closer to a universal camera...

unless you need large prints !

[Don Dudenbostel]

come closer to a universal camera...

unless you need large prints !

just my opinion but top of the line DSLRs are closer to being universal cameras than anything in the film world. When my dslr isn't enough then I fall back to film. Just my thoughts.

[mccormickstudio]

It sounds like many here are shooting perspective correction with Canon equipment. I've been something of a Nikon loyalist and am considering stepping up to the D700 with 24 & 45mm pc lenses. Has anyone compared the D700 & Nikon pc's directly with the Canon 5D and their pc lenses? What are the pros & cons of each system?

Thanks

[Kirk Gittings]

I've done a half assed comparison of the 24s. The Nikon is slightly better. Enough better that if I was buying into a system for architectural photography, I would buy Nikon, but not enough to switch if you are already invested in Canon.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I haven't seen a Nikkor 24 tilt shift but my canon certainly has it's share of chromatic aberrations and barrel distortion. Despite this it's easy to correct in the lens tools of CS3 and the lens does produce darn good images. I regularly enlarge them to 24x36 inches.

[archivue]

if it was to do it again, i will wait for the next Nikon 21mp or similar...
But having start with Canon and two TSE lenses, i will stick with canon, and probably upgrade to the 5D Mark II... but i'm waiting to see how does it work with tilt and shift...

But for a start, choosing between a 5D II 21mp + TSE or D700 + PC-E... i think i will go for the nikon, NX2 is a good software, i prefer nikon colors, PC-E are a little bit better, and everything seems to be better build.

I prefer to work with my arca swiss over the 5D, but maybe the live view can help a little...