Alpa 12 TC - user experiences?

[thorsten_domeyer]

Hello everybody,

 

this is my first post here. At the moment I am shooting digital (Nikon D200) and

with rollfilm on 6x6. Besides snapshots of my family (Nikon digital) I am more

and more concentrating on shooting landscapes, a few cityscapes, more sceneries

and a little bit architecture; I even get some few opportunities to sell

something of my work. For this type of work I prefer the great detail of large

negatives but do not want to loose a certain amount of portability for the

equipment. With film, I am working hybrid, scanning the negatives and printing

(soon on a nice Epson).

 

I am thinking of upgrading my mediumformat-equipment with an Alpa, since it is

*said* to be an outstanding system. I don't think, I would use shifting too

much, so I thought of saving a lot of money and going with the Alpa 12 TC, which

seems not to differ much from the Alpa 12 WC. Unfortunately, there aren't many

user reviews of Alpa 12 cameras on the net (in difference to the

Hasselblad-system for instance). So I would really appreciate it to get some

feedback from those of you, who had/have the opportunity to work with Alpa 12.

Is there much difference between the WC and the TC? Is there really an advantage

of the Alpa system like flat lying film in comparison with others? Which are the

pros, which are the cons of Alpa?

 

Thanks in advance and kind regards,

Thorsten

[nicholas_rab1]

I seem to have an unfulfilled alpa lust case. Not quite sure why. <p>

While I cannot comment on use of the alpa, nor it's film flatness, I would think that one of the huge pro's of the system is that you can use fantastic large format, non retrofocus, wide angle lenses.

<p>

Cons? Hideously expensive lenses, and no ttl (or even rangefinder)focusing. Graduated filter use would be difficult.<p>

 

Have you considered the Fuji GW/GSW 6x9's?

[ilkka]

I did consider Alpa for a while, even tried it out, but then decided to get a 905 SWC instead. The Alpa is very well made and the film flatness is probably a bit better. But Hasselblad is not badly made either and if there were a serious problem with film flatness, I am sure it would have been fixed in the past 50 or so years. So why not Alpa for me? It is a bit bigger, more cumbersome to use (very manual, so easy to make mistakes like double exposures if you are not careful) and certainly much more expensive. It is a bit like a miniature large format camera and requires the same concentration. Nothing wrong with that, for some people and some uses, but something to be aware before buying. SWC is more like a simple MF camera, still manual and mechanical but with modern conveniences like film and shutter winding from the same crank, safety catches to avoid taking pictures with the slide in or film out. And then there is the price. SWC is not cheap, especially new, but compared to Alpa is starts to look like a bargain. I especially did not like the combined price of the Alpa system with the Biogon lens. And I wanted a lens that can be used wide open, so the large format Schneider lenses were less interesting. In the 905, the shutter release could be a bit smoother. The shutter release in Alpa is where the shutter is and much nicer in operation. Also the 905 finder is pretty basic, plastic affair. Alpa is much better. Alpa has more film formats, but I am happy with the 6x6 and crop as required. The film magazines for Alpa are so expensive that you are unlikely to want many formats anyway and they are not available used. You could probably get a dozen good condition A12 backs for the Hasselblad with the price of one Alpa back.

[dwm1953]

I've recently acquired an Alpa 12 TC ("TC" stands for travel-compact, the "WA" stands for

wide angle, "SWA" for shift wide angle). It is an outstanding system, but experienced

photographers only need apply. The Alpa 12 is a modular system. There are three bodies

(a fourth to be added in August, the 12 XY, that adds lateral shifts), and a number of add-

ons. The body is just a precisely machined aluminum alloy frame w/wo movements for

attaching the add-ons. You will need the 6x9 film back (a modified Linhof Super Rollex),

viewfinder with mask, finger grip, and lens (perhaps the Apo-Helvetar 5.6/48 for your

landscapes). Attaching and interchanging backs and lenses is easily accomplished with

simple and secure latches. With the TC, this will set you back $7k US. Unfortunately, I can't

tell you about this exact combination as I am using a digital back and Apo-Digitar 5.6/47

XL. I can tell you that this combination is comfortable and fun to use, and produces

images of superb quality. It does take some getting used to "focusing by the numbers."

This works best with wide-angle lenses if you are shooting hand held. Normal, telephoto

and macro lenses are also available; a tilt lens will be added later this year. (If you are

shooting off a tripod, you can get a groundglass add-on that will let you focus ttl.) Of

course everything about the lens is manual/mechanical: focusing, aperture, shutter speed

and shutter cocking. For me no big deal, when I use an AF/AE camera I turn off all the

automatic stuff anyway. And the camera does not coddle you, you can shoot with the lens

cap on, you can forget to advance the film, you can remove the back without the dark

slide, etc. So, even aside from price, it is not a camera for everyone. For your purposes, I

see no reason to get the WA. You could always decide to add an SWA or XY later if you

decide you need movements (I will be adding the XY and that tilt lens when they become

available) all your add-ons will work with both bodies. I've found support to be excellent.

Thomas Weber of Alpa has been prompt and helpful in answering all my questions. Pros:

build quality, modular design, Schneider lenses, image quality, ease of use, support. Cons:

focus by numbers (at least at first), no interlocks to prevent careless mistakes (a bigger

deal for film than for digital I think), and cost of lenses.

[thorsten_domeyer]

Thank you for your answers. I am aware, that I have to spend a lot of money on the Alpa system, even more if I regard the fact, that I am "only" an amateur, who sells very few of his work and won't get the money of the Alpa easily back through selling pictures. But photography gets a huge part of my life and over the last years I made the experience, that I take better pictures when I am totally pleased by the equipment and don't have to mess around with too much "mistakes" and "work-arounds". The picture is made by the photographer, not the equipment, but a more content photographer makes better pictures. ;-)

 

I also thought of the Hasselblad 905 SWC, mainly because it would save me money. I owned a Hasselblad 503 CW and though it is a very nice system (nicely built, modular, Zeiss lenses) I felt limited in using it without a tripod, simply because it's too square in the hands and the huge mirror slaps enough to cause motion blur. Also I felt somewhat limited by the 6x6-format. Square pictures are nice, but often I wanted a more rectangular look. My conclusion was to go now with 6x9, since cropping to a square would always be possible.

 

 

David, thank you for your hands-on-review. It's nice to hear raves about the 12 TC. ;-) I would like to ask you more about how you focus with the "numbers". Focusing should be pretty easy if it comes to landscapes or architecture (thanks to depth-of-field), but what about sceneries or even more critical focussing like portraits or macros? Do you simply guess the distance or do you use a distance-meter? Do you own the groundglass for metering?

 

Thanks again and regards,

Thorsten

[paul.droluk]

This is a bit self-serving, granted, but for the price of the Alpa body alone you could acquire

our Fotoman 612 AND a few lenses. Use the entire 6x12 format OR crop to 6x9 if you wish.

You can select from dozens of different lenses (6 dozen to be precise) from the very best

makers. Film flatness... I challenge anyone to find a MF camera with flatter film compliance

than the Fotoman 612 (vacuum backs not included). Further, we will be introducing our shift

adapter within the next few months, adding to the versatility of the camera.<div></div>

[thorsten_domeyer]

Thanks for the hint to Fotoman cameras. I considered these, but prefered the Alpa-line. Sorry. I'm just wondering, that there aren't too much user opinions on Alpa.

[dan_fromm2]

Thorsten, be patient. Roger Hicks, who uses an Alpa 12 and is very enthusiastic about it, reads this forum from time to time. I'm sure that he'll eventually notice your question and reply.

 

If you read french, ask your question on http://www.galerie-photo.info/forum/list.php?f=1 Henri Gaud, a very fine photographer who is active in that forum has an Alpa 12. Like Roger, he is very enthusiastic about it.

 

Me, I'm not a professional or rich so can't justify buying such an expensive piece of equipment. I'm more with Paul Droluk than with Capaul & Weber, but even his relatively inexpensive products are out of my range. I get by with a Century Graphic (2x3, accepts 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 roll holders); my lens kit for it includes a 38/4.5 Biogon, a 47/5.6 Super Angulon (= 48 Apo Helvetar), 65/8 Ilex, ... I appreciate the Alpa's beauty, tangible precision, and tactile charms, also its compactness, but I doubt I'd take better pictures if I replaced my kit with an Alpa body and lenses to fit it. But then, I'm an ignorant barbarian more interested in results than in, um, material inputs.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[wayne_haas]

Thornsten: Since you considered the Fotoman panoramic as a candidate, have you also looked into the Gilde camera

 

http://www.gilde-kamera.de/en/4771.html

 

If you were considering the higher-end Alpa's, the Gilde is in a comparable though somewhat higher price bracket. It does, however, have the advantage of a variable format film magazine and some front tilt and shift movements. Appears to be a very well thought system, but I have yet to find a detailed review.

 

I once considered the Alpa 12TC; but instead went -- and am quite happy -- with a SWC/M for the time being. Of note is that if you are eventually considering acquiring a MF digital back, the Alpa has almost become the standard amongst professionals needing a WA camera that has the correspondingly necessary tight build tolerances.

[john_hurshman]

Thorsten,

 

I have owned/used the 903SWC and the Alpa 12SWA. While the 903SWC is a great camera, and I really enjoyed shooting with it... I find the Alpa to be more flexible, because you are not locked into one lens or one format. The 903 & 905SWC have incredibly good optics with the 38mm Biogon, but that is the only lens. The Alpa 12 gives you a much wider range of aternatives, should you choose to use them. I use a digital back on my Alpa, and the Schneider APO-Digitar 35mm and 80mm are possibly the best lenses I've experienced. The Alpa does cost more, but it is also a "system" camera.

 

John Hurshman

[thorsten_domeyer]

Dan, thank you for your help. I wrote an e-mail to Henry Gaude and hope, he will take some time for me.

 

Wayne, thank you for the link to Gilde. I'll take a look at these cameras, but am more and more enthusiastic about the Alpa. ;-) I'll perhaps have an opportunity to "play" with one next weekend. This would be great!

 

I think about the focussing more and more and just came across some rangefinders of Leica (Leica Disto). These have a tolerance of only 1,5 mm. Perhaps this would be a good alternative for critical focusing?

 

Please let me ask a pretty dumb question. I talked to a collegue today who told me, that he is not too much into Alpa, because Alpa isn't offering any distance metering. He said, this would automatically lead to the fact, that pictures are misfocused and for this the nice Schneider lenses aren't used to their maximum. Is this true? Let's take the example of shooting a landscape or cityscape or something where a huge depth of field is wanted. In these cases, I understand, that I would only have to "focus to infinity" to get everything sharp (of course with the lens stopped down to let's say f12 with the Helvetar). Is this right?

Until now, I thought, that only in cases, where I need short shutter speeds or a selective focus with narrow depth of field (e.g. macro) I would need to focus critically with the Schneider LF lenses (e.g. through the focusing screen back). Correct?

 

Thanks again,

Thorsten

[thorsten_domeyer]

John, thanks for your answer. Again one point more on the "I want an Alpa"-scale. ;-) Please let me ask you, how you get around the focusing. Do you use the focusing screen back for shots with narrow DOF? How are you treating shots with maximum DOF... just choosing "infinity"?

 

Thanks,

Thorsten

[john_hurshman]

Thorsten,

 

Regarding focusing, I have had the most experience with the 35mm Digitar. DOF with 35mm is similar to the 38mm Biogon on the 905SWC... it is very deep. I use hyperfocal distance to focus the Alpa... just as you would with the 905SWC (remember, the 905SWC does not have a rangefinder or other focusing mechanism, either). Using a CoC of 30 microns, DOF for 35mm lens with a 645 format is 6.2ft to infinity when focused at hyperfocal distance of 13ft. So, I just set the focusing scale of the 35mm Digitar to 13ft ( a guestimate, because the nearest marking on the lens is 10ft), set the aperture and fire away. This approach yields VERY sharp images.

 

When using the 80mm Digitar, I will also use hyperfocal distance if shooting a subject at a distance of approximately 100 ft or more. For a closer subject, I will use an Hasselblad RMfx viewfinder on the Alpa and focus on the GG. Once I've established the distance and DOF I want, I'll remove the RMfx and mount my digital back. I'm still learning with the 80mm, but I'm beginning to get comfortable with it, also.

[dwm1953]

Thorsten,

 

When I referred to "focus by the numbers" I simply meant guessing the distance and using

the DoF scale on the lens. The scale seems to be optimized for 6x9 film format, so for

your purposes it may be adequate. Ground glass focusing doesn't seem to be necessary

for wide angle lenses, but for macro work and portraiture I think it will be indispensible.

For those shooting smaller formats, I think John's technique of focusing at the hyperfocal

distance is the way to go on wide angle. Another option for some digital back users is to

shoot tethered with live view and focus using the computer (a lot easier to do in the studio

than on location, obviously).

[thorsten_domeyer]

Thanks again for your help. I more and more get the impression, that the Alpa would be an ideal piece of equipment for me. For the purposes I want to use it (landscape, cityspace, scenic), it seems to be enough to estimate the distance (perhaps I'll also invest in a separate rangefinder), perhaps using the hyperfocal distance. This combined with the outstanding quality of the system should make me happy enough. :-)

 

I just noticed (embarassing enough), that I always understood something wrong when it comes to hyperfocal distance (never used it though). I now tried to calculate an example for the hyperfocal distance of the Helvetar at f16 using this formula:

 

H = LxL/FxD

(H= hyperfocal distance

L= focal length

F= aperture

D= circle of confusion)

 

I took 0,08 as circle of confusion for the 6x9 format, 48mm for L and 16 for F and came to the result of 1,8 meters (circa 6 feet). Is this correct? So I had to focus at 6 feet when using the Helvetar at f16 to get maximum depth of field?

 

Thanks,

Thorsten

[john_hurshman]

Thorsten,

 

Your understanding of hyperfocal distance is correct. I used an on-line DOF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) and got a hyperfocal distance of 1.85 meters, with a DOF of 1.57 meters to infinity. I would, personally, be a bit more conservative in the CoC and use a smaller number (such as 40 or 50 microns). This will result in a slightly longer hyperfocal distance and a slightly shorter DOF, but focus in the near/far limits of DOF will be better.