Adapting Canon EOS and/or Fuji X-T1 to Large Format? Complete n00b asking... [Archive]

aeiou11235

28-Nov-2014, 08:53

Hello there at the LFP-forums,

This is my first post, so I guess I'll need to write something about my background first (if too much or not interesting then jump down to /////HERE...) : end of the nineties I studied Media Arts with a focus on Analogue Photography and Digital Post-Production (basically I learned how to expose and develop films and how to scan it). I've used analogue photography quite early in the game (around 1998) and kept working with digital cameras ever since. My favorite (analogue) camera-system was the Contax 645, especially for the Zeiss-lenses. The system I'm working with now is Canon 5d MkII and Fuji x-Pro1 and Fuji X-T1. I love the size of the Fuji-system and the quality of the images, especially the colors of the Fuji sensor and the amazing dynamic range. The only downer I have with Fuji and Canon and digital (small format) photography in general is the resolution and the optical qualities of the format. I loved Medium Format for its shallow depth of field and I'm missing it ever since I sold my Contax system (sold it because I could not use it anymore for several years... my clients needed copious amounts of images quick and cheap, the process of developing and scanning film was just too slow and expensive for most (if not all) of my jobs for magazines and commercial clients).

I'm usually working as a portrait photographer with a focus on the architectural setting, meaning: I put people into architecture or spaces and photograph them there. I'm able to do studio-photography fairly well, as I have understanding of lights and their modifiers, but I'm not a very big fan of it because it's an 'artificial' setting, only built for photography. I like my images to have a more real feeling, so I prefer on location. In negative terms one could say that I'm a snapshot-photographer who's ideally delivering results that look like they were staged. Even though I'm working with small format cameras I'm putting a lot of effort into postproduction in regards to removing optical distortions, defining colours, etc... (I'm not a big fan of retouching though).

Anyways, I'm drifting off...

I love the versatility of the cameras that I am using right now but the one downer I have with Small Format (Canon EOS) and MILC (Fuji X) cameras is the aforementioned resolution as well as the optical qualities of the format. Recently my focus has slowly been shifting from photographing "people in architecture" to "architecture with people in it": the person in my images is becoming less important, while the surrounding architecture is getting more important. At the same time I'm also beginning to photograph documentations of art-shows (art reproductions) as well as purely architectural photos (without people).

I'm also more and more getting fed up with the speed of photographing with small cameras like the Fuji and Canon (burst mode 5 images per second snap snap snap...), the inaccuracy of the small format. These inaccuracies include: distorted lines that need to be post-processed even though I was double-checking for distortions when taking the image... the viewfinder is just too small! OR trying to manually focus precisely on a point in an image which is in my opinion nearly impossible with the Canon Viewfinder (it's better with the Fuji though, because of the excellent EVF and its Focus Assist).

//// HERE's my main concern:
I would like to find a system that allows me to take time for single shots and that allows me to work more precisely than small format to document art-exhibitions and take architectural photos. I'm also interested in achieving a higher resolution as small format can deliver.

Nevertheless I do not want to
a) spend too much money on it (otherwise I'd have a Sinar digital back or something similar already)
b) would like to adapt the digital systems that I already have (Fuji X, Canon) to that system

For several years I am thinking of getting a large-format-camera (which I have a basic understanding of but never worked with) and get a shift-back to adapt my digital cameras to the large-format system.

I was thinking of getting a Fotodiox adapter to adapt my Canon to a 4x5 Large Format system ( http://goo.gl/ze7Pso ) as well as another adapter (from Canon to Fuji) to also be able to adapt the Fuji on the Large Format. This shift-back would allow me to 'scan' the whole image from the large-format camera to be stitched together into one seemless image in very high resolution.

My main question is: does anyone in here have a recommendation in regards to the Large Format system and lens? It should be professional enough to be able to achieve great image quality, cheap enough to be affordable for me (less than 1500 USD maybe?) and small enough to be transportable by one person. I'm a complete newbie in this regard and I've looked into different options already, but any recommendation as a starting point would be welcome.

The lens should be fairly wide-angle with low distortion, maybe a Schneider Kreuznach or Rodenstock? Again it should not be more expensive than maybe 1000 USD.

And my last question: I don't want to invest into a system that is not able to deliver in regards to image quality. I'm still wondering if I might be running into the wrong direction and put together a system that I was never working with just to find out that the images with aforementioned adapters stitched together in Photoshop look like something that came out of a Lomo, if you know what I mean. Does anyone here have experiences with systems like the Fotodiox-system?

Another option for me would be to buy a similar shift-adapter for Medium-Format-lenses, which would maybe be a less challenging set-up, but as I always wanted to get into Large Format and have nothing against carrying around a Large Format camera and setting up the camera for quite some time to shoot a single image I thought I could give it a try.

Any thoughts are welcome...

Bob Salomon

28-Nov-2014, 09:33

Simply won't work. When you mount an interchangeable lens camera body to the back of a view camera you are making quite a long tube. Assuming that your body has a full format sensor you will find that it will be impossible to focus a short lens at infinity with that type of set-up. Even with a bag bellows. And lenses for digital view cameras range from 23mm at the widest up. Fo architecture you probably will want to use one of these short lenses, but you will not get it to focus your way. In fact, most 45 view cameras also will not be able to handle them as well. even with a deeply recessed board and a bag bellows. Analog view cameras simply were never designed for these type lenses. Lastly the analog view camera does not have precise enough movements to get the best results out of digital.

And you obviously have not priced 23mm, 28mm, 32mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, 55mm digital view camera lenses in a mechanical Copal 0 shutter.

StoneNYC

28-Nov-2014, 14:00

What Bob said, just buy a few 4x5 sheet film backs, use those, not a 35mm back, that's just counter productive to your "good details" effort. Don't try and re-invent the wheel, just roll with it ;)

andred2809

1-Dec-2014, 14:22

Could be what you are after?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/980643-REG/arca_swiss_143232_m_line_two_camera_for.html

Ari

1-Dec-2014, 14:29

Have you looked at MultiStitch?
I met the inventor in New York last month, and the applications for stitching seem interesting, though I do not do any stitching myself.
www.multistitch.com

aeiou11235

2-Dec-2014, 15:51

Have you looked at MultiStitch?
I met the inventor in New York last month, and the applications for stitching seem interesting, though I do not do any stitching myself.
www.multistitch.com

Hi Ari!

Thanks for your input!
Yes, I've had a look at Multistitch but I am somehow more impressed by the Fotodiox Rhinocam

http://www.fotodioxpro.com/vizelex-rhinocam-for-sony-nex-e-mount-cameras.html

aeiou11235

2-Dec-2014, 15:58

Could be what you are after?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/980643-REG/arca_swiss_143232_m_line_two_camera_for.html

Hi Andred,

thanks for your reply. The Arca Swiss-system is the luxury-version of the Cambo Actus that I've found in the meantime.
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item34298.html

The Fotodiox Large Format adapter would not work with Wide-Angle-lenses (as already mentioned by Bob Salomon) but a sales-representative at Cambo guaranteed that their Actus would get close enough to the sensor to be perfectly usable with wide-angle-lenses.

I'm still not 100% sure which way to go.

The Cambo Actus looks like an amazing tool, but it might be a bit too over-ambitious for what I actually want (higher resolution by stitching shift-photographies).
The MultiStitch or Fotodiox Medium Format adapter might work very well for what I want to do, and it's actually cheaper than the Actus.

I'll think about it.

mdarnton

2-Dec-2014, 16:53

aeiou11235

3-Dec-2014, 01:29

You might find this thread interesting. I was pretty impressed when the subject came up. It was done with a small camera and stitching software--no view camera required, as you can see when you read the thread:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?106957-Stitching-A-Toronto-Church-Interior-Example

Hi Mdarnton,

thanks for pointing this thread out. I am already shooting and stitching panoramas, but must confess that 50% of the panoramas I shot need to be discarded because of stitching errors. I'm often working in quite small rooms (private gallery spaces) and 50% of the time I have issues with distorted lines (in single stitched images inside the panorama) that are just not levelled enough. It would probably be possible to align these images by hand, but the process - apart from taking a long time - can sometimes feel more like 'guessing work' than a real depiction of the scene.

This is the reason why I would like to switch to a system that allows me to take a 'panorama' (I dislike that term for the photos I'm taking because for me it's always only about planar projections in aspect ratio 2x3 or 1x1, I'm not taking very wide images in a panorama-format) without the need to un-distort the single images that need to be stitched into it. I hope you understand what I mean: in a normal panorama the central image is usually the only one without distorted lines (all lines angled at exactly 90 degrees). All other images need to be corrected for distortion because of the angle of view, even if the nodal-point is perfectly aligned. I somehow do not like that, it's Frankenstein-work.

On the other hand if I create a 'panorama' with a MF or LF-lens by shifting the camera body all the images share exactly the same distortion, the single image does not need to be corrected for distortion, but the stitched panorama can be corrected very easily.

aeiou11235

3-Dec-2014, 01:37

...that are just not levelled enough...

just to explain more detailed: we are talking about single images inside the panorama that might be off less than 1 degree, which might be a ridiculous amount for landscapes or panoramas with a lot of information in it. but if you have a room with artworks hanging on pristine white walls then even the best pano-stitching software often just fails. one distorted line inside an image like that, even though it's off for just one degree, is just a complete failure and the whole image needs to be discarded.

sanking

3-Dec-2014, 18:04

On the other hand if I create a 'panorama' with a MF or LF-lens by shifting the camera body all the images share exactly the same distortion, the single image does not need to be corrected for distortion, but the stitched panorama can be corrected very easily.

And these type of images are very easy to stitch. And you could apply shifts and tilts for correction on the camera, if it allows.

Rhinocam might not be the answer because if you shift the sensor to the far edge of most medium format lenses, especially wide angle ones, the resolution will be poor.

You can certainly shift the sensor on a DSLR with respect to the lens but this is somewhat limited due to the lens flange depth. A much better solution would be the use of a Sony E-mount camera, or Micro Four-Thirds. With good APO lenses designed to cover 4X5 you should get very good results if you can find a way to mount the lens to your view camera.

Sandy

AJSJones

3-Dec-2014, 20:04

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 04:56

Rhinocam might not be the answer because if you shift the sensor to the far edge of most medium format lenses, especially wide angle ones, the resolution will be poor.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm still looking for a good affordable Medium-Format-lens that will not set me back a couple of thousand $$$

A cheap alternative "for trying around" might be the Pentax 645 35mm http://goo.gl/bT2ZOt which - according to some reviews - is sharper and shows less distortion than the Mamiya 645 35mm. Lens-rental for more ambitious projects is also considerable to try around and find the right glass...

You can certainly shift the sensor on a DSLR with respect to the lens but this is somewhat limited due to the lens flange depth. A much better solution would be the use of a Sony E-mount camera, or Micro Four-Thirds. With good APO lenses designed to cover 4X5 you should get very good results if you can find a way to mount the lens to your view camera.

I think that I would like to use the Fuji X-T1 (mirrorless APS-C), so the lens flange depth would not be a problem, I guess http://goo.gl/BLsmG

Any recommendation for a good wide-angle APO-Medium-Format-lens that's available for relatively cheap on the market (35mm or less, rectilinear) ? Or a website that lists reviews for old MF-lenses? Could not find any good resource yet but keep on looking through the forums, which is a bit of a PITA...

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 05:40

I still am not sure how much information you need the final image to contain. There are shift adapters for putting MF lenses onto a 35mm (http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_45mm.htm) mount to allow what you are looking for or you can use Canon TS-E lenses (17,24,45 and 90mm) with 12 mm shift in each direction This approach usually doubles the MP count and you take 3 samples of the same optical image - in principle, just paste the images in Photoshop, no "stitching" required - or call it "flat stitch".

"Flat Stitch" >> I'll write that into my personal dictionary for future reference. Sounds better than "panorama" ;)

If 40 ish MP is not enough from a 5D2 or 3, then these lenses can be adapted for use on the Sony A7r to yield 70+MP per pano. With sensor vertical, even the 17 is "rectiliniear" although grossly distorted at the edges because it is a "flat" stitch. There are even tripod clamps (http://www.hartblei.de/en/canon-tse-collar.htm) for the lenses to allow you to shift the camera while keeping the lens (and optical image) stationary during shifting.

Thanks for the input again.

I have to choose one of 4 possibilities to achieve a rectilinear, ultra-wide-angle (less than APS-C 18mm {ideally 10-12}, FF 27mm {ideally 15-18}, MF 45mm {ideally 20-30! sic!}) image in a high resolution:

A) Panorama-Stitching with a pano-set-up
GOOD: Very high (basically unlimited) resolution possible by stitching LOTS of images
GOOD: I already have good lenses for Fuji-X
BAD: I hate the process of taking panoramas and the relatively unreliable process of stitching; especially when I'm working in small confined spaces with objects very close to the camera the possibility of awkwardly distorted lines is given; I've tried all kinds of pano-arms and stitching-softwares already but in very confined spaces even the best combinations of pano-equipment (eg Manfrotto 303SPH) and software (Autopano Giga) just fails; I usually have a 50% discard on pre-rendered panoramas
BAD: it seems to be not precise enough for what I want to achieve (art-show-documentations in small confined spaces and architecture)

B) Adapted 35mm-FF-Shift-Lens (either a native TS-lens like the above mentioned Canon with a 'simple' adapter or a Nikon-lens with a KIPON-TS-adapter to fit my Fuji X)
GOOD: Resolution of ~48MP possible
GOOD: relatively simple process of taking the images
GOOD: relatively simple stitching-process ("flat stitching"), probably not a lot of discard
GOOD: relatively affordable by using used lenses and not a lot of extra-equipment
GOOD: lots of perspective control by using tilt/shift
BAD: not a lot of what i would call "new experience" or "new challenge" for me

C) Medium Format-lens adapted to Fuji X (eg by Fotodiox Rhinocam or Multistich)
VERY GOOD: Resolution up to 140 Megapixels, so lots of possibilities to crop into the image and to remove distortions
VERY GOOD: very simple (and therefore least fail-prone) process of taking the images
GOOD: relatively simple stitching-process ("flat stitching"), probably not a lot of discard
GOOD: "new photographic experience", "new challenge", "new toy to play around with"
GOOD: I can achieve the optical qualities of Medium-Format
BAD: might be difficult to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)

D) Large Format-lens adapted to Fuji X (eg Cambo Actus or Arca-Swiss)
UNDECIDED: not quite sure what resolution is possible
BAD: quite complicated process of setting up the lens-camera-combination
UNDECIDED: not sure yet if I can achieve the quality I want to achieve
VERY GOOD: lots of "new challenge"
GOOD: lots of perspective control
VERY BAD: very expensive for a system that I never worked with
BAD: ultra-wide-angle might not be possible in the way that I imagine because of the flange-focal-distance of my camera (even though I could use ultra-wide-angle-lenses with my Fuji X and the Cambo Actus most ultra-wide-angle-lens would basically stick into the body, so not a lot of shift possible to achieve high resolution)

---
CONCLUSION: I think I'm going to try to adapt a Medium-Format lens to my Fuji X; it's the right combination of "new challenge", "relatively affordable price" and will probably give me the qualities that I want to achieve

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 06:02

"Flat Stitch" >> I'll write that into my personal dictionary for future reference. Sounds better than "panorama" ;)

Thanks for the input again.

I have to choose one of 4 possibilities to achieve a rectilinear, ultra-wide-angle (less than APS-C 18mm {ideally 10-12}, FF 27mm {ideally 15-18}, MF 45mm {ideally 20-30! sic!}) image in a high resolution:

A) Panorama-Stitching with a pano-set-up
GOOD: Very high (basically unlimited) resolution possible by stitching LOTS of images
GOOD: I already have good lenses for Fuji-X
BAD: I hate the process of taking panoramas and the relatively unreliable process of stitching; especially when I'm working in small confined spaces with objects very close to the camera the possibility of awkwardly distorted lines is given; I've tried all kinds of pano-arms and stitching-softwares already but in very confined spaces even the best combinations of pano-equipment (eg Manfrotto 303SPH) and software (Autopano Giga) just fails; I usually have a 50% discard on pre-rendered panoramas
BAD: it seems to be not precise enough for what I want to achieve (art-show-documentations in small confined spaces and architecture)

B) Adapted 35mm-FF-Shift-Lens (either a native TS-lens like the above mentioned Canon with a 'simple' adapter or a Nikon-lens with a KIPON-TS-adapter to fit my Fuji X)
GOOD: Resolution of ~48MP possible
GOOD: relatively simple process of taking the images
GOOD: relatively simple stitching-process ("flat stitching"), probably not a lot of discard
GOOD: relatively affordable by using used lenses and not a lot of extra-equipment
BAD: not a lot of what i would call "new experience" or "new challenge" for me

C) Medium Format-lens adapted to Fuji X (eg by Fotodiox Rhinocam or Multistich)
VERY GOOD: Resolution up to 140 Megapixels, so lots of possibilities to crop into the image and to remove distortions
VERY GOOD: very simple (and therefore least fail-prone) process of taking the images
GOOD: relatively simple stitching-process ("flat stitching"), probably not a lot of discard
GOOD: "new photographic experience", "new challenge", "new toy to play around with"
GOOD: I can achieve the optical qualities of Medium-Format
BAD: might be difficult to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)

D) Large Format-lens adapted to Fuji X (eg Cambo Actus or Arca-Swiss)
UNDECIDED: not quite sure what resolution is possible
BAD: quite complicated process of setting up the lens-camera-combination
UNDECIDED: not sure yet if I can achieve the quality I want to achieve
VERY GOOD: lots of "new challenge"
VERY BAD: very expensive for a system that I never worked with
BAD: ultra-wide-angle might not be possible in the way that I imagine because of the flange-focal-distance of my camera (even though I could use ultra-wide-angle-lenses with my Fuji X and the Cambo Actus most ultra-wide-angle-lens would basically stick into the body, so not a lot of shift possible to achieve high resolution)

---
CONCLUSION: I think I'm going to try to adapt a Medium-Format lens to my Fuji X; it's the right combination of "new challenge", "relatively affordable price" and will probably give me the qualities that I want to achieve

Many of the medium format interchangeable lenses wider then 40mm are fish eye designs.

Rectalinear extreme wide angles for digital view cameras are available in focal lengths down to 23mm. But are really expensive.

Have you seen this site: http://www.pixelrama.de Are you trying to do any of the types of pans shown here?

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 06:45

Thanks for the input, Bob!

Many of the medium format interchangeable lenses wider then 40mm are fish eye designs.

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes: I'm still looking for a good affordable Medium-Format-lens that will not set me back a couple of thousand $$$

A cheap alternative "for trying around" might be the Pentax 645 35mm http://goo.gl/bT2ZOt which - according to some reviews - is sharper and shows less distortion than the Mamiya 645 35mm. Lens-rental for more ambitious projects is also considerable to try around and to find the right glass...

If you have any recommendations (available relatively cheap <1000USD, rectilinear, < or = 35mm, good optical qualities) I'd be happy to hear about it!

Rectalinear extreme wide angles for digital view cameras are available in focal lengths down to 23mm. But are really expensive.

Have you seen this site: http://www.pixelrama.de Are you trying to do any of the types of pans shown here?

Yes, thanks for showing me Panoramas. Beautiful! But it's not necessarily what I'm doing, sorry.

I'm not per se interested in "Panoramas", but more in achieving ultra-wide-angle images in high resolution with the optical qualities of Medium Format or possibly Large Format (rectilinear, undistorted) by using an APS-C-camera with a very beautiful sensor (Fuji X). In my opinion there is basically no other sensor out there that has the qualities of the Fuji X, not in APS-C, not in DSLR, not in MF or LF. The sensor of Fuji X is perfect (apart from being APS-C, argh...). I want to use this sensor and take images with the optical qualities of MF or LF. It must be possible.

To give you an idea of what I'm doing: you can find some of my recent works here (it's the documentation of an exhibition, just type in your email or any fake email {if you prefer to stay anonymous} to enter, it's just for my own reference):
http://smaeiou.pixieset.com/dirkbellbrkunstvereinbraunschweig/

Most of the images are stitched from 3 up to 35 images. If you can NOT see which ones are stitched and which ones are not stitched, then I've done it right. I do NOT want my 'panoramas' to look like 'panoramas'. The technique is totally secondary for me, the result is what counts.

... most other exhibitions that I am documenting are - as I mentioned already - in confined spaces, so taking the images and stitching becomes a pain-in-the-head.

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 07:05

Thanks for the input, Bob!

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes: I'm still looking for a good affordable Medium-Format-lens that will not set me back a couple of thousand $$$

A cheap alternative "for trying around" might be the Pentax 645 35mm http://goo.gl/bT2ZOt which - according to some reviews - is sharper and shows less distortion than the Mamiya 645 35mm. Lens-rental for more ambitious projects is also considerable to try around and to find the right glass...

If you have any recommendations (available relatively cheap <1000USD, rectilinear, < or = 35mm, good optical qualities) I'd be happy to hear about it!

Yes, thanks for showing me Panoramas. Beautiful! But it's not necessarily what I'm doing, sorry.

I'm not per se interested in "Panoramas", but more in achieving ultra-wide-angle images in high resolution with the optical qualities of Medium Format or possibly Large Format (rectilinear, undistorted) by using an APS-C-camera with a very beautiful sensor (Fuji X). In my opinion there is basically no other sensor out there that has the qualities of the Fuji X, not in APS-C, not in DSLR, not in MF or LF. The sensor of Fuji X is perfect (apart from being APS-C, argh...). I want to use this sensor and take images with the optical qualities of MF or LF. It must be possible.

To give you an idea of what I'm doing: you can find some of my recent works here (it's the documentation of an exhibition, just type in your email or any fake email {if you prefer to stay anonymous} to enter, it's just for my own reference):
http://smaeiou.pixieset.com/dirkbellbrkunstvereinbraunschweig/

Most of the images are stitched from 3 up to 35 images. If you can NOT see which ones are stitched and which ones are not stitched, then I've done it right. I do NOT want my 'panoramas' to look like 'panoramas'. The technique is totally secondary for me, the result is what counts.

... most other exhibitions that I am documenting are - as I mentioned already - in confined spaces, so taking the images and stitching becomes a pain-in-the-head.

We have a brand new, factory packaged, Linhof Technorama 617 S III with a 90mm Super Angulon XL on sale at a very special price. Why not just use the camera designed for this purpose?

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 07:21

We have a brand new, factory packaged, Linhof Technorama 617 S III with a 90mm Super Angulon XL on sale at a very special price. Why not just use the camera designed for this purpose?

Short answer: I'm a digital guy but I don't have the money to invest in a digital back for a MF or LF-solution.

Not to be understood in the wrong way: I know how to develop my own films and make my own prints (analogue), it was part of my studies (pre-digital-cameras). I'm sure I could achieve the results I want to achieve by using the Linhof Technorama 617 S III with a 90mm Super Angulon XL but I'd have several problems:

60% of my clients can not afford this:
- costs of film
- costs of developing film
- costs of making prints
- costs of scanning prints in a drum-scanner

95% of my clients do not have time to wait for the whole process to be finished. They need results relatively quick (3 days max) and the results will in 99% of all cases not be shown as beautiful handmade prints (which are certainly possible with a Linhof) but online or in art-books.

Tobias Key

4-Dec-2014, 07:55

Short answer: I'm a digital guy but I don't have the money to invest in a digital back for a MF or LF-solution.

Not to be understood in the wrong way: I know how to develop my own films and make my own prints (analogue), it was part of my studies (pre-digital-cameras). I'm sure I could achieve the results I want to achieve by using the Linhof Technorama 617 S III with a 90mm Super Angulon XL but I'd have several problems:

60% of my clients can not afford this:
- costs of film
- costs of developing film
- costs of making prints
- costs of scanning prints in a drum-scanner

95% of my clients do not have time to wait for the whole process to be finished. They need results relatively quick (3 days max) and the results will in 99% of all cases not be shown as beautiful handmade prints (which are certainly possible with a Linhof) but online or in art-books.

Surely the digital solution only costs less if you are not charging for your time to make up the stitched panoramas. I know it's a bugbear of mine (and probably a lot of other people) but what you have here is the age old conflict between obvious, old school, visible costs (film developing, scanning) and digital invisible costs (photoshop work) which can be harder to charge for. If it was me I'd be tempted to get a wide angle, a 5x4 and a suitable Epson scanner. A V700 or similar is good enough to for online or photobooks, and is the price of 10 decent drum scans. C41 developing can be turned around on the same day in most urban centres, scanning only takes an hour at most. Just scan direct from the negatives there is no need to make expensive prints.

Forgive me for being blunt but I think your main problem is you have clients who want something but don't want to pay the right money for it. A problem we are all familiar with in today's market. In turn you are trying to come up with a cheaper solution which sounds like its going to take extra time that you feel you can't charge for. Ultimately none of this is sustainable in the long term, because you'll end up resenting it sooner or later.

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 08:17

Surely the digital solution only costs less if you are not charging for your time to make up the stitched panoramas. I know it's a bugbear of mine (and probably a lot of other people) but what you have here is the age old conflict between obvious, old school, visible costs (film developing, scanning) and digital invisible costs (photoshop work) which can be harder to charge for. If it was me I'd be tempted to get a wide angle, a 5x4 and a suitable Epson scanner. A V700 or similar is good enough to for online or photobooks, and is the price of 10 decent drum scans. C41 developing can be turned around on the same day in most urban centres, scanning only takes an hour at most. Just scan direct from the negatives there is no need to make expensive prints.

Forgive me for being blunt but I think your main problem is you have clients who want something but don't want to pay the right money for it. A problem we are all familiar with in today's market. In turn you are trying to come up with a cheaper solution which sounds like its going to take extra time that you feel you can't charge for. Ultimately none of this is sustainable in the long term, because you'll end up resenting it sooner or later.

Not to mention the real question of can this really work? Simply stated, old analog extreme wide angle lenses really are not up to the quality demands of excellent digital work. Film, yes, digital, no.

Then there is still the question of plastering an adapter/s on to a body and then adding the very short lens and what kind of focus can you achieve and what kind of movements are possible and what about vignetting and fall-off, if any?

Any kind of analog or digital camera up through medium format can be put on the back of a Novoflex T/S bellows and most any lens can be put on the front from a microscope lens through some medium format lenses as well as some view camera lenses in a 0 shutter. The problem comes in when you are using something like this to reach infinity. Some playing with something like this may solve the problem if you can find a lens with a really long flange focal length since the minimum compression of the bellows is 40mm + the depth of the required adapters and the position of the sensor in the camera body.

For instance, the FFL (flange focal length) of:

35mm Apo Sironar Digital = 43.2mm
45mm Apo Sironar Digital = 55.5mm
40mm HR Digaron-W = 69.5mm
23mm HR Digaron-S = 44.8mm
28mm HR Digaron-S = 53.1mm
35mm HR Digaron-S = 53.5mm

All of the above Rodenstock digital lens FFL info is for lenses in Copal 0 mount.

All of the above lenses are also available in Rodenstock focusing mounts for direct use on a non-bellows camera. The FFL reamins the same for lenses mounted in a helicoid and all of the helicoids would allow for focusing from infinity to between 0.25m and 0.6m depending on the focal length of the lens. The heicoids have a 3 size hutter thread on the back so a 3 to whatever you mount it on would be required as an adapter.

Jim Jones

4-Dec-2014, 08:40

Short answer: I'm a digital guy but I don't have the money to invest in a digital back for a MF or LF-solution.

Not to be understood in the wrong way: I know how to develop my own films and make my own prints (analogue), it was part of my studies (pre-digital-cameras). I'm sure I could achieve the results I want to achieve by using the Linhof Technorama 617 S III with a 90mm Super Angulon XL but I'd have several problems:

60% of my clients can not afford this:
- costs of film
- costs of developing film
- costs of making prints
- costs of scanning prints in a drum-scanner

95% of my clients do not have time to wait for the whole process to be finished. They need results relatively quick (3 days max) and the results will in 99% of all cases not be shown as beautiful handmade prints (which are certainly possible with a Linhof) but online or in art-books.

This may be one of those many occasions when the best of new technology is not as practical as old and simpler methods. Consider using a 4x5 Anniversary model Speed Graphic camera. Since it has a rising front standard but no swings or tilts, it should always be in alignment. With a second-hand 65mm or perhaps wider lens, it should be well under your budget, leaving money for film and processing. No stitching required. Fine handmade prints are available from the original film. Image quality far exceeds anything required for online posting. For that, many digital cameras with a good WA lens should suffice. If a client demands files for large art books, some full frame DSLRs deliver that without upsizing. A quality scan of 4x5 film should be better, but that gain would be lost in reproduction.

Of course there are a few problems to overcome. You may have to alter the Speed Graphic so the front of the bed isn't included in the image. The time lost in having the developing and scanning done will exceed the time spent in stitching and other editing. You won't have shiny new or exotic equipment to wow those clients who are more impressed by that than by the finished images.

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 09:02

......
60% of my clients can not afford this:
- costs of film
- costs of developing film
- costs of making prints
- costs of scanning prints in a drum-scanner

Not certain how you figure that 60% of your clients can't afford film, D&P and scanning. What do they expect to pay for your time and effort and skill and talent? That is what the customer pays for. Not the nails and hammer that built the house.

[/QUOTE]....95% of my clients do not have time to wait for the whole process to be finished. They need results relatively quick (3 days max) and the results will in 99% of all cases not be shown as beautiful handmade prints (which are certainly possible with a Linhof) but online or in art-books.[/QUOTE]

The time to shoot and process is frequently the same day, if you do it yourself. Scans can also be the same or next day and well within 3 days. And how do you figure 95% and 99%.

What concerns me are your prices. If you have so many customers that can't afford basic photgraphy costs then you really should be devoting your time and energy in developing a customer base that can afford your time/talent/skill/effort. Why should your skill and talent as a photographer be worth less to your customers then other skilled trades people like a carpenter or plumber or electrician or auto mechanic? Much less any other professional?

sanking

4-Dec-2014, 09:35

C) Medium Format-lens adapted to Fuji X (eg by Fotodiox Rhinocam or Multistich)
VERY GOOD: Resolution up to 140 Megapixels, so lots of possibilities to crop into the image and to remove distortions
VERY GOOD: very simple (and therefore least fail-prone) process of taking the images
GOOD: relatively simple stitching-process ("flat stitching"), probably not a lot of discard
GOOD: "new photographic experience", "new challenge", "new toy to play around with"
GOOD: I can achieve the optical qualities of Medium-Format
BAD: might be difficult to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)

Regarding your last point, I would change "might be difficult to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)[/COLOR]" to "impossible to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)[/COLOR]"

As has already been mentioned, the very wide angle lenses produced in the past for medium format cameras have much less resolution on the corners than in the middle, and have a lot of vignetting. Also, if you are only "sensor shifting" you will be limited to stitching within the limitations of the actual circle of illumination of the lens, the diameter of which is only a bit more than the diagonal of the format. For example, the 35mm lenses for the Mamiya 645 and Pentax 645 cameras cover only a bit more than about 80 mm, or about the same as 35mm tilt/shift lenses. The widest inexpensive lenses for 6X7 format are in the 43mm - 45mm range. The actual circle of illumination of the 6X7 wide angles is around 100 mm, but again the corners are poor compared to the center.

There is a 50 mm lens tilt/shift lens for the Mamiya 645 that has a much larger circle of useful coverage, but this is probably not wide enough for you.

Sandy

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 10:26

Surely the digital solution only costs less if you are not charging for your time to make up the stitched panoramas. I know it's a bugbear of mine (and probably a lot of other people) but what you have here is the age old conflict between obvious, old school, visible costs (film developing, scanning) and digital invisible costs (photoshop work) which can be harder to charge for. If it was me I'd be tempted to get a wide angle, a 5x4 and a suitable Epson scanner. A V700 or similar is good enough to for online or photobooks, and is the price of 10 decent drum scans. C41 developing can be turned around on the same day in most urban centres, scanning only takes an hour at most. Just scan direct from the negatives there is no need to make expensive prints.

Thanks for the input, Tobias!

I have to admit: C41 and scanning directly from the film actually sounds like a good idea that I will need to consider.

We forgot one thing in the discussion though: the instant feedback that you get when taking images with a digital camera. You can check the image instantly after taking it.

Forgive me for being blunt but I think your main problem is you have clients who want something but don't want to pay the right money for it. A problem we are all familiar with in today's market. In turn you are trying to come up with a cheaper solution which sounds like its going to take extra time that you feel you can't charge for. Ultimately none of this is sustainable in the long term, because you'll end up resenting it sooner or later.

A lot of my clients are artists who do not have that much money and from whom I do not want to charge a lot of money, even if it's expenses for material.

Eventually I would like to switch to analogue film again (for several reasons that need to be discussed elsewhere, I just say: there's no 'original' in 'digital photography'), but for now I'm insisting on finding a digital solution, most preferably with the Fuji X, because honestly: that sensor is perfect, I love everything about it (color-rendering, dynamic range, missing moiree filter,...). Only problem with the sensor is that it's too small.

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 10:31

Not to mention the real question of can this really work? Simply stated, old analog extreme wide angle lenses really are not up to the quality demands of excellent digital work. Film, yes, digital, no.

Then there is still the question of plastering an adapter/s on to a body and then adding the very short lens and what kind of focus can you achieve and what kind of movements are possible and what about vignetting and fall-off, if any?

Any kind of analog or digital camera up through medium format can be put on the back of a Novoflex T/S bellows and most any lens can be put on the front from a microscope lens through some medium format lenses as well as some view camera lenses in a 0 shutter. The problem comes in when you are using something like this to reach infinity. Some playing with something like this may solve the problem if you can find a lens with a really long flange focal length since the minimum compression of the bellows is 40mm + the depth of the required adapters and the position of the sensor in the camera body.

For instance, the FFL (flange focal length) of:

35mm Apo Sironar Digital = 43.2mm
45mm Apo Sironar Digital = 55.5mm
40mm HR Digaron-W = 69.5mm
23mm HR Digaron-S = 44.8mm
28mm HR Digaron-S = 53.1mm
35mm HR Digaron-S = 53.5mm

All of the above Rodenstock digital lens FFL info is for lenses in Copal 0 mount.

All of the above lenses are also available in Rodenstock focusing mounts for direct use on a non-bellows camera. The FFL reamins the same for lenses mounted in a helicoid and all of the helicoids would allow for focusing from infinity to between 0.25m and 0.6m depending on the focal length of the lens. The heicoids have a 3 size hutter thread on the back so a 3 to whatever you mount it on would be required as an adapter.

Yes, the flange focal length was mentioned before. As I already stated it would probably not make sense to use very wide-angle Large-Format lenses on a Novoflex/Arca-Swiss or Cambo Actus because - even though it's possible (I've talked to Cambo about it) - the lens would basically stick INTO the body of the camera. That doesnt make any sense, so I guess adapting a Medium-Format lens would be the best solution.

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 10:32

.....most preferably with the Fuji X, because honestly: that sensor is perfect, I love everything about it (color-rendering, dynamic range, missing moiree filter,...). Only problem with the sensor is that it's too small.

In other words, the sensor isn't perfect! Why not try the Sony a7R. That has a larger sensor and no filter.

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 10:41

Regarding your last point, I would change "might be difficult to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)[/COLOR]" to "impossible to find the right (used) MF-lens in ultra-wide focal length (less than 40mm)[/COLOR]"

As has already been mentioned, the very wide angle lenses produced in the past for medium format cameras have much less resolution on the corners than in the middle, and have a lot of vignetting. Also, if you are only "sensor shifting" you will be limited to stitching within the limitations of the actual circle of illumination of the lens, the diameter of which is only a bit more than the diagonal of the format. For example, the 35mm lenses for the Mamiya 645 and Pentax 645 cameras cover only a bit more than about 80 mm, or about the same as 35mm tilt/shift lenses. The widest inexpensive lenses for 6X7 format are in the 43mm - 45mm range. The actual circle of illumination of the 6X7 wide angles is around 100 mm, but again the corners are poor compared to the center.

There is a 50 mm lens tilt/shift lens for the Mamiya 645 that has a much larger circle of useful coverage, but this is probably not wide enough for you.

Sandy

Many thanks for this very important input, Sandy! So maybe adapting a wide-angle tilt-shift FF is the most reasonable (digital) solution, before actually switching to an analogue film 4x5-camera...

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 11:22

Many thanks for this very important input, Sandy! So maybe adapting a wide-angle tilt-shift FF is the most reasonable (digital) solution, before actually switching to an analogue film 4x5-camera...

Have you priced one of these lenses and compared that price to a basic view camera and lens?

aeiou11235

4-Dec-2014, 11:42

Have you priced one of these lenses and compared that price to a basic view camera and lens?

I appreciate your input, Bob. But in the end, even though there are a lot of good ideas here in the thread coming up for alternative ways to achieve what I want to achieve (and that I will seriously consider for future endeavours into the magnificent world of photography), I would like to stay with my initial premise: I want to adapt the existing digital systems, that I have (Canon EOS or preferably Fuji X), to a system that allows me to achieve Medium Format or maybe even Large Format-quality in: size (high resolution) and optical quality (distortion-free). I agree that it's partly about the challenge of trying something new and maybe this might not be reasonable for some.

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 12:17

I appreciate your input, Bob. But in the end, even though there are a lot of good ideas here in the thread coming up for alternative ways to achieve what I want to achieve (and that I will seriously consider for future endeavours into the magnificent world of photography), I would like to stay with my initial premise: I want to adapt the existing digital systems, that I have (Canon EOS or preferably Fuji X), to a system that allows me to achieve Medium Format or maybe even Large Format-quality in: size (high resolution) and optical quality (distortion-free). I agree that it's partly about the challenge of trying something new and maybe this might not be reasonable for some.

From your statement I can not tell what you really are expecting.

Are you trying to duplicate what Stephen Wilkes does in digital? Or what Peter Lik does in film or what John Sexton does in film?

How big an image are you trying to make?

Optical quality is a lot more then "distortion free". Most of the lenses for the Canon, especially L series, and the Fuji are "distortion free".

Actually all lenses have distortion. Better lenses much less then lesser ones. But distortion takes on many forms.
Are you talking about the bowing of straight lines?
Barrel or pincushion?
Or are you talking about the effect of fore shortening where objects closer to the lens are reproduced larger then things further from the lens?
What about longitudinal chromatic aberration? That means that fine lines in a high contrast field (like fine branches against the sky) reproduce thicker due to color fringing.
How about fall off center to edge?
MTF curves?
At what image ratios?
Bokah?
Where is the lens performing at its optimal?
Is that a magnification ratio and f stop that works for you?
Or, because of a much smaller sensor size compared to medium format, does optimal aperture of the lens create diffraction on the smaller sensor?

Just slapping a medium format lens on a small sensor camera will not necessarily result in the quality you think it might achieve. But one thing it will do is eat up money that could be put to better use to get that quality that you want. Whatever you do spend to make this conversion will not come back to you in the event you find that it won't work later.

Christopher Barrett

4-Dec-2014, 12:38

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 13:03

..... The widest lens you would be able to use on a view camera would be a 35mm and I'm pretty sure that only two cameras would focus it, the afore-mentioned Cambo Actus and my Arca M2. Either of those and the appropriate lenses would get very expensive. Other view cameras (that you could find used cheap) will just not physically be able to focus a lens wide enough for architecture.

Hope that helps,
CB

My blog post on the Arca M2 (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=800)

Not sure where your information comes from but it is totally wrong!

Both the Linhof Techno and the Linhof M679cs, as well as the older M679cc and the original M679, accept lenses down to and including the 23mm HR Digaron-S. In fact, the 23mm on the Techno focuses to infinity on a flat Linhof Technika 45 board. It does require a triple receesed board for the M679 cameras though.

As for a 35mm, there again, you are wrong. The Linhof TK 23 and 45, the Linhof Master Technika and Master Technika Classic as well as the Technika V and IV, and all Kardan cameras back to the B system can all use lenses as short as 35mm. Except for the IV, V and Master Technika all the others would need a recessed board. On the IV, V and Master Technika/Classic they accept the 35mm on special helical focusing mount lens boards. The Technika 2000 and 3000 take a 35mm on a Linhof recessed board.

Christopher Barrett

4-Dec-2014, 14:10

Bob Salomon

4-Dec-2014, 14:43

Sorry, Bob... I was talking about the OP's plans to adapt a view camera to mirrorless body capturing. With that extra depth on the back end, I didn't believe any of the Linhofs to be an option or have the capability. Mind you, I believe all of this discussion is moot considering his budget.

The 23 has a very long FFL distance so some others may work. Depends on the thickness of the adapters. Civets may also have something that can do it as well. Linhof does not have adapters for camera bodies. Sinar did once.

But I agree with your conclusion.

aeiou11235

5-Dec-2014, 07:06

From your statement I can not tell what you really are expecting.

Are you trying to duplicate what Stephen Wilkes does in digital? Or what Peter Lik does in film or what John Sexton does in film?

Thanks for your reply, Bob!

I must admit that I do not have a lot of interest in other photographers' works, I'm pretty much self-centered, for the better or worse. If I had to name someone's work that I admire deeply then it would probably be the usual suspects: Sugimoto, Gursky, Becher, Hoefer, Demand, Struth, ... and furthermore Teller, Tillmans, Araki, Moriyama...

Even though I admire these peoples' works I see no sense in replicating anyone. I try to do my own thing.

How big an image are you trying to make?

Optical quality is a lot more then "distortion free". Most of the lenses for the Canon, especially L series, and the Fuji are "distortion free".

I want to achieve at least 48 Megapixels, just to throw a number into the game ...

Actually all lenses have distortion. Better lenses much less then lesser ones. But distortion takes on many forms.
Are you talking about the bowing of straight lines?
Barrel or pincushion?
Or are you talking about the effect of fore shortening where objects closer to the lens are reproduced larger then things further from the lens?
What about longitudinal chromatic aberration? That means that fine lines in a high contrast field (like fine branches against the sky) reproduce thicker due to color fringing.
How about fall off center to edge?
MTF curves?
At what image ratios?
Bokah?
Where is the lens performing at its optimal?
Is that a magnification ratio and f stop that works for you?
Or, because of a much smaller sensor size compared to medium format, does optimal aperture of the lens create diffraction on the smaller sensor?

Distortion-free in the meaning of: no barrel or pincushion- or mustache- or whatever-distortion.

CA: I don't really care, it's possible to filter that relatively good. Same with fall off.

Image Ratio: I don't care. I love 4x5 even though it's too compressed for most applications, so I usually crop 3x4, but sometimes 1x1 is nice, too. I'm not Bresson, I crop depending either on the format I need for publication or depending on what works best for the image.

MTF/Optimal Lens Performance point: too detailed to worry about in my case. I'm not trying to achieve Gursky-qualities (stepping closer would be nice, though)

Bokeh: secondary for my application. I do care for Bokeh when I'm photographing portraits, but as mentioned before I want to use the system that I am researching for architecture. I made some blurry out-of-focus images of Bauhaus Dessau once, but apart from that it does not play any role for the photos I want to take.

f-stop: I don't need a fast lens, as long as it's sharp enough. If I can't dial down the f-stop to an aperture that allows me to get all objects in focus that I want to be sharp then I work with focus-stacking in PP.

Magnification ratio: I'm not into Macro.

I understand that there might be a problem with lens diffraction when working with a smaller sensor. It's something I'd have to deal with (if I can't avoid)

Just slapping a medium format lens on a small sensor camera will not necessarily result in the quality you think it might achieve. But one thing it will do is eat up money that could be put to better use to get that quality that you want. Whatever you do spend to make this conversion will not come back to you in the event you find that it won't work later.

Yes, I know. That's exactly why I'm writing here in that forum: to find out if the possibilities that I'm thinking of (Adapter-solutions on Fuji-X) can actually deliver a reasonably good quality. For sure it will be hard/impossible to achieve "perfect" quality with this kind of set-up but at least getting three steps closer to perfection than with the set-up that I have right now (shooting 16MP and fighting with low resolution and distorted lines) would be welcome.

aeiou11235

5-Dec-2014, 07:35

Thought I'd throw my thoughts in since I have some practical experience here. I've been shooting architecture professionally for about 20 years and continue to explore different workflows as they become available. Currently I use a couple systems. My primary kit is a Phase One IQ 260 back on an Arca-Swiss Rm3d with a number of lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider. My newer (backup) system is the Sony A7r with an adapter to use Canon's 17 & 24 mm TS-Es. I also own the Arca M Line 2 and can mount the Sony on there to use all of my German glass with it.

Firstly, how much resolution do you need? I ask because both of your current cameras have very little resolution. Honestly, I'd sell both and buy the Sony A7r. At 36mp, it packs a lot of resolution. The files are not quite as pleasing as my IQ260 files, but they're damn good and much nicer than what my 5d2 provided. With that in hand, I would consider using the adapted Canon tilt/shifts over a view camera. The widest lens you would be able to use on a view camera would be a 35mm and I'm pretty sure that only two cameras would focus it, the afore-mentioned Cambo Actus and my Arca M2. Either of those and the appropriate lenses would get very expensive. Other view cameras (that you could find used cheap) will just not physically be able to focus a lens wide enough for architecture.

Hope that helps,
CB

My blog post on the Arca M2 (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=800)

Thank you so much for your input, Christopher Barrett! Checked your work: very impressive!

A Large- or Medium-Format-solution with digital back like what you're using would surely be most welcome for my endeavours but it's financially completely out of reach right now.

In my research for adapter-solutions I stumbled upon the Sony a7r so often already (and was mentioned in the thread here once or twice already, by Bob and Sandy), that I slightly start doubting that buying into Fuji x was the best idea, but selling everything wo switch to Sony a7r also does not work for me. I already spent roughly 4000 Euros on that system, selling it would mean that I'd at least be losing half of the amount (I'm using my cameras daily, so it's definitely not "as brand new' anymore). Last not least I love working with the system for all my other applications (portraits, snapshots, etc...). It might be a good idea to step-up later though, when there's enough budget ...

Your backup-solution with the Canon-glass sounds like the perfect solution for me, but there's - as far as I can see - no solution to control the aperture with the Fuji. I guess you're using the Metabones Smart Adapter so you can control the aperture? Unfortunately there's no adapter like this for me / Fuji x ;(

Nevertheless - from your and all the other information I got here in this thread - I'm slowly shifting from buying into a LF-adapter-system (like Novoflex, Cambo Actus, Arca-Swiss) or MF-adapter-system (Fotodiox Rhinocam) to just adapting a wide-angle TS-lens to my Fuji. It's the easiest and maybe not the most exciting (in terms of 'challenge') solution, but it seems to be the most secure way to step a little bit closer to technical perfection. Hopefully I can take a bigger step in the future and buy into a digital LF-system.

sanking

5-Dec-2014, 11:24

Nevertheless - from your and all the other information I got here in this thread - I'm slowly shifting from buying into a LF-adapter-system (like Novoflex, Cambo Actus, Arca-Swiss) or MF-adapter-system (Fotodiox Rhinocam) to just adapting a wide-angle TS-lens to my Fuji. It's the easiest and maybe not the most exciting (in terms of 'challenge') solution, but it seems to be the most secure way to step a little bit closer to technical perfection. Hopefully I can take a bigger step in the future and buy into a digital LF-system.

I agree that a adapting a wide-angle TS lens to your Fuji is probably the least expensive way to bump up the MP count of your image files.

However, I did see this about your camera and the Actus. http://fuji-x.photos/Cambo/

Sandy

aeiou11235

6-Dec-2014, 07:47

I agree that a adapting a wide-angle TS lens to your Fuji is probably the least expensive way to bump up the MP count of your image files.

However, I did see this about your camera and the Actus. http://fuji-x.photos/Cambo/

Sandy

Hi Sandy, many thanks!

I will have a look on the Cambo Actus next week at a photo-equipment-distributor here in Berlin who invited me to come over and have a look on it. There is no urgency, so I don't need to decide today or tomorrow and can take some time to evaluate my options, of which I have a lot right now:

View Camera System
Cambo Actus with LF- or MF- or FF-lens
+ image area of 43x34 (similar to Leaf Credo), so medium resolution of all the options here
+ full perspective control
+ very wide range of lenses
+ quite 'elegant' solution (a tiny view camera)

Shift Adapters
Fotodiox Rhinocam with MF-lens
+ image area of 62x46 (!!!), so highest resolution of all the options here
+ relatively cheap MF-lenses (eg Hasselblad V 40mm)
+ easy handling, easy post-processing
- might show some weird color shifts in end-result ("italian flag bullseye"), but possible to filter

4x5 view-camera with Multistitch-adapter
- a lot of costs and maybe not in relation to actual usefulness
- a lot of new & heavy equipment means a lot of additional weight to carry around

Tilt/Shift Adapters MF-lens to Fuji x
one of the Hartblei or Zoerk adapter-solutions
- limited resolution in comparison to the other options

Tilt/Shift Adapters for FF-lenses
Kipon Tilt-Shift Adapter Nikon/Olympus/Contax to Fuji
+ some really nice lenses available for cheap (eg Contax Biogon 21mm f/2.8)
- limited resolution in comparison to the other options

Tilt/Shift-lens on new, higher resolution MILC
Canon 17mm TS-E with new camera (Sony a7r)
+ seems to be a favorite for lots of other architectural photographers, due to easy handling and high resolution, so I'm considering buying into the Sony system
+ high resolution and IQ possible in a very convenient way

Panorama-Stitching
Probably with gear from reallyrightstuff
+ have lenses already
- in confined spaces the stitching process produces a lot of discard due to stitching errors