MF Digital back on 4x5 - inexpensive view camera options?

[nonuniform]

I've got a P30 back for my Hasselblad 501 that I've been thinking about using on a 4x5 so that I can have more control over perspective, etc. I've got a couple of crown graphics and an old Zone VI Wista, along with a few Schneider lenses, but a field/press camera isn't going to work. Although, if someone made a graflox MFDB adapter, I'd think that was cool (though, not really necessary).

I've done some research, and I can see that a sliding back is $$$, along with newer cameras designed to take a DB directly.

So, I'm thinking of getting a sliding back, and finding a camera that will work that but not cost $3-4k.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

[CarstenW]

You might want to read Joseph Holmes' article on digital medium format accuracy. The required tolerances are so small that you need a really good camera, which isn't likely to come cheap.

[nonuniform]

Yup, I've read that article. It's definitely telling a fairly negative story. My output goals are a little bit different, and I've thought about this - I'm okay with the possible downside of a MF back on a LF camera.

[R Mann]

What about a Fuji GX680? The front has movements & I think adapters are available for digital backs.

[brian mcweeney]

I think for your budget you are going to have to look at a used Sinar/Cambo/studio monorail type camera and get a used sliding back for it like the one Phase One made. You also need some very short lenses like a 47-58mm.

[williamtheis]

try the crown graphic, it may just work but I've gotten very good results with my zone VI. probably the best is an old Linhof Master Technica (stay away from the Technicardan!!!) or if you can go monorail the Arca Swiss can sometimes be had in an older version on the cheap...
there's an ongoing discussion at the yahoo Betterlight group right now... that I could summarize.

[Thom Bennett]

We use a Leaf back on a Sinar P2 and have an adapter from Kapture Group. I think they make a graflock adapter. Check out the very bottom of this page:

http://www.kapturegroup.com/sinar/sinar.html

[locationfound]

try the crown graphic, it may just work but I've gotten very good results with my zone VI. probably the best is an old Linhof Master Technica (stay away from the Technicardan!!!) or if you can go monorail the Arca Swiss can sometimes be had in an older version on the cheap...
there's an ongoing discussion at the yahoo Betterlight group right now... that I could summarize.

Hi William,
I do own the technikardan and I'm interested in getting a v adapter for it, Why is that you strongly argue against the TK solution ?
Dimitris Chalkiadakis

[Eric Leppanen]

Here's another approach:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml

[nonuniform]

What about a Fuji GX680? The front has movements & I think adapters are available for digital backs.

As I was researching possible options, I came across the GX680. I had completely forgotten about this camera, and yes, it's definitely an interesting possibility, but I know next to nothing about it. I'll have to do more research. :)

[nonuniform]

Here's another approach:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml

Yes, that definitely looked interesting, as does the Linhof Techno, the Cambo Wide, etc.

Hmm, this is getting expensive. Might as well just drop the $$$ on a better 4x5 scanner and wait it out for a few more years!

[nonuniform]

try the crown graphic, it may just work but I've gotten very good results with my zone VI. probably the best is an old Linhof Master Technica (stay away from the Technicardan!!!) or if you can go monorail the Arca Swiss can sometimes be had in an older version on the cheap...
there's an ongoing discussion at the yahoo Betterlight group right now... that I could summarize.

So, you're currently running a digital back on your Zone VI? Which camera do you have? I had one of the first run of Zone VI cameras waaaay back, I ended up returning it to Fred because it would not lock down.

Anyhow, which back / adapter are you using?

[venchka]

Didn't hasselblad make a body similar to the Fuji? Or did Fuji make both cameras and added Hasselblad's name? Anyway, that makes two medium format tilt-shift-swing cameras.

[Daniel Stone]

one more thing to remember.

the OP said he has a p30 back. this back has microlenses, which when used with tilt and swing(or any movements other than straight on, even rise/fall), there can be serious issues with color cast. I'm not sure why as to how this happens, all I know is that it does, maybe not all the time, but even Phase 1 recommends NOT using the P30/P30+ backs on a tech camera(or view camera) due to this problem.

otherwise, look on ebay for the graflock-->hasselblad v adapter plates. or the sliding backs with the ground glass. not very expensive, you might have to do some custom shimming under the g/g though to get it bang on for focusing corner to corner though....


just my $.02

-Dan

[nonuniform]

one more thing to remember.

the OP said he has a p30 back. this back has microlenses, which when used with tilt and swing(or any movements other than straight on, even rise/fall), there can be serious issues with color cast. I'm not sure why as to how this happens, all I know is that it does, maybe not all the time, but even Phase 1 recommends NOT using the P30/P30+ backs on a tech camera(or view camera) due to this problem.

otherwise, look on ebay for the graflock-->hasselblad v adapter plates. or the sliding backs with the ground glass. not very expensive, you might have to do some custom shimming under the g/g though to get it bang on for focusing corner to corner though....


just my $.02

-Dan

Yup, tilt/swing plays a number with this back. I'm okay with that...

I'm definitely not going for any sort of traditional landscape, architectural work with this, so...

[spiky247]

How about a hasselblad flex body? You can use all your Hasselblad lenses, and since the sensor is not full frame you have room for tilts and movements on all your lenses.

[nonuniform]

How about a hasselblad flex body? You can use all your Hasselblad lenses, and since the sensor is not full frame you have room for tilts and movements on all your lenses.

I didn't realize that Hasselblad even made this until just recently. Given the price of a sliding back, view camera and additional lenses, the Flexbody might just give me what I'm looking for. Specs are here: Harry's ProShop. (http://harrysproshop.com/Hasselblad_Flex/hasselblad_flex.html)

[venchka]

Didn't hasselblad make a body similar to the Fuji? Or did Fuji make both cameras and added Hasselblad's name? Anyway, that makes two medium format tilt-shift-swing cameras.


How about a hasselblad flex body? You can use all your Hasselblad lenses, and since the sensor is not full frame you have room for tilts and movements on all your lenses.


I didn't realize that Hasselblad even made this until just recently. Given the price of a sliding back, view camera and additional lenses, the Flexbody might just give me what I'm looking for. Specs are here: Harry's ProShop. (http://harrysproshop.com/Hasselblad_Flex/hasselblad_flex.html)

That's the Hasselblad body I was talking about. KEH had some in recent memory.

[CarstenW]

I seem to recall that few of the Hasselblad lenses have much of an image circle to play with, so it might be a bit limiting. There is also the ArcBody, which takes 3 Rodenstock lenses specially mounted, IIRC.

[cowanw]

I have a Cambo back that mounts the Hasselblad body and back. And of course the body could have either film or digital back. The image is viewed through the usual Hasselblad viewfinder.
I don't know if this actually works well with digital, Maybe someone else does?
Regards
Bill

[VictoriaPerelet]

Overall, IMHO, MFDB's are not big use with classic 4x5 camera designs/lenses - odd sensor positioning, lack of wide lenses, color shifts off center, inadequate camera controls etc etc. You better off with Sinar P3 or Arca M L2 + digi lens setup - not inexpensive!

But for non picture taking purposes digital backs, both MFDB's & scanning backs are priceless.

1. MFDB's with Live View on sliding plates are useful for precise focusing and exposure evaluation (while some people still vigorously debating use of DSLR for same purpose:)).

2. They are also good for lens coverage and center filter evaluation.

With extreme wides (aka 47mm XL + CF) I ended up PhaseOne PhotoPhase for focusing and composition:eek:

[rdenney]

I seem to recall that few of the Hasselblad lenses have much of an image circle to play with, so it might be a bit limiting. There is also the ArcBody, which takes 3 Rodenstock lenses specially mounted, IIRC.

The digital backs are smaller than the full 6x6 frame, though I don't know to what extent in the case of the P30. That would provide some range for lens movements.

Rick "not seeing many low-cost alternatives for digital larger than 24x36" Denney

[CarstenW]

The P30 is 44x33mm, compared to 56x42mm FF. You could get a bit of shift, but not much lens tilt with that.

[Michael Chmilar]

I have been looking at similar options for using an MFDB on my 4x5, especially since the release of the relatively inexpensive Leaf Aptus-II 5 22MP back.

The most interesting stitching adapter is the quadstitch from Kapture Group, as that permits four tiles to be photographed. Allowing for some overlap, you could end up with a 60 or 70 MP image from an (approx) 8x6cm area. Unfortunately, the quadstitch costs $5000 and is not Graflock.

Other adapters are available which permit two or three tiles, and are Graflock.

Joseph Holmes' concerns about precision don't necessarily apply to this scenario. He is concerned with using a 60MP back on an MF camera, with lenses at 70 or 80 lp/mm resolution, and photosites at 6 microns.

Using large format equipment, the lenses resolve 20 lp/mm, and the photosites on a 22 or 30 MP digital back are larger. Rather than capturing a high resolution image from a small area, the large format option is capturing the same amount of information from a larger area. So focusing tolerance is relaxed.

There is not much point in using a 60MP back in the large format stitching scenario, unless you are using one of the "digital" lenses, in which case Holmes' precision and tolerance concerns become important.

[Thebes]

I am always amazed at broad statements like LF lenses only resolve 20 lp/mm... surely this is true for some of them and definitely not for others... the centers of many are a lot better than that.

I've seen some nice looking flex-body clones, ones that seem to offer more movements and less expense, on fleabay. There is a really nice newer Cambo system designed to hold either a digital back or a dslr depending on how it is set up.

I think lenses will be a bigger concern. Digital sensors don't like light coming from a sharp angle, so wide lenses will present an issue if they weren't designed with this in mind.

I've just GAS'd a revolving back made by Horseman that fits a 2x3 graflok magazine to a 4x5 graflok back, rotates with a twist to a ground glass. I didn't get it to use with a digital back, but I think it could be a possibility in the future and it was certainly cheaper than the sliding backs I've seen made for the purpose, though larger as well.

[RK_LFteacher]

This stopped some months ago, but i have some experience/info to add.
The Fuji can be ok, but as with normal or rail LF cameras it will only work well with normal(135mm and longer) to long lenses. Wide angles for medium format on a view camera are a real problem to focus. Also the Fuji 680 didn't work well with very short lenses even with the bag bellows, as you couldn't get it to focus at infinity with the shortest lenses and use movement.
That is why many turn to 'Plate' cameras such as the ARCA Swiss RM3d for wide angle work because of the precision required to focus accurately. Thes plate cameras can do it better than your eyes!
See RdoKlukas.com for more info. Read also the article: Why Choose Digitar? available at RdoKlukas.com Schneiders website.
Rod

[JeffKohn]

See RdoKlukas.com for more info.This website doesn't appear to exist.

The problem with the plate cameras is limited movements. Plus the helicoid lens mounts double the price of lenses. The Arca-Swiss M-Line 2 is more attractive IMHO. As for focusing, live-view will be the ultimate answer, once the MF back makers get around to switching to CMOS.

[charleymeyer]

I believe it's RodKlukas.com

[rdenney]

Just from a mechanical perspective, there are some realities to be considered when the lens focal length gets down to an inch or so. One is that the bigger the standards, the more likely they will interfere when tilted. I mentioned previously that I can get about 8 or 10 degrees of tilt with a 47mm lens on my 4x5 Sinar, using the Wide Angle Bellows II. More tilt than that, and infinity focus is not possible without interference. That could be solved by using a lens cone, at the expense of losing the symmetry of the front tilts and swings.

It could also be solved using a retrofocus design, which may be the point of the so-called digital lenses shorter than a couple of inches.

The advantage to a medium-format view camera instead of a 4x5 camera is that the standards are physically smaller and therefore don't come as close together when tilted.

The fine adjustability of the movements is another issue that has been pointed out. Let's say a typical tilt for a 5-inch lens (on 4x5) is 8 degrees with a tolerance of, say, 5%. In this situation, non-geared movements might be just fine--one's fingers might be able to achieve the needed accuracy of +/- .4 degrees. But the typical tilt for my 47 is more like 3 degrees in the same situation, with a tolerance of +/- .15 degrees. I use that lens on a Sinar F without geared movements, and I know the fine motor skills required to set the lens tilt. Some hair-pulling is required at times. With a 28mm lens, the same situation would require a 1.6-degree tilt, with a tolerance of .08 degrees. One would need finely made geared movements to achieve that without quickly going bald.

The focus issue has also been brought up. But there are relatively cheap helical mounts available on ebay that could be used to mount a short lens on a flat lens board, to act as a supplemental fine focus control to the geared focus of the camera.

Observing fine focus at the film plane is no different than for any small-format camera. It just needs enough magnification, and perhaps a focus aid. I'm sure that I could focus accurately enough for digital using a 10x loupe and, say, a Maxwell screen. Of course, the needed accuracy of the screen's position would be greater. I routinely focus lenses manually on a Canon 5D with a 2.8x eyepiece magnifier. Yes, I would like to see live view (which works well on the 5DII), or a split-image aid, but it works. And those images get enlarged more than would images from a much larger sensor.

For those contemplating the high price of larger digital systems, the calculus of the balance between sensor price and camera price has to be considered. I might buy a very nice un-geared 4x5 view camera and even a lens or two for under $1000, and spend another grand on a scanner. Or, I might start with 8 or 10 grand (at least) for a sensor, and then add an appropriate camera. In the first case, a high-end medium-format view camera would increase the marginal cost of the system by a significant factor--maybe up to $5K or $6K, or maybe a 200% marginal cost. The difference in marginal cost between a $1000 camera and a $5000 camera is a lot lower when the total investment is $12,000 versus $16,000 (at the low end of the digital domain)--a marginal cost of 33%. The higher-end and more costly the digital component, the more the price of the camera fades into the noise.

Rick "summarizing" Denney

[Thom Bennett]

View Camera magazine has an article about our studio in the next issue and how we use a medium format digital back on a 4x5 Sinar. Live View is a great compositional aid.

I have a question regarding tilts with extremely wide angle lenses; are they truly necessary? According to a program called DOF Master for a 47mm lens @ f16 the hyperfocal distance is just under 5 ft. and everything from 2.5 ft. to infinity is in focus. What would you use tilts for?

[Brian Ellis]

View Camera magazine has an article about our studio in the next issue and how we use a medium format digital back on a 4x5 Sinar. Live View is a great compositional aid.

I have a question regarding tilts with extremely wide angle lenses; are they truly necessary? According to a program called DOF Master for a 47mm lens @ f16 the hyperfocal distance is just under 5 ft. and everything from 2.5 ft. to infinity is in focus. What would you use tilts for?

I'd use tilts because I've never found the whole hyperfocal distance concept to be very useful with outdoor photography. When I tried it years ago it never worked as advertised, there was always something in the near or, more often, the far, that didn't look sharp. Maybe because my prints were larger than the assumed size in the tables, maybe because I wasn't using it correctly, I don't know. I just didn't think it worked well and I'd much rather use tilts than rely on it. Of course that was before there was such a thing as hyperfocal distance computer programs. Maybe the programs are better.

You mention using Live View to compose. Doesn't it help a lot with focusing too? I know that on my digital camera it's a huge aid not only to composing but also for focusing as well as making multiple images of the same scene, focusing on different points from front to back, and then merging the exposures in Photoshop. This allows everything in the scene to be in focus or so close you can't tell the difference, without having to worry about small apertures, depth of field, swings, tilts, etc. For me it's the single best feature to come along with digital cameras in recent years because it allows me to use the optimum aperture for each lens without having to stop down farther to gain needed depth of field.

[dave_whatever]

I'd use tilts because I've never found the whole hyperfocal distance concept to be very useful with outdoor photography. When I tried it years ago it never worked as advertised, there was always something in the near or, more often, the far, that didn't look sharp. Maybe because my prints were larger than the assumed size in the tables, maybe because I wasn't using it correctly, I don't know.

I had the same experience as you. Even stopping down an extra stop or so from the apertures that pop out of DOF calculators or on lens focussing scales won't get you a truly sharp looking infinity using hyperfocal focussing. Foreground will look OK because your brain knows that Xmm of on-film blur on a foreground blade of grass equals a fraction of a millimetre on the subject, but also knows that the same Xmm of on-film blur on a distant mountain might equal 50meters of mountain. Or so goes the theory (you can dig this theory out of Merklinger's DOF articles).

My solution to this problem on medium format was to just focus at infinity for anything which has something important in the distance and stop down for foreground depth of field. But then you lose the ability to shoot a near-far landscape with anything close to you, even with a 45mm wide lens at f/22. Hence I moved to 4x5.:)

[rdenney]

I have a question regarding tilts with extremely wide angle lenses; are they truly necessary? According to a program called DOF Master for a 47mm lens @ f16 the hyperfocal distance is just under 5 ft. and everything from 2.5 ft. to infinity is in focus. What would you use tilts for?

It's a good point on the face of it--I usually don't use tilts in the field with that lens with 6x12 format. But with a digital back, the 47 will be close to a normal lens and the enlargement will be significantly greater to achieve a given print. Depth of field may not be sufficient, especially if parts of the scene are close to the camera.

Also, not everyone uses tilt to improve focus. Many use it to isolate the subject by throwing non-subject elements out of focus. In that case, however, the precision of the tilt won't be as important.

Finally, remember that DOFMaster is designed for 8x10" prints. You have to manually choose smaller target circles of confusion for prints larger than that. For 4x5, the target C of C in DOFMaster is .1mm. I think (I don't remember the math) that might produce 5 lines/mm, which is already what I want in a print. Even the Zeiss Formula would specify .067mm. But let's go with it. An 8x10 print would therefore provide 2.5 lines/mm. But a 32x40" print would only resolve 1 line/mm, which would be an inadequate standard of what seems sharp in a print for most folks. To print at that size, one would need a C of C target 1/4 the size of what DOFMaster uses to achieve DOFMaster's apparent target sharpness. Given that, the hyperfocal distance of the 47 at f/16 on 4x5 would be 18 feet, which isn't quite as wonderful. Given a more stringent standard of 5 lines/mm on a 32x40 print, the hyperfocal distance would be 35 feet.

Looking at the 47 on a 36x45mm sensor, the 47mm lens is a normal lens. To get the most from a sensor capable of 60 lines/mm, the C of C would need to be .008mm. (This is not as stringent as what is needed for that 32x40 print.) The hyperfocal distance with that target C of C is 57 feet with the 47 at f/16.

So, tilt really often does matter, even with short lenses, particularly if there are scene elements close to the camera.

Rick "who depends on depth of field as little as possible" Denney

[evan clarke]

How about a tilt/shift lens for your Hassie?

[rdenney]

How about a tilt/shift lens for your Hassie?

Or an Arcbody.

Rick "or a Flexbody" Denney

[Bob Salomon]

"So, tilt really often does matter, even with short lenses, particularly if there are scene elements close to the camera."

But that is only one reason to tilt. Correcting converging lines can be just as important in many areas of photography, especially architectur and product shots and that requires back tilts /swings.

[Thom Bennett]

Thank for addressing my question. Rick, I didn't think about the DOF Master preset for 8x10 prints so thanks for thank tidbit. I guess you landscape photographers have more real world issues than we do in the studio. Your infinity is different than my infinity :)

Brian, yes we use Live View to focus as well. This is with a LEAF DB not a DSLR. Imagine your ground glass on the computer screen; composition, focus, swings, tilts are all clearly seen in glorious black & white and the image is right side up! This is strictly studio stuff, BTW, but I imagine it would work well in the field with a laptop.

[rdenney]

But that is only one reason to tilt. Correcting converging lines can be just as important in many areas of photography, especially architectur and product shots and that requires back tilts /swings.

That's where shift comes in, heh. Most cameras that do tilt do shift, too. But many that do shift don't do tilt, particularly perspective-correcting lenses.

Rick "realizing that two tilts = one shift, but one tilt does not" Denney

[Bob Salomon]

That's where shift comes in, heh. Most cameras that do tilt do shift, too. But many that do shift don't do tilt, particularly perspective-correcting lenses.

Rick "realizing that two tilts = one shift, but one tilt does not" Denney

And shift can run you quickly out to the edge of the lens. Center and assymetric tilts and swings do not.

[rdenney]

And shift can run you quickly out to the edge of the lens. Center and assymetric tilts and swings do not.

A rear tilt doesn't run out of coverage, but by itself it does move around the focus plane. If I have to tilt the back forward at the top to make it vertical, the lens will still be tilted back with respect to the film, resulting in a focus plane that angles over the top of the camera. Rarely am I in a situation where that's even close to where the focus plane needs to be. So, I end up tilting the front, too.

And tilting the front runs out of coverage even faster than shifting does.

Rick "you knew this, of course" Denney

[Bob Salomon]

A rear tilt doesn't run out of coverage, but by itself it does move around the focus plane. If I have to tilt the back forward at the top to make it vertical, the lens will still be tilted back with respect to the film, resulting in a focus plane that angles over the top of the camera. Rarely am I in a situation where that's even close to where the focus plane needs to be. So, I end up tilting the front, too.

And tilting the front runs out of coverage even faster than shifting does.

Rick "you knew this, of course" Denney

Unless the camera has base tilts.

[rdenney]

Unless the camera has base tilts.

Mine does. But I don't see how having base tilts keeps a front tilt from running out of coverage, especially if focused on the same thing.

Rick "who has cameras with axis tilts, and a camera with base tilts" Denney

[JeffKohn]

I have a question regarding tilts with extremely wide angle lenses; are they truly necessary? According to a program called DOF Master for a 47mm lens @ f16 the hyperfocal distance is just under 5 ft. and everything from 2.5 ft. to infinity is in focus. What would you use tilts for?
With digital, people are examining the results more closely, and also enlarging more than they did with film, so the traditional DOF calculations are too optimistic.

As others have mentioned, if you focus at the hyperfocal distance, distant objects won't be as sharp as when actually focused at infinity. Plus, even f/16 should be avoided with digital if possible, you'll get noticeably better results at f/8 with good lenses.

At shorter focal lengths you don't need as much tilt compared to longer lenses; a little bit goes a long way. But even with a 24mm PC lens (on 35mm DSLR), I'll often use a degree or so of tilt for many shots where I have a foreground that I want sharp in addition to the background.

[Brian Ellis]

That's where shift comes in, heh. Most cameras that do tilt do shift, too. But many that do shift don't do tilt, particularly perspective-correcting lenses.

Rick "realizing that two tilts = one shift, but one tilt does not" Denney

The PC lenses on the market today for DSLRs include both tilt and shift.

[Bob Salomon]

Mine does. But I don't see how having base tilts keeps a front tilt from running out of coverage, especially if focused on the same thing.

Rick "who has cameras with axis tilts, and a camera with base tilts" Denney

To correct converging lines you need to tilt or swing the back, or both. With 3 point perspective this can be combined with shifts and front tilts as well.

[rdenney]

To correct converging lines you need to tilt or swing the back, or both. With 3 point perspective this can be combined with shifts and front tilts as well.

Bob, I have this feeling we are talking past one another, and I am missing your point.

I know how perspective correction works. And I know that tilting or swinging the back with respect to the lens poses little or no risk of finding the edge of the lens's coverage. But let's say we tilt the whole camera back to get a tall subject into the view (to avoid the shifts that might run out of coverage). Then, we tilt the back to the vertical to correct for perspective convergence. Fine. But now the lens is tilted back with respect to the film, and the focus plane is going to be slanted back over the top of the camera. Rarely will a focus plane in that position be photographically useful. (If we want a fall instead of a rise for a given subject, then tilting the back is often just the right solution, as any Graflex owner will tell you.) We might just stop down and let depth of field take care of it, but that's exactly what we decided we often didn't want to do about a dozen posts back. The only choice, therefore, is to tilt the front lens to correct the focus plane. And then we risk running out of coverage again. And, in effect, we've simulated a front rise with two tilts.

Tilting the lens with respect to the film is as likely to find the edges of coverage as shifting, and if the focus plane needs significant adjustment, perhaps moreso. Your response was "except if you have base tilts," which, frankly, baffled me. I can't see any distinction between base and axis tilts (and I have used both) with respect to this issue. (Base tilts often allow a yaw-free design which is more convenient when the whole camera is leaned back, but that's a different discussion.)

You can tilt the back to correct perspective. You can also tilt the back (instead of the lens) to adjust the focus plane. Rarely can you do both at the same time, even if the two are presented in different forum postings.

Back to topic: The OP asked if a 4x5 view camera made a good mule for a "medium format" digital back. Many responses have pointed out the weaknesses of doing so, partly because a 4x5 view camera is simply too big and gets in its own way when using the accompanying very short lenses, and partly because most 4x5 cameras lack the fine control over movements and focus to allow enjoyable and reliable use for such a small format.

One person suggested that perhaps tilts were unnecessary, and several responses pointed out that even with short lenses, depth of field was often insufficient by itself to ensure acceptable apparent sharpness for large prints.

Alternatives were suggested, including medium-format cameras already compatible with available digital backs that include tilts and shifts. Perhaps the best alternative is a medium-format view camera already purpose-built for this application, and this was suggested by several. Still others suggested one of the fixed-box cameras with sliding fronts to provide shifts. All of these impose some compromise of movement flexibility, lens range, price, and portability, but then all potential solutions are a compromise of one thing or another. The OP will have to compare those compromises to his requirements.

Rick "writing complete thoughts to help prevent confusion" Denney

[rdenney]

The PC lenses on the market today for DSLRs include both tilt and shift.

It's not so easy to find a lens with both in the medium-format application, however. And it's also not so easy to find a lens with tilts but not shifts.

For the record, I own a Canon 24mm TSE, a Hartblei 45mm PCS (shift only), an Arsat 55mm PCS (shift only), and a tilting adapter that adapts the Pentacon Six lens mount to Canon EF. Thus, I can put those shift-only Hartblei and Arsat lenses, which were intended for medium format use, on the tilting adapter and mount them on my Canon, giving me tilt and shift capability. I have also mounted medium-format lenses such as the Zeiss Jena 80/2.8 Biometar (a nice five-element double-gauss lens for 6x6) to provide tilt only. I don't have an Arcbody or a Flexbody. But I have lots of experience trying to gain some of the image-management tools that movements provide, even when using a DSLR or a medium-format camera. None of these approaches are as straightforward as a view camera, as long as it provides the necessary fine control for the small format. The tilts and shifts of the above strange combinations are all geared, some very finely, despite their sometimes humble origins.

Rick "saved from lusting for the 17mm Canon TSE lens by a return to large format" Denney

[nonuniform]

Well, my final decision was to skip trying to use the P30 on a 4x5 camera, but I have considered the Hasselblad flex body. If I really want to use tilts, which, in fact, is the main movement I want to use, then I'm guessing I should consider a different back.

In the meantime, I continue to the use the back with my Hasselblad and enjoy the images I'm creating! Along the way, I'm running through the last of my Acros with the 4x5.

[Mel]

Rick "saved from lusting for the 17mm Canon TSE lens by a return to large format" Denney

:D Good summary.

[Bob Salomon]

You could just use a Linhof 001693 adapter. That puts any Hasselblad V back or the Hassy finders on to any 4x5 camera with an International/Graflok back. It is under $500.00 but does not slide. Just will let you mount that back to the camera.