Sinar bellows

[absolom]

Hi,

I'm mostly a digital photographer but I've decided to try and make the switch to 4x5. Specifically, I'm considering a Sinar x. I do alot of macro photography and my question is this: I've noticed that the bellows for Sinars are rather short. Is it easy to extend the bellows or attach multiple bellows together to attain the draw I might need to get a small object in focus?

let's assume I'd be using a 150 lens. Another question: Is there a better camera to get that has equally available parts and accessories that would also be cheaper?

Thanks for your help,

-Alex

[Leigh]

Hi Alex,

The standard Sinar bellows is spec'd at 18" (450mm), although it will actually stretch longer.
You only need 300mm (nominal) for 1:1 with a 150mm lens.

You can add more bellows, needing only an additional multipurpose standard between each pair.
Of course you will need rail extensions, since the standard base rail is 12".

All of these items are readily available on the used market, and not expensive.

- Leigh

[Frank Petronio]

Sinar made a longer bellows at various times but most people get an intermediate standard to attach two normal, inexpensive bellows together. This also helps prevent bellows sag. Sometimes it is less expensive to buy an older/entire Sinar F for only $200 to $300 and use it for additional parts on your main camera (the front standard is used as the intermediate standard, the bellows becomes your second bellows, etc.)

The Sinar X and P2 are very similar and used prices can be equivalent. Also the older P is going to be just as good - what matters is the camera's condition, not the year it was made. Some Sinars were heavily used and abused in rental or catalog production and in spite of being newer models, they may be worn. Likewise some Sinar Ps from the 1970s have been well maintained and are excellent values. They all can be rebuilt and serviced, usually people over-tighten them and wear the plastic parts and sliding bits.

The Sinar Norma and the Toyo G-series are quite nice and sturdy, simpler designs with less fine gears but still precise and well made. The Sinar F2 is a nice camera with fine geared focusing and friction controls. Cambo also made some fine cameras with a system of interchangeable parts.

More rare and costly, the Arca-Swiss and Linhof monorails are perhaps even better quality than the Sinar but the Sinar is still excellent and probably the best value with the largest amount of used parts available.

[absolom]

Thanks guys,

both very helpful

[Robert Jonathan]

Watch for some used extra long Horseman bellows. They will work on the Sinar.

[Alan Gales]

The Sinar P is a real bargain right now. I picked mine up for $600.00 including a very nice Schneider 210mm 5.6 lens and a rough but usable Calumet plastic case. The P is not much different than the P2.

Like Frank says, condition is everything!

[Ed Richards]

So what d0 you mean by macro - close up, 1:1, or real macro, i,e., greater than 1:1? Probably an unpopular view here, but I think for 1:1 and greater, you do better to stick to FF digital. Diffraction and movement really wash out the advantage of LF at 1:1 and greater. Add a little digital focus stacking and you have LF beat by a mile.

[absolom]

Hi Ed,

I use ff digital now and my reason for wanting to switch is that I enlarge my images to roughly 40x50 and I'm not happy with the loss of detail. If I went up to 3:1 would diffraction really be an enormous problem?

Thanks

[Ed Richards]

3:1 - That was what I was wondering. Diffraction does become an issue, and you need a really long bellows setup - two with a intermediate standard will be more stable. You will also need to set this up with two tripods. That is easier with the Sinar because you can move the rail clamp and put one at each end of the extended rail. I am assuming this is all highly controlled studio work, preferably on an optical bench set up. Ideally, you skip the tripods and set the rail clamps on the stable, hard surface, and put a clamp on the front of the rail to hold the subject. Then everything is tied together.

Because of the huge bellows factor, exposure will be very long, unless you use strobe light. That might be the best bet, since the subject distance is small, you do not need expensive gear to get huge output. If you do all that, and get a real macro capable lens like the Nikon 120 macro, you can better your digital performance. But it is a huge amount of work and really slows things down. You have to really pay attention to stability and set up or the 4x5 is not going to be much improvement.

Since your subjects have to completely static (unless you go the strobe route), you might get much better results by focus stacking to increase the detail in your digital images. This can also be combined with stitching images so you get a bigger digital image. For the cost of getting into 4x5 and learning how to do it, you could probably by a computer controlled macro photographer focus stacking rig to automate the process:

http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php

[absolom]

Hi Ed,

Yes, it is in a very controlled studio environment. At the moment I'm using a canon mp-e 65mm on a 5d which can go up to 5:1 without any attachments. And, when I need it I do stack a little. Thanks for the link. My problem is really resolution rather then detail though. I don't have trouble with focus or depth of field or time needed to expose, it's simply that even when everything goes perfectly right I'm still not that happy with image quality at 40x50. And I don't want to change the size.

[absolom]

I guess another way, which is your stitching method would be to photograph an object at 5:1 and then combine the images into one composition.

[Frank Petronio]

Personally I think a higher resolution digital body would get better results, why not borrow or rent one to try?

[absolom]

that's certainly the simplest solution and probably comparable in price to all the stuff I'd have to get for a 4x5

[Ed Richards]

Rent a 5 D II and see if that helps. I have seen brilliant 4x5 macro work, but the cameras were really more like enlargers - set up as a rigid vertical frame and shooting down onto the subject. There was a time when that was the standard for serious scientific photography. Dare I recommend a trip to an old fashioned research library to look for a technique book for scientific macro photography about 20 years ago?

[absolom]

So I used a friends 5d II and the difference was negligible. slightly less noise but that's about it. the first one is the 1 and the second one the 2


7288272883

[absolom]

The 1 is at 180% crop and the 2 is at 150%

[Drew Wiley]

For a 40X50 inch print I'd certainly prefer to use an 8X10 camera, even for macro work, but that's quite an investment with a steep learning curve. Far more practical would be the 4x5 Sinar system. The Horseman 28-inch bellows is wonderful, but might be hard to
find. Otherwise use a intermediate standard with two Sinars bellows. Constantly stretching
the std bellows to the max will prematurely wear it out. But don't get scared away from
view camera method. The end result can be wonderful IF you're willing to invest the time
to learn proper technique.

[Jeff Keller]

I must not understand what you mean by a 150% crop. I would expect both of those pictures to be sharper. I don't have a good comparable to what you are trying to do but I have a 35mm film image that I cropped to check the resolution possible with the lens. http://www.jkeller.com/Travel/Pacific_Grove/monarchs.htm Taken with a 400mm lens and probably a 1.4x teleconverter from 15 feet away or so. A 5Dii should be able to equal it. I've occaisionally used Olympus macro lenses (38mm and 20mm) to take high magnification macro pictures but again with film and achieved similar resolution.

Large format lenses won't out resolve 35mm lenses. If you are limited by your film or sensor resolution then changing formats can improve your results. I wonder if your lens isn't limiting what you are getting.

Jeff

[absolom]

I just zoomed into the 5d 2 picture until it started to break down. then I found the same crop in the 5d 1 image. so the 5d 1 image is 80% larger than its native resolution and the 2 is 50% larger. so your looking at a very small portion of the image.