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

[sanking]

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]

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 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". 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 for the lenses to allow you to shift the camera while keeping the lens (and optical image) stationary during shifting.

[aeiou11235]

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]

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 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 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]

"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]

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/dirkbell...nbraunschweig/

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]

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/dirkbell...nbraunschweig/

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]

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]

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]

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.