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

[Jim Jones]

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]

......
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]

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]

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]

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]

.....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]

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]

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]

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]

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.