"Digital" View Camera

[Frank Petronio]

There are several good posts by Mark Tucker over on Galbraith's forum about the practical use of MF digital in the field. To paraphrase what he gets down to is that yes, you will judge the photo from the Histrogram and enlarged image on the LCD, so your $30,000 back ought to come with a functional LCD that is at least as good as the one on a $600 D-70. And the Phase One LCD (and most of the others) is pretty much unusable. The digital back manufacturers seemed to add the LCDs after afterthoughts and haven't really studied the way real photographers make pictures.

(Of course we all know that we shouldn't trust the LCD image. But since the digital exposures are "free", you'd be foolish not to plink off another shot just to be sure... )

There's also a chicken and egg type of problem with all this great stuff. If you can't focus the super-duper lens because you're trying to squint into a tiny crappy viewfinder or lousy ground glass - much less tweak your tilts and swings half a nanometer, then having the "ultimate" hardly matters. That's why people are "settling" for overpriced Fujiblads with auto-focus. At least you have half a chance of getting things in focus...

Think about all the people who gave up trying to use 6x9 view cameras because they are just too fiddley and hard to see with, much less make movements. Now shrink that 6x9 another 50%...

No thanks. I'll "settle" for a nice large format and good DSLR combination until something radically better comes along.

[FpJohn]

Hello:

I considered the M679 as well as the Arca which I did choose. Arcas of all sizes seem to be the most common monorail in field use-does the M679 venture outside as well or has it become a studio/technical camera exclusively? Opinions/observations?

yours
Frank

[Jack Flesher]

>> Now shrink that 6x9 another 50%... <<

Excellent point! As the lenses get shorter, the effects of lens movements get magnified... Not a huge issue if you only plan to use is rise/fall and shifts. But I can only imagine the frustrations of trying to critically focus and set T&S with a high-res digital MF back conventionally. Using my 4x5 and a BetterLight, my existing lenses are only about 20% longer effective FOV and I can focus the 3"x4" capture area of the Betterlight conventionally and get it close enough on the tilts and swings that all I need is a final touch-up for subject focus with the software. But the BL does require a tether...

[QT Luong]

35mm = 5 MP <-- feels about right

6x6 = 21 MP

6x9 = 32 MP

4x5 = 77 MP

8x10 = 309 MP


This assumes that the resolution on film is the same across all formats, which in real-world conditions isn't true.
Also, personally, I find that MR has a good eye (esp. recently), but even if I didn't think so, I would have trouble to understand what is gained by the dismissive language applied to his photography by some here. As for his opinionated style of writing, think about it as a good way to entertain readers (another examples are Philip Greenspun, Ken Rockwell, and Ann Coulter, all popular in their own way). What I found most interesting in the article is the mention of the director's viewfinder. I have never seen that idea before, and it seems to be a nice and affordable alternative to the Linhof finders.

[Dan Jolicoeur]

I also find his use of Clyde's work offensive!!!

It appears as though he is using Clyde as a comparison of darkroom to light room. The video starts out dark. Then showing Clyde's great work being rolled in large trays as an almost mysterious concept. Then showing a video of someone pulling on a curve with a mouse to insinuate it is doing the exact same thing. I'll quit if he ever makes a digital photograph that comes close to capturing my attention away from Clyde's work with his! This video was played on Good Morning America about a year ago, maybe two? I wonder if he produced it or purchased it from NBC or whatever network?

Regards,
Dan

[John Brownlow]

35mm = 5 MP <-- feels about right
6x6 = 21 MP
6x9 = 32 MP
4x5 = 77 MP
8x10 = 309 MP

This assumes that the resolution on film is the same across all formats, which in real-world conditions isn't true.

True, but my figures are deliberately pretty darn conservative. Most people would argue that a Leica and a slow film is worth a heck of a lot more than 5 MP. You could multiply by a factor of 1.5 and still be in the ball park.

Also, personally, I find that MR has a good eye (esp. recently), but even if I didn't think so, I would have trouble to understand what is gained by the dismissive language applied to his photography by some here. As for his opinionated style of writing, think about it as a good way to entertain readers (another examples are Philip Greenspun, Ken Rockwell, and Ann Coulter, all popular in their own way).

The reason MR rubs people up the wrong way is not that he is opinionated but that he seems to have an incredibly, and some would say unjustifiably, high opinion of his own work. I find those kinds of judgements are best left to other people. I like my own work -- I hope most of us do -- but I try not to make any claims for it.

What I found most interesting in the article is the mention of the director's viewfinder. I have never seen that idea before, and it seems to be a nice and affordable alternative to the Linhof finders.

Except that the good ones are just as expensive as the Linhof finders, and they are not calibrated for still film formats. The chinese 4x5 finders you can see on eBay are a good deal, as are the non-zooming Linhof finders which can be had for $100. I am a huge fan of removable optical finders in general, although I increasingly find I can do the whole thing by eye.

[Frank Petronio]

I think QT would look cute running around with a Director's Viewfinder and vintage corduroy Patagonia mountaineering knickers ;-)

And a beret, can't forget the beret!

I mean really, what good are these things? Take a step forward or take a step backwards. If you can't imagine what a 90mm does compared to a 150mm then you have larger problems that money can't solve.

[John Brownlow]

Switching from 90mm to 150mm is NOT remotely like taking a step forwards or backwards.

[Frank Petronio]

Right, a 90 to 135 or 150 is significant. My point is if you can't size up a shot with your eyeballs and know whether to use a 90 or 135 or a 210, then you need to spend more time shooting...

And if you are one of those guys who has a 90, 110, 120, 135, 150, 180, and a 210 then by all means, you NEED a director's viewfinder too!

[FpJohn]

Hello:

As a matter of curiosity, I weighed my 21/32MP (Brownlow) Arca outfit - 6x9FC, binocular viewer, 20cm rail, Horseman back, 80mm Xenotar, all in noname pack + Gitzo 2220 with head - and it is 8.5lb vs 31lb for the digital setup.

yours
Frank