I don't often post on this forum but just ran across this thread and thought I might also shed some light and a slightly different point of view in some areas though my experience in using the BL has been much shorter than either Jim or Kumars (Nov 08).
Regarding weight; with well chosen gear it is possible to trim the weight down to approximately what a fully loaded 4x5 film setup would be assuming a dozen ± 4x5 film holders. Remember no one makes ready loads any longer. Laptops exist in the 1 lb range albeit expensive. You will pay a premium for trimming this weight down however, ie carbon fiber tripods, lightweight and rigid heads, etc etc. Just as problematic as weight are all the necessary cables one has to use in the field, and this will take some getting used to believe me.
Wind and other things moving; yes it is an issue and can be a real problem though in most cases with good post production techniques much if not all artifacts can be eliminated, examples to follow. There are times when I just refuse to bring out the BL/LF setup due to wind, simply more trouble than its worth here in the northern rockies. But much to my surprise one can use the system successfully in far windier conditions than I would have ever thought before adopting the BL.
Focal length multiplier; figure 1.25x or in other words a 100 mm lens becomes a 125, a 75 becomes a 94 etc. Make sure you have a camera that can easily use wider lenses and also that has a bellows that DOES NOT leak infra red. Many a great other wise LF field camera are not usable due to this issue.
I would not recommend the "E" version of the scan back for field work. In the field you will really appreciate the Super 6K-2 chip, twice as sensitive, higher ISO, better dynamic range, less shadow noise and more versatile in the long run IMO.
Other considerations. Personally if the conditions are difficult, ie wind, low light levels the heck with it I will often scan/capture at 50% maybe slightly more resolution. I have still yet to see any other camera system deliver more "integrity" of the data than the BL scan backs even at only 50% resolution. Scan times are dramatically cut shorter, dynamic range is increased and shadow noise dramatically decreased even with high ISO settings when scanning this way. Besides not all images are always going to get printed mural size anyway.
Ok here are some more samples:
Easy mid afternoon capture, light wind, b&w conversion in PP: ISO 200, 120 sec line time @ F16 @ approximately half a minute.
2nd Image: ISO 600, 50% resolution scan, @ F11, 1/30th sec line time for about 3 minutes. The light level was very low, this was pushing the envelop but have printed this image @ 42 inches long dimension @ 100 ppi (not a misprint) and it looks awesome better than anything I could get out of an equivalent 12 mp DSLR for sure. It gets mushed up here on the web compared to looking at the full file.
3rd Image: 100% scan, ISO 200, 1/120th sec line time @ F16 for a total of about half a minute. Suffice it to say the dynamic range to fully capture this scene is extreme, the BL handled with headroom to spare.
4th Image: ISO 1200, 1/60th sec line time @ F16, 50% resolution, for about half a minute and yes it was windy.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Rob
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by msk2193
Bookmarks