What should I consider for a view camera with a digital back?

[Peter York]

Leonard, I own a Toho as well for backpacking. Beautiful camera. I doubt that any medium format digital system will be lighter than a 4x5 system utilizing the Toho. All 2x3 view cameras with decent precision will most likely be heavier.

A D800 with 2-3 lenses might be lighter when you remove the film holders, light meter, etc. But the weight will probably be similar if not a bit heavier. Ergonomically, the D800 might be best, as you are not bending over so often to fumble with holders, film, light meters, etc.

[Bruce Watson]

A D800 with 2-3 lenses might be lighter when you remove the film holders, light meter, etc. But the weight will probably be similar if not a bit heavier.

Indeed, I thought that too. But if you look up the specs, the D800 body weighs in at just 1.0 kg. Which is almost exactly the same as my Toho body. So when you subtract out the film holders, light meter, dark cloth, etc. a D800 kit will almost certainly be lighter than a Toho kit.

But this is why I suggested a mirror-less camera like the Panny GH3. Body weighs in at half the weight of a D800 (550g). It's lenses will be considerably smaller and lighter weight than the D800's lenses, because of the difference between sensor sizes.

What you give up for the size, weight, and cost wins with the GH3, is resolution. At 16mp, the GH3 is roughly half the resolution of the D800 at 36mp. But if any of us have learned anything from our association with LF, it's that resolution is not the greatest part of photography.

Is it better to be able to walk that extra 250m to get the shot than you can't get with a heavier camera? IDK. For me, it probably is. I'm probably going to go with a GH3 shortly. Leonard, you probably can't go wrong either way. And I'm pretty sure you won't miss scanning film!

[nonuniform]

I tried out a medium format digital back, but found that for anything outside of the studio, shooting film or DSLR was giving me better results than the MFDB.

Here's why:
1. Focus - getting critical focus in medium format digital is incredibly important and d*** near impossible in anything but a well-lighted place.
- you won't be hand-holding MFDB.
2. Sensor sensitivity - newer MFDB sensors are a little better, but really, they don't handle noise well past ISO 400 (and even then can be quite noisy).
- Portra 400 in a Hasselblad will look better

So, I settled on buying a used drum scanner and continuing to shoot with either a Hasselblad or 4x5 and Portra 160 or 400. I have the D800, which, I like, but a well exposed 120 or 4x5 negative looks nicer to me. Could just be a lens thing, or I'm just in denial about quality of images from the D800. I'm a bit of an anachronism.

[Peter York]

Thanks for the correction Bruce. I didn't realize how light the D800 is. I'm also not sure how heavy tilt/shift lenses are for digital.

[Leonard Evens]

It is not the weight that would bother me now, with my new lower back. It is the bulk. Also, bending is still a bit of a problem as is standing for extended periods of time. Using a d800 would result in significant savings in those areas. Also, although I probably will use my 6 lb large format tripod with the d800, I could if necessary get an even lighter tripod. In short I can see myself carrying everything I need to shoot with a d800 on my back, but doing so with my view camera is not really feasible.

But I don't plan to give up using my view camera. It is just that a d800 would allow me to take advantage of shooting opportunities I now pass up at not a big loss in image quality.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from France!

I'm coming late to this discussion, it happens that I know personally two French professional photographers who have been working with a 22 Mpix digital back for several years and are very happy with the equipement, the quality work they did with those backs has paid for the equipement. Since they do architecture work, they do need wide angle lenses and movements, and they have decided for the Arca Swiss Rm3d, which is quite expensive and out of the said budget of $5000, even if somebody gives, extra, a digital back for free !
However, living close to Arca Swiss, I've been able to manipulate the whole range of Rm3d cameras, the latest in the family being the Rm3d 'factum' which is exceedingly compact for a precision view camera, with built-in helical, accepting film backs up to the 6x9 format and polaroid series-100 backs. But this is not a good example, temptation is one thing, finding the budget is another issue

Basically if you do not need to use wide-angle lenses in the shortest range of focal lenghts of 23 to 45 mm, you can probably use a classical 'film' view camera with a 645 digital sensor and focus on the ground glass. The problem is finding the proper focus on a ground glass with wide-angle lenses of short focal lengths. Several manufacturers have proposed different solutions based on helical focusing and precise calibration of the lens so the infinity stop is actually well-defined mechanically.

The problem with classical rail-focusing in 4x5" (and even 6x9-2x3" cameras) is that is the sensitivity of the focusing rack and pinion system is in the range of 2 cm of travel per knob turn. One centimeter of travel brings you infinity focusing down to one meter with a focal length of 100 mm, and for shorter focal lengths, the distance required to focus down to one meter gets smaller and smaller, following an inverse square law with respect to the focal length! For example, with a 28 mm, you only need 0.8 mm of travel to change focus from infinity to one meter, this is not manageable with a knob@2cm per turn.
If you want to apply tilts, the required angle bringing the plane of focus from a vertical position, down horizontally, decreases in proportion of the focal length, depending of the height of the camera above ground. For example with a 35 mm focal length, set-up at one metre above ground, the required tilt angle bringing a vertical plane donwn-to-Earth is only 2 degrees! Again, with short focal lengths, tilt angles become minuscule and hardly manageable with a classical 4x5" view camera.

So what to do ? Another important point, from the hobbyist's point of view is: if I buy a used 22 Mpix sensor, can I trust the reliability of the used device after, say, 5 years of professional use ?

The two photographers I know are extremly satisfied of the Leaf Aptus 22, one of them reported no failure in the past intensive 5 years of use, and such excellent results, that he does not yet consider to upgrade for more pixels immediately. Recently, somebody tried to sell one of those 22 Mpix digital backs on our French forum, classifieds section, for 2600 euros, and probably the back is still not sold yet. Personally I would be reluctant to buy a used digital back by fear of finding rows of dead pixels or any other kind of digital nightmare. But actually, according to the photographers using this kind of back, it seems that the Leaf Aptus 22 could be a good candidate as a used item for the passionate amateur.

Another interesting example I have in mind is another photographer living in Besançon, specialist of watches, jewellery and museum items. He has invested, 5 years ago, in a 22 Mpix digital back in Hasselblad-V mount, and he has kept his 'film' Hasselblad series 500 - "V" camera and Zeiss lenses. Mostly he uses the 120 mm Makro Planar which performs perfecty with a 22 Mpix sensor, and did not feel the need for another 'digital' Hasseblad nor another kind of lens. But he does not use any shifts nor tilts in the kind of images, mostly objects in the studio, often in the close-up range where the Makro Planar has been designed for, no landscape, no architecture (hence : no wide-angles).

My personal conclusion so far, as an amateur, is that for the few images I'm taking per year, with enjoyment and pleasure with a view camera, film imaging and film processing / enlarging / scanning solutions are still the way to go. For example, for color images from color negs or slides, I have dowtown the service of a Fuji Frontier machine providing scan and print of all my slides and negs up to the 6x7 cm format; and by mail order, I can have access to the same Fuji machine up to the 6x9 format at an affordable cost.
Not mentioning my enlarger for B&W up to the 4x5" format, but this is another story.

However, since certain 22 Mpix digital backs seem to be very reliable, and become more and more affordable, temptation is high ... but costs still in the range of $3000. Unlike professionals for who a $30000 investment is paid for in 2-3 years, for me $3000 in film and prints from my view camera is probably what I spend in .. 6-8 years.