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

[RichardSperry]

Thanks light guru for the link.

[Drew Bedo]

Hasen't this and related topics been discussed here before. My recollection is that dedicated digital view systems make the most sense unless the goal is just DIY project for messing around.

Have I misunderstood something?

On the DIY forum, there are multiople threadfs on the subject of making a scanner based around a DSLR . . .and it seems to be more fuss than its worth (to me).

If there was a true need and market for a one shot color digital back in large formats, tthere were would be several options available from high-end manufacturers already.

[rknewcomb]

Sorry to be the one to say this but a medium format digital back will cost more then the $5000 that the OP said was his budget - even a used one. Yes, you can find a very old one that requires being tied to a computer for less money but not by too much. I also wish this cost information was different.

[John O'Connell]

I dunno. Someone linked to a 22mp Leaf back for less than $4k, and as I recall Leonard used to shoot 6x7 on a mini technical camera. Assuming the graflok adapter exists for the Leaf to the Toho, he's in business. True wide angle is probably not viable with that setup, but it gets him what he wants for his budget.

Whether he's better off with a used 22mp back or a new D800E is another question, but he's the one who wants to try out an MF back.

[C. D. Keth]

What am I not understanding? 4x5 film scanned at even a modest 1200dpi will yield a 28.8 megapixel image. Most people scanning with a V700 or similar report a solid 2000dpi in their scans. That's 80 megapixel. Why search for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

[Noeyedear]

I believe there to be other practical problems to shooting traditional cameras plus a MFDB. Mostly the issue of focusing, ground glass screens and old gearing I understand to be a bit on the course side.
Add the fact the area you are applying movements to is likely only 645 and you soon see why most technical camera digital shooters go tethered with a laptop.
Wether carrying a laptop is less or more of a problem than DDS will depend on various things. Having to make sure it has enough charge, the connections keep working, setup time/fiddle, the screen is viewable would all make it more trouble than it's worth for hobby shooting for me. Plus you can't get Portra in a digital back.
I can see an advantage shooting commercial jobs, but not if it's a fun relaxation session.
The latest technical 6x9's have been designed with digital in mind, add a iPad and maybe it's getting more attractive, but a setup like that would be closer to $50,000 than $5,000.

Kevin.

[neil poulsen]

One compensating factor is that, if you purchased a back under 30megapixels, I doubt you would need to fancy Digitar, et.al. lenses. You could use your regular film lenses. I was told this by two Schneider technicians.

Something else to consider is that, if you purchase an inexpensive digital back, you're not going to get all the filtering and low light advantages of a D800e or similar camera.

Going medium format digital is an intriguing idea, though. It's one into which I've put considerable thought.

[Leonard Evens]

One compensating factor is that, if you purchased a back under 30megapixels, I doubt you would need to fancy Digitar, et.al. lenses. You could use your regular film lenses. I was told this by two Schneider technicians.

Something else to consider is that, if you purchase an inexpensive digital back, you're not going to get all the filtering and low light advantages of a D800e or similar camera.

Going medium format digital is an intriguing idea, though. It's one into which I've put considerable thought.

i asked in a searate thread about trying to get a digital back for my Horseman 980 Technical Camera. It turns out that if I had a 985, then that would be feasible, but not with the 980.

Right now the main problem with using my view camera is carrying around all the gear. I need to use a baby jogger to do that, and even with that my range is limited. I had surgery to fix my lower back a year ago, and it was only partially successful. I can probably walk a mile now, even with my view camera and one lens, plus extra equipment, on my back, but it is painful to do so. I was hoping a smaller and lighter package would let me go further.

After listening to what others have said, I think my best option may be to get a Nikon d800 or d800e, I don't know which right now. with two lenses. That gives me more than enough pixels (36 Mpx) to make 16 x 20 prints indistinguishable from what I can do with my view camera, when viewed a a couple of feet away. My experience with smaller formats is that movements except rise/fall. and shift are much less important because of the greater depth of field, and those movements can be mimicked by cropping. The total cost would be less than what a 6 x 9 vew camera with additional lenses and a digital back would cost me. If I really need movements I can get a tilt shift lens in addition.

[ROL]

Leonard, I think that a few of the well meaning folks here may not have appreciated your situation (e.g., "79"). I feel your pain – in my knees!. While I'm not there yet, and my goals are different than yours (the hand made DR print being my thing), I support and agree (FWIW) with your rational conclusions to continue your love of photography. Indeed, why add scanning to the workflow if your goal is a digital print. Decrease the load and increase the pleasure.

[paulr]

The image quality exceeds the Epson V750 scanned 4X5 negatives by at least a fair margin but I've not run any resolution targets with the D800E yet (need to work that out).

I'm happy to hear someone else saying this so I can stop feeling like the crazy person on the hill. I'm scanning on a an older 4870, negatives wet mounted to float glass and shimmed to put the emulsion right at the focal plane. I'm finding—unscientifically—that the resolution of b+w negs scanned this way is slightly higher than what I can get out of my d800. But in most other ways, including MTF at high resolutions and signal-to-noise ratio, the d800 files are much better. The result is that it's easier to make a great looking print.

My only large prints from 4x5 (16x20 to 40x50) are darkroom prints. Contrary to my predictions, the d800 files look much, much better than the analog 4x5 prints at these sizes. I have not yet made a digital print at these magnifications to compare. I would like to soon. At smaller sizes, digital prints from both cameras look identically amazing.

For me a more valuable advantage is found in multiple exposures where 2 to 4 images are taken at bracketed exposures then combined in HDR software.

This has been an important workaround for me also. Film still retains a huge advantage in dynamic range.

I will venture that very top quality resolving lenses are required to really exercise the D800E sensor and these are not cheap.

True. The good news is that lens companies are jumping on the opportunity. Canon and Nikon have been pushing hard lately, and both Schneider and Zeiss have announced new (and, yes, stupid expensive) lens lines to take advantage of the newest small cameras.

I'm using an older generation Schneider shift lens. It's not state of the art by any strretch, but when used within its limitations (not too much shift, being fussy about the aperture, etc.) the results are better than what I've gotten out of any lens on any camera. I do miss the more laid back approach allowed by my Schneider large format lenses. They just look good no matter what you do with them.