Choosing a camera to shoot film now, digital later

[threebythree]

Greetings,

I've been going around the houses for a couple of years (!) now debating which technical camera I should buy to shoot film now, with the option to add a digital back at a later date. My points for consideration are:

1. I will be shooting architecture/landscapes AND products / still life in the studio

2. I would like to add a digital back at some point in the future, so need a future-proof system

3. I have considered the Fuji 680

4. Are older LF lenses high enough resolution for modern digital backs, or would I need new glass when I bought a back?

5. My mind is blown at the amount of choice - so I have focussed on KEH.com and their offerings to keep me sane

6. I currently own a Canon system with TS-E lenses

7. A folding camera is not as versatile as a studio camera (rear movements etc) - am I right?

8. I am therefore considering: Horseman 450, Toyo 45, Sinar

9. My budget is around $500 at most

Can anybody help me out of the rabbit hole I'm in?

Many thanks

[Bob Salomon]

Not really. An analog film camera is not precise enough for high end digital. But a digital view camera can easily do roll film as well as digital. However, digital view cameras are 6x9cm not 4x5.
Same with the lenses. The requirements for high end digital lenses are very different then those for analog view camera work. A search of this forum will find several threads detailing the differences in requirements for the lenses and the cameras.

The short answer is that you can use a view camera and analog lenses for digital work but you will not be able to get the quality the digital back is capable of. And you will not find a digital view camera for close to $500.00.

If you are lucky enough to live near a good digital view camera dealer why not go visit them and see for yourself what can and can't be done and what you actually need to do what you hope to do. That will save you a lot of money if you find that you went the wrong way originally.

[Bill_1856]

There's almost nothing that you can do with a LF camera that you can't do with your Canon and TS-E lenses. If your pictures aren't good enough, then changing cameras won't help.

[Bob Salomon]

There's almost nothing that you can do with a LF camera that you can't do with your Canon and TS-E lenses. If your pictures aren't good enough, then changing cameras won't help.

Try doing 3-point perspective with a TS-E lens.

[Richard Johnson]

If your budget is only $500 then which decade will you get the digital back?

You understand that an older digital back will be outperformed by a modern full-frame 35mm-sized SLR which is why you can find the backs that cost $40,000 in 2004 for practically nothing nowadays... they have to be depreciated within 3-4 years by which time a $3000 DSLR will match or outperform them. The medium format digital backs are not consumer electronics that follow a declining price curve because the market is so small... you will never see a "cheap" MFDB.

And yes there is old camera advertising that mentions you can use a digital back on a view camera but those ads were written back in the Leaf Color Wheel era (1994) when getting a 10-mp file was a big deal. Nobody competent is going to stick a modern MFDB on a $500 coarse focusing view camera and analog lenses, it's like using wooden wheels on a Porsche.

[Kirk Gittings]

Try doing 3-point perspective with a TS-E lens.

Define what you mean by "doing a 3PP"? This is a common image with 3PP and it can be done with no movements at all on any camera including an iPhone.

121566

[Bob Salomon]

Define what you mean by 3PP? This is a common image with 3PP and it can be done with no movements at all.

121566

The most common use was in product photography where the top, the front and one side of a product are shown and all lines are not converging. So the picture was taken from above and to one side of the object.

Your example does not show the roof top and the building is exhibiting keystoning as the sides are not parallel to each other.

[Kirk Gittings]

The most common use was in product photography where the top, the front and one side of a product are shown and all lines are not converging. So the picture was taken from above and to one side of the object.

Your example does not show the roof top and the building is exhibiting keystoning as the sides are not parallel to each other.

You are using a different definition than I have learned. Caption for the above image from WP:


The Palazzo del Lavoro in Mussolini’s Esposizione Universale Roma (EUR) complex south of Rome, photographed in 3-point perspective. All three axes are oblique to the picture plane; the three vanishing points are at the zenith, and on the horizon to the right and left.


Could you show an example? Because as I understand your description it would be no problem with a t/s lens simply positioning the camera above, leveling it and then shifting the lens down? But I have never been a product photographer.

[SergeiR]

If your budget is only $500 then which decade will you get the digital back?

You understand that an older digital back will be outperformed by a modern full-frame 35mm-sized SLR which is why you can find the backs that cost $40,000 in 2004 for practically nothing nowadays... they have to be depreciated within 3-4 years by which time a $3000 DSLR will match or outperform them. The medium format digital backs are not consumer electronics that follow a declining price curve because the market is so small... you will never see a "cheap" MFDB.


Nope. It won't. I compared them side by side quite a number of times. Ancient by now Mamiya ZD 22mp old back would still outdo anything that Canon or Nikon dSLR can throw at it (unless you like high ISO).
Of course it won't happen with ones for 500$ - those are barely large enough to cover 35mm frame (Valeo back and tiny Kodak ones)

[SergeiR]

There's almost nothing that you can do with a LF camera that you can't do with your Canon and TS-E lenses. If your pictures aren't good enough, then changing cameras won't help.

While changing camera won't help - and i totally agree with it.

TS-E + Canon still won't give you decent shot at hour(s) long exposures. Wont give you same quality of shadow-light gradients as larger format. Simple laws of physics, which can not be fought - reproduction from larger medium always would be smoother. Also you can't do rear standard movements. Only front.

And of course - you won't be able to have as much fun :)

[Richard Johnson]

Nope. It won't. I compared them side by side quite a number of times. Ancient by now Mamiya ZD 22mp old back would still outdo anything that Canon or Nikon dSLR can throw at it (unless you like high ISO).
Of course it won't happen with ones for 500$ - those are barely large enough to cover 35mm frame (Valeo back and tiny Kodak ones)

Well those weren't really available until late 2005 and the actual sold listings on eBay range from $1500 to $3500 with various lenses and accessories. Old 2003-4 Kodak DCS645 backs sold for $2500 or so.

Which is about the same pricing as a D800. Which would you rather have? I haven't done a comparison either but I'd bet on the D800, both cameras used similarly.

[Kirk Gittings]

Many of the top APs worldwide use tech cameras while many use DSLRs. Which you use is frankly much more of a personal decision that a market requirement. I have yet to see a mediocre AP shooting DSLR jump to MF who improved their vision or market presence.

[dsphotog]

For the instances your existing outfit won't suffice, why not shoot on LF film and scan?
That should be within budget.

[analoguey]

It's nearly 3 times your budget, but why not use the Horseman LD* system with your Canon system?
Since your goal is digital anyways?
You'll get all the digital benefit with the Movements of LF?

*thats what the 35mm version is called I think

[Bob Salomon]

You are using a different definition than I have learned. Caption for the above image from WP:




Could you show an example? Because as I understand your description it would be no problem with a t/s lens simply positioning the camera above, leveling it and then shifting the lens down? But I have never been a product photographer.

Look at most advertising photos of a box of cereal.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jeez, this is like having a tooth pulled. Ok, I did-looked at dozens online. Here is a common one:

121585

Explain why a T/S can't do that.

[threebythree]

Hi all - thanks for your comments. To answer the queries and clear up the confusion on both sides:

1. My $500 budget is *just* for the analog camera - not the digi back or a high end digital lens - if I get the work that demands the digital solution, then I will invest (buy or rent) in the lens and the back - I'm looking for a body for now that will last me until that time comes, and I can shoot film until it does.

2. Bob - you said analog cameras and lenses are not precise enough for high end digital and that digital view cameras are 6x9cm? The current Sinar P3 for e.g. is a digital system view camera and it's 4x5? Which digital view cameras are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand fully, but if I pair an IQ180 back with a APO-Digitar lens and put an analog body in between, then don't I have a high end digital view camera? (I understand that I'd need very fine and precise geared movements to get the best out of the system and that a cheap, coarse body won't cut the mustard though, so maybe that excludes most older bodies?).

3. Bill_1856 - this really isn't to do with how 'good' my pictures are or are not. If a future high-end client demands utmost quality and resolution from my files and is willing to pay for it, then my Canon doesn't come close to a current digital back?

4. analoguey - I have considered coupling my dslr with the Horseman or the Cambo X2 / Ultima but to my mind the weakest link would then be the sensor

so - to summarise - is there an affordable technical camera that will allow me to shoot film now, and move to digital (by adding a back and lens) later?

Many thanks

[Bob Salomon]

121589
Jeez, this is like having a tooth pulled. Ok, I did-looked at dozens online. Here is a common one:

121585

Explain why a T/S can't do that.

Here is another with more of the top.

[NickyLai]

so - to summarise - is there an affordable technical camera that will allow me to shoot film now, and move to digital (by adding a back and lens) later?

Many thanks

What ever camera to choose, keep in mind that the back standard must be rigid enough to hold the weight of the digital back firmly (plus the adapter weight if necessary). Some digital back don't like leather bellow.

Camera with the "L" shape standard isn't a good idea for that kind of weight.

[Oren Grad]

2. Bob - you said analog cameras and lenses are not precise enough for high end digital and that digital view cameras are 6x9cm? The current Sinar P3 for e.g. is a digital system view camera and it's 4x5? Which digital view cameras are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand fully, but if I pair an IQ180 back with a APO-Digitar lens and put an analog body in between, then don't I have a high end digital view camera? (I understand that I'd need very fine and precise geared movements to get the best out of the system and that a cheap, coarse body won't cut the mustard though, so maybe that excludes most older bodies?).

A P3 is not a $500 camera. The issue is indeed that the kind of LF camera you're going to find for $500 is not going to have sufficient stability or precision to do an IQ180 + Digitar justice. And unless you're only ever going to use lenses that are long for your digital capture formats, the typical $500 view camera may not have a short enough minimum bellows draw to even focus the lens, to boot.

[Kirk Gittings]

121589

Here is another with more of the top.

OK! Hugely different example. NOW. EXPLAIN WHY A T/S CAN"T DO THAT?

[VictoriaPerelet]

You can get modern Sinar F1/2 or Arca Discovery for $500 . Neither is good for digital as it is, but you'll get in to system that you can partially upgrade later. Spend your time in google, you'll find answers.

With either camera you can purchase hassy or mamiya back plate to mount mfdb.

Short story, to do digital and movements you'll need very fine geared focus and geared tilt. Pushing lensboard by hand to to tilt is not going to work, you'll learn this very quickly.

Good analogue lenses are very acceptable for what's called fat pixel mfdb's. But good analogue lenses do cost more than $500 also.

You'll need back with live focusing on computer screen. GG focusing will not cut it. Also, classic Arca cameras have messed up fresnel/gg configuration. It was ok for film, but does not work for digital. You may go to N focusing backs, but price of getting them is out of your range (and N backs are joke anyway, they just reduce error, not eliminate it)

After all you'll need #*$500, pick your multiplier # :cool:

[threebythree]

Thanks to everyone - this has been extremely helpful. In a nutshell, coupling a new digi back and lens with an older, cheaper body is a waste of time because the older / cheaper body will not allow the fine geared movements necessary to extract the best image quality from the sensor and lens...

OK. Does that mean the only recommendations, that are viable, are for a new complete digital solution such as a P3, ArTec, WDS, Ultima 23 ? How about a Phase One system with the Schneider Tilt Shift lenses?

[analoguey]

If you can afford a MFDB system, the 500$ limit in the original question's moot - and probably skewed answers.

You could rent a view camera [if available] - or buy to test, and return minus rental. Best idea would be shoot your current system side by side with a view camera system and see if it works for you.
You can make the decisions on MFDB etc once you've figured whether the technical camera works well for you.

[Dirk Rösler]

OK! Hugely different example. NOW. EXPLAIN WHY A T/S CAN"T DO THAT?

No back movements? Just a guess... :o

[SergeiR]

Well those weren't really available until late 2005 and the actual sold listings on eBay range from $1500 to $3500 with various lenses and accessories. Old 2003-4 Kodak DCS645 backs sold for $2500 or so.

Which is about the same pricing as a D800. Which would you rather have? I haven't done a comparison either but I'd bet on the D800, both cameras used similarly.

Keywords here - "i did compare them". D800 still looses to ZD back. So did D700. Both are fine for high iso, shooting from the hip & etc. As soon as you put them in actual controlled environment with challenging light ZD wins. Its not matter of preference, its shadow area transitions that are better, gradients are smoother. That said even D800 certainly is fine camera and does fine for what it is designed to do. However one can not fool laws of optics. They are laws for the reason. Tools should be used for what they are designed. You don't use elephant to lift cars (while you can). Swedish universal knife is decent tool, but you won't like your car mechanic to use it to fix your car, right?

Original point of argument was against "old backs". By standard of digital world 9-10 years is pretty darn old. Kodak tiny backs as well as Leaf ones - if someone can sell them for 2.5k now - good luck to those guys. They are typically go on 400-700$ range on fleabay, if one is patient.

Anyhow.. For the purpose of what OP is looking for - switching to LF won't do squat of good, IMHO.

[Kirk Gittings]

No back movements? Just a guess... :o

Yeah boy! That exquisite shot is just not doable without a camera with full movements.

[sanking]

Live focusing on computer (laptop or tablet) is key for me with adjustment of movents. Even push movements (compared to gear) are quite doable if you have a large enough viewing image. I am using a Samsung tablet with fairly high definition and working with it is hugely easier than trying to evaluate the image on a small LCD, or ground glass.

Sandy

[DrTang]

get a cambo or horseman or whatever fits your budget now

and then rent the whole set up - camera, lens and all, when you need it down the road.. charging off the rental to the client

unless you intend to shoot a lot - buying would make no sense

[David E. Rose]

Yeah boy! That exquisite shot is just not doable without a camera with full movements.

I'm not getting this either. The sample shot is a three point perspective that has not been corrected to eliminate keystoning, although camera movements may have been used to reduce the keystoning.This would be done with a downward shift and possibly some lateral shift as well, the same movements on a T/S lens or a view camera. If depth of field was a problem, some tilt could be added to control that (along with stopping down), again the same on both camera types. The view camera would likely have a greater range of movement, but this image does not look like it required extreme movements.

[richardman]

I cannot wrap my brain about the requirement of $500 for camera body when a metal frame (no handle :-) ) from Alpa et al cost $2000-$3000, and a lot more. Logic would say "hmm... there is something going on more than just slapping any old MFDB on any old camera..."

[aluncrockford]

The simple solution to this is a Sinar f with a bag bellows, then when you have the funds get a sliding back and a phase one p45, the only snag is the need for wider lenses, this can be resolved with a Sinar shutter and hassleblad lenses with a hassleblad to Sinar lens panel or use wide angles with recessed panels.
Just be aware that using a 5x4 camera with a sliding back is a bit of a pain and you might well be better off sticking to film and scanning your images from both a financially and aesthetic point of view, Personally I use a hassleblad v with a phase back for 99% of all my work

[Robert Jonathan]

My suggestion would be a Sinar X.

But listen to me carefully.

I tried to plan out the same thing that you're attempting to do - purchase a 4x5 camera that will do anything and everything, film now, digital later. So I bought a Horseman LS 4x5, which is a big, heavy, precise (with film), metal studio camera. I can shoot 4x5, 8x10 by changing the back, and if I wanted to, I could mount a digital back on it. I also had a Sinar P, but I was so used to using my Horseman, I sold the Sinar.

At the beginning, I was sure I would keep the Horseman forever, and eventually mount a digital back on it. Then I slowly grew tired of how heavy and cumbersome it is, along with the fact that it probably wouldn't be very precise with a digital back. So I gave up on the idea that you can use a 4x5 with a digital back.

Many years ago, I only wanted heavy studio cameras, and laughed at anything made for the field. Now, I'm selling my entire Horseman 4x5/8x10 system and buying a wooden/carbon fiber Chamonix for 4x5, and if I ever get a digital back (doubtful since I've started using my Sigma DP Merrills, incredible image quality), I would go for a system that's made for it.

Look at the other options: Arca Swiss M Line 2 or M Line Monolith is an AMAZING camera for a digital back. Small, light, portable, precise.

If you really have to buy something now, get a Sinar X. Just make sure it's not all beat up, and the gears are working well. And yes, you'll need digital lenses.