Tilts and swings with those little digibacks...

[Frank Petronio]

Not having been fortunate enough to play with one yet (outside of a Fujiblad), I'm wondering how photographers using view cameras with their little > 6 x 4.5 cm CCD Phase Ones and Leaf backs can actually see anything worth adjusting? I can see understand studio work and big productions where you can see the shot on a monitor, but louping a ground glass in the for on location field work (sans computer) must be ** tight ** work.

Now I can understand using the fixed wide angle cameras like the Alpa and Silvestri, and I can see making parallel rises, falls, and shifts with such cameras. They make sense to me. But are the folks with full featured view cameras really using two micron tilts and are they really able to detect the difference without testing and viewing each shot onscreen?

Even if you could use this micro-tilts, it seems like the mechanism would be heavy and fussy for dirty, real-world work outdoors... so if you gotta carry a 25 lb geared and delicate Cambo, Linhof 6x9, or Sinar P3 it kind of takes the fun out of it, ehh?

I ain't bashing digital at all -- I envy it -- but I am curious - what are people really doing in practice?

[QT Luong]

I've never used one of those, however I have the set of Canon TSE lenses. True, it's difficult to see the effect of tilting the 24 in general, but if the effect of the tilt is not obvious, it means you do not really need it. On the other hand on the 45 and 90, it's quite easy to see, and this just with a viewfinder with less than 1x magnification on 35mm, so I wouldn't expect it to be that difficult on MF.

[Eric Leppanen]

I have never used any of these devices so I have no clue, but I found Gary Ferguson's overall perspective interesting (over at the Rob Galbraith digital forum before it went over to new ownership). He briefly addresses your question in item number 4 of his post here. (http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB25&Number=420653&Searchpage=1&Main=420217&Words=+Gary_Ferguson&topic=&Search=true#Post420653)

[Jack Flesher]

The diminutive size is the issue for me too -- What I really want is say a 6000x8000 pixel sensor at 4x5 film size and I'll be happy ;)

[Jack Flesher]

Okay, make that 12000x16000 and I'd be happy...

[Jack Flesher]

With really clean ISO 800.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Haven't used one of those digibacks either, but I've got a Tilt-Shift bellows for closeup work for my Bronica 6x6, and a Linhof 2x3 Tech V, and I'd agree with Tuan's statement about the Canon TS lenses for 35mm--for wide lenses and medium to long subject distances, tilts and shifts aren't as necessary, just because the format is smaller, but when you need it (still life, macro, longer lenses), you can see what you need to on the groundglass.

[Don Miller]

Eric, thanks for that link.
Jack, interesting blog on the betterlight back.

When using movements, I'm a proponent of a setup that shoots tethered. That may be going backwards, but leaving the sensor in place and viewing the result on a lightweight laptop is going to produce consistent results.

These issues make film still look pretty good.

[Randall]

Hi Frank,

I added an Arca F Metric 6X9 and a Phase One P25 to my view camera gear this year. I have been shooting with it exclusively for the last few months. After spending the money required for one of these setups, it becomes hard to be completely unbiased, even to ones very own self. That said, I will give it a go.

Focusing on the stock Arca ground glass is an excercise in futility. This is simply a game of guess and frustration. Using a loupe in such a small area is possible, but is very uncomfortable. Then comes the matter of switching to the back. Any focus you may have achived is easily lost in this somewhat unwieldy step.

Where does this leave you? You get/need to spend an additional $2400 on a sliding back and a magnifying viewer. I went with the Kapture Group sliding back and a Hassy Rmfx (3.3x). This provides a righted, yet horizontally uncorrected, image. To a DSLR user, who is used to a very quick process, this will still seem unwieldy. To those coming from a MF/LF background (myself included), this new option will fall between MF and LF in terms of ease of use. Focus, including tilt and swing, is straight forward. I won't tell you I never misfocus, but it is to the same degree as on my 4x5 off of the gg.

I should note that I do not use ultra wide lenses (widest is a Schneider 35 Digitar and I rarely use that), and would not suggest doing so on this setup.

I also cannot imagine carrying a bulky camera into the field for this usage. As configured above, this system is just sightly lighter than my Arca F Metric 4x5, but packs a bit smaller.

I hope this is helpful.

Randall

[Jack Flesher]

Jack, interesting blog on the betterlight back.
~SNIP~
These issues make film still look pretty good.

Thanks! And especially LF film ;)

[Bruce Watson]

And 12 stops of dynamic range.

[Mik Wenger]

I'm under the imression that these digital backs don't have a live mode, that is show frame after frame on a tethered computer with the shutter open. Am I correct? And does anyone know why not?

This is disappointing, because a laptop display, with a suitable and quick pan and zoom software, would be great to check focus if the update rate were fast, in the order of maybe a frame every few seconds.

[Jack Flesher]

Aside from its obvious shortcomings, my Betterlight scanning back does have a live-preview mode and a quick scan feature, so you can verifiy focus pretty easily. It also has just over 11 stops of usable DR -- which most of the time is way too much ;)

[Mik Wenger]

Aside from its obvious shortcomings, my Betterlight scanning back does have a live-preview mode and a quick scan feature, so you can verifiy focus pretty easily.

Thanks, but how about the newer Phase One backs? Is there a live-preview mode on these? Is it possible to reliably focus by looking at the computer monitor?

[Don Miller]

Nope, no live preview.

[Jack Flesher]

Thanks, but how about the newer Phase One backs? Is there a live-preview mode on these? Is it possible to reliably focus by looking at the computer monitor?

Nope.

However you can with the Aptus -- but it requires you purchase a $1500 (or $1000 on a rebate sale) dongle box to interface with your computer to see live -- so not very useful for the field, being an extra box to carry and power.

[Randall]

Thanks, but how about the newer Phase One backs? Is there a live-preview mode on these? Is it possible to reliably focus by looking at the computer monitor?

There is no live preview option with Phase. I started out bringing the laptop into the field when the situation allowed. I would focus, slide the back into place, plug in the firewire, snap a shot to Capture One to check focus, and continue. I have stopped doing so. The laptop is largely redundant. If you have focus in the viewer, you have focus. It does take some getting used to, but you will become quite used to using the smaller viewer.

Of interest to 4x5 users, in a recent conversation with Kieth at Kapture Group, he let me know that he will be releasing a quad stitch adaptor for 4x5 cameras, making 2x2 stitches (read enourmous files) quite easy.

[Frank Petronio]

Seems like a big Kapture Group slider hanging off the back would be pretty bulky.

Arca-Swiss has a rotating back that avoids the sliding action, which in theory should have less of a chance of shifting focus. However, info is lacking and it costs a mint, like most new AS products.

I guess I'd want to have a camera that was overbuilt, heavy, and solid because those subtle shifts can't move. The cameras that make the most sense to me are the Silvestris/Alpas/CamboWides simply because nothing can shift.

(And you might even be able to carry them)

[Randall]

My Arca F Metric w/ micrometric orbix weighs 9.7 lbs when loaded with the Kapture group sliding back, 90 mm digitar lens, P 25 back, Hassy viewer, sync cable, cable release, Flash Card, and Lens hood mount (and wide angle bellows which works with all of my lenses 35 to 180). The Monorail folds in two, so the whole assembly lies flat in a standard Lowe Mini Trekker, fully assembled. Just pull it out, tripod mount and get to work.

The Arca sliding back may be a good option, but I had heard that none have ever been delivered.

As far as unintended camera movements, sure, check your detents before shooting, but this has never interfered with a shot for me. The locks on the Arca are ample and the camera is plenty stiff for any digital back. If you intend to shoot with a 24 mm, you will need an Alpa or the likes. I have the 35 Digitar, but find that I am opting for stitching more often with the 47 to get wider angles and whopper files.

Regardless of your focusing tools, getting your ground glass / sensor position perfectly calibrated is critical. Once this is done, I believe you will find focusing to be quite easy.

[John Banister]

I'm under the imression that these digital backs don't have a live mode, that is show frame after frame on a tethered computer with the shutter open. Am I correct?

The newer Hasselblad Ixpress backs do have this feature.

[Frank Petronio]

Randall (and others) -- it sounds like a dream outfit... which lenses do you find yourself using and what would you do/buy differently in hindsight?

How does the practical shooting experience differ from film (are you faster or slower, more concerned about keeping things precise and clean, etc.)

It seems to me that you'd have to level things more carefully since 1 degree off the horizon hardly matters on a big sheet of film but it could make a huge difference on a smaller chip. Geared heads (Arca Cube!$!) then?

[Randall]

Hi Frank,
I have been using the 47, 90 and 120 digitars a great deal. I also purchased the 180 and 35, but I have used them infrequently to date. I find myself stitching often. Two or (three) vertical, and at times two-over-two horizontal.

Speed of use is somewhere between MF and LF. Without the sliding back, this new system was slower than both (in fact, I thought I had made a very costly mistake). I was spending a great deal of time making sure everything was staying clean. Every time I switched from ground glass to sensor, my heart stopped. That is not an issue with any of the sliding backs, as the sensor is never exposed. I still take care but have relaxed into a normal shooting mode.

Leveling with a ballhead or geared head is possible. I am using a big Kirk ballhead and it is fine. I could go smaller. The spirit levels on the Arca are reliable.

At this point, I am very pleased with the purchase and the results. I would not suggest this setup for those who frequently shoot ultra wide, and do not like to stitch. I bought my P25 used, and have found it intuitive and reliable.

It might be my dream setup, had I not been the one to foot the bill.

Best,
Randall.

[Frank Petronio]

With the demise of the Galbraith site it seems really hard to find first-hand real world experiences with this stuff online (Luminous Landscape is pretty good but not exactly the be all end all) and I really appreciate hearing about your experiences, even if I'm a long way from purchasing such a system myself. Please write and post more!

[Mik Wenger]

How much further back is the Kapture Group stitching sliding adapter's integrated ground glass and focal plane compared with the camera's original ground glass?

I had a recent conversation with Arca's Mr. Vogt. He explained to me that sliding adapters of this kind compromise the wide angle compatibilities of their cameras (by making the smallest possibe extension longer). Many of his customers use the camera's own shift and rise capabilities for stitching, thereby eliminating the unwanted extension. In particular, the Monolith series are very suitable for this because the shift and rise are very precise. For these reasons, Mr. Vogt does not foresee that Arca make their own stitching adapter.

By the way, many of the current digital view camera lenses do not cover a 2x2 stitch with the largest of the medium format digital backs.

One other thing: The Phase One backs require the lens cast caibration (LCC) to be done for each stitched exposure at least for the wider lenses. Can anyone comment whether this is very annoying? Anyone know whether other brand backs require such a calibration too?

[Randall]

With the demise of the Galbraith site it seems really hard to find first-hand real world experiences with this stuff online (Luminous Landscape is pretty good but not exactly the be all end all) and I really appreciate hearing about your experiences, even if I'm a long way from purchasing such a system myself. Please write and post more!

I should note that my muse has been singing to me more frequently lately. I find that when I am learning, I am the most excited and the most creative. This new setup (not to mention some incredible new inkjet papers) has me learning and experimenting daily.

I have been shooting digitally (in part) since the original 1DS, but have always preferred large format film, primarily for style of shooting and for the obvious quality advantages. The intrigue of mixing the two was enticing.

You may find that these backs are less expensive (used) than you had imagined. If you already own a suitable 4x5, this is a viable option to get started (or to stick with). Some of my old lenses are proving to be excellent (especially useful for huge stitches on my Arca 4x5).

Randall

[Randall]

How much further back is the Kapture Group stitching sliding adapter's integrated ground glass and focal plane compared with the camera's original ground glass?


Hi Mik,
The distance to ground glass with the stictching adaptor is a function of what camera system the back was designed for. For instance, the H1 back has a different "film" plane distance than the Contax. The distance from the front of the stitching adaptor's lens board to the film plane for the H1 is 1.3 cm. That includes the H1 adaptor (which would be needed without the sliding back) so figure an addition of about 9mm.



I had a recent conversation with Arca's Mr. Vogt. He explained to me that sliding adapters of this kind compromise the wide angle compatibilities of their cameras (by making the smallest possibe extension longer). Many of his customers use the camera's own shift and rise capabilities for stitching, thereby eliminating the unwanted extension. In particular, the Monolith series are very suitable for this because the shift and rise are very precise. For these reasons, Mr. Vogt does not foresee that Arca make their own stitching adapter.?

This is correct for the 35, which is crippled by the stitching adaptor. For that lens, I go straight to the camera body (via the standard H1 adaptor). I hardly use the 35 (21 mm 135 film equivalant), as I rarely shoot that wide, and prefer to stitch from the 47 to get there. 47 alone is very wide, stitched it is ultra wide. You can definately get great results from using camera Shift/Rise, but this does not help in sensor protection during back/glass changes, or speed of use.




By the way, many of the current digital view camera lenses do not cover a 2x2 stitch with the largest of the medium format digital backs.

On My P25 (right up there with the largest of the current sensors) I can get horizontal 2 over 2 stitches on the 47, 120, and 180 Digitars. The 90 allows a 2 stitch vertical with extra room in all directions.



One other thing: The Phase One backs require the lens cast caibration (LCC) to be done for each stitched exposure at least for the wider lenses. Can anyone comment whether this is very annoying? Anyone know whether other brand backs require such a calibration too?

I shoot calibration files with the 47 (only) when stitching, and need to use them sometimes. It is an extra step in shooting (for each position), and an extra step in processing, but it works very well.

Randall