Digital 4 X 5 view camera

[LarryR]

Hi

Is there such a thing as a digital 4 X 5 studio type view camera. If so, is the image quality as good as shooting film and then scanning he film?

thanks

[aphexafx]

Yes and no. There is no such thing, currently, as a commercial 4x5" sensor array. The cost of silicon wafer production and error is too high at this point. There is what is known as a scanning back, however, and while these are slow to expose, they offer fantastic resolutions and if a digital file is the required output, they excel at producing them over scanning film, think 380+ MP). Whereas film excels at capture time and for creative or technical exposures.

A scanning back simply skips the film step and puts a line scanner directly into the focal plane of your 4x5 camera. Most of them are just slightly smaller in capture/exposure area than 4x5 but it is negligible. They cost anywhere from $10,000 to ~$20,000.

Scanning backs do NOT work with strobe lighting or flash units of any type. They require constant, regulated lighting (tungsten is the best as it has its own momentum and is stable over long periods). Florescent lighting can cause banding, as can things like monitors which may be on and near the subject being scanned. I believe there is very high frequency florescent lighting available that will work with a scanning back, but that is beyond me. Shooting in sunlight on a cloudy day is also a poor choice for scanning backs.

Moving subjects are also not photographable using a scanning back (unless for effect, like a subject on a turntable).

(* see note below)

More info: http://www.betterlight.com/

Alternatively, you can purchase a medium format digital back with a large sensor array and mount this to a 4x5 camera, however this reduces the captured image area to something much less than 4x5" (I believe PhaseOne has the largest MF digital back coming in at just a few percent less than the 6 x 4.5 cm format area). These devices cost tens of thousands of dollars and produce up to 60MP files, or so. These devices also require very expensive "digital" lenses because they outperform the resolution of most 4x5 lenses. These devices must also be synced to the camera's shutter.

More info: http://www.phaseone.com/

If you want to maintain the 4x5 format and capture moving subjects, or employ flash lighting systems, and maintain as much information as possible, shooting film and then scanning is still the best bet.

The above options will work with just about any heavy duty studio 4x5. They require sturdy cameras because of the weight they add to the normal view camera ~formula~.

*note: I do not know if standard LF lenses can be used with scanning backs for high quality capture, so if someone could explain that...

[Scott Knowles]

Is there such a thing as a digital 4 X 5 studio type view camera. If so, is the image quality as good as shooting film and then scanning he film?

I don't know for sure, but the Sinar line of view cameras (http://www.sinar.ch/) come pretty close.

[aphexafx]

I don't know for sure, but the Sinar line of view cameras (http://www.sinar.ch/) come pretty close.

Just note that Sinar's digital options, like any other, are all medium format (not 4x5) and require very fine resolution "digital" lenses as I noted above. http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__gast-e-1776-50-1897.html

I assumed that the 4x5 format/aspect was what the OP was after.

LarryR, if you are mainly after a studio camera with movements like a 4x5 and don't care about the size of the film plane then you might be interested in a smaller format view camera with a MF digital back such as Cambo's Ultima 23 or Sinar's P3. The high resolution lens requirements still apply. And remember that the aspect of the lenses changes from 4x5 as you move to a smaller film plane.

Still, the debate as to whether these systems can outperform 4x5 film is hotly debated. They certainly will handle most commercial work. How well they handle fine art work is more subjective.

[Jim Michael]

Coming in the next year or two should be a 168x56 mm sensor from Red (Mysterium Monstro). Expect it to be a tad spendy.

[Peter De Smidt]

The medium format backs are nice, but there are issues using them on a view camera. First, as has been said, they work best with special lenses, one's that are optimized at a much larger aperture than the F16 and F22 of most large format lenses. Second, these backs can have issues when movements are used, mainly color shifts. Third, they work best with cameras with very precise control of the movements. We do use Phase backs on Sinar P2s at work, but for most things I prefer sticking them on a Hassleblad.

[Gene McCluney]

I have used a Betterlight scanning back for years with my studio 4x5, a Sinar-P expert. I have not felt the need to use "digital" lenses at all. I use Commercial Ektars, among other choices.

[aphexafx]

I have used a Betterlight scanning back for years with my studio 4x5, a Sinar-P expert. I have not felt the need to use "digital" lenses at all. I use Commercial Ektars, among other choices.

Thanks for the insight! I've been looking at BetterLight's website and their FAQ confirms that higher resolution "digital" lenses are not required - but notes that they might show less aberrations at 1:1 viewing of the ultra-high resolution images the scanning backs produce. Sounds negligible.

Here is a table of Sinar's digital hi-res lenses just for curiosity; and I believe they are made by Rodenstock for Sinar: http://www.sinar.ch/file_uploads/bibliothek/k_87_UserInstructions/162_0_sinarondigtecdatinfosheet.pdf

[cjbroadbent]

Mat is giving a very clear and well written answer. Maybe I can add some ground level experience. 18 months ago, I had a $150K contract to fulfill, shooting watches in suggestive surroundings. I was on the verge of buying a scannning back for my Ebony or an Imacon back with the Horseman Digflex or Linhof M.
All the solutions required a sliding back adapter and a tethered 'life support' system of cables, connectors, and computer. I got as far as buying a couple of Kobold HMI lights necessary as a stable source for the scan back. But I shoot simple and couldn't face working in a life-support situation.
So I shot, no-fuss, stitching six 24x36 frames from a Kodak DCS SLR with the Nikkor 60mm macro lens. On occasions I used a PC Nikkor 35mm, stitching three or more frames with plenty of overlap (I shoot very close to the subject to give it tangibility).
The files came out at between 1 and 1.8 Giga - enough for 6x10 ft. prints. The stitching program, RealViz, had perspective control.
The choice was between in-camera perspective control or post-production perspective control and between life-support shooting conditions or free-and-easy shooting conditions.
Free-and-easy won - also because in macro situations there is too much going on on the set to worry about the camera as well.
The contract was renewed, so I broke out $30K for Hasselblad and Imacon. This shoots non-tethered and tethered. Tethered does 4 blended images at about 2 Giga. No tilt DOF is no problem on a small (35x57) sensor. The real problem is no shift - that does require perspective correction in PhotoShop.
The pictures lack the feeling of the Kodak DCS because the HB has a 120mm macro which requires standing off too far for tangibility.
I have friends who use LF tethered backs all day and every day. They would all prefer to use transparency film and leave the post-production to someone else but they are stuck with digital because of instant picture control and faster set building turnover.

[Scott Knowles]

...I assumed that the 4x5 format/aspect was what the OP was after...

Matt, thanks for the details. I haven't followed the digital side of 4x5 (beyond my budget and needs), but I read his question as simply "digital 4x5 studio view camera" without respect to output format since 4x5 can take a variety of film/digital backs, which I assumed was the question. Just two different views seeing the same words.

[adrian tyler]

christopher's point is interesting, i held off on the medium format backs because of lack of flexibility, and cost, i now have a nikon dslr with tilt/shift lenses and it works great.

[aphexafx]

Matt, thanks for the details. I haven't followed the digital side of 4x5 (beyond my budget and needs), but I read his question as simply "digital 4x5 studio view camera" without respect to output format since 4x5 can take a variety of film/digital backs, which I assumed was the question. Just two different views seeing the same words.

No no, you are exactly right, Scott. Scanning backs are extremely specialized, and the obvious option is a MF digital back. And, personally, I would rather work with a full 4x5 w/ digital back than one of the smaller view camera systems designed for MF work - in the studio at least.

OP hasn't replied, who knows what they are actually after...

[aphexafx]

christopher's point is interesting, i held off on the medium format backs because of lack of flexibility, and cost, i now have a nikon dslr with tilt/shift lenses and it works great.

adrian, absolutely - the only thing a MF digital back on a view camera would gain the user over a DSLR is perhaps more flexibility with movements (but with view-angle/sensor issues in mind), and higher resolution (pixel and color depth) and probably less noise due to the larger sensors. These factors could be huge or irrelevant, depending on your application.

I think a DSLR with a good T/S lens is pretty flexible, though, in its own right. And much more cost effective depending on the application.

And on the side, I'm curious whether or not DSLRs have issues with extreme movements against the sensor array too?

I guess another option would be mounting a DSLR to a view camera, but I know that these types of mounts have issues with limited movements because of the physical mount where the sensor is inset quite a bit, which is why Cambo and others have introduced bag-style bellows with the mounting ring directly attached, although there is still an inset on the SLR body itself to get around...

[bsimison]

So I shot, no-fuss, stitching six 24x36 frames from a Kodak DCS SLR with the Nikkor 60mm macro lens. On occasions I used a PC Nikkor 35mm, stitching three or more frames with plenty of overlap (I shoot very close to the subject to give it tangibility).
The files came out at between 1 and 1.8 Giga - enough for 6x10 ft. prints. The stitching program, RealViz, had perspective control.

Christopher, I'm curious: how did you maintain the camera's parallax while shooting a macro subject?

[Bob Salomon]

No no, you are exactly right, Scott. Scanning backs are extremely specialized, and the obvious option is a MF digital back. And, personally, I would rather work with a full 4x5 w/ digital back than one of the smaller view camera systems designed for MF work - in the studio at least.

OP hasn't replied, who knows what they are actually after...

Once you have worked with a true digital view camera like the M679cs you would find that a 4x5 camera is simply not precise enough for critical work with a digital back. The gearing in the M679 series is much more precise then the gearing (and, if there, the grease packing) in a larger view camera. This makes fine movement on the M679 much more precise.

[aphexafx]

you would find that a 4x5 camera is simply not precise enough for critical work with a digital back.

Important point. However both Cambo and Sinar state that their TOTL 4x5's (Ultima 45, P2) are built and geared with the precision required (or desired) for digital back applications. But then, they both offer a smaller format system designed specifically for digital back applications.

I'm just saying that, everything else being equal, I'd rather work with a larger camera. But you are right, I can't really say having not tried it...

Looking at M678 right now, interesting camera.

[Bob Salomon]

Important point. However both Cambo and Sinar state that their TOTL 4x5's (Ultima 45, P2) are built and geared with the precision required (or desired) for digital back applications. But then, they both offer a smaller format system designed specifically for digital back applications.

I'm just saying that, everything else being equal, I'd rather work with a larger camera. But you are right, I can't really say having not tried it...

Looking at M678 right now, interesting camera.

You have to compare them by trying them. The spec sheets don't show you the differences in the preciseness of the controls.

[Thebes]

A couple of people have mentioned the 6x17 from RED. I do hope that it comes out like they are suggesting, but people should be aware that RED has a sort of history of vaporware. Not only to they disclaim that everything is subject to change, they tell you to count on it. So all we really know is what they want to make and how they think it will look... you could call it a look at what they have planned, but don't count on it as a real product on whatever timescale they initially guessed at.

[aphexafx]

I'm sorry, but I've not seen any evidence that RED has any kind of reputation outside of the faddy video arena. I do not see RED as a provider of professional quality photographic camera systems. I have never heard of a RED camera being used in a photographic studio, where Leaf and PhaseOne are holding ground.

Am I missing something?

[Gordon Moat]

I think some of the RED phenomena is to generate more interest in their video products. Any stills camera using an electronic viewfinder (EVF) will cause some limitations. No matter how well made an EVF is they are never as good as a true optical viewfinder.

The other issue with their bigger chips is that the A/D processors and other support chips just are not good enough to handle those data rates. While there are chip companies that can make such chips, quite likely the camera prices would be extremely high.

Short of RED making a true digital back that works on other companies camera bodies, I don't see them displacing PhaseOne, Leaf, nor Hasselblad. When you consider their EVF choice, I don't see them replacing high end Nikon and Canon either. They make get more people adopting their platform for video and motion work, and in that regard they do compete with JVC, Sony, and Panasonic.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)