Digital back for Linhof Master Technika/advice sought

[Rafael Macia]

I have a Master Technika 2000. To do travel photography I have used 4x5 Linhofs in the field. Never in the studio, and never with flash.
I would like to switch to digital. Ideally, I would like a full frame back, that I can use with the 6 or so Linhof lenses I already have.
Can anyone make some recommendations ?

Thanks in advance

Rafael

Happy Holidays !

[Bob Salomon]

First, a full format back would be a scanning back like a Betterlight or an Anagramm.
Most people use a live capture back like a Phaseone.
Putting digital live capture backs on a Linhof Technika from the IV to the Master and the 2000 and 3000 is very easy. You can use the 001693 Linhof DigiAdapter to put any Hasselblad V compatible digital back on the camera. Or you can use the new Linhof sliding and shift back on any IV, V, old Master or 3000 cameras directly. For later Master Technika and the 2000 cameras a small modification to the camera is necessary. This adapter takes adapters that accept Hasselblad V, Hasselblad H, Contax 645 or Mamiya 645 Af digital backs.
Lastly your lenses were designed for film, not digital. For the optimal results from a digital back you would need digital lenses. FotoCare Ltd. in NYC can guide you with the adaptation to digital.

[Spencer Ladd]

I am considering a move to digital equipment also. Currently, I use a TK 45 with new Rodenstock "Film" lenses. I would like to keep my TK 45. Believe it or not I work fairly quickly with the camera.

Where should I begin? I can't afford to replace 5 lenses and purchase a digital back.

If I purchase a Phase One 22 MP back do I need new lenses? Can I make 30x40 prints with 22 MPs? Are there practical problems that prohibit a scanner back in remote locations? Are there practical problems with Phase One backs in remote locations. I travel to the Andes and stay in the mountains away from electricity for several days.

Should I purchase a new set of digital lenses and buy the back later? Will they work, color accuracy, with film?

I would like to stay with the 4x5 format and a sliding back.

[Bob Salomon]

I am considering a move to digital equipment also. Currently, I use a TK 45 with new Rodenstock "Film" lenses. I would like to keep my TK 45. Believe it or not I work fairly quickly with the camera.

Where should I begin? I can't afford to replace 5 lenses and purchase a digital back.

If I purchase a Phase One 22 MP back do I need new lenses? Can I make 30x40 prints with 22 MPs? Are there practical problems that prohibit a scanner back in remote locations? Are there practical problems with Phase One backs in remote locations. I travel to the Andes and stay in the mountains away from electricity for several days.

Should I purchase a new set of digital lenses and buy the back later? Will they work, color accuracy, with film?

I would like to stay with the 4x5 format and a sliding back.

You will need the 001693 DigiAdadpter and a Hasselblad V back. Best results will be with digital lenses, not film lenses.

[Rafael Macia]

First, a full format back would be a scanning back like a Betterlight or an Anagramm.
Most people use a live capture back like a Phaseone.
Putting digital live capture backs on a Linhof Technika from the IV to the Master and the 2000 and 3000 is very easy. You can use the 001693 Linhof DigiAdapter to put any Hasselblad V compatible digital back on the camera. Or you can use the new Linhof sliding and shift back on any IV, V, old Master or 3000 cameras directly. For later Master Technika and the 2000 cameras a small modification to the camera is necessary. This adapter takes adapters that accept Hasselblad V, Hasselblad H, Contax 645 or Mamiya 645 Af digital backs.
Lastly your lenses were designed for film, not digital. For the optimal results from a digital back you would need digital lenses. FotoCare Ltd. in NYC can guide you with the adaptation to digital.

So,
If I understand correctly; .... the full frame coverage I seek, is one that a scanning back has, rather than a capture back.
The scanning back is probably, (although I don't know), a studio digital solution.
Could you clear me up on that ?
The capture back you mention is a field solution. But it is not a full frame solution.
Am I correct so far ?

Now when you say "results would be better"l with digital lenses.
In what respect ?

What, in other words what would be the negative influences/results of using film lenses with digital ?
thanks!

[Bob Salomon]

So,
If I understand correctly; .... the full frame coverage I seek, is one that a scanning back has, rather than a capture back.
The scanning back is probably, (although I don't know), a studio digital solution.
Could you clear me up on that ?
The capture back you mention is a field solution. But it is not a full frame solution.
Am I correct so far ?

Now when you say "results would be better"l with digital lenses.
In what respect ?

What, in other words what would be the negative influences/results of using film lenses with digital ?

thanks!
Correct, full or close to full frame backs are usually scanning and tethered to the computer and not a good field solution. Why do you insist on full frame? What size output will you need?

Analog lenses - yours, hit optimal apertures at f22 for most and f11-16 for some short ones. Digital likes more light so digital lenses hit optimal aperture around f8. Film sags digital does not. So the demands on a lens for digital are higher and the angle the light rays hit the digital sensor are different then the angle film requires. Lastly digital is perfectly flat. film isn't. So digital lenses produce higher quality results then film lenses do.

Since a live capture digital back has a smaller image area then large format film the same depth of field will be acquired at f8 as when using film and f22 so DOF is not a problem with digital lenses. But, as I said earlier, check with FotoCare. They have experts at digital imaging and can show you. They also rent the stuff.

[Bob Salomon]

I am considering a move to digital equipment also. Currently, I use a TK 45 with new Rodenstock "Film" lenses. I would like to keep my TK 45. Believe it or not I work fairly quickly with the camera.

Where should I begin? I can't afford to replace 5 lenses and purchase a digital back.

If I purchase a Phase One 22 MP back do I need new lenses? Can I make 30x40 prints with 22 MPs? Are there practical problems that prohibit a scanner back in remote locations? Are there practical problems with Phase One backs in remote locations. I travel to the Andes and stay in the mountains away from electricity for several days.

Should I purchase a new set of digital lenses and buy the back later? Will they work, color accuracy, with film?

I would like to stay with the 4x5 format and a sliding back.

To use a Phase One on a 45 TK you need the back for a Hasselblad V camera and the 001693 Linhof DigiAdapter.

Do you need new lenses? Yes to get the optimal quality out of the back. No if you are satisfied with less then optimal digital quality. The beauty of digital is that you can see the difference immediatly if you do a comparison test.

There is no sliding back for a TK and the standards are not designed to be used with one. Don't forget, the TK is a lightweight L standard camera with all of the weight supported by that L standard. The other Linhof cameras, Technika Classic and 3000, M679cs and the new Techno field camera do all accept a sliding back. But the M679 series and the Techno are 6x9cm cameras designed specifically for digital.

[Rafael Macia]

Thank you so much for the quick and clear reply.

I have supplied stock photography to photo agencies. 75MB scans of 4x5 chromes is the norm for me.
.
So I would need digital capacity to equal that ( I guess )
Never making prints
No, actually I don't absolutely need full frame. I just wanted to avoid putting a 2 and a quarter capture area in a 4x5 field of view. It would be like putting a roll film back on my Linhof.
The back modification for the sliding back to the 2000 probably involves the screws,, they put in to prevent the removal of the whole back unit. My Master had the slide latches, the 2000 is screwed down.
again thanks
Rafael

[Bob Salomon]

The back modification for the sliding back to the 2000 probably involves the screws,, they put in to prevent the removal of the whole back unit. My Master had the slide latches, the 2000 is screwed down.
again thanks
Rafael

Correct, Marflex (marflex@aol.com) should have the parts needed. There is also another modification for digital. On the 3000 there is an extra drop bed position so the bed goes almost 90° down to eliminate the end of the bed being in vertical pictures with 75 or shorter lenses. Since digital can use lenses as short as 23mm this can become rather important. The Master and the 2000 can have this added if desired.

[Frank Petronio]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Those two forums have a lot more medium and large format digital photographers.

While you can use a scan back in the field with batteries and laptops, it's slow and not really a general purpose camera set-up.

You'll probably end up with two systems or committing to one or the other. Using the smaller medium format sensor on a 4x5 is a challenge all unto itself, for a variety of reasons, which is why most photographers end up with dedicated medium format systems.

[Rafael Macia]

Again,

Thanks all for the interesting and useful comments, along with the links above. I feel like I am getting up to speed.
I am left thinking, film is all there is, for 4x5 in the field. At least, in the sense that major changes would have to be made to switch to digital. I only dread the possible demise of E6 processing.

[Peter De Smidt]

Definitely rent before buying. For example, digital works best with more precise movements than film. For instance, I'm not a fan of using a Phase back on a Sinar P2, as the gearing is to coarse for my liking with digital, whereas a P2 is outstanding for film use. Hence the P3...

[Bob Salomon]

Definitely rent before buying. For example, digital works best with more precise movements than film. For instance, I'm not a fan of using a Phase back on a Sinar P2, as the gearing is to coarse for my liking with digital, whereas a P2 is outstanding for film use. Hence the P3...

Which has very imprecise movements in the gearing compared to the M679 system which uses no grease.

[Bugleone]

I'm no longer a large format user although I was in my youth. I don't think digital backs and 4x5 cameras are that well suited for some of the reasons already touched on in this topic. as a very useful overview of digital back usage, take a look at this review on 'Luminous-Landscape' of a purpose made digital back system using 35mm tilt and shift lenses;

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hartblei-cam.shtml

Even if you are not interested in this type of camera which is now made by a small handful of different makers such as Alpa and Sivestri etc, this will still give you a good grasp of getting th ebest out of a medium format digital back system.

[Gordon Moat]

I'm no longer a large format user although I was in my youth. I don't think digital backs and 4x5 cameras are that well suited for some of the reasons already touched on in this topic. as a very useful overview of digital back usage, take a look at this review on 'Luminous-Landscape' of a purpose made digital back system using 35mm tilt and shift lenses;

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hartblei-cam.shtml

Even if you are not interested in this type of camera which is now made by a small handful of different makers such as Alpa and Sivestri etc, this will still give you a good grasp of getting th ebest out of a medium format digital back system.

Definitely poor choice of lenses for most of those images, unless you want an ultra-wide look to everything. The smaller idea body is nice, but I think the capture area needs to be larger than 6x4.5 sized to really get somewhere with these. However, with longer focal length lenses that avoid that wide angle look, these types of systems can be useful. I also think you can add the Gottschalt (http://www.gottschalt.de/de/kameras_05.html) choices to ALPA and Silvestri. The ALPA and Gottschalt are only shift with most lenses, while the Silvestri system offers some tilting choices. Hopefully something improves in the next couple years in these choices.

Ciao!

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

[Bugleone]

Gordon,

No, with respect, I don't think it is a "poor choice of lenses" as those are rather better in several ways than LF film lenses intended for 4x5. You are right that "...the capture area needs to be larger than 6x4.5.." However, the fact is that the largest of these digital backs is only 48 x 38mm, or thereabouts. As far as I am aware there is still NO digital back to equal 6x6 rollfilm image size (actually 56 x 56mm), let alone larger formats.

This is why there are only scanning backs to fill the 4x5 image area as mentioned at the start of this topic.

And,...yes, the 'Gottschalt' is another of these systems,..there are about 7 different ones now and there will doubtless be some more very soon.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon,

No, with respect, I don't think it is a "poor choice of lenses" as those are rather better in several ways than LF film lenses intended for 4x5. .......

So you think the Canon Tilt/Shift 24mm and 17mm are better than which large format lenses? Better in what ways?

By the way, that is not what I meant by my statement. I think the images in that article are poorly executed, regardless of what lenses he used, but that is my opinion.

[Garfink]

I own a Betterlight Scanning back, its not that bad in the field, I use it primarily outdoors. It does take a little longer to setup, as you have to aim the camera and boot the computer. But it does give the most outstanding & wonderful files.

If I was to spend my money on a phase one back, I would simply get a medium format system, no benefit from using a large format system apart from the movements which probably won't translate so easily on a smaller digital back anyhow. Not to mention a medium format setup would be much lighter, quicker and a more technologically capable camera.

[tgtaylor]

This is what I would get: http://toyoview.com/Products/VX23D/23D.html

[Eric Brody]

Blending a traditional 4x5 camera and digital seems tricky at best. One ends up essentially starting over with a new technical camera, such as the Linhof 679 or Techno, or a medium format body such as a Phase or Hasselblad, and all new lenses.

Essentially one builds a medium format digital system from scratch. The traditional 4x5 short lenses become standard lenses, the standard lenses become long lenses; and, according to some, all of the traditional lenses we have used and loved for so long need to be replaced by "digital" lenses anyway. When all is said and done one is really no longer a large format photographer, if that matters...

Putting a 2"x1.5" 48mm x 36mm back on a real 4x5, such as a Technika is not much different than using a roll film back except that one needs new lenses and benefits from the impressive quality these back produce at the cost of many dollars and convenience. Sounds like a lot of work and expense unless one is earning serious money and can write it off as a business expense. At this point, if I want the benefits of digital, I'll use my D700; if I want the benefits of 4x5 I'll use film, unless I win the lottery, roughly as probable as getting hit by lightning... twice.

Eric

[archivue]

you must remember that with a 36x48 back you need a 35mm lens to have the same angle as a 90 on a 4x5 film... 35 with a technika is a nightmare !
If you need longer lenses then it's ok !
The best way to mount a back on a technika is the stitching back from Kapture group !

otherwise, for wide angles and digi backs, you really need a Cambo wide RS, or an Alpa (max, swa, xy...), or Arca Swiss (Rm3d, Rl3D).

Here, the Arca RM3D...

http://www.photoscala.de/grafik/2009/ARCA-SWISS-RM3D-FB.jpg

[Bob Salomon]

"35 with a technika is a nightmare !
If you need longer lenses then it's ok !
The best way to mount a back on a technika is the stitching back from Kapture group !"

No it isn't. It is very easy with the built-in wide angle focusing mount on the Master Technika 2000 (now discontinued) and the current Master technika 3000. And the sliding back with built-in rise accessory for any IV, V, or Master accepts any Hasselblad V, H, Mamiya 645 AF, Contax 645 or Graflok 23 scanning or instant capture back.

But even more convenient is the new Techno from Linhof that uses a 23mm on a flat board and is fully geared! Or any of the M679 series cameras which shares the same backs with the Techno, including two sliding backs that accept the same camera backs as the Master Technika sliding back above.

[cyron123]

Hello guys,
this is an old thread but a similar Problem for me. I think it is a good solution tho attach a kapture grounf sliding back to the Technika 3000. But if am right there are 2 possibilities for attaching:
1) with the graflok compatible ground glass. You have to remove the ground glass and attach the sliding back
2) remove the groundglass and the Frame and attach a different sliding back from kapture Group with the round Connection....

is this right? I dont know.
cyron

[Bob Salomon]

Hello guys,
this is an old thread but a similar Problem for me. I think it is a good solution tho attach a kapture grounf sliding back to the Technika 3000. But if am right there are 2 possibilities for attaching:
1) with the graflok compatible ground glass. You have to remove the ground glass and attach the sliding back
2) remove the groundglass and the Frame and attach a different sliding back from kapture Group with the round Connection....

is this right? I dont know.
cyron

1: is not very strong and maintaining parallelism is questionable this way.
2: would work better. That is how Linhof attaches their sliding back adapter to a 45 IV or later. But does the Kapture Group one maintain exactly the same image plane placement as the Linhof?

[jbenedict]

Again,

Thanks all for the interesting and useful comments, along with the links above. I feel like I am getting up to speed.
I am left thinking, film is all there is, for 4x5 in the field. At least, in the sense that major changes would have to be made to switch to digital. I only dread the possible demise of E6 processing.

Is scanning film an option? Kodak seems to suggest that they will be producing their new Ektar 100 films 'forever' (if there is such a thing) and they also say that there are specific benefits to the new Ektar and scanning. I can't explain what Kodak means and if it is true but perhaps someone else can. You could use something like an Epson 700/750 to make a final scan or as a 'proofing scan' to decide which ones should be send out for the big bux drum scanning.

[Richard Johnson]

Is scanning film an option? Kodak seems to suggest that they will be producing their new Ektar 100 films 'forever' (if there is such a thing) and they also say that there are specific benefits to the new Ektar and scanning. I can't explain what Kodak means and if it is true but perhaps someone else can. You could use something like an Epson 700/750 to make a final scan or as a 'proofing scan' to decide which ones should be send out for the big bux drum scanning.

At least by how I figure it, the value and quality of large format film is impossible to beat. When you do need quality files in volume then there are excellent DSLR options now, leaving the medium format digital backs in a sort of no-man's land of being an expensive in-between compromise.

[cyron123]

Hi Bob,
ok these are good anserws. Thank you. I thought that 2 is the better methode. Is it important to use the exact image plane placement for a techniks 3000? I thought it is not, because it does not have the mechanism like the "technika classic". What do you think?
Thank you.
cyron


1: is not very strong and maintaining parallelism is questionable this way.
2: would work better. That is how Linhof attaches their sliding back adapter to a 45 IV or later. But does the Kapture Group one maintain exactly the same image plane placement as the Linhof?

[Bob Salomon]

Hi Bob,
ok these are good anserws. Thank you. I thought that 2 is the better methode. Is it important to use the exact image plane placement for a techniks 3000? I thought it is not, because it does not have the mechanism like the "technika classic". What do you think?
Thank you.
cyron
It is probably more important as with digital the normal lens is shorter then with film and if you want wide angle the third party adapters may not let you go as wide as needed. You can easily use a 35mm focal length on the 3000 with just a 001015 lens board.

[cyron123]

Hi Bob,
ok i think it is the "comfort board" the recessed one...OK i will buy this for my wide lenses..Thank you. I will talk to Kapture Group if they could send me a photo of there sliding adapter for the linhof. For precaution :-).
Thank you for your good ansers. Very Welcome.
cyron