Dslr back

[Pics2]

This is my first post here and most of you probably hate the idea of using dslr camera instead of real film on the back of LF camera, but you are the only ones I can ask this questions.
I'm a product photographer that wants to use benefits of LF camera movements on my dslr. I'm familiar with LF photography, I studied it in school.
What I have no experience with is - what is the quality of LF lenses on Dslr sensor, because I heard the native dslr lenses produce much sharper images on dslr FF sensor than LF lenses. Do you know anything about this? I hope it's not true, since I would really like to dive back in LF photography:)

[Gene McCluney]

You should use, at the least, a medium-format digital back.

[Pics2]

Thanks for quick replay!
Since I'm really beginner on the subject. Why do you think dslr is not an option, and why it wouldn't perform well?
Thanks!

[Ash]

Considering the size of a FF dslr sensor, you're going to be struggling to find a LF lens wide enough to make photography easy. People use/used dslr's to stitch images together for greater resolution. It's not ideal and is very time consuming.

[Pics2]

Ash,
I'm aware of this problem. I don't need wide angle, since it's exclusively for product photography ( telephoto, macro etc.).
What about the quality of dslr picture shot with dslr lens vs dslr picture shot with LF lens?
BTW, great pictures you have on your website!

[el french]

Thanks for quick replay!
Since I'm really beginner on the subject. Why do you think dslr is not an option, and why it wouldn't perform well?
Thanks!

Define 'well' :)

The mirror box on a DSLR severely limits the movements. Critical focus is hard to achieve unless you're tethered to a computer (and the output is HDMI). It's difficult to get the sensor plane aligned with the GC/film plane.

It's been done quite a few times by DIYers and there are several commercial entries available. I've built one entirely from scratch and have been thinking about adding a film back: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/Spherical%20Pano%20Head/

[Pics2]

I meant, well like it was shot with dslr lens.
About the movements, does that mean the movements are limited to the same range like Canon and Nikon TS lenses (around 11 and 8), or is it more? If the movements are that limited, is it better to stick with native TS lenses of Dslr?
You made great gear.
I know there are a lot commercial solutions, that's why I wanted to give it a try.

[Tim Meisburger]

I think what you are asking is if modern DSLR lenses are sharper than LF lenses when used with a DSLR back on a view camera. I don't know, but some LF lenses are very sharp, while others are very soft. I think you might get sharper lenses for the DSLR, as they only need to cover an area the size of the sensor, which I think is about the size of a postage stamp, whereas LF lenses have to cover a much larger area. I think you might be better off with a LensBaby. Or, shoot film!

[Pics2]

Thank you all for your input. It'll help me decide which direction to go!

[Greg Lockrey]

FWIW... I use an Olympus EP-1 for my back as it eliminates the shadow of the mirror box getting in the way. My experience with DSLR is that you can cover about a 2.5x2.5" area using 4x5 equipment giving me a 70mp image with stitching. The EP-1 can give a 4x4" area with 485mp. Here are pics of both of my set ups. I use a Sinar P rear standard w/ RRS quick clamp and 180mm Sinaron Macro lens (a very sharp lens btw). It's my "Poormans scanner. :) The advantage of the medium format over small format digital is that there is a better D-max with the medium... you can make up that shortfall with HDR type shooting if the subject is stationary.

[Pics2]

I was thinking about mirrorless cameras, too. Do you find focusing problematic on the LCD?

[Robbie Shymanski]

Maybe you should look into a Nikon PB-4 bellows for your dlsr instead of screwing around with an LF camera. It would give you the movements I am sure you are looking for.

[Pics2]

Thanks Robbie, that's great idea.
There is Novoflex product,too, TS bellows for Canon and Nikon.But, I don't understand how can Canon lenses manage to cover the sensor area during these movements. Aren't you supposed to use MF or LF lenses with Nikon PB-4 bellows or Novoflex TS bellows?:confused:

[domaz]

The Camera Fusion back (http://www.camerafusion.com/GG01.html) looks pretty good. It has a calibrated ground glass so you can focus with the view camera normally. Then just connect your DSLR and start sliding and taking pictures at intervals and stitch. If you want to use an EVIL (mirrorless) camera just get a cheap adapter to adapt the Canon/Nikon mount of the Camera Fusion back to XX brand EVIL camera.

[Joshua Dunn]

I was looking for the link to the Camera Fusion website when Domaz posted it. They have some impressive examples of their work posted on their website to include macro. This is probably your best option.

Betterlight (http://www.betterlight.com/index.html) makes a digital back that sides in like a film holder but is ridiculously expensive. Keep in mind they work as a line scanner so it does not work like a CMOS sensor. I have heard you can rent them so that may be an option.

As far as lenses, get a good Macro large format lens and you should be fine. Marco lenses made for a 35mm format will not cover a medium format sensor and will not work with a stitching back like the Camera Fusion. The Nikkor AM ED large format macro lenses are excellent and far less expensive than most of the Schneider, Rodenstock or Sironar Marco lenses.

Where do you live? Often you can rent a lot of this stuff and just try it out.

Just my two cents.

-Joshua

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Robbie, that's great idea.
There is Novoflex product,too, TS bellows for Canon and Nikon.But, I don't understand how can Canon lenses manage to cover the sensor area during these movements. Aren't you supposed to use MF or LF lenses with Nikon PB-4 bellows or Novoflex TS bellows?:confused:

Actually the Novoflex T/S bellows fits any modern interchangeable lens 35mm or DSLR cameras as well as many medium format SLR cameras with a focal plane shutter. It accepts lenses from all of these cameras as well as microscope lenses and two dedicated Novoflex lenses.

Novoflex also makes an automatic bellows for 35mm and DSLR Canon and Niko cameras but they do not have T/S. All of these types of bellows,except the Canon version, have been discontinued by Novoflex.

Novoflex also makes the EOS RETRO ring for Canon. If this is used with the T/S bellows or its non T/S brother then Canon lenses can be used on these two bellows automatically.

Naturally most Canon and Nikon lenses will not work with much T/S on a T/S bellows but most of the medium format ones will as will the two dedicated Novoflex ones.

[Bob Salomon]

"most of the Schneider, Rodenstock or Sironar Marco lenses. "

Sironar are Rodenstock lenses. And you did mean Macro, correct?

And no, that Nikon will not be equal to the Rodenstock digital lenses. Probably not equal to the Schneider digitals either.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Shot with a Nikon D5000 and a 180mm projection petzval from about a foot away with extreme tilt and swing

main camera was a sinar p w/ bag bellows/ nikon-sinar adapter

[Joshua Dunn]

Bob,

Sorry for the typo, I did mean “Macro” not Marco. I am aware that Rodenstock makes Sironar lenses. I own several. But since Pics2 is new to the forum and stated in his original post that he is “familiar with LF photography, I studied it in school…” I was only trying to throw some names of manufactures of LF Macro lenses out there, not to define their history. If you read my post I did not say the Nikkor was a better lens, just that it is an excellent lens (which is true) and is far more affordable (also true) than Schneider, Rodenstock or Sironar.

Sometimes you just have to try all this stuff to see if it will work for you. That’s why I mentioned trying to rent this stuff first. If someone was to buy the Camera Fusion back ($1850) and a used Sinar (let’s say $500) that would constitute a serious investment for a macro system and you have not even bought a lens. I am not married to any one brand of lens, I bought the 120mm Nikkor AM ED when B&H was dumping them for $300, which is often what you can buy a used one for. For that kind of money it may be worth trying that lens before you shell out another $800-$1000 on a used Schneider, Rodenstock or Sironar, especially when this is new to Pics2.

-Joshua

[Joshua Dunn]

Steve,

Nice!

-Joshua

[Pics2]

Thank you all once again.
Now I have a lot of thinking and research to do.
Honestly, I would like to start LF photography again, I'm, like, looking for a reason to do so.
It is obvious that for my job dslr TS lenses are good enough most of the time.
But, at least, just for fun, and when I have time and money, I'll try LF once again.
Who knows, maybe you will see me here much more often.
You are all so kind.

[Greg Lockrey]

I was thinking about mirrorless cameras, too. Do you find focusing problematic on the LCD?

I use a Hoodman focusing loop to aid in that.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Steve,

Nice!

-Joshua
Joshua,
thank you :)

steve

[unixrevolution]

Thank you all once again.
Now I have a lot of thinking and research to do.
Honestly, I would like to start LF photography again, I'm, like, looking for a reason to do so.
It is obvious that for my job dslr TS lenses are good enough most of the time.
But, at least, just for fun, and when I have time and money, I'll try LF once again.
Who knows, maybe you will see me here much more often.
You are all so kind.

To approach the problem from the other end, is Digital super-important to your workflow? Could you get by with film scans from LF or Medium-Format film? is the processing time prohibitive?

[Pics2]

Yes, digital is the only option to them (buyers).
I spent one more day here on the forum and I have learned a lot already. This thread was extremely useful
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=84090&highlight=digital+back
It looks like MF digital back is the only serious digital option. Too bad it's so expensive.
For now, I'll try TS Dslr lenses, and hopefully invest in digital MF in the near future. That would be coupled with some nice LF body of course:)
If anyone is interested in cheap TS Dslr solution, I bought this thing
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TILT-ADAPTER-use-Pentacon-six-Kiev-lens-NIKON-camera-Hight-Quality-/270854127673?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f102a0039
since I have many Kiev MF lenses. It's 126$ vs 1200$ Canon TS 90mm which is practicaly the same thing.

[Ed Kelsey]

What is wrong with just using the DSLR like it was intended with dedicated lenses? People always want to reinvent the wheel.

[Greg Lockrey]

What is wrong with just using the DSLR like it was intended with dedicated lenses? People always want to reinvent the wheel.

Because if you already have a 4x5 you can stitch arrays to replicate film size and skip the processing and scanning steps to get a much larger digital file to use. Most large format lenses are cheaper than digital lenses too.

[Pics2]

What is wrong with just using the DSLR like it was intended with dedicated lenses? People always want to reinvent the wheel.
I do, but I'm looking into tilt movements options for product photography, since DSLR with dedicated lenses is not intended for that. There are dedicated lenses for tilt and shift, but with very limited movements.

[Robert Jonathan]

Pics2, I sent you a (very long) private message. :)

[Darren H]

I did some work with one. I modified a lens board so I could mount my Canon DSLR on my 4x5.

Here is a write up on it here on the forum with pics.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=73171

And here is a blog post I did on it on my blog

http://thetravelingcamera.blogspot.com/2011/03/4x5-dslr-experiment.html

My nutshell response is I do not think the two mix well enough. You will end up having to use longer lenses as wide angles will not give you the clearance you need. Focus can be done with live view but is still easier just using a DSLR. I thought it might be useful for stitching but in the end found it cumbersome. I think you need a dedicated back rather than a DSLR.

[sully75]

I think you should just use tilt shift lenses and stop hunting around for something other than that. And if you are shooting for money, IMHO digital wins every time.

[Pics2]

Well, that's what I'll be doing for now. Since right now I just need extended DOF for angled shots of objects, I find Canon's TS lens with 8 degree just enough. Even three or four degrees can do wonders.
When my demands change, I hope to go with digital back and LF camera. After all your input and help, I figured out that digital back is the way to go with LF bodies.

[Leigh]

I use a Hasselblad digital back (CFV-39) on my Sinar F2.
Sinar makes an adapter to mount the regular 500-series Hasselblad bodies on their cameras.

The reason for using MF as a minimum is because of the lens focal length required for a given angle of view.
I can use a 75mm as a "normal" lens with the Hasselblad body.

The major lens manufacturers are now making "digital" versions of their high-end lenses.
The difference is the reduced angle of view of these as compared with the standard film lenses of the same focal length.

- Leigh

[sully75]

Well one thing to remember is that you might not need extended DOF for shots with a DSLR. Because of the smaller sensor, a DSLR is going to have more effective depth of field for a given field of view than a large format camera.

The real reason to use T/S lenses on DSLRs is to correct perspective, I believe (not that I've used/owned one). If you are worried about getting things in focus, in general, stopping down is probably going to do a lot more than a T/S lens will.

[Pics2]

Sully, yes, it's used to correct perspective, but, also for extending DOF. I face the problem of not having enough DOF sharpness on everyday basis in my applications. Stopping down the aperture is not enough sometimes. The combination of tilt and small aperture works fine many times. And, yes, I even thought about going back to APS-C sensor for this reason, but, again, it's too small sensor.

[Leigh]

Pics2,

Tilt does not change DoF. It changes the plane of focus.

The DoF at any particular distance from the lens is exactly the same regardless of tilt.

- Leigh

[Greg Lockrey]

If you are looking to increase DoF with a digital camera, look into "focus stacking". It works best if you can maintain position of the lens relative to the subject and being able to move the film(sensor) plane to shift the focus. Large format cameras make this easy unless you can find a bellows system that allows for rear focusing instead of front.

[Pics2]

Pics2,

Tilt does not change DoF. It changes the plane of focus.

The DoF at any particular distance from the lens is exactly the same regardless of tilt.

- Leigh
Sorry for my bad English, I was misunderstood. I change the plane of focus on particular surface. I change the DOF with aperture then.

[Pics2]

If you are looking to increase DoF with a digital camera, look into "focus stacking". It works best if you can maintain position of the lens relative to the subject and being able to move the film(sensor) plane to shift the focus. Large format cameras make this easy unless you can find a bellows system that allows for rear focusing instead of front.

Thank you for the advice. I tried this method with DSLR, but as you said, because I was changing the lens position I gave up.

[neil poulsen]

Rod Klukas has interesting thing's to say about digitar lenses being used with digital backs.

As to using non-digital LF lenses with digital backs, I was told the following by a Schneider technician. Digitar lenses differ from traditional LF lenses in that Digitar lenses focus all frequencies onto the same plane.

Traditional LF lenses focus different frequencies onto different parallel focal planes at different distances from the lens. This is because, filters (of different colors) in color film are on different layers of the film. So, traditional LF lenses strive to improve sharpness by focusing the appropriate frequencies of light onto each parallel layer of color film. This is explained quite well in the following Schneider pdf: (See Rod Kuklas site.)

http://www.rodklukas.com/resources/Digitar.pdf

For this reason, digital lenses would work great with black and white film, because B&W film have their grains all on the same plane.

But what I was also told by the same Schneider technician, is that there will only be a practical difference between traditional LF lenses and digital lenses for focal lengths less than about the diagonal of the sensor being used. So, traditional LF lenses above about 75mm and above in focal length could be usable with digital backs.

There's another dynamic involved in this discussion. I was told by two other Schneider technicians in a conference call that, whether or not there's a practical difference between traditional and digital LF lenses also depends on the resolution of the digital back being used. For backs of less than about 25 megapixels, Digitar lenses wouldn't make that much of a difference. On the other hand, one would see a practical difference between traditional and digital LF lenses when using backs having 39 megapixels.

The LF camera being used makes a difference in how much one can gain from using digital backs. Rod Kuklas describes a comparison that he made with older and newer models of Arca Swiss cameras. He sent his older Arca Swiss camera to a technician to have it adjusted and made the best that was possible. He then compared the results from using that optimized older camera with a digital back with those from a new Arca Swiss camera and found that the tighter controls on the new camera enabled one to better focus the image. I believe that Rod Kuklas is currently a representative of Arca Swiss in the U.S. It stands to reason that older, more "rickety" LF cameras aren't going to be able to achieve the same results with high resolution digital backs as a new Arca-Swiss.

So in making these suggestions, I really don't profess any particular expertise. I'm merely repeating what I've been told. But, I find this topic fascinating. With respect to using traditional LF lenses on digital backs, it's certainly worth a photographer's time to conduct their own tests and comparisons.

[Leigh]

For this reason, digital lenses would work great with black and white film, because B&W film have their grains all on the same plane.
Except that the image circle of digital LF lenses is MUCH smaller than that of the corresponding film lens.

- Leigh

[Frank Petronio]

You need very finely geared controls to make minute movements - that would would have to study and test on preview and with test shots to optimize - this is why they make special view cameras with mirco-geared movements for digital backs.

Simply putting a DSLR onto a regular 4x5 camera will work, but very poorly.

You're wasting your time trying to do things on the cheap. A tilt-shift lens makes more sense.

[Greg Lockrey]

Thank you for the advice. I tried this method with DSLR, but as you said, because I was changing the lens position I gave up.

Now on a large format like a Sinar you can adjust the rear focus. I understand Minolta makes a bellows that has rear focus control.

[Gene McCluney]

For a digital capture system that most closely compares to film capture in large format, the solution (within its limits) is the Betterlight Scanning Back. I have one. It is laptop computer controlled, is tethered to a control box that is operated by a computer. But, it slides in a 4x5 view camera just like a film holder and scans almost the full 4x5 image area. A mask is provided for accurate composition. It requires continuous light (no flash), as it can take several minutes to acquire the image. It is capable of the highest quality work, as it is not a Bayer-sensor type imager. It captures full color information at every pixel, no interpolation. They have been around long enough that you may be able to find a used one at a similar price to a high-end DSLR body. You can use full view-camera tilts, swings, and shifts with this solution, just like film. There is a battery powered option for location work. Many art museums and galleries use this system for the photography of original paintings for the purpose of making prints of the highest quality of original art works.

The next choice would be a medium-format digital back. Most higher-resolution medium format backs have an imager about the size (slightly smaller) of a 6x4.5 roll film negative....Like many medium format film SLR cameras shoot. With an adapter, you mount this back on the back of your view camera, usually a sliding adapter that had a ground glass with cropping marks on it, so you can compose on the glass, then slide the back in place of the ground glass to take the photo. These can be used under battery power, saving files to internal compact flash card, or tethered to a computer. Since the back mounts directly onto the camera, there is no mirror box to get in the way of (or obscuring) the image circle of a highly tilted or shifted lens, and you can use these backs with flash. There are even view-camera adapters for these that allow shifting the back in precise amounts to stitch very large files. The pixels are larger on these backs than the less-expensive DSLR 35mm format cameras, thus yielding a better image, smoother, more film like.