Deciding on a 4x5 for digital conversion project

[Ranger Bob]

New here; first post. I've been doing research for about a month now and I feel I am at the point where I can ask some questions and perhaps understand the answers. I've been shooting in 35mm and some MF for about 25 years as a serious hobbyist. I am getting quite interested in doing studio product photography from larger tabletop to furniture size. I have decided I am going to convert a 4x5 for use with a DSLR and a MF back. Right now I'm just focused on the DSLR and will be using a Canon 5DII. Cameras I am looking at for the conversion are the Sinar P, Cambo Master, and Horseman LE. Which of these will give me the most precise control of the movements? I know the Horseman is not really in the same class as the other two but it is much more readily available and less expensive so any particular comments as to its suitability would be appreciated.

Bob

[Bob Salomon]

More practical is either an actual digital view camera and a digital back. Least practical is slopping a DSLR on the back of a 45. Examples of a digital view camera is the M679 from Linhof and the P3 from Sinar.

[Henry Ambrose]

I think a 4x5 conversion will certainly disappoint. It'll only allow use of too much longer lenses and then not nearly precise enough movements for the relatively tiny little sensor. Its a loosing proposition.

Buy the tilt shift lenses from Canon for your 5DII if you are serious about doing this work with a "35mm" digital.

If you want the real 'ole time view camera experience, buy a studio model 4x5, shoot film, (just as God intended), then scan.

[Ranger Bob]

Yeah, figured this would be my responses. The made-for-digital view cameras are astronomically priced. I guess they figure that if digital backs are so pricey they can justify their price. As to lens selection, perhaps there's something I'm missing. I plan to use Mamiya-Sekor 645 lenses. With a bag bellows that attches directly to the lens flange of the 5D and a custom recessed lens board, I should have no problem getting the necessary flange focus length for the 645 lenses. I believe dividing the focal length of the 645 lens by .66 will get me a pretty close approximation of the equivilent coverage in 35mm format. So, I should be able to get FOV of a standard lens. I know that the resolution of the MF lenses is not going to be as good as the modern digital lenses but I would like to see for myself how it is since there appear to be no full resolution examples on the internet. What I do see on the internet are a few examples of people who gave it a shot and produced some nice work. I also see the X2 PRO and the VCC so these camera companys seem to think there is something there. If I'm disappointed in the results, so be it. It is a project I want to try and along the way I may learn something.

Bob

[aluncrockford]

I have used hassleblad v lenses on a Sinar p2 with a p45 for years, they work perfectly well, you just need an adaptor plate and a Sinar shutter, if you are wanting to use your canon it will be a lot simpler and more cost effective to get hold of some tilt and shift lenses, the nikon ai 35mm is an excellent choice as is the 55mm macro.Focusing to get an image sharp on any 5x4 using a 35mm back is very tricky, and best avoided

[Ranger Bob]

Focusing to get an image sharp on any 5x4 using a 35mm back is very tricky, and best avoided

From what I've read, tethered in live view works great for this creating a quick, efficient workflow.

Bob

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Production photography side of commercial studio and catalog work went through several phases. You're talking about stepping back almost a score of years where they were commonly using MF digital backs on a 4x5 cameras not specifically engineered for digital. Sure, you could still do it. Commercial studios were working like this in the early 90's, but it was a transitional gear for what was already deeply embedded. Most would have been using Sinar 4x5 gear in the late 80's and there are a lot of SLR and MFDB adapter plates and pieces floating around in the used market. Working like this today might not be as efficient you might need to be cost-competitive in a production environment of a commercial setting, particularly if competing against other photographers for the limited revenue opportunities.

Too, results may not have as good/any better resolution or bit depth or dynamic range than a modern DSLR--but you could almost certainly make images this way. Keep in mind that 20 years ago, 16 or 24 MP images from anything but scanned LF film didn't yet exist. Your Canon 5DMkII did a lot to make LF film gear affordable when the folks in production environments suddenly didn't need to process and scan sheet film or buy $50K MFDBs any longer.

Recent versions of Photoshop on a current computer with fast scratch disks and a lot of RAM will make stitching and compositing images relatively easy, which it was not in the heyday of the gear you're contemplating.

I'm thinking that a decent macro lens (or tilt-shift macro lens, Nikon now makes several) and a tripod head that does stitching panos with the 5DMkII could prove to be all you would need, perhaps for similar money as getting into LF if you take your time and learning curve into consideration. If you haven't already, look at a Really Right Stuff catalog, particularly the geared rails to do focus stacking, for inspiration.

[Kodachrome25]

Working like this today might not be as efficient you might need to be cost-competitive in a production environment of a commercial setting, particularly if competing against other photographers for the limited revenue opportunities.

But this does not apply to him, he referred to himself as a "Serious Hobbyist", they tend not to make any money....

[RichardSperry]

http://www.photigy.com/how-to-developing-a-tiltshift-system-for-35mm-digital-camera-based-on-4x5-view-camera/

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/07/30/guest-post-large-format-photography-with-nikon-d800-as-a-negative-holder.aspx/


There are a bunch of Chinese adapters on EBay. In the $150 range.

[BTMarcais]

"I believe dividing the focal length of the 645 lens by .66 will get me a pretty close approximation of the equivilent coverage in 35mm format. So, I should be able to get FOV of a standard lens."

I think you're missing something here. Just because an 80mm is a standard lens on the 645 doesn't mean it won't still behave like an 80mm lens on a full-frame 35mm sized DSLR. It'll be a short tele, not a standard lens.
Dividing by .66 isn't really going to do anything for you.
-Brian

[Ranger Bob]

I think you're missing something here. Just because an 80mm is a standard lens on the 645 doesn't mean it won't still behave like an 80mm lens on a full-frame 35mm sized DSLR. It'll be a short tele, not a standard lens.
Dividing by .66 isn't really going to do anything for you.
-Brian

Am I? An 80mm MF lens would give a FOV roughly equal to a 120mm in a standard DSLR lens on full frame. A 35mm MF lens would get me a FOV equal to about 53mm on the sensor. The difference would be that it will likely have a closer minimum focusing distance which would have additional benefits as I see it.

For my uses the biggest issues I see are the shadowing that can be caused by the DSLR flange during extreme movements and possibly chromatic aberration using wide angle lenses. I don't need any adapters from China as I am a capable machinist with my own shop. In fact, that is part of the reason I want to do this project. I haven't made anything interesting in the shop in a while.

Bob

[RichardSperry]

Make me one.

How much would you charge to machine a Rollei 600X lens mount to lens board adapter?

[el french]

It's been done many times before, so you should have no trouble doing it. The mirror box on the dslr is a big limiting factor for tilts. A spherical panorama head will be much more efficient than shifts. The sensors may not tolerate off axis light very well either. One of the EVIL cameras with a telecentric lens would be the best starting point :)

[RichardSperry]

" An 80mm MF lens would give a FOV roughly equal to a 120mm in a standard DSLR lens on full frame"

I'm sure you have this off.

An 80mm MF is going to be 80mm on the DSLR. But the 80mm on the DSLR is going to be like a 120mm on MF(or close enough).

[Ranger Bob]

" An 80mm MF lens would give a FOV roughly equal to a 120mm in a standard DSLR lens on full frame"

I'm sure you have this off.

An 80mm MF is going to be 80mm on the DSLR. But the 80mm on the DSLR is going to be like a 120mm on MF(or close enough).

Ok, I am no expert on optical theory but what is there besides projected image circle and flange focal length? Light enters the lens and light exits the lens. The longer the focal length, the smaller the FOV entering the lens and the larger the projected image circle. A wide angle lens has a tight image circle focused at the film plane whereas the film/sensor only covers a small portion of the image circle on a long lens. Because I am planning to use 645 lenses the flange focal length is basically standardized so that will not be an issue. The size difference between a 35mm sensor and a 645 film plane is easily determined making it an easy calculation to determine FOV coverage at the sensor. So, what "behavior" variable am I missing? I have done a lot of research and I have seen this question asked before and people throw out the same answer every time with no explanation; something along the lines of "It will still be an 80mm lens". That answer speaks to nothing.

Bob

[wombat2go]

https://www.box.com/s/y08pcw82m4csmoikmyu2
https://www.box.com/s/sd2b1gbhysmzfmtdqvs0
I went a bit in the other direction, machined up a lens board for my 4 by 5 Speed Graphic to adapt the Pentax 67 Bayonet mount.
The P67 lens covers the 6 by 9 roll film back, but not much, if any, extra for tilt and rise.
The register of the P67 is about 85 mm. The front standard is locked on the rear rail at infinity then the lens is focussed normally using its scale.
I am still learning about using this and starting to get some nice sharp images, so far I have a P67 1:4.5 75mm lens which is a versatile one on the 6 by 9.

I have no real plans for a digital back. Is there a digital back that will fit directly on the 45 Speed Graphic on the register of the ground glass?

[Bob Salomon]

"I have no real plans for a digital back. Is there a digital back that will fit directly on the 45 Speed Graphic on the register of the ground glass?"

Linhof makes an adapter to convert any Graflock 45 camera to accept any Hasselblad H compatible digital back. No focus plane adjustment needed to the 45 camera.

[BTMarcais]

Bob-- (ranger bob)
Maybe we're just not understanding the way you're stating the focal length thing? It looks like you have at least part of this right, flange length and image circle. I think where we're all confused is what you think the angle of view is going to be on your DSLR. Not sure whether it's a real confusion as to what the effect will be, or just issues with terminology.
An 80mm lens is ALWAYS an 80mm lens, and won't act as anything different. Because we're talking different formats though, the angle of view will be different for an 80mm on a mamiya 645 than it will be on a canon 5dmkII DSLR. a 80mm lens would be a standard focal length on the mamiya, but would have a narrower angle of view on the canon. Even if it was the same exact lens. Using the Mamiya lenses give you a bigger image circle than the 35mm lenses, but the angle of view will be the same as if it was a lens for 35mm in the same focal length.
80mm for 4x5: very wide angle
80mm for 6x9: moderate wide angle
80mm for 6x6/545: standard
80mm for 35mm (or 5dmkII): short portrait length
Hopefully that makes us all less confused?
-Brian

[erie patsellis]

RB/RZ lenses have a much longer FFL, around 105mm, putting them into the "easy to make work on a view camera" category.

[aluncrockford]

[QUOTE=Ranger Bob;970485]From what I've read, tethered in live view works great for this creating a quick, efficient workflow.

Bob[/

Nothing could be further from the truth, live view is a utter pain and frankly pointless, as you might have little experience using a Sinar p2 with a medium format lens you may not be aware of the technical difficulties using such a combination particularly with a 35mm camera adaptor, but I suppose as somebody who is working every day with capture one using hasselblads, sinars and very occasionally canon 5d mk11's any well meaning advice offered should be countered by hearsay and well intentioned mis information .

[erie patsellis]

Alun,
While I agree, sometimes it's best for the OP to find out for himself. Shooting with 35mm or an MF back on a film Sinar loses all the benefits and advantages the Sinar brings to the table, in addition to the format size related issues.

[Ranger Bob]

[QUOTE=Ranger Bob;970485]Nothing could be further from the truth, live view is a utter pain and frankly pointless, as you might have little experience using a Sinar p2 with a medium format lens you may not be aware of the technical difficulties using such a combination particularly with a 35mm camera adaptor, but I suppose as somebody who is working every day with capture one using hasselblads, sinars and very occasionally canon 5d mk11's any well meaning advice offered should be countered by hearsay and well intentioned mis information .

Well sir, this is the internet. It is chock full of the opinions of self-proclaimed experts. Those of us who use the internet for research must do so with a certain amount of skepticism. Truthfully I only asked which of three camera would be most suitable for the task that I proposed. From the first reply, we were totally off track. That's ok though because I have found that an exchange of ideas often gets people, myself included, thinking creatively. You have twice now made a statement and given no reason as to why you arrive at that position. "Because I say so", just doesn't work for me. Additionally, just because a certain workflow or technique doesn't work for your situation doesn't mean it can't be fine for someone else. This project of mine is very likely transitionary; it will lead me somewhere else. I know that going in. I don't make a living with my photography. Best, fastest, most competetive is not in my thought process; enjoying myself, learning, and producing images I find pleasing are.

Bob

[Bob Salomon]

[QUOTE=aluncrockford;970732]

....From the first reply, we were totally off track. ob

Sorry, but no, it was not. It was directly to the point. A digital view camera will work best. Clobbering a DSLR will be the worst.

[peter ramm]

Agree with BobS. Digital view cameras with full movements on front and rear can be fairly cheap used (about $3K for a P3, M679, or AS Monolith), but note that it is hard enough using these with MF backs - never mind a applying a standard view camera to a teeny 35mm dslr. Two main issues - the movements and level of precision are still very coarse on the digital views (though better than the standard views), and visualizing the effects of movements is very difficult when compared to a nice large GG. Sure you can go ahead and experiment for yourself, but that will just repeat what others have found to be frustrating.

Below are neat options if you want to use various MF and 35mm lenses (including PC and tilt lenses) with dslr bodies and/or MF backs. Lots of ways to skin that cat. Sadly, the prices are up there and these rigs are not right for tabletop type work.

http://www.alpa.ch/en/products/FPS/FPS_body/alpa_12_fps.html
http://www.hartblei.eu/en/hartbleicam2.htm

[Sideshow Bob]

Here you go, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/685122-REG/Horseman_21765_VCC_Pro_View_Camera.html all the work had been done for you. This is for Nikon but you could check with Horseman and see if thy make one for Canon.

Mr.Gale

[GG12]

Make me one.

How much would you charge to machine a Rollei 600X lens mount to lens board adapter?

The mount is available - both Alpa and Linhof made this, and I think it is still available from them. But the problem is that it also needs the Rollei lens controller to run the shutter, a not so cheap nor small piece of gear. There is some thinking that maybe Rollei (now called DHW) may make some sort of USB connection to run their shutters, along with the new shutters they have introduced. Hope springs eternal.

[rdenney]

Ok, I am no expert on optical theory but what is there besides projected image circle and flange focal length?

Lens focal length, its coverage, and its field of view are not the same things. The focal length affects the magnification and the magnification only. And in that way, any lens with an 80mm focal length will magnify the scene at focus to the same degree as any other 80mm lens, no matter what camera it was intended for.

The coverage is an outcome of the design. Some lenses have wide coverage, and others have narrow coverage, and both might have the same focal length. For example, the 50mm f/1.4 lens for a Canon might only cover a 50mm image circle--wide enough to cover the 24x36 frame. A 47mm Schneider Super Angulon XL has an image circle of 170mm--enough to cover 4x5 film. If you could adapt that Super Angulon to your Canon (which would require camera sugery because the lens won't fit in front of the mirror box when focused to infinity), it would make the same image as the Canon lens. Okay, let's find some middle ground--let's say I adapt one of my Zeiss Jena 50mm f/4 Flektogons onto my Canon. That lens is designed for medium format and has an image circle of 90mm or so. It's easy to adapt to my Canon because it was designed for medium-format SLR's with big mirror boxes. It would make exactly the same image as the 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens, when both are used at the same aperture setting.

So, there are three lenses with vastly different image circles, but all with the same focal length. All produce the same magnification of the scene onto the sensor/film. The lenses with the wider coverage will just see more of the scene.

Let me draw a different example. Let's say I want to make a portrait on an 8x10 camera using a 300mm lens. That lens provides the "normal" view on that format, given that its focal length is about the same as the film's diameter. With that lens, I might make a full-face portrait, where the face is one-half life size (1:2) on the film. I could remove that lens, and replace it with a Canon 300mm lens, if I could make the camera machine hold it in the right place. It would magnify the image exactly the same. The only problem is this: That Canon lens will only have a couple of inches of coverage, and my portrait will only include the sitter's nose. But that nose will be the same size on the film as with the 300mm large-format lens.

Having established that, we can discuss field of view. The field of view does not create the image circle. It is created by the image format and the focal length. The 50ish mm lenses in my first example all have the same field of view when used with a 24x36 sensor, even though they vary widely in coverage. They would all have the same field of view when used with 4x5, too, except that all but one lacks the coverage to illuminate a 4x5 frame. A pinhole placed 50mm in front of the film would have the same field of view (and the same magnification).

Still another way to say it is this: If you focus a 4x5 camera on a subject, and then replace the 4x5 film with a smaller film frame or digital sensor, the image projected by the lens remains unchanged. The smaller sensor just sees less of it. But you can't actually do that with a DSLR, because the sensor is at the back of its mirror box and does not mount in the 4x5 film plane. You'll have to move the standards closer together by the thickness of the DSLR's mirror box depth (aka, the flange focal distance). You CAN do that with a medium-format digital back, which is designed for this application and puts the sensor at the normal film plane.

Here is a photograph made using an 80mm medium-format lens on a Canon 5D using a tilting adapter (linked because it is not large format): http://www.rickdenney.com/images/IMG_0903_fence_80Bmtilt_lr.jpg

As you can see, that image looks as though it was made with a short telephoto. In fact, I would have gotten nearly the same image using my Canon 85/1.8, except that I could not have angled the focus plane to run along the fence.

So, do not try to apply correction factors--that way lies madness. Think of lenses in terms of their relationship to the image diameter (or diagonal--same thing), their focal length, and their coverage. That 47mm Super Angulon XL is an extremely wide lens on 4x5, but it would be a "normal" lens on 24x36. On a 15x23 APS-C digital camera, it would be longer than normal.

(Now, if you want to make the same picture using different formats, then you have to change the magnification. To make the same picture on 4x5 as on a 24x36 camera from the same camera position, I'd need a lens with something like three times the focal length--but the equivalency is approximate because the two formats aren't the same shape. I'd need more magnification to make the image bigger to fill that bigger frame with the same picture.)

Most medium-format lenses have a mounting distance from the sensor sufficient to accommodate a medium-format camera's mirror box. That might be in the range of 60mm, or perhaps a bit less for some 645 cameras. If the 24x36 DSLR has a lens mounting distance of 45mm (or thereabouts), you might have 15mm to work with or a bit more. There is no view camera I know of that can get the lens to within 15mm of the mounting surface on a DSLR.

If you will use longer lenses, this is not so much of a problem. Unlike small-camera lenses, large-format lenses typically mount close to their optical centers (unless they are a telephoto design, which is a small and narrow category of lenses that mount closer than their focal length, not relevant here). So, when you use a longer lens, you'll separate the film and lens standards and stretch those bellows to get it into focus. That will give you more room. Lenses in the 100mm range and up might work okay, if the camera supports close spacing with a bag bellows. For example, my Sinar F2 will focus a 47mm lens on a flat lens board, if I use the Wide Angle Bellows 2. It will provide perhaps 6 degrees of tilt or swing. But if I suck up another 45mm of depth with a DSLR mirror box, that lens is now impossible (not to mention that the lens itself will physically run into the DSLR camera body long before it reaches infinity focus). So, if I need 48 or 50mm of separation between the 4x5 film plane and the lens flange to allow a bit of camera movement, plus 45mm of depth in the DSLR mirror box, then the shortest lens I'll be able to accommodate is 90-100mm. A 100mm lens in front of the DSLR will be just like the 100mm Canon lens. I could achieve the same thing using a 100mm medium-format lens with a tilting adapter (as was the case with the fence picture linked above, and described in the article I link further down), or using Canon's 90mm TSE lens.

The cameras that Bob Salomon is suggesting are really medium-format view cameras that have been specially designed to support medium-format digital backs. These backs place the sensor on the film plane of these cameras, not at the back of a camera body mirror box. And the lenses made for this application are reasonably short, and are designed with a bit of reverse telephoto (aka retrofocus) to provide a little more separation from the sensor surface. These cameras and lenses are top-end stuff--the best stuff made for production-level commercial work. And they are expensive.

If you want to use lenses that are shorter than over twice the diameter of the 24x36 frame, the conventional view camera just won't work with a mounted DSLR body. With longer lenses, you can have some fun, perhaps. Remember that the mirror box will cast a shadow on the film, so shift is limited to 12mm vertically and 18mm horizontally.

There are alternatives. The best one is to just buy the Canon TSE lenses, which come in 17, 24, 45, and 90mm focal lengths. These will also work (to a point) with a 1.4x teleconverter. The 17 and 24mm TSE lenses are exceptional. They are expensive, but not even on the same planet of expense as a medium-format digital back solution.

A second alternative is this: Buy some Pentacon Six-mount medium-format lenses. If you can find them, look for the Hartblei 45mm PCS (shift only is fine, but they also had a tilt-shift version), the 55mm Arsat PCS (an excellent lens), and any of the 80mm normal lenses. Then put them on a tilting adapter (available on ebay). I have tilt-shift capabilities at 45 and 55mm, plus shift capabilities at 75 and tilt capabilities at everything from 45 to 500mm. I also own a 24mm TSE lens (the first version, which is cheaper than the current Mk. II). All of that can be done for the price of either one of the 17 or 24mm Mk. II TSE lenses, but the quality won't be the same. I have written an article on this topic, here. (http://www.rickdenney.com/tilt_shift.htm)

A third alternative is: Buy the 4x5 camera, and put film in it. Then, scan the film in an Epson V750. Compared to 24x36 digital, the quality will hold up nicely even when scanned in that consumer flatbed.

The fourth alternative is to send Bob a LOT of money to sell you a Linhof camera and digital back combination, plus a bevy of Rodenstock Digarons. Bring your checkbook.

Rick "hopefully saving you some time" Denney

[marfa boomboom tx]

/snip/ Cameras I am looking at for the conversion are the Sinar P, Cambo Master, and Horseman LE. Which of these will give me the most precise control of the movements? /snip/ so any particular comments as to its suitability would be appreciated.

Bob

Bob,
what were the criteria used to produce this choice set? {SP,CM,LE}

Perhaps with that available, the people you have asked to comment, would be prepared to form more cogent, and acceptable, responses.


marfa where expertise is measured in thousands of acres under management. I've very few.

[Bob Salomon]

The mount is available - both Alpa and Linhof made this, and I think it is still available from them. But the problem is that it also needs the Rollei lens controller to run the shutter, a not so cheap nor small piece of gear. There is some thinking that maybe Rollei (now called DHW) may make some sort of USB connection to run their shutters, along with the new shutters they have introduced. Hope springs eternal.

Linhof makes Rollei 6000 single, double and triple recessed boards for the M679, M679cc and M679cs cameras only. They do not make Rollei adapter boards for Technika or Kardan board cameras.

[ic-racer]

I don't follow digital marketing, but reading threads like this give the impression that there are no contemporary DSLR lens manufacturers. Requiring the unfortunate DSLR user to cobble something together form an old film camera to get any light to focus on the sensor.

[RichardSperry]

The mount is available - both Alpa and Linhof made this, and I think it is still available from them. But the problem is that it also needs the Rollei lens controller to run the shutter, a not so cheap nor small piece of gear. There is some thinking that maybe Rollei (now called DHW) may make some sort of USB connection to run their shutters, along with the new shutters they have introduced. Hope springs eternal.

I don't need to activate the Rollei lens shutter. The Nikon already has one.

I will look into the adapter. Thank you for the hint.

[RichardSperry]

Nm, dumb post after what Bob said.

[Bob Salomon]

Then how will you set the aperture and open the Rollei shutter so you can view and compose? Both the apertures and the shutter speeds on a 6000 Rollei of any type use linear motors.

[RichardSperry]

Well that doesn't work now does it.

Thanks Bob.

[Ranger Bob]

Lens focal length, its coverage, and its field of view are not the same things. The focal length affects the magnification and the magnification only. And in that way, any lens with an 80mm focal length will magnify the scene at focus to the same degree as any other 80mm lens, no matter what camera it was intended for.

The coverage is an outcome of the design. Some lenses have wide coverage, and others have narrow coverage, and both might have the same focal length. For example, the 50mm f/1.4 lens for a Canon might only cover a 50mm image circle--wide enough to cover the 24x36 frame. A 47mm Schneider Super Angulon XL has an image circle of 170mm--enough to cover 4x5 film. If you could adapt that Super Angulon to your Canon (which would require camera sugery because the lens won't fit in front of the mirror box when focused to infinity), it would make the same image as the Canon lens. Okay, let's find some middle ground--let's say I adapt one of my Zeiss Jena 50mm f/4 Flektogons onto my Canon. That lens is designed for medium format and has an image circle of 90mm or so. It's easy to adapt to my Canon because it was designed for medium-format SLR's with big mirror boxes. It would make exactly the same image as the 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens, when both are used at the same aperture setting.

So, there are three lenses with vastly different image circles, but all with the same focal length. All produce the same magnification of the scene onto the sensor/film. The lenses with the wider coverage will just see more of the scene.

Let me draw a different example. Let's say I want to make a portrait on an 8x10 camera using a 300mm lens. That lens provides the "normal" view on that format, given that its focal length is about the same as the film's diameter. With that lens, I might make a full-face portrait, where the face is one-half life size (1:2) on the film. I could remove that lens, and replace it with a Canon 300mm lens, if I could make the camera machine hold it in the right place. It would magnify the image exactly the same. The only problem is this: That Canon lens will only have a couple of inches of coverage, and my portrait will only include the sitter's nose. But that nose will be the same size on the film as with the 300mm large-format lens.


So, do not try to apply correction factors--that way lies madness. Think of lenses in terms of their relationship to the image diameter (or diagonal--same thing), their focal length, and their coverage. That 47mm Super Angulon XL is an extremely wide lens on 4x5, but it would be a "normal" lens on 24x36. On a 15x23 APS-C digital camera, it would be longer than normal.

(Now, if you want to make the same picture using different formats, then you have to change the magnification. To make the same picture on 4x5 as on a 24x36 camera from the same camera position, I'd need a lens with something like three times the focal length--but the equivalency is approximate because the two formats aren't the same shape. I'd need more magnification to make the image bigger to fill that bigger frame with the same picture.)

Most medium-format lenses have a mounting distance from the sensor sufficient to accommodate a medium-format camera's mirror box. That might be in the range of 60mm, or perhaps a bit less for some 645 cameras. If the 24x36 DSLR has a lens mounting distance of 45mm (or thereabouts), you might have 15mm to work with or a bit more. There is no view camera I know of that can get the lens to within 15mm of the mounting surface on a DSLR.

If you will use longer lenses, this is not so much of a problem. Unlike small-camera lenses, large-format lenses typically mount close to their optical centers (unless they are a telephoto design, which is a small and narrow category of lenses that mount closer than their focal length, not relevant here). So, when you use a longer lens, you'll separate the film and lens standards and stretch those bellows to get it into focus. That will give you more room. Lenses in the 100mm range and up might work okay, if the camera supports close spacing with a bag bellows. For example, my Sinar F2 will focus a 47mm lens on a flat lens board, if I use the Wide Angle Bellows 2. It will provide perhaps 6 degrees of tilt or swing. But if I suck up another 45mm of depth with a DSLR mirror box, that lens is now impossible (not to mention that the lens itself will physically run into the DSLR camera body long before it reaches infinity focus). So, if I need 48 or 50mm of separation between the 4x5 film plane and the lens flange to allow a bit of camera movement, plus 45mm of depth in the DSLR mirror box, then the shortest lens I'll be able to accommodate is 90-100mm. A 100mm lens in front of the DSLR will be just like the 100mm Canon lens. I could achieve the same thing using a 100mm medium-format lens with a tilting adapter (as was the case with the fence picture linked above, and described in the article I link further down), or using Canon's 90mm TSE lens.

The cameras that Bob Salomon is suggesting are really medium-format view cameras that have been specially designed to support medium-format digital backs. These backs place the sensor on the film plane of these cameras, not at the back of a camera body mirror box. And the lenses made for this application are reasonably short, and are designed with a bit of reverse telephoto (aka retrofocus) to provide a little more separation from the sensor surface. These cameras and lenses are top-end stuff--the best stuff made for production-level commercial work. And they are expensive.

If you want to use lenses that are shorter than over twice the diameter of the 24x36 frame, the conventional view camera just won't work with a mounted DSLR body. With longer lenses, you can have some fun, perhaps. Remember that the mirror box will cast a shadow on the film, so shift is limited to 12mm vertically and 18mm horizontally.

There are alternatives. The best one is to just buy the Canon TSE lenses, which come in 17, 24, 45, and 90mm focal lengths. These will also work (to a point) with a 1.4x teleconverter. The 17 and 24mm TSE lenses are exceptional. They are expensive, but not even on the same planet of expense as a medium-format digital back solution.

A second alternative is this: Buy some Pentacon Six-mount medium-format lenses. If you can find them, look for the Hartblei 45mm PCS (shift only is fine, but they also had a tilt-shift version), the 55mm Arsat PCS (an excellent lens), and any of the 80mm normal lenses. Then put them on a tilting adapter (available on ebay). I have tilt-shift capabilities at 45 and 55mm, plus shift capabilities at 75 and tilt capabilities at everything from 45 to 500mm. I also own a 24mm TSE lens (the first version, which is cheaper than the current Mk. II). All of that can be done for the price of either one of the 17 or 24mm Mk. II TSE lenses, but the quality won't be the same. I have written an article on this topic, here. (http://www.rickdenney.com/tilt_shift.htm)

A third alternative is: Buy the 4x5 camera, and put film in it. Then, scan the film in an Epson V750. Compared to 24x36 digital, the quality will hold up nicely even when scanned in that consumer flatbed.

The fourth alternative is to send Bob a LOT of money to sell you a Linhof camera and digital back combination, plus a bevy of Rodenstock Digarons. Bring your checkbook.

Rick "hopefully saving you some time" Denney

First, thank you for taking the time to put together a well thought out and detailed explanation. Perhaps I need to explain my plan in more detail, or perhaps it doesn't really matter because most here have already made up their minds and will not be receptive to what I'm saying. First, the basic plan for my camera setup is to put the sensor plane in the same location as the film plane without the use of a rear lensboard or other such mount. The bag bellows would have a mounting flange that connects directly to the DSLR. With a recessed lensboard, I should have no problem focusing any 645 lens to infinity. With all the lens theory you have just explained one thing still seems clear; it doesn't matter. It is still easy to calculate the coverage at the film of a 645 lens to the coverage at the 24x36 sensor in the 35mm film equivalency as long as I maintain the same flange focal length. The numbers representing the focal length don't really matter except as a reference for comparison. I mentioned the shadow cast by the mirror box in an earlier post but it still allows significantly more movement than any of Canons' TS-E lenses. Of the alternatives you list, one and three are still very much on the table. I think the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is a fantastic lens and I will probably purchase it at some point but that's for discussion on another forum. Shooting 4x5 film (and especially paper negatives) does appeal to me and any mods I make to the camera would be done in a way that I could easily re-mount the rear standard.

Bob

[el french]

I think the original question was which large format camera has the most precise controls for adjusting movements. My Combo SC definitely isn't good enough so I built one based on a spherical pano head: http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/etfrench/library/Spherical%20Pano%20Head After building it, I found achieving critical focus was very difficult and time consuming. As I said before, quite a few people have built systems based on view cameras and it really isn't very difficult.

[Ranger Bob]

I think the original question was which large format camera has the most precise controls for adjusting movements. My Combo SC definitely isn't good enough so I built one based on a spherical pano head: http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/etfrench/library/Spherical%20Pano%20Head After building it, I found achieving critical focus was very difficult and time consuming. As I said before, quite a few people have built systems based on view cameras and it really isn't very difficult.

Wow, that is quite the setup. You are correct. My original question was about which camera would have the most precise controls. At this point I'm fairly certain that I'm going to go with the Cambo Master. I am pretty sure I have dug up just about everything there is on the internet in reference to using a DSLR in a view camera configuration. I'm really surprised how little there seems to be. The main thing is a lack of follow-up. Maybe that is an ominous sign?? There is really not much about using the medium format digital backs on the purpose-built cameras either (i.e. P3, M679). Luminous Landscape seems to have the most but I'm really surprised there are no pros discussing it in their blogs. What is the modern workflow for studio product photography?

Bob

[Henry Ambrose]

Wow, that is quite the setup. You are correct. My original question was about which camera would have the most precise controls. At this point I'm fairly certain that I'm going to go with the Cambo Master. I am pretty sure I have dug up just about everything there is on the internet in reference to using a DSLR in a view camera configuration. I'm really surprised how little there seems to be. The main thing is a lack of follow-up. Maybe that is an ominous sign?? There is really not much about using the medium format digital backs on the purpose-built cameras either (i.e. P3, M679). Luminous Landscape seems to have the most but I'm really surprised there are no pros discussing it in their blogs. What is the modern workflow for studio product photography?

Bob

You don't find much because its an answer to a question not many have asked. There is no commercial use for what you want to do and very little for MF backs on view cameras. I'd bet 99% of commercial product photography is done with a DSLR and a smaller portion with DSLR and TS lenses. At this point in time there is almost no reason to use a $50,000 set-up to do what a less than $10,000 set-up will do. Ten years ago you might have needed the very best MF back to do outstanding work. Twenty years ago you might have wanted a scanning back for a 4x5 or a dedicated scanning camera.

Starting about 1989 and for about 10 years after, I shot many, many tens of thousands of captures of products using dedicated scanning cameras. Sometimes hundreds of captures per day, just grinding it out. Those times are past. Today, a five year old, "two-generation-obsolete" DSLR kills everything from those days for commercial usability. Add some good TS lenses and it just kills harder. Buy a new camera and it just stacks up more in favor of the DSLR.

If you keep going, what you are going to find is that you can't get the sensor close enough to the back of your view camera because the sensor is built inside a box (the DSLR) that won't go inside a 4x5 standard. Calumet made, for a short time, what you think you are going to cobble together. It was an abject failure. Now if you can rip the DSLR sensor out and build it in a frame that fits the back of a 4x5 at the designed film plane it might be workable. But if you can pull that off you won't need to ask here. And it'll still be fiddly as all get out because the movements needed will be so delicate. To further complicate the matter, the DSLR mounting system hung off the back of the rear frame destroys the intention of even the most exquisite yaw free movements because those movements were designed to work with at the film plane.

[Bob Salomon]

.....To further complicate the matter, the DSLR mounting system hung off the back of the rear frame destroys the intention of even the most exquisite yaw free movements because those movements were designed to work with at the film plane.

No, it won't do anything to yaw free movements. Yaw free just means that the tilt movement is under the swing movement.

[Henry Ambrose]

Yeah, you're right. But the moves won't happen at the film plane and will be practically unusable.