MF Digital back on 4x5 - inexpensive view camera options?

[Bob Salomon]

A rear tilt doesn't run out of coverage, but by itself it does move around the focus plane. If I have to tilt the back forward at the top to make it vertical, the lens will still be tilted back with respect to the film, resulting in a focus plane that angles over the top of the camera. Rarely am I in a situation where that's even close to where the focus plane needs to be. So, I end up tilting the front, too.

And tilting the front runs out of coverage even faster than shifting does.

Rick "you knew this, of course" Denney

Unless the camera has base tilts.

[rdenney]

Unless the camera has base tilts.

Mine does. But I don't see how having base tilts keeps a front tilt from running out of coverage, especially if focused on the same thing.

Rick "who has cameras with axis tilts, and a camera with base tilts" Denney

[JeffKohn]

I have a question regarding tilts with extremely wide angle lenses; are they truly necessary? According to a program called DOF Master for a 47mm lens @ f16 the hyperfocal distance is just under 5 ft. and everything from 2.5 ft. to infinity is in focus. What would you use tilts for?

With digital, people are examining the results more closely, and also enlarging more than they did with film, so the traditional DOF calculations are too optimistic.

As others have mentioned, if you focus at the hyperfocal distance, distant objects won't be as sharp as when actually focused at infinity. Plus, even f/16 should be avoided with digital if possible, you'll get noticeably better results at f/8 with good lenses.

At shorter focal lengths you don't need as much tilt compared to longer lenses; a little bit goes a long way. But even with a 24mm PC lens (on 35mm DSLR), I'll often use a degree or so of tilt for many shots where I have a foreground that I want sharp in addition to the background.

[Brian Ellis]

That's where shift comes in, heh. Most cameras that do tilt do shift, too. But many that do shift don't do tilt, particularly perspective-correcting lenses.

Rick "realizing that two tilts = one shift, but one tilt does not" Denney

The PC lenses on the market today for DSLRs include both tilt and shift.

[Bob Salomon]

Mine does. But I don't see how having base tilts keeps a front tilt from running out of coverage, especially if focused on the same thing.

Rick "who has cameras with axis tilts, and a camera with base tilts" Denney

To correct converging lines you need to tilt or swing the back, or both. With 3 point perspective this can be combined with shifts and front tilts as well.

[rdenney]

To correct converging lines you need to tilt or swing the back, or both. With 3 point perspective this can be combined with shifts and front tilts as well.

Bob, I have this feeling we are talking past one another, and I am missing your point.

I know how perspective correction works. And I know that tilting or swinging the back with respect to the lens poses little or no risk of finding the edge of the lens's coverage. But let's say we tilt the whole camera back to get a tall subject into the view (to avoid the shifts that might run out of coverage). Then, we tilt the back to the vertical to correct for perspective convergence. Fine. But now the lens is tilted back with respect to the film, and the focus plane is going to be slanted back over the top of the camera. Rarely will a focus plane in that position be photographically useful. (If we want a fall instead of a rise for a given subject, then tilting the back is often just the right solution, as any Graflex owner will tell you.) We might just stop down and let depth of field take care of it, but that's exactly what we decided we often didn't want to do about a dozen posts back. The only choice, therefore, is to tilt the front lens to correct the focus plane. And then we risk running out of coverage again. And, in effect, we've simulated a front rise with two tilts.

Tilting the lens with respect to the film is as likely to find the edges of coverage as shifting, and if the focus plane needs significant adjustment, perhaps moreso. Your response was "except if you have base tilts," which, frankly, baffled me. I can't see any distinction between base and axis tilts (and I have used both) with respect to this issue. (Base tilts often allow a yaw-free design which is more convenient when the whole camera is leaned back, but that's a different discussion.)

You can tilt the back to correct perspective. You can also tilt the back (instead of the lens) to adjust the focus plane. Rarely can you do both at the same time, even if the two are presented in different forum postings.

Back to topic: The OP asked if a 4x5 view camera made a good mule for a "medium format" digital back. Many responses have pointed out the weaknesses of doing so, partly because a 4x5 view camera is simply too big and gets in its own way when using the accompanying very short lenses, and partly because most 4x5 cameras lack the fine control over movements and focus to allow enjoyable and reliable use for such a small format.

One person suggested that perhaps tilts were unnecessary, and several responses pointed out that even with short lenses, depth of field was often insufficient by itself to ensure acceptable apparent sharpness for large prints.

Alternatives were suggested, including medium-format cameras already compatible with available digital backs that include tilts and shifts. Perhaps the best alternative is a medium-format view camera already purpose-built for this application, and this was suggested by several. Still others suggested one of the fixed-box cameras with sliding fronts to provide shifts. All of these impose some compromise of movement flexibility, lens range, price, and portability, but then all potential solutions are a compromise of one thing or another. The OP will have to compare those compromises to his requirements.

Rick "writing complete thoughts to help prevent confusion" Denney

[rdenney]

The PC lenses on the market today for DSLRs include both tilt and shift.

It's not so easy to find a lens with both in the medium-format application, however. And it's also not so easy to find a lens with tilts but not shifts.

For the record, I own a Canon 24mm TSE, a Hartblei 45mm PCS (shift only), an Arsat 55mm PCS (shift only), and a tilting adapter that adapts the Pentacon Six lens mount to Canon EF. Thus, I can put those shift-only Hartblei and Arsat lenses, which were intended for medium format use, on the tilting adapter and mount them on my Canon, giving me tilt and shift capability. I have also mounted medium-format lenses such as the Zeiss Jena 80/2.8 Biometar (a nice five-element double-gauss lens for 6x6) to provide tilt only. I don't have an Arcbody or a Flexbody. But I have lots of experience trying to gain some of the image-management tools that movements provide, even when using a DSLR or a medium-format camera. None of these approaches are as straightforward as a view camera, as long as it provides the necessary fine control for the small format. The tilts and shifts of the above strange combinations are all geared, some very finely, despite their sometimes humble origins.

Rick "saved from lusting for the 17mm Canon TSE lens by a return to large format" Denney

[nonuniform]

Well, my final decision was to skip trying to use the P30 on a 4x5 camera, but I have considered the Hasselblad flex body. If I really want to use tilts, which, in fact, is the main movement I want to use, then I'm guessing I should consider a different back.

In the meantime, I continue to the use the back with my Hasselblad and enjoy the images I'm creating! Along the way, I'm running through the last of my Acros with the 4x5.

[Mel]

Rick "saved from lusting for the 17mm Canon TSE lens by a return to large format" Denney

Good summary.

[Bob Salomon]

You could just use a Linhof 001693 adapter. That puts any Hasselblad V back or the Hassy finders on to any 4x5 camera with an International/Graflok back. It is under $500.00 but does not slide. Just will let you mount that back to the camera.