Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Abdulrahman Aljabri on August 21, 2009, 11:18:18 pm
-
Its common to find the crop factor for smaller sensor cameras, but nothing can be found for the hasselblad medium format cameras such as the H3DII-50. Perhaps that's because crop factor can't be made to go below 1?
Assuming, however, that such factor exists, what is the H3DII-50 crop factor? Since the sensor is 36x48 and is reported to be double the size of 35mm 36x24 sensor, is the crop factor .5?
So using a 100mm lens would give an equivalent angle of view of 50mm in 35mm cameras? Shooting at f2.8 provides depth of field similar to 2.0 on 35mm cameras? Also what is the 36x48 senor known as, 70mm?
Thanks in Advance!
-
go to alpa.ch and download their calculator xls file
it's free
-
go to alpa.ch and download their calculator xls file
it's free
wow, that's a pretty sophisticated document, only thing I can't figure out how to use it yet.
Thanks for posting
-
Its common to find the crop factor for smaller sensor cameras, but nothing can be found for the hasselblad medium format cameras such as the H3DII-50. Perhaps that's because crop factor can't be made to go below 1?
Assuming, however, that such factor exists, what is the H3DII-50 crop factor? Since the sensor is 36x48 and is reported to be double the size of 35mm 36x24 sensor, is the crop factor .5?
So using a 100mm lens would give an equivalent angle of view of 50mm in 35mm cameras? Shooting at f2.8 provides depth of field similar to 2.0 on 35mm cameras? Also what is the 36x48 senor known as, 70mm?
Thanks in Advance!
The CCD area is double 35mm, not the size, so the cropfactor would be the reciprocal of the square route of 2. 1/1.414
-
The CCD area is double 35mm, not the size, so the cropfactor would be the reciprocal of the square route of 2. 1/1.414
=.7 correct? I found this link its very useful in calculating crop factors: http://uk.fotopunto.com/articulo-crop-fact...-calculator_128 (http://uk.fotopunto.com/articulo-crop-factor-and-focal-length-equivalence-calculator_128)
I noticed you have the H3DII 50, what made you buy that camera over other 35mm high resolution cameras including the 5DII and D3X?
Thanks
-
Oooh! Ooh! This may be even better than the triple workshop threads
-
Assuming, however, that such factor exists ...
Sure it does.
... what is the H3DII-50 crop factor? Since the sensor is 36 × 48 mm ...
So the crop factor is 1.32× ... that's with respect to the frame's diagonal. So an 80 mm standard lens on the H3DII-50 will give you basically the same coverage as an 1.32 × 80 = 110 mm lens on a traditional Hasselblad camera.
When considering the horizontal coverage then the factor is 1.17×; with respect to the vertical it's 1.56×.
-- Olaf
-
=.7 correct? I found this link its very useful in calculating crop factors: http://uk.fotopunto.com/articulo-crop-fact...-calculator_128 (http://uk.fotopunto.com/articulo-crop-factor-and-focal-length-equivalence-calculator_128)
I noticed you have the H3DII 50, what made you buy that camera over other 35mm high resolution cameras including the 5DII and D3X?
Thanks
I did not want to have to compete with the thousands of photographers with 25 Mpx DSLRs
I wanted to use the DCU with a view camera (e.g. for landscapes and architecture) including the ability to shift and stitch to 24 * 48" @ 360 dpi
I already had Hasselblad and Sinar equipment
-
If you wish to compare FOV to what you get using the same lenses with 645 film (format 42x56mm) the roughly 37x49mm sensor has a "field of view conversion factor" of about 1.4, from 56/49 or 42/37. (I am not sure why anyone with a serious interest in a high priced medium format camera like this would be using 35mm film format as a point of reference!)
I prefer a different approach, which avoids fossilizing one 20th century film format as the standard by which FOV is measured:
the sensor diagonal is about 61mm which is thus the classical "normal focal length", and other focal lengths can be judged by how much longer or shorter they are than this. For example, the 80mm H system standard lens is abut 1.3x longer than normal, so has a FOV that is a bit too narrow for a normal; the 50mm is slightly wide.
-
I did not want to have to compete with the thousands of photographers with 25 Mpx DSLRs
why, do certain clients require that images be 50mpx? If so how were they getting satisfying results 5 years ago when highest resolution was 20mpx?
Thanks
-
(I am not sure why anyone with a serious interest in a high priced medium format camera like this would be using 35mm film format as a point of reference!)
because at a personal level I am not interested in medium format cameras, but I am trying to understand why people use them, and one reason that I thought of was that they offer narrower depth of field. Apparently, they do but not as much as I thought.
Are there any threads here that compare the pros and cons of both systems (35mm vs 61mm)?
Thanks
-
Here's the SS I use. All "answer" cells on sheet 1 express the focal length in terms of a 35mm FF sensor.
If your desired sensor size isn't there, just duplicate a column and fill in the dimensions of the sensor you want in Row 3.
[attachment=16169:Lens_Mag...ions.xls.zip]
Hope that helps,
-Brad
-
why, do certain clients require that images be 50mpx? If so how were they getting satisfying results 5 years ago when highest resolution was 20mpx?
Thanks
I think it is fair to say that the quality was redefined by photographer's control in producing work, development from the camera/lens maker, sensor developer, software developer, what was accepted yesterday does not mean it will be accepted tomorrow, of course, certain aspect of the quality such as artist approach, character in picture and style, its mood and tone hardly change, and are very subjective. The point is, at least the way I see it, if the client has the choice and option of getting a different quality camera, he may go for it, and such option - for example - a H3D50 vs. H3D39, might be the smallest cost factor in one production - speaking of rental cost. In practical, if a 3 days production cost around 50-100K, including to hire models, production studio, photographer, camera/lens, lighting, the art directors and so on, they might just want to work on what's best or what's highest out there. Quality is not a constant factor, in many ways, it is always a comparison. Sometimes, it is not because what is available is not good enough, it is because there is or there are something better out there.
In my experience, almost all my client never ask which camera we are going to use, but sometimes, as photographer in business, we have in general all the tools necessary to do all the production on hand today, but it is always a wonder that what a higher end camera or digital back can do and would I be able to make use such quality advantage as my advantage. May be it is a challenge of being staying current. And these days, some clients know the latest camera news as the photographer.
Regards, K
-
why, do certain clients require that images be 50mpx? If so how were they getting satisfying results 5 years ago when highest resolution was 20mpx?
Thanks
Who was ever satisfied with 20 Mpx? ... or where is the market for high-res photographs?
It is only now, with the availability of 60Mpx cameras that the serious top pictorial photographers are changing from 10 * 8" sheet film to digital.
I want my pictures to be the the focal point in the main room in million pound houses, and five star hotels - not stood up in photo frames on coffee tables.
"They" have been telling us that digital is better than film for a long time, but you could enlarge film by a factor of 10*, and if you want really good prints from digital you print at not less that 360 or 240 original camera pixels per print inch, so from 2.25 inch film you could print to 22.5 inches, and from 60 Mpx (about 8,900 pixels on the long side) you can print 24" inches at 360 ppi. You can print 50 inch prints at 180 ppi ...they would not look pin sharp close up, and for murals and large pictures I would prefer to use shift and stitch.
24" is a good size, (I have a 24" printer) and the majority of the paintings in my local gallery (which is yet to hang contemporary photographs) are about 24'"
-
Again, way, way too much emphasis on this forum about image qualities, big cameras, big backs and big prints, and woefully little on quality images.
In recent years I've supplied prints and files ranging from thumbnails to 84" - including to those "five star hotels" - and yet I've never had a client, agency or agent enquire about the equipment I use.
Photographers reputations are built on the images they produce not the equipment they use.
Getting back to me buying an H3D "to avoid having to compete with the thousands of photographers with 24 Mpx DSLRs", the main difference is the ability to use the DCU on a view camera.
-
the main difference is the ability to use the DCU on a view camera.
ok, a little question, what is DCU? I did search but could not anything.
-
ok, a little question, what is DCU? I did search but could not anything.
DICK refers to the back of his camera as the Digital Capture Unit.
-
Getting back to me buying an H3D "to avoid having to compete with the thousands of photographers with 24 Mpx DSLRs", the main difference is the ability to use the DCU on a view camera.
DCU is Hasselblad for Digital Capture Unit or Digiback.
On 24 Mpx DSLRs (Canon & Nikon) the camera body, digital sensor and mirror housing are all in the same unit, so you cannot use the sensor on a view camera (except for with long lenses).
The ability to use the DCU on a view or technical camera enables one to control the plane of sharpest focus (and perspective) and opens up specialist markets... the small sensors (relative to 5 * 4 inch) of digital cameras give you more DOF at any specific aperture and focal length, but you have to try to avoid small apertures due to diffraction.
View cameras also enable you to combine images (shift and stitch) for high res without the distortion and cropping problems you get with pan and stitch.
-
... I am trying to understand why people use [medium format cameras], and one reason that I thought of was that they offer narrower depth of field.
Huh!? That's not the reason to use larger-format cameras. The reason simply is image quality. Bigger is better, as simple as that. Of course, bigger also is bulkier and pricier, and smaller often is good enough (as long as it's not too small), so most of us are happy with rather small imaging formats. And the standards by which formats are divided into 'small' and 'large' are constantly changing with technology. There were times when 4 × 5" sheets were considered small. Today many consider 24 × 36 mm large.
-- Olaf
-
In practical, if a 3 days production cost around 50-100K, including to hire models, production studio, photographer, camera/lens, lighting, the art directors and so on, they might just want to work on what's best or what's highest out there.
Regards, K
Hi, K...
If the total cost of a shoot was £30,000 (or $30,000) a day, what daily rate would the photographer be on?
... or would they normally use several photographers?
On that sort of budget, I suppose the client would expect state-of-the-art (60 mpx) kit, a complete backup set of equipment... Would they be likely to require or appreciate view camera capability?
A photographer once told me that he got selected for this type of (calender) shoot because his rate was the highest... and that was £700 per day in the pre-digital (5*4) era!
-
Hi, K...
If the total cost of a shoot was £30,000 (or $30,000) a day, what daily rate would the photographer be on?
... or would they normally use several photographers?
On that sort of budget, I suppose the client would expect state-of-the-art (60 mpx) kit, a complete backup set of equipment... Would they be likely to require or appreciate view camera capability?
A photographer once told me that he got selected for this type of (calender) shoot because his rate was the highest... and that was £700 per day in the pre-digital (5*4) era!
I think it depends on the type of production, some ad gency tend to use the "best" photographer if the nature of shot needs the talent of the photographer, but there are also ad agency that run a very strick layout that they need a good team rather than just a talented photographer then may be the hiring cost for the photographer is not as high, but I would suppose the photographer's rate will be at least above thousan USD and can certainly a lot more.
My point is if the cost of production is so high, it will not matter that much in equipment rental, the client might just go to the best camera availale and spend a fw huundred dollars more on equipment rental.
The pressure of the equipment cost nowadays is not on the client, it is on the produciton house or photographer, pne has to invest tens of thousand dollars more in order to charge a few hundred more. But if the job pays it, it is still a good investment, at least I beleive so. Saying this, I do not think there will have much difference on a so-called photogrphic quality between 22-39-60 mpx backs, it matters more with photographer himself.
Brgds/K
-
I was looking for a graph/diagram/sample of the different sensor sizes compared to each other from say APC-s up to large format [8x10, 11x14,...], anyone here please can find that chart diagram for me? [A diagram that shows the difference comparison in rectangular/square way].
-
I was looking for a graph/diagram/sample of the different sensor sizes compared to each other from say APC-s up to large format [8x10, 11x14,...], anyone here please can find that chart diagram for me? [A diagram that shows the difference comparison in rectangular/square way].
The simple way to do it is to forget about crop factors, focal lengths and formats... and think about the angular Fields Of View.
FOV = 2*arctan(format/2)
...so, if your format is equal to double your focal length, you have a FOV of 90 degrees.
Armed with this info you cam make your own chart.
-
The simple way to do it is to forget about crop factors, focal lengths and formats... and think about the angular Fields Of View.
FOV = 2*arctan(format/2)
...so, if your format is equal to double your focal length, you have a FOV of 90 degrees.
Armed with this info you cam make your own chart.
I prefer to see diagram, i am not good in math and equating and calculating, so with that diagram/chart i can get a better idea about different formats.
Instead, if someone can convert the units of formats all in one unit so we can easily know the difference an we may try to search on Maths books to generate a formula or an equation.
-
I prefer to see diagram, i am not good in math and equating and calculating, so with that diagram/chart i can get a better idea about different formats.
Instead, if someone can convert the units of formats all in one unit so we can easily know the difference an we may try to search on Maths books to generate a formula or an equation.
1 inch = 25.4mm, I have given you the formula.
You could get a sheet of graph paper and plot the format on one axis and half the format on the other, the angle of the line would be half the FOV.
-
1 inch = 25.4mm, I have given you the formula.
You could get a sheet of graph paper and plot the format on one axis and half the format on the other, the angle of the line would be half the FOV.
OK thanks!
-
DCU is Hasselblad for Digital Capture Unit or Digiback.
On 24 Mpx DSLRs (Canon & Nikon) the camera body, digital sensor and mirror housing are all in the same unit, so you cannot use the sensor on a view camera (except for with long lenses).
The ability to use the DCU on a view or technical camera enables one to control the plane of sharpest focus (and perspective) and opens up specialist markets... the small sensors (relative to 5 * 4 inch) of digital cameras give you more DOF at any specific aperture and focal length, but you have to try to avoid small apertures due to diffraction.
View cameras also enable you to combine images (shift and stitch) for high res without the distortion and cropping problems you get with pan and stitch.
Are you saying you can use digital backs just like large format film cameras? Hence you can shift and tilt in many directions and degrees and use all lens to shift and tilt since the function is built into the camera instead of the lens? If that is the case, do digital backs offer better tilt and shift function than using 35mm cameras with dedicated tilt and shift lens?
I know its been one month since the last post, but in that time I have done some work with my new 90mm ts-e and have come to love tilt and especailly shift since then.
-
Huh!? That's not the reason to use larger-format cameras. The reason simply is image quality. Bigger is better, as simple as that. Of course, bigger also is bulkier and pricier, and smaller often is good enough (as long as it's not too small), so most of us are happy with rather small imaging formats. And the standards by which formats are divided into 'small' and 'large' are constantly changing with technology. There were times when 4 × 5" sheets were considered small. Today many consider 24 × 36 mm large.
-- Olaf
That's the obvious advantage and I was looking for more reasons. So for some there is lower depth of field and for others there is the tilt and shift capability as I am learning now.
-
Are you saying you can use digital backs just like large format film cameras?
You can use digital backs on large format (film) cameras.
Hence you can shift and tilt in many directions and degrees and use all lens to shift and tilt since the function is built into the camera instead of the lens?
Yes, but you cannot use all SLR lenses on a view camera with a digiback
If that is the case, do digital backs offer better tilt and shift function than using 35mm cameras with dedicated tilt and shift lens?
With a digital back attached (via an adaptor) to a large format view camera you get far better tilt and shift function than using 35mm cameras with dedicated tilt and shift lens, and better shift and tilt function than with a medium format camera and a shift tilt adaptor (e.g. Hasselblad and the HTS adaptor)
I know its been one month since the last post, but in that time I have done some work with my new 90mm ts-e and have come to love tilt and especailly shift since then.
There is a crop of medium format digital view cameras, but I think they are all toys compared to the Sinar P3 (but adequate for some jobs some of the time).
The Sinar P3 medium-format (6*9 cm) monorail view camera has precision geared movements, and plenty of movement (enough tilt, shift etc) on front and rear standards. Mine has been converted from a P3 5*4 inch camera, and has more movement that the standard P3. I have a P, P2 and P3 and it is a modular system, so (using tapered conversion bellows) I can use my P2 bellows in the middle of a P3 system for extra extension - to about a metre an a half, e.g. for macro.
-
You can use digital backs on large format (film) cameras.
Yes, but you cannot use all SLR lenses on a view camera with a digiback
With a digital back attached (via an adaptor) to a large format view camera you get far better tilt and shift function than using 35mm cameras with dedicated tilt and shift lens, and better shift and tilt function than with a medium format camera and a shift tilt adaptor (e.g. Hasselblad and the HTS adaptor)
There is a crop of medium format digital view cameras, but I think they are all toys compared to the Sinar P3 (but adequate for some jobs some of the time).
The Sinar P3 medium-format (6*9 cm) monorail view camera has precision geared movements, and plenty of movement (enough tilt, shift etc) on front and rear standards. Mine has been converted from a P3 5*4 inch camera, and has more movement that the standard P3. I have a P, P2 and P3 and it is a modular system, so (using tapered conversion bellows) I can use my P2 bellows in the middle of a P3 system for extra extension - to about a metre an a half, e.g. for macro.
Which Sinar is better, P or P2 or P3?
-
Which Sinar is better, P or P2 or P3?
All the info below is off the top of my head, but I am sure Edwin or someone will correct me if any details are wrong...
The P is the original, that was invented ¿half a century? ago... it is silver (aluminium), and does not have individual knobs/thumb wheels for each movement, but has a changeover lever.
The P2 was invented 10 or fifteen years ago, is black and does not have the change over lever, and has a knob or thumb wheel for each movement.
The P and P2 are 5*4, 5*7 or 10*8 inch sheet film cameras, but can be used with roll film backs, scan backs or digibacks.
The Sinar 5*4 lensboard is a long-established standard, and compatible components can be acquired inexpensively.
The P3 is a 6*9 cm medium format camera made for digital - most of the available components have connections for digital, and are not cheap, but it is a marginally lighter, and much less bulky system.
The P was, and the P2 and P3 are no-compromise professional (studio) cameras.
The P is cheap, and has geared movements.
The P2 is about £1,000 on eBay, and you can use it with digital backs with an adaptor and/or stitching back.
The P3 is the best, but is not cheap, and is not widely available second hand.
The F3 is a medium format monorail without the geared movements... it also lighter and takes up less room in your gadget bag for landscape photography
There are other models like the Sinar X, with which I am not familiar.
-
All the info below is off the top of my head, but I am sure Edwin or someone will correct me if any details are wrong...
The P is the original, that was invented ¿half a century? ago... it is silver (aluminium), and does not have individual knobs/thumb wheels for each movement, but has a changeover lever.
The P2 was invented 10 or fifteen years ago, is black and does not have the change over lever, and has a knob or thumb wheel for each movement.
The P and P2 are 5*4, 5*7 or 10*8 inch sheet film cameras, but can be used with roll film backs, scan backs or digibacks.
The Sinar 5*4 lensboard is a long-established standard, and compatible components can be acquired inexpensively.
The P3 is a 6*9 cm medium format camera made for digital - most of the available components have connections for digital, and are not cheap, but it is a marginally lighter, and much less bulky system.
The P was, and the P2 and P3 are no-compromise professional (studio) cameras.
The P is cheap, and has geared movements.
The P2 is about £1,000 on eBay, and you can use it with digital backs with an adaptor and/or stitching back.
The P3 is the best, but is not cheap, and is not widely available second hand.
The F3 is a medium format monorail without the geared movements... it also lighter and takes up less room in your gadget bag for landscape photography
There are other models like the Sinar X, with which I am not familiar.
I was looking at Sinar large format, so you say that P and P2 are the large formats but not the P3?
-
I was looking at Sinar large format, so you say that P and P2 are the large formats but not the P3?
That is correct.
-
All the info below is off the top of my head, but I am sure Edwin or someone will correct me if any details are wrong...
Sure Dick, here the corrections or comments
The P is the original, that was invented ¿half a century? ago... it is silver (aluminium), and does not have individual knobs/thumb wheels for each movement, but has a changeover lever.
The Sinar p was introduced in 1970, and yes, it has silver color, BUT YES, it does have individuals knobs for all the movements, except for the tilt and for the swing (changeover lever, as you mentioned)
The P2 was invented 10 or fifteen years ago, is black and does not have the change over lever, and has a knob or thumb wheel for each movement.
The Sinar p2 has been introduced already 25 years ago, in 1984.
BOTH the Sinar p2 AND p have micrometrical geared movements allowing for automatic locking of any movement position, without having to tight it with a knob or else. BUT the p2 has complete different internal mechanics, more easy (and therefore cheaper) to repair or adjust. When a Sinar p needs to be serviced/re-adjusted every 1 year or maximum 2, the Sinar p2 can be used for as long as 5 years in normal working conditions.
The P and P2 are 5*4, 5*7 or 10*8 inch sheet film cameras, but can be used with roll film backs, scan backs or digibacks.
Yes.
The Sinar 5*4 lensboard is a long-established standard, and compatible components can be acquired inexpensively.
Yes.
The P3 is a 6*9 cm medium format camera made for digital - most of the available components have connections for digital, and are not cheap, but it is a marginally lighter, and much less bulky system.
The Sinar p3 has 100 mm frames. It was built and designed for digital studio working conditions, therefore is smaller and slightly lighter. It has exactly the same features, movements and possibilities as the p2 (assymetrical axes, 2-point Scheimpflug, DoF scale, automatic lock, micrometrical geared movements, etc ...)
The P was, and the P2 and P3 are no-compromise professional (studio) cameras.
Yes.
-
The P is cheap, and has geared movements.
Yes.
The P2 is about £1,000 on eBay, and you can use it with digital backs with an adaptor and/or stitching back.
Yes.
The P3 is the best, but is not cheap, and is not widely available second hand.
Certainly the most precise, most convenient and full-featured view camera for studio work.
The F3 is a medium format monorail without the geared movements... it also lighter and takes up less room in your gadget bag for landscape photography
The Focus is geared, micrometrical and as precise as on a p2/p3. The rest is absolutely manual and not geared.
There are other models like the Sinar X, with which I am not familiar.
The Sinar x is basically the very same camera as the Sinar p2, except for 3 points:
- no 0-click position
- the 4x5" frame cannot be taken away the same way as on the p2, in a couple of seconds, but needs to be un-screwed
- when turning the knobs for tilt/swing and for H & V shift are the movements are going in opposite direction, as compared to the p2 (slightly different mechanics)
It is however at least 30% cheaper, although having exactly the same features and precise movements.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
Sure Dick, here the corrections or comments
Thank you, Theirry... does the Sinar X come with the same bellows as the P, or is it shorter?
I have jaundice - and they are threatening to send me to hospital for a week.
-
Thank you, Theirry... does the Sinar X come with the same bellows as the P, or is it shorter?
The X has the same bellows and uses the same accessories as the P/P2.
-
Dick,
The Sinar X has exactly the same bellow as the p, or even the f series.
Good health,
Thierry
Thank you, Theirry... does the Sinar X come with the same bellows as the P, or is it shorter?
I have jaundice - and they are threatening to send me to hospital for a week.