Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: jduncan on July 29, 2010, 04:11:16 pm
-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072901...rpslrsystem.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072901sinarpslrsystem.asp)
I don't know what to do with it. But it is an interesting development. I found it related to this LL debate:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=45070 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45070)
-
Any ideas on cost of the adapter? And what about glass? What lenses?
-
Any ideas on cost of the adapter? And what about glass? What lenses?
From the first paragraph in the linked press release:
"It will be available from next month at a retail price of 1980 Swiss Francs (~ €1440)."
-
Hello,
I made my own mount by using a Sinar lens board and taking the mount off a old Nikon extension tube and gluing it on to the lens board with Araldite.
It works perfectly.
Cheers
Simon
-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072901...rpslrsystem.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072901sinarpslrsystem.asp)
I don't know what to do with it. But it is an interesting development. I found it related to this LL debate:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=45070 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45070)
I paid $150 for one that allows you to move the mount left to right so you can stitch. It cost me $180usd from China. It has sat in my drawerr for a couple years. Testing with the 12mp and a 14mp 35mm, using LF lens makes little sense with these 35mm sensors. Is there a reason now ? If someone made a lensboard with front mount for a RZ lens to mount, or even a canon(I know image circle issue)...That I might buy.
-
R YOU SEE RYE US ??!!!
I wish these companies would stay alive, but looks like they are experts in doing themselves in.
-
Where are the electric connections (of the left-hand side of the camera) ? There is not enough place !
PdF
-
Am I the only one to see in that Sinar adapter an indication of bad times coming for MFD manufacturers?
-
Am I the only one to see in that Sinar adapter an indication of bad times coming for MFD manufacturers?
I believe you are. These are cool and all, I have one for my Arca, but they have a lot of limitations, namely the use of wide lenses. Maybe you could use wide Medium Format lenses, since they have a retrofocus design, but if you are going to use a view camera, why settle for lenses that are not quite as sharp as Rodenstock and Schneider's just so you can put a dslr on?
Ooohhh, you know what I haven't tried yet? Putting the 5d on and shooting video.... video with a view camera...ROFL.... I am such a geek!
(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ArcaReview_015.jpg)
CB
-
Am I the only one to see in that Sinar adapter an indication of bad times coming for MFD manufacturers?
Why the negativity?
Cambo, Arca Swiss and others have had these adapters for many years.
The death of MF has been predicted on this forum every year since it was started.
There will always be people who strive for more than "good enough".
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
Hello,
I made my own mount by using a Sinar lens board and taking the mount off a old Nikon extension tube and gluing it on to the lens board with Araldite.
It works perfectly.
Cheers
Simon
Same here, only with a Toyo lensboard and Mamiya 645 mount. And I didn't even need to cut or glue anything.
[attachment=23405:DSC00868...pc_cropR.jpg] (Apologies for the crappy mobile phone pic)
Here's my DIY recipe: M645 camera (was with film, now with MFDB) -> M645 to Kiev60/P6 adapter -> Kiev60 reversing ring (62mm thread) -> Toyo Lensboard with Copal 3 hole -> 62mm to 77mm filter step down ring.
The reversing ring ($10) slips through the 65mm Copal 3 hole in the lensboard ($30 used), and is locked on the other side by the step down ring ($5) - tightened hard (and perhaps glued/epoxied if you want extra security). This therefore gives me a lensboard with a P6/Kiev60 bayonet such as you'd find at the back of any P6/Kiev60 lens.
You can then attach any of the following MF cameras, with the appropriate P6 adapter ($20): Mamiya 645, Contax 645, Pentax 645. Mamiya in my case. It is rather nice to get electronic focus confirmation and TTL AE with a large format monorail
The only thing I had to specifically buy to complete this project was the $5 step down ring. I already had all the other bits (which tells you that yes, I did dabble quite heavily in P6/Kiev stuff once upon a time ).
I've seen M645 reversing rings on ebay and they might even allow for a thinner all-in-one adapter than having the two P6 pieces. The 58mm version should work; the 67mm version would require a larger hole than Copal 3. Just be careful with clearance. My arrangement gives me a few mm to spare between the lensboard and either the PD prism on my old M645s, or the grip on my 645AFD. Any closer and the AFD's shutter button would be awkward to reach.
There's also nothing unique about it being a Toyo lensboard. It could be Sinar, Linhof, Horseman - anything as long as it has a Copal 3 hole. And it's trivially easy to make.
I therefore call it "Ray's Any-LF to Any-645 EZ Adapter" (TM, all rights reserved, shoplifters will be prosecuted, prices may go down as well as up, coffee may be very hot)
Of course as CB says, you are limited in terms of focal lengths with a rig like this. Tabletop closeups, macro etc. are of course no problem with shorter lenses. But the M645 is 63mm from focal plane to flange, the adapters to the rear lensboard bring that up to around 80mm, and rear lensboard to front lensboard is about 50-55mm with a bag bellows squashed up tight. So around 135mm in total. On a flat lensboard, LF-type lenses of 150mm and above will reach infinity, and my 135/3.5 Xenotar just falls short but it can do portrait distances - I plan to upgrade to a recessed Copal 1 board so that it can also reach infinity. A recessed board would knock (39.5mm) off the flange distance, reducing it to ~95mm - which would make RB67 and possibly RZ67 lenses (112mm & 105mm registration respectively) usable at infinity - now that would be exciting! There is of course the M645 50/4 shift lens, but if I rigged an RB/RZ lensboard I could have a 50/4.5 shift-tilt lens. Previous attempts or suggestions I've seen at getting RB/RZ lenses to work on a LF-style camera with film backs or MF digital have all hit trouble at the hurdle of "how do you cock the lens shutter?". So it has to be done with a focal plane shuttered camera, and in MF digital that means something like my AFD.
-
Am I the only one to see in that Sinar adapter an indication of bad times coming for MFD manufacturers?
That's funny...a large format camera manufacturer provides adaptability for 35mm cameras and that's a sign of bad times for MFD???
-
Cool guys, it is just a sensation, a question and nothing in my mind against MFD,
on the contrary and I think I've been expressed my clear support for MF and LF many times exept when it comes to back's LCD and stuff like that.
Sinar adapter for Canon does not sound to me like just another facility. There must be a clear decision to enter that market, a market where dslr users need these kind of feature...and that's because many are working more and more with the Canon. Ignoring it is IMO not seeing the current reality.
I've never said that MF is going to disappear, I said if hard times are coming and more in form of a question.
What yes I'm seeing here, and maybe it is just here and not in the US or the UK, is more and more MF users going on DSLR and at the same time embrassing LF. Well, that is a clear tendency and not a mirage.
I'm talking about new product because in the second-hand market MFD is going well now that some affordable gear are circulating.
My question was if Sinar smell something and started to "work for Canon" because curiously all the photographers I know that shooted before MFD are now in Canon. This monopoly is almost insulting but that's what is happening here.
Basically in Spain, Hasselblad is very present and extremely well distributed. Then Phase behind but much less, and that is pretty much all. Leaf was in one point with Sinar. Distribution is really a big problem here, and yeah, that's not Paris neither N.Y but if you want to invest seriously in MF gear in Madrid you will probably end with Hassy just for that reason.
When I look at these Arca, Sinar and the Rodenstock and Schneider's etc...I feel admiration and respect. This is all a philosophy, a state of art and if they were not people like C.Barrett the photography industry would look dslr boring. We would loose a lot.
I have my view on those LF gear for the next years, no doubt because I feel an irresistible attraction and that matches with my work and my time.
Curiously, the Rodenstock here are incredibly cheap compare to the quality obtained. Indeed, a part from backs, LF are bargains.
So I wish the best to MF manufacturers, I was just asking surprised by that Sinar adapter if there was something else behind the scene.
I seem to be the only one, so I guess there is nothing to worry about.
Ps: Chris, if you do a movie with the 5D and the view camera, hope you'll post a youtube sample. I want to see that deph of field.
-
snip
The death of MF has been predicted on this forum every year since it was started.
There will always be people who strive for more than "good enough".
I don't believe any professional photographer predicts or wants to see an end to any professional piece of equipment.
I also don't believe that anyone that pays their bills with a camera goes out and thinks "that'll be good enough".
The medium format dealers and makers have use the "that'll be good enough" mantra against their competition for way too long. Instead of dissing one format, I strongly suggest making their own equipment more usable and I think you as well as anyone know what that means.
What I do know, at least from my perspective is the client requests have changed.
Our next two projects have a video/motion element and in fact one of the projects will never, ever go to the printed page and this is an ongoing good project that pays well.
This particular client wants the image to freeze and at a click of a button the model moves to show the garments front to back. This is something that would be difficult to do with traditional still cameras and this is something no client would have asked for 4 years ago.
I don't know how well you follow advertising expenditures but internationally, recognized brands have moved a huge percentage of their dollars to online and social marketing. In fact when you see the numbers of money spent dedicated print is about 4% of the market.
So, with that in mind, if any equipment company is going to move forward, they'd better read the tea leaves and see what is being shot, vs. what they think or hope is being shot.
Now as far as this Sinar thing, it's OK, but it looks to me like Sinar is just trying to find a way to make older designs viable in a new age and though I doubt seriously if I have a call for a view camera in my line of work, I do see the advantages of dedicated rise, fall and tilt lenses in still and motion.
There really is a new reality out there in the world of images for commerce and all of us that make our earnings from image creation need to recognize the changes and adapt.
That doesn't mean that this discussion or any discussion for that matter means that the artists involved want to see any format disappear.
Change to the cirumstances . . . yes.
IMO
BC
-
I don't believe any professional photographer predicts or wants to see an end to any professional piece of equipment.
I also don't believe that anyone that pays their bills with a camera goes out and thinks "that'll be good enough".
The medium format dealers and makers have use the "that'll be good enough" mantra against their competition for way too long. Instead of dissing one format, I strongly suggest making their own equipment more usable and I think you as well as anyone know what that means.
What I do know, at least from my perspective is the client requests have changed.
Our next two projects have a video/motion element and in fact one of the projects will never, ever go to the printed page and this is an ongoing good project that pays well.
This particular client wants the image to freeze and at a click of a button the model moves to show the garments front to back. This is something that would be difficult to do with traditional still cameras and this is something no client would have asked for 4 years ago.
I don't know how well you follow advertising expenditures but internationally, recognized brands have moved a huge percentage of their dollars to online and social marketing. In fact when you see the numbers of money spent dedicated print is about 4% of the market.
So, with that in mind, if any equipment company is going to move forward, they'd better read the tea leaves and see what is being shot, vs. what they think or hope is being shot.
Now as far as this Sinar thing, it's OK, but it looks to me like Sinar is just trying to find a way to make older designs viable in a new age and though I doubt seriously if I have a call for a view camera in my line of work, I do see the advantages of dedicated rise, fall and tilt lenses in still and motion.
There really is a new reality out there in the world of images for commerce and all of us that make our earnings from image creation need to recognize the changes and adapt.
That doesn't mean that this discussion or any discussion for that matter means that the artists involved want to see any format disappear.
Change to the cirumstances . . . yes.
IMO
BC
I swear that every post of yours is about motion taking over photography. Don't you get bored of writing the same thing?
-
I swear that every post of yours is about motion taking over photography. Don't you get bored of writing the same thing?
http://jbenoitphotography.com/blog/?p=43 (http://jbenoitphotography.com/blog/?p=43)
-
http://jbenoitphotography.com/blog/?p=43 (http://jbenoitphotography.com/blog/?p=43)
That's another post trying to make your point.
That is CGI animation and it has nothing to do with your theory of motion devouring photography. It is highlighting a photographic viewpoint of architecture. Both motion and still photography are represented.
-
snip......theory of motion devouring photography. It is highlighting a photographic viewpoint of architecture. Both motion and still photography are represented
This is a silly conversation and I have no argument or willingness to prove any point.
I am also camera/brand/format agnostic. I own them all and at times use them all.
I've trained and invested my adult life to be a professional "still" photographer, so honestly I am/was quite happy with shooting what I shot, for what I get paid, etc. etc.
I'm also not predicting anything, or trying to "prove" anything because the numbers speak for themselves. 4% of all advertising media is traditional print.
That number is not going to change upward, because it hasn't for a long, long time, but I'd love to see it in ways I can't and won't explain.
If your making your living in still photography for commerce and things are going well, then I applaud you.
BC
-
Sometimes I find Cooter's omnipresence a little frightening.
-
Sinar made a Hasselblad (V) adapter decades ago (I have one somewhere) and so you can put a 500 on your Sinar and any Hasselblad V system compatible MF digiback on that.
The wider throat of the Hasselblad gives you more movement... but on 66 you could still get problems... but it should work well with the smaller (645 and smaller) digibacks.
You can use shuttered lenses or a 200fc, or a Sinar lensboard shutter.
-
I salute those who create their own solutions.
I also see nothing wrong with a manufacturer designing a solution that is produced within measured tolerances, with quality, and with consistency for photographers to purchase in greater numbers. The cost is what it is. I rarely have an issue with the manufacturer and what they charge for their product. The fee for their product is the end result of what research, time, materials, labor, marketing, distribution and ultimately, the market itself, as well as the profit margin, determines it needs to be. No different from what every one of us does. Can something be overpriced? Yes, but - generally - that is in the eye of the purchaser, not in the design of the manufacturer. I just don't get mad at manufacturers for producing photographic tools and charging whatever they feel they need to for the necessary profit. I may feel it is overpriced - but the implication that the manufacturer is gouging customers I usually don't hold with. I don't know any photographic manufacturers who are making Exxon-type profits.
I don't see this as a huge seller for Sinar (nor are other similar solutions). Then again, just because something isn't a huge seller doesn't mean it is not a successful product, both for the end user and the manufacturer. It is one sku in a considerable product line. And I don't see this as "turning away" from medium format. But if they are indeed going to concentrate on making cameras for 3rd party imagers, then why not Canon? I don't think it makes any statement on medium format at all.
I forget who, but someone made a rebuttal comment on a "good enough" line in one of my posts and I thought it made perfect sense and I had no real answer to it other than to agree. Something to the effect that photographers have always chosen the tools that are "good enough". I think that is a good statement. If the client is satisfied with the result and the photographer got whatever he needed out of that product to deliver the result, then the use of that product would be at least, prudent. Do photographers need to choose tools that are "better than good enough"? In many cases, no, and in many of those cases it would not be wise for them to do so. On the other hand, some photographers do choose "better than good enough", often for their own reasons, rather than client satisfaction. I accept and can understand both viewpoints. As a result, the term "good enough" is not meant as a slight anymore when I use it. From that standpoint, in re-reading Doug's post, I don't see any slight either, only an acknowledgement that there are those who do not operate under the "good enough" guidelines and who may choose different solutions accordingly.
Steve Hendrix
-
Sometimes I find Cooter's omnipresence a little frightening.
I for one welcome our new board overlords :-).
All in good fun.
-
I swear that every post of yours is about motion taking over photography. Don't you get bored of writing the same thing?
I don't understand (neither like) this hostility with the BC post. He might have touched some sensitive subject.
Well, motion is part of the photographic language now, like it or not, understand it or not.
In a question of years, the clients needs and behaviour have changed, yes they have changed faster in the areas BCooter is working but no doubt that those will hit all the photography genres.
Michael Reichmann pointed many times here, and better that pointing I would say warned many times about the need for the photographer to embrasse video.
Soon 3D imagery is coming and you can laugh but it will be there faster than we think and the question remains if you want to keep going ignoring this or not.
Paper, in art, has not a long time either, in advertising it is declining seriously and I know that because I have my spys in 2 enormous printers and media groups.
Many members will jump immediatly against that, but it does not matter how high you bark, the days of paper are numbered. The countdown have already started.
If you ignore the changes, that's fine and respectable, but there's a price to pay.
Thank god we have in this forum photographers like BC who are in the first places to bring us valuable and reliable concepts about what's going on in the real world.
Because internet forum are far from describing the real world I'm afraid and turn over sensitive when certain topics are discussed.
I share BC statements about MF manufacturers, about video and about the changes that is facing photography.
And if I'm correct he also work MF on a regular basis. And that is where all the story starts. On the forums there are all kind of opinions about anything.
I still remember the Gwift complains about the tether and all that stuff. It results that more I do my steps in this world and gain experience, that I experimented exactly what Gwift, J.Russell etc...are talking about.
Exactly. When I was in my studio on my own I could also invent, speculate and opinate whatever I wanted. But when you start to work in serious then you realise how good are some posters.
Actually I miss Gwift, Tmark posts in this forum and I hope that James Russell will keep going to write regularly. I don't get bored of reading the same things because I know who is behind the keyboard.
Video matters, it's fun, creative and a source of incomes for the photographer.
I think that when we criticize MF, it is because we would like to see some improvement in usability, and we would like to see those because we want the MF brands to be there and work with MF gear
not because we want them to disappear.
-
I believe you are. These are cool and all, I have one for my Arca, but they have a lot of limitations, namely the use of wide lenses. Maybe you could use wide Medium Format lenses, since they have a retrofocus design, but if you are going to use a view camera, why settle for lenses that are not quite as sharp as Rodenstock and Schneider's just so you can put a dslr on?
Ooohhh, you know what I haven't tried yet? Putting the 5d on and shooting video.... video with a view camera...ROFL.... I am such a geek!
(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ArcaReview_015.jpg)
CB
Cambo's had this for a few years at least. http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/s...et/Item612.html (http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item612.html) I know some product shooters that have used them, to mixed reviews.
Cambo also sells Schneider digitars with what appears to be some kind of retrofocus add-on optics and aperture.
-
Cambo's had this for a few years at least. http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/s...et/Item612.html (http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item612.html) I know some product shooters that have used them, to mixed reviews.
Cambo also sells Schneider digitars with what appears to be some kind of retrofocus add-on optics and aperture.
We've been playing around recently with this:
*Cambo X2 & Cambo adapters/bellows for Mamiya mount
*Phase One P65+ in M/P1 mount
*Mamiya RZ Lenses
We'll report soon. You could also use Hasselblad V and RB lenses with this combination (or with any digital back in M/P1 mount). Just one more option to consider for medium format tilt/shift-based capture.
Steve Hendrix
[attachment=23435:IMG_5333_1.jpg] [attachment=23436:IMG_5339_1.jpg]
-
I think Cambo X2 Pro is one of the best solutions, I love to work on Cambo 4x5 with Flex Adapter to stitch for large files.
-
I think Cambo X2 Pro is one of the best solutions.
For studio use, maybe. Doesn't that thing weigh 10 or 12 pounds?
The M-Line 2 seems to be by far the lightest of these DSLR-VC's, weighing just over 4lbs. I know which one I'd rather carry on the trail.
-
We've been playing around recently with this:
I like that with the RZ lens. Wonder if there is one I can put in front of the Sinar.
Why am I under the impression that Caonon L 35mm lens are sharpoer than 4x5, say APO 210 (1980 and later)? And RZ's lens, are they sharper?
I notice the Rodenstock 210 Macro is sharp. Would a top 35 lens or a RZ lens out resolve ? I would expect the newer HR or Digitars to be the sharpest of all.
I am sure this is also discussed somewhere...if anyone has some links comparing, please post. I know many shouldn't care, as I fully understand the tech is usually not so critical with so much top gear that all one needs to do is stop the tech talk and just shoot...as that is very true on many levels. For specific subjects and scientific photography it does make a difference, so please understand that there is a need to know.
-
The best way to shoot video would be to tear a Canon 5D 2 completely apart and have the sensor moved forward flush with the lens mount. This is the only way to avoid the mirror box vigneting that is so evident with all these products. Such modification would also allow wide angle lenses.
So you need to make a digital back out of a Canon 5D2... And that is funny!
-
I like that with the RZ lens. Wonder if there is one I can put in front of the Sinar.
Why am I under the impression that Caonon L 35mm lens are sharpoer than 4x5, say APO 210 (1980 and later)? And RZ's lens, are they sharper?
I notice the Rodenstock 210 Macro is sharp. Would a top 35 lens or a RZ lens out resolve ? I would expect the newer HR or Digitars to be the sharpest of all.
I am sure this is also discussed somewhere...if anyone has some links comparing, please post. I know many shouldn't care, as I fully understand the tech is usually not so critical with so much top gear that all one needs to do is stop the tech talk and just shoot...as that is very true on many levels. For specific subjects and scientific photography it does make a difference, so please understand that there is a need to know.
Most 4x5 lenses are pretty much useless. Maybe ok for video but for photography no. Use medium format lenses or specific HR digital lenses for Sinar.
-
Most 4x5 lenses are pretty much useless. Maybe ok for video but for photography no. Use medium format lenses or specific HR digital lenses for Sinar.
Hello,
I am curious to know what you mean by the comment “Most 4x5 lenses are pretty much useless”.
I have a range of Rodenstock Apo- Sironar film lenses from 45mm up to 300mm as well as a range of Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon lens which I use with a Horseman VCC adaptor with a Leaf Aptus 75 back and get spectacular results.
I have a couple of Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digital HR lenses and I can not see any superiority in image quality to the above lenses.
Cheers
Simon
-
Hello,
I am curious to know what you mean by the comment “Most 4x5 lenses are pretty much useless”.
I have a range of Rodenstock Apo- Sironar film lenses from 45mm up to 300mm as well as a range of Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon lens which I use with a Horseman VCC adaptor with a Leaf Aptus 75 back and get spectacular results.
I have a couple of Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digital HR lenses and I can not see any superiority in image quality to the above lenses.
Cheers
Simon
In my opinion they were just soft. I have 210mm Sinar, 90mm f4.5 Sinar and bunch of other lenses. Maybe your lenses are better but I did not like those I had. That is why I think they are useless, but of course they can be used:)
I did receive best results with a 90mm Mamiya RZ lens. Hassie 40mm was ok. My Hassie 40mm is old though. Also the retrofocal design helps. With 4x5 lenses the mirror box vigneting was more substantial than compared to a retro focal lens. It is quite a few years ago when I made the test and I can't find the photos anymore but I compared the Sinaron 90 f4.5 to the Mamiya RZ 90mm, both new at the time, and the Mamiya gave sharper images.
I still don't like my 4x5 lenses if I shoot with P45 which I have. I prefer to use those digital lenses which are very sharp.
But yes useless was bad wording.
Excuse moi...
-
Most 4x5 lenses are pretty much useless. Maybe ok for video but for photography no. Use medium format lenses or specific HR digital lenses for Sinar.
I think most LF lenses would limit the res if used with a modern 5 micron digital back... but I think that the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses would work well with the 10*10cm 9 micron (astro) back that was mentioned here on LuLa a while back.
And if you want extreme movements without the need for high res, the relatively large image circle of LF lenses can be useful.
-
I think most LF lenses would limit the res if used with a modern 5 micron digital back... but I think that the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses would work well with the 10*10cm 9 micron (astro) back that was mentioned here on LuLa a while back.
And if you want extreme movements without the need for high res, the relatively large image circle of LF lenses can be useful.
Thats my point...with a ...say a 5Dmark2 and say a Rodenstock Macro LF lens would like be worse than say a RZ lens or a Canon 50, 100, 180 Marco, or other primes.
So would a RZ 140Macro, or 180short make for sharper images? Or would a Canon lens be better?
Do you come full circle?having the same shallow DOF as the MFdB with a LF lens, as you would with a 5Dmrk2 and RZ or 10035mm lens?
Or is this only usfull for stills that are not detail critical?
The Live View of newer DSLR would be a nice advantage vs some MFdB that dont have as nice of one.
The speed
The hoping longer DOF
The ISO and other chip advantages mentioned such as video
The flexibility of using one body
Its late, hard to come up with more for now
-
Thats my point...with a ...say a 5Dmark2 and say a Rodenstock Macro LF lens would like be worse than say a RZ lens or a Canon 50, 100, 180 Marco, or other primes.
So would a RZ 140Macro, or 180short make for sharper images? Or would a Canon lens be better?
In a foolish moment I bought a Macro Sinaron 300mm f5.6, and I have a Schneider Apo-Digitar 120... and I expect them to be like chalk and cheese.
The Live View of newer DSLR would be a nice advantage vs some MFdB that dont have as nice of one.
I have a MFDB with live view, but with the new Sinar adapter it should be possible to put something like a Panasonic G11 on the back of a Sinar and get colour live view on the camera (without having to tether to a computer). I look forward to the day when, on a £30K camera, you get what you take for granted on a £300 camera!
The speed
The hoping longer DOF
The ISO and other chip advantages mentioned such as video
All other things being equal DOF depends on magnification ratio, so, if you put a point-and-shoot on the back of a Sinar, for the same subject size, you get more DOF than you would with a FF DSLR or a MFDB.
Its late, hard to come up with more for now
If you think it is late at mid-day... I assume that you are not from round here!
-
We've been playing around recently with this:
*Cambo X2 & Cambo adapters/bellows for Mamiya mount
*Phase One P65+ in M/P1 mount
*Mamiya RZ Lenses
We'll report soon. You could also use Hasselblad V and RB lenses with this combination (or with any digital back in M/P1 mount). Just one more option to consider for medium format tilt/shift-based capture.
Steve Hendrix
Steve, now that's what I'm talking about! Bet you've been having lots of fun playing with that. How much does the Cambo X2 setup as pictured (RZ lens mount, 645AF/P1 body mount) cost? My home-rigged Toyo setup is a poor man's version of that (very poor, as in practically destitute perhaps?). A recessed lensboard, a scavenged RZ bayonet and I'll be there. The Cambo's main advantage is that the bellows tapers down to the camera bayonet and thus saves several mm over my 4x5-lensboard based system where camera grip clearance had to be allowed for. Someone working professionally will also appreciate the Cambo's finer controls (not that the Toyo's are bad, with geared shift and rise; they're plenty good for me as an enthusiast and tinkerer).
-
We've been playing around recently with this:
*Cambo X2 & Cambo adapters/bellows for Mamiya mount
*Phase One P65+ in M/P1 mount
*Mamiya RZ Lenses
We'll report soon. You could also use Hasselblad V and RB lenses with this combination (or with any digital back in M/P1 mount). Just one more option to consider for medium format tilt/shift-based capture.
Only downside to the X2 is all movements are on front standard. Rear-standard shift would be preferable for stitching.
-
Only downside to the X2 is all movements are on front standard. Rear-standard shift would be preferable for stitching.
Stitching, stitching...
I don't think the image circles of the RZ lenses are large enough to really take advantage of stitching (?).
It's obviously more appropriate for moderate shift (in single captures) and tilt/swing.
Looks promising... IMO.
-
Stitching, stitching...
I don't think the image circles of the RZ lenses are large enough to really take advantage of stitching (?).
It's obviously more appropriate for moderate shift (in single captures) and tilt/swing.
The X2 is also compatible with LF lenses, which would have plenty big enough image circle for stitching.
-
The X2 is also compatible with LF lenses, which would have plenty big enough image circle for stitching.
It would only work with very long lenses (if you want to focus to infinity) due to the distance to the sensor. Too, - even if possible - still limited due to the mirror housing (vignetting).
Phase One backs are detachable so a tech camera is the way to go here.
The X2 Pro is a solution in between... it is certainly not primarly for stitching in conjunction with a MF camera.
-
It would only work with very long lenses (if you want to focus to infinity) due to the distance to the sensor. Too, - even if possible - still limited due to the mirror housing (vignetting).
Phase One backs are detachable so a tech camera is the way to go here.
The X2 Pro is a solution in between... it is certainly not primarly for stitching in conjunction with a MF camera.
I wonder why Rod nor Shneider don't offer Macro longer than 150 or so...like a 210 or 240 or 300...?at least oone of them?
-
If someone made a lensboard with front mount for a RZ lens to mount, or even a canon(I know image circle issue)...That I might buy.
Hi,
if your view camera is a Sinar, you might mean this:
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT (http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260638869705&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT)
or this:
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT (http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=310210406477&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT)
(not my offers)
Best regards, Matthias
-
I wonder why Rod nor Shneider don't offer Macro longer than 150 or so...like a 210 or 240 or 300...?at least oone of them?
I have a 1:3 3:1 macro Sinaron 300mm... but this is a 50 degree LF lens. I have always opted for the longest macro I can get.
I have about 1.5m of Sinar bellows and rail ... the main problem with long macro lenses is the meters of extension you need.
-
I have a 1:3 3:1 macro Sinaron 300mm... but this is a 50 degree LF lens. I have always opted for the longest macro I can get.
I have about 1.5m of Sinar bellows and rail ... the main problem with long macro lenses is the meters of extension you need.
These are great, but way to expensive for experimenting.
-
These are great, but way to expensive for experimenting.
If anyone is interested in any of my kit... and is contemplating acquiring similar kit, please feel free to come and experiment.
-
Are you talking about the body kit or this last post with lens? Where are you located?
-
Are you talking about the body kit or this last post with lens? Where are you located?
Warwickshire UK
300mm macro
-
way far :-)
-
:) I have made my own DSLR to ViewCam conversion . Pentax K10d , Helios 44/2 . [http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavlosfotosathgr/4709052111/]
In this foto can be seen with a Ricoh but , I used my K10 to shoot it . This foto is shot with the conversion and K10 [http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavlosfotosathgr/4881361133/]