Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: landscape+architecture recommendations digiback+  (Read 17724 times)

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
landscape+architecture recommendations digiback+
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2008, 01:39:53 pm »

I have yet to see the Flexicam but according to the literature both of them are so similar in specs (weight and size) that I find it strange...
the difference is that the Bicam can take lenses on a helicord as an option (at the expense of swing and tilt)

I believe the one I use is a flexibellow maxi...it takes up more space than a flexibellow but is necessary if you are using lenses of a certain focal length (check silvestri's website for specs on that). I use a 45mm rodenstock f4.5 on it and it focuses to infinity. I was considering a 35mm but I'm not sure if it focuses.

regarding shift, without bellows you can do a rise and fall 15mm up and down, the side shift is on the bellows. You can turn the camera 90 degrees to get your shift if you want.
but interestingly (not sure if it's my tripod's fault) I haven't been able to stitch my photos cleanly as of yet...there's always a slight perspective change. I'm going to do more tests to figure it out.

I read about the stitching adapter but I don't understand how it works. The movements should be adequate for stitching purposes within the image circle of the lens...
I don't really understand the need for the rings in general. I would think that it's necessary for longer focal length lenses to focus (the flexi maci bellows extends to 105mm only)

Quote
dear jing,

which of the 2 tilt-adaptors (flexi-bellow or f-b maxi) do you use? have you really found out you need it or did you decide based on your former lf-experiences? does the bicam without the below shift in 2 ways?

what exactly IS your problem with the sliding-back, you wrote about "shimming" but no dictionary could translate that for me poor german ;-) - and how do you face it. why didn't you just return it? what does your dealer and silvestri say? many years ago i had maybe the same kind of problem with a basic sinar 4/5: the screen was by construction 1,5mm away from where it should have been. it took me more than a year until they believed me, and that only after one of their guys came by and made a side by side test with his reference-camera and mine. they finally replaced my back (nobody ever replaced the travels, films, time, reputation! - sharp slides were only a matter of sheer luck then) and told me that something like that never ever had happened before. months later a colleague phoned me: he as well as half a dozen of other photographers without explanation suddenly had received new backs for their sinars after they had tried in vain for months to convince sinar they had problems with focusing. he got in touch with someone inside sinar and was told under cover, that I could have been the reason for that - so he phoned me. all of them had these bad backs. all of them were told, that something like that had never ever happened before... so this for swiss quality.

if you like: could you describe to me the function of the stitching-adapter if it is this you use. and: do you have to change extension rings on the back of the bicam, whenever you change a lens? thanks a lot!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
landscape+architecture recommendations digiback+
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2008, 01:44:21 pm »

also, regarding shimming, I'm pretty unhappy with paying $150 in shipping, $200 in taxes, and getting a $2000 piece of metal that doesn't perform to spec.

It's amazing that people can get away with this sort of attitude. To my understanding they will dismantle the sliding back and add in metal pieces that will make sure the groundglass and digital back and in line for focusing.

Quote
I have yet to see the Flexicam but according to the literature both of them are so similar in specs (weight and size) that I find it strange...
the difference is that the Bicam can take lenses on a helicord as an option (at the expense of swing and tilt)

I believe the one I use is a flexibellow maxi...it takes up more space than a flexibellow but is necessary if you are using lenses of a certain focal length (check silvestri's website for specs on that). I use a 45mm rodenstock f4.5 on it and it focuses to infinity. I was considering a 35mm but I'm not sure if it focuses.

regarding shift, without bellows you can do a rise and fall 15mm up and down, the side shift is on the bellows. You can turn the camera 90 degrees to get your shift if you want.
but interestingly (not sure if it's my tripod's fault) I haven't been able to stitch my photos cleanly as of yet...there's always a slight perspective change. I'm going to do more tests to figure it out.

I read about the stitching adapter but I don't understand how it works. The movements should be adequate for stitching purposes within the image circle of the lens...
I don't really understand the need for the rings in general. I would think that it's necessary for longer focal length lenses to focus (the flexi maci bellows extends to 105mm only)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

adammork

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
landscape+architecture recommendations digiback+
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2008, 02:32:13 pm »

Quote
Thanks very much for your impressions,Rainer.
They help provide a more complete picture of these products in actual use

I have read,on a number of occasions,that the sharpness dropoff after f11 with such lenses
was very dramatic,to the point of near unuseability.                                                                 Your experience suggests that while the degradation is measureable the results are still
very satisfactory

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't worry  

It's still very useable after f11, I use around f16 most of the time on the 35xl, yes it is sharper at f11, but the  diffraction at f16 helps a lot to fight moiré, and it's still very sharp.

I'm still amassed every time I have a look at my "old" 4x5 files, how scary sharp the results from my XY, Schneider and Aptus 75/22 set-up is.....
/Adam
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
landscape+architecture recommendations digiback+
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2008, 02:38:14 pm »

Quote
I'm still amassed every time I have a look at my "old" 4x5 files, how scary sharp the results from my XY, Schneider and Aptus 75/22 set-up is.....
/Adam
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

me too. its amazing.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 396
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
landscape+architecture recommendations digiback+
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2008, 05:40:05 pm »

Quote
me too. its amazing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just saw the Julius Shulman exhibit in Los Angeles.  Most of the images were 4x5 film scanned last year and ink jet printed to about 16x20.  There is much more detail in prints working with the new MFDB's and the new digital lenses.  As time marches on I think our expectations for quality will increase with the available technology.

The 47 digitar is a good example of how the proper f-stop may be a moving target.  While f11 is the sharpest, if you shift a great deal to shoot a high rise building then f22 will get the top portion of the image much sharper at the expense of the center of the image becoming slightly soft.  It is a very worthwhile tradeoff though.  The center isn't overly soft from diffraction, it's just not as razor sharp and also matches the corners better.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up