Digitars with DSLR's

[eyeshigher1]

I've purchased Nikon's 85mm PC-E lens, and now beginning to wonder if using Schneider Digitars via 5x4 or Cambo x2pro would give noticable difference in detail/resolution. Studio

Will be upgrading to Nikon FX shortly.

any advice?

[geesbert]

I love it! I am using a 90mm digitar and a 135mm rodenstock digital lens on my 5d with a linhof 679 and the improvement over the 90mm tse is astonishing.

[ACH DIGITAL]

I love it! I am using a 90mm digitar and a 135mm rodenstock digital lens on my 5d with a linhof 679 and the improvement over the 90mm tse is astonishing.

Hi, are you using this lenses for extream close up photography? How close can you get with a non macro digitar?

Thanks.

[Anders_HK]

Depending on the resolution of your camera as compared to sensor size, you may or may not need digitar lenses. There are also some very sharp traditional large format lenses that you can buy for bargains used. Such also allow for larger image circle. Compared to a view camera there are alternatives such as example Horseman VCC and similar.

Rgds
Anders

[ACH DIGITAL]

Depending on the resolution of your camera as compared to sensor size, you may or may not need digitar lenses. There are also some very sharp traditional large format lenses that you can buy for bargains used. Such also allow for larger image circle. Compared to a view camera there are alternatives such as example Horseman VCC and similar.

Rgds
Anders

What about canon eos 5D mark II?

[Anders_HK]

What about canon eos 5D mark II?

As stated, depends on resolution and sensor size. 5D2 has been stated to be less sharp than 5D, both clear less sharp than a 22MP digital back (from what I been told even the ZD). Not sure why use DSLR when can use a MFDB. Because of the tiny sensor of also FF DSLR, tiny lens movements are needed. A large format camera is not built for such tiny movements.

A custom made digital adapter is ready in Shanghai for my Leaf Aptus 65, 28.6MP on 44x33mm sensor. I will use it for stitching panoramic (thus not same tiny lens movements). I do believe this will work fine on the sharp traditional large format lenses I have, also my Nikkor 75mm. A slight worry is ultra wide edges of my Schneider 58mm for up to 5" wide of stitches, but... hopeful will work! From what I was told by Rodenstock (or was it Scheider?) the MP over the sensor area of Aptus 65 is about borderline what sharp traditional lenses are capable to resolve, but... I will see after I pick up my adapter end of this month! This said, contrary to above poster I will use on Shen-Hao 4x5 in field and not M679 as above poster. The M679 can perhaps be adjusted more exact.

Traditional lenses are cheaper than digitar, my best advise is to try. My 135mm Rodenstock Sironar-N cost me 400 usd on Ebay, compared to digitar???

Anders

[stever]

don't understand the statement about the 5D2 being less "sharp" than the 5D.  My 5D2 has significantly more resolution than the 5D.

[JeffKohn]

Depending on the resolution of your camera as compared to sensor size, you may or may not need digitar lenses. There are also some very sharp traditional large format lenses that you can buy for bargains used. Such also allow for larger image circle. Compared to a view camera there are alternatives such as example Horseman VCC and similar.

Rgds
Anders

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It seems to me that sensor size is largely irrelevant, it's pixel density that should be considered. I would think that the 5DII has a higher pixel density than any MF digital back, so if there's resolution to be gained from using from using digitars over traditional LF lenses with an MFDB, the same would also be true for a 5DII.

The more interesting question, I think, would be whether the digitars give you more resolution than 35mm lenses. That might not be so clear-cut. I would think there would be other benefits even if sharpness is similar though - namely having the full range of tilt/shift movements to control DOF and perspective, as well as being able to use rear-standard movements for easy flat stitching.

[Anders_HK]

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It seems to me that sensor size is largely irrelevant, it's pixel density that should be considered. I would think that the 5DII has a higher pixel density than any MF digital back, so if there's resolution to be gained from using from using digitars over traditional LF lenses with an MFDB, the same would also be true for a 5DII.

The more interesting question, I think, would be whether the digitars give you more resolution than 35mm lenses. That might not be so clear-cut. I would think there would be other benefits even if sharpness is similar though - namely having the full range of tilt/shift movements to control DOF and perspective, as well as being able to use rear-standard movements for easy flat stitching.

Jeff, thanks & correct, pixel density is the word and what I actually meant. Here:

D3X = 6048x4032 pixels / 36x24 = 168 pixels/mm
P65+ = 8984x6732 pixels / 53.9x40.4mm = 166 pixels/mm
5DII = 5616x3744 pixels / 36x24mm = 156 pixels/mm
P45+ = 7216x5412 pixels / 36.8x49.1 = 147 pixels/mm
Aptus 65 = 6144x4622 / 44x33mm = 140 pixels/mm
5D = 4368x2912 pixels / 36x24 = 121 pixels/mm

156/140 is 11%. Much difference?
5DII/5D is 29%. Difference, yes.

I figured that Aptus 65 require perhaps 1.5x or slight more sharpness of lens than film. Thus it is likely that very SHARP traditional large format lenses are up for the task in my case, and that one might need to consider diffraction. However, for wides I am not sure yet how wide lens in combo with how wide stitch. I will soon see if I am right, but will take some time to test too.

And yes, 5DII is more MP, but that does not automatically mean sharper details.

Regards
Anders

[stever]

no, more pixels do not necessarily translate to better resolution - i find that the 5D is sharper than the 50D, but that the 5D2 is clearly sharper than the 5D2

[BernardLanguillier]

Thus it is likely that very SHARP traditional large format lenses are up for the task in my case, and that one might need to consider diffraction. However, for wides I am not sure yet how wide lens in combo with how wide stitch. I will soon see if I am right, but will take some time to test too.

Anders,

May I ask why you are not considering spherical panos instead of trying to flat stitch? A Cambo wide with your back on would give you great flexibility and always use the center part of your glass. Per my experience with an Ebony 45SU vs RRS pano head, it is faster to cylinder stitch than it is to flat stitch while maintaining perpendicularity between back and lens axis. Speed is of essence when shooting non static subjects like a sky.

A recent example shot with a 300mm f2.8 on a D3x.



Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

Bernard,

To me, photography is first and foremost about seeing, working planned + slow and accurate composition. SLOW yields planned and far better images. Rotating camera on my ballhead or a panohead ain't my thing. Nor do I believe in CS4 for spheric and WIDE since that leads to CS4 to calculate pixels. Thus I prefer FLAT. In my personal observation I am far more drawn to 617/612 FILM images and 4x5s than to sphere stitched ones, one reason being - as I view - that the photographer was able to compose more well, slow and careful.

Cambo wide? More expensive. There is a very interesting Gaoersi 4x5 that will take my adapter... but too much weight in bag (and will require lens cones in bag!), but who knows what else I will eye in long run, but not Cambo or like, too much $$$. Hence a custom made adapter made in China  , not one of the near 2k usd ones! Mmmm... the Shen-Hao 6x9 is sweet and would be super with an adapter too....

Further, my choice of tools also combines 4x5 FILM with multi framed stitched digital panoramic to one larger format serious camera; Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB. That one is very similar to Ebony SW45 but cheaper  , both are non folding 4x5's of light weight.

I try follow traditional path on photography, meaning... I prefer traditional camera instead of high-tech. Last thing I like is a DSLR, it to me is a computer between my eye and lens. My digital adapter will have a 120x80mm groundglass. Ain't no way to do that with spheric, right?  

Lastly, I am new to 4x5. I want to use it for training my eye and creativity!

Regards
Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

To me, photography is first and foremost about seeing, working planned + slow and accurate composition. SLOW yields planned and far better images. Rotating camera on my ballhead or a panohead ain't my thing. Nor do I believe in CS4 for spheric and WIDE since that leads to CS4 to calculate pixels. Thus I prefer FLAT. In my personal observation I am far more drawn to 617/612 FILM images and 4x5s than to sphere stitched ones, one reason being - as I view - that the photographer was able to compose more well, slow and careful.

We are the same Anders, I like to work slow also and often end up producing only a handful of images out of a given assignement. But slow for me is not about the execution of an image, it is about the thought process to define a composition,... as you will soon find out when you start to stitch with your ShenHao, you will have to be fast in the execution of your idea because stitching, whether it is flat or not, will not work otherwise if there are moving subjects on your image. Been there, done that.

ShenHao being copies of Ebony designs, they probably suffer from the same issue, the shift of the back and tilt are controlled by the same lever, and this makes it hard to work fast while preserving the perpendicularity of the ground glass with the axis of the lens when shifting...

Another problem that you will be facing is that I personnally think that it is next to impossible to achieve critical focus with a standard 4x5 camera and a back because of the lack of life view on the back.

As a side comment, it is totally possible to train oneself in composing images in one's head and to execute this vision with a spherical pano head.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JeffKohn]

Bernard I agree with much of what you say; however I find the projections and warping done by stitching software will often produce a less pleasing result than a flat stitch with a tilt/shift lens. So if I just want to do a one-row stitch to get some extra resolution, I'll use a T/S lens if I can (it's actually faster than a rotational pano IMHO, especially if you don't already have the pano head mounted).

Of course the downside to T/S flat stitch is that you can't get as much resolution, especially for longer panoramic compositions. So I still do rotational panos when I'm composing for 3:1 or 2.5:1. But I could definitely see the appeal of flat-stitching with a view camera and being able to use more shift than is possible with my T/S lenses.

Have you seen the new Arca Swiss monorail camera that comes in a version with a DSLR adapter? Looks pretty sweet to me, and they say it can be used with much wider lenses than has been previously possible with this type of setup.

[Anders_HK]

We are the same Anders, I like to work slow also and often end up producing only a handful of images out of a given assignement. But slow for me is not about the execution of an image, it is about the thought process to define a composition,... as you will soon find out when you start to stitch with your ShenHao, you will have to be fast in the execution of your idea because stitching, whether it is flat or not, will not work otherwise if there are moving subjects on your image. Been there, done that.

ShenHao being copies of Ebony designs, they probably suffer from the same issue, the shift of the back and tilt are controlled by the same lever, and this makes it hard to work fast while preserving the perpendicularity of the ground glass with the axis of the lens when shifting...

Another problem that you will be facing is that I personnally think that it is next to impossible to achieve critical focus with a standard 4x5 camera and a back because of the lack of life view on the back.

As a side comment, it is totally possible to train oneself in composing images in one's head and to execute this vision with a spherical pano head.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

I do not at all agree on that we are the same. Absolutely not. Our approach is complete different, and so are our posts and images. While you stated that you prefer to imagine an image in head I stated that I actually want to see it to adjust accurate and thus be able to in detail work the image. Simply I find it impossible to accurate think up an image because that lack accurate micro control and lack the accurate seeing final and whole image for fine adjustments before capture. It is like a painter, what painter imagine image only in mind and then paint a copy from mind without adjusting as it grows infront his eye? This I view leads to distinct lets call it "different" results. Thus my approach is more in line with trailing works by serious large format shooters, including Ansel Adams etc. The account being that I admire their works and approach. Also, I do not fancy DSLRs as I pointed out, and while you stitch on basis of a 300mm lens my longest (for stitch) is 150 and I prefer WIDE!

Incorrect of ShenHao, the cameras are simply of same principle and they do develop their own cameras with also far better representation in China than Ebony. I see no reason to send off 5x the amount to the Japanese. The one and only Ebony that I have seen was a misaligned used one in Shanghai and the price was to laugh at in comparison to Shen-Hao and I did not find the quality that much superior at all, not even for use with my MFDB. Following is an article titled 'Digital Ebony' http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tal-ebony.shtml. The camera used there was a NON-FOLDING which is important and contrary to the camera you point at. On a non folding the back standard slides VERTICAL only - no tilt. My adapter will slide side ways and I will use vertical sliding of rear standard for vertical slides (the vertical will likely require refocus), or per say two rows of panoramic slides. But I admit,... it is far easier to use FILM for larger image area and the Quickloads are a breeze in comparison.  

I guess perhaps I do not understand your posts; they appear to come across being latest gear and technique as compared to aim on image or subject. It was same way in a thread about FILM, now it was about digitars with DSLRs for lens movements... I suggest we keep remainder of this thread on the actual original topic. Our discussion is off topic, thus I suggest we end discussion and take up by email in instead. Mine should be under my name here.

Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

Incorrect of ShenHao, the cameras are simply of same principle and they do develop their own cameras with also far better representation in China than Ebony. I see no reason to send off 5x the amount to the Japanese. The one and only Ebony that I have seen was a misaligned used one in Shanghai and the price was to laugh at in comparison to Shen-Hao and I did not find the quality that much superior at all, not even for use with my MFDB. Following is an article titled 'Digital Ebony' http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tal-ebony.shtml. The camera used there was a NON-FOLDING which is important and contrary to the camera you point at. On a non folding the back standard slides VERTICAL only - no tilt. My adapter will slide side ways and I will use vertical sliding of rear standard for vertical slides (the vertical will likely require refocus), or per say two rows of panoramic slides. But I admit,... it is far easier to use FILM for larger image area and the Quickloads are a breeze in comparison.  

The 45SU that I have been using is a non folding design, the first one of this kind released on the market. It was released years before ShenHaos and a comparison will reveal without any possible doubt that ShenHao is a mere copy. The ShenHao you describe above appears to be lacking the back assymetrical tilt and is therefore the copy of the Ebony 45S, and not the 45SU that I own. It is indeed probably more suitable for stitching with a back but you will be missing the biggest differentiator of these cameras when using sheets of film, which is the assymetrical back tilt. Since I do still shoot film, this is critical to me.

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html

Could cheaper ShenHao prices result from the lack of spending on R&D? I do believe that Ebony was considering starting a legal action against ShenHao, but I am not sure how far they have been. In the meantime, my money goes to the innovators, but I guess we all have different views regarding intellectual property theft, don't we.

I guess perhaps I do not understand your posts; they appear to come across being latest gear and technique as compared to aim on image or subject. It was same way in a thread about FILM, now it was about digitars with DSLRs for lens movements... I suggest we keep remainder of this thread on the actual original topic. Our discussion is off topic, thus I suggest we end discussion and take up by email in instead. Mine should be under my name here.

Cheap shot under the belt, you original post was discussing a technical topic as well, and I don't see how the discussion of technique of equipment relates to the supposed lack of focus on image or subject that you mention above.

My view has always been to consider all available options and to select the one that delivers the best performance to achieve my goal, which is a very high image quality capture of a scene that moves me. In this regard, I am the most technology agnostic guy around, next to Thom Hogan I guess.

In the process I have developped the ability to work without a ground glass/viewfinder and all I am saying is that it can be done. I believe that evolution applies to technological memes as well and my very lack of interest for techniques makes me go with the flow, meaning the most promising technology to achieve my photographical goals, in this case the technique is spherical stitching.

OK to close this sub-thread Anders, exchanges with you end up with agressions that I don't find valuable indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

The 45SU that I have been using is a non folding design, the first one of this kind released on the market. It was released years before ShenHaos and a comparison will reveal without any possible doubt that ShenHao is a mere copy. The ShenHao you describe above appears to be lacking the back assymetrical tilt and is therefore the copy of the Ebony 45S, and not the 45SU that I own. It is indeed probably more suitable for stitching with a back but you will be missing the biggest differentiator of these cameras when using sheets of film, which is the assymetrical back tilt. Since I do still shoot film, this is critical to me.

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html

Could cheaper ShenHao prices result from the lack of spending on R&D? I do believe that Ebony was considering starting a legal action against ShenHao, but I am not sure how far they have been. In the meantime, my money goes to the innovators, but I guess we all have different views regarding intellectual property theft, don't we.



Cheap shot under the belt, you original post was discussing a technical topic as well, and I don't see how the discussion of technique of equipment relates to the supposed lack of focus on image or subject that you mention above.

My view has always been to consider all available options and to select the one that delivers the best performance to achieve my goal, which is a very high image quality capture of a scene that moves me. In this regard, I am the most technology agnostic guy around, next to Thom Hogan I guess.

In the process I have developped the ability to work without a ground glass/viewfinder and all I am saying is that it can be done. I believe that evolution applies to technological memes as well and my very lack of interest for techniques makes me go with the flow, meaning the most promising technology to achieve my photographical goals, in this case the technique is spherical stitching.

OK to close this sub-thread Anders, exchanges with you end up with agressions that I don't find valuable indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Above seem much outside OP. Again in no offense but I note that this often occurs with your posts. As agreed, lets allow posters to bring back to OP. Your view is respected, but as far as Shen-Hao vs. Ebony one could equal argue a difference between Bronica vs. Hassy, Canon and Nikon, Chevy and Ford etc. Lets not go there. I should say Shen-Hao service is execptional in Shanghai, Ebony is non-existent. The fact that their prices are reasonable is icing on cake.

Anders

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

Above seem much outside OP. Again in no offense but I note that this often occurs with your posts.

Anders,

Have  a great day.

Cheers,
Bernard

[marcmccalmont]

Like Bernard I have come full circle and now prefer my Mamiya/P30 on a ball head and stitching with PTGui, more often than not the results are better.
With my 5DII and liveview I pull a dark cloth over my head and have my cake and eat it too!
I for one appreciate Bernard's posts and have come to respect his insights.
Marc

[tho_mas]

This an interessting question in general.
Not always but often I spend a long time in looking at the scene or the subject I am going to shoot... mostly it takes much more time than the actual shooting. So the image grows in my head before I even setup a camera...
From this point I could stitch with pano head or flat with the view camera (I have both)... because to some extend I already know what I want to produce.
Virtually always I use the flat stitching with the view camera.
I feel the difference is that pano head stitching is more attended to capturing something ("take" a picture) whilst the composition on the groundglass is more attended to imaging ("give" or "create" a picture).
And in fact I have yet to see a pano head stitched picture that is more attended to "imaging"... I only know those I'd call "captures" (but that doesn't mean a lot as I possibly only know the "wrong" examples).
Hope it's fairly reasonable explained :-)