cantare XY is smaller than a lot on the market today, one must ask the question...why, I mean, if you're looking for a larger capture medium...you can mount a 5Dmk1 to a low end sinar or cambo...
Fair question, and one I shall try to answer without pulling this thread way off topic:
[blockquote]1. A 50D body is still about $1000. My Cantare and its G3 cost less than $600. I already owned the Horseman, which was also a bargain at $600 with a 210mm Schneider lens and a dozen film holders. $75.00 let me mount a Nikon to it.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]2. If I wanted to go to a high pixel count DSLR, I have access to Nikon D1 and D2 bodies which I feel deliver a better image than the Canon products. But this is not the place to discuss that preference. Instead, let's move to issue 3...[/blockquote]
[blockquote]3. When you mount a DSLR to a Horseman LE (unless you buy a LD standard), the adapter moves the plane of the sensor far behind the design focal plane of the camera. This means you have to focus through-the-lens or on preview or tether the camera. How do you ensure critical focus? Certain lenses, because of the FP shift, simply will not work. For example, a 67mm Schneider on a recessed board will focus on the ground glass, but you can't bring the standards close enough together to focus on the sensor - even with a bag bellows. In contrast, the Cantare is designed to live on the same plane as the ground glass, and thus integrates better with the system. Please consider too the effect the DSLR mount has on camera movements - the mount is in effect an extension tube, and it causes vignettting and flares and further reduces the available movements. Movements are whole point of a technical camera. If you can't use them, you might as well grab the Kodak Brownie and click away.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]4. While the 5D has more pixels, it is actual slightly smaller than the Cantare sensor. I'm not looking for more pixels per square centimeter, which might be a favorable factor in enlargements. After all, the Schneider lenses have a finite limit on their resolution which more pixels cannot overcome. Instead, I want to use more of the available lens circle, and capture light on a sensor that is designed for purity. I am doing macro photography; my client's parts are less than .5 inches and the resulting photos are printed 4 x6 inches or de-rez'd for the internet. [/blockquote]
But thanks for the suggestion; it made me touch base with my assumptions to see if they were still valid.