Stepping into hybrid tech camera photography: Questions!

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Hello everyone,

after long consideration I finally decided to step into tech camera workings.
Most likely its going to be an Arca F metric Orbix 6x9.

I want to use film for now, but maybe later additionally use an MFDB.

My questions:
- Is the Arca F stable enough for use with an MFDB ? What would be alternatives which offer full geared movements ?
- Are there lenses I could use with the 6x9 cm format (120 film) and still have lots of place for camera movements (+ 20-50% of format) and still use these lenses with a MFDB later?

What are your recommendations?

Thanks for answering.
Cheers
~Chris

[Peter Devos]

Hi, I had the Arca F-metric Orbix 6/9 for digital but switched to the Linhof 679cc, wich is to me one of the finest camera's to put a DB on. I now use the Hartbleibam HB1 and therefor have my 697cc up for sale. If i would not have the Hartbleicam, i certainly would get me a 679cc again. Stability and workflow is way better on the Linhof but one has to get used to the Linhof 679cc camera. I never liked the Arca metric. The Arca Rm3d on the other hand is one of the finest Wide angle cameras i ever had.... but i now use the HB1 for that, much easier to use and better control over the image.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

How would you judge the backbackability of the Linhof?
I need to be able to put the whole thing in my foto backback.

[Doug Peterson]

Tell us more about what you'll be photographing. Is this tabletop? Product? Macro? Landscape? Architecture?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Mainly Landscape and architecture.
All non commercial.

[Mr. Rib]

'Pancake' cameras were made to meet your needs. You should consider an Arca RM3D, an Alpa (a model suitable for your stitching needs, the higher they are, the bigger camera you'll have to use ) or Sinar Artec.
If you go with a 'regular' large format tech camera you'll find it hard to focus a wide angle lens (which might turn handy if you are thinking about architecture) or should I say you'll find it impossible..
Pancakes will be easier to focus, probably faster to mount and lighter.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I was thinking about a pancake, but since I want all the movements, partly extreme tilts I think a "real" classic type view camera is better for me. E.g. the Rl3d has 5° which is too little. I have a loaned Sinar F2 in the moment and not seldom I go up to 20° (with the 4x5 format) and 30 mm shift or more.

[Alan W George]

It's my opinion that using a DB on a tech camera designed for film is a mistake.

Hello everyone,

after long consideration I finally decided to step into tech camera workings.
Most likely its going to be an Arca F metric Orbix 6x9.

I want to use film for now, but maybe later additionally use an MFDB.

My questions:
- Is the Arca F stable enough for use with an MFDB ? What would be alternatives which offer full geared movements ?
- Are there lenses I could use with the 6x9 cm format (120 film) and still have lots of place for camera movements (+ 20-50% of format) and still use these lenses with a MFDB later?

What are your recommendations?

Thanks for answering.
Cheers
~Chris

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I simply want to try to buy stuff I ca re-use once I make the  addition of (not "move to") digital.
Maybe thats an illusion.
The only systems which clearly are suitable for both and which I know of seem to be the Arca R series and the Linhof Techno.
Christoph Greiner, who is a LF dealer with high reputation here in Germany recommended the Arca F for my purpose.
Lens wise I wonder if lenses like the Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital Lenses would be a good idea for hybrid work.
I don't want to cripple myself - if I see in the end there is no way to solve this I'd rather start with a fully analog system.
I just hope for some input on what would be a goo strategy to use the best from both worlds without completely ruining myself.

[yaya]

I simply want to try to buy stuff I ca re-use once I make the  addition of (not "move to") digital.
Maybe thats an illusion.
The only systems which clearly are suitable for both and which I know of seem to be the Arca R series and the Linhof Techno.
Christoph Greiner, who is a LF dealer with high reputation here in Germany recommended the Arca F for my purpose.
Lens wise I wonder if lenses like the Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital Lenses would be a good idea for hybrid work.
I don't want to cripple myself - if I see in the end there is no way to solve this I'd rather start with a fully analog system.
I just hope for some input on what would be a goo strategy to use the best from both worlds without completely ruining myself.

If you shoot 5X4 film the first thing you need to make sure is that the lenses give enough coverage for the format. Most "digital" lenses that are (or were) designed for sensor sizes ranging from 24X36mm to 41X53mm just don't have that coverage...(image circle of 121mm if my math is OK)

If you get the "big" lenses they will mostly work with a DB but not the other way around

There are other aspects such as different coating etc. but that's less critical at this stage I think

Probably worth visiting a dealer that can show you a view camera with a DB and you'll see how little movement you actually need for achieving the same results as with a 5X4...

good luck!

yair

[Alan W George]

It's my opinion that using a DB on a tech camera designed for film is a mistake.

It's my opinion that using a DB with tech camera lenses designed for film is an even bigger mistake:)

Analog and digital M/LF are two distinct beasts.  Mixing them will most likely produce unsavory results.  Again, IMO.

[rljones]

Christoph,

To summarize: 

1. Movements on film-designed LF cameras are too gross for DBs. DBs need finer focusing and movements.
2. The movements needed for DB are smaller than those needed for LF film (again, finer controls are required).
3. Lenses designed for LF film are not as sharp on digital, while the sharper digital lenses won't cover the larger film size. This is why there are comments about 'not mixing the two formats'.

If you truly wish to end up digital, plan it from the start, otherwise your camera and lenses won't work as expected when you transition from film to digital. If you want digital, the Arca RM3D and one of the Alpa models are very good and fairly small. (The Linhof 679cc is quite heavy and large; I think Michael used and reviewed it a few years ago, and then transitioned to smaller cameras for his DBs.)

Out of the box, the Arca RM3D is the easiest for tilts, however, the Alpa can, with planning (short barrel lenses, etc), be used for tilts. There are other options via software for tilts (focusing through the image and later assemblage in computer; http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html) with static landscape and architecture. While this won't alter the foreground/background image size relationship as in tradition 4x5 tilts using the rear standard, it does give essentially the same focusing benefits in cameras without a tilt mechanism.

[cng]

I was thinking about a pancake, but since I want all the movements, partly extreme tilts I think a "real" classic type view camera is better for me. E.g. the Rl3d has 5° which is too little. I have a loaned Sinar F2 in the moment and not seldom I go up to 20° (with the 4x5 format) and 30 mm shift or more.

You will most likely not need such large movements and tilts (of course, with the proviso that it depends on what you're shooting).  Bear in mind that digital sensors are much smaller than 4x5 and require less movements/tilts to obtain the results that you are used to.  With tilts, IIRC many on this forum get away with 0.5-2º of forward tilt with wide lenses.

There is a good reason why Arca, Alpa, Cambo, Sinar et al offer such "minor" tilt possibilities – it is just not necessary to have more, given the smaller size of the digital sensors versus traditional LF film formats.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The lack of precision movements is one of the things which greatly annoy me with that loaned Sinar F2.
Maybe I should re-think my tilt requirements and use other solutions, like software for the xtreme cases.
Probably the Rm3D would be the camera of choice then, since with film I'll stick with 6x9cm,
which already requires less movements than 4x5'.
4x5 inch would also not allow me to use my Nikon 9000 scanner and I'd have to use an Epson V750 or something (X1/5 is out of question/budget), which compared to the Nikon would be a loss, so I'd lose a part of the gained image quality from the bigger format.
So - in the end I'll probably end up with an Rm3D (I never heared of an unhappy Rm3D user) or an Alpa, which seems to allow an occasional shooting out of the hand, which is a big plus IMO.

Concerning this film/digital decision - I feel totally torn apart inside ... sometimes I wish digital never had appeared ... but its impossible to ignore ... maybe I'm just a dinosaurus ... no idea ...

[uaiomex]

Because we are the tweener generation. The first one in history.
Eduardo

Concerning this film/digital decision - I feel totally torn apart inside ... sometimes I wish digital never had appeared ... but its impossible to ignore ... maybe I'm just a dinosaurus ... no idea ...

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Because we are the tweener generation. The first one in history.
Eduardo

Not only now, but maybe this time it is much harder than in former times.

When I was learning photography in 1983 I had this awesome Nikon FE. Aperture priority measuring only. Autofocus was just about to come, and I remember how we suspiciously looked at cameras with program modes and how we looked with mixed feelings towards autofocus. It just didn't feel right to let the machine do the focusing - an integral part of the image making! I can imagine, photographers (at least some of them) who came from the large format area and who were used to estimate lighting ("sunny 16 ..") had the same feeling when integrated light meters became standard. Of course it is not the changing technique, but the impact it has on the mental process of image making (and reception too). The transition from having something unique and physical after the shooting (a negative or slide) to having something virtual and copyable without loss (a file) is a harsh one. When reading large format forums often I hear people writing about the wish to slow down.
But why not slow down with a digital camera???
Each technique has its own temptations which changes something, some good, some not so good. In the end its a matter of the mind. I am happy I learned it the film way and I have years of darkroom experience. But the transition feels like losing a beloved person. This person is probably the part of the photographic self which has grown up with film. Maybe theres a way to save this person into the age of digital photography. Who knows?
The photographer who lent me his Sinar F2, which I have in the moment told me, his collegues who shoot digital forget their images. He does not. he scans himself with an Imacon X5. He's a die-hard analog guy.

Well - that was a bit of topic - but thats the inner workings behind that technical question this thread is about.

[Clyde RF]

Christoph- There is one particular Arca view camera which is solid, portable and precise enough to be used with DB for landscape or architecture by a number of very professional photographers that post on this site. The M Line Two (being Arca modular) works as four by five, MF film or DB. You still have the lens cross over problem, but might be able to use some of the larger image circle rodenstock digital lenses for MF film and digital. There are compromises involved, but I think it would still be possible to combine the two approaches without having to start from scratch at the change over. Check out Christopher Barrett's excellent review of the M Line Two (also the RM3D) on his blog.

Regards, Clyde 

[Anders_HK]

Hi Christoph,

I can well relay to what you are saying. I like simple and started off with film. Simple enables to focus on the image. Slow is deliberate and leads to better images. Too many auto functions are in my way. A complication in my last 3-4 years has been that I have grown in formats at same time as advancing in digital. From this I now enforce a change towards a more aim at image.

It does take learning digital. However, I wasted time on reading books about adjustment commands and “programming” of Photoshop, which was all about hardcore technical and seemed written not on basis of fundamentals of photography. We are somehow taught that digital is different. I disagree. My personal realization is that not much really has changed or need changed in the photographic process, but that it takes to understand the very basics. Ansel taught to expose for shadows and develop for the highlights. The basics were on other hand why we should do so for the B&W media.

With digital we should expose towards or for the highlights because the media differs, however in my view the basics remain from what Ansel taught. Modern software offers more than his expansion and contraction techniques, but those seem among the very basics of modern software. I use Capture One for processing because it enables my brain to function photographically. Recent I have actually been reading up on zone system again. I believe it has a basis in digital, e.g. in particular for precise optimizing of capture for high DR (placing of highlights) and in previsualizing such a capture.

MFDB enable to maintain things relative simple and with significant higher image quality than DSLR (albeit a medium format slr type camera is much a DSLR with less auto). I have used 4x5 to some degree and am blown away by the process of the capture. MFDB is merely my image capture module and my aim for landscapes is to get an Alpa STC which will enable rise and fall and shift. The shift will also enable two-image capture for panoramic stitches and my digital replacement of 612/617. It will be slow and traditional way of working and similar to the methodology of 4x5 and 617.

A complication is perhaps that it seems that most that shoot digital nowadays have not shot film. Perhaps the large learning curve to stepping to digital depends in part on this and that writings tend to not compare digital process to film techniques and is instead more computer related. That is funny, because I now see so many similarities to digital when reading the books by Ansel Adams, the Camera, Negative and Print. The best resource l found on digital in traditional menas is the Practical Zone System for Digital Photography by Chris Johnson. Key differences are what I mentioned above, and that digital requires more precise tolerances and sufficient high resolving lenses for the smaller and higher resolving image sensors compared to film. As example film flatness is said to require an error tolerance of 200 micron (0.2mm) while digital typically requires 20 micron (0.02mm). Thus using 4x5 cameras for digital will not enable simple means to adjust lens movements to those precise tolerances for absolute sharpness. The movements required are much smaller. Thus the choice should perhaps be a camera designed for digital, but that can also be used for film? Or to wait with getting such until you get a MFDB?

Regards
Anders

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I had another talk with Christoph Greiner yesterday and he proposed the idea of starting with an Arca F metric/orbix and be careful with the lens selection. But for using extreme wide angles with MFDB he also suggested if that would become the dominant shooting style (which would probably be relatively late in the course) to use a flat camera (Alpa, Rm3D..), but for the beginning the Arca F would be good enough. To me that sounded quite reasonable and I think I'll just do that.

So it might come down to lenses like the 40 mm Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital in conjunction with the Arca F I'd start with. I'll trust him in the lens selection - I have the impression he knows very exactly the strengths and weaknesses of each lens.
Starting with the Arca F before going in the direction of a flat camera also has an educational effect for me. The work with the loaned Sinar F2 I have in the moment, though it is not a camera I'd like to have, is a final confirmation for me, that this type of camera is good for me.

Thanks to everyone in the thread. No its time to start some saving.

[Audii-Dudii]

Since you're going to be using roll film in the meantime, might I also recommend that you check out the Toyo roll film backs?  Of all the ones I used over the years, I found these did the best job of keeping the film flat by far and although fairly expensive when new, used ones can be bought inexpensively these days.