Digital large format

[mvacchiano]

Primary, I apologize for my bad English. Then, I need help for a question about architectural photography with digital sensors.
I have not yet found a digital alternative to architectural photography in large format.
I know the cameras such as Sinar P3 or Silvestri S5 Micron, and Sinar Artec or Arca-Swiss R-series too, but the real problem is represented by lenses.
Lenses designed for large format photography cannot be used on a digital sensor, not only because they are too "long", but also because their resolving power is not enough for the digital sensor .
Digital Schneider and Rodenstock have focal lengths good for architecture, but also have a poor image circle, that often barely covers the medium format sensor.
So you cannot use camera movements: tilt, shift, swing, rise or fall.
The sensor I use ( Phase One P45 +) has a diagonal of 61.36 mm.
Here are the lenses that I can use:
Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital 4.5/35mm - Image Circle: 105mm
Rodenstock HR Digaron W 4/40mm - Image Circle: 90mm
Schneider Apo Digitar XL 5.6/35mm - Image Circle: 90mm
Rodenstock HR Digaron 4/35mm - Image Circle: 70mm
Rodenstock HR Digaron 5.6/23mm - Image Circle: 70mm
All others have an image circle smaller than the diagonal of the sensor.
So I wonder: why using a Sinar P3 when I cannot have a lens that respond to the capability of the camera?
Where am I wrong?
Thank you very much.
I wish a fantastic 2014!
Michele Vacchiano
http:///www.michelevacchiano.com

[Chris Barrett]

Michele,

I've been shooting architecture for 20 years and transitioned from 4x5 to Medium Format Digital about 7 years ago.  While I do feel that you have a little less image circle to work with when composing for digital capture, it really hasn't been a hindrance to my work.  I shoot with the IQ260 which is full frame 645 and the Schneider 35mm still gives me enough circle to compose with.  My old 4x5 system had a slight advantage as far as a workable image circle but digital capture has, overall, improved my images so substantially that I'm happy to make the trade-off.

Alternately, on the wide end of the spectrum, the Canon Tilt-Shift lenses will provide more movements (proportionally) than the wide lenses for Medium Format.

Cheers,
CB

[mvacchiano]

Hi Chris,
Thank you very much for your helpfulness and kindness.
Best wishes!
Michele Vacchiano

[JerryReed]

Chris,

In your experience, how equivalent would you consider in terms of image quality and ease of use these two alternatives;

1) Alpa FPS with Canon T/S lenses

2) ARCA RM3d and your choice of MF digital lenses (35 mm)

As a separate question, is there any reason to believe that actual exposure with COPAL shuttered lenses is different than indicated, such that a more accurate shutter mechanism might be a reason to switch from ARCA RM3d to FPS?

Jerry

[Chris Barrett]

Ha!  Jerry, here's my precise exposure system:  Set shutter to "B", Press Cable Release, Count "one thousand one, one thousand two, ish..."  Let go of cable release.  I'm not that worried about the precision because I'm keeping an eye on the histogram.  Now, what I wouldn't mind sometimes (mostly for exteriors) is the ability to have half or third stop increments like on DSLR or FPS.

My favorite combination for interiors is typically a full frame 645 sensor (IQ 260) and the Schneider 43mm.  The Canon glass would be too wide for my taste on a MF sensor.

I've been playing a lot with my little A7r and am damn impressed.  Drag is Canon doesn't make enough good Tilt/Shifts.  The 45 and 90 are ancient.  I might have to pick up the Contax 35mm T/S if I keep shooting the little camera.

[JerryReed]

Chris,

Thank you for your response and especially for the honesty about how best to evaluate exposure; using the histogram.

I am using the Rollieflex HY6 version 2 with the LEAF 60, and I am using it for fine art photography.  From time to time, think about making even larger prints and for that purpose was thinking about, increasing the file size by shifting the back, and thus a passing interest in having a technical camera.

Given the poor shape of the market for fine art photography, I think  that I should continue only to think about any change that would involve more expense.  Thanks again for your response.

Jerry

[BernardLanguillier]

I am using the Rollieflex HY6 version 2 with the LEAF 60, and I am using it for fine art photography.  From time to time, think about making even larger prints and for that purpose was thinking about, increasing the file size by shifting the back, and thus a passing interest in having a technical camera.

Given the poor shape of the market for fine art photography, I think  that I should continue only to think about any change that would involve more expense.  Thanks again for your response.

Sounds like a bit of spherical stitching may be all you need.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Scott Hargis]

My favorite combination for interiors is typically a full frame 645 sensor (IQ 260) and the Schneider 43mm.  The Canon glass would be too wide for my taste on a MF sensor.

Wait....isn't 645 the same as 2.25 x 3.25? So isn't a 43mm on MF the equivalent of about 17mm or 18mm on a dSLR? Where am I going wrong, here?

[Doug Peterson]

Wait....isn't 645 the same as 2.25 x 3.25? So isn't a 43mm on MF the equivalent of about 17mm or 18mm on a dSLR? Where am I going wrong, here?

https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-visualizers

[alatreille]

My understanding is a 645 (think pentax/mamiya/blad) lens  (eg 43 mm) would have an angle of view equivalent to approx a 28/29mm lens in 35mm camera terms. 1.5 factor

If you were then to put this lens on a 35mm camera via an adapter it would have the angle of view of a 43mm lens.

4x5 cameras and large format film lenses are a different story.

Happy to be corrected on any of this.

[ondebanks]

Wait....isn't 645 the same as 2.25 x 3.25? So isn't a 43mm on MF the equivalent of about 17mm or 18mm on a dSLR? Where am I going wrong, here?

On an APS-C DSLR, that's about right - 17mm or 18mm. But not on a full-frame DSLR, where the equivalent of 43mm on 645 is about 27-28 mm, and a real 17 or 18mm lens is a lot wider.

When I started in medium format long ago - with a Mamiya 645 film camera - the 45/2.8 lens was my "28mm classic wideangle", in 35mm format terms.

I think where you're "going wrong" could be because when Chris says "The Canon glass would be too wide for my taste on a MF sensor", you are possibly mentally scaling the Canon lens focal lengths by the sensor size difference between a Canon DSLR and MFD. Don't do that - they are still the same lenses with the same short focal lengths; so put them on a bigger sensor and their angle goes ultra-wide, if their image circle is big enough - too wide for Chris' taste.

If it all gets a bit head-wrecking, just use Doug's handy visualizer/converter.

Ray

[Scott Hargis]

OK, thanks. I guess I was looking at it in reverse....my head always starts hurting right about the time I try to transpose focal lengths from one format to another...

[Doug Peterson]

OK, thanks. I guess I was looking at it in reverse....my head always starts hurting right about the time I try to transpose focal lengths from one format to another...

Did you miss my link to our Focal Length Visualizer? It takes away the headache.