Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sigma Quattro Zero viable alternative to 617 cameras with ca. 105mm lens?  (Read 1524 times)

janus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44

I know, the heading will sound a little controversial, but here goes:

A 617 (6x17) panoramic ratio/format camera is really a cut-off, cut-down 5x7 inch camera, that is, the length acts as a 3x, while the height acts as a 1x, thus achieving the 1:3 panoramic ratio.

If the same 1x3 ratio is applied to the width of let's say a 35mm camera (and there were such "toy" panoramic cameras, that exposed only a 12x36mm portion of 35mm film), in order to calculate lens equivalents, the formula is roughly:

The 617 lens focal length is equivalent to x 0.2; thus for example, a Linhof 617 with a 90mm lens would give you roughly the same view as a 18mm (90 x 0.2 = 18) on cropped 12x36mm film.

Or, to calculate from 12x36mm film to 2x7 inch or 6x17cm film, you multiply by a factor of 5. Thus a 24mm lens, or its equivalent in digital format, will yield a ca. 120mm lens view on a 617 camera.

Thus: the 21mm equivalent lens on the new DP0-Quattro will yield a field of view similar to the 105mm lens which is found on both the newer and older Fuji 617 cameras.

Here's a chart:

5x7 film      35mm equivalent
72mm         ca. 14/15mm
90mm         ca. 18/20mm
105mm      ca. 21mm
120mm      ca. 24mm
135mm      ca. 28mm
150mm      ca. 30mm
180mm      ca. 35mm
300mm      ca. 60mm
etc.

Can the Sigma Quattro Zero compete resolution wise with such a large piece of 6x17cm film??

Not when it comes to extremely large prints, no. But when it comes to prints like around 12 x 36-inches wide, yes, it will be very comparable.

Thus, I am seeing in the Quattro Zero a viable alternative to a 617 camera with a pretty wide lens. At least, I will be on the lookout for its release.

The only digital 617 camera currently on the market is very expensive, difficult to use, heavy, needs to be hooked up to a a laptop/tablet, and is simply not handy, even the results are out of this world.

By comparison, the Quattro Zero will be very easy and quick. Its result can also be out of this world, just only you cannot print too large.

For larger prints, use a different camera with a longer lens, shoot sequences and stitch.






Logged

StoryinPictures

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19


This is not an entirely crazy idea.  There are, at this point, some mirrorless MF cameras that might work.

But the Sigma options (the dp0 you suggest and, even better, the Quatro SD H) could work in this role.

The Sigma processing software is freely available on Sigma's website and you can find RAW files on the DPReview site and others.

What I have found is that the files have an interesting quality which suffers image upsizing better than other file types.

Take an SD H file, save it to double size (one of the Sigma Photo Pro options) when saving the file as a TIFF, bring it into PS and crop it to the 3:1 ratio and zoom in to 100%. With a properly exposed file at low ISO, the file will look exceptionally good.

The height of this file will be almost 4000 pixels.  At 180 pixels per inch, I think this will produce a pretty good image on an inkjet at 20" (I have not yet printed a file, so this is an educated guess ;) ).  If I'm right about the quality, that is a 20x60" image.

But, mostly, I'm curious to know if you have tried it...
Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1019
    • Aspiration Images

>Can the Sigma Quattro Zero compete resolution wise with such a large piece of 6x17cm film??
I doubt it. This is only 5000 pixels wide. I was easily able to scan 617 film to 15000 pixels.

>Not when it comes to extremely large prints, no. But when it comes to prints like around 12 x 36-inches wide, yes, it will be very comparable.
I used to do 36" wide prints from a full frame 20MP 5000 pixel camera and the results were fuzzy on close inspection. This is an APS-C camera so I would expect worse.

>Thus, I am seeing in the Quattro Zero a viable alternative to a 617 camera with a pretty wide lens. At least, I will be on the lookout for its release.
Get some sample files and try them.

> The only digital 617 camera currently on the market is very expensive, difficult to use, heavy, needs to be hooked up to a a laptop/tablet, and is simply not handy, even the results are out of this world. Of course there are many film cameras like the Fuji GX617.

> By comparison, the Quattro Zero will be very easy and quick. Its result can also be out of this world, just only you cannot print too large. Probably. Give it a go. Sounds interesting.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Blog - http://AspirationImages.com/blog
Landscape, Portrait, Product Photography - Sydney, Australia

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 601
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer

Or, if you are somebody special, you might be able to get Leica to make one for you:

https://petapixel.com/2015/06/04/leica-crafted-a-one-of-a-kind-panoramic-s2-for-josef-koudelka/
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16826

Or, if you are somebody special, you might be able to get Leica to make one for you:

https://petapixel.com/2015/06/04/leica-crafted-a-one-of-a-kind-panoramic-s2-for-josef-koudelka/


I'm still half-asleep; does this mean that Leica has simply masked a viewing screen?

If so, whatever happened to editing/cropping a full-frame viewfinder by eye... grid screens were always good ideas. Loved the one on my Rollei TLR.

No, back to sleep.

;-)

Rob C

StoryinPictures

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19

Maybe Leica did a real job on the camera and produced it without the Bayer array of filters, much like the Monochrome. In that case, it would be a pretty significant custom camera and not just a masking off of the sensor.

Which leads to the reason the Foveon based Quattro is not merely about resolution. It doesn't need to go through the demosaicing process required for Bayer sensors, which means the effective resolving capability is significantly better than the pixel count would imply. It is comparable to the Leica Monochrome in this sense.

The Quattros can shoot in a 21:9 aspect ratio (not quite the 3:1 ratio).  Interestingly, my understanding is that if you shoot this way in camera, the RAW file is actually smaller (unusual but not unprecedented).

The Fuji GFX has various crop modes built in, including 65:24 (Not quite 3:1).  I find this "making off" the image area appealing since it helps you visualize the final result on screen. In the case of the GFX, you still get the full RAW file.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up