film glass vs new digital glass

[jstewart]

I'm trying to decide which way to go on purchasing some glass.  I have alot of 4x5 glass from schneider 65mm to 300mm Nikor and a few rodenstock APOs in between also.  My question is if when shooting digital (leaf 22 mp back) would it be a night and day difference between doing some wide stuff with a 47mm or 35mm Digitar or stiching some images from a Nikor 90mm SW?  Or even shooting with a Mamiya 645 50mm shift lens, and stiching some together.  Has anyone compared the older 47mm APO grandagon to the new 47mm Digitar?  How wide would it seem for a Mamiya 50mm shift lens with images stitched together in portrait and then in landscape?  


jeff

[Morgan_Moore]

I'm trying to decide which way to go on purchasing some glass.  I have alot of 4x5 glass from schneider 65mm to 300mm Nikor and a few rodenstock APOs in between also.  My question is if when shooting digital (leaf 22 mp back) would it be a night and day difference between doing some wide stuff with a 47mm or 35mm Digitar or stiching some images from a Nikor 90mm SW?  Or even shooting with a Mamiya 645 50mm shift lens, and stiching some together.  Has anyone compared the older 47mm APO grandagon to the new 47mm Digitar?  How wide would it seem for a Mamiya 50mm shift lens with images stitched together in portrait and then in landscape? 
jeff
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should probably re post in the MF section.

A while ago I got a sliding back and a 47mm lens with the intention of shooting two frames per image. (Eyelike 22mp back)

I tried both a 45 (film) and a 47 digitar

the 45 (film) was rubbish at the edges but ok for one pic

I bought the 47 rodenstock which is happy over two images

during the testing process I also played quickly with a 65 schnieder (film lens)which looked good

I also use a really old 110 shcneider which is 'fine' but falls over with big swings

I think there are two issues.

geometry and resolution

geometry..

for the wides like the non diditar 45 the geometry causes an extreme incidence to the chip which causes problems

resolution..

modern digital lenses have a higher LPI and better coatings than classic LF lenses (but typically a smaller image circle)

------------------------------
My conclusion for two image stitches..

up to 47 digital lenses are a must (but less than 47 you wont get the image circle)

from 65 and longer film lenses are adequate to good but not as good as digitars

your film lenses are very adequate for many applications

--------------------------------
THe differenc for longer lenses is something like difference between a canon 16-35 and a canon 16-35ii if you see what I mean

I think a lot depends on the amount of stitches you want to make, and how far you want to push your swings and tilts and also you own budget/sense of perfection

I use a sinar p2 and 47 with the widest you can use - for wider you need a 69 camera with smaller bellows

THe sad bit of the story for me is that every commercial job I have done the time pressures just mean I use my H1, 35HC and correct in PS or even my SLRn and a nikkor 14 and 28PC

SMM

[jstewart]

Thank you for the information I guess I will try and see if its worth it to mess around with it.
I purchased a new 35mm mamiya af lens, and most likely, I will try to use that and correct the image.  I have to travel and space is a premium as always.  I find it strange that sometimes it was just easier to shoot film.  The only problem I have is clients have been spoiled seeing images, even if only for fpo, that they demand seeing  it right away.  There is no way they want to wait a few days for film to be developed and scanned.  After over 25 years of this, maybe like my photographer friends, its time to hang it up commercially just do it for enjoyment, and go get a joe job to pay the bills.


jeff  

------------------------------
My conclusion for two image stitches..

up to 47 digital lenses are a must (but less than 47 you wont get the image circle)

from 65 and longer film lenses are adequate to good but not as good as digitars

your film lenses are very adequate for many applications

--------------------------------
THe differenc for longer lenses is something like difference between a canon 16-35 and a canon 16-35ii if you see what I mean

I think a lot depends on the amount of stitches you want to make, and how far you want to push your swings and tilts and also you own budget/sense of perfection

I use a sinar p2 and 47 with the widest you can use - for wider you need a 69 camera with smaller bellows

THe sad bit of the story for me is that every commercial job I have done the time pressures just mean I use my H1, 35HC and correct in PS or even my SLRn and a nikkor 14 and 28PC

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

[st326]

Thank you for the information I guess I will try and see if its worth it to mess around with it.
I purchased a new 35mm mamiya af lens, and most likely, I will try to use that and correct the image.  I have to travel and space is a premium as always.  I find it strange that sometimes it was just easier to shoot film.  The only problem I have is clients have been spoiled seeing images, even if only for fpo, that they demand seeing  it right away.  There is no way they want to wait a few days for film to be developed and scanned.  After over 25 years of this, maybe like my photographer friends, its time to hang it up commercially just do it for enjoyment, and go get a joe job to pay the bills.
jeff 

There also can be a lot of variation between supposedly-identical lenses due to manufacturing tolerance issues -- it's partly the luck of the draw. Last time visited the Better Light factory, Mike Collette was talking about this. He was saying that differences from lens to lens are very visible with their Super-10k scanning back, though as a super-6K user myself I've not really had much trouble to be honest. A 72mmx96mm image plane with 12 micron pixels actually suits the better LF glass pretty well. I was thinking about going the Rodenstock digital lens route (the Schneiders aren't really usable with the Better Light because their image circles are too small), but Mike didn't think there was that much to gain and quite a bit to lose in terms of image circle relative to the ordinary LF film versions of the same lenses. I've actually seen more differences on my medium format system -- I eBayed my original 75mm prime and replaced it with a newer sample, ending up with a rather nicer lens. The old one was pin sharp when stopped down, but the newer one was just more forgiving and can even be used wide open with care.

The other thing with LF glass is that you typically need to experiment a bit to find the best aperture settings, which can differ quite a bit from lens to lens. Getting it right can make quite a big difference to sharpness and contrast, not to mention also image circle. Early in my own learning curve with the scan back I tended to stop down too far (based on how I'd have shot film in the past), but more recently I've had much sharper results at wider f-stops. I'd suggest doing a (lot) more experimentation before giving up on the lenses you have.

ETA: This reply was aimed more at Morgan Moore than the OP.