Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on July 28, 2016, 03:43:36 pm
-
I am still just learning about the various Medium Format lenses. I am sure that some on this forum know this stuff, but here is where I am at and I could use some input.
It seems that these MF lenses (often in Copal 0 format) are very sharp at small apertures (f/16 – f/22). And there are the older-style lenses and a newer (“Digital”) MF series of lenses that have smaller image circles and work well on the 35mm format that I am used to. So it seems, bokeh is at a priority with these lenses. And so are fast apertures.
If anyone knows, what are the MF lenses that are sharp wide-open as opposed to those that reach their sharpness at smaller apertures? There are so many different MF lenses, versions, and formats that it is hard to get a handle on which ones to consider.
My interest is Tilt/Shift on a bellows system using a DSLR, but I don’t want everything in focus (f/16 – f/22), but would like to see some sharp lenses that are faster. I apologize for my ignorance, but that’s where I am at now. Thanks for any pointers!
-
I am still just learning about the various Medium Format lenses. I am sure that some on this forum know this stuff, but here is where I am at and I could use some input.
It seems that these MF lenses (often in Copal 0 format) are very sharp at small apertures (f/16 – f/22). And there are the older-style lenses and a newer (“Digital”) MF series of lenses that have smaller image circles and work well on the 35mm format that I am used to. So it seems, bokeh is at a priority with these lenses. And so are fast apertures.
If anyone knows, what are the MF lenses that are sharp wide-open as opposed to those that reach their sharpness at smaller apertures? There are so many different MF lenses, versions, and formats that it is hard to get a handle on which ones to consider.
My interest is Tilt/Shift on a bellows system using a DSLR, but I don’t want everything in focus (f/16 – f/22), but would like to see some sharp lenses that are faster. I apologize for my ignorance, but that’s where I am at now. Thanks for any pointers!
I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for Michael... Copal 0 lenses (Rodenstock, Sneider etc) are usually lenses that are dedicated for use with a tech camera, the term "mf lenses" is not what people usually call them... The term is mostly used for lenses dedicated to various DSLRs that can take MF film or MFDB or have a large digital sensor.
Anyway, if (as I 've understand it) you are asking for Copal 0 lenses of the first kind as above, what you should primarily look for is the mounting distance of the lens and the rear element distance too...
If you are planning to use a DSLR on a view camera, you'll have to choose a lens that is specifed so that the flange distance is more than what your DSLR's sensor to the lens mounting flange on the lens frame when bellows is fully squeezed comes out to be as a distance value... Othewise you won't be able to focus the lens to infinity... After that, you'll have to count that the rear element of the lens chosen, won't hit the rear frame or the camera mount when focused to infinity...
Now as far as DOF is concerned, you shouldn't worry about the aperture values used that much on a camera with movements as you can increase it or diminish it to your likes, by using the tilt and/or swing movements... That's why they are there, shifts are for correcting geometry of objects and tilts/swings are for having (or not) the desired planes in focus.... You can direct your plane of focus as to position it to your likes.
-
I am using these lenses on a bellows technical camera, with a DSLR for a back. If the Copal-type lenses are not MF, what do we call this genre of lenses, so I can get educated?
Could you or others names some of this type of lens by brand and model, lenses that are sharp (and preferably fast) wide open that will work with a 36 Mpx (or perhaps a 50 Mpx) DSLR sensor. I would appreciate it. I am studying, but have a long way to go.
Thanks
-
I am using these lenses on a bellows technical camera, with a DSLR for a back. If the Copal-type lenses are not MF, what do we call this genre of lenses, so I can get educated?
Could you or others names some of this type of lens by brand and model, lenses that are sharp (and preferably fast) wide open that will work with a 36 Mpx (or perhaps a 50 Mpx) DSLR sensor. I would appreciate it. I am studying, but have a long way to go.
Thanks
LF
-
I am using these lenses on a bellows technical camera, with a DSLR for a back. If the Copal-type lenses are not MF, what do we call this genre of lenses, so I can get educated?
Could you or others names some of this type of lens by brand and model, lenses that are sharp (and preferably fast) wide open that will work with a 36 Mpx (or perhaps a 50 Mpx) DSLR sensor. I would appreciate it. I am studying, but have a long way to go.
Thanks
Usually people refer to them as "tech camera" lenses... It is impossible to make suggestions unless one knows exactly all the elements of the equipment you are using (even the thickness of the bellows when squeezed) and then he'll have to refer to the makers tables as to check compatibility... The Sony α7 is so successful because it lacks the mirrorbox of DSLRs and thus one gains more than an inch of flange distance... My recommendation would be for you to check among enlarger lenses (from Rodenstock or Schneider) for the use you describe.
-
Hi,
I can just talk about the Hasselblad V-series lenses...
The Sonnars 150/4 and 180/4 are very sharp even fully open.
The Planar 100/3.5 is also very good.
But all those lenses are designed for long distance. For macro, the only choices are the 120/4 macro lens and the corresponding bellows lenses.
All Hasselblad V lenses I used had some axial chroma (magenta/green fringing on OoF areas).
Best regards
Erik
I am using these lenses on a bellows technical camera, with a DSLR for a back. If the Copal-type lenses are not MF, what do we call this genre of lenses, so I can get educated?
Could you or others names some of this type of lens by brand and model, lenses that are sharp (and preferably fast) wide open that will work with a 36 Mpx (or perhaps a 50 Mpx) DSLR sensor. I would appreciate it. I am studying, but have a long way to go.
Thanks
-
For closer work there is little to choose from. Hasselblad 120 macro is not very good before you step down to f8 or more, Mamiya 120 macro is better and can be ok at f.4, but nothing you would be happy with.
Of all the medium format macros I have tested (all exept the Fuji), the Contax 645 apo macro planar
is the best. Also it has a very long focus throw.
But non of the MF lenses come close to the best LF lenses and the Ultra micro Nikkors and s-orthoplanars
that you know.
Another lens I pulled out of my safe last week with a new adapter for Sony is the Contax Y 200mm
Apo Sonnar f.2,8. Very sharp wide open and a perfekt out of focus rendering.
If you can use a bit more distance, the Phase one 110 LS of 150 LS are very nice wide open!
Supersharp lenses.
-
I agree that the MF lenses I have seen (and owned), while perhaps good for larger sensors, etc., do not boil down to being that interesting for me on the 36 Mpx sensor on my Nikon D810. And yes, the Large-Format lenses, which I have been trying out in Copal 0 format are for small aperture photography. Very few have apertures wider than f/5.6, which means that bokeh is hard to come by. However, they are very sharp and I like that.
Another, and what looks to be a better format is the Large-Format lenses in barrel mount, which at least are available down to f/4, which is just enough wider to isolate the foreground images from the background with some bokeh. Since I tend to stack focus, I use wider apertures to literally paint focus where I want it through successive images.
I am about to test a whole series of LF lenses in barrel format, all at f/4, so I will see what we can do with that.
-
For closer work there is little to choose from. Hasselblad 120 macro is not very good before you step down to f8 or more, Mamiya 120 macro is better and can be ok at f.4, but nothing you would be happy with.
Of all the medium format macros I have tested (all exept the Fuji), the Contax 645 apo macro planar
is the best. Also it has a very long focus throw.
But non of the MF lenses come close to the best LF lenses and the Ultra micro Nikkors and s-orthoplanars
that you know.
Another lens I pulled out of my safe last week with a new adapter for Sony is the Contax Y 200mm
Apo Sonnar f.2,8. Very sharp wide open and a perfekt out of focus rendering.
If you can use a bit more distance, the Phase one 110 LS of 150 LS are very nice wide open!
Supersharp lenses.
Henrik... he is using a D810... there's no way he'll be able to use C645 lenses or P1 lenses on a view camera with the D810 on the rear standard... Let alone the luck of aperture communication interface, he'll only have 17.5mm of available space as to mount the lenses mechanically, he'll have to fit a Nikon camera mount, a rear frame for the camera mount, a bellows and a front frame with C645 lens mount, all within 17.5mm of space.... P1 lenses are even tighter by about 1mm for mounting distance... I think Michael is rushing himself more than he should in deciding for solutions on what he is after...
I don't see a reason at all for him to use a tech camera just to achieve some bokeh... Tech cameras aren't made for that... Surely he's much better off if he uses some adapters for MF lenses direct on his D810...
-
I don't see a reason at all for him to use a tech camera just to achieve some bokeh... Tech cameras aren't made for that... Surely he's much better off if he uses some adapters for MF lenses direct on his D810...
Reasons? Try Tilt, Shift, Rise, Fall. Those, to me, are good reasons.
-
Reasons? Try Tilt, Shift, Rise, Fall. Those, to me, are good reasons.
Michael...., you said earlier that you've used some "LF" lenses on a tech camera with your D810... Can you please state the view camera you are using and which are the lenses that you have owned and used up until now? As I said before, there is no way one can advise you on the matter unless he knows what has disappoint you up to now and what is the reason behind it...
What really surprises me is that you are asking for even thinner DOF, while with a view camera you can achieve as thin a DOF as you want (and even direct it towards the way you want) as you 'll never be able to achieve if opening the aperture up... (or the opposite if you want). It seems to me (i might be wrong) that you are thinking of view cameras and lenses with "DSLR terms"... I'm neither sure you fully understand the importance of mechanical compatibility between the elements involved, with respect to what can or can't be done with a view camera...
EDIT: Also, can you state which "whole series of F4 lenses" you'll be testing which are all in "LF barrel format" as I can't understand the later term either...
-
I am using the following bellows or bellows-based systems: Nikon PB-4, PB-6, Rollei X-Act 2, Novoflex BALPRO Tilt/Shift, and Cambo Actus.
I am using the Nikon D810 as the “back” for these, which is part of this particular equation. As for Depth-of-Field, what I like (if I can get it) is a fast lens that is sharp wide-open, and therefore has a razor-thin Depth-of-Field. THEN, I take the very think DOF and stack it, kind of paint in focus, leaving the rest to go to bokeh. Most Copal-0 based lenses start at around f/5.6, while for what I need is at least f/4, which I can find in the LF lenses in barrel format. And I am in the process of testing a batch of barrel LF lenses.
I don’t know about “thinking of view cameras and lenses with ‘DSLR’ terms,” but I am using a DSLR.
Given this info, please explain an alternate way of solving this bokeh problem, using LF lenses. Thanks.
-
I am using the following bellows or bellows-based systems: Nikon PB-4, PB-6, Rollei X-Act 2, Novoflex BALPRO Tilt/Shift, and Cambo Actus.
I am using the Nikon D810 as the “back” for these, which is part of this particular equation. As for Depth-of-Field, what I like (if I can get it) is a fast lens that is sharp wide-open, and therefore has a razor-thin Depth-of-Field. THEN, I take the very think DOF and stack it, kind of paint in focus, leaving the rest to go to bokeh. Most Copal-0 based lenses start at around f/5.6, while for what I need is at least f/4, which I can find in the LF lenses in barrel format. And I am in the process of testing a batch of barrel LF lenses.
I don’t know about “thinking of view cameras and lenses with ‘DSLR’ terms,” but I am using a DSLR.
Given this info, please explain an alternate way of solving this bokeh problem, using LF lenses. Thanks.
Now hang on a minute... I've owned and used Rollei X-act2 and only sold it two weeks ago (in favour of my new camera)... It can only take the Balpro Nikon mount on it but there's no way that one can make it work (or the Balpro) with Copal 0 lenses and using the Nikon for image area at the same time.... Can you please state which lenses have you used with it as I may be missing something?
EDIT: Also, can you state which "whole series of F4 lenses" you'll be testing which are all in "LF barrel format" as I can't understand the later term either...
-
... Can you please state which lenses have you used with it as I may be missing something?
EDIT: Also, can you state which "whole series of F4 lenses" you'll be testing which are all in "LF barrel format" as I can't understand the later term either...
I mentioned which bellows-based units I have at hand. Currently, I am using the Cambo Actus with some of the following lenses with various plates.
Nikkon AM-ED 120mm
Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Apo Digitar N Lens w
El Nikkor APO 105mm f/5.6
and about to test a series of
Schneider Componon:
40mm f2.8 Apo Componon
45mm f4 Apo Componon
53mm f2.8 El-Nikkor
60mm f4 Apo Digitar/Apo Componon
80mm f4 Apo Digitar/Componon-S
80mm f4 M Componon
90mm f4.5 Apo Digitar/Apo Componon
90mm f4 Apo-Rodagon
-
I was just planning to buy a Nikon 120 AM ED or the 210. What fo you think about it?
Very different...using on what camera, etc.?
-
I use a digital back on a Sinar or a Cambo X2.
-
I use a digital back on a Sinar or a Cambo X2.
I don't know that 210, but that would be an enormous image circle for a DSLR. The 120 works great, is very sharp, etc.
-
I mentioned which bellows-based units I have at hand. Currently, I am using the Cambo Actus with some of the following lenses with various plates.
Nikkon AM-ED 120mm
Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Apo Digitar N Lens w
El Nikkor APO 105mm f/5.6
and about to test a series of
Schneider Componon:
40mm f2.8 Apo Componon
45mm f4 Apo Componon
53mm f2.8 El-Nikkor
60mm f4 Apo Digitar/Apo Componon
80mm f4 Apo Digitar/Componon-S
80mm f4 M Componon
90mm f4.5 Apo Digitar/Apo Componon
90mm f4 Apo-Rodagon
OK... Now we are getting somewhere...
To start with It's important for you to understand that The XAct-2 & the Balpro you can use with a Nikon (or Canon, or other DSLR) only for (very high magnification) macro work... You'll have to purchase yourself an MFDB as to use the XAct for normal shift/tilt work and then use the recessed bellows for the wider lenses... You can use the X-Act2 or the Balpro for shooting to infinity only if you use the Sony α7 mirrorless with them and then only if you modify the rear standard's mount as to save as much space as you can... (if you want more info on the matter, you may PM me) then, all 6X6 lenses (and larger than 6x6 medium format) on the market will work and most of the 6x4.5 lenses too (but just...)
The Apo digitars 60mm/4 and 80mm/4 M I have listed here... http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=110197.0 if you are interested... (I have revised my whole series of lenses as most of my work is with multishot MFDBs for Art reproduction of paintings and wall paintings and then interior and exterior architecture of monuments).
Now here is what my advise would be... First, I would advise you to change the Nikon for a Sony α7II (preferably the 24mp version IMO) as to use with the Actus... This would give you more than an inch of working distance for working space between the standards, but would increase the lens compatibility considerably too... Other than that, optical performance would increase too as the photons will have a considerably easier path as to "hit" the sensor...
As for lenses, I think you should avoid lenses aimed to work with tech cameras and an MFDB... You should consider those later on when you add an MFDB on your work... I will insist to suggest for you to use enlarging lenses and then retrofocus designs that are aimed to work with mirrorbox DSLRs (of both FF and MF DSLR cameras) but of wider image circle than the one needed on the sensor you use..... Those would be the MF lenses like the ones mentioned earlier by others (and some more) and then (if you need a wider angle) some wider image circle lenses aimed for FF DSLRs (like the 24mm Tilt shift lenses are...) ...just my two cents out of my "little" ( ;D ) experience on the subject...
Note that the Actus is not a camera aimed for demanding work as its mainly designed to be as portable and easy to carry as possible (limited movements - no shifts in either diection on the front standard, no tilts or swings on the rear standard) aimed for walk around work and the XAct 2 isn't the best camera around as to "keep planes constant" if movements are combined, or for yaw free, or for distortionless operation... IMO (according to my "little" ( ;D ) experience)
-
OK... Now we are getting somewhere...
I have gotten almost to the same point myself. First, I use the Cambo Actus to shoot outside, because its portable. As for the Rollei X-ACT 2, what would you suggest as the best technical-bellows camera?
-
I just sold my Sony A7R II, because I need more megapixels and I believe Sony and Nikon will produce one, perhaps in the next six months. I can wait for that. Selling the A7R II while it is still worth something.
I am selling by BALPRO, as it is poorly designed for the kind of work I do. I need a moving back standard, etc.
I have all three Nikon PC Tilt/Shift lenses, but they are not corrected (APO) enough for my work.
-
Those APO Componons on the Actus should be as good as anything else you'll find. Latest APO Rodagons may be a bit better, debatable whether it'll be any practical difference.
80mm & up is fine for infinity w/ the Nikon. 45-60mm may work for macro (depending on extension).
-
.....what would you suggest as the best technical-bellows camera?
For a camera to extract the most out of a scene & of a lens for accuracy, one must be able to position the entrance pupil of the lens at exactly the center of the circle of which the tilt arc is part of and the center of the image area too on the rear standard (so this is a combination of camera and user self involvement).... Other than that, rising and falling must be below the tilt mechanism and side shift bellow the swing mechanism... (otherwise combination of the above mentioned movements should be avoided on the same standard). I hope this makes it easy... ;)
I've many times seen users blaming the lens for operation that is the camera (or the user) to blame...
-
For a camera to extract the most of a scene & lens for accuracy, one must be able to position the entrance pupil of the lens at exactly the center of the circle of which the tilt arc is part of and the center of the image area too on the rear standard (so this is a combination of camera and user self involvement).... Other than that, rising and falling must be below the tilt mechanism and side shift bellow the swing mechanism... (otherwise combination of the above mentioned movements should be avoided on the same standard). I hope this makes it easy... ;)
I've many times seen users blaming the lens for operation that is the camera (or the user) to blame...
Note
I am waiting, if you will, for you to name the technical camera you suggest is better than the others. I would like to know please.
-
It's all there... ;)
-
It's all there... ;)
I guess I didn't get it, aside from the digital back. You mentioned that the Rollei was not good enough as a bellows system, so I wonder what is good enough. What did I miss?
-
I guess I didn't get it, aside from the digital back. You mentioned that the Rollei was not good enough as a bellows system, so I wonder what is good enough. What did I miss?
NO 21... all you'll ever need is there.
-
NO 23... all you'll ever need is there.
You ask me all kinds of questions, which I tried to answer, yet you make it difficult for me. Why is that? Are you saying to use the Nikon by itself or on a bellows unit, in which case which one. If the Nikon by itself, then I thoroughly know that system If you mean Nikon PC lenses, they are not well corrected enough IMO. Could you be clearer please.
-
You ask me all kinds of questions, which I tried to answer, yet you make it difficult for me. Why is that? Are you saying to use the Nikon by itself or on a bellows unit, in which case which one. If the Nikon by itself, then I thoroughly know that system If you mean Nikon PC lenses, they are not well corrected enough IMO. Could you be clearer please.
The posts in Lula are numbered... if you look back and read carefully NO 21, it has all the answers you insist on there after.
There is nothing more wrong with Nikkor PC lenses than with other makers of Shift Tilt lenses, in fact, I find them better than competition... The purpose of all those lenses though isn't to replace view cameras... A (good) view camera is irreplaceable and much more accurate than anything else... It just has to be able to do what is mentioned back in No21...
Last thing, "accuracy is more important in photography than sharpness" (IMO)... accuracy improves sharpness and maximizes presentation, sharpness can by no means improve accuracy... the best photographers are always the most accurate ones, they only need to be sharp enough.... ;)
-
The posts in Lula are numbered... if you look back and read carefully NO 21, it has all the answers you insist on there after.
There is nothing more wrong with Nikkor PC lenses than with other makers of Shift Tilt lenses, in fact, I find them better than competition... The purpose of all those lenses though isn't to replace view cameras... A (good) view camera is irreplaceable and much more accurate than anything else... It just has to be able to do what is mentioned back in No23...
Last thing, "accuracy is more important in photography than sharpness" (IMO)... accuracy improves sharpness and maximizes presentation, sharpness can by no means improve accuracy... the best photographers are always the most accurate ones, they only need to be sharp enough.... ;)
"Accuracy" in my work is a product of the process of photographing, which has been more important to me than simple photo results, although attention to process produces better results, etc. As for sharpness, I have my own ideas on that. Sharpness is a term that has no standard definition, other than it is a combination of resolution and acuity. In my work, I have found that another very important component is that of lens correction. Apochromatic lenses are key in my work for what I term "sharpness." Corrected lenses remove fringing, etc. and that greatly contributes to what we call sharpness. And, the size of the photosites of the sensor, the size of the "light wells," how much lucidity or whatever we want to call it, makes a difference.
Recently I have explored the Pixel-Shift technology in the new Pentax K1, and it is clear that purifying the colors of each pixel (RGBG images in the K1 for each pixel - four shots in all for each final image) is a great stride forward. However, the refinement of pixel shifting may take time. Too many artifacts are created by even the slightest movement.
This is why I am waiting for sensors above 50 Mpx to come along for the Nikon. The D810 has a hard-wired low ISO of 64 and this makes a big difference in the results I get.
As for the PC Nikkors, of which I have the three main ones: I find them not well-corrected enough for what I do.
I have used many very flat copy lenses, like the Coastal Optics 60mm APO lens, which is about as clinical as I know a lens.
I have done a lot of art copy work, like 33,000 rock-concert posters on a vacuum table that I built. That was a bit of work.
-
Recently I have explored the Pixel-Shift technology in the new Pentax K1, and it is clear that purifying the colors of each pixel (RGBG images in the K1 for each pixel - four shots in all for each final image) is a great stride forward. However, the refinement of pixel shifting may take time. Too many artifacts are created by even the slightest movement.
I don't know what K1 does and how it does it, I only know what Pentax advertises... But... I certainly know that a 16x true color file of 88mps out of my Sinarback 54H is absolutely completely free of even the slightest artifact and that it makes ANY single shot back pale in comparison... To say it otherwise... the multishot image looks extraterrestrial when compared to any image out of any single shot source... Last thing that i would care off is for the resolution of single shot sensors to rise further... as if we have nothing better to do with our lives and work! ;) Now show me ONE photographer that has improved his photography because he replaced his sensor with another same size one with more pixels... Don't bother, there isn't any... Then look at photographers improving their work y improving their skills...
-
I don't know what K1 does and how it does it, I only know what Pentax advertises... But... I certainly know that a 16x true color file of 88mps out of my Sinarback 54H is absolutely completely free of even the slightest artifact and that it makes ANY single shot back pale in comparison... To say it otherwise... the multishot image looks extraterrestrial when compared to any image out of any single shot source... Last thing that i would care off is for the resolution of single shot sensors to rise further... as if we have nothing better to do with our lives and work! ;) Now show me ONE photographer that has improved his photography because he replaced his sensor with another same size one with more pixels... Don't bother, there isn't any... Then look at photographers improving their work y improving their skills...
Well, for my work I want a larger sensor (50 Mpx or larger) with large photosites. That does make a difference.
-
For a camera to extract the most out of a scene & of a lens for accuracy, one must be able to position the entrance pupil of the lens at exactly the center of the circle of which the tilt arc is part of and the center of the image area too on the rear standard (so this is a combination of camera and user self involvement).... Other than that, rising and falling must be below the tilt mechanism and side shift bellow the swing mechanism... (otherwise combination of the above mentioned movements should be avoided on the same standard). I hope this makes it easy... ;)
I've many times seen users blaming the lens for operation that is the camera (or the user) to blame...
Probably the only portable tech camera that would fill all of those requirements would be an M-Line 2. It is slightly heavy (4.5 lbs) but supposedly very well made. All geared movements, etc. I've considered getting one but would want to use one first. I have an Actus DB+ which has all of the capabilities I need.
Victor
-
Probably the only portable tech camera that would fill all of those requirements would be an M-Line 2. It is slightly heavy (4.5 lbs) but supposedly very well made. All geared movements, etc. I've considered getting one but would want to use one first. I have an Actus DB+ which has all of the capabilities I need.
Victor
I wasn't considering portability when I made the statement Victor... I rather had in mind cameras that have all up-down, side shift, tilt and swing on their standards. You can't have combined movements unless movements are there as to combine... can you?
Personally, I don't mind a camera that lucks swings and tilts on the rear standard (and only has rise/fall and side shifts), but I do mind if any of the movements are absent from the front standard. OTOH, if a camera has all the movements on its standard but the rise/fall mechanism is above the tilt one and/or the side shift one above the swing mechanism, I wouldn't combine these groups of movements anyway on the same standard even if care has been taken for the entrance pupil of the lens to be positioned on the swing axis and then at a point on it which is also the center of the tilt arc...
-
Hello Michael,
Either the afore mentioned M-Line 2 or DSLR 2 both by Arca would be a great starting place as either unit will accommodate a DSLR body and Arca has plenty of bellow attachments. The DSLR 2 is basically a M-Line2 with the necessary attachment for Nikon or Canon DSLR. You have an extreme amount of control rear and front and all movements are geared. As Victor mentioned, the Arca unit is heavy at 4.5lbs, but the Cambo Actus, will not accommodate a DSLR as far as I know, only a mirrorless body.
The other issue is that due to the mirror box of a DSLR, 90mm is the first focal length that will focus to infinity, but as you are interested in Macro shooting, infinity may not be an issue so the Schneider 60XL might be a good lens or a Rodenstock 70mm.
The focus control of the DSLR2 is geared and even the finest adjustment as are possible.
I saw your notes on the K1, (I have moved to the K1 from Nikon due to pixel shift), and agree that movement (mainly wind for me) can cause issues, but I was curious if you are using only LR for the raw conversions as LR cannot really handle the issue of movement well at all. The Silkypix software that ships with the camera is very limited but does a good job, on the files much much better than LR can. But the full version of Silkypix is much better. Sadly only the windows version of Silkypix Developer Pro or Studio Pro can work with the Pixel shift raw files currently, the MAC version can't load them for some reason. But the differences are striking in regards to the aliasing issue and you will find a lot more useable images from Silkypix. Not sure if C1 will ever support Pixel shift and I also doubt LR will change/improve theirs as that tends to be the model.
Paul C
-
Hello Michael,
but the Cambo Actus, will not accommodate a DSLR as far as I know, only a mirrorless body.
The other issue is that due to the mirror box of a DSLR, 90mm is the first focal length that will focus to infinity, but as you are interested in Macro shooting, infinity may not be an issue so the Schneider 60XL might be a good lens or a Rodenstock 70mm.
The focus control of the DSLR2 is geared and even the finest adjustment as are possible.
I saw your notes on the K1, (I have moved to the K1 from Nikon due to pixel shift), and agree that movement (mainly wind for me) can cause issues, but I was curious if you are using only LR for the raw conversions as LR cannot really handle the issue of movement well at all. The Silkypix software that ships with the camera is very limited but does a good job, on the files much much better than LR can. But the full version of Silkypix is much better. Sadly only the windows version of Silkypix Developer Pro or Studio Pro can work with the Pixel shift raw files currently, the MAC version can't load them for some reason. But the differences are striking in regards to the aliasing issue and you will find a lot more useable images from Silkypix. Not sure if C1 will ever support Pixel shift and I also doubt LR will change/improve theirs as that tends to be the model.
Paul C
I have been using the Cambo Actus, and it does support the Nikon D810 DSLR, which is what I am using. Works great. Infinity focus I don't need, since all of my work in close-up.
As for the K1 (and I had the K3 before it), the Pixel-shift is a move in the right direction, but I feel that Pentax is not easy to use for non-coupled lenses, i.e. all the exotics I use in a Nikon mount. The SilkyPix they send is unusable IMO, meaning I won't bother with it. In the end, I decided that the K1 has made it difficult to do what I want to do, although I like what I saw. I only shoot still-life, so Lightroom/PS handles that fine.
What I really want is a 50 Mpx (or greater) sensor with large photosites. The Actus does most of what I need and it is very portable, since I use it outside.
The Arca-Swiss Universalis DSLR looks very nice, but twice the weight of the Actus, which does most of what do in terms of movements.
-
Arca Universallis is only 200gr (or 20%) heavier than the Actus. It also has considerably larger magnitude of movements and additional vertical shift mechanism in the front standard. Overall as portable but much more capable for every kind of "work" one may compare the two for...
Also, Arca has redesigned the front standard's vertical shift mechanism and positioned it (correctly) bellow the tilt one than where it originally is on the rest of the F-line... Thus improving the camera's accuracy with respect to the rest of the F-line series. I guess with the Universallis the user only has to worry (like with all other cameras) as to position the lens entrance pupil at exactly the tilt circle's center as to have an accurate camera to work with...
That said, if the lens entrance pupil is not positioned correctly (like most users don't care to do) the error created on a camera that tilts the frame by its center (like with L-type cameras or the Arcas) is considerably more than a camera with base tilts.
-
(like with L-type cameras or the Arcas) is considerably more than a camera with base tilts.
What, pray tell, is "the Arcas"? You mean all Arca-Swiss cameras?
-
I wasn't considering portability when I made the statement Victor... I rather had in mind cameras that have all up-down, side shift, tilt and swing on their standards. You can't have combined movements unless movements are there as to combine... can you?
Well...... I got the indication that the OP was interested in portability - if not then hire a couple of porters and have them carry around a 12lb. studio LF camera that has all of the movements desired if shooting outside the studio is a goal. Both Cambo and Arca make such cameras and they are all very heavy and meant for studio work.
I also think that if anyone has invested into an Actus and is happy then they should just stay with it as moving on to another manufacturer can be expensive. Trade in opportunities - if they even exist - are ridiculously low. That would mean selling current equipment on the open market to get whatever you can. All of that for a heavier camera that may or may not give you anything more than what the Actus had.
and..... Arcas as Theodoros calls them means Arca Swiss.
Victor
-
Well...... I got the indication that the OP was interested in portability - if not then hire a couple of porters and have them carry around a 12lb. studio LF camera that has all of the movements desired if shooting outside the studio is a goal. Both Cambo and Arca make such cameras and they are all very heavy and meant for studio work.
I also think that if anyone has invested into an Actus and is happy then they should just stay with it as moving on to another manufacturer can be expensive. Trade in opportunities - if they even exist - are ridiculously low. That would mean selling current equipment on the open market to get whatever you can. All of that for a heavier camera that may or may not give you anything more than what the Actus had.
and..... Arcas as Theodoros calls them means Arca Swiss.
Victor
Well... you had the wrong impression Victor, If you look back my reply at No21 is a quote after the O/P asked me as to what I think is a better alternative to the ...X-act2 he is using.
I don't disagree with you on your opinion on the Actus, nor I ever suggested that one that has it should change it... I only said my opinion that the Universallis is a more capable camera and not really bulkier or heavier, while the Actus is more (IMO) a universal mechanism for one to turn many wide image circle lenses to T/S lenses and then use them as such instead of buying a selection of such lenses in different focal lengths which of course would be a much more costly solution.
-
I don’t believe I am the Lone Ranger here, but just part of a trend of photographers who are discovering the beauty of technical cameras, now that they are being offered to fit our DSLRs.
What is perhaps only a trickle now will become a flood before we know it and breathe new life into the LF genre. That would be my opinion, at any rate.
And each of us newbies will have our special request. In my case, I am looking for lenses that are fast and sharp wide-open, so that I can stack photos and have some bokeh to play with. I have written many articles and several books about all of this.
So, this is a great learning experience. Thanks for all the info. Keep it coming!
-
I'd be interested in quantitative data on how some of these excellent LF/MF lenses perform on a 35mm sensor vs native lenses. The question in my mind is whether, at a given display size, their excellent performance on an LF/MF system is tied mainly to the lesser magnification required by the larger sensor or because the lenses themselves are actually better made/corrected. For instance, how about some MTF data in lp/mm (or even lp/ph if on the same FF sensor) comparing them to one or two equivalent FF lenses?
This (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-sharpness-spatial-resolution/) is where my curiosity stems from.
Jack
-
Hi Jack,
Zeiss publishes MTF data for all their lenses at the usual 10/20/40 lp/mm.
http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php
So you can compare say a Sonnar 150/4 for the Blad and the Milvus or the Otus 85/1.4.
I normally don't measure MTF on my lenses across the field, as I would need a very large test target. Also focusing off axis is not easy the way I work. So I often compare MTF a bit off axis and not in the edges corners.
Here is a direct comparison Planar 100/3.5 (one of the sharpest lenses on the 'Blad') compared to the Sony 90/2.8 G Macro at around 5m shooting distance.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/Planar100_vs_Macro90_US.png)
Here I normalised the scales so that the magnification difference has been taken into account (in a messy way)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/Planar100_vs_Macro90_US_normalised.png)
Both lenses have flat MTF over he field (or should have at least), so these curves would be similar across the field.
The figure below shows the MTF for sharpened images (using FocusMagic)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/P45+_vs_a7rII/Planar100_vs_Macro90_sharpened.png)
What you see is that the left part of the MTF is a dead ringer for both.
Hasselblad has MTF data for all their lenses. The H-series seem to be very good.
The older Zeiss lenses have sort of old type MTF-data. Sonnars are very good and so is the Planar 100/3.5. Most older Distagons not so good.
I would say that my Canon 16-35/4L outperforms my Distagons (40/4 CF, FLE), 60/3.5CF and 50/4 CF when shooting the Distagons on the P45+ back and the Canon on my Sony A7rII. This is clearly visible on screen or say on large prints, say 80x120 cm. That is clearly visible if looking close (say at 50 cm viewing distance), stepping back to say 100 cm they are very similar.
To that comes that the older lenses have quite a lot of axial chroma, this often better corrected on modern lenses.
Something I note that I can get inconsistent results with modern lenses, like the 90/2.8 sample I have may have a tilted focal plane, at least in some cases. The old Hasselblad lenses are very consistent.
I would also say that 135 mm lens design has been jacked up a bit recently… For instance, Zeiss has redesigned the old Planar 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4, both have MTF at Otus levels, but I don't think axial chroma is fully corrected.
Best regards
Erik
I'd be interested in quantitative data on how some of these excellent LF/MF lenses perform on a 35mm sensor vs native lenses. The question in my mind is whether, at a given display size, their excellent performance on an LF/MF system is tied mainly to the lesser magnification required by the larger sensor or because the lenses themselves are actually better made/corrected. For instance, how about some MTF data in lp/mm (or even lp/ph if on the same FF sensor) comparing them to one or two equivalent FF lenses?
This (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-sharpness-spatial-resolution/) is where my curiosity stems from.
Jack
-
I see, so a bit of both, as suspected. Thank you very much Erik, a very good answer.
Jack
-
Clyde Butcher who went digital from large format film uses a Cambo Artus bellows with a digital 36 megapixel Sony a 7R camera and RZ Mamiya lenses (medium format). I saw his five foot wide digital prints in Venice, Florida in his gallery and they are outstanding. Check also with Cambo Artus. They have a bellows that pulls this all together.
You might check with Clyde and ask him what lenses he uses.
-
Thanks for the suggestion Alan.
Jack
-
The situation of using MF lenses with FF sensors is pretty similar in analogy to one using FF lenses with APS-c sensor where it all depends on the quality of the lenses used and more so with their center frame performance. I use all my Contax 645 lenses on my Nikons of 16mp & 36mp sensors via the JAS adapter so that they work with full dedication... I have to say, the results are awesome... Perhaps not so much on resolution as such, but the rendering, the luck of distortion, the colour saturation, the microcontrast, the resistance to flare, are all in a different level... Therefore I ended up selling all my Nikon glass, but the 17-35mm f2.8 to have for WAs and then the 24mm f3.5 PCE and the 85mm f2.8 PC micro which I need for specific tasks, all other from 35mm up to 210mm are the seven Contax 645 lenses I share with my C645 MF system and the mutar 1.4X TC of the Contax.
-
Oh. . The Cambo bellows of course allows tilts and Pruett similar actions that large format can do. That's why Butcher apparantlt went to it. The dof on landscapes go up by a large margin over just smaller apertures.
-
Oh. . The Cambo bellows of course allows tilts and Pruett similar actions that large format can do. That's why Butcher apparantlt went to it. The dof on landscapes go up by a large margin over just smaller apertures.
Actually Alan, pros know very well what they are doing which is most of the times exactly the opposite to what many posters suggest... The RZ lenses (and the Fuji GX-680 lenses even more so) have much longer mounting distances than typical MF lenses and considerably larger image circles too... This enables one to create distortionless UW angles by swinging the camera by the lens entrance pupil as to stitch (instead of stitching within the projected image circle) and achieve extremely high resolution at the same time while avoiding artifacts and keeping DOF under control at the same time...
-
Theo: Thanks for mentioning stitching. I was told in Butcher's gallery that he does in fact stitch his shots. I don't know what quantity he uses.
-
Clyde Butcher who went digital from large format film uses a Cambo Artus bellows with a digital 36 megapixel Sony a 7R camera and RZ Mamiya lenses (medium format). I saw his five foot wide digital prints in Venice, Florida in his gallery and they are outstanding. Check also with Cambo Artus. They have a bellows that pulls this all together.
You might check with Clyde and ask him what lenses he uses.
A variety of lenses, including Pentax 67 (via Pentax 67 to Pentax 645 Adapter to Cambo Pentax 645 Lensboard) and RZ Lenses, particularly the 75mm TS Lens, which adds to the existing movements of the Actus by possessing an image circle large enough to also take advantage of the movements of the lens itself on top of the camera movements.
Below is an article that refers to this lens and explores other wide angle possibilities with the Cambo Actus:
https://captureintegration.com/seeing-sideways-with-the-cambo-actus/
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Clyde's lenses are listed here: http://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/
-
Hi Steve,
Good article, as usual…
I would add some points of mine.
1) The Canon 16-35/4L zoom has ample movements at 20-35 mm, I wuld say 12 mm is possible
2) I have both the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE and the Pentax 67 45/4 mm. The Pentax is the best lens at the edges
3) The Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF is great across the field
4) I bought a couple of Contax (RTS) Zeiss zooms for tilt (Scheimpflug) work. The 35-135/3.3-4.5 is great at the long end and quite OK at the short end. The 28-85/3.3-4 is aslo very good and somewhat more practical.
Just to say, I use my lenses on a HCam Master TSII, but what works on the HCam would also work on the Cambo. The Cambo offers wider movements and it has geared movements, so I am quet interested. On the other hand the HCam fits in a pocket.
Best regards
Erik
A variety of lenses, including Pentax 67 (via Pentax 67 to Pentax 645 Adapter to Cambo Pentax 645 Lensboard) and RZ Lenses, particularly the 75mm TS Lens, which adds to the existing movements of the Actus by possessing an image circle large enough to also take advantage of the movements of the lens itself on top of the camera movements.
Below is an article that refers to this lens and explores other wide angle possibilities with the Cambo Actus:
https://captureintegration.com/seeing-sideways-with-the-cambo-actus/
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Just to say, I use my lenses on a HCam Master TSII, but what works on the HCam would also work on the Cambo. The Cambo offers wider movements and it has geared movements, so I am quet interested. On the other hand the HCam fits in a pocket.
Best regards
Erik
I wonder... do you use a Canon to Sony adapter on the HCam and then add more adapters for MF lenses as to use them on the Eos mount?
-
Hi Steve,
Good article, as usual…
I would add some points of mine.
1) The Canon 16-35/4L zoom has ample movements at 20-35 mm, I wuld say 12 mm is possible
2) I have both the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE and the Pentax 67 45/4 mm. The Pentax is the best lens at the edges
3) The Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF is great across the field
4) I bought a couple of Contax (RTS) Zeiss zooms for tilt (Scheimpflug) work. The 35-135/3.3-4.5 is great at the long end and quite OK at the short end. The 28-85/3.3-4 is aslo very good and somewhat more practical.
Just to say, I use my lenses on a HCam Master TSII, but what works on the HCam would also work on the Cambo. The Cambo offers wider movements and it has geared movements, so I am quet interested. On the other hand the HCam fits in a pocket.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik.
The article is not intended necessarily as a lens by lens analysis, but more of an overview on the lens options for capturing wide angle views on the Cambo Actus. As such, there is something there for most everyone, but what I found is that many photographers without view camera experience were contacting us without an understanding of all the benefits the solution offered, but also not understanding the limits/possibilities for using wide angle lenses with the system.
By the way, we had some discussions with some outlets about publishing the article and were told by one that it was too "salesy". But that is really a mis-read. When I started writing the Cambo Actus articles (there are now 4 in this series), I wanted to present a dedicated voice, so wrote them in my head with the concept in mind of "Top Gear for Cameras". So, there is a certain level of cheeky enthusiasm, as in "this sexy little number performs both swing and tilt", for example. So as I was writing it, I imagined the voice of Jeremy Clarkson or Richard Hammond speaking the lines as I wrote them. I wanted to add a level of enthusiasm and entertainment instead of a stodgy, technical review (though it still is a technical review).
I would add the 120mm CF Lens to your list as well, that we've tested, though it's not a wide lens. We can test and provide lens data for any lens in our inventory (we have a lot), or, for those pre-evaluating the Actus who own an existing lens, they can send the lens to us to shoot on the Actus, and we'll send back raw files. Or, alternatively, they can eval rent the whole system.
-
Hi,
The HCam has a Sony mount as standard (*) and has a mechanical Canon EOS mount in front.
It offers +/- 15 mm of horisontal shift and 0-10 degrees of tilt. It can use Canon lenses directly, but the lenses need to be stopped down 'by other means'. It can take Contax Y/C mount lenses using an adapter or by adding a Leitax Contax to EF mount. The backside opening on the Contax lenses is small, so it leaves very little shift, because of mechanical vignetting.
According to my sources the Canon 11-24/4 works great. My own experience is limited to the 16-35/4, a couple of Hasselblad lenses.
For 'shift panos' the HCam has a nice advantage taht all movements are on the back. So lens doesn't move during til and shift. None of the movements is geared, though.
Best regards
Erik
(*) The rear munt is user changeable and there are several options, all mirror less.
I wonder... do you use a Canon to Sony adapter on the HCam and then add more adapters for MF lenses as to use them on the Eos mount?
-
Hi,
The HCam has a Sony mount as standard (*) and has a mechanical Canon EOS mount in front.
It offers +/- 15 mm of horisontal shift and 0-10 degrees of tilt. It can use Canon lenses directly, but the lenses need to be stopped down 'by other means'. It can take Contax Y/C mount lenses using an adapter or by adding a Leitax Contax to EF mount. The backside opening on the Contax lenses is small, so it leaves very little shift, because of mechanical vignetting.
According to my sources the Canon 11-24/4 works great. My own experience is limited to the 16-35/4, a couple of Hasselblad lenses.
For 'shift panos' the HCam has a nice advantage taht all movements are on the back. So lens doesn't move during til and shift. None of the movements is geared, though.
Best regards
Erik
(*) The rear munt is user changeable and there are several options, all mirror less.
I know how the HCam works... In reality it a camera T/S adapter for mirrorless bodies which is then mounted on a Novoflex tripod head which has some leveling mechanisms included... My question was if you use the MF lenses by combining in series a second adapter to the T/S one that already serves as lens and camera mount on the H-Cam...
-
Hi,
I didn't understand your question as the HCam has Canon EF mount as only option on the lens side.
I use a Novoflex adapter for the Hasselblad and a Kipon for the Pentax. Both are two part, a Canon flange and a lens adapter. The Canon mount flange is much better matted on the Novoflex, so I use it on both. Both are plain adapters.
It is possible to use a Mirex T&S adapter for Hasselblad in connection with the HCam, that gives bidirectional shifts, but I don't feel I need that. Still a beginner in the T&S area.
Best regards
Erik
I know how the HCam works... In reality it a camera T/S adapter for mirrorless bodies which is then mounted on a Novoflex tripod head which has some leveling mechanisms included... My question was if you use the MF lenses by combining in series a second adapter to the T/S one that already serves as lens and camera mount on the H-Cam...
-
Hi Steve,
I really liked your article, it covers a lot of ground. I would accentuate some points:
1) A major issue with MF lenses on 24x36 mm is the crop factor. If you take the Hasselblad V-system, the widest lens the Distagon 40/4 (in FLE and IF versions). On the P45+ they essentially act as a 24 mm lens. On 24x36 they are just a 40 mm lens. With a T&S adapter you can make a +/-12 mm shift, giving you a "24mm like coverage" at 80 MP, but it is not as convenient as shooting a regular 24 mm lens.
2) I considered recommending the Planat 120/4 CF, but I feel it is somewhat limited. Native focusing gives something like 1:5 scale, god for flowers but not for 'real macro'. It is optmized for close up work. I use it for that kind of work.
3) It may be that shifts are more interesting for wide angle work and tilts more interesting for telephoto. That said, today I needed ample shift at 50 mm, a perfect job for the Distagon 50 I used to have. The Distagon 40 would be to wide and the 60 to long. It didn't matter, though as I only travelled with 24x36 lenses today.
Getting back to your article, I didn't feel you were overselling stuff.
Recently, I use a HCam but the Cambo offers more flexible movements and those movements are gerared.
My take is really that anyone looking at movements needs to analyse their needs and make an educated choice on equipment that will fulfil those needs.
Just take macro. Modern macro lenses from Zeiss (Contax Apo Macro Planar 120/4), Mamiya, Hasselblad and Phase One have all floating elements (variable air space) to compensate field curvature at different distances. Air space varies with focusing. If focusing is done by extension the floating elements will be used incorrectly.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik.
The article is not intended necessarily as a lens by lens analysis, but more of an overview on the lens options for capturing wide angle views on the Cambo Actus. As such, there is something there for most everyone, but what I found is that many photographers without view camera experience were contacting us without an understanding of all the benefits the solution offered, but also not understanding the limits/possibilities for using wide angle lenses with the system.
By the way, we had some discussions with some outlets about publishing the article and were told by one that it was too "salesy". But that is really a mis-read. When I started writing the Cambo Actus articles (there are now 4 in this series), I wanted to present a dedicated voice, so wrote them in my head with the concept in mind of "Top Gear for Cameras". So, there is a certain level of cheeky enthusiasm, as in "this sexy little number performs both swing and tilt", for example. So as I was writing it, I imagined the voice of Jeremy Clarkson or Richard Hammond speaking the lines as I wrote them. I wanted to add a level of enthusiasm and entertainment instead of a stodgy, technical review (though it still is a technical review).
I would add the 120mm CF Lens to your list as well, that we've tested, though it's not a wide lens. We can test and provide lens data for any lens in our inventory (we have a lot), or, for those pre-evaluating the Actus who own an existing lens, they can send the lens to us to shoot on the Actus, and we'll send back raw files. Or, alternatively, they can eval rent the whole system.
-
Hi Steve,
I really liked your article, it covers a lot of ground. I would accentuate some points:
1) A major issue with MF lenses on 24x36 mm is the crop factor. If you take the Hasselblad V-system, the widest lens the Distagon 40/4 (in FLE and IF versions). On the P45+ they essentially act as a 24 mm lens. On 24x36 they are just a 40 mm lens. With a T&S adapter you can make a +/-12 mm shift, giving you a "24mm like coverage" at 80 MP, but it is not as convenient as shooting a regular 24 mm lens.
True, although with a regular 24mm you don't have the same palette of available movements (unless you're using something like the Canon 24mm TSE II with EF Aperture Controller).
2) I considered recommending the Planat 120/4 CF, but I feel it is somewhat limited. Native focusing gives something like 1:5 scale, god for flowers but not for 'real macro'. It is optmized for close up work. I use it for that kind of work.
If it fits the application, then optically I have found it to perform extremely well with the Sony A7R-II. Haven't tried it with extended bellows to get closer to 1:1.
Getting back to your article, I didn't feel you were overselling stuff.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to - I was just being enthusiastic. "What a great development for photographers"! Well isn't a product that can allow photographers to use their DSLR or mirrorless cameras on a tiny little view camera with all sorts of lenses - especially so many that never would have even thought of doing such a thing - not a great development for photographers? I think that it is a very strong plus if more photographers can use view cameras. It's a vote for YES! View Cameras! A Good Thing!
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
I think that it is a very strong plus if more photographers can use view cameras. It's a vote for YES! View Cameras! A Good Thing!
Steve Hendrix/CI
Amen