Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: eyeshigher1 on May 15, 2009, 12:13:52 pm
-
I've purchased Nikon's 85mm PC-E lens, and now beginning to wonder if using Schneider Digitars via 5x4 or Cambo x2pro would give noticable difference in detail/resolution. Studio
Will be upgrading to Nikon FX shortly.
any advice?
-
I love it! I am using a 90mm digitar and a 135mm rodenstock digital lens on my 5d with a linhof 679 and the improvement over the 90mm tse is astonishing.
(http://randlkofer.com/downloads/perm%20web%20items/Linhof%205dmk2.jpg)
-
I love it! I am using a 90mm digitar and a 135mm rodenstock digital lens on my 5d with a linhof 679 and the improvement over the 90mm tse is astonishing.
(http://randlkofer.com/downloads/perm%20web%20items/Linhof%205dmk2.jpg)
Hi, are you using this lenses for extream close up photography? How close can you get with a non macro digitar?
Thanks.
-
Depending on the resolution of your camera as compared to sensor size, you may or may not need digitar lenses. There are also some very sharp traditional large format lenses that you can buy for bargains used. Such also allow for larger image circle. Compared to a view camera there are alternatives such as example Horseman VCC and similar.
Rgds
Anders
-
Depending on the resolution of your camera as compared to sensor size, you may or may not need digitar lenses. There are also some very sharp traditional large format lenses that you can buy for bargains used. Such also allow for larger image circle. Compared to a view camera there are alternatives such as example Horseman VCC and similar.
Rgds
Anders
What about canon eos 5D mark II?
-
What about canon eos 5D mark II?
As stated, depends on resolution and sensor size. 5D2 has been stated to be less sharp than 5D, both clear less sharp than a 22MP digital back (from what I been told even the ZD). Not sure why use DSLR when can use a MFDB. Because of the tiny sensor of also FF DSLR, tiny lens movements are needed. A large format camera is not built for such tiny movements.
A custom made digital adapter is ready in Shanghai for my Leaf Aptus 65, 28.6MP on 44x33mm sensor. I will use it for stitching panoramic (thus not same tiny lens movements). I do believe this will work fine on the sharp traditional large format lenses I have, also my Nikkor 75mm. A slight worry is ultra wide edges of my Schneider 58mm for up to 5" wide of stitches, but... hopeful will work! From what I was told by Rodenstock (or was it Scheider?) the MP over the sensor area of Aptus 65 is about borderline what sharp traditional lenses are capable to resolve, but... I will see after I pick up my adapter end of this month! This said, contrary to above poster I will use on Shen-Hao 4x5 in field and not M679 as above poster. The M679 can perhaps be adjusted more exact.
Traditional lenses are cheaper than digitar, my best advise is to try. My 135mm Rodenstock Sironar-N cost me 400 usd on Ebay, compared to digitar???
Anders
-
don't understand the statement about the 5D2 being less "sharp" than the 5D. My 5D2 has significantly more resolution than the 5D.
-
Depending on the resolution of your camera as compared to sensor size, you may or may not need digitar lenses. There are also some very sharp traditional large format lenses that you can buy for bargains used. Such also allow for larger image circle. Compared to a view camera there are alternatives such as example Horseman VCC and similar.
Rgds
Anders
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It seems to me that sensor size is largely irrelevant, it's pixel density that should be considered. I would think that the 5DII has a higher pixel density than any MF digital back, so if there's resolution to be gained from using from using digitars over traditional LF lenses with an MFDB, the same would also be true for a 5DII.
The more interesting question, I think, would be whether the digitars give you more resolution than 35mm lenses. That might not be so clear-cut. I would think there would be other benefits even if sharpness is similar though - namely having the full range of tilt/shift movements to control DOF and perspective, as well as being able to use rear-standard movements for easy flat stitching.
-
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It seems to me that sensor size is largely irrelevant, it's pixel density that should be considered. I would think that the 5DII has a higher pixel density than any MF digital back, so if there's resolution to be gained from using from using digitars over traditional LF lenses with an MFDB, the same would also be true for a 5DII.
The more interesting question, I think, would be whether the digitars give you more resolution than 35mm lenses. That might not be so clear-cut. I would think there would be other benefits even if sharpness is similar though - namely having the full range of tilt/shift movements to control DOF and perspective, as well as being able to use rear-standard movements for easy flat stitching.
Jeff, thanks & correct, pixel density is the word and what I actually meant. Here:
D3X = 6048x4032 pixels / 36x24 = 168 pixels/mm
P65+ = 8984x6732 pixels / 53.9x40.4mm = 166 pixels/mm
5DII = 5616x3744 pixels / 36x24mm = 156 pixels/mm
P45+ = 7216x5412 pixels / 36.8x49.1 = 147 pixels/mm
Aptus 65 = 6144x4622 / 44x33mm = 140 pixels/mm
5D = 4368x2912 pixels / 36x24 = 121 pixels/mm
156/140 is 11%. Much difference?
5DII/5D is 29%. Difference, yes.
I figured that Aptus 65 require perhaps 1.5x or slight more sharpness of lens than film. Thus it is likely that very SHARP traditional large format lenses are up for the task in my case, and that one might need to consider diffraction. However, for wides I am not sure yet how wide lens in combo with how wide stitch. I will soon see if I am right, but will take some time to test too.
And yes, 5DII is more MP, but that does not automatically mean sharper details.
Regards
Anders
-
no, more pixels do not necessarily translate to better resolution - i find that the 5D is sharper than the 50D, but that the 5D2 is clearly sharper than the 5D2
-
Thus it is likely that very SHARP traditional large format lenses are up for the task in my case, and that one might need to consider diffraction. However, for wides I am not sure yet how wide lens in combo with how wide stitch. I will soon see if I am right, but will take some time to test too.
Anders,
May I ask why you are not considering spherical panos instead of trying to flat stitch? A Cambo wide with your back on would give you great flexibility and always use the center part of your glass. Per my experience with an Ebony 45SU vs RRS pano head, it is faster to cylinder stitch than it is to flat stitch while maintaining perpendicularity between back and lens axis. Speed is of essence when shooting non static subjects like a sky.
A recent example shot with a 300mm f2.8 on a D3x.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3624177361_496d8f80d1_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
To me, photography is first and foremost about seeing, working planned + slow and accurate composition. SLOW yields planned and far better images. Rotating camera on my ballhead or a panohead ain't my thing. Nor do I believe in CS4 for spheric and WIDE since that leads to CS4 to calculate pixels. Thus I prefer FLAT. In my personal observation I am far more drawn to 617/612 FILM images and 4x5s than to sphere stitched ones, one reason being - as I view - that the photographer was able to compose more well, slow and careful.
Cambo wide? More expensive. There is a very interesting Gaoersi 4x5 that will take my adapter... but too much weight in bag (and will require lens cones in bag!), but who knows what else I will eye in long run, but not Cambo or like, too much $$$. Hence a custom made adapter made in China , not one of the near 2k usd ones! Mmmm... the Shen-Hao 6x9 is sweet and would be super with an adapter too....
Further, my choice of tools also combines 4x5 FILM with multi framed stitched digital panoramic to one larger format serious camera; Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB. That one is very similar to Ebony SW45 but cheaper , both are non folding 4x5's of light weight.
I try follow traditional path on photography, meaning... I prefer traditional camera instead of high-tech. Last thing I like is a DSLR, it to me is a computer between my eye and lens. My digital adapter will have a 120x80mm groundglass. Ain't no way to do that with spheric, right?
Lastly, I am new to 4x5. I want to use it for training my eye and creativity!
Regards
Anders
-
To me, photography is first and foremost about seeing, working planned + slow and accurate composition. SLOW yields planned and far better images. Rotating camera on my ballhead or a panohead ain't my thing. Nor do I believe in CS4 for spheric and WIDE since that leads to CS4 to calculate pixels. Thus I prefer FLAT. In my personal observation I am far more drawn to 617/612 FILM images and 4x5s than to sphere stitched ones, one reason being - as I view - that the photographer was able to compose more well, slow and careful.
We are the same Anders, I like to work slow also and often end up producing only a handful of images out of a given assignement. But slow for me is not about the execution of an image, it is about the thought process to define a composition,... as you will soon find out when you start to stitch with your ShenHao, you will have to be fast in the execution of your idea because stitching, whether it is flat or not, will not work otherwise if there are moving subjects on your image. Been there, done that.
ShenHao being copies of Ebony designs, they probably suffer from the same issue, the shift of the back and tilt are controlled by the same lever, and this makes it hard to work fast while preserving the perpendicularity of the ground glass with the axis of the lens when shifting...
Another problem that you will be facing is that I personnally think that it is next to impossible to achieve critical focus with a standard 4x5 camera and a back because of the lack of life view on the back.
As a side comment, it is totally possible to train oneself in composing images in one's head and to execute this vision with a spherical pano head.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard I agree with much of what you say; however I find the projections and warping done by stitching software will often produce a less pleasing result than a flat stitch with a tilt/shift lens. So if I just want to do a one-row stitch to get some extra resolution, I'll use a T/S lens if I can (it's actually faster than a rotational pano IMHO, especially if you don't already have the pano head mounted).
Of course the downside to T/S flat stitch is that you can't get as much resolution, especially for longer panoramic compositions. So I still do rotational panos when I'm composing for 3:1 or 2.5:1. But I could definitely see the appeal of flat-stitching with a view camera and being able to use more shift than is possible with my T/S lenses.
Have you seen the new Arca Swiss monorail camera that comes in a version with a DSLR adapter? Looks pretty sweet to me, and they say it can be used with much wider lenses than has been previously possible with this type of setup.
-
We are the same Anders, I like to work slow also and often end up producing only a handful of images out of a given assignement. But slow for me is not about the execution of an image, it is about the thought process to define a composition,... as you will soon find out when you start to stitch with your ShenHao, you will have to be fast in the execution of your idea because stitching, whether it is flat or not, will not work otherwise if there are moving subjects on your image. Been there, done that.
ShenHao being copies of Ebony designs, they probably suffer from the same issue, the shift of the back and tilt are controlled by the same lever, and this makes it hard to work fast while preserving the perpendicularity of the ground glass with the axis of the lens when shifting...
Another problem that you will be facing is that I personnally think that it is next to impossible to achieve critical focus with a standard 4x5 camera and a back because of the lack of life view on the back.
As a side comment, it is totally possible to train oneself in composing images in one's head and to execute this vision with a spherical pano head.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I do not at all agree on that we are the same. Absolutely not. Our approach is complete different, and so are our posts and images. While you stated that you prefer to imagine an image in head I stated that I actually want to see it to adjust accurate and thus be able to in detail work the image. Simply I find it impossible to accurate think up an image because that lack accurate micro control and lack the accurate seeing final and whole image for fine adjustments before capture. It is like a painter, what painter imagine image only in mind and then paint a copy from mind without adjusting as it grows infront his eye? This I view leads to distinct lets call it "different" results. Thus my approach is more in line with trailing works by serious large format shooters, including Ansel Adams etc. The account being that I admire their works and approach. Also, I do not fancy DSLRs as I pointed out, and while you stitch on basis of a 300mm lens my longest (for stitch) is 150 and I prefer WIDE!
Incorrect of ShenHao, the cameras are simply of same principle and they do develop their own cameras with also far better representation in China than Ebony. I see no reason to send off 5x the amount to the Japanese. The one and only Ebony that I have seen was a misaligned used one in Shanghai and the price was to laugh at in comparison to Shen-Hao and I did not find the quality that much superior at all, not even for use with my MFDB. Following is an article titled 'Digital Ebony' http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tal-ebony.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml). The camera used there was a NON-FOLDING which is important and contrary to the camera you point at. On a non folding the back standard slides VERTICAL only - no tilt. My adapter will slide side ways and I will use vertical sliding of rear standard for vertical slides (the vertical will likely require refocus), or per say two rows of panoramic slides. But I admit,... it is far easier to use FILM for larger image area and the Quickloads are a breeze in comparison.
I guess perhaps I do not understand your posts; they appear to come across being latest gear and technique as compared to aim on image or subject. It was same way in a thread about FILM, now it was about digitars with DSLRs for lens movements... I suggest we keep remainder of this thread on the actual original topic. Our discussion is off topic, thus I suggest we end discussion and take up by email in instead. Mine should be under my name here.
Anders
-
Incorrect of ShenHao, the cameras are simply of same principle and they do develop their own cameras with also far better representation in China than Ebony. I see no reason to send off 5x the amount to the Japanese. The one and only Ebony that I have seen was a misaligned used one in Shanghai and the price was to laugh at in comparison to Shen-Hao and I did not find the quality that much superior at all, not even for use with my MFDB. Following is an article titled 'Digital Ebony' http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tal-ebony.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml). The camera used there was a NON-FOLDING which is important and contrary to the camera you point at. On a non folding the back standard slides VERTICAL only - no tilt. My adapter will slide side ways and I will use vertical sliding of rear standard for vertical slides (the vertical will likely require refocus), or per say two rows of panoramic slides. But I admit,... it is far easier to use FILM for larger image area and the Quickloads are a breeze in comparison.
The 45SU that I have been using is a non folding design, the first one of this kind released on the market. It was released years before ShenHaos and a comparison will reveal without any possible doubt that ShenHao is a mere copy. The ShenHao you describe above appears to be lacking the back assymetrical tilt and is therefore the copy of the Ebony 45S, and not the 45SU that I own. It is indeed probably more suitable for stitching with a back but you will be missing the biggest differentiator of these cameras when using sheets of film, which is the assymetrical back tilt. Since I do still shoot film, this is critical to me.
http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html (http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html)
Could cheaper ShenHao prices result from the lack of spending on R&D? I do believe that Ebony was considering starting a legal action against ShenHao, but I am not sure how far they have been. In the meantime, my money goes to the innovators, but I guess we all have different views regarding intellectual property theft, don't we.
I guess perhaps I do not understand your posts; they appear to come across being latest gear and technique as compared to aim on image or subject. It was same way in a thread about FILM, now it was about digitars with DSLRs for lens movements... I suggest we keep remainder of this thread on the actual original topic. Our discussion is off topic, thus I suggest we end discussion and take up by email in instead. Mine should be under my name here.
Cheap shot under the belt, you original post was discussing a technical topic as well, and I don't see how the discussion of technique of equipment relates to the supposed lack of focus on image or subject that you mention above.
My view has always been to consider all available options and to select the one that delivers the best performance to achieve my goal, which is a very high image quality capture of a scene that moves me. In this regard, I am the most technology agnostic guy around, next to Thom Hogan I guess.
In the process I have developped the ability to work without a ground glass/viewfinder and all I am saying is that it can be done. I believe that evolution applies to technological memes as well and my very lack of interest for techniques makes me go with the flow, meaning the most promising technology to achieve my photographical goals, in this case the technique is spherical stitching.
OK to close this sub-thread Anders, exchanges with you end up with agressions that I don't find valuable indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 45SU that I have been using is a non folding design, the first one of this kind released on the market. It was released years before ShenHaos and a comparison will reveal without any possible doubt that ShenHao is a mere copy. The ShenHao you describe above appears to be lacking the back assymetrical tilt and is therefore the copy of the Ebony 45S, and not the 45SU that I own. It is indeed probably more suitable for stitching with a back but you will be missing the biggest differentiator of these cameras when using sheets of film, which is the assymetrical back tilt. Since I do still shoot film, this is critical to me.
http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html (http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html)
Could cheaper ShenHao prices result from the lack of spending on R&D? I do believe that Ebony was considering starting a legal action against ShenHao, but I am not sure how far they have been. In the meantime, my money goes to the innovators, but I guess we all have different views regarding intellectual property theft, don't we.
Cheap shot under the belt, you original post was discussing a technical topic as well, and I don't see how the discussion of technique of equipment relates to the supposed lack of focus on image or subject that you mention above.
My view has always been to consider all available options and to select the one that delivers the best performance to achieve my goal, which is a very high image quality capture of a scene that moves me. In this regard, I am the most technology agnostic guy around, next to Thom Hogan I guess.
In the process I have developped the ability to work without a ground glass/viewfinder and all I am saying is that it can be done. I believe that evolution applies to technological memes as well and my very lack of interest for techniques makes me go with the flow, meaning the most promising technology to achieve my photographical goals, in this case the technique is spherical stitching.
OK to close this sub-thread Anders, exchanges with you end up with agressions that I don't find valuable indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Above seem much outside OP. Again in no offense but I note that this often occurs with your posts. As agreed, lets allow posters to bring back to OP. Your view is respected, but as far as Shen-Hao vs. Ebony one could equal argue a difference between Bronica vs. Hassy, Canon and Nikon, Chevy and Ford etc. Lets not go there. I should say Shen-Hao service is execptional in Shanghai, Ebony is non-existent. The fact that their prices are reasonable is icing on cake.
Anders
-
Bernard,
Above seem much outside OP. Again in no offense but I note that this often occurs with your posts.
Anders,
Have a great day.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Like Bernard I have come full circle and now prefer my Mamiya/P30 on a ball head and stitching with PTGui, more often than not the results are better.
With my 5DII and liveview I pull a dark cloth over my head and have my cake and eat it too!
I for one appreciate Bernard's posts and have come to respect his insights.
Marc
-
This an interessting question in general.
Not always but often I spend a long time in looking at the scene or the subject I am going to shoot... mostly it takes much more time than the actual shooting. So the image grows in my head before I even setup a camera...
From this point I could stitch with pano head or flat with the view camera (I have both)... because to some extend I already know what I want to produce.
Virtually always I use the flat stitching with the view camera.
I feel the difference is that pano head stitching is more attended to capturing something ("take" a picture) whilst the composition on the groundglass is more attended to imaging ("give" or "create" a picture).
And in fact I have yet to see a pano head stitched picture that is more attended to "imaging"... I only know those I'd call "captures" (but that doesn't mean a lot as I possibly only know the "wrong" examples).
Hope it's fairly reasonable explained :-)
-
Hi,
I'd just point out that both focusing and alignment of lens and sensor plays a very major role in sharpness. There was an article here on LL by Joseph Holmes on maladjustment issues with both digital backs and digital lenses. Those articles are clearly worth reading.
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
Best regards
Erik
Jeff, thanks & correct, pixel density is the word and what I actually meant. Here:
D3X = 6048x4032 pixels / 36x24 = 168 pixels/mm
P65+ = 8984x6732 pixels / 53.9x40.4mm = 166 pixels/mm
5DII = 5616x3744 pixels / 36x24mm = 156 pixels/mm
P45+ = 7216x5412 pixels / 36.8x49.1 = 147 pixels/mm
Aptus 65 = 6144x4622 / 44x33mm = 140 pixels/mm
5D = 4368x2912 pixels / 36x24 = 121 pixels/mm
156/140 is 11%. Much difference?
5DII/5D is 29%. Difference, yes.
I figured that Aptus 65 require perhaps 1.5x or slight more sharpness of lens than film. Thus it is likely that very SHARP traditional large format lenses are up for the task in my case, and that one might need to consider diffraction. However, for wides I am not sure yet how wide lens in combo with how wide stitch. I will soon see if I am right, but will take some time to test too.
And yes, 5DII is more MP, but that does not automatically mean sharper details.
Regards
Anders
-
Hi,
Shooting rotational panos is more like workmanship than art in my humble opinion.
1) Mount panorama adapter
2) Set panorama adapter horizontal
3) Find a good focal length
4) Find a god exposure
5) Take X exposures with significant overlap
6) Merge and crop with any satisfactory tool
I do quite a few panos, really enjoying it, but the feeling I have is that the image is created more in the computer than composed in the viewfinder.
Below is a picture of the equpment I use, I can have it my pockets and click together in seconds.
Best regards
Erik
[attachment=14614:20090602_DSC01071.jpg]
This an interessting question in general.
Not always but often I spend a long time in looking at the scene or the subject I am going to shoot... mostly it takes much more time than the actual shooting. So the image grows in my head before I even setup a camera...
From this point I could stitch with pano head or flat with the view camera (I have both)... because to some extend I already know what I want to produce.
Virtually always I use the flat stitching with the view camera.
I feel the difference is that pano head stitching is more attended to capturing something ("take" a picture) whilst the composition on the groundglass is more attended to imaging ("give" or "create" a picture).
And in fact I have yet to see a pano head stitched picture that is more attended to "imaging"... I only know those I'd call "captures" (but that doesn't mean a lot ahttp://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/folder_editor_images/icon_open.gifs I possibly only know the "wrong" examples).
Hope it's fairly reasonable explained :-)
-
Shooting rotational panos is more like workmanship than art in my humble opinion.
I don't see why rotational panos would be any more workman-like or less artistic than flat stitches with rear movements. I could post an equally tedious list of the tasks required for a flat stitch, and that wouldn't prove a thing.
I would to agree that a lot panos are not very good; IMHO just shooting a really wide view is a visual gimmick but not much else. Well-composed panos, on the other hand, are deceptively difficult and certainly every bit as much 'art' as single-shot photographs.
-
Below is a picture of the equpment I use, I can have it my pockets and click together in seconds.
Interesting setup, I like your approach to allowing camera tilt without having to use a full-blown multi-row rig. I might have to consider something like this for longer hikes when I don't want to use the extra bulk/weight (and setup time) of the multi-row rig (I have the RRS Ultimate Omni-Pivot kit).
-
I feel the difference is that pano head stitching is more attended to capturing something ("take" a picture) whilst the composition on the groundglass is more attended to imaging ("give" or "create" a picture).
And in fact I have yet to see a pano head stitched picture that is more attended to "imaging"... I only know those I'd call "captures" (but that doesn't mean a lot as I possibly only know the "wrong" examples).
Hope it's fairly reasonable explained :-)
I should write an essay on this, but Anders is right to say that it is a bit OoT... Anyway, since many seem to find the topic relevant besides its OoTness I will proceed.
My view is that we need to distinguish clearly 2 steps here:
- the selection of an image to be captured in terms of shooting position, composition and crop
- the actual mechanical action of capturing the image (one click for traditional images, several clicks with operations in between for flat/spherical panos)
Regadring the first one, I am not claiming any special abilities here, but for me it is a matter of mental process. The GG is a great tool for materializing a prototype of an image before it is captured, and this process of vizualization and slow fine tuning does indeed contribute to the feeling of creating a picture. For me the GG is just an aid in a process that is mental in essence anyway, but it is true that, when shooting LF, there is a degree of interaction between the 2 steps, and the GG is always there as a friend showing us where we are.
Using a thick paper frame overlapped to the scene is another way of doing this and, to make a long story short, my contention is that you can in fact achieve the same without frame/GG at all.
Once this is achieved, step 2, the execution of the image (flat stitch or spherical stitch), is IMHO an un-important technical application of a well memorized routine. You can be more or less good at that and it is going to impact the image quality that you get of course.
One recent spherical stitch example of an image I believe I would have shot the same way if I had used a GG for composition and flat stitching for execution.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3628390541_9fa5586f73_o.jpg)
Cropping is IMHO part of both processes because it is hard to know exactly what will end up being in the frame with both techniques, although this can also pretty much be anticipated.
Regards,
Bernard
-
yes, Bernard, an essay would be welcome
i've been informed by your posts and impressed with your images
-
Hi,
My point is not that panos (rotational or not) are in any way inferior to single-shot images. The only point is that at least when I'm shooting rotational panos my concern is to get the images I need to make the final picture in the computer. So I feel its like:
Art------------------------------------ workmanship -------------------------- Art
Conception--------------------------- Shooting the images ------------------ Assembly and cropping and final adjustments
Regarding really wide images beeing a gimmick I may or may not agree. The way I see it there is only one way to visually present a very wide pano and that is to project it with well made zooms and pans. The other way to do it is essentially making mural size prints, which is normally not very practical.
On the issue of workmanship vs. art I don't really feel any contradiction, we need workmanship to achieve our artistic ambition.
Best regards
Erik
I don't see why rotational panos would be any more workman-like or less artistic than flat stitches with rear movements. I could post an equally tedious list of the tasks required for a flat stitch, and that wouldn't prove a thing.
I would to agree that a lot panos are not very good; IMHO just shooting a really wide view is a visual gimmick but not much else. Well-composed panos, on the other hand, are deceptively difficult and certainly every bit as much 'art' as single-shot photographs.
-
One of the questions not answered here " is a digitar lens on a view camera higher IQ than a SLR lens on a SLR?" all other variables remaining the same. same DB/sensor etc. In other words is the time, inconvenience and cost worth the effort?
Marc
-
One of the questions not answered here " is a digitar lens on a view camera higher IQ than a SLR lens on a SLR?"
at least I can tell you that the Digitar I use outperform the respective focal length lens in my gear (except at close distances). This applies to Contax lenses (which are very good yet) in use with a P45 and P21+. Don't know why it should be different on a "cropped" sensor. Maybe the AA filter softens the captures at the edges a bit more. On the other hand the image circle is so wide that I don't think so...
-
Hi,
I'd just point out that both focusing and alignment of lens and sensor plays a very major role in sharpness. There was an article here on LL by Joseph Holmes on maladjustment issues with both digital backs and digital lenses. Those articles are clearly worth reading.
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
After reading Joseph Holmes article, makes think twice investing in such expensive equipment.
Looks like Mamiya solution is more secure, reliable and efective..
Antonio
-
"Could cheaper ShenHao prices result from the lack of spending on R&D?"
Slave labour - wooden field camera-production isn't automatized and therefore highly depends on labour costs. You can either use highly-trained craftsmen for decades capable of using complex machines like Ebony or simply try to imitate quality-craftmanship by strict selection-processes, make 10, throw 9 away... Buying cheap wood from unknown sources or cutting R&D...
Sorry, wasn't the point of the thread, just images of the Shen Hao and the Ebony (the "wooden Technika") popped into my head and another high-quality craftmanship crushed by slave labour...
-
I have now had a fitting made for a Nikon to Cambo ultima 5x4.
Using a 90mm digitar with a Nikon d2x (acr) and comparing the results against a leaf 22megapixel (lc11 ) the differences are minimal, apart from megapixels. I would presume even better results could be attained with nikon capture nx2.
Also the digitar is better than the nikon 85mm pce, but only slightly. With extra movements on the 5x4, the digitar's coverage etc wins. The pce for speed and convenience.
-
I've purchased Nikon's 85mm PC-E lens, and now beginning to wonder if using Schneider Digitars via 5x4 or Cambo x2pro would give noticable difference in detail/resolution. Studio
Will be upgrading to Nikon FX shortly.
any advice?
http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/)
Scroll down about half way for a comparison of the X-2 + dSLR + digitar lens versus a normal dSLR lens.
-
http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/)
Scroll down about half way for a comparison of the X-2 + dSLR + digitar lens versus a normal dSLR lens.
Thanks for the posting Doug!!
-
Thanks for the posting Doug!!
No problem.
Quick Shameless plug/disclaimer: we (Capture Integration) do sell, rent, and support Schneider, Cambo, and Canon. We put enormous effort into learning and testing these systems.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:[email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/)
Scroll down about half way for a comparison of the X-2 + dSLR + digitar lens versus a normal dSLR lens.
Hi,
The link to the Digitar/ Canon File is kaput.
Des
-
Hi,
The link to the Digitar/ Canon File is kaput.
Des
Just checked them. I believe the links are fine. Depending on your browser you may need to right click (control click) and "Save Link As" in order to prevent the driver from trying to load the link as an image.
I'd be happy to send them to you by yousendit.com if you experience any further problems.
Edit: it does seem the file has somehow corrupted :-(. I'll upload a replacement if I have time next week. Sorry for the trouble.
Doug
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:[email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
I believe the links are fine.
they aork here. However I can't open the Canon/Digitar file ( http://www.captureintegration.com/wp-conte..._X2_sch80mm.tif (http://www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/1dsmarkIIIonX2/1DsMIII_X2_sch80mm.tif) ). Photoshop displays a message telling me it's a unknown image format (even renaming doesn't work).
-
Since the topic is interesting and I have done / will be doing some work using these techniques I thought I would speak up.
In no particular order:
First: Ebony's are great quality and not expensive given what you are getting. I have the non folding sw45 and used it extensively. It is fast and a joy to use (the smell of the leather bellows alone makes me feel good).
The poster that said that it cannot do flat pano's because the back has only rise is incorrect: simply tilt the tripod head on its side and you have your back shift ! But I wouldn't dream of using a traditional view camera for a digital mf back. Perhaps the arca 6x9...... but I would prefer to go to an Alpa or Cambo and do it properly, especially for the wide angles..... And also: yes, there is the old saw about how taking a long time to consider and compose leads to a different type of image- but as important sometimes is speed- the fast set up and shooting of what is going to change 2 minutes from now, or where you might get kicked out if you are there for more that 10 minutes - or getting more than one shot an hour. This seems to be a frequent occurrence in my experience.
As to the question of whether a digitar lens would give better results than a 90 canon tse on a Canon 5d2 I can say I wouldn't even bother testing this. The 90 tse is perhaps my sharpest lens, the results from it are astounding, the images need hardly any sharpening, unlike my other lenses. Then there is the convenience of a dedicated optic that automatically sets aperture, and probably cost much less AND has no klugey mounting system. If I was comparing absolute quality of a digitar on medium format versus the 90 tse on a Canon I'm sure the digitar would be better, but then you have to factor cost, ease of use, weight, speed, usable ASA and a host of other factors, including possible focussing issues. Wide angles would be another story, but again, I think the new 24TSE, which I just purchased and have begun testing, is a really great optic, probably the best wide canon has ever made.
I will be using the new 24 TSE (and the 45 & 90 TSE's) to do flat stitching and, if necessary rotational panos. I have done a large number of stitched shots in my career, with film and digital. Naturally I prefer flat when at all possible because of less perspective distortion (significant if you shoot architecture). I notice that the above pano rig shown is using RRS equipment. I will be ordering an L bracket for my new 5D2 tomorrow as well: I will calibrate a side slide on the clamp to maintain as close to exact camera body position when I shift the lens (shift lens to the right, camera same amount to left, then opposite for the second exposure). These L brackets are a great solution (I used one for my x-pan) for rotational panos as they can position the camera vertical over the rotation point of the head. One can eliminate the second stage rotational platform above the ball head if you have a leveling center column that can be had with a gitzo carbon fiber model (and perhaps other tripods),
As to the question about what is more "artistically" valid technique (1 shot, flat or stiched) I will add a few things. There is a difference between seeing / composing the entire image on one glass image and shooting it in one shot as opposed to compositing the image from a number of shots on a computer no doubt. Many many pano's, including flat stiched pano's, suffer from digititis, that unreal look (and I have done quite a few myself!) that is due to a variety of factors. In some sense there is a fracturing of reality when these techniques are used, starting with the element of time and so on (and this is a benefit if you are after this quality of "unreality"). As a side note, the lust for super high resolution tends to result in oversharp images that lack real atmosphere- just something to consider......
Stitching however allows one to make images that otherwise might not be possible, and that is a significant thing. There are situations where you just would not be able to make an image without stitching and especially when you shoot architectural scenes and interiors like I do there are some images that can only be captured by stitching. In these cases there is often distortion if you combine radically different perspectives. This is definitely constructing an image that could not be otherwise captured.
As to previsualizing an image that you will assemble later: yes, one can to a degree. I have done a lot of work in the old days shooting fuji 6x9's for interiors and architecture: and learned to capture what I was after quite well, even without being able to precisely frame it. Then there is the comment from (I believe) Friedlander: I take pictures to see what things look like when photographed.
To each their own. For myself, I fall into a middle category. I want high resolution but I want it flexible and portable as I travel a lot and sometimes time is limited. Digitar lenses are the solution for the highest quality on medium format digital backs when you have lots of time, static subjects, or are in the studio- plus have a big bank account. Otherwise, stitching 21 mpx 35 camera images with tilt shift lenses, carefully handled, can give excellent results, as can rotational panos with sharp lenses.