View camera adaptation to smaller image areas... opinions on the future.

[E_Edwards]

5 or 10 per cent difference, is only ...5 or up to 10 per cent... it can't be "lot of difference" since it's either 5 or up to ten... In other words, the sentence "...that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference...", doesn't make sense fundamentally in logic science... 

Tell that to an athlete, or a racing driver….

And to a photographer, it's the difference between blissful contentment or a sinking feeling of knowing you could've done better:)

[Theodoros]

Tell that to an athlete, or a racing driver….

And to a photographer, it's the difference between blissful contentment or a sinking feeling of knowing you could've done better:)

Sensors are not athletes... sensors are tools for "athletes" (if one considers the photographer instead of an athlete)... This means that 5 or 10 per cent difference is factor as to judge the tool's performace, not the photographer's outcome... 

[Phil Indeblanc]

The 5 to 10% the client likely doesn't see, but the sensor and the combo of the photographer knowing how to massage the files goes a bit further than just sensor measure.
And as he said, you would know the difference. If we all measure by anothers performance we are surely short changing our abilities.

But if we push ourselves to make better files, more inventive imagey, and look at the results in the body of others works that have as much passion, as a form of consideration, we can always find ourselves striving to do "better".

[Theodoros]

The 5 to 10% the client likely doesn't see, but the sensor and the combo of the photographer knowing how to massage the files goes a bit further than just sensor measure.
And as he said, you would know the difference. If we all measure by anothers performance we are surely short changing our abilities.

But if we push ourselves to make better files, more inventive imagey, and look at the results in the body of others works that have as much passion, as a form of consideration, we can always find ourselves striving to do "better".

Phil, every single artist cares about his tools, Musicians about their instruments, painters about their brushes, even authors care about their pens... But none depends on it... 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Phil, every single artist cares about his tools, Musicians about their instruments, painters about their brushes, even authors care about their pens... But none depends on it... 

I can totally agree with what your saying. I can also disagree just as easily:-)
I don't know if I cant agree with that in the intention of use in the photo world. In the science of things not so much as long as the spec is performing at the level needed. For example a 11mpixel camera is not going to do so well for a 24x36" print. Each tool has a limitation on how it can be used. Depending on the job, the tool's usefulness will depend on its performance.

[Theodoros]

I kind of lost you here.... Just before there was a discussion of tools having 5% difference for the same task and now you are talking on tool limitations and the need of different tools for different tasks...

[Phil Indeblanc]

I kind of lost you here.... Just before there was a discussion of tools having 5% difference for the same task and now you are talking on tool limitations and the need of different tools for different tasks...

Ya, I might have gone out of the apples to apples situation...as we were getting broader and broader in the discussion.

With some things being equal, that 5-10% applies, but there are exceptions to things you know, and I place macrotabletop to be one of those exceptions.

[Theodoros]

.....I place macrotabletop to be one of those exceptions.

Is it Actus + mirrorless what you would recommend for the job then?

[Chris Barrett]

If you're doing seriously fine tabletop work, I wouldn't go with an Actus.  Either the Arca Mf2 or a Sinar P3 maybe with mirrorless.

[Phil Indeblanc]

I don't have apples to apples image comparison of mirrorless and would not be able to recommend it. Its not file size and its not ISO, so I'd have to do a side by side.

[Phil Indeblanc]

I don't have apples to apples image comparison of mirrorless and would not be able to recommend it. Its not file size and its not ISO, so I'd have to do a side by side.

$2K for the actus and then another 3 for mirrorless.  I'd have to rent it first. I almost did a few months ago, but they didn't have everything I needed to do adapt and do the test. Perhaps thats changed.

I haven't bought one, as what I have does just fine if not, better than what the sony can do. Slower, yes, but the costs of buying isn't outweighed with the amount of work coming in and demanding on these tools.

[E_Edwards]

I've been using Sinar P2's for 30 years, with 5x4 and 10x8 film, then later with a Linhoff sliding adaptor and a multishot Imacon 4040, then Leaf backs, and the Sinar has always been OK by me. Kind of a bit heavy, but they sit on studio stands so who cares.

I have the small Arca 6x9, whatever it's called, but I used it once and decided I preferred to stick to my habitual Sinar, the Arca is still intact in the boxes, a candidate for motor adaptation at some stage, when I find the time. The Arca bellows, you have to smell the quality leather once, and you are converted for life. But I am used to the asymmetrical axis of rotation of the Sinar standards, which I find is the quickest way to apply the Scheimflug principle. You need the smaller standards to make it work better for the small format of digital backs. So I recommend the P3, heavy as it is, but so sturdy.

But really, it's whatever works for you, it's just a tool after all.

For lenses and macro, I have both the Schneider Digitar 120 and the equivalent Rodenstock 120. I tried them side by side once or twice and I ended up using the Rodenstock, I don't remember why, because the Rodenstock is actually a little cheaper and I wanted the Schneider to be better, I think the Rodenstock has a slightly wide circle of coverage, and I think it was about a third faster using the same shutter and aperture, but either lens is superb. In terms of sharpness/definition, I can't choose between them. I also have the 150 and 180, but none are as sharp as the 120.

I am intrigued by the Actus DB, I may get one to tinker, it's so dinky:)

Edward

[Theodoros]

I've been using Sinar P2's for 30 years, with 5x4 and 10x8 film, then later with a Linhoff sliding adaptor and a multishot Imacon 4040, then Leaf backs, and the Sinar has always been OK by me. Kind of a bit heavy, but they sit on studio stands so who cares.

I have the small Arca 6x9, whatever it's called, but I used it once and decided I preferred to stick to my habitual Sinar, the Arca is still intact in the boxes, a candidate for motor adaptation at some stage, when I find the time. The Arca bellows, you have to smell the quality leather once, and you are converted for life. But I am used to the asymmetrical axis of rotation of the Sinar standards, which I find is the quickest way to apply the Scheimflug principle. You need the smaller standards to make it work better for the small format of digital backs. So I recommend the P3, heavy as it is, but so sturdy.

But really, it's whatever works for you, it's just a tool after all.

For lenses and macro, I have both the Schneider Digitar 120 and the equivalent Rodenstock 120. I tried them side by side once or twice and I ended up using the Rodenstock, I don't remember why, because the Rodenstock is actually a little cheaper and I wanted the Schneider to be better, I think the Rodenstock has a slightly wide circle of coverage, and I think it was about a third faster using the same shutter and aperture, but either lens is superb. In terms of sharpness/definition, I can't choose between them. I also have the 150 and 180, but none are as sharp as the 120.

I am intrigued by the Actus DB, I may get one to tinker, it's so dinky:)

Edward

IMO, If I am to use my MFDBs on a "mini" view camera currently, I would prefer the Universalis to the Actus. Not only because it looks better suited to larger light sensitive areas, but because of the focal plane shutter too... If one is to use an MFDB, he may as well use a multishot one...

But then again, I really detest changing equipment often, as with film I'm really keen to long term relations... So for the moment I've decided to stick with the GX-680 & 54H combination and see how things with mirrorless & lens interfaces develop as I expect that there will be massive developments coming in the following months....

I'm sure that "true color" multishot mirrorless will appear soon and that there will be front standard mounts introduced that will allow more lenses to be integrated with view cameras as to allow  both the aperture and the leaf shutter to be functional... I don't want to make a choice with one maker and the find that another (or a new introduction) should have been my choice and I am a fanatic of using the minimum possible of equipment as to perform the widest possible tasks...

[E_Edwards]

If one is to use an MFDB, he may as well use a multishot one...

I am not sure multishot backs are practical for commercial use, unless it's flat artwork.

Until you can shot the 4 multishot images in one pop at, say, 60th sec. it is always going to be very niche, for static subjects.

I remember using my Imacon multishot and having to bracket focus, it took at least 16 shots (often more) which is fine if you are not too busy and you just do a handful of shots a day, but in a busier environment, it's just not good use of your time.

Edward

[Theodoros]

I am not sure multishot backs are practical for commercial use, unless it's flat artwork.

Until you can shot the 4 multishot images in one pop at, say, 60th sec. it is always going to be very niche, for static subjects.

I remember using my Imacon multishot and having to bracket focus, it took at least 16 shots (often more) which is fine if you are not too busy and you just do a handful of shots a day, but in a busier environment, it's just not good use of your time.

Edward

There could be another way to look at it, if one uses a 16x multishot sequence for the same subject, he ends up with tremendous resolution, yet with no artifacts and great color & DR and thus may avoid focus stitching altogether by shooting further away and then crop down to the frame needed... Surely shooting a multishot sequence is much faster than focus sticking and the extra DR can prove a life savior in some cases... (say jewels for instance). OTOH, if one uses a multishot MFDB, he can always use it as single shot one if he judges that focus sticking is the way to go for a particular task... Never the less, good LV is the most crucial factor for productivity and as I remember with the 528c I used to have, LV isn't Imacon's strong point... It is among the strong points of the Sinarback 54H though...

[E_Edwards]

I was referring to a 4 shot multishot, shooting 4 stack focus shots. 4x4=16

Any small advantage of a multishot soon disappears if you have to pull back. And you would have to pull back so much to achieve the same end result (i.e. full image in focus) that your multishot subject would be tiny, with a lot of wasted area to crop,  i.e. worse image, and valuable wasted time shooting multishot exposures:)

Been there, done that.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you can't defy the laws of physics.

Multishot, as I said, would be more feasible the minute you can shoot it all three primaries in one go, one example being three incredibly fast exposures, though I can't imagine this working with fast flash, as the short flash duration would have to be shared…and the Foveon idea hasn't materialised with larger formats, has it?

Still, never say no to the advances in technology.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Multishot will not substitute for stacks. they are unrelated.

Multishot is mostly if not all resolution related.  If you need a bigger file the sure way to do that is get a larger resolution back, not  get involved in multishot. 

Now if we can get Foveon to make or license a higher mpixel cam/db or something, even a multishot, I would be interested.

Was it Pentax or Oly who recently announced a multishot camera around the time the A7r2 released? it boasted 40+mp I think.

Another factor in this niche is the photon size. Some less resolution backs have much cleaner files with more lenses than the very small photon /higher resolution DB's. Even with sharper lenses there is always the optimal combo.  I too love the 120, but I dont know how far the 180 falls from it, as I love that one even more for the distance it gives me.

[Theodoros]

Multishot will not substitute for stacks. they are unrelated.

Multishot is mostly if not all resolution related.  If you need a bigger file the sure way to do that is get a larger resolution back, not  get involved in multishot. 

Now if we can get Foveon to make or license a higher mpixel cam/db or something, even a multishot, I would be interested.

Was it Pentax or Oly who recently announced a multishot camera around the time the A7r2 released? it boasted 40+mp I think.

Another factor in this niche is the photon size. Some less resolution backs have much cleaner files with more lenses than the very small photon /higher resolution DB's. Even with sharper lenses there is always the optimal combo.  I too love the 120, but I dont know how far the 180 falls from it, as I love that one even more for the distance it gives me.

Of course part of high quality has to do with "fat" pixels... It's not only that small pixels don't cope well with movements it's also that fat pixels (if shot in multishot mode) are completely free of artifacts... A 22mp multishot back, if shot at 16x mode, it still takes each shot with photons hitting 9μm size pixels... Lets not additionally forget the smaller aperture one can use without diffraction...

In reality it is like if one multiplies the light sensitive area by four since he shoots 88mps of 9μm size for each one of them and further more each one being an RGB true color one with real 15 stops of DR available and no interpolation involved.  Furthermore they are quite "easy" with lenses given that the lenses are used for 9μm pixels...

I insist that the major issue (and thus the success of the mirrorless instead of MFDBs) is with LV...  If one has a multishot MFDB with great tethered LV mode, he'll work faster, avoid focus stitching in most circumstances and even cope perfectly well with gold or silver of jewellery, or of ancient coins, or with pieces of broken ancient ceramics... I've also been there...

[Phil Indeblanc]

"avoid focusstitching"....

coins sure, not other jewels. I'm still here over 10 years :-)

[Theodoros]

"avoid focusstitching"....

coins sure, not other jewels. I'm still here over 10 years :-)

Let me put it otherwise... (since my comment was: "avoid focus stitching in most circumstances"). An 88mp shot out of a back in multishot mode (with the appropriate tilting), if focus is nailed dead accurate (the LV requirement), can be cropped down to a 20mp area out of the same file, that will include the larger dimension of the subject up to 90% of the frame left and it can replace any file that needs 5 shots (with tilting) to be focus stuck... At the same time, the same shot will have visibly better DR for shiny items, more uniformity, more accurate color and better (artifact free) pixels as to up-sample the file up to the size of whatever dimensions a 72ppi print of the cropped would come up too...