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

[BobDavid]

There are certainly different types of detent stops, even within Cambo products. The detent for a Cambo WRS horizontal geared shift is a specific click. But the detent for the swing on the Actus as you point out is less specific feeling (but this is also the same with the tilt/swing knobs of the Cambo lenspanels for the WRS cameras). Sinar view cameras employ a similar detent feel, less precise feeling.

With the Actus, you can test the swing detent by placing your hand against the back of the front standard, and as you swing, you can feel the standard pushing against your hand. Generally there should be a small area in the center (zeroed) position of the swing where you can "wiggle" the swing knob but that no swing movement can be felt by your hand. And this should be very close to zeroed out, if not precisely zeroed out. If you find that even a small amount of wiggle produces some swing movement that you can feel with your hand, or that the zeroed position rests with the standard pushed out on one side, then this could be a matter for adjustment. I recommend performing that test, and if you feel the wiggled position for zero detent doesn't reflect a zero detent value, contact your dealer (as Bob has been in contact with us).

Bob, I'm curious why you state you don't recommend the Actus for MFD?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Hi Steve, thank you for your help with the "swing" issue. I am impressed with Cambo's and CI's attentiveness and willingness to support their customers.

The reason I did not recommend the Actus for MFD was due to my concern about the swing detente issue. For the time being, I will maintain a neutral stance. Once the front block on my Actus is replaced, I will reevaluate. For now, I will keep an open mind and differ judgment.

[IanB]

Agree with everything... however, 9000ED is among the best scanners ever made, but... have you tried instead shooting the film with a multishot MFDB in true color using a great macro lens?  ...that's why I'm now selling my 9000ED...

My second concern is this...

"The need to shoot LCC exposures is a real deal-breaker for me. I can't see anything suiting my purposes until a digital view camera arrives which records the back-lens relationship electronically in the exposure data for compensation using the raw developer software (which may need to be proprietary). That will, I suspect, be even more expensive than current top-end MFDB solutions, but it's got to be the way forward. It will have to be frighteningly accurate for small formats, so maybe this is where MFDBs will continue to score?"

How come and you concluded having communication interface will be more expensive than "current top-end MFDB solutions"? ...it's only a (very cheap for the maker) cable needed to have the mount on the front standard communicate with the camera (or MFDB) on the rear standard...

Clearly, for view cameras to still have "archaic" lens to light sensitive area communication, responsible to blame is the poor LV of MFDBs... since this have changed, all of it will change! 

Multishot MFDB macro film copying is very good I'm sure, but if I was going to buy and MFDB I think I'd rather use it for the original capture, not just for scanning film.

The reason I think logging the relationship between the lens and back will be expensive is because it is necessary to register the degree of shift and tilt etc., which (I think) implies the use of sensors in the camera. I'm not sure how sensitive these may need to be - perhaps the nearest mm is good enough - but the smaller the sensor the more precise the measurements must be, and precision in such matters is usually expensive.

[Theodoros]

Multishot MFDB macro film copying is very good I'm sure, but if I was going to buy and MFDB I think I'd rather use it for the original capture, not just for scanning film.

Of course one buys an MFDB as to use it, the reason I mention the use of a multishot one as to digitize film, is because other than being much faster and of significantly better quality than the best of scanners (not only 9000ED, but Imacon/Hasselblad and pro drum scanners too...) not to mention the flexibility one gains when post processing, for one to purchase a Sinarback 54H now days is also cheaper than even the 9000ED...

The reason I think logging the relationship between the lens and back will be expensive is because it is necessary to register the degree of shift and tilt etc., which (I think) implies the use of sensors in the camera. I'm not sure how sensitive these may need to be - perhaps the nearest mm is good enough - but the smaller the sensor the more precise the measurements must be, and precision in such matters is usually expensive.

Why is it necessary? Current T/S equipment doesn't record such data, but even if some people insist of having them, Data like that could be recorded if the camera body makers design plug-ins for the dedicated tethered software of the camera or MFDB that  one would use on the technical camera... They could even automate the plug-in as to provide suggestions for the movements needed with respect to different size image sensors and lenses by using the required data that the photographer would apply just before the capture and then record the data by the time the photographer fires the tethered shot...

[Phil Indeblanc]

I am one of those (MF) users,  and always looking for an excuse to upgrade my H25 P1 that I can only tether with. But table top work has diminished, and I can not see myself ever going with a new MF.
I would be in the market for a used 40mp or maybe Multishot. I also use manual lenses and never seen the need for auto lenses for tabletop. It makes little sense to me and adds complications that are unnecessary. I do have to do plenty stacking in my work so the P2 is perfect for that.

If a mini system doesn't allow for the rear standard to move for focus than I see no point. That is why the RZ and Fuji or HAss have no place in most table top studios that need such flexibility. With smaller FF sensors maybe the DOF has lots of help and with price it is why I was seriously considering the A7R2 with a mount to the back of a Sinar.  But time and time again the one I have does perfectly fine. I've made images that are on 100+feet billboards. Yes, its a slow process compared to current things, but I don't think its very wise to be spending over $5k for anything in a limited application system, when that type of use itself gets such limited use.

Unless you need to do such purchases for the art director?..but then are you getting hired for the work you can produce or pretend to play the part? Perhaps its both? Maybe thats the prob, I'm not doing the marketing I need?  There was a Phase One event in downtown a few weeks ago, the entire event was to show new photographers in the market how you need to use MF to separate yourself from others.  This for 90% of photography is really meaningless, but if the people hiring photographers are uneducated, what can one do?
But these days, which art director is looking for the premo gear, vs the lowest bid?  Maybe I need to change my surrounding?!  Pre 2008 my table top work is in hundreds of top magazines over years, now I'm starting to look more for local style work in portraits and events as brands sending product has died for the most part/in-house... :-/ WTF?! Marketing consultants tell me I should be teaching and doing online blogs and online subscription videos. Others tell me you have to go for the local event and portrait market as they are always looking in the immediate surrounding.
I have always worked independent, maybe I need to shop for a rep or work for an agency?   

Maybe my situation is isolated? But the demand for quality imagery has also gone down with the lower frequency of brands paying for magazine ads. Maybe I should go back to school to learn something else. I have a creative mind with good mechanics, but not a brain with patients for learning php sql and the like?!  LOL....Well...sorry for the rant, but it ties directly at what your original post is, and I am an example of the direction you are talking about.

Maybe with a change in career one can afford a new MF system :-)

[Theodoros]

Maybe my situation is isolated?

No... your case is not isolated... actually I feel it's exactly spot on with the topic here... Most pros don't use the much more expensive (and flashy) equipment that amateurs use but they prefer to stick with long term solutions and there is a good reason for that...

However, P2 was also what I replaced for the Fuji... and did that because I needed a fortune as to use my, at the days, Imacon 528c back in multishot mode as I needed to replace all my lenses and shutters with electronic ones... I didn't sell it because I couldn't afford the investment needed... I sold it strictly because I believe that spending all that money on equipment is pointless and can't replace one's creativity. That's exactly what is the subject here... Selling the P2 system financed the system I now use instead and even pocketed the difference....
 
There is another statement of yours I would like to comment on, this being focusing with the rear standard... I would agree with you 100% with that if it was a "traditional" view camera, but with the Fuji, one has the ability to set up the equipment for framing and fairly accurate focusing using the TTL OVF... this leaves very little to be done when activating LV and thus there is no chance whatsoever to affect the capture.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Thanks for the feedback Theodoros,

After I hesitantly posted that, I was thinking of how the learning curve has become so tight in even the hardest areas of photography that its surely harder for the MF market to even be considered when upgrading.

As far as rear vs front. The reason you don't want to move the front is because the shape of the lens will alter the captured image when moved. Its not the focusing that is the problem, but the movement. The rear doesn't change the view, just the placement of focus. the front will change the view and cause issues when you do something like 7, or more so on high number frames in a overlayed image.

I have an RZPro2 with just about every accessory that goes with it including the T/Shift and lens, and that amount in Tilt is marginal difference on a MF close up macro imagery., SO the case with all that gear sits in a closet. Maybe I should be selling that? I have some Leica R glass that is tack sharp and I wont part with, as I expect to use it with something like an A7R2, or a 50DRS, if I can go to mini, I would like the portability, it would help expand my niche a bit easier.  But I use the newer LF lenses on the P2, and I tried a 5D2 on it, with no success. There is just too much material between the lens and sensor. Its funny how about 8 years ago you could have easily picked up a Cambo mini or a number of other specialty mini systems for around $500 or less...Now they are back up in the past couple years at least.

[Theodoros]

As far as rear vs front. The reason you don't want to move the front is because the shape of the lens will alter the captured image when moved. Its not the focusing that is the problem, but the movement. The rear doesn't change the view, just the placement of focus. the front will change the view and cause issues when you do something like 7, or more so on high number frames in a overlayed image.

I have an RZPro2.....

But that's what I'm saying Phil... With the Fuji (or the RZ with T/S lens on it) that are focusing using the front standard, one can pre-focus using the OVF when setting up & framing the scene, then LV is only used as to nail focus and the lens is barely moved at all as to alter the scene... That is unless the photographer is completely blind as to pre-focus using the OVF and still miss THE focus by quite a margin... But, usually, there should be no issue on the matter...

[Phil Indeblanc]

OK, so you have focus on 1 shot, then how do you focus the next frame in the stack of images you need to take?  You can't be touch clicking each one when you have 20 or 100 products to do. It should be measurable and in some cases 3 to 5mm increments, depending on subjects and how close you are. Perhaps with 80Mp sensor, you can get away with not getting so close and keeping the DOF deeper, but then your image is as good as a less mpixel sensor? Maybe I'm not following...

It might be because I have not had a MFdB with LV.

[Theodoros]

OK, so you have focus on 1 shot, then how do you focus the next frame in the stack of images you need to take?

I might not be following this correctly, as I have not had a MFdB with LV.

But... why take stack images?

[Phil Indeblanc]

To have a front to back focus. Its a standard in product. Another reason smaller sensors are attractive as the DOF is increased when the sensor is smaller.

[Theodoros]

To have a front to back focus. Its a standard in product. Another reason smaller sensors are attractive as the DOF is increased when the sensor is smaller.

Why not use Scheimpflug principal? ...isn't that a major aspect why we buy technical cameras for? ...you have more uniformity on the image too than focus stacking... Don't know, but I hate the looks of focus stitching... I would only use it if a DSLR  with no T/S lens would be the only thing that would be in my possession...

EDIT: Using some "lens correction" filter in an architectural shot even if a technical camera has been used as to make it perfect, that, I don't mind at all... In fact I believe all technical camera users do some extra "digital work" when post processing as to correct minor issues... but focus stitching I do hate the looks of it!

[Christoph B.]

To have a front to back focus. Its a standard in product. Another reason smaller sensors are attractive as the DOF is increased when the sensor is smaller.

That's a reason for me to go larger: smaller DoF, selective (yet very sharp) focus with creamy bokeh.. with smaller formats the only thing you can do it open the aperture and introduce an overall soft image with a still comparatively harsh background.

But for product photography a relatively small sensor size is quite usable - however I think tilt/shift photography is a better solution and that's much easier accomplished with medium and large format cameras.

[Phil Indeblanc]

The Scheimpflug/TiltShift principal is great for many aspects of photography, even many product work. But with macro product work its mostly little to no use.

If you want to fill your frame with a small 1.5" to 4" product T/S is only going to get you so far, in particular with your 9-12degree amount on a Fuji or other fixed system, they are of little to no use.


This is the kind of material a couple consultants are encouraging me to teach and create online video subscribed sessions/content with :-)

[Theodoros]

The Scheimpflug/TiltShift principal is great for many aspects of photography, even many product work. But with macro product work its mostly little to no use.

If you want to fill your frame with a small 1.5" to 4" product T/S is only going to get you so far, in particular with your 9-12degree amount on a Fuji or other fixed system, they are of little to no use.

OK... but even in extreme situations like the one you describe, where the product other than being small has also to be be "fat"... if one is to use focus stacking anyway, why not use a DSLR with an IF lens? (like the Nikkor 105VR for example) ...and even a TC on it?  I mean if one ends up to have to apply focus stitching, why use a view camera at all?  ...only to have the rear focusing ability? ...isn't having IF the same?

[Phil Indeblanc]

Unless you shoot a coin flat, any other 3d subject will be "fat". A sphere would have the same issue. Not enough DOF in 1 frame.

IF lens will distort. The Canon 180 Macro is pretty flat, but still distorts. Elements in the glass change when changing focus. Besides you shouldn't be doing this type of work with a AA filter camera.

[Theodoros]

IF lens will distort. The Canon 180 Macro is pretty flat, but still distorts. Elements in the glass change when changing focus.

Do they?    ...obviously not my kind of studio photography as to have noticed! (I mainly do art reproduction, but some architectural too - again mainly ancient cities or places, or byzantine interior and exterior architecture), but have done enough of studio (other than tiny objects) too....  I guess there is always an expert on other photographic territories... Thanks for the conversation.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Obsolutely, when you have DOF of 3mm or less (when maxing out the subject to fit frame) there will be a significant amount of shift from your front focus to your back focus. ... everything will matter.

Art repro the lighting is key to get texture that I am not an expert on, but DOF is certainly a non issue. For architecture/scale of,  the T/S will do wonders.

pleasure

[Theodoros]

Obsolutely, when you have DOF of 3mm or less (when maxing out the subject to fit frame) there will be a significant amount of shift from your front focus to your back focus. ... everything will matter.

Art repro the lighting is key to get texture that I am not an expert on, but DOF is certainly a non issue. For architecture/scale of,  the T/S will do wonders.

pleasurer

More of a cafe conversation, but imagine one having to shoot a masterpiece wall painting of hagiography in a 9th century tiny (say 17m^2 area) monastery that has been painted on the curved roof and has to turn that to a flat print for production... All that with the gas generator (there is no electricity on those for protection reasons) running outside and the need for the 2m^2 to be shot in 16x multishot mode with the GX680 in angle on the tripod (with shifts and tilts of course) and the mirror slapping of the GX-680 for the series of 16x shots in the equation... Can it be done? (LOL...) ...but of course it can! (more LOL...)

[Phil Indeblanc]

That sounds like an extreme to challenge any pro, only the prepared & expereinced can make that worthwhile :-)

No mirror up on the Fuji? Perhaps not in Multishot/?

[Theodoros]

That sounds like an extreme to challenge any pro, only the prepared & expereinced can make that worthwhile :-)

No mirror up on the Fuji? Perhaps not in Multishot/?

No... you can lock the mirror up on the Fuji for single shot, but you can't for multishot because its electronically locked and it returns back after the first capture... The other Q-camber is that you can't use Bulb either as to lock the mirror up, because the 54H records automatically "black level reference" (taking into account the temperature of the sensor) just after the first shot (and thus it will fail if the camera is in bulb)...

But you can avoid mirror vibrance if you work with damping materials on the "up" position of the mirror and then give time between the sequence captures as for the mirror return energy to settle... and you can additionally use a 40 year old Fatif tripod of course...