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

[Phil Indeblanc]

Ya, another reason the RZ rests.

haha...I used to have a Fatif I think Italian studio pod. For tripod I have an old Slik and it is a beast with a froto large geared head on it. Only thing I would prefer are lock latches vs roller tightening and loosening to extend legs.

[Theodoros]

Ya, another reason the RZ rests.

haha...I used to have a Fatif I think Italian studio pod. For tripod I have an old Slik and it is a beast with a froto large geared head on it. Only thing I would prefer are lock latches vs roller tightening and loosening to extend legs.

Maybe you can exchange the RZ for a Fuji and pocket the difference... 

EDIT: Speaking on tripods, I believe that the phrase: "they don't make it like that anymore", applies to tripods more than anything else... 

[Phil Indeblanc]

:-)
there is little difference between the 2 for me. I think the tilt on the Fuji is slightly less than the RZ 75 with t/S adpater. The Fuji if I rem is about 9 and the RZ about 12degrees.

What is nice about the Fuji is the lens plate adaptation. Now if there was a tripod mount on the lens portion so when you adjust focus just the back moves back and forth, you might have something there.  In fact the custom camera maker here (So sorry I forget his name) does such mods to systems and sells them.

[Theodoros]

The tilt on the Fuji is +/- 12 degs Phill... No need for T/S lens. Shift is 15mm +/- (30mm total) and so is horizontal side moves, swing is 15 degs... (can be very useful for "fat" tiny industrial depending on framing if combined with some tilt)... 

EDIT: Also... RZ glass is great, but Fuji GX-680 glass is visibly sharper, it will even compare with 35mm top glass for 35mm area resolution... honest!

[Phil Indeblanc]

I can easily agree on all, as I dont rem the specs and usage, but I would caution on the expectaion of results on fat/tiny :-). Been there done that.

[E_Edwards]

To me, there would be some progress if the amount of cables and connections were reduced to a minimum.

At the moment I use a digital back, Rollei Control S and Rollei shutters on Schneiders and Rodenstocks with a view camera.

For tethered use I need:

-Cable from Rollei lens shutter to Rollei ControlS

-Din Cable from Rollei ControlS to digital back.

-Cable from Rollei ControlS to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply.

-Another cable from Rollei ControlS to flash input of digital back.

-One more cable from digital back to flash output.

-Firewire cable from digital back to FireWire repeater.

-Firewire repeater to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply

-Apple Adaptor cable from repeater to Thunderbolt port.


This is absolutely ridiculous, bonkers! Bad design. You should be able to have just three cables max, one for tethering to computer, one for flash output (flash trigger) and one for electronic shutter lens to digital back connection.

Furthermore, every back should have a built in wireless flash trigger (iike pocket wizzard have built in some flash units)

Also, it's not beyond the possible to build lenses that communicate with the back wirelessly, although you would need some small battery power to trigger the piezo actuator inside the lens.

All sensors should rotate, so you could shoot at any angle you rotated the sensor, not just 0 degrees or 90 degrees, but any other angles you wished. Leaf had something like that, but I believe not anymore.

Modern view cameras should all be motorised so that the focussing, focus bracketing, etc is all done from software, as well as calculating angles of front and rear standards to apply the Scheimflug principle.

Edward

[Theodoros]

To me, there would be some progress if the amount of cables and connections were reduced to a minimum.

At the moment I use a digital back, Rollei Control S and Rollei shutters on Schneiders and Rodenstocks with a view camera.

For tethered use I need:

-Cable from Rollei lens shutter to Rollei ControlS

-Din Cable from Rollei ControlS to digital back.

-Cable from Rollei ControlS to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply.

-Another cable from Rollei ControlS to flash input of digital back.

-One more cable from digital back to flash output.

-Firewire cable from digital back to FireWire repeater.

-Firewire repeater to Dc adaptor then to mains power supply

-Apple Adaptor cable from repeater to Thunderbolt port.


This is absolutely ridiculous, bonkers! Bad design. You should be able to have just three cables max, one for tethering to computer, one for flash output (flash trigger) and one for electronic shutter lens to digital back connection.

Furthermore, every back should have a built in wireless flash trigger (iike pocket wizzard have built in some flash units)

Also, it's not beyond the possible to build lenses that communicate with the back wirelessly, although you would need some small battery power to trigger the piezo actuator inside the lens.

All sensors should rotate, so you could shoot at any angle you rotated the sensor, not just 0 degrees or 90 degrees, but any other angles you wished. Leaf had something like that, but I believe not anymore.

Modern view cameras should all be motorised so that the focussing, focus bracketing, etc is all done from software, as well as calculating angles of front and rear standards to apply the Scheimflug principle.

Edward

+1 ...LOL...  With a Fuji GX 680 you only need two cables... one can use a transmitter on the hot shoe for flash... 

The only thing I disagree with, is for movements & focusing to be motorized... IMO it would be like the photographer using the "program" mode on a DSLR... It should rise costs dramatically too... Having (at no cost) suggestions from a plug in to the MFDB makers software, where the photographer would be able to enter the lens data combined  to the view camera specs, should be sufficient...

[Chris Barrett]

Ha...

Another thing I dig about the Sony on the view camera.  Profoto Air Remote sits on the Hotshoe.  USB from camera to laptop.  Done.

[E_Edwards]

I will explain what I mean by motorised. Instead of, or rather, on top of, focussing by hand, it is very handy to focus (the rear standard, I should point out) by software, as you can then focus very accurately from the software without touching the camera.

Once you focus, you can then calculate (or ask the software to calculate) the necessary number of shots for focus bracketing and proceed to move the rear standard automatically in a sequence and shoot in equal intervals.

This is focus stacking but on a view camera,. i.e. moving the rear standard, as it has been previously discussed, which is of paramount importance in macro photography, also explained. This has nothing to do with Program exposure, it's just a facility to avoid human error, and to avoid touching the camera whilst you bracket at such close macro distances. It's a bit of a niche thing, and only important to a certain field of photography, therefore it is unlikely to be implemented on a view camera

I had to make such motorised view camera adaptation myself, including the software because you can't really buy it ready-made for the purpose, although Sinar are beginning to introduce it with their copy cameras, but it doesn't go far enough.

Having some engineering and electronics knowledge, I could market adapter kits myself, but I don't think the market is big enough to warrant such effort, you would need a substantial number of orders to make some decent money and photographers, generally, don't like to spend that much, they usually stick to their old routine, despite the inconvenience.

Edward

[E_Edwards]

Chris,

I have both the Sony A7r and the Nikon d810 and much as I like them (well, the Nikon at least) on testing them alongside my Leaf back with the same 120 Schneider Digitar lens on all of them, I couldn't get as good results as the Leaf, close, yes, very close, and for many people more than good enough, but this is an old Leaf65 back and even then it couldn't be surpassed. I expect the Credo 50 or the equivalent Phase One will be even more difficult for the DSLR's to match.

Maybe the A7IIr has bridged the gap in terms of image. I don't care for ridiculous tests pushing the image 4 stops, or shooting at high ISO to test noise versus the meagre 50 ISO of the camera back. I am studio bound and happy to shoot at 50 ISO and get the exposure bang on, or within a third.

Believe me, it I knew and could see by myself that the DSLR's were better/equal and more practical for my needs, I would not hesitate to use them, to avoid the hassle of using digital backs.

I am waiting for a new Nikon model with the latest Sony sensor…with everything working as it should…


Edward

[Theodoros]

 "...I couldn't get as good results as the Leaf, close, yes, very close, and for many people more than good enough..."

Edward

Add to this the purchase cost difference (for new) and there you are Ed..., there you are!  Let's not forget that sensors will develop further and this means that the MF to FF gap will shrink further... IMO, by the time the first mirrorless will offer "true color" multishot ability, there will be a "game over" for MFDBs and view camera combinations... All pros will go for the "true color" mirrorless and never look back... that will be the time where I will be also selling the GX-680 with Sinarback 54H system combination... Who cares for 5% more quality if customers can't appreciate it (or pay for it) and one feels that skills can "hide" the difference on equipment? ...who? 

[Chris Barrett]

Edward,

I agree.  My IQ 260 did produce nicer files than the Sony.  I just found that the increased workflow efficiency of the mirrorless (with its exceptional live view) would keep me more competitive than a 5% difference in the raw files.  Also, being able to work confidently at higher ISOs has made my productions more streamlined.  I'm doing a bit less lighting these days and moving a little faster.  Purely a business decision.

CB

[Theodoros]

Q.E.D......

[Phil Indeblanc]

Edward,

I agree.  My IQ 260 did produce nicer files than the Sony.  I just found that the increased workflow efficiency of the mirrorless (with its exceptional live view) would keep me more competitive than a 5% difference in the raw files.  Also, being able to work confidently at higher ISOs has made my productions more streamlined.  I'm doing a bit less lighting these days and moving a little faster.  Purely a business decision.

CB

Absolutely...If you're not doing this, loss of business is something most pro photographers cannot afford...But , hehe, sometimes you have to have both tools, one to feed the mouth, and the other to feed the perfectionist  or artistic soul.


There are rail systems that are SW controlled and automated. I looked into them before, and unless I was doing multiple hundreds, I think the cost isn't morth it. It also does have its own limitations and a way one must work.  The SInar back's wheel makes the mm increments pretty easy to do.

I wish they made a remote triggering back. Its a crime that I'm triggering exposure due to static electricity every time I miss grounding myself and touch the manual trigger wire.
For manual lens on Sinar, I have to wake the back then trigger the shutter. SO its a 2 step process(and Firewire with repeater tether). Pretty simple.
I too expose pretty much exact at native iso. But paying over $150 to 300 for a "1 shot" cable that will trigger the back with the problems of static touch is just ridiculous. This is a PhaseOne problem (besides a static charge issue).

I agree with your list E Edwards...but I didn't know the Rollie had so many wires :-/


 

[synn]

I will explain what I mean by motorised. Instead of, or rather, on top of, focussing by hand, it is very handy to focus (the rear standard, I should point out) by software, as you can then focus very accurately from the software without touching the camera.

Once you focus, you can then calculate (or ask the software to calculate) the necessary number of shots for focus bracketing and proceed to move the rear standard automatically in a sequence and shoot in equal intervals.

This is focus stacking but on a view camera,. i.e. moving the rear standard, as it has been previously discussed, which is of paramount importance in macro photography, also explained. This has nothing to do with Program exposure, it's just a facility to avoid human error, and to avoid touching the camera whilst you bracket at such close macro distances. It's a bit of a niche thing, and only important to a certain field of photography, therefore it is unlikely to be implemented on a view camera

I had to make such motorised view camera adaptation myself, including the software because you can't really buy it ready-made for the purpose, although Sinar are beginning to introduce it with their copy cameras, but it doesn't go far enough.

Having some engineering and electronics knowledge, I could market adapter kits myself, but I don't think the market is big enough to warrant such effort, you would need a substantial number of orders to make some decent money and photographers, generally, don't like to spend that much, they usually stick to their old routine, despite the inconvenience.

Edward

There exists something like this. PM "gerald.d" over at GetDPI.

[E_Edwards]

I completely see your points, and agree.

However, there are specialised jobs where you want the ultimate quality and that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference, probably not to the client, as most would not be able to see it, but what about yourself?

I don't know about you, but after so many years working as a photographer, I still feel mortified to shoot with a DSLR knowing that I also have a digital back that will give me that little bit of extra quality.

It is borderline, I know, and I am sure there are many who feel like me.

In a way I am considering the opposite direction. I am thinking a Leaf Credo50, being CMOS will allow me to go a little higher in ISO with no noise degradation, much better Live View and still keep all my expensive lenses with Rollei shutters. Using an adapted (motorised)  Aptus maybe. I will also need less powerful flash lights, by at least two stops, so my Broncolors can recycle faster, so my focus stacking can be done much faster, needing less interval…

On the other hand, why do I need to trim a few seconds? Why do I need to change something that works perfectly already? This is mad. It's so easy to fall in this relentless trap of acquiring more and more gear when what we have is perfectly good for the job….

So I've just realised that I fall into the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Edward

[Theodoros]

...But , hehe, sometimes you have to have both tools, one to feed the mouth, and the other to feed the perfectionist  or artistic soul...

LOL...    Agree, it all depends on the price one can get... if it is too low to sell, it always ends to the above excuse... ...LOL...

[E_Edwards]

There exists something like this. PM "gerald.d" over at GetDPI.

Thanks Synn,

I am not aware of a stacking system that moves the rear standard, I doubt you can have a universal system, that's why I had to make my own, adapting a Sinar P2. I've had it going for close to 10 years. Naturally it adds a couple more cables to the system

Edward

[Phil Indeblanc]

....
However, there are specialised jobs where you want the ultimate quality and that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference, probably not to the client, as most would not be able to see it, but what about yourself?

I don't know about you, but after so many years working as a photographer, I still feel mortified to shoot with a DSLR knowing that I also have a digital back that will give me that little bit of extra quality.

It is borderline, I know, and I am sure there are many who feel like me.
.....
On the other hand, why do I need to trim a few seconds? Why do I need to change something that works perfectly already? This is mad. It's so easy to fall in this relentless trap of acquiring more and more gear when what we have is perfectly good for the job….

So I've just realised that I fall into the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Edward

+1 :-)

[Theodoros]

...that 5 to 10 per cent can make lot of difference, probably not to the client, as most would not be able to see it, but what about yourself?

Edward

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...