anyone used MFDB on a large format field camera?

[Endeavour]

to cut a long story short; I have a 4x5 Shen Hao field camera which I love. But due to the arrival of a tiny human I have to dismantle my dedicated darkroom.
So I'm selling all my film & processing kit and remaining digital only.

Has anyone used a digital back on a 4x5 camera using the adapters/replacement for the rear standard? I could stick with my MF camera of course, but I would miss the movements I get with my field camera

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

Anders Torger (torger on LuLa) has written some notes about digital view cameras: https://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/linhof-techno-review.html.

[Endeavour]

wow thanks.

"some notes" is a little bit of an understatement nice comprehensive write up there.

[yaya]

The short answer is yes.

The experience and practicality depend on your workflow and on the type of digital back you are going to use on the 4x5. If it has good live view then focusing a composing can be reasonably easy. Note that most 4x5s (Shen-Hao included) are not very sturdy so you will need to pay attention to focusing and vibrations. If the back doesn't have Live View or if it's of poor quality then you'll need to use a sliding back with a ground glass, or use your GG and swap between that and the back, which is not always easy.
Graflok direct adapters you can get from Linhof or Silvestri but there are a few other options out there.

Your lenses will obviously all become longer so you might want to look at getting some wider ones.

Good luck and congrats on the new arrival!

BR
Yair

[BobShaw]

I experimented with this years ago. Even with an MF back you get a massive crop factor compared to the 4x5 film. It is not worth the effort IMO. You will get better results with a Canon TSE and adapter on an X1D or get an HTS if you are keeping a full size MF. I sold a Linhof and an H4D and it can come out reasonably cost neutral.

[Steve Hendrix]

I don't see any reason (well, funding, sanity) to not do this. If you enjoyed shooting 4x5 and in particular the complete framing control that full movements gives you, then why not. You could move to tilt/shift lenses and 35mm, but why limit yourself (other than for the above reasons). Compared to a full featured view camera, shooting a tilt shift lens is like having one arm tied behind your back (IMO).

The imaging area for medium format sensors is smaller than 4x5, but still larger than 35mm, and with the right digital back and lens combinations, there is plenty of room to work with. If you don't possess a finely geared view camera, you may find yourself frustrated over the difficulty of fine tuning your focus and framing decisions. But otherwise, go for it, there remain quite a large number of options.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[Chris Barrett]

The big reason not to do this is, since a MFDB has greater resolution per area than film, it becomes a much less forgiving medium.  You need a highly precise bench to obtain critical focus.  I found the Arca Swiss F-Metric to barely be up to the demands and greatly prefer the Mf2.  I believe using a wooden field camera would be an exercise in constant frustration.

-C

[David Eichler]

What about continuing to shoot film and then scanning to print digitally? Can process large-format film in drums in a limited space. Not very enjoyable to do, but it works.

[John Nollendorfs]

Understanding some photographer's fasination with the disciplines of view camera use, I find little practical value in the digital world. I'm confident Ansel Adams would not be using one today if he were alive.

The ease of using a modern 35 full frame in the field makes it an almost no brainier. The trade off in terms of quality is negligible, unless you are printing huge. And if you can shoot stitched images, grand image sizes of high quality are very doable.

Transitioning to the digital world today does not necessarily mean following the analog paradigm with all the great new tools available.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[BobShaw]

What about continuing to shoot film and then scanning to print digitally? Can process large-format film in drums in a limited space. Not very enjoyable to do, but it works.

That to me is the only practical solution if you want to pursue full movements, because of the full use of the camera width. The long effective focal length is useful in a studio for some product work which may require movement on both planes, but fairly useless for landscapes.

I disagree with comments that that digital has higher resolution than film. My experience is that 35mm film is equivalent to 20MP and 645 film is equivalent to 65MP. So if your back is 65MP or better than you may have more resolution to worry about. However if you are shooting 4x5 film then that would be the equivalent of roughly 300MP, and you won't get that without Multishot cameras or stitching.

[Two23]

What about continuing to shoot film and then scanning to print digitally? Can process large-format film in drums in a limited space. Not very enjoyable to do, but it works.

This is the route I took.  Buy a used Epson v700 and you're in business.  I don't have a darkroom either (might in the future,) and have recently purchased the nifty Stearman SP-445 tank to process 4x5.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/445100-SP-445-4x5-Developing-Tank-with-Two-Holders


Kent in SD

[Endeavour]

I have a CPP2 (with lift) a bunch of drums, including experts for 4x5 etc and an Epson V800

[David Eichler]

My experience is that 35mm film is equivalent to 20MP.

That is not my impression with standard types of film. Maybe with Kodak Technical Pan or something like that, but not generally speaking.

[BobShaw]

That is not my impression with standard types of film. Maybe with Kodak Technical Pan or something like that, but not generally speaking.

Would you please quantify what your impression is? I think that film properly processed and scanned will have have potentially more resolution than single shot digital for a long time yet. Personally I don't need it but some may. I found with a Fuji 617 camera that I could easily get 15000 pixels on the long edge using Velvia and a cheap scanner like a V700.

At the time the most I could get from my digital camera was about 6000 pixels so film made metre wide prints better. Now i can easily get over 8000 pixels from 50MP MF digital which is enough, but 30,000 pixels should be achievable on a drum scanner with film if you need it.

[Drewbie]

The answer to the original question is to stick with film and the Shen Hao and scan the film or reinvest in a dedicated digital platform camera that allow all those movements (such as a Linhof Techno) with a currentish digital back and current digital Rodenstock lenses. The latter option will not be cheap...... There is no point at all in trying to mix new and old technology.

I cannot believe after all these years of looking at LuLa (it must be at least 18 years) that someone is still spouting that absolute rubbish of because you can scan a piece of film at a certain mega-resolution that therefore it MUST outresolve any digital camera. Michael Reichmann showed on this site many years ago that the original Canon 1DS outresolved 35mm film and was actually the equivalent of 6x7 rollfilm. In my experience, a current full-frame digital camera has the resolution of rollfilm in that aspect ratio and a current MFDB has at least the resolution of 5x4 film. I have had a look at Aspiration Images, Bob Shaw and I see absolutely no evidence that you know what you are talking about. Have you even used a modern MFDB??

[Drewbie]

I suppose you could also see if you can pick up a Betterlight back. That might allow you to carry on using your Shen Hao.

[BobShaw]

The answer to the original question is to stick with film and the Shen Hao and scan the film or reinvest in a dedicated digital platform camera that allow all those movements (such as a Linhof Techno) with a currentish digital back and current digital Rodenstock lenses. The latter option will not be cheap...... There is no point at all in trying to mix new and old technology.

I cannot believe after all these years of looking at LuLa (it must be at least 18 years) ...

What, were you lurking for 18 years and decided to make your first post?

I have had a Phase back and 2 H3D backs and tried these on LF cameras. It simply does not work to put a medium format back on a large format camera except in a studio environment for product work. You are using a device 50mm wide to capture an image on a camera which is 125mm wide.  You lose all of the wide angle capability (unless you use those expensive and cumbersome stitching backs). I tried it with Linhof which won't allow short focal length lenses and then with Cambo which won't allow tilt and full movements. You finish up with a very expensive cumbersome setup mounted in two pelican cases that costs more than the car you use to move it anywhere.

This is my my tilt shift medium format setup now. I can carry it around my neck and it was under 10,000 AUD new.

[EricWHiss]

I use my digital backs on all kinds of large format cameras and it's quite fun. There are a plethora of digital backs to graflok style 4x5 film holders on ebay for cheap.   Backs that have decent live view are really easy to focus.  For my Linhof Technika IV which has a rangefinder, I simply made use a small shim that I put in between the folding stops for film to set the front standard in place for digital - and then I can use the rangefinder for focusing.  Can't believe all the posts about this being challenging.  A lot of the older LF lenses have beautiful rendering and can provide a very nice look and can be a lot sharper than you'd expect from all the hype about the newest lenses and requirements for said digital backs. 

[Dan Wells]

There are "view cameras" designed specifically for MFDB use - Cambo has one, and there are a couple of others (not cheap, some use medium format lenses, others use specially mounted view camera lenses) ... They are more like baby monorails in design than field cameras, but they fold down smaller than any 4x5" camera. Another option is a 2x3" (6x9 cm) field camera, which should be quite practical with a live view back. There are Graflok adapters from 2x3" to Hasselblad V, Mamiya 6x7 cm and maybe Mamiya 645.

Any non live-view back is probably going to be impractical to focus - you won't be able to switch from the ground glass to the back without disturbing focus - but, conversely, a live view back should be a joy...

Watch out for lens focal lengths - normal on most backs is about 55mm (if this seems short, note that 50mm on 24x36mm is a notably long normal - 43mm is technically correct) , although the Phase One backs that are "full-frame 645" (they aren't quite) are closer to 70mm. Normal for 4x5" is somewhere around 150mm, and even 2x3" is around 90mm.

 Many 4x5" field cameras won't even focus a 55mm lens at infinity, and even a 2x3" with a bag bellows will probably only go down to 35mm or so. The various Cambos and the like made for digital are designed to focus shorter lenses, and will handle a 23mm or so.

The other option (lighter, cheaper unless you already have a live view back) is a mirrorless camera with a tilt-shift lens or several. The most obvious option right now is probably a Nikon Z7 with the FTZ adapter and PC-Nikkors. The other way to use manufacturer adapters would be an EOS-R and Canon TS-E lenses (but you lose the resolution of the Nikon). If you don't mind trickier adapters from companies you may not have heard of, a Sony A7rII or A7rIII with a Kipon, Metabones, etc. adapter to Canon (or perhaps Nikon) lenses could work.