4x5 for Digital

[Anders_HK]

Hi,

I am exploring getting a traditional 4x5 to use with my Aptus 65.

Reason? Digital lenses are too expensive and format of the digital sliding back cameras feels too small for me. I would like to keep cost down but to have something enjoyable and useful to create nice images.

I am interested in using either an Ebony SW45 or Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB for wide angle landscape photography, my aim:

- primarily for stiching panoramic ~120mm x 44mm, ~120mm x 33mm
- try some attempts at stitching near 4x5 (back rise and fall   )
- lens movements

Primarily I seek recommendation on what traditional large format lenses to use, that are very sharp, and are affordable (focal lengths and recommendation of specific lenses used or new).

How about following ranges for the formats I seek 45-58mm, 65-75mm, 90mm-150mm?? Perhaps I need settle on two or maybe three lenses though, very wide and middle wide?

Any thoughts on the SW45 compared to the TFC45-IIB are also appreciated. I have looked at the Shen-Hao and it actually looks good build. Of course it is also considerably less expensive, yet per photos of the SW45 and specs they seem near same cameras. Shen-Hao also makes a sliding adapter (only landscape mode and cheap) but without any ground glass on adapter, thus need to first use the 4x5 groundglass before install adapter for photo, perhaps slight focuse correction (or maybe not needed, not sure). Else I am looking at MerginX.

Oh yes, I have been thinking of trying film in it also .

Much thanks for advises! I should say that I am also attracted to seeing the way through a ground glass. Same time an alternative is to use medium format stitching... but it is different.

Regards
Anders

[bryanyc]

Anders,

I think for very wide work, say with a 47mm on a ebony, the tolerances are not high enough to produce the results that you may ultimately want.  I have an ebony and the tightness of the focussing changes with the humidity.  The front standard can be wiggled slightly.  You are working with a sensor area smaller than the smallest medium format camera (6 x 4.5) with a 4x5 camera, which is like like shooting a 6x8 rollfillm back on an 8x10.  For longer lenses, say 65 and up, perhaps you can get good results but I think not the best for sure.  Perhaps others shooting digital on 4x5's can weight in here.

If you want that large ground glass, just shoot film and be happy.  Its just as high res as the medium format backs if not more.  Nice.  the rodenstock apo 135 and 150 are excellent lenses.

[Anders_HK]

Anders,

I think for very wide work, say with a 47mm on a ebony, the tolerances are not high enough to produce the results that you may ultimately want.  I have an ebony and the tightness of the focussing changes with the humidity.  The front standard can be wiggled slightly.  You are working with a sensor area smaller than the smallest medium format camera (6 x 4.5) with a 4x5 camera, which is like like shooting a 6x8 rollfillm back on an 8x10.  For longer lenses, say 65 and up, perhaps you can get good results but I think not the best for sure.  Perhaps others shooting digital on 4x5's can weight in here.

If you want that large ground glass, just shoot film and be happy.  Its just as high res as the medium format backs if not more.  Nice.  the rodenstock apo 135 and 150 are excellent lenses.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Bryan,

Much thanks for your reply. Why will results be better for 65mm and up than for 47mm? The 47mm should have a larger DOF.
Since my aim will be primarily for stitching using digital, then my format will not be only the 44mm x 33mm of my sensor. The resolution may be slight more than film. Per a post I did some time ago [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=20970&hl=[/url] to my eyes 21MP medium format digital (as in ZD and drum scanned Velvia 50 from Mamiya 7) was about on pair with no clear winner, just different. Now I use Aptus 65 which resolution wise (pixels) is roughly 50% more than ZD, which compared to 4x5 is about same increase in resolution demand on 4x5 lenses when people use a 617 extension to a 4x5.
For movements, if compare to using 4x5 with a 617 adapter my height on ground glass will be minimum of 44mm or 33mm versus 58mm, which is 76% and 57%. However, using a 617 on 4x5 the adjustments made will be same tolerances, thus perhaps on pair to using a 617 adapter on a 4x5.
What you mention of the Ebony makes it sound equal to the Shen Hao. The Shen Hao is 1/3 of price or less, but perhaps others have more to fill in.

Indeed I will be interested in trying film on 4x5, but I think primarily digital since film is a little difficult nowadays due supply and processing. I am an expat with much travels, current living in Hong Kong, but next year I could be in a more difficult place to buy and process film. I do like the look of Velvia very much still though, as in slides but not negs.

Very much thanks for further advises.

Regards
Anders

[hs0zfe]

Hi,

I'm not familiar with the view cameras you mentioned. Personally, I like Schneider Super Angulon LF lenses which I used on an old Linhof Kardan Bi.  Linhof are building solid metal cameras and I also love their heavy duty pneumatic tripod. these days on eBay, you might pick up some bargain LF camera. Sinar is also excellent and others may suggest other brands.

150 mm would not be a WA lens for me. There are other lenses out there from Rodenstock for example, which are good.

In any event, I would NOT have a narrowe mind when shopping for a 4x5. Look what's out there! Get a good deal. so it might be a Sinar.

[Harold Clark]

You might find that a metal monorail camera is more rigid for your purposes than a wooden camera. I use Sinar Norma in 4x5 & 5x7, and Deardorff 5x7 & 8x10, but only with film. The Norma is much easier to align, very important for you when stitching.

 I have quite a few lenses, the 58mm Schneider XL is a fine performer, also my 90mm f8 Nikkor. I use Rodenstock apo sironar S lenses in 135mm & 180mm, and they are outstanding. This is only with film of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if they worked quite well with a digital back, especially since you will be recording a large percentage of the total image.

Hi,

I am exploring getting a traditional 4x5 to use with my Aptus 65.

Reason? Digital lenses are too expensive and format of the digital sliding back cameras feels too small for me. I would like to keep cost down but to have something enjoyable and useful to create nice images.

I am interested in using either an Ebony SW45 or Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB for wide angle landscape photography, my aim:

- primarily for stiching panoramic ~120mm x 44mm, ~120mm x 33mm
- try some attempts at stitching near 4x5 (back rise and fall   )
- lens movements

Primarily I seek recommendation on what traditional large format lenses to use, that are very sharp, and are affordable (focal lengths and recommendation of specific lenses used or new).

How about following ranges for the formats I seek 45-58mm, 65-75mm, 90mm-150mm?? Perhaps I need settle on two or maybe three lenses though, very wide and middle wide?

Any thoughts on the SW45 compared to the TFC45-IIB are also appreciated. I have looked at the Shen-Hao and it actually looks good build. Of course it is also considerably less expensive, yet per photos of the SW45 and specs they seem near same cameras. Shen-Hao also makes a sliding adapter (only landscape mode and cheap) but without any ground glass on adapter, thus need to first use the 4x5 groundglass before install adapter for photo, perhaps slight focuse correction (or maybe not needed, not sure). Else I am looking at MerginX.

Oh yes, I have been thinking of trying film in it also .

Much thanks for advises! I should say that I am also attracted to seeing the way through a ground glass. Same time an alternative is to use medium format stitching... but it is different.

Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[bryanyc]

Anders

Yes, the wide lenses have more Depth of Field - but also much less depth of focus than longer lenses on the inside of the camera, where the tolerances are extremely critical with a sensor.  You probably know the story about the higher resolution of digital lenses produced by Rodenstock and Schneider: there is a reason for that reduced image circle as well.

You might want to try a test with your set up in large format with a digital back vs. another medium format view camera, like a Cambo wide.  If you see a marked difference in resolving power you may not want to go down the 4x5 with a digital back route. At any rate, a metal camera would be the way to go, and not one that has been much used.  Heck, I even agree with a lot of folks that I wouldn't even want a tilt mechanism on a medium format digital view camera for fear that the alignment wouldn't be perfect.

In regard to stitching: how big do you want to print?

[jing q]

Hi Bryan,

Much thanks for your reply. Why will results be better for 65mm and up than for 47mm? The 47mm should have a larger DOF.
Since my aim will be primarily for stitching using digital, then my format will not be only the 44mm x 33mm of my sensor. The resolution may be slight more than film. Per a post I did some time ago http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=20970&hl= to my eyes 21MP medium format digital (as in ZD and drum scanned Velvia 50 from Mamiya 7) was about on pair with no clear winner, just different. Now I use Aptus 65 which resolution wise (pixels) is roughly 50% more than ZD, which compared to 4x5 is about same increase in resolution demand on 4x5 lenses when people use a 617 extension to a 4x5.
For movements, if compare to using 4x5 with a 617 adapter my height on ground glass will be minimum of 44mm or 33mm versus 58mm, which is 76% and 57%. However, using a 617 on 4x5 the adjustments made will be same tolerances, thus perhaps on pair to using a 617 adapter on a 4x5.
What you mention of the Ebony makes it sound equal to the Shen Hao. The Shen Hao is 1/3 of price or less, but perhaps others have more to fill in.

Indeed I will be interested in trying film on 4x5, but I think primarily digital since film is a little difficult nowadays due supply and processing. I am an expat with much travels, current living in Hong Kong, but next year I could be in a more difficult place to buy and process film. I do like the look of Velvia very much still though, as in slides but not negs.

Very much thanks for further advises.

Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hi Anders, from my experience it would be very helpful to have a camera with geared movements (shifts, rise and fall at least)
each time you're manually adjusting the rise/fall or shifts, the standards of most cameras tend to wriggle abit as you tighten them which can cause alignment problems.

I think that you may get frustrated when you go home and find out the images are not that sharp so trying to find a super budget solution may end up to be more expensive in terms of your time

[luong]

Although there are endless discussions on the merits of large format lenses, most would agree that in the normal range, all the current offerings are excellent, with not that much difference between them. On the other end, for wide-angle designs, the latest generation designs (such as the Schneider XL, in particular Super-Symmars) do offer advances over previous designs.

As for the camera, I'd agree with the previous posters to seek something with more rigidity and geared movements.  I know that you plan to stitch and not use a scanning back, but note that Stephen Johnson used a very heavy monorail for his landscape project.

[Rainer]

The Ebony SW45 is a fantastic camera for using it with sheetfilm and if you have an excellent sliding back it might also be possible to use it with a DB.

I´ve tried to do so with a Phase P25 and a simple Hasselblad V to Graflok adapter made by Linhof. Mountig and unmounting the back after each setup is a hassle. A sliding back is a must!
But to be honest, i´d also prefer an Arca 6x9 with geared movements over the Ebony when using a DB.

In the end i´ve decided to shoot film exclusivly on 4x5 for now, cause i didn´t want to buy the Arca, the sliding back, 2 digitar lenses, .... spending another 8-10k Euros.

I also doubt the sense of stitching DB files for landscape work, stitching D3 or 1Ds III files mounted on a RRS Omni Pivot Pro head will do the same from my experience.

[Anders_HK]

Stitching with an Ebony is not new, see here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tal-ebony.shtml.

The SW45 was by Ebony claimed to me to be rigid and most suited in their lineup for stitching. Both the Ebony and the Shen-Hao that I have mentioned above are very solid wood cameras, not at all like Wistas or similar. They are also non folding, thus with less links that will be weaknesses to sturdiness.

Weight of the Ebony SW45 is 1.5kg and of the Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB is 1.7kg. That is small and efficient. I have now looked at the TFC45-IIB and an Ebony 23S, both appeared sturdy, while the Ebony essentially with more luxurious wood, not convinced if yet if its sturdiness justify its much higher price, nor if anything else with it does for my purpose. Actually the Shen-Hao felt more like a tool.

Using an Arca 6x9 as an example weighs 2.4kg and does not give me the 4x5 format that I seek for my use. There is no way I am willing use a camera that heavy for my purpose. It does to me seem that non folding wood cameras offer better alternatives for sturdiness combined with light weight.

Reading from Schneider of "Why Choose Digitar"; http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Digitar.pdf, their argument seem only based on that the sensor (with no stitching) is used to capture same as a 4x5 film on a much smaller area, and not the intended use I aim at, that of stitching equal to the larger traditional area.

How large will I print? Not sure. I am keen primarily to stitch panoramas based on using the 44mm width of my sensor as the vertical side of such panoramas. Why? I am keen on having lots of detail in photos. Indeed using panning with my AFDIII is an option, but I am keen on flat stitching. Also the way of seeing an image with a larger format camera is different and what I am very curious on.

I much appreciate each and all of above replies. Likewise for more replies in below. Much thanks!

Regards
Anders

[Anders_HK]

Yes, the wide lenses have more Depth of Field - but also much less depth of focus than longer lenses on the inside of the camera, where the tolerances are extremely critical with a sensor.  You probably know the story about the higher resolution of digital lenses produced by Rodenstock and Schneider: there is a reason for that reduced image circle as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bryan,

Please explain. Running numbers in a DOF calculator, it seems near distance (= variance in film plane?) does not vary much at all for also a 47mm lens as an example.

Thanks!

Regards
Anders

[yaya]

free1000 who posts here regularly has an Ebony 5X4 with a Cambo sliding back alongside a Cambo WD-S for the wider lenses.

I believe that he can fill you in on the ins and outs of using both cameras with an Aptus 75.

Yair

[Morgan_Moore]

Bryan,

Please explain. Running numbers in a DOF calculator, it seems near distance (= variance in film plane?) does not vary much at all for also a 47mm lens as an example.

Thanks!

Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With wide lenses the throw is much less - ie with the rear element 6mm from the film plane you might be focussed at 1m while at 5mm off the film plane you could be focussed at infinity - hense needing more accurate camera - grab a DSLR and look at the rear element movment in a 300mm and then with a 14mm - different order of magnitude

A recent experience..

I was shooting with a 47 on a sinarP2 with sliding back - a near infinity panorama at f16 or 11

Trying to do a cityscape that is going to be printed 5m wide on an office wall

I can tell you the critical focus on the image was wierd - maybe sharp at 200m on the left of the frame and 500m on the right of the frame - that means the standards are not quite parrallel or were knocked during moving the sensor

The image looked good - acceptable to the client (who was probably just blown away with the file size) but did not stand my personal scrutiny

The Sinar P2 is not a bad 54 camera but the tolerances are just not really there for a 47 - it works great in a table top situation photographing small things (big focus throw)

I wouldnt even try moving the standards - no chance to sustain focus - a sliding back is a must

S

[bryanyc]

A
re: depth of focus (from Wikipedia)
While the phrase depth of focus was historically used, and is sometimes still used, to mean depth of field, in modern times it is more often reserved for the image-side depth. Depth of field is a measurement of depth of acceptable sharpness in the object space, or subject space.
Depth of focus, however, is a measurement of how much distance exists behind the lens wherein the film plane will remain sharply in focus. It can be viewed as the flip side of depth of field, occurring on the opposite side of the lens.
Where depth of field often can be measured in macroscopic units such as meters and feet, depth of focus is typically measured in microscopic units such as fractions of a millimeter or thousandths of an inch.
The same factors that determine depth of field also determine depth of focus, but these factors can have different effects than they have in depth of field. Both depth of field and depth of focus increase with smaller apertures. For distant subjects (beyond macro range), depth of focus is relatively insensitive to focal length and subject distance, for a fixed f-number. In the macro region, depth of focus increases with longer focal length or closer subject distance, while depth of field decreases.

AFAIK, wide angle lenses have a much higher tolerance of focus at the film plane.  Makes sense if you think about the percentage of error of say 1 mm out of 50mm or 100mm.  But I am no optic expert.

BTW I have an ebony sw45 and an arca 6x9,4x5 and 8x10.  I love the ebony, it is my favorite 4x5 to work with, but like I say, I am not convinced of the tolerances for digital.  On the ebonycamera.com site they are now showing the camera with a fitting sliding back!  Never saw that before.  Note that the sw45 has only rise on the rear- you have to tilt it on the side if you want to stitch horizontally without moving the lens.  The arca would probably be better technically but as you say, it is heavier.  The Ebony just feels like a perfect tool (for film).

Not to dissuade you about any of this, it could actually be relative inexpensive to pick up a used good quality 4x5 and get just what you are looking for.  I got my sw45 used for about $1400.

[free1000]

I use a Cambo Wide for the bulk of my professional work (architectural) day to day. Its fairly quick to use and accurate. The Schneider lenses are great.  This is with the Aptus 75.

I used to shoot with an Ebony 45S on 5x4 but didn't want to part from it, so wondered also if I could continue shooting some personal work with it an the A75. So I made an adapter for the Cambo sliding back (which has a ground glass).

I do occasionally still use this setup, but only for personal work and where time is not a factor. Others have correctly commented on the issue of precision relating to the use of MF back, while it may be technically possible to focus a 47 on an MFDB with a view camera its not practical for commercial photography practice. With an Ebony, even with a Schneider 150 which is a convenient lens, focus often involves a fair bit of jiggling back and forth with the friction movements.

With my own Ebony setup I am using lenses from 72XL and longer. I have contemplated getting a 58mm, but that is the widest practical lens with the Ebony 45S and Cambo stitching adapter. The reason for this is the flange/focal distance and the closeness needed to the chip for infinity focus.

I made my own adapter for the Cambo sliding back out of laminated liteply and aliphatic glues so that there is a wood interface against the Ebony international back. I think I could probably make it up to 2mm thinner with a bit of effort, and a properly engineered one custom made by Cambo might be similar in thickness.  I have determined that in this case the widest lens I could conveniently focus at infinity would probably be the 58. However due to the shapes of the parts, thicknesses etc. only very limited movements would be possible... rendering the approach fairly pointless.

Originally I hoped to use this setup for pictures in this series

http://www.ebonycamera.com/gal.contrib/freemanp/index.html

but in practice the results look very different because of the relationships between chip size, focus characteristics and lens. As you can see, I was more interested in 'out of focus' than in focus, though I do want to place the focus critically in the right place. Nevertheless, the 'inexactitude' of this practice is part of the fun.

Overall, this project is a hobby for me. And I don't think I would recommend this approach for commercial work. I have now pretty much decided that I will stick with Type 55 in the Ebony until supplies run out. Then I will probably keep the Ebony as a memento and shoot B&W sheet film.

I have one other project where I might use the camera where I wanted large stitched images with a longer 150mm lens.

Overall, I don't see view cameras and MFDBs being a terribly good mix (sadly). The only cameras which seem to potentially address this idea practically are a new camera from Arca (Rm3D) and the Silvestri cameras, which both seem to me to have their issues and quirks.

Having said all this. I don't doubt that one day we will be wowed by a photographer who works solely with a camera of this type and an MFDB. Perhaps it will be Anders_HK?

Fiddling with this setup remains fun though, and I am still contemplating getting a rodenstock 58 for it when I see a decent on up for sale s/h and don't have something else demanding my cash. With the sliding back this would give a decently wide stitched image.

With the A65 of course, the smaller chip would mean that even with a 58mm lens, which I think is probably the shortest practical one for focusing on a sliding back, you would not have a wide angle solution without stitching.

If slowness of operation is not a problem, you don't need a wide angle, love stitching images together, and there is a benefit to be seen  to be using a leather bellows in the 21st century then this is the perfect approach.

[rainer_v]

love your b+w pola images ...

[Anders_HK]

Bryan,

Much thanks for that explanation! Not to worry, not dissuaded, just trying explore feasibilities . Thanks!

I use a Cambo Wide for the bulk of my professional work (architectural) day to day. Its fairly quick to use and accurate. The Schneider lenses are great.  This is with the Aptus 75.

I used to shoot with an Ebony 45S on 5x4 but didn't want to part from it, so wondered also if I could continue shooting some personal work with it an the A75. So I made an adapter for the Cambo sliding back (which has a ground glass).

I do occasionally still use this setup, but only for personal work and where time is not a factor. Others have correctly commented on the issue of precision relating to the use of MF back, while it may be technically possible to focus a 47 on an MFDB with a view camera its not practical for commercial photography practice. With an Ebony, even with a Schneider 150 which is a convenient lens, focus often involves a fair bit of jiggling back and forth with the friction movements.

With my own Ebony setup I am using lenses from 72XL and longer. I have contemplated getting a 58mm, but that is the widest practical lens with the Ebony 45S and Cambo stitching adapter. The reason for this is the flange/focal distance and the closeness needed to the chip for infinity focus.

I made my own adapter for the Cambo sliding back out of laminated liteply and aliphatic glues so that there is a wood interface against the Ebony international back. I think I could probably make it up to 2mm thinner with a bit of effort, and a properly engineered one custom made by Cambo might be similar in thickness.  I have determined that in this case the widest lens I could conveniently focus at infinity would probably be the 58. However due to the shapes of the parts, thicknesses etc. only very limited movements would be possible... rendering the approach fairly pointless.

Originally I hoped to use this setup for pictures in this series

http://www.ebonycamera.com/gal.contrib/freemanp/index.html

but in practice the results look very different because of the relationships between chip size, focus characteristics and lens. As you can see, I was more interested in 'out of focus' than in focus, though I do want to place the focus critically in the right place. Nevertheless, the 'inexactitude' of this practice is part of the fun.

Overall, this project is a hobby for me. And I don't think I would recommend this approach for commercial work. I have now pretty much decided that I will stick with Type 55 in the Ebony until supplies run out. Then I will probably keep the Ebony as a memento and shoot B&W sheet film.

I have one other project where I might use the camera where I wanted large stitched images with a longer 150mm lens.

Overall, I don't see view cameras and MFDBs being a terribly good mix (sadly). The only cameras which seem to potentially address this idea practically are a new camera from Arca (Rm3D) and the Silvestri cameras, which both seem to me to have their issues and quirks.

Having said all this. I don't doubt that one day we will be wowed by a photographer who works solely with a camera of this type and an MFDB. Perhaps it will be Anders_HK?

Fiddling with this setup remains fun though, and I am still contemplating getting a rodenstock 58 for it when I see a decent on up for sale s/h and don't have something else demanding my cash. With the sliding back this would give a decently wide stitched image.

With the A65 of course, the smaller chip would mean that even with a 58mm lens, which I think is probably the shortest practical one for focusing on a sliding back, you would not have a wide angle solution without stitching.

If slowness of operation is not a problem, you don't need a wide angle, love stitching images together, and there is a benefit to be seen  to be using a leather bellows in the 21st century then this is the perfect approach.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul,

Much thanks for you posting. Your Ebony 45S is similar to 45SU that Richard Sexton wrote of in the above ( [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-ebony.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...tal-ebony.shtml[/url] ). The Ebony SW45 is specific for wide angle photography and wide angle lenses. As such it should perhaps be better than 45S & 45SU when using for digital and stitching? That concurs with the conclusion by Richard Sexton in the article I referenced above . As such maybe the Shen-Hao I mentioned in above, TFC45-IIB would work also?

While I am smiling at your humor of indicating me as someone to produce images to be vowed of   , I am just an amateur in the learning and with passion for photography (photography, not cameras). It is not about being seen with equipment, but about seeing and the way of arriving at images by seeing and planning anticipating them. The camera I grew serious into photography with was a Nikon F100 with slides. DSLRs felt too machine gun like and I much enjoy Mamiya medium format because it is slower. The Aptus is simply my film. Slower working can yield better images. As someone who has not trained my eye through years of large format film use, something which today is slight difficult in many places due lack of films and capable processing labs, perhaps my thinking is not wrong? It has been written that when stepping from 35mm to medium format it makes a near instant improvement to ones photography. I do see improvement in mine. That is also one reason of my interest in yet larger format. While one of the new specific digital technical cameras enables perhaps equal photos and in more simple ways, it seems they lack the seeing part on ground glass.

Or... is above paragraph just my excuse? Hey, the Shen-Hao is only just over 600USD! So, no. I do not seek fancy. I seek a tool to create images . Yet I prefer to have a good one, instead of one I will sell off and loose $$ on.

What do you think?



Ok folks...

What lenses are affordable but still very sharp and for 4x5? Possibly 58mm is too wide to start with (or maybe not...). 75 is perhaps good, and 90mm. Also a 180mm could be good with time. But... perhaps I should settle on two lenses? Any really sharp ones that can be come by at a true steal?

Or... just forget this idea? There is also Really Right Stuff's Panning Clamp (PCL-1)...

Ebony vs. Shen-Hao; Macassar ebony vs. Burma Teak, not sure which one is effected less by weather. Japanese vs. Chinese, in todays time I am not convinced that Japanese quality is better than Chinese. Sure, materials of Ebony looks more luxurious, but... is it a truly better tool?

Anders

[Gigi]

FWIW, the Ebony is a much better tool - its a delight to use and a wonderfully made camera. That it isn't really the best tool for digital backs is the issue. If you want to go that path, try it. But the general wisdom seems to be that for digital precision, something else (heavier, geared, more precise) is the best route. Fun it may not be, but there it is. On the other hand, if you go the Ebony route, you can easily go back and forth from film to digital and back - just know your better work will be on film, in all likelihood.

Geoff

(with a lovely Ebony, no digital back, and wishing for the days when 55 and 4x5 film were the cat's meow).

[jaime]

You can look the Glide 66-17, it´s a tecnical panoramic camera like the linhof technorama, but for film format from 6x6 to 6x23, you can see it at

 http://www.gilde-kamera.de/

for this camera there is an accesori called glide-digital-panorama-adapter that i can´t see in their web, but its in the prize list, with the panorama adapter, you can atach a db with V mount and slide it to cover all the horizontal field, it seems made for you, just don´t look the price list...

best regards
Jaime

[Anders_HK]

You can look the Glide 66-17, it´s a tecnical panoramic camera like the linhof technorama, but for film format from 6x6 to 6x23, you can see it at

 http://www.gilde-kamera.de/

for this camera there is an accesori called glide-digital-panorama-adapter that i can´t see in their web, but its in the prize list, with the panorama adapter, you can atach a db with V mount and slide it to cover all the horizontal field, it seems made for you, just don´t look the price list...

best regards
Jaime
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jaime,

  Two things I remember from long back when I read of it: complexity + weight   +  

Not my cup of tea... mm... + price!

 

Anders