Each holds two sheets of unexposed film or negative. Choose the right size and ensure it fits snugly to prevent light leakage. Film backs are largely standardized, and fit most cameras. Film Backs for Field Cameras.
9 hours ago 4x5 film is near 4x5 inch, but smaller. Digital Largesense.com Related Courses. If this arrangement is shooting at 300mm than according to Deardoff this should give you the equivalence of a 89mm lens in the 35mm format.I have been looking at similar options for using an MFDB on my 4x5, especially since the release of the relatively inexpensive Leaf Aptus-II 5 22MP back.4x5 Or 5x4 Large Format Digital Back Model LS45. A Below are two images, one shot with the Nikkor 300mm attached to a Linhof 4x5 and the Fuji gfx 50r attached to the back of the 4x5.
VIEW DEALS.Other adapters are available which permit two or three tiles, and are Graflock.Joseph Holmes' concerns about precision don't necessarily apply to this scenario. Brighten up someones day with these deals on Books, Canvas, Home Dcor and more. First Large Format Digital Video Rolling Shutter Fan Test Blog. LS911-Archive Color Box - Color Wheel The Dream Cameras LS911 Camera Stand Gallery. LS45 Large Format Video LS45 Accessories Svedovsky 5x7 and 5x7E Camera for LS45 Digital Back LS911 Mark 2 8x10 Lage Format Digital Back. Unfortunately, the quadstitch costs $5000 and is not Graflock.LS45 LargeSense 4x5 Digital Back.
In this situation, non-geared movements might be just fine-one's fingers might be able to achieve the needed accuracy of +/-. Let's say a typical tilt for a 5-inch lens (on 4x5) is 8 degrees with a tolerance of, say, 5%. That could be solved by using a lens cone, at the expense of losing the symmetry of the front tilts and swings.It could also be solved using a retrofocus design, which may be the point of the so-called digital lenses shorter than a couple of inches.The advantage to a medium-format view camera instead of a 4x5 camera is that the standards are physically smaller and therefore don't come as close together when tilted.The fine adjustability of the movements is another issue that has been pointed out.
With a 28mm lens, the same situation would require a 1.6-degree tilt, with a tolerance of. Some hair-pulling is required at times. I use that lens on a Sinar F without geared movements, and I know the fine motor skills required to set the lens tilt.
Yes, I would like to see live view (which works well on the 5DII), or a split-image aid, but it works. I routinely focus lenses manually on a Canon 5D with a 2.8x eyepiece magnifier. Of course, the needed accuracy of the screen's position would be greater. I'm sure that I could focus accurately enough for digital using a 10x loupe and, say, a Maxwell screen. It just needs enough magnification, and perhaps a focus aid. But there are relatively cheap helical mounts available on ebay that could be used to mount a short lens on a flat lens board, to act as a supplemental fine focus control to the geared focus of the camera.Observing fine focus at the film plane is no different than for any small-format camera.
The higher-end and more costly the digital component, the more the price of the camera fades into the noise.View Camera magazine has an article about our studio in the next issue and how we use a medium format digital back on a 4x5 Sinar. The difference in marginal cost between a $1000 camera and a $5000 camera is a lot lower when the total investment is $12,000 versus $16,000 (at the low end of the digital domain)-a marginal cost of 33%. In the first case, a high-end medium-format view camera would increase the marginal cost of the system by a significant factor-maybe up to $5K or $6K, or maybe a 200% marginal cost. Or, I might start with 8 or 10 grand (at least) for a sensor, and then add an appropriate camera. I might buy a very nice un-geared 4x5 view camera and even a lens or two for under $1000, and spend another grand on a scanner.
I just didn't think it worked well and I'd much rather use tilts than rely on it. Maybe because my prints were larger than the assumed size in the tables, maybe because I wasn't using it correctly, I don't know. When I tried it years ago it never worked as advertised, there was always something in the near or, more often, the far, that didn't look sharp. What would you use tilts for?I'd use tilts because I've never found the whole hyperfocal distance concept to be very useful with outdoor photography. And everything from 2.5 ft.
For me it's the single best feature to come along with digital cameras in recent years because it allows me to use the optimum aperture for each lens without having to stop down farther to gain needed depth of field.I'd use tilts because I've never found the whole hyperfocal distance concept to be very useful with outdoor photography. This allows everything in the scene to be in focus or so close you can't tell the difference, without having to worry about small apertures, depth of field, swings, tilts, etc. Doesn't it help a lot with focusing too? I know that on my digital camera it's a huge aid not only to composing but also for focusing as well as making multiple images of the same scene, focusing on different points from front to back, and then merging the exposures in Photoshop. Maybe the programs are better.You mention using Live View to compose.
Hence I moved to 4x5.:)It's a good point on the face of it-I usually don't use tilts in the field with that lens with 6x12 format. But then you lose the ability to shoot a near-far landscape with anything close to you, even with a 45mm wide lens at f/22. Or so goes the theory (you can dig this theory out of Merklinger's DOF articles).My solution to this problem on medium format was to just focus at infinity for anything which has something important in the distance and stop down for foreground depth of field. Foreground will look OK because your brain knows that Xmm of on-film blur on a foreground blade of grass equals a fraction of a millimetre on the subject, but also knows that the same Xmm of on-film blur on a distant mountain might equal 50meters of mountain. Even stopping down an extra stop or so from the apertures that pop out of DOF calculators or on lens focussing scales won't get you a truly sharp looking infinity using hyperfocal focussing. Maybe because my prints were larger than the assumed size in the tables, maybe because I wasn't using it correctly, I don't know.I had the same experience as you.
I think (I don't remember the math) that might produce 5 lines/mm, which is already what I want in a print. For 4x5, the target C of C in DOFMaster is. You have to manually choose smaller target circles of confusion for prints larger than that. In that case, however, the precision of the tilt won't be as important.Finally, remember that DOFMaster is designed for 8x10" prints. Many use it to isolate the subject by throwing non-subject elements out of focus. Depth of field may not be sufficient, especially if parts of the scene are close to the camera.Also, not everyone uses tilt to improve focus.
Given a more stringent standard of 5 lines/mm on a 32x40 print, the hyperfocal distance would be 35 feet.Looking at the 47 on a 36x45mm sensor, the 47mm lens is a normal lens. Given that, the hyperfocal distance of the 47 at f/16 on 4x5 would be 18 feet, which isn't quite as wonderful. To print at that size, one would need a C of C target 1/4 the size of what DOFMaster uses to achieve DOFMaster's apparent target sharpness. But a 32x40" print would only resolve 1 line/mm, which would be an inadequate standard of what seems sharp in a print for most folks. An 8x10 print would therefore provide 2.5 lines/mm.
0 kommentar(er)
