The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Advice about digital close up setup

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
9000 for a decent MF/LF setup including camera, DB, lens, is pretty optimistic I would say. :) If you buy used factor in that not everything will work as you may have imagined from the day one. You may miss a cable here or any stupid accessoire there that is hard to come by. Those little things can drive you nuts. I talking experience here. :ROTFL:
1) He is shooting studio only (from my quick read) so a H25 (no LCD, not easily portable) would do a great job at a very low entry price.

2) Buying used piece by piece on eBay may cause frustration like that. But if you buy from a dealer like us then you either don't have the issues - or in the very least you have someone to hold up to the fire to make things right :).


Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
 

Oren Grad

Active member
For clarity, it might be worth taking a half step back here. It seems to me there's a general question buried in Shlomi's original post, which perhaps has gotten obscured a bit by the discussion of specific products.

What do you do when DOF with a 35FF DSLR setup with macro lens at optimal aperture is inadequate for a three-dimensional object you need to photograph and would like to have completely sharp through its entire depth?

* Stop down further and accept the IQ loss to diffraction?
* Get a T/S lens or bellows with movements and try to position the plane of focus so that the ill effects of inadequate DOF are minimized?
* Move to medium format and stop down further?
* Stick with the original setup, recognizing that you can't always get what you want?

Practical experience with film teaches that especially in macro work, moving to a larger format is not always helpful when you want higher IQ but insufficient DOF is your main problem. Are the "sweet spots" and optimal tradeoffs different when the capture medium is digital rather than film? What would those of you who do lots of digital macro work say, based on your experience?
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
1) He is shooting studio only (from my quick read) so a H25 (no LCD, not easily portable) would do a great job at a very low entry price.

2) Buying used piece by piece on eBay may cause frustration like that. But if you buy from a dealer like us then you either don't have the issues - or in the very least you have someone to hold up to the fire to make things right :).


Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
+1

In addition, what the OP may not realize is that there are MFD solutions for studio that are strictly for tethered work and can be had for less expense.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
For clarity, it might be worth taking a half step back here. It seems to me there's a general question buried in Shlomi's original post, which perhaps has gotten obscured a bit by the discussion of specific products.

What do you do when DOF with a 35FF DSLR setup with macro lens at optimal aperture is inadequate for a three-dimensional object you need to photograph and would like to have completely sharp through its entire depth?

* Stop down further and accept the IQ loss to diffraction?
* Get a T/S lens or bellows with movements and try to position the plane of focus so that the ill effects of inadequate DOF are minimized?
* Move to medium format and stop down further?
* Stick with the original setup, recognizing that you can't always get what you want?

Practical experience with film teaches that especially in macro work, moving to a larger format is not always helpful when you want higher IQ but insufficient DOF is your main problem. Are the "sweet spots" and optimal tradeoffs different when the capture medium is digital rather than film? What would those of you who do lots of digital macro work say, based on your experience?
I shoot a ton of commercial close-up work, and as an executive art director commissioned 20 tons more. From jewelry and speciality items for high end premium catalogs, fashion accessories, watches, rare coins ... to electronic components and industrial parts, to fabric samples for the auto industry.

"Buried" in my initial questions to the OP and subsequent answer was my take on your final question above:

It all depends on the final application ... where it will be used and at what final size. The OP answered half the question: "internet and print" ... but didn't specify reproduction size in print ... which is a critical piece of missing information. There is a big difference between shots for a catalog, or for full page in a large format fashion magazine, or use for large retail display that will be viewed close up.

These are the practical considerations that are taken into consideration when any commercial photographer is charged with producing a final image of close work with everything in focus front to back.

For example, simply back off a medium format camera/lens for more DOF ... or use a shorter lens on a T/S view camera with a higher meg medium format back for more effective DOF ... the image may be smaller on the sensor than being right on top of the subject with a macro lens, but the results are still greater in resolution than any 35mm digital camera. In this case, size matters. I often use a 90mm Rodnestock to this end rather than my 120 macro. The back used was a 39 meg which can be had used now for less than a high meg DSLR. The lenses themselves are also a contributing factor to the final quality compared to even the finest MF lenses.

There are also limits which cannot be breached in one shot no matter what solution is employed. Not an overly frequent need, but it does happen.

In these cases either the layout has to be altered, or one must employ other special digital processing techniques that were not practical with film or didn't exist at all ... such as blending multiple shots with slightly different focus points ... as one example of this:Focus Stacking using Helicon Focus software: A one year demo license is only $30. to give it a try.

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

Or read this to do it yourself in Photoshop CS4:

http://davidsaffir.wordpress.com/20...es-in-photoshop-for-increased-depth-of-field/

The world of digital photography is truly amazing :)

-Marc
 

shlomi

Member
From jewelry and speciality items for high end premium catalogs, fashion accessories, watches, rare coins ... to electronic components and industrial parts, to fabric samples for the auto industry.
This is exactly what I need - all of it, not just one of the cases.

It all depends on the final application ... where it will be used and at what final size. The OP answered half the question: "internet and print" ... but didn't specify reproduction size in print ... which is a critical piece of missing information. There is a big difference between shots for a catalog, or for full page in a large format fashion magazine, or use for large retail display that will be viewed close up.
I can't be completely specific as I have different customers with different needs. If I would average it I would say A4 print.

In these cases either the layout has to be altered, or one must employ other special digital processing techniques that were not practical with film or didn't exist at all ... such as blending multiple shots with slightly different focus points ... as one example of this:Focus Stacking using Helicon Focus software: A one year demo license is only $30. to give it a try.
Blending focus points is what I do now. I am not very happy with it. I couldn't find an automatic software that does it well enough. I have my graphic artist blend manually but I would like to avoid that.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Some are backs made for tethered work in the studio and do not have the rear LCD: and I only mentioned them IF one is trying to limit costs ... obviously the ultimate would be a P65+ or H4D/50 Multi-Shot if money were no object.

Like the actively cooled Sinarback eVolution 54H or the newer 75H:

http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/digital-backs

As an art director, I have shot with many commercial photographers that use Imacon 4 and 16 shot backs like ixpress 528c

http://www.globalimaginginc.com/equipment_input/imacon_ixpress_132_528.shtml

I believe there were Leaf backs for just studio use also.

Not a solution for everyone, but a practical consideration for studio work ... one I am now actively considering myself to supplement my H4D/40 camera which I use to shoot people and location work.

-Marc
 

shlomi

Member
I have tried Helicon a few years ago and the results were unacceptable.
I tried them today after your post and the results were very good.
I guess they improved their algorithms.
I will buy it and work it into my workflow.

Some of the cameras you mention are tremendously expensive for me (P65+!)

As a buyer - how much of a difference does it make if the images comes from Canon/Nikon or MFDB?

It seems like a possibility to consider is that the new and advanced DSLRs such as 1Ds3 and D3X are almost as good as the 22MP MFDB.

Is there really much of a point in getting a 36x48 based rig, or is it more about feeling good about your equipment and impressing the customers?

22MP is all I can afford and also all I need. I have various possibilities - H25, Aptus, ZD.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
This is exactly what I need - all of it, not just one of the cases.



I can't be completely specific as I have different customers with different needs. If I would average it I would say A4 print.



Blending focus points is what I do now. I am not very happy with it. I couldn't find an automatic software that does it well enough. I have my graphic artist blend manually but I would like to avoid that.
Then I think a view camera/digital lenses with a sliding back and the best digital back you can afford is in your future.

Do not discount the advice that you can back off the camera, or shorten the focal length, to increase DOF ... combined with tilt/shift movements it is the most practical solution for extreme depth of focus needs. My tech dude is constantly reminding me of that fact. If you rarely output bigger than 24" X36" poster format and have enough quality light to shoot at ISO 50, these more modern backs will do the job even heavily cropped.

BTW, if you are involved with heavy production numbers then I'd also suggest automated shutters for the view lenses.

One other gain you will get with MFD is greater tonal gradations and less sensor bloom than with most 35mm solutions. I once tried to do a jewelry catalog with a Canon 1DsMKII to lessen production time, and just could not control the specular highlights in the Diamonds as well as with a MFD back ... I never tried that again.

Plus, some MFD solutions now have live view on the computer screen when shooting tethered, and software "focus assists" to make focusing with a view camera much easier. On some critical jobs I've use the audio feed-back focus assist on my Hasselblad set up.

-Marc
 

shlomi

Member
1Ds3 is 14 bit while 1Ds2 was 12 bit - so the color response is much better now.

I'm sure the current backs are still ahead of the current DSLRs.
The question is the back I can afford at <$5000 - H25, ZD etc. would they still be much better.
I can spend $6000 on a new setup with a good digital lens and a decent back from >5yrs ago.

What I'm afraid of is to spend the money and then have two 22MP systems with not so different image quality.

I'm very annoyed by the 3:2 ratio and AA filter in the Canon, but the customers are not complaining - at least not to my face.
And of course the movements which I've never tried, but seem to make a lot of sense.
And the German tech lenses which is very hard for me to estimate how much better they will be.

Sliding back adds $2500 to the equation.
ZD for instance is only 14 bit, and can't be mounted on a view camera as I understand since it lacks the shutter connection to the lens.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I have tried Helicon a few years ago and the results were unacceptable.
I tried them today after your post and the results were very good.
I guess they improved their algorithms.
I will buy it and work it into my workflow.

Some of the cameras you mention are tremendously expensive for me (P65+!)

As a buyer - how much of a difference does it make if the images comes from Canon/Nikon or MFDB?

It seems like a possibility to consider is that the new and advanced DSLRs such as 1Ds3 and D3X are almost as good as the 22MP MFDB.

Is there really much of a point in getting a 36x48 based rig, or is it more about feeling good about your equipment and impressing the customers?

22MP is all I can afford and also all I need. I have various possibilities - H25, Aptus, ZD.
IMO, 22 meg is enough when you consider that you can mount it on a view camera for full movements. I have used the following and can say that a 22 meg back will still outperform all of them in the studio: Canon 1DsMKIII, Nikon D3X and a Sony A900. I used none of them in the studio for product work. Frankly, I'd use a 16 meg DB before any of them in the studio. I shot hundreds of chrome wheels for GM using a 16 meg CVF that I could print up to 24" X 24" without loss.

Someone on this forum just bought a H3D/39 for $6,500. that works great. A brand new Hasselbald CFV/39 is only $12,000 new so used one will start showing up for under $10K. There are Phase One solutions that are similar. Same for Leaf and Sinar. All of these backs will work on a view camera.

The tech lenses are relative bargains for what they do and you really only need two of them for your applications. Nothing in 35mm or MFD lenses even come close. Think about it ... there are no moving elements and subsequent compromises. Focusing is done with the view bellows not the lens.

But in the end we all have to weigh cost against gain. It's just business ;)

-Marc
 

shlomi

Member
The tech lenses are relative bargains for what they do and you really only need two of them for your applications.
Why 2 lenses and not one? Which two lenses?

I will accept your premise that a tech lens is better as it does make sense from an engineering point of view.

Still it was suggested here to mount a tech lens on a MF bellows with MF body and back.

If I spend $5000-6000 on a back and a lens, what do I put in the middle, as I don't have much money left.

I saw the option for Horseman LD for $4500 - too expensive for me.
Linhof body for $500 - OK, but then sliding back adapter for $2500 - again the numbers start to climb out of my reach.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Why 2 lenses and not one? Which two lenses?

I will accept your premise that a tech lens is better as it does make sense from an engineering point of view.

Still it was suggested here to mount a tech lens on a MF bellows with MF body and back.

If I spend $5000-6000 on a back and a lens, what do I put in the middle, as I don't have much money left.

I saw the option for Horseman LD for $4500 - too expensive for me.
Linhof body for $500 - OK, but then sliding back adapter for $2500 - again the numbers start to climb out of my reach.
For your purposes a view camera is the more practical studio solution because it provides the greatest range of movements and close-up possibilities.

I suggested 2 tech lenses so you have the option of a shorter lens to increase DOF when needed. I primarily use a 90 and 120. But that is up to you.

If you buy any of this stuff new it will all be out of your price range. Astute shopping saves a LOT of money. People change their shooting application needs and dump entire systems that have been depreciated over a few years so they are far more reasonable. Most view cameras are tough as nails and are barely broken in when sold used. A huge amount of digital backs are sold used with a very low amounts of shots on them as people upgrade to the next version.

But as I said, it all depends on income verses expenses ... especially these days. Only you can determine that. I was just answering your inquiry on how to achieve something. Sometimes that cost more money.

-Marc
 

T.Karma

New member
1) He is shooting studio only (from my quick read) so a H25 (no LCD, not easily portable) would do a great job at a very low entry price.

2) Buying used piece by piece on eBay may cause frustration like that. But if you buy from a dealer like us then you either don't have the issues - or in the very least you have someone to hold up to the fire to make things right :).
There is some wisdom in it to follow the wisdom of those who have more experience and offer their service. However, one must be able to afford it.

An H25 may have a "very low entry price" but this very low entry price is not really that low when you compare it to the latest products in the digital market. With all the inconveniences an H25 has today, again compared to the latest, plus the fact that it is device many years old, very limited warranty etc. - I do not really consider it a bargain or anything close to that.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
If you compare a properly captured and processed file from that 'ancient and inconvenient' H25 back mounted on an equally ancient and inconvenient 10 year old view camera behind a relatively recent digital lens, to the best file you can get from any of the best current crop of DSLRs with the best lens that manufacturer offers, the H25 is indeed going to seem like the bargain of the century...

However for *MY* uses, I agree with the inconvenience part and would pay the extra few bucks for the P25 version's added conveniences (and actually would pay for the P25+ simply to get the added long exposure benefits, but that's me). But to be fair to the H25, for the above-described tethered, studio situation, the end result file would not be any different...

;),
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
But with a P25+ back you can certainly put that back in service as a real cam in the field and shoot a lot more than just studio work. Bottom line your not going to walk in cheap and expect miracles either. I would never buy a one trick pony and always go for how versatile a system is. It certainly pays to be thrifty no question but I always recommend to anyone is how much can you do with it that counts and how far you can take a back with options on the system, tech cam , regular Cam for field use and the ability to add more to the system as you need. The real question is your future and how often are you going to keep increasing the value and versatility of that system as you grow into other area's of work. For me I go for a system that fits my needs today but will still fit my needs 3 years from now. Personally i would by a real back like the P25+ as that maybe the best system to buy into for tech and cam work, plus it is reasonable inexpensive and can work on any solution you can come up with and trust me those 22 mpx will blow anything away in 35mm. Been here done this.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
There is some wisdom in it to follow the wisdom of those who have more experience and offer their service. However, one must be able to afford it.

An H25 may have a "very low entry price" but this very low entry price is not really that low when you compare it to the latest products in the digital market. With all the inconveniences an H25 has today, again compared to the latest, plus the fact that it is device many years old, very limited warranty etc. - I do not really consider it a bargain or anything close to that.
Compared to what latest products in the digital market? The OP has already stated he can't afford the latest, thus the alternative suggestions.

However, I wouldn't discount previous digital backs like those suggested if all the user wants is studio capture. There are all kinds of professional shooters out there still using them.

-Marc
 

shlomi

Member
I just bought a sliding back V adapter, and we'll see what happens next.

I'm not going to invest over $10000 in this at this point, as I'm not really sure what the outcome will be.
I'm going to keep my Canon rig alongside in any case, so flexibility is not paramount.
My aim is a studio only setup - LCD screen and ISOs are not interesting to me.
I would sure love a real time view without having to slide, but seems that would cost me a lot.
I'm definitely not going to lug a 4x5 along in the field for the rare cases I need it.

I believe I will set something up with the cheapest parts I can find, and if at some point I'm convinced that this will become my main rig, I will make the >$10000 investment.
 

T.Karma

New member
If you compare a properly captured and processed file from that 'ancient and inconvenient' H25 back mounted on an equally ancient and inconvenient 10 year old view camera behind a relatively recent digital lens, to the best file you can get from any of the best current crop of DSLRs with the best lens that manufacturer offers, the H25 is indeed going to seem like the bargain of the century...

However for *MY* uses, I agree with the inconvenience part and would pay the extra few bucks for the P25 version's added conveniences (and actually would pay for the P25+ simply to get the added long exposure benefits, but that's me). But to be fair to the H25, for the above-described tethered, studio situation, the end result file would not be any different...

;),
I do not question the end result of a back like the H25.
But when we talk about value, I look around what is up to date - especially with any computer related things.
CI has the H25 for 4.400 last time I looked - a new Aptus II 5 is 8000.
How does this compare? A new back, live view, warranty, screen and more connectivity to choose from than an x-year old back.

The H25 may say good by after the six month warranty is over, the OP has put all his money (he doesnt seem to have lots of it) in and then?

He will be there with a load of equipment good for nothing. This is not a smart business decision. With such tight budget the only reasonable advise is to go for safety - buy a DSLR and a PC lens.

But who am I to give advise ? :)
 

T.Karma

New member
I just bought a sliding back V adapter, and we'll see what happens next.

.
Next thing that will happen is that you probably find out it is useless for your coming shopping decision and put it back on the big auction site.

Don't mind, just trying to cheer you ......:ROTFL:

Make a plan and have a strategy.
 
Top