A down to the line decision

[carstenw]

A note on the Hassy Flex... David, that is a superb concoction! However, I have some concerns for my needs... The 30 is a fisheye, so the shortest usable rectilinear focal is the 40. Without the Mutar, IIRC the IC is 80mm, so about 10mm of free IC in any direction, correct? With the Mutar, the IC increases, but so does the focal by a factor of 1.4, so your 40 becomes a 56... Looks like a *GREAT* little device, but does not appear to solve two of my main needs -- a hyper-wide rectilinear at 24mm or thereabouts and a sharp 35 focal with enough IC for 10mm - 12mm shifts...

The Flexbody has several problems:

1) the tilts and shifts are on the rear. Okay for shifts, but for tilt, that is exactly opposite of what you want. If the tilts are on the front, you preserve your sensor/film-to-subject alignment. On the rear, you lose it, for example with buildings, so if you want focus on the ground, you get converging verticals... If the shifts are on the rear, as Don mentioned in another post, the nodal point stays in the same position.

2) The Hasselblad lenses mostly don't have large image circles, especially apparently the 120 Macro, so you can't shift much.

3) The wide angle, as Jack mentioned.

The Hasselblad Arcbody is a bit more interesting. Instead of using Hasselblad MF lenses, it uses LF lenses, so larger shifts and wider lenses are possible. It has shift on the rear, but introduces another problem: it only shifts up (actually, back shifts down). To shift sideways, turn the device sideways. To shift down, you need an adapter. Hasselblad did the best with what they have, but it doesn't work all that well. Michael Reichmann has a review here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/arcbody.shtml

Go for the Silvestri. Personally, I want the Sinar P3

 

[Don Libby]

Carsten

Very good points on the nodal point of the lens; the more it moves the more chance of distortion. As much as I used and liked the RSS ultimate pano gear it still was hit or miss on finding the “exact” nodal point of the lens I was using. At least now using a technical camera where all the movements are on the back and the lens stays still as it should the problems of nodal points are in the past. I’ve been very surprised and pleased at the usable image files I’m getting in my stitching.

Jack also address very good points are regarding the relationship between focal length and tilt. There’s been several articles written by architectural photographers on the ease of use with various systems all of do not have tilt.

don

I’ll find the article(s) I made reference to above and post links …

Edited:
Jeffrey Totaro uses a Cambo Wide DS
I like his take of camera placement particularly camera height.
http://www.phaseone.com/upload/cs_totaro_100907.pdf

 

[Jack]

Yes, but you're left on your own to find out which boards really work with which camera and how much t/s if any you have at infinity; and more likely than not you'll need live view using these boards.

Not really -- the boards are manufacturer specific and you can use a combination of rear standard movements with front tilts or swings to re-center the IC as needed. Since they are LENS boards and mount on the lens standard, you won't need live view anymore than you would with any other solution.

Note that full front and rear standard movements are a major benefit of sticking with a dedicated technical view camera option --- the Fuji 680, Hassy Flex, Silvestri and most other MF specific styles usually only allow movements on one standard, or a different movements on a combination of standards...

I guess since I don't do any serious architectural and only use the camera outdoors along with a lot less experience I probably have much less stringent needs than you Jack, I'm learning from these exchanges. The Silvestri sure looks interesting but you still face the same focusing issues with the widest lenses and you can't stitch with their sliding back when using longer lenses.

Re stitching with the dedicated MF solutions, you are faced with what is referred in the view camera world to as "bellows vignetting." This would be the biggest tradeoff for allowing the use of shorter focals. One option is to do a spherical or pan capture and correct the assembly in post. And this method works better as lenses get longer

The Silvestri sheet you linked to is an older one I think. The new flex camera 2 supposedly works directly with the 24 in a focus mount. Since it offers no movements, that is not a big deal. Also note that Rodenstock now offers a retrofocus 23mm HR lens with larger IC.

PS. The more I learn about large format and MFDBs the more I realize that film is going to be with us for quite a while longer!

There is still a lot to be said for working with 4x5 or larger film to be sure, especially if you know what you're doing. The other *huge* issue with movements on the DB's is the color shift and requirement for the associated LCC white correction frame. However, digital's instant review and processing convenience are compelling.

The economics for Large Format film isn't horrible either. Even if you already own the DB, quality 4x5 technical cameras and lenses are dirt cheap right now and can be had for far less than the equivalent cameras and focals for the MFDB use. Of course then you need to process and scan the larger sheets, which can be costly on a per shot basis...

 

[David Klepacki]

A note on the Hassy Flex... David, that is a superb concoction! However, I have some concerns for my needs... The 30 is a fisheye, so the shortest usable rectilinear focal is the 40. Without the Mutar, IIRC the IC is 80mm, so about 10mm of free IC in any direction, correct? With the Mutar, the IC increases, but so does the focal by a factor of 1.4, so your 40 becomes a 56... Looks like a *GREAT* little device, but does not appear to solve two of my main needs -- a hyper-wide rectilinear at 24mm or thereabouts and a sharp 35 focal with enough IC for 10mm - 12mm shifts...

Cheers,

Jack,

The 30mm Fisheye actually works with the PC-Mutar. Of course, you get the full distortion without the 180 degree fisheye effect, but I have shot with it for kicks and it works. I only mention it, because it can be "de-fished" as easily as defishing the fisheye without the PC-Mutar, but I really do not use this lens personally.

Without the PC-Mutar, the smallest IC for Hasselblad lenses is indeed 80mm. However, most of the lenses have somewhat larger ICs (e.g., the 120 and 150 each have about 100mm ICs). The common misunderstanding is that the focal length increases with the PC-Mutar. This is not really true. The PC-Mutar enlarges the image circle by about 1.4X. So, shooting the same 56mm x 56mm frame, you would be cropping out this center of the image circle, making it look like an effective increase in focal length (similar to what a cropped digital sensor does to full frame lenses). In actuality, this is not the case, and it is still a 40mm focal length, but with an image circle increased to about 113mm. The same story would hold true with large format lenses having similar larger image circles....if your sensor is smaller than the image circle of the lens, then it always would be "cropped" relative to its image circle with an "effective" increase in focal length (it is the FOV that is actually effected).

I just did some quick tests. Using a 36x48 sensor, without the PC-Mutar, I am able to get +/- 16mm of shift in the short direction and +/- 14mm in the long direction with the 40IF lens without any vignetting. With the PC-Mutar, I am able to get +/- 28mm of shift in the short direction and +/- 26mm in the long direction without any vignetting (and a little more if I am willing to tolerate some vignetting in the corners). So, I think this satisfies at least one of your criteria. It is very close to a 35mm FOV. It is a VERY sharp lens, and it has PLENTY of shifting ability, with or without PC-Mutar.

For ultra-wide imaging, I prefer stitching as the resolution requirements become higher with wider focal lengths in order to retain more details. Stitching is trivially easy with this setup, and will produce an image with much more resolution than a single shot image with the same FOV and back.
Depending on aspect ratio, the 40IF with PC-Mutar can achieve a FOV to a little over 100 degrees, which is the equivalent of a 15mm lens in 35mm format.

 

[Jack]

Just finished reading Jack’s message pertaining to technical cameras and medium format and wanted to say once again Thank-You! This is yet again an excellent example why wherever I’m near a computer with internet I come to GetDPI (sometimes before checking email).

don

My pleasure Don -- been there, done that with most of them, and happy to share my experiences.

Cheers,

 

[Jack]

Jack,

The common misunderstanding is that the focal length increases with the PC-Mutar. This is not really true. The PC-Mutar enlarges the image circle by about 1.4X. So, shooting the same 56mm x 56mm frame, you would be cropping out this center of the image circle, making it look like an effective increase in focal length (similar to what a cropped digital sensor does to full frame lenses). In actuality, this is not the case, and it is still a 40mm focal length, but with an image circle increased to about 113mm.

You're going to have to give me the math or pictures that prove this one... I do not understand how optics that impart an effective 1.4x magnification as with a teleconverter does not increase the effective focal length of the lens attached to it

 

[David Klepacki]

The Flexbody has several problems:

1) the tilts and shifts are on the rear. Okay for shifts, but for tilt, that is exactly opposite of what you want. If the tilts are on the front, you preserve your sensor/film-to-subject alignment. On the rear, you lose it, for example with buildings, so if you want focus on the ground, you get converging verticals... If the shifts are on the rear, as Don mentioned in another post, the nodal point stays in the same position.

2) The Hasselblad lenses mostly don't have large image circles, especially apparently the 120 Macro, so you can't shift much.

3) The wide angle, as Jack mentioned.

The Hasselblad Arcbody is a bit more interesting. Instead of using Hasselblad MF lenses, it uses LF lenses, so larger shifts and wider lenses are possible. It has shift on the rear, but introduces another problem: it only shifts up (actually, back shifts down). To shift sideways, turn the device sideways. To shift down, you need an adapter. Hasselblad did the best with what they have, but it doesn't work all that well. Michael Reichmann has a review here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/arcbody.shtml

Go for the Silvestri. Personally, I want the Sinar P3

Hi Carsten,

First, I (heavily) modified the Hasselblad Flexbody. It is no longer the stock camera, and I have remedied most of the issues that surrounded it.

1) I have added swing movement to the front. The camera can be rotated on tripod in order to get tilt in the front when needed. Contrary to what you say, I find tilt extremely useful at the rear, although not for architectural purpose.

2) From this comment, you actually have not used one. The 120 is perhaps one the most ideal lens for this camera. It has a larger than average image circle, as far as Hasselblad lenses go. With a 36x48 sensor, I can get +/- 20mm of shift in either direction.

3) Regarding wide angle, I have used the PC-Mutar to increase the image circle of the wide lenses. While it does not give the same FOV as a 24mm lens with one shot, it does give me more technical movements and as mentioned above, allows me to create higher resolution images with a few easy stitches.

David

 

[David Klepacki]

You're going to have to give me the math or pictures that prove this one... I do not understand how optics that impart an effective 1.4x magnification as with a teleconverter does not increase the effective focal length of the lens attached to it

All teleconverters behave this way. The whole image circle is actually enlarged, but then is typically "cropped" by the film/sensor plane.

It is really no different than putting a full frame (eg, Nikon FX) lens on a much smaller digital sensor, resulting in the so-called "crop factor increase in focal length"....it is this "cropping" that is the basis for the magnification.

 

[carstenw]

First, I (heavily) modified the Hasselblad Flexbody. It is no longer the stock camera, and I have remedied most of the issues that surrounded it.

Yes, yours is a lot more interesting. The Frankenflex (or Flexenstein?)

1) I have added swing movement to the front. The camera can be rotated on tripod in order to get tilt in the front when needed. Contrary to what you say, I find tilt extremely useful at the rear, although not for architectural purpose.

Right, we are in agreement. Architecture was my example.

2) From this comment, you actually have not used one. The 120 is perhaps one the most ideal lens for this camera. It has a larger than average image circle, as far as Hasselblad lenses go. With a 36x48 sensor, I can get +/- 20mm of shift in either direction.

I have not used one, but have read the report of one user whose opinion it was that the 120mm Macro didn't have enough image circle to handle his product shoot requirements. Perhaps that is not right, or perhaps that is only so for specific uses.

3) Regarding wide angle, I have used the PC-Mutar to increase the image circle of the wide lenses. While it does not give the same FOV as a 24mm lens with one shot, it does give me more technical movements and as mentioned above, allows me to create higher resolution images with a few easy stitches.

Right, you have not increased the focal length, as you mention above, but you *have* increased the *effective* focal length, as Jack mentions above. This means that you *have to* stitch, to get wide coverage. There are cases where stitching does not work well, such as moving subjects, so this is a solution which can work only for some uses.

Yours is a very neat solution, but still has some limitations, so it cannot work for everyone.

 

[Jack]

All teleconverters behave this way. The whole image circle is actually enlarged, but then is typically "cropped" by the film/sensor plane.

It is really no different than putting a full frame (eg, Nikon FX) lens on a much smaller digital sensor, resulting in the so-called "crop factor increase in focal length"....it is this "cropping" that is the basis for the magnification.

Agreed, but the magnification also serves to INCREASE the *effective* focal length -- including DoF, aperture change, and all -- no getting around that, so you do not have the use of a lens that behaves as a 40mm any more. In the above example, your 40mm f4 lens is now effectively a 56mm f5.6

 

[jlm]

no one has mentioned this yet, but it is extremely difficult to see desired focus when tilting by viewing the ground glass on a 4cm x 4 cm image and good luck getting a loupe in there. It ain't 4x5!

what I have found to work pretty well is a pair of magnifier glasses, with little telescopes for each eye (your dentist uses them). you may still need a dark cloth if outside.

i might sheepishly mention i still have that Horseman SWC with 35mm Rodenstock for sale, shifts only, but a nice tidy package

 

[tashley]

The other *huge* issue with movements on the DB's is the color shift and requirement for the associated LCC white correction frame. However, digital's instant review and processing convenience are compelling.

Jack, 'scuse my ignorance but does this mean that when I attach a Phase back to the Silvestri with a wide lens, color shifts will be such that I'll need to shoot white corrections all the time?


thx

t

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Tim I believe there is no free lunch with any backs doing T/S. You will need a calibration image on every setup

 

[Don Libby]

Tashley

I started a thread a short while back on LCC’s. Based on the responses I would have to say there’ll two camps on the subject with one camp saying yes and the other no. The yes camp says that you need to shoot a LCC each time. The no camp says that you can develop a library of LCC’s for each lens covering all possible movements.

Based on what I believe is the expert advice from Doug Peterson I went into the no camp. I currently use a 35 and 72mm lens and did LCC’s at both 10mm and 5mm movements for a total of 25 (each lens). Even though I have this library at my disposal I still understand that there will times I do something outside of what I did and will need an LCC for that event.

Here are some articles on the subject:

http://www.phaseone.com/upload/casestudy_torben_eskerod_001.pdf

http://www.phaseone.com/upload/phaseone_horseman.pdf

Each LCC you take is registered to the individual back making sharing not possible.

don

 

[tashley]

Tashley

I started a thread a short while back on LCC’s. Based on the responses I would have to say there’ll two camps on the subject with one camp saying yes and the other no. The yes camp says that you need to shoot a LCC each time. The no camp says that you can develop a library of LCC’s for each lens covering all possible movements.

Based on what I believe is the expert advice from Doug Peterson I went into the no camp. I currently use a 35 and 72mm lens and did LCC’s at both 10mm and 5mm movements for a total of 25 (each lens). Even though I have this library at my disposal I still understand that there will times I do something outside of what I did and will need an LCC for that event.

Here are some articles on the subject:

http://www.phaseone.com/upload/casestudy_torben_eskerod_001.pdf

http://www.phaseone.com/upload/phaseone_horseman.pdf

Each LCC you take is registered to the individual back making sharing not possible.

don

Lordy lordy. Now this I never had to do with my Wista 4x5!

So as I understand it, if I want a good range of movements with a digital back I have to choose between

* The Devil - being a field/tech type cam that offers a wide range of movements with non retrofocus lenses that give ultimate quality but will require all sorts of buggering about with central ND grads and LCC shots and appropriate adjustments in post.
* The Deep Blue Sea - being the Hassy h3DII39 with the T/S adaptor, where the glass though good will not be as good and where the way it performs in real world situations is yet to be proven. However, big advantage, no buggering about since Phocus will know the details and adjust accordingly.

I think I have this straight now...

???

 

[PeterA]

I have been on the sidelines looking for a view camera movement solution to arrive.

I am grateful for Jack's experience in this area - particularly his comments on movement and steadiness when using the typical LF set up. I am also mindful of Marc's experience with RollieXact system - which is a positive one for studio use.

After checking out Arca and Linhoff - pretty as they look, I am unconvinced about their ability to be used easilly and without hassle in the field and in studio with digibacks.

Therefore I am happy to wait and see for rmyself how good the Hasselbald HTS system will be ( or not) - basically a flexbody with lens and digital readout into DAC software corrections - removing a lot of the hassle involved with other solutions.

This is all big buck stuff we are talking about and patience is an important part of the equation...I must say that I am dismayed at the cost of these solutions. It seems that investment in movement also means investment in a range of lenses.

If I can get what I need from the HTS - and save on the expense of digi specked view camera use only Scheider or Rodenstocks- that means a lot to me.

 

[Don Libby]

Lordy lordy. Now this I never had to do with my Wista 4x5!

So as I understand it, if I want a good range of movements with a digital back I have to choose between

* The Devil - being a field/tech type cam that offers a wide range of movements with non retrofocus lenses that give ultimate quality but will require all sorts of buggering about with central ND grads and LCC shots and appropriate adjustments in post.
* The Deep Blue Sea - being the Hassy h3DII39 with the T/S adaptor, where the glass though good will not be as good and where the way it performs in real world situations is yet to be proven. However, big advantage, no buggering about since Phocus will know the details and adjust accordingly.

I think I have this straight now...

???

It boils down to choices…

Choose a (fill in you choice) technical camera with movements and what do you get? Technical cameras offer (dependent on your choice) total or near total choice of movements (tilt, rise, and shifts) add the lens associated to technical cameras and you get superior image quality. You also get a camera that is totally manual with a difficulty level way higher than a DSLR. So introduce trade-offs. The trade off of having a technical camera is that while it’ll be much more difficult to use, once you do you’ll be able to make it sing; think of obtaining images (very large images) where you can literally see the color of a ant’s eye at 50’ (okay an exaggeration).

I can only speak from my experience. I feel I have the best of both words now as I own both a technical camera as well as a “normal” 645. My main camera for landscape work is now the technical camera while I keep the AFD for what I’d call point and shoot. The technical camera will get a work out during my redwoods trip while I’ll probably use the AFD (along w/300mm) while I do coastal images.

Bottom line? Think about getting both the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea; in other words why not have both a technical camera and a 645 that will share the same digital back. You get the best of both worlds (knowing that you’ll need separate stable of lens)

It’s all about choices and image quality. Good luck my friend – there’s just isn’t an easy or simple answer here.

don

 

[Jack]

Jack, 'scuse my ignorance but does this mean that when I attach a Phase back to the Silvestri with a wide lens, color shifts will be such that I'll need to shoot white corrections all the time?


thx

t

Simple answer is maybe

If you use anything wider than the 35, then you almost assuredly will need to do an LCC for every frame. If you use the 35 and up un-shifted (or non-tilted) then probably not. If you use any lens with associated movements, then yes, you'll likely need an LCC.

For shifts, (but not tilts) you can build a pre-library of LCC's so to speak for each direction AND amount of movement, but be advised the 5mm or 10mm 'up' generic LCC you made may not be adequate for the 7mm or 8mm UP frame you actually took...

All this is my way of saying that you'll probably want to get ino the habit of taking an LCC for every shifted or tilted or hyper-wideangle frame you capture and save them as pairs...

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Jack]

Bottom line? Think about getting both the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea; in other words why not have both a technical camera and a 645 that will share the same digital back. You get the best of both worlds (knowing that you’ll need separate stable of lens)

Exactly -- unless something like the HTS with available lenses will suffice for the movement side of the equation.

 

[David Klepacki]

Agreed, but the magnification also serves to INCREASE the *effective* focal length -- including DoF, aperture change, and all -- no getting around that, so you do not have the use of a lens that behaves as a 40mm any more. In the above example, your 40mm f4 lens is now effectively a 56mm f5.6

Yes, based on a 6x6 format (80mm IC), the 40mm lens becomes an effective 56mm lens with the PC-Mutar, but it is also true that it still has a 40mm effective focal length with a 113mm IC, with a lot more ability to shift.

However, even without the PC-Mutar as I mentioned before, with a MFDB I am able to get a decent amount of shift as a straight 40mm lens due to its larger 6x6 image circle, more shift than possible with the Rodenstock 35HR, for example.

The Hassy 40IF may not be as wide as the Rodenstock 35HR, but then you will have much less shifting ability with that Rodenstock lens. Unfortunately, you can not have it both ways. The wider the lens you want at the sensor size, the less shifting ability you will have.

I built this camera for digital product photography, and in that capacity it succeeds extremely well for me. I find it much easier to work with than a view camera. It is not intended for interior architecture work, where you may indeed need something like a 24mm lens.