Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Technical Camera vs View Camera

  1. #1
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Technical Camera vs View Camera

    The technical cameras seem to be all the rage these days. They're compact, easy to transport and offer view camera movements, as well as interface support for various digital backs.

    However, I was wondering why the view cameras don't seem to get any love? I could be wrong, but they could be made to interface with the digital backs just as easily and whereas they don't offer the same portability as the tech cams, they seem to offer greater movements. Furthermore, they're MUCH cheaper than tech cams and the lenses can be had for a song compared with tech cam lenses.

    Is there a reason the view cameras have gotten the shaft?

  2. #2
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,474
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    542

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    In a word, precision. Very few full sized view cameras, and I assume you mean 4x5 etc, have the required precision to support the focus accuracy required by digital backs. That's not to say that it can't be done but the lenses you might have been using with their film oriented design and tolerances don't really stand up so well when used with a digital back. Also some of the rear movements aren't ideal for use with a small sensor located in the middle of the rear standard.

    Now if by view camera you mean the likes of the linhof techno or cambo actus db then I would say that they are indeed relatively popular but do require use of either GG or live view.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    431
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Most MFDB are smaller than 645, which is tiny comparing to a 4x5 frame. So if you do use a MFDB with a 4x5 (or larger), you will either have to be stitching, or just wasting a lot of real estate. Also, you will be using short lenses. Now supposedly some of the advantages of MFDB+Tech Cam over 4x5 are that it is smaller and easier to use, but I am not entirely sure. A lot of tech cam users seem to stitch and rely on liveview for focusing. In the end, I think the workflow is different and it is what you are more comfortable with. Subjectively speaking, the high end MFDB definitely has an edge in terms of sharpness and most other image quality metrics. OTOH, 4x5 + film is a visceral experience. I just exposed 41 sheets of 4x5 Portra in Death Valley (and 9 rolls of 120) in a whirlwind tour, and I am not sure a MFDB+Tech Cam would have been easier or faster to use.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    There was a period when digital backs where used with 4x5" view cameras, without gearing. This works fine for table-top photography when parallelism is not much on an issue and you don't use wider angle lenses.

    However when you want to move to applications such as architecture photography or landscape photography with wide angles parallelism became a big issue. Another issue is that digital sensors are tiny compared to large format film which make the ground glass tiny, so focusing becomes a challenge. Pixel-peeping and other digital cameras also raised expectations on how precise focusing should be.

    The CCD digital backs did not have any live view at all or just a sad excuse for a live view. In addition, almost all digital backs of older age doesn't have a screen/onboard demosaicer which is good enough to actually see if the picture is sharp when looking at 100%. This means that if you focus on the ground glass and feel uncertain you couldn't really check in the field if the shot was sharp (unless you brought a computer and shot tethered, which indeed was not too uncommon).

    The solution to all this was the "pancake cameras", especially those with high precision focusing rings. Alpa and Cambo can have them mounted, and Arca-Swiss RM3Di has extremely precise focusing built-in. Instead of focusing on ground glass you either use hyperfocal presets or use a Leica Disto to measure distance which you then just dial in. Arca-Swiss also have their own distance measurement gear which you can use. In addition to solving the focusing problem, they are extreme rigid and precise so parallelism with wide angles is not an issue.

    However, there are also "digital" field view cameras. Linhof Techno, Arca-Swiss MF-two and Arca-Swiss Universalis, Cambo Actus. The Actus is very compact cannot carry sliding backs. Those have geared movements for all or most settings, and have better precision and parallelism than the 4x5" cameras. Still with the rich movements they're not as rigid as the pancake cameras and I'd recommend to not shoot wider than say f/11 -- at f/11 the depth of field masks the tiny residual errors you have.

    With live view-capable backs the view cameras don't have the ground glass challenge any longer which have made view cameras more popular, and very slow super-precise focusing mechanisms like on the RM3Di less popular (Alpa/Cambo has a faster focusing mechanism that work well also with live view, a better choice in my opinion). However due to the wide angle compatibility issues the CMOS backs have not become the huge hit they could have been, at least not yet. But it has made a difference still, there's several view camera users with CMOS backs these days.

    Then there are a few of use that actually use sliding backs and ground glass and can then use more or less modern CCD backs. Ground glass requires some skill and good eyes, and also a good quality ground glass and a good loupe. A problem has been that sliding backs have often had various precision errors in themselves (especially legacy ones), have had grainy dim ground glasses and the loupes have been too small magnification. In all there's been a high risk to get a very bad ground glass experience which has added to its poor reputation. However if you get the best sliding backs and best ground glass, like Linhof's recent bright ground glass with a high magnification loupe, there's a 14x that Linhof Studio has which is popular, I use a 20x myself actually, you can indeed focus at f/11 precisely in most conditions (if there's nothing to focus at or it's very dark you can't of course, but to me it has not been any significant issue, I do bring a laser pointer to help in those conditions but I haven't used it since I bought it).

    I've have a Linhof Techno myself and I've looked a bit at Arcas view cameras. I think the Linhof, despite a few issues, is the best digital field view camera there is. The Arca-Swiss Universalis is also good but is messier to pack and lacks a degree scale on the tilt (which is very useful to have when tilting for wides, when you tend to use tables). Linhof doesn't have that good reputation on the forums, and I think one issue is it's poor representation in the US. In the EU Linhof Studio has made the camera quite popular. Anyway, don't take my word for it, the camera preference is a very personal thing.

    Another reason field view cameras are less popular is that most that get a tech camera unless they are studio photographers, are interested in wide angles. Some even get just a single lens, a very wide angle. In that case you don't really gain much from having a view camera, instead you see more of the view camera drawbacks. The view camera is most useful if you use several lenses including longer ones. If you buy only one lens the view camera kit is often more expensive than a pancake camera, but if you buy several lenses the lens board vs helical focus cost difference becomes clear (about $1000 per lens), and if you use longer focal lengths the weight and space of the barrels compared to the flat lens boards also become a clear difference.

    The reason I'm using a field view camera instead of a pancake camera like an Alpa is because I use many lenses, I shoot more often normal-to-longer lenses than ultra-wides, I appreciate to fit all those lenses in my camera backpack, and indeed cost is also a factor, with my seven lenses I've saved like $7k in lens mount cost. Would I say shoot architecture professionally I'd use a pancake camera, although there are those that use the Techno anyway, like Sean Conboy. Christopher Barrett is another architectural photographer using view cameras, Arca-Swiss, nowadays often with a Sony mirrorless as "digital back".
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Thanks for those replies. I never would have thought that focusing would be an issue. Is the MF digital back's resolving power greater than 4x5 film? Otherwise, why does it require greater focusing accuracy?

    As far as wide angles are concerned, people used to mount roll film on view cameras. Were there not wide enough lenses available to accommodate roll film backs? If there were, could these lenses be used? Why weren't they worried about parallel focus rigidity?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Thanks for those replies. I never would have thought that focusing would be an issue. Is the MF digital back's resolving power greater than 4x5 film? Otherwise, why does it require greater focusing accuracy?

    As far as wide angles are concerned, people used to mount roll film on view cameras. Were there not wide enough lenses available to accommodate roll film backs? If there were, could these lenses be used? Why weren't they worried about parallel focus rigidity?
    If you look for grain-free resolution 4x5" film is about 40 megapixels. If you see through the grains its considerable more though (look here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...t-2/800px.html). But the surface is also larger. In a way the digital backs are large format resolution shrinked down to a smaller format, and with everything smaller you need smaller movements. It all comes down to depth of focus, with 4x5" you shoot often at say f/22, with MFD you shoot f/11, hence smaller depth of focus, and hence more precise focusing required.

    I don't have experience of the rollfilm+analog wides so someone else has to comment on that. In general though I think digital pixel peeping has raised the expectations of precise focusing, plus the smaller format requires higher degree of parallelism due to the smaller depth of focus.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Like Torger, I use a Linhof Techno with a Credo 60 and make use of the sliding back and ground glass. Before getting the digital back, I used the Techno for three years exclusively with a roll film back. It's a brilliant system and I've never had any problems with rigidity etc–let alone encountered focus problems–save for lack of light to find a focus point (where by design a pancake camera would be very easy to use.) Thankfully I don't tend to use my Techno to photograph mine shafts and black cats in said mines, etc...

    I can only echo what Torger has said above, that it's a very versitile and very much underrated system and I would certainly buy it again, especially because I appreciate the process of using it–more so than the way that one uses a pancake camera to focus and assess composition. That's my very subjective opinion formed from careful consideration of the work I do, so YMMV. It's also worth noting that on a full frame DMF I shoot between 40mm and 90mm, never wider or longer. Again, as Torger has said above, any wider and the pancake cameras tend to win out.

    In terms of cost of entry, I found at the time the Techno, which I imported from the UK to NZ, was vastly cheaper than a comparative Alpa STC kit (never checked out the Cambo or Arca.) The lenses can be bought mounted in standard Technika lens boards vs. needing special helical mounts, so for the two lenses I bought when first ordering the kit it would have meant I'd needed to have stumped up 50% extra cash for a less versatile set of movements if I went for the Alpa. Things may have changed since then and Cambo especially offer some very attractive pancake systems, it's just that they don't interest me now because I'm happy with the Techno for what I need it to do.

    Now with the advent of excellent CMOS digital backs, I think the Techno is coming into its own. People can dispense with the sliding back and GG and be left with a very easy to use, small package. Again, lenses are still cheaper due to the mount, etc, etc. With CMOS and good live view it seems to me that the super precise helical mounts are a solution looking for a problem. Of course there are also attractively priced packages in the new Cambo Actus and equivalent Arca if one is using a CMOS back, but handing an Actus the other day I wasn't impressed with the build and rigidity compared to the Techno. Then again, the Techno is a lot more money and I'm probably biased towards what I know well!
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    [QUOTE=torger;684419]If you look for grain-free resolution 4x5" film is about 40 megapixels. If you see through the grains its considerable more though [QUOTE]

    I sold my LF camera years ago, but funnily enough, I just had a sheet of 4x5" (admittedly using the very sharp and grain-free Acros 100) that was drum scanned to 350mb yesterday, and was having a good look at it last night.

    At 50x40" at 300dpi, grain is almost invisible (even with a lot of sharpening), and I was surprised at just how much more real detail is in that 4x5" file ..... compared to a 38mp camera I've played with recently (a Leica S) at that sort of 50" wide print.

    I think if I turned a 38mp Leica S vertically on its side, however, and rotationally stitched 2 or 3 images together to produce a 50"x40" print, it would probably all look a lot closer to the 4x5" drum-scan -- at that stage, the "long side" of the 38mp sensor is being asked to achieve 40" in print terms, which isn't a stretch.

    I hope this isn't veering off track, but what do you see as benefits from rotational / nodal stitching (eg, using a DSLR), versus in-camera stitching (eg, using a tech cam like an Alpa STC)? Note, I have NOT bought a nodal plate yet, but am trying to simulate a nodal stitch as best I can handholding the camera, and every time the 3 files are merged, it create a shape like a "Bow Tie" ..... eg, I have to cut off the top and bottom of the Bow Tie on both sides of the aggregate file. Is that what I should expect to occur with nodal stitching, EVEN when I eventually get everything perfectly aligned using a nodal slide??

    And in comparison, what does one get with something like an Alpa STC for 3-stitch effort (middle shot, then left- and right-stitch?) - presumably everything is perfectly lined up, with no bow-tie effect?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Warwick View Post
    I sold my LF camera years ago, but funnily enough, I just had a sheet of 4x5" (admittedly using the very sharp and grain-free Acros 100) that was drum scanned to 350mb yesterday, and was having a good look at it last night.

    At 50x40" at 300dpi, grain is almost invisible (even with a lot of sharpening), and I was surprised at just how much more real detail is in that 4x5" file ..... compared to a 38mp camera I've played with recently (a Leica S) at that sort of 50" wide print.

    I think if I turned a 38mp Leica S vertically on its side, however, and rotationally stitched 2 or 3 images together to produce a 50"x40" print, it would probably all look a lot closer to the 4x5" drum-scan -- at that stage, the "long side" of the 38mp sensor is being asked to achieve 40" in print terms, which isn't a stretch.

    I hope this isn't veering off track, but what do you see as benefits from rotational / nodal stitching (eg, using a DSLR), versus in-camera stitching (eg, using a tech cam like an Alpa STC)? Note, I have NOT bought a nodal plate yet, but am trying to simulate a nodal stitch as best I can handholding the camera, and every time the 3 files are merged, it create a shape like a "Bow Tie" ..... eg, I have to cut off the top and bottom of the Bow Tie on both sides of the aggregate file. Is that what I should expect to occur with nodal stitching, EVEN when I eventually get everything perfectly aligned using a nodal slide??

    And in comparison, what does one get with something like an Alpa STC for 3-stitch effort (middle shot, then left- and right-stitch?) - presumably everything is perfectly lined up, with no bow-tie effect?
    The film-vs-digital resolution comparison is very coarse and depends on many factors, film type a major aspect of course. Personally I think film have an advantage of looking good even if over-sized. No-one likes seeing pixels when nosing a print, grain has a more pleasing appearance, and indeed it's quite common to add grain simulation on digital prints to have them look more pleasing in huge format. Film also resolves monochrome detail way past the grain which gives it a special quality. Saying that 4x5" is about 40 MP digital is if you want to feel good about digital, but if you dig past the grain into the true max resolving power you get up to 380 megapixels out of a 4x5", again using Tim's test as a source: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/ , but that is a bit theoretical.

    Anyway on to the stitching question.

    The bow-tie effect is normal, and that is because you convert your stitch into a rectilinear projection. If you have shot an ultrawide lens sometime you have probably noticed the stretched perspective along the sides of the frame. When you stitch with a longer lens and want to make the same field of view as a shorter rectilinear lens you need to make the same stretch, hence the bow-tie effect. If you make say a cylindrical projection instead (which can work well for landscape panoramas) you don't need to cut away as much. In any case getting a nodal plate won't change anything of that.

    When you stitch inside an image circle the sensor is already seeing a rectilinear projection so there is no projection remapping required, and this is how you typically stitch on tech cams.

    An advantage of nodal point stitching is that you always use the sharpest part of the lens, the center, even to render the "corners" of the final image, and of course you don't have any limit on how wide angle view you want, just shoot more frames. Nodal point stitching can replace both shifting and wide angles, but it means more computer work and thus a less effective workflow. I have only used Hugin as stitching software (highly competent software, but not user friendly), but there should be better alternatives, still I hear often than people have trouble in recreating the proper perspectives (which they succeed with when using shift on a tech cam). In theory it should not be any issue, so I think it's related to software. Anyway, the point is that with nodal point stitching there seems to be more of a challenge to get the end result you want, but if you do get deep into it it's possible.

    With my DSLR I have a nodal point stitch head and I made some stitches. You can get a huge amount of megapixel in any projection you want. However time-consuming and I did not find it a very pleasing way to make images, just too mechanical and the reprojection made the composition a bit unpredictable. With the tech cam the workflow is typically a little bit more efficient, less overlaps, less shots and you don't need to reproject the images so the composition is more predictable. Still I personally don't stitch even on my Linhof as I'm a fan of the one shot image shooting experience, I rather use a wider angle and sacrifice some resolution than stitch, but that's me.

    Here's an example from my DSLR days when I made a cylindrical stitch for a huge panorama (disclaimer: this image is so much not my style these days ). These type of perspectives does not hurt from cylindrical projection, I'd say they even gain from it as you don't get stretch effects which can be a bit ugly at times. When shooting architecture or other stuff which straight lines in it you need to use rectilinear projection though. I *think* there's software today where you can mix cylindrical and rectilinear in the same image, for example if you have an extremely wide panorama with a bunch of smaller buildings in it, you can make sure that each building has straight lines but the overall panorama is cylindrically projected. Again, lots of post-processing work in that case.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cylindrical.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	162.5 KB 
ID:	117064

    And here's an example of that bowtie effect, before cropping down. To make the lines render straight a rectilinear projection is required and then stretching on the sides is necessary:

    Name:  bowtie.jpg
Views: 751
Size:  124.1 KB

    And finally the exact same image material projected cylindrically, before cropping. As you can see you will loose much less, but you get that "fish eye effect". However you only get bends in the horizontal direction, vertical lines are rendered straight (eg tree trunks), this is what makes cylindrical projection often work well for landscape panoramas.

    Name:  cylindrical2.jpg
Views: 740
Size:  133.0 KB
    Last edited by torger; 9th March 2016 at 05:50.

  10. #10
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    was in a remarkable location, so about 10 nodal stitches, slight bit of goofiness on the top/bottom, processed in autopano giga 2.6 (photoshop is generally worse, and even choked on the gigs) shot with the IQ160, 43SK, vertically, about a 270 degree view. took some tweaking to get the sky a bit more uniform

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    was in a remarkable location, so about 10 nodal stitches, slight bit of goofiness on the top/bottom, processed in autopano giga 2.6 (photoshop is generally worse, and even choked on the gigs) shot with the IQ160, 43SK, vertically, about a 270 degree view. took some tweaking to get the sky a bit more uniform
    Looks like a cylindrical projection, and a great demonstration that it actually does work on architecture if the conditions are right. As each building takes up quite narrow range in the horizontal direction you don't get any significant bends.

    We got off topic in record time, but still interesting subject

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    That's all really helpful, thanks everyone. Looking now at the alternative you posted Torger, I personally prefer the image shaped via the "bow tie" -- I will now contentedly continue to crop off the extraneous bits on the left and right hand sides!

  13. #13
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    We seem to have gone off on a tangent with the stitching discussion. I'd like to get back on track a bit.

    I am still at a loss why focusing would be a bigger issue with digital than with film? Let's assume you have a back with live view or you're tethering, why would a view camera focus more coarsely than a tech cam? Why can't you focus it the way you want? I understand the wide angle issue, and it's a big one, but as far as focusing, I don't understand why it's fine to focus on a film plane and not on a digital back? Furthermore, the parallelism issue doesn't make sense to me either. Even if the front and rear standards aren't perfectly parallel, it would be less of an issue with a smaller format, such as that of a digital back. There has to be an incredible diversion among the planes in order for it to matter to a much smaller format mounted centrally within a 4x5 field of view.

    The DOF argument doesn't quite cut the mustard here because the f22 DOF on a 4x5 format would be roughly equivalent to f11 on a 645. Furthermore, you can always stop down if you need greater DOF.

  14. #14
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    usual response to this is that the film grains are distributed through the thickness of the emulsion, whilst (!) the sensors on DB are more in a true plane

  15. #15
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,166
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    "Whilst?" Is that a card game?

    You're spending too much time with Graham.

  16. #16
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    must be from reading my British car manuals

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    its a tolerance issue. You are working with much less, forward backward. Its not that you can't get it to work, its just that you can also miss.

    Torger mentioned parallelism - you'd think front and back standards are parallel. Take a view camera, shoot with a lens wide open on a digital back (not even across the full 4x5, and check side to side. You can often find where one side is sharp, the other isn't. This is something we rarely found on film.

    Many times, the standards are out of parallel (by just a wee bit), and sometimes the lenses are out too. If you shoot at f11/f16, on a sensor (smaller in size than 4x5) you can usually get away with it, but not wide open. And yes, f22 on a big piece of film covers up a lot of sins...

    Simply put, the whole "digital back on view camera" requires a lot more precision than film. Abut 10X less tolerance.
    Last edited by Geoff; 9th March 2016 at 15:34.

  18. #18
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    its a tolerance issue. You are working with much less, forward backward. Its not that you can't get it to work, its just that you can also miss.

    Forger mentioned parallelism - you'd think front and back standards are parallel. Take a view camera, shoot with a lens wide open on a digital back (not even across the full 4x5, and check side to side. You can often find where one side is sharp, the other isn't. This is something we rarely found on film.

    Many times, the standards are out of parallel (by just a wee bit), and sometimes the lenses are out too. If you shoot at f11/f16, on a sensor (smaller in size than 4x5) you can usually get away with it, but not wide open. And yes, f22 on a big piece of film covers up a lot of sins...

    Simply put, the whole "digital back on view camera" requires a lot more precision than film. Abut 10X less tolerance.
    I'll take your word for it, but I don't understand why that would be the case. You're working with the same plane one way or another. Unless there's a tremendous difference in resolution, one plane should be as good as another. In other words, why wouldn't you see these issues on a film plane?

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    We seem to have gone off on a tangent with the stitching discussion. I'd like to get back on track a bit.

    I am still at a loss why focusing would be a bigger issue with digital than with film? Let's assume you have a back with live view or you're tethering, why would a view camera focus more coarsely than a tech cam? Why can't you focus it the way you want? I understand the wide angle issue, and it's a big one, but as far as focusing, I don't understand why it's fine to focus on a film plane and not on a digital back? Furthermore, the parallelism issue doesn't make sense to me either. Even if the front and rear standards aren't perfectly parallel, it would be less of an issue with a smaller format, such as that of a digital back. There has to be an incredible diversion among the planes in order for it to matter to a much smaller format mounted centrally within a 4x5 field of view.

    The DOF argument doesn't quite cut the mustard here because the f22 DOF on a 4x5 format would be roughly equivalent to f11 on a 645. Furthermore, you can always stop down if you need greater DOF.
    "Depth of focus" is not the same as "Depth of field", I was talking about the former. Depth of focus is the depth of field behind the lens, that is in the film/sensor plane and the formula is DepthOfFocus = 2*FNumber*CircleOfConfusion. That is the larger f-number the larger depth of focus. So f/22 is twice as thick as f/11.

    Concerning parallelism on the smaller format, you're extracting a similar resolution out of a smaller format, if you make the same print size you are enlarging the smaller format more. The more you enlarge, the more you enlarge any error. Think of taking your 4x5" camera and shrinking it. Every movement must be smaller. Ground glass grain needs to be smaller, and loupe magnification to larger if you want to view with the same precision as the 4x5" ground glass of course.

    Smaller format means shorter focal lengths means more precise tilt and swing angles. When focusing wide angles I set fractions of degrees, for example to get a hinge distance of 1.25m on a 35mm lens I set 1.6 degrees of tilt. On a 4x5" that would be a 90mm lens set to 4 degrees of tilt.

    I think there is also a large psychological factor that with digital and pixel peep it's much easier to precisely inspect focus on your computer, and thus people have got more picky about focusing.

    But the key technical reason is smaller camera, similar resolution. With film if you wanted more resolution you shot larger film, the whole camera became bigger. Now we make smaller pixels and sharper lenses. I guess you could say the new IQ3 100MP presents similar resolving power as 8x10" film (grain-free), but to make prints the same size you need to enlarge almost 5 times more so thus the precision requirement is higher for the smaller format.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    usual response to this is that the film grains are distributed through the thickness of the emulsion, whilst (!) the sensors on DB are more in a true plane
    I've heard this too, but I don't understand how that would work. It sounds like the film would "choose" only to respond to the best focus wherever it is in the emulsion, and I don't think film is that smart. But I don't know...

    Anyway the explanation that to make the same print size the smaller format needs to be enlarged more is the simplest explanation. Say if you have an 8x10 digital sensor with 100 megapixels on it and a 645 digital sensor with 100 megapixels on it, both sensors are capable of the same resolving power and can make the same sized prints, but the 645 requires smaller everything, and thus larger precision.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    The relative ease of large film to not display every sin was eye opening when I looked at my drum scanned 4x5" negative yesterday. I'd used a wooden camera, and the lens board would always jolt a bit when I cocked the shutter!

    But looking at the 40x50" image on my 27" screen, and having spent recent years looking at thousands of digital images only, this relatively imprecise film gear had produced a flawless image - not an aberration in sight, just a very large amount of natural-looking detail all across the frame. Sure, I was using very fine grained Acros 100 & admittedly good lens (110mm super symmar xl), and the 350mb drum scan cost a small fortune - but I suddenly thought it's been a while since I saw such detailed and impeccable image quality at that big 40x50" size (the Phase 100mp images on the Alpa website aside!)
    Last edited by Jon Warwick; 9th March 2016 at 12:01.

  22. #22
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    i've always thought of a point image in this context as as a converging cone of focus, with a sort of radial gaussian density distribution. thicker emulsion, bigger cone base radius; basically a larger and more smeared image of the point

  23. #23
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    The cone is three dimensional in the emulsion. When projected, it is much denser around its vertex, no matter how deep that vertex is in the emulsion. So field curvature has less impact on film at the expense of some slight softening of the point image.

    I did the calculation of projected density, and it's really pretty good even if the emulsion is VERY thick. The OOF portions of the cone are not nearly as bright as the neighborhood of the vertex. Of course, this only works if the ONLY aberration is field curvature. If the cone itself has an ill-defined vertex, the image will be smeared.

    Here's what it looks like (ideally):



    Matt
    Last edited by MGrayson; 9th March 2016 at 12:44.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  24. #24
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    "Depth of focus" is not the same as "Depth of field", I was talking about the former. Depth of focus is the depth of field behind the lens, that is in the film/sensor plane and the formula is DepthOfFocus = 2*FNumber*CircleOfConfusion. That is the larger f-number the larger depth of focus. So f/22 is twice as thick as f/11.

    Concerning parallelism on the smaller format, you're extracting a similar resolution out of a smaller format, if you make the same print size you are enlarging the smaller format more. The more you enlarge, the more you enlarge any error. Think of taking your 4x5" camera and shrinking it. Every movement must be smaller. Ground glass grain needs to be smaller, and loupe magnification to larger if you want to view with the same precision as the 4x5" ground glass of course.

    Smaller format means shorter focal lengths means more precise tilt and swing angles. When focusing wide angles I set fractions of degrees, for example to get a hinge distance of 1.25m on a 35mm lens I set 1.6 degrees of tilt. On a 4x5" that would be a 90mm lens set to 4 degrees of tilt.

    I think there is also a large psychological factor that with digital and pixel peep it's much easier to precisely inspect focus on your computer, and thus people have got more picky about focusing.

    But the key technical reason is smaller camera, similar resolution. With film if you wanted more resolution you shot larger film, the whole camera became bigger. Now we make smaller pixels and sharper lenses. I guess you could say the new IQ3 100MP presents similar resolving power as 8x10" film (grain-free), but to make prints the same size you need to enlarge almost 5 times more so thus the precision requirement is higher for the smaller format.
    Ok, that makes sense to me. So, if I understand you correctly, the reason these errors weren't seen in a roll film back attached to a view camera was because the resolution of the roll film didn't match the resolution of the 4x5 (naturally), but the digital back does and since it has to be enlarged much more than 4x5, these errors can be more readily seen.

    However, a lot of photographers inspected their 4x5 slides and negatives with a 20x loupe. Yet, none of them had ever complained. Have we gotten pickier now? How sharp does it have to be? I've seen giant (8 feet x 6.5 feet) prints from 4x5 negatives and they looked incredible up close. That's quite an enlargement. Yet, I hadn't seen anything out of focus, even in the corners. Granted, I didn't inspect them with a fine tooth comb, but nothing jumped at me standing 6 feet away. I guess what I'm asking is whether this is really an issue or have we gotten so spoiled that we're splitting hairs?

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Thanks for the film emulsion explanation! Makes sense to me now.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    We are definitely splitting hairs. And then some.
    Geoff

    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Overshadowing the theory is the fact that film is only so flat; it is an emulsion on a plastic substrate, usually cupped and only held down along the edges

  28. #28
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    We are definitely splitting hairs. And then some.
    Then, is there a compelling reason not to use the view cameras, other than the wide angle lens issue, which I agree is a big deal?

  29. #29
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    As I understand it, the critical parallel requirements between lens and sensor in an MFDB setup is not due to higher resolution as much as due to shorter focal lengths being used. If you think about the Scheimpflug principle, the shorter the distance from lens plane to sensor the more the impact of a tilt-swing. conversely, if you use a long focal length lens on MFDB then parallelism is not so critical.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Then, is there a compelling reason not to use the view cameras, other than the wide angle lens issue, which I agree is a big deal?
    People get used to more comfortable easier to use cameras. First everyone was satisfied without back screen and using light meters to figure out proper exposure. Then people wanted back screens with histograms, then with possibility to see the image, the with possibility to review the image at 100% to check sharpness, then with live view to compose directly on that instead of a viewfinder/ground glass.

    It's pretty comfortable on a pancake camera to pick out a leica disto D5 measure the distance to the wall set it on the high precision focusing ring and now it will be spot on without even looking. Once used to that, looking on a ground glass may start feel insecure and uncomfortable. Many that use tech cams are 50+ and eye sight may not be as it used to be, making ground glass even more difficult and uncomfortable.

    But say if you're used to 4x5" view camera with film and good at focusing that well and you don't feel insecure, you should be able to use it with digital, at least with longer lenses. If you do table top photography or other closer shots there will be zero issues, as parallelism is a non-issue there. View cameras tend to have being used for a long time and becoming old and sloppy and you don't want that kind of camera, it should be tight. Once you've used a "digital view camera" with all movements geared, it's hard to go back to ungeared movements, it's just more comfortable to work with and easier to make small adjustments on tilt with the shorter focal lengths.

    With all that said I've heard many many users say they tried digital on view camera and it just didn't work out, images got unsharp, missed focus etc, and then they changed to a pancake camera and all started to work. The exact reasons why it didn't work out is unclear and probably differs from person to person and situation to situation, but it's quite clear that it's a common experience among many. That makes it hard to recommend 4x5" view camera for digital, and when I suggest a digital view camera I always add the disclaimer that they first should check if they can work with the ground glass, or use a live view back.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  31. #31
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    I just thought I'd thank all the posters for this great analysis of tech and view cameras!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    288
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    Agreed, great info on the tech cam vs view cam

    I will now shamelessly plug a great system I have for sale

    Cambo Ultima 23D M-mount system and lenses

    If anyone interested in a dedicated full movements MFD studio view camera with full complement of lenses, bellows, extensions..etc.;
    This system is a fraction of the cost of new tech cams and extremely precise for MFD M-Mount (I use with IQ250)
    I have in Buy/Sell a fantastic deal on a Cambo Ultima 23D with accessories and 3 lenses:
    -Rodenstock 40mm HR-W
    -Schneider-Kreuznach 120mm ASPH
    -Schneider-Kreuznach 90mm Componon (same as digitar)

    PM me any offer, I bought for a specific job and am no longer using
    The HR-W 40mm alone is worth cost of admission...incredible lens!

    e

  33. #33
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    816
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Technical Camera vs View Camera

    I missed this thread the first time up. There are two points I have: First, I think this tech vs view camera is different now that you can get MF backs with reasonable live view. Abstraction has framed the question around having a back with live view but that is a relatively recent addition to MF backs. Sorry I don't consider the IQ1-2 series CCD-based live view really useful for the majority of users. I think the availability of live view on CMOS backs changes the game a bit for this question. As Torger and others point out focusing and alignment were the major drawbacks of view-style cameras, and live view goes a long way in solving that, or at least makes it easier.

    Second, this is another case where Abstraction uses the word "compelling" in his question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Then, is there a compelling reason not to use the view cameras, other than the wide angle lens issue, which I agree is a big deal?
    Previously it was the "Is there a compelling reason to use MF" thread. So looking up compelling, "evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way; not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction."

    Hell, I don't think there is a compelling reason to use any specific camera. Well, other than the one in our cell phones, because it is always with us.

    Dave

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •