Digital View Camera

[Kilgallb]

I need (want) a digital camera with the traditional front movements, rise-fall-swing-tilt.

Cambo offers the Actus system but it is very pricey. Assuming a full frame format, would a 35mm for the 645 format give enough coverage to get adequate movements.

is there a less precise system for less dollars available?

 

[guangong]

Not interested in digital LF back myself, but they are ( or were ) available, but very pricey. Would only be economically viable for producing catalogs. Even much smaller Hasselblad digital back makes no economic sense for most purposes. One can buy an awful lot of film for the cost of a digital back.
Would you be able to see effect of camera movements using a 645 camera?

 

[wiltw]

Unlike lenses designed for use on cameras with movements, medium format lenses typically have no information about the image circle size they have. My guess is that the image circle of 645 mounts is limited, but might be enoiugh to allow a degree of movement to permit some amount of shift on a 135 format size film/sensor.
There once was a Schneider 55mm PCS tilt-shift lens made in mounts of a number of medium format cameras, but it was rather pricey...once about $5000 used, still about $1500 used on eBay (although one ad is still asking $4300)

 

[grat]

Canon makes some tilt/shift lenses for the EF mount.

I believe FotoDiox makes some tilt-shift adapters that will mount MF lenses such as Bronica PS onto a 35mm camera.

 

[radiant]

Sorry a bit off-topic, but I think this is worth checking: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3423280809/how-i-built-a-large-format-8x10-video-camera

 

[grain elevator]

Hasselblad Flexbody? There may be similar things by Arca, Leaf/Phase One...
Certainly a tilt/shift lens is cheaper. Or digitizing film, if you'd rareley need the movements.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think your stuck with a hefty price tag, one of the reasons I still shoot 4X5 and 6X9 sheet film.

 

[Pieter12]

I need (want) a digital camera with the traditional front movements, rise-fall-swing-tilt.

Cambo offers the Actus system but it is very pricey. Assuming a full frame format, would a 35mm for the 645 format give enough coverage to get adequate movements.

is there a less precise system for less dollars available?

I think your best (relatively) inexpensive option is a fofodiox adapter to mount a full-frame digital camera body to a view camera back. You're probably better off with view camera lenses, IMO.

 

[wiltw]

I think your best (relatively) inexpensive option is a fofodiox adapter to mount a full-frame digital camera body to a view camera back. You're probably better off with view camera lenses, IMO.

Years ago I had fabricated a lens board mount for Canon EF mount on my Horseman LX monorail. The problem, in part, is that the distance between front lens board and rear board (and the focal plane position of the dSLR) does not permit focus at Infinity, but only at close distances, even with a bag bellows in place of a conventional bellows.
The other problem is finding a short enough FL lens that can be mounted on a lens board, to use the frame size of the capturing camera...24mm for FF body--and having a large enough image circle to permit shifts.
So i wonder about the Fotodiox product, and how it helps to resolve the issues I ran into, with my DIY solution.

 

[Pieter12]

Years ago I had fabricated a lens board mount for Canon EF mount on my Horseman LX monorail. The problem, in part, is that the distance between front lens board and rear board (and the focal plane position of the dSLR) does not permit focus at Infinity, but only at close distances, even with a bag bellows in place of a conventional bellows.
The other problem is finding a short enough FL lens that can be mounted on a lens board, to use the frame size of the capturing camera...24mm for FF body--and having a large enough image circle to permit shifts.
So i wonder about the Fotodiox product, and how it helps to resolve the issues I ran into, with my DIY solution.

I don't want to get in over my head. I have used a 150mm 4x5 lens with a recessed board and bag bellows but I wasn't focused at infinity, more table-top still life. It did not have enough of an image circle to cover extreme movements. The problem with the fotodiox adapter is it has to allow for the camera's prism to clear, pushing the sensor plane back even further.

 

[MattKing]

The problem with the fotodiox adapter is it has to allow for the camera's prism to clear, pushing the sensor plane back even further.

Seems to call out for a mirrorless option.

 

[reddesert]

I made an DSLR adapter out of some stiff board (I used 1/16" FR4, common printed circuit board substrate) and some flanges, a short extension tube to clear the DSLR prism overhang, etc. Cost basically nothing and a little bit of time. It has a large back focal distance, roughly the DSLR's flange focal distance plus 10 mm or so. There is a picture of it in the LFPF forum.

If you use a mirrorless camera you could cut the back focal distance down but not eliminate it entirely. You still have to be aware that with significant rise/shift or rear tilt/swing, the throat of the adapter can vignette the sensor, even if you are within the lens image circle.

It doesn't make much sense for a "normal" focal length for 35mm format (let alone APS-C) because most view cameras are hard to manipulate when compressed to accommodate a ~50mm lens, even without the added back focal distance. Where it could make sense is if you were doing tabletop, product, or macro photography and could use a longer lens for greater working distance and movements for perspective/focus control. For example, a 100-150mm enlarger lens might work well with such a setup.

 

[wiltw]

My Canon dSLR mounted to a Horseman LS monorail, shown with bag bellows expanded so as to not obcure a view of the mounted dSLR



I had disassembled an EF extension ring to get the EF mount to attach the body, and simply used boating epoxy to afix it to a Horseman lens board.in a light tight manner.

 

[MattKing]

If I were to do this, I would be sourcing one of the 2x3 view cameras, not something larger.

 

[glbeas]

Fuji 680 camera system is made for digital backs and has view camera movements. I have one with a Mamiya style Phase One back. It does need a sync box to connect the back to the cameras electronics.

 

[grat]

So i wonder about the Fotodiox product, and how it helps to resolve the issues I ran into, with my DIY solution.

You don't use it with an EF lens, you use it with a large-format lens that has coverage to spare, and several inches worth of focal length. So it kind of presumes you have a working large-format setup, and want to take digital shots through it.

The advantage of the 4x5 camera for something like this is the ability to put the DSLR *inside* the opening of the bellows-- depending on the DSLR.

For the OP, the cheapest route would be to pick up something like this:

https://fotodioxpro.com/products/sq-ef-tr-fc10

And a Bronica SQ lens (or whatever combination of digital camera and lens that works best). Next up would be the Canon tilt/shift lenses.

 

[wiltw]

You don't use it with an EF lens, you use it with a large-format lens that has coverage to spare, and several inches worth of focal length. So it kind of presumes you have a working large-format setup, and want to take digital shots through it.

The advantage of the 4x5 camera for something like this is the ability to put the DSLR *inside* the opening of the bellows-- depending on the DSLR.

For the OP, the cheapest route would be to pick up something like this:

https://fotodioxpro.com/products/sq-ef-tr-fc10

And a Bronica SQ lens (or whatever combination of digital camera and lens that works best). Next up would be the Canon tilt/shift lenses.

And that dependence upon a large format lens inherently limits the short FL you might wish to use for a wider FOV for the attached FF dSLR...I see no benefit vs. what I cobbled together myself with my Horseman and Canon frankenstein.

 

[Rockaway Studios]

For the original poster, I would ask what exactly are you trying to get out of the front standard movements? Just perspective control? Scheimpflug correction? If it's just for perspective control, I agree that a perspective control lens is a great option. I have used PC lenses for interiors for a long time, currently use a 17mm TS from Canon on a 5DS and it does just fine for that stuff. Id question the between the lens adapter because it would probably really impact ability to reach infinity focus - I haven't seen much fotodiox stuff that is well thought out optically

Back movements are useful too if you are creating stitched "Hero" images - mostly in studio although it could be done in scenic photography - not nearly as useful for people photography or generally anything where the subject has motion. I use a Sinar P2 - with a bit of careful eBay shopping you can find them for a few hundred bucks on eBay anymore. Back in the film days I could NEVER afford a P2, and made do with the worlds most horrible Calumet model 1 (the one with no back movement and the front standard that would fall if you looked at it crosswise - I apologize to whoever has that P.O.S. now, but it was that way when I bought it...). The micrometer drives for all movements on the back make a P or an X rear standard the cats pajamas for stitching...I also have a Sinar "C" with a "F" front standard, "X" rear standard that is j portable enough for landscape photography. I have worked out mating it to either a Leaf Credo back (Could take any M mount Phase One, too, but I own a Credo 80) or a Canon body (Using a 5DS) .

I agree with wiltw that it is very workable to mate a full frame DSLR. With careful use of the back rise/fall and shift, you can stitch about 12 frames together, and with a 5DS - that is a 500 Megapixel image - about 28.5' x 25' image if printed at 100% resolution. I first tried the stitching adapter that fits in a graflok back that you can buy on Amazon. It's a piece of junk, your expensive DSLR is just dangling off the back retained by graflok sliders-barely as it is poorly machined - a great way to risk an expensive repair bill. I sent that back and left a bad review. The way to go is a board like the one wiltw built. I've also seen a kit with a special bag bellows that has a Canon lens spline on one end and a doohickey to attach the camera body directly to the rear standard. That is an interesting idea, but I question whether you could get precision without the real standard frame attached. I bought an adapter from a German company called "just together". This is a well thought out piece - it is the minimum possible thiokness to clear the body (12mm) which is important.

There are a couple of challenges and a couple advantages to using a DSLR. The challenge is mainly that the body itself is 57mm deep, and the adapter takes up another 12mm of distance from rear element of the lens to the sensor. This means that the shortest lens that is practical is a 120mm if you want to use any movements at all. A 90mm is the shortest that I can get to work at all. The other is something that you can bark your shins on when stitching: the lens flange on the body will easily vignette a portion of the image. The advantages are that live view actually works, which is awesome. I just use the focal plane shutter in the body and don't bother with the shutter on the lens other than to set the aperture. Flash sync, if needed, is then on the body and you are limited in shutter speeds available for sync.

I generally tether using Capture One in studio, which is why the laptop is on the accessory tray of my stand

A medium format back sidesteps the body depth and vignette issue as the sensor plane is pretty much right where the film plane would be if using a film holder. Phase One did make an adapter that can be fitted to most major brands, and it is swank - built in magnifier and sliding-stitching movements are a breeze. With this there are some different technical hurdles. Since there is no shutter on the back, you use the shutter in the lens, or behind the lens if you have the auto-shutter and DB lenses. I do and generally like not having to manipulate the aperture from the front of the camera.

However, you do need a wake up cable to activate the back. With an auto-shutter and its special cable release, the only option is the two shot cable. Flash sync from the lens goes to the cable, cable goes to another cable that plugs into the back that also features a small button. You push the button, then release the shutter with the cable release. Actual flash sync cord plugs into the back. I velcro the two together because otherwise I always seem to be fumbling for the cable release. Of course the Leaf Credo 80 is a CCD sensor so live view is not really usable at all, but the quality is stunning. At some point I want to test out a IQ4 back to just get really silly (or sillier) with the technique. I love the quality those old view camera lenses deliver.

Just for grins - here are links to some quicky test mages using these set ups- I am not embedding them because they are enormous. 300 MP image using the Leaf Credo can be seen at this link . 500 MP image using the Canon 5DS (including an example of a stitch failure due to vignetting) can be seen at this link .

 

[Warm Winter]

Well, for a want system and what would work (assuming you're not going with a tilt shift lens because it's a want, and assuming it's not as a flex)
There is the Horseman offerings and silvestri makes the flexicam that can take cameras. There is also the fancier novoflex auto bellows.
If you want to use it with a medium format back there both of those, medium format view cameras from most every maker and adapter backs for most every view camera that was made for film
What do you plan to use it for beyond just wanting it? And what are you expecting to do with it in the future-are you planning to just stick with it and not upgrade any part, or do you think you might want to start with basic digital sensor and move up to a fancier back, or maybe tether it in the field instead of purely using it in the studio?
More critically, do you just need the body, or more of the system and what is a more concrete budget? Both of those will greatly influence what is an option (along with what you plan to do with it)

 

[grat]

There's always the Fuji GX680 Mk III, and a compatible MF digital back. MF digital backs, however, are not cheap.

 

[Kilgallb]

Well, I attached a Pentax 645-35mm to my full Frame Canon RP with a Fotodiox tilt shift adapter. If you are careful on shift and minimize tilt you get a decent result. There is some loss of resolution in the corners but the illumination seemed ok. Unfortunately you cannot shift and tilt in the same direction so you chose scheimpfluge or shift, not both.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I need (want) a digital camera with the traditional front movements, rise-fall-swing-tilt.

Cambo offers the Actus system but it is very pricey. Assuming a full frame format, would a 35mm for the 645 format give enough coverage to get adequate movements.

is there a less precise system for less dollars available?

Clyde Butcher uses a Cambo Actus with a digital 36 megapixel Sony A7R camera and RZ Mamiya lenses.
See this link in the bottom right section on Digital Cameras. Maybe you'll get some ideas.
https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

 

[Chan Tran]

The Sinar P3 is a digital view camera. It's not LF but it's definitely a view camera.

 

[xkaes]

If you want to use a 24x36mm digital sensor -- or smaller -- there are lots of 35mm bellows you can choose from that have some of the typical large format movements. The Minolta Auto-Bellows III is just one of them. Spiratone, another. All you need is a camera adapter for the rear -- and a lens adapter for the front.

The lenses you could use are countless -- if you can find or make an adapter -- but the image circle of the lens has to be as great as the movements you want to make, which would mean at least medium format.

Your biggest limitation is the bellows extension -- which means no wide angle lenses -- except for macro work. Large format camera movements are usually only important with wide-angle lenses. That said, if your goal is the photography of jewelry, coins or chemicals, for example, this might be a good approach -- and not too expensive.

 

[Jim Andrada]

I