Do you use your favorite medium format lens to shoot digital?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Clyde Butcher uses Mamiya RB67 medium format lenses on Sony full frame digital cameras. Since he has a tilt device attached, he also needs the extra coverage MF lenses give him.

 

[wiltw]

Let's stick to the topic of medium format lenses. Large format is a whole different league, especially when it comes to adaptation.

In my initial post, I explained why I adapted my medium format lenses. For me personally it make sense if digital medium format sensor is used.

Do you have reason to believe that a medium format 75mm lens has same (or higher) lines per millimeter of detail resolution than an 135 format lens, to warrant benefit from using a Hasselblad (or whatever brand) lens on a digital camera? (Different issue than mounting a digital back on a medium format body and lens, which I could understand...digital vs. film using same equipment)

 

[Pieter12]

Clyde Butcher uses Mamiya RB67 medium format lenses on Sony full frame digital cameras. Since he has a tilt device attached, he also needs the extra coverage MF lenses give him.

But this is not about using MF lenses on FF cameras, rather on MF digital cameras. Irrelevant.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Do you have reason to believe that a medium format 75mm lens has same (or higher) lines per millimeter of detail resolution than an 135 format lens, to warrant benefit from using a Hasselblad (or whatever brand) lens on a digital camera? (Different issue than mounting a digital back on a medium format body and lens, which I could understand...digital vs. film using same equipment)

Unless you can't use the lens without autofocusing, I don't see the point of buying a new, modern lens that looks ordinary or cheap without its own lens profile. As I mentioned, I also dislike the falloff of modern lenses. Cat eyes, disturbing bokeh, and onion rings are not to my taste.

Hasselblad and Mamiya 67 lenses both perform flawlessly on a 100-megapixel digital sensor. They have much more potential. For example, the Hasselblad Distagon 40 IF resolves up to 200 lpmm. You can do the math to find out how small the pixel should be for this resolution power:

How to convert line pairs per millimeter to pixel size? | OptoWiki Knowledge Base

One should also bear in mind that the line pair can be detected by at least the square of 3x3 pixels.

 

[Pieter12]

Kiev-88, my first medium-format camera, feels quite compact and handy.

With a film back. The addition of a digital back will add weight and bulk to the back of the camera. A digital back will weigh in at 600g or so, and I don't think that even includes the battery. A newer one, like the Hasselblad CFV 100C may be more compact but weighs about the same. And it costs a pretty penny. The 907x is not a back, it is a camera body that is used with the CFV 100C.

 

[Alexander6x6]

With a film back. The addition of a digital back will add weight and bulk to the back of the camera. A digital back will weigh in at 600g or so, and I don't think that even includes the battery. A newer one, like the Hasselblad CFV 100C may be more compact but weighs about the same.

I am talking about the digital back from the 907x system.

And it costs a pretty penny. The 907x is not a back, it is a camera body that is used with the CFV 100C.

The 907x can also be purchased with the CFV II 50C digital back, which is easy to confuse with its predecessor, the CFV 50C. To avoid confusion, I prefer to refer to it as the 907x. Everyone knows that this system consists of a digital back and an adapter spacer for the expensive Nittoh lenses

 

[Pieter12]

I am talking about the digital back from the 907x system

That is the CFV100C or CFV50C. Same physical size and weight.

 

[loccdor]

Lower contrast vintage lenses tend to pair nicely with digital sensors (which are high contrast). Also with films like Provia and Velvia. They balance each other out.

Conversely, extremely high contrast contemporary lenses can be nice with lower contrast film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But this is not about using MF lenses on FF cameras, rather on MF digital cameras. Irrelevant.

That's not what the OP said. He said, "With the moderator's permission I would like to start here the discussion about the experience with medium format lenses on modern digital cameras." The title of this thread is: "Do you use your favorite medium format lens to shoot digital?"

If he wanted to only talk about medium format cameras with medium format lenses, he should have said that. Medium format cameras usually have medium format lenses.

 

[Alexander6x6]

That is the CFV100C or CFV50C. Same physical size and weight.

This is exactly the mistake I wanted to avoid:
There is no CFV50C back in the 907x system. The CFV50C digital back was introduced in 2014.

 

[Pieter12]

This is exactly the mistake I wanted to avoid:
There is no CFV50C back in the 907x system. The CFV50C digital back was introduced in 2014.

OK. But the point is the same. You will be adding considerable weight and bulk to a MF body with the addition of a digital back.

 

[Pieter12]

That's not what the OP said. He said, "With the moderator's permission I would like to start here the discussion about the experience with medium format lenses on modern digital cameras." The title of this thread is: "Do you use your favorite medium format lens to shoot digital?"

If he wanted to only talk about medium format cameras with medium format lenses, he should have said that. Medium format cameras usually have medium format lenses.

If you read the initial post, he only mentions medium format cameras and lenses.

 

[Alexander6x6]

That's not what the OP said. He said, "With the moderator's permission I would like to start here the discussion about the experience with medium format lenses on modern digital cameras." The title of this thread is: "Do you use your favorite medium format lens to shoot digital?"

If he wanted to only talk about medium format cameras with medium format lenses, he should have said that. Medium format cameras usually have medium format lenses.

Indeed, I did not intended to discuss the digital cameras separately. For instance, friend of mine is fascinated by the tilt-shift performance of Hasselblad Makro Planar on his Leica SL.

However, to my taste even the digital medium format is still too small for the traditional medium format lenses. To overcome this limitation, I am using the dual shift adapter with 33x44mm medium format sensor to produce true 6x7 in digital sensor size.

 

[Alexander6x6]

OK. But the point is the same. You will be adding considerable weight and bulk to a MF body with the addition of a digital back.

As I mentioned earlier, I did not notice a significant difference in weight or handling when using the CFV II 50C digital back (not the CFV 50C).

However, the motorized Hasselblads are bulky and heavy.

Update: I just weighed both backs, and the digital one is 250 grams heavier than the film one. If that difference is significant to you, then you can use the waist-level finder instead of the prism.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you read the initial post, he only mentions medium format cameras and lenses.

Medium format cameras was not stated as such in his post. He stated medium format lenses and digital cameras. In any case, if someone wants to use medium format film lenses with the FF digital cameras, no other than Clyde Butcher has done so, providing an expert's professional opinion of it;s efficacy if someone wishes to go that route. CLyde makes 60"+ prints from this procedure. Why go with the expense of MF cameras if FF gets you this quality?

 

[wiltw]

Indeed, I did not intended to discuss the digital cameras separately. For instance, friend of mine is fascinated by the tilt-shift performance of Hasselblad Makro Planar on his Leica SL.

However, to my taste even the digital medium format is still too small for the traditional medium format lenses. To overcome this limitation, I am using the dual shift adapter with 33x44mm medium format sensor to produce true 6x7 in digital sensor size.

You are aware, I presume, that without a body intended to be PAIRED with the digital back, that you need to have a means to SIMULTANEOUSLY trigger both the shutter in the lens/body AND trigger the digital back to capture the image?!
Or else you need a means to open the shutter, and separately command the digital back to capture an image (while the shutter is open).

 

[Pieter12]

As I mentioned earlier, I did not notice a significant difference in weight or handling when using the CFV II 50C digital back (not the CFV 50C).

However, the motorized Hasselblads are bulky and heavy.

Update: I just weighed both backs, and the digital one is 250 grams heavier than the film one. If that difference is significant to you, then you can use the waist-level finder instead of the prism.

Got it. I was going back to your reference to the Kiev 88. I just know that my Hy6 with a prism finder and digital back is a bit of a beast, especially if I use something other than the standard 80mm lens. Still had-holdable but with more limitations than with a film back.

BTW, could you elaborate on the "dual-shift adapter."

Medium format cameras was not stated as such in his post. He stated medium format lenses and digital cameras. In any case, if someone wants to use medium format film lenses with the FF digital cameras, no other than Clyde Butcher has done so, providing an expert's professional opinion of it;s efficacy if someone wishes to go that route. CLyde makes 60"+ prints from this procedure. Why go with the expense of MF cameras if FF gets you this quality?

Mr. Butcher practices a certain style of photography, and the set-up may work fine for him, but citing his use as the end-all does not necessarily serve as an example of the suitablity for other purposes.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Got it. I was going back to your reference to the Kiev 88. I just know that my Hy6 with a prism finder and digital back is a bit of a beast, especially if I use something other than the standard 80mm lens. Still had-holdable but with more limitations than with a film back.

I completely agree with you that the Hy6 is the beast. It has some unique lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider Kreuznach, which are not available for other medium format systems.

BTW, could you elaborate on the "dual-shift adapter."

There is Hartblei adapter for Mamiya 67 lenses (soon will be also available for Hasselblad lenses) allowing 20mm shift in both X and Y axis.

So if I stitch/overlay images shot fully shifted to achieve the edges of image circle, the Mamiya ULD 50mm lens will correspond to 25mm lens of GFX system.

Trevor Allin, the owner of Pentaconsix. com has such an adapter. Here is his test:

Center image (green frame is GFX 33x44mm sensor):

Stitch of 9 images (yellow frame is 73x84mm sensor, grey circle is 124mm image circle of Mamiya Sekor-Shift 75mm lens):

 

[Alexander6x6]

Here are my stitched images made with ULD 50mm and 12x20mm custom-made adapter for GFX camera. The 20mm shift module was taken from the sacrificed Sekor-Shift 75mm lens.

12mm shift up section with 20mm left/right (not edited):

middle and 12mm shift up sections with 20mm left/right:

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Got it. I was going back to your reference to the Kiev 88. I just know that my Hy6 with a prism finder and digital back is a bit of a beast, especially if I use something other than the standard 80mm lens. Still had-holdable but with more limitations than with a film back.

BTW, could you elaborate on the "dual-shift adapter."

Mr. Butcher practices a certain style of photography, and the set-up may work fine for him, but citing his use as the end-all does not necessarily serve as an example of the suitablity for other purposes.

Somemone using their existing FF digital camera with medium format lenses and tilt control is a cheaper way to get terrific results with 60" prints as Butcher has shown. I'm not suggesting photographers don't use MF digital cameras. It's just another option some may find helpful, especially since it's cheaper.

 

[Petrochemist]

Why?

Sometimes just out of curiosity. or for a less technical rendering.

Back in 2010 I'used medium format enlarger lenses to enable tilt shift operation on Digital (something that needs the extra coverage).

Shortly after that I adapted an old Kodak 12cm Astigmat from a dead MF folder giving the lens some further life.
Here's that set-up with the digital camera replaced with an SLR (I only had one decent digital camera back then)
bellows IMGP2838 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

I'm happy to adapt any lens to digital, provided I can do so at minimal cost & without damaging otherwise usable hardware. so far I've adapted lenses from cine models up to this large format projection lens (roughly 150mm f/1.2 covering 4x5" and a bit more)
A challenging lens by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr