Newbie here looking for movement!

[saldun70]

Hey ho, folks.

I'm new to this forum, and am considering one of the sinar p-slr systems to hook my Nikon D700 and D3x to. Just wondering if anyone out there has any experience of these systems, and, if so, how you find it.

I'm also wondering what the difference between the p2-slr and p3-slr systems are? I see there are different bellows available. Does that mean a different bellows for standard and wide angle use, or lens type..?

Totally new to view cameras, so please be gentle with me.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

[Eric Rose]

Welcome to the board. Wow you are looking at some pretty sophisticated systems. Sorry I can't help but will be real interested in seeing the results once you get rolling.

 

[Kirk Gittings]

The first question is what do you want to do with it? What problem will it solve for you? These setups can be pretty awkward and expensive, impossible to use effectively with wide angle lenses etc. etc. That is why the modern technical camera was invented and with MF backs dominates the high end of fields like architectural photography for example. But I'd say that in 95% of the cases when people ask this or similar questions about adapting a DSLR to a view type camera, there is a better or cheaper solution available that would fit their needs more effectively.

 

[holmburgers]

You'd probably be better off going one way or the other; that is, get a T/S lens for your Nikon or just start shooting 4x5" film.

I'd recommend the latter

 

[saldun70]

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

Yeah, I have looked at the 'cheaper' Horseman option, but whichever way I look it still requires hefty outlay in suitable lenses.

I'm shooting mainly landscapes at the moment, where I'm finding I want more depth of field.

I may well end up going the tilt/shift Nikon route, although I have read mixed reviews there.

Thanks again.

 

[Kirk Gittings]

Look at Jack Dykinga's work. He is one of the masters of color landscape. If he can do it so can you.

 

[saldun70]

Look at Jack Dykinga's work. He is one of the masters of color landscape. If he can do it so can you.

Great! Thanks for that, Kirk. Brilliant food for thought!

Duncan

 

[holmburgers]

I really don't know how one could get quality landscape photos using digital. It'd be like the days of color-blind emulsions... completely white skies!

Ok, so maybe that's a bit of an exageration, but my biggest beef with digital is that. LF is hard to beat for landscape, particularly because you have the time to set up a tripod and take it slow, no need for a dinky little ≈35mm sensor.

But, this is one man's opinion. Dykinga's pictures are great.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ed Burtynsky uses a digital back for his work , showing at the Art Gallery of Ontario, check it out called Oil. seems to work for him.
I would hope you keep your opinions less critical to digital as you may be making an asshll of yourself.
I am really trying not to put you on ignore, if your here to learn great otherwise .....dfsd

I really don't know how one could get quality landscape photos using digital. It'd be like the days of color-blind emulsions... completely white skies!

Ok, so maybe that's a bit of an exageration, but my biggest beef with digital is that. LF is hard to beat for landscape, particularly because you have the time to set up a tripod and take it slow, no need for a dinky little ≈35mm sensor.

But, this is one man's opinion. Dykinga's pictures are great.

 

[holmburgers]

Hey, I'm entitled to have an opinion, and you have to know that everything I say is usually with a grin on my face.

(this works better in person)

If you think I'm making an ass of myself, so be it, but to ignore all of someone's posts because something they've said rubbed you the wrong way is shortsighted in my opinion and really is zero skin off my back so I'm not so sure if it's an effective threat.

But that being said.... point taken. Cool?

 

[DennyS]

It looks like the Sinar system uses standard LF lenses, so it seems to me that you might not get the same image quality as you would with a lens optimized for 35mm. Just a thought...
Denny

 

[JBrunner]

I really don't know how one could get quality landscape photos using digital. It'd be like the days of color-blind emulsions... completely white skies!

Ok, so maybe that's a bit of an exageration, but my biggest beef with digital is that. LF is hard to beat for landscape, particularly because you have the time to set up a tripod and take it slow, no need for a dinky little ≈35mm sensor.

But, this is one man's opinion. Dykinga's pictures are great.

Similar limitations with chrome, but that's all that I personally use for color landscapes. Graduated filters are your friend.

 

[Bob Carnie]

You are totally right , you have a right to an opinion, and if you want to raise the issue of digital may not be good enough for landscape (such a silly statement), then I have the right to put you on ignore.
Shit do you know how dead that horse is, I encourage you to ask questions but if you are on a mission to build up your post count here and on other forums, then your voice will become faint, if you have something constructive to say about photography and all its wonderful applications then go for it. I am all ears and this site IMO was built to bridge the gap with digital and historical photographic processes, which I am extremely interested in, so maybe someday you will post a thread that I will learn from, I just haven't seen it yet from you.:munch:

Hey, I'm entitled to have an opinion, and you have to know that everything I say is usually with a grin on my face.

(this works better in person)

If you think I'm making an ass of myself, so be it, but to ignore all of someone's posts because something they've said rubbed you the wrong way is shortsighted in my opinion and really is zero skin off my back so I'm not so sure if it's an effective threat.

But that being said.... point taken. Cool?

 

[saldun70]

It looks like the Sinar system uses standard LF lenses, so it seems to me that you might not get the same image quality as you would with a lens optimized for 35mm. Just a thought...
Denny

Thanks, Denny. I have wondered about that, too, but have read elsewhere that using a 35mm sensor with the larger image circle of a digital LF lens would mean you were using the sweet spot all the time. Suh-weet!

To everyone else: I'm happy to see my first thread here has sparked some, shall we say, 'lively' debate! Ye ha! You guys are on fire! I like it here already!

 

[holmburgers]

I encourage you to ask questions but if you are on a mission to build up your post count here and on other forums, then your voice will become faint, if you have something constructive to say about photography and all its wonderful applications then go for it... ...so maybe someday you will post a thread that I will learn from, I just haven't seen it yet from you.:munch:

First of all, I agree that this statement of mine is stupid, "I really don't know how one could get quality landscape photos using digital". I'm sorry for that, but I think you're throwing me under the bus.

My main point was to say, have you noticed how a lot of photographs published online and in newspapers have totally blown out skies if the photographer exposed for something in the shadows?

That's really all I'm trying to say, and I even went on to say that that's probably an exaggeration.

Your point has been taken, so please give me the opportunity to prove that.

Now as for asserting that I have never contributed anything useful to this or that online community, I refer you to a long list of things that I am quite proud of over at APUG. From screen-plates to Lippmann photographs, from modern day dye-transfer to IR-transmitting flash bulb dips, I do my damnedest to dig up old information, discuss it, get practical results and generally to be of an agreeable nature.

I did not intend to be such a jerk about the whole digital thing, and that's how it came off, I realize. But look man, it's like football, or hockey... it's a good sporting rivalry, analog & digital. I think we can all have a bit of fun in jeering one another about it and also raise some practical points.


honestly,

Chris

 

[Bob Carnie]

Chris
I have replied to your PM and we will leave it at that, and btw I have only put three people on ignore over the last years on the four forums I use.
Large Format, APUG, Luminous Landscape and here, and you are not one of them.

Bob

 

[holmburgers]

PM replied and thanks Bob.... it's yesterday's news.

Ok, now let's help this newbie with movement.....

 

[Masterview]

Do you know what Burtynsky is using with digital? I know from the documentary about his China work that he was shooting 4x5 film on a press camera after doing a Polaroid test shot.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Greg
The work he is doing now, specifically the Oil project that is about to show at the Art Gallery of Ontario, is done partially or completely done with a 60 mp phase back.
Over the last 20 years that I have been going to his shows and looking at his work, he has a habit of sneaking in a print that was made in a different way than the others.
I remember going to one of his shows and seeing 50% enlarger colour murals and 50% digital(lambda, now chromira) prints. What was cool about this was the almost impossible way to pick out which print was done on an enlarger and which one was digitally produced. I print both ways and sitting in the room I could not tell. He is always striving for a great presentation and since he owns a photo lab , has the luxury of experimenting with different colour processes .
His printmaking is always at a very high level, and I have been going to his shows from the mid 80's and every print he makes is well thought out and presented very well.

I think that he will move to digital capture for all his work, I am excited to see this new body of work, opens in about a week or two.
Bob

Do you know what Burtynsky is using with digital? I know from the documentary about his China work that he was shooting 4x5 film on a press camera after doing a Polaroid test shot.

 

[donbga]

Chris
I have replied to your PM and we will leave it at that, and btw I have only put three people on ignore over the last years on the four forums I use.
Large Format, APUG, Luminous Landscape and here, and you are not one of them.

Bob

I think I have over 300 on my ignore list on APUG. I finally decided just to ignore myself!