From 4x5 Film to 36mp Sony A7r

<p>I`m working with a Linhof Technika 4x5 for some years now and i was always satisfied with this camera.<br /> But since there is no longer a lab for developing 4x5 in my city, and costs of film, developing and scanning are getting more and more expensive i think about selling it. <br /> Has anyone here switched from 4x5 to 36mp dslr?<br /> Now with the possibility to use the fabulous canon 17mm & 24mm shift lenses (which i already own) on a 36mp sensor (sony a7r) I`m wondering if 4x5 is still worth the hassle. What do you think?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>How do you plan on setting the aperture with the Canon lenses on a Sony camera?</p>

<p>As far as i heard this is no problem with the right adapter (metabones III).</p>

<p>That adapter is supposed to be for NEX cameras and using it may mean that you would be in crop mode with the a7r and that would not let you shoot at 36mp. You better make sure before you make the assumption.</p>

It's a different way of working. What do you photograph? For what it's worth, the horizontal angle of view of the 17mm on

the24x36mmsensor with be roughly equivalent to a hypothetical 51mm lens on the 4x5 inch format, and the 24mm to a

72mm on 4x5.

 

What I'd' be concerned with is chromatic aberrations as you shift. I do not know for certain that this will be an issue but it

is something to look out for.

 

The Technika is. As you know, a beautiful machine. Unless you must sell it to buy the Sony I'd hold on to it.

 

See if http://www.lensrentals.com has the A7r and metabones adapter for rent.

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Consider using a 6x9 back with the Technika as surley you can get 120 film processed locally. Yes I know the crop factor will be a PITA but for normal & telechopto images you can adjust.</p>

<p>I went from 4x5 with a SA 65/8 and Velvia 50 to a Canon 5D II and 17mm TS-E L. I shift and stitch using the 17 TS-E to create medium format sized image files. The 17 provides the same field of view of a 12mm lens when used this way. An angle of view not very easily done with medium format or large format. I recently light-jet printed several stitched images to 13" x 34" and 28" x 34" with exceptional results. </p>

<p>I often thought it would be cool to use a 47 XL on 4x5 but the extremely limited supply of film and processing, not to mention printing, in Toronto, made it too difficult and the idea of importing film and processing from New York was too daunting.</p>

<p>The 17 TS-E is a superb lens and the ability to experiment with composition and achieve proper exposure on digital is so much easier. </p>

<p>The 17 can shift to the extremes with no CA and no lens distortion. I do not know if they can be properly used on a Sony camera or not. If not, then I would have no problem recommending one of the 21 MP Canon full frame bodies. In my case I bought the 17 TS-E before I even had a body to mount it on. That's the confidence I had in this amazing lens! I've never looked back.</p>

 

Check out this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85249.0

<p>Ellis, thank you for the link, where the OP describes results of adding velour to the interior surfaces to absorb spurious internal reflections in a Metabones III adapter. While this may be effective, are there risks of greater dust contamination of the sensor coming from the fabric?</p>

I have no idea.

<p>thank you ellis for the very invormative link! i will try to rent the camera+ adaperter.</p>

<p>I've just compared some 2400ppi scans of B&W 5x4 negs with shots from my 36Mp Nikon D800 of the same subject. On the whole the IQ from the Nikon is better I'm afraid - cleaner and with better tonality - but as far as pure resolution goes the 5x4 still has a slight edge. If you can get <em>true </em>higher resolution scans of your 5x4 film done, then maybe the film would show more advantage. However, my experience has been that claimed scan resolutions of several thousand ppi are pure hype and fantasy, because scanner optics limit the real ppi figure to something just over 3000. That's even with expensive drum scans.</p>

<p>The big practical difference is in the aperture you can work at; f/5.6 on the Nikon gives about the same depth-of-field as f/22 on the 5x4 for a similar field of view.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, on what scanner were those 2400 ppi scans made? Because effective optical resolutions below (in some cases well below) that figure are not the only faults of flatbed scans (or at least, what I've been able to get out of my Epson 3200, from 4x5 and other film sizes).</p>

<p><em>canner optics limit the real ppi figure to something just over 3000. That's even with expensive drum scans.</em></p>

<p>I tend to suspect that lens and/or film performance are limiting achieved / achievable film resolution more than drum scanner resolution is. Your 3000 ppi figure corresponds to 59 lp/mm. Even using, e.g., Fuji's own data sheet for Velvia 50 (AF3-960E), MTF response is down to about 35% at 59 lp/mm--and that assumes a <em>perfect lens</em>. T-Max 100 and a few other films do appreciably better--but not many, and fewer still if we limit ourselves to what's available in 4x5 (maybe Ektar 100, Portra 160, and possibly Delta 100?). Also, I wonder what percent of LF lenses currently in use have very high (70%+) MTF response at 59 lp/mm, especially toward the corners and/or if shifted and/or tilted.</p>

<p>edit.</p>

<p>"fewer still if we limit ourselves to what's available in 4x5 (maybe Ektar 100, Portra 160, and possibly Delta 100?)"<br>

<br>

hmmm...at last count B+H lists 22 kinds of 4x5 film - and Freestyle lists 25.<br>

<br>

Also...might I suggest basing comparisons of digital vs film output on what one might consider "best practices" for each? In other words, take the weak link of scanning out of the equation altogether...and take your film into a darkroom environment to print - assuming that you know how to do this well enough to make the comparison truly meaningful.<br>

<br>

Case in point: I had a student last Spring - an owner of a high end, digital based photography business - who wanted to learn black and white analogue technique so that he could enhance his business (yes...there is a viable business model here!) At any rate, the focus of his study involved doing a real comparison - by creating a series of window light portraits executed using three separate workflows: one being digital capture (Nikon D800) and digital printing (converted to black and white), the second being medium format film capture (TMY 120 with an RZ-67 and 180mm lens) and scanning on an Epson V750 prior to printing, the third being the aforementioned MF film capture - followed by printing in a darkroom, using a well aligned Beseler 45mx enlarger, 16X20 Ilford Multigrade Warmtone fiber paper, and fresh chemistry.<br>

<br>

The above student's initial results were not surprising - being so well versed in digital technique allowed him to arrive at more than acceptable, "pro-quality" results more quickly with both the purely digital and hybrid workflows. But after a few weeks of fairly intense darkroom practice - it became more and more apparent that the completely analogue workflow resulted in smoother tonal transitions, greater overall useful tonal ranges, more "believable" micro-contrast transitions...in general more appealing results overall - that those achieved with either purely digital or hybrid workflows. And this with medium format. Had this student used 4x5 film, his results would likely have shown these results to an even greater advantage. Furthermore, and with a bit of practice, this student could realize these results quickly and efficiently enough to allow for a truly cost effective enhancement to his photography business - by adding black and white analogue based services.<br>

<br>

Just a bit of food for thought!<br>

</p>

 

<p>My sincere apologies...in that my above posting does represent somewhat of a tangent to the original poster's question. Given his current situation...I would say that there might indeed be a compelling argument in favor of his moving forward with a purely digital workflow - given that his end results meet his needs.</p>

<p>I guess I do tend to get up on my horse a bit though...in response to what I see as downright (and potentially destructive) mis information on forums such as these. So yes, my posting was prompted as more of a reaction to this, and less to help the original poster. </p>

<p>Well, I've done enough research to understand the possible excitement of the A7R for Canon users. Since Canon has been so slow in developing a hi res sensor the idea of using my 17 TS-E on a 36 MP body is certainly interesting. </p>

<p>Mark, let us know if you go the route of the A7R. I will keep my eye on this new camera and it's use with other manufacturer's lenses.</p>

<p>John, to clarify, I suspect that, of the currently-available 4x5 films, Ektar 100, Portra 160, and possibly Delta 100 are the only ones with MTF responses much better than Velvia 50's 35% at the 59 lp/mm figure, which (sort-of) corresponds to a 3000 ppi scan. I suspect that the other 22 films' resolutions will be similar to, or worse than, Velvia's.</p>

<p>We have digressed a bit from the original topic. But <em>part</em> of the issue is what sort of resolutions are practically achievable with 4x5. And IMO, the film's MTF response is often the limiting factor when you're getting professional scans. (But IMO, well-shot 4x5 may contain much more than 36 MP of real detail--not that I would use it often!)</p>

 

<p>Dave - thanks for the clarification.</p>

<p>...and I will also admit that in regards to practically achievable limits of resolution with 4x5, regardless of film type - there are indeed some variables (thermal expansion of film, imperfect holders, etc.) which can and do occasionally conspire to counter this. </p>

<p>Over the years, I've fiddled and diddled many different camera formats plus the digital mediums and camera brands. The arguments (the word being used properly here) presented are all equally valid.<br>

The question and opinions given (IMHO) basically amount t everything from "How many horsepower does a gearhead teen need in his rat rod to cruise the local Tastee Freeze" to the present argument re: the necessary megapixels needed to make a quality image. The bottom line is "How happy is the photographer with his/her work knowing the nuts and bolts of its creation?"<br>

Camera, lens, film and perhaps electronics all have their good points and warts. Matthew Brady's work was hailed, not simply because of the state of the trade at the time, but because of the story told by glass plates and (since many attempt to duplicate the processes in use at that time) the warts and monkeybumps introduced by the primitive equipment. Technical excellence only matters to the photographer - not the viewer. <br>

Those viewing either like or dislike the work. Thumbs up or down grades are seldom handed out for technical trivia even though it's an important part of the actual image production.<br>

By all means, sir - make your images in any way you see fit with any equipment you choose as that becomes your signature as much as the Deardorff and Goerz lens (and others) that was the signature of Ansel Adams. If you are happy with the result, that also is your signature.<br>

Don't ask others, in effect what your signature should be but think through your process, workflow, and do what you want to. Nobody but you can say if you'll like the result or not - you'll have to try it for yourself.</p>

<p>I've been using a sony a7r with my canon tse lenses (24, 17mm) for 3 weeks and really like the results. Don't see any problems when shifting and the edge sharpness is at least as good as with my canon 5dII. The only problem is that my "ballhead plate" obstructs shifting to the extreme positions. And you have to force the canon lenses a little bit to mount it on my Metabones III adapter. On the other site I don't see any problems with sharpness on the whole sensor/image and no Chromatic abberations even when shifted after importing into LR.<br>

Franz<br>

<a href="http://www.xdreamphoto.com/photoblog/">http://www.xdreamphoto.com/photoblog/</a></p>

 

<p>Franz, your comments are appealing. In order to visualize the good performance of the A7r with wide angle optics, can you mention which of the linked images on your site is with the A7r and your 24 or 17mm lenses? Or is it possible to show here some results of images which possess fine outer subject matter (fine tree branches, etc.)?</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I have looked hard, and as yet unsuccessfully, to find any such performance data on the net.</p>

<p>4x5 is still worth the "hassle" to me. I like the manual process and the slowdown. I also shoot with the 5d and 1ds2 and do some stitching but I've never been tempted to compare digital to 3x5 film, separate animals in my opinion. About as progressive I get with the 4x5 is putting on the horseman 6x12 back.</p>

<p>Arthur, here is one <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zpwfbhph9lrxvmk/xEonVqROUs">example </a>shot with my 24mm TSE, the Sony A7r and and a Metabone III adapter. Shot in RAW, developed in LR5, resized and some unsharp mask added, saved as JPEG (10).<br /> Franz<br /><br /></p>

<p>How much will the digital gear cost compared to finding a lab to send your film to?<br>

On a cost basis shooting your 4x5 is a winner. New digital body, new tilt/shift lenses, bigger computer to handle the file sizes, new graphic arts screen, new printer... you are talking a lot of dollars.</p>