digital slr with shift adaptor for architectural photography

Hello,

I'm an architectural photographer currently using large format - but

all my clients are now asking to shoot on digital! I can't afford the

new Canon 1ds mark II or any high-end digital backs for large format,

so am trying to think of another way to deliver decent-sized files at

reasonable expense.

One idea is to buy the new Nikon D2X, with its 12.4mp resolution.

However, it has an APS-sized sensor, which means that using any of

Nikon's proprietary shift lenses is useless for wide angle work, due

to the focal length magnification of approx 1.5 to 1.6.

However, I need to be able to have some control over converging

verticals! I've come across a "panoramic shift adaptor" made my a

company called Zork, and was wondering whether anybody had tried one -

in particular using it with wide angle Nikon optics (say 15mm). The

Zork adaptor is nominally for connecting a 35mm slr with a medium

format lens, but I was wondering if anyone had tried it with 35mm slr

lenses. My guess is that you would have some movement because the

lenses cover full frame 35mm and the sensor is smaller.

I hope I've made my question understandable! Let me know if you need

any clarification.

Thanks!

You would be basically adding a spacer between the body and the lens, so it wouldn't work

for a nikon lens on a nikon body except for closeups, no infinity focus.

A possibility would be to do your perspective control with software, Photoshop has tools

for this, you would have to shoot with a wider lens than normal to allow yourself extra

room in the image.

Gareth,

Since you're moving from film to digital, you have more options, inlcuding:

1) Full-frame Kodak (available in Canon or Nikon mounts) 14mp DSLR with Canon tilt/

shift lenses (24-90mm) or Nikon shift lenses (28 or 35mm I think). Either of these

would be less money then the D2X, though not nearly as versatile when off the tripod.

2) Shoot with a fisheye and correct barrel distortion later in software. Same is true for

correcting perspective, which is easily done with tools in Photoshop.

3) Shoot with rectilinerally-corrected lenses on a 1.6x or 1.5x crop camera (Canon's

10-22 EFS is getting rave reviews) and correct converging verticals in PS.

4) Shoot with more normal focal length lenses and use software to stitch together a

wider image from two or more originals.

If you go with someting like the Zork converter you mention I'd think the

additonal space it would use would preclude infintiy focus, like an extension tube.

And as you went wider and wider with your lenses the extension tube effect would be

more pronounced.

Hope this helps.

DSLRs are pretty sensitive to the location of the exit pupil of the lens due to the micro lenses on their sensors, so I'd at least want to rent and test any shifting lens setup. Also perspective control on Photoshop works really well if you keep the maximum magnification reasonable. I would worry more about correcting barrel distortion than converging lines.

On the other hand although I would not buy a shift lens for my 1Ds I would love to buy a tilt setup for better focus control

Another thing I would consider for architectural photography is using Pantools software to make a rectilinear image from multiple exposures.

Gareth:

Are your clients asking you to shoot digital or to deliver your images as files? If it is the latter you might want to continue using film and buy a film scanner. Film has much better for exposure-latitude, which is an important consideration when you do not have good control over contrast. That, of course, is the case in much of architectural photography.

A Better Light <a href="http://www.betterlight.com/eModels.asp">4000E-HS digital scanning back for 4x5</a> starts at $6500, not all that much more than a D2X + lens, for significantly better quality (Bill atkinson claims his is superior to film 4x5).

<p>

It requires stationary subjects (minimum exposure time is 8 seconds), but that should not be an issue for architectural photography. Consider buying one used.

I share your pain.

I'd be suspicious of the Zork adaptor on a DSLR for the reasons noted, but I've not used it myself. As far as I know there's no good solution to this problem that doesn't do at least one of: (a) squander a good fraction of the pixels (e.g., shoot wide and crop), (b) degrade detail or distroy pixels (e.g, re-distorting in Photoshop), or © cost more than I want to spend (e.g, a digital MF or LF back).

My (somewhat economical) solution so far for when I want significant perspective control in digital at better quality/resolution than the D2x can deliver is to shoot with a view camera with an MF back and then scan it with my film scanner. This is only worth it in my experience if the perspective corrections (cropping or Photoshopping) would leave me with less than about half of the D2x frame, since the scanning process itself seems to degrade an MF image to not much better than a full frame D2x image. (Drum scanning would presumably give film a bit more advantage here).

I really wish Nikon would come out with a respectably wide shift lens for the DX sensor.

Perhaps there is some reason why it won't work, but you could always continue to use your 4 x 5 with film and then scan the results. You would have all the advantages you now have, and you can produce images of any resolution that your customers desire. It does take slightly longer to get the film developed and to scan it, but that shouldn't slow down your workflow by that much.

I have an Epson 3200. I rescale my 4 x 5 scans to about 2100 ppi, and that provides me with images about 8000 x 10,000 pixels. You can rescale down further to what you would get with any digital camera you might consider.

The latest Epson, the 4990 costs about $450, and of course you would have to learn how to scan. But if you are going to get into digital, you will have to learn most of that sort of thing anyway. It seems to me that this is least expensive and highest quality way to go.

Fazal, <br>

an eight second exposure is a HUGE problem in architectural work. Think

about moving trees, people, flags, etc. in the background! <br><br>

Gareth, <br>

Consider this possibility. I know some people might have a hard time

wrapping their heads around it... but it makes a LOT of sense, and it works.

Consider that you're used to a 4x5 aspect ratio, right? Well, think of a 35mm

format sensor as a 4:5 sensor with built in shift. You just crop out the

bottom. Besides 2:3 just looks weird anyway. I do a lot of archtiectural work

and when I use digital or medium format (6x9 fuji GSW for it's super sharp

lens) this is what I do. Though I've got PC lenses too. You should really try

out the Fuji S2 camera Gareth. Just try it out. Trust me. You might be very

surprised and save a whole WHACK of money.

<br><br>

Sincerely, <br>

Jonathan

Leonard's route is my preferred option however... I use other formats when

doing aerial work.

though witha drum scanner. Not an epson. It won't really give you results

acceptable for magazine spreads.

I've been using the 28mm f/3.5 PC-Nikkor with my D2H. Granted, the crop factor has rendered it less effectively wide than with my 35mm Nikons, but it's still quite useful as a perspective correction lens.

If nothing else, the crop factor eliminates the tiny amount of barrel distortion visible in full frame (24x36) photos taken using this lens.

I haven't looked at the Zork products for a while but the constraint with one of their products I'd considered is that the greater DOF accomplished via the smaller aperture causes diffraction. Not so bad with medium format and larger cameras but possibly a hindrance with 35mm.

As was mentioned, this idea probably won't fly. Even 645 cameras have registers of what, 70mm or so. A 15mm Nikkor at that much draw will probably be focused behind the front element!

Your best bet is to find a used Canon 1Ds and a shift lens (Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, or Canon's own TS/E 24/45), price should be less than a D2X. The next step up is something like a Cambo 35. Of course, a BetterLight is nice too, but don't forget to factor in a nice geared monorail and a laptop unless you have them already.

Thanks to everyone who has posted an answer to my rather ill-conceived question. At

the moment I get asked to shoot digital a lot and use my 10D shooting raw files and

correct the perspective in Photoshop. However, I'm finding clients increasingly less

willing to shoulder film/processing costs and are after bigger file sizes (especially as

many of them will now have their own 8mp cameras). Architectural magazines are

beginning to accept images shot digitally but in the UK the biggest has double-A3

spreads - which is too large by far for a 6mp Canon!

I suppose one slightly less expensive option is the slr/c from Kodak, but I have only

heard bad things about sensor noise at long exposure (essential in many interiors)

and I think there is also antialiasing problems too.

I suppose I'll have to save up for a 1ds mark II!

Thanks again and I look forward to hearing any further comments. And I wil check out

the large format back, although not sure if my Ebony will be up to it!

G

I have a 35mm PA Curtagon with an adapter for Nikon supplied by Carl Heitz Inc many years ago. This lens would have enough space for mounting on the Nikon D 70 if someone can supply one for me. Unlike the Nikon Shift lenses, once the adapter is removed there should be lots of space. Gareth Gardner might consider a Scneiedr PA Curtagon provided an adapter could be found.

Menno Fieguth

Hi Gareth,

I share some of your pain on this one. I've tried the 1DSMKII for architectural. Unfortunately, I can't get my hands on any Canon lenses that are truly sharp edge-to-edge with it, or, in the case of the wide angles, none that lack considerable distortion. ( I own several L lenses, and have rented most of the lineup ). The wide shift lenses from Canon exhibit horrible chromatic aberation when shifted. Rent one, shift it, look at the rainbow and even triple images next to the border between the sky and the building - yuck! For a 4x5 shooter used to fully rectilinear lenses with movements, the small SLR approach doesn't look good so far to me, having tried it a lot.

If you don't need super-wide shots, the 1DSMKII might be okay. Calumet has a spiffy looking view camera like body for Canon cameras - hang your 1DSMKII on the back, use whatever LF lenses, and have movements. It looks solid, although I haven't tried it out because they won't rent it, and it's not cheap. Still, the Calumet view camera body for the Canon 1DS/1DSMKII looks more useful than the Zork.

Few would dispute that the 1DSMKII Canon sensor is darned good, especially for the money. Low-noise, decent color, decent performance on longer exposures, especially when it's cool outside. It sure would be nice to have some more decent wide angle glass for it. For the small "detail" shots, and all that, the 1DSMKII or even the 1DMKII for that matter, are really great, as they are for "scounting" and lighting tests. You could shoot both your 4x5 and digital....

Scanning backs might be okay for interior shots, especially those that you bring lights for. Exteriors with moving trees and so on are a problem. When I called the folks at Better Light and told them that I often shoot night scenes stopped down at dusk or just after dusk, they said that the Better Light wouldn't be too good for the task. How many architectural shots does one do at high noon, or nearly wide open? So, for some shots, the Better Light sounds really great, however it's not the total solution. How many "record" days have no wind to blow the trees or make the clouds? Better Light is constantly improving though - perhaps soon, if not already, they will have a good solution. I plan to rent one very soon - when I do, I'll send you a sample if you want.

Then, there are the "crop factored" digital backs ( H25 and the like ). They sound good, cost a fortune, and then who wants to put a tiny sensor on a large view camera, or give up more movements and ultra wide shots. Of course, if one can sell their house, there are some neat looking Sinar products...small view cameras, high end backs, special Schneider lenses ( buy lenses again! ).

The question starts to be - so, they want to avoid the cost of film, but they want you to multiply your equipment cost by 10 times. A person can shoot a ton of 4x5 for the cost of just some of the goodies. And all digital seems to need at least some post-production - you wouldn't give the client uncropped, uncorrected work - so whether drum scanned or digitally aquired, there is the digital post to be done, with large files. Let's say you can get a decent scan and processing with a piece of film for $54 bucks - if you spend 50,000 on a new Sinar demo rig and back, that's over 900 shots. If you do 500+ completed shots in a year, the digital sounds great, even for 50 grand. But what if you only do 50 finished, full sized shots a year?

I may get some hate mail for saying this, however for the time and trouble it takes to correct the CA and other issues digitally, and never get "perfect" results, a sheet or two of 4x5, processing and a scan sound somewhat reasonable, dollar-for-dollar, hour-for-hour.

Sure, clients can use their 8+ MP point and shoot. But will they light it, compose it, set the scene up and get it all at the right time as well as you can? If their 8+ MP point and shoot or DSLR was doing the job right for them, they probably wouldn't be calling you.

I'll let the Nikonians answer for their side, I just got into Canons a while back instead. Maybe their lenses are better?

Quality architectural work at better than postcard sizes usually isn't too cheap to produce, and often, not too easy to do well. Some shots will be okay with a DSLR, many will just not cut it - architectural folks have keen eyes, and they are spoiled for really great work.

If you're thinking that the 1DSMKII is the architectural do-all, I urge you to rent it first, with the lenses you think you'll need. If you find that it fits the bill - fantastic!!

I'm interested to know if anyone tries something that solves the problems - movements, wide angles, low-light, convenient location shooting and instant gratification of digital - without having to resort to Photoshop heroics for lens "correction". That one trick pony would be very handy if it exists, especially if it doesn't require selling the house and car.

Okay photo.net experts - I too would like to hear of solid solutions to the issues....please don't flame me, I mean well, and I don't bite.