large format equipment for landscape - weight, why 35 is not enough resolution, digitizing, Sinar F1

Hello,

<p>

Until now I exposed thousands of 35mm slides in the mountains

(landscape and close-up flowers) and then I've read Ansel Adams' book

"The Camera" and I was swept away by the shift&tilt perspective

manipulation possibilities which the view camera offer.

<p>

But I'm not yet sure if I want to carry 13kg of large-format equipment

incl. good tripod. So I didn't yet buy a Sinar F1 which was

recommended by a friend and professional photographer.

<p>

My neighbour rents donkeys to tourists that carry their mountaing

equipment load (and smaller kids), but these animals don't go on

trails steeper than 20% or so. :-)

<p>

The following is what I learned so far and I'd kindly ask you to

correct me where I'm wrong.

I hope it isn't too chaotic a summary, but I'm about to quit 35mm and

this is an important decision to make since

I heavily invested in 35mm equipment.

<p>

Apart from Sinar there is also Plaubel N and Z and Cambo SCX,

but in contrast Sinar, they are annoying for close-up.

With Sinar (and similar mono-rail systems) the focus doesn't

move when shifting out in case of non-frontal shot.

<p>

The final goal is not holiday or family shot but printing

for making posters or picture-books or selling photos for publication

in magazines. Such clients ask for slides, which they'll scan on a

prof. $50k drum-scanner. The goal is to get a final printing

resolution of 300dpi.

(Generally negative film is unsuited for scanning. there is a problem

with the yellow color cast I believe.)

<p>

Expensive scanners get 25Mpix from a Fuji velvia 50-asa slide

- if the slide was exposed with good lens and tripod was used.

(under 1/250s Ansel Adams says, tripod is required in general, but I

guess that's for SLR where the mirror is moved.)

<br />

My 35mm scanner Nikon LS-2000 produces 10Mpix (2700dpi). The images

is always very clean. Dust and small scratches are removed

by scanner hardware (ICE).

<p>

By the way, it is stunning what a difference the type

of scanner makes even if they have the same resolution - and responsible

for the difference is not the JPG software compression alone.

(the only problem is that my nikon compresses badly if I go one step

lower from excellent. So I scan w/o compression (gives JPG image size

of 14MB) and compress with a special software on the PC.

It took long time to find a good JPG compressing software.

I archive the resulting 10Mpix JPG images with 1.4MB each.

<br />

Newer scanners take many film formats, get cheaper and have more

density (higher D is better for scanning dark zones) and resolution.

my scanner can only do 35mm film.

<p>

But neither 10 nor 25 MPixels is enough if you want to sell photos to

a magazine or want to make a book. To to print images in 8x10 inch

size you need

8*300 dpi * 10*300 dpi = 7 Mpixels, but this must be real pixels!

(I write real pixels to make clear, that for example a 10 Mpix digicam

does not have more than 7 Mrealpix! there is a lot of discussion going

on about this topic at http://www.kenrockwell.com )

<p>

To get real pixels, the resolution must usually be doubled;

to double the resolution on a surface, you quadruple the no. of pixels:

8*600*10*600 = 27.5 Mpixels, but this is the limit for 35mm film

resolution independent from scanning method.

<p>

so 8x10" print this is the limit for 35mm film if you want

to make an offset-print - independent from equipment used-,

because the printers need 300dpi.

<p>

You can make acceptable prints which are bigger,

but then you must look at the print in 5x diagonal

in order not to see the grain - only we don't look at magazines

from a distance of 80 inch = sqrt(8^2*10^2).

<p>

Optimal resolution at 300dpi printing is 8.7 Mpix = 2494 x 3527 [real]

Pixel for print size 21,0 cm x 29,7 cm = 8.3" x 11.8"

<p>

Resolution is only one reason why professionals wanting to sell photos

use large format film if the images to be printed are larger than 8x10".

Another important factor is the possibility of perspective

manipulation with belows in view cameras.

<p>

So while scanning 35mm slides is still better than those digital SLR in

compatible price if you have a good scanner, only large format offers

enough resolution for

publishing.

Currently you still beat even expensive digicams

with $70 consumer level camera such as 35mm olympus stylus epic

using a consumer level slide-scanner, in resolution and overall quality.

- only you have to wait for film-processing and you have to scan the

films.

so if processing time doesn't matter so much,

25 rolls of professional Velvia RVP 50 slide films with processing

cost about $240 in Europe (incl. development).

For this price you can't buy a comparable quality digicam.

The average consumer exposes less than 20 rolls per year.

So once the 25 rolls are exposed, you'll find a new generation

digicam on the market and you'll regret having spent $500

for what was considered a "quality-" consumer level digicam one

or two years ealier.

<p>

With film, 10 years later you can rescan it, should

scanning technology evolve further or if the computers we'll use

then can no longer read the storage medium you saved the images on

or if JPG format is outdated or becomes obsolete or

if by error you used a bad scanning and/or image compression software.

<p>

For what concerns immediate availability and seemingly unlimited,

"free" shots with digicam in comparison with film, the following is

worth noting:

<ul>

"it seems that the very freedom and accessibility of photography

is self-defeating. Thoughtful application is often submerged

by avaricious automation of equipment and procedure.

The challenge is [...] to command the medium [...] without

sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions."

<br />

-- quote Ansel Adams, The Camera, p X, 1980

</ul>

I also checked the 6x9 folding camera, but

none of these allow tilt & shift, which I believe is quite normal,

because tilt & shift of back and front walls requires a view camera

with a semi-transparent, large format projection glas at the rear to

control

vigneting and projection in general.

<p>

This tilt & shift feature is much more important to me than resolution

alone.

<p>

Only digital camera technique could allow lightweight tilt&shift if they

bring out a smaller digicam with belows and tilt&shift, because this would

allows the projection-view to be shown live on a LCD-screen.

<p>

But you need a minimum distance to operate the belows & tilt&shift

front/back.

I believe this minimal distance between lens and film/sensor

requires a larger sensor-format. At least a full size sensor (24x35mm)

as used in high-end digi-SLRs is required.

<p>

There is a light-weight (only 3.3kg!) 6x9 view camera with digi-back

with tilt&shift:

<p>

Arca Swiss f-metric 6x9 with Phase One P25 (see

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/Kamera_1.jpg

and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-view.shtml )

but this costs a fortune - as does the Silverstri Bicam 7000.

<p>

The question: is a heavy monorail camera like the Sinar F1 the only

solution

if I want tilt & shift? I plan to add a digital back later

when it becomes cheaper - while film and film processing will get more

expensive I guess.

<p>

Thanks and best regards,

<p>

G. Dii

Most people including me are not going to read your entire post, it's WAY too long.

 

Go to http://bhphotovideo.com and click on cameras, large format, then field cameras. Monorail large format cameras are typically for a studio. For landscapes in nature you usually want a field camera that folds up and is more lightweight. You could get an old press camera like a Crown Graphic but it lacks extensive tilt/shift movements.

In your situation I'd seriously consider 6x7/6x9 cameras with movements: I use a modified Linhof Tech 70. I also use a Technikardan 4x5 with roll-film reducing back.

 

For lighter 4x5 cameras check out Toho (not Toyo -- they are different). I have two and am most impressed.

 

It's disputable how much you need tilt or swing with rollfilm, though, especially with WA lenses: an Alpa 12 S/WA (www.alpa.ch) gives rise and that's normally all I need. The catch is the limit on f.l.: 58mm on 6x9cm.

 

I am not unfamiliar with publication: check www.rogerandfrances.com for a list of books (over 50) and the magazines I write for.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

If you're doing landscape work and also doing a lot of walking/hiking, forget the monorails and go for a field camera. Look into the Shen-Hao, Tachihara, Wisner, Ebony, etc. They are light enough to put in a backpack with a bunch of lenses and other stuff and won't break your back.

Monorails aren't too bad for field work. A TOHO, as suggested above, weighs a lot less than most flat-bed/field cameras. A Gowland Pocket view is of monorail design and weighs only 2.5lbs, lighter than any 4x5 Flatbeds that I know of. However, because these cameras are very light, they aren't very rigid compared to the heavier ones so there's a toss up and no one camera is perfect (that's why most 4x5 users have 2 to 3 cameras - one for long backpacking trips and the other for day hikes).

No matter how you fold it, a monorail is big. The F1 standards fold flat if you remove the bellows (easy enough with an F1), but it's still 4 inches thick by 15 inches by 18 inches. Don't forget holders and lenses.

 

A folding camera is the best bet. One of the best, with good movements is a Linhof Technika - also expensive. There are several Toyo models more affordable, Ebony, Wista, etc.

 

If you want to start light, consider a Crown Graphic. There isn't much in the way of movements, but you can use any lens you want (the 135 Optar isn't bad) and still get huge negatives. There is 15 degrees of tilt, but only backwards. The front standard can be reversed to get a more useful forward tilt. You get about 3/4" rise, which helps, but not much.

 

I think there are more actors making a living acting (about 0.5% of the SAG) than wanna' be landscape photographers. That should not deter you if it's what you love doing.

A light-weight option is the Shen Hao field camera:

 

http://www.shen-hao.com/

 

http://www.kgcphoto.com/Reviews_&_Tutorials/shen-hao_and_lf_lenses.htm

 

Robert

"The question: is a heavy monorail camera like the Sinar F1 the only solution if I want tilt & shift?"

 

No

I'll put in another pitch for a field camera, and also for the Shen Hao. It has all the movements you could want, is very solid and stable, and is very easy to work with. Plus, accessories for it are quite inexpensive. While monorails do offer the most tilts/swings/shifts, most landscape photographers find that they use very little of these movements, other than the occasional application of rise, and front tilt.

 

If you are interested in shooting medium/large format digital, then field work is still NOT for you. The digital backs for those cameras are for the most part tethered to a computer, or have significant operational limitations outside of a studio (dust attraction being a first among many).

 

The reason slides are preferred by scanner operators and the printing industry in general is that it is easier to guarantee that they have a good scan- they can look at a positive image on the screen and directly compare it to the original transparency, which makes doing color corrections easier because they're more obvious. There is nothing inherently better about scanning from transparency or from negative- it has to do with operator skill/efficiency. Actually, many people feel that scanning from a negative is better, since negatives preserve highlight detail, so if you have blown-out highlights, you can always re-scan with a different gamma and merge the two scans.

Whew !!

 

For magazine work 6x7 medium format should be enough enough. There is a company that makes a tilt shift camera that takes Hassy or RZ67 lenses and backs. I believe it has full movements. Also the RB-RZ67 cameras have a tilt shift adapter that you can use with existing lenses.

 

For enlargements it is all how big you want to enlarge vs the format.

I have a drum scanner so I can compare different lenses, cameras, films etc, and what i like is Kodak E100G, GX, VS films. Actually I just shot some Kodak EPP film and that is nice too.

 

I have done a few 6x7 16X enlargements. That work out to about 36 x 45, but that is really pushing it and scanning that high you resolve more grain. Really 10-12x with a good film, sharp lens, and a good scan is usually where I like to be.

 

With that said every time i am out with a 6x7 camera and not in a hurry, I always feel like I should have my 4x5 camera because i might miss a bit of detail.

 

Then i bought an 8x10 camera, so now every time i am out with my 4x5, I feel like I should be using my 8x10. Its just a super heavy beast and everything is much more difficult. After seeing my first few 8x10 slides though, MF is mostly forgotten.

 

A 4x5 slide is a marvel, but an 8x10 will blow you away. I gave one to a friend the other day with a loupe and he was astounded at the detail.

 

Back to the subject. I have hiked with a 4x5 Sinar F2 and its really too heavy for me, although it is a very nice camera. I also have a Cambo SC and its decent and a workhorse, not at the level of a sinar though, and its not exactly light either.

 

If you want a super light camera, which I would recommend for an extended hike, you will probably have to give up some features or flexibility.

 

I think first off decide if you want a folder or a rail camera. If I were to do it over again I would probably go for a Toho 4x5 at 3# or a lightweight folding camera of some sort. Maybe a Canham. With the Toho a couple of light lenses and quick loads, you would have a super light package.

 

One thing i would recommend is a Binocular viewer. It is like seeing for the first time after using a dark cloth. Highly recommended. They are bulky and add some weight, but well worth it IMO. The Cambo viewer though is really not that heavy.

 

As far as scanning 4x5 and 8x10 i feel only a drum scan will do. An Epson compared to a drum scanner, is super mushy. They almost even out at 600 dpi, but thats not what we want. Also most LF lenses are not quite as sharp as MF/35mm. I usually use 10X as a factor for enlargement for 4x5 and 8x10. Also a lightjet print at 304 dpi might carry a tiny bit more detail than a 204 dpi print, but its probably not worth the aggravation. The files just get way to big for a 40x50 305 dpi 48 bit tiff print. They are impossible to work on that big.

 

A 2000 dpi drum scan of E100G is super clean. It is almost a dead ringer for digital, and is very clean and sharp and very easy to work on.

 

A slightly over scanned 4x5 drum scan, resized to print on a lightjet at 204 dpi, at 40x50 looks really good. That is roughly about 4 lp/mm in print which is good for a 20" view distance. If you back that out that means it would translate to 40 lp/mm at the film plane which is about right for LF.

 

8x10 you could do double that if you can find a printer that big.

If I remember right, most of the photos in "Mountain Light" were made with 35mm. So don't just discount it altogether.

 

You'll find different attitudes in regards to hiking, climbing, and photography. Some people hike or climb only to shoot, and they don't mind toting 40 lbs of gear along. And in most cases, probably don't get far from the trailhead, either. Others hike or climb with photography incidental, and that gives quite a different outlook on gear.

 

Are you already selling photos? Or making calendars or large prints? If not, realize that you may get some fine gear only to find that your work just really doesn't go over that well. There are a LOT of people that would like to hike through the mountains, take pretty pictures, and make big bucks for it.

The larger the neg, the better the print. The larger the camera, the bigger the pain it is.

 

Darkcloths blow in your face

your fingers freeze cause you can`t wear gloves

film is harder to get processed so you end up doing it yourself.

LF have long bellows or short bellows. Long ones do not do wide angles well so you need to change to a bag bellows. Short ones don`t do longer lenses and there is no fix.

film holders need to be kept dust free or you get spots on the film.

this implies a dust free place to load them or you need ready loads.

wind blows the camera around

 

Buy something used and cheap or rent and try it out before selling anything.

Troy - your response was almost - but not quite, as long ast the original post:-)

<p>

I'm overwhelmed, but somewhere in the middle of all that did you say after doing hi-

resolution capture on a large format or something you store the results at JPEG? I'm a bit

confused - why would you go to the trouble of getting a hi resolution image to then store

it in a lossy format?

<p>

Rear focusing is probably critical only for macro work. A field camera is usually more than

adequate for landscape work?

<p>

Arca-Swiss just came out with a new 4x5 "Field" camera - the Misura. Not a cheap date,

but probably a bargain compared to a new Sinar.

At this point LF field photography means film for virtually all of us. The digital solutions that are considered LF are very expensive and some are akward to use outside the studio.

 

Most of the LF cameras that you mention are optimized for studio use. There many other brands and models more suited to the field photography that you are interested in. I suggest that you browse the archives of this forum. The question "which field camera" has been asked many times.

 

 

I suggest either renting to see if LF is for you, or buying used with the idea of selling if you change your mind, and considering any difference between buying and selling price as rent. I suggest starting with 4x5.

 

A book would be a good idea too. A User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone is excellent. There's also Using the View Camera by Steve Simmons and Large Format Nature Photography by Jack Dykinga.

The consensus seems to be that the biggest mistake Mr. Dii(?) can make is buying something before *learning* more, and I heartily agree.

 

To buy a Sinar F1 because the first photographer asked recommended it is like buying the first car recommended by a random friend who drives.

 

There's always the "Learn > Tutorial > Camera" link at the top of this page (also >Equipment > Large format > Choosing a Camera), but much of the material is out-of-date and of course has plenty of Phil Greenspun's personal quirks.

 

So instead I'll recommend http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ as a good starting point.

I have climbed to 14,000 ft in December with my 5x7 and lighting. I don't mind

it a bit. My thought is if I climb I want a good piece of film. It just seems like a

waist to carry a fugi 69 all that way to see that somebody else has done it

better on a larger format.

 

Don't get me wrong I love my fugi 69 and shoot with it all the time. Mainly I

use that camera for street photography and quick hand held shots. If I shot

football games I would use 35mm or digital.

 

If you do decide to go to large format I suggest 5x7 because of lense options

and the film does not pooch like 8x10. 5x7 is also a lot bigger than 4x5 why

being almost as sharp.

? beepy , sep 23, 2005; 05:44 p.m.

Troy - your response was almost - but not quite, as long ast the original post:-)

 

Competetion

 

I'm overwhelmed, but somewhere in the middle of all that did you say after doing hi- resolution capture on a large format or something you store the results at JPEG?

 

If I did it was a mistake, No, usually tiff 48

You know, now that I think about, after hiking all over RMNP, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone out any distance on a trail with LF equipment- few even bring a tripod. I'm sure it's been done, but very few people with that kind of gear want to tote it 20 miles.

Hello,

<br />

Thanks for all your replies, I can't catch up reading them and learning more about what your proposed, but I try hard and it'll take a while. I only hope I'll not have more questions than I started with ;)

<p>

Nobody yet mentioned "Zone VI 4x5 field view camera".

<br />(I'm really sorry, but I still confuse the dimensions - some is centimeter some is inch. There seems not to be any consistency.)

<p>

best

<br />

G. Dii

One more important point that has either been missed or my tired eyes just glazed over.

In termes of hiking bigger doesn't necessarily mean heavier. There is no doublt that any

4x5 camera, a few lenses, light meter film and holder take up lots more space than a

35mm SLR and a few lenses but they area not necessarily heavier. A typical lightweight

field kit consists of a camera in the 3.5 to 5 pound range and two or three (only one if you

are traveling really light) lenses that may weigh a total of another pound to pound and a

half. Add to that 10-20 quickload or readload packets and a quick/readyload holder and

a meter for another pound topound and a half for a total less than 10 pounds, more likely

in the 8 poound range. Now add up the weight of a Nikon and a couple of fast Nikkor

zoom lenses ... you are not going to see much difference. No, I didn't mention a tripod

because you should have that for your SLR as well.

Hello,

<br />

What concerns weight in comparison with 35mm format I compare with my current equipment which is rangefinder camera M6 or MP body with two lenses 35/2 asph, 24/2.8 asph, and Visoflex IIa (VF2a) adapter with loupe and Elmar 65mm/3.5 for close-up + tripod of course. (Viewfinder 35mm lenses are much smaller and lighter than equivalent SLR lenses. - This is why I sold the R8.)

<p>The VF2a weights 227g.

The straight loupe weights 86g (which is

much lighter than a 90 degree prism weighting 215g).

The Elmar 65/3.5 weights 300g.

A small but very rugged tripod for close-up weights 380 g.

<p>

best

<br />

G. Dii

Hello,<br />

I'm just looking at the <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm">Toho Shimo FC-45X</a> as TOHO was recommended above and I like it a lot.

It seems very suited for outdoor use as the review suggests.

<p>

best, G. Dii

There are many 4x5 field cameras available new. For someone who wants a new (or is buying used but wants new parts and accessories available), wants a monorail-style camera, and for whom ultra-light weight is the primary criteria, the Toho Shimo FC-45X is probably the camera. If you decide that lightest weight isn't the driving criteria, there are other cameras to consider which might be easier or more convenient to use, or more rigid, or precise, etc. The Canham DLC is still fairly light and is popular. Many like the Arca-Swiss line. Then there are the various wooden folders. I use a Technikardan, but this camera is on the heavy end of field cameras.

 

If you've been happy or almost happy with print quality from the 35 mm photos you've been making so far, you don't need to go to a larger format than 4x5 inches. One reason not to go smaller, particularly as a beginner, is that setting up tilts and swings is easier on a larger ground glass.

 

The weight also depends on how many photos you want per trip, and whether you use sheet filmholders or Readyloads/Quickloads. (Another possibility is to use a rollfilm holder (for 120 film) on a 4x5 camera.)

g dii , sep 24, 2005; 10:03 a.m.

Hello,

I'm just looking at the Toho Shimo FC-45X as TOHO was recommended above and I like it a lot. It seems very suited for outdoor use as the review suggests.

best, G. Dii

 

Thats does look like a nice camera, but I would defiantly get a first hand opinion from someone that has used one.

 

You also have to realize that it is somewhat compromised in function, IE no removable bellows, I think it is complicated rotate the GG, the front movements are a bit limited, and it may not be as stiff as others.

 

I have also used the Gowland pocketview, which I would think would be a big step below a toho, and it is a limited 4x5 camera but super light. I think the trick is to use these types of cameras with limited movements, like only front tilt, as a lot of the other movements are combined.

 

If you can handle a 5# camera and the extra cost you might want to look at a Canham 4x5 dlc45.

http://www.canhamcameras.com/allmetalf.html

 

Probably one of the finest and most expensive 4x5 field cameras is the Arca Swiss F-line but it weighs 7#.

 

There are a lot of others too. Really too many to get into. Best thing you can do is decide if you want a rail camera for a field camera first, what movements you want, then figure out how much $ you can afford. Then find the lightest, stiffest camera with the movements you want. I would also recommend a camera with no combined movements unless you want to compromise.

And lets not forget the Rollei SL66 which has rollfilm convenience and rather nice lenses in

conjunction with a front end that has movements. Its an excellent compromise and are

relatively cheap given other choices like the Fuji 6x8 which is larger and requires

batteries etc.

 

CP Goerz