Can digital lenses match 210 SuperSymmar HM bouqet

[erlend sæteren]

Hi. My friend Lisa is considering digital. The price is not the main issue. Her 210 SuperSymmar HM is

delivering fantastic foodpicture,that is delicious in and out of focus, often at f 8,5- 16. Do you know if

any lenses can do the same thing on a digital back. Tilt and shift is a must. Could it be a Digitarlens?

Or maybe an conventional lens? Techical camera? Fuji gx 680? tiltshift on mediumformatslr with

digitalback? Looking at datasheets 80 or 100 mm lenses like Apodigitar has a speed that barely can

produce the outoffocuseffect at 210mm f stop 11. Can oneshot digital give pictures that is comparable

to 4x5 velvia in looks and quality?

 

Best wishes from Erlend

[erlend sæteren]

You can see what look I mean at www.tinagent.com , photographers, Lisa Westgaard.

Best regards Erlend

[profhlynnjones]

Yes, you can do this with a scannerback on view cameras so long as you don't swing the back. You can get upwards of 140 meg scan, it takes several minutes and costs many tens of thousands of bucks.

 

Continue to use your view camera, TS lenses can't do all of the needed corrections and super Symmars and similar lenses on good film are still the best. One day this will not be true, but we don't expect this millenium to change for a few years.

 

Lynn

[leicaglow]

I'm a little unclear on your question, but look into something like the Hasselblad arc body. I think some other manufacturers make a bellows body with tilt-shift that can take a digital back, and usually a view camera lens (though some can take Hasselblad and other lenses with the adapter): Rollei, Sinar, Lihhof, Toyo. In my opinion, the output from the newer digital backs can rival that of a 4x5 in quality and look. Prices start at around $10K for the digital back, maybe $5-6K for body and lens. Some less and some more money.

[karl_knographer]

Hi Erlend,

 

My background is studio still life / tabletop in the Chicago market for the past 20 years. I switched to digital about 3 years ago after working primarily with 8x10 and 4x5. The answer to your question, I'm afraid, is yes and no. Primarily yes: with a good calibrated setup and top of the line capture back and glass, you can do some great looking work. I work now with an Imacon 16MP back and Fuji 680, and I'm preparing to upgrade to an Arca Swiss with either Imacon or Phase One 39MP. As I'm sure you know, the main issue with current med. format backs is that the sensor size gives you "normal" lenses in the 60-80mm range.

A lot of inherent depth of field. The digitar style lenses are really designed to be used in the F 5.6 range and tend to go soft quickly when stopped down to F16 and beyond. So selective focus with these lenses is pretty easy to achieve, but full depth of field shots can be problematic in terms of resolution when working at magnification. I haven't gone down this road as yet since I'm working with the Fuji glass, which is excellent but limited, but I intend to have both digitar lenses and traditional lenses which will give less diffraction at smaller apertures than the digitar. The fuji 680 is a less expensive way to go, by far, since the bodies have shutters along with

perspective control, although the system is somewhat limited by the 50mm shortest focal length. If moderate wide is all that you need, this may be the place to start. Otherwise, you have to go the view camera route with electronic shutters or one shot setups, which can really add up quickly. A rollie X-Act II with attachments and a lens with electronic shutter and control unit is going to start you out at about $10K, before you put a back on it, which can be another $25K depending upon your needs. And then there's Sinar, which is another level altogether. In my experience, the quality is there with digital to match or surpass film in most applications, but at a price. But some effects can be hard to duplicate because of the shorter focal lengths relative to the sensor size. As a final note, the difference in workflow is dramatically different, and for the most part the instant feedback from the monitor, from capture, offers a creative control that's dramatically different than pulling polaroids. As much as I love film, and the way an 8x10 transparency can look, for commercial purpose I'm happy to trade that off for never again having

to trek to the lab late at night, worried about results.

 

I hope this is of some help.

[gene_e._mccluney]

To continue to use her Super Symmar, I would suggest acquiring a scanning back for her

4x5. While expensive, the mid-range ones cost about the same as a top-line Digital SLR,

and deliver quality in excess of what you can get with a digital back on Medium Format.

All the 4x5 movements can be used with a scanning back, which goes on the camera just

like a 4x5 sheet film holder. You remove it to focus and compose on your normal ground

glass. The only downside to a scanning back for still life type photography is that you

have to use constant light, you can't use strobes.

 

Of course another very good option is to continue to shoot 4x5 transparencies, or

negatives, and just do high resoltuion scans of the images. This is the lowest cost way to

get excellent digital files. A top-end flatbed scanner (that does film) can do a very good

job of scanning 4x5.

 

McCluney Photo

[erlend sæteren]

You are helping with answers. I have a hunch that the future is partly digital and partly Lf

film. I have used a scannerback a decade ago.- It was great at 1/15 second f 11 with 2

-3kilowatt light. At longer exposures i got hotccd-noise. That much light generates heat

that kills the food to fast for a very picky photographer. Are the last generation

digitalbacks better considering noise? What about 1 second exposure using the

modellinglights in the bouncers etc.?

Karl- the fuji is interesting- we will try to test the 100mm 4, and the 125mm 3.2- on a

phase one or leaf or imacon. Sinar with a back might be interesting too (she has been

using Sinar since she started out). Other solutions must be consider if it can do a better

job.

We do have a nice workflow wit LF and the agfascan xy-15. I do not think it is possible to

beat that quality, but if it is possible to match it pretty close.......? Maybe it is wise to wait

for better digital solutions. To spend 20-50000dollars only to lose quality and gain faster

workflow and cut in filmexpenses is not only a good thing.

Best wishes from Erlend

[johndc]

Question for people more experienced than me: would a shorter APO-Symmar give the results he's looking for?

 

p.s. Anyone else see "bouqet" and think of Hyacinth Bucket?

[johndesq]

Probably "Bokeh" is meant :-)