Digital SLR Adaptor for and Existing Film 4x5

[pemongillo]

I have seen a number of new view cameras designed to hold a digital SLR in the

back. I think thats pretty cool even thought I still mostly shoot film. Maybe I don't

understand the technical problems or maybe it exists, but I have not seen a

reference to an adaptor for existing view cameras that would hold a digital SLR. I

have a Horseman back on my Phillips 4x5. Is there something like that out there

for a Horseman back or am I in La La Land?

 

Thanks

Paul

[ellis_vener_photography]

They are out there. The problem is have big limitations.

 

1.) Unlike the Horseman back, where the location of the film plane remains the same for both rollfilm and sheetfilm, When you put an SLR or DSLR body on tan adapter plate the sensor plane is much further away from the film plane of the view camera -- you can of course move the lens standard closer to the film standard (or vice versa) but that has it's limitations for lenses shorter than about 120 mm even if you use a bag bellows -- the back element of the lens starts hitting the rear standard limiting tilt or swing movements. So you end up using longer lenses.

 

2. because you have the SLR/DSLR mirror box you are limited to how much vertical and horizontal shift you can get away with before you start getting vignetting.

 

3.) The viewfinder for the SLR becomes very dark and blurry once you start tiling and swinging and shifting -- and quickly gets to the point of uselessness, so essentially you either to need to work with the camera tethered to a computer so you can see the image and determine what movements you need to make -- but only after you've shot a frame. Alternately you might be able to use a newer DSLR with Liveview (like the Nikon D3).

 

4.) compared to lenses for 35mm and medium format DSLRs traditional view camera lenses just have (because on large format media they don't need it) high enough resolution.

 

I know all of this because I've actually tried it.

 

One application where a DSLR plus view camera chassis and a very high resolution lens works well is in the area of ultra high magnification macro (micro?) photography.

[kelly_flanigan1]

This has been done along time; even back to where a pro dslr was just 1.3 megapixel; and pro Hasselblad back was 4! With a new digital LF lens there is decent resolution for a modern dslr. The settups I have seen use the rig for shooting several frames that are stitched together. The lens mount of the dslr limits the off axis range; ie item (2) in the above comment.

[drew bedo]

So composition and focus may be harder to accomplish; Are there any benafits from auto exposure and auto bracketing or white balance AND diffeent light sources?

[User_503771]

From the above data, it looks to me as though one shouldn't bother with the DSLR view camera adaptor, and a practical answer to the whole thing would be one of the following:

 

1) Get a digital back designed for a view camera (real expensive); or

 

2) Get a tilt/shift lens for the DSLR, if you really must have movements for the thing (also rather expensive).

 

Another option is still around but not really part of the discussion, but bears mentioning here:

 

3) Shoot roll or sheet film with the view camera and scan it. You get the benefits of view camera movements, and uber-megapixels from the scan.

 

I figure that few digital shooters are going to want to wait around for the film to be developed and scanned, but in terms of the quality of result and the dollar cost, you probably can't beat it as an option, at least when considering the current state of technology and offerings.

 

Of course, if you don't really need the movements, just use the DSLR.

 

If anything, the advances in both digital and film technology give one many more viable, workable options than ever before.

 

Although I've really grown to like shooting with a digital camera, I still like film even more, especially in a camera with movements. And working with color, I'm overjoyed with the ability to scan the film and get control over the color printing that way. So I think there's a lot to be said for that kind of "hybrid" approach.

[vernon_jenewein]

Michael has an excellent approach in #3 suggestion. With Photoshop and the ability of sofware to remove distortions, including converging lines in building, etc, the need for swings and tilts in digital SLRs are becoming increasingly moot.

 

I have 6X7 Graflock backs for my view cameras, and it would be nice if someone designed an imager in the 6X6 to 6x12 formats for large format cameras taking Graflok backs. An add-on back with removable memory card that had such larger format, even compared to Nikon's FX camera the D3 would be an extra step in quality improvement. True, the larger format lenses are not as well designed for extreme blow up, but with an imager that size the amount of enlargment would be significanly less than say an APS-C sensor in most Nikon Digital DX cameras.

 

I certainly think the idea of a digital back, similar to the Graflok film backs, would have merit and if priced right would be a hot item for existing photographers.

[john_galuszka]

Here's another advantage of "Hendrickson's hybrid:" it makes you work more slowly.

 

With digital, the tendency is to use the shotgun method: shoot a lot and delete most, hoping that one shot will be good.

 

With film, things are more sharpshooter style: you wait until things are exactly right, then shoot.

 

The sharpshooter can then make minor corrections with Photoshop.

[pemongillo]

Thanks for the enlightening discussion. Sounds like I'll be shooting my B&W landscapes with the old 4x5 and film in the near future. I have already converted to a hybrid approach to my b&W prints. Whether I capture them on film or digitally they all end up being manipulated in Photoshop. I print out large negatives and make contact prints on fiber in the darkroom. My silver gelatin prints are definately superior to traditional burning and dodging in the darkroom.

 

Paul

[t_du_vernet]

<p>Some of you are missing the point. Sure there is software, sure there are shift and tilt lenses for dslrs, sure SOME modern lenses are good. BUT!! There is no Apolanthar for my Nikon, no 80mm Planar 2.8, no Apo Symmar 120, etc. Many of the old lenses were actually very sharp and don't suffer the distortions of mega zooms. We forget in the world of digital that the lens continues to be the most important part of the process. What would be better is a mount with a helicoid ring and a screw mount for the view lens.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>"What would be better is a mount with a helicoid ring and a screw mount for the view lens."<br>

Rodenstock makes helical focusing mounts for all of their lenses, from 23mm to 150mm, in 0 shutter that mount to any lensboard bored out to accept a 3 size shutter.<br>

What you neglected to mention is that view camera lens manufacturers make both analog and digital lenses today. The digital lenses are computed for more back focus distance (digital backs have a much smaller image diagonal then 45 and thus require far shorter focal lengths as normal and wide angle lenses then 45 does. The rays have to strike the pixels at a different angle then analog lenses deliver thus the pixels do not illuminate as evenly as with a digital lens. The sensors all have a glass cover over them, film does not, that glass cover becomes part of the optic and digital lenses are computed with that in mind. Analog lenses were not. Digital sensors are perfectly flat and the pixels have no real depth. Film sags, it is not flat and emulsions have multiple grain layers. So the correction of analog lenses simply can not equal that of digital lenses.<br>

So no, there is no Apo Lanthar, no 80mm 2.8 Planar, no Apo Symmar 120 made for digital. But the lenses that are made for digital easily outperform those lenses on digital and on roll film.</p>