Digital camera as a digital back.

[john_messenger1]

<p>A friend has allowed me to use his 4x5 camera. It is a complete camera. Camera, rails, lensboard, and bellows. Also has the glass in the back. I want to use it but not with film. On EBAY someone is selling a device that allows the digital camera (in my case a Nikon D200) to be substituted for the glass focusing plate. You take the camera and twist it to a metal connector, and it in turn is connected to an assembly which takes the place of the focusing glass. You adjust the bellows, rise, fall, etc, and once the field of focus is achieved you take the picture. Of course the lens shutter will not be used, just the shutter in camera. Has anyone tried this? If successful I might be interested in purchasing a larger megapixel camera for future studio and landscape projects. Thanks very much for your replies.<br>

John Messenger</p>

 

[henrik_tived]

<p>I have a studiotool, but its for Canon.<br>

try look at that</p>

<p>Henrik</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>The device you mention seems to be an elaborate lens adapter. You will get serious telephoto with that. What you want is some sort of scanning adapter. It should slide around and let you take multiple pictures so you can stitch. I am not sure if these exist and if they did you would need a very still subject. What are you trying to achieve? LF quality in digital? If so then you will need a lot of money or patience. It would be much easier to shoot in film and scan as you need it.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>I made something similar from wood to take extrem macro shots, beside this I dont see any advantage. As mentioned above, a sliding adapter to take 6 shots or so to stitch is an interesting idea, but its alot of work to build one. Just to try out I wouldnt pay 100 bucks or so for the adapter</p>

[paddler_b]

<p>As long as there is LF film available and you can process it it's much easier and cheaper to shoot LF film and scan them than it is to use this kind of contraptions. I have tried it and occasionally still do. I made my own adapter. It is a big time waster for any serious work. With film you only need film holders in addition. Sinar just announced a mere $2000+ adapter similar to what you have seen...<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10072901sinarpslrsystem.asp<br /> A fairly simple device with big price tag. They make it sound as if they invented time machine....</p>

[graham_boswell_]

<p>I'll second what others have said. I've built a fixed DSLR adapter for a view camera(I just glued one end of a cheep eBay macro tube to a lens board). I realized that the view camera will only let you get the DSLR focal plane so close to the lens, making it impossible to focus at infinity unless you use very long lenses (~150mm minimum). I guess using that long of a lens on a DSLR would be good for some stuff, but nothing I shoot. Last, the adapter itself limited the degree of movement by casting a shadow on the focal plane.</p>

<p>It's still fun for extraordinary macro stuff!</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I too found the idea intriguing, and bought one of the devices from eBay.</p>

<p>I do a lot of macro work, so I've found both my 90mm and 180mm lens to be useful using the device with a Nikon D3 attached to my Cambo 4X5.</p>

<p>The device itself allows some movement for a multi-shot capture, but I use the view camera back to move the Nikon more precisely. </p>

<p>I haven't used the device much, but I only paid about $135.00 for it, so I think I got my money's worth, or I will have if I ever find time to do some more macro work!</p>

 

[john_messenger1]

<p>Thanks for all the feedback. Quite simply I want to have greater depth of field for studio stuff. And, I want to have stitching capability for landscape stuff.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>This is called a 'tandem camera' setup. It's an old technique, and I believe companies like Burke & James made such adapters for their view cameras. One place to read about it is Blaker's <em>Field and Nature Photography</em>, published by W H Freeman in the 1970s.</p>

<p>Tabletop and closeup work is an obvious application, but you can also focus on infinity using most lenses longer than about 100mm, depending on how short the front camera is. This gives you an easy way to do interesting things like landscape or portraiture using antique lenses on your space-age dSLR.</p>

<p>It's trivially easy to make your own adapter, if you just want to center the back camera. Incorporating a precision apparatus for shifting the back camera for landscape would be a different matter.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,<br>

As Dave mentioned, it is easy (and cheap) to construct your own adapter. I did that for a Nikon D70, Toyo 45G and Mamiya MF lenses. You can also use your lens, but the Mamiya has an advantage with its reto-focus design and long flange-to-focal-plane distance. You can get some instructions on how I did it at the link below. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck and have fun.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/9476880@N02/sets/72157621949266496/</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>...and this thing does what that you can't do with a tilt/shift lens made for the DSLR? Am I missing something here?</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Frank, if you're talking about tandem cameras in general, you're right, this is a specialized technique that hardly anyone is familiar with anymore, let alone uses. I have a 35mm T/S lens that I use occasionally (with 35mm film) but I haven't used my home-made tandem camera adapter plate for years.</p>

<p>Having said that, the tandem camera does a few things that are hard to get in other ways, including using a T/S lens:</p>

<p>(a) A tandem camera has (or can have) full view camera movements. AFAIK, all dedicated T/S lenses have relatively limited movements and coverage.</p>

<p>(b) The tandem camera works well for close-up and macro, because it's effectively a tilting shifting macro bellows.</p>

<p>© You can put any lens on it, provided you can focus it at your object distance and you have a lensboard which will hold it. This makes it a versatile technique for weird applications. I can give examples, but I think they're obvious.</p>

<p>(d) A second-hand press or view camera may be much less expensive than a T/S lens.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Frank,<br>

Good point. You can do many of the things with a tilt/shift lens (e.g., the Nikon 24mm PC-E). However, a few things.</p>

<p>One, the tilt lens is only in one axis, while on a LF you can both tilt and swing. The same in terms of either shift or rise/fall, only one direction, while you can do you can combine both in the LF. The new Canon T/S lens is more flexible, allowing rotation of the lens at any angle, but is harder to combine different movements than LF, IMHO. Two, creating panorama on a tilt/shift lens requires moving the lens, rather than the camera. The latter is better and can be done using the rear standard on the LF, precisely by using the scales on the movements, and in both the X-Y directions. Three, tilt/swing is also available on the rear standard of LF. Four, it is possible to use a large number and types of lenses (LF, MF, and enlarger), although the quality could be an issue.</p>

<p>I think a big factor is the relative cost. Adapting a used LF is only a few hundred dollars (including the camera), while a single PC-E or T/S is about a couple of thousand.</p>

<p>I should note that I have both the adapted LF and a PC-E lens, and again, it is possible to do many of the photos requiring tilt or shift with that lens. And both the Canon and Nikon lenses are outstanding. But, adapting a LF gives more flexibility and gives me a first hand experience working with LF cameras.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Dave, did not see your post while I was composing my response. Good point about the macro part.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Great minds, as they say, think alike.</p>

[brit]

<p>Don't forget though that generally LF lenses don't have the resolving power of say a lens for a 35mm system.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Brian,<br>

You are absolutely right; however, it is a question about whether LF or MF lenses are good enough. For some purposes, yes; for others, no. But you do gain the additional flexibility from the LF movements. I did some non-scientific comparisons that may be useful. The tests do not focus on sharpness only.</p>

<p>Mamiya MF lenses versus Nikon:<br>

Schneider LF versus Nikon:<br>

You can also check out the resolution at 100% an example of panorama LF hybrid (tandem) using only the shift of the back standard.<br>

<p>I leave it to each individual to judge, but for me, the setup is good enough for some uses.</p>

<p> </p>

[brit]

<p>Paul amazing colour difference in link #2.</p>

<p>But for your last link you have me at a disadvantage..what is a large format tandem? If thats a crop from one 35mm DSLR frame on the back of a traditional LF camera set-up its a LOT better than I expected. Stitch the whole range of them together and that would be quite an outcome!</p>

[brit]

<p>In fact its so good I don't think it could be a crop from 1 frame (says he whos biggest digital camera is the olde 350D ). If I'm wrong I am right outta my depth with what can be achieved by putting a DSLR on a std LF set-up.</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Brian,<br>

In the Schneider-Nikon comparison, the problem might be a change in WB that compounded the difference, but I have other indication is that the Schneider tends to be warmer than the Nikon. It may also be my Schneider.<br>

The last photo is a stitched panorama with a Nikon D70 and Mamiya MF lens to test out how well shifting the back standard works. The edge is soft, as seen on the left, but I am overall pleased with the performance of the lens and the ability to move the back standard rather than rotate the camera. I also did some vertical panorama but did not post them.</p>

 

[brit]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>Thanks. How many frames are stitched here?</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Brian,<br>

Had to go back to my originals to get the answer, which is four frames. I also have a version that merges the vertical test, which I am attaching. Sorry about the small size, but it gives you an idea of what is possible.</p><div></div>

[brit]

<p>Thanks Paul.</p>

<p>So is that 4 frames for the crop I asked about or four frames for this cross shaped panorama?</p>