alexo

Thank you for your reply. It's very helpful. What about the idea of using tilt/shift lenses on non-tilting bellows? Does that make sense?

AFAIK, The Nikon PB4 bellows only does shifts and swings on the front standard. It has no movement on the rear standard and no rise and fall capabilities. It's the reason I didn't include it. My subject matter is less than an inch, but ideally, I would like to maintain my macro capabilities and expand the movements into general photography.

I currently have a Canon FD auto bellows, which I use with my Canon 5d2. I reverse mounted my FD 50mm f1.8 lens and the setup is pretty flexible and works quite well. However, I'm beginning to experience the limitations of this setup and I wanted to add tilting and shifting capabilities. I came up with a few options, all of which have their pros and cons. Tilt/Shift bellows. There are a number of bellows units, especially for medium format, which can be adapted for my setup. These run in the ballpark of about $650 and they would pretty much do what I need. However, my tilting options would be limited to macro Technical camera such as Cambo DB or Arca Swiss Universalis. This setup would allow me to have view camera functions at macro level and for general photography. However, it's EXPENSIVE and I wouldn't want to spend that kind of money if there are other options that would give me this functionality Adapting a 4x5 camera. This is a somewhat less expensive proposition than tech camera, but the limitations of this setup is that it's heavy, bulky and my choice of lenses for general photography would be limited. Mounting two tilt/shift adapters (one on the lens and one on the camera with bellows in between). This setup should theoretically give me independent front and rear standard movements. I say theoretically because I've never seen that done and I don't know how well it would work and if there are issues with such a setup. This setup would sort of be a compromise between macro and non-macro, with a macro setup having both front and rear movements and only lens movements available for general photography Using a TSE lens on bellows. I don't know how well that would work or whether reverse mounting a TSE lens would yield good results. This is one of the cheapest options, but there would be no rear movements for macro, unlike the adapter option (although I could also get a TSE adapter for the rear if that works). So, I'm not quite sure what to do. If anyone has had any experience with any or all of these options, or if anyone has anything else to recommend, I'm all ears. Thanks

Mark Rothko

<p>It sounds like the film pressure plate isn't pressing the film flat on the plane. You might want to have it serviced.</p>

<p>The Mamiya C33 does not have interchangeable backs, but you can use 120 film by rotating the film pressure plate 90 deg. There should be an indicator on it.<br> <br />As far as the lens is concerned, just put it on, don't worry about it. The dial is for parallax correction. The 55 is wide enough where that's less of an issue unless you focus REALLY close.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Chinese suppliers offering adapters and other gadgets are particularly valuable, their prices are unbelievably low, in cases of dispute they are more than likely to make a refund but tell you not to bother returning the item.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's true, except when they send you a replacement adapter, it's going to be the wrong type.</p>

<p>I've bought stuff from e-bayers from all over the world. I find the Japanese traders to be very meticulous in their product descriptions. They're very good in making sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed. I would have no problem buying from Japanese sellers.</p> <p>I've consistently had problems with Chinese sellers. They don't pay attention to what they're doing. They send the wrong product or the wrong size or the wrong this or that. It's constant aggravation, so I avoid Chinese sellers like a plague, but everyone else is ok for the most part.</p>

<p>Check out this site: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/mfdb-guide.html It talks about all the pitfalls of getting an old digital back.</p>

<p>I disagree with the notion of judging a sensor by the print. A RAW file is essentially the digital equivalent of a negative. So, if you want to judge the sensor, you have to judge it by the first generation output. A print is at least two generations removed from that. When you're looking at the print, there are too many variables that have gone into making it. You're looking at the paper, you're looking at the post processing, you're looking at the driver, on and on and on.</p> <p>From what I have seen, the tonality advantage of a larger format is a myth. What is that tonality a function of? If it's a function of pixel size, then my Canon 5d2 should have better tonality than any of the 50mp cropped MF cameras because it's got bigger pixels. You would also see a drop in tonality as the resolution increases. </p> <p>The tonality difference is the way that the manufacturers choose to render the scenes. The FF manufacturers go for the pop, a higher contrast look to give it a more "wow" effect, while the MF manufacturers go for a lower contrast to give it the sense of greater tonality. You can see that with the introduction of Canon 5D4, where Canon has started moving towards the "greater tonality" rendering, rather than the "pop"</p> <p>The same goes for noise. It's a choice of rendering. The FF cameras sacrifice some of the base ISO noise in order to boost low light sensitivity. Whereas the MF manufacturers sacrifice low light sensitivity for great S/N ratio at base ISO. Again, that's a choice of rendering, not a function of sensor size.</p> <p>MF digital allows us two very distinct and uncontroversial advantages that are the function of the sensor size:</p> <ol> <li>Greater resolution at a given pixel density</li> <li>The lens/camera geometry that results in shallower DOF, greater focal length at a given angle of view.</li> </ol> <p>That's where the advantages end. Therefore, in order to maximize and readily see the advantages of the MF digital cameras, you have to go to a MINIMUM 645 FF sensor. Otherwise, these advantages become a lot less apparent and you'd be hard pressed to tell an image made with a FF camera from the one made with a crop MF.</p>

<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame? --Dan South<br> For the most part, yes. You have to stretch them pretty far to start to see the break down. --Alexander O</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely not! At anything over ISO 1600 you will see a LOT of difference in noise levels--not that I am recommending shooting at such high ISOs.<br> The new Fuji will show considerably cleaner files as the ISO increases. Resolution? Well, admittedly the resolution increase will not exactly be overwhelming, but the difference in noise will be very, very noticeable.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah, sorry. I should have qualified that all of my observations are made at base ISO. </p>

<blockquote> <p>In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame?</p> </blockquote> <p>For the most part, yes. You have to stretch them pretty far to start to see the break down. However, the FF 24mp sensors win out in terms of geometry, which I described earlier.<br> .<br> .<br> .</p> <blockquote> <p>Do 12 MP cell phones compete head to head with the Nikon D3?</p> </blockquote> <p>No. Read the qualifier I wrote. The pixels have to be big enough in order to control the noise level. Secondly, you can't compare the lens quality of a cell phone with the Nikon lens quality. So, the cell phone would not be able to compete even if it had a FF sensor.<br> .<br> .<br> .</p> <blockquote> <p>Have you worked with files from the Pentax 645Z or the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras that use 50 MP sensors? Can you confirm first hand that these cameras offer no image quality gain over the Canon 5DS R?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes and yes. I've downloaded a number of RAW files from various 50mp cameras and I went over them with a fine tooth comb. I can honestly say that I don't find the Canon 50DSR files to be substantially different from Pentax, or Phase One crop sensor 50mp files.</p>

<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>How is it any better than FF? At 1.7x of FF</p> </blockquote> <p>You've just answered your own question: It is 1.7x better. You can make a print 37 x 27 inch print that looks as good up-close as a 30 x 20 inch print from a 35mm-sized sensor, and has a bigger "wow" factor from a moderate distance.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>It doesn't work like that. A 50mp print is a 50mp print provided the pixels are big enough that the noise level isn't overwhelming. All of the current modern cameras have low enough noise (at base ISO) that you wouldn't be able to tell one print from another. The ONLY advantage of the bigger sensor is the geometry of the lens to the sensor, meaning shallower dof at a given aperture, a greater angle of view at a given focal length, etc.</p> <blockquote> <p>Don't forget, near-identical 50MP 44x33 mm CMOS sensors are already in use in 5 other cameras or backs from Pentax, Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad. Check the images that are out there...in many cases they are obviously different to FF outputs.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've gone over a number of RAW files and compared them to one another and they all look pretty much the same. Sometimes, there's better corner sharpness in crop MF, but that's about it.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Additionally, the bigger the sensor, the less curvature you see within wide angle lenses, so wide angle shots look more natural.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't understand what optical principle you're referring to here. Curvature, in what sense?</p> </blockquote> <p>In a sense that the smaller the sensor, the more "stretched" the wide angle images look, whereas the bigger the sensor (or film format), the less stretched and the more natural wide angle images look.</p>

<p>Ask yourself the following question: What does a crop MF bring to the table? How is it any better than FF? At 1.7x of FF, it doesn't look any different than FF. In other words, had this been a true 645 size sensor, the DOF at a given aperture and magnification would be SUBSTANTIALLY smaller, thereby giving you certain creative freedom. Additionally, the bigger the sensor, the less curvature you see within wide angle lenses, so wide angle shots look more natural. The crop MF sensor doesn't really do any of that to a great enough extent to be worth while. The geometry of the crop MF will make your photos look very much like those from a FF camera. </p> <p>As far as cameras go, Fuji seems to have hit all the right buttons. I think it's designed just right. Had it been a true 645 camera, I would have been giddy beyond words.</p>

<p>I doubt the sensor would be bigger than 4x4. My guess it's the same 50mp sensor they're currently using with added area of a square. That would give it 75mp. That would also allow them to use their current lenses.</p> <p>It's an interesting concept, but it would be a lot more interesting as a 6x6</p>

<p>Phase One seems to be the only company making 645 cameras/backs. This means that the industry is settling on the crop MF. It's not a question of nomenclature as to whether this constitutes med format or not. It's a matter of geometry. A sensor this small, doesn't bring much to the table over FF to justify the extra cost. Granted, prices are beginning to come down, but even so, you're looking at a $7k delta over some of the best FF cameras, yet there's not really an advantage, at least a readily seen and uncontroversial advantage.<br> A bigger sensor would have a much more pronounced look to it of having a shallower depth of field and less wide angle curvature. </p> <p>So, whereas the Fuji seems like a really nice camera with some great features, to me, it's just another camera, competing against all other cameras and I don't see it as having an inherent advantage of a truly larger format.</p>

<p>Fuji had a blank slate. They weren't married to any mount, to any format, nothing. They could have done whatever they wanted. As it turned out, they went the crop way, which sucks because now they're stuck with it. The lenses are made for the crop sensor, so if they decided to go the full 645 route, they would have to introduce a whole new set of lenses. This means that chances are that Fuji won't introduce a full 645 camera. </p> <p>Had they designed a 645 body, those lenses could have been used on a crop sensor as well (although I don't get the whole idea of a crop MF sensor other than lowering costs and marketing)<br> So, I understand that they wanted to come in with a new mirrorless camera for under $10k, but doing so with a 645 system would have been REALLY something.</p>

<p>I meant it in a more general sense that the cropped MF sensor isn't big enough to do the things that a FF sensor can't.</p>

<p>It seems nice and all, but I fail to see the point of a crop MF sensor. There's not enough of a difference in geometry, in terms of depth of field to stand head and shoulders above FF cameras. I understand they want to keep the costs down, but if they were to make a true 645 or a 6x6 for around $8k then I would certainly be excited</p>