rjpierrard

August 8, 2015

Hello,

I'm looking to build a setup that is primarily designed around shooting long exposures at smaller apertures from f/11-f/22, and I'm hoping for some suggestions about which are best in that range. (Yes, the kit will include several quality ND filters, but depth of field is also useful in these shots.) This will be for full-frame, and I do shoot from wide angle to telephoto for these types of shots, so a range of focal lengths is appreciated!

Given what I've found online so far, most lenses seem optimized around f/5.6; the best when stopped-down appear to be (by focal length):

28mm: 28/1.8G

35mm: 35/1.8G

50mm: 50/1.8G

85mm: 85/1.4G, followed by the 85/1.8D

The Sigma 105mm and 150mm macros look to be quite good across the board.

*sources from dxomark and photozone; lenses considered (mostly due to price range):

35mm: out of 35/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 35/2D

50mm: out of 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G

85mm: out of 85/1.8G, 85/1.8D

I would really like to see some data or recommendations about older manual focus lenses, as I already use these a lot, and can't find much in the way of quantitative data on them. Third party lenses are also great if they perform at these smaller apertures.

Info on wide angles would also be great, though I'm looking at the Nikon 17-35/2.8D due to the useful property of zooming when shooting wide angle, and having a filter thread.

What I'm currently using:

Nikon 50/1.8D, Nikon 105/2.5 AIS, Nikon 200/4 AIS, on a D90.

What I'm also looking at:

Nikon 24/2.8D, Nikon 300/5.6 AIS

Thanks in advance!

March 3, 2012

I do want global (to the entire image) edits for the exposure though: what I've been doing is taking a single image, then overlaying +/-1EV exposures to the original, arranging them by exposure value, overlaying, and applying opacity.

What I want is very simple, and one would think you could open a file multiple times with different values on a particular property.

I guess I'll just have to do it manually then?

March 1, 2012

Hello,

Before you point out photoshop has a built-in HDR script, I know - I've tried it, and personally don't like the results.

I've already written scripts for various settings of HDR after the files have been collected into a single photoshop document as layers.

What I'd like now is to be able to get a script that tells photoshop to open a single file in Camera RAW three times (at +1, 0, -1 EV) and layer them darkest to lightest (top layer to bottom layer).

Is this possible, or will I have to make the exposures manually?

Thanks for your time!

PS: I know there's a lot of hype about HDR on both sides, and I've seen some terribly overblown attempts - all I want to do with this is see if I like the results I can get. I just don't want to spend five minutes to make the basis of a single HDR image, especially if I've got a large workload, or if these will be the basis for a panoramic image, requiring further processing.

February 10, 2012

Thanks Jan, I just heard about that today - had a talk with one of the profs in mechanical engineering.

It looks like the build will take a lot more than I thought with regards to the components and electrical, but I've been shown a few areas to look into to make this actually feasible!

February 10, 2012

I've had a look at scanning-back systems as well, thanks - the long exposure duration doesn't appeal to me: I'd prefer to have a large range of exposure times to be able to use, not a long minimum time. Also they carry a similar price range to digital medium format systems, so I would prefer those over a scanning-back system.

Basically what I'm looking to do is build a two-sensor array, the smallest possible version of the multi-sensor cameras in space telescopes like the LSST, and the Earth-based OmegaCAM.

February 10, 2012

@Richard: sorry, I misread your post. Both you and John are talking about multi-image stitching, which I already do (except without tilt/shift).

I researched the options for multi-image stitching, including standard panoramics, tilt/shift lens, shifting the sensor, and a panoramic head. For multi-image stitching, I prefer the panoramic head option, as there is no limit to the FOV one can do, nor lenses you can use.

What I'm interested in with this potential project is a high-resolution single-exposure. Obviously 4X5" photography is a very sound option, but impractical without a nearby developing lab.

My personal preference for film is 6X7cm due to its relative portability compared to 4X5"; and relatively large film size compared to 35mm/645.

With digital, however, there is the obvious issue with cost. Multi-image stitching is obviously easiest with digital, but the requirement for this project is using a single-exposure.

Does anyone have any suggestions or replies relating to my posted questions?

February 9, 2012

Continuing costs of 4X5 format photography: $4 per shot, having to be sent off-island, taking several weeks for processing. Not something that I want to be doing.

I have nothing against large format photography, it's just not optimal in my location.

Besides, I'm interested to see if this is even possible.

February 9, 2012

Agreed, that is an issue, one I asked about and will look into. A Pentax 645D - though it looks nice - is out of my price range, along with all other digital MF cameras. That's why I'm considering DIY.

February 9, 2012

Hi, I've been thinking about making a DIY digital medium format camera myself to cut the price tag slightly. There's a group of engineers at the university I attend who contract outside projects, and I'll be speaking to them about the technicalities, but I just want to get an initial impression from the photography community first. Here's what I have laid out so far: If I use two full-frame sensors (eg. from a Canon 5D, the cheapest available) side by side, then the total sensor area would be 36X48mm. Given that there are two sensors, I'm thinking parallel processing would be the best route: save the image from each sensor to a different file, and assemble them in post-production (to save the camera's battery and processor). The obvious potential flaw is that the sensors would have to be exactly aligned next to each other, and completely flat to the image plane.

Question 1: Is the entire sensor area exposed, or are there peripherals that are not exposed (eg. maybe 23x35mm exposure area)? Obviously full-frame lenses would not cover a 36x48mm sensor, so I'd be using some 645 MF lenses, most likely the Mamiya 35/3.5N and 80/2.8N. Crop factor for this size sensor is 1.16X, so the 35/3.5 would look like a 25mm on FX; the 80/2.8 would look like a 58mm on FX. The next issue would be that the 5D sensor resolves at around 3000dpi to give 12MP on FX. At this resolving power, two sensors would simply be 24MP.

I had a look at the DigMF sensors out there, and they resolve anywhere between 2800 and 4200dpi (with the outside being the 4890dpi of the IQ180).

Full-frame sensors resolve between 3000-5200dpi (5200: Nikon D800).

Crop-frame sensors resolve between 4200-5600dpi (5600: Canon 7D).

From these numbers, I think I can safely assume a resolving power of between 4000-4800 is not unreasonable, and at this size, would render 45-62MP images, which could be printed 300dpi at 19x25 to 22x30.

The difficulty there would lie in reprogramming the algorithm to something more akin to a crop-sensor's algorithm.

Question 2: is there any sort of interface to be able to play around with these type of details? I know of the firmware hacks that allow the camera to accept otherwise impossible settings, but I don't know if it can be extended to my project.

I've tried looking for retail image sensors, without real luck; however I think that simply buying the DSLR cameras would be a better option, as they already have the processors, body, etc.

Question 3: is there enough room in any FX body for a 36x48mm sensor with dual processors? I haven't been able to find detailed diagrams, just the see-through images of camera bodies from dpreview.com.

I think I can assume that, with the lens adaptor, the image circle would diverge at approximately the flange/mount. Given that the flange-sensor distance is 46.5mm, the angle of divergence would have to be 58.1*, assuming the full 41.5*56mm = 69.7mm image circle. 645 medium format lenses have an angle of divergence of 72.3*, so having a minimum required angle of 58.1* for full coverage, that looks like it would work.

For comparison, a normal FX lens covers 24x36mm with an end of lens-sensor distance of around 36mm (approximating using my Nikon 50/1.8D). The angle of divergence here is 42*.

Question 4: (out of curiosity) do different format lenses have different angles of divergence? I know that view cameras require the lens to be quite far away (from the large film sensor), and mirrorless 4/3s cameras have the lens very close to the (small) sensor.

Just to show the price range I'm looking at with this setup, two 5D bodies would come to around $2000, used (looking through the local classifieds); the two lenses would come to around $700, and the adaptor $80.

Materials cost is then $2800 or so. Labour cost is as yet unknown, but I've heard the group at my university are quite reasonable, if you give them an interesting challenge. Off-the shelf DigMF sensors alone are between $8000-$18000 for the dimensions I'm looking at, and offer between 22-50MP. So - significant savings, so I think I can deal with manual focusing.

If I wanted to extend this into the extreme, a 2X2 FX sensor system would give 90-120MP at 4000-4800dpi (or 47MP at 3000dpi), 1.08X crop on 6x7 lenses (if using 48x70mm rather than the full 48x72mm), and have a materials cost around $4600, but likely much more difficult in design and implementation.

Question 5: what sensor would you recommend for this venture? Using Canon's 5D II would give an easy 42MP without having to tinker with the algorithm, but at over double the price, plus tax. If buying the individual sensor and processor is an option, maybe I could simply insert that into a cheap body like the Nikon D90 - $500 used.

What are your thoughts?

January 9, 2012

Alright, thanks

January 9, 2012

I use my extension tube quite frequently on the 28-80 I've got, and it works beautifully; the tube itself is I think 20mm or so.

Thanks for the link - it has a formula on it that gives 170* for a 16mm fisheye on FX, but I can't seem to get it to work on DX: 8mm is given as 251*.

January 8, 2012

Hello,

I'm wondering how to calculate the FOV of a fisheye lens as you introduce crop factor. I have a giant spreadsheet that will calculate a rectilinear lens FOV, but it obviously doesn't work with fisheye lenses.

I'm looking at two options here, FX->DX (eg using a Nikon 16/2.8), or DX->4/3 (eg the Pro-Optic 8/3.5). Both are rated at 180* without a crop factor, but as I'm working on designing a multi-format setup, I'm wondering what the options for fisheyes are.

Also, I'm wondering if it's possible to put an extension tube inbetween a fisheye lens and the body and still be able to use it (as a functional macro lens with wide FOV). I've tried it with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 on my D90, but that setup didn't work out.

Thanks!

January 1, 2012

I'll deal with this simply:

I've reconsidered my question and, as mentioned, have decided on a panoramic head rather than shift-stitching. In this I agree with QG de Bakker that this escalation of a simple principle is excessively complicated, and a pano head would be much easier to deal with, and even cost less.

QG de Bakker and John Crowe: you're both talking about different aspects of what I was planning on doing: using a Digital FX = 35mm sensor with a medium/large format lens, and shifting the lens around to utilize closer to 100% of the image circle. I was referring to using the image circle between a 6X7cm and 4X5" lens, and shifting in the same way a TS/PC lens does, just with more movements and exposure. As a result, the crop factor would be calculated according to:

Crop factor = square root [(larger sensor area) / (smaller sensor area)].

Example: using a FX lens on Nikon DX format: sqrt[(24*36)/(15.8*23.6)] = 1.522

If using a lens with an image circle of 6X9cm = 101mm diagonal (56*84mm area), and do a 2X2 exposure at 25% overlap, the effective sensor size is 42*63, and the crop factor is sqrt[(56*84)/(42*63)] = 1.333.

Thus a 47mm lens would look like a 47*1.333 = 63mm lens, and would have a diagonal field of view of: 77.7* (compared to the theoretical FOV of 94.1*, if the whole image circle was used).

Because in shifting the lens there is movement that is not around the nodal point, I agree with Leigh B. that there is the possibility for problematic images. However, the degree that this becomes a problem is highest when the subject of the picture is closer to the camera. Given that I am doing landscape work with what I was considering this setup for, any errors of this sort are extremely minimal, and I would suspect wouldn't be noticed at all.

As a side note though, there are programs where image stitching with multiple camera positions works perfectly without stitching errors, but can (as Leigh mentioned) result in some very weird looking results.

Thanks for all your help, but I think the matter is closed.

December 31, 2011

@John Crowe and Q.C de Bakker: the point of this setup would be to stitch multiple images together, forming an effective sensor size close to whatever image circle the lens I'm using has. As a result, I'd be using nearly the full image circle, and so result in a total FOV close to the native FOV of the lens on it's native format.

I've looked into the shifting and stitching using either a TS/PC lens, or a shift adapter, but both options seem to have more limitations than using a lens with a huge image circle in comparison.

I currently use Autopano Giga2 as my stitching software, and designed my computer system to allow for large stitching projects.

Given my options on multi-exposure stitches (panorama, panorama with pano head, TS lens, shift lens adapter, or large format lens), I think I'm going to go with the panoramic head.

I've enjoyed my foray into large format lenses, and it's very possible that I'll get into LF eventually, but not with my current needs/interests.

Thanks for all your help!

December 29, 2011

Thanks, I've already had a look at Zoerk adapters. I dislike the panorama shift adaptor as it only allows for shifting in the horizontal direction - I would be unable to do a 2X2 or 3X3 stitch with a lens that has the required image circle due to the limited shift. The pro version with full movements is out of my price range.

@Jim Jones: Thanks for the observation, I'll look into the geometry of mounting various format lenses to work with a DSLR.

@Bob Salomon: Thanks for the detailed response! By analog lens, you're referring to 4X5" or other view lenses? I think I need to do some more research on the specifics you mentioned.

December 29, 2011

Thanks, I hadn't been able to find any details earlier, I suppose as I was looking for smaller format lenses.

Do you know of any datasheet for medium format (67, especially)?

Regarding image circle size, I know it has no bearing on the intended format, but some lenses are designed with larger formats in mind, eg Schneider's XL and XXL series.

December 29, 2011

Hello,

I've looked through the previous questions regarding image circles, but my question is unfortunately specific.

I can't seem to find any reference to image circle of specific lenses by the manufacturer - I posted the question in another forum regarding smaller format lenses, but the replies there were that the manufacturer doesn't tend to post these details.

I'm specifically interested in the image circle dimensions for:

Schneider Super Angulon XL 58/5.6 for 4X5

Caltar II NC 65/4.5 for 4X5

Nikkor SW 75/4.5 for 4X5

Pentax 45/4 for 6X7cm

and Mamiya RZ ULD 50/4.5 for 6X7.

(I'm also considering the Schneider Super Angulon 47/5.6 for 6X9cm, but I know the image circle to be 123mm from the website.)

The reason for asking is I'm interested in using shift to expose the full image circle over several digital captures using a FX DSLR, and would like to know the amount of exposure (and hence final max size) of any stitched capture I could make.

I plan on mounting the lens on a 4X5 view camera to be able to use the full functionality of shift, etc (may also get into tilt later). I realize this requires light-proofing the camera, and I'm working on fleshing out an adapter to the DSLR for this purpose.

The reason I'm considering the smaller format 6X7cm lenses is mostly that I enjoy wide angle captures, and would prefer fewer exposures be required to attain that wide angle - the range of 80-100* diagonal FOV is my preferred view, at least in this capacity.

If someone could point me in the direction of some nice 6X9 format lenses as a mid-ground between the 6X7cm and 4X5", that may ease some decision making.

With regards to the image circle dimensions, if there is a database for larger format lenses that supplies this information, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks very much!

December 11, 2011

Thank you Mike, I was hoping someone here would have an answer!

December 10, 2011

I do actually have the Tokina 11-16/2.8; I have not used it on FX yet, but on my old Nikon FG corner vignetting is gone by 14mm. It may be that the viewfinder doesn't show 100% of the exposure, so 15mm is a safe bet. A certain unnameable person online has tested the lens on FX digital, and you can see results on his website. Focus doesn't seem to affect it the image circle, at least on this lens.

Unless there's a way of calculating the image circle, or a list for different lenses, I'll use these as approximants: DX lenses 35mm diag. FX lenses 50mm diag. 645 lenses 80mm diag. 67 lenses 100mm diag.

December 10, 2011

43mm is the absolute minimum diagonal image circle for a 35mm/FX format sensor. I can't assume that because it makes no sense to design a lens with the absolute minimum required image circle when people care at all about light falloff and corner image quality.

Also, the Tokina lens is listed as a DX lens, but when on a FX camera, it will cover up to 14mm (with an unfortunate amount of distortion).

December 10, 2011

Hello,

I can't seem to find a database of lens' image circles - I'm interested in getting a shift adapter and using the lenses on some micro 4/3 body, or maybe a Nikon DX.

Specifically I'm interested in the:

Tokina 11-16/2.8 (I know it covers FX up to 14mm)

Nikon 24/2.8D

Nikon 50/1.4D

Nikon 85/1.8D

Nikon 70-210/4

But since I haven't been able to find the image circle data, I don't know how much shift there is available on each lens...

Thanks in advance!

November 26, 2011

@Dean: thanks for that link, I hadn't seen it before

@Robert: I've already mentioned about the digital panoramic stitching. Just a recap: I do it already (need a pano head though); and enjoy the range of possibilities, FOV, etc; but given that stitching is non-optimal and often downright abominable for moving subjects (even just when windy), there are times I'll simply want a larger sensor to take that image in a single exposure.

Thanks for your comments!

November 22, 2011

Sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't expext so many responses!

With regards to a miniature LF like a 2X3" Crown Graphic, that is certainly an option, and one I hadn't considered to be honest. At this point in time, I think I would prefer MF over LF for the familiarity to 35mm process and control. I may go to large format eventually, and it is an area of interest, but I don't think it will be soon yet.

Same response at the moment to Cambo Wide, though I've read about it used on Luminous Landscapes, and it does seem quite nice.

I've looked at the Fuji 680, but haven't been able to find much info on it, and KEH doesn't have much merchandise to put together a setup to see what I can really get into with it.

Regarding tilt-shift lenses on non-LF bodies: yes, I've considered this option as well. I've seen some awesome pictures done by stitching the images together, eliminating parallax errors, etc. I'm not sure exactly how much image quality you're losing by using the entire image circle, but of course it depends on the lens. To be honest, a TS lens alone is more than what I've been expecting to pay for an entire MF or LF setup, sometimes almost twice as costly.

I've been doing digital panoramic stitching myself for quite a while now (using a Nikon D90), using AutoPano Giga. I adore range of image size you can get from stitching, and the choice of how much or little of the subject to stitch. However, the biggest problems I'm having right now are with moving objects (even simply in windy situations), and objects close to the camera. I'm going to rectify the second with a panoramic head, but moving objects seem to be the bane of stitching processes, and one of the reasons I plan on moving to a larger format to capture similar printable quality.

@Paul: thank you for your offer, but right now I'm just doing my research to see what works best for my situation and requirements, and so won't be ready to purchase for a while yet. Cheers though!

Regarding the weak link discussion, it does make sense that a lower-quality scanner will give less precise renditions, but I would think that a well respected scanner like the Epson V700 should give good results; that being said, I will certainly consider a dedicated MF scanner.

I have not had personal experience photographing with a view camera, though I have been to studio shots with a friend using a 4X5" view camera. I do not have the experience to operate one, but know some of the differences between view, MF/35mm/digital.

@Rodeo Joe: I have not used film as an artistic implementation before, and unfortunately I do not plan on processing the film myself.

I do agree that it's what you want the finished image to be that's the deciding factor on what type of equiptment to use. As mentioned before though, there are times where the situation dictates a single shot where a digital capture would limit print size.

To be perfectly honest, I'll say that my ideal digital setup will be a Canon 5D with the 24/1.4L. This will certainly give better results than the D90 I've got now, and will be my workhorse camera. But I also want to use film in my work: and if the quality of the film will be similar if I use a 35mm camera, I'll use something larger (but not unwieldy).

Right now the Mamiya RZ looks like the best of the several worlds to me, in terms of cost (under $1000), size/portability (much smaller than a view camera), image/colour/tonal quality, and running costs (where the view camera is unfortunately in last place).

With regards to end print size, I specified what I hope to achieve minimum from this setup: there are certainly instances where the project works best as a 30X40 or 24X48.

I also agree with the setup mentioned by Mauro for the Mamiya RZ, thanks!

@Ray: I've seen some of the results from those wide angle LF lenses, and they amaze me! Unfortunately the prices are an accurate reflection of their quality.

I'll look further into the mini-view camera idea, as well as the other 6X9 MF possibilities.

Thanks for all the responses!

November 20, 2011

Unless there's a nice interchangeable-lens 6X9cm with a good (reasonably fast, eg f/3.4 or 4.5) wide angle lens.

November 20, 2011

Thanks for the detailed replies!

@Edward: Thanks for the pricing for film developing. With regards to the 18 vs 20X24": given that I enjoy and would more often use the 1.5 aspect ratio, I went with that size, even if 20X24 is more standard.

@Michael: Previously I couldn't find many examples of 6X9 cameras; the only 6X9s that I've seen recently have been fixed-lens only, with the lenses being approximately a stop slower than the comparable Mamiya RZ lenses.

My price range is somewhere in the range of $1000, which I've priced the setups of the Mamiya 645, RZ, and Crown Graphics to be (with the wide angle lens prices I've seen).

@Marc: From the calculations at <a href="http://www.mat.uc.pt/cgi-bin/rps/fov">http://www.mat.uc.pt/cgi-bin/rps/fov</a>, 50mm on 67 should be 83*, equivalent to 24mm on 35mm film. Since this seems to be my FOV of choice, I'd prefer not going narrower.

I'm not sure yet if I'd be use the movements very often, and experimentation is looks expensive when it comes to large format.

Thanks for the tip about tripod/monopod usability for these systems.

I think it's pretty much decided for the RZ67 then: thanks!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by rjpierrard