Unpopular's Chinese View Camera (hypothetical)

[Light Guru]

Personally, I think it would be a lot cheaper and easier to put a scanning back on a 4x5 camera! To be honest, I can't say; I don't know enough about all of the gear to know if it would work, or how well it would work, but your theory sounds good to me... I think.

It would be even cheeper to shoot on 4x5 film and have the film scanned.

 

[timor]

Personally, I think it would be a lot cheaper and easier to put a scanning back on a 4x5 camera! To be honest, I can't say; I don't know enough about all of the gear to know if it would work, or how well it would work, but your theory sounds good to me... I think.

It would be even cheeper to shoot on 4x5 film and have the film scanned.

I like this solution but this is 19th century technology. It lacks the instancy of our times, no more Fuji slide 4x5 film in friendly corner store, not even single lab in the whole state. The real solution is to make a custom 4x5 (100MP ?) sensor. Nowadays it should be well below $100 000.
Mitchell Feinberg?s 8×10 Digital Capture Back | A Photo Editor

 

[limr32 1]

Or 4x5 instant film. Fuji makes it and instant film backs can be had. It's not exactly the cheapest option but cheaper than $100K!

 

[timor]

Or 4x5 instant film. Fuji makes it and instant film backs can be had. It's not exactly the cheapest option but cheaper than $100K!

And what you gonna do with tiny polaroid ? Can you imagine 100 MP file ? A blast !

 

[Light Guru]

I like this solution but this is 19th century technology. It lacks the instancy of our times, no more Fuji slide 4x5 film in friendly corner store, not even single lab in the whole state. The real solution is to make a custom 4x5 (100MP ?) sensor. Nowadays it should be well below $100 000.
Mitchell Feinberg?s 8×10 Digital Capture Back | A Photo Editor

So you order the film online and ether process it at home or send it out. That's what I do with my 4x5 film.

I have to chuckle a little when ever someone links to that old post about the 8x10 digital back. Because they always fail to understand that it is never actually used to make the final image. The photographer only uses it as a substitute for 8x10 polaroid film, and that he still takes the final image in film. For all we know the quality of the images from the sensor is horrible, because as far as I know he has never posted any images from it.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I miss correcting perspective without having to debate if it's better to extrapolate or crop. I miss selective DOF without having to make sloppy, approximated depth maps using often silly fake bokeh. And most important, I miss being able to get everything in sharp focus at f/4 (yes, it's possible and by far the best part of using a view camera).

Hasselblad and 35mm t/s adapters are fine. T/S lenses are of course available. And these will get everything I want done, but still i'd be lacking both front and rear movements.

I was thinking. What if you took *two* tilt shift adapters and mounted them onto a mirrorless camera?

If you take a Fuji XF to Nikon F tilt/shift adapter, and to that a Nikon F to Hasselblad Bayonet t/s adapter, you should still have 17.7mm to adapt some sort of printed or machined tripod interface between them. Or use a bellows set for a really interesting macro setup without infinity focus.

Moreover, if you use two nikon adapters and an M42 to Nikon adapter without corrective glass, and then mount a copal to M42 adapter within that you could place a bellows set in between them and maybe (provided there is no mechanical interference) use modern lenses, like the APO-Digitar. Yep, a $5,000 lens on a sub-$1000 Chinese hodgepodge!

Ok, So maybe wide angle lenses aren’t really rational (and this may defeat the whole purpose for architectural work) but what are your thoughts on this crazy mess? It’d certainly be small.

What are you planning on shooting with it? You could just get a view camera and mount your SLR on the back like this:

Reaction Watch: Kenneth Cole by tltichy, on Flickr​

This setup works very well small items, and for larger items you can use the movement of the rear standard to make a stitched pano. The downside is that you really can't use anything shorter than about 105mm because of the difference in registry distances.

Novaflex makes a Tilt Shift bellows kit, but you still end up with the same issues. Cambo however has a line of technical camera kits aimed specifically at DSLRs. Their Actus might be right up your alley. Of course, if budget permits then I'd recommend getting an old view camera and adapting an old medium format digital back to it.

 

[Light Guru]

Can you imagine 100 MP file ? A blast !

I can. I use a 4x5 camera as my main camera. Scans from the negatives are probably closer to 200mp

 

[timor]

So you order the film online and ether process it at home or send it out. That's what I do with my 4x5 film.

I do the same, works for me :violin:. But is longer than 3 seconds.

I have to chuckle a little when ever someone links to that old post about the 8x10 digital back. Because they always fail to understand that it is never actually used to make the final image.

I know what this is used for, don't worry. There are even bigger sensors used for real astro photography. But here it is just an example that it could be done. The real question is, if we (humanity) need view cameras anymore with the progress in photoshop and 3D modeling cause, at the end, who cares if the image was created this way or that way. It has to be only dazzling. That's all.

 

[timor]

Can you imagine 100 MP file ? A blast !

I can. I use a 4x5 camera as my main camera. Scans from the negatives are probably closer to 200mp

I don't know, guess only. I don't care. 100MP is all our eyes can recognize.

 

[Light Guru]

Can you imagine 100 MP file ? A blast !

I can. I use a 4x5 camera as my main camera. Scans from the negatives are probably closer to 200mp

I don't know, guess only. I don't care. 100MP is all our eyes can recognize.

It can do much more then that.

http://hugofdestruction.deviantart.com/journal/Your-Eye-s-quot-megapixel-quot-Resolution-214149706

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

 

[timor]

I can. I use a 4x5 camera as my main camera. Scans from the negatives are probably closer to 200mp

I don't know, guess only. I don't care. 100MP is all our eyes can recognize.

It can do much more then that.

Your Eye's "megapixel" Resolution by huGoFdeStruction on deviantART

Clarkvision Photography - Resolution of the Human Eye

Thanks for the links.

 

[unpopular]

Actus[/URL] might be right up your alley.

Yes! This is exactly what I am am interested in!