Wildcat: Building a 4x5-eos adapter.

[Soocom1]

Great thread! I have a question, (brain is foggy this morning) why will the 135mm, not focus but a 250 or 300mm will. Assuming it has to do with the length of the bellows?

Because the 135 is an old press lens. The focal distance is shorter.

At the time it was all I could afford.

 

[Soocom1]

Well outside the lens, I am probably going to get an extension tube because I discovered that I cannot mount the 70D on the adapter because the built in flash hangs over the locationw here the adapter sits.
Ill find out if it creates vignetting.

 

[petrochemist]

I've been intending to make my own mount for my digital bodies on my Toyo view camera. But I definitely want to be able to capture more of the image circle than a fixed central location like this will allow. This will permit image stitching to mimic a larger sensor size - 5"x4" sensors are somewhat more than my hobby funding can stretch to - as are the premade mounts (not quite so drastically out of budget).
My current plan is to use the tripod mount to connect the camera to a sliding frame and then seal the light with fabric like the bellows. It will probably be years before I make a prototype & find its not solid enough...

 

[Soocom1]

I've been intending to make my own mount for my digital bodies on my Toyo view camera. But I definitely want to be able to capture more of the image circle than a fixed central location like this will allow. This will permit image stitching to mimic a larger sensor size - 5"x4" sensors are somewhat more than my hobby funding can stretch to - as are the premade mounts (not quite so drastically out of budget).
My current plan is to use the tripod mount to connect the camera to a sliding frame and then seal the light with fabric like the bellows. It will probably be years before I make a prototype & find its not solid enough...

the adapters are running around $350 for that very thing.

I considered that, but I really wanted to get a 1:1 feel first before playing the stitching game.

 

[petrochemist]

the adapters are running around $350 for that very thing.

I considered that, but I really wanted to get a 1:1 feel first before playing the stitching game.

Yes I've seen them, at least 3x more than I'm willing to pay for this exercise - it's more than half the cost of my complete 5x4 kit (3 standards, extended rail, double bellows...)

Perhaps by the time I'm on my third prototype having wasted £100 on materials & many hours on DIY, I might start to see things differently, but that's a very long way off at my current rate of progress.

 

[smoke665]

Actually Fotodisk is even less. Here's one for Pentax FotodioXPro Pentax Large Format 4 x 5 Adapter not sure why it's more expensive then those for other brand cameras.

 

[Soocom1]

So those who grasp this game I am playing, a question.
Given that I intend to do full lift and rise, tilt and shift with all of this, and keeping it fairly cheap,
which lens would you recommend for this project?

A 210 or 250 will work well, but if I decide to go full bore on this, I am wondering about coverage area and poss. vignetting. I want to avoid that as much as possible and may use the 70D with this monstrosity only because it has live view screen.

So consider the following:

I will have to put on a short extension tube, so there will be some barrel effect.

how much image circle?
How much focus and movement do you think I will need on this.

Dont short answer this if you can, I would feedback and suggestions to acquire the full effect possible.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Great thread! I have a question, (brain is foggy this morning) why will the 135mm, not focus but a 250 or 300mm will. Assuming it has to do with the length of the bellows?

Because the 135 is an old press lens. The focal distance is shorter.

At the time it was all I could afford.

Because that plane of focus has been moved a lot further back in the camera. By my reckoning it is now the registration distance of the DSLR + the thickness of the mount. So if we say 45mm further back than the film plane was then we start having trouble with 135mm lenses. A 135mm lens will focus roughly 135mm from the film plane, this is now 45mm further back and so the lens has to move back to roughly where a 90mm lens would sit when focussed. As noted in a different thread when using 90mm lenses you nearly always need to use bag bellows as the standard box bellows don't compress enough to allow infinity focus.

A 210 or 250 will work well, but if I decide to go full bore on this, I am wondering about coverage area and poss. vignetting. I want to avoid that as much as possible and may use the 70D with this monstrosity only because it has live view screen.

Vignetting will be determined by the DSLR camera not the view camera as the sensor now sits inside the circle of the mount and the *mirror tunnel* of the camera, basically an internal *lens hood*. You won't be able to use many movements at all.

I don't think this will work out quite as you imagined...

 

[Soocom1]

Vignetting will be determined by the DSLR camera not the view camera as the sensor now sits inside the circle of the mount and the *mirror tunnel* of the camera, basically an internal *lens hood*. You won't be able to use many movements at all.

I don't think this will work out quite as you imagined...

This was considered.
The distance of the Canon from the location of the ground glass takes in approximate 2.5 inches total.
(I am applying an extension tube to a small degree because of a clearance issue. )

Regardless, the 135mm with the ground glass only gives me about 30% total allowed movements when focused to infinity.

this is why I am going to purchase a 210 or 240?.

This so that I can have the distance to allow movements while the vignetting should not be an issue.
The only consideration is that the extension tube cannot have the damn internal square opening. It has to be fully round through the tube. The alignment from the camera and lens should not cause any other issues.


using an APS sensor for the initial setup is there only in part because of the convenience of the view screen.
When I hook up the 1Ds there are a few tricks I know to focus in.

 

[Soocom1]

P.S. The opening of the adapter from the mount forward to the back of the film plain of the view camera was cut to approximately 55 degrees. So there will only be a "tunnel" effect as a result of the tube extension and depth of the Canon itself.
This should be very minimal.

 

[Soocom1]

AND, I have been exploring the idea of mounting a mirrorless to this beast.
Anyone with experience with the Canon EFM system?

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I understand what you are saying, (and please consider using a bag bellows it will probably allow you to focus the 135mm lens), but...

I still don't understand what you are trying to achieve. If you want full use of movements than wouldn't it be simpler to place a piece of film in a dark slide? I stopped chasing the idea of full movements in 35mm format a long time ago, and even though I've seen a remarkably elegant solution to it in regards to a modified bellows mount connected to an older shift lens have still to be convinced that it has any merit.

The advantage of the 35mm format is it's speed, portability and inherently larger dof for any given shutter speed at the expense of resolution vis-a-vis sensor size. The advantage of LF film is it's resolution and it's inherent weaknesses are the lack of dof and speed, (both shutter and actual set-up to taking the image).

The system you are creating seems to me, to be blunt, to combine the weaknesses of both systems whilst retaining none of the strengths. Though it sounds like a really neat idea, (and it does - the thought of all that freedom with a digital readout), it's a bit like a technical solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There are few wide angle landscapes that don't have sufficient dof in 35mm photography (that aren't cliches), and few action/fashion/reportage shots that would benefit from it. I have thought about this myself but have always come across the same problem, that the 35mm format does't suit or even need full movements.

Just some thoughts, and tempered with one personal observation; that though I've been thoroughly seduced by the full movements available in LF, I've never come across a situation where I thought they would benefit 35mm photography. I have always found that it would obscure your view rather than enhance it, the exact opposite of what it achieves in the larger formats.

 

[Soocom1]

I understand what you are saying, (and please consider using a bag bellows it will probably allow you to focus the 135mm lens), but...

I still don't understand what you are trying to achieve. If you want full use of movements than wouldn't it be simpler to place a piece of film in a dark slide? I stopped chasing the idea of full movements in 35mm format a long time ago, and even though I've seen a remarkably elegant solution to it in regards to a modified bellows mount connected to an older shift lens have still to be convinced that it has any merit.

The advantage of the 35mm format is it's speed, portability and inherently larger dof for any given shutter speed at the expense of resolution vis-a-vis sensor size. The advantage of LF film is it's resolution and it's inherent weaknesses are the lack of dof and speed, (both shutter and actual set-up to taking the image).

The system you are creating seems to me, to be blunt, to combine the weaknesses of both systems whilst retaining none of the strengths. Though it sounds like a really neat idea, (and it does - the thought of all that freedom with a digital readout), it's a bit like a technical solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There are few wide angle landscapes that don't have sufficient dof in 35mm photography (that aren't cliches), and few action/fashion/reportage shots that would benefit from it. I have thought about this myself but have always come across the same problem, that the 35mm format does't suit or even need full movements.

Just some thoughts, and tempered with one personal observation; that though I've been thoroughly seduced by the full movements available in LF, I've never come across a situation where I thought they would benefit 35mm photography. I have always found that it would obscure your view rather than enhance it, the exact opposite of what it achieves in the larger formats.

Why did Hillary (not the first wife) climb Mt. Everest?

Why did we go to the moon?

Because we can.
Its a challenge.
No one looses anything except me and my time.

Besides its breaking rules and finding out what can be done.

 

[Soocom1]

Ok..
so a few mechanical aspects had to be overcome.
This included the fact that the mount was too close to the rear standard in order to mount the digi.
So to solve this I had to order a set of macro tube extensions in order to fit the camera on.

That came in and voila... The camera actually attached!



So I set it up to point up a road to see what it would initially do.

Now there is substantial flare I am getting off the bat but I can work with that later.
The set up was easy though cumbersome.


I also noticed that the lens was not hitting as sharp as I would like, and because of the macro tube extension, the register distance was not as far as I would like, so some of the distance is lost for adjustments.


So for the initial shots, there is a goodly amount of out of focus aspect and some adjusting and blackening of parts needed.

Because the Calumet has the spring type back and not a Graflok, the camera did tilt the ground glass area back some amount. I eventually had to attach a bungee chord to keep it closed.


I also realized that if I want to have a closer registration distance that I will have to use the shorter FD lenses (like the 135, but will need a substantially recessed lens board to achieve this.

 

[Soocom1]

So here are the actual images:

Shot No. 1...
Just trying out.
Note the severe out of focus.

This is the fence with the standards all aligned.

here is the fence again:

With this setup:

Again:

In the opposite direction: