AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Good morning,

I have the occasional need for camera movements in some of my architectural photography, and I like the idea of using my old Crown Graphic and Graphic View if possible. I already have some good older glass, ranging from 60 to 180 mm, with the former mounted, of course, on a recessed lensboard. I know I can use software in the same way that I used to use camera movements, but I like the idea of doing it the old fashioned way, and I would guess that the image quality from several stitched images could be beautiful.

Recently I've seen several digital backs advertised, which mount a Full Frame or Crop sensor body to the Graflok back, and allow shifting the camera position for a larger image, later stitched together with software. This one, in particular, keeps cropping up in my "Things you might want to buy" feeds.

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Pro-Lens-Mount-Adapter/product-reviews/B004G13XBW/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_lft?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=positive&pageNumber=1

I'm on a fairly limited budget, and I use a Nikon DX system, which I have found more than adequate for my needs. I don't want to go to full frame just for this limited purpose, but I'd like to know if anyone has experience in using these digital backs. The reviews online seem confusing and sometimes contradictory. So here are my primary questions:

1) I do not have a rotating back on the Crown Graphic (which is also my preferred "field" camera - if it was good enough for Weegee and Jimmy Olsen, it's good enough for me), but I can't figure out whether the normal slides on the digital back will produce a full 4x5 image from the normal image circle, which is, I guess, about 120 mm. Online explanations are not clear on this point.

2) There are a lot of online reviews discussing the difficulty in focusing to infinity, especially with longer lenses. Even with a recessed lensboard, if I can't focus out to a reasonable working distance, it would be kind of self defeating, although actual "infinity" focusing is not really necessary in most of my work.

3) Does anyone have experience with this? At two hundred bucks or so, it's not a huge investment, but that's two C-notes I could be spending on lighting, printing, or framing instead. I'm willing to invest time and energy in learning the process and software, but I'd be interested in the practical experience of anyone who's actually used these devices.

Thanks in advance.
Andy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Andy, I use a Graphic View II for a lot of my work. Exotic projects are funded by small bits of money saved over long periods of time. I'm currently working with the folks at Fotodiox with the end goal of mounting my D800e on the back of the view camera. Your choice of that company is a good one. Another company on which I rely is S.K. Grimes. They will pretty much make anything you want and they are a great group with which to work.

I'm not sure what you are using for a digital back. If it's the camera then you are only going to sample a small portion of the projected image. If you are speaking of using a digital back from a different camera, or a purpose-built digital back, they are still smaller than 4x5 and will only capture a portion of the projected image.

In theory, when you adapt the digital camera to the back of whichever camera you choose to use, you will move the desired plane of focus further back from the camera's designed plane of focus. I don't really see why there would be a difficulty in focusing at infinity with that setup unless the lens to 'new' focal plane is physically impossible to achieve due to the camera's physical limitations. That could be a very real possibility and limit the use of the 60mm lens.
--Bob

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Thanks, Bob!

In looking at the Fotodiox videos, the sliding movements seem to be accommodate the full 4x5 image in pieces on a full frame body. Elsewhere, I have read that this is also possible with a crop sensor body, by making your own index marks on the back, and using an additional frame - so you'd be stitching together four horizontal and two vertical images, using eight frames to cover the full image on the groundglass. The second image set AFTER you flip the back vertically would have to at least overlap the set made from the first slide position, to make a two row image of either six or eight images - I can't tell from the video whether they would on a crop sensor. If not, you'd be shooting only panoramas, but I could live with this. I can't see throwing $600 plus for a body that will essentially just serve this purpose. An $800 investment to play around with this setup is more than I want to spend, but if I can cobble images together with my crop sensor Nikons, I'm all in.

The second thing I don't get is the focusing. The photographer in the sales video focuses on the groundglass, then removes the glass and inserts the back, to which she mounts the camera. But the focal plane for the camera must be at least an inch to the rear of the groundglass, and there does not seem to be a lens or any optics at all in the Photodiox back - it looks more like an extension tube or microscope / telescope mounting. Even with my favorite semi-wide 105 Optar The bellows is pretty far back into the case at infinity - getting the plane of focus another inch to the rear would be extremely difficult, it seems.

Another fun thought is that you don't need a shutter on the lens at all - so you could theoretically mount any old lens (like the aforementioned 60mm - which I literally found at a flea market, mounted on a spare lens board, and shot using the rear shutter on my Speed Graphic) you could find that would provide a circle of coverage encompassing most of the 4x5 back. That could be fun.

I'm very interested in checking this out. If I do, I'll post some reviews and results here, but I'd really like to see some thoughts from others - I'm a cheapskate and throwing away $200 on something I'll toss doesn't sit well with me.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Andy, just to speed things along, could you post the links to those videos. I'd prefer to view them prior to making any comments.
Thanks,
Bob

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Promo video is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDQ3a2r-wQ

I think I'm going to try it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Andy, the narrator stated using the ground glass to compose the photo, not focus. That would be after the digital is attached. Since you're going to be stitching images, make sure you don't change anything between exposures. This looks pretty cool. I may have to rethink my back mod for the View II, or purchase another view camera like the one in the video.
--Bob

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That's exactly my question, though. It's pretty difficult to compose on a film plane that's over an inch off the film plane. Or do you focus and compose on the groundglass, / Fresnel, then install the digital back, and refocus using the live view on the DSLR before shooting? That's what it looks like to me. My wife has already approved the purchase, even though it's a piece she's unlikely to use herself and she'd probably prefer a new fisheye!

She's a keeper - we'll see if this adaptor is!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Andy, that's what it looked like to me, as well. I like the concept well enough to think about purchasing a similar view camera to make use of the fotodiox product without having to design one that would work on my view camera.
--Bob

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Might be a good idea, Bob.

Monorail view cameras, even high quality ones, have come down in price dramatically in recent years. We saw a number of them at the Photographica 87 show in Boston last weekend. Since you don't have to worry at all about shutters (you're using the DSLR shutter, of course...), there's an opportunity to use glass that you wouldn't otherwise be able to shoot with. After I buy this, I'll post some work.

Thanks for your advice!
Andy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Andy, that could lead to some interesting shutter speeds. Set the digital to bulb and use the lens's shutter for the exposure. Thus, you'd be afforded some in between speed, such as 1/50, 1/100, etc. This could be very interesting.
--Bob

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

From the extension of your site:

“Inifinity focus with 120mm to longer focal length lenses. Compatible Cameras: Cambo, Linhof, Calumet, Horseman, Omega, Toyo, Kodak with graflok back.”

Your 60 will not focus at infinity. Rats!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

[quote=AndyH]Good morning,

I have the occasional need for camera movements in some of my architectural photography, and I like the idea of using my old Crown Graphic and Graphic View if possible. I already have some good older glass, ranging from 60 to 180 mm, with the former mounted, of course, on a recessed lensboard. I know I can use software in the same way that I used to use camera movements, but I like the idea of doing it the old fashioned way, and I would guess that the image quality from several stitched images could be beautiful.

Recently I've seen several digital backs advertised, which mount a Full Frame or Crop sensor body to the Graflok back, and allow shifting the camera position for a larger image, later stitched together with software. This one, in particular, keeps cropping up in my "Things you might want to buy" feeds.

https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Pro-Lens-Mount-Adapter/product-reviews/B004G13XBW/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_lft?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=positive&pageNumber=1

I'm on a fairly limited budget, and I use a Nikon DX system, which I have found more than adequate for my needs. I don't want to go to full frame just for this limited purpose, but I'd like to know if anyone has experience in using these digital backs. The reviews online seem confusing and sometimes contradictory. So here are my primary questions:

1) I do not have a rotating back on the Crown Graphic (which is also my preferred "field" camera - if it was good enough for Weegee and Jimmy Olsen, it's good enough for me), but I can't figure out whether the normal slides on the digital back will produce a full 4x5 image from the normal image circle, which is, I guess, about 120 mm. Online explanations are not clear on this point.

2) There are a lot of online reviews discussing the difficulty in focusing to infinity, especially with longer lenses. Even with a recessed lensboard, if I can't focus out to a reasonable working distance, it would be kind of self defeating, although actual "infinity" focusing is not really necessary in most of my work.

3) Does anyone have experience with this? At two hundred bucks or so, it's not a huge investment, but that's two C-notes I could be spending on lighting, printing, or framing instead. I'm willing to invest time and energy in learning the process and software, but I'd be interested in the practical experience of anyone who's actually used these devices.

Thanks in advance.
Andy[/qu
You might enjoy this. http://maxotics.com/2016/05/30/graflex-4x5-digital-back-diy/

turp77 Loc: Connecticut, Plainfield

Digital backs for large format are out there but the $ is out towards Mars some where. They go up to 8x10 12 mp is more for preview and final is still with film, the pixels are huge (some higher mp might be out there but I have no need to keep up). The medium format backs 100+ mp start around $16,000 and go up to $60,000 or more. I have the fotodiox back for my Nikon that I focus like I would any other lens, through the viewfinder or live view, it’s just like using the ground glass but with such a smaller view and you loose the advantage of the view cameras movements. Lots of work for just a very small portion of the view area and especially if you stitch. It was fun when new but to me it is just a paper weight.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I'm curious. If you are using the Nikon back with the 4x5 lenses, how is the depth of field? I always assumed (maybe erroneously) that the value of using a 4x5 camera for architectural or landscapes would be both coverage and the ability to use slow shutter speeds with a very small aperture to capture a long depth of field. How was your experience in this regard?
Were there any advantages of using your 4x5 lenses over creating a pano with Nikon DSLR lenses?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I do quite a bit of architectural work and was and still am a long time large format user. I am very familiar with all the view camera movements, lens coverage issues and digital conversion.

This "solution" to you question may seem anticlimactic but I think that budgetwsie, and in terms of functionality you would be better advised to invest in a good perspective control lens for your DSLR.

A true digital conversion for a 4x5 camera costs many thousands of dollars- I know this because I converted my medium format equipment at my studio.

I don't know the cost of the device that is advertised in the link that you supplied but according to the specifications, it does not rally cover the entire 4x5 format. If you don't already have a lens that will cover the field that the device does cover, probably in the medium format range, you will need a lens that has a circle of coverage to accommodate the camera movements without vignetting. Many medium priced wide angle lenses may not accommodate that kind of usage, especially the vertical rise of the front standard or a horizontal shift. You may be looking at big bucks for the lens and you may still have focusing limitations. I have not had the opportunity to see or handle the conversion that you mentioned but on the surface, it sounds like focusing and composing may become a awkward procedure.

A PC lens can control most perspective issues and some of them may provide a tilt to enable the Scheinpflug method.

The Graphic View is a nice camera for its age- decent movements. The Crown Graphic makes an adequate field camera but its movements are limited and there are no back movements to coordinate with the front movements. If it has the original 135mm lens- it will vignette with a vertical rise.

With a PC lens you can do most routine perspective corrections and the make any extreme correction in post processing.

If you only doe occasional architectural, you may even consider using you Graphic View with film and the scanning the resulting negatives or transparencies.

Somethings to consider as alternatives.