"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]
ALPA recently introduced a special masked back for the Biogon
that is 36 mm by 72 mm, so 2:1 ratio. It almost sounds interesting
enough to try something like that. I set up a better test rig for the
35mm PC- Nikkor, and got a solid measured 84 mm image circle.
Not enough for full 6x9, but would work for some masked down
format on a 6x9 body. There is maybe an extra few millimetres of
coverage, but too much fall off to count on that for a variety of
shooting conditions.
That'll do for quite a few standard sizes: 645 is only 70mm diagonal,
6x6 is 78mm diagonal, X-Pan is just 69mm. Come to that, 6x7 is an
89mm diagonal, so you're very nearly there for that too. In any case,
a 35mm lens on 6x6 would be pretty impressive.
Maybe I will just graft it onto my extra 6x6 folder body for now, and
not mask it down at all. I guess that is close enough to a Biogon and
SWC (38 mm). It also might give me 2 mm shift in any direction.
Maybe I will try the panorama camera afterwards, and then go 36 mm
by 72 mm. Things to consider . . . . . .
Sounds like an easier way to make something to live with for a while, see
how well it works, how much you like it... how often you use it...
Horseman is joined by Linhof (and maybe Silvestri) in the 612
camp, but I agree it is unusual.
I thought about the Linhof when I typed that, but it is much more
expensive than the Horseman, and somewhat rare on the used
market. The early Linhof 6x12 cameras look like someone's garage
project . . . very unlike Linhof.
Like this?:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...e=STRK:MEWA:IT
Yes, they do look very home-made, which as you say is not typical
Linhof at all. Even the latest ones look a bit 'boxy' - though they are
clearly very well made.
You found one! Sure looks home built, except for the price. Things like
that lead me to believe I can make something that works, and has
reasonably good looks.
Pure conicidence that I'd come across it just before reading your post. I
agree, the clunky appearance does sort of offer encouragement that it can't
be that hard to make something functional!
Someone else is selling a Linhof 617 currently too, but with no lens or
focus mount. Still not something I'm going to buy - not currently anyway.
[SNIP]
I couldn't scan 6x12 in-house either, but at least it can be printed
with
a 4x5 enlarger. 6x17 needs at least a 5x7 enlarger.
Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a
few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium
format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you.
Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder? Though that at least I can
scan myself (Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro). Would be very interesting if I
do fix up some sort of 6x12 for myself.
[SNIP]
An X = P6 adapter would be what I'd like. That'd let me put my
120mm Zeiss and 150mm Schneider glass on it. I agree focusing the
180mm Sonnar might be a bit of a stretch!
The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper
framing and parallax correction.
Yes, a finder that worked for distance shots wouldn't be too hard to make,
but parallax correction would need some thought.
Still, another adapter possibility is something with an X body mount
and a ground glass at the right registration distance: focus, remount
the lens without moving the focusing ring, and away you go. I can't
see anyone making one commercially, but if I had an adapter to use
the lenses, it would be tempting - and fairly easy - to make such a
focusing tool.
Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll of
film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea and
focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you
can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus error
with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum
focus distance.
I wasn't thinking of putting a ground glass on the camera, but putting it on
the lens. ie., taking the lens off the body to focus it, and then
re-attaching it. Sure it's clunky, but it's precise, gives DoF preview, and
for 90% of the shots I'd want to use it for, the camera is on a tripod
anyway and the extra time wouldn't be a big issue. But you see why I say I
can't see anyone doing it commercially.
An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and
these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put other
lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to that,
having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF even
with the current X-Pan lenses.
[SNIP]
For the Pentax shift lens, the rear element diameter is ~ 20.1mm,
Inset ~ 5.8mm. These measurements may be off by several
hundredths as I was trying to work out how to take the measurements
without having steel tipped instruments touch the glass...
No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for
you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how
things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close to
test the concept.
Thanks - will be very interesting.
[SNIP]
The ALPA 12 can take a Mamiya back, so they sort of do that,
but at a high price. A slightly simpler design could be much less
expensive. Still a problem of the focusing mount expense, but
something that could be worked out.
An equally complex design made by anyone other than Alpa could be
much less expensive...
The Silvestri is another direction, though that one is not much lower in
cost. I think these things are about ten times the cost to produce the
body, just going by the local CNC machine rates. Really, you could
almost draw the proper dimensions on a napkin using a wide marker,
and most of the local talent would get you a really nice finished piece
(or
several) in very short turn around. We have many former aerospace
industry and former defence industry people locally, so rates are near
$US 50 to $US 70 an hour. In my opinion, the lens with focus mount
should be the most expensive part.
Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either.
Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people seem
interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus mount -
but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or
bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined either,
then you can calibrate it with a ground glass.
Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso.
Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a rough
design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he could
make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just sign
the drawing."
[SNIP]
I like very shallow DoF for some things - witness another thread
where I was talking about the f1.2 lens. But I think you are right,
many people have got so used to massive DoF that they are puzzled
when it isn't there - all the same, look how popular shallow DoF,
often manipulated with movements (or badly faked with PS) has
become in, particularly, food photography.
The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look
was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen.
Ahh, so you're to blame...
You also still see it in movies and TV sometimes - maybe as a
director's badge of honour: "hey, look at me, I can get shallow DoF
so I must be shooting on 35mm, not mini DV, right? ;-)" (CSI is a
classic example.)
In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really
tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper
and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way.
Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of
syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard);
basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but
true.
Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be
supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the
past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I must
talk to him about this stuff sometime.
I was using very shallow DoF on one of those jewellery shots
yesterday, as it happens: a diamond tennis bracelet snaking off into
the distance with just a shallow band of sharpness across it, which
was where it crossed a line of light from a projection spot - and
therefore where the diamonds were producing the most fire - and
with just enough resolution left at each end to tell where the clasps
were.
Sounds nice. Hope the client (and customers) like it.
Thanks - so do I. I might put a shot or two from this shoot into the file I
make up my portfolio from, since it is a slightly new departure for me. And
who knows when I'll next have 14 carats of flawless diamonds in my hand?...
[SNIP]
(All those flash pops and I find I have a headache at the end of
the day, even with closing my eyes. I'm seriously thinking about
buying a pair of welding goggles...)
Try the LCD ones . . . they switch over instantly.
I'd wondered about those. Come to think of it, I bet Sharon has a
pair (no jokes, please) so I could borrow them to try.
Dating a welder? (You don't have to answer that)
We're just good friends ;-)
I am not a fan of lots of lighting either, so I limit how much of that
I
do. With some imagery, it is necessary. The best is still natural
light,
but only if nature co-operates. ;-)
I love natural light, and live in a house that gets it from all four
sides
so can pick and choose - also in a country not overly cursed with lots
of days of high contrast sun!
Natures soft box in the UK sky?
Yep, the best there is. With the garden photography I do I am always
looking for that 'soft silver' light - so many owners expect me to want a
bright sunny day, and I have to explain that that is the last thing I need.
Light rain can be good too.
One of my SI shots was an example of this: a tray of quails' eggs shot
just with the light from a cloudy sky (example of shallow DoF too.)
The vast majority of all my flower work - outside or in the studio - is
lit with natural light.
I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-)
It was this one:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium
Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm,
with a 100mm lens.
This one is another natural light shot that I happen to have had in the SI,
with slightly harder light:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/24309630/medium
This one is on 6x7, using an RFB in my 4x5 stand camera. If you know wine,
you can have fun drooling over the names on some of those corks!
But I also enjoy the challenges of creating effects with artificial
light
sometimes, or of using it subtley in an interior so that it enhances the
scene without it being apparent that anything artificial has been added.
Using a mini maglight (torch in UK), you can add a small spot of
warmth in food and product photography. A mini clamp, or stand, can
help position that light better. You probably already tried that, but if
not,
give it a go.
Poor man's hosemaster (kinda)! I found I could never get an even beam with
a Maglite, though that didn't matter in long exposures if it was moving. I
got a Surefire a while back - just to keep in the camera bag to stop me
tripping over roots while finding my way to pre-dawn landscape locations -
and found that has a much more even beam, so have used that a couple of
times with good effect. I must experiment with an LED torch sometime to see
how film responds to that light - could be useful for cooler effects, if the
emission isn't too 'spikey'.
So many ideas to try, so little time!
Peter