A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 24th 18, 09:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,466
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:29:35 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...ightweight-aff
ordable-easy-to-use-5x4-field-camera

film, not digital.

Read the subject line.

read the name of the newsgroup.


You f***ing idiot! Why do you think I put the words "digital back"
into the heading?

Don't you know what a digital back is?


i do, but don't expect to find one that's any good a price you can
afford.

Just look at this one, for example (one of many).
https://fotodioxpro.com/products/hbh-4x5-pro


junk. laughably so.

why bother using a 4x5 camera if you're only going to mount an slr on
the back?

or this one

http://www.digital-photography.org/D...al/dicomed_fie
ld_pro.htm


that article is almost 20 years old, but at least they used a mac,
except that particular mac is long discontinued, so even if you can
find the back, it won't do you any good.


Changing the subject. You are the idiot who tried to tell me that my
post did not belong in rpd!

Go away and argue with someone else.

here's a bunch of backs, using that 'new high-speed usb 2' technology:
http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html

the cheaper ones have less resolution than modern slrs and their top of
the line model is about what a medium format camera can do. and then
there's that perfectly still subject problem.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #12  
Old February 24th 18, 04:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On 2018-02-23 23:17, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:31:47 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:


Not sure what the security issue could be as long as you edit the
bookmarks yourself. (Unless Firefox has some peculiar fault).


Something to do with lack of https.


tinurl comes up https here.

--
“When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million
full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102
million non-workers and 21 million government workers.
In what world does this represent a strong job market?”
..Jim Quinn
  #13  
Old February 24th 18, 06:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On 02/23/2018 07:12 PM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 23 February 2018 16:04:47 UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera

Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens


The weight is good, but with the planet awash in used 4x5 gear, buying a new one really isn't needed, unless you just happen to need that particular one. What I never figured out is why didn't they ever invent a spring-back loaded multiple-shot 4x5 with a drop-box for finished shots just below the back? Would save a lot of tedium. But maybe someone did develop something like that way back when and I just didn't see it?


It's been many, many years ago, but I recall using a six exposure 4x5
holder. You loaded six sheets of 4x5 film into six thin metal holders,
then loaded them into the pack. After shooting one exposure, you did a
push-pull routine that pushed the exposure holder onto the back of the
stack, and put a fresh holder in front.


--
Ken Hart

  #14  
Old February 24th 18, 06:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On 2018-02-23 21:04:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera


Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(


I would probably go for a used fieldie... Prey tell if you find an
affordable back to go with it... Good luck!
--
teleportation kills

  #15  
Old February 24th 18, 10:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,466
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:12:18 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 02/23/2018 07:12 PM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 23 February 2018 16:04:47 UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera

Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens


The weight is good, but with the planet awash in used 4x5 gear, buying a new one really isn't needed, unless you just happen to need that particular one. What I never figured out is why didn't they ever invent a spring-back loaded multiple-shot 4x5 with a drop-box for finished shots just below the back? Would save a lot of tedium. But maybe someone did develop something like that way back when and I just didn't see it?


It's been many, many years ago, but I recall using a six exposure 4x5
holder. You loaded six sheets of 4x5 film into six thin metal holders,
then loaded them into the pack. After shooting one exposure, you did a
push-pull routine that pushed the exposure holder onto the back of the
stack, and put a fresh holder in front.


I had one of those on my last Graflex. I eventually gave it up when I
became unable to stop light leaks in the leather bag on the side.

Now I'm interested (seriously?) in digital backs.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old February 24th 18, 10:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,466
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:15:11 +0100, android wrote:

On 2018-02-23 21:04:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera


Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(


I would probably go for a used fieldie... Prey tell if you find an
affordable back to go with it... Good luck!


'affordable'. Now there is the operative word. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #17  
Old February 25th 18, 08:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On 2018-02-24 21:46:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:15:11 +0100, android wrote:

On 2018-02-23 21:04:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera



Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(


I would probably go for a used fieldie... Prey tell if you find an
affordable back to go with it... Good luck!


'affordable'. Now there is the operative word. :-(


Maybe you could adapt this benchcam approach to your fieldcam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXxjsz6J5Bg

Keep us posted! :-))
--
teleportation kills

  #18  
Old February 25th 18, 09:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,466
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 08:46:55 +0100, android wrote:

On 2018-02-24 21:46:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:15:11 +0100, android wrote:

On 2018-02-23 21:04:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera



Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(

I would probably go for a used fieldie... Prey tell if you find an
affordable back to go with it... Good luck!


'affordable'. Now there is the operative word. :-(


Maybe you could adapt this benchcam approach to your fieldcam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXxjsz6J5Bg

Keep us posted! :-))


That's camera is a bit crude and doesn't have all the movements I
want. Also, I suspect it's as large as it is because of the problem of
making the more delicate parts in wood in a smaller size.
Traditionally they used to make them in brass. But the problem remains
of finding a full size digital back.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old February 25th 18, 10:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

On 2018-02-25 08:32:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 08:46:55 +0100, android wrote:

On 2018-02-24 21:46:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:15:11 +0100, android wrote:

On 2018-02-23 21:04:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Chroma camera
https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...4-field-camera




Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(

I would probably go for a used fieldie... Prey tell if you find an
affordable back to go with it... Good luck!

'affordable'. Now there is the operative word. :-(


Maybe you could adapt this benchcam approach to your fieldcam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXxjsz6J5Bg

Keep us posted! :-))


That's camera is a bit crude and doesn't have all the movements I
want. Also, I suspect it's as large as it is because of the problem of
making the more delicate parts in wood in a smaller size.
Traditionally they used to make them in brass. But the problem remains
of finding a full size digital back.


Well... The standard procedure these days seem to be to use film sheets
and scan those with a flatbed. The reasonable affordable digital back
options for LF that I've seen is either scannerbacks or stitching
ditto. I
--
teleportation kills

  #20  
Old March 2nd 18, 10:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 335
Default Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.

nospam
Fri, 23 Feb 2018
21:14:29 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article , Eric
Stevens wrote:

Chroma camera

https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...is-a-lightweig
ht-affordabl e-easy-to-use-5x4-field-camera


film, not digital.

Apologies for no TinyURL. That's a decision made by Firefox. :-(


there's never a need for that on usenet, nor is the decision up to
firefox.


it's to shorten long urls, so that can be very useful on usenet as
well as web based forums. No need to deal with pesky line wrap and
risk url breakage or re-assembly required by another reader on
another client.

It's possible the OP meant that google has declared tinyurl a 'non
safe' site and firefox is whining about that when the OP tries to
visit. it's happened before with false positives via google.




--
Don't become the next David Brooks cyberstalking victim!
Visit https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php (10/10 WOT)
to learn more. If you've already become a victim or know someone who
has, you can provide the following information to them, your lawyer,
local law enforcement, etc.
https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk - His local police. Report?
David Brooks (BoaterDave)
Jersey Cottage 86 Granary Lane
Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6ER United Kingdom
Phone: 44-1395-443340 (H) 07974-193550 (M)
Email(s): ,
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
digital back for sf1 biffster Digital Photography 4 April 28th 08 01:53 AM
Digital back for F3? Aaron Blacksmith Digital SLR Cameras 14 May 13th 05 05:03 PM
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? ColdCanuck Digital Photography 12 January 15th 05 12:00 AM
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? ColdCanuck Digital Photography 0 January 14th 05 05:59 AM
Digital back! Mojtaba Medium Format Photography Equipment 8 August 19th 04 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.