the very best large format lenses are very, very good with resolution that can exceed the best DSLR lenses. add that to the movement capability and it is a very useful combination for certain people. also, you can do movement of the back to produce large stitched images.
gcrimmins wrote:
It would allow view camera movements with a DSLR.
I thought the mirror box would limit movements quite a bit compared to a view camera though. Supposedly it's still useful enough for Sinar to develop and market this 'contraption'.
What won't work on this rig, due to the required mirror box design of (D)SLR cameras, are wide angle lenses, in relation to the 24x36mm format. In other words, it doesn't eliminate the need for 45, 35, 28, 24,17 tilt/shift lenses at all.
There are a few newly developed lenses, like the Rodenstock HR Digaron-W, that should be as nice as it gets. Schneider has a corresponding line. But otherwise LF lenses with enough resolution are very few. One of the older Super-Angulons was said by Schneider to be a candidate. Don´t remember which one.
The current generation of 'digital' lenses designed for MF sensors are indeed superb and in many cases have astounding resolution capabilities ( and price tags). As said though the Mirror box on a DSLR is the limiting factor in how much shift can be applied and with my Mirex adapter with the camera in landscape orientation 12mm is the maximum vertical movement upwards before I see the mirror box with my Hassleblad lenses. Probably why Canon TS-E lenses are limited to 12mm as well. With the new 17 and 24 TS-E lenses together with the existing and and still excelent 45 and 90 there is enough in the current lineup to keep most needs for tilt and shift movements satisfied although this kit may come into it's own for certain specialist studio work.
HerbChong wrote:
the very best large format lenses are very, very good with resolution that can exceed the best DSLR lenses. add that to the movement capability and it is a very useful combination for certain people. also, you can do movement of the back to produce large stitched images.
large is relative. taking 9 images to stitch large format FOV is large enough for many people and many uses. if youread what was needed to take the 71GP image, you will see why people don't do it except to prove that it can be done. the Sinar is a product for sale because there are enough people who want, or need, something like this to pay for it.
The downside to Rodenstock's new digital HR lenses is a pretty small image circle for stitching, aren't they around 70mm? Plenty for tilting, not so much for stitching.
Outstanding resolution though, I hear better than the best 35mm glass. And a mere $4,000+ each.
Drew_Persson wrote:
The Cambo Ultima 35 has been around for years, surprised Sinar bothered coming out with an almost-identical system. ..
Or the Cambo X2:..
Or the Camera Fusion adapter:.
Or Horseman VCC Pro:..
An I have build me something like that 2001 for my old small Plaubel Peco Junior and then analogue cameras via M42 adapters. The idea is pretty old. Wonder how many from these adapter plates are sold.
Of course it's not as glamorous (or even functional) as a proper setup like the Cambo or Sinar p-slr but hey, it cost me very little and it does the job quite well so I’m not complaining…
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm not sure about the LF lenses exceeding SLR lenses in resolution. I thought the opposite was true.
Yeah, several people here who I have faith in knowing what they're talking about told me the same thing when I was wondering about putting Hassy, Pentax, and other MF/LF lenses on my system. They seemed to think that lenses designed for LF and MF were barely in the same league with those designed for 135 systems and that on a M4/3 system it might indeed be an observable step down in IQ.
I of course have no idea but there were a lot of MTF tables posted in that thread all of which supported what they were saying. I did go ahead and get several Sekor lenses but I haven't acquired an adapter for them yet.
As far as the usefulness of that contraption I think it's all in the rails really. For macro, 3D and a number of other tasks fine body/rig position adjustment and objective shifting is very useful - besides of course that it looks cooler than hell sitting in the studio!
