Jesse3Names
Established
I'm confused on how to draw this up - it's not super clear to me. I put a dot on a piece of paper and from that dot extend a baseline 50mm long? And then what - sorry I tried to understand what you meant but you gave vague instructions how I read it. I would really like to understand why MF and LF camera require longer focal length lenses that end up producing wider images than their 35mm counterpart. If you could draw this out for me, I would really appreciate it - if it's not too much trouble. It'd help me to follow along with the drawing to understand what's happening.
Jesse3Names
Established
So let's take an extreme case of 2 formats - [1] my iPhone 5's 3.6x4.8mm sensor (put it in a camera body with a lens mount for this hypothetical case) and [2] a 4x5" LF camera. Now let's say that we've created a 50mm f/8 lenses for each system. Now, what I'm understanding from you is that the extremely small 50/8 lens in front of a 3.6x4.8mm sensor collects the same amount of light at f/8 as the much larger 50/8 lens mounted on a 4x5 camera does. I just don't see how that lens can distribute the same total amount of light as a larger 4x5's lens can. I think my confusion lies in the understanding of this coverage issue I posted about just above this reply. What do you mean, then?
And I know what you mean. Pixels need to be big - they gather more light that way. I deal with this in astrophotography all the time. I just sold my astro-modified 5D Mark II body and picked up a normal 6D. The pixels are a micrometer or so larger than the 5D II's because there are 2 MP less on the new camera, but combine that with improved image processing and you really get lower noise than the 5D Mark III in the testing I've seen.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
You may want to re think it avoiding all use of the term "wide", as it is often hard to grasp the abstraction behind it when you come from the practical side of 24x36mm photography, where it is generally is synonymous with perspective. Popular notions associate "wide angle lenses" with the perspective that comes with fully wide angles of view and short focal lengths relative to 24x36mm film. But in optical terms a "wide angle lens" merely is a lens with a large image circle proportional to its focal length, and nothing requires you to use the entire image circle - indeed, film and sensors usually not being round, we generally end up wasting at least half the area of the image circle. In large format, where image circles and image sizes are mostly separate entities, these associations are much less firm, we buy wider lenses to "gain more coverage" whether for movements, perspectives or film sizes.
In abstract terms you can consider it a application of basic geometry/trigonometry - in a triangle (and by extension, in cones or pyramids as objects projected from triangles) all edges grow proportionally, if the angles stay constant. If we need more image circle (to cover a larger piece of film or sensor), but want the angle of view to remain constant, the focal length (lens node to film distance) grows proportionally to the film size. If we grow the film and keep the focal length constant, we need a wider angle of view to cover the grown image circle.
Jesse3Names
Established
I get the geometrical concepts; they're very simple. When we enlarge the format from 24x36mm to 4x5" (101.6x127mm), if you want to keep the same angle of coverage you need to move the lens further away from the film plane. However, there MUST be another reason that medium and large format cameras use longer focal lengths. What's stopping them from manufacturing a medium/large format body with a short distance between the film plane and the lens mount and producing short focal length, very large coverage angle lenses? Is there a "happy" range of coverage angles that lenses tend to be manufactured within and if so, is there a reason for that? I'm lost in the fact of why large film sizes need longer lenses.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No, why should there?
Nothing. As a matter of fact, the mainstream "normal" large format lens (Plasmat/Symmar type) has an angle of view of 75° - the equivalent of a (very wide) 24mm lens on 35mm film, and the most common type of large format wide angles (Super Angulon type) tend to have 100-125° - well into the range where 35mm ultrawides are getting exotic. But as I said, the need for motions and multi-format capability are the reasons why large format lenses are much wider than the functional counterpart on rigid box type 35mm and medium format cameras...
One word: Perspective! There is a happy perspective, the human visual system has about 40-45° - replicated in the "normal" or "standard" lens for a given image format. Besides that, there are other vision ranges coded into the human visual system, like the the perimeters across which the eyes may scan with or without head movements, and the inner and outer hotspots of maximum vision (fovea and macula) on the retina - so there is a set of angles of vision which we associate with particular ways of seeing a subject.
Jesse3Names
Established
Well, I guess I can't argue with that logic...
THIS is the thing I was missing. Here when you say "wider than the functional counterpart" you mean the diameter of the elements is larger, i.e. a physically wider lens barrel. I was completely forgetting about all the crazy movements available on LF cameras. Partly because I come from the practical format world of 35mm and smaller, but also because I have spent a lot of time looking at product photos of the Wanderlust Travelwide trying to understand if there's anything missing I would need on a 4x5 camera. Personally, I think it's OK to give up shift and tilt movements for weight and portability; especially in a backcountry environment.
I'm definitely going to have to read more about the human visual system. I learned a little bit about it in an image processing course I audited last semester, but just enough to understand the articles I was reading that were researching it relating to aliasing (= 1D; 2D = moiré, of course) and so on. So to keep ourselves happy with our photographs, instead of going crazy huge on coverage angles, we decide to keep perspective under control and just use longer focal lengths... thank you. I cannot believe I forgot about perspective. Thank you so much. You've been an unbelievably huge help - this wasn't specifically related to which LF camera I should buy, but it was bugging me and I definitely feel more comfortable explaining why LF is better and why it's designed the way it is to my friends... whether they want to hear it or not!
I think the best demonstration of perspective is that cinematography shot where you move closer to an object while zooming out which moves changes the perspective of the foreground relative to the background. Without a formal photography background and, rather, piecing together my knowledge as I evolve interests, projects, or most currently my Master's research.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Difficulty (sharpness, vignetting, aberrations) and therefore expense. But my wife Frances uses a 35mm Apo-Grandagon on her Alpa with 6x9 cm and can even get a tiny bit of rise. That's like a 15mm shift lens on 35mm... And my 110 Super Symmar just about covers 8x10 inch for interiors (dark corners at infinity). Again, about like 15mm on 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
Jesse3Names
Established
Interesting. I figured aberrations was the biggest limiting factor of producing shorter focal length lenses for medium/large formats.
If I buy the Travelwide and I decide I want a longer lens in the future, can I use one? The Travelwide was designed for the Schneider Angulon 90mm f/6.8. They're soon to release an adapter kit to shoot a Super Angulon 65mm f/8. But can I jump up to a lens of 200 or 300 mm without changing anything about the body? Wanderlust say you cannot use a 90mm f/5.6 lens with their camera. Why is a slower lens OK, but a faster one not? Is it because your ability to pull focus back from infinity is so limited that lenses (90mm f/5.6 and those >90mm) bring the image into focus so far away from the lens plane that this fixed-size plastic body with a short focus throw cannot accommodate them?
Besides the Crown Graphic, are there any widely available 4x5 cameras that can compete with its lens and part availability? I'm torn between the Travelwide and a Crown Graphic. Can I use the same 65mm f/8 lens with the Crown Graphic? What need I be looking for in the lens specs to ensure it's compatible with the CG body?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(1) Almost certainly not. You'd need a much longer cone and a lens in a focusing mount.
(2) Dunno but I suspect it's because the lenses are not 100% symmetrical and that you'd therefore need slightly different cones. Or maybe the throat is not big enough to swallow the 90/5.6.
(3) Seriously consider MPP. Much more common in the UK than the USA but arguably combining the best of Graflex and Linhof.
With a 65 on the front, the baseboard will intrude into 4x5 inch even if dropped, so you are limited to landscape-format roll film holders, but as far as I recall the bellows compress enough to allow the use of 65mm lenses. See http://www.mppusers.com/
See also http://somakray.blogspot.fr/2010/10/longfellow-6x18-medium-format-panoramic.html for a home-made 6x17 (or buy "Medium and large format photography: moving beyond 35mm for better pictures" by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz)
Cheers,
R.
Jesse3Names
Established
What are the benefits of an MPP over a Graflex or Linhof?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Linked rear focusing track, a lot lighter and cheaper than Linhof, better movements than Graflex... To be honest, having owned all three, I can't remember the precise details, just that I liked the MPP better. Sorry.
Cheers,
R.
Jesse3Names
Established
I looked on the website - I assume I'm looking at the Micro Technical line of cameras. Do you have a recommendation of with "Mark" to look into pricing out? The MPP cameras definitely seem to cost more than the Crown Graphics. KEH has a Linhof Tech III with a 90/6.8 and a few other pieces in Ex condition (so you know it's probably Ex+/LN to most of us) for just shy of $800. Looks like a nice camera, but does the weight of the Linhof make it not worth it?
Jesse3Names
Established
Is there a ~50mm lens available for the Zeiss Super Ikonta C (natively 6x9, capable of 6x6 with a mask) or is it a fixed lens system? They don't seem too expensive and for travel, folding would be great to protect the glass - especially hiking around. I would love a 4x5 camera, but the more I consider my options, the more I realize that 6x9 is a solid film size - much bigger than 35mm - and would produce exceptional shots. Of course there's nothing wrong with shooting 6x6-6x9 film; it would actually make traveling with a bigger-than-35mm format camera manageable, as I could pack up the film rolls rather than worry about a box of exposed 4x5 film opening up and ruining every single shot.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Fixed lens, like most consumer/prosumer medium format cameras of the period. And those that were not usually had nothing wider than 90mm among their lens options. The widest of the age was the Plaubel Makina II/III, with a 6.8/73mm - even Linhof/MPP/Graflex/etc. did not grow anything wider than 65mm until the fifties/sixties (attaching wider lenses to their earlier bodies meant hacks like operating with the front standard unlocked from the focusing rack, or using lens cones deep enough that the shutter/aperture could only be accessed with some pointy tool).
Jesse3Names
Established
Bummer. Any suggestions in that folding style that will let me shoot 6x6-6x9 and with interchangeable lenses down to 50mm?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Not really. The closest to that would be the Plaubel Brooks Veriwide - a 47mm fixed-lens camera built on a folder style body. Rigid, though (there would be no point in folding a 47mm Super Angulon as it is just as wide as deep). And expensive...
Jesse3Names
Established
Hm... so are we back to square one - working off of a 4x5 body to use 50mm lenses on 6x6 and 6x9 backs? Or is there a more travel-friendly option that lets me choose my lens?
thegman
Veteran
Changeable lenses, and backs, with wide angle options, with 6x9?
I'd say Fotoman 69 is a good option, if you're prepared to only have 6x6 or 6x7, then I'd go with an SLR of some kind.
Jesse3Names
Established
I would really love the 6x9 option. I will try and contact a retailer - I still have no clue how much Fotoman 69HPS bodies cost. The only ones on eBay are from overseas and include a lens I don't want; plus, there's only one of them at a Buy It Now price, so I'm not too confident it's a solid deal.
Did Horseman ever make a 6x6 or 6x7 back? All I'm able to dig up online is information on their 6x9 backs. I don't want to mask a 6x9 and still be stuck with 8 shots per 120 roll. If I shoot 6x6 I want those extra shots or what's the point - you're just wasting emulsion.
If I do decide that a camera to shoot 6x6-6x9 with different backs is out of my price range, it looks like my options are to go for a Crown Graphic or Travelwide 4x5 body or step down to a Bronica SQ series camera and be stuck with 6x6 and maybe a few other options at 6x7. You have to love budgets; they really tend to limit your options. Darn money.
thegman
Veteran
6x7, yes, Horseman made one, not sure about 6x6 but I used to have a 6x7 one on a Horseman Convertible. If you can live with a fixed 62mm lens, it's a nice camera and a lot cheaper than the Fotoman.