And now for something completely different.

[gstark]

My new toy. o.

[Reschsmooth]

Very nice. That shutter looks like it dwarfs the lens. Is that for you or the offspring?

[sirhc55]

I had no idea that you were after a compact camera Gary. After discrete pics are we

[aim54x]

Very nice.....I'm guessing this is the one that you were talking about last time we met up.

[gstark]

Is that for you or the offspring?

Me.

[gstark]

I had no idea that you were after a compact camera Gary. After discrete pics are we

Always.

Very nice.....I'm guessing this is the one that you were talking about last time we met up.

Yes. It's in very nice condition; bellows are fine, all of the movements and locks seem to be solid. It's a surprisingly solid piece of kit.

And the monorail is actually a double length. I don't know if that's how they originally came, but nice to have

[Reschsmooth]

And the monorail is actually a double length. I don't know if that's how they originally came, but nice to have

4x5 macro goodness.

[Matt. K]

No good Gary. You have to think before you use those olden day cameras.

[phillipb]

No good Gary. You have to think before you use those olden day cameras.

Think before you use, not necessary.
Think during use, there's your problem.

[Matt. K]

Hmmm. Never thought about that.

[Murray Foote]

Scheimpflug beckons. Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

[Reschsmooth]

Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Mathis in which I particularly sucked.

Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

[gstark]

Hmmm. Never thought about that.

That's what I thought.

[Murray Foote]

Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Maths in which I particularly sucked.

More technique than trigonometry. You don't need to estimate any angles. You just see the plane you want to focus on and move the front and perhaps the rear standards to get both near and far focus. If I remember correctly, the usual way is to to the near focus first.

Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

Sorry, that was a facetious comment. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital back for 5x4. Given the price of medium format backs, they'd probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they existed. You can get scanning backs (though I doubt you could hire them) for as little as $5,000 but these are for static subjects on a tripod only with long exposures. You could make yourself a plate to mount a DSLR on as a back or buy a Shen Hao one (maybe $500). The Shen Hao ones have the advantage that you can move the DSLR round for a stitched composite. However, because the sensor of the DSLR is displaced behind the back, you won't be able to focus a 70mm lens to infinity and probably not a 90mm lens (in other words, no wide angles).

[Reschsmooth]

Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Maths in which I particularly sucked.

More technique than trigonometry. You don't need to estimate any angles. You just see the plane you want to focus on and move the front and perhaps the rear standards to get both near and far focus. If I remember correctly, the usual way is to to the near focus first.

I believe, in simple terms the lens plane is aligned to intersect where the plane of focus (assuming there is just one) and the film plane meet up. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that in reality.

Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

Sorry, that was a facetious comment. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital back for 5x4. Given the price of medium format backs, they'd probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they existed. You can get scanning backs (though I doubt you could hire them) for as little as $5,000 but these are for static subjects on a tripod only with long exposures. You could make yourself a plate to mount a DSLR on as a back or buy a Shen Hao one (maybe $500). The Shen Hao ones have the advantage that you can move the DSLR round for a stitched composite. However, because the sensor of the DSLR is displaced behind the back, you won't be able to focus a 70mm lens to infinity and probably not a 90mm lens (in other words, no wide angles).

I assumed you meant a medium format back to fit a 4x5, which cost up to about $60k or more. The primary advantage of putting this on a 4x5 compared to a MF camera is the ability to access the movements available.

[Murray Foote]

Scheimpflug beckons.

Trigonometry was one of the areas of Maths in which I particularly sucked.

More technique than trigonometry. You don't need to estimate any angles. You just see the plane you want to focus on and move the front and perhaps the rear standards to get both near and far focus. If I remember correctly, the usual way is to to the near focus first.

I believe, in simple terms the lens plane is aligned to intersect where the plane of focus (assuming there is just one) and the film plane meet up. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that in reality.

Of course you only need it when you need it and it's been a long time since I've shot 5x4. However, I'm intending to purchase a 24mm PC lens so I'll rediscover the approach, though obviously the movements are much more limited.

Now you just need a 5x4" digital back.

I was talking to Gary about possibly hiring a digital back for the weekend of the BBQ.

Sorry, that was a facetious comment. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital back for 5x4. Given the price of medium format backs, they'd probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they existed. You can get scanning backs (though I doubt you could hire them) for as little as $5,000 but these are for static subjects on a tripod only with long exposures. You could make yourself a plate to mount a DSLR on as a back or buy a Shen Hao one (maybe $500). The Shen Hao ones have the advantage that you can move the DSLR round for a stitched composite. However, because the sensor of the DSLR is displaced behind the back, you won't be able to focus a 70mm lens to infinity and probably not a 90mm lens (in other words, no wide angles).

I assumed you meant a medium format back to fit a 4x5, which cost up to about $60k or more. The primary advantage of putting this on a 4x5 compared to a MF camera is the ability to access the movements available.

I wasn't aware you could fit a medium format back on a 5x4. Stands to reason though and there shouldn't need to be any displacement at the rear plate. It'd be interesting to see how my 50-year old lenses performed with such a back - as compared say to a D800.

[Reschsmooth]

I wasn't aware you could fit a medium format back on a 5x4. Stands to reason though and there shouldn't need to be any displacement at the rear plate. It'd be interesting to see how my 50-year old lenses performed with such a back - as compared say to a D800.

Indeed, there are a number of MF digital backs that can fit onto a 4x5 and there are some view cameras that are specifically designed for digital, including a beauty from Linhof. I am reasonably confident that one would be disappointed with the results of a 50 year old lens with a MF digital back. But, I speak from a position of "dunno".

[biggerry]

^ speak english people, its like i stepped into another forum

looks like some old camera...

now you have no excuse not to post a image in the 52 thread..


Congrads on the purchase Gary

[Murray Foote]

I wasn't aware you could fit a medium format back on a 5x4. Stands to reason though and there shouldn't need to be any displacement at the rear plate. It'd be interesting to see how my 50-year old lenses performed with such a back - as compared say to a D800.

Indeed, there are a number of MF digital backs that can fit onto a 4x5 and there are some view cameras that are specifically designed for digital, including a beauty from Linhof. I am reasonably confident that one would be disappointed with the results of a 50 year old lens with a MF digital back. But, I speak from a position of "dunno".

I suspect the converse. A prime with no AF or VR and an external shutter only needs to be a simple design and some of these designs persist in modern lenses. The main difference I think would be that you would need to be more aware of flare due to lack of multicoating. It may well be though that large format lenses (of any era) are less sharp per square millimetre because they were partly relying on film size. Similarly, I would expect my 1937 Rolleiflex to be quite respectably sharp though it's never going to have any kind of a digital back.

[Murray Foote]

^ speak english people, its like i stepped into another forum

OK, then.

The Good God comes, he triumps over the princes of every country. His bow is in his hand like the Lord of Thebes (Montu), puissant king, mighty in strength, who carries away the princes of wretched Kush, King Djeserkheperru (Horemheb), given life. His majesty came from the land of Kush, with the captives which his sword had made, according to his father Amun commanded him.

Now it's not everyday you get to read about a pissant king, is it?

[Matt. K]

Murray
You're not drinking the lens cleaning fluid are you?

[Murray Foote]

... but it tastes so good....

[biggerry]

The Good God comes, he triumps over the princes of every country. His bow is in his hand like the Lord of Thebes (Montu), puissant king, mighty in strength, who carries away the princes of wretched Kush, King Djeserkheperru (Horemheb), given life. His majesty came from the land of Kush, with the captives which his sword had made, according to his father Amun commanded him.

Now it's not everyday you get to read about a pissant king, is it?