Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFDB and Nikkors  (Read 9883 times)
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2006, 05:01:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Image link didn't work for me.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2006, 05:23:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Image link didn't work for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


its a white picture with a bit of darkening at the edges !
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2376


« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2006, 07:13:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I have made some pictures wit both the Truewide with Copal3 as well as the miniwide Copal1. Both cameras used the Nikkor 85PC.

The sensor is the Aptus17 which is 43x31. I don't have a 36x36 however previously I tested my Valeo with size 24x36 both in landscape as well as in potrait mode on the Miniwide. This did cover everywhere.

Images taken on my table with light at f4.0/25iso/1/125 ( everywhere with about 1/10 of a stop of tolerance). I took a sequence of 3 starting with 1 stop underexposure.

Truewide:

f5.6)  http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/TruewideCopal31.jpg

f8.0)  http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/TruewideCopal32.jpg

f11)   http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/TruewideCopal33.jpg


Miniwide

f5.6)  http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/MiniwideCopal11.jpg

f8.0)  http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/MiniwideCopal12.jpg

f11)   http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/MiniwideCopal13.jpg

The Copal3 is really nice it covers the complete sensor area, the lens does appear to show a little light fall off, which I find remarkable for a lense made for 24x36. This is very nice, don't forget 35mm lenses have been designed for much more lp/mm than MF or LF lenses.

This would make a Truewide Copal3 unit with a P30 or Aptus65 a really appealing piece of equipment.


Hmmm. I think I need to clean the sensor  
« Last Edit: November 01, 2006, 07:17:00 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2006, 07:26:02 AM »
ReplyReply

is it possible for you to drop a couple of frames on the miniwide with the widest nikkr you have

SMM
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2006, 07:44:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
don't forget 35mm lenses have been designed for much more lp/mm than MF or LF lenses.

This is a myth. Modern LF lenses are very high resolution. The Schneider website, for example, rates their lenses at "90 to 200 line pairs per millimeter" which as far as I know exceeds the resolution of any of the sensors we are using (around 70lppm at best). 35mm lenses will therefore not result in higher resolution images.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2376


« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2006, 07:57:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Let me start by saying that I believe the digital LF lenses are magnificent. They are very high resolution but now..

What do you mean myth? Because there are now 2 lines of higher resolution lenses made by Schneider en Rodenstock? This only tells that it is true and that only recently higher res LF lenses are becoming available.

At this moment the 35mm lens with the highest tested res is the Zeiss 50/1.4 with 340lp/mm max. The 85 made by Zeiss comes in as a close second.

This is still substantially higher than the new line of digital LF lenses. So they still are higher res. Naturally it is impressive 90 to 200lp/mm for the image circle these lenses can cover however that is just the point which I am making. There are MF sensors that are somewhat smaller where 35mm (with larger image circles) can be used. These lenses tend to be significantly cheaper and the best of them have higher res than even the new digital LF.  340lp/mm (even if it is only in the center at a specific f stop, which is the way it is usually measured) is stil higher than 200lp/mm (which is probably also measured in the centre).

No myth there, never been. Lenses for larger surfaces simply did not need to be that high res. Since the introduction of digital sensor which especially initially were substantially smaller the need started to have higer res LF lenses and we got them.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2006, 08:08:04 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2376


« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2006, 08:08:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I only have a 20/3.5. I will put that on the MiniWide and post the images here later.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2006, 08:50:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is a myth. Modern LF lenses are very high resolution. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for starting your own thread !

To me the relative meris are somewhat irrelevant, my 24 nikkor I own - a 24 schneider I cant afford

A 14mm nikkor I own a 14 schneider doesnt exist

Many here probably own a DSLR with a wide lens - could they get more out of that lens by getting in front of thier 16bit back than using it on thier DSLR??

SMM
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2376


« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2006, 07:43:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I tried the 20/3.5 but this one did not fit on the MiniWide (does fit on the TrueWide though).

It appears the Copal1 on the Mini can be replaced provided you have the right tool for it. Not sure whether that also means you can replace it with a Copal3.

This is the image with the 24mm, same setup as before.

f5.6) http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/MiniWide24mm.jpg
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2006, 07:55:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A 14mm nikkor I own a 14 schneider doesnt exist

Why are you comparing lenses with different FOV?

Anyway I can understand the financial constraints. Is your mission to make use of the full-frame (24x36mm) capabilities of your Nikon lenses? If Nikon introduced a full-frame DSLR would that answer your needs?
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2006, 02:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why are you comparing lenses with different FOV?

Is your mission to make use of the full-frame (24x36mm) capabilities of your Nikon lenses?

If Nikon introduced a full-frame DSLR would that answer your needs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FOV - because I want the widest single shot capture which would appear to be a 14 nikkor - on a larger chip - way wider than a SCH 24 - but not as quality - 15mp out of 22mp or less dependant on how it drops off - hense the thread - enquiring about the drop off - which apperas v good on my 24

Is your mission to make use of the full-frame (24x36mm) capabilities of your Nikon lenses?

Absolutley and the 22mp chip I already own

If Nikon introduced a full-frame DSLR would that answer your needs?

Well I already have an expensive chip and all this glass so I dont really want another camera (lets assume its 1ds2price) - but I probably would end up getting it (if they didnt do something dumb inthe design)

This still may not out perform a 16bit chip on the glass - so if I got a ff nikon it probably would be for other reasons like decent AF or high ISO (I already have a fast falling apart SLRn which is a good performer in many situations, but wide low lit interiors with light streaming in the windows aint one of them)

My main mission is to make full use of everything I already own -  a 22mp back and nikon glass from 14 2.8 - 600 f4 with minimal further outlay

My Hassy H1 wont ever have a shifting solution or a super wide (THANKS GUYS) - I have a nikkor 28 shift - and I aint going to change backs just cos Blad got stupid - my back is a five year invest that I am going to stick with

It is not particularly that I am scared of the prices of the super expensive kit - say Alpa had a useable range finder or a electronic focus solution it would be attractive but for me all that money on something still half baked seems nuts

I am very tempted by a miniwide with copal 3 shutter - no usewrs here it would apprear and dealers still not too keen !

SMM
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
rueyloon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2006, 02:48:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I tried the 20/3.5 but this one did not fit on the MiniWide (does fit on the TrueWide though).

It appears the Copal1 on the Mini can be replaced provided you have the right tool for it. Not sure whether that also means you can replace it with a Copal3.

This is the image with the 24mm, same setup as before.

f5.6) http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/MiniWide24mm.jpg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the hole for copal 3 is bigger, hence you might need to cut a bigger hole, I'm interested how they managed to put a nikon mount infront of the copal, was it a custom job ? or just some adapter ?

would you be able to use any shifting when using with the true-wide ?

cheers
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2376


« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2006, 05:31:39 AM »
ReplyReply

It looks like a factory build Copal with F-mount. Not sure whether it is custom however it might very well be since there are not that many built world wide. It is definitely not an adapter.

I use the Truewide for still work with the 85PC and both shift as well as tilt do not pose any problem.
Logged
marcwilson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2006, 11:14:29 AM »
ReplyReply

another option to the miniwide is the silvestri bicam photo that can be set up to take nikon lenses on the front and your db on the back.
in the uk the two sellers are morco and linhoff studio.
They both answer the phone..and are both very helpfull and encourage you to go to their stores to look at the set ups.

(I am looking at one version as a medium format wide shift solution..taking super wide lf lenses and film and db options on the back)

definately worth looking into for a wide shift nikon lens db set up.

Marc
Logged

andrewparker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2006, 11:41:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also feel that my SLRn camera has a limited lifespan and will proably be repaced with a D2x unless nikon pull something out of thier hat

That will leave me totally stuffed for wideness

Sam-

Why not the D2X with the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG- that could be a fast cheaper yet "correct" method for interiors, giving you an 18-36 35mm equivalent range?

I know that the name Sigma doesn't tickle the brand fetishists, but this lens looks good to me.  It covers the 35mm frame so you wouldn't be using the most distorted part of the lens on a D2X, and it looks to me to have low distortion in any case even in its full frame role.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't nearly as good at the same angle of view as an old Nikkor prime like the 24mm (I use the AF version of this)

This is getting off topic but its an extension of your "MF- why bother? thread."

Better density range is probably the main answer. But then my Kodak 760 has a very good density range, but not many pixels, and it doesn't seem to handle mixed lighting all that well etc etc etc.

The problem with all this is that no matter the system or budget you still do not have the same shifting range at wide angle that you do with film.  I find this more of a problem witrh exteriors than interiors.

Dustbak, I see you have a canal and a mosque, so you must be in the Netherlands?

Andrew Parker

Blue Window Ltd
Surrey UK
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2006, 12:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why not the D2X with the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very good point - maybe I need a slap round the head

I could easily spend nearly a couple of grand getting a miniwide 3

This would get me a D2x - I could put my 14mm on it or save up for a 12

And the D2X is a very cool thing to have in the camera bag - there are million (high Iso decent AF) situations where it would come in very handy - my SLRn is shockingly bad in many ways

And you can see through a D2X (almost) which helps

And I bet the D2x has all sort of (DXO??) sofware to help its performance with wides and suitable Data embedding to help that process

I am incedentally one of those Stigma lense haters - only having owned a 80-200 that wasnt that cheap, and constantly didnt talk to the camera

I only own fast primes and would only use a zoom for a royal visit or some other 'penned' event where the togs cant move - maybe I need to investigate the world of cheap gear like stigma lenses

I think the theory is that a miniwide should be a bargain over a D2x - you are just buying a block of metal and a copal 3 shutter compared to a D2x where you are buying a chip, mirror box AFsystem computer pentaprism etc

The reality of economies of scale is that a 2DX could be cheaper

Probably if a miniwide is half the price of a D2x then it will win and if not then a D2x it will be

Again I am not shirking the cost of kit but would prefer to have not just shelled out for a D2X if a FF Nik comes out

CONVERSLY

I recon and 22mp 16bit chip cropped to 15mp using a 28 PC shif lense will blow the nikon sideways

The real question is probably about shooting style - will I be a better photographer producing beautiful files thethered or a better photographer with the convieniece of the P+S Nikon - if it was 16mpFF there would be no doubt in my mind

OR maybe it is time to go for a 5d a Stigma super wide and a 24 TSE

Even harsher question - if I concentrated with my SLRn - multiple layered exposures and every software trick in the book - I could do that for free !

Someone needs to run a test - Miniwide+14/2.8mm versus D2x/Stigma 12 versus 5D+24TSE

I probably look at a few of my biases like 'if it made of metal it is better' and 'if it is a zoom and not 2.8 at least it is cr*p'

Thanks for the wake up

SMM
« Last Edit: November 04, 2006, 01:04:00 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad