Willem-Aart van Dorpen , Sep 09, 2010; 03:26 p.m.
Let me start with telling you that, at this moment, a large format camera is out of reach for me. I'm using a Canon dSLR with a 24mm tilt/shift lens. While that is a pretty technical setup and does pretty much everything I need, I want to know everything about large format camera's and lenses, that's why I started this topic.
After wandering through the internet for a few days, I collected a few questions that have remained unanswered to me. I never went to a photography school of some sort, and there isn't much written for beginners like me about this subject. Well, let's dive into the questions, if you don't mind:
1) What's exactly the difference between medium format and digital large format when using a digital back? Is it just the ability to make shift movements with the greater part of the large format camera's, in combination with the larger image circle of the lenses?
2) What's the difference between a medium format camera and a digital large format camera that has no ability to make shift movements? They offer the same functionality and end result, right?
3) Are you able to use pre-digital era lenses on a modern digital large format camera? Are these just as good as digital lenses in general?
4) Does 'Digitar' reference to 'digital'? What's the difference between a Digitar lens and another large format lens? Is the image circle smaller? Are they compatible with 4x5" film?
5) Are you able to shoot film with, let's say, a Cambo Wide RS? The lenses have the same large format image circle I suppose, they should cover the film right?
6) Are the focal lengths shown in 35mm equivalent? Does a 24mm large format lens have the same focal length as a Canon 24mm?
7) What are the differences between a large format and medium format lens? Is it just the image circle?
I would be very thankful if anyone of you can answer (some of) these questions :). I would love to buy a large format setup, unfortunately the prices of digital backs are sky high.
Michael Axel 
, Sep 09, 2010; 04:19 p.m.
Hi Willem, Here are my responses, based on what I know...
1. Yes, mainly movements. There are not many LF digital backs (I think BetterScanning, and maybe one or two more).
2. Mainly lenses, I would guess(!). A MF system uses proprietary lenses and mounts. A LF system can use any LF lens with the right board.
3. Yes, but just like Canon or Nikon has made huge improvements in coatings and construction, so have the LF lens manufacturers. The difference really depends on the shooting situation.
4. Yes. Yes. Only if the image circle is big enough. But they are generally used on a specialized camera using a smaller sensor, like a Sinar P3, or Arca Swiss, for example.
5. I don't know about the Cambo, but most of the others I've seen allow for a film back to be attached... usually with an adapter for a special 2x3 or a Hasselblad back (for example). They are not cheap. In fact, with these systems, nothing is cheap.
6. No. Lenses are truly 35mm or whatever. They cover a certain image circle, and you have to check to see what each will do, but usually 2x3.
7. Again, the fact LF is not proprietary, and can be mounted to any camera with the right lens board. BTW, you can buy special lens boards to mount a Hasselblad or Mamiya lens on a LF camera, but many will only cover the smaller image circle, which is fine if you are mating the lens with a smaller film size back.
Finally, I would buy a regular LF camera (something like a Sinar, for example) that allows adding digital backs. It will be a bit larger, but they are all pretty awkward to set up.
Kelly Flanigan 
, Sep 09, 2010; 05:16 p.m.
Here I run two old obsolete 35 and 50 megapixel digital LF scan backs from circa 1996 and 1998. The are mostly used indoors to shoot artwork; or odd thick objects that will go into my 36" wide color scanner. All of these LF backs are what today are called cropped backs. Mine are Phase One and have a 7x10cm scan area; the Better lights are about this too. I have never heard of a full frame LF scan back.
1) Here the reason I use a LF digital scan back is just to have a giant digital file to make a copy of artwork. I use to shoot transparencies and scan them; the cost and delays with no local lab got expensive. The reason I got a LF digital back is the local E6 got flakey and died. Very few if any LF digital scans I do for artwork has any shifts; if it is it is for lighting or shadows.
The some shift work is for tabletop shots for products or scale models; a very minor amount of shots are shifts.
2) When I got into LF digital; LF had the bigger megapixel scans compared to MF; thus a MF back was only 4 to 8? megapixels back then and the 1996 4x5 back was 35 megapixels. One got a LF back because it was a higher megapixels; one could gather more details.
3) one can use older non digital lenses on a digital back; here that is *about all* I have ever use. My back's have a big fat 12 and 13 micron effective pixels; thus the lens requirements are modest. I shoot artwork with a Schneider Componon 135mm F5.6 on a 4x5 Speed Graphic
4) A SCHNEIDER Digitar is a trade name for lenses that are for high resolution digital backs; ones that are tighter than my mine in pitch. With a higher megapixel back the pixel pitch is narrower; thus a better lens can help.
5) No cambo here
6) NO EXACT ANSWER. One has two different aspect ratios. If one was making say 30x40" prints or 40x40" the short side of 35mm governs. A swag is that 35mm is about 1" tall (not .945) and 4x5 is 4" tall; thus a 4x factor to shoot a 30x40" or 40x40" print. Thus a 24mm on a full frame 35mm would be like a 96mm on a 4x5 camera; if one is shooting a 30x40" or 40x40" print.
7) MF lenses are shorter since the format is smaller. A normal for 6x6cm MF is about 75mm; and it is about a 150mm for 4x5
Dan South , Sep 09, 2010; 06:56 p.m.
Bob Salomon 
, Sep 09, 2010; 07:50 p.m.
Rodenstock published an excellent white paper on the differences between digital and analog and how the requirements for digital lenses differ from analog lenses. If you are in the USA we can still mail you a copy. It is no longer on their web site but a newer paper on the advantages of perspective correction in camera vs in Photoshop is now available for downloading. Both papers were by Dr. Walter Schoen. If you would like the copy just email me a mailing address and we will send it to you.
Indrek Rünkla , Sep 10, 2010; 03:37 a.m.
7) I think a major difference between the lenses of MF and LF especially important on wide-angles is the design. The MF lenses are retrofocus as the rigid body and the mirror do not let the lens to protrude close enough to the sensor/film surface. LF lenses do not need to address this issue and tend to have therefore better IQ all over the image circle. Or at least should have.
Willem-Aart van Dorpen , Sep 10, 2010; 07:46 a.m.
Great replies, thanks a lot!
@Bob Salomon: Unfortunately, I'm not in the USA. What did you expect, reading my terrible English ;-)?
It makes sense why some people choose for large format, instead of a proprietary medium format system. Let's hope digital backs get a bit cheaper, film is not my cup of thea.
Marco Boeringa , Sep 10, 2010; 09:05 a.m.
Great replies, thanks a lot!
@Bob Salomon: Unfortunately, I'm not in the USA. What did you expect, reading my terrible English ;-)?
It makes sense why some people choose for large format, instead of a proprietary medium format system. Let's hope digital backs get a bit cheaper, film is not my cup of tea.
Sorry, but you can wait till you drop dead before true large format digital backs become affordable - they don't even exist at this point of time if we discount the scan backs. Except scanning backs, which almost cover 4x5, the only digital "LF" backs are in fact NOT LF backs, but MF backs fitted to LF camera's, and even those cost enough to buy a car!
film is not my cup of tea
Well, in my opinion, it should be if you seriously want to get into LF. I have the strong feeling, you don't know what you are getting into... Operating an LF camera can be quite a hassle (but I love doing it - well at least most of the time ;-) ), and setting up and taking a single(!) shot can take anywhere from 10-60 minutes.
Really, if you don't care for film (it is not that difficult, learn develop it yourself, it's fun), than cut the crap and buy a tilt/shift lens for your DSLR. It won't brake your bank, and it will do "more or less" the only thing you really seem interested in.
And if you do consider 4x5 film, an Epson V700/750 at a scanning resolution of 2000 ppi (pixels per inch) should deliver stunning digital files of about 8000x10.000 = 80 Mpixel resolution.
Of course, nothing beats printing analog in your own darkroom... (not that many here will agree, but I don't care, it's my cup of tea ;-) )
Marco Boeringa , Sep 10, 2010; 09:14 a.m.
Ah well, I see you already have a T/S lens... well, stick with it, or buy a lens-baby for more creativity.
Willem-Aart van Dorpen , Sep 10, 2010; 09:31 a.m.
A large format camera with a medium format digital back is my ideal setup because it allows me to make shift and tilt movements, with much greater quality and flexibility than my TS-E 24mm lens. Also, I'm able to see directly what I've shot and to make adjustments as I go.
If digital camera's didn't exist, I would have never got into photography I think ;-). Does that make me an inferior photographer? Maybe. It's not really important to me.
