# Digital Backs for View Cameras



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

I picked up the gear from an old portrait studio and I got a few view cameras. I'd like to get a digital back for either a 4x5 or an 8x10 (that's the preferred way) but I have absolutely no idea what I'm looking for so any tips to get me started in my research would be much appreciated.

Also, is there any back that could be used on both formats?

Thanks.


----------



## ann (Sep 13, 2011)

I would start looking on Calumet to get some ideas,
be preparing for a serious hit to the wallet.


----------



## Helen B (Sep 13, 2011)

The nearest thing to a 4x5 is a Betterlight scanning back. Those start at $15,000 new, and they aren't quite as big as 4x5. They are scanning backs, not instantaneous. They will fit into most spring backs that will accept a Polaroid holder.

Most people use medium format backs like the Phase Ones (simply called a 'Phase back' in the business).

There is also this 10 Mp back for 8x10. It may well be made from tile-able x-ray sensors.

DIY scanning backs have been made, so you could try Googling for them.

Good luck,
Helen


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

ann said:


> ...be preparing for a serious hit to the wallet.



:lmao: No kidding. I have found an article from last month talking about a custom 8x10 back that costs "as much as a good-sized house" before the market crash... But I'm still hoping someone will know of something, although it looks like it will most probably be a 4x5 back.

I did look there. I find it interesting to see the Sinar backs cheaper than those of brands I've never heard of. Unless Sinar is not as good as I think it is which is possible since I've not much knowledge in view cameras. Or could it be just their digital backs?

Anyway, that's kind of why I left this question pretty open ended. Trying to see what knowledgeable folks bring to my table for me to chew on


----------



## Helen B (Sep 13, 2011)

The 8x10 back you are referring to is the one I gave the link to.

The price for backs depends a lot on their age. Older backs can be relative bargains, like the Dicomed scan backs that are still supported by Betterlight, as far as I know.

Best,
Helen


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks Helen, I was hoping you would see my question.

The 8x10 back you link to is the one I found although not the same article. Very expensive for something that is used to replace the Polaroid back...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the scanning back can only be used on something that will hold the pose, right? Anything with potential movement would not work, right?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

Also, another question. Because of the actual size of the sensors in those backs, it seems the ones that are being used on 4x5 cameras are used so for the camera movements. Is that correct?


----------



## Helen B (Sep 13, 2011)

Yes, the main reason to use the medium format digital backs on a 4x5 camera is  because of the movements, although it is better to use a  smaller-than-4x5 technical camera because of the smaller standards and  hence greater movements with short lenses, if you need to use them. It's  also common to use 'digital' lenses with those backs because many large  format lenses don't have the resolution to make the most of the back.

Erie  (epatsellis) has Dicomed and Magnavision backs and can answer this  question much better than I can. I still use film with 4x5, along with  either a Nikon adapter back for my Sinar P2 or simply the D3 with the  three PC-E lenses available for it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

Helen B said:


> Erie  (epatsellis) has ...



I was trying to remember his name 

Thanks for the info. This got my brain going and is what I needed. Now I can do more serious research. Plus I'll shoot a PM to epatsellis.


----------



## ann (Sep 13, 2011)

Thank goodness for Helen!


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 13, 2011)

Why not just shoot film in them?


----------



## Paul Ron (Sep 13, 2011)

Back when scanners first hit teh streets for PCs, I had an idea of mounint one to the back of a view camera. I never got to doing it and wonder if anyone has tried it? It still haunts me and I still have some issues in my head I can't seem to resolve. 

Would I need to scan a GG or can I just have it scan a focused image at the film plane with nothing between the lens n scanner? 

Any thoughts?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

ann said:


> Thank goodness for Helen!



Yes!

But I did appreciate your taking time to respond.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Why not just shoot film in them?



It may very well be what ends up being done. But (there is always a but) film is expensive, there is no more polaroid to shoot tests (and learn with), scans are expensive, etc, etc. So I have to study the different possiblities and see if the investment in the back is not cheaper in the long run.

Film will definitly get shot though as one of the pieces of equipment I got in this deal is an 8x10 enlarger   An old dream of mine. But for personal work only.





Paul Ron said:


> Back when scanners first hit teh streets for PCs, I had an idea of mounint one to the back of a view camera. I never got to doing it and wonder if anyone has tried it? It still haunts me and I still have some issues in my head I can't seem to resolve.
> 
> Would I need to scan a GG or can I just have it scan a focused image at the film plane with nothing between the lens n scanner?
> 
> Any thoughts?



While looking up backs I found a few articles that talked of using a scanner. Didn't sound very promising for me so I didn't keep track of them but it is being done. Or, at the very least, it has been tried. Look it up.

What's a GG by the way?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2011)

I would check out Columbus Camera Group here in the USA in Columbus, Ohio; at times they buy out entire studios and liquidate the stuff through their e-Bay store. As mentioned above, some of the slightly older backs do not command the uber-high prices of the newer ones. Good luck. I hope you can find something that suits you for a fair price.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks for your post Derrel. Your intense dislike of the french made me realize I need to check the actual size (formats) of these cameras.

I'm so used to SLRs and MFs to be in cm and view cameras to be in inches that a quick translation in my head of the formats the seller was telling me about meant 4x5 and 8x10 but the paper sizes are different here... So, maybe the camera formats are too.

If it turns out to be inches here too, I'll look at Columbus. Thanks.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 13, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Why not just shoot film in them?
> ...



Have you even seen the price of digital backs? Film is chump change in comparison. And even though Polaroid doesn't exist anymore, you can still use Fuji instant film to replace it, or use a light meter and your better judgment. 

Film is expensive, yes, but it's nowhere close to as expensive as a scanning back, even if it's something you use every day for most of your photography, which for most people, a view camera doesn't fit the bill. 


Shoot some slide film like Provia or E100 and get it drum scanned. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. And if that's not enough resolution, than i'd really like to know what you're shooting. You could even get an Epson V750 and bricks and bricks and bricks of transparency, CN, and B&W films and still not even be remotely close to the price of a digital back, medium format or scanning.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 19, 2011)

Ok, it's been a few days and I thought I would update this thread as I am quite happy with the way things are going.

So, first, let me say that after crunching the numbers we did decide that what is available in terms of digital backs at this time for the format I am talking about is 1/ extremely expensive and 2/ not very good at all (at least not for what I want if for anything) and that in spite of having a potential customer for the end result, it makes no sense financially.

So #2, being a strong believer that a few brains together will come up with better solutions than one brain alone, I gathered a few friends for some serious brainstorming. Of course I had a basic idea on my mind...

A couple software writers, a couple engineers, a couple other photogs, and the man to make it all happen, a guy who will make the parts out of metal and what-not (I know there is an actual term for him but I just can't think of it right now) and I sat down and discussed the possibility of using a Hasselblad back (because Hassy is what I shoot) mounted to a frame that will allow it to travel across the picture area and capture it all. Those images would then get stitched together with the specially created software resulting in a mega size image worthy of an 8x10 neg.

Now, one of the photogs that I invited is the best selling french photog today. He creates humongous images out of hundreds of single shots and was therefore very interested in what I was thinking about, lol. I've mentioned him before but if you don't remember I'll be happy to post another link. Anyway, he was not happy because what I want to do will not work for him very well.

Too darn slow. My idea will only work with subjects that will not move at all for a few minutes 

Still, for what I want to do with it, it could be incredible. And one of the reasons I'm telling you about it is: brainstorming. Yes, money could be made from the idea (if it works) but I would rather get some input from people in the field and let everyone have a go at it. Kind of like open source software (or whatever it is called.)

Yes, if we come up with a design that does work, we will try and sell it but, investors beware, the buying base for that product is extremely limited. Just a few nuts like me.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think. Ask for details or what not if I didn't express myself crearly enough, etc.

Thanks.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> (I know there is an actual term for him but I just can't think of it right now)


Machinist?

It sounds interesting.  Keep us posted...  Other than 'making stuff', I don't really have the technical knowledge to contribute in any way...


----------



## Helen B (Sep 19, 2011)

Stitching backs already exist. There are a few manufacturers at different price points. I have an anonymous Chinese one to mount my D3 on the back of my Sinar P2. Here's a better one.


----------



## ann (Sep 19, 2011)

You are now out of my "league"


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 19, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Machinist?
> 
> It sounds interesting.  Keep us posted...  Other than 'making stuff', I don't really have the technical knowledge to contribute in any way...



Yes, machinist. Thanks Josh. I knew someone had more brains left than me.





ann said:


> You are now out of my "league"



Now, now, just a bit more crazy :lmao:





Helen B said:


> Stitching backs already exist. There are a few manufacturers at different price points. I have an anonymous Chinese one to mount my D3 on the back of my Sinar P2. Here's a better one.



This is for a 4x5 and I have found similar things if not that one. Did I miss the 8x10 version? Or am I not reading things correctly?


----------



## Crollo (Dec 19, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> film is expensive



Oh please, you're honestly asking about a _*8x10 digital back*_ and you have the denseness to complain about film costing money? A good _35mm_ sensor camera can run you up to 6 thousand, and you're talking about _*large format*_.


----------

