M8 as a poor man's MF back

[Woody Campbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been experimenting stitching M8 files--the idea is that it could be a light, compact alternative to an MF digital back for high resolution landscapes.

 

A Ix3 stich yields pixel dimentsions of roughly 22 megs; 2x3 yields 35-40 megs cropped to 4x5 aspect ratio; and 3x3 yields 40-45 megs.

 

I've posted for download sample files at 1x3 (taken with a 35 lux yielding a field of view equivalent to 24mm); 3x3 (taken with a 75 chron yielding a field of view equivalent to 28mm); and 2x3 (taken with a 75 chron yielding a field of view equivatlent to 28mm but cropped to a 4x5 aspect ratio). The 1x3 is handheld (this is actually quite easy), the others are on a tripod with a RRS pano setup.

 

Here's the link:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/woodrowcampbell/FileSharing39.html

 

This is what the 1x3 looks like

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

 

It was taken at sunset - the other two images were taken at sunrise the following day.

[davidada]

Really beautiful, these could make huge format prints!

[ChrisC]

WOODY - Everyone's down the pub so I'll take this opportunity to reply. I really want to home in on the central strip and open it up like one of Art Sinsabaugh's panoramas, I think it could be gorgeous. Just a thought. And Happy Christmas to you for getting me thinking about photographs instead of retched imaging problems.

 

................Chris

[audidudi]

then I believe the Digilux 3 (or its Japanese twin, the Panasonic DMC-L1) is a better choice, despite its ~30% smaller file size and higher cropping factor, because its "Live View" feature allows you to compose and focus using the LCD monitor as a miniature ground-glass instead of being forced to use the M8's tiny-by-comparison viewfinder.

 

In fact, I'm in the process of having an adapter machined that will allow me to mount my L1 body on my Toyo 23G view camera. After shooting with an 8x10 for the past few years, it'll be an interesting experience to use such a small "ground glass" again, but if it works, I won't have to pay $350+ per box of film and $60+ each for scans ever again!