The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sinar P3 DF - Adapting Small/Medium Format Cameras and lenses

francescoprovino

New member
I just got a pristine Sinar P3 DF with perfect bellows and movements for a steal for experimenting with movements with digital sensors, and I'm looking to use it for still life and peculiar portraits, mainly with big strobes (Broncolor team here).
I'm trying to stay as cheap as possible and work mainly with what I have already, that is
  • 2x Nikon D800 bodies
  • 1x Mamiya RZ 90mm f3.5

I see that I have two alternatives for lenses:
  1. Buy a new (nonexistent in used market) Sinar P3 to Novoflex Balpro adapter and a Balpro to Mamiya 67 ring and use the existing 90mm. This lens has the big advantage of being built for a big reflex box so I'll likely be able to use it with the D800. This has already been quoted by Sinar ~500€.
  2. Sell the 90mm and go for the proper SK / Rodenstock route, maybe buying SK in old electronic shutter and repurpose it with aperture mount only. This could be cheaper in the long run.
I also have different possibilities for adapting a body:
  1. Buy a chinese bellow mount for F-bayonet to P3 standard and hope that this will let me use a decent movement range
  2. Sell my Zeiss Milvus, sell the one of the D800 (I'm using one as studio-only camera), buy a used Fuji GFX 100 (~3k€) and the Sinar/Novoflex made Q-mount Fuji GFX to P3 adapter, already quoted by Sinar for ~1.5k€
I feel a little lost even if I've read tons of posts here on GetDPI (I've been a lurker for years) and an indefinite amount of blog posts/articles/other forums online… do you have any practical, real-world suggestions?


OR I can sell the P3 DF, buy a regular Sinar P2 for ~500€ (I already have eyed one), spend maybe 2k€ in 5 years for 4x5 film / processing / scanning (I can do BW development and low-res scanning at my photo club for almost free, anyway) and dump all that difficult-and-very-costly-to-adapt digital stuff for technical photography, and live in the hope of film photography renaissance :D




IMG_3614.jpg
 

MartinN

Well-known member
I collected Copal 0 Sinar lens boards and attached several Copal 0 LF lenses. Easy way, and I would certainly not bother with any Sinar mount lenses withhout shutters and the Sinar contraptions for Sinar shutters and diaphragm systems. Easy and very lightweight for my Sinar F.
 

MartinN

Well-known member
BTW that looks like a nice Sinar but can it be used without any electronics, purely mechanical and a sync from Copal 0 ?
 

MartinN

Well-known member
Keep in mind it’s not worth making too much effort with digital Sinar, then people would suggest Arca , Techno or similar dedicated digital solutions. You may not like the ’almost’ digital solution.
 

MartinN

Well-known member
And, at the end of the day Ultra fine grained Rollei Ortho 4x5 is the best ’sensor’ for full size Sinars.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
That Sinar P3 can be used with copal shutters certainly. What you see is the electronic contacts in the rear frame (they're also in the front frame) and also the bellows has pass through electronic cabling (this was an option for the P3). But these simply are inactive if using a copal shutter. But if you're mounting a Nikon, you just use the camera as the shutter anyway (focal plane shutter).

One suggestion - while it is not as robust and does not possess the full range of movements that the P3 does, a Cambo Actus B Mini could be an option. New pricing is around $2,200 all in, with the Nikon adapter. You could sell the P3 and cover a lot of that cost. You'd just then need a lens board (copal boards start around $174). That way, you'd have a more flexible foundation for adding various bodies or lenses to the system as you see fit.

So - a lot depends on how you would intend to use the view camera. If you need expansive movements, the P3, while large and bulky, in a studio could be a fine choice if you come up with all the right parts and pieces. My sense is that doing so can be tricky, perhaps not all that economical, and you may end up painting yourself into a corner that would be easier to navigate with the very affordable Actus.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

francescoprovino

New member
Thank you both for your answers. I'm fully aware I can use it with copal / aperture mount and I have no intentions of going with the legacy Sinar electronic system… I bought the P3 as I was thinking of it as a foundation for adapting digital backs/cameras to generic MF/LF lenses, of course with extensive movements and an eye on future-proofing my purchases with a modular systems… it seems like this is just partially true as adapting GFX o Nikon F and even P1 backs is not trivial nor cheap, and the same holds for lenses apart from the copal plates.
 

francescoprovino

New member
My take was that the P3 can be seen as an Actus MV regarding movements range but without the price tag (it's very rare to find the Actus used), even if adapting stuff can be more complex
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
The problem you can't get around with your Sinar and a mirrorless camera (any) is that if you need wider angles you're going to be limited to retrofocus lenses unless with a bag bellows the standards will come close enough together to allow for use of some of the wider symmetrical technical lenses. Mamiya RZ lenses are a good choice because there are plenty of excellent performers in the lineup, and the flange distance is long, but the widest option is the 50mm ULD. Have you figured out yet whether you can use Mamiya RZ -- taking into account the key variables?
  • How close together can you bring the standards with the pleated bellows and the bag bellows?
  • Can you use a recessed lens board, and if so how deeply recessed can it be, and how much do you give up for a mount for RZ lenses?
  • How are you getting a camera on the back end? If you need a custom mount, how long does it have to be to accommodate the grip?
Setting up your Sinar will involve solving all the problems I had to solve to get a Toyo VX23D running. https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Toyo-VX23D-and-Fuji-GFX-50R The Toyo is also a full on view camera design with pleated bellows. I wrote detailed notes for others to follow that path; the information in those notes may answer many of the questions you have to answer for your Sinar.

If you're willing to do some custom work, or have it done, you can build the bits and pieces you need. For example, I built a camera board for my old Toyo VX23D that I used with a GFX 50R. I made the board out of carbon fibre and used a custom mount I designed and RAF Camera built for me. If you go with GFX at some point you're welcome to have the mechanical drawings so Raf can make one for you that you or someone else can fit onto a board for your Sinar.

Importantly, the problem of symmetrical wide angle lenses does not go away with a Cambo Actus or Arca-Swiss F-Universalis or Pico using mirrorless bodies. The big win for these bodies, in addition to their being smaller, lighter and much more straightforward, is that they solved the problem of mounting mirrorless cameras.
 

daz7

Active member
Sinar P2 and P3 are almost identical and in everyday usage it is really is a coinflip of which one to use. In theory DF version of gearing in P3 gives a bit of more precision but really well serviced P2 with brand new gears will still beat most of the used P3s. THe strenght of P3 comes from its complete integration with CMV lenses (magnetic-electronic) and that works amazingly well with all Sinarbacks for vibration-free multishots. In P2 you can still use CMV lenses but you need to draw additional cables. Also, P3 is a bit smaller which can be a drawback if you need a lot of movements in the vertical axis. That is why I have both - Sinar P3 for most of the cases and P2 for rare cases when extra 2cm of vertical movements are called for.
For your inteneded usage, I would say that a P2 would work same or maybe even better, as it should be much easier to mount a third party camera or lenses - adapters are widely available. Regardless which one you choose, the use of rear-mounted camera instead of the proper digital back will limit you a lot - optical axis will be well off, so you will not be able to use an ingenious Sinar's quick focusing mathod for Shempflug focusing, and extra distance to the sensor will limit you to longer lenses only. It may turn out that your 90mm lens mounted on adapters with a camera in the back, will be the absolute minimum and will limit most of the movements as the adapters and camera will eat up 40 or 50mm.
 
Sinar P2 and P3 are almost identical and in everyday usage it is really is a coinflip of which one to use. In theory DF version of gearing in P3 gives a bit of more precision but really well serviced P2 with brand new gears will still beat most of the used P3s. THe strenght of P3 comes from its complete integration with CMV lenses (magnetic-electronic) and that works amazingly well with all Sinarbacks for vibration-free multishots. In P2 you can still use CMV lenses but you need to draw additional cables. Also, P3 is a bit smaller which can be a drawback if you need a lot of movements in the vertical axis. That is why I have both - Sinar P3 for most of the cases and P2 for rare cases when extra 2cm of vertical movements are called for.
For your inteneded usage, I would say that a P2 would work same or maybe even better, as it should be much easier to mount a third party camera or lenses - adapters are widely available. Regardless which one you choose, the use of rear-mounted camera instead of the proper digital back will limit you a lot - optical axis will be well off, so you will not be able to use an ingenious Sinar's quick focusing mathod for Shempflug focusing, and extra distance to the sensor will limit you to longer lenses only. It may turn out that your 90mm lens mounted on adapters with a camera in the back, will be the absolute minimum and will limit most of the movements as the adapters and camera will eat up 40 or 50mm.
Even using a digital back the swing axis is especially off axis with the P2. Tilt is relatively easy as the axis is more or less the same but because the centre of the back is so far outside the axis (because of the asymmetric tilt/swing) doing swings is very difficult. The P2 has indicator lines on the ground glass and a particular methodology for using them when focusing using tilt/swing (the ingenious system that daz7 has mentioned). With the P2 the DB is centred in the back standard which takes it outside of the area where the indicator line is located so it's useless. using the 'focus on the far and tilt to the near' (in iteration) technique — which is not exactly how the SINAR asymmetric focusing system works — is easy with tilts, but with swings the focus/swing point moves wildly out of the frame. With a smaller sensor it would be even worse. The P3 was designed for the smaller format so you won't have this issue.

At one point I used a GFX with my P2 on a custom made adapter and another issue that comes up is the parallelism of the adapter. And as daz7 says, the widest lens I was able to use was a Rodenstock 55mm digital lens with very tight clearance, no tilt/swing, but because of the connection to the camera bayonet and mirror box there were a lot of issues with internal reflections and veiling flare which I don't have with a digital back. Longer lenses weren't an issue but I still had to use a wide angle bellows most of the time.

I replaced the rack in my P2 when the old one wore out so my focusing is tight and smooth with no backlash and it is OK for focusing but could be finer (IQ4-150, often needs a bit of back and forward to hit the right spot). I haven't tried the DF to compare.

The next issue with an old P/2 is how well serviced it is. There are a lot of links in the chain that can go out of parallel (in both x/y) and servicing one is pretty difficult without the SINAR servicing contraption. I've done mine and got the standards relatively parallel with a technique I worked out myself and a dial gauge indicator, but it's tricky, time consuming and ultimately error prone. I also need a more precise dial gauge since mine is only accurate to 0.01, so that means when it's dead on it can still be more than 10 microns out across the standard (I can't remember what the tolerance for the dial gauge is, but probably +-5 microns). What I am getting at is you could find a nice looking P2 and it could be way out of parallel.

It's cheaper and easier to find blank or Copal P/2 sized boards by the way, but they are not all created equal.
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
Even using a digital back the swing axis is especially off axis with the P2. Tilt is relatively easy as the axis is more or less the same but because the centre of the back is so far outside the axis (because of the asymmetric tilt/swing) doing swings is very difficult. The P2 has indicator lines on the ground glass and a particular methodology for using them when focusing using tilt/swing (the ingenious system that daz7 has mentioned). With the P2 the DB is centred in the back standard which takes it outside of the area where the indicator line is located so it's useless. using the 'focus on the far and tilt to the near' (in iteration) technique — which is not exactly how the SINAR asymmetric focusing system works — is easy with tilts, but with swings the focus/swing point moves wildly out of the frame. With a smaller sensor it would be even worse. The P3 was designed for the smaller format so you won't have this issue.

At one point I used a GFX with my P2 on a custom made adapter and another issue that comes up is the parallelism of the adapter. And as daz7 says, the widest lens I was able to use was a Rodenstock 55mm digital lens with very tight clearance, no tilt/swing, but because of the connection to the camera bayonet and mirror box there were a lot of issues with internal reflections and veiling flare which I don't have with a digital back. Longer lenses weren't an issue but I still had to use a wide angle bellows most of the time.

I replaced the rack in my P2 when the old one wore out so my focusing is tight and smooth with no backlash and it is OK for focusing but could be finer (IQ4-150, often needs a bit of back and forward to hit the right spot). I haven't tried the DF to compare.

The next issue with an old P/2 is how well serviced it is. There are a lot of links in the chain that can go out of parallel (in both x/y) and servicing one is pretty difficult without the SINAR servicing contraption. I've done mine and got the standards relatively parallel with a technique I worked out myself and a dial gauge indicator, but it's tricky, time consuming and ultimately error prone. I also need a more precise dial gauge since mine is only accurate to 0.01, so that means when it's dead on it can still be more than 10 microns out across the standard (I can't remember what the tolerance for the dial gauge is, but probably +-5 microns). What I am getting at is you could find a nice looking P2 and it could be way out of parallel.

It's cheaper and easier to find blank or Copal P/2 sized boards by the way, but they are not all created equal.
Ultimately this is why I gave up on my Toyo VX23D as a platform. When the Sakai Machine Tools company went belly up, they left behind no service manuals that I was ever able to find. I figured out how to get swing more or less parallel, but it was still wildly off. I could never puzzle out how to correct tilt if it went off.

There's a reason modern digital view cameras from Cambo and Arca-Swiss put tilt and swing only on the front standard. You dramatically reduce misalignment errors (assuming your rear standard is perfectly perpendicular to the rail, which mine wasn't on my F-Univeralis). Film is forgiving of alignment errors, but digital is merciless.

Having said all that, I replaced my Toyo with a camera I built and you can believe it was not in proper alignment. However, I knew I couldn't use it for flat stitching panoramas, so I didn't even try. I used it like I used my old 4x5 field camera, in other words, assume it's out of alignment and check everywhere in the frame to make sure what you want in focus is in focus.
 

francescoprovino

New member
Thank you all for the ton of useful information.

My understanding is that will be a lot easier to skip the body adaptation altogether and go for a used P1 back. There are a lot of details I wasn't aware of honestly… and maybe I could be even better served by GFX with Fuji T/S lenses, skipping the tech camera altogether. It's sad but it looks like getting the P3 right with adapters it's like going down on a rabbit hole of complexity, and I won't have any real advantage sticking with it other that the body sturdiness.

Maybe something I could do is to pause this project for a while an wait for IQ5 to go out, which could hopefully bring down IQ3 prices (I want live view for focusing)…
 

Alkibiades

Well-known member
Your problem is that you have with the p3 already a "porsche" of the technical cameras, but for your needs a small and easy to drive "WV" or "Fiat" would be the better choice.
The last version of the P3 is the most stable camera for high end digital photography that allows you precision, stability and absolut freedom of movements that no other system do.
I know all other systems very well and own most of them, i know what i say.
But the disadvantge of the sinar system is the size and weight.
other modern systems like cambo Actus or arca are very small, very light, esspecially actus has an atractive price for the camera and components...
Sinar P3 is great for professionals who need this stability, movements possibilities ...
For people who what to start with movements, experiment a bit, also do some work outside the Actus will be much better choice.
But you need the G- version for fuji GFX , hasselblad or backs ( afcourse you can use sony, nikon... with g also) so dont go for mini if you want to use different system in the future, also the g has finer movements at rear standart, where mini is very primitive.
Such system will be even cheaper than fuji TS lenses.
 

francescoprovino

New member
@Alkibiades that was my understanding, it just seems like it’s very hard to use it with anything apart from Phase One backs. I bought that as a long-term building block for technical photography but I wasn’t expecting it being so difficult to adapt. Maybe I just have to be patient and wait for a reasonable priced P1 IQ back, it’s my understanding that this will solve almost all the issues mentioned in the thread. In the meantime I can also search some SK / rodenstock digital lenses, ai have already eyed Sinaron 60 and 100 F4 (picture attached) that should be plug-and-play (shutter aside)… they are about 400€ right now so I can sell the Mamiya 90 and start building the platform while searching for a P1 back.
 

Attachments

Alkibiades

Well-known member
phase one backs with 50 MP are really cheap now. there is no a big difference to 100MP.
Phase one with rodenstock-schneider lenses: you have the possibilities to use wide angle lenses also.
for use Nikon kameras on Sinar p3 you get also cheap china adapters for about 170 euro. there are good enough for product and close up photography. the price of 400 euro for good modern rodenstock optic is too cheap...
 

jng

Well-known member
Is there a specific reason why you'd require a Phase One IQ3 back vs, say, a (much less expensive) Hasselblad CFV100c or CFV50c digital back? Same sensor size as Fuji GFX without any flange distance limitations. As long as you can sync to a Copal shutter, you should be fine with flash (but unable to use Capture One for editing - wasn't clear whether this would be an issue for you).

John

John
 
Top