VPAN 6x17cm Panoramic View Camera
Photo Courtesy of Jeffrey Rogers
Visit Jeffrey's Web Site at http://www.jeffrogers.com
Medium Format Photography
Using View
Cameras and Roll-Film Backs
by Robert Monaghan
Medium Format Photography
Using View
Cameras and Roll-Film Backs
by Robert Monaghan
Related Links:
Roll-film Backs
Panoramic Medium Format Cameras
View
Cameras of 6x9cm Formats (G. Hugh Song)
Bronica Shift Lens Adapter
Related Links:
Filmholders
(Paul Butzi)
Topica Big Neg Large Format
Newsgroup
Q: Describe View Camera MF options
View cameras can usually take a wide variety of medium format roll-film
backs. You can also take sheet film and cut it down to almost any desired
medium format size. As noted above, this approach is potentially very
cost effective for panoramic photography. You can even use some of the
relatively mobile press cameras with wide angle lenses and various backs
to achieve an inexpensive panoramic effect.
View cameras can be purchased for $150 US and up, although a
shutter-mounted lens will often cost quite a bit more than this. But for
$500 US, many view camera setups can be purchased on the used market,
along with a wide variety of lenses.
Most view camera owners have only a few lenses, but enjoy great
flexibility nonetheless. For example, an inexpensive process lens can be
used for closeup photography on a view camera as well as portraits. View
camera movements using tilts and shifts provides great control over
images. Doing architectural photography with either 35mm PC lenses or the
rare tilt and shift bellows mount on a MF camera may be more costly and
much less flexible and effective. In short, there are times when it is
better to buy a view camera and use its strengths, rather than go MF.
One interesting 6x17cm view camera is built by Chet Hanchett of St. Louis
MO. and known as the V-Pan
6x17 Panoramic View Camera. While the 6x17cm format fits within our MF
range, the camera is clearly a view camera, so large format also
merges into MF.
| Model | Type | Formats | Films | Depth | Price $US |
| Cambo | slide-in | 6x4.5 | 120/220 | 4.95mm | $350 |
| Cambo | slide-in | 6x7, 6x9 | 120/220 | 4.95mm | $325 |
| Cambo | slide-in | 6x12 | 120/220 | 4.95mm | $640 |
| Horseman | clip-on | 6x7,6x9 | 120 | 4.95mm | $325 |
| Horseman | clip-on | 6x7, 6x9 | 220 | 4.95mm | $325 |
| Horseman | clip-on | 6x12 | 120 | 4.95mm | $610 |
| Linhof S-Rollex | clip-on | 6x7,6x9 | 120 | 4.85mm | $900 |
| Linhof Rapid Rollex | slide-in | 6x7 | 120 | 4.85mm | $583 |
| Linhof Techno-Rollex | clip-on | 6x12 | 120/220* | 4.85mm | $1,435 |
| Sinar Zoom | slide-in | 6x4.5 to 6x12 | 120/220 | 4.85mm | $1,475 |
| Sinar standard | slide-in | 6x7, 6x9 | 120/220 | 4.85mm | $995 |
| Toyo | clip-on | 6x7,6x9 | 120 | 5.05mm | $360 |
| Wista | clip-on | 6x7, 6x9 | 120 | 5.10mm | $280 |
| Wista Type DX** | slide-in | 6x7, 6x9 | 120 | 5.10mm | $280 |
The above table is derived from an article by John Bethell titled
"Flexible Friend" in the Marketing Survey insert of the British
Journal of Photography (p.22, 2000). The key point Mr. Bethell makes is
that the observed film depths vary between brands, which could cause
problems in any limited depth of focus situations. For example, if you use
the popular Fidelity film holders (Depth 5.10mm) with the Linhof rollfilm
backs (film depth 4.85mm) then you can expect one or the other or both to
be misaligned by some small but potentially troubling amount up to
1/4th of a millimeter or 250 microns.
The prices are converted to U.S. dollar equivalents, but may be different
in the U.S. marketplace due to various factors. Note particularly the
recent Linhof price drops (up to 1/3rd!!) which may impact not only new
but also used prices.
Unfortunately, in light of recent Zeiss publications on film flatness, the majority of rollfilm holders
don't work with 220 film, which has potentially improved film
flatness. Similarly, some holders with film paths similar to the
Hasselblad backs (e.g., clip-on) may also be less flat than the slide-in
versions with straighter film paths, but again, this hypothesis would have
to be tested. The variation in prices, especially for the 6x12cm panoramic
backs, is also noteworthy!
Note: Camera Collector column on p. 24 of January, 1982 Modern Photography
describes the Kennedy K.I. Monobar camera, which is a 35mm (!) monorail and mini-view
camera. From Kennedy Instruments, Ltd. of 12A Weir Rd., Baltham (London) SW12.
Sample View Camera Ad:
rom: Ed Romney eromney@edromney.com
[1] FS 4 x5 View Camera w/lens $135
Date: Sun Feb 15 16:57:26 CST 1998
4 x 5 Nu Vue metal view camera. American made, about 1950... amateur owned, seldom used. full front and back movements, rack and pinion focus. quality camera red bellows in excellent shape, light tight, has clean clear Kodak Anastigmat F4.5 , 5 1/2 in lens in Compur Shutter. Camera some chips on grey paint , not new by any means but very sound. About ten inch bellows extension. Needs extension track tubes for more extension. These can be made easily, are simply 5/8 tubing. Only $135. Few usable view cameras with lens ever sold at this price, 10DMBG . Ed Romney, Box 487 Drayton SC 29333 Phone 864-597-1882. visa MC OK. $20 shipp US, $60 overseas by air.
From: Ravi Kappel ravi.kappel@home.se
Subject: Response to View Cameras
Date: 1998-04-27
I really recommend a look at the linhof cameras if you want a real good MF view camera. (www.linhof.net). If price isn't an issue, get a linhof Technikardan 23S. It can do anything a view camera can do. Lenses from 47mm to 360mm are usable. A better and more portable view camera just isn't possible to find. That's why they charge almost $4000 for only the camera body. If your budget is limited, get a used Technika. You could probably find a nice body, lens and roll film holder for approx. $1000. It is a very robust and reliable camera. It doesn't have all the tilts and swings you might ask for, but I believe that the newer Technikas are better than the old ones.
If you're gonna use the tilts and swings a lot, you'd better get a right angle reflex viewfinder. It makes work a lot easier.
When buying large format lenses, don't buy anything that doesn't come from Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock or Schneider. For photographing buildings on 2 1/4"x 3 1/4" you will probably want to have a 65mm lens as your wideangle choice, or perhaps even shorter. I can't tell whether a 90mm or a 105mm will serve you better as a normal lens.
I used to have an old Technika and a Schneider 65mm:6.8 from the
mid-sixties.
To my dissapointment, I don't get sharper images from my Mamiya 6 with
its 50mm
lens. The larger image size of the Technika outweighs that the lenses are
slightly less sharp.
To add to the good advice above, a few years ago I missed buying a nice
Galvin
2x3 monorail outfit by about a week and have always regretted it. If you can
find a used Galvin with a lens or two and a roll-film back, you will be a
happy
camper (or architectural photographer, as the case may be). It may be the
perfect view camera for the serious amateur photographer who cannot
afford $5
an image for 4x5 chromes.
From: Randolph Carlisle omegaman@shentel.net
Subject: Response to View Cameras
Date: 1998-04-27
Jarrell:
Your question concerning medium format view cameras seems to have attracted
considerable interest. Just to clarify my original response, I own and
regularly use a Linhof Super Technika 4x5. The build quality of the 23
Linhof
ST is the equal of the 4x5 as I am sure is the 23 view. I have owned and
used
the Galvin 23 - a camera that was recommended by another post. While it
is not
as expensively made as Linhof, it would certainly do anything the Linhof 23
would do when the Linhof was used strictly as a view camera. A used
Galvin is
a good choice if you are committed to 23 format. The real problem that I
found
when comparing 4x5 to 2x3 was the size of the groundglass view one gets.
When you put your loupe inside to focus, or when you make movements, you
just can't
see as well as you can with the larger groundglass.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New to MF - help me select?
From: jalbert@nyx.nyx.net (Joseph Albert)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998
Anne Canfield Xanneca@microsoft.com wrote:
>I'm exclusively a 35mm user but I'd like to add MF to my selection. My >primary use would be for landscape photography and some macro. My biggest >question is what size MF to go with. So far I'm considering the Mamiya >645, the Hasselblad 503 and the Pentax 67. I'm very open to other >suggestions. Is there that much difference between 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7? >I doubt that I'll enlarge beyond 16x20 and intend to shoot >transparencies
For up to 16x20, 645, 6x6, and 6x7 are all adequate, but you have to use
a more careful technique with the smaller of the two formats to get
crisp 16x20's.
What camera you would want to use depends on how much you are willing
to spend, and how much convenience you are willing to give up.
The best types of cameras for landscape work are ones that support
perspective control so that you can control depth of field better
and shoot at less diffraction-limited apertures, yielding sharper results.
With 6x7, you will find yourself stopping down to f/32 to get enough
depth of field in a landscape, but with front or rear tilt, you can
normally gain about 2 stops worth of DOF and shoot at f/16. There is
a rule of thumb that diffraction limits resolution to about 1600/f
line pairs per mm, where f is the f-stop used (and it is largely
independent of focal length). At f/32, this limit is about 50lp/mm
and at f/16 it is about 100lp/mm. That is not to say that you will
achieve 100 lp/mm at f/16, but at f/32 there is no chance of it.
There are different options for cameras that support tilt and swing
movements. Of course, most of these are large format view and field
cameras, but there are some options in medium format. There are some
expensive 6x9 field cameras made by Horseman and Linhof, the Hasselblad
Flex body or Arc Body (both of these are also expensive) are 6x6 cameras
supporting rear tilt. There are also some 6x9 view cameras, an expensive
one from Arca-Swiss, and an inexpensive one from Cambo. But the most cost
effective solution is one of the older Mamiya Press cameras. Models with
rear tilt are: Press Deluxe, Super 23, both of which use Mamiya backs, and
Press G, Super G, both of which have Graflok backs that take standard
Graflok rollbacks. I've heard mixed reviews about which back is
preferable-- some peopel say the Mamiya backs hold the film flatter, but
I'm inclined to believe that either back arrangement will work well in
that I've obtained excellent results with the Mamiya backs, and know of
some other folks who have done the same with the Graflok backs (with lever
wind graflok backs).
The Super models are bigger, heavier, but also have a superior viewfinder
when rangefinder focus is used, and a re-inforced lens mount capable
of mounting the massive 250/5 lens (use of the 250/5 is not recommended
on the Press Deluxe or Press G). On the other hand, for landscape work,
you will be focusing on the ground glass and so the lighter weight
Press Deluxe or Press G are probably better to hike around with.
Some people advertise these models as Press 23 models.
The downside to these cameras is that they are not fast to setup and use
and have no interlocks. You can shoot blanks, fog the film, or shoot
double exposures if you aren't careful and methodical. But on the other
hand, they have an astonishing amount of capabilities in a simple package.
You can use rear tilt and swings for architecture work to straighten
converging lines or move the plane of focus to be parallel to important
planes on buildings, and the rear tilt is very useful for landscapes as
stated above. Best of all, these cameras are not expensive-- a
Press Deluxe with 1 back and 90mm lens is under $300 and even much
less than that if you shop around long enough for one. The 100/3.5
lenses have retractable mounts needed to use rear tilt and swing controls,
and some of the 90/3.5's have the retractable mounts, whereas others
do not.
For macro work, rear tilt is also useful as depth of field is in such
short supply in macro situations. That said, I personally think macro
work is much easier to do in 35mm. In medium format, you will end up
with a much darker image to try to focus for two reasons: first, the
lenses will have a smaller max. aperture; second, bellows factor
corrections are normally higher for the same shot. If an image of
some subject has adequate size in a 35mm frame at 1:2 magnification,
you will be past 1:1 in 6x7 or 6x9 to fill the same portion of the
frame with the subject-- with a bigger format, you are working at
higher magnification to fill a given fraction of the frame with an
element of an image. But if you are willing to go to the trouble,
you need a medium or large format to get really crisp macro shots
enlarged to 16x20 or beyond. And at these magnifications, any sort of
wind or vibrations becomes a nightmare. It is very tedious work, but
the results can be worth it. I use 35mm for macro work, particularly flower
photography, and medium format for almost everything else I do.
happy shooting,
Joseph Albert
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998
From: RA Friedman silverpt@erols.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: RE: National Graflex Series II
Robert:
Actually, the camera takes 10 shots 6 x 7 cm. Even more modern!
Best,
RAF
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: kd9fb@xnet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Subject: Re: How to start in Large?
Date: Sun Nov 08 04:07:55 CST 1998
On 8 Nov 1998 07:29:28 GMT, artp7049@leonis.nus.edu.sg (Lee Siew Ping Evelyn)
wrote:
>Can anyone advise what is a good 4x5 camera to get started in large >format? > >Can I get anything for US$100 ?
Yes, as a matter of fact you can. You can get a Crown or Speed Graphic
for less
than that, http://members.xoom.com/ambrotype/sg/ and use it. You might also
keep an eye out for a Burke & James press camera. Many of them go for under
$100. The down side of this approach is that you will have very little
in the
way of movements. You might want to consider building your own camera,
http://home.sol.no/~gjon/lffaq.htm . Bender makes a kit,
http://www.benderphoto.com/ .
However, the cost of LF is not just the camera. At the bare minimum you will
need:
1.) Camera 2.) Lens 3.) Film holders 4.) Shutter Release 5.) Tripod 6.) Light meter 7.) Ground Glass Magnifier 8.) Dark Cloth 9.) Changing Bag 10.) Something to carry it all in
You can pick up a Crown or Speed Graphic or Burke&James; for under $100.
An older lens can be had for $50 to $100. Just make sure the lens is
free of
fungus and scratches.
Film Holders cost about $8-$12 used, you will want at least 5.
If you get a Graphic, a fairly light tripod will do.
For the light meter, you can use your 35mm.
The magnifier can be anything you can find at first.
For the dark cloth, you could use a towel or a sweat shirt.
The changing bag is about $20.
For more info about the Graphics try: www.graflex.org
They also have some links to dealers there.
On the other hand, you could always build a large format pinhole camera
http://laplaza.org/~pinhole/ (follow the links). They are fun, and easy
to use.
Plus they won't brake you back or your wallet.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Subject: Re: How to start in Large?
Date: Sun Nov 08 06:55:58 CST 1998
Lee Siew Ping Evelyn wrote:
> Hi > > Can anyone advise what is a good 4x5 camera to get started in large > format?
There are lots of cameras that would be good to start with. I started
with a Calumet CC-400 monorail (shown in Ansel Adams' book, "The
Camera") that cost $129.95 new (in 1974) if I remember correctly. Of
course, I needed a light meter, film holders, lenses, a tripod, etc.,
so it really cost a little less than $1000 by the time I was done.
Though discontinued, you can still get these for $250 or less,
depending on who is selling it and what condition it is in. They are
pretty tough. They are of monorail design that I do not find ideal (to
say the least) for field work, but work just fine at home or if you
are not far from wheeled transportation.
If you want to spend $1500 or more, and want a field camera, I would
favor the cameras made by Ron Wisner, though there are now a lot of
other fine field cameras available, too, that others may suggest.
Wisner cameras are sometimes available used, though owners of these
tend to keep them.
> Can I get anything for US$100 ?
You will have to look around to find used cameras at this price that
are not in bad condition. It can be done. If I were looking for used
equipment (this is a personal matter), I would go to Lens and Repro
Equipment Corp. in NYC because it is relatively near me and I have
been dealing with them for over 20 years with complete satisfaction.
When buying used equipment, it is important to have a reliable dealer.
--
What is the difference between Windows and an Etch-a-Sketch?
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
From: Scott Knudsen s.knudsen@sk.sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to start in Large?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998
First of all read and memorize this site
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/index.html and second
of all remeber you have to pratically plan your shots ahead of time and
hope the light cooperates because it takes about 5 minutes to set up and
the light can change lots in that time and forget about wildlife posing
for you! Also for lots of Information if you live in the US call Dells
Camera 805-962-7557 or F-Stops here and in Canada call Alt Camera
(Brian)in Toronto ON and they are all full of great information. The
bigger places like Adorama will only help you if they have it in stock
and they are always to busy anyways. Lots of good deals in Shutterbug
magazine and also on the internet
http://www.worldphoto.com/Worldphoto_Free_Classified/Welcome.html http://classifieds.photo.net/gc/domain-top.tcl?domain=photo.net http://www.mindspring.com/~todcam/eqmnmenu.htm http://www.hawk.igs.net/~gmartel/ucso.htm http://www.photoshopper.com/ http://www.classiccamera.com/index.html http://www.pictureperfectphoto.com/large.htm http://www.midwestphotoshopper.com/ http://www.photovillage.com/shop/index.html http://www.cameraclub.com/
I just got started this year and its actually fun and easy, I use fuji
quickloads to keep it even easier! It is an expensive hobby though so if
Medium Formal http://www.photo.net/photo/index.html will do then stick
with it.
Good luck
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: paguy23207@aol.com (PAGuy23207)
[1] Re: medium format w/movements
Date: Mon Feb 08 03:28:31 CST 1999
It depends on how much money you want to spend. If you are on a budget, it's
hard to beat a 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 Century Graphic. It's a plastic bodied field
camera that features decent movements and commonly available accessories.
You can get 6x7cm and 6x9cm backs for it. I've seen 6x6cm backs for them too,
but I dont know if it fits the 2-1/4 x 3-1/4.
This camera is usually found with a lens and a rollfilm back. Try to stay
away from triplet lenses, they came with this camera, instead look for
Tessar-types, i.e. - Graflex Optar 101 mm or Kodak Ektar 101 mm f/4.5, of
course you can use any lens that you want.
You can also use lenses from the Graflex XL, the 100mm Zeiss Tessar and
80mm Zeiss Planar. What's also neat is you can use wide angle lenses down
to 47mm which is pretty decent. I think the bellows draw allows for about
a 150mm lens maximum.
Another cool feature is that the Graflok back is molded into the case, you
don't have to buy it separate, they all have it.
Well, good luck and good shooting.
From: Kerry Thalmann K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: medium format w/movements
Date: 29 Jan 1999
> see.signature@bottom.com (Steve Dubinsky) wrote: > > > can anyone point me towards medium format cameras w/tilt, shift and/or > > swing movements which might be useful for shooting architectural work? > > There are several medium-format view cameras, as well as MF cameras with > more limited movements. Your objection regarding the cumbersomness of the > large format cameras would probably hold for the medium-format view > cameras as well, because the later only differ from the first by a few > pounds: they are both complex to operate compared to the limited MF > cameras. Since you say that movements are what you really need, try both! > Rent (if you can) a good 4x5 and a good medium-format view. Setting up > either is a similar affair, but once done, you might as well have the > wonderful realestate of the 4x5. I'll bet that you opt for the later.
John makes some very good points. I would just like to add that the
other advantage of a medium format view camera is the convenience and
cost savings of using roll film. You don't have to clean and load
holders (dust on the film is a contant battle for large format shooters
who don't use the more expensive Readyload or Quickload films), and you
can carry a lot more film in less space. Depending on where you are
going, the weight savings can be significant. Twenty sheets of 4x5 film
and holders weighs about two pounds (Quickloads weigh in at a little
under one pound for 20 sheets, but add in 3/4 lb. for the holder).
Twenty exposures (6x7) on a single roll of 220 weigh less than an
ounce. So, if you shoot a lot of film, the difference can add up
quickly. Then there is the cost. Sheet film and processing is
expensive (using Quickloads, total cost for E6 film and processing runs
me a little under $4.00 per exposure - 6x7 runs about $.70 per
exposure).
Still, I must agree about what John says about the real estate advantage
of 4x5. A 4x5 transparency wins the battle of the lightbox, hands
down. I am glad that all my best work to date has been shot on 4x5. In
addition to John's suggestion about renting a 4x5, rent a roll film back
to go with it. Roll film backs for 4x5 cameras come in 645, 66, 67, 69
and 612. Combine this with the ability to shoot 4x5 sheet film and you
have a very versatile system where you can match your film format to
your subject and desired results. Also, in many instances, 4x5 cameras
weigh only slightly more and cost only slightly more (in some cases LESS
than their 2x3 brethren). The Arca Swiss F Line is a great system. If
you want to shoot architecture on location, the 4x5 F Line Field
combined with a roll film back may be just the ticket. It comes with a
wide angle bellows and relatively short rail. The beauty of the Arca
system is the cameras are completely modular, so you can configure them
anyway you like (from 2x3 - 8x10). Or, if you are really set on 2x3,
you could start with the 2x3 Arca but still leave open the possibility
to upgrade to 4x5 (by adding 4x5 back and bellows) in the future.
Good luck,
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Bob Salomon" bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice On Medium Format Mono-Rail Cameras Please
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999
Then you will be happy to know that the new Linhof Kardan M 45 monorail will
be less than $1000.00.
Not inexpensive but far less than the other Linhofs.
This will be an 18" geared rail camera with interchangeable bellows and full
rise/fall/swing/tilt (on axis) in front and back.
If, by chance you are a student in a degree granting U.S. college or an
instructor their or the school itself the camera will sell for $850.00 under
our educational discount plan.
--
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos,
Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro
Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000
[Ed. note: while not medium format views, these notes may be of interest
to some of the pano and really large format buyers on a budget...]
From: "Earl Fieldman" sg49@altavista.net
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: cheap 8x10
Heinrich Voelkel wrote
>I'm a photo student and i'm looking for a reasonable priced 8x10 field camera. > >Are there any beside the Deardoff?
If you consider the Deardorff a reasonbly priced field camera
for a photo student, you have many choices. Understand,
my comments do not reflect owning any 8x10 field camera
at all, rather a recent and ongoing investigation.
Deardorffs themselves sell for between $1000 and $2000
in very good condition, despite the beliefs of some that
they're worth more. 8x10 field cameras in general are
under "price stress", meaning that they're actually worth
less than most owners honestly believe. In that $1000 to
$2000 range you can find any brand of 8x10 field camera
ever made, including Wisner and Wista.
Generally, the newer the more valuable in such cameras,
The new ones just work better than the old ones. Excepting
some special early models, this is particularly true with
Deardorffs. The Wisner Technical Field camera as
compared to the Deardorff is (my opinion) just more
concise, and more usable, and costs no more used
than the finest Deardorff.
More mysterious to me since I'm still gathering data
on them are the under $1000 but not antique cameras.
Aluminum Kodak's from the '50s, maybe some others. You
will encounter of course the Burke & James 8x10 field
camera, which lacks a few finer things in life, but is
surely the most bang for the buck at $325 to $400.
Many photographers have "moved through" this
camera. Perhaps even more importantly, far
more have owned that B&J; as their first and
last 8x10, since most people eventually move
on from 8x10, back to something smaller.
Antique 8x10's run from $200 to $400 (maybe more, but
not on technical merit). The best of them are very
usable for 8x10 photography, but most are best used
as cool displays to, maybe, "set the mood".
Lenses and shutters, now that's a whole other investigation.
Earl F.
From: wf2q@aol.com (WF2Q)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 21 Jan 2000
Subject: Re: cheap 8x10
B&J; 8x10 commercial view folds up almost as small as a Deardorff, has much
greater movements, and is much less expensive
From: Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
Subject: Re: cheap 8x10
Heinrich,
If you really know you are going to stick with 8x10 (for example if you've
been using one awhile) then I think your best bet is the Deardorff or a
more expensive one. If you are only thinking about trying 8x10, then pick
up a 300-400$ Eastman View and play with it for a few months. They're
easy to unload if you want something more expensive and if you drop it in
the meantime you aren't out that much money.
Otherwise it's Deardorff, Wista, Wisner, Lotus, Canham, Phillips, and
probably a few others I've left out but they're all pretty pricey, and
some extremely pricey. You can find Wistas and Wisners used, the others,
well, you'll have to spend some time searching. I use a Deardorff and am
very happy with it but it is old technology, it's heavy, and it is kind of
slow to set up when it's snowing, 20 below, and the wind is blowing.
Erik Ryberg
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000
From: Mike Simanyi mikes@redsand.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment
.large-format
Subject: Re: MF (Pentax 6x7) or LF (Field) for Landscapes?
I've read the responses here with interest as I'm just whetting my apetite
for medium format (& larger?) with a little TLR camera.
Some of the comments peaked my curiosity, and in my web trekking I've
found a product that may be of interest to you. Calumet sells a Cambo 2x3
view camera specifically designed to work with roll film backs. In its
standard configuration it will work with 6x7 or 6x9 backs, and an adapter
kit may be purchased that will allow use of 4x5 sheet film as well.
The real kicker is the price: $1795 not including the lens, lensboard or
rollfilm holder. And their website claims the camera only weighs 8.3 lbs.
Not ultralight, but certainly not the heaviest available.
Their website is www.calumetphoto.com, and if you select their index
you'll be able to find it under Cameras, Large Format, Studio View Cameras
then Cambo. I hope this helps.
Mike
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999
I am afraid you are out of date and uninformed.
There currently are 2 Linhof Master Technika 45 cameras. The Master
Technika 45 with rangefinder which is available in black or chrome finish.
The Black model retails for $4200.00 and the chrome one for $5950.00.
Except for color they are identical.
Then there is the Master Technika 2000 without rangefinder but with a
built-in wide angle focusing system for lenses from 35mm to 65mm. The 2000
retails for $5500.00.
The IR focusing electronic finder system for the 2000 was quickly
discontinued after a single production run as it was not practical and
could not perform as Linhof had hoped. The rangefinder was an extra cost
option and was far from what is on any AF P&S; camera.
It coupled electronically to 10 lenses from 72 to 300mm. It had bright
line, parallax corrected frames for 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5 and these
frames rotated automatically as the back rotated and compensated for frame
size at various distances. It read out distance in feet or meters in the
finder and on the LCD panel and indicated the needed direction to move the
lens to obtain correct focus and then indicated when correct focus was
achieved.
Your description shows that you did not fully understand what the finder
did, how it did it or the value to some users of such a system.
However for other shooters the new 2000 with the ability to shoot all
formats in roll film from 6x6 to 6x12 +45 + the ability to use lenses as
short as 35mm on a flat board with an extension cone to as long as 360mm
with a single bellows. The ability to work on a tripod with or without
full front and back movements or hand held make the 2000 a totally unique
camera.
--
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I have a Galvin 6x9 mini-view camera that I use with 120 Mamiya
rollfilm backs. I had Steve Grimes mount an old Pentax 6x7 magnifying
hood on the rear focusing screen the it works great: fluid focusing,
small size, full movements. The camera weighs 3 pounds and travels
easily. You can find a base Galvin on Ebay for around 500 not
including lenses.
Best Regards,
George
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Michael K. Davis wrote:
Hi Michael,
I have two friends who shoot with the Horseman cameras. One has a
highly modified VH-R that he uses with a lenses from 47mm Super Angulon
- 300mm Nikkor M. The other uses an unmodofied VH with a 58mm Super
Angulon XL - can't recall his longest lens (probably 210 - 240 range).
WRT to the tiny ground glass - Horseman makes a reflex viewer with a
built-in low power magnifier. For a smaller ground glass, where getting
a loupe into the corners is a pain, this viewer makes a good alternative
to a darkcloth/loupe. It's a bit bulky, but not very heavy, and won't
flap around in the wind like a darkcloth. As far as I know, it fits any
standard Grafloc back, so it should work on other cameras as well (but
best to check first - I don't think the baby Linhof Technikas are
Grafloc compatabile)
Well, given the low light I often shoot in and the slow film I use
(Velvia), at f22, the shutter speeds are still pretty slow. I did a
four day trip to the Olympic Rain Forests back in May. My FASTEST
exposure of entire trip (over 100 sheets of film) was 4 seconds - most
were in the 15 - 30 second range. The main reason I don't like to go
smaller than f22, unless I absolutely have to, is diffraction. F32 on
4x5 is still pretty useable (you won't notice the loss of sharpness from
diffraction unless you loupe the 4x5 trannie or make a huge
enlargement), but it IS less sharp than f22. The movements do help a
LOT (a little tilt goes a long way), but since the world is three
dimensional, you still have to sometimes stop down more to get the
desired depth of field. Of course, with these long exposure times,
subject movement is an issue. Fortunately, when I was in the Olympics,
the air was dead calm in the morning, so the long exposures worked. The
slightest breeze, and forget it.
Agreed. I also have friends who shoot with the Pentax 6x7. They love
the camera, but without movements, depth of field can become an issue
(that's why my one friend shoots with both the Horseman and the P67 - he
gets the best of both worlds - movements when he needs then, ease of use
and convenience when he doesn't).
The gallery where I sell my work, doesn't handle anything SMALLER than
20x24, and given that they also represent Christopher Burkett (fantastic
8x10 shooter/printer), I don't dare go any smaller than 4x5 - and I've
even been dabbling with 5x7).
And less expensive, and lighter and smaller to carry in a backpack...
In many situations, but like I occasionally have to stop down beyond f22
in 4x5, for some subjects, you will still need to shoot at f16 or maybe
f22. But at least you have the option of using movements for many
situations.
I haven't seen any test reports on the 45mm APO Gandagon, but I'm sure
it's a wonderful lens (as is the M7 43mm). I'm sure it would make a
WONDERFUL wide angle for roll film use on a view camera. BTW, on the
Badger Graphics web site, they have this lens listed at $895. So, it's
also a great bargain compared to the Mamiya 7 43mm. In fact, with the
lack of helical focusing mounts, LF lenses, in general, tend to be quite
a bit more affordable than their rigid mount MF counterparts. You might
save enough on glass to really splurge on a nice Arca Swiss or
Technikardan camera.
No problem. Do let us know what you end up getting and how it all works
out.
--
From: "Fujinon" pdesmidt@fdldotnet.com
Shooting large format is a completely different animal than shooting
medium format or 35 mm. In 35mm or medium format I often take a number of
pictures of the same subject from numerous angles. I also often bracket
and make duplicate frames. No, this is not mindless shooting. I use a
spot meter...
Still, look at how many pictures in Ansel Adam's book "40 Examples" where
he says that he would do things slightly different now. There are simply
so many variables to consider. Sometimes, I like working this way.
Other times I prefer the slower, more methodical pace of a large format
camera. I definately don't like working with both cameras at the same
time. It's too much shifting of gears, but perhaps that's just me.
My best advice to you is that before you plunk down mucho dinero for a
4x5 camera, why don't you see if you like the whole large format thing?
How about finding a super speed graphic or a Calumet CC400 and, for
example, a decent Kodak 203mm lens and see if you like the whole
procedure? You can make contact prints to start out. Then, if you decide
you like the whole "large format thing" you could make a more informed
decision about what "deluxe" camera might work best for you. If all else
fails, you could probably sell the "starter package" camera for very close
to what you paid for it. The calumet CC400 in particular is a fine
monorail camera. It would be a little too much, though, for multiple day
hikes. (Don't under any circumstance confuse the camera I am suggesting
with the available new Calumet Cadet, which is a piece of crap, View
Camera's typically crappy 'review' not with standing.) Are you planning on
staying only a few miles from the car, or are you planning multiple day
backpacking trips?
Make sure to check the bellows on a used camera, as these can be
expensive to replace, and expect to pay $70 dollars or so to have the
shutter brought up to speed by the inestimitable Mr. Grimes. If you look
carefully, you should be able to get a decent setup for around $400.
Regards,
From: Brian Kosoff bkosoff@bellatlantic.net
I can relate to what you're going through. professionally for the past 22
years I've been an advertising still life photographer, however a few
year ago I decided to get back into my personal work , which is landscape.
As a still life photographer i got very used to large format, as i use 4x5
or 8x10 daily. Working LF negatives ruins you for all other film formats.
When I started doing my landscape work again I had an extensive Hassy
system. Hassy was fairly portable but to use it's prism meters we're not
convenient or accurate and I wanted something that could respond better
to rapidly changing light. I tested the Rolleiflex 6008i camera and it's
lenses. I found that the Rollei schnedier lenses were superior to the
Hassy Zeiss lenses, and to Rollei's own zeiss lenses ( rollei has both
schneiders and Zeiss lenses). The 6008i was very fast handling and an
extremely well thought out system. So I sold all of the hassy gear and
boughtan extensive Rollei system. (50mm 2.8 schneider, 60mm distagon, 80mm
2.8 schneider, 90mm APO schneider macro, 150mm schneider tele xenar, 180
2.8 schnedier and 300mm f4 schneider). The problem with this system is
that all told it weighs a ton. so usually I just take the 60mm, 80mm and
150mm, with a 1.4 teleconverter. This system also works great for my
professional work. I did a few trips with this and have been impressed
with the image quality, of 16x20's produced by it. But it's still not like
an LF camera.
So even though i had a bunch of Sinar gear, owing to my profession, I
bought a CanhamDLC45 field camera. It's very light considering it's
metal, and the bellows allows me to use everything from a 65mm to a 480mm
without changing the bellows. The Sinar is not good as a field camera,
it's too slow to set up and too bulky.
I shoot 6x12 format using the Sinar Zoom backs. 4x5 film backs or
ready loads are just too much weight and bulk to carry. Especially given
that I live in NYC and fly out west to shoot, so being able to carry all
of my gear and film on the plane is necessary. My kit for this contains
the 65mm & 90mm Grandagons, 150mm & 210mm Sironar S, 300mm and 480mm APO
Ronar lenses. even with all of that glass this is still reasonable in
weight. Unfortunately as the bellows acts like a sail I have decided to
use the heaviest of my tripods, a Gitzo tele studex giant, of which i have
removed the center column to lighten it. I also carry an umbrella to
further act as a wind screen. Still not that light but the image quality
is superb. For metering I use the Zone vi spot meter. For prints I have
had a custom 6x12 AN glass negative carrier made for me.
For the trips where I can't or don't want to drag the view camera, I
have recently bought a mamiya 7 camera and a few lenses. It's 6x7 versus
6x6 for the Rollei, but it's also far lighter, being nearly half the
weight. I am also able to use a lighter tripod, the Gitzo 1349 carbon
fiber model with an arca B1 ball head. I haven't really tested this kit
out extensively yet, but I like the bigger negative, and you just can't
beat the weight of this system. Also the WA lenses really benefit from a
non-retrofocus design. I'm thinking that this may replace the view
camera on many trips, especially if extensive hiking is in the equation.
The Rollei has been assigned to duties as my camera of choice for
professional assignments involving people photography. There's a bigger
film quality difference between 35mm and 6x7 than there is between 6x7 and
4x5.
So to wrap this up, I'd vote for either the Mamiya 7II or a light
field camera like the CanhamDLC45. I'm still split between these two.
After I have done much more comparison of images created with these two
cameras side by side I'll then make a preference choice.
Brian
rhaynes1212@my-deja.com wrote:
From: vilntfluid@aol.com (VILNTFLUID)
Pam
A suitable alternative to the Panfield is the Ebony 23 SW or the Walker
Titan
XL. Check out their website
http://www.ebonycamera.com
Keith
From: Pam Niedermayer pam_pine@cape.com
Thanks, Keith, I had already done so, except I wasn't looking at 2x3, was
hoping to find an ultrawide/wide ultralight 4x5. I see that Bromwell lists
a Walker Ultrawide, but the Walker site makes no mention of it, nor does
Robert White; so probably Bromwell just means the Wide with a bag.
Bromwell does have a nice price when bundled with the Schneider XL's.
So far I think I like the looks of the Phillips and Panfield best, I
really like the bellows on both although they're very different. The
Phillips even has 19" or so extension while staying very light and tight;
but the double section bag on the Panfield is intriguing. The Phillips
also folds up into a very compact package. Yeah, well here I am talking
myself into a Phillips with probably a very long wait.
Pam
http://www.pinehill.com
From: Paul Butzi butzi@halcyon.com
"Chris Williams" chris@clwill.com
wrote:
There are several cameras that you might want to examine closely
as alternatives to a heavy monorail studio camera. All of these
suggestions are based on the premise that you're looking for
a 4x5, not a 5x7 or 8x10 or larger):
1. Linhof Technikardan 45s (this is what I own. I love it. I know
about half a dozen people who own them, and all seem to love them.
The Techikardan folds into a compact package of about 8"x10"x3"
and weighs about 7 lbs. Setup time is on a par with fast setup field
cameras. Movements, while ungeared except for rear focus, are
smooth and the capabilities are on a par with a monorail.
2. Arca-Swiss F line, particuarly the compact. The AS is a
monorail which can be made into a compact package only
slightly larger than the TK, weighs on the same order, and
is an extensive system, with extension bellows, etc. Like the
TK only focus is geared.
3. Toyo VX125. Several people have waxed enthusiastic
about it, although I've never used one. Pricey in the US but
now that buying camera gear internationally via the internet
is a reality, that's probably not an issue.
4. K.B. Canham DLC45 - another metal camera that's a sort
of field/monorail hybrid. The Linhof, AS, and Toyo are really
monorails that can be easily taken into the field. The DLC45
is really more of a field camera with some extra movement
and a more rail like construction.
All of those cameras would probably do the trick if you wanted
only one camera and intended to press it into use in both studio
and field.
You can read my review of the TK45s at
www.asymptote.com/butzi/articles/reviews/linhoftk45s.htm
As far as hauling stuff into the field (you cite 15 lbs of monorail,
etc) my current LF kit (which consists of a TK45s, five lenses,
and assorted miscellany) weighs in at about 21 lbs, all included.
I'm careful about weight but not ruthless. It is possible to do
LF field photography without being a beast of burden. Kerry
Thalmann's excellent web site has lots of info on how to
keep the weight down by judicious equipment selection.
See www.largeformat.homepage.com
-Paul
--
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 3/2/00)
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000
A while ago, I suggested that people send the statistics on their
readyload experiences to me, and I'd put them into a table and
put the table on my web site.
I've done it. Several people have contributed data, some data I took
from postings here.
If you have more data, send me the particulars,and I'll add it in.
The table can be found at
www.butzi.net/reviews/readyload.htm
-Paul
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000
Have you considered the Graphic Century 6x9 camera. Some movements, self
casing, fairly light and the extra lenses and lensboards are small and
light. Also very affordable - I just picked one up on E-bay for $132 but
$150 to $180 might be more usual. Roll film backs are usually $90 - $100
for Graphlex backs or shoot 6x7 or polaroid on Mamiya RB backs.
Ronin
I find them great little travel kits and the 6x9 format is great.
From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Melinda,
Aside from the Rollei twin lens, a 4x5 field camera is my most used
camera. I've worked with this format for about 20 years now, long enough
to have formed a level of comfort and predjudice.
Your first consideration is: will you be using the camera in the studio or
out in the field? Monorail cameras are wonderful in the studio for doing
tabletop still-lifes with their precise movements, but they're absolutely
miserable to lug around in the field. Monorails are also useful if you
need to use ultra wide-angle lenses with extreme movements for
architecture. But for landscape and most architecture, you simply don't
need that degree of precision to justify carrying all that extra weight
and bulk. A typical 4x5 field camera will fold up to a 9x9x4" package, and
weigh in the range of 3 - 6 lb.s, one third to one fifth the weight and
volume of your average monorail camera. In my experience, fewer photos are
made with the camera that's too big and heavy to make it out on location.
Of the monorail systems you've listed, my experience is as follows: the
Toyo's tend to be a bit more 'basic' in their features that some other
competitors, but tend to be solid and well made. The Horseman monorail
that I use at work is attractively designed, and very modular, but some of
its controls aren't very smooth, and we've had some problems with service
from the US distributor. The Sinar is a lovely design, with many unique
and convenient features, but is very expensive, particularly in terms of
its accessories, and quite heavy and bulky.
Among the field cameras, Wisner makes an unsurpassed line of wooden models
that are lovingly crafted and very practical and represent real value.
Canham makes an excellent and innovative metal field camera that is
similar in its design to a monorail. Walker amkes an excellent field made
of hybrid plastics and synthetic materials that is weather impervious.
There are several other Japanese made woodfield that are quite nice, but
recent exchange rates make it difficult to justify their prices against
what's offered by Wisner.
I don't want to take upmore of the list's time, but if you have more
questions feel free to contact me directly, and I'll answer any further
questions you may have, or direct you to other resources you may find
helpful.
Best regards,
M.Phillips
Date: 25 Oct 2000
Matt there are a lot of "cheap options." If you use Ebay prices or
Shutterbug or On Line Camera Stores are a reference point you'll find
prices of Calumet C400 or B &J; similar models run from $100-$300 on Ebay.
Similarly Graflex cameras run from $100-$600. B &J; Press cameras range
from $100-200, Busch Pressman seem to run with 135 lens in the $200-$300
range. Prices for Graphic View I or II run from $150-$300. You can do a
search for past auctions on Ebay to get an idea of how short term prices
are running.
I suspect you would be happy with a camera that works but doesn't have to
be a collector's mint condition. If you want to carry the camera around a
Press style camera is probably a good way to go. If you want to use the
lower priced 120 Graphic roll film backs, a Graflok back is the way to go
versus a spring back. If you are carrying it and are only going to use
sheet film both the Busch and the B & J Press have rotating backs. Both
are built like tanks but the Busch has a more polished finish.
The advantage of the Graflex focal plane shutter is you can use cheaper
barrel lenses. For most of these cameras extra lens board run $20 +/- 10
and are available with a little looking. In any case you want a good
pliable bellows, depending on your style you want a workingrange finder
that has a clear double image. You might check the http://www.graflex.org
site. It has over 200 pages of Graflex information and they have a help
board that would key you into the questions you need to ask about the
cameras. Some of the best deals come by word of mouth. If you go the Ebay
route set what you feel is a fair price after you have checked on the
condition and place your bid. If you don't "win", go the next camera that
meets your requirements and again place your bid. Soon or later depending
of the luck of the draw you'll probably get the camera at the price you
want.
Personally I favor the side Karart range finders in either Pacemaker
Crown(without focal plane shutter) or Pacemeker Speed Graphic(with focal
plane shutter) models versus the older models. The newer models generally
have the silver colored front standard and allow for a small amount of
front tlt. The top range finder models seem to be some what more
expensive. The other recomendation I'd make is try to get a hold of some
of the cameras you are considering buying. Just looking over the camera
and running through its operation will make you a more aware as a buyer
Good luck.
D
Date: 26 Oct 2000
We have a free article called Getting Started in Large Format. You can get
it off of our web site
www.viewcamera.com
steve simmons
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
My Toyo 45AX 4x5 field camera gets very little use. There are several
reasons for this, primarily:
- Weight, bulkiness, and inconvenience in the field when traveling
- Difficulty to find darkroom for 4x5 in Stockholm (only one color lab
left that does 4x5)
- Prohibitive cost of film + development(USD12 per frame)
- Prohibitive cost of high-quality scans (USD20 per frame)
This last year - total of 6 frames exposed! - has got me thinking about
replacing (or rather complementing, resell value of a 4x5 field is
pathetic over here) the 4x5 with a roll-film based system with movements.
The two systems I am currently contemplating, both for a cost around
USD4000 including body, lens, and roll film holder, are:
- Hasselblad Arcbody with 45mm lens
- Ebony SW23 with SW-Nikkor 65/4 lens
Arcbody: compact, light (about 1.4 kgs body + lens + RFH vs 2.1 kgs for
Ebony), can be used handheld for viewing, great reflex finder - no need
for any darkkcloth, carrying handle, resell value, compatibility with
future digital backs for Hasselblad system.
Ebony: swing, shift, takes my current 135 and 90 lenses and filter system,
1.4x film area when cropped to ideal (4x5) proportions, 2.3x when cropped
to panoramic (2x1) proportions. Handle can be added. Reflex finder can be
added (from Horseman VH system).
Both: Can be packed without removing the lens, substantially lighter and
smaller than my Toyo, huge advantage in reflex finder over focusing cloth
My questions:
- In your experience, would the two systems at all be comparable in the
field?
- For your type of landscape shooting style, do you find the lack of swing
and shift limiting?
- Coming from 4x5, will I be able to live with a (cropped) 6x6 film size
for enlargements up to Super A3/B?
- For the Ebony, would a Horseman 6x9 reflex hood work as well as the
Arcbody reflex finder does?
- Are there any other factors I should consider?
- Are there any other systems I should consider?
Your input appreciated,
�ke Vinberg
Stockholm, Sweden
Links:
http://www.ebonycamera.com
http://www.hasselblad.se/products/cameras/arcbody.html
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001
Hello,
In the quest for a small (I normally use 5x7/8x10) camera with
movements, I started with a lovely Galvin 6x9. After a year, I liked
the format so much that I increased my investment to an Ebony 23S with
the horseman monocular viewer. The Ebony 23S, like the SW23, lets you
store the lens on the camera is the "close to ready" shooting
position.
I find that compared to a larger view camera, shooting with a 6x9
(with some type of finder) is a more spontaneous experience due to the
faster handling. Furthermore, the overall outfit size is much smaller
compared to a 4x5/5x7 camera when you consider larger lenses, film
holders, etc.
Once you get used to having view camera movements, it is hard to live
without them; I find the ebony to be excellent in this regard - it is
light, strong, and has the full range of movements that one would
want.
A major shooting difference between the two options you are conidering
is the Ebony's hinged back. This makes switching between viewing and
shooting very fast and seamless (the galvin is also excellent here).
I never liked the idea of completely switching backs/viewers to
view/focus and take pictures; I believe this is what the Hasselblad
Arcbody requires you to do. The Ebony will also take new digital
backs as they are introduced.
I believe that you would also find the 6x7/6x9 image of the Ebony to
have more usable film area as your enlargement sizes grow. This
difference will be more pronounced with Black & White emulsions than
with color slides or negatives.
Your choice is still a close call as the Hasselbald is an excellent
system. I can tell you I am extremely happy with the Ebony as a
portable, flexible camera with full movements.
Regards,
George Pappas
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
Ake,
The horseman viewer covers the entire 6x9 format and provides 2x
magnification. I had Ebony make a custom modification to my camera at
the time of purchase to add a small flip-lock and make small cutouts
in the viewer; as a result, the viewer simply locks into place (Ebony
does nice work!). Horesman is located close to the Ebony factory in
Tokyo; they know each other and Ebony has modified Horseman
accessories for many of its different cameras.
Because I shoot primarily 6x7, I will modify a 3x viewer (like the
schneider/pentax) to attach to the Ebony back in the near future. The
extra magnification makes a difference when peering into the image.
With the horseman viewer, the image is rightside up but reversed (like
a Hasselblad with a waistlevel finder). With a straight magnifier,
the image is upside-down like a view camera.
I found that the original ebony focusing screen was too dark for my
taste; I replaced it with a cut-down fresnel for Zone VI field cameras
that is very bright and sharp. There is no appreciable difference in
brightness when camera movements are used.
Regards,
George
...
From: Daniel Bereskin bereskin@home.com
Keith,
I have the Arca Swiss floppy bag viewing bellows. The end that
attaches to the rear of the camera is elasticized, and is constructed such
that it can be used both with 4 x 5 and 6 x 9 format frames. The viewing
end has a frame onto which a binocular ocular can be removeably attached.
It is very easy to use, and far superior in my opinion to a dark cloth.
It is easy to pack, and the leather can be wrapped around the binocular
for protection in the camera bag. The only catch is that you may need to
fuss a bit with the bag leather to make sure it doesn't block any part of
the image, but that's not really hard to do. The magnification is all my
old eyes need for focussing. The image remains the same as if you were
looking at the ground glass, inverted and right to left, i.e. there is no
mirror in this system.
Horseman makes a collapsible binocular viewer that
is quite big, somewhat delicate, with a mirror and a binocular, but I
thought that the viewer discussed in relation to the Ebony was their very
slick monocular telescopic viewer which, like the Linhof equivalent, can
be adjusted to cover a fairly wide range of lenses. One of the elements
has a silvered mask, dimensioned either for 6 x 9 or 4 x 5, i.e. you need
to choose the viewer for the appropriate format, you can't switch between
them with one viewer, although in a pinch you can use one for both formats
for rough framing. The mask ocular is removeable, but it is hideously
expensive to buy one for each format, like about $300 for the mask element
alone!
In effect, it's like the Linhof monocular viewer except nicer to
use, but sadly expensive. It attaches to the camera by means of a foot of
non standard size, hence you need the shoe onto which the foot engages in
order to removeably attach the viewer to the camera. The viewer enables
you to frame the image and there is an anti-parallax adjustment but you
still must study the ground glass for accurate framing and focussing, i.e.
the viewer is not coupled in any way to the camera focussing rack. Both
the AS and Horseman solutions are neat, but have their limitations, not
the least of which is cost!
VILNTFLUID wrote:
[Ed. note: Mr. Simmons is the author of an outstanding book on large
format cameras and editor/author for several large format
magazines etc....]
Let me go back and expand on my note about an upcoming article. IMHO there
is more than just deciding between these two models. For me the most
important considerations in selecting a camera are the following
- the bellows extension - it should be at least 25% longer then the
longest lens I will want to use. 50% is even better
- is there a bad/wide angle bellows. In my mind an absolute necessity if I
want to use a lens shorter then 90mm (the Canham 45DLC is an exception
here because of its very flexible bellows.
- movements - what do I want to photograph. If it is architectural as a
business then I know I will need extreme movement capability. If I am
going to do studio portraits than extreme movements are really not
necessary. Landscape falls in the middle.
Once I answer these questions I can then begin looking at different camera
bodies and make an informed decision.
steve simmons
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000
Dan Smith, Photographer wrote:
Hi Dan,
Agreed. Tuan's site is, and will always be THE best large format site
on the internet. When I decided to put up a site of my own, I
consciously avoided trying to compete with Tuan's site and avoid
duplication as much as possible. My site was intended to compliment
Tuan's site, rather than compete with it (what would be the point of
that?). Tuan's site is a fantastic collection of large format
information on a very diverse range of topics from hundreds of
contributors. It's a great starting point for anyone looking for
information on ANY LF topic. My site, on the other hand contains a few
in depth articles/reviews, all written by me, on very specific topics.
I have chosen to concentrate on the aspects of LF photography I know
best, and provide in depth reviews on equipment I've used extensively.
For general purpose info, in addition to Tuan's site, there are several
other places online that cover a lot more breadth than my site ever
will. I envision my site as growing into a site that people go to for
more detail on very specific topics or more detailed equipment reviews.
One other difference is that I have tried to include a lot more images
on my site. Even when textual information can be found elsewhere (this
newsgroup, for example, or deja.com), sometimes a jpeg can truly be
worth a thousand words.
Alas, I am only one person, and I am doing this completely without
compensation. I'm actually pleased that I've managed to get as many
articles online as I have in the last 13 months (Toho Review Lightweight
Lenses, Fujinon Pages, Future Classics), and already I need to update
the Fujinon pages with all the new info I've received since it went
online. So, the site will continue to grow as my time allows. The
topics and equipment reviews will continue to reflect my own person
needs and shooting style. My site will never be a definitive resource
for architectural or portrait photographers, but hopefully it will be
useful for large format landscape shooters, and maybe contain enough
info of general interest to help a few others out as well.
One nice
thing about LF photography is that it evolves much slower than 35mm and
digital. After all, many people are still actively using cameras and
lenses pushing 100 years old. New products and innovations move at a
snails pace compared to the mass consumer targeted markets where cameras
and lenses seem to become obsolete a few months after they are
introduced (at least that's what the manufacturers want you to
believe). So, hopefully, the articles and equipment reviews on my site
will continue to have value for quite some time to come. If that holds
true, maybe ten years down the line I will have 40 or 50 articles and
reviews online. Until then (and forever after) my site remains a work
in progress.
Kerry
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
From: Tom Rittenhouse graywolf1943@prodigy.net
500, 545, 545i holders. Use polaroid 4x5 single sheet packs.
supposedly the 500 is not compatible with the newer film but it
works for some.
450 holder. Uses standard polaroid film packs. The image is
off center to the right on the ground glass it comes with a mask
that shows this. Not much use with a hand held camera.
550 holder. Uses 4x5 film packs. If you don't live in NYC
forget it.
--Tom
MDDESKEY wrote:
From: oorque@aol.com (OorQue)
More to the point, there are also several medium-format view cameras that
will accept an RB back, many of them available used for less than a
comparable 4x5. That said, this approach doesn't have you using the RB
lenses, although since they are all-mechanical, it shouldn't be too
difficult to adapt them successfully. I briefly used a PS 80mm lens from
a Bronica SQ-Ai on my Toyo and Galvin 6x9s and was surprised to discover
it covered 6x9 nicely very despite the fact that it was designed to be
used on a 6x6 ... the image quality was quite good as well but it only had
one speed available (1/500th) since I never got around to hacking a
solution to mimic the body's electronic shutter controls and in the end, I
decided its size was simply too large for my purposes to justify any
further experimentation.
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
At the risk of calling down the wrath of a few I am going to say that we
are doing a survey of 4x5 wooden and plastic and metal cameras in our
March/April 01 issue. We have a side by side comparison of features of
Wista, Canham, Walker, Toyo, Horseman, Linhof, etc.
Your real decision making should look at what features you want
bellows length movements folded measurements min bellows length - for
short lenses weight - although not at the sacrifice of features or
rigidity
Personal impressions of others have only a limited relevance to your own
needs. All of these cameras are more than functional and one man's floor
is another man's ceiling (Paul Simon said this in a song)
The issue should be out in about a week. In the meantime we do have a free
article on our web site called Getting Started in Large Format that might
help you begin to decide what features are important to you.
In our May/June issue we are doing an article on lightweight
camera/lens/accessory packages for backpacking.
steve simmons [Ed. note: see view camera magazine website at
http://www.viewcamera.com/....]
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
...
Well, yes and no. The great Gene Smith thought just as you are doing now.
He was a life long user of Leicas as the dozens of great picture stories
he shot that appeared in Life magazine proves. One day he thought he would
get a press Linhof, which is a 2x3 rangefinder camera with a rollfilm
back.. He thought it was just like a Leica only with bigger negs and Zeiss
glass .What could be better? But when he went to use it he found that the
lenses were too slow for real available light work under poor conditions,
it wasn't nearly as fast as a Leica and the depth of field of these longer
lenses was far too shallow for his use. He sold the entire outfit and went
back to his Leicas. I am not advising you one way or the other .I am just
giving you Gene Smith's experience in the matter. Good luck no matter what
you decide.
Arthur Kramer
From Leica Mailing List:
Rob McElroy at idag@pce.net wrote:
Yes indeed. NOT to be confused with the super graphic, which doesn't have
said shutter. In general these days better to go for a Crown Graphic or
Super Graphic rather than a Speed Graphic or Super Speed Graphic for
exactly this reason. Wow, now my head hurts.
- --
Johnny Deadman
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
From: Eek-a-mouse kbfan@mindspring.com
You can read the review I wrote of mine (as compared to a Toyo 23G and
my first attempt at reviewing photographic gear, so please be nice) at
the link listed below:
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/cameras/toyo/toyo-galvin-2x3.html
No, they're not still in production. As for accepting a rollfilm back,
a picture's worth a thousand words ... check out the review above and
all will be made clear.
From Rollei Mailing List:
you wrote:
No mailing list. However check the Graflex Organization site at
http://www.graflex.org Bewere! ther IS a Graflex.com, not the same thing
and the Graflex company has been out of business for decades.
Also check the Usenet group rec.photo.equipment.large-format Check its
archives on Google.
I may be able to answer specific questions but you should learn a little
about LF work before jumping.
The Graflex company made two versions of its press cameras, The Speed
Graphic and the Crown Graphic. The Speed has a built in focal plane
shutter the Crown does not. Few press photographers actually used the FP
shutter so, when new models were introduced in 1947, the Crown Graphic,
without the shutter was added. No Crown Graphic is older than the
Pacemaker series dating from 1947. They were cheaper than the Speed and
somewhat smaller and lighter. For some reason they are now more expensive.
I find I do use the FP shutter occasionally. Its particularly useful for
barrel mounted lenses and does have speeds to 1/1000 sec.
Speed/Crown cameras have very limited movements and are not a substitute
for a view camera. However, they are comparitively light and small and
were intended for hand holding.
If you are near a good library search for _Graphic-Graflex Photography_
pubishesed by Morgan and Lester and later by Morgan and Morgan. These were
issued about once a year starting in 1939 and continuing until the mid
1960's. The later editions have a good summary of earlyer models and good
escription of how to use the cameras and how to work with sheet film.
4x5 is the size to get, 3-1/4 x 4-14 is an orphan, film must be gotten
on special order, 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 is a nice size but film is still hard to
get, and not many types are avialable. Most practical with a roll film
adaptor and not enough larger than a Rollei negative to make much
difference.
When I started in photography 4x5 was considered _medium format_.
----
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
I have four 4x5 Speed Graphics of various vintages. All with side
rangefinders. Its the late Pacmaker series with top rangefinder and the
Super Graphic that has the cam.
Crown Graphics are the same as Pacemaker series Speed Graphics but
without the focal plane shutter and consequently a shallower box and
lighter weight.
The Super Graphic came in two versions, the Super and Super Speed
Graphic. They vary only in the front shutter. The Super Speed came with a
special between the lens shutter with top speed of 1/1000 second.
Unfortunately the stresses in the thing are so high it tends to break some
little cams which activate the shutter blades. According to Steve Grimes
they are hard to work on and don't stay fixed very long.
The Super Graphic has a rotating back and some back movements. Its a nice
camera and cheaper than a Linhof. The Linhof Super Technika is a thing of
beauty, butter smooth, very precise, heavy and expensive. If I had to
choose a single camera to do all sorts of LF work I would get a 4x5 Super
Technika. If allowed two cameras I would have a Speed Graphic and a view
camera.
The older Technikas do not have as wide a range of movements as the
later ones do but, since the things are much too rich for my blood I am
not so expert on them.
----
Postscript:
An afterthought. Linhof bellows are made of genuine leather. Check the
bellows on any Linhof you are contemplating buying, pinholes are common.
If there are any the bellows need to be replaced.
Graflex used synthetic bellows from about 1939. The bellows are usually
in good shape unless they have been seriously abused.
I also have a 2x3 Miniature Speed Graphic but I am still restoring it.
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
There is a very good site dedicated to Graflex cameras at
http://www.graflex.org Be careful because there is also a Graflex.com, has
nothing to do with the old cameras.
If you wan't to set up the rangefinder contact me. There is an article by
moi on the Graflex site but I have learned more since. Its a tedious but
not difficult job and is pretty stable once set. Despite the seeming
crudity of these rangefinders they are actually very accurate if set up
right.
Film is available from Freestyle and others, mostly Ilford. Later
cameras, with Graflok backs, will take a variety of roll film adaptors for
120. Its even possible to use them on the older type Graphic back with a
little makeshifting, no permanent surgery to the camera.
Depending on age you will find some very fine lenses on these guys. The
best of class is either the f/4.5, 101mm Ektar or the f/3.7, 105mm Ektar.
The 105mm is a Heliar type essentially identical to those used on the
Medalist camera. Pre- WW-2 Mini's usually have Jena Tessars on them. These
have a little residual spherical compared to the Ektar but when stopped
down to normal stops are about equally sharp.
Speed Graphics are my "other" favorite camera.
----
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001
Or better, a 6x9 Graphic with a 6x9 roll film holder. No need to carry
around the extra bulk/weight of the 4x5 for this kind of use. I bought a
real nice Century 6x9 graphic --- no rangefinder or optical finder, but
with lens and ground glass -- for $102 on eBay some time ago. Since
landscapes don't usually move very fast, I find that a tripod and ground
glass focussing are fine. For hand holding, I use my 6x9 Crown Graphic
that does have a rangefinder. Keep in mind, though, that your rangefinder
can't accomodate all possible lenses. Generally, just use the 100mm or
thereabouts.
Brian Ellis wrote:
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Since other people seem to be speaking for me let me clarify our policy.
From the beginning we have felt that we are primarily a US magazine. We
have happily supported cameras that were either made in the US or had a US
distributor. We have not given editorial support to cameras made outside
the US when they did not have any US representation. If you buy a camera
from overseas you will have to send the camera back overseas if there are
any problems and this will be a nuisance. If there is a US dealer or
distributor then you can get parts/repairs in the US. Also, if you buy a
camera from outside the US you may have to pay some customs expense when
the camera enters the US. This can add a significant amount to the price.
Just be aware of what might happen.
Examples,
Lotus - when they entered the US market and had a US rep we gave them a
lot of support. When the first Mammoth Camera conference was being planned
View Camera was asked to be a sponsor. We agreed under the condition that
all cameras made in the US or having a US distributor be included. This is
included Lotus. This condition was agreed to and the conference went very
well. We gave Lotus a great deal of editorial support and were pleased to
do so. We thought there cameras were quite nice. We stopped giving them
any editorial coverage after they pulled out of the US market. My
definition of pulling out is no US rep, they stopped appearing at trade
shows, and they stopped doing any promotion in the US. My story about the
problems with their cameras at the 1999 Mammoth Camera conference are
true. I could have remined silent about the problems and no US help but
that opens me to criticisms as well. I think I took the pro consumer
approach.
Panfield - there were some discussions about this camera about a year ago.
I discouraged this interest because Panfield, from South Africa, had only
about 6 cameras in this country, no dealer or distributor, no parts and an
erratic supply of cameras (at best). I do not believe in encouraging
people to buy under these circumstances. If and when Panfield gets a US
distribution we will give them editorial support.
TOHO - we had the same approach to this camera. We tried for two years to
make contact with the factory in in Japan and were unsuccessful. After
Badger Graphics picked up US distribution we did a review and were happy
to do so.
The new Chinese cameras - I have e-mailed the factory twice from their web
site and my e-mails have bounced. I will continue to try and contact them
and will do a review as soon as they have a US distributor.
My behavior has been consistent. I believe this is the right approach and
will continue practicing this editorial approach into the future.
I am open to hearing comments about this policy
steve simmons
Date: 27 Jun 2001
Largformat largformat@aol.com wrote:
If you mean www.shen-hao.com - I emailed zhangfm@online.sh.cn a month
ago and received an answer from Perry P. Wang
They do seem to have a distributor in the US, see
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005J0F
You might want to ask him your questions. (Does this mean we will see an
article soon?)
Ilja.
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001
I do both (Pentax 67 and Linhof Technika V). There are three principal
objective reasons for using large format rather than medium format. (1)
better tonal range and sharper images with large prints (16x20 and up) -
no noticeable difference that I've been able to see with smaller prints,
at least not with the 6x7 format that I use (maybe there would be a
difference with 6x6 cropped to a rectangle or with 645, others would have
to speak to those medium formats); (2) ability to individually develop
each sheet of film to best suit the contrast range of the scene (probably
not a major factor if you don't develop your own film); and (3) ability to
use camera movements to do things like gain depth of field, correct
perspectives, etc. Except for the ability to gain depth of field so that
you sometimes can keep everything from a foot or two in front of you to
infinity in sharp focus, this factor is usually not that big a deal with
landscape work, it's a bigger deal with areas like architecture, studio
product work, etc.
However, apart from these strictly objective reasons, there is a certain
pleasure that many of us derive from the large format process - the
contemplative way it forces you to work, the involvement you get with the
subject from viewing the image on the ground glass, the feeling that
you've really "made" a photograph as opposed to shooting multiple versions
of the same scene and then later picking the best one (which always leave
me feeling as though the resulting image was more a matter of luck than
anything else), things like that. If you don't think you would derive that
kind of pleasure from large format work (which is hard to know until you
try it), then for landscape work there probably is no reason to switch
unless you habitually make 16x20 or larger prints and/or develop your own
film and feel a real need to be able to tailor your development times to
each particular photograph (which usually means you would need to become
involved with the zone system to some extent at least).
The usual suggestion is to rent a large format outfit from some place like
Lens and Repro in New York (which I think can be done by mail though I've
never tried it). Personally I don't think this will tell you a whole lot
unless you rent for a month or two. Taking a large format system out in
the field over a weekend, or even a week, when you've never used a large
format camera before, is likely just to leave you frustrated IMHO rather
than letting you know how feasible it is. If you believe it's something
you'd really like to try, I'd suggest buying an inexpensive (Graflex or
Tachihara perhaps) used system with one lens, a dark cloth, a few film
holders, and a tripod if you don't already have a usable one and live with
it long enough to get to know the camera. If you don't like it, you
probably can sell the camera and lens on e bay for close to what you paid
for them and the whole experience shouldn't cost you a lot more than you
would have paid to rent a system for a week.
All of this is obviously just my own personal views with which reasonable
people could, and probably will, differ.
"Eam 77 ck" eam77ck@aol.com wrote
Date: 05 Jul 2001
I agree with the Fuji 6x9 poster to a degree.
The 4x5 plate is going to do wonderful things to your B&W; tonality and
detail and galleries are critical of accepting prints from anything but
LF.
A caveate is DUST. If you load your own plates, one piece of dust can make
that long hike and long wait for perfect light a disaster.
There are some lightweight inexpensive field cameras out there. Take
advantage of the better quality 4x5 has to offer but take along a 6x17, or
6x9 rollfilm back, . . . for back-up.
Field camera lenses are also smaller and cheaper than MF interchangeable
lenses.
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 cm and 4x5 inch.
It's been pretty well stated the benefits of LF for perspective and DOF
control etc., but there's a downside to that also.
With larger formats you're using longer lenses, so the natural DOF for a
given f/stop is less. It's great when you're doing something with a
dominant plane of focus and you tilt, etc. to get that great DOF that we
all love. BUT... what if there's something close overlapping something
distant that we both want in focus? You can't use lens movements to
solve that problem. You've got to close way down, and even that's
sometimes not enough. So, you get long exposures and/or dissatisfying
selective focus. You've lost a major benefit of LF. In fact, if you've
done movements to improve the DOF on some other part of the scene, the
problem I mentioned will be worse than if no movements were used at all.
So, large format sometimes drives the composition. Here is where
shorter lenses and smaller formats are to be preferred. What if you
want to stop motion in your landscape? (Waves, windblown trees, animals
and people?) For this you'll likely get a better result with a smaller
format and short exposure. (OK, some may argue that DOF is really a
matter of final image size and not focal length, but I hope you get my
point.)
--
From Leica Mailing List;
You should chose Rodenstock for wide angle lenses. The 75 and 90 are f/4.5
. Then Schneider or Rodenstock for the longer lenses as they are all f/5.6
.
I currently have a Rodenstock Grandagon 75/4.5, Schneider Super-Symmar HM
120/5.6, Schneider Symmar-S MC 180/5.6. Nikkor T* ED 270/6.3, Nikkor T* ED
360/8, Nokkor T* ED 500/11, and a Nikkor T* ED 720/16.
The unique thing about this arrangement of lenses is that they "all" have
67mm filter threads. One set of filters for the whole series.
The shortest lens you can use on a Linhof V is 75mm and the longest lens
you can use is a 500, and it must be a telephoto design.
Also, you should stick to 0 and 1 shutters. #3 shutters overpower the
front of a Linhof V (or Master Technika) and severely limits movements.
Jim
Charles Harris wrote:
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
...
Hi Bill,
Not sure what Todd's using, but you'd be amazed how light of a tripod
and head you can get by with for large format (not talking a 20 lb.
studio monorail, but the teyp of ultralight 4x5 I use for backpacking).
I too have a 1325/B1 (mine weighs 6 lb. 2 1/2 oz.) and I love it. It's
the best piece of photo equipment I've ever bought. It's tall, rigid as
can be, yet quite light. This combo is more than adaquate for anything
I put on top of it.
However, for backpacking, I go even lighter. I use a modified Gitzo
1227 (center column removed) and a Slik Standard Ballhead II with a Kirk
Arca Style quick release clamp. That combo weighs in at 3 lb. 12 oz.
And although I generally prefer a taller tripod (I'm 6' 4"), I'm willing
to sacrifice a little height when backpacking to keep the weight down.
If anyone is interested, I have a photo of the Slik head with the Kirk
QR at:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/heads.htm
In the picture, it is shown next to a Linhof Profi II with RRS QR and an
Arca Swiss B1. Of course it's no Arca Swiss, but with a lightweight
field camera (I've been using it with a Toho that weighs 2 lb. 12 1/2
oz.), it's adaquate. With the Kirk QR, it weighs exactly 1/2 as much as
the B1.
Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to writing up anything on the
tripod mods for my web site, but I did post a rather detailed
description in rec.photo.equipment.large-format a month or two ago.
Should be easy to find at deja.com.
There are several reasons why LF CAN be less demanding than MF or even
35mm on the tripod and head (especially the head). First, unless you're
using a Speed Graphic with a focal plane shutter, all LF lenses have
leaf shutters. Most of the lenses I use for backpacking come in a tiny
Copal #0 shutter, a couple are in Copal #1s (none of the big Copal #3s
for me thanks) Much less vibration inducing than a focal plane shutter
(especially a big focal plane shutter like a Pentax 67). There is no
pentaprism, so no mirror to slap (or lock up - if your camera has that
feature).
Most LF cameras present a very balanced load in both horizontal and
vertical orientation. The load is generally centered front/back and
placed on top of the tripod apex (not flopped on the side). For example
the Toho I use is an ultralight telescoping monorail that extends equal
amount both front and back. So, it'a always easy to keep the load
centered and balanced with any lens from wide angle to telephoto.
Unlike all 35mm and many MF the back on the 4x5 is simply rotated 90
degrees to shoot verticals. The camera remains on top of the tripod,
never "flopped" on it's side for veritcals. So again, it presents a
very well balanced load. With 35mm and many medium format cameras, the
entire camera must be turned 90 degrees for verticals (exceptions being
the Mamiya RB and RZ 67s - that weigh a LOT more than my 4x5 - and any
35mm with a rotating lens collar). When the camera is flopped on it's
side for verticals, especially with a heavy lens, it becomes extremely
unbalanced and puts tremendous demands on the tripod head. That little
Slik ballhead I'm using is about an order of magnitude less sturdy than
the Arca Swiss B1 in this configuration, but since I never shoot in this
configuration, it's of no consequence to me.
Finally, lenses for large format (especially the lenses I use for
backpacking with my light camera and light tripod) are much smaller and
lighter than most 35mm and especially medium format lenses. They don't
require helical focusing mounts, they are generally slower than 35mm or
MF lenses (an f5.6 max. aperture is considered a fast LF lens - may of
mine are f9), no zooms, etc. None of the lenses I take backpacking
weigh more than 10 oz. and the average one is about 6 oz. (and those
weights include the shutters) Plus, I don't take any kind of super
telephoto. The longest lens I ever take backpacking is a 300mm. While
that sounds fairly long to 35mm shooters, in 4x5 that's only about 2x
"normal" - roughly equivalent to an 85mm lens in 35mm. The high
magnification ratios with 35mm super telephoto lenses (300mm - 600mm)
require rock solid support. I personally think 35mm wildlife and sports
photographers require much more robust camera support systems than a LF
landscape shooter.
All that said, I'm planning to hike the Wonderland Trail around Mount
Rainier next month. We're taking a slightly different (longer, but more
scenic) route than the "official" one. By the route we're going, it
will be about 100 miles with about 23,000 feet elevation gain (and loss
- it's a loop). So, it's important to keep the packs as light as
possible. I'm still planning to take a 4x5 sytem, but even lighter than
the one I normally carry. I'll be using a little Gowland Pocket View -
the lightest 4x5 ever made - that weighs less than 2 lbs. I'll limit
myself to three lenses (90mm wide angle, 150mm normal and 240mm slightly
long), the heaviest will weigh 7 oz. And finally to get back to the
original topic (and actually discuss something that the original poster
might find usefull), a rather unique "tripod" solution.
When I was at the NANPA Summit in January, there were some fellows from
Novoflex present at the HP Marketing booth and they showed me a product
of theirs called the "Basic Ball" that allows you to turn three hiking
poles into a tripod. The entire set-up weighs 2 lb. 4 oz. (not counting
head), but since I'm hiking with a partner and we'll be carrying four
hiking poles anyway, the only extra weight I'll have is the Basic Ball
(7.5 oz.) and the head. The Wonderland Trail has many unbridged river
crossings and snow fields, so we need the hiking poles anyway, so this
seems like a good way to get the tripod almost for free (weight wise).
Rather than try to explain what this all looks like, just go to the
Novoflex site at:
http://www.novoflex.de/html/news.htm
and click on "new products" for a description and pictures of the Basic
Ball and "telescope rods" (aka: hiking poles). I've received the Basic
Ball and have the hiking poles on order. The hiking poles are actually
made by Leki, but they have a special top to mate securely with the
Basic Ball. For a head, I plan to use an old ballhead made by Kodak
that I picked up somewhere years ago. It's small and light (3 oz.) but
is very well built seems to lock down very well. If that doesn't work,
I'll get one of the Velbon PH-253MG magnesium ultralight ballheads (5.6
oz.). I have a friend who uses this head with a Slik carbon fiber
tripod for backpacking with a lightweight 4x5 (total weight of his
tripod and head - 2 lb. 11 oz.).
Will this combo be even as sturdy as my 1227/Slik combo? No, not even
close. Still there are lots of tricks to help "load" a flimsy tripod in
the field. I plan to screw a 1/4-20 stainless steel eye bolt to the
bottom of the Basic Ball (it has a threaded socket) to provide a loading
point. One trick I commonly use is to just loop a piece of cord over
the eye bolt, pull it down until the tripod is well grounded, and then
stand on the cord. Another option is to hang something you carry anyway
(a couple full water bottles, camera bag, etc.) from the eye bolt. Or,
something you collect at the site (a plastic grocery bag full of rocks
works well in rocky terrain). Such loading can make even a flimsy
tripod much more sturdy. The extra mass is especially helpful if it's
windy.
I plan to thoroughly test this combo (I plan to do the Timberline Trail
around Mount Hood as a warm-up for the Wonderland) before my big trip.
Eventually, I'll write it all up and post it on my web site. This is
all pushing things to the very limit in the name of saving weight, but I
think I'll enjoy the Wonderland a lot more with a minimal 4x5 system and
a 40 lb. pack than I would with a full blown 4x5 system and a 70 lb.
pack. Also, I'm not recommending anybody else try to duplicate what I'm
doing - it's certainly not for everybody - just tossing out a few ideas
for others to consider in coming up with a solution that works for their
specific needs.
Kerry
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
....
I use a bogen 3410 pan/tilt head. It weighs 1.15 lbs and is
rated at max load of 16.5 lbs. I think that is the
highest load/weight ratio of any head in the bogen
line (or others I've seen). It is the sturdiest
head I've found that doesn't weigh a ton
(I'm used to 200+ lb telescope mounts for stability).
The 3410 head combined with a bogen 3221 tripod is
6.9 lbs and will be rock steady for long focus 4x5 as
well as 500 mm 35mm wildlife work. (I personally do not
like ball heads.)
A 3001 tripod plus the 3410 works well for 4x5 and
landscape 35mm too and weights only 4.85 lbs.
(not good enough for telephoto 35mm)
Kerry: I use a 6 lb old metal monorail I got for
$200. That is after going through several other
more compact and slightly lighter cameras. I like
the stability, movements, rotating back and
extension of 300mm at close focus. Only problem
is the rail makes it bulky.
I think the head, 3221 and sturdy metal camera have
made a difference in the sharpness of my images,
especially the 30x40-inch lightjet enlargements
from 3300 dpi drum scans. I also usually do
a hand shutter (open on bulb, hold the dark slide
in front of the camera, and move it away for a given
exposure time. That way, no camera movement.
Too light of a tripod, and it can vibrate at a natural
frequency just from ambient conditions. Trick is not
having a setup that peaks at that system frequency.
Kerry: great photo site--I've been there often.
Roger Clark
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001
Roger N. Clark wrote:
I used to use a 3001 with a 3030 head for backpacking. The modified
1227/Slik I now carry is over a pound lighter, taller and more rigid.
The two cameras I'm using for backpacking are also metal monorails, but
one weighs less than 3 lbs. and the other less than 2 lbs. Having used
some ultralight wooden cameras over the years, I was quite surprised how
much more rigid these ultralight monorails are. Both the Toho and the
Gowland are amazingly rigid (they are both more rigid than my Canham
that weighs nearly 5 lbs.). Both also have over 300mm of bellows
extension. The Toho maxes out at about 380mm and the Gowland about
330mm. Mostly what you give up with these ultralight cameras is
convenience. The Toho is a pretty sophisticated telescoping monorail
design with full movements on both standards. However, there is no
rotating back, so changing from horizontal to vertical takes about 30
seconds. Same for the Gowland where the change in orientation is more
like a minute. Other than that, the Toho is a joy to use. To save even
more weight, the Gowland has other compromises that make it slower to
operate (shared knobs for some movements). But, since I'll be carrying
it over 100 miles for 10 days, I won't mind slowing down a little when
taking pictures. At the very least, it will give me a chance to catch
my breath.
That's also one of the advantages of adding mass to load the tripod. In
some circumstances there is just no substitute for a heavy camera
support. If you want rock solid, mount your camera on a rock. Or in
this case, weigh your tripod down with a bag of rocks. These ultralight
tripods I'm taking about really benefit from such loading - in fact, in
many circumstances they require it. To be on the safe side, when using
the Novoflex poles, I'll probably load the tripod for every shot, even
when the wind isn't blowing. Better to be too stable (no such thing)
than not stable enough.
Thanks Roger. I've also visited your site many times and enjoy both
your images and your articles on film scanning.
Kerry
Date: 06 Jul 2001
Try and find a used Galvin 2x3. These are very light and less expensive
than anything else I can think of. Check E-Bay.
steve simmons
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001
"william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com wrote:
Its the early Graphic roll adaptors that have film flatness
problems, although it depends on the condition of the film.
The later adaptors, with lever film winding, have additional rollers
right at the edge of the film opening. These have good film flatness.
I have both types of holders and a Calumet C-2 holder, which also is
somtimes accused of poor film flatness.
I've done a visual check on all three types. The lever wind Graphic
and Calumet holders seemed to hold the film flat, the knob wind
graphic holder sometimes had a slight bulge in the center. I am really
not sure its any worse than some types of sheet film holders.
Graphic lever wind holders go for more than the knob wind ones but
are still much less than a used Horseman. In any case, a roll holder
considerably extends the utility of a 2x3 camera especially a Speed or
Crown Graphic.
BTW, I somtimes wonder if complaints about blured images from roll
holders may be due to mis-adjusted rangefinders since most of the time
you will be using the RF to focus when using roll film. Kalart and
Graphic rangefinders are very accurate when adjusted but adjusting the
Kalart, at least, is a very tedious job with lots of repeated motion.
Its easy to think you have it spot on and discover the next day that
its drifted a bit. I rather think there are a lot of rangefinders
which are not quite on the mark.
---
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001
Richard, my Lever Graflex RFBs are only somewhat better than the older
knob versions, but they still require stopping down to at least f:16 to
assure sharpness because of film buckle. That's focusing on the ground
glass and shooting Velvia or XP-2+. A post from John Hicks on photo.net
alerted me to his problem, which he solved by switching to Horseman RFBs.
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
GK wrote:
I have a baby graphic (not a 'speed' but a plain one) that I stripped the
rangefinder off of that I use when hiking. I take two rollfilm backs
(6X9)and use a 100mm and a 135mm WF ektar and it works nice. I think it
can use a 65mm lens but never personally used one on it. You can probably
find a user one with lens and a couple of roll film backs. Make sure it
has a graphloc (sp?) back or you can't use the cheaper clamp on roll film
backs.
I like it cause it has the "feel" of a 4X5 without the size and film
loading problems.
--
Date: 07 Jul 2001
...
There are some problems with the 2x3 Graphics and wide angle lenses. The
small lens board and front standard limit the size of the lens rear
element. Modern wide angles will not fit. I use a 65 Angulon and while I
have no problems with good 11x14's I'm sure that a modern lens would be
better. I hear that a 47 f8 Super Angulon will fit if you're looking for
ultra wide.
I saw a 2x3 Gowland wide angle camera for sale on Ebay (I believe it was
from Quality Camera www.qualitycamera.com). It was small, had a bag
bellows, and used a standard graflock back. This would be a nice camera
if you plan on a lot of wide angle use. Not sure if it sold but asking
price was $380.
IMHO the 2x3 will work OK for more intimate landscapes. If you are after
the grand view go for the 4x5. Also the wide angle views that include
lot's of detail will probably be better in 4x5. But maybe state of the
art modern wide angles would make 2x3 closer. The 2x3 is lighter, faster
and easier to use when hiking around looking for images. Also roll film
lets you take more images than the limited number of 4x5 holders you can
carry. Another plus for summer work in the woods is that with 2x3 I don't
have to put anything on the ground to setup and shoot. So less time
checking my equipment for tics etc. after each setup.
Chuck
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
...
Graflok is Graflex's trade name for a universal spring back. It
takes standard Graphic type holders but the spring loaded ground glass
panel comes out so that special accessories can be used. These are
held in place by two slide locks, similar to the sliding strips that
hold lens boards in place on many cameras.
The Graflok is also all-metal and very precise.
Before the Graflok was introduced in 1949 Graflex cameras came with
either of two types of backs. The Graphic back, standard on Speed
Graphics, is a standard spring back, the same as found on a great many
other sheet film cameras. The other back was the Graflex back,normally
supplied on Graflex SLR cameras. This back did not have a
spring panel but used sliding strips as described above to fasten the
film holders. It had the advantage of taking accessories. The
disadvantage was that it is slower to use and the ground glass is a
separate part which must be fastened on to use and then removed for
putting in a holder or accessory. Not much of a problem on a single
lens reflex camera. Either back could be ordered on either camera.
Speed Graphics for scientific use were often equipped with Graflex
backs to take accessories.
Graphic and Graflex backs do not take the same holders. Graphic, and
Grafolk backs have a groove on the short side of the film opening
which locks a boss on on the holder. This is reversed on Graflex backs
and holders, so, even though the dimentions are the same Graflex
holders and accessories can not be used on a Graflok back. Not much of
a loss.
Nearly any Graphic or Graflex camera can be fitted with a Graflok
back, mostly without much surgery although some readjustment will be
necessary since the depth of the back is slightly different.
My Super-D Graflex camera has a Graflok on it so I don't have to
have a supply of special holders for it.
So called "universal" or "international" backs are compatible with
the Graflok and take the same holders and accessories.
There are pretty good illustratons of all three backs on the Graflex
site: http://www.graflex.org Beware, there _is_ a graflex.com, which
is something completely different.
---
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
furles@mail.croydon.ac.uk (Stephen Furley) wrote:
I have a 65mm Super Angulon which works fine in both my Anniversary
and Pacemaker 4x5 Speed Graphics. when the standard is pushed all the
way in the back element nearly touches the ground glass.
One of the advantages of the Graphic is that it will take these very
short focal length lenses without recessed lens boards.
BTW, there may be a problem from the standard being wobbly when on
the inner part of the focusing track. This is from damage to the guide
the track runs in. Its particularly vulnerable to damage if one
attempts to use the drop bed feature when the track is not completely
at its backward postion. Sometimes the guide can be straightened, but
the metal is brittle so there is a chance of breaking off a bit at the
end.
---
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
Ilja Friedel ilja@clyde.caltech.edu wrote:
A perfectly usable lens. Covers 4x5 but with no margin.
The problem with using such a fast lens of this focal length is that
it has very little depth of field when open. So you can shoot
available light with a press camera but must be very careful about
focusing.
The 80mm version of this lens, used in Rolleiflex TLR's, is
exceptionally sharp. Presumably, the 150mm version would be similar.
I don't know of any source of performance data. The catalogue data
would have only image circle and mechanical dimensions.
The f/2.8 Xenotar is a five element variaion on the Planar lens. One
cemented component is eliminated by combining two of the elements into
one. This is a satisfactory design at f/2.8, where it is superior to a
Tessar of this speed.
Its interesting that both Schneider and Zeiss went back to
conventional six-element designs for their late f/3.5 lenses for the
Rolleiflex.
---
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
christine christine@napc.com wrote:
Actually, I think this applies to all cameras. If someone else
handles it make absolutely sure everything is where you want it.
BTW, when opening up the back shutter to use the front shutter check
it with the ground glass. Some Graphics, particularly Anniversary and
pre Anniversary ones may not have enough spring tension to get the
shutter completely open unless the tension adjustment is set at around
#4 or higher.
The only advantage of the focal plane shutter is its high speed and
the capability of using barrel lenses.
It does increase weight and size and gives you one more thing to be
concerned about.
---
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
Most 4x5 press cameras are equipped with 127mm or 135mm lenses.
These are shorter than the "normal" FL for the format, which is 152mm.
The idea was to get a somewhat wide-angle view considered desirable
for the job these cameras were intended for.
What I noticed when setting up some rangefinders is that many lens
shades for 127mm and 135mm lenses are intended for the angle of
coverage these lenses have for their "normal" format, which is 3-1/4 x
4-1/4 and will vignet the corners when used on a 4x5 camera.
The one which seems to work best is the Kodak Series 6 lens shade.
These always looked a little shallow to me and, it turns out, they
are. The edge of the shade just clears the maximum angle for a 127mm
lens for 4x5 at infinity focus, and has just a bit of margin for a
135mm lens.
I am pretty sure this was delibrate. The series 7 lens shade, which
is used on the 152mm Ektar, is deeper in comparison to the smaller
shade and is just right for the 152mm lens on 4x5. To me this means
Kodak knew what they were doing and designed the Series 6 shade with
enough of an angle to make it suitable for use on press cameras.
The vignetting may be insidious since it is probably unexpected, you
have to remember that most press cameras are equipped with essentially
wide angle lenses although they may be "standard" lenses pushed to the
limit of their coverage.
Lenses on smaller format press cameras are usually the "normal"
focal length for the format so lens shades will not be a problem for
them.
---
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
"Ian Grant" iangrant@btinternet.com wrote:
I really have to disagree with the quality assesment of both Graflex
and Calumet. Both companies built well designed and very rugged
cameras. Graflex built the Graphic series press cameras and also view
cameras sold by Kodak under under the Kodak and Century names. The
famous Kodak 2D and Century studio cameras were built by Graflex. They
are not as fancy as the European studio camereas but will match them
in terms of usability and lifetime.
Actually you may be ahead of the game in some ways. Both Calumet and
Graflex used synthetic bellows while Linhof uses real leather. Its
very rare to find bad bellows on a Graphic or Graflex camera but
Linhof cameras often have rotted bellows which need replacement.
OTOH Linhof stuff is built like jewelery.
As far as lenses, both Rodenstock and Schneider build superb lenses
but you can get equally as good ones from Nikon and Fuji often at
lower prices.
The choice of a camera should be made on the basis of its intended
application. Some cameras will work for both field and studio use but
the optimum camera for one or the other may be different. Monorail
cameras do better as studio cameras than in the field. Flat bed cameras
tend to fold up smaller than monorails, at least without disassembly,
so are more suitable for field use. However, monorail cameras
generally have more flexible movements. Everything is a trade-off.
Probably the closest thing to a truely universal camera is the
Linhof Super Technica, but its also one of the most expensive cameras
around.
---
Date: 28 May 2001
My old Graflex Graphic View II is extremely rugged and still has the
original bellows, and does all the movements I need. It's also a great
field camera, and can take a lot of punishment. O. Winston Link used them
for his marvelous night steam train pictures. You sure can't beat the
price-- I paid $150 for my GVII including the carry case. The only
negative about some of these older cameras (well, that goes for new ones
too) is that you need to be aware of their minumum and maxium focus
distances and how that relates to what you plan to do with the camera.
Graflex made a number of telephoto/wide angle lens boards which can extend
the useful range of the camera. I also use an old Graflex Crown Graphic
which has been stripped of the rangefinder and viewfinder. I mount the
75mm Super Angulon and a 6X12 Horseman back to make a great (and very
inexpensive) wide angle panorama camera.
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
Roberto roberto@sepia.net wrote:
Others have commented on using the camera. I add only that if the
shutter has been removed you should get the camera _very_ cheaply. I
suppose some may do this for weight reduction but its not really very
much. My guess is that its been canabalized to fix some other camera.
There are lots of Speed and Crown Graphics around so choose
carefully. There is a large amount of information on the Graflex.org
web site: http://www.graflex.org which will help you to identify
models and ages.
The lightest of my four Speed Graphics is a pre-annivarsary model
(about 1938 from its serial number) made before they started using a
lot of metal parts. Lighter than a Crown!
---
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
To rotate the back, pullout the round pin.
There are two round pins. One for the shade
that unscrews (for removal), and the seond
that is spring loaded. When pulled, it allows
the back to rotate.
Looking at the front, the bottom right shifts the lens
laterally. There's a pair for allowing the lens to tilt
in and out. There's also the ones for allowing it to
rise.
The rangefinder should have a yellow dot in the middle. It should
be normally calibrated for a 135mm lens. If your lens is
not the original, you may need to adjust the stops on the
rails to allow for an accurate repositioning.
The scale for focus distance should be accurate for any
135mm lens.
Hope this is useful. I enjoy mine immensely.
Collin
GK wrote:
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
Kalart rangefinder adjustment manual
http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/kalart-manual.html
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001
Ooops, have you ever used one. In my opinion they kick rear end. So
what are they good for:
Landscapes (it's a great backpacking camera)
Lightweight
Downside:
Funky appearance
OK now find that in a camera that sells for less than $250.00. Nearest
available today and you are looking at least a grand.
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001
....
Best landscape med format camera around IMHO. Interchangable backs, ground
glass direct focusing like a view camera and more than enough movements
for landscape work. Try to find these features in any camera that is this
durable, simple to use, easy to get lenses and backs for and is this
cheap. You can adapt almost any view camera lens to work with one and it's
isn't some obscure camera that you are stuff with only a certain line of
lenses. You can use either some cheap older glass or high end stuff
depending on your budget.
--
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001
Amen to that.
I find I am using my 2x3 more than my Hasselblad for landscape work
and the extra size of the negative (6x9) is a real plus. And if I am
careful I can get results that compare to my 4x5 (not better, but
pretty close).
There has been a lot of discussion with the roll-film backs and film
flatness, but I do not have any problems with mine and I have the
older knob wind versions. Great enlargements up to 20x24.
R.
...
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
A good, although rather old, book on Zone Sysetem is:
_The New Zone System Manual_ Minor White, Richard Zakia, Peter Lorenz,
1976, Morgan and Morgan ISBN 75-428-77
Probably long out of print.
The Zone system is based on no more than the relation between
development and contrast and the exposure adjustment needed to keep the
minimum density at a useful place on the toe of the film.
It is extended to take into account the flare in the camera. Flare can
not be exactly corrected by increasing contrast. It has more the effect of
lengthening the toe. For films with a normal medium toe followed by a
fairly long straight line section of their characteristics increasing
exposure will to some extent compensate for flare by placing the shadows
on a higher contrast part of the curve.
The idea of the Zone System is to apply some sensitometry to practical
photography in order to make printable negatives of a wide range of
scenes. Normal development instructions and the ISO speed assume a sort of
average scene contrast. For the most part this will result in negatives
printable on paper of normal contrast or of one grade harder or softer. To
get most scenes to print on the same grade of paper requires some
adjustment of developing time and, consequently, effective exposure speed.
While sensitometric measurements will tell you exactly how much the fact
is that such precision is not really necessary. The data supplied for most
film (certainly all Kodak films) will tell you how much to adjust
development time to change the contrast and generally give you a hint
about exposure adjustment. Development change will vary with the emulsion
but speed change will generally be about the same for a given change in
contrast.
A normally used reflected light meter averages the light from the
subject and can be fooled by scenes with very small highlight or shadow
areas. Close up readings and some application of intelligence allows
judgement of the correct exposure. Incident light meters take no account
of scene contrast, the presumtion being that highlight exposure is the
same regardless of how small or larger the highlight areas are. Where
scene brightness is far from the average expected by the meter some human
intervention must be applied in figuring out the exposure. TTL metering is
subject to the same problems as reflected light averaging meters. Spot
meters are useful for getting the effect of a reflected light meter used
close up but at a distance.
For really accurate exposure you should know both the actual reflectance
of the brightest area of the subject and the lighting ratio plus some idea
of how it is to be reproduced. If you want to reproduce a light gray
object on a darker gray object in their actual gray values you must expose
and develop differently than if you want to reproduce, say, a scene on a
gray day with full brightness values, meaning a higher contrast than the
original.
With all this verbosity probably only one thing needs to be added, namely
that the ISO method of speed rating gives very nearly the minimum exposure
possible for shadow detail. It has a 1.25:1 safety factor, not much. The
ISO method also does not take into account the gamma of the toe. Most of
the time this doesn't matter but sometimes it does. The old ASA speeds had
a 2.5 times safety factor, too much, but probably exposure of a bit more
than the ISO method is a good precaution for getting adequate shadow
detail without excessive highiight densities.
FWIW almost all of this was anticipated by Lloyd A. Jones, and his
associates, at Kodak Research Laboratories. Jones researched tonal
reproduction beginning in the 1920's and wrote a landmark paper in the
early 1940's describing very extensive research into what was judged an
"excellent" print. The work bears reading. It was not perfect but no one
before or since has done anything like it.
----
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
"Don Wallace" don.wallace@nlc-bnc.ca wrote:
Well, if you are shooting action the back shutter is pretty helpful.
Most of front shutters found on these cameras don't go faster than
1/200 even the ones with 1/400 speed (excecpt late cameras whih
Synchro-Compurs on them).
The focal plane shutter is actually very reliable providing its been
properly lubricated. The speed accuracy depends on the model.
Pacemaker Speed Graphics have a differenc shutter than the older
cameras. It has an inertial regulator and is quite accurate.
Anniversary and Pre-Anniversary Graphics are less accurate although
the shutter can be calibrated so you know what it is doing. They are
pretty repeatable.
Many of the speeds on the charts are wishful thinking. There are
usually about four or five usable speeds between 1/10th and 1/1000.
1/1000 will masure slow if total open time is measured because the
shutter is not very efficient at that speed. However the actual
exposure is OK. The speed as far as motion stopping is around 1/800th.
Some SGs have had the tension cranked up so that the back shutter
measures 1/1000 for the total open time. This is the motion stopping
speed but exposure will be around 1/1200 and the other speeds will be
off. Probably the press guys who used the souped up shutter never used
it at any other speed.
FP shutter efficiency is dependant on the ratio of the slit width to
the distance from the shutter to the actual focal plane, and on the
angle of the cone of light from the lens. The closer the shutter is to
the true focal plane the more efficient it will be. The narrower the
cone of light from the lens the more efficient it will be. So long
focus and small stops get better shutter efficiency. The spacing in a
Graphic or Graflex camera is enough to lower the small slit efficiency
to less than 80%.
Also note that the curtain speed is not constant (although Pacemakers
are much more so). The curtain tends to accelerate as it moves. When
the narrowest slit is used the difference between the top and bottom
of the frame is about one stop for 4x5 cameras, and less for smaller
format cameras. Makes the sky darker:-)
---
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
"Tom" tecoates@home.com wrote:
The first Speed Graphics could well have used the lens board from
the Graflex. They had smaller boards than cameras of a few years
later.
Because the curtain is a continuous piece of rubberized cloth with
different sized slits in it its quite possible for a pin hole in one
part not to have any effect on the other speeds, or rather speeds
where other slits are used.
I can't comment on curtain condition. Anniversary (1940 to 1947) and
Pacemaker and later cameras appear to have curtains made of some
synthetic material which is pretty tough. However, when you buy a
Speed Graphic its well to inspect the curtain along its whole length
to make sure its OK. Makes no difference if you are not going to use
it but a damaged curtain suggests the camera has not been treated very
well.
These curtains are not hard to replace although its a tedious job.
As with bellows with holes, and 35mm shutter curtans, the best cure
is to replace it although small pinholes can possibly be patched with
Elastoseal.
Richard Knoppow
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 or 6x12
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
Pho-Ku wrote:
> Im planning to go into landscape photography and I am looking into perhaps
> buying a view camera that allows 6x9 or 6x12 rollfilm... I want full
> movement of the lens so speed/crown graphics are out of the question??
>
> Is it cheaper to buy a MF viewcamera or a LF camera fitted with rollfilm
> backs?
I've used a Horseman Technical Camera with medium format for years, and
I recently got a Toho 4 x 5 view camera. In the process I've thought a
lot about the relative merits, and, although I'm sure there are others
with more experience, I am happy to share what I've learned.
The crucial decision you have to make is whether to stick with medium
format or to go to 4 x 5. The camera you would get and the lenses you
would use would be appropriate for the format and might not work well
with a different format.
There exist medium format monorail view cameras, but they are expensive.
Roll film holders for such a camera might be hard to find, and would
presumably also be expensive. I believe Horseman is again selling a
Technical camera like mine. I think they also sell roll film holders
for it. Such a camera is also expensive.
Lenses designed to cover medium format are not easy to find, and they
are likely to be expensive. You are going to enlarge more than twice as
much as you would with 4 x 5, but at the same time you need to cover a
smaller image circle, even with extensive morements.
Your other alternative, to use a 4 x 5 view camera with a roll film
holder, will probably end up being cheaper, but it poses other problems.
Lenses are readily available, but they are designed to cover a larger
image circle and they need not have the same resolving power because of
lesser enlargement. Used with a roll film holder, most of the
capability the lens is designed for is wasted. More important, their
angles of view are going to be wrong for medium format. That is, you
will have to choose lenses roughly one half the focal lengths that you
would for 4 x 5. My Rodenstock 90 mm lens designed for 4 x 5 is a very
nice lens, and in a pinch I can certainly crop the 4 x 5 negative in
quarters, but my Horseman 90 mm lens, desinged to cover 6 x 9, with
movements, is a better match for the format. At the long end, things
would get easier since lots of lenses are available in the 150 mm or
higher range. But at the short end you would have real problems. You
would want at least a 65 or 70 mm lens and perhaps shorter. Such lenses
in 4 x 5 are expensive. Worse, they may not work on some field
cameras, and even if they do work on a given view camera, camera
movements would be severely restricted. If you can find a 6 x 12 roll
film holder, you might not need any movements. Myself, I would use
smaller formats with a panoramic head and stitch the images together
digitally.
You might consider just going to 4 x 5 instead. That was what I decided
to do although I still use my Horseman. I got around the problem of
buying a 4 x 5 enlarger by switching to scanning and digital processing.
I originally got my Horseman so I could use camera movements but still
rely on medium format film and printing processing methods. That is
certainly an attractive option for those familiar with the format, but I
am very happy I finally made the jump to 4 x 5.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: "Yuppie" NOyuppie@SPAMbellsouth.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 or 6x12
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
There are at least 4 current makers of medium format view cameras:
Arca-Swiss
Ebony (http://www.ebonycamera.com)
Horseman (http://www.horsemanusa.com)
and
Linhof (http://www.linhof.de)
Each have models with varrying movement capabilities, but 3 of them offer at
least one model with what one would consider full view camera movements.
There may be other makers out there as well.
Check out http://largeformatphotography.info/roundup2x3.html for some useful
information on medium format view camera options. There are some additional
options that might be available used which are described here.
For 6x12, a 4x5 camera with a "universal" (a.k.a. graflok) back might be
your best option.
- Scott
"roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com wrote
> I don't know of any MF cameras that will give you full movement of the lens.
> So that sort of limits your options if that is the case.
>
> "Pho-Ku" remove@spam.com wrote
> > Im planning to go into landscape photography and I am looking into perhaps
> > buying a view camera that allows 6x9 or 6x12 rollfilm... I want full
> > movement of the lens so speed/crown graphics are out of the question??
> > Is it cheaper to buy a MF viewcamera or a LF camera fitted with rollfilm
> > backs?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 or 6x12
From: Mark Cudworth markc@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
"Pho-Ku" remove@spam.com wrote:
> Im planning to go into landscape photography and I am looking into
> perhaps buying a view camera that allows 6x9 or 6x12 rollfilm... I
> want full movement of the lens so speed/crown graphics are out of the
> question??
>
> Is it cheaper to buy a MF viewcamera or a LF camera fitted with
> rollfilm backs?
Well, 12cm is only a little less than 5 inches, so a medium format view
camera that could handle 6x12 format wouldn't be significantly smaller than
a 4x5 view camera. If 6x9 is as large as you will ever shoot, you may have
more options. Beacuse of the popularity of 4x5 view cameras, I think the
most affordable option will likely be a 4x5 camera with a Graflock back for
roll film holders.
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Just to clarify. There were many lenses made for 2x3 cameras as this was
a popular format at one time. I have a 65mm WA Optar, a 101 Optar and a
300mm telephoto for mine. All were designed for this format.
Super Angulons to 47mm were also made specifically for the 2x3 format as
well as other Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.
I've never had any problem with "sharpness" with these lenses or with
lenses designed for 4x5 when used with a roll back.
Robert Feinman wrote:
> You could look at a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 speed/crown graphic instead.
> They are about $250 and you can get roll film backs for 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9.
> Smaller than the 4x5 and lots of used lenses (although not as many as
> for 4x5).
> If you want you can also shoot sheet film. There is a small amount of
> 2x3 film available or you can cut down 4x5.
>
> steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
>
>> I was thinking about getting a Graflex 4x5 camera with a 120 rollfilm
>> back. I like the enormous range of choices of lenses in LF but I don't
>> have the $$$s or inclination to actually shoot 4x5. Does anyone have
>> any better suggestions? If this has been beaten to death in a previous
>> thread, please let me know the name of the thread so that I can look it
>> up.
>> Thanks
From: "David Grandy" dgrandy@accesscable.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
For what you are talking about, I wouldn't get a Graflex. I presume
that you are interested in the LF camera with a MF roll film back so you
can take advantages of the LF camera's movements. Well the Graflex has
only limited movements since it was designed to be a press camera, not a
view or field type. I'd only recommend a Graflex for a beginner who
needs to assemble all of the LF infrastructure (dark cloth, loupe, ad
tedium) and can only afford that kind of camera to start. But it WOULD
be a starter camera and so why bother?
If you are thinking about a Graflex then I suspect that some type of a
field camera would be more useful to you than a monorail. Quite frankly
if you are planning on taking the camera outside with any kind of
regularity at all then a field camera is the much better choice. I mean
they don't call them field cameras for nothing!=20
A field camera is going to have more restricted movements than a
monorail, especially back movements. But the two LF cameras I have (and
older Toyo 4x5/5x7 Field camera and an 8x10 B&J;) have no back movements
at all and I don't miss them in the least. Back movements (mostly)
change the shape of the subject so how often are you going to want to do
that? But the front movements are what it's all about. So find a
camera with good tilt, rise and swing. And having a nice long bellows
will allows you to use longer lenses at shorter distances.
As for specific models I would suggest something in wood (lighter and
prettier) and with a good name: Wisner, Wista that kind of thing. I've
been impressed with the specs and price of the new carbon fibre Toyo CF
but I've also read some scathing reviews of its bad construction. I
think an email conversation with someone that owns one would help.
Get some good lenses. As someone pointed out, in MF on a LF camera you
are going to have wide angle problems. A 65 - which is extremely wide
for 4x5 - is only going to be moderately wide for 6x7. And yet you will
still have the bellows compression problem. So you might want to choose
a camera that will allow you to use a bag bellows if wide angles are in
your future. In any case get as good a lens as you can afford. A 150
is probably the cheapest focal length and an excellent one won't break
the bank. To flip back to the Graflex for a moment the lenses (137 mm it
seems) that were sold with those cameras are next to useless. They
have barely enough image circle for 4x5 although plenty for 6x7 but the
newest one is going to be 40 years old so you can imagine how accurate
the shutter is going to be.
The interesting thing for you is going to be the 4x5/120 debate that
will go on in your mind. I have a roll film back for my Toyo, and it
the slider kind. I can view the scene on its own ground glass and then
I can slide the film magazine into place to shoot. It's very fast and
very convenient. Having said that I've put exactly TWO roll of film
through it in the last ten years - and I have TWO film magazines! See I
get out into the field set the camera up and then say, "Hey, I've done
all the hard work, why am I not shooting sheet film?" So I do, sigh ...
=20
It's also much harder to shoot all of the medium format roll. If I'm
out with 4x5 I'm lucky to shoot ten sheets all day, and I like to bounce
between colour neg, transparency and B&W; (which is why god made film
holders). So a ten shot 120/6x7 roll is going to be a lot of film, and
believe me you don't shoot like it's 35mm.
Obviously if I NEEDED to shoot medium format film and have the use of
movements then I'd get over this "problem" very quickly; but my LF
cameras are a change of pace for me from commercial photography and
pretty much exclusively for fun. The 4x5 part of things will add a very
minimal cost to your set up - literally a couple of film holders - so
you might as well have that capability, for the rainy day that you need
it.
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best LF camera for MF
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
> I was thinking about getting a Graflex 4x5 camera with a 120 rollfilm
> back. I like the enormous range of choices of lenses in LF but I don't
> have the $$$s or inclination to actually shoot 4x5. Does anyone have
> any better suggestions? If this has been beaten to death in a previous
> thread, please let me know the name of the thread so that I can look it
> up.
> Thanks
A friend lent me a Crown Graphlex he had with a 135 mm lens. I was
surprised at how well it did with 4 x 5. But as a 6 x 7 camera, the
results would be pretty mediocre. Many large format lenses are
excellent and could be used with 6 x 7 format with a roll film holder
and produce excellent results. But such lenses are also expensive, even
used. And of course there is the narrower field of view when used with 6
x 7 format that others have mentioned. If you are going to get lenses
good enough for what you want, it doesn't make sense to scrimp on the
camera. I suspect that is not really what you had in mind. I doubt if
you want to end up spending as much it will really cost if you actually
add up the costs of all the components. There have been several
discussions of alternatives for 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 format used cameras and
lenses, and I suggest you start there first. When you end up with what
your entire system might eventually add up costing, you might find that
a medium format used system will come to less.
You might on the other hand rethink just going to 4 x 5. The cost of
the film is higher, but if you are more deliberate in your shooting, it
might not be that different. The major extra expense for 4 x 5 is an
enlarger, and even used that will be expensive. But a moderate priced
flatbed scanner which can handle 4 x 5 film may be a reasonable alternative.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: 26 Feb 2003
Bill Martin wcmartin@vnet.net wrote
> Crown or Century 6x9 Graphics. I've used 58mm, don't think you can
> really go much shorter.
>
> Roland wrote:
> > Could I have your assistance in building up a complete list of wide-angle
> > 6x9 cameras? I mean with lens focal length of 65mm or shorter and
> > specifically 6x9 cameras.
> >
> > Envoy Wide Angle (Dallmeyer or Taylor Hobson)
> > Fujica G690
> > Fujica GL690
> > Fuji GSW690 (various versions)
> > Mamiya Super 23
> >
> >
They'll go quite a bit shorter.
I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on a Century. It vignettes on 2.25 x 3.25,
the image circle is only 84 mm, but the effect is not unpleasing and
the lens is very useful. And I know someone who shoots a 35 Apo
Grandagon on a Century. 125 mm circle, requires a center filter.
Cheers,
Dan
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: View and Field
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003
"Ian" ian3192007@yahoo.com wrote
> I just got into large format photography. I've been using my dad's
> crown graphic, which has been a lot of fun. What's the difference
> between a view camera and a field camera? And which would the crown
> graphic classify as?
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
View camera is the generic term for a camera with a ground
glass screen directly behind the lens. A field camera is
simply a view camera which is light and compact enough to be
easily transportable. None of these definitions are very
rigid.
By this definition the Crown Graphic is both although most
would calle it a press camera. Most view cameras have more
adjustments or movements than a Graphic has. The Graphic
cameras were designed for news photography, mostly hand
held. They are light, compact, and strong.
BTW, for more on Graphic cameras see:
http://www.graflex.org
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Bob Salomon"
Subject: Re: new Rolleiflex GX TLR- is it worth it?
bobsalomon@mindspring.com http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/
From: georgecp@gte.net (George Pappas)
[1] Re: 120 SHIFT?
Date: Thu Apr 20 08:04:23 CDT 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Medium Format with Movements (was: cautions.. Re: Fuji RFs
vs. Plaubel Makina)
> Yes, that's been a discouragement for me in considering a 6x7 with
> movements as has the small GG.
> You make a convincing argument for shooting 4x5. I remember an earlier
> post where you said you usually shoot around f/22. This reveals that you
> are essentially using your movements to secure faster shutter speeds than
> would be possible if you had to rely on smaller apertures for DoF. If
> your 4x5 were rigid, you would have to shoot at f/45 to get the same DoF
> as 6x7 at f/22. Your movements are cutting your exposure times down to
> 25% of what they would be otherwise and you're reducing diffraction
> proportionately, also.
> Conversely, a rigid 6x7 is suffering 4 times the
> diffraction shooting at the same aperture as the 4x5 and is not using its
> lens's apetures of best resolution when stopped down all the way.
> Frankly, I'm content with the grain and tonality of 6x7 enlarged to 16x20
> and can't really afford larger prints anyway.
> And rollilm is SO much easier.
>Adding movements to 6x7, we can assume I could shoot at f/11
> instead of f/22 and enjoy slow films like Velvia with shorter exposures,
> get better resolution, less diffraction.
> Well, considering all that movements afford: the lower diffraction and
> shorter exposures (had with wider apertures), improved corner resolution
> (had with large image circles), improved resolution (shooting closer to
> lens apertures of best resolution), it does seem silly to worry about a
> few lp/mm's difference between a Mamiya 7's 43mm and an 45mm Grandagon.
> I appreciate your input!
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hard decision on a tool to shoot landscapes for the rest of my life
Peter De Smidt
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hard decision on a tool to shoot landscapes for the rest of
my life
> I have been shooting landscapes for the last year with a 35mm camera
> and I am contemplating moving up to a large format camera. I have
> spent the last year photographing landscapes, cityscapes, abstractions
> and studio portraiture. The pure landscapes moves me the most and I
> want to dedicate a good portion of the rest of my life traveling and
> capturing the beauty of the natural world around us that is ignored by
> so many people. In the last year I have gone from color and Velvia to
> my own black & white darkroom with print capabilities up to a 6x6 neg
> with a 35mm and 6x6 negative carriers and lenses. I just invested in a
> Mamiya TLR C330 with the 55,80,135, and 180 lenses. After reading just
> about every post here about TLRs, Hassleblad, medium format compared to
> large format, Toyo, Linhof, Wisner, and Wista I wanted to query this
> community to see what opinions were prevalent related to some questions
> I have. Renting large format is not an option locally so that is out.
> I have several questions and I am looking for those of you that surpass
> me is years of photography experience and wisdom. Just as background
> the pictures of Micheal Kenna, Art Wolfe, Dave Muench, David Fokos,
> Edward Weston and John Sexton truly inspire me and I subscribe to Black
> & White and View Camera magazines for continued inspiration. I do not
> want to upgrade to Hasselblad or Rollei and then always wonder if a
> large format camera would do my subjects more justice. I want to
> produce pictures that one day someone else might consider fine art. I
> am contemplating the Toyo 45AII. I specifically have been looking at
> metal field cameras. My approach with my 35 and TLR is to use a
> tripod, Minolta spot metering w/ the zone system, mirror lockup, cable
> release, lens stopped down to best aperture, waiting for wind to
> settle, looking for formations of clouds, careful compositions and
> trying to really get in touch with the place and mood of what I am
> taking. I use Agfa APX 25 and APX 100 with some Kodak Tri-X Pan. I
> basically already have a very contemplative approach to photography.
> I am trying to get real world input on what it feels like to upgrade so
> I can make my decision with my eyes wide open. According to the book
> Art & Visual Perception a developing artist cannot skip any steps in
> their development by assistance from someone more experienced. Each
> artist has to go through all of the steps of development according to
> this book and if someone helps them skip steps they will eventually
> regress to catch up on the steps they missed in order to truly move
> forward. I think this applies well to artistic development, but with
> your input hopefully I can skip some steps in the emptying of my pocket
> book. My questions follow:
>
> 1. Comments from people that have a Hasselblad or Rollei or Pentax 67
> and wish that they had a large format (4x5) camera?
> 2. Comments from people that have a large format camera and wish they
> had a Hasselblad or Rollei or Pentax 67.
> 3. Comments from people that have a Hasselblad or Rollei and wish they
> had a large format but, are not willing to take a more meditative
> (slower/more expensive) approach to their photography.
> 4. Comments from people that moved up to large format from a premium
> medium format system and their thoughts after say a year of using the
> new larger format.
> 5. Comments from people that moved up to large format and lost their
> enthusiasm for the pursuit of images.
> 6. Comments from people that moved up to large format and got
> frustrated and moved back to medium format or 35mm.
> 7. Comments from people that have a Toyo 45AII on how the experience
> has worked out for them?
> 8. How does the Toyo compare to a Linhof Technika out in the field?
> 9. Comments from people about their experience overcoming the learning
> curve of moving up to large format. How long did the transition take?
> What were the major hurdles? Was it worth it in the end?
> 10. Comments from people that considered metal field cameras by Toyo,
> Wisner, Wista & Linhof.
> 11. Experiences with condenser vs. diffusion enlargers for the types of
> pictures I want to produce.
>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Architectural photography (was: Am I Insane?)
Date: 31 Aug 2000
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Architectural photography (was: Am I Insane?)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Am I Insane?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000
>Just got back into L-F after a 25 year hiatis. Looking to get a camera,
>sold my old Graflex back in the 70's. Have fallen in love with a specific
>monorail (which one isn't important -- don't want to start a religous war on
>that subject :) ). Problem is I don't know if I want a field camera or a
>monorail. Here's what I've been doing w/ 35mm and my Digital SLR:
>
>- Product shots (of difficult products where precise tilt, swing, rise etc.
>will help a lot)
>- Architectural Interiors/Exteriors (see above re: tilt, swing, rise, etc.)
>- Portraits
>- Near road landscapes (not much of a hiker -- mile or two from the road,
>tops)
>
>The monorail for which I lust is not cheap, light, small, or particularly
>weather-tolerant, so I'm wondering if I should compromise on the first two
>above in favor of a camera I can more easily drag into the field. Or should
>I just work really hard on getting a backpack/case that will allow me to
>drag 15+ lbs of monorail, lenses, tripod, etc. into the field? Setting up
>can't be that bad, I have played enough with the mono to feel that I could
>get it up and going in less than a couple of minutes -- a field camera can't
>be *that* much faster. I mean to me, most of the issue isn't the camera
>setup... its finding the view, planning the framing, finding the tripod
>setting, tweaking once the camera is set up, etc. Sheesh if Ansel can lug
>an 8x10 that didn't fold into a cute little box, can't I? :)
>
>Am I just talking myself into the monorail or do some of you lug them into
>the field? Or am I just insane to try it? Given that I'm really unlikely
>to get two cameras what would you do?
Articles on B&W; photography, camera and equipment reviews, and
photographs at:
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
From: Paul Butzi butzi@halcyon.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Readyload reliability project
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net
From: "RoninUK" RoninUK@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Chosing a budget medium format camera
> I'm in the market of budgetly priced medium format camera. I mostly
> shoot during travel. And I need your comment to the following equipment:
>
> 1) Pentacon 6 with Biometar and Flektogon, TTL metered prism
> 2) Kiev 88 kit, unmodified, direct from Russiaplaza
> 3) Kiev 60 kit, also from Russiaplaza
>
> Please share with me your experience. Thanks in advance.
>
> Rainer
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Matthew Phillips mlphilli@hsc.vcu.edu
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT 4x5
From: dmlstar@aol.com (DMLStar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Starting LF on the cheap...
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Book on LF Photography
From: "�ke Vinberg" nobody@nowhere.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad Arcbody or 6x9 Ebony SW23?
From: george@pappasonline.net (George Pappas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 Ebony or Hasselblad ArcBody?
From: george@pappasonline.net (George Pappas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 Ebony or Hasselblad ArcBody?
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Viewers for 6x9 cameras
> I have been following the short thread on the Ebony and Horseman viewer
> combination. I presume the Horseman viewer is binocular?
>
> I have not seen either the Arca or Horseman viewers but consulting the Arca
> catalogue it seems that Arca has several viewers including a binocular viewer,
> a semi rigid viewing bellows, and a floppy bag viewing bellows. I saw a
> similar bag bellows on a Linhof TK23S and it had a small magnifier in it. I
> didn't use the camera formally but playing with the viewer I was surprised how
> easy it was to evaluate the ground glass and thought it would be a very
> suitable replacement for the dark cloth and focus loupe.
>
> Anyone willing to share field experience with the binocular viewer and/or
> either of the bellows viewers from Arca? Linhof?
> Keith
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 22 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Horseman Field Camera recommendations
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 Internet Resources
> If you go to Kerry Thalmans page you will find info but it is hardly ever
> updated. The Large Format home page is kept current and is used by many.
--
http://largeformat.homepage.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: 4x5 Polaroid backs
> Can anybody explain the different kinds of Polaroid backe and how they work
> with today's available film ?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Surgery to add swings & tilts to RB??
>Seriously though, IIRC, isn't there an adaptor to mount an RB67 back
>onto some or other 4x5 view camera? For the price of the Horseman
>adaptor it seems like one could pick up a decent used view camera and
>lens...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 14 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: 4x5 Field camera Suggestions Requested
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 16 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: TOP TEN REASONS TO OWN A LEICA
>It seems to me that minor differences in lens quality between quality
>lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon...) are completely overshadowed by the
>extra square inches of transparency or negative when it comes time to make
>prints. Oh, and not to bash the Ma
Las Vegas NV
Subject: Re: [Leica] Was Medium format camera- now shutters
> In the slightly historic arena, the much trouble-prone Graflex 1000 shutter on
> the 4x5 Super Speed Graphic. A complicated often-unrepairable
> design. A shutter repairman's nightmare.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Galvin Info Request
> Can anyone point me in the direction where I can
> get information about Galvin Monorail View Cameras?
> I'm curious about them. Are they still made? I
> understand they have roll-film adaptor backs; how
> does that work?
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Crown graphic mailing list?
>In an attempt to ensure I no next to nothing about the photography I pursue,
>I'm thinking
>of getting a Crown Graphic 4x5. Does anyone know of a mailing list on which
>
>such beasts are discussed?
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format viewfinder camera (was movies...)
>Speaking of Speed Graphics, anyone on the list own a camera like these?
>I've been looking at that, the Crown Graphic, the older Linhof Technica
>III's and IV's and one of the Toyo units. I like the Idea of having the
>cammed viewfinder. Actually, anyone have a 4x5" viewfinder syle camera?
>The Alpa 12 looks sexy, but is even more offensive to my wallet than a Leica
>(is that possible? ;-). Any experience with Horseman?
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photo Auction 6/23/01 Radford, Virginia
>It is most unusual to have a major photographic auction close to my home in
>western Virginia, but we had one yesterday. Ken Farmer Auctions in
>Radford, Virginia, sold off the estate of a 'photographic accumulator'. It
>was most interesting to attend -- the auction was well-run and 224 lots
>were knocked down over a period of about three hours.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: wcmarti@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Need good folder for landscapes
> Let's see, a folding camera in the 6x9 format, with interchangeable, wide
> angle lenses. Sounds like a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 roll film holder to me.
>
> "narky warrior" rich@myhome.com wrote
> > I'm after a good folding camera specifically for landscapes:
> >
> > *probably 6x9 - for the extra impact
> > *decent finder, rangefinder not essential
> > *wide-angle lens or interchangable lenses????
> >
> > that last point is most important to me and the most difficult to
> > fulfill, all seem to be about 105mm standard.
> > Anybody got any suggestions??
> > TIA
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 26 Jun 2001
Subject: Overseas cameras and View Camera's editorial policy
From: Ilja Friedel ilja@blinky.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Chinese 4x5 camera
> I have gone to their web site twice and tried to e-mail them from there. Twice
> my effirts have bounced. Any suggestions?
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Give up medium format for large format for landscapes?
> Happy July 4th,
> I would like to get the opinions of thoses who have medium and large format
> experience. I currently own a hasselblad 500c with 50mm cf and 80mm chrome
> lens and do primarily landscape photography. I was really impressed with the
> increased quaility of prints from the 6x6 as opposed to 35mm ( I shoot using
> velvia or ektachrome 100vs film and enlarge to 16x20 ilfochrome). Now I am
> considering adding a new lens or two to my mf equipment but am wondering since
> I do primarily landscape if large format (4x5) may be the way to go.
>
> I read some of the pros and cons on a large format web page and it had some
> posts from previous discussions that stated there is not that much noticable
> difference in grain and contrast. Will I be just as impressed with the
> difference going from mf to lf (4x5) as I was from 35mm to mf?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ed
From: ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Give up medium format for large format for landscapes?
From: andermar@teleport.com (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Give up medium format for large format for landscapes?
Mark Anderson
DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Large Format lenses
>I've just purchased an old Linhof Technica V :). The included lenses are not
>to my liking. Can anybody recommend a brand or series of large format
>lenses. Those closest to the Leica look would be the most interesting. I'll
>probably get something in the range of 75-90, 115-150, and a 210-240.
>Fastest available f stop only. Thanks.
>
>charles h
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Backpacking - Tripod or Monopod?
--
Kerry L. Thalmann
Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Backpacking - Tripod or Monopod?
my photo home page:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Backpacking - Tripod or Monopod?
> A 3001 tripod plus the 3410 works well for 4x5 and
> landscape 35mm too and weights only 4.85 lbs.
> (not good enough for telephoto 35mm)
> Kerry: I use a 6 lb old metal monorail I got for
> $200. That is after going through several other
> more compact and slightly lighter cameras. I like
> the stability, movements, rotating back and
> extension of 300mm at close focus. Only problem
> is the rail makes it bulky.
> Too light of a tripod, and it can vibrate at a natural
> frequency just from ambient conditions. Trick is not
> having a setup that peaks at that system frequency.
> Kerry: great photo site--I've been there often.
--
Kerry L. Thalmann
Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Field camera recommendation
viewcamera magazine
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Field camera recommendation
>Steve, within his budget what roll film holder will hold the film flat? A
>used Horseman will cost $250, and I don't know of any less expensive RFH
>that is satisfactory.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Field camera recommendation
From: Stephe ms_stephe@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Field camera recommendation
> Hi,
>
> I am thinking about getting something in the large MF to small LF range
> that I can take hiking and get some landscape shots with. My Calumet 4x5
> is way too heavy of a beast to try that with.
>
> I know there are the smaller 2x3 Graflex type cameras, but don't know if
> they are any good. Can anyone make a suggestion? I know there are 6x9 MF
> cameras that might do the trick as well.
Stephe
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Field camera recommendation
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Follow-up to Field camera recommendation
>One question though (since the owner can't answer it): Does this camera take
>"normal" film holders (Riteway, etc.)? I still don't know what a Graflok
>back is, I'm just familiar with my Calumet one.
>
>Thanks again for all of the helpful input. I'm eager to get this new camera
>out on a hike!!!
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex - Crown VS Speed
>> The Crown Graphic was originally introduced as a low cost
>> alternative to the Speed Graphic. A lot of photographers found they
>> never used the focal plane shutter, especially after more modern front
>> shutters with speeds faster than 1/200th became available.
>> The original Speed Graphic, c.1927 offered the focal plane shutter
>> partly because it was Folmer & Schwing's patent and most of these
>> camras were equipped with barrel lenses. The FP shutter continued to
>> be standard equipment until the Crown Graphic was offered in 1947.
>> Many press photogrphers did use the FP shutter, especially for sports,
>> where the highest speed allowed stopping motion, pre strobe lights.
>> Some photographers never used the FP shutter and it was just an
>> unnessary appendage.
>> The Crown is lighter and the box is shallower than the Speed Graphic
>> because it doesn't have to house the focal plane shutter.
>> The back shutter is sometimes useful. I find I do use them
>> occasionally when I either want the high speed (they really will do
>> 1/1000 sec.) or for using barrel lenses.
>> As far as quality there is no difference, the lower original price
>> of the Crown was entirely due to the lack of the back shutter.
>> These days the price of a Crown Graphic is likely to be higher than
>> a comparable Speed Graphic. The low weight and more compact box have
>> made them more desirable and there were fewer of them built.
>> I would choose a Graphic more on its condition and the lens than on
>> whether it was a Crown or Speed, but also suggest hefting both to see
>> what the weight difference is.
>
>I have a 5x4 pacemaker speed, like you I do still use the FP shutter
>from time to time. for me, the only real advantage that the crown has
>is the ability to focus shorter lenses at infinity; the speed can only
>go down to about 90mm, the crown can go down to, I think, about 65mm.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Xenotar f2.8/150mm
>Is the Xenotar f2.8/150mm a usable lens or is it just a collectors item?
>Any data which is not on schneideroptics.com?
>
>Ilja.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex - Crown VS Speed
>"R. Peters" wrote:
>
>>
>> Many photographers who originally used the speed graphics ripped the
>> back shutter out. If you have a speed, I wouldn't let anyone fool
>> with it while I was using it, because if they close the back shutter
>> (everyone has to push all the buttons before asking what they do) and
>> you dont notice it, you're screwed.
>>
>
>Absolutely. In fact, just two weeks ago a friend had asked what the trip,
>front and back business was all about so I showed him. A few days later, I
>took some great shots of a thunderstorm coming up on a beach, handholding my
>Graflex. Wouldn't you know the curtain had stuck about 1/4 closed so the
>bottom inch of my shots were blank. YAY. Made me want to rip that curtain
>out, but it was my own bad for not checking! Would there be any reason why
>using the back shutter would be preferable?
>
>-christine
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: A Note on Lens Shades for 4x5 Press Cameras
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Looking for Entry level Large Format Camera ...
>You really don't want an old american Graflex or an old Calumet, they aren't
>that well made.
>
>A Wista's OK just, I use one, but its not the best, but as you're in
>Europe, where equipment is far better made, look at the new Cambo Explorer.
>www.cambo.com, now owned by Calumet.
>
>It has only just gone into production, it retails here in the UK for �255
>excluding VAT. It's a really nice small but rigid 5"x4" monorail made in
>Holland.
>
>Also look at second-hand Toyo View cameras again about �250 secondhand.
>
>"Nicolai Leymann" nicolai@nleymann.de wrote
>> Dear all,
>>
>> After discovering the old 9cm x 12cm negatives from my grandma I'm
>> now quite keen in taking large format pictures. I'm not completely new
>> to photography (I'm currently using Dynax 800si and a Bronica SQ-A).
>> I'm looking for a cheap camera to start with (and to play a little bit
>> around) but I have no clue which model I should buy. I would like to
>> use a camera which is 50 or more years old. Are there any
>> recommendation which model is suitable?
>>
>> best regards
>> Nic
>> --
>> Nicolai Leymann nicolai@nleymann.de
>> http://www.nleymann.de
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Looking for Entry level Large Format Camera ...
>You really don't want an old american Graflex or an old Calumet, they aren't
>that well made.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speed Graphic for fine art?
>On my journey from MF to LF, I have the opportunity to purchase a used
>Speed Graphic that has been modified (weight reduction.) I assume the
>focal plane shutter has been removed, but two lenses/shhutters are
>included. I would use this camera for fine art work - hiking to
>landscapes, environmental portraits and some light studio work. I know
>there aren't many movements with this camera, but at this stage of the
>game, low cost and big sharp negs are more important. Can an old
>press camera be used for fine art? You opinions would be greatly
>appreciated!
>-Roberto
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Collin Brendemuehl dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Busch Pressman D 411
> Hi,
>
> I just received a Pressman D today (sans manual) and am wondering if there
> is anyone in this group who knows about them. I figured out all of the moves
> (except dropping the bed), but I can't figure out how to rotate the back.
>
> Anyone know how? I see a set screw below the glass, but when I loosen it,
> nothing seems to happen.
>
> I am also at a loss as to how the rangefinder works (if it does at all). I
> plan to do most of my stuff "under the hood", but it would be nice to know
> if the thing works, since I paid for it to work!
>
> Thanks for any help,
> GK
From: km2000@home.com (Kenny Mims)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Busch Pressman D 411
From: rankbeginner@pppweb-solutions.net (Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 2x3 Graphics undervalued??
Still life
Hand held street work (use the rangefinder)
etc, etc.
Good selection lenses from wide angle to telephoto
Roll film backs (6x6, 6x7, 6x9)
Rangefinder focussing
Ground Glass focussing
Rugged and long lasting
Focal plane shutter (meaning you can use barrel lenses)
Cheap accessories
Limited movements
From: Stephe ms_stephe@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 2x3 Graphics undervalued??
Stephe
From: rankbeginner@pppweb-solutions.net (Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 2x3 Graphics undervalued??
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Zone system
>I've read the book and visited the web sites that the kind people on this
>list have suggested. Am I missing something - I thought this was supposed to
>be dead hard?
>
>1. Pick out something at zone III, meter it & remember to drop down two
>stops.
>2. Check out zone VII, are there 5 stops between it and III?
>3. No - normal dev, if above or below push/pull as appropriate.
>4. There is no step 4.
>
>Questions:
>
>To help visualisation, what filter would be best on a TLR? (on the taking
>lens).
>
>How would I adjust the zones if I used a filter to shoot?
>
>It can't be this simple, what fundermentals have I missed?
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex - Crown VS Speed
>"william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com wrote
>> One would presume from reading this thread that the FP shutter of the
>> Speed Graphic is worse than useless. In fact, in addition to allowing use
>> of barrell mounted lenses, it performs two additional important functions.
>> Many large shutters, have very low top speeds, (particularly older ones
>such
>> as the Ilex for the 15" Tele-Raptar @1/50); the FP shutter permits
>actually
>> using those lenses by giving speeds from 1/30 to 1/1000. In addition, it
>> provides fail-safe backup for front shutters going bad when on a shoot,
>> which as we all know, is the only time they fail.
>
>I think most LF'ers don't often use high shutter speeds so it may be a moot
>point. I also wonder how accurate it would be on an old Speed anyway.
>
>I have both a Crown and a Super Speed (not really a Speed) and have stayed
>away from the Speeds because I have heard that the FP shutter is often
>unreliable.
>While some older leaf shutters have problems, there usually lots of people
>available
>to do a CLA whereas finding someone to fix the FP shutter on a Speed
>might be a little tougher. What is your experience of the FP shutter? Are
>they reliable after all this time? Are they easy to maintain?
>
>Don
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex - Crown VS Speed
>(snip)
>
>> The original Speed Graphic, c.1927 offered the focal plane shutter
>> partly because it was Folmer & Schwing's patent and most of these
>> cameras were equipped with barrel lenses. The FP shutter continued to
>> be standard equipment until the Crown Graphic was offered in 1947.
>
>Wasn't the first Speed designed to accept the lensboards from the SLR
>Graflex, its predecessor as the "standard" press camera? (Or did the use of
>lensboards on Graflexes come after Speeds were introduced?) And in any case
>the availability of the FP shutter made it possible for a lensman to replace
>only the body and holders while retaining favorite lenses. I see the
>Graflex-Graphic line as the first and maybe the only North American "system"
>cameras.
>> I would choose a Graphic more on its condition and the lens than on
>> whether it was a Crown or Speed, but also suggest hefting both to see
>> what the weight difference is.
>
>I heard once that old shutter curtains can have pinholes that appear only at
>certain speeds as black stripes on the negative, depending on which curtain
>aperture was selected.. Could someone comment on prevalence and seriousness
>of this problem and how it can be fixed?
>
>Tom
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 21 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: Let's Approch this from another (smaller) angle - Think 2x3.
I can't figure out why a Horseman VHR won't work. Having said that:
1) Make sue you use a Horseman, Toyo, Wista, Calumetn, etc. rollfilm back ...
e.g. one that is precisely and solidly made. Most of the Graflex backs need
adjustment before you haev accurate film in the filmplnae placement.
2) Make your life as easy as possible .. get a Horseman (or similar) rotarty
back. This gismo attaches to the graflock back and has a 6x9 gg and a place to
mount your tx9 roll back. You view through the gg, push a lever and rotate the
back till the roll holdr locks in place, remove the slide take your picture put
the slide back advance yoru flim, etc....if you are seriously interested in
this option I'll dig out the part number and send you a jpg of mine.
3) I have no experience with any of teh cameras you are considering except the
Horseman, the Linhof and the Graphics. Personally I am not a fan of the
Graphics, I used them when they were new but they just don't give me enough
movements. Soooooo ... there are the other Horseman 6x9's but if the VHr doesnt
work I dont imagine the others willeither .... then there are the Horseman
4x5's you have the FA, the HD and the HF the differences follow:
--the HD has no rear movements
--the HF has rear movements but the back is not removable ..meaning you have to
tilt the camera sideways for vertical shots or reount it on anthoer tripod
mount.
--The FA has both a removable back and the rear movements. You can also flip
up a piece at the top allowing you to get full available rise out of wide angle
lenses that are racked all the way in. I think the HD and HF have this feather
as well but don't know.
The Linhof Technika will do everythign the Horseman FA does + a rangefinder on
most models )not a biggie from what you said. The Linhof may be a bit more
rugged than the Horseman but I wouldn't swear by it and my Horseman takes a
beating. It is significantly heavier then the Horseman.
The Linhof Technikarden WILL take yoru 47mmlens ... as we have said before. In
fact the Technikarden and the Ebony are probably the only options you hve that
will gracefully take that lens.
Finally, you still haven't told us why you MUST have that lens ...
Your optionlist is apples adn oranges again .. both monorails and field cameras
and you have not specified if you are still thinking of a 4x5 camera or are now
limiting yourself to 6x9's
Yanno .... you really should rent some of this stuff and see what you like.
Ted Harris
From: "Keith Olivier" keith.olivier_nospam@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Let's Approch this from another (smaller) angle - Think 2x3.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002
Hi Joe
I think that a Linhof Technikardan wold be right for you. Light weight,
full range of movements, normal & bag bellows. Not the most robust camera
for long extensions or heavy lenses, but then I hope you have started
realising that the "One for all" aproach doesn't work. The Technikardan 6x9
is a tiny thing, have a close look at one before you write it off. Even the
4x5 Technikardan is very reasonaby sized and still light.
As I have said before, the 47mm SA is best suited to a rigid camera. No
camera has any room for swinging a lens much any direction with such a short
focal length. DOF does not require movements due to the short focal length.
If you need movements, they need to be of the linear type (left, right, up &
down) These are available on certain fairly expensive cameras dedicated to
architechture photographers, who are able to justify the expense.
Linhof still make & sell 6x9 film cassettes which will fit the Technikardan
& Technika models. And you use sheet film in them in 6x9cm size, yes you can
still buy it, although in less emulsions than many other films. The
alternative is the so called Rapid Rolex film cassettes, which slide in
under the GG. There are probably some non Linhof versions available too, I
don't know them but I am sure others can advise you on them. Most have the
same problem which is a very small roller at the end of the holder & the
possibility of the film cracking in extreme cold when being transported
around said roller. To experience this, it may have to be so cold that your
fingers are too numb to advance the film anyway, so for most of us it is
academic. The issue exists since these started out as pro cameras & got
toted up all sorts of cold & remote places where other monorails were too
heavy & it sure must have pissed the owners off when the film snapped after
the first pic of the day...
good luck
Keith Olivier
"Joe Lacy" jmlacy1@attbi.com> schrieb
> 2x3 - Maybe this is not the right group but you "guiz" have worked so hard,
> I am NOT shooting 4x5 film in the foreseeable future. Please keep this in
> mind. I am 120 format. I already say that...didn't I?.
>
> Joe.
From: "Andy Wai" accwai@rogers.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Let's Approch this from another (smaller) angle - Think 2x3.
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:12:38 GMT
"Keith Olivier" keith.olivier_nospam@t-online.de> wrote
> Hi Joe
>
> I think that a Linhof Technikardan wold be right for you. Light weight,
> full range of movements, normal & bag bellows. Not the most robust camera
> for long extensions or heavy lenses, but then I hope you have started
> realising that the "One for all" aproach doesn't work. The Technikardan 6x9
> is a tiny thing, have a close look at one before you write it off. Even the
> 4x5 Technikardan is very reasonaby sized and still light.
The Arca Swiss is actually quite neat. You can enlarge a the 2x3 to 4x5 the
same way you enlarge a 4x5 to 8x10. You have 4x5 when you need it and don't
have to carry the extra back around if you don't need to. This is unique as
far as I know.
> As I have said before, the 47mm SA is best suited to a rigid camera. No
> camera has any room for swinging a lens much any direction with such a short
> focal length.
It's a lot worst than that. Most flex body cameras can't even *focus* a
47mm SA on a flat board. I'll use a recess board, you say. Well, I hope
your lens is on a Compur shutter, 'cause the size of the lens board on a 2x3
is so small that there isn't enough space for the cocking arm of a Copal to
swaying out!
Andy Wai