PDA

View Full Version : Horseman 980 / 985 for amateur architectural photography



Luigi Moccia
17-Jun-2004, 15:27
I would like to try a medium format camera with movements for a
combination of architectural (building exteriors) and cityscape photography.
Lightweight and fast to setup is a primary concern.
I would like to use roll film because I don't plan having a darkroom,
therefore the use of 4x5 sheet film would be an expensive option.
I apologize in advance for any mistake, but I'm completely new to
large format. Yes I'm going to read the LF highly recommended books!
I have a "hardware" question.
The Horseman 985 can use a 65mm lens without recessed lens board,
accordingly to the specs.
This is as wide as I want to go, because, from my 135 format experience,
the FOW of a 28mm is wide enough. Further it's more for funky wide effects.
But, is this camera with a 65mm lens still usable for arch. photography?
Does it provide the necessary movements?
If not, should I consider different options like a 4x5 monorail with a bag bellow?
More important constraint:
the budget for camera, 6x9 roll film back and 2 lenses (65mm and 135mm) is circa 1500US$.
Yes I'm looking for used equipments.
Thanks in advance for your comments.

Leonard Evens
18-Jun-2004, 07:54
I've used a Horseman 980 for close to 35 years. I have the Horseman 65, 90, and 150 mm lenses. I've done some architectural photography with it. See www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html for some examples which were scanned with an Epson 2450. There is one picture of a building there.

I've used it both with sheet film and 6 x 7 roll film holders. It is certainly usable for the purpose, but it is not ideal. About two years ago, I switched to a Toho (not Toyo) FC-45X, which is a light 4 x 5 camera of monorail design, which comes apart easily for transport.

First, the Horseman is relatively heavy for a medium format camera. Mine weighs about 5 lbs with the 65 mm lens in place. It has both front and back movements, but the back movements are quite limited and not easy to use. The front movements are pretty easy to use, and the camera is easy to set up. Changing lens boards is very easy. The ground glass image is small compared to a 4 x 5 camera, but it is usable with a loupe. I glued one to a baffle which just fits in the gg shade, and I normally use it without a dark cloth. The roll film backs are easy to put in place, and they work well if you are careful winding the film. Otherwise there is a tendency to have uneven spacing or even overlapping frames.

With the 90 and 150 mm lenses, the rise and shift capability is adequate for most architectural photography, and the lenses have reasonable coverage. The 65 mm lens has limited rise in landscape mode because the camera case blocks the motion of the front standard that close in. The 980 doesn't have a rotating back, so to use it in portrait mode, you have to mount it on the side. (It has two tripod screw mounts, one on the bottom, one on the side.) I believe the 985 has a rotating back, so one could deal with the limited rise by mounting it on its side (or rotating the tripod head), rotating the back if necessary, and using the shift as rise. But the shifts are also somewhat limited that close in. Tilts are also somewhat limited that close in, but they aren't usually needed for the 65 mm lens. A lens with that angle of view in medium format will generally provide more depth of field in comparision with a corresponding 4x5 lens.

To use fall with the 980 in landscape mode, you have to drop the bed and tilt the lens. This doesn't work with the 65 mm lens since it comes off the track. If you have a rotating back, you can use the above method instead by mounting on the side and shifting for a fall. Falls are less commonly needed in architectural photography because you are usually at street level.

The lenses are pretty good, but of course for the same size final print (or other image), you will get more detail using 4 x 5. As best I can tell, there don't exist lenses of focal length less than 65 mm which can be used with these cameras.

The Horseman can also be used as a rangefinder camera, handheld, but not as freely as a normal medium format camera.

I decided that the greater range of movements of a 4 x 5 view camera made that a better choice for me, but the ability to use roll film is certainly a plus. I also investigated using a 4 x 5 view camera with a roll film holder, but I decided that was a non-starter. Such cameras which can focus in close enough to make that practical with medium format range wide angle lenses are very expensive, and of course a bag bellows would be essential. But if you have the money, it is certainly one way to go. My impression is that most moderate priced 4 x 5 view cameras won't work that well for that purpose.

I do use my Horseman from time to time, and after a rehaul, it is in pretty good shape. I keep toying with the idea of selling the whole kit, but I haven't made the decision yet.

CXC
18-Jun-2004, 09:38
IMHO, for shooting architecture and cityscapes (which I also like to do), the movements you need are LOTS of front rise (and/or rear fall) and some rear tilt. A monorail is more likely to provide more rise. Toho and Gowland have easily transportable 4x5 monorails that are inexpensive on the used market (I use a Gowland). There are also 2x3 monorails around, in particular Galvin, which is highly respected, yet affordable on the used market (no longer manufactured), and Arca-Swiss, which is probably out of your budget.

Personally, I see little benefit in a dedicated 2x3 camera instead of a 4x5 with a rollfilm holder. They aren't that much smaller, lighter, or cheaper, and they eliminate the possibility of jumping up to 4x5. Even if 4x5 is usually too expensive for you, with such a camera you could use the larger format for special cases now and then -- only added cost is one filmholder, 10 bucks used.

The one plus I can imagine for a 2x3 camera is if it accommodates the switch back and forth between the ground glass and the filmholder easily.

Luigi Moccia
18-Jun-2004, 09:54
Thanks Leonard and CXC for your comments,

I didn't find complete info regarding the differences between Horseman 980/985/VH/VHR,
but it seems that only with the VH generation you have rotating back.
From the Leonard description of the 980 I understand that this could help a lot.
Since I'm not interested in using it with rangefinder focusing maybe the VH model
could be the right choice (instead than the VHR).
Maybe the lack of rangefinder coupling allows more front movements
with the 65mm. Again I have no idea if this is true. I read about modification on 2x3 Linhof Tecknica aimed at that.

CXC

about the 4x5 monorail.....which model works well with a 65mm lens without requiring a bellow bag
(and inexpensive used)?
Galvin and Gowland: how about accessories availability on the used market?

Leonard Evens
18-Jun-2004, 11:42
Luigi,

I haven't looked closely at a VH, but I doubt if the issue is the rangefinder focusing. It is just that a 65 mm lens puts you so close that the camera body interferes with movements. It is possible that some 65 mm lenses with larger flange focal lengths would work okay because the body just barely gets in the way with my lens. In fact, I sometimes get around it by moving the lens outward, raising it above the body and then racking back in, but it is awkward and there is a range that is not accessible in the middle.

My Toho would probably just barely work with a 65 mm lens and a roll film holder. (I checked that when considering how low I wanted to go when I was considering another wide angle lens. I settled on a 75 mm lens as a better choice for me.) Movements would be limited, but for 6 x 7 you don't need as large movements as you do with 4 x 5. The main problem is bellows stiffness. But Toho sells an eccentric lens board which serves the same purpose as a bag bellows. Badger Graphics sells a Chinese clone of the Toho (their M2) under their own name for about $850. Shen-Hao claims to allow bellows extension as low as 55 mm, so that should work, and they also sell an (interchangeable) bag bellows. The primary defect of their camera is that it doesn't have any shifts, but that can be simulated by swinging both front and rear standards. Badger (as well as others) sell it for about $625. Both Toho and Shen-Hao owners seem to be very happy with their cameras.

I don't know much about the used market, but some of these newer cameras are quite moderate in cost, and I suspect you wouldn't end up saving that much for something with the explicit features you want.

Much as I would like you as a customer should I decide to sell my 980 kit, I think CXC's advice, given your interests, is probably accurate.

Oren Grad
18-Jun-2004, 12:04
Luigi -

I have both a VH and a VH-R. Except for the rangefinder, they are identical - you don't get any more movement with the VH; both have a revolving back, which is very nice. The VH is very fast to set up and reasonably compact and light weight (< 4 lb.) for an all-metal technical camera. For my taste, the ground glass / focusing hood assembly is a bit cramped and fussy in use. Also, as with Leonard's 980, front movements are somewhat limited and fussy with a 65. IMO the Horseman field cameras are really best suited for use with focal lengths of 90 and longer.

I have a bag-bellows Gowland 2x3 as well, which is very compact and lightweight and can handle a 65 easily (though not a 135 - you'd need the regular Gowland for that). It's not what I'd call a high-precision device, though - there's a bit of side-to-side wobble in the focusing assembly, and you have to pay careful attention to alignment in all the knob-tightened settings - it's all too easy for them to twist away from where you set them if you're not careful.

If you're looking at used equipment and absolute minimum price is critical (your $1500 limit for the kit including two lenses and back is pretty tight), you will have to make some tradeoff among the key attributes of a view camera - unfortunately, you can't get light weight, fast setup, excellent rigidity, extensive movements, and ultra-low price at the same time. If you can live with a bit of wobble and are willing to be patient and careful in use, a used 2x3 Gowland or Galvin might be OK. If you don't mind carrying some extra weight and bulk, a 4x5 monorail with bag bellows might be your best bet.

Luigi Moccia
19-Jun-2004, 20:07
Again I`m impressed by how helpful and knowdgeable
are your answers.

Leonard:

since you are so sincere and precise you are going to find plenty
of buyers!
I will add Toho to the list of options. About Shen Hao: yes I read
many positive user comments, but I didn`t find accurate description about the manufacter claim `55mm min. extension`. Sounds too good to be true.

Oren:

you are right, I need to choose a compromise.
About Gowland... a fixed bag bellow means buying (and carrying) 2 cameras.
So not a big advantage versus a larger monorail.
Galvin 2x3 seems interesting, but again I don`t know about the effective movements with a 65mm.

About the budget: I noticed that shopping for a complete outfit has some advantages. Many complete kit (4x5 monorail, bellows, lenses, etc.) are
sold on ebay for 1000 - 1500$.
There is a relative abundance of used Sinar F.

Anyhow I`m not in a hurry, I will not need the camera before the 2006.
I`m currently living in Canada and at the end of this year I`ll come back in Italy, where I would like to start a photo documentation project about
Mediterranean way of life. So architecture (historic buildings and public places) and still life. Plus some reportage oriented photo, but for that my current 35mm system is ok.

Another doubt: using roll film 6x9 I will not need the full coverage of 4x5 lenses. There are in the focal lenght range of 120mm some lenses aimed to this use. But I didn`t find any info about 65mm lenses for 6x9.
Given the budget the only option that I know is the 65mm f8 Super Angulon.