Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    84

    Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

    2 unrelated beginner's questions: 1.) Is "International Standard" back the same as "Graflock" style? If not, what are the advantages/disadvantages of each? 2.) 4x5 format requires an image circle of at least 161 mm. The Rodenstock Grandagon 35mm and 45mm lenses have an image circle of 125 and 131mm respectively, yet ar e advertized as covering 4x5 format in the B&H Source book. How does this work? Am I missing something??? I apologize for my ignorance...

  2. #2

    Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

    1: Yes they are the same. Since Graflock was a trademark others like Linhof had to use a different name.

    2: You are not quoting a reference source. You are quoting a sales catalog. We as the Rodenstock distributor supply factory spec sheets. Those are reference sources. If you would like the ones for Rodenstock lenses we need an address to mail them to in the US.

    The circles quoted for Rodenstock 35 and 45mm lenses are, by the way, at f11 for the 35mm and f16 for the 45 (and 55). Not at f22 as with their other lenses. This is because the specs are given at the smallest aperture without diffraction.

    Rodenstock specs the 35 and 45mm lenses as covering 6x12cm. That would mean that they will not fully illuminate the corners of 45 and, of course, not allow for direct displacements. However many architechture and landscape photographers have been using these lenses very successfully on 4x5 and View Camera will have a review of the 35mm by Norman McGrath in the next or the following issue. He, of course, uses it on 45 for architechture.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    84

    Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

    Thanks Bob for clarifying this. If I understand you correctly, "image circle" is not an absolute, but a gradual tapering-off in light levels, so even if the 35mm and 45mm lenses have an image circle less than what's required for the 4x5 format, the light fall-off would still be acceptable for most applications, especially when using the center filters? I am looking forward to Norman McGrath's review. Thanks!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Posts
    69

    Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

    Andreas, FWIW the diagonal of the actual IMAGE area of a 4x5 is closer to 150 or 151 mm; 160 or 161 is the diagonal of the piece of film, including those black borders (the precise measurement depends on your holders; my Readyloads are 151). That centimeter can make a difference when calculating movement possibilities....

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Posts
    95

    Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

    Andreas, you'll have to crop the 4x5" if you use lenses with such small image circles that are "meant" for 6x12 cm as Bob points out.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 1998
    Posts
    288

    Image circle confusion / Graflock backs

    When focused closer than infinity, the image circle gets larger, and since most shots are taken at some hyperfocal setting, so you would have more coverage than the numbers would indicate.

Similar Threads

  1. Depth of Focus - Circle of Confusion Confusion
    By Wilbur Wong in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21-Oct-2005, 10:36
  2. Graflock backs
    By Peter Galea in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 25-Dec-2003, 15:13
  3. image circle confusion
    By Lukas Werth in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-Oct-2000, 05:49
  4. DOF and circle of confusion
    By Roy Feldman in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 31-Aug-1998, 09:40
  5. Circle of confusion
    By Terry Lorch in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-Jan-1998, 13:09

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •