New Chamomix 4x5 or used Wista, Zone VI....

[soeren]

Id fancy a Technika but even used it's a slightly different price and....... ahem.........weight.

[Roger Cole]

https://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&sourc...VAlebjNvhyJfZA

Thanks for this. I skimmed it, and need to read it carefully when I have time. I was aware of the perspective differences. Even though my Tech III only has awkward lens tilt (you can get it by fiddling with the drop bed but the easiest way is to just mount the camera sideways and use the swing as tilt) I most often prefer back tilt for just that reason. If I'm using tilt it's usually in a landscape and the back tilt causes things closer to the camera to look a bit larger. Fred Picker in his usual exaggerated way called it "looming." That's hyperbole I think but the slight relative size increase of foreground objects does tend to lend more of a sense of depth. Of course if you have geometric shapes or other forms that you need to render without distortion then you need to use the front tilt.

At any rate, it sounds like asymmetric tilt is an advantage. I don't think either the cost or weight penalty of the F1 relative to the 45n-2 is significant so it becomes a question of whether the design adds any annoying amount of complexity or makes operating the camera more "fidgety."

I also hope the OP doesn't mind my piggybacking on his thread.

[Roger Cole]

Id fancy a Technika but even used it's a slightly different price and....... ahem.........weight.

The IV and later are very nice, sturdy cameras, but in addition to cost and weight they aren't real good with short lenses. My III is ok with a 90 but I wouldn't want to try anything much shorter and even the 90 has the bellows pretty compressed. I prefer to move to something that takes either a bag or universal bellows and allows use of at least a 65 with some movements. I don't HAVE a 65 yet, but especially for use with color film in a roll film holder (because mainly of the cost of color sheet film) I want one.

[soeren]

I use a 75 on a recessed lensboard but it is possible to focus to infinity with my 65 on a plain one. Maybe i can do some shots of the 65 setup during the easter hollidays.

[soeren]

Fred Picked? I seem to run into that name regularly these days. Is one or more of his booke worth buying?

[Peter De Smidt]

Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop gives a good, easy to follow method for film and development testing. If you don't need or want to do that, then it won't be much use.

[Roger Cole]

Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop gives a good, easy to follow method for film and development testing. If you don't need or want to do that, then it won't be much use.

Agreed on both counts. I have it - not a bad little book for what they cost now, but only if you want to do those things.

Fred was the owner of Zone VI studios, known to be rather opinionated, and wrote advice and ads in the Zone VI catalogs that were part useful, part opinion, and always rather colorful. Saying that back tilt caused a foreground rock to "loom" being a minor example. It does make foreground objects (happened to be a rock in his example) look somewhat larger than front tilt (which won't change relative shape and perspective) or no tilt, but the effect, while real and sometimes beneficial in landscapes, isn't usually very pronounced in my opinion and I wouldn't say it makes things "loom."

He also advised that every print should have at least a small area of maximum black and pure paper base white. I think that is quite possibly the single worst bit of advice I have ever read.

[Michael R]

At any rate, it sounds like asymmetric tilt is an advantage. I don't think either the cost or weight penalty of the F1 relative to the 45n-2 is significant so it becomes a question of whether the design adds any annoying amount of complexity or makes operating the camera more "fidgety."

I also hope the OP doesn't mind my piggybacking on his thread.

Roger,

There's a decent intro to asymmetric movements on the Ebony website (link below). The F1 would work the same way. With the the F1 you can use either asymmetric or base tilt on the back). I don't think it adds anything in the way of being fidgety.

When you tilt the back, the "pivot" point will stay in focus. What asymmetric rear movements do is put those pivot points for tilt (and/or swing) on the ground glass (the focusing screen has markings on it to show you where). Since the part of the image corresponding to those markings stays in focus as you tilt, under some circumstances this system can make it easier/faster to focus when applying tilts (less trial and error).

http://www.ebonycamera.com/media/asy....movements.pdf

Essentially the F1 can do everything the N1/N2 does, plus the asymmetric rear tilt. I got a N2 recently as a second 4x5 so that I don't have to haul around my monorail when I don't need it. The only reason I ultimately chose the N2 over the F1 is that I preferred the way the rear sliding mechanism works on the N2. The F1 and N1 work the same way. It's a relatively minor difference (probably doesn't even matter once you start using either one), and I waffled on it for a while because asymmetric tilts can be handy. I guess ideally what I wanted was a F2 (which doesn't exist), but really I could have gone either way on the F1 vs N2. For what it's worth, I'm very happy and impressed with the Chamonix. Whether you go for the F or N models, you get a lot of camera for the price. Well made and versatile.

My two cents.

[Roger Cole]

Awesome, thanks for the information. I knew about the pivot point remaining in focus and one reason some prefer axis tilt. It sounds like this just causes an effective pivot point that is between the base and axis and marked on the ground glass.

I will read the Ebony article when I have time. It will probably be at least 2 - 3 months before I can pull the trigger anyway.

[soeren]

65mm f8 focusses @ nearinfinity then tilted randomnly.
Sorry for the 90 degree tilt. Our part of the world is not level this morning.