What LF camera? Rangefinderviewfield?

[QT Luong]

Realistically, it is not possible to shoot a landscape hand-held with any 4x5 camera and get LF quality.
In LF, you almost always need to stop down the lens to f11-f22 (sometimes more) to get enough depth of field. Even if you use a 90mm lens (fairly wide on 4x5. close to 28-24 in 35mm format) you still need 1/125s at least to handhold. With 100 ASA film, this would be possible only in full sun at mid-day, and no polarizer.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Of course any shot will be sharper with any camera on a tripod as opposed to handheld, but there are some kinds of photographs that can't be made with a tripod, and some places where you can't take a tripod, and some times where the necessity of having a tripod in contrast with the seriousness of one's photographic intentions will result in leaving the camera at home and missing the impromptu grab shot you might have gotten if you had a camera with you, and some times where you'll get to Maui, as I was with my Tech V about a month ago, and your tripod will be with your checked luggage back in Newark, New Jersey for the next 24 hours, but I was still taking pictures.

[Frank Petronio]

I really think a Littman is the ticket here ;-)

[John Cook]

Ted is correct that I am very fond of Graphic cameras. They do, indeed, bring back many warm memories of simpler times.

I remember not only press cards in hats, but hats as well. Heavy six-button wool overcoats with patch pockets large enough for six holders. And flashbulbs. And Super XX...

Perhaps we can compromise and agree that they could be called, “the Timex of cameras”. Simple but stout. Utilitarian not elegant.

“They take a licking and just keep on clicking!”

[John_4185]

QTRealistically, it is not possible to shoot a landscape hand-held with any 4x5 camera and get LF quality.

I know. I look at a lot of aerial negatives. Kinda futile to tripod mount on an aeroplane.

[Bill_1856]

This analysis may be correct for shooting near/far landscapes with slow color film, but I have lots of old hand-held 4x5 Kodachromes shot at the classic "1/50@f:8 and be there" which are sharp as a razor in the plane of focus. (Extended DOF is seldom an issue for people, flowers, animals, etc, images). For classic B&W, either TMY or FP5 give ISO=400, giving 1/200@f:22.

[Oren Grad]

A lot depends on you.

Just speaking for myself, there's no way I could hand-hold a fully-equipped Technika and make negatives that would be of any use, let alone "large format quality" - I simply don't have the strength to hold a 7+ pound camera for snapshooting. I've done occasional experiments hand-held with my 3.25x4.25 Graphics, the lightest of which is a stripped-down camera that comes in at less than five pounds with lens and film holder, but in most cases I would not enlarge even those negatives - I'd just make little contact prints.

Even if you're stronger than I am, QT makes an excellent point - short of working with a powerful flash, which will make the rig even more unwieldy, depth-of-field considerations with the focal lengths typical of 4x5 will mean there will be a very narrow range of workable aperture/shutter speed combinations. If you have a strong and steady hand, there certainly are some beautiful photographs that can be made, that make a virtue of the limited DOF. But don't imagine it will be easy to go around snapshooting pan-focus landscape pictures.

Also, even if you can handle the weight, bear in mind that a camera like a Graphic or a Technika is really big and awkward compared to any 35 or medium format camera designed for hand-held use. A Technika may be comparable to an M-Leica in its mechanical precision and the quality of its fit and finish. I'm a long-time M-Leica fan myself - it's my favorite 35mm camera, by far - but I've hoisted fully-equipped Technikas as well, and it ain't remotely the same experience. At best, an M-Leica fits the hand like a glove and almost vanishes as an intermediary between you and what you're seeing. A Technika is a boat anchor that will make every single exposure a Herculean feat.

Especially since 4x5 is entirely new to you, I'd very strongly suggest you find some way to try before you buy.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Definitely try before you buy, if you can.

Anyone who has met me knows that I'm not a really big guy (5'7", 160 lbs, and I don't work out), but somehow I seem to manage with the Technika. I broke my left wrist a few years ago, so my left hand is even a bit weak (maybe I make up for it by playing the trombone, which is supported with the left hand). Maybe shoot 8x10" or larger, and the Technika starts to feel like a nimble and versatile camera by comparison.

These were all shot with the Tech V, 210mm lens, EI 200 film, and a Norman 200C setup on a simple flash bracket--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/halloween/

Here's a landscape on Tri-X (150/4.5 lens with a K2 filter) that would have been better had I had a tripod, but it was still good enough for publication handheld, and was one of those impromptu snapshots that I got just because I was casually walking around with the camera over my shoulder--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/intgal.htm

Here's another impromptu snapshot with the 6x7cm back on a Tech V and TX (150/4.5 and K2 filter again)--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imund.htm

And another with the 6x7cm back and Fuji RMS (probably EI 100 or 200--135/3.5 lens)--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/intnyc.htm

Sorry if the captions on those pages are a little enigmatic. They make more sense if you come through the front door--http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/

[Bill_1856]

David, I fail to see how the chess table would have been improved with a tripod.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Would have been a tad sharper (probably not visible on screen), and I probably would have set it up so the legs of the table wouldn't converge.