Come here and get one!
Originally Posted by Pere Casals
Come here and get one!
Tin Can
Randy, thanks, but I'm around 7500km far !!!
I use my 360/6.8 Schneider Symmar-S on a Deardorff 8x10. This camera has no problem holding this heavy lens. However, I typically use both this camera and this lens when working from the car and my subject is not far away. I agree that a 3.5 lbs lens would be an issue on the Intrepid.
Ben Horne seems to have no problem backpacking with his 300 f/5.6 plasmat.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
This idea-topic of using the lowest possible weight camera and BIG lenses appear to come up more and more on LFF in recent times. It appears so many who are curious about sheet film VC images want the lowest weight camera, smallest possible lens with ginormous image circle, super contrast with super LPM resolution with a huge full aperture... All of which is not possible due to the harsh realities of the way Nature really is. More often than not, these fantasies of desirable features do not aid in expressive image making.
Having been at this LF game for decades, there is no substitute for a precise, stable camera that can properly support any lens within reason which could be several pounds if needed. This basic foundation of what a stable platform of a view camera is not possible with a flimsy 3 pound 8x10 of any maker, any brand, any design, any materials used. There are very real advantages of a view camera with weight, stability and durability when it comes to using BIG lenses. This does not mean a 3 pound 8x10 is a bad thing, it simply means accept the very real limitations of what a 3 pound 8x10 is capable of and work within these limits. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bernice
That, and the fact that getting a 360mm lens that weighs half of my present lens makes little difference in the total amount of weight of the my present system. And I must consider that an f5.6 (or f6.3) lens is much easier to use than a f9 or f11 lens in the low light I often photograph in. To each their own...
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Ages ago I bought a new 350/11 Schneider Apo Tele Xenar (not really a telephoto lens) which is surprisingly light in a Copal 1 and easy to use on a wooden 8x10. Despite being f/11 it is easy enough to focus in most common lighting conditions. I don't often see them now but if one pops up you might consider that.....
Talk comes cheap. How much backpacking with a view camera have some of you actually done? I've done well over 10,000 miles carrying packs up to 90lbs with view camera gear, much of it in very steep terrain. Heavier camera and lenses do NOT necessarily give you a sharper picture at all. It a matter of appropriately matched gear. A big heavy clunker studio plasmat just puts more stress on the front standard, which in turn mandates a much more rigid heavier camera, which in turn requires a bigger tripod. I could configure my Sinar with heavy P-components, but it wouldn't give me a tad better actual images than my significantly lighter F or Norma versions. In fact, they'd probably come out worse due to being harder to stabilize. Likewise, my 360 Fuji A in no. 1 shutter is going to be way more stable on a front standard than some big studio 360 in a no.3. It's highly precise for 4x5 and even roll film backs, and not just big 8x10 cameras. But it's better corrected than any conventional plasmat anyway. Yeah, I had my teenager days in my 40's and early 50's when I thought I could handle any pack weight day after day. But once I got rid of those huge ole clunker lenses and replaced them with tiny little f/9 lenses, I not only found out I suddenly had more room in my pack for special amenities like food, but actually had obtained better optics. Dim light is never an issue with focussing. My 450 Fuji C is f/12; no issue, plenty bright. But I don't know where you're coming from, Bernice - it's hard to think of a 3lb 4x5 unless its a Toho or Gowland. Ultralight 8x10's start in the 7 to 8 lb range. My own lightwt 8x10 is the original Phillips folder, and I'm confident stating it's more stable than a Dorff weighing twice as much. Times have changed; with a bit of material science innovation you can have your cake and eat it too, in terms of both lightness and stability.
I certainly have not backpacked with my Zone VI 8x10 (except for once...a combination horse/foot adventure). 4x5 and 5x7, yes. I can still carry the 8x10 all day (slowly with lots of rest while taking photographs, and time spent admiring the views), but until recently, I could not afford to buy lightweight 8x10 gear, and now it is a little late to go that route. Backpacking on that scale is no longer an option.
I am heading out this Thursday for 3 nights into the local mountains (Russian Wilderness) and debating to take the 5x7 or just the Rolleicord. Unusual hike for me -- large crowd of fellow 'mountainmen' (folks I have known for decades from our tree planting/land restoration days). A short hike in, then base camp. More of a Summer Solstice celebration than a wilderness experience...otherwise I prefer solo.
Maybe the 5x7, the Fuji W 180/5.6, and 8 loaded holders. If I can't get one great image out of 16 pieces of film over 4 days, I shouldn't take the camera! But the ease and fun of the Rolleicord is tempting! I could probably toss it is with the 5x7 -- the 'cord is a light little camera, but that seems excessive and mentally, one might detract from the other.
PS: the Intrepid 8x10 II camera is listed as a 5.5 pound camera (2.5 kg).
PS#2: I have used lenses from f5.6 to f11 (RD Artars) deep under the redwoods in the late afternoon during overcast weather. F11 is doable without pain (but with minor cursing), but it is so much nicer to see the corners when the GG is 4 times as bright with the f5.6. I am using the standard GG -- probably brighter ones out there.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
My 360 A Fuji weighs just 465g - less than a third of the weight of the 360 W! I wouldn't even think of putting the W on my 4x5 Sinar monorail due to both all that extra weight and the greater vibration of the big shutter at that bellows length, especially if a 6x9 back was involved. But I get precise results with the A even when the greater mass of my 8x10 is not involved. It's also better hue and close-range corrected; they call em their Super-Plasmats for a reason. But hard to find and expensive in that focal length. Even the vibration from the Compur 3 shutter on my first 14"Kern dagor affected Sinar shots. You could feel the buzz if you held a fingernail to the rail. I replaced it with the previous model of Kern 14" in Copal 3 shutter - much softer, but still too heavy overall for the front standard of my Sinar. Fine on my 8x10 Phillips folder. ... But with respect to what Neil queried, if you're contemplating ULF use rather than 8x10, putting similar design lenses into smaller shutters introduces a bit of mechanical vignetting and reduces the overall image circle - not the best part of the image circle, but the maximum usable, which contact printers might use, but not people who enlarge and need more critical edges and corners. For example, the Kern Dagors in no.3 have less overall image circle than some older dagors of similar focal lengths in no.4 and 5 shutters. Likewise, the Fuji 360 A in no.1 shutter has PLENTY of image circle for 8x10 use, but not as much as the similar 355 G-Claron in a no. 3 shutter, which some ULF shooters use. Tessars generally have less image circle per design limitation. But dagors in particular, followed by tessars, have less air/glass interfaces than plasmats, so in certain cases are capable of exceptional color and tonality performance. My multicoated 14" Kern dagor had the highest contrast and color saturation of any lens I have ever used, in any format - too much contrast in fact to be practical for the typical chrome shooting I did back then, so I replaced it with the single-coated Kern which I presently own, as well as for sake of the shutter change. Nikkor M's are nearly as contrasty, being late multicoated tessars with only six air/glass interfaces; but my 300 will barely cover 8x10, so I use it almost exclusively for either 4x5 or roll film backs. The 450 M has quite a bit of coverage; but in that category I'm satisfied with my much lighter Fuji 450C. Lenses can be discussed endlessly. I use an old Zeiss 360 tessar in barrel for sake of its better background blur characteristics than my other view lenses; but it's otherwise extremely sharp, with excellent tonality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks