new to LF, looking for 4x5 for macro $ nature

[verbier123]

I am looking to get into LF, I want to use the camera for wildlife photography and macro (flowers and insects.) I can't seem to find a camera to fit my needs. I want to be able to use at least the nikon T 500mm or the fuji T 600mm. Obviously I will be hiking with it. I don't care about weight so much, I'm young and can handle it. But it would be nice to fit it in a backpack. I would only be using 4x5 film. Should I try looking at a 5x7 or 8x10 and get a 4x5 back? Any suggestions on a light monorail?
This would be my first LF camera, so I would like to stay under $1500 if possible.
Thanks for any help,

Brian

[Ralph Barker]

The first question, Brian, is how are you defining "wildlife"? Are you planning to photograph animals in their natural habitat, as one might do with a 35mm SLR and long tele lenses? Or, are you concentrating on insects at macro distances?

Second question: what is the reason behind the choice of the 500-600mm telephoto lenses?

The objectives, as described, seem to conflict.

[Greg Miller]

I am looking to get into LF, I want to use the camera for wildlife photography and macro (flowers and insects.) I can't seem to find a camera to fit my needs. I want to be able to use at least the nikon T 500mm or the fuji T 600mm. Obviously I will be hiking with it. I don't care about weight so much, I'm young and can handle it. But it would be nice to fit it in a backpack. I would only be using 4x5 film. Should I try looking at a 5x7 or 8x10 and get a 4x5 back? Any suggestions on a light monorail?
This would be my first LF camera, so I would like to stay under $1500 if possible.
Thanks for any help,

Brian

Are you sure you want to use LF for wildlife? A 600mm lens on 4x5 would be roughly equivalent to a 200mm lens on 35mm. That's good only for large animals that are still fairly close (or wildlife that are a small portion of a larger landscape shot). And it would have to be a stationary animal in order to give you enough time to set up, compose, focus, make any tilts/swings,... if desired, measure light, load film holder and shoot. Seems like you would have to be prepared for a very low "keeper" ratio. Same goes for (living) insects.

You should be OK with flowers. Do a search here. There are many previous threads on good LF cameras for long hikes.

[Greg Lockrey]

Most Macro lenses are in the 120-210mm range. The object is to get from 6:1 to about 1:6 and on 4x5 that means about .66" object to fill the neg to about a 30" object or there abouts.

[steve simmons]

There are several articles in the Free Articles section of the View Camera magazine web site that might be helpful

www.viewcamera.com

Telephoto lenses will take approx. 66% of the focal length in bellows to focus on a subject at infinity (roughly 100 times the focal length of the lens). So, a 600mm lens will require 400mm of bellows and/or more if you want to focus closer.

You might want to find a copy of Jack Dykinga's book Large Format Nature Photography.

steve simmons

[walter23]

You can shoot wildlife with 4x5. Recently on here or apug there was a list of absolutely phenomenal wildlife photographers, but I can't remember who they were. In fact, the title of the thread was something like "who was that 4x5 wildlife photographer who's name I can't remember?"

I just searched for the thread but couldn't find it.

Anyway: you can do anything if you really try hard enough. The question is: are you willing to try hard enough? 4x5 widllife photography definitely won't be easy.

[verbier123]

I guess I should have been more specific. I planned on using another lens for macro work. I just would like to be able to do both with the camera. I realize that I would have to be closer to photograph with the 600mm than with other 35mm lenses. It just seemed like that lens would be the most practical. If anyone has any other lens suggestions, I would gladly like to hear them. I want to use LF because I want to make 20-24" prints with great detail. I am not happy with the enlargements from my 35mm. I have heard enough people comment that LF field cameras are just as easy/light to carry around as a MF 67 camera. Auto 645 seems like an okay route, but with digital being the norm and my budget somewhat limited, I want the best possible prints for the extra effort involved. MF telephoto lenses in are no bargain either and are quite bulky as well. Thanks for all the suggestions so far...

Brian

[Juergen Sattler]

Brian,

I don't think you understood what the previous posters were saying. Wildlife photography and LF are ALMOST exclusive from each other. How would you be able to compose, focus, adjust movements, measure light manually, insert the film holder, pull the darkslide and finally take the shot of an animal that certainly won't wait for you to finish all these tasks? I use a DSLR with a long lens and auto-everything to shoot wildlife and still I get shots that are out of focus or over-or under exposed. Large Format cameras are made and used for static objects, not shy creatures in the wild.

Have you ever seen and used a LF camera and do you understand all the adjustments necessary to finally take a shot?

[konakoa]

I'm one of those odd ducks who lugs around a 4x5 monorail. My camera alone is nine pounds with a lens, then add in the bag with lenses, filters and film holders, then the tripod .... but, for me it's perfectly fine. Like Brian the weight doesn't bother me and I'm very happy with my system.

Macro photography is a breeze with my monorail. I have plenty of extension and full camera shifts at my disposal, and a ordinary lens like a 150mm can get me more than close enough for 1:1 or greater. If you use a hand-held meter, be aware of the amount of bellows extension being used to correct for exposure (I've underexposed several sheets by accident!)

For wildlife photography what you ask is not impossible, but would be a little difficult and would require more than average effort to make it work. The longest lens I have for my camera is 450mm. It's a f/9, and DOF is fairly shallow with the lens wide open. I have to carry around a second longer monorail (560mm/22") just for this one lens. My camera folds flat to be carried and can be reassembled very quickly, but swapping out the rails takes time. The long rail also makes the camera considerably bulkier and has to be stored outside my camera case. I like to think I can get mine set up and ready to shoot fairly quickly, but it still takes a minute or two from unpacking the camera to pressing the shutter release. I can't imagine big wildlife staying still while I do this.

Also, please be aware that with a long lens vibration from wind on the camera bellows, the shutter itself to a slightly underweight tripod can lead to less than perfect sharpness. To get sufficient DOF with the 450mm for landscapes I often to have to stop down around f/32 or smaller -- combined with the 100 speed color transparency films I use, the shutter speeds can easily be measured in several seconds. A 500mm or a 600mm lens would be even more demanding.

[Alan Davenport]

Large Format cameras are made and used for static objects, not shy creatures in the wild.

I tend to agree. There are times and places where the wildlife are somewhat used to human presence; even so it's difficult to get truly natural shots.

This is one of my earliest LF images, taken in Yellowstone N.P. Even with their acclimatization to humans and with a river between us, the elk were nervous by the time I was set up.