Chamonix 45N-1 Accessory Requests

[Brian Ellis]

oh! longer bellows!

i originally asked but i did not pursue it cause i did not want to miss this order.

As you probably know, there's usually a trade-off with bellows length. The longer the bellows the more difficult it usually is to use short focal length lenses, especially with movements. I've always assumed that was why people who owned some Wisner cameras said they needed a bag bellows for any lens shorter than about 110mm (some Wisners had bellows in 24" range IIRC). I thought the Chamonix was pretty impressive with a 395" bellows but the apparent ability (according to Jack Flesher's review) to use a 65mm lens. Personally if I wanted to use a longer normal lens than the 360mm that's already usable with the Chamonix I'd rather use a top hat lens board than give up some wide angle lens ability to a longer bellows.

[eddie]

i did not really think about the trade off of the longer bellows limiting the wider lenses. probably because i do not own a wide angle lens to cover 4x5. i do not because most are very expensive. but on the other side longer FL are easy to find and cheap relative to WA. mainly i was thinking about using some of the normal lenses at portrait distances. that is what i had in mind for the extra bellows. i was thinking about using 12 in lens for portraits (maybe a bit more) basically an 8inch would be the max with the current bellows. i think that a lens a bit longer would make the ports more flattering.

now if i can get me one of those super wides for super cheap i may begin to sign another tune.....OR......we could get a camera with longer bellows AND bag bellows.....

eddie

[roteague]

Bag Bellows -- Being a wideangle guy, this is my number one request. The bag bellows should be very light and flexible. Need this one badly and soon.

I'm curious why you would need a bag bellows for this camera. From the pictures Jack Flesher put up, it doesn't look like you would need one.

[BarryS]

I'm curious why you would need a bag bellows for this camera. From the pictures Jack Flesher put up, it doesn't look like you would need one.

I don't know, maybe you're right. I'm starting with the Nikkor 90mm f/8, which I understand has a relatively large image circle and I may be trading the 90 for 65 or 75mm lens because I usually like to go pretty wide. I want to make sure I run out of image circle before I run out of bellows for the 90 and potentially, the 65 or 75. I plan on doing some architectural studies that might mean using a lot of movements, so I always assumed I'd need a bag bellows. What do you think?

[roteague]

I don't know, maybe you're right. I'm starting with the Nikkor 90mm f/8, which I understand has a relatively large image circle and I may be trading the 90 for 65 or 75mm lens because I usually like to go pretty wide. I want to make sure I run out of image circle before I run out of bellows for the 90 and potentially, the 65 or 75. I plan on doing some architectural studies that might mean using a lot of movements, so I always assumed I'd need a bag bellows. What do you think?

I've never used a bag bellows, although my widest lens is a 80mm XL; with my old Toyo 45AII. The Chamonix looks like it will collapse more than the Toyo.

[J_Tardiff]

i did not really think about the trade off of the longer bellows limiting the wider lenses. probably because i do not own a wide angle lens to cover 4x5. i do not because most are very expensive. but on the other side longer FL are easy to find and cheap relative to WA. mainly i was thinking about using some of the normal lenses at portrait distances. that is what i had in mind for the extra bellows. i was thinking about using 12 in lens for portraits (maybe a bit more) basically an 8inch would be the max with the current bellows. i think that a lens a bit longer would make the ports more flattering.

eddie

eddie,

Do you really think the Chamonix is limited to <10" lenses for portrait work? That seems a bit pessimistic to me and I was hoping that the extra bellows draw as compared to the 4x5 Shen would be an advantage. Can you elaborate a little as I am presently in the market for a portrait lens (210 - 240 FL)?

appreciate it,

JT

[David Karp]

I see Brian's point regarding using lenses at the short end of the spectrum. Again, this illustrates why there are many cameras for us LF nuts. I rarely go wider than 125mm when in the field. If I do, it is almost always 90mm and no farther. So, switching a bellows to use a 75mm or wider would not be a problem for me.

Plus, given the request by a few users for a universal (Canham-like) bellows and the tapered nature of the Chamonix bellows, my guess is that you would be able to use a 75mm or perhaps even a 65mm.

[eddie]

hi jt,
maybe i am wrong (not the first time) i just checked my 165mm (6.5 inches) lens on a head shot and had about 10 inches of bellows out. i was just guessing that a 10 inch lens would need about max bellows for this kind of shot. i will try and verify this when i get home. i got an old barrel 10 in i can cut a foam core board for and try it. i would say you should have no problems with a 240 (that is almost 10 inches). i was thinking that a 12-14 inch lens would give a more flattering port than the wider ones.

here is one of my favorite ports shot wide open. it is a 12 inch lens. the max bellows i have on my korona is about 20 inches. i think i was close to that when i made this image. (my korona has more bellows than i have extension. if i could hook up a 3rd extension rail i may get another 3-4 inches out of her)

i will go home and check out a few different FL for head shot ports and report back to you. i think you will be just fine with the 240 (10 inch..ish)

eddie

ps. if you can not see the apug galleries try this one

eddie,

Do you really think the Chamonix is limited to <10" lenses for portrait work? That seems a bit pessimistic to me and I was hoping that the extra bellows draw as compared to the 4x5 Shen would be an advantage. Can you elaborate a little as I am presently in the market for a portrait lens (210 - 240 FL)?

appreciate it,

JT

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know, maybe you're right. I'm starting with the Nikkor 90mm f/8, which I understand has a relatively large image circle and I may be trading the 90 for 65 or 75mm lens because I usually like to go pretty wide. I want to make sure I run out of image circle before I run out of bellows for the 90 and potentially, the 65 or 75. I plan on doing some architectural studies that might mean using a lot of movements, so I always assumed I'd need a bag bellows. What do you think?

I'm not sure there are any 65mm lenses that have significant room for movements with 4x5. I know the Schneiders that I've looked at would just barely cover 4x5 with no room for movements. It's my understanding that the 65s are intended mostly for use with medium format cameras or backs.

[BarryS]

That would definitely make a 65mm a lot less appealing. I should be receiving my 90mm and a lens board in a few days, so I'll see how that works out in terms of available movements. I should look into coverage for 75 and 80mm lenses, maybe the standard bellows is less of an issue than I thought.