Luxurious Cameras vs. Plain Jane Cameras and your Camera of Choice!

[Robert Hughes]

7 1/2 in. anastigmat f4.5 No.3 Acme Synchro

7 1/2 inch is 190 mm, a medium telephoto for 4x5. Try portraits with this one.

4 1.2 in Wollensak 6.6 Rapax.

4 1/2 inch is 115 mm, considered a medium wide lens for 4x5. This should be a perfectly useable landscape lens.

Both of these lenses are within the normal range of lenses for this format. Try and see how they look - you don't even need to expose film. Just look at the ground glass and see what you get.

That anastigmat may give you some interesting out-of-field focus effects that some photographers really like. Good luck.

[Michael Jones]

... there is no more improtant feature than transparency.

IMHO, this the only issue to be determined. Chamwow or Phillips or Kodak is irrelevant; how the camera fits the photographer is critical. They are just tools.

Mike

[anthony marsh]

Robert,I also bought a Crown Graphic 2x3 with a Kodak Ektar 105mm f 3.7.Would I be able to use this as a wide angle lens on the 4x5?

[Wade D]

I guess my cameras would be of the plain jane variety. Both are older than I am, a Crown View and Speed Graphic Anni. Both suit my needs quite nicely.
Would I upgrade if I had the funds? Of course. I like to try new cameras. Getting used to new equipment and making it function as a part of me would be the only challenge.
The cameras I have now require very little thought and don't get in the way of my seeing.

[Robert Hughes]

Robert,I also bought a Crown Graphic 2x3 with a Kodak Ektar 105mm f 3.7.Would I be able to use this as a wide angle lens on the 4x5?

Wide angle lenses differ in their ability to cover the entire 4x5 frame. You may find that the center of your photo is bright, in sharp focus, while the corners get dim and out of focus, particularly when shooting wide open at long distances or infinity. Again, try it out and see what happens - you won't break anything, and even if the whole frame isn't covered you may find the effect is useful for some subjects.

Example: Optar 101mm from a 2x3 camera, used on 4x5. Note the vignetting:

[anthony marsh]

Robert,in my post I didn't mention that the 7 1/2 in.lens is an ILEX.I've heard of WOLLENSAK but not ILEX.Would it be a decent lens?

[Robert Hughes]

...ILEX.Would it be a decent lens?

Yep - Could be. Ilex was one of those Rochester NY manufacturers, known mostly for shutters, but also for lenses.

Oftentimes the current condition of the lens is more important than the manufacturer.

[Dan Fromm]

Robert,I also bought a Crown Graphic 2x3 with a Kodak Ektar 105mm f 3.7.Would I be able to use this as a wide angle lens on the 4x5?

Anthony, PMFJI. The 105/3.7 Ektar was sold as a normal lens for 2x3. It just barely covers the format. This based on two examples, one that I used to have and another that I acquired after hearing other people rave about how wonderful the lens is and wondering whether I'd been mistaken. I wasn't mistaken.

I don't know how large a circle it illuminates, but its circle of sharp definition is no more than 100 mm in diameter.

Few inexpensive 100 mm lenses will cover 4x5, lucky steals excepted.

[dperez]

During the Per Memorial Gathering at Oceano Dunes last weekend I was fortunate enough to handle Robert Oliver's Chamonix 045N-1, and examine Hugo Zhang's 16x20 and whole plate Chamonix cameras. I have to say I was very impressed. I own an Arca-Swiss F Classic in 4x5, which is pretty heavy compared to the Chamonix. I plan on eventually picking up a Chamonix 045N-2 to use in the field. I will keep the Arca because it just has a ton of movements, and geared rear focus which comes in handy for macro and still life shots. The only thing that I don't like about the Chamonix 045N-2 is that it does not have an independent locking front rise and tilt mechanism.

I think Chamonix cameras represent great value and quality, plus they seem to have an extensive line of formats, and accessories.

I also own an Ebony RW810 and will be posting a review of it after I use it a bit longer. I really enjoy this camera. It is a pure joy to use. The ground glass is very bright and everything is well made and well thought out, so I have no regrets at all about paying a bit more for the camera. I equate it to owning a fine guitar.

I purchased my Arca-Swiss used with three lenses, standard and bag bellows, a compendium shade, gel filter holders and a pelican case for $2,000. So I don’t think of it as an upper tier camera (Although a new Arca-Swiss 4x5 camera will easily cost over $4,000). New Arca-Swiss accessories are also really expensive. I find that the camera is too heavy for backpacking any serious distances, but it is rock solid and very precise (I must say, the F-Line Field camera with the 6x9 front standard and collapsible rail is much lighter and more compact than my model). The modular design of Arca-Swiss cameras is a plus, especially if one is able to find pre-owned accessories, so one has the ability to go to or from 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 formats quite easily, albeit not cheaply. (My Ebony was only slightly more expensive than the Arca-Swiss 4x5 to 8x10 format kit)

The main attributes I look for in a view camera are rigidity and ease of use. The Arca-Swiss is actually quite a simple camera to use, but is also a precision instrument. I don’t think I would have a problem using a Chamonix or other brand as long as the camera stays where I locked it down, and is easy to use.

-DP

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I have a clunky, heavy CC400. I don't take a lot of pictures because is it a production to get out in the field with it. There are many $600-1000 cameras that would be a joy to use and would greatly increase my productivity. In a perfect world, where I have won the lottery, I would buy an Ebony SW45, one of the expensive multi-format 6X12 backs, a 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N and a 150mm f/5.6 Sironar-S.

In the real world I will likely trade my 210mm f/5.6 Sinaron-S for a sharp 90mm lens and mount it on a Wanderlust 4x5 P&S. Eventually I would break down and buy a Day-Yi 6X12 back.