Recommend me a 4x5 body for outdoor macro purposes

[neoro]

Hi,

I'm new to LF and still doing my share of research. I want to shoot primarily macro 1:1< or >1:1 and have narrowed down my lens to probably a Schneider 180mm HM.

For bodies, I have seen that the Shen Hao and Chamonix 4x5 gives a pretty decent bellow length.

Anyone able to comment on the easy of precise focusing using Shen Hao or Chamonix 4x5s? Any other models / brands to recommend? The more the movement the better, weight isn't an issue at the moment



-------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tang_yiming

[Dan Fromm]

Um, when working in the range of magnfications you want most of us set magnification by setting extension, then focus by moving camera and lens as a unit. You should think about a really sturdy focusing rail.

You should also reconsider what you're trying to accomplish. If you don't need to print large a 35 mm SLR (or perhaps an MF SLR) is much easier to use for macro than a view camera.

FWIW, I shoot a fair number of flowers using a Nikon, 105/2.8 MicroNikkor, and a couple of small flashes. The flash rig is calibrated, tells me the aperture to use given magnification. I just walk up to my flower, frame it, check aperture, reframe/refocus and POW!

I also shoot flowers between 1:6 and 2:1 with a 2x3 Graphic and a suitable lens and a flash or two. Subject motion is a killer, one can never be sure that what was in focus before the lens is stopped down, shutter closed, film holder inserted, ..., will be in focus when the shot is taken. Wind!

[Ken Lee]

A 180mm lens requires 180mm bellows extension at infinity. To shoot at 1:1, we need 2x the infinity extension, or 360mm. For this reason, it is good to use a shorter lens in many cases, if bellows draw is limited. View camera movements are difficult when the bellows is very extended.

Option 1 is the Rodenstock APO Macro Sironar or Schneider Macro Symmar which come in different lengths: 120mm for 4x5, 180mm for 5x7/8x10, and 80mm for Medium Format. At 1:1, a 120mm lens will require only 240mm of bellows extension, and will not produce a strain on your 4x5 camera. To get closer than 1:1, you need even more bellows extension.

Option 2 is a 180mm Fujinon A, but it is a bit long.

Option 3 is possible for non-macro lenses that sit in a Number 1 shutter: reverse the lens. This will improve performance for macro shooting. Screw the rear element into the front, and screw the font element into the rear. Keep the shutter in the normal position, outside the camera.

Option 4 is to use a process lens like the APO-Ronar, APO-Nikkor, APO-Artar which were designed for close work, but mounted in barrel, with no shutter. You can use a Sinar camera and a Sinar shutter, or...

Option 5 - Some process lenses are available in shutter, either because someone put them into a shutter, or they were manufactured that way. You will see some of them on eBay.

Option 6 - Have a process lens mounted into a shutter by an expert like SK Grimes.

(Some of us like option 4: a Sinar camera, and a Sinar shutter. This lets us shoot any lenses we want: in barrel, or in shutter. The disadvantage is that the Sinar camera is heavier than a wooden field camera).

[Arne Croell]

Option 3 is possible for non-macro lenses that sit in a Number 1 shutter: reverse the lens. This will improve performance for macro shooting. Screw the rear element into the front, and screw the font element into the rear. Keep the shutter in the normal position, outside the camera.

I assume you meant " lenses that DO NOT sit in a number 1 shutter"... since the one shutter where front and back cell have different threads is the no.1. I never understood why the shutter industry did that.

[Peter K]

I assume you meant " lenses that DO NOT sit in a number 1 shutter"... since the one shutter where front and back cell have different threads is the no.1. I never understood why the shutter industry did that.

Don't ask the shutter industry but the lens- and camera-makers.

The "older" dial-set Compur shutters had the same threads front and back. But the "newer" size #00, #1 and #2, introducted in the Twenties, have different threads. Possible to save weight because nearly all rear-cells are smaller as the front-cells.

Peter

[Ken Lee]

"I assume you meant " lenses that DO NOT sit in a number 1 shutter"... since the one shutter where front and back cell have different threads is the no.1. I never understood why the shutter industry did that".

Oops

[Ken Lee]

I guess another option is to use an enlarger lens.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

OP may well have his reasons for thinking that 1:1 will be worth the trouble. But to me LF beyond about 1:4 ratio just seems absurd; this is coming from someone who's been shooting macros as a substantial part of his revenue stream for 20 years. Reason being that the 1:1 detail will be the same size on film. But 35mm macro lenses routinely resolve 105-110 lp/mm on film and that kind of resolution is unavailable to large formats for a variety of reasons. From 35mm on either film or a 20+ MP FF body, a single exposure yields an image nominally capable of a 20x30" inch print that will withstand close scrutiny. If that won't get it done, stitching would be far, far more satisfying than chasing after better detail through larger formats.

[rdenney]

I would strongly consider a modular monorail for this application instead of a field camera. Shorter focus distances lead to more extreme movements, and a modular system will allow the rail to be extended. The downside is bulk and weight, which do not seem to be your driving issues.

I think the monorail that fits your needs might be a Sinar F2. They came with a 12" rail, but it is easy and cheap to get 6", 12", and even 18" extensions, which can be stacked end-to-end as necessary. Bellows can be stacked with an intermediate multipurpose standard, but the standard square bellows is probably long enough to focus a 180mm lens at 1:1. Two stacked end-to-end would be long enough for any reasonable lens in that application. The system also provides a range of macro-useful features, including film-plane metering solutions and viewers designs for very low camera positions. The F2 has geared focus on both standards, which allows you to adjust focus while maintaining the same magnification, or to adjust position to alter magnification, pretty easily.

Rick "thinking this application can use the modular versatility of a good monorail" Denney

[Arne Croell]

The "older" dial-set Compur shutters had the same threads front and back. But the "newer" size #00, #1 and #2, introducted in the Twenties, have different threads. Possible to save weight because nearly all rear-cells are smaller as the front-cells.

Peter

Its true that the old dial set Compurs where different. However, I have several number 2 Compurs here, both dial set and rim-set, but all with lenses from after WWII (Voigtlaender Ultragon 115mm, Heliar 180mm, Apo-Ronar 360mm) and one 00 (Repro-Claron 55mm). All of them have the same threads front and back. So which models of the no.2 and 00 had different threads front and back??