Show me what you can do with LF! (That you can't with smaller formats.)

[lenicolas]

Someone stated camera movements as an andvatage and used a landscape photograph to illustrate.
Though this argument is very relevant for product photography, i don't think -for practical photography- that there's any gain in dept of field with a view camera and movements compared to a 12mm lens on a crop dslr sensor stopped down to f/11 or f/16...

+ the weight, + the price... Seems like i can only come up with reasons NOT to buy one

I use my view camera for maybe 2% of my pictures, and even then, i keep wondering if i couldn't do it just as good with my mamiya7...
Eventualy, i keep lugging that thing around because it's fun and i love it. And that's reason enough to buy one if you want to.

[Brian C. Miller]

What can be done?

Why, double duty as a concertina, of course! With larger formats, double duty as an accordion! Lens boards can double as ninja throwing stars. Can you hang these from a smaller format? How about using a smaller format's film by simply taping it to a film holder? I've done that, and you can do it, too! If I want to use a smaller format, I just switch the back, no big deal. Can you mount an entire camera and computer in a smaller format? Can you use a smaller format like a hat, lamp shade or sail? Can you use the back from a smaller format to start a fire? Is the tripod for a smaller format sturdy enough to jack up a truck? (OK, so that's an exaggeration. But not by much.)

As for conventional use, is a 16x20 print the minimum size to show all of the detail that exists in your image?

[Kirk Gittings]

With larger formats, double duty as an accordion!

8x10 bellows courtesy of Ralph Barker-photo by Karen Kuehn

[tgtaylor]

Format, for me, is a tool for the type of shooting that I will be doing. For example, for street photography I'll use a 35mm (Nikon F3 or Pentax PZ-1) or Pentax 645N. I prefer the Pentax due to their auto focus ability and superior metering and shoot with the 645N more than the 35mm because if you do get something the larger negative translates into a larger print possibility. On the other hand if I'm looking for some soft focus street images, then I'll pack the Pentax 67II, the 120mm soft focus lens, and a tripod. I have a Pentax 67 to 645 adapter but for some reason the 645N rewinds and tells me that the battery needs changing after taking 1 or 2 frames with the soft focus lens. I've spoken to Pentax repair about this and even sent the camera, lens and adapter in to Chris Camera and it still does it. I have 11 67 lens and all work perfectly with the 645N except the 120 SF and I'm not wasting any more film.

If I will be shooting a landscape, cityscape, interior, etc and want the highest quality image possible, then I'll pack the 4x5 or 8x10 depending on the access and other factors. Last week I shot an interior with the Toyo Robos. I brought the Robos because I had never been in this building before and wanted to be prepared in case a particular shot required movements beyond the capability of a technical field camera and I wanted to shoot it in color which eliminated the 8x10 due to the cost of color film for that camera. It turned out that the only extra movement I needed was the greater front rise capability of the Robos. I also left the tripod dolly home thinking that they would likely object to me rolling a Robos around on a dolly. It turned out that they were cool with the whole thing as long as I was finished by closing time. From now on I'm always bringing the dolly with me. You can't use it if you don't have it with you.

But of all my cameras I'd say that it is the Robos and the 810G that provide me with the greatest thrill. Those two cameras are just a joy to look at set-up and their silky smooth controls make composing joy. And looking at the image on the GG of the
8x10 under a dark-cloth is simply awing in itself.

Thomas

[Jim Jones]

[QUOTE=lenicolas;779883]Someone stated camera movements as an andvatage and used a landscape photograph to illustrate.
Though this argument is very relevant for product photography, i don't think -for practical photography- that there's any gain in dept of field with a view camera and movements compared to a 12mm lens on a crop dslr sensor stopped down to f/11 or f/16...
. . . QUOTE]

The 12mm lens at f/11 or f/16 on the DSLR may provide equal or even better DOF than LF used with movements, but with a loss of image detail. The LF camera might do as well (and almost as poorly) if stopped down to f/256. Lens makers limit minimum apertures in part to keep customers from making disappointing images at extremely small apertures.

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of difference. Maybe if one is addicted to wide-angle lenses, smaller format and
loss of certain movement options can be tolerated. But I'm addicted to long lenses.
For one thing, there are no tilt/shift options in this category except for a couple
macro 35mm examples. So lets look at med format. A 300mm lens for my 6x7 looks
and weighs like a cannon barrel; it requires a tripod just as heavy as my 8x10 does;
and unless I'm using it strictly at infinity (which I sometimes do), a relatively small
aperture is needed for depth of field even a medium distances. OK for road shooting
the distant peaks off Hwy 395, but certainly not a practical backpacking option.
Compare that to putting a tiny little 300mm Nikkor M on my Ebony folder with a
high-quality rollfilm back. The whole nine yards with three lenses weighs less than that one P67 lens, and I can get much sharper shots due to plane of focus control, so I can choose the ideal applications; plus I also can instantly pop in 4x5 filmholders too.
Apples to apples, in this kind of application, the view camera easily wins every time
except for setup speed.

[Struan Gray]

Bulls balls? Accordians? Thank God I live on the civilised side of the pond.

Resurrected (again) from from Henri Gaud's 11x14 Canham review.

[John NYC]

Bulls balls? Accordians? Thank God I live on the civilised side of the pond.

Resurrected (again) from from Henri Gaud's 11x14 Canham review.

I have already been mooching around and considering adding 11x14 (especially since Kodak appears for the time being to make the new Portra 400 in that size) and now you show me this review!?!?

[rdenney]

A 300mm lens for my 6x7 looks
and weighs like a cannon barrel; it requires a tripod just as heavy as my 8x10 does;
and unless I'm using it strictly at infinity (which I sometimes do), a relatively small
aperture is needed for depth of field even a medium distances. OK for road shooting
the distant peaks off Hwy 395, but certainly not a practical backpacking option.
Compare that to putting a tiny little 300mm Nikkor M on my Ebony folder with a
high-quality rollfilm back. The whole nine yards with three lenses weighs less than that one P67 lens, and I can get much sharper shots due to plane of focus control, so I can choose the ideal applications; plus I also can instantly pop in 4x5 filmholders too.
Apples to apples, in this kind of application, the view camera easily wins every time
except for setup speed.

Comparing a Pentax 6x7 to a medium-format view camera (or it's slightly larger cousin, a 4x5 view camera with a rollfilm back) is not, of course, the question asked by the OP. But it comes up with me frequently. If there was a quality medium-format view camera with the same lens flexibility as the Pentax and that would travel as easily, and if I could afford it (which is the tricky bit), I'd probably try to buy one.

But here's a twist. Let's say I want to make a picture that needs a focal length six times normal. With my 4x5 camera, I have all the movements in the world. But a 900mm lens is quite a challenge even with my ultra-extendable Sinar. And with 8x10, a lens that long (1800mm) is way beyond realistic.

In the attached photo, I used a CZJ 300mm Sonnar, in Pentacon Six mount, mounted to my Canon 5D with a tilting adapter. The lens is thus six times normal. The image was made at 1/50 at f/11 at ISO 800, I think. Yes, it required a substantial tripod--today is quite cloudy and that lead block of a lens makes me shake after 15 seconds of holding it up. The view is from a second-floor window of my front yard. I used the tilt to get the ground surface into the focus plane. It did not take much tilt at this downward angle (about 6 degrees), though scenes with an infinity subject will probably require more tilt than is possible with such a narrow field of view. Even at f/11, it's easy to see the lamp post going out of focus--it's now orthogonal to the focus plane.

In fact, having some movement capability may be even more critical for small cameras in situations like this--where the length of the lens makes a view camera impractical.

Rick "not too impressed with the sharpness of the old Sonnar when tilted, however" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

I've been doing quite a few experiments along these very lines in the last six months.
And I'm pretty amazed just how much better the shots are, apples to apples, with
a view camera and rollfilm camera versus an ordinary med format rig. Being able to
practically carry any number of lightwt lenses, and even more, having the plane of
focus ability, means being able to use these lenses at optimal f-stops and applications.
It really shows in the prints, even using the same film and dev regimen. My longest
8x10 lens is a 600 Fuji C; but my Sinar 4x5 is equipped with a 28-inch Horseman bellows (no need of an intermediate standard even at full extension - one of the
smartest purchases I ever made). Take a tiny lens like a 450 Fuji C and one can reach
way out there, or with a 6x9 back have the equivalent of almost a 700mm lens on
4x5, and still remain relatively lightwt and rigid. It will even work well on my 3lb Gitzo
carbon tripod. Although I'm still quite comfortable packing an 8x10 for day use, I'm
certainly no youngster, and the day will inevitably come when I need to swap out my
big maple Ries for a lighter carbon support (already purchased, modified, and tested,
then will devolve to 4x5 more frequently, then alas to a rollfilm back, then stumble
around in old age with ... well, you know, came into the world wearing diapers, go
out doing the same ... began with 35mm, probably go out the same way...