Are there any 4x5 cameras with big rangefinders like the polaroid 110B?

[patrickjames]

I think there is an assumption that anyone using large format wants a super sharp picture with a ton of depth of field but why assume that? I only use large format for the tone. Depth of field is meaningless to me. Look at Corran's image of the painter above. That is typical of what you shoot when you want to handhold a camera. The great thing about the Polaroid conversions is you can easily take an image like that. I have had sharp results holding the camera down to 1/8 of a second; I just rest the camera on my shoulder. It is the only camera with which I can do that and still focus and see what I am shooting. The camera is not as fast to use as a Mamiya 7 though so I would still say most everyone would be better off with a Mamiya.

[nonuniform]

I'm a huge fan of handheld 4x5. I've tried just about everything, and have settled on the Crown Graphic. I love the Mamiya 7, and the Fuji rollfilm cameras. Honestly, the images don't have the same sense of "space", or I guess we call it 3D look now, that the 4x5 images do. My 135mm Xenotar produces images that I just love, and have never really been able to reproduce on medium format. It's personal, so, I'm not really able to say that someone else is "wrong", just that for me, and the way I like to shoot, 4x5 captures what I see better than other formats.

Right now, I have 3 cameras setup, a Crown with the 135 Xenotar, another Crown with the 150 Xenotar, and a Speed with the Aero. Honestly, I don't use the Aero handheld, and I'm testing out a 180 Heliar on a Technika V right now. The Technika's are impossible to handhold, at least I find it tiring, so, we'll see what happens with that setup.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The focusing knob on the Polaroids seems made for shooting handheld in vertical mode ("portrait") whereas the Crown is a horizontal frame without a revolving back. For those who've worked with both, how does this work out in actual use?

[cyrus]

The focusing knob on the Polaroids seems made for shooting handheld in vertical mode ("portrait") whereas the Crown is a horizontal frame without a revolving back. For those who've worked with both, how does this work out in actual use?

I'm a big fan of the 110B conversions (am selling one on ebay right now) and I don't have a problem with the focus either in portrait or landscape mode. It is a large camera so I don't think comparing it to a MF is fair -- apples and oranges. The bottom line is that while a MF neg can be "as good as " a 4x5 neg, the 4x5 is at least twice as large as the MF negative ... with all the attendant positive and desirable consequences of LF over MF. But if convenience alone was the issue, I'd go with a digital P&S.

[evan clarke]

I have a Wista RF and the rangefinder is quite nice. The body is cammed for three kenses and only requires a turn of a knob to select a focal length (as well as setting your lens at the proper stop)

[nonuniform]

Using the Crown handheld, I have no problem shooting in portrait orientation by turning the entire camera on its side. I've never used a 110b, so can't help you there.

The focusing knob on the Polaroids seems made for shooting handheld in vertical mode ("portrait") whereas the Crown is a horizontal frame without a revolving back. For those who've worked with both, how does this work out in actual use?

[Jay DeFehr]

I think a person would need to be printing 16x20+ to realize any improvements in IQ by 4x5 over MF, and that's assuming the 4x5 lens is as good, film plane as flat, focus as accurate, etc. From an ease of use standpoint, there's just no comparison, and while some might argue ease of use doesn't translate to IQ, I would argue it does, at least for me. I have a very nice Crown Graphic with a lovely 135mm Xenar, and when conditions are just right (subject not too close, plenty of light), I can make very nice images, with some effort. I could make it more convenient by using Grafmatic holders, but I don't have any, so I use regular double sided film holders instead. This limits me to about 6-10 exposures, depending on how eager I am to carry a lot of film holders. Having fewer exposures available is a limitation that can affect IQ, because it means opportunities can be lost, and requires enhanced resource management strategies. My CG doesn't have a built in light meter, so I have to either carry a handheld meter, or guess. Either option can affect IQ -- guessing is obvious, but using a handheld meter instead of a built in one is both slower, and requires a lot of fidgeting. Do I hold the camera in one hand and the meter in the other, or put the camera down, or hang it from a strap around my neck? Whatever I do, the subject could be moving, or the light changing.

If we imagine a competition to get the best prints from an outing, and we compare carrying and using a Mamiya 7 and 2 rolls of film to carrying and using a 4x5 RF, a handheld light meter, and ten film holders, or even two Grafmatic holders, I'd rather be the guy with the M7, unless print size exceeds 16x20.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Those are some big globs of paint...

I usually use the "Wire" viewfinder on my Speed and just set my focus based on the distance scale.
I am very good at estimating distances, so I just look and say to myself, "That looks about ten feet" - etc.

Never had an out of focus one yet!

[SpeedGraphicMan]

If we imagine a competition to get the best prints from an outing, and we compare carrying and using a Mamiya 7 and 2 rolls of film to carrying and using a 4x5 RF, a handheld light meter, and ten film holders, or even two Grafmatic holders, I'd rather be the guy with the M7, unless print size exceeds 16x20.

I'd be the guy with the 4x5 even if the printing output was 5x7... Not a big fan of the Mamiya 7.

Now an RB or RZ67 is a different story!