Advice buying my first large format camera.

[enniomorricone]

Hello All

I have a very broad question, which I presume a number of you have answered in the past.

To begin with, I have been shooting with my Mamiya RZ for around 3 years. Over the years I have mainly shot documentary style projects, a lot of portraiture work, and I have found that with travelling and working away from home the RZ has been very practical. Now I have been shooting a lot more landscape based work on my RZ and I have become disappointed with my results, and Im finding it a bit of a compromise.

Ideally I would like to invest in a 4x5 camera, but I am really concerned with the cost of film. I have seen 10 sheets of Kodak Portr go for £45 which is probably too much for me. So to cut to the chase Im after some advice about upgrading to a large format camera that I can buy a 6x7/6x9 back for. I thought to myself I would see what is available online and research from there but I am struggling to find much for sale in the UK.

Is there many benefits changing from a RZ to something like a Horseman VH-R if I am still going to shoot 120?
Any advice on cameras/film will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

First thing that comes to mind is what subjects do you like to shoot--for instance, do favor wide angle views?

Shooting medium format on a large format camera body, there's something of the dilemma to finding wide-angle view camera lenses short & wide enough to improve upon what can readily be done with 120 cameras like your RZ and commonly available lenses.

The Horseman VH-R is not a camera I've used-- but you're considering it because it's a 6x9 cm? There's not enough of a format jump to recommend it over an RZ since you're disappointed with 6x7.

[enniomorricone]

At the moment I am really focussing on landscape work. I am stuck with a 110mm lens on the RZ which is way too big for my liking. When I was studying I had access to lenses so I never invested, but I was very much focussed on portraits and would generally work with a 90mm.

I have now read the same about The Horseman VH-R. I am still trying to get my head around the technical aspects, medium format is very simple.

My main theory thinking about a large format, with 6x7/6x9 back was cutting the price down not buying 4x5 all the time, and I thought perhaps the smaller lenses on, with rise/fall and shift ability would suit landscape work more than my current set up.

Thanks for the fast reply.

[Dan Fromm]

Ennio, I'm surprised that you're pinching pence given how much money you've made from your music.

More seriously, if you want to shoot roll film with a 4x5 camera you have a broad range of cameras to choose from. Read the FAQs at www.largeformatphotography.info . You'll learn more there than you will from random answers, most of them of the "use what I do" kind, on this forum.

FWIW, I started with a 2x3 Speed Graphic (too small a format for this forum), eventually got a Century Graphic (also 2x3, also too small from this forum) and much later was given a 2x3 Cambo (real view camera, still too small for here). I now also have a 4x5 Cambo. Naturally I think you'd be happy with a 2x3 Graphic (Century or Crown, probably, they're better for short lenses than the Speed is and where I shoot short lenses work better than long 'uns). The Horseman cameras you're looking at can be seen as improved Graphics. Naturally I think you'd be happy with a Cambo. Or with a Sinar, they're equally if not more capable and equally inexpensive.

But I'm not you. I'm also not Ivan. I think I have lenses that cover 2x3 and are shorter than any of his. You quoted a price in £ so I take it you're in the UK. Look for a rental house and rent a camera you think will suit you. Iterate as needed. Or try to find people who use cameras you fancy and ask them to let you visit and try their cameras. Use http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/ for that.

Odds are that your first 4x5 camera will turn out not to be exactly what you want. It will teach you more about what you do and don't want in a 4x5 camera. This has happened to many.

Oh, yes, since you want to shoot roll film people will probably tell you that you'll need a camera with a Graflok (also called International) back. Perhaps, but there are insertion type roll holders for 4x5 cameras.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[enniomorricone]

Nice to see my alias was picked up early ;).

Thanks for all the information Dave, I will start processing it. I knowingly had a feeling if I decided to invest in a 4x5 camera of some description I would really have to spend a lot of time learning. Ideally I would love a Mamiya 7 for the time being but they are so expensive right now.

[koh303]

If you are dissapointed with the results because of the level of material you get from your RZ in roll film, this will not change if you change the camera.

Shooting 4X5 is cheap if you shoot BW. color is not cheap, but - dont forget, you will be shooting less sheets then roll film frames (maybe not at start), but thats part of the cost cutting benefit of 4x5, it is slower, and thus you can make less images, use less film.

The camera/lens for 4X5 may not be much more expensive then a nice RZ set, but you can do so much more...

[Bill_1856]

I see no good reason to switch from your Mamiya to a 4x5.
My only thought is that if you're not getting good negatives with the RZ, then you're probably shooting hand-held. In which case, get and tripod and USE IT!

[Richard Johnson]

The RZ was the choice of many top photographers not that long ago, especially for fashion and portrait. But it will do landscape too. Why not simply refine your technique by using a tripod more often? You would need a tripod for a view camera anyway. The smaller degree of more subtle movements you will likely use with roll film may not be that significant or important in practice, at least for many of us who would consider using roll film.

[analoguey]

+1
Use a good tripod - I had ignored that advice, but learnt it the hard way, with LF.
Also, have you tried the wider lenses with the RZ in the first place?
I have used its cousin the RB and the KL 90, and I quite like it's rendering for portrait and urban scapes.

[Robert Brummitt]

http://www.shopgoodwill.com/viewItem.asp?ItemID=17656627

That's a link to what looks like a pretty nice Super Graphic camera.

[enniomorricone]

I don't think I have ever used my RZ without a tripod. I have quite a lot of experience shooting portrait work and I have always been pleased with my results.
I do know that my current 110mm lens is causing me some problems with landscape work, I seem to be working right at the end of it's focal range. But I am coming across a few issues which Im unsure how to resolve. I have been shooting Portra 160, around early evening where the light is very ambient and consistent, despite paying attention to the light meter the sky seems to be burnt out a lot of the time, and my images are not sharp at all.
I'm unsure if the problems are with the film, lens, lab or me.

[Deval]

I don't think I have ever used my RZ without a tripod. I have quite a lot of experience shooting portrait work and I have always been pleased with my results.
I do know that my current 110mm lens is causing me some problems with landscape work, I seem to be working right at the end of it's focal range. But I am coming across a few issues which Im unsure how to resolve. I have been shooting Portra 160, around early evening where the light is very ambient and consistent, despite paying attention to the light meter the sky seems to be burnt out a lot of the time, and my images are not sharp at all.
I'm unsure if the problems are with the film, lens, lab or me.

portra 160 is not the ideal filmstock for sunset skies. I have both an RZ with 110 as well as Large Format...I promise you that its not the lens;its insanely sharp. Its 160 is no longer made in VC as I understand so it will attempt neutral colors. However it shouldn't blow out the sky. What tells you that it is not good a print or scan or lab scan? Negative films contain insane dynamic range and open to interpretation on scanning and printing.. How are you scanning?

Large format would not change the basics of the process. The RZ is a great camera...I'd love to try to help you a bit more, can you show us some sample problem pics.

[enniomorricone]

When I use to shoot transparency, if I was working outside I would nearly always work with 100ISO and 400 would blow out easily. So with Portra I thought 160 would be the best option, but I have been reading otherwise.

I don't want to blame the lab, but I am unsure if they have had a change around in staff or something. I sent a film off which needing pushing and it came back barely visible, ever since I have had problems with scan size and file types. I use to pay for 25mb TIFFS and a few times I have recieved smaller JPEGS, they have apologised and offered to scan again, but I get the feeling everything is being rushed. I live in the sticks so I generally send my film via mail, so I have no clue what is going on with them.

In regards to my 110mm lens, I have produced some really sharp images with it, but with a lot of landscape stuff I find what I am trying to focus on is just out of the focal range so I probably need something like a 50mm. I will send you a PM Deval.

[djdister]

When I use to shoot transparency, if I was working outside I would nearly always work with 100ISO and 400 would blow out easily. So with Portra I thought 160 would be the best option, but I have been reading otherwise.

I don't want to blame the lab, but I am unsure if they have had a change around in staff or something. I sent a film off which needing pushing and it came back barely visible, ever since I have had problems with scan size and file types. I use to pay for 25mb TIFFS and a few times I have recieved smaller JPEGS, they have apologised and offered to scan again, but I get the feeling everything is being rushed. I live in the sticks so I generally send my film via mail, so I have no clue what is going on with them.

In regards to my 110mm lens, I have produced some really sharp images with it, but with a lot of landscape stuff I find what I am trying to focus on is just out of the focal range so I probably need something like a 50mm. I will send you a PM Deval.

I would suggest a 50 or 75mm lens, and switching to Ektar film for your landscape work.

[Richard Johnson]

I don't understand why any normal film would blow out if it were exposed properly? Is it the film being overexposed, are the scans bad, or is your monitor so far out that things look worse than they are?

In any event, Portra 160 and 400 films are excellent for landscapes and a Mamiya RZ 110 lens in good condition should be amongst the sharpest medium format systems ever made. Of the remaining photo processing labs, I doubt there are any incompetent ones left as most of the bad ones went out business years ago.... Labs do make occasional mistakes but very rarely and almost never the same mistake twice.

I don't want to assume ignorance or poor technique but first I would rule out simple mistakes or lack of experience. Perhaps you need to find a mentor to "check things out" with your workflow before? I know that you may be isolated out in the sticks but sometimes even the older small town wedding and portrait photographers who used to shoot film - in RZs - are quite expert. Why not find one and buy them a coffee early in the week when they aren't so busy? Or simply post your location here and maybe some helpful person will offer?

Not to discourage you from learning to use a 4x5 as well but in terms of making a very pleasing 16x20 print, good technique with an RZ should produce professional and exhibit quality results.

[enniomorricone]

I'm running an apple cinema display so everything is reasonably accurate. Like mentioned I have religiously shot with my RZ, mainly transparency film, and I have had a few exhibitions where I have blown work up to A2 with excellent results.

I am unsure why some images are blown out, when I use to shoot a lot of transparency I was always very accurate and spent a lot of time metering, so that habit is still with me. I think the lack of sharpness probably comes down to me shooting near the end of my focal range. To be honest I think Im going to have to try and eliminate the culprit by shooting more and maybe using a different lab.

[enniomorricone]

Here is an image I shot where the sky has blown out, despite the light being very ambient. The only thing I can compare it to is when I have shot 400ISO transparency on a bright day with contrast.

http://payload286.cargocollective.com/1/16/517272/8022990/1_1200.jpg

[Bill_1856]

All media, digital OR film (whether B&W, color negative, or especially transparencies) have a very limited range of ability to capture both dark and light areas.
This is probably heresy, but I think you need to buy (or rent, borrow, or steal) a fairly good digital camera and work on your metering/exposure. Instant feedback and "free" retakes are some of the best teachers. Record every shot, note what you are doing, and analyze the results.

[djdister]

Here is an image I shot where the sky has blown out, despite the light being very ambient. The only thing I can compare it to is when I have shot 400ISO transparency on a bright day with contrast.

http://payload286.cargocollective.com/1/16/517272/8022990/1_1200.jpg

So you exposed for the deep shadows on a bright but overcast day, and the sun was just to your 11:00 in front of you - there should be no surprise that the sky is blown out on a transparency. For starters, you should look through the "Large Format Landscapes" thread for ideas about shooting landscapes, or consult a good book on the subject.

[Richard Johnson]

Ektar, a different lens, or film size wouldn't help.

It looks like either overexposed film or a poorly made scan or a combination of both. Most likely the film is fine but the scans were made using automatic exposure settings (on the scanner) which opened up the shadows and overexposed the highlights to "average" the exposure. That's why people scan themselves, since a lab doing mass quantities of automated scans for a low price is not going to make creative judgements on individual frames unless you pay more for custom scanning.

Short of scanning yourself, use the cheap scans for proofing and then spend the extra to get custom scans of the best work.

It's also a borderline overexposure, as the left side of the sky is gone but there may be detail in the original film, it is impossible to tell from the scan. Best to learn how to meter the highlights and "place" them where you want on the exposure scale. In a case like this, I would have placed the sky and clouds in the Zone VII and VIII range and let the shadows in the foreground fall where they may (go darker) then adjust the scan to hold as much of the range as possible. Once in ACR-Lightroom-Photoshop then you can make creative decisions how you want things to look but the goal at exposure is to capture as much of the range onto the film as possible.

(This differs from the Ansel Adams B&W Zone System where he wants you to pre-visualize and adjust your B&W development to match the contrast range you have in your head, destroying unnecessary information so the important stuff is expanded. I doubt he ever really did this in real life but lots of photographers pull their hair out trying LOL.)

[Alan Gales]

Years ago I shot Kodachrome 35mm almost exclusively and printed on Cibachrome. Slide film is contrasty so I was careful what time of day I used it for landscapes. Sometimes you are either going to blow out the sky or not get detail in the shadows. It's just the nature of the beast. That's one of the reasons why they say your best light is in the morning or evening. I also learned that after a sturdy tripod a polarizer was my best friend.

I used to own an RZ. I also owned the 110 lens you are using plus a 180 and 50mm ULD. I highly recommend the 50mm ULD if you are looking for a wide angle lens.

Buy a 4x5 if you want camera movements.