PDA

View Full Version : Combining 4x5 and 6x17 in one camera, wide angle is important



sdzsdz
17-Jan-2015, 07:13
I know I posted a similar question a few months back but I want to ask this question again in an other way. There were a lot of suggestions, that a 6x17 back is not as good as a dedicated 6x17 camera, because it canīt be handheld and there were also other reasons. Others told me to not take both cameras with me...But I use my setup not handheld, because with the 75mm on 6x17 I have to stop down to 22 to get sharpness on the edges and I want to have both possibiities in the field!

So far I was quite happy with a Tachihara 4x5, 75mm Lens, 150mm Lens, 210mm Lens, and a FOTOMAN 6x17 camera with 75mm Lens. Both are absolutely beautiful cameras and Iīm very pleased with the results, at least after sorting out a good 75mm Lens for the Fotoman amongst a whole bunch of lenses.

BUT!

With all this stuff and the accessories I have to carry a lot of weight! AND I have 2 75mm lenses with me. AND if I want an other focal length for 6x17 I have to pay a lot of money for ANOTHER xtra lens and the matching lens cone.
So I thought by myself, why donīt you combine 4x5 and 6x17? Are you stupid? there are these chinese 6x17 backs out there. You will save a lot of weight, AND money, AND you could use every lens you want on 6x17. Isnīt this a great idea and arenīt you a very smart guy?

BUT!

The Tachihara hasnīt got an international back. AND can you still use 75mm or at least 80mm (Super-Symmar XL) because of the 6x17 back that sets the focal plane back?

And this is the most important point for me. I love these wide lenses with 6x17. I want it shorter than 90mm. So here are my questions:

- Wich is the best 4x5 leightweight field camera that has an international back and has the possibility of a very short focal-flange-distance (or can use 75mm with a 6x17 back)? I read somwhere that Chamonix is possible, what would also suit my Linhof lensboards (and I already own a recessed one).
- Wich 6x17 back to use?
- If I solve the problem of the ffd, is it possible to reach the same quality like I have with the Fotoman? I think this will be a function of exact alignment of the standards. Is it possible to find an exact alignment by tryal and error and then marking the exact adjustment points on the camera?
- I could also imagine to trade off both of my 75mm lenses for an 80mm Super-Symmar because of the bigger image circle and as a compromise for both systems.

So many ideas!

Iīm very interested in every suggestion you have!

Best regards, Sebastian

Old-N-Feeble
17-Jan-2015, 09:28
If I was shooting 4x5in and 6x17cm often then I'd buy a Canham 5x7 wood field plus the matching 4x5 reducing back and the Canham 6x17 motorized roll film back. The 5x7 back is Graflok style which the 6x17cm roll film back attaches to. The 4x5 back is also Graflok style so you can use Graflok compatible accessories. If you decide to shoot 4x10in later then you can buy a conversion kit. It's a beautiful system. I much prefer Canham's traditional wood cameras vs. his metal ones.

CAMERA (http://www.canhamcameras.com/4x5and5x7.htm)

MOTORIZED FILM HOLDER (http://www.canhamcameras.com/Roll%20film%20back.html)

The lenses I would choose if money was no concern are...

47 SAXL
72 SAXL
110 SSXL
150 Apo Sym L
210 Apo Sym L
300 Fuji-C
450 Fuji-C

djdister
17-Jan-2015, 09:58
If I was shooting 4x5in and 6x17cm often then I'd buy a Canham 5x7 wood field plus the matching 4x5 reducing back and the Canham 6x17 motorized roll film back. The 5x7 back is Graflok style which the 6x17cm roll film back attaches to. The 4x5 back is also Graflok style so you can use Graflok compatible accessories. If you decide to shoot 4x10in later then you can buy a conversion kit. It's a beautiful system. I much prefer Canham's traditional wood cameras vs. his metal ones.

CAMERA (http://www.canhamcameras.com/4x5and5x7.htm)

MOTORIZED FILM HOLDER (http://www.canhamcameras.com/Roll%20film%20back.html)



Almost. The 5x7 wood field (traditional) camera does not have a Graflok style back, only the Canham all-metal 5x7 MQC does. You can still use the Canham roll film back on the wood field camera by keeping the groundglass protector on and just sliding the roll film back between the ground glass and the camera back. On the Canham MQC, you can either remove the gg back and use the Graflok-style latches, or keep the back and gg protector on and just slide the roll film back in there. I have both cameras and the roll film back, and it is generally easier to just keep the gg protector on and slide the roll film back in there, rather than removing the gg back and using the Graflok-style latches on the MQC.

sdzsdz
17-Jan-2015, 10:23
WOW, thank you four These answers! But unfortunately These cameras are way too expensive even if I sell my existing gear for a very good price. What would be the advantage of an 5x7 camera over 4x5? That it can take longer lenses with 6x17?

djdister
17-Jan-2015, 10:36
WOW, thank you four These answers! But unfortunately These cameras are way too expensive even if I sell my existing gear for a very good price. What would be the advantage of an 5x7 camera over 4x5? That it can take longer lenses with 6x17?

Well, first off, the Canham 6x17 roll film back will not fit on a 4x5 camera. But with just one camera - the Canham 5x7 traditional with the additional 4x5 reducing back, I can shoot 5x7 or 4x5 sheets and 6x17 images (on 120 film). Just one camera needed, not 2 or 3. The bellows on a 5x7 will generally give you a lot longer focal length options than many 4x5 cameras too.

David A. Goldfarb
17-Jan-2015, 10:56
How much 6x17 do you actually shoot in comparison to 4x5? If you want both without the cumbersome 617 extension back or the costly motorized back, then just shoot 5x7" with a half-darkslide mask (or without and crop after the fact) and use a reduction back for 4x5". Some 4x5" cameras, like the Deardorff 4x5" Special, are really 5x7" cameras with reduction backs anyway. Alternately, you could just shoot 5x7" for everything and crop or use the half-darkslide mask when you want the panoramic aspect ratio.

sdzsdz
17-Jan-2015, 11:02
thank you for this Suggestion. But I'm absolutely a slide Film shooter, so 5x7 with cropping is NO alternative. By the way its about 60% 4x5 and 40% 6x17.

180mm is absolutely enough for 6x17 and 300mm for 4x5. I'm defently a wide angle guy so this is the Main interest. This has to work!

So wy is a rollfilm back so cumbersome? At the moment I.have to remove the whole 4x5 camera from the tripod to mount the 6x17 camera and other way round. What could be more cumbersome?

IanG
17-Jan-2015, 11:08
The only downside is 7x5 field cameras and DDS (film holders) are harder to find in Europe as it wasn't a size available until recently, the UK used Half plate and Continental Europe 13x18.

Factor in import costs for a US camera it adds nearly 35% to the cost of a camera and shipping - which isn't that cheap either.

David was talking about the 5x4 extension backs for 6x17 - they are cumbersome,

Ian

angusparker
17-Jan-2015, 11:08
My wisdom on the subject: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2014/1/review-of-shen-hao-ptb-617

Old-N-Feeble
17-Jan-2015, 11:16
Almost. The 5x7 wood field (traditional) camera does not have a Graflok style back, only the Canham all-metal 5x7 MQC does. You can still use the Canham roll film back on the wood field camera by keeping the groundglass protector on and just sliding the roll film back between the ground glass and the camera back. On the Canham MQC, you can either remove the gg back and use the Graflok-style latches, or keep the back and gg protector on and just slide the roll film back in there. I have both cameras and the roll film back, and it is generally easier to just keep the gg protector on and slide the roll film back in there, rather than removing the gg back and using the Graflok-style latches on the MQC.

Oh, that's right. My darned brain...

Even so, it's a good option. FWIW, I prefer Canham's wood field cameras vs. the metal varieties. The latter seem a little more finicky to me.

sdzsdz
17-Jan-2015, 11:54
Hi Angus! Thank you for your answer. I already read your article. It is great that there are people like you out there, that test this stuff and share it with the community!
Your cons with a 4x5 camera and a back were:

- Pain to mount focus screen and back... I donīt think this is more pain then I suffer in the moment!
- Vignetting at longer focal lengths: some say 180mm, some 210, both would be absolutely fine for me
- Not very stable because heavy: Yes, that could be an issue. This is something that I wonīt rule out until I have tried it myself
- Focusing of short lenses: That is exactly the point I have to know! I want to use 75mm or 80mm. I have it in a recessed Linhof lens board (this adds about 2,5cm of room). The Chamonix 045N-1 has a min. flange-focal-distance of 46mm! So this should be feasible overall as long as I donīt need movements.

The big question is: Is a field camera if properly set up well enough aligned, so that I can use these short lenses with a good quality at the image borders???

IanG
17-Jan-2015, 12:08
The big question is: Is a field camera if properly set up well enough aligned, so that I can use these short lenses with a good quality at the image borders???

Yes of course, I use a 65mm SA with my Wista and also Pacemaker Graphics at times.

Ian

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 12:10
When I want to save space/weight I just take a 6x12 back, and use correspondingly wider lenses. It of course isn't the same aspect ratio but you can crop it. You get about the same horizontal field of view with a 47mm lens on 6x12 as a 75mm (technically 72mm) on 6x17. Just a thought. You can get even wider with the 38XL.

For what it's worth, I had a DaYi 617 back for my Chamonix, and I didn't like it at all. Mostly because of switching the back/viewer every shot, carrying all that extra stuff, and being limited with lens choices. So I bought a Shen Hao 617. On the other hand, the person who sold that camera to me got rid of it, because he didn't like having two cameras so he switched to a 6x17 back for his 4x5! So it's a bit of a personal choice.

sdzsdz
17-Jan-2015, 12:35
Ian, do you mean you use 65mm on 4x5 or on 6x17? Wich back do you use?

djdister
17-Jan-2015, 13:40
I think your main problem would be trying to use a short focal length lens and the 6x17 extender back on a 4x5. Given the extension of 20+mm beyond the normal focal plane of a 4x5, I don't think you could use a 75mm lens or shorter on a 4x5. By comparison, I can put the 75mm lens on my 5x7 and shoot 5x7 sheet film or use the 6x17 back which sits in the same focal plane as the sheet film.

angusparker
17-Jan-2015, 13:41
Hi Angus! Thank you for your answer. I already read your article. It is great that there are people like you out there, that test this stuff and share it with the community!
Your cons with a 4x5 camera and a back were:

- Pain to mount focus screen and back... I donīt think this is more pain then I suffer in the moment!
- Vignetting at longer focal lengths: some say 180mm, some 210, both would be absolutely fine for me
- Not very stable because heavy: Yes, that could be an issue. This is something that I wonīt rule out until I have tried it myself
- Focusing of short lenses: That is exactly the point I have to know! I want to use 75mm or 80mm. I have it in a recessed Linhof lens board (this adds about 2,5cm of room). The Chamonix 045N-1 has a min. flange-focal-distance of 46mm! So this should be feasible overall as long as I donīt need movements.

The big question is: Is a field camera if properly set up well enough aligned, so that I can use these short lenses with a good quality at the image borders???

Glad you already found the blog post. I tried the 617 back on a 4x5 and just didn't like it but if you are going for shorter FL but not too short it should be fine and be stable enough. Dedicated 617 view camera is really nice though.....but if you really want to simplify why not get a 612 roll fill back for your 4x5? Much lighter option than a 617 extension back and none of the hassles. Plus you can use a 4x5 enlarger.

gleaf
17-Jan-2015, 22:07
What about a 5x7 back on a Calumet C-1..... Draw pencil lines on the ground glass and shoot inside your 'masking' lines. C-1's are not too expensive.

richardman
17-Jan-2015, 22:56
With enough money (which I do not have), I bet a clever designer can make a 4x5 / 6x17 view camera. Why not just a 5x7? I'm thinking that there might be some weight saving going that route. Right now, I have a Chamonix 4x5 F1 and the Shen Hao PTB617 and I have taken both out at the same time once. It's still lighter than a 5x7 camera, I believe.

angusparker
17-Jan-2015, 22:57
With enough money (which I do not have), I bet a clever designer can make a 4x5 / 6x17 view camera. Why not just a 5x7? I'm thinking that there might be some weight saving going that route. Right now, I have a Chamonix 4x5 F1 and the Shen Hao PTB617 and I have taken both out at the same time once. It's still lighter than a 5x7 camera, I believe.

Same combination I have. Very light indeed and the PTB 617 has an excellent roll film back.

IanG
18-Jan-2015, 03:33
Ian, do you mean you use 65mm on 4x5 or on 6x17? Wich back do you use?

I use a 65mm f8 SA on my Wista which has a spring back, the 75mm f8 SA is fixed to my Gaoersi 617. I'd prefer to be able to use the 75mm for both formats without having to remount it.

Very short term I'll probably use the 7x5 camera and shoot two panoramic images on sheet film while I make a 6x17 back. Long term I'll make a camera using the Graflex parts which can take the same 6x17 back, one key criteria is it should be easy to use hand-held which a 7x5 Seneca isn't.

Ian

gleaf
18-Jan-2015, 06:54
I believe you have planted a deadly seed. Strikes me this morning after a sleep cycle that the 6 cm frames for my Epson scanner are right sized for 3 6 x 6 frames ergo what am I waiting for.

Carsten Wolff
21-Jan-2015, 04:17
Now over a decade ago, I made a dedicated 6x17 back to use my Canham 617 on my ancient Arca B 5x7 (w/a pleated leather bellows) and never looked back. I do 4x5", 5x7" and 6x17 cm all in one; my widest lens is a 75mm which works very well. The 617 (new) was dearer than the whole camera (used) though.

sdzsdz
14-Mar-2015, 08:57
Hello everybody!

Despite of the fact, nearly nobody gave me the clear advice to make this step I did it in the end. The desire to be able to use various focal lengths was stronger then the doubts. After a little practice I want to share my initial experiance. Perhaps somebody may profit from it.

I bought a Chamonix 045N-2 and a Shen Hao 6x17 back. I chose the Chamonix because its beautiful made, was reported to be lightweight but quite sturdy and should have a very low minimal bellows "compression", what was a major point for me.

As far as I have used the stuff right now I can report the following:

- The Chamonix is a wonderful made camera! There are enough tests on the web
- The Shen Hao back is very heavy, very bulky, not so well made. It sets the film plane back and adds 3,63 cm. Despite it is not beautiful, it works. Thats it. It does what it should. And film flatness is very good.
- With a recessed board (17mm) I can use my 75mm Grandagon at infinity with a little room for shift and tilt, but not much.
- 150mm work flawlessly
- With 210mm I get a frame that is 16cm wide. So I loose about 0,75cm on both edges. This is not at all a problem because when cropped to the original format the loss on the top and bottom boarder is negligible.

I found out, that the peace with the matte screen for composing and focusing is less deep than the film holder by about 2mm! This caused a lots of trouble with wrong focus and bad edges with 75mm in the beginning. But I corrected that by shimming the screenframe. Now its exactly the same and the focus is perfect. I made also marks on the Chamonix base for the exact parallel position of the front and rear standart and for infinity focus positions. The last pics I took with my Sironar W 150mm were perfectly sharp from edge to edge! The 75mm works also very good.

Here is an example:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7619/16603719877_c67d216cfa_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/16603719877/)
After sunset (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/16603719877/) by sdzsdz (https://www.flickr.com/people/88626385@N03/), on Flickr

After all, Iīm very glad I did it. I saved not so much space and weight to be honest. But now I can use 150mm and 210mm and thats absolutely beautiful. I also donīt have to remove the camera from the trepod when I want to change the format. I can compose and focus every single frame on the ground glass and can change lenses mid roll. Iīm happy so far!

Have a nice weekend!