First LF advice

[grantgardner]

Hello,

I'm a freshman in college and have been interested in the potential for large format (4x5 since it's the most readily available) for a while now. I converted to film after having a DSLR and lenses stolen and have been using two Rolleiflexes (6x6 negatives, an automat with a single-coated Tessar and 2.8E with a Zeiss Planar single coated lens. I've been impressed with the quality I've been getting from those and the overall sharpness, which has made me curious about trying out large format. Monorail cameras seem too bulky and difficult so I'd primarily be looking at a compact Field/view/press camera. I would like to spend about a max of $600~ but this is flexible to a point. Right now I'm most drawn to the Crown Graphics because of their versatility. I understand they don't have as many movements but being used to a fixed lens on a Rolleiflex I don't think this would be that much of an issue. Would I be better off getting a crown graphic camera and lens (optar 135 is most common) or going with a budget field camera and a new lens. Handholding is not that important, but having the option would be nice. I'm more concerned with image sharpness than with resolution and want to make sure the negatives would be just as sharp as I'm used to shooting with my Rolleiflexes. I'm primarily wanting to shoot landscapes. Thank you!

So Crown Graphic with Optar 135

Or this field camera (I'm on a budget, once again)
http://www.theintrepidcamera.co.uk
With a more modern lens of about 90-135mm

Or stick with the rolleiflexes

[IanG]

Welcome, as someone who has and uses a Crown Graphic occasionally I'd suggest a field camera or a Super Graphic because they have better movements, the Crown & Speed Graphics are quite limiting. A Super Graphic is easy to use hand-held and can be found at reasonable prices.

Once you've been here as a member for a month you can posted Wanted (WTB) adverts often a good way to find items.

Ian

[Old-N-Feeble]

I bought a Chamonix 45N because it's ultra-lightweight, folds very compact, will focus any focal length lens from 38mm to 450mm on flat boards and it has all the movements I'll ever need for landscape imagery. It can't be used handheld but I don't care about that. There are literally dozens of cameras, new and old, that might fit your needs. Other options are a Shen Hao and, as Ian mention, a Super Graphic.

[Corran]

Crown Graphic, reverse the front standard so you can get forward tilt easily (a must have for a lot of landscape, depending on your subject matter and compositions), 90mm f/8 Super Angulon and an old convertible 150mm Symmar (or stick with the 135mm if it comes with the camera), maybe a 65mm Super Angulon if you like really wide angle. Total should be $600 or so. Find some cheap film holders and buy a box of cheap film to learn. By the time you shoot up that box you'll know either you want to invest more in LF and get a better field camera with more movements, or different lenses (longer/shorter/faster/whatever), or maybe it's not what you wanted and you can sell it for about what you paid. Post images when you get shooting!

[John Kasaian]

There is quite a large following of organized LF devotees in the UK. I'd try hooking up with them first. One might find used gear they'd let you try out beforehand and that should be a big help in your decision making.
Cheers!

[Jim Jones]

The limited coverage of the lenses originally fitted to most press cameras limits the utility of their front movements. They usually have no rear movements, although the MPP and more expensive Linhof cameras are exceptions. Some press cameras, unlike the Graflex line, have the useful rotating back. A press camera is easier to transport and use in the field than most other styles. Some people manage to cope with monorail cameras for hiking and scenic photography. Flatbed view cameras like the Burke & James are versatile, and in America, plentiful and inexpensive. My most used 4x5 camera for decades was a Burke & James. New lenses aren't necessary. Remember, some of the greatest photographs ever were taken decades ago with the lenses of that time. Old lenses and shutters still do the job if they are in good condition. A used camera in good condition with an appropriate lens seems like a better gamble than the Intrepid camera project.

[IanG]

Crown Graphic, reverse the front standard so you can get forward tilt easily (a must have for a lot of landscape, depending on your subject matter and compositions), 90mm f/8 Super Angulon and an old convertible 150mm Symmar (or stick with the 135mm if it comes with the camera), maybe a 65mm Super Angulon if you like really wide angle. Total should be $600 or so. Find some cheap film holders and buy a box of cheap film to learn. By the time you shoot up that box you'll know either you want to invest more in LF and get a better field camera with more movements, or different lenses (longer/shorter/faster/whatever), or maybe it's not what you wanted and you can sell it for about what you paid. Post images when you get shooting!

With most Crown Graphics you can't close them with the Front standard reversed as the fitting the cam runs against fouls the reversed standard.




There is quite a large following of organized LF devotees in the UK. I'd try hooking up with them first. One might find used gear they'd let you try out beforehand and that should be a big help in your decision making.
Cheers!

He's a Freshman a term we don't use in the UK, plus we don't use the $ either :D

Ian

[Jac@stafford.net]

The home page has an abundance of information that should keep you busy for a couple hours. Enjoy!

My brief comment is an affirmation of what others have written - a Graphic would be just fine for starters, and some excellent photographers here have been using them for decades with great success. Forget the Intrepid Project. Save money for film!

Folks, what's the old saying? "Film will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no film"?


I'm more concerned with image sharpness than with resolution and want to make sure the negatives would be just as sharp as I'm used to shooting with my Rolleiflexes. I'm primarily wanting to shoot landscapes.

It is good to find someone who knows the difference between sharpness (acutance) and resolution. Be prepared to be impressed.

Welcome!

[Corran]

With most Crown Graphics you can't close them with the Front standard reversed as the fitting the cam runs against fouls the reversed standard.

I have done this to several Crown Graphics, both 4x5 and 2x3, and never had a problem. Both TRF and Kalart RF models. Not sure what the issue is?

[diversey]

Buy a Busch Pressman D 4x5 camera which has more moment and is cheaper.

[IanG]

I have done this to several Crown Graphics, both 4x5 and 2x3, and never had a problem. Both TRF and Kalart RF models. Not sure what the issue is?

There was a discussion about this in a recent sales thread others had the same problem, it's the piece that's screwed to the rear track - it fouls the thumbscrew nut that locks the tilt. I guess it depends what FL cam arm is used as that determines the position of this fitting on the track. My Crown/Kalart is cammed for a 150mm lens, although it came with a 135mm lens.

Ian

[Corran]

Missed that discussion. I guess the longer lens setup fouls it.

[Bill_1856]

Keep the Rollei.

[Luis-F-S]

Hello,

Or stick with the rolleiflexes

Hard to beat a Rollei..........L

[Jim Jones]

Buy a Busch Pressman D 4x5 camera which has more moment and is cheaper.

Or a B&J press camera. Most B&Js, like the Busch, have more movements than the Graphic plus a revolving back. The B&H, unlike the Busch, uses a common 4" lens board. A late Graphic with a Graflok back will take easy-to-find roll film back.

[John Kasaian]

He's a Freshman a term we don't use in the UK, plus we don't use the $ either :D

Ian
Sorry Ian, I was up all night and could have sworn I saw a "UK" in there somewhere :o

[Drew Bedo]

Hello Grant. Welcome to LF.

Whatever "First Camera" you get will not be yor last, or only, LF Camra. Same for lenses. Get into this arena of photography however you can for the money you have. The single most important thinf is to shoot and work with the view camera/sheet film method of image capture for a while. This creative process may not be for you . . .or it may be your creative and expressive salvation.

In my case; I started with a true junker press camera bought for very little at the Houston Camera Show (yeah . ."The Old Days"). It came with a 135mm lens (Tessar?, it was uncoated) in a Compur dial-set shutter marked in German. I took a lot of great pictures with it and moved on to other cameras and lenses. Everyone here will have a story of how they got introduced to LF. some will be much like mine and some will be different.

There is no single "Best" first camera. The second-best camera to have is the one you shoot with. The best camera to have is the NEXT one you will get!

Please let us know what you do and post a few images here.

[Jody_S]

Keep the Rollei.

At least a few people are willing to be honest....

That is: you won't notice a huge difference off the bat between a 4x5 Crown Graphic w/135mm period lens, and your excellent Rolleis. The difference will be attributable to: 1) scanning, if that's what you mean to do, 2) condition of lenses, and 3) technique. If you're using a flatbed scanner and have good lenses on the Rolleis, you may be disappointed if you expect a noticeable difference in your landscape photography, if you use the 2 side-by-side.

So why do lf?

The difference is there, you will just have to work, and especially learn, if you want to see it.

Your original question: I am far more attached to my lenses than I am to any particular camera body. Cameras come and go, but find a lens you like, you will keep it forever. Almost all of the gear we use was made decades ago, and bought & sold many times over. There is no depreciation to factor in. We do not lose 30% or more of the value of a camera just because we bought it and brought it home. That means you can buy and re-sell cameras until you find the one, or the system, that's right for you. Concentrate on your first lens (buy the best you can afford, and get one in shutter for a 1st lens), and then buy whichever camera fits in your budget and style of shooting. Do not discount a monorail as your first camera; yes they're unwieldy in the field, but you need to learn about movements and you can get a professional monorail for far less than a field camera. And once you know which movements are important to you, then you will be able to choose the correct field camera, and you will know how much you can expect to pay for what you need.

Of course, keep your eyes peeled for deals. You can often find bundles with everything you need, camera, lens, filmholders, darkcloth, etc., for the price of the lens. The little things can add up, especially if you're buying off fleabay and you're paying shipping + VAT.

[Drew Bedo]

Oh I'd keep the Rollei. I regret having sold or traded off about every camera I have ever owned.

[IanG]

Interesting reply Jody.

I moved to LF for my landscape work in the mid 80's although I'd been using LF for work for a decade (cumbersome monorail). I was using Mamiya 645's and wanted a step up in quality and considered an RB67 but realised that often I was losing/missing shots due to running out of DOF and decided it was better to get a 5x4 field camera as I really needed movements to control the plane of sharpness. That's worked and I haven't ever regretted it but about 8 years ago I began shooting with a TLR as well I'd owed 2 MAmiya TLRs in the past which were stolen and replaced by the 645's.

Now I'm always shooting with one of my TLRs alongside LF but there is a difference in quality between 120 (6x6) and 5x4 in wet prints and scans (with a flat bed scanner), with good technique it's not immediately apparent. There are images I make with 5x4 that just aren't possible with a TLR (or other 120 camera_because they require movements, but then the square 6x6 format may be better suited for other images. The few times I've printed images of essentially the same scene shot with a TLR and 5x4 the prints have had quite a different feel - in terms of composition.

Ian

[Bill_1856]

The Rollei should do fine.
With digital printing there isn't much need for all the "movements" you can get in Large Format. In fact, I used to make corrections when enlarging by tilting the paper easel, using a very neat holder that Omega made (remember those?). The Beselar was even better in that you could tilt the negative itself.

[Jody_S]

The Rollei should do fine.
With digital printing there isn't much need for all the "movements" you can get in Large Format. In fact, I used to make corrections when enlarging by tilting the paper easel, using a very neat holder that Omega made (remember those?). The Beselar was even better in that you could tilt the negative itself.

I have experimented myself with tilting the easel while printing 35mm, also curving the paper, etc. The difficulty is in controlling oof areas, LF does such a much better job of this. You can get beautiful, creamy transitions, obviously, whereas if you attempt this with a sharp 35mm neg in the darkroom, you are more likely to just get 'blurry'. But who am I trying to convince, here.

For most of what we do, I do believe the main value of LF is that it's now performance art. The process of making the photo is the art, not the resulting image which is lost among the billions of other images we're all drowning under. If I want a sharp picture of something, I do like everyone else: I use my phone.

[Corran]

For most of what we do, I do believe the main value of LF is that it's now performance art. The process of making the photo is the art, not the resulting image which is lost among the billions of other images we're all drowning under. If I want a sharp picture of something, I do like everyone else: I use my phone.

What an incredibly depressing opinion. I don't know how you can keep shooting LF with that mindset. Might as well not even load your film holders then.

[fishbulb]

For most of what we do, I do believe the main value of LF is that it's now performance art. The process of making the photo is the art, not the resulting image which is lost among the billions of other images we're all drowning under. If I want a sharp picture of something, I do like everyone else: I use my phone.

Depressing indeed. I get it, a lot of people do take notice when one is out in public working with LF gear, and one can feel very much 'on display'. But the resulting image is 'the art' regardless of the process used to create it.

We have always been drowning in a sea of images - before photographs, a sea of paintings, drawings, sketches, woodcuts, etc. The sea keeps getting bigger, but from a single person's point of view, alone in the middle, the exact size of the sea isn't that important.

[Bill_1856]

[QUOTE=Jody_S;1241907 ....the main value of LF is that it's now performance art. The process of making the photo is the art...[/QUOTE]

I never thought of it that way, but I fear you're exactly right.

[Jody_S]

What an incredibly depressing opinion. I don't know how you can keep shooting LF with that mindset. Might as well not even load your film holders then.
I happen to enjoy the process of shooting with antique cameras, lenses, etc., and I am very much aware of the fact that this makes me an oddity.

My point is that if I cared about 'IQ', as the young'uns call it these days, especially if I were sharing on a digital medium, what I am doing is not efficient or even necessarily the best in terms of resolution and detail. If that's all I cared about, I would be shooting digital and stitching. I don't do that for many reasons, but primarily because the slow process gives me more satisfaction.

You could say that's because I'm a terrible photographer, and that if I can't make great images, then I might as well go out with empty filmholders and put on a show. In fact, I have seen a marked improvement in my photography both since taking up digital in about '03, and re-starting lf in '07. I have progressed in 2 very different areas, using each of these methods, but I now shoot the one I enjoy most. I don't remember the last time I took the dSLR out to do a landscape.

[Corran]

I would agree about efficiency. However, I personally believe that the differences in the mediums can have an impact on the final result. Regardless of the resolution, image quality, yada yada, the look and feel of images made with digital vs. film is very different.

When my friend and I had a nice show with 40+ pieces last November, many people explicitly commented how vastly different our images looked, and not just stylistically. She shot digital, mine were all film save one.

[Alan Gales]

I would agree about efficiency. However, I personally believe that the differences in the mediums can have an impact on the final result. Regardless of the resolution, image quality, yada yada, the look and feel of images made with digital vs. film is very different.

When my friend and I had a nice show with 40+ pieces last November, many people explicitly commented how vastly different our images looked, and not just stylistically. She shot digital, mine were all film save one.

I agree.

Three years ago my daughter went to her senior prom with her boyfriend. I took some photographs of them at the local park with both a Hasselblad and a Nikon D300. I had the images on my computer in Lightroom and there was a distinct difference between them. My daughter just loved the Hasselblad film images. My step-daughter preferred the digital capture images from the Nikon D300.

I think that digital is actually more accurate but I still prefer the film look.