Need 4x5 camera recommendations (for use with Linhof lens boards)

[epines]

I'm looking for the an inexpensive, quality 4x5 that meets these criteria:

- accepts Linhof/Wista lens boards
- has rear movements (rise / fall / lateral shift)
- accepts a standard Graflok back
- is rigid and well-built enough that the standards are nicely parallel with a 75mm lens
- ideally doesn't weigh as much as, say, a Horseman LX
- ideally doesn't need a separate wide-angle bellows for 75mm and 90mm lenses (ideal, but not crucial)

I already have a Master Technika, but there are times when I need rear movements. I'm aware of the Technikardan, but good ones tend to be fairly pricey.

thanks,
ethan

[Huub]

How about a Shen Hao HZX45-IIA? I use mine with the standard bellows and have no problems even when using a 58 mm on a flat lensboard. The only thing it misses is rear fall, which can be compensated easely with the 45 mm front rise it offers.

[Drew Bedo]

My little Wista-made Zone Vi mountsLinhoff style boards. Some of the Toyo models will too. I have an adapter board on an 8x10 Kodak 2D that takes linhoff boards. This shouldn't be too difficult to manage.

Perhaps an adapter would let you mount Linhoff boards on one of the Speed Graphic models.

[Bob Salomon]

The Master Technika has some back rise, shift tilt, swing. Are you using them?

[epines]

Thanks -- keep the suggestions coming. FYI a monorail is fine too. I'm not limiting this to field cameras.

Huub: Great suggestion. I'm checking it out. Looks like it doesn't accept Linhof-style lens boards. Perhaps there's an adapter?

Drew: Thanks. I'll check it out.

Bob Salomon: The Master Technika has rear tilt and swing, but no rise / fall / lateral shift. There's no way that rear component with the bellows and four struts could be used for rise / fall / lateral shift. I just pulled mine out and tried, just to confirm.

[Jeff Keller]

Canham DLC 4x5 (or MQC 5x7). Either a Canham or Toyo adapter will let you use Technika boards. The bellows is very flexible and 520mm long. Plentiful movements. 4 lbs. 11 oz.
-jeff

[koh303]

All shen hao cameras take technika style boards.

[Alan Gales]

It sounds like you want a monorail. If you live in the U.S. used Sinar gear is plentiful. Sinar made an adapter board to Technika. There are aftermarket reduction boards available from China also. If you don't mind weight then look for a P or P2. The older Norma is a bit lighter and an F series would be the lightest. I'd go for an F2 if you go with the F series. It's the latest and best of the F series.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks -- keep the suggestions coming. FYI a monorail is fine too. I'm not limiting this to field cameras.

Huub: Great suggestion. I'm checking it out. Looks like it doesn't accept Linhof-style lens boards. Perhaps there's an adapter?

Drew: Thanks. I'll check it out.

Bob Salomon: The Master Technika has rear tilt and swing, but no rise / fall / lateral shift. There's no way that rear component with the bellows and four struts could be used for rise / fall / lateral shift. I just pulled mine out and tried, just to confirm.

It doesn't have a lot but the rods do allow slight shifts in all directions as well as some tilt and swings. Not as easy or as much as the Technikardan but just a little. Try again.

[Neal Chaves]

Get a Technika adapter boards , flat and recessed, for Toyo view cameras and you will have a number of choices in a wide price range. 45Gs are nice, but inexpensive used. I had a Master Technika. It is like a Swiss Army knife. It can do many things, but none of them as well as a dedicated tool.

[Andrew]

The Master Technika has rear tilt and swing, but no rise / fall / lateral shift. There's no way that rear component with the bellows and four struts could be used for rise / fall / lateral shift. I just pulled mine out and tried, just to confirm.
yes, but...
if you point the whole camera up then use the tilts to straighten up the front and rear standards you have effectively generated front rise without using the front rise function [same effect for front fall and lateral shift if you swing both front and rear standards to make them parallel after you point the camera at the subject]
you do the same trick with many wooden field camera so they don't really need dedicated movements for rise/fall/shift on both standards because you just use the tilt and swing to get the same effect
it's a bit clunky with the Technika, and esp with wide angles because the back has to come out away from the film to get the movements happening, so it depends on how much you think you need

[Bob Salomon]

yes, but...
if you point the whole camera up then use the tilts to straighten up the front and rear standards you have effectively generated front rise without using the front rise function [same effect for front fall and lateral shift if you swing both front and rear standards to make them parallel]
you do the same trick with many wooden field camera so they don't really need dedicated movements for rise/fall/tilt on both standards
it's a bit clunky with the Technika, and esp with wide angles because the back has to come out away from the film to get the movements happening, so it depends on how much you think you need

That type of movement is called indirect displacements. If you set the camera up so the standards are parallel to each other and lower the lens and raise the back you have the same effect and that is called direct displacements. The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it. The benefit to direct displacements is that they are far easier and much quicker then indirect displacements.

[Andrew]

That type of movement is called indirect displacements. If you set the camera up so the standards are parallel to each other and lower the lens and raise the back you have the same effect and that is called direct displacements. The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it. The benefit to direct displacements is that they are far easier and much quicker then indirect displacements.
Bob
thanks for giving me some fresh terminology, I hadn't heard those terms before :-)
I'd definitely agree that "direct displacement" is conceptually easier and probably quicker if your camera has the facility to do it [but the first thing I learnt about large format is that virtually everything seems to involve some sort of compromise.... ]

but ultimately what counts is the relative position of front and rear standards [ie lens to film] and it doesn't matter how you get there because the end result is identical
so, surely the coverage of the lens will impact identically and it's irrelevant how you generate the relative positions of the hardware ! ???

[Bob Salomon]

Bob
thanks for giving me some fresh terminology, I hadn't heard those terms before :-)
I'd definitely agree that "direct displacement" is conceptually easier and probably quicker if your camera has the facility to do it [but the first thing I learnt about large format is that virtually everything seems to involve some sort of compromise.... ]

but ultimately what counts is the relative position of front and rear standards [ie lens to film] and it doesn't matter how you get there because the end result is identical
so, surely the coverage of the lens will impact identically and it's irrelevant how you generate the relative positions of the hardware ! ???

Not necessarily, maybe with the level camera you only have to raise or drop the front. Or only shift the back only. Then you are moving off the center of the lens. For example, a Linhof 45re, and its predecessors back to the original Super Color, has 3.3" of rise front and back. Accessory attachments can increase that to 6.6"! On other models like the GTL there is almost 8" of front rise on 45. With this much movement you can easily run out of coverage with many lenses.

[Andrew]

yes, yes, yes... but the point I was making is that when you said "The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it" you implied that the lens coverage impacted differently for indirect vs indirect displacement.

If your lens has limited coverage you'll outstrip it just as easily no matter how you go about generating the movements once you end up with the same relative position of front to rear standard. I am specifically suggesting that you point the camera at your subject then straighten up BOTH standards, not just the rear one. If you point the camera and just make the rear standard vertical it is not generating the same effective movement. Straightening up the front standard is required to replicate the effect of direct rise/fall/shift and you will move the lens off axis.

so a camera that only has tilts and swings can generate exactly the same effect as direct rise, fall and shift and is only limited by the amount of available tilt/swing on the standards because you'd want both standards to be vertical and parallel. Either way you need a lens with adequate coverage. And I'm guessing many people are using equipment where the lens is the limiting factor rather than their camera

I hope I've used the terminology correctly there? what do you think...

[Oren Grad]

Andrew, you are correct. If the lens has undergone a parallel displacement, it doesn't matter what you had to do to the camera to make it happen - you have still moved the projected image relative to the film, and are subject to the same image circle constraint.

[Andrew]

why couldn't I have said it that succinctly ? !!!

Bob, I think we may have been talking a tad at cross purposes

[Bob Salomon]

yes, yes, yes... but the point I was making is that when you said "The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it" you implied that the lens coverage impacted differently for indirect vs indirect displacement.

If your lens has limited coverage you'll outstrip it just as easily no matter how you go about generating the movements once you end up with the same relative position of front to rear standard. I am specifically suggesting that you point the camera at your subject then straighten up BOTH standards, not just the rear one. If you point the camera and just make the rear standard vertical it is not generating the same effective movement. Straightening up the front standard is required to replicate the effect of direct rise/fall/shift and you will move the lens off axis.

so a camera that only has tilts and swings can generate exactly the same effect as direct rise, fall and shift and is only limited by the amount of available tilt/swing on the standards because you'd want both standards to be vertical and parallel. Either way you need a lens with adequate coverage. And I'm guessing many people are using equipment where the lens is the limiting factor rather than their camera

I hope I've used the terminology correctly there? what do you think...

Andrew, point the camera at something. Level the camera, open the lens, leave the front standard centered and shift the back as far as possible (3.3") in the case of the Linhof. You can run right out of coverage.

Now bring the back to the 0 position and swing the lens. If you have optical axis movements, like the Linhof has, then the image dies not shift position or focus. If you have a base tilt or assymetrical tilts then the image and the focus shifts position and you can run out of coverage.

[Andrew]

of course the acid test is how much effective rise/fall/shift movement you get with a 75mm Fuji-swd lens on a Technika using the back tilt/swing....

I just tried with mine and the answer is a fraction over 1cm focused to infinity and you don't get to the edge of the image circle

but it's a pain in the rear [expected] because you end up with the front standard on the rail inside the camera body and you're focusing by moving the standard backwards and forwards by hand rather than with the gears because the standard isn't on that section of rail

maybe not as practical as one would hope for.... understatement

ROFL :-)
!

[Bob Salomon]

of course the acid test is how much effective rise/fall/shift movement you get with a 75mm Fuji-swd lens on a Technika using the back tilt/swing....

I just tried with mine and the answer is a fraction over 1cm focused to infinity and you don't get to the edge of the image circle

but it's a pain in the rear [expected] because you end up with the front standard on the rail inside the camera body and you're focusing by moving the standard backwards and forwards by hand rather than with the gears because the standard isn't on that section of rail

maybe not as practical as one would hope for.... understatement

ROFL :-)
!

Why is your lens inside the camera body? Isn't it mounted on the 001015 recessed Comfort lens board?

[Greg]

I've had and used many 4x5s ranging from a very old Calumet to a new Linhof Technika but always ended up liking the Sinar Norma best. They can be had for amazingly reasonable prices on EBay. Small systems seem like the best bargains. Used wide angle bellows are always available. I picked up an Arca-Swiss rigid reflex finder for little money and easily adapted it to the Sinar and later found a binocular Sinar reflex finder. Arca-Swiss for the road and Sinar for around the house. Sinar f series are compact and light but at a cost (still are excellent cameras). P variants work like a dream but not exactly portable. FYI: Fred Picker from The Zone VI Workshop used a Sinar Norma. Had many a conversation with him and he swore by (not at) it.

Also look for hidden bargains... Found one on EBay that was in a studio fire and I bought it for almost nothing. I looked very closely at the images of it and determined that it had only superficial smoke damage. Hint was that the bellows were undamaged by heat. 2 evenings of cleaning it up and it looked absolutely like new!!!

http://www.glennview.com/sinar.htm contains a whole lot if info about the system

Some things to look out for:
Bellows with pinholes are easily repairable
Chinese Linhof boards and board adapters vary in quality.
Make sure all the bubble levels are full of liquid.
Make sure the black caps on top of the standards (4 of them) are there. Those little caps, vertical extensions for the standards, and front lens hood pieces are getting to be rare and are demanding high prices.

Good luck and remember whatever camera you acquire, the lens determines the image quality and you frame the image... the camera body only is a light tight, hopefully rigid, box.

Greg

[Andrew]

Why is your lens inside the camera body? Isn't it mounted on the 001015 recessed Comfort lens board?

should have said that it's on a flat board [which is OK on another camera]

[Noah A]

As someone who also uses a Technika (I love my MT2000), I recommend you look around for a deal on a Technikardan S. If you're patient you can find a one for a good price. It's an amazing camera!

I sold mine a year ago, but I regretted it and I just bought a new (used) one. It's a great camera and it complements the Technika very well. Along with the lensboard, it also uses the same groundglass back, focus hood and other accessories.

They're easy to find for around $2k but if you're patient you can find one for $1100-1400.

[epines]

yes, but...
if you point the whole camera up then use the tilts to straighten up the front and rear standards you have effectively generated front rise without using the front rise function [same effect for front fall and lateral shift if you swing both front and rear standards to make them parallel after you point the camera at the subject]
you do the same trick with many wooden field camera so they don't really need dedicated movements for rise/fall/shift on both standards because you just use the tilt and swing to get the same effect
it's a bit clunky with the Technika, and esp with wide angles because the back has to come out away from the film to get the movements happening, so it depends on how much you think you need

Andrew -- thanks for the various posts. Yes, the Technika's rear standard can certainly be used for indirect displacement in this way, giving potentially more shift / rise / fall. The reason I need dedicated rear shift / rise / fall, where that movement happens only via the rear standard, is so I can stitch (while keeping the lens in one spot).

[Bob Salomon]

Andrew -- thanks for the various posts. Yes, the Technika's rear standard can certainly be used for indirect displacement in this way, giving potentially more shift / rise / fall. The reason I need dedicated rear shift / rise / fall, where that movement happens only via the rear standard, is so I can stitch (while keeping the lens in one spot).

There is a shift back from Linhof for the Master. If you are feeling flush and want to use roll film. In the past there was also one for 45 but it did not do stitching.