Why not a rangefinder?

[Bobab]

Hi. I am looking to get into LF photography - almost certainly 4x5. I prefer shooting people (wouldn't say portraits) than landscapes or architecture. I find all the options out there confusing, but what I know so far is that I would like some level of portability and some ability to use longer lenses (probably nothing over 300, but ...) and also 6x6 backs if possible.

What I don't understand is why people don't think that a rangefinder is a big deal for LF photography. Is the ability to continue to focus or adjust framing after you have insert the film not important or do rangefinders / viewfinders just not work that well with LF cameras/photography. Isn't it a problem if your model or whatever you are shooting moves slightly and you lose focus?

[Vaughn]

Rangefinders can not deal with movements of the standards swing and tilt) -- that is one reason you find them on press cameras -- movements generally not used for newspaper images.

If the focus needs to be adjusted due to movement of the model, chances are one needs to reframe the image, too.

It is also why Gowland made 4x5 TLRs -- and up to 8x10.

[Bobab]

...

It is also why Gowland made 4x5 TLRs -- and up to 8x10.

Oh no! What have you done? Like I didn't have a GAS problem already ... :D

[Jim Noel]

YOu'll be lucky to find an 8x10 Gowland. Not a lot were produced.

[Bob Salomon]

Rangefinders can not deal with movements of the standards swing and tilt) -- that is one reason you find them on press cameras -- movements generally not used for newspaper images.

If the focus needs to be adjusted due to movement of the model, chances are one needs to reframe the image, too.

It is also why Gowland made 4x5 TLRs -- and up to 8x10.

The Technika and the Wista RF aren’t press cameras, they are technical cameras and both have a rangefinder.
Did you know that Linhof made 23, 45, 57 and a few 810 Technikas?

[Bob Salomon]

Hi. I am looking to get into LF photography - almost certainly 4x5. I prefer shooting people (wouldn't say portraits) than landscapes or architecture. I find all the options out there confusing, but what I know so far is that I would like some level of portability and some ability to use longer lenses (probably nothing over 300, but ...) and also 6x6 backs if possible.

What I don't understand is why people don't think that a rangefinder is a big deal for LF photography. Is the ability to continue to focus or adjust framing after you have insert the film not important or do rangefinders / viewfinders just not work that well with LF cameras/photography. Isn't it a problem if your model or whatever you are shooting moves slightly and you lose focus?

Look at the 45 Master a Technika people pictures of Mary Ellen Mark. Is that what you want to do?

[Vaughn]

Oh no! What have you done? Like I didn't have a GAS problem already ... :D

You'd also have to be a weight lifter for the TLR 8x10!!!

[Tin Can]

You need a '5x7 Graflex Camera Series B. This is the camera type used by the National Geographic in the teens and twenties.' from https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/graflex/Series%20B.html

It's SLR with up to 1/1000 shutter speed

Some can still fix it

[Bobab]

Look at the 45 Master a Technika people pictures of Mary Ellen Mark. Is that what you want to do?

In my dreams. But yes. Though, wouldn't mind mixing in posed pictures too. Is that the camera for me? Should I forget the likes of the Chamonix and the Sinar?

[Bobab]

You'd also have to be a weight lifter for the TLR 8x10!!!


I'll be happy with a 4x5 :)

[Bill Burk]

I'll be happy with a 4x5 :)

There are Polaroid conversions.

[Dan Fromm]

Bobab started this discussion by writing:


what I know so far is that I would like some level of portability and some ability to use longer lenses (probably nothing over 300, but ...) and also 6x6 backs if possible.

Since then it has wandered all over the place. TLRs and LF SLRs have come up.

OP, be aware that LF TLRs and SLRs accept only limited ranges of focal lengths. If you want even a 300 most of them are out.

6x6 backs? 6x7 and 6x9 are also possible.

As has already been mentioned several times, technical cameras will do what you need. Be aware, however, that using movements when shooting handheld is very difficult. If you want everything, you will certainly get disappointment.

[Tin Can]

Yes it has Dan, he wants...

[ic-racer]

I started view camera photography with a medium format (6x9cm) Horseman technical rangefinder camera. I choose Horseman over Linhof due to price and availability. When I got mine, it was easy to get all the components for the entire system without much difficulty. That means the whole set of 8 lenses and matching rangefinder cams and multiple film backs.
204478

[Alan Gales]

Hi. I am looking to get into LF photography - almost certainly 4x5. I prefer shooting people (wouldn't say portraits) than landscapes or architecture.

Buy yourself a Crown Graphic. You can use the rangefinder for the included 135mm lens. It's a great focal length for shooting people (not portraits). You can also use a 90mm or a 210mm with it without the rangefinder.

If you want more versatility, add a cheap monorail for that 300mm lens or if you decide you occasionally need movements. If you buy Sinar then there are inexpensive reduction boards that will convert the Sinar camera to accept Graphic boards so all your lenses will fit each camera.

[Tin Can]

Not so easy to find it all now

Maybe Kumar can find a kit

I had a heck of a time finding the special Horseman Cable release, but never found a complete OE Horseman VHR flash handle, so I use something else


I started view camera photography with a medium format (6x9cm) Horseman technical rangefinder camera. I choose Horseman over Linhof due to price and availability. When I got mine, it was easy to get all the components for the entire system without much difficulty. That means the whole set of 8 lenses and matching rangefinder cams and multiple film backs.
204478

[Bob Salomon]

In my dreams. But yes. Though, wouldn't mind mixing in posed pictures too. Is that the camera for me? Should I forget the likes of the Chamonix and the Sinar?

Want to be able to shoot handheld or not?

[Bruce Watson]

What I don't understand is why people don't think that a rangefinder is a big deal for LF photography. Is the ability to continue to focus or adjust framing after you have insert the film not important or do rangefinders / viewfinders just not work that well with LF cameras/photography. Isn't it a problem if your model or whatever you are shooting moves slightly and you lose focus?

What view cameras give you that smaller formats don't is the bellows between the lens plane and the film plane. So you can move the lens separately from the film, utilizing what are generally called "movements" of the camera. Which drives rangefinder systems insane. Since many (most?) LFers consider movements to be a highly desirable feature, many (most?) are willing to live without rangefinding. But that doesn't mean that you should.

You can certainly get a rangefinder system on an LF camera if you want one. They have been made. The Graflex company made several which were widely respected; the Speed Graphic was perhaps the ultimate LF rangefinder and a favorite with press photographers all over the world for decades. Wista made at least one, the Wista Technical 45RF, IIRC. Buschman Pressman Model D. Linhof Master Technika. Graflex also made the Crown Graphics. There are doubtless a number of others. So it's not like you can't get them.

If you want to use an LF rangefinder, go for it.

As to shooting models with LF, people were successfully making photographs of people with LF for many years without needing rangefinding. Look up the Hollywood work of George Hurrell. Or the great portraits of Yusef Karsh. These guys mostly worked in 10x8, did not need a rangefinder, and produced exquisite work.

It all depends on how you like to work, and finding a workflow with which you are comfortable so that you can concentrate on the art and not worry so much about the tools you use to produce the art.

[Willie]

Hi. I am looking to get into LF photography - almost certainly 4x5. I prefer shooting people (wouldn't say portraits) than landscapes or architecture. I find all the options out there confusing, but what I know so far is that I would like some level of portability and some ability to use longer lenses (probably nothing over 300, but ...) and also 6x6 backs if possible.

What I don't understand is why people don't think that a rangefinder is a big deal for LF photography. Is the ability to continue to focus or adjust framing after you have insert the film not important or do rangefinders / viewfinders just not work that well with LF cameras/photography. Isn't it a problem if your model or whatever you are shooting moves slightly and you lose focus?

You can find reducing backs to use with press cameras. In actual use a dedicated 120 format camera is much easier to deal with. Pentax 6x7, Mamiya 6x7, 2 1/4 square, Hasselblad, Rollei, Yashica and so many others available, rangefinder and SLR types both.

[Drew Wiley]

I know someone who does street work with an 8x10 box camera fitted with a fixed wide angle lens and wire sports finder, and no groundglass or rangefinder at all. It competently provides what he wants, but doesn't do anything I'd personally want in large format. I also know people who bought into the whole nine yards of the Technika 4x5 system, used that same system for decades, but used the rangefinder itself only once or twice in their entire career. Once they learned view camera movements, they used it as a view camera rather than a press camera. My older brother did hand-hold a Technika w/rangefinder quite a bit, as well as on a tripod; but that was half a century ago when sheet film was comparatively affordable. The Horseman FA is basically a scaled down Technika with less bellows draw. Just depends on if you're actually going to handhold a big camera much, or just revert right back to the convenience of medium format for that kind of application.

[John Kasaian]

Handheld using movements? No.

[ic-racer]

Not so easy to find it all now

Maybe Kumar can find a kit

I had a heck of a time finding the special Horseman Cable release, but never found a complete OE Horseman VHR flash handle, so I use something else

Looking back, I got my Horseman setup in 2006. I guess that is quite a while ago.

[rfesk]

I last used my Busch Pressman's rangefinder for a impromptu group photo. Frame, focus, shoot (after cocking the shutter of course.) Otherwise, I use the ground glass and the few movement it has as needed.

[Drew Bedo]

My $ 0.02 worth:

Bobab, you say you think you want to get into LF in 4x5. First gigue out if that is really what you want to do. Do some general photography with some 4x5 camera and see if hauling around the kit works for you; if handling the film holders and shooting slowly (compared to roll film formats or DSLR) suits you and waiting on the film to be processed , by you or a lab. The whole creative process is different from other formats.

With that said: If street photography (no tripod) with a range finder camera is what you think you want to do, take a look at either (or both) a press camera and a Polaroid 110 conversion. There are versions of the Graphic family with range finders, coupled and uncoupled. I don't think either will handle a 300mm lens in 4x5 though. Both have been used for fast paced street shooting or fashion photography. Both have cult followers that sing their praises and ardent nay-sayers who do not. Both can be set up to use a 6x7 roll film back. Both are conveniently self-storing when folded up.

As has been pointed out by others, the Graflex family of SLRs are what works for spontaneous shooting with longer lenses. They are older cameras and need care.

If there was a serious demand for cameras of this type in the LF world, one of the major manufacturers would be making them as new products. No one make new Geraflex cameras or top RF Speed Graphics. The Polaroids are shop built conversions of consumer grade first generation instant cameras. Gowland's TLRs were always low-volume nitche products.

However, I would say to you, GO FOR IT! If any of these suggestions facilitates your creative vision, get one and do it. Then tell us what you are doing, post pictures of your gear and the images you have made.

Cheerrs

[Bernice Loui]

The 4x5 rangefinder has been done. It was THE media press image making camera before 35mm took over that image making goal. It is also why the 4x5 graphmatic film holder was made, to allow burning sheet film with a range finder camera in rapid succession, similar to a roll film camera.

That said, rapid image succession is not always what sheet film image makers are interested in.

One of the most significant advantages of a view camera is the ability to apply camera movements to adjust and change the image projected to the image recording device be it film or electronic image sensor or etc.. This is a feature mostly removed from the way an image maker would used a range finder camera.

It goes back to any individual image maker's print goals are. Once the image goals are solidified, then lens, camera, film, post film exposure processing and the print making process can be assessed then put together as a system.

As mentioned many times previously too many focus on the camera alone without consideration to print making or image creation goals. More often than not, the camera is not as important as most would want to believe as it is merely a single tool to be used in the image creation process.



Bernice




Hi. I am looking to get into LF photography - almost certainly 4x5. I prefer shooting people (wouldn't say portraits) than landscapes or architecture. I find all the options out there confusing, but what I know so far is that I would like some level of portability and some ability to use longer lenses (probably nothing over 300, but ...) and also 6x6 backs if possible.

What I don't understand is why people don't think that a rangefinder is a big deal for LF photography. Is the ability to continue to focus or adjust framing after you have insert the film not important or do rangefinders / viewfinders just not work that well with LF cameras/photography. Isn't it a problem if your model or whatever you are shooting moves slightly and you lose focus?

[Bobab]

Thank you for all your responses so far. It has all been very informative. The point about rangefinders was not a complaint. Rather curiosity. Having never shot LF before, I just didn't understand why you just wouldn't want one on every camera and what it was about LF that made them either not possible or not useful. It sounds like it is a combination of the issues with movements and incompatibility with a rangefinder system, and just the general slow paced approach to LF photography.

I don't think shooting handheld is a huge deal to me. Given the cost implications, I would probably not be using LF for huge amounts of spontaneous photography. I can develop my own black and white at home, but it is nevertheless a time consuming and expensive process, and I just could not face the amount of failures I have with a 35mm on LF. In any case, I am happy to try a "different way" of shooting (not necessarily a different subject matter) with LF, and leave 35mm and MF to do what they do best.

If based on that, the general view is that I should look past rangefinder cameras as my first camera, I would do that. And perhaps add one later down the line in a supporting role rather than my main camera. I was wondering though how compatibility works across the systems. Can I use lenses and lens boards from one camera with another (I know there seem to a few exceptions where they have their own proprietary system, but wasn't sure whether that applied to all components or just the lens board, and whether this had any interaction with other components on the system).

As for why the 6x6 back is important, well I was hoping to utilise the lenses on the LF to give me some flexibility shooting medium format, as at the moment my only MF camera is a rolleiflex, which although I enjoy using, is limited with focal length and I really don't want to add another MF system to my collection.

Does any of this narrow down my choices? And do you suggest I look for one of the new cameras like the Chamonix? Something second hand? And is a rangefinder / press camera still even the right choice given their limits (I have never used movements so I don't really know what I am missing, but I loath to give up on such feature of large format). And someone in the thread mentioned "technical cameras". I tried to read up a bit on them, but don't think I quite understand how they are a different category of LF (which I had assumed was limited to monorail and field).

[Bob Salomon]

The 4x5 rangefinder has been done. It was THE media press image making camera before 35mm took over that image making goal. It is also why the 4x5 graphmatic film holder was made, to allow burning sheet film with a range finder camera in rapid succession, similar to a roll film camera.

That said, rapid image succession is not always what sheet film image makers are interested in.

One of the most significant advantages of a view camera is the ability to apply camera movements to adjust and change the image projected to the image recording device be it film or electronic image sensor or etc.. This is a feature mostly removed from the way an image maker would used a range finder camera.

It goes back to any individual image maker's print goals are. Once the image goals are solidified, then lens, camera, film, post film exposure processing and the print making process can be assessed then put together as a system.

As mentioned many times previously too many focus on the camera alone without consideration to print making or image creation goals. More often than not, the camera is not as important as most would want to believe as it is merely a single tool to be used in the image creation process.



Bernice

Bernice, I sold the US Navy the Linhof Aero Technika 45 EL cameras that were used on the Space Shuttle.

What NASA told us was that with their Hasselblads on the shuttle they could see that something was there. With the Linhofs they could tell that it was an escarpment.

One of the major uses for that 45 image (with the Aero Technika 45 EL, 5x5”) was the far greater image detail then from smaller cameras. The 45 EL does not have any movements other then focus and film transport.

Yes, most here want camera movements and need a tripod. Someone else might want to be able to shoot rangefinder coupled 45 with lenses from 72mm to 360mm and still be able to shoot with movements from 45mm to 400mm on a tripod and all without changing bellows or carrying extra rails. That is why the Master Technika is still produced and sells. Especially as it folds into a very compact metal box. Something no Sinar or Arca or Cambo or Canham can ever do.

[Dan Fromm]

I was wondering though how compatibility works across the systems. Can I use lenses and lens boards from one camera with another (I know there seem to a few exceptions where they have their own proprietary system, but wasn't sure whether that applied to all components or just the lens board, and whether this had any interaction with other components on the system).

As for why the 6x6 back is important, well I was hoping to utilise the lenses on the LF to give me some flexibility shooting medium format, as at the moment my only MF camera is a rolleiflex, which although I enjoy using, is limited with focal length and I really don't want to add another MF system to my collection.

Does any of this narrow down my choices? And do you suggest I look for one of the new cameras like the Chamonix? Something second hand?

A number of other makes use Linhof Technika 96 x 99 mm (I think that's the size, could be mistaken) boards. Some others use 4" x 4" boards. Others, for example Cambo, which I have, are proprietary. There are adapter boards that accept foul alien unclean boards.

Lenses don't care which camera they're mounted on, as long as the camera's minimum and maximum extensions will let the lens be focused to infinity (minimum) and usefully closer (maximum).

Standards and rails are, for the most part, proprietary.

Backs are, for the most part, standard. Spring/bail backs accept insertion type film holders (sheet film holders), Graflok/International backs also accept clip-on type roll holders. Some non-Graflok backs, Mentor and Plaubel for example, accept proprietary roll holders. There are a few other exceptions, e.g., Graflex SLRs with Graflex (that's a type as well as a make) backs, that will accept only film holders made for Graflex backs.

There are clip-on roll holders for 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 that will attach to a 4x5 camera's Graflok/International back. There are 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 insertion type roll holders that will work with spring and Graflok backs.

For most of us, the first LF camera turned out to be the wrong LF camera. The only way to know what suits you is to try things out. Calumet CC- series, Cambo SC and Sinar monorail cameras are all highly capable and relatively inexpensive 4x5 cameras that will teach you what suits you. Get one, use it for a while and then if it doesn't suit sell it and use what you've learned from it to buy a camera that suits you better.

[Corran]

Read these:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?153320-Seeking-Advice-for-4x5-Handheld-Camera

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?156382-Is-it-worth-it-to-use-the-Speed-Graphic-handheld-from-time-to-time

[Bobab]

For most of us, the first LF camera turned out to be the wrong LF camera. The only way to know what suits you is to try things out. Calumet CC- series, Cambo SC and Sinar monorail cameras are all highly capable and relatively inexpensive 4x5 cameras that will teach you what suits you. Get one, use it for a while and then if it doesn't suit sell it and use what you've learned from it to buy a camera that suits you better.

These are all monorails right? I assume you are suggesting these because the price is better? What would be a good price to pay for some of these? For example I saw a Sinar Norma for £399, but wasn't sure if that was too expensive. Didn't come with any accessories other than ground glass. Is it usually cheaper to buy a set than trying to put a kit together?

[Drew Bedo]

Re: lens board interchangeability. I have a Wista made Zone VI that takes boards that fit Wista, Toyo and Linhoff cameras. I have an adapter lens board for my 8x10 Kodak 2D that takes these boards too. This allows me to mount some of my longer 4x5 lenses on the larger camera. The Graphic cameras take different lens boards. I have a couple of Graphic lens boards mounted with flanges that allow mw to mount several of my regular lenses to my press camera (I do not do this often).

My three most commonly used lenses have step-up rings that allow me to use the same set of filters across the board.

One of my friends has a huge roll-around Snap-On tool chest filled with every kind of lens, Do-Dad and Gill-Hicky for his several cameras . . . .I am not that guy.

[grat]

I know the standard advice is to buy a cheap monorail to start with, but consider what kind of photography you want to do. Monorails are, as a rule, large and cumbersome**. They have fantastic flexibility, and can almost photograph themselves, but there's a level of involvement to transport and set them up. A good friend of mine who was responsible in large part for me getting into LF photography has a Calumet-CC-- it weighs about 8 pounds, and lives in a large heavy case. It doesn't travel much.

After some consideration, I realized that I am somewhat lazy, and while I don't mind carrying a few pounds of camera gear, lugging a box with a monorail around seems to be excessive, and as a result, if I bought a monorail, it would sit in my house, and take occasional photos of my backyard, and otherwise, gather dust.

So, I bought a lightweight field camera that fits in a backpack, along with four lenses, a few film backs, a light meter, two release cables, and a dark cloth, and the whole kit weighs about 11 pounds. Its highly portable, and is therefore more likely to leave my house.

** Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they tend to be significantly more expensive.

[Corran]

You can have relatively "cheap" AND a rangefinder camera. Just get a Crown or Speed Graphic.

You can find beater Graphics for $100, probably with an RF that doesn't work or is in need of cleaning / service, but what do you expect at that price? A "premium" kit with RF coupled lens probably will still be less than a new field camera.

I just gave one away that needed work that I didn't have time to do.

[Bobab]

I don't have a car, so portability is quite important. I will look at the Graphics, but the prices may not be as inviting in the UK as in the US

[Dan Fromm]

If you're in the UK, think MPP.

[Dan Fromm]

These are all monorails right? I assume you are suggesting these because the price is better? What would be a good price to pay for some of these? For example I saw a Sinar Norma for £399, but wasn't sure if that was too expensive. Didn't come with any accessories other than ground glass. Is it usually cheaper to buy a set than trying to put a kit together?

Hmm. LF helps those who help themselves. With that in mind, use this site's resources. www.largeformatphotography.info has FAQs and articles. Read. The first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion is a link to a set of catalogs etc. Read.

[Bobab]

Hmm. LF helps those who help themselves. With that in mind, use this site's resources. www.largeformatphotography.info has FAQs and articles. Read. The first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion is a link to a set of catalogs etc. Read.

Thanks. That is all I have been doing for the last 2 weeks, but is extremely difficult for me to retain very dry abstract information in my head about a topic I have no practical experience with and make useful decisions.

[EdSawyer]

I think a rangefinder on a 4x5 is a very good thing to have. I shoot handheld 4x5 all the time, with the usual graphics, also with TLRs, SLRs and polaroid conversions as well. Any of the press cameras are a good start.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks. That is all I have been doing for the last 2 weeks, but is extremely difficult for me to retain very dry abstract information in my head about a topic I have no practical experience with and make useful decisions.

1: what do you want to shoot? People, places, things? All of them?
2: do you want to shoot wide angle? Long lenses? Normal lenses? All of them?
3: do you want to shoot spontaneously, hand held? Or studiously on a tripod with movements? Or both?
4: do you want the ability to use Scheimpflug (plane of focus) controls, or not? Or both?
Answer those 4 questions and you will then be able to choose a technical camera, a press camera or a monorail camera.

[Greg Y]

What Bernice Loui said: "As mentioned many times previously too many focus on the camera alone without consideration to print making or image creation goals. More often than not, the camera is not as important as most would want to believe as it is merely a single tool to be used in the image creation process."

[Drew Wiley]

Tell me, Bob, how the heck is anyone going to get a decent handheld shot using a 360 lens on a Technika? Freeze themselves so there's no shake?

[Bob Salomon]

Tell me, Bob, how the heck is anyone going to get a decent handheld shot using a 360 lens on a Technika? Freeze themselves so there's no shake?

I rest the Corner of the body on my shoulder and use a high shutter speed.
Some other use both grips.

It should be noted that a modern Sironar series or Symmar type 360 can’t be used as the rear group is too large so a tele or process 360 would be used.
But, then again, the difference in image size between a 300 and a 360 is so small that I used a 300.

[Bob Salomon]

What Bernice Loui said: "As mentioned many times previously too many focus on the camera alone without consideration to print making or image creation goals. More often than not, the camera is not as important as most would want to believe as it is merely a single tool to be used in the image creation process."

Until the way you want to use the camera becomes important.

[Bernice Loui]

Which is directly related to the finished print goals.
Camera is only one facet of a FAR more complex system to print/image making


Bernice.




Until the way you want to use the camera becomes important.

[Bob Salomon]

Which is directly related to the finished print goals.
Camera is only one facet of a FAR more complex system to print/image making


Bernice.

You are simplifying.
Do you want hand held capability? The OP mentioned that.
Do you want front and back movements: tilt, swing, shift, rise/fall?
Do you prefer direct or indirect movements?
Do you want base, optical axis or asymmetrical movements?
Is weight a factor?
Do you want folding or monorail?
Do you want modular construction?

All of these are as important as lens selection, enlarger selection, enlarging lens selection, scanner selection.
All result equally in the end output.

[Bernice Loui]

Not at all.

Example, If the print or image goal is high resolution map making or Reconnoissance, would a consumer grade 35mm camera and lens be appropriate to meet these goals of high resolution map making from 100,000 ft flying in a SR71?

Would the side viewing with movable front mirror Aero-Reconnoissance camera used in the SR71 be suitable for studio portraits with human faces?



Bernice



You are simplifying.
Do you want hand held capability? The OP mentioned that.
Do you want front and back movements: tilt, swing, shift, rise/fall?
Do you prefer direct or indirect movements?
Do you want base, optical axis or asymmetrical movements?
Is weight a factor?
Do you want folding or monorail?
Do you want modular construction?

All of these are as important as lens selection, enlarger selection, enlarging lens selection, scanner selection.
All result equally in the end output.

[Bob Salomon]

Not at all.

Example, If the print or image goal is high resolution map making or Reconnoissance, would a consumer grade 35mm camera and lens be appropriate to meet these goals of high resolution map making from 100,000 ft flying in a SR71?

Would the side viewing with movable front mirror Aero-Reconnoissance camera used in the SR71 be suitable for studio portraits with human faces?



Bernice

The OP was asking about view cameras, not aerial cameras.
I sold and trained NASA astronauts on the Aero Technika 45 EL as well as the Rollei 6008 for the Space Shuttle. I’m well aware for the requirements for aerial as well as metric camera requirements.

Now, if you want to discuss how Jack Boucher and his associates did National Park Service HABS work with the Linhof Kardan cameras I was also involved with Jack, and Jet.
Or if you want to discuss landscape work by John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum and other landscape photographers with the Technikas, I was involved with them as well.

And perhaps you don’t know that my studio had 45, 57 and 810 Sinar Expert outfits as well as a Super Technika V outfit.

Or that in the early 70s I represented EPOI selling the Sinar P.

Since I have been involved in most formats from Minox sub min (I was stopped by the SPs at Groton for shooting the sub base with a Minox when I was 13 in 1954) through 810 view cameras and large Robertson process cameras, as well as 3 years as an aerial Rec Tech photographer in the USAF I probably have more experience then you with types of cameras.

BTW, I was also involved with Perkin Elmer in selling them lenses for the Optical Cat for the U2.

[Corran]

Yeah yeah, and the $300 Intrepid 4x5 is an objectionably better camera for most landscape photographers that actually go out and shoot away from their car than any boat anchor Linhof. There is no perfect solution but 99.99% of people asking about wanting to "get into large format" should get the first cheap working 4x5 that comes along, be it a Crown or a CC-400 or whatever and figure out what they need and how they plan on using it after getting down the basics.

[Bobab]

1: what do you want to shoot? People, places, things? All of them?
2: do you want to shoot wide angle? Long lenses? Normal lenses? All of them?
3: do you want to shoot spontaneously, hand held? Or studiously on a tripod with movements? Or both?
4: do you want the ability to use Scheimpflug (plane of focus) controls, or not? Or both?
Answer those 4 questions and you will then be able to choose a technical camera, a press camera or a monorail camera.

1. Shoot: People, singular building / objects (e.g. a boat abandoned in ice, abandoned house, etc. But mainly people. Not interested in trying to reproduced detailed pictures of nature or city scape.

2. I suspect normal and long. I doubt wide angle.

3. Probably both. But I doubt I will be doing much spontaneous shooting given the miss rate. I don't think handholding is a big deal to me. Happy to use a tripod for once.

4. No idea. I don't even know how that could be used. I have seen it used with people shots and the results have been interesting. So would like the option to experiment with it.

[Ron789]

1. Shoot: People, singular building / objects (e.g. a boat abandoned in ice, abandoned house, etc. But mainly people. Not interested in trying to reproduced detailed pictures of nature or city scape.

2. I suspect normal and long. I doubt wide angle.

3. Probably both. But I doubt I will be doing much spontaneous shooting given the miss rate. I don't think handholding is a big deal to me. Happy to use a tripod for once.

4. No idea. I don't even know how that could be used. I have seen it used with people shots and the results have been interesting. So would like the option to experiment with it.

You need a 35mm or medium format camera.

[Bob Salomon]

1. Shoot: People, singular building / objects (e.g. a boat abandoned in ice, abandoned house, etc. But mainly people. Not interested in trying to reproduced detailed pictures of nature or city scape.

2. I suspect normal and long. I doubt wide angle.

3. Probably both. But I doubt I will be doing much spontaneous shooting given the miss rate. I don't think handholding is a big deal to me. Happy to use a tripod for once.

4. No idea. I don't even know how that could be used. I have seen it used with people shots and the results have been interesting. So would like the option to experiment with it.

4: Scheimpflug allows you to control where the plane of focus is.
With a non adjustable lens camera the plane of sharp focus lies perpendicular to the film. So, if you were to take a picture of a picket fence that is positioned across the picture area, perpendicular to the film, it would be sharp at any aperture from left to right. What appears to be sharp in front and behind that fence depends on depth of field.

But if that fence runs diagonally across the field only the pickets at the point focused on would be critically sharp. By swinging the lens (or the back) you can make all of the fence sharp. Aperture would still control apparent sharpness in front and behind the fence.

Tilts and swings allow you to control where that plane of sharpness lies.

Rear one allow you to control image shape as well.

[Bernice Loui]

Now back to the original discussion..

Point being and point pressed Bob and based on your experience with a variety of imaging systems...

Print or image goals define the imaging system required..


Oh, end of discussion Bob as it has become pointless-absurd.
Bernice



The OP was asking about view cameras, not aerial cameras.
I sold and trained NASA astronauts on the Aero Technika 45 EL as well as the Rollei 6008 for the Space Shuttle. I’m well aware for the requirements for aerial as well as metric camera requirements.

Now, if you want to discuss how Jack Boucher and his associates did National Park Service HABS work with the Linhof Kardan cameras I was also involved with Jack, and Jet.
Or if you want to discuss landscape work by John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum and other landscape photographers with the Technikas, I was involved with them as well.

And perhaps you don’t know that my studio had 45, 57 and 810 Sinar Expert outfits as well as a Super Technika V outfit.

Or that in the early 70s I represented EPOI selling the Sinar P.

Since I have been involved in most formats from Minox sub min (I was stopped by the SPs at Groton for shooting the sub base with a Minox when I was 13 in 1954) through 810 view cameras and large Robertson process cameras, as well as 3 years as an aerial Rec Tech photographer in the USAF I probably have more experience then you with types of cameras.

BTW, I was also involved with Perkin Elmer in selling them lenses for the Optical Cat for the U2.

[Bernice Loui]

Roll film camera system meets these needs better than a sheet film camera.. Or a digital camera or similar imaging systems could fit better too.

Now, what about the print or finished image goals? Will they be reflected light on a sheet of _ or will the images be digitized?


Bernice


1. Shoot: People, singular building / objects (e.g. a boat abandoned in ice, abandoned house, etc. But mainly people. Not interested in trying to reproduced detailed pictures of nature or city scape.

2. I suspect normal and long. I doubt wide angle.

3. Probably both. But I doubt I will be doing much spontaneous shooting given the miss rate. I don't think handholding is a big deal to me. Happy to use a tripod for once.

4. No idea. I don't even know how that could be used. I have seen it used with people shots and the results have been interesting. So would like the option to experiment with it.

[Bobab]

Roll film camera system meets these needs better than a sheet film camera.. Or a digital camera or similar imaging systems could fit better too.

Now, what about the print or finished image goals? Will they be reflected light on a sheet of _ or will the images be digitized?


Bernice

It is starting to seem that way, though I have really liked some of the images produced by LF cameras, and I was keen not to build a MF systen (something like the Hasselblad much more costly than LF to put together, and so much less interesting).

In terms of finished product. Likely to be both. At the moment I have an enlarger for my 35mm. Was hoping to have some sort of smallish set up, possibly using the LF camera itself for MF and LF enlargements (is that possible, I read somewhere that this is what some people do, but wasn't too sure).

I am in the process of setting up a DSLR scanning rig. Which is a can of worms itself...

[Greg Y]

Until the way you want to use the camera becomes important.

Bob, There are many ways to skin a cat. The OP asked about rangefinders, photographing people (not landscapes or architecture), a 360mm lens, and a rollfilm back all in the first few sentences. That's a pretty big ask. I think Bernice has it right in a few posts this month, when she suggests starting the discussion from the output end... How are you going to print? Will you develop your own film? Much as Linhof Technikas are great versatile cameras, I wouldn't necessarily choose one for doing portraits. My friend & pro photographer Todd Korol used a Deardorff 8x10 for a killer portrait project on the grounds of the Calgary Stampede. I much admired Bradford Washburn for using a Fairchild aerial camera his outstanding big mountain landscapes. Me, I wasn't paying the $3500/hr for the Bell 212, so in my work I used Fuji 6x9 rangefinders and Pentax67....they were the acceptable compromise. Linhof makes great cameras, but IMO the Master Technika isn't the definitive answer to every LF question...

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, There are many ways to skin a cat. The OP asked about rangefinders, photographing people (not landscapes or architecture), a 360mm lens, and a rollfilm back all in the first few sentences. That's a pretty big ask. I think Bernice has it right in a few posts this month, when she suggests starting the discussion from the output end... How are you going to print? Will you develop your own film? Much as Linhof Technikas are great versatile cameras, I wouldn't necessarily choose one for doing portraits. My friend & pro photographer Todd Korol used a Deardorff 8x10 for a killer portrait project on the grounds of the Calgary Stampede. I much admired Bradford Washburn for using a Fairchild aerial camera his outstanding big mountain landscapes. Me, I wasn't paying the $3500/hr for the Bell 212, so in my work I used Fuji 6x9 rangefinders and Pentax67....they were the acceptable compromise. Linhof makes great cameras, but IMO the Master Technika isn't the definitive answer to every LF question...

Of course it isn’t. But he did specify rangefinder, people, roll film, etc.. all are well within the capabilities of the MT without needing to carry the bulk of a monorail and the extension rail needed for these requirements.but, unless he wants to shoot long roll 5” film, he probably would not want a 360 for 6x6 to 6x9 roll film people pictures.

[Bernice Loui]

It's all a set of trade-offs, partly goes back the the "Decisive Moment" or "Carefully crafted image from one's creativity". Current digital (C_phones included) or roll film cameras do well at Decisive Moment images due to the very nature of how they have been designed to be used to record images.
View cameras or similar sheet film or over-sized digital sensor based cameras and their related optics often do better at the Carefully crafted image from one's creativity due to the ability to control how the image is recorded and how the image projected by a given optic can be "adjusted" to the needs of the image to be produced from one's creativity. This is why knowing precisely what your image goals are is so very important. IMO, more important to get the image finishing end of the image creation process in order before the image recording end as it is often easier to acquire a given camera than set up a facility and means to make a print or create a digital data based image.

In you're specific case, the ideal camera system might be a medium format range finder like a Fuji GW/GL690 or Mamiya 7 or even a TLR like Rolleiflex.

Having owned and used Hasselblad for decades in the past, that system does not earn a recommendation, not a good cost -vs- performance -vs- value camera system IMO as there are better medium format camera systems available today.
Medium format film does have the ability to produce excellent film based images.

There is a semi view camera dabble between medium format and 4x5 to larger, 6x9 or 2"x3" view cameras which is a mixed-blend of roll film and sheet film. These miniature view cameras are a mixed in-between, but does not offer rangefinder focusing abilities unless something is specially made up for a specific lens set to camera.

The smallish set up for 4x5 would be to do contact prints bypassing the enlargement process. IMO, contact prints are best with film sizes of 8x10 and larger.

Suggest continue to do what you're doing keeping in mind all that has been discussed about images you're wanting to produce, rangefinder cameras, view cameras aka ground glass direct viewing cameras and never forget about what happens after the film is exposed or pixels recorded.


:)
Bernice




It is starting to seem that way, though I have really liked some of the images produced by LF cameras, and I was keen not to build a MF systen (something like the Hasselblad much more costly than LF to put together, and so much less interesting).

In terms of finished product. Likely to be both. At the moment I have an enlarger for my 35mm. Was hoping to have some sort of smallish set up, possibly using the LF camera itself for MF and LF enlargements (is that possible, I read somewhere that this is what some people do, but wasn't too sure).

I am in the process of setting up a DSLR scanning rig. Which is a can of worms itself...

[LabRat]

I personally don't like the common RF units on press/technical cameras, as the focusing area spot is too small on the usual side mounted RF cameras... Even my Linhof Tek III RF is never used these days, as I'm not shooting really fast handheld LF press, weddings etc with it... Taking focus on the GG and using viewfinder takes a little longer, but no big deal for posed subjects... I am also used to using distance scales on press cameras, so am used to using them...

An old press trick for some old press cameras was to put a hole in the rear hood and mount a loupe there for critical focusing, then use the viewfinder to frame... I resisted doing this due to something else sticking out the back of the camera while transporting...

Steve K

[LabRat]

I personally don't like the common RF units on press/technical cameras, as the focusing area spot is too small on the usual side mounted RF cameras... Even my Linhof Tek III RF is never used these days, as I'm not shooting really fast handheld LF press, weddings etc with it... Taking focus on the GG and using viewfinder takes a little longer, but no big deal for posed subjects... I am also used to using distance scales on press cameras, so am used to using them...

An old press trick for some old press cameras was to put a hole in the rear hood and mount a loupe there for critical focusing, then use the viewfinder to frame... I resisted doing this due to something else sticking out the back of the camera while transporting...

Steve K

[Bob Salomon]

It's all a set of trade-offs, partly goes back the the "Decisive Moment" or "Carefully crafted image from one's creativity". Current digital (C_phones included) or roll film cameras do well at Decisive Moment images due to the very nature of how they have been designed to be used to record images.
View cameras or similar sheet film or over-sized digital sensor based cameras and their related optics often do better at the Carefully crafted image from one's creativity due to the ability to control how the image is recorded and how the image projected by a given optic can be "adjusted" to the needs of the image to be produced from one's creativity. This is why knowing precisely what your image goals are is so very important. IMO, more important to get the image finishing end of the image creation process in order before the image recording end as it is often easier to acquire a given camera than set up a facility and means to make a print or create a digital data based image.

In you're specific case, the ideal camera system might be a medium format range finder like a Fuji GW/GL690 or Mamiya 7 or even a TLR like Rolleiflex.

Having owned and used Hasselblad for decades in the past, that system does not earn a recommendation, not a good cost -vs- performance -vs- value camera system IMO as there are better medium format camera systems available today.
Medium format film does have the ability to produce excellent film based images.

There is a semi view camera dabble between medium format and 4x5 to larger, 6x9 or 2"x3" view cameras which is a mixed-blend of roll film and sheet film. These miniature view cameras are a mixed in-between, but does not offer rangefinder focusing abilities unless something is specially made up for a specific lens set to camera.

The smallish set up for 4x5 would be to do contact prints bypassing the enlargement process. IMO, contact prints are best with film sizes of 8x10 and larger.

Suggest continue to do what you're doing keeping in mind all that has been discussed about images you're wanting to produce, rangefinder cameras, view cameras aka ground glass direct viewing cameras and never forget about what happens after the film is exposed or pixels recorded.


:)
Bernice

45 also does decisive moment and peak action. Look at Ty Cobb sliding spikes high into 3rd. Jackie Robinson stealing home, all kinds of ringside boxing matches, the Hindenburg explosion.

Knowing your camera and it’s capabilities is what is important!

[Corran]

Any examples of "decisive moment" on 4x5 not 60-80+ years in the past? LOL

[Bob Salomon]

Any examples of "decisive moment" on 4x5 not 60-80+ years in the past? LOL

Mary Ellen Marks work.
One press photographer has been covering Congressional hearings with 45.

It’s not the age of those pictures. It’s that was how they were done. And for many 2.25 and 35 were available. But not used. Just like today, press and sports work is faster, less expensive, offer more shots then film.

It’s what tool does the job you want. You could go now with your a Technika and shoot a ball game, should you want. I’d rather do it with my Canon.

[Bernice Loui]

PLENTY... 4x5 press cameras of the past. They were THE news print image making tool.
As previously mentioned, this need was the origins of the entire series of "Graphic" and Technika and ... series of press cameras with cam_ed lenses and range finders and rapid film change film holders (Graphicmatic)...

Question is... why did the press-media photographers move away from using a sheet film rangefinder..



Bernice


Any examples of "decisive moment" on 4x5 not 60-80+ years in the past? LOL

[Bernice Loui]

Along with what the finished print_image would be.

Image making system -vs- print_image are inseparable. Again, they are elements or facets of the much greater whole of any image crafting system.



Bernice



45 also does decisive moment and peak action. Look at Ty Cobb sliding spikes high into 3rd. Jackie Robinson stealing home, all kinds of ringside boxing matches, the Hindenburg explosion.

Knowing your camera and it’s capabilities is what is important!

[Bob Salomon]

PLENTY... 4x5 press cameras of the past. They were THE news print image making tool.
As previously mentioned, this need was the origins of the entire series of "Graphic" and Technika and ... series of press cameras with cam_ed lenses and range finders and rapid film change film holders (Graphicmatic)...

Question is... why did the press-media photographers move away from using a sheet film rangefinder..



Bernice

Cost and speed. As well as more convenient long lenses then a big Bertha

[LabRat]

I remember bits and pieces of the story...

Before the turn of the century, it was common to use an 8x10 on tripod with flashpowder... It was also common to retouch negs to cover up and bring up important details and persons...

In the first decade, the new Graflex (SLR) became the camera of choice by the "young turks" due to handheld capabilities and use of available light... And the 5X7 negs could still be retouched...

Different size formats were chosen to fill standard newspaper column layouts, and printing plates could be made directly from negs...

Enlargers were scarce until after the '20's, but there were still extra steps to make printing plates from paper prints...

Film into the '30's was still ortho, where darkroom techs routinely developed by inspection under safelight, but resisted the change to pan films, and deal with a long strip of roll film with many little images on them... Hollywood labs didn't have time for standard long development times then, so often used hydrazine based developers that developed quickly, but with horrible resolution, but they were 8X10's ment to be retouched, printed on automatic contact roll paper printers...

WWII also was a rise for roll film use from roving correspondents overseas, and due to the freestyle of new photo news magazines where spontaneity of images also came from shooting and editing of many images allowed new layout styles and freedom...

Smaller cameras were first viewed as toys by professionals and public, but serious work produced started changing minds... (A pro that mentored me way back when told me not to even consider shooting a wedding or baby with anything smaller than 4×5 as it was a show of disrespect...) It became clear by the Vietnam era that without 35mm, most of the war images would not be made...

After digital images could be sent in real time from the China uprising, it was almost pointless to consider still shooting news film anymore...

Steve K

[Corran]

It’s what tool does the job you want.

Yeah, that was the point several were trying to make...

[Bob Salomon]

I remember bits and pieces of the story...

Before the turn of the century, it was common to use an 8x10 on tripod with flashpowder... It was also common to retouch negs to cover up and bring up important details and persons...

In the first decade, the new Graflex (SLR) became the camera of choice by the "young turks" due to handheld capabilities and use of available light... And the 5X7 negs could still be retouched...

Different size formats were chosen to fill standard newspaper column layouts, and printing plates could be made directly from negs...

Enlargers were scarce until after the '20's, but there were still extra steps to make printing plates from paper prints...

Film into the '30's was still ortho, where darkroom techs routinely developed by inspection under safelight, but resisted the change to pan films, and deal with a long strip of roll film with many little images on them... Hollywood labs didn't have time for standard long development times then, so often used hydrazine based developers that developed quickly, but with horrible resolution, but they were 8X10's ment to be retouched, printed on automatic contact roll paper printers...

WWII also was a rise for roll film use from roving correspondents overseas, and due to the freestyle of new photo news magazines where spontaneity of images also came from shooting and editing of many images allowed new layout styles and freedom...

Smaller cameras were first viewed as toys by professionals and public, but serious work produced started changing minds... (A pro that mentored me way back when told me not to even consider shooting a wedding or baby with anything smaller than 4×5 as it was a show of disrespect...) It became clear by the Vietnam era that without 35mm, most of the war images would not be made...

After digital images could be sent in real time from the China uprising, it was almost pointless to consider still shooting news film anymore...

Steve K

But remember, the father of candid photography, Erich Salomon was shooting handheld Ermanox before all of your points. Many of his League of Nations photos are readily available.