Fujinon C 450mm F/12 .5 (or another) to replace Fujinon T 400mm F/8 for Lightweight

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

I've a Fujinon 400T which weighs a megaton. I hear the 450mm is light, small, etc. but also rare and frankly for backpacking looks likely to need an extension board for my Chamonix 45F-2... so the weight savings might be lost to a stick of wood and some bulk. Loving the 35mm film equivalent of a 135mm telephoto, I'm also trying to deal with the weight / bulk issue to get the package of gear down to max portability. Yes, I don't carry everything and am happy to split into packages... this isn't intended as a pack mule question so much as a lightweight telephoto question. I've got a Fujinon 240A, and I know a lot of folks jump next to the 300, but I went to the 400/450 as a natural for me.... only to ponder the 700 grams and how often am I taking this out?

Related "DUH" question: Am I right in assuming that the Flange Focal Length measure tells me the extension between the front and rear standards for focus at infinity? Reading off the lens charts.... it "looks" that to be the circumstance. And if so, a Fujinon 600mm T has a shorter "draw" between the standards than the 450C. And of course this means the 300T is looking a lot more interesting from a practical backpack type of perspective.

So I ask your guidance... besides "go back to your MF and 35mm and leave us alone. You want portable in a LF camera? Go to the gym, benchpress 600 in squats and man up!" Right. I mean as in absolutely. Only at my geezing age, finding the time to work someone else's body into shape to do that sort of thing is probably NOT happening. Thanks in advance for your contribution. Much appreciated.

[Oren Grad]

For minimum size/weight: 350 Apo-Tele-Xenar in Copal 1. May take a while to find one, though.

[Steve Goldstein]

The 300mm Fujinon-T is not exactly a lightweight - the one I used to own weighed 484gm (compared to 632gm for the 400mm Fujinon-T and 285gm for the holy grail 450mm Fujinon-C). I sold it because a 300mm f/9 (Copal 1, non-tele) on a tophat lensboard weighed notably less and took a bit less space in my pack.

Another telephoto lens to consider is the Congo (also sold under the Osaka label) 400mm f/8. My Osaka 400 weighs 482gm, basically the same as the 300mm Fujinon-T but it's a 400mm lens. It takes 67mm filters like your 400mm Fujinon-C. The Osaka's 236mm flange focal length (shutter mounting plane to film plane) is 16mm less than the 400mm Fujinon. It has a bit less coverage, one spec I saw long ago is 200mm image circle compared to 220mm for the Fujinon, but it's plenty for 4x5. I've never found the need for a tophat lensboard on my 4x5 Nagaoka, a flat lensboard is fine.

The Congo/Osaka is less common out there than the Fujinon-T, but they do pop up on eBay occasionally.

Oren posted about the Apo-Tele-Xenar while I was typing; that sure would be a sweet lens to have and I regret not buying one when they came out. I think you'll have better luck finding an affordable Congo/Osaka. It's NOT a telephoto design so you'll need at least ~350mm of bellows draw. The Chamonix specs I found online say 395mm, meaning you could focus a non-tele 350mm-360mm lens to around 3 meters distance without resorting to a top-hat board.

[Alan9940]

You are correct, the distance from the front to rear standards equals the focal length of the lens (except for telephoto designs, as you know.) Therefore, the Fuji 450C will require 18" of bellows draw to focus at infinity. I'm not all that familiar with 4x5 Chamonix models, but you would probably need either an extension bed or a top hat on your camera to focus this lens even at infinity. All that said, I own a copy of this lens that I use on both 4x5 and 8x10 and it's a fantastic performer!

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Thanks guys. This is helpful. So far, I think I'm going to just hit the gym and pack the Fuji 400T only when needed, but keep an eye peeled on some of the lighter bretheren. Some of these aren't cheap, and as a relatively new LF man, perhaps I've got to prove myself a bit more before stepping up to the $'s. Not a rush because the truth is there's only so much you can do, and my geared tripod head feels like it weighs more.

[Ken Lee]

I've owned both lenses. If you're only ever going to shoot 4x5 (nothing larger) then the vast coverage of the 450C may go to waste. Telephoto lenses for Large Format enable the use of smaller, lighter cameras - where the savings in size and weight may be considerable.

Also keep in mind that the difference in weight between one lens and another (or the bellows/extension required) becomes less significant when we consider the weight of a few film holders. Even changing from one dark cloth to another can save more weight than changing a lens.

[Drew Wiley]

The 450C is going to be significantly lighter and optically superior, apples to apples, even though the Fuiji 400T has a deservedly high reputation, and the 600T just slightly less so. However, the comparatively enormous image circle of the C design is capable of throwing a lot of superfluous light into a small bellows, so an effective lens shade is important. And if you end up using a tophat board, your lens nodal point is obviously going to be way out in front of the actual front standard axis just like with a telephoto. But the 450C is one of my favorite lenses 8x10 use, and also used quite often for 4x5. So the question I'd first try to solve in my head, if I were you, is whether or not you potentially plan to scale up to 8x10 in the future, in which case acquiring a 450C would make the most sense. If not, a tophat solution is hardly ideal because it creates extra leverage and vibration problems in a lightwt field cameras when the front standards aren't always rigid enough to handle that much extension torque well, especially out in the wind. Then there's the expense issue. Fuji T's are a bargain right now, while the C's are fetching a premium.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Ken: Yes, exactly, and thank you for simplifying the problem: It's not the lenses.... it's all the other stuff. For now, can't say I'll pick up another larger size... as I'm having my hands full with just 4x5 and getting it under control. Different kettle of fish than the smaller formats, but I am enjoy both the challenge and the outings more... as they're engaging in a singular rather than multiplicity of ways. With smaller formats, you remember stumbling into a great scene and getting the image. With this LF stuff, I remember setting up, and then watching the light fill in to reveal the image. Nice! Yes, I could do that with any size film or digital camera, but the degree of effort involved tends to determine what sort of knot it works me into.


But in terms of the lugging, let me say that I actually bought the geared Manfrotto tripod head you recommended on your site from KEH for a happy price (thank you for that btw)... and it is wonderful and a big step up in ease of use, but feels like 3 elephants in the sense that I now notice it. My tripod used to be big, now it added the feature of weight. I'll get this figured out eventually.... but it's not exactly the puzzle I thought I'd be spending my time on. I'd kind of thought all those other things like bellows factors, and the like. Maybe that comes next? Anyway, my last outting had a lot of camera movements for the first time... but I didn't take enough shots to justify throwing them in the tank to find out whether I inadvertently cropped my image.:D

[Alan9940]

Anyway, my last outting had a lot of camera movements for the first time... but I didn't take enough shots to justify throwing them in the tank to find out whether I inadvertently cropped my image.:D

If you don't mind a word of advice...don't overdue camera movements. Complex and/or large movements are rarely needed in LF outdoor photography and tend to mess things up. I've shot 4x5 and 8x10 for 40 years, mostly in the great outdoors, and the only movements I've ever employed are front/back tilt and front rise/fall. OK, to be totally honest, I know I've used swing movement a few times, but so occasional that I can't really remember.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Alan:

Thank you. Advice accepted. By a lot, I mean "yes I had some." I had front rise, and a very little forward tilt (down). It was easier to get the top of the tree so it wasn't cut off. As a short person (5 foot 8), raising the tripod would have been above my eyeballs. So far, I usually have almost zero movement. But this time, it was instructive to discover another way to "fix" the composition. New to this, I'm not trying to do much more than that and simply work it if I feel I have to. Maybe I need to go out and really really work the edges the way you do when you're learning to skate, but for now I'm more patient and content to let this stuff come me rather than work it that way.

[Kiwi7475]

This is just my opinion but from a practical standpoint:
- you can’t use a 450C at infinity with the Chamonix without a top hat which is painful and makes it hard to make it stable outdoors. Getting good shots even with low wind and such a long lens at the end of a 4 inch top hat is not easy, many times not possible.
- 450C costs roughly 4 x the 400 T. Crazy!
- if you have a 300mm, a 400mm is not that different, you can easily crop a little bit. I find 450 is really the natural step where it would be too much cropping, when weight is a factor.

I have a 400T and a 450C. I use both but don’t carry any one of them when hiking with the 4x5, I do take out the 450 C with my 8x10, which is really what it’s meant for, and use a 300mm lens with my 4x5. The 400T is just too heavy and long to bring along, unless I’m just shooting 500 yards from the car, which I rarely do.

Definitely pursuing a 350mm makes even less sense if you already have a 300mm.

Now we can all decide how to burn dollars, but that was my decision process.

[Roger Thoms]

Couldn’t you use an extension on your Chamonix instead of a top hat board for the Fujinon C 450mm? https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/extensionboards That would keep the lens mounted in its normal position on the front standard. You would have to make sure the the bellows was long enough.

Roger

[Kiwi7475]

Couldn’t you use an extension on your Chamonix instead of a top hat board for the Fujinon C 450mm? https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/extensionboards That would keep the lens mounted in its normal position on the front standard. You would have to make sure the the bellows was long enough.

Roger

It’s possible. With it, it can be extended to 500mm although I haven’t tried it.

I have the extension. I bought it along with the camera. Do you know how many times I’ve used it? None. Zero. It’s still in its original bag. I’d definitely do it if I can leave it installed but then I can’t use a 90mm or several other short lenses. Outdoors who wants to fiddle installing extensions and then removing them back and forth. I’ll just get closer or crop.

Of course others may be more patient. But it’s borderline practical unless you know you’re going to stick for long lenses the whole time.

[Bernice Loui]

Chamonix.. it's a lightweight field folder camera. Rack it out 400mm to 500mm and it's stability will be quite questionable.

The most difficult and challenging aspect of using any longer than normal focal length lens outdoors is stability with wind and changes in wind. Longer bellows draw and lower weight the camera is, that drawn out bellows acts as a wind catching sail that will affect camera stability and image quality. Regardless of how "good" any lens might be, this will be one of the most significant image quality factors with a field folder.

In theory a non-telephoto design lens does have better optical performance until the reality of trying to use an outfit like that in real world outdoor conditions.. only to discover how rickety it is and how difficult it is to keep even some what stable. This is why a telephoto design optic is MUCH preferred to a non-telephoto longer than normal focal length lens design on a field folder.

As for that whole "sharpness" thing.. that alone is not any where near a good enough reasons to discount using a telephoto design LF lens on a field folder camera as there are a LOT more variables and items that can and will affect the finished print. Or again, one of the reasons why print image goals should be primary with camera being much further down the priority list.


Bernice

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Folks: Okay... sounds like for this camera, the Fuji C 450mm is probably a bust. I've shot the T 450, but only inside. No wind. :)
Bernice: So are you suggesting even 300mm is too long for a folder 4X5? While there is an extension for a Chamonix... I can see the wind issues, and I've picked up a 90 to unload the 75 I bought originally as a bag bellows is a wrestling match I seem to always end up with some still sticking its way into view. But on th3 300 range, Nikor M seems to get the raves while the Fuji T seems to have a very tight tilt to it. Not that I'm tilting all that much.

[Eric Woodbury]

I've used both these lenses. I had a 400T early on. Bought it brand new for use with 4x5. It was heavy and optically my copy was a turd. I sold it within a couple of months. Now I use the 450C on 45, 57, and 810 (Chamonix and two 'dorffs). Light weight. Much sharper. Yes, long bellows and Bernice is right, that's a bigger sail. Use a shorter lens in the wind or erect you camera beside the car or tree.

Another way to go is to use a shorter lens, 300 or 360, and crop.

[Bernice Loui]

Back in the 4x5 field folder days (Technika, Toyo and etc) shortest focal length lens that appears reasonable was 90mm of any brand-favor. Even with a 90mm, it was not the easiest focal length to use. If the camera has a fully extended capability of 400mm, IMO 360mm would be the absolute max as there needs to be some margin for bellows extension under real world conditions. This makes a 300mm or 12" about the longest real world focal length to use if the camera is a field folder with say 400mm of bellows. Other ways to play this game is simply crop down which will result in much the same perspective but smaller film size. 4x5 field folders are often most comfy with focal lengths of 135mm to 240mm. This is why telephoto design LF lenses were designed and serve well on lightweight field folders. Images made outdoor with a longer than normal focal length lens usually does not involve much if any camera movements. While applying camera movements with a telephoto design lens can be a bit whacky, it is not that difficult to learn and IMO, should not be the deciding factor.

It is all a set of trade offs.

In all cases, test the lens for possible purchase as much as possible. What is published on the web does not always apply to a specific individual lens... which could be a dud despite the rant-rave stuff posted to the web.... and what is an excellent lens for some could be absolute the wrong lens for your print goals.. There was a recent discussion about this same topic:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?159497-Teach-me-about-Lens-Design

What is of absolute importance, knowing precisely what you're seeking in the finished print. Once this has been well established, it becomes easier to figure out what tools and process is needed to achieve these print goals.


Bernice




Folks: Okay... sounds like for this camera, the Fuji C 450mm is probably a bust. I've shot the T 450, but only inside. No wind. :)
Bernice: So are you suggesting even 300mm is too long for a folder 4X5? While there is an extension for a Chamonix... I can see the wind issues, and I've picked up a 90 to unload the 75 I bought originally as a bag bellows is a wrestling match I seem to always end up with some still sticking its way into view. But on th3 300 range, Nikor M seems to get the raves while the Fuji T seems to have a very tight tilt to it. Not that I'm tilting all that much.

[Alan9940]

I have the extension. I bought it along with the camera. Do you know how many times I’ve used it? None. Zero. It’s still in its original bag. I’d definitely do it if I can leave it installed but then I can’t use a 90mm or several other short lenses. Outdoors who wants to fiddle installing extensions and then removing them back and forth. I’ll just get closer or crop.


With my Arca-Swiss 4x5, I need to install the much more flexible (and shorter) leather universal bellows to effectively use any real camera movements with the 75mm or 90mm lenses. Even the 120mm is tight with the longer bellows. For the 300mm and 450mm lenses I need the longer bellows that allows nearly 20" of extension. Is all this effort in the field worth it? For me it is because I want to make the image I want to make. Yes, I'll use cropping for minor changes to the proportions of the image, if I feel the image warrants it, but I generally try really hard to get what I want on the full negative. Of course, we all have our own ways of working...this is simply what works for me.

[Bernice Loui]

Goes direct back to making print image goals first, lens choices second, camera third at best..

For much of digital and smaller film format making, camera choice essentially dictated what lenses and such can be used (much less so with mirrorless digital today). There was a time when the choice of camera essentially mandated a very specific group of lenses that can be used on a given camera or why so many decided on a camera brand first then added on to the camera over time and image making need.

For those new to view camera it appears this ideology and belief is carried on, realistically it does not really apply. As a view camera is essentially a flexi light tight box with a lens on one end and film or image recoding device on the other end, allowing nearly any optic to be attached to the light-image gathering end of this box.
Quite possible this is where the focus on making first choice as camera comes from.

This was some what true early on for cinema cameras, each cine camera had their own lens mount allowing each camera brand to offer specific lenses that fit their cine camera.. in time, the cinema folks and video folks essentially forced a stop to this resulting in the now common PL mount.


Bernice




With my Arca-Swiss 4x5, I need to install the much more flexible (and shorter) leather universal bellows to effectively use any real camera movements with the 75mm or 90mm lenses. Even the 120mm is tight with the longer bellows. For the 300mm and 450mm lenses I need the longer bellows that allows nearly 20" of extension. Is all this effort in the field worth it? For me it is because I want to make the image I want to make. Yes, I'll use cropping for minor changes to the proportions of the image, if I feel the image warrants it, but I generally try really hard to get what I want on the full negative. Of course, we all have our own ways of working...this is simply what works for me.

[LabRat]

For longer lens effect (on my 4x5 Graflex RB Super D), I use a 6x6 or 6X9 back to effect...

Big cameras can use a reducing back if a full large neg is not needed...

Steve K

[angusparker]

Ive used a Chamonix N1 with extensión and the Fuji 450C. It is doable but not recommended simply because of stability/wind. It is hard to get a sharp image. I echo a previous comment about keeping movements simple, there is a high risk of vignetting due to the bellows and bellows sag. Check your corner holes carefully on the GG. Ive also used the Fuji 400T which I think is a better compromise given the shorter bellows. Although you add weight. All in all if you can zoom with your feet you are generally better off using a 300mm lens. The Nikkor 300M is really good and lighter with a more standard filter size 52mm. The Fuji 300C is harder to find and very similar to the Nikkor.

[agregov]

I have used a Fuji 450C for years with an Arca Swiss 4x5 (extension rail and longer bellows). Yes, it can be a bit tricky in windy conditions but you can compensate with faster shutter speeds sometimes. It's a super lens I find critical for landscape shooting in wide open expanses like Death Valley. Another way to think about this problem is to continue using the T400 and if you find yourself using it over and over, that could be a good indicator that you enjoy using longer lenses and you might consider a different camera down the road to support a 450. Chamonix cameras sell well and quite quickly in the forum. Then purchase a model with a longer built-in extension and bellows. The best way to buy equipment IMO is when there's a compelling reason to do so. If you're equipment doesn't support the way you want to shoot, then it's time to upgrade. That said, it doesn't sound like you're at that point yet. You have a super camera. Purchasing a 300mm might be a good idea. They're fairly affordable and quite light. If going from 300mm to 400mm is not enough in the field, yet another clue about your needs. Shoot for next year or so and see if longer lenses call for a possible equipment upgrade. Note, a camera with longer extension will be heavier. With regard to 450C expense, yes they're are more pricey now but not ungodly so (like the 600C). If it will be a well used piece of equipment, the price is worth it.

[Drew Wiley]

Steve has given a valuable hint. A very sharp tiny 300 lens for 6x9 that approximates the reach of a 450 with full 4x5 film is the 300 Nikkor M. Most field camera have enough bellows draw for this. Of course, it's a great little lens for full 4x5 work too, and will even handle 8x10 film with very conservative movements. Often I want something highly portable that will reach way out toward some distant peak during my high altitude backpack trips. The 450C is wonderful when I'm out with a Sinar monorail and its long extensions. But now at my age, long multi-day treks necessarily involve a much lighter, more compact 4x5 folder. And rather than carry an extra lens or tophat extension, it's actually easier just to pack a Horseman 6x9 roll film back; and I still have full 4x5 capability with sheet film holders. Another part of that strategy is to just use full 4x5 only when I think I have the cat in the bag, and the subject will warrant a large print. "What if" shots under rapidly changing light and so forth, where I might want to repeat the shot, are more realistically done with roll film, since it's easy to carry a quantity of that. Given today's excellent optics and fine-grain films, with distant shots the limiting factor with detail is primarily intervening atmosphere, heat waves, etc. So the enlargement capacity of 6x9 vs full 4x5 is not as appreciable as it is with nearer subjects unless the air is especially clear.

[Bernice Loui]

Fujinon 450C f12.5 is coveted for it's small physical size (copal or similar# 1 shutter) and large image circle. IMO, kinda a mixed bag as it's small physical size makes it desirable for folks who travel with a field folder, except the real world difficulty with actually using this lens has to do with field folder camera limitations of bellows draw on a lightweight camera that is subject to a host of factors that can and will cause camera-camera support stability issues in outdoor conditions.

Other choices in this focal length Nikor 450M f9, physically larger, 16" to 19" APO artar (larger, personal fave in barrel with Sinar shutter), APO Ronar and other dialyte lens formula variants. All are physically larger than the 450C f12.5, all have specific trade offs.

No matter how "good" that lens might be, how it is applied determines it's actual image produced.

If telephoto images are the real need, something like a Canon 300mm f2.8L or 500mm f4.5L on a much smaller imager format can do a LOT better than any view camera. Choice of image making tools should be image goals dependent.


Bernice

[Greg Y]

I've used both the Fuji 400T & the 450C....but i was working with a Deardorff 5x7 w a reducing back. More than acceptable prints have been made with the 400T. Here's my favourite Craig Richards' photo of Mt Wilson made with the 400T on a Linhof 4x5. 207448 I've seen stunning 20x24 prints of this image. It's in a location where you can't zoom with your feet. The 400T is certainly lighter than a Canon 300 2.8.
I guess, it depends if your use of a 400/450 is an outlier or a common thing. If i used a long lens often enough, i'd consider the Chamonix 5x7 horizontal w the 4x5 reducing back.
I work with 6x6 and 6x7 frequently and never bring either if i'm using LF..... i'm sure you have many options if you're working close to your car.

[Drew Wiley]

Utter nonsense, Loui. How often have YOU actually done that kind of photography, especially up in the mountains? I've done it thousands of times. A properly optimized film plane and a Fuji 450C will work wonders absolutely no small format camera can equal. Even a tad better would be the Fuji 360A - plenty sharp even for roll film. The best tele-photographer I've ever known in terms of technical expertise actually used a big Toyo 8x10 equipped with long Apo Nikkor process lenses, even if there was just a 35mm or 6X7 camera at the film plane. He could have just as easily have used 8x10 film instead with a precision holder. Clumsy, yes. When I have wind issues and don't need plane of focus control, I use a P67 300 EDIF on a big Ries tripod. That lens is the holy grail of MF telephotos, so good that it is prized by widefield astrophotographers; yet my Nikkor 300M is even sharper! But like I already mentioned, the limiting factor is generally atmospheric, not optical. Timing is everything, even up in the relatively clear air of high altitude.

[Bernice Loui]

Much relative Drew...
207459

Canon 300mm f2.8L on Canon mirrorless digital.. Could this be done on a view camera?



Bernice







Utter nonsense, Loui. How often have YOU actually done that kind of photography, especially up in the mountains? I've done it thousands of times. A properly optimized film plane and a Fuji 450C will work wonders absolutely no small format camera can equal. Even a tad better would be the Fuji 360A - plenty sharp even for roll film. The best tele-photographer I've ever known in terms of technical expertise actually used a big Toyo 8x10 equipped with long Apo Nikkor process lenses, even if there was just a 35mm or 6X7 camera at the film plane. He could have just as easily have used 8x10 film instead with a precision holder. Clumsy, yes. When I have wind issues and don't need plane of focus control, I use a P67 300 EDIF on a big Ries tripod. That lens is the holy grail of MF telephotos, so good that it is prized by widefield astrophotographers; yet my Nikkor 300M is even sharper! But like I already mentioned, the limiting factor is generally atmospheric, not optical. Timing is everything, even up in the relatively clear air of high altitude.

[Drew Wiley]

Who cares, Bernice? Is this a Sports photography forum for sake of tiny magazine and web pictures barely larger than the film itself? But view-camera-like box cameras once did it. No choice. My grandfather had a Stutz Bearcat that went 90mph, which must have been quite a jittery thrill back when wooden corduroy log loads were actually the best roads around. But let's say it's for subject matter up in the mountains? My little Ebony folder equipped with a 300 Nikkor M and even roll-film back is going to weight less than the typical long 35mm telephoto. Furthermore, it can be successfully used on a much lighter tripod. Even my Sinar Norma monorail camera equipped with 24 inches of rail will work on a lighter tripod because the rail is so easily adjusted for center of gravity, whereas with a long telephoto it's all forward unless you have some intervening device. Yes, I know that sports and wildlife photographers sometimes even handhold things; but that's often in relation to pricey stabilized lenses and very high shutter speeds at the expense of depth of field. Whole different ballgame. But I have photographed wildlife using even 8x10 - no, certainly not as convenient as 35mm or even MF; but if you want serious enlargement, there's simply no comparison when it does work out. Your own argument could just as easily be refuted the other direction, when somebody takes a cell phone image and crops it - it works, and they don't give a damn about the quality of the image, so it's all equal to them. Happens millions of time a day all over the world. That's fine. It just doesn't happen to interest me, and has nothing to do with LF anyway.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes Drew, very different tool for a very different image making goal. There is far more to making images than just a view camera..

Done,
Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Of course, Bernice, just like there are a great many different photo forums and chat rooms. This just happens to be where those interested in view cameras somehow coincidentally congregate, for some inexplicable reason.

[Kiwi7475]

I’ll say it again,

I think it’s better to stick to a 300mm for 4x5 in the field. But if your photography is such that you absolutely cannot tolerate something that short, then for the Chamonix I would recommend the 400T, you can use it without extensions and with shorter bellow draw, and so you will get good shots most of the time if you’re careful. Just suck it up and carry the weight.

Don’t spend more than the cost of a 4x5 Chamonix on a 450C lens that you need to operate with a long top hat or a long bellow draw with extensions. You will likely be disappointed with many shots because of the loss of stability.

[LabRat]

Ah, quit bickering kids, tool for the job, and all that stuff... ;-) They still haven't come out with the Swiss Army knife with the 12" Bowie knife blade, so choose your tools as needed...

I have been on a Tele binge for the last few years now to be able to "reach out and touch" out of reach urban architectural details, so need to get closer... All of my shooting formats time and again get used for different situations, from a DSLR APS-C (with a handy crop factor), my "normal" lens 35mm with a 300mm, a 2x3 baby SG with a barrel 400mm Dally true telephoto, my 4x5 Graflex Super D with 190-300mm barrel lenses, and a monorail converted 4X5/5X7/WP Noba studio camera (with 24" bellows draw and Packard shutter) to use with odd no-name scientific, aerial, and process lenses etc... Each rig gets almost equal use for my applications...

Using shrinking formats with longer lenses has been a big boon for me, as I can choose the smallest rig to take to site and get out... A recent series I am working on is shooting sections of crumbling image high billboards call for longer lenses... The Graflex (with 6X6 back) has been very interesting to shoot as it tends to behave like a "bloodhound" sniffing out an image, and I learn to follow it where it takes me (with happy surprises)...

A couple of tips I have found are perspective "flattening" for my formats becomes pronounced after about 260mm FL, and perspective distortion becomes much more manageable (without movements) with longer lenses, and you can often "fake" corrections by very slightly tilting camera to correct one dominant vertical line, and the others will usually have a natural looking dynamic tilt to them...

This is a lot of fun to do!!!

Steve K

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Guys:

Thank you all. Love the back-and-forth and appreciate the passion. Wow! and do you folks have some! This is great. Thanks especially for all the advice, and willingness to stick your individual necks out. I think most of us are multiformat in some ways even if we might think of ourselves or our preferred image making as falling into one category like LF. I love shooting just about any camera, but LF is more fun even just taking one shot even if only every now and again. Conclusion as I'm reading this and as I think of it is to keep the 400T as a specialist with the longest practical reach on my Shammy, but pickup a 300mm for more common use. FWIW, I don't run lenses longer than 200mm telephoto in 35mm or any format simply because they scale out and/or price out in the BIGLY department. Been there, done that, and it ain't really my thing. If I need to, I'll rent one in that sort of longer than 200mm (35 format equivalent) length.

Last night, I weighed my LF carry kit - everything all in from tripod, head, film holders, meter, camera, cable releases, etc. and adding up the whole, I'm looking at 20 pounds - all in. Not including "lunch", "water", etc. so far 'cause that doesn't really apply, but that's not going to break the mule's back (me being the mule). But as much as its not the end of the world at 80 degrees, but when its 95... it's time for something else. Yes, you can offload a bunch of that in a very defined approach for a single shot or two, knowing EXACTLY what you want, but getting below 10 pounds.... probably not. Tripod and especially the geared Manfrotto head.... that's a real paperweight. Some weights... I don't begrudge... and until someone plops a ton of money on me for an "air ride" type of geared head, it'll do as the right tool for the job. The rest is fungible.

[Kiwi7475]

Guys:

Thank you all. Love the back-and-forth and appreciate the passion. Wow! and do you folks have some! This is great. Thanks especially for all the advice, and willingness to stick your individual necks out. I think most of us are multiformat in some ways even if we might think of ourselves or our preferred image making as falling into one category like LF. I love shooting just about any camera, but LF is more fun even just taking one shot even if only every now and again. Conclusion as I'm reading this and as I think of it is to keep the 400T as a specialist with the longest practical reach on my Shammy, but pickup a 300mm for more common use. FWIW, I don't run lenses longer than 200mm telephoto in 35mm or any format simply because they scale out and/or price out in the BIGLY department. Been there, done that, and it ain't really my thing. If I need to, I'll rent one in that sort of longer than 200mm (35 format equivalent) length.

Last night, I weighed my LF carry kit - everything all in from tripod, head, film holders, meter, camera, cable releases, etc. and adding up the whole, I'm looking at 20 pounds - all in. Not including "lunch", "water", etc. so far 'cause that doesn't really apply, but that's not going to break the mule's back (me being the mule). But as much as its not the end of the world at 80 degrees, but when its 95... it's time for something else. Yes, you can offload a bunch of that in a very defined approach for a single shot or two, knowing EXACTLY what you want, but getting below 10 pounds.... probably not. Tripod and especially the geared Manfrotto head.... that's a real paperweight. Some weights... I don't begrudge... and until someone plops a ton of money on me for an "air ride" type of geared head, it'll do as the right tool for the job. The rest is fungible.

In my experience trying to minimize the load is indeed an expensive proposition unless you’ve taken that approach since the beginning. May require new head, tripod, lenses, and even camera. You can look at what you have and see what’s the best way to shave 1/2 lb (and then another one, and so on) in the most economical way but it is a whole new rabbit hole. 20 lbs is actually not a bad starting point. But definitely I think it’s better to wait for a bit lower temperature unless it’s a short walk.

[Alan9940]

20 lbs all in is definitely not bad and totally doable. Even my flyweight outfit consisting of a Toho FC45-X, lenses from 90mm to 300mm, a couple of Grafmatic backs, and the rest of the "loot" probably weighs in at about 20. Much easier to carry long distances than my Arca-Swiss outfit! ;)

[Bernice Loui]

Weight can be lowered by loosing the geared tripod head and a tripod with a riser column. If done properly, better stability can be had with lower weight and not much difference in set up ability.

Indeed, it is all a set of trade-offs. IMO, any focal length longer than 300mm/12" on a 4x5 field folder becomes questionable for many of the reasons discussed. Once down to 300mm / 12" focal length number of modest sized lenses are reasonable. Do remember crop down is another way to get there.

Not a back packer and don't produce those types of images making the tools applied quite different as they are intended for a very different need and print goal.
Beyond that, there is a lot more to image making than just view camera or why image making skills acquired from the discipline of using a view camera can be applied to a wide variety of image making endeavors.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Steve, my Swiss Army Knife has a fold-out miniature gasoline chainsaw, a winch for pulling the truck out of ditches etc, a set of feeler gauges just to make sure my Norma front rise is precisely equal above both column rods, an automatic pepperoni slicer for sake of campfire cooked pizza, all kinds of nice things like that. But I never actually carry that particular Swiss Army knife backpacking because it is simply too bulky. In fact, for my first decade of 4x5 use I only owned a single view camera and single lens. Later I diversified. But even now I can do pretty much anything I need with just a 200M and 300M along as an ultralight option to 4x5 travel with my little Ebony folder, or alternately, an even lighter Fuji 180A and 240A combination. On dayhikes with the Sinar Norma instead, I'll add a 360A and 450C, which pretty much remain in a completely different pack, into which I can quickly switch out an inner container of 8x10 folder vs 4x5 monorail kit as needed. That's the nice thing about versatile long lenses with ample coverage.
Bernice - the only thing worse for long lens stability than a ballhead is a riser column. Those should have been outlawed back in the Middle Ages, because they're just another form of Medieval torture, at least for outdoor photography. It's not like working with fast strobe exposures in a studio. Achieving lower weight can be far more efficiently done by getting rid of the tripod head entirely, which has been my custom for over three decades now in terms of view camera applications or long MF telephotos. And any serious gear head is likely to weigh more than a field camera itself.

[Bernice Loui]

Drew, Just do not understand the rational with wanting the lowest weight set up then wanting a geared tripod head with a riser column.

IMO, the riser column is not needed, adds weight and significantly reduces stability as it is a serious wobble point in the camera support system.
As for ball heads, gave up on them for view camera decades ago. This includes the "dual action" variety where one axis of ball movement can be fixed or adjusted.


A good wood or composite surveyor's style tripod-No riser column with a Sinar pan-tilt with the Sinar Norma style rail clamp works good for a Sinar.
Reduce weight, loose the geared tripod head, loose the riser column.


Bernice

[angusparker]

If we are straying onto the subject of weight loss, I recently discovered the joy of the leveling base for RRS tripods.

https://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ta-3-lb

This is possibly the best of both worlds, low weight and some possibility of limited leveling without a ball or geared head. I’ve tried it with 4x5, not sure about 8x10 yet.

P.S. While the base weights 342g you remove the existing plate, so my guess is the net is under 250g extra.

[Bernice Loui]

The cinema and video folks have been using ball leveling heads with no riser column (not possible with some of the really BIG cameras) for decades.
Been using a modified Bolex leveling head no column riser for many years now with the Sinar Pan tilt. Flat works good.

Ball heads and riser column are mostly ok for small cameras, once camera stability is a must and camera size weight goes up, riser column and ball heads are mostly not gonna work ok.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Angus, based on specs, I'm pretty sure those hemispherical levelers could be adapted to my large Feisol CF tripod too, which is my lightweight tripod option for 8x10 and MF telephoto work, though I don't think I'd ever actually employ something like that with either. But it might work OK with certain 5X7's, and probably most field 4X5's. They're certainly one of the smartest tripod top innovations to come along in a long time.

[Kiwi7475]

If we are straying onto the subject of weight loss, I recently discovered the joy of the leveling base for RRS tripods.

https://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ta-3-lb

This is possibly the best of both worlds, low weight and some possibility of limited leveling without a ball or geared head. I’ve tried it with 4x5, not sure about 8x10 yet.

P.S. While the base weights 342g you remove the existing plate, so my guess is the net is under 250g extra.

I agree. For 8x10 I use that same leveling base but in the universal version with a arca clamp because I don’t have an RRS compatible tripod. I add a Feisol panning base PB-70 because I want to adjust that axis once leveled (or else the leveling would be lost in moving the tripod again when composing). That whole thing of level + panning is 620g and will handle 10 kg no problem. The only issue is that setup does not allow you to point the camera to the ground should you want to take a close up pic of that. That’s an annoying limitation for me but I accept it when I don’t want to carry the additional lb of another solution.

For a 4x5 wood or light weight camera a ball head is fine and very practical, like the RRS 40mm or any of the many equivalent versions. I know a lot of people in this forum would just ban ball heads from existence but it’s perfectly fine in the field for a 4x5 if you don’t go into 400mm or higher. And if you do, a RRS 55mm ball head will make it work but it’s heavy.

[Kiwi7475]

I agree. For 8x10 I use that same leveling base but in the universal version with a arca clamp because I don’t have an RRS compatible tripod. I add a Feisol panning base PB-70 because I want to adjust that axis once leveled (or else the leveling would be lost in moving the tripod again when composing). That whole thing of level + panning is 620g and will handle 10 kg no problem. The only issue is that setup does not allow you to point the camera to the ground should you want to take a close up pic of that. That’s an annoying limitation for me but I accept it when I don’t want to carry the additional lb of another solution.

For a 4x5 wood or light weight camera a ball head is fine and very practical, like the RRS 40mm or any of the many equivalent versions. I know a lot of people in this forum would just ban ball heads from existence but it’s perfectly fine in the field for a 4x5 if you don’t go into 400mm or higher. And if you do, a RRS 55mm ball head will make it work but it’s heavy.

Also this is an all in one combo:

http://www.sunwayfoto.com/e_goodsDetail.aspx?gId=1115

For completeness only, here’s also some cheaper alternatives to other well known head solutions:

https://www.leofoto.com/products.php?cateid=88

[Greg Y]

Just to stray back towards the original post. The Fuji 400T weighs 700grams..... the 450 C weight 270 grams. Neither will break your back. 700grams is a pound and a half (ish).... if you need/like the reach i'd be more than happy with the 400 T.

[Drew Wiley]

Also a real difference in bulk. That might not matter much for you folks who are just out for a day with a camera pack per se. But when a LF kit is just one added component to an already full pack necessary for a long trek, all those little distinctions start adding up real fast. And now, having entered my 70's, I'm sure glad I invested in some compact gear. Lugging an 80 or 90 lb pack for many days across the mountains like I once did is just a memory now.

[Kiwi7475]

Just to stray back towards the original post. The Fuji 400T weighs 700grams..... the 450 C weight 270 grams. Neither will break your back. 700grams is a pound and a half (ish).... if you need/like the reach i'd be more than happy with the 400 T.

Hehe I don’t disagree but a 1 lbs difference is important. Not in isolation, when you’re carrying 2 vs 3 lbs, but there is a breaking point for all of us where 1 more pound will start really hindering your carrying ability. For some that may be once we get into 20 lbs territory, others 40 lbs, etc, depending also on other factors (temperature, distance, difficulty, age, fitness level, etc). When you’re going on a difficult 20% incline trust me 1 pound makes a real difference on your legs and back.

It’s best to adapt the situation, carrying only what you need for the scope of what you’re trying to achieve. As a hiker with thousands of miles in my back (I’m sure I’m not the only one here) making wise decisions on what to bring and be willing to compromise is as important as the tools you have. When you give up on a hike because you’re exhausted you’ve given up on potential shots because you never got there. Or the same weight could have been use to bring more film holders instead.

Certainly that does not mean to never carry the 400T! :-)

[Greg Y]

Some good points made, Drew & Kiwi. I've dragged my 8x10 in the mountains. But i don't call that backpacking. I know where the photo is that i'm out to get. By the time you get a tophat to use the 450 on a 4x5 field camera ....you've lost some of your 430gram savings. The 400T doesn't weigh a 'megaton.' And it's not that big... (i had one)

It's worth considering interpretation of 'backpacking.' Are we talking about having your LF contained in a backpack? .....or are we walking about an up to 12-16 hr there and back daytrip? Or a 5-7 day trip in the Wind Rivers / Canadian Rockies/Sierras....? If the latter, I wouldn't consider taking a 400... it wouldn't cross my mind. I'd have my 4 3/4 Dagor and my 8 1/4 and a few holders or a Grafmatic. .....and i'd very easily be able to skim 500grams savings in all the personal gear.

[Drew Wiley]

I did a two-weeker at high altitude in the Wind River Range last summer with 4x5. In other words, if you don't want to starve or freeze to death or be dependent on berries and fishing, any kind of photographic system is merely an added luxury, and constitutes ADDITIONAL weight and bulk to your pack, and not what's truly essential. That's what I was referring to. But even on a day hike in the mtns, you still need reserve space in your pack for a warm coat and waterproof parka, and a few emergency supplies. I've been around body recoveries for those who thought otherwise. Not carrying plenty of water is equally risky in the desert. Some camera packs are just glorified book bags without sufficient space for real outdoor situations. Weather can change remarkably fast at high altitude. So all of the above should factor into gear selection. At this point in my life I now have the option of lighter versus heavier kits, depending. For example, in 4x5 format I prefer a Norma monorail, certain lenses, and a mid-weight Ries wooden tripod for routine use, whereas in long-haul backpacking, it's a little Ebony folder, very compact lenses, and a carbon fiber tripod.

[Greg Y]

Drew, I'm with you. I had no doubt that you knew what to take. I was wondering about the OP..... from Maryland & what exactly he meant, otherwise, we haven't been too helpful.
I prefer my Ries too, but it just goes on day trips.
207490

[Drew Wiley]

People experiment with LF and take a trip or two to the mtns, and often end up with a lifelong addiction to both, so I never like to underestimate the law of anti-gravity. I was just the opposite, and grew up in the mtns but now live near the shore. But here in CA they're just a few hours apart, at least to the nearest high road pass. Beyond that, well, I'd have to live another eight lifetimes to see all of the high Sierra. I couldn't even start my planned backpack trip last week due to all the smoke, and had to default to car camping in the adjacent White Mtns, which are also over 14000 ft, but in this case had clear air and wonderful clouds; so I got quite a few good negs anyway.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Greg: Yes, I"d love a Ries, too. Very throwback. Solid. Drooled over that.... but long ago sprung for a RRS, leveling base and mount the geared Manfrotto to that. What I like about the geared head is the way it sets up... which is fast and more precise than the ballhead I'd been using. Yes, you CAN go with a ballhead and its lighter... but somethings just work better and you put up with the other defects. I'm thinking about carrying it OFF the tripod to see if that packs better, and by balancing better, becomes easier to carry.

Yes, I'm in Maryland, and mostly use the LF camera around the Bay, Annapolis, etc. and some of my backpacking is just hiking across town with gear. Colonial architecture, boats, and beautiful skies. We have the Naval Academy, too. Lots of great stuff. Very photogenic. I find a short telephoto in smaller formats is perfect. Only moved here recently and took nearly a year to get settled and start shooting and developing again. Haven't gotten back to printing yet, but just need more time. Had a trip planned to Palouse and the upper peninsula, but then COVID nixed that. For me travel is one thing, but mostly photography is for stuff closer to home. Mountains have less appeal - though I've spent plenty of time there.... less appeal than the open water, fjords, etc. Walking distance from the house is kind of my thing. Light weight is a desire but as you point out (and I did earlier) the best approach is scouting out with light gear and then going back with the LF to shoot with exactly what you need and no more... and waiting for the right time. And so LF has pushed me to shoot a lot of 35mm in this way... and that's a big change from my expectations. Didn't expect that at all. Started this 35mm sketching tool approach to get control of slower film and home mixed developers... but come to like it. Artists had sketchbooks... look at Sargent Watercolors of Venice as an example. And the change-up is good.

But yes, this has been helpful. The 400T is a good lens with the right draw. I'm "thinking" about a 300 but probably going to sit tight through the Fall... or most of it with what I have. Will lose the 75mm likely now that I have 90mm. Trade-offs: 90mm should mean no bag bellows, but its bigger than the 75mm by some measure. No simple solutions.
Thanks for all who''ve commented.

[Kiwi7475]

Greg: Yes, I"d love a Ries, too. Very throwback. Solid. Drooled over that.... but long ago sprung for a RRS, leveling base and mount the geared Manfrotto to that. What I like about the geared head is the way it sets up... which is fast and more precise than the ballhead I'd been using. Yes, you CAN go with a ballhead and its lighter... but somethings just work better and you put up with the other defects. I'm thinking about carrying it OFF the tripod to see if that packs better, and by balancing better, becomes easier to carry.

Yes, I'm in Maryland, and mostly use the LF camera around the Bay, Annapolis, etc. and some of my backpacking is just hiking across town with gear. Colonial architecture, boats, and beautiful skies. We have the Naval Academy, too. Lots of great stuff. Very photogenic. I find a short telephoto in smaller formats is perfect. Only moved here recently and took nearly a year to get settled and start shooting and developing again. Haven't gotten back to printing yet, but just need more time. Had a trip planned to Palouse and the upper peninsula, but then COVID nixed that. For me travel is one thing, but mostly photography is for stuff closer to home. Mountains have less appeal - though I've spent plenty of time there.... less appeal than the open water, fjords, etc. Walking distance from the house is kind of my thing. Light weight is a desire but as you point out (and I did earlier) the best approach is scouting out with light gear and then going back with the LF to shoot with exactly what you need and no more... and waiting for the right time. And so LF has pushed me to shoot a lot of 35mm in this way... and that's a big change from my expectations. Didn't expect that at all. Started this 35mm sketching tool approach to get control of slower film and home mixed developers... but come to like it. Artists had sketchbooks... look at Sargent Watercolors of Venice as an example. And the change-up is good.

But yes, this has been helpful. The 400T is a good lens with the right draw. I'm "thinking" about a 300 but probably going to sit tight through the Fall... or most of it with what I have. Will lose the 75mm likely now that I have 90mm. Trade-offs: 90mm should mean no bag bellows, but its bigger than the 75mm by some measure. No simple solutions.
Thanks for all who''ve commented.

Which 90mm? Is it an f5.6? Those are heavy. The Nikon 90mm SW f8 is 355g, the Super Angulon f8 is 390g.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Kiwi: My Fuji 90mm SW is an F/8 and officially clocks in at 410 grams or so plus lensboard, cable release etc. Not the fattest lightbulb in the knife drawer, but not the slightest either. Good for the money. Heavier and bulkier than the Rodenstock Gandagon 75mm by 100 grams or so.... but I just got it and we'll have to see whether it will actually work in the standard bellows without a bellows sag vignette. I'm shooting much less with a wide angle these days anyway... preferring a slightly wide-norm to short-tele range as what I like on a camera. But wide has its place. Rarely used, but still a place. FWIW, in response to someone's earlier comment, I'm a dyed in the wool zoom with your feet prime shooter largely from the world of one lens, one camera, one film, one developer. Would prefer a monopod to a tripod, but use a tripod definitely with LF. I tweak these things more than it sounds, but KISS is alive and well.

Thanks for asking and for your posts.

[Alan9940]

If weight is a real concern, then we can avoid unnecessary extras like hats, gloves, shirts, trousers... even underwear !


I hope I never run into "Commando Ken" when out and about! :D

[Ken Lee]

Oops - I tried to delete the message but you beat me to it :)