View Full Version : Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?
Ok guys, totally unique thread here...never been done before...🤪
I'm pretty much ready to move on from my Cambo monorail and get something wooden. I've essentially "settled" on the Chominix F2 (about $1300). Thing is, I don't necessarily need all those features the Chominix offers. For instance, I can sacrifice on:
Weight. It can be a little heavier than the F2
Bellow extension does not need to be as long (so long as I can get a 70/300mm lens on it)
does not need as many movements or extent of movements
I would like a wooden camera and just a point of clarification, I'm talking about 4x5 only. To me, ease of setup, minimal fiddling and good rigidity are important features.
Looking around eBay, the prices between many cameras I looked at last year and beyond have risen to the point that the Chominix F2 just makes sense on account of it making little in the way of compromise. But anyway....
Got ideas?
Oslolens
21-Nov-2020, 12:27
The Chamonix does not have a ground glass as nice as a Wista. See the reflex on their website. A Wista can be closed with a small lens. I don't have a small lens, my 120mm is to big anyway. I really like the operation and the look of my N2, so I will stay with the Chamonix.
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
Adam... Chamonix. I've had 2 a 5x7 and a 4x5. I used an old Deardorff for many years. I am very impressed with the build quality and operation of the Chamonix cameras....especially at their price point.
Ok good feedback.
I'm trying to be convinced of other options, but it seems difficult. That's notabad thing at all...it's called validation.
Anyone else???
Thx
Tin Can
21-Nov-2020, 13:25
Chamonix!
but which one...
I want an H
ic-racer
21-Nov-2020, 15:33
When the Shen-Hao 8x10 first came on the market, it was about $1000 less than the Chamonix, so I went that route. Though now I see they are priced about the same. Either way, you might check out the Shen-Hao 4x5 cameras, they list SIX different models from which to choose.
http://www.shen-hao.com/PRODUCTS.aspx?i=169&id=n3&page=1
lenicolas
21-Nov-2020, 15:47
I’m quite happy with my Chamonix N2 which has a bit more basic movements than the F2. It’s also cheaper and more common used.
I replaced the ground glass for a plain one off ebay. Kept the fresnel that came with the camera though.
One thing that could make the camera more practical would be not having to unscrew the front standard from the base to fold the camera.
45N-1 (Classic) owner here. It's very well made, well designed, beautifully built. The only real complaint is that the front standard has to be taken down and put up when you use it-- but that's part of why it's so light and small. It also means you can't store it with a lens installed. On the other hand, it means you can pre-position the lens near the right focal length with a little practice.
If you don't need asymmetric tilt, the 45N-2 would be a good option (and about $200 less expensive if I recall).
Not sure what back Oslolens is using, but mine is relatively bright (It's the "new" ground-glass + fresnel sandwich with the clear circle in the middle of the fresnel).
The H series is slightly shorter and easier to put away (since it doesn't fold).
I have a Chamonix 45n1 and I have shot well over 1000 sheets with that camera since purchase. I also own a variety of other cameras and here's some alternatives I would consider and why:
Shen-Hao HZX45-IIA
This camera is less fiddly because it has a traditional front standard. It's also 5.5 pounds so there's a penalty there. It's a very fine feeling camera and it inspires confidence when using. Honestly the worst part about this camera is the absolutely terrible product name. Seriously I have to Google every time I want to write about it to remember what it is. Anyway, it's rigid and does what it needs to do, with a bit more "technical" movements available, which you can ignore if you don't need but they are always there. If you don't need light weight and want a slightly more rigid/technical camera this is it.
Intrepid Mk. IV
The ultimate in low weight. IMO unrivaled for landscape where you are carrying your gear far. There's a few quirks like a very thin baseboard that might possible cause issues with some tripods / QR plates but other than that it's just a slightly lighter Chamonix. The big "gotcha" on the Intrepid is it doesn't do well with lenses shorter than 90mm. Might be able to finagle a 75mm on there but you'll have to get a recessed lens board and yada-yada. Final point: the ground-glass kinda sucks. I would budget to get something better, though it's certainly usable, and as a bonus you can buy and break like 3 and a half of them at your budget!
Linhof Technika IV or later
I know you said wooden camera but still. The Linhof Technika is a metal folding camera that has most all the movements you need and is tough, rigid, and precise. At 6.5 pounds you sacrifice a lot on weight but it's a very reliable tool that can be abused at will without much issue. Problems are: difficulty using wide lenses of 75mm and shorter without specialty boards or a bit of finicky "inside the box" setups, and also when doing landscape with very slight amounts of movements the "clicky" detents of the basic movements can be annoying. Oh, and some issues inherent to a folding camera design due to interference with the base if using large 4x6 rectangular filters sometimes.
Chamonix XYZ
Honestly the rest of the Chamonix line is worth considering, but I've only used the N1 model. I think their line of cameras has gotten a bit bloated, with too many options. If I had a magic ticket for a free 4x5 camera of my choosing I would consider an H model, which is very different in design from the N/F models, but otherwise I've never quite gotten what the difference is between all of the other options. The F model I have seen and briefly played with had a slightly better designed rear swing but I would say rear swing is on the very low end of usage in terms of movements, at least for me.
You've not mentioned what you shoot. Depending on that I'd consider any of these to be great options. Or all of them, over time, because no camera is perfect or does everything well and you can never have too many in case one breaks, right? ;)
Bryan, just a couple of points. As far as a 'bloated' camera line, Shen Hao offers 3 - 8x10 models and 6 - 4x5 cameras....more than Chamonix. The early Shen-Hao 4x5s weren't really up to the construction standard of other cameras. The one 4x5 i was offered, didn't close properly and was nowhere near as smooth or as well finished as the Chamonix, and certainly not a smooth as either Keith Canham's or my old Deardorff. Chamonix seemed to have their quality control down from the start. The last 4x10 Shen-Hao a colleague bought was better made, so my experience has perhaps been different from yours.
I wasn't familiar with any of them other than the HZX and PTB so I went to their website. Certainly just at a glance I have no idea what those other cameras do or do not do compared to the HZX and PTB, so you're right! I always get annoyed at companies with too many options that are very similar...
Anyway, just as a reference point, I also have a Shen-Hao PTB-617. That one and the 4x5, which is an older camera I was recently given, are very nice and smooth and don't have any build-quality issues. That's just been my experience. As another small anecdote, the Deardorff cameras I have handled have been exceedingly sloppy and I have always felt them to be extraordinarily overpriced for what they are. But to be fair, they are all much older cameras now, and likely a nicer one or a well-maintained / refurbished one might be excellent. I wouldn't pay the going prices though myself.
Kiwi7475
21-Nov-2020, 19:49
The Chamonix is the best option for a lightweight camera in its price range. You can improve the ground glass by using a Maxwell fresnel but it’s not necessary. Pick the N of F model depending on your movements, focal range, and packability needs.
There’s nothing else to add. Go buy it. More importantly, go shoot.
Another vote for the Chamonix. I have the 4x5 N-1, purchased in 2013. I don't shoot as often as I wish, but it's easy to pack into a bag that I can haul through the woods (for reference, I'm 5'5" and 116 lbs). It can do more than I use for movements, but they're there in case I ever do.
I started with a Cambo monorail and just didn't use it much because it was so ungainly to carry. I haven't tried others, so I can't give you as good a comparison as more experienced shooters here.
Alan Klein
22-Nov-2020, 09:07
I have the Chamonix 45H-1. Since I don't hike, the folding F2 seemed like it would be a nuisance. Hugo from Chamonix recommended the H-1 over the F2. There's no setup. I keep the lens on the camera when I store it in the backpack. It's ready to go. No assembly. The H-1 takes a little more space than the F2 but the convenience is more important to me. I use lenses from 75mm-300mm with the bellows it comes with. I believe it can go up to 350mm. Check with Hugo their rep. in California. hugo zhang <hugoz_2000@yahoo.com> One complaint I have with the H-1 is that the focus is fiddly. YOu need both hands to focus with one and lock with the other leaving a third hand for the loupe. You have to bounce back and forth. Maybe someone else can explain how the focus works on the F-2.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1
This is all great feedback (as always from this forum). I really like what Kiwi7475 said...."More importantly, go shoot."
Thank you. I think I'm good.
I have the Chamonix 45H-1. One complaint I have with the H-1 is that the focus is fiddly. YOu need both hands to focus with one and lock with the other leaving a third hand for the loupe. You have to bounce back and forth.
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1lan
Alan, I use the loupe to check focus, once i've gotten as close as I can with both eyes and no loupe. I don't think view cameras are really meant to be focused with one hand, as you've always got resistance on the rack and pinion focusing mechanism. (I've used Deardorffs, Canhams, Ebony as well as Chamonix, and always found this to be the case)
Alan Klein
22-Nov-2020, 10:56
lan
Alan, I use the loupe to check focus, once i've gotten as close as I can with both eyes and no loupe. I don't think view cameras are really meant to be focused with one hand, as you've always got resistance on the rack and pinion focusing mechanism. (I've used Deardorffs, Canhams, Ebony as well as Chamonix, and always found this to be the case)
Greg, The problem with the H-1 is you need both hands. The left has a locking knob and the right you focus with. SO when you get close, you want to lock it pretty tight so it doesn't;t drift with the right knob. That leaves no hands for the loupe. So what I try to do is focus with the eye as best I can then lock the left knob very tight but still enough to move the focus with the right. Then I hold the loupe with my left hand as I make final knob adjustments with my right. I find it annoying. A single-focus adjustment would be easier.
Then, when I want to tilt the back or front, I need both hands to release the two knobs for tilting. So how do I hold the loupe. Same problems as with focus. Maybe you have a better idea of how to do this? I'm open for solutions.
Alan Klein
22-Nov-2020, 11:00
Here's Chamonix instructions copied here. The underlined portion assumes you have a third hand to hold the loupe.
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1
A few pointers regarding the use of 45H cameras with heavy lenses:
1. Our 45H-1 and 45Hs-1 cameras are designed differently than our 45N-2 and 45F1 cameras. To increase the precision of the camera, we have used a linear focus track. A side effect of this feature is low friction in the camera bed, especially when the camera is tilted with a heavy lens.
2. You may consider using the following two steps to focus when your camera is not in a level position.
The first step: Loosen all the knob locks and use only your eyes (without a loupe) for the initial composition and focusing, then tighten the focus knob locks half way gradually.
The second step: Keep the locks half tightened as it is the only way the focus knobs maintain enough friction. Then use a loupe for fine focus and completely tighten the focus locks after the focus process is finished. Please remember to use one hand to hold the focus knob while the other hand is used to tighten the focus locks, otherwise slight focus shift will occur due to the worm effect of the screw-focus feature.
I see your predicament now Alan. I've never used a camera with a low friction focus track, so I don't have a solution for you, other than to suggest dropping Hugo Z a message since he's also a photographer and not just a sales rep for Chamonix.
While the Zone VI 8x10 does not have a low-friction focus track, it also takes two hands to tighten. My Chamonix 11x14 takes only one hand...different focusing system altogether.
But with experience and doing basically what you wrote above in #2, second step (partially tighten the locking knob), I adjust focus with the adjustment knob, and when I want to lock focus, I use one hand to maintain the adjusting knob's exact position and then put the other hand back on the locking knob and tighten it. I just have to make sure that the adjustment knob does not move as I tighten the locking knob.
Easy, but I still double check the focus. A thought -- what I actually do is firmly hold the adjustment knob and the camera bed with my fingers at the same time...this gives my hand a reference point to tell if the adjustment knob has moved when tightening the other knob.
Daniel Casper Lohenstein
22-Nov-2020, 15:08
hi, what about the good old reliable stripped down and unleathered mahogany Graflex Crown Graphic?
rangefinder, lens stores in the housing, viewfinder, separate tilt and shift, idiot proof, no fiddling around, no wrap (400g), no.dark cloth 800g), very affordable ...
Ok guys, totally unique thread here...never been done before...🤪
I'm pretty much ready to move on from my Cambo monorail and get something wooden. I've essentially "settled" on the Chominix F2 (about $1300). Thing is, I don't necessarily need all those features the Chominix offers. For instance, I can sacrifice on:
Weight. It can be a little heavier than the F2
Bellow extension does not need to be as long (so long as I can get a 70/300mm lens on it)
does not need as many movements or extent of movements
I would like a wooden camera and just a point of clarification, I'm talking about 4x5 only. To me, ease of setup, minimal fiddling and good rigidity are important features.
Looking around eBay, the prices between many cameras I looked at last year and beyond have risen to the point that the Chominix F2 just makes sense on account of it making little in the way of compromise. But anyway....
Got ideas?
Alan Klein
23-Nov-2020, 07:42
While the Zone VI 8x10 does not have a low-friction focus track, it also takes two hands to tighten. My Chamonix 11x14 takes only one hand...different focusing system altogether.
But with experience and doing basically what you wrote above in #2, second step (partially tighten the locking knob), I adjust focus with the adjustment knob, and when I want to lock focus, I use one hand to maintain the adjusting knob's exact position and then put the other hand back on the locking knob and tighten it. I just have to make sure that the adjustment knob does not move as I tighten the locking knob.
Easy, but I still double check the focus. A thought -- what I actually do is firmly hold the adjustment knob and the camera bed with my fingers at the same time...this gives my hand a reference point to tell if the adjustment knob has moved when tightening the other knob.
The problem is after you make the locking knob tight with your left but not tight enough yet so you can move the focus knob with the right hand, you then hold the loupe with your left hand. Then make the final adjustment with the right hand. Let go of the loupe and use your left hand to make the final tighten. The problem then is the possibility that locking it may have moved the focus. Since you're no longer looking through the loupe there's no way of knowing. You can look again, but if it shifts ever so slightly you won't see the slight change, and now you're locked tight.
I suppose I could forget about the last locking action and leave it with the last focus with the loupe and hope it holds for the shot.
Kiwi7475
23-Nov-2020, 10:54
The problem is after you make the locking knob tight with your left but not tight enough yet so you can move the focus knob with the right hand, you then hold the loupe with your left hand. Then make the final adjustment with the right hand. Let go of the loupe and use your left hand to make the final tighten. The problem then is the possibility that locking it may have moved the focus. Since you're no longer looking through the loupe there's no way of knowing. You can look again, but if it shifts ever so slightly you won't see the slight change, and now you're locked tight.
I suppose I could forget about the last locking action and leave it with the last focus with the loupe and hope it holds for the shot.
Have you ever seen an indication of misfocusing on your negatives? I guess if you’re really worried you could tape a small laser range meter and measure any potential shifts when following your standard process (I mean in a controlled environment like at home, eg. focusing on some object right in front of a wall and pointing the laser at the wall behind it). That would also tell you for example how much things move when you insert the film holder. You may be surprised.
In the field you could also shoot the same scene twice, one with and one without the last locking action and see if you see a difference.
The problem is after you make the locking knob tight with your left but not tight enough yet so you can move the focus knob with the right hand, you then hold the loupe with your left hand. Then make the final adjustment with the right hand. Let go of the loupe and use your left hand to make the final tighten. The problem then is the possibility that locking it may have moved the focus. Since you're no longer looking through the loupe there's no way of knowing. You can look again, but if it shifts ever so slightly you won't see the slight change, and now you're locked tight.
I suppose I could forget about the last locking action and leave it with the last focus with the loupe and hope it holds for the shot.
If the adjustment knob did not turn while tightening the other knob, then the standard did not move and focus is preserved. And always double check after tightnening -- no reason to just hope.
I suggest practicing a score or two times -- set the camera up, with or without lens. Set the standard at one of the marks on the scale on the camera using the adjustment knob, and then tighten it with the other knob. Check that the standard is still at the same mark. Do it until you can always keep it at the same mark...then out in the field you'll not have to worry about it.
Alan Klein
23-Nov-2020, 17:44
If the adjustment knob did not turn while tightening the other knob, then the standard did not move and focus is preserved. And always double check after tightnening -- no reason to just hope.
I suggest practicing a score or two times -- set the camera up, with or without lens. Set the standard at one of the marks on the scale on the camera using the adjustment knob, and then tighten it with the other knob. Check that the standard is still at the same mark. Do it until you can always keep it at the same mark...then out in the field you'll not have to worry about it.
I believe the problem is it can move when you locked it tightly after making the final adjustment. You want to hold the right focus knob too to prevent drift. So you have to drop the loupe so you don't know if it's shifted. I'll have to play with it and come up with a good solution. But I find it's a nuisance and poor design for any human without three arms.
That's why you keep a hand on the adjustment knob -- so you know it does not move when you tighten the focus down and there is no focus movement. One might give the adjustment knob a little counter-rotational force to counter the force placed on the other knob if that helps. I do not even look at the GG when I tighten the focus down. Good luck figuring the best way to work for you.
I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about anymore. Sounds complicated.
I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about anymore. Sounds complicated.
Don't worry about it too much-- it's an unusual issue for a specific model of camera that for basic use, shouldn't be a problem. IF you have a heavy lens, and IF you have the base board angled downwards, then you MIGHT need two hands to adjust focus. But only on the 45H1. The 45N-2 and 45F-2 don't have this issue at all, since they use a screw-drive mechanism for focusing.
Even on the H1, I think Vaughn's got it right, and all Alan needs to do is monitor the movement of the knob he used to adjust focus with in the first place.
I considered the H1 (and was going to buy it at first), but on reflection, decided I'd rather have the lightness and flexibility of the 45-N1(c). I would have bought an N2 happily, but they were out of stock at the time.
As for crown/speed graphics, they're great little cameras, but as a novice, my concern was having to learn a new style of camera, AND deal with any potential issues a used camera might come with. Buying new, with good customer support, seemed like the right approach.
While I agree that the H1 is quicker to set up and put away, raising and lowering the standard is a 10-15 second task each way. Having a lens always on the camera means I've got a 1 in 4 chance of having the right lens on the camera at any time-- or worse, that because I'm being hasty / lazy, I don't bother putting the *right* lens on the camera, and do it half-fast.
If it's in your budget, consider the 45N-2 or 45F-2. You won't regret either. Also, the burgundy bellows looks fantastic. ;)
I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about anymore. Sounds complicated. Essentially your thread got hijacked Adam. Don't worry about it.... just get the camera you're after and start photographing. You learn more as you go along....and as necessary.
+1
The most important thing is to GO SHOOT! :)
I'm not sure what you guys are even talking about anymore. Sounds complicated.
Then it might pay to pay attention. Get the right Chamonix F2, and there is no problem with this...just a single knob in the back for focus -- geared movement, pretty sweet. My Chamonix 11x14 has it..my 5x7 and 8x10 have the type Alan has. The F2 is a semi-unique design and has its pros and cons.
The F2 set-up will be a little longer with its unique complication -- attaching the front standard to the camera base. It is the same style as my Chamonix 11x14...and the more traditional style (such as my Zone VI 8x10 and an older Eastman View 11x14) seem to be easier and quicker to set-up and tear-down. However, I have not set-up a F2, so the smaller scale, relative to the 11x14, might make it a easier job with the F2.
I would love a 5x7 of Alan's type of camera, but they don't have one that does both vert and hort 5x7. Quick set-up. Lens stays on the camera. One would think with all these models, one of them would be 'perfect'.
I prefer working with axis tilt, front and back, but I also work with rear base tilt -- one just adjusts to one's tools. I can easily live with it on the 11x14...but if I had had a choice. The F2 has base and asymmetrical tilts in the back. Seems overly complicated for general landscape, but most likely useful for something.
Haha! Yeah I saw that it got hijacked, but it's all good. You guys got me straight anyway. I actually thought it was kinda funny.
In any event, I'm ready for the F2. I'm also going to list my Mavic Pro and guitar synth on eBay. I'll get almost all the way there!!
Thank everyone.
Any opinion on the Chamonix 8x10 Alpinist X vs the Chamonix 810V?
What exactly is the functionality differences between the two? I'm sure the Aplinist X sacrificing something for the decreased weight. Is the 810V worth the weight?
Planned use might have the greatest affect of which one to get. Dropping from 9.5 pounds to 5.5 might be significant, especially if the rest of one's outfit is all about reducing weight. For me right now, spending a lot of money to drop 4 pounds on the camera while carrying a 17 pound tripod seems silly...but I will eventually head in that direction.
Just going from the specs, one loses a little with the weight...some front rise/fall and it looks like some of the degree of movements. Nothing sacrificed for general landscape work. The 8x10V is a beefier machine, so hanging a lot of weight on the end, especially with a lot of bellows, the 8x10V probably is more steady.
Planned use might have the greatest affect of which one to get. Dropping from 9.5 pounds to 5.5 might be significant, especially if the rest of one's outfit is all about reducing weight. For me right now, spending a lot of money to drop 4 pounds on the camera while carrying a 17 pound tripod seems silly...but I will eventually head in that direction.
Just going from the specs, one loses a little with the weight...some front rise/fall and it looks like some of the degree of movements. Nothing sacrificed for general landscape work. The 8x10V is a beefier machine, so hanging a lot of weight on the end, especially with a lot of bellows, the 8x10V probably is more steady.
Thank you.
I've decided that I'm pretty set on the Chamonix F2.
Looking at the lens review here:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/
Many of the 210-240mm lenses come in a compound 3 shutter. Is that too heavy for the F2?
Oslolens
8-Dec-2020, 14:02
45N-1 (Classic) owner here. It's very well made, well designed, beautifully built. The only real complaint is that the front standard has to be taken down and put up when you use it-- but that's part of why it's so light and small. It also means you can't store it with a lens installed. On the other hand, it means you can pre-position the lens near the right focal length with a little practice.
If you don't need asymmetric tilt, the 45N-2 would be a good option (and about $200 less expensive if I recall).
Not sure what back Oslolens is using, but mine is relatively bright (It's the "new" ground-glass + fresnel sandwich with the clear circle in the middle of the fresnel).
The H series is slightly shorter and easier to put away (since it doesn't fold).I have the original Chamonix groundglass. The main problem is in bright daylight, when focusing without dark cloth and with a loupe just to make sure I'm using the right front standard hole. The Wista is brighter by a fraction, but the reflex is much less, making it easier to set up.
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
fdrsblanket
8-Dec-2020, 21:42
I'm using a Fujinon W 300mm F5.6 Lens with a Copal 3 Shutter without any issues on my F2.
Drew Wiley
8-Dec-2020, 22:03
It hardly makes sense spending serious extra money to get a modern lightweight view camera and then put a big heavy lens on it, unless one just happens to already own that lens and overall weight is not actually a priority.
Any opinions on the Linhof 4X5 Master Technika vs chamonix F2 or any other chamonix?
Ease of use of movements on the linhof, set up concerns etc?
I’m thinking about:
https://www.keh.com/shop/large-format-4x5-linhof-master-technika-679713.html
https://www.keh.com/shop/210-f6-8-gold-ring-dagor-sync-compur-bt-8-25-45-mt-4x5-lens-1.html
Goerz 8 1/4" (210mm) f/6.8
Would the goerz be better fit on the linhof vs chamonix due to weight?
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?161194-Worthy-Linhof-Contenders
Linhof MT is heavy, cumbersome with wide-angles, and doesn't give a whole lot of benefits except ruggedness and a sense of maybe using a more precise and engineered tool.
Bob Salomon
9-Dec-2020, 05:48
Any opinions on the Linhof 4X5 Master Technika vs chamonix F2 or any other chamonix?
Ease of use of movements on the linhof, set up concerns etc?
I’m thinking about:
https://www.keh.com/shop/large-format-4x5-linhof-master-technika-679713.html
https://www.keh.com/shop/210-f6-8-gold-ring-dagor-sync-compur-bt-8-25-45-mt-4x5-lens-1.html
Goerz 8 1/4" (210mm) f/6.8
Would the goerz be better fit on the linhof vs chamonix due to weight?
Linhof TK or TKS would be easier to use and set up, weigh less then the MT and have more capability. Especially with very wide, down to 35mm or with long or macro with 500mm of bellows and rail.
TK or TKS weighs the same as the MT according to specs. I'm extremely dubious of the claim that it would be easier to setup.
Any opinions on the Linhof 4X5 Master Technika vs chamonix F2 or any other chamonix?
Ease of use of movements on the linhof, set up concerns etc?
I’m thinking about:
https://www.keh.com/shop/large-format-4x5-linhof-master-technika-679713.html
https://www.keh.com/shop/210-f6-8-gold-ring-dagor-sync-compur-bt-8-25-45-mt-4x5-lens-1.html
Goerz 8 1/4" (210mm) f/6.8
Would the goerz be better fit on the linhof vs chamonix due to weight?
John, the Goerz would work on pretty much any 4x5. It's not particularly big, and it's a versatile lens with lovely character.
John, the Goerz would work on pretty much any 4x5. It's not particularly big, and it's a versatile lens with lovely character.
Greg,
Isn't a Dagor exhibiting focus shift ? Ie when you focus wide open, and stop down, you have to re-focus ?
best,
Cor
Hi all. I love this thread!! I've learned a few things just from the "stream of consciousness" conversation!!
So this is what I gather based on the "Chamonix F2 vs Xxxx" original post.
1. The Linhof Technikardan TK and TK2 are truly great options and offer just about as much in terms of features as you can find on any camera. Huge bellows range without having to swap bellows for wide and long lenses. Fast setup time/pack down time. Compact, relatively light for what it is. Great option
2. With sacrificing the bellows range of lenses (how wide and how long your lenses need) the number of camera options grows. To me, this includes the Arca-Swiss Discovery and F-Line (used).
3. This is the kicker for me that really got me thinking...Vaughn wrote something to the effect of, being suprised that we spend tons of money trying to get the weight of the camera down, but don't consider the total weight of the system. I think this is key. My tripod is quite good, but not by any means light. I flinched at spending $500 on a stupid tripod, but turned myself inside out to spend big bucks on a camera to get a lighter more compact tool. This reminds me about cycling. Guys will spend literally thousands of dollars to reduce the weight of their bikes, but honestly it's much cheaper to drop a few pounds off your ass!!!
Anyway, here's another camera option not mentioned, but I thought was a worthy option. The Wisner Technical Field camera. This camera has the same movements as the Chamonix F2 AND adds from base tilt. It includes the rear axis tilt too. It's a little heavier than the F2 (around 6 pounds, so that's a lot heavier...ok). The bellows can support a 90mm to 360mm lens with full movements.
Thoughts? Experience with the Wisner?
Many thanks to all!!
Adam
Have owned and used a Wisner many years before acquiring a Chamonix. Personally much prefer the Chamonix that I now use. Don't have both now to compare side by side, but the Chamonix seems to be a lighter camera yet a bit more rigid to me. Focusing with the Chamonix I find so much more accurate (but again I don't have both to compare side by side). Now newer is not always preferred by me. I much prefer using my Sinar Norma over my Sinar X. If it weren't for its size when backpacking the equipment in the field, I'd choose the Norma over the Chamonix. Most important is just to get out there and shoot no matter what camera you have. My first LF camera was an 8x10 wooden B&J Commercial view. Used it from the mid 1970s to probably around 1990. If I ever came across one in exc+ condition, I would, in a snap, acquire it and use it. Many a day take my Nikon F with 35mm and 85mm lenses and a roll of B&W film on a walk into town and just have a ball using it.
Comments most welcome.
Have owned and used a Wisner many years before acquiring a Chamonix. Personally much prefer the Chamonix that I now use. Don't have both now to compare side by side, but the Chamonix seems to be a lighter camera yet a bit more rigid to me. Focusing with the Chamonix I find so much more accurate (but again I don't have both to compare side by side). Now newer is not always preferred by me. I much prefer using my Sinar Norma over my Sinar X. If it weren't for its size when backpacking the equipment in the field, I'd choose the Norma over the Chamonix. Most important is just to get out there and shoot no matter what camera you have. My first LF camera was an 8x10 wooden B&J Commercial view. Used it from the mid 1970s to probably around 1990. If I ever came across one in exc+ condition, I would, in a snap, acquire it and use it. Many a day take my Nikon F with 35mm and 85mm lenses and a roll of B&W film on a walk into town and just have a ball using it.
Comments most welcome.
Greg,
Great feedback. Thank you. I literally just need to stop looking for greener grass and pull the trigger!!
I've got to sell off a few pieces of gear and I'll be good to go.
Thx!!
Adam
Drew Wiley
10-Dec-2020, 15:24
I'm no doubt going to offend somebody, but skip the Wisners. The lighter ones look fragile to me; the standard ones are more pretty than functional if you're factoring weight in relation to real utility. You're better off with a Chamonix, or if you can find and afford one, an Ebony. Technical cameras are in their own category; my brother used a Super Technika, while I chose the Sinar monorail system instead, and am glad I did. But back then, Technika was THE field 4x5 as far as a lot of outdoor photographers were concerned, and my brother loved his. Monorails are more versatile once you factor in studio and architectural applications too. Please keep in mind that there are MANY good options. What is far more important than going crazy trying to make nitpicky decisions over these multiple options is simply getting familiar with your chosen gear, to the point that using it becomes spontaneous. After that, you won't even think much about the other what-ifs.
Greg,
Isn't a Dagor exhibiting focus shift ? Ie when you focus wide open, and stop down, you have to re-focus ?
best,
Cor
Cor, it's just a matter of re-checking the focus once you stop down. I've never found it to be a big issue and i've got a few of them in different focal lengths. I have heard it said that it varies from lens to lens. Ultimately the character of the lens matters more to me... When i started out in LF, i had several Apo-Sironar S lenses...... years later I have entirely gravitated to Dagors, G clarons and Commercial Ektars. Sharpness isn't everything.
Drew Wiley
10-Dec-2020, 18:01
Focus shift is a non-issue on late Dagors. If you focus just half a stop down from wide open, there is no focus shift at all. I can't speak for the older ones.
Greg,
Great feedback. Thank you. I literally just need to stop looking for greener grass and pull the trigger!!
I've got to sell off a few pieces of gear and I'll be good to go.
Thx!!
Adam
I don’t mean to stop you on your way to a Chamonix, I own one myself with pleasure. But it’s better to know the market before you buy instead of afterwards. I wonder if you have seen Gibellini, quite a special manufacturer and although not in wood, they have many options in modern technology including a 3d printed 4x5”.
https://www.gibellinicamera.com/product/black-swan-45/
YES!! That's the whole point of this thread!!!
I'm looking for an alternative or a better option than the Chamonix F2.
So far, the ones that have caught my eye are the Arca-Swiss F-Line and the Linhof Technikardan.
I'll check into Gibellini now. Thanks!!
They're very pretty, although the 3D printed ones aren't quite as nice looking in my opinion. But I would strongly suggest you search the forums for posts related to them-- I've seen a number of complaints about quality control and support.
I looked at their site. While I think the concept is totally cool and it's awesome seeing new designs coming out, still I don't see a compelling lure to them over the Chamonix F2.
To me this is all about capabilities for $$ spent. Quality of those capabilities is another story.... But still, thanks for the tip.
There is no perfect camera. I do like working with my ChamonixF2. If I would have to name its imperfection it is stability and its aptness to bear heavy lenses. But with this camera I can make nice outdoor shots when it’s not too stormy. And I do come home with them, whereas with a sturdy monorail I wouldn’t have made them at all because of weight and the light having changed before I’m ready to shoot. A camera should not give you a too high threshold to go out and shoot, one second thought is enough. What surprised me a bit of all the Gibellini’s is their weight, they are all still relatively heavy for all that modern technology.
As otto.f says above: "There is no perfect camera." All are compromises of one kind or another. Currently, I use in 4x5 a Busch Pressman (with working rangefinder), Sinar F2, and a Wanderlust Travelwide. The point is that depending on the situation I have a choice - and none of these were costly to purchase.
Tin Can
13-Dec-2020, 06:15
Very few here have one camera and most have plenty
Studio cameras remain cheap
Bernice Loui
13-Dec-2020, 08:32
Question of experience using a view camera and images made is a significant factor in camera choice. Based on image goals, optics required to meet these image goals and experience-demands-expectations of the image maker figures into camera choice. For those who take their view camera on extended trips backpacking into the wilderness away from civilization for days on end, a lightweight folder with lightweight lens set, graphmatic film holders, minimal supporting accessories is likely the ideal choice. For an image maker creating technically demanding images a field folder will come up totally inadequate for these image making task. Other factors will be experience, expectations, and demands of the view camera image user. This comes up as a more significant factor based on the individual image maker's abilities, and demands from any view camera and all related.
IMO, the obsession over the first view camera is not worthy as it is nothing more than a light tight box that is flexi in the center with one end that supports a lens and the other end that support an image recording device. The more important objective is to learn how to view camera and the skill set required to make expressive images using a view camera. This fact renders the camera and in many ways initial lens choice mostly irrelevant as learning and acquiring these skills are a LOT more important. Funds are far better spent on film and film processing than obsessing on hardware choices.
There is NO ideal view camera for all image making needs in the same way as NO ideal lens that can meet all image making needs and NO single film, film processing, print making that is ideal for all needs... There are only shades of gray. .... And the Best Foto hardware often does not make a better or more expressive image as only the image maker can use these tools as a means to visual expression.
Bernice
Bernice,
If you were directing your last comment to the OP (me), this would be my second camera. It would be my first larger investment in LF though.
And guy, I totally get it that there's no perfect camera. I totally get that. I'm just trying to learn from you all (very effectively) what other options were out there that could compeat with the Chamonix F2 in terms of it's capabilities, weight, movements, quality....
Through this crew of participants, I have come up with two good answers: the Arca-Swiss F-Line and Linhof Technikardan.
I think I may have found the F-Line at a good price.
Is the F-Line there perfect camera? No. It has a bigger footprint in a backpack, its heavier and to achieve the same bellows range of lenses with good movements actually requires two sets of bellows (wide and standard).
But, there are advantages too.
Thanks for the help figuring it all out.
Is the F-Line there perfect camera? No. It has a bigger footprint in a backpack, its heavier and to achieve the same bellows range of lenses with good movements actually requires two sets of bellows (wide and standard).
But, there are advantages too.
Before I bought Chamonix F2 as an entry to 4x5, I was aiming at Arca Swiss F-line too. After navigating scarce - I am in the EU - second hand offers that all had some caveats I came to a conclusion that Arca is rather for pros and/or someone who is really in the budget to configure and buy it NEW and has good reasons to carry more bulk/weight. It has fantastic modular concept and selection of accessories, but everything is kind of a bit too beefy on the cost side. I thought, why bother if Chamonix is so accessible and - as you pointed out - lighter and more universal?
I went for the Chamonix and I love it. The biggest - and possibly the only - issue with it I see is fiddly front swing/shift movements fixed by one knob, but hey, that's where weight saving is coming from.
esearing
20-Dec-2020, 05:27
Love my Chamonix N2 and have been pleased with it enough to buy a new 5x12 from them. I like that I can put a 65mm lens on it without a recessed board. Can't do that with many of the wooden 4x5s. I like it for its simplicity, but changing lenses between the different mount holes is sometimes a pain and leads me to sometimes work with just one lens. I often forget I can slide the rear standard to go between two close lens sizes like 90 and 135.
If budget is not a problem and you will own this for many years you might also consider an Ebony 4x5. The two I have seen/handled show great quality in construction and design. It has more knobs and is heavier than the Chamonix models. Because of their price point they are easy to buy but harder to sell at full value.
the Nagaoka/Ikeda Anba lines are inexpensive light weight options if you don't mind small knobs and limited extension. There seems to be differences of opinion in how tightly these can be locked down but I had no issues with that, however I tend to shoot wide lightweight lenses rather than long and heavy. I would buy one of these before considering an Intrepid.
Canham cameras. They have many desirable features and a variety of models. Keith is still in business and from what I have seen provides excellent service .
speedfreak
30-Dec-2020, 23:29
Hey Adam... my biggest advice with all these cameras is to mount all your current lenses in linhof-style lens boards. Seems trivial but hear me out...
I’ve found that through the years with MANY different cameras, once I had a camera that took the linhof style boards it was easy to change up cameras if I so desired. Choose a camera that takes the boards natively (Linhof, Chamomix, Shen Hao, some Toyos, etc.) or buy a relatively cheap adapter for whatever camera you’re working with at the time.
Really, what ever you buy is going to be used, so it’s pretty damn easy to sell it for about the same price that you bought it at. If you don’t like the Chamonix or the Arca or the Linhof, no problem, move it along and try a different camera.
Photography is about so many different things and there’s no doubt, the GEAR aspect is big for some people. I, for one, love all the engineering beauty of these large format cameras and look forward to the day when there’s a package on the porch with a new toy to enjoy.
There really is no universally perfect camera. They all have trade offs. Try ‘em all. Having your lenses on the most common boards makes this super easy and it’ll help you to feel that this isn't such a huge decsion.
Also, I might be interested in moving along my Cham if interested...give me a ring.
sperdynamite
31-Dec-2020, 08:23
YES!! That's the whole point of this thread!!!
I'm looking for an alternative or a better option than the Chamonix F2.
So far, the ones that have caught my eye are the Arca-Swiss F-Line and the Linhof Technikardan.
I'll check into Gibellini now. Thanks!!
NEVER EVER buy a Gibellini! There are a few threads here with horror stories including my own. Their designs look nice but they make incredibly shoddy products. My 8x10 had light leaks from day one and it required multiple trips to the factory to fix it. It took me a year from my purchase date to have a working camera. I sold it as soon as the misery was over and got a Chamonix 810V.
NEVER EVER buy a Gibellini! There are a few threads here with horror stories including my own. Their designs look nice but they make incredibly shoddy products. My 8x10 had light leaks from day one and it required multiple trips to the factory to fix it. It took me a year from my purchase date to have a working camera. I sold it as soon as the misery was over and got a Chamonix 810V.
Thanks for that!
UPDATE:
I just took delivery of my new 4x5 camera (actually a used one):
Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171
I needed to change out my head as well, but that was a double bonus as it's an Arca-Swiss Z1 (my digital likes it too). It's a pretty nice rig now. I've already got to play with the MicroOrbix front tilt mechanism. Super slick. I was kinda weird to focus and tilt only once and the far/near points remained in focus. No back and forth tweaking.
Should be fun. This thread was a real help in deciding. Rod Klukas has me all set up now!!
Gotta shoot now....
Thanks all. Happy New Year!!!
Adam
Looks very sturdy and precise, congrats and thanks for sharing!
Interesting thread and timely for me, since I am looking to buy my first ever 8x10 camera. I am leaning toward Arca-Swiss F Metric for its precision controls but Chamonix Alpinist also seems attractive due to its weight.
So I don't have a lot of experience here, but if the Arca-Swiss camera has the MicroOrbix then, to me, that's worth the Arca-Swiss, period.
Being able to focus tilt ONCE is Soooo nice. I really love that part. I focus on the far, MicroOrbix tilt for the near and it's done. The focus remains set for the far. Then I note my rear standard location and then focus for the mid-ground point. Split the difference and stop accordingly. It is SO much faster than I'm used to. The precision controls of the Arca-Swiss is really nice, but I think lots of cameras might be as precise or just as good. But no one else has MicroOrbix!! To me that's the compelling case for an AS camera.
Then, if you don't use front tilt.....the benefits are diminished.
And yes, this thread has been really good!!
The orbix feature is the main attraction for me. Also the fact that movements are geared is something I value.
Thats what I am leaning towards.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 05:40
The MicroOrbix sounds like asymmetrical tilting which I have on the rear standard of my Chamonix 45H-1. Unfortunately, there are no gears. So the tilt adjustment is a little rougher.
Oslolens
6-Jan-2021, 06:11
---
lenicolas
6-Jan-2021, 06:36
The MicroOrbix sounds like asymmetrical tilting which I have on the rear standard of my Chamonix 45H-1. Unfortunately, there are no gears. So the tilt adjustment is a little rougher.
And and off the top of my head so do the Chamonix F cameras, Ebony U cameras, and the Sinar P...
Drew Wiley
6-Jan-2021, 10:29
All kinds of studio monorail cameras had it once certain Sinar patents expired. Having shot a variety of Sinar cameras for decades, I don't pay any attention to that feature.
Bernice Loui
6-Jan-2021, 10:40
Pretty much..
The geared Sinar P "asymmetrical" tilt / swing feature is quick and handy in studio for reducing setting up camera movements. For the majority of view camera situations that do not demand rapid camera movement set ups.. that feature is not really needed at all. Nice very convenience feature, yes. makes a difference in the finished image, no.. if the photographer fully understands how camera movements affect the image and skilled at applying them as needed.
Bernice
All kinds of studio monorail cameras had it once certain Sinar patents expired. Having shot a variety of Sinar cameras for decades, I don't pay any attention to that feature.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 11:24
It hardly makes sense spending serious extra money to get a modern lightweight view camera and then put a big heavy lens on it, unless one just happens to already own that lens and overall weight is not actually a priority.
A Chamonix in 4x5 is $1300 or so, much less than other new cameras.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 11:25
Of course, I have your Nikor 90mm which is a beast.
Drew Wiley
6-Jan-2021, 12:24
Asymmetrical controls are wonderful in production tabletop studio applications, including cuisine photography. I once did a bit of tabletop, and learned how these things work, but promptly forgot it all afterwards, even with respect to architectural photography, because it was something I never used since. In fact, my favorite Sinar is the Norma, which predates this feature. Out in the field, truly flat planes are close to nonexistent, at least anywhere west of Denver!
Drew Wiley
6-Jan-2021, 12:35
Alan, that big 90 sits close in, unlike a heavy long lens at full bellows extension, so is relatively easy to stabilize despite the weight. If it were something like a big 300/f 5.6 plastmat in big no.3 shutter, way out there, there would be much greater risk of vibration. Of course, some of the added weight is due to the center filter. Since I didn't have any vibration problem with it on my little Ebony folder, which is just as light as a Chamonix, I figured you wouldn't have any issue either. But whether you like that particular angle of view or not is more a personal subjective decision. You have implied you might gravitate toward something even shorter like a 75. I simply can't accommodate anything shorter unless I use my Sinar system and bag bellows. But my days of photographing architectural interiors are over. Now its all personal work.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 13:40
Drew, My Chamonix has a modified bag bellows. The 90mm is a tight fit inside especially when I close up the bellows. . I haven't shot enough to know if there are vignetting problems. The problem I also have is I need to buy new filters as the center filter takes a 105mm. I haven't bitten the bullet on that yet. The funny thing is I've been pulling out the 75mm mainly for the wide angle views I wanted.
Drew Wiley
6-Jan-2021, 14:25
You don't need 105 mm filters. Circular 82mm contrast filters between the CF and the lens work just fine.
Bob Salomon
6-Jan-2021, 14:35
You don't need 105 mm filters. Circular 82mm contrast filters between the CF and the lens work just fine.
Filters should never be mounted between a lens and a cf. the center filter belongs directly on the lens. Unless you don’t want the cf to have the proper effect.
Drew Wiley
6-Jan-2021, 14:53
I knew you'd contradict that, Bob. But not only did I do a lot of expensive commercial shoots that way, but have made extremely detailed 30X40 inch Cibachrome enlargements of such shots - a far higher standard than any magazine cover. I thoroughly tested for this, with a whole range of filters, obtaining edge to edge consistent densitometer readings of the film itself with respect to the SW Nikkor 90. In fact, in the case of the Schneider 120/8 SA, which the same filter was engineering for, you CAN'T apply the CF directly onto the lens, or the slightly bulging front element will actually rub a bit. Either a supplemental spacer rings of intervening filter must be used, or you risk damage to both.
Bob Salomon
6-Jan-2021, 15:05
I knew you'd contradict that, Bob. But not only did I do a lot of expensive commercial shoots that way, but have made extremely detailed 30X40 inch Cibachrome enlargements of such shots - a far higher standard than any magazine cover. I thoroughly tested for this, with a whole range of filters, obtaining edge to edge consistent densitometer readings of the film itself with respect to the SW Nikkor 90. In fact, in the case of the Schneider 120/8 SA, which the same filter was engineering for, you CAN'T apply the CF directly onto the lens, or the slightly bulging front element will actually rub a bit. Either a supplemental spacer rings of intervening filter must be used, or you risk damage to both.
Drew, the manufacturers state that the cf goes directly on the lens. If you want to do things the wrong way feel free. But don’t tell others to follow bad advice.
Drew Wiley
6-Jan-2021, 16:04
Read the "fine print" on that particular Schneider lens, Bob. I was following official specifications!!! The rest was completely tested, no guesswork. So I can most certainly tell people what I know to be true. You don't speak for all the manufacturers by any means, esp in the case where one of them doesn't even make their own CF's, and one has to improvise.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 19:21
You don't need 105 mm filters. Circular 82mm contrast filters between the CF and the lens work just fine.
Someone was saying it should be after the CF. I forget the reason. Possible vignetting? Changing the coverage of the CF?
In any case, I still would need larger filters. With my other lenses, I use my existing 77mm filters from the medium format kit.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 19:30
Someone was saying it should be after the CF. I forget the reason. Possible vignetting? Changing the coverage of the CF?
In any case, I still would need larger filters. With my other lenses, I use my existing 77mm filters from the medium format kit.
Oops. I should have read the rest of the posts before responding. It looks like I stepped into a hornet's nest. I don't want to take sides because I don't know enough about this stuff. But let me ask a question. The lens is a Nikor 90mm but the CF is a Schneider made for Schneider lenses. So would the specifications of the Schneider CF actually meet all the requirements of another manufacturer's lens in any case. Isn't all the compensating for dropoff essentially approximate for a different lens?
My other concern is vignetting? Is it more probable one way or the other?
The other issue I have is using grad ND filters. Wouldn't I still need a GND filter kit over 105mm?
More CF confusion? Well you've already sprung for the big 82mm filter fast 90mm so 77mm filters won't work anyway. If you wanted to keep to 77mm an f/8 lens and less worrying about a small amount of fall-off in most cases would've been the way to go...but I repeat myself.
PS: I've used 82-77mm step-DOWN filters on lenses to use 77mm filters, obviously compromising image circle. Which IMO is not a big deal in most situations.
Bernice Loui
6-Jan-2021, 19:47
Have a CF for the 75mm f4.5 Grandagon, never used it. IMO, for the majority of B&W prints, a CF is not needed.
The 72mm Super Angulon XL on 5x7 is very often more than ok with no CF for B&W prints.
For color transparencies, the need for a CF can be very real. It does depend on image goals and how the specific WA lens is used.
Before contorting over the need for a CF, do some real world image making before diving off that cliff. There is no simple or general answer to this question.
Bernice
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 20:25
Have a CF for the 75mm f4.5 Grandagon, never used it. IMO, for the majority of B&W prints, a CF is not needed.
The 72mm Super Angulon XL on 5x7 is very often more than ok with no CF for B&W prints.
For color transparencies, the need for a CF can be very real. It does depend on image goals and how the specific WA lens is used.
Before contorting over the need for a CF, do some real world image making before diving off that cliff. There is no simple or general answer to this question.
Bernice
Here are three Velvia 50 chromes with the 75mm. There was a little cropping from the sides. What do you think of the vignetting? It should be less with the 90mm.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=75mm&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1
I can't show any pictures with the 90mm or any BW with the 75mm which is why I haven't decided on what to do with filters. I don't have enough experience under my belt with 90mm, 75mm, or frankly 4x5. So I don't want to spend any more money until I figure it out.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 20:28
Disregard the first Velvia with all the blue skies. I added vignetting when I editted.
Alan Klein
6-Jan-2021, 20:32
Here's what that first one looked like scanned before editing.
Kiwi7475
6-Jan-2021, 23:03
It’s a matter of taste but for these type of pictures that you posted, I really don’t see the need for a CF.
The fact that you added vignetting to one of them is actually telling, isn’t it, that you don’t mind even a larger effect than what the uncorrected exposure introduces.
Alan Klein
7-Jan-2021, 08:13
It’s a matter of taste but for these type of pictures that you posted, I really don’t see the need for a CF.
The fact that you added vignetting to one of them is actually telling, isn’t it, that you don’t mind even a larger effect than what the uncorrected exposure introduces.
Yes, I noticed that. But I usually don't vignette my shots deliberately. But since it was there anyway, I decided to use the effect. But you're right. That's why I haven't bought a CF for the 75mm. I can still can use my other filters with it. Nor have I bought a set of larger contrast, GND or polarizing pictures for my larger sized 90mm where I have a CF. I just don't know enough of what I want to do yet to make a decision. I may get rid of the 90mm and just keep the 75mm. I'm too new to 4x5 photography. I haven't shot enough yet to see what I like or what works for me.
Kiwi7475
7-Jan-2021, 10:23
Yes, I noticed that. But I usually don't vignette my shots deliberately. But since it was there anyway, I decided to use the effect. But you're right. That's why I haven't bought a CF for the 75mm. I can still can use my other filters with it. Nor have I bought a set of larger contrast, GND or polarizing pictures for my larger sized 90mm where I have a CF. I just don't know enough of what I want to do yet to make a decision. I may get rid of the 90mm and just keep the 75mm. I'm too new to 4x5 photography. I haven't shot enough yet to see what I like or what works for me.
So in short I think you would agree that you should not be too concerned about making getting a cf a top priority. Keep shooting and then see if at some point you hit a point where you see by yourself that you need a filter. Right it doesn’t look like it but your style/subject may evolve. But at this point I wouldn’t sweat it given the investment.
Another option is to keep an eye for them, and jump on one if you see a really good deal. Otherwise you’d have to pay top dollar for them if you can’t afford to wait.
Alan Klein
7-Jan-2021, 18:13
So in short I think you would agree that you should not be too concerned about making getting a cf a top priority. Keep shooting and then see if at some point you hit a point where you see by yourself that you need a filter. Right it doesn’t look like it but your style/subject may evolve. But at this point I wouldn’t sweat it given the investment.
Another option is to keep an eye for them, and jump on one if you see a really good deal. Otherwise you’d have to pay top dollar for them if you can’t afford to wait.
Thanks for the advice; pretty much what I'm doing. Waiting.
I don’t see the problem anyway, because what’s your end product? Just the Velvia 50? I doubt that. You will mostly make a scan from it, won’t you? In that case you can easily postprocess with the vignetting slide.
Alan Klein
9-Jan-2021, 09:23
I don’t see the problem anyway, because what’s your end product? Just the Velvia 50? I doubt that. You will mostly make a scan from it, won’t you? In that case you can easily postprocess with the vignetting slide.
So what your suggesting is that I use reverse vignetting in Lightroom to lighten the darker edges caused by falloff? Are there any downsides in processing this way? Is there a way to determine an exact setting or do you just go by eye?
Kiwi7475
9-Jan-2021, 12:45
So what your suggesting is that I use reverse vignetting in Lightroom to lighten the darker edges caused by falloff? Are there any downsides in processing this way? Is there a way to determine an exact setting or do you just go by eye?
There’s no downside provided the areas are still within the linear range of the film, otherwise if too dark it will become a nasty gray or show some color shift because the original color has shifted in the under exposure.
There’s no real way to automate this that I know of, since you may have different raise/fall photo to photo.
Also forget it if you use swings or tilts as the circle becomes something else altogether.
Bob Salomon
9-Jan-2021, 13:50
There’s no downside provided the areas are still within the linear range of the film, otherwise if too dark it will become a nasty gray or show some color shift because the original color has shifted in the under exposure.
There’s no real way to automate this that I know of, since you may have different raise/fall photo to photo.
Also forget it if you use swings or tilts as the circle becomes something else altogether.
Much better to use the center filter. Plus it saves a lot of computer time!
It's one slider in Lightroom, if you choose to try it out. Of course as mentioned it also depends on movements applied, but you can also de-center it in Lightroom as well. I would say 20-30 seconds of time to do max.
Drew Wiley
9-Jan-2021, 15:50
Color shift in the corners is inevitable with a film of that high a contrast. Whether that looks attractive or doesn't all depends. It might be better to just let the falloff go toward black if a CF isn't used. Velvia ain't very forgiving!
Much better to use the center filter. Plus it saves a lot of computer time!
In an ideal situation - yes. But in practice, especially with outdoor photography it all depends.
You will have to :
* Spend pretty $$ that otherwise could be used for more essential things.
* Have the filter along with already bunch of other stuff with you all the time
* Have it properly packed or it will be destroyed quickly. Means more weigh and bulk to carry
* Have it always in decent shape (clean) otherwise it it will reduce the contrast and or introduce flare (maintenance cost, including time)
* Have the time to apply it . Adds to the already long setup times and increases the risk of losing the opportunity.
* Have to remember to adjust your exposure time . Also adds to the risk of not getting the picture and wasting film.
Bob Salomon
9-Jan-2021, 18:36
In an ideal situation - yes. But in practice, especially with outdoor photography it all depends.
You will have to :
* Spend pretty $$ that otherwise could be used for more essential things.
* Have the filter along with already bunch of other stuff with you all the time
* Have it properly packed or it will be destroyed quickly. Means more weigh and bulk to carry
* Have it always in decent shape (clean) otherwise it it will reduce the contrast and or introduce flare (maintenance cost, including time)
* Have the time to apply it . Adds to the already long setup times and increases the risk of losing the opportunity.
* Have to remember to adjust your exposure time . Also adds to the risk of not getting the picture and wasting film.
This is ridiculous. You can leave it on the lens all the time and eliminate many of your steps. It is no more difficult to clean it then to clean the front of your lens. It adds minimal weight. It saves time and frustration trying to correct the falloff afterward, etc., etc.. and using a filter factor is a trivial matter for any experienced photographer. If necessary, write the factor on a piece of tape, and apply it to the front of the lens cap as a reminder.
It's one slider in Lightroom, if you choose to try it out. Of course as mentioned it also depends on movements applied, but you can also de-center it in Lightroom as well. I would say 20-30 seconds of time to do max.
+1, mostly 3 seconds actually. That is way less than judging your image with centre filter on your groundglass. Of course if you work with color or B&W negative and work purely analogue from start to finish it’s a different thing. But I do not see Alan analogue color printing yet and with positive film I do not see the advantage. My experience with centre filters is that it is not as predictable as it seems, especially in 6x17 it was often a disappointment for me. In Adams’ work we can see that a little vignetting in the final printing contributes to the expression of the image. But of course, this is something else as advertising, packshots and other commercial work. But analogue working in that realm belongs to the past.
In the meantime we have become completely off topic
This is ridiculous. You can leave it on the lens all the time and eliminate many of your steps. It is no more difficult to clean it then to clean the front of your lens. It adds minimal weight. It saves time and frustration trying to correct the falloff afterward, etc., etc.. and using a filter factor is a trivial matter for any experienced photographer. If necessary, write the factor on a piece of tape, and apply it to the front of the lens cap as a reminder.
Well, I sold mine ----I seldom needed it and agree with Sergey T
fotopfw
10-Jan-2021, 03:57
If you're looking at Arca Swiss Orbital, you might as well consider Sinar. I love the geared yaw free focusing over a plane of the Sinar P2.
Heavy, but it doesn't stop me from walking fair distances with it, with a cart.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.