Schneider APO-Tele Xenar HM 800 f/12?

[carterwj]

Does anyone have experience with Schneider APO-Tele Xenar HM 800 f/12? Looks like a nice telephoto for 8X10, but it is quite expensive. About 14K. Not anytime soon, but I would like to learn more about this. I have experience with non APO telephotos in medium format. Specifically I mean the 250 mm lens for the Mamiya RZ system. Images from the 250 mm lacked snap and seemed poorly focused compared to my shorter focal length lenses for that same camera. Not surprisingly Mamiya came out with an APO version of the 250 mm. So I am going to be particularly careful before getting a telephoto for 8X10. I am interested in any opinions, not only about the subject lens, but also APO vs NON APO telephotos in general.

[Mark Sampson]

At that list price, I imagine that very few of those lenses have been made. So finding a user's perspective may be difficult... but who knows? Perhaps someone here will share their experience.
Purely guesswork here, but I suspect that Schneider will have done a good job with such a premium optic.

[Bernice Loui]

Optical performance limited by the film flatness of 8x10 (always a serious issue), then diffraction limits at f22 and smaller apertures. Uber high contrast can be achieved via modern multi-coatings.. all of which will NOT make the 8x10 image magical. BTW, 8x10 not ideal at all for longer than normal focal lengths for a very long list of facts imposed by the way Nature is.

All that plus cost is likely why few were sold.



Berncie

[LabRat]

Optical performance limited by the film flatness of 8x10 (always a serious issue), then diffraction limits at f22 and smaller apertures. Uber high contrast can be achieved via modern multi-coatings.. all of which will NOT make the 8x10 image magical. BTW, 8x10 not ideal at all for longer than normal focal lengths for a very long list of facts imposed by the way Nature is.

All that plus cost is likely why few were sold.



Berncie

That, and good 'ole atmospherics for long lenses...

Think of air like it is a "liquid", and is clear when still, but when disturbed it ripples like the surface of a pond etc distorting an image...

Air is in constant motion, and if disturbed enough, it causes refraction blurring detail... From early in the day when there might be an equilibrium, the sun causes heating which causes air to rise, causing refraction... Other air masses collide causing disturbances... There might be a period of equilibrium after sunset when objects stop cooling, but the upper night air can be disturbed (stars "sparkle" in the sky)... So the air limits resolution...

Then there's a slight breeze that induces vibration to camera rig to slightly shake that large camera...

A good primer for long lens use for terrestrial photography would be to use a telescope or strong binoculars during day time to see how the atmosphere behaves during your viewing session...

Not impossible, but can be difficult...

Steve K

[Eric Leppanen]

Here is a review I wrote back in the day regarding the APO Tele Xenar HM's successor product:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?15330-Schneider-APO-Tele-Xenar-600-800mm-Convertible

And here is a more recent post I wrote about long lens LF photography:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?141066-Sinar-P2-8x10-600-1200mm-realistic-for-outdoor-photography&p=1405066&viewfull=1#post1405066

Eventually, due to the resolution-killing challenges of camera stability and atmospheric dust/haze/convection, I reluctantly gave up on 8x10 long lens photography and switched to smaller formats for long focal lengths.

In the world of recent vintage LF lenses, I've been hard pressed to see any practical differences due to APO vs. non-APO.

[carterwj]

OK. Thanks everyone for the input. It sounds like anything longer than a standard lens is not good for 8X10. I had someone knowledgeable about LF tell me that there is a practical limit to the distance between the standards. Not sure what that means. From my Navy Nuke days it makes me think of PRIME STANDARS (i.e., calibration sources). Does it mean the distance between the lens and the film plane? This discussion about air turbulence within the bellows makes supports that. I think shooting on a cold day in the twilight / dusk hours (without solar heating) might mitigate this problem. Also allowing the camera and lenses to come to thermal equilibrium with the environment might help (i.e., leaving the camera and lenses out all night prior to morning shooting Or perhaps another fluid inside the bellows with a much lower Reynolds number (such as hydrogen) might be better than air. Then again I can see issues with trying to implement that. Probably best to refrain from smoking near the Camera. Can anyone expand on distance between prime issues?

[LabRat]

Not much issue within camera, but the stuff in the sea of air hundreds of yards to miles to infinity means you have to shoot through that...

Telescopes can fog, and heat can move through imaging space, but worse than in a camera...

Steve K

[Dan Fromm]

OK. Thanks everyone for the input. It sounds like anything longer than a standard lens is not good for 8X10. I had someone knowledgeable about LF tell me that there is a practical limit to the distance between the standards. Not sure what that means. ... Also allowing the camera and lenses to come to thermal equilibrium with the environment might help (i.e., leaving the camera and lenses out all night prior to morning shooting Or perhaps another fluid inside the bellows with a much lower Reynolds number (such as hydrogen) might be better than air. Then again I can see issues with trying to implement that. Probably best to refrain from smoking near the Camera.

Hmm. OP, I see that the nattering nabobs of negativism have got to you.

If there is a practical limit to the distance between standards, it is set by bellows sag. The standard solution is to use intermediate standard(s) to support several shorter bellows. Another solution is to add support loops to the upper edges of the bellows' pleats and run a support rod through them.

A number of photographers -- the late Joerg Krusche comes to mind -- have used quite long process lenses successfully out of doors. They used a variety of ways to support their cameras. Several tripods, a single tripod with Manfrotto Magic Arms (I hope I got the name right), ... Remember, for the same focused distance process lenses require more extension than telephotos of the same focal length.

Get the longest process lens you can afford, find a way to add enough extension to your camera -- it doesn't have to be 8x10. Although 8x10 is more difficult than 4x5, "bad air's" effects depend much more on focal length than on format. -- and go play.

[Daniel Unkefer]

A good primer for long lens use for terrestrial photography would be to use a telescope or strong binoculars during day time to see how the atmosphere behaves during your viewing session... Not impossible, but can be difficult... Steve K


In his legendary book "New York" by Reinhart Wolf, it is mentioned that he used a good pair of binoculars to pick his subjects. Yes!

Then he set up his Sinar 8x10 Norma with 1000mm Apo Ronar

I have a 760mm f14 Apo Ronar I bought years ago from JimmyA at MPX. Cost $200 Happy-Happy

Much smaller and lighter than the F9 Dialytes

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 is simply difficult in so many ways to achieve GOOD image results. Much of the problem is rooted in the innate film size which places extreme demands on lens focal length, camera capability and it's support system.

There appears to be a populous Foto fashion belief 8x10 is the Ultimate Film Camera endeavor and means to the ultimate image, this is absolutely and completely false as each and every image recording format be it digital, cell-phone or film has good and bad completely dependent on the image goals of the creative artist.

As for longer than normal focal lengths for view camera, tele photo design lenses aid in reducing bellows/camera extension by optical design. While the last generation of view camera lenses made such as the Schneider APO-Tele Xenar HM are optically excellent in many ways, they cannot violate the way Nature IS.
That said, the APO label on many modern lenses have become a marketing moniker to project this lens is better and greater than your lens.. Except in real world image making, too many other factors negate this potential lens design "advantage". Add to this, the point of reference for "APO" varies and is not a term with unified agreement among all involved.

That said, "APO" process lenses (APO ronar, APO artar, APO nikkor, APO saphir, and ...) make excellent longer than normal focal length lenses and macro to life size 1:1) or larger image ratios.

Have a look at this Sinar camera set up on a granite table to assure stability and reduction vibration.
220119\

This set up with a Sinar which is modular and can be configured with ease to support the demands of the lens is what would be required to achieve what the longer than normal focal length lens demands. Portability, light weight and many of the highly valued current fashion of view cameras will never apply.

Another example with the Sinar bits available here, this was a quick lash-up example done some time ago.
220120

Smaller sheet film format is an absolute plus if really long focal length lenses are required.

As for real world tele images, seriously consider any of the Canon "L" lenses with fluorite such as the 300mm f2.8. This classic Canon tele remains one of the prime work-horse lenses for sports to wildlife to BIG production cinema. The images the Canon 300mm f2.8 is capable of exceeded the capability of any view camera telephoto lens, camera and set up.


Bernice

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51338855322_a186fe19ac_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mdD44Y)8x10 Sinar Norma Long Apo Ronar 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2mdD44Y) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Camera Bellows made me the Norma 453.18 "Special Bellows" 5x7 to 8x10 shorty bellows. Listed in the Norma catalog (Bernice posted a Sinar comment on it ^^^), never seen one in decent shape -ever.- So I had Keith build me one to catalog specs. Going to the 5x7 Intermediate Standard in the middle adds a lot of stability to this setup. As does the Plaubel Peco Profia Camera Stand.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, how do you manage the stand in the field?

[Daniel Unkefer]

Dan, how do you manage the stand in the field?

Dan,

Obviously I don't take it out in the field :) It stays in the studio

I have multiple FOBA C40 tripods which were designed for the 8x10 Sinar Norma. These work well to support the big rig

[abruzzi]

another lens to consider are the Nikkor 600/800/1200 tele set. Much cheaper than $14k, even for a complete set. They are tele lenses, so you'll need less bellows (the 800 takes about 530mm at infinity.) On the negative side, according to the data sheet, you won't have any image circle for movements. I've never used one, so I can't comment in the image quality, but their smaller tele set (360/500/720) can look quite nice on 4x5.

[Drew Wiley]

Isn't the lens in question a heavy monster? 95% of the 8x10 shots I take are with distinctly longer than "normal" lenses, and the acuity of the images doesn't suffer one whit due to that. But I don't use teles, and I do use precise adhesive filmholders when a significant degree of enlargement might be in play. Dealing with depth of field issues logistically is somewhat different than with 4x5 cameras, even though identical movement options are used. So it might take awhile learning how to efficiently compose similar narrow long perspectives with an 8x10 system instead.

Now for that other nonsense claim of Bernice. 8x10 film has 60 times the surface area as 35mm. So it would take one helluva incredibly lousy lens on an 8x10 to fall behind the very best 35mm tele lens one could buy. A big magnification for 35mm is the size of a postcard. A comparable magnification for 8x10 would be the width of a typical room. The best tele-photographer I have ever known, technique wise, used a big 8x10 Toyo G camera and heavy tripod, a 360 Apo Nikkor process lens (which easily covers 8x10), and a Nikon camera on the film plane. That large image circle process lens actually gave better resolution than any dedicated Nikon lens. And he was at the time a specialized telescope and camera dealer, who had access to whatever he wanted.

Now as far as moving things like wildlife photography goes, well, just last week I took along my 4X5 Norma and a Ries tripod, which was just barely heavy enough not to become a kite in the constant winds above coastal cliffs. And I had to be very patient indeed to time split second exposures during those very brief moments when the gusts temporarily stopped, yet the pattern of waves below was just right too. Amazingly, these exposures came out totally crisp and unshaken. But I've got a lot of experience doing this; and an 8x10 is an even bigger kite, and especially hard to control with a long bellows extension. One can get a heart attack just worrying about the setup getting destabilized in the wind, and a very expensive lens getting damaged. But I have a method to my madness.

This week, however, I think I'll opt for the P67 once again instead. Faster to operate. Two weeks ago I used the 300EDIF with it - a superb lens that can upstage any 35mm tele. I don't give a damn about people rattling off MTF data to me. Even at 6 time the film surface area, rather than 15X or 60X, it's still a Godzilla versus Bambi contest. Size matters. But some people might want Godzilla himself along to help carry the bigger options.

[Bernice Loui]

Drew,

Grapenoccio...
220127


Canon 300mm f2.8 on canon DSLR.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Cute, but why is that toothpick nose growing so fast? I rarely shoot 35mm, but when I do almost always use just a classic Nikon 85/1.4, which is close range corrected; and I do have an auto extension ring for it. Fun for wildflowers and so forth. My most usable close up shots are actually on 8x10 film, because they're wonderful for big color prints. But I'm reverting back more to 4x5 simply because 8x10 color film has become so expensive, though I do still have a reasonable stash of it in the freezer. In terms of former print sales, it was all good. Certain tiny color prints from handheld 35mm closeup shots did well, but the big ones from 8x10 or 4x5 film did good too for another reason. But I haven't been printing much color at all during the covid era, just enough to use up some remaining paper. I don't want any more respiratory irritation at all, especially atop our noxious forest fire smoke epidemic, though it's nowhere near as bad here on the coast as last autumn. Mostly black and white. How about you, Bernice?

[LabRat]

Drew,

Grapenoccio...
220127


Canon 300mm f2.8 on canon DSLR.


Bernice

Careful, he has a knife and a grin!!! Love him, wish I had him at work...:)


Tele work isn't impossible, but difficult to wait out conditions and have a camera rig stable enough to not sag and stay steady...

Much cheaper than this lens would be a camera with a long extension and long focus lenses... I think shooting long distance landscapes would be difficult with wind and air moving, but possible at rare moments... I'm setting up a long rig for city shooting when shooting architectural details, or when across a wide street and have to get up close (from far away)... I tend to shoot in the early evening or night while to air is steadier and get very good detail at distances (recent night shot of LA city hall from a 1/2 mile away, and you can count the bricks)... The 8X10 I'm restoring is rigid, long 27" bellows, and I have a
nice T/R 15/24/36" for it and 4X5 and 6x9 reduction backs for it to narrow the view... So will see how it works in the real world... ;-)

I still don't knock 35mm, and a "normal" lens for it is a good 300mm f5.6... If you treat it like a view camera set-up, especially process carefully, use a speciality enlarger (like a Leitz), I can blow up 11x14's that look like contact prints, and 16x20 or 20x24's that still look good... So not dead yet... ;-)

Steve K

[MAubrey]

Here's another vote for the Nikkor-T set instead. You'll get 90% of the quality of the Schneider APO with all of the same challenges! ;)

On image circle: you're already compromised on movements with a telephoto, so image circle already matters less, but I can say that whatever the IC is in terms of satisfactory resolution, the 800mm's IC isn't limited by black corners. I've used it (**gasp**) on 11x14. Whatever in the corners, it looks lovely in the majority 2/3s of the center image for both resolution and rendering.

[Drew Wiley]

I worry that Bernice has invented the "Chuckie" of the photographic world, sneaking around in your darkroom, until it suddenly pounces with that knife, and nothing can kill it in turn. I'm getting so anxious that I shine a flashlight into my enlarger bellows every time before I dare focus with it. I'm already too scared to ever use an 8x10 camera bellows again, since Bernice has already hinted how that doesn't particularly please him, especially for macro applications. Gotta be careful these days what you say on forums like these ... you can make enemies.

[John Layton]

...and what about that evil grapefruit with toothpick character - you think I'll ever set foot in the produce isle again? Not on your life!

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Dan, how do you manage the stand in the field?

+1 I wonder if its possible at all to make a decent picture with this 'monster' or else put: which picture requires all this stuff ;-)

[ic-racer]

which picture requires all this stuff ;-)

One can take a picture of anything that reflects or radiates light.

[Daniel Unkefer]

which picture requires all this stuff ;-)

How about these gorgeous examples by Master Photographer Reinhart Wolf? They required all this stuff :)

Very inspirational to me. SEE HERE:

https://www.google.com/search?q=reinhart+wolf+photography&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Rck44-FUvCYhWM%252CpmxrKZTmns_GbM%252C_%253BFbUMTVVTjfrAUM%252CjgxIAUIzz6VKmM%252C_%253B-_nfIZTd7BJdFM%252CjgxIAUIzz6VKmM%252C_%253BMxB8u2E5N8gYWM%252Cd8hRAdlbuwRFlM%252C_%253BWwuqChuhcoyZLM%252CjgxIAUIzz6VKmM%252C_%253BAkiy_EbqxngxJM%252Cd8hRAdlbuwRFlM%252C_%253BjBBg63kWULLEXM%252Cd8hRAdlbuwRFlM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSedteUutRjYMla9Bks1KdSMHSC-Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt79rehr7zAhW3nGoFHQmpBfUQ_B16BAg-EAE#imgrc=Rck44-FUvCYhWM

Here is his camera:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/310255861801546016/

[Bernice Loui]

600/800/1200 mm Tele Nikkor & 5x7 Sinar...
ATTACH=CONFIG]220254[/ATTACH]


Bernice




+1 I wonder if its possible at all to make a decent picture with this 'monster' or else put: which picture requires all this stuff ;-)

[Drew Wiley]

The nice thing about monorails is that you don't need a heavy monster tele lens. A few more inches of bellows extension and a process lens at the end weighs a lot less than a tele. The far bigger question is just finding atmospheric conditions clear enough, and devoid of heat waves, which warrant 8x10 over 4x5 in the first place. And enlarging something to merely the size of a magazine cover or page certainly doesn't begin to distinguish the difference!

[Daniel Unkefer]

Wolf's exhibit prints were quite large as seen here

https://www.artsy.net/show/taschen-reinhart-wolf-new-york

I have his books "New York" "Castles in Spain" and "Villas of the Venito".

All done 8x10 Sinar Norma occasionally 5x7 up to 1000mm.

Yesterday I printed a studio portrait test 20 inch 520mm on 4x5, visually like 1000mm on 8x10. Used the big camera stand

You should seek out his black and whites of Architecture in the Deep South done towards the end.

He was always a tour de force

[Drew Wiley]

I have often printed immaculate Cibas that big from both 4X5 and 8x10. There is ample real estate (surface area) with either format for more detail than the naked eye can even perceive. I don't use teles, but do use up to a Fuji 600C for 8x10, or often a 450C for 4x5, which is an equivalent perspective to 900mm in 8x10. Like I said, the weak link in long distance views per se is always the intervening atmosphere itself, not the limitation of modern optics or the detail capacity of modern film. With black and white film, haze can be cut through to a considerable extent with red filtration, of course. UV filters help only slightly with color film. And I use precision filmholders for 8x10. I have always gravitated toward longer focal lengths myself, but not necessarily the extremes. If you time it right, distant views in the high mountains can be especially rewarding. The past two years forest fire smoke everywhere has defeated nearly all of those particular opportunities. I was out with my Norma this afternoon; I love working with it.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

How about these gorgeous examples

..come on..that's a matter of taste really...
and if you want to just copy his set up, that might be a nice aim in itself, just to tryout...
...but I don't seem to get at what's really so cool about it....

btw I see quite a lot of these type of - no offence meant - 'technical pictures' on the German LF forum where there seem to be more users and lovers of these more modern camera's and its technicalities ;-)

[Bernice Loui]

Technical excellence alone is not enough to produce an expressive image. To achieve that demands technical excellence, creativity, artistic ability and LOTs more.

Two basic aspects of photography are technical / creative_artistic. Difficulty occurs when any given image maker/creator focuses excessively on one single aspect of the image making process believing that is THE means to the "perfect" image.. which does not result in the "perfect" image.


Bernice







..come on..that's a matter of taste really...
and if you want to just copy his set up, that might be a nice aim in itself, just to tryout...
...but I don't seem to get at what's really so cool about it....

btw I see quite a lot of these type of - no offence meant - 'technical pictures' on the German LF forum where there seem to be more users and lovers of these more modern camera's and its technicalities ;-)

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Technical excellence alone is not enough to produce an expressive image. To achieve that demands technical excellence, creativity, artistic ability and LOTs more.

Two basic aspects of photography are technical / creative_artistic. Difficulty occurs when any given image maker/creator focuses excessively on one single aspect of the image making process believing that is THE means to the "perfect" image.. which does not result in the "perfect" image.


Bernice

I can only agree to it all Bernice, very well said...
but that makes me the more curious about the ones made by mr. Unkefer himself, who showed us only his outstanding but somewhat bulky apparatus:
noblesse oblige!

[r.e.]

I wonder if its possible at all to make a decent picture with this 'monster' or else put: which picture requires all this stuff ;-)

Good question. A lot of the photographs of New York City are shot from Queens or Brooklyn across the Hudson River. To get the right camera height, they aren't done from the shoreline, either. It can take a pretty long lens. I want to shoot a photo of Manhattan from a quite elevated shopping centre parking lot in Queens. The lot is well back of the River. I'm hoping that a Fujinon C 600mm f/11.5, maybe in 4x5 rather than 8x10, will do the trick.

I have a home in the community in the attached photo. To shoot the photo, I had to go out to our lighthouse at the entrance to the harbour. I used a Mamiya 7II 6x7 with 150mm lens. Next spring, I want to make some photos, including photos that show only part of this scene, from the same spot with a 4x5 or 8x10 camera. Toyo's website says that in 8x10 I'd need a 600mm lens, such as the Fujinon C, to make the image shown in the photo. Not terribly hard to get a windless early morning, so I don't think that the bellows and shake will be a problem, but the tradeoff is often a wee bit of fog :)

Waterfront, low resolution 110kb version

220275

[Mark Sampson]

Well, you use the tools you need to achieve the picture you have in mind. If that means system monorail cameras and long lenses, tele or not, so be it. And if there are technical problems, hopefully you have the means and the will to surmount those.

I'm aware of the challenges of tele work in large format; for a while in the '90s I tried emulating Mr. Wolf's pictures of NYC. I rented a 500mm Nikkor-T and put it on my 4x5 Zone VI... results were variable at best, with some successes. But I lacked long-term access to both the city and access to the kind of vantage points that Wolf had, so the 'project' went nowhere, really. I'd still like to own a really long lens like that Nikkor, hasn't happened yet, but I do have ideas about pictures to be made... perhaps someday.

[Bernice Loui]

Different tools for different needs and goals.

LF tele is often technically challenging due to the physical size of the outfit. Add to this, stability of that outfit makes ALL the difference with image results. While telephoto design LF lenses DO aid by reducing the camera extension/bellows draw, trying to achieve a vibration free and stable set up with any LF tele outfit will always be a difficult challenge at best. This is one of the fundamental facts of why uber performance LF tele lenses are more "red hearing" than absolute image performance performance. Been there, done this with very mixed results over the decades of making LF images.

IMO, the better solution could be moving to a smaller image recording format. Of all the small format optics used over the decades, the Canon 300mm f2.8 remains one of the all time faves for tele images. Still heavy and bulky, this version offers image stabilization allowing slower shutter speeds to be used with good blur control. Full aperture of f2.8 aids lots in this as does a digital camera with very good low light performance. This allows making images not possible with any LF outfit. On flip, tele LF images can have a special and unique quality to them. Neither is better than the other, they are inherently different with both excellent and awful in their own ways..

In all cases be it 800mm + for LF or smaller image recorder devices/methods compression of atmospheric particles, lighting conditions and LOTs more WILL impact the image recorded in various ways.


220276


Another sample image.
220277




Bernice

[r.e.]

IMO, the better solution could be moving to a smaller image recording format.

Fuji's GFX digital medium format cameras are starting to look interesting. They've brought the cost of playing way down. These cameras are starting to be characterised as "large format", which may come from Fuji's marketing line "More Than Full Frame". I don't think that they're quite there, but the next generation may be very enticing.

[MAubrey]

I don't fully understand references to 300mm lenses for 35mm.

In terms of AoV, A 300mm f/2.8 for 35mm provides a different perspective that one might want an 800mm f/12 for 8x10. Something like a Sigma 105mm f/1.4 (or Otus 100mm f1.4 or Nikon 105mm f/1.4) both in terms of potential depth of field and angle of view.

[Bernice Loui]

AOV alone is not a good way to make lens focal length -vs- film/imager size as lens focal length remains the lens focal length.

Or the 800mm lens will always remain a 800mm lens, 105mm lens remains a 105mm lens with their innate difficulties/advantages. This is one of the many reasons why larger film/imagers are at a disadvantage for longer than normal or tele lenses. Or why the 300mm on "35mm" comparison or discussion.


Bernice



I don't fully understand references to 300mm lenses for 35mm.

In terms of AoV, A 300mm f/2.8 for 35mm provides a different perspective that one might want an 800mm f/12 for 8x10. Something like a Sigma 105mm f/1.4 (or Otus 100mm f1.4 or Nikon 105mm f/1.4) both in terms of potential depth of field and angle of view.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh gosh, long tele work, with respect to 4x5 format at least, was routine for people like Shirakawa under extreme conditions in multiple expeditions to the Himalayas and Karakorum. Vittoria Sella did it much larger format long before, and got that damn antique ULF camera to nearly 23,000 feet altitude once. And there are distinctly better ways to stabilize even a long monorail than that convoluted setup Wolf used, which would be hell to set up in difficult weather or terrain. That I can assert from ample real experience.

But I will admit that if I'm in a hurry or the wind is just so nasty that I'm worried about my LF gear not even surviving the session, and becoming a kite instead, I'll resort to my P67 with a 300EDIF instead. Still, there's nothing quite as satisfying as a long shot with LF to work with in the darkroom, with 8x10 being especially nice. I got away with several of those shots last week with my Norma and a solid Ries tripod in constant wind; completely loupe crisp. Took a lot of patience. A lighter field camera and CF tripod would have simply blown over repeatedly. I can't imagine risking an expensive MF digital camera under such circumstances, even if one of those ever does hypothetically come close to LF image quality. And C'mon, bringing in 35mm options into this conversation??? That's not apples versus oranges, but pineapples versus sesame seeds.

[r.e.]

I can't imagine risking an expensive MF digital camera under such circumstances, even if one of those ever does hypothetically come close to LF image quality.

Some may be interested in watching this July 2017 Luminous Landscape interview with Ed Burtynsky. He talks about his transition from 4x5 and 8x10 to medium format digital. He started in 2005, using both film and digital, and moved fully to digital in 2010. He thinks that a 60MP Hasselblad performs better than 4x5 film. When this interview took place, he had just acquired a 100MP Hasselblad and was hoping that it would match 8x10. It may be useful to know that Burtynsky is quite knowledgeable about image quality, having founded Toronto Image Works (https://www.torontoimageworks.com) in 1986. For a long time, Toronto Image Works was what made it financially possible for him to pursue photography.

Burtynksy also did an interview with PetaPixel (https://petapixel.com/2017/04/13/interview-edward-burtynsky/) in 2017 in which he said this:


"What I’m doing now is beyond 4×5 with the 60 megapixel. I would say the 60 put me in a 5×7 format, and the 100 will bring me to 8×10."

As I said in post #35, I'm interested in where Fuji is going with its GFX cameras. Burtynsky's views on medium format digital, in relation to Hasselblad at least, are what got me interested in these Fuji cameras.

If one wants context for the Luminous Landscape and PetaPixel interviews, The New Yorker published an essay on the projects that Burtynsky was working on at the time of these interviews, titled The Long View: Edward Burtynsky's quest to photograph a changing planet (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/19/edward-burtynskys-epic-landscapes)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2wylr3W65M


Note: while the Luminous Landscape interview was uploaded to YouTube in 2020, it was done in 2017.

[Drew Wiley]

I look at the results, not the name. Burtynsky is at liberty to toot his own horn, of course, but the whole topic goes way beyond pixels; and I know craftsmen way above his skill level and pay grade that can't begin to equal their own former 8x10 film results, or even 4x5, with any kind of digital capture. Burtynsky has an interesting manner of composition, and handles color quite well RELATIVE to a certain look he tries to achieve, which might be very different from one's own qualitative expectations. I hardly consider him the apogee of color printmaking skill; but he apparently gets what he needs. What might work better for him personally at the moment should not be taken as a rote prescription. Take it with a grain of salt. There are plenty of contradictory opinions to weigh if one is contemplating going down that same road - pros and cons every direction you look, with a LOT of money at stake, especially factoring just how much faster anything fragile and software dependent depreciates.

But if inkjet printing is the endpoint, that is the great equalizer in terms of a lower standard common denominator. I have a friend whose name I won't mention who chimes in (not here) with that same kind of line as Burtynsky - why? because he's paid to do so, even though to this day his digital prints, as good as they are, aren't equal to his own earlier darkroom color prints. Don't ever underestimate the incentive of endorsement rewards. It can be part of an overall business model. And note how people often change their tune depending on who is interviewing them - in this case, it's specifically a digital blurb. It's a game. One plays football with a football, and differently than basketball, if they want to succeed. But don't get fooled into thinking it's all the same game.

[r.e.]

Drew, I don't think that attacking Ed Burtynsky professionally, and asserting that he's a paid monkey, helps advance the discussion or enhances your own credibility. I don't even understand what would motivate you to write your post. You're just lashing out.

Ed Burtynsky doesn't need me to defend him, but I've met the man, he's a pleasure to deal with and open about sharing his expertise, and he gave me some very good advice. I have a lot of respect for him.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't try to intimidate me with ANYONE'S alleged reputation. I not green under the ears. And I'm not lashing out at all; what on earth makes you think that? Though not with respect photographic gear per se, I made my living as myself a gear guru involving top end equipment - entirely analogous. I know the ropes, know how to address different interests - not deceptively, but with respect to what certain people potentially need versus other parties - how to tailor equipment endorsements fairly, but deliberately not the always the same, because actual needs differ.

It is you who is attacking me for presuming I'm attacking Ed. Did I ever call him a "paid monkey" - don't put words in my mouth that I never used! Did I ever claim he was an unhelpful person? He would understandably take a certain viewpoint based on his own current taste and requirements; but extrapolating that into something generically "better" is outright nonsense. Better for what??? - that's the real question. For someone else, his personal choice might be a distinct step backwards. Just more blurb filler as far as I'm concerned, entirely predictable. And in a digital blurb, nobody is lingering there to learn traditional view camera skills, or else they wouldn't get sponsors trying to sell digital options instead. Common sense. Basic 101 marketing psychology. No crime; people need to make a living. But one doesn't advertise steak in an ice cream shop.

[MAubrey]

AOV alone is not a good way to make lens focal length -vs- film/imager size as lens focal length remains the lens focal length.

Or the 800mm lens will always remain a 800mm lens, 105mm lens remains a 105mm lens with their innate difficulties/advantages. This is one of the many reasons why larger film/imagers are at a disadvantage for longer than normal or tele lenses. Or why the 300mm on "35mm" comparison or discussion.


Bernice

Agreed! AOV alone is not a good way! Thankfully, that's not why I said what I said.

If your photographic vision for your composition requires a lens with an AOV of 23°, you're going to choose a lens with a specific focal length and a specific format. A 300mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D800 won't give you the image you're envisioning.

Sure, sometimes we take one lens out and we look for compositions that fit that lens. Other times we find compositions and come back with our cameras when the light is right with the specific lens and film format combo that gives us that. I certainly dont' want to force my experience on everyone else, but for me with large format, the latter is consistently what happens to me, not the former.

[pdmoylan]

It's difficult to judge anyone's work until you can see optimum prints, as that opinion has been established by many on this forum. Not having seen his work in person, I can only judge Burtynsky's work from afar, and though I don't "enjoy" most of his images due mostly to subject matter, he appears to have the means to take on many intensive, long-term, far flung projects with indulgent focus (not something most of us have the luxury to attempt), showing the industrial wasteland and its effects on the earth etc. I think his "switch" to digital is a matter of convenience in imaging the landscape from the air. He goes into depth about the limitations of LF to get proper focus, and ample shutter speeds, meaning shooting close to wide open with inherent falloff, edge/corner unsharpness etc. He is using the a 100MP Hasselblad from the air, and though he may be paid by that or other companies to promote their products, in reality I sympathize with his seeking better options to realize his objectives.

I actually like some of his LF personal landscape work he shot during the pandemic. 8x10 negative film, and honestly I cannot imagine how we can judge his prints of those images without seeing them firsthand.

A good friend and noteworthy landscape professional, Hans Strand, switched from 8x10 to MF digital, and though he doesn't boast about print quality of enlargements nor comparing it to film, he does speak about the flexibility of that format, and the TS converter which you can use on most lenses to allow front tilts etc. He like BUrtynsky has used the 100MP Hasselblad to shoot Rio Tinto landscapes with the color of poisons in water etc. I believe they both use stabilizers for Helicopter work and Hans tapes manual Zeiss lenses with his Nikon's at infinity to assure proper focus. Essentially the same technique,

I see no reason to speculate about endorsements etc. but some photographers stand out not just for their technical expertise, but because they have the financial means and focus to complete a series of visions, which becomes a focal point for viewers, where the concept meets skill. I see that same intensity in Hans.

I believe for his LF work, Burtynsky uses negative 8x10 film still. Whether he continues to use film is unclear. The exorbitant cost of color 8x10 film might be the deciding factor.

I know several in this forum have used the Nikkor 360/500/720 convertible lenses with great success, even at the longer end. Doable but with double tripods, heavy duty head, and extremely sturdy camera systems with hard locks.

[Drew Wiley]

My brother used gyro stabilizers in conjunction with a Super Technika 4x5 for aerial photography, even from badly vibrating helicopters. Needing to use a stack of regular sheet film holders is cumbersome. Of course, real aerial cameras have been around a long time, including 9x9 inch roll film versions. As I already hinted, someone's choice of MF digital instead of LF film is more likely a logistical workflow decision rather than something revolving around optimal print quality.

Burtynsky's color style is rather soft and evolved around the idiosyncrasies of color neg film, and he is on record as disliking greens and blues in his compositions; and traditional color neg film are quite poor at green reproduction. But maybe now he's expanding his color palette and needs an option to expensive chrome film and scanning. That's not a criticism at all, despite what some seem to be thinking. There's no crime in discussing personal style and how it often factors into equipment option.

As far as convertible lenses go, they're not apt to be in the same league optically as dedicated focal lengths, especially for color work. And as supporting long lenses go, there are certain ways to get around double tripods which are far more convenient and even more stable at the same time. But that's a different topic. I don't have 360/500/720 Nikkor teles, but optically way superior Apo Nikkor 360, 450, and 760 process lenses, all of which easily cover 8x10 format, and which of course all need full bellows extension. But for sake of backpack convenience, I prefer just to use 450 and 600 Fujinon C's (compact series) instead.

[Bob Salomon]

My brother used gyro stabilizers in conjunction with a Super Technika 4x5 for aerial photography, even from badly vibrating helicopters. Needing to use a stack of regular sheet film holders is cumbersome. Of course, real aerial camera have been around a long time, including 9x9 inch roll film versions. As I already hinted, someone's choice of MF digital instead is more likely a logistical workflow decision rather than something revolving around optimal print quality. Burtynsky's color style is rather soft and evolved around the idiosyncrasies of color neg film, and he is on record as disliking greens and blues in his compositions; but maybe now he's expanding his color palette and needs an option to expensive chrome film and scanning. That's not a criticism at all, despite what some seem to be thinking. There's no crime in discussing personal style and how it often factors into equipment option.

As far as convertible lenses go, they're not apt to be in the same league optically as dedicated focal lengths, especially for color work. And as supporting long lenses go, there are certain ways to get around double tripods which are far more convenient and even more stable at the same time. But that's a different topic. I don't have 360/500/720 Nikkor teles, but optically way superior Apo Nikkor 360, 450, and 760 process lenses, all of which easily cover 8x10 format, and which of course all need full bellows extension. But for sake of backpack convenience, I prefer just to use 450 and 600 Fujinon C's (compact series) instead.

But he could have easily put one of the LInhof 5” roll backs on his Super Technika, as long as it was no older then the IV.

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt he was budgeted for that, Bob. His Super was a V. He picked up a pilot's license and did a certain amount of personal aerial shooting. The Kenro gyro was rentable, and he used that mainly for paying commercial assignments of totally crisp 4X5 industrial shots where steel grids floors etc were constantly shaking due to all the big machinery around.
Helicopter work also needed a gyro, but not shots from airplanes.

Due to a heart condition, he was not licensed to fly unless another pilot was on board with him. But that turned out to be convenient if he wanted to do some shooting instead of being at the controls. Later in life I loaned him my Pentax 6x7, which was a lot more convenient for him when his eyesight began having artery-related issues.

[rawitz]

Does anyone have experience with Schneider APO-Tele Xenar HM 800 f/12? Looks like a nice telephoto for 8X10, but it is quite expensive. About 14K. Not anytime soon, but I would like to learn more about this. I have experience with non APO telephotos in medium format. Specifically I mean the 250 mm lens for the Mamiya RZ system. Images from the 250 mm lacked snap and seemed poorly focused compared to my shorter focal length lenses for that same camera. Not surprisingly Mamiya came out with an APO version of the 250 mm. So I am going to be particularly careful before getting a telephoto for 8X10. I am interested in any opinions, not only about the subject lens, but also APO vs NON APO telephotos in general.

Coming back to the initial question ...
I have (had) both the Apo Tele Xenar HM 800 and the Nikon Apo T 600/800 and worked with both. The main difference between both lenses is the ImageCircle: Tele Xenar is 500 mm (ULF) versus Nikon 320 mm (8x10).
That means if your are "limited" (?) to 8x10 the Nikon Lens is quite as good as the Scheider. Its more common on the second hand market and much cheaper. Interestingly the Nikon 800 setup even worked with my ULF 9x15 / 430mm IC for lighting-circle (not the 600mm setup!) with some image-detioriation to the corners (mainly: color fringing).
There was a later (about year 2000) Schneider Apo-Tele Xenar systemlens 600/800, with is/was (as a "Nikon copy") more compact, cheaper but also nearly 500 mm IC. But its even rarer now as the Xenar HM 800.
In my opinion the 800 Apo-Tele Xenar is the state of the art lens in nearly all optic-physical respects of this kind of lenses, but if you need it or can afford it is another question.
The comparison with apo-process-lenses from Schneider or Rodenstock in the same focal range is in my opionon a nogo. All process-lenses have to be stopped down to f22 for best performance. The Schneider Apo-Tele Xenar 800 HM has the best performance wide open at f12 and will only be stopped down for dept-of-field, as MTF-Curves and my personal experience proves.
I bet, that Andreas Feininger and Reinhart Wolf would have choosen this kind of lenses, if they had been available in there times.

regards Rainer

[nolindan]

Then there was Feininger who liked to take New York street scenes from New Jersey.

221508

[Drew Wiley]

It's a myth that all processes lenses have to be stopped down to f/22 for optimal performance. F/22 was just the common denominator graphics industry standard that specifications were given for. But that's not the same issue. And once VC movements are involved, all kinds of lenses have to be stopped down well below f/22 to get enough usable image circle anyway. But otherwise, a number of apo process lenses seem to be superbly correctly even by f/11. I have direct experience with f/9 Apo Nikkor 4-element process lenses and am completely confident stating this.

The best or most consistent extreme long view work I've ever seen used these, and not teles. Logistically, it's a tradeoff - Long focal length process lenses are relatively compact and lightwt, but you obviously need full bellows extension. Teles are bulky and heavy and potentially need an especially rigid front standard, and are more limited with respect to usable image circle; the nodal tilt point is also annoyingly forward of the lensboard; but you need less bellows.

Pricewise? ... In this case, a King's ransom versus maybe outright free is not an indicator of superior performance, just of current supply and demand realities.

[rawitz]

Then there was Feininger who liked to take New York street scenes from New Jersey.

221508

Hm, this setup doesn´t look very sturdy, isn´t it?

It´s also a myth, that these lenses are only used/needed for "exotic" usage.
For 8x10 a 800mm lens is only a portrait focal corresponding to 135mm SLR.
For my 9x15 it´s not even double standard focal-lens and so on ...

regards
Rainer

[nolindan]

... Hm, this setup doesn´t look very sturdy ...

But he got some marvelous photographs with it - https://www.moma.org/collection/works/50169

His liked the perspective as it showed the size of the buildings in their true relation to the steamships and the people and traffic on 42nd street.

[rawitz]

No discussion about the quality of his pictures.
I saw his NY-pics as a bloody young man and photobeginner in the 60th and they blew me away!
I suppose yours here is a "self-promotion" picture, not a picture in real work, which could not be done without a 3rd tripod at lens tip.

[nolindan]

I suppose [this is Feininger's] "self-promotion" picture, not a picture in real work, which could not be done without a 3rd tripod at lens tip.

I think you are right. I remember pictures of his camera with a more elaborate tripod setup. Taking pictures from the top of the basalt cliffs of the Hudson Palisades gave him a genuinely 'rock solid' foundation, as Sinar recommends when using 6 feet of extension rails. I'm sure Feininger had to wait for days and moments of no wind to keep the camera steady and to dramatize the smoke from the steamships as it hangs in the still air.

[Mark Sampson]

This thread does prove, sort of, that the internet works.
Long after the original poster puts up a question, someone with actual experience of the lens provides an answer.... despite everyone else's comments (including my own) and the inevitable thread drift.
Thank you rawitz!

[rawitz]

Then there was Feininger who liked to take New York street scenes from New Jersey.

221508

228176

... here my tribut to Feininger with my ApoTeleXenar 800 and Toyo 810m. The combination of lens and camera (I lent it) seems very sturdy that I want to show it for comments here. I made test pictures with 1/30sek on a normal (bit-)windy day without any further precaution and I will see the portra cnegs soon.

For the discussion about lens quality of the ATX800 and the Apo-process-lenses I found a valid MTV-spec for the ApoRonarCl800 and show it here for comparison to the ATX800.

228177


228178


As I can see the ApoRonar800 is a lens optimized for equal qualitiy over the whole IC, not for best sharpness. Specs here are for 1:1 and f32 and MTF 16l/mm, so we have to reduce specs for oo and more open f-stop.
The ATX800 is optimized for sharpness, f-wide open and f-22 (MTF 20l/mm) there is no difference, with some falldown for the radial resulution.
Hm, comparing this I prefer my ATX800 lens or the Nikkor ED 600/800/ (I have none any more for comparison and there are no MTV-specs).
What do you think?

regards
Rainer

[rawitz]

For the adventure of long-focal-lens I did a test with the ATX800 and Toyo M810 on a sunny morning with medium wind on a main-river-bridge to the Frankfurt skyline.
I made two shot that where sharp, but with a 20x loupe one was a bit sharper than the other and I show it here.

228428

228430

The last detail pic is left border 1/2 inch horizontally to filmsize 8x10 so you have to enlarge 20x from the size on your display for the real picture. I shot 1/125sek 16f on Fuji NPS400 C-41. No sharpening was made scanning (Epson V700 2400dpi) and post.

Doesnt look bad. But it will be an adventure to go out with 15kg and fight with camera stability, filmflatness, wind and heatwaves. The ATX800 and the Toyo M810 seem to be an ideal combination for that task, unfortunally I dont own a Toyo M810 (yet).

regards
Rainer

[rawitz]

I had the opportunity to shoot with a Toyo 810m and the Nikkor T ED 1200 combi. I tried to optimize my package and setup. The whole package is a airflight softcase with external carbon tripod, and for the camera setup the solution of stability-issue was to stabilize with a second (light) tripod not the camera rail, but directly the lens barrel. I took 4 shots with different apertures and times, they all (!) were equal tack-sharp, even compared to the Schneider with only marginal underperformance.
So I think with modern gear this kind of extreme LF is operable, much more than in the times of Feininger and Wolf.

231011

231012

231010

regards
Rainer

[nolindan]

I read somewhere: "With 4x5 you can count the leaves on the trees. With 8x10 you can see the very air itself." I have an 8x10 contact print of a view across a pond in the morning - the mist over the pond is palpable and the far side of the pond looks just right with the atmospherics softening the view; if the shot had been made with a '35 and enlarged my reaction would be "What is all this grey 'blah' that's getting in the way? It really spoils the shot."

I have to confess I have never used anything longer than a 300mm lens on 8x10. I have a long focus shutterless process lens kicking around but I have never gotten around to using it. I can get 'telephoto eyes' with a 35mm camera, and a 105mm lens seems a natural, but not with 8x10 for some strange reason. Maybe it is my subconscious stifling the thought of a 600mm+ lens with imaginings of all the hassle involved.

[Bernice Loui]

Larger film does not automatically translate to more "resolution", there is more to resolution than sheet film size.

The focal lenght equalivancy factor does not accout for the actual focal lenght of the lens and the conquences of strict lens focal lenght. Yes, in terms of visual "perspective" these can be effective focal lenghts for a given imager or film format, you're still dealing with the given focal lenght and aperture of the given lens. This business of "equalivant" lens focal lenghts for a given imager/film format is complex.. Adding to this, in to out of focus rendition or the goal of everyting in the image in percieved focus as a image goal.


Bernice



I read somewhere: "With 4x5 you can count the leaves on the trees. With 8x10 you can see the very air itself." I have an 8x10 contact print of a view across a pond in the morning - the mist over the pond is palpable and the far side of the pond looks just right with the atmospherics softening the view; if the shot had been made with a '35 and enlarged my reaction would be "What is all this grey 'blah' that's getting in the way? It really spoils the shot."

I have to confess I have never used anything longer than a 300mm lens on 8x10. I have a long focus shutterless process lens kicking around but I have never gotten around to using it. I can get 'telephoto eyes' with a 35mm camera, and a 105mm lens seems a natural, but not with 8x10 for some strange reason. Maybe it is my subconscious stifling the thought of a 600mm+ lens with imaginings of all the hassle involved.

[Drew Wiley]

The biggest problem with distance resolution is generally the atmosphere itself, along with heat waves. I rarely get better resolution with the 8x10 than with my P67 with a top-end tele. But when it comes to movements, with extreme foreground to infinity detail, well, that's a different story. The longest lens I use for 8x10 is a 600 Fuji C. Longer perspectives are easier to achieve with my Sinar 4x5 monorails instead.

[Bernice Loui]

Still dealing with a 1200mm lens focal lenght with all the atmospheric issues that comes with uber long focal lenght lenses about infinity focus. Atmospheric haze, particles, dust and plenty more will be nicely compressed lots causing a notable redution of "shaprness".. Add to this, proper camera support and stability becomes a uber issue..

It is why those white barreled small format digital or 35mm roll film often produces better images than similar on sheet film.

Exception being stuff like adaptive optics where the optics bend, twist and more to compensate for atmospheric issues..


Or why sheet film lenses stop at about 600/700mm.
Bernice

[rawitz]

Come on folks,
if Feininger and Wolf had read all your doubts and complaints, we perhaps never could see their exceptional pictures.
And I saw Wolf NYC pics in the opening exhibition in the 80th in 1,80m printsize (the largest size of analog enlarging), and no chance for me with my RZ67 Prof-Camera and any white, black or brown lens to keep up with it.

regards
Rainer

[LabRat]

Yea, but the air does weird stuff at magnification!!! Spend some time on a telescope eyepiece to find the rare times of still, stable air where it only might be steady for moments a month in some locales (if at all)... Shooting even the "best" lens on demand gives wildly different results...

I shoot a lot of long lens (on different formats) and spent much time on a telescope eyepiece... It can look a lot like being underwater waiting for the waters to run still, and even when the target defines, the air can cause the object to bounce around all over the FOV ( for example, follow the Saturn bouncing ball) or like one slighty poor viewing night, watching the surface of the moon going erupting, quaking, melting, looking like the alien invasion was starting!!! Was it the glass of wine in hand??? Nah, it was the air... :( Kooool to watch these distortions, but good I wasn't exposing anything... And this was night air, not day air with heat convections rising/boiling... One strange day thing I watched through binoculars once was standing on Sandy Hook looking at the NYC skyline through the distant haze where it appeared normal/upright when in a blink of an eye it inverted upside down and kept "flipping"!!!

Most tele optical systems can be quite good (with maybe some "artifacts" that can appear only under certain conditions) but with plenty of resolution, but with all that "liquid" air moving around, one really needs to learn to "forecast" under what conditions might be a candidate for imaging distant views... Shooting details from across the street, distant tree with bird etc can be routinely managed, but very rare to be able to utilize all that resolution top optics are capable of...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Much has changed since the time of Feininger and Wolf, photographic materials, optics and plenty more are no longer the same. Having been down this long telephoto sheet film road more than once before with the Tele Nikkor up to the 1200mm, APO process lenses up to 47 1/2" (1206mm) APO artar on 4x5, 5x7, 8x10.. never again. The vast problems with any view camera set up is more hassle and frought with problems than the value in the results. 760mm / 30" APO ronar is currently the longest focal lenght for any of the sheet film cameras, using this is Meh and great hassle. Camera set up, camera stability, if used outdoors, wind and related vibration is a very serious issue to contend with ... and two tripods are not always enough to keep this very real and very serious problem in check..

Tele optics has evolved lots since the time-era of Feininger and Wolf, The modern Canon EF white barrel lenses trounces the sinilar sheet film camera optic in every way. They are remarkable in their optical performace due to Fluorite crystal elements, low dispersion glass and coupled with image stabilization allows hand held images with up to 1/8000 second shutter speeds.. add to all this portable, mobile and reasonable to lug around. This is the reality of uber long focal lenght image making or why using the proper tool for a given need can and does make a very real differnce.

HUGE analog prints were quite common back in the day. There were a number of photo labs that made piles of them daily back in the day. Robert Cameron known for his aerial images of cities and land scapes used a Pentax 67 with Pentax lenses on a gyro stabilizer for the majority of his aerial images. Some of Cameron's images were printed to about 10 feet (3048mm) x 12 feet ( 3657mm).. as part of an exhibit.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/robert-cameron-world-renowned-aerial-photographer-whos-news-photo/1321560420

https://www.presidio.gov/presidio-trust/press/new-exhibit-of-robert-cameron-aerial-photographs-opens-may-18

Details in these pritns would surprise any set of eyes..

Don't neg on the RZ as the optics and performace if this camera system could and is a LOT better than suspected.. Keep in mind, bigger is not always better as it is most always a specific set of trade offs.

These HUGE color prints were made by creating a 8x10 internagative from the orginal 6x7cm film, then using the 8x10 internegative to create the HUGE color print. Much the same can be done using 35mm film.



Bernice



Come on folks,
if Feininger and Wolf had read all your doubts and complaints, we perhaps never could see their exceptional pictures.
And I saw Wolf NYC pics in the opening exhibition in the 80th in 1,80m printsize (the largest size of analog enlarging), and no chance for me with my RZ67 Prof-Camera and any white, black or brown lens to keep up with it.

regards
Rainer

[Drew Wiley]

The usual, "If so and so did it that way, it must be the best way". Well, maybe Feininger and Wolf could have done it a lot easier and even better today a different manner. I like working with big negs, and lean toward long lenses even in 8x10 photography. Size matters. But there is a limiting factor dependent upon atmosphere. There are also logistical issues.

But when the air is clear and calm, a reasonably large print made from large format film and an excellent long lens is absolutely going to blow away any MF enlargement of comparable size.
I printed one a few weeks ago involving a Fuji 600C lens and 8x10 160VC film (not as sharp as the Ektar film I now use), and the distant detail looking from a high vantage point in the desert twenty and thirty miles away is so crisp early in the morning you'd need a loupe to detect it all, even in a 30X40 inch print. But that's not why I took it, but for the subtle hue relationships seen from there. Of course, I might miss the lighting entirely by choosing big gear. That's why I also own a superb 300 tele for my Pentax 6x7; it significantly improves the "bagged it" rate, and is obviously also far less expensive to shoot.

[LabRat]

For anyone serious about long lens work, a highly desirable addition would be a decent spotting scope... It would need a sturdy enough tripod of it's own, and a decent zoom eyepiece is helpful... One can learn by seeing how the air changes during the day, and one can even watch for when there is an interval between air movements where the subject image is steady and clearer... The zoom or interchangeable eyepieces can be roughly calculated to match the FL's you want to use, and you quickly find out how long of an FL you can get away using under the conditions (before image breaks up)...

Many years ago, was shooting the product line of Kowa Optical spotting scopes, and had use of a loaner for a couple of weeks... Tested it every day at different times of daylight hours and night, and was eye opening to the differences in terrestrial atmosphere rendering... Early morning air was more steady until the sun started warming the ground enough to start heatwaves rising and rocking details around, image started moving enough to splash water like, to complete blur sometimes... Later in the day could be (surreal) interesting as taller objects (buildings etc) could be steady, but a ground inversion layer could be a wild hallucination of twisting/moving distortions!!! ( Lotsa strange "mirage" type activity...) It's tempting to want to shoot video of very long lens work in the heat of the city of these phenomena happenings!!! ;)

Steve K

[carterwj]

Hmm. OP, I see that the nattering nabobs of negativism have got to you.

If there is a practical limit to the distance between standards, it is set by bellows sag. The standard solution is to use intermediate standard(s) to support several shorter bellows. Another solution is to add support loops to the upper edges of the bellows' pleats and run a support rod through them.

A number of photographers -- the late Joerg Krusche comes to mind -- have used quite long process lenses successfully out of doors. They used a variety of ways to support their cameras. Several tripods, a single tripod with Manfrotto Magic Arms (I hope I got the name right), ... Remember, for the same focused distance process lenses require more extension than telephotos of the same focal length.

Get the longest process lens you can afford, find a way to add enough extension to your camera -- it doesn't have to be 8x10. Although 8x10 is more difficult than 4x5, "bad air's" effects depend much more on focal length than on format. -- and go play.

Thank you for your response. I did finally get that lens from Sammy's Camera. Less than half the price of the hits I saw on eBay and no shipping or tax. And since it was not coming from abroad no duty either. I will report on my results when I get a chance to use it. I am using a Toyo 810G. There is plenty of room for focusing with the existing bellows, but I will give thought to supporting the bellows. My tripod is strong enough to support whatever I place on it, so I don't think I need to use more than one tripod. I did pick up one additional standard. It is for a 4x5. The 8x10 standards pretty much cost as much as the entire used 810 G. I was figuring I would just alter the 4x5 standard to be able to support the bellows. Thank you again (everyone) for your input. I saw quite a bit of discussion on this.

[carterwj]

Can any of you recommend a good person for doing a CLA of large format lenses like this one?