PDA

View Full Version : Rollfilm holders 6x9 for 4x5: Wista vs Horseman



Aender Brepsom
18-Oct-2007, 12:31
Hello,

is there a significant difference between the Wista and the Horseman 6x9 rollfilm holders for 4x5" cameras in terms of film flatness, reliability or other relevant issues?

Thank you very much.

Aender

Phil Hudson
18-Oct-2007, 13:53
If I recall correctly the Horseman is a little lighter in weight if that's important (coming from the other angle the Wista feels more solid and perhaps better made).

On the Wista that I briefly owned the wind-on lever was a bit stiffer then I would have liked (I think it is spring loaded) - certainly it's not as quiet and smooth as the Horseman wind-on lever.

Film flatness seems OK on both - I guess in truth it's a bit limited by the design of these things.

Phil

Oren Grad
18-Oct-2007, 14:09
Some data I pulled from Robert Monaghan's medium format site a while back indicate that the film to ground glass register is slightly different - the figures I have are 5.10 mm depth from the bearing surface to the film surface for the Wista and 4.95 mm for the Horseman. Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the original page now - perhaps it's down.

In any case, I've never heard a report of anybody having focus problems because of this difference.

I've owned several Horseman holders, but only once have had a Wista holder in hand, briefly. Apart from remembering it as somewhat heavier than the corresponding Horseman, I don't recall any other distinctions relevant to function.

Edit: Also, Wista offers, in addition to the standard 4x5 holders, models with a "butterfly" ground glass guard that can be used as slide-in holders if you've got a camera with a back that opens very wide.

Songyun
18-Oct-2007, 16:55
How about Cambo/Calumet 67/ 69 slide in holder? I heard that 612 has flatness issue, don't know about 69 or 67.

audioexcels
22-Oct-2007, 04:46
Curious,

How do the images (6X9 or others w/roll film) look by comparison to medium format cameras such as Rollei, Hasselblad, Fuji, etc.? In other words, how do large format lenses do by comparison to the lenses designed for the medium format cameras?

Aender Brepsom
22-Oct-2007, 06:48
When I compare my 6x7 images, taken with a Mamiya RB67 to my 6x9 slides from a view camera with modern Rodenstock lenses, I would never want to give up these excellent LF lenses. My impression is that they are superior to the Mamiya lenses I used to own.

But the greatest advantage of a field/view camera are the movements (for me mostly tilt for landscape photography).

audioexcels
22-Oct-2007, 06:54
When I compare my 6x7 images, taken with a Mamiya RB67 to my 6x9 slides from a view camera with modern Rodenstock lenses, I would never want to give up these excellent LF lenses. My impression is that they are superior to the Mamiya lenses I used to own.

But the greatest advantage of a field/view camera are the movements (for me mostly tilt for landscape photography).

Very interesting. Looks like a roll-film back for me is on the way now.

Thanks for your comments, and I, too, love the Rodenstock "look" in spite many do not seem to see differences in the look of lenses on sheet film.

Out of curiousity, which Rodenstock lenses do you use for your roll film back?

Best!

Aender Brepsom
22-Oct-2007, 07:08
Most of my lenses are used for 4x5" AND 6x9. Some (90mm and above) also for 6x17 on an Ebony SW45.

My lenses are:

Apo-Grandagon 4.5/55mm
Grandagon N 4.5/75mm
Grandagon N 6.8/90mm
Apo-Sironar-N 5.6/100mm (6x9 only)
Sironar N 5.6/150mm
Caltar-II-N 5.6/210mm (in fact a Rodenstock Sironar N)
Tele-Arton 5.5/270mm (my only Schneider lens)

All of these lenses are excellent performers.

Oren Grad
22-Oct-2007, 08:41
Out of curiousity, which Rodenstock lenses do you use for your roll film back?

I have my Horseman VH-R cammed for a 75/6.8 Grandagon-N and a 100 Apo-Sironar-N. The 100 is great - the same lovely Apo-Sironar look as its larger siblings in a tiny, relatively inexpensive package. The focal length is dead normal for 6x9. The 100 N has been replaced in the Rodenstock line by a 100 Apo-Sironar-S, which ought to be terrific as well.

I also have the 90 Apo-Sironar-Digital, and if I could have only one lens for 6x9 that would be it. For 6x9 the focal length corresponds to a 39 on 35mm, which is ideal IMO for all around use. Unfortunately, it's big and heavy for a 6x9 lens - size, weight and shape are near-identical to the 90/6.8 Grandagon. Its optical design is different from both the Grandagons and the Apo-Sironars, but its rendering is ultra-refined, more like an Apo-Sironar than a Grandagon.

audioexcels
22-Oct-2007, 20:54
So the Sironar is more of a sharper and precise device with the rollbacks vs. the Grandagon? I always felt the Grandagon was similarly sharp as the 150mm Sironar, but maybe my eyes need some adjusting!

Oren Grad
22-Oct-2007, 21:47
So the Sironar is more of a sharper and precise device with the rollbacks vs. the Grandagon? I always felt the Grandagon was similarly sharp as the 150mm Sironar, but maybe my eyes need some adjusting!

I've never had a sharpness problem with Grandagons. But to my eye the OOF rendering of the Apo-Sironar-N and -S is better controlled and usually more pleasing.

Aender Brepsom
22-Oct-2007, 22:35
For me, there is no difference between Sironars and Grandagons as far as sharpness, image quality etc is concerned. All of these lenses are so fabulous that it is just pure pleasure to look at the slides on the light box.

I suppose that the nicer OOF rendering mentioned by Oren might have more to do with the focal length than with the type of lens. Longer lenses usually have nicer bokeh than wide angle lenses, don't they?

Oren Grad
23-Oct-2007, 07:31
I suppose that the nicer OOF rendering mentioned by Oren might have more to do with the focal length than with the type of lens. Longer lenses usually have nicer bokeh than wide angle lenses, don't they?

No, not necessarily.