new to LF, looking for 4x5 for macro $ nature

[verbier123]

I am looking to get into LF, I want to use the camera for wildlife photography and macro (flowers and insects.) I can't seem to find a camera to fit my needs. I want to be able to use at least the nikon T 500mm or the fuji T 600mm. Obviously I will be hiking with it. I don't care about weight so much, I'm young and can handle it. But it would be nice to fit it in a backpack. I would only be using 4x5 film. Should I try looking at a 5x7 or 8x10 and get a 4x5 back? Any suggestions on a light monorail?
This would be my first LF camera, so I would like to stay under $1500 if possible.
Thanks for any help,

Brian

[Ralph Barker]

The first question, Brian, is how are you defining "wildlife"? Are you planning to photograph animals in their natural habitat, as one might do with a 35mm SLR and long tele lenses? Or, are you concentrating on insects at macro distances?

Second question: what is the reason behind the choice of the 500-600mm telephoto lenses?

The objectives, as described, seem to conflict.

[Greg Miller]

I am looking to get into LF, I want to use the camera for wildlife photography and macro (flowers and insects.) I can't seem to find a camera to fit my needs. I want to be able to use at least the nikon T 500mm or the fuji T 600mm. Obviously I will be hiking with it. I don't care about weight so much, I'm young and can handle it. But it would be nice to fit it in a backpack. I would only be using 4x5 film. Should I try looking at a 5x7 or 8x10 and get a 4x5 back? Any suggestions on a light monorail?
This would be my first LF camera, so I would like to stay under $1500 if possible.
Thanks for any help,

Brian

Are you sure you want to use LF for wildlife? A 600mm lens on 4x5 would be roughly equivalent to a 200mm lens on 35mm. That's good only for large animals that are still fairly close (or wildlife that are a small portion of a larger landscape shot). And it would have to be a stationary animal in order to give you enough time to set up, compose, focus, make any tilts/swings,... if desired, measure light, load film holder and shoot. Seems like you would have to be prepared for a very low "keeper" ratio. Same goes for (living) insects.

You should be OK with flowers. Do a search here. There are many previous threads on good LF cameras for long hikes.

[Greg Lockrey]

Most Macro lenses are in the 120-210mm range. The object is to get from 6:1 to about 1:6 and on 4x5 that means about .66" object to fill the neg to about a 30" object or there abouts.

[steve simmons]

There are several articles in the Free Articles section of the View Camera magazine web site that might be helpful

www.viewcamera.com

Telephoto lenses will take approx. 66% of the focal length in bellows to focus on a subject at infinity (roughly 100 times the focal length of the lens). So, a 600mm lens will require 400mm of bellows and/or more if you want to focus closer.

You might want to find a copy of Jack Dykinga's book Large Format Nature Photography.

steve simmons

[walter23]

You can shoot wildlife with 4x5. Recently on here or apug there was a list of absolutely phenomenal wildlife photographers, but I can't remember who they were. In fact, the title of the thread was something like "who was that 4x5 wildlife photographer who's name I can't remember?"

I just searched for the thread but couldn't find it.

Anyway: you can do anything if you really try hard enough. The question is: are you willing to try hard enough? 4x5 widllife photography definitely won't be easy.

[verbier123]

I guess I should have been more specific. I planned on using another lens for macro work. I just would like to be able to do both with the camera. I realize that I would have to be closer to photograph with the 600mm than with other 35mm lenses. It just seemed like that lens would be the most practical. If anyone has any other lens suggestions, I would gladly like to hear them. I want to use LF because I want to make 20-24" prints with great detail. I am not happy with the enlargements from my 35mm. I have heard enough people comment that LF field cameras are just as easy/light to carry around as a MF 67 camera. Auto 645 seems like an okay route, but with digital being the norm and my budget somewhat limited, I want the best possible prints for the extra effort involved. MF telephoto lenses in are no bargain either and are quite bulky as well. Thanks for all the suggestions so far...

Brian

[Juergen Sattler]

Brian,

I don't think you understood what the previous posters were saying. Wildlife photography and LF are ALMOST exclusive from each other. How would you be able to compose, focus, adjust movements, measure light manually, insert the film holder, pull the darkslide and finally take the shot of an animal that certainly won't wait for you to finish all these tasks? I use a DSLR with a long lens and auto-everything to shoot wildlife and still I get shots that are out of focus or over-or under exposed. Large Format cameras are made and used for static objects, not shy creatures in the wild.

Have you ever seen and used a LF camera and do you understand all the adjustments necessary to finally take a shot?

[konakoa]

I'm one of those odd ducks who lugs around a 4x5 monorail. My camera alone is nine pounds with a lens, then add in the bag with lenses, filters and film holders, then the tripod .... but, for me it's perfectly fine. Like Brian the weight doesn't bother me and I'm very happy with my system.

Macro photography is a breeze with my monorail. I have plenty of extension and full camera shifts at my disposal, and a ordinary lens like a 150mm can get me more than close enough for 1:1 or greater. If you use a hand-held meter, be aware of the amount of bellows extension being used to correct for exposure (I've underexposed several sheets by accident!)

For wildlife photography what you ask is not impossible, but would be a little difficult and would require more than average effort to make it work. The longest lens I have for my camera is 450mm. It's a f/9, and DOF is fairly shallow with the lens wide open. I have to carry around a second longer monorail (560mm/22") just for this one lens. My camera folds flat to be carried and can be reassembled very quickly, but swapping out the rails takes time. The long rail also makes the camera considerably bulkier and has to be stored outside my camera case. I like to think I can get mine set up and ready to shoot fairly quickly, but it still takes a minute or two from unpacking the camera to pressing the shutter release. I can't imagine big wildlife staying still while I do this.

Also, please be aware that with a long lens vibration from wind on the camera bellows, the shutter itself to a slightly underweight tripod can lead to less than perfect sharpness. To get sufficient DOF with the 450mm for landscapes I often to have to stop down around f/32 or smaller -- combined with the 100 speed color transparency films I use, the shutter speeds can easily be measured in several seconds. A 500mm or a 600mm lens would be even more demanding.

[Alan Davenport]

Large Format cameras are made and used for static objects, not shy creatures in the wild.

I tend to agree. There are times and places where the wildlife are somewhat used to human presence; even so it's difficult to get truly natural shots.

This is one of my earliest LF images, taken in Yellowstone N.P. Even with their acclimatization to humans and with a river between us, the elk were nervous by the time I was set up.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/286555972_80abf83b98.jpg

[Ron Marshall]

The main problem with shooting wildlife with a view camera is unless your lens is rangefinder coupled, allowing you to focus quickly with the filmholder already loaded, you would likely miss the shot unless the animals held still. The other problem, as many have mentioned, is a 600mm is about equivalent to a 200 on 35mm, so you will have to be so close that you are likely to spook wild animals.

[Ron Marshall]

Here is the ideal lens for wildlife on 6x6 cm (except the price):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp

[Bernard Kaye]

Alan,

That is one heck of a great landscape picture.

Bernie

[verbier123]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

Alan- thats a great shot. Do you remember what lens you used?

What models of reasonably priced monorails should I be looking at?


Brian

[Deane Johnson]

Here is the ideal lens for wildlife on 6x6 cm (except the price):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp

Darn, I knew there would be a stickler somewhere on this, and here it is. It weights 574 lbs. Makes backpacking with it a little less practical.

[Gary Tarbert]

A LF camera for insects & wildlife!! are you sure thats what you want?The only insects you would be able to shoot would have to be deceased with a pin too hold them down.
I actually shoot a fair bit of macro work with insects and i can assure you that as much as i love LF for everything else this type of photography is far better suited to 35mm or DSLR where 500mm lenses with fast autofocus and motordrives are the order of the day.cheers Gary

[Ron Marshall]

Darn, I knew there would be a stickler somewhere on this, and here it is. It weights 574 lbs. Makes backpacking with it a little less practical.

No problem, if you can afford the lens you can also afford the sherpa team!

[David Millard]

Brian,

I don't think you understood what the previous posters were saying. Wildlife photography and LF are ALMOST exclusive from each other. How would you be able to compose, focus, adjust movements, measure light manually, insert the film holder, pull the darkslide and finally take the shot of an animal that certainly won't wait for you to finish all these tasks? I use a DSLR with a long lens and auto-everything to shoot wildlife and still I get shots that are out of focus or over-or under exposed. Large Format cameras are made and used for static objects, not shy creatures in the wild.

George Shiras, William Finley, and Eliot Porter somehow rose to those technical challenges, and took superb wildlife photos using large format equipment, although I'm sure far less efficiently than they could have if they had been using DSLRs.

[verbier123]

Thanks David four your comments. I looked up a few of the names you listed. I found this website and after looking at a few of the pictures Porter had taken, I am gaining confidence that it is possible to take great wildlife shots in LF. Of course, I will probably take a 35mm camera along as well.

http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/

I just think that if a person wants to get the best possible result, they will most likely use a tripod with a telephoto lens regardless if they are shooting 35, MF, or LF and macro work is almost always manual focused anyway.

Does anyone know what the DOF (with the lens wide open) of the mentioned 500mm or 600mm lenses would be at say 100ft away?


Thanks,

Brian

[John O'Connell]

Um, I used to do insect photography with a 4x5, when the insect in question was still and large. This meant, essentially, that I was limited to really big spiders. The typical 120-150mm macro lens would work fine, and you'd want to look at a Sinar F/F2 these days to do it in the field. To do anything faster-moving than dormant spiders, you'd be resorting to chilling insects in the refrigerator, something that you might not want to get into.

The DOF with a 600mm lens on 4x5 is the same as on any other format for a given print & circle of confusion size---the formula is not format dependent.

But I think you'll be sorely disappointed if you start operating long or telephoto LF lenses wide open. Some of my long lenses are snappy wide open, and some are seriously lacking in contrast at full aperture.

For the time, effort, and expense, if you want to do big enlargements with live subjects, 67 cameras are a better bet. You can get decent long lenses for the Mamiya and the Pentax and both can do macro. The big difference between these cameras an LF is focusing latency---with LF, you final focus and then have thirty seconds to a minute before you can take the shot (at best). In 67, you're talking no more effort than in 35mm---flip mirror and release shutter.

[Greg Miller]

Thanks David four your comments. I looked up a few of the names you listed. I found this website and after looking at a few of the pictures Porter had taken, I am gaining confidence that it is possible to take great wildlife shots in LF. Of course, I will probably take a 35mm camera along as well.

http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/

I just think that if a person wants to get the best possible result, they will most likely use a tripod with a telephoto lens regardless if they are shooting 35, MF, or LF and macro work is almost always manual focused anyway.

Does anyone know what the DOF (with the lens wide open) of the mentioned 500mm or 600mm lenses would be at say 100ft away?


Thanks,

Brian


I don't think anyone in this post has suggested that you can't great wildlife photos with LF. The point is it will be significantly more difficult than with other formats, and you will end up with far fewer usable images. We're just trying to be helpful in allowing you to make an informed decision. You will undoubtedly decide to do whatever makes sense for you; best of luck with whatever that decision ultimately is.

[walter23]

I don't think anyone in this post has suggested that you can't great wildlife photos with LF. The point is it will be significantly more difficult than with other formats, and you will end up with far fewer usable images. We're just trying to be helpful in allowing you to make an informed decision. You will undoubtedly decide to do whatever makes sense for you; best of luck with whatever that decision ultimately is.

Yeah. It is possible - anything is possible. But a large format camera takes a *long* time to set up. Even with my relatively quick field camera it's a good couple of minutes before I'm ready to take a shot. You have to learn to anticipate the behaviour of your animals (probably good advice for any wildlife photographer whether they're firing a 600mm lens rapidfire on the newest DSLR, or trying to use a 12x20 banquet camera).

[darr]

Have you considered a Pentax 6x7II ? Enlargements up to 20x24" should not be a problem if you learn how to use the box properly (i.e., mirror lock-up). I use a Pentax 67II for wildlife. Nick brandt also used Pentax 6x7's for his recent wildlife work in East Africa. The book, On This Earth displays some of this work. Here is a link to his site (http://www.nickbrandt.com/popup.html). Concerning the Pentax 67 seems to be a weight factor with some photogs. I am a 5'3" petite woman that can handle the Pentax handheld even with the 50-100 zoom. For macro shots, using the 100 mm w/close-up filter, I always use a tripod and mirror lock-up.

I also use a 4x5" Arca FC on a 50cm rail with a Rodenstock 120 macro lens and 6x9 back for studio macro work. Here are a few examples:

http://cameraartist.com/images/10191c.jpg
pentax 67, 50-100mm, velvia (handheld)

http://cameraartist.com/images/20060318185104_brilliance.jpg
pentax 67, 100mm, velvia

http://cameraartist.com/images/10187.jpg
arca swiss fc, 120 Rodenstock macro, velvia

I have been shooting LF since 1987 and have tried to use it for many applications, but would find trying to photograph live animals in the wild too big of a challenge. Since I have never liked 35mm, I gravitated towards MF for my nature and macro shots. I used Hasselblads as a professional portrait photographer for 15 years and went to the Pentax line when I got serious about macro work. The price of the Hasselblad macro system I found to be ridiculous, plus I wanted the 6x7 film size. I have been happy with the Pentax and Arca 4x5/6x9 setups for many years now.

Hope this has been somewhat helpful.

Kind Regards,
Darr

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi Brian , Darrs advice is very sound as MF would be a good comprimise.
My reccomendation is too hire some eqipment go to a zoo or park where the animals are captive , and then multiply the D.O.D x 100 and you will be about right:)
As for insects on Lf forget it!! Even on MF can be very awkward .
Remember some insects are only 3mm or so long.
And shots of subjects at rest are very boring:rolleyes:
I have attached a shot taken yesterday (yes you prompted me to do for eg: shot)
too highlight the advantages of smaller formats for certain types of photography
this total image area is only 16mmx10mm.cheers garyhttp://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7133&stc=1&d=1194099579

BTW. There are four areas where LF can't be beaten landscape, architecture, product shots (still life) and portraiture (certain age groups excluded)

[Alan Davenport]

Bernie & Brian, thanks!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/286555972_80abf83b98_t.jpg

I'm pretty sure that was a Caltar II-N 150mm f/5.6 (I only had 2 lenses for 4x5 then. Only have 3 now!)

[Rob Champagne]

I'm not sure if you understood this or not.

At the same distance, a 600mm lens will produce the same size image on film regardless of which format camera you are using. The difference being that on a larger format the angle of view will be much greater. So at the same distance using a 35mm camera or a 4x5 camera with a 600mm lens, the enalrgement factor to produce a 20x24 print will be the same. i.e. there is no advantage to be gained unless you get closer to the subject and for wildlife that will be very difficult. And given the fact that obtaining critically sharp images is much harder with 4x5 I think you are wasting your time. I'd go the medium format route if I were you or use 35mm for wildlife and 4x5 for macro work.

[verbier123]

Thanks for all the great comments. I had considered using medium format gear, but I have several problems with it.

1) It still isnt as good as LF - I don't have a large collection of comparison prints, but I know that the LF prints I have bought from other photographers makes the 35mm prints I made seem ridiculous when compared close up. Maybe I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that a 16x20 MF print would not stand up when compared to a LF print of the same size. Ihave not made side/side comparisons though.

2)I already have a fairly large collection of Nikon 35mm/digital gear. Based on the test reports I read at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ They basically said that the digital 35mm full-size sensor cameras have equall if not better quality than 645 and 67 cameras. It seems like most of the reviewers on the site have sold their MF gear and bought Canons'. Even if 67 is marginally better, I am looking at a minimal $2000 investment in a pentax 67 or mamiya rz67. Chances are Canon (or hopefully Nikon) will have full frame, 16-20 Megapixel prosumer cameras for sale in a year from now.

3) I don't know of many pro LF photographers that sold their gear in favor of the high end MF digital cameras. Even if I had the 30k for a digital back, I figure the industry is still years away from reaching LF quality and then even many more years away before it becomes affordable (to me.)

I could most likely get a very decent LF setup for no more than $2500. I can take my Digital 35 gear with me to take the shots that wouldn't be possible with the LF. I will have to live with 8x10 prints untill the price of the high end digital 35 cameras come down. In the mean time, I can use the LF camera to create prints that I will be happy with forever. If I fill a dumpster with bad shots, but end up with a dozen prints that I can hang on my wall I would be estatic. I'm sure in 10 years, their will be cameras that are as convenient as 35mm with the quality of LF, but for the time being I will work with whats available. And I will hopefully have a few great LF shots that will always be considered high quality.

Alan- I looked at your shot again, I bet If I had a 600mm lens, I could get a picture where the elk would fill a substantial part of the frame. I know I already had a few good shots from Yellowstone using a 70-210mm lens with a Nikon 6006. I was standing there for 10-15 minutes and the animals barely moved... I just can't blow it up past 8x10.

Rob - I beg to differ. If I had a 35mm and a 4x5 and wanted the same picture. I would use a 200mm on the 35 and a 600mm on the 4x5. A 16x20 print is roughly 15 times the size of a 35mm negative, its only 4 times the size of a 4x5 neg. Only if I trimmed the 4x5 negative to 24x36mm and then blew it up would the image be the same quality. AND if I did my math right, the DOF with a 600mm lens at F12 would be roughly 10 feet. I would certainly hope I could manage to get the image in focus.

[Rob Champagne]

I know that the LF prints I have bought from other photographers makes the 35mm prints I made seem ridiculous when compared close up.

That may be true but what is it that you are comparing? My guess is that you are comparing images enlarged maybe 4 times against images enlarged 16 times. Of course there will be a very noticeable difference. But do you seriously believe that you are going to get 75% closer to your wildlife subjects so that you only have to enlarge 4 times as opposed to 16 times. If you can only get 50% closer, then medium format is a better option.

[verbier123]

Rob,
The longest 35mm lens I own is a 70-210. If I use a 600mm lens on a LF camera, I DON'T need to get any closer. Had I used a LF camera instead of my 35mm camera, I would have had a much sharper picture when enlarged to 16x20. I would only be better off with the MF over the LF camera if I was using a lense greater than 800mm. (6x7 is roughly 1/2 the size of 4x5).

[David Millard]

Brian -

For insect photography, you can get good results very inexpensively with the Pentax 67. I took the attached image of a Questionmark Butterfly several years ago using an older Pentax 67, non-TTL finder, 135mm Takumar with extension tubes, and a Vivitar 283 flash, using a monopod. You can pick up a similar setup on eBay or at KEH for well under $800 to play with, or you could rent it to assess its capabilities. The major challenge of the 67 for flash photography is the slow 1/30 second synch.

David

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif

[Robert Fisher]

Verbier, a LF camera with a 600 is perfect for capturing large mammals (like elephants) that have the personality and temperment of Dumbo. In all my years shooting with a Nikon 600mm (see below), I never encountered such an animal in the field.

(Nikon 600mm AFS/F5/D2X)

[verbier123]

David

Nice Photograph.
Would you say that that shot would be able to be taken with a LF camera? In your own opinion, if you enlarged the photo to 16x20, would you notice any lack of sharpness?

Robert,
Alan posted a picture on this thread, he claimed to be using a 150mm lens, if he was using a 600mm lens instead, he most certainly would have gotten a nice, close-up pic of the elk.

But I never said it would be easy...

Thanks,
Brian

[venchka]

If you can't enlarge a 35mm original beyond 8x10, "Sumthin' ain't right."

I bought a Pentax 6x7 body, 3 lenses, bag, Gossen meter, film and misc. trivia for $1,000 last year. A set of 3 ext. tubes is $100 or less any day of the week. None of my lenses would be good for wildlife. Except the herd of elk that didn't move in a meadow along the road for 12 hours the last time I was in Yellowstone. Any camera made could have recorded those animals. The same would have been true of a heard of bison at the Natioanl Bison Refuge. You couldn't get an eyeball close up without a monster telephoto on 35mm. You could get very nice images of small groups of animals.

If you set your mind to it, mark your camera at several distances, carry a good rangefinder like surveyors use, use a Grafmatic back and practice a lot, you could take a picture in under 30 seconds. Or scout likely locations, set up, wait.

[Robert Fisher]

Verbier, as an experienced wildlife shooter and having owned a number of LF systems, I suggest that you restrict your LF "wildlife" shooting to a zoo or a Montana wildlife farm.

OR invest in a Canon 500mm f4 IS and a Canon 40D.

[David Millard]

Thanks Brian -

That particular shot would have been difficult to get with 4x5, although Linhof at one time made a close-up framing device for use with the Technika, similar to what was used for macro photography underwater with the pre-SLR Nikonos. Simple homemade wire frames designed for specific magnifications with a given lens could be used on any handholdable 4x5, but it would be challenging.

The wings and body on the butterly would be sharp on a 16x20 print (they are all in the same plane), but the oak leaves would be soft, due to the shallow depth of field.

Regards,
David

[Juergen Sattler]

It seems that verbier123 has made up his mind already - he is obviously convinced that he can make this work - so good luck and show us your results. I look forward to these great LF shots of moose, elk, birds in flight and the tiny insects. Please share your results.

[Peter Galuszewski]

All valid points, excellent advice, and I have been reading with interest since I too have this fantasy of using LF gear for non-traditional LF typs of work in the future. One thing that struck me though is your reference to luminous landscapes... If the guy who runs that site was half as good in photography as he is in making money and self promotion he wouldn`t be the hack he is. And as to his opinions, take with a grain of salt - he is well paid for having them. This combined with his inability to make a decent print before or after the dawn of the digital epidemic makes me very hesitant to do anything other than fight my gag reflex when I see his drivel referenced as some kind gospel...

[Michael Roberts]

Brian, thanks for the link to Porter's LF photography of birds. I found this description of his method. Don't think I'd try this with elk or mountain lions though.... Still, fascinating.

A Passion for Birds

Porter began photographing birds as a boy. He returned to the subject later in life with the aim to "raise bird photography above the level of reportage, to transform it into an art."

To do so, he developed the first stop-action system for photographing birds. Porter used a tripod-mounted camera designed to hold sheets of film 4-x-5-inches in size. It was equipped with two powerful strobe lamps, synchronized to the shutter. The bright lights enabled him to use a high-speed shutter and the smallest lens aperture, which could stop the movement of small, swift birds and capture them and their immediate surroundings in sharp focus.

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/porter/