4x5 camera/lens ?s (re:macro)

[simon greenberg]

First of all, let me apologize for this being another "which camera should I get" question, but I have yet to find a satisfactory answer on this board. So, I am leaving the world of 35 mm photography and need some advice. My subject matter primarily deals with close-up work, filling the frame with textures and such. I rarely need to go more than 1:1 or so, I currently shoot with a 100/2.8 macro Canon lens for 35. I need the capability to print crystal-clear images at least 30x40, so I doubt that 6x7 would be a large enough format for this application (am I wrong?). I am considering a Crown or Super Graphic and have read good things about the Schneider G-Claron 150/9 lens. Is this lens very sharp, or would I be better off with something else? I have about $2000 to spend for a complete system. Is it better to get a true field camera to start with? Any camera/lens recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much f

[Matt_1193]

Simon,

I assume you are speaking of 4x5 here - If you have been shooting with a 100mm macro for 35mm and like the results, look for a 300mm for use with 4x5. It is approx equivalent to the 100mm with 35mm. You will need to make sure that whatever camera you buy has enough bellows extension to handle the lens. Are you expecting to do mostly studio work, or take it with? If you are going to be doing mostly studio shots, why not just buy a medium range Calumet or other good "user" studio camera?

[Wayne_6692]

Just watch your bellows draw on a "field camera" some of them are quite short. The G-Claron is a real bargain for your intended use, just remember that it's not multi-coated. It along with the Rodenstock Apo-Ronars (multi-coated) are designed with 1:1 as their "best" ratio and have reasonable prices. At 1:1 the 150mm G- Claron will work, but you may find a slightly longer focal length more "utilitarian" for near-infinity work. Check thwe following site for prices.

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lenses.htm

[Michael S. Briggs]

A 150 mm or 180 mm focal length would be a good choice for macro photography up to 1:1 with a 4x5 camera. In 35 mm photography a long lens (compared to the negative diagonal) helps a greatly in having sufficient working room between the camera and subject. For a LF camera, a long lens will likely be inconvenient in terms of excessive bellows draw and perhaps inconviently large lens-to-subject distance. To get to 1:1 with a lens of focal length F, you need a camera with a bellows draw of 2F. The 300 mm lens mentioned in another response would need 600 mm = 2 feet of bellows, which exceeds the capabilities of almost all 4x5 cameras. However, a short lens may not have sufficient coverage, so 150 mm or 180 mm is a good compromise.

One thing to consider is the size of your subject. A postage stamp might be photographed 1:1 with a 35 mm camera, but if you want to fill a 4x5 negative you would need to go to 4X lifesize on the negative. To do this, you would probably want a focal length like 80 or 120 mm.

Since LF cameras don't use through-the-lens metering, be sure to understand the need for exposure compensation as a function of the bellows extension.

The G-Claron is an excellent lens. One reason for its somewhat lower price is that it is single-coated, which probably makes very little difference in the studio. Other lenses to consider are the Schneider Macro-Symmar, the Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar and the Nikon Apo-Macro ED. You can also mount an enlarging lens in a shutter.

Are your subjects flat or 3D? If 3D, you will have to stop down so much for depth-of-field that sharpness will be dominated by diffraction.

[simon greenberg]

Sorry if I was unclear - I will not be working in a studio, I will use it in the field. Thanks for the responses

[Bill Glickman]

Simon....your jump to a view camera vs. MF camera was a good one, you will benefit greatly by movements from your type work... YOu can always try a rool film back if you don't want to stick to 4x5 sheet film. Just a few things you should consider...

first is DOF for 4x5 is very tiny vs. 35mm cameras...due to the fact LF fl's are 3x longer for the same perspective...be sure to run some calculations to determine if the tiny DOF LF has vs. 35mm still suits your subjects adaquetly...

secondly, unlike 35mm which has tighlty wound flat film.... 4x5 film holders have sheet film that will buckle when shooting downwards...this can effect on film focus...

Beware that your shutterspeeds can be 3 - 4 stops slower than 35mm due to the much higher f stops you are forced to shoot at to attain equal DOF as 35mm and to acount for film buckle.

Lastly, as mentioned above, be sure to run some calcs to determine the distances your subjects will be, then determine from the fl what your bellows draw will need to be. Be sure you look at cameras with bellows this long. Then don't forget, long bellows draws require bellows compensation, i.e. additional stops you have to add to the shutter speed to compensate for the loss of light in the long bellows. You mentioned you were not in the studio, so its possible your subjects don't like to stay still for say 2 - 4 seconds...

These may be obvious issues you already addresed, but just thought I would mention them to you before you make the plunge. Nothing worse than finding out after the fact! Good luck Simon

[Paul Schilliger]

Simon, why would the 6x7 format be too small for your 30x40 enlargements? It wou ld save you many hassles if you could work with a reflex system on your macro shots, especially outdoor (non -TTL metering, dark ground glass view, longer exposure times, expensive bracketing with the 4x5 camera). I use a 4x5 for occasional close-ups down to about 1:5 life size, but if I want to get closer, I use a Pent ax 6x7 with a 135 macro lens and extension rings. The 30 x 40 enlargements are not noticeably inferior from those obtained from a 4x5: very sharp.

[N Dhananjay]

I don't mean to state the obvious but I take it you're prepared for the troubles in doing macro work in LF. What is a frame filling 1:1 in 35mm is nowhere near frame filling in LF - to get to frame filling involves much higher magnifications. Magnifications beyond 1:1 get pretty onerous to deal with. In terms of camera and lens, the bellows draw would be important. If you are working at magnifications of 1:1 or below, think of an enlarging lens that can be mounted on a Copal 1 shutter through a connector - beyond that, you might want to reverse the lens. You can use a shorter focal length since the extension increases the size of the image circle. In terms of the camera, I would suggest something with rear movements. This is for a couple of reasons. A lot of macro work will not involve concerns regarding convergence issues. Second, what with taxing the resolution of your lens, movements made on the back will allow you to usee the 'sweet' center part of the image circle. Third, I think it is easier to make movements watching the ground glass (can be hard to do with the front standard extended way out - unless you're a gorilla with 46" sleeves). Rear focussing is a great convenience to have, especially since you want to leave the front standard alone once you've set the magnification and framing. A field is unlikely to have rear focussing. If you go with a field, budget for a macro focussing rail - its a pretty handy way to work around not having rear focussing. Good luck. DJ

[M.]

Macro photography is so easy in 35mm and so frustrating in 4x5 that I think you should reconsider before making the big, expensive switch. Is there any way that you could continue to use 35mm? I'm sure you're already using an oversized tripod. If you're shooting B&W try Tech Pan; you can get 30x40 images out of it. I guess Ektar 25 isn't available any more, it would have worked for color. How about shooting Kodachrome 25? The size of your final prints would be virtually dependent on the quality of your lens. If there is a digital step somewhere in making your prints it will be possible to do a little sharpening if necessary. Don't be seduced by the allure of a big, beautiful negative.

[Wayne_6692]

OOOH! "Macro field photography with large format", that's very different. Never Mind! (paraphrasing Gilda Radner's response when her character completely missed the point). Others have commented on the difficulties. If you truly want to duplicate working 1:1 with 35mm in 4x5 you will be working at ~4:1. You will lose ~5 stops of light due to magnification, your 150mm lens would require a 750mm extension. You will need to set your lens to f/11 or less to avoid diffraction problems (effective f/64), and depth of field will be measured in mm's. You've basically reversed the normal relationship between subject and image, you will have a lot less depth of field than you will have depth of focus. Ever try to focus on a groundglass at f/64? Subject movement will have to be nil. Just inserting the filmholder and pulling the darkslide will move your camera enough that your subject will be out of focus. The 10-20 seconds that it will take you to insert a filmholder will not be acceptable. Sticking with 35mm or going to a 2-1/4 slr are the only workable alternatives. You'll be very frustrated with field macro photography with large format.

[M.]

I have just been informed that Konica Impressa 50 will allow that size blowups from 35mm if your lens is good enough.

[Bob Salomon]

You are not specifying the ratios you will be shooting.

Essentially any lens is more then adequate to make a 30 x 40" print from 45 that is only about an 8x enlargement which is like an 8x10 from 35mm.

What is needed to answer your question is not that you will not be at 1:1 but wh at ratio will you be at?

For instance: the Rodenstock Apo Sironar N is corrected for 1:20 to infinity the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S is corrected for 1:10 to infinity The Rodenstock Apo Sironar Macro is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1

Which would be closest to what you are doing?

[Bob Salomon]

You are not specifying the ratios you will be shooting.

Essentially any lens is more then adequate to make a 30 x 40" print from 45 that is only about an 8x enlargement which is like an 8x10 from 35mm.

What is needed to answer your question is not that you will not be at 1:1 but wh at ratio will you be at?

For instance: the Rodenstock Apo Sironar N is corrected for 1:20 to infinity the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S is corrected for 1:10 to infinity The Rodenstock Apo Sironar Macro is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1

Which would be closest to what you are doing?

Then choose from the series that does that.