PDA

View Full Version : shooting landscape with the Chamonix



lilmsmaggie
21-Jul-2009, 10:24
First -- let me preface this question with: "I don't have the camera yet." And yes, I'm still a newbie to LF.

After kicking around whether to go with medium format or a 4X5 camera, I'm still leaning towards the Chamonix 45n-1. The medium format camera I have in mind is a Mamiya RZ67. The Mamiya with a 110mm f2.8 lens would weigh aprox. 5.2 lbs.

The Chamonix with a comparable focal length lens say a Schneider Super-Symmar XL110mm should weigh much less considering the Chamonix by itself is 3 lbs. give or take a few ounces. I can't imagine the Schneider weighing 2 lbs. but then again ...

On to the question:

As a landscape photographer, if you could have but one lens to shoot landscapes with the Chamonix 45n-1 (or any 4X5 for that matter); which lens would you choose and why?

Steve Hamley
21-Jul-2009, 10:40
You might find this thread interesting:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41763

In general, people that use one lens use one approximating normal or slightly wider, for example press photographers typically used 127mm to 135mm. Other one-lens users seem to prefer around the 210mm focal length, say 180mm to 240mm.

I think most of my work is done either with the 135mm FL, the 110mm, and the 180mm.

Cheers, Steve

Jiri Vasina
21-Jul-2009, 10:41
To answer some of the questions:

first a 110mm on a 6x7cm camera is not comparable to a 110mm lens on a 4x5". If your vision fits the 110mm of 6x7cm camera, it's most probable you'll like a 150-180mm (or even a 210mm) on 4x5".

The Symmar XL 110mm is IMO quite overkill for 4x5", it's a large and heavy lens with a very large image circle - sufficient for 5x7" with movements. If you want a lens in a 110mm range, there are smaller (not necessarily sharper though) lenses.

It's difficult to recommend a focal length for an unknown photographer - it depends on what and how you shoot. There are several threads here started by starting LF photographers. Most commonly the first lens recommendation is in the 120mm-150mm range (135mm most likely), some recommend longer, some shorter. I personally shoot most a 210mm lens on 5x7" format, which would be equivalent to a ~135mm on 4x5". If I had only one lens, I'd be happy with the 210mm.

You don't need a super modern super expensive lens, especially if you were only finding your way in LF. I'd recommend buying a cheap(ish) older lens, testing your vision and work with LF. You can then sell it will a minimal loss. My 210mm lens is a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 210mm f/4.5 from approx. 1945. There are much more attributes to a LF lens, then only it's sharpness (especially measured in lab)... If you don't mind, have a look at my work with it (http://www.vasina.net/?tag=xenar-210mm)...

As per weight of the camera: You're only considering the camera and lens. But there are other things necessary/useful to LF - film holders (it seems negligible, but if you have several holders - and you will want to - the weight quickly adds up), filters, darkcloth, loupe, light metter...

But the satisfaction is better from a larger negative. My overall recommendation would be to not choose a Mamiya and choose the Chamonix (I have a Chamonix 5x8" (http://www.vasina.net/?p=94) and am very happy with it...)

Hope this helps

Jiri

Aender Brepsom
21-Jul-2009, 10:56
If you want to take landscape shots with everything in focus from foreground to background, you'll have to go for the LF camera with tilt movements. Even at f/32, a MF lens cannot do that.
Of course, the Mamiya RZ67 (or even the RB67) is a very fine cameraeasy and fast to operate, and a 6x7 negative gives excellent image quality, but a few years ago, I became frustrated because my RB67 wouldn't allow me to take the kind of landscape shot I had in mind.
It depends quite a bit on your type of photography.

As for a first LF lens, I would also recommend a 150mm (approx. a 45mm in 35mm terms) because they are a bit easier to handle than a wide angle lens.

BarryS
21-Jul-2009, 11:03
The RZ67 is a great studio camera, but I don't find too many photographers happy to lug them in the field. The Chamonix is much better suited to shooting landscapes for a lot reasons--including weight and the ability to use camera movements. I'd start with a light, inexpensive lens to get your bearings--something like a used Sironar-N 150mm, and then take it from there.

Jeremy Moore
21-Jul-2009, 11:09
Unless you're planning on putting a reflex finder on the Chamonix, the biggest deal is how you actually use the cameras. An RZ is a completely different beast than a 4x5 camera.

I do almost all of my 4x5 landscape shooting with a 135mm f/5.6 lens.

Daniel_Buck
21-Jul-2009, 11:46
I shoot most of my landscapes with 90mm or 240mm.

I have an RB67, and I find the Chamonix (and large format in general) more enjoyable when shooting landscapes (and most other things too)

dwhistance
21-Jul-2009, 11:57
To answer your question the 110 SSXL would be my second choice of lens if I could have only one for 4x5 LF, my first choice would be a 150. And no I don't consider the 110 SSXL overkill for 4x5, I use its generous movements all the time, if anything I am frustrated by the lack of movements available from my 150.

However I think you need to ask yourself a more basic question to decide between the Mamiya and a LF camera - what do you want from your images? If need movements to get the results you want and are happy to use a relatively limited range of lenses (particularly at the long end) then LF is for you. If not then the Mamiya or another medium format camera may well be a better choice.

David Whistance

ljb0904
21-Jul-2009, 11:58
More of my images are made with a 135mm lens. The second runner up is 240mm. Close behind that is 75mm. 400mm after that.

lilmsmaggie
21-Jul-2009, 12:58
So far, most of the comments confirm my beliefs. In terms of compactness, weight, selection of lenses, etc., my gut says that the Chamonix is the biggest bang for the buck not to mention a larger negative size.

As far as the comparable lens thing goes, I simply wanted to keep the "focal length of the lens" the same just for illustrative purposes. I realize that each photographer will have different preferences in terms of lenses used. That's why I asked the question: Given YOUR choice which lens would you chose. I'm also realized that the 110mm wouldn't necessarily be normal for both formats. For whatever reason, it seems that when I discuss the purchase of a 4X5 with photographic salesmen, they invariably suggest MF as an alternative.

The other reason I asked about the "one lens," selection is that, unfortunately, I'm employed with the United Fascist Republic of "Kalifornia." And Ahhhnuuld, has implemented mandatory 3-day furloughs. For me that represents a 15% cut in pay which seriously errodes or eliminates any discretionary spending. Thus, I've had to put off purchasing LF equipment indefinitely.

I'm still very interested in hearing more about lens choices for landscape, from an individual preference perspective. It gives me much to consider.

lilmsmaggie
21-Jul-2009, 13:09
BTW - thanks for the link Steve. I also forgot to add that from reading other posts, in terms of learning movements, most LF photographers recommend using a lens in the 150mm to 210mm range. But would this focal length range be quite acceptable from a one lens only point of view? Also, if one chose to shoot wider than 150mm, would that necessarily negate the movement learning aspect?

Archphoto
21-Jul-2009, 14:00
I don't think there is much diference between shooting with a 90mm or a 150mm as far as movements are concerned.
You will have to move the front standard towards the back to get propper focus at infinity and that's it.

Peter

Eric Brody
21-Jul-2009, 14:51
When I got my Toyo 45A, in 1982, a 210 was recommended as a good all around landscape-nature lens. I took the advice and was very happy. It was the only lens I had (could afford) for quite a few years. I made some of my best images with it before I had many more lenses, choices and confusion.

Whatever you decide, try to stick with the one lens until you're comfortable with LF photography. I shoot mostly in the Pacific Northwest, mountains and coast where I live. I go to the Eastern Sierras, when I can and the desert southwest when I am able as well. So I cover a broad range of subjects. I like the perspective of the 210, I still have the one I got in 1982 and it's still sharp.

Good luck.

Eric

Steve Hamley
21-Jul-2009, 19:39
I think it depends on what you shoot. Press photographers frequently chose 135mm or 127mm (somewhat wide) because they wanted to be sure they got what they needed in shots taken in rooms. The 135mm to 165mm length approximates what your eye sees in terms of field of vision.

Roman Loranc used only a 210mm Nikkor for many years, and that FL is very nice for "intimate" landscapes or those where you want to isolate some elements at distance, like the trees he shot so well. I find my tastes leaning towards 180mm rather than 210mm.

The term "landscape" can cover a lot of territory, but if you're going to shoot things the size of trees at the distances RL did, then the 210mm is a good choice.

In the attached shots, the sunset and the creek were done with the 110mm Schneider SS XL, which is very flare resistant IMO, so I like it for sunsets and scenes where there's a foreground to exaggerate, as there are in these shots. The dogwoods were taken with a rather longish lens to isolate them from the surrounding woods, and was 270mm I think. A 240mm would certainly have worked but I would have been standing in the road to get the same crop.

Cheers, Steve

Steve Hamley
21-Jul-2009, 20:08
And here's an even more exaggerated foreground, taken with a Rodenstock 55mm Apo Grandagon at Jane Bald on the Appalachian Trail at Roan Highlands. I wanted the arc of rhododendron from side-to-side and the rocks pointing "in" toward the mountain in the background. I could stick my foot out and hit the rock on the left which is the size of a large refrigerator, and a tripod leg was actually on part of the rock on the right. The rhododendron were probably 6-8 feet away.

This type of near-far shot is one that RL didn't do much of and would be somewhat difficult to do most of the time with a lens as long as 210mm. So to sum up, if you want near-far landscapes, go with a 135mm or the 110mm, and if you want landscapes with the composition typical of most landscape paintings say, go with a 180mm or 210mm.

I started out with a 135mm lens, but 210mm lenses are dirt cheap right now so personally I'd do both a 135mm/150mm and a 210mm. You could get a feel for what you like.

Cheers, Steve

ki6mf
21-Jul-2009, 20:09
In terms of lenses you will find that the collection will grow. I shoot a Shen Hao with a 150 F4.5 Rodenstock as my normal lens. I have a 90 F4.5 Gandagon and a 210 F5.6 Fuji. Next on my buy list will be a 65-75 wide angle. This last is for extreme distortion of closer objects. You will be happy with the Chamonix and you almost never see a used Shen Hao or Chamonix for sale on the used equipment sites! This points to their quality and popularity

D. Bryant
21-Jul-2009, 20:33
You will be happy with the Chamonix and you almost never see a used Shen Hao or Chamonix for sale on the used equipment sites! This points to their quality and popularity

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=51126

timparkin
22-Jul-2009, 00:32
Hi.

The Chamonix is definitely a real quality and price deal, highly recommended. As far as lenses go, the majority of my pictures (http://www.timparkin.co.uk) are taken with the the 110mm SSXL that you mention. The second most used lens was a Fuji 240A.. The 110 is stunning though and if I were to have a single lens to take out, it would be this or I would buy a Rodenstock 135 Sironar S

Tim

Peter De Smidt
22-Jul-2009, 10:13
The 110 is my favorite 4x5 lens. Next would be 210, 300, 75, in order of use/preference, but it depends a lot on what you're shooting. For big Western landscapes, a long lens is often useful.

mandoman7
22-Jul-2009, 23:36
Get a crown graphic with a normal lens and find out what your tastes are.

BradS
24-Jul-2009, 10:27
Get a crown graphic with a normal lens and find out what your tastes are.

Excellent advice!

When starting out, I think people put way too much emphasis on having "all the movements" and a lens with "lots of coverage". The old press cameras serve as an inexpensive introduction and are quite capable in their own right.

Its funny to think...I have a Graflex sales brochure from 1955. It advertises the Crown Graphic for something like $230 ! About what you'd expect to pay for one in good condition today. Not a bad investment (as far as camera gear goes).

Chris C
24-Jul-2009, 18:19
What focal length do you find yourself using most of the time now?

For me, I came into LF with a Shen Hao and a 150mm lens. I used it off and on for 4 years, and enjoyed using it, but it didn't really grab me the way I wanted it to. Then 4 months ago I decided to buy a 90mm lens, as I'd been wanting one ever since I bought the camera. I've hardly put the camera down since, and for me, it's such a more natural and pleasing focal length for what I shoot. The 150's still good for portraits and still lifes, but out in the field it's pretty much the 90 every time.

lilmsmaggie
24-Jul-2009, 18:35
Nice images Steve! I have to admit, the near far imagery is quite intoxicating.
I imagine that I probably wouldn't mind experimenting with architecture as well.

At the moment, I shoot with a DSLR. I primarily have two lenses: a 17-55mm F2.8, and a 85mm f1.8 The crop factor for my DSLR is 1.6x, so I'm reslly shooting in the neighborhood of 27-88 FF with the zoom. I tend to shoot wide as long as I can get everything I want into the frame. The reason I say this is because in general, the scene my "eyes see" may present a challenge. If it winds up being too much for the composition I have in my minds eye, then I wind up cropping.

Not sure if that makes sense but that's the best way I can descibe it.

D. Bryant
24-Jul-2009, 21:13
At the moment, I shoot with a DSLR. I primarily have two lenses: a 17-55mm F2.8, and a 85mm f1.8

So why don't you sell the DSLR and put the money toward a view camera?

Don Bryant

Jiri Vasina
24-Jul-2009, 23:42
Get a crown graphic with a normal lens and find out what your tastes are.


Excellent advice!

When starting out, I think people put way too much emphasis on having "all the movements" and a lens with "lots of coverage". The old press cameras serve as an inexpensive introduction and are quite capable in their own right.

Its funny to think...I have a Graflex sales brochure from 1955. It advertises the Crown Graphic for something like $230 ! About what you'd expect to pay for one in good condition today. Not a bad investment (as far as camera gear goes).

I completely agree with this. Noone can judge your personal preferences, shooting style, real needs. So all the recommendations are general. The best way is to buy one of the cheap used cameras (I'd prefer the press cameras, but there is nothing wrong on a monorail, bar their being a little less portable) and one lens, and shoot for a while with it. You'll learn this way what focal length you need most, what type of movements you use (even the press cameras usually have movements, although limited).

Then you can pass that camera on (or as well keep it, as it will still be useful) and buy camera to exactly suit your needs.

I personally started with an Ica Ideal 10x15cm camera (~1930, a predecessor of Zeiss cameras) bought in antiquity store (the clerk was stunned that I wanted to shoot with the camera, not just display it) - it had a functional Tessar 165mm lens. I learned the basics with it. (it's now on display, though). Then I had a MPP 4x5" press camera, a 5x7" Korona and ended buying a Chamonix 5x8" almost 2 years ago.

yuhang919
25-Jul-2009, 01:31
Everyone has their favorite style of shooting, we should respect the

Archphoto
25-Jul-2009, 06:34
Lilmsmaggie, I am in the same position you are in (in some way).
If you are shooting landscapes with the 18mm DSLR setting now, you will love shooting with a 90mm or 75mm on 4x5.
Cropping can be done later and without too much loss of quality.

Look at your own style of photography now and make up your mind what you want with 4x5.
Focal length can be recalculated easily: a 150mm at 4x5 is a 50mm at 35mm, so there is a factor of 3.
Take your time, look at the exif's of your favorite shots and see at what focal length they have been taken en take it from there.

If you are a wide-angle photographer you will end up with a set like: 58XL, 75 and maybe a 90 and a 115/121 and use a 240/250 for portraits only.

An other thing is to give your self asignements: today I will take photo's at ...mm only and see at the end of the sessions what length gave you the best results.

75mm at 4x5 = 16mm DSLR
90mm at 4x5 = 19mm DSLR
115mm at 4x5 = 24mm DSLR

These sesions will cost you no film, just time and will save you money at the end because you will not buy lenses that are not suited to your style of photography.

My 150mm 4x5 lens is the one I hardly use........

Peter

D. Bryant
25-Jul-2009, 08:35
Lilmsmaggie, I am in the same position you are in (in some way).
If you are shooting landscapes with the 18mm DSLR setting now, you will love shooting with a 90mm or 75mm on 4x5.
Cropping can be done later and without too much loss of quality.

Look at your own style of photography now and make up your mind what you want with 4x5.
Focal length can be recalculated easily: a 150mm at 4x5 is a 50mm at 35mm, so there is a factor of 3.
Take your time, look at the exif's of your favorite shots and see at what focal length they have been taken en take it from there.

If you are a wide-angle photographer you will end up with a set like: 58XL, 75 and maybe a 90 and a 115/121 and use a 240/250 for portraits only.

An other thing is to give your self asignements: today I will take photo's at ...mm only and see at the end of the sessions what length gave you the best results.

75mm at 4x5 = 16mm DSLR
90mm at 4x5 = 19mm DSLR
115mm at 4x5 = 24mm DSLR

These sesions will cost you no film, just time and will save you money at the end because you will not buy lenses that are not suited to your style of photography.

My 150mm 4x5 lens is the one I hardly use........

Peter

Your post makes a common assumption about equivalence between the focal lengths used for 4x5 and 2:3 aspect ratio of a 35mm camera or DSLR. The reality is that they are not due to the difference in of the 4x5 aspect ratio compared to the small camera.

I wouldn't reccomend a 90mm lens as a starter lens for 4x5. If you do get the 90mm you will discover very quickly that it is quite limiting. Go with a 135, 150, or even a 210 for a first lens.

In short a 4x5 camera "sees" the world differently. Learning to use a view camera will be easier with a more "normal" lens, especially if you are shooting the grand landscapes out west.

Don Bryant

lilmsmaggie
25-Jul-2009, 10:53
[QUOTE=D. Bryant;490138]So why don't you sell the DSLR and put the money toward a view camera?/QUOTE]

I anticipate the need to be able to catch that shot that I'd loose with the 4X5.
I imagine also I could use it in lieu of doing a polaroid as well. I suppose I could use the DSLR's meter to take readings of the scene. Not sure about that.

Besides, with depreciation I'd probably loose - and I'd have no camera until I could make up the difference between what I got for the DSLR and what the 4X5 and a lens would cost.

And remember, I'd need a dark cloth, a meter not to mention film holders and film :) .

Steve Hamley
25-Jul-2009, 11:35
lilmsmaggie,

Here's a site you might like, Lori uses a Chamonix for most of her work, macro excepted. I believe she does most of it with an 80mm, 135/150mm and a 210mm?

http://www.kincaidphoto.com/

Cheers, Steve

D. Bryant
25-Jul-2009, 14:35
[QUOTE=D. Bryant;490138]So why don't you sell the DSLR and put the money toward a view camera?/QUOTE]

I anticipate the need to be able to catch that shot that I'd loose with the 4X5.
I imagine also I could use it in lieu of doing a polaroid as well. I suppose I could use the DSLR's meter to take readings of the scene. Not sure about that.

Besides, with depreciation I'd probably loose - and I'd have no camera until I could make up the difference between what I got for the DSLR and what the 4X5 and a lens would cost.

And remember, I'd need a dark cloth, a meter not to mention film holders and film :) .

I would suggest leaving other caneras at home when you start using LF. Get a metter and learn how to use it. You don't need an electronic polaroid to use a LF camera, instead use your brain and eyes. Be the camera!

You might have enough stuff around the house to sell on Craig's list to get money for a 4x5 with lens and so on. Just be determined and do it.

Don Bryant

lilmsmaggie
25-Jul-2009, 16:27
You might have enough stuff around the house to sell on Craig's list to get money for a 4x5 with lens and so on. Just be determined and do it.

Yeah, I probably do. Interested in buying some law books, or a Monster power surge protector :D

venchka
25-Jul-2009, 22:29
The RZ67 and 1 lens and a handful of film and your ready to go. Tripod optional. Consider a Pentax 6x7.

The Chamonix and 1 lens is only the tip of the iceberg. Look at the whole picture from a container to transport all your stuff to hanging a print on the wall.

I have chosen my 1 lens for 4x5. 125mm. 180mm. Depends on my mood.

Good luck!