PDA

View Full Version : Panoraflex 6x17 - who ever used it?



renes
16-Mar-2010, 15:20
I tried to find someone who bought and used this nice looking panoramic camera but could not aim nobody. It seems no LFP forum users or APUG or Photo-Net have it. I searched net and no one review about Panoraflex 6x17. A friend of mine wants to buy it but it think it is hazardous decision.

www.panoraflex.de

shadowleaves
16-Mar-2010, 16:03
I tried to find someone who bought and used this nice looking panoramic camera but could not aim nobody. It seems no LFP forum users or APUG or Photo-Net have it. I searched net and no one review about Panoraflex 6x17. A friend of mine wants to buy it but it think it is hazardous decision.

www.panoraflex.de

Looks to me like a German knock-off version of the Chinese DaYi 6x17 S-IIA camera, lol.

See the Da-Yi here:
http://www.bhcamera.us/dayi617.html

Maybe they simply order cameras from Da-Yi and put their own "Panoraflex" label on them.

renes
17-Mar-2010, 02:58
Thanks.

It's the same camera.

ambroz
17-Mar-2010, 05:42
I contacted mr. Achim Hoos from Panoraflex some time ago. His answer on this camera:

I also heared about the problems with film flatness , specially with
Gaoersi Cameras. Most people don ´t know that
Gaoersi and Dayi are complete different brands. I think the reason is a
dealer in Hongkong who sells Cameras as
Gaoersi Dayi . I don ´t know why, but the Gaoersi´s i held in hand in
China are really in a poor condition. I could
find dust and little metal pieces from production inside. My Cameras
come from the Dayi factory cause they offer
the best quality of the chinese Panocams. I let them made stronger
springs behind the film pressure plate, for make
sure the film is flat in the camerabody. Its one of our improvements. I
also travelled a lot with the Panoraflex and took
many Pictures, so I´m sure we solved this problem. You know i also use
this cam for myself...

ambroz
17-Mar-2010, 05:47
And some more from Mr. Hoos:

4. If you like adventures i suggest you to buy a cam in china : ) When
i saw the chinese Panoramic cams the first time,
two years ago, i loved the effective construction from beginning,
but i hated the poor , dirty finish. I´m photographer since
more than 20 years and that time i visited a friend who lives in
Shanghai. After i showed him this Panocams we decided
to make a good quality control and import it to europe. We made
many improvements, like stronger springs for filmplate,
clean thread windings, grease for screw channel, precise drill
holes , round edges at the body and many things more.
Cause of all these Improvements for european standart, we decided
to give these Cameras a own Name: Panoraflex.
It looks very similar to the ones produced for chinese common
market, but the finish, the service with spare parts, the
warranty for two years makes the different.
The chinese version reminds me on russian motorcycles: The
customer must be his own mechanic and fix it before
using the first time.
But you are right: At the first view Its cheaper than my ones : )

5. I´m not familiar with photo market in your country. What kind of
pictures do you want to take: Art Shots, or Advertising?
Nobody can look into future, but with a 6x17 cam you can produce
large format prints in excellent quality. If somebody
just want to make 13x18cm prints, no need for a Camera like ours.
He can use a small digital one. But for large format,
what mean, really large, its the best way . A customer made
advertising shots for a company which are producing
caravans and motorhomes. For a exhibition and fair he printed 4m
long posters with 300DPI. You could see the inner
details in original size in a phantastic quality. All details are
sharp and clear...also a professional digital back for
30000 EUR don´t delivers a better quality. He rented one before,
but choosed the traditional way at the end.

6. I think this is no problem in the next 10 or 20 years. Many
photographers all over the world prefer also the classical
way. Maybe the price for films and developing will go up, but I´m
sure its available for long time. Cause if you really
want Quality in Large format printing there is nothing better. And
instead of spending 30000 EUR for a Medium format
digital back i can really buy many films...

ambroz
17-Mar-2010, 05:51
I was considering Panoraflex or Shen Hao bellows camera, but bought Fotoman finally. I think Fotoman has the best price/peformance ratio for this type of the camera.

Lachlan 717
17-Mar-2010, 11:39
I was considering Panoraflex or Shen Hao bellows camera, but bought Fotoman finally. I think Fotoman has the best price/peformance ratio for this type of the camera.

What criteria do you use to come to this conclusion?

At [at least] twice the price of the Gaoersi/DaYi, I'm not sure where the [at least] twice the performance will be found.

And this is for a single lens cone. Again, not sure how the ration can come out in favour of the Fotoman when the "Shen Hao bellows camera" can accept any lens from about 72mm up to a 400mm Fujinon T with no additional expense (assuming you have said lenses).

Your explanation is eagerly awaited!!

shadowleaves
17-Mar-2010, 13:16
What criteria do you use to come to this conclusion?

At [at least] twice the price of the Gaoersi/DaYi, I'm not sure where the [at least] twice the performance will be found.

And this is for a single lens cone. Again, not sure how the ration can come out in favour of the Fotoman when the "Shen Hao bellows camera" can accept any lens from about 72mm up to a 400mm Fujinon T with no additional expense (assuming you have said lenses).

Your explanation is eagerly awaited!!

Maybe handheld ability? I used to have Fotoman 612 and it was slightly faster to shoot than my TFC617A - but faster mostly because I didn't have many adjustments to tweak around. No GG framing, no GND placement, no tilt/shift, and even no lense-changing mid-roll. You just place the camera on the tripod, frame with the VF, and shoot. Some people think these limitations actually help them to concentrate on taking pics itself.

TFC617A's swing zeros are not very accurate and front/rear stands could drift out of their neutral positions during transportation, so every time I take it out of my bag I will do a swing zero check-up first with loupe. That costs 30 sec ~ 1 min or so as well.

Fotoman's build quality is somehow mixed. The machined body is of course very well made, but ironically the 4 screws holding the lens cone are made of cheap plastic - don't know what was in their mind when designing it. Fotoman's viewfinder is really inaccurate, the worst I've ever seen. You move your eye a tiny bit and the scene in the frame will change a hell lot. That they put the mask inside the VF optics could be the reason. If the mask is in front of the VF it will be much better. Gaoersi & DaYi's VF are better; Fujifilm/Linhof's bright-line VFs are the best.

ambroz
18-Mar-2010, 01:37
What criteria do you use to come to this conclusion?

At [at least] twice the price of the Gaoersi/DaYi, I'm not sure where the [at least] twice the performance will be found.

Your explanation is eagerly awaited!!

1. I am not comparing Shen Hao and Fotoman. They are different types, both with its own strenghts. I talk about 617 viewfinder cameras (Gaoersi, Fotoman, Linhof ...).
2. It is my opinion only, your's may differ.
3. I see three price ranges:
low - Gaoersi, Da-Yi, ...
medium - Fotoman
high - Linhof, Horseman, (Fuji)
4. Fotoman vs Gaoersi, ...
Lens range: F:72-400 G:75-250
G. has the same helical foucus mount for 72 and 75
Production finishing better with Fotoman (opinion based on extensive web research)
F: lower weight
Film flatness with Fotoman surely OK, read some complaints about G., howewer, this can be early models.
5. Found no complaints about Fotoman on web.
6. Once again, this is my opinion only. These are arguments leading ME to buy Fotoman. I believe, there are many happy Gaoersi user out there.

Ambroz

shadowleaves
18-Mar-2010, 10:34
1. I am not comparing Shen Hao and Fotoman. They are different types, both with its own strenghts. I talk about 617 viewfinder cameras (Gaoersi, Fotoman, Linhof ...).
2. It is my opinion only, your's may differ.
3. I see three price ranges:
low - Gaoersi, Da-Yi, ...
medium - Fotoman
high - Linhof, Horseman, (Fuji)
4. Fotoman vs Gaoersi, ...
Lens range: F:72-400 G:75-250
G. has the same helical foucus mount for 72 and 75
Production finishing better with Fotoman (opinion based on extensive web research)
F: lower weight
Film flatness with Fotoman surely OK, read some complaints about G., howewer, this can be early models.
5. Found no complaints about Fotoman on web.
6. Once again, this is my opinion only. These are arguments leading ME to buy Fotoman. I believe, there are many happy Gaoersi user out there.

Ambroz

For your purpose a Fotoman body with a Horseman sw617 Viewfinder will be a perfect match. VF costs around $500 but a brightline VF is way better and more accurate than Fotoman's.

shadowleaves
19-Mar-2010, 13:05
Horseman Zoom finder is not the same as their brightline finder on sw617, but more of a similar design as those on Horseman sw612. Similarly, linhof zoom finder is no match of Linhof brightline viewfinder for Linhof 612PC and 617S.

If you ever used a 35mm brightline finder, such as those made by Cosina Voigtlander, Zeiss or Leica, you'll know what I'm talking about. The frameline in a brightline finder (Linhof 612PC/617S, Fuji GX617, Horseman sw617) has a virtual focus near infinity, therefore it maintains its position in the eyesight regardless of the eye movement; whereas the "frame" marked by a mask finder (like the ones used on Fotoman, Horseman sw612 or DaYi) will drift a bloody hell lot as you eye moves around.

Typical views of a brightline finder:
http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/SW617/img/finder.jpg
http://www.linhofstudio.com/products/cameras/linhof/images/Maskelinien06.jpg

With these finders it's very easy to determine where the horizon are. And they're not that expensive - someone's selling Fuji GX617 finder for around $500 on evilbay now, and I don't think Horseman sw617's brightline finder is more expensive either.

In fact, even the Mamiya 7 43mm brightline finder can be a good candidate - it has marks for xpan frames, similar to 6x17 format and has a similar viewangle of a 90mm lens. It's also well corrected for optical aberration.

I've used Gaoersi's and Fotoman's viewfinders, and I found the latter even less accurate (although Gaoersi VF is not that much better). I've also used Horseman sw612 finder which is not a brightline design - better than Fotoman's but still inaccurate. Whereas the finder in my Xpan, which is a brightline finder similar to GX617's as well as Horseman sw617 and Linhof 612PC/617S' VF, is way more accurate.


Have you physically compared the Fotoman finder vs the Horseman and Linhof? I have a Horseman zoom finder on my Horseman 45FA, and I guarantee you it is less accurate then the Fotoman finder. Because of their design, I don't think you will be able to get more accuracy with any of them. The trick with them is to consider the viewfinder your rear gun sight, and the top edge of the front of your lens as your front gun site(for my 150mm lens...being smaller I used a step up ring to get the right height to match the 90mm lens with a filter attached). Like a rifle vs a pistol, the greater the distance between the front and the back sight, the far more accuracy you get. I think this is why none of the viewfinders from any camera mfr will be significantly better. Your best bet is buy a Fotoman viewfinder (their cheap enough), and then take it to a camera store to compare, unless you know someone with one. Throwing out $905 for a Linhof viewfinder (plus tax) is a big expense for a doubtful improvment.

If you want dead on accuracy, build yourself a rectangular wire frame in 617 format, and attach it to the camera. The easiest spot would be to mount it between the cone and the lens.

In my case, if the composition is critical, you can use the groudglass, but I prefer taking a second shot. I rarely like 617 (my limit is 615-616)....so I have room to spare. It is the vertical height that matters....and if I need more foreground or sky, then I take a second shot (120 film is far cheaper then sheet film). So I really do not consider the Fotoman viewfinder a problem, they are accurate enough, and far better then a Goaersi finder (Paul Droluk used them for the Fotoman cameras he manufactured, and said they were so bad that they eventually started manufacturing their own).

ghostrider
22-Mar-2010, 11:31
I love my Fotoman but I find the viewfinder not to be worth much more than something I can carry around to "look" for compositions by holding it up to my eye with my hand. Once I decide on a composition, I always use the ground glass to recreate what I saw in the finder because the "drift" is just too much.

I can never tell if I'm looking through it exactly straight and, even if I am, the mask's FOV is not exactly the same FOV as the lens. For example, I have a 90mm and a 180mm. I'll set up a composition on the ground glass and then try to match that view with my finder. The finder is wider than the ground glass view for both focal lengths. The lack of accuracy makes sense because they make one generic 90mm mask to use for any 90mm lens, rather than the Linhof which is paired with a specific lens.

Considering what film and film development cost—not to mention the cost of not getting the shot I want!—I just can't trust it. The only way I will trust it is if I have no other choice, i.e. the light is too low or there's not enough time to use the ground glass.

All of that being said, I wouldn't trade my Fotoman for any other 617 camera in its price range.

Lachlan 717
23-Mar-2010, 03:29
Or you can just use the Shen Hao, change view point mid-roll just by inserting the dark slide, use any lens between 70 and 305mm (or 400mm if you use the Fuji T), Full movements, all in an average sized pack.

No doubt someone will keep waxing lyrical about a viewfinder being more critical than all of these benefits; chacun à son goût.

shadowleaves
23-Mar-2010, 09:29
Well, as I said, the benefit of brightlines is that their projected focus is at INFINITY. which means when your eye is looking at something far away through the VF optics, the brightlines are clearly visible and focused - you can see their sharp edges. Having the frameline focused at infinity also keeps them relatively stable when you move your eyes.

All these VFs have parallax error as well as frame area inaccuracy, but that doesn't mean brightline VF's error is at the same level of those primitive mask VFs.

If you can find a way to add brightlines to your Fotoman VFs, that'll be great, but I don't think it's an easy and inexpensive task. Drawing lines on your VF won't solve the problem - their focus is far from infinity.

The best way I can think of is to ask Cosina or some similar factory to make brightline 6x12/6x17 viewfinders for widely used lense combo, such as 90/180, 72/180, etc. They surely have the technology and I believe the market is there waiting.


Hi Shadowleaves, I don’t think there is much of a difference between any of the finders (linhof, Horseman and Fuji are same, Widepan, Fotoman, etc.), only in price. They all are based on a 2 pieces of glass surrounded by plastic, and the better ones have finer optics to avoid distortion and reflections. But none are precise, you’ll even find binoculars are not precise. None can do what a dslr can do…where an image is projected through a lens, and unto a reflex mirror and then projected to our eye (where the image is perfectly stable).

...

ghostrider
23-Mar-2010, 11:19
Well, there must be something wrong with your finder (like the wrong mask supplied). My buddy and I both have the same Nikor 90mm lens, same camera (Fotoman 617MarkIIL), same finder(mask fits in center), and both perform the identically.

My Fotoman 90mm viewfinder(version where mask slips inside) for the Nikor 90/8 lens is actually dead on for FOV when it comes to verticals, and for the horizontal is actually tighter (you see about 615 format rather then full 617). This means I have to shift my eye over toward the left side of the finder in order to see the far right side of the image as would be seen on the groundglass. I have a more accurate method described below which gives me consistency.

In my case as I said before, I normally align the bottom center of my viewfinder with the top center of the front of the lens. But to confirm what is in the L/R corners (as on the groundglass), I actually have to choose a new alignment mark inside the finder. I now choose a point ½ way between the bottom center of the finder and the left edge of the finder (point L) just so I can see the far right side of the image that is visible on the groundglass. I reverse that to see into the far left corner (by aligning point R with the front top edge of the finder). I could file it wider or cut a new mask, but I like it exactly the way it is because it is perfect for what I like shooting (615 format)…which also leaves me with 1cm to spare on each side to guarantee I got my shot. So in my case, I spend my time worrying about getting the vertical composition dead on and never worry about the sides. I am very careful to align the bottom edge of the finder with the top edge of the lens (front of lens). You need to know your camera, and cropping “to-tight” is always a mistake, and if you are unsure, then take a “second” shot to include more of the top or bottom of the image to guarantee you got the shot….then stitch. You’re not wasting film doing this. Remember, if your relying 100% on the groudglass for all your compositions, then you have to shoot 4 frames before you can remove the film and start a new composition. With a finder, on overcast days 1 exposure is often enough….so you can shoot 3 more scenes on the same roll (no wastage). So if your not comfortable, shoot twice all the time, at least you get 2 new images per roll rather then just one.



Edge finder---------L------------Center finder---------R-----------Edge finder

To say the finder is still too wide for even a 180mm lens doesn’t even make sense.
I recommend you set up your tripod outside (indoors is not accurate…being 1 inch off is equivalent to being 50 yards off outdoors at infinity), then view the groundglass and compare it with your finder. If it is definitely too wide, then get a thin 1mm piece of plastic, and cut yourself out a new mask to insert into the finder (an easy fix). After all not all 90mm lenses are exactly 90mm (some are 92-94mm) as the Fotoman site mentions in the setup section.

As I said before, you never try to achieve 100% (which is why my mask is set for about 90% by the mfr). If the composition is critical and you cannot afford to miss something from the photo, then tilt the camera up or down and take a second shot, which is far faster then using a darkcloth and waiting until the end of your roll before you can view on the groundglass (tip: you lose only 1 frame if you change lenses mid roll).
I agree with you, the Fotoman is an incredibly well built camera, and if the finder still annoys you, spend the money on a Linhof finder….it is still a bargain and will cost you 1/3 that of a linhof. Fotomans give you the widest choice of lenses, and the closest focusing distance for any lens. You can add an additional 10mm spacer between the body and the cone which moves the near focus distance 50% closer (Paul Droluks recommendation). My 150mm near distance is 9ft normally (with the spacer it is roughly ½ that). Of course in that situation I lose my ability to focus at infinity. If you want to get even closer, add an additional 25mm spacer….try that with a linhof/Fuji/Goaersi.

Good luck with your camera.

Fair enough. For the 90mm, I was going from memory since I haven't compared the accuracy of the finder vs the glass in a long time. Maybe it is narrower, but the point is that it's not the same. I have tested the 180 for accuracy recently since I got it about a month ago and the VF is wider. If that doesn't sound possible to you, I don't know what to tell you.

Your gun barrel technique is basically what I do with the 90 if I have no choice but to use the finder. It's an educated guess as to what is actually framed but it's still a guess—especially if the subject is NOT at infinity.

I also find this technique not to be practical with the 180. There's just too much guessing. Maybe if the subject is at infinity but, otherwise, no.

For me, 'just shooting extra frames' is not really an option. Firstly, film and processing is not free and it's very easy to save those frames and still recompose with the ground glass. I simply rewind the film. Secondly, if I am going to shoot multiple frames of the same composition, they are going to be bracketed shots. I'm not about to bracket multiple very slight adjustments of composition. Thirdly, since I don't own my own scanner, scanning isn't free either. So stitching is not something I'm willing to do when I could get it right the first time if ground glass viewing is an option.

If the Fotoman finder is accurate enough for you, that's awesome. I don't find it to be reliably accurate enough for me. And, no, I'm not going to go out and spend $1k on a Linhof finder because I don't find the Fotoman finder accurate enough for me to bet on. Here's the thing, not everyone HAS to use a finder. I mean, I'm not saying you HAVE to use the ground glass.

I simply choose to rely on the ground glass whenever possible and use the finder in situations which it is not possible. Maybe it's just my opinion but I feel this is why both a finder and a ground glass exist. But YMMV.

I love my Fotoman but it does have some limitations, as does any camera, and I have no problem acknowledging them. The widely regarded king Linhof has different limitations as you mentioned. It's all trade offs.

ghostrider
23-Mar-2010, 14:45
Perhaps my expectations for the viewfinder are too high but what I do know is that the ground glass gives me 100% accuracy when there's enough light to view on it. When the light is too low, or I'm in a big hurry, then the viewfinder gives me more accuracy than nothing.

And I wouldn't care if the Linhof finder gave me 100% accuracy, there's no way I'd spend $1k on one.

What I do love about the finder is that I can carry it around in my pocket and "frame" shots with it without having to setup my camera. It's certainly accurate enough for that purpose, has saved me lots of time, and probably helped me come up with better compositions too.

shadowleaves
23-Mar-2010, 19:24
Well if you really like to use ground glass as much as possible, isn't a view camera like shen hao TFC617 or Ebony 617S a better option? You can then use GG on every frame you shoot. It has a hot shoe as well, and one can insert a VF there if he really wants to use VF...


Fair enough. For the 90mm, I was going from memory since I haven't compared the accuracy of the finder vs the glass in a long time. Maybe it is narrower, but the point is that it's not the same. I have tested the 180 for accuracy recently since I got it about a month ago and the VF is wider. If that doesn't sound possible to you, I don't know what to tell you.

Your gun barrel technique is basically what I do with the 90 if I have no choice but to use the finder. It's an educated guess as to what is actually framed but it's still a guess—especially if the subject is NOT at infinity.

I also find this technique not to be practical with the 180. There's just too much guessing. Maybe if the subject is at infinity but, otherwise, no.

For me, 'just shooting extra frames' is not really an option. Firstly, film and processing is not free and it's very easy to save those frames and still recompose with the ground glass. I simply rewind the film. Secondly, if I am going to shoot multiple frames of the same composition, they are going to be bracketed shots. I'm not about to bracket multiple very slight adjustments of composition. Thirdly, since I don't own my own scanner, scanning isn't free either. So stitching is not something I'm willing to do when I could get it right the first time if ground glass viewing is an option.

If the Fotoman finder is accurate enough for you, that's awesome. I don't find it to be reliably accurate enough for me. And, no, I'm not going to go out and spend $1k on a Linhof finder because I don't find the Fotoman finder accurate enough for me to bet on. Here's the thing, not everyone HAS to use a finder. I mean, I'm not saying you HAVE to use the ground glass.

I simply choose to rely on the ground glass whenever possible and use the finder in situations which it is not possible. Maybe it's just my opinion but I feel this is why both a finder and a ground glass exist. But YMMV.

I love my Fotoman but it does have some limitations, as does any camera, and I have no problem acknowledging them. The widely regarded king Linhof has different limitations as you mentioned. It's all trade offs.

ghostrider
24-Mar-2010, 11:52
"Your gun barrel technique is basically what I do with the 90 if I have no choice but to use the finder. It's an educated guess as to what is actually framed but it's still a guess—especially if the subject is NOT at infinity. "

It is not an educated guess. I carefully figured out what the groundglass and finder see (tested at infinity, while you obviously tested indoors). I have "sighted-in" my camera like a new rifle out of the box. I think that is where the problem is for some people, they just expect it to work and do not want to do the homework and expect to use it like a slr camera. Sighting in takes a good 1-2 hrs outdoors, although the Fotoman was easy.....it is dead on for verticals with my Nikor 90/8 using technique explained earlier. The horizontal is easy to figure out....in my case I found shifting the center point along the bottom of the viewfinder over 50% towards the left allowed me to now see the far right edge of the image as seen on the groundglass. What is so hard? Do the homework, find out how your camera/lens combination works, make a new mask if needed (or file it), and you'll be happy later. After all I see tons of guys shooting Fotomans, linhofs, Fuji, and technica/horseman zoom finders and getting great shots. People have got great images with even older linhof zoom finders, without complaining. Mask your camera finder to see only 90%(after all many 35mm cameras only see 90-95% and you had a small negative to work with).

I also agree, if your always depending on the groundglass (this is your comfort zone), then you got the wrong camera....get a Shen Hao 617 or Ebony. Cameras with finders and helical focusing are about the need for fast handling (when we have rain/snow/ocean spray/high wind storm photography...and you DON'T want a darkcloth) and moving subjects (tallship photography, wildlife, shooting from boats, handheld shots, etc). You can shoot stuff with a finder that are impossible with the groundglass method....and it may not be as accurate, but a second shot at least gets the job done. If I didn't like my camera or finder, I would not have bought 2 Fotomans cameras, and my buddy wouldn't have 3 right now....they obviously work well if you care to learn how to use them. Of course, you can use them the traditional way (groudglass), but there are better camera choices.

Well, you sure have me figured out. I'm obviously an indoor tester who didn't do his homework, bought the wrong camera, doesn't shoot in the elements, and doesn't understand that there are different types of photography. Did I miss anything?

No, I think I got the right camera for me. You see, the Fotoman offers me the flexibility of using it like a view camera (in terms of the ground glass), albeit without the shifts which I don't need, or as a point and shoot when the conditions or situation requires it, which it does on occasion. You've pretty clearly laid out the other advantages of the Fotoman in other posts so I don't see the need to rehash them to prove my point.

And, honestly, I don't know why you insist on being so difficult. I'm not trying to convince you to stop using your finder and only use your ground glass. Nor am I telling you that you have the wrong tool or method for your job. I'm trying to explain why I use the ground glass when the situation allows it. I understand there are types of photography in which it's not practical or possible to use the ground glass. I am insulted that you would think that I would not understand that.

And please stop trying to convince me that your methods are the only correct methods or that somehow my methods are incorrect or inferior. There is no right or wrong. There is only what works for oneself. If using the viewfinder 100% of the time works for you, well brother, I couldn't be happier for you. That doesn't make it right or wrong—just different from my chosen typical workflow.

Lachlan 717
24-Mar-2010, 12:30
Well, you sure have me figured out. I'm obviously an indoor tester who didn't do his homework, bought the wrong camera, doesn't shoot in the elements, and doesn't understand that there are different types of photography. Did I miss anything?

No, I think I got the right camera for me. You see, the Fotoman offers me the flexibility of using it like a view camera (in terms of the ground glass), albeit without the shifts which I don't need, or as a point and shoot when the conditions or situation requires it, which it does on occasion. You've pretty clearly laid out the other advantages of the Fotoman in other posts so I don't see the need to rehash them to prove my point.

And, honestly, I don't know why you insist on being so difficult. I'm not trying to convince you to stop using your finder and only use your ground glass. Nor am I telling you that you have the wrong tool or method for your job. I'm trying to explain why I use the ground glass when the situation allows it. I understand there are types of photography in which it's not practical or possible to use the ground glass. I am insulted that you would think that I would not understand that.

And please stop trying to convince me that your methods are the only correct methods or that somehow my methods are incorrect or inferior. There is no right or wrong. There is only what works for oneself. If using the viewfinder 100% of the time works for you, well brother, I couldn't be happier for you. That doesn't make it right or wrong—just different from my chosen typical workflow.

Looks like you've won another close and lifelong friend, VC...

ambroz
25-Mar-2010, 02:54
I compose on the Fotoman through groundglass too, beacuse:
1 - VF is inaccurate
2 - (more important) I can compose better with big image on the GG

Anyway, using original plain Fotoman GG with 90/8 lens is a pain.
Have to find something better, some kind of fresnel.

I miss tilt sometimes, but I am very happy to have helical focus cone.
The camera behaves very well in windy situations on muntain ridges.

Ambroz

ambroz
25-Mar-2010, 02:59
My next camera will be probably 5x7 with 617 reducing back.
Why not 617 view camera? I think 5x7 will be better for verticals.

Or I'll just go directly to 8x10, who knows. Have to wait till Photokina.

Ambroz

GPS
25-Mar-2010, 05:36
Or you can just use the Shen Hao, change view point mid-roll just by inserting the dark slide, use any lens between 70 and 305mm (or 400mm if you use the Fuji T), Full movements, all in an average sized pack.

No doubt someone will keep waxing lyrical about a viewfinder being more critical than all of these benefits; chacun à son goût.

Shen Hao? But that is to keep waxing lyrical about apples while others speak about oranges... :rolleyes:

Lachlan 717
25-Mar-2010, 05:45
Tough man, Van Camper. Really brave to lecture people from afar.

You might start by looking up sarcasm. It might (though I doubt it) help you to understand my comment about friends.

Whilst you're there, maybe look at how to use "then" and "than".

How about this? If you stop lecturing people about how it's your way or nothing, stop being a condescending prig and stop whinging to the Moderators, I will stop playing with you as a cat plays with a mouse.

You need to find some love. If not, I fear that you'll jam the end of your cable release throught your shutter 'cause something has worked you up into a rabid, frothy rage.

In fact, I would suggest that you look at the recent thread on iron bridges. It might help you build one for yourself that will let you get over so much in life.

Find that happy place. Think of a deep blue ocean (hopefully one that has the mystical tall ships you rabbit on about so much). Maybe go out and buy another Fotoman body. That way, you mightn't have the complex about your mate having more than you. Find the love of a good man/woman.

Just stop telling us to use bloody viewfinders when we say that we don't want to!!!

PS, Will you be my friend?


I know who my friends are. You are not one of them. This thread tells the full story about you falsifying information to discredit me. The lies you made up to discredit me are confirmed. I am surprised you are still allowed to be here. Maybe the moderators will notice this time. Have a good day.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42780&page=3

Re: What is a "PANO" camera?
________________________________________
Lets get something straight….just because you started this poll doesn’t give you special privileges (slander, falsification of information). You have no right to make continual FALSE accusations about me or others for the purpose of humiliating or discrediting individuals as your only means for debate. First, you try to discredit me by saying I falsified the poll data (adding according to you 4 new members…..please confirm this). Now you’ve decided to continue with more ridiculous storytelling about darkcloths with the intention again to discredit and humiliate. Your comments below:

“Really? You want to check that again? I draw your attention to this thread. It was created by you! You want to know how people wash their dark cloths, and start off by saying that you "...have a Harrison dark cloth" (important enough to name brand names!!!). Which is it? Are they of no importance to you? Or do you care so much that your Harrison dark cloth being "a bit musty" and looking for Martha Stewart styled laundry tips? You even say that you're "...afraid of bleaching the inside black to some shade of gray"? Not important? You're worried about the shade of it!!!!!!!!!” Lachlan617.

Lachlan, childish storytelling, but the facts are this….the thread NEVER was created by me (was created by guy named Wally), I NEVER asked about a Harrison dark cloth, and I NEVER said that I am afraid of bleaching the inside black to some shade of gray. What I wrote were 2 lines exactly as follows, and no more…….” Woolite, is the one to use for any delicate fabrics. Use in cold water, gently agitate with hands, rinse, dry. Stuff is incredible. Or, send out for dry cleaning.“ Where is your self respect? My original comments can be verified at the following link…. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=42721&page=2

You are DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING data, for the sole purpose to harm my reputation…..to humiliate. IT IS YOUR REPUTATION NOW THAT IS ON THE LINE….you’ve been caught falsifying information intentionally (with undeniable evidence). I don’t mind a heated debate, but this is not what this is, nor does it have anything to do with photography. Half your article was wasted on ridiculous storytelling I expect from only a child. You’re a disgrace. I’m sure we all prefer to discuss photography with respectable individuals in here who do not resort to slander and shovelling us nonsense (learn to behave or make yourself scarce, none of us need this).

Lachlan 717
25-Mar-2010, 05:52
Shen Hao? But that is to keep waxing lyrical about apples while others speak about oranges... :rolleyes:

Nah, waxing lyrical about apples AND oranges.

Just trying to keep the discussion open.

Unlike most here (I suspect), I have both a VF-style and a View 6x17 camera and see the merits in having/using both.

The "mine is the only way" direction this thread was going annoyed me, so I offered an alternative context. I use a VF with my View and I use a GG with my VF camera. Why have rules? Don't they just create limits?

ghostrider
25-Mar-2010, 14:36
Whoa, hold your horses. About cameras….it was Marko that first suggested the Shen Hao 617 first (or equivalent), then Shadowleaves, and finally I gave in and thought that if you don’t trust your finder, than maybe you should consider it (because you could then make use of tilts, no long cones taking space,etc). This was not meant to be offensive. In fact I have tried every which way to figure out how to solve your problem so the finder may be usable for you. I suggested my alignment technique that works for me and my buddy, and offered other ideas as well. I even photographed the mask that attaches to the front of the finder which might be another cheap option. I also told you how I handle tight crops, and mentioned you might try stitching. I thought I would mention how I use my finder and why I like it for different kinds of shooting because other people in here are still shopping (this is not being insistant or being difficult). Don’t get the idea I’m writing all this just for your sake, but also to help others make up their mind, and I have between my buddy and me 5 Fotoman cameras to compare for problems (and none of the finders see far see wider then what the groundglass sees, in fact it is the opposite….about 90%). I’m not forcing anything on you, just tossing ideas. If I explained something poorly, I gladly apologize, but I wrote a lot and am not writing for a magazine or getting paid. So give me some room.

Maybe you need to take a closer look at yourself before you jump on others. Other people can get annoyed too. You wrote….“it’s an educated guess as to what is actually framed but it’s still a guess- especially if the subject is not at infinity.” I told you, I did my homework, I set my boundaries at 90%, I established what is more important in the scene (if the sky is grey, I allow more for the foreground to ensure I get it all, or I will stitch if necessary). This is not guessing, I get my shot 100% of the time, I never walk away from a good scene unless I know I got the shot in the bag (or why set up in the first place, or spend money for motels and gas). To say I am willing to guess is telling me I am stupid for wasting film. Also don’t forget that others are reading this while considering their purchase decision. I find it offensive that you would say the finder is useless (for scouting only), because it implies we don’t know what were doing, or have lower standards. The rest of us are just as critical as you in making fine art (and our film costs the same as it does for you). We just found a way of working with the finder (and at a good price). Neither of us should be offended, we just need to realize that some of us like the Fotoman finder (good enough), and you like the groundglass (preferring 100% accuracy), and there is nothing to be upset about. I’m glad you enjoy your Fotoman with the ground glass, but this is not why my buddy and I bought 5 Fotoman cameras….our purpose was to avoid darkcloths (This is not preaching to you to follow our way, but rather that some of us have different needs).

Well, I appreciate your ideas but what I have taken exception to is the tone that came along with them. Maybe the fog of the interwebz has given me a false perception in that regard. Maybe.

However, I still stand by my comment as the viewfinder being an educated guess no matter how much you've sighted it. The ground glass sees exactly what the lens sees not matter how near or far the subject is. The finder does not. As the subject distance changes, you have to adjust your sighting.

Maybe "educated guess" is not the preferred term. How about "approximation?" If it's not an approximation, why the need for choosing a priority and taking an insurance shot for stitching (if necessary)? I say this not as a criticism to your technique or slight to you in anyway. Rather, I see it as a trade-off. Sacrifice 100% accurate composition and focus for speed, ease of use, portability, etc. As I've stated before, I do, in fact, make this trade-off myself when the situation calls for it.

And "useless" is not exactly what I said. I said, "I love my Fotoman but I find the viewfinder not to be worth much more than something I can carry around to "look" for compositions by holding it up to my eye with my hand." I followed that up with, "The only way I will trust it is if I have no other choice, i.e. the light is too low or there's not enough time to use the ground glass." So it's not useless, however, I find its usefulness to me to be of a very limited nature. Anyway, YMMV. I'm sure we don't shoot the same subjects in the same places under the same conditions.

In conclusion (for others who are contemplating purchase): I'm satisfied with my Fotoman. You're satisfied with yours. We both agree that it's an excellent camera and we would both highly recommend it to anyone who is looking for a 617 solution. So let's high-five and call it a day since those are the real points of relevance.

viablex1
13-May-2010, 10:40
well the fotoman viewfinders really are not that great. for the 6X9 I have been using voigtlander ones and they work great!! but I would love to find a good horseman viewfinder to make things easier for my 6X17 with the 90mm lens..

viablex1
19-May-2010, 12:13
okay, talked with the owners of Horseman camera now Komamura (sp) and a rep called me back believe it or not. They are still making the 617 viewfinders and shipping them stateside, can't wait to get mine.

matto